Cancer and child custody

May 12, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Having cancer is a stressful and scary process. Imagine adding a divorce and custody battle to the mix. Now imagine that the diagnosis you had no control over played a part in you losing custody of your children.

It happened to a North Carolina woman. Alaina Giordano and her husband are involved in a custody battle and Judge Nancy Gordon cited Giordano’s stage IV breast cancer diagnosis as one of the reasons the children should live with their father in Chicago.

Stage IV means the cancer has spread to another organ or organs, and is considered terminal for some cancers. Giordano acknowledged that in a TV interview Wednesday morning. However, she is receiving treatment and she says she is able to take care of her children. Giordano and her doctors don’t know how long she has to live, but at this point she doesn’t appear to be near the end of her life.

In granting primary custody to the father, the judge suggested that since Giordano is unemployed, perhaps she could move to Chicago to be closer to the children. Giordano doesn’t want to leave North Carolina because she is receiving treatment from doctors in Durham. The judge also said that “children who have a parent with cancer need more contact with the non–ill parent.” Giordano says she doesn’t have the money to be able to fly to Chicago and see her children as often as she would like. She hopes to appeal the ruling.

A family law attorney quoted in the story said he never had heard of a mother losing custody of her children because of poor health or being sick, and that the court has expanded the traditional understanding of what unfitness is.

Without having access to the order, I can only go on what has been reported. I’d imagine (or at least I hope) that there are other reasons as to why the judge felt Giordano should not have primary custody. But just the thought that her cancer diagnosis – when she is fully functional and she says the cancer is stable at the moment – had a part in her losing custody bothers me.

Why? Because I had cancer last year and it changes everything in your life. One minute think you’re healthy and feel fine, the next minute you’re hooked up to an IV getting drugs that not only hopefully will save your life, but make you feel like crap. I couldn’t imagine my cancer diagnosis being held against me for anything, especially taking away my children if I had any.   

I am thankfully in remission right now, but there’s always a possibility the cancer could return. If I were involved in a custody battle, would the judge cite that as a reason to grant custody to the father? Would the possibility of my cancer coming back deem me unfit?

Where does it end? Would a parent with diabetes or multiple sclerosis be considered unfit? Citing the “unknown” course of Giordano’s disease as a reason to have the children live with their father also is surprising. None of us know when we could die. Sure, a stage IV cancer diagnosis may give you some idea, but a parent could be involved in a fatal traffic accident or have a heart attack and die.

Have you heard of any similar rulings in Indiana? What are your thoughts on the case?

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT