Baldwin's main point is that the time (let alone expense) it takes to legally secure the right to see your child destroys a father's relationship with his children almost as thoroughly as the manipulations of a hostile ex-spouse.
The custody system rarely is subject to public scrutiny. Its genius lies in its ability to conceal-through coercion-the violence it routinely inflicts on those defined as "the non-custodial parent" (generally the father). If the non-custodial parent makes less than forty-five thousand dollars per year-and maintains a bedroom for his child, he will be unable to afford legal representation. If the "custodial" parent wishes to prevent him from having access to his child, any attorney can quickly make mincemeat of the hapless and legally defenseless father-whose child support generally pays the custodial parent's attorney's fees. If the father goes public with his outrage, this is perceived as an "attack on mother and child," and he further jeopardizes his ability to see his child.
It is wrong, however, to see the custody system as only benefiting women. In the rare case where the father has access to resources (and the mother does not), the mother will soon find herself in the same position as most fathers. Her outrage at a legal process that strips her of her children will be seen, too, as an attack on the child. The fleeting opportunities she may have in the future to see her child are the price she pays for her silence.
Since the 1980s, the courts have been instructed to use the principle "in the best interests of the child" as a guide for resolving custody disputes. In practice the courts have generally awarded children to whomever is capable (and willing) to outspend the other side in custody litigation. Thus, for lower and middle class women, their legal fees will be covered by child support and the father will bankrupt himself in any protracted litigation. In cases involving a parent with substantial resources, a savage custody dispute is a long term investment for both parties: by securing custody, the other parent will no longer have the right to secure up to a third of their "adversary's" income.
There is, however, one major weakness in the custody system. When two parents both have substantial resources and both are determined to get the better of the other, the inability of the custody system to resolve quickly and inexpensively the most elementary disputes becomes all too evident. Worse, for the custody system, a wealthy parent is not as fearful to go public with the custody system's failures. Such was the case with Actor Alec Baldwin and his estranged wife Kim Basinger. Married for seven years, the two had one daughter, Ireland. Basinger took full advantage of the California custody system's dysfunction, seeking to deny Baldwin access to his daughter by spending millions of dollars creating legal hurdles which, she argued, "were in the best interests of the child." Baldwin, determined to be part of his daughter's life, fought back.
Baldwin's recent book A Promise to Ourselves: A Journey Through Fatherhood and Divorce is his public account of his own experience in California's custody courts. While Baldwin's commitment to liberal causes is often loud and uncompromising, A Promise to Ourselves is remarkable for its restraint. There is little directly about Basinger and even less about his daughter, Ireland. In fact Baldwin hardly gives an account of the legal proceedings that he endured. While he has had ample opportunity to interact with sleazy lawyers, these too escape much attention.
Baldwin's main point is that the time (let alone expense) it takes to legally secure the right to see your child destroys a father's relationship with his children almost as thoroughly as the manipulations of a hostile ex-spouse. "Parental Alienation Syndrome" (PAS) is what takes place, Baldwin points out, when one parent attempts to prevent the other from having contact with their child. While Basinger took advantage of the court system, PAS would have developed even if she hadn't. In Baldwin's case, the inertia of the legal system abets the efforts of custodial parents to deny non-custodial parents their children.
Baldwin's frustration comes from the circus of judges, therapists and attorneys he encountered who were seemingly indifferent to what he wanted the most, which was resolving his case and being with his daughter. Judge Jill Robbins, talked tough, schmoozed with attorneys in her courtroom and routinely permitted the litigants to run up thousands of dollars of attorney fees by entertaining ludicrous demands from both sides. She typified the "gutless judge" who simply let the process destroy all parties involved. "Celebrity attorney" Dennis Wasser, at great expense, managed to deflect most of Basinger's more egregious financial demands. He did nothing to hurry the process along however, using the system to make fortunes. Finally, the sinister "Marcia Rydell," a court appointed "evaluator," probed Baldwin for information, which, he realized, could be used to take his daughter from him. Rydell made no effort to investigate Basinger's violations of court orders, though by communicating with Basinger violated those of the court herself. Rydell might have easily ended the protracted contact-but accommodated the Robbins, the Wassers and others benefiting from the conflict by using her discretion to enable the process to proceed ad infinitum. What all had in common was that none wanted to make a decision that would bring the process to an end because all had a vested financial interest in perpetuating it-indefinitely, if possible.
At the end of the day, Baldwin needs to make an argument. What in the end is wrong with the custody system? He ends his book rather abruptly with an interview with Harvard Law Professor, Jeannie Suk. Suk confirms his opinion that the legal system itself has been taken over by what she calls "governance feminism." The result is that men are increasingly assumed by the courts to be inherently violent and the burden of proving otherwise is made their obligation. Suk observes that many states have "mandatory arrest laws," when there is reason to believe a domestic violence crime has been committed. This generally results in the man's arrest. Even when there is no allegation of violence, several states believe that women are not in a position to judge what violence is because "they are dominated by a husband or financially dependent." In such a case the male can be assumed to be committing violence even without the accusation of the woman. Indeed, even if a woman gives her assent to a male's actions, an aggressive prosecutor may deem "she has been coerced"-and prosecute the male anyway. "Today a woman can ask a court to issue an order excluding her husband from the home based on her claim that he has harmed or threatened her, often without the husband having the opportunity to present his side."
According to Dr. Suk, the law no longer seeks to prove men guilty of violence. It simply assumes it, as a means of "protecting women."1
The problem with many of today's social engineering programs ranging from affirmative action to "no-fault divorce" to the current custody system is that they were all attempts to achieve justice on the cheap. Politically expedient outcomes were mandated and the accompanying "legal" violence that ensued was rationalized in light of a publicly perceive "just end." In marriage, for instance, the cost of establishing the infidelity of one partner was deemed more painful than simply letting both partners out of the marriage at no cost. Affirmative action programs mandated racially engineered "outcomes," rather than individual merit. In both cases, the real motivating factor was cost: in the early 1970s, having a judicial system that upheld individual "justice" in divorce or "justice" in hiring processes was deemed simply too expensive.
The custody system is a somewhat different situation. In the past, it could be relied upon to deliver a separated couple's children to the mother under the assumption that a child would be more properly nurtured by the female species. Today this mandate is no longer in place, replaced by the ambiguous "best interests of the child". The result is that the legal system spins aimlessly, searching for some sort of value (or value judgment) that might restore a sense of direction to the custody process. Generally (as custody statistics clearly show) it falls back on the prejudices of the past-that the mother is the superior caregiver, and is to be awarded custody (and the opportunity to take advantage of the awesome power the legal system affords her to acquire the financial benefits and exclusive rights to her child that come with custody) of her children.
Despite the cost of the system, its very dysfunction encourages the father to enter into a dangerous game of roulette which, if he survives it, may give him the chance to be with his child. For the wealthy (both male and female), the custody system is easily manipulable: therapists and psychologists may be "purchased" who will eventually testify to whatever their employer wishes for them to say. Once they acquire custody, they may use the inertia of the system to alienate their child from the other parent However a father or non-custodial mother who can scrape together the funds to make egregious charges against the other side in what amounts to the "lotto" of custody court, has the chance of getting a favorable ruling. The other side must defend-at tremendous cost-and the child can only suffer as resources are poured into the system at his/her expense.
A few simple changes would make the custody system more just. First, custody should always be 50/50 and if a mother or father is willing to live near his or her child, the child should reside jointly with each parent. The disruption this is alleged to cause to the child's life is hardly outweighed by the injury caused by the current system, which generally eliminates one parent altogether. Furthermore, in the event a parent is denied access to his or her children, such a decision should be annually revisited by the courts. No parent should be denied access to their children and such a stipulation would reduce the incentive for a parent to attempt to exclude the other by taking advantage of the court's weaknesses. Second, custody issues should be resolved in a timely fashion according to mandated timelines following a couple's separation. The current system rewards inertia and, as Baldwin points out, this damages a child's relationship with the noncustodial parent. The current system is unable to determine who the better parent generally is anyway-and simply prolonging its failures by making it easy to delay (ineffective) proceedings hardly benefits the child. Finally, the "financial incentive to litigate" must be removed from the custody process. Child support should generally be fixed figure and not be an abstract "percentage of the parent's entire worth." The current system encourages parents to embark on "fishing expeditions" into the other's resources-all justified by the alleged "best interest of the child." The result is an enormous waste of resources as the pursuit of the other parent's (generally limited) imagined wealth becomes a sort of high stakes lotto. The real beneficiaries of this lotto, as Baldwin clearly demonstrates, are those with a vested interest in keeping the lotto running, which they currently do "in the best interests of the child."
1This should strike any reasonably liberal mind as extraordinary. In short, if Professor Suk may be believed, in today's courts a man may be convicted without testimony against him-or even an allegation. It recalls the optimism of the old "phrenologists," quacks of the late 18th and 19th centuries, who proposed to arrest criminals "in advance of their crimes" based upon their "propensity to crime" evident from features of their facial skeleton. Unsurprisingly, "identified criminal types" usually bore the stereotypical features of Jews. It appears some of today's "legal feminists" have been far more ambitious (and evidently successful) in imagining the "face of criminality" in advance of its appearance.
“While Baldwin’s commitment to liberal causes is often loud and uncompromising”
If Mr. Baldwin could only see that his commitment to the left is a big part of the problem. The idea that big government can solve all problems results in a life run by lawyers, judges, and feminist apparatchiks inside the court system that promote conflict rather than solve problems.
I haven’t had much reason to respect Mr. Baldwin in a long time, which is a shame because he’s a pretty good actor. When an actor is as political as he is without taking the time to really consider what it is he supports so strongly, it makes it hard to watch his work without constantly seeing the ideologue. This, at least, restores a modicum of respect, making his films that much more enjoyable. I don’t expect he’ll ever really ‘get it’, but this demonstrates it isn’t because he’s brain-dead and is a move away from his more typical kneejerk reactions.
Now to go watch one of his better films before he does something to spoil it.
The book rambles in part because Baldwin can’t quite make up his mind what the problem really is. On the one hand it’s clear his ex-wife was (and is) a nightmare and her ability to manipulate the California courts is the result of a sort of herd-feminist mentality masquerading as the law. Still, Baldwin doesn’t say this directly, hiding behind the Harvard prof he interviews at the end of the book to express this. The book should have been short and punchy. Instead it meanders–one can’t help but think because Baldwin has other pieties he wants to hold onto–even though these are what, in part, took his daughter from him. Elsewhere, Baldwin repeatedly asserts that he is trying to be objective in his account–something constantly contradicted by hyperbolic statements about “the system” that are on every tenth page. Another thing that struck me was how naive Baldwin was going into his custody fight. His “trust” in the court system in these matters was ridiculous–and he brought a great deal of his own troubles upon himself by doing so. IN short, the book is a bit of a mess. It’s significance is to bring attention (thanks to Baldwin’s celebirty) to the hellish world of the noncustodial parent. Baldwin gets points for this–even if he hasn’t been beaten up enough to really figure out where the problem is.
Aw, Nathan, now you’ve gone and spoiled my Baldwin viewing all over again!
But, I know what you mean about the naivete and faith in systems. My liberal wife is like that despite years of beating both our heads against the institutional walls put up to ‘help parents cope’ with behaviorally challenged children (It’s not their fault they are the way they are! No touching! No scolding! No whatever it was you thought to try! … but we feel for you pal.) By now she’s ready to kill everyone and has made enemies galore, yet persists in demanding ‘help’ from a well meant but ultimately useless system that only binds parental hands. My recommendation to parents-in-crisis … stay as far as possible from government agencies.
Nathan writes: “Another thing that struck me was how naive Baldwin was going into his custody fight. His “trust” in the court system in these matters was ridiculous–and he brought a great deal of his own troubles upon himself by doing so.”
I beg our pardon, but nearly every man is naive going into family court. We are brought up to believe in “Till death do we part” and fairness. I’ve been through it, I’ve met dozens of men face to face who have been through it, and many dozens more online. I’ve never met one who was prepared for what he was about to go through. In fact, out of the men I’ve met two have left the country and two are dead. Some did a few things wrong, but not one deserved the trouble you speak of here.
Bob’s point is a good one–no sensible person should try and stay away from govt. agencies/bureaucracies at (nearly) all cost. I stand corrected –thanks Ivan. ANyone raised to believe the court system is about justice is going to be naive going into the custody nightmare. That said, I think Baldwin was probably too gullible on this account and continued to let the system abuse him long after the average citizen would have run to Canada (or had resort to firearms).
Speaking generally, the custody system seems to me a reflection of the court’s interest in achieving outcomes, instead of individual justice. The routine outrages are readily justified in light of this. This legacy of achieving “group outcomes” seems to have begun in earnest in the sixties and has spread to more areas than just custody. Baldwin’s Harvard prof. speaks of (the feminist) Catherine MacKinnon as being influential in bringing this about.
As a frequent visitor to the Long Island town he called home while married to Kim Basinger and seeing his family out and about, I have to say he’s a bigger moron then he appears on TV. I saw him verbally abuse both her and his daughter many times in public, and screamed at her in a local restaurant calling her stupid and an idiot while they were trying to eat their lunch, as well as the other patrons. I can still remember the look on her face once he finished his explosive public temper. She looked mortified and embarrassed, and then she stood up and walked out, which only made him angrier, he slammed his fist into the table, pulled his napkin off and in a huff threw it on the table, then he threw a wad of cash and stormed out. When people who lived in the village saw him coming with his arrogant swagger we held our breathe hoping he wouldn’t go into one of the village stores to bark his orders at the staff. After that incident she soon afterwards filed for divorce.
I would have loved to kick him in the balls. He’s a major control freak that was clearly evident and when he doesn’t get want HE wants he took it out on others that were around. She always was friendly and sweet, but clearly very unhappy, and even pretty in person. She didn’t like living out on the island. They were a very poor match to begin with so I was surprised they stayed together for as long as they did, I think about 10 years. He was never a nice man; I don’t have any fond memories of him walking around in the village. I think he’s getting what he deserves for the years of verbal abuse; he’s arrogant, obnoxious, and full of himself and really believes he’s a huge star. Sorry Baldwin I’m on Kim’s side you hot headed jerk. You are only hearing his side of the custody argument. He believes if he whines loud enough the public, the public will be on his side, Kim isn’t using the public nor is she talking about the divorce or custody battle publicly, she’s trying to keep Ireland out of the spotlight; he keeps trying to drag her into it. If I were a judge I would force him to take anger management classes because I wouldn’t let him anywhere near my child. You reap what you sow.
Did he include that in his book?
Ireland
Everything you say may be true, but the tone of you comment says to me that you are either a female or a man who is demonstrating your chivalry by protecting Ms. Basinger. This is the kind of reaction that most men get when they enter family court, but most don’t have Mr. Baldwin’s fame and money to write and sell a book. Therefore they get screwed and go off quietly.
Ireland,
What I wrote doesn’t contradict what you’ve said–and I hinted at what you wrote explicitly when I wrote that the book is written unevenly, ie. Baldwin goes from professing to be objectve, to making outrageous claims about things that completely undercut his stated objectivity. In short, he come across as a blowhard–as you describe. That said, being a blowhard is hardly a reason to deprive someone of their children. Bassinger, after all, chose to marry him and because she made a mistake should not entitle her to punish her daughter by depriving her of her father. Moreover, because Baldwin made a few mistakes, because of his temper, hardly warrants a (permanet) judgment against him. The norm should be 50/50 access to Ireland–and if this is suspended because of something stupid Baldwin did, he deserves a second (and third) chance. **This is for Ireland’s sake as much as Baldwin’s!
Finally, I disagree that Basinger gets credit for “keeping things quiet.” Baldwin’s only realistic chance to see his daughter is to make as loud a stink as possible about the situation. Otherwise he’d be chewed up by the California custody system and his daughter would be lost to him. Regardless of whether he is a prig, his willingness to stand up for father’s earns him kudos from all the great fathers who have been stripped of their children, and by extension, their lives.
Ireland,
You aren’t by any chance that Ireland, are you? Don’t answer that, but, if you are, your knowledge is deeper than you imply (otherwise, one heck of a coincidence).
Ivan and Nathan,
Don’t be too quick to judge Baldwin the poster-child of maligned dads just yet. Apparently, there have been multiple reports of his bad temper and rudeness, in and out of public, that make Ireland’s remarks somewhat more relevant.
http://www.hotmommagossip.com/2008/07/22/alec-baldwin-gets-a-little-angry-with-diane-sawyer/ – Baldwin having meltdown while promoting book rationalizing the angry-dad syndrome; Baldwin claims it was blown out of all proportion
http://talk.livedaily.com/archive/index.php/t-526900.html – traumatized Jan Maxwell leaves Broadway show because of Baldwin behaviors (e.g., fist through walls), Baldwin blames her and insinuates she has issues
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1709576/posts – terrorized co-star Sarah Michelle Gellar, Baldwin screaming at lawyer on phone, and drove hairstylist from set; friends who cover for him
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10132006/gossip/pagesix/pipe_down__alec_pagesix_.htm – Baldwin screams at cop at accident scene, then unconscionably rude to hotel staff same day; later claims he was just asking directions and would never ever make fun of someone’s English; publicist covers for him
http://showhype.com/story/road_rage/ – Baldwin screams at limo driver following near-miss exiting U.S. Open
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1998/cyb19981216.asp – Henry Hyde death threats on Conan; later brushes it off as joke he never meant
See a pattern here? He’s also not above a little slander, as when he accused Matt Drudge of coming on to him.
Though I totally agree with Baldwin the courts are a mess and an open invitation to abuse both by and against parents, I am guessing this book is more about repairing the Baldwin image than a genuine and honest search for root causes. The self-centered arrogance, for one thing, still shines through; elsewhere if not the book. I sympathize with any parent put through this, but that sympathy extends as much or more to Basinger as Baldwin. We only have a negative of evidence and innuendo against Basinger, whereas we have some very real displays of rage from Baldwin.
We know Baldwin took his red-hot temper out on his 10-year old daughter. His highly-public, taped-tirade went well beyond a parent losing it because it was all about him – not about misbehaviors by a daughter any reasonable parent would call to account. He wasn’t telling her to butt out of their fights or of lying against him in court. She was simply avoiding him and wouldn’t return his calls, however unfairly. Let’s be generous toward both Baldwin’s by assuming this was her not wanting to be in the middle of her parents fight and he was justifiably miffed by that. A reasoning dad realizes what the kid is doing and is okay with that, however hurt we may feel. The rational dad leaves a message saying he is disappointed but understands, and hopes she will make time in her life for him later. If he lets out his anger at all, it will be at his ex-wife (for manipulating the daughter against him), though not within her hearing. Let’s assume, though (worst case), she was taking sides in her parents dispute (despite Baldwin never implies this either in the tape or elsewhere). Would that justify the tirade we heard from him? I have blown up at my own kid, so I appreciate how hard it is keeping your cool. The rare times I did, it was because my son was defiantly pushing every button he could find. But, I have never blown up at my kid solely because he wouldn’t show me the love or respect I’d hope from him; and never would. Combining the public and private evidence of a Baldwin who makes things hot for others at the drop of a hat, the charges Basinger makes of a father and husband who is a threat have greater substance.
