« More State Legislators To See "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" | Main | The Winner Of The Sexist T-Shirts Contest »

November 16, 2005

Fathers' Rights Activists Ignore An Abused Child

Update November 23, 2005: Hello, Wendy McElroy readers. Rather than rely on old, misleading, and cherry-picked information you've received from McElroy and other fathers' rights activists like Glenn Sacks when it comes to "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories", I suggest you visit my web site about the documentary. Fatima Loeliger's mother, Sadiya Alilire, has had custody of her daughter for several years. Fatima wants the custody case to stop. She wants to continue to live with her mother, whom she says has never abused her. She wants to spend her remaining high school years living like a normal kid, but she can't do that if her father keeps taking her mother and herself back to court over and over again. Listen to what Fatima says, rather than relying on people who are attacking her, her mother, and the documentary. "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" brings to light cases where abused children have been awarded to the custody of their abusive fathers. Children's voices are not being heard, and fathers' rights activists have demonstrated that they too are not listening. In their angry campaign against the documentary and Sadiya Alilire, as well as the way they are completely ignoring Fatima Loeliger (or giving her lip service which doesn't help her any), fathers' rights activists are mirroring the treatment given to abused mothers and abused children. "Breaking The Silence" has been shown to legislators and others who work with abused children in several states. It is scheduled to be shown more in 2006. PBS has released an internal memo that was leaked to fathers' rights activists that shows it is giving its employees a means of responding to the vitriol in e-mails, letters, and phone calls coming from fathers' rights activists. PBS looks like it is not caving to pressure from bully tactics used by angry fathers' rights activists. I have the memo on my web site. Good for PBS.

-----

Fathers' rights activists are hell bent on continuing their relentless attacks against "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories", protective mother Sadiya Alilire, and her daughter Fatima Loeliger. They are ignoring the fact that the documentary is about the children who are saying that they have been abused by their fathers. Since they are heavily attacking Sadiya and the documentary, yet ignoring what Fatima has had to say, I thought it would be appropriate to post Fatima Loeliger's statement that she wrote after Glenn Sacks posted his web page that attacks her mother - and her. Remember that Sacks had originally entitled the web page that he buried Fatima's initial testimony on as "The Opposition's Side Of The Story". A teenaged girl's own story of abuse at the hands of her father and stepmother is seen by fathers' rights activists as "The Opposition". As I have noted elsewhere, that was one hell of a Freudian slip. Sacks noticed his slip after I brought it up, and changed the name of the page to "Sadia [sic] Loeliger's Side Of The Story". That is still a slip. It's is not only Sadiya's side of the story. It is also Fatima's. She wants to live out her remaining high school years as a normal kid, she wants to remain living with her mother, and she wants the custody case to stop. Fathers' rights activists don't care about that.

Here is Fatima Loeliger's statement refuting what Glenn Sacks has put up on his web site. It is also available in PDF format on my web site.

It's clear from the way that they are acting that fathers' rights activists aren't the least bit concerned about a child who has described the abuse she has experienced in her fathers' and stepmother's household.

==============================


Statement of Fatima Loeliger

November 10, 2005

The documentary "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" is not about my mother.

It is about me. I want to clear up a few facts.

First, I would think my father Scott Loeliger, MD would not want his name in public, since he ought to be worried it would ruin his reputation as a family practitioner (yes, he is a FAMILY practitioner). The producer used another name for me, Amina, in the documentary to protect me and my parents from having our names out there.

However, he brought his own name up by sending information to a reporter and I actually am happy to have my full name used. It is Fatima Alilire Loeliger.

For the last three years I have been, with interruptions by my father, very happy at my mother's house. I have been excelling in school with a 4.2 GPA and, as the attachment states, a regular in our city newspaper. My father, however, has made this transition increasingly difficult. Instead of nurturing and supporting my development during these tumultuous teen years, he has been the cause of most of the anguish in my life and a continual source of stress and instability for me. Since I turned 13 three years ago, my father has placed me in voluntary foster care twice, called the cops on me five times, stolen 2 cell phones, repeatedly emotionally abused me by making derogatory comments towards my family and attempted to admit me to a psychiatric ward, attempted to transport me to a cult program across the country for "mommy detox", harassed my school, harassed my sports teams, defamed me in my local newspaper, defamed me on the Internet, sent a private investigator to track me and photograph me, stalked my friends, and, last but not least, denied me proper health care coverage. This man has accomplished all these things in my life in only three years. Prior to my teenaged years, my father has committed such atrocities as coming to watch me take baths naked while he records our conversations, cut me off from contact with my mother without contact for three years, and made me a prisoner in his own home. I cannot name all that my father has done to me because there are so many things that were I to dwell upon them, I would probably experience severe depression and a nervous breakdown. Yet, even after all this, my father still hounds me in court at the age of 16 and is defaming the accomplishments I have achieved through the PBS documentary, "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories". All that I stated on the documentary was true; it was my life and first hand experiences, and nothing more, that I related to the American public. Though my father doesn't like it because it exposes him for who he truly is, it is still unwaveringly valid. All I would like for my last two years before high school is to finally experience a childhood that my father has denied me. Even after all this, the only thing I would ask of my father would be to withdraw from court and allow me this opportunity that he has previously thwarted. Seeing my sacrifices, I as I assume all logical persons, would not consider this a fanatical request. To the contrary, it is the minimum that I deserve from the man who has wrecked so much damage upon my life. I am old enough to make this decision.

I want to answer a few questions you might have.

1. Did my mother hit me?

No. A couple of times she spanked me on the butt. I talked about that in the documentary.

2. Did it upset me?

Yes. It always upsets children to be spanked. But for now it is legal to spank your child on the butt. My mother was not arrested or prosecuted for anything my father said she did. By the way, my father Scott Fredrick Loeliger is a wealthy doctor who has lots of friends in our small town system.

3. Was I put in the custody of my father when I was eight?

Yes. My father took me away from my mother when I was eight by using CPS. He took me to a CPS worker and to a therapist friend of his who claimed I told them that my mom abused me. I was very confused at the time because my father kept telling me that my mom was doing things to me. He wanted me to say that my mom was abusing me. I know I never told them that my mom abused me, but I ended up being taken away from her anyhow. I never understood what had happened, and why I couldn't see my mom. Later, when I was 13, I ended up at CPS again, because I didn't want to live with my Dad because of the way he was treating me. This time, when I told CPS worker Jennier Mitchell and her CPS supervisor that my father was abusing both me and his adopted child they said I was lying and manipulative. Apparently, 8 year olds are more reliable than 13 year olds in processing information. At least they are easier to coach.

4. Did your father have any connections at CPS?

Yes, in Tehama County where he used to live, my father was close friends with the Director of CPS, Randi Gottlieb-Robinson. He had taken me on family vacations with her and her family. Randi helped my father when he had me taken away from my mom when I was 8, and I believe she helped him again when I was 13 and he put me into foster care.

5. Did my father tell me that my mother was a whore and a drug addict?

Yes. He alluded to it frequently. He told me that is why I had been taken away from her. Of course, that was a complete lie. My mother is a very clean woman and has never used drugs.

6. Could I imagine a loving father saying such things about a mother?

Not a loving father. But my father had already shown that my well-being is not his main concern. If he were a loving father he wouldn't have ruined my childhood like he did, and continues to do.

More below the fold.

-----

Update November 23, 2005: Hello, Wendy McElroy readers. For some reason, McElroy has linked to only half of my post. This is a post of Fatima Loeliger's own statements about the abuse she had subjected to in her fathers' household. She wrote it this month, 2005, in response to Glenn Sacks attacking her on his web site. I recommend McElroy's readers scroll to the top of this post, and read it in its entirety. I include an update at the top of the post. What is Wendy McElroy trying to pull by linking to only a portion of this post? Does she want to negate what Fatima Loeliger had said about abuse she had experienced from her father, as well as her statements saying she had never been abused by her mother? Scroll to the top and read the whole thing. Please don't rely only on fathers' rights misrepresentations of the facts. Read what a teenaged girl - Fatima Loeliger - had to actually say about her fathers' abuse. It should open your eyes.

-----

7. Did my father refuse to let me see my mother at all for three years?

Yes he said she wasn't healthy for me. He said she could have seen me if she wanted to but she couldn't stay "clean" long enough to make her necessary therapy. He said she was dangerous and unhealthy. Unknown to me, while he was telling me these things, my mom was actually filing for bankruptcy because of her legal bills, and still fighting to get me back.

8. Would a loving father refuse to let his daughter see her mother?

No. A loving father would know how important mother/daughter relationships are in a child's development and would not only sanction a child to see her mother but encourage their relationship.

9. Did my father refuse to listen to me when I said I wanted to see my mother?

Yes. It was taboo to even mention her name in his household. Anytime I showed an interest in seeing my mom, I was treated badly, and was ignored and given the "cold shoulder" as a form of punishment. My father would also say that I wasn't ready to see her and that I didn't know her as well as he did. He said that she bruised me emotionally and that I didn't know it. He said she was a recovering drug addict and was unreliable as a mother beacuse "we know that she abused you."

10. Did my father throw his third wife against the hall wall?

Yes. They were fighting and yelling at each other in front of their adopted son. I came out of my room to see what was going on, and saw that my father, in a rage, had thrown his wife against the hall wall and knocked her down. Fights were routine in their household when I lived with them.

11. Did that scare me to see my father throw his wife against a wall?

It scared me tremendously. He's 6 foot 3 and big. I thought I was next. In fact, I was very afraid of him.

12. Did I refuse to live with my father and his wife because they were rotten to me?

They were more than rotten. They were abusive. They called me horrible names and told me I was "evil" and "worthless". I couldn't handle that I had a healthy loving home with my mother that I couldn't experience because my father was using me to hurt my mother. I was his trophy. He felt he had "won" me in the custody battle. I was crushed and unhappy.

13. Did my father put me into foster care instead of with my mother when I refused to live with him?

I ran away and when the police took me into custody I told them that I wanted to go live with my mom. They called my father and he ordered them to put me in foster care and if they called my mom he would sue them. He told me that I would have to stay in foster care until I was 18 unless I agreed to come back to his house. He told me I would never see my mom, sister or brother again. I was 13 years old at the time. I didn't do anything other than initially running away. I have never threatened or harmed anyone, committed crimes of any sort, or anything else that could justify him putting me in foster care. My only apparent crime was wanting to live with my mom.

14. Did I prefer to live in foster care rather than with him and his wife?

Yes. I had to choose between two evils. At least in foster care I wasn't afraid for my safety. I was alway scared in my dad's house. There were times when I thought he might kill me. I knew if he did, he was so well-connected that nothing would probably happen. He could get away with anything in that remote county (Tehama) where he worked in the clinic as a doctor.

15. Did my father promise me I could live with my mother after he got tired of paying for foster care?

He said that if I moved with him for three months and showed all his friends and family how "perfect" and "rehabilitated" his family was that I could go back to my mom. He just wanted to show everyone he got his trophy back. That is all I am to him. A symbol of his controlling superiority.

16. Did my father trick me at the last minute and say I could not live with my mother?

He didn't trick me. He just blatantly broke his promise. He said I didn't deserve to go live with my mom. He said I was "treating him shitty" and I hadn't treated him well enough and his wife didn't like the way I acted.

17. Did I feel betrayed by my father?

Yes. I felt beyond betrayed. It felt like salt in a wound because I trusted him against my better instincts and gave him a second chance to be a good father even though he didn't deserve it. I was the "bigger man" in the relationship. I forgave everything. I was the one who suffered. It was beyond betrayal.

18. Did he finally let me go to my mother's house?

No. I ran away. He refused to keep his promise to allow me to peacefully visit her so he forced me to take drastic measures and endanger myself to travel through unsafe places in order to get to my mom. The District Attorney's office saved me when they let me stay with my mom.

19. Did my father go to the District Attorney's office and pitch such a fit that he had to be removed?

Yes. He threatened to sue the man in charge of finding me and had to be asked to leave multiple times. It scared me to see my father lose control like that. He is usually a pathological liar who can always maintain his composure around important people, which is how he has convinced so many people to believe him. It was unsettling to see him lose his composure and made me wonder what he might do next?

20. Did the District Attorney's office write a letter to the judge saying that my father is out of control?

Yes. If I have a guardian angel, it is Rick Gore of the Yolo County District Attorney's Office. He saw the truth of my situation and let me stay with my mom. Without his help, and the help of the late Assistant District Attorney Frank McGuire, I would have ended up on the streets. The reports they wrote about my father finally revealed the truth about him. Every day I wake up and in my heart thank Rick Gore for his help.

21. Did the judge give my mother full custody of me?

Yes. In Yolo County I finally received the help that I needed and competent uncorrupt court officials who listened to me. The focus was finally upon me, rather than on what my father wanted.

22. Did my father invite two people from the cult-like Rachel Foundation when I went to visit him?

Yes. When I went to visit him for a weekend, they were at his house and tried to "interview" me. They hounded me outside my bedroom door for 3 days. I didn't eat or drink or leave my room at all during this time. At the time I didn't know their intentions but it just didn't feel right. I was angry and scared at the same time, but I stood tall and strong.

23. Did they try to get me to go to Maryland to their facility to be "treated"?

Yes. They were based in Maryland and later Texas. It was a mother "detox" center. My father had already purchased my ticket and had expected to transport me right away, as soon as he got the court's permission. He wanted to send me away from my mom, my sister and my brother, my step-dad and all my friends, without even a chance to say goodbye. I felt so betrayed by him that it was like he ripped my heart out and put it in a blender. Somehow I found the strength to say "No more." Even so, I was very scared, and refused to get in a car with my father because I thought he might try to send me to Maryland.

24. Did my father call the police on me?

Yes. When he said that I wouldn't see my mom again I lost it. I was so emotionally shaken that I broke dishes and I broke the door in so he couldn't come after me. He called the cops on me.

25. Did the police take me away in handcuffs?

Yes. They arrested me in handcuffs on a 5150 or suicide watch. I have never felt suicidal in my entire life.

26. Did the police take me to a mental hospital at my father's request?

Yes. I was taken to the hospital in Martinez, CA to the Psychiatric Ward. My father works in the same hospital. When I arrived, my father and Rachel Foundation people were already there. My father told them I was "psychotic" and pleaded with them to admit me into the psychiatric ward.

27. Did the hospital say I wasn't crazy, just mad, and let me go?

Yes. They couldn't understand why I was there. They told me so. I was next to drug addicts and schizophrenics, some of whom had committed crimes. In fact, some of the hospital staff were upset that my father would want me there, especially when he demanded that I be admitted.

28. When I finally got back to my father's house, did he lock me out in the rain?

Yes. After I was in the psyche ward my dad signed me in for voluntary foster care again. From there, I ran away from the voluntary foster care back to his house. I was going to give in and live with him because I was broken and couldn't fight anymore. I walked in the rain ten blocks uphill to his house and when I got there he wouldn't let me in. I stood outside for 2 hours in the rain and wind crying because I had nowhere else to go (because he refused to let me go to my mom's house). He called the cops on me again and they came and put me under house arrest because my dad said he feared for his family's safety around me. The next morning, I packed my bags and took the train to Davis where I hid with friends. My mom didn't know where I was becaue I didn't want her to be arrested for kidnapping.

29. Would a loving, protective, father lock his daughter out in the rain at night?

No. It's disgusting. He intentionally left me and watched me from his windows.

30. Did the judge put my father on therapeutic supervised visits?

Yes. We had counseling together.

31. Did my father come regularly to the supervised visits?

No. I tried to schedule visits for every 3rd week, even though I didn't really want to even see him. I thought... let's at least give it a try. He would frequently cancel; one time he canceled 3 months in a row. He only made it consistently on the weeks prior to court appearances. I've always said my Dad is more a lawyer than father.

32. What do I want from my father?

I want to be allowed to enjoy the last 1 1/2 years of my childhood before I go off to college and the real world. I want to enjoy life as a young adult. I want to worry about school, and shopping, and college and movies,and boys....not about court and my father harassing my mom. I want him to stop sending me to court. I want him to help support me financially without complaining about it. I want money for college. I want what all daughters want from a dad. I know I can't expect real love and respect from him, but at least he can fulfill his basic responsibilities required with my conception. He wants to ruin me. It's sad but true. All I want is to be out of court. My name is Fatima Alilre Loeliger and I am 16 years old. I think that is the least he owes me.

Posted on November 16, 2005 at 04:57 PM | Permalink

Comments

Man BABE. It's so amusing to watch you grasp onto this new pet peeve you've got going here. I suppose the courts, the judges, the transcripts ALL have it wrong and you're right. Whew...it must be a magical moment for you.

Even PBS has conceeded that an internal review has to be conducted and should be concluded within 30 days.

I know you never visit my site (much like Superman avoids kryptonite) but you may want to make an exception as, this morning I posted an article by Glenn that directly challenges you. Interesting reading! Come on over and don't worry...I don't bite...unless you ask me too.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 16, 2005 6:39:45 PM

DAYUM they are just everywhere lately, aren't they?

I thought gnats were dead once the frost hit.

Posted by: Moi ;) at Nov 16, 2005 8:45:36 PM

No frost here, yet, Moi, not counting that freak snowstorm a couple of weeks ago. We gottem gnats. ;)

I read Sacks' newsletter denouncing my "Breaking The Silence" web site this morning. He's spinning so much he's burning rubber. As I had expected, he doesn't address a thing Fatima has written and said. NONE of these fathers' rights activists are paying any attention to what Fatima Loeliger has written and said, including her own response to the web page Sacks put up about her, her mother, and the documentary. Abused children truly have no voice, as far as fathers' rights activists are concerned. They are ignoring that Fatima's mother has had custody of her since 2003, that she wants to continue living with her mother, and that she wants to spend the rest of her high school years living like a normal teenager. She wants the custody fight to stop. Fathers' rights activists are ignoring what she's repeatedly said in favor of bashing her, her mother, and the documentary. I'm not surprised.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 16, 2005 8:55:43 PM

Moi, you must be referring to the gnats your friggin' poodle and cat bring home. Try calamine for the bites.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 16, 2005 8:59:52 PM

"I know you never visit my site (much like Superman avoids kryptonite) but you may want to make an exception as, this morning I posted an article by Glenn that directly challenges you. Interesting reading!"

Don't waste your time with this site Trish.

It's nothing but a 'hate fest' against women...

He posts one horrible abuse or murder story every five minutes, all involving mothers as perps...when he runs out of stories in the US, he starts trolling other countries newspages to find more.

I (who he claims hates men) have never even posted stories like this about men one after another on my site, the way he does.

There are very few feminist or men's rights sites I won't go to (at least to lurk)..but Masculiste's is one of them that I don't even bother with...as it's nothing but a waste of time and a hate fest against women, especially mothers.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 16, 2005 9:13:41 PM

I think it's time that her and her mother started investigating legal action against the individuals and groups who continue posting these stories after she's spoken out TWICE already...

First time, you could say they didn't know; second time, it's apparent they have an agenda.

Her and her mother should check out that attorney Richard Ducote. He was the one who represented Alana Krause in a similar situation and guess what: that whole thing was over, the stories ended before most of the public knew what had happened...

Today to find out anything about that case, you have to dig very deep...

That Ducote good...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 16, 2005 9:22:51 PM

That PBS in caving into an "internal review" says less about the merits of the FR case, than about the politics afoot under the increasingly conservative pro-Administration people running PBS these days. PBS has become increasingly more timid over the years, and is deeply afraid of treading on the toes of powerful right-wing interests. Despite their docility, the right wing is still trying to kill them off for good, as a symbol of "liberalism." See the latest article in Vanity Fair on the history of attacks against PBS, starting with Tricky Dick.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 16, 2005 9:35:54 PM

"He posts one horrible abuse or murder story every five minutes, all involving mothers as perps...when he runs out of stories in the US, he starts trolling other countries newspages to find more..."

Well gee, I suppose if the news stories of such events are coming in every five minutes and from all around the world...then it's not an anomoly is it?

And if you never visit my site, how do you know what I post? What a barn animal you are.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 16, 2005 9:39:33 PM

How very sad. It hurts my heart to hear a story like this. There is really no excuse for this kind of abuse of a system designed to protect children. I understand that many men see their wives and children as property. I blame the patriarchy. But, to have the very people we depend on to protect against this kind of abuse of power is an outrage. Every time I begin to think we have come too far for children to be used and abused as I was as a child I see something like this and am reminded it is indeed all about power and the abuse of power. How very sad.

Posted by: rose at Nov 16, 2005 10:40:40 PM

"What a barn animal you are."

AND what a jack@@ you are...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 16, 2005 10:44:14 PM

Of course there are some violent crimes committed by women. However, depending on whose statistics you read, men commit between 80% and 90% of all violent crimes. The reason you see people like him posting stories about violent crimes committed by women is because it's unusual; it's NEWS. We couldn't possibly post about all of the male-perpetrated violent crimes... and who wants to?

Posted by: J.J. at Nov 16, 2005 11:38:08 PM

Well I don't care if they post it as a curiousity just to read, ala the National Enquirer.

HOWEVER they use these stories to try to 'juice' up other men and organizations to harrass people in power so they'll make public policy changes. That's the problem.

Even with this documentary that we are discussing right here, 1,500 mens' rights advocates (and female enabler idiots who support them) 'swarmed' PBS with emails and telephone calls to try and stop it being shown...

MANY of them being primed for just such an event for months by sites bombarding them with stories about women abusing children and getting away with it, women just having children to get child support, women 'raping' teenage boys and so on and so forth.

It's an attempt to smear women thorough these stories and then rally people to get public policy changes and laws passed based upon these smear campaigns...

AND sometimes it works...that's the problem.

It's really a hate campaign against women, particular mothers, PARTICULARLY single mothers, who due to these phony statistics and exaggerated stories they've put up have been demonized and painted as being responsible for everything bad that happens in this civilization from urban riots to hang nails.

AND it needs to be stopped.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 17, 2005 9:37:50 AM

You're right Trish--it's quite telling that none of these guys have addressed Fatima's statements that contest the FR spin machine. Then again, why listen to what the kid herself has to say?

It really is about abuser's rights--not about the kids. Sad. Unsurprising, but still sad.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Nov 17, 2005 11:13:14 AM

Trish, while you focus on the statements of a child even now later on in life, why is it that all of this was not brought out when the convictions were? IF in fact you yourself were not promoting a gender based war, adn legitimately gave a damn about the children, you would sensibly realize that BOTH parties are subject to the same scenarios.

Your Interest in all of this is purely egotistical. It is a high profile case that draws viewers your way. You yourself are equally as guilty of doing what you claim the "fathers rights" groups are doing.
There is no magic law that says 85% of all parents are abusers of unfit parents, nor is there any data to support such a claim. Where teh claim comes from is pretty simple, and pretty obvious if you do some legitimate national research using readily available information. IT is easy to make things appear in your favor when you used biased research material. There are however many statistics readily available to PROVE that this ideology you promote does in fact already exist, and has for well over 30 years.

If you gave a damn about the kids, you would strip the personal attacks between parties, between genders and focus on the real issue, which is simply put the dirty judges who make these ruling which go BOTH WAYS, the SCUMBAG Attornies who promote, build and profit from such cases, and those sleazy social workers who begin laying eyes upon your children the minute they are born.

Most of the language in this "statement" is beyond that of an ex with an agenda, not that of a victimized child as portrayed, however its your story and you are free to tell it however you like, Court Judgements seem to contradict you, Mom, and even the trumped up statement.

Maybe it did happen, or maybe it didn't... There are only two people who really know, but a movie based on allegations when court records PROVE otherwise is nto a wise step for any public funded broadcast network.

You want some "Junk Science" to attack, attack national statistics that say the arguments used to promote this agenda and the idea that Courts are awarding custody to abusers are false. When you can prove that courts are awarding more than 15% of custody cases to fathers at the national level, and then prove that 100% of them fathers are abusers, you will have accomplished something, until then you are only blowing your own horn, and really fooling NOBODY.

Posted by: Skeptic at Nov 17, 2005 1:51:29 PM

There is no magic law that says 85% of all parents are abusers of unfit parents, nor is there any data to support such a claim.

No kidding. She never said that, but it's so charming to see yet another FR shill twist Trish's words. Professionals in the field do contend that PAS has been used to help abusers gain custody. You all have yet to address that.

Where teh claim comes from is pretty simple, and pretty obvious if you do some legitimate national research using readily available information.

Were you FR folks to take your own advice. . .

IT is easy to make things appear in your favor when you used biased research material.

Yeah, because FR shills out there aren't using biased research materials at all, like the IWF. Nor are they twisting people's words, as they did in the case of the APA and PAS.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Nov 17, 2005 2:36:47 PM

"No kidding. She never said that, but it's so charming to see yet another FR shill twist Trish's words."
No Sheezebub, J.J. asserted that. Try reading before you start insulting. Honestly...do I have to be the only one here who has to show a little decorum in a debate?

Let's just backtrack for a sec...

In a letter to viewers acknowledging the furor ( father's righsters...no argument about that) the PBS acknowledge by their own research that the occurance of this problem, while relatively small, was worth doing a program about.

