|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm posting this for Marc Angelucci:
----
I sent the following message by e'mail to the columnist who retracted her story
about the boy:
Licia,
Obviously, you know more about this case than I. But the facts you give in your column would not justify your conclusions without a boost from common, anti-father bias.
Let's reverse the sexes and see if we read your column the same way, or whether we apply harsher scrutiny.
Ready?
You describe a father who represents himself in court and who thus has the advantage of not having to pay legal fees. If this were the mother, would we not feel sympathy for her, having to represent herself in a dehumanizing court system with no attorney?
You describe a mother who has to hire an attorney because she works. If this were the father, would we not see his employment as an advantage, being able to hire an attorney while the poor mother has none?
You don't mention whether the father is employed. If this were the mother, could you do that without us feeling for her because she may not have a job?
You describe a father who failed to pay all his support. If this were the mother, would we not suggest she may be unable to pay, and that she may be unemployed? And wouldn't we question the fairness of the support award in the first place?
You describe a father who "harasses" his ex wife by filing too many aplications. If this were the mother, wouldn't we find ecess filings understandable because she is a terrified mother with no lawyer, unclear on court procedures, and just trying to be heard in a slow and confusing court system?
Finally, you describe a father who wrote "revolting" things about his ex wife on a document and threatened to distribute them. If this were the mother, would we not speculate that maybe these revolting things are true of the father, or at least that the mother is going through a horribly emotional experience and is only trying to protect her child's interests?
Again, I didn't read the file. And I might agree with you if I read it. The difference between you and me, however, is that I would have given adequate facts in a column in which I make such a strong conclusion, rather than rely on anti-father bias to carry the way.
Think of yourself lucky. In an unbiased world, that column would have impeached your credibility.
Marc Angelucci
Los Angeles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The paper has archives but they are not free access. There is an entry in Clayton's guestbook which seems to cover about half of the article. Although it is only a partial account I tend to agree with Marc's comments.
The idea that someone would go without representation in court voluntarily as part of some plot or plan is outrageous. Judging from the article being without representation has cost Clayton's father dearly by biasing the judges against him. You can feel their contempt for him in this extract from the article:
"Justice Hutchinson also commented on this deplorable document in his Feb. 18, 1993 Reasons for Judgement. "There can be no clearer example of a basic character flaw wherein Mr. Giles' sole interest was directed towards himself, a narcissism which blinded him to the real needs of his young child ..." wrote Hutchinson. "Such a concentrated, dedicated and directed exhibition of puerile self-pity and self-interest appeared to drive Mr. Giles to win, at all costs, in order to vindicate himself in his own eyes regardless of the grave harm done to others, including his child ..."
It makes you wonder if this judge has ever tried a non-amicable divorce / custody case before. By behaving too much like a man with emotions and not enough like a professional lawyer.... well do you feel the judge was a tiny bit biased against the father by those comments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who knows who to believe? As I noted elsewhere, there was a time when we as a society (and that included judges) knew enought to keep our noses out of stuff like this. Perhaps that's why divorce, although a de facto reality, wasn't legal until recently.
In the end, I don't have enough information to know who is the monster, or even if there is a monster. However, I do know that what Marc said is correct: if the sexes had been reversed, the father would have had an easier ride.
As well, I think that Ms. Corbella missed one huge, glaring piece of evidence: Clayton's site and Clayton's behaviour. Let's face it: if the father is the monster and the mother is a poor suffering victim, then we must also believe that Clayton is as psycho as his dad and also hates his mother as much as his dad does. After, all Clayton has been working his ass off for most of his young life trying to get back with his father; would he do that if his father were rotten? Is his father so powerful that he can brainwash a kid without even being around? I don't buy it.
No, either Clayton's mother is a psycho (to some degree) and what Clayton writes is true (to some degree) or it was an acrimonious divorce between two nasty people and Clayton likes his father better. Either way, Clayton's father should not have been treated like some kind of criminal while his mother got the support of the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
