Jump to content
IGNORED

The abortion that could cost a mom her family


doggie

Recommended Posts

this is Texas so we can't expect much. Horrible husband beats wife gets way with it takes the children and is never home for them and no big deal he has sex with hookers.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/the_abo ... er_family/

When they divorced in 2011, Houston megabanker Manuel John Mehos, 59, had no problem granting Lisa Mehos, 38, sole custody of the couple’s two young children in New York City. But after Mehos, founder, president and CEO of several banks, was charged with battering his ex-wife, he changed his mind and decided he was the better parent. He claimed the black eye, fractured finger and hematoma his ex-wife suffered were not from abuse, but from botox injections. And the charges were ultimately dropped. But, Mehos and his lawyers argued, it was actually Lisa whose behavior made her unfit to care for her children. You see, in addition to a botox procedure, Lisa had an abortion.

Lisa Mehos wasn’t surprised, she told me, when she learned that Manuel’s attorneys had subpoenaed her medical records to use against her in the custody battle. She said her husband was relentless, as was his attorney, Eleanor Alter, who had already put Lisa under ongoing video surveillance. When she learned that Alter sought to use the abortion that she’d had nearly a year after her divorce as evidence that she was unfit for custody, she wasn’t surprised either. Nor was she surprised that Alter referred to the abortion as a “late†abortion, though it was performed within the first trimester. But when the judge — Acting Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lori Sattler — agreed to allow the abortion into the custody proceedings, Lisa Mehos was “completely shocked,†she said.

Neither Judge Sattler nor Manuel Mehos’ legal team have responded to my requests for comment.

While Lisa’s abortion is relevant, according to Judge Sattler, Manuel’s sexual behavior is apparently not. A forensic psychologist testified that Manuel had confessed to visiting massage parlors, where he paid for sex. Lisa sees a double standard: “The court jumped at the chance to use the stigma of abortion to openly scorn, interrogate, and question my ability to be a worthy parent,†she told me.

Court transcripts reveal that Alter has argued — and Judge Sattler has agreed — that the abortion speaks to Lisa Mehos’ credibility. First, Alter says Lisa was dishonest because she claimed to be Catholic but had an abortion. Lisa had requested that her children spend Easter with her family, who observe the holiday, instead of with her husband — who, as an atheist, does not. “I never criticized him for being an atheist,†Lisa said. “I simply said, since you don’t celebrate religious holidays, could the children spend Easter with my parents because we do celebrate religious holidays.†The prosecution suggests that the fact that Lisa had an abortion as a Catholic calls her credibility into question. But 27 percent of the women who receive abortions in the U.S. are Catholic. Are they also untrustworthy?

Alter and Sattler have also said in court that the abortion undermines Lisa’s claims that she had not had men over to her house. When one of Lisa’s lawyers asked Sattler why the abortion was relevant, she replied that Lisa had said, “no men ever came into the apartment, other than her father and her brother. There’s been a lot of testimony, and I think that it [the abortion] would be somewhat relevant at this point.†But Lisa’s lawyer clarified in court, “She never testified that she didn’t go out on a date with another man, or she didn’t go to another man’s apartment.†Lisa explained that on the rare occasions she went out, she would leave her children with her mother.

According to Alter, the abortion was also relevant because while Lisa claimed that her ex-husband’s behavior caused her stress, it’s obvious that having an abortion and having sex out of wedlock are inherently and invariably traumatic experiences. Alter said, “She’s traumatized by the abortion I presume, or worse, if she wasn’t traumatized by it.†Alter claimed that Lisa’s behavior traumatized not only herself but her children: “This woman has said that the only person who ever harmed her emotionally in her whole life is Mr. Mehos. I find that hard to believe when you had an abortion, and had a relationship, that was, apparently, a one night stand … all of this it would seem to me goes to the trauma that the children are exposed to, and the chaos that this woman creates in their life because they’re sitting right there watching.†Sattler agreed that Lisa’s pregnancy and abortion are fair game: “I do find it to be relevant. The children were in her care at the time. There’s a lot of issues around this time period.â€

Meanwhile, the court-appointed supervisor who must be present during Lisa’s visitations with her children has consistently reported that Lisa is an excellent mother and that Manuel travels frequently, leaving his kids with a nanny.

Attorney Emily Jane Goodman, who recently joined Lisa’s legal team, has asked Sattler to recuse herself because she believes, according to the court transcript, that “the court has made up its mind about the case†and “repeatedly … indicated that the mother is going to lose.†Goodman also summarized the significance of allowing the abortion into evidence, when she said in court, “I think the very idea of the potential of using against a woman in a custody case the fact that she may have had an abortion sets women’s rights and the rights of choice back in a way that I can’t imagine this Court would want to be associated. Maybe it would go over well in Texas, but I urge you not to give consideration to the matter of this abortion.â€

We’ll have to see how this goes over in New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if you read it carefully, it's New York, not Texas. (See the parts I bolded below.)

this is Texas so we can't expect much. Horrible husband beats wife gets way with it takes the children and is never home for them and no big deal he has sex with hookers.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/the_abo ... er_family/

When they divorced in 2011, Houston megabanker Manuel John Mehos, 59, had no problem granting Lisa Mehos, 38, sole custody of the couple’s two young children in New York City. But after Mehos, founder, president and CEO of several banks, was charged with battering his ex-wife, he changed his mind and decided he was the better parent. He claimed the black eye, fractured finger and hematoma his ex-wife suffered were not from abuse, but from botox injections. And the charges were ultimately dropped. But, Mehos and his lawyers argued, it was actually Lisa whose behavior made her unfit to care for her children. You see, in addition to a botox procedure, Lisa had an abortion.

Lisa Mehos wasn’t surprised, she told me, when she learned that Manuel’s attorneys had subpoenaed her medical records to use against her in the custody battle. She said her husband was relentless, as was his attorney, Eleanor Alter, who had already put Lisa under ongoing video surveillance. When she learned that Alter sought to use the abortion that she’d had nearly a year after her divorce as evidence that she was unfit for custody, she wasn’t surprised either. Nor was she surprised that Alter referred to the abortion as a “late†abortion, though it was performed within the first trimester. But when the judge — Acting Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lori Sattler — agreed to allow the abortion into the custody proceedings, Lisa Mehos was “completely shocked,†she said.

Neither Judge Sattler nor Manuel Mehos’ legal team have responded to my requests for comment.

While Lisa’s abortion is relevant, according to Judge Sattler, Manuel’s sexual behavior is apparently not. A forensic psychologist testified that Manuel had confessed to visiting massage parlors, where he paid for sex. Lisa sees a double standard: “The court jumped at the chance to use the stigma of abortion to openly scorn, interrogate, and question my ability to be a worthy parent,†she told me.

Court transcripts reveal that Alter has argued — and Judge Sattler has agreed — that the abortion speaks to Lisa Mehos’ credibility. First, Alter says Lisa was dishonest because she claimed to be Catholic but had an abortion. Lisa had requested that her children spend Easter with her family, who observe the holiday, instead of with her husband — who, as an atheist, does not. “I never criticized him for being an atheist,†Lisa said. “I simply said, since you don’t celebrate religious holidays, could the children spend Easter with my parents because we do celebrate religious holidays.†The prosecution suggests that the fact that Lisa had an abortion as a Catholic calls her credibility into question. But 27 percent of the women who receive abortions in the U.S. are Catholic. Are they also untrustworthy?

Alter and Sattler have also said in court that the abortion undermines Lisa’s claims that she had not had men over to her house. When one of Lisa’s lawyers asked Sattler why the abortion was relevant, she replied that Lisa had said, “no men ever came into the apartment, other than her father and her brother. There’s been a lot of testimony, and I think that it [the abortion] would be somewhat relevant at this point.†But Lisa’s lawyer clarified in court, “She never testified that she didn’t go out on a date with another man, or she didn’t go to another man’s apartment.†Lisa explained that on the rare occasions she went out, she would leave her children with her mother.

According to Alter, the abortion was also relevant because while Lisa claimed that her ex-husband’s behavior caused her stress, it’s obvious that having an abortion and having sex out of wedlock are inherently and invariably traumatic experiences. Alter said, “She’s traumatized by the abortion I presume, or worse, if she wasn’t traumatized by it.†Alter claimed that Lisa’s behavior traumatized not only herself but her children: “This woman has said that the only person who ever harmed her emotionally in her whole life is Mr. Mehos. I find that hard to believe when you had an abortion, and had a relationship, that was, apparently, a one night stand … all of this it would seem to me goes to the trauma that the children are exposed to, and the chaos that this woman creates in their life because they’re sitting right there watching.†Sattler agreed that Lisa’s pregnancy and abortion are fair game: “I do find it to be relevant. The children were in her care at the time. There’s a lot of issues around this time period.â€

Meanwhile, the court-appointed supervisor who must be present during Lisa’s visitations with her children has consistently reported that Lisa is an excellent mother and that Manuel travels frequently, leaving his kids with a nanny.

Attorney Emily Jane Goodman, who recently joined Lisa’s legal team, has asked Sattler to recuse herself because she believes, according to the court transcript, that “the court has made up its mind about the case†and “repeatedly … indicated that the mother is going to lose.†Goodman also summarized the significance of allowing the abortion into evidence, when she said in court, “I think the very idea of the potential of using against a woman in a custody case the fact that she may have had an abortion sets women’s rights and the rights of choice back in a way that I can’t imagine this Court would want to be associated. Maybe it would go over well in Texas, but I urge you not to give consideration to the matter of this abortion.â€

We’ll have to see how this goes over in New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that Ontario family law is perfect, but I do appreciate this part:

Best interests of child

(2) The court shall consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, including,

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

(i) each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,

(ii) other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and

(iii) persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing;

(b) the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;

© the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing;

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;

(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and

(h) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application. 2006, c. 1, s. 3 (1); 2009, c. 11, s. 10.

Past conduct

(3) A person’s past conduct shall be considered only,

(a) in accordance with subsection (4); or

(b) if the court is satisfied that the conduct is otherwise relevant to the person’s ability to act as a parent. 2006, c. 1, s. 3 (1).

Violence and abuse

(4) In assessing a person’s ability to act as a parent, the court shall consider whether the person has at any time committed violence or abuse against,

(a) his or her spouse;

(b) a parent of the child to whom the application relates;

© a member of the person’s household; or

(d) any child. 2006, c. 1, s. 3 (1).

Same

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), anything done in self-defence or to protect another person shall not be considered violence or abuse. 2006, c. 1, s. 3 (1).

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... e.htm#BK30 [unbroken link because it's a government website]

It sounds like common sense, but without a clause specifically saying that evidence must be related to either family violence or parenting ability, you open the door to shit like this. I saw a case where the husband attempted to make a huge deal about the wife's past abortions years ago - all totally irrelevant to the court. I also used this section in another case to argue that born-again Christian husband's allegation that my client was a former escot/dominatrix who only left her profession when she came out as a lesbian (which was all true) could not be considered in any way by the court since there was no evidence that the kids were exposed to her various sexual activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.