Copyright 1991 by Anne P. Mitchell
Larry was in court a total of 6 times in San Diego since January 1983. His trials were always by judge. The court appearances covered initial custody determination, change of custody requests, and child support. His ex-wife prevailed, and she continues to have custody.
He did not appeal the decision reached by the court because of, as he put it "expense, and lack of hope."
He feels that the outcome was unfair "partly because my ex-wife's 'big lie' tactics worked, partly because the judicial system (judges, attorneys, family court) were inclined to believe her.
"I had problems with my own attorney's handling of the case. It wasn't so much the outcome of the decision as the whole process that had a terrible impact on me, and had quite some effect on my father/mother/sister/brother/second-wife. The children seem to have survived the best. I was badly depressed for some time and attribute the loss of my job to it. None of my family wants to have anything to do with my children's mother. It contributed to the breakup of my 2nd marriage (which ended with virtually no troubles like the 1st one). Fee's and expenses for the trials, alone, cost me perhaps $10,000 over the years.
I was very close with my children, but they moved to the east coast in 1985, and we have grown farther apart since then. We still have a good time when they stay with me 2 months each summer.
I felt that the family court counselor was particularly prejudiced against me. I am very bitter about the whole thing, and I get upset when I think about it for long, but I still have to deal with it regularly.
I was falsely accused of sexually abusing my son and daughter, by their mother, in a crude attempt to prejudice the proceedings - this and the reaction to it was the part that upset me most."
His attorney during the second case again told him that he didn't stand a chance, but then, as Larry tells it: "[she] said I should argue that [my ex-wife] was crazy and unfit. I said I didn't think that we had a chance of getting the court to buy it, and Ididn't really want to do it. She said it was my only chance of not loosing the kids and she thought she could do it.
The (family court) counselor was very prejudiced against me. He went through the motions, but his mind was clearly made up beforehand. He intimidated me and extended lots of encouragement to her - he seemed to believe all her lies, and intimidated me when I said she was lying. He repeatedly expressed doubt that my motives for wanting custody were unselfish.
I was, however, relieved a little when the judge gave me an extra week of visitation, even though she flatly refused to order the mother and/or the children to remain in CA."
It was during this case that Larry's ex-wife made her false allegations of sexual abuse:
"She made these accusations in response to my (my attorney's) attempt to characterize her as unfit, though she might have done it regardless of my approach to keeping the kids in CA, or just in order to make me feel raped. The judge at that trial (support/custody trial - I was never formally accused of any crime) said that she had presided over a number of child abuse cases, but this case was not one of them. In spite of this semi-vindication I have still suffered from McMartin Mania as [a result of being] exploited by the mother. I am very bitter about it. I never harmed my children or their mother in any way."
Larry's attorney again discouraged him from seeking a change of custody. "She said it would look bad to ask for custody when mother had just found she had MS." He thinks that his attorney was remembering the false allegations of sexual abuse from the previous case. "This is what I think made my attorney hesitant to stand up for me...as well as the following: the mother wrote a 30 page complaint to the APA in an attempt to damage the career of the psychologist my attorney used (to accuse mother of being unfit and to defend me against the molestation accusations). My attorney said this cost both of them lots of lost time in fighting the complaint and accusations against the psychologist."
As for court itself: "At first, this family court counselor seemed like a new man. He no longer intimidated me, and he made the mother stick to the agenda when she digressed (tried to avoid the issues). We all agreed on a slightly modified visitation arrangement. But a few weeks later, the mother called the counselor and asked that summer visitation to be reduced a week (to end 2 weeks before the start of school). The counselor left a single message with my attorney, who never returned the call. He then changed his recommendation for visitation to that requested by the mother on the phone. My attorney and I tried to get the family court counselor changed, and/or to get him to discuss it (the visitation change) with me, but we were flatly refused in every attempt. My visitation was indeed reduced as a result of this."
Larry was on the short end of the system's maternal bias. It was evident to him: "She's the 'mother', she's an excellent liar, etc. She wrapped herself in apple pie and diapers, and cast me in the role of un-parenting father. She said I never fed, diapered, or cared for the children - a picture we have all seen painted on the screen and in the literature. In reality the opposite was closer to the truth - but no one could deal with this idea. The whole system - my attorney, her attorney, the law, the counselor, the judges seem to be oriented toward the idea of removing bad fathers from the good mothers, and making them (bad fathers) PAY! No one was willing to believe that I had been a better parent than she."
Even his own attorney carried this bias, "she seemed to be oriented towards representing women in general."
Yet over and over, Larry was told that the system tried to be fair and equitable. His attorney told him that joint custody is preferred, and the court tries to act in the best interest of the children. The standards applied in court, he was told, would be to determine what was best for "the benefit of the children. Equal treatment of parents. Joint custody preferred."
But in fact, what he saw being applied was "a system of standards developed by custom, ignoring the stated standards. Old stereotypes were applied. This made it easier for the court to make their judgements and decisions."
Send Editorial Comments to The Backlash!
Please report all problems to The Web Master