From the article Divorcee Moving to Florida with Children we read:
‘A Suffolk County judge ruled a mom who wants to move with her two kids to Florida can only relocate after arranging for video conferencing between the children and her ex-husband.
Debra Baker – “at her own cost and expense” – must provide the Skype connection to insure former spouse James can speak with their offspring, state Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo ruled.’
Instead of close proximity and physical custody time for dad, James Baker, he is “awarded” 3-hours of video conferencing.
Now, what is clear from the rest of the article is that James Baker, the father, vehemently objected to the children’s move south to Florida. Apparently the mother, Debra Baker, had her home fall into foreclosure. Jobless and homeless, she made the decision to move from New York to Florida to live with her parents in their home.
Now, while we very often hear about how the “best interests of the children” are always taken into account, especially so when a move-away is in question, we fail to understand how it’s possible that the best interests of the children are served by:
- Moving them away from their father so that they no longer have any physical parenting time – only three hours per week of video conferencing.
- Leaving the children with a jobless, homeless mother who is still jobless and has to move-in with her parents across the country.
- Moving the children away from their friends, their schools, their father.
Admittedly, we don’t know all of the details of the prior arrangement. We do know that Mr. Baker did successfully complete alcohol treatment last year and has allegedly been doing well. Despite this, we still find it hard to understand why 3-hours of video “visitation” (if you can call it that) is more appropriate for the children than a change in the physical custodial arrangement.
These are questions that I am sure are more easily answered with more information, but this situation was one that merited discussion even absent more details.
This is a real win for relocating parents everywhere! Kudos to the judge. And finally, a modernized verdict from that Tropea v. Tropea landmark case, which is becoming old and smelly and so out of date.
I do not understand your comment that there should be a “change in the physical custodial arrangement”. Why is that? Is it merely for the sake of continuing a potential toxic local visitation arrangement with this father – just because he is a bio parent?
Clearly, this is a drunken sot who can’t hold it together. He’s already had incidences of spotty visitation between 08 and the present – which, might I remind you, is SUPERVISED VISITATION, Mr. Custody Coach. Why the hell shouldn’t these children have a chance at a better life, where economics are more reasonable in FL than the inflated costs of living on LI? Why should this mother and her children be penalized for seeking improved living conditions merely for the father’s selfish reasons? Is this father even contributing child support/childcare monies? From the sound of his woeful tale, I highly doubt that.
The judge ruled fairly in this decision and in the best interests of these children, who deserve a better life. The fact that this deadbeat might want to appeal the decision because he doesn’t know how to use Skype is laughable and lame and I hope it gets promptly thrown right out of court.
“Bio”, for either a father and more often these days, “muthas”, can also be interchangeable with “biodegradable”, which is what this father smells like, “Mr. Custody Coach”. You need to wake up…and exactly whose side are you on anyway?
Aside from a bunch of wholesale assumptions that you’ve made, your commentary is hardly worthy of response. I’m on the side of parents having equal access to their children when both are willing and able to provide for them. Now, at least I had the good sense to acknowledge that there are some unanswered questions. Some that are answered:
– He successfully completed an alcohol program last year and has reportedly being doing excellent.
– He is involved in his children’s lives and was prepared to take the reigns should biological mother relocate.
What is abundantly clear is your anti-father bias and judgmental attitude towards this particular father (and I would surmise you feel that way about father-involvement in children’s lives regardless of the circumstances)…
Wanting to be parent to your children post-divorce isn’t “selfish” to intelligent people. There was no indication in that article that the father was ill-equipped to be the primary custodian and, if he is making ends-meet on Long Island, well, why not consider it?
The bottom line is you don’t really care about the important details and really just wanted to attention-seek. I gave you that opportunity and pray you will find some peace for your rage against fathers. I approved your comment only to show people what they may be up against in society. Thank you for exposing the closed-minded side of these types of issues.
I would be willing to bet that if the genders were reversed, you would be all for tearing the children from an unfortunately unemployed and homeless father – that’s what makes people like you so very sad.
You’re very funny, Mr. CC. But too bad you didn’t bother to read the background on this case as noted in the NY Law Journal, or else you might have thought twice before publishing your foolish comments. What, did you simply read the 100-word blurb in the holy bastion of gossip the NY Daily News and then rush to get your pompous POV out there?
The thinly veiled, “you are a women and therefore, hate all men” subtext – what a cliche. By doing this, you show you are just as biased and psycho as those women who run around claiming they are the “victims of the system, boo hoo – and while, I’m at it, I will screw my ex- in any way I can” do.
But while rushing to lash out at me, no doubt your first reader in the last 6 months, did you ever bother to even consider THESE CHILDREN and their best interests when you added the ridiculous statement, “There was no indication in that article that the father was ill-equipped to be the primary custodian and, if he is making ends-meet on Long Island, well, why not consider it?” Or this: “He is involved in his children’s lives and was prepared to take the reigns should biological mother relocate.”
Here, I’ll do the work for you, CC. The facts are that this father is currently being supervised and has been ordered to do so since 2008. At the reloc hearing, the court noted that he has “exercised little or no visitation” since that time. Wow. Rehabbed dad. History of visitation absence. Sustained period of SUPERVISED VISITATION. Your quote “He is involved in the children’s lives…” shows me that you did not do your homework and I wag my finger at you, Mr. CC. What poor reporting skills you have.
To sum up, primary custodianship for him is like ‘father of the year’ for Mel Gibson. And I have emphasized SUPERVISED VISITATION because you conveniently chose to ignore it from my previous comments. You must be a lawyer.
While I salute your great and noble efforts at making this man a hero, I just can’t overlook the fact that he should in no way have custody of his kids at this time. Thank g-d the face time he will have with them will be limited for the time being.
Hopefully this dad will make amends with his Higher Power and for God’s sake, tell his children the truth about where he’s been so that he might have a chance at a somewhat normal relationship with them before it’s too late and they grow up hating his freaking guts.
“What makes people like you so very sad”, Mr. CC, is that you are just another fraud claiming to want to help the disenfranchized, when all the time, you are just posturing for your own selfish and self-serving needs and hoping someone will actually read your dumbass (and non-factual) commentary.
Mr. Custody Coach,
I have been reading your blog for quite sometime. I am a stepmother to a 14 year old. My stepdaughter came to live with her father and myself 2 years ago. While this was a necesary change for her benefit, the circumstances surrounding my husbands’ life before me, his life since I have become involved (8 years ago), and the interactions with his ex-wife then and now have been a struggle for all involved. I say this, because I am one of those who have experienced the situations I think you try to help make better. If I had found your blog and site sooner, it would have helped both my husband and myself deal with the struggle to maintain some type of normalcy for ourselves and his child. I don’t usually post comments, but I couldn’t help after reading such nastiness posted by anonymous. Isn’t that nastiness what is wrong with our world today? Everyone is mad at everyone else because they see things differently… Maybe anonymous should try anger management classes… It is not necessary to be mean to eachother. We can all disagree without resorting to name-calling or degrading language. So, even though it might not be my place, I am so sorry you get comments like those from anonymous and know that you have plenty of reades who appreciate any perspective on the subject at hand. Thanks again.
Actually, anonymous, I have read the details of the case – and despite your clear and obvious rage – none of the rather caustic commentary and broad assumptions you’ve made about this man are supported by those notes.
He has had supervised visitation due to the alcoholism.
What’s also abundantly clear, contrary to your claims of his being a “drunken sot” and comparing him to Mel Gibson – the court awarded him substantial visitation, away from the mother, all of which is to be paid for by the mother.
I would venture to say that your accusation of my simply having a one-sided agenda are very much projection on your part. The court saw fit to give him substantial, sustained periods of visitation as the school schedule will allow, and for that, I applaud them.
My interest in this story begins and ends with the broader view of move-aways and consideration that should be given to the parent being left, more often than not – it’s the father losing access and parenting time with the children.
Of course, someone with the issues you so clearly have couldn’t care less about any of that anyway. Good day.
Interesting you say that my position is against fathers, when in actuality, I am involved in a case that involves the father having sole custodial rights of his son, now 9, which was awarded several years ago and fully support his rights against the BPD non-custodial and toxic-to-the-child ex-wife.
“My interest in this story begins and ends with the broader view of move-aways and consideration that should be given to the parent being left, more often than not”. Yes, I agree with your statement — but not if the non-custodial parent does not foster an ongoing relationship with the child and does not employ consistent and meaningful access on a regular basis. In the relocation case noted here, it does not. In my particular struggle, it does not either.
MLS, I am somewhat in the same torturous predicament as you. Can you please enlighten me as to how you found comments on this blog that “helped both my husband and myself deal with the struggle to maintain some type of normalcy for ourselves and his child”. I’d really like to know.
I meant no disrespect to anyone here; if I did so, my apologies.