The Internet Spin Factor Never Stops
By Jeffery M. Leving
There is an old saying “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.” It means that the story oftentimes is more interesting and even more believable than the truth.
Never has that been more appropriate than in the case of the custody battle waged between parents, Kane Snyder and Alaina Giordano for their two young children.
Snyder has been granted custody of the children. And, as is often the case, the judicial system and the father are being targeted with angry attacks, animosity and blame. The idea that a father has as much right to the care for his children in a parental custody case as a mother has many people up in arms.
The news media looks for stories with unusual twists and this case has many. The Internet is playing its own role, too, with the inability to monitor truth on the World Wide Web. Social media sites like Facebook have been exploding with more and more inaccuracies about this case.
The most obscene inaccuracy is that Snyder was given custody of his two children because the mother, Giordano, has breast cancer. It’s an ugly accusation and even though it is not supported by the court’s decision, the idea that a mother is being denied custody for the sole reason that she has breast cancer has taken on a life of its own.
Ms. Giordano does have breast cancer and everyone, including her children’s father, ought to have nothing but sympathy for the medical plight that she faces.
But sympathy for her physical challenges is no reason for others to demonize the father, nor should the assertion that the only reason Snyder received custody is because the mother has breast cancer be given credence by those who likely have not read a lengthy and well-reasoned opinion by the trial judge.
It’s just not correct.
Snyder was given custody based on a court decision that is a public record that anyone can access. Fathers have rights in family court. Those rights are often pushed aside out of gender-bias issues and societal prejudices. And sadly, those prejudices often fuel the willingness of the public to believe insidious and misleading claims.
Let’s remember that the mother has access to the children. Presumably when the mother is fully established in the
area and has appropriate facilities to accommodate the children, the parties shall share equal parenting time as contemplated in the court’s ruling. Chicago
The father has employment and the mother is unemployed. That situation factored in the judge’s ruling. Children need a stable home to live in throughout their minority.
The needs of the children are the priority in this case – not the needs of the parents.
People sometimes want to believe things not because they are true, but because they neatly and conveniently fit into a stereotype. That stereotype in the case of parental custody rights weighs heavily against fathers.
As I see it, Mr. Snyder is a loving and caring father. Moreover, the court record speaks for itself.
But to prejudice this case by asserting dubious claims is a disservice not only to the children at the heart of this custody battle, but also an injustice to our system of judicial fairness and rights.
Snyder was found to be the preferred parent by the court after all factors were considered, and that is why he was awarded custody.
(Named one of “” by Forbes Radio, Jeffery Leving is the author of two ground-breaking , Fathers’ Rights and Divorce Wars. He can be reached at www.DadsRights.com.)