Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:
I would like to know more about why CPS took her away and gave her to her father in the first place, and why the judge is ok with giving her back now.

CPS gave custody to the father 4 years ago, but we don't know for what reason. Assigning and removing custody is a fairly simple thing and can be changed by a different judge down the line. The statement that "CPS gave custody" is wrong to begin with as well, since that is not in the power of CPS to begin with and requires a judge in the first place. CPS can make recommendations to a judge who then decides what to do. It's not unheard off for a judge to ignore their recommendations from the start.

Custody assignments are also not permanent and parents can later petition to have custody restored. The more permanent and severe action that CPS can take is to have parental rights terminated, and it doesn't seem like that was the case here.

Custody can be challenged down the line and from the articles it seems like the CPS proceedings were overruled just a few months after the fact in the first place when they divorced. So it seems that all the talk of "CPS said..." is irrelevant since none of this has anything to do with CPS anymore and that the custody agreement that they both signed when they divorced is the more relevant case. And just like all court assigned custody (either via CPS recommendations or divorce agreements) it can be petitioned to be changed later on.

It would be interesting to see the original agreement and know more about the circumstances. Was he enlisted when he got divorced? Does the original agreement say anything about him having to give her to the mother if he is out of the country?

There is a lot of information that we don't have and what we do have (like the article in the OP) has not exactly been right to begin with.

The warrant for a sailor deployed on a submarine is pants on head slowed

A warrant for a person willfully ignoring a custody order to surrender a child is not.

That's why the warrant is suspended as long as his wife is in the process of complying with the order.

 d-usa wrote:

There is a lot of information that we don't have and what we do have (like the article in the OP) has not exactly been right to begin with.

I'm getting a strong whiff of "outrage bait" from the article, which given that I've seen the words "anti-military" and "feminazi" in this comments here, it seems to have worked.

 d-usa wrote:
A warrant for a person willfully ignoring a custody order to surrender a child is not.

That's why the warrant is suspended as long as his wife is in the process of complying with the order.

Willfully ignoring a court order, and being on active duty a few thousand miles away are two different things. For starters willfully implies a certain intent

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
A warrant for a person willfully ignoring a custody order to surrender a child is not.

That's why the warrant is suspended as long as his wife is in the process of complying with the order.

Willfully ignoring a court order, and being on active duty a few thousand miles away are two different things. For starters willfully implies a certain intent

It's also not clear if the warratn was for failure to appear, or to comply with the court order to release the child into the Mother's custody.

Though it would appear that there is no aspect of the willful element required for criminal contempt.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
A warrant for a person willfully ignoring a custody order to surrender a child is not.

That's why the warrant is suspended as long as his wife is in the process of complying with the order.

Willfully ignoring a court order, and being on active duty a few thousand miles away are two different things. For starters willfully implies a certain intent

His active duty status a few thousand miles away does nothing to prevent him from complying with the order that earned him a bench warrant though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

There is a lot of information that we don't have and what we do have (like the article in the OP) has not exactly been right to begin with.

I'm getting a strong whiff of "outrage bait" from the article, which given that I've seen the words "anti-military" and "feminazi" in this comments here, it seems to have worked.

Gotta circle them wagons.

To somewhat play Devil's Advocate, how long ago was this hearing scheduled? Was all of this already on the books and scheduled before the sailor's deployment? If so, then the judge is rightfully angry for the sailor's failure to work something out ahead of time.
If the scheduling was made after the deployment, then I certainly agree the judge is in the wrong, based on what few facts we have thus far.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I would like to know more about why CPS took her away and gave her to her father in the first place, and why the judge is ok with giving her back now.

CPS gave custody to the father 4 years ago, but we don't know for what reason.

That is why I was wondering the reason. If we knew I wouldn't be curious.

 d-usa wrote:
Custody assignments are also not permanent and parents can later petition to have custody restored.

I don't recall making any statements to the regard of it being permanent, or saying that the mother should never get the child, just wondering what happened then and how the circumstances have changed.

 d-usa wrote:
It would be interesting to see the original agreement and know more about the circumstances. Was he enlisted when he got divorced? Does the original agreement say anything about him having to give her to the mother if he is out of the country?

That is starting to sound dangerously like my question, why do you hate? WHY?!

 d-usa wrote:
There is a lot of information that we don't have and what we do have (like the article in the OP) has not exactly been right to begin with.

Which is why we are asking questions.

I'm thinking Child Abandonment situation. Judge is making a point to get the Sailor back Ricky Tick

Was reading some more news this morning.

Seems like he has been deployed the majority of the time over the last 4 years and his wife has actually been the primary care-taker of the daughter.

So if there was a custody dispute that originally gave custody to the father, and he is not actually present to take care of her and leaves her under the care of somebody that doesn't have custody, then the biological mother might have a favorable argument with a judge.

This is not a dig against military members that are stationed out of country, but that is something he should have taken into consideration. I don't know if there would have been a way for the step-parent to get co-custody with the biological father or if she would have been able to adopt.

But the parent with custody leaves the country the majority of the time and leaves the child with a person that doesn't have custody and is not "related" to the child while a biological parent is available. It's probably an argument with some power behind it in the eyes of the court, but that doesn't make it fair.

 d-usa wrote:
Was reading some more news this morning.

Seems like he has been deployed the majority of the time over the last 4 years and his wife has actually been the primary care-taker of the daughter.

So if there was a custody dispute that originally gave custody to the father, and he is not actually present to take care of her and leaves her under the care of somebody that doesn't have custody, then the biological mother might have a favorable argument with a judge.

This is not a dig against military members that are stationed out of country, but that is something he should have taken into consideration. I don't know if there would have been a way for the step-parent to get co-custody with the biological father or if she would have been able to adopt.

But the parent with custody leaves the country the majority of the time and leaves the child with a person that doesn't have custody and is not "related" to the child while a biological parent is available. It's probably an argument with some power behind it in the eyes of the court, but that doesn't make it fair.

A biological parent that's already had the kid taken by CPS from her.

Which is irrelevant really. The reasons why have already been explained. Courts remove custody, courts can reassign custody, and parent who lost custody after CPS involvement routinely regain custody of their children.

There is a difference between losing custody and having your parental rights terminated, and nothing seems to indicate that her rights were terminated.

It also appears that she lost custody for neglect, which isn't a strong argument in her favor. But when you take the into account that her father has left her in the care of somebody that doesn't have custody for the majority of the last four years it's not really that hard to see why a judge might take that into consideration.

 Polonius wrote:
Not to interrupt the outrage-fest, but there's actually a kernel of legitimacy here. Not about the bench warrant, which seems oddly unneccessary, but about holding the hearing.

The first rule of custody hearings is: whatevere is in the best interests of the child is what should happen.

the second rule is that there is a strong presumptoin that being with a biological parent is the best thing for a child.

We know very few details, but there is a germane issue here, that shouldn't necessarily wait unitl the sailor returns. The judges refusal to allow him to appear by phone or skype is puzzling, but there's a question of fact as to who should have custody of the child right now.

Edit: it looks like the bench warrant is not for his appearance, but for failure to comply with her order to return the child to the custody of the biological mother. Which makes more sense.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/judge-proceeds-custody-case-father-deployed-submarine

Pfffft. Quit it with all your facts, perspective, questions, and acknowledgment we don't have complete information. This thread is for being ANGRY, ANGRY AT THE THINGS RUINING AMERICA. Like WOMEN being judges, and LIBERALS and FEMINISTS. GET WITH THE RAGE OR GET OFF THE PAGE!!.

 Chongara wrote:


Pfffft. Quit it with all your facts, perspective, questions, and acknowledgment we don't have complete information. This thread is for being ANGRY, ANGRY AT THE THINGS AMERICA. Like WOMEN being judges, and LIBERALS and FEMINISTS. GET WITH THE RAGE OR GET OFF THE PAGE!!.

Hah, this made me laugh a little too much.

 Ahtman wrote:
I doubt she'll be disbarred, but I wouldn't doubt that she'll have to face the BAR Association as well as a judiciary hearing. This is all sorts of ridiculous.

No way. The BAR is notoriously anti military/republican.

Sailor not going to make it. My Sub players yesterday said only way he's coming back is end of deployment. Though one did say that there is a a possible PoA to handle this type of situation.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I doubt she'll be disbarred, but I wouldn't doubt that she'll have to face the BAR Association as well as a judiciary hearing. This is all sorts of ridiculous.

No way. The BAR is notoriously anti military/republican.

Being anti military/republican really has nothing to do with it because from the way it appears his duty status has zero influence on circumstance that got his bench warrant issued.

Judge: "The biological custodial parent is out of the country. The child should be handed over to the biological parent that is in the country."
Sailor: "I need a 90+ day extension on that order because I'm out of the country."
Judge: "I know you are out of the country, that's why the child has to be handed over to the other parent that isn't out of the country."
Everyone: "The judge hates the military and is violating the law!!!!!"

Nobody is saying they can't force the child to be given to the other parent.

We're saying its pants on head slowed that the judge is saying the sailor should be arrested for not showing up when he has another, more binding and definitely more important, legal requirement to be elsewhere.


Taking the kid when the dad can't show up to court is just being a douche. Putting a warrant out for the dads arrest is worthy of being fired.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Taking the kid when the dad can't show up to court is just being a douche.

Really? That's all? It couldn't be appropriate, considering there is another biological parent who could have reformed since CPS last took action, and they wanted to place the child with her? It couldn't be appropriate because the kid may not be treated super well by the non-biological parent he is living with constantly while the dad is gone? No, it has to be a negative, because the dad is in the military.

Do we actually know how well the kid lives while the dad is on deployment? That the step-mother isn't treating the kid like gak and what not, which could have prompted a review of who has custody?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Nobody is saying they can't force the child to be given to the other parent.

We're saying its pants on head slowed that the judge is saying the sailor should be arrested for not showing up when he has another, more binding and definitely more important, legal requirement to be elsewhere.

It's pretty damn silly to keep on repeating that the bench warrants was for his failure to appear when it has already been pointed out in another article that the bench warrant was issued for his failure to turn the child over to the mother and that the bench warrant has in fact been suspended while his wife is in the process of turning the daughter over to the biological mother.

It's not like we have not covered that already in this thread:

 Polonius wrote:

Edit: it looks like the bench warrant is not for his appearance, but for failure to comply with her order to return the child to the custody of the biological mother. Which makes more sense.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/judge-proceeds-custody-case-father-deployed-submarine

The article itself:

Reading is hard... wrote:The judge denied that motion, saying Kaylee’s father should have arranged to have the girl dropped off with her mother.

“At this point, I don’t think I have any alternative but to enter a bench warrant for his arrest,” Noe said.
...
Noe delayed the order for the bench warrant pending the Friday transfer at the Michigan airport.

Then again:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The warrant for a sailor deployed on a submarine is pants on head slowed

 d-usa wrote:
A warrant for a person willfully ignoring a custody order to surrender a child is not.

That's why the warrant is suspended as long as his wife is in the process of complying with the order.

It's been explained a couple of times already. There has to be a certain amount of wilful ignorance of the facts to not get this.

Taking the kid when the dad can't show up to court is just being a douche.

Bitching about not being able to say goodbye to your kid because your are out of country while your kid is being taken away BECAUSE you are out of the country is being a douche.

Putting a warrant out for the dads arrest is worthy of being fired.

Only if you ignore the facts and live in pretend world.

I'm a little surprised that a new spouse doesn't get included under the custody umbrella when a divorced parent remarries, or at least becomes a judicially-acceptable caregiver.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm a little surprised that a new spouse doesn't get included under the custody umbrella when a divorced parent remarries, or at least becomes a judicially-acceptable caregiver.

Unfortionately they (edit: frequently) don't, but that's nothing new in these kind of cases. Biological parents (usually) and then other biological relatives take priority.

There have been some cases where a single biological parent ended up marrying someone and having that person as a step-parent for multiple years and the step-parent was the only real "dad/mom" that the child knew since there was no contact with the other bio-parent. Sometimes they would separate because the biological parent would fall into substance abuse and CPS would have to get involve.The Step-Parent would argue "I have been his father for the last X years, I'm the only father he has ever known" but as a step-father he had only minimal rights and biological placement would take priority. So the child would end up with somebody they didn't even know, but because they were related it was considered "better" for the child.

It sucks for the child, and it sucks for the step-parents that consider themselves a "real" parent. But that's usually how it ends up. Unless you adopt you are never going to have the same rights as a biological parent.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the current situation is the best possible scenario for the daughter involved. We don't know what the original circumstance was that resulted in the removal of the child other than "neglect", and the mother could have changed completely in those four years. And if it has there is really no reason why there couldn't be some sort of joint custody in the future. Stay with dad when he is at home, stay with mom when dad is on a submarine halfway around the globe. That could easily work, if the mother no longer has the problems she had in the past.

 djones520 wrote:
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/06/20/judge-orders-deployed-us-sailor-to-attend-custody-hearing-or-lose-daughter-face-contempt/

This is utterly unbelievable. I cannot use nasty enough words to describe my anger over this.

I've had the Civil Relief Act keep me out of the fire before due to me being in Japan when a malicious bitch sued me for rent after she kicked me out of the apartment. That law is there to keep things like this from happening. She's flangrantly thumbing her nose at it, and I hope she gets disbarred at the least for it.

The sailor, like walmart employees, should 'live within his means' and not have dependants.

 44Ronin wrote:
The sailor, like walmart employees, should 'live within his means' and not have dependants.

This case has nothing at all to do with money.

What the feth are you talking about?

 Seaward wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
The sailor, like walmart employees, should 'live within his means' and not have dependants.

This case has nothing at all to do with money.

What the feth are you talking about?

If you have kids, don't put yourself in a position where you can be deployed.

Just because you serve your country, doesn't make you any less of a crap parent for not being there.

Seems like a bad attempt at trolling...

 d-usa wrote:
Seems like a bad attempt at trolling...

Calling it what is is, isn't trolling.

Crap parent is crap parent. end of.

I think the best rule to apply in just about every shocking sounding report of a court case is that terrible judges are a lot less common than terrible reporters, so when you read a court report that sounds like a terrible miscarriage of justice the most likely result is that you're only hearing half the story.

But people love getting outraged, which is why dodgy stories get written in the first place.

I'm just going to stop feeding it...