Try this out instead: Mom is showing a NORMAL MOTHER'S INSTINCTS and is acting responsibly. What would the public think if she'd walked away from the situation, and let a daddy who "gets his freak on" by tying up and tormenting a teenage girl get his way? An irresponsible mother? Can't win here, can we?
Once again, we see how bogus the whole "parental alienation syndrome" crap has become. It used to be the shrinks only started screaming PAS when THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE of abuse. At least that's what we were told. Now we're told IT'S ALWAYS MOM'S FAULT when the kids don't unconditionally worship their father and or when moms aren't wildly enthusiastic about contact--even when the Daddy (in this case JON PARISH) ADMITS that he tied up a teenage girl and threatened her with a "shock-producing devise!"
Let's get rid of the garbage psychological theories and get back to the facts, please. Daddy ADMITS he abused this girl. So Mom should get custody. Period.
And frankly, this guy sounds like a pervert to me. I bet this incident is only the tip of the iceberg....Be very afraid for the 12-year-old. How long before she's subjected to Daddy's bondage games?
Still think daddies are discriminated against by the courts?
Naples lawyer, father accused of zip tying up daughter gets custody of younger girl
By JACOB CARPENTER
Naples Daily News
Posted July 8, 2011 at 8:01 p.m.
Who deserves custody?
■ A father and local lawyer who has admitted to tying up another daughter, then-15, with zip ties and threatening her with a shock-producing device?
■ Or a mother who has been uncooperative in court proceedings and could be trying to turn her children against their father?
NAPLES — For more than a year, Collier County courts have wrestled with a case that raises unique questions about custody and corporal punishment.
With two parents locked in a bitter back-and-forth, the family court has had to decide who can better care for a 12-year-old:
A father and local lawyer who has admitted to tying up another daughter, then-15, with zip ties and threatening her with a shock-producing device?
Or a mother who has been uncooperative in court proceedings and could be trying to turn her children against their father?
Last month, Collier Circuit Judge Lauren Brodie sided with the father, Jon Parrish, agreeing with two impartial third-party experts. The mother, Julie Price, was offered supervised visits but declined.
The ruling has frustrated Price. She argues Parrish shouldn’t receive custody as he faces felony child abuse and false imprisonment charges for tying up their older daughter.
“I don’t see how anybody can say that isn’t against the law,” Price said in an interview.
Parrish, whose family court attorney declined comment for this story on his client’s behalf, has responded by challenging in criminal court whether Parrish even committed a crime.
“I have the duty and responsibility to discipline my child,” Parrish said in court last July.
Parrish, unlike Price, has cooperated with the family court’s requests. He also argued Price is trying to turn the couple’s two children against him, an accusation backed by an impartial court-appointed counselor. And in recent court filings, he has begun the process of reconnecting with his now-17-year-old daughter — the girl he’s accused of tying up.
It’s a situation that examines how courts determine custody between imperfect parents, and the limits of corporal punishment.
Tied and threatened
A few details are contested, but the general facts of what happened in Jon Parrish’s Naples-area house on May 22, 2010, are undisputed.
Frustrated with his then-15-year-old daughter’s behavior, Parrish used zip ties to bind the girl’s hands and ankles. He then laid her down on her bed for more than an hour, holding a device capable of producing a shock as they spoke.
Parrish has admitted to these details in court.
Accounts vary about whether Parrish then left his daughter tied up in her room, ranging from an hour to three hours.
One month after Parrish tied his daughter, Price filed to receive custody of the then- 15-year-old and their other daughter, then 11 years old. Parrish argued in court that his actions weren’t criminal. Parrish has argued the state can’t intervene because the child wasn’t physically harmed.
Erin Gillespie, a DCF spokeswoman, said there’s a fine line between legal corporal punishment and child abuse.
“If you’re leaving marks on a child for a couple hours after the fact, you’re at least getting down the line to abuse,” Gillespie said.
In an interview, Price, whose maiden name is Satterfield, said the couple’s oldest daughter “had abrasions, but I think the emotional scars are there much longer.”
Price was granted temporary custody in June 2010 and Parrish wasn’t allowed to see the couple’s two daughters.
In September, after a four-month investigation, Parrish was charged by the State Attorney’s Office with felony counts of aggravated child abuse and false imprisonment. Both sides continue to gather evidence, said Michelle Hill, Parrish’s attorney in the criminal case.
Change of custody
By December, Parrish was granted supervised visits with the couple’s youngest daughter.
In March, after observing three visits with Parrish and the youngest daughter, therapeutic counselor Robert Crawford testified in court that Parrish was stiff but sincere while interacting with the child.
“Here’s the bottom line — I don’t think Mr. Parrish is a threat to (the couple’s youngest) daughter in terms of spending time with her,” Crawford said in court.
He added the back-and-forth between parents was harmful and suggested in March that Parrish receive temporary custody.
Judge Brodie required more supervised visits before deciding on a custody change. She also scolded Price in March for sharing information about the case with the children.
After eight more supervised visits over three months, raising his total supervised hours to 23, Crawford reiterated his suggestion that Parrish receive temporary custody.
Holly Chernoff, a guardian ad litem appointed to make impartial recommendations on the child’s behalf, agreed with Crawford’s suggestion.
During those three months, Price became uncooperative, Brodie stated in a ruling. Price didn’t follow through with allowing visits between Parrish and the couple’s youngest daughter, and she unilaterally canceled court-ordered appointments.
It left Brodie with a decision: Should the couple’s now- 12-year-old live with a father still facing abuse charges, or go against two impartial experts and award temporary custody to the mother.
For deciding custody or a primary residence in such cases, Florida law outlines 13 factors for a judge to consider. Among those pertinent to this case: Which parent will encourage contact and a relationship between the child and another parent, evidence of domestic violence or child abuse, and the need to maintain continuity in a single household.
On June 17, Brodie awarded temporary custody to Parrish.
Five days later, Price wrote that the offer of supervised visits for her daughter was an unacceptable arrangement that could end “any sort of normal relationship with her mother.”
What's at stake
In recent court filings, he has begun the process of reconnecting with his now-17-year-old daughter — the girl he’s accused of tying up.
Nicole Goetz, a Naples-based family law attorney, said concerns about impartiality from supervisors and guardian ad litems “typically doesn’t really come into play.”
“The concept is hopefully they’re impartial, especially if that’s how they make their living,” Goetz said.
Crawford has been a licensed mental health counselor in Florida since 2002, while Chernoff, a family law mediator, has been a member of The Florida Bar since 1983.
Price also denied sharing information about the case with the couple’s children, saying they learned about it from friends and media reports.
Fort Myers-based family law attorney Luis Insignares said parents telling children about family court proceedings is “something the courts look at quite carefully,” adding that “it is difficult to prove.”
As for Price’s primary contention — that a father facing child abuse charges shouldn’t be allowed custody — Insignares said it’s a difficult balance for the courts.
“The fact that DCF says something happened doesn’t mean the family court has to follow that blindly,” Insignares said. “It’s a strong indication, but it’s not something that automatically should take place.”