<p>Mom2collegekids, probably none. She has no job, don’t know how her treatment is being paid; as that has not been addressed. Her family is not likely in the area. She moved there with her then husband as a job relocation. Apparently moving around for the job was a known thing when she married him. </p>
<p>It’s not a good thing, but it’s not about her as far as I am concerned. It’s about the kids.</p>
<p>Hunt,
I know you said for now that there is likely merit to this ruling since the judge ruled in the dad’s favor (though none of us has the story and facts from both sides). By the same token, one might say that there is merit to the appeal of such a ruling given the widespread interest in this case. Granted the mom went to the media but I’m not so sure the media would have run with it if there was not something disturbing about the ruling. It is in so many media outlets at this point and support for a petition, etc. I understand that the pubic has only heard the mother’s side. But would there be this much outrage without any merit? The judge MAY have had just cause for the ruling but I’m thinking there is also merit to the outcry for an appeal of that ruling. If people thought the judge’s ruling all made sense, there would not be this much attention given to the case just because the mom chose to go to the media.</p>
<p>Hmm, how strange. I cut and pasted a quote form the article directly saying that the judge gave joint custody of the kids to the parents and it did not show up. </p>
<p>The story has great “tissue” value and can rouse up a lot of reaction which is good fodder for news. And there is merit in that disabled folks are up in arms as they should be in getting discriminated against in situations due to disabilities. It is a big issue. It’s also a problem is a parent is getting custody because they happen to have more money. So there are issues that really rabble rouse here.</p>
<p>What happened here is that the judge ordered joint custody. The problem here is that the mom can’t afford it without one parent or the other moving. He has a job. She has a medical base. The kids are also based here and would most likely want to stay. But there is also the issue that they may have to be moved to the father;s and having regular contact with him really makes sense. Also with joint custody, they would probably get more resources from him since he won’t have to have them flown to Chicago and because people tend to spend more, give more when the kids are around more. </p>
<p>It’s not a good situation and any resolution is going to be painful.</p>
<p>The case is appealing to the media because (according to the mom) she is losing primary custody of her children “because she has cancer.” That’s newsworthy. But is that the only–or even the primary–reason the judge changed custody? We don’t even know that. Again, I will just note that we may never hear the other side of the story. Indeed, the dad might want to avoid dragging out the battle in the media.</p>
<p>Edited to add: do you remember the story we discussed a while back about the girl (an “honor student”) who allegedly pistol-whipped her mother to make her cosign for a new car? I thought at the time there was something screwy about that story. So, try to find out what happened. The only article I found, other than those just repeating the original story, was one in which somebody “from the community” said that “the problem has been solved.” Hmmm. That story will live on in people’s memories, even if it turned out that the facts were very different. “Oh, yeah, the girl who pistol-whipped her mother.” My point is just that we may never hear enough facts about this new story to really know what it’s all about.</p>
<p>Oh dear, it strikes me that few parents in life would every give up their young children willingly, for any reason, as their own death approached. If anything, isn’t human nature to hold them closer, to feel skin on skin, their breath and to see their day to day accomplishments and happiness in schools, girl and boy-scouts, music and more? </p>
<p>A few thoughts on what seems possibly in place for her medical care: stage iv breast cancer automatically qualifies you social security disability insurance (sometimes with comorbid conditions you qualify at lesser stages but not with regularity) and after two years (with some earlier circumstances) for Medicare. Thank goodness for cancer patients there is this social net. Additionally, the children receive SSDI payments up to age 18. After a divorce in any ten year marriage, the spouse is entitled to spousal SS retirement benefits. So it’s plausible much of this dear woman’s care may be covered under Medicare and income derived from disability both personal and child’s (which might be a point of contention). There’s no point on speculating on the divorce decree. There is point to consider cost of living in Durham vs Chicago for both mom and children. </p>
