<p>A woman in NC has lost custody of her two young children because she has stage 4 breast cancer. She was diagnosed at a very young age, her marriage fell apart, and now her ex-husband, who lives in Chicago, has gained custody. She appeared on the Today Show in an apparent effort to get help with an appeal.</p>
<p>I believe she will be successful in her appeal. This just grabs at one’s heart, and she has every right to see her children which she bore until her death without having to loose custody and have to travel to a different state.</p>
<p>The judge practiced the law as he interpreted it (I hear “what is best for the children”) but he should have asked for a multitude of child psychology and psychiatry experts for their age, as he did rule what is best for these girls. </p>
<p>Guilt and anger at having to leave their mother (even though not by their doing but by the judge and father’s doing) at these girls stage in life will be one long term emotional trauma inflicted. </p>
<p>I am supportive of the mother, who has a Facebook page and is trying to raise money for her legal appeal. I’m hoping some high powered national attorney may step up to help her. In the end, I believe this will be overturned. </p>
<p>Time is precious however to a Stage IV breast cancer mother and her daughters. A stay in the ruling would be very humane.</p>
<p>Giordano said she sacrificed her job as a paralegal, hoping for a happy home life raising her children. She says she helped her husband get a loan for his education, and moved the family to Durham for his job. But she and her husband separated after she says she suffered domestic abuse and he moved to Chicago to take another job.</p>
<p>I don’t understand how this domestic abuse issue was not addressed further. the judge also found her to be loving and capable mother. This is so sad to think that the husband nor the judge recognize the harm to the children taking them from their loving and capable mother.</p>
<p>What is the judge to do in cases like this? The mom is going to be sick and need to focus on her treatment. She does not have a way to support self and kids. Dad does. If the parties were on decent terms, what should have happened was that Dad takes the kids until mom gets through the treatment and on her feet, making sure that there is visitation and the intent to return and then the kids go back to mom. That it went to court is a tragedy. </p>
<p>I had to pretty much give up my other kids when one of them was fighting a life threatening condition for about 2 years. But it was all done willingly, as I knew I could not be a parent and fight the battles on two fronts. I can barely do it on one. But the situation was presented to the kids and the family differently and not as “lost custody”. I wish the judge had put a time limit on the situation with the children automatically being returned to the mom at that time unless she agreed to extend it. What was done was probably the right thing pragmatically, but emotionally it is a killer.</p>
<p>I was wondering if this might cause resentment from the children towards the father , if the time spent fighting is taking precious time away that could be spent with their mother.</p>
<p>It would. But in the cases I’ve seen, unless the other parent is truly a problem person, the kids seem to be the same as in any divorced family. The fact that the family fell apart seems to be the thing that sets up the risk categories.</p>
<p>If I wanted to favor the hubby’s position, I’d take this quote from post 2, but modify it just a bit…
This just grabs at one’s heart, and HE has every right to see HIS children which HE FATHERED until HIS death without having to LOSE custody and have to travel to a different state.
The capital letters are my changes.</p>
<p>On the news, the general feeling seems to be that somehow the loving mother has more rights to them than the loving father, and so by giving custody to the father, the mother has been cheated. The trouble with this slant is that it assumes the mother is the better parent by default. The father has just as many rights and desires for children as the mother, though historically women have prevailed.
It is heartbreaking there is a divorce that involves children, but is it so ridiculous that they go to a loving father that can support them?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t want to be the one representing the mother, if I had to argue that she should have them because it is better for the kids to be with her, and then in the next breath demand the ex-hub pay her money because she cannot support them. Wouldn’t that seem to be conflicting?</p>
<p>younghoss,
If the husband really cared about the kids, and the couple did get a divorce, he could have stayed in the region so that they could share custody or each have easy access to the children. He did not have to move so far away.</p>
<p>The news report I heard said he could not find a job in his region, but found a very good job elsewhere. Surely it can’t be better for the father, mother, kids or society to have a father that chose to be unemployed rather than working?</p>
<p>What we know is very limited to what has been reported on the news. In this economy the father might not have had too many local job opportunities that would support everyone. Also, younghoss, money is not the only factor that determines which household is a better place for the kids. The father could be putting on a loving father’s mask for the public, just like he might have put on a devoted husband’s mask while abusing his then wife. All of the above is just speculatiuons on my part. </p>
<p>This is such a sad and really tragic situation…</p>
<p>Here’s how I see financial supoport, in this case, relevant. news reports I’ve seen indicate both are caring loving parents. Both desire custody. Either party could be acting. How can we “speculate” the father may be acting without speculating the mother may be? In today’s world their desire for custody and fitness might seem a tie, wouldn’t it? So I think a reasonable tiebreaker is the financial support the dad has. It just seems contradictory to me to argue the tiebreaker is that the woman is the better parent because she cannot support the kids, but the dad can send her money. How is that a plus for the mother? Yes bunsenburner, I agree money isn’t the only factor. In fact, I’ve said that myself. But I can see it as a tiebreaker in this case, since all else so far seems equal.</p>
<p>younghoss, I am not doubting that this or any other dad doesn’t love his kids as much as the mom does.</p>
<p>But you are saying that the kids should live with the dad because he can financially support them? Um, even if they live with the mom, he can send child support as many courts order dads in a divorce to do. Was this dad the primary wage earner when they were married? Even if he opts to move far away and work in another state, his financial obligation to his children don’t end. The fact that he earns more than the wife doesn’t mean the kids should automatically live with the dad on those grounds.</p>
<p>younghoss, a case for the mom could be made that the kids want to live with her and would be uprooted to leave her, their community and their school to move to Chicago. Further, it might have negative psychological effects for children who have a conceivably dying mother who they will have to be apart from during her final time, however long that is. They can live with their dad when she is gone, one could say.</p>
<p>In any case, I think the father should try to find a job closer to where the wife and children live (the mother is in care of doctors there) and they share custody. We don’t know if it is impossible for the dad to get a job closer to the family.</p>
<p>Another thing…what kind of truly loving father who cared about his children’s well being would want them to suffer being apart from their ill mom during her final months/years, time they can never get back? He knows he lives far away and so by taking custody, he is also creating a situation where his kids would barely ever see their mother during her final years (if she has years). Does he really want that for his children?
(I’m not talking of who has custody as much as the fact that he wants them to live 600 miles away from their mother)</p>
<p>The father chose to move far from his family. The mother didn’t choose to have stage four cancer. While obtaining a job is very important, of course, many men and women, when seeking a job, must limit their job search to a radius of 75 miles or so from home due to commitments (including children) to an area in which they live. I’d love to hear how hard this guy tried to get a job in the region where his family was based. I am not believing that he had to go to Chicago in order to work.</p>
<p>Right…either move closer to the mom and share custody so the kids can see both regularly, or wait until she dies for the kids to move to Chicago where he lives and wishes to reside. Custody aside, who thinks it is in the best interests of the kids to not SEE their mom barely at all when they have a short time left to be with her? This alone will tear them apart. EVEN IF he won custody, he should care that the kids at least be near their mom enough to spend time with her.</p>
<p>I am cursed with the desire to know both sides of any story before I develop strong feelings on it. The article I read gives only the mom’s side of the story, and doesn’t really delve much into what was in the judge’s decision.
Possible questions to ask:
The court decree gives the husband “primary custody.” What kind of custody did they have before? What is the history of visitation? What kind of support is currently being paid already?
When was the domestic abuse allegation first raised?
How long ago was the divorce? When did the dad move to Chicago? How long has the mom been unemployed? The oldest child is 11, the youngest is 5.</p>