mazakaal Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 She and the father had been in a custody dispute and she had been denied access. When she ran into her child on the street and told him that she loved him, she was jailed for one month. According to the judge, "In a small minority of cases, continuing contact with a parent who is determined to continue a relationship battle after separating can cause their child immense long-term emotional harm." Hello! And if she had passed by him without acknowledging him, in accordance with the court order, that wouldn't have caused long-term emotional harm? Please! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6256709.ece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 That is appalling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 That's terrible. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 It sounds awful and it's very sad. But I'd have to say we likely don't know the story. There must have been pretty severe circumstances to deny her all access, at least I'd hope so. It reminds me of the case in NC where the Mom was forced to put her homeschooled kids in public school. I saw that posted on a few boards and understandable outrage over it. But then someone posted the actual ruling of the court and the details were much much different and made the decision understandable. I think it's likely we don't know the details of the case when something like this is written about in the paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie12345 Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 She was jailed for defying a court order. And I'll tell you what- If my father approached me on the street to tell me he loved me, I'd probably break the law by physically assaulting him. Just because blood and the word "love" is involved doesn't mean everything is hunky dory. We don't know the details on this "loving" mom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blessedfamily Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 She was jailed for defying a court order.......... Just because blood and the word "love" is involved doesn't mean everything is hunky dory. We don't know the details on this "loving" mom. I agree. We don't know the deatils (At least I don't) She may be physically or emotionally dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela H in Texas Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 I agree with Carrie. She broke the court order, she was jailed. And maybe not hearing anythign from mom could have been problematic, but there is a REASON she lost all contact with her children. It is not done very often. It is often not done when everyone in the child's life thinks it should be (think some foster kids!). I know of only ONE child (ever) that lost all contact with one of his parents though that may be temporary. That out of all the foster kids I've known, all the crazy divorces, etc. Either way the child loses. It's a BAD situation. A judge, with the help of social workers, therapists, home-studies, psychologists, etc has to weigh the situation. For it to happen, there are experts that must agree that is best. Usually lawyers wouldn't even consider it; they know better. It is almost always better for a kid to see a really bad parent than to have all contact cut off. But when courts do it, they have considerable reasons for doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peela Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Yeah, I wouldn't jump to conclusions on that one. The media likes to sensationalise things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_l_e_0..Q_c Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 It is not done very often. It is often not done when everyone in the child's life thinks it should be (think some foster kids!). It was done to my brother, for no real reason whatsoever. He hasn't seen his twin girls since they were 6. They are now 20. The main reason he lost access was that she had the better lawyer, and he had none at all. (the lawyers appointed to him changed from one court date to another, so they were very inefficient). What's really sad about all this, is that my parents were also denied access to the kids! So the grandparents -who were completely innocent- were also cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 The other side of the story: She's been convicted of assault against her ex (convicted, not charged). She has made serious allegations against her ex, which have been found groundless by authorities. When the children were with her, they also made serious allegations against her ex which were found groundless. They set up supervised sessions for her to see the children, and she still attempted to see them outside of the supervised sessions, breaking the court order. Her ex has an injunction prohibiting her from contacting them or visiting their village, yet she did so anyway, and approached the oldest child on the street. When he ran away, she followed him, calling that she loved him. She has continued to send text messages to her husband in violation of the no-contact order. http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6256499.ece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela H in Texas Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 It was done to my brother, for no real reason whatsoever. He hasn't seen his twin girls since they were 6. They are now 20. I'm sorry that happened. I have NO doubt that things like that DO happen, but it's a rarity. Most people know of more situations where the absent parent just fell out of the picture or was in the picture despite it being a bad situation for the kids. The good thing is that the children are no adults so can make their own decisions. Though they probably have been urged to think poorly of their father, they probably do have some curiosity also. What choices they make if contacted (or regarding contacting him) though may or may not be in line with what they want deep down. Anyway, hopefully it all works out for them in the end. But thankfully, that really isn't the way it usually happens. Usually, children are left with awful parents, not separated from them even when it should happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie12345 Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 But thankfully, that really isn't the way it usually happens. Usually, children are left with awful parents, not separated from them even when it should happen. ITA. My sister works in the family preservation unit for social services. While I don't doubt slimy lawyers can swing things in the "wrong" direction, it's definitely more common for children to be left in really bad parenting situations. I would NOT be able to do my sister's job! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blessedfamily Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 The other side of the story: She's been convicted of assault against her ex (convicted, not charged). She has made serious allegations against her ex, which have been found groundless by authorities. When the children were with her, they also made serious allegations against her ex which were found groundless. They set up supervised sessions for her to see the children, and she still attempted to see them outside of the supervised sessions, breaking the court order. Her ex has an injunction prohibiting her from contacting them or visiting their village, yet she did so anyway, and approached the oldest child on the street. When he ran away, she followed him, calling that she loved him. She has continued to send text messages to her husband in violation of the no-contact order. http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6256499.ece Unstable situation, to put it mildly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 I'm sorry that happened. I have NO doubt that things like that DO happen, but it's a rarity. Most people know of more situations where the absent parent just fell out of the picture or was in the picture despite it being a bad situation for the kids. The good thing is that the children are no adults so can make their own decisions. Though they probably have been urged to think poorly of their father, they probably do have some curiosity also. What choices they make if contacted (or regarding contacting him) though may or may not be in line with what they want deep down. Anyway, hopefully it all works out for them in the end. But thankfully, that really isn't the way it usually happens. Usually, children are left with awful parents, not separated from them even when it should happen. I think it's less rare than we would like to think in divorce custody situations (that is much different than foster care, where, I agree, kids are too often left in dangerous situations.) However, in divorce proceedings, who has the better attorney makes a big difference, as does the bias of the judge. I've known of some judges with whopping biases. Others are plain old corrupt. (Recent case uncovered in PA with judge getting kickbacks for sending kids to juvenile detention. This happened so often and over such a long period of time, people must have been aware of it, but it takes an awful lot to bring a judge to justice--or a prosecutor. ) When reading these stories in papers, it is important to realize that we may not have all the info, but part of the info that we don't have is about the judge involved. We don't know if the father's position and money was influential or if the mom is a nut case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 I think it's less rare than we would like to think in divorce custody situations (that is much different than foster care, where, I agree, kids are too often left in dangerous situations.) However, in divorce proceedings, who has the better attorney makes a big difference, as does the bias of the judge. I've known of some judges with whopping biases. Others are plain old corrupt. (Recent case uncovered in PA with judge getting kickbacks for sending kids to juvenile detention. This happened so often and over such a long period of time, people must have been aware of it, but it takes an awful lot to bring a judge to justice--or a prosecutor. ) When reading these stories in papers, it is important to realize that we may not have all the info, but part of the info that we don't have is about the judge involved. We don't know if the father's position and money was influential or if the mom is a nut case. There must have been pretty severe circumstances to deny her all access, at least I'd hope so. I used to believe that if there was smoke, there was fire. Not anymore when it comes to the Family Law system and divorced famillies. I *know* better now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.