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.).
I am so sick of hearing about Bridget I grew up in a small Massachusetts town with her! I was in a public junior high with her before she went to private school I knew her before the nose job etc. Her whole family is nuts she gets her training from her mother the infamous Molly Aiken(I am a little unsure of the spelling) her mother made a habit out of trapping old men a few years ago she made the papers by kidnapping and marrying an old antique dealer from the nursing home. Bridget’s own father has to live with one of her brothers in a house that was given to him by another family member (I believe they converted a dining room) her brother has to cut trees for a living to make ends meet and take care of dad Her sister was in the papers a few years ago for breaking into her mothers home and stealing her safe to get money for her Herion problem. The stories go on and on….I believe the Bridget did whatever she could to protect her investments including making her kids lie because I’m sure theur just a meal ticket!!!!!!
Bridget should have never lost those girls. Can anyone here imagine the torture Aylsworth’s wife will be putting them through? God, just look at them. They look exactly like their stunning mother, and must be a painful reminder to the frump who has them now in her care. How better to ‘get back’ at the woman whose bed your husband preferred than to harm her babies? This judge should have done everything in her power to keep them where they were. This guy has shown everyone that he will humiliate his entire family for the sake of appeasing his genitals. So, I don’t care what his wife says, she was merely trying to get her pound of flesh from Bridget and my guess is the judge has gone through something similar and needed to take it out on someone.
Later
I saw Bridget on Dr. Phil again today. After hearing what she said, I am worried about those girls. They are living in a tiny two bedroom apartment with their father. They sleep on the FLOOR because there is not enough room for a bed. This man is a millionaire and he couldn’t find better living arrangements for his kids? In addition, they have been taken out of Ballet, and other activities. The mother said the girls were avid readers until they were given to their father. Now she said the only books they have are the ones she buys them. She says the Nanny takes them to the park! THe father is too busy! She said the girls tell her “I just want to sleep and not wake up until I see you again”. And, she still maintains that she did NOT make the girls say things about their dad. The truth is that nobody will ever really know the truth. I have heard of biased Judges before who will make decisions based on what they thing instead of what is best for the kids. LIke others have posted, not all abuse leaves marks. And, IF the abuse is happening, those poor girls. I think it was a simple case of he was a rich guy who got anything he wanted. He wanted custody and flashed money and he got it. I have heard cases of mothers losing custody because they dare to work to put food on the table! I have no doubt that some parents do tell their kids to make things up. But, I have also heard of stories of judges giving custody of kids to abusive parents because the abused parent convinces the judge they are fit. It happens ever day. That is why kids are taken from abusive parents, put in forster care and then the parent claims they are fine and the kid is given back and then we hear months later that the poor child is dead because the kid screamed and cried and was beaten to death! Abusive parents get custody all the time. Anyone who says it does not happen are fooling themselves. I hear it all the time in the news. Regardless I dont’ think it was enough to lose her children over. Yes she still sees them, but these are YOUNG children who need a mother who is there for them 24/7, not a nanny who takes care of them because she is paid to. The man is rich and I beleive he bought his daughters custody. I hope and pray she gets those precious babies back. The guy told her to get an abortion! Because he was having an affair and when she got pregnant, he knew he was screwed. It is on record that they told her to do this. So, the man wanted no part of being a dad. Now he does? Too late in my book. Sounds like he is isolating them to me. They want to be with their mother. And, that is where they should be!
I saw that show today as well. He sounds like a control freak who wanted to have a wife and a mistress and found out he can’t have both.
I bet if she offered to go back to him this whole thing would drop.
I hope she doesn’t go back. And what the heck is this law in Manhattan if one person accuses the other of abuse and it’s not substantiated the child goes to the accused. Whose sick idea was that!!!
I can see putting them in foster care or finding a neutral guardian, but this guy is rich he was probably able to suppress all the evidence.
The whole thing just sickened me
I can see putting them in foster care or finding a neutral guardian
Yeah, taking them away from their parents completely would be so much better for them.
Keep the boys-vs-girls crap on issues where it doesn’t matter, like who pays the dinner check, please.
