Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 135
Like Tree263Likes

Thread: Olympian Bode Miller Opens Up About "Brutal" Custody Battle for Son Nate, 9 Months

  1. #46
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    His behavior prior to the kid being born may have sucked, but that doesn't matter. You don't lose your legal rights because you missed an ultrasound, and fathers don't also lose their legal rights because the mother says, "Don't worry about it, I'll raise the kid by myself." If that really was the case prior to the birth, then they should have gotten lawyers to draw up an agreement wherein he would terminate his parental rights.

    It also doesn't matter if one parent has better opportunities across the country - in custody cases, the best interests of the child are supposed to be paramount, whether it inconveniences the parents or not. It's a pretty tough standard to prove to the court that a job or education opportunity is so outstanding - and that your options in the co-parent's home state are so limited - that you HAVE to move. And even if you do, a lot of judges will then make it that parent's responsibility to then travel back to the initial state to see the kid, or give them the burden of paying for the co-parent's travel to see the kid.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  2. #47
    Elite Member faithanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    On the Hellmouth
    Posts
    14,057

    Default

    I don't think it's in the best interests of the kid for its mother to be forced to live close to the father who has already expressed his lack of interest in the child's life.
    Bombshell, JWL, Butterfly and 2 others like this.
    "You're going to die tomorrow, Lord Bolton. Sleep well."



  3. #48
    Elite Member KrisNine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sleepy night night land
    Posts
    24,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    His behavior prior to the kid being born may have sucked, but that doesn't matter. You don't lose your legal rights because you missed an ultrasound, and fathers don't also lose their legal rights because the mother says, "Don't worry about it, I'll raise the kid by myself." If that really was the case prior to the birth, then they should have gotten lawyers to draw up an agreement wherein he would terminate his parental rights.

    It also doesn't matter if one parent has better opportunities across the country - in custody cases, the best interests of the child are supposed to be paramount, whether it inconveniences the parents or not. It's a pretty tough standard to prove to the court that a job or education opportunity is so outstanding - and that your options in the co-parent's home state are so limited - that you HAVE to move. And even if you do, a lot of judges will then make it that parent's responsibility to then travel back to the initial state to see the kid, or give them the burden of paying for the co-parent's travel to see the kid.
    But, he wanted nothing to do with the baby when she was 7 months pregnant. What was she supposed to do? Wait and see if he ever decided to have anything to do with the child? Custody in most states isn't going to be determined until the child is born. I can't see that there is anyway in hell it's legal to prevent a woman from moving anywhere while pregnant. Especially if she isn't married to the father of the child. In that case, the paternity of the child is automatically considered to be the husband. A man could challenge it on that alone.
    Shinola and Novice like this.

  4. #49
    Elite Member sluce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Top Secret Spy for Leann Rimes
    Posts
    37,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    His behavior prior to the kid being born may have sucked, but that doesn't matter. You don't lose your legal rights because you missed an ultrasound, and fathers don't also lose their legal rights because the mother says, "Don't worry about it, I'll raise the kid by myself." If that really was the case prior to the birth, then they should have gotten lawyers to draw up an agreement wherein he would terminate his parental rights.

    It also doesn't matter if one parent has better opportunities across the country - in custody cases, the best interests of the child are supposed to be paramount, whether it inconveniences the parents or not. It's a pretty tough standard to prove to the court that a job or education opportunity is so outstanding - and that your options in the co-parent's home state are so limited - that you HAVE to move. And even if you do, a lot of judges will then make it that parent's responsibility to then travel back to the initial state to see the kid, or give them the burden of paying for the co-parent's travel to see the kid.
    You have clearly missed many of the facts of this case. No one here is talking about general custody cases. This is a case where he wanted NOTHING to do with this child. She made plans to better her life and moved to NYC and started classes in January. He had no objection to her moving. Then AFTER she has moved and started her new life, he files and wants custody if she's not going to move back to Cali. That is bullshit and no judge should ever allow this to happen. He had no interest for 8 months of her pregnancy and then is given the power to disrupt her life because of his sudden change of heart.
    Butterfly, Daphne, Shinola and 2 others like this.
    You don't engage with crazies. Because they're, you know, fucking crazy. - WitchCurlGirl

  5. #50
    Elite Member Flygirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,246

    Default

    McKenna named the boy Samuel Bode Miller, Jr., which, honestly seems like a pretty weird move for someone who thinks at the time the dad wants nothing to do with him. Wonder if changing the kid's name is the new couple's attempt at saving the junior name for one of their future spawn.

  6. #51
    Elite Member Fly_On_TheWall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,642

    Default

    Watch when Wifey gets pregnant again.....he'll drop the case.

    And you just know when NBC does a profile on him during the games, he'll be milking this story..crying as he tells Matt Lauer how hard it is to concentrate on skiing because of the custody battle. NBC will have the camera on the baby and faux mommy during his run. If he wins, he'll run to them, crying, holding Sammy/Nate while he gets his gold. If he loses, he'll blame the ex.
    Last edited by Fly_On_TheWall; December 7th, 2013 at 08:40 PM.
    BelledeJour, Butterfly and nina385 like this.

  7. #52
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    33,834

    Default

    It's really difficult to get a timeline on this case. Here is what I've been able to find:

    2012 - Bode Miller and Sara McKenna (who at the time was a Marine) have some sort of relationship in California.

    May 2012 - doing the math from when Sara McKenna delivered (and this is not an exact science), McKenna conceives a child with Miller. Sometime latter she tells him she is pregnant. According to her, he says he has no interest in fathering a child with her and even encourages an abortion. She invites him to the ultrasound and he declines. The relationship is clearly over around this time.

    October 2012 - Bode Miller marries Morgan Beck, a pro volleyball player

    November 2012 - Bode Miller files papers claiming paternity of McKenna's pending child in San Diego, California.

    December 2012 - Bode Miller and his wife Morgan Miller announce that she is pregnant.

    January 2013 - Sara McKenna starts classes at Columbia University, where she will receive a free education through the GI Bill.

    January 19, 2013 - Morgan Miller, Bode's wife, suffers a miscarriage.

    February 2013 - McKenna gives birth to a boy who she names Samuel Bode Miller-McKenna

    May 2013 - A New York judge rules that the custody case should be handled by California. She also criticizes McKenna for coming to New York in the middle of a custody dispute and also suggest that McKenna came there because Miller would have to support the child until 21, unlike in California where he would have to do it until the child is 18. The California court then gives custody of the boy to Miller.

    November 25, 2013 - the decision is overturned with a pending December 9 court date.

  8. #53
    Elite Member KrisNine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sleepy night night land
    Posts
    24,082

    Default

    These judges should be ashamed. Who the fuck is this asshole in New York? How dare he or she suggest she went to New York to get support until the kid is 21?? And is that seriously a reason to remove an infant from his mothers custody? Possibly a breastfeeding infant? She had her baby taken away because she dared to move to New York (while pregnant) after the man who got her pregnant said he wanted nothing to do with the baby? How is that even a reason?

  9. #54
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    She can move anywhere while pregnant. Just as he can claim not to have interest while she is pregnant. However, THINGS CHANGE once the baby is born.

    You have clearly missed many of the facts of this case. No one here is talking about general custody cases. This is a case where he wanted NOTHING to do with this child.


    Doesn't matter. He can tell a judge he didn't realize he wanted to be a part of the kid's life until the kid actually arrived and he changed his mind. The judge can take that into account or not, but usually behavior prior to birth is not considered for obvious reasons.

    The fact remains that if she knew Miller wasn't interested in the kid, and he agreed to that, than she should have gotten a lawyer and they could have arranged for him to terminate his parental rights. Or they could have drawn up a custody agreement where he rarely saw the kid and gave her permission to move. But the fact that she named the kid after him indicates to me that's probably not the case that he was uninterested and they had no contact.

    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  10. #55
    Elite Member KrisNine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sleepy night night land
    Posts
    24,082

    Default

    Yes, but if the mother was pregnant, moved to another state to start a life and the father decided he now wants something to do with the kid, the mother should have to move to the state where the conception occurred because that's where the father lives? And she should lose custody for three months because she doesn't do it? That's pure bullshit insanity. Like I said, the laws are very different if the parents are married. A woman can't up and leave then because the paternity is assumed.

    He can change his mind all he wants and he should have rights to his son, but not this way. The mother is being treated like a fucking incubation chamber.
    JWL, Kittylady and BrickHouse like this.

