Naveen Andrews Wins Legal, Physical Custody of Son

Evan Agostini/Getty

Lost star Naveen Andrews was awarded sole legal and physical custody of his 3-year-old son Naveen Joshua on Wednesday, when a Los Angeles Superior Court judge rejected allegations of wrongdoing levied by the boy’s mom, Elena Eustache. Per the terms of the order, Naveen Joshua will be free to travel to and from Hawaii — where the 39-year-old actor shoots the television hit show — with either Naveen or his longtime girlfriend, actress Barbara Hershey.

Naveen sought the hearing to address a trip Elena took with Naveen Joshua outside of Los Angeles County, without his permission. He also claimed that Elena kept Naveen Joshua from him in violation of a previous custody agreement. In response, Elena argued that Barbara engages in witchcraft and that together the couple had attempted to poison her son; An attorney for Naveen requested the court to order a psychiatric evaluation of Elena.

The new custody agreement will remain in place pending a hearing next month. TMZ reports that Naveen Joshua — who arrived at the court with his mom — was removed from her care by a bailiff, and left the building with his father and Barbara.

Source: TMZ

Comments

phoebe on January 9th, 2009

I always think it’s terribly sad when one parent assumes full custody of a child. I don’t mean this to sound judgemental (although I’m aware it probably will) but I hope that Naveen had serious cause for concern for even asking for the full custody, as if this last for a long time, he’ll have a little boy asking questions in a few years time, not least of which will be ‘why did you take me away from my mummy?’ (and yes, I’m sure if his mum kept him away from his dad the same questions would’ve been asked of her). From those allegations that both made, this doesn’t look like a healthy situation on either side, and I wouldn’t believe one party over the other, just because there is a new custody arrangement in place. It looks like both sides have been throwing stones at each other and sadly, the only casualty will be the little one.

Natt on January 9th, 2009

all I can think of is “that poor child”. custody hearings are awful anyways, but to have to take a 3 year old along, who is then physically removed from its mother and forced to leave with its father – what kind of damage is that going to do?

I know we dont know the full ins and outs, but that part just sounds awful for the poor child.

Emily on January 9th, 2009

A father wouldn’t be granted full custody of his child unless there were serious issues. It does sound like a horrible situation though as these situations I’m sure always are.

XOXO on January 9th, 2009

TMZ reports that Naveen Joshua — who arrived at the court with his mom — was removed from her care by a bailiff, and left the building with his father and Barbara.
__________________________________________________________________

This just breaks my heart! How scary and sad for a 3 year old to go through something like this. Hope is for the best.

Michelle W on January 9th, 2009

If the mother is in any way concerned for her child she would have sufficiently prepared him for the transfer. It’s not as if he has been handed over to a stranger – it’s his father and his father’s partner, a mature lady (who was awesome in Hannah & Her Sisters BTW).

As awful as custody situations are, I think courts do try to concern themselves with the child’s pscychological well being. It’s not an ideal situation, but all sides have to make the most of it. It’s less traumatic to go through court than have the child in the care of an incompetent and/or spiteful parent.

Ekaterina on January 9th, 2009

I know we don’t know all the full details, but the mother does not sound right of mind. If she is indeed not, the trauma resulting from physically removing a child from his mother now will be probably be less than any trauma later that could result from leaving him with someone who needs help.

I read somewhere else that she was seen crying on the court steps saying that it was awful and that celebrities always get their way and its ridiculous. I hate to state the obvious here, but if she has such a problem with celebrities, she shouldn’t have had a child with one.

Gracie on January 9th, 2009

“It looks like both sides have been throwing stones at each other and sadly, the only casualty will be the little one.”

Phoebe: It’s not throwing stones for someone to tell the judge why the other parent shouldn’t have custody if the other parent is a danger to the child’s safety or well-being. What was Naveen supposed to do, go into court and say nothing while possible harm could come to the child.

Courts don’t take custody from mother’s easily, or without substantial proof. So clearly Naveen was not “throwing stones” as you put it.

phoebe on January 9th, 2009

Michelle W, your last comment is the thing that concerns me the most though, we don’t really know who is spiteful and/or incompetant, and it wouldn’t be right for us to think it is the little boy’s mother just because a court has given custody to the father. For it to reach this point, where both sides are throwing verbal jabs at each other and placing their child in the middle of it all, I think it’s safe to say that mum and dad have both made mistakes. It is always ideal for a child to have an equal influence from both parents, and like I said, I find it sad that he has been pulled away from mum like that, and I hope that dad had good reason for it, and wasn’t just pulling punches out of spite or anger. Similarly, I hope that mum hasn’t been doing the same. ALL my thoughts are with the child here. He is the one that deserves sympathy.

Kate on January 9th, 2009

i think the fact that the mother accused the gf of witchcraft in open court speaks volumes for her mental state. if the judge had kept custody the same would be insanity. the fact that the mother just thinks that its “hollywood” justice is sad. she should have been better prepd for this hearing.

it is a very sad situation-but the mother did something wrong. and from the sounds of it the little boy may be in a better place with his dad.

phoebe on January 9th, 2009

Gracie, I think you took my comment too literally, I meant that both sides seemingly decided to wage war against each other, and just because the judge has sided with one, doesn’t mean that parent hasn’t made mistakes. You can’t be ‘clear’ on anything from a court ruling. It’s one side versus another, and there’s not always a right answer, just one person’s opinion.

Erinn on January 9th, 2009

Well how is it good for the son to have his fathers doing this interview, shouldnt this be a private thing, why cause public pain?

Brandi on January 9th, 2009

What interview? This is a court hearing.

Anyhow, the witchcraft bit perked my ears. Something is off with the mother, it seems. We don’t know the details but obviously the judge made what he thought was the best choice.

Jayne on January 9th, 2009

I think Phoebe is right, you can never be sure what happens in court is the right thing, and since this isn’t a trial by jury situation, it’s even more questionnable. I’m not saying the wrong decision was made, just that it would be daft to believe everything was gospel just because one side came out on top. And maybe the mother was being nasty with the witchcraft comments, but then again, we don’t know why she said that and whether there was reason to do so. We don’t know who the little boy would be better with, all we know is what we read in the media, we are not in their homes. It’s just awful that the situation has hit such depths where a mother has her child wrenched away, and the dad feels that he had to resort to such lengths. Whoever is right here (and just because the mother’s claims are a bit more ‘out there’ doesn’t mean she was lying), the child is the victim.

And Gracie – it could be argued that the mother was right to say what she did if she genuinely feared for her child when he was with his father and father’s girlfriend. Both were throwing stones. But Michelle, you’re totally right, I hope the little guy was prepared for the court, well, as much as a three-year-old can be anyway.

L on January 9th, 2009

Erinn, Naveen did NOT do an interview. Another source (and perhaps public records) provided the information.

Of course we don’t know all the details, but like others said it takes quite a lot for a court to take all custody rights away from a mother. And it really doesn’t sound like two parents taking jabs at one another, putting the child in the middle, just out of spite.

Sounds to me like Naveen had genuine concerns for his son’s well-being, and if it’s true that she violated multiple points of the custody agreement and made those ludicrous claims about Barbara, he had solid reasons. He was concerned about his son’s safety and wellness under his mother’s care, so he took action. Sounds like a good dad advocating for his child.

Hopefully she can get things in order and cooperate with a joint custody agreement so she can spend time with her son. Of course it’s terrible for a child to never see one of their parents, but sometimes it has to be that way because it’s the best.

Di on January 9th, 2009

When I read this story a few days ago, it really troubled me. It was not so much that the mother lost custody but the fact that she had to hand him over right then and there in the courtroom. Someone earlier talked about preparing her son for the transfer. How could the mother prepare for something she did not know was going to happen in advance. After the hearing, Andrews walked out of the courthouse smiling while the mother was crying her eyes out on the courthouse steps. Andrews is wealthy individual who was represented by a high profile family law attorney and who knows who this woman hired, it is possible she got some really bad legal advice or did not understand the court order.

I think it is wrong for any parent to try to keep the child from the other parent but now with the new ruling, Andrews can take the child to Hawaii thus depriving the mother of meaningful access to the child. I feel that there is so much we do not know and perhaps will never know. This custody case is far from over. There will be another hearing next month.

What about visitiation? Even Britney got supervised visits. If Britney can still see her children 3 days a week after having been involuntarily committed to the psych ward on two occasions which led her being under a conservatorship, this woman should be able to see her son.

Lastly, the mother’s accusations against Barbara make her sound crazy but until she undergoes some sort of psych evaluation, we should not jump to conclusions.

Harley on January 9th, 2009

L – I couldn’t have said it better myself.

As for the “trauma” of being taken by the bailiff, most courts have a children’s waiting room so that they aren’t watching the case happen. That may have been the transfer from the mother they are talking about. We don’t know. Also, most 3 year olds don’t remember much as they get older so I doubt he’ll remember this.

Obviously the court wants the mother to undergo a psychological evaluation for a reason. Unless there was some kind of proof of him trying to poison their son, this would be a much different story.

Keep in mind, we don’t have an insiders view on that relationship so us making judgements on what has been done is only based on a skeleton view of a court document.

Harley on January 9th, 2009

Also, people, look at the statement, “The new custody agreement will remain in place pending a hearing next month.” This is not set in stone. It’s temporary. Also, some people really shouldn’t have access to their kids. Trust me on that one.

Ekaterina on January 9th, 2009

I sincerely doubt that Naveen Andrews’ “fame” and “money” had anything to do with the outcome of this trial. He’s not even that famous. Not to mention that commonly, in custody trials, the court sides with the mother. If they side otherwise, she had to have done something to warrant it. Since he’s so young, it’s likely that they felt she might be a danger to the child. Not to mention that that money and fame were likely paying her child support.

Thank-you Harley, couldn’t have said it better myself. While we don’t know all the details, I’d hate for anything to happen to that child because people were not careful enough. We don’t want another Caylee Anthony on our hands. If she is a danger to her child, she should not be around him.

Jayne on January 9th, 2009

To Harley – Naveen asked for the psychological evaluation, the judge didn’t think it up. And there are certainly people out there who shouldn’t have access to their children, that’s for sure, but who’s to say that should truly be this little boy’s mother? Or his father? I’m guessing the child will now be taken to Hawaii….how is his mum supposed to see him until this temporary measure is reviewed? I hate to say it, but I think his mum has a point, money can talk. Maybe it didn’t in this situation, but since she’s been wounded with this, I can see why she’s said it.

phoebe on January 9th, 2009

I’m sure little Naveen’s mother will be comforted by the fact that her situation has led to a parallel comparison with Casey Anthony, a woman charged with the murder of her own child. Ekaterina, whether or not you were trying to make her out to potentially be that, that’s the way it sounded and that’s wildly unfair. I can’t believe a temporary custody order has led to THAT so quickly. We don’t know if any of the parents or partners are any kind of danger to the child, but it’s not going to help to insinuate something as drastic as what happened to poor little Caylee Anthony.

erica alayne on January 9th, 2009

I can’t help but find it interesting that many (keyword; many, not all) people in this world don’t find it as sad and shocking when a mother is granted sole legal and physical custody of a child, and a child might very well be taken from a good and decent father. The double standard in this world saddens me as a human being and a mother, even though I know I probably will not see it change in my lifetime.

The point is that no one has ANY idea of this situation or what brought them to this conclusion. I suppose I always saw this as a place for discussion, not speculation. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but it makes me sad that so many want to jump to conclusions.

Whatever the circumstances, I feel for that little boy, and I hope whatever is decided in the end is what is the absolute best for him.

Lauren on January 9th, 2009

I think if Naveen were a mother gaining sole custody of her child, this would be a little to non-issue. If anything people would be applauding her for taking control of her life and removing her child from an unhealthy situation with his father. It’s no secret that fathers are frequently discriminated against in court and have been for decades; the mother has to be a real loon for the dad to gain full custody. The reaction here is just like when Britney lost custody of her kids-”Poor Britney being separated from her babies,” “Poor Britney being criticized and antagonized,” “Poor Sean and Jayden need their mommy.” Never mind what is best for the children in terms of living in a stable environment with the parent who is most fit to care for their needs.

