Obama Honors Fallen Troops
'Tough Love: New Orleans' Swamp Date
Why would a Brooklyn judge allow a teen to live with his homeless dad in a city-run shelter, instead of giving the kid to his mom, who is a Manhattan Supreme Court clerk making $90,000-a-year?
Jeannette Traylor was not only denied custody of her 17-year-old son, but the judge also took away her visitation rights as well.
On the flip side, the teen's father, John Jacobs, who is homeless and has scrounged around living in storefronts, borrowed rooms and basements for years on end and was classified by a psychologist as having "severe reservations" about his parenting skills, was awarded total custody.
According to court documents, Judge Bernard Graham said he based his decision on the boy's preference.
The trials and tribulations of the couple began in 1994, when they divorced not long after their son was born. Both Jacobs and Traylor shared joint custody for a while until, in 2001, Traylor was awarded primary physical custody of the boy. Jacob then challenged the decision.
Over the next decade, the couple waged a custody war against each other, filing more than a half dozen petitions and motions with the family court system. There was an allegation that Taylor struck her son with an umbrella; she vehemently denies it. The angry Mom has also been arrested numerous times but has never been convicted. Traylor contends that her ex caused the arrests.
Before Judge Graham made his final decision, he also chastised Traylor for being "quick to offer barbed criticism of the court and the legal process." The judge also seriously took in to consideration the fact that the boy, who attends a pricey Brooklyn Catholic high school that is bankrolled by his mom, told him that Traylor is "self-absorbed" and not interested in his day-to-day life.
Meanwhile, Jacobs still feels that he is the better parent and is ecstatic about the decision. "If I was in a cardboard box and if it was better for my son, so be it," he told the New York Post. "One parent is healthier for the child than the other. When you add the whole thing together, I'm better for the boy. That's the bottom line."
I somehow get the strange feeling that the boxing gloves of both parents will not be gathering dust somewhere in a corner. I don't think we've heard the last of this battling duo. One thing rings true, however, a child is typically content wherever, and with whomever, is the more loving and demonstrative parent.
Comments: (29)
Add a comment
By: clarke on 3/02/2011 6:32PM
Well I didn't see this one comming. I wonder if she put him on a plane by himself and nobody knew he was comming, or maybe Mr. Homeless dad paid off the judge. That boy told the judge more than she was self absorbed and didn't care about his daily life. By the way has anybody heard anything new on the Steve Harvey's ex story? It's been kind of quiet lately. What has ole MARY been up too? What's goin on wit ya MARY? Tell me somethin. I'm beginning to think you dropped off the face of the earth. "TALK TO ME, TALK TO ME, TALK TO ME BABY, COME AND TALK TO ME...."
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: "DimePiece" on 3/03/2011 9:13AM
@clarke
What up friend? Glade you are back. :-) I am glad the mother didn't get the child because of her parenting skills & abuse to her child but I just don't like seeing both the Father & Son strugglin & being homeless on the streets? What about the childs education? When you enroll any school, you need a home address? Could the judge AT LEAST, help the Father in some way get him back on his feet by helping him find a temporary shelter, getting some type of job through agencies, getting a job, so it would be a Better Environment & Safer Up Bringing & Financially stable for the son? No, I didn't hear about Steve. Take care & have a good day! :-)
PEACE!
Report This
By: Pechus on 3/24/2011 7:42PM
You're missing the point. Now that the father has custody, both father & son are eligible for public section 8 housing; meaning that they are probably no longer on the street. Housing Authority gives priority to parents with children involving cases of homelessness. I know because I rent apartments to a few on section 8 & I'm always getting calls from the County to see whether I can accommodate a homeless family for 90-180 days. Who knows, by this father having custody of his son, it might motivate him to do better by setting an example of responsibility. I've seen it occur over & over again. Having child responsibilities changes many a person's attitude & outlook on life. The fact that this father has participatively battled with this mother for so many years actually says something to me; that there's more to him then meets the eye. Father & son may do quite well. It certainly happens.
Report This
By: ed on 3/02/2011 8:10PM
A 17-year old?
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: fashionedbygod33 on 3/02/2011 8:31PM
Wow. Interesting.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: lynn on 3/02/2011 8:36PM
Well one thing is for sure this kid must be black because no judge would turn a white kid over to a homeless parent. And for sure he would not be going to any pricey school on my dime anymore. let this kid live the life of a kid who really is homeless. No way he could be happy going from shelter to shelter.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: bugs hunter on 3/02/2011 9:47PM
"child is typically content wherever, and with whomever, is the more loving and demonstrative parent."
...not necessarily! Some kids prefer the parent that's the lesser disciplinarian!
A Solomonic judgement by the judge! Unusual.
Hope the father get's a permanent roof over his head and bread on his table so that his son will be happy!!
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Lisa on 3/02/2011 9:15PM
Are you kidding me, what the hell was this
socalled judge thinking. Was he high when
he made up his mind, what kind of life is this kid
going to have living with a homeless dad.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: YouKnowWho on 3/05/2011 12:44PM
Like somebody said Lisa, WOMEN just really can't stand to see it when the courts don't kiss their asses and give then everything they want now can they? Obviously this judge had information that YOU don't and made his or HER judgement in what THEY thought would be best for this child. So YOU automatically gonna say the MOTHER is the best parent because she has MONEY, well for whatever reason(that only the judge knows) they didn't think so. Probably like clarke said, this boy told the judge more about his mother that what was stated in the article. THE ACT OF HAVING A BABY DOES NOT MAKE A WOMAN AUTOMATICALLY A GOOD MOTHER.
Report This
By: Kim on 3/07/2011 10:14AM
Just because the father is without a home doesn't mean he isn't a good father and can't provide basic necessities for his son. How dare you chastise someone for being without a home. There are many women who are homeless and have custody of their children even though the fathers have homes. Homeless doesn't equal bad. I'm sure the judge had reservations but made the decision based on what is in the child's best interest. You are too quick to judge. Money isn't everything when it comes to kids. All they need is love. Obviously, this boy's mother can't provide that. Congratulations to this man for not giving up on his "baby"!
Report This