Not all women gain custody

[MMandM]

Today an Orange County family court judge took away a six-year-old girl from her mother and the only home she's known since birth. The judge decided to do so because the mother perjured herself and falsely accused the father of sexually fondling their child to prevent him from gaining custody or any visitation privilege. Perjury doesn't necessarily mean a mother is unfit to raise her child, and that is normally the main central point. The father has gained primary custody and the mother was ordered to pay child support.

 

I think the judge's reasoning and this theory he followed holds the idea that taking the child away from the lying parent IS in the best interest of the child.

 

Do you agree with the Judges decision?

Edited May 10, 2007 by MarkInAlisoViejo

[Drewbie]

Yea, unless she did like cause of abuse of other sorts.

 

She could of also tried to get her daughter to lie later on in life.

[DomLuka]

He was right. Falsely accusing a father of molestation isn

[Luc]

My first reaction was that no, just perjuring herself shouldn

[Graeme]

The justice system is based on the principle that people are supposed to tell the truth under oath. By commiting perjury, the mother has not only committed a serious offense, but has shown that her character is seriously flawed in that she doesn't appear to think that corrupting the justice system is something she shouldn't do.

 

"In a child's best interests" also includes the environment that they will grow up in. The mother has shown a disrespect for the legal system upon which the nation is based. While it is unlikely, (the circumstances are such that the mother is unlikely to commit the same crime again) it has to be considered if this will lead the child to have a similar disrespect for the legal system.

 

I won't go as far as to say that there is no doubt about the judge's decision, but I believe they did the right thing.

 

Dom's comment about damage to the child is, to me, the clincher. If it had been perjury on another topic (such as what assets she owned during the divorce settlement), it would have been a lot tougher call.

[MMandM]

So

Edited May 10, 2007 by MarkInAlisoViejo

[JamesSavik]

Not only should this f-ing bitch lose her daughter permanently, she should do some time.

 

Prosecutors love to grandstand sex cases. If her husband had been found guilty, which is very easy in cases like this (the standard of proof in sex cases is scary) he would have gone to jail for 15-20 years by many states sentencing guidelines.

 

Mommy dearest tried to ruin this guy in a particularly heinous way. False allegations clog the system, damage everyone and make people think twice when they see other sex cases. She can't walk away scot free. Smart ass prosecutors who like to grandstand sex cases need to put the hammer down on the lying liars who make false allegations for their own personal gain.

 

Many sex offenders are killed in prison. A false allegations is on par with attempted murder.

[AFriendlyFace]

He was right. Falsely accusing a father of molestation isn

Edited May 10, 2007 by AFriendlyFace

[Graeme]

Kitty, I hear what you are saying and I have to agree. I'm not involved in the law, but I've heard enough to know that there are dead-beat dads who don't pay child-support and who go out of their way to avoid showing an income and hence can claim they can't afford to give their ex any money.

 

Equally, there are some women who do whatever they can to make sure their ex doesn't have access to their children (sometimes with good reason).

 

I'm an optimist -- I would like to think that the majority of times people will do the right thing. Divorce is rarely amicable, unfortunately, so there has to be some pain involved. The responsible parents try to make sure that the pain doesn't get transmitted to the kids.

 

Who, as a general rule, should get prime custody of any children? As a principle, I think children under 12 should go with their mother and children 12 and over should be asked their own opinion and that's the primary driver. Why 12? Because that's approximately when puberty hits and life becomes complicated. Up until then, children tend to be more centered on their mothers. HOWEVER there are always exceptions where the mother is the poorer choice and fathers CAN successfully look after children under 12. The principle I have put forward should not be the overarching factor in the decision. I also believe that access by the non-custodial parent should be encouraged as much as possible -- no access should be either by the choice of non-custodial parent, or as a last resort of the courts.

 

I'll concede that some of this could be a social bias -- people expect young children to be with their mothers more than their fathers. Our legal system tends to reflect this social bias (which could make it a self-perpetuating thing).

[MMandM]

There have been plenty of women who have been abused by the legal system, especially in cases of divorce. I can't tell you the number of horror stories I have witnessed where the female partner has been treated like crap by the courts and the lawyers, including her own lawyer. She may retain custody, but receive no child support, for example, even when she was subjected to physical and emotional abuse in the marriage.

 

I agree with you Kitty, it does happen quite often, what women can do is find legal aid in their area where they don't have to pay for the lawyer if they're not financially able.

 

My best advice for them is to call their local Legal Bar Association and they will direct them, they can also contact their states child enforcement agency and apply for service.

 

In recent years the States have stepped in and started acting as the middle-man but in a lot of older divorces they never were involved and in some states the state only gets involved in the actual payments if the mother is getting State Aid or if the payments aren't getting there at all.

 

And on another note, parental rights and duties are INDEPENDENT with respect to an existing parent/child relationship. This means that a parent has the right to maintain a meaningful relationship with his/her child. This right is neither dependent upon nor contingent upon the parent fulfilling duties, i.e., paying support.

 

Some custodial parents will often times refuse to allow noncustodial parents the right to visit their children because support obligations have not been paid or are overdue. However, if support is not being paid, the custodial parent may not lawfully withhold visitation. Rather, the custodial parent must seek to enforce the duty of support in a court of law. The right to a meaningful relationship with one's child is NOT dependent on the duty of support. In this respect, rights and duties are independent.

 

Visitation is presumed to be in the best interests of the child. However, that presumption can be rebutted.

Edited May 11, 2007 by MarkInAlisoViejo

[Drewbie]

Or some I known of When a couple gets a divorce cause the husband turns out gay, ex wife does everything in her power to make sure that the ex husband doesn't get to see their kid

 

Not alot but some, where they take about all the money & don't go to work, or further their education.

 

 

Two of mom's friends ex's aren't the greatest and well he's a douche, Don't get me started with my aunts ex

 

So yes both do it, but seems now it's more one sided that it has been, where they don't listen to the other side, and give about everything to the ex wife.

 

I think if I ever get married I would get a prenuptial. I hope that this Lady will think of what she's done, Her ex hasn't been totally ruined.

Edited May 11, 2007 by Drewbie