OMG...Prejudice oozes from every word.

And I have no compassion?? You are weeping over LOST PACKAGES, yet you tell a father categorically he CANNOT have his kid, and the taking of his kid was LEGAL, because he drives a truck??

Could I have, "Things that make you say, WHAA---??" for a thousand, Alex?"

If what you are saying is true, and the law supports this ridiculous contention, then the legal rights of two parent military families serving in the middle east should be terminated immediately.

When I taught school at Shaw Air Force base in Sumter, SC in 1991, I had children in class whose mom AND dad were deployed over seas and were there for YEARS. Who terminated THEIR RIGHTS?? If the law has the authority to terminate a guys rights because he drives a truck, they must apply the same standard across the board and take the children from every two parent military household when both mom and dad are serving.

Just because your OPINION is that it is difficult for someone that is gone for long periods of time to be a good parent ( and it well may be), to say he can ONLY HAVE VISITATION because he drives a truck is absolutely and blatantly WRONG.

His occupation is totally irrelevant to this case. The issue is that his rights were never terminated and HE IS STILL THE LEGAL FATHER. He doesn't have to prove his 'fitness' as a parent---the law assumes he is fit unless they are given notice otherwise ( such as he is a predator, an abuser, etc. --NOT a TRUCK DRIVER!) What he does for a living has no bearing on the fact that this child is his and he never gave up that right. Truck driver? Soldier? What difference does it make?

BOTTOM LINE--FOCUS: To say a COURT would uphold the wrongful taking of a child without proper procedure regarding the termination of the fathers rights is nothing short of appallingly ignorant.

I hope the original poster is acute enough to realize this and not be unduly alarmed as a result of this inaccurate nonsense.

The answer to the question is that BOTH parents (when the couple is married) have an EQUAL right to the child. And, her terminating his rights without notice is ILLEGAL. PERIOD. As long as he has proper child care arrangements made ( a mother, a sister, a cousin, a day care) there is no reason to use his OCCUPATION as grounds for TERMINATING his RIGHTS.

God forbid this poor father listens to this nonsense and gives up the fight for his child based on outrageous prejudice marginally disguised as legal advice.