TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

C-dub wrote:A little bit more to the ex's history of non-compliance with court orders.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/arti ... stody-case" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, "A day after the order was issued, Hindes responded with a letter explaining his overseas military service, and he included a letter from the U.S.S. Michigan’s command staff supporting it." And she had a lawyer, but he bowed out and she had to file these papers on her own. Poor thing.

May be a mix up or something else going on but the Judge stated that the first time she heard about Hindes being deployed on that mon so.........

And bravo on the innuendo and slam at the woman for daring to be poor and still wanting to see her child. There may be plenty to disparage but income shouldn't be one of those things.

EEllis wrote:OK found some more info out finally. This is the situation from my understanding. The Mother filed a petition with the court a year ago to redress custody. There was a scheduled hearing where the child was ordered to attend. Either the Father or the daughter had to be there and even tho the father was deployed he could of had his daughter attend the hearing with his wife and attorney. At that point the court was told that the father was deployed but there was never a motion to delay or postpone the case until the hearing when the court was told the father was deployed. There was also visitation orders that have not been followed seemingly since before he was deployed. So the violation would be an ongoing issue separate from his deployment. Now these are just claims right now so it doesn't mean that I think anything one way or the other. The judge waved the warrant if the wife would bring the girl to scheduled visitation from the very beginning. The judge later granted a stay based on his being deployed but still will be having a custody hearing with the mother. I will say that for all the histrionics the basic issue was that the guy's lawyer didn't go to the court for a continuance, instead waiting until the hearing itself to bring it up. That and being deployed wouldn't allow one to ignore visitations.

EEllis wrote:

C-dub wrote:Sounds to me like a truly vindictive ex-wife/mother that lost her parental rights causing as much trouble as she can for her ex and doesn't care one bit about her child. The really amazing part to me is that she was able to find a lawyer that would take the case and found a judge that would push this. Would be nice if both could be disbarred, IMHO.

So what brought the case back to court? How did it get to this point? What do you know that we are not a party to? I ask this because as far as I could find out there is no facts to base any of your statements on and it's pure speculation. You may very well be right, but it seems based on something other than the info in the press.

C-dub wrote:Sounds to me ...