Court Takes Away Children From Jennifer Petkov

As previously discussed the shocking case of Jennifer Petkov who is accused of harassing a dying eight-year-old girl and her family. Now, a court has ordered that Petkov’s two children be removed from her home and taken to live with their father until resolution of a pending motion for custody.

Petkov’s eight-year-old daughter and five-year-old son will be sent to their father in the interim. It is not a surprising motion since the media attention and anger directed at Petkov and her husband is considerable. There is also the question of their mentality stability in running disgusting pictures of Kathleen Edward and her dead mother.

As an emergency filing, the court had to act expeditiously — though courts are generally reluctant to move children around and disrupt their lives. The “best interest of the child” standard controls in such decisions. When presented with a credible claim of possible harm, the judge may have felt that there was little choice to a relocation pending resolution of the motion.

Source: Fox

11 thoughts on “Court Takes Away Children From Jennifer Petkov”

  1. Lets be clear here, this women is clearly selfish, hateful, entitled and misguided, perhaps ill. The reason why children have been removed isn’t so much because of what she is doing to someone else, but rather the results coming from it, the attention it is bringing upon her and her family, what you put out tends to come back, she is spreading hate and tormenting a child, and I’m sure people are feeling entitled to do the same back, she is so focused on voicing her opinion, so focused on being able to express her feelings, she has forgotten how her behavior may result in creating a negative environment for her own children, she only cares about herself, she has a need for unbridled self expression, with that and the rest of the facts in the case, it does show a strong possibility for her having a personality disorder.

    From the other comments listed I’ve got to bring something to their attention, the “Best interests of a child” rule is bogus, this law is used to separate children from their fathers everyday. With almost 90% of custody cases being awarded to mothers, and with almost all fathers filing for joint 50/50 custody, but the mothers filing for full custody, it is a wonder why judges feel it’s in the best interest to award full custody to a mother because she and the father do not agree on custody, the logic that due to non agreement it is best not to split custody because of future discourse in co-parenting is beyond stupidity, shifting custody to a parent who makes the stance it’s healthy for a child to be separated from a parent on a full time bases, and then expect that parent to follow a custody visitation agreement isn’t naive, it shows a clear intent by the court in promoting future court hearings. There is no doubt this women has a history prior to this case, there is also no doubt she will regain custody of these children down the road once the media attention has died down. I know this seems a little off topic, but to hear comments suggesting the “Best interest rule” is a functioning part of out family court system, well that’s a joke, no doubt CPS got involved in this with all the media attention, if there was no media attention this switch in custody would most likely never of happened.

  2. This is my feel good story of the day. I’m glad the court did what it did she is unfit as a parent (and as a person). Subjecting her children to this kind of nauseating behavior should be unacceptable. She may be a psychopath but what’s the husbands excuse?

  3. A Y

    Although it was on the books…the legislature left it to the courts to decide what it really meant…. a number of them, the legislators went through divorces…. they ended up getting screwed, could not see the kids, ended up paying child support based upon some arbitrary support amount for spousal and child and did not like it…then all of a sudden… the rules changed


    This is a great idea for a Si Fi story, if it hasn’t already been done.

    All political candidates must be required to experience, through some machine to yet be developed, all of the most probable consequences of laws before they are passed (or if a needed law is not passed).

    It could be tested on SCOTUS before being put in operation.

  4. I saw this woman interviewed on CNN. She is an excellent case for easy and widespread availability of legal, safe abortion. She has no business raising children; incredibly hate-filled and angry.

  5. There are still a number of counties that the Female is preferred, however, some of the more rural counties are giving Joint Custody….per the Statute….I heard one Judge in a county court say, when asked by the attorney for him to consider Joint Custody if requested…the Judge said what and asked the attorney to read the Statute….the attorney did and the Judge said…ok…I considered it while you were reading it…Motion/request denied…Next case….It used to be that simple now….they MUST/Shall go through a hearing and consider all of the factors….if objected to at FOC….

  6. AY,

    I believe Ohio has Best Interest of the Child Statutes though I have heard from multiple sources that judges in one of the counties close to where I live always rule in favor of the mother … irregardless of the statutes … Family Law lawyers complain loud and long but to no avail

  7. Blouise,

    Michigan is one of the few states that adopted the Best Interest of the Child Factors…years ago…

    Although it was on the books…the legislature left it to the courts to decide what it really meant….then as I understand it…a number of them, the legislators went through divorces….they ended up getting screwed, could not see the kids, ended up paying child support based upon some arbitrary support amount for spousal and child and did not like it…then all of a sudden… the rules changed….that no court could issue these order without Friend of the Court doing at least a minimal investigation of the cases as filed… unless it was a real emergency and the court had to say on the record what the extenuating factors were….at the time you could move from St Clair Shires to Marquette without a court order but could not move from Monroe, Michigan to Toledo, OH….the real state line…unless you got an order…now they have a 100 mile rule but still need to get an order to move to another state….

    Then if you want to change custody and Child Protective Services is not involved….then you had better have a pretty strong case or no exparte child custody orders…..In this situation I am surprised CPS was not called and involved to start with…seems like a strong case of Parental Neglect and Abuse…

  8. It is called the Best Interest Factor in Determining Custody…in order to get an Emergency Change of Custody…it has to be a serious, provable allegation…risk of harm/benefit…

  9. Occasionally a case comes along that makes one rethink the order of things. This is one of them. I am rethinking my position on whether one ought to have a license to have kids. A competency examination as it were. This woman would have failed the parent licensing exam, if one were required.

Comments are closed.