[nfb-talk] Blind Parents and Divorce
Constance Canode
satin-bear at sbcglobal.net
Fri Aug 10 07:43:46 CDT 2007
Hi Mike,
I don't know you, but I just had to write and tell you that I am also
cheering for you and am very happy and proud of you. I have a great
deal of respect for your decision. In my estimation, it may have
taken you some soul searching to realize it, but you truly are a
great man and your daughter has a dad that she can be proud of. Your
ex-wife is definitely a fool to treat you in such a rotten
manner. Congratulations, and hang in there. I wish you all of the
very best that life has to offer and I hope that some day down the
road, you will find a woman worthy of you.
Connie Canode
At 08:51 PM 8/9/2007, you wrote:
>I've spent a lot of time with this subject in the past week, sort of having
>my own personal epiphany in the process. Each of you, in your own way has
>given me a different perspective which I had to mold into who I am. I knew
>that much of the situation was in my power to change but I had to figure out
>how to do it from my center, not from a weak or wobbly foundation.
>
>Virtually every day, we as people who are blind must quietly smile or cringe
>at the misunderstandings of others. If we are to angry we alienate them.
>If we to quickly give in, we perpetuate the very misunderstandings we're
>trying to change. It's a long and often tortuous walk we take, balancing
>how much others misunderstand with our desire to live normal
>lives--compromising here and there and not in other places. In the process
>of recognizing the ignorance of others we also must each recognize how much
>we ourselves still have to learn. As it stands, in the first part of the
>21st century, we still are daily amazed by the accomplishments of people who
>are blind, often saying to ourselves, "I would have never tried that." At
>the same time we are amazed, we are equally appalled by how often blindness
>becomes a personal tragedy for others and how they allow it to become their
>own self created hell. Both of those blind people--the hero and the victim
>live within each of us more than we would probably like or wish to admit.
>
>In this loss of a marriage, I have tried to balance misunderstanding with
>humility, always trying to educate and at the same time trying to be who I
>am and to push against that same misunderstanding.
>
>I began to realize how far I had gotten out of balance when I said to a
>friend recently that even if I won the court fight I would feel as though I
>had lost. Why? Because, in the process of compromising--allowing home
>inspections, agreeing to supervised visits, agreeing to not take my child
>outside the house without permission, I had given up some central part of
>me. It has come to me over the last days that in this case at least, I have
>compromised what I can, to no effect and must now begin to take back my
>personal dignity, not in an angry way, but rather in a calm and forthright
>manner.
>
>Since there is no rationality to any of the compromises, I have decided to
>quietly but respectfully decline them all. I will go to court and present
>exactly the same visitation and custody terms as they would get from any
>other normal parent. If my wife or the court want to argue the matter I am
>prepared to have people come and talk about the competencies of people who
>are blind and, my own competencies where necessary. I will no longer
>shuffle and grovel, hoping to please. If, in the end, I lose I will do it
>as a man. If I win, I will do it as one who has respect for all those who
>got me here.
>
>Perhaps the time has come to simply say no and mean it. Obviously, I will
>follow the courts dictates, but I won't help them make any such dictates if
>they mean treating me less than a fully competent parent. I feel strangely
>at peace with this decision and, although I know there are those who will
>say that they might take another approach, I must do what gives me peace and
>dignity.
>
>Thanks to all of you for your help. You have given me what I needed in
>order to move forward, comfort, encouragement and a much-needed heart to
>heart conversation with myself about what lives at the center of my being.
>I said in the beginning that this was about my daughter Julianna and I
>believe she will respect and love her father one day for being his own
>person and speaking with dignity and clarity. What I have confused along
>the way is the difference between visitation by my daughter with her father,
>and visitation by my daughter with half a man. I choose to be a whole man.
>
>Dr. Maurer and I spoke this afternoon and he says the NFB will help in any
>way it can. Even if we had won the case before we would have really won
>nothing accept the half victories we must often live with. Now, I think we
>can win a real victory that advances who blind people are. And even though
>we may not win, at least we'll be fighting for what we want, instead of what
>we can live with.
>
>Thanks for everything folks. It's been a long and very difficult soul
>searching process for me. In some ways I'm glad the other side didn't
>settle prior to now, because I would have had a solution without my soul in
>it. I will now take charge of my/our Attorneys in a much different way.
>This case is about whether a blind man can be a co-equal parent in his
>child's life. That is the rock on which I now stand and from which I will
>only be removed by force.
>Mike Bullis
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>Behalf Of Wm. Ritchhart
>Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 6:30 PM
>To: 'NFB Talk Mailing List'
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Blind Parents and Divorce
>
>Exactly correct! Mike needs a lawyer. From the original post, the bulk of
>the problem is blindness. There are other issues. But those can be dealt
>with.
>
>Mike, you need to fight. Your daughter is unable to speak. You need to do
>whatever you can to stay in her life.
>
>
>
>William
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>On Behalf Of Mike Freeman
>Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 11:40 PM
>To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Blind Parents and Divorce
>
>Cindy:
>
>With great respect, I disagree with you. Going to the press would be the
>
>*last* thing Mike should do. It would only cause her lawyer to pull
>something worse.
>
>Divorces are almost always messy and, frankly, the process is often
>irrational at best. Sadly, justice is not always the outcome.
>
>Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cindy Handel
> To: mabullis at hotmail.com ; NFB Talk Mailing List
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 1:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Blind Parents and Divorce
>
>
> Mike,
>
> It's very sad when things like this have to go to the press. But, I
>think
> you're right, in your case. She isn't being reasonable and, despite
>your
> willingness to try to work with her, she's determined not to allow you
>
>the
> access, you deserve, to your daughter. You're right...mothers have
>the
> advantage when it comes to children. It shouldn't be that way. The
>father
> is expected to be there, financially, but beyond that, it doesn't seem
>
>to
> matter, and that's just wrong. Your daughter needs you in her life,
>and I
> think you should take every opportunity to be there. If that means
>going
> public, I think you should do that. I'm truly sorry your wife has
>such a
> mindset against blindness that she was unwilling to learn from you,
>during
> the time you were together. She has her parents supporting her wrong
> thinking, so something has to be done to break through, even if it
>means you
> need to be as nasty as she's been.
>
> I'm not a parent, but as someone else said, it hurt to read your
>original
> message. I hope things begin to go your way.
>
> Cindy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Bullis" <mabullis at hotmail.com>
> To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Blind Parents and Divorce
>
>
> Thanks Ray. I'll hang in there. You're certainly right when you say
>that
> my self image is suffering. Somehow I have to move this into a forum
>in
> which the truth will be told. That probably means the press at this
>point
> because money for lawyers isn't there. Thanks for your encouragement.
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>
>On
> Behalf Of Ray Foret Jr
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:53 AM
> To: mabullis at hotmail.com; NFB Talk Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Blind Parents and Divorce
>
> mike, quite frankly, it hurt to read your original message. But you
>see,
> your pain is our pain also. What effects one of us effects us all.
>Your
> situation is; in my humble opinion, well worth our resources. I fear
>your
> adversary has perhaps subconsciously been so attacking you as a blind
>person
> so hard that in the deepest recesses of your academic mind, she's got
>you
> questioning your self worth. I suspect, though, that in the deepest
>part of
> your soul and spirit, you know better. Time for you to come down off
>the
> fence and solidly defend yourself. Yes, that means using ALL of the
> resources at your disposal. Yes, technically, the NFB deals primarily
>
>with
> blindness issues; and, as cindy said, "It does seem, however, that
>this is
> largely due to your blindness. Your X-wife has a basic distrust of
> blindness". The long and the short of it seems to be that your x wife
> doesn't think you can do anything because you're blind. In the
>federation,
> we care about the whole person, not just the not just whether the
>person is
> blind or not; at least, that's how I've always felt about us. When
>ever one
> of us feels pain, we all feel it. All too often, it's our very own
>families
> which are the cause of this pain. You did right coming to us with
>your
> burden. We'll help you bare it as much as possible. Hang in there.
>Don't
> give up!!!
>
> Sincerely yours,
> The Constantly Barefooted,
> Ray
> Home phone and fax:
> (985)853-0139
> E-mail:
> rforetjratbellsouthdotnet
> Skype Name:
> barefootedray
> Blog:
> www.raysworld.blogs.com
> Podcast .rss Feed:
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/worldofray
>
> God bless President George W. Bush!
> God bless our troops!
> and God bless America
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Bullis" <mabullis at hotmail.com>
> To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 7:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Blind Parents and Divorce
>
>
> Hi Cindy:
> I really don't disagree with Sherri at all. I just see both points of
>
>view.
> That's always been my greatest strength and greatest weakness. In
>this case
> I lack enough objectivity to decisively say how it should all be done.
>
>I'm
> also hesitant to think that my particular problem is worth the
>resources of
> others, particularly when I created that problem. Thanks again for
>your
> encouragement and help. Perhaps out of all of this will come some
>good.
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>
>On
> Behalf Of Cindy Handel
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 6:45 AM
> To: mabullis at hotmail.com; NFB Talk Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Blind Parents and Divorce
>
> Mike,
>
> I read your original message and Sherry's response. I tend to agree
>with
> her, but can see your position, too, that there are many more things,
>other
> than blindness, involved. I feel very badly for you and wish you the
>best.
> It does seem, however, that this is largely due to your blindness.
>Your
> X-wife has a basic distrust of blindness...she doesn't want to believe
>
>that
> you can do things as well as she can. So, she's creating barriers,
>which
> really don't exist. I wish there was something you could do to change
>
>her
> view of blindness, but that really doesn't seem likely.I do realize
>that the
> NFB's resources are limited. But, I do hope you can get some help.
>The
> custody issue does seem to be largely about blindness. I'm really
>very
> sorry for you.
>
> Cindy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Bullis" <mabullis at hotmail.com>
> To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 6:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Blind Parents and Divorce
>
>
> Hi Sherri:
> Thanks so much for your suggestions and personal encouragement. At
>times
> like this it means a lot to me.
>
> Yes, Dr. Maurer is familiar with the situation. It's difficult
>though. As
> I tried to indicate in the email, NFB is able to help with blindness
>related
> costs and I am very grateful for that. Unfortunately, in a divorce
>with an
> aggressive lawyer, much isn't related to divorce. Much is simply
>related to
> virtually any act or deed one might have ever engaged in that made the
>
>other
> party upset. For example. There is an opportunity in every case for
>both
> sides to ask questions of one another about virtually anything. There
>
>are
> standard questions which mostly relate to finances and then there are
> questions that relate to the cause of the divorce.
>
> My wife responded to what I thought were fairly simple questions in
>order to
> understand our relative financial situations with seven thousand pages
>
>of
> so-called evidence. It was completely unorganized and for all I know,
>
>it
> still is. My lawyer, being conscientious, had to go through the
>entire
> seven thousand pages and evaluate it page by page for it's relevance
>to the
> divorce. That costs tons of money.
>
> I'm not sure we want NFB to pay for such brutal and pointless tactics.
>
>As I
> also indicated, I am accused of many things, which, though they're
>taken out
> of context and frankly irrelevant, they must each be dealt with as the
> accusations they represent. This case, in terms of my personal legal
>fees
> has cost me about $17,000. The NFB has spent $3,400 or there abouts.
> Before it is over, my costs will double or triple, which I simply
>can't
> afford.
>
> In a broader sense though, I'm not sure I want the money of NFB's
>members
> used to defend such irrelevant accusations. Dr. Maurer has to make
>tough
> decisions like these and I don't envy him the task. Not all things in
>
>life
> are simple and this is, unfortunately, one of them.
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>
>On
> Behalf Of Sherri
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:25 AM
> To: mabullis at hotmail.com; NFB Talk Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Blind Parents and Divorce
>
> Michael,
>
> Though you say that much of this situation does not have to do with
> blindness or rather with your ex-wife's problems with your blindness,
>it
> really does. I would still think the NFB would support you in your
>desire to
> get more liberal visitation with your daughter.
>
> Have you sent this e-mail to President Maurer? If so, what is his
>opinion?
> Perhaps Barbara Cheadle would be a good person to talk with about your
> situation.
>
> I have known several blind fathers who have primary custody of their
> children. One of these got custody of his little boy when the child
>was an
> infant, because his wife walked out on them. He had to jump through a
>lot of
> hoops for it to happen though.
>
> You seem to be a very caring and devoted father who has made the
>mistake, as
> I have, of thinking that people are decent and will play by your
>rules. Not
> true!
>
> I hope you have success and will get good advice about how to deal
>with your
> problem. Know that you were there for your daughter when she was
>little and
> she will always love you no matter what.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Bullis" <mabullis at hotmail.com>
> To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:43 PM
> Subject: [nfb-talk] Blind Parents and Divorce
>
>
> We have all heard about blind parents being questioned in their
>ability to
> care for their children by social workers or spouses. There have even
>been
> some notable cases in which courts have ruled in favor of blind
>parents in
> such situations. NFB has been instrumental in many of these cases.
>What
> most of us little understand though is how complex the matter becomes
>in
> family court.
>
>
>
> First of all, family court is civil court. The only people who go
>there are
> people with money. For all practical purposes, you can't go without an
> Attorney and unless you're very poor there are no organizations set up
>
>to
> help you.
>
>
>
> Many of you don't know me well, and frankly, if it weren't for this
> situation, I would prefer to leave my personal life outside these
>lists.
>
> However, I find myself in a situation which may well be common to
>others so
> will tell my story at some length.
>
>
>
> This story is really about my daughter, but, since it begins with my
>wife
> and I, I'll tell it that way.
>
>
>
> In January of 2002 I lived in Portland Oregon. I met a lady named
>Kristen.
> At the time I was 49 and she was 39. With very little knowledge about
>
>one
> another we had what one could describe as a whirlwind romance that
>included
> unprotected sex. By March first we were aware that Kristen was
>pregnant.
> For me, having a child was always the most scary and at the same time
>most
> wonderful possibility in my heart. Scary because I didn't know if I'd
>
>be a
> good father, didn't know if I could do all the things a father needed
>to do,
> and honestly, because I really didn't like being around kids, I wasn't
>
>sure
> if I would really love my child like a father should. Friends assured
>
>me
> that such things were the fears of all would-be fathers but I just
>didn't
> know.
>
> What was important to me was that my child would be loved and cared
>for and
> that I would be everything a father should be. I quit my job as the
> Assistant to the Director of the Oregon Commission for the Blind and
>moved
> to Maryland to live with Kristen in May. We were married in July.
>I'd like
> to tell you that the romance was still thriving, but, even by that
>time
> there were signs of trouble. Four days before our marriage we had an
>hour
> long argument in which she gave me the option of not going through
>with the
> marriage. I didn't take the option, assuming that we, as responsible
>adults
> could work out anything. So, on July 21st, we were married.
>
>
>
> Julianna Michaela Humphrey Bullis was born on October 31st, 2002. It
>was
> the most wonderful, stunning, life changing moment of my life. I
>threw
> myself into parenting like I had always loved it and would love it
>forever.
> My little girl never knew her daddy was blind. I changed her diapers,
>
>gave
> her bottles, dressed her, bathed her and fed her. She took over my
>heart in
> a way that nothing ever had. I always knew that if I had a child it
>could
> never be that the child would be my servant. I wanted my blindness to
>
>be
> just something, like brown hair or blue eyes. And it was that for
>Julianna.
> Because she never knew any different, daddy was just daddy. In fact,
>at
> first she never believed I was blind, even when I explained it to her
>as she
> approached two years old. She said once, apparently after giving the
>matter
> much consideration, "Daddy, you're not blind. I know it because you
>have
> eyes." Hey, how can you argue with such simplicity. I told her that
>my eyes
> didn't work, much like when she had a broken toy. It was obvious she
>didn't
> agree because she just looked at me and went on playing.
>
>
>
> We walked in the neighborhood. We played with neighbor kids. I
>tucked her
> in at night and kissed her in the morning. A place in my heart was
> overflowing with the love I had never known could exist.
>
>
>
> But, on the marriage front things were not going so well. My wife and
>
>I,
> for a variety of reasons, simply didn't relate to life in the same
>ways. By
> summer of 2003 we began marriage counseling and were, off and on, in
>some
> form of counseling until the summer of 2006. The simplest thing I can
>
>say
> about the counseling was that it didn't seem to work. I think we both
> honestly tried to do everything we could to make it work, but it
>didn't.
>
>
>
> The issue of blindness began rearing it's head when Julianna was a
>little
> past one. My wife purchased a harness with a strap on the back which
>she
> asked me to use so Julianna wouldn't "get away." I told her that
>nobody in
> the neighborhood used such a thing and I didn't want our daughter
>looking
> like a weirdo. "Besides," I said, "I can always hold her hand and
>stay
> close to her when we're out." The next thing that came was a wrist
>strap
> which I was asked to use. Again I said that it was unnecessary. My
>wife
> called in her parents who described their fears about Julianna getting
>
>away
> from me. I told them that I respected their concerns and that if I
>ever
> felt that Julianna was in danger I would use the strap, or, if I were
>in a
> large crowd, I could see some merit to it.
>
>
>
> In September of 2005, the parallel paths of blindness and
>disagreements
> about other issues came to a head and we separated. I got an
>apartment in
> Charles Village, a neighborhood of Baltimore, and my wife stayed with
>our
> daughter at the house. I provided financial support and we continued
>to
> attempt reconciliation, both through personal and joint counseling.
>
>
>
> At first, my wife asked me not to tell our daughter that I was living
>away
> from home. She felt I should just say I was working hard and would be
>
>home
> soon. I did see Julianna two or three times per week at the family
>home. At
> some points I suggested that Julianna and I might go on a bus trip to
>the
> ice cream shop. Kristen became very uncomfortable and said she was
>afraid
> of busses and their lack of safety. She also didn't want me taking
>her in
> cabs because that too would be dangerous.
>
>
>
> By January of 2006 Julianna had figured out on her own that daddy had
>an
> apartment. I asked Kristen to allow her to come and visit. She
>demurred,
> saying that she just needed a little more time to become comfortable
>with
> all of it.
>
>
>
> In April of 2006 things came to a head when I suggested to Julianna
>that we
> could go on a bus ride because she was asking about busses. My wife's
> response in this email was clear and to the point. I quote it here:
>"What
> frightens and makes me, Mom and Dad mistrust your ability to care for
>and
> protect her, in addition to all the ways in which you have damaged my
>trust
> (and by extension theirs') is your arrogant insistence that Julianna
>faces
> no ADDITIONAL peril or jeopardy in potentially dangerous situations in
>
>the
> care of someone who cannot see.
>
> That is absurd, and no amount of political correctness with regard to
>your
>
> (considerable) skills and abilities despite your blindness can make up
>
>for
> having the additional sense of sight when it comes to locating an
>object, in
> this case an erratic, extremely quick toddler, that has alluded your
>grasp.
> This is most especially true in any type of noisy, crowded conditions
>and/or
> unfamiliar territory."
>
>
>
> "It is not a matter of subjectivity, Mike. We have all observed that
>if
> Julianna wants to evade you, she can do so quite effectively within
>the
> confines of OUR HOUSE. So what could the consequences be if she were
>to
> suddenly become restless, frustrated, tired of waiting, stubborn and
>angry
> at a bus stop on a street where cars are speeding past? Or even if she
> should decide to chase a stray ball into the street in front of our
>own
> house? You cannot continue to pretend that she cannot wriggle free of
>you,
> or that she is not capable of defying your admonitions against
>straying (she
> can suddenly decide to check out a speck glinting in the sunlight in
>the
> street, that to her is a previously undiscovered treasure!), much less
>
>your
> ability to recapture her in the split second necessary to keep her
>from
> darting in front of a car if she were to wriggle free. You cannot
>continue
> to insist that your ability to recapture her is the same as someone
>who can
> see precisely where she is and where to grab her. You cannot continue
>the
> pretense that your abilities ARE the same or equal, merely different,
> because the stakes are just too high: your daughter's very life."
>
>
>
> I could make many responses , but they feel so defensive. No, I
>didn't stop
> Julianna from evading me at that age in the house. I preferred to
>ignore
> the behavior, acting as though I didn't want to find her sometimes.
>That
> way I wouldn't set up a challenge situation in which she would become
>more
> creative and desirous of hiding from me. I think that whether I was
>sighted
> or not, I would handle the situation that way. Exerting control sets
>up a
> very adverse situation. Now, when it comes to being out in public, I
> maintained much stricter control, without letting Julianna know it in
>order
> that she not be in danger.
>
>
>
> But, at least the cards were on the table and we knew what we were
>fighting
> about I hoped. My style when it comes to handling sighted people and
>their
> concerns about my blindness is to show by example. I could point out
>that
> thousands of blind people have successfully raised sighted children
>and so
> far as the numbers go, there are no more incidents of injury than for
>any
> other children. I tried unsuccessfully to point out that I work with
>young
> children as a part of my job, but it was dismissed because those were
>blind
> kids who couldn't run away like sighted kids. What became troublingly
>
>and
> dismayingly apparent was that no amount of convincing would work.
>
>
>
> Our separation continued and communication deteriorated. I was still
>able
> to visit Julianna at the family home but that was it. She couldn't
>come to
> my home and so I continued to not be able to tuck her in at night or
>feed
> her breakfast in the morning. A year had gone by since our separation
>
>and
> still, my heart was breaking because I couldn't just be with my
>daughter.
>
>
>
> In August, my wife filed for divorce asking for full legal and
>physical
> custody. What I discovered was a sad truth about divorce. It's
>messy! The
> grounds were that I was abusive, that I was an irresponsible, risk
>taking,
> dangerous, alcoholic. Frankly, when I read all the things that were
>said
> about me I started to realize how difficult it would be for anyone to
>not
> believe at least some of it. In fact, I believed much of it, although
>
>it
> was out of context and far out of proportion. But, in the divorce
>game the
> one who accuses the most is the one with the best chance of winning.
>
>
>
> I still believed though that Kristen would come to her senses and
>realize
> that nobody should keep their child from her daddy and that we were
>doing
> irreparable harm. I also believed the courts would see this as well.
>
>
>
> So, after she filed for divorce, I too, had to find a lawyer and
>respond. I
> knew going in, as did everyone else, that I had little money to
>continue a
> long battle. I had one credit card that I could run up $20,000 on but
>
>that
> was pretty much it.
>
>
>
> But, I made the decision that when my daughter got older and asked me
> "Daddy, didn't you care? Did you fight for me?" I had to answer,
>"yes,"
>
> and mean it. My little girl has to know, when all is said and done
>that her
> daddy loved her with all his heart and wants her to be with him and
>that he
> did everything humanly possible to make that happen without breaking
>the
> law.
>
>
>
> Court justice moves slowly. The soonest we could get a hearing on the
> "facts" of the matter was March 12th 2007. Meanwhile all visitations
>were
> in restaurants or public libraries. I couldn't come to the family
>home
> because I was dangerous and Julianna certainly couldn't come to my
>home and
> be with me unsupervised. Do I sound like a pedophile to you. It's
>what I
> felt like. Some kind of criminal who couldn't be trusted to have
>private
> communications or interactions with his daughter.
>
>
>
> Three or four days before the March hearing my wife's lawyer called to
>
>begin
> negotiating. He agreed to a plan that would lead to week-end visits
>within
> four months. He knew that all the accusations were simply tactics,
>not
> realities. He also knew that my witness list would overwelm his. I
>had
> people willing to testify about my character and about my ability to
>work
> with children. I also had former neighbors who were ready to testify
>that I
> was a capable and responsible parent. No way did he want to go to
>court on
> the issues of visitation. Michael Jones was scheduled to come in from
> Atlanta, paid for by the NFB, to deal with broader matters of blind
> parenting. In other words, when the chips were down, my wife's lawyer
> didn't want to go to court about these matters and so quickly
>negotiated an
> agreement.
>
>
>
> Among the stipulations in the agreement was one that said that I would
>
>allow
> Kristen to "inspect" my house and make "recommendations" about things
>that
> were unsafe. I'm a bachelor now and felt that any advice anybody
>wanted to
> give was useful so, I agreed, particularly since the language clearly
>said
> "recommendations". What I discovered, after the hearing, was that my
>wife's
> lawyer had no intention of encouraging her to follow the agreement.
>My
> wife's position was that she could make lists of problems within my
>house
> and that I must fix them all in order for any meaningful visits to
>take
> place. No matter what I fixed, there were more problems. I spent $600
>trying
> to make things right, but, they never were. Because of the way courts
>
>work,
> I would have to take her back to court in order to get a judge to
>declare
> her in default of the agreement. I have no money for this anymore.
>In
> fact, I've had to terminate my Attorney because I simply can't afford
>one.
> Bankruptcy is likely for me in the next few months, depending upon how
>
>my
> creditors choose to pursue payments.
>
>
>
> So, here we come up on two years and I effectively have two hours per
>week
> of supervised visits with my daughter. Yes, she can now come to my
>home,
> but only if Kristen or her parents are here to supervise. Julianna
>now
> believes that I'm unsafe. Apparently she's heard enough family talk
>to
> figure out that daddy is dangerous.
>
>
>
> I don't know what to say. In one sense, my story is about a blind man
>who is
> being discriminated against because of the misconceptions about
>blindness.
> In another sense, it's the story of family court justice that depends
>upon
> money to gain any form of resolution. Yes, there are nonprofit
> organizations available but they usually focus on the parent rather
>than the
> child. If a female or her children are being abused, there is help.
>Moving
> the case to the criminal side of things gets attention. Legal Aid is
>for
> poor people but even legal Aid doesn't do many divorces because their
> resources simply aren't adequate.
>
>
>
> Finally, men just aren't very pitiable. We don't look like victims
>and
> often stay silent for far to long when this kind of situation comes
>up. I
> find it hard to believe that I've let two years of my daughter's life
>go by,
> always believing that things will resolve themselves at the next
>meeting or
> in the next court action.
>
>
>
> The difficulty with this case is that, although it revolves around
> blindness, like many divorces, it also revolves around many other
>things.
>
> I questioned my own sanity at one point and contacted my X-wife. I
>gave her
> the allegations of my abusiveness and angry tendencies and asked her
>if she
> saw these things in me. She said she'd be glad to come and testify on
>
>my
> behalf that I had never even raised my voice to her in our eight year
> marriage. My lawyer told me that having X-wives testify in divorce
>cases is
> pretty much not done but, if I have the chance I'll ask her to do it.
>I
> mean, if anybody should have bad things to say it would be her.
>
>
>
> The NFB has taken on cases like mine, but only to the extent of
>helping with
> blindness related issues. In my case, about twenty-five percent of the
>
>case
> is blindness related. NFB was/is willing to pay for that, but, it will
>
>be of
> little value if I can't afford the other 75 percent. If clever
>opponents can
> mask their true concerns behind other subterfuge, the case becomes
>very
> expensive. Divorce court is a very sleazy and messy place. The lawyer
>who
> makes the most accusations and breaks the other party financially
>wins.
>
> Although the best interests of the child is the standard, few cases
>come to
> trial and no lawyer is censured for bare knuckle fighting when it
>comes to
> divorces.
>
> What my daughter needs is an Attorney for her side. Usually courts
>will
> appoint somebody to represent the child's interests if requested, but
>you
> have to pay for that. I'm asking for the Baltimore County Courts to
>appoint
> an Attorney for Julianna but also have to ask that the Attorney work
>for no
> pay. Results are doubtful. She is the real loser here and somebody
>needs
> to defend her right to see her daddy.
>
>
>
> All I have ever wanted was to get to a court-room in which I could
>present
> witnesses to refute their accusations and vouch for who I am. I don't
> believe, by the way, that my wife is lying. She's not making things
>up. In
> her own mind she really believes what she says. What I think though
>is that
> the courts ought to do what they say their mission is. They say that
>the
> standard is the "best interests of the child." I believe when they
>sort it
> out, the best interests for my daughter involve being with her daddy,
>in his
> home, unsupervised. I believe she needs a daddy to go fishing with.
>She
> needs a daddy to wake her up in the morning and kiss her goodnight. I
>
>also
> believe that lawyers like my wife's should be evaluated on the extent
>to
> which they truly seek to find resolution to family cases. When a child
>
>is
> involved, the usual attack and attack rules ought to be changed.
>Lawyers
> ought to be given public scrutiny for the extent to which they resolve
>
>cases
> rather than prolong them. A lawyer with a history of divorce cases
>going to
> trial ought to be evaluated on his negotiating abilities. Most
>importantly,
> lawyers who take on divorce cases where children are involved should
>be held
> to a much higher standard than others. They should be required to
> demonstrate that they counseled their client on the possible danger to
>
>their
> clients' children of anger over the divorce interfering with good
>judgment.
> Or, allowing their anger over a marriage gone bad to interfere with
> withholding visitation. They should be required to justify with
>actual
> evidence which they have evaluated, any limitation of parental rights.
>
>In
> other words, the courts ought to hold to a high standard when it comes
>
>to
> children. Finally, courts need to move away from the presumption that
> mothers are better care-givers than fathers. My lawyer advised me
>from the
> beginning, that I would have little or no chance of gaining fifty
>percent
> custody of Julianna. Because she is with her mother, that is where
>she
> should stay. I think that we often think of dads as having to be
>dragged
> into court to do what's right by their children. Sadly, I think
>that's true
> far more often than it should be. But, I have spoken to many father's
>
>who
> simply say that they were being asked to pay but weren't being given
>the
> rights of parents so they just rebelled and quit the system. I'm a
>dad who
> continues to pay but who wants to be his girl's daddy before it's to
>late.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Michael Bullis
>
> Work phone: 410-737-2604
>
> Cell: 443-992-1537
>
> Evening phone: 410-323-4884
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
> ----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
More information about the nfb-talk
mailing list