Tamra Judge: Naked Wasted

[happykitteh]

 

In the end the real third party in the marriage was the show and Tamra's lust for fame.

 

Truer words have never been spoken.

[zoeysmom]

 The "basis in law" would be that these so called reality shows have been outed as being scripted to some degree, scenes reshot, heavily edited and recut to make a character look good or bad depending on the whim of production. In no way could tapes of these shows be seen as "evidence" of anything real regarding a persons motives or character. Very easy for a lawyer to get that dismissed as evidence. All one would need to do is claim production told them to say, do, or act a certain way. Tamra's speech is thought by many to be full of lies and /or exaggerations and a sympathy ploy - a way to create drama for her character. She was giving that speech as "Tamra of The Real Housewives", not as an actress on the news giving a speech as her real life self. I do think the tapes could be used to demonstrate why the kids should not be allowed to film, just not, IMO, as a measure of what kind of parent one is in real life, although I do believe Tamra is every bit as vile in RL as she is on this show.

Sort of the way it works is one side tries to have admitted the tape of say Tamra giving the speech. Tamra side objects saying, it was done for a reality show (BTW there is no such objection) then she would have to put a producer or two on the stand who would say the speech was scripted for the show and there is no basis in fact.  If there is no one to say it is scripted then it is allowed to stand as evidence.  More importantly, Tamra would be asked if what she said in the speech happened the sexually active the suicide attempts-if she yes then of course the tape is admissible. Usually when someone subpoenas footage they subpoena raw unedited footage.   Tamra was giving the speech as Tamra Barney, mother of four, owner of CUT Fitness, and star of RHOC.  I don't think the speech was scripted for the show-I think all we saw was her before and after the speech otherwise it is a speech given in an open forum. 

 

I did agree with you that the tapes would not be shown for character purposes. 

[Scrambled Fog]

All one would need to do is claim production told them to say, do, or act a certain way.

I'm no legal expert, but that wouldn't surprise me.

It's sorta like the reality show version of the Nuremberg defense. "Befehl ist Befehl" ("orders are orders").

Edited September 13, 2014 by Scrambled Fog

[happykitteh]

Eddie is probably hoping Tamra loses custody so he doesn't have her kids messing up "his" house. He seemed to take issue with this when they first moved in together.

[motorcitymom65]

I cannot imagine that Tamra attempting suicide 20+ years ago and talking about it on camera could impact her custody. Is that in relation to Simon's refusal to let the kids film instead of the custody deal?

My understanding is there are two different things going on. Tamra first petitioned to let the kids film, which Simon objects too and the judge has not ruled on (someone correct me if I am wrong here). The second is Simon's request to modify custody to his benefit. The hearing that happened on Sept 10th - when Tamra and the girlfriend started screaming at each other - was about custody. This is the reason Simon was hauling around footage of the show.

I find it impossible that anything Tamra does/says on the show would impact custody. Simon said himself in his blogs that this was all very edited and was miffed at the way he was portrayed. More importantly, in his quest to keep the kids off the show he talked about the role that production plays in manipulating the drama to creat storylines:

"He said he does not want their children, to be featured because “the truth is consistently manipulated in the show in order to make the story line more dramatic and to boost ratings. The manipulation and falsification of original statements and actions results in a negative perception from the public and it destroys one’s reputation.”

I cannot imagine that Tamra's attorneys would need more than his own words to dispute the idea that anything she does on TV means that she could not be a good mom.

Edited September 13, 2014 by motorcitymom65

[imjagain]

Simon was a controlling dick. He really didn't want Tamra to work and made her feel guilty claiming she was neglecting him and the kids. He proclaimed no "girls only trips" back before Jim Bellino ever did.

The best example is that I believe Simon was the only husband on this show who ever blogged. Yep, he did. It was incredible. It seemed as though he couldn't just sit by each week and allow himself to be judged like the other husbands. No, he had to blog on Bravo's site each week and give his side of things. In some cases he would flat out call Tamra out on her behavior, or say when he disagreed with her or when she had handled things poorly. It was always beyond creepy to me. Too bad the comments on the blogs are not still up. Those would be a great read in all the ways he was controlling. Folks were ready to light him on fire. Several of his blogs were entirely dedicated to his anger at folks calling him controlling.

Can you imagine if Terry Dubrow was blogging about his role on the show every week and defending himself for 3 or 4 pages? Folks would go crazy.

Yeah, I thought Simon seemed controlling. If he wanted a proper lady, he probably should have picked a different woman. Simon trying to change Tamra was controlling. He wanted her behave differently in public because it embarrassed him. Some how I doubt Tamra started acted trashy when the cameras started rolling.

I don't think better of Simon because, I dislike Tamra. Tamra is a horrible person, but Simon was the one that married her and, had children with her.

Just like Eddie, I question how much of a good guy Simon could really be. If he made the choice to spend his life with Tamra, that says a lot about him as person.

Edited September 13, 2014 by imjagain

[zoeysmom]

I cannot imagine that Tamra attempting suicide 20+ years ago and talking about it on camera could impact her custody. Is that in relation to Simon's refusal to let the kids film instead of the custody deal?

My understanding is there are two different things going on. Tamra first petitioned to let the kids film, which Simon objects too and the judge has not ruled on (someone correct me if I am wrong here). The second is Simon's request to modify custody to his benefit. The hearing that happened on Sept 10th - when Tamra and the girlfriend started screaming at each other - was about custody. This is the reason Simon was hauling around footage of the show.

I find it impossible that anything Tamra does/says on the show would impact custody. Simon said himself in his blogs that this was all very edited and was miffed at the way he was portrayed. More importantly, in his quest to keep the kids off the show he talked about the role that production plays in manipulating the drama to creat storylines:

"He said he does not want their children, to be featured because “the truth is consistently manipulated in the show in order to make the story line more dramatic and to boost ratings. The manipulation and falsification of original statements and actions results in a negative perception from the public and it destroys one’s reputation.”

I cannot imagine that Tamra's attorneys would need more than his own words to dispute the idea that anything she does on TV means that she could not be a good mom.

Tamra consented to allowing the children be filmed.  Bravo/Evolution Media/NBC Universal would not film the children unless Simon agreed.  Tamra's attorneys filed a motion with the court that in essence would override Simon's lack of consent.  At around the same time the daughter Sydney moved out of her mother's home and resisted visitation this all happened in October.  Simon first, answered the filming question, his second move to request a modification of custody occurred in April.

 

Simon's statements about the editing and portrayal on RHOC have to do with the first contention that it is not in the child's best interest, and in fact might be harmful to his children, to be part of the filming as he has no control over the final product.  Understand it is Bravo that is demanding Simon's consent-not Tamra.  Tamra's position is when she has physical custody of the children she should be allowed to film.  Bravo does not want to risk being sued by Simon if Simon finds the children are portrayed in an unflattering light or are exposed to something inappropriate.

 

As to Tamra's fitness as a parent-Simon's accusations all had to do with lack of medical treatment, hygiene and food available in the home.  We know there is plenty of ground turkey from watching the show.