I would have hoped Baldwin’s book would have resulted in some soul searching, but, as both this and a review by Bernard Chapin (see “Brave Story” http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A34PAZQ73SL163?ie=UTF8&display=public&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview&page=3 ) suggest, that’s not much in evidence. Instead, he seems to be distracting us from his role in his personal humiliation.
I’m in no way defending Baldwin’s person–and I really don’t know anything about him other than hearing about his shrill attacks on conservatives. One might speculate that the uneven nature of his book came from an absence of singularity of purpose–but I simply don’t know that. That said, I really was interested in the issues he brought up and not his motivation for writing his book.
While I would never attempt to defend the indefensible, Alec Baldwin, I find the core problem of child custody one of culture. Specifically a culture that demands “rights” and a culture that believes justice in divorce and custody can be achieved in the courts. When one enters the judicial system one enters into conflict and competing interests. It becomes about who wins. Who is the real loser?
The conception of a “Parental Alienation Syndrome” is a perfect example of the divorce industry applying a definition to a grievance in order to protect a “right”. What is the name of the syndrome experienced by children of fighting divorced parents? I would suggest if they, the children, held the checkbook a syndrome would be identified.
The key to peaceful and positive outcomes is;
• Staying out of the courts and away from attorneys
• Let go of your perceived “rights”
• Patience, for years if you have to
• Never disparage your former spouse
• Pray for your former spouse and your children.
Remember, a woman needs security and a man needs respect. Keep those ideas in mind when working for solutions. Get off the conflict train!
No, I am not his daughter it’s just a coincident that we have the same first name. I have the same Irish heritage as Baldwin. Let me be clear, and I basing it on first hand knowledge of seeing him in action. Mr. Baldwin is a very, very angry person, this happened way before the custody fight. His rage and demand for total control and domination is really scary in person. His face gets red, his blood pressure must be through the roof and he spits while he screams, name calling and using profanity. There’s got to be some psychological issues regarding his need to control. I have no idea what set him off or what she may have said to set him off. It may have been politics for all I know, but no one deserves that humiliation in a public setting or the language used in a family restaurant. Ms. Basinger was shaking so badly, it appeared she looked afraid. I don’t know if she was (she’s an actress), but the defeated look in her eyes is what struck me. I believe the rumor at the time was the manager of the restaurant told him not to come back, he was no longer welcomed. I have no idea if that is true.
On to the custody issue, as a female I may be biased against Mr. Baldwin and may automatically side with Ms. Basinger but if she’s using her daughter as payback that is still wrong. Forcing a child to choose between her parents and edging her on to side with one over the other is also wrong. If Kim or the Court are basing it on his explosive rages and outbursts then I believe the Court should be concerned. I saw him scream at Ireland when she was in a stroller because she was upset and crying, all that did was make her cry more. People looked and shook their heads is disgust. She must have been about 3 at the time.
I don’t believe he’s a man of great patience, he’s the “my time is money” type, and everything now, hurry up. Someone who has no patience and a volatile personality doesn’t exactly warrant a person to run up and hug them. When the tape was released I wasn’t surprised by his anger or the fact he called his daughter a “pig” and know matter what he should not have taken his frustration out on her. There is something psychologically wrong with his personality and it’s with most of the Baldwin’s. Daniel has some of the same issues. Billy has some issues as well. The youngest brother, Stephen got help, became a Christian and appears to be healthy and happy, well adjusted. Alec appears to blame others too much for the setbacks in his life, instead of looking inward and trying to change himself for the better. He demands respect always, even when he sometimes doesn’t deserve it.
They’ve been a volatile couple from the moment they met while filming “The Marrying Man” total opposites and their on set fights were legendary with flying chairs and everything. I’m sure it provided them with some great makeup sex, but not for everyday living. Neil Simon, who wrote the screenplay, had to deal with their sometime ridiculous demands. It was not a very pleasant experience for him. He was an adult, think about what it must be like for a 13 year old. All this is forcing her to grow up very fast and in the public arena, which is not good. She’ll need therapy, if she’s not already getting it.
Doug,
Welcome to our discussion group, and excellent question (“What is the name of the syndrome experienced by children of fighting divorced parents?”) ‘Frantic Child of Divorce-Obsessed Alienating Parents Syndrome’, maybe?
Ireland,
As for Basinger “using her daughter as payback”, we only have Baldwin’s word for that so far, and he’s proving an unreliable, self-centered witness. Of course, we have no way of knowing what proof his lawyers produced in court, but he is definitely losing in the public arena; and seems determined to dig that hole still deeper.
The sign of an abusive person is to call them: stupid, ugly, fat, worthless. They also blame the person for everything.
Also, held in anger causes depression. Not that he might be depressed…lol
The test of a person is to ask ones self,”Would I want anyone in my family to marry someone like me.” One can use this also to find the truth about a gf, bf, etc.
conservative said…The sign of an abusive person is to call them: stupid, ugly, fat, worthless. They also blame the person for everything.>>>
Funny those were some of the names and adjectives he used while eating his lunch. But he put his little spin on it by adding the f-word and s-word and of course the big one the mf-word, which was why so many patrons were upset. It was a Saturday afternoon while trying to eat their lunch. His favorite word was “worthless” and “stupid” and I believe he used that same language to his daughter’s in the now famous tape. Kim had a hard time dealing with it (in public) but I cannot imagine the difficulty an 11 year old (at that time) should or could deal with it in such a larger public display. I know they never said who leaked the tape to the press. If it was an adult, no matter how bad the tape and language was they should have thought about this child and any humiliation she would feel out ways anything else. I believe Ireland attends a private school in the LA area. Children can be so cruel to one another, I’m sure she was teased relentlessly by them as they made pig sounds and such. He made it an issue when he chooses his own needs over his daughters.
Then said…
The test of a person is to ask ones self, “Would I want anyone in my family to marry someone like me (that)?”>>>
There would be no way in Hell I would ever subject myself to marry that prick, nor would I ever want anyone in my family subjected to that man’s rage and anger. He’s a liberal; he’s loud, obnoxious, extremely arrogant and one of the biggest horses ass’s in the celebrity community. And he believes he’s always right and won’t admit when he’s wrong. He also blames everyone else for his mistakes. He makes a great role model for other loud, obnoxious, extremely arrogant celebrities, like Ben Affleck, Matt Damon and the liberal Hollywood crowd. He should stick to what he knows and his own kind. Maybe the best thing he could do for his daughter is to leave her alone, let her grow up and try to become a healthy (and mentally healthy) and happy teenager. Trying to force her to like him and be with him might cause a great deal of resentment and more damage. Isn’t it what’s best for the child? That might be what is best for her and not for him I’m sorry to say.
Let me be very clear.
In reviewing Baldwin’s book, I had little interest in Baldwin as a person. I am much more interested in his situation as it reflects or may influence the rights of fathers to be with their children. I think this is a vastly more important issue and it’s important not to confuse Baldwin’s personal life with that of fathers in general.
The current custody system is based upon similar anecdotal assumptions: a few (genuinely) abusive men are used to charcterize men in general and this is used to deprive them of due process and their children. This is a far greater outrage than anything Baldwin’s alleged juvenile behavior might warrent.
–Ireland: a couple of final points:
Unless you write as an intimate of Baldwin, your own knowledge of him is at best anecdotal. Do you really believe that based upon this sort of evidence he should have no contact with her until she is 18?! Do you really believe this will make his daughter happy?! That Baldwin is “liberal” is irrelevant–there are plenty of good liberal dads.
Your concluding line astounds me: “Being apart from her father is good for Ireland”–and you base this upon a few anecdotes! You could not summarize the current position of the California courts more accurately! You could not summarize the current prejudice against fathers more thoroughly!