« List of Service - Dems, Reps, Barking Heads | Main | Break Out The Jiffy Pop »

September 23, 2004

Social Services Worker Killed By Disgruntled Dad

Paul Dubois, 40, shot Department of Social Services worker Linda Silva in the head because she recommended that his estranged wife get custody of their two children. Dubois was found guilty of first-degree murder. The killing is believed to be the first job-related murder of a DSS employee.

Posted on September 23, 2004 at 08:50 AM | Permalink


No surprise here. Killed the Social Worker instead of the mom. Maybe that's the next big thing?

Posted by: Moi ;) at Sep 23, 2004 3:45:27 PM

Gosh, killing the social worker helped his case! Not.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Sep 23, 2004 4:50:02 PM

Rotten shame that some people have to kill to strike out at an opressive government. Presumtion for shared physical and legal custody. It's what's right.

Posted by: TonySprout at Sep 25, 2004 9:50:10 AM

Here's one that'll make you father hating bimbos REALLY happy. Isn't that rich?

Patrick "Butch" Bailey, Sr.
in Chesterfield, Virginia

He was not allowed to see his 4-year-old son.

Last year he earned $66,000.
This year he earned $44,000 working 7 days a week.
A judge imputed his income at $88,000.
He had never earned $88,000 a year.
He fell into arrears. It was beyond his control.
He wanted to see his son.
The more he fought, the more he was ordered to pay.
He wanted to demonstrate on a hill near Richmond.
On Monday, after appearing in court,
he resorted to a hose and the car exhaust.

He told his brother Scott, who lives in North Carolina,
that if anything happened to him,
he wanted his ashes to be spread in the Blue Ridge Mountains,
which he loved.
His estranged wife, who would not let him see his son,
will not release his body to his Scott.
She wants an open casket and his young son to see
his Dad in Death, the Dad she would not let him see in Life.

Posted by: TonySprout at Sep 26, 2004 8:04:51 AM

This is so scary. My son, who shared 50/50
parenting with his child's mother, was charged
with molestation TWO days before the custody
hearing. He did not see my granddaughter for
90 days! Child's mother continued to make
allegations (all found unsubstantiated - same as
"unfounded" in Arizona). My son had numerous
test which proved that he had no sexual
interest in children. Went to court - Judge
okayed 50/50 parenting again.

Late August we went to court again for the same
custody hearing. Court appointed Psychologist
found no abnormality in my son, but found many
personality disorders in the child's mother.
Histrionic, Narcissistic, NOS with Borderline,
Partial Remission & Personality Disorder.
Psychologist suggested extensive therapy.

We received ruling yesterday. Judge has given
sole legal custody to the mother. Judge did
not even suggest that the mother receive
therapy. Cut my down down from 50/50 to
seeing my granddaughter 12 days a month.

Yes, this is definitely justice. My son says
that his problem is that he has a penis. I
have to say that it certainly seems this way.

Posted by: brit at Oct 30, 2004 5:50:32 PM

My son says that his problem is that he has a penis

This sounds rather dodgy to me, but if that's really his problem, at least it has an easy solution. I hear it's a piece of piss these days, as surgical procedures go. Wouldn't fancy it myself, but then I never thought of mine as a problem, as such. Before he goes and does anything drastic, though, he might want to make sure that the problem isn't something else; it wouldn't do to go through with it and then realise it hadn't solved anything, right? I mean, bloody hell.

But if his problem is that simple, we can be grateful that modern technology offers such a convenient and, um, painless solution, I suppose.

Hope this helps.

Posted by: Sigmund Bjornstein at Oct 31, 2004 1:49:29 AM


But your son almost has 50/50 parenting time anyway if I count correctly, he has 12 days a month...well 3 more days and he has exactly one half the month...

So stop acting like this result is soooooo unrealistic...and btw, it's not YOUR TIME, but time with your son that his child should be having...not dumping his kid off with you for his 48% of the parenting time...

