Disabled mom fighting to keep her son

[ccharles000]

Kaney O'Neill knows she has limits as a mother.

The 31-year-old Des Plaines woman cannot walk, move her fingers independently or feel anything from the chest down. A decade ago, O'Neill was a Navy airman apprentice when she was knocked from a balcony during Hurricane Floyd, leaving her a quadriplegic.

When she discovered she was pregnant last December, she felt fear and joy, a journey the Tribune chronicled in August. She quickly embraced the opportunity to raise a child, feeling she had the money and family support to make up for her paralysis.

David Trais, her ex-boyfriend and the 49-year-old father of their now 5-month-old son, disagreed that she was up to the challenge.

In September, Trais sued O'Neill for full custody, charging that his former girlfriend is "not a fit and proper person" to care for their son, Aidan James O'Neill.

In court documents, Trais said O'Neill's disability "greatly limits her ability to care for the minor, or even wake up if the minor is distressed."

O'Neill counters that she always has another able-bodied adult on hand for Aidan -- be it her full-time caretaker, live-in brother or her mother. Even before she gave birth to Aidan, O'Neill said, she never went more than a few hours by herself.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-custody-20-dec20,0,6221287,full.story

[Duckhunter935]

1. We all know the father could not be a good parent

[Pithlet]

2. So disabled people should automatically lose custody then?

Because you did read the article, right? He's suing for full custudy, claiming she's unfit.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Its for the good of the children

Or at least that is what DCS tells people when they run roughshod over everyone's rights.

The reality is that we do not have enough information to form any kind of informed decision

[Pithlet]

13. Yeah, whatever. Commenting on a story isn't serving on court or jury.

Disability itself is no reason to take away a parent's rights. Of course none of us know these people personally and few of us probably ever will. It will be decided in the courts. And what the hell does this have to do with DCS.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. As I said, DCS seems to be able to justify just about anything since "its in the best interest of

the child". Its scary when you get on their bad side and there is literally nothing you can do about it if they decide to target you.

[marshall]

12. He may just be trying to get joint custody

By their current agreement he has the child for less than twenty four hours a week. He ought to have a more fair distribution of the time.

[Pithlet]

14. Okay. Citing her disability is still a low scumbag thing to do. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

4. He sounds like a jerk

My husband is legally blind. If we were to divorce I would never try to take our kids away from him. We would share joint custody. The rights of the disabled have been eroding along with all the other minority rights in this country.

[Demeter]

5. Well, Let's See

Did he abandon her, or marry her? Is he supporting her, or tearing her down? It's all about the child support, honey. Been there, done that, got the lawyer bills and scars to prove it.

[Tumbulu]

6. The mother has much more invested in this baby

than this sperm donor. Any woman who has even been pregnant gets it. This woman is responsible and has help. Shame on him for trying to take a baby away from its loving and caring mother who has gone through hell to give birth to it. This is not what any new mother and baby need . New moms and babies need dads who support them and allow that special mother child bond to grow and blossom.

[cali]

8. so fathers are just "sperm donors"? Ugh.

No, I don't side with the father in this case from what I know of it, but really....

[Tumbulu]

9. If they act like this they are far worse

this man is acting like a monster (imo) doing this to a new mom and babe.

Sorry, I don't usually name call, but this whole attitude that men are somehow equal "owners" of children is just too much. Especially in this case where he has not even made a commitment to the mom. It is not too far from Saudi Arabia where the men own the children outright and can just send the mom away after birth.

[Odin2005]

3. I hope she wins.

[gopwacker_455]

7. how tragic

[Gwendolyn]

11. Tough call if one considers the child. Wouldn't like to be in the judge's shoes on this one. n/t

[Pithlet]

16. It's not tough at all. Disabled people are fit and proper parents.

I've known one myself. Unless there's something else not being cited in the story, this man is using her disability as an excuse to score full custody, and it's shameful.

[Gwendolyn]

17. I'm thinking of it from the perspective of the child.

I'm acquainted with a single mother and her 16-year-old son. She has multiple sclerosis and as he's become one of her primary care givers, he is much older than his years. My own mother suffered from depression and anxiety for years before she was treated. Suffice it to say that depression does not always manifest itself in the form of a person wrapped up in a blanket quietly anguishing on a couch. A distant relative is the daughter of a woman who has not left the house unaccompanied by her husband in 20 years. I'm also good friends with someone who is paraplegic. There are many issues to be considered from a child's perspective which make the situation less black and white.