This attitude does nothing but prevail stereotypes regarding the importance of the mother versus the father in childrens’ lives, and until people stop with the blatant favortism of mothers and acting like fathers are second in command, we can forget about breaking them.

Michelle W on January 9th, 2009

The witchcraft accusation is amusing, even if this situation is not.

I would absolutely trust a judge to decide a case over a trial of my peers. There is a reason they are in family courty – it has to do with their interest in the subject and hopefully their reasoned and seasoned approach to these tricky situations. I have far more faith in a judge’s ability to decide an outcome than a slice of the general population. Ye gads.

Harley on January 9th, 2009

My bad! I missed the part where he asked for the psych eval, not the judge. My apologies.

Tracey on January 9th, 2009

Judges need pretty good reasons to change a custody order, especially ones that grant one parent (whether mother or father) sole custody. Since this happened, I believe the judge was acting in the best interest of the child.

Jess on January 9th, 2009

I’m glad Josh (as he is affectionately called by his family) is with someone who cares and loves him dearly. It’s clear from pictures of Naveen with Josh of the love they share and how protective he is of his little guy. Josh will definitely be raised to be a proper, polite little man … you just have to look at how Naveen’s eldest son is now at 16 years old!

It’s not really my place to comment on the mother, Elena, and I don’t think any one can on the “state” of Josh’s mum but from what has been said I’m glad she is receiving/going to receive some sort of help.

I highly doubt Naveen wished for all of this to be public knowledge, but his fame caused it to be so that’s something he and his girlfriend will have to deal with.

Good luck to Naveen, Barbara and baby Naveen Joshua!!

Mom to be on January 9th, 2009

Lauren, you took the words right out of my mouth! Well said.

Sarah on January 9th, 2009

It doesn’t really matter that Andrews requested the psych evaluation, because the judge could refuse to order it if he (or she) thinks it’s unnecessary. Obviously, given the allegations made by Elena, the judge thought that psych evaluation is VERY necessary. Regardless of what either party requests (which is usually a lot), it is ultimately up to the judge to determine what is in the best interest of the child.

impoguemahone on January 9th, 2009

I definitely don’t think much of any man who takes a child away from its’ mother.

Lily on January 9th, 2009

I, too, would like to add that if the roles were reversed and Elena was granted sole legal and physical custody of the boy, no one would raise an eyebrow and everyone would be chastising Naveen for not acting like a father.

It’s common knowlegde that judges/courts usually won’t take a child away from his or her mother UNLESS they see cause for concern. The judge, in this situation, has most likely seen plenty of custody cases and, therefore, can probably sense general animosity between both parties and when and if the child involved is at risk for physical or mental harm.

Not only is Elena accusing Barbara of witchcraft but, more seriously, that she, along with Naveen, attempted to poison her son. Most of the time these allegations are made, it’s for one side to soil the other’s chances at ever regaining any type of custody of the child. Although I’m sure both Naveen and Elena are guilty of saying negative things about one another, this is too far. Some people have said that they hope Naveen will have sufficient reasoning, later on in life, when and if his son asks why he was taken away from his mother. If I was the mother, though, I’d be more concerned with the fact that my child will find out that I told blatant lies that centered on his own father causing physical harm to him.

Lily on January 9th, 2009

impoguemahone,

I definitely wouldn’t think much of a man who allowed his child to stay in a situation where he could be physically, mentally, or emotionally harmed.

l on January 9th, 2009

impoguemahone, I strongly recommend that you watch the documentary “Dear Zachary”. And then come back and try to make this same stupid generalizing statement again.

impoguemahone on January 9th, 2009

Reply to Lily:
Where is there proof the child has been “harmed?” I think it’s just another case of a celeb getting what he wants and disregarding other people’s feelings. As for the witchcraft allegations, a lot of people ARE into it, for all we know it MAY very well BE true …who knows? Personally I think he and Barbara just want a child and this is how they went about it. Unless there is genuine neglect or abuse I think a child should be with it’s mother.To snatch a child away from it’s mother is traumatic and emotionally harming!!

Shawna on January 9th, 2009

I think it is horrible that a child is ripped from his mother because his father is a celebrity. Celebrities get special treatment all the time, but this is just going too far. I feel so sorry for the mother.

Lily on January 9th, 2009

This man is not Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise. I don’t watch Lost, so if it hadn’t been written into the post, I would have no clue who he is.

Where is the proof that Elena isn’t fabricating everything? I admit, I don’t know the whole story but neither do you. A judge wouldn’t call for such a dramatic change in custody unless he had good reason to.

What’s also traumatic and emotionally harming is keeping a child in a situation where there is cause for concern regarding his general welfare.

Just because someone holds the title of mother doesn’t mean they’re fit to do the job.

Sarah on January 9th, 2009

This child was NOT “snatched” from its mother. The mother made herself sound very unstable and even took off with the baby without notifying his father. That is MAJOR cause for concern. He is staying with his father, not some stranger. There is no proof that Naveen’s celebrity has anything to do with this. That’s mere speculation because the celebrity in this case happens to be a man. If Elena was granted sole custody, who here would accuse her of snatching the child? Fathers have (or should have) just as many rights as the mother.

impoguemanhone, accusing Naveen and Barbara of ignoring little Naveen’s best interests because of some conspiracy theory that they want a child of their own is beyond ridiculous. You have nothing to back up your statement. Neither Naveen nor Barbara have been quoted saying anything along those lines. Why wouldn’t Naveen be genuinely concerned for his son’s well-being? Because he is a man and therefore selfish, and devoid of any emotion, and incapable of love? Please. that’s just silly.

If I were a judge and the mother took off with the kid and then made allegations of witchcraft I would order a psych evaluation too. None of us were in the court room, so maybe, just maybe, the judge did really think that little Naveen was in danger of physical or emotional harm.

impoguemahone on January 9th, 2009

Reply to Sarah:
Nowhere did I ever ACCUSE Naveen and Barbara of *anything* I merely stated my OWN opinion; if you actually read the comment it said merely what I PERSONALLY think, so please don’t put words in my mouth.
Just because my thoughts are different from others, it makes me “stupid”, Silly” etc… really “nice”(and so “mature!”), people, and so “tolerant” of other people’s opposing ideas! So much for diversity and respecting varying thoughts and opinions!If one doesn’t happen to agree with the majority(or dares to have their OWN ideas!)…watch out! Sheesh!!

Disturbing on January 9th, 2009

It’s really disturbing how many of you have such a bias towards fathers. I was raised by a single father who was granted sole custody because my mother, while a loving one, was not fit to be my primary caretaker. As for impoguemahone, I fear you may just watch too much daytime tv for me to take your comments seriously.

Di on January 9th, 2009

I would like to add that Andrews’ attorney asked for a psych evaluation but I do not believe that it was ordered at least not yet. I think this case is so sad because this woman gave birth to this boy and has raised and cared for him for the past three years and now she does not have him anymore. He was probably her whole world.

I think that a lot of people believe that the court’s are biased against men or assume that women are better caregivers. I believe that women have an advantage only in the sense that women have a tendency to be the child’s primary caregiver so in the event of a custody dispute the odds are in their favor. How many times have you heard of a man giving up his lucrative career to be a stay at home dad but women are expected to drop everything.

I certainly believe that Andrews wealth and fame was a factor in that it allowed him to hire the best attorney in town, the one who represents all of the celebrities. It makes sense now why Kevin Federline hired a high powered lawyer/law firm that he could not afford because it levels the playing field.

Lastly, there are individuals out there who practice witchcraft, they are known as Wiccans and consider their practice to be a kind of religion. I do not know if Barabara is a Wiccan but anything is possible in Hollywood.

impoguemahone on January 9th, 2009

Reply to Disturbing:
Sorry, but wrong; I never watch any daytime TV and only a couple of TV shows period, but “thanks” for generalizing.(sarcasm)

Sarah on January 9th, 2009

Wow, nowhere in my post did I say the word “stupid.” And, I most certainly did not resort to name-calling. But, I did find the statements that you made about Naveen’s intentions toward his own child to be offensive and completely baseless. It was the statement that I thought was silly, not you. I do not know you just as you do not know Naveen. I am very tolerant to other ideas as long as there is some basis to them. Please do let me know if there was anything that Naveen said that would make you think that he and Barbara wanted a baby of their own and decided to use his son to do it.

Sorry if I offended you. Once again, that was not my intention.

l on January 9th, 2009

impoguemahone , I apologize if I offended you with calling your opinion stupid, but sorry, that’s what I think of it. You made a generalizing comment saying that basically every man who goes for full custody is kind of a bad person. Don’t you think that some of them are rightfully concerned about the well being of their children? And that it sometimes might be in the best interest to separate a child from his/her mother? It might be the case here, it might not, I don’t know. Lumping every concerned father together like that isn’t going to help anybody.

impoguemahone on January 9th, 2009

Boy, are people here ever touchy!(and harsh on people who disagree with them!) I agree with IMPogue here; special treatment for celebrities again; it seems they are above ethics and laws.I feel so sorry for the poor child being wrenched from his mother, and for the mother, having her entire life and meaning taken from her.I sadly wouldn’t be surprised to hear if the poor distraught woman commits suicide!I know how devastated and heartbroken I’d feel if I lost MY child!
and no, I don’t watch daytime TV either! I just think a child belongs with his mother and there is no proof anywhere Elena is “unfit”.

l on January 9th, 2009

So basically, impoguemahone is agreeing with impoguemahone, LOL. Good for you.

impoguemahone on January 9th, 2009

Correction:
I mistankenly mentioned myself in the above post when I meant to say I agreed with Di;(it’s been a long day and I’m out of focus; don’t ask! ) about celebs being able to hire the best attorneys and therefore getting special treatment and getting what they want.
I have nothing “against” fathers, either; I just think a child should be with his mother unless there is a serious and valid reason to not be, and even in Islamic countries(where fathers actually have MORE rights to the kids over the mother)such as Saudi Arabia they still won’t take a child away from a mother until he is 5 years old.

Lauren on January 9th, 2009

Hey, someone’s got to, right I?

Lynn on January 9th, 2009

I think that the mother doesn’t sound very stable, and it was right of Naveen to take custody of his son for now. His celebrity status has nothing to do with it. I know a girl whose father had sole custody of her for years, until her mother got back on her feet and was okay again.

Brandi on January 9th, 2009

Well to be honest pogue what it looks like happened is you tried to post as a new person to agree with your previous posts but forgot to change your name. Because if you look, you responded to the daytime tv question again, as though you were agreeing with “pogue.”

Anyhow, as I said before, there are reasons the judge made the decision he did, and whether we are privy to those reasons or not, we have to assume it is in the best interest of the child.

ellen on January 9th, 2009

i agree, impoguemahone.
the worst part is that barbara allowed to take care of josh. i really feel bad for elena.

l on January 9th, 2009

Assuming ellen is not impogoe in disguise, why is it the worst part that Barbara Hershey is allowed to take care of the boy? Wouldn’t the worst part be that this kid has parents have to have to fight in court for custody? Sorry, if I sound repetitive but this IS stupid.

impoguemahone on January 9th, 2009

Reply to:/says:
How presumtuous of you to think Ellen is me simply because someone else happens to agree with me? Don’t you think it’s possible someone else can agree ?That’s really “rich!” I assure you, Ellen is not me,and BTW, my screename is not impogoe; it’s either IMPogueMahone or simply Pogue Mahone.

J on January 9th, 2009

I do feel badly for the mother, not being able to see her son, as it does sound like she is upset over this. BUT, none of us know the situation, and like many have said, a judge isn’t going to take custody from a mother unless he or she has valid and good reason to believe that it is the best thing to do. All any of us know is from articles such as this one – we weren’t in the courtroom, we weren’t watching Naveen and Elena raise their baby, and so none of us can say much about their parenting, or who would be the better parent. But the judge seems to think Naveen, at least for now, and decisions like that don’t come about lightly.

J on January 9th, 2009

I also should say that no matter what, I hope the little boy’s best interests are the ones being taken care of. Ideally, both his parents would be able to co-parent together peacefully, but unfortunately, at least for now, that doesn’t seem to be the case. So, if the best place for him to be right now is with his father, then I’m glad he is. But this is the first I’ve heard of this case so I don’t know much about it.

Sarah on January 9th, 2009

Isn’t is far more cruel to leave a child in a potentially dangerous situation? If there is ANY question as to the mental stability of the mother, both the father and the courts have an obligation to protect the child. Elena did not lose custody permanently nor do we know if there is visitation. The court is erring on the side of caution until her mental fitness has been evaluated. Better safe than sorry.

melissa on January 9th, 2009

WELL,I DON’T NORMALLY GET INVOLVED WITH THESE COMMENTS BUT I WILL SAY IMPOGUE MAHONE,I DO AGREE WITH SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS BUT I ALSO AM NOT COMING ON TO BASH OR PUT SOMEONE DOWN FOR THEIR BELIEFS…AGAIN,SHAME ON TMZ FOR PUTTING THIS OUT THERE AND WHAT I MEAN IS THIS POOR WOMAN JUST LOST HER CHILD AND THEN GOTTA PUT OUT THERE BARBARA BEING HANDED HER CHILD AND LEAVING WITH HIM{THE FATHER TOO}NONE OF US REALLY KNOW WHY SHE MADE THE WITCH CRAFT ACCUSATION AND IT MAY VERY WELL BE TRUE{IDK}BUT THERE IS NO EASY WAY TO THIS AND THE REAL VICTIM IS THIS PRECIOUS LITTLE BOY WHO I’M SURE LOVES HIS MOMMY AS WELL AND IS AS CONFUSED BY ALL THIS. ALL I HOPE IS HIS BEST INTREST OF THIS LIL BOY REMAIN INTACT AND HOPEFULLY HE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE HIS MAMA AGAIN…

impoguemahone on January 9th, 2009

I agree with the (few) posters who say it is wrong for a child to be taken from his/her mother.Just think how you would feel if it was YOUR child that was taken? Maybe then you might take pity on the poor mother?

hcecilia on January 9th, 2009

there is so much more sympathy for the mother here than the father and it just makes me sick. while i think it’s ideal to have both parents involved in a child’s life, there is nothing that states that mothers are adept to raise children than men. i have many friends who were raised by their father after the mother threw up her hands and gave up. one of them especially turned into the most respectful man that i know. another friend of mine was raised by her mother and hardly has ay trust or loyalty to women or men. both cases just go to show that people are just people, mothers can’t raise their children any better than fathers can. it all depends on how dedicated the person is to their child. also, just because naveen has legal sole custody does not mean that josh’s mother can never see her son. no where in california’s definition does it mean that he can’t see his mother, it just means that he lives with his father full-time and his father makes any legal decisions on behalf of his son – that’s all! and personally, if my daughter’s father were to take her out of the county without my permission, i wouldn’t find it a 50/50 parentship either!

hcecilia on January 9th, 2009

impoguemahone – it’s just so funny how you can’t see the other side of it. there are unfit mothers out there, a lot of them are granted custody of children. some mothers cause more unnecessary drama than the fathers! it’s just that everyone (including the law) are so bias about mothers being the better care giver that fathers don’t even try to legally obtain custody. i’m speaking as a mother who has also seen a few of her male friends get left in the dark because the mother is angry they aren’t together anymore that they use the child as a pawn.

Chana on January 9th, 2009

It’s nice to see that we’re still living in the Mama Knows Best days. Disgusting.

The child should be with the parent who can provide the most stable home for him. The judge obviously felt that at the moment, it is best that he stay with Naveen. It is cruel to keep a child with his/her mother if the mother shouldn’t be parenting him. I’m not saying this is the case with Elena and Josh, but to throw Naveen under the bus for this is ridiculous and archaic and GOD FORBID any of you die and your poor kids have to be raised by a man.

Jane on January 9th, 2009

impoguemahone, how do we know that there aren’t good reasons for this custody arrangement? For all we know there are very valid reasons to question Elena’s ability to be a stable parent at this moment. If there is ever any question to whether a mother (or a father) might be potentially harmful to their kid, it needs to be addressed immediately, and it looks like it has been. What would you rather they do, wait until it’s too late and the child winds up in a more harmful situation? The arrangement Naveen Joshua is in right now obviously isn’t ideal, but it just might be 1000 times preferable to what COULD happen.

Natasha on January 9th, 2009

I am STUNNED at some of these responses! Just stunned! Apparently some of you think your husbands would be incapable of taking care of your children if something was to happen to you. “The poor child”, how do you even know if he had a good relationship with his mother? My goodness, so much father discrimination going on in here. I seriously hope you are not telling your children that their Dad’s don’t matter in their lives, because that’s what you’re saying in here.

I’m GLAD this boy is with his Dad, obviously the court felt he was the better parent.

Lorus on January 9th, 2009

It’s not like Naveen Joshua was handed over to a stranger! It’s his father who has been in his life since birth (there are pictures on the web of Naveen running errands with his son). Judges don’t remove children for little reason so s/he must have seen that the boy’s mother has some issues.

Mom to be on January 9th, 2009

I almost can’t believe some of these responses. I agree with those posters who said this would be a non-issue if a MOTHER had been awarded sole custody. There are many fathers out there who are perfectly capable of raising their children, and some of them happened to make kids with the wrong women. Perhaps Naveen is in that crowd, and if he is, good for him for trying to protect his son from his mistake.

Sarah on January 9th, 2009

“Just think how you would feel if it was YOUR child that was taken? Maybe then you might take pity on the poor mother?” – impoguemahone

Did it ever occur to you that maybe that was how distraught Naveen felt when Elena took THEIR son on a trip without telling him and failed to hand Josh over for scheduled visitation?? Do you have any pity for Naveen that his child was taken without his knowledge?

Josh has TWO parents who both need to know where he is. Her repetitive violations of the joint custody agreement probably didn’t work in her favor.

Kat on January 10th, 2009

Talk about double standards.
A man can be a much better parent than a mother.
Not every woman is fit to be a mother, and should not have custody of their child/children.
I’m sure Naveen had a pretty good reason for getting custody.

eva on January 10th, 2009

I think I’m too late into the conversation but I thought I could share something with the ladies who think a little one should stay with the mother in order not to hurt her feelings.
When my daughter was born my husband’s girlfriend (and my daughter’s birthmother)was addicted to alcohol and drugs.Few people believed it because she was quite functional and gave the impression of being stable.However,our daughter was born addicted to crack.My husband got sole physical and legal custody of our baby after she drove around while under the influence of alcohol with the baby on the backseat.It was until then,when our daughter’s life was endangered,that people believed my husband had the right to raise and protect his own child.Where’s this lady now that K is 9 years old?well,she’s still consuming drugs on a regular basis,doesn’t have a job and doesn’t return my child’s calls (which makes her very sad).
The comments I get from people are priceless,particularly those made behing my back.I am the arrogant “girlfriend” who wanted to play dollhouse with another woman’s child,according to many.Very much like some of you here I get accused of wanting an instant family at the expense of a poor mother who was cheated by the system.Now I don’t even bother explaining our situation.My child believes sincerely that her father and I are her family and that her home is by my side.My conscience is clean,my husband and I did what was best for our baby and that is a job well done.

JJ on January 10th, 2009

Michelle W, I am sure if it was your little boy, you would be singing a different tune.

phoebe on January 10th, 2009

Eva, while I have the greatest sympathy for your situation, and respect for what you did, I don’t think anyone here from what I have read has thought that the little guy in this case should have been left with his mother just because of her hurt feelings. Firstly, I object to the trivialisation of her pain at losing custody (and I would object if it was a father losing custody as well, so this is NOT about mother versus father care). It is not hurt feelings, it is a gut wrenching pain like no other. I have a daughter and I would have a broken heart without her. As would her daddy. And since we don’t know the ins and outs of the situation with little Naveen (and no, a court order tells us nothing concrete and nothing in detail), as a mother, my heart reaches out to another parent in pain. Let me be clear here, I would be feeling the same way if Naveen had lost. It is way beyond hurt feelings in this situation.

I also think that, with many people here (with good intentions on both sides) saying that Naveen surely had good reason to get custody (which he probably did, but I don’t doubt that both sides of this made their case look better any way they could), Elena has now been compared (or an implication of a comparison has been made) to a drug addict and alcoholic, and to Casey Anthony, who is due to stand trial for the murder of her daughter. Elena is a woman who has lost custody of her child, whatever the circumstances of that, I’m sure that kind of insinuation would make her feel so much better (sarcasm). People are complaining about the mother versus father style and quality of parenting, but I think this has now gone so far on here that Elena is actually being almost criminalised in people’s minds. That really stuns me.

Eva, I think it was a wonderful thing you did for your husband’s daughter, and I think she is lucky to have you as a co-parent. She will obviously be growing up extremely loved. But we are all ill-equipped to determine what kind of parent Elena is, or Naveen. We see what is written on court papers, and that, as far as parenting skills and abilities are concerned, is negligible at best. Anyone can walk into court and say anything, it is what we do that matters. With that in mind, I hope that little Naveen settles with his dad and that truly is the best place for him to be for the moment. But I do hope for the child’s sake that his mum is awarded joint custody and for the RIGHT reasons. And the right reasons are not because she is his biological mother, they are that she is capable of parenting, and that his father is also. The best outcome for this little boy is for both his parents to get it together enough to be able to talk to each other and behave like adults around each other. And that applies to mum and dad in every situation.

melissa on January 10th, 2009

PHOEBE~SO VERY WELL PUT! I COULDN’T HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF! I CLEARLY FEEL THAT ALL THAT SHOULD MATTER IS THE BEST INTREST OF THE CHILD ALWAYS{WHETHER THAT BE WITH MOM OR DAD}AND FOR ANYONE THAT IS WITH SOMEONE THAT HAS A CHILD FROM A PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP I FIND IT WONDERFUL WHEN THEY CAN CO-PARENT AND HAVE A POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP AMONGST THE ADULTS BUT THAT’S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE AND IT JUST SEEMS THAT ELENA HAS ALOT OF ISSUES TOWARDS BARBARA & NAVEEN’S RELATIONSHIP AND ALONG WITH NOT GOING BY THEIR CUSTODY AGREEMENT SO,IN THE BEST INTREST OF THIS LITTLE BOY IT IS TO BE WITH THE FATHER IT STILL DOES NOT MEAN SHE LOVES HER CHILD ANY LESS AND THAT SHE’S UNFIT AS MOTHER SHE JUST ISN’T FOLLOWING THE RULES OR GUIDELINES OF THEIR CUSTODY AGREEMENT AND SO THIS IS A JUST AND FAIR RULING,I JUST HOPE THEY CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT AND HAVE THIS RESOLVED SO,HE CAN ENJOY A RELATIONSHIP WITH BOTH PARENTS WHO SEEM TO EQUALLY LOVE HIM VERY MUCH…

Lauren on January 10th, 2009

“I don’t think anyone here from what I have read has thought that the little guy in this case should have been left with his mother just because of her hurt feelings.”

Not quite sure how you managed to miss impoguemahone’s numerous posts, but apparently you did, as well the countless others insinuating the same.

“I do hope for the child’s sake that his mum is awarded joint custody and for the RIGHT reasons.”

And what if there are no RIGHT reasons? Naveen Joshua’s mother has violated her custody arrangements repeatedly, slandered her child’s father and his girlfriend in court, accused them of poisoning the boy-and SHE’s the victim? You can try to talk your way out of it, but that is essentially what you and many others are saying. I agree with almost everything you write, but you are so far off the mark here it’s sad.

Is it too bad for everyone that their arrangement has to come to Naveen getting sole custody? Of course. But what’s the alternative? To leave a little boy with a woman who has purposefully tried to keep her son from having a relationship with the father who cares about him and who refuses to responsibly co-parent? I hoped the comments would ease up after my first post. Instead, they’ve only gone in reverse. The blatant sexism here is nothing short of embarrassing; does male bashing make you feel better about yourselves?

kendra on January 10th, 2009

The judge has the duty to protect the child NOT the mother. No ruling should be based on how the mother/father would feel, it should be about the best interest of the child.

Elena (the mother) actually said that Naveen and Barbara tried to poison their son. This is not a small accusation. This is not something to take lightly.

ellen on January 10th, 2009

i don‘t mean to sound hars or something, but this whole situation looks strange to me : man has girlfriend who is 21 older than he (she‘s now 60), breaks up wih her and has son with another woman. than he leaves her, reconciles with his ex but sees his son regularly. than something happens and child is taken from this mother and placed in his father and woman‘s, who is only stranger to a kid, care. i agree, father can take good care of their kids and this custody is temporarly bus whole fact that naveen‘s girlfrien is in agreems seems not right and makes me feel bad for elena. and i personaly don‘t think that this would have happened if he wouldn‘t be celebrity.
i just hope josh would return to his mom soon because doesn’t matter what happened between parents, for kid this age mom is very important

phoebe on January 10th, 2009

Lauren, you’ve totally missed my point. I have not painted the mother as the victim, and it’s disgraceful that you’re trying to put words in my mouth then tell me that I can try to talk my way out of it if I want to. That’s what’s sad. I was not far off your mark, your understanding of my comments may have been however. I have said repeatedly, as have others, that the only victim here is the child, but that doesn’t mean that the mother deserves to be compared to an alcoholic, a drug addict, and an alleged murderer. That, by anyone’s standards, is ridiculous, and if I’d painted her to be a victim on those grounds, I would’ve probably been right to do so. The RIGHT reasons for returning custody to a joint agreement, as I have already stated, should be that both parents are capable of parenting effectively. The point is, we don’t know if there is truth or reason to the mother’s allegations (personally, I feel that it was probably a strike at the father, but it is not for me, or anyone here, to decide that), but it disturbs me that people are evidently so willing to take a judge’s verdict as total proof that her claims are untrue. If courts were always right, there would be no need for things such as the Innocence Project. Like I said, my heart goes out to the mother because as a mother myself, I can imagine the pain she is in at not being with her child, no matter what the circumstances. And I would be feeling the same for Naveen if he was the one who had lost out in this agreement. Whether you choose to believe that, or would like to believe I am man-bashing, is your decision. I feel this way because I look at the case without believing without question what was said in the documents, or how the judge ruled, and that is taking into account both Naveen and Elena, not just one of them. From our limited perspectives, I simply feel that it would be unwise for us to assume an opinion based on what is written in court documents about a family situation we have no experience of. I would rather have sympathy for the child, who, again, is the victim of all this.

phoebe on January 10th, 2009

Btw, I wasn’t including the impoguemahone comments, since these seem to have already been called down by people. Additionally, I do not feel that anyone’s true motivation for making comments is that the mother’s feelings have been hurt. I believe it runs deeper than this, that perception is a little off, no matter what it seems.

meghan on January 10th, 2009

Ellen, its called breaking up and reconciling. It happens all the time. It is also unfair to say that Barbara is a stranger to the boy. I imagine the three of them spend time together on his visitations. Don’t make this about Barbara. It is about Naveen and Elena and what is best for the child. I am floored by the ignorance running rampant through this thread. I think CBB should close this thread, because an appaling number of you are coming across as incredibly ignorant. Motherhood is not a god given right. It is a gift. If she is currently not up to the task, Naveen Joshua is in the best place with his father. YOu people probably thought it was unfair that Britney lost her kids when she was acting like a train wreck in full view of the press.

ellen on January 10th, 2009

meghan,
barbara is not family member to the boy. she‘s not his mom and even not his father‘s wife. if she‘s not boy‘s relative, being put on agreement just don‘t seem right i really don‘t think that being without his mom, just with father and some woman who can be his grandmother is best for the kid. he‘s just 3 years old and i strongly believe that he return to his moms soon.
i now that might seem not reasonable, but i can imagine myself at elena‘s place, loosing son to another woman, and considering barbara‘s age and kid being born during their break up and now being taken from his mom my mind is just screaming ‚surrogacy‘ right now. i really hope that this situation will turn out to the best for the boy and he will return to mother soon. no matter what happened, taking boy away in the court was too soon, not giving boy time to adjust to being away from mom. that poisoning thing is really strange but barbara being put in agreement is even stranger

Natasha on January 10th, 2009

Ellen, it’s sad that you feel that step-parents (married or not) are not ever considered a member of the family. I hope to God you never experience divorce because those ideas would find their way to your children.

hcecilia on January 10th, 2009

Again, legal sole and physical custody doesn’t mean Elena can’t see her son. There is nothing that says he cannot see his mother. All that it spells out is that Naveen is the only one in that has the right to make decisions for Naveen Joshua, as well as live with him. Visitation is something that is given to a parent and though it’s not stated in a report (as the contents of a court’s decision is not entirely made public), it doesn’t mean Elena can’t see her son. I’m saying this because I’m going through a custody battle right now. I filled out the paperwork for our daughter and in print, the definitions don’t say one parent can’t see the other; that’s for a judge to decide.

Ellen – Unfortunately, such stipulations on partners have to be made legally. It doesn’t mean Barbara was controlling the situation like a “replacement mother”. Like I said above, I’m going through the custody process and I had to write about how I’d like visitation to go, so I put that I was fine with him being with his girlfriend during visitation. Since Elena accused Barbara of witchcraft, the case now pertains to Barbara because she allegedly want her son dead. It’s not fair to attack Barbara because not all girlfriends are controlling and want to have the part of their partner’s life that they didn’t give them. Women always seem to want to blame the other woman in some way.

l on January 10th, 2009

phoebe, sorry, but I think that you’re the one that missed the point here. Are you referring to me when saying that the mother in this case here has been compared to a murderess? If so, than let me tell you … no, nowhere did I made such an allegation. Most people here who where defending the court’s decision were saying that there ARE reasonable cases where it is in the child best interest to be separated from a parent and were trying to come up with logical answers to some people’s views who think that it’s ALWAYS the best if a child is with his mother. We were not (or at least I wasn’t) saying that this IS the case here. Note the difference. Bless your heart if you’re still feeling for the”abandoned” parent in these situations, I feel for the child.

eva on January 10th, 2009

I wasn’t trying to judge Ellen in particular.Like Phoebe rightly says,I don’t know what goes on in her life or her ex’s (and do not care).
My comment and story was rather done hoping to illustrate that sometimes hurting a mother’s feelings (which has been implied as the reason not to take sole custody) is the right thing to do.If this case is not like that I can only hope that in the future its not too late to correct the wrongs done against Naveen Joshua and his mother.
However, in the general scope of things some ladies were saying that no child should be separated from his or her mother,unless their inability to parent is obvious and overtly clear. I get it that no one here would “say give the child to the mother even if she’s physically abusive or drunk 24/7″.What I mean is that sometimes the neglect and the inability to parent is not obvious.In our case it wasn’t obvious,before the drunk driving joyride this woman took with a little 5 month old on tow everyone thought my husband was a cruel,nasty man who was using the baby to get back at the ex.So,to get the police,the courts and the lawyer to do something we had to wait for a drunk woman to endanger our daughter’s life.Then most people saw our side.Then my husband passed away and I (the nasty girlfriend turned evil wife and step-mother)had to fight for K’s sake.And still,with the RIGHT reasons you would expect,people around us are not satisfied.

CelebBabyLover on January 11th, 2009

meghan- You made a very good point about Britney. I DID initally think it was unfair that Kevin was trying to take the kids away from her. Not only did I think it was unfair to her, but I thought that it was unfair to the boys. At the time, Preston and Jayden were 2 and 1 respectively, and at that age, kids usually want/need mommy. I feared that being seperated from Britney would be traumatic for the boys (as well as for Britney).

However, I came to realize that being with Kevin full-time was what was best for them at the time, and that being left with Britney probably would have actually been more traumatic for them than being taken away from her was.

All of that said, I feel like there is a HUGE double-standard here. When Kevin filed for full custody of Preston and Jayden, almost everyone was saying things like, “I hope he gets those boys!” or “Britney deserves to lose custody of those boys,” or even “Those boys need to be taken from Britney before something tragic happens to them!” (note: None of the comments I just mentioned, except for the first one, were actually said word-for-word the way I worded them. The way I worded them is simply the gist of what was being said at the time).

When Britney lost custody, people were saying things like, “Good for Kevin!”, “I’m glad those boys were taken away from their unfit mother!”, “Maybe this will finally be a wake-up call to Britney!”, etc. (again, none of those comments were actually said word-for-word the way I worded them).

Yet in this case, most people are defending the mother! Granted, I realize that in Britney’s case, it was quite clear that she had some major issues and was not fit to care for two little boys at that time, while we really don’t know what kind of parent Elena is, or how stable she is. However, the point is that people were practically cheering when Britney lost custody, but think it’s awful that Elena did. Why such a double-standard (and, for what it’s worth, I think it’s awful to basically say a mother deserves to lose her child, no matter how unfit/unstable she is. I mean, talk about a slap in the face!)?

CelebBabyLover on January 11th, 2009

Oh, and I also think it’s awful to call someone a “trainwreck” (like so many people have referred to Britney). I mean, how would YOU like it if somone called YOU that, especially if you were dealing with a mental illness at the time?

ellen on January 11th, 2009

nathasha, i believe that only parents should be involved in such agreements. step parents are okay but in this situation there is only some woman who could be boy‘s grandmom living with his father, not stepmom. and i am almost sure that boy would have stayed with his mom if naveen wouldn‘t be celebrity.
hcecilia, i still believe that she shouldn‘t be involved in agreement. it just doesn‘t feel right. she‘s not boy‘s mother, relitive or even family member, just some woman his father living with.
i‘m not talking about hurt feelings or something like that, just don‘t believe that taking kid away like that and allowing barbara to take care of him just don‘t feel right to me. i‘m not going totalk how i understand family, but this situation doesn‘t feel healthy at all. i would be o.k. with my boyfriend being with our son with his girlfriend if we ever break up, but if i‘ll be in elena‘s place (have kid with celebrity and then he return to his twice older than me girlfriend who can‘t have kids any longer and try to have sole custody) i wouldn‘t be o.k. with kid staying with her without observation even if i go out of mind.

phoebe on January 11th, 2009

Again, if you think I’ve missed the point, I think you’ve missed mine. Just to be clear, and in the hope that it will finally be understood, I AM NOT DEFENDING THE MOTHER. The child is the victim (I’ve probably said this four or so times by now, but this seems to have been disregarded every time), but that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t feel for the mother. And before that gets jumped on by someone thinking that is biased against the father, no it isn’t. I would be feeling the same sadness for him too. When you are a parent, you can appreciate the pain of being separated from a child, and while I’m sure there ARE people who believe a child should always be with the mother, I am not one of them. To be clear on the comparison comments, in this list of comments, a drug addict and alcoholic have been discussed, as has a woman accused of murdering her own child. Even if these haven’t been direct comparisons, the situations have still been referred to, and with an implied comparison made. And *I*, no it wasn’t you I was referring to, it was much further up the comments. I can’t believe that in a conversation with (largely) other parents, hardly anyone can have sympathy for the mother here, or at the very least quit bashing her long enough to recognise her pain. I have said repeatedly that we can not (and I do not) use what was said in court as a marker for what the truth is. Elena said a lot of bad things about Naveen. Just because the judge ruled against her, does this mean they aren’t true? NO. Naveen asked for a psych evaluation, but just because the judge ruled for him, does this mean Elena has mental issues? NO. I am shocked and appauled at the amount of people who are swallowing a court verdict without even considering that it might not reflect the truth. We don’t know enough about this family to even begin to make a verdict on them, yet there are people here who are bashing one side or the other, thinking that a temporary court verdict gives them the grounds to do so.

Does my ability to be openminded equal a bias against the father? No. Does it mean I think the mother is an angel? No. To be straight here, I AM NOT BIASED AGAINST THE FATHER. I am able to look at the situation without bias, and feel for the parent who is unable to live with their child, because I am not qualified to say who is a fit parent and who isn’t. I would have equal sympathy for a father. Having sympathy for the parent DOES NOT mean I do not think the child is the most important person in this, because clearly I do. It’s really shocking the amount of people who seem to be disregarding how the mother must be feeling, and just because I happen to feel for her, that means I am manbashing? That’s a really awful thing to accuse someone of, especially with no grounds to do so. I hope my point is clear enough this time. Best wishes to all.