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

[bicker]

So we are now saying that it's best for the children to remove them from any sick parent?

I have to admit I haven't read all the messages posted, but I don't recall seeing anyone saying that. I've seen people making the point that certain things about the situation definitely do degrade the option of the mother having custody. If the degradation gets so high that the father having custody is better for the children, then the priority should be what's best for the children.

I'm sure you care about what's best for the children -- right?

To deny them spending time with a parent who may shortly die?

That is a mitigating factor, which is why this needs to be looked at objectively, weighing the various factors on both sides of the decision.

The court has no right to decide something like this. It's ludicrous.

Sorry, but it is your assertion that the court has no right to decide which is ludicrous. Of course the court has a right to decide this - the court has an obligation to do so - an obligation to the children and to society.

 

[bicker]

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.)

Precisely. That's what I wrote what I wrote, how I wrote it, without stating which way this decision should go. I outlined what the decision should be based on. Anyone who thinks that they're in a position to actually know all the factors on both sides of this decision either is the judge, the court clerk, or is mistaken about how comprehensive and balanced their perspective on this decision is.

 

[Jennasis]

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.

The court is the ONLY one who has that right.

The parents are fighting for custody, and the court MUST decide which parent the children will be better off with. They take into account (hopefully) all of the facts of the case and then rule.

That's how it works.


Still, it leaves such a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[FredinFL]

I have to admit I haven't read all the messages posted, but I don't recall seeing anyone saying that. I've seen people making the point that certain things about the situation definitely do degrade the option of the mother having custody. If the degradation gets so high that the father having custody is better for the children, then the priority should be what's best for the children.

I'm sure you care about what's best for the children -- right?

That is a mitigating factor, which is why this needs to be looked at objectively, weighing the various factors on both sides of the decision.

Sorry, but it is your assertion that the court has no right to decide which is ludicrous. Of course the court has a right to decide this - the court has an obligation to do so - an obligation to the children and to society.

Sorry back atchya, I think that's a crock. The court should not be deciding whether or not a person being sick mitigates the loss of their children. If the children are being neglected or in danger, it's one thing. This mother was taking care of her children just fine. The judge "supposing" that the mother will ultimately die from this disease isn't good enough. This opens the door to judges being able to "suppose" all kinds of things and no good will come of it.

So now, any parent suffering from cancer can have the children taken away because they might die from the disease? Don't you see how ridiculous that is?

I am thinking of the children. These children and the millions that could be affected by this decision. It needs to be over ruled.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Precisely. That's what I wrote what I wrote, how I wrote it, without stating which way this decision should go. I outlined what the decision should be based on. Anyone who thinks that they're in a position to actually know all the factors on both sides of this decision either is the judge, the court clerk, or is mistaken about how comprehensive and balanced their perspective on this decision is.

I had trouble inferring that from your post.

Judges do make mistakes sometimes and don't make correct or balanced decisions. One of the reasons we have an appeals process.

I am not judge nor jury, but I am troubled by the possibility that the Mother's constitutional rights may have been violated.

There is an opinion posted in the article that makes me wonder how the actual decision was worded when it was handed down. Something about that even though it was in the best interest for kids to stay with mom, her medical condition (which presently does not interfere with her parenting), was an overriding concern.)

That is disturbing, if true.

 

[luvmy3]

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.

Giving custody to the other parent doesn't deny the children from spending time with the sick parent It puts the children in the custody of the parent who is most capable of caring for them, and yes sometimes that means the parent who isn't sick. I don't know the specifics of this case, but I do know what cancer and treatments can do to a person, and while I don't believe a parent should lose custody of their children because they have cancer, I have no problem with that parent losing custody IF they will/can not be able to properly care for their children while ill.
I hope that when that happens, the parent with custody would find it extremely important to have the kids spend as much time with their ill parent, but that doesn't have anything to do with the Court, that has to do with the individual.

 

[FredinFL]

luv, the father lives in Chicago, the mother lives in NC. How often do you really think they are going to get to see her once they are moved to Chicago?

If the courts are going to be able to justify custody on whether a person is sick, NOT whether the person is actually capable of taking care of the children, we are in trouble.

Depression, bi-polar, cancer, diabetes, AIDs, what counts? Where does it stop?

 

[luvmy3]

luv, the father lives in Chicago, the mother lives in NC. How often do you really think they are going to get to see her once they are moved to Chicago?

If the courts are going to be able to justify custody on whether a person is sick, NOT whether the person is actually capable of taking care of the children, we are in trouble.

Depression, bi-polar, cancer, diabetes, AIDs, what counts? Where does it stop?

Thats why I added my feelings at the end, I would hope that this father, (or any parent in the same situation) would do whats best and make sure his kids spent as much time with their mom. I was just commenting on the fact that the Court isn't technically denying the children spending time with their mom, if they are denied that time, it would be the father's decision.
Also, if the mom is still perfectly able to take care of her children now, then I don't agree with the decision at all, assuming thats the only factor in the decision of course. If there comes a time when she can no longer care for her kids because of her treatment, I think its best for them to live with the dad who can take care of them. I think thats true for any disease that effects one's ability to care for their children, but I believe it should be on a temporary basis, because people do get better.

 

[Heidict]

Why is the father doing this? Is he really an abusive controlling husband and this is the ultimate screw you to the mother?

Is he truly concerned about the mental and physical well being of his children while she is going through treatment and most likely dying of cancer?

Is he mad about all the money he is being forced to spend (between alimony, child support and transportation costs to visit his kids) and he sees this as a way to save a few bucks?

Even though see is only having treatment once a month, is she really able to care for her children on a day to day basis and they don't lack for care?

Who knows. I'm sure that what we are hearing in this article is not the whole story. It is certainly only her side.

If the judge is basing her decision on what could happen, not what has happened or is happening, then she is an idiot. I can imagine that these children will hold anger and resentment for the father for taking them away from their dying mother. Robbing them of what little time they may have left with her. I know, if I were one of the kids in this situation, I would feel that way. Regardless of why the father was really doing it, I would see it as a selfish, mean and spiteful act on his part.

 

[FredinFL]

ITA luv. As long as she can properly take care of the kids, they do NOT belong removing them from her custody. If she can't, then fine, I would hope if she couldn't take care of her children she would want them to go where they are safe and sound.

 

[MusiqChic99]

My DH was raised by his father. His mother didn't raise him a bit...unless you count the times when she sent him big presents or bought him a car. She had WAY more money this his father did. In fact he was raised in a pretty poor environment. When she got cancer and only had weeks to live his father flew him there to be with her in her last moments. Did he have to do that? No. He had full custody and was both father and mother. And honestly didn't have the money to really do it at all.

I think most people don't understand why he would take his kids away from his sick mother. These are precious times those children will never get back. I wonder how the children will look at their father after all of this?

It's heartbreaking for me to think that if I got really sick I could never see my son. I think that's when I would want to see him the most.

 

[rigs32]

I am thinking of the children. These children and the millions that could be affected by this decision. It needs to be over ruled.

That's not exactly how courts work. Decisions are only binding on courts lower than the court that made a decision. Other courts can take such decisions into account if they wish, but they don't have to.

 

[Hoodie]

I've seen this story circulated for a few days. Of course the initial reaction is complete sympathy for the mother, but I have a lot of questions that have yet to be answered (probably because nearly every article uses the mom's blog as the basis...not exactly unbiased reporting).

-I've seen several articles sighting that the divorce was "messy" and accusations of "abuse, cheating and mental illness." What are the charges and against whom? Are they substantiated? It seems that the mom has accused the dad of abuse. I presume the next charge was from dad accusing mom of mental illness, but is that the case? Do any of these charges have any merit? If dad was an abuser, that makes this 10x worse. If mom actually suffers from a mental illness, then perhaps that had more merit than her cancer diagnosis and the kids should be with their dad.

-Mom is in NC receiving treatment while Dad is in Chicago. Where did the family live prior to the divorce? If they lived in NC and dad moved to Chicago then custody would mean that the kids would also lose their friends and support network. They'd be losing the mother and everything they know. If they lived in Chicago and mom took them to NC, then she may technically have kidnapped them. Most custody arrangements require that the custodial parent remain within a certain area of the non-custodial parent. We have no idea if that was the case, what the custody arrangements were prior to the cancer diagnosis, which parent left which state.

I hope the mom continues battling her cancer for a long time, and that the dad is compassionate enough to allow lots of access to her children. Until I know more about the facts though, I'm not going to condemn the dad, the judge or the mom.

 

[FireDancer]

Why is the father doing this? Is he really an abusive controlling husband and this is the ultimate screw you to the mother?

Is he truly concerned about the mental and physical well being of his children while she is going through treatment and most likely dying of cancer?

Is he mad about all the money he is being forced to spend (between alimony, child support and transportation costs to visit his kids) and he sees this as a way to save a few bucks?

Even though see is only having treatment once a month, is she really able to care for her children on a day to day basis and they don't lack for care?

Who knows. I'm sure that what we are hearing in this article is not the whole story. It is certainly only her side.

If the judge is basing her decision on what could happen, not what has happened or is happening, then she is an idiot. I can imagine that these children will hold anger and resentment for the father for taking them away from their dying mother. Robbing them of what little time they may have left with her. I know, if I were one of the kids in this situation, I would feel that way. Regardless of why the father was really doing it, I would see it as a selfish, mean and spiteful act on his part.

That is kind of the crux of the issue. As it was presented in the article I don't agree with it but just because it was presented one way doesn't mean it was presented accurately. Unfortunately sensationalism sells, not accuracy.

 

[princesshannahsmom]

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

If he was the one with primary custody originally, of course.

This father LEFT the children in NC with their mother having primary custody. If the mother had done the same thing, then of course the father should retain custody, even if he had cancer.

 

[NaLisa]

It does seem like there's more to this story, and the cancer was apparently only one factor in the judge's decision. The dad's not talking, so we're only hearing the mom's side of the story. Some people who say they're familiar with the situation are responding to the news stories and blogs. I'm withholding judgment until the entire story comes out.

This is a rather anonymous comment on the NY Daily News story, so take it for what it's worth. But if some of these allegations are true, it definitely changes things:

"The reason is while both parents haven't been angels, getting into an altercation and both spending the night in jail, Giordano has more strikes against her. She confesses to having an adulterous relationship, spending days out of state with a married man while her children were with their grandparents. On another occasion, Giordano did not make suitable arrangements for her children on a day a doctor told her she was going to be admitted to the hospital. The order shows she took her children to Duke Hospital. To avoid calling child protective services, the doctor took the children home with her. The doctor called it a crisis and Giordano called it a great opportunity for the children to get to know the person treating their mother. Finally, when the children were visiting their father, Giordano failed to send her son's epinephrine pen. The judge believes that shows she has difficulty separating her anger from the well-being of her children."

 

[PaulaSB12]

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

Considering in both our countries how rare it is for a father to get custody of their children there is more to this story than is being let on. This expectation that only the mother should have custody of their children is wrong its what is best for the child not the parent. Also the way she attacked the judge is so wrong

Mrs Giordano has questioned the way that the decision was made by the female family court judge.

'How does a woman with no kids and who has never been married become a judge in family court?' she wrote on her blog.

'From some of the things that she wrote in the order, it is clear that she has no insight into motherhood, marriage or an intimate partner relationship.

'This judge is trying to use theory to make decisions upon which she has no practical experience. This is very dangerous.

'A mother would know better than to rip happy, well-adjusted children from their mother who has been their primary caregiver since conception and send them to a father who was a weekend dad at best.

Every child deserves better than a judge with no parenting experience.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ody-children-breast-cancer.html#ixzz1MFTMYEK6

The judge is their to be impartial and to go by legal reason. If what she is saying that only a mother should preside over custody cases does that mean only victims of rape should precide over rape cases? Only victims of abuse over abuse cases.

 

[PaulaSB12]

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.

Is she capable of caring for them, my mother is going through cancer treatment at the moment. Its not terminal nor is it as bad as this woman's but there have been many times over the last few months that she has been so tired that she can't get out of bed for more than a few minutes for days. So its quite possible that this mother may be having the same problem. Why is it no matter what happens to the mother no matter how bad a parent she is only the mother is expected to have the kids.

 

[Jennasis]

It does seem like there's more to this story, and the cancer was apparently only one factor in the judge's decision. The dad's not talking, so we're only hearing the mom's side of the story. Some people who say they're familiar with the situation are responding to the news stories and blogs. I'm withholding judgment until the entire story comes out.

This is a rather anonymous comment on the NY Daily News story, so take it for what it's worth. But if some of these allegations are true, it definitely changes things:

"The reason is while both parents haven't been angels, getting into an altercation and both spending the night in jail, Giordano has more strikes against her. She confesses to having an adulterous relationship, spending days out of state with a married man while her children were with their grandparents. On another occasion, Giordano did not make suitable arrangements for her children on a day a doctor told her she was going to be admitted to the hospital. The order shows she took her children to Duke Hospital. To avoid calling child protective services, the doctor took the children home with her. The doctor called it a crisis and Giordano called it a great opportunity for the children to get to know the person treating their mother. Finally, when the children were visiting their father, Giordano failed to send her son's epinephrine pen. The judge believes that shows she has difficulty separating her anger from the well-being of her children."

Mmmhhmmm.

The plot thickens. These allegations are just as likely to be true as the allegations she made against her ex. I am of the camp that neither of these people were angels and the judge made a call based on all the information presented.

 

[Heidict]

It does seem like there's more to this story, and the cancer was apparently only one factor in the judge's decision. The dad's not talking, so we're only hearing the mom's side of the story. Some people who say they're familiar with the situation are responding to the news stories and blogs. I'm withholding judgment until the entire story comes out.

This is a rather anonymous comment on the NY Daily News story, so take it for what it's worth. But if some of these allegations are true, it definitely changes things:

"The reason is while both parents haven't been angels, getting into an altercation and both spending the night in jail, Giordano has more strikes against her. She confesses to having an adulterous relationship, spending days out of state with a married man while her children were with their grandparents. On another occasion, Giordano did not make suitable arrangements for her children on a day a doctor told her she was going to be admitted to the hospital. The order shows she took her children to Duke Hospital. To avoid calling child protective services, the doctor took the children home with her. The doctor called it a crisis and Giordano called it a great opportunity for the children to get to know the person treating their mother. Finally, when the children were visiting their father, Giordano failed to send her son's epinephrine pen. The judge believes that shows she has difficulty separating her anger from the well-being of her children."

Considering in both our countries how rare it is for a father to get custody of their children there is more to this story than is being let on. This expectation that only the mother should have custody of their children is wrong its what is best for the child not the parent. Also the way she attacked the judge is so wrong

Mrs Giordano has questioned the way that the decision was made by the female family court judge.

'How does a woman with no kids and who has never been married become a judge in family court?' she wrote on her blog.

'From some of the things that she wrote in the order, it is clear that she has no insight into motherhood, marriage or an intimate partner relationship.

'This judge is trying to use theory to make decisions upon which she has no practical experience. This is very dangerous.

'A mother would know better than to rip happy, well-adjusted children from their mother who has been their primary caregiver since conception and send them to a father who was a weekend dad at best.

Every child deserves better than a judge with no parenting experience.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ody-children-breast-cancer.html#ixzz1MFTMYEK6

The judge is their to be impartial and to go by legal reason. If what she is saying that only a mother should preside over custody cases does that mean only victims of rape should precide over rape cases? Only victims of abuse over abuse cases.

Wow. After reading these 2 posts it shows that the article in the OP definitely doesn't cover it all. The mother doesn't seem to be some innocent victim that she is making herself out to be.