Lost custody to a lying lesbian cop

My local paper had this stupid advice column today (alternate link):

Dear Amy: I am stuck in a no-win situation. Two years ago, I ended my marriage after five years with "John" when I met my (now) partner "Jane," who is a police officer. The last two years have been a roller coaster, as John and Jane do not like each other.

Lesbians do not like men. No one likes lesbians.

John stayed an involved father, making sure our sons were taken care of and visiting them whenever he could. Meanwhile, Jane was trying to prove that she could take John's place and provide all the same love, care and material possessions that John could, while also rubbing John's nose in it whenever possible.

Jane is not the dad. Trouble is coming.

Six months ago, I was awarded sole custody of my two sons when I was injured in an accident and Jane filed a police report saying that John came to our home while drunk and beat me up. (This didn't actually happen.)

Jane's relative represented me in family court and very quickly filed the motion through the court, barring any contact between my sons and their dad on the grounds of domestic violence and alcoholism.

What a nightmare! Why did our society ever decide that lesbians should be cops and parents?

Maybe we are being trolled here, but Amy believes this story. The system is broken when a story like this is even plausible.

Vanity Fair favors crazy actress mom

Spoiled selfish actress Kelly Rutherford got a favorable write-up of her child custody dispute in Vanity Fair.

I mentioned this case here and here. Robert Franklin explains what is wrong with the Vanity Fair article.

Needless to say, if the mom had been at all reasonable, she would have had 50-50 joint custody or better. Instead, she is locked into a death struggle for sole custody, and suffering the consequences. Eg, she kidnapped the kids because she did not think that a judge would order her to return them.

She probably thought that she could divorce her non-citizen husband before he can get a green card, and then he will not have any rights that a USA court will recognize.

She is pretty and has a lot of TV fans. Does that give her some special rights?

I cannot stand reading this junk anymore. If you believe that we should live in some sort of matriarchy, maybe you will side with her. Feminists have claimed for years that they want equal rights, not a matriarchy. The courts are a mess. There are simple fixes to most of the problems, but they will not be accepted as long as people sympathize with Vanity Fair articles like this.

California retraction can avoid libel damages

UCLA law prof E. Volokh reports

But in the law in many states, general and punitive damages — anything beyond the provable economic losses that qualify as special damages — are unavailable, at least as to certain defendants, unless (1) plaintiff has promptly demanded a retraction, and (2) the defendant has refused to promptly publish a retraction. If the defendant promptly publishes a retraction, it is only on the hook for libel damages.

Ah, but which defendants get the benefit of these statutes? Many states limit this to particular kinds of publishers. Indeed, until Monday, the California libel retraction statute (Cal. Civ. Code § 48a), which dates back to 1931, applied only to “newspapers” and “radio broadcasters”; ...

Now to the news: I’m pleased to say that Monday, a new version of § 48a — introduced by assembly member Donald Wagner — was signed into law, and that version covers Web publications.

So if anyone thinks that I have libeled him, he can demand a retraction, and I have a legal incentive to publish the retraction.

While the retraction does not get the publisher completely off the hook, most libel lawsuits result from a publisher refusing to correct a false story. Jurors are sympathetic to publishers who make honest mistakes, but not to those who refuse to correct damaging stories.