[Pithlet]

18. So am I

And nothing in the article mentioned automatically points to making this a difficult case as you say. Not even depression which is something I'm very familiar with treatable and suffered by millions. If there is any evidence that she is an unfit mother I'm sure it will come out in the actual case. But it isn't showing in the article itself.

[Gwendolyn]

19. There are several arguments in the article itself.

Even the people interviewed agree that it isn't clear cut.

The whole reason this particular story is print worthy, as opposed to the thousands of other custody cases, is because there are issues above and beyond the usual ones.

I'm glad you've had positive experiences with depression. Mine were more complicated and somewhat devastating, and perhaps allow me to see the other side of the coin. That's what I meant when I said I wouldn't like to be in the judge's shoes, who has seen all types of situations and is charged with the job of weighing them all to come to the best conclusion.

[Pithlet]

20. Because there are issues above and beyond the usual ones. Exactly. Her disability.

Funny how two people can read an article differently. Because the article I read stated pretty clearly that the legal experts said that disability itself cannot be considered a reason in custody cases. There has to be evidence that aspects of the disability present a problem. And if he thinks a wheelchair is a slam dunk, case history is not on his side, as the article points out the paralyzed man who had his case overturned and custody of his kids returned to him. Yes indeed, his stunt bringing up his wifes disability certainly does make this notable. It also makes his other claims very suspect, to me. It looks like nothing more than a desperate custody grab, and he's throwing anything and everything hoping it will stick. Yes, he also mentions her depression. And cigarettes and drinking, too! It's ridiculous. If I were a betting woman, I'd put my money on her prevailing.

And I didn't say my experiences with depression were positive. I'm not going to divulge details of who and what I'm talking about. I'm sure many, if not most on DU has been touched either directly or indirectly by depression. I just don't think it should be yet another condition to be stigmatized to the point that people can use it as a weapon in custody cases and their kids get yanked. Depression so severe that it should be a custody issue would be a very rare instance. If this had been a run of the mill custody case and he had merely brought up her depression as a possible concern? That would be different. But he lost credibility by throwing in everything else and the kitchen sink.

[Gwendolyn]

23. I don't think we read it differently and do hope for all the best for this woman.

You just seem to be getting an awful lot more out of the article than I am.

A good friend of mine is paraplegic and he navigates the world just fine. Better than many fully abled people, as he's extremely fit. In the case of this woman however, it seems that she doesn't have use of her arms/hands which could presumably present a problem when/if there are no care givers around. I'm assuming that will be taken into consideration as this could be harmful to the child. You seem to be very passionate about this whole thing though, so I'm going to bow out now. I was only musing that I would not like to be the one making decisions in these kinds of cases and then clarifying further that I've witnessed a few situations that make me think they aren't all clear cut.

[Pithlet]

24. I 'm sorry if it seems like I jumped on you. I didn't mean it that way.

I just tend to be strident and it can come across that way. I do think it's a pretty scummy reason to give in a custody battle, so it's probably coming across. It's true, I do know a mom in a wheelchair, and if someone tried to claim she was unfit for that reason, I'd stick up for her and it would indeed get ugly. It does say she has use of of her arms, she's just paralized from the chest down. Her caregiver is livein and it does seem as though they have a handle on things. I do understand that there could be instances where the nature of a disability can make parenting too much of a challenge, and that not all cases are clear.

[Gwendolyn]

25. No problem, I get passionate about my interests too. And I understand your points

very well! It's morally reprehensible to penalize people for a disability. The implication that disabled people cannot love as much or more as abled people is awful too.

But just to point out, this lady is a quadraplegic, which means she has lost the use of both her arms and legs. This article says she can use her biceps so that probably means she can curl her arms in but not much more. In another article, which has a cute pic of her and the baby, it clearly shows her fingers furled in and not usable. That was really why I made my comment. In the other article it was also disclosed that alcohol was possibly one of the factors in her falling from the balcony and that this might pose a problem for her if it can be showed that she continues to drink. Perhaps that's why the boyfriend threw out the accusation. Maybe it's a ploy or maybe he's rightfully concerned. We don't know. One of the lawyers in that article also said joint custody would be the probable and best outcome here, and maybe she's right.

[Tailormyst]

21. I think there might be more to it. The story only tells one side.

[Pithlet]

22. True. But it's a pretty compelling side.

If he had any actual evidence of her unfitness as a parent, he'll prevail, so there's nothing to worry about. If not, he's a scumbag. If he actually had compelling evidence that she's unfit, then it seems he wouldn't need the whole "But she's disabled!" argument. He'd have a clear cut reason "Look, she's unfit and here's why". But he just cites her disability, and depression. If there's another side, then they're leaving out some big facts. It's more likely it's being presented as it is.