Posted on 06/20/2014 11:14:05 AM PDT by Fitzy_888
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.
Judge Noe denied the motion for a stay under the Service Members Relief Act, ruling that he could have arranged for his wife to bring the child to her mother, saying, “At this point, I don’t think I have any alternative but to enter a bench warrant for his arrest,” Noe said.
Hindes is not allowed to appear by Skype or phone, and as with most custody cases, not being present in the courtroom often has a large impact on the outcome of the custody ruling.
Hindes’ young daughter Kaylee is currently living with her step-mother in Washington State.
“He’s protecting the rights of others, but who is protecting his rights?” said Hindes’ current wife and the child’s step-mother, Benita-Lynn. Six-year-old Kaylee has been living with Benita-Lynn in Washington State while Hindes is deployed aboard the nuclear submarine.
“I’m just trying my best, to keep everything together,” a weeping Benita-Lynn told ABC News. “It’s just hard.”
She was appointed judge by Governor Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat.
Aiyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
It sounds like time for the JAG to descend on this judge like a ton of bricks. Good JAG live for stuff like this: civilians trying to abuse military personnel.
“No, silly. Taste.”
“Good thing we didn’t step in it.” - Cheech & Chong
Don't know, but I imagine the case originated in Michigan when both the parents and the child lived in Michigan. Then the father was stationed in Washington state after getting custody. Otherwise the birth mother would have to bring the action in Washington state where the child resides.
Arrest the Judge on charges of interfereing with a millitary operation!
Female judge...figures.
This judge is an idiot and needs to be removed.
Oh okay she is one of these Lib people
Very anti miltary
OH yeah I think that was reset on law and order season 3 and season 10
that was classic
That just ain’t right. Now that the father and child no longer reside in Michigan, the judge should have no jurisdiction.
that judge should have an emergency disbarment pending final hearing to remove her license.
She is playing games in order to favor the mother.
If the state controls lawyer licensing, rather than the mich supreme court, then the state can step in and remove the judge and her license on an emergency basis.
I was subjected to - and survived the “family” court system. I have an inkling of what it’s all about and there are damned few people that I would ever wish that upon. The stress is enough to break a strong man.
I consider it criminal to do this to a man thousands of miles away serving our country.
At the very least he/she/it (the judge) should be publicly horse-whipped.
I am not picking sides by this post, I am merely trying to provide additional information that might at least add some minor sense to why the judge made this ruling.
Apparently, last August, the mother of the child filed to get custody rights back. She lost custody rights in 2010, after CPS took the child. In that case, the mother’s then-boyfriend caused the difficulty, according to a commenter in a news article posted elsewhere (it’s been near impossible to find information on the beginnings of this case).
So, there’s this new custody battle that started last August. According to another story the father has been out of country for years. So it appears the mother decided that she didn’t like her daughter being raised by a stranger, and asked for custody when the father was not here.
The judge decided last week to grant custody to the mother, but the step-mother did not appear to be complying with that order. It is this non-compliance that has caused the judge to hold the father in contempt.
According to ANOTHER story, the step-mother has no custody rights. So she also is not party to the case, so the judge can’t order her to appear, she has to order the father to appear to turn over the child.
Yes, the father is deployed and can’t appear — but the judge indicates she would expect the father to arrange for the step-mother to bring the child.
The mother has offered to pay most the expenses, and the judge granted another 5 days.
Like I said, I’m not posting this to argue that the judge is right or to argue the custody. I will note that, if the mother is not actually a bad mother, this is a story of a couple who had a child, and then divorced. It could be argued that a child deserves both parents. The mother lost that battle years ago, but custody can always be contested as situations change.
It is harder because the father moved away, and then because the father is not involved in the child’s life right now, and the step-mom isn’t a legal guardian (not saying she isn’t legally allowed to be watching the child).
There is definitely a strong push in social media to win this case by public opinion, and that generally makes me think twice and look for the full story.
I think it is an interesting question, whether in custody fights between two biological parents, a father should win when he is in a job where he rarely sees the child, if the mother is not a risk.
I have no idea if the mother is a risk. I also think that a child grows up with a father and step-mom, it is a hard thing to pull her away and hand her to another woman, even if that woman is her biological mother.
But i don’t think this is a case where we can simply say the judge is evil for not accepting the deployment argument. The case started months ago, so the father had plenty of time to make arrangements to handle the possibility of losing his case. Remember, even the rules about delaying cases during deployment are “optional” not required, and are more about cases that COME UP while deployed, not cases that are ongoing like this case appears to be.
I do admit that for me, the fact that CPS removed the child does not convince me the mother is bad, because I have very little faith in the ability of CPS to do the right thing.
If I understood another article correctly, the case is not between the mother and step-mother, because the step-mother has not done anything to take custody, and she is not legally the guardian.
The suit was between the mother and father, and I can’t find any reporting about the details of the suit, just comments in newspaper threads, which aren’t very good sources.
One that sounded like they knew what they were talking about said the original custody was for the father, and based on the father being a better parent than the mother, and the mother is now saying that with the father gone, she is the better parent.
I’ve found nothing to suggest the mother is on drugs, or was directly responsible for what happened in 2010, or that the father was unfit. Other than the deployment, this sounds like a typical custody battle.
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... 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.”
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.