That's right, Kim Kardashian is apparently not buying the popular interpretation of what happened!
Here's the short of the story: A man, William Flowers, had kids with his ex-wife, and tried to get custody past his visitation rights. He married his husband last year in Connecticut. The judge, Charley E. Prine Jr., says William can't leave his kids unattended with his husband.
“Because there was no allegation of abuse in the case, family law practitioners say the order is an unheard of infringement on the rights of parents and a judicial condemnation of the fact that the man, William Flowers, is not only gay but married to his partner, Jim Evans,” Berg wrote.
He wondered if the order was motivated by “utterly false” beliefs about gay people, saying, “Is it possible that Judge Prine believes that the children’s step-father or another gay man is more likely than a heterosexual to molest the kids or turn them into brainwashed zombie drag queens? Because the case is still pending and citing the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge Prine declined to comment. But lawyers who practice family law in Houston (and requested anonymity) described the order as patently anti-gay.”
An Austin family law attorney, Jennifer Cochran, was willing to be quoted, and she concurred. She told Berg the order is “just not reasonable” and “strikes at the very heart of the fact that [Flowers is] gay … it’s judicial activism, legislating from the bench.”
How can this happen? Why would this happen?
It's one thing to just rule that custody should remain the same with visitation rights, we get that, but there might be an emergency or situation where the children HAVE to be left with his husband during William's days with his kids.
It's just terrible that this went down this way.
Somehow, this needs corrected!
[Image via AP Images.]