Can Letters sent to an inmate be used in a custody case?

[summerbeauty]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? North Carolina

Im currently in a situation were I temporarily got my daughters taken away from me, they are currently with there father, and I' am trying to seek custody. My former boyfriend who is also the father of my two sons (who i currently have) was the reason why they were taking away. This happened about a year and a half ago. I' am current still in communication with my former boyfriend due to us co parenting. He is currently in jail, and i seldomly send letters. Is my daughters father allowed to retrieve those letters and use them in our custody case for evidence?

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? North Carolina

Im currently in a situation were I temporarily got my daughters taken away from me, they are currently with there father, and I' am trying to seek custody. My former boyfriend who is also the father of my two sons (who i currently have) was the reason why they were taking away. This happened about a year and a half ago. I' am current still in communication with my former boyfriend due to us co parenting. He is currently in jail, and i seldomly send letters. Is my daughters father allowed to retrieve those letters and use them in our custody case for evidence?

Yes..It is "allowed". But if you put the letters in context and why the ex boyfriend was the reason you lost custody of the girls answers may be more helpful.

 

[stealth2]

Yep, more info/context would help.

 

[mommyanme]

Actually, no the father of her daughter's can not retrieve the OP's Postal Mail, if the BF is writing to the daughters then, the answer would be yes he could. But I think the OP is asking if Dad can take her mail sent to BF or BF's mail sent to her. The only way for Dad to have these letters is for someone to give them to him. My question would be though, what are you writing OP that you are worried about?



Please more information as the others have said.

 

[Proserpina]

Actually, no the father of her daughter's can not retrieve the OP's Postal Mail,

He absolutely can. All it takes is a court order.

What he can't do is walk up to the mailbox and steal it.

 

[LdiJ]

He absolutely can. All it takes is a court order.

What he can't do is walk up to the mailbox and steal it.

While I agree that its possible to subpoena mail that a prisoner has received from an outside party, the logistics of actually getting their hands on that mail or photocopies of that mail is another story. First, its personal, private correspondence and second, the person in question would have to admit that they still have the letters...and maybe do NOT still have the letters. It would be a foolish person who would base a case on a belief that a subpoena for personal mail would net them the evidence that they need or want. It would be more than a bit of a fishing expedition and I have...hard time imagining that a judge would entertain that.

Think about it? "Your Honor, please order that XX prisoner obey a subpoena to produce personal correspondence received from the defendant, and order the prison officials to facilitate the forcible removal of such correspondence, because there might be some information in that correspondence that would help my case...that would prove that this individual is still a danger to my children even though he is in prison."

 

[Proserpina]

He was jailed for actions pertaining to the OP's child.

It wouldn't exactly be climbing Mount Vesuvius to convince a judge that you suspect Mom is corresponding again with Jailed Lover and that by her doing so may - and yes, I said "may" for a reason - warrant further investigation in order to protect the child.

Take this:

QUESTION: Can a detention facility intercept and open an inmate’s incoming and
outgoing non-legal mail without violating the Constitution?

ANSWER: Yes. Intercepting an inmate’s outgoing non-legal mail in accordance with
prison regulations and in an effort to ensure that criminal behavior is not
continuing does not violate the Constitution.

CASE: Rodney Pitts, Jr., v. Richard Elliott, et al., U.S. District Court (Md.)
Decided November 30, 2011

(Admittedly the first one that came up. It's Friday. Sue me. )

Remember that Mom actually lost custody because of the boyfriend. Her current contact may well be enough to prove that she's just not quite there yet and may be looking for "failure to protect" on her wishlist. When we add the court's opinion that yep, we might need to err on the side of caution, it's certainly viable.

I get your point. I really do. But it's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

Then again, context would be nice, wouldn't it? Because I know I'm not alone in wondering what the flying ferret was in those letters!

 

[CJane]

What you posted only pertains to the INMATE'S OUTGOING mail. NOT the letters that MOM is writing. Her question pertains to the inmate's INCOMING mail.

 

[Proserpina]

What you posted only pertains to the INMATE'S OUTGOING mail. NOT the letters that MOM is writing. Her question pertains to the inmate's INCOMING mail.

Read the whole thing.

http://www.lgit.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/694

http://www.cumberlandso.org/Jail/admin/mail.htm

http://www.doc.wa.gov/policies/files/450100.pdf

Obviously, there is more.

 

[CJane]

Read the whole thing.

http://www.lgit.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/694

http://www.cumberlandso.org/Jail/admin/mail.htm

http://www.doc.wa.gov/policies/files/450100.pdf

Obviously, there is more.

Don't wanna. I was responding only to the quote that you posted. I don't intend to ever SEND inmates mail, so it's not really my issue.

 

[Proserpina]

Don't wanna. I was responding only to the quote that you posted. I don't intend to ever SEND inmates mail, so it's not really my issue.

I just wanna know what was in those letters to be causing so much consternation! Like Brad Pitt... "What's in the box...."

/nosy so and so

 

[CJane]

I just wanna know what was in those letters to be causing so much consternation! Like Brad Pitt... "What's in the box...."

/nosy so and so

Dear Lovey,

Don't worry, I believe you. I know you didn't do these terrible things, and even if you DID, you obviously feel really really bad about it, and I still love you. I'll get the kids back, we'll get the charges dismissed/sentence reduced/whatever gets you home fastest, and we'll all live happily ever after, just like we were always meant to.

Love,

Conned in Carolina

 

[Proserpina]

Dear Lovey,

Don't worry, I believe you. I know you didn't do these terrible things, and even if you DID, you obviously feel really really bad about it, and I still love you. I'll get the kids back, we'll get the charges dismissed/sentence reduced/whatever gets you home fastest, and we'll all live happily ever after, just like we were always meant to.

Love,

Conned in Carolina

P.S. What was in the box, love?

 

[LdiJ]

He was jailed for actions pertaining to the OP's child.

It wouldn't exactly be climbing Mount Vesuvius to convince a judge that you suspect Mom is corresponding again with Jailed Lover and that by her doing so may - and yes, I said "may" for a reason - warrant further investigation in order to protect the child.

Take this:



(Admittedly the first one that came up. It's Friday. Sue me. )

Remember that Mom actually lost custody because of the boyfriend. Her current contact may well be enough to prove that she's just not quite there yet and may be looking for "failure to protect" on her wishlist. When we add the court's opinion that yep, we might need to err on the side of caution, it's certainly viable.

I get your point. I really do. But it's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

Then again, context would be nice, wouldn't it? Because I know I'm not alone in wondering what the flying ferret was in those letters!

Except that we are not talking about intercepting future mail, we are talking about getting ahold of mail that was already received. Certainly a prison can intercept and read an inmates mail if that is in the best interest of the state. Again though, that isn't the issue here.

I am talking about the logistics of getting one's hands on previously received mail, that may not even exist anymore...and may not be helpful even if it does exist...and a judge might not even consider it to be relevant if it does still exist.

 

[mommyanme]

What he can't do is walk up to the mailbox and steal it.

That's what I was referring too, when she says intercept, being a postal worker makes me think of "stealing mail"

I'm still curious why OP is so concerned about what she's written if it's only "co-parenting"