 

Here is an interesting situation-at the Hoedown you can see Tamra's child-she is the one with her face blurred.  She is near the mechanical bull area when David and Eddie blurt out the "inappropriate comments", so is this evidence of filming being an unsuitable environment?  If it is, Tamra has Terry Dubrow to thank for bringing it up.  Or was the whole controversy just made up for TV?  It seems to me it really happened. 

 

Mental Health history is always relevant in matters of child custody cases.  During the marriage, Tamra was unable to get out of bed for a month because of an argument with Gretchen, I believe.  It could be argued that had Simon know of Tamra's mental health history he would not have married her or had children with her.   So yes, especially suicide attempts-during this process Tamra made another reference to attempting suicide over her stress of the proceedings. 

Edited September 13, 2014 by zoeysmom

[Scrambled Fog]

Mental Health history is always relevant in matters of child custody cases. During the marriage, Tamra was unable to get out of bed for a month because of an argument with Gretchen, I believe. It could be argued that had Simon know of Tamra's mental health history he would not have married her or had children with her. So yes, especially suicide attempts-during this process Tamra made another reference to attempting suicide over her stress of the proceedings.

I don't remember these 2 incidents. I stopped watching the show after the "Naked Wasted" episode b/c it got too disturbing for me. I missed a couple of seasons as a result.

Do you remember any details?

 

ETA:  I started watching the show again during the season Gretchen and Tamra became booty and bracelet buddies.

 

ETA Again:  I never understood why in the heck Gretchen wanted to befriend Tamra.  SMH.  Maybe Gretchen was too scared *not* to have Tamra as a friend?

Edited September 13, 2014 by Scrambled Fog

[PhilMarlowe2]

I don't think better of Simon because, I dislike Tamra. Tamra is a horrible person, but Simon was the one that married her and, had children with her.

Just like Eddie, I question how much of a good guy Simon could really be. If he made the choice to spend his life with Tamra, that says a lot about him as person.

 

In the words of Judge Judy, "You picked her!"

[zoeysmom]

I don't remember these 2 incidents. I stopped watching the show after the "Naked Wasted" episode b/c it got too disturbing for me. I missed a couple of seasons as a result.

Do you remember any details?

 

ETA:  I started watching the show again during the season Gretchen and Tamra became booty and bracelet buddies.

 

ETA Again:  I never understood why in the heck Gretchen wanted to befriend Tamra.  SMH.  Maybe Gretchen was too scared *not* to have Tamra as a friend?

Here is Simon's take on it- http://www.bravotv.com/the-real-housewives-of-orange-county/blogs/simon-barney/drifting-apart  I think it had to do with Tamra making repeated snide comments about Jay and Gretchen's relationship with him.  Simon talks about that very issue about having Gretchen as a friend.  I think it was over Reunion words-and Tamra got a little carried away-as usual.

[motorcitymom65]

So the whole deal about Tamra taking to her bed for a month because she was hurt by Gretchen comes from Simon in his blog? Yea, she is a liar, but as we know, so is he. What in the world did Gretchen ever do to Tamra to hurt her so deeply that she couldn't get out of bed for a month, or take care of her children? I think that Tamra would have let us all know about that. Sorry, but that blog is just super creepy to me, especially the last line.

Edited September 13, 2014 by motorcitymom65

[Scrambled Fog]

She told me she knew she could get someone better looking, with more money, and who would let her do whatever she wants, regardless. But she was going to stay together for the kids. I was shocked, and I'm shocked now watching her at dinner with her mother, when she says, "If it wasn't for the kids, I would leave him."

What an incredibly cold and cruel thing for Tamra to say!

So, where is this richer, better looking man Tamra knew she could get?

Edited September 13, 2014 by Scrambled Fog

[Scrambled Fog]

What has Simon lied about? I'm asking because I don't know.

[Scrambled Fog]

Yeah, I thought Simon seemed controlling. If he wanted a proper lady, he probably should have picked a different woman. Simon trying to change Tamra was controlling. He wanted her behave differently in public because it embarrassed him. Some how I doubt Tamra started acted trashy when the cameras started rolling.

I don't think better of Simon because, I dislike Tamra. Tamra is a horrible person, but Simon was the one that married her and, had children with her.

Just like Eddie, I question how much of a good guy Simon could really be. If he made the choice to spend his life with Tamra, that says a lot about him as person.

I'm sure Tamra has always been bawdy. She probably learned to act that way because it brought her attention.

Fast forward to her first season on RHOC. Yes, she was bawdy. It was kinda funny at first. I'm sure Tamra received lotsa attention again. However, the attention she received was on a *much* larger scale. So, I think she figured why not up the ante? She gradually increases her behavior from bawdy, to crass, to off-the-freakin-chain.

She has received mostly encouragement for acting the way she does on the show. No one ever put her in check. She is certainly incapable of putting herself in check.

As far as Simon, and *maybe* Eddie goes, yes, they chose Tamra. However, sometimes people will act a certain way to get what they want. It's possible Tamra had presented herself in the best possible way when wooing both Simon and Eddie. Tamra does know how to hustle. Then, after a certain amount of time had passed, her true self came charging out. She let it all hang out.

Also, Tamra was already pregnant when she married Simon. That fact might have persuaded Simon to marry her, and encourage him to overlook certain things about Tamra.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Scrambled Fog

[MatildaMoody]

Sort of the way it works is one side tries to have admitted the tape of say Tamra giving the speech. Tamra side objects saying, it was done for a reality show (BTW there is no such objection) then she would have to put a producer or two on the stand who would say the speech was scripted for the show and there is no basis in fact.  If there is no one to say it is scripted then it is allowed to stand as evidence.  More importantly, Tamra would be asked if what she said in the speech happened the sexually active the suicide attempts-if she yes then of course the tape is admissible. Usually when someone subpoenas footage they subpoena raw unedited footage.   Tamra was giving the speech as Tamra Barney, mother of four, owner of CUT Fitness, and star of RHOC.  I don't think the speech was scripted for the show-I think all we saw was her before and after the speech otherwise it is a speech given in an open forum. 

 

I did agree with you that the tapes would not be shown for character purposes. 

I'm very confused. I didn't think that Simon wanting a bigger majority of custody was about Tamra's character so much as it was about Tamra's involvement in the show being detrimental to the children's well being. 

 

Didn't this whole custody modification start because Tamra was petitioning the court to allow her to film with the children? Before she did that, she was putting out stories about how much she appreciated Simon's girlfriend being so involved in the kids' lives, and how much she liked the girlfriend (granted she was trying to garner ratings for her wedding special). After she took him to court, he filed to have greater custody and we saw all of the crap with the texts and hygiene from the court records.

 

And, before she did that, Simon had made no moves towards changing custody. So, why is this now an argument about whether or not Tamra's behavior on camera has anything to do with reality vs Reality TV?

 

If Tamra's behavior on the show is detrimental to the children's well being, shouldn't the show be evidence to that? If her behavior on the show is not detrimental to the children, shouldn't episodes of the show be evidence of it?

[Scrambled Fog]

*If* I understand the custody situation correctly, Simon wants more custody of the youngest child. The two oldest kids already live with him.

ETA: when Tamra sought the Court's permission to allow the youngest child to film RHOC, a parenting evaluation (or something to that effect) was ordered. The results of the evalution were not very flattering of Tamra. It was after receiving those results that Simon sought the custody modification. I think.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Scrambled Fog

[motorcitymom65]

What has Simon lied about? I'm asking because I don't know.

Here is the story about Simon lying, under oath.  It is with regard to the oldest child, Sidney, the one with whom Tamra exchanged those text messages.  The assertion comes from Sidney's Therapist.  This is what she had to say:

“I am currently the therapist for Sidney Barney,” Hulse writes. “I have met both Simon and Tamra on numerous occasions about all three minor children and the parenting skills of both parents. Based on my numerous meetings with both parties and the children, I have no problem advocating that Tamra is a great mother of her three children. She cares deeply for all three children and has never done anything intentional or purposeful to hurt her children.”

 

 “I have reviewed Simon’s declaration filed with the court on March 28th, 2014, and made a part of the public record, where he states at page 5, paragraph 37: “One of the therapists whose findings concluded that the physical pain Sidney was experiencing was due to anxiety.”

 

"Simon attached my letter dated January 5th, 2014 to support his statement,” Hulse says. “The comment and representation by Simon, under oath, is a lie,” Hulse insists. “Nowhere within my letter is the word anxiety or physical pain even referenced. My letter has been taken out of context and it is being misrepresented by Simon.”

 

http://www.realitytea.com/2014/06/25/tamra-judge-custody-update-therapist-says-simon-barney-lied-under-oath/

 

Additionally, Simon has recently asked that Sidney's therapy stop (I believe the therapy is for Sidney, Tamra and Simon together, but could be wrong about that).  The Therapist seems to believe that Sidney is doing much better and making progress in her therapy, but Simon doesn't want it to continue.  I am not sure why.  It sounds like therapy would be beneficial for them all. 

 

Unless I am wrong, Sidney is the only child that lives with Simon.  I think the two younger kids split their time with each parent. 

Edited September 13, 2014 by motorcitymom65

[zoeysmom]

I'm sure Tamra has always been bawdy. She probably learned to act that way because it brought her attention.

Fast forward to her first season on RHOC. Yes, she was bawdy. It was kinda funny at first. I'm sure Tamra received lotsa attention again. However, the attention she received was on a *much* larger scale. So, I think she figured why not up the ante? She gradually increases her behavior from bawdy, to crass, to off-the-freakin-chain.

She has received mostly encouragement for acting the way she does on the show. No one ever put her in check. She is certainly incapable of putting herself in check.

As far as Simon, and *maybe* Eddie goes, yes, they chose Tamra. However, sometimes people will act a certain way to get what they want. It's possible Tamra had presented herself in the best possible way when wooing both Simon and Eddie. Tamra does know how to hustle. Then, after a certain amount of time has passed, her true self comes charging out. She lets it all hang out.

Also, Tamra was already pregnant when she married Simon. That fact might have persuaded Simon to marry her, and encourage him to overlook certain things about Tamra.

I

 

 

I'm very confused. I didn't think that Simon wanting a bigger majority of custody was about Tamra's character so much as it was about Tamra's involvement in the show being detrimental to the children's well being. 

 

Didn't this whole custody modification start because Tamra was petitioning the court to allow her to film with the children? Before she did that, she was putting out stories about how much she appreciated Simon's girlfriend being so involved in the kids' lives, and how much she liked the girlfriend (granted she was trying to garner ratings for her wedding special). After she took him to court, he filed to have greater custody and we saw all of the crap with the texts and hygiene from the court records.

 

And, before she did that, Simon had made no moves towards changing custody. So, why is this now an argument about whether or not Tamra's behavior on camera has anything to do with reality vs Reality TV?

 

If Tamra's behavior on the show is detrimental to the children's well being, shouldn't the show be evidence to that? If her behavior on the show is not detrimental to the children, shouldn't episodes of the show be evidence of it?

Eddie an Tamra got married and it was filmed.  During editing production had to cut out or blur Simon and Tamra's children.   Tamra wanted a ruling from the Court essentially saying that during filming when she had her kids that she did not need Simon's consent to film with them.  Bravo disagreed and said we need Simon's consent.  Simon's position is that because he has no control over what it is aired or the context that it is aired there is a risk, that lives for all of time, that his children could be portrayed in an unflattering light.  That all happened in October of 2013.  At the same time their oldest daughter "moved out" of Tamra's house. 

 

In April of 2014, Simon moved for modification of custody based on the fact his oldest did not want to reside with her mother.  In his moving papers Simon cited some examples of subpar parenting on Tamra's behalf-failure to get  treatment for their son's broken thumb, some hygiene issues and the assertion there is a lack of food available to the children when they are at Tamra's and some pretty damning texts between mother and daughter.     In June of 2014, the parties had been referred to family counseling specifically, the oldest daughter in a an effort to mend the relationship.  The therapist sent a letter to the Court pretty much saying Tamra is a fine parent.

 

Tamra recently was making a dig at Simon for bringing a big box of evidence to court, filled with what she says are tapes of the show.  (Wouldn't it be about 20 CDs?)  From the conversation there is a strong feeling by some posters that because Tamra's behavior occurred on a reality show that it cannot be used as evidence.  Not mine but some others.  I think it depends on what it is being proffered for but that is me.

 

One of Simon's contentions is that Tamra's actions and behavior on the show subject their children to teasing and contempt at school.  Tamra has even said that Spencer was being bullied-so she knows what bullying is.  He may ask the Court to look at say-they way she went after Lizzie and her child at the Reunion, showing her disregard for others' children.  Or her admissions that she lies-that would be my choice.

 

Without being on the courtroom to here the foundation that is being laid for the introduction of the tapes it is hard to say what the purpose of introducing them would be.

 

As to the first quote-I believe that people react to success and failure differently.  Simon was in it for the long run in the marriage and Tamra thought the grass was greener without Simon because there were richer better looking guys out there that wanted her and she could walk away from some debt.  Personally, I think Tamra pretty much bought and paid for Eddie and when their fortunes take a turn, be it for better or worse, I don't see the marriage lasting.

[MatildaMoody]

Here is the story about Simon lying, under oath.  It is with regard to the oldest child, Sidney, the one with whom Tamra exchanged those text messages.  The assertion comes from Sidney's Therapist.  This is what she had to say:

“I am currently the therapist for Sidney Barney,” Hulse writes. “I have met both Simon and Tamra on numerous occasions about all three minor children and the parenting skills of both parents. Based on my numerous meetings with both parties and the children, I have no problem advocating that Tamra is a great mother of her three children. She cares deeply for all three children and has never done anything intentional or purposeful to hurt her children.”

