Posted on 09/19/2016 6:28:51 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
A Nassau County judge has fined Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's ex-wife [Maureen McPhilmy] $310,000 for violating the terms of a custody agreement regarding the former couple's two children....
The couple has a daughter identified in court papers as M and a son identified as S, who are 17 and 13 years old, respectively.
According to court papers, M was scheduled to be transitioned to her father's home on Oct. 11, 2015, for his parenting week, under the terms of the couple's custody agreement but McPhilmy notified him that she would not transition the couple's daughter.
O'Reilly moved for a finding of civil contempt, arguing that nothing in the law permits a child of M's age to determine parental access, that McPhilmy impeded O'Reilly from having access to his daughter and that she should be assessed a daily fine of $2,500 for each day of noncompliance since Oct. 11, 2015.
Based on the evidence in the case, [the judge] said, it seems that McPhilmy determined early on that she "was the parent more deserving of the children's loyalty," that she never had a "sincere intention" to follow the couple's original 2010 custody agreement and that her actions since the agreement became effective—including a motion to modify the agreement just one month after the couple's divorce was final—"telegraphed her intent to dismantle it."
(Excerpt) Read more at newyorklawjournal.com ...
Then stay married. If you don’t want to be in family court them don’t be
No one has a “righ to be a parent. You may have contributed some genetics that doesn’t make you a parent
Your children can’t be forced to live or like you
Divorce hurts children no matter how contested. Even if they accept it, but it is devastating. The lesson: Love and commitment, the two most beautiful human expressions, are a joke.
75% of all divorces are instigated by the wife.
Staying married in that situation is not an option.
Even divorced fathers who where bad husbands have parental rights. Too many women use their children to get back at their former spouses for slights, real or imagined.
Been there. Done that. Have several t shirts.
At least my ex had the decency to drop dead.
L
Where does the constitution declare such rights?
Family court is not your friend
By the time children are teen agents they have opinions. Like it or don’t you cannot force another to like you or live you
Plus the fact your bitterness is showing. That will lead to an early death
Now you are a socialist and believe that parents have no rights and the children belong to the state?
BTW I am not bitter or even divorced & have been happily married for close to two decades and have five children.
That does not change the fact that parents have rights to a relationship with their minor children. Men or women.
They are children until they are 21 .
They damn well are required to pay child support so they should have access to the court sanctioned time that they are due.
Tell me again whete in the constitution does it tell you you have a right to be a parent ?
The law recognizes the age of majority as 18.
And your bitterness seeps through every post
This story illustrates how traumatic divorce is for children. When divorce rates went up in the late 70/early 80s there was a lot of attention on it. Now, because it is so common, its overlooked and treated as something akin to breaking up with a high school significant other.
As a result, many children simply withdraw or give up in the matter. To grow up and see your family unit break apart prior to the divorce. After the divorce, having to deal with sharing time with parents (and in many cases the parents using their kids to get back at their ex spouse) and typically having to accept strangers as step parents and part of a family without consideration.
Now now...
“:^)
That’s a very sad situation for all involved, and I am sorry to hear it.
My comments were not directed at your personally. Having gone through a nasty divorce/contested custody, I can say that it was worth fighting for joint custody, and insisting that the Decree be enforced virtually to the letter. My Decree (and I am sure most others) include restrictions on Mom/Dad, or their agents, talking negatively about the other parent & family. These are most likely hard to enforce except in the most egregious of circumstances. So maintaining a close, meaningful relationship with one’s children from a young age, and while the opportunity presents itself, is critical.
I think too many men take the position that Mom is going to win anyway, and she is going to leave anyway, so why fight it? But this is a potential disaster for the child.
“Tell me again whete in the constitution does it tell you you have a right to be a parent ?”
I wasn’t aware that the Constitution, state or federal, granted rights. They are granted by our Creator (God). At the federal level, at minimum the 9th amendment would apply? I don’t know where in any Constitution it says that We The People delegated to the State the power to control children. Is that anywhere in the history of the founding of the Republic?
Certainly as a Biblical principle, parents have a right and a duty to be a parent to their children.
“They damn well are required to pay child support so they should have access to the court sanctioned time that they are due.”
I see your argument, but I don’t believe that the Courts see it that way. For that reason, non-payment of child support is not a justifiable reason for either parent to deny Court ordered P&A to the other parent.
Family law here in TX recognizes the importance of an ongoing meaningful relationship with both parents. I am sure it is similar elsewhere, though how that plays out in practice, I have no idea. I can’t speak for other Counties, but where I live, the custodial parent who argues for the right to move away with the child has a legal mountain to climb to be given that privilege.
“Your children can’t be forced to live or like you”
This is true, but until the child is emancipated, they don’t get to make the decision about whether to see Mom or Dad - a decision which is likely to be heavily influenced by the parent who, in violation of Court orders, is bashing the other parent. In the same vein, they don’t get to decide by themselves about marriage, sex, medical care, alcohol consumption, obeying rules etc.
Parent means parent. Child means child. Children are not autonomous.
I spent roughly twenty years after my divorce trying to get them as children and then adults to work with me to keep in touch.
I finally gave up.
Thanks for the advice.
The Constitution does indeed grant us rights.....perhaps you forgot to read it
Divorced parent means one of the parents is no longer living at home and has decided that raising children is no longer their first priority. No whatever the reasons behind such a marital split are the children had NOTHING to do with it. To use children as weapons in divorce relations is NUTS. If you think forcing a child to spend time with a parent who has broken a marriage is desirable then you need to do some reading.
“The Constitution does indeed grant us rights.....perhaps you forgot to read it”
Actually the other poster now seems to have been correct. You have a socialist view of the Constitution.
From the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
What part of “endowed by their Creator” is unclear to you?
Do you believe that we did not have those rights before the Constitution??
The Constitution merely recognizes pre-existing rights which belong to every individual. The 9th amendment specifically alludes to other rights not listed (how would the Constitution grant rights which are not listed??)
The job of the government is to secure/protect them.
“Divorced parent means one of the parents is no longer living at home and has decided that raising children is no longer their first priority. No whatever the reasons behind such a marital split are the children had NOTHING to do with it. To use children as weapons in divorce relations is NUTS.”
That is absolute BS. The problem the parents have is with each other. Not necessarily with child rearing. My wife left me with the child.
WHO said anything about using a child as a weapon? That may happen, but fighting for your rights to have a meaningful relationship with your child is what a real parent does.
Bringing a child into the world with no intention of raising that child (regardless of where the child lives) is NUTS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.