mother with breast cancer lose custody of children

[bubbleschimp]

shocking read .. apologies for the daily mail link

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385143/Alaina-Giordano-loses-custody-children-breast-cancer.html

It's not just in the daily mail though, its on the all the big US news sites. When I see a mail article I tend to google it to read more as we all know the mail isn't so trustworthy

Gordon apparently saw the issue differently - and ruled that because Giordano doesn't have a job, she can't support her children adequately. The judge also suggested Giordano move to Chicago - because it's simpler to move her cancer treatments than her ex's job.

She doesn't have a job because she has cancer. He moved because of his job. Seems a job is worth more than healthcare and children

According to the Telegraph

"But in a ruling that has ignited a furious controversy, Judge Nancy Gordon ruled in Mr Snyder's favour - although she said that Miss Giordano could share custody if she moved to Chicago.

Miss Giordano insists that she cannot move to Chicago as her cancer is being held in check thanks to her team of medical experts at Duke University, near her home.

In reaching her decision, the judge cited doubts about how long Miss Giordano had to live and evidence from psychologists that children do better when they spend more time with a healthy parent. "Children want a normal childhood and it is not normal with an ill parent," testified one expert. "

It also mentions other allegations where made regarding bad parenting. Fairly common practice I'd say in custody battles. Citing cancer isn't, as far as I know.

It sounds like she has a chance to appeal the decision, I hope she does and wins.

The father sounds like a total cock.

Precisely bronze. If it was her parenting that was the issue, then surely she'd be a shit parent in Chicago too?

bronze in usa money and a job is their is no welafre state they are not pro handouts like us if you have no income you will end up living on the streets yes with you children so you need a job income plays a big part in custody battles in the us as she wouldnt even have mecidal insurance to cover them if they became ill

So the Father who cares so much could pay for their medical insurance. He could even pay for their food etc. Afterall she would still be skint if she moved to where he is, yet thats ok?

exactly dittany,survivors live in fear of recurrance as it is without the fear of their children being taken away. My ds's are grown now,i have just asked ds 2 if he would have prefered not to be with me when i was ill,h e said it would have been his worse nightmare and my openess and honesty was what stopped him from worrying.

My aunt died from breast cancer 13 years ago, her 3 children at the time were 14, 11 and 2 (she was diagnosed just after having the baby) Her husband was a useless piece of work, but we all pulled together, put our feelings of his twuntness behind us and worked to ensure that the last 18 months of her life and in turn the first few years of her youngest sons life were the happiest they could have been.

This story has made me weep for lots of different reasons but when I think back to the comfort her eldest got from seeing her mum in the last few weeks, talking to her, having such precious memories. We were all honest with the kids, it was really difficult but her children did pull her through those very very painful last few months.

Children do cope with the limitations a parents health can impose, her youngest, after she had been operated on, she couldn't hold him and was unable to independently hold him until she died, he just learned to run to her and put his head in her lap, I firmly believe that this close comfort of her children helped her die both more peacefully and hopefully in less pain.

On a side note, hello Ledkr as usual you write with such passion on a subject you have been touched by.

Thankyou wiggles,i am not suprised to see a lack of compassion on here for a subject which could potentially touch all of us at some point. Im sure people would feel differently about it if it was them.

Its not about a lack of compassion (I have lost my father, my best friend and my dear sister in law to cancer so very sadly there is no potentially about it touching us). Its about recognising that what is reported in the papers may not give us the entire story or a very clear picture of why decisions were reached. I'd like to hear more of the details before deciding the husband is just a bastard (of course he may be, but then again maybe he isnt).

Ledkr - I sincerely hope you are not accusing me of a lack of compassion. I agree that the father in this case is acting badly, I agree that these children should stay with their aother. Where I disagree with some of you is in assuming that a well parent and a sick parent are both equally effective. That is not the case. Parental illness can contribute to neglect. I am not saying all sick parents are neglectful. I am not saying all children of such parents should be removed. I absolutely do not believe that BUT we should recognise that the children of parents suffering chronic and/or terminal illness may be vulnerable.

Northern, the only concern I have over my illness and death is the effect it will have on my son. My breast cancer friends tell the same story. That is what keeps us awake each night.

I hope my death is a long way off but I am preparing my son in small ways, although it breaks my heart to do so.

It makes me sad to think someone might believe I am less of a parent because of my illness. Having cancer does not preclude me from being a good parent. Why on earth would it? Perhaps my 'sick' parent is still 100 times more effective than some 'healthy' parents?

I'm afraid it does sound like prejudice. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that a blind parent or a disabled parent is less effective than an able bodied parent. They face different challenges, but less effective? Neglectful? It's not the terminology we would use, why should a cancer patient be any different?

No one can better prepare my son for what is ahead than me.

Wubbly I'm sure you are an excellent mother and I hope you will be with your son for many, many years. In braod terms however serious illness in a parent does place a child at potential risk. It just does. That isn't prejudice on my part. It's a judgement based on a number of my own observations and you'll notice it was also the opinion of experts in this clearly very complicated case.

This being the case, it is not that children should be removed from the care of a dying parent. Of course they should stay BUT other support and caregivers may very well need to be involved to support the family unit.

I've not read the report because, frankly, I can't face it. But one must remember that the judge will have made a decision based on hundred's of pages of documents, which no doubt include medical information about this mother's particular prognosis. The judge will doubtless also have heard live evidence from, and cross-examination of, a number of witnesses, including both the parents.

The judge will not have made this very important and difficult decision, on the basis of a couple of paragraphs in the Daily Mail.

It may seem unfair, but there may well be more to it than you think.

The mother provided medical evidence that her bone mets were stable and not progressing. She's not even on chemotherapy. Bone mets are very manageable with today's treatments and there are new therapies coming out all of the time.

I know of people who have been on active chemotherapy for over 7 years and are still working.

I know of people diagnosed with bone mets in the 90's and still fit and healthy.

The problem is there are no guarantees and things can change. But the same is true for us all.

The judge said she would award joint custody if the mother moved to Chicago, over 800 miles away. Shame she didn't suggest the husband move back to the home town, where presumably the whole family have friends, family and a support network already in place

That is exactly what struck me wubblybubbly. I thought if they really cared for the children they would say the dad has to move closer to support and help with the children.
The whole thing is pretty disturbing to say the least. I wonder if he is fit to father them at all imo, after putting their mum and them through all the stress of court on top of what they already to cope with.

Lego - exactly. Court should always be a last resort in child care cases. In view of the mother's very serious illness, wasn't there a better way to resolve differences? At any time the whole court thing is debilitating - when you've got cancer, it must be almost unbearable.

If the father's a fit parent in the judge's view, he should up sticks - back to the community where his kids are growing up. That's parenting.

When I read this desperately sad story, I thought of my then 12 year old ( a year older than this mother's oldest child) who cared for my mother, wiping her brow, holding her, talking to her, sharing his interests with her as she lay dying of cancer. She, in her turn, was able to tell his stories, tell him, yet again, how much she loved him and leave him with indelible memories of real friendship and love.
Take this away from the mother and the children and you take away something that can never, ever be replaced.

And then, the mother may live for some years or longer. What an audacious decision on the judge's part.