COURT RECOGNIZES THAT A TRASHY MOTHER HAS LIED AND DECEIVED REPEATEDLY BUT STILL GIVES HER CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN WHOSE MINDS SHE HAS POISIONED

From the Glenn Sacks show

This week we had one of the most stunning and unconscionable court rulings I’ve ever seen. We’ve spoken before about the Bridget Marks case, in which a judge gave custody of twin four year old girls to the girls’ father because she found that the mother had coached the girls to make false accusations of child molestation against their father. The children were born out of an affair between the mother, a former playboy model, and John Aylsworth, a married casino mogul, and Marks had been the girls’ primary caregiver.

A few days ago a New York Appellate court found that Bridget Marks did in fact coach her 5 year-old twin girls to make false allegations of sexual molestation against their father--and then granted her sole custody of the girls! I’ll repeat that….a New York Appellate court found that Bridget Marks did in fact coach her 5 year-old twin girls to make false allegations of sexual molestation against their father--and then granted her sole custody of the girls! According to the Appellate Court:

“There is ample support in the record--that the mother coached the girls to make false accusations that their father sexually abused them. The Law Guardian and the neutral expert witnesses who testified in this case--the psychiatrist appointed by the court as the independent forensic evaluator, two certified social workers retained by the Law Guardian, and two social workers who supervised the father's visitations--all take the view that the accusations are false, and that the children were coached to make them. Even the expert witnesses called by the mother seem to have recognized that the accusations were made in a manner consistent with coaching. Apart from the opinions of the Law Guardian and the neutral experts, the accusations… are, as even the mother's psychiatric expert witness seems to have recognized, difficult to believe. We note that the father, a successful middle-aged businessman, has no prior history of inappropriate conduct with children, including the four children from his marriage (who are now adults) and his grandchildren.

Certainly, the record fully supports Family Court's determination that the sexual abuse accusations against the father are unfounded…It is clear from reading Family Court's 36-page decision that the court reached its conclusions after a painstaking consideration of the testimony of all the witnesses, and on its independent assessment of the credibility and character of each party. The court did not simply rubberstamp the conclusions of any expert witness, neutral or otherwise. Any suggestion that the court relinquished its role as judge of the children's best interests to one of the experts is not supported by the record.”

Despite all of this, they’re determined to give custody to Bridget Marks. Here’s some of their logic. One of the judges writes: “since July, 2003, the children have not been induced to make any further unfounded accusations against their father.” Wow—she hasn’t tried to destroy the father’s life and his relationship with his girls for 18 whole months—what does she want, a cookie? A pat on the head? The opinion continues “such misconduct may or may not harm the child or interfere with the child's relationship with the other parent.” Huh? When does it NOT harm the child? The justices continue: “Although Justice Friedman asserts that ‘it is psychologically abusive for a parent to plant in the mind of a three- or four-year-old the false notion that the other parent is sexually abusing the child’ as if this is an absolute fact, the question of the effect of such coaching on a child must be decided in each case.” Excuse me, but when is it NOT psychologically abusive?

The justices also say that because the father’s bond with the girls is strong, the false allegations aren’t important because they didn’t work. I’d love to see that principle in force in other areas of our law—if someone plants a bomb in an airport and the police find it before it explodes, does that mean no harm, no foul—the guy walks free? Of course not…

One of the things that does seem to be a factor here—and we’ll find out more about this in a minute—is the conduct of the father in carrying on extramarital affairs. Now I would never suggest for a moment that infidelity is 1/1,000,000 as bad as coaching young girls to believe they’ve been molested by their father. However, I do get a little weary of some of these guys who get themselves into trouble because they can’t keep the pistol in the holster. Still, according to the court Aylsworth is a capable and loving father. His four adult children and his wife all gave the court glowing reports of him as a father, and, according to Judge Goldberg, "all persons who have seen him interact with the twins testified that he is a very good parent and that the twins love him and are happy with him."

Marks won custody in part due to the widespread media sympathy she created through constant theatrics, playing victim, and her determination to place her little girls in the public spotlight. Some of you may remember that hysterical scene she created on a Manhattan street during the custody transfer. She appeared on Larry King Live, PrimeTime Live, The O'Reilly Factor, and Dr. Phil, and was quoted in many so-called "news" articles in the New York Daily News and the New York Post. In contrast to Marks, Aylsworth and his attorney, Patricia Grant, have, protected the girls from the media circus Marks has created, and declined to speak publicly about the case"

More -- much more -- here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)