Man's conviction for taking daughter overturned
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - The Washington Supreme Court has overturned a man's conviction for taking his daughter to California and Mexico for four months in 2008 without the permission of his estranged wife.
Jose Veliz Jr. was convicted of custodial interference. He wife had obtained a domestic violence protection order against him, which specified that he was allowed custody of the girl on weekends only.
The question before the high court was whether that order met the definition of a "court-ordered parenting plan," the violation of which would constitute first-degree custodial interference.
Justice Charles Wiggins wrote for a 5-4 majority Thursday that legally, a "parenting plan" is a document ordered by a court as part of divorce proceedings. The majority said no such document was in effect in Veliz's case, so he could not have committed custodial interference.
Justice James Johnson wrote in dissent that the protection order included a plan for parenting the child, and thus should be considered a "court-ordered parenting plan." He said the majority's opinion twisted the law in a way that contradicted the Legislature's desire to protect crime victims.
Jose Veliz Jr. was convicted of custodial interference. He wife had obtained a domestic violence protection order against him, which specified that he was allowed custody of the girl on weekends only.
The question before the high court was whether that order met the definition of a "court-ordered parenting plan," the violation of which would constitute first-degree custodial interference.
Justice Charles Wiggins wrote for a 5-4 majority Thursday that legally, a "parenting plan" is a document ordered by a court as part of divorce proceedings. The majority said no such document was in effect in Veliz's case, so he could not have committed custodial interference.
Justice James Johnson wrote in dissent that the protection order included a plan for parenting the child, and thus should be considered a "court-ordered parenting plan." He said the majority's opinion twisted the law in a way that contradicted the Legislature's desire to protect crime victims.
It is common for a woman to scream rape, child abuse, spousal abuse, and a bunch of other things as retribution against their spouse and the children suffer. These justices finally stood up and said what he did was not against any order that had been set down so he if fact did not violate the law. Many times I have heard women holler this and holler that and then do everything in their power to keep the kids father from them. It seems the unwritten law is the guy is a ba$tard and the woman is an angle in the eyes of the courts.
It's the domestic violence part that worries me. People that are violent or have anger issues don't usually just turn those reactions off like a light switch.  That should have been resolved first. And to take the child from the country, alright-alright, it's just Mexico. But it might as well be Iran with all the help the authorities are there. And how old was this child? Was she spirited away in an effort to conceal her for his own purposes? Or was he just hoping to introduce her to her Mexican extended family (if any are there??). I don't know, after the story about the rape, abuse, and murder of the little 2 year old this week, I have to wonder if anyone is really looking into the real issues instead of just focusing on if everyone did the "legal" thing correctly? I imagine, since he not doing time for anything else, the daughter came back ok and as happy as when she left?
@Joy JohnsonUnfortunately, when there are any claims of abuse against a father, his parental rights are instantly taken away without investigation. I agree in that people with those anger issues usually can't just turn it off. And in those instances, there is most likely a history on record. Something to back up the claim whether it's police or medical records or just 3rd party witnesses to any abuse. The difference is in a divorce where there are no records or history of abuse or violence yet a scorned mother still makes those claims out of spite, the father is still considered guilty. Of course, the courts will say they can't take the time to investigate all cases and in there lay the problem. Many innocent children's and father's lives ruined based on a lie that is believed on face value during what can be one of the most bitter and contentious times of parents lives. A divorce.
Certainly we can't twist the law in favor of the father. Only mothers know what is best for their darlings.
Seems fair to me. I know people in a similar scenario as this and the woman does anything she can to keep the father from getting to see his kids and the father has done absolutely nothing wrong to either the woman or the children. But because he can't afford a high priced lawyer...
@Commenter87643 Great, so you're sexist. I hope you don't mind if the woman takes off with the kids for years then because the state isn't sexist and will apply this to both parents. You understand that, right?
@the tide Women already do that, nationwide, and never get punished for it. Equal treatment under the law......and I love how the "sexist" comment automatically comes out when you don't like the truth. Just like "racist" gets way overplayed when people hear things they don't like about their favorite President.
News flash!! Women don't just do it nationwide in this country, but in almost every western country.
I agree, her comment about being sexist doesn't make any sense at all because he has not called any women names or said any demeaning things about women women.
As far as the POTUSÂ goes, calling people racist because they don't agree with his policies makes no sense either, but lets be honest, people get on here and say some very racist things about him. Ignorant people have rallied and said very racist things about him and disrespected him. So, it's not hard to see why some people would be quick to assume racial predjudice from a lot of his critics.
I don't care if it is a man or a woman, the mom or the dad, if one of the parent's of a child takes off with the child for MONTHS without the permission of the other parent or the courts then it should be considered kidnapping. I'd be MURDEROUS if someone took off with my child like that.Â
@Tattooed_Angel2Â You would probably feel the way many men do when thier ex wives do whatever they can to keep the father from being able to see his own children (most often out of sheer spite or to be able to increase the amount of support money they can get)
This is great. had that rule stayed women would no longer get a divorce. They would just get an order of protection giving them custody file for child support completely taking away the fathers rights.
Good. DV laws are already FAR too broad, allowing the courts and biased judges therein latitude to violate due process when removing parental as well as other rights, mostly from fathers and men without children (in regards to removing civil rights such as 2A rights without a criminal trial). And when women do this kind of thing they are rarely taken to task in court. Sick of the bias. Sick of the unequal treatment under the law. This is just one minor victory in a battle for true equality in family courts.
Absolutely agree. DV laws are biased by design against men, because prosecutors will use their descretion to only prosecute men for DV charges. The reason they do that is because they get money from the federal gov't to do it through the VAWA ACT. Men are not just getting unequal treatment under the law, but they are not even getting equal protection under the law, and then they are losing their rights under the color of these laws.
@dg54321 Because men are so discriminated against - especially WHITE men... right? Now if you could think critically that this means a woman as well as a man can take off with the kids - out of state and out of the country, you may someday figure out why it's a bad thing. And good job rooting for the domestic abuser there. Birds of a feather...
I'm sorry, but I don't see anywhere in the above article saying that he was convicted of domestic violence. Anybody can put a protection order against anyone, but that doesn't mean they are guilty of anything.
Before you get your panties in a wad over what I've said. think about or explain what the definition of "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE" is, and then ask yourself who is doing a better job of cheerleading abusers.
@the tide How on earth do you know that he was actually abusing his ex wife? Because she said so in trying to get full custody of the kids? Please. Because someone has a different opinion than you, that makes them an abuser. Take a step back and read what you are writing.
@the tide In family law courts, yeah, men ARE discriminated against, regularly. White or otherwise. Racist.