If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
-----------------------------------------------
"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied" LaMusga v. LaMusga ----------------------------------------------- Written by The National Coalition For Family Court Justice of California, Inc., a court reform advocacy group. http://www.nationalcoalition.net/main.html Also He http://users.adelphia.net/~enitria/t...s/july_2003.ht ml#000290 And He http://www.thelizlibrary.org/lamusga/ncfcj.html ----------------------------------------------- The 1996 landmark California Supreme Court case In Re Marriage of Burgess was supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Suzy Navarro, her husband Todd, her sons Garrett, 11, and Devlen LaMusga, 9, and their daughter, 3, moved this week from their little rented house in Pleasanton, California, to a spacious new home purchased in Mesa, Arizona. They just could not wait any longer. The latest iteration of a rancorous seven-year battle with the boys' father, Navarro's first husband, Gary LaMusga, has been languishing in the California Supreme Court since September 2002. No court has prohibited the family from moving with the two boys to Arizona, but no court has been willing to modify the father's visitation schedule to accommodate the move. And the issue to be decided? It is whether the family may move -- not to Arizona -- but to Ohio. Two years ago, Navarro's husband had a job offer there. That job is long gone. It was Suzy Navarro's second request to move to Ohio. Once before, she had asked the court to permit her to move with her sons back to the state in which she grew up and has family in order to go to law school, a life-long dream. That dream was thwarted when her first request to move was denied. The case now pending in the California court system is her second request, made five years later. But while the California Supreme Court ponders its decision, there is no more job for Todd Navarro or future awaiting for the family in Ohio. After moving alone, without his family and infant daughter, and waiting nearly a year for them, Navarro's husband moved back to California in late 2002, to take a job at half the pay. Recently, Todd Navarro got another much-needed job offer in Arizona. Once again Suzy Navarro tried to get the assistance of California courts to modify her boys' visitation schedule with Gary LaMusga. But this time Navarro was told by Superior Court Judge Kennedy on June 16, 2003, that because the Supreme Court is hearing the matter of her prior request, now moot, that he was without jurisdiction to rule on this one. Also pending in the court system is the request the children's mother made in February 2001 to increase the below-guidelines child support originally established in 1996 when Suzy and Gary LaMusga were divorced. A trial date on this issue only recently has been set for January 2004. During the seven-year-long forced march through an expensive legal nightmare, Suzy Navarro, her husband, her sons and their baby half-sister have endured repeated litigation expenses and intrusions into their family and homelife. Court-ordered custody evaluations, mediation under the auspices of the court's family conciliation services, occupational evaluations and psychological counseling continually have disrupted the family's schedule, as well as the children's schooling. But they have not been able to improve the problem that caused the courts to deny Suzy Navarro's first request to move five years ago: her sons' father's tenuous, detached relationship with his children. Meals, bedtimes, education and study habits, after-school play, and issues of personal hygiene and moral conduct all have been sacrificed to accommodate court orders made to appease LaMusga, whose claims have succeeded in holding the lives and futures of five other people twisting at the mercy of the system. While the "wheels of justice" grind, Suzy Navarro's dream of becoming a lawyer has been frustrated, her husband's career has been jeopardized, her family's finances have been devastated, her children's lives have been destablized… and the lives of all of them have been poked, prodded, harangued, analyzed, and meddled with. And so last week Suzy Navarro and her family just picked up and moved. Background Suzy and Gary LaMusga, a well-to-do businessman, divorced in 1996. At that time, the California family court awarded sole physical custody of Garrett, then 4, and Devlen LaMusga, then 2, to their mother, who had been their primary caregiver since their births. Suzy Poston, the youngest of eight children, had grown up in Ohio, and had moved to California to join her husband when they married in 1988. The marriage lasted seven years. A finance major in college, she had dropped out of graduate school in 1982 for lack of funds. She got a job as a flight attendant, then rapidly was promoted into management. As she gained success, Suzy saved her money and held onto her goal of becoming a lawyer, perhaps specializing in business or aviation. But marriage to LaMusga meant a move to a new state, the cessation of her blossoming career with the airlines, and a lifestyle as homemaker and stepmother to LaMusga's troubled teenage daughter from his first marriage. In a few years there was a baby, and then another one. After her divorce, Suzy Poston LaMusga was ready to try again. She asked the court to permit her to move with her children to Cleveland, Ohio, where she had been accepted at Case Western Reserve Law School. Her brother-in-law taught there, and close relatives lived nearby, including first cousins her children's age. But the California court said "no." The boys were too young. Gary LaMusga needed more time to develop a relationship with them. So Suzy stayed. And cooperated. And did everything the courts and therapists told her to do. Over the next few years, LaMusga's relationship with the boys did not improve, despite therapy, despite efforts by all parties. The parents had difficulty getting along, and disagreed about LaMusga's sometimes harsh parenting practices. In 1998, Suzy met Todd Navarro and remarried. The next year they had a baby daughter. A year after that, in December 2000, Suzy Navarro again asked the California courts if she could move. The growing family needed money. Todd Navarro had been offered a position in Ohio that nearly doubled his salary. Suzy Navarro had started thinking about the possibilities back home, the lower cost of living, the help of extended family that she did not have in California, of ending the ongoing conflicts with Gary LaMusga, and of maybe finally going back to law school. In order to not lose the position, Todd Navarro moved to Ohio ahead of his family and they waited for California courts. But in August 2001 Superior Court Judge Terence Bruiniers again said "no." LaMusga still had a "tenuous and somewhat detached relationship" with his sons, which had not improved in the nearly five years since the LaMusgas' divorce. The court reasoned that a move of more than 2,000 miles would interfere with relationship therapy between LaMusga and his sons. He told the boys' mother that if she moved to Ohio, the children would be removed from her custody and sent to live with their father, notwithstanding the difficult relationship that he (and his now-third wife) had with them, and notwithstanding that this would separate them from their primary caregiver and sister. The Navarros appealed. Six months later, however, after enduring the strain of living apart from his family for nearly a year, Todd Navarro resigned his new job, and returned to California, taking a job at half the pay. Three months later, in May 2002, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District in San Francisco reversed the trial court's decision. But it was too little, too late. Gary LaMusga appealed the decision to the California Supreme Court, where fifteen months later, the case still is pending. LaMusga v. LaMusga is being hailed as a revisitation of the landmark 1996 California Supreme Court case of In re Marriage of Burgess . In that year, the same one in which the LaMusgas divorced, the Court held that a custodial parent has a presumptive right to relocate with his or her children. --- In connection with this case, the findings of a new study by fathers' rights icon Sanford Braver released by the APA on June 25, 2003 (see http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/bra...llerstein.html), are being touted as showing that children suffer detriment from post-divorce relocations, but controversy exists regarding what that study actually shows. Statements made by Ira Ellman issued in connection with the press release by Arizona State University, as well as his class syllabus on law and public policy, indicate that the Braver study (which he co-authored), as well as an article published in June 2003 by Joan Kelly and Michael Lamb actually were conceived and carried out for the intended purposes of moving public policy and changing California law. The writeup of the actual findings of the study "Relocation of Children After Divorce and Children's Best Interests" and the APA press release misrepresented those findings and ignored the rather controversial and surprising correlations the study actually did make. See http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/braver.html OTHER RELATED LINKS: Dr. Judith Wallerstein's comments on Braver's findings. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/~liz/li...llerstein.html Also He http://users.adelphia.net/~enitria/t...s/june_2003.ht ml#000278 Sanford Braver and Moveaways: Relocations of Children Post-Divorce http://www.expositorymagazine.net/sanford_braver.php Also He http://users.adelphia.net/~enitria/t...s/june_2003.ht ml#000277 And He http://members.aol.com/asherah/braver.html Post-Divorce Move-aways. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/~liz/liz/braver.html Braver's actual findings. By liz (The Liz Library). LaMusga v. LaMusga, by liz. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/lamusga/ Index of information "Doctor" Laura's 1996 Burgess Decision Rant http://users.adelphia.net/~enitria/t...s/june_2003.ht ml#000283 Includes her mother-bashing and the horrible advice she gave men about marriage. Robert Bauserman on Joint v. Sole Custody, by Trish Wilson. http://members.aol.com/asherah/joint...bauserman.html Why is a co-author of the infamous Rind Stody -- which sought to label "willing" sexual relations between adolescents and adults "adult/child sex" -- so interested in joint custody? Liz Critiques Robert Bauserman's Joint Custody Meta-Analysis. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/~liz/li...y_studies.html Rind Study co-author does another. More on Joint Custody by Paul Amato. http://members.aol.com/asherah/joint_custody_amato.html He DOES NOT support joint custody over sole custody. Parental Dissatisfaction with Joint Custody. http://members.aol.com/asherah/joint_custody.html From "The Impact of the Custody Plan on the Family: A Five-Year Follow-Up". The Truth About Joint Custody, by Trish Wilson. http://members.aol.com/asherah/jointcustody.html Don't call it "Shared Parenting." Joint Custody Is Not In The Best Interests Of Children, by Trish Wilson http://members.aol.com/asherah/jc.html Comments by Trish Wilson -- Testimony on SB 571 http://members.aol.com/asherah/sb571.html Rebuttable Presumption for Joint Legal Custody Family Law and Fathers' Rights Antics in Maryland. Myths and Facts about "Fatherlessness," by Trish Wilson. http://members.aol.com/asherah/fatherlessness2.html "Fatherless" homes [read: single/divorced mother homes] DO NOT cause poor-child outcomes. Deconstructing the Essential Father, by Trish Wilson. http://www.xyonline.net/deconfatherhood.shtml A critique of the American Psychologist article. Addressing misrepresentations and propaganda about "responsible fatherhood" disseminated by David Blankenhorn, David Popenoe, and Wade Horn. Friendly Parent Provisions, What's Wrong With Them, by Trish Wilson http://members.aol.com/asherah/frien...provision.html Margaret K. Dore, P.S. on "friendly parent" provisions. http://www.margaretdore.com/" Debunking the Claims About Joint vs. Sole Custody, liz. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/~liz/li...y-studies.html Myths and Facts about Fatherhood: What the Research REALLY Says, liz. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/~liz/liz/017.htm What the Experts Say: A Review of the Scholarly Research on Post-Divorce Parenting and Child Well-being. http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/ne...?fa=newsinfo_r eports.display&folder=parent&file=chap4#A15" TARGET="_blank The District of Columbia's Joint Custody Presumption: Misplaced Blame and Simplistic Solutions, by Margaret Martin Barry http://www.law.edu/faculty/barry/Art...PT5/BARRY5.htm Scholarly article by law professor discusses what's wrong with a statute providing for a presumption of joint custody. When Paradigms Collide: Protecting Battered Parents and Their Children in the Family Court System, by Clare Dalton, 37 Fam. & Conciliation Courts Rev. 273 (1999) http://www.thelizlibrary.org/~liz/liz/dalton.html Attachment 101 for Attorneys: Implications for Infant Placement Decisions, by Eleanor Willemsen and Kristen Marcel http://www.scu.edu/SCU/Centers/Ethic...review/attachm ent101.html Custody and Access: An NAWL Brief to the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, March 1998 (Canada) http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/freda/reports/custody.htm The Case Against Joint Custody (Ontario Women's Justice Network) http://www.owjn.org/custody/nawl.htm Joint Custody: Implications for Women, by Renee Leff http://www.nocourtdivorce.com/articl...s_custody.html Understanding the Batterer in Visitation and Custody Disputes, by R. Lundy Bancroft. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/und...in-visitation- and-custody-disputes.pdf Why abuse may be reported for the first time at the time of a separation or divorce; critique of Janet Johnston's categories of batterer; more. Spousal Violence in Custody and Access Disputes, Recommendations for Reform, Nicholas M.C. Bala et al. http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/spousa...ence_e.html%20 Scholarly article by Status of Women Canada Policy Research Fund (1998) The Abuse of Custody, an interview with attorney Ruth Lea Taylor http://www.bcifv.org/resources/newsl...uthtaylor.html Custody Order or Disordered Custody? by Joan Braun http://www.bcifv.org/resources/newsl...r/custody.html Law student article with research cites published in BC Institute Against Family Violence Newsletter The Psychological Effects of Relocation for Children of Divorce, by Marion Gindes, Ph.D. http://www.aaml.org/Journal/15-1/mat105.pdf" AAML Journal, Vol. 15 (1998), pp. 119 What the Father's Rights movement really looks like, liz http://www.thelizlibrary.org/~liz/fathers/ What the "Responsible Fatherhood" movement really is about, liz http://www.thelizlibrary.org/~liz/liz/014.htm Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: GETTING IT WRONG IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES By Carol Bruch http://www.thelizlibrary.org/%7Eliz/liz/bruch.pdf ***** "Trish Wilson's The Women's Network" http://members.aol.com/asherah Trish's Blog http://users.adelphia.net/~enitria/trish_wilson/blog/ Expository Magazine http://www.expositorymagazine.net ***** |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
"Asherah" wrote in message
... Suzy Navarro, her husband Todd, her sons Garrett, 11, and Devlen LaMusga, 9, and their daughter, 3, moved this week from their little rented house in Pleasanton, California, to a spacious new home purchased in Mesa, Arizona. They just could not wait any longer. [rest snipped] Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being screwed up kids because their parents simply could not come to terms about their divorce and do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead they have spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their children, in my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude. I mean really now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and parent their children - what am I thinking! I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys, Garrett & Devlen, so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she wishes, but she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the details with Gary first. Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net *** |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
"Tracy" wrote
Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being screwed up kids because their parents simply could not come to terms about their divorce and do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead they have spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their children, in my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude. I mean really now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and parent their children - what am I thinking! I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys, Garrett & Devlen, so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she wishes, but she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the details with Gary first. I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to move the kids. The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both parents have an obligation to see to it that access is available. There are other law schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a job offer? Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids from their father should never have been an option in her mind. You are 100% correct, Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
The Dave© wrote:
"Tracy" wrote Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being screwed up kids because their parents simply could not come to terms about their divorce and do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead they have spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their children, in my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude. I mean really now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and parent their children - what am I thinking! I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys, Garrett & Devlen, so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she wishes, but she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the details with Gary first. I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to move the kids. The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both parents have an obligation to see to it that access is available. There are other law schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a job offer? Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids from their father should never have been an option in her mind. You are 100% correct, Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted. Be aware that Asherah is the Internet nom de plume for Trish Wilson, who used to post many years ago. At that time, her comments then indicated that she was one of the most extreme of the father-haters. Unless she has changed her tune, she can be expected to delight in provoking fathers. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om... Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The courts seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and loving relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the only ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't put their differences aside for the sake of their children! If mom thought it was ok to take the young kids away in the first place, she obviously doesn't hold much importance to their (the kids and dad) relationship. It could be that dad still doesn't have that good of a relationship with the boys because of BS and interference. I mean, if mom thinks dad is so unimportant that she can move the kids away, how ****ed do you think she was when she was told she couldn't move and her new hubby had to come back to CA. ~August |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
"Kenneth S." wrote in message
... The Dave© wrote: "Tracy" wrote Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being screwed up kids because their parents simply could not come to terms about their divorce and do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead they have spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their children, in my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude. I mean really now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and parent their children - what am I thinking! I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys, Garrett & Devlen, so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she wishes, but she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the details with Gary first. I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to move the kids. The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both parents have an obligation to see to it that access is available. There are other law schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a job offer? Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids from their father should never have been an option in her mind. You are 100% correct, Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted. Be aware that Asherah is the Internet nom de plume for Trish Wilson, who used to post many years ago. At that time, her comments then indicated that she was one of the most extreme of the father-haters. Unless she has changed her tune, she can be expected to delight in provoking fathers. I noticed the references coming from "the liz library", and that told me a lot right there. Very anti-Father, in my opinion. Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net *** |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om... "The Dave©" wrote in message ws.com... "Tracy" wrote Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being screwed up kids because their parents simply could not come to terms about their divorce and do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead they have spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their children, in my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude. I mean really now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and parent their children - what am I thinking! I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys, Garrett & Devlen, so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she wishes, but she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the details with Gary first. I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to move the kids. The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both parents have an obligation to see to it that access is available. There are other law schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a job offer? Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids from their father should never have been an option in her mind. You are 100% correct, Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted. Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The courts seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and loving relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the only ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't put their differences aside for the sake of their children! TM - keep in mind what you read what one side of the story. Bottom-line - the father took the case to court to keep the boys near him. That doesn't sound like a father who doesn't give a hoot about the relationship between him and his sons. Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net *** |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
