lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Mixed Emotions About Father’s Position in New Jersey Custody Case

2007-07-26
By

Ruben Alequin Sr. and Jessica Dones had two children together. Recently Dones allowed their eight year-old daughter to walk with her 15-year-old cousin to get Chinese food after midnight. The little girl was struck by a  drunk driver and killed. Now the father is trying to get custody of their five year-old boy, citing safety concerns and questioning Dones’ judgment.

I have mixed emotions about the case. I have a nine year-old daughter who has a 14 year-old female cousin. I think the mother’s conduct is outrageous–there’s no way in hell I’d allow my girl to walk to a store or restaurant after midnight with her cousin, and I find it hard to believe that the girl’s father would have allowed it. Maybe it’s a father-daughter thing, I don’t know. My wife occasionally enjoys mocking me for being overprotective of my daughter, and I’m guilty as charged. The fact that the mother defends her decision by saying “she wanted to go” makes me even more suspicious–an eight-year-old doesn’t make that call, the parent does.

On the other hand, things always sound less innocent and more egregious after a tragedy has occurred. It’s not really fair to expect Dones to know that a drunk driver would come and kill her daughter.

According to one press report, “Dones says Alequin hasn’t been a part of his children’s lives for years, has barely visited them and is behind on child support. She said she has full custody of Ruben Jr., contradicting Alequin’s claim that they have joint custody.”  Let’s break this down:

“Dones says Alequin hasn’t been a part of his children’s lives for years”

There are three possibilities here (or combinations of the three):

1) Alequin has voluntarily removed himself from his children’s lives

2) Dones is lying, and he is a part of their lives

3) Dones has prevented him from being a part of his children’s lives.

If case 1 is true, I think it’s hard to argue that Alequin should get custody, despite the mother’s irresponsible behavior. If it’s case 2 or case 3, I think Alequin has a good argument for custody.

Also, the father lives in Pennsylvania and the mother lives in New Jersey–I wonder who moved? If the father moved away, I think that reflects poorly on him. If it was the mother who moved away, she shouldn’t be complaining if his visits were infrequent.

“Alequin is behind on child support”

If this is true, this could be a legitimate strike against Alequin, but given the myriad problems with the child support system and custody, there are many legitimate reasons why he could be behind.

My judgment? I think the court needs to investigate what is happening in Dones’ home and the truth of the relationship (or lack thereof) between Alequin and his surviving son, and a transfer of custody may well be appropriate.

Dad criticizes mom, seeks custody of son
By MICHAELANGELO CONTE
Jersey Journal, 7/25/07

Angelica Alequin’s father has filed a motion to get custody of his son, saying the death of his daughter has shown him his son should be in a different environment.

“I’m here because I’m afraid my son isn’t safe,” said Ruben Alequin Sr. yesterday in the Hudson County Administration Building. Alequin Sr. had just filed papers to ask for custody of his son, Ruben Jr., who currently lives with his mother, Jessica Dones.

Dones and Alequin are the parents of Angelica Alequin, who was killed by an alleged drunken driver early Saturday.

Alequin argued that Angelica should not have been out after midnight and supervised only by a 15-year-girl the night she died. The father, who has lived in Pennsylvania for several years, said: “If this happened (in Pennsylvania), they would have taken her kids away.” (more…)

Parental-Alienation-Awareness.com
Stop Parental Alienation–a terrible form of Child Abuse. Eight states have now officially recognized Parental Alienation Awareness Day. To learn more, go to Parental-Alienation-Awareness.com.
14 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • scottkirk

    brian. basically….yes!!!

  • BRIAN

    Nobody who cares about theit children or has half a brain and a shred of common sense lets them wander out in the city at midnight. The child should be placed with the father for the simple fact that the woman is too goddamn dumb to know how to raise him.

  • JamesH

    The only way I’d let my kids out of my sight after dark, is if they are with another adult.

    There is no way I’d allow my kids before they are at least 16 out with another child out after dark, and definitely not midnight.

