Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NC woman with breast cancer loses custody of her children

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jannino
    replied
    What makes you think the judge took this decision lightly? What makes you more qualified than the judge to make the decision?

    MG108 has taken the time to put this into a completely different perspective and I agree with him.

    The judge is to look out for the welfare of the kids not the mother. The mother may want the kids, but they are simply too much responsibility for her at this time. You can't expect the judge to allow the mother to pawn the kids off on others when there is a perfectly capable father around.

    Leave a comment:


  • onebippu
    replied
    this judge is an idiot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Justsaying
    replied
    Very sad for the mother and children. Taking the children will hurt her recovery, she needs them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chaplain Keppy
    replied
    There's a lot about this mother that sounds very selfish, and it is clear she has a history of bad decision-making. One can only hope that the judge is indeed taking the totality of the picture into consideration AND that the judge is an acute judge of human nature so unlikely to be fooled by posturing from any party involved.

    Incidentally, do not take anything I have said to be an indication that I believe the child's job is to stay with the mom so the mom will die later rather than sooner. That is NOT what I am trying to say (although I do believe having her children removed against their will could have a negative effect on the mother's health).

    What I am trying to say is that whether this is a good mother with a fine track record, or a bad mother with a rotten track record, it appears she and the children have little time left to relate to one another. She is the only mother they have, and they will carry their memories of their part in her dying for the rest of their lives. The ability for them to be there with her, the ability to be able to help her in some ways, may be extremely important FOR THEM in the long run.

    They may not even know enough to know that she's not been a very good mother. And they probably do love her, whether or not she is deserving of it, or deserving of them. So being able to be with her may be very important to them, and I am not willing to write off what they say, even if in this case they were set up by being asked in front of her.

    I hope that wherever they are, they are getting good support and help to process what is happening in their lives.
    Last edited by Chaplain Keppy; 05-26-2011, 04:42 PM. Reason: typo

    Leave a comment:


  • willowdared
    replied
    It's the judge's job to consider the totality of circumstances. Seems to be what this judge did here. As for what the kids said, I think most judges take that into consideration, but it's not the only factor to be considered. Do you really think a tweenage girl is going to say on national tv that she wants to go with dad with mom sitting right next to her?

    It is not your child's job to stay with you so that you die later rather then sooner...it's your job to make sure they feel safe and secure and have consistency.

    She did not lose custody of her kids because of cancer, she lost primary custody because she has demonstrated poor judgement. That she has used her cancer in an effort to get primary custody back...and cast aspersions on the judge by saying that she's not qualified to decide since she is childless suggests she may also have some character issues as well.

    While Giordano's case has won her national sympathy, court documents show neither of the children's parents have been angels. They got into an altercation and both spent the night in jail.

    But, Giordano has more strikes against her. Her ex-husband was able to land a job in Chicago and find a house in a good school district, while Girodano is unemployed and facing ongoing cancer treatment.

    She also confessed to having an adulterous relationship, and spending days out of state with a married man while her children were with their grandparents.

    On another occasion, court documents show Giordano did not make suitable arrangements for her children on a day a doctor told her she was going to be admitted to the hospital.

    The documents say she took her children with her to Duke Hospital.

    To avoid calling child protective services, a doctor took the children home with her. The doctor called it a crisis, and Giordano called it a great opportunity for the children to get to know the person treating their mother.

    Finally, when the children were visiting their father, Giordano failed to send her son's epinephrine pen. She wrote that shows she has difficulty separating her anger from the well-being of her children.

    However, the judge did state she could get 50 percent custody if she moves to Chicago.

    That's something Giordano is unwilling to do.

    "It really would be dangerous for me to move away from my support system and my medical team," Giordano said in a previous interview..

    Currently, a United Airline's flight attendant is offering buddy passes so Giordano can fly to see her children.

    She's also seen hundreds of dollars pledged to help with medical and legal bills.

    Leave a comment:


  • MG108
    replied
    Originally posted by Chaplain Keppy View Post
    You've made some interesting points, MG108, and as good a case as can be made for it, I think.

    However, the kids stated they wanted to be with their mother-- and that is all the more important if they do not have much time to be there. If I were in the kids' shoes, wanting to be with Mom and Dad forcing me to be with him, I believe it would get my feelings about Dad and home with Dad to a very rocky start. At the very foundation of my new home would be a resentment that I think would always color my feelings.
    My 11 y/o will say whatever she thinks my ex-wife or I wants to hear. When she's with me, she wants to be with me. When she's over there, she tells her mom the same thing. The reality is she doesn't want us divorced and also doesn't want to upset us.

    I suspect that because of the mother's condition, the 11 y/o is doing most of the caretaker work for the 5 y/o. I'd guess she feeds her the bulk of the time, dresses her and showers her. On top of that, she's undoubtedly heard the mother complain about what the kids leaving would do to her health. Guess what an 11 y/o will say if the mother says: "If you leave, I will die. Who do you want to stay with?" Having the court place her in the fathers home will probably bring a huge amount of relief as she changes roles from caretaker of 5 y/o to just a 11 y/o child again. I'm sure she wants to see her mom as much as possible and would never say anything to hurt her but I am not convinced she wants to live there based on questions asked in front of mom. I'd bet the answer given to the judge and guardian ad litem was not so straightforward and was wrought with conflict and guilt.

