Don't you steal my sunshine.

/i got nothing.

Skype and Facetime are great tools for non-custodial parents, especially when they are geographically remote and don't get regular face-to-face time with their children, but like anything else they can be abused. And they can definitely be invasive.

So, she didn't have custody of the child? Why?

Ya i'm going to go with a gross violation of private property rights. The government has no right to tell you what kind of phone you can or cannot get.

I know a few people divorced like this. The one mom whenever her kids go over the their dad's house she Skype's with them for at least three hours a day and comes to me crying when he throws a fit about it and won't let them talk with her. She says she just wants to see her babies and there is no harm with it. SHE initiated the divorce after having an affair on a good and decent guy who is a good father and provides for his kids (and pays her alimony even though he doesn't have to because he felt sorry for her she had no job). He travels a lot for work though, so she gets the kids the majority of the time. I keep telling her she needs to butt out and let the kids have time with their dad. The last time I said this she got offended and upset saying I couldn't possibly know what she is going through losing her babies two weekends a month.

She did it to herself. She caused all this by not working it out with her husband (even though he desperately wanted to). I've stopped talking her whiney phone calls because the situation pisses me off.

On the other hand I have a divorced friend who spends that same time on the phone with her kids, but the make sure their crazy alcoholic father isn't beating or berating them. Too bad the courts don't think it is bad enough for supervised visitation.

dustygrimp: There has to be more to this. Why did mom not get custody in the first place? Is there some damage here that may be a contributing factor? Perhaps some custodial interference?

"Hold the phone up. I wanna see your dad's new girlfriend."
"I have to yell at your father for the state of your room."
"It would be rude for you to talk to him, you're on the phone with me."

That's what I was thinking. I keep picturing the father and son sitting on the couch watching TV, while the iPhone is propped up next to them on the couch with mother's face on it watching with them. The father starts talking and you get a "What? Is your father saying something about me?!"

I'd agree it seems pretty invasive, like giving a camera to your ex and letting it wander around your house.

Where the fark do you even get a flip phone these days?

"Yes, I can see you, honey.... Now, go to Daddys desk and show me all the papers..."

Teen Wolf Blitzer: How could you possibly enforce that?

How about checking the phone bill?

yukichigai: I don't like the way this ruling sounds. Not at all.

On the one hand, this could very well be a case where the mother is indeed abusing the crap out of a method of communication so she can invade her ex's life with their son.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the fact that the judge demanded the iPhone go away and be replaced with a "simple flip-phone" makes me think the guy has no grasp of technology. Is that simple flip-phone somehow unable to keep the mother from calling the son every day? If images are the issue, how much do you want to bet that flip-phone has a camera in it, along with the ability to send pictures? And while we're on that topic, is video chat really that much more invasive than the kid being on the phone with her all the time?

This ruling just seems like it's overly narrow and far too ineffective to work. Is there some reason that "you can only call your son X times per week for no more than Y hours total" couldn't make it out of this judge's mouth? I hope not, because at this rate it's going to need to; I see a future court case with the same people complaining about the mother monopolizing the boy's time using the "simple flip-phone".

The judge was more concerned that the mother could essentially spy on the father with streaming video whenever she wanted. Simple camera phones can't do that nearly as effectively.

As someone who has done a lot of family law in his life; the sentence is ALWAYS proof positive you are dealing with a batshiat insane parent:

"McAvoy, who plans to pursue a federal civil-rights case to get custody of her son, said.."


That means whe is psychologically incapable of taking "You Lose! You get Nothing!Good Day to you Sir!" as an answer and is now being bilked by a dishonest lawyer (or is doing this on her own without a lawyer-more likely) into believing she can somehow appeal the Family's court's decision in a new forum

I did a little googling on this case. THese people are very high-powered types. She's an adjunct professor and legal commentator for Fox News. He's a real estate mogul. They've been fighting over the kid since 2005. There have been at least eight matrimonial attorneys involved.

She thinks the kid is Autistic or on the spectrum. He does not. She's had him in 40 hours therapy a week since he was eight months old. He thinks she's overdoing it.

Now she also thinks the kid is suicidal / homicidal because "he would rather be dead than continue living with his father" ( her words. )

So the court took the case away from the previous judge and gave it to judge Sunshine to do a "imminent risk hearing", I guess that's his thing.

More here:at this wacky blog. (new window)

Chinchillazilla: Where the fark do you even get a flip phone these days?

Tracphone/Net 10/Straight Talk

they have plenty and some don't even have cameras...

or even OldPeople Cell Phones inc (aka Jitterbug)

DrRatchet: I did a little googling on this case. THese people are very high-powered types. She's an adjunct professor and legal commentator for Fox News. He's a real estate mogul. They've been fighting over the kid since 2005. There have been at least eight matrimonial attorneys involved.

She thinks the kid is Autistic or on the spectrum. He does not. She's had him in 40 hours therapy a week since he was eight months old. He thinks she's overdoing it.

Now she also thinks the kid is suicidal / homicidal because "he would rather be dead than continue living with his father" ( her words. )

So the court took the case away from the previous judge and gave it to judge Sunshine to do a "imminent risk hearing", I guess that's his thing.

More here:at this wacky blog. (new window)

from your link:

along the way, there were unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father

Why does this not surprise me?

yukichigai: Mind you, if there was some compelling evidence that she was actually doing that it would be slightly BETTER reasoning, but the article makes no mention of that. It only vaguely hints at a "potential" for it.

Yeah, Matlock, you should just go ahead and base your appellate decision that the judge was wrong on the multitude of things that the tiny blurb of an article left out, and just assume those weren't presented in court.

TheCableGuy: //Why do you ask, two dogs farking?

You called?