with email comments by David Usher (FR lobbying 1995 welfare deform)
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Fathers' Rights Movement
with email comments by David Usher (FR lobbying 1995 welfare deform)
Children need. . . THIS? THE FATHERS RIGHTS MOVEMENT: IN THEIR OWN WORDS
Children need. . . THIS?
"We need them to KILL people who want to MOVE our money into the pockets of the criminals (like her) who want to take our money to foster her immoral ideas of how a society should be.
"Let's make no mistake about why assholes like her want to see our guns taken away."
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:33:48 -0700 From: Gary Clark <Gary@words-that-work.org> To: Fathers Manifesto <manifesto@iname.com> Cc: liz <liz@gate.net>, Fathers' Manifesto <fathers@web.liberty.com>, Mark Hall <markhall@rocketmail.com> Subject: Re: SMH
GARY CLARK
WORDS THAT WORK PUBLICATIONS, INC.
http://www.words-that-work.org/wtw02.htm
gary@words-that-work.org
wtwpubs@ix.netcom.com
Las Vegas, NV
"We had originally planned to burn just our support orders. But now, the first thing to burn will be a miniature effigy of Judge Schoenberg. We hope he gets the message. We're watching, we're paying attention, and we're ready to fight back."
Threat of Jaks forwarded from ANCPR's listserve by GREG DeBACKER (NCFC) to the men-law listserve owned and operated by Chicago attorney STEVEN D. IMPARL.
Received: (qmail 25567 invoked by uid 505); 24 Oct 1998 02:36:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact men-law-owner@egroups.com Precedence: list X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/men-law/ X-Mailing-List: men-law@egroups.com Delivered-To: listsaver-findlist-men-law@makelist.com Received: (qmail 7472 invoked by uid 7770); 24 Oct 1998 02:04:38 -0000 Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (198.81.17.8) by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 1998 02:04:38 -0000 Received: from DeBackerG@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id XVTCa29185 for <men-law@makelist.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:03:39 +2000 (EDT) From: DeBackerG@aol.com Message-ID: <3c89259b.3631357b@aol.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:03:39 EDT To: men-law@makelist.com Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 84 Subject: [men-law] Fwd: ancpr post, Chris Robin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitX-UIDL: 60fb809fa1f64c64dcefb62d0ac5a594
LOWELL JAKS
kidnapper and founder of ANCPR
ALLIANCE FOR NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS RIGHTS
http://www.ancpr.org/
9903 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 267
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
READ HIS READERSHIP COMMENT ON A JUDGE WHO WAS
GUNNED DOWN BY AN ENRAGED MAN WHO KILLED HIS WIFE
PAIDIKA: Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individual?
"Certainly it is responsible... Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian, and as a theologian, I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: "This closeness is possible for me within the choices that I've made."
"Paedophiles are too defensive.... With boldness they can say, 'I believe this is in fact part of God's will.'
PAIDIKA: You are speaking mostly about paedophiles in the U.S. What tack should they take given the societal attitudes? What solutions do you envision for their lives?
"The solution I'm suggesting is that paedophiles become much more positive. They should directly attack the concept, the image, the picture of the paedophile as an evil, wicked, and reprehensible exploiter of children...
"I was in the courtroom for the case that Holly just cited and I actually heard the prosecutor say, 'No man should ever be permitted to claim as an excuse that he was just being affectionate when a child says they were uncomfortable.'
"I don't know; I don't think, we can just label these attitudes 'hysteria.' Perhaps 'madness' is better, or 'pathology.' What we see going on in the United States is the most vitriolic and virulent anti-sexuality I know of in our history."
RALPH CHARLES UNDERWAGER, Ph.D
Read the whole interview in:
PAIDIKA: The Journal of Paedophilia
Vol. 3, No. 1, Issue 9, Winter 1993, Netherlands
MORE -- from the courts of Minnesota...
"BTW, are your panteis in a bunch about the "Seinfeld Case" in Milwaukee? Bet you'll walk bowllegged for a year on that one. $26.6 MILLION Miller will have to pay out, and the broad another $1.5 MILLION for being a bitch! HA HA! We FRstersd are coming to get you HA HA!
"... there are TWO lying broads to every one who tells the truth! Just all in how you want to look at the stats. I really lopve it whjen Femiwhackos like you MAKE UP statistics! I love craming them right up your ass! The biggest nightmare you have is when I ACCEPT your fabricated stats!
"BULLSHIT! You sure can turn a phrase Liz."
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 19:19:40 -0400 (EDT) From: PangK@aol.com To: liz@gate.net Cc: DeanTong@aol.com Subject: Re: Questions About Divorce & Custody Nobody Asks
KEN PANGBORN
"THE A-TEAM"
http://www.a-team.org/
With DEAN TONG / "F.R.O.N.T." and "Abuse-Excuse"
Signer, FATHER'S MANIFESTO--
THE POLITICAL PLATFORM TO REPEAL WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE
NCFC vs ACFC and continuing FR in-fighting...
http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/default.asp?/Online/qdisp/bn=08006061
Mr. Tong apparently was accused again of stuff (this time domestic violence and witness tampering) on January 28, 2008 per Hillsborough County, Florida sheriff's website at http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/default.asp?/Online/qdisp/bn=08006061
Self-styled false abuse expert arrested
The man is charged with domestic violence by the Sheriff's Office after his wife calls 911.
By S.I. ROSENBAUM, Times Staff Writer
Published January 30, 2008
TAMPA - A Riverview man who has built a career as an expert on "false child abuse accusations" has been charged with domestic violence and tampering with a witness to avoid prosecution.
Dean Bryan Tong, 51, of 10246 Hunter's Haven Blvd., was accused of grabbing his wife's arm and slamming her foot in the bedroom door during an argument on Jan. 21, according to an arrest affidavit filed by sheriff's deputies.
He then allegedly took her telephone as she tried to call 911 and told her he would "ruin her" if she called police, the affidavit states...
On his Web site, www.abuse-excuse.com, Tong writes that he was accused of sexually abusing his then-preschool-age daughter during a contentious divorce; the charges were later dropped, he writes.
"Having seen the seedy underbelly of divorce law, Dean Tong decided to work to reform the system that tore his life apart," the Web site says.
LIZNOTE: Dean Tong was not originally included on the Pig Page when it first was published in 1998 because he managed consistently to comport himself politely in his emails and other communications with liz. However, this latest event, coupled with his performance in August 14, 2006, on Lisa Macci's Justice Hour radio show has put him over the top. Congratulations, Dean -- it took more than a decade but you've finally achieved your place on a shelf in the liz library..
DEAN TONG
ABUSE - EXCUSE
http://www.abuse-excuse.com
"Very eloquently and succinctly stated, Gary! "There is no reason to dance around the issue. We are dealing with a slut who must be treated like and called a slut. The word 'slut' has a very important meaning, and it was developed to describe people just like Liz."
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:04:34 +0600 From: Fathers Manifesto <manifesto@iname.com> To: Gary Clark <Gary@words-that-work.org> Cc: liz <liz@gate.net>, Fathers' Manifesto <fathers@web.liberty.com>, Mark Hall <markhall@rocketmail.com> Subject: SMH
"... it is the act of adultery which led to the psychological problems which brought the majority ... of those criminals to death row in the first place... this would put about 10.5 million American wives on death row. Everything is feminists' fault."
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 03:05:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Fathers' Manifesto <fathers@web.liberty.com> To: Asherah <Asherah@aol.com> Cc: wellgo1@ix.netcom.com, spg@postal.c-zone.net, liz@gate.net Subject: Re: common thread
"It is time to update our data base regarding the state of the 19th Amendment... the last survey... onwomen's suffrage resulted in 80% of us advocating (in confidentiality) the repeal of this Amendment. This survey also will be held in confidence, so feel free to "vote your heart..."http://fathers.zq.com/home3.htm
"The Talmud played a key role in the destruction of America's families."
"The appointment of Jewish judges contributed greatly to our current social pathologies."
The above two statements from John Knight's "Talmud Survey" originally published at: http://apps3.vantagenet.com/zsv/survey.asp?id=1210141755&GO=Go%21
JOHN KNIGHT
aka DANIEL AMNEUS, Ph.D.
aka MARK HALL aka ART BOOKS
Author of The Garbage Generation
Author of THE FATHERS MANIFESTO --
THE POLITICAL PLATFORM TO REPEAL WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE
" The VAWA and VAWA II are blatant violations of the 14th Amendment..."
"We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape... we called it exciting."
"...millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, andgenitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves."
as quoted in December 1977 Penthouse article, "Incest: The Last Taboo," by Philip Nobile
WARREN FARRELL, Ph.D.
Author of The Liberated Man and Myth of Male Power
Advisor to F.R.E.E. "FATHERS RIGHTS AND EQUALITY EXCHANGE"
Board of Directors, "NCFC" NATIONAL CONGRESS FOR FATHERS AND CHILDREN
Board of Directors "CRC" CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COUNCIL
Ideological icon of AFC aka ACFC (Stu Miller et al. father's rights lobbyists)
Against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
"Feminist women have almost completely destroyed the family and all associated with it that is holy.
"The Bible clearly states that the fathers are to be the head of the household.
"This is not to mention the Magna Carte, upon which all of our constitutions and institutions are founded. But the government, with its judicial henchmen, have propagated upon society a system that is diametrically opposed to the Word of God...
"It is interesting to note, not only the outrageousness of the NJ decision, but the gradual "move forward" in the judiciary's attitudes, whereby women are no longer disgraced by bearing children outside of wedlock, men are. Men are also vilified by the Pimp and the Vice-Pimp of the United States. No longer are men warned not to fall victim to the wiles of "loose women."...
"...did a penis just fall out of the sky and impregnate you..."
Ranting on F.R.E.E.'s bit-listserve after unwed noncustodial father, Alan Gubernat, murdered his 3 year old son for the reason that the New Jersey Supreme Court would not let him change the boy's last name. More...
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 20:18:51 -0400 From: Stuart Miller <smiller@CapAccess.org> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
STUART MILLER
AFC (Father's Rights groups lobbyist)
http://www.erols.com/afc/about.html
Signer (among other AFC members), THE "FATHER'S MANIFESTO" --
THE POLITICAL PLATFORM TO REPEAL WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE
ACFC "AMERICAN COALITION OF FATHERS AND CHILDREN"
AFA "AMERICAN FATHERS ALLIANCE"
Men's Rights Lobbyists ANTI- welfare, -child support, -VAWA, -mothers
"If you go to jail, we will kick their butt so hard that they will be sorry ever messed with you!!! Our advice to you Stuart? Please accept their "sentence" and go to jail! You will immediately be considered a political prisoner, and we will file a claim with the United Nations on behalf of all fathers in America...
"Stu, you got our words that we will publicize the heck out of this. "
Brouhaha on F.R.E.E.'s bit-listserve after Stuart Miller wrote that the judge in his divorce case was threatening to throw him in jail for contempt of court. More...
Subject: Put Stu in Jail and We Kick Your Butt From: fgj@ELECTRICITI.COM Date: 1995/06/03 Message-Id: <m0sHxIK-000H6hC@powergrid.electriciti.com> Sender: "Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange"
SHARAD SHARIF
Signer, THE "FATHER'S MANIFESTO" --
THE POLITICAL PLATFORM TO REPEAL WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE
Founder, FAMILY GUARDIAN NETWORK
FAMILY GUARDIAN JOURNAL
San Diego, CA
Bigshottism or a veiled threat to a judge on F.R.E.E.'s bit-listserve after Stuart Miller wrote that the judge in his divorce case was threatening to throw him in jail for contempt of court. More...
Subject: Re: Stu in Jail? From: richard@bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: 1995/06/11 Message-Id: <3rdj4u$dl0@news1.best.com> References: Pine.3.07.9506031259.A19711-A100000@cap1.capaccess.org>
"Governor Wilson signed SB 509 into law late last night... The femaroids fought this measure tooth and nail, resorting to dirty tricks at every step of the process... But this year we drew the line on domestic violence legislation by killing a bill granting custody to victims automatically, we ended welfare as we used to know it, and we ended lifetime alimony... "
Subj: The End of Idleness Date: Tue, Oct 1, 1996 4:31 PM EDT From: TALK-MAN@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU X-From: Richard@BENNETT.COM
RICHARD BENNETT
aka EarthMom13@aol.com
aka JillSavage@aol.com
Original Signer #147, THE FATHER'S MANIFESTO
COPS "COALITION OF PARENT SUPPORT"
A FATHER'S RIGHTS LOBBYING GROUP that poses as "MODERATE"
Affiliated with NCFC "NATIONAL CONGRESS FOR FATHERS AND CHILDREN"
Also now affiliated with ACFC "AMERICAN COALITION OF FATHERS AND CHILDREN"
Cupertino, CA
"...there is a bit of pedophilia in every one of us."
- Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited Creskill, NJ, Creative Therapeutics, 1991. p. 118.
RICHARD A. GARDNER, M.D.
Popularized "PAS" PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME,
a "diagnosis" generally applied to mothers who accuse fathers
CREATIVE THERAPEUTICS
Cresskill, NJ
"Advocacy of lesbian childrearing practices and single motherhood as a desirable life-style choice undermines fatherhood. ...
"Government is usurping the role of fathers/husbands... providing low/no-income women a financial security blanket, while forcing men to pay for it without receiving the benefit of the a wife's company and services in return, a necessary element in the traditional marriage contract...
"As to "lack of men to fill the role" this is also in part a function of mate-selection and family formation behavior on the part of women. This is virtually never mentioned in the literature and in the public debate.
"The loosening of constraints on the sexual and reproductive behavior of women is in part responsible for paternal "irresponsibility". Secondly, the rejection of monogamy by women combined with no-fault divorce...
"Specifically, husbands no longer enjoy an assurance of a monogomous sexual relationship with the wife... not even a right to be informed of an abortion, much less a veto...
"The husband's claim on the wife's love is no longer recognized at all. Worse, it has been criminalized and is now known as "marital rape".
"Even a mere effort to maintain the nonsexual aspects of consortium can now land a man in jail for violation of a restraining or protective order, on charges of harassment, or for committing the new crime de jour, stalking.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 22:05:32 -0600 From: Wolfgang Hirczy <wolfh@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu> Reply to: familylaw-l@lawlib.wuacc.edu To: Multiple recipients of list <familylaw-l@lawlib.wuacc.edu> Subject: If only things were different ....
WOLFGANG HIRCZY De MINO, Ph.D
aka "ADAM NEVE"
"Feminists should be charged with nothing less than Crimes Against Humanity, sentenced, and summarily executed in public squares."
NICK SZABO
SIGNER, FATHER'S MANIFESTO--
THE POLITICAL PLATFORM TO REPEAL WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE
enclosed@mo.net
St. Louis, MO
ABOUT THE "CASE FOR FATHER CUSTODY"
" [if women could marry women] ... six income sources ... from the two mothers, two sets of government entitlements, and two banished fathers ... would be economically far superior ... We must fight lesbian rights ..."
A Winning Strategy For Fathers, by David R. Usher http://www.acfc.org/essay/winning.htm
"On the marriage market, men trade their social needs and women trade their economic needs. Every ... child support order weakens the marriage market ..."
The National Playboy Boycott Page - Will Republicans change? by David R. Usher http://www.backlash.com/1996/6-jun96/ncfc06.html
"Dear John ... why not E-mail the whole thing to all Congressmen and Senators on the Net, with a foreward by you as the organizer. I think they should get the buzz from people, not the entitled feminist organizations ... just ask Stuart Miller or Hugh Harrington about this ...
"If I do a good job creaming the feminists, and they can see it, maybe they will have the political guts to do something more than flush the toilet."
From usher@mo.netMon Sep 25 14:37:57 1995 Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 02:28:33 -0500 From: Dave Usher To: fathers Subject: Debate purpose
DAVID R. USHER
usher@mo.net
Signer, THE "FATHER'S MANIFESTO" --
THE POLITICAL PLATFORM TO REPEAL WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE
ACFC "AMERICAN COALITION OF FATHERS AND CHILDREN"
until recently: Board of Advisors, NCFC "NATIONAL CONGRESS FOR FATHERS AND CHILDREN"
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:33:34 -0600 From: Dean Hughson <dean@primenet.com> Reply-To: familylaw-l@lawlib.wuacc.edu To: Multiple recipients of list <familylaw-l@lawlib.wuacc.edu> Subject: Re: Observance of Herstory Month
"You know you are an insider in the fathers movement when... your closest online friends have been accused in a court battle of child abuse as a ploy by their ex's to win custody."
Subject: Top 10 Reasons You Know You are an insider in the Fathers Movement From: Dean Hughson <dean@PRIMENET.COM> Date: 1995/12/04 Message-Id: <199512050529.WAA10416@usr1.primenet.com> Sender: "Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange" <FREE-L@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU> X-Sender: dean@mailhost.primenet.com Comments: To: shedevil@vix.com, wellman@vix.com Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-L
"My wife and I sat watching the TV and could only think......why do these people attack the legal system? When it puts men in jail for not paying child support or for false allegations, those same people cheer the actions of the court. The hatred towards men in general and fathers,such as OJ Simpson,specifically sickens me."
From owner-witchhnt@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Tue Oct 3 19:32 EDT 1995 Return-Path: <owner-witchhnt@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> Posted-Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 19:32:21 -0400 Received-Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 19:32:21 -0400 ...From: Dean Hughson <dean@primenet.com> Subject: What I've Learned About Justice via OJ To: FREE <FREE-L%indycms.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu>, Multiple recipients of list WITCHHNT...
"Radical feminist... Liz... and her alleged husban Nick have posted pictures and quotes from some men,including Ralph Underwager and myself on her attack web site at http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/fathers.htm "Thought that some of you might find it interesting to see the pictures. incidentally I stand by my post."
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 07:52:58 -0700 Reply-To: Dean Hughson <dean@PRIMENET.COM> Sender: Is there a child sex abuse witchhunt? <WITCHHNT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> From: Dean Hughson <dean@PRIMENET.COM> Subject: pictures To: WITCHHNT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU X-UIDL: 81b7412e8726f1047ec191867a20b121
DEAN HUGHSON
Self-proclaimed "Eggman" and "Internet Divorce Expert"
Author of http://divorcesupport.com's "Ask the Divorced Guy"
BACKLASH! columnist (as is Stu Miller, John Knight, Armin Brott, Ken Pangborn...)
[as of 1998] "Director of Resource Management," Father's Rights and Equality Exchange
"...'fathers die at the hands of the Divorce Industry and the anti-christ/gender genocidal feminists... "KISS MY PURPLE BUTT" (OR KISS MY PURPLE ASHerah).' "
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 18:32:45 -0500 From: proadvocate@earthlink.net To: Asherah@aol.com Cc: ncpd@rogers.wave.ca Subject: agendas, etc., up yours!
"[Sex offenders] ... could serve a USEFUL purpose to society also, by being ordered, and they would probably happily comply, to go out and rape and pillage all the damn man hating Feminaz's!!!!!!!!!!"
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 01:42:24 -0600 From: proadvocate@earthlink.net To: men-law@egroups.com Subject: [men-law] Re: Gulag in MINNESOTA
GEORGE GILLILAND
the "proadvocate" http://home.earthlink.net/~proadvocate
Operator of a "BATTERED MEN'S SHELTER"
"Men's & Father's Rights!!" DOMESTIC RIGHTS COALITION
St. Paul, MN
"Her world is her husband, her family, her children, and home. We do not find it right when a women presses into the world of men. Rather we find it natural when these two worlds remain separate ... Woman and man represent two different types of being. Reason is dominant in man."
Mein Kampf
Adolph Hitler
"Shut the hell up you tired old hag... your fellow females are killing their kids for the same reason you lie thru your teeth, YOUR WORTHLESS, YOUR SPOILED, YOUR DECADENT, YOUR LAZY, ...YOUR.
"FEMALE CHAUVINIST PIGS!!!!!!!!! KID KILLERS BOTH FETUS AND GROWN CHILD WHORES, LESBIAN AND HETEROSEXUAL
"It's no wonder women are the brutes and kid killers they are today, look where they came from, rotten, filthy, scumball feminists like you!
"Earl!!!!!! "
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:44:45 -0500 (CDT) From: wellgo1@ix.netcom.com To: manifesto@pemail.net, manifesto@home.net, liz@gate.net, john@usa.net, fathersmanifesto@usa.net, fathers@web.liberty.com, damneus@calstatela.edu Cc: spg@c-zone.net Subject: Re: Another intact home?
EARL WELLWOOD
SIGNER, FATHER'S MANIFESTO http://www2.crosswinds.net/san-diego/~manifesto/
THE POLITICAL PLATFORM TO REPEAL WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE
COALITION OFCONCERNED PARENTS
SAN JOSE, CA
"True gender equality will exist when, and only when the verbal and psychological abuse women often inflict upon their husbands is regarded as EQUALLY SERIOUS as the physical abuse men inflict upon their wives."
From: wtwpubs@ix.netcom.com (Gary Clark) Newsgroups: alt.mens-rights,alt.feminism,soc.men Subject: Re: Men's Movement Date: 28 Apr 1995 03:03:15 GMT
"If the slut feminists really want EQUALITY, I suggest DEATH IN THE ELECTRIC CHAIR to be the very first area in which such equality is achieved. Once we've done that, I might be willing to listen to another one of their idiotic "equality" arguments."
Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 21:49:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Gary Clark <Gary@words-that-work.org> To: liz <liz@gate.net> Cc: Fathers Manifesto <fathers@web.liberty.com> Subject: Re: SMH
THESE ARE "MAINSTREAM" AKA "MODERATE"
FATHER'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST AND LOBBYING GROUPS.
SITE INDEX | LIZNOTES MAIN PAGE | COLLECTIONS | WOMENS HISTORY LIBRARY | RESEARCH ROOMS | THE READING ROOM
FATHERLESS CHILDREN STORIES | THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE | WOMAN SUFFRAGE TIMELINE | THE LIZ LIBRARY ENTRANCE
Saturday, November 12, 2011
New tool gives abused women a voice in courtroom Advocates pushing for Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit
Click here for News Video WGN News
Example of How to do an Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit here.
By Marcella RaymondWGN News
One in four women is abused. Nationwide eight women a day are murdered by an abuser. But now there is a new tool that is helping women stay alive and giving them a voice in the process.
The evidentiary abuse affidavit was born out of Stacy Peterson’s disappearance. It is a tool advocates say will wipe out hearsay since it comes from the woman herself. First she details on paper abuse that, for some, has gone on for decades. The affidavit is witnessed by at least two people and notarized. Then she reads it on tape.
Susan Murphy-Milano has advocated for abused women for more than 20 years. She created the Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit.
Through Murphy-Milano, at least 1,000 women in the last year have made the evidentiary abuse affidavit. All of them are still alive.
DuPage County State`s Attorney Robert Berlin says while the Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit statements would take away hearsay, now the 6th Amendment comes in to play where a defendant has the right to confront a witness against him. Unless there`s more evidence that proves he made her disappear so she couldn`t testify.
The Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit will be available December 25th in app form at apple stores nationwide.
You can also get all the information in Susan Murphy-Milano's book “Time's Up.” It's available on her websitewww.susanmurphymilano.com
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
NO WAY OUT BUT ONE: a story of love and justice by Garland Waller and Barry Nolan
http://www.nowayoutbutone.com/
Project Update #14: From Boston Magazine: ‘No Way Out But One’ to Unveil at MIT
Posted by Garland Waller and Barry Nolan
BY SARA EDWARDS
A compelling new documentary debuts in Boston this week that will open your eyes to a stunning injustice. No Way Out But One was co-written and directed by Emmy award winning television producer Garland Waller, currently a professor at Boston University. Waller, a friend and former colleague of mine at WBZ-TV, asked me to go to San Diego in August to critique the unfinished doc at a conference on domestic violence.
The film follows a case that gained international attention 10 years ago when a divorced mother made the FBI’s Most Wanted List for kidnapping her children from their father and escaping overseas.
Holly Collins, a battered wife living in Minnesota, divorced her husband but lost custody of her kids when the family court deemed she was so traumatized by the abuse that her parenting skills were questionable. The court also ignored evidence her ex-husband severely beat the children, even cracking his young son’s skull. In interviews with the children, now young adults, we hear about the emotional and physical cruelty they endured while living with their father. Collins took her kids and ran.
The film details their harrowing escape, how Collins eluded security at the airport pre-9/11, and how she and her children eventually became the first Americans ever granted asylum in the Netherlands.
But Collins is one of the lucky ones. She and her family (including her daughter, Jennifer, who’s director of the Courage Kids Network, which helps abused children) are now back in the U.S. and plan to attend the screening at 7 p.m. Thursday on MIT campus, room 6-120. Co-producers Waller and Barry Nolan will also be there. (Full disclosure: Nolan is a Boston Daily blogger.) Waller says she is thrilled the film was picked to lead off the new Chicks Make Flicks series, sponsored by Women in Film & Video/New England.
“I know it’s not a pleasant subject, talking about child abuse and having to acknowledge that the American family court system isn’t protecting abused children, but perhaps once people realize what is happening they can initiate change,” Holly Collins said.
It takes courage to put the spotlight on an issue that a flawed system would prefer be left in the shadows. No Way Out But One persuasively makes the case for much-needed change.
Care to comment? View this update on Kickstarter →
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Cut TANF Title IV-D programs which represent $4Billion of waste
Click here to sign the petition------>> http://www.change.org/petitions/cut-tanf-title-iv-d-programs-which-represent-4billion-of-waste?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=autopublish
WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT
This letter is to request that you take action to cut spending on pork barrel spending on certain TANF Title IV-D programs which represent $4 billion untraceable dollars that no one keeps track of. These funds meant for needy children were diverted and wasted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to non needs based programs available to all fathers engaged in the family court litigation industry---no matter how wealthy they are. These parents now ask Congress to take a stand to hold ACF’s defective leadership and the programs destroying families accountable by demanding the following budget cuts:
1. TANF Contingency Fund authorized under 403(b) Social Security Act for payment to States and other non-federal entities under Titles I, IV-D, X, XI, and XIV “to remain available until expended.” (p. 474)
2. ID Code 75-1552-0-1-609, lines 0005 and 0009 [$990 million] (p. 473)
3. ID Code 75-1501-0-1-609 lines 0002, 0003 [Access and Visitation] [$1.7 billion] (p. 474)
4. Discretionary “Child Support Incentives” to States [$305 million] (p. 475)
5. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Healthy Families” [$1.7 billion] (p.476)
6. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Abstinence Education” [$1.7 billion] (p. 477)
7. Line 0129 “Faith Based Initiatives” [$1 million] (p.479)
Struggling parents want things like jobs, housing, education, childcare, and access to medical care to help them weather the current economic crisis. Instead, these hard working families are forced to invest $4 Billion in irresponsible, extortion based, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) programs that promote widespread Medicaid and child support fraud, protracted high conflict litigation, and bogus therapy programs.
Child support agencies deliberately withhold and mismanage billions of paid collected support, which starves children onto TANF and causes parents to be falsely prosecuted for nonpayment.
Good parents are being exploited, bankrupted, and emotionally destroyed while their kids are needlessly placed on the welfare, Medicaid, and foster care system rolls. Billions of dollars of child support remains unaccounted for nationwide.
These frivolous programs spend without restraint and direct money to places HHS cannot identify (as noted by the OIG and GOA reports on the second page.) There is no oversight. DHHS’s position is that once the money goes to the states, they are not responsible for oversight. Fraud is rampant, yet the OIG does nothing to enforce the laws to protect families.
90% of the parents paying child support are fathers. Using child support enforcement programs as a vehicle, these extortion based programs force fathers to elect between criminal penalties and inciting “high conflict” family court litigation to create a “need” for their own publicly funded services. These irresponsible programs cash in on the “incentives” by placing children in unstable homes, and then starve the entire family onto some sort of public assistance. We can identify no legitimate purpose for these programs and request that Congress take the following actions:
(1) Revoke or reduce funding to Administration for Children and Families (ACF) child support incentives, Access and Visitation (AV) programs, and gender based funding to child support agencies.
(2) End collateral child support/custody funding mandates.
(3) Overhaul Office on Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) on the federal level to remove staff with conflicts of interest and bias.
(4) Audit OCSE to find out where our tax dollars are actually going, and then implement rigorous transparency, oversight, and accountability measures on programs.
The [unlawful] programs are supposed to be ADMINISTRATIVE, but they used quasi judicial power to create, amend, and enforce court orders without judicial authorization. The agency does not provide due process, nor do they have to show you their files. Judges have to look the other way because if they object, they will lose their HHS funding, and at the same time the judge has to accept responsibility for the agency’s badly managed and even crooked interference when litigants are hurt.
On the author's family court case, the bills were inflated and no one would let me have receipts for services, without telling me or the judge, support orders were modified, documents falsified, and support enforcement would not let me see their files. Like hundreds of families I am aware of, this money was used to force my family into needless litigation which cost me tens of thousands of dollars.
In 2011, we ask why the Obama Administration inexcusably ignored the pleas of desperate hard working parents and doubled the budget for these pork barrel projects, starving them out of their home. It’s time to get serious about deficit reduction, and require the president to exercise fiscal restraint on programs which would target and extort families under the most trying circumstances.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: WHERE DOES CHILD SUPPORT GO?
Recovery Act: Thousands of Recovery Act Contract and Grant Recipients Owe Hundreds of Millions in Federal Taxes
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-686T
This Government Accountability Office report recently came out which shows that these HHS grant recipients owe us struggling tax paying families hundreds of BILLIONS in taxes.
OIG STATE AUDIT REPORTS ON UNDISBURSIBLE ARREARS
The more federal dollars were receive the less States collected in support. States refuse to distribute child support to "families first," and are instead keeping the money for themselves-without accounting for it.
These reports can be found here:
http://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/oas/acf.asp
The Office of the Inspector General found HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in undisbursed child support which was never accounted for when it audited the child support services programs from only a hand full of counties in approximately 30 states. There are only incentives to COLLECT support and put families on TANF, and NONE to actually disburse it to the children it is intended to benefit. When undistributed arrears were discovered, the OIG ordered the States to give 66% to the federal OCSE office, and allowed the State to keep the remaining 34% for themselves. And so the states deliberately don't tell parents they collected the money, then create "set up to fail" disbursement methods to retain the funds for the general fund:
• send checks to the wrong address,
• illegal liens on accounts
• create massive arrears, give dad the tax benefit, then garnish the tax benefit,
• put child support it in trust accounts during litigation-that lasts more than 3 years,
• retroactively abate arrears, then keep it for themselves without telling either parent.
When the OIG identified the embezzled funds, they did not help them find the children it was intended to benefit, the OIG instructed States to properly report…So the feds could have their 66%. This policy entirely lacks accountability or consequences for this fraud. Subsequent reports demonstrated that the problem has continued to worsen, and there are [still] no protocols and procedures in place to define, identify, and track these monies.
Healthy Marriage And Responsible Fatherhood Initiative: Further Progress Is Needed in Developing a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach to Help HHS Improve Program Oversight:
www.gao.gov/new.items/d081002.pdf
•$500 Million Unconditionally Given To Activists: Operating under a deadline that allowed HHS 7 months to award grants, HHS shortened its existing process to award Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants to public and private organizations. During this process, HHS did not fully examine grantees’ programs as described in their applications, including the activities they planned to offer, and this created challenges and setbacks for grantees later as they implemented their programs. –P. 2
•Failure to Implement Uniform Standards, Policies, and Procedures: HHS uses methods that include site visits and progress reports to monitor grantees, but it lacks mechanisms to identify and target grantees that are not in compliance with grant requirements or are not meeting performance goals, and it also lacks clear and consistent guidance for performing site monitoring visits. –P.2
•Embezzlement and Fraud Was Likely Vastly Under Estimated: Moreover, we did not survey organizations that received money from grant recipients to provide direct services, subawardees. Since making the initial awards, 4 organizations have relinquished their grants, 1 organization had its grant terminated, and 1 new grant was awarded. There are 6 organizations currently pending non-continuation of award funds.
GAO REPORT: Child Support Enforcement: Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections Are Needed
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-377
Medicare and Medicaid Fraud, Waste, and Abuse: Effective Implementation of Recent Laws and Agency Actions Could Help Reduce Improper Payments
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-409T
Child Support Enforcement: Departures from Long-term Trends in Sources of Collections and Caseloads Reflect Recent Economic Conditions
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-196
In fiscal year 2009, the child support enforcement (CSE) program collected about $26 billion in child support payments from noncustodial parents on behalf of more than 17 million children. The CSE program is run by states and overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). States receive federal performance incentive payments and a federal match on both state CSE funds…The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) eliminated this incentive match beginning in 2008, but the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 temporarily reinstated it for 2 years….
In fiscal year 2009, the CSE program experienced several departures from past trends. For one, child support collections failed to increase nationwide for the first time in the history of the program in fiscal year 2009… Also in fiscal year 2009, the number of CSE cases currently receiving public assistance increased …Preliminary HHS data show that total CSE expenditures grew by 2.6 percent in fiscal year 2008 as many states increased their own funding to maintain CSE operations when the federal incentive match was eliminated…In contrast to fiscal year 2008, a different picture emerged in fiscal year 2009, when the incentive match was temporarily restored but total CSE expenditures fell slightly by 1.8 percent, which HHS officials told GAO was due to state budget constraints. Most states nationwide have not implemented "family first" policy options…because giving more child support collections to families means states retain less as reimbursement for public assistance costs.
