Update 2/28/06 - Supervised Visitation Granted!
Today, for the first time in twenty-five days, I was allowed to see my son. Judge Punch granted supervised visitation for two hours, at my parents' home, supervised by my parents. Kohl and I had a wonderful time; he got to play with his cousin who is very close to him, as well as his grandparents who also have not seen him in twenty-five days. The time went by way too fast!
The judge expressed today that if Kohl exhibits no ill effects from having spent time with me, I can essentially work my way up to more contact with him.
I want to thank everyone whose support has helped me get to this point of limited contact with my son. I honestly believe that the watchful eye of the internet community has helped me get some degree of fairness from the judicial system. I appreciate everyone's support so much, I can't express my gratitude in words.
IMPORTANT RETRACTION:
On February 3rd, someone who represented themselves to me as knowing the judge well told me that His Honor was well known to be a very conservative Catholic. Today, February 28, His Honor informed me that this is not the case. He did comment that he does belong to a "church" of some kind, but he did not elaborate on what denomination.
I apologize for any confusion this may have caused, and of course anyone who feels that their support of me was based solely on their belief that the judge was in fact a conservative Catholic may contact me privately and I will happily refund any donations made on that basis. I certainly do not want anyone to feel that they sent me money to help with my enormous legal bills under false pretenses.
posted by Rachel Bevilacqua at 10:09 PM
25 Comments:
I've just heard about your story for the first time via a friends Blog page and I want you to know that people are out here paying attention. Bob just sold me a timeshare in Atlantis so I can't afford (really, sorry!) to send any "money" your way but my thoughts and energies are focused your way.
You sound like good parents and I hope the judge in this case will remember that coloring outside the lines it not a crime. You could be honest, sincere satan worshippers and it wouldn't make you bad parents in and of itself.
I hope you regain fully custody of Khol, have your legal fees paid for by his father and that his father apologises to Khol for putting him in this position.
10:23 AM
Thank you, I appreciate that. Knowing that so many people support me really helps me get through my day.
11:21 AM
Is this for real or is this an attempt to raise money for Bob? I would like to help you, but I fear that this is a money making scheme. Is there a newspaper story regarding this court case? thanks xoxomdmc@yahoo.com .
2:19 PM
Rachel is pitiful. She fails to say that her son was suicidal when Jeff gained custody of him. He is 10, and the size of a 4 year old, and Rachel does not seem to care. She lost visiation rights because she is CRAZY. She could not even handle giving him his prescribed medication for his asthma that her RN ex?-herion addict mother couldn't figure out he had! He was also not bathed, or eaten. Her psych eval shows it. She is in love with herself, and nobody else, not even her son. She nor her mother showed ANY emotion when she lost all rights to this child! Kohlbern is now a happy, healthy child as the Olreans County Sherriffs Department has confirmed TWICE over the past months. Kohl is now "thriving"-gaining weight and growing. She is having Jeff and her son followed. Even baited on the internet by people claiming to want to shut down this CULT. Don't believe her sob story. She never spent any time with her son, not even the entire TWO, yes TWO hour visitation she recently had. She "missed" him SOOOOOO much, she wasn't even there to see him when Jeff dropped him off. She had him play in the show without gloves or snow clothes, and then left him in wet clothes for hours. He has had fevers since also. SOME GREAT PARENTING ON HIS "RACHEL'S" PART. Yes, Kohl isn't even allowed to call his own mother mom, she is his Rachel!! If you are giving this BITCH money, then you are a piece of SHIT too!!
She and her sister were molested by her father, and they must have liked it because it is still going on, and she sleeps with her sister too. Talk about family LOVE!! Does she call him DADDY when he is FUCKING her?? Does her MOTHER videotape it?? Or possibly participate??
BTW she took everything that the judge said out of context, and he was calm the entire time. That is why he had to leave the room, because she is so disgusting.
11:30 PM
Rachel is pitiful. She is currently working for Ubicus company as a transcriptionist, but she snakes customers from them to poorly attempt to start her own business. I guess she should have majored in Business instead on Liberal Arts!! She fails to say that her son was suicidal when Jeff gained custody of him. Kohl has drank alcohol while in the care of his step-father Steven Bevilacqua who works for TISIS corporation in Columbus, GA. Kohl has also seen a picture of Steve with a naked woman (NOT Rachel) taken at a subgenius event. He is 10, and the size of a 4 year old, and Rachel does not seem to care. Possibly due to her continued marijuana use during her pregnancy. Yes, Kohl tested into the fifth grade, however, he had to be taught how to print, write cursive, and tie his shoes before he could attend school. Kohl has severe pshchological problems because of his mother. She lost visiation rights because she is CRAZY. She could not even handle giving him his prescribed medication for his asthma that her RN ex?-heroin addict mother Elizabeth "Betty" Knight who is the head nurse at Parkridge Nursing Home in Greece, NY, couldn't figure out he had! Does she play doctor with her elderly patients at the nursing home?? Kohl was also not bathed, or fed. Her psych eval shows it. She is in love with herself, and nobody else, not even her son. She nor her mother showed ANY emotion when she lost all rights to this child! Kohlbern is now a happy, healthy child as the Olreans County Sherriffs Department has confirmed TWICE over the past months. (Thank You!) Kohl is now "thriving"-gaining weight and growing. She is having Jeff and her son followed. Even baited on the internet by people claiming to want to shut down this CULT. Don't believe her sob story. She never spent any time with her son, not even the entire TWO, yes TWO hour visitation she recently had. She "missed" him SOOOOOO much, she wasn't even there to see him when Jeff dropped him off. She had him play in the snow without gloves or snow clothes, and then left him in wet clothes for hours. He has had fevers since also. SOME GREAT PARENTING ON HIS "RACHEL'S" PART. Yes, Kohl isn't even allowed to call his own mother mom, she is his Rachel!! If you are giving this BITCH money, then you are a piece of SHIT too!!
She and her sister, Sarah were molested by their father, James "Jim" Knight, also an ex?-heroin addict and they must have liked it because it is still going on, and she sleeps with her sister too. Talk about family LOVE!! Does she call him DADDY when he is FUCKING her?? Does her MOTHER videotape it?? Or possibly participate??
Jim, Rachel, and Betty are also trying to get Rachel's sister, Sarah Knight's (an alcoholic, pot head that works at "Go Ask Alice", a head shop in Brockport, NY) son, Kevin Burley age 17 (Who was raised by Betty, not his dead beat mother) in the cult.
BTW she took everything that the judge said out of context, and he was calm the entire time. That is why he had to leave the room, because she is so disgusting. Rachel also neglects to state that Kohl has told her that he want's to stay with his father. She doesn't even care what her son wants, it's all about what she wants. If anything, Rachel owes Kohl an appology for ruining the first DECADE of his life, and ROBBING him of his childhood!!!
12:49 AM
Blah blah blah, I've seen better trolls in a game of Dungeons & Dragons. Regarding all of this stuff blathered by the person above: Either it's just a bunch of lies or it's based on the truth. If it's lies, then so what? It's just a stupid idiot trying to get us upset. If it's based on the truth, then who would know stuff like this -- other than someone who knows her and wants to hurt her? And if this person is willing to reveal stuff that may be personal in a public forum, then that certainly shows us what kind of a person he is...I mean "he or she" is.
Don't let it worry you, Rachel.
6:58 PM
WHO'S YOUR DADDY!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
7:52 PM
Mags, I know that you and I had our differences recently (keep in mind I was having serious MS attacks and had been deprived of sleep or rest of any kind for THIRTY SIX HOURS--this is like a drug trip without the benefit of being high), but I am saddened to hear that you must go through this crap. I am sickened if indeed this judge is one of those weird social conservative types who believes you can legislate morality. I hope you are all right and that custody can be worked out in such a way to make all well and happy. Please feel free to visit my blog (as well as Jacklyn's blog, etc.) as we tell some decent jokes and it appears you could use a smile or two.
Reverend Lynx
10:01 AM
anonymous says:
"She fails to say that her son was suicidal"
documented proof? Did you even take him to a court-appointed psychologist? Don't see anything like that on the record. Go ahead, why don't you?
"because she is CRAZY"
Um, she's not the one ranting and raving here. All of her writing is perfectly logical and sound. She's posting all relevant court documents.
"Her psych eval shows it. She is in love with herself, and nobody else, not even her son."
She's not supposed to be in love with her son.
MMPI-2 psych evaluation tests are foolish in the context of custody suits because everyone "fakes good" on a psych eval. The test was designed for people who come to a therapist because they believe they are mentally ill - NOT for people who are being evaluated for child custody. The test doesn't even begin to properly evaluate people in that situation who are sane. So if Rachel shows up as having a high self image, that's totally and completely NORMAL on a custody-usage MMPI-2.
"She nor her mother showed ANY emotion when she lost all rights to this child!"
Attorneys counsel their clients NOT TO SHOW EMOTION in the courtroom. And sometimes, people go into shock.
"she wasn't even there to see him when Jeff dropped him off."
Supervised visitation centers stagger the arrivals and departures of parties so that confrontation and/or conflict doesn't occur.
" If you are giving this BITCH money, then you are a piece of SHIT too!!"
Abusive much? Hope Rachel's logging your IP address on her sitemeter, so she can give it to her attorneys.
"She and her sister were molested by her father, "
My, you sure know how to show compassion, don't you? I hope you are just as compassionate to your SON as you are to everyone else.
And further, blaming the victim is a disgusting tactic for the lowest of the low.
"Elizabeth "Betty" Knight who is the head nurse at Parkridge Nursing Home in Greece, NY, couldn't figure out he had!"
So in other words, anyone who doesn't agree with you, even a MEDICAL EXPERT, on a point of medicine and diagnoses, is wrong.
It's easy to see what kind of mindset you have. Cruel, uncompassionate, judgemental, illogical, threatened by anyone who doesn't agree with you, and plain old ranting-and-raving loony.
You are not convincing anyone of anything except the fact that Rachel definitely, completely and totally needs to continue to have permanent full custody of her son.
You are disgusting. Using a child as a pawn to spew your hatred.
10:17 AM
I've been following this since I found out about it, because my husband has knowledge of who her subgenius persona is, and we went through a custody case 3 years ago that sounds a lot like this...only, we were on the document-filing side, and his ex was on the "they stole my child and I didn't do anything wrong!" side.
I'm not surprised that the father was granted ex parte custody, because it is usually the case with the parent who is filing for emergency temporary custody. The whole point of that order is to remove the child from an allegedly dangerous situation until the court can decide whether it is dangerous or not.
From the allegations that anonymous (I'm assuming that is Rachel's ex, or someone close to him) made in this thread, the entire story wasn't revealed. I didn’t doubt that we were only seeing one side of the story, anyway, because of my past experience.
When a parent files an ex parte, or when a parent files for custody of a child, the other parent is immediately going to feel threatened, or attacked, and feel like the entire thing is unprovoked, that the ex is just “getting back” at them, etc. That’s how it was in our case. Ex said we were making things up, when in truth we were being told these things by those around her: her mother, her sisters, her neighbors, the preschool.
We, too, were unable to contact the child. Ex didn’t keep a phone, and the only time we were able to talk to the child was when Ex called and wanted money. On the promise of money (in addition to the child support Ex got every week), we could talk to the child. The child did not have a place to live, as the Ex and the child moved around constantly, although thankfully in the same town.
Ex had moved with the child nearly 2,000 miles away, but we were still able to file and everything because the place where the divorce is granted, and the initial child custody papers filed, is the place that holds jurisdiction, which was here. The proper procedure would have been to file a motion, in NY, to have jurisdiction moved to Texas, because [state the reasons here]. Then, when the move was made from Texas to GA, it would have to be repeated again. Not going by proper procedure makes it appear that Rachel was trying to hide where she was, and if her last-known address with the court was a Texas address, and that address was filed in NY, her moving to GA can be seen as removing the child illegally.
Even if Rachel’s Ex was kept informed on a daily basis of her current address and phone number, because these were not provided to the courts (assuming here) in the PROPER jurisdiction, she is in violation of the court order.
As to the bit about the boundaries between religion and art… the courts can not take away a child from a parent based on religion. Our Ex tried that on us, and it didn’t work (for more reasons than just the obvious). However, any activity that a parent engages in can and will be used against them, even if it just deemed as performance art, or in the name of religion (or lack thereof). What we do on our off time is an indication of the type of person we are. If, during our off time, we engage in performance art depicting popular religious figures having questionable (or even not so) things done to them, we have to realize and accept and EMBRACE the fact that people will assume things about us.
The same goes with any type of wackiness. X-Day sounds like great fun, although I have never been, and it sounds like something I’d personally enjoy doing. But what if my kid finds out some of the things that go on there, and asks me about it? What about the type of people who hang around there? Not everyone, judges included, are able to separate a group of adults letting go of their inhibitions and being crazy fun from the adults who are otherwise solid, dependable people with a weird sense of humor/fun.
The question then arises, what level of this is proper for a child? If a child grows up in this environment, will they become “morally depraved”? Can a child growing up with parents who enjoy doing something so weird, so to the left, so out of the comfort zone of the norms, be a productive, happy person? Judges and Guardian ad Litems have to think about these questions, and do what they believe, objectively, is the best for the child. If on the one hand you have a subgenius for a parent, and on the other hand you have what they consider mainstream, in their comfort zone for a parent, mainstream/comfort zone will more than likely win out, not because of religious prejudice but because a child needs certain things in the environment in order to grow up and be healthy. To many, who are, unfortunately, the majority, these certain things cannot come in the form of anything abnormal. Potential exposure to things like X-Day can make a case go from looking bad to being bad.
It must also be remembered that children are children, and they love their parents. A child will blatantly lie to one parent to make them happy, even if that means saying something mean about the other parent. Again, we went through this. Our child told us flat-out lies about Ex, because it was what we wanted to hear (okay, we didn’t really want to hear it, but we expected it). That is one reason a Guardian ad Litem is so important; the Guardian is trained and educated to see where a child lies, and does not lie, about things.
Keep this in mind: where a child is happiest is usually best for them, but not always, and when a child is visiting the other parent, the newness and the presents and the attention will oftentimes make that child believe that s/he is happier here than there, or there than here. When that initial high wears off, the child states where s/he was actually happier, although never to the parent (unless it is an extreme case and involves abuse; the child might then not state anything to anyone).
This isn't going to be a popular opinion, but I'm going to tell you anyway.
Sometimes, we think we are taking care of our children, and we are wrong. However, because we only see our part of the situation, and not see it more objectively from the outside, our perception gets distorted. We believe “this isn’t hurting my child,” when, in fact, it actually is. We just don’t see it.
I have no doubt that Rachel loves her son, and wants what is best for him, and believes that she can offer him that best. Our Ex honestly believed that she was doing what was right for the child, and that exposing the child to drugs, prostitution, homelessness, etc. would not hurt the child. This is, of course, an extreme case, on my part. The feeling of the mothers, though, is the same: I have been wronged, I am a good mother to my child, there is nothing wrong with my parenting skills.
Given time, things will settle how they will. My hope is for the best for you, Rachel, and your husband, and that your son ends up being in the place that is the best for him. And, even though you may think your husband is not the best person to be a full-time parent to your child, remember: you are looking at it from your point of view, and those around you/who love you look at it with the bias on your side, just as your ex/those around him/who love him look at it with the bias on HIS side. Give it time.
Best wishes,
Some discordian
12:30 PM
some discordian said:
"The proper procedure would have been to file a motion.....her moving to GA can be seen as removing the child illegally."
There is no way to equate moving with "illegal removal" without knowing what the original order said specifically. The order may not have specified. It may have stated very clearly that parental notification was all that was needed.
Further, most of the time you do not move for a change of jurisdiction until there is an issue at stake to be decided. You don't file for a change of jurisdiction just because you have moved.
"a child needs certain things in the environment in order to grow up and be healthy."
Clearly, you've appointed yourself the Judge and Jury over all families' decisions about what is "normal" and "healthy".
You don't have the authority to make this call.
Each family is different and needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Unless, of course, you are referring to a child's right to food, shelter, adequate clothing, a right to not be beaten or emotionally abused, an education, and love and affection etc etc etc.
None of which, by the way, are directly threatened by a Mom's participation in Subgenius.
1:42 PM
"Diversity is good" I am not sure who said that, but I do believe it is true.
Applied to this situation, I ask why anyone should give up attending a once a year subgenius event any more than they should give up attending the Mardi Gras? Mardi Gras is famous for nudity and drunkeness. XDay is famous for nudity and humor.
Some posters have suggested that if Rachel really loved her son she would give up any connection with subgenius. I ask this question: In this free land today, WHY should that be necessary?
3:39 AM
Exactly.
It's just stupidity and bias against mothers. Mothers are held up to a Golden Standard in court. Fall a bit short of this impossible standard and whoops! There goes your custody, out the window.
Moms are judged on character; which is subjective.
Dads are judged on performance; which is quantifiable.
Which creates unfairness.
12:24 PM
So what do we know? From the court documents on this site we know the allegations of the father and the decisions of the Judge. We also know there is an obnoxious crazy sounding person with inside information posting nasty comments all over this blog. Perhaps this person is *not* the father and is only a friend of the father...
I asked an attorney friend of mine about this case and he told me that cases like this are not uncommon in the family court system, and that family court judges are notorious for making extra-legal decisions based on their own weird prejudices.
What seems to be uncontested is that Rachel is gainfully employed while the father is not. Rachel is married while the father is not. Rachel is capable of expressing herself clearly and coherantly without venom while the father (or his friend) is not.
To suggest that she should not have attended X-day is a truly bizarre thing to say. That should have no bearing on this case and I can't even understand why the judge allowed those photos into evidence, much less paid enough attention to them to influence his decision. If Kohl was not there then it is a non-issue.
The father alleges that Kohl was suicidal, but all we have is his word on that. He (or his friend) mentions psyche evaluations for Rachel, but not for Kohl. The father states Kohl is small for his age, and Rachel points out the endocrinologist says he is merely genetically small like his mother. If you've looked at the pictures you can see she is a tiny thing...
One poster suggests that her move from Texas to Alabama without notifying the courts may have played a role in this, yet if you read the fathers initial petition he was claiming she had moved from Georgia to Alabama, thus implying that the court already knew she was in Georgia. It is clear the court had her address in Georgia because it is listed on the court papers. Rachel disputes this and I notice that the father (or his friend) has not mentioned that in his rants on this blog.
The father also states he was unable to get in touch with her, yet it's clear they must have been in contact or how did he know which plane to meet to pick up his son for visitation? Forget the phone records... if he was unable to contact her how did he know which plane to meet?
And if he meant he was unable to contact her during the few days between when his son arrived for visitation and when he filed that petition with the court then so what? She's not responsible to be at his beck and call every instant.
The worst part is that these pictures played any role in this at all... no, strike that, the worst part is what this must be doing to a ten year old boy who needs to be with the mother who loves him.
2:49 PM
Personally, it seems to me that the pinkboy husband is going to do more destructive behavior modification on the little tike than the subgenius parent.
I mean, millions and millions of people were raised by normal parents, and damn near all of them end up unhappy, unlucky, and confused as to why the world is so crappy. Could the subgenius do any worse? I doubt it. At least the child would learn that it can't be taken so seriously.
Praise "Bob". Here's hoping it works out on the side of weird, rather than the side of normal.
9:52 PM
Hope is not enough when mean kids don't play nice in the sandbox. In that situation the best move you can make is to have lots of friends on your side, and in this case also have the means to fight back aggressively.'
One thing the Subg society has shown is it's love of Rachel/Magdalen and it's deep belief that she is a good person who has demonstrated her ability to be a good mother. I am certain that this is one thing that has buoyed her at this time when adversity is so abundant.
3:47 AM
For the record, the legal documents filed by Reverend Magdalen (Rachel), her husband, and the friend who took them in when this affair started are now online for your perusal:
Magdalen Affidavits
4:55 AM
Thanks Modemac,
Can I suggest that those documents be moved here as well? There should be a central location where ALL the information is available and this is the logical choice. It would also be good if scanned images of the signed and notorized documents were put out there rather than the PDF templates.
And Rachel? I heard about this from someone who was spreading it around on Tribe.net . I took a couple weeks to look at it and now I'm actively spreading the word too. That's the way these things work on the internet--like a snowball they begin slow with fits and starts, but the more they keep rolling the faster they go and the more momentum they gain. Stand back because this whacko judge Punch isn't gonna know what's hit him... and when Kohl is back with you where he belongs then I and a lot of other people you've never even met are gonna stand up and cheer. This is just getting started...
3:14 AM
I'm glad you could see your child.
It sounds like this Ex of yours is a really great person. Blatantly exploiting the legal system to snatch custody of your child. If he's such a good guy who believes in justice and truth, why didn't he contact you and arrange a formal trial?
I donated a small amount of money to the cause. And I don't appreciate being called a "piece of SHIT" for doing so...
BUT
Instead of flaming the troll I'll just say this instead.
Rachel. You could most likely subpoena blogspot to get the "Rachel is pitiful" poster's IP and use the post against your ex if it was him or anyone close to him. They strongly imply that they were in the courtroom during a hearing, This narrows down the people who this could be a lot I would imagine. At the minimum your counsel could question your ex about the post in court. Or it could possibly serve as grounds for a civil libel case I would think.
Opinions expressed in this comment are only those of the poster and NOT NESSISARILY those of Rachel Bevilacqua, her family, her council, or anyone for that matter.
Good luck to you in your struggle.
10:44 PM
What a cute kid.
Your cultural values are being held to someone else's standards. It would seem that your ex is willing to sell out your private lives and pit your values against the court's in order to gain custody. Sick asshole.
I wish you all the best.
11:44 AM
Being a 52 year old woman, I don't exactly fit the profile of most SubGenii and yet, I was at the X-day where the photos in question in this case were taken. I went there to be a good mom and help my son. My son is physically handicapped and also is on the autistic spectrum. He was over 21 at the time but couldn't have attended without our help in getting there. So, why would we want to help him go to what might, at first glance, seem like such a bizarre, unhealthy event? Well, the fact of the matter is that the message that he took away from the Church of the Subgenius was to like himself better than he did and to have more self-confidence. He learned that maybe it's not so bad to be not so "normal." Ivan, and Rachel, and Steve were particularly kind and encouraging to him. It made a positive difference to him at a difficult time in his life. Anyway, my point in writing is just to say that participation in X-day does not a bad parent make! I hope that the legal team can straighten this out so such a terrible precedent is not allowed to stand.
5:37 PM
I don't subscribe to the Church of the SubGenius, or in fact to any other church, but I'm also paying close attention to this story. Please keep posting. I hope this works out, and you get your son back. Judging from the actions your husband has taken, he is NOT a responsible parent.
12:06 PM
How incredibly fucking sad this case is - and truly unbelievable. Whether it's religion or performance art or no matter how "sick" or "perverted" one might find the particular event - the child wasn't there, and there's no evidence that anything "sick" and "perverted" was ever occurring in his presence. What the fuck???? If your child was taken from you over this, I can't imagine why the fuck people like MADONNA and Brittany Spears and Michael Jackson get to keep their kids. And Tom Cruise and this silent labor ANTI-BREASTFEEDING scientology bullshit. I mean - I don't think judges should go taking away their children either - just that I think that shit is WAY sicker than anything involving Bob Dobbs and goat heads or whatever it was - any freaky goddamned thing that you did in the company of other adults. If there was no evidence of abuse or neglect - how in the world is it the best thing for the child to suddenly be torn away from his loving mom??? It's so fucked up and it sucks that it's not all over the media. I must say, though, if I were in your position, I think I would suck it up and try to show some kind of repentance - even if it were false. Not only because I can't imagine being away from my daughter, but more because I know how deeply it would hurt her to be unable to see me. I'm not saying I'd give up the fight - because it is important to be a whole person, and it is essential to demonstrate for our children the importance of standing up for what we believe in - but I'd try to get my kid back first and then fight the system after the fact. Maybe it's not the most effective way to win the fight, but given the choice between my art/career/religion (well, open practice of it - maybe not my beliefs) and my child, I'd choose my child - even if it were a choice that were unjustly forced on me.
2:42 AM
How incredibly fucking sad this case is - and truly unbelievable. Whether it's religion or performance art or no matter how "sick" or "perverted" one might find the particular event - the child wasn't there, and there's no evidence that anything "sick" and "perverted" was ever occurring in his presence. What the fuck???? If your child was taken from you over this, I can't imagine why the fuck people like MADONNA and Brittany Spears and Michael Jackson get to keep their kids. And Tom Cruise and this silent labor ANTI-BREASTFEEDING scientology bullshit. I mean - I don't think judges should go taking away their children either - just that I think that shit is WAY sicker than anything involving Bob Dobbs and goat heads or whatever it was - any freaky goddamned thing that you did in the company of other adults. If there was no evidence of abuse or neglect - how in the world is it the best thing for the child to suddenly be torn away from his loving mom??? It's so fucked up and it sucks that it's not all over the media. I must say, though, if I were in your position, I think I would suck it up and try to show some kind of repentance - even if it were false. Not only because I can't imagine being away from my daughter, but more because I know how deeply it would hurt her to be unable to see me. I'm not saying I'd give up the fight - because it is important to be a whole person, and it is essential to demonstrate for our children the importance of standing up for what we believe in - but I'd try to get my kid back first and then fight the system after the fact. Maybe it's not the most effective way to win the fight, but given the choice between my art/career/religion (well, open practice of it - maybe not my beliefs) and my child, I'd choose my child - even if it were a choice that were unjustly forced on me.
2:43 AM
im just wondering the outcome of the end.....did she finally win..i really hope so...
11:37 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home