Strollerderby : custody

Breaking News: Brazilian Custody Case Suspended

SunnyChanel — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:54:00 GMT

The saga continues. The man who was to be reunited with his son after years of waiting and litigation will have to, sadly, wait longer. David Goldman was to regain custody of his nine-year-old son on Wednesday – a judgment issued by a Federal judge. But a Brazilian supreme court has suspended the court order due to an emergency request filed a small political party. They made the claim that the whole scenario had turned into a political matter. Due to this injunction, the Brazilian court must now go convene for a full trial - which could take days or even months. (For a synopsis of the saga check out Brett’s post here.)

According to the AP:

“The Progressive Party argued that the boy should not be returned to the United States in such an "abrupt manner." It said he should stay in Brazil because he has been living in the country for five years and would be stripped of his current family environment of "happiness, love and comprehension," the supreme court statement said.

The party also said the boy could suffer psychological damage because of the order to immediately put him in the care of his biological father, and that the outcome of the case reflected an interest in "prioritizing international relations over the fundamental rights of a Brazilian native" boy, the supreme court statement said."

I can’t imagine being in Goldman’s shoes. Being so close to getting your son back and yet delayed once again. What would you do if you were in his shoes?

Source

Breaking News - New Jersey Dad Wins Brazilian Custody Case

Brett Singer — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:37:00 GMT

This is a strange story but the ending appears to be a happy one.

The details, from CNN:

- Sean's parents divorced and mom moved him to Brazil in 2004

- Mom died in childbirth in 2008, leaving Sean with stepfather

- Sean Goldman, 8, to be turned over to U.S. Consulate on Wednesday

Hilary Clinton even referred to the case yesterday, which is unusual. But so is the story itself.

If you want to get depressed before you get happy, read this letter that Sean's father, David Goldman, wrote at BringSeanHome.org. There's even ('natch) a Facebook group, with over 40,000 members. One more from the "get angry before you get happy" file: Sean's stepdad's lawyer compared the decision to allow Sean to return to the United States with being sent to a "Nazi concentration camp," according to a post in that Facebook group.

David Goldman is supposed to arrive in Rio de Janeiro this morning to pick up his son. Something tells me he won't be all that interested in sight-seeing.

Source: CNN

UPDATE: President Obama Issues Statement About Dr. George Tiller

Babble Talk Radio Live - Friday May 29 - Listen Here

Texas Parents in Legal Limbo For Months to See Boys

Amy Kuras — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:30:00 GMT

Imagine calling the paramedics after your four year old had a seizure – thereby setting a chain of events into motion that causes both your children to be taken from your home for two years.

That’s exactly what happened to Chris and Laura Dobbins of Midlothian, Texas. Two trials later – one civil, one criminal – they were found not guilty of child abuse. The civil jury’s verdict that they should not lose custody of their children, however, was never affirmed by the judge so they have been in legal limbo since December.

Now, the final hurdle of the criminal trial cleared, they are just waiting to hear when their sons, now ages 7 and 6, can be returned to them. The oldest boy is Laura Dobbins’ biological son, the younger, Chris’.

They’ve been in foster care since the younger boy suffered a seizure at home in 2007 and doctors found the boy had bleeding on the brain, a cut on his pancreas, and old fractures on his wrists. Defense attorneys said during the criminal trial that the boy suffers from a rare disease called Henoch-Schönlein purpura, or HSP, which causes blood vessels to become inflamed and could have caused the injuries to the child's brain and pancreas. They also claimed the fractures could have happened when the boy was with his biological mother, with whom Chris Dobbins had recently finished a long drawn out custody battle.

If the juries were right, I am happy for these parents and hopeful for the boys that they can put this awfulness behind them. And in a child protective system where so many monster parents are left unchecked…I really, really hope the juries were right.

Save Aaliyah Puts Dad on Trial by YouTube Jury

JeanneSager — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:34:00 GMT

It's a blurry night vision video of a two-and-a-half-year-old talking in two-year-old-ese, but it's enough to have prompted thousands of YouTube viewers to start demanding an investigation into possible sexual abuse of a little girl.

But is Save Aaliyah a hoax?

The video was put online by Connie Bedwell, a California mother who lost custody of her daughter to her ex. A nine-minute rambling example of a situation Bedwell says is typical of the times she spends with her daughter, it includes the toddler referring to "Daddy's worm" and notes that she often tells Daddy "don't do that."

Bedwell's site, Save Aaliyah, also sports a lengthy list of examples that she says are evidence of abuse, including bruises on the baby's back, and repeated mentions that daddy hurt her and "owies."

It's all the evidence a lot of parenting bloggers have needed to demand child protective services yank the little girl from her father's home. A host of YouTube posts have cropped up directing you to the Save Aaliyah site and calling for justice, and a petition site sports more than thirteen hundred signatures calling for help for Aaliyah.

But here's the rub. Connie's local newspaper has done interviews with the police and district attorney's office, and they've all cleared Aaliyah's dad of wrongdoing. I'd like to think that child protective services would be in the right here, would have a clearer understanding of the matter at hand than a bunch of YouTube watchers.

So is the Website fair? Should Bedwell be fighting the good fight (if you really believed your child was being sexually abused, wouldn't you?) or is putting these type of details out on the 'net as part of a custody battle just proof that the judge has made the right decision?