"August" wrote in message ... "TeacherMama" wrote in message om... Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The courts seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and loving relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the only ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't put their differences aside for the sake of their children! If mom thought it was ok to take the young kids away in the first place, she obviously doesn't hold much importance to their (the kids and dad) relationship. It could be that dad still doesn't have that good of a relationship with the boys because of BS and interference. I mean, if mom thinks dad is so unimportant that she can move the kids away, how ****ed do you think she was when she was told she couldn't move and her new hubby had to come back to CA. Well, apparently, he is not so great on relationships--3 marriages, all failed, daughter from previous marriage a troubled child, poor relationship with the 2 boys in this story. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
"duchnick" wrote in message ... "August" wrote in message ... "TeacherMama" wrote in message om... Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The courts seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and loving relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the only ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't put their differences aside for the sake of their children! If mom thought it was ok to take the young kids away in the first place, she obviously doesn't hold much importance to their (the kids and dad) relationship. It could be that dad still doesn't have that good of a relationship with the boys because of BS and interference. I mean, if mom thinks dad is so unimportant that she can move the kids away, how ****ed do you think she was when she was told she couldn't move and her new hubby had to come back to CA. Well, apparently, he is not so great on relationships--3 marriages, all failed, daughter from previous marriage a troubled child, poor relationship with the 2 boys in this story. Imagine. A marriage failed (sadly, not uncommon) A daughter who has trouble accepting that and becomes a "troubled" teen. A new marriage... one in which the new wife cannot deal with the troubled teen, or the ex wife, especially after her own babies come along. And yet another marriage.... filled with the stress of losing his wife because of his first daughter, and now possibly losing his children because of his ex-wife. Ok... i'm not saying that that is what happened. But back to the part about him STILL not having a close relationship with his kids... i think it is probable that there was a lot of BS on the angry ex-wife's part for not being able to move out of state with her new husband. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
"August" wrote in message ... "duchnick" wrote in message ... "August" wrote in message ... "TeacherMama" wrote in message om... Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The courts seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and loving relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the only ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't put their differences aside for the sake of their children! If mom thought it was ok to take the young kids away in the first place, she obviously doesn't hold much importance to their (the kids and dad) relationship. It could be that dad still doesn't have that good of a relationship with the boys because of BS and interference. I mean, if mom thinks dad is so unimportant that she can move the kids away, how ****ed do you think she was when she was told she couldn't move and her new hubby had to come back to CA. Well, apparently, he is not so great on relationships--3 marriages, all failed, daughter from previous marriage a troubled child, poor relationship with the 2 boys in this story. Imagine. A marriage failed (sadly, not uncommon) A daughter who has trouble accepting that and becomes a "troubled" teen. A new marriage... one in which the new wife cannot deal with the troubled teen, or the ex wife, especially after her own babies come along. And yet another marriage.... filled with the stress of losing his wife because of his first daughter, and now possibly losing his children because of his ex-wife. Ok... i'm not saying that that is what happened. But back to the part about him STILL not having a close relationship with his kids... i think it is probable that there was a lot of BS on the angry ex-wife's part for not being able to move out of state with her new husband. I'm sure she's angry and unpleasant--she wanted to move and was told no. She and dad obviously do not get along. But I don't think it is fair to demonize her and treat dad as an innocent victim, either. It will be interesting to see what happens now that they have moved to Arizona. Will there be several more years spent in court before any decision is made? Will the boys be jerked out of their home and "family" and given to dad, even though the relationship is tenuous at best? When 2 parents cannot communicate as civilized human beings in order to keep things smooth for thier children, all sorts of bad things happen to the kids! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways | Asherah | Single Parents | 0 | July 25th 03 06:20 PM |