I have spent time over the past week with several different reporters talking about my book. I have been able to discuss the book with ease. I had feared that I would be like a deer in headlights because when people ask me, "what's your book about', for some reason, I can't answer that question. Sitting down with a reporter is much easier because they do not go right for the jugular. They ask questions to get you talking.
I sat down with a local reporter this week, Tony, from the Niagara Falls Review. This was probably the best discussion I have had about my story. Most of my inner circle- friends and family- know the story, so to sit and talk with someone who had no idea who I am or what I have endured was refreshing. Tony is not an "arts and entertainment editor" like the other reporters who have spoken with me. Tony has covered the legal system for almost as long as I have been alive, here locally in Niagara Falls. At the end of the interview, he wanted to get some pictures, one of which he would be using in the story. I was reluctant. "Why?" he asked, "what in the world would you have to fear from this guy?" Of course, I have been afraid of him and what he could do to me for so many years, I suppose I do not even take into consideration the specifics of what exactly it is that I think he can do, especially now. The last action that was taken, which he facilitated, is just about as bad as it gets. The worst thing that he could do is to take my son away from me. It will take some getting used to that this is no longer an option for him.
Tony said, "if anything, he should be scared of you. Look what you have done here. If he wants to come forward and proclaim that this story is about him, it is to admit that the story is about him, which he likely will not want to do." He is right. This 'Teflon Don' has skated on every crime he has committed, misdemeanor and felony alike. This story describes just what a monster he is, and not one word of it is fabricated or even embellished. "And what about your child" he said, "how many years of support has he not paid?" Five plus. Would he risk coming out from under whatever rock he is hiding under to stir things up? Not likely. But all of this hinges on the fact that I have to remain in Canada.
So..... I have this lovely life, a stable marriage, wonderful children, and a good job. I live in a nice home, and drive a new car. On the surface it would seem that things are good! So what is wrong?
I can't go home, into the United States, at all. If you do not know the details, you have to read my book. I drive past the border crossing to the US every day, but I can't go across. I have had a grandparent, and a lovely great aunt pass away, I could not go be with my family as these beloved relatives were in their last days and family gathered to say goodbye. My only sibling, my brother, who I love more than anyone could ever know, nearly died from a heart attack, and had to have triple bi-pass surgery in order to save him and he was only 42 at the time. I was unable to go sit vigil in the waiting room while he was in surgery. I was unable to go sit with him while he was recovering, keeping him company, and letting him know how much he is loved. Both my neice and nephew have graduated high school, and my nephew is getting ready to graduate University, as much as I wanted to go, I couldn't. My nephew is likely to be getting married. My daughters would be flower girls, my son would be an usher, and I would be able to be there to celebrate the occassion with the family, but no. I can't do that either.
So what good has it done to prevent me from being able to go home. It has hurt me and my family, and because there is nothing that we can do about it, the hurt is just going to continue, and I am not the only one who has to pay this price. My family never did anything to deserve being ostracized from me.
There are laws written to protect people from finding themselves in situations like this, yet these laws and civil liberties do not appear to apply to me. Well, they do apply to me, but I have been quoted an estimate of 10 thousand dollars to attempt to have this situation rectified, and even then, there are no guarantees that it would work. It's not bad enough that I endured years of mental torture, which evolved into physical abuse, and even though he was arrested, nothing was done. He stole from a number of his employers, and was caught, nothing was done. Then he broke into my home and took everything right down to the food in my cabinets, nothing was done. Then he embarked on stalking and identity theft, including international mail fraud, and nothing was done even though he broke FEDERAL laws and there was rock solid evidence. He was enabled, even empowered by the legal system. And at the end of the day, when the dust has settled, I am the one facing going to jail.
So, how does this happen?
Well, you have to read my book to get all of the juicy details on how this happened. What I can tell you for certain is that it shouldn't be. I have never once broken the law- yet I am the one facing a felony charge - but in order to rectify this situation, I only have 2 choices: I have to give up my son and go to jail (even if it is temporary), or I have to spend a minimum of 10 thousand dollars to have a lawyer fix it for me, and I have been advised that there are no guarantees that my 10 thousand dollars would not be for nought.
I know that my family all understand this situation, and support me 100% in my decision to stay safely here in Canada, but sometimes I do not think they know how it tortures me to be away from them, and away from home. There is more to "home" than just family- it is just that sense of familiarity, familiar places, places that bring back happy memories, friends, and things that I would like to share with my children, but can't. I will never be driving past a place and say "when I was a kid.... I used to come here..." There are times when I would like to go by my grandmother's grave to drop off a rose and say hello. I would love to take my kids to Disney World, but again, no.
There are times when I cope quite well with this situation, and there are times when it makes me really angry. I have to try to focus on what I do have and not about what I am missing, and who I am missing.
No matter what, HE is the bad person, not me.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Advocacy for the children
I introduced and made a case for the "Approximation Standard" in my last blog, and am back to discuss this and a few other things. I assert again that the approximation standard would be an excellent tool in determining what custody arrangement would be most beneficial for the children after divorce. In my view, this could easily be the only consideration, however there are times when the existing arrangement is not plausible in the post-divorce situation so changes do have to be made. This is where an advocate must be consulted. Here are my thoughts:
I am a strong proponent of child advocacy in divorce. It just makes sense. A child advocate needs to not only be educated in psychology and sociology, but also have experience in the education field. An individual with an education and background in Social Work alone would not cut it if I wrote the qualifications for the job. Seasoned teachers, and I mean those with 15+ years in the classroom, teaching grades 4-8 would probably be the best child advocates money could buy. Why? Because they know kids. Teachers see our children more than we do- they watch them from the time they arrive in the mornings until they leave in the afternoons. They watch them interacting with other children. They monitor and evaluate their progress. Teachers see the product of custody battles and shared custody, the stress, the poor performance in school, changes in appearance, attitude and habits. Teachers see the notes, "Johnny was at his dad's last week, I do not know what is going on but Johnny does not do any homework while at dad's." Of course the note from Johnny's dad reads, "Johnny was at mom's this week and she does not make him study, I do not know what is going on over there, I can only do so much." Teachers see the toll that being at the centre of a bitter custody battle can take on children.
Teachers can read children, it is part of their job, and after 15-20 years of doing this, they have been exposed to thousands of children and parents. There is not much a teacher has not seen after being "in the trenches" for 20 years. Career teachers know how to keep meticulous records, and can present information in very effective ways, making them superior candidates to be child advocates in the court system. Currently child advocates in the court system are social workers, and in some jurisdictions, child psychologists. The problem is that an advocate typically only has one meeting with the child before filing their report with the judge. Advocacy should entail more than one 45 minute meeting.
My best friend, who I have mentioned before and will likely mention again, begged the court for an advocate for the children in her case. Her children exhibited all of the signs of children in crisis, and no matter what she did, what she said, what she filed with the court to support her assertion that an advocate for the children was needed, the Judge refused. These children went from straight A's in school, to C's and D's, and the older child was making F's and almost failed his 8th grade year at school. The younger child sat in class drawing pictures of him and his mom together, and he would cry. Even his teacher expressed concern, but none of these facts swayed the Judge. In fact, when she took the children's school records in to the court, the Judge refused to review them, calling school records "inadmissible." Everyone was completely flabbergasted that the Judge was not willing to do anything for these children. She has been fighting the corruption in the court, fighting for her children, for the past 5 years and she continues to fight. I am not much for prayer, but I pray for her and her children as divine intervention seems the only way she will get relief.
