Appeals Court Blocks Visit Between Husband-Killer Mary Winkler and Her Children
September 29th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: Mary Winkler--who shot her husband in the back and then refused to aid him or call 911 as he slowly bled to death for 20 minutes--walked away a free woman last month after serving a farcically brief "sentence" for her crimes. She is currently in a custody battle with Matthew Winkler's parents, who have been raising their three daughters for the last 18 months.
The Winklers seek to terminate Mary Winkler's parental rights and adopt the girls. I support their position. Last week, Mary Winkler was granted supervised visits with her daughters--an important step towards getting custody of them.
To learn more about this horrendous injustice, see my co-authored column No child custody for husband-killer Mary Winkler (World Net Daily, 9/14/07), or click here.
A Tennessee appeals court yesterday blocked a supervised visit between Mary Winkler and her children, in response to an appeals by Dan and Diane Winkler, the children's grandparents. The Associated Press story is below.
Mary Winkler Visit With Children Blocked
Associated Press, 9/30/07
JACKSON, Tenn. (AP) — An appeals court Friday blocked a supervised visit between a woman convicted of killing her minister-husband and their children.
The court issued a stay against the Saturday visit after a last-minute application from the children's paternal grandparents, who have had temporary custody of the three young girls since Mary Winkler went to jail after the March 2006 shotgun shooting.
Winkler, 33, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in April for shooting Church of Christ minister Matthew Winkler at their residence in Selmer.
"It's very devastating to Mary and I'm sure to the children," said Winkler's attorney, Kay Farese Turner.
The stay is only temporary pending an investigation of Dan and Diane Winkler's accusations that the judge who originally granted the visit ruled erroneously, Turner said.
A call to the office of William R. Neese, Dan and Diane Winkler's custody attorney, late Friday was not immediately returned.
Winkler has said the grandparents will not let her see or talk to her children, who are now 10, 8 and 2 years old. They are seeking to terminate her parental rights and adopt the children while Winkler is attempting to regain custody.
Her former parents-in-law also have filed a $2 million wrongful death lawsuit against her.
"));
19 queries. 0.333 seconds.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:15 am
She will get the children back. Sad, but true. She is a murderess, a liar, a fraud. Nonetheless, she will get them back and their grandparents will never see them again.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
"An appeals court Friday blocked a supervised visit between a woman convicted of killing her minister-husband and their children." R.I.P. English grammar and quite indicative of the level of thinking going on in this case...
September 29th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Now how is Mary Winkler supposed to shoot her children in the back?
September 29th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I don't think she will get her kids back.
People ALWAYS put women first in these cases, but children trump that. Even if the incompetent legal system gave her a few weeks for first degree murder, because she was female, they won't give her custody of the kids.
I can only feel sorry for the poor children, having to still deal with the woman who took their dad away from them.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I don't think Mary will ever get full custody of her children. As callum pointed out even children trump Female Privilege in this country. The very excuses she used to get off lightly for killing her husband (PTSD, bipolar, blackouts...etc.) are going to be the very reasons she will be stopped from getting children back. They will definitely come back to bite her on the ass. It was interesting that in court testimony concerning visitation she claimed she "was all better now". Well, isn't that special. Can't a girl have a bad day? The way some people are carrying on you'd think she killed someone...oh wait. I have to think Mary may have dug herself a hole with the "I snapped" defense as it relates to visitation and custody of these children.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
" As callum pointed out even children trump Female Privilege in this country."
I disagree.
What about abortion, woman's "rights" trump children in this example.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
" As callum pointed out even children trump Female Privilege in this country."
Children used to trump women. But remember we have a Violence Against Women Act but no there is no similar act against children. Also, children are regularly tried in adult courts, yet women revceive light sentences even after abusing children.
So women now trump children. If anyone wants to take a guess as to how this happened, be my guest.
September 30th, 2007 at 8:40 am
The very fact that children can't be charged for crimes at a certain age in most countries shows this.
I dunno if you've heard about her, but Maddie McCann is now a household name in the UK. The reason being that she is female, a young child, white, and very cute; who was kidnapped (or murdered by her mum, they're not sure)
This isn't a new phenomenon, young girls as victims is the easiest formula to sell papers. It usually helps if there's a paedophile involved.
And as to abortion, I think most people don't see unborn foetuses as children. If they were fighting for the right for women to murder live children, the feminists would probably hit a stumbling block (no such block when women murder men, obviously)
September 30th, 2007 at 10:38 am
WELL knock me over with a feather! I hope the grandparents win the suit.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:46 am
@callum
Check out the laws relating to "infanticide".
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:55 am
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Mary Winkler should be allowed to earn her way back into her kids lives. I would argue the same for a man in an equivalent situation.
By "earn her way back" I mean supervised visits, coupled with therapy and rehabilitation, job training, medical assistance, etc. The key word is "supervised" - that means she cannot be a danger to her children, but that at least her children can see her and maintain a modicum of relationship with her.
The primary question should be: Is she a fit mother for her children? Is she there any evidence that she would use violence towards her children?
To all those who would object that she murdered her husband, I would reply that many men and women might be violent towards an adult without necessarily having any violent tendencies towards minor children. There's no blanket rule that applies - an individual assessment is needed as to her fitness and to whether she might or might not hurt her children.
I also wonder why no one here is concerned that the grandparents are, in most likelihood, alienating the children away from their mother. Yes, she murdered their father, and yes there needs to be a reckoning for that. But to forcibly keep the children away from their sole surviving parent, even excluding supervised visits? If that isn't parental alienation, I don't know what is. Even convicted criminals behind bars can see their children in supervised visits.
Let's keep ourselves honest and consistent. And schadenfreude should never be a basis for deciding important matters such as custody, visitation, and parental rights.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:45 am
NO children should EVER be allowed around someone who has shown they have the will and the ability to commit murder. To quote Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis "Regardless of the judgement of juries".
This woman killed her husband in cold blood and admitted that she watched him bleed to death. Many women go into family(sic) court and claim that thier Exs are violent and a danger to their children and should never be allowed to have contact with them. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Since she spent 68 days in jail for an act that should have gotten her the death penalty this is the most appropriate punishment. The children should be able to grow up in an environment where they dont have to worry about thier mother pulling a shotgun. As they grow older she will attempt to justify her actions to them and over time will most likely succeed.It would be unfair to the dead husband because hes not there to defend himself.
What would her excuse be next time "Well the kids made me wear this halloween costume that made me feel degraded"
Sorry folks there is no way I would allow this women to ever be anything other then a memory. The kids will be better for it.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:11 am
Mike wrote: "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander."
I think you missed the point - I agree that laws should treat violent women equally to violent men.
I disagree that someone, male or female, who has committed violence should automatically be banned from being a parent. That is, in my view, an absurd position to take.
What I am arguing for is a more nuanced approach for a rebuttable presumption that parents are to remain with their children unless explicitly proven to be a danger to those children, either through abuse or neglect.
For parents who have committed violence, the social services system should assess whether the children involved are likely, or unlikely, to be the target of further violence by the parent. Of course, the perpetrator's own attitudes and actions, attempts to reform, demonstrate progress, etc are relevant also. So are the professional judgements of social workers, doctors, teachers (of the kids), etc. Every parent should have the ability to "earn back" their place with their children.
Philosophically, using the awesome power of the state to sever forcibly the bond between a parent and child is a very drastic step and, in a rational world, would be the last resort used only in exceptional and specifically enumerated circumstances.
Blanket prohibitions against being a parent, especially without any possibility of regaining a meaningful role in your children's lives, is not the sort of society I would like to live in.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 am
Knock Knock said...
Philosophically, using the awesome power of the state to sever forcibly the bond between a parent and child is a very drastic step and, in a rational world, would be the last resort used only in exceptional and specifically enumerated circumstances.
Oh, come off it. This is done on a daily basis with fathers. It is often done only on the basis of the mother's word and against the wishes of the children concerned. Nobody makes any effort to enable fathers to see their children even when they have court orders allowing it.
The only reason Mary Winkler is free to apply for custody is her gender and the obscenely lenient treatment she received as a consequence.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
gwallan writes: "Oh, come off it. This is done on a daily basis with fathers."
Exactly. That's my point. It isn't right when it happens to fathers, and it equally isn't right when it happens to mothers either.
I want the law to treat fathers and mothers equally.
I also want the law to implement a rational policy, not one based on schadenfreude or other extraneous factors.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Knock Knock wrote:"I also want the law to implement a rational policy, not one based on schadenfreude or other extraneous factors".
So when something happens to those children are you going to take the same position? Its not an absurd position to want to make sure that the court system takes into account this womans danger to these children. Shes a Murderess plain and simple. NO child should EVER be allowed into this persons care for any reason.
And if you want to split hairs it WOULD be an equal application of laws considering how many fathers are excluded from thier childrens lives under much less heinous circumstances. Fathers who are guilty of nothing except failing to live up to whatever expectations thier ex-spouses may have thought they should have and then are left with nothing.No family, no contact and slapped with outrageous support orders based on fraudulent and downright criminal applications of those same laws you are attempting to defend.
The whole problem with the system is that the laws in place are not equally applied although they are written to do just that. Women are treated with kid gloves while men are slapped with the hammer for the same set of circumstances.
In my view yours is the absurd position because you are willing to allow innocent children into the care of someone who has shown that she not only had the thought to commit murder but the will to carry out the action. How many times in our society have we seen people on trial for capital crimes get off because they "claimed" they went temporarily insane?
I can see it now:
"Your honor I dont know what happened, I just blacked out"
Prosecutor: "So Mrs Winkler...you are saying you are not able to recall having killed your children?"
Mary Winkler: "No I blacked out.....I was looking at some old pictures and got so mad over the shame he (allegedly) inflicted on me I just snapped.
Judge" "Oh you poor dear...We understand how hard this must be for you".
Defense Attorney: "Your honor we move that Mrs Winkler be admitted to a Psychiatric Hospital for observation and evaluation...We do not believe shes in her right mind."
Judge: "So ordered...Dont worry honey, we will get you the help you need...We know it isnt your fault"
This is obviously farcical and fanciful but thats the intent. Oprah and others would run to her defense and there is no way that she would recieve anything close to what she really deserves.
The offspring of the man she murdered(who by ALL accounts was a good father and husband) should not be forced to have to look at the person who murdered thier father every day just because she wants (Now) to try and be a mother.
Sorry but I stand by what I said. Theres no amount of "earning" her way back in that would work short of her being able to bring back the childrens dead father.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Knock Knock Said...
Exactly. That's my point. It isn't right when it happens to fathers, and it equally isn't right when it happens to mothers either.
I want the law to treat fathers and mothers equally.
So do I. Which means Mary Winkler should have been locked up forever. No freedom, no custody.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:39 am
Mike, gwallan:
All I can say is that your hearts have been hardened, and your thoughts are affected also. I feel for your pain and frustration - your experiences have obviously led you to where you are today.
But please realize that you're making assertions that may not be grounded in reality.
Mike, with respect, you have no way of knowing whether Mary Winkler really is a danger to her children. Neither do I, or any other distant observer -- we're not involved in the case, so there is no way we can know. Shouldn't that be the real basis for deciding visitation and custody -- whether she can be a fit mother and whether she is a danger to her children?
Gwallan, you missed the part of my post about a rational policy. Asserting that all murderers should be locked "forever", with "no freedom, no custody" is not a rational policy, and it never has been the legal policy in any state. I can understand why you would express such feelings, but, with respect, such expressions are intended to help you feel better, not formulate and implement a rational policy here.
I would submit that deciding what's best for Mary Winkler, her children, and their grandparents is more important than any one of our individual feelings, frustrated and angry as those feelings may be.
There, I've said all I can say on the subject. Thank you for discussing it with me. Best wishes to you and your families.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
@Knock Knock
I am quite rational thankyou very much. Mary Winkler, however, is not.
Keep your psychoanalysis for your own self.
October 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
As ridiculous as Mrs. Winkler's supporters sound ( mostly leftward SP's with govt. worker mentalities ) I would not be surprised if she "beats the rapp"....anyone heard of Clara Harris ??