Posted on 09/26/2006 4:45:06 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
LISBON - A judge’s directive giving custody of a child to a father instead of his smoking ex-wife is consistent with court rulings that smoking may be used in making such decisions, an appeals court said.
The 7th Ohio District Court of Appeals, in a ruling last week, upheld the decision by the Columbiana County Common Pleas Court in favor of Joel Pierce of nearby Leetonia over his ex-wife, Tammy Pierce of Sanford, Fla.
“The Ohio Supreme Court has catalogued the risks of secondhand smoke to children and courts have used the fact that a parent smokes as a factor to consider when making custody determinations,” appeals Judge Mary DeGenaro wrote in a 3-0 ruling.
The child, now 6, had split time between the divorced parents in Ohio and Florida until he was old enough to go to school, requiring a decision on where the child would live.
Although Tammy Pierce and her fiancé said they smoked only outside, the father said his son’s clothes smelled strongly of smoke after being in Florida.
The father had said a pediatrician told him some of his son’s illnesses, such as ear infections, were linked to the smoking.
This will set a precedent for those who want to deny custody because there is a firearm in the home.
Or eating of meat,
Or an evil SUV,
Or a Freeper......
Nanny State (of the highest order) PING........
I grew up with parents who smoked, not to mention lots of other people I was around. Didn't bother me, and I didn't have ear infections or any other problems.
Now if mom was smoking crack, then that would be a correct judgement. And I do think fathers get the shaft by family courts, but this ruling is bad.
Whats next? Kid goes with a parent who doesn't eat red meat, or doesn't go with the parent who hunts, or whatever.
Your postings are abusive behavior.
Oh. My. God.
"The father had said a pediatrician told him some of his son’s illnesses, such as ear infections, were linked to the smoking."
When I was a kid, a cure for an ear infection was to blow smoke into a kids ear!
Be very, very careful when falling in love with, marrying and then breeding with a Socialist. Though, why anyone would consciously DO that is beyond me. ;)
Seems to me if she wanted her child to live with her, it would be worth giving up smoking.
I totally agree with you, and I'm also a woman, and a mother. But to base a custody decision on whether a person smokes is a bit ridiculous.
And what other rights would you be willing to give up, just to be "permitted" by the State to keep your child?
What if the State said "Move to Florida, and you lose your parental rights."? It happens.
The precedent was set 5 or more years ago. There is actually an anti-smoker organization that has a tip sheet for custody claims based upon smoking status, of course you have to pay the membership fee before you can have access to the information, even though they claim they are providing the info as a public service.
Both of my parents smoked when I was a child, too, and I hated it. It didn't make me sick, but it did make me and my clothes stink. I generally support smokers' rights, even though I don't smoke, because I believe that property owners should be able to determine whether smoking is to be allowed on their property. The basis for this is that if you don't like smoke, stay away from the property of someone who allows it, be it their home or business. This logic doesn't apply to children, because they don't have the choice. The one saving grace is that little children don't know there is such thing as a smokeless room, if their parents are constantly smoking, as mine did. Once I figured out the outdoors was smoke-free, as well as most of my friends' homes, that's where I spent as much time as I could.
All of that said, I don't know that smoking should be a significant factor in custody determinations. Perhaps the fact that a parent knows that it is a factor, but insists on continuing to smoke, suggests less concern for the child than oneself.
All of that said, I don't know that smoking should be a significant factor in custody determinations. Perhaps the fact that a parent knows that it is a factor, but insists on continuing to smoke, suggests less concern for the child than oneself.
Pinging, because you make so much sense!
This is not a subject for laughter, but that comment does have me LOL!!!!!
My husband, bless his heart, often makes me look like the socialist, he is that far to the right of me. He's a Goldwater Conservative who grew up in a Democrat household, I'm a Carter Republican.
Seems to me it shouldn't even be a damned issue. You nanny-statists driving me absolutely nuts.
The State isn't taking away the child. As I said, smoking shouldn't be used to prove that a parent is unfit to care for a child, but here you have two parents, both fit, who live in two different state. The child has to live somewhere, and the court is being told to choose where. I believe that a judge should be able to say that if all else is equal, a child is better off living in a non smoking home than with a parent who smokes.
What if the State said "Move to Florida, and you lose your parental rights."? It happens.
Mom didn't lose her parental rights, she lost custody. Two equally fit parents should be able to share custody but when one parent decides to leave the state, they put the court in a position of having to choose between them with whom the child should live.
Exactly.
OK, I accept there are people who do not like smoking, but to base child custody cases on such a trivial matter tells me there was a lot more wrong in this particular marriage.
Now this is interesting. A thread that pits smokers against single dads who have lost custody of their children unfairly. That has to be a new one.
Never believe anything you read in the press. My suspicion is that there is a LOT more to this story. The reporter was just looking for an unusual angle.
But, as you said - it shouldn't be a factor to begin with.
Having just skimmed the opinion, apparently the court held that the parents were otherwise equally fit for custody, and that Mom and her fiance's smoking was the only difference.
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.