Message Boards

Topic : 05/31 Falsely Accused

Number of Replies: 526
New Messages This Week: 0
Last Reply On:
Created on : Friday, October 28, 2005, 02:16:37 pm
Author : DrPhilBoard1

(Original Air Date: 11/2/2005) False accusations have ruined lives and divided families. No one knows this better than Terry. She claims she was falsely labeled as a gossip at her son, Steve's, rehearsal dinner and was escorted out of his wedding by security! Now, she confronts her son and daughter-in-law for the first time in almost five months. Can this family ever reconcile, or are they better off apart? Then, a former high school principal made headlines when a 16-year-old student accused him of having sex with her. The scandal rocked the town, and now he struggles to regain his reputation and move forward.  Share your thoughts here.

 

Find out what happened on the show.

 

More May 2006 Show Boards.


As of January, 2009, this message board will become "Read Only" and will be closed to further posting. Please join the NEW Dr. Phil Community to continue your discussions, personalize your message board experience, start a blog and meet new friends.

June 1, 2006, 2:10 pm CDT

I CAN'T agree with your comments

Quote From: luvuluvme

I agree with your comments.  It appears to me that the daughter-in-law began placing the "wedge" long before she ever met her future mother-in-law.  It seems that HER family was informed of HER opinions long before the wedding.  That alone constitutes malicious gossip.  

Any loving mother is HAPPY when her son finds a partner that loves him in return, shares his dreams and goals and, possibly, provides her with the GREATEST gift---grandchildren!  It is really a SHAME that so many young (and ignorant) women consider their "prospective mother-in-laws" as "the enemy" right from the beginning.  Are THEIR mothers at fault for encouraging or allowing these pre-conceptions?   Has Dr. Phil ever had a show on that subject?  

Finally, it's a shame that both FATHER and MOTHER weren't welcomed equally.  There's an old saying "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree".  Daughter-in-law BEWARE!!! The same fate could befall you as did your mother-in-law.......better keep a close watch on that husband of yours!    

Please tell me how "it appears the d-i-l began placing a wedge long before she met her future 

m-i-l".  I just don't remember hearing anything on the show that would prove that as a fact.   

  

And if by saying "it seems HER family was informed of her opinions long before the wedding" you are somehow referring to the brides aunt recounting what had been said to her, the groom himself said the aunt had no prior knowledge of the situation with his parents and therefore no clue that what she repeated would alarm them so much. So apparently the bride was not gossiping with her family.  But maybe you are referring to some other time the bride shared her opinions with her family?  I guess I could have missed that part too. 

  

And finally, why do you say "it's a shame that both father and mother weren't welcomed equally"? 

 What I heard on the show was that the bride and groom did all they could to make sure everyone in the family felt included.  The bride even wrote the mother a letter begging her to please come and be a part of the day.  But because there had been comments made by the sister about confronting the fathers new wife during the ceremony that the mother had apparently encouraged, the couple were obviously very concerned about what would happen.  Do you blame them for not wanting to have their ceremony ruined by such crass, tacky means?  

  

They had good reason to believe trouble was brewing, so they set some rules for everyone to follow regarding their behavior that day to make sure no one would do anything out of line or inappropriate.   Then, to ensure no rude crude situation would occur, they hired security for the wedding.  They said on the show they didn't know until the wedding that the "security" would be two off duty policemen who would wear their uniforms for this job.   The mom could have avoided the situation of being escorted out if she had just followed her sons request to not say anything to start any trouble.  He even left at least 10 messages for her to not show up at all because of what she had done at the rehearsal, but she came anyway.  The mom is the one who couldn't follow the rules.  She chose her behavior and had to live with its consequences

  

As I have already said in a previous post, parents are supposed to respect the young couple and their wishes on their special day.  They should act with dignity and class on such an important occasion in their childs life.  This mother didn't.  

   

 
June 1, 2006, 3:18 pm CDT

05/31 Falsely Accused

Quote From: adelphi

I listened with real annoyance to this part of the show. One of the things that really stood out to me was the fact that the daughter-in-law wanted to tell Dr. Phil and the whole world what a rotten person,  AND Mother her Mother-in-law was. Talk about the skillet calling the kettle black!   

AT ONE TIME (note past tense) I had a daughter-in-law who acted the same way and curiously she WAS married to my youngest son. Dr. Phil is correct, eventually her husband will have enough of her cutting him off from his family.   

  Besides that-what is this mind game that young women-lots of them-seem to have to play out when they first get married? They immediately want to teach their husbands what their Mom's did or are doing wrong. I must have been a real dummy because I tried everything to please my husband's mother and only wanted to be part of the family.   

  As for talking about the sins of her EX-husband-if I were her son I would be more embarrased about what the man did to my mother than what she might say about him. Course then, I am a Mother. Go Figure!  

  I am asking a serious question. What is it with this generation of young women? I read something a year or so ago which said  that we had really spoiled them and they thought the world owed them and that everything was all about them. Is this just one more manifestation of this behavior-or what ever?  

  

  

I think that you are right on the mark. I have only been married for two years now, but I really love my mother in law to pieces. How can I not? She raised a wonderful man. I am a young woman and I want you to know that I revere and respect my mother in law as a woman and a mother. It is part of being an adult and NOT a teenager to realize that you are NOT always right and sometimes wonders of wonders mothers in law do have good advice, even if you don't want to hear it. I'm not a mother yet, but someday, I hope to be as warm and loving to whoever my son brings home as my m-i-l has been to me. (AS long as she is not THERESA)
 
June 1, 2006, 3:40 pm CDT

05/31 Falsely Accused

Quote From: lucky24

All we viewers really know about Terry's marriage was that it lasted 27 years.  (Maybe 25 of them were miserable?) 

  

Anything else said about the Dad and what he did or didn't do is just speculation since none of us were actually there as witnesses.  Not to mention, I'm sure if Dad had a chance to give his take on things the story might look a whole lot different.  It's all about perspective.  She has hers because she lived through it, but he has his too because he lived it along with her.  None of us really know why he chose not to be married to Terry any longer.   

  

Regardless, good parents never put their children (even grown ones) in the position of having to choose sides in a divorce.  Children of divorced parents have the right to love each parent.  No parent has the right to manipulate their children's emotions and loyalties toward the other parent - and shame on those that do.   

  

It is not the job of the child of divorced parents to be in any way responsible for the "victim" parents emotional health.    Parents should act like the adults they are and quit expecting their grown children to rescue them from their anger, loneliness, fear of being alone etc... Yes, we are to honor our mothers and fathers.  But that does not mean we must take on all their emotional baggage to show how "loyal" we are to them. 

  

Steve never said his Dad is his role model.  Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.  But he is apparently smart enough to understand that what happened to his parent's marriage was between them and had nothing to do with him.  If he and other siblings choose to accept their Dad's new wife they show a lot more maturity than the person who gets caught up and stuck in the anger of the parent who obviously didn't want the divorce.   Life is about change.  It comes whether we want it to or not. 

  

Some people waste YEARS of their lives being stuck in anger and resentment.  When family and friends jump in and encourage that "justifiable" position they do the person no favors.  Life is about change, and life is hard.  Continuing to bang your head against the wall of change, wailing about how unfair it is will get you nothing but a headache.    

  

Steve obviously values his Dad's presence in his life.  I think he also values his Mom's presence in his life, but not if it comes with the high price of having to carry the weight of all the anger and resentment she still carries six years after the divorce. 

  

I am not vilifying Terry. I just refuse to see her as a victim.  Until she can take an honest look at her part in how things played out at the wedding she will continue to portray herself as a victim - a role Steve is obviously not willing to support her in any longer. 

I agree that "good parents never put their children (even grown ones) in the position of having to choose sides in a divorce" however any one who would rather have brand new wife comfy at their wedding than the mother that raised them isn't worth marrying in the first place. Steve accepting dad's new wife as a sign of maturity? Please. I wouldn't accept new wife as a sign of respect for MARRIAGE at my wedding. Morality in this issue is NOT a gray area.
 
