| MND COMMENTARY |
Father’s Rights Advocates Miss the Mark in Bridget Marks Custody Case by Dean Tong I’m compelled to respond to father’s rights advocates Jeffery Leving and Glenn Sacks’ article entitled “Ruling in High-Profile Marks Custody Case: Painful but Correct.” While I’m known for my advocacy for men and fathers and have authored several articles that have been published at this website, Bridget Marks is my client and I defend her position in this rebuttal article. Ms. Marks and I were featured on the “Dr. Phil” show yesterday. Allow me to add the premise that Mr. Sacks interviewed me on Two days after the controversial radio interview I was contacted by Bridget Marks’ fiancée and he begged me to peruse the overall case documentation. I obliged to do so. And that is where the smoking gun lies…within the court case documents, documents that Leving and Sacks and the rest of the world are not privy to. The only “documentation” the rest of the world is privy to lies in media reports and here. However, these documents barely scratch the surface in this case. For one thing, Leving and Sacks refer to the experts in the Marks case as “neutral.” In my professional opinion, they were anything but neutral and Bridget and her children were severely prejudiced by their findings. Two of three of these so-called experts were social workers. Since when did we allow social workers free reign to opine on such life altering decisions as child custody? The other expert – a court appointed psychiatrist, suffered from severe confirmatory bias as he had his mind up beforehand that my client falsely accused the father of abusing Amber and Scarlett. Since the court appointed psychiatrist’s botched child sexual abuse and custody evaluations, we have retained, arguendo, one of this nation’s top experts for impeachment purposes. Our expert’s findings include the court’s expert failed on many fronts including: he failed to interview relevant and integral parties; he failed to obtain relevant third party information; he failed to examine the stability of the father’s marriage; he inappropriately interpreted the data from the MMPI-2 test scores; he employed unreliable methods of assessment relative to child sex abuse such as drawings; and he did not follow recognized professional practice in the assessment of the child sex abuse allegations. And these are just a smattering of the errors of this so-called neutral expert. This writer has written three books dedicated to men and fathers falsely accused of child sexual abuse within contentious divorces and child custody battles. Yet, I never said that an allegation of child sex abuse made within the same dynamic automatically equates to a false allegation. Still, we must investigate every abuse complaint and same must be investigated with objectivity and due process for all concerned. Bridget Marks and her children have yet to receive due process. Sadly, the Marks children may be at this moment residing with a pedophile. After all, Mr. Aylsworth, the father, has never submitted to a PPG (Penile Plethysmograph) or AASI (www.abelscreen.com), to deduce whether or not he shows sexual interest or arousal to pre-school children. He didn’t have to prove his innocence. The court did that for him. False allegations of child abuse must not be condoned. But real child abuse must not be missed. Leving and Sacks have missed the mark in their opinion piece on Bridget Marks. Dean Tong is a thrice-published author and forensic trial consultant. His most recently published book is Elusive Innocence and he has been retained by parents and attorneys from 41 states in protracted and contested divorces, custody and abuse-related cases. His website is http://www.abuse-excuse.com. |
|
|