Some of us have dealt with the Family Court system firsthand, and IMO the judge was way out of line here.
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.
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.
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?
The judge needs to be removed from the bench.
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:]
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.
Beaten with it as well.
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…
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.
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/
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.
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.
Where are you getting this? Is there another article? I only see this
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 article links to a local newspaper article in the first paragraph.
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?
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.