Again, I repeat...by their own research that the occurance of this problem, while RELATIVELY SMALL, was worth doing a program about.

No one, not one father's righster, has EVER denied that a certain small number of children are, in fact, given in custody to abusive fathers who use PAS as a convenient weapon. Although it is a small number, it is always a bad thing to award physical custody to ANY physically abusive parent.

However, in this case, the PBS backed the wrong horse. Because numerous juvenille court records, psycholical evaluations, judge's reports and recommendations, other victim's transcripts, Fatima's cousin's (who was also a victim) transcripts, as well as Fatima's statements herself to a CYS evaluator and that evaluators investigative documented conclusions, and finally the mothers own numerous admittions herself, ALL point to the mother as being the one who in fact committed the physical abuse. THAT was how she lost custody to begin with. These are things you all are ignoring.

It's interesting that, with this small anomoly that you are all getting on the bandwagon behind for a woman who actually WAS an abusor...instead of wondering why the PBS would take this woman's story with nary an effort to fully research that her version was accurate so as not to compromise the integrity of the message of the show...when certainly there must have been other women who've suffered this same problem that would have been much more representative of the problem itself. Could it be that there really wasn't that big a pool of women who've suffered this problem?

Now that said, in reference to the stories I post, while THIS relatively small problem has you all up-in-arms, the stories I post, you guys consider sensationalism, super market tabloid stuff, a relatively small problem that isn't worthy whatsoever of acknowledgement.

Who's REALLY ignoring the abused? Who's CLEARLY displaying a double standard? Who's being outright hypocritical?

A government funded network who's pledge and committment is supposed to be about fair and balanced reporting (you should be just as pissed as we are at PBS for picking the wrong subject to convey a story with valid concerns) backs the wrong horse and brings the whole issue under negative scrutiny...and you barely bat an eye. It's all fathers rightster's faults.

On the other hand the news reports that a teenage babysitter holds a 12 year-old boy down so that he can be raped (penetrated mind you) by a pitbull, the girl gets 2 years probation, and I don't hear a peep. You've all seen the stories I posted for yesterday yet you're all playing strangely silent.

Was it ME who wrote this in a novellette? Did I make this up? No, the news reported it. Like it reports these same types of stories day-in and day-out. But to this group, THAT'S sensationalism that shouldn't even be reported much less acknowledged.

When will you admit it? Women can and do abuse. They commit more acts of domestic violence than men by US Dept. of Justice statistics. And that doesn't account for the times that AREN'T reported. By that same statistical source, women commit more acts of child abuse than men, and that does not include abortion or women who are charged with drug use while carrying a baby. Even though this country has created laws that give moms the option to turn their babies into a police or firestation without fear of reprisal, we're still constantly finding newborn corpses in dumpsters and backyard trash cans.

I don't post these stories because I hate women. It's not even ABOUT that. It's the side that YOU all don't want to see. If you acknowledged and condemned willful ignorance of this sort of thing, I wouldn't have anything to post. I wouldn't need to remind people of what we already acknowledge.

When I first posted this PBS fiasco from Glenn Sack's site (we had a very pleasant conversation this morning...he says HI to you all) it struck me. Glenn links to Trish, he links to Fatima's televised statements AND documented statements as well as her mothers, from Trish's website and from here. So neither Glenn, nor I, nor anyone that I'm aware of is ignoring Fatima's message. Not ANY of them. And THAT'S balanced coverage.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 17, 2005 6:05:24 PM

Fleas? @@

Couldn't think of anything else to say? LOL

Posted by: Moi ;) at Nov 17, 2005 8:54:00 PM

That's funny Moi. How could I have not noticed that you carry a lot of info. on autism. My son is within the Kanner's spectrum of autism. I'm going to have to link up to your place and get some much needed information.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 17, 2005 10:45:57 PM

"On the other hand the news reports that a teenage babysitter holds a 12 year-old boy down so that he can be raped (penetrated mind you) by a pitbull, the girl gets 2 years probation, and I don't hear a peep. You've all seen the stories I posted for yesterday yet you're all playing strangely silent."

Can you imagine posting a story like this and expecting women to take them seriously?

Like if the number of abusive fathers who get custody is small, how small is the number of teenage babysitters who force their charges to have sex with animals.

Last week they were posting stories about lesbians who rape children...like how large is that universe...

His entire site is a hate fest against women...

Posting that story and wondering why we are silent about it is a perfect example of what I'm talking about...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 18, 2005 5:21:35 AM

Many people are driven to get involved with campaigns against womens' issues (like against VAWA and this documentary on PBS) by the stories posted on these hate-filled sites.

What they do is comb the news and pull out ALL horrible abuse and murder stories with women as perps, when they can't find enough to meet their quota in the US news, they will go abroad trolling other coutnry's news in an attempt to find more stories.

I don't consider any of the people who run these sites to be funny, amusing, friendly or cute in anyway.

They are hate-mongers and responsible for much of the venom against women that exists in the media today.

Even when you go on their sites, for instance, you will find stories about Natalie Holloway trying to blame her mother for not 'raising her properly' as the reason for her death...

This is the type of venom they sprew forth against women.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 18, 2005 5:31:46 AM

Blaming women who pick 'bad men' is kind of a red herring.

Yes, women should make better choices but it's awful hard to do that today when there exists such a large universe of devious sneaky dirtbags who do so much to cover up their true selves.

Like Sadia Loeliger's husband. He traveled all the way to Africa to pick out a young girl (she was 18 years old) and convinced her parents he was interested in marrying her. He forgot to mention to them that he was already married, thus, he sneaked Sadia in here on a student visa.

We have seen on this site that this is about the third or fourth case of this nature; where an American man has gone abroad to seek a young wife and try to pull these sorts of shenigans on them. We had the one who brought a girl from Russia (then claimed she was a former prostitute) and moved her kids thousands of miles away from her; then we had the girl from Ireland (who married an American enlisted man had a child, lost custody and was prompted deported).

Actually Fatima's case appears to have ended a LOT better then those other kids who God only knows if and when they'll see their mothers again.

So that's one issue. Sneaky dirtbags going to places where they aren't known and picking a girl from there.

Then there is the issue of thousands of years of social conditioning that pursuades women to marry men like this to 'change' them, make them better people. This helped societies in the past by ensuring that these dangerous men were safely made part of a couple, thus sticking the wife with the responsibility for him...and it was lifelong then...no easy out of divorce.

I saw many women in the Irish-Catholic community I grew up in stuck with some alcoholic loser and forced to stay with him through a combination of church/community/family pressure not to divorce.

So it's not quite as easy as you think to identify these losers early on...and there a whole lot of them as well...

You know how the Marines say, just a few good men...they're right.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 18, 2005 9:18:03 AM

Actually, I saw someplace on the net this morning (need to find where) that abusers buy flowers more frequently than non-abusers. It's one of those techniques look outwardly "sweet" but ultimately just confuse the victims ("Gee, how nice. Maybe he was just having a bad day. He didn't mean to punch me.") Unless people are educated on how abusers operate, ti will be hard for young women to know what's going on.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 18, 2005 9:45:56 AM

"Actually, I saw someplace on the net this morning (need to find where) that abusers buy flowers more frequently than non-abusers."

Oh I saw that too growing up...the jerk who spent his whole paycheck out drinking from Friday to Saturday night, then shows up Sunday morning spending the last few dollars on a bunch of ragged flowers for his wife...

Many a wife winded up braining him with a frying pan...but I don't consider that domestic violence but righteous justice, as frequently it meant their kids went hungry and she had to run around begging neighbors, family or even the church for rent money.

So that flowers thing is ooooold for abusive men to use.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 18, 2005 10:35:32 AM

Masculiste wrote:

Honestly...do I have to be the only one here who has to show a little decorum in a debate?

and

Who's CLEARLY displaying a double standard? Who's being outright hypocritical?

and (while addressing NYMOM)
What a barn animal you are.

The answer to the question of hypocrisy is clearly Masculiste!

Posted by: at Nov 18, 2005 11:48:31 AM

oops, forgot to sign in -- the comment regarding responsibility for hypocrisy was from me

Posted by: lee at Nov 18, 2005 11:49:57 AM

"No one, not one father's righster, has EVER denied that a certain small number of children are, in fact, given in custody to abusive fathers who use PAS as a convenient weapon. Although it is a small number, it is always a bad thing to award physical custody to ANY physically abusive parent."

Well, I've been following the FR movement for 10 years, and I've NEVER seen this admission before. Even criminal convictions don't prevent the FR folks from taking up somebody's cause. On the flip side, my impression has been that mother advocates are very reluctant to take up any body's cause unless she has a good record. You won't find me advocating that schizophrenic or abusive moms should have custody. Unfortunately, in a lot of these cases (like the SF woman the FR guys keep harping about), there doesn't seem to be any dad about. Or like a Buffalo schizo mom who killed her baby last year. Dad was also schizo, and had abandoned the family before the killing. If I had my druthers, neither one would have had the kid.

Or how about the example in today's NYT (NYMOM might have seen this). Sole custodial father murdered his daughter. She had been taken from mom because of cocaine being present in her blood from birth. Not a good thing. I would never argue that a woman like that should have custody, no questions asked. (As a matter of fact, she was eliminated from the picture and now lives out of state). But I would sure question why a guy with dad's history of violence should get her either. Normally, I see a real reluctance on the part of FR people to say, "No. That guy does not deserve custody of a child." Honestly, this is the first time I have ever seen it.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 18, 2005 11:50:56 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/nyregion/18girl.html

The link for the aforementioned case if anyone is interested: 7-year-old girl brutally beaten to death by abusive father with sole custody.

If you're the praying kind, say a few words for poor Sierra Roberts and her short and miserable life. May the Lord give you peace, Sierra.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 18, 2005 11:58:33 AM

By the way, if the FR folks mean what they say, they will publicly condemn NYC social services for giving custody to this kind of a ^%*,especially when there apparently was a loving foster family. (starting timer, foot tapping, checking watch, fidgeting, hair growing grayer...)

Posted by: silverside at Nov 18, 2005 12:02:30 PM

"On the flip side, my impression has been that mother advocates are very reluctant to take up any body's cause unless she has a good record. You won't find me advocating that schizophrenic or abusive moms should have custody. Unfortunately, in a lot of these cases (like the SF woman the FR guys keep harping about), there doesn't seem to be any dad about. Or like a Buffalo schizo mom who killed her baby last year. Dad was also schizo, and had abandoned the family before the killing. If I had my druthers, neither one would have had the kid."

Sadly this is the situation with MANY of these kids...both father and mother are screwups...which is why we can't judge parents too much from these stories. We have to remember that MOST of us are just ordinary parents, who are just divorcing/separating and problems exist, but neither one is a murderer.

As then what happens is like what's going on in the UK and here to a certain extent now to...where a father or even a mother who has done NOTHING wrong has to be treated like a criminal just because they happen to be the unlucky one who got tagged as 'non-custodial'...

And as you yourself know frequently becoming non-custodial is just the luck of the draw: who filed first, who the Evaluator was (more profather vs. promother). Sometimes it even comes down to whether or not one smokes cigarettes or something petty like that. Since most people fall in the average range of parenting, a Judge can wind up deciding based on very minor differences in parents which one will be non-custodial.

So I don't want to judge every parent by the ones who hit the front pages...

This is a sad case through, I hadn't read it yet but like you, I agree she should have been allowed to be adopted.

Too bad...although many drug addicted parents refuse to give their children up for adoptions. You would be surprised how many parents will leave their kids in foster care FOREVER even if they can't handle them...they won't give them a chance at a life with someone else.

I lived through that. I think I told you...from 5 years old in a school/orphanage run by nuns (with most of my brothers and sisters in their with me, 8 of us). My mother was NOT able to get me out until I was 14 years old and she took two of my brothers...and the rest of my siblings she NEVER got out...they just aged out of the system before she could handle a family again...

So that kid probably didn't stand a chance, sadly enough.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 18, 2005 12:28:53 PM

"By the way, if the FR folks mean what they say, they will publicly condemn NYC social services for giving custody to this kind of a ^%*,especially when there apparently was a loving foster family. (starting timer, foot tapping, checking watch, fidgeting, hair growing grayer...)"

Yeah...she might have even been better off in one of those schools with nuns like I was in...

I don't even think they have them anymore.

However those nuns would beat you too if you acted out or got bad grades, didn't do your chores, etc., but they stopped just short of killing you...

Seriously those nuns were pretty strict too...

I often told my daughters growing up that they would NEVER have survived my childhood especially with the smart mouth on both of them...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 18, 2005 12:34:07 PM

Also today, a Denver 6-year-old girl apparently murdered by custodial father. Mother, who lives in Detroit, hadn't seen the girl since father and his girlfriend ran off together with her children back in 2001.

http://www.9news.com/

Light another candle. This one for Aarone Thompson.

Meanwhile, back in Orange County, NY, Christopher Rhodes is still trying to argue that the blood all over his clothing was from one of his daughter's "frequent" nose bleeds. Ridiculous, the forensic people say. (Christopher Rhodes, another custodial father, is currently on trial for murdering his seven-year-old daughter back in the early part of the year. The mother, who has reported domestic violence, had also been banned from seeing the girl for years. And still the abuse continues. So far the mother has not been allowed to testify at trial and challenge the defense's line on what a great dad Chistopher is/was. Still silenced, even after her child lays in a grave with 16 stab wounds...]

Posted by: silverside at Nov 18, 2005 2:30:22 PM

"...So far the mother has not been allowed to testify at trial and challenge the defense's line on what a great dad Chistopher is/was. Still silenced, even after her child lays in a grave with 16 stab wounds..."

Probably she'll only be allowed to testify during the penalty phrase of the trial. In other words, he'll get a longer sentence probably when the Judge hears how he and his parents deliberately kept her away from her mother, then murdered her.

It was all so avoidable...

How come the grandparents weren't charged with something as accessories???? If it was a mother they would have charged her...even if she wasn't there when the murder took place.

But they'd have to drag me out of that trial everyday because I'd be yelling out telling his attorney he was full of it everytime he said it...


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 18, 2005 3:26:45 PM

Lee said-"The answer to the question of hypocrisy is clearly Masculiste!"

Please read the whole thread before youy make a comment about me.

And while you're all conveniently derailing the post and the comments to make your points, remember that no man or father's rightster is excusing the heinous acts committed by these men you're citing. No one is denying that these are horrific crimes and that these pieces of human waste should be put to sleep.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 18, 2005 4:20:09 PM

Wrong, Masculiste. Fatima's been adamant about the fact that she doesn't want to live with her father, and that he was abusive. Oddly enough, what she describes, and what Alanna Krause described in her lawsuit, fit with the PAS the FR folks love to rail against. Yet not one peep was uttered about the attempts to alienate those kids (to the point of throwing Krause in an institution and calling her mentally ill for refusing to trash her mother).

I have yet to see *any* of you guys go after a male abuser. Just a bunch of gosh, of course we would go after someone like that. But FR folks don't--they trash teenagers who publicly speak out about their abuse as liars. Go on, go to Courageous Kids and see some of the vitriol posted about those kids from so-called Father's Rights activists. No decent father I know--even the ones who have nightmare ex-wives--will have anything to do with you lot precisely because of crap like that.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Nov 18, 2005 4:36:07 PM

Glad to hear it.

However, my point is not that mothers and fathers don't kill. Empirically we know that both do, though generally out of different contexts.

It is to lay to rest once and for all the FR myth that fathers only kill when their authority or masculinity is "challenged" or "usurped" by the "little woman" or the courts.

These three cases show fathers who had the full control-freak/ abuser wet dream: full custody with mom pushed entirely out of the picture and with no say, whether due to intimidation or other issues. And it still wasn't enough. So little 6- and 7-year-old girls (the age when children, girls especially, start to push the boundaries of their own authority and autonomy) were killed as a result.

That's one reason why the abusers need to be examined very carefully when they make custody bids. Appeasing them with custody or visitation is not going to necessarily make things better. It might end up with someone's death.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 18, 2005 4:39:52 PM

"It is to lay to rest once and for all the FR myth that fathers only kill when their authority or masculinity is "challenged" or "usurped" by the "little woman" or the courts."

Heck I didn't know they WERE saying that, the idiots...

I really stopped listening to most of their crap a while ago, so I didn't realize they've were trying to blame MOTHERS for when fathers murder their own kids...

Geez...does it ever end with them.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 18, 2005 4:59:36 PM

You know...you people aren't even reading the photo-copied documents but you continue to debate this even after the cat is TOTALLY out of the bag, and these sensitive documents are available for public scrutiny. ALL of them. If you want, I can give you the links to the actual transcripts from ALL communications between CYS, Juvenille Court, etc. etc.

But the sad part is...you'll continue to ignore them. You won't even look at them. THAT is what bias and propaganda is...when balance, objectivety and a willingness to look at both sides before formulating a theory or opinion is completely thrown out the window in favor of ramming your one-sided views down everyone's throat.

But you know what? For shits-n-giggles, I'm going to link you to just a few...

Judge's order...
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-judge-king.pdf

Social Service recommendation...
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-juvenile-case.pdf

Juvenille court...
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-juvenile-case-2.pdf

Superior court...
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-fatima-placement.pdf

Sadia's domestic violence charge...
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-dv.pdf

Pscychological Evaluation...
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-quinn.pdf

Judge Phillips order...
http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-judge-phillips.pdf

I could go on and on...but then that would be redundent wouldn't it?

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 18, 2005 5:44:55 PM

Those are just statements asserting something without proof.
Just like Fatima's letters.

Posted by: soriass at Nov 18, 2005 11:49:26 PM

PLUS Fatima, herself, said that the professionals involved with the case were biased for her FATHER, thus making me think that you didn't read her letter. She even mentioned vacationing with some of the court officials involved...

It was the same thing with Alana Krause. Her father's girlfriend was actually the psychologist who wrote up the report which landed Alana in that dangerous juvenile facility where she got beat up...she could have been seriously injured or even killed in that place, raped, anything could have happened to her.

Why was she put there, to stop her from living with her mother, bottom line.

So should we bother reviewing that girlfriend's report for any insight into Alana.

Somehow I don't think so...

Both her and this Fatima Loeliger seems to have reached some critical milestone at about 11/12 years old or so, where people started listening to them as individuals and this is what seemed to set these events into motion.

Frankly in spite of all the psychological hoopla about abusive men being spun about here, I'll give you one thing, I don't think these men were particularly abusive. You know what I think they were: greedy. As I think BOTH of these cases were about a lawyer and a doctor wanting to avoid paying high child support.

As they would have been hit with a tremendous amount if they had become non-custodial...

Thus we must fix child support in order to avoid these situations in the future, as that is what much of this nonsense is about.

Just my opinion.

Of course everyone else will disagree.

But that's the heart and soul of these situations. NOTHING more complicated. WE make it more complicated by attributing more and darker motivations to these men, when it's all pretty simple...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 19, 2005 6:23:36 AM

You sound like a little brat. You admit to three differant CRIMES, running away twice and willfull destruction of private property, and you blame your dad for putting you in foster care! You should have been put in a detention facility instead. Your father also had a right to be upset when the district attorney sent you to your mom since your father had custody of you. Finally, Yes a loving father does lock his daughter out of the house in the rain. He does it when he fears that his dish throwing, door braking daughter might endamger her other siblings. It sounds to me llike your father is better off letting you live with your mother since you insist on acting like a monster to him and your siblings because they also must live with your bad behaviour.

Posted by: Jolene at Nov 23, 2005 10:32:25 AM

This was truly a sad story and my sympathies are with Fatima. She was the victim of abuse and neglect by both parents in my opinion. Both parents should be ashamed of how they behaved and it appears that they tried to alienate one another every chance that had. They were BOTH selfish in that they only wanted to hurt the other parent without realizing the effects that this may have on the child. It's a truly sad thing when a child is encouraged to hate any parent and very saddening when the child finally gives in to the hate. I pray that Fatima finds it in her heart to forgive her parents one day and that she accepts her dad back into her life. I am sure that both parents truly love their child regardless of the mistakes that they have made and the pain that they caused.

While I'm sure that the arguement between Father's rights groups and Feminists will continue for some time to come, I wanted to share this portion of an article written by one of your more fair minded feminists:

"It looks to me like the PBS documentary has taken a very complicated and messy situation in which both parents are at fault (though the mother is the only one with a fairly clear record of physical violence), and transformed it into a melodrama about a villainous father and a wronged mother," she said. "And this melodrama is put into the service of a narrative that vilifies fathers, most explosively suggesting that the majority of fathers who seek custody of their children are abusers. And that's just wrong."

I believe the producers of "Breaking the Silence" made an egregious error in casting a physically abusive mother as a wronged heroine.

"Breaking the Silence" may well contribute to misinformation on domestic violence and its impact upon children. And that is shameful.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.


She hit the nail right on the head!

I challenge you who are continually blindly bashing father's and father's rights groups to please understand the issues before passing judgement down on father's.
As a dad that had to fight against lies and false accusation's, I do sympathise with a good loving father's plight in the family courts.
Believe it or not but most father's are good one's that love their kids and want nothing more than to be the best parent that they can be. They want equal rights, equal time, and equal involvement in their child's life. Why is that such a bad thing?? I will never understand why feminists persist in trying to stop this from happening. Kids need their dad's just as much as they need their mom's. If you don't agree with this then I am sad for your children.

PBS documentaries that portray father's (or mother's) in a negative streotype should not be allowed to air. Don't let a few bad apples ruin the whole bunch.

Posted by: TS at Nov 23, 2005 10:45:06 AM

Yes, what a brat. She should be grateful to be called evil and worthless by her father and stepmother and thank God for the wonderful opportunity she had to see their physical fights. Of course a loving father locks his child out of the house. What a paragon of fatherly virtue.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Nov 23, 2005 11:07:14 AM

Well one piece of good news. Christopher Rhodes was found guilty on all charges in the murder of Jerica Rhodes. This is one abusive custodial father who will do no more harm.

http://www.recordonline.com/index.html

Posted by: silverside at Nov 23, 2005 11:28:15 AM

Silverside, do you have a better link? The Rhodes story has moved off the first page.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 11:36:17 AM

Y'all can complain about the documentary as much as you like. An internal memo from PBS that was leaked to fathers' rights activists shows that PBS stands behind the documentary. That memo instructed PBS employees regarding how to deal with the endless antagonism coming from letters, e-mails, and phone calls from angry fathers' rights activists. Good for PBS. The documentary is also being shown to legislators and others who deal with children, mothers, and contested custody cases, especially those that involve abuse. I know that the documentary is scheduled for special showings in 2006. I am glad to hear it. The documentary brings up an important issue that has been ignored for too long - abused children who are given over to the custody of their abusive fathers.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 11:39:31 AM

Countess,

People will say and do almost anything to win a custody case. When father's are accused of abuse in family court, many times than not, the accusations are false and are lies told as a means to win the case.
Those father's that are falsely accused win custody because the courts investigation and custody evalutation's deem the father the better parent, also a parent that will not lie and alienate the other just as a means to win.
Courts are just beginning to see what is going on. Good loving father's are finally being given a fair chance in family courts and feminists with their blind hatred are enraged.
Why do feminists streotype men and father's and mostly abusive uncapable parents?

Posted by: ts at Nov 23, 2005 11:59:47 AM

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/11/23/verdict0.htm

I'll post the article here, because you have to register to get access. If you decide to shorten or remove, that's ok.

November 23, 2005

Justice for Jerica
Rhodes guilty on all counts

By Oliver Mackson
Times Herald-Record
omackson@th-record.com

Goshen โ€“ People will ask "why?" for years when they talk about the murder of 7-year-old Jerica Rhodes, but a jury yesterday left no doubt about the "who:" The killer was Christopher Rhodes, who called himself Jerica's father.
Rhodes, 28, of Highland Falls, was convicted of murder and seven lesser felonies yesterday in Orange County Court. The jury delivered its verdict at 2 p.m., after about eight hours of deliberations over two days. The verdict could send him to prison for 29 years to life.
Rhodes showed no emotion at the verdict, heeding a warning from his lawyer that the judge would not tolerate any outbursts. His parents and his younger brother were a daily presence during the trial, but they weren't in the courtroom for the verdict. When they got the news from Rhodes' lawyer, Sol Lesser, outside the courthouse, Rhodes family members quickly got into their cars and departed.
The verdict arrived nearly 10 months to the day after Jerica's body was found on the morning of Jan. 27, in a boys bathroom at Sacred Heart of Jesus School in Highland Falls. Jerica, a first-grader, had been stabbed 16 times, an act of violence that thrust the little village into the national spotlight.
From the start of the three-week trial, prosecutors told the jury that they might never know why Jerica was murdered. Rhodes insisted he didn't kill her, and he even took the unusual step of taking the stand in his own defense to proclaim his innocence.
The jury didn't buy it.
"There was no motive when we began. There was no motive today. But at least today we have accountability, and that's more important," said Assistant District Attorney David Byrne, the lead prosecutor.
District Attorney Frank Phillips praised Byrne, who was prosecuting his first murder case, and John Geidel, a senior assistant district attorney who teamed up with Byrne and presented the prosecution's forensic evidence, including tests that showed Jerica's DNA was on the leather jacket that Rhodes was wearing on the day of the murder.
"As district attorney, I'm certainly gratified that the Orange County Court jury in this case returned a guilty verdict," Phillips said. "Certainly, the way in which we greet that is tempered by the fact that a 7-year-old child was viciously murdered by her presumed father at the time."
A few weeks after Jerica was killed, DNA tests showed that her father wasn't Christopher Rhodes.
Rhodes' lawyer argued that police settled too quickly on Rhodes as a suspect, mishandled evidence and conducted a "half-baked" investigation.
"I thought we had put in enough evidence and raised enough issues that there was substantial, reasonable doubt," Lesser said, somber-faced after the verdict.
In addition to murder and possession of a weapon, Rhodes was convicted of six felonies for concocting bogus letters that purported to be "confessions" to Jerica's killing by another inmate at Orange County Jail. Rhodes told the jury that he cooked up the letters out of desperation to get out of jail for a crime he didn't commit.
The phony letters backfired. Byrne pointed out to the jury that they contained details that only the killer could know, such as Jerica's muffled screams of "Daddy, Daddy" as she was stabbed.
The weapon was never found, which was another detail contained in the fake letters.
When Rhodes is sentenced on Jan. 4, prosecutors will ask Judge Jeffrey G. Berry to treat the murder and the bogus letters as separate crimes and impose consecutive sentences. That would expose Rhodes to a maximum sentence of 29 years to life in state prison.
His mother, Linda Rhodes, watched and wept when her son testified on Friday. When the jury got the case on Monday, a well-wisher from Highland Falls passed by her, lightly squeezed her shoulders and whispered, "May God be with you."

[If you go through the reporter's blog, you will also notice that Christopher Rhodes's current girlfriend took the fifth. I'm betting she knew about ongoing abuse, and didn't report it. Or about the murder itself. And that if she talked, "stuff" would probably happen.]

Posted by: silverside at Nov 23, 2005 12:28:53 PM

I see the Wendy McElroy readers are commenting here. She linked to this post (albeit halfway down, not from the beginning. Why do that? What does she have to hide?). She also linked to my web site about "Breaking The Silence". I don't mind different points of view, but please don't post entire articles you find elsewhere on the Internet.

I suggest you read Fatima's statement in its entirety, and visit my web site to see what McElroy and Sacks and other fathers' rights activists are ignoring. Sadiya Alilire has had custody of Fatima for several years. Fatima spoke out herself in "Breaking The Silence" about the abuse she experienced in her fathers' household. Fatima wants the custody case to stop. She wants to continue living with her mother. She wants to live out her remaining high school years as a normal kid. She can't do that if her father keeps taking her and her mother back to court over and over again, as he has been doing since the time she was born. This issue isn't about fathers. It is about abused children. In supporting McElroy and Sacks's side, you are ignoring abused children. The kind of treatment angry fathers' rights activists have been giving the documentary, Sadiya Alilire, and her daughter Fatima mirror what abused women and children go through in court.

PBS has also sent an internal memo to its employees instructing them how to deal with the onslaught of angry e-mails, letters, and phone calls from angry fathers' rights activists. Good for PBS. PBS isn't going to back down under the bully tactics of angry fathers' rights activists. It looks like PBS is supporting the documentary. I'm glad to hear that. You may read the memo on my web site.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 12:32:59 PM

"But there are few secrets in a town of 3,700 [i.e. Highland Falls, NY]. Rhodes' and his brother's arrests over the years โ€“ for drugs, for assaults, for domestic violence โ€“ were common knowledge."

This quote is from the mandatory "reaction of the townspeople" type article on the Christopher Rhodes murder conviction.

To the so-called liberal media: That's right. Domestic violence kills. Those who commit domestic violence are very likely to abuse children. Or kill them too. Do we get it yet? But I suppose I should be happy that they are now telling the truth about this creep.

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/11/23/verdict2.htm

Posted by: silverside at Nov 23, 2005 12:36:27 PM

ts: "People will say and do almost anything to win a custody case. When father's are accused of abuse in family court, many times than not, the accusations are false and are lies told as a means to win the case."

That's not true.

According to the two best and largest studies on the subject, false allegations of sexual abuse are rare -- in the range of 2 to 8 percent [1,2]. That means the other 92%-98% are meritorious, and this 92%-98% comprised the 152,400 *substantiated* cases on record for 1993 alone [3] (and, bearing in mind that child sexual abuse is a highly *underreported* crime, these are just the cases we know about).

1. Thoennes N, Tjaden PG: The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody/visitation disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect 14: 151-163, 1990.

2. Everson MD, Boat BW: False allegations of sexual abuse by children and adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 28: 230-235, 1989.

3. McCurdy K, Daro D: Current trends in child abuse reporting and fatalities: The results of the 1993 annual fifty state survey. Chicago: NCPCA, 1994.

-----

Rita Smith (NCADV) & Pamela Coukos (PCADV), "Fairness and Accuracy in Evaluations of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Custody Determinations", The Judges Journal, Fall 1997, Pp. 38-56:

"(...)Although both common sense and the prevailing legal standard dictate careful consideration of evidence in domestic or family violence when determining custody, allegations of domestic violence and/or child sexual abuse made during a divorce or custody proceeding are not always taken seriously. These allegations often are wrongly perceived as false because they are asserted in a contentious environment and because of the widespread myth that parents fabricate domestic violence and child abuse allegations in order to gain an advantage in court. When combined with the misuse of psychological syndrome evidence, the perception that a parent has fabricated the allegations often results in unfair retribution against the reporting protective parent. (...)

Using unscientific "syndrome" evidence can have serious consequences, and according to the American Psychological Association, in domestic violence cases, "psychological evaluators not trained in domestic violence may contribute to this process by ignoring or minimizing the violence and by giving *inappropriate pathological labels* to women's responses to chronic victimization." (APA, Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, 40 (1996)) The protective parent's mental "impairment" can be used to portray her as a less fit parent, and justify granting custody to the batterer. She may have to attend on-going mediation or marriage counseling with her abuser, endangering her further. In a worst case scenario, the diagnosis can result in the protective mother's loss of the child to foster care and even the ultimate termination of her parental rights. This can result in placement of the child back into the custody of the abuser, endangering the child further.

Unscientific syndrome theories also feed on a serious misperception of the rate of false accusations. In its Report of the Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, the APA confirms that, "false reporting of Family violence occurs infrequently... reports of child sexual abuse do not increase during divorce and actually occur in only about 2 percent to 3 Percent of the cases... even during custody disputes, fewer than 10 percent of cases involve reports of child sexual abuse (APA Report, 12). If Parental Alienation Syndrome were as common as Gardner reports - 90 percent of his caseload - then the reporting of abuse should be much more prevalent. Furthermore, the overall reported rates should be dramatically higher in cases where custody is an issue as compared with the general population of families. But studies examining this comparison do not find significantly higher rates of any abuse allegations raised during divorce or custody proceedings. (Cheri Wood, "The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Dangerous Aura of Reliability", 27 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1367-8, n. 7 1994) Moreover, these studies find only a very small rate of fabricated allegations in this context. (Nancy Thoenes & Patricia G. Tjaden, "The Extent, Nature and Validity of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody/Visitation Disputes", 14 Child Abuse and Neglect 151, 161-2 (1990) As the APA documents, "when objective investigations are conducted into child sexual abuse reports that surface during divorce or custody disputes, the charges are as likely to be confirmed as are reports made at other times." (APA Report, note 8 at 12)

-----

Pauline Quirion, Esq., wrote the following for a 1999 issue of the Women's Bar Journal:

"[t]he high frequency with which RO's [sic] are issued might lead some skeptics to assume that these orders are granted too easily for minor offenses and almost any man is at risk of being a defendant. The data from the new RO database in Massachusetts reflect otherwise. Men against whom RO's have been used are clearly not a random draw from the population. They are likely to have a criminal history, often reflective of violent behavior toward others.

Research suggests that false reports of family violence occur infrequently. Although many believe that women especially will lodge false charges of child abuse or battering against their spouses in an effort to manipulate or retaliate, the rate of false reports in these circumstances is no greater than for other crimes."

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 12:38:41 PM

It's no problem posting the whole article here, Silverside. I did ask you to find it for me. Thanks. What I don't want are fathers' rights activists coming here from Wendy McElroy's article spamming my comments section with articles. Fathers' rights activists often do that, and I won't tolerate it here.

I hate it when you have to register to read an article. I usually plug in 1922, say I'm male, and say my zip code is 90210 (Beverly Hills).

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 12:44:43 PM

You're welcome.

Speaking of false allegations... In the Rhodes case, the media from the very beginning tried to treat Jerica's mother like some sort of pariah, as if her story were simply "allegations." Chris is such a loving father, he couldn't have done this, blah blah blah. This particular article doesn't mention it, but the Rhodes family's penchant for abuse and control extended all the way up to the funeral, when they tried to block the mother from attending the wake. If that isn't the embodiment of abuse and control, I don't know what is.

Now that this guy is convicted, it's this ho hum, everybody KNEW he was a bastard who had been arrested for assault, drugs, and dv many times before. What would you expect?

What would you expect indeed.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 23, 2005 12:56:34 PM

Silverside, I followed that case, although I lost track of it towards the end. This article shows how her ex's family had been keeping her from her daughter for years. They tried to prevent her from having a private viewing. I don't know if she was able to do so. I think she was. Christopher Rhodes had custody of Jerica, right? He and his very influential family prevented Jerica's mother from seeing her. He had custody, and he still killed her. That's horrible.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 1:12:45 PM

Silverside, I found a blog that was covering the Jerica Rhodes trial.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 1:16:32 PM

"You sound like a little brat. You admit to three differant CRIMES, running away twice and willfull destruction of private property, and you blame your dad for putting you in foster care! You should have been put in a detention facility instead. Your father also had a right to be upset when the district attorney sent you to your mom since your father had custody of you. Finally, Yes a loving father does lock his daughter out of the house in the rain. He does it when he fears that his dish throwing, door braking daughter might endamger her other siblings. It sounds to me llike your father is better off letting you live with your mother since you insist on acting like a monster to him and your siblings because they also must live with your bad behaviour."

Well then good...

We finally agree on something. He should leave her with her mother.

Personally I think this whole thing is about money anyway. I don't care what the experts on either side say...

He's trying to keep from paying child support that's why he's trying to hold onto custody until she's 18...

Let's stop trying to complicate things here...many of these men are just selfish and stingy and it's the reason for a LOT of these custody fights today.

So I'm in agreement with you...leave this girl with her mother.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 23, 2005 1:26:27 PM

"Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada."

Sadly Wendy McElroy is also a dupe of the Mens' Rights Movement...

Last year some of them were threatening to kill her, so she locked her comments section on her Ifeminist site so you had to register in order to post comments...

This year the attacks continued (by the same bunch) so she closed the comments site down altogether...

It's sad how she keeps supporting these idiots even though she had to redo iFeminist TWICE in a year due to their activities...

Hello abusive men do exist, dearie...and they will try to shout you down and shut you up through any means at their disposal...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 23, 2005 1:35:07 PM

"There was no motive when we began. There was no motive today."

You do NOT need a motive when you are dealing with a drug addict...frequently they will do something like that and not even remember it the next day.

The bottom line is his parents should be arrested for endangerment for allowing him to be alone with this little girl to begin with...He was probably out drugging all night and tired the next day, he should NEVER had been allowed to be bringing this kid to school...He was probably tired and impatient and had the knife on him and she said or did some little thing that set him off.

If her mother had allowed a drug addict to pick up and bring her kid to school everyday and this happened, she'd be in jail facing the same charges he did...

I thing the grandparents here need to be arrested and tried as well...we need to stop these enablers like second wife, step persons, grandparents, etc., from enabling these monsters from getting custody to begin with.

If the child's mother had known what was going on, she might have been able to do something about it...They helped this Rhodes keep her in the dark on what was happening...they should be in jail for that too...aiding and abetting...accessories...

Just arrest the whole Rhodes family...and throw the key away...that's my opinion.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 23, 2005 1:44:51 PM

You can post different stories of bastard father's and all the legal articles you want. I could also post the same for bastard mom's and legal articles that will contradict your posts. This won't make any progress and really doesn't address the core issues that I'm trying to bring up here.

