Conference back40::soapbox

"Temporary" primary custody?

Why not?  As long as he isn't a slimeball, it would seem to be in the
children's _and_ Ms. Clark's best interest for the duration of this
case.

/john

    seems like a heck of a time to be filing this custody battle; not like
    she doesn't have anything else going on right now.
    
    however, in the grand scheme of things, i think that the best interest
    of the kids must be a priority, and that even if it's "temporary"
    custody, with her being out of the house 12+ hours a day, 7 days a
    week, and NO end in sight for this trial, not to mention a possible
    appeal process, yes, he should get custody. at least in his computer
    job he can tele-commute from home.
    
    

    
      Gad - the OJ note is doing second class spinoffs !
    
      bb

    
    
    well, where the hell was he when the case began???  i think it is
    pretty slimey for him to be doing this now...like someone said, it's
    not like she hasn't got anything else on her mind to worry about. 
    while i agree that the kids need to be taken care of, i think mr. clark
    is taking advantage of a situation for his own benefit...
    
    

    
    
    Don't you think it was slimey for her to file to have the support
    increased?
    
    
    Mike

    Re: 314.5
    
    I agree...what does he have to do with her needing (5) new suits,
    and all sorts of new grooming expenses.  The PRIORITY is the 
    childs best interest.  She herself said that she has been 
    working 16 hour days...where is the child(ren) Growing up
    with a babysitter isn't always the best way to raise a child.
    She's got some nerve...it would make sense that her involvement
    in this case is his fault...and he should pay the price for it.
    
    I be interested to here someone else's position, since it is
    customary for the mother to get the child.
    
    /steve

    WELL STEVE...IF YOU ASK ME I THINK HER EX HUSBAND SHOULD BE
    STERILIZED!!
    
    Meeeee.....YYOOOUUUUUU!!!!!!!

    
    Too much caffiene makes Jack tense...      :^)
    

Who are Marsha and Gordon Clark?

 Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!

re: .10

O.K., Marcia.  Who are they and why should I care?

Bob

    RE: 341.11
    
    Surely you can't be serious?  
    
    		(And yes, I did call you surely!!)
    
    						8-)
    /steve
    

    there's at least a $60,000 pay difference between her and him, so if he
    gets custody, he could go after her for child support. 

    
    
    i missed the part about her asking for more support...i thought he
    wanted something and that's when she complained about needed to buy all
    that crap for the trial...so yes, if she is asking for more support,
    then yes, it is slimey...but still, i say, where was gordon when this
    whole trial began??  everyone knew it wasn't going to end quickly...his
    concern is a bit too late.  if the kids go to anyone other than marcia,
    it should not be him (maybe an relative or something until the trial is
    over)...to me, it seems like he is using the kids against her, and that
    doesn't score well on the parent scale...
    
    

    either way the kids are getting the short end of the stick. 

I can recognize that there's a risk involved in granting him temporary
primary custody, insofar as it gives him a stronger leg to stand on to
make it permanent at a later time. If we assume that granting her primary
custody was the right thing to begin with, then using these circumstances
to give him an edge seems inappropriate.

As far as the increased support is concerned, that's silly, and I hope
the court tells her that quite clearly. Given the differential between
their incomes, I would expect the court should have initially decided
on a figure for him to pay simply as a contribution as the father of
the children, and not because she necessarily needed the money given
her income. Her "current hard times" is a crock, and not his problem
at all. No way in hell should he be expected to subsidize her any further
at this point.

    
    You mean you would mind paying your ex-wife more money in child
    support for bay-sitters.  And so she can spend that money on 
    ignoring your children by never spending any time with them. Even
    though she would look great on TV, doing a job that already pays
    a substantial amount more than you?
    
    You insensitive swine!!   
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Whatever 8-)
    
    /steve
    

    >> for bay-sitters.  

	like Otis?

 ;-)

    Re: 341.18
    
    picky, picky!!  
     8-)                   SSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYY
    
    / steve

re: .17

(Who is he responding to?)

	I think she is asking for extra support cuz leaping up objecting to the
defense all the time has taken it's toll on her hosery..... she needs something
more durable.... :-)

    If Gordon was a decent person and only interested in the welfare of the 
    children he would offer to take them off her hands during this trail 
    period and argue over custody when it was all over.  But then, if he
    was a decent person she probably wouldn't have divorced him in the
    first place.
    
    I don't think his first concern is for the children.

    Fact alert!
    
    the clarks filed for divorce three days before Nicole Simpson and
    robert goldman were murdered.  
    
    also, the custody agreement was joint, and now he is asking for primary
    physical.  
    
    meg

    
    
    (and i thought it was ronald goldman...)
    
    
    :>
    
    

re: Rosemary

>							But then, if he
>    was a decent person she probably wouldn't have divorced him in the
>    first place.

Then again, perhaps he divorced her . . . 

 She allegedly (from what I've read) was involved in an adulterous encounter.




Jim

> She allegedly (from what I've read) was involved in an adulterous encounter.

Is adultery legal in California?

    
    
    But it had to be his fault anyway......

    I question his timing, but if his concern for the children is
    sincere and he has been a good and nurturing parent in the past
    then I think she would be happy to have the children with their
    father rather than a babysitter.
    
    If I understand it correctly; her timing may be just as bad as
    his.  It was Marcia's request for additional support monies that
    triggered Gordon's suit.
    
    There was some sort of gag order in place and this has now been
    lifted (Marcia is not happy).  Unfortunately, there's probably more
    to the case than we know at present.  It would be a shame if this
    becomes yet another case where the kids are pawns between two
    warring parents.
    
    The children are 3 & 5 years of age; it's been reported that Ms.
    Clark utilizes baby-sitters on weekends also because she brings
    her work home.  At best, even if she's physically with the children
    it sounds like she's emotionally unavailable for now.  (Mr. Clark
    claims the children are starved for attention).
    
    I've been listening to opposing lawyers; Ms. Clark's lawyer is
    turning this into a feminist issue, i.e. men can work all sorts of
    hours and no one ever questions them.  However, Ms. Clark has been
    the primary custodial parent; it's hard to say whether she's afraid
    she won't get custody back after the trial.
    
    This is a situation where I wish a judge could knock heads together.
    These children are at an age where they deserve as much attention
    and nurturing as they can get.  If Gordon Clark is the person who
    can provide this for now, then I think that is in the best interests
    of the children.
    
    I was blessed to have a Dad who was every bit as nurturing and
    loving as my Mom (and this was in the mid-40s when it wasn't "chic"
    for men to show it).
    

 Man, the movie makers will be busy for quite a while with all the players
 in the OJ case..

re: .11

Well, I put in my first reply after reading only .0, with the misspelled name.
After reading subsequent replies I've discovered she's the prosecuting attny
for the OJ story.  I knew the PA was female, but didn't think her name was
Marsha.  I have been trying very, very hard to ignore the OJ story.  I next
unseen the OJ topic in here, I turn the news off/change stations whenever an
OJ story comes on, change radio stations, etc.  I'm sick and tired of hearing
about OJ and I don't intend to pay attention until a verdict is announced.

Bob

    <-------
    
    I absolutley agree!  I have tried not to watch any of the trial either, nor
    have I read anything in the papers/tabloids/magazines, etc.
    
    I do find this custody battle a bit disgusting, however.  It really
    appears that Mr and Mrs C are using their children to piss each other
    off.

    
    If they were poor white trash, they'd take the kids and give custody to
    a grandparent or other relative.
    
    								-mr. bill

    .23 absolutely/positively right on... and one important point, we'll
        never really know what went on their lives and therefore shouldn't
        even entertain speculation.
    
        BTW, i thought it was in poor taste for her to ask for more dough.
    
        Chip

>>                    <<< Note 341.36 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>
>>    .23 absolutely/positively right on... and one important point, we'll
>>        never really know what went on their lives and therefore shouldn't
>>        even entertain speculation.

	hunh?  how can you say .23 is "absolutely/positively right on" and
	at the same time say we shouldn't even "entertain speculation".
	that does not compute.

  Does anyone have all the facts in this case? 

  We have no idea what kind of parent Marcia Clark might make nor do we have
any idea what kind of parent Gordon Clark might make. 

  We don't know if neither, either, or both are using the children to get back
at the other parent. We don't know if either is trying to deprive the other of
seeing the kids and if so if they are justified. 

  We know next to nothing about their income, only her salary. We don't know
what assets they have, we don't know what type of people the children are
likely or not likely to expose in either parents presence. 

  In fact we know next to nothing about the facts of this case. 

  We have no way of knowing who would be a better parent to the kids.

  George

    George,
    
    You keep confusing da 'box with a court of law.  We can speculate
    as much as we please in here!!
    
    As I pointed out, there has been a gag order in place until a judge
    lifted it yesterday (could account for lack of info).  No doubt this
    will change soon.
    
    I thought Mike wanted to know if folks feels the Dad could be a
    good parent and would the children be better off with him temporarily.
    Since it was the Mr's lawyer who got the gag order revoked, I tend
    to think Mr. Clark is NOT an axe murderer.
    

    yeah, yeah!!
      speculations' cool!!
    

RE    <<< Note 341.39 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>
    
>    I thought Mike wanted to know if folks feels the Dad could be a
>    good parent and would the children be better off with him temporarily.
>    Since it was the Mr's lawyer who got the gag order revoked, I tend
>    to think Mr. Clark is NOT an axe murderer.
    
  But how can we make any sort of guess as to whether Dad could be a good
parent if we know nothing about dad?

  George

    
    
    I entered the note because I thought it was interesting, especially
    in light of some of the new things that were being revealed.  BTW,
    sorry about the spelling of Marcia's name.
    
    
    Mike

    I have no opinion on how this custody issue should be resolved; after
    all, I don't know these people. :-)  HOWEVER,  the new wardrobe really
    baffles me.  
    
    Is Ms. Clark saying that during all of her previous cases
    in the DA's office she was doing a less adequate job because of her
    deficient wardrobe?  Why should she petition for increased support
    so that she can impress the TV audience?  I always thought the jury
    were the ones that mattered.
    
    -jer

| <<< Note 341.34 by SWAM2::SMITH_MA >>>

| It really appears that Mr and Mrs C are using their children to piss each 
| other off.

	The Cunninghams are using Joanie and Richie to piss each other off???
What's this world coming to????

Not to mention that other son they seemed to have,
way back at the beginning, who then just kinda 
disappeared.

    .37 Di, i meant i agreed that if he really was concerned he probably
        should've have agreed to help take some of the strain off Marcia
        and take the kids until things settle down. to bring suit now
        is crummy.
    
        sorry, i should've been more precise.
    
        Chip

    
    ya mean chuck, jojo???
    
    
    

    
>>        sorry, i should've been more precise.

	Ah, I see.  Rosemary's note was far more definitive (not to
	mention	judgemental), so I was confused.

    George,
    
    How can I guess?  I got a vivid imagination??????
    
    

Thanks, raq.

Yes, Chuck.  What happened to Chuck?
Did he go to Vietnam and die in action
or something?  Did I miss that episode?

He was there, then he was gone.

| <<< Note 341.45 by SUBPAC::JJENSEN "I don't want to go on the cart!" >>>


| Not to mention that other son they seemed to have, way back at the beginning, 
| who then just kinda disappeared.


	I guess they just had to Chuck that son....

