« Angry Fathers' Rights Activists Vs. PBS | Main | Japanese Women Tired Of Playing Servant To Their Retired Husbands »

October 20, 2005

The National Organization For Women On "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories"

Here is what N.O.W. has to say about "Breaking The Silence: Children's Issues":

Must See TV:

Must See TV on PBS Tonight

On Thursday October 20 at 10pm EST, PBS will be airing a documentary titled "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," depicting a national family court scandal that is putting children into the hands of a physically or sexually abusive parent. Nationwide, supporters of battered mothers in custody challenges have been demonstrating at family courthouses and other locations in support of the documentary and in protest of the court scandal.

The film is generally set to air on Thursday, October 20, but different show times are possible, including Friday or the weekend. To get more information about the documentary and to see when it is airing in your area, go to: http://www.pbs.org/stationfinder/index.html and type the title of the documentary in the search field. If the PBS station in your area is not airing it, please call your local station and insist that they do. Your local station phone numbers can be found at the web site listed above.

It is important that we make sure that all local public television stations air the show and that we tune in for this program to show our support for PBS and their commitment to showing this documentary. Please send your own message to Pat Mitchell, CEO of PBS to show your appreciation to PBS for airing this important film.

Your emails are especially important, as we know that PBS is being flooded with emails from bogus "fathers' rights" activists opposing the airing of the film. You may use our suggested comments or enter your own.

Fathers' rights activists, both male and female, are LIVID over this documentary. Stand Your Ground, a men's rights forum that has bashed me in the past, includes a post where one person referred to N.O.W. as "The National Organizaton for Misandrist Bitches" and the documentary as "a smearfest". This poster is really angry that this documentary is going to air, even after lots of ugly email and phone calls to PBS from fathers' rights activists. This poster said "I used to dislike feminists, but now I absolutely hate them. I used to think conservatives who labeled feminists "anti-family" were exagerating and overreacting. Now I realize they are completely right. God, this pisses me off. These feminazis going destroy America (and the rest of the Western world)."

Yup, abused women who are trying to protect their abused children are going to "destroy America and the rest of the Western world". Heaven forbid.

At least one fathers' rights supporter at Stand Your Ground got all twisted and pissy over N.O.W. referring to fathers' rights groups as "bogus". That was great to see.

I'm glad that PBS didn't back down under the pressure from these angry people. All those ugly e-mails and phone calls had little effect at all. They are angry again that they didn't get their way. This documentary needs to air, and it will.

Posted on October 20, 2005 at 09:06 PM | Permalink

Comments

Yes, I actually wrote a thank you note to Bob Port at the
Albany Timesunion who wrote a good article about the documentary and has been involved in this issue for years.

Yet I have to ask WHERE HAS THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN BEEN WHILE ON THIS WAS GOING ON...

Why did so many MEN have to get together to bring this to the attention of the public...Bob Port, Joe Torre of the Yankess, Walter Anderson CEO of Parade, heck, even the producer of the documentary was a man Dominque Lasseur...

What in the HECK has NOW been doing about this situation?
Focusing on a lot of nonsense while hundreds of thousand of mothers have been losing their children.

California is probably worse then New York and has had people writing books and articles about how the system mistreats mothers and children for YEARS...YET what action has NOW taken???

Or any other women's group for that matter. I find it sad that women has to wait for men to make this documentary, when it should have been a problem we were dealing with ourselves...

Now, of course, probably it will be looked at but it's too bad women weren't the ones addressing the issue...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 20, 2005 9:56:25 PM

I read Bob Port's article too, and sent it to all my colleagues. I know he's hearing from fathers' rights activists. Those people are LIVID that the documentary is airing, despite all their angry letters and phone calls.

I agree with you that it took NOW forever to finally get behind this issue, but trust me, NOW is behind it. I know for certain. It's about time.

While man men have written favorable articles about the documentary, there are many women working behind the scenes publicizing, promoting, and supporting it. I've been working on it all day long, so I have first-hand knowledge of this.

I'm not sure if Dominique Lasseur is male or female. That name goes both ways. I know that it was directed by a woman - Catherine Tatge. Plus, the CEO being contacted at PBS about the documentary is another woman. So, women are definitely making moves to make sure this documentary airs and gets the positive attention it deserves.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 20, 2005 10:12:53 PM

I'm glad they're hiring some women on this project, it looks better for us in the long run. Maybe more women will come to their senses and realize that the family court system has never been on our side and is run by a hierachy of male sexist pigs.

Posted by: pearlwisdom at Oct 20, 2005 10:28:24 PM

Pearlwisdom, "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" will go a long way to getting the word out about how the family court system has mistreated abused women and children as well. Fathers rights activists are incensed over this documentary. I'm sending fathers' rights blathering about the documentary to my colleagues now. I've been working on publicizing and supporting the documentary all day long. I know at least one of the protective moms covered in it. I'm familiar with nearly all of the professionals associated with it as well.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 20, 2005 10:40:40 PM

I saw somewhere that Dominique Lasseur and Catherine Tatge are actually a husband-and-wife documentary team. So yes, it appears that Dominque is a man.

Posted by: silverside at Oct 21, 2005 8:22:54 AM

"I'm not sure if Dominique Lasseur is male or female."

He's a man. Bob Port mentions it in the article...

BTW, Silverside did you read the article I mentioned? In it Bob Port mentions a Judge Sondra Miller as being responsible for appointing a 32-member panel to look into this situation upstate. I don't know if you remember this Judge but see below to jog your memory...

"I failed to notice this earlier but I see that Appellate Court Judge Sondra Miller is mentioned as being in charge of a 32 member Matrimonial Commission in NY State. I don't know if you are aware of this but Judge Miller is the same Judge who issued an opinion on exactly the sorts of cases you are talking about, in which she said: that except for the abuse of his wife, David Wissink appears to be a truly model parent.

See below:

"Panel Upsets Father’s Custody over Domestic Violence Issues
November 8, 2002
Byline: By Cerisse Anderson

Issuing a strong warning that judges must weigh the effect of domestic violence on children even when they are not the targets of violence, an appellate court has reversed an order granting a father custody of his teenage daughter.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, on Monday unanimously rejected as “sorely inadequate” Family Court Judge Andrew P. Bivona’s consideration of the father’s domestic violence history before awarding him custody of the now-16-year-old daughter two years ago."

This Judge Bivona, by the way, was the Judge who handed over custody of a 5 month old baby Jerica Rhodes to a man who he knew was not her father (more social experiementation with childrens' lives) thus, Bivona set in motion the events which led to Jerica Rhodes (at th age of 7 years old) being stabbed 16 times in the head, neck and face by her presumed 'father'...HE still has not been called to answer for that crime...

I have some little contact with the mother here so I know some of the details of this case that have NOT been published...

Anyway back to Judge Miller:

“Justice Sondra Miller, writing for the four-judge panel, noted that EXCEPT FOR THE ABUSE OF HIS WIFE, DAVID WISSINK APPEARED TO BE A ‘TRULY MODEL PARENT”…”

So although Judger Miller agreed with the majority on overturning the Wissink case, nevertheless she stated that an abusive husband was a TRULY MODEL PARENT...

This, as any sensible thinking person SHOULD know can never be the case.

AND it's probably the heart and soul of this entire situation you write about, that a Judge could believe something like this...

I think she should NOT be involved with this Commision for obvious reasons.

Just wanted to let you know this."

Silverside, I'm just curious about just what sort of people were appointed to this 32-member panel that is supposed to be investigating this situation where abusive men get custody of children...since if they think like Judge Miller that an abusive husband can STILL be a model parent especially for a 14 year old girl (just the age when teens are starting to date and chose the sort of man they will be spending their life with later) then
Judge Miller might have been the wrong person to appoint these people to the panel...


Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 21, 2005 9:24:43 AM

NYMOM, Actually I testified before the commission. Hate to say when or where, as it would be rather inconvenient for the trolls who haunt this site to track me down and harrass me the way they have done to you. I suppose some unusually obsessive wingnut could succeed anyway, if he was willing to go through 1000s of pages of testimony. If so, more power to him I suppose. Guess I would be flattered in a roundabout way, as long as he doesn't slash the tires on my car or something.

As for testifying, it might have been a waste of time in terms of real reform--at least in the short run. But at least I was able to say my piece in public and have it preserved in a pdf file.

Posted by: silverside at Oct 21, 2005 11:50:44 AM

Exactly...keep THAT information close to your vest...

As many of those nuts lurk here...

Anyway, were the people sympathetic to you? Did you get any feedback from them or signs of openness to anything to you were saying?

You see the problem is if they all think like that Judge Miller who appointed them, this could be just another useless round of meetings, long expensive 2-martini lunches and conferences hosted at expensive places so people can get a free trip, dinner and a show on the taxpayer's dime...

That's my worry...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 21, 2005 2:30:35 PM

Who knows what the suits at the long tables thought. They didn't ask any questions, but then it was comparatively late in the day (clue #1 for the obsessed). But I got nice feedback from a couple of people in the audience. Even had dinner with a woman I had heard of before on various sites afterwards. She was charming and wonderful. I can see how she his such a big success and leader in everything she does.

Posted by: silverside at Oct 21, 2005 3:41:34 PM

"I saw somewhere that Dominique Lasseur and Catherine Tatge are actually a husband-and-wife documentary team. So yes, it appears that Dominque is a man."

If he is a man I wouldn't trust him. Or should I say I wouldn't trust them. You have to question why a woman would bring a man in on a project like this. That's just my feeling.

Posted by: pearlwisdom at Oct 22, 2005 2:47:08 PM

There are men who speak out against child abuse and domestic violence. Men like Michael Kimmel, Gerry Orkin, John Stoltenberg, Ben Zeman, Jack Straton, and Lundy Bancroft. I think it's great that a husband-and-wife team got together to make this documentary. There's no reason to be suspicious that a man helped to make it.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 22, 2005 3:02:58 PM

“Justice Sondra Miller, writing for the four-judge panel, noted that EXCEPT FOR THE ABUSE OF HIS WIFE, DAVID WISSINK APPEARED TO BE A ‘TRULY MODEL PARENT”…”

As in MOST cases of domestic abuse, it is a mutual pattern of abuse, and if the couple is apart, usually the abuse ends and the parent can be a model parent. If the abuse pattern continues, or turns on the child or a new paramour, then that parent is obviously NOT going to be a model parent. But you cannot say that because someone is a drunk driver that they are not a good parent. Keep them out of a car and they have a chance of being a good parent.