June 1, 2006, 3:53 pm CDT

To poster "Lucky24" -- we meet again...

Hello Lucky24.  Remember that I don't have the tact and grace you do when disagreeing with people, so bare with me, and don't take it personally.  I just mean to combat the words people say, not the people themselves.  I know I have to work on how it comes across in writing.  Anyway, here goes... 

  

Some of the reasons you use to side with the young couple against the groom's mom are not substantiated and/or are simply not reasons which would justify hiring security to deal with Mom.  

  

For example, you said   "...the bride and groom said they hired security for the wedding to prevent any trouble.  They didn't know until the wedding that the "security" was two off duty policemen who would wear their uniforms for this job."  If we believe this to be true, then the very fact that they have to defend themselves with this claim is an admission that this kind of treatment against the Mom wasn't warranted.  They wouldn't be making a point about how they "didn't know" the security would be in uniform unless they realized this was cruel and unusual punishment directed at the Mom.   But did I hear an apology to Mom for this???...  Nope.  (This claim of theirs is called "back peddling" or "covering one's butt.")   

  

Also, you say;  "I really don't think they wanted to have the mom arrested or embarrass her, they just asked the security firm to keep her from attending."  Is it reasonable to believe that hiring security to keep someone from attending a wedding they were originally invited to isn't going to deeply offend and embarrass that person.... especially the MOTHER of the groom of all people?!?!?  Come on, now.... and all on the say-so of that aunt who spread what the Mom purportedly said...  Oh, that's right, your reason for the Aunt's instigating behavior is to say that  "the groom himself said the aunt had no prior knowledge of the situation with his parents and therefore no clue that what she repeated would alarm them so much."  I think this is too convenient.  If we are to believe this, then it  suggests that what she repeated may not have been so explosive after all, or a fool would have known that it was at least a destructive thing to repeat and not have done so...  So why treat Mom so harshly as a result when even the aunt who repeated it didn't think it was such a big deal?...  Yeah, yeah -- you'll claim past history and all that nonsense to defend the couple's hysteria... 

  

Your point that   "They had left her at least 10 messages (according to the son) not to show up because of what she had done at the rehearsal, but she came anyway"  actually has you believing that such an overkill of messages were sent the day before the wedding?  And anyway, what Mom wouldn't try to be there for her son's wedding?  Perhaps her intention was to "behave" as she was told to -- how about giving Mom the benefit of that doubt?  But then, we'll never know.  

  

Finally, you say:  "What I heard on the show was that the bride and groom did all they could to make sure everyone in the family felt included.  The bride even wrote the mother a letter begging her to please come and be a part of the day." We don't know if this is the truth or what Mom said is the truth.  There were always two conflicting stories being told.  Mom claimed she got a letter of thanks for her gift, not a letter begging her to come to the wedding.  I tend to believe this young couple is exaggerating the truth all over the place in order to justify the actions they took against his mom.  You obviously feel differently.   I think I've made my feelings clear about who should and should NOT have been welcomed at the wedding by the happy couple in my previous posts, and that the MOM (and her feelings) should have been welcomed!  She WAS robbed of this day, by a self-centered, immature boy and girl who actually believed they were ready to blend two families. 

  

Well, that's my say and final words on this particular story.  I defer to you to have the last word.  Good night -- 'till next controversy... 

 
June 1, 2006, 4:58 pm CDT

thanks for writing again!

Quote From: terrbin

Hello Lucky24.  Remember that I don't have the tact and grace you do when disagreeing with people, so bare with me, and don't take it personally.  I just mean to combat the words people say, not the people themselves.  I know I have to work on how it comes across in writing.  Anyway, here goes... 

  

Some of the reasons you use to side with the young couple against the groom's mom are not substantiated and/or are simply not reasons which would justify hiring security to deal with Mom.  