  11. #56
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    33,834

    Default

    Actually, the problem with this case was that the judge in New York screwed up. (I think I'm reading now that it was a family court "referee", not a judge)

    1. He made an incorrect jurisdictional ruling. The child was born in New York, which means the custody case should have been handled in New York. That's the law. Not only did he incorrectly throw it back to California, but he made a very inflammatory statement about McKenna's intentions that seem to have absolutely no basis. It had to have prejudiced the case for whomever was hearing it in California.

    2. McKenna moved to New York while still pregnant. This seems to almost set a precedent in custody cases that somehow a person can limit the free movement of a pregnant woman based on a custody filing. Custody cases are filed AFTER the child is born when both parents need to figure out how they can handle having meaningful involvement in a child's life when one parent lives far away (or intends to move far away).

    3. The Daily Kos also makes the assertion that it allows someone filing in a custody case to limit the movements of a pregnant woman to the point where she would not be able to leave the state of the filing for any reason. Kos also claims that the paternity of Miller had not even been proven at the time that he made his filing (and when McKennas was still pregnant). Kos analysis is here.

    Miller's repeated assertions early on that he was uninterested in her carrying the child to term or being involved once the child was born are just the icing on the cake.

    Emily Bazelon has a legal analysis of the case on Slate.

  12. #57
    Elite Member yanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    10,718

    Default

    "I'm happy to have him back now. He's got a tooth and he can crawl. I didn'€™t know," McKenna went on to say.
    :*( Just reread the first post. Poor woman, I can't imagine the pain of being away for so long. It's clear that the Miller scum didn't exactly keep in touch with her either.

    Speaking of the Millers:



    WTF, they could be twins. No wonder he married her, it's like a female version of him. Same haircolour, same pisshole in the snow eyes, same nose and pretty similar mouth and facial structure. Creepy.

  13. #58
    Elite Member sluce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Top Secret Spy for Leann Rimes
    Posts
    37,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    The fact remains that if she knew Miller wasn't interested in the kid, and he agreed to that, than she should have gotten a lawyer and they could have arranged for him to terminate his parental rights. Or they could have drawn up a custody agreement where he rarely saw the kid and gave her permission to move. But the fact that she named the kid after him indicates to me that's probably not the case that he was uninterested and they had no contact.
    [/COLOR]
    WRONG! No court will allow a voluntary termination of parental rights prior to birth. It cannot be done earlier than 72 hours - 6 months after birth, depending on the state. Even then, they will not terminate parental rights just because someone doesn't want to be a parent unless there is another parent (Step or adoptive) who wants to voluntarily take on the legal role. The goal is to ensure that someone is still legally responsible for that child if something happens to the custodial parent.

    She has the text messages of him saying he was not interested, so giving the kid his name was stupid, but not an indicator that he wanted to be a parent.

    I am somewhat shocked by your defense of the father in this case. It's like you're saying that it's ok for a man to decide not want his kid, but then to still be able to control the mother (and child) by changing his mind on a whim. What wonderful precedent this will set for men to control women because they chose to give birth. What's the cut off for forcing a mother to do what the father wants? What if he waited until the kid is 10 and then wanted to be a Dad.
    Butterfly, JWL, Novice and 3 others like this.
    You don't engage with crazies. Because they're, you know, fucking crazy. - WitchCurlGirl

  14. #59
    Elite Member BelledeJour's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    6,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yanna View Post
    :*( Just reread the first post. Poor woman, I can't imagine the pain of being away for so long. It's clear that the Miller scum didn't exactly keep in touch with her either.

    I know, right? This must be heartbreaking for her.

  15. #60
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Where God said "Goodnight"
    Posts
    20

    Default

    I am extremely disappointed by Miller. Since skiing is very popular here, I've known of him for a long time and had no idea he was such an a**hole. This is really disturbing because it seems like the mother is a person who wants to better herself, and that should be applauded, and he and his cray wife seem like complete jerks who just want to win. I really hope wifey gets pregnant soon and leave this kid alone.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 63
    Last Post: May 4th, 2011, 12:09 PM
  2. Australian museum opens "Sam the Koala" exhibit
    By Honey in forum Pets and Animals
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 15th, 2010, 07:02 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 13th, 2009, 01:26 PM
  4. "Designer Baby" clinic opens in Los Angeles, CA
    By AliceInWonderland in forum News
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: March 7th, 2009, 11:48 AM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: November 19th, 2005, 08:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •