« Lesbian Found To Be "Presumed Father" | Main | Friday Cat Blogging »

July 02, 2004

Sometimes They Just Beg For Trouble

Update: Sadly, No! took a few potshots at Baskerville, too. Well worth the read. One more thing. I don't know why that Virginia child support guidelines review panel has had such a hard time finding decent men to represent fathers. First, there was the guy who didn't have the time or expertise to participate but did anyway. Second, there was Baskerville. Third, Baskerville was apparently replaced by fathers' rights activist Murray Steinberg, who has tried to sue nearly everybody in the state of Virginia in his own divorce and custody case - for $75 million. He also has been incarcerated three times related to his divorce case. I mean, seriously, are good dads that hard to find in Virginia?

-----

Tinfoil hat alert! World O'Crap is having fun with that fathers' rights wingnut Stephen Baskerville, who apparently became president of the National Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC) while I was doing more important things.

For some more snarky fun, my readers should be made aware that ACFC was founded during the first U. S. Fathers' Day rally in the mid '90s (I forget the exact year). A handful of angry men and a couple of very bored kids wasted a beautiful Sunday standing on the steps of the closed U. S. Supreme Court. I know this because I went to the Library of Congress that day, which is right next door to the U. S. Supreme Court. I was there long enough to see what a total bust the "protest" was, and then I left to do the tourist thing for the rest of the day. The whole thing was actually very embarrassing because fathers' rights activists had advertized the hell out of it on their web sites, mailing lists, and Usenet groups - and no one had shown up. After all, this was a holiday. Tourists were busy eating at restaurants or visiting the museums. The "protest" also received no media attention, and the guys were upset about that.

These guys pissed off war veterans by calling their rally the "Purple Hearts for Fatherhood" rally and wearing paper "Purple Hearts" sporting the names of the children "stolen" from them. These guys made big snarky plans to promote fathers' rights by wearing leg irons symbolizing how they believe they were "prisoners of the system." They were going to drop a "Coffin of Fatherhood" on the steps, obviously to symbolize the alleged "death" of fatherhood as they saw it, but the guy who was supposed bring the coffin couldn't attend because he was in a California jail for refusal to pay child support. I was very disappointed. I had hoped to see some of them tumble down the steps when they became tangled in their leg irons (no one wore them), and I wondered what would fall out of that casket if one of the six "pallbearers for fathers" tripped on his way up the steps. Now something like that would have had a train wreck sort of appeal for me.

A couple of people drove by and one of the protesters yelled about "rights" into a bullhorn. No one paid any attention to him. Later, on the now defunct "Purple Hearts" web site, they claimed that a carload of feminists honked at them and laughed at them, but I seriously doubt it. I did see a group of Asian tourists take their picture, but I don't think they knew or cared what the protest was about. These were just tourists taking pictures of everything they ran into. They took a picture and left. I had asked a guard standing around outside if he had any idea what the protest was about. He didn't. He also said that he wasn't aware that any groups had applied for permission to protest that day, but since they weren't bothering anyone and no one paid much attention to them he just let it slide. No biggie.

It was during this "no biggie" that ACFC was formed. The guys created ACFC out of thin air on the steps while everyone else in D. C. was having fun in the nice weather.

According to World O'Crap, Baskerville is still whining his usual pink helicopter theory that courts are set up so that women can get divorced and then easily rake their ex-husbands over the coals by taking them for everything they've got. Oh, and divorced and single women expose their children to child abuse with the approval and encouragement of the court system. Oh, and once the woman gets her divorce, Social Services can step in, take the kids, and put them up for adoption. Baskerville had crossed the heterosexual nonsense barrier by now claiming that Social Services and the court system have cooked up gay marriage. Apparently, he thinks that since gay people cannot procreate (please see my previous post about a ruling involving two lesbian parents that shows what a buffoon Baskerville is), they must get their kids by stealing them from straight people. I am not making this up. Here is Baskerville, verbatim:

    Almost no attention has been devoted to what may be the more serious political question of who will supply the children of gay "parents," since obviously they cannot produce children themselves.
    Granting gay couples the "right" to have children by definition means giving them the right to have someone else's children, and the question arises whether the original parent or parents ever agreed to part with them.

I tell you, this stuff is too wacky to make up.

Baskerville is probably still smarting from being kicked off of the 2001 Virginia Child Support Guideline Review Panel he was invited to participate in, by appointment. The panel members decided they needed someone to represent the interests of fathers, and Baskerville was the best they could come up with. He was fired after the members got wind of a nasty op-ed he wrote for the Washington Times. Then Secretary of Health and Human Resources Louis Rossiter wrote, "[u]pon reviewing your opinions published in the June 17, 2001, [edition of The] Washington Times, we question whether you would be able to work effectively with other panel members. I find it difficult to see how you could effectively participate along with representatives of other groups that very likely have different perspectives than yours."

What's hilarious about this is that Baskerville publicly bashed the panel he was invited to participate in, by appointment. Criticism is one thing. Government panels can take criticism. Bashing is a completely different an unwarranted thing. And he wonders why he got fired? It's several years later and I see that Baskerville still needs to work on his people skills.

Readers of my blog are well aware of my disagreements over how child support theory has been misused to replenish state welfare coffers via welfare reform. I've also written about my many disagreements over the funding of "responsible" fatherhood and "male involvement" programs, most of which concentrate quite a bit on child support collection. They also step on the rights and authority of primary caregiving mothers. The way child support is handled via welfare reform is much different than the way it is handled in divorce cases. Despite there being many legitimate disagreements over how states handle child support collection in light of welfare reform, Baskerville went off the deep end in that Washington Times editorial, ranting about completely unrelated and ridiculous things such as "encouraging divorce and criminalizing fathers and therefore in making child support as onerous as possible."

Baskerville quoted "findings" in a prior minority report written by a man who worked full-time as a clothier who admitted that he had "neither the time nor the expertise to attend to his duties." Why the earlier panel had appointed this guy is beyond me. Maybe that is why he ended up in disagreement with the other panelists and wrote a minority report. His self-professed lack of time and expertise didn't stop Baskerville from quoting him.

Some choice bits:

    Mr. [Barry] Koplen set about to educate himself on the intricacies of the child-support industry. The result was a scathing indictment of how powerful interests can hijack the machinery of government not simply to line their pockets but to seize children and used them as weapons against law-abiding parents. Mr. Koplen accused the commission of nothing less than "criminal wrongdoing" in jailing parents "without due process of law." He discovered a political underworld where government officials are feathering their nests and violating citizens' rights while cynically proclaiming their concern for children. "This is frightening in its disregard for due process," Mr. Koplen wrote. "The violation of constitutional rights [is] perpetrated by both our courts and the DCSE."
    The review process was hardly better than the system itself: "conducted in a manner so questionable as to cast doubt on its credibility," said Mr. Koplen. "We had been asked to blind ourselves to the illegal incarceration of thousands of citizens in our state, to the harassment and pursuit of parents by attorneys on loan to DCSE." By controlling this panel, judges, lawyers, and plainclothes police are making the same laws they adjudicate and enforce.

First off, the debtor's prison is not alive and well in the U. S. Fatherhood initiatives have forgiven arrearages if the men in question agree to participate in a program. Fathers are not sent to jail because they can't pay child support. They go to jail for willful refusal to abide by a court order, which in this case would mean refusing to pay child support when one has the ability to do so. That's a far cry from throwing poor fathers who cannot pay into prison. Does Baskerville cite the valid argument that the promotion and creation of fatherhood programs are make-work for DCSE and other state agencies? No. He doesn't even seem to notice that the state would be concerned with welfare cases, especially between unmarried people, not divorces. His entire focus is on how divorced dads are "destroyed" by "the system."

Some more choice bits from Baskerville's op-ed:

    "The last review in 1999 was a classic case of the foxes guarding the hen house. The review panel was selected by the director of the state's Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE), and at least 10 of the 12 members derived income from the divorce system: two judges, four lawyers, a feminist, an enforcement official, two custodial parents, and a legislator. All these people have a stake in encouraging divorce and criminalizing fathers and therefore in making child support as onerous as possible. 'By virtue of the Director of DCSE deciding its make-up, conflict-of-interest concerns are both evident and also reflective of much larger improprieties.' "
    "Academic studies by Sanford Braver, Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen, and others confirm that the parent expecting custody usually files for divorce. Divorcing parents can then plunder their spouses by an assortment of charges that are "punitive and inappropriate," as Koplen puts it, and which render them subject to "incarceration and criminalization." This "civil rights nightmare" is perpetrated under the guise of providing for children by the very people who are forcibly destroying their homes. The divorce industry, in short, has turned children into cash cows."
    "This time around the eyes of the nation will be on Virginia to see if it will continue to enrich the divorce industry by engineering the destruction of its children's homes."

And he wonders why the other panel members had a problem with him?? It was a good thing that they finally got wind of what he was really about and booted him. Now he's ranting about gay parents stealing children from straight parents, even though in the end it's just his usual blather about mothers, Social Services, and the court system supposedly being in cahoots to screw over fathers. Same old, same old.

Posted on July 2, 2004 at 02:33 PM | Permalink

Comments

These guys are so sadly funny; one wonders if he actually believes the stuff he writes. I almost hope he is just lying; otherwise what the guy needs is white coats and meds.

Posted by: Rachel Ann at Jul 4, 2004 3:27:21 AM

That "Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society" where he works is rather dodgy as well. Ditto the people who gave him the fellowship.

Posted by: Bartholomew at Jul 4, 2004 5:15:58 AM

>Almost no attention has been devoted to what may be the more serious political question of who will supply the children of gay "parents," since obviously they cannot produce children themselves.
Granting gay couples the "right" to have children by definition means giving them the right to have someone else's children, and the question arises whether the original parent or parents ever agreed to part with them<


and they wonder why most of us divorced dads don't take them seriously.
chris

Posted by: chris at Jul 4, 2004 4:47:50 PM

"I was very disappointed. I had hoped to see some of them tumble down the steps when they became tangled in their leg irons (no one wore them), and I wondered what would fall out of that casket if one of the six "pallbearers for fathers" tripped on his way up the steps. Now something like that would have had a train wreck sort of appeal for me."

You really and truly are sick, sick, sick.
I'm starting to almost feel sorry for you. You live in a very distorted, dark, world.

Posted by: TonySprout at Sep 25, 2004 1:23:14 PM

What disappoints me is that someone like you who is so obviously out of touch with the "divorce industry" in our country, can actually attempt to write commentary on it. This system is screwed up, period. I am married to a non-custodial father who has been absolutely "raked" over the coals and been left financially insolvent by this "system" that you champion.

During his divorce, despite the fact that his ex-wife possessed a four-year college degree in education, he was ordered to pay all of her attorney fees, as well as the independent custody evaluation, AND court costs. Then on top of that, he has been paying over $1500 per month of child support, and is required to travel the 3+ hours to see his children. She never provides clothes for the children, and now she makes more than he does.

Oh, by the way, the independent custodial evaluation that I mentioned earlier done by a well-respected child psychologist, recommended overwhelmingly that custody be awarded to the father, because the mother was at-risk to abuse AND didn't have the maturity to raise the children in a proper environment.

You need to pull your head out of your feminist clouds, take off your pink-colored glasses and educate yourself on just how bad the system really is. Otherwise you will continue to look naive and foolish.

Posted by: Jenny at Dec 26, 2004 9:29:46 AM

"AND didn't have the maturity to raise the children in a proper environment."


Maybe your boyfriend should have thought of all this BEFORE he went skirt chasing and spawned a bunch of kids upon such an immature airhead...

As many of the rest of us are getting sick and tired of hearing about men like this who keep trying to get custody to avoid paying high child support...With a 50% divorce rate going on in this country, he shouldn't have spawned all those kids if he couldn't afford the child support and legal fees involved AFTER the fact...

Although actually I think its female enablers like you responsible for most of this problem...I consider you an emotional 'terrorist' trying to help this man get custody of children he doesn't even want just to avoid paying high child support...



Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 26, 2004 1:15:44 PM

Oh Jenny...it is bitter angry women like you, unfortunately that have set back the feminist movement some 100 years, with your rage and idiocy.

Just a couple of things...first of all, this man is my husband, not my "boyfriend." We have been married for five years and he is a wonderful father. It is sad that people like you and Trish Wilson believe just because someone has a penis, they are not a good parent, regardless of the facts. You should actually be ashamed of yourself. It is pathetic.

I especially enjoyed your commentary about his "skirt chasing" and "spawning children with an airhead." As a ultra-feminist, you are blow smoke out both sides of your mouth, blaming the "man" for everything, which is typical of you wacko feminists. My husband was married for nearly ten years, and helped create three wonderful children. These kids deserve better than what this system have given.

I also shake my head in disgust and bewilderment regarding your comments in your last paragraph. If it weren't such a sad commentary on the feminist movement and NOW, it would actually be comical, but the truth is it is just plain disgusting. You don't know my husband. I could list on-and-on the steps he has gone above and beyond to remain active in his children's life, AND to parent-from-a-distance. He is constantly making seven-hour round trips to see the kids in their basketball games, school programs, meet with teachers, and to try to give them the love and support that they are not getting from his ex-wife.

It is sad that bitter old NOW-hags like you automatically assume that anytime a father wants to have custody of his children, that it is all about the money. In truth, here in my state, I know more women that want the kids BECAUSE of the child support, his ex-wife included.

I suggest that you seek counseling, dear. It is obvious that you have been "wronged" by a man. Unfortunately, your anger, rage and bitterness obviously prevent you from being able to think clearly. People like you, Gloria Steinem and Hillary Clinton have done more damage to the reputation of women's rights than any man has ever done.

Posted by: Jodi at Dec 28, 2004 8:31:40 AM

One other thing Jenny, that I find incredibly depressing about women like you. Your first concern is to protect the "women," not the children. You are so insecure about being a woman, that you put this NOW attitude before the legitimate concern of kids. That is what is pathetic.

People like you and Gloria would rather have a crack-dealing whore get custody of the children, then a wonderful father, soley because of gender. THAT is what is frightening to me.

Fortunately there are women who share my beliefs that reform is needed. We believe that just because you have a vagina, doesn't automatically make you a better parent. Our group believes that whichever parent can better raise the child to maturation should be the custodial parent, regardless of gender. Fortunately our "women's groups" are beginning to offset your antiquated feminist b.s.

Posted by: Jodi at Dec 28, 2004 8:39:50 AM

Um...Jodi, I think you mean NYMOM, not Jenny. She didn't make the 'skirt chasing' crack...that was NYMOM.

Posted by: Masculiste at Dec 28, 2004 10:12:05 AM

"It is sad that bitter old NOW-hags like you automatically assume that anytime a father wants to have custody of his children, that it is all about the money. In truth, here in my state, I know more women that want the kids BECAUSE of the child support, his ex-wife included."


Yeah right...that's why in every single society in the world women RAISE the children because we're trying to get child support...CHILD SUPPORT wasn't even INVENTED until a short time ago so you don't even know what you are talking about...

AND you better watch your mouth on this site regarding women or Trish will probably give you the boot...this place is not like most of the woman-hating sites you usually frequent where you can say anything you want about women and it will be tolerated...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 28, 2004 12:10:08 PM

"Fortunately there are women who share my beliefs that reform is needed."

Yeah right...that's why 80% of mothers have custody of their children...because women 'share your beliefs'...

I can tell you right now MOST women as soon as they heard you threatening custody of their children wouldn't give you the time of day...The ONLY ones who will listen to you is second wives trying to help a group of male losers trying to get out of paying child support...

You're fighting a losing battle if you think you are going to get any women on board, as soon as they find out your agenda....

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 28, 2004 12:16:25 PM

"Um...Jodi, I think you mean NYMOM, not Jenny. She didn't make the 'skirt chasing' crack...that was NYMOM."

Ummmm Michael you have your own blog, as do I...

If you have something to say to me say it yourself on my blog or yours, instead of sending a female enabler to start a fight with me using someone else's space...

Thanks...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 28, 2004 12:21:13 PM

"What disappoints me is that someone like you who is so obviously out of touch with the "divorce industry" in our country, can actually attempt to write commentary on it."


Yeah right...that's why Hannity and Colmes invited Trish on their show to discuss various issues related to fathers rights, the divorce industry, joint custody, etc., ....

Like when was the last time anyone wanted your opinion on anything...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 28, 2004 12:31:06 PM

Hey NYMOM...I didn't send anybody to say ANYTHING to you.

Posted by: Masculiste at Dec 28, 2004 2:04:20 PM

NYMOM, what are you going so ballistic about??? So someone disagrees about what's going on in the divorce industry--big deal. The last I heard, anyone is welcome to post here unless they abuse the privilege. Let's all chill and debate civilly.

Posted by: Anne at Dec 28, 2004 4:02:44 PM

Anne--If we're going to urge posters to get schooled in ettiquette, then let's be consistent. Perhaps we can remind Jodi that calling people who don't agree with her "bitter NOW hags" isn't particularly civil. Or original. Or accurate, for that matter--NOW isn't taking leadership on family law or custody issues.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 28, 2004 5:03:04 PM

OK Sheelz, point taken. Although she was sort of blitzed first from out of left field--but you're right, name-calling doesn't excuse more name-calling.

Posted by: Anne at Dec 28, 2004 8:05:28 PM

"NYMOM, what are you going so ballistic about???"

Who's going ballistic?

I'm just stating a simple fact that this poster is claiming Trish is out of touch, ie., doesn't know what she's talking about....

So I'm just pointing out to her that Trish is knowledgable enough to have been invited to speak on Hannity and Colmes...

If you've been following this for any length of time, this is ALWAYS the accusation put out by various people who disagree with her...

I just responded...

Plus she called us bitter old NOW hags...

Is that just disagreeing with someone? I don't think so...actually I could have said a LOT worse to her and Michael, who appears to have instigated this, but it's the holidays so I restrained myself...

So enjoy the New Year...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 28, 2004 8:59:02 PM

"Although she was sort of blitzed first from out of left field"

How do you figure that?

Didn't you read her first post?

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 28, 2004 9:01:59 PM

"You need to pull your head out of your feminist clouds, take off your pink-colored glasses and educate yourself on just how bad the system really is. Otherwise you will continue to look naive and foolish."

This was in her very first post...like she knows anything...

Please...

We are just looking at another second wife who is just mad because her husband has to pay high child support...she mentions it in her second paragraph...

She knew he had kids when she married him so you know what, if it was a problem for her she should have looked for a man with no kids...not come here moaning and groaning because his wife is so immature and they can raise her kids sooooo much better (and probably cheaper too) then she can...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 28, 2004 9:08:10 PM

Again, I didn't instigate a damn thing. I had no part in that thread other than telling one party that they were talking to another party. Sheelz, if you want to give some advise on ettiquette try giving the same advise to NYMOM.

Posted by: Masculiste at Dec 28, 2004 10:18:21 PM

You guys are sad and pathetic--period. Actually there are many REAL women's groups that are more concerned about the children rather than protecting some stereotype that mother's are automatically better parents, which we all know (except for those of you in your feminist-b.s. haze) is just not true.

The bottom line in custody should be who will raise the children better. THAT is obviosly not important to women like you. That is shameful, disgusting and assinine. The children should be the most important thing. In many cases, however, for the mother's who seek custody, it is not. Believe me, I work in the "system," and I have had to work with literally hundreds of women who care only about "getting the check." It makes me puke.

However, we are slowly beginning to expose this sad situation that you and your NOW-gang enable. Kids that are without clothes in spite of their "mother" getting hundreds of dollars a month in child support. However these same mother's have the most "hip" clothes and cars. It is sickening. (But that kind of stuff doesn't bother the NOW people like you...because after all, MOM is getting the money...and SINCE she has a VAGINA...then who cares.)

Meanwhile I have seen many father's who are abused by this antiquated system that rewards a lady just because she is a woman. I have seen fathers who are 10x the parents that the mom's are, but because they have a penis...never get a fair share. Again, fortunately this situation is beginning to turn, because of REAL women's groups who are more interested in what is RIGHT, rather than making sure that the women "get there money."

I am not saying that all father's are good, and all mother's are bad. Certainly would never claim that, but I think it is extremely sad, pathetic, naive and just plain ignorant for you to always think that the MOM is the better parent. It just isn't the case, and deep down inside you know that too, but your rage and hostility won't allow you to think clearly.

That is what is so sad about the NOW gang. They have turned women like you into a bunch of hostile, hate-filled, followers. And if Trish gives me the boot because you people can't handle a dose of reality, then so be it. I'll leave you to your hostile, man-hating rage bash sessions.

Posted by: Jodi at Dec 29, 2004 9:34:48 AM

By the way, this post was taken out of the "civil" stages by NYMOM, when she accused my husband of "skirt chasing" and attacked him. She doesn't know ANYTHING about him, but obviously not knowing something has never prvented her from spouting off.

If you go back and read her response to my original post, it is filled with feminist hostility. To me that is the problem with the current "women's rights" gang. There is no crediblity whatsoever. When someone can not even admit that perhaps a father is a better parent than a mother in some cases, then it reaks of ignorance.

P.S. Hannity and Colmes have also had David Duke on their program. Does that mean he is an expert on civil rights?????

Posted by: Jodi at Dec 29, 2004 9:41:49 AM

Jodi, if you're going to make a point here are a few tips:

Personal attacks against every single person who disagrees with you isn't going to get you heard.

Spewing vitriol against everyone on this board because you're feeling pissy with NYMOM isn't going to get you heard. Reread your criticisms about the hostility in NYMOM's posts, and apply it to yourself. While you're at it, take your own advice about getting some therapy.

I mean, let me get this straight, some random poster that you don't even know accuses your husband of skirt chasing and you decide to take it out on every single person who reads/posts at this blog? Let me remind you--you don't know anything about Trish or those of us who post here, yet you feel free to "spout off" about us. Not the behavior of someone to be taken seriously. Again, hold yourself to the same standards you hold us to.

The fact is, Trish backs up her contentions with case law and research. You may not agree with her conclusions or her opinions, but you'll be more effective if you link to credible research and pertinent case law. *Link* to it, and possibly provide a *short* excerpt. Please don't cut and paste entire articles; there are copyright issues, and no one pays for bandwidth so that posters can paste whole articles in their blogs.

It will certainly be more effective than screaming about "NOW hags" and the like. And by the way, I'll repeat what I said before: NOW has not taken any leadership on family law or custody issues, so yelling about NOW betrays your own ignorance.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 10:15:01 AM

Masculiste, I didn't comment about etiquette until Anne told NYMOM off for doing the exact same thing that Jodi's been doing.

If you are such a fan of consistency, I suggest you practice it.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 10:24:36 AM

Anne, NYMOM's original post was to Jenny and NOT Jodi. Jodi answers to Jenny when she means NYMOM, but then says that NYMOM smeared her husband. So, is Jodi actually Jenny? Is she just confused? NYMOM's not the only person coming out of left field here.

If the father's rights folks here expect courtesy, they should practice it, and call bullshit when they see some of their own call other posters "cunt", make false accusations against Trish and the other posters here, tell people who don't agree with them "suck me off, that's all a skank like you is good for" and other charming behaviors.

It's no skin off my nose if they want to make themselves look stupid, but if they are going to dish it out--or sit by and twiddle their thumbs while others do--they should learn to take it. Especially when what gets dished back to them is so mild in comparison.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 10:30:58 AM

By the way, this post was taken out of the "civil" stages by NYMOM, when she accused my husband of "skirt chasing" and attacked him.

NYMOM's post with the skirt-chasing remark was in response to JENNY. Not you. You hadn't even posted yet--unless you had under the name of Jenny? If not, then it wasn't your husband she "attacked." It was Jenny's--and NYMOM was specifically addressing her post.

Are you and Jenny one and the same person?

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 10:37:48 AM

"The bottom line in custody should be who will raise the children better."

AND since it's impossible for anyone to KNOW the future with any certainity, the ONLY thing we can judge what you will do in the future is by looking at your past behavior...which is exactly WHY most women STILL get custody of their children. Because mothers are still the ones doing 90% of the work involved with raising the children BEFORE the money becomes an issue.

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 29, 2004 10:42:21 AM

"What disappoints me is that someone like you who is so obviously out of touch with the "divorce industry" in our country, can actually attempt to write commentary on it. This system is screwed up, period. I am married to a non-custodial father who has been absolutely "raked" over the coals and been left financially insolvent by this "system" that you champion."

I do know what I'm talking about, and I back up my statements with reputable material. You are merely a subsequent wife who is angry that your husband has to pay $1500 per month in child support. That's money you'd prefer stay in your household, and it yanks your chain. I've heard similar stories from countless women married to noncustodial dads. They are all the same - he pays too much child support, his ex-wife is a bitter woman, she "dresses the kids in rags," and the kids would be much better off with daddy, and she the subsequent wife would take much better care of them then their own mother. Same old story, all the time, and it's garbage. By the way, NOW is not involved in divorce and custody cases, except for a few isolated chapters. If you are going to state your case, provide valid arguments rather than vitriol and personal attacks.

I'm on vacation. I really don't have the time or the desire to deal with disgruntled subsequent wives.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Dec 29, 2004 10:43:16 AM

"You guys are sad and pathetic--period. Actually there are many REAL women's groups that are more concerned about the children rather than protecting some stereotype that mother's are automatically better parents, which we all know (except for those of you in your feminist-b.s. haze) is just not true."

Why don't you name some of these "real womens' groups" then.

Other then the 'Second Wives Club'...

Posted by: at Dec 29, 2004 10:44:11 AM

Anne: "OK Sheelz, point taken. Although she was sort of blitzed first from out of left field--but you're right, name-calling doesn't excuse more name-calling."

No, she wasn't blitzed from out of left field. She came here attacking me first without provocation, and continued to attack me in a later post. You neglected to point that out. As Sheelz had written, if we're going to urge posters to get schooled in etiquette, then let's be consistent.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Dec 29, 2004 10:48:39 AM

By the way, for all those subsequent wives who like to complain about their poor husband's "bitter ex's," take a good, hard look at how your husband treats his ex-wife. Take a good, hard look at how he complains about her. Take a good, hard look at how you help him in his endless fighting against her and your endless complaints about child support and such. Should you and your husband ever divorce, there is a good chance that he will treat you exactly the same way you and he treated his ex-wife, especially if you have had children together. He will find another woman who will fill your shoes and she will direct her venom towards you the same way you direct your venom towards his ex-wife. I've seen this happen numerous times, and it's an interesting thing to see. What goes around, comes around.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Dec 29, 2004 10:52:24 AM

Trish, maybe you could take out an ad for trolls who are amusing and original. This current crop is neither. I mean, jeez, "Jodi" doesn't even know who she is.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 10:59:05 AM

I noticed that. Are Jodi and Jenny the same person? The last thing I need is a new crop of trolls. I have more trolls on my blog than in the entire game of World of Warcraft.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Dec 29, 2004 11:03:15 AM

We should take these strays to a troll-shelter. Although if they amuse me, I'll give them a snack before we send them packing.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 11:12:15 AM

Trish,

I hope you have a happy vacation. I do disagree with you, and based upon my experiences, NOT ONLY with my husband's ex-wife, but also with the hundreds of cases that I have seen personally, that you do not have a clear grasp of how severe this problem is. You are a feminist-first, andt that is fine, but please don't try to portray yourself as someone who is "in the trenches." Your position is that MOTHERS "deserve" custody simply BECAUSE they are mothers. That, is absolutely ludicrous and quite frankly ignorant. There are many, MANY, MANY mothers who are not the better option, but that is not important to you or your loyal followers. What IS important is to make sure that the woman "gets her check." Its sad.

Am I disgusted that our household is paying $1500 of child support? Of course I am. I am disgusted because a trained child psychologist, who is able to put aside gender, recommended, after a thorough investigation, that in this case, the father was the best option to raise the children to maturation. She also wrote that the mother "lacked the maturity to raise the children," and was "at risk to abuse." However, because a lackluster and incompentent judge, who subscribes to the same theory that you and the NOW gang do that MOTHERS are better parents SOLEY because they are MOTHERS discarded this information, calling it only "troubling."

I am a mother. I am proud to be a mother. My ex-husband was and is (GASP!) a wonderful father. My husband is a (GASP!) wonderful father. It pains me that so many women are filled with such hostility that they put their gender ahead of the best interests of children.

Your position is as clear as it is naive. All people are different. Not all mothers are good mothers. Not all fathers are good fathers. Which, is why I wholeheartedly disagree with your position and feel that gender should not be a determining factor in custodial issues.

If you want to check out other women's groups that share my beliefs, do a quick search on the internet. It won't take you long. Believe me, not all women share your sexist views.

Posted by: Jodi at Dec 29, 2004 11:27:07 AM

Are you Jodi or Jenny?

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 11:31:54 AM

BTW, Trish has never said that mothers deserve custody just because they are mothers. That betrays more ignorance on your part.

Trish has said that the primary caregiver should get custody, that it is the *very* rare marriage where there is a true 50/50 split in childcare--and often, the primary caregiver is the mother. Agree with that, disagree with that, but don't misrepresent it.

Read what Trish actually says before you go spouting off.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 11:35:11 AM

Trish,

What ever caused you to be so hostile towards men? Were you cheated on? Divorced? Did someone break your heart? I am amazed at the anger and hostility you have towards men.

As far as how my husband treats his ex-wife, he treats her very well as a matter of fact. He has gone out of his way to get along and work with his ex-wife. We live in the midwest, and often the exchanges are done during times of inclement weather and snow. He purchased her a cell phone and paid for her cell plan so that if anything would happen during those trips, she would not be stranded.

He continues to take the children out every year to purchase their mom birthday, mother's day and Christmas presents. While she is unable to keep the kids under control, if they are disrespectful to their mother in any way, they are called out on it if it is in his presence.

My husband on countless times has changed exchange times to accomodate her schedule, in spite of his work. So, regarding your comment about how he would treat me if we divorced, I would be fine with that, although we will have no children to worry about. But, I do appreciate your concern.

What is so disturbing to me is that you people here are so militant. In your eyes, there is no room for the possibility that fathers are good people. That is what is disturbing.

Posted by: Jodi at Dec 29, 2004 11:40:07 AM

Jodi,

Can you back up your contentions? While you're at it, can you bother to read what Trish actually writes on the subject of custody?

I didn't think so. You don't even seem to know if you're Jodi or Jenny.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 11:41:54 AM

Sheelz: "We should take these strays to a troll-shelter. Although if they amuse me, I'll give them a snack before we send them packing."

Have fun. ;) I just can't be bothered with this one because she's spouting nonsense that has no basis in reality, she's just an angry second wife, and I don't want to waste my vacation time with the stupidity.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Dec 29, 2004 11:49:49 AM

She's not answering any of my questions about her identity or backing up her "arguments". Jody/Jenny doesn't even want to read what you've written. Then she'd actually have to think about the issue and rebut you logically instead of spew.

Maybe she should take her own advice about therapy and get some anger management work done, and treatment for her multiple personality disorder.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 11:52:29 AM

Yes, I am one in the same.

Thats what I figured. You can call me an "angry second wife," or whatever. Heck, you can even call me a troll, because I am not in lock-stock-and-barrell with what you believe, but the tide is fortunately turning for men like my husband.

Women like me and others who ARE familiar with what is happening are beginning to get things changed. Which is why NOW adamantly opposes equity in custody for some reason. In the state of Iowa, Governor Vilsack just signed HF22, or the JPC law. I could never understand why the local chapter of NOW opposed it. It didn't make any sense to me. Children should have as much contact with both parents as possible, but for some reason the local NOW representatives disagreed, raising all sorts of a ruckus at the Statehouse. So, apparently, NOW IS involved in custody legislation.

I hope someday your hostility will subside, for your sake. Men are not evil, and in fact are often very VERY good parents. My husband AND my ex-husband are both examples. In my case, I worked WITH my ex during our divorce to insure the most exposure possible to both parents.

I HAVE read what Trish has written and find it sad, as I pointed out earlier. Instead of being able to talk in a rationale way, she attempts to paint me as some sort of second-class woman because I married someone who was previously divorced. Again, her position of gender being the primary factor in deciding child custody is as clear as it is naive.

What other questions do you wish me to answer? Are you wanting me to post the actual recommendation of the FEMALE child psychologist? I would have to get it out of the files, but I would have no problem doing this.

I also notice that Trish didn't answer my questions about why she is so hostile towards men. In fact, she goes off on me, rather than addressing any of the issues I have put forth. Apparently just another example of passive-agressive behavior. Something I see alot of in my work.

Posted by: Jodi at Dec 29, 2004 12:48:01 PM

Look, fellas, the gig is up. Taking turns hiding behind the persona of a fictional second wife isn't going to help--especially when you all can't keep the name you're supposed to use straight. You are using the same tactics and tired rhetoric you always use. Can't you be a little more original?

Even as trolls, you are failures.

Thats [sic] what I figured. You can call me an "angry second wife," or whatever. Heck, you can even call me a troll, because I am not in lock-stock-and-barrell with what you believe.

Sort of how you called us "NOW hags" and man-haters? Here's a clue for you, dear: anyone who posts under multiple names, posts to herself (or himself? or themselves?) and throws about insults and ad-homs is a textbook troll.

In the state of Iowa, Governor Vilsack just signed HF22, or the JPC law. I could never understand why the local chapter of NOW opposed it. It didn't make any sense to me. Children should have as much contact with both parents as possible, but for some reason the local NOW representatives disagreed, raising all sorts of a ruckus at the Statehouse. So, apparently, NOW IS involved in custody legislation.

That's a local chapter, not the national chapter. The national chapter has not taken leadership on custody issues, and local chapters that oppose a bill doesn't equal "working on custody issues," no matter how much you'd like it to.

I hope someday your hostility will subside, for your sake.

Pot, kettle, black. I hope you reread your vitriolic posts and follow your own advice regarding hostility.

Men are not evil

Kindly show where I said they were evil. You can't--but then, it's easier for you to put words into people's mouths than actually debate what they said, isn't it?

In my case, I worked WITH my ex during our divorce to insure the most exposure possible to both parents.

Good for you. So have a lot of the posters on this blog. You have also apparently bitten into your current husband's fight with his ex, which is sad.

I HAVE read what Trish has written and find it sad, as I pointed out earlier.

No, you haven't, and I've pointed out why it's obvious. You are attributing opinions and statements to her that she never espoused/said. Kindly post a link or a quote to show where she said that women should get custody just because they are mothers. Kindly link to the statement where she said that all men are evil and fathers make bad parents. You can't because she didn't. I can link to what she said about primary caregivers.

Instead of being able to talk in a rationale [sic] way, she attempts to paint me as some sort of second-class woman because I married someone who was previously divorced.

Oh, do you mean the way you've called people here "NOW hags", "man-haters," "pathetic" and "sad?" Not very rational on your part. I saw no indication that you read her posts. You didn't actually take her contentions and rebut them in a logical or thoughtful way. Nor did I see any links to credible research to back up your contentions--but then, you didn't really have any contentions other than the fact that we are "NOW hags."

Be advised, you started with the personal attacks, and it's a bit rich for you to pout and snivel when you get slapped back in cyberspace. Grow up, and hold yourself to the same standards you hold others to.

Again, her position of gender being the primary factor in deciding child custody is as clear as it is naive.

Again, you obviously haven't read anything she's written, as she never said that by virtue of being women, mothers should get custody. The only thing that's clear is your woeful lack of reading comprehension.

What other questions do you wish me to answer? Are you wanting me to post the actual recommendation of the FEMALE child psychologist? I would have to get it out of the files, but I would have no problem doing this.

I don't give two hoots about your personal life or the personal lives of anyone else on this blog. This isn't about your individual case, and I'd rather you not violate your stepkids' privacy by posting personal information about them--information which would be included in a custody case. (Although it's obvious that "you" are really a bunch of the same old trolls posting under one name.)

If you want to go by personal and anectodal evidence alone, there are plenty of people who could give their own harrowing experiences to back up Trish's contentions. So?

You seem to think that this blog is a forum for you to vent your spleen about your husband's ex. It isn't. I certainly hope you don't act this histrionic and bitter around your stepkids.

I also notice that Trish didn't answer my questions about why she is so hostile towards men.

That's because it was a stupid question on your part--it's also an old and moldy question. It's the typical response of anyone who disagrees with something seen as even slightly feminist. If you had bothered to read what Trish had to say, you'd see she wasn't hostile towards men, but then, well, you'd have to read. You don't seem fond of doing that.

In fact, she goes off on me, rather than addressing any of the issues I have put forth.

Let's see--you ascribe opinions to Trish that she does not hold, call Trish and the people who post here man-haters and hags, and say you're putting forth issues? Good Lord! Don't join the debate team.

Apparently just another example of passive-agressive behavior. Something I see alot [sic] of in my work.

Oh, do you train them in how to do it? Here are some examples of personal attacks and passive agressive behavior. Spot the troll:

bitter old NOW-hags like you

that is not important to you or your loyal followers. What IS important is to make sure that the woman "gets her check." Its [sic] sad.

You guys are sad and pathetic--period

They have turned women like you into a bunch of hostile, hate-filled, followers. . . I'll leave you to your hostile, man-hating rage bash sessions.

Hmmmm. . .no personal attacks there. No vitriol. Lots of issues are apparent--mainly yours. But then, I'm not surprised since this is coming from someone who answers "her" own vitriolic posts with vitriol and can't figure out who "she" is.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 2:08:22 PM

Lol! Sorry, no fictional wife here. Pure woman, and proud of it. Yep, I guess I'm a troll because I disagree with the general consensus here. So be it.

Okay, I'm not sure what you think. One moment you call me a guy, because no female could possibly disagree with the "feminists" on this board. Then later in your own post, you condemn me for taking on my current husband's fight with his ex? And, like I guess I should just sit idly by when I see someone mistreated by an out-of-control system? If John F. Kennedy would have odne that in the 1960's, the civil rights movement would not have been successful.

I'm sorry, I think you all ARE pathetic for your approach to custodial issues. When I originally posted about my husband, all of the sudden he is a skirt-chasing slimeball. My GOD! That is pathetic. Just because someone disagrees with the gender bias in the courts, it turns to a personal attack. Go back and re-read for yourself, before you take such a high and mighty position.

As for NOW being involved in custody issues, you are incorrect. When a representative uses her NOW title to object to legislation, that is USING NOW. It doesn't matter if it is a "local" chapter or not, it is NOW. Fortunately, NOW doesn't carry much weight around the Iowa Statehouse, as the bill passed, which was a MAJOR victory for kids and their fathers.

Further, I don't have a problem with my husband's ex, personally. I don't think she is a very good mother, and that has been backed up by professionals. As a person, she is nice enough. This is about a much bigger issue. It is about putting kids before gender. It is about putting kids in the best environment for growth and development, rather than putting kids in a house JUST because the mommy lives there. It is about a system that is so filled with gender bias that it is pathetic. It is about reform of that system for the sake of children who deserve better than what they are currently getting.

As for the questions I put forward to Trish, they are not stupid, and in fact are valid. I always wonder the cause of people who harbor so much hostility towards anyone. Obviously there is some background there.

As for the "information" that is posted on this blog....it is suspect for sure. I could direct you to many sites that contradict much of what is written on this site. I am quite sure that you would just find some convenient way to discredit it, because it doesn't fall in line with your gender-first beliefs.

While I certainly will admit that the use of "NOW-hags" was inappropriate, I find the philosophy of most of the posts and "stories" I have read here to be quite troubling.

The great thing about this, though, is that we are making progress, which is why there is so much hostility from the feminist movement. With JPC laws passing in Iowa and other states, people are beginning to educate themselves on how out of balance the system has been, and are beginning to take action. It is a slow process, but common sense will prevail over gender-bias.

Posted by: Jodi at Dec 29, 2004 2:54:03 PM

Yep, I guess I'm a troll because I disagree with the general consensus here. So be it.

Nope, you're a troll because you post under two names, post to yourself, post vitriol and then squeal when your head gets handed back to you, and can't keep track of who you are. It must be confusing, having two identities. Or getting your mates together and posting under one name but not actually deciding which name it will be. Either way, your actions show you are 100% troll.

Your contention that the research is suspect doesn't hold water if you don't back up your assertions. And you still refuse to actually read what Trish posted on this blog. You have yet to point out where I said I hate men or where I supposedly said that all men are evil. You are posting lies about people on this blog, and it's getting tiresome, as is your temper-tantrums about personal attacks--I don't see you owning your behavior.

Your original post wasn't a rebuttal to the original article, as you have nothing pertinent to say about Baskerville's homophobia or how his logic relates to your alleged case, or to custody issues in general. Nope, just bile towards Trish and the other alleged "man-haters" here. Don't snivel when you get responses in kind.

You could direct me to sites that back up your contentions, but you haven't, because you are sure I'll do exactly what you've done--discredit them because they don't fall into line with your beliefs. Oh, the irony. You could actually take some of Trish's contentions, rebut them logically (sans the "you're a man-hater!!!" hysteria) and back up your arguments with peer-reviewed research (I suspect the sites you could direct me to are anything but credible, peer-reviewed research). That you haven't tells me that you know you haven't a leg to stand on. You are indeed just trolling.

It's ironic how you model the behavior you condemn.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 3:25:51 PM

BTW, Jodi/Jenny/whoever,

Thanks for reviving this thread about Stephen Baskerville and keeping it alive! It's a great reminder about the hostile and bigoted father's rights folks out there. Reasonable people run from the likes of him when they hear his paranoia, so in that regard, I guess we owe you.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 3:32:49 PM

Jodi - forget it querida, this is not a site for sweet reason.
Let the hairy ladies chew their bitter cud.

Posted by: Hermanastro at Dec 29, 2004 4:33:49 PM

Jodi - forget it querida, this is not a site for sweet reason.

If that's the case, then she--and you--should feel very welcome here.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 4:57:23 PM

Sheelz, these attacks from the troll(s) are getting old. My blog must really get under their skin for them to come here so much and spew so much bile.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Dec 29, 2004 5:50:13 PM

They're your secret fan club.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 29, 2004 5:54:37 PM

They're a fan club alright. They hang on every word I say even though they've never actually read anything I've written. I think they're projecting their own inadequacies, rage, and prejudices onto me. Figures.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Dec 29, 2004 5:57:20 PM

"I am a mother. I am proud to be a mother. My ex-husband was and is (GASP!) a wonderful father."

Why don't you give me this "gasp, wonderful father" of your own children contact information... as I've been involved with HUNDREDS of cases just like yours and I find a very disturbing lack of consistency in many 'second-wives' situations...as many of your ex-husbands and the fathers of your children appear to paint you all as total a@@holes who instigate most of the trouble with your second-husbands...

It's also appears a disturbing number of you have temporary restraining orders out against your exs and/or against yourselves...


Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 29, 2004 6:43:38 PM

"if they are disrespectful to their mother in any way, they are called out on it if it is in his presence."

Maybe he should be consistent with that and do the same thing to you...every time you mouth off on how immature his ex is and how much better off her children would be with you...he should call you out on it...

What do you think...just in the interest of consistency...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 29, 2004 6:48:02 PM

"Children should have as much contact with both parents as possible...."

Right now you're talking...but the parent making more income is STILL going to be required to pay child support as now many Judges ARE awarding Joint Custody but making the higher income parent pay child support anyway based upon disparities in income...

Why don't you read Colonna versus Colonna in PA...you can get a printout of it from Lexus/Nexus...

Then bring it back to all of those womens' sites that support you and analyze it amongst yourselves...

Bottom line your ex would get ALL the visitation he wanted with that ruling and STILL BE REQUIRED to PAY that $1,500 monthly in child support...

So Joint Custody is NOT going to solve mens' problem as their problem is they do NOT wish to pay ANY child support...and that's just not gonna happen...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 29, 2004 6:58:00 PM

"If John F. Kennedy would have odne that in the 1960's, the civil rights movement would not have been successful."


I wish people who support fathers rights would NOT make any comparisons to civil rights and or slavery when they make their arguments...as fathers did NOT do very well during slavery, they really didn't...

Actually fathers COULD have been a force for change and rescued many of their own children during this period in our country's history but they didn't...even the best of them like Thomas Jefferson didn't come off very well during this era...

Don't start me quoting Frederick Douglass about fatherhood and slavery, please...

I'm almost embarrassed for your side every time any of you mention civil rights or slavery to bolster your own arguments...


Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 29, 2004 7:08:09 PM

The civil rights movement IS an accurate comparison to the plight of fathers who have been abused by the system. Currently in many states, a father is not even allowed to defend himself against allegations of domestic abuse, prior to the children being taken away from him. If a woman just walks into a court room and says "I'm scared." Then in many states a father can be removed from the home and forced to find other living arrangements, while still being required to pay the mortgage or rent, and child support! In those cases, the father is presumed guilty without even having an opportunity to defend himself. There needs to be reform. There has to be a better way. SOME proof should be required for a TRO to be obtained, but in most cases it is not.

WHICH, is why these TRO's are often used by attorneys and women to gain an upper hand in the custody case. I've seen it many times. No history of abuse...no evidence whatsoever, but then suddenly after the divorce papers are filed...whallla!! Abuse allegations. Magical isn't it?

NYMOM, you are one of the reasons that progress is being made. Your out-of-touch gender bias is a motivating factor for many women like me who are well aware that not all fathers of divorce are "skirt chasers" and the like. It is commentary by people like you that motivate people like me and other women that are active to educate people about the problems with the current "feminist" movement.

Most fathers are good parents, and many are better parents than the mothers they are/were married to. Again, the militant attitude of those on this site that WOMEN are ALWAYS best for custodial issues, is what blows crater-sized holes in the credibility of those on this site.

Again, the exciting thing is that the tide is turning. With many states passing the JPC laws, we are taking a step in the right direction. As the father's movement continues to grow, people are becoming more aware of the gender bias in the court system, and we are seeing mandated changes. Hopefully, soon, we will see a day when custody is decided, not because of gender, but instead because of who is the better parent to help the child/ren grow. .

Posted by: Jodi at Dec 30, 2004 10:37:08 AM

NYMOM...one other thing, most father's I know are not opposed to supporting their children. What they are opposed to is the women who use it as a paycheck. Child support was designed originally to equal the support of the custodial parent. In most cases today, that just doesn't happen. I know of several cases, my husband's included, in which the non-custodial parent pays MORE than the custodial parent makes. Custodial parents also have an obligation to support their children financially as well. Unfortunately many don't.

Posted by: Jodi at Dec 30, 2004 10:42:20 AM

The civil rights movement IS an accurate comparison to the plight of fathers who have been abused by the system.

Oh, good Lord. Talk to me when you have a cross burned in front of your house, your husband is stopped and searched for his skin color, your husband is tortured and killed for spectator sport, and your husband's voting rights are taken away.

Then again, you're not even sure who you are, so why would you have a clue about the civil rights movement and the history of racism in America?

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 30, 2004 11:01:30 AM

Jodi: "WHICH, is why these TRO's are often used by attorneys and women to gain an upper hand in the custody case. I've seen it many times. No history of abuse...no evidence whatsoever, but then suddenly after the divorce papers are filed...whallla!! Abuse allegations. Magical isn't it?"

Wrong. I'm tired of your propaganda. By the way, it's "voila," not "whallla."

Here are the facts about TROs and abuse allegations:

"On the basis of research that has been conducted so far, it is difficult to support an assertion that there are high rates of false allegations of sexual abuse consciously made by mothers in divorce situations." [Faller, Kathleen Coulborn, David L. Corwin, and Erna Olafson, "Research on False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Divorce," 6 The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children Advisor 1 (Fall 192) p.9.

Fact: "[F]alse charges are infrequent, and every allegation must be taken seriously." [Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, "The Sexual Abuse Allegation Project: Final Report" (1988)]

---

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


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

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

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

Everson and Boat found that 17% of the false sexual abuse allegations arose during a custody dispute leading to an age-averaged false allegation rate in custody disputes of 0.8%.(.17x4.7%). (D. Finklehor and S. Araji, J. Sex Research 22, 145 (1986)) (Finklehor, D. Araji, S., _Child sexual assault_) (J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 28, 230 (1989), Everson, M.D. Boat, B. W.)

Finally, the extensive study of 1,249 allegations by Everson and Boat found a false allegation rate of 1.6% for children under 3 years of age, 1.7% for children aged 3 to 6, 4.3% for children aged 6 to 12, and 8% for adolescents (for an age-averaged rate of 4.7%). (Everson and Boat, J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 28, 230 (1989).)

The study of 142 cases by Faller gave a 3% false allegation rate. (K. C. Faller, Childhood Abuse: An Interdisciplinary Manual for Diagnosis, Case Management and Treatment (Columbia University Press, New York, 1988).

A study by Jonathan Horowitz found a false allegation rate of 8% for 181 older children (children over 8 years of age.) (Jonathan Horowitz, professor clinical psychiatry at Boston University, unpublished manuscript, 1984.)

Jones and McGraw found that false allegations by children represented 2% of the 439 allegations they studied (false allegations by adults gave an additional 6%). (David P. H. Jones and J. Melbourne McGraw, J. of Interpersonal Violence 2, 27 (1987).)

Contrary to myth, allegations of sexual abuse in custody proceedings are relatively rare. An American Bar Association and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts study concluded that of 9,000 custody-visitation disputes, that fewer than 2% involved allegations of sexual abuse.Moreover, they found that allegations arising in post-divorce cases were even more likely to be valid. (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Research Unit, "Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Custody & Visitation Cases: An Empirical Study from 12 States," at 15-16 (March 1988).

---

Quoted from a report of a study by J. Pearson, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit organization established in l991 to research and evaluate a variety of family law and child welfare issues, from article published FAMILY LAW JOURNAL, Summer l993, Vol 27, No 2 copyright American Bar Association Family Law Section.

"Media accounts, anecdotal reports, and small clinical studies that focus on contested custody cases with sexual abuse allegations have fostered the perception that these problems are rampant and are new common weapons in the divorce arsenal.

"To assess the incidence, nature, and validity of such allegations, we had mediators and court evaluators in eight domestic relations courts keep track of all sexual abuse cases. Of the more than 9,000 families served, less than 2 percent also involved allegations of sexual abuse. The percentage range was from 1 percent to 8 percent. These patterns were consistent with findings obtained in an independent investigation conducted in the Oakland court during l985-87 where incidences of 5 and 6 percent of contested cases were discovered.

"Hence, while these allegations might be increasing, they are hardly rampant. Other popular conceptions were also called into question by this study. For example, these cases are not limited to accusations against fathers. Indeed, mothers accused the child's father in only half the cases. The rest involved third parties, mother's new partners, stepfathers, and others.

"Nor did we find that sexual abuse allegations in contested cases were more likely to be unfounded than in cases in the general population. In half the cases with allegations, abuse was believed to have occurred, in 33 percent no abuse was believed to have occurred, and in 17 percent no determination was reached by either a court evaluator or CPS worker. Even when the allegation was unfounded, most of the experts we interviewed believed the reports were made in good faith.

"Finally, cases involving allegations made by mothers against fathers were equally likely to be perceived as valid as allegations made by fathers against mothers. Allegations that were not founded tended to involved younger children and single rather than multiple episodes with no prior abuse or neglect reports. These are precisely the types of cases that tend to be judged unfounded when sexual abuse allegations occur in the general population. Like visitation denial cases, sexual abuse allegations are extremely vexing. As a result, their impact on the court system remains disproportional to their incidence."

---

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

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

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

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

---

The WBA Law Journal
May, 1999, Vol. III No. 1

Why Attorneys Should Routinely
Screen Clients for Domestic Violence

By Pauline Quirion, Esq.

Excerpts:

In the recent landmark decision, Custody of Vaughn, the Supreme Judicial Court has observed that "[t]he very frequency of domestic violence . . . may have the effect of inuring courts to it and thus minimizing its significance." A 1994 study of batterers based on the database used to track restraining orders concluded that:


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

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

Most batterers minimize and deny the frequency and severity of their abusive conduct. Similarly, victims often underreport and may minimize the abuse. They may be embarrassed or fear that disclosure will lead to retaliation by the abuser, financial hardship or personal stigma. In addition, some practitioners fail to appreciate that abuse cuts across all class lines and stereotype abuse victims as primarily indigent. These dynamics make it easy for an untrained practitioner to gloss over information pointing to domestic violence and which may be relevant to a client's case or continued safety.

---

From "Are Allegations of Sexual Abuse That Arise During Child Custody Disputes More Likely to Be False?"
An Annotated Review of the Research
Bala, N. & Schuman, J. (2000). Allegations of sexual abuse when parents have separated.
Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 17, 191-241.

"In the largest study of its kind in Canada, Nicholas Bala and John Schuman, two Queen's University law professors, looked at 196 custody hearings across the country. The research showed 71% of sexual abuse allegations were brought by mothers, whereas fathers initiated only 17% of the accusations. The rest were the result of concerned grandparents, siblings or partners who, as well as the parents, often sought aid from a child protection agency."

"Of female-initiated allegations, just 1.3% were deemed intentionally false by civil courts, compared with 21% when the man in the failed relationship brought similar allegations."

---

I'm tired of your ranting, Jodi/Jenny, or whatever your name is. Take your nonsense elsewhere.


Posted by: Trish Wilson at Dec 30, 2004 11:03:31 AM

She's not going to read it, Trish. Any research that doesn't support her warped views is "suspect", no matter how credible the source. She pretty much said that several posts back. She can't--and hasn't--given any credible supporting research for her own contentions. I think that's because there's no credible, peer-reviewed research out there that does support her views and validate her bitterness. Or maybe it's because keeping track of her own identity is so darn difficult. . .

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 30, 2004 11:33:38 AM

I agree that she's not going to read it. I posted it to prove that her statements were wrong. There is no credible, peer-reviewed research for her own contentions. She can't get out of that, and all the fathers' rights propaganda in the world that she spouts isn't going to change it. I think the scientific word for what I posted is "slam-dunk."

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Dec 30, 2004 11:41:15 AM

"The data from the new RO database in Massachusetts reflect otherwise. Men against whom RO's have been used are clearly not a random draw from the population. They are likely to have a criminal history, often reflective of violent behavior toward others."

Yes, you are right...actually they posted an article about that on mennewsdaily (of course they still had to smear women somehow within it) but they even admitted in the beginning of the article, before the smear, that MOST men who have these RO issued are a small group of known criminals who have violated the laws in the past and harmed other people...not just their wives...

Actually that man who shot the six hunters had been previously investigated for a domestic violence complaint made against him involving a GUN...the police officer discussing it on the news claimed it was a "very run of the mill complaint" against him (domestic violence involving a gun, that's run of the mill) so his record was otherwise clean...

Now six people are dead...if they had addressed the issue with the domestic violence complaint following the VAWA procedures, he would not have HAD a GUN and probably would have been in jail...

It puzzles me why regular men even WANT to support these nitwits who get ROs against them...as they are a subgroup of dangerous individuals, who are even dangerous to OTHER MEN...witness OJ who killed his wife and an innocent man who just happened to be there when he did it and this hunter who just killed six men...

Men who commit domestic violence are frequently dangerous to OTHERS...not just women...even this nonsense where people claim they ONLY beat their wives but MIGHT be good to their children is ridiculous...I don't know what people are thinking with this nonsense...


Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 30, 2004 4:06:35 PM

I don't think regular men do support these guys. All of the men I know--including divorced fathers--think these FR folks are freaks.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Dec 30, 2004 4:37:14 PM

"All of the men I know--including divorced fathers--think these FR folks are freaks."

Then either you know one man, or you're not beinv very truthful. Either way, anyone who says that again has a serious credibility issue. These groups are growing in numbers in a huge way because they seek refuge from an out-of-touch court system dictated by out-of-touch laws set up by legislation pushed through by NOW-type lobby groups. As I mentioned, it is fortunate that these lobbying groups don't carry near the weight that they used to, and part of the reason is the father's rights movement. The success of the father's rights movement of course leads to the hostility from sites like this.

We are making progress and we will continue to do so until the court system puts the children's needs in front of political gender pressure.

Have a Happy New Year!!

Posted by: Jodi at Dec 31, 2004 1:53:03 PM

Jodi, I've already discredited you here. I suggest you take your propaganda elsewhere. Don't waste my blog bandwidth.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Dec 31, 2004 3:01:40 PM

Discredited me? Hardly, dear. In fact, you have actually given more credence to my arguements. When originally posting, my husband was attacked as a "skirt chaser" by NYMOM, in deed proof that her attitude, shared by you and your sheeple, is that WOMEN are AUTOMATICALLY better parents because men are evil. It's an unfortunate position that you and your followers take. Again, the fortunate thing is that we, mothers and fathers alike, are making progress in this antiquated and sexist view that you and other so-called feminists take.

From the Cincinnati Post 5/12/04:

Kentucky judge D. Michael "Mickey'' Foellger has offered men who are behind on their child support obligations a choice: have a vasectomy or spend 30 days in jail. However, according to a new study of child support, it is Kentucky's child support guidelines which need surgery, not so-called "deadbeat dads."

The study, "Child Support Guidelines and the Equalization of Living Standards," was conducted by psychology professors Sanford Braver and David Stockburger and will appear in the soon to be released book The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments. Braver and Stockburger conclude that "under current child support guidelines, the majority of custodial parents currently have higher standards of living than their matched noncustodial parents." Of the seven states they studied, Kentucky's guidelines are among the most inequitable.

In addition to unreasonably high support levels, Kentucky noncustodial fathers also have to contend with a rigid child support system which is often impervious to the economic realities of modern life. Fathers who are laid off, suffer wage cuts, or are injured on the job are often unable to get downward modifications on their child support. In such cases, the amounts owed mount quickly, as do interest and penalties.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the federal Bradley amendment bars judges from retroactively forgiving child support arrearages, even when they determine that the arrearage occurred through no fault of the obligor. As shared parenting advocates Dianna Thompson and Murray Davis of the National Family Justice Association note, "Society holds noncustodial parents, mostly fathers, to an unattainable standard to never become physically or mentally ill, never get disabled, and to never lose a job or get laid off in a poor economy."

The pot of child support gold--which hard-line judges and Attorneys General often insist they're going to find if we'd just get tough on deadbeats--simply does not exist. Numerous studies, including the largest federally funded study of divorced fathers ever conducted, have shown that unemployment, not willful neglect, is the leading cause of child support noncompliance.

A look at Kentucky's list of top 10 "Most Wanted Parents" illustrates the point. Far from being a list of well-heeled lawyers, accountants and bankers, only one of the 10 "deadbeats" listed appears to have any education at all, and the most common designation for occupation is "laborer." These men do low wage and often seasonal work, and owe large sums of money which most could never hope to pay off.

Judge Foellger says his "vasectomy or jail" edict is only given to men have fallen $10,000 behind on their child support and who have had four or more children with three or more women. While Foellger is correct in condemning these men's irresponsible conduct, one might wonder why the mothers of their children receive neither sanction nor condemnation. They too had kids whom they evidently cannot afford to support.

Foellger insists he's not forcing sterilization on anybody, since the offenders in his court can choose 30 days in jail instead. However, most men who fall behind on child support have led law-abiding lives and legitimately fear for their safety and mental stability if they are incarcerated.

For example, in McCracken County earlier this year a man slit his throat in the courtroom after being sentenced to two years in jail for being $7,000 behind on child support. According to newspaper accounts, the man pleaded to the judge "Don't put me in jail, I'm going to kill myself" before taking out a razor blade.

By threatening to jail the men, Foellger is in effect impelling them to get sterilized. In fact, Foellger says that all but one of the men offered his "deal" have chosen vasectomy over jail.

This represents a serious human rights violation. Kentucky's child support guidelines need to be overhauled to ensure that support obligations are in line with obligors' ability to pay. In addition, the system needs to be more flexible and responsive, so men who are down on their luck don't become criminalized. And while the public may be legitimately annoyed with these "deadbeats," nobody should be jailed or sterilized for the "crime" of being poor.

More and more of these types of figures are being exposed BECAUSE of the groups that stand up to feminists and take on the MYTHS of EVIL father's. We will continue to make progress IN SPITE of you.

Posted by: Jodi at Jan 3, 2005 12:12:54 PM

Oh, for crying out loud, Sanford Braver and Dianna Thompson are fathers' rights apologists. Thompson is (was?) with the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, an especially bad fathers' rights group. Braver co-wrote a poorly-conducted study about parental move-aways.

I provided valid, peer-reviewed studies that discredited your contention that false allegations of abuse and TROs are commonly made by women and their lawyers in divorce and custody cases. The truth is that bona fide false abuse allegations are rare and are no more common in divorce and custody cases than they are in the general population. You, on the other hand, provide a newspaper article full of fathers' rights pablum. Get real.

There are problems with the child support system, but they were caused by draconian welfare reform, not feminism.

By the way, I've heard about that case of the judge ordering those men to get vasectomies and I disagree with the ruling.

You are still discredited.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jan 3, 2005 12:34:51 PM

I guess the problem, Jodi or whoever you are, is that people who cannot afford to pay child support on their FIRST children, should NOT be going around making more...as many states are getting SICK of being asked to pick up the tab for men's irresponsible behavior...

So someone like your husband, for instance, who is having problems meeting his $1,500 monthly child support payments, SHOULD be out looking for another job, not another child...

That Kentucky Judge was harsh and it will probably be found to be unconstitutionaL but it's a shot across the bowe, so to speak, giving warnings to men about where this can lead if they continue their irresponsible behavior...

AND please do NOT try to include women in this as MOST of these case of someone having 13 children, 23 children, etc., are fathers...as I'm not even sure if it's biological possible for a woman to have 23 kids...

So please don't try and play that card.

Posted by: NYMOM at Jan 3, 2005 1:06:33 PM

Jodi, dear, the only person who's got a serious credibility issue is you. You have yet to show where Trish said that women are better parents because they are women. You can't because she hasn't. You have yet to show any credible, peer reviewed research to back up your points. You can't because it doesn't exist. I suggest you wipe the foam from your mouth, take a Xanax, and calm down.

I know a whole host of men with kids who don't snivel and bleat about how unjust it is that they have to support them. They also don't wear or sell "trust no bitches" T-shirts, scale buildings, or threaten judges, lawyers, bloggers, or exes in the name of their rights--and they don't defend the people who do that. And you know what? Their new partners don't have an axe to grind with the mothers of their stepchildren. They don't post the alleged facts of their private lives on the internet in the name of "justice" when it's really just an infantile temper-tantrum.

Of course, they don't post under two different names on this blog, lose track of their latest identity, and reply to their own posts (twice) with vitriol. In light of this, your comment about me not being truthful is rather ironic.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Jan 3, 2005 2:11:37 PM

As I suspected....anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion has no credibility. Actually, iof you would do some research, you would know that Braver is completely credible. His research is above reproach. However, in your mind, he isn't in line with your feminist thinking, so he isn't credible. Actually, the reason he draws such irritation from "feminists" like you, Trish, is because he was at the heart of debunking the myth put forth by Professor Weitzman that a woman's standard of living drops off 73% after divorce. That statistic of course was widely circulated by "feminists", but it was proven beyond a doubt to be completely untrue. In fact, we now know that the Professor misread her own numbers!!!! Talk about a credibility problem.

Mr. Braver also completely discredited the US Census reports on Child Support and Alimony, becuse the information was compiled ONLY with ancedotal information from the ex-wives! Again, a major credibility flaw in research. By doing all of this, you claim he is an "apologist."

You also claim that his research is "poorly conducted." Actually, his studies are quite thorough and credible, especially when compared to the very lackluster and incomplete research done by the US Census Bureau when only gathering one-sided ancedotal information.

I fully expected your response and had it pretty much pegged. When confronted with real and factual information that you disagree with, you would resort to your sad attempts to discredit it. It is this very behavior that shows your lack of credibility. You don't like the research, so its flawed. What else should I expect?

Posted by: Jodi at Jan 3, 2005 6:12:55 PM

I can also understand your frustration with Braver, since his studies were the first studies to actually interview BOTH mother AND father as well as CHILDREN. This type of outlandish research just has no place in your "feminist" world of lying men and always-honest women.

After all, why in the world would a researcher want to get the story from BOTH sides? As well as talking to the children?

Posted by: Jodi at Jan 3, 2005 6:21:31 PM

Braver with his biased statistics and reports discredited the census...

You cannot be serious...

The census data is USED to make MONEY for the government...Corporations and individuals BUY the census information and use it to formulate their business plans, ad campaigns, and target customers for their goods and services...btw, that's probably how we found out that children living with stepmothers have less money spent on them for food, education and medical care... through marketing research to target goods and services to consumers...

That way business know not to waste any time on advertising food, educational products or medical care to households with stepmothers...since you don't allow much spending on those things for other womens' children anyway...

You honestly believe that corporations are going to keep paying money for biased data from the census and have their whole business go belly up...

Posted by: NYMOM at Jan 3, 2005 7:28:12 PM

I am ABSOLUTELY serious. The Census information is seriously flawed and Braver pointed that out. Even the director of the Census could not and would not defend the flawed methodology in their research when he appeared on ABC's 20/20.

Braver's research thorough and is quite credible. I would encourage you to read it, NYMOM, but am well aware that you would do no such thing, because it would poke crater-sized holes in your man-hating theories.

This is exactly the reason that many women don't support the "feminists" of today. This militant extremism is divisive and not good for our families, our children or our society.

Posted by: Jodi at Jan 3, 2005 7:45:33 PM

[This is long. My apologies for readers, but it needs to be addressed.]

Jodi/Jenny, or whoever you are:

First off, I've noticed you have this tendency to ignore the valid, peer-reviewed material I post in order to post more fathers' rights pablum that you think supports your cause. Address what I actually write, with links to reputable, peer-reviewed material rather than your own opinions or garbage you found on a fathers' rights site.

You: [Sanford Braver's] research is above reproach. However, in your mind, he isn't in line with your feminist thinking, so he isn't credible. Actually, the reason he draws such irritation from "feminists" like you, Trish, is because he was at the heart of debunking the myth put forth by Professor Weitzman that a woman's standard of living drops off 73% after divorce. That statistic of course was widely circulated by "feminists", but it was proven beyond a doubt to be completely untrue. In fact, we now know that the Professor misread her own numbers!!!! Talk about a credibility problem.

That's not accurate. While some feminists may have cited her stats initially, many more of them pointed out that media reports used the stats to scare women out of filing for divorce, for fear that they would economically not survive. Susan Faludi pointed that out in her book, "Backlash."

First off, Weitzman's stats were critiqued in detail by Saul Hoffman and Greg Duncan in 1988, 1989, and 1991, not extensively by Braver. He was not "at the heart of debunking" anything. See Greg J. Duncan and Saul D. Hoffman, "Economic Consequences of Mariital Instabilty," Horizontal Equality, Uncertainty, and Economic Well-Being, 9 Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1985, pp. 27 - 471. Duncan and Hoffman were the real movers and shakers behind correcting Weitzman's stats. Weitzman later herself corrected her own findings.

You forgot to point out that while Weitzman's stats were faulty, corrected statistics have shown that women do indeed tend to fare less well economically than men following divorce. The standard of living argument started with Lenore Weitzman's faulty statistics: Women's standard of living drops by 73% and the man's standard of living increases by about 30%. In several studies following Weitzmans (who used her sources such as Duncan and Hoffman -- she did provide for them the basis on which she reached her conclusions), it was found that the womans' standard of living dropped by about 40% rather than 73%. The man's standard of living rose about 15%. Women fared better than men five years after the divorce primarily if they remarried. Their standard of living overshot their ex-husbands about three years following the divorce. If she didn't remarry, she didn't fare as well. I believe this applied especially to divorced mothers.

There are numerous sources which show that women's standard of living drops after divorce, while men's rises. The gap between mothers and fathers greatest at highest and lowest ends of the income spectrum. One source is Joyce Arditti, Women, Divorce and Economic Risk, 35 Fam. & Concil. Ct. Rev. 79 (Jan. 1997).

These studies compiled by Lynn Hecht Shafran show that the standard of living goes down for custodial mothers:

Advisory Committee on Women in the Courts, "Report on the Financial Impact of Divorce in Rhode Island" (November 1991)

Baker, Barbara, "Family Equity at Issue: A Study of the Economic
Consequences of Divorce on Women and Children," Alaska Bar Association,
Alaska Women's Commission (1987)

Bell, Rosalyn B. "Alimony and the Financially Dependent Spouse in
Montgomery County, Maryland," 22 Family Law Quarterly 225 (Fall 1988)

Brett, Leslie J., Sharon T. Shepela and Janet Kniffen, "Women and Children
Beware: The Economic Consequences of Divorce in Connecticut" (Summer
1990)

Garrison, Marsha, "Good Intentions Gone Awry: The Impact of New York's
Equitable Distribution Law on Divorce Outcomes," 57 Brooklyn Law Review
621 (1991)

Gerval, Jean M. and Carelle Meullner Stein, "Spousal Support in Minnesota:
Where Are We Going?" 6 Minnesota Family Law Journal 29 (1993)

Hammer, Heather, "The Economic Impact of Divorce in Hawaii," Preliminary
Report to the Hawaii Supreme Court Committee on Gender Bias and Other
Fairness (December 1993)

McGraw, Robert E., Gloria J. Sterin and Joseph M. Davis, "A Case Study in
Divorce Law Reform and Its Aftermath," 20 Journal of Family Law 443 (1982)
(Cleveland, Ohio)

McLindon, James B., "Separate But Unequal: The Economic Consequences of
Divorce for Women and Children," 21 Family Law Quarterly 351 (1987) (New
Haven County, Connecticut)

Rowe, Barbara R. and Jean M. Lown, "The Economics of Divorce and
Remarriage for Rural Utah Families," 16 Journal of Contenporary Law 301
(1990)

Rowe, Barbara R. and Alice M. Morrow, "The Economic Consequences of
Divorce in Oregon after Ten or More Years of Marriage," 24 Williamette Law
Review 463 (1988)

Wishick, Heather, R. "Economics of Divorce: An Exploratory Study," 20
Family Law Quarterly 79 (1986) (Vermont)

If you are going to post here, Jodi/Jenny/Whatever, include all of the relevant information, not only what appeals to your sensibilities. You have misrepresented the Weitzman situation and posted only what you wanted to post. Propaganda.

Jodi/Jenny: "Mr. Braver also completely discredited the US Census reports on Child Support and Alimony, becuse the information was compiled ONLY with ancedotal information from the ex-wives! Again, a major credibility flaw in research."

You just called every woman who was interviewed by the US Census Bureau a liar. That doesn't fare well for you.

I own my own copy of the US Census Report on Child Support and Alimony. Braver far from misrepresented it. I used to live within driving distance of the US Census Bureau, and I picked up several copies of Census Reports about child support, fatherhood, and the like. I own my own copy of that particular report. Have you ever actually read it (or any of them), or are you merely spouting fathers' rights nonsense you found on the Internet?

Braver in no way discredited the Census Report. While it has its problems, and it was a tool for welfare reform (which really gets my goat, since I despise the way welfare reform has abused child support), The Report is much more complex than fathers' rights web sites report it to be. Here are some findings:

MYTH: FATHERS WHO DON'T PAY CHILD SUPPORT ARE UNABLE TO PAY, DEAD, OR CAN'T BE LOCATED

>This concept of child support debt non-payment by choice is not supported
>by a report from the Government Accounting Office (Report: GAO/HRD-92-39FS,
>January 9, 1992). On page 19 of that report the following reasons were given
>for not receiving payments:
>
>Father not able to pay ........66%
>
>Unable to locate father ........5%
>
>Other.................................29%

This misquote comes from congressional testimony by fathers' rights attorney Ronald K. Henry, before the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, United States House of Representatives, June 30, 1992. (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fam01.htm) Henry stated that "...in January, 1992, the General Accounting Office issued a report on interstate child support at the request of Senator Bill Bradley and Representative Marge Roukema and Representative Barbara Kennelly. In part because of the termination of the Survey of Absent Parents, the General Accounting Office reported that the only available database was the survey of custodial mothers undertaken by the Bureau of the Census. The methodological deficiencies of the Census Bureau data have been discussed above, but one finding of the GAO study truly stands out. In both intrastate cases and interstate cases, 66% of the custodial mothers with child support orders reported that the reason for not receiving payment was "father unable to pay."

The full cite for this report is U.S. General Accounting Office. Interstate child support: Mothers report receiving less support from out-of-state fathers. HRD-92-39FS. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992.

Custodial mothers who reported not having child support awards, not receiving payments, or not knowing the residence of their children's noncustodial father accounted for only 11 percent of all child support cases. Over 41 percent of all custodial mothers who did not have child support awards reported that they did not want child support or did not pursue an award.

Section 5: Selected Characteristics of Custodial Mothers in In-State, Interstate, and "Other" Child Support Cases

Excerpt:

"A surprisingly high percentage of custodial mothers indicated that they did not want or pursue support, and a fairly high percentage indicated that fathers refuse to pay. A much higher percentage of the custodial mothers who reported noncustodial fathers' residence as "other" (compared with mothers in both in-state and interstate cases) cited an inability to locate the noncustodial father as the reasonfor not having a child support award and not receiving support payments regularly (see table 5.1).

Table 5.1
Noncustodial fathers' residence
Reasons for lack of award In-state Interstate "Other"

Final agreement pending 6% 7% 2%
Other financial agreement made 7 4 3
Wanted support but did not pursue award
21 19 13
Father financially unable to pay 17 12 10
Unable to locate father 7 17 34
Unable to establish paternity 3 2 2
Other 17 15 17
Did not want support 22 24 19
TOTAL 100% 100%

--__--__--

Reasons not receiving payments*

Father refused to pay 66% 66% 49%
Unable to locate father
5 16 38
Other 29 18 14
TOTAL 100% 100%

*Includes only mothers who were expecting payments
**Numbers do not add due to rounding

The truth is that In both in-state cases and interstate cases, 66% of the custodial mothers with child support orders reported that the reason for not receiving payment was "father refused to pay," NOT "father unable to pay." 60% of custodial mothers had child support awards. Of the 30% of custodial mothers who did not have awards, 21% in-state, 19% interstate, and 13% "other" wanted support but did not pursue an award. Of the 21%, 17% said the father was financially unable to pay. Of the 19%, 12% said father was unable to pay, and of the 13%, 10% said the father was unable to pay. It is a myth that fathers who do not pay child support cannot afford to pay it.

-----

MYTH: JOINT CUSTODY AND/OR VISITATION GUARANTEES THAT CHILD SUPPORT WILL BE PAID

(Jodi/Jenny, I decided to catch you at this one before you brought it up. You fathers' rights types are a little too predictable.)

>"90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the child support due." U.S. Bureau
>of the Census: 1988
>
>"79.1 % of fathers with visitation privileges pay the child support due."
>U.S. Bureau of the Census: 1988

Misquote. The paper in question is the same one referred to at the top of the page, and it is for 1989, not 1988. It was released in September, 1991.

Twisting of census bureau material. The actual quote reads: "A higher percentage of fathers with joint custody pay the child support due (90.2 percent) than fathers who have visitation privileges (79.1 percent) and those without visitation or joint custody provisions (44.5 percent)." "Child support due" refers to mothers who had been awarded child support, and were due payment in 1989. 8.0% of mothers were awarded child support in 1989, but they were not due to receive it that year. Joint custody accounted for only 7.3% of all child support cases in that sample. This refers to joint PHYSICAL custody, most of which were on a voluntary basis. Payments configured under the joint custody guidelines are much lower than payments configured under sole custody guidelines, which explains the higher compliance rate. That, and the small percentage of families were highly likely to have been amicable. They were not a representative sample of divorcing families at large. This lower payment is the number one reason fathers' rights activists support joint custody -- they don't have to pay as much money, if they have to pay any at all. Garnishment is much more likely in court ordered cases and families receiving public assistance, which also explains a great deal of the success in collecting child support. However, regarding cases that are not the joint custody minority, keep in mind that 20% of mothers due to receive child support from fathers with visitation privileges received nothing in 1989, and 55% of mothers due to receive child support from fathers without visitation privileges received nothing.

-------

Jodi/Jenny, you bore me. Find a father's rights site where your nonsense is more welcome. Don't continue to embarrass yourself on my blog. Consider this a public service announcement, dear. ;)

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jan 3, 2005 9:45:47 PM

Me: "In both intrastate cases and interstate cases, 66% of the custodial mothers with child support orders reported that the reason for not receiving payment was "father unable to pay."

This is one reason I go ballistic over welfare reform and draconian child support collection. It's only about the states replenishing their coffers, not about what is best for children. It's not about feminists or "NOW bitches" (or whatever Jodi said). Feminists had nothing to do with this. Men are wrung through the wringer when it comes to welfare reform child support collection. Mothers cannot refuse child support in these incidences. It's not about preserving families, it's about sucking up money. It stinks, big time. I hate welfare reform. It's one reason I regretted voting for Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jan 3, 2005 10:05:54 PM

Oh Trish, you are as predictable as you are hostile. And you are incorrect again. Braver was at the heart of debunking Weitzman, when he confronted her during a telephone call. This began the pressure for her to correct her studies and reports. YOU may not LIKE that fact, but you can't change it.

As for the Census report, it is seriously flawed, as was proven by Braver during his research. I realize it contradicts your views, therefore you attempt to discredit it, but it is completely valid. I didn't call ALL women liars, but I do believe that many do not give an accurate answer about child support, because of anger and bitterness and the enabling attitude of people like you. And, believe it or not, Trish....some women ARE liars. Again, I know this could not possibly be true in your world of evil-men and victimized women. Fortunately, your world is not one based in reality.

Braver's work IS credible and is well respected by people outside of the NOW-gang mentality. As I previously mentioned, not even the head of the data collection divsion for the Census, Dan Weinberg could or would even try to defend it during his appearance on ABC's 20/20. Braver successfully pointed out the flaws in that research.

Braver IS reputable, and his work has been cited by many to debunk the myths and stereotypes that angry, militant "feminists" perpetuate in the name of "WOMANHOOD." He has withstood the personal trashing of people like you and the Liz Library and remains an authority on gender bias within the court system.

Posted by: Jodi at Jan 3, 2005 11:33:27 PM

One other thing, ancedotal research is not always good research. Anyone with ANY credibility knows that. Your attempt to spin it that I am calling all women liars is just an attempt to emotionally charge the debate, and not consider the facts. People who are in the middle of on-going conflict with an ex-spouse are extremely likely to embellish and exaggerate. This is human nature. But, I'm sure you know that!!

Posted by: Jodi at Jan 3, 2005 11:40:13 PM

Jodi: "One other thing, ancedotal research is not always good research. Anyone with ANY credibility knows that. Your attempt to spin it that I am calling all women liars is just an attempt to emotionally charge the debate, and not consider the facts. People who are in the middle of on-going conflict with an ex-spouse are extremely likely to embellish and exaggerate. This is human nature. But, I'm sure you know that!!"

The prosecution rests. I provided a lengthy rebuttal to your vapid propaganda. End of discussion. You can't come back with anything of value. Game over.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jan 3, 2005 11:54:01 PM

LOL@ Trish. You're right game over. Ancedotal research is flawed, because human beings are flawed. Proven researchers are aware of that, which is why statistical research is given a much higher level of credibility.

"vapid propoganda" How funny. This website, and others like LIZ library and the like are nothing but "vapid propoganda." However, when statistical and credible research is presented that contradict your blogging, you become openly hostile and cite more "vapid propoganda."

Nice try.

Posted by: Jodi at Jan 6, 2005 1:40:28 PM

I also notice how you avoided answering my previous post. The Census data is incredibly flawed, but you glossed over that with your weak "game over" post! You also conspicuously did not adress the possibility that women could (gasp) lie during that type of research. Hmmm. (Pretty much sums up your credibility right there)

Braver has been attacked by the likes of you and your "feminist" (again used very loosely because you do NOT represent mainstream women), but he has never been discredited. His research is beyond reproach and takes into account both sides of the divorce issue.

Again, you may not like the facts, but you can't CHANGE the facts regardless of your "vapid propoganda."

Posted by: Jodi at Jan 6, 2005 1:44:24 PM

Just one other, yet very important footnote (and correction.) In spite of your accusation that Braver is a "father's rights apologist" his credibility has been accepted by his peers.

From the official Arizona State University biography:

To support this work he has been the recipient of 15 competitively reviewed, primarily federal, research grants, totaling almost $13 million. His work has been published in over 60 peer-reviewed professional articles and chapters, and most recently in the acclaimed 1998 book Divorced dads: Shattering the myths (Tarcher/Penguin-Putnam). This book was a report of his ground-breaking work leading the largest federally-supported research project ever conducted on divorced fathers. As perhaps the leading expert in the country on the dynamics of fathering after divorce, he is in demand as a consultant to such entities as President Clinton’s National Fatherhood Initiative, the National Commission for Child and Family Welfare, and the State of Arizona’s Domestic Relations Reform Subcommittee, and as a speaker and presenter, having delivered over 100 presentations. He has been quoted in numerous news media discussions, including U.S. News and World Report, Kiplinger’s, Redbook, the Wall Street Journal and was featured in a segment on January 7, 2000 of ABC News’ 20/20.

Now, compare that to your credibility. To use your own words...GAME OVER.

Posted by: Jodi at Jan 6, 2005 1:58:53 PM

"Oh Trish, you are as predictable as you are hostile. And you are incorrect again. Braver was at the heart of debunking Weitzman, when he confronted her during a telephone call. This began the pressure for her to correct her studies and reports. YOU may not LIKE that fact, but you can't change it."

AND she already TOLD you that the mistake was corrected and others relooked at the NUMBERS and it STILL turned out womens' income dropped after divorce, but this time by less...

OKAY...

WOMENS' INCOME DROPS AFTER DIVORCE...

MENS' GOES UP...

OKAY...

It's just a question of by how much...

BTW, Judith Wallerstein, who has written TONS of things on these and other related issues, said Braver's research was biased...and I'm going to listen to her over a nobody like you anyday...

Posted by: NYMOM at Jan 6, 2005 2:55:15 PM

Wow, Jodi/Jenny/whoever you are. You're proving Trish right.

I notice you haven't actually quoted his stunning peer-reviewed research or discussed where Weizman's biases are. Nor have you acknowledged the fact that later research bore her findings out, or that other feminists (you know, us evil man-haters who are apparently legion in your world) were critical of Weizman.

Nah. It's so much easier to stamp your feet and screech.

If you're going to go on and on about hostility, take a look at your own. Your original post (under a different name) was nothing but ad-homs and personal attacks. You have yet to make your arguments logically, rationally, or calmly. You have yet to rebut anything credibly, and continue to make personal attacks against people. And don't give me the excuse that NYMOM "attacked" your husband. Take a look at your first post, note the tone, and note the name calling. Note the attacks against Trish, someone who didn't launch into you until you spent several posts spreading vitriol and personal attacks.

Look at all that, and ask yourself why you're coming across as a barking loon. You can't even keep your identities straight.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Jan 6, 2005 4:42:16 PM

I have proven Trish wrong, repeatedly. You just choose not to accept the works of a recognized research expert BECAUSE and only BECAUSE it does not concur with you antiquted feminist views. So be it.


The credibility of Sanford Braver far exceeds any of those that post on this site, including Trish and me, as well. When you compare the credentials of Braver to that of this Trish Wilson, the comparison renders Trish to that of an angry blogger. So be it.

I would recommend that you leave this site occasionally and try to do some independent research once in a while, rather than swallow everything Trish says as gospel. It would do you, and our society good.

There are many sites that champion the new feminism.

As far as my initial post and NYMOM's vitriolic follow-up, it pretty much sums up the thought process ofthose on this site. Men evil, WOMEN good. You don't even know my husband's ex-wife, but you are quick to jump to her defense. Why? ONLY because she is a woman. That is nothing more than gender bias, pure and simple. You can't see the forrest for the trees. If women are truly going to achieve the level of equality that at least I desire, we need to have the equal responsibility as well. Women are bad parents sometimes, just as men are. Women lie sometimes, just as men do. Some women cheat, just as men do. There could be another thousand sentences, but surely even you can get the point. The problem is that it is so easy for you and Trish, and NOW and the like to immediately attack men, because women were and continue to be, often treated as less valuable. I don't see it that way. I don't believe that men are better than women BECAUSE they are men. I don't believe that women are better than men, BECAUSE they are men. I don't believe that men automatically make better doctors, lawyers, CEO's; just like I don't believe that women automatically make better custodial parents.

As far as the research goes, it is fruitless for me to post valid research, because if it doesn't agree with your militant old-feminism mantra, you (and other Trish followers) will not "believe it." So be it. Again, you may not like the facts, but you can't CHANGE the facts.

Call me a "barking loon" (God, I love your wacky insults) if you wish. Things like that don't bother me. I am much more bothered by the lack of independent thinking that prevails on this website and what it is doing for women.

Posted by: Jodi at Jan 6, 2005 8:07:05 PM

"You don't even know my husband's ex-wife, but you are quick to jump to her defense. Why?"

Because I didn't like the tone and attitude of your first post...

I had a gut feeling about you and it appears I was right...

BTW, I do go to other sites on the internet, not just this one, so I'm very aware of what other things are going on out there...

Posted by: NYMOM at Jan 6, 2005 10:20:38 PM

Sure would get lonely on this site without us trolls eh fellow trolls. Why don't NYMOM Trish and Sheelezebub just meet up and agree with one another personally instead of having this site?

Posted by: Steve at Jan 7, 2005 7:47:14 AM

WOW! Its great to finally see a woman who favors reform in the courts regarding divorce and child custody. There are many of us good dads out there that have to overcome this type of stereotype by women, attorneys and judges. We love our children just as much as mothers do. We play with them, we feed them, we take care of them in the middle of the night. Yet upon divorce we become second-class parents. Why? It is definitely past time for reform.

Posted by: Alec at Feb 3, 2005 12:24:37 AM

There are lots of women and feminists who favor divorce reform, but we see the damage created by fathers' rights activists who protested for their "rights," and their protests led to the creation of cottage industries that make money from divorce and custody cases. I certainly don't view fathers as "second class parents." I suspect that if Alec read more of my blog posts he's probably disagree with me, but maybe not on the cottage industry posts.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 3, 2005 12:41:33 AM

Damage created by fathers' rights activists??? Hello Ms Pot, please meet Ms. Kettle. The problem is not the fathers' rights activits, who are trying to bring just a smidge of equiity to the family courts. Truthfully, the problem lies in facist women's groups who want to seize control of family law because that is the only place they can "control" people. In this day and age, women like you, Trish are furious because you are still not on an equal footing with men in the workplace, and in society as a whole. You are so determined to be in control of something, ANYTHING, that you will continue to fight for this backwards, seriously out-dated philosophy that children should always be the custodial parents. You don't give a rip about the children, sadly, its a control issue for you.

You are the type of person that believes that women should have the "right" to be fire fighters, even though MOST are unable to physically meet the requirements necessary to perform all of the functions. You subscribe to the same belief system that led Patricia Ireland to actually say that women not being able to carry a body through a fire was better, because smoke rises, and when a female firefighter drags a body across the floor, they avoid smoke inhalation.

Your agenda is sadly one of the reasons the Soviet Union crumbled while America grew to be a dominant force in the world. All people are NOT created equally, and just because someone is a woman, does not AUTOMATICALLY make them a better parent. The same is true for men, just because they were born male does not AUTOMATICALLY make them a better CEO.

Unfortunately the attitude that you and other women's rights activists share is common sense be damned...we want control!

Posted by: Jack at May 17, 2005 9:00:38 AM