Perspective: Correction and clarification

An Aug. 15 column by Bill Maxwell incorrectly described a judge's order on custody of the 20-month-old child of Theresa Noelle Ponce of St. Petersburg and Gary Minda of Gulfport, Fla. and Brooklyn, N.Y. Rather than saying the court did not consider the fault or defects in the character of either party in making its decision, as the column reported, the order in fact stated, "The Court is of the opinion that it does not well serve the parties or the future best interests of [the child] to point out the faults or defects in character of either party. Accordingly, the Court will discuss in generalities the weighing of the factors considered." The order then described factors listed in the Florida Statutes which include faults and defects of the parties. The order did not permanently take the child away from the mother but ordered that the child's primary residence will be with the father, with monthly and other visitation with the mother to take place in Florida at the father's expense.

The column failed to state that the mother was represented in the case by several lawyers, including attorneys with the Carlton Fields law firm. In addition, the court has made the basic findings which would entitle the mother to an award of attorneys' fees, costs and suit money to be paid by the father. The mother's request for particular amounts will be the subject of a future court hearing.

The mother, while of Mexican descent, is a U.S. citizen. The column may have been unclear on this point.

The Times apologizes and is pleased to set the record straight.

* * *

The following is a letter from Gary Minda:

On Aug. 15, you published a column by Bill Maxwell entitled The deck was stacked against unwed Mexican mother in custody battle, which described an ongoing paternity/custody case that I brought to establish my rights to my daughter, Madeline.

The column, which shows an appalling lack of professionalism, is nothing less than an attempt to take a side in a high-conflict custody action pending before the Florida courts. The allegations of abuse the mother made against me are unfounded, as the Honorable Judge Lenderman concluded after following this case for a year, hearing many witnesses and evaluating the veracity of the parties. Now, with minimal reporting, your paper has rushed in and swallowed the mother's account whole.

What is particularly troubling is that Mr. Maxwell has been talking to the mother and her family about this case for months. Yet, he only contacted me at 9 p.m. two days before the story was published and, according to him, after the column was already written. He essentially made up his mind without calling me, then plugged in a few quotes as window dressing. I offered to meet with him for a one-on-one interview, and I gave him the names of sources he should check to verify my side of the story, including the child social investigator who prepared a report for the court, as well as the parent coordinator who is currently working with me and the mother so we can be better parents. Mr. Maxwell's response to my effort to support my side of the story was to say he was of the view that the trial judge was in error and that I was at fault. Mr. Maxwell told me and my attorney that the mother's motivation in having him write the article was to influence the 2nd District Court of Appeals, which is now evaluating the case. Though he had talked to the mother's family and friends at length, he said he didn't have time to talk to my friends because he was "on deadline." Mr. Maxwell was following this case before the trial in July. If Mr. Maxwell thought it was so important to tell the world his opinion of this case, why didn't he come to the trial and hear all the evidence instead of just taking the mother's word for it?

Mr. Maxwell's column begins with the assertion that my case is a "classic battle between David and Goliath," suggesting that I had all the advantages because I am a law professor and make more money. The truth is that I have been put to the Herculean task of having to finance both sides of a legal action, at great cost to me and my family, while defending my reputation and my family from the hurt of untrue and false allegations. Before suggesting that I outspent Ms. Ponce, don't you think Mr. Maxwell should have asked what the legal fees were? Had he done so before rushing to judgment, he would have learned that Ms. Ponce paid three lawyers $7,500 out of her pocket. After that, I financed her ongoing fees until she acquired, through her boss, two free lawyers from Carlton Fields, the biggest law firm in town. Her five lawyers were more expensive than my one lawyer. Mr. Maxwell was told about the free Carlton Fields lawyers and chose not to print that fact.

Ms. Ponce is a second or third generation Mexican-American. She was born in the United States and never lived in Mexico. Her heritage was never an issue in the case or brought out at trial. I doubt the judge even knew it. Maxwell's suggestion that she was a victim of racial prejudice is just not true.

The column is glaringly inaccurate on one crucial point. Mr. Maxwell states that Judge Lenderman wrote that he did not consider the "faults or defects in character of either party" in making his decision. Maxwell then upbraids the judge for finding fault with Ms. Ponce's character. In fact, the character, behavior and veracity of the parties were the central bases for the judgment. What the judge's order actually said was he was not going to "point out the faults or defects in character of either party." In other words, he wasn't going to humiliate Ms. Ponce by detailing all his reasoning in a public document.

For example, she told day care providers and the social investigator that I am a communist, a member of the Mafia and Fidel Castro was the beneficiary of my will. She has made false reports against me to the St. Petersburg police alleging that I vandalized her car at a time when she knew I was in New York. She continues to say I am an abuser even though she has never produced a shred of evidence to support that claim. Her own sister testified that she has a long history of making false allegations of abuse against former boyfriends and employers. Two babysitters she hired testified on my behalf that she sometimes creates such turmoil that police had to be called. The custody investigator appointed by the court suggested she get counseling because of her "victimization issues." The trial transcript and record with all this information was available to Mr. Maxwell had he taken the time to examine it.

The column contains a picture of the mother and the daughter next to what appears to be an Easter basket with eggs. What is missing, of course, is a picture of the father who wanted to be with his daughter on Easter and who was prevented from even seeing her until she was 8 months old. What's missing is the father who was sometimes denied temporary visitation by the mother even after Judge Lenderman ordered it. This is the fallacy of Mr. Maxwell's simplistic suggestion that Ms. Ponce get custody while making sure that I get adequate visitation.

Does Mr. Maxwell really believe that Judge Lenderman made this decision lightly, or because we both have taught at Stetson? Judge Lenderman is a highly respected family law judge of many years. He is one of the few sitting judges who were Florida Bar certified family lawyers before becoming a judge. I never knew Judge Lenderman before my case. I did not even know that Judge Lenderman taught at Stetson until I read Bill Maxwell's column. I only taught there for one year in 1993. The facts in my case were extreme, which Mr. Maxwell could have discerned if he had any inclination toward fairness. After hearing all the evidence, the judge realized that visitation violations, court fights and turmoil would never end if I had to rely on Ms. Ponce's whims to see my child and I would never be allowed to be a part of Madeline's life.

Mr. Maxwell's suggestion that I won custody because I'm a lawyer is amazingly naive and a terrible discredit to the judge who agonized over this case. Mr. Maxwell must not have adequately read the court file or the transcript and essentially listened to only one side. He then proclaims that the judge has erred. His unprofessional reporting is nothing less than a malicious attempt to influence the outcome of an ongoing case. He used your newspaper to damage my reputation in our community and in my profession.

Gary Minda, St. Petersburg

Back to Perspective

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page