Third Letter to Judge Roy B. Willett

M. Ismail Sloan
2420 Atherton St., Suite 6
Berkeley CA 94704
Tel: (415) 921-8719
FAX: (415) 929-7500

November 27, 1994


Judge Roy B. Willett
Roanoke County Circuit Court
305 East Main St.
P. O. Box 1126
Salem VA 24153

In re Shamema Honzagool Sloan

Dear Judge Willett,

In view of your recent letter, I enclose herewith documents and legal briefs pertaining to this case. All of these documents have previously been served upon Charles and Shelby Roberts. They are as follows:

1. The opening brief by my attorney, James H. Massie III, filed in the Virginia Court of Appeals in Sloan v. Amherst County Department of Social Services, Charles and Shelby Roberts, No. 1747-93-3.

2. The petition for appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia in Sloan v. Amherst County Department of Social Services, dated October 6, 1994. (As you can see, this is essentially a retyping of the previous).

3. Affidavit and exhibits filed in the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department in Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts v. Ismail Sloan, 20991/1986, dated November 26, 1994.

I also wish to draw your attention to the decision of the Virginia Court of Appeals in Bottoms v. Bottoms, No. 1930-93-2 (Court of Appeals, June 21, 1994). That decision summarizes all of the applicable law Virginia up until the present time concerning third party child custody disputes.

In summary, the law clearly is that unrelated third parties do not have any standing to seek the custody of a child such as my daughter, Shamema Honzagool Sloan. Even related third parties face insurmountable barriers in seeking custody. For example, in Walker v. Fagg, 11 Va. App. 581, 400 S.E.2d 208 (1991), the father of a child was granted custody over the maternal grandparents, even though he was then serving time in prison for the murder of the mother of the child. Indeed, while I was in Powhatan Prison, there were prisoners who were serving time for child molestation, and yet they still had legal custody of the very child which they had molested. They needed to be consulted before any medical treatment could be given to the child, for example.

Also, while I was in prison, I was granted joint custody of my other daughter, Jessica, by the Alameda County Superior Court in California, even though that court was aware that I was then in jail in Virginia. (Of course, my case was different, as I had previously appeared and contested several hearings in California and therefore the courts and the California Social Services Agency were quite familiar with me.)

I have researched this matter thoroughly and I have found no other case in Virginia or in any of the other 49 states in which unrelated third parties have been allowed to contest the custody of a child. Every case cited previously by the Roberts has involved an actual parent (as in Brown v. Brown, 237 S.E.2d 89 (Va. 1977)) or a grandparent, step-parent or other close immediate family member. In contrast, Charles and Shelby Roberts are complete outsiders. Prior to their kidnapping of my daughter in 1990, their only connection with my child occurred during the period when Shelby Roberts was employed by me as a baby sitter to care for the child, during the period 1982-1986. Shelby Roberts was paid for her services by myself and my mother. At no time did either of us give Shelby Roberts the slightest reason to hope that we would ever agree to relinquish custody of my daughter. Charles Roberts, on the other hand, was completely out of the picture. He was merely the baby-sitter's husband. No matter pertaining to the health or welfare of the child was ever discussed by us with him.

More than that, most other published cases involving third party child custody suits involve additional factors, such as a "voluntary relinquishment". The Virginia courts have ruled that a voluntary relinquishment must involve a signed written agreement. No such agreement exists here.

In short, the Roberts have absolutely no grounds whatever for seeking the custody of my daughter. Indeed, Shelby Roberts once testified before Judge Janow that she and her husband had consulted every lawyer in Lynchburg and all of them had told them that they had no case. (They eventually did find Linda W. Groome, however. As you are aware, Ms. Groome has withdrawn from their representation, as has another lawyer they retained in New York.) The Roberts now have no lawyer at all, for the obvious reason that their claim is utterly lacking in merit.

Even putting all of this aside, the changed circumstances clearly require that I be given custody of my daughter. The Roberts are in poor health. Charles Roberts is more than 60. Shelby Roberts is 57 and is chronically obese and has increased difficulty walking. I have also found out recently that their son, Jay Roberts, whom they apparently believed would someday "inherit" my daughter, has Hodgkin's Disease. Jay Roberts is also a reformed homosexual, or so he states (an interesting fact, since Roe v. Roe, a case previously cited by the Roberts, appears to bar homosexuals from obtaining the custody of a child). Their other son, Larry Roberts, apparently wants nothing to do with this case and reportedly has all but broken with his parents over this issue, or so I have been told.

Even putting still all that aside, the fact is that my daughter loves me very much and is now 13 years old. Until now, her wishes have not been taken into consideration. The problem here is that in the four years since she has been kidnapped, my daughter has never spoken, except to communicate her basic needs. My daughter simply doesn't talk any more, even though she has good, functioning vocal chords. Shamema is giving the Roberts the silent treatment, as her way of protesting the fact that she has been kidnapped. The Roberts are so cruel that they simply do not care about all of the suffering and torment which my daughter is obviously enduring because of their kidnapping of her. If you have an opportunity to speak to my daughter in court, you will probably find that my daughter refuses to speak to you, just as she did not speak to Judge Janow or to Judge Gamble.

In addition to all of these factors, a further factor exists in that it is clear that Virginia has never had jurisdiction over this case. This child was born in New York City and the case for the custody of this child was originally filed there as Sloan v. Awadallah and Honzagool, No. 17815/1981 (Bronx Supreme Court). In June, 1982, the Bronx Supreme Court awarded custody of the child to the mother, with visitation to me, the father. However, only two months later, the mother abandoned the child and returned to her native Pakistan, never to return. New York never relinquished jurisdiction over this case and subsequently has awarded custody of the child to me.

It is true that in 1986, Judge Janow wrote a letter to a judge of the Bronx Supreme Court, requesting his agreement that this case be transferred to Virginia. However, the judge to whom Judge Janow wrote was not the judge who had decided this case, and that judge has since retired. Moreover, no order was ever entered by the Bronx Supreme Court or by any other court in New York transferring jurisdiction of this case to Virginia. To the contrary, every order of the Bronx Supreme Court has retained jurisdiction over this matter. It is clear that under the Uniform Child Custody Act and under applicable case law, Virginia cannot take jurisdiction over this matter. See e.g. Rogers v. Platt, 245 Cal. Rptr. 532, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1213 (1988); Rogers v. Platt, 641 F. Supp. 381 (D.D.C. 1986); In the Interest of B. G. C., 496 NW2d 239 (Iowa 1992). Essentially this view was also expressed by a majority of the justices of the United States Supreme Court in DeBoer by Darrow v. DeBoer, 114 S.Ct. 1 (1993). This is particularly true since the only reason that my daughter is in Virginia now at all is that she was kidnapped and brought there by agents of Charles and Shelby Roberts.

For all of these reasons, it is clear that my daughter must be returned to me. Virginia has no jurisdiction over this matter and, even if it does, the applicable case law of Virginia clearly requires the return of my daughter to her natural parent. Finally, at a very minimum, I should be given visitation with my daughter.

Lastly, I want to say that in addition to myself, there are many people with a stronger claim to the custody of my daughter than Charles and Shelby Roberts. My daughter has relatives on both her father's and her mother's side who would be willing to accept her custody. Even Shanti Vithanage, the mother of Jessica, acted as the step-mother of Shamema and lived in the same home with her for longer than Shelby Roberts was employed by me as a baby sitter. My six-year-old daughter, Jessica, who is the half sister of Shamema and who lived with Shamema from the time of Jessica's birth until 1991, often states that she hopes that Charles and Shelby will die in a car accident, so that she can get her sister back. I am not happy about this, because I do not want my six-year-old daughter to be thinking negative thoughts. The point is that even if, due to personal prejudice, you do not want to return my daughter to me, there are others much more suitable than the Roberts who would be willing to accept the custody of my daughter. They are physically afraid to come to court to contest a case against the gun-toting Roberts, however.

Finally, if you do not agree to return the custody of this child to me, you should at least give me visitation with my daughter.

I wish to emphasize that I do not agree with your decision not to disqualify yourself from this case. However, you can be sure that I will attend the court hearing on December 9, 1994, as there is nothing more important to me than getting my daughter back. I am presently in the process of obtaining permission from my parole officer to travel to attend the hearing.

Very Truly Yours,


M. Ismail Sloan


Copy to: Charles and Shelby Roberts


Bryant v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 148, 93 S.E.2d 130 (1956)
Buchanan v. Buchanan, 170 Va. 458, 197 S.E.2d 426 (1938)
Casey v. Hopewell Department of Social Services, 14 Va. App. 222 (1992)
Doe v. Doe, 16 Mass. App. 499, 452 N.E.2d 293, 296 (1983) 21
Ford v. Ford, 419 S.E.2d 415, 417 (Va. App. 1992) 23
Fort v. Fort, 425 N.E.2d 754 (Mass. App. 1981) 20
Hamstead v. Dostert, 313 S.E.2d 409 (W.Va. 1984)
Janet S. M. M. v. Commissioner, 601 N.Y.S. 2d 781 (1993) 12
Judd v. Van Horn, 195 Va. 988, 996, 81 S.E.2d 432, 436 (1954) 17
Kogon v. Ulerick, 405 S.E. 2d 441 (1991)
Lowe v. Grasty, 203 Va. 15, 122 S.E.2d 867 (1961)
Martin v. Pittsylvania County Department of Social Services, 3 Va. App. 15, 348 S.E.2d 13, 18 (1986)
New York RR Company v. Commonwealth, 196 Va 428, 83 S.E.2d 782 (1954)
Norfolk Division of Social Services v. Unknown Father, 2 Va. App. 420, 345 S.E.2d 533 (1986)
Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984)
People v. Brown, 49 Mich. 358, 212 N.E.2d 55, 59 (1973)
Rader v. Montgomery County Department of Social Services, 5 Va. App. 523, 526, 365 S.E.2d 234, 236 (1988)
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roberts v. Ismail Sloan, No. 20991/1986 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769 (1982)
Sloan v. Commonwealth, No. 93-0934-3
Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 842 (1977)
Stanley v. Fairfax County Department of Social Services, 395 SE2d 199, 207, 10 Va. App. 596 (1990)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)
Stroman v. Williams, 353 S.E.2d 704 (S.C. 1987)
Unknown Father v. Lynchburg Division of Social Services, 15 Va. App. 110 (1992)
Walker v. Brooks, 203 Va. 417, 421, 124 S.E.2d 195, 198 (1962)
Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 214 Va. 395, 397-8, 200 S.E. 2d 581, 583 (1973)
Wright v. Arlington County Department of Social Services, 9 Va App. 441, 388 S.E.2d 477 (1990)

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: Sloan@ishipress.com