Miller v. McKenna: When NEITHER Parent Deserves Custody

"There's no hope for that kid."  Unfortunately, that is a phrase used amongst divorce and family law professionals, from lawyers to social workers to Attorneys for the Child.  It means that there is such bitter and selfish infighting between the parents that the child is going to grow up in a custody maelstrom.

Having read the decision from the New York Court of Appeals and the New York Times article, about the child of U.S. Olympic skiier Bode Miller and U.S. Marine and firefighter Sara McKenna, I can only say:  unless these parents change their behavior in a drastic way, I don't have high hopes for the stability which will be provided for this child.  He was the subject of a major Court of Appeals decision (NY's highest court) when he was in utero.  The parents can't decide what his name should be.  The father and his new wife (he and McKenna never married) parade the child around on the social media like he's Boo the Pomeranian.

I don't think either parent deserves custody and I hope there are grandparents or siblings in the picture who can step in and provide some stability for the child.

The New York Times' headline about this case was "Custody Battle Raises Questions about the Rights of Women."  Does it?  Or does it raise questions about whether there are cases where two people are so selfish that neither one of them should be parenting this child.  The two had been living in California and McKenna moved to New York, while 7 months pregnant, to start school at Columbia on the G.I. Bill.  Miller started a family court action and the Court held that McKenna had improperly moved with her fetus to New York.  A California court granted custody of the fetus to the father, setting off a whole chain reaction as to what this means for women's rights.

Meanwhile, the baby was born into a Family Court action which recently went up to our highest State Court.  On November 14th, the Court of Appeals held that McKenna's rights had been violated and that "putative fathers have neither the right nor the ability to restrict a pregnant woman from her constitutionally protected liberty."

What about the child's rights?  After all, if a child is born addicted to drugs, Social Services will step in and remove the child for his/her own protection.  Trust me, Family Court petitions can be as harmful to a child's health as drug addiction, maybe even more so.  At least there is rehab for drugs, there is no rehab for Family Court litigation.  And people get as addicted to Family Court litigation as they do to drugs.  They just can't stop themselves.

The Court also ruled that New York had jurisdiction, so now there will be a custody hearing about change of custody, in Family Court for this 9-month-old child.  Shame on the parents, shame on the lawyers, shame on everyone involved.  I hate to say it but, unless there is a sea change with both parents:  there is no hope for this kid, and in Mrs. Lo's opinion, NEITHER parent deserves custody.

Juliana LoBiondo
www.LoBiondolaw.com