Just wondering about this…
A Charleston guardian fought to keep a child with an alcoholic parent who is actively drinking, is single, and no supporting family in town. The guardian did this instead of supporting a change of custody and turning over the elementary school child to the nonalcoholic, nondrinking parent who has good community standing.
Is it just me or is this crazy?
Yes crazy, cases like that will keep you up at night.
I am sure that there is more to it than that. Just because you are non-drinking, non alcoholic, does not necessarily make you a better person, or a more fit parent. But I have no idea what the heck you are talking about.
It’s simple Narc… One parent is a using alcoholic. That parent is single and has no supporting family in town… So when child is with that parent, parent could be inebriated at any moment. Alcohol parent is a loving parent, but an alcoholic.
The other, however, is not an alcoholic, not a drug addict, but a loving parent. There is no more to it.
The guardian simply felt child was better with the alcoholic parent cause child was established in school.
So, Narc, if child suffers a life-threatening event due to alcoholic parent’s behavior, how can that ever be justified?
Turkey… the other white meat.
Just a guess here but I would imagine that the alcoholic parent is the mother? There are many unfit mothers that have custody of their children only because they are the mother. It really takes some hard evidence and proof (jail time, multiple DUI) for a father to get full custody.
Correct^^^^
Does that not then apply bias and poor judgment to the decision to steer away from a sober parent?
Turkey… the other white meat.
Not necessarily…As messed up as it is, and I agree with you that the father should have custody at least until she straightens her life out, but the mom is the mom and in custody battles that caries at least 51% of the deciding factors. It sucks I know. I’ve got a good friend who’s caught up in a similar situation.
I agree, but the thought that moms were better suited is part of the tender years doctrine that was debunked in the 90’s. Also, the preamble of SC family court says there is no gender bias.
Guess the gender movement is still in full swing, despite the threat of addiction.
What’s even more sad is that the guardian admits mother divulged to them that she was actively using alcohol. Mother promised to quit.
Turkey… the other white meat.
You keep saying the mother uses alcohol and then calling her an alcoholic. What proof (other than hearsay) is there that she has a drinking problem?
Unless she is truly having an issue with her drinking, or if she has neglected the children because of her drinking, the argument has gone as far as it’s going to go.
My brother-in-law has full custody of my two nephews (13 & 17). No substance abuse involved, but the reasons were there.
If there really is an issue to be concerned about, you will continue to take this to court.
Yeah…good point. Alcohol use and alcoholic are two totally different animals.
Mother is a labeled herself as a recovered alcoholic sober for some years. Guardian caught her in a using issue. Mother admitted to guardian she was indeed an alcoholic using alcohol again. Guardian requested she attend a recovery program as part of keeping her custody.
If one calls themself a sober alcoholic yet is using alcohol while deceiving the guardian then what does that make this person?
As for court, I told you above how this went down… The guardian denied suppprting the father to assume custody.
Turkey… the other white meat.
recovering alcoholics can fall down sometime. Doesn’t make them an unfit parent. What is the difference between a recovering alcoholic have a few drinks and the average Joe having a few drinks. I’m not saying this to bust your chops or anything, but you did try to painter her in a fall down kinda drunk way. No harm.
No she did that on her own. When people drink and drive, and get caught with alcohol behind the wheel, that’s a threat it would seem.
Turkey… the other white meat.
Obviously we agree on a lot of points and I don’t have enough facts to play judge and jury. I do think that if what you are saying is true, your day in court will be rewarded. I wish you the best of luck
No she did that on her own. When people drink and drive, and get caught with alcohol behind the wheel, that’s a threat it would seem.
Turkey… the other white meat.
I’m trying to understand the dynamics at hand here. The court puts a lot of faith in the guardian’s judgment. Here it is concerning as to how the guardian could allow a child to stay in the care of a single parent who is a drinking alcoholic, when the other parent is not a threat. A day in court with those odds seems defeating. Ultimately, it is the child who loses out here.
Turkey… the other white meat.
I hear you but there has to be more to this story than what you are letting on. I’m not even going to begin to speculate on what that may or may not be but you are defending the father like it’s either you or your son is the father of said child therefore has a very bias side to it. If she’s that bad and father is that good, father will wind up with child.
And this is why they assign unbiased guardians…we are to assume.
Reel, I’m not defending father or mother, I’m merely stating facts. Father has no issues that would prevent him from custody. Mother is a using alcoholic who admitted to guardian she has a problem.
Guardian feels mom will quit. Just because mom says she will is that enough to risk the child’s welfare upon?
Turkey… the other white meat.
Sounds like the father needs a better lawyer.
Charleston Fishing’s most hated guide!