Dominatrix Stripped Of Right To See Her Son
Posted by: Nikki Dowling
Filed in:
news
3:40PM, Thursday July 9th 2009
Dominatrix and fetish/bondage model Mz Berlin, whose real name appeared in a story in the San Francisco Weekly even after she asked for anonymity, has been denied the right to visit her 8-year-old son. After her ex-husband read the article about her, err, habits he asked the courts to take away Mz Berlin’s visitation rights. He said he’s worried about their son’s safety.
The gal admittedly has a few stalkers and probably works with (on?) some pretty creepy dudes. She said, “I meet people a lot who have seen my a**hole before looking in my eyes.” Ick, that’s the kind of info you keep to yourself.
But, the baby’s daddy said he’ll reinstate custody rights if Mz Berlin moves back to Louisana, where he and his son live. What a strange request. Sounds like he just wants to be a little closer to this kinky woman. In the meantime, Mz Berlin is trying to get herself a new real name since that jerkface journalist blew her cover. She said that having her name exposed is “the most violated I’ve ever felt.” And for her, that’s extreme. [Salon]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on July 9 2009 @ 03:52 pm: [report]
Aww, that sucks. She at least wants to see the kid, dumbass dad.
alphabete
wrote on July 9 2009 @ 03:55 pm: [report]
Well.
Someone had better get to taking away the children of every woman who has appeared in a pornographic film or on HBO’S Real Sex. Who cares what she does when she’s not with her son? If her work isn’t impacting her family life then it’s nobody’s effing business what she does as long as she’s not doing something illegal.
Shame on a society which expects a woman to be just like some nebulous image of a “good woman” and which punishes her for doing just fine outside of its boundaries.
chouette
wrote on July 9 2009 @ 04:00 pm: [report]
It is sad for her and ridiculous that the journalist printed her real name, but if she “admittedly has a few stalkers”, then her work IS potentially dangerous for her son, and I understand the father’s concern.
wawmama
wrote on July 9 2009 @ 04:01 pm: [report]
Wow….I am beyond p.o.ed reading this. Stuff like this is usually more of a control issue than anything else.
_jsw_
wrote on July 9 2009 @ 04:04 pm: [report]
Another iStockphoto score.
Anyway, I agree with the ex-husband. No woman who acts in a non-submissive way around men, and especially a woman who is paid to dominate men, should ever be allowed around children. Otherwise, kids might get the idea that it’s OK for women to be assertive.
Plus, of course, parents everywhere act around their children _exactly_ as they act at work, and all children are therefore intimately familiar with what their parents do.
Infamous
wrote on July 9 2009 @ 04:34 pm: [report]
Ehh… that’s a tough one to call. I see nothing wrong with the way she chooses to pay her bills. That’s nobody’s business. However, she has stalkers. And that is, seriously, a dangerous situation for her child to be in. How unfortunate that child has to experience that, and the loss of his mother.
writergirl
wrote on July 9 2009 @ 06:02 pm: [report]
Ok, she doesn’t even have full custody of the kid. Which means her “work” is done without him being in the house. THAT I would have a hard time justifying…although maybe that’s the father’s concern. That she works while the kid is visiting her. And he is right. It is a safety concern.
However….I mean, if she agreed to take vacations when when the kid was at her place…who cares?
paul
wrote on July 10 2009 @ 01:52 am: [report]
Come on folks lets be reasonable. I do not condone the way she earns her keep, but there again nor do I condone high powered businessmen who screw their clients at every turn under the guise of ‘Commerce’ This fellow was well aware of his missus’ ‘trade’ when agreeing to raise a child with her. Gays and Lesbians are allowed to adopt children without fear that their lifestyles will affect the child’s development.There are many disfunctional homes where the woman does not profess to be a Dominatrix but treats her husband and children as if she were.
tabby
wrote on July 10 2009 @ 05:46 am: [report]
The court was out of line.
1) Being a dominatrix is a perfectly legal line of work.
2) Her child does not live with her and therefore is not around her work. I also highly doubt she takes clients when her son is visiting as that would take time away from his visit.
3) Lots of people, unfortunately, have stalkers. Are we going to revoke parenting rights from everyone who is being staked? Which, by the way, is not her fault. People who are being stalked are Victims, people, and it is never cool to blame the victim for something they can’t control (ie. crazy people).
I am so mad about this.
peacock
wrote on July 10 2009 @ 07:02 am: [report]
I don’t know how out of line the judge was. The article states that the mother was not in this line of work when she married the father and only got into it after the divorce, so that negates Paul’s “he knew what he was getting with her” argument.
As for the home environment, we don’t know where she see her clients. If she is seeing them at home then a judge has to take that into consideration.
As for the mother moving back to Louisiana to re-gain visitation rights, where the non-custodial parent lives is often taken into consideration, and I’ve seen many parents joint custody arrangements (as opposed to just visitation rights, etc) hinge on where that parent lives and if/when they re-located closer to the other parents.
I also think that everyone is ignoring the fact that the mom relocated for Louisiana ACROSS the country to California and that it seems the father has been the main custodial parent.
If there was a court order before giving him full custody and giving her just visitation rights (not joint custody) then that means she either did not want joint custody OR there were other reasons before this article came out for the judge to give the father custody over the mother.
If that is this case then I’d say there were probably very good reasons to give custody to the father. I don’t practice in Louisiana, but I do practice in another southern state. Courts here basically discriminate against fathers in custody cases as a rule of thumb. If you want to look into biased and discriminatory child custody cases look there, not to one instance where you have minimal facts and don’t even analyze the ones you do have.
emflow
wrote on July 10 2009 @ 07:03 am: [report]
Anyone can have a stalker. Anyone.
Is it now okay to deny visitation for any person in the public eye who has a stalker? Movie stars? Radio personalities? Journalists? Writers? How about sales people - you can meet some strange people while working in retail?
Aren’t we basically blaming the victim if we say her job caused her stalker’s criminal behavior?
bumbler
wrote on July 10 2009 @ 07:17 am: [report]
I understand how dangerous stalkers can be but I don’t see why that should prevent her from seeing her child. Can’t they at least agree on some basic safety procedures to allow her to see the child while making sure he’s safe? An alarm system for her house, unlisted numbers etc?
Off topic: Why are the comments showing from most recent to oldest for me now?
bogart4017
wrote on July 10 2009 @ 09:11 am: [report]
Would the child be any safer if the mother was a social worker or cop?