Ron C. # 12

[Emeralgem]

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.

IMHO you have described Ron C perfectly...IMHO he has proven he is abusive, spiteful, not to mention diabolical and manipulative.. He has also proven he is very irresponsible...JMO

 

[PorcineGranny]

Let me just say this...my claim to fame is child support. I was the child support clerk for my county. A very dominant thing to happen was for the children to be pawns in a divorce case and the parents as a matter of control would fight for custody. It happens so much, people are so petty and vindictive. Now of course there were real incidences where a legitimate challenge was done, but people who have the money for attys will challenge a spouse for custody to make a point or to control someone.

 

[Pondering Mind]

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.

Cowboy Fan, you are SO RIGHT! Speaking as someone who has been in that position, I will tell you that my ex didn't really want custody, he wouldn't have known what to do with the kids if he had them 24/7. BUT, almost a year after we split up and I met someone else (he was already with someone else, himself) he decided that he wanted custody ...go figure.. ..ANYWAY HE fought me tooth and nail (he had money, I didn't) only because he knew that the only way to hurt me was thru the kids. It took me 8 years and I don't know how many thousands of dollars to divorce the man, but he NEVER won custody, as the judges and Guardian ad Litems saw right thru his BS. As a matter of fact once he realized that he wasn't going to win he pretty much quit seeing the chidren at all sadly (I guess) and in the last 10 years has seen them and my 5 grandchildren ONCE and only then because we went to see him. It's ALL about POWER and CONTROL with some men and IMHO Ron is one of them. It happens ALL of the time, sadly. Obviously there will always be some that fall for Ron's BS, nothing you can do about it but shake your head. Ron's 'type' counts on it and as you can see, he doesn't get let down. Truly is sad. :sick:

 

[curvecuti]

Let me just say this...my claim to fame is child support. I was the child support clerk for my county. A very dominant thing to happen was for the children to be pawns in a divorce case and the parents as a matter of control would fight for custody. It happens so much, people are so petty and vindictive. Now of course there were real incidences where a legitimate challenge was done, but people who have the money for attys will challenge a spouse for custody to make a point or to control someone.

And these people were awarded custody? I like to believe MOST judges are fairly good judges of character.

 

[DotsEyes]

Arrests without convictions are meaningless. Just because someone is arrested does not mean that they committed the crime for which they were arrested. Sorry, but it is a truth, and THE LAW knows it. For instance, attorneys can not even ask questions about arrests during depositions and arrests without convictions are not admissible at trials. Further, only felony convictions count as far as discovery during the litigation and admissibility at trial. So as far as Ron's arrests that didn't proceed through conviction and sentencing - forget them. They just don't count.

Good grief, who on earth would have placed those children with the mother in 2005? Mom was a mess. Hint: If you want your kids, you have to show the court you are serious about it. You must do things like : show up for the hearings; get a job; stop using drugs and show proof of sobriety; have a home ready for them to live in and be able to provide for them. CS had none of that going for her. Honestly, I don't think she wanted custody, MG wanted her to have custody.

Correction to a misinterpretation of what I posted earlier - Judges are prohibited from, their own investigations in all cases, not just family court issues.

He had the kids for 3 1/2 years when Haleigh disppeared. CS didn't pursue custody or an appeal during those years. Maybe, just maybe she didn't want to have them fulltime.

What does it matter now?

 

[KOOL LOOK]

Arrests without convictions are meaningless. Just because someone is arrested does not mean that they committed the crime for which they were arrested. Sorry, but it is a truth, and THE LAW knows it. For instance, attorneys can not even ask questions about arrests during depositions and arrests without convictions are not admissible at trials. Further, only felony convictions count as far as discovery during the litigation and admissibility at trial. So as far as Ron's arrests that didn't proceed through conviction and sentencing - forget them. They just don't count.

Good grief, who on earth would have placed those children with the mother in 2005? Mom was a mess. Hint: If you want your kids, you have to show the court you are serious about it. You must do things like : show up for the hearings; get a job; stop using drugs and show proof of sobriety; have a home ready for them to live in and be able to provide for them. CS had none of that going for her. Honestly, I don't think she wanted custody, MG wanted her to have custody.

Correction to a misinterpretation of what I posted earlier - Judges are prohibited from, their own investigations in all cases, not just family court issues.

He had the kids for 3 1/2 years when Haleigh disppeared. CS didn't pursue custody or an appeal during those years. Maybe, just maybe she didn't want to have them fulltime.

What does it matter now?

