Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, June 22, 2014

A Navy sailor is currently serving on a submarine thousands of miles away in the Pacific Ocean, but a judge has ordered him into an impossible custody scenario: Appear in a Michigan courtroom Monday or risk losing custody of his six-year-old daughter. Navy submariner Matthew Hindes was given permanent custody of his daughter Kaylee in 2010 after she was reportedly removed from the home of his ex-wife by child protective services. "He's protecting the rights of others, but who is protecting his rights?" said Hindes' current wife and the child's stepmother, Benita-Lynn. Kaylee has been living with her while Hindes is deployed.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

boaz

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Why do we have judges? Isnt it to be able to have discretion in situations like this?

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

You have to suspect the judge is biased against the father, this is ridiculous and unfair. Potentially danterous for the child, why was the child placed with child protective services anyway? The short article doesn't say but there must have been a reason. Also, a warrant for his arrest? The judge sounds like she shouldn't be a judge.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-20 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Considering the mother wasn't awarded custody should be telling to the judge to begin with. Plus the child is being cared for by the step-mother which should be perfectly acceptable, it's also likely the point of the custody challenge as well, woman scorned and all that.

Sounds more like the judge is punishing the father for the job he holds.

Especially with a comment like this: "If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother."

Sounds pretty effed up to me.

#2 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-06-20 07:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Everybody prepare for the apocalypse:

I agree with you Danni..

#3 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-20 07:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why should the judicial branch be any different from the legislative or executive in giving the shaft to military members or veterans?

#4 | Posted by 726 at 2014-06-21 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some of these judges obviously lack ethics and common sense. We need to see them held accountable and removed from the bench when there is a pattern of such atrocious foolish behavior. Perhaps the citizenry with 10,000 signatures on a petition should be enough to start such a process. It shouldn't be easy, but neither should it be impossible.

#5 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-21 08:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Judges were lawyers, what would you expect?

#6 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-22 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

The article says the court "may" grant a stay. However, the statute, §522, says "shall." The judge can ignore it at her peril but an appeals court likely won't.

#7 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-22 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Judge Noe is an elected judge, her term ends Jan 1 2015, With this case making national news, her chance of another term seem slim to none.

#8 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-22 07:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Trying to find out where she is a judge... Apparently it is Michigan but where? This woman clearly doesn't belong on the bench.

That said, child custody cases are so often a total joke. The fact the mother had CPS remove the child - with no reason provided in any of the articles I found - and the father had permanent custody granted it sure sounds like some important facts are not being considered by the article writers and the judge.

Such I say dare stupidity from the bench is uncalled for. She should have been totally willing to work with the father and the service. My buddy went through a divorce while in the service. His wife was vindictive about it and the Michigan courts shown with what I have come to expect - their usual incredibly poor judgement.

There is a petition up calling for her resignation...

#9 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-06-22 07:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

He was granted custody 4 years ago due to Neglect. Found where she is a judge (Lenawee County Circuit Court in Adrian, MI) and info on the ruling.

Hindes' commanders have cited the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which states, "In an action covered by this section in which the defendant is in military service, the court shall grant a stay of proceedings for a minimum period of 90 days."

Judge Noe stated:
"If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother." I will add "who lost custody due to neglect of her..."

#10 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-06-22 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Me thinks a JAG is needed.

#11 | Posted by Tor at 2014-06-22 07:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Everyone in Family Law either hates Father's or just milks them for a much money as they can with disdain. That describes the system completely.

#12 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-22 08:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

People are stupid.
Judges are people.
Therefore....

#13 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-06-23 12:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

The article says the court "may" grant a stay. However, the statute, §522, says "shall." The judge can ignore it at her peril but an appeals court likely won't.

#7 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Ah yes, the Appeals Court. Better hope Navy boy has $10,000 to get that appeal going. And in a 18-24 months, the Appeals Court can rule on this thing.

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-06-23 12:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Everyone in Family Law either hates Father's or just milks them for a much money as they can with disdain. That describes the system completely.

#12 | POSTED BY NUTCASE

Actually, it's the precise opposite. Almost every family law attorney is upset that parenting time doesn't go more towards fathers or 50/50 custody arrangements.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-06-23 12:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hard to say what will happen today.

My hope is that the Judge will see sense, but not really expecting that.

