Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz
My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

« Preventing International Child Abduction | Main | Wallace v. Wallace »

May 14, 2007

Comments

I am confused about the judges'statement that “Therein lies the irony: if a misled husband decides to “run” in order toavoid any parental support obligations, he would be prohibited from doing so by S.R.D.and would remain financially bound to the child, but should he desire to “stay” and maintain a relationship with the child, Consalvi, literally applied, says that he cannot be the de facto custodian and is not entitled to custody or visitation.”

That is unfair and that is not justice.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Become a Fan

What Others Are Saying About This Blog