Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
This also seems the kind of thing that leads to legislation protecting service people along the lines of "no state court has jurisdiction over custodial matters relating to the children of active service people," which seems a bad blanket result.
|
This is the key thing, I think.
If you don't have a blanket rule, then someone needs discretion. In this case, that is the judge. I am enormously deferential to the fact finders in legal matters (for example, I generally trust that the OJ jurors did their job and regularly defend them in conversation), absent some showing of real prejudice.
In this case, these parents aren't just traveling, they are stationed overseas for an indeterminate period of time. Seems rational for a judge to decide to put the kids with the other parent rather than the grand parents. I will confess I don't know enough of the details of the case to decide it based on media reports -- I did not know the primary care giver would be the non-biological parent spouse, for example -- and that's part of why I'm deferential to the judge.
On the other hand, I'm not deferential to the army, which has leeway and could solve this thing. The article I saw indicated that they had sought permission for one of the two parents to stay home.
OK, so is my deference part of the problem with the system in your mind?
