Under Item # 6E in the Defendant's June 9, 2010 amendment to his Motion For Modification he states, "As a result of the judgment (paragraph 2.5 which limits the childrens' access to some members of the Buggy family and some members of the MacVicar family) and the Wife's interference, the husband has lost basically all contact with his family of origin."
Now, I am sorry, but I simply don't believe that. Father sees the children every other weekend, and one evening a week. He has had plenty, and I mean plenty of time to see his family of origin since the judgment. I'd say he has eleven days to do so out of every two week period. Seriously. If that isn't sufficient opportunity to maintain his ties with his family, he'll never have enough time!
There are other reports that I find questionable in the Memorandum of Decision for this case. For example, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff Mother had attacked him on two occasions in 2004 and 2005. What bothers me, and what bothers me about most of the statements attributed to the Defendant, is that there appears to be no corroborating evidence provided.
If the Plaintiff attacked the Defendant, where is the proof? Are there photographs of the supposed injuries? Are there any doctor's reports or emergency room reports? Well, apparently, there is report in an Emergency Room of the second attack, but in that report he gives a different story of what happened, which doesn't include anything about a spousal attack. Plus, apparently, on the stand Defendant provided a few more different stories of the incident.
This is my problem with much of the discussion in this Memorandum of Decision--the Defendant said this, the Plaintiff said that--so where is the proof? Where is the documentary evidence? Where is the testimony by witnesses? And if there are multiple, inconsistent accounts of an incident, why randomly take one and publish that one as THE truth.
I mean, apparently, there were eleven days of hearings in this case, and yet the vast majority of information provided in the Memorandum of Decision is unsubstantiated he said, she said type testimony primarily reported by one man--Dr. Kenneth Robson.
For example, Dr. Robson stated that he "was impressed that many people with whom he spoke appeared to feel frightened of Ms. MacVicar."
Really? "Many People?" Who exactly?
And did they provide testimony on the stand under oath to that effect? I assume it wasn't J.'s therapist Pamela Tinoco about whom the Defendant made the complaint that she would not communicate with him. Maybe the Defendant was too scary to Ms. Tinoco. Who knows!
One thing we do know is that the GAL, Jocelyn Hurwitz reported that Ms. MacVicar "had some witnesses vouching for her as a parent and as an individual." In fact, the Court acknowledged that "All of these witnesses were impressive." Oh, impressive. I guess Ms. MacVicar wasn't scaring them.
I mean, just between you and me and the bedpost, I can frighten people also. Usually, the people I frighten are the liars who are afraid of being caught. Everyone else thinks I'm a fuzzy, wuzzy teddy bear. My question is, what's the matter with frightening liars. They should be frightened because they are lying and ruining peoples' lives. Duh!
There are some other points that just don't add up as well. For instance, Dr. Robson stated his view that Father had not abused the two children J. and K. However, such a conclusion is entirely contradicted by Father's own admission that "he had 'blown up' and had sworn at the girls. I'm sorry--he swore at them? I've been a parent for a considerable period of time and I have never yet had to swear at my children. In what world is using bad language towards your children acceptable? Certainly not in mine!
The girls complained that their father pulled their hair. In response, Father said that the older child J. had once pulled her younger sister, K.'s, hair. That is NOT the same as saying, "No, I did not pull your hair." In essence, he sidestepped the question. Why?
Dr. Kenneth Robson is also not very credible when he stated that Sandra MacVicar sent a threat to him and Attorney Hurwitz, the GAL in a letter. Of course, I thought the threat would be that Ms. MacVicar said she was going to burn Dr. Robson's house down, or that she was going to get a gun and shoot the GAL. Instead, the so-called threat was that Ms. MacVicar said "when the girls got hurt by Mr. Buggy, it would be on their heads."
Seriously, that's a threat?
Didn't Dr. Robson just say that Mr. Buggy wasn't any kind of danger to the children and that he was the children's only hope for living a healthy life style. If this is Dr. Robson's idea of a threat, maybe he should listen to his own subconscious mind telling him what a liar he is.
The bottom line is that the entire Memorandum of Decision in this case is riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and blanket statements with no basis in any documentary or testimonial evidence.
"Oh, babe, why can't you see, what you are doing to me" croons Elvis in his song, "Suspicious Minds." I'll tell you why in this case, because all the attorneys (plus the judge, Dr. Kenneth Robson) involved are so gosh darned dumb.
To be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment