Some feminists have been advocating for Bridget Marks, who recently lost custody of her 4-year-old twin daughters.
I don’t know if Parental Alienation Syndrome is abused nationwide – it might be, and that would be horrible. I certainly don’t think anyone should lose custody of their children merely for making a charge of sexual abuse they cannot prove (just because it can’t be proven doesn’t establish that it isn’t true).
However, in Bridget Marks’ case, two court-appointed experts concluded that Ms. Marks had coached her children to falsely accuse their father of child abuse. The judge accepted that evidence. (The judge’s order is here, in pdf form – skip to page five). Assuming the experts are correct, then Ms. Marks is a child abuser (coaching children to lie about being abused by a parent is child abuse, in my view). Child abusers should lose custody – even in cases where the other parent isn’t perfect.
(Link to judge’s order via Glenn Sacks.).
Reading the pdf file, it didn’t sound like she was simply unable to prove abuse. It sounded like they had some plausible evidence that she did, in fact, concoct the story. Granted, they didn’t prove she concocted the story– that’s likely even more difficult to prove than abuse.
The father’s imperfection seemed to be that he had affairs. In this particular case, at least one affair was indisputable. He had an affair with the mother, which resulted in her giving birth to the twins!
There are certain lines you cannot cross, even in a child custody dispute. So while it seems to be par for the course that the parents can make all kinds of unfounded allegations against each other, the court will not put up with parents who directly “take it to the kids.” No doubt the mother did not understand that. Also, just fyi, in many jurisdictions it’s more unusual for a mother to lose custody of daughters — I take that as a sign of the judge’s conviction that her findings were correct.
Every false allegation of child abuse makes a true allegation harder to prove. It’s still sad, anyway you look at it.
She didi NOT have proof… Yeshiva
The problem for me is what evidence they used to prove the case against her—and what could she say (besides it isn’t true) to prove that she in fact did not brainwash the children.
In at least some of these cases it is a matter of the parent NOT being able to prove abuse and so the protective parent being accused of brainwashing.
I wish there were more information on what the particular evidence was; though some of it seems to be the children’s testimony.
This case is a travesty.
Considering how easily a mother could lose her child with this absurd PAS label, if I were an unwed pregant woman nowadays I would think twice about telling my boyfriend I was pregant. Or at least get the hell out of Dodge and move somewhere far away.
I wouldn’t identify the father to anyone, not even a doctor.
I’d just go live somewhere else out of fear, raise my child alone until age three or four – establishing a record of good parenting, and then let the father know of his offspring.
Yeah – you say that’s not fair to the child or father. Or not in the best interests of “society.”
Well, if it prevents me from horrific, expensive litigation like this, and the possible loss of my baby, that’s what I would do.
So the Mom was angry – she had a right to be. But there was not any evidence of what “poisonous” things she said to the girls. Maybe she just muttered the truth.
And there is no evidence the “poisonous” things did the children harm. Also, the evidence of “abuse coaching” did not seem secure.
I can’t help but believe the mother sure did a heck of a lot more, for a longer period of time, “in the best interests” of these little girls, than the father.
I’d like to know what the trigger was for the father to be the petitioner – did the mother not receive any support for a couple years, do the pregnancy and child raising all by herself, and then mention to the father that she needed some money? And the father responded by filing for custody?
I’d sure like to know the entire history of this case. Can anyone get all of the court records?
Gawd, those little girls are going to be messed up after being torn from the arms of their mommy. They will think they did something wrong.
And there is no evidence the “poisonous” things did the children harm. Also, the evidence of “abuse coaching” did not seem secure.
Did you read the opinion? First, there is no reference to “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” That was not part of the decision at all, just something thrown out by the NOW. The children were examined by 3 female neutral court appointed experts, a forensic examiner, and two certified social workers. The were unanimous in concluding that the father should have custody.
I’d like to know what the trigger was for the father to be the petitioner – did the mother not receive any support for a couple years, do the pregnancy and child raising all by herself, and then mention to the father that she needed some money? And the father responded by filing for custody?
Not at all. According to the case, the father sued for custody because the mother had moved to cut off visitation right due to his “abuse” of the children. The experts all concluded that the allegations against the father were untrue and that “the children had been coached to say that the father had ‘touched their peepee'” The only contrary evidence was from the mother’s psychiatrist and social worker, who had not examined the children and based their conclusions on evidence recieved solely from the mother. If you are not willing to credit the unanimous testimony of three neutral experts, what should constitute “secure” testimony?
Also, the father lived in California, and custody was conditioned on his moving to New York, which he agreed to do.
You seem to be arguing for a “custody always to the mother” position, or at least a “never change custody after it’s first determined.”
Both seem a lot more dangerous than a neutral “best interests of the child” standard.
What would have been the reasons for the Mother to cut off visitation other than to prevent abuse? Just her anger for the guy not marrying her? After four years? I find that hard to believe.
Richard – I do believe it is in the best interests of society and its children to go back to the Tender Years Doctrine – that Mom has primary residential custody unless she is a very, very, very unfit mother. And I don’t think this mother meets that criteria.
Unless you want to create a society where unwed mothers are afraid of identifying the fathers, and thus the child never knows his bio father, then our courts need to favor the mother.
None of this would have happened in the first place if the father of the children did not cheat on his wife and Ms. Marks insisted on being married prior to having sexual intercourse. I know it sounds old fashioned, but if you can’t enter into a polygamous marriage then it is the responsibility of both parties to wait until they are in a union prior to having sex.
>>What would have been the reasons for the Mother to cut off visitation other than to prevent abuse? Just her anger for the guy not marrying her? After four years? I find that hard to believe.
I don’t find it difficult to believe. Marylin Lemak killedher kids, and to many, the motive seemed to be jealousy over her ex husband. Others thought she just went nuts. (The jury thought she was sane, and I have to admit, based on newspaper accounts, she seemed sane. The Yates story was running at the same time, and Lemak and Yates did not seem to be similar.)
Either way, it’s possible that a mother might try to deny custody for either reason and she might suddenly be trying to deny custody after a few years. People do weird things! Also, custody disputes tend to escalate.
Well, if it prevents me from horrific, expensive litigation like this, and the possible loss of my baby, that’s what I would do
Actually, it’s a great way to encourage horrific, expensive litigation and the possible loss of your baby. If you want to be positive of avoiding litigation of this nature, go to a state that recognizes anonymous sperm donation and take that route.
The “tender years” doctrine creates a society where fathers are pushed away from their children and women are held back in the career world. Sorry, but I don’t want to disadvantage my stay-at-home-father husband because you took one court case out of context to feed paranoia and a sexist agenda, but that’s me.
I’m also not sure how we can justify requiring fathers to support children if the law says they can’t have custody, period. To my way of thinking, responsibility and rights should be linked. All responsibility with no rights is wrong. All rights with no responsibility is only slightly less wrong!
Hm. At first glance, and without enough information, what I see is a case where a guy has sexual involvement with adult women but has shown no sexual interest in children. He seems to be able to get laid by adult women. He is prepared to fool around on the side if he’s interested in doing so. He has none of the history or conditions that are generally found in men who sexually abuse their children.
And in cases like that, it is very wise to be deeply suspicious of charges of abuse that emerge during a custody fight. It’s not a secret that this kind of thing, where false charges are made against fathers in order to secure full custody, does go on.
But pedophilia is actually very rare, and child abuse by non-pedophiles usually only happens in situations where a father believes his only appropriate sexual outlet is within his own family (no affairs, no prostitutes, not even pornography) and his wife is not sexually available (ill or otherwise non-compliant). These are usually guys who were raised with some kind of strict religious crap that makes them feel that sex outside the family is a terrible sin – worse than abusing your own children. That’s not the case here, clearly.
So, yes, it’s reasonable to suspect that this woman has coached her kids to fabricate the charge.
What would have been the reasons for the Mother to cut off visitation other than to prevent abuse? Just her anger for the guy not marrying her? After four years? I find that hard to believe.
I find it very easy to believe. It’s sixteen years since my parents split up, and I still have to listen to them telling me what a terrible influence the other parent has been on me. Some parents cannot stand the idea that the partner things turned sour with is still a part of their child’s life.
Richard – I do believe it is in the best interests of society and its children to go back to the Tender Years Doctrine – that Mom has primary residential custody unless she is a very, very, very unfit mother.
What’s in the very very best interests of society and the children is if the parents agree custody arrangements like adults and without using the kids to vent their anger at each other. Much easier said than done, but it’s still an ideal worth promoting.
and child abuse by non-pedophiles usually only happens in situations where a father believes his only appropriate sexual outlet is within his own family
Uh, Avedon, do you have anything to back this up?
The issue here is not how paranoid we should be about accusations about child abuse, but the fact that three professionals appointed for the children–not the father–found the children had been coached.
Unless you want to create a society where unwed mothers are afraid of identifying the fathers, and thus the child never knows his bio father, then our courts need to favor the mother.
I think this is adequately covered by the need/ desire for child support and government aid. A woman is generally not going to give up the potential of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars that can be used to help raise her children just to avoid the risk of falling into the small percentage of the 15% of father-custody situations where the mother sought custody and failed. It is also difficult to get government assistance if you are poor and a mother if you have not already identified and sued the father for child support.
In my view, the present pro-mother bias has some basic justification in the current societal order, but it should not be taken to an extreme. It seems reasonably intuitive to me that, about 15% of the time, the father is the better choice. But further, a situation where the mother fled for years to hide the child from the father seems like fairly persuasive evidence that this is one of those few cases where the father is the better choice.
My problem is how they determined the children were coached and by whom.
At this point i will leave aside the question of whether or not they were abused and assume they were not.
Still, that leaves several possibilities;
1)the children relayed something to their mother and the mother misunderstood what they were saying. (not she didn’t hear the words, she misconstrued their meaning.)
2)The mother’s friend (unknown to the mother)coached the children.
3)The children were touched, but it was within the normal capacity of parenting.
I would like to know what questions werwe asked of the children, and how they were asked, that resulted in a conclusion on the parts of the court appointed attornys that the children attritbuted their thoughts and ideas to their mother. I can think of several questions which would result in a “yes, my mother told me to say that” which wouldn’t indicate any guilt on the part of the mother.
i would also like to see how this judge decided in other cases where the charge was sexual abuse, as well as how the three professionals decided, and whether these were the only three appointed or whether there had been other court appointed evaluators who decided differently (yes I know that this has happened before.)
In order for the mother to be penalized it must be shown that she
1)knew the children were not abused
2)she, or an agent of hers,deliberately instilled these ideas in the child’s head.
and i would like to know the method she used to brainwash them—that is more for curiosity’s sake as I think it would be pretty difficult to do without threasts or similar treatment.
I want the evidence…not just inference.
Not saying it didn’t/couldn’t happen, but i’m holding my opinion in reserve.
This is an extremely easy charge to make; all one needs is lack of success on the part of the person who made the charge to begin with. ie, if you can’t prove he did then you must have brainwashed the child(ren). That is what I have seen happen in the past.
Lucia says, “I’m also not sure how we can justify requiring fathers to support children if the law says they can’t have custody, period. To my way of thinking, responsibility and rights should be linked. All responsibility with no rights is wrong. All rights with no responsibility is only slightly less wrong!”
Absolutely. If non-custodial parents are expected to pay support, they should have reasonable visitation rights.
Rental tenants are allowed to withhold rent if landlords do not maintain the property. Non-custodial parents should have a similar recourse in case of non-maintainance of visitation rights.
Richard Bellamy writes, “a situation where the mother fled for years to hide the child from the father seems like fairly persuasive evidence that this is one of those few cases where the father is the better choice.”
Either that, or the father is really abusive. That happens too.
If non-custodial parents are expected to pay support, they should have reasonable visitation rights.
I really wince at this, because it makes time with children sound like something you pay for. Children are entitled to financial support and they are entitled to the love and care of their parents. One shouldn’t depend on the other.
>>I really wince at this, because it makes time with children sound like something you pay for. Children are entitled to financial support and they are entitled to the love and care of their parents. One shouldn’t depend on the other.
I don’t mean it in the sense of “I pay $X to get Y amount of time”.
As I understand it, Goddess of the nigh was suggesting a system that seemed to suggest that the fathers shouldn’t have any rights to see their kids at all. If we start edto see fathers that way, then their legal relationship to their kids would seem resemble that of grandparents, aunts or uncles. These are people who might like to see the kids, but who don’t legally have a right or a responsibility.
It seems to me if we are crafting a laws about these sorts of things, we need to balance rights and responsiblities. The people who can be required to provide the financial support to which children are entitled are also people who have some sort of inherent right to be with their kids, influence them play with them.. whatever!
As I see it courts should be able to balance these rights and responsibilities, but not treat the rights as non-existent while enforcing the responsibilities.
and i would like to know the method she used to brainwash them—that is more for curiosity’s sake as I think it would be pretty difficult to do without threasts or similar treatment.
Actually with children that young it’s *incredibly* easy. A study was done with children as old as seven in which they were asked to remember an event that never happened by an adult (in this case, the time they got their hand caught in a mousetrap). The first two or three repetitions, they denied remembering it. But soon, they not only “remembered” it, they were adding details to the story. Children’s memories are incredibly pliable, and their desire to please authority figures – especially parents – makes convincing them that something which never happened did happen all too easy.
Rental tenants are allowed to withhold rent if landlords do not maintain the property. Non-custodial parents should have a similar recourse in case of non-maintainance of visitation rights.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Rent and tenancy are reciprocal obligations. You pay rent in order to get the tenancy; you provide tenancy in order to be paid rent.
Child support and custody are non-reciprocal obligations. You do not pay for the privilege of having parental rights to your children. You don’t have the right to withhold visitation in order to extract child support (yes, some custodial parents do this, but it is not legal in the way that withholding rent for repairs is legal). A child is entitled to both financial support and the presence of his or her parents, barring good reasons to the contrary.
A child is not an apartment or a roof repair in the eyes of the law. Are you saying this is a bad thing?
Aliera,
I’ve seen the studies you are speaking about, not the particular one, but similar ones, and they always seem faulty to me. Do you have a link to the mousetrap one? Because before I open this fool mouth more I’d like to read it.
:-)
What I have seen in interviews and television coverage of this case seems to make Ms. Marks look highly manipulative, even somewhat mentally unstable, and it is not difficult to believe that the Court ruled the way it did. I read the ruling and it seems logical.
It is definitely harmful to children to be raised by manipulative, selfish parents who do not take into consideration the emotional well-being of the children.
When my husband and I divorced our son was three. My husband threatened to pursue full custody if I did not agree to 50/50 split custody (and no child support). I was too afraid of losing custody and deep down I knew my son loved his father and this would be the best thing for him (definitely not the best thing for ME!), so I agreed to that. It has been ten years that have been frequently difficult, but sometimes about as good as joint custody can get and we hope our son is doing fine.
I am not innocent of being angry at my ex in front of my son, or of making negative remarks. I try not to do it, but sometimes I slip. However, I sincerely believe I would be this way even if we were still married. Many people find my ex a frustrating person. What I do feel I do right is to make sure that my son has always known that his dad loves and values him endlessly and wants only the best for him. I try to tell my son good things about his father as a person, and that I loved his father very much in the past. I support his father’s attempts at discipline and generally receive the same support in return.
My ex makes cracks about me to our son, too. It is just too hard not to slip and show your true frustration with a person once in awhile. (I am overweight and love to bake, so he refers to me as “Betty Crocker”. It is not a compliment.) I have learned of these and other disparaging remarks from my son, but I mostly laugh and tell him I am well aware of his father’s opinions and it won’t change who I am. I tell him that what really counts is not whether we worship each other, but that we basically think the other parent will love him, keep him safe and help him build a good character and a good life. I tell him we both appreciate having help in this job.
The jury is out on whether or not we have done a good job or there will be lasting damage from the way we have raised this child, but we are sincerely trying to do it well. In preschool the teacher said he was doing great, full of confidence and very secure, happy. It was wonderful to hear, but nine years later he is a teen and hard to tell how you are doing. He is a nice kid, but not without his issues.
Last year I finally got the guts (and the money for a lawyer) to try to get a small amount of money for child support from my ex, after six years of doing totally without. My ex makes four or five times as much money as I do. When I initially filed the petition, he went nuts and threatened to take custody away from me, even went so far as to tell our son that “he would not be seeing much of his mom”. Because we had been doing joint custody successfully for so long (9 years), the Court wouldn’t even consider the possibility of a change. They never even got the point of interviewing my son, because we both knew he would be devastated with any change in the arrangment he had always known. My ex spent more than twice the money I did on his lawyer and still had to do the right thing. I was really glad I finally did this, because it was only fair. The amount of money I get is small, but helpful and makes me feel fairly treated.
And yes, I know how Ms. Marks feels about rejection, as my ex married one of his business partners almost immediately after our divorce. That is something that has to be help apart from raising the child.
Rachel Ann:
No prob! Here’s one, which doesn’t have the study itself but has the reference to the article and covers the details and results:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/97/9.25.97/Ceci.html
The one thing I liked was that they never even touched the notion of “False Memory Syndrome”: rather they identified it as source amnesia: to a young enough child once an idea becomes familiar to them they forget where that idea came from.
Thank you Aliera—I’ll have a go look. I can buy a source amnesia better than a false memory, if I’m understanding the words correctly (which because i haven’t read the study yet I may well be.) But we all misremmber, and attribute an occurence to the wrong source.
Think the Bridget Marks custody case is sick?
On July 3rd last year when my sons mother died of cancer, his facist grandparents kidnapped him and comitted social security fraud in his name as a part of their religious jihad against my wife and I becuase we are not catholics.
Despite the fact I have done nothing wrong, have zero criminal record, am a well respected financial advisor in cumberland county for 24 years, and a model father county Judge Edgar Bayley ignored both Pa and federal law and gave legal custody of my son to his kidnappers. He also barred me from even seeing my child who is a student at the Milton Hershey school whose corrupt adminstrators assisted the kidnappers after the fact.
Please read my story at http://www.luckiestmanonearth.com and share it with others you think it will intrest. The constitutional right of all parents to raise their child as they see fit free of interference of family or the state was validated again in 2000 by the US supreme court in Grantville vs troxell, yet Pa courts routinely ignore this law of the land.
Your prayers for the success of my pending legal appeal to regain custody of my child before the Pa superior court are most appreciated.
God Bless you and be grateful everyday your family is normal by comparison.
Michael “Woody” O’Brien
Mechanicsburg Pa
This was very very sad and I think it’s sick that these girls were ripped away from their Mother.
I am so sad for the girls, I am so so sorry and I will pray that you get your daughters back. I have no faith in the courts! Much Love To You Ms. Marks
This was very very sad and I think it’s sick that these girls were ripped away from their Mother.
They weren’t ripped away from their mother. If you’d bothered to read the court decision, the court refused to let the father move with the children to California, as it would take them away from their mother.
This boxing ring case should be fought out of sight from these 2 cute twin girls.
What a mess…
People seem to lose the point. In this case, decisions should be made in the twins best interest; and not who’s right or who’s wrong or who’s lying or telling the truth, John, Mary, Peter or what…
That fight is independent from the girls problem, at least for now…
After looking at the facts and seeing the lady in action, it looks to me as the correct award of custody was made in this case.
The evidence evidently showed that the mother was coaching the children to make false allegations of sexual abuse. This alone in itself should be reason enough for her to lose custody. She was creating sex abuse victims even though there were none. The harm in this case has been dealt out to these children by good old mom. Mom tried to use the abuse card, which is getting to be common in custody cases, but she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. It’s also obvious to me that this moms agenda is not to do what is in the children’s best interest, but to destroy their father.
Later on perhaps the mother could be introduced back during some supervised visitation, and maybe one day can have some quality visitation, once she gets some psychological help.
Of course the mom will get support from the “money grubbers” who are in it for the money, the “childsavers” group, who have never met a child who hasn’t been abused, and then of course the feminist who think all men are evil.
These custody cases go on daily all over the U.S. and it is sad that the system is so adversarial that parents stoop to coaching their children, and doing whatever is necessary to destroy the other parent.
If this lady really cared about her children, she would get her head on straight, act like a mature and civil mother, and she might regain some of what she has lost. Going to the Supreme Court with this is laughable, and she will get no where, except to maybe get the “attention” that it seems she sorely needs.
The correct decision was made in this case and I wish best of luck to the father in raising his two daughters. And mom, if you decide to really be a mom someday, best of luck to you also.
and then of course the feminist who think all men are evil
Which feminist would that be?
Okay. I just saw this woman on TV today and she says she doesn’t actually know where her ex has the kids. This really is sick. If the courts really cared about those girls they would have found another way to punish the mother for her allegations. The courts did exactly what many parents do in custody battles: put the kids right in the middle of it. The mother wasn’t unfit. The children were obviously well cared for. I am a mom and I can tell you that mothers have a tendency to over-react when they think their children are being harmed. Some little thing that the kids said might have snow-balled in her mind, possibly into something it really wasn’t. Those little girls have a tight relationship with their mom. Now they have been taken away to live with people they hardly know. How confusing and damaging is that? Sorry, but you’d better come up with a better reason than that to take my kid away from me. The system has miserably failed these children. What happens to those girls if it suddenly surfaces that the allegations were true? Staying with the mom might have damaged their relationship with their dad, but only until they are old enough to know better. Far less damaging than being taken away from the mother you love and (possibly) being forced to live with a man who is sexually abusing you. Which is less risky for the children? I don’t know what that judge was thinking.
The mom should have been fined and/or community service abd have to go through extensive counciling. The dad is the one who should have supervised visitation! What are the real risks and issues here? ARGH! This has me fired up! Actually, both these parents should be in extensive counciling for putting their kids through this!!!
Some little thing that the kids said might have snow-balled in her mind, possibly into something it really wasn’t.
I’m a mom too, and I call bullshit. This wasn’t a case of a mom reporting suspected child abuse. This was a case of a mother coaching her children to lie about being molested. Do you truly think that persuading your children they’ve been raped is something any normal, concerned mom would do?
I don’t know what that judge was thinking.
The judge was thinking that there was NO credible evidence whatsoever that the children had in fact been abused, and that three professionals appointed for the children by the court–independent of the father–determined that the children had been coached to lie.
You need to get over the idea that mothers always have the best interest of their children at heart.
“Sorry, but you’d better come up with a better reason than that to take my kid away from me.”
You’re kidding me, right? It’s THIS kind of attitude that’s become one of the reason’s why residential parents are now LOSING their children…”MY kid away from ME”…YOUR kid is NOT a possession…YOUR kid is also his/her DAD’s kid…or have we lost sight of that?!!!!
Bridget Marks got exactly what she deserved…how do I know? Because my husband’s children are presently living through this emotional hell as I type this…their “mother” has been recognized by a Family Court Judge AND a respected psychologist as having highly alienated her two children from their father…a father who ONLY wants to be as involved a father as his JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY agreement states he has the RIGHT TO BE. But no, “Mommy Dearest” in our case claims she has “never interfered with access” YET told her 13-year-old son that the reason she didn’t allow him and his 16-year-old sister to attend their paternal grandfather’s funeral in March 2001 was because their Dad LIED to them about Grandpa dying…that their Dad just wanted to spend extra time with them…so tell, me…what kind of parent DOES THAT TO THEIR CHILD?!!! Also, ex has “fully involved” the 16-year-old in all legal matters between the parents…hell, my Bonus Daughter HELPED her mother WRITE her affidavit in response to an Access Denial application my husband brought against his ex…oh, and mom’s alcoholic boyfriend is their “new dad” now…these statements by the children were made to the psychologist assigned to our case in April of this year and were reported to the Courts just four weeks ago…but of course, MOM’S not alienating them from their Dad at all…this case is now before the Federal Courts in Canada and is FAR from over.
