Father Murders Judge Hours after Mom Given Custody
The Exception Proves the Rule
Just hours after a judge granted a mother custody, the father murdered Maryland Judge Andrew Wilkinson outside his home while his wife and son were inside. He fled the scene and is still at large.
The U.S. Marshals Service has launched an interstate manhunt for the father. He is considered armed and dangerous. There is a $10,000 reward for information leading to his arrest.
“TRYING TO GET OUT”
Eugenia gave birth to her first child in 2011 and her fourth in 2019. The marriage was saturated with emotional abuse almost from the beginning.
About ten years ago, Eugenia called a domestic violence hotline but could not get enough helpful resources to be able to leave. She was also afraid she would lose custody, since that is what her husband kept threatening. The fact that men’s threats to take custody are made viable via Family Court keeps many women like Eugenia in abusive relationships.
I have been trying to get out of this relationship for the longest time but [couldn’t] for the fear that he will try to get custody of the kids.
Either way, it is a win-win for men/fathers: either she leaves and he gets custody and can abuse the children, or she stays and must endure his abuse.
Eugenia chose to stay. She says her husband was constantly emotionally abusive via verbal assaults and extremely controlling behaviors. The emotional abuse extended to the children both directly and indirectly.
One of the controlling behaviors was financial. Eugenia was not allowed to have any money of her own. At one point she tried the strategy of sneaking away a little at a time and got up to $2800, but he discovered her stash and took it.
Another was the monitoring and restricting of her movements. She was not allowed her own car and he kept the family car keys in his possession at all times.
I can't get out of the house without his knowledge.
I need help. Physical violence is not the only kind of violence [he uses].
Eugenia had called the police on at least two occasions. She was kept in fear of his violence through him making her aware he had his weapon on him at all times.
There was at least one violent episode involving the eldest child who was 11 at the time. Eugenia had to intervene in the terrifying incident:
I got in the middle and told him that for him to get to her, he needed to hit me or kill me [first].
I am not taking this anymore. I will protect my child.
THE DIVORCE
In the end, it was the father who filed for divorce last year, likely in a preemptive attempt to keep some control over the devolving situation. This is made obvious by his insistence on continuing to live together in the home and not wanting the divorce to be finalized. He took one floor of the house; Eugenia and the kids the other. He could continue to monitor Eugenia and the kids, all the while doing whatever else he wanted outside the home.
The father followed through on his threats to take the children away from her. In his divorce filing, he claimed custody should go to him because Eugenia “neglected her homeschooling responsibilities and failed to properly supervise the children”. Eugenia denied his accusations and counterclaimed that he was cruel and financially abusive.
Soon after the dissolution motion, Eugenia filed for a TRO [temporary restraining order], on the grounds he was harassing her via text, controlling her every move, threatening to abuse their daughter, threatening to take custody of the children, and making false accusations against her.
The TRO was granted and included a directive for the father to surrender his firearms. He did not. A fateful miss, as he used one of them in the murder of the judge.
Eugenia agreed to drop the TRO a few weeks later when her ex agreed to move out of the home. It is a common strategy to pressure women to drop TRO’s so they cannot be used later against the father in the custody ruling.
All this occurred before different judicial officers.
JUDGE WILKINSON TAKES OVER
Judge Wilkinson took over the case with all that water under the bridge. He was a relatively new judge, appointed at age 49 in 2020, after being in private practice his entire career. Judges often start their career in Family Court, the bottom of the judicial ladder, and work their way up to a real court—civil or criminal.
At a hearing in March of this year, Judge Wilkinson responded to the father’s proposal to live in the home for two years while the divorce pended as a “non-starter”. Instead, he ordered Eugenia and the kids could stay in the marital home and the father be prohibited from going there. At this time, he said the father’s visitation with the children should be increased, and, despite the documented history of abuse, did not say it should be supervised. It is unclear whether the visitation was increased then.
Judge Wilkinson rejected a request from Eugenia to temporarily move to Florida, where she has family. This is a huge problem for divorcing women as it is often best, even necessary, for them financially, emotionally and practically to move to where they have support from family and friends. Controlling perpetrators often move their family away from women’s support networks to gain more control.
FINAL HEARING
This Thursday was the final divorce hearing. The father was a no-show.
Judge Wilkinson granted the dissolution of the marriage. He gave Eugenia sole legal custody of the children. Notably, he did not give her sole physical custody, only primary; however, for some reason, he barred the father from visiting with the children seemingly temporarily. It appeared like a temporary restraining order which could be reassessed later, otherwise, he would have just given Eugenia sole physical custody too. He also prohibited him from contacting Eugenia.
Judge Wilkinson attributed his decision to the father’s “cruel treatment”. Note that he did not need a “coercive control” law to make his ruling. He simply said the father’s controlling behavior was not in the children’s best interest. There is no need for new laws that are already encompassed in the best interests doctrine, just a system in which the best interests of children are actually upheld.
The father was probably not present at the hearing because he knew the divorce would be finalized and he would never be able to move back in “his” home with “his” family. This meant he had irrevocably lost the control he so craved.
The father chose to get revenge for his loss of control by murdering the judge. This is extremely rare. Disempowered, vindictive men almost always target their ex and often harm or murder the children to inflict maximum damage on her. And this is often enabled via Family Court.
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE
There are exceptions to every rule and, as the saying goes, the exception proves the rule. This case is the exception and does prove the rule—which is that men are given custody when they want it, regardless of whether they are abusive, and are enabled to financially devastate their ex.
Just the overall fact that this Family Court judge ruled in the true best interest of the children—when a middle class man wanted otherwise—is remarkable. Also, the divorce was finalized quickly, in opposition to the father’s request to drag it out. Judges usually allow cases to go on for years, a sort of slow torture for women.
It is also highly unusual that the judge ordered no contact at all with the father, not even supervised. Judges usually perfunctorily order visits supervised by a relative. But the no-contact order likely would not have lasted long as most paternal abuse is considered “in the past” after a ridiculously short period of time. Even fathers who have been convicted of murder, rape, or assault are usually given visitation.
It is very surprising that the judge gave the marital home to the mother and ordered the father to stay away. And it was good that he allotted a small, but decent, amount of child support for the kids. Mothers often lose their home, get no child support (or it is not enforced), and are left out to dry—or, worse, devastated financially.
The judge in this case made another quite unusual move: he gave the mother sole legal custody, which gives her ultimate decision-making power, very necessary with abusive men. Judges normally order joint legal custody which allows the father to use the opportunity to exert control and sow chaos.
Another astonishing aspect of this case is it appears the court-appointed children’s attorney actually represented the children’s interests rather than the father’s.
WHY??
So why might this case vary from the norm? Why might this particular judge rule in the best interest of the children when most do not? That is impossible to know but there are some possibilities.
Maybe the judge was just irritated that the father did not bother to show up for the final hearing, or maybe something else about the father pissed him off. Or maybe he liked the mother. Sometimes it just boils down to human reactions.
Or possibly the father did something concerning, even more abusive, between the March hearing, when the judge talked about giving the father more visitation, and the October hearing, when he eliminated contact. Or maybe he simply acted on the children’s attorney’s recommendations, being a new judge.
Or maybe it was a power issue. Perhaps the father simply did not rate high enough in the male power structure to overcome the blatant harassment and abuse he was perpetrating on the wife and kids. The father did not have an attorney so that is a distinct possibility. Without an attorney, it’s more difficult to dial into the systemic male entitlement enforced by the OBN [old boy network].
Regardless of why this judge was the rare one who provided due process to this mother and ruled appropriately to protect the children, this case is most definitely the exception to the rule—it is not a Post-Separation Crisis case. This was a very lucky mother. Except, of course, for what followed. But now she will not ever have to worry about his violence being inflicted on her children or her, assuming he is either caught or dead.
Some activists are saying this case is worrying because it will cause more judges to give custody to abusive fathers, as they may bethinking they will be at risk of male violence if they do not. But it really can’t get much worse for women than it already is.
The message this horrific murder needs to send to the public is that this judge, having done what was in the best interests of the children, is the exception to the rule. Mothers are routinely losing custody, unable to protect their children, and being bankrupted in the process.
An entirely new system is needed to guarantee justice and protection for women and children post-separation/divorce.
Join The Women’s Coalition to help raise awareness and fight for a new system.
ALERT: SISTERS IN SOLIDARITY
The murder of a judge is a major news event and it is getting national MSM attention. Sisters can take advantage of this to raise awareness about how this post-separation/divorce case, in which this judge did the right thing, is rare; and that there is an epidemic/crisis of judges not doing the right thing, not upholding the best interest of the children, not affording women due process.
This is an opportunity to educate the public about the Post-Separation Crisis that is occurring in family courts around the world. You can post about this case on social media and/or talk to local media about it being the exception to the rule. You can refer to this column, to Women’s Coalition News & Views, and the Coalition website.
If you would like to join our new Sisterhood, please read this column and watch this powerpoint presentation. If you agree with the Women’s Coalition’s position on the crisis—that it is caused by systemic male entitlement—and want to join the Sisters to engage in activism, please fill out this form.
We have monthly forums you may attend after joining.
Sisters in Solidarity are women who are raising awareness and launching a counteroffensive to end the Post-Separation Crisis.
You may also support the Coalition’s work through a one-time or recurring contribution at paypal.me/TheWomensCoalition
This is the exception to the rule. Mothers usually don't get custody of their children when fathers request it. The media coverage on the murder of a judge is immense. The media should give at least the same amount of coverage to the murders of mothers and children. The rule is that even abusive fathers get custody of children when they ask for it, and that's newsworthy!
POSTED, Ms Dumas, upon my social media, en toto.
UTTERLY = the E X C E P T I O N to the Rule = this specific judge's decisioning.
Dr Maas