Ok ok, here's a simple question blank and to the point.....

[AHA]

oh and..... if we could all have crystal balls and pick the perfect parents for our children, it would be a perfect world.... and there is no such thing as that!

No excuse, everyone has to take responsibility for their choices, especially if they continue the same behavior over and over. That's a pattern, not poor judgement.

 

[pegmatite9999]

You can't will your children - they're not puppies or a set of chairs (i.e. not property). Their Dad would be first in line to get custody should you die - unless he can be proven unfit.

Hmmm. Are you at all familiar with the Christa Worthington case? She was a former fashion writer who was murdered by her garbage man. She wrote in her will that she wanted her friends to care for her child in the event of her death. There was no doubt to the paternity of the father, but the court ruled that the friends could raise the child.
It seems she did, in effect, "will her child" to her friends. Still here, stealthy. How's that idle threat of yours working out?

 

[moburkes]

Hmmm. Are you at all familiar with the Christa Worthington case? She was a former fashion writer who was murdered by her garbage man. She wrote in her will that she wanted her friends to care for her child in the event of her death. There was no doubt to the paternity of the father, but the court ruled that the friends could raise the child.
It seems she did, in effect, "will her child" to her friends. Still here, stealthy. How's that idle threat of yours working out?

You're wrong. The law states that you cannot will your children. The judge, however, can take ANYTHING into consideration. And, Cape Cod, isn't in OHIO, unless I'm mistaken about my geography.

 

[pegmatite9999]

You're wrong. The law states that you cannot will your children. The judge, however, can take ANYTHING into consideration. And, Cape Cod, isn't in OHIO, unless I'm mistaken about my geography.

You said it. The judge can take anything into consideration in any state, and the father was NOT first in line to get custody. In fact, he had to fight like hell just to get visitation. It was because of the mother's wishes articulated in her will that the friends, not the father were awarded custody of the child.

 

[stealth2]

Hmmm. Are you at all familiar with the Christa Worthington case? She was a former fashion writer who was murdered by her garbage man. She wrote in her will that she wanted her friends to care for her child in the event of her death. There was no doubt to the paternity of the father, but the court ruled that the friends could raise the child.
It seems she did, in effect, "will her child" to her friends. Still here, stealthy. How's that idle threat of yours working out?

Actually, it would appear that custody was *bought*. Money will do a lot. But for "normal" people, it doesn't work this way. How about finding a case where a parent of modest means was able to pull it off, peggy?

 

[moburkes]

You said it. The judge can take anything into consideration in any state, and the father was NOT first in line to get custody. In fact, he had to fight like hell just to get visitation. It was because of the mother's wishes articulated in her will that the friends, not the father were awarded custody of the child.

Stealth is right. However, it was because of the mother's wishes that the jedge was able to take it into consideration. In the case that you reference, did the father fight for his children?

 

[pegmatite9999]

Actually, it would appear that custody was *bought*. Money will do a lot. But for "normal" people, it doesn't work this way. How about finding a case where a parent of modest means was able to pull it off, peggy?

How about you own the fact that you made a statement that was not entirely true ("the Dad would be first in line to get custody"), smealth.
Fathers of modest means generally get their asses handed to them in family court. Why didn't you just say that?

 

[moburkes]

Peg, I'm not sure what your point is here, but the BIO parent IS first in line. Unless he did something to remove himself from that position. But, since you didn't answer my question, I'm going to GUESS that BIO dad did not WANT custody, or 1. he would have contested the judge's decision, or 2. The judge wouldn't have been able to MAKE that decision.

 

[pegmatite9999]

Stealth is right. However, it was because of the mother's wishes that the jedge was able to take it into consideration. In the case that you reference, did the father fight for his children?

Yes, the father fought with every resource he had to get custody of his child, but he was outgunned by high priced/powered attorneys. He did get reasonable visitation rights, however. It was a brutal murder of a woman in her early forties who was stabbed so hard with a kitchen knife that she was literally impaled to the floor. Her two year old daughter sat by her mother's dead body for two days until she was found by the mother's former boyfriend. The girl had a father who was married to a woman who wanted to raise the child as her own, and the couple had six other older children. This child would have gone to a very loving home and would have been raised by her biological family. This is what would have happened if the mother had not made a provision in her will that her friends raise her daughter upon her death.

 

[moburkes]

Yes, the father fought with every resource he had to get custody of his child, but he was outgunned by high priced/powered attorneys. He did get reasonable visitation rights, however. It was a brutal murder of a woman in her early forties who was stabbed so hard with a kitchen knife that she was literally impaled to the floor. Her two year old daughter sat by her mother's dead body for two days until she was found by the mother's former boyfriend. The girl had a father who was married to a woman who wanted to raise the child as her own, and the couple had six other older children. This child would have gone to a very loving home and would have been raised by her biological family. This is what would have happened if the mother had not made a provision in her will that her friends raise her daughter upon her death.

Yeah, yeah. And because it happened in this case, it will happen in every court case in OHIO going forward, right?

 

[pegmatite9999]

Peg, I'm not sure what your point is here, but the BIO parent IS first in line. Unless he did something to remove himself from that position. But, since you didn't answer my question, I'm going to GUESS that BIO dad did not WANT custody, or 1. he would have contested the judge's decision, or 2. The judge wouldn't have been able to MAKE that decision.

Geez! Give me some time to type the bleepin' answer! He did nothing to "remove" himself. He was DESPERATE for custody of that poor child!

 

[pegmatite9999]

[/B]

Yeah, yeah. And because it happened in this case, it will happen in every court case in OHIO going forward, right?

What the hell are you talking about? I was only responding to an absolute statement by stealthy that was not absolutely true. I was born and raised in Columbus Ohio and agree that there are many differences between the Buckeye state and this crazy place. I never said anything about it being the "norm", only that it is possible. Smealthy's statement was

"Their Dad would be first in line to get custody should you die - unless he can be proven unfit."

My point is/was that this statement is not necessarily the absolute truth. GEEZ!

 

[moburkes]

Geez? Good, Lord. No statement that anyone ever writes is an abolute. There is an expcetion to every rule. Always. Period. End of story. There are also nonsense ruling to common sense things. It happens daily.

Are you going to scrutinize every single word of every single post on this forum? If so, go away, PLEASE. I'm asking nicely.

 

[LdiJ]

[/B]


What the hell are you talking about? I was only responding to an absolute statement by stealthy that was not absolutely true. I was born and raised in Columbus Ohio and agree that there are many differences between the Buckeye state and this crazy place. I never said anything about it being the "norm", only that it is possible. Smealthy's statement was

"Their Dad would be first in line to get custody should you die - unless he can be proven unfit."

My point is/was that this statement is not necessarily the absolute truth. GEEZ!

Actually, Stealth's statement WAS correct, if you understand what "first in line" means.

 

[pegmatite9999]

Geez? Good, Lord. No statement that anyone ever writes is an abolute. There is an expcetion to every rule. Always. Period. End of story. There are also nonsense ruling to common sense things. It happens daily.

Are you going to scrutinize every single word of every single post on this forum? If so, go away, PLEASE. I'm asking nicely.

Look, you made the statements, "you're wrong", and "Stealth is right." People here come for legal advice and are often wholly inexperienced with the court system. They don't understand that there are often no absolutes in court. It is unwise to give advice as absolute truth when it is not. Take ownership of being WRONG, please!

Do you ask everyone who criticizes you to go away? Must be lonely up there on your high horse! /B]