I have seen a mother you describe with my own eyes go through custody litigation. I was the first to notice, and tried so hard to sound the bell. No one believed me. But the Judge in his rulings, was spot on.

The bio mom didn't hold a job two years prior to a final custody hearing. Two weeks before court, she gets a job at an all night huge bar in our local area where she worked all night long, leaving the 3 year old child alone with her newly acquired boyfriend 50 miles away from where she was from and the bio Daddy. The bio Mom I would just laff at. She did everything she could to screw up before that final hearing.

She showed up for show. She lost, and walked out smiling. I would have fell apart if I had lost my girl.

 

[PorcineGranny]

I don't think arrests without convictions are meaningless. In my state a record is kept of those arrests and their deposition. It is a tool to make decisions should anything come up.
Many times people are guilty but because of some bargain with the DA, their case is dismissed. I find it extremely unusual that so many times charges were levied and then dismissed. Something else is going on in my opinion, because if the evidence were not there the officers would have been chastised and maybe not so quick to charge again. JMO

Also on criminal record checks those charges whether dismissed or not are included so the person asking for the record can make their own evaluation.

 

[PorcineGranny]

And these people were awarded custody? I like to believe MOST judges are fairly good judges of character.

Curvi I know this thread is not about judges, but they are just people, like you and me. They are usually very busy and do not take alot of time on all cases.
If they have a lawyer, and he is very good friends with the judge, well, hes likely to win his case whether he should or not and whos to question. Its not about who is the best parent, but who has the best lawyer or can speak for themselves. Its a political situation and its sad. Why do you think people shop for judges?

 

[PorcineGranny]

I just thought of a good example on a record check. A person writes worthless checks, they pay the checks off but the record shows worthless checks, dismissed.

I would know from that record that this individual wrote worthless checks but paid them off prior to court. This would indicate the integrity of that person, not that they didn't write those checks.

 

[curvecuti]

Curvi I know this thread is not about judges, but they are just people, like you and me. They are usually very busy and do not take alot of time on all cases.
If they have a lawyer, and he is very good friends with the judge, well, hes likely to win his case whether he should or not and whos to question. Its not about who is the best parent, but who has the best lawyer or can speak for themselves. Its a political situation and its sad. Why do you think people shop for judges?

Porcine, I realize that judges are people, but judges encounter hundreds of individuals everyday, and like I said I think MOST are fairly good judges of character. I realize the "good ol' boy system" still exists, but I would hope that the majority of judges are looking after the welfare of the children in a custody case. I just can not see that the MAJORITY of judges in civil custodial cases decides a child's fate on who has the best lawyer or has a lawyer that is a friend. If the majority judges can not be trusted to do right by our children, then we as a nation are doomed. I believe MOST people that become judges do it becasue they want to make a difference. IMO. I am of the belief that MOST people are good and want to do the right thing.

 

[curvecuti]

I just thought of a good example on a record check. A person writes worthless checks, they pay the checks off but the record shows worthless checks, dismissed.

I would know from that record that this individual wrote worthless checks but paid them off prior to court. This would indicate the integrity of that person, not that they didn't write those checks.

See, this type of case is one where I would have to have more info. before I could make a judgement. Did the person write the checks to feed their family, or buy medicine or basic necessities in a time of need? And paid them off when the could afford to? If so, I can forgive them for writing worthless checks and not judge their integrity. I know to some people it makes no difference, but it does to me.

 

[Pondering Mind]

And these people were awarded custody? I like to believe MOST judges are fairly good judges of character.

bbm~
I'd like to believe that too dear and I believe that most are, but sadly there is always going to be politics and corruption in our judicial system. Not saying that IS the case here, but I am saying that it goes on everywhere everyday and usually the smaller the town the worse it is. If you have enough money or clout you can pretty much buy your way out of (or in to) anything. I know that it happens it in criminal, domestic, civil matters... have seen it happen before, but could never prove it happened, sooo...

 

[Pondering Mind]

I don't think arrests without convictions are meaningless. In my state a record is kept of those arrests and their deposition. It is a tool to make decisions should anything come up.
Many times people are guilty but because of some bargain with the DA, their case is dismissed. I find it extremely unusual that so many times charges were levied and then dismissed. Something else is going on in my opinion, because if the evidence were not there the officers would have been chastised and maybe not so quick to charge again. JMO

Also on criminal record checks those charges whether dismissed or not are included so the person asking for the record can make their own evaluation.

ITA with ya PorcineGranny...While of course it's true as DotsEyes said, that just because someone is arrested for a crime it doesn't mean that they commited the crime... of course, the flip side of that is, just because someone was found not guilty or charges were dropped doesn't mean they were innocent of the crime either!
FACT-Ron has a LONG arrest record for drugs, do people REALLY believe that he was arrested ALL of those times for absolutely NO reason whatsoever? I'm being 100% serious here, as that's what I'm reading in many of these posts. :waitasec: I really would like to know how some believe the charges may have come about then....Was Ron walking down the street all by himself, minding his own business...singing Yankee Doodle Dandy and the popo had it in for him? Did they drag him out of bed in the middle of the night and 'plant' the drugs on him? Somebody, PLEASE help me understand! :banghead: I really, really do want to know, but somehow I have this nagging, sinking feeling that someones going to say that Crystal or Marie set him up each and every time OR the 'Old Stand By' he was probably in a car with somebody else and the drugs belonged to them...again Each and Every Time? Where am I going wrong in my logic??!! :scream:

 

[lonetraveler]

And these people were awarded custody? I like to believe MOST judges are fairly good judges of character.

I can personally testify that not all judges are good judges, period. There are rotten judges just as there are rotten people in every profession.

 

[lonetraveler]

If you want to find HaLeigh start looking at the Sheffields.

I truly hope that you are correct and that Haleigh is somewhere just enjoying being a little girl. It would be a best case scenario if she were taken by family and hidden away. I don't feel like that is the case however. Do you think that LE has not investigated the Sheffields? I would assume that LE has investigated all possibilities in all the time that has passed. If not, then LE has some explaining to do.

 

[lonetraveler]

Bogus charges imo

All four pages, small print too????? Bogus charges? Ron was just set up that's all. It is merely a coincidence how many times that man has been set up by the old bad po po. Just a run of bad luck I guess.

 

[MeoW333]

I don't think arrests without convictions are meaningless. In my state a record is kept of those arrests and their deposition. It is a tool to make decisions should anything come up.
Many times people are guilty but because of some bargain with the DA, their case is dismissed. I find it extremely unusual that so many times charges were levied and then dismissed. Something else is going on in my opinion, because if the evidence were not there the officers would have been chastised and maybe not so quick to charge again. JMO

Also on criminal record checks those charges whether dismissed or not are included so the person asking for the record can make their own evaluation.

What if an innocent person was arrested due to similarities to the real culprit? Or some other reason. There are times when innocent people are arrested until the truth comes to light. There have even been people who have done prison time after being falsely convicted.

Just because Ron has an arrest record, doesn't mean he killed his daughter.

A lot of times people make mistakes when they are young.

 

[KOOL LOOK]

I can personally testify that not all judges are good judges, period. There are rotten judges just as there are rotten people in every profession.

Good post, and unfortunately we deal with it as a society. Moreso probably than we realize. Our Justice system is not geared for bias, but money robs everyone at trial. Even the guilty. Whether people want to think and believe, if you are guilty, and the Justice system is bought, sidelined by prejudiced money seeking spotlight hungry people, we lose.

It won't ever stop, though. Accept that. But,,,, we can battle every turn and trial when it occurs. We are justice oriented, naturally, because our God is a "Just" God. According to his Words, "He loves Justice", hmmm okay.

 

[PorcineGranny]

See, this type of case is one where I would have to have more info. before I could make a judgement. Did the person write the checks to feed their family, or buy medicine or basic necessities in a time of need? And paid them off when the could afford to? If so, I can forgive them for writing worthless checks and not judge their integrity. I know to some people it makes no difference, but it does to me.

you are right, sometimes there are circumstances that would allow leniency. But the bottom line Curvi, is that its against the law. Most people could arrange for food for their families without writing worthless checks, whether it be thru Church, family or friends. See, the law is black and white.

If you don't have a speedometer on your car, its not against the law, but if you speed, you get a ticket. Sad that you didn't have a speedomenter, but you still are penalized for speeding.

 

[PorcineGranny]

What if an innocent person was arrested due to similarities to the real culprit? Or some other reason. There are times when innocent people are arrested until the truth comes to light. There have even been people who have done prison time after being falsely convicted.

Just because Ron has an arrest record, doesn't mean he killed his daughter.

A lot of times people make mistakes when they are young.

Agreed, that can happen, I don't remember murder being on Ron's record though.

If you are a juvenile, your record check does not include those infractions. And if you are innocently charged, most employers will give you the benefit of the doubt if its one charge. But lets say you have 20 drug arrests on different dates, well it would be hard to believe those were all in error.