HuffPo Writer Sides with Sandra Bullock & Husband in Custody Battle, Quotes Fathers & Families
November 10th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"We see this all the time where the ex-wife lives with a crazy, harmful boyfriend who can't see his own kids because the court has prohibited him because he may have been convicted of drugs or abuse. Yet he can live with another father's kid," says Glenn Sacks, the executive director of Fathers & Families.
"I've seen many fathers try to bring this to the courts' attention and the courts don't want to hear it."
Author Jill Brooke (pictured) often writes insightful articles about families and divorce. Brooke's newest is Can a Stepmother Like Sandra Bullock Be a Better Parent than a Biological Mom Who's a Porn Star? (Huffington Post, 11/6/09).
Obviously the famous actress vs. porn star battle is unusual. Yet there are many stepmothers and second wives who step in and parent their husband's kids because their mom can't or won't do it. These women are often caught in the middle of nasty custody battles, are maligned as interlopers for loving their stepchildren, and have little legal standing.
Brooke writes:
Rarely when fathers seek full custody of a child are the facts so stacked against the mother as in the case between "Monster Garage" star Jesse James and his ex-wife, porn star Janine Lindemulder. The couple are battling in court for custody of 5-year-old daughter Sunny. Not only is Lindemulder a porn star, which is a career that one can argue has negative moral and lifestyle implications on a child's upbringing, but she is married to a felon and has an alleged drug problem. James on the other hand is married to Sandra Bullock, who has been called "America's sweetheart."
I guess it won't surprise you that few fathers get full custody. The ones who even attempt it usually have an arsenal of evidence. According to the Association of Matrimonial Lawyers, the majority of cases are now joint custody.
Bullock and James have had sole custody of 5-year-old Sunny for the past six months since Lindemulder was in jail -- yes, jail -- for tax evasion.
Now Lindemulder has gone from the courts to the court of public opinion by appearing on ABC's Good Morning America and throwing what I'm calling the divorce equivalent of the "shot heard around the world" in accusing Sandra Bullock of being an interloping stepmother who is trying to "take away my daughter." Give me a break. This shot will backfire and be a rallying cry for stepmothers to finally be freed from the tyranny of the stereotype that they can't be loving, wise, and sincerely devoted parents in a child's life.
"What would give her the right to take away my daughter?" Lindemulder asked, even though she admitted Bullock is a good stepmother to Sunny. "This is my daughter. I'm the best mother I can be."
Hmmm, the best mother she can be is not enough. Especially when she is married to Jeremy Aikman, who as E! reported, has several previous state and federal convictions involving alcohol, guns and the manufacturing of narcotics.
While I counsel many women who are anguished when their kids see their ex's new wife -- who may have broken up the marriage -- little media attention is given to the agony of the father who is often helpless when his kids are with another man.
"We see this all the time where the ex-wife lives with a crazy, harmful boyfriend who can't see his own kids because the court has prohibited him because he may have been convicted of drugs or abuse, and yet he can live with another father's kid," says Glenn Sacks, the executive director of Fathers & Families. "I've seen many fathers try to bring this to the courts' attention and the courts don't want to hear it."
Furthermore, Sacks reveals how many concerned stepmothers -- who love their stepchildren -- also call the organization inquiring about their rights to be more involved with their stepchildren. "Some stepmothers," he says, "have been more of a mother than the biological mother but have no standing legally in the system."
Read Brooke's full article here.
"));
19 queries. 0.332 seconds.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
"According to the Association of Matrimonial Lawyers, the majority of cases are now joint custody."
I wonder what world these liars live in.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
It reminds me of the classic film "Kramer vs Kramer" where the father, abandoned by his wife alone with his son, tries to make a go of it and encounters troubles including losing his job and an accident where his child is harmed.
The mother starts out by saying: "I left my child but don't see why I should be punished for that" and then her lawyer grills Kramer and argues HE is to be punished for the problems caused precisely by her abandonment (his losing his job balancing work and career).
In the end, the court shoves him out and the film cops a happy ending by the ex-wife agreeing to let him keep the child. I hate it when a film cops out like this because it encourages the audience to think that the problem doesn't really need solving. All will end well somehow magically.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Reading the comments it is amazing to me that many of them use the RvW comment of "Its a womens right to do what she wants with her body" as if that explains away the fact this woman is an addict.
Quite a few others state the "No court should be able to take the child from the mother" yet I bet they wont be so quick to defend when the fathers rights are at stake.
Another example of HuffPo thinking.
the article was good though and I think Jesse and Sandra should remain with full custody.
Again its welcome to equailty ladies. funny how its a bad thing when it comes back to bite them.
The Other Mike D
November 10th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
"I guess it won't surprise you that few fathers get full custody. The ones who even attempt it usually have an arsenal of evidence."
Is this statement ever true. I have a very good friend who's wife left him last year. She ended up going back to her ex-boyfriend (who just got out of jail for selling drugs by the way). Until their custody hearing, they split custody 50/50, and it drove my poor friend practically insane thinking that his 3 year old was spending time with this guy and there was nothing that he could do. Everytime I talked to him, he would tell me how scared he was that she would end up winning custody simply because she's the mom...regardless of the fact that she was now shacking up with an ex-convict.
He was so scared that he actually ended up doing the smartest thing he could have ever done. He borrowed money from everyone he could think of and hired a private investigator. The PI (on his first day of work) video taped her AND their son, getting into a car with some unknown guy, driving to a convenience store and making a drug deal. The next day, he video taped her and her boyfriend (again...with son in the car), driving from house to house selling the drugs that they had just purchased the day before.
My friend kept this evidence a secret until their custody hearing. It didn't even go to trial. When his attorney showed her attorney the video tapes, they backed down REAL fast and gave my friend everything he was asking for (full legal and physical custody with supervised visitations).
Luckily for him...as the article states, he pretty much had "an arsenal of evidence". My point is, that if not for this video what are the chances that my friend would have actually won custody of his son? Probably not too good...even though he is by FAR the better parent and had plenty of witnesses to testify on his behalf.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I would not take sides so fast. Apart from the drug problem (if it means she is uncontrollably addicted) I see nothing that disables the bio-mom from being a good parent. If the mom was violent or abusive to the child, it would be understandable.. but to condemn someone and support removing their ability to see their child - for evading taxes (which should never be a crime) or doing what could easily be victimless "crimes".
November 10th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Charlie says..."According to the Association of Matrimonial Lawyers, the majority of cases are now joint custody." I wonder what world these liars live in.
They could live in Texas Charlie. Texas has a "presumption" of joint custody. Unfortionately joint custody in Texas really does not mean anything. One of my elected officials told me that joint custody was nothing more than joint in name only. Basically it is legal language to make the non-custodial parent feel better. The Texas Family Code says that "joint custody does not have to be equal or near equal time". There is still the one size fits all standard order that much favors the custodial parent and they get the tax write off every year. The non custodial parent still has to pay the 20% child support for one child and provide the insurance. NOTHING JOINT ABOUT IT. I have joint custody and live ten minutes from my child and my EX makes more money than I do. Again, it is joint in NAME ONLY.
I am always for protecting a parents rights. Sad part about this is that there should be no question as to who the "CUSTODIAL" parent should be. The woman has a drug problem, makes porn movies, and is married to a convicted felon. If there is no dirt on the man, it should be an open and shut case. Whoever termed the phrase "It is a man's world" lied.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Question. If this custody case is about Jesse James vs. his child's mother then why is it that Sandra Bullocks' name is the one getting plastered all over the place? For the last few weeks I've been skimming headlines wondering who the father is since they were calling Sandra stepmom. At first I thought it was because the father was an unknown (as in not a celebrity) but then I actually read an article and saw that it was friggin Jesse James from Monster Garage.
Not only is Lindemulder a porn star, which is a career that one can argue has negative moral and lifestyle implications on a child's upbringing, but she is married to a felon and has an alleged drug problem. James on the other hand is married to Sandra Bullock, who has been called "America's sweetheart."
I have a bit of a problem with this. Why is James' only valid credential his wife?
My big question is why is this custody battle being billed as Bullock vs. Lindelmulder instead of James vs. Lindelmulder?
November 10th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
"My big question is why is this custody battle being billed as Bullock vs. Lindelmulder instead of James vs. Lindelmulder?"
Sadly it is because the man does not matter to the media. A cat fight sells more advertising.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
That's right. Mine was between my ex's new husband and me.
As MRA we have to see this for what it is.
A power grab by a step parent trying to take custody away from a biologic parent. Isn't that what we're fighting against.
The court will find for Lindelmulder. And that is a win for us.
We can't fight for 50/50 only when it suits us.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Come on folks. Obviously the entire family court enterprise DEPENDS upon guaranteed victory for biological mothers, no matter how inept, mentally or morally ill they may be.
When the mother is a disaster, this is of course an opportunity for one of the many corrupt mental health "professionals" who lurk in family court to give her some "therapy", and pronounce her ready for motherhood!
The "lawyers" and psych "professionals" who feed at the family court trough depend on a steady flow of women with bad judgment in order to get the kinds of divorces and custody battles which cause honest and decent men to reach for their checkbooks and spend any sum needed to protect their children.
This is the perfect little storm for the scammers who operate in family court: A "mother" who is morally and/or cognitively highly defective, and a father with a bankroll.
The more perverse the intermediate decisions of the court (e.g., interim custody goes to the mother, no restriction of the felonious boyfriend's contact with the kids, etc., etc.) the more the good father writes checks out of understandable moral outrage.
That is the family court game through which judges help their lawyer buddies loot living families.
Get it?
That's it and that's all that is going on.
End of story.
End of safety and sanity for America's kids and fathers.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Single Dad I have to say that this is one of "right thing for the wrong reason" situations in terms of making this battle Bullock vs. Lindelmulder.
Yes it is good to see a person stepping up to provide a better life for a child and it would be great if that were the media's intentions. But its not.
Plain and simple Bullock has more star power than James and those outlets know that they will sell more papers and get more site hits this way instead of talking about James vs. Lindelmulder.
And it is most certainly worth mentioning that part of reason for this is because most people still automatically favor the mother over the father when it comes to custody simply because of gender. She might be introducing her child to the wrong element through her porn career (and that is a might because porn star does not automatically equal unethical/immoral) but because she is a woman people will side with her.
With the Bullock vs. Lindelmulder setup one cannot (in the minds of the sexist masses) simply side with the woman because in this battle they are both women. And sadly for a lot of the masses the fact that is woman vs. woman NOW means that they must actually read the material on the case to think about who they would side with. Frankly if this were James vs. Lindelmulder the court of public opinion would have already awarded custody to Lindelmulder.
Its cool to root for Bullock in this but it is worth bearing in mind that she is not the only fighting on that side.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Laurie:
Great story! It only goes to show that in family court, the only thing that ever helps fathers is EVIDENCE.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
@Laurie Says:
November 10th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I am amazed he won because even with an arsenal of evidence if it goes to trial the courts are so anti male it wouldn't matter.. She gets the kids he pays child support....
November 11th, 2009 at 12:58 am
I'd like to take this time to thank the loving stepmothers who do so much for the father's rights cause. There are some great women among us.
I'm not sure if they understand that sometimes their voices are louder than ours when it comes to shared parenting, equality and the rest of this mess. I've seen many posters, who are stepmothers, on some of the message boards and they give some of the best advice.
Thank you ladies.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Sorry Glenn, but a conviction on domestic Abuse will prevent you from, or limit seeing, your own kids (until they turn 18),, but will not limit your ability to serve as a parent for other kids.
I should know, I went through just that, and I am now tryoing to undo the damage caused by another father who refuses to have anything to do with his 5 kids. when I met their mother, 4 of the 5 were adults, and two were married and out of the house.
The kids quickly acknowledged me, and I did what no-one had done in many years, which was to have the kids accept me as their mother's friend, not an enemy.
Sorry to say, but for at least one kid, the damage caused by the biological father will last pretty much forever, and I can only hope that I am sucessful in keeping this kid (OK 25 year old) on the straight and narrow, and not let the actions of someone else ruin the rest of his life.
In terms of the Lindemulder/James battle, I still believe both parents should be involved significantly, if that means Janine has to see her kids in a public forum, without her boyfrien present, so be it, but I am totally opposed to the "to the victor goes the spoils" mentality, and the division it causes.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
My big question is why is this custody battle being billed as Bullock vs. Lindelmulder instead of James vs. Lindelmulder? Because Lindelmulder wants it that way. I read some of the post here and I see some of you playing that stepmom trying to take over the kids game. Lindlelmulder is the one pushing Bullocks name in the media. Other wise it is drug addict porn star mommy and professioinal auto mechanic. Common sense says Texas style joint custody with the kid living with dad and mom actually living to the same standards any man would. Some of post here amase me Being a drug addict is a good enough reason for a child to live with his father. No one seems to have any problem kicking a father out of his childs life for a lot less than being a drug addict.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:41 am
@Robert Kerr Says:
Why bother? Just stay single and enjoy life... All that drama you wrote about was pointless and what was it all for anyway? You gonna get an award for all your work? Nope...
Stay single, enjoy life.. Less hassles...