Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Orders Deployed US Sailor To Attend Custody Hearing Or Lose Daughter, Face Arrest
CBS Seattle, Washington ^ | June 20, 2014

Posted on 06/20/2014 5:46:18 PM PDT by tired&retired

Seattle, Wash. (CBS SEATTLE) – 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.

Navy submariner Matthew Hindes was given permanent custody of his daughter Kaylee in 2010, after she was reportedly removed from the home of his ex-wife, Angela, by child protective services. But now a judge has ordered him to appear in court Monday, or risk losing his daughter to his ex-wife in addition to a bench warrant being issued for his arrest, ABC News reports. Hindes’ lawyers argue he should be protected by the Service Members Civil Relief Act, which states courts in custody cases may “grant a stay of proceedings for a minimum period of 90 days to defendants serving their country.”

But the Michigan judge hearing the case, circuit court judge Margaret Noe, disagrees, stating: “If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother.”

The judge reiterated that regardless of Hindes’ assignment under the Pacific Ocean, he will appear in court or face contempt of court.

Navy submariner Matthew Hindes was given permanent custody of his daughter Kaylee in 2010, after she was reportedly removed from the home of his ex-wife, Angela, by child protective services.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: cultureofcorruption; feminazism; judicialactivism; kangaroocourt; sailor; savethemales; womynshistorymonth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last
Here is a video from a "Woman's History Month of this judge telling her personal life history.... She was a psych major... say no more!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6-LQhc1ZSU

Story is on Drudge....

1 posted on 06/20/2014 5:46:18 PM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

More proof that “judges” are really, really stupid these days.


2 posted on 06/20/2014 5:49:38 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Obama's smidgens are coming home to roost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired
This is the battle ax......
3 posted on 06/20/2014 5:50:11 PM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

His attorneys should get hold of his congressman immediately. This is complete BS.


4 posted on 06/20/2014 5:50:51 PM PDT by Fast Moving Angel (It is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Words fail me.


5 posted on 06/20/2014 5:51:54 PM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fast Moving Angel

This is where the “Judicial Inquiry & Review Board”, the police body that monitors judges behavior should receive a formal complaint for judicial misconduct against her...


6 posted on 06/20/2014 5:53:16 PM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

This is so biased against men that it’s flagrant!

What type of armed services would we have if judges could pull this routine regularly? I would obviously feel the same way if the sexes were reversed here.

This is unacceptable. I wish there was a way this guy’s attorney could get a stay from an appeals court, for 90days to whatever it takes.

This judge should be released from future rulings.


7 posted on 06/20/2014 5:53:45 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

Incredibly stupid judge.


8 posted on 06/20/2014 5:54:25 PM PDT by headstamp 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

You just can’t fight stupid. Another rampaging liberal judge on the loose.


9 posted on 06/20/2014 5:54:53 PM PDT by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

A judge in the Left Coast. What else an one expect? If you want justice, don’t look at the law.


10 posted on 06/20/2014 5:55:18 PM PDT by Dapper 26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

If you listen to her personal rant, you can understand her bias... She should be booted from the bench..


11 posted on 06/20/2014 5:55:26 PM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

The “judge” will be overturned (read: b!tch-$lapped) on appeal.


12 posted on 06/20/2014 5:55:40 PM PDT by twister881
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

In a society of Progressives there is not much you can do for “stupid” other than promote them in the Administration.


13 posted on 06/20/2014 5:55:59 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (Surgeon General Warning: Operation of Government Motors vehicles may be hazardous to your health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

Hmm. There is the Soldier’s and Sailor’s Civil relief act that has been around for a long time. It delays most civil actions against deployed servicemen until they return. I don’t know if it would apply in this case but would be shocked if his attorney’s didn’t know about it. It is quite a fundamental statute.


14 posted on 06/20/2014 5:56:38 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

She’s just arbitrarily gifting this to the wife.

I agree with your take on it, although I haven’t listened to it yet.


15 posted on 06/20/2014 5:57:01 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

As the old saying went ... “A” students became Law Professors, “B” Students went into practice, “C” students became Judges.


16 posted on 06/20/2014 5:57:37 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

I used to live in a country where even the dullest jurist would never attempt this. Remember it?


17 posted on 06/20/2014 5:58:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2Million for ANY 2016 pro-2nd Amendment candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

Unless the kid enlisted with him, she’s not in the custody of the person the court assigned her to. I suspect that’s the source of the contempt issue, not his failure to appear.


18 posted on 06/20/2014 6:01:03 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg (Hoaxey Dopey Changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
I don’t know if it would apply in this case but would be shocked if his attorney’s didn’t know about it. It is quite a fundamental statute.

From the article:
Hindes’ lawyers argue he should be protected by the Service Members Civil Relief Act, which states courts in custody cases may “grant a stay of proceedings for a minimum period of 90 days to defendants serving their country.”

Unless the Judge is deaf...she probably knows and simply doesn't care...

She is a black robed tyrant after all...probably thinks she is above the law..

19 posted on 06/20/2014 6:03:57 PM PDT by Popman ("Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

The Act most likely wouldn’t apply in a situation where the court’s order is being violated and the violation will continue if the hearing is put off. It’s handy for things like contract issues, etc.


20 posted on 06/20/2014 6:07:00 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg (Hoaxey Dopey Changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

Impeachment solves this issue nicely. If we did it more often, the judiciary wouldn’t think it can just make up it’s own laws.


21 posted on 06/20/2014 6:08:43 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius (www.wilsonharpbooks.com - Eclipse, the sequel to Bright Horizons is out! Get it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

If he has custody of the child, then he has the authority to place the child with other’s in his stead. He is the custodian of the child and if he wishes to place her with his parents, for example, and grant them authority to act in his place, he has the right to do so. Just as if he sent her to boarding school.


22 posted on 06/20/2014 6:11:28 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius (www.wilsonharpbooks.com - Eclipse, the sequel to Bright Horizons is out! Get it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
While the service member is deployed, the child is in the custody and care of the father through his current wife, the child's stepmother. This is occurring every day with thousands of children of service members who are deployed or on unaccompanied tours overseas — they are in the hands of step parents, grandparents, uncles/aunts, adult brothers/sisters. Watch the ABC news piece and see the loving reactions of the girl with her stepmom and the picture with her dad.

Watch the YouTube video of the "judge." She came to Washington state with the idea of attending college (psych & theology major) and then becoming a Roman Catholic nun. Instead, she married (husband an auto dealer) and went into law. My guess is she channeled her authoritarian, peacenik, activist nun urges into being a local black-robed tyrant. Good hypothesis she's completely anti-military, and would rather she the poor child returned to the clutches of an unfit biological mother than be allowed to remain with her dad & stepmom, the only real family she's known since she was two.

23 posted on 06/20/2014 6:21:43 PM PDT by twister881
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
When did he enlist?
Was he already in the navy when he was first awarded custody?
24 posted on 06/20/2014 6:22:11 PM PDT by mountn man (The Pleasure You Get From Life Is Equal To The Attitude You Put Into It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

I bet the old hag wouldn’t see it that way if the mother had custody, and left the kid with sitters while she “furthered her career”.


25 posted on 06/20/2014 6:25:16 PM PDT by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

What an absolute a-hole for a judge! He should be disbarred for such a clearly insane ruling. He is obviously mentally deranged and unfit to sit on the bench. Perhaps the sub’s skipper can re-target one of those missiles ... “Here’s my crew’s response, your honor!”


26 posted on 06/20/2014 6:31:30 PM PDT by WTFOVR (I find myself exclaiming that expression quite often these days!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

...and the mother, who lost custody when the court made a determination that he was the parent best suited to take care of the child, has the right to raise the issue that he’s not actually doing that and the right to an immediate hearing on that issue.


27 posted on 06/20/2014 6:32:01 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg (Hoaxey Dopey Changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

And “F” students went on to become the first Black president(s).

Clinton and The Messiah


28 posted on 06/20/2014 6:32:34 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

Does the court then have some kind of eternal fairy godmothership? The situation with the mother was so bad that she had been removed.

I mean, she is in the care of the man’s wedded wife in waiting for the man to return.

This sounds so Calvinball to me.


29 posted on 06/20/2014 6:33:30 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

Not stupid - INSANE! Only a true psychotic could make such a statement as hers. No sane individual would ever think such a command reasonable. She should be immediately disbarred, as unfit to serve in the capacity of a judge.


30 posted on 06/20/2014 6:34:46 PM PDT by WTFOVR (I find myself exclaiming that expression quite often these days!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

Soldier/Sailor relief act should fix this.


31 posted on 06/20/2014 6:34:49 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

And if you are on active duty and are a single parent you have a regulation that says you are to have alternative guardian arrangements in place before you deploy.


32 posted on 06/20/2014 6:35:17 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dapper 26

As far as I know, Michigan is in the north-central part of the country.


33 posted on 06/20/2014 6:35:40 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

And so the stepmother should have right of attorney, at least, to answer in such a case in his stead.


