What makes Terry run?

On a given day, Terence Michael Meehan can be found defiantly pacing the sidewalk outside the Worcester Probate and Family Court. Microphone in hand, Meehan recites his liturgy of condemnation of probate court Judge Arline Rotman, for anyone that will listen. The words he uses are so familiar to him that he scarcely needs to pause.

Terry Meehan has personalized the father's rights movement, perhaps to a degree unlike any other Massachusetts man before him. He has been described as a man on a mission, and he leaves no doubt as to what that mission is: exposing Worcester Judge Arline Rotman as a corrupt and sexist judge, the judge who, according to him, disregarded the needs of his son, Terry, Jr., when she granted full custody of the child to the mother. FF! caught up with Terry on Memorial Day weekend, the day after his second protest outside Rotmans Furniture

We've held about a dozen of them. They've been concentrated mostly in Worcester. We've had several in front of the Probate court, we've had several now in front of Rotmans Furniture, and we just had our first about a week ago in front of the Harvard Street entrance to the Worcester courthouse.

We're trying to educate the people about how Judge Rotman takes actions either pro or against litigants that go in front of her, and we're also trying to educate the people about what goes on in the probate court in general. People, when I speak to them generally don't believe what goes on in the probate court.

Well, I'd like to see her taken off the bench because I don't think that she deserves a judgeship. I think that from what has been shown to me, that her judgeship was given to her by political maneuvering... by her and her family giving donations to the governor at the time, and eventually gaining a judgeship. And I've heard that time and time again... by very many people.

Oh, absolutely. In fact I was mailed anonymously the application for her; and on it it states specifically how much she had given, and the top campaign contributor was then Governor Mike Dukakis, who she gave $1,000 to.

I've received many, many calls since I began the campaign about two years ago, from various people throughout the commonwealth. A lot of them have been politicians who write me every now and then, and authorities throughout the state, as well as just curiosity seekers. I think she's getting a lot of heat. She was moved out to Springfield for a month or a month and a half, and I think that people are beginning to at least question her judgment up on the bench - and her motives.

Yes, I think so. They recently barred me from the Worcester courthouse, which I've learned recently from the ACLU was an illegal move. And obviously we're putting enough pressure on her to have them retaliate. I talk consistently to lawyers, attorneys and, yeah, she's getting some heat off of it ... nothing publicly because the judiciary doesn't like to discipline or condemn one of their own.

When we first came out with this very publicly we had taken out an ad condemning what Rotman has done. So off of this ad we had numerous radio shows and TV programs and newspaper write-ups in the papers.

Judge Rotman claimed I was a threat to her so the state police called me up and asked me to back off. I told them I wasn't going to, and I came out twice as strong. I went on a radio program. I called her a liar, and I offered $2500 to debate me on the radio show. For that, the state police came to my work and pulled me out of work in front of numerous employees and told me to back off; if I didn't back off I could go to jail. I said, "No I'm not backing off." They said if you don't we could send you to jail. I said "Well do what you want, in fact take me away right now." They didn't, and I never had another problem with the state police again.

Most alarming is being barred from a public courthouse. For what reason? There's no reason. I think that any lawyer that you talk to that knows about the case says it's ludicrous, going to those extremes. But once again a judge has an awful lot of power and a lot of influence.

Correct. I've been assigned a lawyer, and I met with him. The ACLU has given him the permission to do it, but he has to go through Boston to get the permission. He wants to take it. He might take it even without ACLU if they say "No," but he says it's just a technicality, that they'll definitely take the case.

We've had numerous calls and letters from various people throughout the state. I've talked to one fellow who's a security for President Clinton, he's a secret service agent who went in front of Judge Rotman, who actually got banged around so hard he can't carry a gun-only in the commonwealth, because it was signed off by Judge Rotman. She considers him a threat, so every other forty-nine states he can carry a gun and protect the President; when he comes here, he can't carry a gun. But there's been numerous instances like that.... It seems that Judge Rotman is biased towards men, especially if you're in a position of authority.

We found out that she works with a group of attorneys, and this isn't Terence Meehan speaking, this is very public. Attorneys have come out and said this. She works with a group of attorneys and favors them. So yes, attorneys off the record, attorneys are frightened of this woman. They don't respect her; they're frightened of her. They come out and they condemn this women- forget it! They're blackballed throughout the whole probate and the whole commonwealth. We all know that. So, they can talk off the record, and they do talk off the record. But I understand that this is their livelihood, it's going to be in jeopardy, and they have families too, to support. I have people in the courthouse that periodically send me letters "Mr. Meehan, you should do this, or you should not do that." Someone, anonymously, sent me the application from Boston, about the judge. You can't get that, I'm told.

