Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Losing custody of your children.

A woman diagnosed with terminal breast cancer has been denied custody of her children.

A judge in North Carolina denied Alaina Giordano primary custody of her children, Bud, 5, and Sofia, 11, because she is unemployed, "the course of her disease is unknown" and "children who have a parent with cancer need more contact with the non-ill parent," "Good Morning America" reports.

Judge Nancy Gordon ruled the children of the Durham, N.C.-based mom must relocate to Chicago to live with their father, Kane Snyder, by June 17.

Giordano, "GMA" reports, has stage 4 breast cancer, receives monthly treatment and medical records show her cancer is not progressing, although it has metastasized to her bones.

"I'm fully functional and my kids are thriving here in Durham," she tells the news show.

Snyder and Giordano -- who went through a bitter custody battle -- will share custody of the children, but "GMA" reports that if Giordano stays in Durham to receive treatment at Duke Cancer Institute, "her custody will be limited to holiday and weekend visitation, the airfare for which, she says she cannot afford."

Mom With Stage 4 Breast Cancer Denied Custody of Kids in Bitter Battle - ParentDish

Thoughts?

The Brandon Five

Did the father seek this?

I think that is messed up.

chicowalker

I thought it was going to say the state took them.

Maybe I missed it in scanning the article, but do we know why the father didn't have custody in the first place? Because unless there was a good reason, he already "lost" his children.

I think it easily could make sense that a custody ruling in favor of the mother might turn to the favor of the father in light of a situation like this, and wnhile it may not seem fair, it likely didn't seem fair that the father lost custody, either.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

The article just says that there's been a long and bitter custody battle - so I presume he did otherwise why a "battle?"

I don't see why he can't let them stay with her until she dies. Obviously he'll get them in the end, anyhow. Why take them away from her before she dies?

If she's unemployed and terminal she's surely not going to be able to move to Chicago to be near them - which means she's liable never to see them again.

If he was truly concerned about the kids and not just his custody of the kids you'd think he'd either find a way to move to NC so they could live with him but spend time with her or he'd pony up the money to relocate her and someone to care for her to Chicago.

I have no idea what that judge was thinking - nor the shrink who said that kids don't need to live around cancer. Kids need to live around their mother - and if their mother happens to have cancer than that's part of it. They've got the rest of their lives to have "contact with" the healthy parent - but only a short time to spend with the ill one.

I highly doubt he's going to be the kind of dad who is willing to pay airfare for the kids to visit her frequently, either.

Ugh. This ruined my day.

The Brandon Five

chicowalker

Why are you guys putting all of this on the father without knowing anytnhing more about the situation?

The Brandon Five

I can't think of anything that would explain why it would be better for children who are about to lose their mother to be taken away. The reasoning provided in the ruling seems dubious at best. The idea that the father could move to N.C. is just personal opinion of what I think would be the most honorable thing to do.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Because without knowing more it certainly seems to be unfair.

We know that the mom is most likely not an unfit mother or she wouldn't have had custody of the kids in the first place. We know that the judge granted the father custody now because A) Mom is unemployed. B) has cancer and C) feels that kids need a non-ill parent more than an ill one. All of which seem rather biased and unfair to me.

We know that the mom lives in NC and that's where her doctor's and her treatment centers are located. We know that she does not have the money (and most likely does not have the energy or the time, either) to travel back and forth to Chicago. We know that the father is healthy - and since he was able to afford a protracted and expensive court battle, he most likely has more money than the mom does, thus making it much more possible for him to travel back and forth on weekends than it is for her to do so.

Thus, from what we know, the burden of allowing the children equal access to both parents falls squarely on him.

chicowalker

I think you're both making assumptions that aren't justified.

We don't know anything about the original decision that awarded her custody, where they were living at the time, who made what choices, etc.

Maybe the father could move to NC. maybe he has a job that wouldn't permit him to do so.

Maybe the mother could move to Chicago and be treated there.

Mrs, you talk about a protracted court battle as evidence that he must have money -- but she went through the same court battle, didn't she? maybe that court battle largely drained him of his financial resources.

This ruling may be bs, but I don't know how any of us can make that judgment without knowing much more about the circumstances. Women generally get the benefit of the doubt in custody cases, but people don't seem too concerned about that being unfair. given that preference women get, maybe there really is a good reason here that the judge ruled as he did.

(mrs, you also wrote "Kids need to live around their mother"... what about living around their father?)

(or it may be bs, I acknowledge -- just saying we don't know)

Gainzo

Well said. We don't know anything about the Father or the prolonged legal battle. It is a sad situation for the parents and, most importantly, the kids.

I can't blame the justice system in this case without knowing all the facts.