Your not backing up your assertion. I think you might, might be lying. There its out there. If I'm wrong and you provide proof I'll apologize.

__________________
hp

__________________
Farewell my beautiful Gracie Baby:
15th Jan 1997- 18 Jul 2009

Mak's Blog - Updated 12/3/10

The Law isnt always fair. The person with the Primary custody has 100% control over that trial. Im sure A visitation schedule could be worked out.

__________________
If You Wanna Make The World
A Better Place
Take A Look At Yourself And
Then Make That Change
Man In The Mirror - Michael Jackson

__________________
Farewell my beautiful Gracie Baby:
15th Jan 1997- 18 Jul 2009

Mak's Blog - Updated 12/3/10

[quote=ckblv;2023959]
And I wouldn't expect anything less of you than to form opinions off the top of your head without knowing anything about it. Which women and children have Wooten beaten up in the course of his law enforcement duties?

This judge presided over the Wootens' divorce and custody case for 3 years. He had caseworker reports, hearings, testimony and other evidence to base his decisions on. He heard testimony from witnesses on every issue in the case. His final decision was based on that and since the custody case is on-going until the children are of age, will be following them through the same kind of reports derived from home visits, etc.

I'm not defending Wooten - I'm saying that the judge in the Bristol/Levi case is obviously aware of Sarah Palin's destructive interference in the Wooten case where that judge finally threatened to take the children from their mother and give them to their father if she didn't stop. He called it emotional child abuse. That judge had had the true facts available to him to make his decision over a long period and judges don't make decisions lightly where minor children are concerned.

I have to disagree. I think in the case where the father is decidedly an extreme dirtbag and could potentially jeopardize the safety of the child, it's acceptable to force said dirtbag to shoulder his share of the burden and disallow visitation rights.

That being said, denying visitation rights just because you still hold a grudge is, however, a completely different matter.

__________________
Always be wary of righties bearing "facts".
Who are you calling a cootie queen you lint licker?!

Of course it was written by Levi's attorney - on Levi's behalf. Levi would have read it before he signed it. That's what attorneys do - what you pay them for.

The JUDGE has 100% control over the case - no one is on trial here. Bristol has physical custody of the child. Without a hearing - and I haven't heard that there's been one - she couldn't have done anything at this point other than ask for temporary custody which would apply until they all appear in court and the judge determines what's what and awards custody.

In most cases, a Guardian ad Litem is appointed for the child - an attorney who will represent the child's interests. If it's contested, there will be investigations into both home situations, the parents - whether they're able to provide a stable home for the child on their own, and whether either parent is unfit or a danger to the child. I doubt seriously this is going to turn out any way other than Bristol keeping physical custody and receiving child support and Levi having either joint custody or very liberal visitation rights.

In fact, at this point, if Levi has made any amount of money from posing for magazines and so forth, he's probably more able to support the child than Bristol is. Bristol as far as I know is living with her parents and they're supporting her and the child. If for any reason she had to go out on her own without their help, I don't know if she could provide a home for the child or not.

Just a point here - the same laws that can hold an unwilling father responsible for a child that has been proven through DNA testing to be his and require him to pay child support even if he never sees the child and wants nothing to do with his upbringing - will almost always give a WILLING father who WANTS his child and WANTS to be a part of his life and upbringing and has been DENIED that right by the child's mother (or grandmother) generous custody and visitation rights. The father would have to be proved to be violent, criminal, morally unfit or a danger to the child to lose his parental rights and I don't think posing for Playgirl or anything his mother has done will qualify - just as the fact that Bristol's mother is such a good, honest Christian will have no bearing on custody, either.