Child Services are Fucking Retards

[Zwinmar]

I would still say child services are fucking retards, at least in the area where I live. Between conflict of interests and not doing a proper investigation...

[Mr. Coffee]

Maybe I jumped the gun, but when I see questions like that it's usually a jumping off point into an argument about how disadvantaged fathers are. And every good source I've seen says that while women are more often declared the primary caregiver that has more to do with the fact that she's usually already acting as one. When the father actually pushes hard for custody they usually get a more than fair amount.

That's not what I asked, Ralin. Now be a good lad, go back and read the question I asked and actually answer it this time.

[Broomstick]

And... please provide a cite because I've seen and heard nothing about this.

The article in the op?

The child's court-appointed guardian, Hillary Duke, said Sonya is doing well. Duke blamed David and Kimberly Hodgin for blocking the state's earlier attempts to place Sonya with relatives.

Oh, silly me – here I was expecting you to have a cite regarding a specific aunt or uncle, more than simply vague “with relatives”. What does that mean? And why assume that a potentially distant relative is automatically and inherently better than the foster family the child was already placed with? This is what I mean by the assumption that biology trumps all. We don't really know anything about the father, the baby's relatives (on either father or mother's side) or the foster family.

If it were Joanna McCaul (ie the mother securing custody not the father), would the outrage at the parent for wanting their child back be the same?

Perhaps not the same, but don't automatically assume that a felon mother is going to garner a lot of sympathy, either.

I find it hliarious that you americans hold the simultanious notions of "unfair justice system" and "all convicts are awful subhumans". What the fuck is wrong with you?

That was directed at the idiots, Coffe.

Man, those two statements look pretty damning together, don't they? Yes, I know you (sort of) apologized but I'm just chiming in with those saying it's pretty fucking offensive to label all Americans as idiots.

1) Can a convicted felon ever be a good parent, and justly claim to retain their parental rights?

Yes.

2) Given our concept of "parental rights," does that mean that the parent's right to the return of a child trumps the child's interests in having a stable home life?

In theory no, in practice yes, all too often the rights of the parents seem to supersede the rights of the child when they cases go to court.

3) Should fathers and mothers have equal standing in terms of parental rights, and equal opportunity to raise their own children?

Yes, but although things are getting better than they used to be this is not the actual state of affairs at this time.

Well, he hired a baby-sitter to watch the kid while he was at work. So, clearly not a complete deadbeat, since he was both working and tried to ensure that his child would have supervision while he was working instead of neglecting it.

While I agree with you that someone with a job should not be described as a “deadbeat”, the child is not an “it”, the child is a “she”. Do you regard this person as a person (she) or property (it)?

Since then, his main run-ins with the law appear to be citations for driving without a license and failure to appear - fairly typical experience of a poor/uneducated person unable to deal with bureaucracy effectively.

There is no excuse for driving without a license. Being “poor” or “uneducated” is insufficient explanation given the many, many poor and uneducated people who nonetheless manage to keep a license in their pocket.

I have several friends who are ex-felons. They have managed to keep a driver's license on them while driving and keep other peoples' guns out of their vehicles. They are some of the most law-abiding people I know. Then again, they genuinely learned their lesson and have worked their asses off to get back to respectability and they don't whine about how their prior fuck-ups cause some inconvenience to them from time to time. They don't excuse themselves by saying they were "just a kid" when the shit happened.

Now, he runs (well, ran) a security firm and was driving around with a coworker who had a gun in his car, but she didn't have it holstered, so the gun was imputed to be his and he was charged with improper transportation, as he was a felon and not permitted to have firearms by federal law.

Right, this is like the excuse “those drugs aren't mine, officer, I'm just holding them for a friend”. A gun in a car should be secured. We're very much hearing only one side of this story, and in any case, as a convicted felon he should have been more careful and responsible about letting someone carrying a gun into his car. Unless, of course, this is an excuse and he actually was in possession of an illegal firearm or something else hinky was going on. Remember, this is the guy's mother - there's no guarantee she ever heard the true story, or that if she did, this story she's giving the papers is the truth.

But he has indicated consistently that he wants to be in his daughter's life, up to making an agreement with the adoptive parents to be slowly reintegrated into her life over a longer period of time. An agreement they reneged on, prompting him to file a motion for full return of custody, which they fought, and are still fighting.

What proof do we have of any agreement? Talk is cheap. Promises without a legal paper involved are mere vapor.

This is ignoring the notion that the only parents she has ever known would need to be “reintegrated” into her life is bullshit. It's the father who needs reintegration into the life of child to whom he is a total stranger.

Mind you, I do think that Sonya has a right to know her biological father and he her. I do not thing he should automatically get full custody, or even partial custody, under these circumstances.

At 9 Sonya is old enough to have an opinion of her own. Was she ever consulted?

One thing I absolutely agree with the father, the father's family, and the guardian ad litem on is that the adoptive family is the one that has been making things worse by publicizing everything, including selling t-shirts with the daughter's face on it in order to pay for lawyer's fees and posting very slanted versions of the story everywhere to try to influence things. If you really cared about the best interests of the child, you don't try to win the custody case via celebrity.

The father's side of this is ALSO quite slanted. If you really cared about the best interest of the child you wouldn't snatch her away from the only life she's ever known with a mere two hours warning and cut off all contact (aside from one brief phone call) from everyone and everything she's ever known. That sounds absolutely horrific to me. How is that different than kidnapping and child abuse?

Keep in mind, too, your source article quotes extensively the father's mother – oh, no, she couldn't possibly be biased, could she? You don't think her referral to Sonya's adoptive parents as “foster parents” isn't biased? Referring the to blood relatives as Sonya's “real family”, implying adoptive families are fake, maybe that's just a little biased?

We are never going to let that happen. She is family and families don’t just give up on each other. They have no blood link to her. They have no right to her and if you ask me, their lawyer needs to tell them to shut their mouths.

Here we go – the assertion that biology - “blood link” - trumps all else. The notion that parents have a “right” to a child. The notion that somehow adoptive parents don't have the same “right” as biological relatives.

Sonya's adoptive parents ARE REAL FAMILY and they don't want to give up on her, either.

[Terralthra]

Well, he hired a baby-sitter to watch the kid while he was at work. So, clearly not a complete deadbeat, since he was both working and tried to ensure that his child would have supervision while he was working instead of neglecting it.

While I agree with you that someone with a job should not be described as a “deadbeat”, the child is not an “it”, the child is a “she”. Do you regard this person as a person (she) or property (it)?

I think she's a person, and I think nitpicking over the pronoun used in this case is the gigantic red herring.

Since then, his main run-ins with the law appear to be citations for driving without a license and failure to appear - fairly typical experience of a poor/uneducated person unable to deal with bureaucracy effectively.

There is no excuse for driving without a license. Being “poor” or “uneducated” is insufficient explanation given the many, many poor and uneducated people who nonetheless manage to keep a license in their pocket.

I'm happy that you have strong opinions about driver's licenses and keeping them, but it's really not that simple, especially in rural/suburban areas. Lose your license if you don't live near work, and your commute easily triples, if it's even reasonably possible at all. Of course, you can get your license back, if you pay all outstanding fines and pay a reinstatement fee...which takes money, which takes work, which you...can't effectively get to. You can apply to get an exemption that allows you to drive back and forth to work, but you have to know that that's an option, and be able to afford to take multiple days off of work (which, again, you need *more* of to pay off the fines and get your license back) and pay MORE fees to get that exemption. So, you make the sucker's bet that you won't get pulled over, drive with your suspended license, and lose the bet. Now you have another (even bigger) fine to pay before you can get your license back, which means you need to work even more...

It's an ugly trap, and he wouldn't be the first to fall into it.

I have several friends who are ex-felons. They have managed to keep a driver's license on them while driving and keep other peoples' guns out of their vehicles. They are some of the most law-abiding people I know. Then again, they genuinely learned their lesson and have worked their asses off to get back to respectability and they don't whine about how their prior fuck-ups cause some inconvenience to them from time to time. They don't excuse themselves by saying they were "just a kid" when the shit happened.

Red herring, strawman. You can't attribute the words of the article to his parents and thus being biased when it suits you, and treat them like his words when it gives you something to grind your ax on.

Now, he runs (well, ran) a security firm and was driving around with a coworker who had a gun in his car, but she didn't have it holstered, so the gun was imputed to be his and he was charged with improper transportation, as he was a felon and not permitted to have firearms by federal law.

Right, this is like the excuse “those drugs aren't mine, officer, I'm just holding them for a friend”. A gun in a car should be secured. We're very much hearing only one side of this story, and in any case, as a convicted felon he should have been more careful and responsible about letting someone carrying a gun into his car. Unless, of course, this is an excuse and he actually was in possession of an illegal firearm or something else hinky was going on. Remember, this is the guy's mother - there's no guarantee she ever heard the true story, or that if she did, this story she's giving the papers is the truth.

I agree that a person who is under firearm possession restrictions should be very careful about firearms in his or her car, assuming that story is true. If it isn't, then that convicted felon absolutely shouldn't have a gun himself. In either case, I don't think that person should have his or her parental rights revoked because of it.

But he has indicated consistently that he wants to be in his daughter's life, up to making an agreement with the adoptive parents to be slowly reintegrated into her life over a longer period of time. An agreement they reneged on, prompting him to file a motion for full return of custody, which they fought, and are still fighting.

What proof do we have of any agreement? Talk is cheap. Promises without a legal paper involved are mere vapor.

This is ignoring the notion that the only parents she has ever known would need to be “reintegrated” into her life is bullshit. It's the father who needs reintegration into the life of child to whom he is a total stranger.

Um, yes, exactly. They agreed that they would let him visit her and reintegrate into her life, on which grounds he did not sue for custody. When they reneged, he sued for custody. Perhaps you misunderstood?

One thing I absolutely agree with the father, the father's family, and the guardian ad litem on is that the adoptive family is the one that has been making things worse by publicizing everything, including selling t-shirts with the daughter's face on it in order to pay for lawyer's fees and posting very slanted versions of the story everywhere to try to influence things. If you really cared about the best interests of the child, you don't try to win the custody case via celebrity.

The father's side of this is ALSO quite slanted. If you really cared about the best interest of the child you wouldn't snatch her away from the only life she's ever known with a mere two hours warning and cut off all contact (aside from one brief phone call) from everyone and everything she's ever known. That sounds absolutely horrific to me. How is that different than kidnapping and child abuse?

You mean a mere 5 years' notice? The custody proceedings were ongoing for half a fucking decade. If there was no warning from her adoptive parents to her over all of that time, whose fucking fault is that?

Keep in mind, too, your source article quotes extensively the father's mother – oh, no, she couldn't possibly be biased, could she? You don't think her referral to Sonya's adoptive parents as “foster parents” isn't biased? Referring the to blood relatives as Sonya's “real family”, implying adoptive families are fake, maybe that's just a little biased?

They were foster parents. That's fact. They tried to adopt after trying to have her father's parental rights revoked. He disputed said revocation, at length, in a court of law. That's how this shit works. The court found that his parental rights had been revoked improperly and reinstated them, nullifying the adoption. That is also how this works.

