Wade wins custody of sons

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/heat/dwyane-wade-wins-custody-fight-for-sons-1318692.html

The part of the article that caught my eye was this telling statement:

Still, the 102-page ruling had some sharp words for Wade's ex-wife.

"This court finds that (Siohvaughn Wade) has embarked on an unstoppable and relentless pattern of conduct for over two years to alienate the children from their father, and lacks either the ability or the willingness to facilitate, let alone encourage, a close and continuing relationship between them," read a portion of the ruling entered by Judge Renee G. Goldfarb.

Isn't that what we have said time and time again?

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois

Dwyane Wade wins custody fight for sons

The part of the article that caught my eye was this telling statement:


Isn't that what we have said time and time again?

I agree, but I think here that the relentless alienation while in the midst of a divorce and custody battle is what did this mother in.

I suspect that there were temporary orders that she was absolutely not obeying.

Quite often we tell parents that if they don't provide liberal visitation to the other parent, before any kind orders are even made, that they could end up with this kind of result. I think that is where we sometimes get a little over the top. I understand why there are some circumstances where a parent won't let the children out of their supervision until temporary, enforceable orders are made.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

I agree, but I think here that the relentless alienation while in the midst of a divorce and custody battle is what did this mother in.

I suspect that there were temporary orders that she was absolutely not obeying.

Quite often we tell parents that if they don't provide liberal visitation to the other parent, before any kind orders are even made, that they could end up with this kind of result. I think that is where we sometimes get a little over the top. I understand why there are some circumstances where a parent won't let the children out of their supervision until temporary, enforceable orders are made.

There were MARRIED. Therefore, they both had equal rights to the children. From what I read about the case, mom did everything in her power to eliminate dad from the children's lives.

 

[LdiJ]

There were MARRIED. Therefore, they both had equal rights to the children. From what I read about the case, mom did everything in her power to eliminate dad from the children's lives.

Right, which is why mom had just as much right to have the children with her as dad did, until temporary orders were made.

Obviously she was a POS for a long time. However if she had just been insisting on visitation in her presence for a couple of months until a judge made temporary orders, its unlikely that the results would have been the same.

Think about it? This is a case where the children are going to have to be largely raised by a nanny (which was indicated in the article) because of dad's travel schedule. When does a parent who has to travel from home, for work, a large amount of the time, get sole legal and physical custody unless the other parent is a true POS?

Clearly justice was served here. There is no doubt about it. However I am not sure that we should use a case where one of the parents was clearly a POS, as a "meter" for judging all situations.

What honestly impresses me the most about this situation is that here is a big time sports figure, with all the attendent hoopla that goes with that, who is clearly putting his children first. Big time Kudos to this dad...and even bigger Kudos to him for not announcing anything until there was time to explain things to the children.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

I'm looking at it from the stand point of some of the parents who have been here to have gone to the extreme excess to drag things out and basically eliminate the other parent. When they don't think they are doing anything wrong, this is a good case to point out to them.

It's the "FACILITATE a relationship between the other parent and the child."

 

[st-kitts]

Clearly justice was served here. There is no doubt about it. However I am not sure that we should use a case where one of the parents was clearly a POS, as a "meter" for judging all situations.

What honestly impresses me the most about this situation is that here is a big time sports figure, with all the attendent hoopla that goes with that, who is clearly putting his children first. Big time Kudos to this dad...and even bigger Kudos to him for not announcing anything until there was time to explain things to the children.

I had a totally different reaction, thinking dad is probably another abusive dad who was able to persuade a court his ex was crazy, but I am not surprised by this case either.

The wife claimed domestic abuse and she ultimately was not able to persuade a court that her allegations had merit. She had no proof. And he had a charming public persona, as so many abusers do.

So, if anyone reading is an abusive relationship and you have kids and you care about their safety if you split from your partner, let this be a lesson.

You must call the police if you are being abused.

If your boyfriend, husband, significant other is violent toward you and you have children, you must call the police.
If there were a shouting from the rooftops icon, I would use it. I really hope she is as crazy as they say and justice was served (and she did go through 9 attorneys, failed to show up in court as required, and might be violent herself), but I really fear it is just another case of the abusive guy getting the kids.

 

[LdiJ]

I'm looking at it from the stand point of some of the parents who have been here to have gone to the extreme excess to drag things out and basically eliminate the other parent. When they don't think they are doing anything wrong, this is a good case to point out to them.

It's the "FACILITATE a relationship between the other parent and the child."

I agree with that wholeheartedly. I have however some concern about the delicate juggling act of both facilitating and protecting.

I have some concern that sometimes we don't acknowledge the difficulty of that delicate juggling act. That sometimes we simply push the "facilitate" button without acknowledging that doing that could have bad results.

Once temporary or permanent orders are made, no parent should ever not obey those orders unless a situation is a true emergency and that parent makes an emergency trip to court in conjunction with any violation they are committing.

However, prior to orders being made each situation is very individual, and in my opinion, should be responded to based solely on the individual aspects of that particular case/situation. I honestly don't feel that we do that often enough.

I will never forget one case that came here quite a few years ago. A father was all over the news because there was a manhunt against him as a murder suspect, his visitation weekend was coming up, and nearly all the senior members were telling mom that she had no right to deny visitation if dad showed up to pick up the children. I wasn't a senior member at that time and I was virtually the lone dissenter and was told to not post because I wasn't giving accurate legal advice.

I don't think that today's senior members would give anything remotely close to that ridiculous advice, but I still think that there are times where we don't treat a situation with the individuality it deserves.

 

[CourtClerk]

The wife claimed domestic abuse and she ultimately was not able to persuade a court that her allegations had merit. She had no proof. And he had a charming public persona, as so many abusers do.

Siohvaughn Wade was a scorned woman who was seriously pissed because her husband was screwing Gabriel Union... and doing it in her face.

Like many of the women on this forum, your husband has an affair and now he's satan.

 

[stealth2]

... Who? ...

 

[Isis1]

Siohvaughn Wade was a scorned woman who was seriously pissed because her husband was screwing Gabriel Union... and doing it in her face.

Like many of the women on this forum, your husband has an affair and now he's satan.

THE Gabriel Union? From Bad Boyz 2?

 

[CourtClerk]

THE Gabriel Union? From Bad Boyz 2?

Yep.... that one. Forgive the misspelled name. It's Gabrielle (the nasty hussy that sleeps with other women's husbands)

 

[Proserpina]

I'm sorry - I'm completely missing where he was abusive to her.

Is this just a knee-jerk reaction from someone else who was scorned?

What, he gets a decent attorney and manages to get custody and somehow that translates to him being a controlling abuser?

What the heck am I missing here?

 

[Isis1]

Yep.... that one. Forgive the misspelled name. It's Gabrielle (the nasty hussy that sleeps with other women's husbands)

Dammit! I actually liked her too.

 

[LdiJ]

I'm sorry - I'm completely missing where he was abusive to her.

Is this just a knee-jerk reaction from someone else who was scorned?

What, he gets a decent attorney and manages to get custody and somehow that translates to him being a controlling abuser?

What the heck am I missing here?

She made some accusations of abuse that she couldn't prove, according to the article.

 

[stealth2]

I had a totally different reaction, thinking dad is probably another abusive dad who was able to persuade a court his ex was crazy, but I am not surprised by this case either.

The wife claimed domestic abuse and she ultimately was not able to persuade a court that her allegations had merit. She had no proof. And he had a charming public persona, as so many abusers do.

So, if anyone reading is an abusive relationship and you have kids and you care about their safety if you split from your partner, let this be a lesson.

You must call the police if you are being abused.

If your boyfriend, husband, significant other is violent toward you and you have children, you must call the police.
If there were a shouting from the rooftops icon, I would use it. I really hope she is as crazy as they say and justice was served (and she did go through 9 attorneys, failed to show up in court as required, and might be violent herself), but I really fear it is just another case of the abusive guy getting the kids.

And, conversely, if he is NOT abusive and you're just looking at a way to stick it to him - know that it may bite you BIG TIME.

Really, st-kitts... you have NO proof that he is "another abusive dad". It's pretty smarmy to toss that around as though you do.