LaMusga move-away case: Fathers' rights showdown in CA Supreme Court
By Glenn Sacks
web posted November 24, 2003
We have a fathers' rights showdown pending
in the California Supreme Court. Some of you may have seen my recent newspaper column on
the new move-away law which the legislature passed and which Gray Davis
signed right before he left office.
Since the 1996 Burgess decision, California custodial parents, usually
mothers, have generally been able to move children. In some cases, courts have
even allowed children to be moved out of the country, as far away as New Zealand
and Zaire. Last year the California Supreme Court voted 6-0 to revisit the
move-away issue by hearing the LaMusga move-away case.
Dozens of feminist groups nationwide have joined together to support a
move-away mom�s attempt to separate her children from the father they love
and need, and to ensure that California custodial mothers will continue
to have the right
to move kids hundreds or thousands of miles away from their fathers.
Against all of them stands one loving father and his tenacious attorney.
Gary LaMusga has fought a seven-year battle to prevent his two boys, now
aged 11 and 9, from being moved 2,400 miles away from him. Last summer
his
ex-wife Susan Navarro defied a court order and moved his children 750 miles
away to Arizona (after originally seeking to move to Ohio). Gary owns a
small business in Northern California and is unable to leave it and follow
his children
due to large child support obligations. As I wrote in a recent newspaper
column, "this
is a common problem for noncustodial fathers, whose financial obligations
often chain them to their jobs in the original locale while they are powerless
to
prevent their children from being moved far away from them."
As a men�s and fathers issues columnist and talk show host I get thousands
of letters from fathers with every horror imaginable in them but I have to
say that in this case I heard a new one. The parenting time Gary LaMusga was
allowed was limited, as it is with most fathers, so Gary volunteered in his
son�s kindergarten classroom and on school field trips so he could have
more time to be around his son.
According to the court testimony of his son�s kindergarten teacher,
Gary�s ex-wife Susan asked the school to keep track of the time Gary spent
volunteering in his little son�s kindergarten classroom so she could deduct
it from his visitation time! I�ll repeat that -- she asked the school to keep
track of the time Gary spent volunteering in his little son�s kindergarten
classroom so she could deduct it from his visitation time! Unbelievable.
As we�ve discussed before on this program, the modern feminist mentality -- and
I distinguish that from the feminism of the 1960s and 1970s, which was
equity based -- the modern feminist mentality as it is played out in family
law is too often a mentality of selfishness and anti-male bigotry. The LaMusga case
is a perfect example. I want to read to you part of a press release which a
feminist group released in support of the move-away mom over the summer. It
tells you all you need to know about the anti-father mentality of these groups.
The group is the called the National Coalition for Family Justice of California
and the release is called "LaMusga v. LaMusga -- Justice Delayed is Justice
Denied."
It reads:
The 1996 landmark California Supreme Court case In Re Marriage of Burgess
was supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
Suzy Navarro, her husband Todd, and her children moved this week from their
little rented house in Pleasanton, California, to a spacious new home purchased
in Mesa, Arizona.
They just could not wait any longer.
The latest in a rancorous seven-year battle with the boys' father, Navarro's
first husband, Gary LaMusga, has been languishing in the California Supreme
Court since September 2002...the issue to be decided...is whether the family
may move -- not to Arizona -- but to Ohio....It was Suzy Navarro's second request
to move to Ohio...the state in which she grew up and has family, in order to
go to law school, a life-long dream. That dream was thwarted when her first
request to move was denied.
What? Children should be moved 2,400 miles away from their father
so mom can go to law school? Usually divorcing mothers lay on some con
job about being abused or mistreated -- the best justification these feminists
can
come up with is this nonsense about going to law school? That�s more important
than children having a father?
One more point -- California probably has more law schools that any state
in the US. When my wife decided to go to law school a few years ago I looked
them
up for her to get the details and there were law schools all over the place.
Yes, I know some of my opponents think that I must keep my wife barefoot
and in the kitchen but actually my wife is a highly educated woman, with
a master�s
degree, and soon a law degree.
I made my wife a long list of the different California law schools with
their various accreditations, etc. In fact, to show you the kind of guy
I am, I�m
going to send Suzy Navarro my list of law schools. I have her attorney�s mailing
address right here and I�m going to send Suzy the list of California law
schools so she can realize her dream. She could go to law school and, just
as a little
added bonus, her kids could have a father!
Back to the press release:
...the seven-year-long forced march through an expensive legal nightmare...has...
disrupted the family's schedule...Meals, bedtimes, education and study habits,
after-school play...all have been sacrificed to accommodate court orders made
to appease LaMusga, whose claims have succeeded in holding the lives and futures
of five other people twisting at the mercy of the system.
A father fighting to be a father means mom is "twisting at the mercy of the
system?" It's wrong for Gary LaMusga to want to be with his children? This
is typical of the way divorced dads are treated -- it's like you're imposing
on everybody when you want to spend time with your own children. I want
to read my kids a bedtime story, I want to take my girl to her ballet lesson -- I'm
sorry, I'm bad, I'm bothering you, I'm a jerk, I'm sorry I'm inconveniencing
you.
Here the group gives the mother�s version of the background:
Suzy and Gary LaMusga, a well-to-do businessman, divorced in 1996.
I love that -- a "well-to-do" businessman. Translation -- he worked his butt
off to give his children and his ungrateful wife a good standard of living.
At that time, the California family court awarded sole physical custody
of the boys to their mother, who had been their primary caregiver since their
births.
The primary caregiver -- we�re going to hear that one over and over again. That�s
always the pretext for anti-father family court discrimination -- the primary
caregiver. Well, just because one parent is the primary caregiver doesn�t mean
the children don�t love and need the other parent just as much. I was a stay-at-home
dad for several years, and even now I�m still the primary caregiver for my
two children, and you know what? It doesn�t make me a goddamned saint. It doesn�t
mean that on divorce I should have all the moral authority and I should control
the kids and my wife should be pushed out. Feminists portray care giving as
a big sacrifice and act like women deserve a big reward for it -- I consider
myself to have been tremendously lucky to have the opportunity to be my kids� primary
caregiver, and the years when I was a stay at home dad with little daughter
were by far the greatest years of my life.
You hear some women complain "oh, I was the one who had to get up in the middle
of the night when the children had a bad dream" like it�s such a burden. Well,
whenever my girl has a bad dream she always calls for me and I can say
honestly that there has never been one time in all these years when I have
gotten up to comfort my daughter that I have ever resented it or seen
it as being some kind of a burden. Having that beautiful little angel cling
to me and put her head on my shoulder is a burden? That�s something
to complain about?
Back to the press release:
Suzy Poston, the youngest of eight children, had grown up in Ohio, and had
moved to California to join her husband when they married in 1988. The marriage
lasted seven years. A finance major in college, Suzy had dropped out of graduate
school in 1982 for lack of funds. She got a job as a flight attendant, then
rapidly was promoted into management...Suzy saved her money and held onto her
goal of becoming a lawyer (Sigh)... But marriage to LaMusga meant a
move to a new state, the cessation of her blossoming career with the airlines,
and a lifestyle as homemaker...In a few years there was a baby... (sigh)...
and then another one.
Boy what a jerk Gary LaMusga is -- forcing poor Suzy to give up her great
career as a flight attendant -- as a flight attendant! -- to be a homemaker
to the children
she wanted and to live in the nice house she wanted. It reminds me of a
Herman comic strip I saw a long time ago where a man looks at his wife
and says "You
wanted the house, you wanted the kids, you wanted the furniture and
now you want to be liberated!" This whole thing about the miserable
life of a stay at home mom is one big con game designed to make men feel
guilty and give women whatever it is they want. Did Gary LaMusga force
this
woman to do any of this? Would she have been willing to let Gary stay home
with the kids and go out and support the family all by herself? Of course
not. After all of his hard work Gary LaMusga must be wondering why he bothered.
Back to the press release:
After her divorce, Suzy was ready to try again. She asked the court to permit
her to move with her children to Cleveland, Ohio, where she had been accepted
at Case Western Reserve Law School.
Accepted at Case Western Reserve Law School? Who the hell ever heard of that?
She lives within commuting distance of Boalt Hall, Golden Gate Law school,
Hastings and several others and she needs to move 2,400 miles away to
go to Case Western Reserve Law School?
Back to the Press Release:
But the California court said "no"... So Suzy stayed. And cooperated.
And did everything the courts and therapists told her to do...but LaMusga
relationship with the boys did not improve...despite efforts by all parties.
You can see poor Suzy�s frustration here -- she�s doing everything she
can to promote the relationship between her boys and their father but she just
can�t
get it to improve. She�s trying but she just can�t do it. I want to
read to you a section of the court transcript which will give you a good
idea of just how hard poor Suzy has worked to foster the relationship between
her
boys and their father.
According to the court testimony of her son�s kindergarten teacher,
the boy told the teacher that "my dad lies in court...if you tell the judge...he
could talk to you." That�s funny because my daughter is in kindergarten right
now and she�s the smartest little girl in the world but I can�t quite imagine
her coming up with ideas like that on her own. Who could have put these ideas
into Gary LaMusga�s five year old son�s head?
According to the testimony of the kindergarten teacher, she asked the boy this
and the boy said that his mom told him these things. The same mother who has
worked so hard to foster the relationship between her sons and their father.
The teacher also testified:
" He spoke to me with a similar conversation...I finally sat down with him and
told him that it was OK for him to love his daddy. I basically gave him
permission to love his father. And he seemed brightened by that."
Gee, like it�s a revelation -- he can love his dad, too! Mom never allowed
him to do that!
The teacher continued:
"
The next day that Gary had seen the kids he came to me the following morning
and said ,�what did you say to him?...He was so happy. He just greeted me with
open arms...we had one of the best evenings that we have had in a long time.� "
The teacher's testimony continued:
"
And I just shared with Gary at that point that I had given his son permission
to love his father....I�m not sure that he was aware that he could do that."
Sigh... thanks mom. This is a kid in kindergarten and this is what his
so-called cooperative mother is putting him through. The custody evaluator
testified that he was unable to cite a single instance in five years where
Suzy Navarro had done anything to foster the relationship between the boys
and their father. Obviously she had done many things to interfere with it.
Back to the press release:
The parents had difficulty getting along, and disagreed about LaMusga's
sometimes harsh parenting practices.
Ahhhhh -- "harsh parenting practices!" This is another con game. Let me explain
to you what a woman means when she says her husband uses "harsh parenting practices." It
means that when dad tells his kid to do something he expects him to do
it.
Men's issues author Warren Farrell talks about this -- how when a child does
not follow a mother's request, she tends to repeat the request, raise her
voice, or feel guilty and back down. But fathers tend to make the consequences
of
disobedience clear from the beginning, and then follow through on them,
at which point mom often can�t stand it and thinks you�re being "harsh." Fathers
keep kids in line and too many mothers undermine this.
Back to the press release:
In 1998, Suzy met Todd Navarro and remarried. The next year they had a baby
daughter. A year after that, in December 2000, Suzy Navarro again asked the
California courts if she could move. The growing family needed money. Todd
Navarro had been offered a position in Ohio that nearly doubled his salary.
We would never accept this argument if it were made on behalf of a man.
Can you imagine if I, as the primary care giver for my kids, announced
on this
show that I�ve divorced my wife, got custody, and have decided to move with
the kids 2,400 miles away from their mother so I can be with my new
honey? Can you imagine? Everybody listening to this show would be outraged -- the
boards would be lit up with women wanting to tear me limb from limb -- and they�d
be right! Yet that�s exactly what has been done to Gary LaMusga.
Back to the press release:
Suzy Navarro had started thinking about the possibilities back home, the
lower cost of living...
That�s a nice plan -- get Gary LaMusga�s child support from California, where
wages and child support guidelines are high, and then move to a state where
the cost of living is lower.
...the help of extended family that Suzy did not have in California...
Of course -- obviously uncle Bob is a lot more important to a boy than his OWN
FATHER.
...of ending the ongoing conflicts with Gary LaMusga...
Meaning hammering the final nail in Gary�s coffin.
...and of maybe finally going back to law school.
Yes, the law school 2,400 miles away as opposed to the one 25 miles
away.
In order to not lose the position, Todd Navarro moved to Ohio ahead of his
family and they waited for California courts.
But in August 2001 Superior Court Judge Terence Bruiniers again said "no"....The
court reasoned that a move of more than 2,000 miles would interfere with
the relationship between LaMusga and his sons.
Gee, you think?
The judge told the boys' mother that if she moved to Ohio, the children
would be removed from her custody and sent to live with their father.
Now there�s a judge -- Terence Bruiniers -- if mom tries
to destroy the relationship between the boys and their father, then have
the kids live with their father -- I love it.
Despite this, in the end mom defies a court order and moves to Arizona with
the kids -- 750 miles away from their father.
Unbelievable. 
This radio commentary was delivered by Glenn Sacks during his 11/16/03 broadcast. His
Side with Glenn Sacks, can be heard every Sunday evening in Los Angeles
and Seattle. Glenn can be reached via his website, at www.GlennSacks.com or by e-mail at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.
 Printer friendly version |
|