PAS CASE WHERE FATHER WON

[SallyandJack]

whew-hoooo!

i may be late with this but for all you sparcers out there...(sorry if someone else has already posted, haven't been here in a while).  And the judge is a woman.

Shocker in twins' custody row

By WILLIAM SHERMAN
and BOB PORT
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

A Manhattan Family Court judge ordered yesterday that two 4-year-old identical twin girls born out of an extramarital affair be removed from their mother's home and given to their adulterous dad.

The decision stunned the mother - former actress and Playboy model Bridget Marks - and pleased the father, casino executive John Aylsworth, the millionaire chief operating officer of President Casinos Inc.

But the father's win has a condition.

Aylsworth must move from his seaside Malibu, Calif., estate to within 40 miles of the upper East Side apartment where Marks has raised the twin girls since they were born, the judge ruled.

Acting Supreme Court Judge Arlene Goldberg also ordered that the mother's "visitation and telephone contact with the children be monitored and supervised."

Goldberg's ruling, which is sure to spark heated legal debate, requires that Marks turn over her twins, Amber and Scarlet Aylsworth, at noon on June 1.

Aylsworth can take the children anywhere he wants for a four-week summer vacation, the judge ruled. The twins' mother then has a one-week supervised visit.

Goldberg decided that Marks should lose custody because of "her unbridled anger toward the father" and inability to foster a relationship between daughters and father.

Marks, 38, and the married Aylsworth, 54, struck up a love affair in 1998. But their relationship soured. The exec and his wife pressed Marks to abort her pregnancy, but Marks refused and raised the twins alone, according to court documents.

Marks was in tears yesterday.

"I am devastated," she said. "It's a travesty and a disgusting miscarriage of justice and an abuse of power."

"The girls are my life and my heart," she said. "Mine is the only home that they've ever known."

Aylsworth's attorney, Patricia Grant, said Aylsworth and his wife, Karen, would move to the New York City area.

"I think that the court based the decision on the credible evidence and we're gratified, but we're disappointed that the children can't relocate to California," Grant said.

Supervised visitation will likely mean a court-appointed social worker must be present when Marks is with her children. Attorneys in the case were asked to submit proposals on who should supervise visits and when.

The judge did not find that Marks was unfit as a mother but instead found that it was in the best interest of her children to live with their father.

While Aylsworth "has had extramarital affairs, his failings impact on his ability to be a good husband, not a proper custodial parent," the judge wrote.



:7

[joni]

I've been reading posts all over the internet about people who were outraged that this could happen to poor mom.  Are these people SO naive to think the change in custody occurred because of ONE lie?  Because dad's taking the higher road, we'll never know the whole story but this woman has alienator all over it.
**************
A Manhattan Family Court judge ordered yesterday that two 4-year-old identical twin girls born out of an extramarital affair be removed from their mother's home and given to their adulterous dad.

The decision stunned the mother - former actress and Playboy model Bridget Marks - and pleased the father, casino executive John Aylsworth, the millionaire chief operating officer of President Casinos Inc.

---->dad's described as adulterous but it's OK that mom is a Playboy model?  who's pointing the moral finger at who?

But the father's win has a condition.

Aylsworth must move from his seaside Malibu, Calif., estate to within 40 miles of the upper East Side apartment where Marks has raised the twin girls since they were born, the judge ruled.

------>is mom's upper east side apartment paid for with the child support from the millionaire COO dad?

Acting Supreme Court Judge Arlene Goldberg also ordered that the mother's "visitation and telephone contact with the children be monitored and supervised."

----->CLEARLY because this woman can't be trusted to be alone with her children because of the damage she will continue to do.

Goldberg's ruling, which is sure to spark heated legal debate, requires
that Marks turn over her twins, Amber and Scarlet Aylsworth, at noon on June 1.

Aylsworth can take the children anywhere he wants for a four-week summer vacation, the judge ruled. The twins' mother then has a one-week supervised visit.

------>why shouldn't dad be able to go where dad wants?  but that's our problem here too, controlled bio mom's who believe only they are entitled to their children.  I'm sick of asking permission about everything for my SD while the BM does whatever the frick she wants with no respect to my DH.  That's OK...she's mom.

Goldberg decided that Marks should lose custody because of "her unbridled anger toward the father" and inability to foster a relationship between daughters and father.

Marks, 38, and the married Aylsworth, 54, struck up a love affair in 1998. But their relationship soured. The exec and his wife pressed Marks to abort her pregnancy, but Marks refused and raised the twins alone, according to court documents.

Marks was in tears yesterday.

"I am devastated," she said. "It's a travesty and a disgusting miscarriage of justice and an abuse of power."

"The girls are my life and my heart," she said. "Mine is the only home that they've ever known."

------>SURE it's the only home they've known...because you intentionally kept them from their father you idiot.

Aylsworth's attorney, Patricia Grant, said Aylsworth and his wife, Karen, would move to the New York City area.

"I think that the court based the decision on the credible evidence and we're gratified, but we're disappointed that the children can't relocate to California," Grant said.

Supervised visitation will likely mean a court-appointed social worker must be present when Marks is with her children. Attorneys in the case were asked to submit proposals on who should supervise visits and when.

The judge did not find that Marks was unfit as a mother but instead found that it was in the best interest of her children to live with their father.

While Aylsworth "has had extramarital affairs, his failings impact on his ability to be a good husband, not a proper custodial parent," the judge wrote.

[SallyandJack]

yep - she got what she deserves.

[LovingMom]

"whew-hoooo!"

poor children are crying and screaming and you are cheering? just terrible!

[LovingMom]

"yep - she got what she deserves"

typical - to focus on the other parent and getting back at them....it's how so many children end up damaged.

Sad thought process...

[SallyandJack]

I won't get into words with you on a public forum but scr*w u.

sure - i feel bad for the kids...but with a muuuuuther like that...they will be better off in the long run with their father.

the mother pas'ed them.  the mother lied and thought she could get away with false allegations against the father.  get a clue.

this case sets a huge precedent for a disgusting epidemic that causes tons of problems for children.  U need to see the big picture...not just what the media is showing you.

The bm is the one who got the media involved...looking exactly for people like u...invited the media into her home...what a load of crap.

damn straight i'm pleased with this decision...i hope it kicks in all over the country.  mothers need to be held accountable for their actions towards the children too - the days of the 'golden uterus' are on the way out.

i think you are on the wrong site.

[SallyandJack]

oh...and lovingmom

again,

WHEW-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[littlebit]

I think that it is possible to punish a parent for their wrongdoings, while at the same time, do what is in the best interest of the child.  Especially when PAS is involved, it is easy to do.  That is what happened in this case.  It is a win / win judgment.  

The judge made a ruling based on what is in the kids' best interest: a home environment that will facilitate a relationship with both parents, and eliminate using children as pawns.  It just so happens that this particular Mom considers that to be punishment to her; so it is!  GREAT!  I am cheering too!  Perhaps she will learn that she cannot do damaging things to her children without having to answer to anyone.

But at the same time, I am terribly saddened by the obvious pain those children had to endure due to the horrific display put on by this woman.  She made it clear to the entire world that she cannot control her own emotions even when it is detrimental to her children. [We can only imagine the stunts she pulls in the privacy of her own home.] She preferred to traumatize her kids by indulging her own hysteria instead of encouraging and reassuring them during such a difficult time.  What kind of parent makes a conscious decision to do this to their children?!  

So...I'm cheering because that will be the last time that those little girls will have to live through such a horrendous scene that their "Mother" creates for herself!  I am also cheering because those girls have a Dad and SM who apparently have enough concern for them to want to shield them from such tug-of-wars and mudslinging.  The Father's objective is apparently not to 'get back at' the Mom. Imagine how much self-discipline it takes for a person to sit completely silent through all this.  Not one defensive word, not one offensive word.  THAT is the kind of self-control that parents need to have for their kids!

LittleBit's Dad

[Kitty C.]

You're damn right she got what she deserved!!!  Did you know that the exchange was PURPOSEFULLY set up by the mother to be a media circus?  Did you know that the apt. complex where they live has an underground garage, where the exchange could have taken place away from the public??  But no, this POS who pretends to be a mother chose to run her own flesh and blood thru a gauntlet and scar them for life with that media stunt she pulled!  She had absolutely NO concern for the children and only wanted to make herself out to be the victim in the eyes of the media.  Check out the NY Post article, it tells a HELLUVA lot more than anything else I've read on the case.

I'm cheering because the judge made the BEST decision in regards to the case, and at the same time, my heart breaks for those two poor little girls, who were forced by their 'mother' to go thru such a horrific scene.  Their father is going to have to get them some SERIOUS therapy if they have any decent chance at a normal life, for all the damge that POS did to them.

IMO, this woman got exactly what she deserves and should be hung by her toenails..........

[SallyandJack]

could not agree more

yesterday, before I even signed on here - I sent a short note via email to the judge who made the ruling.  I opted to email it rather than snail mail for a few reasons though.

June 3, 2004
The Honorable Judge Goldberg
60 Lafayette Street
New York, NY  10013

Dear Judge Goldberg,

I wanted to write you a quick note of support on your ruling on the Marks/Aylsworth case.

I have seen the horrible effects of Parent Alienation Syndrome (PAS) first hand and I think that your ruling will have a positive impact on an issue that has been largely ignored by the courts.

It is about time that someone took a stand against this disgusting epidemic in our country. Your ruling was one made for the children and many people will see that.  Again, kudos to a job well done.