'Paramours' often seen as problem
By Brian Hicks
The Post and Courier
Justin Hillerby, 27, sits during a bail hearing at Summerville Municipal Court Thursday. The judge denied bail for Hillerby.
In Family Court, they are called "paramours," and they can play a major role in child custody cases.
Live-in boyfriends are eyed suspiciously, children's advocates and attorneys say because they are often the most dangerous person a child encounters.
Judges frown on unmarried couples living together so much that some have been known to invoke the state's 200-year-old fornication law to encourage a single mother to avoid allowing a boyfriend to stay at her house.
After Justin Hillerby's arrest Wednesday in the death of his girlfriend's 22-month-old son in Summerville, local experts familiar with the court system say the situation is all too familiar.
"It is a recurring problem," says Stephen Dey, a local attorney and co-chairman of the Family
Court Liaison Committee of the Charleston Bar Association. "In a vast majority of cases, if a person is going through a divorce, there is a proscription to exposing children to the situation."
Dey says he will not take a case involving a parent with a live-in lover because "your chances of getting relief from the court is slim to none."
That's because of the troubles they've seen in Family Court. National studies indicate children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents.
Laura Hudson, executive director of the South Carolina Crime Victim's Council and a member of the state's Child Fatality Review Team, said Thursday it's hard to break down state statistics to illustrate the problem, but "I'll say it's not uncommon."
Often, she says, the death of a child comes at the hands of an adult caregiver who is not related to the victim. What police say occurred in the Hillerby case is nearly identical to a 2007 St. George case. Donald Joseph Mauldin last year was sentenced to 50 years for killing his live-in girlfriend's 3-year-old daughter.
The Dee Norton Lowcountry Children's Center has seen a 28 percent increase in child-abuse cases in the last four years. Dr. Libby Ralston, the center's executive director, says they have a lot of experience with cases involving live-in boyfriends.
"A lot of live-in boyfriends don't have the affection or the bond with a child, and no experience as a parent," Ralston says. "We have found that the risk to children increases when they are exposed to multiple adults."
And it is even worse when that is a person who doesn't understand a child's behavior, or how fragile they are.
"They may even feel jealous of the relationship the child has with its mother," Ralston said.
Some states have even considered harsh penalties against parents who move in with a lover. In Iowa, the state legislature has considered a law that could cost a parent custody of her children if she allows a boyfriend to move in. Iowa lawmakers say 26 percent of child deaths in that state between 1995 and 2000 involved live-in lovers.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
moonpie (anonymous) says...
Yeah CB the statiistics were staggering. Some people just don't deserve children. I hope if she had more that DSS has stepped in.
September 19, 2008 at 6:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannyofseven_2 (anonymous) says...
I know this has nothing to do with this story but it is related in a sense.
WHY was MOM out Partying without the boyfriend???? I thought partying is done with boyfriend and girlfriend.
And yes The Numbers are shocking in this story.
September 19, 2008 at 6:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
UrGatorbait (anonymous) says...
Not all live ins are bad but live in boyfriends are also the most likely to become the child's sexual abuser. Given the amount of alcohol and drugs that were apparently around, it's not surprising the young kid perished.
It's unfortunate the child's safety was second to the mother's needs.
September 19, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DanniD (anonymous) says...
50 times more likely???? That is crazy.
September 19, 2008 at 6:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
UrGatorbait...don't you mean: It's unfortunate the child's safety was second to the mother's selfish WANTS ?
September 19, 2008 at 6:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lhasalover (anonymous) says...
The problem isn't having a boyfriend, the problem is the drug and alcohol abuse and the lifestyle it brings. There's nothing more important to them, not their children, not their home, not their family. The mother wanted to go out partying and left the little baby with someone who was drinking.
Remember the little girl Caylee in Florida, she's gone because mom wanted to go party, we've seen those pictures. Even sillier is how these drunks whine and cry when their children are taken away from them.
September 19, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCHoser (anonymous) says...
This just turns my stomach! Parents putting themselves over their children-sickness! If a "live-in" hurts a child, both should be charged, end of story. It is the responsibility of the parent to protect their kids, and she failed to do that. No slap on the wrist-real punishment! What kind of slime doesn't take care of their children? I certainly see no value in a person who can't even take care of their own blood.
September 19, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldglory (anonymous) says...
. . . invoke the state's 200-year-old fornication law to encourage a single mother to avoid allowing a boyfriend to stay at her house."
Tells us all which judges do this, and list the case numbers. Whoever told Reporter Brian Hick this is full of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas, what is your rationale for making this accusation re whomever gave such info to Brian Hicks? (I like to try to keep up with your points.)
September 19, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Slick50 (anonymous) says...
. . . invoke the state's 200-year-old fornication law to encourage a single mother to avoid allowing a boyfriend to stay at her house."
It may be an old law, but it just MIGHT make a difference in saving another life.
Rather than inject a host of men/women into their child's lives, a single parent should get a responsible babysitter, go out and have fun, then resume their role as a single parent in the morning. I think if a person is worth me dating, they are worth the cost of me paying for a good babysitter.
September 19, 2008 at 8 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ironhorse (anonymous) says...
Oldglory, it doesn't matter. The ACLU will protect the "right" of a deadbeat live-in to shack up.
September 19, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
teeitup (anonymous) says...
I would know where this idiot thomas1776 gets his information......
September 19, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
"In Iowa, the state legislature has considered a law that could cost a parent custody of her children if she allows a boyfriend to move in."
**Ok does anyone else see anything wrong with this?SHE,SHE,SHE,HER??What about a man having his girlfriend shack up?How could they introduce a law that assumes only a man could harm a child?I understand the stats probably show it's more likely to be a man-but still.It should be gender equal.There are plenty of abusive neglectful,jealous women,too.Look at the lying biatch in this case.
September 19, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannyofseven_2 (anonymous) says...
I wish this woman could be charged as well but she won't and if she is able to have more kids she will. I hope ALL men who read this oops all SINLE MEN? Will stay clear of this person. She does not need to breed
September 19, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
This situation is becoming a problem, but it's not the fact that people are living together, it's the type of people involved. Drunks and druggies.
Children are a hindrance to people that choose drinking and drugs over childrearing.
Something has to go, and unfortunately it will ultimately be the child, as alcohol and drugs are considered far too important.
September 19, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoaMM (anonymous) says...
CFB:
I'm sure it's based on statistics. I'm not saying it's right, it's just that the guy is more likely to do this.
That being said, I have a problem with:
"In Iowa, the state legislature has considered a law that could cost a parent custody of her children if she allows a boyfriend to move in."
If this comes to fruition, how is the single parent suppose to move on with their life? There's already stipulations placed in custody papers all over America that state the "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" can't have contact with the child.
How is the single parent supposed to move on?
September 19, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Siava (anonymous) says...
Granny, to address your question I'd say it's because even though two people are partners, they're still two separate people. I don't get out much, but I do have the occassional girl's night out without Mr. Wonderful. It's not uncommon at all for couples to have "me time".
This is sickening, and yes, I believe the whole partying lifestyle is a huge factor in the case. I too would like to see CB's proposed statistics.
September 19, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jca (anonymous) says...
what i would are the stats on live in bfs who arent the father of the girls kids
verus the ones who are the father
by the way married couples abuse their kids too. not just live in cases
September 19, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCHoser (anonymous) says...
Good point coolfreaknbeans-there are tons of women who are abusers. Susan Smith, Diane Downs, Dena Schlosser, Andrea Yates & Lashaun Harris come to mind. Anyone who kills their child deserves to be put to death. period. Hell, that Schlosser woman cut her daughters' arms off for crying out loud! And why would we want to keep these people as members of our society? In several of the cases on these women, they killed their child because they got in the way of their "love life". There are plenty of pos scumbags in both sexes.
