Shocker in Twins Custody Row

*snip*
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.


Now, just wait till you find out "WHY" these girls were taken away from the only home they've ever had: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/195824p-169187c.html

:argh:

paid off to write that report and give custody to the adulterous father!

Those poor babies will never understand why Mommy gave them away!

The mind boggles.

Yet Another Irony: The presiding judge was Acting Supreme Court Judge Arlene Goldberg. I don't think that's a male Arlene. I DO think that should be an "impeached judge Arlene Goldberg."

It's almost quarter after two on The Big Day right now in NYC. Which means there's a single mom and two little girls who are probably in a world of hurt right now, while Bossman Johnny, accustomed to "winning" every encounter he has, is gloating over how he showed her who was boss.

We had a local bossman here in Philly who was in a high-visibility custody battle. He was a billionaire computer tycoon who turned his ex into an international fugitive -- and the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote approvingly of his actions.

The word "privilege" originally meant "private law". Y'know, it still does.

--bkl

So, the girls are being taken from their loving mother and being given to their adulterous father and his wife, who both wanted the girls to be aborted? Does the judge honestly believe the girls will be more loved by their father who wanted them to be aborted, and a new mother who will always view them as the bastard result of her husband's infidelities?

"While Aylsworth 'has had extramarital affairs, his failings impact on his ability to be a good husband, not a proper custodial parent.'" You know, I think the judge is absolutely right: after all, if you beat your wife every night, you're just a bad husband, not a bad parent! :eyes:

is that allegedly the wife has told the girls to call her "mommy" :mad: :wtf:

This is horrible for the girls.

Please keep us updated. Surely something can/will be done....

I first heard this on "Good Morning America" a few months ago, when I woke up this morning I caught the tail end of this late, and wasn't exactly sure what had happened until I read this.

Also to note: Ms. Marks said that he's asked for time with them before, but never completes the visitation period he asked for, he's left or sent them home early each time. Plus, the girls don't really know him, and they certainly don't know the wife.

It astounds me that this happened, and that the girls will ultimately suffer. Was counselling mentioned anywhere in the "judge's" order ? If being angry is a crime, then my brother and I probably would have ended up with our father too.

Once again, Be a scumbag, win a prize is the norm. :eyes:

and some people think sexism isn't a problem...

or that would've been me, aged 3.

"Unbridled anger toward the father"? She's supposed to do what, say "No more affairs for you, sweetums, okay?" </sarcasm>

heard about.

The exec and his wife pressed Marks to abort her pregnancy, but Marks refused and raised the twins alone, according to court documents.

This "man" and his "wife" did not want these children to be born and for them to obtain custody makes me :puke:

If you've been following this story, the post reported that the judge determined that the mother "coached the girls to say their father molested them." If true, I think this has a bearing on the mother's fitness a a parent.

I do not know all the facts here, but neither do all the others posting their outrage.

to go along with that tall order?

www.nydailynews.com/front/story/198381p-171238c.html

www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/25054.htm

Manhattan Family Court Judge Arlene Goldberg decided to do it because she believes the mother falsely accused the father of sexually fondling their children to prevent him from gaining custody.

Not exactly proof, just her belief and contrary to what the mother has said. It's my belief that that's a rather flimsy rationale to remove two children from the only home they've ever known and give them to the man who wanted them aborted.

I too thank you for the links, but it only brings up another troubling point- her beliefs against Ms. Marks- not based on proof or fact is the reason why she ruled against her.

Regardless of the ruling, I still hopes that she or the father and wife get these girls some counselling. :scared:

her beliefs against Ms. Marks- not based on proof or fact is the reason why she ruled against her.

The article wasn't clear about this, so I Could be wrong, but I assumed that Ms Marks did actually make the accusation. The accusation seems to be specifically meant to influence the custody hearings, so I don't think the judge heard about it "through the grapevine". If that is the case, then the judge has no obligation to prove Ms Marks was wrong. The burden of proof is on Ms Marks, and if she can't support the allegation, then she is liable to lose custody.

And, in the interests of disclosure, I have to admit that I have serious reservations about the suitability of parent who falsely accuses their child's other parent of sexual abuse. I consider false charges like that to be a form of child abuse.

She said the mother was "very angry" towards the father. She also did said that she was a Fit parent.

Now, if she tried to lie about the father, then that's what her ruling should have said. But she didn't say that, did she ? Now you have this ruling, and child activists and others wondering why two girls that have never lived with their father or spent any meaningful time with him have now been ordered to live with him and his wife. There's nothing wrong with asking that.

Just my $.02

The judge, who reviewied the reports of all the experts on both sides made a determination as to which experts to "believe." This is what judges do. I have not heard the testimony, nor have I read the reports, but neither has any of the other posters here.

The judge heard the evidence and made a decision based on the law. The law may be wrong, but this is not an isolated case. I personally think that someone who would make up such an accusation and coach her children to testify falsely against their father shuld not have custody of the children.

The judge is the only impartial person quoted in the articles, all the others have an axe to grind.

if the law says that the children are better off with near total strangers (who wanted them dead, remember) than with their mother.

not to mention her "unbridled anger."

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

...The twins' mother...has a one-week supervised visit (for summer vacation)...

Supervised visitation will likely mean a court-appointed social worker must be present when Marks is with her children...

Aylsworth's attorney...said, "I think that the court based the decision on the credible evidence and we're gratified..."

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.

And I'm sure her being an adulterous former Playboy model made it that much easier for the judge believe the worst of her.

:headbang:
rocknation

the "adulterer" is the one who cheats, not the one who is currently unmarried.

Yes it seems the wife and father urged her to abort the pregnancy. Did they they try to FORCE her to or to kill the kids after they were born? From the article it seems not. Instead from what I read after the affair went sour, the mother went sour too toward the father. And sorry, but a mother doing her best to get the kids to hate hate hate their father does not seem all that healthy to me.

want to completely disrupt two children's lives for your own personal self-interest. This so-called "father" has anything but his daughers' best interests at heart -- that's clear. And it's unconscionable IMO. He apparently doesn't care one whit that he's psychologically crippling these little girls for life. IF the allegations against the motehr are even true (and I have my doubts), the girls could have survived being taught "to hate, hate, hate their father" a lot more easily than being wrenched out of their mother's care and put in the care of strangers.

Everyone knows that their "acting careers" tend to end up in porno, and that their idea of retirement is to latch on to some rich guy and milk him financially. Well, she can't mooch off her sugar daddy's child support any longer, and the twins have been "saved": they'll grow up in a "proper" household with "proper" parents who don't have to take off their clothes to support them. Serves her right! What is she so "angry" about anyway--the lack of love or money?

:eyes:
rocknation

Anyway, he'll be saving that child support. And he's obviously a fine man--a casino owner.

He bought the girls. And his wifey can play at being a "Mommie".

It appears that not all people will recognize the true intent :)

to be given to us for the summer visit. a decade and over 120k later, we are still dealing with a mother that puts her daughters health at risk, feeds the nastiest about her father. every single pick up we dont know if mother will show. last summer with my 5 and 8 year olds i had to call police to get the child, didnt hand over christmas, easter or now this summer and has gotten away with. pulled cps in easter and brother went under investigation. was so bogus, cps took a couple weeks and let it go. brother of course hasnt seen his child to see if she is ok

i sit amazed how we so readily believe a mothers stories

the court says to brother, and the court appointed psychiatrist, as brother says best for daughter, could that mean i need to leave her life to not cause her all this pain. doctor says no, NO........daughter needs father to fix her on these short visits from all the mothers screw up

3 psychiatrists, a minister, school officials and family all show brother hands down the parent for primary caretaking, yet 5 years ago a judge said, the mother isnt that,.....that bad (doesnt beat the child). though the father is good

nah i dont necessarily just easily believe this woman because she is a mother.

i am telling attorney parental alienation, as we go back to court, think that is a winner to use

Which is another case of the powerful & connected getting custody over natural parents (yes, I know the guy in the Marks case is the natural father, but his wife is not the natural mother...)

Here is some info on He

http://www.isthisamerica.com

The father wanted to fucking abort them! Those girls will be seeing shrinks the rest of their lives.

relationship between daughters and father'

....
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.

....

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

....

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.

....


So understandable anger toward man who wanted abotion = lose your kids to a father who wanted them dead?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?