Judge orders woman to send letters to ex who brutalized her in prison?

[Puppycow]

Since he will be out of jail, he will have some opportunity to actually be a father to his children. So, it is incumbent on the other parent not to interfere with that relationship.

Well, I disagree with that, given the circumstances.

 

[Puppycow]

Are you claiming this couldn't happen in the USA?

I'll just say that I've never heard of such a thing before. newyorkguy above posted that this is because of the UK's Children Act of 1989, and I am unaware of anything like that in US that would specifically require a victim to correspond with their assailant in prison. Are you saying it could happen in the USA? There are indeed many examples of injustice in the USA of course, but I've never heard of anything similar to this until now.

 

[Loss Leader]

Well, I disagree with that, given the circumstances.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's the law ... at least in that jurisdiction.

I am unaware of anything like that in US that would specifically require a victim to correspond with their assailant in prison. Are you saying it could happen in the USA? There are indeed many examples of injustice in the USA of course, but I've never heard of anything similar to this until now.

The victim is not required to correspond with her assailant. She is required as the custodial parent to ensure the non-custodial parent receives updates about the children.

As for similar cases, I myself was involved in one. A father who had been abusive to the mother sued from jail to reestablish a relationship with their child. In this case, the child had not known the father, believed his step-father was his father, and had no desire to interact whatsoever. The Court ordered steps taken to bring the child and the father together (though not face to face until he was out of prison).

The bond between parent and child is a strong one and courts are aware of their duty (positively stated in many states including New York) to encourage the familial relationship.

 

[newyorkguy]

newyorkguy above posted that this is because of the UK's Children Act of 1989, and I am unaware of anything like that in US that would specifically require a victim to correspond with their assailant in prison.

Actually I didn't post that. I wrote:

Under the UK's Children Act of 1989 this father is entitled to receive updates on his children.

The victim being required to correspond with her abuser was just the spin the tabloid cited in the OP used. As -- I think it was Loss Leader -- indicated if the father continues to pose a serious risk of physical harm to the mother or children than these rights could and should be restricted or terminated.

 

[Puppycow]

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's the law ... at least in that jurisdiction.

Then the law is wrong. The law ought to be changed. Do you disagree?

The victim is not required to correspond with her assailant. She is required as the custodial parent to ensure the non-custodial parent receives updates about the children.

A distinction without much practical difference as far as I can see. It places an obligation on her in either case.

As for similar cases, I myself was involved in one. A father who had been abusive to the mother sued from jail to reestablish a relationship with their child. In this case, the child had not known the father, believed his step-father was his father, and had no desire to interact whatsoever. The Court ordered steps taken to bring the child and the father together (though not face to face until he was out of prison).

The bond between parent and child is a strong one and courts are aware of their duty (positively stated in many states including New York) to encourage the familial relationship.

I would strongly disagree with that too. If it is the law, then the law is wrong and should be changed. She ought to have no legal obligation whatsoever to accommodate any wish of his.

 

[Giordano]

Then the law is wrong. The law ought to be changed. Do you disagree?


A distinction without much practical difference as far as I can see. It places an obligation on her in either case.


I would strongly disagree with that too. If it is the law, then the law is wrong and should be changed. She ought to have no legal obligation whatsoever to accommodate any wish of his.

Be careful what you wish for. Many people are divorced in the USA (luckily I am not one of them). If you were sent to jail for a less serious crime, say shop lifting, would you want your ties to your children to be automatically severed? I agree that in this case, it strongly appears that the man has no right to a continued update on his children because of the severity and nature of his crime. But I would like that decision to be made in a court of law in which both sides can make their cases. I think that the best solution might be to allow the wife to provide updates to a court-appointed agent, who could send reports based on these updates to the dad. I don't know who could supply knowledgeable updates on the children if not the mom.

 

[sphenisc]

I think that the best solution might be to allow the wife to provide updates to a court-appointed agent, who could send reports based on these updates to the dad. I don't know who could supply knowledgeable updates on the children if not the mom.

Her new partner?

 

[Puppycow]

Be careful what you wish for. Many people are divorced in the USA (luckily I am not one of them). If you were sent to jail for a less serious crime, say shop lifting, would you want your ties to your children to be automatically severed?

That's not what I said though. I'm talking about violent crimes. Especially of the domestic abuse sort. The victim ought to be allowed to make a clean break. Shoplifting or some other nonviolent crime where the victim is not the other parent or the children would be another matter.

I agree that in this case, it strongly appears that the man has no right to a continued update on his children because of the severity and nature of his crime.

Then I think we are actually in agreement. I am only talking here about this case and similar cases (the one Loss Leader mentioned was one where the father had been abusive to the mother).

Abuse your wife and/or child (in a serious way, I realize there are different degrees of severity), I think you should basically lose parental rights. Where exactly to draw that line is a legitimate question, but what happened in this case should be far, far beyond the line.

 

[newyorkguy]

I agree with Giordano. In this particular case the law might look misguided. But laws are crafted for many cases not just one. The mother should be protected but the father, Jason Hughes, will always be the children's father. If they reject him all the laws in the world can't change that. In the meantime allow him to know something of his children's lives. I don't see the harm in that.

 

[WildCat]

Are you claiming this couldn't happen in the USA?

I've never heard of any such cases. Do you have examples?

 

[marplots]

It would be nice to get a letter about your kids if you were stuck in jail. He must miss them terribly.

 

[Loss Leader]

Then the law is wrong. The law ought to be changed. Do you disagree?

I believe I've said that in many jurisdictions domestic abuse against the mother is interpreted as neglect or abuse of the children.

However, the bond between parent and child is a unique one. It should be preserved when doing so is not harmful to the child.

So, I believe the law ought to allow for many possible outcomes, considered on an individual basis as they are presented to the Court.

 

[MontagK505]

How many times does he have to beat her to within an inch of her life before he is deemed unworthy?

Their twin boys saw the attack, and were found covered in blood by police

British law doesn't see this as severe child abuse, by the father? The man is 42yrs old, it seems unlikely he is going to change. And I thought US courts were bad.

 

[Puppycow]

In the meantime allow him to know something of his children's lives. I don't see the harm in that.

The harm is that her rights are being trampled in order to preserve his.
My first principle is, one man's rights end where another's begin (I forget who said that). Her right to have this man out of her life should trump his right to maintain a relationship with his children here.

 

[Darat]

British law doesn't see this as severe child abuse, by the father? The man is 42yrs old, it seems unlikely he is going to change. And I thought US courts were bad.

Yes it does. However the children still have a right if they want to have a relationship with their father and this is about that right. As I said I think the court's ruling in this instance is wrong, if the woman was wealthy she would more than likely be able to legally appeal this decision based on the children's rights.

 

[Darat]

I've never heard of any such cases. Do you have examples?

I take it this means you did not know if this could happen in the USA when you sarcastically indicated that it was an example of the USA being better than "european" nations? There appears to be evidence in this thread that not only can it happen it does happen. Has your opinion changed?

 

[Darat]

The harm is that her rights are being trampled in order to preserve his.

It is about the children's rights as well, there are 5 people's rights to balance in this case.

My first principle is, one man's rights end where another's begin (I forget who said that). Her right to have this man out of her life should trump his right to maintain a relationship with his children here.

As ever it is about balancing the competing rights. It is very common in family matters that the adults are forced to have to deal with each other to ensure the child's rights are protected. The parents agreed to some of their rights being abrogated when they decided to have children.

This is obviously an extreme example and is being used by the media to make money by offering up a simplistic interpretation of human rights so we can all knee-jerk our "shouldn't be allowed" responses.

 

[Loss Leader]

Yes it does. However the children still have a right if they want to have a relationship with their father and this is about that right. As I said I think the court's ruling in this instance is wrong, if the woman was wealthy she would more than likely be able to legally appeal this decision based on the children's rights.

I doubt it. The children are only 5 years old (or were at the time of the crime; the article is very poorly written). This is simply too young for them to have a preference. So, if the general rule involves preserving the parent-child relationship, that's likely what would happen. If the children were, say, 12, their preferences would matter a whole lot more.

IOW, a child's rights only very slowly over the course of 18 years come to be the same as a child's desires.

 

[Giordano]

British law doesn't see this as severe child abuse, by the father? The man is 42yrs old, it seems unlikely he is going to change. And I thought US courts were bad.

As mentioned, the British courts probably would consider this child abuse. But to have this determined in a court of law and the dad's paternal rights severed would require more money for lawyers, research, expert opinions, fees, etc. It is not a trivial request to cut off someone from their children (although I think it likely appropriate in this case, although based only on a news account), and I don't think that it should be decided without a formal court hearing. The wife doesn't appear to have the money that she would need to bring this type of hearing (I presume the dad would want some legal representation too). So, as I asked before, are people willing to have the government contribute more money to legal aide to allow this type of action to be considered?

