Tina Taylor Kirk and her team of pro bono attorneys have filed yet another motion regarding the information published on A Voice for Men about the Kirk vs Kirk divorce and custody dispute.
This motion references the fact that we have expressed the opinion on these pages that Ms. Kirk is an “abusive alcoholic.” While this is unfortunately embarrassing for Ms. Kirk, it is nonetheless a conclusion rooted in the well documented fact that she abuses her children and drinks heavily. Her intoxicated, abusive rampages have been extensively recorded on audio and video. Her behavior was also reported by the children to the court, who also informed the court of the many occasions Ms. Kirk drove with them in the car while impaired from drinking.
Ms. Kirk submitted evidence to the court that she was undergoing treatment for her drinking during the trial. She was also ordered to place a breathalyser interlock on her personal vehicle by the first judge on the case. Ms. Kirk removed that device without permission from the court and was held in contempt.
And now Ms. Kirk, through her attorneys, is asserting the idea that making this information available to the public is damaging to her, and to her children…the same children she has been documented to abuse while drinking, and the same children who Judge Lori B Jackson has ordered into continued vulnerability from their abuser.
Ms. Kirk’s attorneys also contend that AVfM releasing the fact that Ms. Kirk has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder “is an invasion of her privacy, embarrassing and has the ability to tarnish her reputation on a global scale.”
They also express concerns over the privacy of the children.
AVfM’s position on this matter remains unchanged. The information and documents published on this site were transmitted to AVfM legally, and now that they are in our possession, publishing them is a Constitutionally protected act. The family court presided over by Judge Lori B. Jackson does not possess the injunctive authority to instruct us to stop publishing the documents or to remove anything that is already on the site. We will vigorously defend against any attempt by the state to censor us or otherwise interfere with our Constitutional freedoms. And we will publicize those efforts on this website and other places as they happen.
The overarching concern in this matter is that the children remain in the unsupervised care of an individual who has routinely inflicted emotional, psychological and physical abuse on them.
While the public display of this family’s misfortunes is uncomfortable, it could have been avoided with responsible decisions by either the court or the children’s mother, or both. Had the court, including the court appointed Guardian Ad Litem, followed the mandates of West Virginia statutes governing family courts by immediately reporting the abuse to children’s protective services, and by moving expeditiously and decisively to act in the children’s best interest, this scenario could have been avoided.
However, competent decisions made in the children’s best interest have still not been made, and they remain vulnerable to the abuse the court was supposed to stop.
We find it incredible that this is also the court now entertaining motions to instruct AVfM to stop publicizing the plight of these children.
The West Virginia Record has also begun reporting on this story, indicating it may be gaining traction in other media outlets.
- Danielle D’Entremont: Where is the feminist outrage? - April 21, 2014
- We have unfinished business in Ellsworth, Maine - April 13, 2014
- A Friendly Note from Adèle Mercier - April 6, 2014
- A whiff of bullshit at Queen’s University - March 28, 2014
- A Message for Feminists and the Halifax Police Department - March 25, 2014