I Don't Often Rant; but When I Do, I Prefer to Rant on VJ

[Merrytooth 5,748]

wow.. 5 kids...

[SAT 9,609]

I wonder if he knows that cause he seems to think that because they both got custody it is no problem. He had no clue she left he was freaking out looking for all 5 of them everywhere.

If he reports it to the po po, the po po will know, and there'll be a warrant out for her arrest.

And it'll be entered in a database (NCIC), if she ever gets stopped and have her license checked, she'll be placed under arrest.

wow.. 5 kids...

That's Chapter 2.......

[JTB11 1,079]

wow.. 5 kids...

and they are random...as in....2 are his...2 are not....etc.

[SAT 9,609]

and they are random...as in....2 are his...2 are not....etc.

And not necessarily in order?

like...the oldest and youngest are his, and the middle ones aren't?

That's be Chapter 3

[Ontarkie 14,435]

they did...the wife and the son....that's all they paid. Their utilities would be off on regular basis and the kids would come here to use internet or take a bath or even study. Not too often but often enough. I doubt they paid this month since she left.

I wonder if he knows that cause he seems to think that because they both got custody it is no problem. He had no clue she left he was freaking out looking for all 5 of them everywhere.

From what I seen on the another forum till a court order is establish either parent can take the kids and not return them as they both have equal custody. If one parent keeps them, moves them and such the other then has to take him or her to court. It seems to happen a lot the ppl on that other forum will tell the parent who has the kids to get a court order before the kids go to the other parent because that parent can just refuse to return them till a court order is filed.

I don't know if it is like Steve said but it seems it's never enforce till a judge signs a custody order, heck some of them fight the other parent and then the judge still does nothing.

[SAT 9,609]

The law is very simple. But most laws (not all) depend on intent.

S 135.45 Custodial interference in the second degree.  A person is guilty of custodial interference in the second degreewhen:  1. Being a relative of a child less than sixteen years old, intendingto hold such child permanently or for a protracted period, and knowingthat he has no legal right to do so, he takes or entices such child fromhis lawful custodian; or  2. Knowing that he has no legal right to do so, he takes or enticesfrom lawful custody any incompetent person or other person entrusted byauthority of law to the custody of another person or institution.  Custodial interference in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.S 135.50 Custodial interference in the first degree.  A person is guilty of custodial interference in the first degree whenhe commits the crime of custodial interference in the second degree:  1. With intent to permanently remove the victim from this state, heremoves such person from the state; or  2. Under circumstances which expose the victim to a risk that hissafety will be endangered or his health materially impaired.  It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution under subdivisionone of this section that the victim had been abandoned or that thetaking was necessary in an emergency to protect the victim because hehas been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.  Custodial interference in the first degree is a class E felony.

In this case, it is first degree.

Edited October 7, 2014 by SAT

[Caryh 5,206]

and they are random...as in....2 are his...2 are not....etc.

and one isn't either of their'?

[Ontarkie 14,435]

I understand what you are saying but from all the step moms and bio moms who deal with the other parent not returning their child it seems the cops and judges do not follow it that way. A few moms called the cops because the father did not return their child at the end of their visit. They were told it was family matters not police matter so they can't help. They had to go back to court and fight to get the kids returned.

Now obviously this does not happen all the time.

[Caryh 5,206]

The law is very simple. But most laws (not all) depend on intent.

S 135.45 Custodial interference in the second degree.  A person is guilty of custodial interference in the second degreewhen:  1. Being a relative of a child less than sixteen years old, intendingto hold such child permanently or for a protracted period, and knowingthat he has no legal right to do so, he takes or entices such child fromhis lawful custodian; or  2. Knowing that he has no legal right to do so, he takes or enticesfrom lawful custody any incompetent person or other person entrusted byauthority of law to the custody of another person or institution.  Custodial interference in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.S 135.50 Custodial interference in the first degree.  A person is guilty of custodial interference in the first degree whenhe commits the crime of custodial interference in the second degree:  1. With intent to permanently remove the victim from this state, heremoves such person from the state; or  2. Under circumstances which expose the victim to a risk that hissafety will be endangered or his health materially impaired.  It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution under subdivisionone of this section that the victim had been abandoned or that thetaking was necessary in an emergency to protect the victim because hehas been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.  Custodial interference in the first degree is a class E felony.

In this case, it is first degree.

1 I would say she believes she has the legal right to move the children absent a court order not to.

2 We all know being around the MIL, children's grandmother, is mistreatment or abuse. Add in lack of water, heat, electricity, etc... and it is just more mistreatment by today's standards.

[SAT 9,609]

I understand what you are saying but from all the step moms and bio moms who deal with the other parent not returning their child it seems the cops and judges do not follow it that way. A few moms called the cops because the father did not return their child at the end of their visit. They were told it was family matters not police matter so they can't help. They had to go back to court and fight to get the kids returned.

Now obviously this does not happen all the time.

That's why I said the Penal Law is very simple.

ok....brief lesson about PL and CPL.

Penal Law.....PL- the way the laws are stated and written.

Criminal Procedure Law....CPL- The way a case proceeds from time of complaint to time of judgment. (Then there is sentencing laws)

This is a case of removing a child across a state line with the intent of permanently moving, that's the Penal Law violation.

If he reports it, the police will take a complaint report, and enter it into their complaints system.

Also, it will be entered into the NCIC (National Crime Info Center-FBI) database, this database is accessible by all law enforcement agencies. So, if they check her license, an NCIC warrant will pop up on the computer.

How the case proceeds from there, is Criminal Procedure Law.

1- The state may decline prosecution

2- The husband may not press

3- The court can settle the case, or dismiss it.

4- This is actually not a case for family court, it's a case for criminal court.

5- blah blah blah....you're giving me a headache.....

1 I would say she believes she has the legal right to move the children absent a court order not to.

2 We all know being around the MIL, children's grandmother, is mistreatment or abuse. Add in lack of water, heat, electricity, etc... and it is just more mistreatment by today's standards.

Like I said, the law is simple. She broke the law.

Proving the intent is difficult.

In cases like this, "ignorance to the law" (I didn't know I can't do that) is not a defense.

Edited October 7, 2014 by SAT

[Ontarkie 14,435]

Haha so stop thinking about it.

[Merrytooth 5,748]

Maybe the only 'good thing' is that the ex-FIL & MIL do not have to feed so many mouths (except 2 useless sons) at home anymore.

[Caryh 5,206]

Like I said, the law is simple. She broke the law.

Proving the intent is difficult.

In cases like this, "ignorance to the law" (I didn't know I can't do that) is not a defense.

But the law is still written where knowledge of the law is part of the intent to break it.

[Ontarkie 14,435]

Maybe the only 'good thing' is that the ex-FIL & MIL do not have to feed so many mouths (except 2 useless sons) at home anymore.

[SAT 9,609]

"It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution under subdivision one of this section that the victim had been abandoned or that the taking was necessary in an emergency to protect the victim because he has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse."

Now you also have to dissect that statement. What does it say? Does it mean immediate danger to the kids? Is there an alternative without removing the child? A prosecutor can destroy a defense here.....