So if Judge's are not relying on advocates or the Approximation Standard when making decisions about the children, how do they come to their decisions? Sometimes decisions on custody are a direct result of which parent has the better lawyer. Parental conduct is usually the weapon of choice, but there is a concept in the family courts, The Nexus Test, that could stop all of that nonsense. The Nexus Test stipulates there must be a nexus (or relationship if you will) between the conduct of the parent and the effect that this conduct has on a child. Infidelity is commonly used as a reason to take children away, especially if the cheater is the mother. An unfaithful spouse does not equal a bad parent, unless a connection can be made between the two, which is a leap not even Evel Knievel could make. The Nexus Test really came to light when gay and lesbian parents were fighting for custody of children. The American Psychological Association's position is that the sexual orientation of a parent does not have any negative impact on the child or the ability to parent. The concept was bastardized to include parental behaviour, not simply sexual preference. This "Nexus Test" should (and I stress "should") remove all of the 'he said, she said, he did, she did' from the divorce, and put the focus firmly on what is going to be the least traumatic for the child involved. Will this ever happen? Can divorce involving children ever go smoothly? All of the fighting in the court, is it about the children or the ego? When a child is taken out of their home, their school, their comfort zone and put into an unfamiliar situation, causing this child stress and upset, is there a winner?
Tune in next time when I will pontificate further on the problems and solutions plaguing our family court system.
I am a strong proponent of child advocacy in divorce. It just makes sense. A child advocate needs to not only be educated in psychology and sociology, but also have experience in the education field. An individual with an education and background in Social Work alone would not cut it if I wrote the qualifications for the job. Seasoned teachers, and I mean those with 15+ years in the classroom, teaching grades 4-8 would probably be the best child advocates money could buy. Why? Because they know kids. Teachers see our children more than we do- they watch them from the time they arrive in the mornings until they leave in the afternoons. They watch them interacting with other children. They monitor and evaluate their progress. Teachers see the product of custody battles and shared custody, the stress, the poor performance in school, changes in appearance, attitude and habits. Teachers see the notes, "Johnny was at his dad's last week, I do not know what is going on but Johnny does not do any homework while at dad's." Of course the note from Johnny's dad reads, "Johnny was at mom's this week and she does not make him study, I do not know what is going on over there, I can only do so much." Teachers see the toll that being at the centre of a bitter custody battle can take on children.
Teachers can read children, it is part of their job, and after 15-20 years of doing this, they have been exposed to thousands of children and parents. There is not much a teacher has not seen after being "in the trenches" for 20 years. Career teachers know how to keep meticulous records, and can present information in very effective ways, making them superior candidates to be child advocates in the court system. Currently child advocates in the court system are social workers, and in some jurisdictions, child psychologists. The problem is that an advocate typically only has one meeting with the child before filing their report with the judge. Advocacy should entail more than one 45 minute meeting.
My best friend, who I have mentioned before and will likely mention again, begged the court for an advocate for the children in her case. Her children exhibited all of the signs of children in crisis, and no matter what she did, what she said, what she filed with the court to support her assertion that an advocate for the children was needed, the Judge refused. These children went from straight A's in school, to C's and D's, and the older child was making F's and almost failed his 8th grade year at school. The younger child sat in class drawing pictures of him and his mom together, and he would cry. Even his teacher expressed concern, but none of these facts swayed the Judge. In fact, when she took the children's school records in to the court, the Judge refused to review them, calling school records "inadmissible." Everyone was completely flabbergasted that the Judge was not willing to do anything for these children. She has been fighting the corruption in the court, fighting for her children, for the past 5 years and she continues to fight. I am not much for prayer, but I pray for her and her children as divine intervention seems the only way she will get relief.
So if Judge's are not relying on advocates or the Approximation Standard when making decisions about the children, how do they come to their decisions? Sometimes decisions on custody are a direct result of which parent has the better lawyer. Parental conduct is usually the weapon of choice, but there is a concept in the family courts, The Nexus Test, that could stop all of that nonsense. The Nexus Test stipulates there must be a nexus (or relationship if you will) between the conduct of the parent and the effect that this conduct has on a child. Infidelity is commonly used as a reason to take children away, especially if the cheater is the mother. An unfaithful spouse does not equal a bad parent, unless a connection can be made between the two, which is a leap not even Evel Knievel could make. The Nexus Test really came to light when gay and lesbian parents were fighting for custody of children. The American Psychological Association's position is that the sexual orientation of a parent does not have any negative impact on the child or the ability to parent. The concept was bastardized to include parental behaviour, not simply sexual preference. This "Nexus Test" should (and I stress "should") remove all of the 'he said, she said, he did, she did' from the divorce, and put the focus firmly on what is going to be the least traumatic for the child involved. Will this ever happen? Can divorce involving children ever go smoothly? All of the fighting in the court, is it about the children or the ego? When a child is taken out of their home, their school, their comfort zone and put into an unfamiliar situation, causing this child stress and upset, is there a winner?
Tune in next time when I will pontificate further on the problems and solutions plaguing our family court system.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Disorder in the Courts~ The Approximation Standard
Those of you who know me personally know about the blatant judicial bias and misconduct in my case. If it were just ME, then the problem may not lie in the court but in something that I have done wrong as a mother, as a woman, or as a citizen. A very close friend, a woman I consider my sister although we are not related by blood or marriage, was experiencing some of the same difficulties as me, her situation much worse than mine, and we found others. The stories were almost unbelievable, and if I did not know these people personally, I would have a tendency not to believe that Judges could be so blind.
The stories are not really the issue here. Judges taking action that is far removed from what would be considered "the best interest of the child" sounds like the stuff of Lifetime movies. The problem goes one step beyond Judicial prejudice because mothers (and fathers) who find themselves wronged by the court have little to no recourse. In most cases, the parent struggling and fighting for their children is doing so as a single parent receiving no spousal support, and receiving no child support, or so little in support that it does not even cover the child's milk money for the week. This parent can not afford an attorney, and because this single parent has to support the child mostly on their own, they have to have a job, which likely disqualifies them from Legal Aid. These people are at the mercy of the court system, and once a ruling comes down, it takes an act of God to undo it. Is there a solution? It would seem. Here are my thoughts.
If I were to ever win a lottery, after I took care of my family's needs, I would take my winnings and form a foundation that provides quality legal help to parents fighting for their children in the courts. I would also ensure that I had on staff appellate attorneys who would help parents wronged by the circuit courts. If only I had unlimited means, I would do this.
Bring in a NEW concept when it comes to making decisions regarding children. "The best interest of the child" needs to be completely thrown OUT of the fray. This concept does not work, it is too objective, and it encourages deceit in the court as one parent tries to one up the other in proving that THEY can provide best for the child~ even though many times the issue is not about the child but about winning. This new concept is called the "approximation standard." This basically means that the child is to have consistency in the post divorce situation. If the child spends 80% of their time with their mother, then ordering joint or shared custody, where the child spends one week at moms and one week at dads is NOT in the best interest of the child. The child did not spend half his time with dad before, why now? This is inconsistent and not "in the best interest of the child" if you want to hang on to that concept.
It is argued that because it is standard for the mother to stay home with the child while the father works, that adopting this would result in "nothing more than maternal preference in all cases." The goal is a sense of continuity for the children in the face of major changes in their home life. It is not about who is the better parent, it is about the child's sense of security, and this does not necessarily mean the child is more attached to one parent than the other. The child should continue to have a relationship with both parents so long as that relationship is reciprocated, and so long as the child is loved, not utilized. You do not force your children to go hug Uncle Leo if Uncle Leo makes them uncomfortable, so why should a child who is uncomfortable be forced to go spend 3 solid weeks with dad (or mom) if they do not want to? This is not continuity in their life. Would they have spent 3 weeks with dad with no contact with mom for 3 weeks if mom and dad were still together? Not likely.
It is not automatically assumed that the mother stays home with the child. In my home, my husband has worked at home from a home based office since before my youngest child was born, and I have worked outside of the home. There are same sex couples where neither parent is biological. There are couples where both parents are "the mother"~ so maternal preference is not possible. Arguing that maternal preference would result from the "Approximation Standard" is wrong and can not be substantiated as a preventative factor for using this instead of the "best interest of the child."
Court systems with child advocates are common, but the assignation of a child advocate is not a given. My best friend has asked the court for an advocate in her case on numerous occasions, even filing a motion for the appointment of an advocate, and the Judge either ignored or denied her continued requests, and her children are 11 and 15 respectively, plenty old enough to express their feelings. Court systems should assign child advocates in ALL cases to evaluate the situation in an unbiased manner. Their evaluation would entail not only a series of interviews with the child, but also a meeting with the child's teachers, without the parents or child present. This advocate's report should be a key to the decision that the Judge makes. Instead, Judges make decisions regarding children many times never having laid eyes on them, or spoken with them.
It is time to usher in a new era in the family courts. It is too easy for Judges to be biased, bought, or lobbied by special interest groups. Doing what is best for the children of divorce does not mean taking children away from one parent and "giving them" to the other. It is also not the best practice to try to split the child down the middle, giving each parent a 50% share of the child, unless that is how the child has lived their lives up until the point of the separation.
Children are people, not property.
The stories are not really the issue here. Judges taking action that is far removed from what would be considered "the best interest of the child" sounds like the stuff of Lifetime movies. The problem goes one step beyond Judicial prejudice because mothers (and fathers) who find themselves wronged by the court have little to no recourse. In most cases, the parent struggling and fighting for their children is doing so as a single parent receiving no spousal support, and receiving no child support, or so little in support that it does not even cover the child's milk money for the week. This parent can not afford an attorney, and because this single parent has to support the child mostly on their own, they have to have a job, which likely disqualifies them from Legal Aid. These people are at the mercy of the court system, and once a ruling comes down, it takes an act of God to undo it. Is there a solution? It would seem. Here are my thoughts.
If I were to ever win a lottery, after I took care of my family's needs, I would take my winnings and form a foundation that provides quality legal help to parents fighting for their children in the courts. I would also ensure that I had on staff appellate attorneys who would help parents wronged by the circuit courts. If only I had unlimited means, I would do this.
Bring in a NEW concept when it comes to making decisions regarding children. "The best interest of the child" needs to be completely thrown OUT of the fray. This concept does not work, it is too objective, and it encourages deceit in the court as one parent tries to one up the other in proving that THEY can provide best for the child~ even though many times the issue is not about the child but about winning. This new concept is called the "approximation standard." This basically means that the child is to have consistency in the post divorce situation. If the child spends 80% of their time with their mother, then ordering joint or shared custody, where the child spends one week at moms and one week at dads is NOT in the best interest of the child. The child did not spend half his time with dad before, why now? This is inconsistent and not "in the best interest of the child" if you want to hang on to that concept.
It is argued that because it is standard for the mother to stay home with the child while the father works, that adopting this would result in "nothing more than maternal preference in all cases." The goal is a sense of continuity for the children in the face of major changes in their home life. It is not about who is the better parent, it is about the child's sense of security, and this does not necessarily mean the child is more attached to one parent than the other. The child should continue to have a relationship with both parents so long as that relationship is reciprocated, and so long as the child is loved, not utilized. You do not force your children to go hug Uncle Leo if Uncle Leo makes them uncomfortable, so why should a child who is uncomfortable be forced to go spend 3 solid weeks with dad (or mom) if they do not want to? This is not continuity in their life. Would they have spent 3 weeks with dad with no contact with mom for 3 weeks if mom and dad were still together? Not likely.
It is not automatically assumed that the mother stays home with the child. In my home, my husband has worked at home from a home based office since before my youngest child was born, and I have worked outside of the home. There are same sex couples where neither parent is biological. There are couples where both parents are "the mother"~ so maternal preference is not possible. Arguing that maternal preference would result from the "Approximation Standard" is wrong and can not be substantiated as a preventative factor for using this instead of the "best interest of the child."
Court systems with child advocates are common, but the assignation of a child advocate is not a given. My best friend has asked the court for an advocate in her case on numerous occasions, even filing a motion for the appointment of an advocate, and the Judge either ignored or denied her continued requests, and her children are 11 and 15 respectively, plenty old enough to express their feelings. Court systems should assign child advocates in ALL cases to evaluate the situation in an unbiased manner. Their evaluation would entail not only a series of interviews with the child, but also a meeting with the child's teachers, without the parents or child present. This advocate's report should be a key to the decision that the Judge makes. Instead, Judges make decisions regarding children many times never having laid eyes on them, or spoken with them.
It is time to usher in a new era in the family courts. It is too easy for Judges to be biased, bought, or lobbied by special interest groups. Doing what is best for the children of divorce does not mean taking children away from one parent and "giving them" to the other. It is also not the best practice to try to split the child down the middle, giving each parent a 50% share of the child, unless that is how the child has lived their lives up until the point of the separation.
Children are people, not property.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Rights and Wrongs
Well another holiday is behind us, and I am looking forward to whatever 2010 has to offer. The news is currently filled with stories of international (and domestic) kidnapping, and mothers being arrested. I am getting phone calls and emails from concerned friends and family wanting to know if any of these cases could potentially bring my case back to life. Here are my thoughts.
The David Goldman case is the one that seems to have brought the most alarm to those close to me. The differences between that case and mine are many. Sean Goldman's mother technically did not abduct Sean, there was no custody agreement in place when she went to Brazil. She was still married to David when she left, and when she got to Brazil, she decided not to go back. I believe that she pretty much knew she was not going back before she left, women tend to not be THAT impulsive, but it could have been that once she got home, she was so happy, she made the decision to stay. It does not really matter what her intent was, the facts remain the same. This case is not like mine in that the mother did not have a court order that allowed her to relocate to Brazil with Sean. This case is like mine in that David made false claims in the courts that he was blocked from seeing the child, and that contact with the child had been cut off. This case is like mine in that David was able to convince the courts that his rights had been trampled and he was able to get court orders in the US court that gave him conflicting rights to what the Brazilian court had ruled. So the question is, would the court in the country where I live be bullied by the US court? Would a man who can not establish that he has made attempts to maintain contact with the child be able to swing the same support that David Goldman was able to garner? I doubt it. Would he try if he thought he could cause me any grief and upset in my life? You betcha. So, am I worried? No. On the terrorist alert colour system, I would give this a situation Yellow at best.
The case of Jean Paul Lacombe Diaz is probably the most upsetting. Does this case relate to mine? It relates in some scary ways. The father presented "court orders" from another jurisdiction (country), and was able to convince a Judge to act. The child was pulled off his school bus, crying and begging the police not to take him. He said that the father hurts him, yet the police forced the child off his bus, and handed him over to the father, who then disappeared with him to Mexico. The way that it related to me is that this child is older, the ex was a spiteful dirtbag who took the child to torture the mother, and he was able to convince a Judge to take action on a foreign court order, without notification from the court to the mother that there was a hearing on the matter. Could this happen in my case, not likely, but on the terrorist alert I give this situation a Yellow, inching towards Orange.
Finally, we come to Jill Haugen. If you are not familiar, this is the lady who took her two sons from Washington state 11 years ago, and had been living in Pennsylvania. Jill claims that she was the victim of domestic abuse, and the boys, sexual abuse, yet the court "found nothing to substantiate her claims." The father had custody after the divorce, so she took matters into her own hands and fled with the children while she had them on visitation. Apparently the children have become behaviour problems, so she decided to hand them over to the foster care system- and when she did this, authorities found a felony arrest warrant for her from Washington for custodial interference. She is currently in jail awaiting extradition. The children have been returned to their father in Washington. This case relates to mine in one way, the felony warrant; although, the warrant is different, its existence is what upsets and worries everyone close to me.
These stories are only a recent flurry of activity. There are situations like this every day that do not make the headlines.
Of course it worries me that all of the coverage that these stories has raised might awaken what appears to be a sleeping dragon. I can not let the fear of what could happen paralyze me. My child is 16 years old now, but I feel no unrealistic sense of security in his age. What I do feel secure in is the court system where I live, and the court orders that I have that protect us. I feel that even if he came here with his US court orders, given the court orders here, and the age of the child involved, he likely would not get anywhere. I further do not believe that he has the testicular fortitude to attempt to exact an "abduction" scenario where he reclaims physical custody. Honestly, I believe that the sport of harassing me with court action has lost its appeal now that our child is practically grown. I also believe that now that he does not have to pay support any more (yes, a Judge ordered him to cease support payments), he does not want to take any chances of involving himself as this might mean support payments and *gulp* arrearage for the past 6 years that he has not paid. He is probably more afraid of me than I am of him.
