• Petitioned Judge Nancy Gordon

This petition was delivered to:

North Carolina Judge
Judge Nancy Gordon

Throw North Carolina Judge Nancy Gordon off the bench

    1. Tami  Breheny
    2. Petition by

      Tami Breheny

      Perry, IA

This petition is to get Nancy Gordon removed from the bench. She is the "judge" who took the children away from a mother battling stage 4 breast cancer.

Please sign so we can show support for Alaina Giordano and for all future cancer patients that may have this injustice thrust upon them.

Recent signatures

    News

    1. Reached 1 signatures

    Supporters

    Reasons for signing

    • Brad Ballard MIDDLETOWN, DE
      • over 3 years ago

      As a divorced father who fought hard for 50/50 shared custody of my children, I was immediately interested in this story. When I first heard about it, I was immediately skeptical that Ms Giordano’s cancer was the primary factor in the judge’s decision. After some research on the internet, I found the original order from the judge and the story turns out to be a very one sided media blitz by Ms Giordano. Here is a link to the actual order by the judge:

      http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2011/06/01/9672149/custody_order.PDF

      I would like to highlight a few findings from the judge. To me, these are the key points which impacted the judge’s decision the most. These are taken directly from the custody order.

      42. ON February 11, 2010, the parties agreed to a consent order providing that they share primary physical custody of the children on a 2-2-5 schedule. The trems of the Consent Order specifically provided that the children would remain in the maritial home and that the parties would rotate into and out of the home during their custodial time. (nesting)

      51. Before relocating to Illinois, plaintiff conducted a job search, including significant efforts to obtain employment in NC. The parties stipulated they discussed two job offers. The defendant contends that together, the parties determined that the Sears offer was a better offer, considering such factors as pay, career advancement opportunities, location, and school districts.

      83. Defendant has not made efforts to keep the children actively involved in the plaintiff’s life. The court finds that, of the two parents, defendant is least likely to encourage frequent and appropriate contact between the children and their father. The court notes that. A. Since the separation, the defendant has scheduled the children’s holidays in Pennsylvania preventing them from spending that time in Illinois with their father. E. During the course of her interviews with UNC, Defendant told UNC that she wanted the plaintiff to only have supervised visitation. F. Defendant testified that she did not want the Plaintiff to be in North Carolina because she felt it escalated the tension between her and the Plaintif.

      87. The defendant is able bodied and capable of caring for the children and except for a few occasions has shown that there is no indication that she will be unable to do that in the near future. On the other hand, her schedule is compromised by all of her medical appointments so it is her position that she does not have the ability to obtain employment.

      89. The defendant would move to Chicago area if she had to but her strong preference would be to stay in Durham where she has a significant support system.

      108. The best living arrangement for the children would be for the parties to live in proximity to each other so the children can have ready, easy, and predictable access to both parents so that the children can reside with both parents in a shared physical custodial schedule, preferably a 2-2-5 schedule which permits both parents to spend time with the children during the school week and weekends.

      109. Defendant has the ability to relocate to Chicago. It is impractical for Plaintif, the only wage earner in the family, to relocate to Durham or any other place that he doesn’t have full time, gainful employment.

      115. Given the relatively low obstacles to a relocation by the defendant and given her willingness to relocate to the Chicago area if the children move there, and given that both parties have the present capacity to parent the children, this Court determines that it is the children’s best interest to move to live in Illinois with their father at this time.

      While Ms Giordano’s cancer was discussed at length in the hearing, it was not an important factor in the judge’s decision. In addition, every state requires that health be evaluated as part of determining custody. Thus, the court was not wrong to evaluate Ms Giordano’s cancer and it’s impact on the best interest of the children.

      1. Since they originally constented to 50/50 shared custody, the judge approached the decision on how to best maintain the 50/50 shared custody the parties already had. This was key in my custody case too. My ex and I consented to 50/50 shared, my ex moved 90 minutes away, I filed a modification, and the judge ruled we maintain the 50/50 shared custody mainly because that was what we originally agreed to and we both need to make sacrifices so the kids can be raised by both of us. The judge in the Giordano case is thinking the same way.

      2. The move to Chicago was discussed by both parties prior to the final decision. So, it is untrue that Mr Snyder abandoned the kids and the family.

