TexasCHLforum.com

Here is case where a man's military service may cost a man his children.

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.

Sounds like a true scumbag ex-wife . . . and place the judge in the same category.

The man 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.” However, the courts consider their motivation to be the "best interests of the child." The rights of the service member parent take a far back seat, particularly in cases such as this where the child is being cared for by a third-party step-parent.

Jumping Frog wrote:Here is case where a man's military service may cost a man his children.

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.

Sounds like a true scumbag ex-wife . . . and place the judge in the same category.

The man 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.” However, the courts consider their motivation to be the "best interests of the child." The rights of the service member parent take a far back seat, particularly in cases such as this where the child is being cared for by a third-party step-parent.

That is unconscionable. The judge belongs in jail. Certainly not on the bench. Any idiot (well apparently not the one on the bench) can see that this can wait until his Navy service allows.

His lawyer should have that information.

After reading the full article, it does appear the judge is out of whack. However, we do not know the details of the custody hearing that awarded him full custody, or what may have transpired since. The judge may have facts we simply don't.

The judge received her law degree from Detroit Law School. She smells of liberalism.

What insanity. How can we stop idiots like this?

With all due respect, if he's not home he's not the one raising his daughter.

tbrown wrote:With all due respect, if he's not home he's not the one raising his daughter.

True. The step-mother is. But with all due respect, the mother already lost her parental rights when child protective services removed the child from the mother's custody. That is how the father was awarded permanent custody to start with. So it is hard for me to see how the child's best interests are served by being given back to that same unfit mother.

Jumping Frog wrote:

tbrown wrote:With all due respect, if he's not home he's not the one raising his daughter.

True. The step-mother is. But with all due respect, the mother already lost her parental rights when child protective services removed the child from the mother's custody. That is how the father was awarded permanent custody to start with. So it is hard for me to see how the child's best interests are served by being given back to that same unfit mother.

I don't know enough about the history of this case to have any opinion of the mother's fitness as a parent. For the sake of argument, if the mother is unfit and the father is absent, perhaps the best interest of the child would be for one set of her grandparents to have custody. Or perhaps the right place for her is with the step-mother.

I don't see anything wrong with the courts re-examining custody if the home life situation has changed. Obviously it's absurd to expect a submariner to attend a hearing in person while deployed, but that's a separate issue from whether a custody hearing is a good idea.

tbrown wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

tbrown wrote:With all due respect, if he's not home he's not the one raising his daughter.

True. The step-mother is. But with all due respect, the mother already lost her parental rights when child protective services removed the child from the mother's custody. That is how the father was awarded permanent custody to start with. So it is hard for me to see how the child's best interests are served by being given back to that same unfit mother.

I don't know enough about the history of this case to have any opinion of the mother's fitness as a parent. For the sake of argument, if the mother is unfit and the father is absent, perhaps the best interest of the child would be for one set of her grandparents to have custody. Or perhaps the right place for her is with the step-mother.

I don't see anything wrong with the courts re-examining custody if the home life situation has changed. Obviously it's absurd to expect a submariner to attend a hearing in person while deployed, but that's a separate issue from whether a custody hearing is a good idea.

As others say I have a feeling there is more to the story. Every article is is a press release and give no details at all which makes me even more suspicious. One comment that the judge reportedly made makes me wonder if there wasn't visitation missed violating a court order and the excuse being that since he was deployed he couldn't arrange visitations. Something like that would not go over well. That being the case I still can't see why heh couldn't attend remotely regardless.

TxRVer wrote:The judge received her law degree from Detroit Law School. She smells of liberalism.

Irrelevant IMO.

tbrown wrote:For the sake of argument, if the mother is unfit and the father is absent, perhaps the best interest of the child would be for one set of her grandparents to have custody.

The implication of this idea is that any military single parent would lose custody when on a hardship assignment.

tbrown wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

tbrown wrote:With all due respect, if he's not home he's not the one raising his daughter.

True. The step-mother is. But with all due respect, the mother already lost her parental rights when child protective services removed the child from the mother's custody. That is how the father was awarded permanent custody to start with. So it is hard for me to see how the child's best interests are served by being given back to that same unfit mother.

I don't know enough about the history of this case to have any opinion of the mother's fitness as a parent. For the sake of argument, if the mother is unfit and the father is absent, perhaps the best interest of the child would be for one set of her grandparents to have custody. Or perhaps the right place for her is with the step-mother.

I don't see anything wrong with the courts re-examining custody if the home life situation has changed. Obviously it's absurd to expect a submariner to attend a hearing in person while deployed, but that's a separate issue from whether a custody hearing is a good idea.

A) a judge felt that the situation was good and awarded him custody.
B) the mother waited until he was AWAY and filed, the new judge issued this order on a FRIDAY, LATE, knowing that 1) he couldn't be present, 2) stated that skype was not acceptable and 3) there wouldn't be a decent news cycle to cover it.

both the mother and the judge are deserving of words a Texas Lady just doesn't say in public.

C) I truly hope that a JAG lawyer is able to file some sort of something on Monday to halt the proceeding maybe under the Service Members Relief Act. Personally I'd like to see the Judge charged and thrown in jail, but I doubt that will happen.

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.