Should a Mother Lose Custody of Her Kids Because She Has Cancer?

[qanda]

Alaina Giordano was already engaged in a battle royale, fighting Stage 4 breast cancer, when her struggle intensified recently: a judge ruled that the N.C. woman must give up custody of her two children to her husband, who lives in Chicago, in part because "children who have a parent with cancer need more contact with the non-ill parent."

Judge Nancy Gordon ordered Giordano's children, Sofia, 11, and Bud, 5, to relocate by June 17 from Durham, N.C., to Chicago to live with their father even though Giordano, who says she is strong and able to parent, reports her metastatic cancer is under control.

"In her ruling, Judge Nancy Gordon cited forensic psychologist Dr. Helen Brantley," according to Good Morning America: "The more contact have with the non-ill parent, the better they do. They divide their world into the cancer world and a free of cancer world. Children want a normal childhood, and it is not normal with an ill parent."

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/12/should-a-mom-with-stage-4-breast-cancer-lose-custody-of-her-kids/#ixzz1M9JXAvPL


_______________________

I didn't see this posted on DU and wanted to do my part to bring more attention to this story. Please read the rest of the story and like the FB page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Alaina-Giordano-Should-Not-Lose-Her-Kids-Because-She-Has-Breast-Cancer/127024814041233 and sign the petition http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.change.org%2Fpetitions%2Fdo-not-allow-nc-judge-to-take-alaina-giordanos-children-just-because-she-has-cancer&h=2db62

Thank you so much. There is no way this is right!

[elleng]

1. Sounds pretty darned sick to me (pun intended.)

'spent the past 16 months "defending myself from the attacks of my abusive husband'

Sounds like the judge could use some life lessons. I've been in litigation 2+ years against abusive husband, and it really takes a toll. This woman must be REALLY STRONG, to put up with this AND her illness.

Kind of pissed at woman 'expert' along with woman judge. Join the real world, ladies.

Damn.

Thanks for posting.

[Lance_Boyle]

7. It is not uncommon for claims of abuse to be leveled in a nasty divorce.

The veracity of those claims, it appears, is not yet established. So now the allegedly abusive other party to the divorce has reasonable grounds to sue for libel, in addition to whatever else he is already suing for. Not the wisest move to take this to the court of public opinion while it is still being hashed out in *real* court.

[elleng]

14. Right, let him sue for libel, that would be fine,

In the meantime there's an outstanding order (apparently) for the kids to move in June.

[GodlessBiker]

2. That's fucked up. The only time illness should be used to take the kids away from a sick parent ...

is if the illness makes the parent unfit to raise the children; if the parent is bedridden and sleeps for 19 hours a day; something which makes the parent ill suited to raise children (when compared to the non-ill parent).

[Bladian]

84. That's just what I was thinking

If the mother can't even take care of herself, much less the children, then they should be "taken away" only in that scenario. And I don't even necessarily think they should be legally removed, so much as taken into the custody of another family member.

[Deep13]

3. What is in the best interest of the children?

Both parents are presumed to be able to take care of the children. The decision to grant custody to one or the other is not a reward or penalty, it is simply a utilitarian decision based on the children's needs. I don't know the specific facts of this case, but hypothetically, if one parent became sick enough that her illness prevented her from attending to the needs of the children, then it seems pretty reasonable to transfer custody to the other parent.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Yes. n/t

[RC]

5. Transferring the children to the abusive parent is OK with you then?

[Lance_Boyle]

9. Allegations of abuse are obviously unproven at this point.

Judges do not grant custody to parents that have been determined in family court to be abusive.

[Angry Dragon]

70. OOOOOOOOkay!!

:sarcasm:

[kelly1mm]

105. Do you have any evidence of abuse other than the one parent's allegation? nt

[Deep13]

10. Usually, neither parent is abusive. nt

[elleng]

15. Right, usually most people are not abusive.

:sarcasm:

[jberryhill]

20. Where, in the story or the statement above, was either parent deemed abusive?

[FLAprogressive]

109. I see that the crickets are still chirping.....looks like that strawman fell.

[qanda]

8. While I understand your point

Why make it even harder on the parent that is sick and instruct her to move to where the non-sick parent is instead of the reverse? Does not the sick parent have rights also? Also, it is clear that the mother is not sick to the point of not being able to care for the children so why is she being penalized in this way?