The alternative, which people seem to be advocating, is that the court should've decided that even if his parental rights had been revoked improperly, she'd been adopted long enough that her adoptive family takes precedence, handing a gigantic incentive for whoever currently has custody to drag any custody hearing out for years in hopes of effectively winning, despite losing, because "well, it's been so long." Courts generally try to discourage people from intentionally dragging out cases, not encourage it.

[Simon_Jester]

If it were Joanna McCaul (ie the mother securing custody not the father), would the outrage at the parent for wanting their child back be the same?

Perhaps not the same, but don't automatically assume that a felon mother is going to garner a lot of sympathy, either.

You're right, she's not, but at least here she might get called nicer things than "deadbeat" and "sperm donor."

2) Given our concept of "parental rights," does that mean that the parent's right to the return of a child trumps the child's interests in having a stable home life?

In theory no, in practice yes, all too often the rights of the parents seem to supersede the rights of the child when they cases go to court.

I think the problem is that children have so little ability to represent their own interests and rights that legally we have to have someone speak for them. Adults are assumed capable of speaking for themselves.

That, right there, means the adults are more likely to get what they want.

Well, he hired a baby-sitter to watch the kid while he was at work. So, clearly not a complete deadbeat, since he was both working and tried to ensure that his child would have supervision while he was working instead of neglecting it.

While I agree with you that someone with a job should not be described as a “deadbeat”, the child is not an “it”, the child is a “she”. Do you regard this person as a person (she) or property (it)?

Give him a break, it could quite easily have been a slip. Or he could have been thinking of McCaul's responsibility, which is an "it," rather than putting together the sentence grammatically.

Since then, his main run-ins with the law appear to be citations for driving without a license and failure to appear - fairly typical experience of a poor/uneducated person unable to deal with bureaucracy effectively.

There is no excuse for driving without a license. Being “poor” or “uneducated” is insufficient explanation given the many, many poor and uneducated people who nonetheless manage to keep a license in their pocket.

He said "typical" not "poor."

I have several friends who are ex-felons. They have managed to keep a driver's license on them while driving and keep other peoples' guns out of their vehicles. They are some of the most law-abiding people I know. Then again, they genuinely learned their lesson and have worked their asses off to get back to respectability and they don't whine about how their prior fuck-ups cause some inconvenience to them from time to time. They don't excuse themselves by saying they were "just a kid" when the shit happened.

In Mr. McCaul's defense, everything Terralthra is telling us comes from relatives. Even assuming it's accurate, then, you're dealing with people who have every reason to rationalize and minimalize the motives behind McCaul's convictions.

This is ignoring the notion that the only parents she has ever known would need to be “reintegrated” into her life is bullshit. It's the father who needs reintegration into the life of child to whom he is a total stranger.

Mind you, I do think that Sonya has a right to know her biological father and he her. I do not thing he should automatically get full custody, or even partial custody, under these circumstances.

If the mix of sources I've heard is to be believed, Mr. McCaul has repeatedly spent long years trying to arrange some kind of reintegration, and has been persistently blocked from doing so by the Hodges.

Remember your recent legal issues, and how much simpler everything would have been if Great Delinquent Pumpkin Harpy had just complied with the initial reasonable request rather than trying to stonewall? This is the flip side of that; if you resist a compromise long enough, then sometimes the court system will take a very draconian position on your case.

The father's side of this is ALSO quite slanted. If you really cared about the best interest of the child you wouldn't snatch her away from the only life she's ever known with a mere two hours warning and cut off all contact (aside from one brief phone call) from everyone and everything she's ever known. That sounds absolutely horrific to me. How is that different than kidnapping and child abuse?

Is it in fact the case that they only had two hours warning? Given that years of legal proceedings appear to have been involved, that seems unlikely unless the Hodges forgot to read their mail.

[Broomstick]

I think she's a person, and I think nitpicking over the pronoun used in this case is the gigantic red herring.

Really? Because I have no problem remembering to refer to female children as "she" and "her". It is disrespectful to refer to a person as an "it".

I'm happy that you have strong opinions about driver's licenses and keeping them, but it's really not that simple, especially in rural/suburban areas. Lose your license if you don't live near work, and your commute easily triples, if it's even reasonably possible at all.

Why did he lose his license? I've been driving over 30 years and I've never had a problem hanging on to mine no matter how poor I've been. If you're obeying the law - something we should all do, but maybe especially ex-cons trying to put their lives back together - there's no reason to lose one. If you're employed at all you should be able to pay the license fee every 5 years. Frankly, while I've occasionally been without a car I've never been without a license.

I agree, once you lose that license, especially in rural areas, you're royally screwed but why did he lose it in the first place? Did he - >gasp!< - break the law, maybe? Or could he not be bothered to renew it properly? So, boo-fucking-hoo, if he lost his license either there's a reason based in law, or he's a lazy fuck. Either way, he needs to get it fixed even if that means asking someone to give him a ride.

Once more - MOST poor and uneducated people manage to hang onto their driver's license by, for instance, not breaking the law.

It's an ugly trap, and he wouldn't be the first to fall into it.

People don't "fall" into this "trap", they break the law or don't bother to renew their license.

You can't attribute the words of the article to his parents and thus being biased when it suits you, and treat them like his words when it gives you something to grind your ax on.

I'm not "grinding an ax", I'm pointing out that your bias is showing and being poor isn't an excuse for ignoring the law.

I agree that a person who is under firearm possession restrictions should be very careful about firearms in his or her car, assuming that story is true. If it isn't, then that convicted felon absolutely shouldn't have a gun himself. In either case, I don't think that person should have his or her parental rights revoked because of it.

His parental rights weren't terminated because he had a gun in the car, they were terminated because of the length of the prison sentence he was given. Basically, since he wouldn't be out until after she was an adult (or nearly so) he couldn't take care of her so she needed to placed with people who could take care of her. It wasn't done to be mean to him, it was done to ensure she would have a stable home life in which to grow up.

I have to wonder why Sonya's mother didn't step forward, but we hear nothing of her. Perhaps she died, or is out of contact with the family, we just don't know but it is unusual the mother is completely uninvolved. Normally, protective services do place such children with relatives but not in this case, which makes me wonder if something is going on here we're all unaware of, but likely we'll never know.

You mean a mere 5 years' notice? The custody proceedings were ongoing for half a fucking decade. If there was no warning from her adoptive parents to her over all of that time, whose fucking fault is that?

The adoptive family were given two hours notice to pack her up. She was taken from them the very day the judgement was rendered, taken out the door with just a few bags of clothes and nothing else. Do you really think that was a good idea? We given convicted politicians more time than that before demanding they surrender to jail. She had no opportunity to say goodbye to her friends. Authorities came and picked up a sobbing child along with a couple bags of clothes and took her a thousand miles away from everyone and everything she knew like she was a sack of groceries. I think the way it was handled couldn't be anything other than traumatic.

Seriously - were her adoptive parents supposed to tell her every day for 5 years "Honey, you might be taken away from us this evening and given to a complete stranger, so be prepared. Have a nice day at school!"? Yes, the child should have been given some idea of the possibility, but I still think there's a better way to handle it than our current system.

They were foster parents. That's fact. They tried to adopt after trying to have her father's parental rights revoked.

No, you're full of shit. They started as foster parents but they LEGALLY ADOPTED HER. It was a completed adoption. They WERE her parents. Referring to them as "foster parents" is poisoning the well and saying adoptions aren't real.

He disputed said revocation, at length, in a court of law. That's how this shit works. The court found that his parental rights had been revoked improperly and reinstated them, nullifying the adoption. That is also how this works.

Incorrect. Since he was sentenced to more than 10 years his parental rights were legally revoked. It wasn't a mistake, it was entirely within the laws of Tennessee. He did NOT dispute that revocation so long as the original sentence stood.

It was only AFTER his sentence was reduced to less than 10 years that he went back to court. The court did not find his parental "rights" (which really should be "parental privileges" in my viewpoint) had been improperly revoked, the court found that the applicable law no longer applied and overturned a perfectly legal adoption. THAT is the injustice here, a final adoption should be just that: FINAL. Of course, that's not how it works in reality and I think it can really fuck up the kids but hey, parental "rights".

The alternative, which people seem to be advocating, is that the court should've decided that even if his parental rights had been revoked improperly, she'd been adopted long enough that her adoptive family takes precedence, handing a gigantic incentive for whoever currently has custody to drag any custody hearing out for years in hopes of effectively winning, despite losing, because "well, it's been so long."

His rights were NOT "improperly revoked." They were revoked entirely properly under the law.

And YES, after sufficient time in the best interests of the child her current family takes precedence! DOUBLY SO if there has been a legal and final adoption! Yanking a kid out of family to go live with someone she doesn't know a thousand miles away is traumatizing. Who the fuck can look at that and think it's a good idea or of benefit to the child?

Courts generally try to discourage people from intentionally dragging out cases, not encourage it.

Really? Tell me, have you ever been to court for anything?

In any case, you can petition for an emergency hearing. You can, if you actually give a fuck about the child as a human being, asked for something less than total custody.

But, bottom line - we do not and we can not know all the facts in this case. The two parties are biased. The courts do not discuss the details of these cases with the media. We should be skeptical of all parties here. And fuck this notion of the adults' "rights", it's the kid who should come first. If that means biodad has lost the kid to adoption too fucking bad for biodad, who can re-contact her when she's 18 if she doesn't take the initiative herself. Yes, it hurts a parent to lose custody of a kid but an adult is (or is supposed to be) far better equipped to handle the situation and deal with the pain than a 9 year old kid. The kid's best interests come first, or they are supposed to, but that seems to seldom happen in real life.

[Terralthra]

I think she's a person, and I think nitpicking over the pronoun used in this case is the gigantic red herring.

Really? Because I have no problem remembering to refer to female children as "she" and "her". It is disrespectful to refer to a person as an "it".

I'm happy that you have strong opinions about driver's licenses and keeping them, but it's really not that simple, especially in rural/suburban areas. Lose your license if you don't live near work, and your commute easily triples, if it's even reasonably possible at all.

Why did he lose his license? I've been driving over 30 years and I've never had a problem hanging on to mine no matter how poor I've been. If you're obeying the law - something we should all do, but maybe especially ex-cons trying to put their lives back together - there's no reason to lose one. If you're employed at all you should be able to pay the license fee every 5 years. Frankly, while I've occasionally been without a car I've never been without a license.

I agree, once you lose that license, especially in rural areas, you're royally screwed but why did he lose it in the first place? Did he - >gasp!< - break the law, maybe? Or could he not be bothered to renew it properly? So, boo-fucking-hoo, if he lost his license either there's a reason based in law, or he's a lazy fuck. Either way, he needs to get it fixed even if that means asking someone to give him a ride.

I'm happy that you've never gone a mile over the speed limit or rolled through a stop sign in your entire life, but I highly doubt that's the case for even a significant minority of drivers in the US, let alone a majority.

You can't attribute the words of the article to his parents and thus being biased when it suits you, and treat them like his words when it gives you something to grind your ax on.

I'm not "grinding an ax", I'm pointing out that your bias is showing and being poor isn't an excuse for ignoring the law.

Do you really have this much trouble keeping track of who said what? He never gave "I was young and stupid" as an excuse for committing a crime. His mother did. In your previous post, you attributed those words to him, and now you seem to be attributing them to me ("your bias").

I also never said that being poor was an excuse to break the law. I said that when a poor person has broken a particular set of laws, it can be extremely difficult to dig one's way out of the hole. And the quote about which you're responding is about being young, not being poor, and once again, wasn't said by me.

I agree that a person who is under firearm possession restrictions should be very careful about firearms in his or her car, assuming that story is true. If it isn't, then that convicted felon absolutely shouldn't have a gun himself. In either case, I don't think that person should have his or her parental rights revoked because of it.

His parental rights weren't terminated because he had a gun in the car, they were terminated because of the length of the prison sentence he was given. Basically, since he wouldn't be out until after she was an adult (or nearly so) he couldn't take care of her so she needed to placed with people who could take care of her. It wasn't done to be mean to him, it was done to ensure she would have a stable home life in which to grow up.

I have to wonder why Sonya's mother didn't step forward, but we hear nothing of her. Perhaps she died, or is out of contact with the family, we just don't know but it is unusual the mother is completely uninvolved. Normally, protective services do place such children with relatives but not in this case, which makes me wonder if something is going on here we're all unaware of, but likely we'll never know.

Sonya's mother gave up her parental rights willingly and ceded sole custody to the father in 2004. The protective services who should've handled the case in question didn't have access to the child, since she was essentially kidnapped by a babysitter and taken to another state.

You mean a mere 5 years' notice? The custody proceedings were ongoing for half a fucking decade. If there was no warning from her adoptive parents to her over all of that time, whose fucking fault is that?

The adoptive family were given two hours notice to pack her up. She was taken from them the very day the judgement was rendered, taken out the door with just a few bags of clothes and nothing else. Do you really think that was a good idea? We given convicted politicians more time than that before demanding they surrender to jail. She had no opportunity to say goodbye to her friends. Authorities came and picked up a sobbing child along with a couple bags of clothes and took her a thousand miles away from everyone and everything she knew like she was a sack of groceries. I think the way it was handled couldn't be anything other than traumatic.

I agree, and I think it's bad that Sonya is being punished for her biological father's and adoptive parents' actions.

They were foster parents. That's fact. They tried to adopt after trying to have her father's parental rights revoked.

No, you're full of shit. They started as foster parents but they LEGALLY ADOPTED HER. It was a completed adoption. They WERE her parents. Referring to them as "foster parents" is poisoning the well and saying adoptions aren't real.

It's not doing either. It's referring to them as the biological family sees them. You privilege the adoptive parents over the biological parent, as is your right to have an opinion, but it's the court in question which annulled the adoption, not me. Take it up with them. I'm siding with the relevant legal authority until and unless it is shown they acted grossly in error.

He disputed said revocation, at length, in a court of law. That's how this shit works. The court found that his parental rights had been revoked improperly and reinstated them, nullifying the adoption. That is also how this works.

Incorrect. Since he was sentenced to more than 10 years his parental rights were legally revoked. It wasn't a mistake, it was entirely within the laws of Tennessee. He did NOT dispute that revocation so long as the original sentence stood.

You keep referring to Tennessee, as if he lived there. He didn't. His daughter was only there because, again, she was effectively kidnapped and absconded to another state. You also seem very sure of yourself and your knowledge of the facts of the case and the timing of his appeals, when later on in this very post you say "we can't know the facts of the case." You seem to apply that assertion...inconsistently. Interesting.

It was only AFTER his sentence was reduced to less than 10 years that he went back to court. The court did not find his parental "rights" (which really should be "parental privileges" in my viewpoint) had been improperly revoked, the court found that the applicable law no longer applied and overturned a perfectly legal adoption. THAT is the injustice here, a final adoption should be just that: FINAL. Of course, that's not how it works in reality and I think it can really fuck up the kids but hey, parental "rights".

Do you have relevant court documents showing that the revocation was done with all due process fulfilled? Or are you guessing based on news stories? A court found in 2009 that due process wasn't followed.

The alternative, which people seem to be advocating, is that the court should've decided that even if his parental rights had been revoked improperly, she'd been adopted long enough that her adoptive family takes precedence, handing a gigantic incentive for whoever currently has custody to drag any custody hearing out for years in hopes of effectively winning, despite losing, because "well, it's been so long."

His rights were NOT "improperly revoked." They were revoked entirely properly under the law.

Not according to the courts. Maybe you'd like to replace the appeals court with Broomstick's Legal Opinion?

And YES, after sufficient time in the best interests of the child her current family takes precedence! DOUBLY SO if there has been a legal and final adoption! Yanking a kid out of family to go live with someone she doesn't know a thousand miles away is traumatizing. Who the fuck can look at that and think it's a good idea or of benefit to the child?

So, just to clarify here, you're in favor of custodial parents (adoptive or biological) making every effort to drag out any custody battle so that the outcome of due process is essentially ignored? That is the precedent leaving Sonya with her adoptive parents sets: doesn't matter what your case is, or who would win it, if you just keep fighting long enough with the child in your house, you will get custody.

Courts generally try to discourage people from intentionally dragging out cases, not encourage it.

Really? Tell me, have you ever been to court for anything?

Yup. I've also seen lawyers disbarred and sanctioned for dragging out cases. I've seen non-lawyers had their right to file pro se revoked as well, for similar reasons. Judges don't like having their time wasted.

In any case, you can petition for an emergency hearing. You can, if you actually give a fuck about the child as a human being, asked for something less than total custody.

He did. Remember? Oh, wait, you snipped that part out of your reply. Interesting.

But, bottom line - we do not and we can not know all the facts in this case.

Except that we apparently know for 100% sure that his parental rights were revoked properly with all due process. Of that we can be sure!

Interesting.

[General Zod]

Oh, silly me – here I was expecting you to have a cite regarding a specific aunt or uncle, more than simply vague “with relatives”. What does that mean?

What the fuck do you think it means? Anyone that's biologically related to her. I don't think the specific relative is terribly relevant for this particular point.

