You show me an aunt who can carry 10 times her own body weight, and that woman has earned the title Ant.

At one point when I was a child, I was told “It’s ‘rhesus’, like the monkey”.

Precisely. Everyone else can have ants. I have AUNTS.

Except his attorney did say that to the media and in court.

How they arrived at this ruling was problematic because the ruling was rooted in sexism.

So your problem isn’t with the actual custody results (kids in Giersch’s custody), it’s that the consequences of violating the agreement aren’t enforced?

Well, you never actually answer the question: “How would a 2012 ruling awarding Rutherford custody have been more fair and just than the ruling for Giersch”?

And exactly how did the court show they were biased against Rutherford before the custody agreement was published? Remember: we’re talking about initial custody, so you can’t use anything post-2012 as “evidence”.

What sidestep? If you violate the agreement, you end up in court. Both sides.

And that helps her actually see the kids how?

So you’re disqualifying the only remotely neutral source of public comment on this case? Wonderful. Enjoy crafting elaborate fantasies based off of rumor, suggestion and wild insinuation.

Sigh. She contradicted herself. It’s in the court ruling.

There’s certainly no hurdle for her applying to change the custody agreement due to noncompliance. I’d expect her to do so.

I’ve stated the working hours and expectations for an actor are different from a self-employed businessperson. Because they are.

You have no idea what the court may be doing regarding the violations - you apparently want immediate, public, draconian action. That’s not how things work.

No double standard. If a parent withholds visitation, I expect them to end up in court over the agreement violation. If a parent does not follow the agreement’s stipulations, they should also end up in court. Neither parent should have to give up work, but when one parent’s work BY DEFINITION is more unpredictable and…

Your entire first paragraph genuinely makes you a liar: I’ve never made that blanket statement about working mothers, I have no idea what this “double standards” bullshit refers to, the entire damn judgement is centered around the kids, and wow, you have a very loose grasp of vocabulary. It’s kind of shocking. (I…

Good lord - “you made a whacked out lie about me”? What on earth are you talking about? You bring up the word “lie” endlessly, but pretty sure I never called you a liar. I think you’re misguided, and that you have a deeply selective way of viewing information, but wouldn’t call you a liar.

You’re pretending to be psychic again. You have no idea what’s happening in court regarding that visa. Neither do I. Your tripwire scenario (“It’s February 1st 2014! To the repatriationmobile, lackeys!”) is unlikely, but it’s apparently what you think should’ve happened.

I’m in serious doubt that you’re able to differentiate between an MRA and someone who finds an individual person’s custody argument more compelling than that of his ex-wife. You’re speculating based on a sample size of literally one. It’s ridiculous.