She Killed His Son but He Must Pay Her Alimony
November 26th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesExamples of decent, loving dads being manhandled by the anti-father family law system are legion, but this one has to make the Top 10. A recent New Jersey appeals court reaffirmed a decision mandating that a man must pay alimony to his ex-wife--who killed their son. From Should killer get alimony? (Bergen Record, 11/22/07):
"A state appeals court on Wednesday refused to automatically bar alimony from spouses who kill a child...The decision was issued in the case of Linda Calbi, who is serving a three-year prison term after pleading guilty to beating her son, Matt, on Aug. 17, 2003, during a violent argument at their home. He died hours later from internal bleeding and cardiac arrest...
"Linda Calbi was originally charged with murder, but the charges were later downgraded to aggravated assault, based on expert reports that medical error contributed significantly to the boy's death. She was sentenced last year to three years in prison and won't be eligible for parole until November 2008.
"The Calbis were divorced in 2001 after 15 years of marriage. A few months after Matt's death, Chris Calbi fell behind on his alimony payments and filed papers in court seeking a reduction or termination of his payment obligations.
"'She took the life of her oldest son, scarred her younger son for the rest of his life, and tore the fabric of my soul from me,' Chris Calbi wrote in papers filed in Superior Court in Hackensack. 'To reward this evil and violent woman by allowing her ... to derive a financial benefit from the family she destroyed ... can only be described as a perversion of our justice system.'"
Chris Calbi had been paying Linda $3,183 a month until her incarceration, and may be saddled with that amount when Linda is paroled. Chris is pictured with his deceased son Matthew and his surviving son Dean above. A few comments:
1) Chris Calbi claimed that Linda abused and assaulted him during their marriage, at times employing a kitchen knife and a hammer. The death of the son is discussed in Typical teen meets a tragic end (Bergen Record, 8/20/03), and Linda Calbi sounds like a real sweetheart:
"As [Christopher Calbi's] company - Robert Christopher Sales - grew, [Christopher] was increasingly away in Europe on business, Linda Calbi said in divorce papers. Though they shared fine dinners, and Christopher Calbi showered his wife with gifts, a physical and emotional distance developed between Matthew's parents, her papers say.
"Linda Calbi said in the papers that she felt like 'a highly paid slave.'
"Christopher Calbi countered that his wife subjected him to 'profanity-laced tirades and ridicule.'"
2) From the same article:
"The couple split in 1999 and - after 15 years of marriage - divorced in July 2001.
"Meanwhile, Matthew was having problems at school, said a woman who worked in the River Vale school system.
"When Matthew was in the special education program at Holdrum Middle School, he regularly came to class with bruises, said the woman, who declined to be identified. The teen always had an excuse for the marks - he was playing with his younger brother, or he fell, the woman said.
"But in April 2002, the woman noticed a strange bruise on Matthew's wrist, one she thought looked like a defensive wound. She asked Matt to explain, but he couldn't, she said, so she called DYFS to report the mark.
"As part of the special education program, Linda Calbi met routinely with educators to review her son's performance.
"But when Calbi showed up, she often smelled of booze, the woman said. 'You could light the air on fire, she smelled so badly,' the woman said.
"Linda could not understand why her son wasn't more successful in school.
"'She was very forceful when she spoke. Nothing was ever her fault, and of course she was at her wit's end,' the woman said."
3) The father now has to raise the surviving son, Dean, age 12, on his own. Is Linda being asked to pay child support? Isn't Chris' ability to provide for Dean negatively impacted by having to pay alimony to the noncustodial parent?
4) Chris also needs to save his money--Linda may be out of prison in less than a year and will be fighting for visitation rights to Dean. In July, 2006, a judge ordered a supervised visitation between Dean and his mother, contingent on the boy's acceptance.
5) Linda apparently received a lesser charge and sentence for her crime because supposedly there was medical mishandling by the hospital after she assaulted her son which contributed to Matthew's death. How much of her light sentence is due to the alleged medical mishandling and how much is just the standard female sentencing discount is unclear.
6) It's amazing some of the things that an attorney will say. Linda's attorney, Ian Hirsch, said:
"'Mr. Calbi is using his son's death to take away any obligations he has,' Hirsch said. 'I think he's trying to take advantage of a tragedy and turn it around to his economic benefit.'"
Yup--dad not wanting to pay money to the woman who killed his son is "taking advantage of a tragedy and turning it around to his economic benefit." Bad dad--how could he be so rotten?
