Well if this is accurate reporting the shizz is going to HIT the fan.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/p...p/Katie-Holmes-files-for-emergent-application
she's playing hard b-a-l-l. Dang.
Happy Birthday Tom. yikes.
i have not been in a child custody situation...so can someone who is in the know explain what an "emergent application" is....and does that mean she fears her daughter is in danger?
i guess i could google it all, but i like hearing members thoughts...
ETA....i posted that ^^ before fully reading article.
alright who is up for a trip to NY to sit in on that open court? lol
If true, here's what it means: It means that immediate court orders as to child custody and support are necessary to avoid detriment to the child and that some sort of imminent harm will occur without them. It means that the parent filing alleges that waiting for a regular, noticed hearing, which usually occurs no less than 30 days after the other parent is served with the declarations and paperwork stating what the filing spouse wants and why, would be detrimental to the child.
In CA, child support cannot be determined via an emergency hearing. Not sure about NY. Child custody orders can be and are in both states.
I agree with the article that it indicates the filing party feels there will be no settlement but I disagree that it means there can be no settlement, That's just false. The parties can have their lawyers negotiate or they can talk and settle, at any stage of the litigation.
It is also not true that this has to occur in open court. Many high profile people petition for sealed proceedings and win the right to such when minor children are involved.
I could easily see a video made of Suri saying that she doesn't want to see her mother anymore because she beats her, starves her and any other bad parenting they can make up.Then put her on a Seaorg boat and sent off.
I have no problem that TC could believe that the horrible Seaorg conditions are there to help people start to "clear" themselves and that stiff punishments are necessary. IMO, he could easily see this as being a good father to her.
The church is very good at muddying the waters for court cases. In France 3 years of documents from a Scientology lawsuit, that hurt Scientology, "disappeared", but were found again by the judge when the plaintiffs lawyers started applying pressure. The judge said she dropped the case because she'd received letters from the plaintiffs saying they no longer wished to sue the church. All of the plaintiffs deny ever having written such letters. Also interesting is that none of the documents favorable to Scientology were ever lost.
Katies attempts to get her daughter back could face years and years of litigation and by the time she gets to see Suri, the kid will tell everyone what she's been brainwashed to say. Katie will also have everything negative that she said during auditing sessions made public and depending on what they are, used against her in a child custody battle.
All just my own opinion.
Respectfully snipped for space and BBM. As a family law attorney I can tell you that the bolded parts will not occur.
No family court judge is going to allow one parent to ship off their child and then be tied up in litigation for years before seeing their child. It just will not happen.
First of all, you can't take your kid out of the jurisdiction without a court order, during the pendency of a court case. Second, interim court orders as to child custody are issued quickly in dissolution cases and unless absolute proof of abuse can be shown, each parent will get consistent and regularly occurring time with their child.
A tape of Suri saying how horrid her mom is would not be enough to prove any abuse on the part of the mother. To most family court judges, it would prove alienation on the part of the father and his rights would likely be curtailed.
Katie could ask the court to disregard reports on confidential auditing sessions or any other church info, and the court would definitely be inclined to grant such a request as such are considered privileged, religious confessions.
Further, even if the court did, for some reason, get wind of things Katie has divulged privately, (which happens every day in child custody cases as spouses turn on each other), unless those confessions were
very recent and include confessions about drug abuse, child abuse, alcohol abuse, threats to harm herself or her child or violence against her husband, they will be highly unlikely to preclude child custody at this time.
Finally, even if the court found merit in bizarre allegations on the part of TC, Katie would not go months or years tied up in litigation before seeing her kid. She would have, at a very minimum, supervised visits on a regular basis. And there is no way in he!! that the court would grant a request that a 6 year old child in the middle of a custody battle, be put on a boat for months or years or even weeks. It is just not going to happen.
The only custody cases that involve a scenario remotely close to what you you are describing are those involving international child abduction cases like Sean Goldmans', in nations that are paying lip service to the Hague Convention.
For the reasons I listed previously, TC is not going to abduct Suri.
I can only give you my professional opinion based on my experience as a family law attorney. You can choose to trust me, or not.
Katie is going to be granted custody of Suri. TC will be granted joint custody or very, very liberal visitation rights.
It is unlikely that any significant restrictions on Suri's ability to participate in church activities will be ordered, unless Katie can prove harm has already been occurring as a result of such activities, though she may be able to try in the future if she can laetr prove such harm is occurring.
If Katie does not fight hard enough and long enough or if she lacks the resources to continue on, there is a good chance that TC could slowly alienate Suri over time from her mother and cause her to want to spend less time with her mother and more with the church and TC. Court orders will prevent even an alienated Suri from joining Sea Org. until she is 18 or emancipates, but in a few years, she could be sufficiently alienated that we see an Alec Baldwin type situation where Suri refuses to see much of her mother and the courts indulge her wishes via matching court orders.
Katie then would need to mount a huge attack against Scientology and it's affects and prove harm to her daughter and her relationship with her has been occurring as a result of the church.
This will be very costly and very hard to do and if Suri is sufficiently alienated, she still may fail at primary custody or much visitation because the court can deem it to be too much of a risk of further detriment to an alienated child to force contact.
But remember this, if Katie lacks the funds to pay for this level of litigation, while TC does, he will have to contribute to her fees. :twocents: