As you may recall, I had originally discussed this case in the light of the issue of converting separation agreements into dissolution agreements.
At this point, I am going to address the custody matters in this case.
Just to let you know right up front, the outcome of this case was that the Plaintiff, Sandra McVicar, lost custody of her children, and her ex was given not just primary custody, but sole custody. "Why?", you ask? Well, I'll tell you.
For a quick overview, when this decision came out in October 25, 2010, the parties consisted of Glenn M. Buggy, the Defendant who, at the time, was 46 years old. Although he received a law degree, he currently works as an Executive Recruiter. The Plaintiff, Sandra McVicar, was also 46 years old, has a graduate degree in special education and has worked as a teacher for most of her life. They both have an older daughter, J. who is around 15 and a younger daughter, K. who is around 12.
The parties had a separation agreement dated August 11, 2006 which placed the primary residence of the children with the Plaintiff Mother. Then on April 16, 2016, the Defendant filed a Motion for Modification of Visitation and Financial Orders Postjudgment. On March 26, 2009 the Defendant filed a revised motion with the same title and then an amendment to that motion dated June 9, 2010.
The bottom line of both these motions in regard to custody was that the Defendant Father requested that he be given primary custody of the children based upon the accusation that "the Defendant's relationship with his children has been adversely affected by the actions of the Plaintiff such that a transfer of custody from the Plaintiff to the Defendant is in the best interests of the minor children."
Ok, surprise surprise, another case of "Parental Alienation" used to justify a custody change from the Mother to the Father. What do you bet that the vast majority of cases like this where the court has been asked to make such a transfer have been based upon an accusation of PAS?
Furthermore, another common thread I am finding is that many of these situations consist of an accused mother such as Sandra McVicar who is also a teacher. So the trial court often finds that while these women are perfectly qualified to care for classrooms full of students, often 125 or more per year, they are not qualified to care for their own children. You have to love that logic!
Anyway, I am sure most of you reading this blog are aware that ordinarily, custody agreements are final. So what would be the basis of changing one? Apparently, if you look at the findings of the trial court in this particular case you will see the standard basis for changing custody. The trial court describes it as follows:
"After the final decree this court has limited the broad discretion given the trial court to modify custody orders under General Statutes Sec. 46b-56 by requiring that modification of a custody award be based upon either a material change of circumstances which alters the court's finding of the best interests of the child or a finding that the custody order sought to be modified was not based upon the best interests of the child."
Apparently, parental alienation fits the definition of a change of circumstances or a situation which is not in the best interests of the child.
But that is not the only reason, I am sure. I am so easily seduced into making light of these matters--my apologies. In addition to the dreadful PAS, in this case there is also the significant matter of Mother's psychiatric condition. According to Dr. Kenneth Robson, Sandra McVicar had considerable mental health deficits such as "paranoid perceptions.", a "Borderline Personality Disorder", and a "paranoid personality disorder."
Oh, but wait a minute--it looks as though Ms. McVicar didn't undergo any of the formal psychological testing which ordinarily takes several hours to complete and which would be required in order to obtain any kind of trustworthy results.
So, how could Dr. Robson validate his conclusions without actually obtaining any data from the kinds of objective tests which would verify his results and safeguard him from proposing diagnoses based upon his own personal prejudice?
Not very well, I guess, but I suppose that didn't bother him!
So, what about Glenn Buggy? Did Dr. Robson have anything to say about Mr. Buggy's test results? Well, no, actually, he had nothing to say even though Mr. Buggy apparently did take those tests.
What a very puzzling omission!
Doesn't it seem a little one sided to provide every damning detail of Sandra's diagnosis even though it isn't based upon any scientific evidence, yet remain silent about Glenn's mental health status when there actually is scientific evidence of it?
What can I say? In the words of Elvis, Oh, Dr. Robson, "Why can't you see, what you're doing to me, when I don't believe a word you say. We can't get on together, with suspicious minds. And we can't build our dreams on suspicious minds." la, la, la...
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment