Emergency Temporary Custody

[Ronin]

First off, dad is NOT attempting to CHANGE custody, he's attempting to ESTABLISH IT on a TEMPORARY basis PENDING a hearing.

Also, the judge is going to need a DAMNED good reason to NOT award the FATHER of this child custody when the mother CLEARLY cannot exercise custody at this time. A little document called the Constitution would smack him in his head if he tried.

My bet is if dad walks into court this week as a pro se he will not walk away with custody. But maybe dad will respond and prove me wrong... and make me a tad less jaded about some aspects of family law.

Sorry, but if you understood the case law for constitutional challenges in custody disputes, you would understand the reasons why no judge is going to be smacked in the head for refusing to grant temporary custody in this type of case.

 

[Just Blue]

My bet is if dad walks into court this week as a pro se he will not walk away with custody. But maybe dad will respond and prove me wrong... and make me a tad less jaded about some aspects of family law.

Sorry, but if you understood the case law for constitutional challenges in custody disputes, you would understand the reasons why no judge is going to be smacked in the head for refusing to grant temporary custody in this type of case.

Please provide some relevant case law. Thanks.

 

[CJane]

My bet is if dad walks into court this week as a pro se he will not walk away with custody. But maybe dad will respond and prove me wrong... and make me a tad less jaded about some aspects of family law.

Sorry, but if you understood the case law for constitutional challenges in custody disputes, you would understand the reasons why no judge is going to be smacked in the head for refusing to grant temporary custody in this type of case.

Oh ok. We're all disagreeing with you because we just don't have teh grasp of the case law like you do.

Whatever. Post a single relevant case in OP's state in which the LEGAL FATHER of a child was denied temporary custody when he was otherwise fit to parent and the mother of the child was in jail with no release date pending.

G'head. I'll wait.

 

[LdiJ]

My bet is if dad walks into court this week as a pro se he will not walk away with custody. But maybe dad will respond and prove me wrong... and make me a tad less jaded about some aspects of family law.

Sorry, but if you understood the case law for constitutional challenges in custody disputes, you would understand the reasons why no judge is going to be smacked in the head for refusing to grant temporary custody in this type of case.

Ronin, I have always had a great deal of respect for things you have posted, but not in this thread, AT ALL.

You are advocating absolutely the opposite of what statute and case law represents...and I have absolutely no idea why.

It is completely and totally appropriate for a non-custodial parent to file for emergency, temporary custody when the custodial parent is jailed or otherwise absent.

Why you are pushing so hard for the child to remain with a grandparent, rather than an involved parent, in a situation like this is beyond me.

You are flat out wrong.

 

[Ronin]

Why you are pushing so hard for the child to remain with a grandparent, rather than an involved parent, in a situation like this is beyond me.

Understand that I am not pushing for, or even inclined toward, the grandparent having custody in this case. Nor is any part of this personal, other than my taking the position of devils advocate.

I just do not believe that from what the father has stated here, he will walk into court this week as a pro se and take emergency custody. Although it is possible, I doubt it will happen. There are just too many loose ends and unknowns for anyone here to assert otherwise.

As case law goes, there is really very little if anything to contradict the fact that these types of custody determinations are almost never overturned on appeal. Even less so on the facts and grounds this case would present. Family courts have far too much discretion. So the burden is not on me to offer case law to prove this contention right, but on anyone who feels this is incorrect to offer case law asserting this.

There is no need to address the basis of my legal experience, other than to note that I do have access to legal resources and information most non-attorney's do not... and generally cannot.

I do apologize if anyone is slighted by my comments, but as most know, my comments are very rarely intended to do so, and certainly not in this case.

For anyone to construe what I have stated in this post as advocating against a father's rights would be very incorrect. My inclination is very much on the other end of that spectrum.

 

[sometwo]

As case law goes, there is really very little if anything to contradict the fact that these types of custody determinations are almost never overturned on appeal

And why would it even be consitered for an appeal?

Mom is in jail and unable to take care of child. child goes to live with dad. What possible thing could mom agrue that says she could have taken care of the child while she was in jail?

There is nothing she would be able to say in an appeal that would justify that dad should not have gotton custody at least temp while mom was in jail.

ETA: Mom doesn't have child and is not providing for child. Next in line in that case is dad. Not grandma or anyone else. Parents are first.

 

[Isis1]

Understand that I am not pushing for, or even inclined toward, the grandparent having custody in this case. Nor is any part of this personal, other than my taking the position of devils advocate.

I just do not believe that from what the father has stated here, he will walk into court this week as a pro se and take emergency custody. Although it is possible, I doubt it will happen. There are just too many loose ends and unknowns for anyone here to assert otherwise.

As case law goes, there is really very little if anything to contradict the fact that these types of custody determinations are almost never overturned on appeal. Even less so on the facts and grounds this case would present. Family courts have far too much discretion. So the burden is not on me to offer case law to prove this contention right, but on anyone who feels this is incorrect to offer case law asserting this.

There is no need to address the basis of my legal experience, other than to note that I do have access to legal resources and information most non-attorney's do not... and generally cannot.

I do apologize if anyone is slighted by my comments, but as most know, my comments are very rarely intended to do so, and certainly not in this case.

For anyone to construe what I have stated in this post as advocating against a father's rights would be very incorrect. My inclination is very much on the other end of that spectrum.

honestly, i'm not slighted. i'm more intrigued. WHY do you think dad won't be able to get custody over grandma?

because he's pro se? or because mom lives with grandma and may just not end up in jail long term?

 

[Ronin]

Sometwo, any such appeal would not come from the mother, but from the father. If the judge was unwilling to grant emergency temporary custody to the father, he would have little recourse to appeal such a decision.

Isabella, the reasons I believe a judge would be strongly disinclined to grant emergency temporary custody are because

(1) a hearing is pending on paternity in a few weeks
(2) there is family support on the mothers side which has already been providing primary care and residence to the child since birth
(3) although the mothers long term legal situation is uncertain, she can still make decisions regarding the childs care
(4) the father has not given any indication on his living arrangements, and whether or not it really is as simple as going out any buying a crib and such, or whether there are other issues where his work schedule or living arangements or family support are too tenuous to be given emergency custody today
(5) that he is taking this action as a pro se, which as these things go, will induce some measure of bias unless he is able to present himself very well to the court.

So, unless the father can raise any arguably valid issues with the child remaining in the grandmothers care for the immediate future, it is far from a given a judge will grant emergency custody under these conditions.

And this was my only point.

In a few weeks things may pan out so he gets full custody anyway...

 

[sometwo]

There are a couple of things I disagree with

there is family support on the mothers side which has already been providing primary care and residence to the child since birth

How do you know that? How do you know dad hasn't been keeping child off and on also even though there was no court order? Has dad said?

although the mothers long term legal situation is uncertain, she can still make decisions regarding the childs care

Yea when she's allowed to call from jail. Not very much involved with the decisions right now I wouldn't think

) the father has not given any indication on his living arrangements, and whether or not it really is as simple as going out any buying a crib and such, or whether there are other issues where his work schedule or living arangements or family support are too tenuous to be given emergency custody today

Dad seems to have the child right now right? So if he already has the child I would assume more on the other side of he can take care of the child. Also since when do you need "all" the baby equipment to have your kid at your house. How many parents don't have a crib etc. My sister never had a crib for her son. He's 3 now.

that he is taking this action as a pro se, which as these things go, will induce some measure of bias unless he is able to present himself very well to the court.

Why do you say that? There is bias because he's pro se?

 

[Nocgirl]

Grandma does not have any more rights than you do. If you are the legal father on record, meaning you are onthe birth paperwork, in most states paternity has already been established. You should be ok to keep the child but you need to see an attorney and file for custody asap. If Grandma tries to come take the child of course tell her no.

 

[Nocgirl]

Dad has more rights here due to genetics. Not grandma. If mom is in jail and she is unable to care for the child, custody should go to Dad. Because mom lives with grandma, it does not make Grandma a choice over Dad. Grandma might be able to petition for visitation but she should not get custody. If Dad is involved with the child, especailly if he pays support, he should get the child.

I disagree that grandparents have more rights over parents, unless the other parent is totally absent and not involved at all.

 

[Ronin]

Again...

This case is not one where anyone can unequivocally presume a judge will award temporary emergency custody to the father. It is entirely possible the judge may not...

This thread should be over until the father comes back online...

 

[LdiJ]

Sometwo, any such appeal would not come from the mother, but from the father. If the judge was unwilling to grant emergency temporary custody to the father, he would have little recourse to appeal such a decision.

Isabella, the reasons I believe a judge would be strongly disinclined to grant emergency temporary custody are because

(1) a hearing is pending on paternity in a few weeks
(2) there is family support on the mothers side which has already been providing primary care and residence to the child since birth
(3) although the mothers long term legal situation is uncertain, she can still make decisions regarding the childs care
(4) the father has not given any indication on his living arrangements, and whether or not it really is as simple as going out any buying a crib and such, or whether there are other issues where his work schedule or living arangements or family support are too tenuous to be given emergency custody today
(5) that he is taking this action as a pro se, which as these things go, will induce some measure of bias unless he is able to present himself very well to the court.

So, unless the father can raise any arguably valid issues with the child remaining in the grandmothers care for the immediate future, it is far from a given a judge will grant emergency custody under these conditions.

And this was my only point.

In a few weeks things may pan out so he gets full custody anyway...

You are still hung up on the "paternity" issue even though I have told you that its a non-issue in Indiana because he signed the AOP at the hospital. It may be an issue in the state you are in, but its absolutely a non-issue in Indiana.

 

[Isis1]

Sometwo, any such appeal would not come from the mother, but from the father. If the judge was unwilling to grant emergency temporary custody to the father, he would have little recourse to appeal such a decision.

Isabella, the reasons I believe a judge would be strongly disinclined to grant emergency temporary custody are because

(1) a hearing is pending on paternity in a few weeks
(2) there is family support on the mothers side which has already been providing primary care and residence to the child since birth
(3) although the mothers long term legal situation is uncertain, she can still make decisions regarding the childs care
(4) the father has not given any indication on his living arrangements, and whether or not it really is as simple as going out any buying a crib and such, or whether there are other issues where his work schedule or living arangements or family support are too tenuous to be given emergency custody today
(5) that he is taking this action as a pro se, which as these things go, will induce some measure of bias unless he is able to present himself very well to the court.

So, unless the father can raise any arguably valid issues with the child remaining in the grandmothers care for the immediate future, it is far from a given a judge will grant emergency custody under these conditions.

And this was my only point.

In a few weeks things may pan out so he gets full custody anyway...

you know, oddest thing, i think you do have a reasonable point. and the reason i say this.....

when the ex (of the two older children) dumped the then 2 year old at his mother's house, i was denied custody until the whole hearing was completed. dad stated he didn't want the child, he just didn't want me to have him either. the judge set the schedule to where dad had physical custody, but i had the children more. this allowed the dad to keep overnights and school, but allowed me to have the children all other hours....i was later granted custody.

i still think dad should file for it, and i hope he gets it, but there is that possibility. in which case, dad needs to have a back up plan. like daily visitation.