 

[Darat]

I doubt it. The children are only 5 years old (or were at the time of the crime; the article is very poorly written). This is simply too young for them to have a preference. So, if the general rule involves preserving the parent-child relationship, that's likely what would happen. If the children were, say, 12, their preferences would matter a whole lot more.

IOW, a child's rights only very slowly over the course of 18 years come to be the same as a child's desires.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Of course, one of the rights all children have is to have their preferences about major decisions about themselves taken into account based on their ability to understand the choices and the consequences.

 

[Aepervius]

Is this true or something being distorted by a tabloid?

Mum who had throat cut by brutal ex faces JAIL if she refuses to write to him in prison



Needless to say, this seems absolutely ludicrous to me. How can this be?

Or have I fallen for some sort of tabloid lie here?

It does not seem far fetched. She is asked to give update on the kids. Which he has a right under parental law. She is not asked to write romantic letter to him. I am pretty sure too that a lawyer or a family member could take that over as long as the father can get a good idea of the progress of the kids.

Her being a victim does not remove the right of the father, until a court decide the father does not have such a right for whatever reason. IOW : the law is still applicable.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

It does not seem far fetched. She is asked to give update on the kids. Which he has a right under parental law. She is not asked to write romantic letter to him. I am pretty sure too that a lawyer or a family member could take that over as long as the father can get a good idea of the progress of the kids.

Her being a victim does not remove the right of the father, until a court decide the father does not have such a right for whatever reason. IOW : the law is still applicable.

I thought the law no longer applied when it came to domestic violence cases.

 

[Loss Leader]

I thought the law no longer applied when it came to domestic violence cases.

It depends greatly on the jurisdiction. In the US, many states took action on the issue after the OJ Simpson case.

 

[newyorkguy]

What exactly is being referred to. I thought the issue with OJ Simpson and his kids was custody?

 

[Loss Leader]

What exactly is being referred to. I thought the issue with OJ Simpson and his kids was custody?

It's the same legal question: whether violence against the mother (even murdering her) has an impact on one's fitness to be a parent.

 

[KatieG]

Thats pretty much my take as well. And, she doesn't need to send love letters. "Here is a recent picture of your two sons who watched horrified and helpless as you tortured and nearly killed me, you worthless piece of ****. Tommy starts Grade 7 in August."

Those kinds of updates could just as easily be done by one of his family members. She can provide pictures and school updates to a designated person, problem solved!

 

[fuelair]

You just don't understand the nuances of civilized European countries, having been raised in the barbaric backwards USA.

I assume you are speaking in sarcasm as it makes complete sense based on how so many of those (persons) seem so totally concerned with the rights of murderous slime and completely unconcerned with the victims.

 

[fuelair]

This is actually the most important point. This case is all about parental rights. Since he will be out of jail, he will have some opportunity to actually be a father to his children. So, it is incumbent on the other parent not to interfere with that relationship. The closest he can get to his kids right now is just to see their pictures and know what they're up to. They don't want to see him and they're not going to be forced to while he's in jail. This will, in a small way, keep him connected to the children so that (if he proves himself worthy), he can have increased contact after prison.

You will remember that OJ Simpson won custody of his children even though he had, as far as the Family Court was concerned, killed their mother.

Now, this would not be the outcome in all jurisdictions. In many places (and generally because of the Simpson case) a violent crime against a parent is considered neglect or abuse of the child of the parties. Parental rights can be terminated even though the offender never hurt the children in any way.

I suppose that the right thing to do would be to terminate this man's parental rights due to implied child neglect. This would free the stepfather to adopt. This outcome doesn't seem to be available in the instant jurisdiction.

In a real justice systems he would never be able to go near any of them and here in Florida she could now blow him away if he tried.(obviously she would be in fear of her life under SYG!!!))

 

[fuelair]

I would note that the dad never legally had their parental rights severed. I might believe that, under the circumstances, this should have been the case. But it was not done. He retains legal parental rights, and I don't see how an individual judge, outside of a full legal action which the dad had the right to contest in a court of law, can (acting on their own) remove those rights. Would most people here favor a government action by an individual judge that would remove their own parental right without an opportunity to contest this action? Perhaps on the basis of speeding with your kids in the car? Or "emotional abuse" based on that lame joke you told them last week?

In fact, I would be in favor of now initiating a formal legal action to have a court of law severe the dad's parental rights. It is likely to cost money that the mom doesn't have, or shouldn't have to spend. And the dad should have the right to present his side in a court of law, even though I doubt he has an acceptable viewpoint. Are all posters here okay with the government providing this kind of money for lawyers through legal aide?

