The LA Times watched the legal system fight against itself in yesterday’s story of Michael Campo, a Long Beach boy who’s in the middle of a struggle between two completely different arms of the court. The story revolves mostly around the boy’s divorced parents, as Campo splits time between his mother’s place in Long Beach and his father’s in Lakewood. But there’s a complication: Campo’s father, who has been granted joint custody, is in the middle of deportation proceedings, which would of course limit the shared court-appointed custody of his U.S.-citizen son. Says the story:

Former Los Angeles immigration judge Bruce J. Einhorn said the state family court and the federal immigration court are completely different systems, run by two different governments.

“What you really have is an occasional train wreck waiting to happen,” he said. “You have two systems speeding along and, when they meet, it’s usually a head-on collision.”

And to that point was Judge Christine E. Stancill, who ruled in 2005 that Michael’s father could stay in the country:

“The compelling difference in this case is that the family would not be returning intact to Mexico but rather the respondent’s relationship with his 7-year-old son would be permanently severed,” she wrote in the decision.

She added: “The emphasis on the emotional well-being of the child is well founded in our child custody laws, and to go even further would be contrary to the spirit of our immigration laws.”

Tags: custody, immigration, LA Times, Long Beach, michael campo, News