Should a Mother Lose Custody of Her Kids Because She Has Cancer? (NEWS Article)

zurgswife

WDW is my Shangrala...and I'm going...life is bett
Joined
Jan 9, 2000
Messages
13,690
THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE.

Alaina Giordano was already engaged in a battle royale, fighting Stage 4 breast cancer, when her struggle intensified recently: a judge ruled that the N.C. woman must give up custody of her two children to her husband, who lives in Chicago, in part because "children who have a parent with cancer need more contact with the non-ill parent."

Judge Nancy Gordon ordered Giordano's children, Sofia, 11, and Bud, 5, to relocate by June 17 from Durham, N.C., to Chicago to live with their father even though Giordano, who says she is strong and able to parent, reports her metastatic cancer is under control.

"In her ruling, Judge Nancy Gordon cited forensic psychologist Dr. Helen Brantley," according to Good Morning America: "The more contact [the children] have with the non-ill parent, the better they do. They divide their world into the cancer world and a free of cancer world. Children want a normal childhood, and it is not normal with an ill parent."

Giordano was diagnosed in Dec. 2007. On her blog, she said she has spent the past 16 months "defending myself from the attacks of my abusive husband who filed a lawsuit against me in Durham County, N.C., asking for full, permanent custody of our two children using the argument that I have a cancer diagnosis." In August, Giordano says her husband, Kane Snyder, moved to the Chicago area for work, leaving the kids with her.

For sure, Giordano's breast cancer is but one aspect of what has proved to be a textbook messy divorce, replete with charges of abuse, cheating and mental illness. But it's the role that terminal illness has played that has rallied irate mothers and more than a few experts to Giordano's side, while simultaneously shining a spotlight on the tug-of-war that is child custody.
"It's a bad precedent," says Art Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. "We certainly wouldn't want to have legislation suggesting that parenting is going to be contingent on being in peak health. It's not a big jump from, 'I don't want Mom to have custody because she has stage 4 cancer' to 'I don't want Mom to have custody because she's a smoker.'"

In Florida, points out family law attorney Hal Roen, there is a statute that prohibits a diagnosis of HIV from being used as a determining factor in custody battles. HIV is not cancer, of course, but the idea is the same: serious illness should not be held against parents if they are capable of taking care of their children. "The court has said this parent's medical affliction overrides all the other good reasons why children would want to be with their mother," says Roen. "If you take away that factor, would the court have removed the children from the mom and given them to the dad?"
Custody agreements, in theory, are based on what's in a child's best interest, but moving the children away from their friends, their schools and their mother at a time when her life expectancy is uncertain is "incomprehensible," says Deedra Hunter, an Orlando mental health counselor who coaches women in custody battles and wrote Winning Custody: A Woman's Guide to Retaining Custody of Her Children, based on her own divorce experience. In another much-publicized marriage that unraveled right down the road from Giordano's home, no one suggested that Elizabeth Edwards cede primary custody of her two young children to her ex, John Edwards. Or perhaps after all the turmoil he caused her, John Edwards simply didn't have the gall to float such a proposal.

"Fathers absolutely do have rights, but the ones who would take children away from a dying mother...where is the compassion, where is the thought of the children?" says Hunter. "The kids would go through the terror and fear of their mother dying and then have to adjust to whole new surroundings. Later on, aren't the children going to be angry at this man?"

In any case, is it really even possible to shield children from loss? "Your first instinct is to protect the kids," says Caplan. "But clearly children have to bear all kinds of challenging and terrible events. What's worse: moving them away from the mom when she's dying or letting them stay as long as possible? It's pretty clear what the answer is."

Giordano wants to appeal, but in the meantime, she has publicized her story via the Web, where women — presumably mothers, mostly — have expressed their outrage at what they see as the judge's insensitivity. An Iowa woman who says she doesn't know Giordano began an online petition this week to "throw N.C. Judge Nancy Gordon off the bench;" Giordano's sister has collected more than 8,000 signatures for another petition.

On a Facebook page called "Alaina Giordano Should Not Lose Her Kids Because She Has Breast Cancer," more than 11,000 fans have joined forces to vilify Gordon online. "What kind of monster is that Judge???" asks Carol Dowling-Beckner. Adds Merwyn Haskett: "The judge is a woman...which makes it even more infuriating."

Sonya Joseph wrote on Giordano's page that her mother died of breast cancer when she was 8: "In an effort to protect me, my father and aunts chose to not tell me that she was dying. Her hospital visits were masked by the line, Mommy's at work. She was a nurse so odd hours at the hospital were normal to me. I went off to school one morning and then came home to a world that was never the same. Don't rob these children of their mother's last days. They may not be easy days but they are the only days they will have."
 
I am hoping there is more to this story than this. It is outrageous. Not only that, but what is up with that dad? His children could very well lose their mother, why doesn't he find a way to move closer to her, move her closer to him and share those times with mom. Is it so hard to be a little more accomodating in a serious situation. They certainly don't have to move in together again.


I hate when I see a 'divorce' trumping the kids. Just awful...

Kelly
 
I am hoping there is more to this story than this. It is outrageous. Not only that, but what is up with that dad? His children could very well lose their mother, why doesn't he find a way to move closer to her, move her closer to him and share those times with mom. Is it so hard to be a little more accomodating in a serious situation. They certainly don't have to move in together again.


I hate when I see a 'divorce' trumping the kids. Just awful...

