Ron C. # 12

[debs]

Good question. I'd also like to know the reason Ron has a rap sheet as long as a football field, mostly drug related, and not one conviction?

He has convictions. He was paying on the charges he'd incurred when he took the children from Crystal and didn't return them, and had incurred even more charges just weeks before going to court.

 

[kellync]

Actually, it was Misty who admitted her and her brother smoked pot that afternoon. So nasty rumors and gossip are out the window on that one

 

[Flossie JMO]

I disagree. Both people admitted these events happened. WBG and Tommy.

It's fact when they admit it about themselves, not when they say it about others. I didn't see an interview with Tommy, do you have a link?

 

[kellync]

He has convictions. He was paying on the charges he'd incurred when he took the children from Crystal and didn't return them, and had incurred even more charges just weeks before going to court.

On the drugs debs?

 

[Flossie JMO]

Actually, it was Misty who admitted her and her brother smoked pot that afternoon. So nasty rumors and gossip are out the window on that one

Link? (and even if you have a link showing this is true, I am not sure how it relates to Ron?)

 

[Flossie JMO]

ALL of them Flossie?

Sure why not?

 

[debs]

On the drugs debs?

Yes. Whisperer sussed out the fact that the initial rap sheet we saw on Ronald was a truncated version. The one that includes the charges from those I listed. Literally, weeks before he was awarded custody, he'd been arrested on another multi-drug charge.

 

[debs]

Link? (and even if you have a link showing this is true, I am not sure how it relates to Ron?)

You did just state that it had to be out of someone's own mouth before you believed it. I did hear the interview with WBG where he states he had sex with Misty and did drugs with her.

I'm sure it's still on the website that inititally posted his interview.

 

[Whisperer]

RC pleaded down on drug charges in Feb/Mar 2005 in Putman County and the judge gave him a fine of $323 (appr) instead of five years in prison. Then he gave him six months to pay the fine. RC took the children in August 2005 and applied for custody in September on the basis he didn't want them around drugs. That very month, RC accumulated another arrest for drugs, in Sarasota County.

RC provided the Court with the wrong address for Crystal and thus, she did not know he went to court and was awarded custody. We were told recently by Dot's Eyes that judges do NO research for family court by totally rely on what is presented to them in the courtroom. I have to assume, he won by default....Crystal was not there that day.

Crystal did appear later that month and the same Magistrate found cause to rehear the case because he saw proof that the notice of the original hearing did not reach her. However, he would not change his ruling.....they seldom do.

....bottome line, RC was paying off the original drug conviction from the March court appearance when he was arrested again that September for drug possession. So he had two recent drug arrests when he took the children and won custody....all the while proclaiming he didn't want them around drugs and he thought (maybe) that CS was using. For the record, CS was clean and had not used for over a year.

 

[Donjeta]

Update from Simon Barrett's Show, November 1st:

Ronald Cummings hired a female P.I. last week and Terry Shoemaker said he will be setting up a non-profit organization to help cover the cost. The P.I.'s name was not given.

Is there any more information about this? Either the PI or the non-profit?

 

[sleepingheart]

(bold mine) Thank you for the link. What appears to be a discrepancy in statistics is due to the important distinction between cases in which custody is actually disputed--from which Mothers For Justice compiled their statistics--and overall awarding of uncontested custody in which there is no dispute and fathers have not sought custody or IOW the vast majority of cases for which US Census Bureau cites their statistics.

Clearly it is the cases in which a father is seeking ie willing to assume custody w which we are concerned. And the point is clear: fathers who attempt to seek custody will be successful in 70% of disputes.

The reasons for why this is even more likely to occur in cases of men w an abusive or controlling history, according to study cited in article, include familiar issues such as control, retaliation, and ultimately avoiding of child support payments--evidently not all fathers feel it is better to give than receive.

The study found that an additional means by which some men retaliate is by having parents join in the fight for custody which is significant as even in instances where the men may lack knowledge of how to manipulate the system they are evidently not unwilling to engage their mothers eg to assist their concerted efforts to win custody.

It also mentions another tool by manipulative fathers in their determination to win custody which is making spurious claims--recalling to mind the ironic, unfounded accusation in court by RC that he thought CS might be presently doing drugs tho in reality he himself was the one w very recent drug charges (the fines for which he'd not yet finished paying off before he incurred more).

Point well taken--interesting study, I appreciate your sharing.


arrot:

Thank you, Kiki, for summing that info up for me in your very good post above. Also, Kiki, my post below is not a response to you; I'm just using my 'thank-you' to your post as a jump-off point I guess . (Also, for those interested, there has been a ton of research done on the 'child custody' topic; a simple "search" is all you need to get you there).......

I just wanted to add that.....When posting those 2 links in my last post, my point was not to say that I knew for an absolute fact that that was what happened in this case, although I am of the opinion that it is indeed what happened & I was aware that some would be of the opinion that it was not and that's okay; no biggie. Whenever I post info/links like that, as in my post we are currently discussing, I am putting it out there for those who are interested, for those who are like minded, for those that may actually need it or want it, etc.; it is never my intention, personality, or style to argue back & forth, shove something unwanted in someone elses face, dispute something that is kind of O/T anyway, or persuade anyone who is not interested.....as I just stated, it is for those that are interested. Now, clearly I don't mind others posting other links to differing info & posting their differing opinions/thoughts..doing that is welcome, of course, and is not what I am referring to here; I only wish to make myself clear concerning my posts.

