Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Epilepsy / February 2007
Legal to take baby away from mom with epilepsy?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
babyT - 07 Feb 2007 13:54 GMT There is a legal battle happening in Texas.
While the young mother has mild epilepsy, in which for many months with medication - she has not had seizures... A man is using this as one of the reasons he should have her baby, including bipolar.
Keep in mind of these important fact from nightmare:
- The man is not the father, and in fact blackmailed the mother to sign papers.
- He has taken her to court to terminate her rights and continues to do so today.
- with harassment and abusive behavior, he continues to use epilepsy problem against her.
- Because of hack of funds for a lawyer, its a good reason why she can't afford her own son, I guessing is their angle (the guy and his lawyer). Never mind the legal bills that have piled up sure doesn't help her situation.
Who has lost their child because they, the parent have epilepsy?
Isn't this disability discrimination?
Please look at her website, video, audio and details from this horrible situation. It's www.curethecourts.com
Life is already hard, and it just keeps piling on.
Robert A. Fink, M. D. - 08 Feb 2007 00:24 GMT >There is a legal battle happening in Texas. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Life is already hard, and it just keeps piling on. If the mother's epilepsy is controlled and there are no other problems, there is no reason why she should not be able to have or share custody of her child. I suspect that there is information missing from what has been provided thusfar.
Where is the biological father in this case?
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M. D., President California Parents United, Inc.
"The best parent is both parents...."
babyT - 08 Feb 2007 10:11 GMT >>There is a legal battle happening in Texas. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Where is the biological father in this case?
>Bob > >Robert A. Fink, M. D., President >California Parents United, Inc. Since being on her medication, she has not had any seizures. "Sharing" custody with the non biological is not an option as this person continues to attack and remove her son. Even so much as to write down in medical applications that he himself is the "father" and not use the childs real last name.
The medical conditions are used more as a means to get what he wants, take not that this person has no biological relationship with the child nor ever married to the mother.
The biological father is in another state, he does send what money he can to the mother and has shown up in court for support when possible.
Robert A. Fink, M. D. - 08 Feb 2007 22:53 GMT >>>There is a legal battle happening in Texas. >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >The biological father is in another state, he does send what money he >can to the mother and has shown up in court for support when possible. If what has been reported is the total story, then it would appear to me that the mother should demand custody from the court. If the biological father is willing, he should also get involved in the legal action, as the biological parents have precedence than does a "stranger" (the person who is claiming custody).
The mother needs a good lawyer. If she prevails in court (which she should), the blackmailer should wind up being ordered to pay the legal costs.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M. D., President California Parents United, Inc.
"The best parent is both parents...."
babyT - 14 Feb 2007 07:20 GMT >>> EDITED OUT > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >should), the blackmailer should wind up being ordered to pay the legal >costs. Theres a bit more than what is on the website - but its mostly the continued on-going of this guy attacking the mother. When he's filled out medical application (such as a doctors' office) - He put himself as the "Father" and didn't use the baby's real name.
He has put down both the mother and baby as his "dependents" for the IRS (Thats another story)
The court doesn't want to deal with her until she has a lawyer (for the most part), the social study done - which she will fail at this time. (which she may have a new job soon) and a Certified blood test that the enemy's lawyer has demanded ($600) rather than the $75 one. Even thou the Judge, the baby's lawyer and her previous lawyer would have accepted... oh, and until she has paid her half for the court- appointed lawyer for the baby. So she still needs about $2000 to pay for this?
The court should have PUT this on the non-biological to PAY for this! Then again, he blames her for all his troubles?
And yes, the father has been to a most court hearings... but apparently in Texas, that wasn't enough (He traveled out of state).
She's is emotionally drained... and in a weaken state due to the continued stress of dealing with the person. The emails, the phone calls, the stalking, the blackmail "Give up the baby, and I won't sue you for my court costs & child-support", etc etc.
Legal aid doesn't want to get into this because its "too complex".
She has not had peace with her son... its very sicking.
partials - 14 Feb 2007 13:53 GMT >>>> EDITED OUT >>> The medical conditions are used more as a means to get what he wants, > > Theres a bit more than what is on the website - but its mostly the <snip> It's been very difficult to find any justification for posting this story to an epilepsy support group.
