The phrase “best interests of the children” becomes meaningless when courts use it to justify ripping children from stability while refusing to meaningfully test the evidence. If Mineo is safe, prove it through witnesses, records, cross-examination, child interviews, expert testimony, and a real evidentiary hearing. If the mother is supposedly the problem, prove that too. But do not run a California family-court lab experiment on two small kids because a shark lawyer says “alienation” loudly enough. Volpe is right to invoke the Rucki warnings and forced-reunification disasters. Children are not chess pieces. Grandparents should not become a bridge to an alleged abuser because a judge wants to force a relationship back into existence.
The court knows that this is lunacy, and that's why it is threatening to send the kids to the grandparents and not to Bryan. They know it will be a disaster, and the grandparents are a buffer.
If a child is in fear of a parent, the judge should look at the evidence. I had a judge in Texas back in the 1980's who upon request talked to my 2 daughters in his chambers with his clerk present. The girls were 6 & 4 years old. They had no problem telling the judge what they saw and what they wanted. Judges should be required to visit with the kids upon request. Kids are very smart and should be listened to by the judge who is the finder of facts. When a judge refuses to look at the evidence, they should not be on the bench. This mom has made the kids available but there are serious problems with the behavior of the father towards the kids which causes the kids not to want to go stay with him. If a parent is not consistent, loving and patient with the kids, they will not want to be with that parent. It's the parent that is the problem, not the kids.
There's no way this judge will hear testimony from a 5 and 6 year old, however, she, the judge, has made up her mind on what is happening and she's arranging the facts to fit her narrative.
He had custody time. He didn't always exercise it, but obviously he had custody time since they are debating exchanges which couldn't occur due to the children's fear of him.
The children are five and six years old. He's had plenty of opportunities to bond. Maybe, if he didn't break his daughter's leg and feed her dirt, he'd bond better.
The phrase “best interests of the children” becomes meaningless when courts use it to justify ripping children from stability while refusing to meaningfully test the evidence. If Mineo is safe, prove it through witnesses, records, cross-examination, child interviews, expert testimony, and a real evidentiary hearing. If the mother is supposedly the problem, prove that too. But do not run a California family-court lab experiment on two small kids because a shark lawyer says “alienation” loudly enough. Volpe is right to invoke the Rucki warnings and forced-reunification disasters. Children are not chess pieces. Grandparents should not become a bridge to an alleged abuser because a judge wants to force a relationship back into existence.
The court knows that this is lunacy, and that's why it is threatening to send the kids to the grandparents and not to Bryan. They know it will be a disaster, and the grandparents are a buffer.
If a child is in fear of a parent, the judge should look at the evidence. I had a judge in Texas back in the 1980's who upon request talked to my 2 daughters in his chambers with his clerk present. The girls were 6 & 4 years old. They had no problem telling the judge what they saw and what they wanted. Judges should be required to visit with the kids upon request. Kids are very smart and should be listened to by the judge who is the finder of facts. When a judge refuses to look at the evidence, they should not be on the bench. This mom has made the kids available but there are serious problems with the behavior of the father towards the kids which causes the kids not to want to go stay with him. If a parent is not consistent, loving and patient with the kids, they will not want to be with that parent. It's the parent that is the problem, not the kids.
There's no way this judge will hear testimony from a 5 and 6 year old, however, she, the judge, has made up her mind on what is happening and she's arranging the facts to fit her narrative.
Was the father not allowed to see his children ? Maybe he was “gallivanting around” since he could not see them anyway?
He had custody time. He didn't always exercise it, but obviously he had custody time since they are debating exchanges which couldn't occur due to the children's fear of him.
I guess I am always unsure of how reliable "fear of him" claims are. Were the children coached? Was he given opportunity to bond?
The children are five and six years old. He's had plenty of opportunities to bond. Maybe, if he didn't break his daughter's leg and feed her dirt, he'd bond better.
Oh gee! Guess I don't know the story!
That was mentioned in the article.