An interesting GP case.

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? GP's in Tx were awarded CUSTODY based on "GP Alienation".

The Power of Alienation | Fort Worth Weekly - News, Entertainment, Restaurants, Music

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? GP's in Tx were awarded CUSTODY based on "GP Alienation".

The Power of Alienation | Fort Worth Weekly - News, Entertainment, Restaurants, Music

I guess this is the kind of thing that can happen when mom plays musical daddies

 

[Just Blue]

I guess this is the kind of thing that can happen when mom plays musical daddies

I agree. But I think the courts went too far to take custody away.

 

[Antigone*]

I agree. But I think the courts went too far to take custody away.

You are right, but the root cause as I see it, is mom.

She got these people emotionally and legally attached to her when she didn't do the right thing from the very beginning.

None of this would have ever happened had mom handled the child's paternity correctly.

 

[mistoffolees]

I agree. But I think the courts went too far to take custody away.

Seems so. Looks like it should be ripe to be overturned on appeal.

 

[Perky]

You are right, but the root cause as I see it, is mom.

She got these people emotionally and legally attached to her when she didn't do the right thing from the very beginning.

None of this would have ever happened had mom handled the child's paternity correctly.

I totally agree! I'm glad the mom got custody back, but she shouldn't have introduced her daughter to the biological father, shouldn't let stepdad refer to himself as dad, nor let stepdad participate in decisions regarding his stepdaughter. I would love to hear the other side's story!

 

[LdiJ]

I totally agree! I'm glad the mom got custody back, but she shouldn't have introduced her daughter to the biological father, shouldn't let stepdad refer to himself as dad, nor let stepdad participate in decisions regarding his stepdaughter. I would love to hear the other side's story!

While I am sure that the other side's story would be interesting, the bottom line, to me, is that the court (and quite a few court professionals) took this child away from a fit parent over perceived alienation from a grandparent. That is horribly wrong...and I am appalled that it happened in the post Troxel era.

However, both the appellate courts and the State Supreme Court overturned it, as it should have been. Its just too bad that the child had to go through three years of that before she got her mother back.

 

[LdiJ]

Ok, I just read what I believe are all of the motions filed and opinions written in this case, and I am even more appalled.

The court of appeals AND the TX supreme court seriously spanked the trial courts for making the rulings that they made. The grandparents never even had standing for visitation, and had zero standing for custody. (per the appellate and supreme courts).

The decision was made by the trial courts based on biased opinions from a custody evaluator and a social worker, both who admitted that the mother was an excellent mother with an excellent relationship with the child, and that their decisions to recommend custody to the grandparents were solely based on the fact that mom needed to learn to "share" the child with the grandparents.

During the entire three years these court professionals saw the child regularly and also admitted that during the entire three years the child regularly begged to be returned to her mother.

Initially the mother was more than willing to allow the grandparents access, but the grandparents were demanding, showed up at her home uninvited frequently, blocked her driveway and demanded to be given their son's full visitation rights, and would not accept that the child really did not want to spend significant amounts of time with them. The mother had to call the police on them frequently to make them stop blocking her driveway. They also physically assaulted mom's grandparents.

What the grandparents and the courts put this child through was appalling.

However, it is true that if the mother had disestablished her husband's paternity at the time of their divorce, none of this could have happened. However, mom honestly thought she was doing the right thing by not cutting the child off from her husband.

At least justice was served in the end. The legal father still retains rights (which he rarely uses) but the grandparents are cut off from the child completely unless the child expresses a desire to see them...which so far she has not.

And to add insult to injury, this case cost the mother almost 100k in legal fees.

 

[Isis1]

My response would get me banned for at least a week. I'll even admit my own personnel feelings against grandparent rights are overboard, but that ruling was completely hockey putt.

 

[liandrajade]

My response would get me banned for at least a week. I'll even admit my own personnel feelings against grandparent rights are overboard, but that ruling was completely hockey putt.

utterly and absolutely disgusting from the brief amount I am reading, however, Ld, point me out to where the opinions are, I'd like to read them.

Just makes me wonder what other states would be so bold to try this nonsense.

 

[LdiJ]

utterly and absolutely disgusting from the brief amount I am reading, however, Ld, point me out to where the opinions are, I'd like to read them.

Just makes me wonder what other states would be so bold to try this nonsense.

They aren't all in one spot. I just googled Russell vs Harvey and kept reading. I didn't save any of the locations.

 

[liandrajade]

They aren't all in one spot. I just googled Russell vs Harvey and kept reading. I didn't save any of the locations.

Ah, I see, thank you.

 

[muchneededhelp]

Completely shell shocked at this.

How dare these people...

that their decisions to recommend custody to the grandparents were solely based on the fact that mom needed to learn to "share" the child with the grandparents.

Share? So the mother's parental rights were stripped away, for no good reason, and they were given full control... and that's what this judge considers SHARING?

During the entire three years these court professionals saw the child regularly and also admitted that during the entire three years the child regularly begged to be returned to her mother.

Now, I know I'm fairly new here, and I know a child's wishes aren't addressed at a young age... but am I wrong to think that if a court professional saw a child beg to be returned to her mother while in the custody of lets say the father, be a red light? Or vice versa? Did no one not consider the wishes of the child, along with the fitness of the mother? Just an example.

Everything I just read... was an all out FAIL of our judicial system, and proof yet again... that our parental rights are only as secure as the judge that approves them.

I am very happy this mother finally won; and I hope the Court of Appeals and the TX Supreme Court did more than SPANK these judges. I'm sickened by this.

And yes, I agree- paternity should of been properly established. BUT, after seeing the actions that these grandparents took, even with proper paternity, they would of went the full 9 yards anyway. They were intent on getting their way, legal or not.

 

[LdiJ]

Completely shell shocked at this.

How dare these people...



Share? So the mother's parental rights were stripped away, for no good reason, and they were given full control... and that's what this judge considers SHARING?



Now, I know I'm fairly new here, and I know a child's wishes aren't addressed at a young age... but am I wrong to think that if a court professional saw a child beg to be returned to her mother while in the custody of lets say the father, be a red light? Or vice versa? Did no one not consider the wishes of the child, along with the fitness of the mother? Just an example.

Everything I just read... was an all out FAIL of our judicial system, and proof yet again... that our parental rights are only as secure as the judge that approves them.

I am very happy this mother finally won; and I hope the Court of Appeals and the TX Supreme Court did more than SPANK these judges. I'm sickened by this.

And yes, I agree- paternity should of been properly established. BUT, after seeing the actions that these grandparents took, even with proper paternity, they would of went the full 9 yards anyway. They were intent on getting their way, legal or not.

I have actually seen WORSE than this.

In a famous case in IL, a mother spent a full 6 months in jail, and another 6 months of 9-5 weekday jail for refusing to honor a gpv order that should never have been made. The judge was smart enough not to attempt to give custody to the gps, but the judge punished the mother to the full max. The case was making its way through the appeals court when the IL supreme court struck down their laws, which got mom released.

That particular judge lost her job. She either didn't get re-appointed or re-elected, I cannot remember which it was.

KY parents were ordered to weekend jail and had to do it for quite a few months, and during those weekends vital medications were denied to the mother, and she ended up dying. That judge ended up off the bench as well.

However, I haven't seen a parent jailed (gpv case) since the IL case. Judge's have had enough negative reprecussions/bad press from that that they don't do it anymore. Most of the jailings of parents were pre-Troxel.

 

[muchneededhelp]

I have actually seen WORSE than this.

In a famous case in IL, a mother spent a full 6 months in jail, and another 6 months of 9-5 weekday jail for refusing to honor a gpv order that should never have been made. The judge was smart enough not to attempt to give custody to the gps, but the judge punished the mother to the full max. The case was making its way through the appeals court when the IL supreme court struck down their laws, which got mom released.

That particular judge lost her job. She either didn't get re-appointed or re-elected, I cannot remember which it was.

KY parents were ordered to weekend jail and had to do it for quite a few months, and during those weekends vital medications were denied to the mother, and she ended up dying. That judge ended up off the bench as well.

However, I haven't seen a parent jailed (gpv case) since the IL case. Judge's have had enough negative reprecussions/bad press from that that they don't do it anymore. Most of the jailings of parents were pre-Troxel.

You just blew my mind. Incredible. I'm tickled pink that these judges were removed from a position of authority. Troxel was a wonderful thing for this country, but we have a much further to go before these injustices stop. Jailing a parent for asserting their constitutional rights is as stupid as it comes; that is not in a child's best interest. That is a court overstepping their bounds!

If I am hijacking a thread, I really don't mean to, but I thought I would include this:

http://www.parentsrights.net/uploads/5_Critical_Issues-Steve_Newman.pdf

A very long, thorough read about how GPV cases only HURT families. It's incredible.