3 ms·
No, that is a false dilemma. the right (and constitutional) thing to do is give all these people the due process and access to legal representation that they ar
by rsfern 1y ago
No, that is a false dilemma. the right (and constitutional) thing to do is give all these people the due process and access to legal representation that they are entitled to, and work out a legal solution to all these conflicting concerns.
read the habeas petition for VMS (the two year old). The child has a US citizen relative and the father seems to have transferred provisional rights of custody to them.
PDF: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.210781/gov.uscourts.lawd.210781.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.21...
- rdtsc 1y ago> The child has a US citizen relative and the father seems to have transferred provisional rights of custody to them. Right, I think that's the issue here it's not that the parents should be automatically allowed to say, it's that they were not given a chance in court to allow for that process - to find a relative. There is a complication in the case because the provisional custody was canceled then renewed and transferred to Trish Mack. > Also on April 22, 2025, V.M.L.’s father executed a Provisional Custody by Mandate under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:951, temporarily “delegat[ing] the provisional custody of” his two daughters to his U.S. citizen sister-in-law, who also lives in Baton Rouge, LA. The Mandate was notarized by a valid notary public in the state of Louisiana > On April 24, 2025, the mandatary named in the Provisional Custody by Mandate terminated the agreement for personal reasons, > V.M.L.’s father and Next Friend Petitioner Trish Mack executed a new notarized Provisional Custody by Mandate, delegating custodial authority to Ms. Mack