Fox News host Bill O’Reilly finally lost a years-long battle with his own children over his right to have custody of them. A New York appeals court put an end to the protracted family battle by affirming a lower court’s decision that O’Reilly’s teenage children don’t have to see him if they don’t want to and that they can live full-time with their mother, Maureen McPhilmy.
This is quite a slap in the face for O’Reilly, a man who never hestitated to lecture (mostly African-American) parents on how to raise their families. Even while privately fighting his ex-wife and his own children, the pundit felt brazenly self-assured in telling his viewers that letting their children listen to Beyonce causes teen pregnancy. In 2013, he wrote an op-ed suggesting liberal parents being too gentle with their kids has led to almost all of society’s ills. He used Miley Cyrus twerking at the MTV Music Awards as an example.

Of course, this being Fox, poor parents were an even more frequent target. Here is a typically shameful exchange O’Reilly had with a guest in 2015:

O’REILLY: OK. Let’s take your situation, all right? From what I understand from our research of you, in San Diego, when you were growing up, there was a six month period in 1983-84 where you were hungry; is that correct? As a child.


JOHNSON-HUSTON: I was homeless.

O’REILLY: You were homeless and hungry.

JOHNSON-HUSTON: Yes.

O’REILLY: And that is because your mother — no father, right?

JOHNSON-HUSTON: Father wasn’t around.

O’REILLY: OK. Your mother was an alcoholic, is that true?

JOHNSON-HUSTON: She had alcohol and drug issues, yes.

O’REILLY: OK. And drugs issues. Now, my point is: I feel terrible for you that you had to go through that, I really do. And I give literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to charities to help kids who are in your circumstance. You should know that.

JOHNSON-HUSTON: Thank you and I appreciate it.

O’REILLY: But that’s not society’s fault that your mother was a drug addict and alcoholic and you didn’t have a father. That’s not my fault. But that was my point and it was clearly made.

But while O’Reilly loves to take the moral high ground when lecturing his guests and audience, at home there is reason to believe he is an unequivocal monster. The “angry” persona he plays for his Fox News crowd apparently doesn’t go away when the cameras stop rolling. During the legal battle, all of O’Reilly’s skeletons came out of his closet and the picture was disturbing. In one example, leaked to the press, O’Reilly’s young daughter told a forensic examiner that she had watched O’Reilly brutally assault her mom in a fit of rage.

According to a source familiar with the facts of the case, a court-appointed forensic examiner testified at a closed hearing that O’Reilly’s daughter claimed to have witnessed her father dragging McPhilmy down a staircase by her neck, apparently unaware that the daughter was watching.

Later, O’Reilly attempted to destroy his ex-wife’s reputation, going so far as to attempt to use his clout as a Republican celebrity to get her excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.

The New York appeals court seems to have taken this pattern of abuse into account when they issued their ruling:

Viewing the totality of the circumstances, there is a sound and substantial basis for the Supreme Court’s determination that it is in the best interests of the children for the mother to be awarded primary residential custody. Particularly relevant in this case are the clearly stated preferences of the children, especially considering their age and maturity, and the quality of the home environment provided by the mother.

O’Reilly denies any and all of the allegations levied against him, but even if only some of them were true, it’s probably a very good thing that his children are allowed to stay away from his influence

Altered the title a bit to make it less sarcastic

Frazzled wrote:Do we really need a thread to wallow in that pain?

 Breotan wrote:
This kind of topic is usually covered by those women's interest magazines you see at grocery store checkout counters.

One thing we know is that divorces are messy. So are the ensuing custody challenges that follow. I'd like to point out that the author of that article really has no idea how good O'Reilly was as a father or what is going on behind the scenes in this custody case and neither does anyone else posting here.

 Ouze wrote:
reveling in this would be what is known in bird culture as "a dick move".

 whembly wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
This kind of topic is usually covered by those women's interest magazines you see at grocery store checkout counters.

One thing we know is that divorces are messy. So are the ensuing custody challenges that follow. I'd like to point out that the author of that article really has no idea how good O'Reilly was as a father or what is going on behind the scenes in this custody case and neither does anyone else posting here.

Having been divorced and saw the Abyss that the state can corner the father, in the name of "what's best for the children" trope, it's really, REALLY complicated and messy.

Copious amounts of salt is needed for any reporting here....

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Three things are abundantly clear:

1) his daughter testified that she saw him abuse their mother
2) neither child want to live with him
3) he is a complete and utter hypocrite

 Frazzled wrote:
From years of personal experience on the subject
I am leery of the title and the point of the article. Without detailed information it was more likely that the ex spouse wanted custody of the kids.

Remember these actions are theoretically on behalf of the children. We were always being sued saying it was better for the kids and the kids wanted this or that.

46 suits later and each kid broke off contact with the sperm donor suing us saying the kids wanted to stay with him, pretty much the moment the each could drive and make their own decision. So I'm leery.

Further, this is just a hack attack because derp derp O'Reilly. Regardless of the true details we have a family in pain. Do we really need a thread to wallow in that pain?

Or in the words of the lawyer before Congressional commission: "have you no decency sir?" (sorry just love typing that whenever possible, this is not meant at the original poster).

 curran12 wrote:
Not just a public figure, but a CONSERVATIVE public figure. Because of that, we get to hoot and holler like Star Wars sand people because moral high ground!

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Also, if he were a hypocrite and didn't believe that traditional family values were best, why would he be fighting his ex for custody of his children? From the quoted "shameful exchange" if he were a hypocrite he would have lost his kids in the divorce due to a combination of drug and alcohol addiction and truly not giving a gak about his kids.

There is plenty of publicly available evidence—thanks to a 2004 sexual harassment lawsuit filed by former Fox News producer Andrea Mackris—that O’Reilly engaged in lewd, highly sexual behavior with at least one other woman while he was married to McPhilmy. O’Reilly reached an out-of-court settlement with Mackris, but not before she filed an incredible 22-page affidavit detailing the precise methods of O’Reilly’s harassment, including transcripts from phone conversations in which the anchor insisted Mackris masturbate with a vibrator, bragged about attending “a sex show in Thailand,” and promised to fondle her vagina using a “falafel thing.”

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How are they "Facts" can you offer irrefutable proof he is both of those?

 feeder wrote:
He *is* a dirtbag. He *is* a hypocrite. These are facts.

 feeder wrote:
He *is* a dirtbag. He *is* a hypocrite. These are facts.