Image: SaveAaliyah

Dad Fined $2,000 for Cursing in Front of Kid

JeanneSager — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:01:00 GMT

Forget the cussing jar. What if every time you dropped an F-bomb in front of your kid you had to pay up to the tune of $2K?

I'm no sailor, but one LEGO in the bare foot later, and my bank account would be wiped.

A father in Pennsylvania is fighting a court-mandated "no cursing zone" put forth by the judge overseeing the custody of his nine-year-old. The judge issued a requirement that the man, "refrain from using any profanity when dealing with mother and mother's husband, and using any type of language around the children that's inappropriate."

On the whole, I'd agree. Divorces are rough enough without dad getting nasty with mom and her new hubby. And parents shouldn't, by and large, curse in front of their kids. It's uncouth.

But doesn't this sound kind of vague? Any inappropriate language, meaning, what? My parents didn't let us use the word "fart." Is that a finable offense? What about the parents who say don't say the word "stupid." Or what about "crap?"

The dad has since used some sort of four-letter word. The story in the Bucks County Courier doesn't say which one (could be crap!), but it earned dad a $2,000 fine. Apparently, the judge thinks he was being a sh---y father (oops, I went and said it).

The man is challenging his fine on the basis of free speech, and I'd tend to agree with him. Cursing At your kids on any sort of consistent basis isn't OK - that's abuse. But cursing in front of them. On occasion? It happens. And we're definitely NOT the only ones who do it. My daughter learned the word "bulls--t" from my mother, I'll have you know (yes, the same woman who wouldn't let me say "fart."). She heard "s--t" in the deli the other day, and "a--hole" in the lobby at the doctor's office.

Maybe His Honor would like to take this show on the road? He could follow my three-year-old and I around town and hand out fines.

Image: Sodahead

Mom Uses Breastfeeding as Weapon in Custody Battle

JeanneSager — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:01:00 GMT

The story is full of bad breastfeeding puns (that, honestly cracked me up), but an interesting case came up in the Globe and Mail this weekend. A mom has made her breastfeeding schedule so rigorous that the ex-boyfriend who fathered their child has been essentially totally cut off from spending any time with his daughter.

A judge has decided enough is enough. Either wean your child or start pumping honey, because Daddy's got to have a go.

Jennifer Johne and Carl Cavannah were together only briefly, but their relationship resulted in the birth of a little girl in June 2006. Although the couple was broken up, Cavannah made it clear he wanted to be in their daughter's life, even quitting his job so he could move closer to Johne and the little girl. He volunteered (volunteered!) to pay child support, and bought books on parenting.

But Johne told him he couldn't take the little girl anywhere, because she needed be with mom to be breastfed. The Globe and Mail cites an e-mail from Johne to Cavannah that makes it pretty clear she was about to sway on the issue: "A baby belongs with its mother, and if you had an understanding of the needs of a fully breast-fed baby and truly had [her] interests at heart, you would not be bringing this subject up again."

Now with the baby ~~facing~~ past her second birthday, the date the World Health Organization suggests breastfeeding up to, a judge has said it's over. Johne can breastfeed her toddler if she wants to, but she has to do it via pumped milk, so Cavannah can spend some real time with his daughter.

Frankly, I'm surprised he waited this long to "bring this subject up again." Because as wonderful as breastfeeding is (and this is very definitely not a breastfeeding vs. formula post), it's also pretty darn great for a child to have their biological parent who WANTS to be in the picture and has demonstrated themselves to be a a willing and able participant in their life. If anything, this mother is proving not how important it is to breastfeed but the theories of those women who would say breastfeeding chains them to their child.

Because while there are the bonding elements of breastfeeding, the larger part of the argument has always been that breastmilk itself is healthier than formula. So pumping and handing it over to her ex-boyfriend to feed their daughter would still make this child a "full breast-fed baby," albeit one who had the opportunity to bond with both her mother AND her father during her formative years.

Johne actually works in a daycare (which enabled her to keep her daughter around her so constantly), where she sees perfectly healthy and able children who are not attached to the mother's breast constantly.

What irks me about this story? This is a woman who has put breastfeeding above everything else. She's taken "breast is best" to an extreme that's unhealthy, and makes a bad name for breastfeeders everywhere.

Image: EcoStreet

Also on Babble:

The Backlash to Breast is Best

Judge: Home-Schooled Kids Must Go to Public School

JeanneSager — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:01:00 GMT

In a decision that will no doubt have home-schooling parents everywhere spitting mad, a judge in North Carolina has ordered three children in the midst of a divorce proceeding be sent back to public school.

But don't pull out the pitchforks yet moms and dads - this comes down to religion . . . or quasi-religion anyway.

Judge Ned Mangum has granted Thomas Mills and his now ex-wife, Venessa, joint custody of their three kids, ages ten, eleven and twelve. But he's over-ruled Venessa's request that she be able to continue their home-schooled curriculum, which includes swimming lessons, piano and instruction via Web Cam from Sound Doctrine, a Washington-based church group described by some as a cult.

It's the Sound Doctrine work that concerns Thomas Mills, who has said in court affidavits that after getting involved in the church (online), his wife withdrew and became a different person from the woman he married. While his wife called on evidence that their kids have tested at least two grades above grade level in the program, he countered with witnesses who testified to the "church's" leader making lascivious and inappropriate statements about young girls and called on Venessa's mother to speak out against her daughter's practices as a parent.

Check out the church site for yourself (or this scathing look at its philosophies) - see if you agree with kids being taught to "keep yourself in the fear of God and do not seek too much freedom. Restrain all your passions under discipline and do not give yourself to foolish mirth." OK sheep-le, no laughing, no showing passion for anything and for God's sake, you are NOT free. You are oppressed, kids, and that is good.

Their other site, by the way, is down not because it's under construction but "at the Lord's direction."

Still, Venessa Mills is earning a band of supporters - home-schooling parents who say the judge's decision puts their decisions to home-school at risk, even though they have no personal affiliations with Sound Doctrine. Says the parent who created Home School Liberty, "I suddenly realized that if I do not stand up and take action I might lose my parental right to teach my children according to my own beliefs and convictions."

I have several home-schooling friends who are doing a fine job - and know plenty of home-schooled kids who can attest to its success, so I'd agree that protecting parents' rights to home-school is important. But this case may well be a litmus test of where states should - or at least can - draw the line on what a home-school curriculum entails.

Is this an invasion of a parent's right to choose a lifestyle for their kids? Or is this appropriate use of the state's power?

Image: HSLDA

School Helps Child Escape Dad for the Big City

JeanneSager — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:34:00 GMT

A teenage boy's allegations that his father abused him may have won him enough sympathy that school officials kidnapped him.

The fifteen-year-old didn't come home from his South Carolina high school one day, but when his desperate father went to police, he soon learned the boy had taken off for his mother's home in New York.

Keith Jenkins has legal custody of his son, but he alleges the boy's principal and a school janitor ignored that when they helped the teen catch a Greyhound bus headed northward. The school staff has told police the boy claimed he was being abused - allegations, by the way, that the police say have been investigated and were unfounded.

Even if a child were being abused, how does a school principal decide the best option is to put a teenager on a bus for a ten- to twelve-hour trip, with no idea what is going to happen next? New York City isn't the scary, scary place that some people make it out to be, but for a kid, alone, especially a kid unfamiliar with the city, pulling up in the Port Authority is not exactly a safe alternative. Did they know what he was going to do once he got there? That he wasn't headed up to the city to meet a stranger he'd been chatting with online or to try to seek his fame and fortune as a fifteen-year-old rock star (come on, teenagers watch a LOT of TV)? That his mother was any better parent than his father?

A court had already given his father legal custody - apparently for a reason. So why did school officials think they were smarter than a judge?

School officials have no business mediating divorce and custody disputes. That's why there are family courts, judges, social workers. . . The same goes for child abuse allegations. The school is mandated to report them - and that's where it should end. Their business is in being there for kids, which puts them much too close to the issue to look at it objectively. Child abuse allegations are serious - but sometimes, they're just allegations. Kids lie sometimes (often for attention), and anything less than a thorough investigation doesn't help anyone.

How would you feel if your school district was stepping in to your divorce?

Image: NYCSubway.org

Michigan Court Must Hear Lesbian Custody Dispute

JeanneSager — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:31:00 GMT

The residents of Michigan passed a gay marriage ban in 2004, but that doesn't mean the courts can't weigh in on a lesbian couple's custody dispute.

A court ruled last week that the legal adoption of three children by two gay Michigan residents - while they were living in Illinois - must not only be recognized by the Michigan courts but addressed as the now estranged couple attempts to navigate a custody arrangement.

Diane Giancaspro and Lisa Congleton have three children between them, adopted in 1998, 1999 and 2002, while the couple was living in Illinois, a state that recognizes both parents in a homosexual relationship and allows for joint adoption. The women broke up in 2007 - after moving to Michigan.

But when Giancaspro sued for custody under Michigan law, her former partner called for the case's dismissal. Congleton was attempting to use the state's refusal to recognize domestic partnerships in her favor, stating that neither parent has rights in the state of Michigan. As depressing as it is that a lesbian had to make use of the laws that are set up AGAINST her to retain a connection with her children, it worked. The judge in the case said she recognized the "validity" of the adoption but couldn't enfore either woman's parental rights.

Giancaspro, with the help of the ACLU, took the case to an appeals court. Last week, a two to one decision from the court mandated the issue be put back before a Michigan court, ruling that the U.S. Constitution protects the adoption and therefore allows for a custody dispute to be mediated in a family court setting.

The decision has, of course, prompted suggestions by family values advocates that it's time for a gay adoption ban in Michigan (really guys? as if the gay marriage ban didn't prove you can't pull your heads from your you-know-whats?). But it's a victory for gay parents, who are finally getting access to a right afforded every other parent in the state - the right to their day in court.

I still can't help but come back to Congleton's argument, however. I understand she was grasping at the same straws any parent would to keep their children, but there's something deeply saddening about a mother forced to embrace the very laws that denied her rights that should be granted her as a member of the human race in order to be there for her kids.

Would you compromise your values in this kind of situation?

Image: Wikipedia

Some Good News in Cross-Continental Custody Battle

JeanneSager — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:32:00 GMT

Remember David Goldman, the Jersey dad whose wife up and moved to Brazil, cutting him off without a chance to see their four-year-old son? The story got us all ferklempt, not to mention righteously indignant on Dad's behalf when it came to light on the Today Show last fall.

Put down your pitchforks parents! Four years after his wife took off, divorced him, remarried and died, Goldman finally got to see his son this week.

It's a two tissue box tale if there ever was one. Goldman bid son Sean and wife Bruna goodbye at Newark International Airport in June 2004. He thought they were simply going to visit Bruna's family in her native Brazil, and they'd be home in due time.

Then he got word from Bruna that she wasn't coming back. Oh, and by the way, she wanted a divorce. Court battles ensued, but Goldman couldn't get past the Brazilian roadblocks, and his wife had remarried a "well-connected" Brazilian attorney who was helping her every step of the way. Then came word that Bruna had died during childbirth in August 2008. David Goldman thought he finally had a chance at his son; only to hear that the attorney was filing for a name change to take Goldman's off of Sean's birth certificate.

When the story became public, politicians from the U.S. stepped in to help. New Jersey Congressman U.S. Rep. Christopher Smith, traveled to Brazil this week with Goldman, securing visitation for father and son while he put pressure on the Brazilian government, warning them that they are violating the Hague Convention, an international adoption treaty.

It's not over yet, but can you imagine having been the fly on the wall for that meeting between father and son? We'd be talking a three-tissue-box story then.

Now Goldman's supporters are looking for letters to be sent to Congressmen who will help co-sponsor a bill - along with Smith - to call for Brazil to conform under the Hague Convention rules and send Sean (and American citizen) home with his father to the states. Get a look at the bill and a list of congressmen here.

Image: Bring Sean Home.org

Britney Spears Will Cancel Tour If Kids Can't Come

Brett Singer — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Famecrawler and TMZ are reporting that Britney Spears says that she won't tour if her kids can't join her.

When I first saw this I thought, "Oh good. Another loony celeb mom who wants to drag her young'uns around the globe. What's wrong with these people?"

Upon further reading, it seems that Brit wants to set things up so that Sean Preston and Jayden James would stay put at three different "bases" in New Jersey, New Orleans, and Los Angeles. Mama Britney would "commute" from her shows to the home bases, thereby enabling her to tour and see the boys.

Why is this even a story? Because Britney, her family Jamie Spears (not to be confused with Jamie LYNN Spears, Britney's sister) and Kevin Federline (K-Fed) worked out this deal on their own. Without the lawyers. And that, my friends, is a veddy bad idea.

According to TMZ, K-Fed's lawyer Mark Vincent Kaplan says that the situation, "could have been handled better if Jamie and company would have 'manned up' and had Kevin got the benefit of his lawyers to protect his position." K-Fed's attorney will present his own version of the deal, thereby justifying his existence and removing a roadblock to the deal going through – his ego.

Regarding that last paragraph: I'm not sure that I'm correct about that analysis, but I think I am.

Here's what I have a problem with here. As a parent, I would think that Britney and K-Fed would want to keep the details of their custody battle private. If Britney's dad can work out a deal with them, why is K-Fed's lawyer jumping in and mucking up the works, and possibly leaking the information to the press? Again: I need to say that I don't know if Mr. Kaplan, K-Fed's attorney, leaked anything. But he did provide a quote to TMZ about Jamie Spears "manning up". What kind of language is that? Why not keep things as cordial as possible? I understand him wanting to look for K-Fed's interests. But why insult the kids' grandfather, who is also in charge of Britney's interests at the moment?

As for Britney touring or not, I think that she's entitled to go out on the road since that's her job. If it were Federline who had a successful career (or any career at all, frankly), I seriously doubt that anyone would be concerned with what happens to the kids, despite that fact that he has custody. I don't think it's a great idea for kids to be schlepped all over the globe while mom prances around in stadiums wearing Spandex. But if they can work out a way to do it so that the kids aren't overly inconvenienced, what's wrong with that? Anglina Jolie and Brad Pitt bring those kids all over the place and nobody seems to mind.

I have to admit that reading this story, my eyes started to roll back in my head. Even keeping straight which Jamie Spears they're talking about – the father or the sister – starts to get difficult after awhile. Maybe I need to read more gossip magazines.

Source: Famecrawler, TMZ

Bart Simpson-Scientologist

Sarah Palin Says Leave My Kids Alone

Ann Coulter Says Single Moms Are Bad For Society

Mom Bugs Kid's Teddy Bear to Spy on Ex

JeanneSager — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:04:00 GMT

Convinced your ex is up to nefarious deeds? If you're thinking about planting a recording device in your preschooler's teddy bear for his next visit to Dad's pad, you might want to REthink your plans.

William "Duke" Lewton of Nebraska is in the process of suing his ex-wife for bugging their four-year-old's bear to catch any big secrets revealed during his custody visits. As in, anything she could use against him in court.

Lewton alleges Dianna Divingnzzo or her dad (Lewton's former father-in-law) slipped a tape recorder into the little girl's bear, then tried to use the tapes during child custody proceedings in court. Too bad for Divingnzzo, the judge threw them out as inadmissable.

