From an e-mail sent out by Bai MacFarlane:
(Cleveland OH July 10) At my 2+ hour hearing yesterday, my husband was protected by the magistrate from answering any questions about the specifications to which he presently agreed to follow regarding our responsibilities toward our children — if it had anything to do with religion.
I tried different strategies, including asking Bud if he believed he had obligations and what was the basis of the obligations and he did say the basis was common sense, the state of Ohio, and God. When I asked him to explain what was the basis for his obligations to God, i.e. was there anything in writing – the only answer I got was that there was so much written about God that the building wouldn’t hold it all. When I asked him if his foundation had a mission statement, or a belief statement, and if he agreed with the statement, he said he did agree with the statement. When I wanted to introduce the statement on record and ask him about it, the court wouldn’t allow it.
“We believe that the Catholic Church is the one, true, holy, universal, and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus Christ infallibly guides His Church through the pope and those bishops who teach in accord with the pope. We believe that we are called to be a part of the New Evangelization.
Consecration
The Mary Foundation solemnly and cheerfully consecrates CatholiCity to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. May CatholiCity always and in every way honor and serve the Mother of God.”
Bud’s attorney objected to me asking Bud this because of the separation of church and state. Then I entered, on record, the ohio bill of rights and the US bill of rights articles which restrict the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and I asked Bud where in there is any statement about separation of Church and State, but they wouldn’t let Bud answer. Bud used to know all about the misused invention of that phrase.
I could get nowhere on that strategy, so I switched to other issues.
I provided some simple math showing that Bud’s income plus book royalties plus my income (which I asked to be set at minimum wage for 8 months of the year) be the spendable money for our family. Then I asked that the spendable money be split between both of us, separating tuition out first and designating that more money be given to Bud’s household than mine for food.
I argued that Bud and I both need to maintain equivalent households for the boys and that those costs have to be shared by Bud. The boys shouldn’t suffer just because he refuses to live with me any more than they are already suffering. I described my advocacy work and how I just got my IRS designation and I’m seeking grants. The magistrate seemed a little interested in how that might occur. Bud’s attorney kept saying that I can get full time work, of $50,000, and I kept saying that to fulfill my obligations as mother I can not get a 52 week a year job.
Bud told how our oldest got $4000 academic scholarship and I asked Bud who is presently giving our three younger sons the preparation that will help them get the same scholarship. I described how my household is set up for the upbringing, character formation, and academic training of our boys and having a mother there is part of it. There is a huge difference between the life skills that can be integrated into a child in a home with brothers and a mother compared to the life skills that are honed in day-care.
In my narrative, I also stated that if Mr. Lafond is arguing that this court should order me to earn so much money, so I can pay Bud, that I would have to get a 52/week a year job now, then this court would be ordering me to violate my rights of conscience as described in the US, and Ohio bill of rights. I wanted to read two excerpts from our church teaching, to which both Bud and I agree, which are of such importance to me that our children would never have been conceived unless Bud and I agreed to them, but I was not allowed to read them. But the magistrate said I could include them as part of the court record by proffer, after the hearing, which I did. The magistrate had described this option to me, so I took it. I still have to learn if this record can help us.
This is on the court record.
Bud’s Manifest Intentions and Bai’s Right of Conscience
PASTORAL CONSTITUTION
ON THE CHURCH IN THE
MODERN WORLD
GAUDIUM ET SPES
section 52. sentence 4
The children, especially the younger among them, need the care of their mother at home. This domestic role of hers must be safely preserved, though the legitimate social progress of women should not be underrated on that account.
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO
OF POPE
JOHN PAUL II
section 23, par. 4-5
While it must be recognized that women have the same right as men to perform various public functions, society must be structured in such a way that wives and mothers are not in practice compelled to work outside the home, and that their families can live and prosper in a dignified way even when they themselves devote their full time to their own family.
Furthermore, the mentality which honors women more for their work outside the home than for their work within the family must be overcome.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html
I pray now that the magistrate creates a just child support order, considering our situation so that I can keep my house and so I can be home with my children when I do have them.
We all learned from Bud’s attorney that the Ohio Attorney General’s office is doing an investigation of my husband’s non-profit work. From my understanding, these investigations are conducted on behalf of the public to determine if an organization is following principles required for being a legitimate non-profit in the state of Ohio. This might include financial management, conflict of interest, following bylaws regarding board selection, etc. From what I understand, the Attorney General’s will never publicize that they are doing an investigation, and they will never answer questions about an investigation – but I don’t know.
If the Ohio Attorney General’s investigations concludes that Bud fraudulently switched the board of directors in the summer of 2003, then the old board might be re-established, which is responsible for the hiring of the executive director.
Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!
