March 16, 2006

Subgenius custody case takes ugly turn. Widely discussed elsewhere last month, Rachel Bevilacqua lost custody of her child when the judge in her custody case saw pictures of her at the Church of the Subgenius' X-Day celebrations. The case has taken an ugly turn: Rachel has been (verbally) ordered by the judge to cease discussing the case on the internet.

Fortunately, Rachel has obtained new legal counsel, the same people who represent Larry Flynt and Marilyn Manson. It's unclear at this stage whether they are representing her pro-bono or not. This case upsets me a lot, not only because I consider myself fullblown yeti, but because it doesn't strike me as American, Constitutional, or Fair. That and sixty cents buys me a soda, I realize.

posted by waraw 18 years ago
  • It does strike me as American in the way that only freedom fries could...
  • Bleh. Arrogant judge meets unbright mother and vituperative father. It is, sadly, a common tale. Perhaps, at some point, someone will consider the needs of the child. I won't hold my breath waiting for that day, though.
  • Unbright? Explain please.
  • Hachi mama! soory
  • Did she consider that, perhaps, engaging in arty hobbies with bondage gear on film might not be hugely entertaining to the judge in her case? Did she imagine that her husband would just hand off their child because it's traditional for men to do so? I'm not saying the woman can't do whatever she wants - but family court is FAR more arbitrary than criminal court, and the judge has a huge amount of leeway. If she indeed desired full custody, it might have been... prudent? To try and avoid engaging in activities that might be misunderstood or cause the judge a lot of undue consternation. Her lawyer ought to have been advising her on this. That her lawyer is now the same one that has defended Larry Flynt is not precisely a great idea either. If she wants custody, she'd be far better off to at least temporarily act like something akin to a normal, Rockwellian mother, rather than a pseudo-religious dominiatrix out on some Mardi Gras bender with a friggin goat's head on.
  • I dunno, do you think catholics consider that, perhaps, engaging in cannibalism with creepy rituals might not be hugely entertaining to a judge in a court case? Oh wait, religion doesn't have a place in determining custody. Only sexual orientation does. Gays can't raise! sarcasm! it's actually the jews that can't raise kids!
  • Thank you Fes. You have successfully shifted the emphasis from a weird judge to a weird defendant. I suspect the intent of the post was to bring attention to the behaviour of a member of the bar. Not whether the defendant's behaviour meets with your approval.
  • I'm completely lost now.
  • No I haven't. I'm just pointing out that there are real world considerations to garnering custody of your child in an actual family court, as opposed to the court of internet opinion. She may indeed be a great mom, and my personal approval or disapproval is moot. What she NEEDED, however, is the approval of the judge, whomever he may be and however arbitrary the basis behind his rulings. And to not take that into consideration when facing a custody battle is, in my opinion, unbright. just curious: has anyone even considered the possibility that the possibility that the judge might be right in this ruling, that the husband may indeed be the best parent for custody, regardless of how he came to that idea? Does anyone have any idea whether she is, in fact, a good mother?
  • CONFORMITY. CONFORMITY. CONFORMITY.
  • God forbid a woman who has birthed a baby and is now raising him appear naked on the internets. The horror, the horror! Honestly, I don't get it. She doesn't take her son to such things, so how does this affect his well-being?
  • OK, I concede.
  • yay! the gag order is completely disgusting. Come on lawyers, rah rah rah!
  • I only have personal experience with family courts, and family court judges are completely insance arrogant dictators. I don't know, I suspect they get away with their crap because those of us in family court cannot afford (monetarily or timewise) what it would take to appeal these asinine decisions and get these judges tossed off the bench. The Alameda court gave my ex an emergency order keeping me away from the kids based solely on her affidavit that I had abandoned the kids and had not been seen in three months. I was not told of the hearing (it was an emergency!) This wasn't true at all and if prior to granting the emergency order they had picked up the phone and given me a phone call I could have presented phone bills, receipts, all sorts of physical evidence showing that the statements were false. Though her statements were later shown to be false, there was never any punishment for her perjury. And in fact, it has taken me 3 years and at least $20,000 to regain the amount of custody that I had before. The family courts are totally fucked up in what they consider to be proper parenting, or what constitutes an emergency.
  • Fes, there is almost certainly no best "parent" (singular) for the child. Having two parents sharing custody, even if they are in separate households, is almost certainly in the child's best interest. In a world of no-fault divorce, the presumption should be 50/50 joint legal and physical custody.
  • So are these Scientologists without money?
  • Here is a bit more detail. As I understand it (and you can check her blog for the full story) the custody arrangement had seemingly been worked out already, but the birth father suddenly switched gears over xmas, going to a judge in NY while the kid was visiting him (the Bevilacquas live in GA) and got temporary custody before Rachel ever knew what had occurred. The earlier separation agreement had specified that the boy never be exposed to Dobbs' teachings, which AFAIK were being fully complied with. As for whether she's a fit parent to her son, I haven't met the kid personally, but I know many who say they have and that Rachel and Steve are superb parents. All appearances to the contrary, they are pretty levelheaded people.
  • tennenho: Pretty much. Except we're lots more fun, and a hell of a lot cheaper. Plus, Dobbs TELLS you he's lying to you right up front.
  • *wakes up from twenty-to-ten pick-me-upper* Wha..? Somebody call? Just let me put my pants back on... *zips* Offhand, I don't know much about the case, and I'm not all that inclined to get into it, but: 1. A gag order may not be so bad. There's a lot to be said for fighting these things out in the courtroom on the merits, rather than have everyone distracted by rumour and pressures coming from the outside. It's a family law case. The public's right to know is reduced. 2. Image shouldn't count, but it does. There's nothing wrong in asking a client to cool their jets while something works its way through the system. Hell, I've seen it that a judge dismissed an accused's entire testimony in a drunk-driving case, BEFORE the guy even opened his mouth, on the basis that he was wearing a beer T-shirt to Court. "Nothing you say is going to have the slightest impact on me", the Judge said. Proper? No. Subject to Appeal? You betcha, depending on the guy's cash situation. But, again, I don't know all of the details, and I'm not particularly interested in knowing. 3. It's never as eggregious as a client may suggest. We don't know the whole story, and it may not even be our place to know. Once the decision is made, we'll be able to review it to see that it was made properly. *puts phone back on VM, rests head on desk*
  • It's just been brought to my attention by my sub-conscious that 'egregious' only has, in fact, one 'g'. I'll just take it back and be on my way back to sleepyville...
  • You mean two, right?
  • This subgeniusism sounds very interesting and very comvincing, is there site where I can contribute funds to the movement, little Elroy doesn't neeed that college fund if were all gonna die by 1998.
  • I agree, Fes raised good points - (a) we don't know anything (b) probably not a great idea to get buck wild on camera during a custody battle (acknowledged, they can/do take years - See Capt.'s point #2) But Fes, your nakedly goatistic comments are shameful. Goats have every right to dress up in bondage gear and dance around. And who's under the impression that the Church of the Subgenius is any sort of official anything? It's big fun and sometimes even thought-provoking but "the boy never be exposed to Dobbs' teachings" . . that's like never being exposed to Hamlet's teachings, y'know.
  • Hey, I've already conceeded. As far as any of you know or will ever learn, I am unabashedly pro-goat.
  • Not the mention the fact that actually, she wasn't nakey. And of course, I highly doubt this was the outfit she chose to wear to the courts.
  • Hey if I was some dumbass family court judge and saw these pics, I'd have thought all those kids were on dope!
  • It might be worth noting that according to the blog, custody of the child was settled in 2000, so even if we are going to hold her internet-documented wackiness against her, she could not have antipated such things if the pics are post-2000. This entry seems to answer a lot of questions as to how this all started and what the father's stated motivations are. If you read the court document, it seems that the father is using a rough spot in the Bevilacqua marriage as a reason to take custody of his son.
  • I agree with Fes' points, with one exception: it's not entirely clear when she attended the X-Day celebration (or is it? I didn't pore over each link). If it was after the custody dispute began, then she was being unbright. If it was before, then she was having silly fun that ended up backfiring on her because her husband's a jerk. I had no idea that family court could be such a circus. If that judge had made those comments in criminal court, it would have been an immediate mistrial.
  • *anticipated* I swear I can spell. Rilly.
  • If you paid to be a Subgenius, you are not a Subgenius.
  • What if I peed to be a Subgenius? Does it make me a Mexican Subgenius?
  • The pictures are from July, 2005; when was the petition?
  • What I don't get is why the Dad switched gears after five years of uneventful custody-sharing. Did she JUST get into this stuff, or has she been doing it all the time? So many questions. So little real reason to worry about it. Such a pathetic life, mine.
  • People, for reals, that link I posted above lays out the details (including the timeline!), complete with a scan of the father's petition.
  • Yeah, I read it, mandyman, but unless one of them is lying through his/her teeth, it doesn't add up. So I'm wondering which story, if either, is the real story, and if, as seems likely, it;s ony part of the story.
  • Only the Goat knows. Or the goatse. But I ain't askin' him.
  • So the kid goes to stay with his dad and obviously tells Dad that a) he and his mother were kicked out of his stepdad's house, b) he hasn't been to school in the period of pseudo-homelessness and c) is apparently "suicidal" and wants to die because of the humiliating situation he has been put in (ie. being kicked out of his home). If I was the boy's father and geographically isolated, only to suddenly hear all this -- well, I could understand his reaction. Of course, when the message is transmitted by a young kid, maybe the dad could have clarified things a little before filing for custody. But really, although her blog says she's losing custody because of her "performance art", it sounds more like it's a matter to do with her relationship with her husband. Bringing the X-Day thing into it is misleading on the part of the father and/or the court, I think. The court should be working on clarifying things like his home base, his schooling (homeschooled or not schooled at all?), and his mother and stepfather's situation.
  • *Looks at pics* It's like Burning Man, as brought to you by Wal-Mart. Urm... where do I sign up? Also, in response to ian would say, I would just like to point out that the host only turns into the messiah's flesh when it gets to my tummy, so you're not eating actually eating Jesus, just digesting him. He goes great with dip!
  • Last I checked, Jesus tasted like cardboard.
  • I prefer my Jesus dipped in nacho cheese. Much, much tastier.
  • That line about being given for food to the faithful always creeped me out.
  • layne, lady layne - my thoughts exactly. "Hmmm...these look a lot like my burning man pics. Damn, guess I shouldn't have kids now."
  • l,ll: It's like Burning Man, as brought to you by Wal-Mart. My pal Katsuit had a good response to that. Burning Man is kinda like X-Day, but brought to you by Alienware... located in the hot sandy desert and way overpriced.
  • My bud Phaser said Xurning-Man Day was kinda like Guy Fawkes Day but still celebrated.
  • Rachel's case was just covered on a local tv news segment in NY. Also, transcripts of Rachel's testimony are now online; although they don't include the judge's closing statements (supposedly where all the really inflammatory stuff is) there's a great exchange from the judge on page 42 where he demands to know exactly what is "funny" about the pictures the plaintiff entered as exhibits. The news story says that Judge Punch recused himself last week, though there's no indication as to why.
  • Update.
  • Also, in response to ian would say, I would just like to point out that the host only turns into the messiah's flesh when it gets to my tummy, so you're not eating actually eating Jesus, just digesting him. Which means, of course, a few hours later, that it really is holy shit. G'night!
  • That poor child.
  • I'm not sure if The Church of the Subgenius wasn't previously a Bob God concept. But it's Bob Dobb who wrote the banned book, maybe because there's yet another Bob God...