September 3, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Judge dismisses Lloyd emergency protective order (EPO), due to the ex-wife having made false allegations, but as of now no decision has been made as to which of the two parents will have custody of the child at the core of the dispute.  That, according to the judge in Fleming County District Court, is up to the circuit court to decide.

The Ledger Independent
2 September 2010

Judge dismisses Lloyd EPO
By Misty Maynard, Staff Writer Ledger Independent

FLEMINGSBURG - Questions concerning custody of a daughter linger, but an emergency protective order secured by Fleming County Hospital Chief Executive Officer Davie Lloyd against ex-husband Brett Lloyd was dismissed during a hearing Thursday in Fleming County District Court….

During the EPO hearing, Hill pressed the judge for a ruling as to whether Brett Lloyd could secure the child, citing an order from the Montana First Judicial District Court that amended the parenting plan established at the time of the couple’s divorce. However, Probst said the issue of custody should be addressed in circuit court.

“Where it goes, I don’t control,” he said.

The original parenting plan established in 2004 allowed Brett Lloyd visitation every other weekend and for two weeks in the summer, as well as on alternating holidays. The new parenting plan, based on the new Montana ruling, established that the child should reside with Brett Lloyd, “subject to Davie’s parenting time, which shall be supervised and in the state of Montana.”

The new plan requires Davie Lloyd to have supervision during visitation because she “deliberately and maliciously” interfered with her ex-husband’s parental rights.

“Further, Davie is considered a ‘flight risk,’ having moved the minor child from one state to another and refusing to inform Brett of her physical location,” according to the plan….(Full Story)

Posted in Judiciary, Maternal Rights, Paternal Rights, Shared Parenting, Child Abduction, Child-Custody Awards, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

September 3, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Capitol Weekly (U.S.A.)
2 September 2010

Women claim tribes won’t enforce child support
By Malcolm Maclachlan

When Christina Brown got together with her soon-to-be ex-husband in the early 1990s, they were poor. But he’s a member of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians. When the tribe’s casino opened up a few years later, the checks started rolling in, around $20,000 a month. They moved out of their mobile home into a big house. Nice cars and a 34-foot Fleetwood motor home followed.

After what she described as a worsening domestic situation, she left him in 2007. Brown, who noted that she once had a drug problem, said she’s been clean for years now.

But in other ways, her present looks a lot like her past. She’s on welfare and food stamps, living with her mother in a two-bedroom house, and running four payments behind on her car.

And there’s another crucial difference: she’s responsible for the children.  She has five over all — one before her husband, three with him and one after. The three youngest live with her, including two from her husband, but she says he hasn’t paid child support in years, despite the fact that he still gets thousands of dollars a month from the tribe.

“The court ordered him to make all these payments,” Brown said. “But I couldn’t garnish them.”….

“I didn’t mean for it to happen this way,” Brown said. “Trust me. I would have never had kids if I knew I was going to go this way. I would have gone straight education.”….(Full Story)

__________

Given that being a welfare mom as a career choice did not work out well for Christina Brown,  why does she not just give custody of her children to their respective fathers?  It looks as if at least two of her children would certainly be substantially better off.

She can then still pursue a career in education.  She is still young enough for that.  People have done it when they were in their seventies.  Perhaps it will not even cost her a dime to do so if things are similar to the way they are in Canada in that respect.  Status natives in Canada can obtain university degrees for free, with the government footing the bill.  They will not be required to run up the sometimes horrendous debts in doing so that normal mortals must labour under.

Mind you, it takes work to obtain a degree, and then it takes more work to earn a living, but, if the “government” pays for the degree, why not?   It is good for the self-esteem.

Posted in Child Support, Maternal Rights, Paternal Rights, Men and Women Work, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Family | Print | No Comments »

July 25, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

This is outrageous!

Mother sues son she abandoned

B.C. woman, 71, seeks support from children under archaic statute

By Denise Ryan, Postmedia News July 25, 2010

The Edmonton Journal

When Ken Anderson was just 15, his mother, Shirley, made it clear: She didn’t want him anymore.

Ken’s father, a long-haul trucker, had been transferred from Osoyoos, B.C., to the province’s Kootenay region. Although their marriage was rocky, Shirley followed, taking her second-youngest son, Darryl, with her.

Ken was left behind.

Ken had plenty of time to think about it as he wiped bug splatter off car windshields and pumped gas, lucky to pick up some shifts at the local gas station to make a buck….

The way he sees it, he never really had a mother.

On Aug. 3 and 4, Ken, now 46, will face off in B.C. Supreme Court against the woman who gave birth to him.

Shirley Anderson, now 71, is suing Ken and four of his five siblings for parental support. The case dragged on for years, but the August hearing should complete it….

Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Mother+sues+abandoned/3320560/story.html#ixzz0uhwMlHuW

Something is amiss in this case.  Ken Anderson should have launched a counter-suit to claim compensation for damages caused by the criminal act of child-abandonment by his mother.  That could truly make some lawyers happy.  They would be able to reap at least twice the profits they stand to gain from this case.

As it stands right now, who can  blame the mother for merely seeking with impunity what is rightfully hers: to be rewarded by her victims for the crimes she committed against them.  Of course, if it weren’t for ruthless lawyers who stand to profit from such cases, Shirley Anderson’s gold-digging would never have come close to the judicial arena.

Posted in Maternal Rights, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | 3 Comments »