Navy Dad facing arrest and loss of custody!

[crashhelmet]

I can believe that. But I am sympathetic to the judge 'some'.

I think the mother 'neglected to mention' that the father was deployed on a sub (maybe even 'neglected to mention' he was in the service at all), and tried to convince the judge that he was just a dead-beat trying to skip out of coming to court. I have seen cases where not both parties were in the court room. Usually, because they do not think the court can do anything to them.

I give the judge the benefit of doubt because, if a judge did try and ignore a federal law, like SCRA, then they might be held in contempt by a high court.

The judge knew all about it. At the initial hearing, a stay was requested and the judge denied it.

From a link in the OP

Noe denied the motion for a stay, ruling that he could have arranged for his wife to bring the child to her mother.

[NecCat]

The birth mother's petition for custody should have been immediately flagged and forwarded to them [CPS] before it even went before a judge. She should've had to fight her own case against them prior to getting to this point we're at now.

So you think that CPS should decide if parents who have children removed from their custody by CPS deserve a custody hearing in front of an independent party?

It sounds like the judge either ignored all of that or didn't care when she said "If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother."

I saw that quote in the article, if that is accurate that judge needs to recuse herself now, deciding the outcome of the case before it starts is one of the biggest no-no's, even forgetting her illegal shenanigans with the father who is deployed that she has corrected.

NecCat, I don't know where you are seeing disdain for the hearing itself. Pretty much all the negative comments I've seen about this whole mess have been directed at the judge, for originally demanding that the father appear, and if he did not, threatening to issue an arrest warrant for him, despite the fact that he was deployed.

Maybe I read disdain for the hearing from the sense I get from some posts that the outcome is a forgone conclusion: the mother should not get any custody rights.

I got that feeling from the people I quoted before (I won't make you read it all again) with 'mother' in quotes to refer to the mother, like she wasn't a real mother; with the assertion, lacking any evidence, that the mother is 'someone who doesn't care'; with the wild speculation about why the mother would try for custody, being motivated solely by greed or revenge; and with a number of references about how the mother tried for custody on purpose when the father was away, so he wouldn't be able to fight it.

If the outcome is already known, there is no point in holding a hearing, no?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Well let's simplify.

Yes, you are seeing disdain from some members. I do have it in this case because of how this played out. On a very simplistic level I do not see how if the mother was doing this on the up and up we would have ever heard about it. She would have worked with the father and/or the courts to schedule this correctly and it wouldn't have been news. We're not really lacking evidence on either her lack of caring or lack of intelligence (pick one) because she has been involved in this process when the Judge made her previous poor decision. The evidence is the story itself.

She's getting the flack that a lot of formerly absentee fathers would get were the situation reversed. In general people look at the non-present parent with more suspicion. After all, one parent was actually raising the kid so when the other says "I'm ready now!" people just tend to have less time for them. It's just the just world fallacy. X parent is getting the amount of visitation they deserve.

[s_stabeler]

So you think that CPS should decide if parents who have children removed from their custody by CPS deserve a custody hearing in front of an independent party?


Maybe I read disdain for the hearing from the sense I get from some posts that the outcome is a forgone conclusion: the mother should not get any custody rights.

I got that feeling from the people I quoted before (I won't make you read it all again) with 'mother' in quotes to refer to the mother, like she wasn't a real mother; with the assertion, lacking any evidence, that the mother is 'someone who doesn't care'; with the wild speculation about why the mother would try for custody, being motivated solely by greed or revenge; and with a number of references about how the mother tried for custody on purpose when the father was away, so he wouldn't be able to fight it.

If the outcome is already known, there is no point in holding a hearing, no?

1) the father had ALREADY been awarded full custody due to the mother's neglect. The hearing was to overturn that. peope saying CPS should get involved are saying that CPS should have pointed out why the mother lost custody in the first place- that she neglected the kid. She demonstrated she didn't care about the kid when she neglected him- it takes far more than "left the kid alone one time" to get a kid actually taken away. The entire point of the fact the kid was taken away is because the mother either couldn't cope with a kid (in which case, she needs to prove now what changed in her life to allow her to not neglect the kid) or she didn't' care about the kid.
2) the motivations about the custody hearing being now: I don't know about greed or revenge being the motive, but at the very least, she is not motivated by the best interests of the child. If she truly believed that the child was better off with her, she wouldn't need subterfuge to get custody awarded to her. To try to file the case while the father is deployed shows that she cares primarily for herself- it looks to me like it's an attempt to get the judge to rule solely on her side of the story.
3) feeling the outcome is a foregone conclusion: well, yes, I do believe the outcome is a foregone conclusion: the kid is happy where she is, and the mother shows no sign of caring for anyone but herself- there is no accusation that the kid is neglected by the stepmother, just that the kid should be with the non-custodial parent when the custodial parent is deployed. This is something that could have been hashed out pre-deployment. In short, I believe there is no reason for the current custody arrangement to be altered- and it is HIGHLY disruptive to a child when custody arrangements are altered.

[NecCat]

1)...She demonstrated she didn't care about the kid when she neglected him- it takes far more than "left the kid alone one time" to get a kid actually taken away...

I know from personal experience that it takes much less dangerous behaviour than leaving the child alone to get a kid taken away. It is considered neglectful to place the child in the crib and go to the car to get the grocery bags in. It is considered neglectful to put the child in a playpen on the porch and cut the lawn, where you can see the child the whole time. It is considered neglectful to put the child in a playpen in the hall outside the bathroom and to have a shower with the bathroom door open. What CAS (CPS in this case) considers neglectful and what normal people consider neglectful are two very different things. Through the eyes of the CPS worker life as a single parent of a young child is nothing more than a series of moments of neglect. To me it does not automatically follow that the mother doesn't care about the child because of 'neglect'.

2) the motivations about the custody hearing being now:...- it looks to me like it's an attempt to get the judge to rule solely on her side of the story.

It could be, but if the mother doesn't have custody, and the father is remarried it stands to reason that they don't talk, or hardly talk at all, so it seems just as likely that he didn't discuss the impending deployment with the mother. If she didn't know he was going to be deployed she couldn't have asked for a hearing before he left. If when the mother found out the father was deployed than she thought maybe she had a chance for some custody, that would make this the logical time for a custody hearing.

3) feeling the outcome is a foregone conclusion: well, yes, I do believe the outcome is a foregone conclusion: the kid is happy where she is..... In short, I believe there is no reason for the current custody arrangement to be altered- and it is HIGHLY disruptive to a child when custody arrangements are altered.

It is temporarily disruptive for the child to have a custody arrangement altered. It is also better in the long term for children to have more parent-figures that love them and look out for them. It's impossible (based on these articles) to know what the issues were surrounding custody so it seems strange to judge the mother unfit or uncaring, without hearing from her, without hearing from CPS, without hearing any evidence of anything. That's why you call a judge, have a hearing, and get the facts out before deciding custody issues. That's why I find it strange that anyone would object to the custody hearing happening, with full participation from both parents.

[s_stabeler]

a) again, I am not opposing a hearing in this case, but CPS really should be able to explain why the mother was originally deprived of custody, because it IS relevant. If the "neglect" was truly minor, then she might be awarded custody again. But is IS relevant. ( also, the neglect was brought up when the judge said "if the child isn't with their father, they should be with their mother"- it was in the context of the judge apparently being willing to award the kid back to the (neglectful enough to justify a change in custody- and the father's job probably WAS brought up at the time) mother simply because the father was deployed)
b) I still believe it shows selfishness to try to get a custody hearing scheduled when the other parent is physically incapable of attending.
c) actually, depedig on the age of the child, it can be permanantly disruptive- especialy if some form of shuttling back and forth is organised. For example, if the kid is school age, they would have to switch schools- with the risk of being bullied for being the new kid.

[crashhelmet]

So you think that CPS should decide if parents who have children removed from their custody by CPS deserve a custody hearing in front of an independent party?

It depends on what hearing you're talking about.

There are two steps to the process for the bio-mom to be awarded custody.

1) Prove to CPS that they are fit and no longer guilty of the infractions that resulted in custodial rights being terminated.
1a) Have CPS go before a judge and present their findings, allowing said judge to sign off on said findings.

2) File for custody, as any "normal" parent would in a custody dispute.

Step 2 cannot take place if Step 1 fails or is bypassed.

[crashhelmet]

I know from personal experience that it takes much less dangerous behaviour than leaving the child alone to get a kid taken away. It is considered neglectful to place the child in the crib and go to the car to get the grocery bags in. It is considered neglectful to put the child in a playpen on the porch and cut the lawn, where you can see the child the whole time. It is considered neglectful to put the child in a playpen in the hall outside the bathroom and to have a shower with the bathroom door open. What CAS (CPS in this case) considers neglectful and what normal people consider neglectful are two very different things. Through the eyes of the CPS worker life as a single parent of a young child is nothing more than a series of moments of neglect. To me it does not automatically follow that the mother doesn't care about the child because of 'neglect'.

They typically don't take a child away for a single infraction. At least not permanently, anyway. They might take them for a 24-48 hour evaluation period, if the cause is justified (like the parent(s) going to jail and no one to watch the child), but then return the child unless said evaluation finds something like malnutrition or signs of abuse.

If something happens to bring a parent to a case worker's attention, they monitor the parent(s). It could be random drug/alcohol screenings, random medical exams for the baby and/or parent, or required parenting classes until they have justifiable reasons to take the child from the parent(s).

[AccountingDrone]

the judge said "if the child isn't with their father, they should be with their mother"-

One thing that the father might consider bringing up is - if he birth mother was dead, what would they do when he was deployed, take the kid away from the step mother and slap it into an orphanage? We have centuries of common law where the child was put with the father and the new wife and that was *that*. There really is no legitimate reason to remove a kid from a 2 parent household even if one parent is *only* a step parent once the judgement has gone down unless it can be shown that the step parent is somehow dangerous to the kid.

[HYHYBT]

...or required parenting classes until they have justifiable reasons to take the child from the parent(s).

In some overzealous districts, from what I've read, "until" is exactly the key word. That they'd have either the desire or the reaources to keep after basically decent parents until they get enough excuse to take their children seems incredible to me, but judging by, among other things, several past threads here, it happens.

[crashhelmet]

Some jurisdictions are so overburdened and under-supported for their cases that they give allegedly bad parents every chance in the book before finally taking a child away. Sadly, this also includes foster parents with kids that have already been taken away from their "worse" environment.

[Gilhelmi]

July was the latest update? I had started following https://www.facebook.com/justicefort...family?fref=nf Page so I might be a bit more up to date.

How about some good news everybody.

http://www.lenconnect.com/article/20...77?sect&map=-1
http://www.lenconnect.com/article/20...19020/0/SEARCH

First article, an appeals court in Michigan overturned several rulings AND told the Trial Judge to stop holding hearings until the father returns from sea.

Quick summery of second, Navy dad claimed he could not get a fair trial in that court (idiot Judge, "I did not know about federal law despite being told, then trying to order the step-mother to stop posting updates to facebook and the media, then trying to grant temporary custody until the father comes back in-spite-of being told that is not legal."). Neither party lived in that court district (they divorced there, but the 'mother' moved to Ohio, and he is based in Washington st). So this means the case will be moved to Washington. Where a fresh judge and impartial judge will be taking over the case.

In other news, Michigan wrote legislation to 'prevent' judges from doing this in the future. I hope that works out (considering we already had legislation that the judge flat-out ignored).