That baby told everyone who would listen what happened. The problem is that the harder Vicky tried to find justice, the more vulnerable she became. She was asking for supervised visits. She never tried to deny visits completely. All she cared about was keeping her baby safe. She would not drop the charges and so the court charged her with harassment and gave total custody to Mark Winslow. Brianna was afraid of him. I witnessed her refusing to change out of her pajamas into clothes on visit day because she didn't want to go with him. She ran around the house locking doors and closing windows and hiding under the bed.

I also want to tell all interested parties that the family has all of this on home video. They thought it would prove the allegations. No one was interested in viewing these tapes. As the writer of the letter in your column said, she was only 3 years old and could not be believed. But she said things to us that no 3-year-old could possibly know about if it did not really happen. Otsego County — open your eyes. This can happen to you.

But what I feel needs to be known is what was NOT said in the paper about Family Court. I was shocked to find out in my own situation, how many childish games are played in serious situations such as this. For example, a professional in a medical-related field can say in court, "Yes, there is only one way these particular grouping of marks can be left on a child's face." Coupled with the child's statement that, "my daddy boomed me the floor," one would assume that all the "proof" necessary exists to begin steps toward protecting a child from such abuses.

What isn't commonly known, however, is that a child's (under 5 years) testimony is not allowable in court. The judge must erase from memory any statement a child allegedly made. A child saying "Daddy hit me" or "Daddy touched me," doesn't count.

Bernier said she was "very skeptical" of Winslow at the start, but no credible evidence that he was molesting the child ever was produced. At the trial's conclusion, the court found Shaffer's motives for making the charges to be questionable and awarded custody to Winslow. Two years later, Bernier said she still believes the court was right.

Otsego County Social Services Commissioner Charles Christman said he cannot acknowledge there was such a case in family court. Generally speaking, he said DSS would take such a case very seriously and the county has excellent family court judges who search diligently for the truth.

Peggy O'Connor, director of Crisis Intervention and Support Services at Opportunities for Otsego, said the area and nation are suffering from an "epidemic" of sexual abuse, and that often children's testimony is given short shrift.

Both sides of the family are working with outside organizations. Winslow has been helped by Child Watch and Martin is active with the National Alliance for Family Court Justice.

Addendum: April 7, 2001

On January 22, 2001, The Daily Star published an editorial claiming that "We have laws for a good reason. They're not perfect, but they are far better than anarchy." This is a sad testimony about the irresponsibility exercised by the Pontius Pilates of society. The bizarre system of law which led to the flight of Vicky Shaffer with her child has brought about the very anarchy that the Daily Star's editorial writer foolishly believes is being held at bay.

I have also heard from people close to both Vicky Shaffer and Mark Winslow concerning this editorial. Let it suffice to say that not everyone is pleased with what I wrote last October. Unfortunately, those who expressed their anger to me mistakenly believed I had said some things I didn't. In fact, though my editorial is severely critical of the legal system which produced this mess -- and which brazenly refuses to accept responsibility for creating semi-criminals like Vicky Shaffer -- I did, either explicitly or implicitly, acknowlege the facts of the case: Vicky Shaffer defied a court order and took her daughter into hiding; Mark Winslow was held to be a fit parent by the court; and not all the evidence was considered in the case. I never said who is or isn't innocent of any particular wrong-doing. A moral crime has occurred here which has raped a community of its right to protect children. We are not always right, but nature made it the parents' prerogative to protect children. There is no room for misguided court systems in biology.

I did try to point out that the biggest loser in this parental-rights free-for-all is the child, Brianna Winslow. She has been robbed of a normal childhood. Maybe because of the dispute between her parents she could never have hoped for one. But there has to be a better solution to cases like this than allowing judges, who are required by law to ignore some of the facts in a case, to villainize either party. Without the temperance of human compassion for all the parties in a family dispute, there is nothing but anarchy. It's a shame the Daily Star is unwilling to hold the culpable people responsible in these situations. May they never find themselves accused of wrong-doing and treated to the same miscarriage of justice they so enthusiastically support. They would sadly learn that true justice doesn't blindly follow the law. It seeks a balance without favoring either party. There is a very big difference between justice and what happened to Brianna Winslow.