Robert A. Fink, M. D. - 15 Feb 2007 16:43 GMT >It's been very difficult to find any justification for posting this story to an >epilepsy support group. I think that the benefit of having such things on an epilepsy group is the point that if epilepsy is controlled, the mere fact of the diagnosis should not render a parent unfit to care for a child.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M. D. Neurological Surgery 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA 510-849-2555
********************************** NOTE: The material above is not "medical advice". Medical advice can only be given after an in-person contact between doctor and patient. **********************************
partials - 15 Feb 2007 18:32 GMT >> It's been very difficult to find any justification for posting this story to an >> epilepsy support group. > > I think that the benefit of having such things on an epilepsy group is > the point that if epilepsy is controlled, the mere fact of the > diagnosis should not render a parent unfit to care for a child. Then I failed to communicate and am forced to be more explicit. The only place that the epilepsy issue has been brought up is in this newsgroup!
If there is any mention of epilepsy on that website, it must be well hidden, as a search of every page on the site fails to find any mention of epilepsy as part of the story there. It's apparently a story that is given to this group only. Have we been told what type of epilepsy is involved as is customary here? No! Have we had a description of any of the seizures? No! Have we been told which drugs and in what amount are being taken? No! Do we actually have any credible evidence that the woman has epilepsy? No!
So why was it posted in an epilepsy support group? To play on our sympathies and emotions and con us out of our money? There are so many worthy charities that are deserving of our donations that it makes no sense to fall for what looks like yet another internet scam.
Robert A. Fink, M. D. - 15 Feb 2007 22:28 GMT >So why was it posted in an epilepsy support group? To play on our sympathies and >emotions and con us out of our money? There are so many worthy charities that >are deserving of our donations that it makes no sense to fall for what looks >like yet another internet scam. Money? Where did I see reference to money? The initial post (to which I responded) asserted that the mother had seizures and that the individual who was trying to secure custody of the child was alleging that the diagnosis of a seizure disorder indicated that the mother could not take care of the child (and thus, the custody should revert to him).
Here is a portion of the original posting:
>There is a legal battle happening in Texas. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >- with harassment and abusive behavior, he continues to use epilepsy >problem against her. I have seen a number of cases where allegations of this type were made (both regarding mothers and fathers) in order to take advantage of the custody system; and I have actually served as an evaluator in one such case. If an individual's seizures are under control, there is no reason that epilepsy should prevent them from caring for a child.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M. D. Neurological Surgery 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA 510-849-2555
********************************** NOTE: The material above is not "medical advice". Medical advice can only be given after an in-person contact between doctor and patient. **********************************
partials - 15 Feb 2007 23:07 GMT >> So why was it posted in an epilepsy support group? To play on our sympathies and >> emotions and con us out of our money? There are so many worthy charities that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > could not take care of the child (and thus, the custody should revert > to him). It's all about money! You must not have looked at their website that was listed in that first post. It's a website that gives only one side of the story and is long on rhetoric and short on facts. You won't find epilepsy mentioned there. Take a look and you'll see what I was talking about.
Robert A. Fink, M. D. - 17 Feb 2007 00:32 GMT >It's all about money! You must not have looked at their website that was listed >in that first post. It's a website that gives only one side of the story and is >long on rhetoric and short on facts. You won't find epilepsy mentioned there. >Take a look and you'll see what I was talking about. It was posted as an issue about epilepsy, and on an epilepsy Newsgroup. Seems appropriate to respond to an epilepsy issue on an epilepsy Newsgroup.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M. D. Neurological Surgery 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA 510-849-2555
********************************** NOTE: The material above is not "medical advice". Medical advice can only be given after an in-person contact between doctor and patient. **********************************
partials - 17 Feb 2007 01:31 GMT >> It's all about money! You must not have looked at their website that was listed >> in that first post. It's a website that gives only one side of the story and is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Newsgroup. Seems appropriate to respond to an epilepsy issue on an > epilepsy Newsgroup. You lost me there.
Some.1.Who.knows@gmail.com - 25 Feb 2007 06:20 GMT The following conversation took place on the evening of January 21, without the knowledge of "babyT," who is referred to below as "Dono" or "Donovan" Unlike him, I have too much class to mention his last name or where he lives. This is being posted to all the groups Donovan has spammed this message to:
"Cobb" is the baby's court appointed lawyer (appointed because the Judge found that katie was not acting in the baby's best interest, and that law holds that a non-biological parent such as Roger could not be, by definition,) "Weatherspoon" is Roger's lawyer. "Scott" is the alleged biological father, and "Carolyn" is Donovan's mommy, who he still lives with:
katie: Feel free to forward this to Cobb and/or Witherspoon. katie: My opening offer is that you have primary of Michael, because I cant do it. Ive tried, and I just cant, not until I go back to school. Roger: I'll need you to respond to confirm that this was a conversation we actually had, and not something I made up katie: That's fine. katie: In fact, I was just finishing drafting a response to your request for an opening offer. katie: Just havent sent it yet. Roger: I will review it, and Scott's, and then rspond katie: I got accepted, despite my student loan issue, into a college in California. Roger: when are you thinking this should happen? katie: And I don't think I should take Michael there with me. Roger: I don't think you'd be *allowed* katie: Because the room Im renting, while I can fall back on the dorms if its just me, they are not family dorms, which would leave Michael in a too unstable situation. Roger: ...not to mention walking out on your current lease... katie: No, the lease is up March first, and is paid through till then. katie: My lease is fine. Roger: tim came through one last time, huh? katie: No, Roger. I just cut them a deal. Roger: an eight month lease is unusual katie: Went in and told them of my options. katie: And they helped me out. Roger: so, when is all this happening? katie: Tinisha is very fond of Michael, and wants what is best for him. Roger: no, wait -- put it in the email -- have you contacted scott and let him know he'll need to "put in an appearance for the record" at least? katie: Scott is fully aware of my options and my plans. katie: He's not totally happy about it. katie: But he's aware. katie: In the interest of not having to deal with you, he has given me permission to negotiate on his behalf. katie: But I will cc him anyway, just so there is no doubt that Im working behind his back. Roger: I'll need to see that in a format which Mr. Cobb will have to approve -- I'm *not* going to have him coming back later and trying to claim anyone was coerced or anything katie: Stepping back from Donovan's prejudices (and Carolyn's as well), I realize that I have been allowing my feelings for Donovan to give him a means by which to thrust his very one-sided views upon me. To make him happy, I took the same stance that he did, even though it was not terribly fair, and for that, I apologize. Roger: < surprized > Roger: I'll be damned, she *can* successfully self-examine Roger: proud of you katie: I'm going to lose Donovan as a friend for going through with this, and this has been the hardest decision I have ever had to make. katie: But Michael needs a primary who can give him everything. Roger: do not think that you pain pleases me in any way Roger: your pain* katie: And he needs his OTHER two parents to be in regular communication with him. Roger: well, if scott cannot unbend enough to even talk to me ... katie: His emotions are in too much turmoil just now, Roger. Roger: but as you know, I never unreasonably restricted your access to Micah katie: I broke it off with Scott because a similar self-examination revealed that I was marrying him for all the wrong reasons, and that once back in Oklahoma, I would never be able to get away. katie: Never be able to better Michael's life. katie: So in Scott's eyes, he is now losing both me and Michael all at once. Roger: as I said -- proud of you katie: He hasnt gotten to the numb stage yet. Roger: so: when? katie: As soon as we can complete negotiations on visitation and the like. katie: Since Michael is not school aged, yet, I would like to think that Scott can see him more during the year, and I can see him for a month in the summer, when I am off school. Roger: once again -- if scott cannot unbend far enough to even talk... katie: Roger, please look past that long enough to realise there are ways of working around that. katie: When we couldnt talk, we agreed on FLP. And cc: the guardian ad lidem. Roger: attorney ad litem, but anyway katie: Right. katie: Alright, my official response to your request for an opening statement is sent. katie: Ive spent the last two nights terribly depressed, and the night before last I was hysterical... Roger: once Mr Cobb has told us what scott needs to do to make the negotiation binding (and I have had time to think) I will respond katie: Im going to need the assistance that Cali state programs can afford. katie: Fair enough. Roger: get back on your meds and stay there, please? katie: It mostly just says that Im offering you primary, and the three main concerns I have. katie: Ive actually been on my meds since July
Wait a minute, katie. Didn't you tell the court you had always and would always be on your meds? Isn't that part of why your appeal of Roger having been awarded custody prevailed in January of 2006? Didn't you also at that time explicitly deny ever having had epilepsy? And didn't you *just* tell Mr. Cobb that the reason you didn't answer the door when Roger recently came to take Michael to the doctor (something you said he was going to need to do because you couldn't) was because you were having an epileptic fit?
katie: Nice program here in xxxx called Lifepath Systems.
