Bridget Marks convinced her four-year-old twin girls to lie about their father during their custody case. This was not just any old lie she wanted them to tell. It was a pernicious lie - one that could send their father, casino mogul John Aylsworth, to jail.

Marks wanted her kids to say their father was sexually abusing them. Lies do not get much worse.

Fortunately, the State of New York’s Family Court recognizes that if one parent would be so hate filled as to influence young kids to tell such a malicious lie that parent is not considering the best interest of the children. A parent so willing to damage the emotional and mental well-being of their kids should not have custody.

Aylsworth was awarded custody of the twin girls. However, the “anti-fatherhood brigade,” is mobilizing to help Marks. Who is this brigade? Among them are the pro-motherhood men like journalists for the New York Daily News, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, and anthrophobic feminists like Fox News legal analyst Wendy Murphy.

O’Reilly referred to the blatantly choreographed televised scene of the transfer by Marks of the kids to Aylsworth as emotionally disturbing. Ironically, even Fox News pundit feminist Susan Estrich said that this was an obvious publicity ploy by Marx.

The New York Daily News was worse. They painted a very sympathetic portrait of Marks. The Daily News wrote, “Heartbroken mom screams 'I love you' and runs after car as fat-cat father takes custody of 4-year-old twins.” The report described Marks as a “B-Movie actress” and “romance novelist.”

The New York Daily News omitted mentioning that Marks was a former Playboy model. Probably because she would not be such a sympathetic figure. Women who pose nude rarely elicit sympathy. Yet, calling Aylsworth a “fat cat” was demonizing him.

However, the most egregious example of anti-fatherhood bias was the statement of Wendy Murphy. She went so far to say she knows personally that men who abuse or rape their kids get custody of them in divorce cases because she tracks such cases. Of course, she did not cite any specific evidence.

This is the same Wendy Murphy who filed a complaint against Harvard University alleging that the sexual assault policy violated Title IX. Why? Because the policy required students to provide evidence of sexual misconduct before administrators will investigate it. The US Department of Education dismissed the suit stating, “Harvard's new procedures cannot be unlawful, since the law does not prohibit the use of due process."

Obviously, Murphy believes that men should not be permitted due process. One can only speculate the kind of “evidence” Murphy has concerning her claim.

A Google search of the “abusive father’s obtaining custody claim” referred to a pilot study done by some organization called California Protective Parents Association and Mothers of Lost Children.[1] A visit to these websites revealed only a self-selected survey as their research. Self-selected surveys are not very credible.

The lies told by the feminists about custody cases are similar to the feminist lies exposed by Christina Hoff Somers and others. If it were not for their willing accomplices in the liberal media these lies would be totally dismissed. However, the liberal media proves Orwell’s point that only educated people could believe a lie so stupid.

The fact is the former Playmate, Marks, had a four year affair with a wealthy married guy, became pregnant by him, and wanted him to divorce his wife and marry her. When he refused and terminated the affair, she refused to let him see his kids. It was only then he filed for custody.

Ayslworth is not a model father or husband – although he is certainly no worse than Jesse Jackson. However, Marks was and is manipulating her kids. She wanted a wealthy husband and went nuclear when she did not get one. She has demonstrated there is nothing she will not say or do to get what she wants from Aylsworth – her kids be damned. Why the Daily News, O’Reilly, and Wendy Murphy are advocating returning the kids to her is incomprehensible.

However, the bias against divorced fathers obtaining custody of their kids is nothing new. I recall twenty years ago being told by my attorney that even if my wife were a heroin addicted prostitute, she would still obtain custody of my two pre-school age children in court. He told me that fathers are never required to prove that they are better parents during custody cases, they are required to prove that the mother is unfit.

Although this has evolved somewhat during the years, nonetheless the presumption of custody is still with the mother. The case of Bridget Marks and the reaction by the media validates this.

If what Bridget Marks claims is true then fathers would be the first to help her get the kids. However, a female Family Court judge and several nonpartisan experts believe she is not telling the truth.

Few believe Marx credible. Among them are liberal feminist, and conservative “pro-motherhood” journalists.

___________________________________________________
[1] http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/641 ret fm w/s 6-10-04