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

[FredinFL]

They rarely are, are they?

 

[NaLisa]

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.

That's what I'm thinking. All we're hearing is the mom's side, and I really find it hard to believe that the mom's cancer was the primary reason the judge awarded custody to the father. I'm also leery of stories like this when they become a call for donations, and I see that see that money is pouring in via FB.

 

[lpereira]

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8127895

It doesn't sound like it was just because she had breast cancer.
She is also unemployed not just a sahm, she was previously an editor and freelance writer. The breast cancer appears to unfortunately been diagnosed about the same time or around when the couple was already heading for a divorce- so I don't think the ex-husband is some sort of monster who divorced his wife over her cancer. Under North Carolina law she is not entitled to alimony because of the adultery. She probably would have received alimony because it appears that the family moved to NC so the husband could study at Duke- but this was negated by the adultery. This means she has no means of financial support other than the child support (which should only go for the support of the children not the parent) and possibly SSI.
It's quite possible that both parents are not angels in this. There were unproven allegations of spousal abuse that the judge heard. Btw the judge is a well respected 17 year veteran (i think it but it may be 15) of the family court system who was going to be pilloried no matter which decision she made.

One thing is certain only those people who were present when the facts were being aired in court actually know what this case is about. So people signing petitions to remove the judge and or return the children are just wrong. I wouldn't ever want my court case (any case) to be decided or overturned based on a popular but ill formed opinion.

 

[disfan07]

I think that so many people are jumping to conclusions based on a news article which seems to be very biased. And from these posts that I have read, there seems to be a lot more to the story.

But there still seems to automatically be the mindset that the kids should automatically stay with the mother. The mother isn't always the best choice. And people also seem to assume that abuse charges mean that all the claims were made by the mother. The father could have claims that are justifiable as well.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think either of these parents are completely innocent but the more I read from the mother, the more it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But I personally do think that in general in this country, father's get the short end of the stick when it comes to custody battles and I think that fuels a lot of the outrage. So many people think that regardless of the situation, that the mother is the best person to care for the kids...not always.

But on the subject of this case....something doesn't seem right with this story. For all we know, the father might have gotten primary custody but there might be visitation arangements that he had to agree to so that the kids can see their mother. There are probably so many facts that are missing that it is so wrong to attack the father and the judge just from the article.

 

[bicker]

Sorry back atchya, I think that's a crock.

It isn't. There are myriad considerations that come into play, from conflicting parties with reasonable perspectives. The courts are where such disputes are resolved. No one gets to impose their will by fiat. The current-custodial parent doesn't own the children.

The court should not be deciding whether or not a person being sick mitigates the loss of their children.

The court isn't doing that. They're deciding what the best option for the children is. Nothing more. You're choosing to impose a malevolent tilt to it, to try to make your point, but there is nothing about what the court is doing that is related to what you're accusing the court of doing. It's like calling red "blue" - it just doesn't make it true.

So now, any parent suffering from cancer can have the children taken away because they might die from the disease?

No. You're taking the reality that society and its courts have an obligation to make the best decision for the children and corrupting that into an absolute implication "if X then Y". That's simply not even remotely related to what's going on. Rather, the courts weigh factors and make reasonable decisions. They don't blindly apply capricious standards, which is what you're trying to make it sound like.

Don't you see how ridiculous that is?

It is easy to post projections that are ridiculous situations, but since they're not relevant to the matter of courts determining custody, it doesn't matter.

 

[bicker]

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

Yup, no question. However, we can rest assured that the judge's decision is probably sounder than any "decision" being made by someone posting online based on news reports. That doesn't mean that the judge can't be wrong - just that there is no reason to believe that the judge is wrong in this case based on any poster saying that they want to judge to be considered wrong.

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

There are no parental Constitutional rights, in matters of custody. What is in play is the children's welfare, and their rights. No one parent is owed custody based on rights, to the exclusion of the other parent.

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.

I don't think you really want to get "disturbed" about an opinion about what happened. Only if it is actually true, and completely true, would there be any basis to be disturbed. It may make you feel better about it if you add on the reasonable projection, "If it wasn't for her medical condition, then (and only then) would it be in the best interest for the children to stay with the mother, but because of her medical condition, it is in the best interest for the children to stay with the father." That's almost surely what the father's side of this argument is, and again, at this point, there is no reason to be absolutely sure that that's not necessarily the case.

I think that so many people are jumping to conclusions based on a news article which seems to be very biased

Good point... We all need to be much more skeptical about everything presented to us, from any quarter, including those we trust the most. Nothing short of a comprehensive set of all relevant objective evidence, personally reviewed, serves as a sound basis for an unequivocal determination of anything, ever. We often have to settle for less, but when there is no compelling need to do so, then we shouldn't.

But there still seems to automatically be the mindset that the kids should automatically stay with the mother.

It's called bias. It stems from old, and now sufficiently discredited thinking, about gender roles in society.

There are probably so many facts that are missing that it is so wrong to attack the father and the judge just from the article.

Absolutely.

 

[sparklynails23]

What came first, the separation or the other man? What came first, the illness or the joblessness? Is she unemployable because she was a sahm? Did she support her husband while he was in school? I still think the judge's ruling is b.s. Her husband left the kids with her to move to Chicago, so he must have thought she was good enough then. Or was it just more convenient for him at that point?