The ONLY problem I can see is that his ex has legal TITLE of custodial parent so your son has to pay child support...but as far as parenting time (which is ALL most fathers and their supporters, like yourself, claim they are interested in) he has just about 50/50...

So what's your complaint about????

Does he NOT want to pay child support? So who should be supporting his kids when they are with their mother, if he has exactly 50/50 parenting time and doesn't pay any child support? Do you think the taxpayers of Arizona should be doing this????

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 31, 2004 1:43:17 PM

Thanks Tony...for one more reason to dislike you...your choice of prose stinks...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 31, 2004 1:45:20 PM

NYMOM- you really are amazing aren't you.. you want this poor man stumping up cash
and then complain that granny has to baby-sit while he works.

Everyone (men, children, women who are not mom (granny, auntie etc) all have to be sacrificed on your big ideological bonfire don't they? Why don't you answer the point poor granny is making?

You don't because you can't.

The decision is wrong and thats plain for anyone to see.

Posted by: Steve at Nov 1, 2004 6:13:30 AM

Yes, there's nothing like killing someone because you didn't get your way to show what a stellar parent you are. Don't give me this crap about how the FR movement is all about the children if you excuse this BS. Not only was this guy a violent sociopath, he was stupid. Um, does he have custody of his kid now?

No, I thought not.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Nov 1, 2004 10:13:41 AM

"Why don't you answer the point poor granny is making?

You don't because you can't."

Well what was her point?

Her son sees his child almost 50% of the month as 12 days a month is almost 50% of the month. She said her son originally had Joint Custody but now the mother has Sole Custody and her son has 12 days a month of parenting time, so I don't understand what the problem is? What that her son has 48% or something, as opposed to 50% of the time with his son...which means what...that he can't dump his kid off on his mother for an extra 3 days a month???

Is that her complaint...

The ONLY significant thing about the change in legal terminology is that NOW he probably has to pay child support which is now rapidly BECOMING the purpose of assigning ANYONE as the primary care parent these days really, to allocate financial resources. I mean if parenting time is split almost 50/50 then who is responsible for supporting this child? What if the child is on some sort of assistance? Who is responsible for reimbursing the taxpayers for medical or WIC or housing or 101 other things that a child might be eligible for?

So again I ask what is her complaint as her son has just about 50/50 parenting time anyway which is what you all keeping claiming it's about anyway, not money, but parenting time...well he has that...so what is his mother's complaint NOW?

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 1, 2004 10:49:27 AM

Look NYMOM- granny is saying that mom is nuts but still gets custody, which is obviously wrong, isn't it?
As for the rest, if I look after my kids 50% of the time, leaving mormmie, as you yanks say, 50% of her time to earn some money, why should I pay one cent, since we are exactly in the same position? I accept that if mommie is totally incapable of earning then it might be appropriate in some cases to order a little payment but this is not appropriate where, eg, this is due to her mental incapacity, when she should get visitation only.
Its incredible though that you use the expression "dump the kid" when the poor man, working and looking after the nippaz 46% of the time, actually uses granny to help with the child care. Bet you don't use such expressions for poor single mormmies who leave babies with child-agencies, boyfriends, playgroups etc. No, course ya don't.
Simple answer again: if a man is willing and capable to look after kiddies 50% of time (including using appropriate recognised childcare) then he should be allowed to and shouldn't have to finance the other parties' inability to earn zip (except in special circumstances: eg. mom is loving and good parent, but unable to work because of health problems.)

Posted by: Steve at Nov 1, 2004 11:10:49 AM

Listen...I know Paul Dubois' son...and I care about him very
much...he has to deal with the fact that his father killed
someone for the rest of his life...don't be so insensitive.
It isn't just the social worker and Paul Dubois' business...
the kids have to suffer, too.

Posted by: anon at Jun 21, 2005 5:22:00 PM