THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 1, 1995 TAG: 9509280004
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Medium: 63 lines
During the past four years, you have printed eight articles quoting my former husband's views and his slant on the ``facts'' of our child-custody arrangements. I have never been contacted by you to validate the accuracy of the information printed.
Your Sept. 13 front-page article pictures my daughter and my ex-husband. This picture was included with an article you ran four years ago in which you quoted Mr. Ewing as stating that he walked into the courtroom a father and walked out a visitor in his child's life.
When you reran the picture in the Sept. 13 article, your spin was that he had so much visitation he should get a discount on his child support. Which position is accurate and which one are you advocating today? Is he a deprived father, a mere visitor in his child's life or is he so heavily involved that he should get a rebate on his child support?
You further state in your past two articles on the subject that my daughter is away from me for ``some 30 hours or more, but the mother in effect gets credit for hours spent in school both days, Ewing neither one.''
Mr. Ewing lives 45 miles away from our daughter's school. Until he picks her up on Tuesday afternoon and after he drops her off Wednesday morning, I am responsible for her while she is in school, not Mr. Ewing. He is an hour away.
The school calls me when she's sick or forgets her lunch. I make after-school arrangements and take off work if she needs to go to the doctor. Your editorial states that my expenses decrease because she spends one night a week and every other weekend with her father. Wrong again. Since when do I get a discount on my mortgage or electric bill or her school fees or dance lessons because her room is vacant a few nights a month?
Custodial parents may not have time to involve themselves in political-advocacy groups and lobby for changes in the laws, but we do vote and buy newspapers. If you don't hear from us it's because we're getting the children ready for school; making sure homework is done; car pooling kids to Scouts, ball games and church activities; and holding down full-time jobs. So while your editors chastise the commissioner, the lower-court judge and the six judges who voted for the 24-hour-day ruling, I tell you: They had more information than you do. They based their decision on an 11-month custody review conducted by Chesapeake Social Services, reports by a licensed clinical social worker, psychological evaluations of both parents, home studies, interviews and testimony.
Mr. Ewing has had his day in court many times over the past seven years. Now he is attempting to try this case in the media, and you are buying into it.
What satisfaction will our daughter have for setting the legal definition of ``a day'' for the state of Virginia? Her legacy is a spot in between the parents she loves who cannot stop fighting because one parent chooses to stay in court and keep the anger ever present.
I have tried to protect her from the media and the political arena. Up until now I have not responded to your one-sided publishing. However, as I cannot stop you from publishing anymore than I can stop Mr. Ewing from taking this case to the Virginia Supreme Court, I challenge you to get the facts.
P. L. EWING
Franklin, Sept. 25, 1995 by CNB