Family Values Republican Bill O’Reilly Loses Custody Of His Kids

[doggie]

lucky kids get to choose to stay away from this hater.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/29/family-values-republican-bill-oreilly-loses-custody-of-his-kids/

 

Quote

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly finally lost a years-long battle with his own children over his right to have custody of them. A New York appeals court put an end to the protracted family battle by affirming a lower court’s decision that O’Reilly’s teenage children don’t have to see him if they don’t want to and that they can live full-time with their mother, Maureen McPhilmy.

This is quite a slap in the face for O’Reilly, a man who never hestitated to lecture (mostly African-American) parents on how to raise their families. Even while privately fighting his ex-wife and his own children, the pundit felt brazenly self-assured in telling his viewers that letting their children listen to Beyonce causes teen pregnancy. In 2013, he wrote an op-ed suggesting liberal parents being too gentle with their kids has led to almost all of society’s ills. He used Miley Cyrus

 

[bea]

I don't want to say "haha," but I will. Haha.

I'm happy for those kids. I cannot imagine a court forcing you to see a parent you despise.

[Whoosh]

I feel absolutely terrible for the O'Reilly children for what they had to go through while they were in that two parent home before their parents split up, but I have to admit that I enjoyed reading that despite my thoughts for the kids.  So glad the court made the right choice here.

[bea]

I do wonder how he plans to spin this. Then again, he managed to make it through a sexual harassment case, and evangelicals still lapped up what he fed them.

[anjulibai]

6 minutes ago, bea said:

I do wonder how he plans to spin this. Then again, he managed to make it through a sexual harassment case, and evangelicals still lapped up what he fed them.

Parental alienation?

Which would suck because that is a thing and should be taken seriously. He's just not an example of it. 

[Cleopatra7]

5 minutes ago, bea said:

I do wonder how he plans to spin this. Then again, he managed to make it through a sexual harassment case, and evangelicals still lapped up what he fed them.

Many evangelicals (at least, the ones who watch Fox News) don't believe in sexual harassment anyway, so they probably thought O'Reilly was the victim of a vindictive "slut." That's probably how they'll interpret the custody case as well, as a "slut" alienating a "good Christian man" from his children.

[47of74]

He probably thinks it sucks.

 

 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

Wow.

This backstory (last year) from Gawker just makes things worse:

http://gawker.com/bill-o-reilly-accused-of-domestic-violence-in-custody-b-1705006992

O'Reilly abused his wife, was witnessed by his daughter, co-opted a neutral therapist and put her on the payroll, got wife's new boyfriend investigated at work by internal affairs, and even got the Catholic church involved.

He is . . . . wow.

[gustava]

[infooverload]

I wish I could remember the name of the book one of O'Reilly ' s atheist former staffers wrote. I do remember in an interview the guy basically said O'Reilly was as horrible to work for as one would expect. To the question of what kind of support he'll will get. I can see him getting the support of MRA groups. Is it just me or do these "family values pundits," strike sensible people as incompetent when it comes to family. You have O'Reilly ' s problems. There is Rush Limbaugh serial marriages with pill addiction thrown in. Josh ' s let me cheat on my wife, while trying to prevent other consenting adults from marrying. These are only a few and there are more everywhere. The common thread of everyone of these guys messages is, we know how to do life right. The whole notion they know how to do life and how things should be run is utter [emoji90].

[47of74]

5 hours ago, bea said:

I don't want to say "haha," but I will. Haha.

Normally I wouldn't either.  But when someone makes a career out of lecturing other people on their inability to parent their children- especially those who are not of the same economic status or the same race as he is - he deserves every bit of HAHA that he gets.

[smittykins]

Karma sucks, don't it, Billy boy?

[Jingerbread]

He didn't lose custody since he didn't have it to begin with.  A judge just said the kids are staying where they are.  What does he even think would be accomplished by trying to force an almost-legal-adult child to stay at his home?

I HATE people who claim parental alienation where there isn't any.  Parental alienation is what my brother-in-law's ex did.  The bitch wasn't interested in the kid until she needed money, then took advantage of the courts at the time always favoring moms out the gate.  For years after getting sole custody, and retroactive chid support for the time she didn't have the child (!!), she told him his dad didn't want him and that she fought in court for him all the time.  BIL fought for years, citing parental alienation as a concern, but the court said it wasn't happening, though it was!  Fast forward 15 years after the bitch who wasn't there had a change of mind for money, and the boy is 20.  About a year ago, he wanted to know more, and found out the truth, and now the family's dealing with a suicidal young man who resents that he was robbed of a relationship with his father and sisters, and he feels out of place in the family, and like an outsider with his mother now.  Fuckwads like Bill Abuser O'Reilly claiming alienation when that's not happening are part of why a lot of courts still don't think it exists!  FUCK HIM.  FUCK HIM TO HELL!!!

[infooverload]

I decided to go take a look at comments on a news article regarding this. The basic concensus was the liberal media is lying. I find it interesting if the person is liberal and the media reports negatively then it's an all out haha stupid libtards getting their comeuppance in the comments section.

[FloraDoraDolly]

21 hours ago, infooverload said:

I wish I could remember the name of the book one of O'Reilly ' s atheist former staffers wrote. I do remember in an interview the guy basically said O'Reilly was as horrible to work for as one would expect.

Are you thinking of Joe Muto's "An Atheist in a Foxhole"?

[infooverload]

Thanks FloraDoraDolly yes this does sound like the book I was thinking of.

[closetcagebaby]

GOOD. 

That's all I can say. He's a monster human being (and I use the term loosely!) and his children deserve better than to live in an abusive, nasty environment. I wish them all the best.

[Granwych]

Any parent who uses his or her children to get back at their father or mother is a cold-blooded monster.  I really can't think of anything stronger to describe such parents.

[Diggingupdirt]

18 hours ago, Granwych said:

Any parent who uses his or her children to get back at their father or mother is a cold-blooded monster.  I really can't think of anything stronger to describe such parents.

I couldn't agree more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[imokit]

I don't get this idea that judges can force older teens to stay with a parent against their will.  You see here the kids winning.  Maddonna is trying to get the courts to force her 15 year old to stay with her, there was a judge a year or so ago who put a sibling group in juvie because they refused to see one of their parents.

If the kids don't want to see a parent, how is getting the legal system involved to force it going to help?  At that point the relationship is broken, the most legal system should be doing is saying to the kid you will go to x place for an hour a week for supervised visitation while the other parent works on the relationship,  You will be supervised, so to the other parent can't hurt you, and you don't have to go anywhere with them.  In these cases even if there is parental alienation forcing custody or the relationship isn't going to repair it.

I get that it can be devastating for the parent (victim), but kids come first,  Their feelings of safety and security have to come first, and being forced to stay somewhere they believe unsafe (whether it is or isn't - in this case its the belief that counts) does not help them or the relationship.

[Jingerbread]

5 hours ago, imokit said:

I don't get this idea that judges can force older teens to stay with a parent against their will.  You see here the kids winning.  Maddonna is trying to get the courts to force her 15 year old to stay with her, there was a judge a year or so ago who put a sibling group in juvie because they refused to see one of their parents.

That judge has told Madonna and Guy to work it out between themselves and got onto them for making this public when that poor boy wants to keep his life private and not have his face be plastered all over the media because of this.  The boy wants his dad, and Madonna needs to allow that.  It's not alienation happening here.  She's busy touring.  It sounds like the boy wants to be with the parent who isn't gone all the time.

Quote

If the kids don't want to see a parent, how is getting the legal system involved to force it going to help?  At that point the relationship is broken, the most legal system should be doing is saying to the kid you will go to x place for an hour a week for supervised visitation while the other parent works on the relationship,  You will be supervised, so to the other parent can't hurt you, and you don't have to go anywhere with them.  In these cases even if there is parental alienation forcing custody or the relationship isn't going to repair it.

I get that it can be devastating for the parent (victim), but kids come first,  Their feelings of safety and security have to come first, and being forced to stay somewhere they believe unsafe (whether it is or isn't - in this case its the belief that counts) does not help them or the relationship.

When there's intentional alienation, I think that parent should face STIFF fines and jail time, and no, having custody of kids shouldn't be a defense any more than it's a defense when you rob a liquor store at gunpoint.  Alienation creates multiple victims, not just the other parent, but the kids too.  I'm thinking of my nephew who has been suicidal as an adult because he's learned what happened.  He wasn't a non-victim, and his mother has suffered no repercussions.  He was a victim, his father was a victim, and what she did is deliberate.

[FloraKitty35]

In the words of that great American philosopher Nelson Muntz, "Ha Ha".

[roddma]

I feel bad for kids in these situation especially when it's played out in public like Madonna and O'reily.The kids didn't ask to be born to famous parents.. Mothers have long been favored in court because they were seen as primary caregivers of kids, but now courts realize it isn't always best. And in some cases neither parent is good..
anyhow i'm surprised they haven't blamed those 'man-hating femi-nazis'

[JesusCampSongs]

Most states default to joint legal custody and shared physical custody these days. While it's an improvement in some ways, it's had a really negative impact on families that split up due to abuse/violence. Batterers are known for using shared custody arrangements to control and punish their former partners for leaving, and the kids involved often become proxies for the abuse. 

I see this a lot in my line of work (clinical social work). 

[Jingerbread]

12 hours ago, JesusCampSongs said:

Most states default to joint legal custody and shared physical custody these days. While it's an improvement in some ways, it's had a really negative impact on families that split up due to abuse/violence. Batterers are known for using shared custody arrangements to control and punish their former partners for leaving, and the kids involved often become proxies for the abuse. 

I see this a lot in my line of work (clinical social work). 

What's common around here is that joint is the starting point.  It's much better than the default being a parent, usually the dad, being demoted to a visitor every other weekend, and making him fight for more time.  What it should be, and is here, is joint is where it's started, and if there's violence or abuse or something, then that 50/50 gets altered.  What it seems like you're saying is that the every-other-weekend arrangement is really the better way to start, but what happens then if the parent who gets custody by default is really the abusive one?  If you're going to say that that is known at the start and the other parent will get custody instead, then how can it be that that wouldn't be known at the start and used to alter joint?