Mom should do away with Accomplice flag or threat custody of biracial baby, courtroom guidelines

Premium Getty Image for WFLA USE ONLY

TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) – A mother in New York state has less than a month to remove a Confederate flag adorned stone from her driveway before it becomes a factor in a custody battle for her biracial child, reported The Albany Times Union.

Last week, Albany, NY District Court judges unanimously ruled 5-0 that a married couple would retain joint custody of the 2014-born child, but said the woman had until June 1 to see the Remove stone from their driveway before “incorporating it into any future best-interest analysis”.

Judge Stanley Pritzker, who issued the verdict, said the woman, identified only as Christie BB, testified in an investigative hearing that she had painted a stone with a Confederate on it in her home. The verdict stated that the mother “testified that she never or never used racist slurs in front of the child”.

Tampa Dunkins customer who died after being beaten used racial fraud, employee arrested

“Given that the child is mixed race, it seems obvious that the presence of the flag is not in the best interests of the child as the mother must encourage and teach the child to adopt his mixed race identity rather than being into a world to come across that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance, ”wrote Pritzker in the judgment.

The judge described the flag as “a symbol that ignites the already strained relationship between the parties”.

“While it is recognized that the first amendment protects the mother’s right to fly the flag if she is not removed by June 1, 2021, her continued presence constitutes a change in circumstances and the family court will do so in any future amendments Include best interest analysis, ”Pritzker wrote.

Judges John Egan, Sharon Aarons, Molly Reynolds Fitzgerald, and John Colangelo joined Pritzker.

According to the paper, it was the appellate judges who decided to take up the issue. Neither the judge who previously directed the matter nor the child’s legal guardian, Attorney Jason Leifer, had previously dealt with the rock.

Here’s why there might be a dryer sheet in your mailbox

Leifer told the Times Union that he believed the mother had only recently moved into the residence and was not sure if she placed the stone there. However, he considered the judgment “appropriate because it includes political views that could potentially affect the child’s well-being in the custody discussion”. However, he noted that this could lead to political views becoming more and more an issue in family courts.

“I think the parties will now object to many of the other party’s symbols and opinions, including some that the majority of society does not find offensive,” said Leifer.

“What needs to happen is this: if the issue is raised, the court needs to hear evidence for the child of how the children’s wellbeing is negatively affected by the views and opinions of the parents,” he added. “In some cases it will be easy, such as when a child is indoctrinated into a hate group, but in many cases it won’t be that easy.”

Comments are closed.