« Enjoy Some Time Sitting In My Garden | Main | The Countess's Movie Recommendations »

August 05, 2005

More Fathers' Rights Infighting

Infighting, fraud, and backbiting sent Fathers 4 Justice down the toilet. This time, the infighting is in Massachusetts. These guys are really great at destroying themselves.

Fatherhood Coalition ousts leader

By Jack Dew,
Berkshire Eagle Staff

PITTSFIELD -- A sharp rift has been exposed in the leadership of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition after a group of dissident officers say they have ousted their controversial spokesman.

The coup took place on Wednesday night, when eight members of the fathers' rights group met and voted to eject Rinaldo Del Gallo III, said Richard Hover, who claims to be the group's new president. Hover said Del Gallo's tirades, unreliability and militant stance on the subject of fathers' rights have combined to drive members away, weakening the coalition.

But Del Gallo said the vote was attended by only three of the coalition's eight officers, and thus did not constitute a majority. In a written statement, Del Gallo said that he is the spokesman of the group, and that -- since only the spokesman has the authority to make official statements on behalf of the coalition -- it is the official position of the coalition that he is still an officer and the group's spokesman. He said Hover's statements should be disregarded.

Hover claims that Del Gallo's presence chased away members. He said there used to be about 150, and now there are ... eight. Wow. An army of eight. I'm underwhelmed.

Hover also claimed that Del Gallo brought a convicted child molester to a meeting, and asked members to help the molester get visitation rights to his children.. Isn't that just swell? At least the people at the meeting had the good sense not to cooperate. And fathers' rights activists wonder why they have so many problems.

Hover is planning to run for office. Del Gallo is going to run for City Council. Again. He tried it before. He was unable to qualify for the ballot in the Governor's Council race last November or for state representative in March. I'm sure all that will be a flash-in-the-pan.

These kinds of infighting and backbiting stories are common in fathers' rights groups. It's no wonder they can't organize. They're too busy stabbing each other in the backs. Fathers' rights activists like to claim that feminists try to destroy them. That's not necessary. They do a bang-up job destroying themselves.

Posted on August 5, 2005 at 09:58 AM | Permalink

Comments

However, I am glad to see some principled men there, the ones who may have been attracted to fathers rights with the most innocent of intentions, refuse to support a molester's access to children. It was be easy enough to support such a guy for "movement unity" and all that crap. So I'm glad to see people put what's right over political expediency.

One thing I have noticed about mothers advocates. Advocates support good mothers who lost access or custody for stupid reasons. But if you come across as a nutcase or as underserving (you committed adultery, deserted the kids of any reason, neglected the kids due to drug or alcohol use, etc.), you get no support, especially on the grassroots listserves. In fact, there is a tendency to drum you out. Women are very good at policing the behavior of other women--sometimes, perhaps, much too so. Women also have very little tolerance for mothers who are not involved as much as they can with their kids, e.g. who move away from them, even (or especially) with dv in the mix. No matter how nasty the abuser, you are encouraged to hang in there and be a mom. On the other hand, dads who choose to be relatively uninvolved are encouraged by the FR folks to blame everybody else but themselves. It's the courts, it's the "bitch," etc. I think the fathers, for better or for worse, do embrace "all types" -- whether you are a nice dad with a vindictive ex or a convicted violent felon who brags about wanting to kill the ex and take the kids out of the country.

Posted by: silverside at Aug 5, 2005 11:07:13 AM

"One thing I have noticed about mothers advocates. Advocates support good mothers who lost access or custody for stupid reasons. But if you come across as a nutcase or as underserving (you committed adultery, deserted the kids of any reason, neglected the kids due to drug or alcohol use, etc.), you get no support, especially on the grassroots listserves. In fact, there is a tendency to drum you out. Women are very good at policing the behavior of other women--sometimes, perhaps, much too so."

You're right I've seen this too Silverside. And these non-custodial mothers can be VICIOUS if they find out another mother in the group lost their kids for cause.

There is just no mercy shown to them.

I guess they are angry that they as good mothers could be associated with a mother who isn't so good.

Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 5, 2005 2:02:26 PM

"These kinds of infighting and backbiting stories are common in fathers' rights groups." -
Um, I think not.
You can certainly spin the issue in Mass. however you want.
MRA groups will band and remove the the insane. They won't promote them to sainthood by virtue of noterioty and attention getting alone.
You might call it infighting and back biting. If the established officers oust one monument to meglomania, I call it unity,stableisation and gettin''er done. No matter how uncomfortable the task at hand, MRA groups are actually willing to pin the bell on the cat rather than attempt the folly of appeasing any and all potentially useful allies.
With the ouster of Rinaldo Del Gallo III, comes one less platform for his personal insanity. Good riddance

Posted by: at Aug 7, 2005 10:44:52 PM

"These kinds of infighting and backbiting stories are common in fathers' rights groups." -
Um, I think not.
You can certainly spin the issue in Mass. however you want.
MRA groups will band and remove the the insane. They won't promote them to sainthood by virtue of noterioty and attention getting alone.
You might call it infighting and back biting. If the established officers oust one monument to meglomania, I call it unity,stableisation and gettin''er done. No matter how uncomfortable the task at hand, MRA groups are actually willing to pin the bell on the cat rather than attempt the folly of appeasing any and all potentially useful allies.
With the ouster of Rinaldo Del Gallo III, comes one less platform for his personal insanity. Good riddance

Posted by: CaptDMO at Aug 7, 2005 10:46:10 PM

Trish, is this the same guy who posted here that one time, then claimed his assistant did it or something?

And, gee, if the FRAs treat each other so bad, fancy what they do to their wives and kids.

Posted by: ginmar at Aug 7, 2005 11:11:04 PM

I'm not sure Ginmar. All these trolls begin to look alike after awhile.

Fathers' rights groups attract people like Del Gallo, which is why they have so many problems with fraud, infighting, backbiting, lack of organization, etc. They attract that kind because fathers' rights groups are about angry men who have personality "problems" and control issues. Their senses of entitlement are threatened when the court doesn't bend over and give in to their demands. It's no surprise that men with those kinds of "issues" turn on each other in their own groups. They can't get along with their ex's, and they can't get along with each other. We've seen Fathers 4 Justice implode. This chapter of The Fatherhood Coalition imploding is not really all that uncommon with these groups.

Posted by: The Countess at Aug 8, 2005 8:27:26 AM

How many of these testosteron coallated groups have actually disbanded in the last 10 years or so? I'd just like to know so that when my ex turns as looney as these guys have, I'll have ammo.
stuff like this turns my stomache really....the courts aren't THAT stupid not to recognize a flat lining excuse when they hear it?
Lowell Jaks and the rest of them, need their heads examined. Little do they know that most legislators in our United States have been attorneys at one time, have practiced in criminal and/or family law and they have full knowlege of what trickery and deceit father's like this involk. It's almost like babysitting an unruley child--no excuse washes and there's little room for their bullying and discontent. However, soon, the unruley child gives up and rests in the designated corner that's been assigned to him--to whimper and whine all he wants because "the sitter(government)" isn't giving in.

Posted by: Jeanie at Aug 8, 2005 2:36:00 PM

Jeanie: Nothing like ascribing the lowest possible motivations to a group, is there? By the way, "unruly" isn't spelled with an "e".
Silverside: Thanks, sincerely, for recognizing that some men who'd check out FR activism are--what do you know--sincerely concerned for their children. Given what I've read of your personal history in previous posts, your words are encouraging and magnanimous.
Countess: An army of eight is underwhelming. I guess this also means that 142 ex-members are disgruntled (rightly or not) but not inclined or interested in meddling with their ex-partners' lives. I'd like to think so, but I've been wrong before.

Posted by: DP_in_SF at Aug 8, 2005 2:51:38 PM

"...the courts aren't THAT stupid not to recognize a flat lining excuse when they hear it?"

Sadly that's not correct. Many GALS, Evaluators and Judges even are supporters of father rights, especially at the county level where the actual custody decisions are made. AND these are virtually IMPOSSIBLE to overturn on appeal, btw, which is why I NEVER advise a woman to take a case to court unless it's a LAST RESORT, as she'll find little or no justice there.

Thus, hundreds of thousands of women and children have had their lives destroyed by these freaks.

Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 9, 2005 6:36:08 AM

"Silverside: Thanks, sincerely, for recognizing that some men who'd check out FR activism are--what do you know--sincerely concerned for their children. Given what I've read of your personal history in previous posts, your words are encouraging and magnanimous."

YET her young child was STILL handed over to some jackoff who regularly uses this child to 'juice' both her mother and the state for cash and other benefits. That's when he's not alienated said child by denying Silverside visitation.

So I think the situation shows that you cannot be rational and kind, just etc., when dealing with these fathers rights nuts.

Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 9, 2005 6:41:00 AM

DP in SF: Sadly that's not correct. Many GALS, Evaluators and Judges even are supporters of father rights, especially at the county level where the actual custody decisions are made. AND these are virtually IMPOSSIBLE to overturn on appeal, btw, which is why I NEVER advise a woman to take a case to court unless it's a LAST RESORT, as she'll find little or no justice there.

Thus, hundreds of thousands of women and children have had their lives destroyed by these freaks.

DP, Is this in CA? How likely is it that I should be fearful of this organization here in Florida? I've contacted closely with Rep. Cliff Sterns for 2 years on child support reform (mostly for dead-beat jerks) and different ideas that could help every single non-paying parent in Florida's system and I've only alerted him yesterday on this extremist bunch of crack-heads. I plan to do more alerting; especially now that light has been shed on my ex's recent mention of this group. Florida is already repressed by low-income programs/dividends--no, I'm not a strong Bush supporter--but he helped me bring our daughter into this world, by God, he's gonna help take care of her.
I also have a twisty-turny of a question. If these guys ask for 50%/50% in "everything", this should include the income level of "both" parents (which it does in most states). Father brings home 36,000/yr and mom only brings home 28K/yr....father would still have to "give" to make it equal out to that almighty 50%, right?
Child Support is there to help the child(ren) maintain the comfort level that they were used to prior to the divorce/ separation of their parents. What is so hard about learning this lesson? These guys just wanna help make 'em, they could give two snots about helping mom take care fo them.
BTW, I'd love to find JUST ONE judge or evaluator that didn't pay child support--I'd be the one to want to nail his @$$ to his almighty desk!

Posted by: Jeanie at Aug 9, 2005 12:55:34 PM

It's not always certain that you'll get child support even if he makes more then you especially if the visitation/parenting is exactly 50/50. It depends upon the laws of your state.

For instance, in New York if you have Joint Legal and Physical Custody and it's EXACTLY 50/50 no child support changes hands.

In California they do a percentage of parental income and parenting time to arrive at the figures.

So it depends upon Florida's laws and how they calculate it. Every state is different.

Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 9, 2005 1:07:56 PM

That's exactly what I thought. So, in reality, these guys are just pissered because they've found greener pastures(other women and such) but they've got a tight rope and a loud bell around their necks to remind them that they can't just walk off and leave, expect mom to handle it all and then EXPECT/WANT to SEE their sons and daughters grow up (in misery of course, because there isn't enough $$ for school clothes, activities, food, utilities, day care, etc...) Sure, I'll work two jobs and let my 7 year old stay home all alone crying because she's hungry--I can't afford day care, clothes or even a pizza treat for her to have because she's been such a good and patient child.
I know that custodial parents can't ram "pay me before you see your son" crap down their throats, but they want all the glory and none of the guts that it takes to raise even one child in this world. Maternalists?, Feminists?....if it gets my kids fed, schooled and happy in a proper way, you'd better believe it!

Posted by: Jeanie at Aug 9, 2005 2:17:53 PM

just a note:

report from Pittsburgh...........

http://www.pittsburghlive.com:8000/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/seate/s_292557.html

Posted by: Jeanie at Aug 9, 2005 3:11:55 PM

I couldn't open that link Jeanie.

Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 9, 2005 9:10:20 PM

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/seate/s_292557.html

I guess the :800 had to be deleted from the address. The article is from 1-13-05 and the conlumnist is Mike seate.

Posted by: Jeanie at Aug 10, 2005 10:37:04 AM

"It takes only a few moments of pleasure to make a baby, but a lifetime of work to raise one. One would think the reality of that old expression would be enough to scare folks away from parenthood." Mike Seate

Wow! this is a first. A man getting away with making sexist degrading statement about women and no one complaining!

Deadbeat

Posted by: pete kaplan at Sep 11, 2005 12:55:42 AM

I think he was making degrading remarks about men, Pete.

Sorry to have to be the one to inform you.

A comment like "it takes only a few moments of pleasure to make a baby' generally refers to MEN'S role in the process, as you should already know.

I mean we just had a post a few days ago about men in England devoting about 2.5 minutes to the entire sex act.

So that's how you make babies, Pete and a lot of you are only devoting about 2.5 minutes to it.

At least in England, maybe it's different in California.

Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 11, 2005 12:17:52 PM

"It takes only a few moments of pleasure to make a baby, but a lifetime of work to raise one. One would think the reality of that old expression would be enough to scare folks away from parenthood." Mike Seate


It's important to read the entire statement. And the whole article. In context. I hardly think Seate was talking about men when he said "a life time of work to raise one", and "parenthood". It hardly sounds like he was talking about the men he was interviewing in his article, wouldn't you agree?

And then he wraps it up with this jab at women, "It's tough to determine who's more responsible in these cases....the women who see nothing wrong with having babies with guys they're neither married nor particularly committed to".

Don't worry, I'm here to translate English for you.

Posted by: pete kaplan at Sep 11, 2005 1:15:13 PM

Sorry but I was too busy to read the whole article.

Actually I'm updating my blog today, while babysitting my granddaughter, doing my laundry, as well as watching "Wife Swap".

Additionally people usually pick the MOST relevant part of the article to post and make their central point. You failed to do this, so led me to believe that the quote was directed at men, not women, by the 'few moments to make baby' comment.

Which clearly would be directed against men.

You'll have to be clearer with your posted quotes.

Posted by: NYMOM at Sep 11, 2005 1:44:00 PM

It still takes a man and woman to make a baby. Just keep an open mind.

Posted by: pete kaplan at Sep 11, 2005 2:15:42 PM

Nymom; how can we find your blog? I'm interesting in what you might be up too.

Posted by: MXer at Oct 22, 2005 12:13:50 AM

"Nymom; how can we find your blog? I'm interesting in what you might be up too."

It's at http://www.womenasmothers.info

Just to warn you I'm very strict about posters there.

The first sign of any nonsense and I just erase you...

Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 22, 2005 1:46:37 AM

It's hard to give opposing opinions on blogs anymore. Ever since Rush Limbaugh started his website the internet become much too conservative. Next the government will sensoring blogs.

Posted by: MXer at Oct 22, 2005 6:13:59 PM

Hi,
I would like to speak to someone that could hopefully help me out here. I have had residential custody of my daughters forever, and my ex-lovely husband whom I reunited with our children because I am a good person and was wishing he could have a relationship with our daughters...only for him to destroy me to my girls and the court with his pathetic, sick lies. He abandoned our children for 3 1/2 YEARS, WAS A Deadbeat father, still in arrearages of $50,000, was abusive to me for years, and had several marital affairs. I have been the only consistent, loving, nurturing, and stable person in their lives, and used to have to work 2 jobs as a piano teacher and a nurse to maintain a good stable life for my daughters only to lose custody recently because the judge believed his sick lies. I spent over $100,000 to bring my children home, but nobody will listen. My eleven year old is especially devasted by the judges decision, and her last words to me was, "please Mom don't give up, I want to come home". tHESE ARE FIGHTING WORDS FOR A MOTHER WHOM LOVES HER CHILDREN, AND WILL STOP AT NOTHING UNTIL THEY ARE RETURNED TO ME. They are my life, and I miss them so much. I hope there is somebody out there who could at this point advise me what to do? I live in Arizona, and my children now live in New Jersey so I barely get to see them, and when I do my 11 year old begs for me not to send her back there and cries and shakes. I have to abide by the unfortunate decision of this judges error, or I will be in trouble, yet it is so unfair what has transpired in our lives. I need the news to get involved or a talk show host, or a lawyer who truely cares about good parents whom lost unfairly, and not just about the dollar...because I have exhausted all my funds, and took out a loan to pay my attorney, custody expert, and travel expenses to litigate. I am seriously lost, and hope their is someone whom could help. My e-mail address is mscalisi@cox.net Thank-you kindly.
Mary Lynn

Posted by: mary lynn at Feb 19, 2006 10:58:17 PM