Mary Winkler gets her kids back
Categories: Divorce & custody, In the news
If the name Mary Winkler doesn't ring a bell, perhaps her crime will. In 2006, Winkler was convicted of manslaughter after shooting and killing her husband, Rev. Michael Winkler. She avoided a murder charge by convincing a jury that she had suffered years of emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of her husband. She was sentenced to three years in prison, but in the end served only a small fraction of that time, some of it in a mental health facility.
Upon her release last year, Winkler immediately set about trying to get her three children back. While she had been allowed visitation rights since her release, the kids, ages 11, 9 and 3, remained in the temporary custody of her slain husband's parents. Dan and Diane Winkler had initially hoped to end their former daughter-in-law's visitation rights and gain permanent custody of their grandchildren, but it seems they have changed their minds. On Friday, Diane Winkler got her kids back, apparently through an agreement with her former in-laws.
While this move doesn't give Winkler permanent custody of her children, it certainly looks like that is what the future holds. Rachael Putnam, a custody attorney, sees this development as a positive thing for all involved. "It should be seen as a sign that the family is healing," she said. "It's a good thing for everyone."
I sincerely hope it is a good thing for those children. After the nightmare inflicted upon them by the gruesome murder of their father, these children deserve a shot at normalcy.
Upon her release last year, Winkler immediately set about trying to get her three children back. While she had been allowed visitation rights since her release, the kids, ages 11, 9 and 3, remained in the temporary custody of her slain husband's parents. Dan and Diane Winkler had initially hoped to end their former daughter-in-law's visitation rights and gain permanent custody of their grandchildren, but it seems they have changed their minds. On Friday, Diane Winkler got her kids back, apparently through an agreement with her former in-laws.
While this move doesn't give Winkler permanent custody of her children, it certainly looks like that is what the future holds. Rachael Putnam, a custody attorney, sees this development as a positive thing for all involved. "It should be seen as a sign that the family is healing," she said. "It's a good thing for everyone."
I sincerely hope it is a good thing for those children. After the nightmare inflicted upon them by the gruesome murder of their father, these children deserve a shot at normalcy.
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)
ame s 8-05-2008 @ 12:38PM
I live in West TN and this is a very hot topic around here. Many believe she should never be able to lay eyes on her children again because she killed their father. I am one of the ones who believe she made life safer for them by doing so.
Any time an article about her appears in the local newspaper (a very sad excuse for a "news" paper, in my opinion) the boards are bombarded by people who are displeased by her sentence. This is pretty typical of West Tennesseans; if you don't like something, complain, complain, complain, but don't step up and try to change the justice system.
I for one am GLAD she has her children right now. Their paternal grandparents are real pieces of work.
Reply
Momof3 8-05-2008 @ 2:22PM
I'm sorry, but there are so many words you are using to describe the case that are clearly prejudicial towards this woman. To just take 1 sentence for analyzing purposes....
"She avoided a murder charge by convincing a jury that she had suffered years of emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of her husband."
That right there expresses your opinion of the case, giving a biased slant to your entire article. To say that she "avoided" the murder charge is incorrect, she was charged with manslaughter for the crime. Saying that she "convinced" the jury pushes your opinion that her story wasn't credible and the jury needed said "convincing."
And for your information, as someone who worked at a crisis center and dealt with many women who were abused, they often will readily admit that they were physically abused, but that form abuse often comes far later. It usually starts with isolation and control, often using emotional abuse to control the situation. Almost none of my clients would volunteer that they had been raped by their partners until I spoke with them about how common it was and that YES you CAN be raped by your husband. Someone who has been abused for years and years can come to a breaking point, and feel that this is their only way out.
I'm not saying that she was right or wrong in what happened, I wasn't there when it happened, nor was I in the courtroom. But neither were you. If you want to do an opinion piece, do an opinion piece. If you want to present fact, do that. But don't present your opinions and label them as fact.
Thanks
/end rant
Reply