Jump to content
IGNORED

Judge: Keep in touch with violent ex or face imprisonment


moodygirl86

Recommended Posts

What happens to the kids if she goes to prison? Is it that if she doesn't write her attempted murderer, she loses access to her children due to being imprisoned? Meanwhile, her attempted murderer retains access to the kids via photos/letters even though he cut a woman's throat?! I actually understand that imprisoned parents have a right to know how their kids are doing. However, I think domestic abusers, by acting against the individuals in the family, ought to lose that right. At the very least, keep this awful excuse for a human being updated by a case worker's report and don't force his victim to send him letters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she would get other punishment than sent to prison. It would probably be a contempt of court, she'd be fined, if she couldn't pay it then she'd be jailed for whatever amount of time to pay it off.

Whatever rights he has a parent should not supersede her right to live from fear or some kind of psychological abuse due to being forced to have contact with him. There should be a go-between, some kind of monitor, like the kind of supervisor for supervised visitation. Or simply submit the information to the court and have the court send it to the jailhouse.

It's damn sure not her job to see that this man's civil liberties are protected. She needs more protection than he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets to me is that if Natalie had stayed with this son of a bitch and he'd harmed one of the boys, she'd be prosecuted for negligence. The poor woman can't win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens to the kids if she goes to prison? Is it that if she doesn't write her attempted murderer, she loses access to her children due to being imprisoned? Meanwhile, her attempted murderer retains access to the kids via photos/letters even though he cut a woman's throat?! I actually understand that imprisoned parents have a right to know how their kids are doing. However, I think domestic abusers, by acting against the individuals in the family, ought to lose that right. At the very least, keep this awful excuse for a human being updated by a case worker's report and don't force his victim to send him letters.

Exactly. Generally, I'm up for divorced parents having equal rights to a relationship with their kids, but if one of them's dangerous/violent then it's blatantly not in anyone's best interests for that to happen! This judge is sticking with the "law" but too lazy to apply any discretion based on the individual circumstances, the pen-pushing jobsworth!

In Natalie's position, the first thing I'd do is make sure the boys had a trusted guardian to stay with in the worst case scenario, like my mum or someone. Then I'd go before the judge and say, "Firstly, we're not having anything to do with this bastard. Second, I'm well aware of what will happen to me for this, but who cares? My kids are safe, so put me in prison for as long as you like! Lastly, shame on you!" And I'd sneak a friend in to record it all. They would then leak it to the national press and watch heads roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been a horrible assault that almost cost the mother her life. The father showed no remorse whatsoever, he/it had planned the whole thing out and tormented her for an entire night. These children and their mother should be a part of some witness protection program, have their names changed and that garbage shouldn't be able to go near them ever again. He is truly obsessed with them and thinks that their lives is in his hands and he has got the right to destroy them. He thins that he owns them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, where I am it's not that uncommon for men who have committed heinous spousal abuse to get some form of contact if they really pursue it, unless the children themselves are showing that they are not reacting well. The courts will take measures to protect physical safety, but the emotional wellbeing of a mother with PTSD is often not considered.

I did find a case here dealing with terminating access altogether to a father who continued to be obsessed and angry with his ex: http://canlii.ca/t/g6sfz [Note]

Overall, though, I have found that terminating access is an absolute last resort, and it is rarely done without some sort of expert evidence that the access is traumatizing the children, or evidence that it is putting a parent at physical risk.

I wonder if this mother would have someone else type the letters, making them as short and generic as possible while still complying with the court order? "Junior is now in x grade. General health is good, and he has lost 2 baby teeth. Enclosed please find your photo of the children."

The contempt wording sounds pretty typical. Theoretically, all court orders need to be followed, or the court can take action against you. Actually putting someone in jail is pretty rare unless they keeping refusing the follow the order and can't be managed any other way.

BTW - may this is OT, but this is one of the reasons that I would abort if I got pregnant from a rape, or refuse to put the name of an abusive father on a birth certificate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, though, I have found that terminating access is an absolute last resort, and it is rarely done without some sort of expert evidence that the access is traumatizing the children, or evidence that it is putting a parent at physical risk.

Which is why the judge should be ashamed of himself! If he doesn't consider slashing someone's throat to be sufficient physical risk/trauma, then I shudder to think what it WOULD take for him to tell Hughes, "I'm sorry, but it's not in your children's best interests to have contact with you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, where I am it's not that uncommon for men who have committed heinous spousal abuse to get some form of contact if they really pursue it, unless the children themselves are showing that they are not reacting well. The courts will take measures to protect physical safety, but the emotional wellbeing of a mother with PTSD is often not considered.

I did find a case here dealing with terminating access altogether to a father who continued to be obsessed and angry with his ex: http://canlii.ca/t/g6sfz [Note]

Overall, though, I have found that terminating access is an absolute last resort, and it is rarely done without some sort of expert evidence that the access is traumatizing the children, or evidence that it is putting a parent at physical risk.

I wonder if this mother would have someone else type the letters, making them as short and generic as possible while still complying with the court order? "Junior is now in x grade. General health is good, and he has lost 2 baby teeth. Enclosed please find your photo of the children."

The contempt wording sounds pretty typical. Theoretically, all court orders need to be followed, or the court can take action against you. Actually putting someone in jail is pretty rare unless they keeping refusing the follow the order and can't be managed any other way.

BTW - may this is OT, but this is one of the reasons that I would abort if I got pregnant from a rape, or refuse to put the name of an abusive father on a birth certificate.

Same. I'd either ask a guy in my life to allow his name to be out on (and then sign whatever paperwork was needed to make sure he doesn't owe child support) or I'd abort.

Hey fundies? Wanna prevent abortions? Make sure rapists don't have parental rights!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same. I'd either ask a guy in my life to allow his name to be out on (and then sign whatever paperwork was needed to make sure he doesn't owe child support) or I'd abort.

Hey fundies? Wanna prevent abortions? Make sure rapists don't have parental rights!

My heart wants to agree with this. My head says it's more complicated.

There are laws that take violence toward children and/or partners into consideration. I'd like to see this strengthened when it comes to more extreme risk, so that judges can give serious consideration to terminating parental rights altogether rather than just ordering supervised access. Supervised access addresses the immediately physical threat fairly well, but it doesn't deal with the emotional risks to children or their primary caregiver. If there is little chance that someone will evolve into a competent parent who doesn't need to be supervised every second, why start the supervised access? If there was violence in the past, someone should need to show actual progress in counseling. Now, I see a lot of cases where courts basically say, "well, that was in the past, no new incidents, and he attended court-ordered anger management classes". Well, I've seen some who really took anger management seriously and did some soul-searching and real change, and I've seen others who simply showed up to satisfy a probation officer.

I think the law should reflect that the well-being of the primary caregiver is going to affect the best interests of the child. If the parent has been traumatized by the other parent (and I think you need to limit this to actual violence or threat or violence, not just "still shocked and bitter about how the marriage ended") and they are living in fear, that's going to have an effect. That child needs their main parent to be healthy.

The focus, IMO, needs to be on the child. I don't think the focus should be on how the child was conceived. Is it any different if a child is conceived from rape, vs. a child conceived consensually but the father subsequently beats or sexually assaults the mom while she's pregnant? Let's also not forget that most rapes are not stranger rapes. There are plenty of children conceived from relationship or marital rape, where the father is listed on the birth certificate and may have a relationship with the child prior to separation. Most rapes are also not reported, and when rapes are reported, it often takes longer than 9 months for the case to be investigated and go through a full trial.

If you really want to get complicated, throw in a situation where the mom was already affected enough that it has compromised her mental health/ability to cope with life or triggered substance abuse issues. "Best interests of the child" is not designed to be fair, and it sometimes leads to outcomes that make you cry. I had a few cases like this: Mom and dad got together when she was really young, and a teen pregnancy ended any of her schooling. Clear evidence that he was abusive. Relationship ends, but she's a mess - no support system, no education, no life skills, plus a lot of trauma. She doesn't cope well and really struggles - there might be serious substance abuse, hospitalizations, suicide attempts, etc. Meanwhile, HE wasn't particularly traumatized, so he makes more progress - he's working, gets into a new and healthier relationship, sobers up, etc. As she struggles, he takes the kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone in another thread was arguing in favor of this very thing. In that Sister Wives thread--I forget the FJer's username. But even though the estranged dad was abusive, he has a right to see them, and there is no way Robyn lets her kids see him if he was a bad guy, completely forgetting how ingrained it is in fundie women to look the other way when a man wrongs you.

