In a nutshell, she brought a knife to a gunfight and lost badly.
This week, I have obtained and reviewed a copy of petitioner’s rebuttal to Anthony’s response and I must forewarn you, it is comprised of 31 pages of complete bafoolery in her meager attempt to comeback from the verbal thrashing she took the week prior.
There are several blaring statements (of many) of which I would like to offer my personal comments:
“There is a child who is innocent and has been caught in the middle of this process.”
Really? And whose fault is that? This “process” came about as a direct result of the prospective guardian’s actions. Her obsession with becoming Hailey’s mother (and now mother and father, since she is apply for guardianship as a single mother). She was well aware of the fact that Anthony would not consent to any adoption let alone guardianship. So for her to have the unmitigated balls to complain now is completely absurd. If she was so concerned about Hailey being “caught in the middle of this process”, then she would return Hailey to where she belongs, with her loving, willing and able biological father, Anthony. End of story.
“She is now 2 ½ years of age and has spent her entire life in the care of Petitioner since birth, whether rightfully or wrongfully so.”
I had to check my calendar to make sure it wasn’t April 1st (April Fool’s Day). Is this woman for real? So, if I steal your wallet or your purse with $1,000 cash inside and wait 2 ½ years, whether rightfully or wrongfully so, the cash belongs to me? You wouldn’t feel any kind of way about it? #side eye
…”it is clear that father and his counsel are seeking to sensationalize and inflame emotions in what should be confidential proceedings.”
Uhm, probate cases are not confidential proceedings. A wee bit nervous all that dirty laundry is going to be aired out aye?
“The general tone of father’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities was personally attacking, there was excessive posturing, there was suggestion that the undersigned counsel was misleading the court and manipulating facts or law, and it referred to the Petitioner in inflammatory and derogatory terms, which are totally inappropriate for these proceedings”.
Uhm, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck…well, I’m thinking it’s a duck. This little chickie was doing a whole lot of quacking. Got called on it, and now she’s salty.
I challenge each of you to read the rebuttal for yourself and post your thoughts in the comments section below. The document in its entirety can be found here.