Deployed Navy Man Ordered to Appear in Custody Hearing

robjvargas · Jun 19, 2014

RichardGarfinkle said:
It's very easy to make snap legal judgements from news reports. But that's largely because only one narrow side is presented.

There is more here than that. The second link I presented in the OP reports that Navy lawyers are getting involved.

RichardGarfinkle said:
Family court judges do a very hard job balancing interests. They have to pick up the pieces of other people's unresolved personal messes and try to make lives go on from the destruction of divorce.

Many of them do this job well. Many do it badly. But almost all of them are hated by about half of the people who come before them and all the firends of those people.

This has not reached that level. This judge is apparently violating federal statutes on the way to (presumably) rendering a verdict against a man in no position to defend himself.

The judge is *creating* a mess from a resolved matter (permanent custody already awarded).

RichardGarfinkle said:
We don't have anywhere near enough facts for this case. We have one aspect of one side of one event in an ongoing custody dispute being fought across two states.

Nowhere near? That I would dispute. There is room for this to turn around. That much is true. But one fact not in dispute goes a very long way towards settling this for me. The judge's refusal to follow federal law in staying this proceeding. Her statements disregarding the father's spouse also come pretty damn close (if not actually so) to violating established family law.

No, I would disagree, Richard. There is room for something else to emerge, true enough. But this is pretty damn near enough, IMO.

Cranky · Jun 19, 2014

RichardGarfinkle said:
I don't think so. It looks like leverage. A state judge has little power to enforce a decree in another state. Note this please.

It looks like the bench warrent was threatened in order to have the order for transfer enforced.

And this improves things...how? That sounds snotty, and I don't mean it to be -- at least, not towards you, Richard. But threatening Dad with a bench warrant, when the judge knows he's underway? That's some pretty dirty pool, and I can't respect a judge who would abuse their power in that way.

And since I still don't know why the child can't stay with her stepmother (gah, more information would be really nice), I'm sticking with bias for now.

robeiae · Jun 19, 2014

Issuing a bench warrant is obnoxious. Threatening to issue a bench warrant is obnoxious. And wrong, imo. This isn't an episode of Law and Order and this judge is not Jack McCoy. It's a civil matter in family court. She is supposed to be impartial and fair, as a matter of course.

RichardGarfinkle · Jun 19, 2014

The judge is not violating federal law. Read the statute. The judge gets to decide on the motion. That's what the statute says. The judge can, of course, have that decision reversed on appeal, but she is not violating the law.

Look, my mother was a family court lawyer for about a quarter of a century. There's so much nasty stuff that goes on, particularly in custody disputes. People pull out all sorts of maneuvers to evade legal judgements. This is certainly not the first time a family court judge has used threat of arrest or contempt to try to enforce a decision.

It's especially hard when the people reside in different states. A judge can issue a ruling and not have it enforced. At times, judges use leverage.

What I see here is hardly the worst thing to go on in a family court, and the use of hard tactics tells me nothing about who, if anyone is even close to being in the right.

robeiae · Jun 19, 2014

RichardGarfinkle said:
The judge is not violating federal law. Read the statute. The judge gets to decide on the motion. That's what the statute says. The judge can, of course, have that decision reversed on appeal, but she is not violating the law.

Look, my mother was a family court lawyer for about a quarter of a century. There's so much nasty stuff that goes on, particularly in custody disputes. People pull out all sorts of maneuvers to evade legal judgements. This is certainly not the first time a family court judge has used threat of arrest or contempt to try to enforce a decision.

It's especially hard when the people reside in different states. A judge can issue a ruling and not have it enforced. At times, judges use leverage.

What I see here is hardly the worst thing to go on in a family court, and the use of hard tactics tells me nothing about who, if anyone is even close to being in the right.

That's great. But I'm not saying which side is in the right or in the wrong. It doesn't matter. The judge is not supposed to be on any side (except the child's). And in this regard, when you have a parent already awarded full custody, revisiting that decision is something that needs to take place when both parties can appear. The judge knows the father is on active duty, is serving and cannot attend. Punishing him in this regard is just wrong. Even if he's a total dick. Because there's nothing he can do about it, he cannot comply; the judge damn well knows this. I'm sure the mother's lawyer is thrilled to death, of course...

escritora · Jun 19, 2014

Williebee said:
The answer, as in most things is, "it depends."

According to the second link in the OP, Hindes is stationed aboard the USS Michigan. a "TRIDENT" class submarine. (Ohio Class) Also referred to as a "Boomer" (ballistic missile) sub. These things, being nuclear, can disappear under the water for a very long time. 6-8 months, a year, but not for all four years. (I think) food supply is rated at 90 days.

And they have two complete crews, a blue crew and a gold crew. While the ship may stay gone year round, the crews cycle on and off, going back to home port to work, or to training.

Plus, the sub undergoes routine maintenance, some of which involves pulling the boat completely out of the water for months at a time. I don't know the Michigan's recent history, so I don't know if it spent time in drydock, or speed trials, or whatever.

More sub info from the Navy.

ETA: Apparently, in Dec. '13 they were in port in Bangor, WA, for a change of command.

Thanks, Williebee.

Devil Ledbetter · Jun 19, 2014

The only thing we really know is that the judge is privy to more facts in this case than we are.

In the '80s, my sister filed for divorce from her ne'er do well drunkard husband who couldn't hold down a job for more than a week, and would do crap like borrow money from family members for their toddler's medicine then spend it on booze. As soon as my sister filed, Buttnugget ran out and joined the Army so he could look like Mr. Big Hero. He was deployed to Turkey.

The fact that someone serves in the military does not automatically make them a great person or a great parent.

amergina · Jun 19, 2014

It also doesn't make them a horrible or neglectful parent, either.

Williebee · Jun 19, 2014

Devil Ledbetter said:
The only thing we really know is that the judge is privy to more facts in this case than we are.

Heck, I'm not sure we actually know that. We can hope so, though.

emax100 · Jun 19, 2014

amergina said:
After viewing the news videos...I...can't help wondering if the step-mom's race has anything to do with the judge's decision.

I am sympathetic about personal feelings one may have about the need to rectify racial injustice here and anywhere else around the world, but I would be wary of inserting race into a discussions like this one when there are other more mitigating factors. The main one being that our nation and in particular our current as well past few administrations along with numerous state and local authorities have shown that they have very little in terms of actual respect for our Armed Forces and have repeatedly treated them in a near sociopathic manner and continue to do so.

robeiae · Jun 19, 2014

Devil Ledbetter said:
The fact that someone serves in the military does not automatically make them a great person or a great parent.

Oh, I agree. I said as much already. But imo, that doesn't excuse the judge's actions--in issuing or threatening to issue a bench warrant for someone on active duty and currently deployed--or her words, which I think are not consistent with legal realities.

Williebee · Jun 19, 2014

emax100 said:
The main one being that our nation and in particular our current as well past few administrations along with numerous state and local authorities have shown that they have very little in terms of actual respect for our Armed Forces and have repeatedly treated them in a near sociopathic manner and continue to do so.

MOD Note:

See that? That would be one of those sweeping, declarative statements that need some support larger than "I said so." But you know that already.

Remember, we are a global community.

robjvargas · Jun 19, 2014

emax100 said:
I am sympathetic about personal feelings one may have about the need to rectify racial injustice here and anywhere else around the world, but I would be wary of inserting race into a discussions like this one when there are other more mitigating factors. The main one being that our nation and in particular our current as well past few administrations along with numerous state and local authorities have shown that they have very little in terms of actual respect for our Armed Forces and have repeatedly treated them in a near sociopathic manner and continue to do so.

Numerous.

That's one of those lovely hazy terms that sound good and mean next to nothing. Like "many" and "a lot of." You don't have to back them up with any objective data because, really, 500 "state and local authorities" sounds impressive. Until we actually start counting, and there's literally tens of thousands of such authorities, and 500 becomes a gnat-like level of "numerous."

I don't give a damn about "numerous" state and local authorities. I give a damn about a judge ready to jail a member of the US Navy for no other reason than that he's serving his time. And since her stated reason is a complete waste of bandwidth to acknowledge, that's exactly what I think she's doing.

I give a damn about a submarine sailor who as we speak faces coming home from deployment to find his daughter gone thanks to a judge who openly declared his wife irrelevant as a parent.

vsrenard · Jun 19, 2014

So far, all the reports I have seen about this case are very thin with respect to details. I'm not sure there is enough information for the outrage though, at least from my perspective.

For one thing, I would like to know what the status of the bio mom's appeal process is, and if she has been trying to get a custody hearing and has been unable to being of the dad's deployment. I'd also like to know if the judge is awarding the bi-mom temporary custody until dad gets back. I understand from the new reports that the child has a great relationship with step-mom, but if bio-mom has cleaned up her act, it might be in the child's best interest to get to know her bio-mom. Step-mom has not adopted child, I assume?