I know several women that not only contributed to their abuse, they caused it firsthand with verbal and physical attacks. Once she was removed from the relationship, he was fine. She still gets into fights with her new boyfriend. So, it is possible that a couple that get along like oil and water, can function apart MUCH better.

It's time that women own up to the responsibility that YOU determine where you are at any given moment. Leave if you have to. My mother, with no money and no education, left my father when I was three when he bought a gun. He'd been fine until he dropped acid with friends (again the drug angle, drugs and alcohol are the leading provocaturs of abuse) and THEN became an abusive spouse. So she left.

I am thankful that the abused womens services were there to protect her. But I am rightously pissed off at women who make FALSE allegations, or don't take responsibility for their end of the abuse. If you KNOW that telling him he's worthless and a shitty lover, when he's already had a six pack, is going to get your butt kicked, then why do it? To me that screams lack of education on our part. If we turned some of the money from VAWA into education and training on how to be involved in relationships, not just how to leave relationships, I think we'd see some serious reductions in incidence of abuse.

Posted by: Adryenn Ashley at Oct 24, 2005 9:00:06 AM

"I am thankful that the abused womens services were there to protect her. But I am rightously pissed off at women who make FALSE allegations, or don't take responsibility for their end of the abuse. If you KNOW that telling him he's worthless and a shitty lover, when he's already had a six pack, is going to get your butt kicked, then why do it? To me that screams lack of education on our part. If we turned some of the money from VAWA into education and training on how to be involved in relationships, not just how to leave relationships, I think we'd see some serious reductions in incidence of abuse."

Hey you're talking to the wrong person on this as I'm all for ending this VAWA business tomorrow...

The whole thing is just a waste of time and money in my opinion anyway as the ONLY people who have benefitted from this are men.

Actually the statistics show that LESS MEN are killed now since VAWA has been established.

It's ridiculous to be spending all this money to assist an abuser survive and go on to make more women his victims...meanwhile we have Judges like this Miller woman telling us that these abusers can beat women up, but yet still be eligible for custody of the kids as a model parent.

Simply ridiculous...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 24, 2005 10:25:01 AM

"I am thankful that the abused womens services were there to protect her. But I am rightously pissed off at women who make FALSE allegations, or don't take responsibility for their end of the abuse. If you KNOW that telling him he's worthless and a shitty lover, when he's already had a six pack, is going to get your butt kicked, then why do it?

This is revolting; the whole canard that women make up a lot of false allegations. It's bullshit a nd it tips your hand. As to your allegations that women provoke DV...Got any proof? No, I didn't think so. Way to blame the victim.

To me that screams lack of education on our part. If we turned some of the money from VAWA into education and training on how to be involved in relationships, not just how to leave relationships, I think we'd see some serious reductions in incidence of abuse."

Bull. This is putting it all on women. You want to end battering? Go after batterers. It's that simple.

Blaming it on women is what batterers do. That makes me awfully interested in why you're doing it.

And NYMOM would you care to back up your opinion with something other than an opinion?

Posted by: ginmar at Oct 24, 2005 1:36:41 PM

"And NYMOM would you care to back up your opinion with something other than an opinion?"

Which opinion as I have many of them????

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 24, 2005 2:30:58 PM

When I was divorced in 1992 I was told my husband only beat me when I deserved it. He had full physical & legal custody of the children and did not allow me to have any contact with them for years. Now the youngest is 19, all three children have beaten by their father who was an active drug addict.
Today I am paying the father child support, when I am on disability. He has the courts to back him up and he is still able to control me even if it is just financally.
I had a woman judge, woman lawyer and was complety let down by the system.
Today all three of the children suffer with emotional scars and/or addictin of their own.

Posted by: Adeline San Diego at Oct 27, 2005 3:55:58 AM

I was vey happy to see a program on this subject. I lost custody of my daughter to my ex-husband in this manner in 1994. I had actually been granted custody of my daughter as a
result of the divorce. The sexual abuse issue came up after the divorce was
final. The abuse happened during periods of visitation with her father. I fought in
the Texas courts for 3 years to get the abuse to stop. My ex-husband was actually
indicted for my daughter's sexual abuse. However, they would not follow through with
a criminal trial, because of daughter's age. I was told her testimony would not
stand up in court since she was so young. There was actual physical evidence and
reports from psychologists who had interviewed my daughter. Richard Ducotte appeared as an expert witness at our trial in family court in Dallas.

My husband hired an attorney who represented the Father's Rights group in Dallas. At that point, everything went his way. A guardian ad litem was appointed who alligned
herself with my husband's attorney. A psychologist recommended by my husband's
attorney was assigned to case who already had her mind made up against my daughter and I from the start. She actually ignored statements my daughter made to her about how her father hurt her. The woman assumed that I programmed my daughter. I did not!

I ended up bankrupt. In 2003, when I could finally get a loan again, I went back to court to get more visitation time with my daughter. (The existing court order only granted me
two supervised hours a month to see my daughter. The judge had decided that I had
programmed my daughter and she gave custody to my daughter's father, her abuser.)

The same people blocked my attempts again. I had to give up. In a year a a half my daughter will be 18 and will finally be free!!

Posted by: Elizabeth Gamber at Oct 27, 2005 6:56:04 PM

"The same people blocked my attempts again. I had to give up. In a year a a half my daughter will be 18 and will finally be free!!"

Can she sue these bastards in her own right now?

There is a little girl in California who went through a similar ordeal although her father didn't molest her. He got custody through his girlfriend, who worked in the courts and helped him work the system. Then just left this little girl night after night by herself, while he went out to be with his friends and business associates. She would keep herself company by calling her mother on the telephone every night. Her mother who was a few miles away but couldn't see her daughter except on court-ordered visits. Even though her father paid no attention to his daughter...

Her daughter is now an adult and suing her father and some other courts officals who helped him. It was in the news. It was all about the child support, of course, the father wanting custody so he wouldn't have to pay it

Can your daughter sue like that...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 27, 2005 8:14:54 PM

Nymom, do you want us to believe that a mother is willing to put her own child through so much trama just so she can continue to collect child support? Don't tell us, she didn't do because she wanted the money, she did it because of her ethical principles.

Posted by: greg at Oct 27, 2005 8:39:32 PM

Greg, what are you talking about? This is about men who want custody so they won't have to pay support - never mind if the kids are living with them, they will actually have to take care of them, or more likely pawn them off on someone who will.

This makes life MUCH more difficult for cases where the father SHOULD have custody.

Posted by: kohoutekdriver8 at Oct 27, 2005 10:57:23 PM

Is there anything wrong when men don't want to pay child support? Look at it this way, how many women want to support their own kids? Ten percent? Most women have a man or two that helps support their kids. How many men do you know have a woman or two help support his kids? Why should men want to pay the mother of their children to do what she's suppose to do in the first place?

If a father wanted to pay someone to raise his kids, he can hire a south american woman for $6.00 an hour, and she'd probably do a better job.

I know dozens of women who stay home everyday when their husbands are working to support their families. The bottom line, these women aren't doing anything for anyone that the husband couldn't hire people to do for less than what his wife is costing him! And the people he could hire would be professionals and do a better job!

When you get right down to it, marriage is a bad investment for men with children! Just think, if men got smart and decided to have families without wives, how much better off their kids would be in the long run. Mothers, for the most part are bad examples for children. How many people would want their sons to grow up to be like their mothers? Or even their daughters?

Posted by: mark aleck at Oct 30, 2005 12:04:16 PM

Wow. Four paragraphs, about 200 words, and yet it concisely conveys misogyny, racism, misopedia, and materialistic self-absorption. I am in awe.

Posted by: Sigmund at Oct 30, 2005 12:52:41 PM

You know, he's just going 'huh?' at your remark. They really don't think they're doing or saying anything wrong.

Posted by: ginmar at Oct 30, 2005 2:05:07 PM

"When you get right down to it, marriage is a bad investment for men with children! Just think, if men got smart and decided to have families without wives, how much better off their kids would be in the long run."

I hate to give you the word Mark, but without wives few of you are having any kids.

Even an egg donor up by where I live anyway is chargin anywhere from $20,000 to $50,000 dollars and she's not even volunteering to carry the baby to TERM for you, JUST TO DONATE AN EGG OR TWO...

You have to pay ANOTHER woman anywhere from another $5,000 (plus her medical expenses) to $20,000 for THAT...

So get over your delusions.

It's far easier and cheaper for WOMEN to have children alone then it is for men.

You want to try it yourself fine.

I guarantee you'll pay anywhere from $30,000 to $50,000 easily and that doesn't cover legal or doctor's fees.

AND with Judges cracking down now on this surrogate mother business (a woman just lost custody of her first two kids for being a surrogate mothers for another woman) FEW women are going to want to do that anymore for ANY AMOUNT of money...unless you want to get a prostitute or something to do this for you...

AND over and above the health issues involved with these sorts of women, try explaining THAT choice to your kid when they ask about their mother in a few years...

So there smart aleck...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 30, 2005 2:50:33 PM

"I know dozens of women who stay home everyday when their husbands are working to support their families. The bottom line, these women aren't doing anything for anyone that the husband couldn't hire people to do for less than what his wife is costing him! And the people he could hire would be professionals and do a better job!"

Spoken like a person who has never tried full-time, at-home parenting.

BTW, you can't pay someone enough to LOVE your kids.

Posted by: Anne at Oct 30, 2005 3:02:51 PM

But guess what Anne, a guy like this could easily go in front of a Judge with that same theorical argument and walk out with custody.

Easily.

Actually MOST non-custodial mothers are the very lowest income mothers...who might NOT be able to support their children on their own after a divorce even with child support.

I think that's how a lot of states cut their welfare bill, btw, by giving the Robert Brown's of the state custody.

So you frequently support men like him...those who are looking at children as a strictly dollar and cents proposition or how much can they save by doing it themselves as opposed to leaving children with their mothers.

