TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:Sounds to me like a truly vindictive ex-wife/mother that lost her parental rights causing as much trouble as she can for her ex and doesn't care one bit about her child. The really amazing part to me is that she was able to find a lawyer that would take the case and found a judge that would push this. Would be nice if both could be disbarred, IMHO.

So what brought the case back to court? How did it get to this point? What do you know that we are not a party to? I ask this because as far as I could find out there is no facts to base any of your statements on and it's pure speculation. You may very well be right, but it seems based on something other than the info in the press.

OK found some more info out finally. This is the situation from my understanding. The Mother filed a petition with the court a year ago to redress custody. There was a scheduled hearing where the child was ordered to attend. Either the Father or the daughter had to be there and even tho the father was deployed he could of had his daughter attend the hearing with his wife and attorney. At that point the court was told that the father was deployed but there was never a motion to delay or postpone the case until the hearing when the court was told the father was deployed. There was also visitation orders that have not been followed seemingly since before he was deployed. So the violation would be an ongoing issue separate from his deployment. Now these are just claims right now so it doesn't mean that I think anything one way or the other. The judge waved the warrant if the wife would bring the girl to scheduled visitation from the very beginning. The judge later granted a stay based on his being deployed but still will be having a custody hearing with the mother. I will say that for all the histrionics the basic issue was that the guy's lawyer didn't go to the court for a continuance, instead waiting until the hearing itself to bring it up. That and being deployed wouldn't allow one to ignore visitations.

Typically more to these stories than the media tells us in the initial story. The media created a headline to turn heads. Just because a guy is in the military doesn't automatically mean he is a good parent.

EEllis wrote:OK found some more info out finally. This is the situation from my understanding. The Mother filed a petition with the court a year ago to redress custody. There was a scheduled hearing where the child was ordered to attend. Either the Father or the daughter had to be there and even tho the father was deployed he could of had his daughter attend the hearing with his wife and attorney. At that point the court was told that the father was deployed but there was never a motion to delay or postpone the case until the hearing when the court was told the father was deployed. There was also visitation orders that have not been followed seemingly since before he was deployed. So the violation would be an ongoing issue separate from his deployment. Now these are just claims right now so it doesn't mean that I think anything one way or the other. The judge waved the warrant if the wife would bring the girl to scheduled visitation from the very beginning. The judge later granted a stay based on his being deployed but still will be having a custody hearing with the mother. I will say that for all the histrionics the basic issue was that the guy's lawyer didn't go to the court for a continuance, instead waiting until the hearing itself to bring it up. That and being deployed wouldn't allow one to ignore visitations.

In general, I wonder how visitations work both logistically and financially when a 7 year-old child lives in Washington state and the other parent in Michigan.

It's not like me driving to the ex's house on the other side of town and dropping the child off for the weekend.

EEllis wrote:

C-dub wrote:Sounds to me like a truly vindictive ex-wife/mother that lost her parental rights causing as much trouble as she can for her ex and doesn't care one bit about her child. The really amazing part to me is that she was able to find a lawyer that would take the case and found a judge that would push this. Would be nice if both could be disbarred, IMHO.

So what brought the case back to court? How did it get to this point? What do you know that we are not a party to? I ask this because as far as I could find out there is no facts to base any of your statements on and it's pure speculation. You may very well be right, but it seems based on something other than the info in the press.

I haven't seen anything else that you all haven't seen. That's why I said

C-dub wrote:Sounds to me ...

EEllis wrote:OK found some more info out finally. This is the situation from my understanding. The Mother filed a petition with the court a year ago to redress custody. There was a scheduled hearing where the child was ordered to attend. Either the Father or the daughter had to be there and even tho the father was deployed he could of had his daughter attend the hearing with his wife and attorney. At that point the court was told that the father was deployed but there was never a motion to delay or postpone the case until the hearing when the court was told the father was deployed. There was also visitation orders that have not been followed seemingly since before he was deployed. So the violation would be an ongoing issue separate from his deployment. Now these are just claims right now so it doesn't mean that I think anything one way or the other. The judge waved the warrant if the wife would bring the girl to scheduled visitation from the very beginning. The judge later granted a stay based on his being deployed but still will be having a custody hearing with the mother. I will say that for all the histrionics the basic issue was that the guy's lawyer didn't go to the court for a continuance, instead waiting until the hearing itself to bring it up. That and being deployed wouldn't allow one to ignore visitations.

Still not sure. Was there anything about why the mother lost custody in the first place or did I miss that?

A little bit more to the ex's history of non-compliance with court orders.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/arti ... stody-case" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, "A day after the order was issued, Hindes responded with a letter explaining his overseas military service, and he included a letter from the U.S.S. Michigan’s command staff supporting it." And she had a lawyer, but he bowed out and she had to file these papers on her own. Poor thing.

Jumping Frog wrote: In general, I wonder how visitations work both logistically and financially when a 7 year-old child lives in Washington state and the other parent in Michigan.

It's not like me driving to the ex's house on the other side of town and dropping the child off for the weekend.

I don't know but I would bet the "case" originated in Michigan. If one party moves then it really isn't the courts falt and you shouldn't be able to ditch a parent just by moving.

C-dub wrote:A little bit more to the ex's history of non-compliance with court orders.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/arti ... stody-case" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, "A day after the order was issued, Hindes responded with a letter explaining his overseas military service, and he included a letter from the U.S.S. Michigan’s command staff supporting it." And she had a lawyer, but he bowed out and she had to file these papers on her own. Poor thing.

May be a mix up or something else going on but the Judge stated that the first time she heard about Hindes being deployed on that mon so.........

And bravo on the innuendo and slam at the woman for daring to be poor and still wanting to see her child. There may be plenty to disparage but income shouldn't be one of those things.

EEllis wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote: In general, I wonder how visitations work both logistically and financially when a 7 year-old child lives in Washington state and the other parent in Michigan.

It's not like me driving to the ex's house on the other side of town and dropping the child off for the weekend.

I don't know but I would bet the "case" originated in Michigan. If one party moves then it really isn't the courts falt and you shouldn't be able to ditch a parent just by moving.

I don't have any personal experience in this, but I would think that any court issued custodial agreement would require approval from the court for a parent to move with the child.

jmra wrote: I don't have any personal experience in this, but I would think that any court issued custodial agreement would require approval from the court for a parent to move with the child.

Not necessary approval but moving doesn't effect court jurisdiction over any ongoing issues. Since the court in Michigan was the one that ruled on custody it would be where you would go to modify that custody. There can be some overlap, like if both parents moved to washington, but courts tend to want to keep jurisdiction on cases with kids. Prevents forum shopping or having cases disappear, like abuse cases, just because someone moves.

EEllis wrote:

C-dub wrote:A little bit more to the ex's history of non-compliance with court orders.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/arti ... stody-case" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, "A day after the order was issued, Hindes responded with a letter explaining his overseas military service, and he included a letter from the U.S.S. Michigan’s command staff supporting it." And she had a lawyer, but he bowed out and she had to file these papers on her own. Poor thing.

May be a mix up or something else going on but the Judge stated that the first time she heard about Hindes being deployed on that mon so.........

And bravo on the innuendo and slam at the woman for daring to be poor and still wanting to see her child. There may be plenty to disparage but income shouldn't be one of those things.

It was not intended as an insult or slam. It was one of those "bless her heart" type things. Maybe she has turned her life around and maybe not. Maybe she's just lucky the court hasn't taken her next child away yet for the same reasons she lost her daughter. It still seems like a scummy thing to do. I might lose money, but I'd bet she knew exactly what she was doing knowing that her ex would be at sea for long periods of time and unable to return. I don't have any sympathy for her or the judge, since even after being made aware of the situation didn't change her order.

C-dub wrote: It was not intended as an insult or slam. It was one of those "bless her heart" type things. Maybe she has turned her life around and maybe not. Maybe she's just lucky the court hasn't taken her next child away yet for the same reasons she lost her daughter. It still seems like a scummy thing to do. I might lose money, but I'd bet she knew exactly what she was doing knowing that her ex would be at sea for long periods of time and unable to return. I don't have any sympathy for her or the judge, since even after being made aware of the situation didn't change her order.

Well you say that and then slam her again with beliefs that the info we have just doesn't support. This case has been going on for years so that idea that it was some maneuver because the guy is in the Navy just doesn't work. Besides what is she supposed to do? Give up all contact with her daughter because her ex is in the Navy? By the way the judge changed two different orders and and never issued a warrant like she would for anyone else but a deployed service member. Not to defend the judge because I just don't know enough but these articles have been Crap and have little to do with any real situation.

well, the judge delayed the case because "she didn't know the sailor was serving" even though she was told a multitude of times by a plethora of people. right.....I'm thinking her plan backfired, she got the national attention she didn't really want, and she had to backtrack.

A U.S. Navy sailor from Washington State is currently serving on a submarine thousands of miles away in the Pacific Ocean, but a judge has ordered him into an impossible custody scenario: Appear in a Michigan courtroom Monday or risk losing custody of his 6-year-old daughter.

Seems like thru all of the posts this is being lost. How can a judge order someone, who has no free will or means of travel, is serving on a submarine by military order, thousands of miles away, in a secret location, to appear....or else? I'm stumped.