PDA

View Full Version : Father's Blog = child abuse?


Pixilated
07-22-2011, 06:30 PM
Some of us have dealt with the Family Court system firsthand, and IMO the judge was way out of line here.

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=17790

Acid Lamp
07-22-2011, 06:39 PM
I"m not a lawyer, nor do i play one on tv, but that whole mess reads like a massive win for the father if he has the stones to got to the wall on it. It's clear violation of his first amendment rights, and they are going to have to do WAY better than that to show he is an unfit father.

Lakai
07-22-2011, 11:05 PM
This wasn't a ruling on child abuse, it was a custody decision. The legal standards for child abuse and child custody are very different. Child abuse is very narrowly defined, but the child custody standard is the very discretionary - it's whatever the Judge decides is in the best interest of the child.

It appears that the Judge has told the father that if the blog isn't taken down, he'll lose custody of his children. Because living with a father who runs such a blog is not in their best interest.

Whack-a-Mole
07-22-2011, 11:32 PM
IMO the judge is out of line here.

The father has a first amendment right to speak his mind. If he libels his ex-wife she can sue him if she wants to.

If we go by the link in the OP the father has not identified anyone by name and the children are unaware of the existence of the web site.

As such the website does not, by itself, make any indication of whether the father is a good or bad parent. The website has little to no bearing on him being a good or bad parent.

If you think the judge is right where does it stop? If you are in a bar complaining about your ex to someone sitting next to you should you be punished for expressing your views?

Evil Captor
07-23-2011, 12:39 AM
The judge needs to be removed from the bench.

aruvqan
07-23-2011, 06:24 AM
No, the kids did find out about it.

Did anybody ask the kids what they thought of the blog? To me it sounds like Dad vented in a forum he as keeping away from the kids, not talking to the kids.

I think the judge is out of bounds. Sounds like the father is actually a pretty good guy, he could have been trashing out his ex to the kids and everybody around, like i have heard directly happening from divorced dads [though with one guy I played Everquest with, I actually overheard an argument between he and his exwife, I was talking to him on the phone when she stormed over to his house and bitched him out over his sending the wrong color jelly shoes with his 3 year old daughter for her visit ... for 15 fucking minutes.:rolleyes:]

David42
07-23-2011, 09:56 AM
With extensive experience in Domestic law, I think the judge was out of bounds to ORDER it taken down. That violates free speech. She simply should use it as another fact in her decision.

Now, as to whether it would be a good decision to deny the father contact with the kids, I must say that parental alienation is a major concern in domestic law. But whether the father is alienating his kids by this blog, is , of course hard to say from our perspective. The blog is not available for us to see. IF in fact it was anonymous and the father took steps to keep the kids from seeing it, then the judge is completely out of bounds.

Parental alienation is NOT complaining to others about what courts and ex's do. It HAS to be addressed to the children. If that happens, it is indeed a form of emotional child abuse.

Courts usually do not do much about parental alienation, I'm glad that it is on this judge's mind, assuming her neutrality and she isn't favoring mom. I'd like to know whether she's had to address mom on similar issues.

As it is I do not have enough info to say further.

kayaker
07-23-2011, 10:18 AM
The judge needs to be removed from the bench.

Beaten with it as well.

Manda JO
07-23-2011, 11:00 AM
I don't think it's the blog itself that's the problem, but I can see taking into account the information revealed by the blog--if a blog (or anything else) revealed that a parent was just absolutely consumed with rage and disgust toward their ex-spouse, then I would wonder about the impact that might have on the kids.

I don't know what this site said, but it's plausible that someone could be spewing bile so horrific that it would raise questions. But it's the underlying bile that is the problem, not the talking about it.

Also, from the linked article:
Of course if Anthony’s words had anything to do with parental alienation of his kids, that would be different. Parental alienation can and should always be grounds for limiting parental contact. But no one has said anything about his aiming his remarks at his children. On the contrary, he bent over backwards to ensure that they wouldn’t see the site, even though they eventually did.

The fact is that the kids DID see the site. They do know now that Daddy hates Mommy with the fire of a thousand suns, and that does complicate things for the kids--they are now put in a really terrible place, and I don't know that it can be fixed. That really, really sucks, and again, the fact that he was willing to risk this exact situation just to vent to random strangers makes me question his judgment. Grounds in and of itself to remove custody? Probably not, but it suggests he puts hating his wife in front of loving his kids. If there was a pattern of such behavior, I'd think it relevant to custody.

David42
07-23-2011, 12:49 PM
I don't think it's the blog itself that's the problem, but I can see taking into account the information revealed by the blog--if a blog (or anything else) revealed that a parent was just absolutely consumed with rage and disgust toward their ex-spouse, then I would wonder about the impact that might have on the kids.

I don't know what this site said, but it's plausible that someone could be spewing bile so horrific that it would raise questions. But it's the underlying bile that is the problem, not the talking about it.

Also, from the linked article:


The fact is that the kids DID see the site. They do know now that Daddy hates Mommy with the fire of a thousand suns, and that does complicate things for the kids--they are now put in a really terrible place, and I don't know that it can be fixed. That really, really sucks, and again, the fact that he was willing to risk this exact situation just to vent to random strangers makes me question his judgment. Grounds in and of itself to remove custody? Probably not, but it suggests he puts hating his wife in front of loving his kids. If there was a pattern of such behavior, I'd think it relevant to custody.

I agree completely. Really the only appropriate order I think is for the judge to make custody rights dependent on some counseling on the alienation question IF IN FACT the judge finds the kids are being alienated. It gets thorny because reverse-alienation can occur as well and the idea is hoping for no alienation. Sometimes domestic judges find themselves in situations so that they can turn in no direction without seemingly treading on the child's best interest. It can truly be a difficult job sometimes. It would be ironic if the father's blog was mostly about the mother's parental alienation of himself. Whoopee, let's go round and round again....

Ibn Warraq
07-23-2011, 01:27 PM
Such rulings in child custody cases are hardly unusual.

If the judge feels that it's bad for the child for the dad to have a site then the judge can order the man either take down the site or lose custody and/or visitation privleges.

This is no more a violation of the First Amendment than a judge giving a mother custody of a child over a divorced father who's a member of the Aryan Brotherhood.

Pixilated
07-26-2011, 07:11 PM
The blogger was very careful NOT to reveal anyones identity. No real names were used. So just how did the Mom find out about the blog but to recognize herself in the stories. It was the Mom who showed the children the blog that often described her actions toward their father as well as the kids. There was even a time she was so drunk the kids couldnt wake her and they were frightened. So, why is it ok for the courts to overlook this kind of abuse and yet so outraged at the father for speaking the truth ANONYMOUSLY.

So, wouldnt it be more accurate to say that the Mom abused the children by introducing them to the website and telling them it was their dad writing horrible, mean stuff about her all before it was proven that it was his?

The website offered many useful articles. I initially came across the site while researching on how to prepare for a home study and how to fight for your rights as a parents. Men and women were registered on the site and boards.

I admit, I was turned off by the name of the website and avoided it for some time. But once I started to read more and more about the articles offered, I found that it wasnt a blog specifically designed to bash the ex. It wasnt a blog of "I hate this woman!", but of a blog of "I hate what this woman is doing to our kids/using the kids to get what she wants/that she cannot be rational".

IMO, the judge did not like the fact that the father had a voice and spoke of how screwed up the legal system is - specifically how divorce and custody battles are a major money maker for attorneys and the courts. Not every judge, attorney or even counselor will agree that alienation exists and is used or will even harm a parent/child/relative. They assume that time heals wounds and the 'victims' will grow out of it.

Interesting article: http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/05/17/does-your-wife-or-ex-wife-have-a-golden-uterus-complex-15-characteristics-of-the-golden-uterus/

Ibn Warraq
07-26-2011, 09:04 PM
Are you really sure there was a time when the mom was so drunk the kids couldn't wake her up or are you taking the dad's word that's what happened.

In my experience it's not wise to accept anything people going through a divorce say about their ex at face value.

miss elizabeth
07-26-2011, 10:45 PM
The site you linked from is highly biased, to say the least, and is full of speculation but short on facts. Can you link to anything better and more informative?

As it is, I don't think there is enough here to debate. Yes, sometimes judges are wrong and make bad calls, but that is far from being certain here. The only person we know of who has access to the bulk of unbiased facts, and the case history of this family is, in fact, this judge, so absent better evidence I'm going to trust that call. The "facts" presented on that site are far too twisted, and the perspective is so obviously skewed, I think it's impossible to do anything else.

Cat Fight
07-26-2011, 11:44 PM
The blogger was very careful NOT to reveal anyones identity. No real names were used. So just how did the Mom find out about the blog but to recognize herself in the stories. It was the Mom who showed the children the blog that often described her actions toward their father as well as the kids.

Where are you getting this? Is there another article? I only see this

Anthony admits that the site was somewhat inflammatory for the sake of attracting readers, but claims hes never identified his wife or children by name. He also says he went to great lengths to keep the site secret from his kids.

But eventually they found out about it and so did Allison.

Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party
07-27-2011, 04:05 AM
It's high time the "best interests of the children" standard was re-examined or at least seriously circumscripted. There is absolutely no way a blog of this sort can have any meaningful impact on the lives of the children. Judges in family courts are increasingly using a standard which was, presumably, intended to stop children from being left with drug addled or violent parents to punish parents who do things the judge doesn't like.


The site you linked from is highly biased, to say the least, and is full of speculation but short on facts. Can you link to anything better and more informative?


The article links to a local newspaper article in the first paragraph.

Manda JO
07-27-2011, 07:22 AM
It's high time the "best interests of the children" standard was re-examined or at least seriously circumscripted. There is absolutely no way a blog of this sort can have any meaningful impact on the lives of the children. Judges in family courts are increasingly using a standard which was, presumably, intended to stop children from being left with drug addled or violent parents to punish parents who do things the judge doesn't like.


Absolutely no way? It wouldn't have a meaningful impact on the children to read about how thier dad hoped your their was enjoying [horrifically explicit sex acts] with her new boyfriend or detailing how he daydreamed about her suffering terrible diseases or telling stories about how lousy she was in bed or describing her naked body in humiliating detail?

I have no idea what the blog actually said. But I've seen the kind of bile people spew on the internet, and I can quite easily believe it's possible for someone to say things about their ex that would be traumatic for children to read.

Acid Lamp
07-27-2011, 08:01 AM
Absolutely no way? It wouldn't have a meaningful impact on the children to read about how thier dad hoped your their was enjoying [horrifically explicit sex acts] with her new boyfriend or detailing how he daydreamed about her suffering terrible diseases or telling stories about how lousy she was in bed or describing her naked body in humiliating detail?

I have no idea what the blog actually said. But I've seen the kind of bile people spew on the internet, and I can quite easily believe it's possible for someone to say things about their ex that would be traumatic for children to read.

Italics and underline mine.

So you are talking out your ass here. :rolleyes: Is that you Nancy Grace?

Manda JO
07-27-2011, 08:06 AM
Italics and underline mine.

So you are talking out your ass here. :rolleyes: Is that you Nancy Grace?

No, I am responding to the statement that "There is absolutely no way a blog of this sort can have any meaningful impact on the lives of the children." I have no idea what the details are in this particular case, but neither does anyone else. Half the people in this thread are comfortable calling the judge an idiot or worse even they know no details. I object to that knee-jerking and am pointing out that it's possible for such a blog to be damaging.

Acid Lamp
07-27-2011, 08:26 AM
No, I am responding to the statement that "There is absolutely no way a blog of this sort can have any meaningful impact on the lives of the children." I have no idea what the details are in this particular case, but neither does anyone else. Half the people in this thread are comfortable calling the judge an idiot or worse even they know no details. I object to that knee-jerking and am pointing out that it's possible for such a blog to be damaging.

Fair enough, but generally speaking the bill of rights trumps all legally. While I understand that a custody judge has considerable latitude to decide what is in the best interest of a child, they should be held to the same standards as any other court of law. I don't think that "Daddy said mean things about mommy anonymously on teh internets" is good enough to trump his basic right to self expression. It should not be a factor in their case unless he is directly poisoning the children, which by all accounts he took great pains NOT to do. He has not libeled her either, so all I'm seeing here is yet another family court judge interested in punishing fathers for actually having the temerity to have feelings. It is hard enough for men to get a fair shake in these type of proceedings in this country without this type of garbage from the courts.

Manda JO
07-27-2011, 10:52 AM
Fair enough, but generally speaking the bill of rights trumps all legally.

Do you agree with "alienation of affection" as a factor in custody decisions when things are said directly to the child? I mean, it seems completely sane to me that a judge can tell a parent "You have the right to tell your child that the other parent is a lying cheating scumbag, but I will remove custody if you do", and that's the same type of limit on free speech. The principle there is pretty well established: do you disagree with that principle, or just it's application here?