I'll not be even slightly surprised if a team of Navy lawyers descend on the court in a coordinated strike. In fact, I expect it.

The military in its entirety has a serious interest in DRIVING HOME THE POINT that it is NOT reasonable for a judge to yank a serviceman out of a deployment without going through MILITARY channels (those channels exist for a reason).

The military has a DUTY to slap this judge down for practical mission reasons. Otherwise ALL missions involving personnel with family issues become compromised.

The military has a DUTY to slap this judge down for TRADITIONAL reasons of providing honorable support for troops in the field.

And slapping down this fool judge would just be fun. Having said that, a solution that lets the fools off easy if she caves, and caves COMPLETELY, should be taken if it quick and painless.

#16 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-23 06:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

The judge must have gotten her degree at Harvard.

#17 | Posted by path at 2014-06-23 08:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ah yes, the Appeals Court. Better hope Navy boy has $10,000 to get that appeal going. And in a 18-24 months, the Appeals Court can rule on this thing.

#14 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Besides the support of JAG and the entirety of the military. If he were to take to social media how fast do you think he could raise the money? If it took over 24 hours for him to raise the money for an appeal I would be blown away and that is not considering how many attorneys would jump on it pro-bono for publicity.

I hope a stay is granted so the child does not have to go through that grueling ordeal but now that this has hit the national news the father has access to all the resources he needs to fight and, assuming gross neglect is not found, win.

#18 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-06-23 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Judge should be removed. I understand why, but we give judges way too much room to be total asses on the bench. Making a politically unpopular decision should be protected. But when you are making decisions that defy basic logic, you need to go and we should be able to make it happen.

#19 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-23 09:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

syco,

How does your observation make it the opposite?

Clinton's move to provide matching Federal funds for every child support dollar collected has morphed the system into another "for profit" venture.

#20 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-23 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Margaret Murray-Scholz Noe worked as a private practice attorney and an assistant Lenawee County prosecuting attorney prior to becoming a judge. She was appointed by former Governor Granholm to the Lenawee County Probate Court on November 18, 2005. She joined the circuit court bench in 2009. She has also taught as an adjunct professor at Siena Heights University.

Noe received her undergraduate degree from Siena Heights University and her law degree from the Detroit College of Law.

She was elected to this position (judge) on November 4, 2008 (effective the following January 1st), for a six-year term that ends on January 1, 2015.

Liberal... therefore totally fair. She is a bit worried that Guam might tip over, but otherwise she knows how to judge.

#21 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-23 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Judge delays custody ruling involving Navy sailor on sub

#22 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-23 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Apparently the judge doesn't know Federal Law. A person deployed to a combat zone can not be required to answer a civil suite or several other legal actions. This is especially true for sailors on board ships. Did someone end the war and not tell us.

#23 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-06-23 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did someone end the war and not tell us.

#23 | Posted by docnjo

Oh ...didn't you hear?

We won.

Mission AFrickinComplished.

Situation Normal...

AFU.

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-23 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

She was elected to this position (judge) on November 4, 2008 (effective the following January 1st), for a six-year term that ends on January 1, 2015.

Liberal... therefore totally fair. She is a bit worried that Guam might tip over, but otherwise she knows how to judge.

#21 | Posted by sames1

Fox News viewer?

You are really reaching aren't you?

Careful you might break something.

How do you figure she is a liberal?

You loonies determine a persons ideology now based on the year they were elected? Oh I get it...she was appointed once to a Probate Court by a Democratic Governor so that makes her a Liberal.

Regardless of her political leanings it was a terrible ruling.

And I bet she has never even commented on or ruled on Guam.

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-23 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Judge should be removed"
i wouldn't be surprised if CPS' mouth is watering to get hold of this child, and the "judge" is in their pocket.

#26 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-23 08:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And I bet she has never even commented on or ruled on Guam."

Probably never took a dump on a police car either, but guilt by association is quite popular these days.

#27 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-06-23 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

!!! Wow, that is completely wrong both on the surface and on analysis!

#28 | Posted by e1g1 at 2014-06-23 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

The law that protects servicemen from civil action while deplored is called "The Soldier and Sailor Civil Relief Act" (1940), It also puts a lid on interest on loans and prevents repossessions, foreclosures, and civil suites from being filed while a serviceman is deployed.

#29 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-06-24 12:19 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort