« The "Nipples Of Venus" Are Finished! | Main | Cool! I Made MSGOP!!! »

November 09, 2005

Statements of Sadiya Alilire and Fatima Loeliger

Sadiya Alilire and Fatima Loeliger are mother and daughter. Both have told their stories in the documentary "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories". Sadiya in particular has been under a relentless attack by fathers' rights activists who have called her a child abuser. In particular, Glenn Sacks and Wendy McElroy have engaged in these attacks. They are relying solely on old documentation provided by Fatima's father, Scott Loeliger. What fathers' rights activists are doing is continuing the abuse Sadiya and Fatima have experienced coming from Scott. Scott has found some enablers who are helping him do his dirty work.

Due to ugly attacks by fathers' rights activists against Sadiya and Fatima, Sadiya has taken it upon herself to provide details behind the abuse she and Fatima had experienced at Scott's hands. Below is her statement. I have reposted Fatima's statement below her mothers' so that my readers may have it handy.

Fathers' rights relentless attacks against "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" mirror the relentless attacks abused women and children go through all the time. By using our 70-293 and testking e-book facility, you can carry your pass4sure MB2-631 prep solutions anywhere along with you. The PMI-002 and testking VCP-410 tutorials are also accessible with free downloadable feature. It's very eye-opening to see how low fathers' rights activists will stoop to smear abused mothers and children.

Statement of Sadiya Alilire

11-08-2005

Overview

My name is Sadiya Alilire. I was formerly known as Sadia Ali-Loeliger. I am a very grateful woman, because I currently have my three children living with me and my husband in our home. My children are all great, happy, helpful and well-behaved kids. They are all healthy, and the two who are in school are both straight-A students. I am especially grateful that my oldest daughter Fatima, who is 16-years old, is safely living in my home. Throughout each of her 16 years, Fatima has been the primary victim of a vicious and unrelenting custody fight carried on against me by her father, Scott Loeliger. Despite that, Fatima is an exceptional child with a bright future (click here to read Practicing Medicine recent newspaper article about Fatima)

During the 16 years of custody fighting, Scott has accused me of unimaginable things. Every move he makes is calculated and planned, and always designed to better position him in his court arguments and emotionally, financially, and psychologically batter me and my loved ones or anyone who attempts to aid me. No aspect of mine or Fatima’s life is left untouched and unchallenged by Mr. Loeliger’s vicious custody fight. If Fatima gives him a birthday or holiday card or present, he saves it as a court exhibit to “prove” how much she loves him. If she doesn’t give him a card or present, it becomes “proof” of how I have destroyed their relationship and how she doesn’t “LOVE” him. I currently have sole legal and physical custody of Fatima, and Mr. Loeliger is allowed to see her only in a supervised visitation setting. Those restrictions were placed upon Mr. Loeliger because of the hostility, harassment, and constant arguing that he has instigated in his relationship with Fatima, and because of his repeated attempts to harass, lobby and involve anyone in Fatima’s life into the custody fight (teachers, school officials, soccer coaches, neighbors, and friends).

Throughout the 16 years of custody fighting, it became a regular pattern of Scott’s to falsely accuse me of “abuse”. He has repeatedly taken Fatima to Child Protective Services agencies in every county where she has lived, repeating the same allegations over and over again. Curiously, in the midst of all of his abuse allegations, on two separate occasions Scott has voluntarily given me custody of Fatima when it has been convenient for him[1]. When it is no longer convenient for him, he then turns around and drags me back into court, again reiterating his abuse allegations and insisting that he be given sole custody and that I be removed completely from Fatima’s life.

Scott is a highly skilled and unbelievably determined litigator. His latest salvo, undertaken through the website of Glenn Sacks, is merely a repeat of the countless and unrelenting allegations he has raised against me during each of Fatima’s 16 years. I have never abused Fatima or any of my children, or any other child. Scott knows this in his heart, but he never stops trying to label me as an “abuser”. He uses the term “abuse” because he knows it is an alarming term that will get attention. He has admitted that he uses this because he knows it is inflammatory and alarming. He does this in an attempt to deflect attention from his own actions, where he has effectively destroyed the relationship between he and Fatima due to his obsession with fighting over custody and his attempts to punish me for divorcing him. There have never been any criminal allegations or findings of abuse against me. Scott routinely exaggerates the custody case history and series of events and circumstances. He continues to take me to court on a monthly and sometimes weekly basis. Detailed below are my specific refutations of the claims that Scott and Glenn Sacks are now making against me, as retaliation for Fatima’s and my participation in the PBS documentary Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories.

Fatima and I are counting the days till her 18th birthday, which appears to be the only event that will cause her father to relinquish his unrelenting campaign against me. In the meantime, I continue to enjoy my children and my family and friends, and pray that they maintain good health and fortune. I also pray that the Yolo County Family Courts continue to focus on Fatima’s best interest, and I am confident they will. I wish my ex-husband, Scott Loeliger, well, despite all that has happened. I also hope that someday he is able to find peace in his heart and that he is able to once again enjoy a healthy relationship with our wonderful daughter Fatima.

History

I am writing this statement in response to the most recent publicity campaign instigated against me and my daughter by my ex-husband Scott Loeliger. For 16 years, Mr. Loeliger has engaged in an incredibly hostile and vicious campaign against me, usually carried forth through the California family court system. His unrelenting campaign has always been designed to punish me for divorcing him. During this time, he has accused me of unimaginable things, including being abusive to our daughter. He has never gotten over the divorce, and he has told me “I have made you, and I will unmake you.” Scott has always been a very manipulative and passive aggressive person, and he is very effective at pushing buttons to make people angry, and then turning around and immediately presenting himself as being “reasonable and misunderstood” (click here to read Quinn Report, Psychological Evaluation Report of Dr. Quinn). During our marriage, he often bragged about how well those skills served him in getting him what he wants.

Our 16-year old daughter has been the primary victim of her father’s campaign, as she has never been allowed to have a normal life. She has recently begun to speak out about this, as she is angered that her father continues to harass us and that he never stops dragging me and her to court (this is a child he didn’t even want when I first became pregnant). Fatima and I have a beautiful and loving relationship, and her father cannot accept that. He appears incapable of understanding that Fatima can love both parents at the same time. He becomes easily threatened if she shows affection or a desire to be with me, and then becomes hostile toward her and immediately challenges her about their relationship.

Fatima is a strong, intelligent, beautiful young woman, who needs to be left alone to live her remaining adolescent and adult life. She is an honors student with a 4.2 grade point average, and is excited about finishing high school and preparing for college life. Her sole wish right now is to have the custody fighting stop. In fact, that has been one of her primary wishes for a long time now.

My relationship with Scott was doomed from the beginning, because it rested on a foundation of lies he told to me. We met in my home country Somalia, dated, and formed a relationship. I was 18 years old at the time, and Scott was 28. After forsaking my parent’s wishes and marrying Scott, a man outside of my religion, race and culture. This marriage divided my family, as my mother strongly disapproved. My father gave his permission only after Scott promised him he would take care of me, and after he converted to Islam. I took a tremendous risk in marrying Scott, which except for having Fatima was a huge mistake. Shortly after relocating to the U.S., I found out that Scott was already married to a woman in this country. He had never told me about this; instead I found out when I learned that he had brought me to the U.S. on a student VISA, rather than as his wife (he filled out the paperwork at INS). Scott never apologized for being a liar and a polygamist, but I was foolish enough to stay with him when he promised to divorce his previous wife and to remarry me in this country. At the time, Scott told me that his then ex-wife was “crazy”, “abusive”, “dangerous”, “volatile” and “violent”, and that I should stay away from her. Little did I know at the time that he would soon be using the exact same language against me. His then ex-wife was also from Africa, as Scott loves to prey on people who place naïve trust in him. We had a tumultuous marriage after that, in which Scott continually argued and started fights, and he was very verbally and emotionally abusive. Our marriage ended shortly after our daughter was born.

The Custody Fight

In the 16 years since our marriage ended, Scott has never stopped taking me to court over custody matters. By my estimate, he has taken me to court over 150 times, forcing me to incur legal fees in excess of $300,000. This has never stopped, as there is a yet another court hearing scheduled. The animosity he exhibits and allegations he raises are just as nasty and fabricated today as they were 16 years ago. Scott has taken Fatima to Child Protective Services (CPS) in each of the four counties where she has lived prior to coming to live with me permanently three years ago. He has raised all sorts of abuse allegations against me, all of which are completely false, and refuted by Fatima’s own testimony. His allegations were also refuted by numerous family friends, school officials, investigators and others who had insight into our family life. Nevertheless, Scott has constantly badgered Fatima to try and get her to go along with his allegations. He did this to her even when she was a very young child, when he would “question” her about me and tape record her answers (sometimes when she was naked in the bathtub). Every professional involved in this case, and there have been many, has told Scott that the unrelenting custody fight is the single worst thing for our daughter (click here to read Clark Letter letter from Helen Clark, Fatima’s long-time therapist). Fatima herself has begged him to stop fighting and to let her have a normal childhood where she could be involved with both parents. He has never taken that advice and continues to instigate nonstop litigation. Just in the last year, he has taken me to court over 12 times. While I have always insisted that Fatima maintain a relationship with her father, and believe it important for her to be involved with both parents, Scott has at every turn attempted to have me excluded from Fatima’s life. She has developed a deep resentment of him because of this, and because of other things he has done to her.

The “Abuse” Allegations

Scott’s many and obsessive abuse allegations were always dismissed as groundless by the CPS agencies in numerous counties. I completely deny ever physically abusing Fatima or my two other children, or any other child. There have been no criminal allegations or findings against me. Scott and I both had findings of emotional abuse entered against us, due to the acrimony of the custody fight and the effect it was having on Fatima. Contrary to Mr. Sacks’s assertion, there have never been any findings whatsoever that I abused my other children. Those statements are complete fabrications.

In 1997 and 1998, I was a single mom working over 50 hours a week as a Rehabilitation Director for Locomotion Therapy. I was a highly respected member of the Porterville Community, and was nominated by the mayor to join the Porterville Leadership Program and was a member of the Porterville Soroptimists. I was making more money than Scott at the time. While this was going on, Scott was dragging me into court every week. Each time he would pick up Fatima for a visit, he would then call 911 and make false reports to the police claiming that my other children were “in danger” and “being abused”. The police and CPS were constantly showing up at my house due to Scott’s manipulative and malicious behavior, and it got the point where it became a joke between me and the Porterville police. Of course, it distressed my children greatly, but Scott refused to stop his behavior. In fact, it became a regular routine to have the police present every time Fatima was exchanged, because Scott insisted that they be present each time as a way to harass and embarrass me.

In 1997 and 1998, my niece was living with us and attending high school. My niece was a difficult teenager, and she regularly skipped school without my knowledge. When the school would call or write about her absence, she would answer the phone and pretend to be me, or take the letters written by the school and discard them before I saw them in the mail. I eventually found out about my niece’s behavior, and was planning to send her back to live with her father in Africa. When she found out my plans, my niece then started to make false allegations about me claiming that I had pulled a necklace on her. She pretended to write a letter to her father complaining about me. That letter is posted on Mr. Sack’s website. My niece never intended to send that letter to her father, and in fact she left it in the house where I would see it as she was trying to coerce me into not sending her back to Africa. It was one of many attention-seeking behaviors engaged in by my niece. While my niece later admitted what she had done and retracted her allegations against me, Mr. Loeliger came to possess a copy of the letter she had written. He was given this letter by an ex-babysitter of mine who I had fired because she was stealing expensive family heirloom jewelry from my home. I initiated and won a small claims action against her for that theft (click here to read Judgment). It is this babysitter, Doris Nava Arellano, who then later wrote a letter and declaration full of lies, claiming that I was abusive toward Fatima and my niece. It was later discovered that Scott had driven my fired, ex-babysitter 8 hours each way to his home in Red Bluff, where she had spent the weekend with him writing the letter making those false claims, and the declaration posted on Mr. Sack’s website. The letter and declaration were purposely and clearly patterned to repeat and significantly embellish the earlier false claims that my niece had made, which she had since admitted were lies. I also learned that Scott had paid my fired, ex-babysitter for helping him. Before any court proceedings occurred where I could challenge her claims, the babysitter disappeared and I was never able to find her (she had also lied to me about her immigration status, and I was told she returned to Mexico). She never appeared in court and never formally testified, yet Mr. Sacks and Mr. Loeliger falsely represent that she did. I was never given an opportunity to challenge or cross examine Ms. Arellano.

After he obtained these false claims from my fired ex-babysitter, Scott then violated existing court orders and took Fatima to a personal therapist friend of his in Tehama County, Randi Gottlieb-Robinson. The two of them are close friends. Ms. Gottlieb-Robinson subsequently became the Director of CPS in Tehama County. It is her “report” that is listed on the Glenn Sacks website, claiming that Fatima substantiated her father’s allegations against me. She wrote that report without ever contacting or talking with me, even though I was the custodial parent. At the time, Mr. Loeliger worked with Ms. Gottlieb-Robinson’s husband (now ex-husband). Scott and Ms. Gottlieb Robinson have both admitted in sworn testimony that they have attended numerous social and friendship functions together, including sharing family backyard barbecues and sharing cabins together while on vacation (click here to read Gottlieb Testimony testimony of Gottlieb-Robinson, and here to read Gottlieb Complaint complaint filed against her). I have also received unsubstantiated reports that the two of them had an extramarital affair. She is the unnamed “Shasta County” therapist cited on Mr. Sacks’s website. She continues to be the head of CPS in Tehama County, and in fact in that role awarded Scott another child through adoption. That child was taken from a young, single black mother by Ms. Gottlieb-Robinson’s agency under her direction, and then awarded to Scott and his current 60-year old wife (Christina Loeliger who is 10 years older than Scott) through adoption by Judge King in Tehama County (the same judge later sitting on my family court case in that county).

Armed with his “new evidence”, Scott again returned to CPS, and to court, this time in Tehama County, reiterating his claims against me, even though all of the incidents he cited were false and had already been dismissed by Tulare County CPS and the Tulare County Court. Investigations were opened again and the case went back and forth in both Tehama and Tulare Counties for many months. During that time, my niece was fighting for me, accurately denying that there had been any abuse of any sort in our home, either to her or to Fatima. Our daughter Fatima also denied all of the allegations. Still, the investigation continued due to Scott’s insistence and harassment. I regained custody of Fatima twice during this period. Nevertheless, after a huge trial, where 30 people from my community tried to testify on my behalf and were denied, Fatima was ultimately taken away from me and given to Scott. I was crushed. I was denied any communication with Fatima for over 3 years, based on the court’s findings. What were the court’s “abuse” findings? The court found that I “threw a shoe at Fatima” and that I “spanked her with a plastic coat hanger”. There were no findings about my other child, contrary to the misrepresentation posted on Mr. Sacks’s website. In fact, my other daughter who was 2 years old at the time, remained in my home throughout the “investigation” and throughout the time Fatima was taken away from me. The court made its findings despite the fact that both Fatima and I denied, and continue to deny that it actually happened. It did not happen, but Fatima and I have nevertheless moved on. Scott has not, and it is clear that he never will.

The Last Four Years

Beginning in 2001, I was reunified with Fatima and we immediately reconnected with the strong mother/daughter bond we have always had. After a short time, Fatima began to express her desire to live with me instead of her father. Scott could not handle that, and began to attack both me and Fatima. Predictably, we ended up in court again when Scott refused to allow me to even have visitation with Fatima. In court proceedings, Fatima told Judge King that she did not want to live with her father, that he is emotionally and verbally abusive toward her (telling her she is “worthless”, “evil”, “vile”, and numerous other unimaginable names). She also told the judge that Scott had physically struck his current wife, and that her adopted brother was repeatedly physically and verbally abused by both Scott and his wife Christina Loeliger. This testimony was further substantiated by one of Fatima’s teachers (click here to read Teacher testimony testimony of Fatima’s teacher), who testified that Fatima had confided in him what was happening in her father’s home, and he was so disturbed by it that he filed a report with the Tehama County CPS.

As court events unfolded, Fatima ran away from school and told the police that she could no longer live with her father. She pleaded to be allowed to live with me. As a result, Scott placed her “voluntarily” into foster care, under the control of Tehama County CPS, where Ms. Gottlieb-Robinson was and continues to be the Director. Fatima spent the next 6 months in foster care, and was forced to attend 3 different schools during her 8th grade year. During the same month that he placed Fatima in foster care, Scott accepted a new job in Martinez, CA, and made plans to relocate to a new community 200 miles away. Despite her clear testimony and preference to live with me, Tehama County CPS and Judge King did nothing for Fatima. In fact, she was scolded and harassed by Tehama County CPS workers Michael Coffron and Jennifer Mitchell, and told directly to lie to me about visits she was having with her father. (click here to read CPS Complaint letter of complaint written to Tehama County CPS). Even Judge King scolded Fatima rather than helping her, stating that he “would not allow a child to extort an order out of his court.” In the end, Scott was allowed to retain custody of Fatima and I was granted regular visitation.

Scott proceeded to move to Martinez. Fatima refused to live with Scott, and stated she would rather stay in foster care than live with her father. She stayed in foster care for another 4 months after Judge King’s order. At that time, Scott finally gave in when Fatima told him she would only agree to leave foster care and live with him, if she could then be allowed to live with me beginning the following August when school began. Scott agreed, and Fatima went to live with him in Martinez from April to June, 2002. She then split the summer spending half of the time with each of us, and moved to my home permanently in August, 2002. At that time, she began attending Junior High School in Davis. Fatima has been living with me ever since. Scott effectively granted me primary physical custody of Fatima at that point.[2] For the first several months after Fatima first moved here, everything worked fine and she visited Scott every other weekend. However, Scott then started to harass her during each weekend visit, constantly challenging her about their relationship, and why she was not “closer” to him. He also began to harass officials at Fatima’s school, and others such as her soccer coaches, family friends, etc (click here to read Soccer Coach Letter letter from Fatima’s soccer coach). He began talking to anyone who would listen about “the custody case”. Fatima was very upset by this, as she had been hoping for a fresh start in Davis after having spent 6 months in foster care the previous school year.

In subsequent months, Fatima reported that visits with her father became increasingly uncomfortable, because he was constantly coming into her room demanding that they “talk”, and claiming that she was not being respectful enough to him and his wife, and again challenging her about why she has a better relationship with me than with him. Fatima is a strong-minded young woman, so she and her father often ended up in confrontation and argument. Fatima’s weekend visits with her father proceeded this way, until the President’s Day weekend in February, 2003.

On February 13, Fatima went for her regular weekend visit with Scott. When we dropped her at the train station, we noticed that someone appeared to be taking photographs of us, but didn’t get too alarmed. When Fatima got to her dad’s house, he was there alone and his wife and adopted son were gone for the weekend.

The next morning (Saturday, Feb 14th), Fatima got up and there were two people she didn’t know in the house who introduced themselves as being from the Rachel Foundation. They indicated they wanted to talk to her. Scott apparently told her a little bit about why they were there. Fatima declined to speak with them and retreated to her bedroom for most of the day. They kept coming by knocking on her door and trying to draw her out but she declined. They left around 6 pm and then came back early the next morning.

The same scenario repeated the next day (Sunday, Feb. 15, 2004). Again Fatima politely declined to talk to the Rachel Foundation people. In the late afternoon, Fatima began to pack her bags in normal preparation of returning to Davis on the train. At that point, Scott came into her room and told her that she was “never going back” to her mother’s home, because she treated him “shitty” and the whole thing was “shitty” and that the “experiment” of living with her mom was over. He refused to let her leave and pushed her with the door when she told him to get out of her room. Fatima became very upset, and apparently broke a plate in her room, kicked the bedroom door and refused to come out of the room. At that point Scott called the Martinez police and reported Fatima as endangering herself. When the police came, Scott encouraged them to take her to the psyche ward. The police asked Fatima if she was going to hurt herself, and she said “yes”. They then handcuffed her and took her to the psyche ward at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (the same hospital where Scott works). Scott and the Rachel Foundation people were already there when Fatima arrived with the police. Scott pleaded with the medical personnel to admit Fatima to the psyche ward and at one point called her “psychotic.” The staff person on duty called me to let me know what was going on. He told me there was nothing wrong with Fatima and said there was no way she belonged there. He refused to admit Fatima but said his hands were tied to do anything else because Scott still had legal custody.

When Scott couldn’t get Fatima committed to the psyche ward, he then tried Contra Costa County CPS, who declined. He then took Fatima to the Northern California Family Center, which is basically a placement center for runaway and homeless children in Martinez. While there, Scott tried to persuade Fatima to again go into foster care. He indicated he already had a court hearing scheduled for Wednesday (Feb 18th) where “everything would be resolved”. As it turns out, Scott’s intended resolution was to have Fatima removed from her school, and shipped off to the State of Maryland to the Rachel Foundation headquarters for “psychological deprogramming” and “emergency therapy.” Fatima refused to go along with Scott’s demand that she again go into foster care. Instead, later that day she stated she wanted to return to his home. Scott refused and pleaded with her to go into foster care instead. Fatima left the Family Center and walked several miles in the nighttime rain to her father’s house, while he followed her in his car. When she got to his house, Scott refused to let Fatima inside, stating that she was a “danger” to him and his wife and adopted son (Fatima has never in any way threatened to harm anyone). The police were called again and ultimately forced Scott to let our daughter in out of the rain and into his house for the night.

The next day Fatima ran away from her father’s house, took the train to Davis, and hid with friends. I had no idea where she was or if she was safe. I got the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office Child Abduction Unit involved, to help me find Fatima and to make sure she was safe. Investigator Rick Gore got involved and began an investigation. He interviewed both me and Scott, concluding that Scott “appeared more interested in winning (the custody fight with me) rather than what was best for his child.” The next day Fatima came to my home, and Mr. Gore came and interviewed her. He and the Yolo County DA’s office elected to let Fatima remain in my home until ongoing court proceedings were resolved. (click here Gore Initial Report and here Gore Supplemental Report to read Gore reports on his investigation).

In the court hearing held in Tehama County, I prevailed and Fatima was allowed to remain living with me and to not be removed from her school. Scott was given every other weekend visitation with her. Jurisdiction was also transferred to Yolo County, where Fatima and I live. In the weeks that followed, Fatima reluctantly went to visit her father several times. She agreed to this despite the fact that she was incredibly angry with him over his attempt to have her committed to a psyche ward and to again have her placed in foster care. Predictably, the weekend visits did not go well, as Scott continued to challenge Fatima when she went to visit him. Each time she went to visit, Scott ended up calling the Martinez police seeking to have them intervene in arguments and discussions between the two of them. The last time Fatima was in her father’s home, in March, 2004, he called the police because she had taken a house key so she could let herself back in after she went for a walk. He insisted that the police force Fatima to hand over the key, but they refused to intervene. Scott has no qualms about involving the police, CPS, the courts, or anyone else in his relationship with his own daughter. This curious parental behavior is a primary source of most of the problems that continue to exist in his relationship with Fatima.

Under existing court orders issued in Yolo County during 2004, I have been awarded sole physical and legal custody of Fatima. Scott has been given a right only to see school and medical records, but no additional custodial rights. Given the acrimony in his relationship with Fatima, Scott is allowed to see her only in a supervised visitation setting where a court-ordered therapist is present. Scott continues to take me to court once or twice each month, but luckily the Yolo County Court is focused squarely on Fatima’s best interest, and she has been allowed to stay with me where she is thriving in both her academic and social life.

[1] The first time occurred in 1995, when Scott elected to relocate to Hawaii. He made that decision following some professional turmoil in his life, where a young woman and child he was attempting to deliver as a general practitioner, both tragically died. The second time occurred in 2003 when he agreed to let Fatima come live with me. In each case, he has accused me of abuse before, after and in between the times that he voluntarily gave up custody. Does that mean he is a negligent father? Someone willing to place Fatima with me when it is convenient for him? Or does it mean his “abuse” allegations are simply fabrications designed to quench his litigation thirst?

[2] This was the second time that Scott voluntarily gave me custody of Fatima. He also gave me custody of Fatima in 1995, when he decided to relocate to Hawaii. He made that decision following some professional turmoil in his life, where a young woman and child he was attempting to deliver as a general practitioner, both tragically died. It has always struck me as ironic that Scott has voluntarily given me custody two times, given his never-ending claims that I am an “abuser”. Does that mean he is a negligent father? Someone willing to place Fatima with me when it is convenient for him?


Now, for Fatima's story. Please note that she wrote this last year. Her statement is considerably newer than the one-sided documentation her father is circulating against her.

Fatima's Story
April 4, 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on November 9, 2005 at 06:21 PM | Permalink

Comments

All I can say is God bless this mother and her daughter that they have survived this monster..

AND I have to go back to what I said earlier...WE MUST BEGIN INVESTIGATING THESE MEN who go to other countries to get wives. They are obviously looking for women to take advantage of...

When will this end...

All I can say is I give full credit to this mother as some women would have gone insane under this kind of intense pressure.

It's a miracle her and her daughter both survived this...simply a miracle...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 9, 2005 8:10:06 PM

Indeed, from where I'm sitting,everything that this mother, Sadiya, and the daughter, Fatima, stated here
rings perfectly true, as far as the behavior patterns of an abuser.
It is well known that, while in the force-field of an abusive partner,
mothers' parenting abilities go down. Those abilities rise again once they are outside of the abuser's forcefield.

How fortunate that Sadiya and Fatima were at last able, at last physically, to escape
the toxicity of the abuser. How tragic, and how telling, that this toxicity
has pursued them across cyberspace. How good it is to see the two of them correct the
record and set it straight on this site.

Posted by: Dr. Mo Hannah at Nov 9, 2005 8:26:42 PM

Thanks for writing, Mo. I find the fathers' rights attacks against the documentary to be downright abusive. They are relentless, and they don't care about getting the facts straight. It's horrible that they've gone as far as to attack a teenaged girl. Did you notice that Sacks includes Fatima's testimony as a link on a page he calls "The Opposition's Side Of The Story"? That means that he views a teenaged girl's own story about being abused as "the opposition". Nothing that those people are doing has anything to do with helping children who are abused.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 9, 2005 8:49:18 PM

The most ironic part is that PBS apologized to them and said the documentary ONLY represented a small proportion of ALL DIVORCES, which is exactly what the creators, producers and everyone involved with the documentary said right from the beginning.

Yet they are now running all over the internet acting like this is a major victory for their side.

No one ever said this was MOST DIVORCES...

So they won no victory...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 9, 2005 11:17:53 PM

Statements of Sadiya Alilire and Fatima Loeliger was very interesting. I hope it's a lesson
to the millions of women who are thinking of marrying and having children with a monster. It's not a good idea.

Posted by: Stevie at Nov 10, 2005 12:49:22 AM

"Statements of Sadiya Alilire and Fatima Loeliger was very interesting. I hope it's a lesson
to the millions of women who are thinking of marrying and having children with a monster. It's not a good idea."

I don't think that anyone imagines that they are marrying and having children with monsters when they get into it, since the majority of women aren't.

Posted by: Mandos at Nov 10, 2005 1:18:06 AM

Abuse is so sad, nowadays in Malaysia we seem to be getting more and more cases
reported too. Just last week, they found a little girl scalded by her parents which
they intend to bring to justice.

Back to why I am here...Farmgirl and I are joint hosting WCB this weekend - a special get w
well edition for Clare and Kiri. Hope Oreo and Lucky will join us and do bring something to cheer
them up with.

Posted by: boo_licious at Nov 10, 2005 7:16:18 AM

Everyone tells me a I'm a great father. I finally saw this movie to see what the heck Glenn was talking about and I think he's nuts. I wasn't offended by this movie. It showed men who are abusive to women, not great dads.

Don't we want to expose the crap that some morons are doing to women? What kind of a man beats up on a girl? Or a mother? So Glenn Sacks you are complaining because these women are wanting this movie shown? If you want attention and for us fathers to have rights you really better start defending US, the FIT fathers. NOT these moron pisspots who beat women for kicks. In my opinion those men should lose custody!

Take the time to watch the movie and learn something Glenn Sacks.

I also want to thank Joe Torre for speaking up and exposing this crap that these minions are doing to women. Unreal.

As a man I do man things. REAL MEN do NOT beat up women or have sex with children.

Glenn Sacks get a real job you really suck at what you do. You make all of us men look f*ing stupid by asking for us to boycott this film. The only thing you are doing is gaining more press for them in the long run. Moron.

Posted by: Gino R. at Nov 10, 2005 7:52:20 AM

I wonder if this sickening ongoing abuse is legally actionable.

Posted by: Liliane Miller at Nov 10, 2005 9:19:19 AM

That's a good question, Liliane. What fathers' rights activists are doing, especially to Sadiya and Fatima, amounts to continued abuse. It might be harassment. I wonder too if it is legally actionable.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 10, 2005 10:10:28 AM

"Statements of Sadiya Alilire and Fatima Loeliger was very interesting. I hope it's a lesson to the millions of women who are thinking of marrying and having children with a monster. It's not a good idea."

Well these man deliberately go to places that are poor and recruit these women to come here. Sadiya mentions how her parents were a little wary of a 28 year old American showing up to court an 18 year old girl...

He also didn't mention that he was already married when he did this. So he winded up having to sneak her into the US with a phony student visa when, in fact, she should have come in as his wife.

This is becoming quite common actually...and it must be stopped.

I believe it is men trying to circumvent the legal rights women now have within a marriage...they do it to bring young girls over from other countries, who they then try to brainwash...

AND actually if these women are divorced BEFORE five years they can be deported...so if they have children before that five year period (when they become citizens in their own right) they might never see their children again after deportation.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 10, 2005 12:37:57 PM

"That's a good question, Liliane. What fathers' rights activists are doing, especially to Sadiya and Fatima, amounts to continued abuse. It might be harassment. I wonder too if it is legally actionable."

Trust me if it is, some lawyer will be on it before we know it...trying to make a few dollars off the misery of others...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 10, 2005 12:39:55 PM


As with all such stories, it is important to try to remain objective. This posting is not objective. It gives only 2 purported sides of a 3 sided story. "Breaking the silence" is not objective. Even before it was broadcast, its producers disingenuously claimed that to give 20% time to a 20% minority would be a gross over-representation of that minority.

Posted by: Jadd at Nov 10, 2005 1:58:48 PM

Jadd,
If two sides correspond and the other doesn't, I'm willing to bet the two sides have the stronger argument. I bet you wouldn't say that if the kid was siding with her dad.

Posted by: lou at Nov 10, 2005 3:27:13 PM

I ask the same questions as well. It would appear that Sadiya and her daughter Fatima might have grounds against Sacks, Scott Loelinger, McElroy, Phyllis Schafly and Fox News. Particularly Loelinger, who knowlingly attacked his own daughter and provided what appears to be false documentation all over the Internet.

There appears to be no question that Scott Loelinger preferred to have his daughter committed to foster care rather than allow her to live with her mother. One might further ponder--what kind of a CPS system permits something like that to occur? Looks like one in which a CPS muckety-much had a strong personal connection with Mr. Loelinger and lack of any morals or ethics. Sadiya and her daughter also might be well-served to consult with their state legislators about an investigation of the Loelinger connection at CPS and do a consult with the state disrict attorney.

Sacks and his ilk continue to conduct themselves in ways very similar to what domestic violence victims have endured with their abusers in custody litigation. It doesn't take one long to scratch the surface of a few of the names of various Father's Rights group "leaders" and members to find men with documented histories of abuse, substance abuse, child abuse and neglect and other crimes. Let us not forget the example of Lowell Jaks, the leader of Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights (ANCPR) who was convicted of kidnapping his child after years of harrassing the mother through custody litigation. Let us not forget all the Father's Rights members publicly blaming a domestic violence victim and mother for the actions of the DC Sniper. Their theory is if the courts would just give these types of stellar fathers (not) more custody and visitation, they wouldn't have to commit murder and suicide. Yeah, right.

Let us also not forget the archives of the "Father's Manifesto" of all those father's rights group leaders and members demanding full father custody, father as head of household and a repeal of women's right to vote. Oh yes, the public is supposed to believe that their motivation is all about the children. Go to almost any Father's Rights site and read long enough and you see the predominant issue for them is payment of child support.

Posted by: strawberrynote at Nov 10, 2005 3:39:01 PM

Well, we already know of one case where this happened--Alanna Krause sued her father for abusing her and the other people who enabled him in his abuse and ignored her pleas for help.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Nov 10, 2005 3:55:16 PM

"Well, we already know of one case where this happened--Alanna Krause sued her father for abusing her and the other people who enabled him in his abuse and ignored her pleas for help."

Yes, but she stopped short of the mark...by agreeing to let her father plead no contest...then I suspect a financial settlement was reached along with a requisite no disclosure of the details...

That Richard Ducote was her attorney...

The problem with this sort of negotiation and settlement is that NOBODY ELSE gets helped by it...

It's great for the victim as they don't have the trauma of testifying in court; but it's also great for the victimizer because they don't have to testify either, plus the details of the deal get sealed...

So it's almost like it never happened.

That's why the case 'died' and we never heard what the ending was...

So if cases keep being settled this way with acceptance of no contest pleads...we'll never punish any of the court officials who assisted these characters...

And BOTH of these men appeared to try and have their daughters committed to psychiatric facilities rather then let them go live with their mothers...

So we're dealing with a pretty sick bunch of control freaks here...


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 10, 2005 6:29:31 PM

Thanks for posting this!

Are the missing links, leading to various bits of documetation, going to be filled in?

Posted by: Ampersand at Nov 10, 2005 9:21:41 PM

I can't fill them in, Amp. They're acrobat files, and I can't upload those.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 11, 2005 7:48:59 AM

I was both Proud of this mother and daughter, also very saddened by their statments. This has got to stop, WE MOTHERS are not the enemy here, we are victims of the unbelievable control, manipulation, and deceit that these abusive fathers think we 'might'put up with.

WE carried these children, we KNOW them, are VERY connected to them, and this just goes to show that NO AMOUNT of seperation, NO AMOUNT of chaos, will ever seperate the 'bond' that The good Lord so very carefully, very graciously created "between a mother and a child".

And until family courts are educated, and enlightened, about the 'abusive father', this crisis will continue to 'perpetuate and grow' and family courts will be the ones 'growing' a generation of angry, confused, and anxious children.....

Who will be around to show love, and support, help our children grow into healthy adults, and always be there with unconditional love?? who will be there to pick up the broke pieces of the childrens hearts and help them mend ?? at ALL stages of their life ?
I would 'guess' it will be those mothers that only tried to protect our young in the very first place!!

It maybe easier for the courts to look at this senario: children usually will deny and try to make mom, or dad belive that " they did not do it" ~ ~ ~ ~ " really mom I did not eat the candy bar, I promise...." ~ ~ until MOM finds the wrapper....~ ~ we have all been there, we have all seen this 'defense' because they knew they have done something wrong....WELL, I see these abusive fathers doing the VERY same thing....only with more vicious forms of denial.

The only one they can even blame it on, is the loving mother that will never 'give up' ..( could they be jealous ?)
God put us in this role for a reason, he knew that we would always protect our childern.

Abusers do not have a 'sign' that we can readily see.. they are almost 'perfect' in the beginning, they exibit love, albiet pseudo love, and compassion, albeit pseudo compassion, seems they, along with being the abusers, are full of ;pseudo LIFE ...they actually believe thier own pseudo 'convictions'.

God bless this mother, and Daughter ~ ~ ~ God bless all of us loving, protective mothers....we are NOT pseudo anything ..we are the real thing !! that is why God allowed us the awesome ability to carry, give birth, LOVE and protect his perfect creations !!

I wish you peace...
julie....giasmom1@yahoo.com

Posted by: Julie Laurin at Nov 11, 2005 8:46:46 AM

And ohh by the way!!

What about the judges??
What kind of pseudo garbage are they themselves believing ?? Or telling themselves.
Seems a very messed up 'pseudo' sense of concern to me !!

" control" is such an ugly thing, we are not put on this earth to 'control' anything or anyo
anyone, but oneself !! If we each take care of ourself, and not worry about anyone else, it would be a pretty nice world.

Posted by: Julie Laurin at Nov 11, 2005 8:57:38 AM

I don't think those links matter Trish.

I get tired of people who demand official documents and statistical reports, graphs, charts, etc.,

Basically we have a young woman, 16 year old, telling us that what her father and his court official 'friends' have said is a lie...that her mother never abused her and she wishes to live with her mother...

She was 8 years old when this went on, OLD enough to remember such things and if she saids it didn't happen, guess what: I don't care WHAT anyone else saids or claims to document, I'm going to believe that young woman until SHE tell me differently...

I could care less if they had GOD show up at the courtroom with some statistical reports in his hands to testify on their behalf...

Remember, we are dealing with a group of people who are the MASTERS of producing phony statistical lies here...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 11, 2005 12:51:33 PM

Amp, I was able to post the PDF documents. I didn't think I could. They're linked on one of my newer posts up today. They're also on my web site. I expect more in the next couple of days, and I will post them.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 11, 2005 2:41:57 PM

Thanks, Trish!

Posted by: Ampersand at Nov 11, 2005 3:07:49 PM

I watched the documentary Breaking The Silence. PBS has my full support in airing it. I believe Sadiya Alilire and Fatima Loeliger. The way the courts have turned on Moms and children in this country is a tragedy. We must all Break the Silence to return to family values in this country.

Posted by: Susan of Connecticut at Nov 11, 2005 3:49:26 PM

I am glad that women are starting to come forward with this information. It is sad that men can be so manipulative yet daily they are awarded custodu away from good mothers. I know this because I am living with this nightmare daily. I have what is supposed to be our final custody hearing next week but like many others before me, I know this is only the first of many. My attorney even knows that this hearing will only be the first of many hearings we will have. When the judicial system starts to see what so many professionals have seen (Lundy Bancroft to name one) then children will be allowed to be children and mothers will not fear the wrath of an abuser.

Posted by: Neenna66 at Nov 11, 2005 8:21:02 PM

Thank you all so much for your support and help. It's touching to see people who are committed and able to see the truth. My and Fatima's story is a sad one, but in many ways we are incredibly lucky because we are together. This is yet another chapter in a difficult ordeal for us, but our foundation is strong. We really truly appreciate the support though. It's overwhelming to produce all of this documentation, but I'm so pleased that it helps others to see the truth. It's very embarassing to have all this stuff posted over the internet, but I guess God/higher powers want me to be here for a reason. I promise everyone that I will stand tall.

Incidentally, he did threaten to deport me if and when I divorced him.

Sadiya

Posted by: Sadiya Alilire at Nov 14, 2005 2:03:56 AM

You're very welcome, Sadiya. I do hope that the custody battles can stop so that Fatima can enjoy her remaining years in high school the way a normal kid would.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 14, 2005 7:16:20 AM

great article. intersting topic but all in all i like it.

Posted by: criminal background check at Nov 14, 2005 1:49:11 PM

Defend her all you want Trish. The facts speak for themseves. Sadiya was convicted of child abuse. Scott was not. Sadiya was denied visitation by the court, Scott was given custody. This case is the perfect example of PAS if there ever was one. Trish, I love the way you twist and distort the facts. You are a true artist. Bravo. Der Furher would be proud of you. Oops. That means father doesn't it? Go ahead, delete me. Won't change a thing.
Signed, your ever lovin' troll, Tony

Posted by: TonySprout at Nov 16, 2005 9:00:49 AM

Uhm, Tony, Sadiya Alilire has had custody since 2004. She has not abused any of her children, and she has never been convicted of child abuse. Fatima has stated repeatedly that she wanted to live with her mother, and now she does. PAS is junk science. It is not accepted as a valid medical syndrome by the APA. Fatima has spoken out at at least one conference about her experiences of abuse from her father and stepmother. She described the same in the documentary "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories". I suggest you read the documents on my web site. Don't rely on old, inaccurate documentation provided by Glenn Sacks. What you are doing is ignoring a teenaged girl's own statements about abuse she had experienced from her father and stepmother. Lots of fathers' rights activists are ignoring Fatima's own statements and siding with the father she claims has abused her. That's the main point of the documentary - children's voices are ignored in favor of siding with abusive fathers. Fathers' rights activists are doing exactly what that documentary said happens to abused children who are brave enough to speak out. They are ignored.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 16, 2005 9:30:15 AM

I find it sweetly ironic that you're now defending a woman from allegations of abuse, after having spent years vilifying men who have been accused of committing abuse, when there was far less evidence of their alleged abuse than there is of hers.

bg

Posted by: bmmg39 at Nov 16, 2005 12:56:42 PM

Gee, another person who ignores a teenaged girl who has stated repeatedly that her mother has never abused her, and who has stated repeatedly that she wants to continue living with her mother. I'm not surprised that fathers' rights activists are ignoring what a teenaged girl herself has had to say about abuse in her father's and stepmother's household, and who tells the truth about how life is going well while living with her mother. You folks are dreadful.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 16, 2005 1:17:16 PM

By the way, have any of you fathers' rights activists bothered to read Fatima Loeliger's response to Glenn Sacks's "Loeliger" web page and fathers' rights activists who have attacked her and her mother? I doubt it. Well, here it is. She's not very happy with what y'all have been doing. Maybe all of you should start thinking of the welfare of a child instead of continuing your attack campaign.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 16, 2005 1:25:02 PM

I apologize. Looking back over the documents, she was arrested and jailed for DV, but Scott dropped charges. See this "old" document.http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger-juvenile-case.pdf

She is a spouse and child beater,(documented) and you've taken up her case. Her counterclaim is undocumented.

Posted by: TonySprout at Nov 16, 2005 1:39:51 PM

Tony, knock it off. Your rantings are not welcome here. Go back to your fathers' rights forums where you belong.

There is no mention of jail in that document. Only arrest. Abusers know how to use the system to make their victims look like abusers. It does mention that both children denied and recanted abuse allegations. Sadiya is not a spouse and child beater. Read the documents I have on my web site that are in Fatima's own words. She has repeatedly denied that her mother has ever abused her, she has repeatedly described abuse in her fathers' household (including her father and stepmother hitting each other), and she has repeatedly stated that she wants to continue living with her mother. Her mother has primary physical custody of her now, and she wants to stay there. You continue to ignore what a child has been stating. I'm not surprised.

This documentary is about abused children, and how their statements describing abuse are ignored. Fathers' rights activists continue to ignore a teenaged girl's own statements about abuse in her fathers' household. That doesn't surprise me either, because fathers' rights activists aren't concerned with children's welfare. Their relentless attacks against the documentary and an abused mother and her abused teenaged daughter only prove that fact.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 16, 2005 3:00:42 PM

Yep. I find it telling that these "father's rights" folks are ignoring the abuse of children. They are showing their true colors. Despite all of their rhetoric that they really care about the children, they're calling abused kids liars and turning their backs on them. Not shocking, really.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Nov 16, 2005 3:55:08 PM

Oh, no kidding it is telling, Sheelz. I hope that their ugly actions will turn on them. They are completely ignoring a teenaged girl who spoke in that documentary, in court, to professionals, and even on the Internet about abuse she has experienced at the hands of her father and stepmother. Fathers' rights don't care about kids. I've always known that, but I've never seen them demonstrate that fact so clearly. I just posted Fatima Loeliger's statement she wrote after Glenn Sacks posted his web site attacking her and her mother. Fathers' rights activists should be ashamed of themselves over their atrocious behavior, but I'm not surprised that they don't see anything wrong with what they are doing.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 16, 2005 5:24:30 PM

Ok, I'll behave. You folks go right ahead and believe that father's rights groups advocate abuse. You're wrong. Father's rights groups hate child abuse; we hate domestic violence. We also hate the fact that modern family courts constantly rule and ruin men, in direct violation of the Constitution. My opinion is that feminists don't like to address the Constitutionality of a law unless it benefits them.
1. Deadbroke fathers are thrown into debtor's prison,when the court can not prove he has funds available. (This happens to non-custodial women as well). It up to the individual to prove they don't have the money. It's a proven legal fact that a person annot be thrown in jail for money-contempt charges unless the court has evidence of funds/assets in hand.
2. Child custody is a sham. The government, through their courts, removes leagal custody from mostly fathers. Child custody is not the government's business, it is the people's business. Legal custody of a child is a Constitutional Right, and no court is allowed to remove a child from a parent unless a jury trial is held and 12 good people determine that parental rights should be terminated. This right to a person's own children can no more be controlled by the government than than the right to free press. Feminists want to believe there are exceptions to the Constitutional right to to a child and have come up with false or misleading legal terminology, like best interests of the child. I happen to know from personal experience that having a father in one's life, fully, is in the best interests of the child. Any mother that doesn't know this or trys to circumvent it is a child abuser. What it comes down to, is their are lousy dads and lousy moms. Let a jury weed them out and everyone else gets shared custody.

The APA has no position on PAS, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore than ADHD before it wwas accepted. It hasn't been disproven.

I understand this blog is a nice warm fuzzy place for dad haters, and I'm out of place here.
If no one stops in to give an alternate view, all you have Trish's view. I want to thank Trish for not deleting my posts. It shows character. Sure wish iwas as edjeecated as her. She makes my head hurt.

Posted by: TonySprout at Nov 16, 2005 6:03:59 PM

TonySprout: "Father's rights groups hate child abuse; we hate domestic violence."

Yet fathers' rights activists ignore statements from a teenager about abuse she has experienced in her fathers' household, and ignores domestic violence experienced by a protective mother that was discussed in great detail on my web site.

Tony, how long can you tread water?

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 16, 2005 6:46:51 PM

Trish, I'm really trying to avoid getting personal here. But a number of us know from another blog that you previously involved yourself with a similar custody case that included abuse. The daughter in that case says that you are one of those who tried to take her AWAY from her loving father in order to deliver her back to her mother's house, where she had been molested and abused.

So you'll have to forgive me if I consider it rather audacious for you to accuse others of endangering a child for the sake of gender politics, when you did so yourself and in a much more hands-on way. If you now treat a daughter's statement (maybe coming from her heart or maybe coming from someone else) as the gospel truth, then where was this respect for a child's words when that child wanted to stay with her FATHER?

Posted by: bmmg39 at Nov 16, 2005 7:08:42 PM

bmmg, I have never been involved in any case where I had tried to remove a child from her father and returned her to her mother where she had been molested and abused. The "number of us know" know nothing. I don't know where you are getting this information, but it is false.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 16, 2005 7:39:41 PM

I see now that fathers' rights activists would stoop even lower now to slander me personally than to admit that Fatima Loeliger, a teenaged girl in her mother's care, has written about abuse in her fathers' household. She wants to continue to live with her mother, and she wants the custody case to stop. As usual, fathers' rights activists ignore a child who has written statements about abuse she has experienced.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 16, 2005 7:43:34 PM

Nobody is ignoring her comments Trish. As a matter of fact, we're pointing to them in furtherance of what a judge already predicted...that she would be alienated from her father if she took up residence with her mother. And she has. her words now accusing her father of abuse and ignoring her mother's admitted abuse. I checked it out Trish...those charges were never dropped. Glenn posted transcripts girlfriend...you can't argue with those. Unless you want to allege that they were doctored.

Again, for the record, PBS has conceeded that they are conducting a review of the research that was gathered prior to trhe production of this special, and in less than a month, we'll see what they have to say.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 16, 2005 8:27:32 PM

Michael, all fathers' rights activists are ignoring Fatima's statements. They're continuing to attack her mother and the documentary, and that means they are attacking her. It's rather low of you to attribute her own statements as "evidence" of PAS.

I read what Glenn said about this "investigation". No fathers' rights activists apparently are going to be a part of it, assuming there is really going to be one. The documentary is being shown to legislators in at least two states so far to educate legislators about protective mothers and children who allege child abuse by their fathers. Fathers' rights activists are terrified that this documentary will show them up for what they really are. They are not concerned with the welfare and safety of children, especially abused children.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 16, 2005 8:42:48 PM

"her words now accusing her father of abuse and ignoring her mother's admitted abuse. I checked it out Trish...those charges were never dropped. Glenn posted transcripts girlfriend...you can't argue with those."

OOPS! That's what I get for trying to talk on the phone and comment at the same time. Please note the correction...

"Her accusations against her father of abuse, and further ignoring her mother's ADMITTED abuse, are the crowning definition of what PAS is. And I checked it out Trish...those charges were not only never dropped, but she DID in fact admit to the abuse against Fatima AND against her husband. Glenn posted LOADS of transcripts, court documents, and clinical documents girlfriend.

You can continue to ignore them but you can't argue with them."

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 16, 2005 8:54:46 PM

Michael, did you notice that Fatima recanted, and her cousin denied the abuse? Those statements are included in Sacks' documentation. Have you read what I've posted on my web site; the updated and current documentation? This isn't a case of PAS, no matter what you or anyone else has to say about it.

I'm not surprised that Fatima's repeated statements have been ignored by fathers' rights activists. Thankfully, the District Attorney's office finally heard her. She has lived with her mother for several years now, and is doing very well. She wants to stay with her mother, and she wants the custody case to stop. She wants to be a normal teenager, and she can't as long as her father keeps her in court over and over again. Hopefully, she'll eventually get some peace.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 16, 2005 9:04:26 PM

Oh...and I guess Fatima DIDN'T say any of this...

The quotes below are from a 5/4/97 letter by a child abuse investigator for Tehama County.
"On 5/4/97 I received a report that Fatima Loeliger [then age 8] was afraid to return to her mother's home. I interviewed her at the Tehama County Sheriff's department at 3:30 PM on 5/4/97. The following is substantially what she told me."

"Fatima says she is afraid to go home because she fears being hit again. She also expressed concern for the two other female minors in her mother's residence."

"Fatima reports that over the last two months she has been hit with her mother's shoe which left bruises on her arms. A wire hanger also left brown marks on her arms or hands and her mother has hit her with open hand."

"Fatima also states that her mother routinely tells her 'you are stupid like your father'...her mother also calls her a "bitch " and yells a lot."

"Fatima reports that her cousin is hit with both an open hand and a closed fist which has left bruises and scars."

"I asked Fatima where she would live if she could choose. She said she would live with dad because he spends time with her and does things with her. Her mother is almost never home and when she is she is mad...she also appeared genuinely fearful of returning to her mother's care."

Or how about...
The quotes below are from a letter from a Marriage, Family, Child Therapist who has done investigations for Shasta County Child Protective Services and is assessing Fatima's reports of being abused by her mother.
"She [Fatima] told me she did not want to go home because she was afraid her mother was going to hit her. She said her mother hits her a lot, mostly with her shoe...and once with a hanger....Fatima showed me the spot on her arm where she had got hit."

"Fatima said Mom threatens her not to look or rub where she got hit 'or else I'm gonna make it worse.'"

"Fatima was not able to say how often she gets hurt but indicated it was a couple times a month, maybe once a week. Not nearly as much as Sara, her cousin, who 'gets hit a lot.' Mom is mad at her almost every day. Sara has a big bump on her head from Mom punching her and throwing something at her."

"Fatima also told me that he mother frequently curses at her calling her a 'fuck'n' bitch' and telling her 'you're stupid like your father.'"

Need I comment more? Or is it your contention that this is just doctored nonsense? What more do you need? Do you have any court documented dirt on Scott Loeliger? If you do, let's see it.

Who's really ignoring an abused child?

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 16, 2005 9:16:14 PM

Michael, the documents on Sacks' site said she recanted. She admitted to this in her own statements. She said her mother had never abused her. She described what living with her father was like in her own court testimony and in her own statements. I have numerous statements by Fatima, something Sacks doesn't have. I'd prefer to take her word for it.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 16, 2005 9:20:08 PM

Michael, I suggest you read Fatima's statement she made in light of Glenn Sacks' web site rather than continue to ignore it.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 16, 2005 9:25:16 PM

Re the Fathers Rights attacks on PBS...I happened to lead through the most recent Vanity Fair at the library tonight, and there's an article outlining this history of political attacks against PBS programming since the Nixon administration. Which is interesting, since if anything, PBS has probably become more timid over the years. So the FR folks join a long line of right-wing fruitcakes who been just besides themselves that even one tv network would provide even lukewarm liberal, rational, or "reality-based" programming.

Posted by: silverside at Nov 16, 2005 9:29:56 PM

"I promise everyone that I will stand tall.

Incidentally, he did threaten to deport me if and when I divorced him.

Sadiya"

It's time to start the good old American practice of 'sueing' everybody and his grandmother who continues posting these stories about you and your daughter.

It's sad but true that some people won't stop until you hit them where it hurts and sadly for many, that's in their pocketbook.

That attorney, Richard Ducote, got very good results for another girl who went through a similar situation Alana Krause.

Look him up in the phonebook and get him on it...

Don't wait...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 16, 2005 9:33:50 PM

Of course she's going to recant...she's been reprogrammed.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 16, 2005 9:45:59 PM

"Of course she's going to recant...she's been reprogrammed."

Sorry teenagers are rarely reprogrammed.

Actually it's notoriously difficult to reprogam them once they reach the age of 13 or so...

It's quite obvious that she (like your own daughter) has reached the age where the custodial parent (her father) can no longer lie to her and manipulate her against her mother as he's been able to do up to this point.

All his connections and degrees and syndromes are not going to be of any use to him any longer. He'll have to accept that now...his daughter obviously feel nothing for him and it's because he's a failure as a parent. Nothing to do with her mother, it's all on him...

As I've said to you and your associates many times, stop degrading mothers and just work on being better men and father yourselves...

Everything else will take care of itself...

That's what he should have done...too late now.

"The game is up now"...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 16, 2005 10:53:20 PM

You know NYMOM, you can lie, and scream, and post so you get the last word til you're blue in the face. It makes you nothing more than the ugly 'waste' that you continue to be. I will thank you to stop referring to my kids to make your pointless points. Blind people can't point out directions.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 16, 2005 11:39:03 PM

If you don't want me to respond to you, you should not post here.

You've been calling me names in every single post...I'm going to discuss this with Trish and see that it stops.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 17, 2005 9:39:53 AM

Would both of you please knock it off? I don't mind disagreements, but please don't bash each other in my comments.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 17, 2005 10:18:16 AM

"Trish, I'm really trying to avoid getting personal here. But a number of us know from another blog that you previously involved yourself with a similar custody case that included abuse. The daughter in that case says that you are one of those who tried to take her AWAY from her loving father in order to deliver her back to her mother's house, where she had been molested and abused."

BTW, just because somebody comes to a website and reads or gets a tip from it on how to conduct a court action doesn't mean the owner of the site is actively INVOLVED in a case.

I might post something that either a mother or father can use on my blog...if they do, does that mean I'm actively INVOLVED in their case?

That's kind of a stretch of the definition 'actively involved' isn't it...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 17, 2005 10:39:56 AM

This is my first visit to your site. It will most certainly be my last. I'm disappointed,but hardly
surprised, to find it is just what I expected it to be: a one-sided, "me,too" kind of forum where those
who balk at drinking your Kool-Aid (i.e. men) are belittled and told go go back where they came from.
If you all want to raise your kids without "monsters" lurking about waiting to abuse them, why not just
save future husband/father/abusers a lot of grief and just get yourselves some turkey basters?
I'm sure your pithy put-down will quick in coming. I won't read it 'cause I won't be back. I win!

Posted by: Beelzepug at Nov 17, 2005 11:08:00 AM

I doubt it's your first visit or your last, cupcake. You've gotten pissy enough to spoof my handle. I think you'll be lurking and whining and foaming at the mouth for weeks to come, if not years. Most of you silly trolls do.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Nov 17, 2005 11:15:33 AM

Beelzepug???? Oh for God's sakes, these moronic trolls should try something clever and original.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 17, 2005 11:27:24 AM

Out of respect for the Countess, and as a public apology, I am posting this thread from my site...
------------------------------------------------------------------
NYMOM said-"If you continue harrassing me with the name calling on Trish Wilson's site, I'm going to email her to have you stop.

I tolerate it on other mens' site because I know you all are a bunch of useless idiots who don't know how to act properly, but I'm not tolerating it in other places.

Just letting you know."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Masculiste said-"Do I have to copy and paste that thread to remind you again who started with who?

My daughter and I now enjoy a wonderful line of communication that has survived many years of attempted alienation conducted by her mother. My autistic son still lovingly remembers who I am. Don't ever again think that you can undermine that and not suffer my wrath.

But let's get something straight as long as you've made the trip here...

I don't like you nor do I respect you and I care even less what your opinion of me is. I began our interaction here with reasonable respect and sensible debate. You began the slinging of insults. You're the one who derails current issues and constantly tries to assert that POSTING THE NEWS is an act of woman hatred. You undermine men and fathers at every possible opportunity no matter how inane your arguments, nor insane your rants are.

You see only what you want to see, and acknowledge only what you want to acknowledge. You have absolutely no capacity for analytical thinking nor rational and balanced reasoning. Whether feminist or not, you are a misandrist in the worst possible sense.

I will not bow, nor will I back down from you. As far as harrassing you goes, if you leave me alone, I will leave you alone. It's just that simple. But I have no interest in whether Gonzo allows you to continually derail or disrupt his site, nor will I allow you to censor my thoughts or disagreements at Trish's site.

In spite of our disagreements on this issue, I will continue to consider her a good friend, and we will continue to disagree in a respectful and civil manner. So while you're busy e-mailing her in private, look forward to this particular thread being posted publically at her site."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trish, the purpose for me posting this is to assure you that I will always endeavor to respect your site, your opinions and your right to voice them. I have and continue to regard our ability to disagree as a model of what everyone can do when thoughtful reasoning and mutual respect occur.

On these issues, we may never agree, we undoubtedly will express our disagreements on these issues passionately, but I always consider and value your opinions, and admire and appreciate that you don't censor mine.

You may not visit, but you can always consider yourself to be a welcomed and respected guest at my site.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 17, 2005 11:56:29 AM

You are wrong. It is my first visit and I couldn't even get out of here before someone responded, and
accused me of spoofing their handle. For what it's worth, and to give you another reason to dislike me,
Beelzepug has been my Freeper name over on Free Republic for a number of years. It's the name of the little black pug that lives at my house. You are familiar with Free Republic, right? That's where all of us hateful
conservatives reside, hatching our evil right-wing plots to keep women and minorities down. Stop by. The welcome mat is always out for trolls.

Posted by: Beelzepug at Nov 17, 2005 12:07:19 PM

"BTW, just because somebody comes to a website and reads or gets a tip from it on how to conduct a court action doesn't mean the owner of the site is actively INVOLVED in a case."

Actually, I think bmmg is referring to something discussed on a thread over at Hugo's. I forget the specifics, but it sounds familiar--maybe it was about Gonzo's daughter? I'm not sure.

Posted by: Anne at Nov 17, 2005 12:10:12 PM

Thanks for commenting, Michael. I'd prefer that you and NYMOM take any disagreements between the two of you off my blog. We disagree on a lot of things, but I enjoy your comments here, especially about movies and TV. I visit your blog sometimes. I don't visit as many blogs as often as I should, but I do try to keep up with things. I tend to not comment, but I do comment on occasion. I just like to read.

I'm trying to finish off a novelette I started a few months ago. I'm having a bit of writer's block right now because I'm not sure what the next scene should be. I'm very close to finishing the book, and I'll see if I can get anyone interested in it. Novelettes are harder to sell, but some places do publish them. Keeping my fingers crossed.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 17, 2005 12:16:16 PM

"I don't like you nor do I respect you and I care even less what your opinion of me is. I began our interaction here with reasonable respect and sensible debate. You began the slinging of insults."

No I didn't...

Every single post you responded to me with recently had a sly dig inserted within it...from calling me a 'barnyard animal' to 'ugly waste'...

I tolerate it on other sites, like I said, as I know you all don't know how to act, but I am not putting up with it on this one.

You want to debate, debate, but knock off the sneaky name calling...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 17, 2005 12:16:43 PM

"Actually, I think bmmg is referring to something discussed on a thread over at Hugo's. I forget the specifics, but it sounds familiar--maybe it was about Gonzo's daughter? I'm not sure."

And I think that's been cleared up already...

Getting help from a website on the internet does not qualify as 'active involvement' in a case.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 17, 2005 12:18:33 PM

Alright! Everybody out of the pool!

Michael and NYMOM, I like having both of you here. I disagree with a lot of what you both write, but I enjoy having you comment. PLEASE take the personal attacks elsewhere.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 17, 2005 12:31:05 PM

"I doubt it's your first visit or your last, cupcake. You've gotten pissy enough to spoof my handle. I think you'll be lurking and whining and foaming at the mouth for weeks to come, if not years. Most of you silly trolls do."

Interesting...when I first saw the name I thought it was a family member of yours posting or something...kind of like the Count and the Countess.

Sadly I see now that I was wrong.

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 17, 2005 1:06:39 PM

Masculiste,

There are court documents detailing dirt on Scott Loeliger. Trish has them on her website. They include testimony by the teenager, Fatima, about namecalling and treatment she received from her father, and also stating that her father had abused his adopted son and his current wife. There is also testimony from a school teacher also talking about statements Fatima made about verbal and emotional abuse she received from her father. Both those sets of testimony pre-dated the King court order that Glen is siting as gospel predicting alienation. As I understand it, Fatima made those statements when she was in foster care and away from both parents. There are also reports written by an investigator in a DAs office talking about some of the same things. It sounds like Fatima has been talking about abuse by her father for a awhile now, but noone in the system was listening to her. We fathers should be careful in ignoring or discrediting what she is saying. From everything I've read, she's a very bright young woman.

Posted by: bayareadad2003 at Nov 17, 2005 5:16:04 PM

"...testimony from a school teacher also talking about statements Fatima made about verbal and emotional abuse she received from her father. Both those sets of testimony pre-dated the King court order that Glen is siting as gospel predicting alienation...There are also reports written by an investigator in a DAs office talking about some of the same things..."

I suggest you go back and re-read what you claim to be 'dirt' alittle more thoroughly. The Countess didn't copy and paste, nor link to any of what you claim you read.

Posted by: Masculiste at Nov 17, 2005 8:22:39 PM

It's hard to understand why there are people who lie and cheat like Scott. His actions from the start are already telltale signs that his partner is in for an abusive relationship. Apparently, the divorce has not changed him one bit.

Posted by: jena at Nov 17, 2005 9:51:25 PM

The comments regarding Sadiya and this situation are interesting. It is very evident to this reader that the great passion to support the mother in this issue stems from personal feelings, and apparently not fact or truth.

In my experience, when there is an issue/event that causes a deep emotional reaction, it is not discernment and objectivity that we use to filter our view of something, but gut reaction, and assumption, especially if we still feel wounded and hurt by that personal experience. I think we tend to filter through that experience, and deny what does not fit into the pattern of our expectations, its a natural *human* reaction to feel and want to feel empathy for others and a connection to others that have had like experiences.

I have read both sides of this issue, and I have to say that the evidence points to the mother as being the primary abuser of the child. The emotional abuse by the mother (especially her destruction of the child's positive personal relationships with others) is so obviously devastating to the child that I despair that the child will ever live a normal and healthy emotional life.

The psychology of this situation, if you would examine it closely, suggests a mother who is an excellent manipulator, but has a fury inside of her that breaks out in physical violence when attempts to control everyone around her fail. She is in desperate need of counseling. The child's need is to have a safe and loving home, which the mother is incapable of providing to her child at this time. So if you really care about the child, and really care about the mother - why aren't you talking plainly to the mother? Why aren't you suggesting a therapist, anger management, supervision? The child is so damaged now, she needs the same. To the mother, this is a war of control. An enemy had to be found, so the mother pointed one out (the ex husband), and everyone jumped in without thinking, or trying to understand what was really going on. It seems to me that more damage will be done by joining in the war with this mother, than would be done by trying to find out why this mother cannot stop abusing her child, or endangering those around her, why she needs to control, why she needs to be number one in this situation - the need for pity and recognition... isn't it really another way to play us all, manipulate those of us that *have* suffered abuse by taking advantage of our weaknesses as she has taken advantage of everyone around her?

The sad sad fact in divorce is that children, no matter how "smoothly" a divorce goes, are always wounded by the breakup of the family. When even one parent cannot be mature, kind, and cooperative for the sake of their child, it is the child that is torn to bits by the hatered and lashing out - if the reaction is through fear of loss, or a desire for revenge, the result is the same. I think in this case that the mother is so full of hate and anger toward her ex, she is willing to sacrifice everything to punish him, including her daughter, who has become a mere pawn in this sad affair. And sadly enough, you all have become pawns as well, buying into a lie and joining in the age-old war of the sexes, you have failed to see that in this case it is devastating reality that an abusive parent is attempting by any selfish means necessary to obfuscate the truth about what is really happening.

I think if one really wanted to protect the child, a very careful and objective analysis of all the issues and incidents of the affair would be necessary. Its very unfortunate that in jumping to a conclusion based on sex and gender roles, that some of the individuals who read and post to this blog are blindly jumping to the defense of this woman, a woman they do not know personally, a woman who was found in a court of law to have committed multiple acts of child abuse, and violence toward others. If you really wanted to help the child, and you really wanted to help the mother, I think you should look at the truth. Without the truth, you merely perpetuate the lie, and dig the graves of those that desperately want to live.

Posted by: Laura at Nov 23, 2005 2:07:52 PM

Laura, Sadiya Alilire has had custody of her daughter for several years now, and Fatima is doing fine. Fatima wants to stay with her mother, and she wants the custody case to stop. She wants to live her remaining high school years as a normal teenager, but she can't do that if her father repeatedly takes her and her mother back to court. "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" included testimony from Fatima herself where she discusses all this. I've included documentation on my web site where Fatima has also discussed abuse in her fathers' household, her statements that she had never been abused by her mother, her time in foster care (forced by her father), the time she ran away from her fathers' home, and the time her father tried to force her to be admitted to a mental institution. I'm not surprised that very few people are concerned about a child who claims she was abused by her father and stepmother. Instead, fathers' rights supporters are ignoring her. Not only that, they are attacking her, her mother, and the documentary.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 2:34:19 PM

Bayareadad, I agree with you that "fathers should be careful in ignoring or discrediting what [Fatima] is saying." I'm not surprised they're ignoring her, though. For some reason, fathers' rights advocates believe the documentary is an indictment against all fathers. It isn't. It's very specifically about abusive fathers who gain custody of the children they are abusing. That's certainly not all fathers. I would figure that fathers' rights activists, who claim to be all for supporting children, would get behind this documentary. They aren't. They'd rather attack it. Apparently, children who have talked about being abused by their fathers are to be ignored.

Posted by: The Countess at Nov 23, 2005 2:37:44 PM

Trish, as I said, in this particular case we should all be very careful before supporting this woman and believing her side of the story. If I had only read the portrayal of this situation as depicted here on your website, I may agree with you. However, I have also had the opportunity to read the other side of the story. I'm convinced that 1) this child was physically and emotionally abused by her mother (per the documented proof), 2) the mother is a skilled manipulator using her race, her sex, and those around here to push her agenda whenever possible, this is not a nice lady, this is not someone I would trust to watch my beautiful daughter, this is not someone who I believe is capable of providing for the needs of any child, 3) this child is in desperate need of psychological help to counteract the terrible situation of this contested divorce. This child is always faced, not matter which way she turns, with the loss of one parent – she loses her mother or she loses her father, she cannot have both. 4) the inclusion of this child in this documentary has further damaged her and fixed the building animosity (I believe fostered by the mother) toward her other parent (the father) - this mother has personal motives in participating in this documentary and is not primarily motivated to protect her daughter from further damage by keeping her out of it. This has also made be seriously question why the producer has not taken the lead and protected all minor children by limiting the participation to legal adults - but that's another topic.

My opinion is, after reading both sides of the story, and looking at the hard facts of this case as provided by both sides thus far, that neither of the parents are completely innocent in this situation. The real facts (not just what “he said” or what “she said” or what “the child said”) speak clearly for themselves. If we are to believe that the documented proof that this woman is violent and an abuser has been fabricated we must believe that the police, judges, psychologists, teachers, foster parents, and many many other individuals involved with this case are liars. I personally don’t believe that our world is in such a state that people who depend on their integrity and objectivity to keep their jobs (police, judges, etc.), would have participated in such a farce.

What is surprising in this case is that nobody has been outraged that the court system has allowed a documented abusive/violent parent to have custody of this child who is obviously in deep pain and is most likely very afraid of her mother and what kind of abuse she will suffer if she does not go along with the charade. Allegedly, it is abusive fathers that are getting custody despite documented facts of abuse - but this case alone belies the message that the documentary was trying to prove. Why are all these people, who support the message of this documentary standing behind the injustice in this particular case?

It’s fascinating to see that people who want to believe so wholly in something will discount fact/reality to support their beliefs. I feel, in this particular case, that many women's right's activists have been duped into believing the stories and manipulations of a liar - the mother - merely because she is female and had trouble keeping custody of her child. WHY she had trouble keeping custody should be of primary concern, and then WHY she has the child again, that should be the question.

I prefer to take the objective route in this case. I believe that people are awful toward one another, and do terrible things to each other in divorce. I believe that the child suffers, no matter how "amicable" the divorce may be. In cases where there is violence, I don't believe that gender should obscure our ablity to see the truth, because its supposed to be about protecting the child, its not supposed to be about the women's movement. And even if it is about the women's movement - what about that young girl who is going to grow up into a woman, shouldn't she be protected from violence and abuse, even if it does come from another female? An interesting exercise to try, and you may find it instructive in this case, is to reverse the sexes of the parents, and then ask yourself "if this mother were really a father, how would I feel about the evidence and the statements made?" It helps put a little perspective on our own biases about gender and makes us see a little be clearly that maybe, just maybe WE don't have the best interests of the child at heart when we apply feminist principals to a situation that should require the application of blind justice.

Posted by: Laura at Dec 1, 2005 2:04:25 PM

"...in this particular case we should all be very careful before supporting this woman and believing her side of the story."

We believed the side of her daughter, a 16 year old young woman...that's who we are believing...

Not a bunch of fathers' rights advocates and their supporters who don't even know these people...


"I'm convinced that 1) this child was physically and emotionally abused by her mother (per the documented proof),"

YET her daughter saids that this is a lie. That her father was personal friends with the people in the courts who reached these findings...

So we are going to believe her over these biased people...


"2) the mother is a skilled manipulator using her race, her sex, and those around here to push her agenda whenever possible, this is not a nice lady, this is not someone I would trust to watch my beautiful daughter, this is not someone who I believe is capable of providing for the needs of any child,"

Right...but yet you would believe the word of a man who went to this woman's country and sneaked her in here when she was 18 years old...pledging to her parents that he was going to marry her when he was already married to someone else...

This guy you are ready to believe, but not his daughter.

Interesting...

I'll be curious to hear what you have to say in a few years when your own daughter starts showing up with dirtbags like this...then let's see if you feel the same way...that's their've not really too bad as fathers...

Okay...


"3) this child is in desperate need of psychological help to counteract the terrible situation of this contested divorce."

Have you ever even met this kid to make all these comments about her need for psychological help?

This sounds like another Alana Krause setup, where the authorities with the help of her father's girlfriend, confined an 11 year old girl to a facility with many dangerous people there.

She was beat up, she could have been raped, even KILLED...

Her only crime was the same as Fatima Loeliger's: wanting to live with her mother...


"This has also made be seriously question why the producer has not taken the lead and protected all minor children by limiting the participation to legal adults - but that's another topic."

Oh, that figures...

Why not wait until she's 30 then to do it...that way the events leading up to it could all be forgotten by then, and of no use whatsoever to anybody trying to make sense out what's going on or more importantly, fix the system...

You people would love that...


"...or what “the child said”) speak clearly for themselves..."

Exactly...and we've chosen to believe the young woman, not child as you call her. What she says, not you and a bunch of self-serving activists probably more concerned about making the professionals involved here look good then finding out the truth. You obviously are all very invested in protecting the professionals involved here as well as the system...


"I personally don’t believe that our world is in such a state that people who depend on their integrity and objectivity to keep their jobs (police, judges, etc.), would have participated in such a farce."

Well you haven't spent much time in the family court system then in a contested custody case now, have you...

GALS, Evaluators, Judges and yes, sometimes even the police ALL bring their own biases to the family court system and the cases that are tried there.

Alan Dersowitz, himself said, when he was an attorney working in family court, he regularly got death threats from people. He claimed he never had that happen to him when he was in criminal court with mobsters or other killers...

Family court is a bizzare place.


"What is surprising in this case is that nobody has been outraged that the court system has allowed a documented abusive/violent parent to have custody of this child who is obviously in deep pain and is most likely very afraid of her mother and what kind of abuse she will suffer if she does not go along with the charade."

What's surprising is that anybody could see the picture of that kid (who is twice the size of her mother by the way) leaning over her mother in a 'protective' manner and THINK this kid is afraid of her mother.

It's quite obvious, if you had the brians of a flea, that there is an entirely different dynamic going on here.

Wake up...


"And even if it is about the women's movement - what about that young girl who is going to grow up into a woman, shouldn't she be protected from violence and abuse, even if it does come from another female?"

Exactly...

That's why we need to closely monitor you and the other gender-neutalized feminists allowed around this kid in the future.

Actually I'm thinking special courts should be set up that EXCLUDE gender-neutralized feminists from being involved in custody hearings, cause you people just cannot be TRUSTED...

AND this kid's case is a perfect example...

The only good thing about this situation is that I've observed from this girl's picture that she is appears very controlled and mature for her age. People who actually KNOW her have said she is very poised and articulate, far beyond her years...Thus I conclude that you and the rest of your posse have already lost in court.

You've already lost.

As there is NO JUDGE, especially in California, who is going to listen to the Glenn Sacks of the world, a bunch of middle-aged non-descript whiny white guys and ignore the words of a poised, beautiful, self-confident, 16 year old black woman when she saids she wants to stay with her mother...

NO CONTEST...

So get over it, as she's gonna be staying right where she is...

No matter what you think with your 10 paragraph post and never even met this kid....

Her father should have been a better dad, he'd have a daughter today. Instead he reaped what he sowed, now he has nothing...nobody's fault but his own...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 1, 2005 7:55:38 PM

Keep spouting NYMOM...you make your side appear uglier and uglier with every comment.

Posted by: Masculiste at Dec 1, 2005 9:46:45 PM

Laura: ""And even if it is about the women's movement - what about that young girl who is going to grow up into a woman, shouldn't she be protected from violence and abuse, even if it does come from another female?"

Yes, Fatima should be protected from violence and abuse. The documentary is about children and young adults who have spoken out about abuse they experienced from their fathers. Fatima has spoken out at this conference - and at others - attesting to her fathers' and stepmother's abuse of her. She has said repeatedly in her own statement in response to Glenn Sacks's web site and in court that her mother has never abused her. She recanted her earlier claims of abuse. They were made under the influence of her father.

She said she wants to continue living with her mother. She's been living with her for several years now, and she's doing very well. She wants the custody case to stop so she can live her remaining high school years as a normal teenager. Fathers' rights activists are ignoring her statements, as you are.

I agree that Fatima should be protected from violence and abuse. She has said repeatedly that the violence and abuse is coming from her father and stepmother. She should be protected from them. Professionals working on the case have finally begun listening to her.

This documentary scares fathers' rights activists because it outs them. That's why they're so angry, and that's why they are attacking it.

Posted by: The Countess at Dec 2, 2005 8:49:36 AM

Trish.

I’m just curious as to why you continue to let Masculiste post here. He adds nothing useful to the debate other then these snide shots and these endless false statistical lies of his…

He hosts a blog that does nothing but post negative stories and lies about women, especially mothers.

I mean this ‘war’ started by men is really a propaganda war at it’s heart, an attempt by men to turn the public against women, especially single mothers. Part of the ammunition they use is these endless statistical lies they continue to generate against mothers.

For instance, this whole lie about women never being the caretakers of our kids until recently when ever single historical source from Tacitus (see his history of the Germanic tribes) and even stain glass windows in our medieval period (which functioned as the ‘newspapers’ of their day for an illiterate population) clearly show mothers were ALWAYS the caretakers of children, in every period and every age…

Additionally now even with this women as ‘sex criminals’ business that men are trying to push. Do you realize that while men like Masculiste attempted to divert public attention to some idiotic story about a school teacher in Florida having sex with one of her teenager pupils, a man Joseph Green was on trial in the same state for raping and murdering an 11 year old girl…

Silverside has clearly showed how the statistics he continues trying to push are statistical lies..lumping in mothers for neglect and endangerment (which could mean anything) along with fathers who beat and kill their kids. I mean I know this is your blog, but letting him keep coming here to spread these lies of his just continues giving men another forum to spread negative propaganda against mothers, when they have DOZENS of them already.

Women have few blogs like this one (two, I think including yours). Thus, if you continue being an equal opportunity blogger and let men like this Masculiste continue monopolizing these few resources, it will lead to mothers having no resources or ones that are so diluted that they are useless.

He should be given the boot or at least told he’s not allowed to post any more statistics here. Use his own mens’ sites to post statistics…especially since many of his statistics are manipulated ones…and I’m getting tired of having to pick them apart to see what new twists and turns he’s tried to give them to make mothers look bad.

Just my opinion, it's your blog obviously so it's up to you who you allow on it...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 2, 2005 12:56:08 PM

NYMOM, I know you and Michael don't like each other, but don't you think it's a little insulting to blog hosts to repeatedly tell them whom they should ban?

After all, Trish lets you stay, and to be perfectly honest I'm sure that you generate much more sympathy among her lurkers for the men's rights movement than Michael does. Why do you think he links to your site on his blogroll?

Whichever side has its facts straight should welcome the opportunity for debate. Being willing to have opposition posters around, if they're civil, is an indication that the host is not only fair but also sure of their facts.

"...this whole lie about women never being the caretakers of our kids until recently..."

Who said that?!

Posted by: Anne at Dec 2, 2005 4:04:40 PM

NYMOM, strange as it may seem, I like Michael. I think he's totally off-base with his fathers' rights stuff, but we like the same kinds of movies and TV. Plus, he's never personally attacked me. That makes a big difference. He's teased me, but he's never attacked me. I'm like anyone else in that I don't want to be attacked. I don't mind differing points of view, even if I find them noxious, so I see no reason to remove them. If I want to I can always provide valid research that counters those points of view, which I frequently do here. Besides, as Anne said, debating is good. I like a good debate. When the debate crawls into the sewer, that's when I take issue with it.

Posted by: The Countess at Dec 2, 2005 4:19:24 PM

"NYMOM, I know you and Michael don't like each other, but don't you think it's a little insulting to blog hosts to repeatedly tell them whom they should ban?"

It's not a question of not liking someone, although I admit I don't like him...

It's a question of fairness and removing a generator of propaganda from a limited resource...

Trish's site is the ONLY one of TWO sites of it's kind on the internet.

MRA's have DOZENS of sites covering their issues from their perspective...literally dozens.

Look at mensnewsdaily, for instance, and show me a similar resource for women...

To allow one of their guys to consistently sprout propaganda on one of TWO BLOGS like this is equivalent to giving them another site to use as a platform to sprout off more of their anti-mothers bullcrap, along with all the others sites they now have...


"After all, Trish lets you stay, and to be perfectly honest I'm sure that you generate much more sympathy among her lurkers for the men's rights movement than Michael does. Why do you think he links to your site on his blogroll?"

No I don't think that is true. That is more of their propaganda coming from you who has frequently supported their side against other mothers...

If I was so insignificant as you appear to imply or inadvertently helping them, they wouldn't try so hard to get rid of me. Even going to the extent of trying to get me fired from my job and threatening me with harm...so no...you don't do that to someone who is inadvertantly helping your side...


"Whichever side has its facts straight should welcome the opportunity for debate. Being willing to have opposition posters around, if they're civil, is an indication that the host is not only fair but also sure of their facts."

Not when you have two sites versus dozens...allowing them to monopolize most sites that discuss these issues and then post MORE propaganda on this one as well, is just too much...

AND he posts many statisical lies and distortions as well within each post of his. They all have to be picked apart and verified for accuracy.

So I don't even consider that to be fair debate, as most of us don't really have the time to verify every single fact he puts out there...so much slips undetected under the wire and puts more lies out there about mothers.

Just to give an example, one time he put out a post claiming that women's prison population was much closer to men's then anyone else had ever claimed before. I just managed to catch that he dishonestly included the women in drug and alcohol rehabs in his numbers, instead of just women in prison...but how often has he done that where it hasn't been caught...

I can understand an honest mistake; that was an outright lie however that would have gone undetected if I hadn't caught it...


"...this whole lie about women never being the caretakers of our kids until recently..."

Who said that?!"

As you well know that is a common distortion of women's history vis-a-vis our children which I have seen on MANY BLOGS...even feminists ones continue to put out this distortion of our history acting like the victorians or something created a 'domestic sphere' and that was the first time women ever really raised their own kids.

This is total bullcrap.

The earliest histories of the Germanic tribes shows that, Germans anyway, LONG BEFORE VICTORIA even existed had mothers caring and raising their own children...and since the English are descendent of Germanic tribes invading their island I must assume the same of them...as I do of Americans who are descendents of BOTH...

There did not exist this gender-neutralized tribal thingy that so many MRAs and gender-neutralized feminists try to paint our history as being...

This is total bull...

This is a continuation of the propaganda that women never had custody of our children until recently and thus, implies mothers raising children is a relatively new phenomenon...forgetting that in our historic past, few PEOPLE got divorced and even fewer went to court for legal custody after divorce; however, most mothers had DEFACTO custody of their children...

This is more of the ongoing attempts by the mens/fathers' rights movement to convince the public that what goes on today with mothers regularly losing custody of their children (even infants) is not the horror that it actually is...by downplaying the fact that this has never been allowed to happen to mothers and infants before...except within the context of slavery...

Thus, this whole thing is an abomination which is being committed against mothers and their children right now...and please don't play stupid with me Anne, as many times you have argued this with me in the past for the other side...so you know what I'm talking about...

The bottom line is that Masculiste is nothing but a propagandist for the other side. He talks by phone with this Glenn Sacks, probably gets his marching orders directly from the 'Kremlin' and I see no reason why Trish should provide him with another platform to sprew hate against mothers.

He is not a real debater and will lie and distort the truth to discredit more honest posters on her site...

Last but not least, I see no reason Trish should allow him another platform because guess what: the other side would NOT do that for a woman...she'd be off their sites one way or another, even if they had to threaten her for it to happen...

Just my opinion, it's Trish's site, her decision obviously...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 2, 2005 11:10:20 PM

"NYMOM, strange as it may seem, I like Michael. I think he's totally off-base with his fathers' rights stuff, but we like the same kinds of movies and TV. Plus, he's never personally attacked me. That makes a big difference. He's teased me, but he's never attacked me. I'm like anyone else in that I don't want to be attacked. I don't mind differing points of view, even if I find them noxious, so I see no reason to remove them. If I want to I can always provide valid research that counters those points of view, which I frequently do here. Besides, as Anne said, debating is good. I like a good debate. When the debate crawls into the sewer, that's when I take issue with it."

I know he doesn't personally attack you (or at least you don't have proof of it yet; but I suspect many of those anonymous posters are him as he did that before on here and then he got caught, so he probably wised up about using another IP address now).

Anyway my point is he is NOT an honest debater but a propagandist for the mens/fathers' rights movement.

So why give him another platform when he has DOZENS already...

It's not like allowing Pete Kaplan to post or something, (when he's stable anyway), but this is something different...

You know how we discussed before how LITTLE National Organization for Women or any other women's groups have done on this issue for mothers. You are really only ONE of two other sites that addresses these issues for mothers...Fathers have DOZENS of sites to sprew their propaganda on.

Allowing Masculiste to continue posting here just basically gives them another one...

That's my concern...

Of course, it's your site so your decision, but he personally contacts this Glenn Sacks and I believe discusses what to post on YOUR SITE for greater propaganda value for their OWN MOVEMENT...

I simply would remove the platform from them but again, it's your decision...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 2, 2005 11:24:39 PM

"That is more of their propaganda coming from you who has frequently supported their side against other mothers..."

Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I agree with those here. But propaganda, no.

"If I was so insignificant as you appear to imply or inadvertently helping them, they wouldn't try so hard to get rid of me. Even going to the extent of trying to get me fired from my job and threatening me with harm...so no...you don't do that to someone who is inadvertantly helping your side..."

Of course they don't like you, but they usually don't ban you from their sites that I'm aware of. The feminist sites are the ones that seem to do that. I often lurk at Alas and as I recall the handful of threads you posted on way back when, I swear you had posters who rarely ever had good words about men in general suddenly defending the father-child bond and gender-neutral custody law in a way I found very interesting. And I remember Michael put your site on his blogroll just about immediately after you started it. Most of the MRA's seem to WANT people to read your views and be outraged. Sorry if you think it's "propaganda" but it honestly seems pretty obvious to me.

"As you well know that is a common distortion of women's history vis-a-vis our children which I have seen on MANY BLOGS...even feminists ones continue to put out this distortion of our history acting like the victorians or something created a 'domestic sphere' and that was the first time women ever really raised their own kids...This is a continuation of the propaganda that women never had custody of our children until recently and thus, implies mothers raising children is a relatively new phenomenon..."

I don't "play stupid." I've heard the various arguments about women having no automatic legal right to custody of children in earlier times (which is true) but I've never heard anyone on any side of the issue say that women never raised children until recently. Actually the closest thing I've heard to something like this is that in the mostly agrarian culture of our past, both the working of a farm and the raising of children was more of a joint enterprise between husband and wife than what we have now (a close friend of mine who wanted very much to return to work after having her first child but was being pressured by her parents to stay home was very firm about this point). But anyone who would actually say that women NEVER raised children in the past likely would not be taken seriously by any reasonable person.



Posted by: Anne at Dec 3, 2005 1:39:04 AM

"Of course they don't like you, but they usually don't ban you from their sites that I'm aware of."

JUST because one MRA site doesn't ban me has more to do with other dynamics...

Plus, it's a small site that even it's owner doesn't pay much attention too...

I've been banned from SYG and other mens/fathers rights sites.


"The feminist sites are the ones that seem to do that. I often lurk at Alas and as I recall the handful of threads you posted on way back when, I swear you had posters who rarely ever had good words about men in general suddenly defending the father-child bond and gender-neutral custody law in a way I found very interesting."

I hate to tell you this Ann but I find these pro-feminist men to be another version of MRAs...MRA light...and feminists and MRAs have MUCH in common in spite of this nonsense about what bitter enemies they are...


"And I remember Michael put your site on his blogroll just about immediately after you started it. Most of the MRA's seem to WANT people to read your views and be outraged. Sorry if you think it's "propaganda" but it honestly seems pretty obvious to me."

So how come one of them contacted my job to try to get me fired...How come they are regularly threatening me with harm...How come I had to lock all the posts on my sites to stop them from spamming me or posts cursing me or threatening me...

Why's that????

Because I'm such an asset to them????

Please.

That's what you'd like to believe but, in fact, it's not true and they have continued to try and shut me down in everyway possible.

AND actually that is why I wish Trish to get rid of this Masculiste, as that is their goal with this site as well and why he continues to come here. His goal is to shut this site down or discredit it in somcway with statistical lies and manipulation of propaganda...


"I don't "play stupid." I've heard the various arguments about women having no automatic legal right to custody of children in earlier times (which is true) but I've never heard anyone on any side of the issue say that women never raised children until recently. Actually the closest thing I've heard to something like this is that in the mostly agrarian culture of our past, both the working of a farm and the raising of children was more of a joint enterprise between husband and wife than what we have now (a close friend of mine who wanted very much to return to work after having her first child but was being pressured by her parents to stay home was very firm about this point). But anyone who would actually say that women NEVER raised children in the past likely would not be taken seriously by any reasonable person."

You do play stupid as the implication behind that whole 'mothers not having custody' thing is equating what custody means today with what it meant in our historic past. Thus, continuing to run around and say women never had custody implies we did not raise our children...as this is what it means today...

Mothers had defacto custody of their children as few people went to court for legal custody...unless there was issues of property or an estate of some kind involved, where custody of a child decided who controlled their estate...

Additionally you did defend the premise that mothers did not raise their children, as you had a HUGE argument with me trying to use Russian nobility's practice of leaving their children with nursesmaids to make a statement about how ordinary mothers historically raised their children...


"But anyone who would actually say that women NEVER raised children in the past likely would not be taken seriously by any reasonable person."

They do it everyday, MRAs and feminists trying to use propaganda to change people's mind about mothers...

Sadly Anne, you have participated in this many times, both here and on other sites...

YET I have not caught you lying and twisting data in the way Masculiste does, that's the difference...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 3, 2005 9:31:37 AM

Well, well, well...NYMOM at her most typical. I don't HAVE to lie or twist data. I just give it to you, and link you to the source. You do all of your own lying and twisting with absolutely no help from me or anyone else.

Posted by: Masculiste at Dec 3, 2005 9:46:22 AM

"I don't HAVE to lie or twist data."

Yet you do...

"You do all of your own lying and twisting with absolutely no help from me or anyone else."

No I don't lie or twist statistics or anything else.

Nor do I post under anonymous names to take snide shots at people like you do.


Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 3, 2005 10:46:19 AM

"You do play stupid as the implication behind that whole 'mothers not having custody' thing is equating what custody means today with what it meant in our historic past. Thus, continuing to run around and say women never had custody implies we did not raise our children...as this is what it means today..."

Well, sorry as can be NYMOM, but I've still not heard anyone else in the world say this, except you. I HAVE heard it said that in the rare event of a divorce the father was historically considered the best protector and supporter of his chldren (in a world where women had little legal or economic power)--but this is not the same thing as saying that women never raised children and I imagine few people take it that way.

"Additionally you did defend the premise that mothers did not raise their children, as you had a HUGE argument with me trying to use Russian nobility's practice of leaving their children with nursesmaids to make a statement about how ordinary mothers historically raised their children..."

My musings on that subject had NOTHING to do with what ordinary mothers did with their kids--everyone knows they did most of the childcare. You had been discussing something about the mother-child bond and how it's so primal that it overshadows everything else and it made me wonder, if this were so, why it's historically been the case that the classes of women (who had gone through the birth experience just as we do, only with more pain and danger in those times) who could afford to delegate childrearing usually did so, and often still do. And please don't start that business about rich men alienating children from their mothers, as I don't believe that the Russian aristocrats or the American robber barons or anyone else locked their protesting wives out of the nursery or forbade them to change diapers or wipe spit-up or coax food into picky mouths. No more than I believe that my grandmother brought my mom home from the hospital to an African-American nanny because my grandfather made her. Or that my OB's husband, a surgeon, forces her to let a nanny raise her three daughters. Or that someone else made your heroine Bridget Marks, with no job or other commitments, entrust her kids to a nanny that supposedly got her into so much trouble. My point was simply that this mother-child bond that you place at the center of the universe is still very much affected by factors such as class, upbringing, cultural expectations, and alternative opportunities. It's NOT so overpowering that nothing else (specifically the father-child relationship) can possibly compare in importance.

THAT'S what I was saying, not that mothers never raised children. Geez...


Posted by: Anne at Dec 3, 2005 4:43:51 PM

You know, I'm getting pretty fed up with this shit Trish. I'm not mad at you but this bullshit from NYMOM has really got to stop. I've steered clear of her since your warning, but she simply won't do the same.
For the record...

I have never posted under any alias...hell, you, Lauren, and everyone else knows my full name and e-mail address. People who do come to my site have only to click on my name under 'posted by' to read my complete address, phone number and even philosophy about why I post what I do.

I post my own story, my writings and a damn near complete family photo history of me even back to when I was a small child. I would have posted the racey stuff but most of these girls are a bit too young and not quite ready for the advanced stuff.

If you look at the posts themselves you see that they are all linked to a specific news source. The only comments that I make are on the upper most top title. I let the story tell itself.

Statistics that I send come from governmental agencies such as the US Department of Justice and the US Dept of Health and Human Services and are ALWAYS linked. Even the Fiebert Study that grates at your nerves so much was never entirely debunked, just criticized, and was linked to a massive amount of studies and statistics that supported Fiebert's conclusion.

Now...Am I lying about this or can someone with even figurative balls have the fair-mindedness to check my site for themselves? Critical thinkers will check and decide for themselves.

Is this what's called a truce in you world beyond the stars NYMOM? Were we both not instructed by the Countess herself to "KNOCK IT OFF" or did that only apply to me? So I'm too busy to stop by and visit for a couple days and when I do, I find NYMOM lying about me...and that's OK Trish? And it IS just bald-faced lying coming from NYMOM Trish. I'm not going to be slandered behind my back and then candy-coat the slander when I discover it.

On one side of her face, this woman complains about other people attacking her continually...OTHER PEOPLE...but she continues to go to their sites to engage them, then out the other side of her face, she attacks me (and BTW, THIS is what 'attacking' is) by trying to call into question my credibility. And since your last warning, I have avoided her at all costs.

Does anybody else want to chime in on this issue...anybody...anybody...Bueller...Bueller...

What do I do, Trish...you tell me. Did I do this? Did I start this?
I'd really like to know from YOU.

Posted by: Masculiste at Dec 3, 2005 7:06:51 PM

It's not 'attacking' to tell the truth about someone as I did about you.

Attacking would be calling you names, while I did it...

You are a source of propaganda for the mens' right movement on this board. That movement has dozens of other sites, whereas mothers have only Trish and a few others.

Thus I don't see why she should allow you to keep posting negative propaganda about mothers here.

Additionally I have seen you, yourself, admit to speaking to Glenn Sacks on the telephone about that Loeliger case. Thus, I believe you discuss what propaganda to post on this site to discredit Sadia Loeliger and that PBS special.

I simply pointed out to Trish that I didn't see the reason that she would continue to allow you to post on this board when you are simply a propagandist for the Mens' Rights Movement...

I just felt I had an obligation to point this out to her...I did it publicly to give you a chance to defend yourself...

Attacking me is not a defense for you.

Actually if nothing else, Trish should stop you from posting any more statistics as I have caught you lying about those too...which you did with those prison ones trying to include women in rehab within them, to make the number of women in prison look larger then it really was...

Just stating the facts.

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 3, 2005 7:44:55 PM

"Attacking me is not a defense for you." ...Attacking me is not a defense for you?!!!

I swear sometimes I think you smoke crack.

Show everyone here propaganda!

I don't print propaganda, I report what the news reports.
Show everyone here news that I post, that isn't linked to direct local, regional, national or world news coverage! I post world news to demonstrate a world-wide problem.

Show everyone here ANY statistic that I posted, that wasn't directly linked to the source who actually conducted the study!

Show everyone here now and forever ANY conclusion that I arrived at in a stat that I linked to, where I deceived the readers into following MY conclusion, rather than the conclusion of the actual author of the study!

As I've said MANY times here for all to read at Trish's site, who I have and may well continue to differ on opinions regarding father's rights, I am not a woman hater, nor a mother hater, nor a feminist hater. I am about equality in all things. Including responsibility for the bad actions one commits. Men have to do it, and the rule should no less apply to women or mothers.I have emphatically stated this in my profile, and I continue to stand by that statement. In case anyone is curious, just click on 'by michael capanzzi' in red, above every post.

A lie is defined simply as "intentional deception." INTENTIONAL. That's when somebody (you, right now, for example) falsely assert a fact which they KNOW to be false.

I have a hunch that you're really sealing your own fate as far as credibility here NYMOM. Not mine. To say nothing of the fact that readers here will probably end up looking into my site to assess for themselves whether or not I am who you slander and defame me to be. So what do you think...they will ignore what they find?

The thing about my site is that even though everyone here knows what I post goes on on a daily basis, they are repulsed by it, so they don't WANT to read about it or even hear about it. And why not? It is a repelling thought that a woman or a mother could commit abuse or murder in the numbers that they do day in and day out. It's downright frightening. But it is news. And it's news because it happens. I copy a portion of the story, then link to the story. I don't author the story, I credit the author and link to the news source. ALWAYS!

You want to obsess about the Rhodes Case? Sure...we finally agree on something. THIS motherfucker should fry. Hell, I'll even flick the switch. Now...what about YOU?

You know...in the world of journalism, professionals disagree on a regular basis. They still, however, confer with each other on news and other human interest issues.

If you had tried to do this, as one journalist to another, where your attempts to falsely accuse and discredit me within the journalistic community resulted in any way to hindering me from effectively doing my job, (it's what the law defines as 'damages') I could sue you for a small windfall, and quite possibly get your license revoked...(if journalists actually DO have licenses).

To say nothing of the fact that I would insist on a public apology. (That would be sweet) And I'd get it, because the evidence against you is overwhelming. The only thing that protects you at this point, is that what you are doing is within the 'blogworld' spectrum.

However, for the record, if, within one year from this day, the blogworld achieves a level of respectabilty and noteriety equivalent to journalism, I can and will sue you in court under the 'internet' laws, for slander, and defamation of character.

I report the news, plain and simple. I have little if any opinion on that news as it comes out. Anyone can check it out for themselves.

One more thing Margaret. Not only was I Thi Beta kappa EVERY semester I attended college, with a 3.85 avg., and that I am a state certified para-legal...but I also have an IQ of 140. No joke...it's been tested.

Credibility in this, we call the blogworld, is everything. And when you slander my credibility or in any way challenge my character (as in 'character assassination'), you are, by definition, attacking me.

Ever heard of the statement, 'be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it,'?

Well, it seems to me that you have been spoiling for a fight with me for quite some time. I don't WANT to...but I will not back down either. Nor will I reduce myself to fighting your way.
And believe me...you are picking the wrong fight here. From now on, I will not engage you...I will simply record you.

Posted by: Masculiste at Dec 3, 2005 9:09:12 PM

Trish, I love your site! I started reading it when that whole Bridget Marks nightmare unfolded and I always find your posts fascinating, in a horror-show kind of way. Custody battles are one of the most painful things imaginable. I've been divorced for years, and I have custody of my children and my ex chooses to see them maybe twice a year. I'm glad I didn't read your blog when I was going through my divorce; at the time, when my ex briefly threatened to sue for custody as a financial bargaining chip, I thought "Yeah, right, I'm a stay at home mother, he works a hundred hours a week, he doesn't have snowball's chance in hell.'' If I'd read your blog I would have been petrified. Wow - good mothers really can lose custody.

A little background - I'm a reporter, I cover crime, I can't identify myself because that wouldn't be fair to my newspaper; I'm obviously only speaking for myself here.

That said, I have a couple of questions for Masculiste - yes, I do occasionally visit your site, disagree with the vast majority of what you have there but I like to read all sides of an issue. Two things - number one, could you please clarify your personal story on your web site a little more? I've read it several times and honestly, I can't understand what happened. Does your ex have full custody? If so based on what? Do you see your children? And number two, what is it with all the stories about abusive psycho women? What world-wide problem are you calling attention to? Child abuse? Yes, that's a horrible problem, perpetrated by both women and men. Anyone could just as easily post nothing but stories about men abusing their children and having sex with their students, but what would be the point? I don't see that you're pointing out anything new and unusual, unfortunately.

Posted by: Frankie at Dec 3, 2005 10:41:52 PM

I'm a great mother, if I do say so myself. Not perfect, any more than any other parent is, but I love my children, give them a ton of attention and affection, am very protective, sit and help them with their homework every night, and raise them to be respectful of others. And as for the time-period that I was going through my divorce, I chose to take several years off from work to stay home with the children full-time. My ex-husband loves the kids, but he's a workaholic who would come home, go straight into his office, email people and visit porn sites, and not come out until hours after the kids were asleep. He didn't see the children for days on end, which was his choice, not mine. Which is one of the main reasons I finally left. And one of the reasons it would make more sense for me to have primary custody, not him.
And as for why the countess doesn't blog about normal women - first of all, who says they're not normal? I'm sure we've all gotten involved with someone we regretted at one point or another. If one's partner happens to be abusive, the normal thing to do would be to leave. And secondly, since her blog covers custody issues, of course she isn't going to be featuring stable, happy relationships.
My question about Masculiste's blog is, it seems to mostly be about an angry man who feels he was screwed over in his divorce, and in a broader sense, about men who feel they've been screwed by the family court system - so what's the relevance of posting news stories about women school teachers having sex with their students, and women beating their toddlers to death?

Posted by: Frankie at Dec 3, 2005 11:50:59 PM

Trish...

Could you please remove Masculiste post using my proper name.

He knows as well as I do that you are not allowed to use people's personal information on this site w/o their permission.

I have told him many times the ONLY time I use in cyberspace is NYMOM...

Nothing else.

This is more of his attempts to intimidate me from telling the truth.

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 4, 2005 5:13:00 AM

"My musings on that subject had NOTHING to do with what ordinary mothers did with their kids--everyone knows they did most of the childcare. You had been discussing something about the mother-child bond and how it's so primal that it overshadows everything else and it made me wonder, if this were so, why it's historically been the case that the classes of women (who had gone through the birth experience just as we do, only with more pain and danger in those times) who could afford to delegate childrearing usually did so, and often still do. And please don't start that business about rich men alienating children from their mothers, as I don't believe that the Russian aristocrats or the American robber barons or anyone else locked their protesting wives out of the nursery or forbade them to change diapers or wipe spit-up or coax food into picky mouths."

Well MOST people Anne when you bring up a topic as universal as the mother/child bond would NOT pick some small group, like the royal houses of Europe, to make a point about ALL women...because we simply cannot apply the experience of those mothers and children to everyone else.

In spite of what you would LIKE to believe about these women, they did NOT have the control over their lives and children that an ordinary fish monger's wife probably had over hers.

Why?

Because quite simply these children were worth money, property, titles...and men do not let those conduits of power slip away from them.

Not then or now...so it makes it even more ridiculous your arguments with me if we were discussing mother/child bonding rather then just mothers raising their own kids...


"No more than I believe that my grandmother brought my mom home from the hospital to an African-American nanny because my grandfather made her."

I knew you hated your mother Anne, now I see you hated your grandmother as well.

I never said that because the mother/child bond exists that women can NEVER go to work or hire a nanny for their children. This does not mean they do not love them or have a stronger bond with them then others...as everyone else, mothers are products of their time and cultures...


"Or that someone else made your heroine Bridget Marks, with no job or other commitments, entrust her kids to a nanny that supposedly got her into so much trouble."

As you well know, Bridget Marks is not my heroine.


"My point was simply that this mother-child bond that you place at the center of the universe is still very much affected by factors such as class, upbringing, cultural expectations, and alternative opportunities. It's NOT so overpowering that nothing else (specifically the father-child relationship) can possibly compare in importance."

Yes actually Anne it is.

Because even a mother who doesn't have the luxury as you do to stay home with their kids and fool around on the internet all day can still be the better parent...she doesn't have to be joined at the hip like a Siamese twin with her kids to act in their best interest.

Quite simply a mother's proportionally larger investment in her children generally makes her the best parent for them.

That's why God, evolution or nature chose women to fulfil that role...if you don't like that fact, it's just tough...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 4, 2005 5:32:47 AM

"I'm a great mother, if I do say so myself. Not perfect, any more than any other parent is, but I love my children, give them a ton of attention and affection, am very protective, sit and help them with their homework every night, and raise them to be respectful of others. And as for the time-period that I was going through my divorce, I chose to take several years off from work to stay home with the children full-time. My ex-husband loves the kids, but he's a workaholic who would come home, go straight into his office, email people and visit porn sites, and not come out until hours after the kids were asleep. He didn't see the children for days on end, which was his choice, not mine. Which is one of the main reasons I finally left. And one of the reasons it would make more sense for me to have primary custody, not him."

Did your ex agree to you being primary custodian willingly? Or did you have to hire an attorney and engage in a custody fight over your it?

I don't think you should assume that it was automatic that you win just because you spent more time with the children before the divorce, as I know plenty of mothers who did just that and lost their case anyway...so that's not a given anymore...

I'm just curious if your ex openly acknowledged your contribution and gave you custody willingly...

My ex did, that's how I got custody...he went to court and handled all the paperwork for our divorce and stipulated custody to ME...but this was in the days before high child support, I'm always curious to see if any mothers today have had a similar experience...


"My question about Masculiste's blog is, it seems to mostly be about an angry man who feels he was screwed over in his divorce, and in a broader sense, about men who feel they've been screwed by the family court system - so what's the relevance of posting news stories about women school teachers having sex with their students, and women beating their toddlers to death?"

None...there is no relevance to it whatsoever except to make mothers look bad. That's why I see no reason for the owner of this site to allow him to continue posting on this blog. As he is nothing but a propagandist for the Mens/Fathers' Rights Movement, whose only goal is to make mothers look bad.

He has admitted to talking on the telephone with this Glenn Sacks, whose goal is similar, regarding the Sadia Loeliger case and the whole PBS documentary...so much of what he has been posting lately is nothing but attempts to discredit this woman along with the PBS documentary...

It's one thing to debate the issues, it's another to just be posting propaganda and in spite of what he saids, he does lie. I caught him in a statistical lie on another board. Where he included the numbers of women in rehabits for drug and alcohol abuse to overinflate statistics of women in prison, in order to make it appear that the number of women in prison was equal to men...when, in fact, it is not...

If it was a mistake, I could understand it as I make many mistakes myself. However, this was not a mistake, but a deliberate lie, which he did not take responsibility for even to this day.

He has been posting many statistics lately which is my concern as it's extremely difficult to cull out the truth from statistics anyway especially if people are going to pull stunts like what he did...

Men have dozens of sites to go to on the internet for their issues (look at mensnewsdaily which has dozens of blogs supporting mens' issues) mothers few...I just don't see the need to allow another site to act as a place for him to spread more propaganda against mothers...

But it's up to the owner, I just brought up the issue.

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 4, 2005 5:53:42 AM

"On one side of her face, this woman complains about other people attacking her continually...OTHER PEOPLE...but she continues to go to their sites to engage them, then out the other side of her face, she attacks me (and BTW, THIS is what 'attacking' is) by trying to call into question my credibility."

BTW, the ONLY reason I even mentioned the issue of other people attacking me, as it has no relevance to the issue of you being a propagandist whatsoever, is because Anne brought it up first. Trying to claim that mens rights advocates see me as an inadvertent supporter of theirs and thus, encourage me posting on their sites.

Which, of course, is not true.

I have been banned from a number of MRA sites and they do many things to try to shut me down.

So that's the only reason I brought it up to show Anne that she was wrong.


"And since your last warning, I have avoided her at all costs."

No, actually you have NOT...

You have very sneakily continued engaging with me even with that 'uglier and uglier' comment which was directed at this site, but, in fact, is one of your favorite insults about me so you were still 'engaging' with me as you put it.

You just thought I wasn't going to call you on it...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 4, 2005 6:04:13 AM

NYMOM, don't attack Michael (Masculiste). When you have an issue with what he writes, just post about what he writes. Don't attack him. I don't like it when anyone on my blog gets attacked, and that includes Michael. Leave him alone. I've asked you already to not attack him, as I've asked him not to attack you, but you are still doing it. I don't want to ban you. I think I've given you a lot of leeway here.

Please keep your disagreements about each other off my blog. That kind of stuff doesn't belong here. I want my blog to be a place where people can hang out and either talk about fun stuff like movies, or discuss issues without attacking each other. So please take the war between yourselves elsewhere.

Posted by: The Countess at Dec 4, 2005 8:29:19 AM

NYMOM: "I knew you hated your mother Anne, now I see you hated your grandmother as well."

That was uncalled for. PLEASE do not attack people on my blog. If you have personal issues with anyone, take it off my blog to e-mail or something.

NYMOM, I like you, I like Michael, and I like Anne. I don't want to see you attack them or them attack you. Write about what you disagree with in their writings, but please don't get personal. I've already told you and Michael to take the attacks off my blog, but you're doing ti again. Just discuss the issues. Leave the personal snipes out of it.

Posted by: The Countess at Dec 4, 2005 8:42:53 AM