Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

News
Nov. 13, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

FATHER NOTIFICATION: Custody case takes a twist

Procedural error postpones judge's decision on 7-year-old

By CARRI GEER THEVENOT
REVIEW-JOURNAL

Seven-year-old Jacob McLaughlin sits with his grandparents, Matthew and Marilyn McLaughlin, along with their dog, Yoda, at their home Friday.
Photo by Jeremy Lyverse/Review-Journal

The battle for custody of a 7-year-old boy took an unexpected turn last week when a Family Court judge discovered a procedural error that had gone unnoticed since the case began in 2000.

Judge Cynthia "Dianne" Steel said the error meant the guardianship that was granted to the child's grandparents shortly after his birth is defective and should be set aside.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • NORM: Cheetah Girls have claws out
  • DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ALLEGED: Halverson husband arrested
  • NORM: Chef's steak rates No. 1 in magazine
  • FATAL ARGUMENT: Woman dies after stabbing
  • NORM: Woods in town for trainer aid
  • Teen's death leaves family devastated
  • Jewelry theft from Mayweather major LV haul
  • BOULDER CITY BYPASS: Bridging funding gap
  • SEEKING JUSTICE: Guilty until proven innocent
  • NORM: Gulbis to swing into 'Apprentice'



    • "This is a horrible way to end this," the judge said.

    Steel had heard several hours of testimony Wednesday before learning that no effort had ever been made to notify the boy's biological father about the guardianship proceedings. She said two hearing masters and three judges, as well as several lawyers, had missed the oversight during the past seven years.

    The discovery marked the latest twist in a bitter fight that has been brewing for years between the boy's mother, now named Chastity Primmer, and his grandparents, Matthew and Marilyn McLaughlin.

    "We fought all this long just to start all over again," Primmer lamented after last week's hearing.

    Primmer was 16 when she became pregnant with her first child, whom she named Jacob McLaughlin. She said her boyfriend, who was 10 years older, disappeared shortly after she told him about her pregnancy and never has sought a role in Jacob's life.

    The woman said her parents knew the man's identity but did not share it with the court when they obtained the guardianship. The McLaughlins' attorney, Charles Hoskin, said the father's name did not appear on the birth certificate and no tests have been performed to establish paternity.

    If the McLaughlins did not know the father's identity, Steel said, they should have tried to notify him as a "John Doe." That is accomplished via a newspaper advertisement that contains the name of the child and the case number.

    "Notice should have happened," Hoskin said outside court. "It should have happened seven years ago." The lawyer has represented the McLaughlins since shortly after they initiated the guardianship proceedings.

    Steel previously ruled that a hearing master erred in October 2006 when she denied Primmer's request to end the guardianship. Steel agreed to reconsider Primmer's request after finding that the hearing master had incorrectly applied a new legal standard to the case.

    The judge was hearing testimony Wednesday to help her rule on the request but decided to stop the proceedings after discovering the procedural error.

    Primmer, now 24, spent the morning on the witness stand and said her parents allowed Jacob to live with her for three years before taking him back in December 2005. The McLaughlins remained the boy's legal guardians during that time and cared for him five days a week while his mother worked.

    Steel's decision to end the guardianship Wednesday had the effect of limiting her authority, as guardianship judge, to the issuance of a 90-day emergency order. The judge decided to keep the existing visitation schedule mostly intact but gave Primmer an additional night each week with her son.

    Primmer said the events in court confused her.

    "I don't know whether to feel good or bad," she said.

    If the McLaughlins fail to initiate new custody proceedings in Family Court, Primmer will automatically regain custody of her son after 90 days. The McLaughlins said they do not intend to give up.

    "It just seems like a travesty," Matthew McLaughlin said after the hearing. "We've been his caregivers for seven years."

    When asked whether he believed his daughter was an unfit parent, Matthew McLaughlin replied, "Do you understand that just by coming to this hearing we were prepared to prove that?"

    He described Jacob as a "special-needs child" who has medical problems and a short attention span. He said he does not believe his daughter is prepared to give Jacob the "extra time and parenting" the boy requires.

    Primmer is now married and raising a second son. She pays her parents $450 a month in child support for Jacob.

    The McLaughlins, both 42, have two adult children and are the foster parents of their 12-year-old niece. They pay to send Jacob to private school.

    Primmer has said she cannot afford private school and will send Jacob to a public school if she regains custody of him.

    Hoskin said he plans to file a new custody case under a Nevada law that allows nonparents who have an established relationship with a child to seek to maintain that relationship with a court order.

    "Without a court order, grandparents don't have any rights," the lawyer said.

    As she has in the past, Steel urged the parties to reach a resolution outside court.

    What Primmer and her parents are doing to Jacob, the judge said, "is borderline inhumane."

    "I think that this child has been a pawn in a way," Steel said.

    Contact reporter Carri Geer Thevenot at cgeer@reviewjournal.com or (702) 383-0264.



    Leave Your Comment 32 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Nancy Neiswender wrote on December 02, 2007 05:40 AM: If I had been a teenage mother, my mother would have helped me with my child, then when I was in a better place and able to care for my child(like this mother is now) she would have been unselfish and given the child back. That's what you do when you are a caring parent.


    Deb Wallace wrote on November 14, 2007 11:25 AM: Lexi.....You just don't know what you are talking about!!! Thousands upon thousands of grandparents are raising grandkids. It's because of our drug culture that has destroyed families and lives. The grandparents are up agaist a wall. No, they don't really want to take on another child but they can't let a grandchild be in danger either. Kids are using their kids in a blackmail way. I know, I've been there. Yes These grandparents need legal papers to protect themselves. You can be the finest parent in the world and still end up with problems with adult children. And guess what, don't be surprised if the grandchild ends up with problems too and will blame the kind and generous grandparents. Like I said before you don't know what you are talking about. Have you been there??


    Lexi wrote on November 13, 2007 08:55 PM: If the grandparents think the daughter is unfit, then they must be unfit themselves for raising her that way. The child belongs with his mother. Any parent who would try to take their own child's children away from them, without it being a life or death matter, are horrible people. If they think their daughter is unfit, then they should help her become fit, that's what parents are for. These people sound like idiots and I feel sorry for their daughter. I hope she gets her son back.


    Deb Wallace wrote on November 13, 2007 08:32 PM: So what else is new. Family court in Clark County is full of horror stories. How about the Graybill....Von Alst case in 1996....Father shoots at mother, child in back seat, misses by one inch, gives chase 12 miles in Nye County. Judge Gaston in Clark gives custody to Father BECAUSE he wasn't found guilty YET!!?? After 2 years Nye County gives Von Alst ONLY 2 years probation. Good Ol' Boy Justice in Nevada. This is just one story.


    Jeff wrote on November 13, 2007 07:19 PM: The problem stars with our legislators that pass laws that are easily manipulated. This is no accident. Most of the legislators seek higher office. Take for instance Gene Porter. What bills did he sponsor as an Assemblyman before he became a judge???? Is their climb to another elected office spur of the moment? I doubt it. This story is the tip of the iceberg relative to guardianship. The players in this case... Voy,Henry,Norhiem, etc, set people up like you would never imagine under the guise of guardianship. The guardianship laws were written to protect the conspirators not the wards. As seen here seven years of this child's life are gone. He should not know what a court is. Imagine if you were 70.


    Ian Primmer wrote on November 13, 2007 05:04 PM: If it were only that easy huh? Would you give up on your children? My wife has the right to fight for her child and she will always do so. Anyone who thinks different is wrong and has no morals, soul, or perhaps a real mother. I guess if I couldn't have anymore children and I already hated my daughter I could just steal her kid with a bs guardianship that isn't real and say but I've had him for seven years. So lets all give around of applause for the Grandparents!!!!YAY!!!!


    me wrote on November 13, 2007 03:36 PM: reply to seth, yes we have but when he is out our place he says he wants to stay and we've been told he says the same to them when he is over there so i have come to the conclusion he's just too young and why put him through that?


    anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 03:22 PM: Obviously there are TWO anonymous'


    seth wrote on November 13, 2007 03:21 PM: has anyone ever asked the little boy where he is happiest at? Seems to me, at 7, he might already have an inkling.


    endrun wrote on November 13, 2007 03:16 PM: Look at the bright side... a nevada judge finally did something worth while.

    This is like watching a 'B' movie


    Read All Comments