« Getting Paid To Write Erotica | Main | Dang It! "Lost" Is A Repeat »

October 26, 2005

The Latest Fathers Rights Attack Against "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories"

Fathers' rights activists are quite underhanded in their attacks against "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories". Now they are circulating one of their own statements, while pretending it comes directly from the American Psychological Association. This is what is being circulated by fathers' rights activists in their latest attempt to attack the documentary. I first heard about it yesterday, and I've seen it in several locations.

This is the fathers' rights circular:

The APA has come out and said that the association's stance on Parental Alienation Syndrome was mis-reprented in the movie.

In the documentary Joan Meier, a professor of clinical law at George Washington University and one of the film's chief spokespersons, states that PAS "has been thoroughly debunked by the American Psychological Association." Connecticut Public Television, one of the film's producers, put out a press release promoting the film which stated that PAS had been "discredited by the American Psychological Association."

However, according to Rhea K. Farberman, Executive Director of Public and Member Communications of the American Psychological Association, these claims are "incorrect" and "inaccurate." Farberman says that the APA "does not have an official position on parental alienation syndrome--pro or con." She adds:

"The Connecticut Public Television press release is incorrect. I have notified both Connecticut Public Television and their PR firm of the inaccuracy in their press release."

The APA has made a statement already denouncing PAS and alienation in general. Here is an excerpt from the statement. Note that the end of that first paragraph comes right out against garbage like PAS. Bold emphasis is mine.

Family courts frequently minimize the harmful impact of children's witnessing violence between their parents and sometimes are reluctant to believe mothers. If the court ignores the history of violence as the context for the mother's behavior in a custody evaluation, she may appear hostile, uncooperative, or mentally unstable. For example, she may refuse to disclose her address, or may resist unsupervised visitation, especially if she thinks her child is in danger. Psychological evaluators who minimize the importance of violence against the mother, or pathologize her responses to it, may accuse her of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving the father custody in spite of his history of violence.

Some professionals assume that accusations of physical or sexual abuse of children that arise during divorce or custody disputes are likely to be false, but the empirical research to date shows no such increase in false reporting at that time. In many instances, children are frightened about being alone with a father they have seen use violence towards their mother or a father who has abused them. Sometimes children make it clear to the court that they wish to remain with the mother because they are afraid of the father, but their wishes are ignored.

Fathers' rights activists are pulling out every ugly weapon they have in their arsenal to attack women and children who have been victims of abuse by abusive fathers and husbands. I have a feeling they are not finished attacking the documentary. Their ugly attacks show me that they are really not interesting in helping child victims of abuse, nor are they interested in helping good dads parent their children. This documentary provides a much-needed voice for women and especially children who have suffered abuse at the hands of abusive fathers and husbands. Fathers' rights activists seek to silence that voice, and they are not succeeding.

Posted on October 26, 2005 at 08:11 PM | Permalink

Comments

Heh, we don't really need any ugly weapons, 'breaking the silence' is false on its face from the get-go, and everyone with a keyboard, or who has any connection with reality, can know it... To quote Carey Roberts:

Breaking the Silence leads off with this whopper: "One-third of mothers lose custody to abusive husbands." That outrageous statement contains two falsehoods.

First, divorced fathers win custody of their children only 15% of the time, so the one-third figure is obviously suspect.

Second, women are known to be just as abusive as men. As a recent report from the Independent Women's Forum notes, "approximately half of all couple violence is mutual...when only one partner is abusive, it is as likely to be the woman as the man." IWF Article

Countess, if you weren't so clearly dissociative, I would be embarrased for you for your promotion of this misandry, but then, that's where you live. Hope its nice there.

-X

Posted by: x at Oct 27, 2005 4:51:04 PM

And I see that the best the pro-abuser trolls can do is plug their ears, close their eyes, ignore the facts, and repeat the same drek.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Oct 27, 2005 6:13:28 PM

Breaking The Silence is another ploy for moms to get custody
of the kids, collect child support and other aid and not have
to have dad around. That's the bottom line. I've haven't seen
it yet, but if they do have kids telling horror stories about
their fathers, it's just more evidence of how devastating PAS is to children.

Posted by: mark aleck at Oct 27, 2005 7:51:10 PM

Mark gets the award for the most oblivious and persistant troll after Jody or whatever his/her name was. Here's their argument, boiled down: "Nuh uh!"

Posted by: ginmar at Oct 27, 2005 8:01:02 PM

mark, thats a big accusation to make. If women want to raise their kids without their husband around then why are there so many women who are married? And why do so many women who get divorced get married again?

And about PAS. Who do they claim has PAS? The mothers or the children?

Posted by: greg at Oct 27, 2005 8:17:14 PM

Can we not start a more equal and positive dialogue for our children. Did we not see and hear the report on the 23 yr old SF woman who tossed her kids into the SF bay - just last week?

Can we not see that it is the current adversarial system that fuels these one sided attitudes - needless arguements, if not, is what has / is causing so much of this counter-culture, anger, and continued negative and abusive behaivor. The words I am reading on your Blog should be grounds for arrest for DViolence.

When WILL WE as a Society begin to remember to show one another love and respect (Rosa Parks to Susan B Anthony) - not hatred - comprimise instead of selfishness - patience, tolenrence and understanding instead of the continued inter-personal attacks on each other, if not, STOP the legal arguements - as only then will it be - that we WILL see our children flourish and appreciate us more - as good parents and positve role models.

Until then - you might as well sign up for the "Jerry Springer Show" as that is EXACTLY what we are showing our kids in real life - on your negative Blogs - sadly.

It is and never has been about US - it has and should always be about them - and we are starting to see that with the latest legislation we are advocating for an equally shared parenting program for our kids - unless one parent wishes to violate this plan and must pay the price for selfishly doing so.

When we start to remember that "we need to treat one other as we would wish to be treated" ONLY THEN WILL we all finally see the "proverbial lightbulb" go on.

Be a Part of the Solution - Show you are a Parent Who Cares and wishes to show they do...Today...:)


SRene2005
www.ParentsWhoCare.us

Posted by: Stephen Rene at Oct 28, 2005 12:45:46 AM


Recognizing Women Abusers,
from Medical News Today
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=26570#
24 Jun 2005

The usual picture of the abuse victim from newspapers to the big screen is most commonly a woman. Stereotypically, a small, weak, low socioeconomic woman at that. Someone who can't defend herself and has been taken advantage of by a brut … a cad … a villainous man… like the monster of a man in the movie “Sleeping With the Enemy,” with Julia Roberts. (Although, I dare say, Julia's role broke a bit of the stereotype itself, as she was married to a very wealthy and respected member of the community whose friends would never have dreamed of his abusive behavior behind closed doors.)

Yes, women have been abused, (physically, sexually, and emotionally) by men for centuries. And yet women can also be the abusers. Would you recognize one? They don't all deliver cuts and bruises, and thus, may remain unnoticed by most. Yet the injuries they inflict can do more damage than the casual observer may notice.

In fact, women oftentimes can wreck about as much havoc on those in their environment as their male counterparts. Some are even clever actors who can morph from June Cleaver to Cruella De Ville in a moment's notice.

They are vindictive wives, caustic bosses, name-calling mothers and grandmothers, condescending friends, and nightmare employees.

They come in all walks of life, all socio-economic groups, ages, and races. And they can deviously trap their hostages in a living hell from which they may not know how to escape.

What do abusive women look like?

Well, they can use the exact methodology as the men do. They can use physical punishment, beating and/or torturing children or anyone less capable than they are (aging parents?) They can demand or withhold sex, using it as a weapon, or can cheat on their spouses without apparent conscience. They can name-call to the point where the victim is left feeling vile, unimportant, and as though they don't even exist. They can ignore and deliver the “silent treatment” as punishment for perceived wrongs. They can even hold all the purse strings, not allowing their husbands or family members to have so much as their own allowance. And they can prohibit their “loved ones” from even interacting with friends and extended family.

Want some real examples?

The mother of a 5 year old boy who taught her son total emotional confusion and lead him to a life filled with anxiety, due to her early treatment of him … Some days she would call him up to her lap to watch her TV shows with her when he came home from school, and yet other days she would reach out and slap him in the face unexpectedly and without warning. He never knew which mother to expect and after years of her roller coaster behaviors he still has a hard time trusting women.

The wife of a devoted husband who thought that she was the best thing that ever came into his life. While she didn't appear to have much of a sexual appetite with him, he later found out that she had been having affairs with 5 different men during their marriage, then accused him of being the one to destroy their relationship.

The woman who never takes responsibility for any of the situations in her life and blames everyone else for all the negative things that befall her.

The 94 year old mother of her senior citizen son who is still calling him demeaning names to this day. His ongoing attempts to win his mother's approval (even after all these years), has left him always feeling like a failure at most things he tries and wondering why she believes he is such a loser.

The wife of a man she so verbally and emotionally abused (a high ranking military doctor), that when she was hospitalized for a blood clot in her leg, he attempted to inject household poison into her IV line, later claiming that he “snapped” after years of the emotionally abusive environment in which he had lived. (He spent 18 months in Leavenworth.)

The mother who constantly tells her grown daughter in front of her grandchild, that she wishes she'd had an abortion instead of giving birth to her. That the daughter is, in fact, the worst excuse of a mother she's ever seen. (Now there's the pot calling the kettle black!)

The woman who never has a kind thing to say about anyone and yet is quick to offer criticism to all in her path.

The female boss who throws a temper tantrum because her name is misspelled on her nametag at the newcomer's management meeting. Who strikes terror in the hearts of her employees whenever she walks into their departments, as no one knows where her vile anger and words will strike next.

The woman who “forgets” to give birthday or Christmas presents to her “loved ones,” yet expects substantial gifts and attention lavished on her when her birthday and other holidays roll around.

The radical religious grandmother who is raising her “bastard” grandchild and because her interpretation of her religion tells her that he is “unclean and wicked,” forces enemas upon him every day of his life, leaving him with lifetime issues relating to his sexuality and his personal value.

The wife of a man who she constantly belittles about everything he does, from how he dresses, to how much money he makes, to how he makes love, or even bathes the children.

The female employee who makes everyone feel as though they must “walk on eggshells” around her, as she treats everyone with her “silent treatment” all shift, refusing to engage in conversation, or even acknowledge anyone else's presence or value but her own.

The mother who teaches her children to be shameful for any misbehavior they might experience, and then proceeds to remind them of their shameful selves as long as possible, only ensuring the development of their low self-esteem.

The condescending adult sister who loves to tell her grown siblings how they are terrible parents, undermines everything they do with their kids, and then attempts to “guilt trip” them about why they don't visit her more often.

The mother of a 12 year old child who “punished” her daughter for misbehaving by submerging her in a tub of scalding water. The child needed hospitalization and skin grafts.

Yes, women can be incredibly caustic abusers. And because society more generally expects women to be the victims, we may miss reading the telltale signs that the people who are subjected to these women on a day-to-day basis are slowly having their very souls chipped away bit by bit.

They may show signs of depression, anxiety, gastro-intestinal symptoms, insomnia, or a variety of other symptoms as a result of the chronic stress they live under. Unfortunately, they may not recognize that it is this emotional war zone they live in which may be at the root of these problems.

When women are the victims of abuse, they may be open to discussing their feelings and situation with others. They solicit information from their female friends or therapists to help find clarity and understanding in situations that may leave them feeling lost, confused, or in pain. Although many women still seem to stay “stuck” in abusive relationships (for many reasons), at least it seems to be more the norm that they still share their situations, and their pain with someone they can connect with.

With men, however, coping skills are often quite different. Men don't often chat over coffee about their relationships and many simply don't easily share their feelings with a well-meaning therapist.