  

For example, you said   "...the bride and groom said they hired security for the wedding to prevent any trouble.  They didn't know until the wedding that the "security" was two off duty policemen who would wear their uniforms for this job."  If we believe this to be true, then the very fact that they have to defend themselves with this claim is an admission that this kind of treatment against the Mom wasn't warranted.  They wouldn't be making a point about how they "didn't know" the security would be in uniform unless they realized this was cruel and unusual punishment directed at the Mom.   But did I hear an apology to Mom for this???...  Nope.  (This claim of theirs is called "back peddling" or "covering one's butt.")   

  

Also, you say;  "I really don't think they wanted to have the mom arrested or embarrass her, they just asked the security firm to keep her from attending."  Is it reasonable to believe that hiring security to keep someone from attending a wedding they were originally invited to isn't going to deeply offend and embarrass that person.... especially the MOTHER of the groom of all people?!?!?  Come on, now.... and all on the say-so of that aunt who spread what the Mom purportedly said...  Oh, that's right, your reason for the Aunt's instigating behavior is to say that  "the groom himself said the aunt had no prior knowledge of the situation with his parents and therefore no clue that what she repeated would alarm them so much."  I think this is too convenient.  If we are to believe this, then it  suggests that what she repeated may not have been so explosive after all, or a fool would have known that it was at least a destructive thing to repeat and not have done so...  So why treat Mom so harshly as a result when even the aunt who repeated it didn't think it was such a big deal?...  Yeah, yeah -- you'll claim past history and all that nonsense to defend the couple's hysteria... 

  

Your point that   "They had left her at least 10 messages (according to the son) not to show up because of what she had done at the rehearsal, but she came anyway"  actually has you believing that such an overkill of messages were sent the day before the wedding?  And anyway, what Mom wouldn't try to be there for her son's wedding?  Perhaps her intention was to "behave" as she was told to -- how about giving Mom the benefit of that doubt?  But then, we'll never know.  

  

Finally, you say:  "What I heard on the show was that the bride and groom did all they could to make sure everyone in the family felt included.  The bride even wrote the mother a letter begging her to please come and be a part of the day." We don't know if this is the truth or what Mom said is the truth.  There were always two conflicting stories being told.  Mom claimed she got a letter of thanks for her gift, not a letter begging her to come to the wedding.  I tend to believe this young couple is exaggerating the truth all over the place in order to justify the actions they took against his mom.  You obviously feel differently.   I think I've made my feelings clear about who should and should NOT have been welcomed at the wedding by the happy couple in my previous posts, and that the MOM (and her feelings) should have been welcomed!  She WAS robbed of this day, by a self-centered, immature boy and girl who actually believed they were ready to blend two families. 

  

Well, that's my say and final words on this particular story.  I defer to you to have the last word.  Good night -- 'till next controversy... 

Hi Terrbin - good to read you here again :) 

  

I really do appreciate that in your writing you are trying to combat the words people say and not the people - so don't worry, I see your good intentions and am in no way offended. 

  

As usual, you have written at length so I may not get to everything you said in this post this time, but I'll try! 

  

I will start with what we do agree on - we DON'T know which of these two conflicting stories is the real truth.  I said on a previous post that none of us as viewers can really know the truth since none of us were actually there.  And given that all total Dr. Phil talked to these people for maybe 20 minutes on the show I'm sure there is a great deal more background and history than we heard that day.   

  

When I am watching Dr. Phil interview people I tend to take my cues from him as to which direction the truth leans.  This is because he does have all the background and history and does very thorough research on the people who come on his show.   It was obvious to me he did not buy for one minute that Terry was an innocent "victim" in this situation.  He kept saying, "oh, come on" to try to get her to see how unbelievable some of her claims of innocence were.   I could have found her story at least somewhat credible if she had at least owned up to her share of the responsibility for how this whole wedding day situation unfolded.  I never said the whole thing was her fault.  In fact, I think when you get down to it and look at each person in the story OBJECTIVELY you see that the whole situation was one that they all played a role in which just seemed to snowball out of control.   