[Deep13]

11. I'll refer you back to my post.

--not a penalty.

--children's interests supercede parental rights.

[Demeter]

16. I can see the benefits now

Kids grow up knowing their mom died because she lost the will to live when she lost daily interaction with them....lifetime guilt, courtesy of an abusive father. If he gave a shit about anyone, he wouldn't do this to any of them.

He'd go back and help this woman.

I came within inches of this, myself. Fortunately, I was in good health and had massive family support, both financial and emotional. It was parental kidnapping after a court-mandated "visitation", not a court-mandated kidnapping like this case will be.

And if anyone doesn't think a mother could die of grief, he/she is beyond help.

[Lance_Boyle]

17. You buy the story hook, line and sinker from ONE side

without even acknowledging that the *claims* of abuse are not yet litigated, much less settled?

You write off the father (who has been awarded custody) as abusive and uncaring, based on the quite-obviously-biased one side of the story you've heard?

That's pretty whacked out.

[Demeter]

21. All he cares about is the child support

Been there, done that, got the legal bills to prove it.

And since when does "claims" have anything to do with what will happen because of this ruling?

Yes, a man who takes her children from a woman is abusive and uncaring. Would he be a mensch, help her while she battles death? Obviously not. It would interfere with his life. This woman risked death in childbirth twice, for his children. This is the thanks she gets?

The custody battle itself is abusive. Under these circumstances, even more so.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[musette_sf]

72. + 1

:nuke: this b@stard

[kelly1mm]

103. And you know all he cares about is child support how? Is a woman who

takes away a father's children away from him abusive and uncaring?

Are all custody battles abusive?

[bobbolink]

35. You are so right, but the awareness of this issue lags waaay behind.

DUer mntleo2 speaks of a friend of hers who suicided because of this.

As I mentioned on Mother's Day, I lost a child to kidnapping, and, indeed, it is something one doesn't get over. I lived, although many times I wish I hadn't, but it cost me a lifetime of debilitating illness from the stress of it.

I am very sorry for what you went through. You were fortunate to have the support that so many of us never had.

So many people just don't get it.

[Demeter]

62. It Helps That I Won

and believe me, it wasn't a sure thing.

I fought custody in 3 states. The third state judge was kind enough to say that he couldn't ever bring suit again on it.

The second state's lawyer was just thrilled to get the kids back for me---she was up against one of those "big name" bully lawyers.

[kelly1mm]

102. Could a father die of grief as well? nt

[etherealtruth]

I agree fully, the best interest of the children should be the primary concern

The opportunity to spend as much time as possible with a (more than likely) dying parent is probably the absolute best thing for them. If she dies they will never have an other opportunity to know her.

[jberryhill]

22. It's not about the parents, or either parent

These decisions are entirely made on the basis of the best interests of the children. Whether in a particular case that standard has been met is always debatable. But it's not about awarding some sort of prize to one parent or the other.

[SoCalDem]

30. The dad who instigated this will suffer in the end

Those kids are old enough to remember that he deprived them of the remaining time their mother had left to her. The dad lives several states away, and has to know that mom cannot move there with them. he's being a vindictive cad..

I saw her on tv yesterday, and she stated that there was a broad safety net under/around her and many people who are helping her. Her cancer treatment seems to be quite similar to what Elizabeth Edwards had, and for quite a long time, she was not in that bad of shape. The dad in this case will get those kids in the end anyway..why not just be helpful to them and mom and then be a gracious dad to the end, allowing them to have as much mom-time as possible.

the last thing she needs is a protracted court battle, as she fights to stay alive as long as possible..

[kick-ass-bob]

42. The mother is not bed-ridden and states that she is able to effectively parent.

The sole grounds for the suit by the father is that she has cancer. This is a horrible precedent, no matter what way you look at it.

[Raschel]

51. Exactly. And that is the reason the judge gave for her ruling. It is horrible.

[Raschel]

47. The mother is perfectly able. The judge stated her reason as the children should be in a "non cancer

world".