 

 “I have reviewed Simon’s declaration filed with the court on March 28th, 2014, and made a part of the public record, where he states at page 5, paragraph 37: “One of the therapists whose findings concluded that the physical pain Sidney was experiencing was due to anxiety.”

 

[snip]

How many therapists are these kids currently seeing? 

[zoeysmom]

Here is the story about Simon lying, under oath.  It is with regard to the oldest child, Sidney, the one with whom Tamra exchanged those text messages.  The assertion comes from Sidney's Therapist.  This is what she had to say:

“I am currently the therapist for Sidney Barney,” Hulse writes. “I have met both Simon and Tamra on numerous occasions about all three minor children and the parenting skills of both parents. Based on my numerous meetings with both parties and the children, I have no problem advocating that Tamra is a great mother of her three children. She cares deeply for all three children and has never done anything intentional or purposeful to hurt her children.”

 

 “I have reviewed Simon’s declaration filed with the court on March 28th, 2014, and made a part of the public record, where he states at page 5, paragraph 37: “One of the therapists whose findings concluded that the physical pain Sidney was experiencing was due to anxiety.”

 

"Simon attached my letter dated January 5th, 2014 to support his statement,” Hulse says. “The comment and representation by Simon, under oath, is a lie,” Hulse insists. “Nowhere within my letter is the word anxiety or physical pain even referenced. My letter has been taken out of context and it is being misrepresented by Simon.”

 

http://www.realitytea.com/2014/06/25/tamra-judge-custody-update-therapist-says-simon-barney-lied-under-oath/

 

Additionally, Simon has recently asked that Sidney's therapy stop (I believe the therapy is for Sidney, Tamra and Simon together, but could be wrong about that).  The Therapist seems to believe that Sidney is doing much better and making progress in her therapy, but Simon doesn't want it to continue.  I am not sure why.  It sounds like therapy would be beneficial for them all. 

 

Unless I am wrong, Sidney is the only child that lives with Simon.  I think the two younger kids split their time with each parent. 

Well I think it is pretty evident why Simon wants therapy to discontinue with the therapist-she called him a liar.  Also, it is expensive and has been going on for months.  At some point there needs to be an end to it.    The other children do the Monday through Wednesday morning with Tamra and Wednesday afternoon through Saturday morning with Simon and they alternate weekends. It is not uncommon for the Court to say if one parent wants a lessons, private school, therapy for a child that the parent wanting it pay for it. 

 

I get that Sidney does not want to "live" with her mom and I do think she should at least make it over for the every other weekend visits but this modification of custody seems like a very expensive and emotional experience to put the parties through.  Seems like a high cost for a 15 year old's temper tantrum.  If Tamra wins it is essentially forced visitiation-if Tamra loses it is letting a 15 year old get her way.  Hopefully, with this crack therapist Sidney returns to the original agreement.

 

I question what standards this therapist has that she would declare Tamra a great mother.  Interesting there is no mention of what the therapist thought of Simon's parenting skills. I don't see the Court finding that Tamra's custodial time be reduced  (as to the youngest two) nor do I think the Court will overturn Simon's desire that the minor children not be filmed.  What kind of bothers me-is wouldn't it be more important to work on your relationship with your daughter than to prove to the world you are a great mother?

 

When Tamra went to Mexico recently did Sidney go and with the family?

[Scrambled Fog]

How many therapists are these kids currently seeing?

That's what I was wondering.

I get the impression there is more than one therapist involved. There is one court appointed mediator involved, from what I can tell.

I don't think Simon is denying his oldest daughter access to therapy. He just wanted to speak with Hulse beforehand, if I understand things correctly.

I question whether or not Hulse is a neutral therapist if she's showing up to court with Tamra.

I can't find access to the full documents. Its hard to see what is going on when only certain portions are presented on certain websites.

ETA: the document is 23 pages in length, yet every website I read quotes the same portions.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Scrambled Fog

[motorcitymom65]

 

 

Tamra recently was making a dig at Simon for bringing a big box of evidence to court, filled with what she says are tapes of the show.  (Wouldn't it be about 20 CDs?)  From the conversation there is a strong feeling by some posters that because Tamra's behavior occurred on a reality show that it cannot be used as evidence.  Not mine but some others.  I think it depends on what it is being proffered.

 

As to the first quote-I believe that people react to success and failure differently.  Simon was in it for the long run in the marriage and Tamra thought the grass was greener without Simon because there were richer better looking guys out there that wanted her and she could walk away from some debt.  Personally, I think Tamra pretty much bought and paid for Eddie and when their fortunes take a turn, be it for better or worse, I don't see the marriage lasting.

I cannot speak for others, but I certainly don't think her behavior on the show cannot be used as evidence (I know next to nothing about such things), but would be surprised if it was, mainly due to comments Simon himself has made regarding editing, manipulation and producer fuckery. He can hardly claim that he was portrayed as someone he was not and that some of his comments were manipulated for drama, and then claim that such a thing never happened to Tamra. Or at least I would assume a good Attorney could shred such an argument to pieces.

How does anyone know that Simon was anymore committed to his marriage than Tamra was? Again, are we basing this all on an edited TV show - one that Simon says is not even real? Is it based on his blogs, because of course no one ever lies in a blog to make themselves look better, correct? I have read Tamra's blogs, so I can attest to the fact that these people stretch the truth to defend their behavior all the time. What evidence does anyone have that Simon wasn't doing the same?

I am with a poster above. I don't like Tamra, but that doesn't mean that I like Simon, or that he is a good guy.

[zoeysmom]

That's what I was wondering.

I get the impression there is more than one therapist involved. There is one court appointed mediator involved, from what I can tell.

I don't think Simon is denying his oldest daughter access to therapy. He just wanted to speak with Hulse beforehand, if I understand things correctly.

I question whether or not Hulse is a neutral therapist if she's showing up to court with Tamra.

I can't find access to the full documents. Its hard to see what is going on when only certain portions are presented on certain websites.

ETA: the document is 23 pages in length, yet every website I read quotes the same portions.

What is more difficult is not only do they not post the documents they don't accurately portray what is contained in the documents.  I doubt it says anywhere that Simon is requesting 100% custody-something Tamra has even denied.  It is not that hard to repeat the written word verbatim. 

 

 

I cannot speak for others, but I certainly don't think her behavior on the show cannot be used as evidence (I know next to nothing about such things), but would be surprised if it was, mainly due to comments Simon himself has made regarding editing, manipulation and producer fuckery. He can hardly claim that he was portrayed as someone he was not and that some of his comments were manipulated for drama, and then claim that such a thing never happened to Tamra. Or at least I would assume a good Attorney could shred such an argument to pieces.

How does anyone know that Simon was anymore committed to his marriage than Tamra was? Again, are we basing this all on an edited TV show - one that Simon says is not even real? Is it based on his blogs, because of course no one ever lies in a blog to make themselves look better, correct? I have read Tamra's blogs, so I can attest to the fact that these people stretch the truth to defend their behavior all the time. What evidence does anyone have that Simon wasn't doing the same?

