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

[Lisa loves Pooh]

They both claim the other was abusive.

What makes you thing they'll never visit mom?

Living in Chicago--

Airfare prices....

Have to move their immediately. I'm not even sure if school is even out in NC, yet. But that didn't seem to be a consideration.

It would be one thing if they lived within a simple drive. But they don't.

Once states divide, visiting dynamics are completely different and never the same.

And since she is "dying"--she may die before they get a chance to which brings us to full circle of why is her illness being used to immediately strip her of her parental rights and why the rush to terminate her custody?

 

[DizBelle]

If dad were the one with cancer, would all of you agree that he should get custody?

 

[Jennasis]

Living in Chicago--

Airfare prices....

Have to move their immediately. I'm not even sure if school is even out in NC, yet. But that didn't seem to be a consideration.

It would be one thing if they lived within a simple drive. But they don't.

Once states divide, visiting dynamics are completely different and never the same.

And since she is "dying"--she may die before they get a chance to which brings us to full circle of why is her illness being used to immediately strip her of her parental rights and why the rush to terminate her custody?

Don't get me wrong. I COMPLETELY agree that her being sick is as thin and bogus an excuse as ever I've heard.

But I don't think her being sick or "mom" automatically makes her more deserving to be the primary custodial parent. There are many facets to the story, but I completely agree that if the judge based this decision solely on the fact that mom is sick, that's just beyond horrible.

 

[sunnyday123]

I think the husband is a cold-hearted bleeper and the judge is running a close second. Who does this? She was the primary care-giver, and he's trying to get custody because she has cancer?

 

[JoiseyMom]

And they don't need their dad?

]

He left them! From what I read he was barely a weekend dad. He can see them they way he does now...fly in, or fly them to him. No one is stopping him.

He could have stayed and worked in NC and seen his kids and shared custody there... he up and left.

ANd since she has stage 4 cancer...he is going to have them sooner then later and not have to share them anymore.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Don't get me wrong. I COMPLETELY agree that her being sick is as thin and bogus an excuse as ever I've heard.

But I don't think her being sick or "mom" automatically makes her more deserving to be the primary custodial parent. There are many facets to the story, but I completely agree that if the judge based this decision solely on the fact that mom is sick, that's just beyond horrible.

I agree with you---and of course I am only seeing how the media presents the story and her losing custody due to cancer has a nice spin to it.

I just want to reiterate that if this is the SOLE reason that she lost custody--i.e. she would have gotten it, but since she is so sick and may die, then the parent who has a better survival chance should get custody--quite possibly is discriminatory. No different than if she lost custody due to her skin color or a dad losing custody just because he is male.

I would love to see it elevated and I do see how this quite possibly sets a bad precedence.

One day would they require an actuary to take all of your lifestyles into account and determine a statistic to determine which parent will live longer, all other things equal? Scary thought.

Her medical condition really should not have been a consideration at all unless she was an invalid.

You had the other jerkface who wouldn't take his kids to see their mom who was an invalid. Court sided with the mother and he now has to take her to see regular visitation.

Spouses using illness or disability as a means of separation is simply wrong.

And I don't have a lot of confidence that this dad would honor visitation. (in the Breast Cancer/Divorce case)

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

]

He left them! From what I read he was barely a weekend dad. He can see them they way he does now...fly in, or fly them to him. No one is stopping him.

He could have stayed and worked in NC and seen his kids and shared custody there... he up and left.

ANd since she has stage 4 cancer...he is going to have them sooner then later and not have to share them anymore.

Male or female, it is always my favorite rolleyes custody cases where a deliberately absentee parent suddenly declares they would be the better custodian.

My dad attempted that bit years ago--and while it *might* have been true, it wasn't enough to overturn his earlier decision to surrender custody to my mom and walk. (I still visited, but I did not fit into his plan for permanent custody.)

Custody shouldn't be about a matter of convenience or getting even and past track record should weigh more heavily than present health conditions, IMHO.

