Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Epilepsy / February 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Legal to take baby away from mom with epilepsy?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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...
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.