What does the future hold? Good stuff as far as I am concerned. I have written a book about my experience, that I hope garners some attention.
The David Goldman case is the one that seems to have brought the most alarm to those close to me. The differences between that case and mine are many. Sean Goldman's mother technically did not abduct Sean, there was no custody agreement in place when she went to Brazil. She was still married to David when she left, and when she got to Brazil, she decided not to go back. I believe that she pretty much knew she was not going back before she left, women tend to not be THAT impulsive, but it could have been that once she got home, she was so happy, she made the decision to stay. It does not really matter what her intent was, the facts remain the same. This case is not like mine in that the mother did not have a court order that allowed her to relocate to Brazil with Sean. This case is like mine in that David made false claims in the courts that he was blocked from seeing the child, and that contact with the child had been cut off. This case is like mine in that David was able to convince the courts that his rights had been trampled and he was able to get court orders in the US court that gave him conflicting rights to what the Brazilian court had ruled. So the question is, would the court in the country where I live be bullied by the US court? Would a man who can not establish that he has made attempts to maintain contact with the child be able to swing the same support that David Goldman was able to garner? I doubt it. Would he try if he thought he could cause me any grief and upset in my life? You betcha. So, am I worried? No. On the terrorist alert colour system, I would give this a situation Yellow at best.
The case of Jean Paul Lacombe Diaz is probably the most upsetting. Does this case relate to mine? It relates in some scary ways. The father presented "court orders" from another jurisdiction (country), and was able to convince a Judge to act. The child was pulled off his school bus, crying and begging the police not to take him. He said that the father hurts him, yet the police forced the child off his bus, and handed him over to the father, who then disappeared with him to Mexico. The way that it related to me is that this child is older, the ex was a spiteful dirtbag who took the child to torture the mother, and he was able to convince a Judge to take action on a foreign court order, without notification from the court to the mother that there was a hearing on the matter. Could this happen in my case, not likely, but on the terrorist alert I give this situation a Yellow, inching towards Orange.
Finally, we come to Jill Haugen. If you are not familiar, this is the lady who took her two sons from Washington state 11 years ago, and had been living in Pennsylvania. Jill claims that she was the victim of domestic abuse, and the boys, sexual abuse, yet the court "found nothing to substantiate her claims." The father had custody after the divorce, so she took matters into her own hands and fled with the children while she had them on visitation. Apparently the children have become behaviour problems, so she decided to hand them over to the foster care system- and when she did this, authorities found a felony arrest warrant for her from Washington for custodial interference. She is currently in jail awaiting extradition. The children have been returned to their father in Washington. This case relates to mine in one way, the felony warrant; although, the warrant is different, its existence is what upsets and worries everyone close to me.
These stories are only a recent flurry of activity. There are situations like this every day that do not make the headlines.
Of course it worries me that all of the coverage that these stories has raised might awaken what appears to be a sleeping dragon. I can not let the fear of what could happen paralyze me. My child is 16 years old now, but I feel no unrealistic sense of security in his age. What I do feel secure in is the court system where I live, and the court orders that I have that protect us. I feel that even if he came here with his US court orders, given the court orders here, and the age of the child involved, he likely would not get anywhere. I further do not believe that he has the testicular fortitude to attempt to exact an "abduction" scenario where he reclaims physical custody. Honestly, I believe that the sport of harassing me with court action has lost its appeal now that our child is practically grown. I also believe that now that he does not have to pay support any more (yes, a Judge ordered him to cease support payments), he does not want to take any chances of involving himself as this might mean support payments and *gulp* arrearage for the past 6 years that he has not paid. He is probably more afraid of me than I am of him.
What does the future hold? Good stuff as far as I am concerned. I have written a book about my experience, that I hope garners some attention.
In 2010, I become a citizen of this country, and I believe this will solve several issues that plague my life currently. Fortunately, and unfortunately, my child continues to get older, and bigger (he's almost
6 feet tall now), and in the not so distant future, he will be 18 and no one, not even his biological father waving a court order, can touch him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)