Your side frequently support the Robert Brown's of the world, maybe unwittingly...but still that's the bottom line...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 30, 2005 3:32:49 PM

"Your side frequently support the Robert Brown's of the world, maybe unwittingly...

"My side," whatever that may be, supports primary caretaker custody or joint custody, assuming we're dealing with fit parents.

If a parent simply can not take care of their children, even with child supoprt, perhaps that parent is not fit, sad to say. Then it's the other parent's responsibility to take up the slack--assuming they're not also unfit.

Posted by: Anne at Oct 30, 2005 4:32:53 PM

"My side," whatever that may be, supports primary caretaker custody or joint custody, assuming we're dealing with fit parents."

Yet you supported John Alysworth coming back after three years to file a petition of paternity and custody. Three years AFTER he was at the hospital when the twins were born.

Bridget Marks was their primary caretaker for three years, yet you supported a custody trial and switch to him, which would have still been in effect if she didn't have the funds for an appeal.

"If a parent simply can not take care of their children, even with child supoprt, perhaps that parent is not fit, sad to say."

Well maybe you're right then.

Unfortunately I don't think it's going to go over to well with most people your idea of 'financial unfitness', ie., poor mothers don't get to have custody of their children.

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 30, 2005 7:12:57 PM

"Yet you supported John Alysworth coming back after three years to file a petition of paternity and custody. Three years AFTER he was at the hospital when the twins were born."

In a perfect world Aylsworth would not have had any rights to those kids (and they likely would not have been born since Marks would have had no prospect of support for them, either). But the way the law stands he was within his rights to formally petition for visitation once it became apparent he could not rely on Marks to do the right thing and allow the already-established father-child relationship to continue. And once she became abusive (by coaching them to lie) he was also within his rights to petition for custody as well. A primary caretaker presumption assumes no abuse, as you well know.

I also never said I supported the custody switch, under the circumstances. What I would heartily support is some kind of penalty to be imposed upon Marks for the trouble she has caused.

"Unfortunately I don't think it's going to go over to well with most people your idea of 'financial unfitness', ie., poor mothers don't get to have custody of their children."

There is a difference between simply being poor and being so destitute for one reason or another that you can not provide for your kids at all.

I think in most cases it's a wash anyway because when the mother is this poor, likely the father is as well--if he's around at all.


Posted by: Anne at Oct 31, 2005 11:55:03 AM

I rec'd your email that just the conversation with Kaplan was being omitted even though but I really don't know this person.

I only shared my thoughts about "equal rights for ALL" because it is based on the US consitiution, and were "too much" to argue with - as this is still the document in which ALL rights and laws are derived.

But the real "behine the scenes issues" are truthfully that The Family Law industry would lose way "too much money" if it were to be passed by law - and we understand this to be self evident - as do so many others in society...

I know these are not the words some like to hear - so covering our ears and closing our eyes (and comments honestly) might be to much to share with readers who ethically, and morally are trying to help "healthy and fit" 2 parent families stay closer to thier children and their futures, too.

Those who do not want "healthy and fit" 2 parents families to survive have another agenda politiclly - we should all know - as well.


My Best Wishes for - I have done nothing wrong - except learn how to share my child openly and honestly - with a future based on equal justice for ALL - not just a few...those 300,000 parents in the last 10 years are on your hands - not mine - please think about this seriously with love and respect - and for the human rights Susan B Anthony your historical leader wrote about - to help you get the rights you so deserve and enjoy today...

Thank you again for reading and writing to me yesterday,

SRene
ParentsWhoCare.us

Posted by: SRene at Oct 31, 2005 1:14:46 PM

Stephen: "I only shared my thoughts about "equal rights for ALL" because it is based on the US consitiution, and were "too much" to argue with - as this is still the document in which ALL rights and laws are derived.

But the real "behine the scenes issues" are truthfully that The Family Law industry would lose way "too much money" if it were to be passed by law - and we understand this to be self evident - as do so many others in society..."

Stephen, parents already have equal rights to their children under the law. A divorce won't change that unless one or both parents has harmed the child. What's at issue isn't "equal rights" but the welfare of the child. The child needs stability. Each family should be looked at on an individual basis, not treated in a cookie cutter fashion that presumptive joint custody would do. Most divorces don't go to court. The parents decide on their own what form of custody would be most appropriate for them and their children. That's the way it should be. Contested cases account for only about 10% of all divorces. Abusers, control freaks, and other "problem" cases are over-represented in that 10%. They should also be treated individually.

I agree with you that the Family Law Industry makes money on divorce and custody cases. I'm not sure, but I believe you were referring to "shared parenting" in your second paragraph - the thing that would cost the Family Law Industry money if it were to pass. However, the introduction of "shared parenting" has helped to create that industry. When warring parents are told to "get along" and "share" the children, even though they can't get along at all, they are sent to parenting classes, mediation, and told to create parenting plans with the help of a parenting coordinator. They see guardians ad litem added to their cases to represent their children. They are subjected to custody and psychological evaluations, especially if "alienation" and/or "friendly parent" theory are brought up in their cases. All of this costs money, and the parents pay for it. That is money that would have been better spent on themselves and their children. All these "extras" that have been introduced due to "shared parenting" are the main reason the cost of divorce and custody cases have skyrocketed to hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent years.

