Couple retains child custody after court ruled they obtained custody by fraud

Set Text Size SmallSet Text Size MediumSet Text Size LargeSet Text Size X-Large
Share
Updated: 7/21/2010 9:38 pm
A woman called 17 News regarding a custody battle involving her grandson. A brutal three-year long court battle is brewing over custody of 3-year-old Kadyn Riley.

On one side, his father, Jacob Shattuck; on the other, Pearl and Steven Riley, Kadyn’s maternal grandparents, who have had the boy since birth.

"The Rileys have used the legal system, in my opinion, to steal a child that is not theirs to make up for the failed parenting of their own daughter," Shattuck’s attorney Michael Kilpatrick said.

According to court documents, after Kadyn was born in 2007 the Rileys had Shattuck and another man's DNA tested to find out who was the father. 

Records show after they DNA results were available online, showing Shattuck was the dad, they went to court to get custody of Kadyn, and on at least seven occasions stated that the "father was unknown." They were granted sole custody of the boy.

"I'm completely shocked," Shattuck said. "They are correctional officers so they are supposed to uphold the law and tell the truth," Shattuck said.

A separate court later ruled Kadyn should be with his father, because of the Riley's "omission" and "half-truths" about the father's identity.

Years later, Kadyn is still with the Riley family. Now there is another custody case, which keeps Kadyn in limbo. Neither Pearl nor Steve Riley would speak with 17 News, but their attorney, Ed Thomas, said the couple did not lie.

“They absolutely did not,” Thomas said, adding it is in the best interest of the child to live with the grandparents.

Thomas' paralegal said the Rileys did not know Shattuck was the father during the original custody hearing, because when they looked online for the DNA results, they mistakenly looked at the results of the other man who was tested. Each test was identified by numbers, not names.

Final arguments in this custody case are scheduled for Monday.

 

Share
12 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of KGET TV 17 - In the Spirit of the Golden Empire

Nana22 - 8/19/2010 9:23 AM
Incidentally, these grandparents make $200,000 a year and expect to get $550/month from a man who already pays $450/month for his other child. His "Grandmother" down below rips him 'cuz he hasn't seen his other son since 2005... that boy lives in Virginia & Mr. Shattuck has been fighting this custody battle for 3 1/2 YEARS going back & forth from first Illinois to CA then Wisconsin to CA. The kid's a mechanic... NOT RICH CO'S doing all the overtime they can !!! He had to take all the time off of work to come to CA to do the fighting for his son!!! AND LOOSE HIS JOB FOR IT!!! He gave up his HOME for his son!!! he even lost his WIFE over his son!!! JUST EXACTLY WHEN & WITH WHAT FUNDS DOES "Grandma" expect him to be able to GO & VISIT his other child. They DO visit telephonically about every other day. They've done the best they could with a TERRIBLE situation!!! ONE that SHE caused with her "fraud, misrepresentations & half-truths!"

Nana22 - 8/19/2010 9:09 AM
WRONG!!! YOU PAID FOR THE DNA TEST WHEN THE BABY WAS 6 MONTHS OLD!!! You were proven to be a liar in the courts & YOUR daughter popped positive RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of the court case AND YOU KNOW IT!!! And you ALSO know IT WAS PROVEN THAT HE NEVER HIT A SENIOR OFFICER EITHER!!! Again...LIAR!!! It was YOUR DRUG ADICT DAUGHTER he wanted NOTHING to do with AND YOU KNOW THAT because YOU PROMISED HE WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT 'cuz she was in jail. Speaking of jail!!! She was arrested right there in the court house lobby...AGAIN!!! we can prove everything we have alledged...WHAT ABOUT YOU??? jUST BECAUSE YOU WON DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT...iT JUST MAKES THAT JUDGE AS BIG AN FOOL AS THE REST OF YOU. We told the truth, we will face our Maker at the judgement seat with integrity and YOU KNOW IT! You also know you will absolutely NOT BE ABLE TO DO SO. I have ALWAYS told the truth, I'm sorry that my grandson will be raised by people with NO intefrity. That has always been of the utmost importance to me. I'm sorry I lost my temper in this, but liers are worse than thieves because you can't always look at them & tell what they're taking from you. I thought, when we were talking WAY back before the baby's birth, that we could be friends, as Grandma's should be. I didn't know just who you actually are. Incidentally, Happy Birthday to MY grandson. You see, he ACTUALLY IS MY GRANDSON, not yours. You're only a step & according to the psychiatrist, you & the grandfather are headed for a divorce when he moves to MO. If that happens there will be another custody battle & you'll loose 'cuz YOU have no blood tie, HE DOES!!!

Nana22 - 8/19/2010 8:53 AM
The judge awarded custody to the grand parents after stating several months ago, ON THE RECORD, that "...due to their profession, she was going to give them professional courtesy & NOT remove the child from the home." NOW, using a FLAWED timeline and incorrect family information she follows through with her previously made decision and DOES leave him with law enforcement officials who are allowed to committ "fraud, half-truths & misrepresentations" on the courts. And she justifies this by quoting Dr. Seuss... I'm glad she's a Kern County judge and not one of OURS!!! YOU GUYS DESERVE HER!!!

1evr1lovs2hate - 8/15/2010 11:10 AM
This individual is just having a pity party.Mr. Shattuck has never had custody of this child.Kadyn was a year old before Jacob, even considered having, wanted anything to do with this baby,or from having to pay child support, he also has another son that he has not seen since 2005 Really!!! NOW what kind of dad is that... He was also contacted from myself the 'grandparent', as well as my daughter the 'mother' of this precious child, and the comment was made he wanted nothing to do with the child,until D.S.S. contacted him to pay child support.So those of you that have commented to this page should REALLY know the truth, about the whole situation,as a matter of fact we have received absolutely no help what so ever from this poor victim, you have to have custody or at least something to with a child or person for that fact, in order to kidnap or abduct a child or person. The mother is not a drug addict,as a matter of fact he was kicked out the service for drugs as well as hitting a superior officer, that's a real nice person....

totalbs - 7/22/2010 5:41 PM
If the mother is a drug addict, the child should be with the father. I am sick of the courts in California treating fathers as second class citizens. Regardless of who has had the child, the child should be with his biological parent.

Nana22 - 7/22/2010 9:45 AM
To "El Viejo," using YOUR logic, that means when ANYONE steals a baby and has them for the first four years of their life, while the REAL parent is FURIOUSLY FIGHTING to get the baby back, and then the court GIVES the baby to the parent but the "thieving parent" still won't give the child to the REAL parent... Well, that's OK and the right thing to do. You must not have any children of YOUR own. And I hope nothing like this ever happens to you or yours.

Nana22 - 7/22/2010 9:37 AM
The Riley's OWN psychiatrist said that the child should be with his dad. That's when Mr. Thomas decided he didn't really want to use HIS requested psychiatrists report.

topflight - 7/22/2010 6:31 AM
A liar huh? And there C.O's, okay thats nice. Here in Bakersfield we have plenty of cops that break the law and go to jail, who cares if there C.O's? If the father has a clear record and not a past or current history of any drug use or crime, then he should be able to get his son. If not full custody then partial to begin with, who is capable of taking care of the boy financial/health care/etc..The grandson will just end up recenting the grandparents from keeping him away from his father, especially if they knew and they know now. Please do whats best for the child.

Mgarciapitts - 7/22/2010 1:02 AM
Give the boy to his father that is the person he belongs with. These people are being extremely selfish. As long as he is a fit parent that is where he should be.

El Viejo - 7/22/2010 12:48 AM
No matter who is lying, the Court's job is to preserve the world the way the child sees it. If Grandma and Grandpa are the psychological parents, the value givers, and testimony of an expert concludes that breaking that bond will cause psychologically harm to the child, then they likely will get primary custody of the child.
Bakersfield Current Conditions
42° High: 54°  |  Low: 42°
Clear
Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.