<p>I want to make a comment about a breast cancer patient’s bonding with her medical team. It can make you feel you’re going to be that one who lives for 20 years if the team relationship is incredible, vs one where you see it in their eyes that you’ve got less than 2 years if it’s not. Seriously. Duke University certainly is well known for cancer treatment and research, and by USNWR is just a step up from the University of Chicago. But her team, her roots are at Duke. Elizabeth Edwards had all the money in the world to travel anywhere she wanted, yet she choose to stay near home because of her treatment team and her children and her family and friends. We don’t know what this woman’s support group is or isn’t. I suspect the community is rallying around her, having spent some time in Durham. </p>
<p>One other consideration I haven’t seen mentioned is the weather. Bone pain from bone metastasis as the disease progresses can be difficult and aided by medications. Everyone knows sitting, spending time in the sunlight and warmth of a warmer climate is preferable to sitting in cold, gray, windy Chicago days (yes, lived there too) interspersed by late spring and summer warmth. Why is she being told by the judge to move north, when her body craves the healing of our sunshine and warmth? That is a human judgement not made on medical soundness. Lots of retirees move south just for these or similar reasons.</p>
<p>No, I think she is fully right of mind to want to stay with her children where her treatment team is and where the sun shines with greater regularity. If I were the spouse, I would allow the kids to stay with the mom with care (Durham community will most likely pick up the pace here on this nationally known woman) and I do the commuting in reverse, meaning flying in from Chicago. This way the kids stay with their mom as the future reveals itself and don’t have the guilt associated with leaving her.</p>
<p>I wish this woman had had a male judge. I do believe the decision would have been different. I see no compassion in the womans judge’s compassion: tincture of time in life might change that.</p>
<p>He doesn’t have to do anything. There is an order to send the kids to Chicago. He just has to sit tight while she appeals and the appeals is likely to be an on paper one. His smartest move would be to make no comment.</p>
<p>
The judge is over 50–she graduated from law school in 1979. She was elected to the bench in 2006. Before that, she practiced domestic relations and family law in her own law office for seventeen years. And she’s seen the actual facts of the case.</p>
<p>I am a single mom of four children. Might I add that I also was diagnoised with stage 4 breast cancer in 2009 after being in remission for 4 years. I think this is horrible to do to this mother especially at this time in her life. The father in this case I feel should have some kind of compassion for the mother of his children. Those children COULD lose their mom and there’s no amount of money that can replace what they will go through. The judge in this case also should know that he has just added more food for the cancer to feed off of which is called STRESS!!! This is just horrible and I’m going to continue to pray for all that are in this situation. Especially for the children. If you’ve never had cancer then really you’ll never begin to understand what that mother must be going thorugh. God bless her.</p>
<p>^^Well said. Stress, i.e., cortisol fluctuation which intertwines greatly with one’s immune system as does regular good sleep through melatonin, is a key player in one’s individual ability to slay low those natural killer cells, so important for necessary cancerous and other free radical DNA distruction. I wish you well.</p>
<p>“The judge is over 50–she graduated from law school in 1979. She was elected to the bench in 2006. Before that, she practiced domestic relations and family law in her own law office for seventeen years. And she’s seen the actual facts of the case.”</p>
<p>True, but as I said earlier, women professionals can be very hard on women professionals or non-professionals, especially if personally gunning for rising through the glass ceiling. We are all human, and judges have their own agenda, separate from the ‘facts of the case’. </p>
<p>Secondly, breast cancer has its own emotion about it, partially on sexuality issues. This has multiple implications, but especially for the daughter (omitting BRAC gene inheritance discussion). If the daughter maintains good visits, and the mom talks openly and encouragingly about the future of breast cancer research and treatments, that will ease the burden on the daughter of her own fear of developing the disease and dealing, i.e., surviving if she does. This is a crucial mom to daughter interaction. Every breast cancer patient, man or woman, knows we speak of the future with full hope of curability someday. How this relates to the judge, a woman, is conjecture. But it’s not always about the money as best for the children, as I have tried to demonstrate here. There are multiple facets to consider.</p>