September 19, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannyofseven_2 (anonymous) says...
Thank you Siava. For your answer. Call me old fashion but, when you are a couple you should do most things as a couple that includes to party. Now that being said as well I also believe in me time and when my first husband and I were young and are children were ages 3, 6, and 9 we did have our me time as well but if it was to go party we did it together with grandmamma watching the kids over night.
I guess I will never understand this new generation, who (some not all) believe in the throw away babies when they are a burden.
September 19, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Disgruntled (anonymous) says...
I agree with Thomas - I would like to see the case number of the Family Court case where the fornication law was ever invoked.
All too frequently, the Family Court Judges are the cause of problems for children, not the cure. It is time that this State puts a halt to putting judges on the bench because of "connections" instead of qualifications. It is time for the people of the state to be able to remove a judge, who has consistently demonstrated "bad temperament" and "abuse of discretion" from the bench by voting him/her off, instead of having these "ill tempered" judges returned to the bench because of their "connections" by our esteemed legislators.
It is time for the other Judges, when they can clearly see that an error has been made by one of their own, to correct that error for the well being of the child(ren) instead of perpetuating that error to "protect" the erring judge and that goes all the way up to Queen Jean and her cohorts.
September 19, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fourisenough (anonymous) says...
The laws and penalties should be harsh to protect our most precious citizens.Don't set on any portion of this issue any longer. Speak for those who can't in a divorce situation.
September 19, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
I know for a fact that a judge WILL put that as a stipulation for a parent to keep custody of their children. My husband's ex-wife had a live-in that was a violent drunk and drug abuser and the judge gave her a chance and told her the boyfriend had to leave. That lasted three days, the boyfriend came back and the children were living with their father the next week. With their father was where they stayed, as she never got custody again.
September 19, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
xdrfox (anonymous) says...
"28 percent increase in child-abuse cases"..nothing to do with the economy ? ...stats say it does...
September 19, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lovely_One (anonymous) says...
I know a woman who had that stipulation laid upon her in her divorce decree. She could not have a live-in as long as she maintained custody of the children. My only issue was that the father didn't have the same stipulation placed upon him. He had visitation rights which included every other weekend, the whole summer (starting the last day of school up until one week before the start of the next school year), holidays, and Spring break. All of that time that the father was allowed to have the kids he had them around his live-in GF, but the mother could not have a live-in at all. Although I think it is a good thing that the rule was enforced about paramours, I think it should have been laid out for both parents.
September 19, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FramedFathersDotCom (anonymous) says...
It's about time that a journalist has the guts to write some truth about these "paramours". It is important to inform the public about these matters and get more people to be aware about what is exactly happening in many homes across America, (and elsewhere). My daughters mother has had 4 live in "paramours" in just the last 2 years alone. It took me 2 years to modify a court order to make this behavior of hers a violation. She has now married this 4th guy to avoid contempt and this guy has threatened me, harrassed me and my wife, stalked us, and we have a TPO/RO against him and nothing seems to make a difference. Nothing less than this guy drawing my blood will cause any officer to take action against this man. This has been psychologically and emotionally abusive to my daughter and the mother could care a less as long as she is causing me pain. Who knows what else goes on in that unstable home of hers! The courts/laws mentality is that MOM IS GOOD, non-custodial FATHER IS BAD, its as simple as that!. If I was doing anything close to what this man is doing I surely would of been arrested by now. There is definant bias and discrimination going on all over the US against Fathers/Men and some non-custodial Mothers. The system needs a complete overhaul and the government needs to quit using children and families as currency to fund this destruction!
September 19, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
Lovely - the same stipulation should have been applied to both. Her attorney dropped the ball on that one. I don't have a clause like that in my divorce papers (for either side), but I know with my child, if someone does anything to her, She's going to make it KNOWN that she didn't care for it. I don't have any worries about that at all!
September 19, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hockeyfan2629 (anonymous) says...
I say dont put him in jail take him to a middle or nasty dirty swamp tie him to a tree and let the gators and everything else get him. But before tying him to the tree sit him in chair cut off his ear real slow then poor gasoline on him let it burn then take him to the swamp and tie his ass up the gators and rest of the animals out there take care of it. Saves our tax dollars!
September 19, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
Framed - they can't do anything to this guy because the things he does just sits on the line of being illegal. Been through the same thing with the boyfriend of my husband's (now ex husband) ex-wife.
September 19, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
AMEN Coldbeer!
Doamm: "How is the single parent supposed to move on?"
According to societal norm especially here in the 'Bible Belt' they're not!
I certainly understand/empathize the knee jerk reactions to the very sad phenomenon of children being abused or killed. Especially by those who AREN'T related.
And I certainly understand the morality issue of cohabitating with those who subscribe to any religion that would consider that a sin.
However to start legislating that particular behavior IMHO is wrong. I mean where does it stop?
The problem stems from the parent or parents lack of involvement in the child's life. The problem is having immature people having children but not having the responsibility to properly care for them. The problem is having people rush into relationships instead of taking time to truly get to know them.
So if you consider a law to prohibit cohabitation, based solely on the premise that a non-relative is much more likely to harm a child, then wouldn't marrying that same person still post the EXACT same risks? The child is no more related to that person then he/she was dating the child's parent.
Is the 'morality' of marriage supposed to somehow 'change' a person? If the step-parent is a bad person, a marriage license certainly isn't going to change that. And to believe that if someone is willing to marry a woman who has a child(ren) that makes him a 'good' guy, I'm here to tell you that is a fallacy.
Again, as a single mother of two girls, I was ALWAYS cognizant of the inherent risks of dating after my divorce and having unrelated men around my daughters. I made a conscious choice not to cohabitate or remarry for several reasons. One of which is that I've never found anyone good enough. (Before you guys jump on me, men are wonderful and there are some TERIFFIC guys out there, I've just not found the right one for me).
However I'm a conservative Libertarian the idea of having the government ONCE AGAIN intrude upon my personal life is a bitter pill I'm not willing to swallow.
A wedding ring is NOT an indicator of morality, intelligence or even LOVE. For those of you that seem to think marriage will somehow magically protect an innocent child you are wrong.
Is a two parent household an optimal environment for children?
ABSOLUTELY
But don't get confused with the 'religious' ideal of marriage and the REAL TRUTH of having two intelligent and responsible ADULTS raising, loving and respecting children.
September 19, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
I meant to say that a wedding ring is not an ABSOLUTE indicator of morality, intteligence or love.
September 19, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
Figgie and I are on the same page with this one. My SO and I aren't married. I chose not to marry again for a variety of reasons, alot of them financial (my house, which I'm not willing to share the equity in if the relationship fails), if I die, my child would basically get nothing of my estate, and tax reasons, etc. And I feel good about the idea if my relationship does fail, I don't have to go through the courts to end it.
Anyway, my SO calls my daughter HIS daughter when he introduces her or talks about her. He's always the first one cheering her on at her sporting events. And he's the one that sneaks her treats when I've punished her some infraction of the rules.
I wouldn't put up with (and neither would she) any sort of abuse to me or her.
September 19, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gatorchick (anonymous) says...
you know i couldn't agree with you more eyfigueroa ...I am a single mother of 2 girls...I don't bring any guy around them unless i have been dateing them for awhile and that doesn't mean a week either..that means for a couple of months till I feel comfortable... but there are people out there that don't think..and its just not women either its single father's as well..I also refuse to show my children that living with someone is the right thing to do before marriage...I have told my children you need to get an education do something for yourself then find a good man to love and have a family with but most importantly never depend on a man to take care of you cause they won't always be around...and i don't mean that in a bad way either for all you single men or married men that are reading this....as for the mother of the 2 yr old son...she needs to be sitting in jail herself for leaving him alone with this guy thats not even the father of this child...and she also needs to quit updating her myspace mood and start thinking of how her child would probably be still alive if she hadn't gone out and when she did get home at least go ck on the child...what a mother she is I think she deserves the number 1 mom metal for being a idiot for thinking of herself before her children..but its like this too how many times has something like this happend in that home before..before this child died..what about the little girl how is she has anyone asked how she could be feeling about all this and what exactly did she see...
September 19, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sdr35hw (anonymous) says...
We have conditioned this generation to consider a child as a choice, not a gift. Until that changes, the news will sound like a cheap novel.
September 19, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chucktonian (anonymous) says...
I'd like to ask a million dollar question: where da BabyDaddy at?
September 19, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
I agree that the courts have no business dictating yes or no on an established cohabitation situation where there is no marriage license..mainly because I, too, am a conservative libertarian. (My personal views are a bit more restrictive)
I think the main issue for the Court to address is stability for the children, not a marriage of the adults, per se.
I think most mature folks know & agree that a constant parade of temporary parental partners through the home is very unsettling for young children & tends to create an unstable environment. This is what the Courts do have a right to address...IMO
September 19, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sdr35hw (anonymous) says...
...but by the content of these comments, that wont happen soon.
September 19, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
Most of the time the court won't make a ruling on a "paramour" unless there is a problem with that person. Not because the ex spouse has a dislikes for that person. If the "live-in" is a respectable person-has a decent job, not an alcoholic, drug abuser, not abusive to the parent or child- most of the time the court will not address it. The court may address it if the parent has a revolving door though.
September 19, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lovely_One (anonymous) says...
Although I DON'T think it is a good thing that the rule was enforced about paramours, I think it should have been laid out for both parents.
That is what my last sentence in my last post should have read. Now I can say that I agree with Eyfig as far as the government legislating responsibility. The parents are the ones that should be responsible enough to make the right decisions about how they live their lives and how it affects their children.
September 19, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
msn2it (anonymous) says...
This is so absolutely pitiful. What happened to this tiny little baby just makes my heart heavy with sorrow. I hope that you don't think that I am taking up for the mother or the boyfriend. I feel that they are both equally to blame and both deserve to be punished.
Now the part that everyone will probably send me nasty grams about! I don't feel that the boyfriend woke up with intentions of killing that baby. The lifestyle that these 2 chose to live, and yes, they chose to live this lifestyle was not for the best interest of the children. Mix that with immaturity, alchohol, drugs and a promiscuous lifestyle and you have the perfect formula for disaster. I look around me every day and I am shocked by our "me" society. How many times have we heard, a disaster strikes and now who is going to help ME? My 10 kids by 10 different men don't have any food to eat, now who is going to help me? I drank the last of the coffee, but I don't want any more, so it doesn't matter if there are 10 other people working in this office, I'm just thinking about myself. He knocked my beer over, so now I am mad because I don't have MY beer. I have to go out and get drunk, so I will leave my child with this man who probably had been drinking all day at the pool, and probably will drink more before he passes out, but that's ok, because I WANT to go out. I shot a man because he took MY drugs. I will beat this man up because HE took MY parking spot. People would rather "get" stuff than be responsible enough to go to school to get a better education, or work 2 jobs to make ends meet, or attend parenting classes it's what are you going to do for me?
I hope you get my drift. We were not put on this earth to think about ME. We are suppose to watch out for one another. I just wonder if that is not why we are having so may catastrophies. This seems to be the only time we stop thinking of ourselves and reach out to help one another or ask for help (that is really needed).
Drugs is another problem. We have people killing each other almost daily due to drugs. It's such a shame to see someone who is so young ruining his/her life because they have so little regard for a human life. When is it going to end. I think what is happening to our society goes way deeper than having a live-in boyfriend.
RIP little one. I wish I had known you, precious one.
September 19, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charlestonpride (anonymous) says...
My daughter took her son's father to court for child support and THE JUDGE told the lawyers to add in the papers that neither one of them could have a "love interest" spend the night when the child was present. This was in Greenwood County.
September 19, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
You're right, Jane, it can be added in when both parties request it. I don't think the judge put it in ours because there wasn't alot of other stipulations put in nor were there really any acrimonious (sic) feelings flying around. I think the judge may also take into account the maturity and responsibility level of both parties. If you are mature enough and responsible enough not to nit pick each and every aspect of everything and not pick each other apart, then you will PROBABLY be mature and responsible enough to make the right decisions about things that will affect the child(ren).
September 19, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sherlock (anonymous) says...
now im really afraid for the two small children whose mother just allowed an ex con, gang member to move into her home with her. perhaps i should contact dss because this guy just got out of prison and has a teardrop tatoo under his eye. i think that means he killed someone. anyway, now i am really worried about the children.
September 19, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...
Despite the larger confusion in our culture about sex, cohabitation and children, the policy in SC's courts is quire clear. Parents should not have the ovrenight guests of the opposite sex in their home with the children unless they are a family member. An occassional exception can be found, but the Judges have gotten much harder on this in the last ten years.
When you have a child, you give up a lot of your freedom. When you are involved in a custody situation you can't expect to have the freedom and privacy of a unmarried single person.
The SC standard in these cases is "the best ineterests of the child." A parent's social life is a distant second.
As an attorney I've been on all sides of this. Judges don't like casual, uncommitted sex because it produces kids who have casual families and casual support that grow up to have serious problems which those same judges see in their criminal cases and child abuse cases.
Two, or at least one, parent needs to but thier children first. If you want to retain custody of your children or have visitation, be prepared to do what the law of SC required our Judges to consider in making their decisions.
If you think live ins are OK, you should contact your state legislature and request that they introduce a bill to change the law and provide guidance to Judges. Major mills on alimony and the equitable division of property have been past in the past two decades which changed the law.
However, I wouldn't give the Live In Lover Normalization Act a good chance of passage.
While we're in the area, illegal drugs are lethal in a custody case and the court is happy to Order people to be tested.
Celebate and sober is the path to custody.
September 19, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Siava (anonymous) says...
eyfi, thank you. Very well said and I agree wholeheartedly.
September 19, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
I believe that SC got rid of "common law" maybe about 10 years back. Not saying I'm stating a fact.
If wjhamilton comes back on, maybe he can answer that one.
September 19, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bm1961 (anonymous) says...
Maybe Charleston County family courts will act when it comes to Paramours, but I did not see any action in Dorchester County when it came to my Divorce. I won full custody of my 3 children in a bitter divorce, but it was not based on the acts of my ex living with her boyfriend. I complained regularly about my ex having the kids on her weekends, living with her ex, and even demanding the visitation scheduleds coencide so they would not be inconvenienced with his-kids/her-kids on alternating weekends. Nothing was ever done.
Also I have yet to hear a mother loosing custody of her chldren to a father due to her having a live-in boyfriend. Many need to have their kids taken from them, but here in South Carolina, the courts are biased and always consider the mother first.
September 19, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FortDorchesterMom (anonymous) says...
Coldbeer, are you my husband??? I don't know what is going today...but, for some reason, I'm agreeing with you.
I was a single parent to two small kids when I met my husband. We don't have any children "together", but he has loved and raised my kids with me...and been a wonderful parent. I couldn't ask for more..and I know that it must be hard to take on a ready-made-family, but he stepped up to the plate. We also lived together for a short time before we were married, so the generalization about live-in boyfriends isn't always true. It think it comes down to whether you've picked a piece of crap to live with, or a good person. Simple as that.
My daughter is also 19, and I'll agree about the bathroom...but, it's really her room that is a disaster area! Clothes everywhere..she could be hiding someone in that room, and we would never know. I have two good kids, and I know that I couldn't have done it without my husband. I chose well, and this Jennifer piece of dung, chose poorly.
September 19, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gatorchick (anonymous) says...
i understand what your saying msn2it and i even agree with most of what you said..but everyone is talking about what he did and what the mother did and I would just like to ask yet again what about the 8 yr old can you imagine what that little girl is going through and how she is feeling...I would really like to ask her how she is and what she is thinking and later when she is comfortable talking about it..ask her what exactly did you see Justin do and how long has your mother been leaving you alone at home to take care of yourself...I will tell you this much I am very disappointed in this mother..and how she can sit and show no emotion and continue to update her myspace profile...I as a mother only feel sorry for that little boy and his sister cause children can't choose their parents. But people who choose to be parents regardless of planned or not should be able to take resposibility and
if they can't there are people out there in this world that can't have kids and would love to have them...so again as a mother she should be held just as responsible for leaving them and getting drunk and god knows what else as he is for actually killing...
September 19, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DoaMM (anonymous) says...
eyfigueroa wrote:
"I meant to say that a wedding ring is not an ABSOLUTE indicator of morality, intelligence or love."
You are EXACTLY right.
I think it boils down to gut instinct...If it don't feel right, don't do it.
But I guess if the person is charming enough or you share that person's same low brow qualities, your gut is going to either show up too late or not tip you off at all to a potentially bad situation.
I think in this case that both people should be tried in court...fry his arse, and take her other kid(s) away from her for negligence.
September 19, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlueGrits (anonymous) says...
The thing that floors me; did he actually admit to doing these things to that boy?- Did he not realize that what he did was violent abuse toward a toddler? Do we have a nation of dummied down desensitized young adults who don't possess any empathy?????
And this woman who calls herself a 'mother' she's not. Any person who could possibly defend this b@sterd's behavior, is a g-damn monster.
September 19, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Disgruntled (anonymous) says...
The legislature has considered abolishing common law marriage, but has not passed any legislation on that issue at this tim
September 19, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FortDorchesterMom (anonymous) says...
ScNative, I just let my 19 year old daughter buy a new car...am I an idiot?? She's been working since she was able to get a job...because she wanted to go see her friends..eat out with her friends and do all of that fun stuff that teens do..and I wasn't going to foot the bill for that.
She had been driving one of our old hand-me down cars, and it wasn't reliable at all, and she just started college..so, she needed something better. She can totally make her car payment(which is crazy low)and pay her insurance too!!! And still have enough money to run the roads with her girls. Where did I go wrong?
She's pretty funny to be around, and in my opinion she's beautiful, proud and confident...the only issue I have with her is the pesky little habit that she has about being responsible. It's sooooo annoying(sarcasm) I'm hoping that she'll grow out of it.
September 19, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MominFL (anonymous) says...
Siava and Granny, I think that there is a difference between what responsible people consider Girls'/Guys' Night Out and what Jennifer did. Personally speaking, I will go out once a month (or once every 2 months) with some friends and we'll have dinner or dinner and a movie. I'm usually home between 10 and 11. I do not go out cruising the bars until 1:30 in the morning, and I don't leave my son with an adult who is irresponsible and has been drinking all day, like Jennifer did.
Sherlock, I would definitely keep an eye on that situation. It sounds like it could be potentially volatile.
In terms of having a paramour when you have a child, I have mixed feelings about it. I think that having a parade of sex partners spending the night sends a very bad message to a child. However, if a single parent is in a serious relationship with someone (especially if they are planning to get married), I don't think it is damaging, and can actually be beneficial for the child to have positive role models.
Like others have written, a wedding ring doesn't guarantee a happy and functional family.
September 19, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
No I still am posting and native has some serious issues...I wonder if he is related to this Hillbery
September 19, 2008 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chrismo12 (anonymous) says...
well if i see her on the streets she will get a beat down.. cause shes unfit!!!
September 19, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MominFL (anonymous) says...
chucktonian, I think that the fathers of both of Jennifer's children signed away their legal rights when the kids were very little, prior to her moving to SC. (They had different fathers. I heard it from a friend of a friend of a friend.)
coldbeer, I just posted over there.
September 19, 2008 at 6:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
Thomas, Disgruntled and FramedFathersDotCom have a clearer view than most about what is actually happening in family court-AND I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.
Family court presents no cure-it has become the disease.
September 19, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GreenvilleGirl (anonymous) says...
If there is any good to come from this, it is that most men(and women) in prison don't take too kindly to someone who has killed a child, especially a child who is unable to defend itself.
This no-good live-in scum (excuse me, 'paramour') will soon get a dose of his own medicine from his NEW roommates because of what he has done. Chances are he'll be beaten to a pulp, or worse.
He should have thought about the consequences of his actions before he lost his temper and killed the little boy.
He probably has regrets now; not that he committed murder, but that he got caught.
September 19, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Perspective (anonymous) says...
I was looking at the newspaper hoping to see a story about some awful event befalling the child murdering P.O.S. at the county jail.
No such luck today.....maybe tomorrow.
September 19, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opini...
McCrosson v. Tanenbaum, Ct. App. (2007)
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opini...
Semken v. Semken, Ct. App. (2008)
September 20, 2008 at 5:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
http://googlemini.sccourts.org/search...
September 20, 2008 at 5:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
Speaking of Garfinkle:
http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/unpu...
Altman v. Griffith, Ct. App. (2006)
"In a proceeding for contempt for violation of a court order, the moving party -- MUST SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF A COURT ORDER AND THE FACTS ESTABLISHING THE RESPONDENT'S NONCOMPLIANCE -- with the order." Hawkins, 359 S.C. at 501, 597 S.E.2d at 899. ...
The family court abused its discretion in finding Griffith in contempt where -- THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE -- she had willfully violated the court order to pay child support.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the trial court's decision is
REVERSED.
SHORT, WILLIAMS, JJ., AND CURETON, A.J., CONCUR.
[2] The Final Order was not presented to the trial court. Moreover, Altman never identified what provision of the order requires Griffith to pay him the sums he claims Griffith owed him.
September 21, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JDV (anonymous) says...
THE FOLLOWING CASE PROFILE ALSO APPLIES TO THE MURDER OF BLAISE SPOERL IMO. SC PROSECUTORS NEED TO LOOK INTO CHARGING THE ENABLERS OF OUR CHILD KILLERS HERE & START PROSECUTING THEM ALSO, UNTIL THAT HAPPENS THESE KILLINGS ARE NOT GOING TO STOP.---PROSECUTE JENNIFER SPOERL PLEASE!!
NEW YORK - After she was brutally beaten by her stepfather, 7-year-old Nixzmary Brown lay naked, weeping and begging for her mother, but prosecutors said no one came to her aid or called for medical help until hours after she died.
The girl's stepfather has already been convicted of manslaughter, but prosecutors have now put her mother on trial for murder and other charges for allowing the vicious abuse to go on.
The trial has raised the question of whether mothers should be held to a higher standard than fathers at a time when traditional gender roles in the home are changing.
"In failures of care, mothers are held much more responsible, even when other individuals and agents play a role," said David Finkelhor, a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire and the director of the Crimes against Children Research Center.
"A good way of looking at whether the issue of bias was involved: If the gender roles had been reversed, would the outcome be the same?"
September 22, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full Terms and Conditions.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Shared
- Upper King on rise: Hotels, apartments, restaurants changing face of downtown area
- UPDATE: Missing woman's fiance seen leaving scene of burned SUV, carrying a shovel
- Missing woman case gets murkier
- Magnolia Gardens offering free dream wedding to contest winner
- Body of missing woman's fiance was found near handgun
- Pinterest: Pinning hopes and dreams
- DAVID SLADE: S.C. offers hybrid car tax credit
- Black women today: Strong. Resilient. Ambitious.
- Ex-Boeing worker claims racism, retaliation in firing
- MCDERMOTT COLUMN: Golf business has risks, rewards
