Re: The Dr. Phil show yesterday and today

Nataliesgramma · ‎03-28-2015

I don't watch Dr Phil anymore because it has become a show like Jerry Springer........screaming....

Hubby had it on in the other room while I was cooking dinner.....I had him turn down the volume....it was awful

Rockycoast · ‎03-02-2016

Watched both segments. As Dr. Phil, says, she had been taking a lie detector test all along. She exhibited many signs of lieing as she was speaking. She made it up. There was no sexual abuse by the boyfriend. I'm glad Dr. Phil let her have it right between the eyes. People like her that bring false charges against the child's father make it difficult for real sexual abuse cases. The child should be removed from her care and given full custody to the father. The "mother" should only have supervised visitation, and I would limit the amount of visitation too. The grandmother is an enabler as Dr. Phil said. She too should have only limited access to the child. They both owe that man an appology. The first thing that man should do when he stepped off the plane going home would be to contact a lawyer. Get that child away from her.

Jaspersmom · ‎06-08-2011

I watched both days. What I have to remember whenever I tune in to these shows is that it is a TV show AND I'm seeing snippets of a bigger story. The snippets are the ones that Dr. Phil and his staff decide to show in just under 60 minutes. He steers the show in the direction he wants to to keep the show interesting. Judge Judy does the same thing. I believe there was much more to this whole case than what was revealed in the two days of airing. I do struggle with whether or not Dr. Phil is a mandated reporter since he chose years ago to not renew his license. Not sure of the laws in Cali or even Texas. I would like someone to clarify what he must do by law. As far as yesterday's show, I don't think the mother will get help since she believes she's right. She seems to have a vendetta against the boyfriend and is very bitter about his new life. Here is what I don't get. IF the boyfriend is so innocent and I hope he is, how come no one from HIS family was on the show???? I missed a few minutes of the second day, so I don't know if there was any mention of that.

DREAMON · ‎03-09-2010

wrote:
I watched both days. What I have to remember whenever I tune in to these shows is that it is a TV show AND I'm seeing snippets of a bigger story. The snippets are the ones that Dr. Phil and his staff decide to show in just under 60 minutes. He steers the show in the direction he wants to to keep the show interesting. Judge Judy does the same thing. I believe there was much more to this whole case than what was revealed in the two days of airing. I do struggle with whether or not Dr. Phil is a mandated reporter since he chose years ago to not renew his license. Not sure of the laws in Cali or even Texas. I would like someone to clarify what he must do by law. As far as yesterday's show, I don't think the mother will get help since she believes she's right. She seems to have a vendetta against the boyfriend and is very bitter about his new life. Here is what I don't get. IF the boyfriend is so innocent and I hope he is, how come no one from HIS family was on the show???? I missed a few minutes of the second day, so I don't know if there was any mention of that.

I still think there was something missing from that entire situation..and I totally agree about the father having no one there backing him up. I just don't think the entire truth was told on both sides.

Laura14 · ‎06-09-2014

I think most of us watching knew the mother was a liar the moment she didn't call the police on the first night her child told her she was harmed. That was kind of all I needed to know.

The body language BS was over the top and unnecessary. Obviously even Jack Tremarco didn't want to waste his time with these people.

How can you hear your child say she was harmed like that, then according to the mother actually see physical evidence of it, and you don't take your 2 year old immediately to an ER? Say what?

I don't even have children and even I know that if I see any physical evidence that a 2 year old has been messed with in any way especially in the way she said she was, I have no issue taking the kid to the closest hospital at once.

As an adult woman, you automatically KNOW there could be all kinds of internal injuries you can't see. Any moderately intelligent woman would want their daughter, niece, cousin, sister, family friend, stranger etc... checked out immediately just for those health issues alone.

I honestly don't know what's wrong with the father. I'd be suing her for full custody 3 years ago when this came up and would have my daughter with me the moment the investigation closed and cleared my name which I believe happened in less than a year.

And any court that leaves a kid with a mother and grandmother who sit there and say "but I was scared to call for help" and "it's not my child I can't call the mother has to" needs to have some some mental health reviews of their own.

SeaMaiden · ‎03-10-2010

wrote:
wrote:
I watched both days. What I have to remember whenever I tune in to these shows is that it is a TV show AND I'm seeing snippets of a bigger story. The snippets are the ones that Dr. Phil and his staff decide to show in just under 60 minutes. He steers the show in the direction he wants to to keep the show interesting. Judge Judy does the same thing. I believe there was much more to this whole case than what was revealed in the two days of airing. I do struggle with whether or not Dr. Phil is a mandated reporter since he chose years ago to not renew his license. Not sure of the laws in Cali or even Texas. I would like someone to clarify what he must do by law. As far as yesterday's show, I don't think the mother will get help since she believes she's right. She seems to have a vendetta against the boyfriend and is very bitter about his new life. Here is what I don't get. IF the boyfriend is so innocent and I hope he is, how come no one from HIS family was on the show???? I missed a few minutes of the second day, so I don't know if there was any mention of that.
I still think there was something missing from that entire situation..and I totally agree about the father having no one there backing him up. I just don't think the entire truth was told on both sides.

Not everyone wants to be on national TV taking about private issues... especially on a joke of a show like Dr. Phil.. I would NEVER GO ON THIS SHOW for any family member... even my own Mother. ARE YOU KIDDING??!! No way! His side of the family may have said no to showing up.

SharkE · ‎08-19-2010

Way I understood it the Mother had suffered in her own childhood and she was transferring her pain onto the child when the child wasn't in harms way.

I felt sorry for the man and all GOOD men now days who have to suffer at the hands of vindictive women who can use and twist the laws to satisfy their own need for vengeance. Men, are scared to show any affection to their own children. Jail time, loss of jobs, money spent on lawyers, might even be labeled a pedophile and get sent to prison. Tragic

colliegirls · ‎05-13-2012

In a child that age, sexual abuse is usually obvious when examined by a doctor.

Laura14 · ‎06-09-2014

wrote:
In a child that age, sexual abuse is usually obvious when examined by a doctor.

@colliegirls They had the medical records when the mother finally did go 7 days later and they didn't even call DCFS because there was no compelling reason to do so. They saw nothing.

highmaintenancejan · ‎03-09-2010

I watched both shows and I totally agree with Dr. Phil. I think the Mother and Grandmother have MAJOR problems. I don't think the child was sexually abused and I think the child was coached. I think the Mother is a total "NUT JOB". I feel really bad for the Father. I do not think Dr. Phil overstepped his bounds or railroaded her. She was nuts and couldn't be reasoned with!!