If you have a critical mind, a logical mind, that is to say, really, ANY MIND AT ALL, the below should seem BIZARRE at best and at worst, A SETUP.
Sloppy court interview
At court yesterday, I was given the following report (with names changed): Children: Mary age 14, Jenny age 11
At the direction of the court Mary and Jenny were interviewed separately on June 16, 2011. Both girls said that they are okay with supervised visitation with their father for 4 hours one time per month. They acknowledged that it is somewhat difficult to schedule because they both have very busy schedules. Mary is a dancer and Jenny plays competitive soccer.
XY Supervisor, LCSW, reported that she withdrew from being the visit supervisor for this family. Ms. Supervisor said that it became apparent that her efforts in assisting Father were not helpful to Father. She also said that it is important that the children get to have a say about the locations of the monthly visits.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Virostko, LCSW
Family Law Investigator
6/16/11
[JB: The girls said they were "ok" with supervised visits for 4 hours ONCE a month? As an aside, HOW THE BLEEP DOES 4 HOURS PER MONTH MAKE A KID FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE A DAD? How many readers reading this would ASK - that is, REQUEST to see their own father once a month for 4 hours!?!??! Jesus, don't you see the mail man more often than that? If someone on the street 15 years ago told me two girls saw their divorced dad once a month for 4 hours, I would assume he was: dead, a drunk, a felon, in jail, a drug addict, homeless, and/or harvesting his children's organs for profit. The man in question is NONE OF THE ABOVE, NOT EVEN CLOSE.
So again, WHY EXACTLY are the children being asked "Hey Suzy, how do you feel about seeing your dad once a month for 4 hours, is that ok?" If Suzy was not just a kid with a "Family law investigator" (how does that title not make you suspicious?), asking her in a way that makes the question seem normal, do you think she would become VERY curious as to why that was the only option? Geesh, why not have the only questions asked to defendants on trial be "so did you shoot him with a .38 caliber gun, or a .44? Answer: I didn't shoot him at all. Reply: That wasn't the question." You see, the questions you ask AS WELL AS the questions you don't ask, rather frame the answers, don't they?
Further, Suzy could say, "Well... yeah, I guess that's ok, I mean, its not very long, but if that's what my mom wants and that's what you're asking, then I guess so." and the family law investigator could correctly report "child agrees to supervised visit." Well what other option did she have? Not to mention, when girls - notoriously precocious and mature adolescents - don't wonder aloud WHY they only have one option, its probably for a very good reason; such as mom and family law lady are providing the answers to the test. "Here is what's good for you girls, ok, so here's the question, now what's good for you? That's right, just repeat back to me what I said." Girls know what makes mom and dad mad. The girls live with their mother (because she refuses to let their father see them AT ALL), so what are they going to do? Give an answer that makes their mother mad!!?!? Yeah, right! They live with her! They're not stupid! And this setup is supposed to pass for impartial interviewing and facts in court. WHAT A JOKE.
In a REAL courtroom in a REAL trial with a REAL judge, the fact that this little "interview" HARDLY passes for being impartial due to obvious potential for influence on the part of the SOLE guardian of the children would be brought up immediately and the terms of the interview CHANGED to meet something FAR more impartial.
The second sentence is your REAL tip off reader. If you don't see through that one, there is no hope for you.
"They acknowledged that it is somewhat difficult to schedule because they both have very busy schedules. Mary is a dancer and Jenny plays competitive soccer."
Okayyyy. In high school I played competitive tennis, did track, played pond hockey, worked two jobs, went to school, hung out with my friends, studied and STILL saw my dad EVERY DAY. Guess who played tennis with me all the time? DAD! And these two girls each have ONE hobby. Whoa. Pretty heavy. Does Mary dance Saturday ALL DAY and Sunday ALL DAY? Because that would be kind of insane, wouldn't it? Do 11-14 year old girls play competitive soccer EVERY SINGLE DAY?!?!?! I'm going to reach here and say No. But these two activities make it IMPOSSIBLE to see their father? THEIR FATHER. Give me a break. They're not 18, hanging out with boyfriends and getting ready to leave for college. They're still just girls. They need to hang out with dad. Play a board game, learn about boys, watch t.v., movies, play sports with dad, observe him as a man and as a person, learn about the world, etc.. Don't they have a right to that? Apparently their soccer schedule is just too demanding according to the "family law investigator." Could someone ask this woman how many kids can't see their fathers due to their DEMANDING hobby schedules?
When young girls wind up pregnant and profess to know nothing about how young men work, let's all be sure to blame the father they're not allowed to see.
The next paragraph is another joke.
"XY Supervisor, LCSW, reported that she withdrew from being the visit supervisor for this family. Ms. Supervisor said that it became apparent that her efforts in assisting Father were not helpful to Father."
Um, just what EXACTLY does she assist in doing for the father of 14 YEARS? Has she... been a father? For 14 years? So how the Hell could she know what to do? Does she cook and clean or something? "Rate" his parenting skills? Judge how well he tells his daughters the facts of life? What is her function? What is she doing looking over the shoulder of A GROWN MAN with no drug abuse or history of crime or violence, i.e. just some regular guy who is divorced? Is she part of some "sponsor women into jobs" legislation that recently passed? Doing some outreach for a non-profit? (in which case, cooking and cleaning would help, thanks). What does she correct or supply to this situation? The situation being one 4 hour visit?!?!?!
Answer: Nothing.
Next: "She also said that it is important that the children get to have a say about the locations of the monthly visits."
Hold on, the kids can say WHERE the visits take place? Oh, how nice. How about HOW OFTEN? How about FOR HOW LONG. How about, CHOOSE WHO THEY WANT TO LIVE WITH TO BEGIN WITH? Their mother is determined to not pay a cent for them it seems as well as make sure they don't see the person who does pay for their expenses: their father. Is that woman acting on behalf of their best interests?!?!?! I would say no, given girls without dads tend to wind up on drugs, drop out of school, and get pregnant. She won't even let her girls VISIT their father, and offers no legitimate reason for doing so.
To summarize, the court, the family law investigator, the mother and the girls all get choices in this matter. Dad gets none. Not one. He pays $1,000+/month and is not given one choice here. I mean, did you ever wonder, reader, why "conservative" cultures are absolutely terrified of the Western world's moral behavior coming to their country? Men being treated like slaves with no rights? Guess the men in those countries aren't in a hurry to embrace that concept.
This is in-sane. Further it seems mom gets the most choices, she seems to be a self-anointed dictator. The court decides which of mom's decrees shall be made law. The family law women asks the children a set of narrow questions that correspond to what mom and the court have allowed as choices, but in reality the choices barely qualify as choices at all. Dad? Dad gets to show up and listen to what the other 3 women have decided and his poor daughters have been manipulated into. That's it.
Welcome to Hell on a hot day.
Angry Dad, you have a choice. Mom wants the conflict and she wants to decide everything and she wants to fight with you. Ignore her. Tell her you want a paternity test proving the girls are yours. Withdraw all motions. Threaten to move and prepare to move. Demand your business relocate you. Tell your ex-wife. Quit your job. Move overseas if possible. Cut all ties. Unless your ex comes to you needing something, asking for something, you are wasting your time, love, and energy. Your girls are doomed. Your wife is a bitter, obsessed, control-freak with serious man-issues; she has ALL the leverage and you have NONE. Let your daughters find you some day and welcome them with loving, open arms. For now, you're just running on a hamster wheel while they laugh at you.]
No comments:
Post a Comment