    If her disease were alcoholism instead of cancer, and she spent 20 hours in bed and intoxicated, there would not be any sympathy for her if the working father with stable home and income was granted custody. Alcohol has choices involved, unlike cancer, and that's why our sympathies are different, but the ability to care for and provide for the children is exactly the same. She has a very serious condition that has a very poor prognosis for recovery. The cancer has progressed to her bones which undoubtedly means she is/will be on very strong pain medications.

    Best case scenario would be both parents working together to give the kids as much support as possible, and as much stability as possible.
    that's true. I hope they do that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chaplain Keppy
    replied
    You've made some interesting points, MG108, and as good a case as can be made for it, I think.

    However, the kids stated they wanted to be with their mother-- and that is all the more important if they do not have much time to be there. If I were in the kids' shoes, wanting to be with Mom and Dad forcing me to be with him, I believe it would get my feelings about Dad and home with Dad to a very rocky start. At the very foundation of my new home would be a resentment that I think would always color my feelings.

    Best case scenario would be both parents working together to give the kids as much support as possible, and as much stability as possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • MG108
    replied
    I am going to be play devils advocate here as I agree with the judge.
    1). Stage 4 cancer is extremely ill. it's so serious that the person diagnosed needs care and can't be expected to be a caregiver to children. That means the choice of caretaker of the children is either father or the mother's childcare provider. Almost always, the courts will give custody to a parent over childcare.
    2). In the event the mother dies from this, the father would get sole custody anyway. The trauma of losing their mother while at the same time being given custody to a parent they aren't familiar with would be a double blow to their psyche. It would be much better for them to have a close and stable relationship with their father that doesn't change as they deal with the death of their mother. In the event the mother dies, the father should be their stable rock, not a strange place they rarely visit and then forced to move to after the funeral.

    Put yourself in the fathers shoes. You have visitation. You learn your ex-spouse has cancer and is spending more and more time in chemo and bed unable to care personally for the children. your ex-spouse is getting worse, the children are spending more time in childcare. your ex-spouse is fighting your request to take the children while they battle cancer. The children are faced with the prospect of losing the only home they know and their custodial parent at the same time. you are offering them a home that will be there regardless of the outcome of your ex-spouse and are providing parental stability in this time of distress. to me it's kind of selfish to force the kids to face losing their home and parent at the same time when there is a reasonable alternative of living with the other parent.

    Of course the mother should have as much visitation as possible. The needs of the children come first though and currently the father offers more stability and care. In this case, the mother isn't being "punished." The change in custody is all about the best interest of the children, not removing them from a bad parent. All other things being equal, I think the judge made a proper but difficult decision.

    Leave a comment:


  • ARSONCOP
    replied
    He Stole my idea.......LOL

    I believe that a strong mental attitude will heal you faster and stronger than just laying in a hospital bed. (being 20 years old helped too)

    Leave a comment:


  • Chaplain Keppy
    replied
    Originally posted by ARSONCOP View Post
    I am a walking testamant to the power of the mind when dealing with medical problems. I have seen healty men give up and die in a few days when they mentally give up. Due to my positive outlook my Dr. gave me 18 months of chemo in 9 because of a good attitude. (could have killed him when I found out)

    I hope there is more to this story than we are seeing because the loss of her children will just accelerate the process if this is the case.
    There is a very interesting book, "Getting Well Again",http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...+carl+simonton that addresses the emotional/mental component of healing in a very compelling way.

    Leave a comment:


  • willowdared
    replied
    Seems like there may be more to the story (isn't there always?)...I also thought this was not a case of her losing custody as it was which parent would have primary custody....they still have shared custody.

    Additional information on the decision in this article.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?se...cal&id=8127895

    Leave a comment:


  • Seventy2002
    replied
    Originally posted by DACP View Post
    There has to be more to this story, there has to be.
    Of course there is. The story linked to above says it was all about the cancer. This story says the judge cited "both Giordano’s health and unemployment as factors" .
    Since Dad isn't talking, the reporters are just taking dictation from Mom.

    Leave a comment:


  • ARSONCOP
    replied
    Originally posted by Chaplain Keppy View Post
    Studies have shown that the mental/emotional state of depression slows or shuts down the immune system. That second boss really kicked her when she was already down.
    I am a walking testamant to the power of the mind when dealing with medical problems. I have seen healty men give up and die in a few days when they mentally give up. Due to my positive outlook my Dr. gave me 18 months of chemo in 9 because of a good attitude. (could have killed him when I found out)

    I hope there is more to this story than we are seeing because the loss of her children will just accelerate the process if this is the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smurfette_76
    replied
    Originally posted by HeadDoc View Post
    The problem is that we don't really know all of the story. For all we know, she may be a rotten mother and the ruling didn't really have much to do with the cancer. Yes, the judge made one statement that sounds pretty bad, but we don't have the whole context.
    Headdoc, her entire ruling is available to read. She mentions later that the mother isn't employed, but it's not the focus of her statement.

    NG, she does have family assisting her.

    Leave a comment:


  • needguidance
    replied
    Originally posted by Trauma1 View Post
    I too, think there's some essential info missing from this. But, I think it's horrible to remove the children when the mom is so sick. She's fighting for her life, and if she loses that battle, the little time she may have left should be spent with the children.
    Absolutely..it is too bad her husband moved so far away or she doesn't have a family member to take care of her and the kids. Having taken care of family members in this situation they do not need the stress of having to go it alone. How horrible that must be...double whammy!

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 3987 users online. 257 members and 3730 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X