[Lance_Boyle]

6. What is the current custody arrangement? The article does not say.

Was the divorce final before the ex-husband moved to Chicago in August of last year? She refers to him as her "abusive husband," not ex - is the divorce final? Is there a custody arrangement at this point?

If the divorce is still ongoing, then Ms. Giordano has made a mistake by taking this to the court of public opinion instead of settling it in divorce court; certainly she has libeled the ex (or soon-to-be-ex) husband by publishing claims of abuse (unless he has previously been convicted for this alleged crime - again the article does not say).

I would be curious to know what is in the husband's (or ex-husband's) claim in the suit he filed in Durham. Is there more to it than the cancer diagnosis? One-sided story presentations like this leave me wanting more information...

[Grey]

12. I think the judge should ask the kids what they want.

I believe they are old enough to have a voice in this conversation.

[KamaAina]

13. Who's the judge? Newt Gingrich?

:wtf: :banghead:

[struggle4progress]

18. Here's the judge's resume:

http://www.judgenancygordon.com/RESUME.html

She was reelected to her judicial seat after running unopposed in 2010; in Durham that year, Republicans typically got trounced 60-40 or 65-35

[elleng]

19. Decent resume. Decision surprises.

[struggle4progress]

39. ... A North Carolina judge denied Giordano primary custody of her two children in part because

"the course of her disease is unknown" and "children who have a parent with cancer need more contact with the non-ill parent." Giordano's unemployment was also cited as a factor ... Giordano has stage 4 breast cancer. Though it has metastasized to her bones, she receives monthly treatment ... In accordance with the Uniform and Marriage and Divorce Act, it is not uncommon for family court to take into account the health, both physical and mental, of a parent in making custody decisions ... And as with most custody battles, Giordano and Snyder's case is a complicated one, complete with restraining orders, mental health concerns, and allegations of cheating and domestic violence ...
Judge Cites Mom's Breast Cancer in Denying Custody of Children
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/BreastCancerCenter/north-carolina-mom-breast-cancer-loses-custody/story?id=13546870

I don't know whether it's surprising or not. I don't know the facts in the case

[elleng]

41. Good of you to be so thoughtful, I'm not so,

as been involved in somewhat similar litigation and impatient with 'mental health concerns and allegations of cheating and domestic violence,' as well as her 'unemployment.'

[struggle4progress]

43. I don't actually know enough facts to be "thoughtful" about this case. Nor, I suspect,

do most people posting in this thread

[Raschel]

55. I don't expect to do research on the story. I read the reason the judge gave for her decision and

that's good enough for me, unless I'm supposed to suspect she's not telling the truth.

He reason is that she thinks it would be better for the kids to be in a "non cancer world", plus the mother is unemployed.

Watch out all sick and unemployed moms...

[kick-ass-bob]

57. But the fact that the ruling even included

"children who have a parent with cancer need more contact with the non-ill parent."

is extremely dangerous to propagate.

[Lance_Boyle]

63. Why?

The non-ill parent will (in the majority of cases) be taking full custody upon the death of the ill parent. It *is* important for the children to become more familiar with the non-primary-custodial parent before they get sent to live with that parent. Would it be preferable for them to just be packed up and shipped to the new custodial parent upon the death of the ill parent?

[kick-ass-bob]

71. Because it does not mention the severity of illness or the quality of life.

Bed ridden or unable to perform simple tasks is one thing. A functioning adult with a disease, no matter how advanced is quite another.

It doesn't matter what the original agreement was, because now it is obviously different.

[Lance_Boyle]

76. We only have a snippet of the judge's ruling - there may be much more detail

that we don't know. I would not be in such a hurry to second guess the judge - she knows the details of the case and we don't. We have one side from one participant, replete with a media circus of her own design and libelous allegations against the other side published inside said media circus.

If we knew that the mother's life expectancy is less than a year, would that make it OK for the judge to opine that the kids should get to know the soon-to-be custodial parent better before they are sent to live with him permanently?

[kick-ass-bob]

77. But the rest of the ruling is irrelevant to my point, which is why I said what I said.

Read this again:

"But the fact that the ruling even included 'children who have a parent with cancer need more contact with the non-ill parent.'"

If the other factors led her to her decision, then this should not even be mentioned. If it did help her decide, then again, I say, it leads to a very bad precedent.

[Raschel]

54. Her unemployment? Just wow. The judge is a moron.

[struggle4progress]

101. It's one of several standard considerations, in determining parental ability to provide care

[LisaL]

108. The judge has to consider if she can support the kids.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

24. Shared with friends + signed petitions

Thanks.

[jwirr]

25. It would seem that shared custody with the kids spending time in

both homes would he a good solution unless the mother's allegation of abuse is correct. These kids are going to lose her and then be expected to move into the home of a father they barely know which could be alleviated by shared custody. However there is a problem with that idea also because states do not always recognize the custody agreement of another state. It seems to me the parents need to put the children first in this situation. These kids need to get to know their father but they also need to be with their mother while they can.

[Raschel]

26. Her ruling is "children who have a parent with cancer need more contact with the non-ill parent."

She is one sick judge.

I made a point to expose my children to their grandparents' illnesses and trials.

They watched a grandparent with cancer, watched one with leg amputations, they learned that someone with illness shouldn't be thrown away. They learned compassion and how to care for others.

That being said, I have stage IV right now and I am not bedridden. I do most things that healthy people do. I do have less strength and energy.

The judge is giving this mom a death sentence by taking her children from her.

If this dick of an ex husband had ANY decency he would move to where the kids are, or wait for a transition if the mom gets worse. Some stage IV people live a very long time.

This will be devastating to her to have her children taken away and very bad for her health.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

29. The judge likely heard from more than both sides

...but also likely heard from a psychologist or social worker directly familiar with the children.

[Raschel]

40. Yes, thank you. I am entitled to my opinion. Obviously you think you have the right to one.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. Typical assumptions in this thread are disappointing

Without more knowledge than what is in the article, they most likely share legal custody with the wife having primary physical custody. Also, inferred by the decision, there has been *NO* documented abuse.

*IF* the mother is unable to properly care for the children moving them to the father's care is appropriate since it is in the best interest of the children. It would be much better if they were physically closer, but that is nothing that can be done about that at this point.

The judge appears to experienced and not an ideologue, and is keeping the best interest of the children first, which is bottom line in family court. While I do not like it at many levels, alternatives are limited in this situation.

Some here are claiming its all about the support payments, abusive husbands, etc. have nothing factual at this point to base those claims on. Clearly some making those claims have been burned badly in their own marital breakups, but it is not appropriate to project them into this case.

[Lance_Boyle]

33. outstanding

:applause:

[tammywammy]

38. Agreed

Is the actual ruling available?

BTW, I've had plenty of friends who's ex falsely accused them of abuse during either a divorce or to try and gain custody afterward. And these were both males and females lobbing the false accusations.

This is a very one-sided article, you'd think DU would learn to not jump to conclusions so quickly. There could be much more involved here.

edited to add: According to this other article, the ruling was also based on the fact that she didn't have a job while the husband did. And they're not moving until June, so I would assume after the school year has completed.

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2011/may/10/6/woman-suffering-breast-cancer-fights-keep-her-kids-ar-1021904/

[Demeter]

65. Because every dying woman needs a job.

That is the most lame-assed reason I ever heard of.

[tammywammy]

69. I would wonder how any parent would be able to adequately provide for their children when

they're consistently unemployed. But then maybe she had a lot of savings. Or a wealthy uncle. I have yet to see a link to the full ruling, so I hesitate to really cast judgement on this. I'm only pointing out what other news articles said.

:shrug:

[WolverineDG]

74. you'd think DU would learn to not jump to conclusions so quickly

I hear you on that.

dg

[bobbolink]

31. A damned good thing a judge didn't pull this shit on Elizabeth Edwards!!

:nuke: :grr: :nuke:

[Raschel]

46. Yep. Let her try that on someone with some cash.

[msanthrope]

32. After reading the mother's blog, I think the kids are best off with the Dad,

She wrote--

"How does a woman with no kids and who has never been married become a Judge in Family Court???!!!"

[Lance_Boyle]

34. That blog and her penchant for publicity-seeking when she doesn't get her way

could lead to trouble. The abuse allegations she makes in reference to the husband are libelous.

[jtuck004]

36. What utter bullshit

"In her ruling, Judge Nancy Gordon cited forensic psychologist Dr. Helen Brantley," according to Good Morning America: "The more contact have with the non-ill parent, the better they do. They divide their world into the cancer world and a free of cancer world. Children want a normal childhood, and it is not normal with an ill parent."


Nobody - no body - has any evidence that children turn out better with a "non-ill" parent (or, for that matter, worse with same-sex parents or bi-racial parents - it's just anecdotes they cherry pick to support their bigotry). It is just as likely that living with their mom might give them more compassion, maybe motivate them to become health care providers, maybe researchers.

Absent all the other drama that goes on in a divorce, - that one fact should NEVER be a deciding factor.

To call life not normal with an ill parent is the height of arrogance and self-delusion - the world is beset with ill people, and as we do a worse job with out investment in health care than many other nations it is likely to become more so.

In this case she is symptom-free, it says. And if she was not yes, I think the state should step in with support to keep them together.

This is wrong.

[elleng]

37. and I think moving the kids, at end of school year,

to an unfamiliar place is unnecessarily stressful for them, even considering resilience of children.

[tammywammy]

45. They're not moving until June

So, after the school year has ended.

[elleng]

48. Right, my point, to a city away from their friends +, for the summer.

Father gonna provide them with what/whom?

[tammywammy]

50. Don't the majority of parents move children during the summer as to not disrupt school?

If they were moving in April there would be complaints that they're moving during the school year. So, they can't move during the school year, can't move during the summer, children could never move then.

I'm sure the children are delightful and will make new friends quickly.

[elleng]

53. Sure, most parents move the whole family, together, + the unit finds friends.

Here, not at all confident.

[WolverineDG]

75. they'd be going to visit him in the summer anyway if custody had stayed the same

or are you completely against fathers having contact with their children?

dg

[elleng]

93. Don't be ridiculous. I HOPE they'd have a continuing relationship with their father.

Vacation/holiday visits are very different from where they live/attend school around the year.

[Raschel]

44. Well said. Her statement is the real "sick" thing.

[jtuck004]

111. I do hope a well-heeled and politically savvy women's org takes up

her cause if the case is as black and white as this is presented.

That's a huge, gaping, jagged hole into women's and parental rights that really shouldn't go unchallenged, well worth a campaign that promotes the right not to be discriminated against.

[Zoeisright]

49. Judge Nancy Gordon should be ASHAMED of herself.

That is a disgusting and vile ruling. I certainly hope that Ms. Gordon never has to deal with a serious illness, because she should be shown the same compassion she's displaying. That is to say, NONE.

[mntleo2]

52. As a Family Preservation Advocate ...

One of the frequent reasons kids are taken and put into foster care is because the mom is sick (and often doesn't have any medical insurance). Of course they refuse to help with THAT situation, (she can't work, she can't get medical care), so they swoop in and "save" the child, charging the mother with "neglect" because she is sick and trying to take care of everything while being so.

...I would agree that these kids should have some more contact with their dad because of the future they will lose their mom. What is mysterious to me about this is, if the kids need the dad so much, why didn't this judge order that the dad come to the kids, instead of the kids being forced to leave their mother and their home and go to their dad? I know uprooting your life is hard, but that is what parents do. They find a way to make sure their kids are secure in a continous environment they know.

Plus does this idiot judge think that it is not going to be hard for these kids to leave their mom knowing she is going to DIE without them? Oh that's real thinking, give them something to regret for the rest of their lives. REAL thinking there Your (not-so) Honor!

Mothers are expected to accomodate fathers all the time. Often they are given orders they HAVE to stay close instead of following jobs or getting family support in another community or state, so visitation can happen.

Why uproot the kids instead of the parent in this case? If the parent does not care enough to move to a place his kids are more familiar with and secure, and thinks they should uproot their lives and leave their dying mother, then it appears he does give a crap about these kids' mental and emotional well being, and if he is not willing to accomodate that, he may not be the best parent for them.

My 2 cents

Cat in Seattle

[tammywammy]

56. In another article I read

There was also the fact that the father has a job in Chicago, while the mother in unemployed. She encouraged the mother to move closer to the father. In this economic climate you cannot assume he'd easily find a new job.


edited to add link to other article http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2011/may/10/6/woman-suffering-breast-cancer-fights-keep-her-kids-ar-1021904

[Raschel]

61. He could use the family leave act if the mother becomes to ill to care for the children.

He would help the children by being with them at the end, making it a connected transition.

She most likely is on disability. There aren't too many jobs you can do when you don't know what the next scan brings.

What she can do is be there 100% of the day and night with her children. Something they will always remember.

The judge is punishing her for having an illness.

It's totally discriminatory.

[Lance_Boyle]

64. Custody hearings are not about punishing either parent.

Or so I'm told when it's the mother who comes out on top...

[Raschel]

85. Interesting that you see it as punishing the dad, when I post that this would be best for the

children. And your other remark well, you sound bitter.

[Lance_Boyle]

89. Who brought up anything about punishing anyone, again?

"The judge is punishing her for having an illness.

It's totally discriminatory." - Raschel

:eyes:

[Raschel]

91. Punishment: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure

(Websters dictionary)

The mom has custody. The judge is taking it away BECAUSE of her illness. She is inflicting a penalty on the mom.

And I stand by my statement that it's discriminatory.

[tammywammy]

67. He doesn't qualify for FMLA leave

He just moved to Chicago for his job back in Aug 2010. You have to be on a job for at least a year before you can qualify for FMLA.

I haven't read in any of the articles that she is on disability, which I'm sure the mother would have pointed out during her interviews.

Since I have not read the judge's full ruling, only the snippets provided in the news, I would hesitate to jump to a conclusion about the judge and/or her intentions.

[Raschel]

81. Wait, you're not going to jump to conclusions on the judge, but you're SURE the mom would have

pointed out that she's on disability?

Look, I'm going by what I read here, and the judge's reason, which she states clearly, is enough for me. Especially since she gives such discriminatory and bizarre reasoning, like being with an ill parent is not normal.

[bobbolink]

59. This "judge" (and I use the term lightly) has certainly proven your point about the

weakness in the system that purports to "be in the best interest of the child(ren)"

For those who haven't experienced what this system does, it is hard to imagine the inherent cruelty.

Thanks, Cat in Seattle! :loveya:

[LisaL]

107. Because the father has a job in Chicago.

A judge isn't going to order him to move to a place he has no job.

[closeupready]

58. If this becomes common, women will avoid getting tested for cancer.

Resulting in worse outcomes for parents, generally.

[Raschel]

60. "The more contact have with the non-ill parent, the better they do." That's this judge's belief.

Can ya believe it?

[closeupready]

68. Sad that such views come from someone of that standing.

:mad:

[bobbolink]

86. Not surprising. Its all too common.

Please see mntleo2's comments. She deals with this all the time as an advocate.

"You've come a long way, baby!" :nuke:

[Raschel]

90. Children want a normal childhood, and it is not normal with an ill parent."

That judge is something else.

[Pithlet]

92. The judge spells it out pretty clearly.

I agree. It's appalling.

[Demeter]

66. I have advised my daughter to have all the children she wants, just never marry

Matriarchy is our only defense against shit like his.

[kelly1mm]

104. Fathers that are not married to the mother of their child can, and often

do get custody of their children. What do you think being married to the other parent has to do with custody?

[Cerridwen]

73. Awwww, the father loves his children so much he

1) moved away from them

2) wants to move them from their home of the last 3 years

3) wants to move them away from their mother in what may be her last days/months/years

4) took a job that moved him away so he could make a decent living to support them after their mother croaks even knowing that their mother couldn't see them, or they her, after he moved them

5) wants them to live with him and be cared for by ???? while he's working full-time

6) has no problem adding to their mother's health problems by adding additional stress (documented as having a deleterious effect on cancer patients) and, perhaps, shortening the time they have with her

7) wants to move them away from the support network their mother has established and replace it with the, um, well, what is it he's established in his 10 months in Chicago?