I'm sure the Democrats among us are!!!

 

[fagin]

As a UK voter and taxpayer, I would be.

 

[jimbob]

The case also throws up yet another example of the harm the current government's policy of reducing legal aid *and when it can be claimed). The mother on behalf of her children should have the ability to legally challenge such an order. But with the withdrawal of legal aid for most "family" legal cases unless she can convince a solicitor and then a QC to take it on as a free case she - practically - can't do anything about it.

I think these are the most dangerous of the Government's changes.

There are many situations where justice used to be served and will now be hindered.

 

[Spindrift]

She should comply to the letter:

Junior is doing well in school even though his classmates torment him because his father tried to kill his mother. His health is good even though he doesn't get enough sleep sometimes because he has nightmares about his father trying to kill his mother. He has some emotional issues that we're trying to work through because his father tried to kill his mother. Enclosed is a picture of Junior pointing to the scar on his mother's neck where his father slit her throat.

 

[fuelair]

It would be nice to get a letter about your kids if you were stuck in jail. He must miss them terribly.

That should be part of his punishment. And I doubt a POS like him who did what he did cares about anybody besides the big guy I hope is having his way with him.

And I trust you noted what he did and who he did it to.

 

[fuelair]

She should comply to the letter:

Junior is doing well in school even though his classmates torment him because his father tried to kill his mother. His health is good even though he doesn't get enough sleep sometimes because he has nightmares about his father trying to kill his mother. He has some emotional issues that we're trying to work through because his father tried to kill his mother. Enclosed is a picture of Junior pointing to the scar on his mother's neck where his father slit her throat.

I like your thinking on this matter!! That letter I fully approve!!

 

[Blue Mountain]

I like your thinking on this matter!! That letter I fully approve!!

While we're on this tack, send photographs of the kids looking despondent. One holds a sign reading "I hate you, Mr Hughes," and the other "When I grow up want to be like Wayne and not like Mr Hughes."

Maybe that's pushing it. But I'm not the one who's throat was slashed. So Natali may be considering doing very much the same.

 

[Loss Leader]

While we're on this tack, send photographs of the kids looking despondent. One holds a sign reading "I hate you, Mr Hughes," and the other "When I grow up want to be like Wayne and not like Mr Hughes."

Maybe that's pushing it. But I'm not the one who's throat was slashed. So Natali may be considering doing very much the same.

I'm not quite sure how you could get the kids to hold up the signs without traumatizing them further. Still, I appreciate the sentiment.

 

[a_unique_person]

Of course, but in this case he apparently has the right to continue contact with his victim and she is forced to participate.

Apparently in civilized countries your right to swing your arms doesn't end at another person's nose under the right conditions. I don't understand that, but I'm just a stupid American so why would I?

The was obviously created so that a mother could not gain full custody of the children in the case of a separation without informing the father of their progress. It was obviously not forseen that a situation such as this would occur. The father in this case was obviously abusing a law that was intended to ensure a father had some minimal rights.

I don't know that a judge anywhere can just rewrite laws because they have missed out on an unforseen eventuality. It is of course obvious that the woman in this case should not have to comply.

The law was created during the reign of Margaret Thatcher. I guess that her Conservative Party of the time is to blame.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As mentioned, the British courts probably would consider this child abuse. But to have this determined in a court of law and the dad's paternal rights severed would require more money for lawyers, research, expert opinions, fees, etc. It is not a trivial request to cut off someone from their children (although I think it likely appropriate in this case, although based only on a news account), and I don't think that it should be decided without a formal court hearing. The wife doesn't appear to have the money that she would need to bring this type of hearing (I presume the dad would want some legal representation too). So, as I asked before, are people willing to have the government contribute more money to legal aide to allow this type of action to be considered?

Clearly it needs to be much much easier and more trivial to take away someones parental rights.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I'm not quite sure how you could get the kids to hold up the signs without traumatizing them further. Still, I appreciate the sentiment.

Well, one could get the boys to hold up blank cards. Digital editing does the rest.

 

[Darat]

The was obviously created so that a mother could not gain full custody of the children in the case of a separation without informing the father of their progress. It was obviously not forseen that a situation such as this would occur. ...snip...

For fathers as well as mothers.

Actually I bet some did think about such a consequence but decided that the pros still outweighed the cons. There is no perfect legislation and there will always be some potential consequences we would rather not happen.