Court Says Mom Made up Molestation Charge—and Grants Her Custody!

Father's Side in High-Profile Bridget Marks Custody Case Speaks Publicly for First Time

In one of the most stunning and unconscionable court rulings of our time, a New York Appellate court ruled that Bridget Marks did in fact coach her 5 year-old twin girls to make false allegations of sexual molestation against their father--and then granted her sole custody of the girls!

Marks won custody in part due to the widespread media sympathy she created through constant theatrics, playing victim, and her determination to place her little girls in the public spotlight. After losing custody of the girls to John Aylsworth, her ex-boyfriend, she successfully took her side of the story to the public via appearances on Larry King Live, PrimeTime Live, The O'Reilly Factor, and Dr. Phil, and through quotes in one-sided news articles in the New York Daily News, the New York Post, and others.

In contrast to Marks, Aylsworth and his attorney, Patricia Grant, have, in the interests of protecting the girls from the media circus Marks has created, declined to speak publicly about the case--until now. Below is the complete transcript of Patricia Grant’s interview on the Salem Radio Network on Sunday, April 3, 2005 on the nationally-syndicated radio talk show His Side with Glenn Sacks. Also appearing was Dr. Stephen Walker of the divorce and family issues TV show Families in Transition. To listen to audio of the show, click on Listen to the show (MP3 format)

Transcript, Salem Radio Network, Sunday, April 3, 2005

[Bumper music]

Glenn Sacks: Welcome to His Side with Glenn Sacks--gender issues from the male perspective. I am commentator and columnist Glenn Sacks, the defender of the much maligned American male. Yes, you heard right, I said defender--defender against the insulting stereotypes we constantly see in the media, defender of fathers against a family court system which is stacked against them, defender of men against the modern cultural norm which says “woman is good, man is bad, woman is right, man is wrong.” Welcome to His Side.

We have a lot to get to tonight. This week we had one of the most stunning and unconscionable court rulings I’ve ever seen. We’ve spoken before about the Bridget Marks case, in which a judge gave custody of twin four year old girls to the girls’ father because she found that the mother had coached the girls to make false accusations of child molestation against their father. The children were born out of an affair between the mother, a former playboy model, and John Aylsworth, a married casino mogul, and Marks had been the girls’ primary caregiver.

A few days ago a New York Appellate court found that Bridget Marks did in fact coach her 5 year-old twin girls to make false allegations of sexual molestation against their father--and then granted her sole custody of the girls! I’ll repeat that….a New York Appellate court found that Bridget Marks did in fact coach her 5 year-old twin girls to make false allegations of sexual molestation against their father--and then granted her sole custody of the girls! According to the Appellate Court:

“There is ample support in the record--that the mother coached the girls to make false accusations that their father sexually abused them.  The Law Guardian and the neutral expert witnesses who testified in this case--the psychiatrist appointed by the court as the independent forensic evaluator, two certified social workers retained by the Law Guardian, and two social workers who supervised the father's visitations--all take the view that the accusations are false, and that the children were coached to make them.  Even the expert witnesses called by the mother seem to have recognized that the accusations were made in a manner consistent with coaching.  Apart from the opinions of the Law Guardian and the neutral experts, the accusations… are, as even the mother's psychiatric expert witness seems to have recognized, difficult to believe.  We note that the father, a successful middle-aged businessman, has no prior history of inappropriate conduct with children, including the four children from his marriage (who are now adults) and his grandchildren.

Certainly, the record fully supports Family Court's determination that the sexual abuse accusations against the father are unfounded…It is clear from reading Family Court's 36-page decision that the court reached its conclusions after a painstaking consideration of the testimony of all the witnesses, and on its independent assessment of the credibility and character of each party.  The court did not simply rubberstamp the conclusions of any expert witness, neutral or otherwise.  Any suggestion that the court relinquished its role as judge of the children's best interests to one of the experts is not supported by the record.”

Despite all of this, they’re determined to give custody to Bridget Marks. Here’s some of their logic. One of the judges writes:

“since July, 2003, the children have not been induced to make any further unfounded accusations against their father.”

Wow—she hasn’t tried to destroy the father’s life and his relationship with his girls for 18 whole months—what does she want, a cookie? A pat on the head?

The opinion continues “such misconduct may or may not harm the child or interfere with the child's relationship with the other parent.” Huh? When does it NOT harm the child?

The justices continue:

“Although Justice Friedman asserts that ‘it is psychologically abusive for a parent to plant in the mind of a three- or four-year-old the false notion that the other parent is sexually abusing the child’ as if this is an absolute fact, the question of the effect of such coaching on a child must be decided in each case.” Excuse me, but when is it NOT psychologically abusive?

The justices also say that because the father’s bond with the girls is strong, the false allegations aren’t important because they didn’t work. I’d love to see that principal in force in other areas of our law—if someone plants a bomb in an airport and the police find it before it explodes, does that mean no harm, no foul—the guy walks free? Of course not…

One of the things that does seem to be a factor here—and we’ll find out more about this in a minute—is the conduct of the father in carrying on extramarital affairs. Now I would never suggest for a moment that infidelity is 1/1,000,000 as bad as coaching young girls to believe they’ve been molested by their father. However, I do get a little weary of some of these guys who get themselves into trouble because they can’t keep the pistol in the holster.

Still, according to the court Aylsworth is a capable and loving father. His four adult children and his wife all gave the court glowing reports of him as a father, and, according to Judge Goldberg, "all persons who have seen him interact with the twins testified that he is a very good parent and that the twins love him and are happy with him.

Marks won custody in part due to the widespread media sympathy she created through constant theatrics, playing victim, and her determination to place her little girls in the public spotlight. Some of you may remember that hysterical scene she created on a Manhattan street during the custody transfer. She appeared on Larry King Live, PrimeTime Live, The O'Reilly Factor, and Dr. Phil, and was quoted in many so-called "news" articles in the New York Daily News and the New York Post.

In contrast to Marks, Aylsworth and his attorney, Patricia Grant, have, protected the girls from the media circus Marks has created, and declined to speak publicly about the case--until now. Patricia Grant is with us tonight and we will finally, finally hear John Aylsworth's side of the story. Patricia, welcome to His Side.

Patricia Grant: Thank You

Also with us, Dr. Stephen Walker of the TV show “Families in Transition”. Stephen is a walking encyclopedia on these issues. Stephen, welcome to His Side.

Dr. Stephen Walker: Thank you Glenn, Thank you.

Glenn Sacks: Our # is  1-800-439-4805. 1-800-439-4805. Now Patricia, let’s start with you. Now many of Bridget Marks’ partisans, including some of her family, have written to me. I’ve written articles about it and have covered it on the radio and they’ve written me over the past year and they portray John Aylsworth as the devil incarnate. They have this endless laundry list of these terrible things they’ve said he’s done that none of which have anything to do with these discredited accusations. I guess it’s a soft ball question but I think it’s a question that’s long overdue. Patricia, is your client John Aylsworth the monster Bridget Marks says he is?

Patricia Grant: Oh absolutely not. Absolutely not. He’s a loving father, and the court found him to be a loving father.

Glenn Sacks: And why, I mean why has this, why has he been painted like this?

Patricia Grant: Well, because I think essentially because Bridget Marks has had free rein and no one has spoken out to clear the record of the court. She’s basically, she and members of her family have said anything they have wanted to say. In fact the things they said to the media vary substantially from things they said during the trial.

Glenn Sacks: And what were some examples of that?

Patricia Grant: Oh, the mother started to make allegations after the trial to the media. Things that she didn’t remember during her testimony at trial.

Glenn Sacks: Such as what?

Patricia Grant: Additional sexual abuse allegations.

Glenn Sacks: She didn’t remember any of them but after the trial, all of a sudden she remembered?

Patricia Grant: That’s correct. She remembered new allegations. She came up with more.

Glenn Sacks: Great. Great. And of course her mother Molly Bennet has been a part of this. I saw Molly Bennet on Dr. Phil, and crazy grandma was there talking about how she’d seen John Aylsworth French kissing his daughters. It looked like she just escaped from a loony bin.

Patricia Grant: They certainly were not careful about statements that they made to the press. You know, it was extraordinary for instance that Bridget’s team repeatedly said to the members of the media that she was found to be a fit mother. In fact it was quite the contrary. She was specifically found to be unfit. But that never surfaced.

Glenn Sacks: Because of what? Because of the allegations?

Patricia Grant: Well, there were the false allegations, there were intrusive physical examinations that she took the children for and indeed the….

Glenn Sacks: Wait, wait, wait. Somehow I have never heard of this. You mean to tell me this is one of the... Because I remember I had a guy I talked to before on the show who CPS came, they investigated, what I guess was his step daughter and I remember him describing this horrendously invasive examinations they do on the little girl, supposedly to tell if they have been molested. I mean, just listening to this I thought if somebody ever tried to do this to my girl I’d blow his head off. Are you talking about this?

Patricia Grant: They were taken to the emergency room by Bridget Marks and indeed her testimony was that one of them had been molested, but she took both of them for intrusive vaginal examinations and when asked why she took both she said, and I, quote “for comparison purposes."

Glenn Sacks: So, in order to set up this whole con game against Aylsworth she was willing to drag her little girls, who must have been three or four at the time. To take them to the emergency room so some stranger could … I’m not even going to describe it.  And that’s a fit mother?

Patricia Grant: That’s a fit mother. Well she wasn’t found to be a fit mother. The forensic evaluators thought she was not fit and the court found her to be unfit. But somehow that was transformed by Bridget Marks into she was a fit mother. The basis of that was the testimony that she was a "good enough" mother and that was explained rather clearly by Dr. Billick. And what he meant when he said that was that she saw to it that the children were fed and that the children were clothed and that they went to school and she was a "good enough" mother.

Glenn Sacks: That makes you a good enough parent?

Patricia Grant: It’s a psychological term.

Glenn Sacks: That’s a pretty low standard.

Patricia Grant: Well, he said "good enough" in those respects but she was unfit as a custodial parent. In addition to the intrusive physical examinations, Ms. Marks was found by Dr. Billick to have abused them emotionally and physically in that she would agitate them around periods of visitation with their father so that to induce asthma attacks and then she would give them very, very strong medication which he believed was potentially very harmful to them.

Glenn Sacks: So, so it’s not just a matter that she would get them agitated, because you know, you know what she did on that street. Everything she can to get them agitated so that everybody could say what a tragedy this is, and what such a victim she is. But the girls, what, they had asthma?

Patricia Grant: They developed asthma, yes.

Glenn Sacks: And then they would have to take medication because of the way she was riling them up?

Patricia Grant: That’s right. That was one of the things Dr. Billick thought was potentially physically abusive in her conduct. He also testified, as did other witnesses, that she was incapable of caring for the girls herself. She had nannies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Glenn Sacks: You see that’s interesting because the big rap against John Aylsworth and against a lot of fathers very often is that they are not there. They work most of the time etc, etc. They shouldn’t have custody.  This evening we’re discussing the high-profile Bridget Marks custody case. Our number is 1-800-439-4805, that’s 1-800-439-4805.

[Commercial Break]

Glenn Sacks: We’re back on His Side. I am Glenn Sacks, the defender of the American male. Let’s go to Dave in New York City. Dave, what’s up?

Caller: Glenn, I just don’t know what to say. I mean you guys are hitting the nail on the head. I sit here in New York and I keep seeing these things over and over and I can’t believe it.  The only thing consistent about the New York state courts is that they come up on the side of the woman the vast majority of the times. 50 percent of the litigations are men and 50 percent of the litigants are women. If you read the decisions they’re twisted. They’re never consistent. The only thing that’s consistent is that the vast majority of the time they’re deciding with the mother.

Glenn Sacks: Well, that’s consistent… (laughs) Speaking about it, Stephen Walker you might want to comment on this. One of the things I wonder on this: here you’ve got a mother, she coached little girls to make false allegations of sexual abuse against their father, she got caught. All the judges agreed that she did it, the trial court judge, the four appellate judges. Everybody agrees that she got caught and she still gets custody! What does that do to the average New York father who may be facing a false allegation used as a custody maneuver?

Dr. Stephen Walker: What this establishes Glenn is a public policy in New York now that is purely gender biasd.

Glenn Sacks: I think that’s putting it mildly. What is there now to stop a woman from using this despicable but highly effective tactic when even if she gets caught she gets sole custody?

Dr. Stephen Walker: There’s no repercussion whatsoever. The finders of fact, the family court judges and the Supreme Court judges who hear these matters, now have no standard whatsoever through which to guide them. At some point in time those holders of fact came to the realization that in cases like this, the most logical thing to do is to change custody. We tend to also look at this case, I hear the word “coaching” being used time and time again. Coaching is a word that is acceptable in our society.  This is brain washing. This is manipulation. This is the worst form of child abuse that’s imaginable. I look at the record on this case and I scratch my head because not only does this woman manipulate the children and brainwash the children and that constitutes emotional abuse, she manipulated the system, she played games with the system.

Glenn Sacks: That’s another important point here. I don’t know why, because a lot of so called “women’s groups”—feminist groups-- have come out on Bridget’s side and have really seen her as a victim etc.  I don’t know why somebody isn’t willing to stand up and say: "There are really children out there who sometimes get molested. Don’t make these goddmaned false accusations. You’re screwing up the system and you’re making it very difficult for there to be any kind of justice or protection for children who really are abused." Nobody’s willing to say that. Go ahead Patricia.

Patricia Grant: I think it’s worse than that. I think that if this decision is not reversed, which we hope it will be, it opens the floodgate, it really invites parents of both sexes, but unfortunately it’s predominantly women, to make false sexual abuse allegations. I think the other thing this decision did was to really return us to gender biased standards. Mothers are better as custodial parents than fathers, even if they’re bad and even if the father is a more fit parent.

Glenn Sacks: And a for man to work, is like his original sin. They keep saying “John Aylsworth, he’s not around, he’s working.” God forbid that he supports his family and supports Bridget Marks, which he’s done a lot of too over the past several years. God forbid that a man has to work and support his family.

Patricia Grant: Well the irony here is that there was a question that he traveled a lot, and the truth of matter was that John Aylsworth is a man who is in a position to manipulate his own travel schedule. He did not leave those children one night, for the entire time he had custody of them.

Glenn Sacks: The Justices, in the opinion, they did find that not be very credible.

Patricia Grant: Well, it was true! And there was no evidence, it was pure unadulterated speculation that he traveled and that he left the children with someone else, it was untrue.

Glenn Sacks: Thank you very much for that. Tonight we’re discussing the high profile Bridget Marks custody case. We’ll be back on His Side with Glenn Sacks.

[Commercial Break]

Glenn Sacks: We’re back on His Side. I am Glenn Sacks, the defender of the American male. His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard in New York City, New Jersey, Boston and in Southern California—go to HisSide.com for details. This evening we’re discussing the high-profile Bridget Marks custody case. Marks has turned it into a media circus but tonight, for the first time, the father’s side is speaking publicly about the case. Our guests are Patricia Grant, the father’s lawyer, and Dr. Stephen Walker of the TV show Families in Transition.  Our # is 1-800-439-4805, that’s 1-800-439-4805.

We have a lot of callers, we’re going to try to get in as many of you as we can. On the line right now is a man I figured we’d hear from tonight, Dean Tong, he is a forensic consultant who has helped and is part of Bridget Marks’ team. Dean, what do you have?

Dean Tong: I’m here Glenn, thanks for taking my call. I want to appreciate the litigious efforts of Ms. Grant and her associate Mr. Applebaum. However, we did correct a judicial wrong. The court found that my client promulgated false accusations but actually it was the baby sitter who did so and that was why she was eradicated from the picture. In addition, we have a 90 page report which you haven’t seen which Ms. Grant and her associate haven’t seen which no court has seen which firmly impeaches every so called expert in this case. We are ready to lobby that report into court to put it as evidence on the record. That report thoroughly vindicates Bridget Marks as being a false accuser.

Glenn Sacks: All right Dean, one thing Dean you’re phone sounds horrible. I mean no offense. Why is it that nobody has seen this 90 page report?

Dean Tong: Because that 90 page report Glenn came in de facto after judge Goldberg rendered her final decision in June.

Glenn Sacks: And the appellate court was not able to look at it?

Dean Tong: That’s correct.

Glenn Sacks: All right. Patricia Grant, what about the element of the babysitter here? Dean, thanks for the call. What about the babysitter, Pam S.? Is Pam S. the culprit here? Patricia, did we lose you? OK, we’ll make this segment short and come back with her after the break, and we’ll ask her about the objections that Dean raised.

You know, Stephen you made a point before the break, you said we shouldn’t be calling this coaching, we should be calling it brain washing. I guess you were scolding me and you were probably right. Another thing that I’ve seen Steve, in the media on this, the story that you read on this, the New York Daily News, the New York Post, so many times they refer to “bad mouthing." That Bridget Marks bad mouthed the father. She lost the kids because she bad mouthed the father. Now, I don’t know about you Steve, but to me, bad mouthing is saying that your father is a lousy cook. Or bad mouthing is saying the father is a slob. Saying that the father is a crazed molester is not what we would normally think of as bad mouthing.

Steve: No, bad mouthing does not quite cover it. It’s brain washing, it’s attempting to manipulate the reality of a child that is still in the developmental stage, the emotional scars that can be etched into the psyche, they’re considerable, they’re long lasting.

Glenn Sacks: God knows what effect this is going to have on the girls when they’re older, when they start to develop sexual lives of their own. Maybe I sound like a jerk for saying this, frankly I wouldn’t want my son to be dating one of these girls because God knows what kind of weird sexual problem they may have because of this.

Dr. Stephen Walker: No question about that, and you’ve got to look at the bigger picture and what message does this give to children? This message is very clear to children, that you can lie, you can denigrate another parent, you can create a false reality. Maybe in some sense you can physically abuse your children, because both these children were diagnosed of having vaginitis.

Glenn Sacks: And that’s from these examinations?

Dr. Stephen Walker:  I found that to be quite curious because that to me says that in fact, somebody was playing around there. I don’t know how far the finding of fact went, I don’t know what the forensic psychiatrist…

Glenn Sacks: Interesting—maybe we’ll ask Patricia about that when we get back. We'll take a break early and then come back with a long segment and we’ll see what she has to say about the allegations that Dean Tong made. I know there’s a lot more of you who want to get on and we’ll try to get you on when we come back.

[Commercial Break]

Glenn Sacks: We’re back on His Side—I am Glenn Sacks, the defender of the American male. Before the break we had a call from Dean Tong and he had a question for Patricia Grant, who is John Aylsworth’s attorney in the Bridget Marks/John Aylsworth custody battle. Patricia, what Dean said was that there was a 90 page document that they prepared and it would have shown that Bridget Marks did not in fact coach these girls into making false allegations. He also said that the problem was a baby sitter, Pam S., that she’s the one that made the allegations.

Patricia Grant: Well I don’t know what he’s talking about with this 90 page document. They surely would have made a motion to reargue if they had something viable.

Glenn Sacks: Is this like O.J. with the phone records? Remember after the O.J. trial, “well if I could only get the phone records it would exonerate me” or something like that?

Patricia Grant: Right. I mean this clearly, if they had something like that, they certainly would have provided it. They provided all kinds of after the facts affidavits, even in the appellate division. So they weren’t shy about doing that. The baby sitter was clearly involved in some way, but Bridget Marks was found to have, and I think I agree with Steve that it’s not really coaching, it’s brain washing and it’s got much more serious implications than ramifications.

Glenn Sacks: So what else should the public know?

Patricia Grant: Let me just say this, I think this is incredibly important, Bridget Marks came forward and said when she realized that when she was getting in trouble with these allegations they told the babysitter. All of a sudden the babysitter disappeared and couldn’t be found anywhere. If in fact these children had made these statements to the babysitter, don’t you think that you’d want her as a witness? She disappeared, she couldn’t be found anywhere. The missing witness….

Glenn Sacks: That is kind of strange. The missing witness. That’s one of the things just watching this, and just looking at Bridget Marks and listening to her, I don’t know. It just looks to me that you see the person, she’s still in a little bit of disbelief and still very angry that she actually got caught. But what else should we know about John Aylsworth? What about the thing that I raised earlier that, because of his various extra marital affairs etc, I don’t know what the status is now…..

Patricia Grant: First of all I think the judge dealt with that. If it was true, it did not bear with his ability to be a parent. And it certainly impacted on his relationship with his wife. I think that the whole bunch of sand that is being thrown into everyone’s eyes is really distorting the true factors.

Glenn Sacks: Well, I think maybe to a degree. But let’s be honest, he had these girls out of an extra marital affair, obviously that puts the girls in a difficult position, it puts his wife in a difficult position, I’m not going to say that that means he’s a bad guy, but it’s certainly not the optimum setup for creating children.

Patricia Grant: But what’s really ironic is that they harp on this kind of thing, where as the testimony and trial established that Bridget Marks was having simultaneous sexual relationships with two men at the same time. The children were being supported by John, and she was also receiving support from this other individual.

Glenn Sacks: And she was supposedly engaged to be married to somebody at the same time?

Patricia Grant: At the time of the trial she had a fiancé and they were supposed to get married at the beginning of 2004. It is my understanding that that particular fiancé disappeared….

Glenn Sacks: Another disappearing person… (laughs)

Patricia Grant: Another disappearing person. He testified at the trial that he supplies Bridget with a tremendous supply of money.

Glenn Sacks: This is Mike Stiglianese? He wrote to me on many occasions and you could really see the stuff he was being fed by Bridget. Believing that John Aylsworth was the devil incarnate. Although even he clearly did not believe that John Aylsworth was a pedophile, which I thought was rather interesting.

Patricia Grant: That was his testimony, that’s right. I don’t think anyone believed that.

Glenn Sacks: Well, certainly the guy likes adult women. That’s kind of contradictory to the idea that he’s a pedophile.

Patricia Grant: Actually, let me go back to one thing, the incredible manner in the way this case was presented, including things like Bridget producing a fiancé just in time for trial just to show that she would have this incredible stable home with this person, but that was the person that she never mentioned to Dr. Billick. He disappeared and now he’s gone. He testified that he was paying all of her legal fees, he testified that he paid her forensic fee, he testified he bought her expensive jewelry, he paid for her apartment, she has his American Express card. He disappeared. And Bridget Marks has the audacity to point her finger at John Aylsworth?

Glenn Sacks:  Well that’s true. The whole argument was that Bridget would have a more stable home for the kids. I don’t know how you can have a stable home when you’re in the custody of a lunatic who would do a thing that she has done. You’re right, here she’s got this coming and going of men and people disappearing, whatever. It makes John Aylsworth look stable by comparison.

Patricia Grant: John Aylsworth is stable. This was an unfortunate indiscretion no question about it. But he accepts responsibility and he accepted responsibility of the children from the outset. He supported them and never shirks his responsibility.

Glenn Sacks:  Another thing that Marks’ people always say is that he wouldn’t acknowledge the children, he wouldn’t sign up for paternity, this and that… But just reading the courts decision that just came up a couple of days ago, apparently none of that is true.

Patricia Grant: Well, none of that is true, I mean John Aylsworth traveled to see them regularly in New York until he was prevented from doing that. And he was prevented from doing that when he told Bridget Marks that he was going to remain with his wife. He in fact was the party who filed a petition for an order of affiliation because she said that she wasn’t sure who the father of the children was.

Glenn Sacks:  That’s interesting too because Bridget Marks said that he wouldn’t accept paternity, he demanded a DNA test. No offense, but if I were in a relationship with Bridget Marks and she said "it’s your baby," I would demand a DNA test. (Laughs)

Patricia Grant: She admitted she didn’t know who the father was. In fact, incredibly, one of the things she testified to a trial was well yes John had a DNA test done but it was only done on one of the twins. I asked here whether she thought the children might have different fathers, and she said yes because I didn’t know that they were identical at the time.

Glenn Sacks:  That seems kind of odd. So the picture you’re drawing of John Aylsworth is basically he was a good father, all four of his adult children testified that he was a good father. He’s a stable responsible man. He has a certain weakness which is not exclusive to John Aylsworth, he screwed up, he’s lived up to it, he wants to provide a stable home for the girls. The girls love him, John Aylsworth is not perfect, he’s not this terrible person Bridget Marks makes him out to be, and there’s no way in hell that he’s done anything to deserve this terrible accusation of molestation that was thrown to him.

Patricia Grant: Clearly not, and I think these children would be so much better off and would learn better values if they were permitted to…

Glenn Sacks:  Yeah, I love the way Bridget Marks…you know…the girls were with Aylsworth and supposedly Aylsworth didn’t take the girls to church on Sunday. I have no idea if that’s true or not but Bridget Marks talks about the values she instilled on the girls, the Christian values and how “John’s taken Jesus away from the girls”. This is the same Bridget Marks who is a Playboy model, who’s appeared in porn movies—“soft porn” I guess they’re called--had an adulterous relationship, was knowingly with a guy she knew was married, I don’t think any of that makes her the devil but she certainly shouldn’t be preaching morality on Sunday.

Patricia Grant: I think that Bridget became only interested in church after the trial. There was never any mention of going to church or taking the children to church save their christening. After the trial that became a huge part of Bridget’s life. The fact also that each child had a relationship with John, it’s important to mention that it’s really a testament to John. He was able to overcome all these obstacles, he did it with persistence and he didn’t go away.   

Glenn Sacks: There are a lot of men in this situation who would have just written a check and been done with it.

Patricia Grant: Absolutely

Glenn Sacks: They portrayed it—it was either the New York Post or the Daily News, I don’t remember which—wrote an article about that hysterical scene when Bridget first handed off the kids and they said “handed off the kids to a father they barely knew.” That’s not what the court records show.

Patricia Grant: That just isn’t true, and that’s not what the court records show at all. He made 70 trips to see the children, and he was regularly in their lives.

Glenn Sacks: Let’s take some more calls.  We have so many of you who want to get on, but I wanted to give Patricia Grant more time to talk about John Aylsworth. Let’s go to Martina…

Caller: Hello. My brother has been in the similar situation as John Aylsworth. He’s been through 9 allegations by my niece’s mother. He’s currently pressing civil charges against her for the false allegations. He won custody in September and we were very happy to see that John Aylsworth won. We’re wondering if Aylsworth is planning on pursuing civil action since allegations like these.

Patricia Grant: I agree with you. At this point our focus is really on getting the decision reversed in the Court of Appeals.

Glenn Sacks: Stephen, let me ask you, what do we do in these situations with these mothers? What is the punishment? Is it a civil remedy—should they be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress? Is it loss of custody? Seems like these women are always able to hide behind the child and escape punishment for what they’ve done.

Dr. Stephen Walker: In New York you can’t sue your former spouse for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Glenn Sacks: that’s convenient.

Dr. Stephen Walker:  Right now, this particular decision means there’s no repercussions whatsoever for this kind of egregious behavior. Regarding what Dean Tong said, I find his comments about a 90 page report to be rather naïve--whether it’s 90 pages or 9,000 pages nothing is going to change the fact that false allegations of sexual abuse were made. If Mr. Tong believes that the babysitter was responsible or those allegations, I would strongly question, and the motivation is very suspect. The babysitter might have been a coconspirator.

Glenn Sacks: But the babysitter was also a friend of Bridget Marks, right?

Patricia Grant: Right

Glenn Sacks: That’s part of the spin here, too—“it’s just a third party, it’s a babysitter”--no it was Bridget Marks’ friend

Patricia Grant: her close friend

Glenn Sacks: It was Bridget Marks’ friend, who may have been a coconspirator here—she’s not some independent person.

Patricia Grant: that's correct

Glenn Sacks: The person who in my mind really made the gutsy decision here was Judge Arlene Goldberg, the judge in the first case, who transferred custody from Marks to Aylsworth after finding that Marks had coached the girls to make these accusations.  Would a male judge do that? When I first heard of Goldberg’s ruling my first thought was ‘it must be a woman judge.’

Patricia Grant: She was courageous and she gave Bridget Marks every benefit of the doubt, Marks was allowed to put witnesses on ad nauseum, to cross examine the forensic ad nauseum, she bent over backwards. Would a male judge have done the same thing? There were four male judges on the appellate division panel, and it seems to me that it was a sexist decision, and it says that mothers, even if they’re unfit, are superior custodial parents…

Glenn Sacks: mothers right or wrong

Patricia Grant: and forget it if you’re a person who words and travels

Glenn Sacks: Sorry, that's it for this evening. Patricia Grant, John Aylsworth’s attorney, Dr. Stephen Walker of Families in Transition, thanks to both of you. If you want to learn more about their work, the Bridget Marks case, or if you want to hear Bridget Marks talking and giving her side of the story, we have links to all of those on our show website, www.HisSide.com. And we'll be back with you next Sunday evening on His Side with Glenn Sacks.

Transcript, Salem Radio Network, Sunday, April 3, 2005