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….

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!”

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.

You really, really want to be careful making this argument.