Judge to issue arrest warrant for Sailor deployed for failure to attend custody hearing

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.

**sebster**

Legal question - does neglect include incapacity? So for instance, if you were unable to provide a home and meals for your kid because of job loss or something similar, would CPS take your kid because of 'neglect' or would it be 'incapacity' or some other term?

**sebster**

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.

He isn't being arrested for failing to show up to court. That's just a bit of silliness the OP's article sort of vaguely implied, but didn't actually say because it isn't true.

He is being threatened with a contempt charge if he fails to hand over his daughter.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
This case has nothing at all to do with money.

What the feth are you talking about?

He's making a reference to a recent thread about the minimum wage, in which people tried to claim that the answer to being unable to care for children on the current minimum wage was to 'live within your means' by not having children.

**d-usa**

sebster wrote:
Legal question - does neglect include incapacity? So for instance, if you were unable to provide a home and meals for your kid because of job loss or something similar, would CPS take your kid because of 'neglect' or would it be 'incapacity' or some other term?

The IANAL answer: It could probably be neglect if you lost your job and were unable to provide a home and meals because you didn't apply for any kind of assistance and just decided that not feeding or housing the kid would be easier. But even the usual approach by CPS would be to place the child, or maybe child and parent, in a shelter and assist the parent with obtaining the assistance they need in order to provide for the child.

Removal is actually the last ditch effort and the priority for CPS is to keep the child with the parent unless there is a clear and present risk of injury to the child.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
He's making a reference to a recent thread about the minimum wage, in which people tried to claim that the answer to being unable to care for children on the current minimum wage was to 'live within your means' by not having children.

Yeah, I gotta file that under trolling, then.

**sebster**

d-usa wrote:
The IANAL answer: It could probably be neglect if you lost your job and were unable to provide a home and meals because you didn't apply for any kind of assistance and just decided that not feeding or housing the kid would be easier. But even the usual approach by CPS would be to place the child, or maybe child and parent, in a shelter and assist the parent with obtaining the assistance they need in order to provide for the child.

Removal is actually the last ditch effort and the priority for CPS is to keep the child with the parent unless there is a clear and present risk of injury to the child.

I always read that as "I ANAL"...

Anyhow, if the other parent is there and available I'd think re-assigning custody would be preferable to having the child in a shelter. I'm not saying that happened in this case, especially given the previous custody arrangement was permanent, I was just asking because I had heard somewhere that 'neglect' is a slightly misleading title, as it doesn't necessarily include indifference to the kid but the 'neglect' could be incapacity. But then I realised I couldn't remember where I heard that, which makes it reasonably likely it isn't true, so I better ask if it was.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
Yeah, I gotta file that under trolling, then.

I think it would have been quite a good line, if the people who made that argument in that thread were in this thread, arguing for the sailor. But as far as I know those people aren't in this thread, so it doesn't really work.

**d-usa**

sebster wrote:
d-usa wrote:
The IANAL answer: It could probably be neglect if you lost your job and were unable to provide a home and meals because you didn't apply for any kind of assistance and just decided that not feeding or housing the kid would be easier. But even the usual approach by CPS would be to place the child, or maybe child and parent, in a shelter and assist the parent with obtaining the assistance they need in order to provide for the child.

Removal is actually the last ditch effort and the priority for CPS is to keep the child with the parent unless there is a clear and present risk of injury to the child.

I always read that as "I ANAL"...

Anyhow, if the other parent is there and available I'd think re-assigning custody would be preferable to having the child in a shelter.

Yeah, my train of thought just kind of dropped of after the shelter there.

A shelter is usually always first just as part of the process. CPS doesn't actually remove the child, since they don't have the power. They would notify the police that they think that there is enough evidence that a child would have to be removed and the police would take the child into custody, basically a "protective custody" kind of thing. Usually the child is then placed in a shelter until they can have a hearing in front of the family judge (which might not take very long at all, maybe just hours or maybe a couple of days) and the judge would then determine where the child is actually placed. Some jurisdictions might have foster families that basically funcion as a shelter for new intakes until placement has been assigned by a judge.

Shelter is often first which is why I mentioned that. But then I just stopped there instead of elaborating on the process after that...

I'm not saying that happened in this case, especially given the previous custody arrangement was permanent, I was just asking because I had heard somewhere that 'neglect' is a slightly misleading title, as it doesn't necessarily include indifference to the kid but the 'neglect' could be incapacity. But then I realised I couldn't remember where I heard that, which makes it reasonably likely it isn't true, so I better ask if it was.

It's a possibility, but I honestly wouldn't expect a judge to assign long-term custody to the dad unless it was a consistent and permanent thing on her part. Those records would probably be sealed though, family court records usually are not open records.

(My wife used to work for CPS, so I am somewhat familiar with what goes on there.)

**sebster**

d-usa wrote:
Yeah, my train of thought just kind of dropped of after the shelter there.

A shelter is usually always first just as part of the process. CPS doesn't actually remove the child, since they don't have the power. They would notify the police that they think that there is enough evidence that a child would have to be removed and the police would take the child into custody, basically a "protective custody" kind of thing. Usually the child is then placed in a shelter until they can have a hearing in front of the family judge (which might not take very long at all, maybe just hours or maybe a couple of days) and the judge would then determine where the child is actually placed. Some jurisdictions might have foster families that basically funcion as a shelter for new intakes until placement has been assigned by a judge.

Shelter is often first which is why I mentioned that. But then I just stopped there instead of elaborating on the process after that...

Reading about it just makes me feel bad for the kids. On top of whatever family drama then they're all of a sudden getting passed around between strangers. I'm not saying there's a better option, but...

It's a possibility, but I honestly wouldn't expect a judge to assign long-term custody to the dad unless it was a consistent and permanent thing on her part. Those records would probably be sealed though, family court records usually are not open records.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks.

**d-usa**

sebster wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Yeah, my train of thought just kind of dropped of after the shelter there.

A shelter is usually always first just as part of the process. CPS doesn't actually remove the child, since they don't have the power. They would notify the police that they think that there is enough evidence that a child would have to be removed and the police would take the child into custody, basically a "protective custody" kind of thing. Usually the child is then placed in a shelter until they can have a hearing in front of the family judge (which might not take very long at all, maybe just hours or maybe a couple of days) and the judge would then determine where the child is actually placed. Some jurisdictions might have foster families that basically funcion as a shelter for new intakes until placement has been assigned by a judge.

Shelter is often first which is why I mentioned that. But then I just stopped there instead of elaborating on the process after that...

Reading about it just makes me feel bad for the kids. On top of whatever family drama then they're all of a sudden getting passed around between strangers. I'm not saying there's a better option, but...

Usually it's just a very short temporary thing. The cops just are not authorized to pick up kids and drop them off with some other relative, doing so without a court order would just be kidnapping and there would be nothing to prevent the parent from heading to grandmothers house and taking them back home. Hence the need to go before a judge to determine where the child is going to be placed before actually placing them there.

Now CPS will (usually) try to minimize that as much as possible. Quite often the parent knows that removal is going to happen because CPS has already been working with them to try to prevent having to remove the children. So CPS and the parent might have already formulated a plan to determine which relative can take care of the child and the CPS caseworker will have already investigated the relative to make sure that it is a safe place for the child (no point removing a child from one crack house and dropping them off at another crack house where the grandmother lives). They will usually try to remove the child during hours that the court is open so that they can take the child straight from home, to court, to the other relative with minimal interuption.

It actually takes quite a bit until you reach the point where a child is removed, and CPS will try very hard to avoid having to do that. For every story of "why did CPS take that child" you will also hear stories of "why didn't they take the child". The first priority is to try to help the parent keep the child to minimize interuption and stress to the child. So there will be lots of visits, help obtaining assistance, whatever they can do to make things safe for the child wherever the child is at right now. If they do have to remove the first priority is to place with a relative if a willing relative is available and it is safe to do so. If CPS get's called to a situation where it is absolutely not safe for a child and they have to be removed before another relative is found they will end up in a shelter or a foster home that specializes in intakes (hopefully the later).

I'm not trying to minimize the stress that the children will go through in a situation like that, just trying to show that they do try to minimize that when they can.

**Frazzled**

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.

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.

Exactly.

**d-usa**

This thread is a troll thread at this point, right?

**Frazzled**

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?

Maybe this will help

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
This thread is a troll thread at this point, right?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
This thread is a troll thread at this point, right?

Stop feeding 'em.

Good job btw.

**Jihadin**

sebster wrote:
d-usa wrote:
The IANAL answer: It could probably be neglect if you lost your job and were unable to provide a home and meals because you didn't apply for any kind of assistance and just decided that not feeding or housing the kid would be easier. But even the usual approach by CPS would be to place the child, or maybe child and parent, in a shelter and assist the parent with obtaining the assistance they need in order to provide for the child.

Removal is actually the last ditch effort and the priority for CPS is to keep the child with the parent unless there is a clear and present risk of injury to the child.

I always read that as "I ANAL"...

Anyhow, if the other parent is there and available I'd think re-assigning custody would be preferable to having the child in a shelter. I'm not saying that happened in this case, especially given the previous custody arrangement was permanent, I was just asking because I had heard somewhere that 'neglect' is a slightly misleading title, as it doesn't necessarily include indifference to the kid but the 'neglect' could be incapacity. But then I realised I couldn't remember where I heard that, which makes it reasonably likely it isn't true, so I better ask if it was.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
Yeah, I gotta file that under trolling, then.

I think it would have been quite a good line, if the people who made that argument in that thread were in this thread, arguing for the sailor. But as far as I know those people aren't in this thread, so it doesn't really work.

I am in this thread and I am the one the said "Live within your means"

I am also the one on this thread that said basically "what's the other side of the coin" of this
Mention Family Care Plan he needed to do before deployment
Mention what was the child living condition
Mention the Judge action is outside the norm for her so it has to be something real freaking bad for her to act the way she did

D-USA, provided more info and clarification into the situation.

Sailor going to lose regardless. He is on deployment and they stay under for entire deployment. He will be informed of the situation after a schedule comm time connection but other then that he cannot do anything. Mission first. Hence the Family Care Plan.

44Ronin I think has me on top of his list of "Favorites"

**kronk**

Is 44Ronin "the reporter?"

**Jihadin**

kronk wrote:
Is 44Ronin "the reporter?"

Not sure. He went from

I interviewed Mamdouh Habib, a renditon victim who was never formally charged for any crime within detention, despite having settled out of court with the Australian government to absolve the aforementioned government of any liability in his treatment during his detention by the United States

to

What are you talking about? I mentioned I spoke to a former inmate by means of informal interview at Sydney APEC 2007 rally @ hyde park sydney

On this thread he went

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

In a attempt to TROLL others and me (being I am the one that said "within your means" on another thread here)

**kronk**

That guy! Yeah, I put him on ignore. He doesn't have respect for others, he tends to exaggerate, and I bet he likes the Star Wars Prequels.

**MrDwhitey**

kronk wrote:
and I bet he likes the Star Wars Prequels.

Steady on, Satan.

**Jihadin**

MrDwhitey wrote:
kronk wrote:
and I bet he likes the Star Wars Prequels.

Steady on, Satan.

Just had to go and make it a Spiritual Dilemma didn't you

**MrDwhitey**

Steady on, Hitler?

**kronk**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Steady on, Hitler?

There has been no documentation of Hitler's preference for the original three Star Wars movies or the prequels.

Hitler does like Beiber, though.

**Jihadin**

kronk wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Steady on, Hitler?

There has been no documentation of Hitler's preference for the original three Star Wars movies or the prequels.

Hitler does like Beiber, though.

In a oven?

**Polonius**

Jihadin wrote:
kronk wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Steady on, Hitler?

There has been no documentation of Hitler's preference for the original three Star Wars movies or the prequels.

Hitler does like Beiber, though.

In a oven?

Too soon!

**Jihadin**

Polonius wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
kronk wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Steady on, Hitler?

There has been no documentation of Hitler's preference for the original three Star Wars movies or the prequels.

