The article said that the case is being reviewed by another judge. It’s hardly surprising that the media can report the decision faster than the higher court can review the case and issue its decision.
What does any of this have to do with gender?
A parent who cares puts their child’s interests above their own. Putting the kids in jail is purely spiteful and in no one’s interest. They don’t even want to eat lunch with him so they will obviously now hate him more than ever.
We have a mother refusing his visitation rights. We have a female judge who sent the kids to jail after a hearing of some sort wherein the details were, at worst, whatever happened isn’t worthy of terminating his rights. Yet the father gets singled out in your post because he didn’t stop this from happening, eventhough there is every real likelihood in the world that the father had absolutely zero say, choice or ability to protest the judges decision.
Judges MIGHT take the feelings of the plaintiff/defedant into consideration but certainly aren’t bound to them, but let’s stick with “What kind of father lets this happen?”.
Why do you keep harping on the “female judge”? Who cares? The judge’s actions are incomprehensible.
The father is the one who could have stopped pressing the issue any time. The mother now is not even allowed to visit them, making the judge’s actions even more preposterous. What could the mother have done to avoid the kids being sent to jail? “Made” the kids visit him? They aren’t babies who can be handed back and forth like suitcases. As you can see, even the judge was not able to make them eat lunch with him–that’s why she sent them to jail instead.
I don’t disagre the judges decision was incomprehensible. But you didn’t call out the judge, you called out the father. Yes the mother must make them. As the custodial parent, t’s her responsibility as bound by the parenting agreement. Yet you didn’t call out the mother, you called out hte father.
Yes, he could have abandoned his family. Then we could condemn him for that.
According to the father, she could have refrained from poisoning his children against him. I think the article mentioned that the wife had a history of refusing to allow visitation.
Yes. That applies to both parents, not just the father.
Regards,
Shodan
The judge’s behavior speaks for itself, but yes, I did call her out. I said “no one with any power had the children’s interests at heart.” The judge has power; she is one of the people I was referring to.
The court can call something a “parenting agreement” if they want, but that doesn’t mean anyone actually agreed to it. The mother obviously did not have a real option to hold out for an “agreement” in which they did not see the father at all. If he was abusive–which we don’t know–then not sending them to see him, while in defiance of the law, is perfectly understandable. Therefore there exists at least the possibility that she had their interests at heart, whereas no situation can possibly exist to justify the idea that the judge’s or the father’s actions are in the children’s interest.
Bolding mine.
Where in the article does it say that he has any power to allow or disallow the judges orders? Answer: Nowhere! He is as powerless as the kids are.
Having gotten the “privilege” to attend family court as a foster parent, I can tell you that this kind of defiance is not uncommon. Any or all of the parties can be very defiant as to obeying the judges orders.
As to whether the oldest son saw his father hit his mother, who know if he did or not. His mother may have convinced him that he did. He probably believes that he saw this happen. This could be a false memory. It often happens in ugly divorce cases.
Kids often feel that they must choose sides. The 14 YO may have chosen his mothers side & is acting on that decision. He may not have chosen sides, & what he is saying is true. The truth on this may never be found out.
I think that we should be very careful to not jump to conclusions without all of the facts. I can almost guarantee that many of the facts are just not available to the public. We are dealing with minors lives here, & much of that is sealed to public viewing.
It may be telling that the father has not had any restrictions put on him at all, while the mother has been found in contempt of court. What exactly this means, if anything, We do not know. One could surmise that the judge has had to deal with a defiant attitude from the mother. With the kids in her custody, she could have influenced them to be defiant as well. Maybe.
In any case, the judge has found the kids to be in contempt of court. The judge herself may have asked for the review. That often happens.
…and, despite this being put out there time and time again, the hearing determined that the poor put upon mother defying a parenting agreement she is bound to (by choice or legal court order) out of pure wholesome love for and protection of her children was not credible.
If the mother felt so strongly about the abusive Ike Turner like environment of the father’s vistiation, she could’ve intiated proceedings to that end of terminating visitation or, at the very most pure of heart, supervised visitation, She waited until the father brought action becaue she simply refused to do her piece.
Credibility, action and inaction is sort of a thing.
There is a Slate article on the case which even includes this taunting quote from the judge, directed at the 9-year-old daughter: “You want to have your birthdays in Children’s Village? Do you like going to the bathroom in front of people? Is your bed soft and comfortable at home? I’ll tell you this, if you two don’t have a nice lunch with your dad and make this up to your dad, you’re going to come back here [after lunch] and I’m going to have the deputies take you to Children’s Village.”
The girl refused the lunch and has now been in the detention center for two weeks. If the child was “brainwashed,” punishing her with jail is even more inappropriate.
The “Kids for Cash” judge in Pennsylvania a few years ago was getting money for each child he sent to the private detention center he had invested in and trashed the lives of over 2000 kids for his own profit. I wonder if something like that is going on here.
Wow! Do you give your children everything they whine for?
Try this situation on for size: *The mother is a self possessed ego-maniac that has brainwashed her children to believing that their father is evil and a worthless piece of shit, not deserving of any love or attention.
The father is actually a loving father that wants to be a part of his children’s lives, but for his ex-wife and her manipulations he has not been given the chance.
The father doesn’t control the judge or her actions, he only wants the custody decree enforced so he can see be a part of his children’s lives.*
I have no clue if the above is true or not, but isn’t that a possible situation where the father’s actions are in the interest of his kids?
So there can be no justification for the father’s actions in attempting to maintain contact with his children? Or do you mean the father should simply have resigned himself to having his ex-wife poison his children’s minds against him for the rest of their lives?
You say it is possible that the father was abusive, and that’s true. Therefore you believe the mother’s actions might be justified. It is also possible that he wasn’t abusive, and therefore his actions might be justified. Correct?
And FWIW I don’t see where the father requested the detention center, or had any part in determining that the children should be sent there.
Regards,
Shodan
I missed this little tidbit. Thanks, Omar. There is NO scenario where the father enforcing his rights as part of his childrens’ lives is in the childrens’ best interest? You can think of NO scenario where the father being a part of their lives is in their best interest? I stand by my original statement.
According to a Slate article on the same case, the judge invited him to alert her if he felt the situation had changed: “Dad, if you ever think that he has changed and he’s no longer like Charlie Manson’s cult, then you let us know and we can [review the case].”
The judge wasn’t there either, so ought to at least consider the possibility that he was telling the truth, as should we.
If the kid thinks he saw whatever because he was “brainwashed” why should he be punished? Being the victim of brainwashing is not a crime. Saying what you think is true is not a crime. The mother is not being charged with a crime; her supposed “victims” are.
I would never make my child see an abuser. We aren’t talking about whining for a toy here.
In fact I’d never make my child spend unsupervised time with anyone she did not want to spend time with, even if I was pretty sure the person was fine.
I wouldn’t even make my child spend time with me if she felt so strongly about not wanting to and had somewhere else safe to live. People have rights, whether the law respects that or not.
If the children must go to jail for those “rights” to be enforced, no, it cannot be in their interest. They have not stabbed anyone, burned down a building, or threatened to bomb their school, like their fellow inmates. They chose not to see someone they don’t want to see. I could understand court-ordered therapy, but jail is absurd.
You do, of course, realize that the father didn’t order this, right? The father simply wanted to visit his kids. He initiated proceedings to this end. You can see NO scenario where pursuing his right to this is in the best interest of the children?
The mother can’t be punished because what she allegedly did is already in the past. She is currently willing to have the father see the kids (possibly because she already knows that they won’t do it anyway, or possibly not, but in any event there’s no mechanism to punish the mother who is not currently in contempt of court).
I myself don’t see why kids should be allowed to flout court orders any more than adults. (The opposite, if anything - kids have less autonomy in general.) It’s not like they’re being executed or anything, and they’ll probably be well fed and medicated etc. in juvie.
That could make getting them to school tricky.
This already happens. My step-daughter (before I came on the scene) was dragged to juvenile court for truancy. Te judge said next time you skip school, you will spend time at juvie. Step-daughter skipped school. Step-daughter spent the weekend in juvie.