Wife who killed minister husband wants her kids back
Categories: Just for moms, Toddlers, Kids 8-11, Teens & tweens, Just for dads, Divorce & custody, Relatives
Perhaps you remember Mary Winkler, the Tennessee minister's wife who shot and killed her husband, Rev. Michael Winkler, in 2006. She was charged with first-degree murder and went to trial, where she claimed she had suffered years of mental and sexual abuse at the hands of her husband. She was convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter and sentenced to three years in jail. Given credit for time served and the lack of a previous criminal record, she ended up serving just 67 days, most of them in a mental health facility. She was released last month.
During her trial and incarceration, the parents of Winkler's dead husband have had temporary custody of the couple's three children, ages 2, 8 and 10. Now that Winkler is a free woman, she wants her kids back. She has filed a petition with a Tennessee chancery court requesting immediate custody of the kids or frequent visitation rights. In her filing, she claims the continued separation from her kids is "unconscionable and detrimental" to her children. She aims to show she is not a threat to them and that they should therefore be returned to her.
State law in Tennessee allows a judge to terminate a parent's rights if that parent is found liable for the intentional wrongful death of the other parent. But surprisingly, experts say it may not be that simple. Parental rights are most commonly terminated only in cases where a parent has serious substance abuse problems or a history of child abuse. "Natural parents have a fundamental right to have care and custody of their children," said Jackie Dixon, a local child custody attorney.
Winkler's former in-laws, Dan and Diane Winkler, now have to prove that severing their murderous daughter-in-law's parental rights is in the best interest of the kids. In order to retain custody, they must show she poses a threat to her children and will likely argue that by murdering their father, she caused emotional harm to her children.
Regardless of whether she poses a threat to her children or not, to force three kids to live with the mother who murdered their father seems somehow wrong to me. I can't help but wonder what the kids want.
During her trial and incarceration, the parents of Winkler's dead husband have had temporary custody of the couple's three children, ages 2, 8 and 10. Now that Winkler is a free woman, she wants her kids back. She has filed a petition with a Tennessee chancery court requesting immediate custody of the kids or frequent visitation rights. In her filing, she claims the continued separation from her kids is "unconscionable and detrimental" to her children. She aims to show she is not a threat to them and that they should therefore be returned to her.
State law in Tennessee allows a judge to terminate a parent's rights if that parent is found liable for the intentional wrongful death of the other parent. But surprisingly, experts say it may not be that simple. Parental rights are most commonly terminated only in cases where a parent has serious substance abuse problems or a history of child abuse. "Natural parents have a fundamental right to have care and custody of their children," said Jackie Dixon, a local child custody attorney.
Winkler's former in-laws, Dan and Diane Winkler, now have to prove that severing their murderous daughter-in-law's parental rights is in the best interest of the kids. In order to retain custody, they must show she poses a threat to her children and will likely argue that by murdering their father, she caused emotional harm to her children.
Regardless of whether she poses a threat to her children or not, to force three kids to live with the mother who murdered their father seems somehow wrong to me. I can't help but wonder what the kids want.
Recent Posts
- Weekend Fun and Games (7/03/2009)
- Kids and Extracurriculars - When Do You Let Them Quit? (7/03/2009)
- Twitter Follow Friday on ParentDish! (7/03/2009)
- Lush Lashes (7/03/2009)
- Abigail Breslin Makes $13 a Week (7/03/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
DaMoKi Bob 9-12-2007 @ 8:54PM
This one holds only marginal interest, but it seems this decision is a sort of a Sophie's choice. If she killed him to avoid his abuse, it would be a shame to deny her (and the kids) a relationship. However, if she did it just because, the relationship that should have been will be denied. In both cases, the kids are the central issue. Even is she had reason to do it, society will always have its doubts. Now that I have thought and written about it... I simply don't know enough about it to have an opinion.
Reply
Lily Bamboo 9-13-2007 @ 2:38AM
I think it is hard to have an informed opinion about this case. Assuming that the husband did abuse her (ie. manslaughter vs. murder 1) why should the grandparents that raised such a man be allowed to raise these kids. Seems to me that no one has clean hands here.
Reply
Gry 9-13-2007 @ 4:18AM
Good point Lily.
And yes, it would be a good idea to maybe listen to the kids and their wishes.
Reply
Lauren 9-13-2007 @ 9:48AM
Lily and Gry, since when is all types of abuse blamed on the parent's you and I do not know that happened, something smells funny here, I think this woman is lying, and would you really want your grandchildren around a parent that has murdered the other parent for whatever reason? Just wondering what your thought's were.
Reply
Groovymarlin 9-13-2007 @ 10:16AM
Or maybe the guy abused his kids as well as his wife, and they're actually all better off without him. We don't really know, do we? I hope there are competent professionals involved (psychologists, social workers, child advocates) who can fairly analyze the situation and ensure that the children end up where it's best for them.
Reply
Anji 9-13-2007 @ 11:08AM
She killed him because he repeatedly beat and raped her and she knew it was only a matter of time before he turned on the children. I'll get jumped on for saying this, but he deserved to die.
Reply
Tami 9-13-2007 @ 4:01PM
Let me get this straight. It's this woman's word against the dead man that she killed. Well, that's reliable.
Reply
Gry 9-14-2007 @ 1:23AM
Anji, I was thinking the same. A mother can be fierce protecting her children.
Packing up the car and leaving would undoubtedly have been a better option, but what about the divorce settlement? She would most likely have to share custody with someone who was abusive to her, possibly her children.
Not to mention his position as minister. Who is going to believe her if she accuses a minister of abuse?
Those are my thoughts Lauren. :)
Again, possibly a good idea to ask the children what they want.
Reply
Heather 9-17-2007 @ 4:23PM
What happens when a minister is accused of abuse. Everyone beleives the minister. My bestfriend was married to a minister and for 4 yrs he beat her raped her, and drugged her so she was unable to fight back and he locked her in thier room for weeks at a time. He told her children if they told he would mkae her O.D, and because she has drugs in her system from him doping her they would believe him.
It wasnt until he attacked her son and left marks did the police finally believe her.
Reply