Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Second day of trial

My child abuse trial continued for a few more hours today.

Comm. Irwin H. Joseph presided, and he started by dismissing his court-appointed lawyer, James Ritchey. The lawyer had not shown up for the first half of the trial, and the judge politely told him that he was not needed for the rest of the trial.

The first witness was the owner of the dog that I supposedly run over. He testified that I never ran over his dog, and that I could not do what I was accused of doing.

Next was a letter from the school superintendent. The CPS social worker, Sally Mitchell, had testified that she had only gotten adult confirmation of one accusation in her report, and that was the allegation that the school had decided that I was not allowed in the classroom. The school letter said that was false, and that I was allowed in the classroom just the same as any other parent.

I was on the witness stand most of the rest of the day. I was asked about a long assortment of incidents. None of it was of any major consequence.

The judge asked me if I really called Sally Mitchell an "idiot". I said that I wasn't sure, but that I do have a low opinion of her.

The judge also asked me what the kids are going to think when they read this blog some day. I told him that I hoped that they would learn that their father is not really a child abuser. I was tempted to explain that they will learn that Julie Travers, Sally Mitchell, and Irwin Joseph dishonestly and maliciously conspired to ruin their lives.

At the end of the trial, the judge said that he didn't know what to do, and called for a 15-minute break so that he could collect his thoughts. When we resumed, he said that the case was unique and that he was still trying to figure out a way to rule against me and to force us all into counseling. He admitted that the story about me running over the dog is probably false, but said that I should be sufficiently sensitive to the kids' feelings that I should have taken the kids to play with the dog so that they would understand that the dog is not mad at us for running over the dog. He also said that Ms. Mitchell was clear that the kids are bothered by having to help with the dishes and the laundry. He also complained that I set the kids' alarm clock for them, that I do most of my grocery shopping in a once-per-week trip, and that I once enrolled a kid in a math contest that was above her grade level.

He said that he was still deciding between an oral and written ruling, and he would tell us on Friday. His ruling will almost certainly be against me.


Anonymous said...

I cannot conceive of what they are thinking. It's responsible behavior to set your children's alarm clock. It is appropriate to teach children responsibility by giving them chores, even if they do not enjoy those chores. Heck, it's GOOD for them! And what possible bearing could the frequency of your grocery shopping have on the matter of your children?

I feel for you. This is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Does your ex-wife have a lot of time on her hands? Or, does she have a newborn and would really rather be at home with the baby than sitting in a court room.

Did the accusations come from Julie Travers, Sally Mitchell, and Irwin Joseph? Or, did they come from your very own children?

Do the children want to be with you? Or, would they rather not be around a dad that boils frogs in front of them, runs over the neighbor's dog and rolls over them in sweaty, stinky clothes? A dad that will say all those things are OK! - or that those things never happened.

You are saying your children are liars. Is that really what you want to do to your girls?

You are making repeated mistakes in rearing your children. They are now of an age where they can open their mouthes and tell you so. This in itself is not a failure in parenting.

But, the failure does come when you continue to do the wrong things and expect a different outcome: When you say your children are lying. When you point the finger at everyone else but yourself. That's when mistakes turn into failure. That's when you possibly lose not simply custody, but their hearts.

George said...

I did prove in court that some of the stories reported by Sally Mitchell and Julie Travers were not true. Certainly Sally Mitchell lied about a few things. She also got distorted stories from the kids, as she didn't seem to know how to interview kids.

Anonymous said...

You have stated on this blog that you boiled a frog in front of your young daughters (how old? 5, 6, 7, 8?) while they cried and begged you to stop.

Are you saying you did NOT run over the neighbor's dog? Your neighbor testified he didn't think you did, but he wasn't there, was he? Your children were there in the car - again crying no doubt. You have not denied that it did indeed happen. Who is lying? Or, should I say, who is misleading? I notice you are very careful in the way you word things.

The stinky, dirty dad complaint - are you saying your daughters made that up, too? They should somehow "enjoy" a stinky father in dirty clothes rolling on them?

So, are the children really complaining about alarm clocks - or is it that dad isn't awake and they are lonely coping with household chores and getting up on their own?

Are the children really complaining that you only go food shopping once a week, or are they complaining about not having enough food in the house during their visits?

Do the children do the dishes/ chores generated during their visit, or are they cleaning up a pile of bachelor dishes/ laundry? Is this a way to spend quality time (sarcasm) with their dad, because he's not there in the morning while they get themselves ready for school ( alarm clocks, on their own).

Again, how old are they now - 6, 7, 8, 9?

George said...

I did not run over the dog. It is a vicious lie.

Anonymous said...

Is "Opal" really Julie Travers aka "angry mom"? or even her new husband or a friend? Seems hypicritical to blast this blog then post on it.....!

Anonymous said...

If George wants to complain about "the system" without input from others than he should disable all commentary. To allow only complementary commentary, or accuse those with criticisms of being related to George is narrow minded.

I am not the only person who has posted a critical response. I am not Julie Travers, I am not his ex, I am not his ex's partner or friend. I can read the blog like everyone else and have my own questions about what is really going on here.

Anonymous said...

"Opal", you bring up the frog incident,you bring up the newborn baby, you are NOT just a random reader of the blog, you are a friend of angry mom, just admit that, and then say whatever you want.... It may even be beneficial to get another point of view on this blog from someone from the other side - The kids have been removed from Angry Dad's home - He claims it's all based on fabricated exaggerated accusations - what gives you, Opal, inside information to be to the contrary?????

Anonymous said...

Read the blog. Another poster brought up the frog incident relatively recently- I was shocked. Then I researched the blog to find that George had talked about it a few years ago. George has mentioned that his ex has a new baby. It's all in this blog.

Anonymous said...

A previous poster really said it really well. She was the daughter of divorce and tracked her dad down for answers. But it turned out that her dad had been more interested in complaining about the court system than in really working on his relationship with the children. Angrydad made only the briefest of responses to her thoughtful post.

Angry dad says he has had 5 psyche evaluations and has been recommended to go to therapy. Has he gone and made a real effort to understand his kids? Has he made any effort to learn parenting skills that would help his relationship with them? I don't think he has. He refuses; choosing instead to sit on his computer and blame, blame, blame.

(The previous Anon response stating that all the info was on the blog was me. I signed in incorrectly).