And why assume that a potentially distant relative is automatically and inherently better than the foster family the child was already placed with? This is what I mean by the assumption that biology trumps all. We don't really know anything about the father, the baby's relatives (on either father or mother's side) or the foster family.

I don't, so I'm not really sure what your point is.

[Ralin]

Maybe I jumped the gun, but when I see questions like that it's usually a jumping off point into an argument about how disadvantaged fathers are. And every good source I've seen says that while women are more often declared the primary caregiver that has more to do with the fact that she's usually already acting as one. When the father actually pushes hard for custody they usually get a more than fair amount.

That's not what I asked, Ralin. Now be a good lad, go back and read the question I asked and actually answer it this time.

I think it could go either way really. If he was a woman there would be more of a sense that she was supposed to be the one raising the kids, which would help her, but people would also be a lot quicker to villify her for anything she'd done wrong.

(Away from my laptop until tonight, replies likely will noy be long or fast in coming until then)

[Spekio]

Since I am (rightfully) being called out, let me say that generalizing all americans was fucking stupid of me, no better than ones I was criticizing by making the generalization about "ex-cons".

It was a knee jerk reaction, and for that I am sorry.

However, I'll stress one needs to remember that people don't turn to crime because they are mustache twirling bad guys -there is a whole scope of socialeconomic reasons why people do. Society creates it's own criminals.

Still, taking away the kid from it's biological family when said family could provide for the child is a idiotic move, and the State should take into consideration the impact it makes to all those involved what is to have a family member, specially a child, removed from the said family.

I'm not saying that there are not valid reasons to do so, mind you, but in my opinion, barring details I'm not privy to, those are not present here.

What we have here is a father wanting to raise his daughter. Were he a deadbeat, as far as I understand the term, wouldn't he be pleased that by having the child adopted, he would no longer have to provide to her?

[General Zod]

Still, taking away the kid from it's biological family when said family could provide for the child is a idiotic move, and the State should take into consideration the impact it makes to all those involved what is to have a family member, specially a child, removed from the said family.

The problem is when the child was taken away when they were young enough to have no memories of any biological relative. At that point, it's hard to say it's in the child's best interest to take them away from the only family they've ever known.

[Simon_Jester]

In fairness, some people are deadbeats in that they are irresponsible and don't make proper efforts to raise a child correctly... but still feel like they're entitled to special treatment, and that they have a right to control over their biological children. In other words, they want the rights but not the duties.

I'm happy that you've never gone a mile over the speed limit or rolled through a stop sign in your entire life, but I highly doubt that's the case for even a significant minority of drivers in the US, let alone a majority.

Remind me again how you lose your driver's license for running a stop sign or speeding?

It's not doing either. It's referring to them as the biological family sees them. You privilege the adoptive parents over the biological parent, as is your right to have an opinion, but it's the court in question which annulled the adoption, not me. Take it up with them. I'm siding with the relevant legal authority until and unless it is shown they acted grossly in error.

The core of her position is a critique of the idea that biological parents are given a "right" to "take back" children as though these children are their property, rather than the interests of the child being given full due regard and protection.

How then is she not going to criticize that mindset in her posts?

You keep referring to Tennessee, as if he lived there. He didn't. His daughter was only there because, again, she was effectively kidnapped and absconded to another state.

Can you provide some explanation of this quasi-kidnapping from a source other than Mr. McCaul's immediate family? It'd help resolve this if there were evidence of that.

So, just to clarify here, you're in favor of custodial parents (adoptive or biological) making every effort to drag out any custody battle so that the outcome of due process is essentially ignored? That is the precedent leaving Sonya with her adoptive parents sets: doesn't matter what your case is, or who would win it, if you just keep fighting long enough with the child in your house, you will get custody.

I do think that's a fair point- it turns custody battles into "possession is nine tenths of the law" battles.

IF we were to do that we need to make joint custody a more common arrangement, and force people to accept joint custody whether they like it or not. And attempts to renege on this should be very, very prejudicial to any attempt to continue the custody battle.

[Block]

Remind me again how you lose your driver's license for running a stop sign or speeding?

Not show up for court, which isn't hard if you have to move after getting the ticket.

[Spekio]

The problem is when the child was taken away when they were young enough to have no memories of any biological relative. At that point, it's hard to say it's in the child's best interest to take them away from the only family they've ever known.

Two wrongs hardly make one right. The Father also has rights. If the situation could still be reversed it should be. Still, any psychological aid the child needs should come out of the State's pocket.

In fairness, some people are deadbeats in that they are irresponsible and don't make proper efforts to raise a child correctly... but still feel like they're entitled to special treatment, and that they have a right to control over their biological children. In other words, they want the rights but not the duties.

I think we are veering into a dangerous direction with "correctly", are we not?

It's not doing either. It's referring to them as the biological family sees them. You privilege the adoptive parents over the biological parent, as is your right to have an opinion, but it's the court in question which annulled the adoption, not me. Take it up with them. I'm siding with the relevant legal authority until and unless it is shown they acted grossly in error.

The core of her position is a critique of the idea that biological parents are given a "right" to "take back" children as though these children are their property, rather than the interests of the child being given full due regard and protection.

How then is she not going to criticize that mindset in her posts?

The Pater Familias was violated. One does have the right to raise one's children - and to fight for custody if they were wrongly taken away.

[General Zod]

Two wrongs hardly make one right. The Father also has rights. If the situation could still be reversed it should be. Still, any psychological aid the child needs should come out of the State's pocket.

Is the father's rights more important than the well being of the child in question? Do the father's rights actually coincide with the child's well being? I don't see any reason not to give him visitation rights, but at this point in the child's life he's essentially a stranger.

[Thanas]

The Pater Familias was violated. One does have the right to raise one's children - and to fight for custody if they were wrongly taken away.

You really don't want to use pater familias here as it denotes a huge mass of rights and powers and does not actually mean father at all.

[Spekio]

The Pater Familias was violated. One does have the right to raise one's children - and to fight for custody if they were wrongly taken away.

You really don't want to use pater familias here as it denotes a huge mass of rights and powers and does not actually mean father at all.

Wait, you mean in the historical sense or in the Civil Law sense? I'm quite sure I could substantiate what I affirmed pertaining to brazilian law. It's an archaich term, one that has largely gone out in favor of "Poder Familiar"( The Power of/pertaining to the Family) but one that I am fond of. Still, I meant the parental rights.

Is the father's rights more important than the well being of the child in question? Do the father's rights actually coincide with the child's well being? I don't see any reason not to give him visitation rights, but at this point in the child's life he's essentially a stranger.

Like I said, if it could be reversed. If the experts appointed to the court decided so, they are better informed than me.

[Thanas]

Wait, you mean in the historical sense or in the Civil Law sense? I'm quite sure I could substantiate what I affirmed pertaining to brazilian law. It's an archaich term, one that has largely gone out in favor of "Poder Familiar"( The Power of/pertaining to the Family) but one that I am fond of. Still, I meant the parental rights.

Historical term, which is the one most people who are not lawyers jump to.

[Terralthra]

I'm happy that you've never gone a mile over the speed limit or rolled through a stop sign in your entire life, but I highly doubt that's the case for even a significant minority of drivers in the US, let alone a majority.

Remind me again how you lose your driver's license for running a stop sign or speeding?

In California, at least, if one is cited for a moving violation (speeding, rolling through a stop sign at 3-5 mph, changing lanes without signalling, to name three that people do routinely, that they could be cited for any time they do), and does not pay the fine within the deadline or show up in court to contest the ticket, they're issued a $300+ failure to appear citation automatically. Not paying the now > $500 tickets will get their license suspended.

For someone who is poor or does not have the werewithal to contest the ticket (or believes they deserve it, or doesn't believe that a judge might give them extra time, or doesn't know how to get a payment plan), it's extremely easy for the spiral to continue to escalate.

If you are reasonable at navigating bureaucracy, or have a couple of hundred dollars to drop on paying the ticket immediately, it's simple and easy to deal with. I was simply pointing out this canard of "Poor people just need to FOLLOW THE LAW" is more than a little silly, since the typical driver commits several moving violations daily.

You keep referring to Tennessee, as if he lived there. He didn't. His daughter was only there because, again, she was effectively kidnapped and absconded to another state.

Can you provide some explanation of this quasi-kidnapping from a source other than Mr. McCaul's immediate family? It'd help resolve this if there were evidence of that.

This article mentions it, among many others. It's not in dispute that his babysitter took Sonya to Tennessee and refused to return her to her father, and in fact contacted police to arrest Mr. McCaul if he attempted to retrieve her. Both the babysitter's husband and McCaul's mother attempted to retrieve her on his behalf, and were rebuffed by the babysitter's parents who "felt threatened."

[Broomstick]

I'm happy that you've never gone a mile over the speed limit or rolled through a stop sign in your entire life, but I highly doubt that's the case for even a significant minority of drivers in the US, let alone a majority.

What a steaming pile of shit - you don't lose your license for going one mile over the speed limit, or one rolling stop, both of which, yes, I have done while driving. You have to do something egregious to lose your license, not just a minor lapse.

I also never said that being poor was an excuse to break the law. I said that when a poor person has broken a particular set of laws, it can be extremely difficult to dig one's way out of the hole.

And this is relevant... how? Because this wasn't a matter of someone having their kid taken away and put in jail for 15 years for a minor traffic violation.

Sonya's mother gave up her parental rights willingly and ceded sole custody to the father in 2004.

OK, noted.

I agree, and I think it's bad that Sonya is being punished for her biological father's and adoptive parents' actions.

OK, we have found something to agree on.

]It's not doing either. It's referring to them as the biological family sees them.

And in the case the biological family is wrong. They aren't foster parents, they're adoptive parents. That does, contrary to biodad's mom's statement, give them some rights to her.

You privilege the adoptive parents over the biological parent, as is your right to have an opinion, but it's the court in question which annulled the adoption, not me. Take it up with them. I'm siding with the relevant legal authority until and unless it is shown they acted grossly in error.

I think the error is that it is NOT in the best interest of a child to remove her from the parents who have cared for her 8 of her 9 years and place her with people she can't possibly remember. I think the adults' interests are being placed above the child's and, even if it is legal it is morally repugnant.

You keep referring to Tennessee, as if he lived there. He didn't. His daughter was only there because, again, she was effectively kidnapped and absconded to another state.

Where the biodad lives is irrelevant, the case was being decided in Tennessee. If that was not the proper venue then biodad should have tried to get the case moved... and maybe he did try, I have no way to know. For whatever reason jurisdiction was given to Tennessee.

You also seem very sure of yourself and your knowledge of the facts of the case and the timing of his appeals, when later on in this very post you say "we can't know the facts of the case." You seem to apply that assertion...inconsistently. Interesting.

I'm basing it on what I know from the media, which as we all know reports facts poorly. It is not inconsistent to change one's viewpoint based on new or different information. I can also choose to give more weight to one story or another based on things like internal consistency and perceived bias of the person being quoted.

They were revoked entirely properly under the law.

Not according to the courts. Maybe you'd like to replace the appeals court with Broomstick's Legal Opinion?

The appeals, from what I've read, are not yet exhausted so the absolute final determination has not been made.

So, just to clarify here, you're in favor of custodial parents (adoptive or biological) making every effort to drag out any custody battle so that the outcome of due process is essentially ignored?

