Skeptical of Mother’s Worries, Believing Father’s Claims


We have sent information before about the horrible tragedy of the murder of Prince Rams— the toddler who died while in his father’s unsupervised custody.  Prince’s mother, Hera McLeod, had begged the courts to continue supervision of the visits.  Instead the court lifted that supervision and Prince died.  We write to let our followers know that Joaquin Rams has now been charged with premeditated murder of his own toddler. Rams had taken out three life insurance policies on Prince, totaling approximately $500,000. Our hearts go out to Hera, all those who fear a similar outcome in their own cases, and, of course, to those like Amy Castillo, who have already gone through the same horror.


“This was the last time he fell asleep on my lap.” Hera McLeod

Click here for the Washington Post’s most recent editorial following the father’s arrest.  We applaud the Post for keeping on this story and seeking to hold the courts accountable.  This was a murder that the mother predicted and the court made possible.

 The family court judge made a common mistake: Demanding proof of a crime before restricting a father’s access.  Yet, custody and visitation determinations do not require absolute proof of past violence.  These decisions are supposed to further a child’s “best interests.” This is different from criminal proceedings where the accused will lose his liberty if found “guilty.” Determining a child’s best interests means, as any responsible parent knows, that one has  to assess risk, not proof.  If the risks are there, i.e.  if there’s reasonable concern, that should be more than enough to ensure that a child is protected during visits.