Is Emotion Relevant in Family Law Matters?
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:01AM
A judge ruled that Trish’s children are allowed to live with her ex-husband, John, and his-ex wife, Kristine, -- a woman who killed her own children. Trish believes her children are in danger.
In this clip from Tuesday’s show, Trish’s attorney, Todd, says he believes this case should consider emotion. The commissioner who decided the case said he wouldn’t want his own children near Kristine, but the law says judgments are made based on available evidence, not emotion.
Do you think the law should consider emotion, especially when deciding family matters?
Filed Under: As Seen On The Show
Comments
This is such s travesty. I cannot believe any judge in his right mind would go along with this. Anyone that has killed is likely to to this again if put into the same position or cir***stances. What is wrong with this judge or ex husband. I would think that in order for the killer to be free it should be understood she would have no contact with children. Is it worth the risk. I think not.
Yes, emotion should be considered
You can tell by reading the comments of Jacqueline below, that emotion is very relevant in our every day lives ~ it should be relavant in family law matters also ~ those decisions will effect the rest of the lives of the children and parents involved.
I know this case. I shared a class with one of the little girl victims in 1991 when it occurred. At the time, 8 year old Amy (Kristine's) 8 year old daughter was in my 2nd grade class, Mrs. Young's class, at Moulton Elementary in Laguna Niguel. I remember the Monday morning that our teacher announced the sad, sad tragedy, of our friend Amy, and her sister, killed by her mother as tears pored from her eyes. I remember it still like it was yesterday, a tragedy for me, my class, our school, an all who knew those girls. There was a tree planting ceremony in memory of them that year. I will never forget, how can this mom ever forgive herself, or her new husband ever trust her with his own children? As a new mom, myself (I have a 6 month old baby girl), it sickens me to think this woman (and many others out there) are let free, free to possibly commit a similar crime again. My poor school friend Amy, was never granted the pleasure of a long, prosperous life, to have a husband, and her own children. Yet her mother, who killed her and her sister IS granted this once again??? Motherhood is a precious gift from God. I miss you Amy and am thinking of you, peace be with you.
THANK YOU ANDERSON COOPER. I have been thinking and thinking everyday how can I make a difference when it comes to our court system and the issues of Child Custody. You bringing this issue to the forefront is a great start. Now, that people know, I am going to do my part and keep reminding them. I work for a Family Law Attorney and I literally get sick to my stomach. The 50/50 parenting puts thousands of dollars in the pockets of the attorneys and takes college funds away from the children. The non-parenting non-paying parent will fight till the end and spend thousands of dollars to avoid any responsibility and the 50/50 parenting makes it possible for this to happen over and over and over again. In almost every case that parent will never actually spend more than 2 days a month with their child if that and will most likely never provide any necessities to the child. The Justice System is broken, there needs to be a road block, a detour, we need to put this time and money back into the college funds of these children. These custody battles are leaving the actually parenting parents with little resources to provide for their children, if any, in most cases the non-parenting parent has more disposable income due to thier "NON-PARENING". Let's just put it this way...when you have two "ACTUALLY PARENTING" Parents who actually put their childs best intrest before their own self fulfilling desires... there will NEVER be a judge deciding their child's schedule. Let's stop rubbing it in our children's faces if they have a parent who would rather NOT be bothered. Stop forceing them to be with the kids and the kids to be with them. Give the Kids their child support and let them be with the people who love them. It's insane that we sentance our children to misery in order to avoid responsibility and our legal system has made it completely possible. There is so much more we can do. I would like to see a story about a judge who looses custody to his or her kids and those kids have to live with a convicted sex offender, tell me, do you think emotions will be involved? Do you think then... the laws may finally start to change. If there is a story like this please share. The guideline is do what is in the best intrest of the child... I don't know what planet our Judicial System has been deployed from; however, I know that on Earth in 2011 in the midst of Oxycontin, Heroin, Sex Offenders, or even just being around a lazy selfish pre-occupied non-parenting parent, can cause life altering effects and greately diminish the well being of the child.
So if Trish were to get on Prozac and kill Kristine she could plead that she was "temporarily insane", maybe from the stress of the kids being in the home with a child murderer, and get away with that and have her kids back. WHY DOES OUR GOVERNMENT NOT PROTECT THOSE WHO NEED IT? Oh that's right those type of people can't help buy them into office!