Nope. I am in favor of the courts moving a hell of a lot faster in custody cases precisely to avoid situations like this.

That is the precedent leaving Sonya with her adoptive parents sets: doesn't matter what your case is, or who would win it, if you just keep fighting long enough with the child in your house, you will get custody.

If the courts drag their feet then yes, that is the result. I'm not sure, exactly, what the root of the problem is here, maybe there too many continuances or something else going on. American court proceedings do take longer than is ideal.

Yup. I've also seen lawyers disbarred and sanctioned for dragging out cases. I've seen non-lawyers had their right to file pro se revoked as well, for similar reasons. Judges don't like having their time wasted.

I fully approve of those actions.

[Thanas]

I think not returning her to the father leaves a very dangerous precedent, namely that one can keep a child if one only manages to keep her for long enough. Even if that is the preferrable outcome here, it should at least leave the biological father open to seek heavy compensation from the people responsible.

[Terralthra]

I'm happy that you've never gone a mile over the speed limit or rolled through a stop sign in your entire life, but I highly doubt that's the case for even a significant minority of drivers in the US, let alone a majority.

What a steaming pile of shit - you don't lose your license for going one mile over the speed limit, or one rolling stop, both of which, yes, I have done while driving. You have to do something egregious to lose your license, not just a minor lapse.

You can lose your license for any failure to appear for any moving violation. Like I said, all you have to do is make any minor moving violation and forget to pay the ticket. Boom, suspended license.

I also never said that being poor was an excuse to break the law. I said that when a poor person has broken a particular set of laws, it can be extremely difficult to dig one's way out of the hole.

And this is relevant... how? Because this wasn't a matter of someone having their kid taken away and put in jail for 15 years for a minor traffic violation.

You were the one who made his minor driving-without-a-license issues seem like they were a big deal.

So, just to clarify here, you're in favor of custodial parents (adoptive or biological) making every effort to drag out any custody battle so that the outcome of due process is essentially ignored?

Nope. I am in favor of the courts moving a hell of a lot faster in custody cases precisely to avoid situations like this.

That is the precedent leaving Sonya with her adoptive parents sets: doesn't matter what your case is, or who would win it, if you just keep fighting long enough with the child in your house, you will get custody.

If the courts drag their feet then yes, that is the result. I'm not sure, exactly, what the root of the problem is here, maybe there too many continuances or something else going on. American court proceedings do take longer than is ideal.

Unless the judge in question starts imposing penalties, someone who wants to delay litigation is perfectly capable of doing so. File for a continuance. If the opposing party thinks you're delaying the case, they can file a motion to dismiss the motion for a continuance...but that motion itself has a built-in amount of time for the original continuing party to respond. EIther way, the party filing for a continuance gets a delay until and unless the judge puts his or her foot down.

Like I have said before, I don't know who the best parents are, but I know it's not as cut and dry as the initial post makes it seem, and as I have also said, it sets a very dangerous precedent of "if you retain custody while the case is being decided and draw out the custody case long enough, you win by default, even if you lose in court" and that's not a good precedent to set. Even if the adoptive parents are the best place for Sonya, there's no telling whether that will be the case next time that precedent is applied.

[Broomstick]

I'm happy that you've never gone a mile over the speed limit or rolled through a stop sign in your entire life, but I highly doubt that's the case for even a significant minority of drivers in the US, let alone a majority.

Remind me again how you lose your driver's license for running a stop sign or speeding?

In California, at least, if one is cited for a moving violation (speeding, rolling through a stop sign at 3-5 mph, changing lanes without signalling, to name three that people do routinely, that they could be cited for any time they do), and does not pay the fine within the deadline or show up in court to contest the ticket, they're issued a $300+ failure to appear citation automatically. Not paying the now > $500 tickets will get their license suspended.

You know someone who routinely speeds, rolls through stops, and doesn't know how to use their signal? Maybe they should fucking learn how to drive? Or at least learn how to stop.

And yes, if you don't show in court you get penalized. This applies to every violation of the law, not just traffic tickets. Maybe we should discuss how expensive it can get for poor or uneducated people who shoplift or break into vending machines.

Maybe California cops are jackbooted thugs, but in the five US states where I've lived you're not ticketed for a mile or two above the speed limit (generally, you're ignored until you're going at least five over) and I could only wish they'd penalize people for not using their turn signals. The rolling stop bullshit is just that - either you stop or you don't and it's a safety issue. Do you also think it's a minor thing to run a red light?

[Broomstick]

I think not returning her to the father leaves a very dangerous precedent, namely that one can keep a child if one only manages to keep her for long enough. Even if that is the preferrable outcome here, it should at least leave the biological father open to seek heavy compensation from the people responsible.

Maybe the people who should be held responsible are those who passed a law that automatically terminates parental rights based on length of a prison sentence rather than actually examining things on a case-by-case basis.

Maybe if the father's rights hadn't been chopped off so abruptly he would have had some say when the child was two regarding leaving Sonya with his mother or a sibling or someone else. Gee, maybe that would have resolved this problem before the foster family moved to adopt.

This is why I hate fucking mandatory shit. We have had a couple decades of politicians who didn't like judges using their judgement and interfering in territory that belongs in the judiciary and not the legislature, and we get messes like this.

[Gaidin]

Maybe California cops are jackbooted thugs, but in the five US states where I've lived you're not ticketed for a mile or two above the speed limit (generally, you're ignored until you're going at least five over) and I could only wish they'd penalize people for not using their turn signals. The rolling stop bullshit is just that - either you stop or you don't and it's a safety issue. Do you also think it's a minor thing to run a red light?

Speeding seems a lot vaguer than mile or two above speed limit. So does 'moving violation'. I'm just saying.