None of us knows the truth about all this and I have no idea what the right decision would have been. But about the nanny–just to be fair–according to media reports the girls were already being cared for by a nanny when they were with their mother, and likely the nanny was taking them to the park then, too.
Has anyone seen the new enquirer with a two page spread on the man who is alleged to have been hired by mommy dearest to do in the dad??
Be sure you are not hearing all the details on either side, seems dad has a very large family and all have taken to the girls with great love.
The girls eagerly want to visit their siblings,neices,aunties and cousins, family they never had a chance to do at mommies house.
She says the Nanny takes them to the park!
The…HORROR!!!
The impression I got from the coverage in the New York tabs — sympathetic to her, mind you, since she called them — was that she had a screw loose. And I’m sure Dr. Phil verified all her charges of the kids sleeping on the floor, because you’d think that somewhere in a TWO BEDROOM apartment, someone might find room for a bed.
I am not an expert on this case, but it’s my impression that the allegations of sexual abuse first came from a babysitter, who told the mother. So what should she do with the information? Ignore it?
I do not know Bridget Marks or her character, but I AM afraid of a situation developing where no mom or protective parent, even with a well-founded fear, can report sexual abuse. Unfortunately, a lot of abuse leaves no physical or forensic evidence, so all you have to work with is what the children say or what the children have reportedly said. But I hate to see a situation develop where any parent feels they must remain silent about what they at least perceive as the likely existence of abuse, or what might be considered a good-faith suspicion. And this point isn’t necessarily pro-female or male. What if you’re an ex-husband, and they kids tell you something about mom’s boyfriend “touching my weenie” or something like that? Shut up for fear you’ll be labeled an alienator or a vindictive spouse? Or go to bat for your kids because you love them and don’t want to see them in a damaging situation?
Also, do not underestimate the corruption in the courts, especially the family courts of New York City. Those of you who read the New York Times should all be familiar with allegations of divorce attorneys fixing cases with judges through the judicious use of bribes, especially, I believe, in Brooklyn. Experts can be bought in various ways too, even court-appointed “neutral” ones.
silverside, you may not be an expert, but would it kill you to read the facts of the case?
Here’s the deal. Bridget didn’t have a chance of being normal. Someone said the whole family is nuts–It’s true (maybe one half sister is really sane). I am legally related, and from the beginning this young woman was used by her mother to get things from her father ( who happens to be my father too).
Her mother used to do some really bizarre things to get publicity ( p3 NY Daily News circa 1965) Accusations of the mob planting bombs, It just never ends. The story is Bridget’s mother
does anyone have a link to or know of the date of the national enquirer article which alleges marks tried to hire a man to kill john aylsworth? i have had no success finding it.
“I saw Bridget on Dr. Phil again today. After hearing what she said, I am worried about those girls. They are living in a tiny two bedroom apartment with their father.”
The girls were actually living in a studio, which belongs to Aylsworth’s daughter…he was probably waiting for Bridget Marks to lose her appeal so he could petition the court to move to California with them and didn’t want to spend any more money on housing then necessary…
Now that the appellate court ruled in Bridget Mark’s favor, he’ll have to go to Plan B…
Anyway, I’m sure this isn’t the end of this soap opera by a long-shot…
“Child abusers should lose custody – even in cases where the other parent isn’t perfect.”
I see but it’s not child abuse to ignore your kids for three years, since they were born actually, not even bothering to put his name on their birth certificates…and then suddenly decide you want custody after leaving them in the sole custody, care and control of their mother that entire time…Children shouldn’t have to wait until a parent gets around to it and decides he wants to be a real dad to his children…whenever…
The appellate division in our state, for once, made the right decision…that a daddy come lately has no right to even instigate a custody case after three years of leaving them in their mother’s custody…NYS requires a substantial change in circumstances in the custodial parents household to even be allowed to have a custody hearing.
It was good this was reversed and perhaps will send a strong message to other prodigal fathers that you don’t have the right to show up years after the fact and turn everybody lives upside down just because you suddenly decided you want custody of your kids after years of leaving them with the other parent…
It’s just tough for Aylsworth…
“…NYS requires a substantial change in circumstances in the custodial parents household to even be allowed to have a custody hearing.”
NYMOM, when one parent begins a campaign of alienation and false accusations against the other parent, that IS a substantial change in circumstances. The appellate court knew that–their ruling wasn’t based on any lack of elements requisite to custody cases, but on the appropriateness of the remedy in light of the “best interests of the child” standard.
So what happened? Did the ruling removing the children from her custody get overturned?
it was sorta reversed. the girls were returned to what the court documents called the “good enough mother”.
i found this excerpt regarding bridget’s upcoming appearance on dr. phil tomorrow:
“Bridget lost custody of her twins to their wealthy casino owner father John Alysworth and his wife after the girls made allegations of inappropriate touching by their father to multiple people.”?
i think it’s interesting, the language here. it makes it seems as though the 3 year old girls made the allegations, not the mother. the kids would have made a comment, then the adults would have interpreted it to be of sexual relevance. i wonder whether or not they even bothered to discuss the matter with the father first. i’m guessing probably not.
if one has been following the story then it’s interesting to note the chronology of events. first, bridget starting seeing someone else, then the father filed for visitation, then the allegation was made, then he filed for custody.
let’s not forget, bridget is a soft-porn actress whose work can be seen here: http://www.celebritymoviearchive.com/tour/movie.php/11558
let’s also not forget that bridget testified during the first trial she was not even sure who the father was because she was having sex with more than one man during that time.
she is also unemployed. she had alysworth support her, then found someone else to support her, then inherited some money.
if you listen to her radio “interview”? on jan 18, 2005 (it’s more like a nauseating love letter between marks and tong, but here’s the link http://www.abuse-excuse.com/ae_radio.html) with dean tong, the expert witness her then fiancée “begged”? to review the materials. she doesn’t even acknowledge his support. she says her “family”? and “friends”? with “deep pockets”? are to be credited bearing the burden of the legal fees, her rent, her $5500/week supervision, etc….
this is clearly a woman who gets by off of others who are willing to support her. now that her half sister has inherited $40 million i can’t help but wonder if she will start to bear the expenses herself, much less reimburse others she has inconvenienced.
i hope at least alysworth gets a gag order. she needs to shut-up because her “appearances”? undermine her case because she doesn’t have her story straight.
Ampersand, I’m wondering if after hearing both sides of this case you still have the same opinion. You seem like a compassionate person – I’m really surprised to hear you say the girls should have been taken away from their mother, who they grew up with, and given to her married lover and his wife, who they had minimal contact with. This guy didn’t just have a few flaws – we all have flaws – he was a vindictive, controlling jerk who took his anger at his mistress out on their children. This case is really scary for mothers who suspect their children may be the victims of sexual abuse by their fathers – look what can happen if you report it and the charges aren’t substantiated.. There’s no proof of what happened either way here – there’s no proof that Aylsworth molested those girls but there’s also no proof Bridge Marks coached them. The judge seemed incredibly biased from the beginning – this is the same judge who gave Ron Perelman custody of his daughter, she seems really bizarrely anti-mother – so the fact that court-appointed experts believe the girls were coached doesn’t impress me much. Opposing sides in a trial always trot out experts who support their side. We’d all have to see the transcripts of the girls’ interviews to form a more informed opinion as to whether they really wre coached.- it’s very easy to lead young children to say whatever it is you want them to say. All the interviewer – who knew where Goldberg’s biases were – would have to do is ask something like “What did your mommy tell you to say about what your daddy did?” and they’d have the answer they wanted.
Furthermore, even if the judge believed that Marks coached the girls, her reaction in this case was extreme. She took away girls who were being raised by a loving mother, living in the same home they’d lived in all their lives, and gave them to the married lover and his wife who’d both urged Bridget to abort those girls! And required Marks to pay thousands of dollars to have SUPERVISED visitation and hundreds of dollars to make supervised telephone calls to them! This case was beyond cruel, it was evil and sadistic. There, glad I vented. And infinitely glad that the appeals court gave her back her children – and noted that giving the children to Aylsworth was more of a punishment of the mother than an award that considered the best interests of the children. In a June 17, 2004 New York Daily News article the man in charge of supervising the girls’ visitation casually noted they were having some problems separating the girls from their mother at the end of her visits, such as having to physically drag them, screaming, away from her her and out of the building. How is that in their best interests?
i believe in the published assessment of the children’s visit to the doctor the children blurted out “daddy touched our pee pee.” as soon as the doctor entered the room. child psychologists know this is evidence of coahcing. children who have not been coached will just tell you when asked, not blurt it out as if that’s what they’ve been brought there to do. that was the evidence that she coached the children–the doctor’s assessment. there was also another account that the supervisor who went with john, karen, and the two kids had a wonderful pleasant day…only to start saying “daddy is horrible” when they returned to bridget’s apartment. that’s suggestive that the kids know when mommy is around, that means daddy is bad.
not that i think the mother or father is better. they sounds like two bad apples.
I do recall seeing that assessment somewhere. But I think it’s equally possible that the mother said “When you get to the doctor’s office, tell them what happened to you.” And I think it’s very clear from the way the judge treated Marks all along that she hated Marks , which would have been clear to the people doing the assessments.
The bottom line is, when two people split up and battle for custody against each other, it’s obvious they don’t like each other and are not going to be nice to each other or want the other person to have the children. Yes, it’s clear that Bridget Marks hated Aylsowrth – and it’s clear that he hated her too. So, looking past that, you have two very young girls who grew up with their mother, spent almost all of their time with her, and had very sporadic brief visits with their father. Even if Marks wasn’t behaving perfectly – and I still don’t think we have proof of her coaching, only speculation – ripping them out of her house and giving them to a man and woman who had urged they be aborted – and this woman also is now exp4ected to raise her husband’s mistress’s children – could not in any way be good for them. The girls loved and were very closely bonded with their mother. They were clearly going to be traumatised and terrified by being yanked away from the only home and full-time parent they had ever known. There were much less drastic ways for the judge to address the situation – like to insist that both parents go for counseling or to continue to give the father visitation. The way she, and the father, dealt with the situation showed their utter hatred and contempt for Marks and showed no concern for the twins welfare at all.
Simon
“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.’
You do realise that you just compared custody of children (ie actual human beings) to maintenance of a piece of property, right? If you are not in fact attempting to make such an association, you might want to consider using an appropriate disclaimer. Otherwise it sounds like a rather telling freudian slip.
Also, Simon, your analogy displays an alarming lack of concern for the welfare of the children. We don’t usually expect a landlord to have a deep emotional attachment to a piece of property they own. We do usually expect a parent to have a deep emotional attachment to their children, which is not an unreasonable expectation. Withholding rent is not equivalent to withholding child support, and only a person with no real concern for the wellbeing of the children would think that it is.
they are both idiots.
though i do want to point out the judge’s background prior to sitting on the family court. she was a criminal court judge. she also ordered the father would have custody but would have to move to manhattan. anyway, the other thing that’s never mentioned is the lawyer who did the appeal…tom shanahan has previously been fined in manhattan courts for “frivolous conduct” and for wasting its “time and energy”. to me, it speaks very loudly regarding the voracity of marks’ case.
http://www.judicialaccountability.org/articles/diamondnyjudgeprobedbyfbi.htm
i’m sure he couldn’t wait to get his hands on the bridget marks train-wreck.
But Lisette, even if they are both idiots – and I don’t necessarily agree with that, but I respect your opinion – don’t you see the harm and trauma it did to those too little girls to rip them out of their mother’s custody? The mother was guilty of really hating her hostile, vindicitive ex-boyfriend, the man who first lied to her and claimed he wasn’t married, and then lied to her and said well yes he was married but he was going to leave his wife, then, when he found out she was pregnant, said no I’m never leaving my wife, you better get an abortion, then only sporadically paid child support. She obviously didn’t want him in her children’s lives. But my question again is, even if we DON’T like the mother, is it in the children’s best interests to rip them out of the only home they’ve ever known? Ordering John Aylsworth to stay in New York wasn’t much of a help – Marks still had to pay tens of thusands of dollars for rare, supervised visits with her children. If she wasn’t lucky enough to have friends and family to help pay for it, she couldn’t have seen them at all. And in fact, the judge was going to let Aylsworth, after he wrenched those girls away from their mother, drag them across the country to spend the entire summer in California until a court-appointed psychiatrist told the judge the girls weren’t ready for it. Gee, ya think?
So I guess my point is, you’ve got two parents who hate each other – and children who grew up all their lives with one of those parents and only occasionally saw the other parent, which was entirely by the father’s choice, by the way – even if we don’t like the mother, isn’t it going to really grieviously harm the girls to take them away from their mother like that? And if so, shouldn’t less drastic steps be taken?
Hey Britgirl, I’m totally with you on the child support issue. Did you see the incident that happened with the deadbeat dad who refused to pay child support for his three children and ended up getting himself shot to death at a courthouse when he appeared there brandishing a grenade? If you search on http://www.news.google.com under the name Perry Manley you’ll find it. And father’s rights advocates are actually saying what a martyr this guy is. Here’s a link to the story, hope it works.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002344200_manley22m.html
I’m actually glad that the father’s right’s groups most visible representatives are these fruit loops. Not that I am against fathers (non-abusive ones) having rights and access to their children, but given that most of these groups – including Manley – want forced joint custody, and “neither parent paying child support to the other” (Ha! Given how much less most women earn then men, how VERY generous of them to let the women off that way) I don’t feel these groups represent most fathers – only the angry, mentally unstable ones who may have limited access to their children for very good reasons.
even if we DON’T like the mother, is it in the children’s best interests to rip them out of the only home they’ve ever known?
You really, really want to be careful making this argument.
regarding how much bridget “paid”… at the time she was engaged to a man who paid her rent, bought her expensive jewelry, paid her legal fees, gave her a $35,000 engagement ring, and her sister just inherited $40 million this apst april…to which marks said “my sister just inherited $40 million and legal fees won’t be a problem.”
if bridget doesn’t know whow to stop poisoning her kids against the father to the extent she did, well, then, i do think the court should intervene.
personally i would have given the father primary custofy until marks completed therapy and anger management, then given them joint custody, but if you go in and aggravate the court system and piss off people, then what do you expect? that’s the way things are in realty.
Well, I’ll never know who was “right” and who was “wrong” in this case, but lisette’s idea of removing children from a non-abusive parent’s custody for the sole purpose of punishing that parent is pretty abhorrent. I’m not defending Marks (the few bits of her I’ve seen on the news make her look more than a little neurotic), but it sure sounds like the kids were basically traumatized just to punish her.
“…but lisette’s idea of removing children from a non-abusive parent’s custody for the sole purpose of punishing that parent is pretty abhorrent. ”
But that’s the whole point, Pseu. If the trial court’s findings were correct (and the appellate court conceded that they were) then Marks was NOT a non-abusive parent. She emotionally abused the children in a grievous way that could damage them for life. To use your words, she traumatized them just to punish their father.
If the circumstances of the case were different I’d support custody going to the father. However, it seems he travels a lot and isn’t able to raise them himself, anyway, so they might as well be with their mother. She should definitely have to get counseling to help her stop hurting her kids, though–and some kind of heavy sanction should be imposed. False allegations are no laughing matter, particularly when children are used as a tool. It’s something that can ruin lives, foul up the justice system, and make everything harder for people with bona fide complaints, and it troubles me to see how many people are willing to excuse it.
just for clarification i did not write that the kids should be removed. i agree with anne. some type of heavy sanction should be imposed on bridget. i would have opted for lots of therapy and anger management, but i’m not the judge, and nore did i access to all the testimony and documentation.
Well, I certainly agree that the whole bunch could probably benefit from some serious counselling.
However, it seems he travels a lot and isn’t able to raise them himself, anyway
Would we buy this argument by a non-custodial father who wanted to take the kids away from his ex-wife? “Your Honor, their mother has a very demanding lifestyle and travels frequently, so her husband would be raising the children–they should live with me!”
“even if we DON’T like the mother, is it in the children’s best interests to rip them out of the only home they’ve ever known?
You really, really want to be careful making this argument. ” Love the threatening tone, Mythago. I really want to be careful or WHAT? You’ll e-slap me upside the head? You’ll disagree with me, which you already do? Anyway, I’m all ears – why do I want to be careful when I say that just because we dislike somone, we shouldn’t rip their children out of the only home they’ve ever known?
As far as my concern over the Marks case, I just think that the judge’s actions, throughout this entire case, show such hatred and contempt for Marks that I simply don’t believe the “experts” she appointed were unbiased. Which experts are this judge going to keep hiring – the ones who come to the conclusions she clearly wants, or the ones who disagree with her? And no-one has PROOF the girls were coached. Marks said the girls told her, and a nanny, about behavior from the father that concerned her, so she took them to the doctor and reported it to authorities. No proof of her accusations was found – but frankly, with children that age, it could be very hard to prove. I remember when my children were that age – my son came home from pre-school with a bite mark on his leg, I asked who bit him, and he told me a dinosaur did it. Yeah, yeah, that’s purely anecdotal evidence, but anyone who’s been around 4-year-olds knows they still have a tenous grasp on the truth, and knows how easy it would be for EITHER side to twist their words.
So, my point is, in the absence of definitive proof against the mother or the father, drastically changing their custody like that was nothing but a punishment of the mother.
And I also worry about the effect this case would have on any parent, especially in New York, who thinks their children may be suffering abuse from the other parent. This would make me think twice about reporting suspected abuse. The main reason Marks was able to get her children back was that she had friends and family who were willing and able to fund an incredibly expensive legal battle. What would happen to the average parent trying to fight to get their children back?
“Would we buy this argument by a non-custodial father who wanted to take the kids away from his ex-wife? “Your Honor, their mother has a very demanding lifestyle and travels frequently, so her husband would be raising the children”“they should live with me!”? ”
Well, if the mother traveled a lot and was not around to raise the kids, and the husband was, then the husband should not have been non-custodial in the first place.
And if the situation developed later on, he might present it as a “substantial change in circumstances.” It sounds like at least a good reason to go to a joint custody arrangement with increased parenting time for dad. Joint custody might be a good idea in the Marks case, too. Give dad some more time to maybe offset the damage that Marks might be doing to his relationship with the girls.
Love the threatening tone, Mythago
Love the voices inside your head, Minerva. It was a caution, not a threat. “Or what”? Or you’ll find that principle supports results you would really rather they not. Geeziz.
“why do I want to be careful when I say that just because we dislike somone, we shouldn’t rip their children out of the only home they’ve ever known?”–that’s not what you said, actually.
And if the situation developed later on, he might present it as a “substantial change in circumstances.
Anne, I don’t disagree with that. My point was that if a father who was for some reason (perhaps a good reason) non-custodial pointed to his ex-wife’s travel and “her husband will raise the kids” as a reason he should have custody, we’d suspect prejudice against moms with demanding careers and against men who are at home with kids–it’s okay if Daddy finds a woman to delegate childrearing to, but if Mommy does it, she’s a bad mother.
Mythago, that is EXACTLY what I said – that is exactly the part of my post that you excerpted and then said that I really want to be careful when making my argument. And I’m still waiting for a – rational – answer.
the judge was not hateful. the judge made a decision–as a judge is supposed to–based on the trial testimony… and recommendations of the experts. people who lose try to ambiguate the matter, but this whole notion that the ny court system conspired to take away her kids is ridiculous. she got busted for trying to smear the father…as she continues to smear him (witness her recent appearance on dr. phil). anyway if you read the appellate judges decision returning the kids to bridget even they condemn her for the false molestation allegations.
lisette, I never said “the ny court system conspired to take away her kids”. If the entire ny court system were against her, she’d still be paying thousands of dollars for the privilege of having people supervise her visits with her children. What I said was one judge clearly, intensely, disliked her, and made a very bad decision based on that. Several of the appellate judges noted that taking the children away from their mother was more of a punishment towards their mother than an award in their best interests. Justice Saxe ‘ “I consider this award to serve as more of a punishment to the mother for her conduct than as an appropriate custody award in the children’s best interests.” How is THAT not hateful behavior on the judge’s part? As for all of these experts, the judge relied largely on the testimony of Dr. Billick, and somewhat on the testimony of the social workers who were supervising the children while they visited their father – Judge Sullivan noted that. “The custody determination turned largely on the testimony of Dr. Billick, the neutral forensic evaluator and only witness at the hearing to recommend relocation to California, a recommendation that borders on the punitive.” Marks also brought in experts of her own, including a therapist who saw the girls for five sessions after the allegations were made, and determined the allegations were credible, and a police detective who interviewed the girls and said she could not determine whether the abuse occurred or not. The appellate decision noted that the judge decided Marks’ experts testimony had “little probative value”. The judge decided to hear what she wanted to hear.
What I said was one judge clearly, intensely, disliked her, and made a very bad decision based on that.
How do we know the judge disliked her? Because of the result?
that is EXACTLY what I said
No. You didn’t. Your original comment wasw “even if we don’t like the mother”, which you recast as “just because we dislike” the mother.
maybe it’s not hateful behavior because the judge’s previous experience was in a criminal court, not family court, and because the judge was hearing three different court appointed experts state that bridget marks coached the twin to say they had been fondled by the father. maybe there are good reasons the judge made that decision.
i have also heard ms. marks state all the court appointed experts disliked her, the father of the kids disliked her, the judge disliked her…that’s what i’m rerferring to when i write “the ny court system conspired to take away her kids”?–this facade that ms. marks was the “victim” of the family court, the experts, and the father of the kids, but i have yet to hear her accept any of the blame for how the matter has turned out….and just how did those reporter know to be present outside her apartment building when the father was coming to pick up the kids, as mandated by the court?
The thing is, Lisette, people say “court-appointed expert” as if it’s the Holy Grail, as if their word is infallible. Yes, in theory, a court-appointed expert should be completely neutral, and, in a case like this, should only be considering the best interests of the children. Remember the McMartin daycare scandal in the 1980s, when court-appointed expert witnesses used suggestive questioning and browbeat them into making bizarre accusations? There are court-appointed experts who are less then perfect and less then neutral. As I mentioned in my previous post, one of the appellate court judges noted that Dr. Billick’s recommendation to go along with the father’s request to MOVE the children to California bordered on the punitive. That’s hardly neutral in my view. I agree with Marks – I think the judge in this case clearly disliked her, and appointed experts who would support her views. And I don’t think Marks is paranoid to say so. In another case overseen by Judge Goldberg, the Ron Perelman- Patricia Duff case, it was ordered that a bodyguard always be present when Duff had the couple’s six year old daughter with her, but Perelman didn’t have to have a bodyguard present when the daughter was visiting him. Very similar to the Marks case. And she gave Perelman primary custody. She does not seem to like mothers, and she does seem to enjoy controlling them.
so all these people have come to all these various conclusions and determinations for no reason other than their “dislike” of bridget marks?! i find that very hard to believe. it’s very fantastical to think that despite the fact these people have a reputation for being fair and have worked for many years in their professions with success–all of a sudden all these people have it out for bridget marks…who did nothing to merit the consequences other than be pretty and follow up on what her little girls came home and told her.???
i’ll agree with you that court appointed experts are fallible…in fact, that’s an obvious thing…just as attorneys are fallible (see my previous link to information regarding bridget marks’ attorney’s fines in manhattan courts for “frivolous conduct”? and for wasting its “time and energy”?) and just as judges are too.
and while “one of the appellate court judges noted that Dr. Billick’s recommendation to go along with the father’s request to MOVE the children to California bordered on the punitive”–ALL FOUR categorically condemned bridget for coaching her children to say they had been molested. hm….