Administrative Expenditures and Federal Matching Rates of Selected Support Programs
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-839R
Sincerely,
Change.org Petitioner
Friday, September 23, 2011
In Defense of Barbara Sheehan: When a Battered Woman Kills
In Defense of Barbara Sheehan: When a Battered Woman Kills
by Author Rosaura Torres on Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 9:34pm
On February 18, 2008, Barbara Sheehan knew her husband was going to kill her – not just some day, but that day. Throughout their 23-year marriage he had continually threatened to kill her, then her two children, and then to “go out in a blaze of glory.” And he had also regularly beaten, punched, slapped, kicked, tackled, pinched, spat on and thrown things at her, including a full pot of simmering pasta sauce. Over those years she’d suffered broken bones, black eyes, a broken nose and uncounted other bloody injuries.
But that day in February the beatings would finally end. That morning when her husband, retired NYPD Sgt. Raymond Sheehan, pointed the gun at her face and said, “I will fucking kill you,” for the first time in her life Barbara too held a gun. And moments later Raymond Sheehan lay dead on the blood-soaked bathroom floor of their Howard Beach home.
Today, 2½ years later, Barbara Sheehan is on trial in the Queens criminal courthouse, charged with second degree murder in her husband’s death. And the issue of police domestic violence – law enforcement officers’ battering of their intimate partners – breaks out of the silence and into the national consciousness.
Purple Berets’ Tanya Brannan is in that courtroom, covering the trial as a part of our national focus “When the Batterer Is a Cop.” For the next two weeks we will be your eyes and ears in the courtroom in the most important domestic violence trial of the day.
For our reports on this critically important case, go to www.purpleberets.org
Friday, August 26, 2011
DV CASES REQUIRE DV EXPERTS: DUH! By Barry Goldstein “Times-Up”
DV CASES REQUIRE DV EXPERTS: DUH!
By Barry Goldstein
I can understand why the court system did not immediately seek to learn from and rely on domestic violence experts when domestic violence first became a public issue in the mid to late 1970s. There was no research available and few domestic violence advocates. A popular assumption and misconception was that domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse and the actions of the victim. This led some people, including court professionals to treat mental health professionals as if they were the experts in domestic violence.
I do not understand how courts still do not require the use of domestic violence experts in cases involving allegations or evidence of domestic violence. We now have a substantial body of specialized domestic violence research that establishes the courts are getting a very high percentage of domestic violence custody cases wrong and often spectacularly wrong because of the standard use of flawed practices. These mistaken practices cause even good judges to regularly make bad decisions. Although mothers involved in contested custody cases make deliberately false allegations only one or two percent of the time, fathers receive custody between 70 and 83% of the time. In other words a large majority of abusers who seek custody are successful.
The highest priority in deciding custody has to be the child’s safety as without safety nothing else matters. In a domestic violence case, this should require a safety or risk assessment. Instead, custody courts regularly order evaluations. Not only do these evaluations fail to conduct risk assessments but few evaluators even know what behaviors are associated with higher levels of lethality. We virtually never see an evaluation report in which these vital issues are even discussed and when evaluators are asked about abusive behaviors they are rarely aware of the risks demonstrated. Ignorant of fundamental safety issues, evaluators instead focus on less important issues.
Evaluators are generally trained in psychology of psychiatry, but not domestic violence. Even if they have received a few hours of training in domestic violence and have been willing to listen (many evaluators are hostile to this training), at most it gives them some general awareness of the subject, but not expertise. That is why evaluators rarely provide the courts with information about lethality assessments, domestic violence dynamics or current scientific research. It is why they don’t know what to look for to recognize domestic violence and often mistakenly assume the danger is diminished with the end of the relationship. Especially important is their failure to understand and explain to the courts the harm of domestic violence to children.
Caseworkers at child protective agencies are often social workers and usually have more special training about domestic violence than the psychologists who serve as evaluators. Many communities have developed practices in which child protective agencies and domestic violence agencies work together on domestic violence cases. They cross-train each other’s staffs and when a possible domestic violence case needs to be investigated the caseworkers will consult domestic violence advocates and sometimes take them to the home. This practice has been shown to benefit children because it gives caseworkers a better chance to recognize when the father has engaged in domestic violence tactics and therefore create arrangements that work best for children. This should be considered best practices.
Ethical practices for psychologists and psychiatrists require these professionals to consult with experts in areas they don’t have expertise in that impact cases they are working on. Unfortunately these ethical considerations are aspirational so the routine failure of evaluators to use these ethical practices does not result in disciplinary proceedings. They instead result in ruining children’s lives when evaluators fail to recognize domestic violence and protect children from very real dangers. THE BATTERER AS PARENT, which is one of the leading authorities on domestic violence and custody, makes a similar recommendation. Clearly a practice that works so well for caseworkers who generally have more training is even more important for evaluators to use.
Expertise in Safety Issues
Fundamental to the work of domestic violence advocates is the ability to engage in safety planning with their clients. In order to do this, they need to be able to assess the level of danger presented by the client’s abuser. We can never know that an abuser will not kill or seriously injure his partner. This is particularly true when she has left him because75% of men who kill their partners do so after she has left. There are, however, many behaviors domestic violence experts look closely at because they have been shown to demonstrate a significantly higher level of danger. Among the factors experts look for in assessing lethality are choking, strangling or grabbing her throat, hitting a woman while pregnant, rape or attempted rape, hurting pets, threatening suicide, homicide or kidnapping, substance abuse, mental illness, refusal to obey laws or court orders, availability of guns and a belief she has no right to leave.
With rare exceptions, evaluators and other court professionals do not have this fundamental information and do not apply it to the cases they are working on. When we review cases in which courts disbelieved the mothers’ allegations of domestic violence and gave custody to alleged abusers, the evaluators never discussed safety and lethality issues. It is possible, although rare, that a mother could make false claims that some of these safety factors apply to the case. In such cases the evaluator could explain the potential risk if the allegations were true and why the evaluator does not believe the accusation. Instead the evaluator and the court never discuss these vital issues because no one making the decision or helping the court make the decision have the knowledge or training to recognize these safety factors. In other words the unqualified professionals routinely make recommendations affecting the safety of children without ever understanding or considering the risk. Malpractice is the most, generous term I can think of to describe this dereliction of duty. Only a broken system can continue to rely on evaluators and other court professionals in domestic violence cases who have virtually no training or understanding of safety and lethality issues just because there is a long history of making this mistake.
Recognizing Domestic Violence
Domestic violence abusers present many unacceptable risks to children, but the courts cannot protect children if they are unable to recognize the abuser’s pattern of domestic violence tactics. Every year 58,000 children are forced into custody or unprotected visitation with dangerous abusers. Judges make these dangerous mistakes because they are relying on court professionals who do not know how to recognize domestic violence or minimize its significance. They often compound the harm to children by denying them normal access to their mothers by punishing mothers for making abuse allegations the courts assume are false because court professionals failed to understand the significance of the available evidence.
When we seek help with a medical problem, doctors often seek to rule out various possible causes in order to make a diagnosis. Domestic violence experts understand that context is important in recognizing domestic violence, but the psychologists and psychiatrists relied on by the courts are not experts in domestic violence and routinely seek to rule out allegations of domestic violence based upon out of context information that often is not probative.
We have often seen inadequately trained court professionals dismiss valid domestic violence allegations because the mother returned to her abuser, sought a protective order, but failed to follow-through, did not have medical or police records. All of these are common behaviors of battered women for safety and other valid reasons. Another common mistake is for court professionals to observe children interact with their father and when the children do not show fear the professional assumes the father cannot possibly be abusive. The children understand that the father would never hurt them in front of witnesses, particularly someone he is trying to impress. In fact they could be punished later if they showed fear. These are all very common situations so if evaluators or other unqualified court professionals discredit allegations based on non-probative information like this, many valid domestic violence complaints will be denied. This is exactly what is happening in our custody courts.
At the same time court professionals are mistakenly discrediting abuse allegations for the wrong reasons, they are missing important evidence that supports the complaints. Often this is because the professionals are only looking for evidence of physical abuse. When judges lament the difficulty of deciding a he-said-she-said case, they are really referencing their failure to recognize the significance of many pieces of evidence that would have made the case easy to understand. The failure of most court professionals to understand domestic violence dynamics is an important contributor to their inability to recognize valid allegations of abuse.
Domestic violence are tactics men use to maintain power and control over their partners. With a few exceptions, the abusers don’t abuse her in order to gain pleasure from her suffering. They also don’t abuse because they are out of control or she “pushed his buttons.” In many custody cases he “only” hit her once or twice because that was sufficient for his purpose. He can then use the same tone of voice, body language or other reference to his assault and she will be coerced to do what he wants. Unqualified professionals often take the fact he has not hit her in a long time to mean he is now safe. Most abuser tactics are neither physical nor illegal. They are behaviors designed to coerce, intimidate and control their victims. These include tactics to isolate her from friends and family, monitor her behavior, control the finances, and intimidate her such as by threats to go after custody if she leaves him. Emotional and psychological abuse are also part of his pattern of controlling behaviors.
Too often court professionals are so delighted that a father wants to be involved with his children that the court professionals never look at his motivation. In the notorious Shockome case, the father openly admitted telling his wife that he brought her here from Russia so she has no right to leave. He said she would never get away from him. He told the court his motivation for seeking to take the children from their mother, but the judge and evaluator never considered this crucial evidence because they failed to understand its significance. Repeatedly we see cases in which the court removes children from their safe mothers who have been the children’s primary attachment figures and give custody to the fathers in the belief the father would be more likely to promote the mother’s relationship with the children. As soon as the father gains control he destroys that relationship. These mistakes are completely avoidable if court professionals consider the fathers’ motivation.
The Mistake of Minimizing Domestic Violence
While evaluators and other court professionals are generally aware that domestic violence is harmful to children, many place less importance on this issue than it deserves because they are unfamiliar with the research that demonstrates the extent of the harm to children. The problem is compounded because most of these professionals have repeatedly heard only the first half of an important sentence. They have heard children do better with both parents in their lives, but missed the rest of the sentence which is unless one of the parents is abusive.
Fathers who commit domestic violence are significantly more likely to also directly abuse the children. Even if he doesn’t, witnessing domestic violence interferes with children’s ability to reach their developmental milestones and makes them more likely to engage in a wide range of harmful behaviors that make it less likely for children to reach their potential. We often see court professionals pay more attention to the anger and emotion of the mother, “friendly parent” issues, superior income and resources and other similar issues that have not been shown to have long-term effects on children instead of the father’s history of abuse. This mistake is made because of the lack of domestic violence understanding on the part of many of the evaluators and other court professionals relied on by judges.
The Most Common “Mythtake” Custody Courts Make
The new Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan found that evaluators and other court professionals with inadequate domestic violence training were more likely to believe the myth that mothers frequently make false allegations of abuse and as a result make recommendations that work poorly for children. Deliberate false allegations by mothers occurs only one or two percent of the time, but the myth which is encouraged by abuser rights groups and the professionals they support contribute to frequent mistakes by custody courts that dismiss valid complaints about domestic violence and child abuse. Many of the deeply flawed practices such as parental alienation, “friendly parent” and pathologizing mothers are based on this myth. The myth also encourages gender bias and confirmation bias. This is why experts who know the truth and have the training they need are able to make decisions that work best for children.
The Justice Department study also determined that recommendations by social workers and lawyers work better for children than ones by psychologists and psychiatrists. This conclusion goes against conventional wisdom and standard custody court assumptions that professionals with more formal education would be more qualified. The problem is that psychologists and psychiatrists were less likely to use a holistic approach (thus missing the context of domestic violence issues) and more often rely on psychological tests that were not made for the population usually seen in custody cases. These tests encourage the professionals to focus on issues far less important than domestic violence while contributing nothing towards recognizing domestic violence.
The study also found that evaluators tended to pay much too much attention to mothers’ anger and emotions in comparison to how this impacts their parenting ability. This tended to support the use of gender stereotypes and biases. Numerous court sponsored gender bias committees have found widespread gender bias including the frequent practice of blaming mothers for the actions of their abusers. This is exactly what happens when court professionals blame mothers for their anger and emotion instead of fathers for their continuing abuse that causes this anger and emotion.
Especially significant is the DOJ finding that evaluators working for the court or the county make recommendations that work better for children than those of evaluators in private practice. Protective mothers have long complained about a cottage industry of evaluators and GALs that favor abusive fathers. This research confirms the mothers’ complaints and undermines the common court assumption that evaluators and GALs are neutral. The study demonstrates those professionals paid for each case separately do an inferior job. Most contested custody cases are really domestic violence cases and abusive fathers use economic abuse and control as part of their pattern of abuse. This means they control the family finances so court professionals, like Richard Gardner have figured out the best way to make a large income is to support approaches that favor abusers. Thus we often see attorneys representing abusive fathers and GALs who tend to support fathers recommending “fathers’ rights” evaluators. This gives even good judges little chance to recognize the domestic violence in the case.
Ignorance Is Not Neutral: It Favors Abusers
We sometimes hear about a judge refusing to participate in domestic violence training or read current research on the grounds that such information would interfere with his neutrality. More frequently judges refuse to listen to testimony from a domestic violence expert because the judge has been on the bench for many years and so doesn’t need to learn more about domestic violence. Even more commonly we see judges and other court professionals treat domestic violence advocates as biased partisans because “they are always against domestic violence.”
This lack of critical thinking contributes to the widespread mishandling of domestic violence custody cases. Abuser rights groups often argue that when they come to court mothers and fathers should be treated the same. Judges often accept and support such statements because they superficially sound reasonable and never consider the unstated part of the statement “regardless of past parenting.” If courts are working for the best interests of the children, they need to consider that children usually need one parent more than the other. Their primary attachment figure, whether mother or father is far more important to their well- being than the other parent. A non-abusive parent is far more valuable to a child than an abusive one. And yet we often hear judges uncritically repeating the belief that the child needs both parents equally.
Many judges wrongly assume that the mental health professionals working in custody cases have the needed domestic violence expertise or that the couple of hours of required training often obtained by court professionals is sufficient. Many professionals and others do not look at domestic violence as a subject for which specialized training and knowledge is needed. Most people have had some experience with domestic violence as a victim, offender or knowing or working with someone who is. This does not tell them if their experience was typical or unusual and fails to provide context or an understanding of domestic violence dynamics or current scientific research.
The custody court system has been extremely defensive in refusing to adopt needed reforms in the face of multiple confirmations from many varied sources that the present practices are working poorly for the children overseen by custody courts. The Department of Justice study demonstrates the courts frequently use experts without adequate training in domestic violence and this results in the use of myths instead of current scientific research and outcomes that hurt children. In comparision, communities in which child protective agencies consult with domestic violence advocates the resulting arrangements benefit children.
The evaluators who testify in court cannot tell us how their practices and approaches to domestic violence have worked out for the children they have seen because they are making recommendations based on their personal beliefs and biases instead of current scientific research that they are often unfamiliar with. When the evaluators are challenged for their ignorance about this research, courts rarely use this to disqualify or discredit their recommendations.
The research that establishes that 98% of mothers’ domestic violence allegations are honest, but 70-83% of the time the alleged abuser wins custody does not tell us a specific case was wrongly decided, but does demonstrate a large majority of these cases are wrongly decided. Even worse are the sexual abuse cases in which 85% of the cases result in custody for the alleged offender. These cases are more difficult because the mothers usually did not witness the alleged sexual abuse. Some of the concerns could be caused by a child’s sexualized behavior or complaints that might be caused by boundary violations rather than molestation. Nevertheless, the outcomes establish that the courts often send children to live with sexual abusers and punish mothers for good faith reports. In many of these cases the mother was the primary attachment figure so should have received custody even if no sexual abuse occurred.
In many cases in which the custody court decided the father was safe he is later convicted of domestic violence, sexual abuse or kills the mother and/or children. We also see alleged abusers destroy the relationships between mothers and children once they gain control of the children which confirms their purpose in seeking custody was to punish the mother for leaving. The reports of the Courageous Kids who were children sent by custody courts to live with alleged abusers and now describing their experiences after aging out of the court order further confirms the frequency of courts giving custody to abusers.
A chapter written by sociologists Sharon Araji and Rebecca Bosek in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY provides multiple additional confirmations of the frequent mistakes in domestic violence custody cases. They interviewed protective mothers in Alaska and then compared the responses to similar studies in four other states. They found substantial complaints by the mothers of mistreatment by the courts and failure to protect their children. The complaints were supported by the results in the five studies and in a later study by Voices of Women that reviewed reports from mothers in New York City Family Court. These were not random samples and courts might argue the mothers were not objective. Drs. Araji and Bosek covered this potential concern by comparing the mothers’ complaints with other scientific research. The research confirmed what the mothers were saying. This is significant because it confirms the research that demonstrates mothers’ complaints are reliable and confirms the problems cited concerning the courts’ response to domestic violence cases are valid.
Domestic violence advocates constitute the only profession that works full time on domestic violence issues. The widespread mistake by many court professionals to treat them as if they are biased or partisan is based upon a lack of critical thinking. If courts needed to respond to a rash of arson fires, they would seek help from the experts which would be the firefighting community. The firefighters would be treated as the experts they are even if they had no advanced degrees or even a college degree. Through training and experience firefighters know best how to recognize arson, prevent and respond to arson. There are three important differences between arson and domestic violence crimes. One is that arson has always been a crime so there is no history of society tolerating or encouraging arson. If a landlord were particularly cruel or dishonest no one would say the arsonist was justified in burning down his building. The second is that most firefighters are men and in our still sexist society people pay more attention to what men say and treat it as having more value. Finally there are no arsonist’s rights groups that can lobby to minimize or justify their crimes.
There was a time when society had not reached a consensus about domestic violence, but those days are past. Every state has made a variety of domestic violence acts crimes and every state has ordered courts to take domestic violence seriously in custody cases based on research that establishes the harm to children. Domestic violence advocates understand the dynamics of intimate partner abuse and how to recognize the pattern of abuse. This is an area that the court professionals repeatedly miss because they don’t have the training and often don’t even realize they are missing crucial information. Advocates have no desire or reason to want false allegations to succeed and in fact this would make their job more difficult. Their goal is to keep victims safe and prevent domestic violence. This coincides with the laws and policies in every state. Statements and practices that minimize the role of domestic violence advocates or treat them as if they were partisan should be viewed not just as wrong, but a demonstration of gender bias.
Stare decisis is a fundamental legal principle created to prevent the need to relitigate the same issues over and over. We have every reason to respect this principle, but it has been misused in domestic violence cases. The assumption is that once a court makes a decision (after any appeals), we must assume the decision is correct. Unfortunately the assumption that the decisions were correct has discouraged court officials from investigating how their decisions have worked out. Judge Sol Gothard wrote, “If the court system had commissioned research to determine how the present practices are working, the result would be the information contained in Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody. The research findings demonstrate court practices are outdated and their confidence misplaced.” In reality, these decisions are predictions that children would do better living with one parent than the other. It is appropriate for courts to study how these predictions have worked out just as it is proper to reconsider past decisions based on new research and information.
When allegations or evidence of domestic violence are part of a custody case, a court must consider current scientific research about domestic violence and learn from the knowledge and experience of domestic violence advocates or other experts. Hopefully it won’t be long until we are shaking our heads and wondering how it could have taken so long to appreciate what should be obvious. A custody court that refuses to listen to a domestic violence expert is demonstrating its bias and committing malpractice. The failure to consider domestic violence research and expertise should be grounds for reversal. The flawed and outdated practices that have ruined too many children’s lives have already been tolerated for far too long.
Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com
You might also like:
Domestic Violence Safe Courts Act
Why Don’t We End Domestic Violence?
Throw the Book at Abusers: Using DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSE ...
EXTREME CUSTODY DECISIONS THAT RISK LIVES
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)