Of course in our macho culture, admitting that one's wife is a husband abuser just doesn't make a man a “man's man” either. Admitting this situation to male counterparts (or others) may seem like emotional suicide to some.

In addition, since the majority of support groups for these type of victims tend to be comprised of mostly females, men might not feel at ease (or in some cases welcomed), as some female members may feel uncomfortable with any male presence in their midst.

Thus, males who are trapped in these abusive nightmares may find it even more difficult to explain their situations and safely extricate themselves from it, than do the women victims.

Educating men about the intricacies of these abusive, narcissistic individuals and specifically, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, may be the first line of defense for many who are walking in the dark, questioning their own sanity.

Knowledge is power. Enlightening male clients and friends to the wealth of knowledge available regarding this phenomenon may be their first step towards determining their future course and plans. Realizing that they are not going crazy and that they are not the only ones who feel lost and alone as the victim of abuse, can give many the first keys to unlocking the doors to their emotional freedom.

Educating our communities and getting the media to recognize and talk about the fact that abuse does not just involve the typical male brute, but can also include the stealth, covert manipulations of the female of the species as well might just make the difference for so many who feel trapped in the nightmare.

Finally, helping men realize that they are not alone in their confusion, depression, and emotional roller coaster ride living or working with a narcissistic female, can allow the formation of new paths to healing. It may give them new knowledge upon which they can make conscious choices for change.

In addition, it may lead many to better understand that abusive women can be pathological and may cause vast destruction to those in their path … including children who generally have no say in their situations.

So the next time you see on TV or in film, those wickedly funny women (like the character Jane Fonda plays in the new movie, “Monster-in Law”), don't laugh so hard. These women are as real as the men we see in mug shots and in the news each and every day … but too many times we just don't see them through their pearls and lace.

Mary Jo Fay, RN, MSN is a national speaker, award winning author, columnist, and survivor of several narcissistic relationships. Her book, "When Your Perfect Partner Goes Perfectly Wrong - Loving or Leaving the Narcissist in Your Life" is available at http://www.helpfromsurvivors.com or http://www.outoftheboxx.com. She can be reached in the US at 303-841-7691.

Posted by: Robert Brown at Oct 28, 2005 11:00:23 AM

Gee, there's nothing wrong wtih a guy equating verbal abuse with oftne times fatal physical abuse, is there? I mean, it's not like batterers like to blame their abuse on nagging fishwives or anytihng.

I wish these trolls would get a clue. I also loved the guy who ommitted some crucial facts from the 'woman who threw her kids into the bay'----like, you know, she just did it casually or vicously, because there's this hidden plague of violent women out there.

That woman suffered from schizophrenia. She wasn't able to get adequate health care. Where's the father, like Russell Yates?

Trish, you need better trolls than these whiny desperate apologists.

Posted by: ginmar at Oct 28, 2005 11:13:47 AM

http://www.nlcn.org/NLCN/COLJ-0000394.htm

PBS’ ‘Breaking the Silence’: Family Law in the Funhouse Mirror

October 12 - October , 26 2005
By Jeffery M. Leving
The new documentary Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories airs on Public Broadcasting Service stations across the country next week as part of October’s Domestic Violence Awareness Month. In the film, co-producers Catherine Tatge and Dominique Lasseur sound the alarm over an alleged crisis of fit mothers losing custody of their children to abusive husbands.

The documentary centers around Karen, who lost custody of her three children to their father after a court-appointed evaluator, found that her claims that her husband had been sexually abusing their children were false. Mothers like Karen are increasingly vocal and visible, and the movement's cause celebre is Bridget Marks, a former model who briefly lost custody of her twin 4 year-old girls last year under similar circumstances. Marks appeared on Dr. Phil, Larry King Live, PrimeTime Live, The O'Reilly Factor, and numerous others, and her case has been reported sympathetically.

However, such custody transfers are very rare, and usually happen for a good reason. In Marks' case, for example, the media generally ignored the fact that every judge who heard the case--all five--concluded that Marks had coached her girls to believe that they had been sexually molested by their father.

A far more common phenomenon is divorcing mothers' tactical use of false allegations of sexual abuse. When a father who has daughters succeeds in getting a desirable custody arrangement over the objections of a recalcitrant mother, it is standard legal practice to advise the father that a charge of sexual abuse may be coming.

According to a study conducted by Douglas J. Besharov and Lisa A. Laumann and published in Social Science and Modern Society , the vast majority of accusations of child sexual abuse made during custody battles are false, unfounded or unsubstantiated.

The filmmakers depict abused women as the victims of sexist judges who refuse to believe them, and who punish them for claiming abuse. In reality, courts are overly tolerant of false allegations of domestic violence, and divorcing mothers often use domestic violence restraining orders as tactical weapons against fathers.

Most courts grant restraining orders to practically any woman who applies, and studies show that the majority of these orders do not even involve an allegation of violence. Once the order is issued the father is booted out of his home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his own children.

By the time the court decides custody a firm custody precedent has already been set, and mom will get sole (or de facto sole) custody. The father is relegated to visitor status in his own children’s lives, even though he has never been found guilty of any offense. Nevertheless the filmmakers advocate that domestic violence policies be made even more draconian. This amounts to a doctrine of “moms never lie,” giving mothers veto power over fathers’ fatherhood.

The filmmakers contend that abusive fathers use claims of Parental Alienation Syndrome--the phenomenon of a custodial parent turning his or her children against the noncustodial parent after divorce or separation--to get courts to grant them sole custody of children.


It is true that there are fathers who have alienated their own children through their abuse or personality defects, and who unfairly blame their children’s mothers by claiming PAS. However, parental alienation is a common, well-documented phenomenon, and the cruelty it visits upon children and the fathers they love and need would be hard to overstate.

One prominent example is the LaMusga case decided by the California Supreme Court last year. In that case Gary LaMusga’s son’s kindergarten teacher testified that LaMusga’s ex-wife asked her to keep track of the time Gary spent volunteering in his little son’s kindergarten classroom so it could be deducted from his visitation time with his son.

According to the teacher, the kindergarten boy told her "my dad lies in court," and said that his mom had told him this. The teacher testified:

"I finally sat down with him and told him that it was OK for him to love his daddy. I basically gave him permission to love his father. And he seemed brightened by that…I’m not sure that he was aware that he could do that."

While one can always find an unusual case or ruling, mothers rarely lose custody of their children. The view of family law propounded in the film is not accurate, but is instead reflective of the grave distortions put forth by misguided women’s advocates. It is family law in the funhouse mirror.

Jeffery M. Leving is one of this country’s leading family law attorneys and the co-author of the Illinois Joint Custody Law. His book, “Father’s Rights” on which these columns are based, is regarded as a definitive work on this important subject. Mr. Leving has been appointed Chairman of the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood by Governor Rod Blagojevich. Glenn Sacks, a nationally recognized men's and fathers' issues columnist, contributed to this column. Send your questions and/or comments on this and other columns to Mr. Leving at mail@dadsrights.com or write to the North Lawndale Community News.

Posted by: Robert Brown at Oct 28, 2005 11:15:24 AM

Ginmar,
Have you noticed that when a women behaves criminally there is always an excuse for her bad behaviour. Perhaps all male criminals suffer mental illnesses and should receive the same amount of sympathy that murderous women such as the one in S.F. receive.

Posted by: Robert Brown at Oct 28, 2005 11:19:39 AM

Ginmar, these trolls sure are threatened by this documentary, aren't they? Despite their most angry efforts, they weren't able to get it pulled. They weren't able to get PBS to provide a "balanced" (ha!) documentary that aired their ugly views about mothers and custody. They continue to attack this documentary on all sides, yet the documentary is being shown both on PBS and in other venues. I have a feeling it's going to be used as a teaching tool to educate legislators, attorneys, judges, and others regarding what abused women and children go through when abusive fathers gain custody of the children they have been abusing.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 28, 2005 11:29:19 AM

Very often, murderers fall into two groups (thought some may overlap). One group consists of deliberate, rational (in the sense that they know what they are doing) actors. They may be sociopathic in the sense that they are totally indifferent to human suffering, but they "function" (often quite well) in jobs, socially etc. Think BTK in Kansas for example. Church leader, steadily employed, married for many years.

Then there are people who are not rational by really any standard. They are schizophrenic. They hear voices. They live in their own world. Here is NYS, a schizophrenic man pushed a woman originally from my county in front of a subway train in NYC, killing her instantly. Why? No reason. It's his illness. This particular case lead to Kendra's law, which allows for "at-risk" mentally ill people to be retained for treatment, therefore bypassing the old must be a substantial risk to self or others criteria. I'm a little ambivalent about the law, as I think it could be abused. On the other had, there are way too many people who are not getting treatment.

Now, as far as I am concerned, no intelligent, educated person can possibly hold homeless schizophrenics who in many cases have had access to appropriate treatment to the same standards as a person who acts deliberately. When you do, the prisons become packed with "crazies" who are a danger to themselves and the staff. They don't respond well to discipline or rules, because they don't process these things. In the New York Times a few weeks ago, there was an article about "cutters" in the prisons, people who are so compelled to cut themselves up that they often become a mass of scar tissue. They often have a pre-existing drug addiction on top of their mental illness which compounds the issue. They get put in for drug issues, and then, violently strike out at staff when they feel threatened. Solitary makes them even worse. With cutbacks in services, prisons are increasingly dumping grounds for these people, especially, it seems, the women's prisons. They are at risk to themselves and to staff, who often have no training for dealing with the mentally ill.

Now in the case of the man who pushed the woman in front of the train, you would find no feminist who would argue that a man was getting off "easy" in this case because he was a man. He was a homeless schizophrenic. The issue was mental illness, not gender per se, and the lack of treatment for people like him. Last year or thereabouts, a man in Texas, also hearing "voices" killed his children. Just like the woman in San Francisco.
Frankly, these people need to get timely and appropriate treatment before these things happen, and that needs to be the issue. Male or female doesn't matter.

The "rational" killers? That's another story. They know what they are doing. Some men do kill their children, not because they are mentally ill, but because they have long histories of criminal and/or abusive behavior. There are some women in this group, but the criminality studies I have seen suggest that most women who kill their children fall into the schizophrenic group.

So it appears on me that you are irrationally harsh on schizophrenics, holding them to an unreasonable standard of accountability for their own behavior, ONLY because women killers are disproportionately high in this group. Or at least, only when the schizophrenic is female. Are you prepared to hold male schizophrenics to the same standard as deliberate rational male killers? If so, why or why not? Because I'm certainly not.

Posted by: silverside at Oct 28, 2005 3:00:11 PM

Uh, dipshit? It's a matter of public record that both this woman and Andrea Yates suffered from severe schizophrenia. You just go ahead and ignore that fact. You may also ignore the fact that fathers kill their children out of spite, too.

Of course, what miniscule credibility you had will be destroyed in the process, too. Knock yourself out.

Trish, I agree. They're so threatened and fearful that someone might see through their bluster that it would be pathetic. They really really want to believe their lies but I don't think they do themselves.

Posted by: ginmar at Oct 28, 2005 4:01:01 PM

Yup, Ginmar. He was trolling and spamming the same crap at one of my Blogcritics posts about the documentary, and he was pissed enough about my post to come over here and troll and spam in my comments. I deleted some of his other copy/pastes and banned him. If he wants to whine about fathers' rights, he can start his own blog. No one is allowed to use my blog as a personal soapbox - copy/pasting reams of stuff from men's and fathers' rights web sites without engaging in any real discussion. I've noticed that when fathers' rights activists are angry they spam like that. Fathers' rights activists feel very threatened by this documentary because it will expose one of their pet weapons (Parental Alienation Syndrome) for the garbage it is.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 28, 2005 4:15:26 PM

Well, thank God. I have to wonder about their denial: they always act like if it happens to them, it's universal, but if it happens to women, it's her own damned fault and besides, she's probably lying. They don't think we notice that stuff after a while.

