You assume. I'm not for either side. But you can't just assume what you don't know for sure.
There are no assumptions being made. Having her rights taken away, especially in Texas where the mother wins 9 times out of 10, is indicative of the court's finding her to have an inability to be a decent parent. Her killing the child and offing herself is further PROOF of that fact.
I do see where it says sole custody, and where the OP says no visitation. Qik, to answer your question, I couldn't walk away in the sense that I would be fine never seeing my children again. I'm a highly calculated person, so I would spend my days proving my fitness as a mother and playing the judge's game--to the letter. I am capable of reason, logic, and discretion, plus I'm not a psycho cunt, so it's a nonissue.
Her legal rights were removed, not the ability to see her son altogether. It just means that she can't force the father for visitation, he can certainly willingly allow them time together as he sees fit.
It is also not a permanent situation, she has (or had) every ability to get her head and life straight, and go back to court to get some legal visitation back.
As is suicide in general, this was a permanent solution to a temporary problem, and solid proof of her mental instability.
Giving birth does NOT automatically give one the ability to be a decent parent. If you are so unstable and incapable, your rights should be revoked for the benefit of the child. Especially in a case like this, where the other parent is fully capable of providing a loving and stable environment.
You assume. I'm not for either side. But you can't just assume what you don't know for sure.
Her legal rights were removed, not the ability to see her son altogether. It just means that she can't force the father for visitation, he can certainly willingly allow them time together as he sees fit.
It is also not a permanent situation, she has (or had) every ability to get her head and life straight, and go back to court to get some legal visitation back.
As is suicide in general, this was a permanent solution to a temporary problem, and solid proof of her mental instability.
Giving birth does NOT automatically give one the ability to be a decent parent. If you are so unstable and incapable, your rights should be revoked for the benefit of the child. Especially in a case like this, where the other parent is fully capable of providing a loving and stable environment.
Hey. How about we stop shitting all over this thread and make a new one? This thread is for condolances, not to bicker back and forth about the right/wrong aspect of it.
You're far too young to have any perspective let alone understanding of the internals workings of the judicial system or this case to make any definitive statements.
My dad was her defense attorney. I know a lot more than you, dickhead.
It's not up to you to decide they were ok to terminate her rights. Maybe she was a good mother that got messed up because she was never gonna see her child. The case went all the way to trial, and if she was " batshit" crazy, it wouldn't have gotten that far.
You're far too young to have any perspective let alone understanding of the internals workings of the judicial system or this case to make any definitive statements.
You're trolling for the wrong point here. She was batshit crazy. They all made the right decision in terminating her rights.
The only bad decision they made was standing outside instead of having their thumb on her forehead.
It's not up to you to decide they were ok to terminate her rights. Maybe she was a good mother that got messed up because she was never gonna see her child. The case went all the way to trial, and if she was " batshit" crazy, it wouldn't have gotten that far.
Just curious but if you were told you could no longer see or have any contact with your children would you just walk? Its not that easy. I dont know anything about the woman but i can guarantee that if she was crazy taking her child away wasnt the treatment she needed. Like I said i think the whole bunch of them were in the wrong.
I agree. The sachse police knew the situation, why did they let her in alone with the child?
Just curious but if you were told you could no longer see or have any contact with your children would you just walk? Its not that easy. I dont know anything about the woman but i can guarantee that if she was crazy taking her child away wasnt the treatment she needed. Like I said i think the whole bunch of them were in the wrong.
You're trolling for the wrong point here. She was batshit crazy. They all made the right decision in terminating her rights.
The only bad decision they made was standing outside instead of having their thumb on her forehead.
I don't see where she was stripped of her rights. As a parent, you have an obligation to do what is in the best interest of your child. Period. Preference is usually shown to the mother in custody cases, (which is complete bullshit in quite a few cases,) especially in Texas, so there had to be an overwhelming case against this mother. That point is glaringly obvious with the outcome of this situation.
It's sad, but she had ABSOLUTELY no right or justification for her actions. Her inability to use rational thought has destroyed a family. Getting herself healthy would have been hard and painful, no doubt, but there was no reason to take the easy way out for herself, let alone to take the child with her.
Leave a comment: