Man gets custody of child because mother is smoker. What do you think?

Question

In a recent newspaper article, a father received custody of his child instead of the mother. The father lives in Ohio, the mother in Florida with her boyfriend. Both provided loving homes and equal incomes and had before been on a month by month basis, but the child needed to attend school and have a permanent address. So all other things being equal, the father was awarded custody because the mother and boyfriend smoked and this was affecting the childs health for example ear infections and respiratory problems. This was discussed in my college class and everyone was mad, one girl walked out. What do you think?

Answer 1

It is illegal in most States for parents to intentionally commit acts that harm their children. If there is documented evidence that the mother's home was unhealthy and unsafe for the child, then the father would be given custody. Sometimes in this type of scenario, the Department of Social Services or Department of Family and Youth Services gets involved if the parents' actions are causing health problems for their children. The mother may have been given a chance to rectify the problem and chose not to do so. Either way, there was apparently evidence that the environment was harming the child. By ignoring her responsibility to ensure her child's health and welfare, the mother was negligent under the law. There is sufficient existing evidence right now that second hand smoke causes respiratory infections and cancer. The mother intentionally harmed the child by not changing the environment in the child's best interest. In the scenario you described, the Court definitely made the right decision and there is enough case law to support the court's decision, that the mother probably won't get visitation in her home until she proves there is no smoking in her home. Often if there is a dispute over child custody, the court will appoint a guardian ad litem who's sole purpose is to represent the child and make sure the child's best interest is met. The guardian ad litem will look at all evidence in the case and will interview both parents, the child, and any witnesses to the situation. Based on all that, the guardian ad litem makes a decision based on what is best for the child. For obvious reasons, living in a smoky environment is not in the child's best interest.

As for your classmates who got angry, with one girl walking out... it's important to remember that this sort of case is based in law and the only way to approach it is with an understanding of the law. There is no room for emotional responses where the law is concerned. Letting one's emotions rule one's thinking does nothing for the client, nor the child who in this instance was neglected by the mother. It is important to develop logical progression of thought as a young adult, and logical thinking is invaluable in business, whether in law or otherwise as you go through life. Think of it this way. If everyone in the courtroom had gotten angry and walked out, how would the child have been helped? Judges and juries are not fools. Judges are educated, and jurors are not easily fooled. That is one of the reasons why the American judicial system works so well. But in order for it to work so well, people must adhere to the rule of law, and cannot do that if they give in to emotions and anger. Attorneys channel their anger and emotons into writing legal briefs that can convince the court to decide in their favor. Or they work at excelling in the court room and making convincing arguments on behalf of their clients so the court will decide in their favor. Anyway, good luck in college, and don't get sucked into letting emotions rule your thinking.

Answer 2

The whole story is not being reported, there had to be something else. They can also dredge up things from the past, even the way past. The media puts up a frenzy about some things just to get a story out. Also, the mother could have said she would stop smoking, then what would they have one her? They must have had something else on her or on the boyfriend whether currently or in the past. I have heard of a father who did not get his child because of a past dui when he was 19, before the child was even born. The child went to another family member because the mother was in and out of jail. The father did not get the child because of a past thing brought up in court.

Answer 3

I think based on the information you provided, i believe that the judge made the right call. At first glance, it may have appeared that both parents were in similar situations but the fact that the environment the mother provided hurt the child made the ruling in the case a no brainer.

Answer 4

Sole custody is not any touch with the opposite dad or mum. You can nonetheless obtain baby aid with sole custody. The first step is that if you're permitting visitation is to simply have supervised visitation. This will also be performed at certain amenities or in a few instances with a relative. I could mostly hinder the relative obstacle if in any respect feasible. You have got to acquire any documentation you'll get your palms on involving his drug utilization and any previous drug fees. If you so occur to have any evidence he has failed a drug scan or something else written keep directly to that too. Also, you have got to ask the pass judgement on to your ex to put up a drug scan to the court docket. I could persue sole custody on this case mainly if you understand he presently could fail a drug scan. DO NOT LET HIM BE ALONE WITH THE KIDS FOR ANY REASON. It will harm your case.

Answer 5

I think the judge made a decision based on the facts he was presented. If that was the only factor that differintiated the two homes, good for the judge. If the losing parent cares that much about seeing hte child, then he/she should move closer. Sometimes one must give up a little for the best of the child.

Answer 6

Awesome.
Just recently I found a picture, in which my Mom was holding my baby sis (who died from SIDS) in one arm while playing mahjong. I could clearly see each person at that table smoking- except for my Mom and the baby. Apparently those people where always smoking like that in that room.... windows closed, because it was winter- every time they played mahjong. They played like that for hours at a time. My sis was born on December 5 ....... and my Dad found her blue in the face on January 16 in her crib, early in the morning. I am convinced it had something to do with the exposure. Way back then people had no idea about the effect of secondhand smoking.
Awesome ruling! I call it a King Solomon ruling..... for the sake of the kid.

Answer 7

It depends if the mother and her boyfriend were smoking in around the child. Then this is dangerous it could cause him problems like second hand smoke. Which causes lung cancer. but if they were smoking outside where the child was not close than I think the judge needs to review this case.

Answer 8

If someone is so selfish that they can't put the interests of their child ahead of theirs, they should forfeit their parental rights.

Bravo to the father who fought the system and social "norms" that the mother should always have parental custody... we're talking about the child's HEALTH for crying out loud!

Jeers to anyone who disagrees :)~

Answer 9

If the child's doctor testified that the child was suffering from health issues due to exposure to second hand smoke why would anyone be mad that the child was removed from it?

Answer 10

I think the right decision was made. Why on earth would anybody get mad if the child was taken out of a home where they constantly around something that made them sick?!