Thanks for your length reply. Please bare with mine. I do feel a bit ganged up on because of trying to explore other explanations. I've said in almost every post I've put here that I think he did it. But... I am also a software engineer. I need to solve problems daily. I build hypothesis and have opinions, beliefs, understandings every day. I do not have the luxury of only considering what I believe to be happening. I follow my hypothesis for a long long time. But after I have explored that for, what I consider to be a long time, and if I still don't have a solution, then I need to think of other things, as unlikely as they may be. Many times, in the end, the Ocam Razor's explanation holds but not always. Sure, husband in a contentious divorce with 5 kids, fling on the side, financial mismanagement, handling evidence, points clearly to him as the perp. Absolutely. And others have said the reason he hasn't been charged is that LE is in no rush. Ok, but here, I don't believe that is the Ocam Razor's explanation. The most likely explanation is that they don't have enough evidence or that there is some exculpatory evidence. So, as a software engineer, my next step would be to explore less likely scenarios. I really didn't expect that even remotely suggesting that there may be other explanations would result in the kind of accusatory reactions I've received. I think this thread would be more dynamic if we did talk about the unlikely scenarios. At this point, I don't really feel safe in this thread to even bring up ideas. So I'll keep them to myself. But that's too bad.
Sorry to hear that you will keep things to yourself.
I agree alternative theories would be interesting and thought provoking as well but they have to exist in the context of the case evidence that is available here and now. If you are a software engineer then I think it would make sense to you to not blindly go in a design direction where the chances of success of a decision working were not supported by evidence based on past experience or research. Its no different here.
Yes, its likely that father's rights or people's rights are trampled in family court sometimes and yes some fathers and mothers get shafted in the process of fighting for custody. There are people that do everything right by the courts rules and still get a bad result. But do you believe based on the evidence that is available now that FO is one of these people that have been shafted by the system and whose rights have been trampled upon?
If you look through the file and can find some examples of where FO did something/anything such that he would deserve a return to supervised visitation then by all means share it.
I've looked as have others here to see if any shred of decency in FO exists and whether any evidence exists that he is a decent parent that could care adequately for 5 young children. I can't see it and I think the Judge in this case knows more than all of us put together and she can't see it and the GAL can't see it. But if you can see it and can show us the errors in our collective knowledge and research then by all means don't stay silent as you aren't doing this process any favors IMO.
I'm not sure if you were on the thread where I posted that IMO FO didn't deserve or qualify for supervised visitation and I was quite critical of Judge Heller who stated that she believed children should have a relationship with their father (she used this argument I believe to put the supervised visitation process back in gear after FO hadn't seen his children in 10+ months or so).
@gitana1 who works in the family court world on a daily basis jumped on the criticism of the Judge for a variety of reasons based on her deep understanding of the process. I respect her POV on family court greatly and agreed to postpone further commentary on this aspect of family court drama. People here are tough and they are smart and they call them like they see them IMO. I wouldn't want it any other way.
My main point is that alternative theories deserve evidentiary support. Feel free and safe to posit any/all alternative theories if you have the support from approved sources. The drill is pretty simple. The group here knows the facts and reads the documents so the make a statement about FO being allowed to see his children would never fly in the face of the huge family court file and FO well documented behavior in court from people that are familar with the facts that are available IMO.
After my last post on addresssing 2 of the issues in your prior post I went back to look at the Family Court file list one more time to see if perhaps I didn't give FO the benefit of the doubt.
Glad I did that because I found a nugget that I hadn't seen before. FO had been ordered by the Judge to take Parenting classes. It appears FO declined to attend the classes and so was cited for contempt by the court. This is just one extra example of the approach this man has taken to a process that in no way had to be as adversarial as it appeared to be. Parenting classes are quite basic and it should be no big deal to go to class, listen and take some notes and take the test, if its required. But FO did not choose this route. FO chose to not enrich his understanding of the parenting process and so was yet again kept on the supervised visitation route.
IMO FO court strategy had zero to do with the children and everything to do with tormenting/agitating/terrorizing JD and soaking her for as much money as he possibly could. Its a highly simplistic analysis I think but its probably directionally correct. But this is my POV having read through as much as is available.
If you find something we have missed in our collective reading of MSM and the court records then by all means share, don't stay silent.
PS For what its worth there are many parts of this case where it makes sense based on what we now know IMO to be a fence sitter. FO as a parent IMO isn't one of these 'fence sitter' issues but perhaps you can change my mind!?!
MOO MOO MOO