  • Robert Stevens

    I will take DCFathers position and set it next to a mirror, the truth mirror.
    1) If we don’t stop “government terrorist” and the socially.legally and morally irresponsible” behavior of women. Society will fail and men with guns with have to solve the problem and clean up the mess.
    2)If men don’t take back the role of father to protect our children from “government terrorist ‘ and the behavior of socially. legally and morally irresponsible women, then society will fail and men with guns will have to solve the problem and clean up the mess.
    3)If don’t bring our legal system under control and make it a “system of Law” based on right and wrong, society will fail and men with guns will have to solve the problem and clean up the mess.
    4) We will have to cease to give a damn what the politically correct media thinks and do the right thing, and women will grow up. if we don’t ,society will fail and men with guns will have to solve the problem and clean up the mess.
    I will caution all of the societal offenders ie women , the corrupt family courts, child custody and child support systems and others who make their living off this God Awfull mess and or in anyway add to the chaos and human suffering caused by this RACKETT, You have been warned!! You can straighten up and act right or we will straighten you up!!!!
    I hope this does not have to be done,but I am not optomistic. History shows that the miscreants who run amok almost never straighten up , it usually has to be done with force by people like myself, who don’t want to do it, but as responsible citizens, have little choice.

  • jackal1994

    If it were a non-custodial mother who wanted the surviving child from a custodial father would any of the disclaimers discredit her? Moving away, falling behind in support, or infrequent visits?

    Probably not. Yet another emotionally charged mantra the government can use: “concerned/hysterical/bereaved(etc..) mother.”

    It has to be shouted down that maternal love is any stronger than paternal love of children.

  • CaptDMO

    Blah blah blah allegedly drunken driver.
    Blah blah blah another state.
    Blah blah blah previous custody rulings.
    As a result of the choices this woman made in
    supervising the children, one of them NOT HERS,
    one of this mans two offspring is dead.

    I understand Dcfather’s points.
    I’d like to point out that it’s in “the State’s” best interest
    to ensure a steady supply of life long adult taxpayers, especially males with the potential to eternally fund piss poor parenting and entitlement choices made
    by the protected species class.
    his point number 5. clarifies the corrupt short term personal gain nature of
    those that gravitate toward “family” court as a wellspring of income. After all, it has special rules and exemptions from integrity and punitive accountability.

  • http://www.decriminalizefatherhood.com DcFather

    There may well be (3) possibilities, but only possibility #1 is admissable. Even if a mother commits perjury to prevent a father from seeing his child(ren) and the judge makes a note of it, the judge will grant the mother’s request to force father and child(ren) apart, and refer to it as “father abandonment”. It’s just how it works.

    In determing “the best interests of the child”, here is what the judge will consider:

    1. The state will get more money out of it by leaving the surviving child with the mother, because mothers usually are not required to pay child support, and when they don’t pay it’s not enforced. So better to leave the child with the mother.

    2. If the surviving child dies due to the mother’s neglect, and the state then no longer makes any money from these people, then that is a worst case scenario for the state coffers, but allowing the father to parent his surviving child guarantees no money for the state. So better to leave the child with the mother.

    3. Lots of mothers are lax in their concern for their children’s safety, and ruling in favor of the father could send a chill to women looking to cash in their vagina at a “family court”, which is bad for business for judges and lawyers, and the Bar Association will not stand for it. So better to leave the child with the mother.

    4. Having been in the press, ruling any way other than standard, i.e. giving the mother whatever she wants, will rile the feminists. So better to leave the child with the mother.

    5. The father has no political power or celebrity status, nor does he come from a big money family, so there is no threat to the judge if another child dies at his hands. So better to leave the child with the mother.

    About the only way I can see this “ruling” going in favor of the father is if the mother annoys the judge and he retaliates despite the financial interests of the state and the special interest groups. But having the story in the media helps the father because it’s mre likely the truth will be admissable evidence in the “court”.

    There you have it. “The best interests of the child” standard applied to this case, roughly.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise