About Alec Baldwin

Response to Susan Estrich's Column: "About Alec Baldwin"
Re: About Alec Baldwin
http://www.creators.com/opinion/susan-estrich/about-alec-baldwin.html
April 27, 2007
Professor Estrich:
You're right: you should “be the last person to defend a father who calls his daughter a ‘pig' and screams at her because she didn't answer the phone.”
It is difficult to believe that, despite your vast experience and knowledge in the arena of gender discrimination issues and violence against women, you appear—in your column, “About Alec Baldwin”—to be inexcusably unaware of the literature and research on the intersection between high conflict divorce and the prevalence of domestic violence and child abuse. http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/1.html; http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/fvd/pdf/journal_2_fall_03_high_conflict.pdf
You also appear to be professionally oblivious to the ABA-repudiated myths on child custody and domestic violence, as well as to the widely-documented behaviors of abusive men who, in these cases, often successfully manipulate the court system (including judges), attorneys, mental health professionals, custody evaluators, the media…and, yes, smart female celebrity attorneys who should know better.
http://www.abanet.org/domviol/custody_myths.pdf
http://www.lundybancroft.com/pages/articles_sub/CUSTODY.htm
Even worse, you have, in what appears to be a hastily written column revealing your own insecurities about parenting, jumped to dangerous presumptions that are routinely, and shamefully, used to blame victims for the abusive and violent behavior of their abusers.
In the absence of any supporting evidence, other than Mr. Baldwin's self-serving accusations—and contrary to public denials by Ms. Basinger—you have peremptorily concluded that:
1. Ms. Basinger negligently allowed her daughter to hear this inexcusably abusive, threatening and intimidating tape and then selfishly released it “to secure an advantage in an ongoing battle with her ex-husband.”
The public may never know how the parties' daughter came to hear this tape and who released it, but you fail to even mention a variety of alternative and equally plausible explanations: pursuant to the custody agreement, the daughter likely has her own phone and phone line in her room (the mother is probably specifically prohibited from “eavesdropping” on conversations with the father) and could well have been the first person to hear the recorded rant; the phone used likely has a message forwarding function that would permit anyone, including the daughter, to forward the father's threatening message to any telephone number.
Again, you're right: this child never needed to hear that message, and she wouldn't have if her father hadn't intentionally left it on a voicemail service or machine likely “belonging” exclusively to his daughter.
http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/22/alecs-threatening-message/
2. Ms. Basinger, not Mr. Baldwin, is at fault for their daughter's embarrassing exposure to the media glare.
The parties' daughter has long been exposed to the embarrassment and humiliation of being at the center of this protracted custody battle, with little—if any—public concern or interest that she (and her mother) may have been the repeated victims of similar abusive phone and personal tirades by Mr. Baldwin over the years.
Mr. Baldwin has made a virtual performance art of using the media–-and his daughter—as tools to portray himself as a victim in his efforts, arguably, “to secure an advantage” in his case. He is currently availing himself of every media opportunity to minimize and justify his behavior, using the prototypical behaviors of an abuser: blaming his ex-wife for having driven him “to the edge” and soliciting sympathy and testimonials from family, friends, the media …and even his fans and employer by threatening to quit his TV show to dedicate himself to writing a book about parental alienation syndrome (apparently, after much supplication by NBC, he has been persuaded to reconsider this decision to quit).
No surprise, but the messianic—and clearly clueless—Dr. Phil has already publicly offered to “cure” in short order this family of what ails them…and no surprise, Mr. Baldwin has taken him up on this bizarre offer. Ms. Basinger's attorney will—or should—categorically advise her not to participate in this charade, and her refusal will likely further publicly tarnish and tag Ms. Basinger as capriciously “noncompliant.”
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/26/baldwin.apology.reut/index.html
Parental alienation syndrome (PAS)—Mr. Baldwin's perennial red herring—is a pseudoscientific theory that was repudiated over 10 years ago by the American Psychological Association. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) has this to say about PAS:
“Richard Gardner's theory positing the existence of ‘parental alienation syndrome' or ‘PAS' has been discredited by the scientific community. Testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome should therefore be ruled inadmissible both under the standard established in Daubert and the stricter Frye standard.”
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/judges.html
In an even-handed “letter” responding to Mr. Baldwin's phone message, the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence states:
“Unfortunately, accusations of ‘parental alienation' have become a fashionable legal strategy in numerous divorce cases where child[ren] (sic) resist contact with a noncustodial parent. Rejected parents who rely on this strategy, typically use it to blame the other parent for their child's resistance to visitation. In most cases, they claim that the other parent has vindictively brainwashed the child to reject them.This strategy is popular with bullying or abusive parents because it distracts attention away from the rejected parent's own behavior toward their child, by focusing instead on the alleged shortcomings of the parent that the child appears to prefer. The PAS. . . model . . . also posits that the ‘cure' is removal of the child from the assumed ‘alienating' parent and full custody should be given to the estranged parent.”
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/tape.html
The Leadership Council, in identifying the various reasons why children resist visitation with a parent, notes that “…the Baldwin tape illustrates the most classic pattern found in the literature--children reject parents that bully, humiliate them, and generally make them feel bad.”
3. Ms. Basinger is neither concerned with the “best interests” of her child nor with making "much effort to abide by the agreement and make her daughter available for her dad's calls and visits.”
You cite zero factual support for this conclusion and decline to mention Ms. Basinger's public statement that, in light of Mr. Baldwin's “aggressive behavior,” she is attempting to “protect and safeguard her child's well-being as any parent would.” However, you may be referring to media reports that Ms. Basinger is facing trial on charges of “criminal contempt for allegedly disregarding court orders concerning Baldwin's visitation rights.” http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/24/people.baldwin.basinger.ap/
Again, you have failed to consider alternative explanations that might well show that Ms. Basinger has repeatedly risked her reputation and her freedom, at an extraordinary cost while under a gag order, to protect her daughter from abusive and intimidating conduct by Mr. Baldwin. There is significant research supporting that--notwithstanding a parent's professed love for his/her child and the child's for that parent—unrestricted access to a parent, who either abuses the other parent or the child, can have lasting, harmful effects on that child. http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=70483; http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=75348
Under Sec. 401 of the Model Code on Domestic and Family Violence regarding presumptions concerning custody, Mr. Baldwin, if found to have engaged in either an act of domestic or family violence, would presumptively be ineligible for sole, joint legal or joint physical custody (maybe that's why he only has visitation rights right now…but we don't know because the custody agreement is a BIG SECRET). http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/fvd/pdf/modecode_fin_printable.pdf
One of the foremost experts in the world on the impact of family violence on children offers these four “considerations” to judges in custody cases where there is evidence of domestic or family violence: (1) frightened mothers can't be “friendly” parents; judges should not “promote” friendly visitation with a victim's abuser; (2) a history of violence is often not known to community professionals; (3) husbands/partners who abuse and terrorize cannot be considered nurturing parents; and (4) judges should focus on safety rather than on “just forgetting past hostilities.” (Jaffe, 1995).
Your parenting experiences must surely differ from the universe-of-all-other parents if you're suggesting that it might be easy for a parent, even if willing, to “make her daughter available for her dad's calls and visits,” when that child has been intimidated, bullied and threatened by her father and may have witnessed similar treatment of her mother. 11 or 12 year-old children (for God's sake, does Mr. Baldwin really not know how old his daughter is?) are not—thankfully—well-trained puppies on a leash.
***
Most unfathomable in your leaping to these unfounded conclusions is that you go beyond just blaming Ms. Basinger to actually identifying, if not colluding, with Mr. Baldwin, even to the point of employing the twisted language of a typical abuser.
• "How can a mother do that?"
• “So while I don't excuse Baldwin for a minute, I can understand.”
• “And that part isn't her father's fault. It's her mother's."
• “It seems pretty clear that she is not making much effort to abide by the agreement and make her daughter available for her dad's calls and visits. It seems pretty clear that this drives him mad."
• “You drive him crazy, he explodes, you make public the explosion, and then what? Does that prove you're a good mother? Not in my book.”
As a victim and survivor of rape yourself, who can better understand the double-bind in which victims of sexual assault and family violence find themselves? Hostage to a painful truth (often kept secret for numerous good reasons but a gag order not being one of them), frequently disbelieved—if not endangered—once the truth is told, and generally re-traumatized by the criminal and civil justice systems, victims often find the path to healing only through telling their story and being believed, validated, and vindicated.
And as an attorney, you know very well that the veil of secrecy imposed by the judge—in this and other custody cases like it, ostensibly for “protective” reasons—deprives Ms. Basinger or her daughter from pursuing fully this healing path, assuming, hypothetically, that they have both been victimized by Mr. Baldwin's manipulative, bullying, and intimidating behavior. This hypothesis has only gained traction with Mr. Baldwin's recent, self-incriminating "explanation" on "The View" that his threatening diatribe—the text of which might provide grounds for an emergency protective order in many jurisdictions—was actually directed at his ex-wife, disingenuously and wrongly implying that his abusive conduct would be justified and excusable if Ms. Basinger were the intended target.
(And what about that appearance on one of daytime TV's "most watched" programs targeting a female audience...was that an interview or a hijacking? The fact that Mr. Baldwin was able to successfully squelch any meaningful dialogue in this “so-called” interview was confirming evidence of either: (1) a manipulative narcissist's remarkable abilities to fool the public and garner unwarranted sympathy for his abusive, tyrannical, and coercive tactics; or (2) aiding and abetting by two of the best interviewers in the business. Or both. The View's viewers deserve to know... .)
http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/
In the world of equitable remedies, the release of Mr. Baldwin's telephonic tirade may, in fact, be poetic justice…and the only public vindication that Ms. Basinger and her daughter are likely to see in the foreseeable future. Thus, in considering the question you pose in your column—“But does the world need to know?”—the answer may actually be “yes.”
By the way, if you have indeed written a book on “How to be a Good Mother,” I feel pretty sure that Ms. Basinger would join the legions of parents familiar with the dynamics of family abuse and violence in expressing their gratitude for your not mailing them a copy.
Sincerely,
Think360x365