I wish I could find the court records that document (or not) what I've read in the multiple articles I've read this morning about this case. (links below)

Their father, kane snyder, has degrees from Villanova and Duke and he couldn't find work in Durham? There is mention in the articles of abuse, infidelity and restraining orders; though none say against who or who did what? Again, I'd like to see the court records.

Since we're all speculating, I'll add mine.

This looks suspiciously like many divorce cases that happened in the 70s; full-time mom loses custody because she's a full-time mom and has no personal income and income-producing dad can provide financially for children and that is viewed as more important than being present for the children. Though there were the cases where dad had a new girlfriend who would care for children while dad worked. I always wondered if new girlfriend was subsequently replaced after she'd served her purpose.

Here are the links to multiple articles about this. I still don't understanding why loving dad didn't get a job close to his children given that they and their mother were established during their years there.

I'm also curious as to why the judge based a ruling on the opinion of one expert and, gee, who hired said expert? Experts don't testify for free.

http://www.parentdish.com/2011/05/11/mom-with-breast-cancer-denied-custody-of-kids/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110512/hl_time/httphealthlandtimecom20110512shouldamomwithstage4breastcancerlosecustodyofherkidsxidrssfullhealthsciyahoo

http://beautyintruth-alaina.blogspot.com/2011_05_01_archive.html - mom's blog

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385143/Alaina-Giordano-loses-custody-children-breast-cancer.html?ito=feeds-newsxml - I used this link for dad's new title and his full name

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kane-snyder/3/667/b88 - dad's resume

http://abcnewsradio.fm/attachment/12031

http://www.tnonline.com/node/107432 - dad's graduation announcement

[qanda]

78. You are my hero!

Thank you so much for this post.

[Cerridwen]

79. You're welcome and sorry it took so long.

I was researching and caring for dogs. :)

This case stinks; and not just because of the judge's ruling.

I still wish I could see the court records. Mom says she had her support network show up and give statements at court whereas dad had no one. There's something going on and I hate not having all the details.

[bobbolink]

80. Another uppity woman.

:applause:

[Cerridwen]

82. LOL

Yep. Sometimes I can make it to the board.

:hi:

[bobbolink]

88. You've come a long way, baby!

Its taken a long time for not much distance in some things, eh?

Oh, that's right... I keep forgetting.. I'm just "bitter".

Welcome back.. come back and see us sometime. :hi:

You kinda remind me of one of the eagle parents... swoop in and drop a fish and take off again.

:rofl:

[Raschel]

87. Thank you for the post!

[elleng]

95. Some facts here.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8127895

[NotThisTime]

83. In general doctors don't like kids to be with their sick parents, this doesn't surprise me.

Thankfully my Husband and I are still together for my and my kids sake.... Should it happen? Only if the parent is using the illness as a crutch, otherwise it should never happen.

[elleng]

94. Judge's decision not here, but more facts:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8127895

[aaaaaa5a]

96. It's really sad to see so many posters here who foster heavily prejudicial and discriminatory

attitudes against men, whenever these types of issues are discussed.

[bobbolink]

99. ..

:rofl:

[w8liftinglady]

97. Using this mentality,my kids would have been taken from me when I got sick.

If the children were receiving adequate food,water,shelter and support from the mother,there was no excuse. My children endured my brain surgery,pacemaker insertion, blood clots,20 ER visits and 10 hospitalizations. They grew and were better for it. Kids can handle a lot. It will be harder on them to think about their mom being sick and not being able to see her.

[bobbolink]

100. Also, Elizabeth Edwards. I'm glad you weren't subjected to this!

this is so EVIL!

[blueamy66]

98. Excuse my language....but

FUCK THAT!

[Warren DeMontague]

106. What, another Newt Gingrich story?

Charming man.

[guruoo]

110. One wonders how the kids will feel years from now knowing they were taken away

from their dying mother just to help them 'feel better' about it.

[dkf]

112. There was a post last night from someone who was upset his 14 year old didn't want to take care

of her disabled father.

He told her it was her job to take care of a disabled family member.

I am afraid this woman's situation will come to this. The 11 year old will land up having to take care of her mother and her 5 year old sibling. I am sure the mother will fight as long as possible to keep her kids. This sounds like too much of a burden for an 11 year old to take.