Personally, unless you want to argue about the principle, I agree with miss elizabeth that there just isn't enough information to say if the principle applies here. I mean, the kids did find out, regardless of his efforts, and if what they found out was that Daddy was saying stuff like "I swear she wasn't such a crazy hosebeast when I was fucking her up the ass once a week", then it seems like a fair call to me. If it was "I cannot believe the nerve of that woman. Do these sound like the actions of a woman dedicated to the best interests of her children?", I don't.

Eonwe
07-27-2011, 11:14 AM
Fair enough, but generally speaking the bill of rights trumps all legally.

If custody decisions were based solely on whether or not a parent had broken the law, you'd have a point.

Whether or not the father has a right to say what he wants (which, baring slander, he does) is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Tom Scud
07-27-2011, 11:38 AM
It should not be a factor in their case unless he is directly poisoning the children, which by all accounts he took great pains NOT to do.

From a reading of the newspaper story, the only indication that he was hiding the site from his children (apart from not using names) is the man's own claim; the article doesn't mention whether he, for instance, edited the blog on the computer in the family room while reading the good comments aloud to his girlfriend (to take one extreme) or did all the editing on a laptop that the kids never had access to during times when they were out of the house (at the other).

Acid Lamp
07-27-2011, 12:07 PM
I went and found the court transcripts. And read some excerpts, highlights, and cached posts from the original site.

Mom's a drunk, and not the brightest bulb in the barrel. Dad is a self- absorbed whiner and petty.

I couldn't find any truly nasty name calling or foul language rougher than "dumb-ass"; and that was in reference to the mother's father. Basically the court transcript reads that the judge was sick of the mother hauling them into court over every tiny thing so she issued a far ranging gag order on dad that reads:

Father shall take down that website, and shall never on any public media, make any reference to mother at all, nor any reference to the relationship between mother and children, nor shall he make any reference to his children other than "happy birthday" or other significant school events. The father's girlfriend shall not in nay way be referred to as mother and father shall not in any way interfere with mother's relationship with her children. Mother will not consume any alcohol and will continue in alcohol treatment.

Decide for yourself. if he DID use any really filthy language, terms or stories I can't find them. It seems like all he did was blog about the divorce proceedings, fights, and other petty crap and analyze it. If the children were aware of the site it was at the hands of mom, who eventually discovered it on her own.

Omar Little
07-27-2011, 03:47 PM
We can speculate all day long about the blog, it's tone, what it said, or didn't say. The judge's order for it to be taken down violated the dad's constitutional right to free speech, and would be likely overturned if appealed.

However, if the dad kept the blog up, and the judge terminated his custody and visitation based upon alienating the other parent, an appeal judge would be hard pressed to overturn that ruling. To overturn that ruling is not a matter of opinion with regards to what is alienating or not, but a matter of application of law. The judge is well within her authority to remove custody for alienation.

If I'm the dad, I'd take the blog down. Not worth losing my kids over.

Manda JO
07-27-2011, 04:31 PM
Basically the court transcript reads that the judge was sick of the mother hauling them into court over every tiny thing so she issued a far ranging gag order on dad that reads:



That just sounds fucked up all around then. It seems like the problem may have been the system: the system gives her the right to haul him into court for any little thing he says (which is presumably very hard on the kids) but doesn't really give the judge any way to stop her. The father could just quit saying things that give her an excuse, but doesn't want to give in despite the fact that it is hard on the kids. So a court order to the father is the only way to stop the merry-go-round. That just sucks for the kids, doesn't it? I do agree it seems draconian, but I am not filled with sympathy for either parent.

We can speculate all day long about the blog, it's tone, what it said, or didn't say. The judge's order for it to be taken down violated the dad's constitutional right to free speech, and would be likely overturned if appealed.

However, if the dad kept the blog up, and the judge terminated his custody and visitation based upon alienating the other parent, an appeal judge would be hard pressed to overturn that ruling. To overturn that ruling is not a matter of opinion with regards to what is alienating or not, but a matter of application of law. The judge is well within her authority to remove custody for alienation.

If I'm the dad, I'd take the blog down. Not worth losing my kids over.

I am confused. Are you saying it's ok to take the kids away from the father because of the blog, but not ok to say to the father "if you don't take the blog down, I will have you stripped of custody?"

Omar Little
07-27-2011, 04:34 PM
I am confused. Are you saying it's ok to take the kids away from the father because of the blog, but not ok to say to the father "if you don't take the blog down, I will have you stripped of custody?"

No, I'm saying that the judge is within her authority to take the kids away if he keeps the blog up. It's not okay for the judge to order the dad to remove the blog.

This way it's the dad's choice.

Exercise his freedom of speech or lose his kids.

Manda JO
07-27-2011, 04:57 PM
No, I'm saying that the judge is within her authority to take the kids away if he keeps the blog up. It's not okay for the judge to order the dad to remove the blog.

This way it's the dad's choice.

Exercise his freedom of speech or lose his kids.

I think that's what is going on: as I read it, the consequence of keeping the blog up is losing his kids, not contempt charges. If it is contempt charges, I agree, that's all kinds of fucked up.

straight man
07-27-2011, 04:59 PM
Is it just me, or is the idea of making child custody dependent on complying with a court order really skeezy? I mean, if the judge argued, "These acts show the father to be bad for his children, therefore I'm removing custody," there wouldn't be any basis for complaint beyond perhaps poor judgment. The fact that taking away children was effectively used as a threat makes the First Amendment violation shine through, on top of (in my opinion) reducing the children to pawns, rather than elevating them to the first consideration.

Acid Lamp
07-27-2011, 05:40 PM
No, I'm saying that the judge is within her authority to take the kids away if he keeps the blog up. It's not okay for the judge to order the dad to remove the blog.

This way it's the dad's choice.

Exercise his freedom of speech or lose his kids.

I'm surprised you don't connect the dots. This is about as egregious a violation of the freedom of speech as there is other than the state prosecuting someone for dissent. The state is basically blackmailing the father into silence or IT will punish him by removing his custody. Worse, it seems to be doing it out of exasperation rather than the welfare of the children. You don't really choose to exercise your rights. They are inherent in all things except where we have made law against certain types of false expression.

Omar Little
07-27-2011, 05:49 PM
I'm surprised you don't connect the dots. This is about as egregious a violation of the freedom of speech as there is other than the state prosecuting someone for dissent. The state is basically blackmailing the father into silence or IT will punish him by removing his custody. Worse, it seems to be doing it out of exasperation rather than the welfare of the children. You don't really choose to exercise your rights. They are inherent in all things except where we have made law against certain types of false expression.

You must have missed my earlier post.

The judge's order for it to be taken down violated the dad's constitutional right to free speech, and would be likely overturned if appealed.

Sitting around and drinking all day is also an individuals right, it's not against the law...but it's probably not the best environment to raise kids.

While the content of the dad's blog may be subject to interpretation, the judge declared it to be alienating of the mother. That's within the judges authority to do so. It sucks for the dad that that's the judge he drew, but it is within her powers as a judge to make that determination. An appeal would not look to reapply some sort of interpretation of what was in the blog, but whether the judge applied the law properly.

Spectre of Pithecanthropus
07-27-2011, 08:20 PM
Italics and underline mine.

So you are talking out your ass here. :rolleyes: Is that you Nancy Grace?.

Rebut the post, not the poster. Moreover, rolling your eyes at someone in this forum is inappropriate in this forum. Cut it out.

Mister-M
08-06-2011, 03:08 PM
For the record...

The kids became aware of the website because their mother told them about it.

They have, according to them, never read the website, have no desire to read the website, and right now - the only thing that upsets them is having to endure the stories that their mother tells them about the website. This situation is no different than prior to the website and will not change if/when the website is altered/vanishes.

NO ONE who has listened to the children's detailed accounts of many many situations going back years has done anything about it, including mandatory reporters such as:

School counselors.

Custody evaluators.

Family therapist.

THE JUDGE.

The children are well-adjusted and I do NOT speak ill of their mother to them, around them, near them. We have a normal household (whatever that means).

The children are being ignored and that is the travesty here.

My style of writing is designed to appeal to those who have lived through such tremendously stressful high conflict divorce and custody situations. Unless you have, you have no idea the frequency and intensity of the abuse that can be levied your way. None.

Contrary to the judge's opinion that the written word is "abuse" (even though the children have never read the blog and are only aware of its existence due to mom's disclosure).............. a written account with honest thoughts and feelings about those experiences isn't abuse - however, the circumstances about which I write IS abuse and that makes the perpetrator an abuser. How would reading about something they have actually lived through be considered abusive and not the actual "living through it?"

An entire support group is threatened by the judge's order. Not only have my civil rights been seriously violated, my partner's, the children's, and everyone's civil rights who comes to our site seeking support have been violated as well.

The civil rights issue is absolutely NOT about preserving my right to "bash my ex-wife on the internet." It is about protecting everyone who seeks support everywhere from being told to shut up, shut down the support group - or face incarceration and loss of custody of one's children.

All the judge needed to do on June 6th, 2010 is speak to the children. Instead, she chose to place them back with their mother who gave them the boot and agreed to my having full custody pending litigation - because she doesn't like my writing style or content.

The blog has always been completely anonymous (as anonymous as one can be on the internet) and remained undiscovered for years until a google search landed my ex-wife on the site due to the topic searched and she recognized her many "hostile, vulgar, cruel, abusive" (to use some of the judge's characterizations) correspondence to me.

The only reason it is in the public eye is because she tried to leverage its existence to gain custody of the children (making it public record) and divert attention away from the abusive circumstances that the children have had to endure for some time.

If we crucified every author based on their style of writing, there would be a whole lot of highly regarded people who would be in the same boat as we are right now.

I'll leave you with this final thought:

If the genders were reversed and nothing else about the content on the blog were different... does anyone legitimately believe that a mother who was fighting to protect her children from an ongoing emotionally and verbally abusive situation at the hands of their alcoholic, hostile father (and his family) and were stonewalled at every turn for 7+ years through "proper channels" and every available resource that they ever had... does anyone believe that such a woman would gain anything other than support, praise, and be lauded from East Coast to West Coast for exposing the Family Court's abuses and the monster, abusive ex-husband?

I was threatened with incarceration and loss of custody of the children. I was asked to choose between my civil rights and our children. No one should ever be told that they have to choose between their civil rights and their children. I'm not choosing the civil right rights OVER the fight over my children. I'm choosing BOTH - which is the appropriate way to go here.

Mister-M
08-06-2011, 03:13 PM
Are you really sure there was a time when the mom was so drunk the kids couldn't wake her up or are you taking the dad's word that's what happened.

In my experience it's not wise to accept anything people going through a divorce say about their ex at face value.

These are the CHILDREN'S accounts which have been repeated over and over to school counselors, the custody evaluator, and family therapist at various times over the course of the last year.

It isn't MY word, it is THEIR word.

Mister-M
08-06-2011, 03:19 PM
While the content of the dad's blog may be subject to interpretation, the judge declared it to be alienating of the mother. That's within the judges authority to do so. It sucks for the dad that that's the judge he drew, but it is within her powers as a judge to make that determination. An appeal would not look to reapply some sort of interpretation of what was in the blog, but whether the judge applied the law properly.

A judge is also REQUIRED to have a hearing, listen to and consider testimony, and review and consider evidence.

She did none of that. This judge did NONE of that and threatened me with jail, loss of custody of the children, and gave 50% custody of the children BACK to the mother who put them out of the house on Mother's Day, agreeing to give me FULL CUSTODY pending an emergency hearing.

Go re-read the transcripts and tell me where you see that any of that took place.

The June 6th and June 14th "hearings" were sermons by the judge that considered NOTHING other than what she read on the internet.

Go re-read the 1st Amendment, the 9th Amendment, and the 14th Amendments of the Constitution. It wasn't just Freedom of Speech that was violated in this case.

Ibn Warraq
08-06-2011, 06:55 PM
These are the CHILDREN'S accounts which have been repeated over and over to school counselors, the custody evaluator, and family therapist at various times over the course of the last year.

It isn't MY word, it is THEIR word.

Can you provide links for this, please.

Really Not All That Bright
08-07-2011, 02:54 PM
Mister-M, are you claiming to be Anthony Morelli? If you were going to lose your kids for blogging about your ex-wife, it's probably not a very good idea to post about her on a public message board either. You found us; she probably will too.
Is it just me, or is the idea of making child custody dependent on complying with a court order really skeezy? I mean, if the judge argued, "These acts show the father to be bad for his children, therefore I'm removing custody," there wouldn't be any basis for complaint beyond perhaps poor judgment. The fact that taking away children was effectively used as a threat makes the First Amendment violation shine through, on top of (in my opinion) reducing the children to pawns, rather than elevating them to the first consideration.
That's kind of how courts work. Direct enforcement power of interlocutory orders is generally limited to threatening to strike claims or defenses.

So if the dad is the one seeking modification of a custody order, the judge's ruling will read something like, "X shall take down his blog. The undersigned retains jurisdiction to dismiss X's motion for modification upon appropriate motion of Y for failure to take down said blog in 14 days" or whatever.

Indygrrl
08-08-2011, 01:29 AM
My husband's ex wife has done nothing but badmouth him, and lie to his daughters about him, since they got divorced over 10 years ago. He's worried and worried over it, scared that they'll believe her (even though his relationship with the girls is great now, it was worrisome in the past.) And it hasn't seemed to be a factor in the judge's decision about their custody arrangement. So I can't help thinking if this was the other way around, and the mama was the one with the website and talking shit, we wouldn't even be reading about it here.

Custody arrangements are still overwhelmingly in favor of the mother, at least here in Indiana. It sucks, but there's not much we can do about it, according to the last lawyer we contacted.

Omar Little
08-08-2011, 09:20 AM
A judge is also REQUIRED to have a hearing, listen to and consider testimony, and review and consider evidence.

She did none of that. This judge did NONE of that and threatened me with jail, loss of custody of the children, and gave 50% custody of the children BACK to the mother who put them out of the house on Mother's Day, agreeing to give me FULL CUSTODY pending an emergency hearing.

Dude, you should quit worrying about your sullied reputation on a public message board, and be working an appeal to your case, if your lawyer agrees with you.

The judge might construe your posting here as a violation of her orders and follow through with her threat of throwing you in jail and giving your ex full custody.

Khristy
08-09-2011, 12:48 AM
So I can't help thinking if this was the other way around, and the mama was the one with the website and talking shit, we wouldn't even be reading about it here.

Custody arrangements are still overwhelmingly in favor of the mother, at least here in Indiana. It sucks, but there's not much we can do about it, according to the last lawyer we contacted.

It's absolutely true that a mother can be a total shit and do w/e she wants and still retain custody. All you need to keep your kids is to have a pussy.

Hell, where's Jared L. when another judge needs to be removed from the bench?

Just saying...

Nars Glinley
08-09-2011, 06:40 PM
If you're interested in what the blogsite originally had to say, you can find it here. (http://web.archive.org/web/20100105130852/http://www.thepsychoexwife.com/)

Truman Burbank
08-10-2011, 12:19 AM
that the father arm-chair diagnosed his ex as Borderline Personality Disorder.
Dude, from the interview you did on TV, you might want to consider the faint possibility that you just may have some narcissistic traits...

Cat Fight
08-15-2011, 12:56 AM
If you're interested in what the blogsite originally had to say, you can find it here. (http://web.archive.org/web/20100105130852/http://www.thepsychoexwife.com/)

I'm stealing this for my Christmas cards this year:

Whatever your denomination, we sincerely hope that your holiday season is full of love, great friends, amazing family, and that you have a minimum of upset from those who would see fit to sabotage such a great time of year.

UltraVires
08-15-2011, 10:05 PM
I worry about the slippery slope for these types of rulings. What's next? Take down your Tea Party Sucks website because your ex is a Tea Party member, we all know that the Tea Party wants to keep the federal government solvent for the next generation and if you think the Tea Party sucks then you are an unfit parent.

Hey, you choose: Either free speech or we take your kids. Freedom at its finest.

Ibn Warraq
08-16-2011, 10:54 PM
I worry about the slippery slope for these types of rulings. What's next? Take down your Tea Party Sucks website because your ex is a Tea Party member, we all know that the Tea Party wants to keep the federal government solvent for the next generation and if you think the Tea Party sucks then you are an unfit parent.

Hey, you choose: Either free speech or we take your kids. Freedom at its finest.

Er, judges regularly make rulings regarding what parents can and can't say in child custody cases. For example people belonging to certain extremist groups, such as the Aryan nations have had custody denied.

Similarly, after a Lesbian couple broke up and biological mother became a born-again Christian she was ordered not to preach against the evils of Lesbianism or lose her child.