34 posted on 06/20/2014 6:35:53 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Did the wedded wife adopt the child? If not, she no parental rights.


35 posted on 06/20/2014 6:36:04 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg (Hoaxey Dopey Changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

It shouldn’t matter; she is keeping the child in a temporarily custodial fashion. This isn’t some shared custody thing; the mother was ruled OUT of the picture. Now she is trying to worm back in.


36 posted on 06/20/2014 6:38:28 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

The very fact that a sitting Judge issued an order that she had factual knowledge beforehand that it could never be fulfilled is CONTEMPT OF COURT, he needs a real lawyer that will go to the Chief Judge and demand Sanctions.


37 posted on 06/20/2014 6:42:59 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

she was reportedly removed....REPORTEDLY? She WAS removed by CPS!


38 posted on 06/20/2014 6:45:08 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican (Liberals were raised by women or wimps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

I could WISH that issuing a nonsensical order would get the judge slapped with contempt of court... but as the shark said, professional courtesy.


39 posted on 06/20/2014 6:45:29 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: VerySadAmerican

News report dodge talk


40 posted on 06/20/2014 6:45:53 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: twister881

This woman would be totally unfit to be a true Catholic nun ... No traditional Catholic nun - who is suppose to be a bride of Christ - and I am clearly excluding the modernist lesbo whack jobs of the liberal post conciliar church - would ever think to do something so completely devoid of charity. Only one those man-hating bull-dyke carpet munching witches of neo-pagan liberal catholic-in-name-only church - would do such evil.


41 posted on 06/20/2014 6:47:50 PM PDT by WTFOVR (I find myself exclaiming that expression quite often these days!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WTFOVR

It’s hateful selfish (and often vicarious) vengeance masquerading as love.

Our modern godless liberals are real good at being this kind of bad.


42 posted on 06/20/2014 6:49:46 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: WTFOVR

Charity, or what the Greek New Testament manuscripts refer to as agape. It is the love from God that wishes everyone well as far as circumstances permit.


43 posted on 06/20/2014 6:51:07 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

It’s not at all uncommon in custody matters for the “unfit parent” to suddenly decide several years later that he/she is now fit and is entitled to joint custody. That parent then petitions the court, the court looks at the situation and makes a decision. In a situation where the party who has custody has left the child in the hands of someone who’s unfit, or is doing something like renting the child to lonely old men, that hearing needs to be conducted in an expedited fashion for the sake of the kid. Since the court can’t examine the facts without a hearing, they can’t let a party stall the proceeding when faced with the simple fact that the kid’s not in the custody of the custodial parent.

If the situation is as it’s been represented in the one-sided reporting, probably inspired by his attorney, the court will mostly likely flip a coin between joint custody and leaving the kid with him.


44 posted on 06/20/2014 6:52:03 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg (Hoaxey Dopey Changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

I can’t see “her” even fairly flipping a coin.

With the way that mothers are usually supported to the point of irrationality, her being factored out sounds like there was a significant reason. Wouldn’t the court at least want to know the reason is gone? And Federal law is clear here, it DOES override. He’s not going to be on a sub forever.


45 posted on 06/20/2014 6:55:13 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: WTFOVR

Thanks, I agree.


46 posted on 06/20/2014 6:56:02 PM PDT by twister881
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

And if something egregious like prostitution was alleged to be happening in the care of the “new wife” — that would be a whole different, emergency proceeding. That’s what the child protective services are there for. Not Calvinball domestic courts. I hope the lawyer really IS good and gets an appellate court to hand this judge’s head to her.


47 posted on 06/20/2014 6:58:24 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Popman
I think the article is incorrect in characterizing the Relief Act extension as something that the court "may" consider. It's a mandatory stay of proceedings, which is absolutely logical.

A few years ago, a soldier sued the crap out of his homeowners' association in north Texas when they forced the sale of his house for unpaid dues - and filed an affidavit saying the Relief Act didn't apply... while he was deployed in Afghanistan.

48 posted on 06/20/2014 7:16:47 PM PDT by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Hindes’ lawyers argue he should be protected by the Service Members Civil Relief Act, which states courts in custody cases may “grant a stay of proceedings for a minimum period of 90 days to defendants serving their country.”

But the Michigan judge hearing the case, circuit court judge Margaret Noe, disagrees, stating: “If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother.”


49 posted on 06/20/2014 7:17:52 PM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“Soldier/Sailor relief act should “fix” this.”

Ron White was correct in that there are certain human attributes that you cannot “FIX!”

You can’t “FIX” STUPID.(In the judge)


50 posted on 06/20/2014 7:24:23 PM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson