In Defense of Judge Arlene Goldberg

 from June 13, 2004 broadcast of His Side with Glenn Sacks
(audio available)

Many of you have written to me about the Bridget Marks custody case, probably the most famous custody case that we’ve had in several years. It’s taking place in New York but it’s made the national media and the O’Reilly Factor and it’s been all over the place. And a lot of you have written to me, listeners, readers, asking me what I thought of it.

First, let’s get some background information. Here’s a story from the New York Post about this case called “Tug of Love Ends in Agony.”

“The Ex-playboy model who lost custody of her twin girls for coaching them to say that their father was a molester, bid a heart wrenching and very public goodbye yesterday handing off the four year olds to a man they call daddy, but hardly know. Sobbing Mom Bridget Marks hollered “EVIL” at casino owner and former beau John Aylsworth, as he and his wife Karen picked up the girls in front of Marks’ East 72^nd Street home. Marks, 38 years old, lost custody of the kids last month after family court judge Arlene Goldberg ruled that she had coaxed the twin girls to lie and say that their father sexually abused them, a violation of state child custody law which punishes parents who make false accusations.  Aylsworth, age 54, hurried with them off to the car as Marks’ mother, Molly Bennett screamed, ‘He’s running like a rat!’ When the vehicle pulled away, Marks chased after it briefly wailing, ‘I love you! I love you!’ And her little girls waved back.”

And as you can imagine, this has been a cause celebre for many feminists who deal with the family law system etc., and also for many chivalrous males who want to protect women and protect children.  And I will say that I am not terribly impressed with this father. He had these girls out of wedlock out of an affair he had while he was married, I am not very impressed with that. I do feel the pain, I suppose, of the mother who’s being separated from her daughters, and I certainly feel very bad for the daughters. But you know, with all the hoopla about this and all the crying and hand wringing of how terrible this is and how the mother is suffering and how terrible it is for the mother, three separate social workers and a lawyer appointed to represent the children said that this mother coaxed her daughters into believing that they had been sexually molested by their father, and coaxed them into making these sexual molestation accusations. And a lot of people, including O’Reilly and others, have let this go, “Oh she’s an emotional woman, let it go.”

And I was sitting in front of the computer the other day reading about this when my six year old daughter came in and she climbed on to my lap and started telling me about her new Barbies. I looked at her and I thought to myself, “What kind of monster, what kind of MONSTER would, simply in order to get back at someone they’re mad at, would try to make a little girl believe that she had been sexually molested? What kind of monster would do that? How damaging is that to the little girl?! How horrible is that to the little girl?!”

I just looked at my daughter and I just couldn’t imagine, and yes I agree the separation of the girls from their mother now is painful, I agree. But you know what? It’s better that they go through the pain of being separated now than spend the next fourteen years being raised by a lunatic. A lunatic! You know when my son went to Kindergarten, I had to take him in to get his vaccines, and they had to stick needles in him, and he was crying and he was very upset and he hated it, but you know that it is what he needed. And I think that’s the same thing that’s happening here with this case, the judge has done what these little girls need. I know it’s painful, and I feel sorry for them, but this is what is best for them.

It’s amazing all the people who are painting Bridget Marks as being some kind of victim. A victim! What the hell is she a victim of? Everything she did was completely unnecessary. Let’s back track here--she has an affair with a married man, she gets pregnant, she has twins. There ain’t no way in hell that the father is going to get custody of those kids! She was never in danger of losing custody or of losing anything!  She’d get those girls, she’d get a ton of child support, she’s have control over the girls. But this woman, Bridget Marks, the victim, the victim! She is so petty, and she is so vindictive, and she is so vengeful, and she is so angry, and she is so WRONGED, that she goes way out of her, way out of her way to make these accusations against the girls’ father. And now she has paid for what she did.

Feminist attorney Wendy Murphy was on O’Reilly defending Bridget Marks, and Murphy told O’Reilly, “This woman has a constitutional right to raise her child.” I heard this, and I almost fell off my chair. “Constitutional right to raise her child?” Do you have any idea how many dads there are out there who can’t even see their own children? Who maybe haven’t seen their children in years? They are perfectly loving, decent fathers who have had their kids ripped away from them! And now this feminist wants us to believe that we’re all supposed to sit up and take notice and change everything because this woman Bridget Marks has a constitutional right to raise her child? Yeah, I agree, she does have a constitutional right to raise her child--and the millions of fathers who have had their children taken away from them, they have the same right. And unlike most of these fathers, Bridget Marks deserved to lose her children. Most fathers don’t, but Bridget Marks deserved to lose her children.

Let’s take a look at a letter that this psycho wrote in the New York Daily News. The Daily News invited Marks to write an open letter to her four year old twin girls.

“Thank you. Thank you so much,” Marks said as she began to cry. “Thank God for the first amendment.” Well you know, it’s nice that the New York Daily News went out of their way to let her write this letter to her daughters, but you know my mailbox is filled, my mailbox is filled with fathers who would love to write a letter like this to their children, and would love to get some media attention, and would love to see somebody who gave a damn, but in most cases nobody does. Certainly the major newspapers do not. Anyway here’s the letter from Bridget Marks to her girls:

“Mommy loves you so much and misses you. You are my heartbeats you know. I am like half a pair of scissors since THEY cut me out of your lives.”

(Marks is trying to poison the environment that they’re in now with their father and stepmother, playing the victim card, trying to make her four year old girls feel sad and miserable over “poor” mommy).

”You are my warrior princesses and you must be strong and know that God is watching over you while we are apart. Remember to say your prayers and don't be afraid because when I can't be with you, God is there to protect you.”

(Yes! To protect you from the MOLESTER. To protect you from your EVIL father who’s done such terrible things to you!)

“Grandma says you'll be back in time to pick the tomatoes you planted last weekend in her garden.”

(Yes it’s only temporary! We’ll get you out of there. We’ll save you! We’ll save you! We’ll save you from that evil man!)

Anyway, the judge who did this, as you can probably guess, is a woman. I don’t think any male judge would have the guts to do something like this. The woman’s name is Arlene Goldberg. I commend her, she made a tough decision, but she made the right decision. I think this judge is a hero.

It’s unbelievable the destruction that these false accusations cause, and you know, no one seems to care all that much. Let’s look at this from the perspective of helping children who really are sexually molested. Because I know it does happen, and it’s a despicable crime. Isn’t the number one thing we need to be concerned with in trying to protect kids from sexual abuse getting rid of or fighting these false accusations? These false accusations, which are thrown out all the time in divorces, are used as custody maneuvers, usually against fathers. These are a huge, huge hindrance towards protecting legitimate victims of sexual abuse. Yet so many of the same people who claim that they want to protect children, they want to protect children. They are the same ones who are willing to pass these over. “Oh it’s not a big deal. Look how mean dad is.” I think it’s pretty ridiculous.

This radio commentary was delivered by Glenn Sacks during his 6/13/04 broadcast of His Side with Glenn Sacks.  Glenn can be reached via his website, at www.GlennSacks.com or by e-mail at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.