Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So the court awarded custody of little girl to a sex offender, even though that sex offender is not related to the little girl? I don't care if he legally is the father, that appears to be nothing more than a technicality, since the child is not biologically his. Shouldn't these facts be considered by the court?
I'm not saying I agree with the judge's decision, but IIRC the law that any child born to a married woman is automatically the legal child of her husband isn't just a technicality. It dates back at least to when I grew up in Florida in the 60s and 70s.
Before DNA testing and before divorce became so common, the intent was to insure stability in families and a sure way to assign paternity. I haven't thought it about lately so I'm not going to assume it's a bad law, even though it made for a bad outcome in this case.
I had no idea that parents can sign so their 14 year olds can get married.
I realize the intent of the law was to protect the interest of a child, but now that we do have DNA testing, I think that law should be done away with.
It sure appears that in this case, the law resulted in a sex offender whose offense was against a teenage girl, getting a custody of young girl not related to him. From the article, it appears him and his wife separated before the conception of the child, but weren't legally divorced. So how does it make sense for him to be considered a legal father? It doesn't make sense to me.
Well if a man wants to support a child that isn't his that one thing. But if a married woman is cheating while married, has a child with someone else, why should the husband then be punished by being required to pay child support on a child that isn't his? It doesn't make sense to me to just automatically assume someone is the father because of marriage, now that we do have DNA testing. Why shouldn't the bio dad be responsible for child support, just as he would have if the woman wasn't married?
And in this case, the sex offender got a custody of young girl unrelated to him, and he wasn't even the one raising her up until now. Just because he is the "legal father." And the woman left him in 2005, so I presume the two of them weren't even together when the child was conceived. How does that make sense?
So the court awarded custody of little girl to a sex offender, even though that sex offender is not related to the little girl? I don't care if he legally is the father, that appears to be nothing more than a technicality, since the child is not biologically his. Shouldn't these facts be considered by the court?
Well if a man wants to support a child that isn't his that one thing. But if a married woman is cheating while married, has a child with someone else, why should the husband then be punished by being required to pay child support on a child that isn't his? It doesn't make sense to me to just automatically assume someone is the father because of marriage, now that we do have DNA testing. Why shouldn't the bio dad be responsible for child support, just as he would have if the woman wasn't married?
And in this case, the sex offender got a custody of young girl unrelated to him, and he wasn't even the one raising her up until now. Just because he is the "legal father." And the woman left him in 2005, so I presume the two of them weren't even together when the child was conceived. How does that make sense?
I'm floored that the judge is a woman. I can't understand why she would hand this baby girl over to a sex offender. Does it not matter to the judge because the victim was the baby's mother and he hasn't offended since then? He has a violent history. That man probably doesn't even want this baby. He probably is proving something to the gramma or the bio father. Where was this creep for the past 3 years...in prison? This is wrong and I'm going to find the address of the courthouse there and write a letter to that female judge. I wish other people would do the same thing. If not the judge then who should letters go to? Anyone know?
It's not just Florida. I am volunteering as a victim's advocate and a judge just gave custody of a 3 yr old boy to a woman's RSO ex husband. The judge said it's because the woman is home less. (She's homeless because he kicked her into the street after 5 yrs of abuse). I wish I could say more.. your jaw would drop. This case out of Florida is not surprising to me at all.
I wonder if there was a guardian ad litem in this case - there generally is when there's a convoluted family court issue involving custody. Even though it looks bad on paper, her placement may truly be "in the best interest of the child" - a lesser of two evils, so to speak.
It sounds bad, but I know the media can be inflammatory and less than truthful. I'd like a good look at the court documents, as the entire situation sounds weird.
It's not just Florida. I am volunteering as a victim's advocate and a judge just gave custody of a 3 yr old boy to a woman's RSO ex husband. The judge said it's because the woman is home less. (She's homeless because he kicked her into the street after 5 yrs of abuse). I wish I could say more.. your jaw would drop. This case out of Florida is not surprising to me at all.