      3. The judge felt that since Ms Giordano can not work by her own admission, she has few obstacles to moving to Chicago. The medical treatment in NC is a moot point. Ms Giordano would receive equal or better care in Chicago. Plus, doctors consult all the time. If Ms Giordano would do anything to be with her kids, why isn’t she making arrangements to move to Chicago? Think back to what my judge said – both parents need to make sacrifices for the benefit of the kids. If Kane were to move back to NC, the unknown is he may not have a job. In that scenario, everyone in the family loses out. So yes, his job was a very important factor.

      4. Ms Giordano testified that she would move to Chicago if need be.

      5. Given all of the above, the judge determined that it is in the best interest of the kids to reside in Chicago with both parents sharing custody. If the mother does not move, then they reside in Chicago with the father.

      What killed Ms Giordano in her custody case were her keep away tactics of not allowing the kids to visit their father in Illinois and requiring him to go to Pennsylvania to see them on his parenting time. She had no right to do this. Just as Family Courts have come down hard in recent years on parents who don’t pay child support, judges have finally lost patience with parents who play keep away with the other parent’s parenting time.

      This was a very complex case.The judge’s decision in the Giordano case was very well thought out in that it balanced what is in the best interest of the kids (shared time with both parents) with the very real uncertainty around Ms Giordano’s cancer.

      Custody cases are different. What is in the best interest of the kids is paramount – not necessarily what is best for each parent. The judge’s ruling reflects this. The judge ruled that shared custody with both parents is what is in the best interest of the children. Unfortunatly, Ms Giordano does not think shared custody is what is in the best interest of the children.

      The vitrol for Mr Snyder is totally uncalled for given the facts of the case and what the judge ordered. People have posted on internet forums that Kane Snyder is a “Piece of Shit”, “Gutless”, “Cruel”. Do any of these people think for a moment that these comments will probably get back to the children? Since the Giordano Facebook Support pages were started by family members, Ms Giordano is condoning by proxy the public desecration of her children’s father. Both parents were admonished in the ruling for letting their anger getting the better of them and putting the children in the middle of the custody dispute. Ms Giordano’s very one sided public relations campaign shows she did not take the judge’s observations to heart.

      You said in your article ” So which parent’s responsibility is it to back off, to give in, to acquiesce? ” Given that Judge Gordon ordered shared custody of the children, it seems Ms Giordano is the one who should be backing down and working on moving to Chicago instead of dragging the case out. Ms Giordano will have to testify under oath how having members of the children’s family set up a Facebook page where the father of her children are blasted are the actions of a mother who puts her children first. I don’t think the judge will be too impressed with her answer.

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Tammy Landry NEW BRAUNFEL.
      • over 3 years ago

      I to have stage 4 breast cancer with mets to the bone. DX 4/2009. I still do everything with my children and they are my world. I take them and pick them up from school everyday. I take them to sporting events. I play with them. I help them with homework. I cook them meals everyday. I teach them chores and responsibility's. I tuck them in at night and show them lot's of affection. Would a diabetic person lose custody of their children because they were sick with an incurable disease? I think NOT!

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Amber Morrissey GRAND RAPIDS, MI
      • over 3 years ago

      Judges like this one are the reason people no longer trust and believe in our legal system. This was a grievous error in judgment. Please remove her before she does more unnecessary damage.

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • J C
      • over 3 years ago

      I am a practicing attorney, licensed in 3 states, who heard the most traumatizing, life-changing words one November 2009 afternoon: "You have Stage 3 breast cancer," Suffice it to say that I could not have made it thru such an emotionally-horrific time without the children I KNEW I might have to leave behind. That a judge--and a female and, thus likely, mother--could be what boils down to cruel, is baffling to me. In my opinion, the Gordon's decision is nothing short of an abuse of power and anyone so heartless is not worthy of sitting on the bench in any jurisdiction.

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Joshua Adams GREENVILLE, NC
      • over 3 years ago

      As a citizen of NC with a voice in the legislature, I will be sure to contact my legislator, the BAR association, and Governor Perdue to right this wrong. One does not ask for Cancer, one should not be judged based on a terminal illness, she should be judged solely on her fitness as a parent.

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:

    Develop your own tools to win.

    Use the Change.org API to develop your own organizing tools. Find out how to get started.