LETTERS

A CASE OF CUSTODY

I WAS HAPPY to see the recent articles on lathers with custody [“Fighting for Their Lives,” June], since I am currently writing a book about the subject from the male’s viewpoint. Ruth Fitzgibbons’ article at least hints at the massive injustice involved. The current system is a dismal failure that should not be an adversary system. It has done nothing for the children. It has produced a lot of poor women and fathers who are treated like criminals. However, as the article so aptly points out, it does do quite a bit for the attorney, the only beneficiary. Meanwhile, 50 percent of women with physical custody live in poverty. Sixty percent of those mothers receive no spousal support of any kind. But of course, 91 percent of mothers receive custody.

Any workable solutions that would improve the mothers’ lots and make the system equal is viewed as some kind of heresy. It is much easier-and much more profitable for the attorneys involved-to keep telling the public about the lout who ran off to another state and had to be incarcerated before he would pay.

L.V. Davis

Irving



I HAVE JUST finished your article concerning the custody trial of Roger vs. Suzanne Lawler [“Lawler vs. Lawler,” June]. I am an unrelated third party who has had some contact with Mr. Lawler and his lead counsel during the proceedings.

As far as some of your statements about Mr. Lawler, I would like to point out that this trial, which was supposedly “bought” by Mr. Lawler, was conducted before a 12-man jury. Basically, custody would never have been awarded to Mr. Lawler if any three of those jurors had decided against Mr. Lawler on any three particular points.

In addition, the innuendo that Mr. Lawler spent a great deal of money on the trial attorneys was probably also quite distorted. The lead counsel for Mr. Lawler, who had previously been co-counsel and had been associated with the case for about a year and a half, was paid approximately $8,000 to $10,000 during that entire period and had no previous experience in a custody hearing. Please contrast this with Mr. Bass, Mrs. Lawler’s attorney, who, per your article, is to receive $26,000 for his work, which was done over a period of approximately six to eight months.

My final exception to the article concerns the issue of child support. Mr. Lawler had temporary custody of the child during the 10-month period for which he was held in contempt for not paying child support. In other words, the child was living with him during that period. Also, the amount indicated in your article that was to be paid by Mr. Lawler as child support was paid by him on a regular basis prior to his having temporary custody of the child. He supplemented this, of his own volition, with free use of an automobile and a townhouse for Mrs. Lawler and London.

The issue in this custody battle was not one of money but of which parent would be better in the long run for the child to live with. It was probably a difficult decision for the jury, and one that most of us would rather never have to make.

Pat Norman

Dallas



THE CORPORATE BABYSITTER

I READ WITH great interest your article “Bringing in Baby” [June]. I’d like to send you my sincere congratulations for writing an article of such significance in today’s world. My interest has been so piqued and you made me feel so optimistic about the future of day-care centers in the workplace that I plan to write to the various individuals mentioned in your article to learn more and to implement 1 through 10 as best I can.

Janice Foden-Kormandel

Los Angeles



THE ARTICLE “Bringing in Baby” by Katherine Dinsdale was most timely. Child care is clearly a major concern of working parents, and more and more employers are recognizing the need to respond to that concern. Your readers may be interested in two avenues of response not highlighted in the article that are available to Dallas employers.

Child Care Dallas, a United Way affiliate, is currently providing child care for employees of seven Dallas companies in a unique system of home-based care. Child Care Dallas develops family day homes, contracting with women to provide care for up to four children each. The care-givers are carefully screened, trained and monitored to ensure quality care.

As an agency that has addressed the child-care needs of Dallas for more than 80 years, we applaud those employers who have demonstrated leadership in supporting child-care services for their employees.

Roberta L. Bergman

Child Care Dallas



AN ANONYMOUS LETTER



IN W.L. TAITTE’S article “Getting Straight” [June] about Ed Leach and his New Place Program, several references were made about Ed’s experience in Alcoholics Anonymous and the philosophy of AA.

Our experience and the combined experience of approximately two million alcoholics recovering in AA disproves Ed’s statement that it is necessary some days to “hang on by your fingernails.” Although we do call that white-knuckle sobriety, it is neither necessary nor common. Ed is correct when he says it doesn’t have to be like that; for most of us, it isn’t. We find we can be happy, joyous and free in the fellowship of AA, living the program of recovery.

We know Ed and have seen firsthand his efforts and difficulties, and our personal opinion is that he is wrong (as well as your editorial staff) in publicly violating his anonymity and speaking as an individual for Alcoholics Anonymous.

Jack and Kathy L.

Richland Hills