Sunday, June 17, 2007

Hasselhoff Custody Win – A Sick Joke

David Hasselhoff winning custody of his two daughters, after his disgraceful exhibition of drunkenness in the presence of at least one of them, probably both, is just another example of the dismal state of our family court system. We need to fire the Judge immediately who made this ruling and begin an investigation into the county this custody hearing was held in. As I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg there with discrimination against mothers running amuck.

Additionally this story had traces of what I would call masking the bad boys’ behavior by focusing on punishing the person who exposed the behavior, not the person who perpetuated it. Who told everyone about bad behavior becomes the ultimate crime in these situations, not the actual behavior itself. We saw this with the Alex Baldwin situation recently and even with the Woody Allen situation some years back.

Actually here in New York, I was stunned by the hostility that Mia Farrow had to face in the media both during and immediately after the Farrow-Allen custody trial ended. Where even though Woody Allen was caught red-handed with naked pictures of her 18 year old adopted daughter in his apartment (a daughter he had been hanging around since she was 12 year old by the way; anyone ever heard of the term: grooming, a practice used by pedophiles to seduce their victims); yet afterwards everyone was mad at Mia Farrow for making the public aware of the existence of the pictures, since it damaged Woody Allen’s image with his children.

Well, maybe Allen should have thought about his image with his kids BEFORE carrying on with his girlfriend’s daughter.

Additionally many of our intellectual elite ran around claiming Mia Farrow had falsely accused Allen of inappropriate behaviors towards another adopted daughter. Well excuse me folks, but all we can judge your future behavior by is what has occurred in the past, so Farrow had a right to be suspicious about this dirtbag Woody Allen based upon his past behaviors.

Anyway this whole Hasselhoff custody win coming so quickly after the release of that tape is very suspicious and appears to me to be the act of a Judge punishing a mother for trying to protect her children by appealing to the public. She probably saw the direction the case was initially taking and decided to go directly to the American people and make her case in an attempt to get justice and the Judge was mad at her about that.

I say overturn the case on appeal and get this Judge off the bench pronto…

22 comments:

Val said...

Gack...
Uh, "Happy Father's Day"???
yeah, right!

NYMOM said...

Exactly.

I was sick when I heard this idiot Hasselhoff "won" custody...

The damage now to those girls is inmeasurable, even if it's what they wanted, and even if it's overturned on appeal...As now they know it's a possibility to happen down the road to them.

This will be another set of women where we see all these weird scenarios used later to create a 'safe' family...single mother adoptions of international orphans and such or weird sperm donor schemes to have kids.

The asses who keep giving idiots like Hasselhoff custody are the genesis of all this crap...every bit of it.

silverside said...

Did you see the story in the recent Village Voice about the sicko who has had an ongoing sexual affair with his adult daughter and is now fighting for custody of his minor children? Disgusting to say the least. Unfortunately, the mom is Ukranian (another case in which women from other countries are abused/exploited by wealthy American men) and the children are US citizens. So they're arguing that the father should have them.

NYMOM said...

No. I missed that one.

Like you said disgusting.

Maybe he can use the defense Woody Allen used, "The hearts wants what the heart wants." and a shoulder shrug. It worked for Woody Allen...

They actually wanted to have Woody Allen as a speaker at the commencement exercises of the university I graduated from a few years back. I said only over my 'cold dead body'...and I guess enough other people said the same thing so they scheduled someone else.

The short memories and general stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me...

Ruth B. said...

I beg to differ here. In Hasselhoff's case, where does a video showing a dad eating a sandwich make the difference with custody? Pamela Bach is HARDLY the example which we should set ourselves. Come on! She can't even drive a car safely. Would you want YOUR kids with her?


I agree we mothers should work together to mother our children, but lashing out at the courts because a high profile dad gets custody doesn't do us justice.

This makes us look stupid.

Pick another battle.

NYMOM said...

Thanks for your advice, but I'll pick my own battles and this one is just as good as any other.

It shows a drunken idiot on video who just won custody of two impressionable teenage girls probably because the mother released the video in an attempt to go to the American public for some help...and btw, 75% of the public polled after this verdict felt it was not correct. So in fact 75% of the American people agree with me not you...

So it wasn't 'lashing out at the courts because a high profile dad got custody' but an attempt to show how many 'dads' are getting custody through the courts in attempts to avoid high child support or even secure the family home as usually the home follows whoever get custody. I've heard many judges consider them one entity...custody of kids=family home.

Clearly many of these custody battles are the attempts by men to negotiate a better property deal for themselves during divorce proceeding using our children as bargaining chips.

So don't come on my blog and tell me what 'battles' to fight.

Okay, as you don't even know what you are talking about.

Pat said...

Typical!

Let me enlighten you! First, fathers getting custody are not trying to avoid paying child support, they are getting custody because he wants to be in their lives more than one a week or rather being called a christmas dad.

Fathers roles have been changing over the past decade and being considered the nurturer as well as the mother, why do you now see baby changing tables in the men's restroom (these are not just a few)? Fathers are electing more to be the stay at home parent and letting their wives pursue their careers, and they are enjoying their new responsibility as well as his children will know their father!

I agree that the family court system is messed and has been unfair to fathers for decades, maybe an instance likes this will help make the family court system fair for everyone!

Some statistics, go to the FBI child abduction website and you will notice that the majority of the abductors are the mothers! http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/parent/parent.htm

NYMOM said...

"court system is messed and has been unfair to fathers for decades,"

This is a lie.

Courts have never been biased to fathers, not here nor any place else in the world.

Most men chose not to contest custody in the past although they've had the right to do so...they chose not to pursue it because it wasn't costing them any money, as child support was rarely awarded to mothers who had defacto custody of their children since life first emerged from the primal mist. This is a lie that men have spread acting like they didn't have custody of children in the past because courts were biased against fathers. A complete lie.

Of course the majority of abductors are mothers (not that I recognize that term as I don't recognize any mother wanting her own child as an 'abductor' of her child).

This is a designation that you greedy and selfish men have made up to designate women who don't go along quietly with your latest scheme to use our children for profit to yourselves, as abductors of their own children.

AND I don't give a damn if men wish to be nurturers. It's called tough luck...Women in their role as mothers have already been designated by God, nature, evolution, whatever you wish to call it as the bearers of life for the next generation, not you selfish and self-centered unprincipled monsters...

It's not your right to decide these things but the right of women to make the designation as to who will care for her child...

Anonymous said...

I came across this site by accident because I was interested that a father had got custody (pretty rare, at least here in England where I live).

I had to reply because your views are so biased and so typical of vindictive mothers.

It is estimated that here in the UK somewhere around 50,000 fathers lose all contact with their children after separation every year.

I personally have experience of at a least a dozen doting fathers who are desperate to see their children but the wives just won't allow it. The problem is that the mothers know that the system is highly biased towards them and use every trick in the book to ensure the father doesn't get his right to see the children.

The family courts here and everywhere are the cause of monstrous evil and suffering. I long for the day that a judge stands up for fairness and not abuse of process.

As for your rant about him being drunk in some video. That is exactly the sort of crap that errant mothers bring up and brings my blood to the boil. So what if he was drunk, plenty of people drink at home and whereever else. Doesn't make them a bad parent.

Just to your average manipulative harpie would such a minor action be worth brining up in COURT.

NYMOM said...

That's a lie that fathers rarely get custody. Fathers get custody very frequently if they litigate and always did. Before high child support became a fact of life most men chose not to litigate but they always had the right to do so.

Mothers received defacto custody of their children historically as when children are not worth any money to anyone no one but their mothers are interested in them.

Men voluntarily chose not to litigate in the past since it cost them nothing to walk away from their children and thus, millions of them did so...

The government forced men back into litigating by making custody of children worth money; so now everyone and his grandmother is out there fighting for it. But when children are worth no money, no one is interested in them but their mothers.

It's greed and selfishness on the part of men that has started these custody wars and all these abductions of children going on lately. It can be traced right back to the selfishness of men like much else bad in the world can be...

Anonymous said...

What you say about maintenance may be true in the US, here in the UK the issue of custody is completely separate from maintenance payments. Even if I get no access to my children, I *MUST* still pay maintenance.

I take your point about errant dad's not being a part of their childrens lives and not supporting them properly. It is a huge problem here in the UK too.

But so also is the problem of dad's paying maintenance, wanting to be a part of their childrens lives but not being allowed to do so by manipulative mothers. As I say this last figure alone is probably around 50,000 a year in the UK.

The family courts are the only courts here in the UK where a judgement is worthless. Under any other circumstances if a person win's a judgment they can have it enforced, but family court judgments are almost never enforced.

Most of the people I know, don't want custody. They fully respect that their wife is the best person to look after the children, they just want access to their children. But mothers are not allowing this and they know that the dad's can do nothing about it.

NYMOM said...

Well it's the same everywhere, on paper anyway...custody and child support are supposed to be separate issues. However they are not. As many people who would not ordinarily wish to fight for custody will do so if they know they have to pay a lot of child support if they don't get custody. Plus they'll lose the family home and tax benefits if they lose custody. Also, in the US anyway, some citizenship rights flow to illegal immigrants who get custody of children if they were born here.

So we have made children worth money and other benefits to people and this explains what is happening. Even fights over visitation. These things never went on before. Again it's linked to money. As if you have more visitation you pay less and vice versa.

So it's all connected.

Anonymous said...

I have recent personal experience with just exactly what you are talking about. My lawyer (male) said there was no reason why custody should have went the way it did. Father makes half a mil a year, mom somewhere around 40, never asked for or received child support for 20 months, dad lives in another state now was given custody. where do we go for help.
Desperate mom.pwv

NYMOM said...

Sadly no where.

Once formal custody is established through the courts, it's virtually impossible to overturn especially for a mother. I've only heard of a few cases where it was overturned and that was after years of abuse and/or neglect or sometimes when a kid gets older, a Judge will listen.

So you don't want that to be your kid anyway who has a custody decision reversed, it usually means their life has been hell...

These are the sorts of situations that it's better for mothers to avoid BEFORE they happen...so I have no idea what you can do now.

Your attorney was an idiot to let you proceed with a custody case against a man with that kind of financial backing...

NYMOM said...

Best thing you can do is move to other state and establish a good visitation plan. Even that will be difficult with the disparity in your incomes.

AND please, please, please, do NOT have any more kids...as now you've been 'marked' with a scarlet letter by losing custody of one child and are always vulnerable if forced into court for any other custodial proceedings on other kids. AND I've heard of non-custodial mothers who have two or three kids in different states and have lost custody of all of them...

Then what??? So going forward be careful.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/education/2007/09/28/2007-09-28_whiz_kids_father_wins_school_scrap.html
voicers@nydailynews.com

Exclusive
Whiz kid's father wins school scrap
________________________________________
BY NANCIE L. KATZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, September 28th 2007, 4:00 AM

________________________________________
• Print
• Email
• Suggest a Story
• Discuss

Grace Yang Carter
________________________________________
Grace Yang Carter's dad won.
An appeals court yesterday rejected a plea by the bright 8-year-old's mom, Esther Yang, in her raging divorce battle to move Grace to one of the city's top schools in Manhattan.
Grace's dad, Edward Carter, has recently moved the third-grader out of failing Public School 16, a block from his Staten Island home, and into a better school 2 miles away.
Meanwhile, Carter has asked divorce Judge Joan Lobis to end Yang's visits with Grace, who spends half a week with each parent, because his ex-wife talked about the contentious situation to the Daily News. He claims Yang put the girl in danger.
Yang was left wondering why he changed her school now.
"It is a better school," Yang said. "But why did it take four years to move her? I'm sorry I had to move heaven and Earth to get him to do it. I'm sorry she's still in a failing school district."
Carter, who has the final say on education in their divorce decree, did not return calls.
Yang first spoke to The News three weeks ago, after a lower judge backed Carter's refusal to move Grace from PS 16 to highly regarded PS 6 in Manhattan, 40 blocks from Yang's home.
Yang had won the transfer to the esteemed school through the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
Carter charged Yang improperly applied to PS 6, dooming his applications to three high-performing Staten Island schools. He refused to send Grace to the Manhattan school because her commute would be too long.
Carter wants Lobis to bar any publicity about Grace, order Yang to pay back child support and limit her visits, claiming she endangered the child.
"Plaintiff [Carter] has cleaned broken glass off his porch ... following the article of 'Mommy is Right,'" he wrote. "Plaintiff has been called names by strangers ... and has received hateful telephone calls. ... Grace has been accosted by name by people who don't even know her.
"[Yang] has no moral compass with which to guide her actions and therefore should not be permitted to further inflict abuse on our child," he wrote.
Yang said she tried for four years to persuade Carter to provide a quality education for Grace, who scored in the top 8% on private school tests. At age 5, Grace won scholarships to top private schools, Yang said.
Yang vowed to go to the state's highest court to win the right to guide Grace's education, noting Staten Island's middle schools are failing.
"What's going to happen if she gets into a top middle school like Hunter in Manhattan?" she asked. "I have to go through this all over again? No matter what happens, I will never stop fighting for Grace's best interests. No parent should."
nkatz@nydailynews.com

Anonymous said...

Hello: I am looking for a mother who has lost custody of her kids and it went to the father and she has fought or is fighting to get them back. The story is for Good Morning America. Please contact me at 212-456-5926.
Thank you,
Andrea Canning
andrea.canning@abc.com

NYMOM said...

Well, I'm going to email your message to a few people and see what happens.

Maybe they'll be afraid to say anything due to what can happen later as their contact with their child can be stopped because they publicly complained.

So we'll see.

Anonymous said...

NyMom,

If God designated you as nurturers then get to the rest of your job. Clean the house, do the dishes, and cook dinner. Oh yeah, he designated you as the womb to help bring about life to so you BETTER not have a headache tonight because you are going to be working hard tonight...

NYMOM said...

Typical male comment...I hate to inform you but being a 'nurturer' has nothing to do with serving men. It's about children, Mr. Selfish...

Anonymous said...

You all seem very dated and sexist.

Women should not be given custody of children.

I know this. I got to live whith my father, he was kind and decent though the pain of years of seperation from us probably took years off his life.

I have no sympathy for a woman who commits adultery, divorces and takes custody of children.

They should be spat at in public for what they put their children through in private.

Fathers, Papas, Dads - they are there for you as opposed to just being some faded slags excuse for free money.

I'm the new generation - and we hate you and know women should never be automatically trusted with kids.

NYMOM said...

"I have no sympathy for a woman who commits adultery, divorces and takes custody of children.

They should be spat at in public for what they put their children through in private.

Fathers, Papas, Dads - they are there for you as opposed to just being some faded slags excuse for free money."

Yeah, you're normal.

Thanks for sharing.