 

[JoiseyMom]

Male or female, it is always my favorite rolleyes custody cases where a deliberately absentee parent suddenly declares they would be the better custodian.

My dad attempted that bit years ago--and while it *might* have been true, it wasn't enough to overturn his earlier decision to surrender custody to my mom and walk. (I still visited, but I did not fit into his plan for permanent custody.)

Custody shouldn't be about a matter of convenience or getting even and past track record should weigh more heavily than present health conditions, IMHO.

I agree with you! Once my divorce was final I never saw or heard from my ex again. He hasn't seen my sons since they were 6 months and 18 months old. They are now 26 and 27!!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I agree with you! Once my divorce was final I never saw or heard from my ex again. He hasn't seen my sons since they were 6 months and 18 months old. They are now 26 and 27!!

Well, to respect my dad--he has "watched" me grow up as much as a non-custodial parent can and has seen my children much more than my mom and if you just count "visits" but not "days stayed", he is on par with my husband's parents. (we stay over with them, but my dad just hopped down for an overnight on occasion.)

So he isn't absentee.

He just didn't want his military career disrupted by me. My mom was in boot camp, so he was primary caregiver while she did that. I guess he preferred not having that hassle once she got her duty station.

But after all that, he expected to magically be able to get custody. At some point he gave that attempt up.

 

[a1tinkfans]

This case is disturbing!
I heard her say that she treats once a month and is not "ill" now. She cannot be cured but is doing okay. Her doctors are in NC and she needs to be treated each month (chemo?)the x moved away and he is working, she is not.
She intimated that they could share custody (the kids do not want to leave, having lived there for 6 years) and that they could do this in NC while she treats.
Sadly, instead he is seeking to take them away from her completely. So the Judge basically ruled that her disease, which cannot be cured and requires treatment is "enough" to take her kids away from her. It is horrifying to think that at this time, when every minute counts, when stress impacts health, when her kids are most important to her own sanity, that the X decides to do this....does not say much for him nor does it say much to what his respect and empathy is for his own children,
ON tv, it sounded like she did not have an attorney yet to appeal the decision and has very limited time. I hope all the media attention will provide some type of help to her and that it can be amicably resolved in the very best interest of the children.
To the mom, I Pray that she Keeps up her valiant fight and beats this awful disease....from one survivor to another, FIGHT, and BE Strong each and every day!

 

[bicker]

The only consideration in terms of custody should be which parent provides the best option for the children. It isn't anyone's business to second-guess what each parent chooses to offer, as long as what is offered complies with society's overall standards. From there, it is a choice between the two options. Period.

If you don't want to allow separation and divorce; that's another matter - and I suggest that because it is the only reasonable means of avoiding troubles like these. Good luck trying to convince people of your perspective in that regard, but either way recognize that either you allow separation and divorce or you don't, and if you do, then custody breaks down, again, to which parent provides the best option for the children.

 

[GinnyEmma]

this is atrocious. There is no reason for children to be taken from a parent due to illness. Now if the father gets prostrate cancer should the kids be sent to foster care?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The only consideration in terms of custody should be which parent provides the best option for the children. It isn't anyone's business to second-guess what each parent chooses to offer, as long as what is offered complies with society's overall standards. From there, it is a choice between the two options. Period.

If you don't want to allow separation and divorce; that's another matter - and I suggest that because it is the only reasonable means of avoiding troubles like these. Good luck trying to convince people of your perspective in that regard, but either way recognize that either you allow separation and divorce or you don't, and if you do, then custody breaks down, again, to which parent provides the best option for the children.

You lost me here.

It seems the new overall standard is that an illness that cannot be cured is the new standard.

The question is: should it be? Should a parent lose custody ahead of their death?

Not one person has mentioned any debate in your second paragraph, so it seems rather irrelevant.