Today, if a man is accused of abusing a woman it doesn't matter if the woman was abused a year ago, five years ago, or twenty tears ago. It's still abuse. With my son, he came to me with burn marks. He came to me with a broken leg. Eight months old he had a broken leg. A witness said the mother picked up the child and threw him across the room. Judge Rotman wouldn't listen to it. We had doctor's reports. She wouldn't take them. She put a slant on each and every thing we tried to do. She said we don't need doctor's reports, the reports that were in the paper were "just propaganda, involving the child."

The mother has said that I sexually abused him on three different occasions, on three different occasions we were in court about it. Each time the allegations were proved false. Why should a child have to go through that? It's intimidation, based on getting someone to back off. I'm not going to back off ever, this is my boy and I love him. And how could anybody put a child through what this court system or this mother's put this little boy through.

Well, she has two attorneys now, and you're paying for them, through legal aid that you citizens are paying for. I'm doing it pro se. I can't afford an attorney. She has a job, she gets child support, her husband works, and she gets two attorneys paid for by the state. It's ludicrous.

We don't know. We have no idea. As for the first attorney, his name was Michael McManus. Very intelligent attorney... very good attorney. However, there's a little bit of background here. His uncle was Judge McManus of the Probate Court of Worcester. Judge McManus retired. Judge McManus aided Arline Rotman in getting her position, they're very, very close. Mike McManus is very close to his uncle. I don't know what kind of relationship Michael has with Judge Rotman, but she wouldn't have wanted to embarrass him, when the uncle, Judge McManus, had assisted in getting judge Rotman the position. And he was very vocal; he actually got up and gave a speech for her.

So it's things like this that don't add up. We can't make outward accusations, but we have to speculate. The accusation we can make is that she violated law, the appeals court already came back and said she violated law.

They said that, yes, she did not give us a pretrial. The law says you have to give a pretrial. She didn't give us an opportunity to mediate. The law says that you have to do that. The law says that you have a date for pretrial with an allotted amount of time, and a date for trial within a certain amount of time. You don't want a case to go five years up the road where witnesses to a certain incident can forget what had happened. So the law gives you as a litigant the right to have a case heard within a certain amount of time. Well there were various rules that she had broken. And they said "Yes," on five instances she was guilty, she broke the law, but they called them technicalities.

No. Nothing

She had taken out two at the beginning of our relationship going back four and a half years ago. Both time we went into court and it was just a superficial? To gain a little bit of advantage in the court and that was another reason, I got very very afraid of her, and what she could do. I didn't know how strong 209As were but I learned the power after the second one and I backed off. That was another reason I just dropped everything. You know, I wouldn't see her anymore. She pulled both of them within one week. And that was it, I never went by her again.

No. No. She just went into court and said it never happened. She had said I abused her. Then she went into court and said no, it never happened. They were vacated. Those are a terrible tool for a woman. A woman can go in there and say a few words, "I'm scared for my life," even though she's never been abused. Never. They take the guy, they throw him out of the house, and they take him from his children. They make him pay support. And what happens is the normal guy's going to get angry. This is his house. This is his family, that he worked all his life for. But of course you're going to have emotions flying, and of course, you're going to get angry, you're going to want to get your belongings, or do something, and you act a little bit irrational and the system says "See, he's a bad guy. He's an angry guy. He's an angry white man, going and getting his stuff even though he has an order. We have to help out more women." No it's wrong to abuse them.

Well, from my own personal; experience, I've been doing an awful lot individually, and I don't recommend it. Individually, they see one person and you'll have a system that comes down on you very very harshly. So, collectively, I think is your best follow up. Working together to make a difference. Collectively you're going to have the power, the manpower to make a difference. That's why rallies are so important. That's why getting out there and being vocal and speaking up and telling your case and having the backings and the collateral's to say its not only me, its others.

As an individual they can hit you very very hard, and they can label, you as a lunatic. But collectively they can't do that. With me it was a little bit more difficult, because my family is very well entrenched in Worcester here. My dad had very many businesses, and knows very many political figures. Most people aren't in that position. They don't have the kind of family structure that I have. I have an awful lot of friends. And once again, I couldn't have done it alone. I needed the support of my church. I needed the support of my friends, my co-workers, and my family. Without that I would have fallen apart.

And once again, that's why the groups have to work together and recognize these individuals that come to them. If they come to them and they phone them, they should get back to them right away. They should let them know that there are people out there who care about their concerns and their worries.

We have to learn as men to let go of our ego a little bit to say, to admit that we can cry we can be emotional, and that we can care. We're not robots. We're human beings. And we are emotional. And without that aspect of life we're never going to make the difference that we need to make.

Return to top