mother denied custody over smoking?

Question

I've just read a report where a mother has been denied custody of her 6 yr old child because she smoked 20 a day(in the US). do you agree with this decision? do you think that she smoked cigarettes made her a bad mother
nb. the decision was taken after she quit.

the only illness attributed in the article to smoking was the occasional ear ache...... if you can believe it...

absolutely no mention of asthma or other conditions which may be smoking related

report was on yahooUK world news page: report in from sky news:

quote: But a judge said her son, Joel Jnr, should live with his father Joel after the pair split because she smoked.

re. the mother quote: The case is thought to be the first of its kind in the US. Former nurse Tammy Pierce was described as a "warm and loving" mother in court

Answer 1

Absolutely ridiculous! Smoking is bad, but it does not affect how you are as a mother and it certainly is no justification whatsoever for taking a child away from its mother! The world really has gone totally mad!

Answer 2

I have heard of cases like this before. Once in a local case a man was order not to smoke in his home, car, or around his child in a divorce. I am sure other issues played into the judges decision, or at least I would hope so. Smoking can be very damaging to a child's health. My son has asthma and if my husband and I ever divorce I would demand supervised visitation because he's not responsible enough to realize how harmful this is.

I think the crazy thing as that women who smoke crack while pregnant and then abuse the kids get there kids back way too often. If this custody decision was all about smoking there must have been a very conservative judge. The damage to the child's mental state is probably more of a long term risk than being with his mother who once smoked. Why don't we have jurys for these kind of trials?

Answer 3

The mother MUST put the child's interests and well being first however if she smokes outside away from the child how does her smoking have a impact upon her ability to be a mother. I cannot believe a decision was made purely on the fact she smoked, there must have been other factors that influenced the judge. My father smoked and it has had no ill effects on me or influence upon his skills as a dad. I am a smoker myself and make every effort to keep my flithy habbit to myself, I make a conscious effort not to smoke in front of children and non smokers. My husband (also a smoker) and I plan to have children next and we will give up smoking before we concieve and would never smoke in the presence of our children. Nothing makes me more angry than seeing a pregnant woman smoke or mothers of children in prams smoking however I'd never question their abilities as parents. If the decision was in the childs best interests then I support it but basing such an important decision on something as trivial as smoking is irresponsible, especially as the decision was taken after she had quit. I just hope the nanny state gone mad attitude of the US does not filter into British courts.

Answer 4

That poor woman! If I were her I would go for an appeal. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! What would the judge have done if both parents smoked? Smoking does not determine whether you are a bad parent and anyone who says so needs to take a closer look at these people. I smoke, my sisters smoke, most of my family smokes, but all our kids are perfectly normal and healthy. There are major family problems, and the only health related things are the occasional cold which every child gets. This judgement needs to be reassessed immediately.

Answer 5

If this decision is purely based on her nicotine habbit then it's pathetic. My mother smoked around me during my whole childhood (she thankfully gave up 6 years ago and has never looked back). My Mother's only 'crime' was smoking. Other than that she was and still is everything I could want in a mum. She's great. There's no denying that smoking around children can be harmful and any parent should try and not do it but the thought that I could have potentially been without my Mum for that reason alone and everything I would have missed out on makes me shudder.

Answer 6

If it was made after she quit, then she wasn't denied custody because she was a smoker.

It may have been made because the judge didn't feel she was serious in her commitment to quitting.

But yes, I believe that if a parent can't give up a habit that's potentially hazardous to the child's health, then they shouldn't have custody of the child.

Whether people like it or not, smoking is not just a "one-person" effect. The smoke harms the children, just as surely as putting a little bit of gin in their milk does. No, it doesn't make them high - but it's illegal to give it to the child.

Children of smokers have a higher rate of asthma and allergies. They are more prone to coughs and colds.

It's simply not good for them. If all else is equal between the mother and father, I have no problem with that being the deciding factor.

Added: Oh, well, gee, if it was only an occasional earache and the doctor had a Magic Eight Ball TM that could determine that child wouldn't develop something like COPD or asthma LATER in life, then that changes everything! Damn judge! WTH is he to say that woman doesn't have a right to exhale poison into her child's breathing space! Crazy activist judges, I tell ya - they'll be the death of selfishness!

Answer 7

I think its awful, especially as she had quit smoking, what else could she do? she cant turn back time! I feel sorry for the child. If she had carried on smoking regardless then i could see the judges point ( almost) but she made the effort just like any other mother would.

Answer 8

Actually, my brother-in-law and his ex have a daughter together. When ever my neice would come home from her moms, she would have an asthma attack from the smoke. I believe that if the court sees the issue as a hazard wether the mom is still smoking or the house is still "polluted" with the smell, it would be best for the child to be out of that situation.
Smoking doesn't make you a bad mom, but it isn't always condusive with having babies/kids around.

Answer 9

regrettably, our courtroom structures are not suitable. i do no longer comprehend something firsthand approximately Britney Spears, so i do no longer comprehend what as a remember of actuality. Neither she nor Kevin Federline look like stunning mom and dad, and that i could admit, she's behaved irrationally and badly, yet i discover it unusual that he already gets hundreds of dollars each month in toddler help while they share custody and that the 1st element he's doing once you have finished custody is choose for greater money. My precedence may be making particular the youngsters are ok, mentally and bodily. I bear in recommendations a courtroom case the place a father claimed some unproven situation (Parental Alienation sickness - the place one confirm so maligns the different confirm that it damages that confirm's courting with their toddlers). This sickness has on no account been shown even to be genuine, or perhaps notwithstanding if it is, it quite is close to impossible to coach if it occured, or what volume damages a toddler's view of their confirm. besides, the daddy claimed his toddlers suffered from it, and became presented finished custody of his toddlers. Months later, it became stumbled on the daddy and his new spouse have been the two sexually abusing the youngsters and forcing them to do the comparable with one yet another. for sure, there is severe flaws in our courtroom gadget. It in simple terms would not continually artwork. i'm no longer asserting it on no account works. notwithstanding, it is achievable for a mom to lose custody while it quite is not deserved (in simple terms because it is for a father). I understand what you're asserting...and particular, a number of Britney's habit it quite is definate is in simple terms stupid for anybody dealing with a custody conflict. My project is that we don't hear as lots approximately what her ex became doing, by way of fact he's not in all risk of any remember to the universal public eye different than with reference to his ex-spouse. there have been rumors of his involvement in drug and alcohol use as nicely, and that they have been the two ordered to flow to parenting training. i think of the courts could have taken the youngsters away into the custody of the courts till the two mom and dad get their acts jointly, by way of fact the only element i'm seeing is one appearing out and the different putting on an act. BTW, this guy wasn't almost as conscious of his different 2 toddlers, and he did no longer even want joint custody of those 2. they're the two quite undesirable examples.

Answer 10

If she's quit then the decision is ridiculous and there is no grounds for denying custody due to the person being a smoker if they no longer smoke.
If she was still smoking I can understand, because the child could be exposed to harmful cigarette smoke etc, but since she's quit, I don't see the problem.
Only in America !!!! .