I am with a poster above. I don't like Tamra, but that doesn't mean that I like Simon, or that he is a good guy.

The biggest problem is people are speaking in terms of all or none, always or never.  When a party introduces something before the court an exhibit-the court weighs on that particular item.  So the court would not look at the box of tapes and say all or nothing it is admitted or not admitted.  The Court looks at each scene that Simon wishes to use. Tamra's speech is the best example-I think production pretty well just recorded what Tamra was saying to the audience of 1,000 women.  IF there were a part of the speech that was being introduced as evidence, and Tamra felt, or knew it was not a true portrayal of her speech performance, her attorney would need to object and show why it was not a true portrayal of her speech.  A simple they misrepresent things all the time on reality TV is not a proper objection.

 

  A better example during the dinner party at Shannon's house the way it was shown, it looked as if the entire table heard the discourse between Shannon and David in the kitchen.  A proper objection would show that (a) it was physically impossible for the people seated at the table to have heard and (b) questioning the attendees they would testify they had not heard the conversation.  It doesn't mean that David and Shannon didn't have the conversation, it just means the producers screwed with the context of the conversation.  So if the evidence trying to be introduced was to show that Shannon bitched at David in front of the guests making them uncomfortable it would not be admitted because of the objections would have shown it did not happen.  If the purpose of showing the tape was to show that Shannon nags at David and what she said to David it would be admitted.

 

I gather that the marriage was more important to Simon because he said he wanted to work it out and Tamra said she wanted a divorce.  I don't think it was any big secret that Tamra wanted out of the marriage.  I am basing it more on what Tamra said than what Simon said.  Then again Tamra says pretty uncaring things alot and this is from a blog this year-incredibly simplistic stupid things such as:  "Divorce doesn't hurt kids-Angry/bitter parents hurt kids."  Tell that to a child with two parents that she loves and one moves out and the other moves another person in.  Both parents may be happy or happier and get along with each other, but don't diminish the hurt feelings of the child whose world was turned upside down. Let the child have their feelings.   

 

Honestly, as a viewer I just never found Simon particularly interesting. Not a good or bad person. I think Simon was way too enamored with Tamra's looks and maybe should have been encouraging her in other areas.  Compare him to Donn-who had some funny and entertaining moments-I thought Donn added something to the show.  Donn calling Vicki a c*** was pretty awful, him not working the first couple of seasons and not really having a relationship with Michael or Brianna-according to them were all turn-offs, but he was entertaining. 

Edited September 13, 2014 by zoeysmom

[PhilMarlowe2]

 Sorry, but that blog is just super creepy to me, especially the last line.

 

That last line seriously made me shudder.

[Scrambled Fog]

Here is the story about Simon lying, under oath. It is with regard to the oldest child, Sidney, the one with whom Tamra exchanged those text messages. The assertion comes from Sidney's Therapist. This is what she had to say:

“I am currently the therapist for Sidney Barney,” Hulse writes. “I have met both Simon and Tamra on numerous occasions about all three minor children and the parenting skills of both parents. Based on my numerous meetings with both parties and the children, I have no problem advocating that Tamra is a great mother of her three children. She cares deeply for all three children and has never done anything intentional or purposeful to hurt her children.”

“I have reviewed Simon’s declaration filed with the court on March 28th, 2014, and made a part of the public record, where he states at page 5, paragraph 37: “One of the therapists whose findings concluded that the physical pain Sidney was experiencing was due to anxiety.”

"Simon attached my letter dated January 5th, 2014 to support his statement,” Hulse says. “The comment and representation by Simon, under oath, is a lie,” Hulse insists. “Nowhere within my letter is the word anxiety or physical pain even referenced. My letter has been taken out of context and it is being misrepresented by Simon.”

http://www.realitytea.com/2014/06/25/tamra-judge-custody-update-therapist-says-simon-barney-lied-under-oath/

Additionally, Simon has recently asked that Sidney's therapy stop (I believe the therapy is for Sidney, Tamra and Simon together, but could be wrong about that). The Therapist seems to believe that Sidney is doing much better and making progress in her therapy, but Simon doesn't want it to continue. I am not sure why. It sounds like therapy would be beneficial for them all.

Unless I am wrong, Sidney is the only child that lives with Simon. I think the two younger kids split their time with each parent.

Lying under oath is perjury and is a serious crime. As far as I can tell, there is only a perjury *allegation* made by Ms. Hulse, who is a therapist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a therapist can actually charge a person with perjury.

I have done a little research regarding Simon's *alleged* perjury, and I can't find any documentation stating he was actually charged with perjury.

Thanks for setting me straight regarding which kids live with who. I appreciate it.

[Scrambled Fog]

That last line seriously made me shudder.

This line?

"Daddy loves you very much..."

[motorcitymom65]

This line?

"Daddy loves you very much..."

OK, maybe not the last line, but the last paragraph:

"Sorry kids, I would give up my life and conquer the world for you. Just couldn't triumph over celebrity and fame. Daddy loves you very much..."

Keep in mind, Simon is the one who filed for divorce.

Fucking. Makes. Me. Shudder.

This is also a guy who apparently sent his girlfriend to video his ex-wife taking their young daughter to her first day of school. Controlling. Manipulating. Scary.

[PhilMarlowe2]

Yeah, it's that last paragraph. Evoking your love for your children in the context of your marital woes and how your mother allegedly destroyed the marriage through the pursuit of fame is all kinds of unhealthy. That is a horrible burden to place on your children. "I couldn't tame your mother, who changed and became a really bad person, woe is me, your mother deeply betrayed me, but I would do anything for you, Daddy loves you very much." Just no. That is tangling his aborted relationship with Tamra (and his disappointment in her) with his love for his children. He is using his "noble" love for his children to victimize himself and literally directing the sentiment at his children. There is a term for parents who use children to fulfill their personal emotional needs: covert or emotional incest. It can be devastating to children. Simon writing that bespeaks an inability to shield his kids from his emotional distress over Tamra. His love for this kids should never be crossed with his upset over his marital woes. I can't articulate enough how gross I find that last paragraph. I mean, it would be completely different if he wrote something like, "Regardless of what has happened with Tamra, our marriage gave us three beautiful children. I want to let my kids know that what happens between your mother and I has nothing to do with you and we both love you very much." That would be a healthy separation between his relationship woes and the kids. Instead, he just mixed it all together. This is the kind of stuff that makes me feel he is super controlling, unhealthy and creepy.

Edited September 14, 2014 by PhilMarlowe2

[zoeysmom]

Lying under oath is perjury and is a serious crime. As far as I can tell, there is only a perjury *allegation* made by Ms. Hulse, who is a therapist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a therapist can actually charge a person with perjury.

I have done a little research regarding Simon's *alleged* perjury, and I can't find any documentation stating he was actually charged with perjury.

Thanks for setting me straight regarding which kids live with who. I appreciate it.

