Not every child custody struggle has a bad ending.
The elemental bond that links fathers with their children is the subject of ancient poetry, biblical legend, and even diplomatic stand-offs. Remember Homer’s epic saga of Odysseus and Telemachus? The New Testament tale of the prodigal son? And of course the Elian Gonzalez case.
Xavier Quinta was born on June 24, 1998 to Bennett Vonderheide and Wendy Flanders of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. But the relationship went sour and the couple separated.
In February 2003 the judge awarded custody of Xavier to his mother, ordering that he spend two days a week with his father. But Flanders soon decided to ignore the judge’s order, at first restricting visits to only two hours a day, and then thwarting all contact for months at a time.
But that wasn’t enough, so Flanders schemed to alienate Xavier from his father.
According to the contempt motion, Flanders first withheld information from Ben, refusing to advise him about school programs, teacher conferences, or even the name of the kindergarten where Xavier would be attending.
She then fabricated multiple allegations of abuse, a claim of fear being the only proof she needed. Then she used these unproven accusations to show Xavier that his father was a perp. On the advice of counselors, the father once made several telephone calls to the child. The mother then claimed those calls amounted to harassment. The district attorney later dismissed the ridiculous charge.
Next she resorted to outright manipulation. One day Flanders informed the father he wouldn’t be allowed to see his son for Christmas Eve. Then she had the child dress up in anticipation of the father’s visit. When the father didn’t arrive, she used that as proof the father was a deadbeat.
And finally, Flanders violated a key requirement of the custody order that neither make “derogatory comments about the other parent.” Instead, she waged a campaign of calumnies, repeatedly calling Ben a liar and abuser.
Once Xavier introduced his father to his classmates as, “This is my Daddy – he is filled with hatred and anger” – a phrase that a five-year-old boy is unlikely to come up with on his own.
But as Xavier grew older, he began to realize that he was caught in the middle of a high stakes tug-of-war. He said he didn’t want his mother to control him, and much to her dismay wanted to spend more time with dad.
That gave Vonderheide his opening. He decided to stop the mother from turning the child’s transfer into a screaming confrontation. At the next visit, the father sat calmly on a bench, and cast his best “I’m not sure what game you’re playing but I’m not interested” look. Problem solved.
Once accused of being “the worst dad in the world,” Vonderheide pointed out to his son that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had killed thousands of persons. “So I’m at least the third worst dad in the world,” dad humorously concluded.
Sometimes Xavier got so angry that he refused to eat. So his father concocted a sumptuous dessert. “This is just for daddy – I know you really want this good creamy stuff but you can’t have it.” Vonderheide teasingly added, “I don’t want any of my sweet stuff to be taken by the sugar monster.” Of course Xavier couldn’t resist that challenge.
Last month Wendy Flanders was found guilty on three counts of making false statements to law enforcement officials, fined, and placed on probation. And Ben Vonderheide’s record was expunged on many of the counts against him. The battle cost him $350,000 in legal expenses.
Ben recounts this inspirational song by Edwin McCain:
These are the moments I thank God that I'm alive,
These are the moments I'll remember all my life,
I've got all I've waited for,
And I could not ask for more.
This Sunday, 8-year-old Xavier will be spending Father’s Day with his dad. They plan to play laser tag, go for a hike, and maybe take in a movie.
Father and son, reunited.
careyroberts@comcast.net
Read more articles by Carey Roberts
It's too bad there aren't more stories with similar happy endings, but I guess one is better than none.
Comment by Jekken | June 17, 2007
350,000 to refute a bunch of malicious lies–just in order to see your child
!? You gotta luv it. The folks peddling "oppression" have done their
job well. The
Dukies, from what I read, had attorney fees amounting to over one million.
Score another one for the "oppression" crowd–you gotta be a zillionaire
to even have a shot at opposing them.
Whatever happened to the good old Marxists who used to argue that justice
was always something that came w/ a price tag? These days they can make
common cause w/ conservatives.
This story makes clear that there simply is no custody "system"; rather there are outcomes that are
engineered through manipulation of "procedure." It is only by having nearly half a million
lying around that you have the proverbial snowball's chance.
How IRaq can remain in the headlines (however important) when over 50% of Americans
are directly subject to the custody "system" (and are devastated by it) is beyond me.
There is no more pressing issue to Americans today, than reform of the custody
system.
Comment by Nathan Alexander | June 17, 2007
I'm not sure I can call $350,000 in legal bills a happy ending. If it can be shown that the purpose was to harrass and hurt the father, and that there were no grounds for the accusations against which he had to defend himself, the mother should be made to reimburse the father for these bills - through payroll withholding, just as with child support. Yes, I know proving this can be difficult, if not impossible. But there needs to be some mechanism that discourages this behaviour on the part of embattled ex-spouses. A fine and probation don't stike me as "justice" in these cases. Yeah, the father sometimes wins, but at what cost? All it really does is underscore once again that the mother has everything to gain, and very little to lose - at least financially - by making groundless assertions in a legal system that is tilted unreasonably in favor of mothers in almost all instances. In spite of well-meaning verbiage in most states' laws to do what is in the best interests of the *children,* when is the last time you saw a courtroom actually do more than pay lip service to that? The default seems to always be on the side of the mother, and the father is presumed guilty as charged until he proves himself innocent. It is sad, because it merely makes people callous and disbelieving so that when there is actually abuse occuring (sexual or otherwise), nobody knows who to believe anymore.
Since it is Father's Day, I would like to briefly share my own story. When I divorced in 2003, my ex-wife agreed to let me raise our son and be his primary custodial parent. This was done without a legal battle of any kind. We simply agreed, wrote this into the marital settlement agreement, and it has not been a point of contention - or even discussion - in over 4 years. Our son is now 11.
That, to me, is a truly happy ending (aside from the fact that the marriage failed - I wish I could give my son an intact family unit rather than the fractured situation he inherited). I know it rarely turns out the way I have described. But while I have plenty of horror stories regarding my failed marriage, I'm grateful that a child custody battle and outrageous legal bills is not one of them.
Comment by Steve Sabin | June 17, 2007
Further to my previous comments (which may or may not be posted yet), I used to post on this forum under the username "nevadamistermom." Now you know why.
Comment by Steve Sabin | June 17, 2007
If a father has the money (generally, if he comes from a family with
money) it's sometimes possible to use the courts to do basic things,
such as enforce limited visitation (if it's routinely broken). However
it's a matter of utter simplicity to thwart this by making the cost of the
father using the system formidable. Think of it this way–assume that any
legal process will require two court appearances by your attorney. This
will cost nearly a thousand dollars–and this doesn't include paper work
travelling fees and the like.
To oppose a father's claim that his visitation is thwarted, the other side
need merely assert something wild about the father–justifying the botched
visitation. Immediately, "thwarted visitation" becomes a test where the
father must prove his credibility. Did he or didn't he beat his child?
Of course a judge must take such a charge seriously–but now were into depositions
and supoening evidence and the like. A thousand bucks has become five
thousand! And we aint even in a trial yet !
A good defense attorney can easily jack up the costs of any father pursuing
anything into the stratosphere! And hey! if dad can afford the costs, surely
he's shortchanging his kid by paying too little child support!
The current custody system has done more to destroy the family than the so
called crack epidemic of the eighties. It would be interesting to find out how
many AFro American kids lost their dads because they were "locked up"
because of child support issues (ie. dad lost his job and since there was no way
of gaining respite from "enforcement", wound up in jail).
Comment by Nathan Alexander | June 18, 2007