I detest how certain people come to FJ just to defend their own fundie-lite beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eri, I've read quite a few online debates about this, and although most people know this is morally wrong, there are still a tiny minority who agree with the judge's decision using the same logic - "he's still their father". The problem is, the UK/US legal systems are still old-fashioned and conservative in some ways and dominated by men; and old prejudices are still alive and kicking. One of these being, the idea that all kids should have two parents. They need to come into 2015 and realise that a single parent isn't a horrible thing. And I do see that view as not only old-fashioned but misogynistic, as people are full of praise when the single parent is a dad! It only seems to be single mums that society has it in for.

As a child of a single parent household myself, I can categorically state it hasn't done us any harm. There were lots of rows between our parents before the split - though fortunately nothing physical - but anyway, our childhood would have been considerably LESS happy in an atmosphere full of shouting and fights. After Dad had buggered off back to Ireland where he'd grown up, our house felt like a haven of peace and tranquillity. I was only four but even I noticed an improvement. In comparison, I had a friend at school whose parents lived under the same roof but hated each other, and it really fucked their kids up to the point of destructive behaviour - drugs, shoplifting, underage sex, pregnant at 14 etc. How differently might she and her brother have turned out had their mum or dad just said "Look, this isn't fair on the kids, we can't live under the same roof any more?"

Back to the Allman case. I oticed one person on a different board was saying things like "Watch out Natalie - like father like son. Be careful." Well to that I say: 1) the twins are their own people and should not be prejudged by their sperm donor's evil actions, and 2) if anything, Natalie was LESSENING the chances of that by kicking him out, surely! She is clearly a strong character who won't tolerate abuse and wants to send the message to her boys, "No, this isn't the way you treat your wife/girlfriend." It's Judge Busybody who's trying to undo all that good work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's not a valid comparison between this case and Robyn Brown.

This guy is convicted of attempting to murder the mother of his children.

We only have Robyn's word and IMO she is not really someone I am inclined to trust. I think she would falsely accuse her ex in order to get her own way. Regardless of what I think, there hasn't been any credible evidence that David Jessop abused her, aside from that this chosen lifestyle seems inherently abusive.

Big difference here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
There's not a valid comparison between this case and Robyn Brown.

This guy is convicted of attempting to murder the mother of his children.

We only have Robyn's word and IMO she is not really someone I am inclined to trust. I think she would falsely accuse her ex in order to get her own way. Regardless of what I think, there hasn't been any credible evidence that David Jessop abused her, aside from that this chosen lifestyle seems inherently abusive.

Big difference here.

This is a really old thread that I clicked on by mistake -- but I thought it was pretty interesting. Particularly in light of an article that's been going around my Facebook. In that case a judge ( woman, if it matters ) ordered 3 children to a detention center because they refused to have contact with their father :shock: . The oldest child was 15, the two others were only 9 and 10. The children had no other issues. Just the judge felt they were being alienated and basically called the oldest a bunch of horrible names and said he would be ordered to detention indefinitely until he had a " healthy" relationship with his father. Public uproar had her modify the order to summer camp. I don't recall the details of any previous abuse. Don't know if it even matters. Thoughts? Seems like a gigantic overeach by the judge and incredibly counterproductive.

As far as the original case. Absolutely inexcusable that the judge would order the woman to send letters or face jail! But I personally, would write the letters if that was my only option. Going to jail on principle would be irresponsible and an awful thing to do to her children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is putting the children in a detention center going to help create a "healthy" relationship? That makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is putting the children in a detention center going to help create a "healthy" relationship? That makes no sense.

I guess the children are released now, no doubt because of the backlash. But it makes me wonder how much of this crap goes on that doesn't make it to a viral story? I'm going to start a separate thread on it. So awful. Here's a link :

.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/07/09/michigan-judge-bullies-children-in-open-court-for-refusing-to-see-their-dad/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the children are released now, no doubt because of the backlash. But it makes me wonder how much of this crap goes on that doesn't make it to a viral story? I'm going to start a separate thread on it. So awful. Here's a link :

.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/07/09/michigan-judge-bullies-children-in-open-court-for-refusing-to-see-their-dad/

I'd be suspicious of a kids-for-cash scheme. But if one did exist, it's likely to end now that the judge has people keeping a closer watch over her rulings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.