You say your abuser ex beat your children during every unsupervised visitation? And every time you finally managed to get the kids back, you took scads of photos of injuries they sustained while in his care? And after you displayed the photos to the Atlanta court, documented pedophilic behavior in your ex’s home and filed a protective order, the children’s attorney/guardian ad litem forbade you to follow through on it? After you were charged $10,000 to file it in the first place?
And then the judge refused to overrule the guardian ad litem or listen to your attorney, and instead threatened you with jail time if you took one more step toward protecting your children? And then the two facilitated an 11-month temporary court order granting primary custody of these children to the parent who caused the injuries? And, just for good measure, they ordered you to stop photographing the abuse and limited you to 11 hours of visitation a week? And the only thing that enabled your children’s safe return to you was that your ex became deathly ill and died?
Is that what’s troubling you, Bunky?
I’m riffing off the Eddie Lawrence “Old Philosopher” routine from the 1950s, in which he rattles off a litany of highly improbable, comically tragic events and follows them with an absurdly upbeat rhetorical question like, “Is that what’s bothering you, Bunky?”
But it’s this dismissive, flippant attitude–though hardly funny–many concerned, protective parents confront when they implore the courts to help them shield children who are abused in their ex’s care. It’s not funny, but it’s that absurd. And worst of all, it’s true.
And worse than that, it appears to be rampant. I just read today a dead-on expose on the undeniable link between court officials, child custody and money: Part 1: Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut Part 2: Immunity for Guardian Ad Litem Destroys Connecticut Family
Excerpt: However, cases like 9-year old Max Liberti’s suggest that some family court appointees are more likely to favor the opportunity to continue billing families for unnecessary, even fraudulent services, over what is best for the child.–Aine Nistiophain, guest author for child advocate Jerome Elam, Washington Times
Is this what happened to the metro Atlanta mother and businesswoman whose incredible story makes up the crazy first graphs of this post? You want to bet that if the money hadn’t run out–because the source, probably inconveniently for the court officials, died–this protective mother would never had any say, legal or otherwise, in her children’s lives again?