Deployed submariner faces arrest, loss of daughter
 

Bad break for this American submariner. At least in my opinion. The judge who's destroying his family, on the other hand, is quite satisfied with her legal rationale. Oh well.

http://www.businessinsider.com/judge...r-court-2014-6

Murca

:nope:

"At this point, I don't think I have any alternative but to enter a bench warrant for his arrest."

Lots of alternatives. It looks to me like the judge has already tried and convicted the guy.

Another female judge suffering from C.R. Syndrome. She might want to tread lightly in circumventing the rights of a service member, She may find a Federal bench warrant issued for her arrest.:nope:

^ I sincerely hope that is the case because her current ruling is sheer lunacy :nope:

:sign_yeah:

Not a flexible Judge at all with the many alternatives that can be provided to handle this.

I wager it'll be bumped to a higher court who will overturn the ruling and defer the hearing until the guy gets back to port.

Most hopefully :yep:

There's a federal law in place to prevent exactly this from happening to service members. The judge needs to be removed from the bench and the Michigan state Bar.

Better call Saul.:smug:

Awesome reference, might be too obscure for this place though.
The blue gold has not touched this place.

A ruling like this from another biased domestic judge, just makes the appeal that much easier.

Women always want equal rights in the workplace, but when it comes to divorce and alimony and kids, they are always helpless maidens.

Using the kids as weapons against you, because they play the part of weeping abused useless, unable to find work because of the marraige, woman in the courtroom. No one believes a man in court, and for some reason there is alot of women judges in family courts. Man cheats, he is paying, woman cheats, man must have done something to force her.

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"~ William Congreve circ., 1697

More of these family court judges need to pay heed to that 317 year old quote.:-?

I got the reference :)

As for this ruling, it falls in line with pretty much all the rest-- "for the child's best interests".... which is another way of saying saddle the father with most of the costs and very little of the time with the child.

Anecdotal evidence...
 

A co-worker of mine went through a divorce with a very vindictive spouse who had a better job than he could ever hope to gain but she insisted on milking him dry anyway. To the point of constantly calling the home office of the company we worked for and asking what he was being paid. If he got a raise she would haul him back into court to get her share of it. She got the kids, the house and his wages to the point of having two new cars parked in her driveway. One of them a Corvette. All gained by using the children as a crowbar in court to leverage more of his pay into her own greedy pocket.

The way I see it in this modern age is... It takes two to tango and produce children but, it only takes one judge with draconian values to commit a one-sided robbery.
Both parents should be held equally responsible monetarily for their offspring.

Not all women are these helpless maidens with children to raise.
Not all dads are deadbeats until the divorce courts put them in the poor house.:-?