Skip to content

TIME Magazine Gets It Right

May 1, 2008

Sometimes it takes more pain that we think we can handle to turn the tides. I know that when we filed our Emergency Motion to Modify Parenting Time, back in September of 2007, based on the new creepy boyfriend in my husband’s ex-wife’s life, we couldn’t imagine that there would be light at the end of the tunnel. We were terrified that she was exposing the kids to a violent, convicted felon–one that seemed more every day like a predator. We couldn’t imagine that her inability to accept that he was who we said he was would eventually work in our favor.

But, looking back, I realize that it was that Motion, that round in Court, that really started moving things in the right direction. It was then that the judge in our case ordered the ex-wife to get her hiney to therapy. Without that order, and her blatant disregard for it, things might never have turned out the way they did. At the time, though, we just didn’t have that foresight. We just didn’t know.

I think things might be occurring in a similar fashion for James Rhoades. The Kentucky Supreme Court’s ruling was ugly, no question. I know for me it felt like I’d been kicked in the gut when I read it–I can’t even imagine the agony it must have been for James. I heard similar thoughts from many of you. But I wonder if this might be the turning point for him. It sure seems to be getting a lot more attention now that the ruling has been issued.

The rumblings I’ve seen out there suggest an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, and I know that James will do that. While the highest court in the land struck down its last appellant arguing essentially the same thing James is arguing, that discussion happened in 1989.

A lot has happened since then. DNA evidence has come leaps and bounds since 1989. Family Court has come along with it in many regards.

And? This case now has national media attention–something that has been tough for James to get until now. See the TIME Magazine article that covers his case specifically and in good detail.

Stay tuned for further updates on the case. I’ve also asked James to let us all know if there are specific things we can do to help. I’m itching to tell the Kentucky Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court and, by golly, my local District Court that we out there in the blogosphere just won’t stand for stripping fathers of their rights without cause.

Let’s make it a group effort, shall we?  And maybe, just maybe, that Kentucky ruling will just be the turning point this case needed.

9 Comments leave one →
  1. May 1, 2008 1:27 pm

    As always Stephanie I thank you for your kindness and your determination to speak out against injustice. In the end, we all want what’s best for our children.


    PS. Please keep my son’s mother in your prayers for I can’t imagine the shame and heartache she is experiencing right now. My son and I thank you all.

  2. lyndaspix permalink
    May 1, 2008 1:50 pm

    I’m on board. Keep us posted James. This is important stuff. It’s important to you, your son and a bunch of other dads and kids in this country who deserve a fair opportunity to be together.

    I’m still completely in disbelief that with all the deadbeat parents (moms and dads alike) out there that the Kentucky Supreme Court wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to allow this dad his right to be a dad to his son! To allow him to pay child support, to have reasonable and fair joint custody and to spend time parenting his son.

    And, it’s pure baloney that anyone would try to pin the entire blame for the affair on James. An “unwanted interloper”? Yeah, right! Julia wanted James right up until he made it clear that he wants to be Julian’s daddy, because he IS JULIAN’S DADDY, thus rocking Julia’s perfect little double life that she had been leading for nearly two years. Then all of a sudden James is an unwanted interloper??? PULLLLEEAAASSSE!!!

    This is not about Jon and Julia’s marriage, it’s about Julia and James’s son and the fact that James wants to and deserves to be in his son’s life.

    He’s the father, and he wants to be the daddy. And why? Because he loves his son. He’s not asking for something extra here, he’s just asking for what is right.

  3. May 1, 2008 4:45 pm

    I have to say that I’m shocked by this turn of events. I would never have imagined that DNA would be ignored in court. What shocks me most, that they are letting the consequences of actions be ignored.

    Married or not, she and James committed a wrongful and hurtful act that resulted in a child. She can’t stop her husband’s pain by creating pain for James. It will all come back in the end and the person hurt the most will be the child.

    They needed and should be working on a way to incorporate James into their lives and into their family because that would be best for their child. At the very minimum, allowing James to create a bond with the child.

    The whole situation sucks and a perfect example of why you should NOT enter into an affair. The complications and pain that it causes could have a horrible rippling effect.

    I hope Kentucky gets a better handle on father’s rights and co-parenting in general.

  4. May 1, 2008 7:00 pm

    I also feel bad for James, and agree with -d. The best prevention is to not enter an affair to begin with. But, what’s done is done, and a baby resulted. So, coparenting needs to be the only option. James didn’t give his baby up for adoption, so Julia’s husband is the stepfather, not the natural father. Just because he’s married to Julia doesn’t make it so. I’m shocked at the KY Supreme Court’s decision and surprised that DNA was given such little weight, considering its wide acceptance as an objective scientific test. I can only hope and pray that the right thing be done for the child.

  5. May 1, 2008 10:31 pm

    I am SOOOO in. What do I need to do?
    Let me know!!
    Best Wishes, James!

  6. May 2, 2008 3:06 am

    I personally believe this is about a bigger agenda by the court.

    Marriage has been under attack in this country for some time now. Those who believe in the sanctity of marriage are grasping at straws trying to “shore” it up. While I believe marriage desperately needs protection, I don’t believe it should be at the expense of children.

    We can’t have it both ways. And we certainly CANNOT allow one parent to have more power than the other. I think that is the part of this whole thing that disturbs me the most.

    Doesn’t this also smack of the supreme confusion we have created in this country in regards to who the “parents” are? Because we have worked so diligently to make every family configuration a “norm” we have destroyed some basic truths. Every child has a MOM and a DAD. They only have one of each. The people who have contributed biological material to their creation should be given preferential treatment.

  7. cassee01 permalink
    May 2, 2008 12:06 pm

    I think the best thing to do would be to drown the media (i.e. major news outlets) in emails regarding this case – if it is getting this much attention (i.e. all of the emails) then maybe they’ll think they should cover it.

  8. May 2, 2008 12:29 pm

    I think Mrs H has a very good point. This is really not at all about DNA testing. Its about marriage and what is a marriage.


  9. May 4, 2008 1:56 am

    Steph, I am behind your call for support 100%. Tell me where to be and when and Michael and I will be there!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: