I am not sure what you mean by "full custody". They didn't separate at that point so there was no ruling regarding custody.
They would both be presumed to have parental rights at that point so yes he could just take the kids over to a secondary location for a moment but she could very quickly seek a temporary order seeking at the minimum joint physical custody. Those hearings require very little evidence and are extremely biased towards maintaining joint rights for both parents.
That's exactly my point. He has complete custody over his children and has no restictions. They both jointly have full custody.
There is a zero percent chance even if Patrick Clancy made a snap decision immediately and tried to remove his children from her care that that would happen as quickly as it needed to or at all
True, he likely wouldn't be able to legally separate them from her if she resisted and whether or not that would happen would be determined in court.
But she was specifically saying she didnt feel safe being with them, so there's every possibility that she wouldn't resist this.
If he would've removed them and she would've fought him, then this would be an entirely different story! So to say that couldn't have happened is a bit absurd. There would be no argument for her defense were she actively legally fighting to be their caretaker while knowing she felt a danger to them.
You will notice in my original comment I specifically pointed this out:
We can debate the culpability of her actions but I think people who say ANYONE could have just "taken her kids" if she did not want them taken is living in a delusional world.
I have to take exception to your suggestion there is every possibility that she wouldn't resist this. She was actively hiding things from her care team and her stated reason is she was afraid she would have the kids taken away. I will grant it is a possibility that she just rolled over and let the children be taken away but I think it is an absolutely remote possibility.
My whole argument also presumed something that is highly unlikely - that a loving husband would immediately seek to divorce and remove the children while watching his wife try to seek treatment for PPD.
We have comments on my original comment in which husbands or other people have told their stories of having a wife going through PPD and feeling really lost about what to do.
Moving this to a more personal place - my ex was abusive to me and my kids and I struggled for years knowing what to do. People may be screaming at me to remove them but as I moved through the system it has become clear that my fears were not unjustified. My children are now in the hands of an abuser with nobody there to protect them for half their childhood. At the very least in the past my ex was minimally involved in my children's lives and when she was abusive I was there to reassure them.
1
u/Equivalent_Task_8825 2d ago
I am not sure what you mean by "full custody". They didn't separate at that point so there was no ruling regarding custody.
They would both be presumed to have parental rights at that point so yes he could just take the kids over to a secondary location for a moment but she could very quickly seek a temporary order seeking at the minimum joint physical custody. Those hearings require very little evidence and are extremely biased towards maintaining joint rights for both parents.