a) I've just been trying to put some rational opinions on things that as long as FD hasn't been charged his 13 year old kids should be allowed to see him if they want.
b) Maybe you folks didn't like wondering if folks were trying to undermine his business.
Regarding a):
Websters definition of Rational:
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
"I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation"
synonyms: logical, reasoned, well reasoned, sensible, reasonable, cogent, coherent, intelligent, wise, judicious, sagacious, astute, shrewd, perceptive, enlightened, clear-eyed, clear-sighted, commonsensical, common-sense, well advised, well grounded, sound, sober, prudent, circumspect, politic;
The reactions to the suggestion of the appropriateness of FO seeing his children which you are characterizing as "going nuts" on this thread are completely "rational" IMO. These reactions are "rational" because the people on this thread have been following along closely to the drama played out in family court and read documents from the divorce drama as they have been made public and written about in MSM.
I have zero issue with alternative POVs or differences of opinions as we deal with that all the time on WS. You, however, have chosen to focus in on the narrow issue of "FO being able to see his children" in the abstract with zero connection to the facts of the case as documented either in court documents or MSM articles IMO.
Have you seen any fathers rights groups come out in support of FO? Nope. Fathers rights groups are quite active in CT for good reason and are vocal but in the case of FO we have heard crickets from them. Don't you wonder why? I don't wonder at all as the FO record as it relates to parenting, personal responsibility and his own mental health is poor. It is poor,
not in my opinion only but the
opinion of the family court and Judge. FO made a series of personal choices and has a well documented history of persistent non compliance over a 2+ year period of time in family court that is clearly documented in that file.
I think people on this thread have varying POVs as to FO quality as a father and human being but I've always deferred to the family court. To get to the point of having supervised visitation and supervised phone calls took alot of work on the part of FO. FO also lost any access to his children for 10+ months due to asking his children to lie on his behalf and also not following court orders on access of his children to MT and her daughter. This is all clearly documented in the file.
FO voluntarily GAVE UP access to his children for nearly a year because he disagreed with the courts decisions. How much do you think he cared about his children to do this? Would a father that cared/loved his children and would move heaven and earth to protect them willingly give up access because he was angry about a court decision? IMO nope they would not. They would suck it up and do what needed to be done to return to some level of access. Would a father that loved his children to the moon and back cut off health insurance that he was obligated to provide? FO chose not to. Would a father that loved his children to the emoon and back not contribute to their financial needs? FO chose not to. But again, feel free to believe the FO was discriminated against as a father and that he loved his children. To me, this view simply flies in the face of the facts as they are presented in the file and reported in MSM. We have seen 1 letter from FO sister and 1 letter from Waterski Association about FO as a father and human being. Not one letter from a teacher, priest, friend etc. Why? Even his 'friends' on FB jumped ship and de-friended him the day after he was arrested. Why?
How often have you seen a Defendant outright called a 'liar' multiple times by a Judge in court and further be accused by the Judge of being a 'habitual liar' when under oath?
Feel free to think what you want about fathers rights etc. but FO was deemed incapable of responsible parenting and unfit for unsupervised visitation by the Judge almost from the beginning of the case. IMO all for good reasons but feel free to disagree with the court if you want. JD was fearful for her life and the well being of her children because of FO and the court largely agreed with her views on this as did the GAL and professionals paid to do the family evals.
The issue with a narrowly defined focus on father rights in this case is that its a situation in this case which the courts (both family and criminal) have spoken on after many many motions and expert testimony and reports and the view of the GAL. FO may not have contact with his children at present. The GAL in the family court was supportive of FO no contact order being issued by Judge Heller. The fact pattern surrounding this issue is well developed and quite deep in terms of file material in family court and I would suggest spending some time perhaps researching the issue AS IT RELATES TO FO rather than the general statement that FO rights as a father are being abused in this case.
Also, in MSM we have seen multiple references to the fact that FO was largely an absent father. He had a home based business and was located 10 min from his childrens school in Farmington but parents and teachers reported never seeing him at school. WHY? FO also chose to be away from home 10 days a months for years on end with little children at home. WHY? We know that he was pursuing water skiing training. JD functioned largely as a single mother of 5 small children for a good portion of the month for years on end and was by accounts in MSM (many many personal accounts from friends and school officials) a very hands on and diligent parent. We have seen no such accounts for FO in MSM. WHY?
FO has been very aggressively represented at ever stage of the family court matter IMO. We could debate endlessly on the quality of his representation but on the basic issue of being able to tussle in court with JD and her team the file is quite clear that FD battled hard and in fact filed 30+ more motions than JD in family court. Judge Heller recognized this fact in her recent opinion awarding custody to GF. If you just read one document I would suggest the 12 pages or so written by Judge Heller on the custody situation as it summarizes the sad case in an easy to understand and quick manner. FO as a parent and human being was found to be fundamentally deficient in many many ways in the family court process based on the file material.
If you want to champion FO for father of the year and argue on behalf of his rights as a father to contact his children by all means do so, but please bring some factual material to the table to argue the point with MSM or even court documents. Perhaps you can sway a few on WS but I'm sceptical it can be done due simply to the well documented history in family court.
b) Undermining the business. Its unfortunate to see somone buying into the FO 'oh woe is me' victim badwagon but you are welcome to your POV. Again, I would suggest reading the court documents or heading over to the media thread as there by my reading is zero evidence that GF or her attorneys have done anything to sabotoge or undermine the FORE business.
FD made the choice to build houses that couldn't be sold in the markets they were in. The houses were too expensive and too large and weren't appropriate for the markets or market conditions. He also made the decision to do this building over and over again until he was sitting on 5/6 unsold houses and much acreage in Farmington and New Canaan. Now he has a financial mess that most likely will require a court ordered auction to liquidate or bankruptcy to reorganize IMO. GF didn't make these choices for FO, he made these all himself.
If you come to the thread with opinions supported by facts and MSM/Court documents I for one would welcome a true 'devils advocate' debate about the case. But to simply pull an 'opposite day' and express views that are contrary to the facts at hand will as you point out, "cause people to go a bit nuts"!
MOO