Hitler does like Beiber, though.

In a oven?

Too soon!

WHERE"S MY CARD!!!!

**Alpharius**

Back on topic, please.

**Chongara**

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

It's the only emotion we're allowed to express strongly enough to let other people know we're still alive.

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
I am in this thread and I am the one the said "Live within your means"

I am also the one on this thread that said basically "what's the other side of the coin" of this

Yeah, I know you said 'what's the other side of the coin', though I didn't remember you being the one who said 'live within your means' in the other thread. But given that, the joke still doesn't really work.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:
It's the only emotion we're allowed to express strongly enough to let other people know we're still alive.

That explains why there's so many old people ringing up talkback radio every day. They're not actually that bothered about illegal immigration or young people not respecting the flag, they just want to tell people they're not dead yet.

**Ouze**

Submariner who can't attend custody hearing given last-minute reprieve
[i]By Ed Friedrich
Kitsap Sun, Bremerton, Wash.
Published: June 23, 2014

BREMERTON — A Bangor submariner patrolling the Pacific Ocean was excused from a child custody hearing Sunday after a media blitz by his wife.

Matthew Hindes, of the USS Michigan, had been ordered to appear Friday in a Michigan court, turn over 6-year-old daughter Kaylee to his ex-wife Saturday or Sunday and return to court Monday for a custody hearing.

Lenawee County Judge Margaret Noe said she would have no choice but to enter a bench warrant for Hindes’ arrest if he didn’t show up or have someone, such as current wife Benita-Lynn Caoile Hindes, bring Kaylee to court.

Benita-Lynn got word out last week through TV, newspapers, social media and Navy sympathizers that the judge was violating the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which provides for an automatic stay of court proceedings of 90 days if a sailor were deployed. The story went viral.

Private and Navy attorneys recommended that Benita-Lynn and Kaylee not travel Friday to Michigan, and they didn’t. The lawyers had planned to handle Monday’s proceedings without her. They submitted a motion outlining the SCRA, how it should be invoked and why Kaylee should stay in Bremerton.

“There’s no evidence of why she should be removed from this home,” Benita-Lynn said.

Noe released an order Sunday delaying some matters until at least Oct. 22. She said she didn’t know Matthew Hindes was in the Pacific until June 16 when he was supposed to appear or have someone bring his daughter to court. That hearing was held without him, with a decision postponed until Monday. Now it’s pushed back further.

Angela filed for divorce in December 2009. Matthew got custody of Kaylee after a child abuse and neglect case was filed against Angela and her then-boyfriend. She served 10 days in jail and probation, according to court records.

A parenting plan allowed Angela to speak to Kaylee by phone, and she later got Skype added. In August, Noe gave Angela monthly visits. Matthew and Benita-Lynn were required to bring her back to Ohio for a weekend, splitting the plane ticket with Angela. They had to drop Kaylee off each morning and pick her up each evening because Angela wasn’t allowed to keep her overnight.

The visits only occurred in October and November because Angela didn’t pay her share of the flight thereafter, Benita-Lynn said.

Angela is seeking temporary custody while Matthew is deployed, claiming a military lifestyle isn’t stable, Benita-Lynn said.

“I feel it is a stable home,” said Benita-Lynn, an Olympic High graduate whose father retired from the military. “Kaylee is happy and healthy. She enjoys moving, meeting new people and experiencing new cultures.”

Navy attorneys have consulted with civilian lawyers about the case, said Submarine Group Nine spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Brian Badura.

“We are thinking about the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act,” he said. “There are federal laws that provide protections for military members on active duty. In cases where the act does indeed apply, we support jurisdictions in generating those protections for service members who may be deployed and serving our nation far from home.

“Because a service member is involved, there are some things that can be done between our folks, especially when we found out the SRCA should be afforded and it isn’t being.”

source

**Sasori**

At least that answers a lot of questions!

Glad the right call was made.

**d-usa**

Details!

**ZebioLizard2**

Matthew got custody of Kaylee after a child abuse and neglect case was filed against Angela and her then-boyfriend

And that home is more stable?