7) Can you imagine a judge ordering a woman to pay alimony to the ex-husband who murdered her child? In fact, California has a recent law which created a presumption that a victim of domestic violence should not be required to pay support to a violent ex-spouse.
8) Once again we see the link between family violence and substance abuse. Misguided feminists often downplay this link because it contradicts the feminist Duluth/"domestic violence is a function of the patriarchy" family violence model.
The new court decision by the Superior Court of New Jersey's Appellate Division can be seen here.
A recent CNN report on the case can be viewed here.
"));
19 queries. 0.397 seconds.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
People who argue that this type of treatment is fair are the same people who argue that “water boarding” is not torture.
All it would take for them to understand the truth is to have it tried on them personally.
"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
Abraham Lincoln
November 26th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Disgusting...plain disgusting.
$3,183 a month for alimony? If that is supposed to be the calculated cost of living I sure as shooting don't want to live there. There aren't that many people that clear that much in month (and by clear I mean take home after taxes) and to be hemorraging that much money has got to be killing him (almost literally). For that much a month I'll bet that woman was not working at all. And even if she was I'd like to see her claim that she was financially burdened. I would litterally laugh in her face.
Even the "bungling at the hospital" where Matthew died it is obvious that she was abusing him. Were those charges even brought up or were they downgraded like the murder charge? The fact that she came to school smelling of alcohol really doesn't help her case either.
How in the world can she even put up a case for visitation rights to Dean when she was abusive to his older sibling? We all know how this would turn out if it were a dad trying to win visitation rights to his younger son after abusing the older son.
This goes to show that the beyond the shadow of any and all doubt that the child's best interests are never being represented in family court. The system may decide to financially drain this man who is having to raise Dean on his own. Or until the alimony payments hurt him so badly that the mom will then be able to claim that he is an unfit father in order to take sole custody, move as far away as possible and then put the father up for baby-mama support because all of a sudden $3,000 will not be enough to raise Dean.
Child's best interest...yeah right.
I would really like to hear the extreme feminist twist on this. You can bet they've already figured out how to make the alcoholic abusive mom the victim in all this.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
This is the same sort of twisted thinking that forces male victims of statutory rape to pay child support for their adult molester's child.
My question is, will she also claim entitlement to part of the proceeds of the malpractice award against the hospital?
November 26th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
From Judge:
"My question is, will she also claim entitlement to part of the proceeds of the malpractice award against the hospital?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Claim? I would not be surprised if it was all given to her from get go.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
He must have custody of the surviving child and power of attorney over the child. I think he should turn his other son over to his parents, explain the injustice to his son and that he does not want to do this but at certain times and in certain circumstances, one must be willing to suffer for the sake of the good and justice. Then he should inform the court that he refuses to recognize their authority in this matter of adjudication and that his human rights, not just his civil rights have been violated as well as those of his son. File a civil rights violation against the AG and file a human rights vilolations petition with the United Nations so that shame may be brought upon the state, the govenor, the legislature, the court and the AG. If you think the latter point is quixotic, look at this:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=104
Finally, having refused to reconize this adjudicated matter, he should invite the authorities to take him to jail and he stay there for as long as it takes. If this society will allow this to happen to one of his children when that child could have survived had he not lived with an unstable mother (and examples of them are legion) then no child is safe, not even his surviving child. It is my opinion, it would be better to play long ball at this point then to allow the cycle of injustice to continue.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
wrong link, this is a copy and paste:
Father denied justice by NZ courts, says UN
10:15AM Thursday April 19, 2007
The United Nations has slammed the New Zealand legal system for denying justice to a man accused of abusing his children.
The Government now has three months to explain itself to the international body and offer a solution to the man.
Human rights lawyer Tony Ellis took the man's case to the UN's Human Rights Committee saying his client's right to a fair trial had been ignored by the Family and then the Appeal Courts.
The man, who cannot be named due to the ongoing custody dispute, was accused in 2001 by his estranged wife of abusing his two daughters and then, later, abusing his son.
Police investigated for nearly two years, but decided not to prosecute.
The father was denied access to his daughters and the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal the decision.
The man is still fighting for access to see his son in the Family Court.
The committee found the lengthy proceedings violated the father's rights to a quick and fair trial in respect of his daughters and son.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties regretted, in a statement celebrating the UN ruling as a victory, the Court of Appeal's "failure to understand and embrace international human rights".
The very nature of custody proceedings concerning access of a divorced parent to their children required that the issues complained of should be dealt with speedily, the committee said.
"The onus is thus on the State and the courts, the police, child welfare authorities and others, to be sufficiently well-resourced and structured and establish their priorities in order to ensure sufficiently prompt resolution of such proceedings and safeguard the Covenant rights of the parties," it said.
The committee said that without a prompt hearing, the rights of non-custodial parents were in effect already decided.
It added: "This is plainly unacceptable, and is a major failing as there is no level playing field, and it is well known that justice delayed is justice denied."
They said they would "await with interest" what remedy the Government would be offering the father within a 90 day timeframe.
Courts Minister Rick Barker said today the committee had informed the Government of its views.
The committee had found the majority of the complainant's allegations were inadmissible, or did not in fact constitute violations of the complainant's rights, he said.
It also found the original Family Court in 2003 had reached a "full and balanced" evaluation of the family's situation and the children's best interests based on testimony of the parties and expert advice.
However, it did express the view that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was breached because of the length of time taken to conclude the proceedings.
Mr Barker noted the committee's views were "non-binding" but said the Government would examine its findings and consider how to address these.
The committee's views had been relayed to the relevant government agencies and the principal Family Court judge and the Government would respond to the committee within 90 days.
Correction:
A New Zealand Press Association story networked on April 19 about a United Nations attack on the New Zealand legal system contained a wrongly attributed quote.
The UN Human Rights Committee never said it regretted the Court of Appeal's "failure to understand and embrace international human rights" when considering the case of whether justice had been denied a man accused of abusing his children.
That remark did not appear in the committee's report, but was made by the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties, in a statement celebrating the UN ruling as a victory.
NZPA deeply regrets the error.
- NZPA
November 26th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
This is from the Calbi decision -- a dreadful decision where the court had plenty of precedent to rule the other way -- that the wife's fault negates any rightful claim to alimony. It is another example of a court with an incredibly high threshold for tolerating female misconduct that hurts males (here, the deceased son she beat and his devastated father). The opinion could have been written by NOW, which I am certain is cheering for it. Here's a critical paragraph from this horrible, horrible decision filed Nov. 21 -- and read the last sentence carefully, but make you haven't eaten for several hours:
"However, in assessing Linda's fault and the terrible consequences from her contemptible action in beating her son, the facts negate both premeditation and the intent to kill. Indeed, the fact that murder or manslaughter charges were not pursued and the State recommended a third-degree sentence for a second-degree crime indicates that the prosecutor was satisfied that there was insufficient proof of an evil intent by Linda to kill her son so that the charge of assault and causing grievous bodily harm to Matthew was the proper assessment of Linda's criminal culpability. Moreover, while it is no excuse for her conduct, the fact remains that Linda was an active alcoholic and most probably under the influence at the time of the tragic incident. Also not to be ignored is the fact that the rare injury that caused Matthew's death was unforeseeable and unanticipated. Finally, although the record contains little information as to Linda's feelings after Matthew's death, we can safely assume she is haunted by memories and guilt that will long outlast her prison sentence, as will her knowledge that she is responsible for the greatest suffering in the world for a mother or father."
November 26th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
She Killed His Son but He Must Pay Her Alimony
5) Linda apparently received a lesser charge and sentence for her crime because supposedly there was medical bungling by the hospital after she assaulted her son which contributed to Matthew's death.
= = = = = =
If she did not beat him in the first place the "medical bungling" would not have taken place and he would not be dead!
Minimize the woman’s role yet again
ABHORRENT!
b
November 26th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I am dumbfounded by this. I agree with Bernie.
I read the entire decision and it really read like the court was fishing trying to find ANY possible case where they could deny this motion. To write into the opinion :
Moreover, while it is no excuse for her
conduct, the fact remains that Linda was an active alcoholic and
most probably under the influence at the time of the tragic
incident. Also not to be ignored is the fact that the rare
injury that caused Matthew's death was unforeseeable and
unanticipated. Finally, although the record contains little
information as to Linda's feelings after Matthew's death, we can
safely assume she is haunted by memories and guilt that will
long outlast her prison sentence, as will her knowledge that she
is responsible for the greatest suffering in the world for a
mother or father.
