Thursday, July 07, 2011

Guy Fieri Needs To Give The Child Back


TMZ is reporting that Guy Fieri has his 11 year old nephew hidden away at a Northern California lake with no phone service and completely cut off from the world. This poses a problem because a judge ordered that the boy needs to be given to his father. Earlier this year, Guy's sister died of cancer. She had one son. The boy;s father fought for custody against Guy's parents. The father won and the judge ordered he be given custody. Since then though the father has not been able to get custody because Guy has the boy hidden away. This is not cool. Just because you are a celebrity chef does not mean you get to make your own laws.

The father has not driven to this lake house because he does not want to get into a confrontation with the family. Here is what you do. You call the sheriff in whatever county the boy is in and have them go with you.

33 comments:

Tempestuous Grape said...

I was watching one of his cooking shows recently. It was a rerun of the Father's Day episode this year. One of his sons was on the show along with his cousin. I know nothing about Guy or his family, but for some reason I could sense this sadness within the kid. Jules I believe his name is..so, I looked it up and sure enough I read about how his mom has died in Feb from cancer. I have had that kid in my thoughts since then. I hope everything works out with this custody business.

MacVixen said...

I don't think Guy being a celebrity chef has anything to do with him thinking he can "get away with it." Seems as though this is more like typical family drama that could happen anywhere, celebrity or not.

Still sad situation all the way around, for the Guy & his family, for the little boy, and the father trying to get custody. Just sad.

chopchop said...

Maybe Guy knows something about the relationship between the father & son that we do not?

Ashlea said...

The Father is probably an addict or fucked up in some way. Guy seems like a reasonable, well adjusted person with a lot to lose. Why would he keep his nephew away, unless something was seriously off about the Dad?

KellyLynn said...

While I do think this is an issue for the law to decide, I can also understand how heartbreaking it is to hand over a child to someone you don't trust.
The only difference that Guy being a celebrity makes is, instead of going to the police, the kid's dad can call up the press and sell a nice little story about what a big meanie his former brother-in-law is.

MISCH said...

According to what I picked up online the father has no job and lives in a mobil home...
The grandparents are at the heart of this...

RocketQueen said...

Yeesh. Even if the father's not the best, he should still have access to his son. This is not a good solution.

Ashlea said...

@Misch, although living in a mobile home is perfectly fine, not having a job and overall mistrust makes me think something else is up with this guy. I do agree with RocketQueen though, the father should have access to his son.

MISCH said...

This is a mess, I wonder what Morgan's instructions to the family were. They seemed really close, her wishes could be the sticking point. I believe the dad should have access also, but full custody is another thing if he can't support his son.

weezy said...

I'm wondering if the father needs to give the sheriff a court order to get his cooperation -- and the father can't afford the legal fees?

califblondy said...

I think Guy's heart is in the right place. It's too bad the laws always favor the biological parent.

Amy said...

It's called kidnapping, and that's the least of the charges against him.

Patty said...

Do we know if something is wrong with the dad or is this all speculation. It could be as simple as the grandparents don't like him for no reason at all. It could also be they are trying to keep the grandson as a close memory of their daughter. Maybe the dad lives out of state and they couldn't see the kid as much. And as for not having a job...then there are thousands of kids at risk of being taken by aunts, uncles or grandparents. Unemployment does not make you a bad parent.

Ashlea said...

If my sister died and I didn't think the father was capable providing and/or caring for my niece/newphew you can bet your ass I would do anything to protect them, even if that meant legal repercussions. Guy is trying to protect his nephew from this guy, obviously. Apparently you people have never met bad parents before. If you have you'd know why guys doing what he's doing (if in fact the father is a deadbeat, if he's not then Guy is psycho and a kidnapper).

Cecilia00 said...

If something is wrong with the father, if there's more than meets the eye and he is unfit - that is for the COURTS to decide - not Guy and his family.

This is why we have courts.

Sounds like a bad family situation, but he needs to return the child.

B. Profane said...

Sorry, all of you claiming that being "jobless" is grounds for denying custody are talking out your ass. I've had an ex. try that bull on me because, as a contractor, I am sometimes technically "jobless." Never mind that my average income is higher than hers and net wealth is about 4x hers. That shit gets thrown out fast in mediation,.

If you spend much time in California family courts, you will see grandparents, other relatives and just plain folks down the street trying to grab custody from dads all the time. Thankfully, the family code makes it very difficult for a judge to award custody to someone other than a biological parent.

Trust me: in California, for every sob story you hear about a judge awarding custody to the deadbeat/druggie mom or dad instead of to the wealthy, stable relatives, there are 10x instances of grannies trying to use the law to rip the kids out of the arms of dad when mom gets hit by a bus, just because granny never liked her son-in-law.

timebob said...

or is this about money if the mother left her son her estate (assuming she had money) as the father he would have access to funds to care for the child as his guardian.

Hard to say but clearly there is a lot of bad blood there.

Ice Angel said...

Sorry folks, as sad as the story sounds, the grandparents did take the case to court and lost. Now they must surrender this child to his legal father. The law is the law, regardless of how someone feels.

They can certainly appeal the decision of the court and fight on, considering they have more means than the father does, but the father does have his rights and a court has agreed with him.

Refusing to surrender the child, to me, is kidnapping. Once the child is older, he can then have more of a decision where he lives, but in the meantime, he is only 11 and a court has awarded custody to the father.

Cecilia00 said...

@B.Profane - IA. The only way "jobless" is relevant to me is if the parent is unable to provide the child with food, shelter and clothing.

Here, the court made it's decision and Guy needs to abide by it. If there's more to this story, they should have brought it up in court.

randbsanger said...

Who in their right mind would take anything to the courts to decide after what just happened with Casey Anthony and poor Caylee?

KLM said...

I don't think this has anything to do with him being a "celebrity" (sidebar: he makes me want to jump off a bridge). Obviously there is family drama going on here. Is he right? Not if the court says he's not. Is he trying to use his "celebrity" to bypass the law? I don't know but I doubt it.

bluebonnetmom said...

I guess the Grandparent's (Guy's Parents) wanted to make sure they pissed the Dad off so bad they never get to see their Grandson again. I don't know where Grandparent's get off thinking they have some rights to their Grandchildren. We have no idea what is up with the Dad and I think he has showed a lot of restraint in this matter. He just wants his child back, especially after losing his wife.

Cecilia00 said...

@randbsanger

Our society is built on this system. Is it perfect? No. Obviously.

But the alternative (no order, rule of law, vigilante justice) is worse.

nunaurbiz said...

When my sister died 10 years ago, my nephew was 9 and I went to a lawyer to try and get custody. At the time, my brother-in-law, who was not a bad person or addict or anything like that, was so unaware of how to raise a child, he didn't even know what time my nephew got out of school. I wasn't trying to remove my nephew from his father's life, but I thought I would be better able to raise my nephew. My brother-in-law was surprised and wanted to fight for custody. I didn't fight. I resigned myself to just continuing to be a constant presence in my nephew's life. My brother-in-law turned out to be a semi-decent parent. He made mistakes, but my nephew came out OK. I would never have kidnapped my nephew unless I saw something dangerous living with my brother-in-law and first I would have gone to the authorities. Only if the law didn't act would I take my nephew away.

i said...

Guy needs to have already given the child back to his father. Period. Any parent knows exactly what I'm talking about, including Chef Guy. You don't mess around with people's children, they are not yours to play with, or to take away to hidden places.

califblondy said...

I don't know where Grandparent's get off thinking they have some rights to their Grandchildren.

Really??

B. Profane said...

@califblondy -- in California, grandparents do have a statutory standing to seek a familial relationship with kids, even if the parents object. That doesn't mean it's automatic, only that a court must give credence and a fair hearing to the grands if they bring an action.

(Again, why doesn't Enty know this? Any lawyer fairly conversant with the Cali FC would know that grands have explicit standing.)

@nunaurbiz -- You were completely in the wrong in your attitude and actions. I'm glad you didn't end up with your nephew. You did EVERYTHING wrong, except for not trying to fight the dad in court.

Amy said...

Enty is not a lawyer, that's pretty well established -- it's just a screen name. He/she doesn't even have the words pled or pleaded in his/her vocabulary and he/she has got both options! But no, it's a flat "he plead not guilty" in every story. Heh. Not a lawyer.

jax said...

it's a gossip blog,not a legal blog.
no one would read it if it was filled with legal jargon and boring boring shit.

can't see Guy putting himself at high risk for this if not a bigger underlying issue going on.

Mango said...

I don't know anything about this family drama but I must say that Guy is very charming and funny on "Drive-ins, Diners and Dives", but he tends to squick me out on his cooking shows when he puts his hands with those big old [bacteria laden] gold rings in the food. Yuuuck.

Tricia said...

I think this is a private family matter. I'm not gonna judge Guy. If this was about him using his money and influence we would have heard about it before now and his $$$ lawyer would have destroyed the guy. And I don't like these celebs relatives or hustlers that write gossip bloggers to plant these stories trying to gain sympathy. Sorry, just because your genetically a parent does not mean your capable of raising a child. The father probably hasn't gone to get the child because he has no gas money.

Mari said...

Well this is sad as can be. I wish I had enough faith in family courts to believe that the child will be best off with his father, because frankly, if the family is going to these lengths including the bad PR for Guy. then personally I am inclined to believe they have good reasons.

bj said...

The father, Dain Pape, has a few camera jobs listing under IMDB. There is no reason under the SUN, why Guy Fieri CAN'T GET HIM A JOB, considering he has AT LEAST 2 SHOWS!!! Maybe this Pape guy treated Guy's sister BAD, (I do not know if they were married or not)but that is how RELATIONSHIPS END! He said, she said, he did this, she did this, and alot of difference between what is said and of course GUY will stick up for his DYING SISTER. But, I thought in the beginning, Guy just took Jules away for a family vaca for a week or two, in the mountains and Dain said he did not want to cause a SCENE. Now, if NOT HAVING A JOB, and not having a permanent living situation is a reason for not having custody(he does have a trailer, a plus), HOW MANY SINGLE MOTHERS WOULD LOSE CUSTODY? I saw a ridiculous comment that Dain was after the boy's Soc. Sec. Yes, all of about $1K a month, MAYBE. RICH TIMES A COMING! No, if Guy was REALLY THINKING ABOUT THIS BOY, he would set Dain up with a job. I am sure Family Courts tested him for Drugs, etc. if he was accused of being an addict. Saw that he would keep this 'trailer' in ONE PLACE. (for all we know, it is a tailer park). You do not keep a child away from their parents because they do not have a job. If they are an alcoholic, drug addict, abuser, that is different. Not because ONE HAS MORE MONEY THAN THE OTHER, THAT IS SNOBBY.