Bridget Marks, the buxum ex-playmate drafts "Bridget's Law" with State Assemblymen

NEW YORK NEW YORK: Bridget Marks & John Aylsworth Custody Battle goes high class
About five years ago, ex playmate turned socialite Bridget Marks was in the fight of her life for custody of her twin daughters whom she had had with a gambling mogul by the name of John Aylsworth–a married philanderer by all accounts.
What happened was that John reconciled with his wife and both he and she proceeded to sue for custody of the girls he had with his consort Bridget and they won! The court felt that it was in the best interest of the babies to be raised by the father and his wife and not be their mother who was the father’s mistress in the past.¬† And why? Apparently Bridget had accused the father of “molesting” the girls. And we know in New York there is an automatic transfer of custody if the court feels that the custodial parent invents charges of molestation and encourages the children to bring such charges (usually against the father) and essentially “poisons” and “alienates” the children from the non-custodial parent.
Bridget was accused of all that and the trial court gave the kids to the father and his wife. But she appealed. I am not sure if was the Appellate Division or the Court of Appeals but which ever it was, Bridget got her custody back.
Now it turns out that she didn’t stop there. She enlisted legislators up in Albany to draft a new law called “Bridget’s Law” that basically says that a parent cannot lose custody if they make a “good faith” effort to protect their kids. Says the New York Post:

¬†Last year, the former Playboy pin-up, now 43, got state Assemblyman Jonathan Bing and Sen. Tom Duane (both D-Manhattan) to craft “Bridget’s Law,” which protects parents from being penalized in custody cases for making “good-faith efforts” to protect their kids from child abuse. It was signed into law by Gov. Paterson.

That law can’t come too soon. I am totally against bogus charges of molestation and stuff like that. But on the other hand, if a child comes home and tells his/her mother certain things and the parent takes action, I don’t think they should be penalized as harshly as many are, just because the charges turn out to be baseless.
I remember a case in Queens where a mother from Afghanistan lost her kids to her husband because she took the children to the hospital after she claims they told her that daddy put his finger in their dunga. Well, the hospital saw no signs of the alleged abuse after examining both girls, 4 and 6. And the magistrate threw the book at this woman and took the kids and gave them to the father even though it wasn’t proven that he hadn’t done it. It just could not be proven that he had done it.
I agree that some women lie and they do so wantonly and maliciously and I am against that. But if a child comes home and says certain things a mother has to take precautions and err on the side of caution I think. And if it turns out to be the children’s imagination, or whatever, the mother should be held harmless.
I am for Bridget’s Law. Courts have to realize we live in a very crazy world. Things happen to kids. Just because you can’t prove it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. But the law should take a measured approach to protect the accused from malicious conduct by the accuser.