I'm definitely not saying the judge is in or out order; I just don't feel comfortable condemning her as a nitwit just yet.

robjvargas · Jun 20, 2014

vsrenard said:
I understand from the new reports that the child has a great relationship with step-mom, but if bio-mom has cleaned up her act, it might be in the child's best interest to get to know her bio-mom. Step-mom has not adopted child, I assume?

I completely reject this idea. That's not to say that giving the mom visitation rights is a bad idea.

I think a stable and loving home environment is in the child's best interest.

Every. Single. Time.

We don't know why, but we know that she lost all custody, and that the child was removed. We know that there is not one single allegation that the home she's known is not loving, not stable, not nurturing.

And we know that the judge in this case has absolutely no regard for military service. Her own words, in effect, are that a member of the military is physically incapable of being a custodial parent.

I have my own opinion of what kind of hatred is spilling out of this case. I don't see much agreement with that. That's OK. I admit my perspective is biased in several ways. But hatred it is. I'm completely comfortable alleging that of the judge as well as (especially for) the ex-wife. I've seen this way too many times in military wives who decide not to be military wives anymore.

A side note: We don't know that Angela was a military wife. Fair point. I'm referring to the tactics being used in court here. That I've seen too many times. The first time you see a man leave port a husband (and a father), and return to no one waiting for him at the dock and disconnected phone numbers, you'll know what I mean.

Not all people can do what's needed to be a military spouse. A great many break it off with as much tact as the situation allows. For some, this kind of marriage just can't work. And I respect that.

raburrell · Jun 20, 2014

It's not in the child's interest to even get to know her bio mom? In the absence of any other facts which might preclude it, I disagree with that idea pretty strenuously.

FWIW, the fact the biological mother lost custody doesn't necessarily mean she was a horrible person. My boss (who *is* a terrible person) just divorced his wife and got full custody of the kids because he's a conniving ass and wanted to punish her.
(And there, due to some rather thin walls in the office and his temper, I do know the details)

Wherein I think the judge is an ass relates solely to the refusal to sensitively manage the father's deployment situation.

robeiae · Jun 20, 2014

raburrell said:
Wherein I think the judge is an ass relates solely to the refusal to sensitively manage the father's deployment situation.

Right. Everything else, we don't have the information to pass judgment. Custody could have been lost by the bio-mom for many reasons. Step-mom could be an otherwise good mom who is actively running down bio-mom in front of the child. The father could be all sorts of things, some good, some bad.

But imo, none of this could excuse the judge's actions. Or--again--her words re custody, which I still think are simply wrong.

robjvargas · Jun 20, 2014

raburrell said:
It's not in the child's interest to even get to know her bio mom? In the absence of any other facts which might preclude it, I disagree with that idea pretty strenuously.

What I said was, and emphasized:

robjvargas said:
I completely reject this idea. That's not to say that giving the mom visitation rights is a bad idea.

I think a stable and loving home environment is in the child's best interest.

Every. Single. Time.

raburrell said:
FWIW, the fact the biological mother lost custody doesn't necessarily mean she was a horrible person. My boss (who *is* a terrible person) just divorced his wife and got full custody of the kids because he's a conniving ass and wanted to punish her.
(And there, due to some rather thin walls in the office and his temper, I do know the details)

Wherein I think the judge is an ass relates solely to the refusal to sensitively manage the father's deployment situation.

Removal by Child Protective Services (and I don't see that this is being denied) does speak to it, though.

Remember, no one has been shown to be opposing Angela, the ex-wife, seeing her daughter. So that's not in question. Instead, we have a judge (even more than not managing his deployment) attacking his deployed status. I'd even say it's an attack on the step-mom the way the judge ignores that a spouse is present, loved by the girl, Kaylee, and has no indication whatsoever of bad parenting.

RichardGarfinkle · Jun 20, 2014

robjvargas said:
What I said was, and emphasized:

Removal by Child Protective Services (and I don't see that this is being denied) does speak to it, though.

Yes and no. Here's the HHS manual for Child Protective Services. Note this section

Affirmative answers to the following questions may indicate that a child's physical and medical needs are unmet:

Have the parents or caregivers failed to provide the child with needed care for a physical injury, acute illness, physical disability, or chronic condition?

Have the parents or caregivers failed to provide the child with regular and ample meals that meet basic nutritional requirements, or have the parents or caregivers failed to provide the necessary rehabilitative diet to the child with particular health problems?

Have the parents or caregivers failed to attend to the cleanliness of the child's hair, skin, teeth, and clothes? It is difficult to determine the difference between marginal hygiene and neglect. Caseworkers should consider the chronicity, extent, and nature of the condition, as well as the impact on the child.

Does the child have inappropriate clothing for the weather and conditions? Caseworkers must consider the nature and extent of the conditions and the potential consequences to the child.

Does the home have obvious hazardous physical conditions? For example, homes with exposed wiring or easily accessible toxic substances.

Does the home have obvious hazardous unsanitary conditions? For example, homes with feces- or trash-covered flooring or furniture.

Does the child experience unstable living conditions? For example, frequent changes of residence or evictions due to the caretaker's mental illness, substance abuse, or extreme poverty?

Do the parents or caregivers fail to arrange for a safe substitute caregiver for the child?

Have the parents or caregivers abandoned the child without arranging for reasonable care and supervision? For example, have caregivers left children without information regarding their whereabouts?47

These add up to the point that parental poverty constitutes neglect. A homeless parent can lose custody. A parent without adequate medical, food, or child care resources can lose custody and so on.

Child Protective Services concerns itself with the welfare of the child, not the good intentions or stability of the parent. A good human being trying their best can still lose custody of a child because of circumstances beyond their control.

We don't know why this woman lost custody. That's one of the most vital facts lacking in this case.

cmhbob · Jun 20, 2014

Has anyone heard anything about mom's petition, and her basis for returning Kaylee to her? I suspect Angie Hindes wasn't expecting this to blow up the way it has, because neither she nor her attorney have been heard from, AFAIK.

Then again, it's still just local coverage, I think.

Plot Device · Jun 20, 2014

The best interests of the child are not being prioritized here.

That judge needs a smack-down for using the system in a way that will ultimately hurt that child in the long run.

robjvargas · Jun 20, 2014

RichardGarfinkle said:
We don't know why this woman lost custody. That's one of the most vital facts lacking in this case.

The fact that custody was removed *and* full custody given to Matthew Hindes is pretty strong evidence of something negative, though. Not proof positive; so something more could come out. But strong proof nonetheless.

Ambrosia · Jun 20, 2014

The article I am going to link to has quite a bit of spin to it, imo. Because instead of just reporting the facts it is obvious the reporter is emotionally involved in the issue. Or at least pretending emotional involvement to sell the story. I would prefer it be an unbiased report. Not a source I would normally quote. But it does contain some additional information which I believe will answer some of the questions brought up in this thread. Like why the child was removed from the mother's custody. That's why I'm using it. I'll shower later.

The child was being abused by the mother's live in boyfriend. The father was on deployment when the call came in that his child was in foster care after CPS removed the child from the home, with bruises all over her body from the physical abuse, which her mother did nothing to stop. He had to get emergency leave to come home and get her out of foster care.

Michigan’s Child Protective Services removed Kaylee, now age 6, from the care of her mother Angela Hindes in 2010 on charges of neglect. According to a YouTube video posted by the father’s family, Kaylee’s dad, Matthew, received a midnight call that no parent ever wants to hear. The findings were that Kaylee had been abused by her mother’s boyfriend, abuse that resulted in bruises all over Kaylee’s tiny body.

The youtube video mentioned in the article is worth watching, imo.

Sailor Dad Ordered To Be In Court For Custody Hearing

It is most telling that the father was granted full custody and the mother's rights removed. That doesn't normally happen in custody cases, unless there is evidence the mother is unfit. It is very hard for a dad to get residential custody, let alone full custody.

And, I have no good words for the judge in this case. None at all. As long as the child is being cared for properly, there is no reason in the world not to allow the dad a chance to appear in court. To not take his deployment into consideration and allow him time to return to the U.S. for the hearing is beyond cruel.

robjvargas · Jun 20, 2014

Thank you, Ambrosia. The added information is very valuable.

Regardless of the outcome on this case, I hope Angela has found her way out of that. Too many women bounce from one abusive relationship to another.

raburrell · Jun 20, 2014

If that's the case, then yeah, at least at the time, it wasn't safe for the child to be with the bio mother

Deployed Navy Man Ordered to Appear in Custody Hearing

Touch and go

Nurture Phoenixes

Touch and go

.

Come on you stranger, you legend,

Pittsburgh Strong

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Touch and go

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Watching the Whales

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Touch and go

Nurture Phoenixes

Did...did I do that?

A woman said to write like a man.

Grand Duchess

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee