Woman in US loses custody of her child because she is a smoker...

[Piffle]

BBeggars belief! A woman has lost custody of her six-year-old son - because she was a smoker.

The case is thought to be the first of its kind in the US.

Former nurse Tammy Pierce was described as a "warm and loving" mother in court.

But a judge said her son, Joel Jnr, should live with his father Joel after the pair split because she smoked.

Tammy, 32, who has since quit her 20-a-day habit, now only see her son during school holidays.


She lives in Florida and her former husband is more than 1,000 miles away.

Tammy appealed against the decision but the verdict was upheld.

The boy's father, the court heard, complained that his son's clothes smelt of tobacco after visits.

And he feared smoke may have caused some of the boy's illnesses, such as ear infections.

Tammy is now planning a new appeal to regain custody.

She said: "I am a good, caring, loving mother and my heart has been broken. I never once smoked in front of Joel, or even in the house

[Overrun]

OH my god, did the boy want to live with his Mum?

[Piffle]

thats the only news thing I've seen it was on sky news website

I am rigid anti smoker but still

[WelshBoris]

If his clothes smelt of smoke, she must have smoked near him

and its not good for his health

still harsh, but we dont know the full story

[expatinscotland]

In the US, there are WAY more men w/full time custody than in the UK, and men have far greater rights in custodial issues than I've found them to have in the UK.

There's another BIG case on the West Coast in which the mother and ex-wife of a man wished to have their son circumsised for cosmetic reasons.

The boy is 8 years old.

The father took her to family court over it.

And won.

[beegee]

poor mother / poor boy...how's that going to help?

[expatinscotland]

We don't know the full issues, unfortunately, or the extent of the boy's health issues.

It'd be possible to find out, however, b/c hte family courts there do not have the same bollocks secrecy they're afforded here.

[JoolsToo]

OMG expat - that is shocking!

agree with Boris on the smoking issue.

[SoupDragon]

I don't see a problem with this - he's with his father not put into care. His father has equal rights to custody and I assume that having taken everything into consideration the courts think he is the "better" choice.

Smoking around children damages their health. If the mother was doing anything else which damaged her childs health there would not be any fuss.

[expatinscotland]

You just don't see the level of sex discrimination - e.g., the mother is almost always granted full custody - there that you see here.

You also see a great deal more full-on joint custody there.

Not the namby pamby variety, but truly joint.

[JoolsToo]

that's a good thing imo

[Piffle]

But if smoking is that bad, what about taking kids away from any parents how smoke, even couples
I mean you can take things too far
But yes there may well be other issues one does not know about, but I was just shocked that it appeared to be for that reason alone.

[belgo]

If all other factors are equal, I think I would prefer a child to be with the non smoking parent. Feel very sad for his mum though.

[expatinscotland]

It appears to be for that reason alone b/c it makes for a good sensationalist story.

I'd take my chances w/a US family court ANY day of a UK one, tbh.

At least they wouldn't be able to hide beyond a veil of secrecy.

[hunkermunker]

And the problem is?

[SoupDragon]

But the boy is with his father. What's so wrong about that?? If custody had gone to the mother despite the smoking would you think "poor father"?

[expatinscotland]

What if it were the father who smoked?

I wonder if peoples' reactions would be different.

When I first moved here, I was really, really shocked how sexually discriminatory the family courts are here.

'Kramer v. Kramer', anyone?

[TheDaVinciCod]

good


string em up

[JoolsToo]

I'd be more interested to get the 6 year old's feelings on the matter.

[expatinscotland]

No, but a close examination of the court documents, which are public record, will inform you of exactly why and how the judge came to his/her decision.

I can almost guarantee it wasn't b/c of her smoking alone, as the burden of proof in many state family courts is on the responder and/or plaintiff and not the court.

[beckybraAAARGHstraps]

Absolutely Jools.

All other things never are equal are they?

Of course smoking around children is undesirable, but what next?

Menu plans submitted?
Exercise regimes logged?

No idea of the ACTUAL circumstances surrounding this case, but what a very limited view of parenting is reported here.

[beckybraAAARGHstraps]

expat - I do hope you're right. Of course, it would be in the mother's best interests to say that it was because of her smoking, which she has now stopped, and not due to any other issues.

[expatinscotland]

Of course it's going to be limited reporting - in order to sell it better.

Until we know the FACTS and if the boy indeed suffered health problems - asthma, respiratory infections, etc. - exacerbated by smoking, it's not really our judgement call to be made.

Obviously, the boy suffered enough problems from it that his father was able to demonstrate - and keep in mind how limited Legal Aid is there so hte man probably got himself into a lot of debt - to a family court judge that it was enough of a factor to tip the balance between the two parties.

He is going to live with his father, not some carer he doesn't know.

[UCM]

So really, IF it is just for smoking, then technically you could have a child taken away for giving it fruit shoots, coke, aspartame anything, Macdonalds, in fact anything with a Modicum of badness in it. God help us if this becomes standard policy. Would Greggs sausauge rolls count d'ya think?