It's funny how they don't expect the one-sided nature of "PAS" to be apparent. They really believe that saying over and over again that women are evil does not reveal anything suspicious about them at all.

Posted by: ginmar at Oct 28, 2005 5:26:13 PM

It's ridiculous trying to figure out why men beat their wives.
Have you ever heard of someone killing or beating them without any spite? There's no reason why any man would kill someone else without
spite, plain and simple. So what can we do about it? If a man is going to kill his wife and kids, he going to do it. As long as there is spite in the world, men will kill.

If the count kills you and your kid, we'll know why! Spite, right ?

We need to notify law enforcement that they've been wasting their
time investigating crimes, trying find a motive, when the whole it was right under their noses, spite.

Posted by: mark aleck at Oct 28, 2005 5:34:39 PM

no shit sherlock. if you look at the definition of spite you can
see that you can't do anything violently without spite.

spite
n.
Malicious ill will prompting an urge to hurt or humiliate.
An instance of malicious feeling.

why else would man hit his wife or kids, by accident?

Posted by: at Oct 28, 2005 6:31:23 PM

How many cases are blamed on mental illness in this country?

Was the woman who ran over her husband with the family - Mercedes - with her own her daughter in the car mentally ill? Not so.

Was the woman who drown her 5 yound children in FL mentally ill when she was told by her boyfriend she would have to be - without children - to date this other man before she did it? Not so.

And the interesting part about the woman who dropped her children off the SF bridge was that her Family Law case started in FL? What a surprize...and it might have even been Pinellas County where Teri Schivao was pulled off life support by the custodial and denied the love of her non-custodial "flesh and blood" family members?

We really need to STOP the agruing and START to open our eyes to TRUTH before it is too late and more innocent children are harmed by both genders equally - which is what we are hoping thru our efforts - and so many parents who agree - that it is time to finally put the hatred and anger to an end...and start showing we want to help be a part of the solution...

SRene
http://FathersWhoCare.blogspot.com
(please don't be afraid to post your comments on our site too:)


Posted by: Stephen Rene at Oct 29, 2005 4:17:35 PM

After reading Robert Brown's long posts all about abusive mothers, daughters and grandmothers I have to say, I think he needs therapy.

Furthermore his contention that "custody transfers are very rare" is not correct vis-a-vis fathers.

Actually last year the NY Times had an article in it about a custodial father and they clearly stated that MOST fathers get custody AFTER the initial ruling is made, in other words by returning to court and getting custody switched. So it's not rare at all, at least not for fathers.

Who can go back to court for ANY reason or NONE at all and get custody switched.

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 30, 2005 11:35:19 AM

We really need to STOP the agruing and START to open our eyes to TRUTH before it is too late and more innocent children are harmed by both genders equally - which is what we are hoping thru our efforts - and so many parents who agree - that it is time to finally put the hatred and anger to an end...and start showing we want to help be a part of the solution...

Translation: all this talk about how men really screw women and kids makes me nervous so let's just ignore reality because I can't handle it.

Oh, and if you work more cliches in there you get a toaster. Try it. You obviously need something to make your brain function increase.

Posted by: ginmar at Oct 30, 2005 1:40:29 PM

"Oh, and if you work more cliches in there you get a toaster. Try it. You obviously need something to make your brain function increase."

This was pretty funny.

But actually could be a good idea.

Maybe Trish should start giving prizes for certain categories of postings.

Like most cliches in post. Funniest post. Most unrealistic post (for Robert Brown who thinks men can have children w/o wives...he thinks it's cheaper).

BTW, he's even dreaming at that $6.00 an hour wage for nannies for his kids. Those LADIES make very decent wages, at least in NY...that's why so many women at, least around here, are finally starting to stay home now after having kids. I'm starting to finally see a reversal of the trend for mothers to rush back to work and turn their babies over to nannies.

It actually doesn't pay to go back to work today so quick, especially if you have to pay the going rate for private child care. All you are doing a few couples have told me is paying one complete salary for childcare for basically leaving your baby with a total stranger all day. So the parent making the lower salary (generally the mother) is just staying home.

You might as well stay home and just live on the one salary until your kids are old enough for pre-k...which is 4 years old in NY, free of charge at public schools (which around where I live are still pretty decent until about 5th grade).

This Robert fellow is waaaaay unrealistic about the cost of raising infants using paid help...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 30, 2005 3:18:24 PM

You probably would have said the same about cliches' from FDR during the depression to when Kennedy in the 60's said " ask not what you can do for yourself, but what you can to for others (the country)."

Why is the same "gender selfishness" continuing to be displayed toward one another - when we can see the truth - and it is right before us? Why when we see and hear these news reports we do nothing but keep arguing about the same issues and never provide a single solution to the problems - hurting our nations children?

We are acting like spoiled little children ourselves who do not wish to learn how to share - are we not?

Is that a cliche' needing added brain function?

Why do you ask for "equal rights" in so many other areas of the law but not show you can share these same legal rights equally when it comes to parenting - would it not stop the arguments? Of couse it would - and alot of legal fees that could be invested in our children...as well?

This is not "rocket science" people - but it is simple truth and basic common sense - which does not require a PhD.
--------------
Stephen Rene
www.FathersWhocare.blogspot.com
(Don't be afraid to post a comment and try to learn to see things differently???)

Posted by: Stephen Rene at Oct 30, 2005 3:36:11 PM

Stephen Rene: "Why do you ask for "equal rights" in so many other areas of the law but not show you can share these same legal rights equally when it comes to parenting - would it not stop the arguments? Of couse it would - and alot of legal fees that could be invested in our children...as well?"

I don't think it's a matter of "equal rights" in parenting. It's a matter of the best interests of the child. Focusing on "equal rights" (which usually refers to "equal rights" for fathers) places the focus away from the children's needs and onto adult demands and wishes. The child's need for stability is what is important, not what adults want or think they want for themselves.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 30, 2005 3:51:14 PM

I would tend to agree that having only 1 parent works -but we are still seeing to many cases where it is not - and with equal rights for our children - the child's best interests are met - equally and unselflishly - but most importantly - equally by law - which is guaranteed by our United States Constitution (please see my "about us" page on my site - as it is clearly outlined there).

Too many parents using a shared and equal method of parenting are experiencing "positive results" with their kids and guess what - ZERO P.A.S. cases that need to heard - that in and of itself should be a glaring solution - no one would unselfishly argue is in the best interest of the child - in each and every case (please see my "solutions page" for more).

Thank you for your kind email and for keeping the discussion alive...:)

But let's still try to stop the agruing and try working togehter for a solution that shares equally - what we know in our hearts and minds - is a fundamentally fair and balanced way of parenting for our nations children...:)


SRene
www.ParentsWhoCare.us
http://FathersWhoCare.blogspot.com

Posted by: Stephen Rene at Oct 30, 2005 5:45:56 PM

This was a moot issue previously as for children w/o property, which was MOST children, mothers generally assumed custody by default.

In other words, when children are worth no money, the only ones who appear to be interested in them are their mothers.

All this genesis of English common law regarding custody is irrelevant.

So forget about it...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 30, 2005 10:17:21 PM


Just tossing an idea into the heap.

"Best interest of the child" is a meaningless cliche at this point. It includes everything and nothing--serious people should ban the phrase. Like dude, it means so "nuthin."

When talking about children as property, tempers rise. We should instead be talking about PARENTS AS PROPERTY. The parents are the property of the child. The two most important possessions any child has are his mother and father. Shared parenting, and the provision for 50-50 "custody" means, in effect, that the kid has MAXIMUM POSSIBLE POSSESSION OF HIS OR HER PARENTS.

There is no way for a five-year-old to say which of his parents he "needs" most--he is incapable of thinking about it, and his very being is changing every single day. A girl's nature can be different on Friday--more developed in some subtle way--than it was on the Monday of that week.

The only safe thing, in a situation where divorce cannot be prevented, is to arrange for the child to have the most possible possession of both parents. Fifty-fity-custody. Each of those parents provides a psychological food (call it "reflection" or "acceptance" or "nuturing" or "love") that no one else can.

Officials who separate kids from one parent are putting kids on near-starvation diets, letting them live, but crippling them.

Posted by: orwell46 at Oct 31, 2005 12:46:31 PM

"When talking about children as property, tempers rise. We should instead be talking about PARENTS AS PROPERTY. The parents are the property of the child. The two most important possessions any child has are his mother and father. Shared parenting, and the provision for 50-50 "custody" means, in effect, that the kid has MAXIMUM POSSIBLE POSSESSION OF HIS OR HER PARENTS.

There is no way for a five-year-old to say which of his parents he "needs" most--he is incapable of thinking about it, and his very being is changing every single day. A girl's nature can be different on Friday--more developed in some subtle way--than it was on the Monday of that week.

The only safe thing, in a situation where divorce cannot be prevented, is to arrange for the child to have the most possible possession of both parents. Fifty-fity-custody. Each of those parents provides a psychological food (call it "reflection" or "acceptance" or "nuturing" or "love") that no one else can."


I wouldn't be totally against some form of this idea for fit parents who were married.

I would fight it tooth and nail for never marrieds however.

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 31, 2005 1:22:09 PM

"When talking about children as property, tempers rise. We should instead be talking about PARENTS AS PROPERTY. The parents are the property of the child. The two most important possessions any child has are his mother and father. Shared parenting, and the provision for 50-50 "custody" means, in effect, that the kid has MAXIMUM POSSIBLE POSSESSION OF HIS OR HER PARENTS."

That has to be one of the more obtuse reasonings I've ever seen to push for presumptive 50/50 custody. Parents are not the property of their children. That's just lame. Folks, face it; you won't get presumptive 50/50 custody. Every year fathers' rights activists demand it, and every year legislators reject it. When "shared parenting" is considered as a base in contested custody cases, the parents are shunted off into expensive "extras", like mediation, parenting coordinators, guardians ad litem, custody and psychological evaluations, parenting classes, and other such "divorce industry" nonsense. The only thing they end up with is debt because they have to pay for all this stuff. No wonder the cost of divorce has skyrocketed into hundreds of thousands of dollars. The reason all this stuff is happening is because people who make their livings from divorce and custody cases saw dollar signs with all the fathers' rights demands for "equal" custody. They've taken advantage of the fathers' rights agenda. Fathers' rights advocates don't understand that they've been had.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 31, 2005 1:44:23 PM

Hooray - Trish!

Thank you for saying it like it is, but we now know the stat's on the numbers as hundred of thousands of parents and children are losing their lives everyday.

Equal rights for both genders - not just one- is still guaranteed by our constitution and as you have seen from my site will be soon - with balance and "justice for all" - children, women, and men by law...not necessarily in that order, of course.:)

Posted by: SR at Oct 31, 2005 4:27:01 PM

Stephen, don't be melodramatic. "Thousands of parents and children" are not "losing their lives everyday". As I said earlier, it's not a matter of equality. It's a matter of what is best for the child. By focusing on "equality", you're taking that focus off of the children and onto mainly fathers demands - those fathers who claim that courts are routinely biased against them. What do you mean by "balance and 'justice for all'"? I have my suspicions, but, still, you're a bit vague.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 31, 2005 4:43:37 PM

countess, stop being a CUNT! It's unbecoming of you.

Posted by: at Oct 31, 2005 6:25:16 PM

countess, stop being a CUNT! It's unbecoming of you.

Posted by: at Oct 31, 2005 6:25:49 PM

You're not anonymous. I know who you are. You are only showing yourself up for being the abusive asshole you are.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 31, 2005 7:50:15 PM

For anyone else who's curious, "anonymous" is Pete Kaplan, having a temper tantrum. I left his comments up so that everyone can see what a typical fathers' rights activist acts like, and it's ugly.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 31, 2005 8:30:28 PM

Pete - Please stop!

Trish is not stating anything deserving of that kind of language, and you need to apoligize, as it is just this kind of dis-respect for any gender that shows we have not "grown up" enough to share ideas and feelings without insult to another person.

I appreciated you compliment about my son and my site Pete - which Trish - needed to take down because of your past behavior - but if you are going to ever be taken seriously - you need to apolgize publically - and hope Trish can and will forgive you?

Stephen Rene
(you can slam me on my site - if you wish - but we need to work together to solve these family legal issues - not further escalate them - needlessly - help show you care enough and be man enough - to say you are sorry - you know you can).

Posted by: Stephen Rene at Oct 31, 2005 8:55:41 PM

"For anyone else who's curious, "anonymous" is Pete Kaplan, having a temper tantrum. I left his comments up so that everyone can see what a typical fathers' rights activist acts like, and it's ugly."

Yes, I had to lock every one of the comments sections of my blog yesterday as after I put up a new post on Saturday afternoon over 20 anonymous span and other nonsenese comments were posted on that ONE POST...

It took me over 3 hours on Saturday night and Sunday morning to clean the whole blog up. AND I haven't even finished yet. I still have to eventually go through every single post and get rid of the comments and spam put everywhere.

I believe Mens/Fathers Rights Advocates did this as I saw on a post at SYG that Wendy McElroy closed up her comments forum due to some MRAs trying to mess up her bandwidth on her forum.

They said they could post a lot of little ads; PLUS long drawn out posts with some pictures or other very big files attached.

That's how they mess up your bandwidth. I think it either freezes up your whole blog OR costs you money as you get charged if you go over a certain amount.

So watch it Trish that they don't try this with you.

I am now having people respond to my posts by email and then I post their email and respond on my site and then lock it down again. Of course it takes forever and probably discourages some commenters but what else can you do???

We are dealing with a bunch of very spiteful juveniles in the bodies of adults.

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 31, 2005 11:00:22 PM

Well Stephen, why don't you give us some details of your personal situation. Now are you sharing custody with your son's mother. AND how is that working. I saw a picture of you and your son on your site...He looks like a very good kid. But be aware that you're open to spiteful actions from MRAs yourself if you disagree with them.

Just letting you know...

I had sole custody of my second child, stipulated to me by my ex after he filed for divorce.

My second child was in my custody by default...but this was before the era of high child support.

Now I'm a grandmother so custody is a moot issue for me personally although I would like to know my daughters won't have to always be looking over their shoulders worried about a spiteful ex trying to get custody from them.

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 31, 2005 11:10:56 PM

CUNTess, you're full of shit. How many times have you called people trolls? How many times have deleted posts that had no profanity in them at all? How many people have you blocked from posting on your blog?How many times have you've taken my words and words of other people and twisted them around? How many times have posted articles or written pieces that exploited women? How many times have you accused people, you've never met your in life, of being in favor of women getting assaulted by their husbands, because of a comment they've made? You're worse than a fascist. You're a cunt.

Posted by: at Oct 31, 2005 11:21:48 PM

Well...to make a long story short she panisked after 9/11 when she lost her job and apt and I invited her and my son to come stay with me temporarily (until she could find work and a new place in St Pete FL). The 1st clue I had that the system wasn't father friendly was when she told me she was told her child support case would be terminated if she ever lived under the same roof with me again? I was appalled that my extention of love for my child and friendship with his mother would be "trump" my efforts to help them after a terrible national tradegy.

Then when we were going to go to rotational shared parenting she was told by another in the system not do so as she would get as much money - then was advised she would get more if she left the state of FL and moved up to MASS which is what she did.

I then had to go to Family court for my custody order as the chid support court did not care anything about my being able to visit my son ever again. Then I was awarded joint custody (ie residential vs non-res) by the judge when her attorney told her not to appear for the hearing - and when her attorney tried not so appear - I mentionit to the baliff and he told the judge. Well all I knew is that within 15 min that attorney was in court and the judge was mad at her lack of ethic and respect for the court. She tried to delay the order again in court and I told the judge I had been waiting for her to prepare an agreed schedule from her client for over 5 months - he agreed and ordered to work out and agree on the visitation in his presence - and thus my FL order was born!

That is when I knew the system needed to be made easier - legally - and started lobbying every State Gov - Sen - and Federal Congress-person I could to share my experience with them - which what I have been doing ever since - while paying my support voluntarily thru the State. I even sent payments ahead of schedule and my checks were returned by the State. So I call and emailed the State Gov to let them know this was wrong as a father who wished to send extra money should be allowed to do so - he agreed and the system was changed so additional payments can be sent to a child ahead of time for the 1st time in FL's State history.

Now I am working with key Federal and State leaders to make the system more family frendly - as the lawyers are what caused me all my problems - and feel that they need to be held accountable publically for these ethics violations in Family Law going on everyday.

I wrote to Trish that I sent a press release about a new TV show I am trying to get produced that shares my experience and those of 1000's of children everyday...and to try to advocate a mutually respectful and unselfish approach to parenting our children...but soon after this announcement the PBS production was annnounced it would air last week - almost as a trump to my annoucement - needlessly.

Hope this sums it up for everyone and Trish will leave this comment up as it all true - shows how difficult is was made for a non-custodial mother or father - by and for the legal system and the fees they hope to collect as it has hurt my son so much he is now in therapy and on meds because he was crying for his daddy everyday - and no one could help him. Once I was there he was fine...and if this is an isolated case I would be surprised - just as much as a child awarded to the fathers who misses and cries for his mommy - in the same fashion.

The problem everyone is so selfish they refuse to see this is why people manytimes turn to drugs, alcohol or worse - and why we see so many parents taking the their own lives and that of their children - everyday. We might not hear about each incident but it is happening and it is not being reported as family law related. They say "she was hearing voices" my guess would be "legal voices" who advised her and separated her from the father over money - well before she disposed of them off the SF bridge - instead of having to give them up to him or form a closer supportive relationship with the father involved.

What a waste of life and a sad day when 50 years ago this was unheard of...:(

Posted by: SRene at Nov 1, 2005 1:16:27 AM

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/figure4_2.htm

Posted by: Robert at Nov 1, 2005 5:49:15 AM

Wow - Robert!

That link was unbeleivable and would have been a GREAT chart to have shown on the - PBS Special - the other night?

I wonder if the subject of PAS and these US DEPT stats show any connection[s] to the Family Law and Welfare systems??

Thank you for sharing such an eye-opening and un-bias look into this subject matter - we didn't make these number up our US DEPT of Children and Families researched it and have no reason to lie to us...about the seriousness of these issues...and to help save children...which I am sure the other side wishes to do...more than earn legal fees...right...?


SRene
htt://fatherswhocare.blogspot.com

Posted by: SRene at Nov 1, 2005 8:55:06 AM

Stephen, your case sounds like an amicable divorce. You and your ex wanted to try rotating shared parenting (joint physical custody). That makes a big difference regarding whether or not joint custody is going to work. In the cases where joint custody works, one of the factors is that the parents chose between themselves to try it. It was the choice of both of them.

It sounds to me like you and your ex should have fired your lawyers. I was amazed that your ex's attorney told her not to show up in court. That was bad advice. Mediators are useful on some occasions, and one might have been good in your case since you and your ex already knew what you wanted. That's one incident when using a mediator would have resulted in lower fees than using attorneys. Some lawyers are really bad, but I've met plenty of lawyers who are very good. Not all family law lawyers are out to make money from divorce and custody cases.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 1, 2005 9:57:19 AM

Lots of fathers' rights activists were posting excerpts and even entire documents from Child Maltreatment reports, like that URL posted above, on my Blogcritics posts about this documentary. They were doing this to take the focus off the cases covered in the documentary - abused children awarded to the custody of their abusive fathers. Government reports focus on single mother homes, especially those of single teen mothers. There is often no father in the picture not because of a custody case, but because the father is not present or not interested in taking on his share of the responsibility. Goverment reports focus on that demographic, so it's no wonder that those reports find a lot of mothers who abuse their children. Single mothers with no father present are over-represented in the government samples.

Mothers in those reports are most often cited for neglect. Neglect is considered one form of abuse by HHS. Fathers are most often cited for abuse. One of my commenters at Blogcritics pointed out that "neglect" can mean not taking the kids to the doctor "on time". We're talking about mothers who often don't have means of transportation or who lack affordable health care. She didn't excuse neglect, but pointed out that it often means "poor". Because mothers are the primary caregivers of the children, when there is abuse, they will be cited for it even if the father was present in the home. When abuse is isolated in these reports, it's the fathers who commit it. Plus, single father homes have more incidents of abuse than single mother homes.

What really needs to be looked at is the amount of time mothers spend with their children vs. fathers. Mothers are most often the primary caregivers of their children. Despite spending much less time in the presence of their children, fathers do a substantial amount of abuse.

In addition, PAS is not recognized as a valid syndrome by the American Psychological Association. This documentary shows up one of the top fathers' rights weapons for the junk science that it is. That's one thing about the documentary that angers fathers' rights activists.

Fathers' rights activists have been posting these Child Maltreatment reports in order to take the focus away from the subject of the documentary - abused children who are awarded to their abusive fathers by the court. The documentary will bring much-needed attention to these cases. It will bring much-needed attention to the junk science that is PAS and other forms of "alienation". I know that it's being shown to legislators in order to educate them about all these problems. Fathers' rights activists had tried to get the documentary pulled, but they have failed. They have also tried to pressure PBS into airing their views as "equal time", but they failed at that as well. They have been attacking this documentary since it came out.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 1, 2005 10:14:19 AM

I'm leaving the ugly comments up where someone who thinks he's anonymous keeps calling me a cunt. That's the kind of behavior you get from fathers' rights activists when they aren't able to control a situation. I decide what is posted on my blog. When you get abusive, you're gone. I know I'm successful at what I do when someone is in such a rage about me that he keeps coming back here only to post abusive comments. Someone is mad that he doesn't control this blog, and he's in a rage. That's typical of fathers' rights activists, so I'm leaving it up for everyone to see.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 1, 2005 10:40:05 AM

We just can't - and should not as parents - look at just the cases and statistics that support just a small segment of our / the parenting population and use that as a crutch to penilize all non-custodial parents - and try to use that as an argument for non-sharing of children for all parents who deserve an equal share in parenting - and thusly remove $$$ as the reason why is should not be done- as we know that this is the clear motivation behind continuing to be selfish with our children - honestly.

The whole picture needs to be seen - not just a small part of it - and that - is being used by one-sided documentary's to negatively portray - ALL non-custodial parents of either gender in an negative light...

We are all smart enough and mature enough to know why this is being done...and we need to realize it is time for a change to sharing, loving, and repecting one another - and the constitutional rights we ALL wish to share in equally - not just a few...:)

It should no longer be a Men's Rights vs Women's rights issue it should be about Children's rights and For Saving Our Children from neglect and abuse caused by the current non-sharing of our constitutional legal right to parent them equally,


SRene

Posted by: SRene at Nov 1, 2005 11:16:56 AM

Stephen: "We just can't - and should not as parents - look at just the cases and statistics that support just a small segment of our / the parenting population and use that as a crutch to penilize all non-custodial parents - and try to use that as an argument for non-sharing of children for all parents who deserve an equal share in parenting - and thusly remove $$$ as the reason why is should not be done- as we know that this is the clear motivation behind continuing to be selfish with our children - honestly."

The problem is that you are doing just that - looking at a minority of cases - when you support presumptive joint custody. A minority of fathers are demanding it. They are within that 10% of cases that end up having to be decided by a judge. Most parents don't want joint custody, and they are that 90% of cases that settle out of court. Money is not the reason driving those who oppose presumptive joint custody. Non-custodial fathers contribute on average only 19% of their income to their children's households. This isn't about mothers wanting that child support.

Those who oppose presumptive joint custody (unless the parents decide between themselves to try it) recognize that the parent who had done the bulk of the nuts and bolts work in rearing their children (the primary caregiver) is the one who should get custody. That provides stability for the children. Most parents decide on their own that mom should have custody because they recognize that she had been the primary caregiver of the children from the beginning. Besides, whether or not the children are able to handle a joint custody set-up should be a deciding factor on whether or not parents try it. A lot of children cannot handle the shunting back and forth between two homes. The set-up interferes with their own schedules. Their friends can't keep track of where they are on a given day. There are specific characteristics of families who are able to pull off joint custody. Joint custody should not be applied to all families because each family's needs are different. Each case should be looked at on an individual basis. It's inappropriate to force all families to abide by a joint custody agreement because it is not appropriate for all of them.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 1, 2005 1:05:12 PM

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/figure4_2.htm


We are dealing with fatalities of children here not minor examples of bad parenting. What concerns me the most is that you are making allowances for children's deaths!

Posted by: Robert at Nov 1, 2005 1:05:59 PM

Stephen: "The whole picture needs to be seen - not just a small part of it - and that - is being used by one-sided documentary's to negatively portray - ALL non-custodial parents of either gender in an negative light..."

That's not true. That documentary is very specifically about abusive fathers who are awarded custody of the children they have been abusing. It is a big problem. It is not an indictment against all non-custodial parents (you really mean non-custodial fathers).

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 1, 2005 1:08:49 PM

Robert, you know that I am not making allowances for children's deaths. I am putting that government report in its proper perspective. As I have already said, poor, single mothers with no father present are over-represented in government reports, including that one. That report relied a great deal on CPS and Social Services - two groups that already closely watch poor, single mothers with no father present. So, it's no wonder that those kinds of mothers comprise most of the parents who abuse or neglect their children in those reports. Those mothers are not representative of most mothers. Also, as I had already said, you need to look at the amount of time mothers vs. fathers spend with children. Even though fathers spend considerably less time with their children, they commit a substantial amount of child abuse. The only reason you posted that link was to insinuate that mothers in general commit most child abuse, which would distract from the subject of this post, which is a documentary about abusive fathers who are awarded custody of the children they have been abusing.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 1, 2005 1:26:29 PM

The problem is that people don't want to engage in debate to make the system better for the children. Sites like this advocate "MOTHERS FIRST" and children be damned. Father's sites advocate FATHERS FIRST, and children be damned. The point is, in spite of Trish not wanting to hear it, is that gender should not be the primary basis for determining where children live in a post-divorce life. There are poor mothers, (in a case here in Iowa a mother moved her and her children away from the father and shacked up with a drug addict. Several months later that child came up missing and her body was later found in a river. The mother had a known history of problems with alcohol and drugs, and her boyfriend was later arrested with thousands of child-pornography pictures on his computer) and their are poor fathers. Our courts should not be predisposed to award custody to a mother simply because they are a female. This is horrible policy and is dangerous (as in the above cited case.)

We are making strides in Iowa to look out for what is best for the children. Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has signed HF22 which has now been enacted. More children are being allowed to spend more time with BOTH parents which is the very best possible situation.
Unfortunately, there are too many so called feminists (hmmmm) who are hostile towards reform, regardless of the benefit it will have on the children.

It is unfortunate, but it is also why more and more main stream women are leaving the so-called "feminist" movement, because the "movement" often lacks logic as we see on this very site.


Posted by: Jody at Nov 1, 2005 2:09:37 PM

oh I see on the one hand the figures are garbage because they show more Mothers
killing their children than Fathers but it's perfectly ok to then use the
same figures that you rubbished to concont a totally fictitious conclusion from them.

It's quite clear to me that the only thing you care about is damaging Fathers.

Posted by: Robert at Nov 1, 2005 2:26:59 PM

And it's apparent to me that the only thing you two scamps are interested in is aspirating on your own spittle.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Nov 1, 2005 2:40:13 PM

Jody: "The point is, in spite of Trish not wanting to hear it, is that gender should not be the primary basis for determining where children live in a post-divorce life."

Gender isn't the primary basis for determining where children live in a post-divorce life. As I've already written, 90% of parents settle their divorces outside court without needing the intervention of a judge to make their decisions for them. Most of these parents choose, on their own, for mom to have custody because they recognize that she had taken on the primary caregiver role in the marriage. She rather than the father had taken on primary responsibility for the children's care from the beginning, and that is why she should continue in the capacity of sole custodian, not because she's female. Courts award custody based on the best interest of the child, not according to the parent's gender. Please remember that when fathers make an issue of custody, they get some form of it more than half the time. Most often they get joint legal custody.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 1, 2005 2:46:02 PM

Sheelz, should I invest in a spittoon? I bet I could find one that was a movie prop if I look on eBay. ;)

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 1, 2005 2:51:29 PM

Better the pair of you try an invest in an education or therapy but guess you've both already indulged in the latter.

Posted by: Robert at Nov 1, 2005 4:04:11 PM

"As I've already written, 90% of parents settle their divorces outside court without needing the intervention of a judge to make their decisions for them."

This is a half truth. Every court order is approved by a judge or commissioner. What do you think would happen if 90% of parents agreed the father should get sole custody? They would get joint custody at best.
According to you.

"Most of these parents choose, on their own, for mom to have custody because they recognize that she had taken on the primary caregiver role in the marriage."

Another half truth. Our society has conditioned men and women into roles, based on gender. Men are fire fighters and women are home makers. Seldom do we break out of these roles. Even women who work full time are considered the homemaker and primary caregiver. And the man is responsible for supporting$$ his family.

"She rather than the father had taken on primary responsibility for the children's care from the beginning, and that is why she should continue in the capacity of sole custodian, not because she's female."

This is where I lose you. Just because two immature people, who can't even keep their marriage together think that mom should get custody because she was already the primary caregivers. And just because some bigotted underachiever lawyer who couldn't make it on the outside got appointed as judge because he gave someone a blow job, think mom should get custody, that makes it in the best interest of the child?
I don't think so. I guess it's ok to put someone else's child's well being in the hands of these losers.


"Courts award custody based on the best interest of the child, not according to the parent's gender."

The best interest of the child is a cliche. It's an excuse for judges to give custody to mothers in divorce. Judges don't know or care what's best for other people's kids. Why should they?


"Please remember that when fathers make an issue of custody, they get some form of it more than half the time. Most often they get joint legal custody."

Joint custody is not sole custody. Judges are careful not to let the pendulum swing back to automatic father custody. If they do, the divorce rate will plummet and they will all be out of jobs.

Posted by: ben dover at Nov 1, 2005 7:01:30 PM

Robert:

I had a hard time understanding your story.

Your ex lost her job and apartment after 9/11?

AND then you got residential custody when she tried to move to Mass?

Is that what you wrote?

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 2, 2005 1:01:56 AM

NYMOM, that was Stephen's story, not Roberts.

Stephen, I just realized after reading NYMOM's comment that I misread your story. I was paying more attention to the first part, where the two of you had talked about rotating shared parenting. Did you win primary residential custody after she moved to Mass.? You said that your ex moved to get more child support. That may have been true in your case (I'll just have to take your word for it), but it's not true in most cases. When moms move it's most often not to get more child support. Most people, moms and dads, move for valid reasons. A job change or relocation, remarriage, or needing to move back with family members to gain emotional and financial support after divorce are three of the top reasons. I won a moveaway myself. I moved from Maryland to Mass. with The Count after the company he worked for in Maryland was bought by a Massachusetts company. My ex fought the moveaway, and I won. My son lives with me and The Count in Massachusetts. I don't agree that a custodial parent - usually mom - should have to give custody of her children to the noncustodial parent - usually dad - if she needs to move. The mother and child is an intact family unit, and a moveaway alone is not sufficient grounds for a change in circumstance. Sadly, recent case law has been punitive to custodial mothers who wish to move, but not punitive towards noncustodial fathers who wish to move away from their children, even if their move completely disrupts visitation.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 2, 2005 7:02:54 AM

That's the most outrageous story I ever HEARD Trish.

This woman lost her job and apartment after 9/11 and then loses her KID AS WELL...

I'm outraged that this should have been allowed to happen. It's almost un American to have done something like this to another victim of 9/11.

Then to top it off, she has this jerk now running all over the internet claiming she was doing all these things just to get child support from him. Acting like she didn't even love her child.

See men like this I have no use for...

Generally I'm against moveaways but obviously sometime emergencies happen (like 9/11 where New York lost thousands of jobs that have not come back yet) and having to relocate because of an unusual situation like a terrorist attack needs to be treated differently then ordinary circumstances.

I'm even enraged that a JUDGE would allow this guy to pull a stunt like this. What a pair of MONSTERS...


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 2, 2005 9:21:47 AM

"I then had to go to Family court for my custody order as the chid support court did not care anything about my being able to visit my son ever again. Then I was awarded joint custody (ie residential vs non-res) by the judge when her attorney told her not to appear for the hearing - and when her attorney tried not so appear - I mentionit to the baliff and he told the judge. Well all I knew is that within 15 min that attorney was in court and the judge was mad at her lack of ethic and respect for the court. She tried to delay the order again in court and I told the judge I had been waiting for her to prepare an agreed schedule from her client for over 5 months - he agreed and ordered to work out and agree on the visitation in his presence - and thus my FL order was born!"

This is more outrageous even.

He got a DEFAULT custody order when her attorney advised her not to show up.

I just vomited all over my keyboard hearing this.

Yet this guy is running all over the internet AFTER a stunt like this trying to promote what he calls JOINT CUSTODY for everyone...which basically means you hover over a child's mother (like an old-time Southern overseer) waiting for the some opportunity to pounce on her and steal her kids.

Nice.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 2, 2005 9:28:45 AM

NYMON your retarded or you can't read

Posted by: at Nov 2, 2005 10:42:31 AM

"Advocates today publicly revealed extensive court findings, records and testimony that indicate that Sadia Loeliger--portrayed as a heroic mom in a recent, nationally-broadcast PBS documentary--abused children under her care. A Tulare County Juvenile Court concluded in August of 1998 that Sadia Loeliger had committed eight counts of abuse, and adjudged both her daughters as dependents of the Juvenile Court.

Sadia Loeliger and her 16 year-old daughter Fatima were key figures in PBS's Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories. The film purports to detail an alleged crisis of fit mothers losing custody of their children to violent husbands in divorce. In the film, Sadia is portrayed as the victim of anti-mother bias in family courts.

The documents were revealed by Los Angeles-based newspaper columnist Glenn Sacks, who has helped lead a protest of the show, and Scott Loeliger, Fatima’s father who was divorced from Sadia in 1991. According to Sacks:

"It’s amazing that PBS and the filmmakers decided--despite repeated warnings--to nationally televise Sadia and her claims. Not only were there clear Juvenile Court findings of her abuse of Fatima and also of Fatima's cousin Sara, who lived with Sadia, but we have extensive testimony from Sadia's babysitter, Sara, and several mental health professionals about Sadia's violence. The filmmakers put a child [Fatima] in an extremely difficult position."

Doris Nava Arellano, Sadia's babysitter for 18 months, testified that "every child in the house is afraid" of Sadia and that “Sara actually has scars on the back of her legs and on the left side of her head from Ms. Ali-Loeliger's attacks on her.”

Sara, then aged 15, penned a desperate letter detailing the abuse she suffered at Sadia's hands, writing “she hits in front of anyone anywhere with anything. I fear for my life sometimes. Just recently she hit me in the head.”

In the documents--posted on Sacks' website at www.glennsacks.com/pbs --Sadia is portrayed by numerous mental health, judicial and investigative authorities as violent and abusive towards the children under her care.

A child abuse investigator for Tehama County wrote that Fatima, then age eight, "says she is afraid to go home because she fears being hit again. She also expressed concern for the two other female minors in her mother's residence."

A therapist who conducted investigations for Shasta County Child Protective Services wrote that Fatima "told me she did not want to go home because she was afraid her mother was going to hit her."

Another therapist wrote "On two separate occasions this child reported to me that she was burned 'with a match' by her mother, Sadia Ali Loeliger....I am extremely concerned regarding this child's welfare."

Among the documents revealed are a series of letters, written to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Breaking the Silence co-producers Tatge-Lasseur Productions and Connecticut Public Broadcasting, informing them of Sadia's history of child abuse. The letters were written earlier this year by Scott Loeliger, a Northern California physician, and his attorney Dennis Roberts. They asked that footage of Scott’s daughter Fatima be excluded from the film. Despite this, PBS went forward with the broadcast, including the sections featuring Sadia and Fatima. "

Posted by: Robert at Nov 2, 2005 11:24:02 AM

Those are old documents provided by Fatima's father that he has been circulating since the documentary was being filmed. I'd rather trust what Fatima herself had to say. She wrote this last year, when she was fourteen.

Fatima's Story
April 4, 2004

    My name is Fatima Busaat Loeliger. I am fourteen years old and for as long as I can remember, I have been in the California court system. From about the age of four to the age of eight I was living with my mom. Previous to that, I had been living off and on with either parent. I was a happy, well cared for child. I did well in school and all my teachers liked me. I was a Spelling Bee Champion and I always had a lot of friends and toys. My mom was a single mom who supported two children on her own. She always made sure we had babysitters and whatever it takes to make us happy. The court decision then was that I would live and go to school with my mom and visit my dad two weekends a month.

In 1998 I went for a scheduled visit with my dad. He took me to CPS in Red Bluff, California and accused my mom of child abuse. The CPS worker asked me if my mom ever spanked me. Once in a while my mom gave me a swat on the butt as discipline so I answered "yes." Suddenly, my mom was accused of being a child abuser, which she wasn't. The next time I would receive contact from my mom would be in three years when I was entering the seventh grade. In the three years I was living with my dad, the only information I was given by him and his wife was that my mom abandoned me, she was a drug abuser, she didn't want me, she has a new family and forgot about me, and she was going to hurt me. I was sad and confused. I couldn't understand what I had done wrong to make her not love me anymore. My father and the people who helped him keep me from my mom brainwashed me so that I began to resent my mom.

At my school, I was the only child of color and the only one without a mother. At home I was ignored, with my dad barely taking anytime to talk to me or see how I was. His wife was mean to me and would lie about me to my dad who would ground me without even asking what happened. To this day she still calls my mother a whore, my siblings bastard children, and my step dad and ass-kisser. She would repeatedly say that I was not part of their family and that it was her house and she could do anything she wanted. She still says these things. I felt alone and like an outsider. Everyday of my life I missed my mom, my little sister, my life, everything. After I was taken away from my mom the only thing I got was an occasional picture of what I was missing in my past life.

Finally in seventh grade I got to visit my mom. At the beginning of eighth grade I decided I wanted to live with my mom. I was tired of being verbally, mentally, and emotionally abused by my father and his wife. My family went to court once again and this time it was much more painful. The reigning judge, Judge King the third, I had met a year earlier when he signed the adoption papers for my dad and his wife to adopt a son. After appealing to the judge to let me live with my mom and to be present at future court trials and being denied, I ran away from school and turned myself into the police. Jennifer Mitchell became my CPS worker when I was placed into foster care by my father. I pleaded to be able to see my mom. They enforced strict supervised visitations with my mom but let my dad come to the foster home as often as he liked even though I expressed my extreme discomfort about my dad visiting to Jennifer Mitchell, the foster mother Deborah Sheehan, and Judge King. I felt very vulnerable and overwhelmed. I felt ganged-up on. Every time I made a court appearance and I explained to the judge and Jennifer Mitchell that my dad and his wife verbally abused me and physically abused their adopted son I was told that I was lying and manipulative and that I had been in the system too long for my words to hold integrity. This is exactly what my father has said about me to the court. He told the court my mother was alienating me from him.

One of my father’s witnesses was a psychologist named Randy Robinson. This woman was a very close friend of my father. Her husband was a colleague of my father and on several occasions we had gone to her house. Most recently, we had gone on vacation with them white-water rafting and had shared a cabin for a week. My father’s attorney, Matthew McGlynn told the court that if I was allowed to be in the care of my mother I would become a juvenile delinquent and end up pregnant. These and other comments hurt me deeply. They made me experience feelings of worthlessness and made me sound like a prostitute walking the streets. I had always prized myself on being very modest and clean. The comments degraded me and my father seconded the opinion.

Jennifer Mitchell, my CPS worker, didn't help me either. She would always try to intimidate me and keep me from seeing my mom. On several occasions she promised me a visit with my mom in her office. I would drive down and wait for over three hours and when I would confront her about why she was making me sit here without seeing my mom she would send in her supervisor who would yell at me calling me manipulative, a liar, a good for nothing trying to control his office, and a "foster care throw back." He would continue to yell until I would cry and then he would leave without letting me explain my problem. Ms. Mitchell also instructed me to lie to my mom about visits I had with my father, because he was allowed to see me more than my mom was. It was later found at trial that Mrs. Mitchell had discarded a CPS report my concerned teacher had filed a few months previously, after I had complained to him about the treatment I received in my father’s house.

Finally last year I was able to live with my mom in Davis, and visit my dad on weekends. However, nothing has changed at my father's house. I am still being emotionally abused there, and because I complain about it, my dad is once against trying to get me taken away from my mom, even though I am happy here and doing great in school. My point is that my childhood was lost. I can never get back what I have lost but that is not why I am here. I am here because this abuse and disregard of the laws that should protect and nurture every child are not being upheld. It doesn't matter if this has happened to one or one million children. One is too many. I have little respect, trust, or regard for the California family court system and I will be emotionally scarred for life because my father was able to use the courts as he willed to retaliate against my mother and I. Children may be young, but we know what feels right and what doesn't. It is our lives, not yours, that you are playing with. Please help us help ourselves
.
--- Fatima- Busaat Loeliger,
written at age 14

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 2, 2005 11:50:10 AM

NYMON your retarded or you can't read

Ahem.

Priceless.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Nov 2, 2005 11:53:15 AM

You noticed that, too, huh? One who can neither spell nor write accuses another of being unable to spell. ;)

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 2, 2005 11:56:03 AM

Most rely on the courts....

"A Tulare County Juvenile Court concluded in August of 1998 that Sadia Loeliger had committed eight counts of abuse."

Posted by: Robert at Nov 2, 2005 12:17:36 PM

"Another half truth. Our society has conditioned men and women into roles, based on gender. Men are fire fighters and women are home makers. Seldom do we break out of these roles. Even women who work full time are considered the homemaker and primary caregiver. And the man is responsible for supporting$$ his family."

No society hasn't conditioned women as you say to care for children.

In every species as well as our own the female raises the young.

That's just more gender neutralized nonsense put out by men to disparage women in their role as mothers.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 2, 2005 2:03:35 PM

"A Tulare County Juvenile Court concluded in August of 1998 that Sadia Loeliger had committed eight counts of abuse."

AND how many counts of emotionally abusing your son and his mother are you guilty of...by lying all over the internet
about her.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 2, 2005 2:04:30 PM

"That's just more gender neutralized nonsense put out by men to disparage women in their role as mothers"


Nothing to do with men this is feminism for you.

Posted by: Robert at Nov 2, 2005 3:55:45 PM

Nymom: "No society hasn't conditioned women as you say to care for children. In every species as well as our own the female raises the young."

So now you're comparing women to stupid barn yard animals and wild pigs and the lot? Everyone knows that females raise their young.
What I was talking about is being primary caregivers. In your case there probably wasn't a big difference. But most women when their children get sick will go to the drug store and pick up some medicine, or take their kid to a doctor or hospital. When was the last time a society of
chimpanzees build a hospital? That's just more gender neutralized nonsense put out by you to disparage women in their role as mothers.

Posted by: buck necked at Nov 2, 2005 9:07:29 PM

Hi Pete Kaplan, alias buck necked.

Nice to hear from you again.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 3, 2005 8:00:39 AM

There was a beautiful picture of Fatima with her mother in an article on Glenn Sacks website. Looking at her tells us all we need to know about her relatonship with her mother.

Fatima appeared to be a poised, beautiful, young woman, the article said she was more mature then her years, so I'm assuming she is articulate as well.

AND her father is actually challenging custody AGAIN in March of 2006, so she's back again for another custody trial.

This has been going on for this kid since she was 7 months old...

Will this monster ever leave this kid alone? She has clearly stated that she wishes to remains with her mother YET he persists (she's now 16 years old) with these custody trials.

It's disgusting really that the court keeps allowing him to do this...

Now, this if nothiing else, tells me her father is abusive and controlling when a 16 year has already stated their wishes and you keep trying to force them, via the courts, into living with you anyway. For what, another two years?

It's outrageous that he should be allowed to continue doing this...

Last point, Fatima herself will have to be careful about having children now. As her father is the sort of idiot who will be taking her to court over her kids, the same way he did to her mother about her for the last 16 years.

I've been seeing a lot of cases on this other site I post on where these sort of control-freaks through the court CONTINUE the behavior when their kids age out of the system.

They then start the whole grandparents rights court thing with their kids. If they can't dictate anymore to their kids, they try to get the control back via the grandchildren.

It's sick really...but she'll have to watch her father for life with the control via court order issues he has.


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 3, 2005 9:56:51 AM

For once, NYMOM, I'm going to agree with you about the grandparents' rights thing.

NPR's "Talk of the Nation" did a piece on this a few years ago, and everyone interviewed said most of these visitation issues involved cases where the father had died, the mother was remarrying and leaving the area, and the paternal grandparents simply wanted to guarantee that they would maintain a place in the kids' lives.

One of the callers was a woman who said she was an attorney who specialized in non-parents visitation rights, and her own parents had never seen her own grade-school age children and never would as long as they were minors, because she knew they would do to those kids what they had done to her. She didn't say what happened but it must have been dreadful.

Again, every case is different.

If my local PBS affiliate reruns this show, I'll have to watch it.

Posted by: kohoutekdriver8 at Nov 3, 2005 11:13:07 AM

NYMOM is right. There are probably no studies on this, but the control freak abuser thing can carry over into the next generation. An NC mom from my church lost all contact with her oldest daughter until the girl was a teen. (The ex moved around a lot, threw out the mother's letters, etc.) The mother finally reconnects with the girl, and finds an emotionally disturbed, out-of-control teenager (surprise). Teen is pregnant. Teen finds that she doesn't like the mother's attempts to set some boundaries. Threatens to move back in with the father, as he is making all kinds of elaborate (manipulative) promises. Mother warns her what she thinks will happen. And it does. The father and new wife sued his daughter for custody and took her child. She has lost all contact with the child -- just like what happened to her own mother.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 3, 2005 12:12:04 PM

"Teen is pregnant. Teen finds that she doesn't like the mother's attempts to set some boundaries. Threatens to move back in with the father, as he is making all kinds of elaborate (manipulative) promises. Mother warns her what she thinks will happen. And it does. The father and new wife sued his daughter for custody and took her child. She has lost all contact with the child -- just like what happened to her own mother."