I’m sick of hearing about manipulative, angry and vindictive parents (and that goes for parents of BOTH genders) who continue to use their kids as bargaining chips to further themselves, my husband’s ex included…imagine…the ex had an affair while her husband was in a rehabilitation facility recovering from an industrial accident…runs off with the kids and divorces her husband…and SHE’S mad that her former husband has actually MOVED ON WITH HIS LIFE…spare me the theatrics. The ONLY way these desparate parents can salvage any kind of self-respect is to use their own children to punish others for their deeply-rooted insecurities and poor life choices.
Was John Aylsworth guilty of adultery and making some poor choices? Without a doubt. Was Bridget Marks equally guilty of engaging in this adulterous behaviour with Mr. Aylsworth? Of course. But now that he won’t leave his wife for his (now former) mistress, she took her case public to get back at him for leaving her…has anybody noticed that John Aylsworth nor his attorney’s have publicly commented on this case? Not once. But leave it to Ms. Marks to exact her jealous revenge squarely upon the shoulders of 4-year-old children…CHILDREN!!! I’m absolutely appalled and sickened by this whole mess. Ms. Marks has NEVER considered how her daughter’s would be affected by this…just as my husband’s ex has been vile and deliberate in her ongoing campaign in her (so far) unsuccessful attempts to remove her childrens’ father from their lives…frankly, Ms. Marks should consider herself lucky…at least she’ll get supervised visitation with her daughters, who won’t be moved out of New York State in order to have their relationship with their mother maintained…that’s more than can be said for my Bonus Children, who have to live their young lives in a horrendously unstable and emotionally hateful environment…at least for the time being…my husband will not quit fighting for his AND his children’s RIGHTS to have their loving relationship back…something his ex is doing everything in her power to equally deny her children…then again, Ms. Marks and my husband’s ex are the “Mommies”…however, giving birth to a child makes you no more a mother than owning a piano makes you a musician.
Good riddance, Ms. Marks…you reap what you sow…and so, too, will the “mother” of my husband’s children.
Your husband chose to have children with this woman. However evil her behavior, she is their mother.
I think the point here is that we have courts to work out exactly the kind of he said/she said situation that exists in this case. Many of the comments here are just second-guessing the judge, who spent weeks hearing testimony from all sides.
Most of those who are disagreeing are coming from a position that the mother’s viewpoint should be given heavier weight.
Goddess of the Nigh wrote: “I do believe it is in the best interests of society and its children to go back to the Tender Years Doctrine – that Mom has primary residential custody unless she is a very, very, very unfit mother.”
kim wrote: “Sorry, but you’d better come up with a better reason than that to take my kid away from me. The system has miserably failed these children. What happens to those girls if it suddenly surfaces that the allegations were true?”
Both of these writers are coming from the point of view that the mother’s position is inherently more valid. There was an allegation of abuse that independent experts determined to be unfounded. But Kim believes that the making of an allegation that is determined to be false by experts should somehow effect the outcome of the case: that you need a good reason to ‘take my kid’ away from the mom, but even an unproven allegation is enough to take the kid away from the dad.
Both of these views are based upon underlying assumptions of how “men are” and how “women are”. I am in no way near getting a divorce, but if that is what the future held, I would fight for the custody of my children just as I assume my wife would. I would hope that I live in a legal system that would consider my personal merits (and hers), my relationship with my daughters, and not just some generalized view that mothers are “better” parents (most probably are) or that women should have custody unless there is some extreme reason to decide differently. And I would hope that any accusations made against me would not be given ANY weight unless there was some evidence that the allegations were true.
And I defintely do not want to be part of a legal system that ever engages in stereotypes at the expense of individual determinations.
You don’t have to be a feminist to see that the court system in this country is incompetent at best and guilty of child abuse at worst. Any judge who considers the testimony of bribed doctors should be jailed. The father in this case is merely a sperm donor and should have no legal right to the children he has no true love for. I want to see the psychological report on his wife. Obviuosly her marriage is a joke to her husband. To any thinking person their home is no place to raise children. Money is not the only thing children need in fact it isn’t even a priority to them. Stability comes from living in a loving enviornment with the people or person you know you can count on. A man who has broken every promise he ever made to his wife (someone he also claims to love) is not a man you can count on. I feel a deep pain in my heart for all the children who have been treated by this countries legal system as bobbles that can be bought. I prefer not to see this as man versus woman but as good versus evil. The evil being a doctors love of money and a judges ignorance of the laws of this country. Bribery and false testimony are illegal. After years of schooling and practice to be a judge it’s hard to believe a judge didn’t learn this. The good being a happy, healthy, loving family. To rip children away from the only home they know and hand them over to a man and a woman of such low moral caliber will prove only to harm them. As for the ridiculous claims of the media that Bridget’s behavoir at the time she had to hand over two pieces of her heart and life to a virtual stranger made it harder for her children is manipulative and without compassion. NOTHING could make that situation harder for any of them.
I’m sorry but those of you screaming about the injustice in this case have no basis for your claims. You were not in court and did not hear and see all evidence presented. Have any of you even read the transcripts or the ruling? Until you do, please refrain from judging that which you do not know. The judge (or, for that matter, a jury) can only come to a ruling based on the evidence that they see.
I have not read the transcripts or the ruling. I was not present. I am not capable of giving a definitive opinion on the merits of the case & ruling. But I don’t think that any of you are either.
Mythago:
“and then of course the feminist who think all men are evil”
Which feminist would that be?
MMM:
” I prefer not to see this as man versus woman but as good versus evil.”
I think we have a winner!
Your’re the one who said all men are evil not me and I am not a feminist.
Mythago…yes, you’re absolutely correct…my husband did choose to have children with this “woman”…however, “she” obviously is not the same person she was 22 years ago when they first married…they’ve been divorced for eight years at HER initiation…and while she’s always been difficult to deal with regarding visitation…she’s been absolutely horrendous since her ex remarried 1.5 years ago…coincidence? I think not. Hate, spitefulness and jealousy? Absolutely. Her own LAWYER has admitted as much.
As for Ms. Marks and Mr. Aylsworth…they’re obviously BOTH morally lacking…let’s not kid ourselves, Ms. Marks is NOT the victim here…she CHOSE to have the affair…she CHOSE to have those children…she CHOSE to make those unfounded allegations…she now must deal with the consequences of her CHOICES…period. She’s made her bed…she must now lie in it.
Does my husband regret having his children? Not a chance. Does he regret his first choice in a wife and “mother” to his children? Without a single doubt. But it should NEVER be the children who pay the price for the bad decisions made by their parents…and Bridget Marks made a BAD decision by falsely accusing the father of her daughter’s of sexual abuse…that she “had to hand over two pieces of her heart” isn’t the issue…this isn’t about Bridget Marks…this is about the emotional and physical well-being of two 4-year-old children…obviously, there are people here who’ve never heard their own children spew such hateful venom towards one of their parents…at the sheer delight of the other…THAT was the CHOICE Bridget Marks made…and now she is paying the price.
And I defintely do not want to be part of a legal system that ever engages in stereotypes at the expense of individual determinations.
Why, Richard, you’re a feminist!
T.C., my point was only that however insane and destructive this woman is, she’s the kids’ mother, not their “mother”.
You’re quite right, there…she is the kids’ (biological) mother…but she’s certainly NOT an appropriate, supportive “mother” in the literal sense…a real “mother” would love her children more than they hate their former spouse…that is not applicable in my husband’s case. Cheers!
Did Marks’ “coerce” her children to lie? The court seems to think so, and maybe she did (I don’t know enough to say for sure). But, was the coercion intentional? I think that’s the important issue — and one we don’t know the answer to. Even if the father never once abused the children, it’s entirely possible that, as Kim said, “one little thing that the kids said might have snow-balled in her mind, possibly into something it really wasn’t.” It’s entirely possible that in trying to figure out what did or didn’t happen, she asked questions in a way that made the girls want to agree. This has been a problem in abuse-allegation cases in the past, and it’s why there are trained professionals who know how to ask the right questions. Marks’ is obviously not a trained professional — but she is a mother, and may not have realized what she was saying.
From what I’ve read (which, admittedly, is not everything), the experts determined that there was no actual abuse, and that the children lied, allegedly at the behest of their mother. But there is nothing that I have read that has shown any proof that Marks’ did this intentionally — that she intentionally asked the children to say certain things, knowing they were lies.
If you look back at that now infamous McMartin ritual abuse cases, you can see an example of what I’m talking about. The allegations of abuse turned out to be false. But they were not intentionally coerced — the interview techniques used at the time were found to be the problem. But people didn’t realize at the time that the interview techniques were faulty (and thankfully, these techniques have been changed). The McMartin cases was a devestaing case — but there wasn’t some evil mastermind behind it trying to purposely plant false information in these kids’ minds.
Now, I don’t think it is ever right for one parent to attempt to turn the kids away from the other parent. But I think it is equally wrong for the state or the “wronged” parent to then turn around and do the exact same thing. If, for example, the mother and/or her new partner are openly dispareging the child’s father in front of them (particularly on a constant basis), that situation needs to be dealt with, because it is not in the best interest of the child. But for the state, or the father and/or his new partner, to turn around and take the kids away from the mother and/or disparage her — then they are just as guilty of doing the exact same thing, and they obviously have no more concern for the child’s best interest than the person they claim to be trying to save the children from.
And, on a final note, I think it is incredbly naive (at best) to base any situation on one you (or someone you know) have experienced. What you (or someone you know) have experienced may have truly been awful, but there is no way that you can extrapolate your situation onto another’s situation.
You’re quite right, there…she is the kids’ (biological) mother…but she’s certainly NOT an appropriate, supportive “mother” in the literal sense…a real “mother” would love her children more than they hate their former spouse…that is not applicable in my husband’s case. Cheers!
Quite frankly, it seems that the amount of hate and disgust you feel toward’s your husband’s ex and the venom you spew in her direction seems to be more powerful than any “love” you could have for your ex’s children. I hope, for their sake, that their father does not engage in the same behavior, and even more, I hope that these children are never exposed to it. Regardless of what she did, she is their mother. And no, what she did is not right — but neither is denying her connection to those children as their mother.
And, ftr, it is incredibly rude to refer to any person as a “woman” (rather than woman) or “she” (rather than she). You obviously hate her, but that doesn’t make her any less of a woman — nor does it make her any less a mother to these children. This sort of misogynist behavior is not to be tolerated.
This case should not be about the fitness of either parent. It should be about the welfare of the children. If the children had lived their whole lives with the father I would say they should stay with him. Accusations of crimes should not be allowed in family court. If you or your child has been a victim of a crime you take it to the police and then criminal court. Paid testimony of so-called experts should also not be allowed in any court. If they really had an expert evaluate these parents they would no doubt find that neither one of them should have children but it’s a little late for that. Their is no proof in the transcripts of this case that either parent is good or bad for the children. He said she did…she said he did blah blah blah. Not important. What is important is what this has done to the childrens mental health. The damage is already done. I know one thing the psychologist in this case made out real well. He even locked in some job security with years of psychotherapy to come for the mental stress he helped to cause.
Richard Bellamy: You need to go to improveyourreadingcomprehension.com.
“I prefer not to see this as man versus woman but as good versus evil. The evil being a doctors love of money and a judges ignorance of the laws of this country. Bribery and false testimony are illegal. After years of schooling and practice to be a judge it’s hard to believe a judge didn’t learn this.”
Are there any allegations — let alone evidence — that the doctors were bribed or testified falsely? I have seen none. The issue appears to be whether the mother “coached” her children to lie, or whether she made a reasonable error. But yet you conclude that the impartial court-appointed experts were bribed and perjured themselves.
Where is the evidence for this, other than the fact that they sided with the Man?
Why, Richard, you’re a feminist!
I never claimed otherwise. I am also for civil rights, gay marriage, and am a registered Democrat. To the extent that feminists continue to agree with me, and do not begin to do the things that they are charicatured as doing, I shall remain one.
T.C. you also need to go to improveyourreadingcomprehension.com.
I was referring to your accusing me of calling all men evil which I did not do. To spell it out for you I called the judicial system evil. But now your problem has changed to my opinion that $400 an hour or $42,000 is bribery. That my be harsh but I know that no persons opinion is worth that. Where is the evidence that the court-appointed experts were impartial..I have seen none. You also assume that I think the court “sided with the man”. I do not. I think the court sided with the money and decided to hurt the children. Neither parent won anything all they managed to do was hurt their own children.
I am in agreement with Bean here; what was the evidence that she did this intentionally, and that this wasn’t a case where the children said X and mom got the wrong idea?
I would have to know the questions that were asked that led to the answer “mommy told us to say” I can see that easily happening if, for example, mom wanted the children to make sure and mention “daddy did X” and not go on and on about how daddy threw out their candy bar because it fell on the floor and he could have just wiped it off.” Because, listen, not all abuse of a child is physically painful. A situation was told to me where a man engaged the kids in a game; he attached a string to his penis and had them pull. They were having a blast till mom walked in and screamed.
What is important to a 4 year old isn’t always what we as adults see as important.
The questions that were asked of these children by the psychologists and the judge; that’s what I want to know.
and btw, if one can brainwash a child into beliveing that X did Y then they can be brainwashed or manipulated into saying X told me to say Y.
I think unintentional disparagement should be counted against the mother if it is constant and severe. Whether intentional or not, it affects the mental health of the children and their relationship to the father. If one parent is incapable of controlling themselves enough to avoid constantly disparaging the other, they are probably not the best custodian. (Of course, other factors matter too.)
Imagine, fearing being subjected to your mothers constants rants about your father every time drove you anywhere. What if the rants start to include her airing her fears that you will turn out just like him? Does it matter if she’s trying to alienate you from him intentionally, or just blowing off steam?
It would better to place the child with the parent who doesn’t do these sort of things– all things being equal.
Still, without better access to the court documents than posted here, it even sounds plausible that Mark’s actions were intentional. She hired psychologists to testify in court. Then she spoke to them, but did not have them speak to the kids. One would think any psychologist would know what Bean has told us: Questioning must be done with great care to determine whether or not abuse has occurred. So, one would suspect the Mark’s psychologist would have advised Mark’s that an accurate evaluation would require them to interview the kids. Mark’s, while willing to hire a particular psychologist, did not have her psychologist interview the twins. Why not? Was she afraid talking to the psychologist would traumatize them?
While this action is not proof that Mark’s was making up the story, this decision seems very, very odd. In a custody battle where a judge is balancing rights and responsibilities of parents, and the best interest of the children, this behavior is likely to make the judge lean toward believing Marks’s is not entirely forthright.
Richard, the initial way you quoted “I prefer not to see this as man versus woman but as good versus evil” clearly took the sentence out of context and completely changed its meaning. In context, the sentence is clearly not refering to men as “evil,” as you suggested it did. With all due respect, I think you owe MMM an apology for the out-of-context quoting to suggest that she’s bigoted against men.
On the other hand, MMM, sarcastic comments about “improveyourreadingcomprehension.com” is heading away from discussion and towards an exchange of wisecracks/insults, which is the sort of thing I hate to see on my blog. Please try not to post like that here in the future. Your later post – in which you spelled out your view and objections – was far superior.
* * *
My dad (who is an audiologist) has been an expert witness in at least one court case that I know of, by the way (he was hired by the defense to determine if some folks had suffered a hearing loss or were faking it). So I resist the idea that all expert witnesses are bad. But there’s probably a difference between someone who is hired as an expert witness once or twice in a career, and someone who does it all the time.
Anyhow, about the Marks case…
The experts whose testimony led to Marks losing custody were hired by the court, not by the father, so it’s not clear how we can see this as “bribery.” However, for what it’s worth, Ms. Marks’ attorney has implied something along the lines of what MMM is saying. Here’s a quote from a Foxnews interview:
Maybe he’s talking about a real problem, in which expert witnesses make themselves popular with judges by learning to tailor their opinions to match how a judge is leaning. On the other hand, maybe this is just a desparate attorney grasping at straws.
My opinion is that, given that the judge has accurately described the facts, I agree with her decision. However, since none of us have access to the evidence, we can’t really decide if her take on the facts was fair or not.
I certainly apologize if I did not accurately present MMM’s intent. However, I believe that my conclusion — while not as simplistic as my quote made it appear — accurately conveyed MMM’s intent.
MMM is trying to make the case that the witnesses were bribed. There is no evidence of bribery — just of payment. The payment was from the court, not the parties. As lucia points out, the mother’s expert witnesses were paid by her, the father’s expert witnesses were paid by the court.
Yet the side that agrees with the father is accused of bribery and false testimony. OF COURSE the defense lawyer will question the experts’ impartiality. That is the only way (legally) to reverse a decision based upon expert testimony. If the only way was to prove the expert was an atheist, the defense lawyer would be staking out the local churches — and rightfully so. That’s what lawyers DO. If he wasn’t questioning their impartiality, he’d be guilty of negligent representation. But there’s no reason to think that the entire system is biased against those that experts’ somehow sense that the judge doesn’t like.
Again, I apologize if I misinterpreted MMM’s point, but when there the only testimony was the mother-paid experts on one side, and the court-appointed experts on the other side, and MMM is trying to show — without evidence — that the objectively more objective experts must have been bribed and perjured (which is stronger than Amp’s quoted language of bias suggested), then the only reasonable conclusion I could reach is that MMM’s accusations are founded upon the sex of the person the experts found in favor of.
Again, if there is actual reasons to believe that bribery and perjury occurred — aside from the fact that the expert testimony favored a man — I will happily retract my accusation.
So I resist the idea that all expert witnesses are bad. But there’s probably a difference between someone who is hired as an expert witness once or twice in a career, and someone who does it all the time.
There’s a difference between someone who routinely appears as a witness for only one side, and someone who is often an expert witness, but is not a “hired gun” for plaintiffs (or defendants).
And Richard is quite correct. It is a “desperate attorney grasping at straws”. In Mom’s lawyer’s position, I’d be saying similar things–hinting because I wouldn’t want to defend myself from a defamation suit if I were any more specific, but I certainly wouldn’t be able to say ‘okay, they won fair and square’.
But to me this SHANAHAN: Well, I’ll tell you this much. I know the forensic evaluator in this case didn’t meet, when he made his custody determination, with the girls’ teachers, with their nannies, with their friends’ parents, to ascertain whether or not this was a proper household. We believe that the court-appointed forensic examiner in this case saw the direction the judge was going, that she didn’t like Bridget Marks, and his report is consistent with the attitude the judge was giving from the bench.
is very important. All these people could have had evidence to support or negate the mother’s position. For exmple, if the children, routienely seemed less happy on days that they were to see their father, or if the children had stated things that caused the teachers concern, etc.
Court appointed doesn’t mean unbiased.
Some of the things that make me squeamish and questioning of the Judges decision was the vagueness of the accusations against the mother.
Ampersand: Thank you for stepping in to help me with Richard. And I apologize to you for my wisecrack. I really didn’t want to do that. I only wanted to state my opinion. The fact that some pople can’t read another persons opinion without insulting them got to me but I won’t let it happen again. And Richard I don’t need an apology from you especially since you don’t really mean it.
Well, I’ll tell you this much. I know the forensic evaluator in this case didn’t meet, when he made his custody determination, with the girls’ teachers, with their nannies, with their friends’ parents, to ascertain whether or not this was a proper household.
But you see, Rachel Ann, that’s exactly lawyer-talk, and if you read it carefully, you see what he says and what he doesn’t say.
Who didn’t meet with the teachers? The forensic evaluator. What is a forensic evaluator? A scientist trained in making medical diagnoses based on PHYSICAL conditions. They are not trained to do interviews of community members or determine whether there was a ‘proper household’. They are trained to do FORENSIC evaluations.
Of course, you don’t make your decision based solely on forensics. There were also two independent social workers. They are trained to examine the entire community situation. Did THEY meet with the teacher, nanny, etc.? We don’t find that out from the lawyer.
If we asked the lawyer about the social workers’ concurring testimony, he’ll tell us that they never did a physical examination of the children.
I do not blame the lawyer. That is his job. And of course experts and judges and the “system” can be biased. In many ways everyone is biased. If you can think of a way to determine custody disputes that avoids all risks of bias (against either party), then I’m happy to hear it. The defendant was free to put up evidence to counter the alleged bias, but did not do so. Until then, we’ll just have to trust that the best science (forensic, psychological, etc.) available will lead to the most equitable result.
What Richard said. And may I add that if you’re basing your opinion of the case on what one side’s lawyer said on a FOX interview, you’re really reaching for a pre-determined conclusion.
All I’m seeing here is the kind of smoke and mirrors I, in Ms. Marks’s attorney’s position, would do myself when I had nothing else to go on.
Note that he doesn’t say “We have evidence that the court-appointed experts were biased based on X,” where X is, say, one of the expert’s membership in a radical father’s-rights group, or evidence of incompetence, or a failure to prepare the report according to accepted practices, or even actual showings of bias toward one party.
You know you are right. There was a lot he (the lawyer) didn’t say. I have to agree with you.
I really don’t know enough of this case, and even the court documents I read left me with questions.
hmmmmm,
got to go back and think about this a bit mroe.
Thanks for your opinion, Bean…and no, I don’t hate my husband’s ex…I don’t hate anybody…but I do feel indifference towards her and I freely admit that I certainly do not respect her…respect is earned.
What I do hate, however, is what her obsessive alienating tactics have done to her children…the emotional damage that’s been inflicted is profound…and just because she’s their mother, does that give her the right to do this to her kids? I would think not. The same applies to Bridget Marks…just my humble opinion.
T.C., my (completely unsolicited) advice to you is to stop owning your husband’s fight with his ex. If you truly care about the kids involved, you’ll stop trashing their mother and start taking the time and energy to make sure they feel loved and secure in your home. If you choose not to do that, then at least drop the story that you are concerned for the kids.
I’ve seen this “I’m going to own my spouse’s fight with their ex” far too many times to tolerate it any longer.
I never said that only the fathers paid witnesses should not be allowed. I said all paid witnesses should not be allowed including the mothers paid witnesses. While Lucia seems a fairly informed person she is wrong about the courts paying for testimony. The courts pay nothing our tax dollars pay for it. Which is why this doctor charged double his normal fee for his services. The court system of this country does not have my permission to spend my money in such a frivolous manner. This money could have been spent better elsewhere.
When one parent is accused of abuse and the other is accused of being an unfit parent, how do you suggest resolving the problem? Waiting for volunteer experts to agree to testify for free?
It might be a long wait . . .
I must retract my statement that includes the word bribery. I realize I am sometimes hard and judgmental. I still have a problem with paid for testimony. While experts in the fields of forensics, pathology, balistics, etc. are sciences that have tangible evidence to back them up psychology does not. Any good psychologist knows a persons opinions are based on their own life experiences therefor his or her opinions should carry no more weight than yours or mine.
Lots of people testify for free everyday why not the experts. It would make their being impartial a lot more believable.
>>Lucia seems a fairly informed person she is wrong about the courts paying for testimony. The courts pay nothing our tax dollars pay for it.
I said Ms. Marks paid for her experts. Richard agreed with me and added that the courts paid for the testimony. I think pointing out that, ultimately, the judge or courts get funds from tax payers is a fact we all understood.
If you do not want courts to have funds for this type of thing, you should contact your legislators.
>>Any good psychologist knows a persons opinions are based on their own life experiences therefor his or her opinions should carry no more weight than yours or mine.
While I am sure psychologists sometimes overstep, disagree etc., I also think they are better trained to interview children about these sorts of things and form opinions than I am. And, I do not say that as a modest person!
Regardless, Ms. Marks psychologists who formed their opinion without seeing the children would have to be less credible than the courts psychologists who talked to the children! Even with no training, that’s just common sense.
Well, Sheelzebub, I guess maybe you should’ve kept your opinion as unsolicited, then…the ONLY thing that either my husband or myself care about is what this is doing to his children…period. I guess I can assume (completely unsolicited, of course) that you feel it’s okay for a parent, by virtue of biology, to freely inflict this kind of emotional abuse upon their children to stroke their own egos…sorry, don’t buy it…*I* certainly don’t think SHE’S right.
By the way, not once have I ever stated that I hate my husband’s ex…it’s her horrendous behaviours that I hate…and to think that she’s actually being defended here…how frightening.
