Mark Byron, of Cincinnati, OH, wrote of his frustration with his ex-wife Elizabeth on his Facebook page after she’d accused him of domestic violence. Although acquitted on the criminal case, he was still ordered to have supervised visitation with his child and his wife was granted a restraining order against him (this is standard when wives make accusations). Evidently, family law magistrate Paul Meyers found his Facebook post to be in violation of the restraining order, and told him that to avoid two months in jail he would have to post an apology on Facebook for 30 days.
Here’s what Mark wrote regarding his ex-wife Elizabeth:
If you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband’s life and take your son’s father away from him completely – all you need to do is say that you’re scared of your husband or domestic partner and they’ll take him away!
He is exactly right. That is all a wife has to do to have a child removed from a father. No conviction necessary. Making DV accusations is incentivized for vindictive wives who want to remove their spouses from their lives and their children. Although the magistrate who ordered the apology may come off as a tyrant here, keep in mind that he could have simply thrown Byron in jail without any other options, and that probably would have been it.
Here’s the text of the apology:
I would like to apologize to my wife, Elizabeth Byron, for the comments regarding her and our son [redacted] which were posted on my Facebook wall on or about November 23, 2011. I hereby acknowledge that two judicial officials in the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court have heard evidence and determined [not in trial] that I committed an act of domestic violence against Elizabeth on January 17, 2011. While that determination is currently being appealed, it has not been overturned by the appellate court. As a result of that determination, I was granted supervised parenting time with [redacted] on a twice weekly basis. The reason I saw [redacted] only one time during the four month period which ended about the time of my Facebook posting was because I chose to see him on only that single occasion during that period. I hereby apologize to Elizabeth for casting her in an unfavorable light by suggesting that she withheld [redacted] from me or that she in any manner prevented me from seeing [redacted] during that period. That decision was mine and mine alone.
I further apologize to all my Facebook Friends for attempting to mislead them into thinking that Elizabeth was in any manner preventing me from spending time with [redacted], which caused several of my Facebook Friends to respond with angry, venomous, and inflammatory comments of their own.
I’m glad the judge ordered the apology, because it reads like someone held a gun to his head while he wrote it. It’s actually more of a forced confession than an apology — very transparent and ham-fisted on the part of the court. It’s like when Saddam Hussein ordered American airmen in the first Gulf War to make apologies on TV. What a bunch of goons in family court! It would be laughable if there weren’t real families being torn to pieces this way every day.