The problem here, I think, is that they focused on what the boy and dad did or didn't do. They didn't prove that BM was the one encouraging the breakdown of the father-son relationship. It seems obvious to us because we live it, but to a court already biased against fathers...

I found these two parts below particularly interesting. The first shows complete bias against fathers, and the second reinforces the sense of entitlement so many skids have.

"If a father wants to see his son who is reluctant to visit, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than proceeding with extensive, hard-fought litigation between the parents. Indeed, since this particular father is so wealthy, relatively and absolutely speaking, it makes no sense for this father to worry about money expended on child support as opposed to the quality of a life-long relationship with his only child. The value of a father-son relationship is priceless. The value of $335 per week is only $335 per week—a pittance for this wealthy father. The damage done by this litigation and the father's actions with regard to his son may well mean that this father and son will never have a decent relationship. The fact that a man this wealthy would value the child support money more than the father-son relationship is a factor which weighs heavily against him. That he would write that the mother sees him as a "meal ticket" denies his basic responsibility to support the child he fathered with the mother. It is clear that he lacks decent judgment in such basic matters."

"Having reviewed this record, this Court finds that while there may not be any [*15]record of any neglect or physical, emotional or verbal abuse in Magistrate Rao's view, this Court sees much to justify Nicolas's reaction to the actions of the father toward him—including considerable emotional harm perpetrated by the father on his son. This is true in the father's dealings in person with the child when they had visits but didn't do things the boy especially liked to do; in the absence of thoughtful gifts for birthdays and Christmas; in the therapeutic sessions in which the father was stern, loud and critical; in the voluminous impersonal, insensitive, lengthy and sometimes critical letters written to the child during the period following the therapeutic sessions, which letters routinely mentioned the fun he was having with his girlfriend Denise and even her child—often doing costly things; and in the father's conduct following the sessions with the child's therapist."

Dear Dad,

You didn't entertain me and buy me stuff. You suck.

Son

That's what I got out of that.
Poor baby. Grow the hell up.

I'm in a bad mood today, can you tell?

I have a hard time believing that any parent wants to repair their faltering relationship with their estranged child while at the same time trying to forcibly emancipate them and no longer pay child support.

Rich or not... you should WANT to support your child. And how can you say "But Son, I REALLY love you! I just happen to not want to PAY for you because this relationship isn't what I had in mind."