Kelly

My thoughts exactly!
 
No. I totally think this judge has lost her marbles.
If I were fighting cancer I would want my children around me. I would want to see them everyday.

Lisa
 

I can't imagine what this woman must be going through. My dad died of cancer when I was 8 so I have an understanding of what these kids are dealing with. My parents were together though. Removing these children isn't going to help them cope with their mother's illness. If it were only that simple. It will still be something they will have to deal with every day.
Removing them from the support network they likely have is much worse than them seeing what their mother is going through day in and day out.
 
She's doing the right thing by publicizing this. Maybe she will win her appeal.
 
While I could understand the ruling if the mother wasn't able to care properly for the kids while she is going through treatment I think the judge's stated reason is not a good enough one to move the kids across the country.

I'm hoping there is more to the story because as it is I think it is setting a terrible precedent.
 
Having cancer or a disability is not crime and should not be used to penalize a parent out of custody, ESPECIALLY when the couple don't live anywhere near each other.

I cannot help but feel her constitutional rights were violated if this was the ONLY reason she lost custody.
 
Oh my heavens. It sounds to me like the ex husband moved away and is now using the woman's cancer as leverage to pull the kids to where he is, it's shameful
 
This is one I can see both sides too
Dad wants the kids, so does Mom
Dad works - Mom doesn't - she lives off what dad gives her (I read the story several times & spots)
All Mom does is try to live - yea mom for making it day to day
Dad is trying to have a real life - work, family, vacation

so should the kids stay with Mom & learn that you can make it another day(battle this cancer)
or should they stay with Dad & learn that you have to work for a living

I really think the Mom not working or doing anything to support them was the reason Dad got the kids

I know Mom wants the kids but if she can't handle working why could she handle raising them
 
I know Mom wants the kids but if she can't handle working why could she handle raising them

Is she on disability?

Because being disabled and not being able to work does not make one incapable of parenting. It happens in every state of the nation.

She also isn't the first divorced parent to not be employed in this nation. Sometimes parents decide to continue the SAHP thing to keep things stable for the kids. Not a valid enough reason to uproot the kids.

Hope she appeals it all the way to the Supreme Court.
 
There are lots of ways of looking at this story. I'm guessing it's not as black and white as it is making it out to be.

She shouldn't lose the kids on the basis of her disease. But she shouldn't get them on that basis either.

This isn't about what she or her ex wants. It's about where to put the kids that will do the least harm. Reasonable people can disagree about what that situation is.
 
Ahh the NC way...get breast cancer and get dumped.


Anyhoo...there IS more to the story. The mother is out of work (and unable to provide the level of care the father can as he is gainfully employed). there were more things cited in the Today Show story yesterday, but my mind has gone fuzzy.
 
This hits close to home because my mother was battling cancer while she divorced my father. She was not expected to live (in fact, she was told on several occasions to "prepare her affairs"). Luckily, she survived. She is just so stubborn-I think the cancer gave up :). I count my blessings every day that I have her in my life and she is healthy now!

I did see my mother sick, very sick. I was about eight years old. It did affect me, but I don't think in a negative way. I know I wouldn't take back that time, or change anything. My mother WAS the best parent to raise me-her illness didn't change that fact.

However, my mother and father understood how important it was to protect me and my mental health and retained a great child therapist. I think that was invaluable.

If I were the Dad, I would worry about resentment from the kids later in life. I know I would have been seriously peeved at my father if he would have taken me away from my Mom.

I agree with the people they interviewed in the story, this sets a very dangerous precedent. Maybe there is more to the story (I saw something about mental illness???)-but with the story as presented-it makes me cringe.
 
This is one I can see both sides too
Dad wants the kids, so does Mom
Dad works - Mom doesn't - she lives off what dad gives her (I read the story several times & spots)
All Mom does is try to live - yea mom for making it day to day
Dad is trying to have a real life - work, family, vacation

so should the kids stay with Mom & learn that you can make it another day(battle this cancer)
or should they stay with Dad & learn that you have to work for a living

I really think the Mom not working or doing anything to support them was the reason Dad got the kids

I know Mom wants the kids but if she can't handle working why could she handle raising them

Seriously?? :eek:

You think the parent with more moeny should get the kids?? I don't think so.

These kids are going to hate their father one day if this goes through. What kinda of human being abandons his sick wife and kids and doesn't put their needs first? This man (if you want to call him that...I can think of a few other things to call him) doesn't deserve her or the kids!!

These children need their mom and need to be with for as long as she can take care of them! And she can and is taking care of them!
 
Seriously?? :eek:

You think the parent with more moeny should get the kids?? I don't think so.

These kids are going to hate their father one day if this goes through. What kinda of human being abandons his sick wife and kids and doesn't put their needs first? This man (if you want to call him that...I can think of a few other things to call him) doesn't deserve her or the kids!!

These children need their mom and need to be with for as long as she can take care of them! And she can and is taking care of them!

And they don't need their dad?
 
And they don't need their dad?

Well if the mom is going to die, they will need him eventually--but he is robbing them of the chance of visiting her while she is alive.

Father of the year right there.

It seems he might have been an abusive husband also. So he got his final burn to her.
 
Well if the mom is going to die, they will need him eventually--but he is robbing them of the chance of visiting her while she is alive.

Father of the year right there.

It seems he might have been an abusive husband also. So he got his final burn to her.

They both claim the other was abusive.

What makes you thing they'll never visit mom?
 














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top