May 04, 2006
Outrage: Woman Ordered To Allow Her Children To Visit Their Father In Jail. The Kicker: Dad Raped Mom, Which Is Why He Is In Jail
The man who attacked and raped her is the father of her children. The judge in her case didn't care that this man had attacked and raped her. He ordered that, as Linetty's children's father, he deserves his precious visitation. Now Linetty is forced to take her children to the prison were her attacker and rapist is being housed. She has to see her attacker because the judge decided that fathers' rights trumps attack and rape.
Fathers' rights activists of course think that the children should see their father in jail.
Fathers' rights activist Jeffrey Leving said, "The court has determined that it is in the best interest of the children that they visit their father. In part, it's about the right of fathers, but the real focus is children's rights."
Oh, spare me. It's in the children's best interests to be forced to see a father who, as Linetty describes it, has shown little interest in them up until this time? It's in their best interests for them to have contact with the man who attacked and raped their mother?
Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children Mike McCormick said, "You don't deny children the right to see their parents based on issues between the parents. I'm in no way downplaying the seriousness of the fact that he is convicted of raping her, but that consideration is separate and distinct from the issue of the child maintaining a relationship with their father, even in circumstances of incarceration. It's not uncommon that a parent with custody wants to keep their children out of a prison environment. Let's not kid ourselves, prison's not a great place to go. But should it preclude a father's ability to have a relationship with a child? Society has determined that no, it should not."
Of course he's downplaying the seriousness of this case. "Issues between the parents"??? How about an attack and rape that lands dad in prison? All that is to be ignored in favor of the man's "right" as a father to see the children whose mother he had attacked and raped? Is he saying that society has determined that a woman's welfare and safety are to be set aside so that her rapist will have access to their children? What the hell kind of nonsense are fathers' rights activists trying to pull here?
It doesn't matter that a court-appointed social worker could transport the children to the prison, preventing Linetty from having to have contact with her rapist. Doesn't the court realize that the children will be affected by knowing that their father had attacked and raped their mother? The children know that their father has hurt their mother, but they don't know details. One of the children has written to the judge saying she doesn't want to visit her father in prison. Another of the children hasn't said anything about wanting to see daddy. The third child is in counseling to help him cope with the situation. This whole ordeal has had a negative effect on them. Don't fathers' rights activists know that? Do they care? No, they don't. Daddy's visitation is all important. His crimes be damned. His children's welfare be damned.
Posted on May 4, 2006 at 09:30 AM | Permalink
One of the last times I was in court, sitting in the cattle car room and waiting for all the attorneys and judge to negotiate my life away, I overheard an attorney telling his client that she would have to allow her kids to visit their dad, even though he was in the county jail on assault charges. In this particular case, the victim was not the woman, but her friend/boyfriend. I get the impression that this stuff is very common in this county. On the other hand, when I as a non-custodial mother go to court to have my visitation enforced, the judge blows me off saying it's my problem. This is the end result when your county legal system is taken over by the fathers rights crowd (and lest the MRA's accuse me of sexism, I'm not too crazy about children being required to visit their mothers in jail, especially if these are women who had committed violent crimes.) But that's what the FR's are about: sucking up to criminals and abusers. What else is new.
Posted by: silverside at May 4, 2006 9:48:48 AM
christ, that's disgusting.
how on earth is it in the best interests of children to visit
a parent in jail after that parent has committed a violent
Oh wait, I forgot. It's about the best interests of the criminal.
And of course the beauty of it is that if mom REFUSES--
she could END UP IN JAIL TOO!!!!
excuse me while my head explodes.
Posted by: Txfeminist at May 4, 2006 12:38:06 PM
Posted by: Tony of Bachelor cooking at May 4, 2006 1:23:29 PM
You know, if he was in jail for something different--say, theft, or drunk driving, etc. that's one thing. But he's in jail for RAPING THE MOTHER OF HIS CHILDREN. I can't imagine that his kids benefited from living with his abuse.
Posted by: Sheelzebub at May 4, 2006 1:40:12 PM
you know, if this guy gets visitation now, he'll probably get visitation/custody out of prison.
i like the assumption that it ONLY has to do with the mother. because, you know, someone who is violent towards one human being will NEVER be violent towards other ones! obviously, this guy will NEVER do anything to the kids!!
ugh, shoot me.
Posted by: Lorelei at May 4, 2006 2:37:57 PM
I've seen this happen before - the father has no interest in the children until he realize that he can further torment the mother by suddenly claiming his "father's rights." He's a sperm donor -and rapist; nothing more. By allowing him visitation, the court is simply facilitating his continued abuse/emotional rape of the mother - and exposing the children to something they should never see. Violence is perpetuated by children following behaviors of their parents; this "father" is giving his children the gift of potentially destroyed lives. With the help of the court - tragic, to say the very least.
Posted by: Stella at May 4, 2006 2:52:40 PM
I've been practicing law for 14 years. I have never seen someone ordered to bring the children to jail. In fact, in every case where it has been raised, the judge instructed the custodial parent NOT to bring the children to jail.
Posted by: will at May 4, 2006 2:55:42 PM
I agree, it's proposterous to have the children go see the father, that's a dumb order, then again, I've seen some really really dumb orders where the shoe was on the other foot, which doesn't justify an order like this one.
I'm not sure what father's rights group would support such an order.
Everyone should know that I'm an avid Father's Rights Group's promoter, and it disgusts me that judges would put in place an order like this and people would actually support it. The one BIG reasoning I could think of "As to why" someone would support such an order would be their train of thought. Starting with, 1). Was he convicted on just her word 2). Was it soley based on circumstantial evidence? If those two factors are in there then the people that support this believe that he's innocent, and that's why they support this order. I, on the other hand wouldn't support this order because it's detrimental to the children whether the he did it or not.
Posted by: Jim Deeny at May 4, 2006 4:19:31 PM
I am of a Father of 2,boy16and daughter17, their mother has abused and neglected both children. The daughter was abused by MOM and her brithers , the son also. The courts response??? Force the daughter and son to spend more time with MOM. The end result?? Both children institutionalized at different times and lengths. MOM is a school teacher and is allowed around other parents children, the system has hidden her crimes for their own profit at the expense of 2 children's childhoods and a great cost and loss to society. BeatonDAD
Posted by: BeatonDAD at May 4, 2006 5:44:49 PM
Clearly more evidence that the courts are full of idiot judges. I hesitate to make any serious denouncement as per usual there could be more to the story. I'm all for fathers having visitation even if in jail (with obvious restrictions given certain crimes) but this case sounds too plain crazy. Sadly, its par for the course, just look at the Clara Harris case. Shes convicted of murder but allowed joint custody of her two boys... uhh why?
Posted by: FP at May 4, 2006 6:44:40 PM
Hi Trish, congrats on your exposure with Mr. Sacks!
I've looked at the blogs lately about feminism to menism, the feminism outranks the fatherisms by 10 to 3. I could start a website/blog on my own that does nothing but report ALL the bad things women and mothers in general do to their children and their fathers, but I don't.
The masses is where it's at. I'm not ready to go there yet because I would formally state that there has got to be a compromise available before we trot down that road. I would also say that the propoganda is largely the cause before our eyes, the reason why mothers and fathers can't reach a decision that benefits everyone involved with a child's life is because of the selfishness of raising a better child than him or her can do.
Posted by: Jim Deeny at May 4, 2006 8:13:52 PM
I didn't even know that Sacks had written about me. A colleague sent me his newsletter yesterday. I don't read his site very often, so it's likely I would have missed it if someone hadn't sent it to me.
What ever gave you the idea that feminist blogs do nothing but report all the bad things men and fathers in general do? That's the unspoken statement in your comment. Feminist blogs write about all kinds of things. It sounds like you're doing a bit of projecting there. ;)
Posted by: The Countess at May 5, 2006 7:53:16 AM
I was doing some projecting, just a little, no offense Trish, you have a great blog here and I've always returned to just post here and there.
It just pisses me off that dirtbags would support a court order for the children to visit their father in prison after he has raped their mother. The children are not a testing site, they are pure until they become a product of their enviroment in the later stages. If any Father's Rights Group supports something like that, then they are without a doubt a Father's Right's group in my book. Shame on them dickweeds, they are the one's that give the rest an aweful rap, just like the extreme feminists that give you and people like VS a bad rap.
Posted by: Jim Deeny at May 5, 2006 9:23:29 AM
If any Father's Rights Group supports something like that, then they are without a doubt NOT a Father's Right's group in my book."
Posted by: at May 5, 2006 9:28:52 AM
Jim, the problem is that two fathers' rights leaders have supported the children visiting their rapist dad. One is a well-known fathers' rights attorney, and the other is head of a well-known fathers' rights group. The American Coalition for Fathers and Children is real fathers' rights group. Jeffrey Leving is not only a fathers' rights activist, he's a well-known one. Both of those men have said they support this rapist's visitation in the article. One of them even hinted that he doubted that it was really rape. Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children Mike McCormick said, "I'm in no way downplaying the seriousness of the fact that he is convicted of raping her...". He didn't say that the dad had raped mom. He said he was convicted of rape. That doesn't surprise me, since ACFC believes that most women file false allegations of rape and domestic violence.
Posted by: The Countess at May 5, 2006 1:09:15 PM
This was a comment on the case from the ANCPR site:
The fact that this guy was convicted of raping this female doesn’t necessarily mean he’s guilty. Innocent men are convicted of rape every single day in this country. It is just as likely that this incident was staged to drive a wedge between this man and his children by a vindictive and hate filled “mother”.
Hair rasising. I really hope this jamoke doesn't have daughters, for their sake.
Posted by: Sheelzebub at May 5, 2006 1:31:02 PM
My reading, from the quotes above, is that the two MRAs are just supporting the principles on which the court made its decision (the legal criteria used), while not commenting on the correctness of the decision in that particular instance (whether the court got it right in practice). You don't say that a different set of principles should be used, just that the court obviously made a wrong decision in this particular case (you don't think it is in the best interest of the child).
You're saying the court got the decision wrong, they're saying the principles upon which it made the decision were right. Do you really disagree on anything? Aren't you just talking about different things?
Posted by: nik at May 5, 2006 2:01:22 PM
Yeah, what Sheelz said. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of fathers' rights activists believe that mom fabricated the rape allegations. It's bad enough that they think that those children should have to visit their dad who raped their mom. The kids are already suffering, as the article reported, and fathers' rights activists don't care about that. The rapist dad must have his precious rights enforced.
Posted by: The Countess at May 5, 2006 2:04:32 PM
No, nik, those two fathers' rights activists are very specifically endorsing this particular man's "right" to visitation. One says that "it's about the right of fathers, but the real focus is children's rights". How is it in a child's best interests to be forced to see her father in prison after he attacked and raped her mother? How is it in a child's best interests to be forced to see dad when that same child is in counseling trying to cope with the ordeal?
The other one, from ACFC, didn't even admit that dad had raped mom. He said " I'm in no way downplaying the seriousness of the fact that he is convicted of raping her...". He said "convicted of raping her". He wouldn't say that he had raped her. ACFC is only one fathers' rights group that believes women frequently fabricate abuse and rape. I saw through that comment right away. Plus, Sheelz posted a quote from ANCPR that said the same thing about false allegations of rape.
The guy from ACFC also said, "...but that consideration is separate and distinct from the issue of the child maintaining a relationship with their father, even in circumstances of incarceration." He isn't talking about incarcerated fathers in general. He is talking about this rapist father. Why would it be considered separate and distinct to force children to visit their father who had attacked and raped their mother? He is downplaying the rape. Not only that, he's ignoring the rape in favor of endorsing this man's alleged "right" to contact with his children over what is best for the children. The children are having problems. One doesn't want to visit dad. Another is in counseling to cope with the whole ordeal. Their needs and stress are being ignored by these guys in favor of the fathers' so-called "rights". That's horrendous.
Posted by: The Countess at May 5, 2006 2:17:57 PM
I'm sure it is true that some women have used rape as a wedge.
But for the love of Pete, the dude is in jail! So basically, The MRA's taht support this man getting visitation in prison have no faith in the justice system? I don't care who you are, man or woman, if you're in jail you shouldn't have rights. PERIOD! No wonder all the shared parenting bills are being shot down, you get mens rights yahoos supporting visitation to dad in jail that raped mom! Jeez, just when I feel like there's hope, I see this.
Posted by: Jim Deeny at May 5, 2006 2:30:15 PM
And........Especially men you quoted above Trish, with all the caliber, the pull and the influence these men have, wouldn't you think they'd support something different other than the convicted rapist? More like the "best interests of children"? What are they thinking.
Posted by: Jim Deeny at May 5, 2006 2:35:50 PM
The mom is the primary caregiver, correct?
How could it possibly be in the best interests of the child to have a primary caregiver who's in emotional torment, writhing in pain and indignation, because her flesh and blood are being forced to see a man who violated her personal dignity so cruelly?
And the father has no "rights" over his children. The only reason he's a father is because he committed rape.
Posted by: Lanoire at May 6, 2006 12:10:33 AM
Most if not all rapes are based on " He says She says" with She carrying all the weight of truth and He having to prove himself innocent after already being found guilty. In many of these cases the He is disallowed many Constitutional Rights including the 4th, 5th, 6th, and the 14th. The reason????? Federal incentives supplies by the 100% V.A.W.A. The HE is used as a funding source, and he is thrown in a cage, the DA gets another FELONY FEATHER for his cap and reimburse at about 1000% for exucuting this plan. A word for this is QuiTam, stealing from the king. QuiTam is also quite prevalent in the Family Law industry and used to throw the Father, while also violating maby Constitutional rights, out of his childrens lives. The result/ many kids with ADD(Absent Dad Disorder) and yet a major loss and cost to society
Posted by: BeatonDad at May 6, 2006 8:44:25 AM
Oh, boy. Another troll whining that women frequently lie about rape. What nonsense.
Posted by: The Countess at May 6, 2006 8:48:35 AM
>i like the assumption that it ONLY has to do with the mother. because, you know, someone who is violent towards one human being will NEVER be violent towards other ones! obviously, this guy will NEVER do anything to the kids!!
And the fact that the oldest child emphatically does *not* want to see him should be 1) a tipoff and 2) enough reason for her not to have to go, dammit. Why don't the kids' wishes matter in this? "what's best for the children mysass." What would be best for the children is if their wastrel father hadn't raped their mother in the damn first place. What kind of "male role model" is that??
Posted by: belledame222 at May 7, 2006 6:21:31 PM
After 29 years of faking the orgasm,and all her problems stem
ing from her abused Childhood,I have done nothing to deserve
Rape accusations that drive me insane over the years.And I still will defend my position,after all those years,even with a moron argument
Posted by: John N Thomas at May 7, 2006 11:17:26 PM
These types of Laws make a real man sick and tired of any Laws
about childrearing possible.Yes My Ex was raped but not buy me.and yes
How in the Hell can a person rape a wife?It's her job,as it was mine my job ,to Help her.Your laws make me sick.After 20 years of hearing about Rape the only thing I know,is the Man is at fault,for trying to help his life partner.It may not be,the best way,but the only way a man can deal with all these accusations can defend his self.For 23 years I've tried,I feel the Man that did this was degenerate.So label me,the same cause God knows,I've done nothing to deserve,your highly biased veiws.
Posted by: John Thomas at May 7, 2006 11:42:47 PM
I'm sure it is true that some women have used rape as a wedge.
I'm sure you're an asshole, too.
Posted by: ginmar at May 9, 2006 9:36:07 AM
Will, You have never heard of judges ordering children to visit parents in Jail? I suggest you contact the Family Court in Chautauqua County, NY. It would be great fun for an outsider to contact them and ask them about it. I'd love to know whether they admit it or lie about it. Chances are, however, they were just ignore your inquiry.
I remain firm in the belief that courts have no business ordering children to visit violent and/or criminal parents in jail. It should be at the total discretion of the non-violent, non-criminal parent or caregiver. If that person believes jail is a great place for kids, then who am I to argue. But no cockamamy fathers rights judge should put the "rights" of rapists or drug dealers or what have you above the better judgement of a concerned parent or caregiver.
Posted by: silverside at May 9, 2006 10:03:06 AM
I cannot recall a judge ever ordering a jail visit. I am not saying that it has never happened around here. It is just that in my experience, they have always ordered the child NOT to go to the jail.
In some circumstances, it might be appropriate for the child to see the parent in jail. I just havent come across it.
Posted by: will at May 9, 2006 12:09:18 PM
Women frequently claim rape, abuse, molestation during a messy divorce. With current rape shield laws it's almost impossible to defend against a rape accusation, so it's quite possible he was convicted with only as the tearful claim of the wife - most states don't require ny evidence more than the word of the woman. We really don't know if the rape actually occured. All we know is that the woman destroyed this man's life, and now wants to restrict him from seeing his children.
Posted by: Mother at May 9, 2006 12:45:57 PM
Wow, what a shock! Somebody claiming that women lie about rape and abuse to get custody!
Posted by: ginmar at May 11, 2006 10:55:32 AM
Men are all pigs. All of them. Thank God Clara Harris ran down her manpig. I think some of the children drowned by Andrea Yates were young manpigs as well.
They should all be sterilized except for a few. The the Gynarchy will reign supreme!
Posted by: Menareallpigs at May 12, 2006 7:02:23 PM
Men are all pigs. All of them. Thank God Clara Harris ran down her manpig. I think some of the children drowned by Andrea Yates were young manpigs as well.
They should all be sterilized except for a few. Then the Gynarchy will reign supreme!
Posted by: Menareallpigs at May 12, 2006 7:02:48 PM
Flukeworm: "Men are all pigs. All of them. Thank God Clara Harris ran down her manpig. I thinkttttthhhhpptttttsssstttttthhhh...."
You can always rely on the full moon to bring out the flukeworms projecting their own insecurities on feminists.
Wine and absinthe on me. Let's make a sacrifice!!!!
Posted by: The Countess at May 12, 2006 7:23:43 PM
FemiNaxi Women's Mantra; I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME . The rst is self explanatory. BeatonDad
Posted by: BeatonDad at May 24, 2006 8:36:33 AM
For your fascist hygeine needs, try Naxi Pads.
Posted by: Laser Potato at Jun 27, 2006 7:01:55 PM