CUOMO: And then what happens?
REYES: And then we move on with our lives and hopefully, Rebecca realizes these silly motions and orders that keep going on in the court system are really just spinning wheels in the sand. We can finalize this divorce, we can hopefully both be great parents to Ela.
CUOMO: Do you think that this will make the situation better or worse between the two of you, going forward?
REYES: I think that if what I would like to see happen happens, then at some point there's going to b an acceptance on Rebecca's part that Joseph's a permanent part of our daughter's life. And, as she's already acknowledged, that Joseph's a great dad and we can just move on. There's got to be a healing process at some point, I would hope. This idea that there is all this anger that I harbor toward Rebecca is really just in Rebecca's imagination.
CUOMO: Is it fair for her to see your introducing Catholicism and going through the sacraments with your child as a way of bonding with her? To try to compete with the relationship with Rebecca or form something new and unique to you and your daughter that Rebecca can't have?
REYES: No, it's not a competition. It certainly is a bonding experience, it certainly is something that I share with Ela, with our daughter, but in order to buy into the ideology that it's somehow a competing element, absolutely not. I would always invite Rebecca to come with us and experience celebrating mass or celebrating any of the sacraments.
CUOMO: Tell me again why didn't you trust in the system, if you did it the way you were supposed to do which is when the TRO was issued and then held up on appeal, you wait the 30 days and you go through the system, make your arguments, come to a decision as a group. Why didn't you do it that way?
REYES: The system is grossly unjust, particularly towards dads and I have suffered enough injustice based on the prior litigation. I couldn't trust anything, I can't trust anything.
CUOMO: But what would have been the worst case scenario if you did it that way? REYES: That the judge would have perceived some status quo is being established, which in my opinion, would have been a bad status quo and then base prior rulings on his desire to maintain the status quo. And that's what happens in divorce litigation all the time. Dads are forced out of their children's lives, mostly because of some lies, and then judges will say, 'you know what, we evaluated the father, he's not a threat to the child, we'll grant visitation but we have to maintain the status quo.' The six months the dad was seeing a therapist or being evaluated in essence, creates this bad status quo that the courts claim they need to maintain.
CUOMO: And that's happened in your case right? You had supervised visitation for a while because of allegations that your wife made.
REYES: Yes, and you would think a light bulb would go on over the judge's head and he would realize, 'hey, you know all of these things that were said… the reason we gave Joseph supervised visitations, they're all untrue, they're all untrue, and maybe we need to look at the mom because what kind of mom would make up these lies and disrupt their daughter's life simply to keep the dad out of his daughter's life.