TexasCHLforum.com

Where are you guys getting all the extra information about their personal lives that's not at the posted link?

G26ster wrote:

A U.S. Navy sailor from Washington State is currently serving on a submarine thousands of miles away in the Pacific Ocean, but a judge has ordered him into an impossible custody scenario: Appear in a Michigan courtroom Monday or risk losing custody of his 6-year-old daughter.

Seems like thru all of the posts this is being lost. How can a judge order someone, who has no free will or means of travel, is serving on a submarine by military order, thousands of miles away, in a secret location, to appear....or else? I'm stumped.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/06/23/up ... hew-hindes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SewTexas wrote:well, the judge delayed the case because "she didn't know the sailor was serving" even though she was told a multitude of times by a plethora of people. right.....I'm thinking her plan backfired, she got the national attention she didn't really want, and she had to backtrack.

No that is not what happened. There was an order for the father or the daughter to appear before the court. The judge said that the court was not informed that he was deployed an unable to attend until that hearing when no one showed. No his side says they did submit paperwork so who knows for sure but either way the child could of still been there so the order could of been fulfilled regardless of his deployment status. The attention she got is from people who have little interest in reporting what actually occurred and obviously are just trying to push a narrative.

G26ster wrote:

A U.S. Navy sailor from Washington State is currently serving on a submarine thousands of miles away in the Pacific Ocean, but a judge has ordered him into an impossible custody scenario: Appear in a Michigan courtroom Monday or risk losing custody of his 6-year-old daughter.

Seems like thru all of the posts this is being lost. How can a judge order someone, who has no free will or means of travel, is serving on a submarine by military order, thousands of miles away, in a secret location, to appear....or else? I'm stumped.

Well 2 things. One, they wouldn't expect that he jumps out a hatch and swim back but that he makes a reasonable effort. If he has no choice then the charges for missing any court goes away when you show that. This is pretty much across the board and not just this case. Second he could of complied with the order. It was for him to appear or if he didn't his daughter to be brought before the court.

EEllis wrote:

SewTexas wrote:well, the judge delayed the case because "she didn't know the sailor was serving" even though she was told a multitude of times by a plethora of people. right.....I'm thinking her plan backfired, she got the national attention she didn't really want, and she had to backtrack.

No that is not what happened. There was an order for the father or the daughter to appear before the court. The judge said that the court was not informed that he was deployed an unable to attend until that hearing when no one showed. No his side says they did submit paperwork so who knows for sure but either way the child could of still been there so the order could of been fulfilled regardless of his deployment status. The attention she got is from people who have little interest in reporting what actually occurred and obviously are just trying to push a narrative.

So, you think it would have been appropriate for the child, which is 6 years old, to show up for the hearing without the parent that has legal custody?

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

SewTexas wrote:well, the judge delayed the case because "she didn't know the sailor was serving" even though she was told a multitude of times by a plethora of people. right.....I'm thinking her plan backfired, she got the national attention she didn't really want, and she had to backtrack.

No that is not what happened. There was an order for the father or the daughter to appear before the court. The judge said that the court was not informed that he was deployed an unable to attend until that hearing when no one showed. No his side says they did submit paperwork so who knows for sure but either way the child could of still been there so the order could of been fulfilled regardless of his deployment status. The attention she got is from people who have little interest in reporting what actually occurred and obviously are just trying to push a narrative.

So, you think it would have been appropriate for the child, which is 6 years old, to show up for the hearing without the parent that has legal custody?

You think the father would have been saying something that the Lawyer wouldn't? Honestly what I think is someone dropped the ball on rescheduling the hearing. That they knew the hearing wasn't scheduled and should of continued working with the court until they were sure and had a new date. But they knew it wasn't rescheduled and didn't make it an issue and failed to comply. Also since this is a custody case I don't know why the judge wanted the girl there. If it was so the mother could have previously ordered custody then yes it would still be appropriate that the girl sees her mother. There is no "oops, I'm deployed co court orders don't count" law. Not that |I'm saying that even happened but it's rarely a messy divorce that things don't get bad on both sides.

mojo84 wrote:So, you think it would have been appropriate for the child, which is 6 years old, to show up for the hearing without the parent that has legal custody?

It seems no less appropriate than the child living for months on end without the parent who has legal custody.

EEllis wrote:

SewTexas wrote:well, the judge delayed the case because "she didn't know the sailor was serving" even though she was told a multitude of times by a plethora of people. right.....I'm thinking her plan backfired, she got the national attention she didn't really want, and she had to backtrack.

No that is not what happened. There was an order for the father or the daughter to appear before the court. The judge said that the court was not informed that he was deployed an unable to attend until that hearing when no one showed. No his side says they did submit paperwork so who knows for sure but either way the child could of still been there so the order could of been fulfilled regardless of his deployment status. The attention she got is from people who have little interest in reporting what actually occurred and obviously are just trying to push a narrative.

EEllis,

I read the articles, many articles, I also read several comments on the articles by people who read the court transcript. His COB (Chief of the Boat), and several others had sent a letter to the judge stating that he was at sea....the judge knew, she just didn't care until there was an outcry.

I will not argue with you about this.

bayouhazard wrote:

mojo84 wrote:So, you think it would have been appropriate for the child, which is 6 years old, to show up for the hearing without the parent that has legal custody?

It seems no less appropriate than the child living for months on end without the parent who has legal custody.

children living without their parents for months on end all around the country. this little girl apparently has a step-mother who loves her dearly and was willing to represent her in court. The child has a life, goes to school and has friends, have you considered that? SOMETHING caused a judge to remove her from her bio mother! Her father will come home....submariners are actually in one of the safest jobs out there. If he's on fast attacks he might only be go for weeks at a time. you don't know, it's none of our business.

My father was a submariner. gone for 3 months at a time for several years at a time. Then he'd do something else for several years. You get use to it.

bayouhazard wrote:

mojo84 wrote:So, you think it would have been appropriate for the child, which is 6 years old, to show up for the hearing without the parent that has legal custody?

It seems no less appropriate than the child living for months on end without the parent who has legal custody.

You've got to be kidding with that comment. Tell me you are as that makes no sense.

SewTexas wrote:

EEllis wrote:

SewTexas wrote:well, the judge delayed the case because "she didn't know the sailor was serving" even though she was told a multitude of times by a plethora of people. right.....I'm thinking her plan backfired, she got the national attention she didn't really want, and she had to backtrack.

No that is not what happened. There was an order for the father or the daughter to appear before the court. The judge said that the court was not informed that he was deployed an unable to attend until that hearing when no one showed. No his side says they did submit paperwork so who knows for sure but either way the child could of still been there so the order could of been fulfilled regardless of his deployment status. The attention she got is from people who have little interest in reporting what actually occurred and obviously are just trying to push a narrative.

EEllis,

I read the articles, many articles, I also read several comments on the articles by people who read the court transcript. His COB (Chief of the Boat), and several others had sent a letter to the judge stating that he was at sea....the judge knew, she just didn't care until there was an outcry.

I will not argue with you about this.

You don't just 'send the judge a letter' so I don't think that proves anything. It's a court system. You file for things like postponing court dates and such. You don't just mail a letter, or have others do it for you, and then not worry about it. You file and get a response and have paperwork to back your claim. Not have people responding to stories on the internet as 'proof'. I don't get the 'will not argue' thing. You either are now or depending on your definition we are both just bringing up points and are not arguing so why bring it up?

mojo84 wrote:

bayouhazard wrote:

mojo84 wrote:So, you think it would have been appropriate for the child, which is 6 years old, to show up for the hearing without the parent that has legal custody?

It seems no less appropriate than the child living for months on end without the parent who has legal custody.

You've got to be kidding with that comment. Tell me you are as that makes no sense.

No it does make some sense. I don't advocate losing custody of your kids because you get deployed but if you look at it based solely on the child if one parent would be gone and the other parent wanted to take care of the child then that would be the normal and prefered caregiver. Of course things like school and such would also matter but if the guy is gone for 4 months the point of not letting the mother take care of the child would be what? Just to make the point that one parent was in charge? Now with the neglect or abuse issues it adds a whole different issue that also should be addressed but that doesn't cancel out the issue that the custodial parent wouldn't be the one taking care of the child for lengthy periods of time.

The kid's mother had already lost custody of the child for whatever reason and it was awarded to the father knowing he was in the military and he would have military commitments.

I'm not going to provide you with your entertainment today by debating this with you. You have shown anything can be argued even when the argument is silly and ridiculous. I have my opinions and do not need to defend them against your arguments.

EEllis wrote: I don't advocate losing custody of your kids because you get deployed but if you look at it based solely on the child if one parent would be gone and the other parent wanted to take care of the child then that would be the normal and prefered caregiver. Of course things like school and such would also matter but if the guy is gone for 4 months the point of not letting the mother take care of the child would be what? Just to make the point that one parent was in charge? Now with the neglect or abuse issues it adds a whole different issue that also should be addressed but that doesn't cancel out the issue that the custodial parent wouldn't be the one taking care of the child for lengthy periods of time.

EEllis, I think your comment misses the point that the court took custody away for the mother for some reason. I'm not sure why it was done, but I'd bet it's not because she went to church each weekend. I'd wager that it was something a little worse than that...

So, given the choice of an unfit biological parent or a fit stepmom (for the duration that the biological dad is deployed), I'd choose the latter for the child if I had any say in the matter.

Was the mom unfit? I don't know...but the court seemed to think so.

mojo84 wrote:The kid's mother had already lost custody of the child for whatever reason and it was awarded to the father knowing he was in the military and he would have military commitments.

I'm not going to provide you with your entertainment today by debating this with you. You have shown anything can be argued even when the argument is silly and ridiculous. I have my opinions and do not need to defend them against your arguments.

No but you feel the need to call other peoples opinions silly and ridiculous. Funny enough you don't seem to address those opinions as if insulting others suddenly makes their points moot. Sure the reasons for the mother losing custody are relevant but that doesn't mean that nothing else matters. If you don't wish to discuss others opinions maybe open forums aren't for you.