I completely agree, that I wouldn't want my children to even be allowed in the vicinity of this woman.
I think the husband, if he is so willing to 'forget' what she did, needs to have an examination, and determine WHAT he is thinking with?
This is preposterous.
Sue
In the sixties, a close friend killed her 5 children. Later, perhaps a year, an article in the newspaper described an Ohio mother of three who had killed her children. I read it due to my friend' experience. My friend killed herself at the Honolulu State Hospital. The horror of the story of the Ohio farmer's wife was that it was a repeat performance. She and her husband had three children. She killed them and claimed insanity. She was hospitzalized for 6-8 years, and returned to her husband. They had three more children and when they were around the same age as the previous three, she killed them. The mother who was on your show has joint custody with her husband who remarried his first wife, who killed their two children, has a right to be scared! You and I probably know many people on Prozac who have not killed their children. What if she is prescribed another medicine and has the same reaction/
Yes, emotion should be considered. As a mom of 3 boys I rely on my "mommy instincts" a lot. As a parent we are our children's advocate. How can anything involving your child not involve emotion. When I got divorce my biggest fear was that my exhusband would try and take my boys. It never happened but I prepared for it to. Kids are sponges and even you think they don't notice they do. My oldest was R when my husband left I found out 3 weeks ago he thought it was his fault this whole time.
I want to thank you for doing the story on custody battles. It is truly America’s best kept dirty little secret. As the media in the past has been informed that they were not allowed to cover the tragic epidemic occurring in family courts across the country, your piece along with recent episodes by Dr. Phil and some local news stations, will certainly help expose this segment of a truly out of control and ruthless judiciary.
I haven’t seen my only child since November 19, 2008. He is now with his father, a man with a history of domestic violence and child abuse. San Diego is particularly notorious for placing children with abusers. My case is typical.
There is a method to the court’s madness, and it all comes down to MONEY. There is an entire industry that has developed off the backs of these children---lawyers, minors’ counsels, psychological evaluators, CPS, etc., that profit enormously when custody is at issue. And the big jackpot---Title IV revenue to the states each time a child support order is enforced.
So why place the child(ren) with the dangerous parent? Because the protective parent, usually the mother, will continue to fight to protect their child(ren). These cases then become high-conflict cases and the so-called experts get called in. Who is ordered to pay? The litigants.
Psychological evaluations can run as high as $60...,000. The litigants have no say in who is appointed or what they are able to pay. It is run like a cartel. They are simply ordered to undergo these bogus evaluations and if they refuse, they lose custody. In California, many of these evaluators do not even have legitimate degrees. They purchase them from diploma mills on the internet.
The judges slothfully rubberstamp the reports of the minors’ counsels and the psychological evaluators. There is no due process for the family law litigant: no trial or evidentiary hearing; no right to question witnesses; no right to defend onesel****ainst false accusations; no financial hearing to determine ability to pay; no right to a jury; etc., etc..
Senator Nancy Schaefer died trying to expose the corruption: Youtube her speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdoS-JStH3k&feature=related
Also, Google the extremely informative PBS do***entary, Breaking the Silence.
Custody should always be 50/50, unless cir***stances warrant a departure from that arrangement. But 50/50 equals no money to be made by the players in this broken system. I have seen too many good parents severely harmed by family court.
this is crazy, i mean who's to say that she isn't messing with those kids heads, that's emotional abuse, and why is the father with her still, and allowing this???? what was the point in taking them from their REAL mom anyway, the scars that those kids are going to have just isn't right shame on the ruling, I mean they keep perverts and molesters away from kids, so why wouldn't they keep a MURDERER away???? this is unbelievable!
This story has really touched me. How can they allow those children to be with that woman. She should never be allowed to be around kids again. The father has to really have mental health issues to allow it. The law has to be changed.
I think that emotions should be considered to the point that it invalidates the legalism of family law. This is an ongoing problem with Family Court in that there is no reasonable statute or constitutional amendment to address these matters. That is why Family Court relies so much on case law, which is a violation of the first 3 articles of the constitution, yet case law is how emotions are dealt with.
When emotions become the stronger point of argument, the courts need to refer out to religious or secular counseling, for the sake of the family members.