Category: Blog

London, England–Tim Line, a British veteran of the Falklands War, has scaled the roof of the home of one of England’s leading judges to protest being cut off from his three daughters.  From Father explains Batman protest (www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk, 8/8/08):

ESTRANGED dad Tim Line is staging a rooftop protest at the home of Lord Justice Sir Mathew Thorpe in High Street, Seend.

Mr Line, 45, has joined the Fathers 4Justice group and is dressed in a Batman suit.

He climbed up a ladder this morning at about 5am and intends to stay on top of the roof for two days, until after the Seend Fete tomorrow afternoon.

Sir Mathew, one of the country’s most senior appeal judges and who has presided over family court hearings, is understand not to be at home. Police officers are at the house and keeping a watching brief.

Mr Line lived in Seend for 13 years but moved to Hilpteron near Trowbridge when his marriage broke down two years ago.

A former sergeant in the Royal Artillery Mr Line is now a self employed fencing contractor.

He said he had chosen today because it was the first anniversary of his last contact with his three daughters, aged 15, 14 and 12.

A district judge ordered him to have no contact other than to write to his daughters after hearing that his daughters did not want to see Mr Line.

Mr Line said he had written but had not received a reply so didn’t know if his daughters had received his letters.

He also disputes that his daughters don’t want to see him.

Sir Mathew has not sat on any of Mr Line’s court hearings to do with his children.

Mr Line said he had chosen Sir Mathew’s house to stage his protest as he is one of the most senior judges in the country and had the power to change the law at family courts or influence politicians.

Mr Line unfurled a banner on top of Sir Mathew’s house which says “I can live with anyone else’s kids but not my three girls. Dad loves you all. No contact for 365 days. Family courts harm children.”

Speaking to the Gazette from the roof by phone he said: “I have had no contact with my three girls for a year today. They only live 300 metres from where I am stood. You can imagine how painful that is.

“I have written to them and send them Christmas and birthday presents but have heard nothing. I want them to know that I love them and want to pay a meaningful role in their lives.

“I’m not a nutter. Other than a parking fine I have not been in court before. I want things to change, I want to see my girls. Fathers4Justice is not a load of crackpots, we are trying to make the Government and family law courts to try and change a few things which are not only damaging fathers but children as well”…

He removed a Union Jack flag which was flying and replaced it with a purple flag, purple is the colour adopted by Fathers4Justice and symbolises equality.

Mr Line added: “I haven’t caused any damage to the house and I haven’t been abusive and don’t intend to be. It was very difficult to get on to the roof but it was far easier to get on the roof than it is to see my children.”

I don’t know the details on his divorce and can’t vouch for him as a father.  However, I have often seen mothers alienate children from their fathers, and exclude them from their lives, and then justify the exclusion because “the child doesn’t want to see you.”  Yes, I’m sure at times this is really true, but many times it is simply a product of the mother’s malignant influence on the child and the relationship with the father.  I salute Tim Line for his courageous protest.

As I’ve noted before, for a variety of reasons I don’t like it when protesters target judges’ homes or their ex-wives’ homes, and it isn’t generally done. For one, these confrontations can turn violent, as almost happened a couple years ago when Jolly Stainesby protested on a judge’s roof and the judge pulled out a shotgun and pointed it at him.

Two, it drags in the target’s family and children.

Three, it gives the target of the protest the opportunity to go into a big “I’m so frightened of these awful men” act, which generally plays well in the press. This is particularly true when the judge or official targeted is a woman.

Still, I think we have to acknowledge that there’s a difference between doing this kind of thing in the United States–a very violent society–and in England. From what I understand, this type of thing is seen as far less threatening there than it would be here. I wouldn’t recommend this type of protest in the US (though I would recommend other F4J-style protests), but I’ll defer to the UK F4J’s judgment about doing it there.

Los Angeles, CA–Katherine, a reader, writes:

There is a beautiful pro-father ad in the current Sports Illustrated magazine (7/28) from the USA Cycling Development foundation. It’s a cycling team member holding his four-month-old-daughter tenderly and feeding her from a bottle.

It’s the most touching ad I’ve seen in a long time. I was drawn to tears when I saw it.  

It’s too small to read on the reproduction above, but the white writing in the lower left says “Fast Freddie and daughter Isabella, 4 months.” “Fast Freddie” is Fred Rodriguez, a leading cyclist.

Sydney, Australia–We recently discussed Fred Martens case, described by Australian federal MP Bob Katter as “without doubt, the worst case of flagrant and provable injustice that I can remember.” In the case, the father was in the middle of a custody battle and the false sex crimes charges were apparently orchestrated by his ex-wife. Katter says, “It is clear-cut that he is innocent…The people involved should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.” To learn more, see my blog post on the case here.

There’s another thing which really struck me about this case.  Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the case is as it appears — the ex-wife, as part of her custody dispute with Martens, arranged for him to be framed up on the sex crime charges.  Given the extreme poverty of Papua New Guinea, I don’t imagine that it would be hard to pay a 14-year-old New Guinea girl to lie in front of the court.

But think about it this way — this crime (meaning the ex-wife’s crime) took place over a long stretch of time, and continues to this day.  Think of it — if a person murders another person, or commits a serious crime against them, it’s usually something that was planned and perpetrated over a very short period of time.  Even if the crime was premeditated and well-planned, it still occurred over a fairly short period of time. 

Contrast this with the ex-wife’s crime here. Not only did she go through extraordinary measures to have her ex-husband put in prison in 2006, but she has known ever since what she did and has allowed it to stand.  Meaning that from 2005, when she probably began, up until now, the middle of 2008, she has been aware of her crime, could have acted to end it, but chose not to.  Meaning that for three years she has been perpetrating this crime. 

To me this multiplies the crime considerably.  There are plenty of men who might get in a bar fight and stab somebody and regret it later.  This is a despicable crime for which they should be imprisoned, no doubt.  But think of this — this crime occurred not only with extreme premeditation, but also with years of, for lack of a better word, “post-meditation.” 

Is this legally considered to be an aggravating circumstance?  Is this something that the law pays significant attention to?  If anybody knows, particularly some of my readers who are lawyers, I invite you to weigh in.

Los Angeles, CA–A completely unscientific, not statistically significant observation about fathers and daughters:

My 10-year-old daughter has a friend who we’ll call Adrian.  Adrian often comes over to the house on weekends or after school.  Because I work out of my office in our guesthouse, when Adrian is here, usually I’m the one who is watching the kids. 

Adrian does not have a father. She lives alone with her mother, who clearly loves her. Every time Adrian is here — every single time — she tells my daughter, “You are lucky you have a dad.”  On several occasions she has said, “I wish I had a dad.”

My daughter and Adrian sometimes have arguments or disputes, and my daughter thinks that some of it is caused because Adrian is envious of my daughter’s “luck.”

Los Angeles, CA–Mark, an Atlanta police office, wrote me a letter about fraudulently obtained restraining orders being used by women against innocent men. To learn more, see I’m tired of seeing restraining orders used as a weapon against good men. Mark told me another instance of this in a subsequent letter. Mark writes:

Here is another account of a misguided T.P.O. (“Temporary Protection” or “restraining ” orders). Not more that a month ago my partner and I were dispatched to a domestic dispute were the husband had a T.P.O. issued against him. The order excluded him from the home and gave custody and child support to the mother.
The allegations were that he was abusive and she was “scared” for her safety. Obviously, NO police complaint was ever made by her. Fortunately, he was allowed to return to the home, escorted by Law Enforcement, to gather some belongings. This is very rare, but some judges do allow it so that the fathers are not left practically homeless and with no change of clothing. This is a perfect opportunity for a police officer to observe the couple’s interactions. While the father was moving his belongings, he maintained a quiet demeanor as he was instructed. The wife, on the other hand, did not. She taunted him and continuously berated him while he was gathering his belongings. She was angry because he was moving his stuff and accused him of “abandoning” her. Guess she forgot she went and got a damn T.P.O. against him. Anyways, we escorted him into their garage to get his final items. She was repeatedly ordered to stop her instigating behavior. To all our surprise the wife armed herself with a pipe wrench and ran after her husband. The aggravated assault on him would have been sufficient enough to cause him serious injury or death. She was stopped when we tackled her. She went to the court accusing him of being a batterer. Then was angry because he was moving out, **BY COURT ORDER!!!** It was VERY clear who the primary aggressor was in this relationship. And yes, she went to jail. Totally abolishing her claims to her T.P.O. And yes, I will make sure a conviction is obtained. Sadly, it’s an everyday thing. I would like to see someone with some real experience in domestic violence to head the revision of T.P.O. orders. First, everyone needs to see that domestic violence is not a gender-based crime. The same battery laws apply to everyone.

Below are some recent articles and items of interest from Fathers & Families’ latest News Digest.

MP backs change to tax law for divorced parents (Ottawa Citizen, 7/29/08)

Man stabbed in domestic violence case (Vacaville Reporter, 7/30/08)

Do Swedes still blame Bergman for upping the divorce rate? (Guardian, 7/30/08)

Co-parenting can be tough after divorce (News10, 7/30/08)

Court:Ex-Steeler Doesn’t Have To Pay Child Support (KDKA, 8/1/08)

Sheriff’s office arrests 17 parents who failed to pay child support (El Paso Times, 8/1/08)

Hulk Hogan opens up about divorce (MSNBC, 8/1/08)

Child support agency works to improve public perception (Delaware News, 8/4/08)

When is a sperm donor a dad? (ABC News, 8/4/08)

Deadbeat parents can avoid arrest in Monroe County (WNEP, 8/4/08)

London, England–Another example of the way the child support system leads to the abuse/jailing of ordinary citizens. From British university lecturer thrown into crowded Brazilian jail for not paying ex-wife £20,000 child support (Daily Mail, 7/30/08):

Martin Boyle is being held in a Sao Paulo prison over unpaid child support. 
 
A British university lecturer has been thrown into a rat-infested Brazilian prison over claims that he owes £20,000 in child support. 
 
Martin Boyle, 45, is in a cell with ten other inmates in Sao Paulo while his family in Britain face ever-increasing demands for cash. 
 
He flew to the South American country last Friday determined to be reunited with his 16-year-old daughter Rebeca by his Brazilian former wife Mara.  But instead of seeing her, he was immediately taken into custody and accused of owing more than £4,000 to Mara. His retired parents, Peter and Mary Rose Boyle, raided their pension to meet the ‘debt’ and get their son released – only for the Brazilian authorities to accept the money but then demand a further £16,000. 
 
Last night Mr Boyle, 71, said he received a mobile phone text message from his son reading: ‘Going into prison now. ‘Have to leave mobile with lawyer. Don’t know how long I will be there.’ Mr Boyle, of Spalding, Lincolnshire, said: ‘I have read all sorts of things about these jails – terrible stories about riots and gang rape and it’s very disturbing.  ‘I am very worried about his welfare.’ 
 
Martin Boyle, who lectures in linguistics at the University of Kent in Canterbury, met Mara when she studied at his private English school in London in the 1980s.

They moved to Brazil together and married, but their relationship broke down a few years after the birth of Rebeca and Mr Boyle returned to Britain.  His father, a retired merchant seaman, said: ‘He’s been trying to gain access to Rebeca for years but it has always been denied by his former wife.’  Heartbroken by seeing other fathers and children at a recent family wedding, Mr Boyle embarked on a spur-of-the-minute trip to Brazil hoping to see Rebeca for the first time in seven years. 
 
The Brazilian authorities demanded £4,156 they claim Mr Boyle owes for child support dating back to 2003. His father said: ‘It was all wired to Brazil through the Foreign Office. Now they are demanding £16,000 more. ‘A cynic might say this was a scam’…  

Read the full article here. Leaving aside possible corruption/extortion by Brazilian officials, to me the central question here is Boyle’s assertion that his ex-wife was denying him access to his child. If that’s true, he shouldn’t owe anything. If she did allow access, I think child support was appropriate, particularly given the comparative poverty of Brazil.

Boyle’s decision to leave Brazil and return to England after the break-up of his marriage doesn’t speak too well of him. However, it’s possible he was unable to make a living in Brazil. It’s also possible that she was denying him access while they were in Brazil, and he figured by leaving he had little to lose.

Nashville, TN–Mary Winkler–who shot her husband in the back and then refused to aid him or call 911 as he slowly bled to death for 20 minutes–walked away a free woman last year after serving a farcically brief “sentence” for her crimes.

Mary Winkler”s claims of abuse were largely uncorroborated during the trial. According to the testimony from Matthew Winkler’s oldest daughter, Patricia, the dead father–who as he lay dying looked at his wife and asked “why?”–was a good man and did not abuse her mother.

Mary Winkler has been in a custody battle with Matthew Winkler’s parents, who have been raising the three girls since the murders. The Winklers sought to terminate Mary Winkler’s parental rights and adopt the girls, a position I’ve supported. Mary Winkler was granted supervised visits with her daughters last year. Now, sadly, she has gained back custody of the three girls, which is clearly not in the girls’ best interests.Last year Dan Winkler said, “These young ladies have not expressed any desire to be with their mother or her family,’ but he and wife Diane have now ceded custody, knowing that continuing their legal battle to protect the girls would in the end be unsuccessful. A judge has approved the custody transfer. 

To learn more about this horrendous injustice, see my co-authored column No child custody for husband-killer Mary Winkler (World Net Daily, 9/14/07), or click here.

FOX13 has learned that Mary Winkler has gotten her three daughters back. Winkler picked up her children Friday afternoon. The girls had been living with their paternal grandparents since Winkler killed her husband Matthew in 2006. Now it appears the bitter custody battle is coming to a close.

As soon as Winkler’s criminal trial ended, the custody battle began. But Friday, in an unexpected turn of events, she regained physical custody of her three children.

A source told FOX13 that Winkler picked the girls up Friday afternoon and brought them to her new home in McMinnville, Tennessee. She will soon enroll them in local schools…

Winkler lost custody in 2006 when she was charged with the murder of her preacher husband Matthew Winkler.

Winkler was convicted of manslaughter in 2007 and has been fighting for custody of her children since her release from a mental facility.

Matthew’s parents, Dan and Diane Winkler, have had custody of the girls since 2006 and have been trying to adopt them.

“These young ladies have not expressed any desire to be with their mother or her family,” said Dan Winkler in 2007.

The Winkler’s filed appeals in an effort to stop Mary Winkler from having supervised visits and phone calls with her daughter.

But now, a source said they have turned over custody to the girls’ mother.

This is being called the first step to full custody, although no official court order has been filed.