Posted on 12/08/2011 7:59:52 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
A mother who "deliberately and unjustifiably frustrated" a father's attempts to visit his child was appropriately stripped of child support and primary custody, an appellate panel in Albany has held.
The Appellate Division, Third Department, unanimously affirmed a Schuyler County Family Court judge in a case where the custodial mother had repeatedly hindered her estranged husband's efforts to establish relations with his daughter, even though the father made no attempt to enforce his visitation rights for six years.
Luke v. Luke, 510880, centers on a child born in 2001 to Melvin W. and Heidi L. Luke.
The Lukes, who are still married, separated before the child's birth. After a 2003 DNA test confirmed Mr. Luke's paternity, the parties stipulated to joint custody, with the mother retaining physical custody and the father entitled to visitation on alternate weekends. A support order also was entered against the father.
Records show that the agreed-upon visits occurred for only one or two months. After the father moved to New Jersey, the Family Court issued a default order awarding Ms. Luke sole custody.
Mr. Luke moved back to Schuyler County in 2007, and in 2009 sought the Family Court's help in locating his child and wife, who had moved several times.
After a hearing, the court awarded the parties joint custody, with the child spending four nights with the father, and terminated the father's support obligation.
The Third Department noted that while this matter was pending, Ms. Luke moved four times without informing Mr. Luke. At one point she moved into a safe house to escape the domestic violence of a boyfriend that was witnessed by the child, repeatedly violated visitation orders and assigned custody of the child to her boyfriend's adult daughter without consulting Mr. Luke. The court observed that the boyfriend's daughter failed to bring the child to visits and even kept her out of school on Fridays, when Mr. Luke was supposed to pick her up for weekend visits.
"At the time of the hearing…the child had not seen her mother for almost two months, and the mother testified that she called only when she had minutes on her phone," the panel said in an opinion by Justice William E. McCarthy (See Profile). "Despite this constantly changing situation, the mother denied that she made any poor choices that caused instability in the child's life."
The court said that while the father "lost contact with his daughter for several years and did not adequately explain why he took so long to re-establish a connection," by the time of the hearing he had been working for more than a year to connect with his daughter.
"The record supports the finding that the mother deliberately and unjustifiably frustrated the father's visitation, moving without notifying the father and attempting to informally transfer custody to another person…without informing the father," Justice McCarthy wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Karen K. Peters (See Profile), John A. Lahtinen (See Profile), Leslie E. Stein (See Profile) and Elizabeth A. Garry (See Profile).
Appearing were Martha N. Hertzberg of Ithaca for Mr. Luke; Lisa K. Miller of McGraw for Ms. Luke; and Steven J. Getman of Ovid for the child.
It's the law.
Ok, I know you are missing the point here. BUT HE SCREWED UP AND LOST CUSTODY! I say that the law, in that case, should not penalize the mom because dad is a deadbeat loser. That goes for either parent in this situation.
Then, after mom has struggled for years doing this on her own, whether she was good about it or not, he decides to show back up. Give me a break. He is a loser and when he lost custody, he should have no rights, ever again, period. This is one of those situations that should have permanent consequences.
In pretty much all fifty states, when two parents split up (either separating or divorcing), a decision has to be made regarding who gets custody of the kids. The parent who “loses” custody doesn’t lose all his or her rights. Barring some serious reason otherwise (such as abuse) he or she is awarded visitation with the children. That is a legal right under the law and is also designed to give children the right to know and have contact with both parents. The law presumes that contact with both the custodial and non-custodial parent is in the best interest of the child.
When the custodial parent decides to unilaterally terminate the visitation (including by moving and not telling the non-custodial parent), he or she has violated the rights of other parent and of the child. The court then has to decide what the appropriate remedy is to insure the child’s best interests.
In this article neither parent is perfect but, according to the article, the mother demonstrated that she was actually less fit than the father. Not only did she deny her child visits with the father (even keeping the kid out of school in an attempt to frustrate the father), not only did she take up with an abuser but she gave the child away to a non-relative.
Try reading the article a little more carefully. If anyone turned out to be a ‘deadbeat loser’ it was the mom.
Why don’t you try reading the article a little bit closer. Dad left the state and lost custody. He did it first. He then moved back, and was around for 2 years before he “finally” decides, oh gee, maybe I should be a dad. Give me a break, for EIGHT years he was a LOSER! He did nothing to contribute to helping the mother of his child in making sure this child had a good life. He walked out... because it wasn’t convenient. After 8 years, he finally decides oh gee, I should grow up. LOSER... get it, LOSER... EIGHT YEARS OF BEING A LOSER when the child needed him most.
You still don’t get it. A parent who “loses” custody still has visitation rights. In this case, however, after the dad moved, the mom stopped giving him court-ordered visits and moved herself without telling the dad where to.
You don’t get it. He left her for 8 years! He walked out. What right does this scumbag loser have to anything. He is a LOSER!
Yea, one parent should never use a child to hurt the other parent...going through it right now
Divorce attorneys love their clients, after all they pay to send the lawyer’s kids to college instead of their own!
That is HORRIBLE. That will come back to your (ex)spouse. What goes around ALWAYS comes around. Maybe you'll be allowed to see it when it happens.
WELL put.
Sugar and cream turned into sour milk. Shame.
People who need warning labels and hide who/what they are were TAUGHT that. Kids are, generally, blank pages to be taught about life and people.
Bachelorhood may be many things to many people, but it is rarely a living hell.
“She wasn’t that way when I married her.”
What is it they say? “Women marry men hoping they’ll change. Men marry women hoping they won’t.”
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.