Court gives custody to dad who abused ex-wife and alienated the kids against her (Massachusetts)

Still think poor little daddies are discriminated against?

The ignorance here is breathtaking. This has NOTHING to do with what is "best for the children" and everything to do with rewarding and reinforcing the abusive control exercised by an UNNAMED DAD who has battered the mother in the past.

When the father's rights people accuse mothers of "alienation," it's treated as a capital crime and as child abuse. When fathers do it, it gets a nod and dismissed--just as we see here. Even though the alienation is part of a larger pattern of abuse and control.

As for this idiotic "guardian" who found the father "supportive" of the mother's relationship with the children? That never happens. Pure lip service if even that. Batterers undermine the mother's authority and well being by physical abuse alone, which by definition, is also mental abuse. Batterers are also expert manipulators, and it is sickening to see the authorities sell out to them as we see here.

The fact that the father is also a police officer is also very troubling, and suggests a lot of backscratching and collusion.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/31/appeals-court-rules-that-father-who-physically-abused-former-wife-should-get-custody-children/NlQtLdBvV4sThqKTTRCTmK/story.html#skip-target1

Court rules in favor of father who abused ex-wife in custody case

By John R. Ellement
Globe Staff

October 31, 2014

A police officer who abused his former wife during their marriage should be given custody of the couple’s two children because they have become so estranged from her that one might attack her, while the other is at risk of suicide, the Massachusetts Appeals court ruled Friday.

The court said the case was not about punishing past bad deeds, but about doing what was best for the children.

In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the court supported the decision by Probate and Family Court Judge John D. Casey, who rejected testimony from the mother’s expert that the father had “brainwashed’’ the children into saying he was the only parent they could live with.

Writing for the court, Appeals Judge Ariane D. Vuono said a searching examination of the troubled family by a guardian ad litem concluded that the father was the only safe haven for the children.

The conclusion by the guardian — who interviewed all four family members, as well as therapists and teachers — was properly given more weight by Casey than the mother’s expert, who only interviewed the mother and then listened to trial testimony, Vuono wrote.

“Cases concerning the custody of children are often difficult and emotionally charged, and may be rendered even more complex when domestic violence is involved,’’ Vuono wrote. “The judge properly recognized that the present case was not about punishing a party for past bad behavior, but was about deciding what was best for the children going forward.’’

The court identified the parties only by the fictitious initials K.A. and T.R.

The court said the couple’s turbulent marriage, which began in 1997, was marred by violence between the two, especially when they argued about what became a chronic issue for them, their struggling finances. The father filed for divorce in April 2010.

When the children were young, the mother was the primary caretaker because the husband worked the overnight shift at a police department while also working paid details. The mother worked at a school cafeteria, the court said.

When the couple argued, the father would leave the house for a few days or a week at a time, having no contact with the children, both of whom are now teenagers, according to the court.

But the relationship between the mother and the children changed dramatically, and the children became fearful of her to the point where they would wake up their father and seek his intervention, the court said.

During the divorce proceedings, the mother’s expert testified that the behaviorial change was a “red flag’’ signaling that the father had “brainwashed’’ the children into turning on their mother. But Casey, citing the guardian, found the father had repeatedly been supportive of the mother with the children.

After a trial, Casey ruled for the father, citing the guardian’s conclusion that the one of the children might assault her mother and the second was in such an emotionally vulnerable state that he might commit suicide if ordered to live with their mother.

The Appeals Court concluded that Casey’s rulings “reflect consideration of relevant circumstances ... and the potential risks to the children should the father not have primary physical custody.’’

The court said in its ruling that the mother will, all the same, have substantial parenting time.