Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for April 8th, 2009

 

 

Bridget Marks

Bridget Marks

If there is something which is not needed in Manhattan, this is more protection for alienating parents.  It usually just takes an accusation of child abuse -which will lead to an order of protection- and  Manhattan family court delivers: sole custody for the alienator – typically mummy- and all the pain in the world for the non-custodial parent – the father- to have a normal and regular relation with his children. 

For former Playboy model Bridget Marks, it was a bit more complicated. She first lost custody of her daughters to her former husband for having made up false accusations of sexual abuse (very innovative); the judge was certainly  a roocky unfamiliar  with Manhattan family court mores. Appelate court Judge Friedman though brought things back to order: Marks got her kids back, thanks partly to an intense media campaign.

  After a career rather oblivious to feminist causes, Bridget Marks was touched by grace. In her case, never would have been better than later. Marks is not giving into the most sophisticated brand of feminism but rather the “tribal” one, that which uses child abuse as a tool against men. The problem is that in Manhattan, there are also many boneless politicians, who shamelessly would glean anything in the wind to secure their seat. Hence Marks got assemblyman Jonathan Bing and State senator Tom Duane to craft “Bridget’s law” that was signed into law by Governor Paterson last year.

What is in this jewel piece of legislation? Protecting parents in custody case who “made good faith efforts” to protect their kids from child abuse. Sicko ex-wife destroyed my relationship with my girls in a phony child abuse trial, but everything is fine: she was acting in good faith. Who does not? Nazis were “protecting” the aryan race in good faith; apartheid law makers and politicians believed hundred 100% that segregation was the best solution for both races. The only “good faith” that can be questioned is that of New York legislators, who are trying to sell us that “Bridget’s laws” are protecting children…

The irony is that Carolyn Maloney, New York Congresswoman, wants now to carry the torch of the “Bridget’s laws” across

Carolyn Maloney

Carolyn Maloney

 the country. She supposedly talked to women everywhere, even from Australia. Perhaps they did not tell her that parental alienation was taken seriously there.  Let’s hope that the rest of the country will reject the Bridget’s laws and be wiser than Manhattan. 

 


Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 40 other followers