<p>IIRC, the clip onteh Today show said they had vboth had relationships outside the marriage. But regardless. This shoudl be about what is in the best interest of the children. I hope they have a GAL (guardian ad litem) who will work to do what is best for them. Being pulled from their friends and their mother doesnt seem like that is in their best interest. Dad can pay the alimony and child support checks from Chicago. If mom does pass away or becomes too ill to care for the kids and they then go to dads, he wil be adored (and maybe he already is). If they are pulled in this pawn game from mom, friends and home to live with dad, they may hate him. Not a good foundation to set for a lifelong relationship. JMO</p>
<p>The articles definitely say that the divorce came after the diagnosis. I’ve been trying not to judge the husband for breaking up with a woman with cancer since, for all I know, it was a bad marriage even before illness struck. I also take the accusations of abuse with a grain of salt; lots of mud is thrown around in divorces. But if the decision to take the children from their mother was made because she has cancer, then I think it is wrong. </p>
<p>The father moved to Chicago fairly recently. We don’t know whether he had to relocate to find work, or whether he voluntarily left a perfectly good job for a better one. There is a big difference in my mind.</p>
<p>The suggestion that the mother relocate to Chicago is outrageous. She is functioning well now in large part because of her current medical team. It is not reasonable to suggest disrupting her relationships with her caregivers and the continuity of care. She has lived in Durham for years and certainly has friends who can help her out. And, as others have said, she probably doesn’t have the money to relocate.</p>
<p>The judge in this case also should know that he has just added more food for the cancer to feed off of which is called STRESS!!!</p>
<p>I was thinking the same thing. The last thing this woman’s body needs is extra stress.</p>
<p>Didn’t we all feel that E. Edwards’ situation was so much worse because her body was fighting cancer while also dealing with the stress of her H and his issues.</p>
<p>This is one of the sadest displays of power on the part of the judicial system. It is hard to imagine that a woman made this judgement and could not see how seperating these kids from their mom at this point is tantamount to quickening her death. The children will surely see the stupid game their father played and in years to come resent their father for the beast that he is. He has the money so he could fly to see his children and support their mother like a man. Where the hell is the compassion? This is disgusting and I hope this backfires on this judges career.</p>
<p>regardless of the outcome, this is a sad and unfortunate story…but I am convinced that we only heard one side (and that the articles are only telling one side)</p>
<p>like Hunt, my husband and I both watched this story on the Today Show and immediately said,“something is not being told here”…we both have a “sixth sense” about these kinds of things…something is missing in the telling of this story…(or like my hubby likes to say, “somethin’s fishy here, Lucy”…)</p>
<p>My guess is stay tuned or we will never hear about it again…</p>
<p>^could be…I didn’t see the Today Show…I would hope that there is something more to this story or how else could such a judgement be made?</p>
<p>momma-three, you can view the piece on The Today Show here:</p>
<p>[Hulu</a> - NBC TODAY Show: Mom With Breast Cancer Loses Custody of Kids](<a href=“http://www.hulu.com/watch/240588/nbc-today-show-mom-with-breast-cancer-loses-custody-of-kids]Hulu”>http://www.hulu.com/watch/240588/nbc-today-show-mom-with-breast-cancer-loses-custody-of-kids)</p>
<p>I just have to say that it’s peculiar that women are saying that this judge obviously made the wrong decision…because she’s a woman. I can only imagine what people would be saying if the judge were a man.</p>
<p>It could be that both parents have worn out all available compassion, and that the only consideration was where the children would be better off.</p>
<p>Here’s another article with more info:
[Losing</a> Custody Because She Has Cancer - NYTimes.com](<a href=“Losing Custody Because She Has Cancer - The New York Times”>Losing Custody Because She Has Cancer - The New York Times)
The divorce was after the diagnosis, and that was four and a half years ago. The dad’s move to Chicago was recent.</p>
<p>^^ I am one who believes Judge Gordon’s ruling, a female judge is atypical. I also gave my reasoning: professional females can and will be judge and jury on fellow professional females at great compromise of the recipient female. I saw extremely harsh treatment of fellow female physicians by higher up females and it caused great problems. I think it is because the females are on a bit of a power trip, but this is just my opinion. Men have been on power trips for eons, so why should an occasional female fall into this trap? On the other hand, there may be something in the personal background of this judge to make her rule the way she did. </p>
<p>Regardless, it’s a very unusual ruling, and one I believe should and will be appealed. As far as I know, the law does not allow discrimination on the basis of disability.</p>
<p>The law requires family court judges to give primary consideration to the bests interests of the children. Other interests are secondary.</p>