Posted by: The Countess at Oct 31, 2005 1:56:08 PM


countess you make a good argument for automatic father custody. If it's in the best interest of children for parents not to spend more money on divorce, take it one step further. It would be better not spend it on two households and alimony and child care, child support and a second wife and an extra car ect ect.

Posted by: at Nov 1, 2005 7:40:00 PM

"countess you make a good argument for automatic father custody."

Just the opposite. She makes a good case for automatic mother custody. AND just taxing every man a special child support tax that would go into a pool to pay ALL KIDS child support.

Remember the state is also interested in seeing that it's children are raised in an emotionally healthy environment. It's a lot easier to assume most mothers are interested in their children's well-being (as history, biology, nature and plain common sense would dictate anyway) and for the government to just try and figure out how to transfer the funds from men to women to help mothers provide this.

So you stingy cheapskates keep it up and that's where this is heading.


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 2, 2005 12:56:36 AM

Equal means legally equal for the Father and the Mother fiancially...
Equal means leaglly equal for the children who want access to both their parents equally.

This as our US Constitution and Declaration guarantees "ALL are created Equal" in these United States of America.

SRene
New Afforable Low Cost Health Care
To learn more and help your child and family:
http://fatherswhocare.blogspot.com
Be A Part of the Solution - We can Make a Difffernce
if we really try!

Posted by: Stephen Rene at Nov 6, 2005 7:18:15 PM

You really are a true phony...aren't you...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 6, 2005 10:50:37 PM

"Equal means legally equal for the Father and the Mother fiancially..."

Read NYMOM's posts. Don't you get it. It can never be financially equal between mothers and fathers because women want men to pay for everything. They don't even want to support themselves, let alone their own children. They want to spend their lives working for $6.00 an hour as
menial labor and having men support them.

Am I wrong NYMOM?

Posted by: Bud at Nov 7, 2005 12:38:30 AM

Let me add, even prostitutes make more money than NYMOM does. That's because they're not
lazy house cats like her.

Posted by: Bud at Nov 7, 2005 12:41:04 AM

Please stop the bashing of either gender because it is not the right thing to do for parents or their chil(ren).

ONLY when we start to RESPECT the rights of children and both parents equally - will we show - WE TOGETHER - are standing up for these EQUAL RIGHTS.

WHY we have been attacked for these issues we raise by many involved in the legal industry, as well as, both Fathers Rights and N.O.W. - Womens Rights groups - does it show clearly the selfishness on the part of these needlessly.

All this neg bashing does - is prove - we are "not as a society" getting it? Let the light shine through and our children will be the previaling winners - on ALL counts- honestly, ethically, and morally...

Please...let our children win in this effort to do the right thing for them...

SRene
www.eBusinessProfessionals.us
www.ParentsWhoCare.us
Powered by GoDaddy.com

Posted by: SRene at Nov 11, 2005 3:45:16 PM

"Please stop the bashing of either gender because it is not the right thing to do for parents or their chil(ren).

ONLY when we start to RESPECT the rights of children and both parents equally - will we show - WE TOGETHER - are standing up for these EQUAL RIGHTS.

Please...let our children win in this effort to do the right thing for them..."


Right...

This from a guy who took his son's mother to court to switch custody after she lost her job and apartment after 9/11...

AND Is now running all over the internet telling everyone that his son's mother didn't care about her son, but only was interested in him for child support...

NOW he's got the nerve to tell others that we are should be respecting the rights of children and parents equally...

How about this SRene...

People who live in glass houses should NOT throw stones...

Okay.

You're in no position to tell others how to act as parents.

Okay.

Hope I was clear.


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 11, 2005 5:16:14 PM

"Read NYMOM's posts. Don't you get it. It can never be financially equal between mothers and fathers because women want men to pay for everything. They don't even want to support themselves, let alone their own children. They want to spend their lives working for $6.00 an hour as menial labor and having men support them.

Am I wrong NYMOM?"

Yes, of course, that's a given Bud that you are wrong...

I think women should make as much money as they can, just like men. Child support should (and some states are making it now) be dependent upon the income of the parents. Why should a person making like $100,000 annually, for instance, be asking for child support from a minimum wage parent????

It doesn't make sense.

Yet it happens everyday under our current system...

Additionally Bud, you have some strange idea that someone making $6.00 an hour or minimum wage doesn't work as hard as other people...

How much you get paid frequently doesn't correlate to how hard you have to work. Actually many handymen and grounds keepers probably work a lot harder then people like Scooter Libby and/or Dick Cheney, cause far less trouble, yet get paid much less...

"Let me add, even prostitutes make more money than NYMOM does. That's because they're not lazy house cats like her."

I hate to tell you Bud, but I've been working since I was 15.

With a few years out of the workforce for being a stay-at-home mom when my kids were small..

Okay...

So like I said, you are wrong.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 11, 2005 5:28:50 PM

Again I ask you both from the bottom of my heart...

Please stop the bashing of either gender because it is not the right thing to do for parents or their chil(ren).

ONLY when we start to RESPECT the rights of children and both parents equally - will we show - WE TOGETHER - are standing up for these EQUAL RIGHTS.