 

[Keli]

Honestly, with reasonable accuracy you can surmise mom won't be around too much longer. Don't know the stats for life expectancy for stage 4 cancer but I do know it's not very long. Judge should let those children stay with mom with ample visitation from dad for another year or until mom is too ill to care for them.
Revisit the custody issue at that time. Unfortunately, the picture will have likely changed by then. Dad will end up with sole custody and the children will be receiving death benefits from their mom (social security if nothing else).

 

[ameraumi]

Take the emotions out of it and look at it from this way:

The mother is going thru treatments. There will be days when she will not even be able to care for herself let alone the children. As the cancer progresses she will need more care and again not be able to care for her children properly. I also think it will be harder on the children to watch their mom slip away from them. I do believe the children need to see their mother as much as possible but they should be in the custody of the parent who is most able to meet their day to day needs.

I know this first hand as my children and I watched my late-DH pass away from cancer. He was in no way capable of taking care of the kids while in treatments. And in his last few months of life he was barely able to shower and care for himself. I was the one taking care of the house, the kids and him. I know the emotional toll it took on the kids watching their dad wilt away and become a shell of the person he once was.

There are many factors to look at and I have a hard time believing the judge made his ruling only on the fact she had cancer.

 

[sparklynails23]

Where's the humanity? This woman took care of the kids while the dad voluntarily moved away. Let them be with her for "her" sake.

 

[FredinFL]

The father must be a royal tool. Who does that to someone? What a jerk.

 

[bicker]

You lost me here.

It seems the new overall standard is that an illness that cannot be cured is the new standard.

The question is: should it be? Should a parent lose custody ahead of their death?

My point is that what is best for the child is what matters.

I think even the terminology used is part of the problem... a parent "losing" custody... as if it were something that one parent owned. In a civilized society, a separated parent is "granted" custody; one parent doesn't own the children. Parents have priority over others, surely, as well they should, but no one parent has priority over another except to the extent that their being granted custody is better for the children.

Such decisions aren't, and never should be, about the parent, about what the parent wants, about what the parent needs, etc. Such decisions should be about the children, what's best for them.

Not one person has mentioned any debate in your second paragraph, so it seems rather irrelevant.

Not irrelevant; just not debated-with. I'm fine with everyone being in agreement about it.

 

[FredinFL]

So we are now saying that it's best for the children to remove them from any sick parent? To deny them spending time with a parent who may shortly die? maybe die? or sneezes?

The court has no right to decide something like this. It's ludicrous. Unless the children are being neglected, or are in danger, they should stay with the custodial parent.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Hypoethically speaking, if she would have gotten it had it not been for her illness, then yes she lost it has she had custody prior to this when he chose to leave.

It seems she lives fine with her illness. It isn't to say she won't take a turn for the worse.

It should not be a sole basis for custody (which likely is a media spin, but it does set a precedence that it can be used.)


The article quotes that in FL, HIV cannot be used as a sole basis to deny a custody petition. Folks with HIV could succumb to their illness since they can never be cured.

What if mom in this case lives 5 years? What if treatments improve and she lives for 10 years taking her older child into adulthood?

She lost custody on "what if she dies?". What If she lives?

If the Dad dies a sudden death, does she get her kids back? Or does his family petition a stay on decisions to not uproot the new life they come to know?


*and by lost, I realize this sounds like I am talking about property---but it does refer to losing the petition which causes a denial of custody.

My point is that what is best for the child is what matters.

I think even the terminology used is part of the problem... a parent "losing" custody... as if it were something that one parent owned. In a civilized society, a separated parent is "granted" custody; one parent doesn't own the children. Parents have priority over others, surely, as well they should, but no one parent has priority over another except to the extent that their being granted custody is better for the children.

Such decisions aren't, and never should be, about the parent, about what the parent wants, about what the parent needs, etc. Such decisions should be about the children, what's best for them.

Not irrelevant; just not debated-with. I'm fine with everyone being in agreement about it.