Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Aside from your character showing through with your special talent for name calling, we only know that her ex-husband says she has a questionable past.
I'm sure that's good enough for you, given that sterling character I just noted, but not for me.
When the father of the children is awarded custody....instead of the mother.....then we're talking about a ****ed up individual. It takes a pretty despicable woman for her to lose custody of her own children to the father. And to make matters worse, reports have stated the father is not even the biological father to one of the children she lost custody of!
This woman is worthless. Why are you defending her?
He doesn't care. It's enough that an ex-husband said it's true -- it's all he needs to make a judgment on someone. But then, consider the kind of person he appears to be based on his charming posting personality.
The ex-husband won custody of the children. That makes him credible in the eyes of the court. Are you contesting the judge's decision? If so, on what merits?
I'm waiting for you to respond to the post above. Something tells me you'll ignore the post or you'll throw out some major deflection. Let's hope I'm wrong.
When the father of the children is awarded custody....instead of the mother.....then we're talking about a ****ed up individual.
No, we're not. Especially as no one, despite the vicious smear campaign in progress, has come up with any evidence of her being unfit. None. Zero.
Quote:
It takes a pretty despicable woman for her to lose custody of her own children to the father. And to make matters worse, reports have stated the father is not even the biological father to one of the children she lost custody of!
See above.
Quote:
This woman is worthless. Why are you defending her?
Because I haven't seen a scintilla of evidence that she's "worthless." I've only seen ugly things reported by her ex-husband to a newspaper that's apparently been trying to smear her for awhile now. Neither you nor I know anything about what she really went through, or the divorce details, or what her children wanted, or why they wanted it. You are making assumptions, which doesn't surprise me one bit, of course.
One thing I do know, it's not Wendy who's dragging the father of her children through the mud. Since you're such a family values, conservative guy, I'm shocked, shocked that you approve of the ex-husband's behavior. This must be terrible for her daughters.
Of course, I've mentioned this little point before, but none of the Family Values people on these threads seems to have noticed it. I wonder why that is.
The ex-husband won custody of the children. That makes him credible in the eyes of the court. Are you contesting the judge's decision? If so, on what merits?
I'm waiting for you to respond to the post above. Something tells me you'll ignore the post or you'll throw out some major deflection. Let's hope I'm wrong.
Was typing as you posted that.
I stand by my beliefs. You know A. nothing about divorce B. nothing about divorce from sociopaths, as I suspect the husband is based on his behavior and C. Nothing about Wendy Davis other than what her ex-husband says and you want to so desperately to believe so that you can make up some even more vile nicknames.
No, we're not. Especially as no one, despite the vicious smear campaign in progress, has come up with any evidence of her being unfit. None. Zero.
See above.
Because I haven't seen a scintilla of evidence that she's "worthless." I've only seen ugly things reported by her ex-husband to a newspaper that's apparently been trying to smear her for awhile now. Neither you nor I know anything about what she really went through, or the divorce details, or what her children wanted, or why they wanted it. You are making assumptions, which doesn't surprise me one bit, of course.
One thing I do know, it's not Wendy who's dragging the father of her children through the mud. Since you're such a family values, conservative guy, I'm shocked, shocked that you approve of the ex-husband's behavior. This must be terrible for her daughters.
Of course, I've mentioned this little point before, but none of the Family Values people on these threads seems to have noticed it. I wonder why that is.
So, you believe that the judge's ruling in the divorce proceedings....who obviously felt she was not a good enough person/mother to keep custody of her very own kids and even demanded that she abstain from alcohol and drugs.......does not provide enough proof for you to stop defending her?
LOL
There's absolutely no reasoning with you folks. You reside in a world so delusional that some of the most basic aspects of parenting/divorce escape you completely.
So, you believe that the judge's ruling in the divorce proceedings....who obviously felt she was not a good enough person/mother to keep custody of her very own kids and even demanded that she abstain from alcohol and drugs.......does not provide enough proof for you to stop defending her?
LOL
There's absolutely no reasoning with you folks. You reside in a world so delusional that some of the most basic aspects of parenting/divorce escape you completely.
The judge has to award custody to parent, doesn't mean the other person is bad, it could have something to do with who has the best lawyer, most money or something else.
Some here have here stamped as a alcoholic drug abusing mother. Maybe you don't understand restrictions on visitation that is boiler plate language put in court proceedings to protect children as a preemptive measure. You already made up your mind what she is so just continue with your baseless opinion.
The judge has to award custody to parent, doesn't mean the other person is bad, it could have something to do with who has the best lawyer, most money or something else.
Some here have here stamped as a alcoholic drug abusing mother. Maybe you don't understand restrictions on visitation that is boiler plate language put in court proceedings to protect children as a preemptive measure. You already made up your mind what she is so just continue with your baseless opinion.
You say this while completely ignoring the fact that ~80% of custodial battles within divorce proceedings end with the mother being the winner. The determination is made in the best interest of the child. The "best interest" definition is something that has long favored mothers.
For this Harvard educated woman to have lost custody of her own children makes it clear that she's a nutjob whacko.
Why you folks relentlessly defend her is beyond me.
So, you believe that the judge's ruling in the divorce proceedings....who obviously felt she was not a good enough person/mother to keep custody of her very own kids and even demanded that she abstain from alcohol and drugs.......does not provide enough proof for you to stop defending her?
LOL
There's absolutely no reasoning with you folks. You reside in a world so delusional that some of the most basic aspects of parenting/divorce escape you completely.
So you know why the judge ruled that way?
No, you don't. You're just making up reasons to suit your own personal agenda.
And the fact that such requirements about alcohol and drugs being routine in custody cases, of course, concerns you not at all, as long as you get to say filthy things about the woman.
Do you get a tingle down there when you say stuff like about women?
You say this while completely ignoring the fact that ~80% of custodial battles within divorce proceedings end with the mother being the winner. The determination is made in the best interest of the child. The "best interest" definition is something that has long favored mothers.
For this Harvard educated woman to have lost custody of her own children makes it clear that she's a nutjob whacko.
Why you folks relentlessly defend her is beyond me.
Nothing. Is. Clear.
Why you continue to insist on your purely imagined assumptions would beyond me, if I didn't already know all about your character from your vile posts on this forum.
No, you don't. You're just making up reasons to suit your own personal agenda.
And the fact that such requirements about alcohol and drugs being routine in custody cases, of course, concerns you not at all, as long as you get to say filthy things about the woman.
Do you get a tingle down there when you say stuff like about women?
Does it matter why the judge ruled that way? No, it doesn't. What matters is that he came to the conclusion in the first place. Something in her background compelled him to give custody of her children....one of them not even the husband's biological child........to the husband.
Again, I have no idea why you folks relentlessly defend this worthless woman. It's almost as if you put so much stock in her "abortion filibuster" that she has been put on a hero's pedestal and you can no longer think clearly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
