Mom Busts Dad For 15 Year Old Custodial "Kidnap" -- Now What?

[Freudian_Slit]

@wmulax93

I don’t see what the benefit to making them move 3000 miles would be.

They are no longer with the father, which is a good thing. However, they also aren’t being forced to completely uproot and go live with someone who is a stranger to them. This is also a good thing.

That I agree with.

I don’t know if anyone’s mentioned this but it kind of reminds me of the (fictional) YA book the Face on the Milk Carton. A girl finds out she has a real family that she was kidnapped from at age three–she wasn’t kidnapped by her adoptive family, though. They had a daughter who was in a cult and kidnapped her and the family had no idea she wasn’t their biological granddaughter. They try to uproot her to send her to her bio family at age fifteen which is insane because at that age, what’s the point? Of course her adoptive family wasn’t to blame so having her go back to them wasn’t such a bad thing.

Anyway. Back to our regular scheduled program of bashing the mom. What are we on now? Luddite crack ho?

[Muffin]

No matter how you cut it, I expect the kids will decide who they end up with (although the father may not be an option due to incarceration).

California Family Code Chapter 2

3042. (a) If a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody, the court shall consider and give due weight to the wishes of the child in making an order granting or modifying custody.

Florida Statutes Chapter 61

61.13 (3) For purposes of establishing or modifying parental responsibility and creating, developing, approving, or modifying a parenting plan, including a time-sharing schedule, which governs each parent’s relationship with his or her minor child and the relationship between each parent with regard to his or her minor child, the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration. A determination of parental responsibility, a parenting plan, or a time-sharing schedule may not be modified without a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances and a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child. Determination of the best interests of the child shall be made by evaluating all of the factors affecting the welfare and interests of the particular minor child and the circumstances of that family, including, but not limited to:
. . . .
(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.

[Blalron]

I’m wondering how, in the Huerta vision of the world, child custody gets decided. Is it just whoever absconds with the child first, and seems to do a reasonable job as a parent? Do courts of law play any role?

[Kearsen]

@Muffin

The need for the state arises out of the parents not being able to resolve their differences between themselves. Most people who divorce do not end up in court, other than to turn a separation agreement into an order and to get a rubber-stamp divorce. Reasonable people work things out between themselves. If they are having difficulty doing this, then they get lawyers to help them find solutions without ending up in court, and if they still can not put a deal together, then they go to court. Since litigation is financially and emotionally brutal, only nut cases and assholes or people having to deal with a nut case or asshole spouse end up in court. Without the state, the nut cases and assholes would be unfettered.

As far as the state sanctioned support being used as a bludgeoning tool to stomp some dads into the ground, yes, some people game the system, but the system is designed to reduce such abuse. When support payors on average end up with their standard of living being lower than support recipients, then you will have a case, but as it stands, it is the other way around, with support recipients tending to have lower standards of living than support payors.

It might be the way you describe in Ontario but here in Texas the default is definitely not a 50-50 custody. The courts have a severe bias towards the woman and most often they give custodial support to the woman.
This should be changed. If the default was 50-50 then support would be far far less of an issue. At that point the State would certainly be needed less.

[Muffin]

@Kearsen

It might be the way you describe in Ontario but here in Texas the default is definitely not a 50-50 custody. The courts have a severe bias towards the woman and most often they give custodial support to the woman.
This should be changed. If the default was 50-50 then support would be far far less of an issue. At that point the State would certainly be needed less.

The Texas courts do not apply the Texas law with respect to encouraging shared parenting and not permitting judicial bias based on gender?

FAMILY CODE

TITLE 5. THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE SUIT AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP

SUBTITLE B. SUITS AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP

CHAPTER 153. CONSERVATORSHIP, POSSESSION, AND ACCESS

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 153.001. PUBLIC POLICY.

(a) The public policy of this state is to:

(1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child;

. . . .

(3) encourage parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their child after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage.

. . . .
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, Sec. 25, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 787, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Sec. 153.002. BEST INTEREST OF CHILD.

The best interest of the child shall always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.
Sec. 153.003. NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX OR MARITAL STATUS.

The court shall consider the qualifications of the parties without regard to their marital status or to the sex of the party or the child in determining:

(1) which party to appoint as sole managing conservator;

(2) whether to appoint a party as joint managing conservator; and

(3) the terms and conditions of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.

[Kearsen]

@Muffin

The Texas courts do not apply the Texas law with respect to encouraging shared parenting and not permitting judicial bias based on gender?

No, they sure don’t.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Cite?

[Little_Nemo]

I’m wondering how, in the Huerta vision of the world, child custody gets decided. Is it just whoever absconds with the child first, and seems to do a reasonable job as a parent? Do courts of law play any role?

Pretty much like finding a stray cat or dog. If it’s on your property and you’re feeding it, it’s yours.

But this only applies to pets and children. Cattle rustling’s still a hanging offense.

[Kearsen]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Cite?

You really want me to cite the fact that in most divorce proceedings that the “general rule” is to grant the mother custodial rights?

[Muffin]

@Kearsen

You really want me to cite the fact that in most divorce proceedings that the “general rule” is to grant the mother custodial rights?

You have been provided with the law. It is now up to you to prove your allegation that the courts do not apply the law. Please note that mothers usually ending up with custody does not mean that the law is not applied or that there is a gender bias in the law – it just means that the person who was the primary parent prior to separation usually continues to be the primary parent following the court’s decision.

[nilum]

Just my $0.02. I’ve gotten into debates about this with my own mother.

To her it’s open and shut. Father deserves to rot in jail.

She refuses to listen to any of my arguments.
They are almost adults.
They told her they did not want a relationship with her before she contacted authorities.
These kids will hate her for what they did to their lives and will move away from her as soon as they become adults, and probably never speak to her again.

In most every comment I read, I am told that the kids should be ashamed for telling their mother they didn’t want a relationship.

Most people have no perspective in this case because most people have never been in this situation. Imagine a total stranger contacting you and telling you she is your mother. Asking you for a relationship. Most of us would say… of course we would want to get to know her, but it’s not that simple.

The point is she is a stranger to them whether she likes it or not. Why should custody of these kids be given to someone they barely knew most of their life just because of DNA. Imagine in adoption cases where the biological mother asks for the kids back years later. Of course those situations are different. I have sympathy for the mother in the case that the kids were taken from her, but I am not sympathetic to the mother who gave up her kids and expects them back.

The problem I really have is no one is considering what is best for the kids. They only care about the mother and father, and pretend the kids don’t even matter… they don’t exist.

It’s sad that at such an important junction in their life all of this had to happen. Imagine what would have happened if they were adults… 2 years later… probably nothing.

What will probably happen is when the oldest turns 18 he/she will sue for custody of the youngest and move back home.

[Freudian_Slit]

nilum, many of us who think that the father is wrong is NOT saying the children should be in the mother’s custody. Or even that the mother should have a relationship with them. Maybe a third party–a grandparent or family friend–should have custody. That’s not for us to decide. But clearly the father can’t since ti seems he’ll be going to jail.

[md2000]

@nilum

They told her they did not want a relationship with her before she contacted authorities.
These kids will hate her for what they did to their lives and will move away from her as soon as they become adults, and probably never speak to her again.

In most every comment I read, I am told that the kids should be ashamed for telling their mother they didn’t want a relationship.

Most people have no perspective in this case because most people have never been in this situation. Imagine a total stranger contacting you and telling you she is your mother. Asking you for a relationship. Most of us would say… of course we would want to get to know her, but it’s not that simple.

The point is she is a stranger to them whether she likes it or not. Why should custody of these kids be given to someone they barely knew most of their life just because of DNA. Imagine in adoption cases where the biological mother asks for the kids back years later. Of course those situations are different. I have sympathy for the mother in the case that the kids were taken from her, but I am not sympathetic to the mother who gave up her kids and expects them back.

First - they also told her they heard “bad things” about her. This suggests strongly that daddy told them bad things about their mother and also probably strongly suggested that they don’t want a relationship with her. A father with that attitude may not be the best of parent. We don’t know, but he is certainly starting with the handicap of being a royal flaming asshole about the whole mother-child relationship.

Most people don’t know. I do. The pressure from one parent/set of parents that contact with the ex is somehow disloyal, means you don’t love the current parent(s), that if you want to leave, fine, go but she said she didn’t want you, etc. is intense. Given an ultimatum - choose me or some stranger you don’t remember - what surprise the child breaks of contact and sticks with the devil they know?

Adopted children often have spent a lot of time, even back when it was difficult, to search out their birth mother or father. DNA does count, deep in our gut, as much as actual relationships. If they say they don’t want a relationship, I DO suspect external presure.

I think what will happen is once the dust settles, given a few years, these children will want to get to know their mother. It is all a shock, but once they are adults and their father can no longer hold the threat over them that contact with their mother could mean being tossed out on the street, possibly to a mother that does not want them living there, just wants to be a distant friend… As adults these children will (probably) see the situation differently.

The fact the father still bad-mouths the mother 15 years later gives a clue to the real family dynamic in the children’s home.