Parents who fight over child custody and access bring out the worst in themselves and often poison their children along the way. Divorce lawyers who are stuck in the middle of high conflict family disputes often remind their clients that children deserve both a mother and a father, and that a child immersed in conflict is usually headed for a disastrous future.
Frequently, the worst of these types of conflict peter out once the children mature, interact with their peers and begin to think for themselves. Some parents also eventually recognize their anger hurts them more than it does their ex-spouse. But not always.
A recent court case in Illinois illustrates the worst possible outcome where parents refuse to put their children first and instead continue with angry reprisals and revenge, apparently oblivious to the seeds of destruction they are sowing, for themselves and their children.
In Miner and Miner v. Garrity 2011 IL App (1st) 1103023-U the Court of Appeal dealt with a lawsuit brought against Kimblerly Garrity, mother of the plaintiffs, Steven and Kathryn, who were 21 and 18-years-old when they commenced their lawsuit.
Their father, attorney Steven Miner, together with two other attorneys, filed the suit for them which claimed damages of $50,000 each, alleging their mother had intentionally or negligently inflicted emotional distress on them during their young lives.
Mr. Miner was quick to point out in media interviews that he tried to talk his two children out of filing the lawsuit, but they insisted. I think his protestations are unbelievable in view of the claims he advanced on their behalf.
The Garrity/Miner marriage ended after 10 years in 1995. Mr. Miner was awarded sole custody of Steven and joint custody with his ex, of Kathryn, who resided primarily with him. So how bad an access parent was Kimberly Garrity?
The children's grievances included their distress when their mother tried unsuccessfully to obtain primary residence of Kathyrn. She also allegedly treated the children unequally, requested medical receipts from their father before she would pay her one-half share, and referred to their father as a "Disneyland" dad.
Worse yet was the claim that when her mother began living with another man, Kathryn's distress caused her to gain weight, which was only exceeded by her mother's gall in taking a new name when she remarried, a change that upset Kathryn.
Even more petty was Steven's complaint that his mother forced him to wear a seatbelt when he was seven-years-old or she would call the police, and Kathryn's upset at her mother's refusal to take her to a car show. Both were also slighted by either no birthday or Christmas cards, or cards that were declared inappropriate and contained no cash or cheque for them.
One of the "inappropriate" cards from American Greetings showed a table full of red tomatoes with the centre tomato wearing googly eye glasses. The card read "Son I got you this birthday card because it's just like you...different from all the rest." On the inside Steven's mother wrote "Have a great day! Love and Hugs, Mom xoxoxox". How insensitive!
Not surprisingly, their litany of childish complaints impressed no one and simply confirmed their outrageous sense of entitlement, immaturity and lack of gratitude. Their father's role in their claims of "bad mothering" deserves even greater rebuke. His participation was both contemptible and shabby.
Needless to say, their lawsuit was thrown out of court, as it should have been.
Follow Georgialee Lang on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lawdivas