WHY we have been attacked for these issues we raise by many involved in the legal industry, as well as, both Fathers Rights and N.O.W. - Womens Rights groups - does it show clearly the selfishness on the part of these needlessly.

All this neg bashing does - is prove - we are "not as a society" getting it? Let the light shine through and our children will be the previaling winners - on ALL counts- honestly, ethically, and morally...

Please...let our children win in this effort to do the right thing for them...

SRene
www.eBusinessProfessionals.us
www.ParentsWhoCare.us
Powered by GoDaddy.com

Posted by: Stephen Rene at Nov 17, 2005 3:46:52 AM

"Again I ask you both from the bottom of my heart...

Please stop the bashing of either gender because it is not the right thing to do for parents or their chil(ren)."

AND I ask you to quit being a phony.

You 'bash' your own child's mother, so quit coming here and trying to play the good father...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 17, 2005 9:42:00 AM

I have never said anything bad about my son's mom - and you won't get me too here or on voicemail - either - so please stop trying - it is called "entrapment."

N.O.W. - the truth is - in my case - about a system that is advising my son's mother to violate State court orders N.O.W. to affect my re-action and will not get the neg one they are hoing for - or in coaching my 6 yr old child to lie to local police when thay go to do a child welfare check about his "knowing his father is he has spoken to and visited with over the last 7 years?"

If this is bashing when it is a felony my son has been told to commit by those around him - some who think money is more important than obeying the law and telling the truth to a law enforcement officer or agency - N.O.W. this is exactly what the problem is with the current system.

I do not feel that telling the truth N.O.W. is bashing anyone - especially if my son's mom is being advised to break the law intentionally by those she is with N.O.W. and advising her to do this.

This is not her fault - it is N.O.W.'s fault - and - instead of trying to solve a negative problem N.O.W. is causing for others they wish to continue it and in violation of the law - well, it is N.O.W. time for a shared and simple Family LAW program for families that works - and that will start showing more love for one another instead of anger or hatred for the other parent!

IF this kind of love Is my crime - as this is all I am advocating - and hope to help others SEE the light concerning NYmom then let's helping law enforcement on TV bring back those missing kids separated by the current system in place...needlessly...?

Thank you again for helping others to start getting it - NYmom - please try to see the light...too...:)

SRene
www.ParentsWhoCare.us

Posted by: Stephen Rene at Nov 22, 2005 10:21:27 AM

Forgiveness is what this should be ALL about and with NOW and Fathers Rights - Lawyers - working together to uphold the basic principles of the constitution
as outlined - honestly and ethically - on our web site...

Just a thought as we move forward into another New Year…

Thank you for positing my comments and my movement toward equality and shared parenting for our children - although met with resistance N.O.W. we hope to work together peacefully - for “equal rights for all” as these must be upheld - if the other side ever wants to be taken seriously “when preaching equality for other rights in our nation” - as it is N.O.W. our children who should have equal access to both parents without killing another parent - who adversarily loses their child (or Mom or Dad) in any other future ABA Family Law decision.

Can we NOW do the Right Thing for our Children - Can We Stop the Anger and the Hatred?

Please Forgive as this is what this time of year is ALL about. Lest them who feels they can cast the 1st stone...and show the WORLD they are perfect and without sin...?


Stephen Rene
“A Constitutionally Ethical America is a Strong America”
“Our Founding Fathers would Care - Do We?”
http://FathersWhoCare.blogspot.com
www.ParentsWhoCare.us

Posted by: SRene at Dec 25, 2005 6:44:57 PM

"Changing Lives for the Better Everyday for our children!"

"Together We Can Make a Difference - and - already Have "Saved Lives" in the Family Law System...and around the World...!"

"Thank you for listening, for doing the right thing to help, and for Saving a Life from being injured needlessly...as this is what truly matters...and always has!"

--------------
Isn't it TIME we NOW show forgiveness for those individual(s) or
movement(s) which have the Nations' best interest and the right motive(s) in mind...

Isn't it TIME we NOW show that we wish to help those trying to help resolve these LIFE SAVING issues, and will never wish that another human being (parent or child) is ever hurt by the present system again?

Isn't it TIME we NOW show ALL are fairly treated "as is guaranteed by our Constitution" for ALL Persons equally under the law, without discrimination - hatred - and/or with mailice and aforethought to intentionally damage (financially) or injure (emotionally) another child or parent - anymore...?

Can WE NOW SEE and Can WE NOW HEAR the tears of our nations children and those who have done nothing wrong but share their thoughts and case stories and the legal issues openly and honestly before the MEDIA, our State / Federal Political Leadership, and the American People of our GREAT NATION?

Can WE Pardon Them from any further continued attack(s) on their right to preserve our Constitiution which has always guaranteed "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" with their children?

Can WE truly show we CARE about Peace, Joy and LOVE toward our children and our fellow man ALL YEAR round - not just during the annual Christmas Season?

I beleive WE CAN Make this a NEW YEARS Resolution for ALL to SEE and WITNESS!
Don't You?

--------------
QUOTE - Earl Nightingale in 1989 once said:
"The more intensely we feel about an idea or a goal, the more assuredly the idea, buried deep in our subconscious, will direct us along the path to its fulfillment."
--------------

Stephen Rene
ParentsWhoCare.us
eBusinessProfessionals.us
Powered By GoDaddy.com

Posted by: SRene at Jan 1, 2006 4:46:03 AM

According to Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women:

"If there is a divorce in the family, I urge a presumption of joint custody of the children. Shared parenting is not only fair to men and children, it is the best option for women. After observing women's rights and responsibilities for more than a quarter of a century of feminist activism, I conclude that shared parenting is great for women, giving time and opportunity for female parents to pursue education, training, jobs, careers, profession and leisure. There is nothing scientific, logical or rational in excluding men or forever holding women and children as if in swaddling clothes in an eternally loving bondage. Most of us have acknowledged that women can do everything that men can do. It is time now for us to acknowledge that men can do everything women can do [in parenting of our children equally]."

------------- Always Try to Remember
ALL WE NEED IS LOVE - The Beatles - 1960's.
-------------
Thank You Google, Yahoo & MSN:
"Stephen Rene"
www.ParentsWhoCare.us -
Have You Heard the Truth about equality in "Shared Parenting?"
www.eBusinessProfessionals.us -
Have You Seen the Truth about equality in "Healthcare?"
"Together - We Can Continue to Make a Difference - Everyday!"
818-468-7985

Posted by: Stephen Rene at Mar 20, 2006 7:57:37 PM

BUD: Equal means legally equal for the Father and the Mother financially..."

Read NYMOM's posts. Don't you get it. It can never be financially equal between mothers and fathers because women want men to pay for everything. They don't even want to support themselves, let alone their own children. They want to spend their lives working for $6.00 an hour as
menial labor and having men support them.

Am I wrong NYMOM?


Posted by: Bud at Nov 7, 2005 12:38:30 AM

Let me add, even prostitutes make more money than NYMOM does. That's because they're not
lazy house cats like her.

BUD.......WHAT FREAK'N ROCK DID YOU CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER?
I'm a working mother of 3 AND I have a college education....both my EX'S are FAT and LAZY @$$'s
with LOW PAYING / mediocre jobs(for the sole purpose of NOT financially supporting their children) AND the inability to comprehend that the children they HELPED to bring into this world weren't on their little "baby knees" BEGGING TO BE BORN!!!
To them and other's like them...it's all "glory" and no "guts!
Children NEED both parents emotionally, physically AND FINANCIALLY, stupid! If one parent (usually the father) has a sudden "trip" about what it actually means to "be there" for their
children, then they really weren't READY for the parenting role anyway. Let them leave, poof, disappear!, we AND the children are better off without them anyway.
And let me add that all of us here probably make more than a prostitute would because not only are we NOT house cats but we're damned GORGEOUS too!!!

Posted by: Jeanie at Mar 21, 2006 4:45:34 PM

According to Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women:

"If there is a divorce in the family, I urge a presumption of joint custody of the children. Shared parenting is not only fair to men and children, it is the best option for women. After observing women's rights and responsibilities for more than a quarter of a century of feminist activism, I conclude that shared parenting is great for women, giving time and opportunity for female parents to pursue education, training, jobs, careers, profession and leisure. There is nothing scientific, logical or rational in excluding men or forever holding women and children as if in swaddling clothes in an eternally loving bondage. Most of us have acknowledged that women can do everything that men can do. It is time now for us to acknowledge that men can do everything women can do [in parenting of our children equally]."

-----------
Have You Heard the Truth about equality in "Shared Parenting?"
www.eBusinessProfessionals.us -
Have You Seen the Truth about equality in "Healthcare?"
"Together - We Can Continue to Make a Difference - Everyday!"
818-468-7985

Posted by: SRene at Apr 4, 2006 5:34:40 PM

Twice in three days last week, Hillary Rodham Clinton basked in the adulation of cheering union members. Her record of supporting collective bargaining, however, is considerably worse than wobbly.
Pity the thousands of unionists at last Tuesday's state Democratic convention who chanted her name, and the hundreds of retired Teamsters at Thursday's luncheon in midtown who had interrupted their Founder's Day meal to hear the corporate litigator turned union-loving Democrat deliver a campaign speech.

They would have dropped their forks if they had heard that Hillary served for six years on the board of the dreaded Wal-Mart, a union-busting behemoth. If they had learned the details of her friendship with Wal-Mart, they might have lost their lunches.

She didn't mention Wal-Mart. Instead, she praised the Teamsters and other unionized workers as a "key movement in creating the middle class," and she pledged to "prevent anyone from turning the clock back," reminding them that "the Republicans are trying to do away with collective bargaining."

And the Clintons depended on Wal-Mart's largesse not only for Hillary's regular payments as a board member but for travel expenses on Wal-Mart planes and for heavy campaign contributions to Bill's campaigns there and nationally. According to reports in the early '90s, before Bill and Hillary moved to D.C., neither was raking in the big bucks, but prominent in their income were her holdings of between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of Wal-Mart stock.
As she was leaving the dais, she ignored a reporter's question about Wal-Mart, and she ignored it again when she strode by reporters in the hotel lobby.

Posted by: Curtis Johnson at May 15, 2006 9:48:27 PM