Too Religious to Keep Her Daughter: Are you next?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

I feel the same way! I would be interested to hear the other side's story!

On face value, It is unbelievable that the judge would prefer the child to live:

1. Away from her mother. There usually has to be a strong case to take a child away from her mother. Normally it takes drug or sexual abuse!

2. With the father under the conditions of neglect mentioned in the video.

Remember that not only was this the opinion of the local judge, but his decision was upheld all the way the the state supreme court. I'm telling you, part of this story is missing!!!

As was posted earlier, the father has had primary custody since Libby was 6, nearly six years. The mother still has custody 40% of the time. So the child was not taken from the mother. The judge initially listed part of the reason for the primary custody being to the father as being mom and step dad spending so much time abroad on mission trips.

As to the video: Having been a prosecutor I have come across many cases of the child being coached and even false memories implanted. (Which watching this video cannot be 100% ruled out).

On the other hand I have also come across unbelievable stupidity on part of certain child protective agencies as far as not fulfilling their duty to defend the child!!!!!!

Having been involved in dozens of these type cases (from the criminal/juvenile side) my gut sides with the mom. However, once custody has been established it is very very difficult to change.

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

As was posted earlier, the father has had primary custody since Libby was 6, nearly six years. The mother still has custody 40% of the time. So the child was not taken from the mother. The judge initially listed part of the reason for the primary custody being to the father as being mom and step dad spending so much time aboard on mission trips.

As to the video: Having been a prosecutor I have come across many cases of the child being coached and even false memories implanted. (Which watching this video cannot be 100% ruled out).

On the other hand I have also come across unbelievable stupidity on part of certain child protective agencies as far as not fulfilling their duty to defend the child!!!!!!

Having been involved in dozens of these type cases (from the criminal/juvenile side) my gut sides with the mom. However, once custody has been established it is very very difficult to change.

Bro. Griffin,

It is my understanding that in order to change custody one has to show a substantial change; i.e., grades dropping, acting out, proven abuse, or relocation.

I agree, once custody has been decided it is difficult to change. Thank-you for your expertise as an attorney.

Blessings, Rhoni

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

As was posted earlier, the father has had primary custody since Libby was 6, nearly six years. The mother still has custody 40% of the time. So the child was not taken from the mother. The judge initially listed part of the reason for the primary custody being to the father as being mom and step dad spending so much time aboard on mission trips.

As to the video: Having been a prosecutor I have come across many cases of the child being coached and even false memories implanted. (Which watching this video cannot be 100% ruled out).

On the other hand I have also come across unbelievable stupidity on part of certain child protective agencies as far as not fulfilling their duty to defend the child!!!!!!

Having been involved in dozens of these type cases (from the criminal/juvenile side) my gut sides with the mom. However, once custody has been established it is very very difficult to change.

Griffmiester, I missed your post before I wrote my post. This case puzzles me.

I'm trying to think why a judge would take a child away from a mother just because she was religious, and for that opinion be upheld by higher courts.

I'm thinking that when the mother had custody, she didn't allow the father his rights by not allowing the daughter to spend much time with her. The daughter went with them on numerous missions trips, so she was rarely available to spend time with her father. This may have been documented by the father.

All I know is that I would be really upset if my ex-wife kept my child away from me in direct defiance of a court order! If she defied a court order for visitation, she rightfully lost custody of the girl!

Of course I'm speculating here!

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

Griffmiester, I missed your post before I wrote my post. This case puzzles me.

I'm trying to think why a judge would take a child away from a mother just because she was religious, and for that opinion be upheld by higher courts.

I'm thinking that when the mother had custody, she didn't allow the father his rights by not allowing the daughter to spend much time with her. The daughter went with them on numerous missions trips, so she was rarely available to spend time with her father. This may have been documented by the father.

All I know is that I would be really upset if my ex-wife kept my child away from me in direct defiance of a court order! If she defied a court order for visitation, she rightfully lost custody of the girl!

Of course I'm speculating here!

It's my understanding the mother never lost custody per se. The father was granted primary custody in the original divorce. Once again, it's 60/40, mom still gets girl 40% of the time. Mom is trying to change original decree to 60/40 mom. But agreed, if during the time of pending divorce mom kept daughter out of the country on mission trips most judges would probably be more inclined to grant dad primary custody. And mom trying to modify the original decree would be an uphill battle.

[George]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

As was posted earlier, the father has had primary custody since Libby was 6, nearly six years. The mother still has custody 40% of the time. So the child was not taken from the mother. The judge initially listed part of the reason for the primary custody being to the father as being mom and step dad spending so much time aboard on mission trips.

As to the video: Having been a prosecutor I have come across many cases of the child being coached and even false memories implanted. (Which watching this video cannot be 100% ruled out).

On the other hand I have also come across unbelievable stupidity on part of certain child protective agencies as far as not fulfilling their duty to defend the child!!!!!!

Having been involved in dozens of these type cases (from the criminal/juvenile side) my gut sides with the mom. However, once custody has been established it is very very difficult to change.

I have not been involved or worked cases like you but, likewise, my gut feeling sides with the mom.

[Sister Alvear]

I would say there must be more issues involved...thousands of kids live by some kind of church rules whether it be baptist, JW or pentecostal kids...even the adventists have their rules along with the mormons...

Hi, Daniel...glad to see you posting.

[LadyChocolate]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I would say there must be more issues involved...thousands of kids live by some kind of church rules whether it be baptist, JW or pentecostal kids...even the adventists have their rules along with the mormons...

Hi, Daniel...glad to see you posting.

I would agree... there has to be something more! Otherwise, these children who attend private christian schools would be targeted because they religion non stop when you think about...at home and at school and then at church......there has to be more to this story!

[SDG]

I don't know ... other corroborating stories like the New York Times article states that this religious extremism was the basis the dad's case.

The court I believe also felt that their mom's missionary work took the girl away from her extended family for too long.

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I don't know ... other corroborating stories like the New York Times article states that this religious extremism was the basis the dad's case.

The court I believe also felt that their mom's missionary work took the girl away from her extended family for too long.

But wouldn't we agree with that?

I mean, if the parents are away saving the world while their daughter is being cared for by someone else?

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

But wouldn't we agree with that?

I mean, if the parents are away saving the world while their daughter is being cared for by someone else?

The girl was being cared for by someone else?

I must have missed that... where did you see that?