My not offering you a tissue and agreeing that this woman is horrendous and evil on your say-so doesn’t mean I’m defending her. . I don’t give to hoots about her. I don’t know her, and I don’t know you. You seem to think that I’m owning this fight you have with her, and I’m not. I’m pointing out how you’re coming off.
For someone who claims to not hate her, you certainly do go on and on for pages about her.
I think unintentional disparagement should be counted against the mother if it is constant and severe. Whether intentional or not, it affects the mental health of the children and their relationship to the father. If one parent is incapable of controlling themselves enough to avoid constantly disparaging the other, they are probably not the best custodian. (Of course, other factors matter too.)
Intentions always matter when you are trying to resolve a problem. This doesn’t mean that a person who does not intentionally cause a problem should simply be let off, and I’m certainly not trying to say that. Regardless of the intentions, the results are still damaging, and that needs to be dealt with. But how you deal with that does necessitate the need to know (or try to know) the intentions.
Not all people guilty of killing someone had the intention of killing them. In the end, though, someone is dead — the intention (or lack thereof) won’t change that fact. But we don’t say all people guilty of killing someone are guilty of intentional murder, and the consequences for the guilty party are going to differ depending on the intent.
At this point in time, I’m going to take it as fact that the children were not sexually abused by their father, and that the children lied at the behest of their mother. I think that needs to be dealt with — not simply brushed over and ignored. But I don’t know whether she intentionally asked them to lie, knowing it was a lie, or if she was simply a mother who thought she saw something that wasn’t really there and, not being a trained professional, asked questions in the wrong way.
I’m not assuming at the moment that what she did was simply a “mistake,” but neither can I assume that it was completely intentional. I don’t have all the facts.
T.C. — perhaps you don’t hate your ex’s wife, I obviously don’t know you well enough to know that. The only thing I can go buy is the amount of vitriol you seem to show here. There seems to be a lot more emotional energy on your part towards her here than indifference, though. And I never once defended the ex, nor did Sheelzebub. But, as I said before, I hope for the kids’ sake that they never hear you saying any of the things you’ve said about their mother here. I hope they don’t pick up on the attitude you have towards their mother that you’ve shown here, because, frankly, that would make you guilty of doing the exact same thing you claim she did.
Lots of people testify for free everyday why not the experts
Those people testify for a couple of reasons: because they are required to by law (they’ve been subpoenaed) or because they have an interest in the outcome.
Is that what you really want? Experts who have to be forced to testify, or who are testifying precisely because they are biased?
I don’t know what you do for a living, MMM. I would guess that you, like other professionals, do not live on manna from heaven, and so if you were asked to give up otherwise profitable time to spend days preparing for and testifying in court, you’d either really want to be there or you’d expect to be paid.
One of the first things any testifying expert does in court, by the way, is to admit that they are being paid to appear and by whom. It’s not as though the judge or jury is kept in the dark.
Bean >>Intentions always matter when you are trying to resolve a problem.
I agree. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise, but rather to point out that even when harmful behavior is unintentional, it can still cause harm. When intentional, it’s worse. Either way, it should and will affect a judges decision in a custody dispute.
BTW. I third your and Sheelzebub’s perception of vitriol in TC’s remarks. I do hope TC doesn’t sound that way when she is discussing her ex’s wife at home. And, TC, knowing that other people hear you as hostile if you don’t intend to be hostile should be taken as useful information.
After going back and rereading some of my posts, I admit that they do come across as somewhat abrasive and, yes, angry…it’s extremely frustrating to bear witness to these kinds of behaviours against children and not be able to do something about it…that’s not my job and I’m not their parent…but that doesn’t mean that I don’t care about these kids because I do…and no, they’ve never heard anything negative about their mother from either myself or my husband…we don’t run our household that way because that would make us just as guilty as the ex is…two wrongs don’t make a right…for what it’s worth, the ex has denied access to the children for 18 and 11 months now.
Anyhow, I’ve been following the Marks/Aylsworth case for several weeks now and I suppose my ire got up because it’s the children who ultimately suffer…sure, it must’ve been difficult…REALLY difficult for Bridget Marks to give up custody of her children…what parent WANTS to lose their kids? But if the tables were turned and it was John Aylsworth who was stripped of custody, there’d certainly be dancing in the streets…Dad’s usually don’t “win” in these types of cases…and while my husband is taking his ex before the courts, there are no guarantees…and God only knows what’s being said to his children in between now and the next court date. Regardless, nowhere is it stated that one parent is “better” than the other…but when one parent deliberately (or not, as Bridget Marks may or may have done with her children) impedes with their children’s RIGHTS to have BOTH parents equally in their lives…THAT’S worth fighting for…I guess my husband just isn’t prepared to hear one or both of his children ask him in 10 years time why he didn’t fight harder for them when they were younger.
It’s an absolute shame that these two lovely little girls were thrust into the middle of a very ugly and public display of their parents vying for their love…they certainly didn’t ask for this nor do they deserve it…I also apologize for coming off as somewhat brash…that’s not my nature normally…but sometimes the frustration with the sheer magnitude of this situation can sometimes get the best of oneself.
In the end, it’s all about what’s in “the best interest of the children”, right?
By the way, thank you for pointing out the error of my ways…I will take the advice to heart.
This case is heartwrenching. The motives of the father are now obvious since he’s going after Bridget for support. No, he’s not abusive! He’s just an innocent victim. Of course he’s abusive. It’s in his nature, as you can see by his lust to see Ms. Marks suffer more at his hand. He’s been married how long? and has no problem abusing the mother of his adult children through humiliation by adultery! The very last thing on his mind is the emotional well being of these girls, and this judge will probably retire on the money she made giving him his next prey!
Uh, Cindy, are you having a slow day at work?
Hypothetically,if Bridget Marks did coach her 2 girls to say these things. Why would a Justice take such young children out of the only home that they have ever known and uproot them like that. I think that Mrs. Marks should have been warned and parenting classes be implemented for her, if that was the case. Whose best interest is this the father’s or the children. That is so traumatic to uproot a child like that.
I am so tired of hearing about custody cases where one or the other parent wins. How about the children? Take heed about the justice system. There is no best interest of the child. I work for a divorce attorney and no judge ever does anything about parental alienation. I lost custody of my children to a medically unfit violent parent. My father-in-law Supreme Court Judge. Lawyers, lie, judges lie, forensic experts lie. Don’t look for any best interest of your child in the divorce courts. Remember children don’t contribute to political campaigns.
I am so tired of hearing about custody cases where one or the other parent wins. How about the children? Take heed about the justice system. There is no best interest of the child. I work for a divorce attorney and no judge ever does anything about parental alienation. I lost custody of my children to a medically unfit violent parent. My father-in-law Supreme Court Judge. Lawyers, lie, judges lie, forensic experts lie. Don’t look for any best interest of your child in the divorce courts. Remember children don’t contribute to political campaigns.
That is so traumatic to uproot a child like that.
Whereas falsely persuading children that they’ve been raped by their Daddy, because you’re mad at him, isn’t traumatic. Gotcha.
I’m open to listening to better solutions than the decision of a family court judge.
Anyone?
There are a few father’s rights advocates posting on this site. It’s obvious by the blind, brainless support of this adulteror, in spite of the outright viciousness he’s shown towards Ms. Marks in demanding child support from the jobless mom. I feel this judge swatted a fly with a sledgehammer in this case (using her bench as a legal way of having a cat fight with a woman more attractive than herself). If Ms. Marks indeed lied about these allegations (and I see only this judge’s opinion, not much in the way of proof) then there should be some counselling ordered, not the inflicting of such a trauma on these two little girls. They didn’t deserve to have their mommy taken. Ms. Marks deserve therapy or parenting classes, period.
using her bench as a legal way of having a cat fight with a woman more attractive than herself
All right, I think we have a winner for Tortured Legal Theory of the Month.
No myth, it’s not a theory. I kind of thought this was a forum for opinions. Oh, looking at your posts, I’d say I’m correct. By the way, slow day at work?
Very. You, too, I see.
Yep. In all honesty, however, you need to speak to more women who you would consider attractive and ask them how they’ve been treated at the hands of, perhaps, an overweight woman. You’ll never see the same kind of vindictiveness in the males in the same situation.
Yes, all of our hearts break for how attractive people in our society suffer.
you need to speak to more women who you would consider attractive and ask them how they’ve been treated at the hands of, perhaps, an overweight woman
I’m slim and attractive (at least for my age which, if I can recall, is 45….), Fat women do not treat me badly.
My older sister is slim and extremely attractive. Fat women do not treat her badly.
My younger sister is slim, and attractive. If someone treated her badly, she’d take their head off. So far, she hasn’t been arrested for decapitating anyone. (Let’s all cross our fingers. Ooh.. I should admit, I’m liable to take people heads off too…..)
I will say that I’ve been accused of being attractive, I’m 5′ 5″ at about 110 pounds. Fat women won’t even give me the time of day and routinely, at work, I get “I just hate you for being thin…” as they shove the pizza down their throats. I have several friends who complain of the same thing, and one in particular who had to change jobs, because her fat manager decided she “didn’t need to take lunch,” and such comments. This case just remind me of a cat fight. I could be wrong and overly sensitive. It’s just my take, looking at photos of Bridget.
This case just remind me of a cat fight.
I honestly do not see why, in the least. Did you read the court opinion rather than just the comments about it?
Ah, yes. I, too, know well the tyranny & bitterness of fat people – especially fat women. Clocking in at 5′ 7″ and 130lbs I’m a target for hate speech and mockery on a constant basis. Why, even my good friend Ampersand, mercilessly heaps abuse upon my slender frame. Many is the time I have left his home in tears.
Fat people, especially fat women, control our judicial system and wreak their vengeance on the attractively slender. You can see it every day and it is just horrible.
Fat women are all over the place, nauseating the rest of us with their grotesque manner of eating. Shoving things down their throats, mindless of crumbs and sauces oozing down their many chins, showering innocent passers-by with their greasy splatterings. And the noises they make! It would put any self-respecting barnyard animal to shame!
It makes me sick. If they’re going to binge, can’t they at least have the human decency to purge?
You’re fat Jake!!! My husband is 5’8″ and 122 lbs. My good cooking has put 10 lbs on him in 20 years. (Unfortunately, I think Levy’s no longer makes dockers in 28″! He wore 27″ when we married. )
There is nothing worse than fat on a guy! Go to the gym man!
Benita, my older sister’s height weight stats happen to match yours exactly: 5’5″ and 110 lbs. Fat women speak to her. In fact, she has many fat friends.
At 5’4″ and 125lbs, I’m the plump sister. Fat women speak to me.
None of us have ever gotten the impression that we were discriminated in employment because of our weight.
I have to say, I have never noticed any tendency for fat women to treat thin women badly, and I think I keep my eyes open. I suspect your perception may be distorted.
Well, I’ve been thin and I’ve been fat, and it’s been my experience that I’m treated better by others (regardless of their gender or size) when I’m thinner.
Perhaps the fat women Benita comes in contact with are sensing her animosity toward them and reacting accordingly?
Regardless, it’s pretty far out there to assume that the real reason for this ruling was not the recommendations of three court-appointed professionals, not a desire to act in the best interests of the child, but purely the judge’s resentment that Ms. Marks was thinner than she.
Back when I was hideously underweight, I was always the target of vindictive and nasty fat women who just hated me for being so beeeeaaaauuuutiiiifuuuuuuulllll!
Now that I’m up to 130 pounds and look healthy, they hate me even more cause I’m so darn sexy!
:::sob:::
Can’t we all just get along?
Barring that, can the trolls be a little more original?
Yep. I think the comment about “Tortured Legal Theory of the Year” pretty well sums it up.
This case has some significance to me personally. As the involvement of these experts comes under question, we must determine why that occurs. A biased report by one court designee may occur. Two, rarely, three, significantly unlikely. It has nothing to do with Ms. Marks being thin and the rest of the world being fat. Although I liked that arguement. IMHO, most judges hate everyone.
THe evolution of events is unusual. How did the mother go from having custody, to losing her children. The events surrounding her initial reports placed her in the drivers seat. The courts and agencies are regulated to investigate these claims vigorously. However, Ms. Marks could not control herself. These claims were heaped on top of the custody demands presented to the father. This legal manuevering was not missed by the court, nor was it appreciated. It cost significant resources to conduct and adjudicate these issues.
Also, why did the court appoint two social workers? It is my understanding, that, as agency experts, their recommendations are made in the interest of the children. What was discovered in the course of the separate investigation to formulate a report that could produce such a negative outcome for the mother?
I know from first hand knowlegde that courts do not simply switch custody as a punative measure. That is not what happened. It is more likely that the mother could not control present the characteristics necessary of a sound parent. These must have significant character flaws to cause such an outcome. This in light of the known shortcomings of the father. What was there in M. Marks that caused such a decision?
This case just makes me sick. I am good friends with a wonderful man whose estranged mentally ill wife has accused him of molesting their 3 kids. She did this after she cheated on him, left with the kids, and moved in with her parents. Months after she left (and he got the kids every other weekend plus 2 nights a week) she found out he was dating someone (he did not know this woman till after his wife left) and sensed her “money train” might be cut (she won’t work, never has since the birth of their first child). She made threats to “get him” but he thought she wouldn’t. She did. He was arrested on what she (the estranged wife) told our county social services that the kids told HER. No witnessess, no physical evidence, nothing. But, alas, being the mother, she was believed, social services led the kids (we saw the transcript of the middle child- it was laughable) and he was arrested. It’s been over a year since he or anyone in his family has seen his kids, the mother won’t “allow it”. The d.a. is finally starting to see that the mother is quite an actress and he was/is a loving appropriate father (though clueless about the extent of his estranged wife’s mental illness and moral depravity). Anyway, he has been offered a plea to replace the felonies. He has been fighting like crazy but the courts/juries here are against dads. He may have to take it and admit to something he never did just to put this behind him and get supervised visits with his kids. Oh- by the way- mommy dearest here still isn’t working, even though all kids are in school, and is screaming over money and the marital house, of all things. He was awarded the house in seperation with agreement to buy her out, last year the week before the FALSE allegations, she tore up the seperation agreement and said she wanted the house, for him to pay all payments and upkeep, and child support. Come on, this guy is NOT a millionaire. I am disgusted with this witch (J)and her abuse of her children, her loving husband, and the judicial system. Courts need to be devoted to REAL child abuse, not false allegations during divorce! I can only hope that “vengence is mine saith the Lord” applies to this greedy, manipulative, vindictive adulteress. Oh- she CONSTANTLY takes the kids to the dr for every little thing, and nurse friends of ours thinks she has Maunchausen by Proxy, and is borderline personality. I’ve heard this woman on the phone- she is looney. Yet Borderlines are very convincing for a short while. It’s just when you question them that they fall apart. His civil lawyer got her in for questioning on the civil suit she filed just after she snatched the kids (aka Kobe Bryant’s accuser). Well in her deposition, she could not keep any of her “abuse” stories straight. He referred to her as a “deer caught in the headlights”. We all hope she will continue to be exposed as the liar and manipulator she is. I am a single mom myself and can’t bear to be associated with women like this. I work and support my kids and would never use them to hurt their dad like this spoiled woman has.
Shame on you too Bridget! You are a sick woman and YOU have abused your kids!
Charlotte and Benita, one does not have to be a fathers’ rights advocate to be undisturbed by the idea of a custodial father collecting child support from a noncustodial mother. It is accepted practice for a certain minimum income to be imputed to a noncustodial father for child support purposes whether he is actually employed or not–since otherwise some men would be intentionally unemployed or underemployed. No one considers it abusive for a mother to ask for this, regardless of the mother’s income. It is considered a parent’s legal and moral obligation to help support their child.
If in fact Ms. Marks did make false allegations and coach these children, then she committed a number of criminal offenses. And she deserves warnings, therapy and parenting classes? For actions which not only amounted to psychological abuse of her children but also could conceivably have landed an innocent man in criminal court, put him in prison, and at the very least destroyed his life and career? This is a much, much more serious matter than you seem to think it is.