This is not a partisan statement, it's a factual one: The title of this post is incredibly misleading
Based on the Court's Decision & Order issued by the Appellate Division (2d) of New York, issued on Feb. 24, 2016 - Bill O'Reilly did no "lose custody of kids after assaulting his wife" as the title of this post suggests.
Now, making this comment was a hard decision because, well... O'Reilly is a cunt - a hypocritical cunt, at that. But he did not lose custody of his kids, let alone "after" (semantically suggestive of 'because' or 'due to' [assault charge], etc) beating his wife.
So this was a decision affirming an NY County Supreme Court (their court system is kinda backwards, for anyone confused by the sequential affirmation order) ruling in 2014 regarding the decision making authority and residential arrangements.
This order I linked above states expressly that O'Reilly and his ex-wife, Maureen McPhilmy, are to maintain 'Joint Legal Custody' and 'Joint Decision-Making Authority.'
From the Court Order:
While ordinarily it is not appropriate to award joint legal custody and decision-making authority where the parties are antagonistic toward one another (see Irizarry v Irizarry, 115 AD3d 913), in this case, the record supports the court's finding that, despite their antagonism, the parties have been able to agree on most decisions concerning the children (see Matter of Thorpe v Homoet, 116 AD3d 962, 963). Moreover, the record supports the court's finding that if either parent were awarded sole decision-making authority, there would be a danger that it would be used to exclude the other parent from meaningful participation [] in the children's lives.
What happened was that O'Reilly wanted full custody and full decision-making authority, and this Court last Wednesday said "Uh no, Bill - you both get equal custody and decision-making authority." As you can see, the Court actually finds that they're usually quite able to make decisions together in their children's best interests.
This Court did, however, give Maureen McPhilmy primary 'Residential Custody,' which is very different than both 'legal custody' and 'decision-making authority' by legal definition, as outlined in NY state statute. If you read the language in the very brief order, they weigh this decision with the preference of O'Reilly's two children, 13 & 17, who both prefer to live with their mother.
But as far as legal custody, and decision-making authority, Bill and his ex-wife still have complete joint, equal authority.
It's definitely fair, in a DR legal sense, to consider this ruling a loss for O'Reilly, and one he probably damn well deserves. But the Court does not entertain allegations of domestic abuse in this case, but rather just the preference of his children which presumably was made quite clear during discovery/evidentiary pre-trial procedures before the County SC ruling, and/or this Appellate ruling.
So, did Bill O'Reilly loose ['lose'] a court case regarding his children that results in his having less residential time allotment with them? Ultimately, yes he did.
Did Bill O'Reilly loose ['lose' - good lookin' out grammar bros] custody of his children after beating his wife? Not by any legal metric.