 

[curvecuti]

IMO, most times Fathers seek custody when their children are being neglected, mis-treated, etc., when the Mother can not provide, i.e. no job. OR when the Mother has a boyfriend that the Father does ot think would provide a good situation for his children. IMO, this is why the Father gets custody when they pursue it, it's for a good reason. The statistics seem to bear this out.

 

[KOOL LOOK]

IMO, most times Fathers seek custody when their children are being neglected, mis-treated, etc., when the Mother can not provide, i.e. no job. OR when the Mother has a boyfriend that the Father does ot think would provide a good situation for his children. IMO, this is why the Father gets custody when they pursue it, it's for a good reason. The statistics seem to bear this out.

You would be correct. In my hubby's case, we only filed for visitation when the bio mom decided to slam the door in his face and tell him to bumpity off one fine Friday evening at 6:00pm.

While waiting to go to the hearing to be heard on visitation, the home of the bio mom which lived with her Mother, the boyfriend of the Grandmother got arrested for 5 counts of Lewd, Lacivious acts and molestation on 4 children that hit the local front page news in our area. So we immediately hired an attorney and amended the complaint from visitation to full fledge custody.

The first sentence in my hubbys affidavit to the Judge stated, "I never had intentions of taking my daughter from her Mother, I believe a child needs their Mother, but I had no choice to protect my child and give her a home that obviously my child support wasn't paying for to provide a safe home for my child".

 

[sleepingheart]

IMO, most times Fathers seek custody when their children are being neglected, mis-treated, etc., when the Mother can not provide, i.e. no job. OR when the Mother has a boyfriend that the Father does ot think would provide a good situation for his children. IMO, this is why the Father gets custody when they pursue it, it's for a good reason. The statistics seem to bear this out.

Thank you for sharing your opinion & views on this subject!

 

[debs]

IMO, most times Fathers seek custody when their children are being neglected, mis-treated, etc., when the Mother can not provide, i.e. no job. OR when the Mother has a boyfriend that the Father does ot think would provide a good situation for his children. IMO, this is why the Father gets custody when they pursue it, it's for a good reason. The statistics seem to bear this out.

And many others steal their children and keep their mother away from them, then claim abandonment and make trumped up claims of "maybe she's doing drugs". Still others simply want to collect any State funds that are available. And some even bring in teenagers to babysit the kids while they are away, and end up bedding and wedding them.

 

[Cowboy Fan]

IMO, most times Fathers seek custody when their children are being neglected, mis-treated, etc., when the Mother can not provide, i.e. no job. OR when the Mother has a boyfriend that the Father does ot think would provide a good situation for his children. IMO, this is why the Father gets custody when they pursue it, it's for a good reason. The statistics seem to bear this out.

But many times, fathers seek custody for no other reason than to "get back" at an estranged spouse or significant other. I work with a man who did this and will readily admit that it was all about retaliation. I think it happens more often than people realize.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

IMO, most times Fathers seek custody when their children are being neglected, mis-treated, etc., when the Mother can not provide, i.e. no job. OR when the Mother has a boyfriend that the Father does ot think would provide a good situation for his children. IMO, this is why the Father gets custody when they pursue it, it's for a good reason. The statistics seem to bear this out.

Those who have read the custody hearing (the second one, with Crystal present) will know that the issue of drug use by both parties came up. One major issue that Ron raised was the fact that Crystal was not consistent about taking the children to medical appointments. In a case in which a child has medical needs beyond the ordinary, this would be a crucial point against the parent who does not get the kids to the doctor. Ron also had a job and though his work record has been mocked mercillessly here, he had a job and income and Crystal did not.

This is old ground. The court ruled; no one has to agree with the ruling but presumably both sides had an opportunity to state their case. One thing struck me: both Ron and Crystal were respectful and civil to each other and the judge/hearing officer commended them both for being willing to acknowledge their own "issues." I thought better of both of them as a result.

 

[elle1919]

Those who have read the custody hearing (the second one, with Crystal present) will know that the issue of drug use by both parties came up. One major issue that Ron raised was the fact that Crystal was not consistent about taking the children to medical appointments. In a case in which a child has medical needs beyond the ordinary, this would be a crucial point against the parent who does not get the kids to the doctor. Ron also had a job and though his work record has been mocked mercillessly here, he had a job and income and Crystal did not.

This is old ground. The court ruled; no one has to agree with the ruling but presumably both sides had an opportunity to state their case. One thing struck me: both Ron and Crystal were respectful and civil to each other and the judge/hearing officer commended them both for being willing to acknowledge their own "issues." I thought better of both of them as a result.

Another honest and intelligent post. Thank you and I too had a similar thought.

 

[curvecuti]

But many times, fathers seek custody for no other reason than to "get back" at an estranged spouse or significant other. I work with a man who did this and will readily admit that it was all about retaliation. I think it happens more often than people realize.

I think the exact opposite, I don't think that happens very often. First he is going to have to have some proof that the child is in a pretty bad situation. I think alot of spiteful men THREATEN that they will fight for custody, but when it comes down to brass tacks, most don't want the responsibility. Abusive and spiteful men are usually not very responsible. IMO.

 

[Cowboy Fan]

I think the exact opposite, I don't think that happens very often. First he is going to have to have some proof that the child is in a pretty bad situation. I think alot of spiteful men THREATEN that they will fight for custody, but when it comes down to brass tacks, most don't want the responsibility. Abusive and spiteful men are usually not very responsible. IMO.

IMO, it doesn't require proof of a bad situation to gain custody if the other party never receives notification of a court date, and as a result, doesn't show up. Even though I know some others won't agree, I believe CS when she says she never received notification.