My cousin just lost custody of her baby... HELP

ok fishin' I concede that having no knowledge of MA law,
on the other hand, from what you say,"should be awarded otherwise" would require some degree of evidence that custody should be removed from the parent mother, yes?

fishin' filled in for me. I think some of these laws are state by state. What fishin' says is also true in NY.

Yes, there would have to be some evidence. As others have said there is some info here that must have been presented in the courtroom that we aren't getting here.

While the law in MA is setup to be as neutral as possible the courts have not enforced them that way. The courts almost always bend over backwards in favor of the mother so, IMO, this is an extremely unusual situation. If it had been the father that had been stripped of any custody without any evidence it would be a fairly common story in MA.

yeah I hear that fishin' I was only commenting on the way things are not justice. In my opinion the only issue should be the best intersets of the child.

Yeah. Even just with the info given, I can imagine some sort of situation where she announced she was moving with the baby, the father wasn't having it, took her to court, and then the default position of joint custody was impacted somehow by how things went. That the judge said she'd need to stay within X miles of the father, say, and she reacted badly.

Or that some other attitude/ reacting badly aspect interacted with the fact that she ran off with another man and that she is not making any money (?) and ended up with the other guy getting custody, especially if he got a decent lawyer and knew how to act.

Where do things stand now? Can she appeal? Does she have a lawyer?

I'm afraid you may be incorrect here, dyslexia. The law -- I'm only qualified to speak about the law in Kansas, but I gotta believe it's also the law in most states -- awards custody based on the best interests of the child, with no parental preference (i.e., no preference on the mother). I think Green Witch is exactly correct, that the father filed a paternity case based on the mothers stated intention to leave the state with the child. There is little doubt that would be a big factor that could have swayed the court's decision, even with the few details we know. Normally the court would advise the parent intending to leave that they are free to leave the state, but they will lose custody if they do.

Now, if the court awarded outright primary custody to the father, it is unclear why that decision was made, and obviously the facts we don't know would provide those answers.

Was this a final or temporary order?

When my granddaughter was 11, my son and daughter-in-law were divorced. She was a real screwball. He fought like crazy for custody. He had gathered a lot of documentation of his ex-wife's crazy ways. One of the problems was that unfitness is something that is difficult to prove. Do you know how he finally got custody? She moved out of state!

This just doesn't make any sense to me.

Has your cousin ever been accused of neglect?

ok, In my 30 years of experience I've never seen one case in which custody was taken from a parent mother and given to an unmarried parent father only on the grounds of her relocating to another state. but then, I'm sure you know better Tico.

I've been in and out of the courts enough to know that there's got to be more to this.

I hear ya Dys.

Cousin has never touched the baby... I talked to her again last night and the reason she gave me was

1) She has only known her husband (well they get married at 3:15 pm today) for 9 months

2) The place they are going to be living is not set up yet... they need to get it ready completely....

SHe told me her lawyer (I am guessing it is on of them court appointed ones, not one she actually had to seek out...) anyways, her lawyer seemed to be on the fathers side and was being extremely rude to her... (in a sense though my cousin, and the baby's father, look like, how do I put it nicely, trailor trash...)

But she has to be omitting something out of what she is telling me... because now she is leaving still, going to set up the place they are to live, and then coming back to get custody.. or at least try...

Her father, the baby's grandfather, is going to get visitation rights on the weekend, so he can check up and make sure the baby isn't harmed

My honest opinion... neither of them are fit to be a parent... She has known her "husband" for 9 months and they are trying to have another kid... they have never even lived together...

I just don;t get it....

dys- Did you read my post above yours? My son had plenty of documentation as to the unfitness of his ex wife. Most of the abuse was emotional, so it was hard to prove. But moving out of state was something that no one could dispute. I think that judge wisely took that position. The difference was that my son had formerly been married to the mother.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1919655#1919655

I hear ya, Crazy! It really is sad for that poor baby :-(

I really wonder if it was that she was given the choice -- stay within X miles and share custody, or move and lose custody. And she wants to be with this new guy and so decided to move, and is just thinking she will get custody back later on.

It would seem to fit a few different things, and could be the central thing she's not telling you because it makes her look bad (choosing a man over her baby).

Oof.

Sad story.

No she was not given the choice, he was granted custody, I believe it may be temp. but I am honestly not sure. She said they gave him custody and she bawled her eyes out as she said goodbye to her son.

She would never choose the man over her child, I know that for a fact, she loves that baby more than anything.

She told you she wasn't given a choice, anyway. Many of us are saying something seems off, there must be more info. But who knows.

Sad situation no matter what, hope things work out for everyone but especially the baby.

You say she plans to come back and get custody -- why is that set in the future? Why isn't she doing whatever she can NOW?

She has no choice now, apparently the judge thinks she can't provide for the baby right now, so she is doing what she calls a "trial run" with the baby's father... hoping he won't be able to handle it I guess

I should have also told you, which I forgot... my cousin is half blind, half deaf, she has shunts from her head to her stomach... she is not the brightest crayon in the box... The lights are flashing, the gates are down, but the trains not coming.

It appears so, dys. Of course I've only been practicing law for a dozen or so years, so I don't know how they did things in the "olden days." :wink:


But to clarify what you have apparently misunderstood: I did not suggest the decision was solely based on the mothers stated intention to leave the state, but that could be a big factor that the judge weighed with all of the other factors. It appears, given the comments CL has made, that there is obviously a lot more involved with the court's decision than simply the mothers intent to leave.

Following are the guidelines in New Mexico that the courts generally use to determine custody. I think other states probably follow a similar outline:

New Mexico Child Custody Laws
Child Custody Guidelines.
In determining custody of a minor child, New Mexico laws require the court, if the minor is under the age of fourteen, to determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child. The court shall consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to:

(1) the wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his custody;

(2) the wishes of the child as to his custodian;

(3) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parents, his siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest;

(4) the child's adjustment to his home, school and community; and

(5) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved.

If the minor is fourteen years of age or older, the court shall consider the desires of the minor as to with whom he wishes to live before awarding custody of such minor. The court shall not prefer one parent as a custodian solely because of gender.



Joint Custody.
When the parents agree to a form of custody, the court should award custody consistent with the agreement unless the court determines that such agreement is not in the best interests of the child. There shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a child in an initial custody determination. In determining whether a joint custody order is in the best interests of the child, in addition to the factors listed above, the court shall consider the following factors:

(1) whether the child has established a close relationship with each parent;

(2) whether each parent is capable of providing adequate care for the child throughout each period of responsibility, including arranging for the child's care by others as needed;

(3) whether each parent is willing to accept all responsibilities of parenting, including a willingness to accept care of the child at specified times and to relinquish care to the other parent at specified times;

(4) whether the child can best maintain and strengthen a relationship with both parents through predictable, frequent contact and whether the child's development will profit from such involvement and influence from both parents;

(5) whether each parent is able to allow the other to provide care without intrusion, that is, to respect the other's parental rights and responsibilities and right to privacy;

(6) the suitability of a parenting plan for the implementation of joint custody, preferably, although not necessarily, one arrived at through parental agreement;

(7) geographic distance between the parents' residences;

(8) willingness or ability of the parents to communicate, cooperate or agree on issues regarding the child's needs; and

(9) whether a judicial adjudication has been made in a prior or the present proceeding that either parent or other person seeking custody has engaged in one or more acts of domestic abuse against the child, a parent of the child or other household member. If a determination is made that domestic abuse has occurred, the court shall set forth findings that the custody or visitation ordered by the court adequately protects the child, the abused parent or other household member.



Joint Custody - Definitions.
An award of joint custody means that:

(1) each parent shall have significant, well-defined periods of responsibility for the child;

(2) each parent shall have, and be allowed and expected to carry out, responsibility for the child's financial, physical, emotional and developmental needs during that parent's periods of responsibility;

(3) the parents shall consult with each other on major decisions involving the child before implementing those decisions; that is, neither parent shall make a decision or take an action which results in a major change in a child's life until the matter has been discussed with the other parent and the parents agree. If the parents, after discussion, cannot agree and if one parent wishes to effect a major change while the other does not wish the major change to occur, then no change shall occur until the issue has been resolved as provided in this subsection;

(4) the following guidelines apply to major changes in a child's life:

(a) if either parent plans to change his home city or state of residence, he shall provide to the other parent thirty days' notice in writing stating the date and destination of move;

(b) the religious denomination and religious activities, or lack thereof, which were being practiced during the marriage should not be changed unless the parties agree or it has been otherwise resolved as provided in this subsection;

(c) both parents shall have access to school records, teachers and activities. The type of education, public or private, which was in place during the marriage should continue, whenever possible, and school districts should not be changed unless the parties agree or it has been otherwise resolved as provided in this subsection;

(d) both parents shall have access to medical and dental treatment providers and records. Each parent has authority to make emergency medical decisions. Neither parent may contract for major elective medical or dental treatment unless both parents agree or it has been otherwise resolved as provided in this subsection; and

(e) both parents may attend the child's public activities and both parents should know the necessary schedules. Whatever recreational activities the child participated in during the marriage should continue with the child's agreement, regardless of which of the parents has physical custody. Also, neither parent may enroll the child in a new recreational activity unless the parties agree or it has been otherwise resolved as provided in this subsection; and

(5) decisions regarding major changes in a child's life may be decided by:

(a) agreement between the joint custodial parents;

(b) requiring that the parents seek family counseling, conciliation or mediation service to assist in resolving their differences;

(c) agreement by the parents to submit the dispute to binding arbitration;

(d) allocating ultimate responsibility for a particular major decision area to one legal custodian;

(e) terminating joint custody and awarding sole custody to one person;

(f) reference to a master pursuant to Rule 53 [Rule 1-053 NMRA] of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts; or

(g) the district court.

-From 40-4-9 of the New Mexico Statutes.

CL- Er, didn't you think that those details were important? I would bet that her physical and mental condition, and the fact that she has no means of support were taken into consideration, when the judge made his ruling!