    Chuck wasn't very popular with the girls but he did play a mean game of
    basketball.

| <<< Note 341.50 by SUBPAC::JJENSEN "I don't want to go on the cart!" >>>

| Yes, Chuck.  What happened to Chuck? Did he go to Vietnam and die in action
| or something?  Did I miss that episode? He was there, then he was gone.

	After the 1st season he disappeared. Look at the Cosby show. They ADDED
a new daughter.

    
    I have a question.
    She admitted that she works 16+ hours a day...therefore, does not
    spend time with the children.  She pays for the babysitters.
    Does paying for them qualify her to be a fit mother?  It is safe
    to assume, and I think we would all agree, that she doesn't see
    them during the day.  Perhaps she may see them 2 hours in the morning
    and 2-3 hours at night...how is that quality time?
    
    /steve
    

    What's in the best interests of the children is having parents who act
    like adults and settle matters without dragging it into courts.  I
    agree that Gordon Clark should have made the offer to alleviate the
    burden -- and that Marcia should agree to it.  This means she should be
    able to trust him not to use the incident as a club.
    
    In general, small children are generally better off with the mother
    (barring abuse or neglect); it seems that bond is more important 
    initially.  (If Dad were the primary caretaker since birth, I suspect
    it might be different.)  And in general, it seems judges are more
    impressed by parenting contributions by fathers, and less by mothers. 
    So a judge might rule the father is a better parent, even though the
    mother is as much or more involved.

    Re: .54
    
    >She admitted that she works 16+ hours a day
    
    I don't think that's her regular work schedule.

It just troubles me (tm) when they "lose" someone.
I want to know where he went and why.

Is he a family disgrace?  Did they change the locks?
Was he horribly disfigured in an accident at Mr. C's
hardware store?

    
    Re: 56
    
    > I don't think that's her regular work schedule.
    
    Perhaps not her regular, but she is quoted as saying it.
    And does that matter, if she needs more money to pay for the
    babysitter(s), it is safe to assume that the cost for them is
    greater than what she initially expected.  Therefore they are
    working - alot.
    Why is she still a fit mother if she isn't there a great deal of 
    the time?
    
    /steve
    

	Joanne, I think he was helping Mr. C at the paint store and fell off a
ladder, pulling a nice pyramid display of paint onto his head, which had just
struck the hardwook floor, and he died. Mr. C got Fonzie to take care of it for
him. I mean, why else do you think Mr. C constantly put up with Fonzie's crap?
It's cuz the Fonz had the murder hangin over his head.


Glen

    Re: .58
    
    >Why is she still a fit mother if she isn't there a great deal of 
    >the time?
    
    Someone observed recently that if spending time with the kids was what
    really matters, unemployed drunks must make swell parents.

	Well, that 'splains it....  I wouldn't talk
	about it either.

	I *knew* one-"n"-Glen would know!	8^)

    
    
    yeah...who is the extra daughter???  i always remember there being the
    oldest one (who was away at college at first i believe, but they talked
    about her...), denise, vanessa, and rudy...
    
    

	She just appeared one day during the 2nd season. Then she got married
in the 4th season. I guess it's like on Matlock. The older episodes talk of
just one, until they brought another one out of the woodwork..... (which has
got to be hard to do)


Glen

 Maybe Chuck went to where ever the Brady's dog went.





Jim

    Re: .62
    
    I think her name was Sondra (or perhaps that was the actress).

    
>>    I think her name was Sondra (or perhaps that was the actress).

	I think that's right.  I was thinking "Sonya" and knew
	that wasn't quite it.

	Sonya was her middle name.  Sondra Sonya Huxtable. The intials of SSH

    Sondra married Elvin and they both dropped out of college (she in law
    school and he in med school) to open a wilderness store in Manhattan. 
    The store was unsuccessful, they went back to school, she got pregnant
    and they had twins just when the youngest Huxtable wasn't so cute
    anymore.
    
    

	Marcia snarf!!!

    
    Hmmm. Now that you've snarfed Marcia Glen, maybe this will start
    a trend... who knows, you might even get Jack off your back! :-) :-)
    
    -b

	Maybe I LIKE having Jack on my back..... tap tap tap.... ever thing of
that???????? :-)

    .27
    
    No Jack, she divorced him.  My daughter is taping the OJ trial on CNN
    and it's on one of those.  Didn't say what for though.  
    
    And why should he want to divorce her.  She's successful, competent
    and strong.  What more could some wimpy, dependent male want in a wife
    :^))

    
    If Gordon and Marcia's position were reversed in terms of salary,
    working hours, etc. I would be willing to bet that Marcia would have
    taken full advantage of that situation.  
    
    The presumption by the courts and some boxers that the mother (always
    or most often) is the better parent than any father is without merit. I 
    know several fathers who were ten times the parent for their children than 
    the mother ever was before or after the divorce.
    
    It seems that these very same tactics, frequently employed by mothers
    when arguing for custody, child support and alimony are considered totally 
    fair until it's their ox that gets gored. 
    
    Maybe Marcia should be paying Gordon alimony given the situation. 
    
    I say good luck to Gordon in his uphill battle since Marcia is probably
    well connected enough in the court system to have more than the normal
    edge. No wonder there was a gag order.
                    
    

    Maybe Marcia and Chuck could get together and work things out!

    just some trivia  ....
    
    he makes ~$58K, she ~$97K
    yes, she filed for divorce on the grounds "Mr Clark
    is no longer intellectually stimulating - Newsweek".
    
    I reckon just based on those ground Mr. Clark would
    feel rather, ahem, challedged, (wouldn't you) and would
    fight back for his, ahem, pride, wouldn't you say?
    
    and what better timing than this when she is completely
    pre-occupied and vulnerable?
    
    whatever it is behind their kimonos we may never know, but
    i say if Mr. Clark has the interests and wellbeing of the kids
    at heart, why can't he just be an extra attentive father, and a
    non-threatening spouse for the time being until the case is over.
    
    Newsweek, if I recall, stated that Mr Clark asked for support 
    reduction, which was countered by Mrs. Clark (though I would
    have left out the extra wardrobe stuff - bad judgement!).
                                                             

    .73 and could you tell us which of your personal experiences with
        Marcia led you to the belief that she'd have done the same thing
        as Gordo...?
    
        Chip

    Re: .73
    
    >Marcia is probably well connected enough in the court system
    
    Criminal cases and divorces are handled in two completely different
    court systems.
    
    >No wonder there was a gag order.
    
    God forbid anyone should attempt to have a little dignity.

	Chelsea, when will you learn!!??  This is the box, and ya gotta leave
your dignity at the door! :-)

    Haven't you guys figured it out yet.  Women are always right (sic), and
    men are always wrong.
    
    Taking advantage of the fact that her job is keeping her occupied 16
    hours a day is probably the only way he could get a fair share with the
    legal system.

    From this week's "Time":
    
    "It's always something" is the unofficial anthem of mothers who work. 
    If it's not a sick child or a snow day or a workplace that has hardly
    flexed despite the fact that 68% of women with children younger than 18
    work, it's an ex-husband using your career to try to take the kids
    away.  Mothers with high-powered jobs like Marcia Clark, the prosecutor
    in the O.J. Simpson case, may have the most to worry about.  In a
    flurry of recent custody battles, women who don't conform to the Donna
    Reed notion of motherhood have lost custody to men who slightly exceed
    Homer Simpson's idea of fatherhood.
    
    As she heads to court this week to contest her estranged husband's
    petition for custody of the couple's two young boys, Clark should take
    heed of a similar case decided last fall in Washington.  The fact that
    Clark is up early with the children and manages to get home and tuck
    them into bed most evenings before returning to the courthousemay not
    be enough to counter a presumption that lawyering is incompatible with
    mothering.  It was not enough for Sharon Prost, deputy chief counself
    of the Sentate Judiciary Committe, whose ex-husband Kenneth Greene in
    1994 won custody and $23,010 a year in child support.  Prost told the
    court that she rose at 5:30 a.m. daily to fix breakfast and drive the
    older child to school; the youger came with her to Senate day care,
    where she had lunch with him and logged him out many days well before
    the 6 p.m. closing time.  Her boss, Senator Orrin Hatch, testified that
    when the Senate was in recess, about half the year, he supported her
    going home early.  A psychiatrist, chosen and seen by both parties,
    found that Greene, who had insisted that there be an au pair in the
    house even when he was unemployed for more than a year, was attentive
    to the children but that Prost was the primary caregiver who provided
    structure and discipline.  The judge, however, gave great weight to the
    testimony of the au pair, who said Prost was hardly ever home for
    dinner and ate surrounded by briefing papers when she was.
    
    Prost filed a new affidavit last month in which she swore that she is
    still the primary caregiver for the hcildren, except that now it is
    haphazard and at her husband's discretion.  Prost says she still drives
    them to school and day care, stays home when they are sick, arranges
    for their shots, buys their shoes and goes along on field trips and to
    soccer practice.  She does all the kids' laundry, which is dropped off
    along with them.  Greene disagrees but is not required to respond to
    matters already decided at trial.
    
    Some of these suits seem to be more about money and revenge than about
    the children.  Gordon Clark did not sue for custody until Marcia Clark
    asked for more child support.  The willingness of the courts to let
    young children be used as poker chips may be one more bow to the Angry
    White Male.  But the signals from the new majority are mixed:  work is
    bad when it takes the professional mother away from her kids, but good
    for the welfare mother who must leave her children for a job at a
    minimum wage that she will owe to whoever watches them.
    
    Even in the Simpson trial, there is a double standard.  No one seems
    concerned that Robert Shapiro, who has young children, is out many
    nights at the Eclipse, the Beverly Hills restaurant of the moment, and
    no one dwells on Johnnie Cochran's troubled record as a husband.  The
    double standard means a working mother not only has to worry that
    someone else will see her child take his first step while she is
    reading a brief but also that if she achieves success in a man's world,
    her child won't be there when she gets home.

    My turn to have an opinion.  I do think it is a little convenient that
    Gordon Clark is suing for temporary primary custody at this time.  But,
    on the other hand, I also think it *may* be appropriate.  I still find
    Gordon's contention that Marcia called him to postpone the children's
    arrival for the weekend visit at a crucial point in the trial,
    making her able, then, to prevent the jury from seeing Rosa Lopez out
    of sequence.  I can't say I find her request for additional child
    support because of her current hours particularly commendable either,
    especially in view of the disparity between Marcia's and Gordon's
    income.  
    
    I *can* say that I can understand *why* Gordon went for the legal
    jugular (court-declared temporary custody) instead of simply
    "volunteering" privately.  If I were him, I wouldn't do it, either. 
    Bottom line - if the custody "agreement" isn't official and filed with
    the court, Gordon still has to pay Marcia child support, even though
    the children would be living with him.  Besides, as many have agreed,
    if the situations were reversed ($97K a year Gordon being sued for
    custody by $30K a year Marcia) nobody would even question the whole
    thing.  Another thing to consider is that, while *this* trial may have
    an end, and Marcia does contend she doesn't "normally" work 16 hour
    days, her very high salary attests to the fact that LA County expects
    some pretty high performance levels from her!  She's not going back to
    1-day trials of petty drug dealers after this one, folks!  Marcia is
    going to be into the high profile, high effort cases from now on!
    
    Just my thoughts...
    
    M.

    Re: 341.79
    >Haven't you guys figured it out yet.  Women are always right (sic),
    >and men are always wrong.
    
    Oh My God.................It's the revelation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    	It's so simple.....yet......so brilliant!!
    
    That, my friend, is a lesson best learned at an early age.  8-)
    
    /steve