Copyright 1991 by Anne P. Mitchell
The first of two personal stories
Below are the personal accounts of two fathers who have been through the California courts, and experienced the working maternal bias, in an effort to obtain custody of their children. In the interest of fairness and responsible reporting, there is a story from a father who prevailed, and one from a father who did not. Even "David", the father who prevailed, remarks on the strong bias against fathers he encountered throughout the system.
While these stories have different endings, they have one alarming similarity: the mother's use of false allegations of the father's sexual abuse of the child in an attempt to thwart the father.
This is a particularly difficult problem because in the interests of the child, the court must act on the assumption that the allegations are quite possibly true, to the extreme detriment of the father.
In the interest of clarity, those parts of the stories which are in the fathers' own words are italicized.
Story #1 is the story of David, our father who actually prevailed in a custody action. On two separate occasions prior to 1982, his wife left his son, Jared, with David for a year, and a year and a half, respectively. Both times she then took Jared away again, without notice, and in anger. David initiated the suit for custody as a result of his ex-wife refusing to let him see Jared and by threatening to never let him see Jared again.
During the mediation phase (which almost all California custody contests must go through in an attempt to avoid trial) his ex-wife accused him of sexually abusing Jared. Ultimately the charges were discounted, but not before they had the desired impact: severely limiting the amount and quality of time which David could spend with his son. In the end, David was awarded custody.
Jared's mother disappeared after she handed Jared over to David, and has not been heard from since. While we will never know why she did this, it certainly does not seem an action suited to the best interests of Jared. Such an all or nothing attitude (telling David that she would ensure that he would never see Jared again; and failing this when her allegations against David were disbelieved and he was awarded custody, disappearing from Jared's life herself) may not be that uncommon, and causes one to wonder about motivations. It certainly does not look to be the maternal, nurturing nature that the courts have relied on for so many years.
David spent a total of 5 years, from the time he filed his suit, until the time a Marin County court awarded him custody in 1987, pursuing his desire for custody of his son.
"My name is David and I was the initiator of a custody action which led to a 21 day trial by judge in Marin County starting in May of 1987. No appeal was made by either party. I won and didn't need to appeal. My ex-wife has not been heard of since she gave our son up to me on Labor Day of 1987.
This was the last action in a dispute over custody and visitation that started in 1982. My request for custody which led to the trial was spurred by my son's mother refusing visitation and threatening to never let me see him again.
During the mediation phase of the dispute my ex accused me of abusing our son. These charges were taken seriously, as I was required to have a court appointed supervisor for visits with my son. Three hours a week, in public.
After scrutiny by social workers I was permitted to see my son on overnight stays with me and no one now gives the accusations any credence. My experience with custody matters convinces me that social workers, lawyers, and judges all have a prejudice toward awarding the child(ren) to the mother. They give many and varied reasons but the end result is, on a first decision, to give to the mother.
Thereafter, it is the inertia of the court system that does not wish to change its mind, or in fact even decide period, that keeps the custody in the hands of the mother. As such I believe that my son's mother would have a difficult time convincing a court to award her custody now that she has had a decision against her.
Our court case ended when the judge filed a Notice of Intended Decision. At that point my son came to live with me and we haven't heard from his mother even though she was awarded liberal visitation.
The court's decision was based on the following reasons: (taken from the NID)
The emotional and physical health, welfare and safety of Jared will best served by such an award of custody to the Father; The State Policy of assuring and promoting frequent and continuing contact with both parents will best be served by such and award;
To implement this award, Father is required to enroll Jared in therapy with a counselor skilled in family relations and/or divorce problems, with Father included as a participant;
The parties are to meet and confer regarding a suitable visitation schedule and submit it to the Court for approval.'
Therapists, friends and teachers have noted a blossoming in Jared since the custody change. He is now 14 and a freshman at a local high school. He is much better off being out of an emotionally abusive situation. I feel better being able to rescue him and make things better/easier for him.
It should be noted that Jared was in my care for two separate lengths of time before these custody battles occurred and that Jared's mother gave him to me for care most willingly. The two custodies were not blessed by paperwork and his mother took him back after 1 and 1.5 years without notice and in anger."
Send Editorial Comments to The Backlash!
Please report all problems to The Web Master