What a pack of screwy losers.

You have to wonder about the Judges in upstate New York when you hear these stories...

There is actually ANOTHER CASE going on there right now where women are demonstrating outside of a courtroom up in Albany Chase vs. Chase...

Again, another custody switch from mother to father.

The Judge to quell any criticism just released his files and it turns out the father who he just switched custody to has a problem with 'excessive drinking' and threatening to kill a sheriff's deputy and his family using anthrax.

Yet this Judge just gave him custody and thinks that releasing this information will quell criticism of him for doing that...

You gotta wonder what's going on inside the head of these Judges if he thinks that releasing this information will help quell criticism of him???

I think we need a clean sweep of the courts up there...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 3, 2005 1:39:55 PM

Maybe we will have to have a federal take over of the local courts in some of those counties until this is cleared up...

It's just too much already with all these irrational rulings coming from there.

I think someone should start a petition or something where this happens. Even that Jerica Rhodes murder last year should never have happened, as she should never have even been with that man. He wasn't even a relative.

These Judges think they can just dump these poor kids all over the place...like little lab rats in a science experiment.


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 3, 2005 1:48:43 PM

Actually, we can't blame our upstate talent on this one. Like the country song goes, her ex lives in Texas (that's why I hang my hat in Tennessee...!) Of course, Texas appears to have one of the more severe reputations for FR infiltration in the courts anywhere, so it seems you hear these stories out of Texas all the time. Of course, this is a state that sent dozens of African Americans to prison for a fake drug bust based on the story of one deputy with a history of fraud and corruption, so what can you expect. That, and executing anything that moves....

Posted by: silverside at Nov 3, 2005 2:09:27 PM

First please download acrobat reader if you have it not.

Please read the excerpt from Fatima's cousin.
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-sara.php
(Of course she (A 15 year old child) must be in on the conspiracy against Sadia as is her father in Kenya, Africa

Then please download the actual scanned letter in PDF format
The hand script seems a challenge at first. But you smart ladies should be able to make sense of it

Also please read here http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-babysitter.php

and follow this link to the actual court record
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-babysitter.pdf

(But then of course the babysitter is probably in on it too)

You can also read Fatima's so called statement as posted above here:
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-opposition.php

We must commend Mr. Sacks for doing his homework (which either of you nor PBS bothered to do) and for not censoring opposing views. This is Ma'at.


Please be careful with what and whom you side. Do not be champion to unbalance, untruth, and injustice. Such things bring disorder to the universe. When in time of your passage to the other side the judgment of Ma'at shall be weighed upon you. And your deeds in this life will determine your way to the heavens or the destruction of your soul. We have heard the latter is unpleasant.

Posted by: Maatkare at Nov 3, 2005 2:17:22 PM

NYMOM, have you been following the Rhodes trial? Seems the defense ADMITTED on the first day that the accused had tried to set up another inmate with a false confession, and it's been going downhill from there. Now they're trying to claim that all the blood on daddy's shirt was from one of Jerica's "frequent" nosebleeds, which, funny, no one else can ever recall her having.

For those who cannot recall, Jerica Rhodes was stabbed to death 16 times in the bathroom of her elementary school, and left to die on a toilet. This was at the beginning of the year. Her ostensible father (who wasn't even her biological father) was able to wrest sole custody from the mother despite (because of?) a pronounced history of domestic violence with more than one woman and a history of drug abuse. Her mother was blocked from seeing the girl, true to the form of most abusers. But Daddy's dadddy was the former chief of police in Highland Falls, NY, and probably well connected with the Judge who gave this loser custody, Anthony Bivona. Judge Bivona has a history of indulging abusers and criminals when it comes to custody matters, so this is not new for him. It would be nice if the Judge finally caught some heat from this decision, but I wouldn't bet the rent money on it.

And don't tell me that this Rhodes character is the same as a homeless schizophrenic again. I have some residual sympathy for homeless schizophrenics who have been unable to get housing or treatment, whether they are male or female. I don't have sympathy for abusers with well-connected families, especially when they know QUITE WELL what they are doing. Especially when they are apparently intact enough to set up some other slob in the cell down the block.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 3, 2005 2:58:06 PM

It's hard to judge parents based on what teenaged girls say about them. I was talking to Los Angeles county children's social services worker, and he said he gets assigned 30 cases a month. 28 or 29 are girls, complaining that their parent or parents are abusing them. Only 1 out of a 100 are legitimate complaints. Boys on the other hand hardly ever complain and once in while he'll get a case where someone else made the complaint for a boy who came to school with bruises or something. Teenaged girls who appear to be mature for their age is very deceiving. On the otherside they're all grown up, but they're still adolescent.

Posted by: mike hunt at Nov 3, 2005 3:33:23 PM

"My father and the people who helped him keep me from my mom brainwashed me so that I began to resent my mom."

Trish, what do you call this?

Posted by: Anne at Nov 3, 2005 3:53:17 PM

I call that the typical actions of an abuser, part and parcel of their control- at-all-costs modus operandi. I DON'T call in Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) or any of its derivatives, because this stuff isn't some isolated behavior, but is typical of domestic violence perpetrators. Read Lundy Bancroft for a better understanding of the psychology of abusers.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 3, 2005 4:19:18 PM

I agree with Silverside. It's the typical actions of an abuser. It's not "alienation." Anne, I suggest you read But I've Seen PAS! No, You Haven't. Women, especially noncustodial moms, who have had children with abusers often think that PAS will work for them. It won't. I've had to explain numerous times to those NCMoms that the type of behavior they describe is really the typical abusive power-and-control tactics that abusers use. It's not PAS or any other generic form of "alienation" as described by fathers' rights advocates.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 3, 2005 4:34:12 PM

I'm not surprised that there is a drive to promote materials circulated by the father of one of the child victims covered in "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories". This man has been circulating his paperwork since the time the documentary was being filmed. He has obviously sent his paperwork to anyone who is attacking the documentary. Fathers' rights activists are pulling out all the stops to attack this documentary. What I think needs to be pointed out is that this drive focuses on the fathers's claims as well as claims from those who support his side. The side of the accused abuser is being promoted, and it's being promoted at great length.

What is being ignored are the statements made by the child, statements that are only a year old. Statements that are much newer than the documentation being circulated by fathers' rights activists. She has described abuse she has experienced in her fathers' household. She has described abusive behavior by her stepmother. No one seems to think that is important. There is an assumption that she must have been coached by her mother - which is classic PAS garbage. The documentary is about the children who are claiming abuse. One of the points of this documentary is that children who speak about abuse at the hands of their fathers are being ignored. The direction this comments thread is taking, and the promotion of materials being circulated by an accused abuser, are showing that point to be very true.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 3, 2005 4:47:52 PM

"Please be careful with what and whom you side. Do not be champion to unbalance, untruth, and injustice. Such things bring disorder to the universe. When in time of your passage to the other side the judgment of Ma'at shall be weighed upon you. And your deeds in this life will determine your way to the heavens or the destruction of your soul. We have heard the latter is unpleasant."

Oh get over yourself Maat...

I've seen you on SYG and you're from the Bronx...so let's stop the phony persona.

First of all I read a letter from the 15 year old to her father complaining that she was forced to babysit a lot because Fatima's mother went to parties all the time and drank alcohol...so I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say from the names that this is a Muslim household relocated to the US, with a teenage who spent MOST of her life in Africa living within an Islamic household.

Very different from our life here.

So frankly I don't know what antipathy might have been going on between that girl and Fatima's mother BEFORE...

BUT according to Fatima RIGHT NOW, her mother never abused her. AND she was 8 years old when she was separated from her mother and not allowed to see her for almost 4 years. AND told by her father and step person that her mother just abandoned her and didn't care for her anymore.

Eight years old is old enough to remember whether or not someone abused you, I know I have memories of a mean nun from 5 years old...so I'm going to listen to what FATIMA SAIDS, not Glenn Sacks and a bunch of politically correct court and social service personnel now running for cover as they think their jobs might be on the line.

BTW, I saw Fatima's picture in the news WITH her mother and she was very confident looking. Actually she appeared in a very protective and loving stance in the photo. Frankly I was impressed...

Because I didn't expect her to be so mature and poised....I was a little worried about this poor kid when I read her father is ONCE AGAIN, as he has been doing since she was 7 months old, dragging this kid back in front of a Judge to force her to live somewhere, she doesn't want to be.

She's a 16 year old YOUNG WOMAN now, old enough to decide which parent she wants to live with...

But since I saw her picture I felt better as I'm sure she can handle the latest round of bs that her father feels it's okay to inflict upon her. Along with any other crap that might be thrown at her from MRAs and the poor misguided women who support them...


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 3, 2005 5:16:48 PM

"My father and the people who helped him keep me from my mom brainwashed me so that I began to resent my mom."

Anne, if that line is truth, the brainwashing that Fatima is said to have suffered at the hands of her father and his demon hoard is a classic example of PA and PAS. But of course PAS does not exist and it is garbage.

So therefore Fatima must be lying? And she could not have been brainwashed against her mother because such a thing does not happen. Parental Alienation is bunk and junk.

Correct dear Countess?

Or perhaps such a thing is only available if the mother is the victim of it?


No on is ignoring this child's so called statement my dear Countess.

It has been highly circulated and is well known amongst those for and against said documentary. It is also on Mr. Sacks website for all those horrible fathers that you hate so to read.

YOU on the other hand seem to be ignoring that other indications that this mother is herself an abuser or that your beloved Courageous Kids Network excludes those suffering children whom have been left to defend themselves against abusive mothers. It clearly indicates on their website they are defenders of only mothers and not children - period.

You and this documentary completely ignore children abused by their mothers. Maatkare would guess they don't count.

These are children whom are left in danger and un-championed by fake feminist such as yourself whom don't care about them because you refuse to believe that both mothers and father can endanger them.

Your and yours hatred of men, leaves these children left out to dry to be abused further and murdered ecause you only care of the plight of children with whom you can use to further demonize men and fathers. Not those left behind that would indicate abuse at the hands of a mother, which Maatkare would dare say is more common.

http://outreach.missouri.edu/hdfs/satconf/misconceptions.htm

Common Misconceptions Concerning
Parents and Child Maltreatment
Stephen Green, Ph.D., Assistant Professor and Extension Child Development Specialist Texas Cooperative Extension


Common Misconceptions:

Myth-Men Commit More Acts of Child Abuse and Neglect Than Women
According to recent national statistics, women commit more acts of substantiated child maltreatment than men (60% females, 40% males) (1).
Truth-Children are More Likely to be Abused by Non-Parental Figures Than by Parents
Data indicate that more than 80% of victims of child maltreatment occurred at the hands of a parent or parents. Neglect is the most common form of child maltreatment (1).

Myth- Fathers are More Likely to be Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment Than Mothers
Truth -When a child is abused by a birth parent, the perpetrator tends to be the mother. This does not hold true for sexual abuse (1; 2).

Myth-Children Living in Various Family Configurations are at an Equal Risk for Experiencing Child Maltreatment
Truth -Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect found that children living in single parent families were at significantly greater risk of experiencing child maltreatment than those living in two-parent households (i.e., 77% greater risk of being physically abused, 87% greater risk of being physically neglected, 74% greater risk of being harmed emotionally, 80% greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect, and 90% greater risk of receiving moderate injury or harm) (2).

References:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2002a). National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) summary of key findings from calendar year 2000. The Administration for Children and Families, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. Available on-line at http://www.calib.com/nccanch/prevmnth/scope/ncands.cfm.
Sedlak, A.J., & Broadhurst, D.D. (1996). Executive summary of the third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Posted by: Maatkare at Nov 3, 2005 6:11:25 PM

"Oh get over yourself Maat...

I've seen you on SYG and you're from the Bronx...so let's stop the phony persona."

Explain this NYMOM?
Explain it now!

Maatkare is sitting in the Bronx, New York of the US of A at this minute

You explain what that has to do with anything -

What are you implying?

About Maatkare, residing in the Bronx, New Yok of the US of A?

She wants and answer before deciding if you are making an attempt to be offensive to her personally.

Posted by: Maatkare at Nov 3, 2005 6:34:59 PM

"Oh get over yourself Maat...

I've seen you on SYG and you're from the Bronx...so let's stop the phony persona."

Explain this NYMOM?
Explain it now!

Maatkare is sitting in the Bronx, New York of the US of A at this minute

You explain what that has to do with anything -

What are you implying?

About Maatkare, residing in the Bronx, New York of the US of A?

She wants an answer before deciding if you are making an attempt to be offensive to her personally

(and=an/Yok=York)

Posted by: at Nov 3, 2005 6:37:07 PM

"Myth-Men Commit More Acts of Child Abuse and Neglect Than Women

According to recent national statistics, women commit more acts of substantiated child maltreatment than men (60% females, 40% males) (1)."

More Truth: Fathers (and men in general, boyfriends and male steppersons) MURDER more children then mothers do...

"Myth- Fathers are More Likely to be Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment Than Mothers

Truth -When a child is abused by a birth parent, the perpetrator tends to be the mother. This does not hold true for sexual abuse (1; 2)."

More Truth: Fathers (and men in general, boyfriends and male steppersons) MURDER more children then mothers do...

"Myth-Children Living in Various Family Configurations are at an Equal Risk for Experiencing Child Maltreatment

Truth -Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect found that children living in single parent families were at significantly greater risk of experiencing child maltreatment than those living in two-parent households (i.e., 77% greater risk of being physically abused, 87% greater risk of being physically neglected, 74% greater risk of being harmed emotionally, 80% greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect, and 90% greater risk of receiving moderate injury or harm) (2)."

More Truth: Fathers (and men in general, boyfriends and male steppersons) MURDER more children then mothers do...

So you're supporting a band of potential murderers of children...

Okay...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 3, 2005 6:56:04 PM

"What are you implying?

About Maatkare, residing in the Bronx, New York of the US of A?

She wants an answer before deciding if you are making an attempt to be offensive to her personally."


I'm not implying anything, I'm saying it.

You are a phony and flunky who was sent over here from SYG to pose as a disinterested poster who was just concerned about children and truth.

Your first post saying:

"Please be careful with what and whom you side. Do not be champion to unbalance, untruth, and injustice."

would lead someone who didn't know that you were a supporter of men and fathers rights to believe you were a neutral poster simply concerned about children...

In fact that is far from the case.

You never made a mention of SYG or your support of MRAs in your initial post.

To me that was deceptive trying to pretend to be something that you are NOT.

When I post on other boards I always make my position known clearly in advance and don't pretend to be neutral if I have an agenda which I do...

I'll freely admit it.

As should you in your initial posts...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 3, 2005 7:05:03 PM

Ma'at: "It has been highly circulated and is well known amongst those for and against said documentary. It is also on Mr. Sacks website for all those horrible fathers that you hate so to read."

It's buried on that web site. Î find it very telling that the daughter's statement about abuse she has experienced at the hands of her father and stepmother is included on a page entitled "The Opposition's Side Of The Story". She is not to be believed. She is "the opposition". A teenaged girl telling her own story is "the opposition." A very telling Freudian slip, perhaps? ;)

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 3, 2005 7:22:25 PM

"So you're supporting a band of potential murderers of children..."

Well yes, Maatkare is married to one, and she belives Trish is also. They are called men. But women murder their children also, or did you not hear about PPD or munchausen by proxy or the woman that just threw her children in to the sea. We are all potential murders of people and children. Men are more likely to do such. Maatkare agrees with you and would say you are correct. Maatkare doesn't not support murder. Maatkare supports fairness. She is not afraid to admit that men kill more children than women. Most data seems to say it is truth. However more children are victims of abuse then of homocide and more women commit abuse of children than men. About 900,000 abuse to 1,400 homocides . Why are you so afraid to admit that? This shows you do not care about children at all. You have no concern for abused children. You care about demonizing men.

Maatkare is not sure why this is, a personal experience. You were hurt by a man much. Personal experience has dictated to Maatkare that perhaps she should hate men and things man. But as she cannot paint the many with the brush of a few. Being a Negro has given her much experience in making people judgement of a whole by a few undesirables. In this she is able to see middle ground where as you are not. Maatkare does not support one sidedness and she will call you out, and she will call Gonz out, and she will call anyone at SYG.com out if she things they are telling untruth or being illogical. This is balance, this is Ma'at.

She hopes that if you have male children you do not commit them to the notion they are murders of children and abusers of women because of their gender. Or that you project your hatred of the male unto them and thus making them hate themselves.

She would however still like an explaination of your mention of her residing in the Boogie Down B.R.O.N.X

Maatkare will end this discussion with you, as well as her participation on Countess Trish's blog as she has nothing further to say and no other point to prove.

May you always drink from the Nile, and Ra shine bright upon thee.

Posted by: at Nov 3, 2005 7:51:07 PM

"Women, especially noncustodial moms, who have had children with abusers often think that PAS will work for them. It won't. I've had to explain numerous times to those NCMoms that the type of behavior they describe is really the typical abusive power-and-control tactics that abusers use. It's not PAS or any other generic form of "alienation" as described by fathers' rights advocates."

Countess, let's hope that it does work for the kids who are victims of PAS. Why wouldn't custodial Dads be using the same alienation tactics on their kids as they claim some moms are using on their kids? I think you're giving fathers too much credit. And also, the lawyers and judges are always looking for another money making "cottage industry" that exploits women and children.

Posted by: mild mannered at Nov 3, 2005 8:04:57 PM

"It's hard to judge parents based on what a teenaged girl
said about them."

After all everyone has said, I'll still stick to this
assertion. Where's the evidence that the dad and step-hole did
anything wrong? or illegal? A Teenage girl can be a .....! And they learn young how to play people. Maybe step mommy figured out her game and the little princes doesn't like being treated like a child!

Posted by: mike at Nov 3, 2005 8:34:03 PM

P.S. I like the term "cottage industry" it works well! I think NYMOM came up with it.

Posted by: at Nov 3, 2005 8:37:49 PM

You wrote:
>>>>>Stephen: "The whole picture needs to be seen - not just a small part of it - and that - is being used by one-sided documentary's to negatively portray - ALL non-custodial parents of either gender in an negative light..."

That's not true. That documentary is very specifically about abusive fathers who are awarded custody of the children they have been abusing. It is a big problem. It is not an indictment against all non-custodial parents (you really mean non-custodial fathers).<<<<<

In answer to your comment from above:
No there was no reason for the move except that my son's mother wanted more child support and was advised she would if she did move him away. It didn't work. And I won but did not wish to take him away from her - and never would - under any circumstances. This is the basis of "shared parenting" and if either parents wishes to move they under stand they will be providing "FULL child support" per FED guidelines voluntarily thru the State accouting system - and if they don't pay they then must be placed thru the wage garnishment process. Until we do see the this is the solution and quit arguing and hating the other parent for the love of the child equally - we will see more sad stories about the loss of children's lives as occured in SF...which is the most abusive way any parent can treat a child...

Go to the FBI's kidnapping site to see what I mean:
http://www.parentswhocare.us/contact.html

and place your replies to my Blogsie too!

SRene

Posted by: SRene at Nov 3, 2005 11:16:43 PM

"NYMOM, have you been following the Rhodes trial? Seems the defense ADMITTED on the first day that the accused had tried to set up another inmate with a false confession, and it's been going downhill from there. Now they're trying to claim that all the blood on daddy's shirt was from one of Jerica's "frequent" nosebleeds, which, funny, no one else can ever recall her having."

Actually no, I haven't been following it as it got NO news coverage whatsoever down here.

I was just wondering the other day when he would be tried as I have it has been almost a year since his crime was committed.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 4, 2005 12:32:40 AM

"It's hard to judge parents based on what teenaged girls say about them. I was talking to Los Angeles county children's social services worker, and he said he gets assigned 30 cases a month. 28 or 29 are girls, complaining that their parent or parents are abusing them. Only 1 out of a 100 are legitimate complaints. Boys on the other hand hardly ever complain and once in while he'll get a case where someone else made the complaint for a boy who came to school with bruises or something. Teenaged girls who appear to be mature for their age is very deceiving. On the otherside they're all grown up, but they're still adolescent."

Yes, I was thinking the same thing about teenage girls myself recently...

Phyllis Chesler, talking about women in general, mentioned in her book about women's inhumanity to other women, how women function in every society as enforcers of the 'rules' and keepers of the status quo...

I guess this makes some sense as women benefit the most from an orderly society; but I bet it also means that women are in the forefront in helping enforce rules that are oppressive against one another.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 4, 2005 12:40:58 AM

"She is not afraid to admit that men kill more children than women. Most data seems to say it is truth. However more children are victims of abuse then of homocide and more women commit abuse of children than men. About 900,000 abuse to 1,400 homocides . Why are you so afraid to admit that? This shows you do not care about children at all. You have no concern for abused children. You care about demonizing men."

No...it is you and her who are attempting to demonize WOMEN to always bring up these statistics. I rarely pay attention to them as I know MOST parents do NOT murder or abuse their children. Yet MRAs continue bringing up thse statistics in every conversation about children in an attempt to demonize women.

I bring them up ONLY to show the other side. Your wife brought up these abuse statistics first if you want to go back and look at the posts.


"Being a Negro has given her much experience in making people judgement of a whole by a few undesirables."

Don't try to place the race card please.


"She hopes that if you have male children you do not commit them to the notion they are murders of children and abusers of women because of their gender. Or that you project your hatred of the male unto them and thus making them hate themselves."

Tell her not to worry about my children but about her own...as if she has girl children they will grow up to hate themselves listening to her crap about women...


"She would however still like an explaination of your mention of her residing in the Boogie Down B.R.O.N.X

May you always drink from the Nile, and Ra shine bright upon thee."

Because I wanted to point out to others how phony she was...pretending to be something she is not...

Some quasi-mystical, religious, totally objective person coming on here just to make a comment about helping children, when in fact, she is completely biased on the side of fathers.

That's why I said it...


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 4, 2005 12:54:11 AM

"Countess, let's hope that it does work for the kids who are victims of PAS. Why wouldn't custodial Dads be using the same alienation tactics on their kids as they claim some moms are using on their kids? I think you're giving fathers too much credit. And also, the lawyers and judges are always looking for another money making "cottage industry" that exploits women and children."

I think her point was that mothers cannot go into court and get custody changed with this PAS as a reason. It appears to be exclusively reserved for fathers.

Even the 'substantial change in circumstances' requirement which is supposed to exist if a parent wishes to have custody changed is now routinely tossed out the window if a father is instigating the change. As I have heard of MANY women taken back to court just because a father decides he wants more visitation and it winds up evolving into a change of custody.

I have never heard of a mother being able to do this. Even if her children wish to see their mother more, it's still turned down by the Judge...

That's one of the reasons I was so moved when I saw the Courageous Kids website, as the very first post was a little girl wanting to correspond with another child in her sitaution, which was not being allowed to see her mother as often as she wanted...

I was impressed that this site existed for these kids...and hope that it continues being updated and used as a resource for these kids who no one else wishes to listen to...


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 4, 2005 1:05:20 AM