Navy Dad facing arrest and loss of custody!

[s_stabeler]

I'm more talking about the fact that the problem is that the father cannot make the court date, and that he is being treated as if he was refusing to attend the court date.

[AccountingDrone]

The man is on a Naval Submarine. The boat stays submerged for the vast majority of their deployment (in-fact Submarines do very poorly on the surface).

Anyway, the Navy has very expensive equipment to transmit signals to the boat. They are usually short text messages, that is all they can receive. There is a possibility that the Navy Officer in question does not even know about this yet. Story posted on 17th so only a couple of weeks. I suspect he is just now getting word about this.

Actually they are now getting email while underway What a freaking change from the old 'familygram' days [25 words, no bad or odd news, nothing but cheerful crap allowed! *sigh* and a max of 12 familygrams per 4 month cruise]

[Gravekeeper]

The hearing has been delayed by the judge.

She's citing the Servicemember Civil Relief Act and stating that the court was unaware of the father's deployment at the time of the previous ruling.

I can't help but wonder if the "mother" timed suing for custody to ensure the father would be deployed.

[Greenday]

The hearing has been delayed by the judge.

She's citing the Servicemember Civil Relief Act and stating that the court was unaware of the father's deployment at the time of the previous ruling.

I can't help but wonder if the "mother" timed suing for custody to ensure the father would be deployed.

Wouldn't shock me. Happens all the time.

[HYHYBT]

Why do stupid people act stupidly?

Honestly, there have been several dick moves by judges in the last year. Why would this one surprise you any more than the others?

Ignoring for the moment what's come in since your post and taking things as they were described before, this isn't stupidity or ignorance, but a deliberate act of a type that must have some motive behind it. Why, then, should I NOT ask what that could be?

[s_stabeler]

The hearing has been delayed by the judge.

She's citing the Servicemember Civil Relief Act and stating that the court was unaware of the father's deployment at the time of the previous ruling.

I can't help but wonder if the "mother" timed suing for custody to ensure the father would be deployed.

finally some sanity- though I DO suspect the judge is trying to cover for her own screwup. As for the mother timing when she sued for custody, that is almost certain, esp. if she didn't mention the servicemember being deployed.

[AccountingDrone]

finally some sanity- though I DO suspect the judge is trying to cover for her own screwup. As for the mother timing when she sued for custody, that is almost certain, esp. if she didn't mention the servicemember being deployed.

Makes me think that the birth mother may have asked the step mother for something insane that the father told the step mother to refuse, the step mother refused so the birth mother figured that she would try to get the legal system to give her the kid while the father was gone.

Or the mother may have lost a meal-ticket BF, and figured that if she had custody she would get child support, and it was a cold hearted attempt at screwing money out of the father and nothing to do with the actual welfare of the child itself.

[Jester]

I'm more talking about the fact that the problem is that the father cannot make the court date, and that he is being treated as if he was refusing to attend the court date.

Either because the judge is an idiot or they were unaware of the father's deployment, as is now being claimed. Your general level of cynicism may determine which you believe. I'm sure it's pretty obvious where I'm at.

The hearing has been delayed by the judge.

She's citing the Servicemember Civil Relief Act and stating that the court was unaware of the father's deployment at the time of the previous ruling.

*cough* Bullshit! *cough*

I can't help but wonder if the "mother" timed suing for custody to ensure the father would be deployed.

I'd be willing to bet on it. And on the likelihood that the birth mother timed it that way without being unaware of the federal law that prevented such shit from happening. "Oh, well looky here....John's out in his submarine for the next few months, and can't get to court, so I'll just file this motion now and he'll have no way to contest it. Damn, I'm brilliant!"

Ignoring for the moment what's come in since your post and taking things as they were described before, this isn't stupidity or ignorance, but a deliberate act of a type that must have some motive behind it. Why, then, should I NOT ask what that could be?

Point taken.

And to answer your valid and rhetorical question, probably because your level of cynicism is still far less than my own.

[s_stabeler]

I'm cyncial enough to believe the judge was an idiot, and is trying to cover for their idiocy.

matter of fact, I'm cynical enough to believe that the motherdid know of the SCRA, and was hoping the judge didn't.

[NecCat]

I certainly agree with the consensus that the judges actions regarding the sailor who is unable to attend the hearing due to military action are illegal, and am glad that a change was made to the hearing to allow him a chance to fight for his custodial rights, but I don't understand the disdain for the hearing happening in the first place.

The bio-mom lost custody due to neglect. Full permanent custody was given to the father as a result. Now she's trying to back-door her way in? Where's CPS in all of this? Why aren't they saying anything, let alone being called upon?

Why should CPS be saying anything? The child is currently with the fathers appointee, the father has custody, there is no problem from CPS point of view. If there ever is a custody hearing that would be an appropriate time for them to say anything they have to say, to help the judge make an intelligent decision. What makes you think they haven't been called upon? Where is the list of potential witnesses and experts to testify published, the one that excludes any member of CPS?

so wait... the judge would rather have the daughter brought up by someone who doesn't care, rather than someone who cares, but is not actually biologically related to the kid? (step-mom)

What are you basing the assertion that the mother doesn't care about the child on? The only real facts we have about the mother is she doesn't currently have custody, and the she wants custody, it's not screaming 'doesn't give a shit' to me.

I can't help but wonder if the "mother" timed suing for custody to ensure the father would be deployed.

You seem to be implying some sort of nefarious scheme here, rather than a logical progression of events,
1) Custody of child is granted to one parent
2) That parent is no longer taking care of the child
3) Other parent reopens custody issue and sues for custody

It makes perfect sense that that would be when the mother would think of regaining custody, and if it was an attempt to sneak away with the child when the father was away than the mother has some horrible legal counsel, not to know that the deployed father would still be given his say.

Makes me think that the birth mother may have asked the step mother for something insane that the father told the step mother to refuse, the step mother refused so the birth mother figured that she would try to get the legal system to give her the kid while the father was gone.

Or the mother may have lost a meal-ticket BF, and figured that if she had custody she would get child support, and it was a cold hearted attempt at screwing money out of the father and nothing to do with the actual welfare of the child itself.

Or the mother could have gotten all of the debts from the first marriage, been financially unable to purchase a new winter coat for her Michigan living daughter and been found neglectful, but has now paid off all of the debts and is in an appropriate position to care for the child.

Or the mother may have been struggling with a serious disease like cancer and been physically unable to care for a 2 year old, but now that she has been in remission for a few years she feels confident that she now can.

This could go on all day.

The only places in the articles that mention CPS or neglect say 'But sailor Hindes argues the child was taken from the ex-wife four years ago for neglect.' That is not a quote from him, there are no quotes from the sailor in the article, there are only quotes from his wife, it is probably what his wife is saying he said about the ex-wife. Not a huge mystery. In the other article it says 'Hindes was given permanent custody of Kaylee in 2010, after she was reportedly removed from Angela's home by child protective services.' Another article that doesn't quote him directly in any way (he obviously didn't talk to reporters from this news agency either).

If the child was removed for neglect, the reasons for neglect may no longer be in play. Or if the father was given custody as 'a somewhat better option', with joint custody being impractical due to the childs age and the distance between the parents homes it may now be that the mother would be a better parent, due to fathers long absence. Or the mother may be a gold digging crack whore who would sell her child on the black market the moment she got her home. Nothing in these articles favours one of these possibilities more than another. Why should the court not be called upon to make an intelligent decision in the childs favour?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Why should the court not be called upon to make an intelligent decision in the childs favour?

I'm the last person to say a person has no place in court but... in this case specifically how this was done (and whether it was lawyer driven or mother driven) would immediately cast major doubts in my mind as to the responsibility of the mother.

She knows what he does for a living and the fact that she let this go to the point the Judge had to correct herself publicly (seriously WTF that it even took a correction) to me casts severe doubt on her interest in the child's best interests. Even in a custody change, allowing a case to go forward that could potentially have massive consequences to both parties living arrangements and cause massive amounts of animosity between both parents when done in this manner comes across as irresponsible.

Now there could be other reason's she's in court that we don't know about. But if this is straight up about revisiting the custody arrangement, you couldn't come up with a more horrible legal approach.

[HYHYBT]

Custody battles are hard on children, as is the severe disruption of being taken from one family and put in the other. The question shouldn't be whether the mom would be a good parent now, or which would be better if things were starting fresh. The question should be whether there's something wrong enough with the child's current living situation to justify turning their life upside down. Only if the answer is yes should it matter whether the mother could now handle the job.

[Gilhelmi]

I'm cyncial enough to believe the judge was an idiot, and is trying to cover for their idiocy.

matter of fact, I'm cynical enough to believe that the motherdid know of the SCRA, and was hoping the judge didn't.

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.

[Jester]

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. I have seen no one saying this hearing should not have happened at all (the mother has the right to attempt to regain custody of the child, after all, even if she may not be fit to actually have custody), just that the way the judge treated the father like a deadbeat father and fugitive from justice was pretty nauseating.

Of course, the question is, did the judge know the father was deployed? If so, her actions are indefensible. Was she unaware of the deployment? That would make her actions less noxious. Was she deceived by the mother and/or the mother's lawyer(s) into believing the father was not at that time deployed? That would put the onus for disgusting behavior on the mother and her legal team, though would still raise questions about the competency of the judge.

[crashhelmet]

Why should CPS be saying anything? The child is currently with the fathers appointee, the father has custody, there is no problem from CPS point of view. If there ever is a custody hearing that would be an appropriate time for them to say anything they have to say, to help the judge make an intelligent decision. What makes you think they haven't been called upon? Where is the list of potential witnesses and experts to testify published, the one that excludes any member of CPS?

I'm not saying CPS should have a problem with the child being with "the father's appointee." I'm saying CPS should have a problem with custody being given back to the mother after it was reportedly revoked.

Child Protective Services, Division of Child and Family Services, whatever your State calls that department, has a job to do that involves protecting the health and well being of children within their jurisdiction.

The birth mother's petition for custody should have been immediately flagged and forwarded to them 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.

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."