Again, that class thing
Roger: then the meanness was all dono's influence? katie: Yeah. katie: You saw how well we could communicate when we dropped all pretense of fighting in court. Roger: ... or when you kept tellling him to butt out Roger: < sad smile > katie: (Which usually ended in a personal fight after you left.) katie: -sigh- Roger: as if this was supposed to be a surprize katie: I want to have all this wrapped up by Thursday, Feb 15. katie: Tim loaded 500 dollars airline cash for me to get out to Cali on... Way too much, but it will last for a year, so I can fly into Dallas to see Michael sometimes.
But Tim *didn't* loan you that money, did he? That was money you got by agreeing to fly to Mexico with him as his "paid traveling companion" and not telling his wife for the third? fourth? time.
You waited until the ticket had been bought in your name (which means the voucher you got when it was returned was in your name, too) and *then* pretended to be shocked that he was going to want sex (as if that hadn't happened any of the other times) as a way to cancel the trip.
katie: Donovan isnt fully aware of my plans as of yet. katie: He knows Ive been considering it. katie: But I dont want to lose him as a friend until this all actually happens.
Not to mention as the person you are sleeping with "for lack of anything better."
Okay, the class mask has slipped a little.
katie: -pokes herself in the temple- Roger: I have no intention of encountering him under any circumstances, either before or after katie: Regarding furnature, is he in a bed yet at your place? katie: Or still the crib from that charity? Roger: he is in his crib -- there are plans for bunk beds so (Roger's other son) and I don't have to keep rearranging the nursery when he overnights -- obviously there will be some of them rails on the lower bunk when Micah moves into it katie: I guess what Im asking is, how much of Michael's furnature here would you need/ katie: / katie: ? Roger: however, since I have only been having him a day or two at a time, I have not bothered to have a complete wardrobe for him (altho that shopping was being planned against your "mediation" email bearing the fruit I hoped) katie: He has a matching dresser, bed, and changing table... katie: And of course you could have his full wardrobe from here. Roger: you would ebay what I don't take, I suppose? katie: Probably goodwill, to be honest. katie: Or you could goodwill the extra if you wanted the extra money. Roger: eh -- let's get it all over here, I'll ebay it and eat the fees and forward the rest to you katie: My bedroom set is looking to be ebayed. katie: Unless you want to buy it off me. katie: Good mahogany bedroom set. katie: Big dresser, nightstand, and four poster bed. Roger: I'd have to see it, of course -- I don't suppose tonite would work for that? katie: Orthopedic queen sized matress set. Roger: what did you pay for it? katie: In the interest of not pissing off Donovan, let me take pics and email em to you. katie: 1300 was paid for the matress set. katie: And about 1100 for the bedroom set. katie: Its all paid off, and I think it all still has warranties attached. katie: Dont ask me how I got the money for that. katie: You dont want to know.
Tim again -- and I believe Roger already did know...
Roger: since he doesn't live there, if it were arranged for, say, next weekend there would be no need for him to find out katie: Drive something other than your van, I guess. katie: I was going to ask about half what I paid for it on ebay... Roger: does he tell her or does he not...
See?
katie: Because I know matresses are expensive, but furnature stores overprice. Roger: ask half, and you'll get a third if you luck into a bidding frenzy -- not to mention needing to limit it to local pickup anyway katie: Well, from you, I could possibly accept payments. Roger: we'll talk. katie: Drive someone else's car, because Dono is constantly on the lookout for your van. Roger: he needs to get over it katie: And eventually he will, but for NOW I still need his friendship, and therefore his help. katie: I dont need extra stress now. Part of this whole thing is that you remember how early I told you my Dad started having problems with his heart/ katie: ? Roger: have been considering a new van -- but getting one of them "wraps" like you see advertising on? I know of a place I could get them to take a 360 degree photo of the van, and make the new one photorealistic look like the old one LOL Roger: *just* to play with folks' heads katie: On top of everything else wrong with me physically and mentally, I seem to be having stress/anxiety related heart issues. katie: Had another attack last night... Throbbing pain across my chest, sharp stabbing pain up my neck and down my left arm, which was also tingling... katie: All of this in the middle of an anxiety attack. katie: Scared the sh.t out of me. Roger: wouldn't be anyting left <ducks> katie: -bonks anyways- katie: katie: Seriously though. katie: Part of pulling this into mediation is getting that extra burdon off me. My therapist told me once that he is astounded at how long I have been at least surviving under this amount of pressure. katie: Without a nervous breakdown, or something worse. Roger: mediation is if we cannot reach an agreement -- and I will not be being unreasonable in my counter offer Roger: OTOH, as I have always said, Micah comes first katie: Id like for us to be on good enough terms that if I have a reason to be in Dallas, you will let me see Michael in my hotel room or something, whether its scheduled visitation or not. katie: And I know you will want to be secure legally before that happens. katie: Dono is going to have me wear a recorder again tonight... Please do not discuss negotiations while Im in range. katie: Keep it to email for now. katie: Or Yahoo.
Guess that cat is out of the bag...
Roger: WalMart @ 6, my usual calls confirming Roger: you'll verify? katie: I'll verify. katie: It hurts me, but its best for Michael. Roger: once again, your pain gives me no pleasure Roger: but you gotta know how hard it is typing all this while doing the "Happy Papapa Dance" <g> katie: xD katie: Ive cpoy pasted katie: I can send as soon as we stop talking. Roger: I'm outies, unless you've something more to add that I need to see before the exchange. katie: See you in a bit. Roger: oh -- how about that home phone #? katie: Scott's paying for the phone, and doesnt want you calling on it... =/ Roger: the TO says I'm entitled
Ah, yes -- but Katie's lawyer supposedly told her she didn't have to abide by the Temporary Orders -- and that means she won't get poked by the court: because it's her lawyer's fault she didn't follow them.
katie: He monitors who Im communicating with >_< Roger: isn't that the sort of thing you were whining about *me* unreasonably doing? katie: Im planning on keeping the number when I go to cali. katie: Vonage is flexible like that. katie: Yes, it is, and Ive complained to him as well. katie: Uhm. katie: Would you be willing to call off a calling card? Roger: as long as you and he know that non-compliance with the TO is likely to colour what I am advised to ask for... katie: What are you advised to ask for? Roger: I will be seeking advise on securing my legal position, as you have acknowledged Roger: advice* Roger: rented fingers -- I can never get the feel for them katie: Baby finners... katie: Dono has confirmed acceptance of WalMart. Roger: I will put this on as non-adversarial a basis as I can -- but that was the choice *you* made, a year and better ago Roger: he still stays 500 yards away
That's right: Donovan hasn't bothered to mention that since he continually caused disruption when Katie and Roger were doing visitation exchanges, he is now under court order to remain at least 500 yards away from any such exchange...
katie: I would like to know what it is that you have been advised to ask for, please. Roger: I haven't been advised yet, since I didn't know what your offer was katie: Because if it involves cutting Scott out... katie: -hms- katie: You know what. katie: Im done with protecting Scott. katie: If he wants to be in his son's life then he needs to stand up for himself and advocate himself. Roger: I think in all fairness, you should let him knmow that and advise him to seek counsel katie: Feel free to put that as a condition in your response. katie: Oh he knows I feel like its not my job to protect him. katie: This is just a step further, and I will need to call him tonight anyway. Roger: but you have said you would Roger: I really need to change and get his stuff collected katie: Go go go. katie: I'll coppa-paste the rest, and see you later
<a few minutes later>
Roger: are his mittens here, or there? katie: He has red ones here. Roger: then I'll stop tearing out my hair looking for them katie: xD katie: Goof. katie: Ask sooner next time. xD katie: OH. katie: Crap. katie: I didnt get the socks done =/ katie: Im sorry. katie: Havent been feeling too well... katie: I have, I believe, 2 pair of your socks. Roger: I think we can stop playing silly buggers over things like that, don't you? It's all *Micah's" stuff, and it's all gonna end up here anyway katie: Phew. katie: Good. katie: Thanks. Roger: (good thing it all small stuff so a couple weeks worth still wouldn't fill a suitcase ) katie: Can he bring his big teddy back here though? katie: He is especially fond of it. Roger: nodnod -- and the blankie katie: Thanks Roger: I told you undy bunny had been resettled to the East, didn't I? katie: He's so silly about the blankie. katie: Undy bunny? Roger: this blue blankie Nanna sent him -- he's the same way katie: Haha about the blankies... he has like, 4 of them here? Roger: the one I got from Kat and Bruce at the Undermain? katie: And he will drag as many of them around the house as he can find xD katie: Damn near tripped Carolyn, dragging one about six feet behind him xD Roger: anyway, the wail you are about to hear is me waking up my son katie: xD
Seems katie was pretty much okay with Roger and Michael as father and son, doesn't it?
katie: He's good with snuggly wakeups... katie: And to be clear about something? katie: Michael has three parents, two Fathers and a Mother.
Yep seems she's just fine with it.
_Donovan_, on the other hand seems to really be having a problem with the situation...
|
|
|