I'm not up on laws in Nebraska, but as a reporter in New York, I'm aware that in order to make a legal recording, at least one party to the conversation has to be aware he or she is being recorded. So if, say, Divingnzzo was caught on tape with Lewton - that part would likely be admissable here (since she knew they were being taped). Any other conversation would be off limits - including Lewton's talks with his daughter. The judge in the couple's custody case said even hearing the tapes would be illegal, as was the taping itself.

I feel kind of icky about the people who plop a camera in their kid's bear to watch the nanny. I can't imagine making the kid's toy part of my own plot to limit her time with Daddy. Talk about sullying the innocence of childhood.

The tapes, by the way, revealed nothing more than normal conversations between a father and his little girl, according to a report in the Omaha World-Herald.

The person who thought to rip a head off a kid's teddy bear, stuff a tape recorder inside and fasten head and body back together, however? Not normal. Not by a long stretch.

Image: CubeMe

Should Out-of-Work Parents Get Off Child Support Hook?

Having a Kid Alone? Don't Tell Me Why I Have it Better

Court Bans Divorced Mom's Partner from Sleeping Over

Mother Sues OB Who Said She "Deserved Pain"—And Gave It to Her

Toddler Injured in Xmas Tree Fight Between Mom and Grandma

Should Out-of-Work Parents Get Off Child Support Hook?

JeanneSager — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:25:00 GMT

I kind of felt bad for the Dad who wrote to the Houston Chronicle law advice columnist, asking if he could get a break on his child support payments while he's out of work. Um, NOT!

Yeah, yeah, we know about the economy. But while I understand it's tough to pay your bills when you're out of a job, cutting expenses doesn't mean cutting out the kids.

Says the columnist, "Maybe. You can hire a lawyer and seek court approval for a modification of your court-ordered child support payments."

He's quick to advise against it, pushing for mediation with the ex-wife and warning that by the time the motion makes it through court, the dad could already be back in an office. If the ex can agree, if she can financially hold down the fort for awhile, if you can agree to make restitution later, that's one thing.

I'm appalled that a dad who insists he's "not a deadbeat," still doesn't understand that the responsibility of child support isn't about how much money you make. It's about supporting your child. Child support payments be set too high (yes, courts are imperfect, some lawyers are actually pretty sucky negotiators). But what about parents who are still together? When we lose our jobs, we don't get to outsource parenting our kids. We don't get to throw up our hands and say, "sorry, no buying groceries for you anymore." We scrimp, and we save, and we put our kids first because we are THEIR PARENTS.

When you're getting a divorce or separation, you tell your kids, "Mommy and Daddy still love you very much." You don't tell them, "out of sight, out of mind."

I have never been through the child support issue myself (knock wood), but I've watched a myriad of friends - male and female - navigate the system. They've complained about their ex or whined about what said ex was doing with the cash. But when asked if they would ever go back to fight the amount they pay, what one non-custodial parent had to say made a lot of sense. "If I was still able to live with my kids, I'd spend this money. I'd be buying food for their stomachs and putting clothes on their backs. They're my kids, and this is my job. Do I like handing the money over to the b-tch I was married to? I don't think of it that way. I think of it as being their Dad."

After all, that's why it's called child support - because you're supporting your child.

Image: Gotler

Stop Sending Palin Baby Presents

Court Bans Divorced Mom's Partner from Sleeping Over

Thrift Shops Struggle Under New Phthalate, Lead Ban

Kid Woos Prospective Foster Parents With Letters

When Every Day is Bring Your Kid to Work Day

Missing Girl Reunited With Father

Brett Singer — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:30:00 GMT

Here is a bit of mostly good news:

"A 5-year-old Wisconsin girl whose disappearance prompted an Amber Alert has been reunited with her father."

That's good, of course. I particularly like a story where Amber Alert works. Makes you feel good about emergency systems.

And here's the less good part:

"The girl's biological mother, Lori Eberle (EB'-er-lee), is being held on possible charges of interfering with custody of a child after the two were located in Paw Paw, Mich."

Basically, there's a custody dispute, and the mother took the kid. Which is a bummer. But she was found, and hopefully they'll be able to work everything out.

Oh, and "Paw Paw" is a funny name for a town. That doesn't mean anything but maybe it'll make you smile for a second or two.

Source: AP via Chicago Tribune

Image: maine.gov

Woman Swings Crowbar At Trick Or Treaters

Smokers No Longer Allowed Foster Children

Mississippi Students, Postal Worker, Punished For Wearing Obama Shirts

Grown Kids Try Forcing Dad To Divorce Second Wife In Court

Teacher Has Affair With Student, Parents Say Keep The Door Open

Guy Changes Name to Captain Fantastic

Sarah Palin Gets Pranked By Canadian Radio Hosts – Video

Does Shared Custody Mess Kids Up?

Kate Tuttle — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:05:00 GMT

Just in time for the holiday guilt all divorced parents fall prey to -- nothing says "Merry Christmas" like an enforced transition on Christmas Eve and a day spent alone but for the bottle of Kahlua, tin-full of sugar cookies, or whatever your choice of single-parent pain-duller -- comes an article proclaiming post-divorce shared custody a disaster for the children involved. Granted, this is an article from an Australian newspaper, chockfull of quotes from disgruntled parents but not based on any kind of study, but still, as a divorced parent who has shared custody since my now-teenager was four years old, it stings.

Kate, a parent quoted in the article, says, "They'll realise (50-50 parenting orders) are a mistake in about 10 years time – and that they've screwed up a generation." She talks about her worries for her daughter:

"I've seen her compartmentalising her life. And I worry about that. Will these kids have romantic relationships where they can settle down in one life?

"I wonder how they will ever go about making relationships for themselves that are permanent."

This is a hot topic in Australia ever since the passage of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsiblity) Act of 2006, which enacted the presumption for all family court judges that it's in the best interests of children for parents to have "equal shared parental responsibility."

Now, I know plenty of single mothers who would point out that this is a good problem to have -- far too many fathers pull a disappearing act post-divorce. Still, co-parenting can be one of those "be careful what you wish for" situations; you get all the loneliness and angst of single-parenting, yet none of the autonomy or control of being the family's sole "decider." And being forced to cooperate with someone you couldn't stand being married to is a tough one for nearly all divorced parents, a high-wire act we only take on out of deep devotion to our kids.

Eleven years on, my own family's shared-parenting experiment seems to be working. Do I often wonder whether it would have been better for my teenager to have one primary home and limited contact with one of her parents? Sure -- so long as I was the primary parent. But knowing that she has a deep, loving relationship with each of us, and hearing her talk about her gratitude for that, makes it feel like we made the right choice, if not for us, then at least for her.

As for anyone else's family, I can't imagine judging. Trying to figure out what's best for your children when you're struggling with the anguish of divorce is among life's most unforgiving tests. And what works for one kid won't be the best thing for another, even in the same family. Factor in the difficulty many divorced parents have evenn speaking civilly to one another, and you're facing a high degree of difficulty just keeping your kid in matching socks, let alone mentally and emotionally healthy.

Trend pieces like this may help us understand the difficulty judges and legislators have in balancing everybody's competing needs, but I think the poet Philip Larkin, in the opening lines of his "This Be the Verse," put it best, in terms every parent and even very young children can understand:

They f**k you up, your mum and dad.

They may not mean to, but they do.

Best of FameCrawler: Week of September 26th

Whit Honea — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Lindsay Lohan Trumps Clay Aiken's 'Oh, Hey, I'm A Gay Dad' Reveal. Sort Of. Maybe.

Criss Angel Car Crash Video

Was Oprah Found Dead?

Travis Barker and DJ AM's Plane Crash Explained?

Suri Cruise is Isolated and Lonely

Travis Barker Plane Crash: Statement Issued

Pamela Anderson's New Playboy Spread (Photos)

Sharon Stone Loses Custody of Child

Britney's Womanizer Leaked

Is Criss Angel Dead?

Sarah Palin Disney Movie: Head of Skate

From The There Is A God Files: Patrick Dempsey Likes A Good Spanking

Dad Battles for Return of Son Taken to Brazil

SunnyChanel — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:02:00 GMT

This morning I was reading my morning papers, drinking coffee and watching the morning news (while also wrestling with my 2-year old…yeah, I’m a mean multi-tasker) when my heartstrings were tugged by the tale of David Goldman and his battle for his son on the Today Show.

In a nutshell, the story goes a little something like this, four years ago, his wife and his 4-year old son embarked on a 2-week vacation to Brazil where David’s wife and mother of his child Sean was from. Once they landed, she called David and told him she wasn’t coming back, ever. He attempted to obtain a custody heading, which according to the Hague Treaties, his son would have to return to the states to attend. But the Brazilian courts were late in responding and in turn the New Jersey courts ruled that too much time had past and that Sean should just stay with his mom in Brazil.

His wife remarried, to a “well-connected” Brazilian lawyer and last month she died in childbirth. Naturally, David assumed that since his wife deceased, that he would then get his son back. But it turns out the new husband had filed a petition to have David’s name struck from Sean’s birth certificate and replaced with his own. Which would, as David said “exclude me from ever even being my son’s father…So far, the Brazilian judicial system is letting him do this.” The boy is a US citizen and the question is how could a man that has no blood relation to him, claim sole guardian when his real father is ready, willing and able to raise his own son. To find out more about David’s plight you can check out the site here.

(source and photo from MSNBC)

Pregnant Illegal Immigrant Wrongly Jailed

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:00:00 GMT

A woman who was forced to give birth while in custody should have been released before she went into labor, according to federal policy. Juana Villegas, an illegal immigrant with no criminal record, was arrested for a traffic violation days before her due date. She went into labor while in custody, and was returned to jail immediately after the birth; she was separated from her infant son for two days and was not allowed to bring a breast pump back to jail with her.

Villegas’ treatment has raised concerns about the ways local law enforcement work with federal immigration officials to apprehend illegal immigrants. Federal immigration policy mandates that people who are arrested on non-criminal immigration violations who are pregnant, are sole caregivers, or have other humanitarian concerns be recommended for immediate release. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement placed a hold on Villegas the day she was arrested, which means that she was ordered held past any local sentence. She claims that she informed officers that her baby was due in a matter of days.

Although Villegas does have a lawyer, it remains to be seen whether or not this new understanding of Villegas’ treatment will lead to a lawsuit.

Photo: BBC

Five more FLDSers Arrested

Brett Singer — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:00:00 GMT

AP (via Jezebel) is reporting that five male members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) have turned themselves in to the police. They were indicted with the crime of having sex with minors, as was FLDS "prophet" Warren Jeffs. One of the men, Merrill Leroy Jessop, was also charged with bigamy. Another, Lloyd Hammon Barlow, was charged "only" with not reporting child abuse, which is a misdemeanor. He is the resident doctor at the ranch.

This is the first we're hearing about the FLDS folks since April, when Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) raided the polygamist compound (which I still think sounds like a wart cream. Hello??? Is this thing on?), except for when the head of CPS resigned, which makes one wonder if Jezebel is right when they imply that the raid was treated as a bigger crime than whatever may be going on inside the walls of the Zion Ranch. I'm kind of surprised that it took this long to charge someone with bigamy, since that's, you know, a major tenet of their religion – polygamy. Poly marriage. Not legal. Just sayin'. Of course, that charge is nothing compared to forcing minors to have sex. But it's all just "alleged" for now.

image: Jezebel

Readin', writin' and Dianetics?

Savage stands by his stupid words

Stay out of my room or I'll pee on your tree

Distilled: Behind The Braid

Condom Maker Offers $1Mil to Miley Cyrus to Sell Rubbers

Crocs Don't Rock

Baptism by Hockey

Texas CPS head resigns

Brett Singer — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Interesting little twist in the FLDS/Texas CPS case: Carey Cockerell, the head of the agency, announced that he is retiring. The interesting part is that the press release announcing the news makes no mention of the now-infamous seizing of 400+ children from the Polygamy Compound a few months ago, which is the only reason that most news outlets would pick up this story. (I still think Polygamy Compound sounds like a wart cream.) Cockerell is 61 and ran the agency for 3 ½ years, and was not asked to resign, according to Allison Castle, a spokesperson for Texas Governor Rick Perry's office. Patrick Crimmins, spokesperson for Texas CPS, "said Cockerell would have no further comment." Well OK then.

Once the Texas Supreme Court ruled that CPS "over-reached" in removing the kids from the FLDS ranch, it became tougher to defend what they did. There are some positive things to take from the experience: Child Protective Services is now allowed to make unannounced visits to the ranch, which seems like a good idea. So they did overreach, probably by a lot, but the end result is for the best. Not justifying the actions, just looking for a silver lining.

(Source: AP/Google)

image: CNN

They Say: Incest Is Best?

Put your clothes on and step away from the porcupine

Maybe these pit bulls are dangerous

Ohh, Baby - Orgasmic Birth Video

Who is babysitting the Kid-Rods?

Watermelon the same as Viagra – maybe

Polygamists as Victims

Brett Singer — Tue, 20 May 2008 13:30:00 GMT

Are the members of the FLDS victims of religious persecution?

That's what some people from the polygamy-practicing sect are saying. A Texas court is holding hearings to determine what will happen to the children who were removed from the ranch last month, and with "463 children, 168 mothers and 69 fathers", that's going to take awhile.

They also don't know which kid belongs to which mother; DNA testing will eventually sort all of that out. Two of the children of self-styled polygamous prophet Warren Jeffs have been found to be from different mothers. (Jeffs, the leader of the polygamy pack, is currently in jail in Utah on "accomplice to rape" charges -- meaning he performed marriages between old men and underage girls -- and "he also faces trial in Arizona on eight charges of sexual conduct with a minor, incest and conspiracy." So he's been busy.)

Meanwhile, Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) has created some guidelines for compound parents must follow if they want their children to be returned to them, mandating "parenting training, family counseling and psychological testing of the parents." A report from CBS 42 in Austin says that one attorney for the FLDS parents was told, "if you ever want to get your kids back – don’t even think of returning to the ranch." Another lawyer for the FLDSers says of CPS, "the Governor of Texas has been praising the job they’re doing and to me that’s a lot like George Bush telling Brownie, ‘heck of a job’ after Katrina." Well, except that in Katrina, it was a natural disaster where people died needlessly, and your clients were breaking the law. But why quibble?

FLDS spokespeople are playing the victim card, crying religious persecution. One of the "elders" of the sect wrote a letter to President Bush calling the ranch raid a "terrorist act." It does sound like CPS and other Texas officials could have done a better job in some ways. But terrorism? And one of the mothers, Nora Jeffs, did not have time to meet with CPS officials to discuss the "family service plan" because she was spending too much time visiting her eight children, all of whom have been placed in different locations. She agreed to follow the plan, "so long as they don't conflict with my religious beliefs." The judge replied that, "You have a right to religious freedom up until the point where it breaks the law."

That's the bottom line here, isn't it? At some point, don't we have to draw a line between religious freedom and the law? If my religion dictates that I jog nude down Main Street on the fourth Tuesday of every month, or smoke marijuana, or perform human sacrifices, I can't do that. Well, guess what? Polygamy is illegal. You may think that's a bad law, but it's still the law. Even though it's possible that the reports of abuse may have come from a woman with a history of making false claims, the practice of polygamy is still against the law. Not to mention the fact that some of the moms were probably under 18. Hopefully no one will be fooled into supporting the "cause" of the FLDS under the guise of religious freedom. This is one case for that just doesn't apply.

image: CNN

Young Polygamy Mom Gives Birth In Custody, FLDS has two websites

Brett Singer — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:00:00 GMT

Here's the latest from the FLDS case.

