Linda Vester Ripping Apart Pledge Problem Dad

Fox News | 7-17-02 | my favorite headache

[My Favorite Headache]

She is ripping the father right now over the Under God portion of the pledge.

[VRWC_minion]

Sandy has sole physical custody but there is also shared joint custody...don't know how that exactly works.

I am a father in CT that had joint custody with my ex but was designated the custodial parent about 19 years ago.

My lawyer explained to me that this arrangement was created orginally to give the noncustodial parent/Dad a face saving status. The custodial parent had full control over most every decision except major ones like health care choices, location etc.

What I was told was that the courts often gave the noncustodial parent some say in those matters anyways and that if my ex disagreed I would need to take it to court. The result would not be much different if I had sole custody. I could only remove her from my kids life by getting her to renounce or get her parental rights removed all together. Something a judge would frown on.

[colorado tanker]

Your explanation is spot on. Methinks Mr. Newdow is gonna have a lot of 'splainin' to do before a not very happy federal judge to avoid Rule 11 sanctions when the appellate fireworks are over.

[jackbill]

I like Rita Cosby ... she's got a little more meat on her than the rest.

"A little"????? Have you seen her thighs/legs??? One day they made the mistake of seating her on the set, with her legs showing and she had a rather short skirt on.

They must have realized their mistake since she is now routinely clothed in baggy slacks. Can you name another Fox "fox" who wears slacks?

[Fred Hayek]

"it never was about my daughter, I just had to play the game to get it through the system"

In other words : "It's all about MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

[livius]

Loved that e-mail, JohnO!

[livius]

Isn't this called barratry?

I thought barratry was illegal, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm not an attorney, but a translator who deals mainly with legal documents, so it could be that I don't have my facts straight. This is probably because there's no big money in charging people with barratry, for which reason nobody is ever going to file an international case that needs the services of a translator.

However, I'm curious: is there any way that a person who files a frivolous and harassing lawsuit, in which he does not have standing, can be punished/sued for his actions?

[homeschool mama]

Thank you for explaining that part of the case to me. I appreciate it.

I'm sure you've experienced some challenges as a single parent but were the right choice as the custodial parent. :o)

[John O]

Welcome to FreeRepublic, Auntbee!

I agree with you he doesn't deserve anything with "God" on it until he changes his ways.

(I hope that wasn't too tough on you :^) )

GSA(P)

[John O]

Just noticed that we had Auntbee and Brush_your_teeth in the same thread. If I was Opie I'd feel I was being sent to bed about now.

GSA(P)

[aristeides]

Thanks for the explanation. So why didn't the Ninth Circuit just reverse on the issue for failure to state a claim, decide nothing else, and remand to the district court for determination of all other issues, so that the appellate court would have a full record if the case came up again on appeal? Since whether Newdow has standing depends on the facts, how could the Ninth Circuit decide that he did have standing without a full factual record?

[Lazamataz]

Each side irrationally hates the other, just because they are "other."

I HATE the "other".

[Centaur]

In PA, there is the concept of legal and physical custody, physical custody being who has the child at what times, etc..Legal custody is basically who has the right to determine where the child goes to school, the right to medical records and to make medical decisions and the like. If the rules in that state are similar, the father would have standing as a joint-legal custodian even if he barely sees the child (the weight to be given to his decisions would obviously depend on the rational of his decision as compared to the mother, as well as his familiarity with the child). This is probably how he survived a challenge to standing.....his shared "legal" custody. As was said by another poster, if the parents could not agree, he would have to begin a court action, which I assume is how this started.
All that being said, there would still be a serious problem if he made allegations concerning the affect the pledge had on his daughter.

[Illbay]

I just want to go on record as saying that, when it comes to choosing "one or the other," I pick "one."

[Lazamataz]

I like "or", personally.

-- ComputerGeekAmataz.

[pettifogger]

It does not appear to me that any of the defendants challenged the father's standing, or at least the claim that the child was harmed, at the district court level. Seems pretty elemental to me. Had this allegation been challenged, the defendants could have sought discovery on the issue and learned that at least one of the bases for the suit was fraudulent. I seem to recall hearing from somewhere, however, that Newdork might have standing all by his lonesome, although it would have made the case tougher to win that way. (Harm to a mature adult vs. [alleged] harm to an impresionable child). I hope the defense lawyers have gotten a much-needed clue!

[pettifogger]

oops. just read your full post re: the Motion to Dismiss being successful. should have paid attention. thanks for setting us all straight.

[antivenom]

The mother of his daughter never married him...I think I read that somewhere.

Poor woman I'll bet she will never forgive herself for the 5 minutes of lust she experienced with that creep...

[AnAmericanMother]

Excellent and lucid explanation (you beat me to it, don't think I could have done it as well).

I would certainly take a shot at Rule 11 penalties in this case if it were mine. Collecting might be another matter (seeing as this fellow has already practically quit his job in order to reduce his income for child support determination purposes) but the pure satisfaction of reading the order is worth something . . .

[aristeides]

Government lawyers probably thought they didn't need to raise the issue of standing, because they thought the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was a winner. But why, in the absence of a factual basis, did the Ninth Circuit rule on the issue of standing, instead of just reversing the district court on the issue of failure to state a claim and remanding on that basis?

[Illbay]

Wait, is that "XOR" or is that "NOR"?