  

As far as the 10 messages Steve left his mother, I didn't say he did that the day before the wedding.  I said, he said, he left those messages all day long the day of the wedding.  This was because sometime between the rehearsal and the wedding itself he learned about the comment Terry made to the aunt.    

  

I feel like for Steve, she had crossed the line and done exactly what she had been asked not to do by making such a crude comment about the dad. When he discovered what she had said, that was apparently the straw that broke the camels back.  At that point he basically un-invited her to the wedding.  Maybe she got those messages from him, maybe she didn't.  But in his mind she was no longer welcome at the ceremony - as sad as many of us think that is, he had a right to his feelings.  Obviously there is something in their history as mother and son that caused him to believe he had reached his limit with her behavior.    None of us know what that history is exactly or how he may have suffered for years in his relationship with her, so we have no right to judge his decision to ban her. 

  

I state again, she was not "robbed" of this special day.  She made a choice to behave in a way she had already been asked NOT to behave in and suffered the consequence of her OWN choice.   

  

All of you up in arms about how this is Steve's own fault for inviting his dad and his new wife to the wedding should take a minute to remember that we don't know dad's side of the story for why he left Terry.  Things are not usually as simple as some of you want to make them out to be here.   

  

A bride and groom have the right to invite whomever they wish to their special day, regardless of how anyone else feels about the others invited.  It is the duty of the family and other guests invited to help celebrate this day, not tarnish it with their own personal agendas.    

  

Since Steve had to suffer thru his parents marriage and divorce I'd say he is entitled to his own opinion and feelings as to whether or not his dad deserves to be "punished" by him for whatever things he has done.   Nobody has the right to condemn Steve for his choice to include the new wife when he did it because he obviously cares about that side of his "family" too.   All of you who are stuck on the theme that the new wife is some homewrecker and must be treated poorly because of it, need to reexamine how situations in your own lives may be tainting your ability to be completely objective on this subject.   

  

These may not be my final words, but all I have for now :)  Take care Terrbin 

 
June 1, 2006, 8:47 pm CDT

choosing the step mom over the mom

I can't believe a son would choose his step mom over his own mother. Steve had to know the circumstances of his parents' divorce and the role this woman played. If he had any backbone he would have told his father to leave her home so his mom could enjoy the wedding. Why should Terry have this thrown in her face at her son's wedding? On top of it to have your mother escorted out of your wedding by police officers??I feel sorry for Steve because if he thinks his mother is controlling, take a good look at your new wife. It seems to me that the aunt did her share of gossiping about Terry but was not thrown out of the wedding.
 
June 1, 2006, 9:17 pm CDT

Maybe "morality" for them means practicing forgiveness

Quote From: x0ffender

I agree that "good parents never put their children (even grown ones) in the position of having to choose sides in a divorce" however any one who would rather have brand new wife comfy at their wedding than the mother that raised them isn't worth marrying in the first place. Steve accepting dad's new wife as a sign of maturity? Please. I wouldn't accept new wife as a sign of respect for MARRIAGE at my wedding. Morality in this issue is NOT a gray area.

Like all brides and grooms everywhere, Steve and Teresa obviously wanted a beautiful, joyful wedding.   They invited their families and wanted all to celebrate with them.   When disruption and inappropriate behavior was threatened they took steps to protect their "big" day.  The way they handled things may be different than the way you would have handled it, but that was their right and choice.  That doesn't make what they did wrong, or immature or selfish. 

  

Mom is responsible for her own level of comfort or discomfort, she is an adult - not a child in need of some type of protection.  Judging dad and new wife and refusing to "accept them as a sign of respect for marriage" is a cop out. It is an excuse which allows you to continue to hold onto anger, bitterness and a hardened heart. "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone".  Obviously Steve has decided to let God do the judging and is instead appreciating the time he has with his dad now.  Too bad Mom chooses to waste her time in denial.   

 
June 1, 2006, 9:18 pm CDT

A valuable asset to society!

This principle is my hero! If only everyone could be so great! He is someone who took himself out of a negative situation, into a positive situation, just to be put right back into a negative situation for no good reason. I think the accuser should have been penalized by both the school and the state. Anyone who falsely accuses someone undeserving and manages to tarnish their good name, should get a punishment that fits the crime. It's absolutely ridiculous that she (the accuser) comes out of this whole thing without a scratch. She can go anywhere in the world and not have to be identified as the girl who falsely accused her principle of sexual misconduct. However, no matter where he goes, he will have a cloud hanging over his head for a while. One day , I hope that he will have the heart to forgive her. Not for her sake but for his own so that he can wake up in the morning and not have to think about her. I hope that he will have the mental strength and stamina to remove the cloud over his head. He's a good man, a brilliant man and a valuable asset to society!
 
June 1, 2006, 9:45 pm CDT

It's not so simple

Quote From: karbow

I can't believe a son would choose his step mom over his own mother. Steve had to know the circumstances of his parents' divorce and the role this woman played. If he had any backbone he would have told his father to leave her home so his mom could enjoy the wedding. Why should Terry have this thrown in her face at her son's wedding? On top of it to have your mother escorted out of your wedding by police officers??I feel sorry for Steve because if he thinks his mother is controlling, take a good look at your new wife. It seems to me that the aunt did her share of gossiping about Terry but was not thrown out of the wedding.

But that is the point, don't you see?  Knowing what Steve knows about his parents divorce he STILL chooses to have a relationship with his father and the new wife.  To me, that says that there is a whole lot more to the story than we all know.   

  

Steve came across as a very reasonable, mature, thoughtful man.   Maybe dad was not the sole problem in the parents marriage?  Maybe Steve acted according to what he knows firsthand about who his parents are.  This has nothing to do with Steve's "backbone".  It seems to me that he showed plenty of backbone when his mother, who had been asked to act appropriately and not negatively, disregarded his wishes and needed to be dealt with. He didn't tell his father to leave the new wife at home because he apparently wanted her there.  I don't think they were in any way trying to throw anything in Terry's face - they just wanted to be able to invite who they wanted to the wedding.  He obviously looks at new wife as part of his family now.   I know situations like this can be very uncomfortable.  But it has been six years now and I think he expected everyone to be capable of acting with class and dignity.   He didn't choose the stepmom over his own mother.  His own mother chose to threaten the peace and joy of his wedding day so he reacted.  Like everyone else, I think it is very sad she missed the wedding.  But we should all try to remember there is obviously a lot more to this story than we can possibly know. 

  

  

 
June 1, 2006, 10:30 pm CDT

One of the minority that agrees with the young couple

No family issue finds one member completely inocent - and all the blame on the other - however I want to raise a couple of thoughts.  First - in parent/children issues - one person has to be the adult - and that person needs to be held to a higher accountability.  Second point - Steve's mom strikes me as a person who is mad at her ex-husband over the hurt she endured ( and there may have been a reason she could not hold the love of her children's father) but the key point I want to make is that a woman scorned can have perfect reason for her scorn - but should never allow that anger to poison the children against their other parent.  When that happens you find things like Steve's brothers and sister who are more interested in defending mom than seeing and speaking truth.  There is a reason God gave a commandment about speaking false witness against others - it is because as we saw on this show - lives can be destroyed.  I have lived the results of a person's lies - and the results it has on others to defend the hurt - or self proclaimed hurt and abandoned the truth and the accused.  I am proud of Steve mostly for taking a stand against what I believe he felt was likely to happen - an embarrassing moment during the ceremony - one of which his sister said she would do - and what I believe mom defended - after all her daughter would be making a public stand for her - and that is what mom's who use their children as pawns in broken marriages live for - justification, pity, defense from the children - and most of all - hatred of the children for the other parent.  This issue has its roots in the fact that Steve is not immature - but rather mature - and that maturity is shown by his willingness to love his mother and his father - and let the consequences fall where those who want to controll his love for others force them to fall.  I would love to see them all patch it up - but mommy has to drop the poor me syndrome and realize her kids need both parents and she needs to let them be open in those relationships!
 
First | Prev | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | Next | Last