-    A "polygamist teen" in state custody gave birth to a healthy baby boy at Central Texas Medical Center. Spokespersons for Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) issued conflicting statements. Patrick Crimmins of CPS says the girl is "younger than 18," while Rod Parker of FLDS says she's 18. Whom to believe? The new mom is part of a group of 53 girls aged 14 to 17 that were taken from the FLDS compound. 31 of them have already given birth or are pregnant. So I'm going to go with the state on this one.
-    The boys at the compound may have been abused as well. According to CPS, "several [children] have multiple fractures," and the agency is investigating how the injuries occurred. Rod Parker, spokesperson for FLDS, continued his attacks on Texas CPS, saying, "They don't have any evidence that there's abuse, and neither do I," and said it was "unethical" for the agency to release information like this to the public " unless they have evidence."
-    FLDS doesn't only have a spokesperson, they have a website, and another site just for this particular incident, captivefldschildren.com. If you really want to get depressed, click on Videos, where you can view a montage of the "Happy Children at the Ranch" set to music, and another one titled "I don't want to go," which I assume shows someone being taken from the compound. It is worth noting that this video doesn't show any police in it, although other videos do, so it's not clear what is being depicted (that is, it could be a kid who doesn't want to go to school that day.)
-    Much like at musical theater tryouts, there are way more girls than boys aged 14 to 17: 17 boys, and 53 girls. And remember, 31 of those 53 girls have given birth or are pregnant.

There were over 400 children taken into custody and it looks like all of them have lawyers. The court is trying to decide whether or not to allow mothers to take their nursing babies (not that I get a vote, but I think they should, just keep them all in custody somewhere). Calling this situation "a mess" doesn't even begin to describe it.

images: cnn.com

Let's talk about sects, baby – Polygamy compound update

Brett Singer — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:24:00 GMT

It was two weeks ago that hundreds of children were extracted from the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado (YFZ stands for "Yearning For Zion," it's not the name of a new rap group. Yet.) The polygamous compound (the phrase sounds like an ointment you would put on a wart) is run by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or FLDS. Every article I've read about this case takes great pains to point out that FLDS is an "offshoot" of the Mormon religion, so we'll do the same.

This is one of those stories that gets worse the more you hear about it. For example, there were more than 400 children removed from the ranch on April 4. The court hearing took, "longer than expected because of objections from some of the 350 attorneys representing the children." And, oh yeah -- "130 of the children removed were under the age of 4 and...girls as young as 13 had conceived children at the ranch," according to a supervisor from Texas Child Protective Services. Because of all this, the kids are going to remain in state custody.

Despite the fact that one of the attorneys for some of the children is "a little disappointed" with the ruling, the CPS supervisor also testified that she heard "sister wives" at the compound say that, "no age was too young to be married."

Can you imagine the scene in that courtroom? Apparently each lawyer is raising objections, and the cases are being grouped together by color - pink for girls younger than 4, and so on. Some of the mothers appeared on Larry King, saying that they were unaware of underage girls marrying older men, and asking the court to please give their kids back. It's not easy to out-creepy Larry King at this point, but these ladies hit the ball out of the park. They sound like the women on "Big Love", except weirder and, you know, real.

I have to admit that when one of the weird sister wives starts talking about her "handicapped son," I got a little choked up. A young child being taken away from the only life they've known, however bizarre that life may be, is a sad thing. That said, when you're talking about possible sexual abuse, you can't take any chances. Methinks this will get worse before it gets better.

image: CNN.com

Best of FameCrawler: Week of April 18

Whit Honea — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:00:00 GMT

CONFIRMED: Ashlee Simpson is Pregnant

Nicolette Sheridan Pregnant At 70!

Rob Lowe's Former Nanny Speaks Out

David Beckham Really Likes Miller Lite and/or Ass

Minnie Driver's Baby Daddy: Revealed!

George Clooney Hates Kids. Yes, Yours Too.

Ashlee Simpson, Pregnant and Happy(?)

Jennifer Aniston Names Her Son?

Tom & Katie Split, Fighting For Suri

Ashlee Simpson's Baby Bump! Sort Of.

159 Children Removed From Polygamous Cult Ranch

Kelly Mills — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:29:00 GMT

Authorities have moved in on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints compound in Texas and removed 159 children and 60 adults since Thursday. They were alerted by a call from a 16-year-old girl, who said she had been married to 50-year-old Dale Evans Barlow. The girl reported sexual and physical abuse in the cult (including arranged marriages for young girls) and that Barlow had fathered her child. Ugh. Eighteen girls are in state custody, and were reported to have been abused or at immediate risk of future abuse.

It gets scarier: The girl who made the call has not been confirmed as located (she's still missing and maybe was picked up in the raid under another name,) and Barlow has not been found. The cult was founded by Warren Jeffs, who was convicted in Utah on two counts of being accomplice to rape, and is facing trial in Arizona for sex with a minor, incest, and conspiracy. The compund is called the YFZ Ranch, which stands for "Yearning for Zion". I'm sincerely hoping the girl who blew the whistle on the abuse turns up quickly.