Who gives a shit that she was drunk. The fact remains she killed a child and everyone here knows that when she gets out of prison shes going to go for all the money she can. If this had been thier only child I would have to the father to let them put him in jail. See how money she gets with him behind bars. Were I the father I would sell EVERYTHING I OWN and put it in the surviving sons trust fund. Then let the State do what they will. Cant get blood from a turnip.
The other thing here is the comment by her attorney saying he was using the tragedy to escape his financial obligations. I wonder if she would say the same thing if it was one of her own family members. I think not.
ANYONE who kills a child deserves to be executed not paid off.
November 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Don't put it in the son's name... it just points her to the way to get the money ... fight for custody! I'd try to discourage that.
November 26th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
I wonder how much of it was PAS related beating. Maybe being older he understood what was happening and refused to participate in it. If that is the case, this is a hate crime and should be prosecuted accordingly. Wonder how the court thought that the other child should decide whether to meet his killer mother or not. If he refuses, his mother and others could give him a guilt trip on choosing not to meet his mother. If he does, he has to talk to a person who killed his brother.
Being a woman will get you away with everything, if you can blame it on someone else. This time dad wasn't involved so the hospital treatment was blamed. I guess, if the doctors had paid attention to the stab victim he wouldn't have died, that makes the stabber less of criminal - of hurting rather than killing.
November 26th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
My problem is that even the opinion cites precedent where other similarly egregious acts warranted the opposite holding -- denying alimony.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Judge:
It's obviously sexist. It would really be something is the reporter noted that this ruling ignores precedent, and the only reasonable explanation is because this is a woman, and women are not to be held fully responsible for their actions.
AN
November 27th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Sounds like this Dad should do the Goldman's did with O.J. Simpson and with his parents get a civil court judgement over the wrongful death of his son. She accountable right? That should effectively negate the alimony at some point before his own death knowing how the 'normal' courts function.
Mike
November 27th, 2007 at 12:14 am
What a heinous story about the murder of a child but then the ultimate insult to pay the killer. What justice to the child's memory?
November 27th, 2007 at 12:15 am
[...] don't have any explanation for this one, so I'll let you read the story and decide for yourself… SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "What the fuck?", url: [...]
November 27th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Every Father alive, needs to gather and march down the streets of DC in support of Fathers rights and the bulls+it that these courts are allowing. Wake the hell up. Unite....or lose.
www.FathersDayDemonstration.org
November 27th, 2007 at 12:32 am
My God, I am completely flabbergasted at the unmitigated gall of this judge and the woman for even asking for continued alimony! The nerve of that woman and the judge looking for any excuse to justify or excuse what she did, I find morally repugnant and disgusting! What is the world coming to, a woman can get away with practically everything under the sun and a man if he did the same or worse, the judges would not have one iota of a problem throwing away the key to the jailhouse door, but yet women are treated with kid gloves!!! My God, this country has gone totally crazy. Women wanted equality, but got superiority. What a world! I want to puke so badly at what she said in reference to the father only wanting to terminate alimony on the basis of her bad conduct. Lord, she should not have a legal leg to stand on,but no this dumbazz judge lets her have her way. O my God, I want to throw up badly.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Sadly, this is not surprising given it originated in Bergen County NJ. I have been victimized by this very same court for some time now and would like to know which Family Part Judge made the initial ruling here. While the Appellate did not fully step up, they at least showed some respects towards the non-custodial father by eliminating the arrears from the time of his son's death and suspending alimony. I agree that if the Appellate to this point has not done the decent thing here, the Legislature must. I have worked tirelessly to get the NJ Senate Judiciary Committee to do somehting about the situation regarding judges in Bergen County (Judge William R. DeLorenzo, as an example, who simply does not follow the statutes or the relevant case law and rules according to who the attorney is). But NJ garners the reputation for the most corrupt state in the US for good reason. Of the 12 members of the NJ SenateJudiciary Committee, each of whom I have formally contacted and written to many times, I have only received 1 response, that being a 2 sentence letter from Tom Kean Jr. essentially telling me he could do nothing. It all adds up to the fact that I don't have lots of money to contribute to their campaign coffers, so it is not an issue in their eyes. In the Calbi case, a reasonable condition of her ever being released from prison would be to have her status upon release be that of non-custodial, an order of restraint barring her from any unsupervised contact with any of her other children, and an order that she pay support , pro-rated back to her time of conviction and be required to pay the arrearages to the father. But then again, that would make sense and , as we in the Bergen County Family Part know all too well, that just isn't going to happen without someone at 10 Main St, Hackensack, NJ, be it lawyer or judge, realizing a big pay day. So tell me again, judge, how is this in the best interests of the child?