Let me start by saying that I am not affiliated with nor ever belonged to any FR groups. I am a father who shares joint custody with my ex-girlfriend (never married). I have had to deal with lies and accusations in family court, lies that were told just to simply win her case. When I first read her accusations on her court petition, I could not believe my eyes. I was appalled.
I then found myself constantly defending myself against her lies and at one point almost gave up because of the money and time that was spent in family court. Too many times this happens, and good father's do give up for those very reasons, not because they don't care about their children. These lies and accusations happen EVERYDAY in family courts, usually on both sides of the case.

Let me also say that I'm not blind to the fact that abuse does happen. Statiscally, it probably shows that it's men that typically are the abusers. Does this mean that Mom should automatically win custody in all cases? Does this mean that most men and father's fall into this streotypical view of being an abusive parent until proven otherwise?

Try to put yourself in my shoes. A parent that loves his little girl more than anything, always involved and a huge part of her life.
Things don't work out with the other parent and we split. Fine, things like that happen. Arguements and bitterness set in, next thing to do is go to family court and get custody rights established.
Next thing I know, I'm being accused of being phyically and verbally abusive to both my daughter (who was just a baby at the time) and to my ex.
This could not have been further from the truth. To this day I still care about my ex and have always forgiven her and have asked for her to forgive me for mistakes that we have both made. (none of which involved abuse of any kind).
But just because she wrote some crap on her petition, now I'm being threatend to have all my rights as a parent taken away. Most of the time the accuser succeeds in doing just that.

Not too long ago, mom's word was taken for truth and dad was streotypically labeled as an abuser without any proof. How would you feel if your child was taken away based on lies?

Today things are changing for the better, better for the child. Custody evaluations are being made and investigations are being done. Courts are finding false accusations for what they are and more father's are winning their god given parental rights.

When I filed my petition, it was for Shared custody. Why is it that feminists don't agree with shared parenting? If two people can act like adults and are both loving and responsible, what is wrong with shared parenting?? Please help me understand.

Since winning shared custody and both of us attending co-parenting couseling and classes, things have never been better. Our little girl is very happy and loves both sides of her family very much.

Now ask yourself this, what if this were 10 years ago and her mom would have won full custody based on lies?
This would have alienated me and my side of the family from my little girl and could have very negative effects on her while growing up. Would this have been within 'the best interests of the child'?

It is my greatest wish to have all family court cases looked at individually and not stereotypically. To have Presumed joint custody in cases where both parents are good people. Is this such a bad thing to ask for?? This is what FR groups are asking for, why do feminists not look at this as whats in the best interests for the child?

Posted by: TS at Nov 23, 2005 1:58:29 PM

Trish said-"Y'all can complain about the documentary as much as you like. An internal memo from PBS that was leaked to fathers' rights activists shows that PBS stands behind the documentary."

Oh puh-leeease! That statement was made BEFORE PBS agreed to do an internal investigation (that is being done right now) on the veracity of the research that was done (or wasn't done) prior to the airing of this program.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 23, 2005 2:20:35 PM

NYMOM: "Last year some of them were threatening to kill her, so she locked her comments section on her Ifeminist site so you had to register in order to post comments...This year the attacks continued (by the same bunch) so she closed the comments site down altogether..."

I forgot all about that. Thanks for bringing it up. Yup, despite the way she's been treated by father's rights activists, she still supports them. Talk about enabling behavior.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 2:20:44 PM

On some non-custodial mothers listserves, you see a similar enabling behavior from some of the moms who identify with Fathers Rights. Privately, many will admit they were beaten or otherwise abused during their marriages. Somehow they got out. Yet they still react like victims in these fathers rights meetings. The screamer types will start with the all women are b----s stuff, and no one calls them on it. The women themselves just cower, and say the same things they used to say about their husbands: "He's just in a bad mood. He doesn't really mean it. Really, he's a nice person." The women don't insist on respect for all the people there, and neither do the guys.

Contrary to what most fathers rights people might think, the majority of feminists very often behave like ordinary women. More often than not, even in a meeting for our county's domestic violence coalition, they are so thrilled to have men there that they just constantly flatter them. They also do not speak very frankly about abuse. It becomes very vague about who exactly is perpetrating the abuse, probably because we all want to be nice and not alienate anybody. Not only do they not berate men, they are just beside themselves that men actually attend the meetings.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 23, 2005 2:42:26 PM

TS, the point of the comments about Jerica Rhodes is that her case supports the documentary. Abusive fathers sometimes gain custody of the children they have been abusing. Jerica's father had custody of her, and that did not make her safe. He killed her. That's the point of the documentary - to protect children from their abused fathers. Sadly, Jerica Rhodes was not helped at all. She's dead.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 2:45:31 PM

Michael, assuming that there really is an investigation into the documentary (who knows? I'm not going to take Glenn Sacks's word for it.), that doesn't mean that PBS won't in the end decide that the documentary was valid. I know that fathers' rights activists are not being included in this alleged review. Besides, the documentary is being shown in many states to legislators and others who work with abused children and abused women. It's already been shown in several states. It's getting around. Word it out. The issues abused women and abused children face at the hands of abusive ex's and abusive fathers are out there now. I'm attending a conference next year where I'm going to speak on all these issues. Despite their efforts to debase the documentary, fathers' rights activists have not succeeded in shutting it up. They're quite angry about that, as anyone can tell who reads what they have to say about the documentary.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 2:49:33 PM

TS, I've already proven you wrong when you said "[p]eople will say and do almost anything to win a custody case. When father's are accused of abuse in family court, many times than not, the accusations are false and are lies told as a means to win the case." I provided valid research that disputes your opinion. Joint custody has been awarded in cases where there is abuse. The documentary deals specifically with cases where abusive fathers have been awarded sole custody of the children they have been abusing. Both practices need to stop, and hopefully the documentary will provide an education for legislators and professionals who deal with such cases.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 3:00:54 PM

Countess,

I understand the reasoning of posting these stories. It is very sad that the system has failed Jerica. But again, the problem is that these are directed at abusive dads only.
What about the mom that drowned all 5 of her kids? Or the mom that threw her kids off of the golden gate bridge? Sure, they were mentally ill, post-partum depression, ok.
It's funny how abusive mom's are given excuses and abusive dads are labeled as criminals. Double standard? yea i think so.

Children should be protected from abusive Parent's. Not Dad's or Mom's specifically, all abusive parents. That is the big problem with the PBS doc. They didn't mention anything about abusive mom's and only mentioned about how dad's are the ones that kids need protection from.

Yes, I agree that abusive father's gain custody of children when they shouldn't, it is shameful. But the same could be said about abusive mom's.

Stereotyping genders and roles needs to stop. Pitting Mom's Vs. Dads needs to stop. Both parents working together needs to be encouraged and laws and programs need to be put into place to make this happen.

I think that Father's Rights Groups and Feminists groups need to go to co-parenting classes. Really see shared parenting for what it is, then we would really see progress being made.


Posted by: TS at Nov 23, 2005 3:05:33 PM

TS, I've already proven you wrong when you said "[p]eople will say and do almost anything to win a custody case. When father's are accused of abuse in family court, many times than not, the accusations are false and are lies told as a means to win the case." I provided valid research that disputes your opinion. Joint custody has been awarded in cases where there is abuse. The documentary deals specifically with cases where abusive fathers have been awarded sole custody of the children they have been abusing. Both practices need to stop, and hopefully the documentary will provide an education for legislators and professionals who deal with such cases.

Countess,

you provided research from a female lawyer written in a women's law magazine. I'm sure anyone could find research that would debunk this.

I do however appreciate your point of view and I do agree that giving Sole or joint custody to anyone that is abusive needs to stop so long as that abuse is a proven fact. This goes for mom's and dad's.
If abuse is taking place in a joint custody situation however, the other parent will more than likely find out faster than in a situation where only one parent has sole custody. Then action can be taken much faster.

Posted by: TS at Nov 23, 2005 3:14:36 PM

What about the mom that drowned all 5 of her kids? Or the mom that threw her kids off of the golden gate bridge? Sure, they were mentally ill, post-partum depression, ok.
It's funny how abusive mom's are given excuses and abusive dads are labeled as criminals. Double standard? yea i think so.

What excuses? They're in jail. There was a huge, horrified outcry over their actions. And by holding them accountable, no one is crying about hatred for mothers. But by even speaking about abusers getting custody of their children, people are accused of trashing fathers. Which is a real slap in the face to the people who've been through it and spoke up about it.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Nov 23, 2005 3:14:37 PM

They are in Mental facilities, not jail.

People are accused of trashing fathers in the PBS doc, because they singled out father's. They didn't mention abusive mother's or even Fatima's mother's abusive past. (and yea I know this is still under investigation).

Posted by: TS at Nov 23, 2005 3:18:27 PM

Let me also say that I'm not blind to the fact that abuse does happen. Statiscally, it probably shows that it's men that typically are the abusers. Does this mean that Mom should automatically win custody in all cases? Does this mean that most men and father's fall into this streotypical view of being an abusive parent until proven otherwise?

No one here has ever said that. If you read anything Trish wrote, you'd see that she holds with the primary caregiver getting full custody if the parents cannot amicably decide upon the arrangments.

And the people in the documentary were talking about their specific experiences with abuse, and with the courts that disbelieved them and silence them, they didn't say that all men were abusers. Apparently, even talking about your experience and speaking out about your abuse is just horrible to all fathers now.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Nov 23, 2005 3:19:07 PM

They are in Mental facilities, not jail.

Andrea Yates was in jail until very recently. And you can't argue that she was sane--she shouldn't be out, but she was not an abuser who killed the kids to spite her ex.

The woman who drowned her two kids in the car--she's in jail.

People are accused of trashing fathers in the PBS doc, because they singled out father's.

Those fathers got custody, despite documented and witnessed abuse. Which was the point of the documentary. It's not about the best interests of the child, it's about dividing them up to make abusers happy.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Nov 23, 2005 3:23:23 PM

TS, you're missing the point. If the schizo mom in San Francisco had won custody against a mentally healthy, non-abusive father, that would prove your point. I haven't followed this story terribly carefully, but from what I have read, no father has shown up at all. No loving dad has come forward to collect the bodies of his children and grieve. That's the difference.

She was crazy, but he was a total no show.

Frankly, I dearly wish there had been some loving daddy who could have taken these children while this woman secured a permanent home for her self and got psychiatric help. I would have favored that 100%.

I know that there are children who fall between the cracks everyday. That is horrible. And despite your comments, mental illness is real. It's not that women are getting off the hook for being mentally ill. Andrea Yates is in prison despite a long, documented history of post-partum psychosis (not depression). And I believe there was also a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Apparently, you are either just incredibly ignorant about mental illness, or you just don't like that the fact that many female killers (for better or for worse) have long, documented histories of mental illness. Do you feel the same for male killers with mental illness? My feelings are exactly the same. As far as I am concerned, there is an essential difference between someone who kills in a state of schizophrenic delusion, who has been hearing voices and the like, and has been unable to get adequate care (realize that most health insurance has pathetic coverage for mental illness) vs. someone who cooly and "rationally" slaughters somebody because he or she is bothered. I see the difference, regardless of whether the killer is male or female. Do you?

But when children are DELIBERATELY put in harm's way by indifferent and/or incompetent judges and the usual gaggle of so -called experts, it is not only horrible, but a rank denial of justice. You had all the evidence before you of what had happened to this child, and what could happen to this child, and you placed that child with the abusive parent anyway. An absolute travesy of justice.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 23, 2005 3:24:33 PM

My problem isn't with the victim speaking out. I'm sure FR groups don't have a problem with that either.

The problem with that documentary was how father's were portrayed. Even in that specific case, they did not include the history of violence from the mom. It's sets a bad precedent in family courts to say that the majority of abusers are men. And no PBS didn't say that in so many words but the way the program aired, they might as well have.

Posted by: TS at Nov 23, 2005 3:30:09 PM

It seems to be a constant theme that whenever abused children discuss their abused fathers, fathers' rights activists immediately chime in with "what about abusive mothers?" That takes the focus off the topic - abused children discussing their abusive fathers. That's what the documentary is about. I'm not going to fall into the trap of talking about abusive mothers. Sheelzebub and Silverside already covered all that anyway. This documentary is about abused children awarded into the custody of their abusive fathers, despite trying to let everyone in sight know that they have been abused by these fathers. Those children are ignored. They continue to be ignored in a post ironically entitled "Fathers' Rights Activists Ignore An Abused Child". I'm not surprised. Fathers' rights activists want to deflect the conversation away from abusive fathers. I won't let them do that on my blog.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 3:32:44 PM

TS, the daughter, Fatima, has said repeatedly that her mother did not abuse her. Her own statement including that admission is posted in this very post. She said that she witnessed her father throw her stepmother up against the wall. She wrote: "Since I turned 13 three years ago, my father has placed me in voluntary foster care twice, called the cops on me five times, stolen 2 cell phones, repeatedly emotionally abused me by making derogatory comments towards my family and attempted to admit me to a psychiatric ward, attempted to transport me to a cult program across the country for "mommy detox", harassed my school, harassed my sports teams, defamed me in my local newspaper, defamed me on the Internet, sent a private investigator to track me and photograph me, stalked my friends, and, last but not least, denied me proper health care coverage. This man has accomplished all these things in my life in only three years. Prior to my teenaged years, my father has committed such atrocities as coming to watch me take baths naked while he records our conversations, cut me off from contact with my mother without contact for three years, and made me a prisoner in his own home. I cannot name all that my father has done to me because there are so many things that were I to dwell upon them, I would probably experience severe depression and a nervous breakdown."

Why are you ignoring what she has written?

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 3:37:47 PM

Silver,

I agree with you 100%.
Anyone that is capable of murder, whether it be cool and rationalized, or out of a schitzo episode, are mentally ill. The degree of how much someone knows right from wrong is what is usually argued in trials. Yates is going back to trial for this very reason, to figure out how insane she really was.
The BTK killer, knew right from wrong and has admitted to being a monster. He should be punished and is just evil, but he is also someone that I would call mentally ill.

Posted by: TS at Nov 23, 2005 3:38:40 PM

Countess,

This is from my post above...

This was truly a sad story and my sympathies are with Fatima. She was the victim of abuse and neglect by both parents in my opinion. Both parents should be ashamed of how they behaved and it appears that they tried to alienate one another every chance that had. They were BOTH selfish in that they only wanted to hurt the other parent without realizing the effects that this may have on the child. It's a truly sad thing when a child is encouraged to hate any parent and very saddening when the child finally gives in to the hate. I pray that Fatima finds it in her heart to forgive her parents one day and that she accepts her dad back into her life. I am sure that both parents truly love their child regardless of the mistakes that they have made and the pain that they caused.

While I'm sure that the arguement between Father's rights groups and Feminists will continue for some time to come, I wanted to share this portion of an article written by one of your more fair minded feminists:

"It looks to me like the PBS documentary has taken a very complicated and messy situation in which both parents are at fault (though the mother is the only one with a fairly clear record of physical violence), and transformed it into a melodrama about a villainous father and a wronged mother," she said. "And this melodrama is put into the service of a narrative that vilifies fathers, most explosively suggesting that the majority of fathers who seek custody of their children are abusers. And that's just wrong."


This last sentence is what has Father's rights groups in an uproar;

'...most explosively suggesting that the majority of fathers who seek custody of their children are abusers. And that's just wrong."'


Keep in mind that Fatima was how old when Mom allegedly physically abused her? 8? It is now 7 years later that she says that this never happend. If CPS was involved and Father was given custody then I imagine that they must of had some kind of proof, if not then CPS should be held accountable. It also wouldn't be the first or last time CPS has split families without any evidence of abuse.

Posted by: TS at Nov 23, 2005 3:52:46 PM

Well, no. All murder is reprehensible. But not all murderers are mentally ill per se. Some have distinctly sociopathic tendencies (meaning an absolute indifference to human suffering) but they are fully conscious of what they are doing. They are clearly attuned to their own actions and what is going on around them. They do not meet a general criteria of mental illness as it relates to the commision of a crime.

Others (typically those with schizophrenia) do meet that criteria.

BTK seemed to know exactly what he was doing. He appears to be a classic sociopath. And as such, he functioned very well. Leader in his church, the whole bit. Family apparently didn't even have a clue.

With Schizo Mom in SF, living in a homeless shelter, it's a little bit different of a ball of wax. And so it was for the father in Texas who killed his children some time back (He was hearing voices from god or something.) These tend not to be deliberate abusers, though they are often objectively guilty of neglect and often abuse. They are people who should have got help before their illnesses got to this point.

BTK would not have been helped by any psychiatrist. Sociopaths of any gender, from what I have read, are not changed by therapy or medication.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 23, 2005 3:55:41 PM

TS: " She was the victim of abuse and neglect by both parents in my opinion."

Yes, that's your opinion. Fatima states otherwise.

TS: "Both parents should be ashamed of how they behaved and it appears that they tried to alienate one another every chance that had."

Fatima has stated that her mother has never abused her. She had recanted earlier statements she had made about abuse when living with her father, who had told her lies about her mother. Both parents have not tried to alienate her from each other.

TS: "They were BOTH selfish in that they only wanted to hurt the other parent without realizing the effects that this may have on the child."

Fatima has stated repeatedly that her mother has not tried to abuse her. Read the documents on my web site that address that issue.

TS: "It's a truly sad thing when a child is encouraged to hate any parent and very saddening when the child finally gives in to the hate."

As she had when living with her father. She stated herself that her father had lied to her. She recanted any abuse allegations against her mother that she had made. They were inspired by her father, who refused to allow her to contact her mother for three years.

TS: "I pray that Fatima finds it in her heart to forgive her parents one day and that she accepts her dad back into her life."

That's very noble, but shallow. Read what she had read about what her father and stepmother had done to her. Why do fathers' rights activists make excuses when children talk about abuse at the hands of their fathers?

TS: "I am sure that both parents truly love their child regardless of the mistakes that they have made and the pain that they caused."

Are you excusing Fatima's father for what he had done?

TS: "While I'm sure that the arguement between Father's rights groups and Feminists will continue for some time to come, I wanted to share this portion of an article written by one of your more fair minded feminists:"

Great, more backpedalling... First, it's not "feminists" who are supporting Fatima. Most feminists don't have an opinion on this issue. While some who are feminists do have an opinion, not all who do are feminists.

TS: "It looks to me like the PBS documentary has taken a very complicated and messy situation in which both parents are at fault (though the mother is the only one with a fairly clear record of physical violence), and transformed it into a melodrama about a villainous father and a wronged mother," she said. "And this melodrama is put into the service of a narrative that vilifies fathers, most explosively suggesting that the majority of fathers who seek custody of their children are abusers. And that's just wrong."

Abusers often try to turn the tables on their ex's by accusing them of abuse. Fatima's case is no exception. That doesn't change the fact that Fatima's mother had never abused her. Fatima has said so herself. She has cited in her own words and in court testimony abuse in her fathers' household. Fathers' rights activists continue to ignore her statements.

The documentary in no way suggests that "the majority of fathers who seek cusotdy of their children are abusers". Have you actually seen the documentary?

TS: "This last sentence is what has Father's rights groups in an uproar;" '...most explosively suggesting that the majority of fathers who seek custody of their children are abusers. And that's just wrong."'

Where on earth did fathers' rights activists get that idea? The documentary is very specifically about fathers who abuse their children. It is not an indictment against all fathers. I wonder how many fathers' rights activists have actually seen the documentary? I figured that fathers' rights activists, who claim to want to support abused children, would stand behind this documentary. The children and young adults describe in their own words the abuse they have experienced from their fathers. Instead of supporting these children, fathers' rights activists have attacked them and the documentary. I'm not surpised, because I know that fathers' rights activism is not in the least concerned with protecting abused children. It's about attacking women, in particular custodial mothers.

TS: "Keep in mind that Fatima was how old when Mom allegedly physically abused her? 8? It is now 7 years later that she says that this never happend. If CPS was involved and Father was given custody then I imagine that they must of had some kind of proof, if not then CPS should be held accountable. It also wouldn't be the first or last time CPS has split families without any evidence of abuse."

Fatima had recanted the abuse allegations she had made, which were made under pressure from her father. She said as much. Her cousin had also recanted abuse allegations that she had made. People with the power to actually protect her have finally heard her, and are listening to her. Remember that abusers use the courts and junk science like Parental Alienation Syndrome to punish protective mothers and to continue to harm the children they have abused. That's what the documentary had highlit. Fathers' rights activists are especially angry over the documentary because it shows PAS for being the junk science that it is. That's one reason they attack it.

Why are you continuing to ignore what Fatima has actually said in favor of regurgitating fathers' rights talking points?

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 4:11:16 PM

"Her cousin had also recanted abuse allegations that she had made."

I missed the part about the cousin. If Fatima's allegations came from her father, where did the cousin's come from?

Posted by: Anne at Nov 23, 2005 4:24:21 PM

Anne, Glenn Sacks has that information on his web site, but he doesn't talk about it. Go to this page on Sacks's web site. The document includes this statement: "Faduma Sara [the cousin] denied all allegations during the course of this investigation."

Fatima denies abuse from her mother on the same page. The report says "currently, the minor denies any type of abuse from her mother." It also says that "By 5-9-97, the minor recanted allegations of abuse by her mother. The referral was closed on 11-26-97."

So despite being pressured into making allegations of abuse against Sadiya Alilire, and recanting any abuse allegations they made, the social worker chose to not listen to them to find out why they make those false allegations in the first place. My web site includes the story behind Faduma Sara making her allegations. Sara had never intended to mail it. This CPS letter of investigation details the story behind the letter. The entire letter is worth reading. It discounts everything Sacks has posted on his site. Plus, half of it is in Fatima's own words.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 5:05:33 PM

Trish said-"It's getting around. Word it(is) out. The issues abused women and abused children face at the hands of abusive ex's and abusive fathers are out there now."

That news has ALWAYS been out there. Hence the renewel of the VAWA (billion dollar plus cash cow which auspiciously doesn't contain specific language that includes kids or men)

No one has ever denied that this is a problem. But that isn't the point of the review and it's not the point divorced dads are trying to make.

This special uses a subject as an example, who was an abusor herself. It seeks to deny that women are capable of such abuse, it seeks to deny that actual PAS does in fact exist, and it's seeks to paint all dads who contest for the custody of their children, as abusors themselves. How disengenious can you get?

And in the face of all the overwhelming evidence that you've had an opportunity to review, now that the cat is TOTALLY out of the bag, you people continue to debate it, deny it and even suppress it.

Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it.

Remember that not only is the research that went into this program being currently reviewed, but if it is discovered that PBS violated rules of objectivety and buried sensitive info. about the abusive mother here, in favor of airing her story anyway, then the review of issues of child abuse, domestic violence, and parental alienation committed by this woman and other vindictive mothers will be sure to follow.

If it is determined that PBS cooked the books on this study, then you'll have to admit(or continue to deny...whatever your pleasure) that PAS did occur in this case. And if it occured here, then it occurs elsewhere. If it occurs elsewhere, then by defintion you have Parental Alienation. The syndrome thusly occurs when the child or children, like Fatima, effectively succumb to the alienation.

To say nothing of the fact that if it is determined by ANYONE at PBS or within the governmental agencies that fund PBS, that 'cooking the research books' occured, that will result in every leglislator who viewed this program so far, having to finally acknowledge what you and I already know...that PAS DOES exist, That domestic violence and child abuse ARE being committed by considerable numbers of todays women, and that something HAS to be done about it.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 23, 2005 5:32:30 PM

Michael, VAWA doesn't have specific language about abused men and boys because VAWA recognizes that the vast majority of abuse is committed by men against women. That doesn't negate violence against men and boys. It merely recognizes the truth.

I don't understand why you don't support the documentary. Have you seen it? it doesn't paint all dads as abusers. It's very specific. It cites cases, as described by the child and young adult victims, of children who had been abused by their fathers and given by the courts to their abusive fathers. I figured that you would support helping abused children, and making sure that their voices are heard. That these particular children and young adults talked about abuse at their fathers' hands shouldn't make you feel squeamish. If you are afraid that the documentary makes all dads look like ogres, rest assured that it doesn't. It's very clear what the primary focus is. It doesn't denigrate all dads across the board.

As far as Sadiya Alilire and Fatima Loeliger are concerned, both talked in the documentary. Fatima in particular talked about abuse in her fathers' household. I included court and other documentation about that fact. Why don't you believe her? It won't make you a bad guy if you do. I think you need to look at what she has said, and see the way Glenn Sacks and other fathers' rights activists have attacked her and her mother, and give her your support. I know you want to believe abused children. Why don't you believe her?

I think that once you actually look at the documentation available, read what Fatima Loeliger has said in her several statements, and take a good, hard look at the case, you'll side with Fatima. Remember that Glenn Sacks's own documentation includes statements indicating that Fatima and her cousin had recanted and denied any allegations of abuse against Sadiya Alilire. The case isn't as simple and as cherry-picked as Glenn Sacks has presented it on his site. He doesn't have all the information. I have a lot of information that refutes what both Glenn Sacks and Scott Loeliger have said. Most importantly, Fatima Loeliger has repeatedly stated that her mother had not abused her, she wants to continue living with her mother, she is doing well, and she wants the custody case to stop. She said she wants to live her remaining years in high school as a normal teenager. She wants her worst worries to be about shopping, school, and boys. She doesn't want to have to keep coming back to court when her father takes her and her mother back to court. She wants that garbage to stop. Why can't you support her in what she wants?

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 9:06:17 PM

I've seen the documentary and read ALL the documentation back-n-forth, up and down.

Juvenille court found that Sadia was abusive to the kids and to her husband, she admitted it herself, the documentation that you cited earlier demonstrates it, every social and judicial professional at the time testified to it and documented it time and time again...

You read a judge PREDICT that she would effectively alienate Fatima from her father, and she did. The documentation is like a paper shovel upside the head. But you STILL turn a blind eye.

You read all the reports that demonstrated that she attacked Fatima's babysitter, and that testimony was never impeached...and on, and on, and on. But you continue to cherry pick what you will or won't acknowledge from a child who has been, and continues to be coerced by self-serving groups that care about nothing more than how to benefit from the billions of unregulated dollars the renewed VAWA act will surely provide. That is what alienation is...a form of forced indoctrination. And that is the worst kind of abuse because it fucks with the child's mind. It forces the child to take a side against a parent. Exactly what Fatima has been tricked into doing now. I feel bad for the girl. When I talk to my own daughter, I hear exactly how it works. It breaks the child's heart and spirit because after a while the child doesn't know WHAT to believe. Once that happens, a cunning adult can convince a child of ANYTHING. And Sadia IS cunning.

Fatima's dad never sought to do that to her. He went out of his way to help Fatima re-establish contact with her mother in spite of everything. Thus a judge predicted Sadia would alienate Fatima from her dad, and damned if she didn't. But your pals here are indicting Scott for being frustrated and trying to reason with her at the hospital? I've been suckered into playing that same game with my ex.

I kept calling her in the beginning, trying to reason with her about the kids, and she kept telling me to go fuck myself, that they were HER kids and it was "none of my fucking business," So I would get upset...then she'd tell authorities that I was harassing her.

And I've said many times...everyone, including me, already ACKNOWLEDGES that abusive fathers can and have gotten away with murder in the courts by using false allegations of PAS as a means to do so, and that physically abusive dads do exist. This is no mystery. How many times, and how many ways do I have to say the same thing?

Now, by that same token, why can't you do the same? When you read a story like this, and you get information that the special DIDN'T give you...aren't you a little suspicious? Can't you see that when you put the WRONG case subject on a pedistle to make a valid point, that the valid point gets lost? Don't you understand yet that when you let bad women get away with this kind of thing that eventually the truth ALWAYS comes out. And when it does, it hurts every true female and male victim out there.

There is no "VICIOUS ATTACKS" coming from Sacks, me, Gonzo or anyone else. Sacks got the true scoop on Sadia and went public with it. She's not the victim here Trish, she's the victimizer now PLAYING the victim. PBS is being attacked because this information was reported to them, but they chose to bury it in favor of improving sagging viewership ratings and even worse viewer donations. But PBS, as a governmrnt funded (non-profit) organization ahs an ethical standard to maintain. And in this case, they SORELY violated that ethic.

And to Moi, or Silverside, or to whoever made the statement that this was a woman's special...that if the men don't like it, they should go make one of their own...
That is the attitude that created this shit storm to begin with.

Is you common sense going to believe the scenario that Fatima first accused her mom of abuse (again, I remind you that Sadia ADMITTED her abuse) but never, at the time, concurrently accused her dad of abuse of any sort in a place where she could have reported it in safety...but now, years later, recants and says her mom never abused her, but that it was in fact her dad?!

Sorry Trish but 'ya got took, hoodwinked, BAMBOOZLED!' And the sad part is that this is going to further damage women who are, in fact, victims of domestic violence. To say nothing of the fact that this is a text-book example of PAS if ever there was one.

You and PBS backed the wrong horse. You got duped, PBS did the duping. The money for this duping comes from foundations that benefit from programs like the VAWA. Sure, the VAWA doesn't specifically deny that men and children can and are abused, but it certainly doesn't specifically acknowledge it either now does it? Why isn't it titled the 'Violence Against Women and Children Act' or the 'Violence Against Family Members Act.' Why not acknowledge our seniors as domestic violence victims?

You damn well know the answer to that.

Why do I run the blog I run? To put in your face, that to which you continue to turn a blind eye to. The truth. Some women...not all, but some, are every bit as manipulative, violent, and brutal as some, but not all, men. And until you and government acknowledge that sad reality, you will continue to violate true victims all over again.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 23, 2005 10:23:10 PM

Just for the record, it should be pointed out that are federal programs dealing with the homeless are subtly biased in favor of men, so even if one accepts at face value that VAWA "favors" women, it would balance out the bias of other programs. HUD's Continuum of Care program has as its biggest funding priority the elimination of "chronic homelessness." This is defined as single persons who are homeless for certain extended periods of time as defined in the legislation. This basically means the street people you see in the major cities, who are mostly men.

Nothing wrong with that per se. I totally support dealing with homelessness. Still, I haven't seen any men's advocates speak on in favor of Continuum of Care and how it helps men (for the most part). Partly because I have never seen any interest in dealing with real issues. There is far more interest in destructive politics, e.g. destroying the shelters for women and/or eliminating their funding or "advocating" for a practically invisible group--men made homeless by domestic violence (a group that is apparently so infinitesimely teeny that it doesn't even register in one single study of the causes of homelessness). So the big number of homeless men in the cities, often with drug, alcohol and/or mental illness issues, gets funded to the tune of $1 billion a year for the entire country. Which sounds like a lot, until you realize that the war in Iraq is, what, $5 billion A MONTH? Where are all these men who say they care about men???

Homeless women tend to be in families and experience episodic, not chronic homelessness, very often from domestic violence. So those who work on these issues will find that Continuum of Care does not rank their work as a priority. Still, for all the advocates for homeless persons, many of whom are women and identify as feminist, I have never heard anyone say that funding for chronic homeless (mostly men) should be cut.

That's why so much of so called men's politics is purely rear guard. Purely destructive in orientation, and has no positive agenda.

You see the same thing with BTS. No straight forward positive agenda for dealing with child abuse at all. Just rhetoric and an effort to silence people who speak up against abuse.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 23, 2005 10:45:36 PM

Michael (Masculiste): "I kept calling her in the beginning, trying to reason with her about the kids, and she kept telling me to go fuck myself, that they were HER kids and it was "none of my fucking business," So I would get upset...then she'd tell authorities that I was harassing her."

Are you saying that you called Sadiya Alilire and told her how to raise her kids? If so, it's no wonder she told you to fuck off. You don't know her from Adam. She was right to tell you to get lost. The documents I originally had on the web site included her contact information, and I updated them with that information blacked out. I see now why that was necessary.

Michael, I have the information, and I know what's going on. Fatima was not abused by her mother. She admits as much. She states that she was abused by her father, and you'd rather blame it on alienation than listen to what she is saying. Thankfully. some professionals working on her case have finally listened to her. She's been in her mother's custody for several years, and she's doing well. That says a lot against what fathers' rights activists are claiming.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 11:06:34 PM

OK Trish...put DOWN the absynthe...now REEEEAAAD what I wrote!

"Fatima's dad never sought to do that to her. He went out of his way to help Fatima re-establish contact with her mother in spite of everything. Thus a judge predicted Sadia would alienate Fatima from her dad, and damned if she didn't. But your pals here are indicting Scott for being frustrated and trying to reason with her at the hospital? I've been suckered into playing that same game with my ex.

I kept calling her in the beginning, trying to reason with her about the kids, and she kept telling me to go fuck myself, that they were HER kids and it was "none of my fucking business," So I would get upset...then she'd tell authorities that I was harassing her."

No Trish, I did not contact Sadia. I was describing my experiences with my ex-wife over our children and the alienation that existed.

By the way...Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family. Happy Holidays all the way around! And take it easy on the hard stuff, 'kay? 'Kay!.
(tweek)

And Silverside, I'm not going to respond to your comment when what you CLEARLY intended to do is de-rail the central issue here. Very old, very tired. You've been hanging with the 'MOM' too much.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 23, 2005 11:41:33 PM

If Fatima says she wasn't abused by her mother, that proves
that she suffers from PAS. She trying to hide something. I've never met anyone who didn't admit that their mother was tough on them.

Posted by: srs-a31 at Nov 23, 2005 11:47:06 PM

"It is my greatest wish to have all family court cases looked at individually and not stereotypically. To have Presumed joint custody in cases where both parents are good people. Is this such a bad thing to ask for?? This is what FR groups are asking for, why do feminists not look at this as whats in the best interests for the child?"

Speaking for myself, I don't like it because I think men do it to not pay child support. Why should my baby be shuffled back and forth between households like an old football because you decided it's cheaper then paying child support.

Then many of you dump these kids off on someone else for your 50% of the time anyway. I want my baby with ME or someone I've approved of when they are not with me...not dumped off with some g/f of yours I don't even know, again, just so you don't have to pay child support.

Last point: if we weren't married, you're a nobody anyway to my child and should have no rights to begin with...

Just my opinion, others might feel differently...


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 24, 2005 11:20:16 AM

"And Silverside, I'm not going to respond to your comment when what you CLEARLY intended to do is de-rail the central issue here. Very old, very tired. You've been hanging with the 'MOM' too much."

No...her issues are very valid and relevant...

I could never quite put my finger on why the MRA's movement irritates me so much, but she just did...because none of your issues are really about helping men, but hurting women...

Like that VAWA...you really are just trying to take something away from women, you don't really care if it helps men or not...you just don't want women to have it...even though you have a BIGGER problem with homeless men and do NOTHING about it...

It's also why you all are harping on this PSB documentary...because you all have been painting a false picture of men as being discriminated against in court in custody decisions, even though it's not true. Actually men are FAVORED in family court (to the detriment of children), that's what this documentary points out...and why you all are so determined to discredit it, as you don't want most Americans to see that truth...

I know this abuse business is a small group, but that favoritism factor for fathers within the court system is NOT a small group...even in mediation fathers are favored, as many court systems now make you go to Evaluators even for mediation (if you don't settle right away)...

This PBS program shows how many court officials are biased against mothers...the GALS, Evaluators, Parenting Coordinators, social workers, Judges, etc., and that is ultimately how those fathers won custody...through a system biased against mothers...

So that's what's really bugging you people...that those phony and biased professionals who help you are being exposed...


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 24, 2005 11:43:46 AM

Thanks for clearing that up, Michael. I read your comment a couple of times, and I couldn't figure out who you were talking about. And I haven't had any absinthe in awhile. I like that stuff, but it's expensive. My drink of choice lately has been port.

Fatima doesn't have PAS. It's rather self-serving in its design. If a child speaks out about abuse, it's assumed the child had been coached by the mother. The child isn't believed from the get-go. That is supposed to be evidence of PAS. PAS is designed to ignore any claim of abuse made by a protective mother and an abused child. That's the way it works. Now that Fatima has recanted any allegations of abuse she made about her mother, and is speaking the truth about what had been going on in her fathers' household, that isn't proof of PAS. She's been speaking the truth about her father and stepmother for years, but no one listened to her until recently.

You have a Happy Thanksgiving, too. I baked two Amish pumpkin pies today. We're having turkey, candied yams (yum!), mashed potatoes, and maybe green beans. We're going to have fresh whipped cream with the pies. I'm so looking forward to it. My son is at his dad's for Thanksgiving, and he comes back Sunday. I found a great sale price on leg of lamb, so I bought one on Tuesday. We love lamb around here. I don't see leg of lamb on sale very often, so when it was I grabbed one real quick. My son loves lamb, and we're having it for dinner when he gets home. I'll probably bake some chocolate mousse on Saturday so we can have it for dessert on Sunday. My son loves my chocolate mousse.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 24, 2005 1:38:45 PM

The dad appears not to be blameless. BUT how do you account for the serious, frequent adverse court findings against the mother?

Conspiracy? corruption? I doubt it.

A tearful mother can make a stupid male judge believe just about anything.
All the custodial dads I know are too frightened to let the kids out of their sight.

The local shopping center is not littered with the offspring of single dads, left to fend for themselves.
It wouldn't be right for a dad to do this, so why excuse the mom?

My ex does it and it saddens me as the authorities appear to believe that any mom is better than any dad. Lucky my son spend lots of time with me - he loves it because even at 6 he can see that I am there for him - always.

Oh, I proudly support the children in TWO homes, she takes the default - work avoidance.

formyson

Posted by: formyson at Nov 30, 2005 5:37:33 AM