lose custody of child because of past adoptions?

[ARGHX2]

What is the name of your state? not sure it matters

If a woman placed children for adoption when she was younger, and since married and had more children, if she decides to seek divorce, can the husband gain custody of the kids due to the fact she placed children previously?

I'm in an argument with a co-worker who thinks he can hands down take the kids from her just based on his wife's past (prior to marriage) I don't think it is relevant, nor can even be brought up in court.

IMO just because she placed a child (or apparently childREN) doesn't make her an unfit mother...would a court see it that way?

 

[Boxcarbill]

The reality is that in family law cases parties often bring up every conceivable thing that they think will hurt and/or humiliate the other party. So, yes, even though a topic is irrelevant and/or happened so remote in time as to be inadmissible under the rules of civil procedure, people will still bring up past sexual acts, preferred sexual positions if they think it is kinky and will shock the judge, prior marriage partners of their spouse if the prior marriage partner is a convicted criminal or some other undesirable, prior abortions, prior adoptions, out-of-mainstream religious practice and out-of-mainstream employment are just a few of the irrelevant things that people bring up in an attempt to humiliate the other party and/or get a favorable ruling. Of course, it is wading through this clap-trap that has caused the courts to refer family law cases to mediation before the judge will hear the case. Judges really don't want to hear this crap so the party that attempts to bring up these irrelevant things loses brownie points with the judge. It is a wise course to piss off the judge.

 

[nextwife]

That could definately backfire. I don't believe that a too-young mother who could make responsible choices in "THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD would have that seen as a negative trait.

FYI- Our adoption agency is run by two woman whose husbands ARE judges. Would be might funny if he tried that tactic with one of them!

 

[ARGHX2]

I think the adoptions happened when she was in her late 20's, she's only 34, they have been married for only a few years and he alluded to it being rather close to the time they had met...not entirely sure.

In any event, I'd assume the judge would only be interested in hearing about things pertaining to the child(ren) in question in the custody hearing before him that day.

I'm going to show this to him and see if I can get him to put his head on straight.

Thanks.