Simon's attorney said it was his error.  To be charged with perjury it has to be pretty serious. There are errors or mis-statements made every day.  I found it odd the therapist jumped in the middle of it.  Obviously if you state a document states something and you attach a copy of the document and it does not say what you claimed it did-you should probably be charged with stupidity.

[Scrambled Fog]

OK, maybe not the last line, but the last paragraph:

"Sorry kids, I would give up my life and conquer the world for you. Just couldn't triumph over celebrity and fame. Daddy loves you very much..."

Keep in mind, Simon is the one who filed for divorce.

Fucking. Makes. Me. Shudder.

This is also a guy who apparently sent his girlfriend to video his ex-wife taking their young daughter to her first day of school. Controlling. Manipulating. Scary.

Simon filed for a divorce after Tamra began her relationship with Eddie.

Tamra is the one alleging Simon sent his girlfriend to video her. Tamra isn't a reliable source for the truth, in my opinion.

[Scrambled Fog]

Yeah, it's that last paragraph. Evoking your love for your children in the context of your marital woes and how your mother allegedly destroyed the marriage through the pursuit of fame is all kinds of unhealthy. That is a horrible burden to place on your children. "I couldn't tame your mother, who changed and became a really bad person, woe is me, your mother deeply betrayed me, but I would do anything for you, Daddy loves you very much." Just no. That is tangling his aborted relationship with Tamra (and his disappointment in her) with his love for his children. He is using his "noble" love for his children to victimize himself and literally directing the sentiment at his children. There is a term for parents who use children to fulfill their personal emotional needs: covert or emotional incest. It can be devastating to children. Simon writing that bespeaks an inability to shield his kids from his emotional distress over Tamra. His love for this kids should never be crossed with his upset over his marital woes. I can't articulate enough how gross I find that last paragraph. I mean, it would be completely different if he wrote something like, "Regardless of what has happened with Tamra, our marriage gave us three beautiful children. I want to let my kids know that what happens between your mother and I has nothing to do with you and we both love you very much." That would be a healthy separation between his relationship woes and the kids. Instead, he just mixed it all together. This is the kind of stuff that makes me feel he is super controlling, unhealthy and creepy.

I agree portions of his blog indicate a lack of boundaries.

What I don't see is anything indicating covert incest. Covert or emotional incest is defined as having a sexualized parent/child relationship without the physical contact. I have not seen any evidence of such a relationship between Simon and his kids in any of his blogs or on the show. I have not seen all of the RHOC seasons, however.

[zoeysmom]

Simon filed for a divorce after Tamra began her relationship with Eddie.

Tamra is the one alleging Simon sent his girlfriend to video her. Tamra isn't a reliable source for the truth, in my opinion.

It was over and I think Simon realized and decided to move on.  Had to smart Tamra was carrying on with Eddie -a mutual friend.

 

What I took away from Tamra's allegation and matching the tweets up with school schedule and the custody/visitation schedule is that Nanny/Girlfriend took the children to school because Simon had the children and Tamra showed up at the school.  Tamra probably has every right to show up at school but it sounds like Tamra didn't want to be filmed with her children ?  Geez isn't she a TV star?  Tamra threw that out there after her dickwad husband thought the thing to do outside a courtroom is start trouble. 

[zoeysmom]

I agree portions of his blog indicate a lack of boundaries.

What I don't see is anything indicating covert incest. Covert or emotional incest is defined as having a sexualized parent/child relationship without the physical contact. I have not seen any evidence of such a relationship between Simon and his kids in any of his blogs or on the show. I have not seen all of the RHOC seasons, however.

I agree there was a lack of boundaries but there has been nothing to indicate emotional incest.  Simon was always trying to keep sex talk and adult behavior away from the children.

 

I will say the subject blog was written after the final time we see Simon on the show he and Tamra are in the back of a limo and Tamra goes nuts, dropping f-bombs and screaming she wants a divorce.  She then goes to the season finale and plays up the fight even more.  So I do think the kids needed a bit of an explanation as to what was going on between their parents.  By the time Simon wrote this Tamra had moved on with Eddie.

 

I do agree Simon is a control freak at times-especially when it comes to his children but I prefer that to a person who screams and yells and curses and openly admits to being crazy.

[Scrambled Fog]

It was over and I think Simon realized and decided to move on. Had to smart Tamra was carrying on with Eddie -a mutual friend.

What I took away from Tamra's allegation and matching the tweets up with school schedule and the custody/visitation schedule is that Nanny/Girlfriend took the children to school because Simon had the children and Tamra showed up at the school. Tamra probably has every right to show up at school but it sounds like Tamra didn't want to be filmed with her children ? Geez isn't she a TV star? Tamra threw that out there after her dickwad husband thought the thing to do outside a courtroom is start trouble.

Yeah, when a good friend is having an affair with your spouse, that's as good a time as any to file for divorce, in my opinion.

I had a feeling the video allegation was an attempt by Tamra at recreating the reality of the situation.

I wouldn't be surprised if Simon's girlfriend had taken the video simply to commemorate the first day of school.

[zoeysmom]

Yeah, when a good friend is having an affair with your spouse, that's as good a time as any to file for divorce, in my opinion.

I had a feeling the video allegation was an attempt by Tamra at recreating the reality of the situation.

I wouldn't be surprised if Simon's girlfriend had taken the video simply to commemorate the first day of school.

Have you seen Eddie's girlfriend-she is built like Lizzie.  If I were Tamra I would check to make sure Eddie wasn't making a little video for himself-Eddie does seem to like Simon's seconds.

[PhilMarlowe2]

Covert incest does not necessarily mean a sexualized relationship. Covert incest relates to a blurring of emotional boundaries - parents having their children fulfill emotional needs or emotional demands that should only be fulfilled by other adults.

Edited September 14, 2014 by PhilMarlowe2

[Almost 3000]

Covert incest does not necessarily mean a sexualized relationship. Covert incest relates to a blurring of emotional boundaries - parents having their children fulfill emotional needs or emotional demands that should only be fulfilled by other adults.

Might Tamra and Ryan be a good example of this?

[Scrambled Fog]

Covert incest does not necessarily mean a sexualized relationship. Covert incest relates to a blurring of emotional boundaries - parents having their children fulfill emotional needs or emotional demands that should only be fulfilled by other adults.

I respect your opinion. However, I have a different understanding of the definition of "covert incest". I'm no expert, though.

http://www.covertincest.org/content/overview

[zoeysmom]

Might Tamra and Ryan be a good example of this?

A better example than Simon and his children.

[Scrambled Fog]

Might Tamra and Ryan be a good example of this?

I was pondering that possibility myself.

Might orchestrating a sexual assault by proxy of a co-worker using one's own son qualify as "covert incest"? I've got to wonder about that.

Have you seen Eddie's girlfriend-she is built like Lizzie. If I were Tamra I would check to make sure Eddie wasn't making a little video for himself-Eddie does seem to like Simon's seconds.

Lmao!

I could just see Eddie, eagerly waiting on standby, to scavenge for Simon's sloppy seconds.

[zoeysmom]

Covert incest does not necessarily mean a sexualized relationship. Covert incest relates to a blurring of emotional boundaries - parents having their children fulfill emotional needs or emotional demands that should only be fulfilled by other adults.

I think basing a diagnosis on one paragraph, after before our eyes and the kids, their parents lost their home, split up and mom took up with a family friend may have been jumping to a diagnostic conclusions.  Yeah the daddy loves sound a bit creepy but I think the kids probably needed some reassurances.  Blaming the fame. . . probably better than saying mom found another man.  I guess because of the fame though-it is all out there for the kids and their friends to see.

[PhilMarlowe2]

I think basing a diagnosis on one paragraph, after before our eyes and the kids, their parents lost their home, split up and mom took up with a family friend may have been jumping to a diagnostic conclusions.  Yeah the daddy loves sound a bit creepy but I think the kids probably needed some reassurances.  Blaming the fame. . . probably better than saying mom found another man.  I guess because of the fame though-it is all out there for the kids and their friends to see.

 

I wasn't making a diagnostic conclusion. I was explaining why I found him creepy and how that excerpt typified an overall pattern from Simon that I found emotionally controlling. There is a general vibe I get from him that reminds me of patterns of covert incest. I am simply having my own reaction to what I see and hear of Simon on the show/in the media. Mileage can obviously vary.

 

I respect your opinion. However, I have a different understanding of the definition of "covert incest". I'm no expert, though.

http://www.covertincest.org/content/overview

 

 

I don't want to talk about this too much more because I am aware it is getting away from the point of this thread, but my understanding of covert incest lies in this sentence from the linked definition: "What makes it child abuse is the fact the adult is actually exploiting the child for his or her own benefit while neglecting the needs of the child." That is not always going to be a sexual benefit. Sometimes, it is emotional, which can be equally damaging. The gist is that the child becomes a surrogate partner, fulfilling needs for the parent that should only be met by other adults (great book about it), there can be absolutely no inappropriate physical or sexual contact in covert incest. A big part of it is when a child is made to feel more like a "partner" in the parent's life/emotional life rather, that they bear some responsibility for the parent's emotional well-being.

 

All that said, at the end of the day, the term itself isn't really important (to me) - my basic point is that I feel Simon is a very self-involved man who has a tendency to put his own emotional needs in front of what is best for his children, I feel he uses his children as props in his "I'm a victim" feud with Tamra and uses his role as "Daddy" to fill an emotional well - I feel he has done this a lot, especially in social media. The blog is just on example. I also think it can be hugely destructive to children if it carries over to their home life, which I absolutely believe it does.

 

Might Tamra and Ryan be a good example of this?

 

Yeah, definite shades of this - huge alarm bells went off in Tamra's first episode when they were kind of "flirting" over her panties lying around the house. Also, on an emotional level, the way Tamra seems to want Ryan to comfort her in times of distress - her emotional reaction to his leaving ("But what about how this affects me? This is about my emotional life! You have to take care of me and make me feel better about my life! Now am I going to cry hysterically and you have to comfort me and make sure I am okay with everything!"). Generally speaking, a child shouldn't be intimately familiar with a parent's tears - and I have a feeling Ryan has had to take care of Mommy a lot over the years when she has one of her emotional reactions. That's not a kid's job. And I think this is a prime example of how Simon and Tamra have more in common than they like to believe - I think they both use their kids as part as their self-victimization. This is why I just can't feel bad for either one of them.

Edited September 14, 2014 by PhilMarlowe2

[zoeysmom]

PhilMarlowe2,  thank you.  I do think you have struck a chord with the inappropriateness of some of the RH and their reliance on their children to fill their emotional needs.  I would add the other very unhealthy relationship is Vicki and Brianna.  Maybe there is a common thread that these incredibly self-centered, fame-seeking women cannot get enough attention be it from their partners, friends, audience or children.

 

I don't know if most are aware but Simon, gives the media zilch these days.  When he and Tamra first split up he was in Las Vegas and surprise-so was Tamra, with Eddie, which is how he apparently found out about the relationship.  He hit it on Twitter.  After Simon's arrest and subsequent failure to prosecute of the domestic violence charges in fall of 2010, Simon took a hiatus from all things Tamra and media.  This latest dust up has more to do with the Rules of Court and the public filings than a media blitz.

 

I just don't find Simon's writing or persona terribly interesting-I don't recall ever seeing the guy smiling.  Even when he posts pictures of his kids on Twitter-it is always where they were or what they were doing.  It is very didactic almost like someone writing in a mileage log to turn in for reimbursement. 

Edited September 14, 2014 by zoeysmom

[Scrambled Fog]

I don't want to talk about this too much more because I am aware it is getting away from the point of this thread, but my understanding of covert incest lies in this sentence from the linked definition: "What makes it child abuse is the fact the adult is actually exploiting the child for his or her own benefit while neglecting the needs of the child." That is not always going to be a sexual benefit. Sometimes, it is emotional, which can be equally damaging. The gist is that the child becomes a surrogate partner, fulfilling needs for the parent that should only be met by other adults (great book about it), there can be absolutely no inappropriate physical or sexual contact in covert incest. A big part of it is when a child is made to feel more like a "partner" in the parent's life/emotional life rather, that they bear some responsibility for the parent's emotional well-being.

All that said, at the end of the day, the term itself isn't really important (to me) - my basic point is that I feel Simon is a very self-involved man who has a tendency to put his own emotional needs in front of what is best for his children, I feel he uses his children as props in his "I'm a victim" feud with Tamra and uses his role as "Daddy" to fill an emotional well - I feel he has done this a lot, especially in social media. The blog is just on example. I also think it can be hugely destructive to children if it carries over to their home life, which I absolutely believe it does.

Yeah, definite shades of this - huge alarm bells went off in Tamra's first episode when they were kind of "flirting" over her panties lying around the house. Also, on an emotional level, the way Tamra seems to want Ryan to comfort her in times of distress - her emotional reaction to his leaving ("But what about how this affects me? This is about my emotional life! You have to take care of me and make me feel better about my life! Now am I going to cry hysterically and you have to comfort me and make sure I am okay with everything!"). Generally speaking, a child shouldn't be intimately familiar with a parent's tears - and I have a feeling Ryan has had to take care of Mommy a lot over the years when she has one of her emotional reactions. That's not a kid's job. And I think this is a prime example of how Simon and Tamra have more in common than they like to believe - I think they both use their kids as part as their self-victimization. This is why I just can't feel bad for either one of them.

Thanks for educating me! I appreciate it. I'll definitely check out the book.

I had forgotten about that scene from the first episode. Ewwwwww! Now I want to take my brain out - soak it in bleach - wring it out - and then soak it in some Valtrex, just in case.

I'm sure Tamra and Simon had something in common. They were together for a long time.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Scrambled Fog

[Scrambled Fog]

PhilMarlowe2, thank you. I do think you have struck a chord with the inappropriateness of some of the RH and their reliance on their children to fill their emotional needs. I would add the other very unhealthy relationship is Vicki and Brianna. Maybe there is a common thread that these incredibly self-centered, fame-seeking women cannot get enough attention be it from their partners, friends, audience or children.

I don't know if most are aware but Simon, gives the media zilch these days. When he and Tamra first split up he was in Las Vegas and surprise-so was Tamra, with Eddie, which is how he apparently found out about the relationship. He hit it on Twitter. After Simon's arrest and subsequent failure to prosecute of the domestic violence charges in fall of 2010, Simon took a hiatus from all things Tamra and media. This latest dust up has more to do with the Rules of Court and the public filings than a media blitz.

I just don't find Simon's writing or persona terribly interesting-I don't recall ever seeing the guy smiling. Even when he posts pictures of his kids on Twitter-it is always where they were or what they were doing. It is very didactic almost like someone writing in a mileage log to turn in for reimbursement.

Yeah, I agree with you about Vickie and Brianna.

Simon has definitely been silent for a long time. I'm sure he's trying to protect his kids from all of the mess. The whole thing has got to be hard on the kids. I wish Tamra would stay quiet too.

Yes! Great analogy about the pics. It's like Simon is trying to maintain a record.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Scrambled Fog

[PhilMarlowe2]

I would add the other very unhealthy relationship is Vicki and Brianna.  Maybe there is a common thread that these incredibly self-centered, fame-seeking women cannot get enough attention be it from their partners, friends, audience or children.

 

This whole discussion got me thinking about Vicki and the difference between her and, say, Tamra and Simon. Vicki has obviously been a huge narcissist in her family and I do feel she has emotionally dumped on her children. The difference, to my perception/intuition, is that I have never sensed an "intimacy" between Vicki and Michael/Brianna. I definitely think she has browbeaten them, and I do think we are seeing the effects on Brianna (and her terrible life choices). But we have never seen Vicki exhibit any sort of flirtatious energy with Michael - and she never posts on social media in this mopey, self-victimizing  way about her children and how all she can do is try and be a good mother - thereby implying that Donn is not a good father figure and was the one to ruin the family (something Simon used to do all the time on Facebook - he still does it sometimes). Based on what I have seen, Vicki has always seemed to keep her relationship with Donn a separate issue from her relationship with her children. So, I think there is a different quality to the dysfunction. Having said that, I have always maintained that I think there is a lot we haven't seen with Vicki in terms of what goes on behind closed doors. She herself said (of Shannon) this season, "If this is how she behaves in front of people, I can only imagine what is happening when others aren't around." For all I know, Vicki may have been a lot more inappropriate when cameras weren't rolling, we'll never know.

Edited September 14, 2014 by PhilMarlowe2

[leisawoo]

What an incredibly cold and cruel thing for Tamra to say!

So, where is this richer, better looking man Tamra knew she could get?

IKR?! Why didn't she pick THAT guy instead of Teefs?

[Scrambled Fog]

IKR?! Why didn't she pick THAT guy instead of Teefs?

I dunno. Maybe he's at a supersecret, undisclosed location along with Danielle and her lost footage?

[zoeysmom]

I wasn't making a diagnostic conclusion. I was explaining why I found him creepy and how that excerpt typified an overall pattern from Simon that I found emotionally controlling. There is a general vibe I get from him that reminds me of patterns of covert incest. I am simply having my own reaction to what I see and hear of Simon on the show/in the media. Mileage can obviously vary.

 

 

I don't want to talk about this too much more because I am aware it is getting away from the point of this thread, but my understanding of covert incest lies in this sentence from the linked definition: "What makes it child abuse is the fact the adult is actually exploiting the child for his or her own benefit while neglecting the needs of the child." That is not always going to be a sexual benefit. Sometimes, it is emotional, which can be equally damaging. The gist is that the child becomes a surrogate partner, fulfilling needs for the parent that should only be met by other adults (great book about it), there can be absolutely no inappropriate physical or sexual contact in covert incest. A big part of it is when a child is made to feel more like a "partner" in the parent's life/emotional life rather, that they bear some responsibility for the parent's emotional well-being.

 

All that said, at the end of the day, the term itself isn't really important (to me) - my basic point is that I feel Simon is a very self-involved man who has a tendency to put his own emotional needs in front of what is best for his children, I feel he uses his children as props in his "I'm a victim" feud with Tamra and uses his role as "Daddy" to fill an emotional well - I feel he has done this a lot, especially in social media. The blog is just on example. I also think it can be hugely destructive to children if it carries over to their home life, which I absolutely believe it does.

 

 

Yeah, definite shades of this - huge alarm bells went off in Tamra's first episode when they were kind of "flirting" over her panties lying around the house. Also, on an emotional level, the way Tamra seems to want Ryan to comfort her in times of distress - her emotional reaction to his leaving ("But what about how this affects me? This is about my emotional life! You have to take care of me and make me feel better about my life! Now am I going to cry hysterically and you have to comfort me and make sure I am okay with everything!"). Generally speaking, a child shouldn't be intimately familiar with a parent's tears - and I have a feeling Ryan has had to take care of Mommy a lot over the years when she has one of her emotional reactions. That's not a kid's job. And I think this is a prime example of how Simon and Tamra have more in common than they like to believe - I think they both use their kids as part as their self-victimization. This is why I just can't feel bad for either one of them.

Thank you for the further explanation.  For 'emotional incest' to occur, which is a form of child abuse, there needs to be a showing of 'neglecting the needs of the child' as a result of the oversharing.  I just don't see this with the statements Simon has made.  I get that he should not take pot shots at Tamra and one way of preventing that would have been to have a very private off-screen splitting of the ways.  Once there is a televised scream fest it is pretty hard to put the Genie back in the bottle.  I don't feel bad for Simon or Tamra, I just don't think Simon is out there committing child abuse with his Facebook comments.

 

I agree about Tamra and Ryan and I am at a loss to figure out the timeline in the Ryan, Tamra, Simon years.  Tamra said she met Simon when Ryan was seven years old.  Ryan is 29 -30 years old does that mean Simon and Tamra were together for several years before Sidney came along? I know Tamra spends a lot of time "beating herself up"  for not giving Ryan a better childhood because of her financial situation.  I did think it was kind of sad that Tamra needed to be the one hurting when her son was embarking on a new life-free from being financially dependent on Tamra.  I also don't understand how a teenage mom, who can barely support her son, has money for implants?  So many missing pieces in Tamra's life.

 

With Vicki-I just find her story ever-changing.  Sad that her daughter considers her mom to be her best friend.  Maybe the reason Brianna doesn't have any girlfriends is because you cannot treat a friend the way she treated her mom and keep a friend.  I no longer really want to see Brianna-to me her story is done.  She and Vicki actually resorted to "what's for dinner?" during the Reunion segment.  Still somehow 2,000 miles away dinner was still all about Vicki.

[Scrambled Fog]

I don't see any indication of covert or emotional incest between Simon and his kids either.

He's been pretty tight lipped since the time the blog was written. He has probably learned a pretty good lesson about airing dirty laundry in public since then. At least I hope so.