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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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!”
...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.
And “F” students went on to become the first Black president(s).
Clinton and The Messiah
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.
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.
Soldier/Sailor relief act should fix this.
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.
As far as I know, Michigan is in the north-central part of the country.
And so the stepmother should have right of attorney, at least, to answer in such a case in his stead.
Did the wedded wife adopt the child? If not, she no parental rights.
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.
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.
she was reportedly removed....REPORTEDLY? She WAS removed by CPS!
I could WISH that issuing a nonsensical order would get the judge slapped with contempt of court... but as the shark said, professional courtesy.
News report dodge talk
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.