Thread: Should custody be determined by Beauty Pageants?

Originally Posted by KimPossible

Do courts take things into account like

How much TV they are allowed to watch
how much junk food they eat
if they take them to R rated movies


or other various things?

I really don't know absolutely anything about this type of thing. I mean if things like the above get to be factored in on a regular basis, then i guess this can be too. If things like the above don't get to be factored in, then this shouldn't be either.

I really don't know.

It's really up to the parent to raise these issues. If one parent is allowing rated-R movies to the point of nightmares, then the other parent can raise that in court. Even the pettiest of things can become a "concern."

I absolutely think things like this should be able to be used in custody judgements. It's not so much the pageants(which I'll admit I can't stand) but I would absolutely question her judgement in the care of her daughter due the the costumes she puts her in and the dances she allows her to do. They are disgusting for a little girl and put her short term safety and long term mental health in question.

How sad.

I think the courts take all information into account when desiding custody. If a parent will not stop the pageants even if it is clear they are not what is best for the child, that the judge will that into count.

I do think that custody battles are very difficult. Both parents should have a say in what their child does unless one of them is deemed unfit for some reason. I pray I am never in that situation. DH would never give up his girls.

That's ridiculous. Did the psychologist ask the Dad what activities he was going to enroll her in? This woman isn't very smart, but to imply that a child should be taken out of the home because a psychologist doesn't like pageants is freaking ridiculous and a waste of time.

Originally Posted by wlillie

That's ridiculous. Did the psychologist ask the Dad what activities he was going to enroll her in? This woman isn't very smart, but to imply that a child should be taken out of the home because a psychologist doesn't like pageants is freaking ridiculous and a waste of time.

IME, yes. The psychologist is appointed FOR the child. If you hired an attorney, that person would take your side. If your spouse hired one, they would take his side. The GAL solely represents the child's interest.

I just can't see it as a waste of time to have experts who represent the child talk to them and present their expert opinions to the judge. IME, they want to see the entire picture and truly decide what is in the child's best interest.

Now, if he hasn't expressed any intentions of enrolling in her in activities, it's not an issue. If he later decides he wants to enroll her in something, the mom can raise an objection to it. (See my previous post about enrolling kids in soccer.)

Maybe the child has reached a point where she just doesn't want to do this anymore. Maybe she said she would rather be with her dad. Should her feelings be disregarded? While kids don't get to "decide" until a certain age, they should be listened to.

The last paragraph is kind of pointless don't you think? We don't know if this little girl loves pageants or if she just does them to please her mother. It is a waste of time to pull a kid out of the home that is the best for them just because of a hobby that many people hate despite not having an understanding of it. I'm sick of reading how horrible they are and how everyone thinks the kids parents are terrible despite not having an open mind or asking the ACTUAL people involved how they feel. ONE person shouldn't be able to pull a child out of a home that is otherwise better than the other one just because he doesn't like an activity the home chosen by a previous judge for I"m guessing good reasons.

Originally Posted by wlillie

The last paragraph is kind of pointless don't you think? We don't know if this little girl loves pageants or if she just does them to please her mother. It is a waste of time to pull a kid out of the home that is the best for them just because of a hobby that many people hate despite not having an understanding of it. I'm sick of reading how horrible they are and how everyone thinks the kids parents are terrible despite not having an open mind or asking the ACTUAL people involved how they feel. ONE person shouldn't be able to pull a child out of a home that is otherwise better than the other one just because he doesn't like an activity the home chosen by a previous judge for I"m guessing good reasons.

I got the impression from the pyschologist's recommendation in the OP that that is not the case in this custody hearing. It's not just a hobby if it causing psychological concerns for the child.

I'm not judging pageants or any other activity on its face. There are many people who love them and gain self-confidence from them.

This issue is not the pageant per se; it's whether the child is in the best environment.

I don't think she should lose custody of her child.

I do however detest those beauty pageants!

xx

Originally Posted by ethanwinfield

I sat in the courtroom when my friend was going through a divorce in a different county (150 miles from her home). The father wanted to push the issue that the child could not be enrolled in any activity that would interfere with his visits. If they had soccer games on Saturdays - no soccer. If they would have a Friday night football game - no football. What do you do? Have the kids miss every other game or not commit to a team?

This was many, many years ago, but when my parents divorced the court said that my dad *had* to bring us to any scheduled school or educational event during his time with us -- but it was limited to six events per year. He still had about 21 uninterrupted weekends (assuming he got us every other weekend plus two full weeks in the summer) with us but we were still able to do some of those things. That seems like a pretty good compromise. My sister played soccer for a while, and I took weekend enrichment classes at the community college, we just couldn't do both at the same time.