November 27th, 2007 at 1:33 am
While I respect the intentions of those that propose marching and such, the fact is that this has no effect. In NJ, Judges are not elected. The Governor "appoints" an attorney to be placed on the bench. The appointment is then confirmed by the NJ Senate Judiciary Committee (12 members). After an initial period of 7 years, the Governor then re-appoints the Judge and is again confirmed by the NJ Senate Judiciary Committee. Once that happens, the Judge is tenured and is ther until he/she retires or dies, whichever comes first. The initial appointment by the Governor not surprisingly corresponds almost directly to contributions to the Committee to Re-Elect of the Governor's political party. The contributions usually come directly from the individual seeking appointment or that individual's law firm at the time. From what I've been able to glean from the publicly available records of political contributions, it seems that for a seat on the NJ Superior Court Family Part bench the going rate is approximately $50,000. The only way to effect real change here is to take away that cash flow somehow. Either that or obtain comprising photos of the aspiring jurist, but that probably would not suffice in the cesspool we've come to know as NJ.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:52 am
OMG!!!!!!!
The family court, the appeals court, and the entire justice system pertaining to divorce needs a complete overhaul.
Economics is not the only thing involved in a divorce, but it would seem it is all the family court is concerned about.
Several of the commenters here have stated had this been a man he would be up on charges of murder and I truly beleive that. The media would be all over this and he would be on the nightly news every night for months to come.
It is uncuppalbe that the (13) standards for the decision are all economic. Do women not have a brain, 2 arms, and legs? Are they incapeable of earning just as much money as a man if not more? Does being married to a man suddenly make them unable to earn a living? I guess now we are all not responceable for our actions if we kill someone in a fight using only our hands and feet, our defence can be we did not intend for them to die but oops they did sorry! And by the way I may have been drunk when I did it so I promise I'll think about it for the rest of my life.
I have an aquantince who is now in a NJ prison and must serve 15 years for a drunken traffic accident that took the life of an 18 year old student. He did not know this kid and never had beaten him before or on that that fatefull night.
It's not funny how this woman is judged differently and gets off with 3 years in prison and is going to be paid alimony for the rest of her life after she is released. Our family court system is a scam devised to make money for the states and attorney's until we ban together and and protest as stated in David's statement from father's day demonstration. org nothing is going to change. The only power we as father's have is in the voting booth's and we don't count on the political side because we are not banded together like the Gray Panther's, NOW, or any other voting group you can think of. This is where we need to be to be heard.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Re; Sean Fitzpatrick,
It's not omly the Bergan county family court in NJ. I have first hand experience with Mommouth, and Middlesex counties also same results. It seem's to all over the NJ system.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:56 am
I think it is time to "REVOLT" . This system of probate concerning families in this country is in need of serious accountability . The laws need major overhaul and it is time for major change. The simple fact is that women are abusers too. They abuse men in probate court every day and in every county in this nation . The courts are destroying our families with a smile on their greedy faces . This system needs an act of congress and a vote from the president to get fixed and until it is brought to light will never ever be just. I feel for Mr. Calbi and especially for his youngest son .They are a small fraction of the wrongs committed in the probate court system and they too (unfortunately) will be swept under the radar unless this story gets magnified to point where "THEY" have to be held accountable. Because you are a man , you are less in the eyes of the probate court. GEE isn't that the first line of our constitution.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:13 am
You have got to be kidding me. Please tell me this guy is appealing this travesty of a decision!
November 27th, 2007 at 7:29 am
If the law doesnt protect everyone equally, our justice system has failed us. It doesnt just fail the innocent, but also the guilty. If neither side gets what they deserve, what can be done? How do we get reform? One person(namely the judge) cant seem to change the system. Those people who make these terrible verdicts cant be voted out because the next is just the same, maybe worse... In the 1800`s vigilante groups took care of this sort of problem. I say bring em back...
November 27th, 2007 at 11:39 am
After reading the decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey's Appellate Division, it seems that they did offer him some relief, at least to the extent that they demand that he get a hearing.
Christopher was then and is now entitled to a plenary
hearing and a ruling on his motion for reduction of alimony and
arrears as of the date of Matthew's death as requested in his
initial application as well as subsequently to the present time.
Pending that hearing, his alimony payments are suspended; his
arrears after Matthew's death are vacated; and the Family Part
court order directing arrears payments while Linda is in prison
is reversed.
But the last paragraph makes clear that he'll probably be stuck with payments again.
After her discharge from prison, Linda may make application
for alimony, which will be determined based on her present needs
and efforts to support herself as well as Christopher's ability
to pay alimony.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
What Glenn describes as "alleged bungling by the hospital" was the hospital's inability to see an exceedingly rare condition. It's not like the doctor dropped him on the floor.
Dr. Swan explained that scapulothoracic
dissociation is an uncommon injury with fewer than sixty cases
reported since its first description in 1984 by orthopedic
surgeons. Even with proper medical attention, the result is
often amputation. He said the overall mortality rate for this
injury is about twenty percent. Survival depends upon timely
recognition of the condition and appropriate surgical
intervention. He concluded as follows:
I believe the force generated by Matthew
Calbi's mother, Linda Calbi, in extending
her thigh upon her hip and her leg at the
knee, striking Matthew with the plantar
surface of her foot on the right side of his
neck, while at the same time immobilizing,
in her grasp, his right upper extremity, to
be sufficient to cause the injury which
resulted in his death.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
The judges (three stooges) responsible for this travesty should be removed immediately and disbarred just like the scumbag from NC, Nyfong. We need to circulate this and the voters will do the rest!
November 27th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
The law in all states clearly states that alcohol, although a factor, cannot be used as an excuse and in most states, causing the death of another or contributing to the death of another is homicide, no matter what finally brings about the death. An example is if a criminal robs a bank and the teller dies of a heart attack because of the trauma of the robbery, then the criminal can be charged with the death of that teller. Same situation, someone beats another, even though other mitigating circumstances contribute to the death of the assaulted then the crime is still homicide.
Just goes to show you where our liberalist thinking is taking society these days.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
if what cw says is true, she basically hit his neck with her foot, and basically broke his neck. Intent or not, this attack was definitely deadly to call it an injury is like claiming a gun shot to the neck being called "injury", in fact this would have been more deadly.
Wonder who called the hospital. I don't think that is NOT child abuse, domestic violence, and how come child abuse charges are not brought against her?
November 27th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
If I were him, I would not pay - an act of civil disobedience.
I'd find a female doctor to testify that due to depression and post-traumatic stress brought on by the mother's murder of my child, I had to take a lower paying job with reduced hours while seeking mental health counseling. And I'd need extra time taking care of my surviving child, who would also be suffering from the effects of her actions.
Trouble is, the courts would probably come after the surviving child as a "hostage" to keep those payments coming...
And same on those who witnessed the mother's terrible parenting skills and did nothing about it. Booze on her breath at a parent-teacher meeting? And the teacher didn't call the cops...?
November 27th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
When are the men in this country going to get balls. Starting back in 1964 ,(civil rights bill 1964) women became equal economic units, before 1964 the family was one economic unit(father ,mother ,and children) now the father is a unit,his wife is an unit , and each child is a economic unit. Question: can a ship have two captains, ans. NO, either can a family. Every domestic law written since 1964 has been gear to the women,ie. affirmative action. Because of these laws ,women burn there bras in 1972 ,said the hell with their children, enter the workforce ,went into Debt so they could buy brand new cars, before 1970 the average family had only one car.and 90% of women never went into debt. Now the average women would give up her children before she gave up her car. I think it is about time that men stop catering to women and their cars, and tell women to go home and raise there children.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Apparently only male cops have this problem
http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1724/10259052/18413441/290505687.jpg
b
November 28th, 2007 at 12:26 am
In case some of you didn’t understand this, scapulothoracic dissociation amounts to having an upper arm torn out of the shoulder girdle. This is almost always the result of high traction forces applied to the shoulder girdle. Scapulothoracic articulation is missing but the overlying skin remains intact. The later complicates diagnosis. The big problem in the acute setting is that there can be (and often is) not only injury to bone but serious injury to the soft tissues including the subclavian and/or axillary arteries and veins. Left untreated, amputation is often the only choice.
In other words she literally tore the kid’s arm out and he died.
In terms of the father’s legal recourse, it seems to me, if wants to sue her, the proximate cause of death will have to be determined in court – despite how obvious it might seem, this not always an easy task. If it can be determined that the child would have died of injuries caused by the mother regardless of any medical intervention (a very real possibility if, for example, she was slow in seeking medical attention or the injuries were so severe that nothing would have prevented death), then the proximate cause was a result of the mother’s action and the father would win a wrongful death case against her. The father certainly has a good case against her on battery, if the courts will allow it to be heard.
Of course, if things are running as usual in the family law arena, when she gets out the judges will most likely award her an increase in alimony to cope with her emotional trauma.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:04 am
This ruling just encourages more crime. The state should have ripped her arm out to save future victoms and not financed her future.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Here in New York State, auto insurance companies are allowed to charge new male drivers a higher rate of insurance than they charge new female drivers due to allegations that males are more aggressive on the road.
whether or not there had been a study, I don't know.
In contrast however, it is widely known that women use their own children as instruments to antagonize the Dads of these children during divorce and of course after the divorce is finalized throughout the growing years of their own children. We all have heard the stories of adult victims of divorce relating to the actions of their own mothers and how their own mothers cause tremendous pain and suffering to their own children throughout the years just because the mother has a need to "punish", "get back at", "antagonize", Play with" (for what ever perverted reason) the Dad.
Laws are made due to one case issues such as a rape of a child, auto manufacturers who cut corners resulting in the deaths of others, building contractors who's workers were killed due to mistakenly breaking foundations where a building collapses, recently the deuchta bank where firemen died, on and on...we are still waiting on tort reform but it's big legal business so why rush to change it.
The question begs; Why are our legislators NOT holding moms accountable for their actions?
Given the "bend over backwards" attitude toward the women of our society it's obvious that we think they ARE the weaker sex and must be coddled. In this case I think it is necessary to scrutinize their actions due in large part to the fact of their own actions, ie; wide spread emotional and pschological abuse to their own children. I would be willing to bet that if we tracked these adult victims of divorce who have grown up with a vindictive mother, we may very well find ALOT of men and women who have trouble relating to both sexes and to even function at any sort of capacity relating to satisfyingly growing into their full "normal" potential.
And ...to mention the time LOST with the Dads never to be retrieved.
Why are we coddeling the women of this society?
It has been my lifes experience that women are not able to cope with divorce in a fair manner especially when it comes to "winning" at ANY cost!
November 28th, 2007 at 7:49 am
[...] to pay Alimony? Wednesday, November 28 2007 @ 07:45 EST Contributed by: BloodSpite Views: 0 Via Glenn Sacks comes yet another story of Dad's being wronged, showing again why Dad's are the US's number [...]
November 28th, 2007 at 10:05 am
If enough cases are heard by the US Supreme Court, there may be change.
The case of the father, who was wrongfully imprisoned and then sued by the state for child support after his release, should be heard by the US Supreme Court.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
As to the father who pays murderous wife allimony:
This is an outrage. This woman should be having to pay the ex husband for loss of his son. He should take her to civil court like they did OJ Simpson (sorry for bad example). If this would've been reversed, and the father beat the son, the courts would disregard bungling by the hospital, and say he is a murderer. I am absolutely for alimony on a case by case basis, but this guy should never send a nickel to this horrible woman. Thank you Mr Sacks for bringing this to everyones attention.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:45 am
This is another example of the disgrace and corruption in this country. THERE IS NO WAY A MAN SHOULD HAVE TO PAY ALIMONY TO A WOMAN WHO KILLED HIS CHILD.
That woman should be fried and made to pay him alimony. Getting it from where ever she can, even if its just the state pay she will get every month when in prison. It may just be $14.00 a month but she should have to turn it over to her ex-husband.
No wonder more and more woman are killing their children, they are being rewarded to get rid of them instead of placing them where they can have a chance at being happy, healthy and safe like all children deserve.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
This is one of so many examples of our legal system gone amuck. It sounds like sexist attitudes play a covert role but that works both ways. My "favorite" stastic is that women who kill their husbands spend considerable more time in jail then when the situation is reversed. In this case however it sounds like the judge has lost either common sense, common decency, or is simply a complete moron! I'm going with the latter.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Unfortunately just another case of discrimination against men.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:31 am
What the hell is this? "medical bungling?", they are saying that it was the doctors who killed him?
thats like me stabbing a guy in the chest, piercing his heart and then charging the doctor's with malpractice because they couldn't save him. I should only be charged with assault and the death should go down as a malpractice.