« Typepad Is Acting Up Again | Main | Fathers' Rights Activists Livid Over PBS Final Statement Supporting "Breaking The Silence" »

December 21, 2005

PBS Releases Final Statement On "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories"

PBS's final statement is out. It supports "Breaking The Silence". The documentary was not seen by PBS as being one-sided and lacking balance, as fathers' rights activists have claimed it is. There was also no mention of one of the mothers in the documentary being an alleged abuser, which was a big sticking point for fathers' rights activists, in particular Glenn Sacks. There were no problems seen with the people who had been interviewed.

This part is very interesting - Glenn Sacks is crowing about PBS's final statement on his web site, but he doesn't post the entire statement. He only posted the last sentence about a new documentary being made. He can't post the entire statement because it so clearly comes out in support of "Breaking The Silence". Sacks put his name behind the biggest protest against the documentary, and especially against Sadiya Alilire, whom he and numerous fathers' rights activists claimed was the "real" abuser. PBS did not come to the same conclusion about Alilire. PBS concluded that "[i]n stark and often poignant interviews, children and battered mothers tell their stories of abuse at home and continued trauma within the courts." No mention of one of the mothers interviewed being a "child abuser" or abuser herself. Sacks wouldn't dare post the entire statement because it would show that fathers' rights activists - in particular, himself - were not successful in getting "Breaking The Silence" discredited as poorly-researched, biased material. PBS clearly stated that the documentary was neither. PBS found the documentary to be "open-minded" and "fair".

PBS wrote that "[t]he producers approached the topic with the open mindedness and commitment to fairness that we require of our journalists. Their research was extensive and supports the conclusions drawn in the program." PBS supports the documentary.

PBS also concluded that the topic is very complex, and was perhaps not best described using first-person stories that the documentary used, especially in describing Parental Alienation Syndrome. Please note that PBS stated that "the documentary's "first-person story telling approach" did not allow the depth of the producers' research to be as evident to the viewer as it could have been." This means that PBS agrees that producers' presentation of PAS as junk science was supported by research, but the way it chose to describe PAS didn't make it as clear to viewers as it could have been.

It has commissioned an hour-long documentary to delve more deeply into these kinds of custody cases, PAS, and family issues.

Fathers' rights activists are taking this as a big win, but that's not the case. The topic is going to get further, more in-depth analysis. That doesn't mean that fathers' rights activists will be able to force PBS to air their propaganda. I'd welcome the fathers' rights garbage be presented in a documentary where the other side - the side with the facts and valid research behind it - will make them look even more petty, vindictive, and stupid than they already look.

This final statement is actually good news for the supporters of "Breaking The Silence". Here's the final statement:

PBS STATEMENT RE: BTS

Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories (BTS) chronicles the impact of domestic violence on children and the recurring failings of family courts across the country to protect them from their abusers. In stark and often poignant interviews, children and battered mothers tell their stories of abuse at home and continued trauma within the courts. The producers approached the topic with the open mindedness and commitment
to fairness that we require of our journalists. Their research was extensive and supports the conclusions drawn in the program. Funding from the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation met PBS's underwriting
guidelines; the Foundation had no editorial influence on program content.

However, the program would have benefited from more in-depth treatment of the complex issues surrounding child custody and the role of family courts and most specifically the provocative topic of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Additionally, the documentary's "first-person story telling approach" did not allow the depth of the producers' research to be as evident to the viewer as it could have been.

PBS has received a substantial body of analysis and documentation from both supporters of the documentary and its critics.

It is clear to us that this complex and important issue would benefit from further examination. To that end, PBS will commission an hour-long documentary for that purpose. Plans call for the documentary to be produced and broadcast in Spring 2006. We expect that the hour-long treatment of the subject will allow ample opportunity for doctors, psychologists, judges, parent advocates and victims of abuse to have their perspectives shared, challenged and debated.

Posted on December 21, 2005 at 07:38 AM | Permalink

Comments

Trish

The whole thing was one-sided propaganda from the beginning. The director's admited they were deliberate in being on-sided. It took a miniscule issue and blew it up to a nationwide epidemic.

That in itself is okay.

But Maatkare commends PBS and the ombudsmen for recognizing what was lacking in the broadcast and recognizing that there needs to be debate.

Maatkare could give two shits if FRs don't have the same opportunity that feminist hystericalist had in the first documentary. She doesn't want to hear some one-sided sob story from fathers either.

this is all that matters:

" We expect that the hour-long treatment of the subject will allow ample opportunity for doctors, psychologists, judges, parent advocates and victims of abuse to have their perspectives shared, challenged and debated."

That should have been the goal from the start. Hopefully it will be what they say.

Maatkare will write PBS a small thank-you.

Posted by: Ma'at at Dec 21, 2005 8:23:13 AM

on-sided=one-side

and so on

Posted by: Ma'at at Dec 21, 2005 8:23:59 AM

It IS a victory for father's rightsters because what we want IS a balanced program that depicts both sides. That was the gripe in the first place.

Posted by: Masculiste at Dec 21, 2005 8:50:17 AM

If it was "one-sided propaganda from the beginning", why did PBS conclude that "The producers approached the topic with the open mindedness and commitment to fairness that we require of our journalists."

I'm getting tired of the one-track whining I keep hearing from fathers' rights supporters on this blog. They contribute nothing

Posted by: The Countess at Dec 21, 2005 8:57:09 AM

If it was "one-sided propaganda from the beginning", why did PBS conclude that "[t]he producers approached the topic with the open mindedness and commitment to fairness that we require of our journalists."

I'm getting tired of the one-track whining I keep hearing from fathers' rights supporters on this blog. They contribute nothing

Posted by: The Countess at Dec 21, 2005 9:14:16 AM

Michael, PBS concluded that "Breaking The Silence" was balanced and fair. Besides, fathers' rights activists wanted much more than more than one side presented. They wanted to see "Breaking The Silence" completely discredited as one-sided, biased, and poorly researched, and PBS did not agree with that. Fathers' rights activists wanted vindication for their claims that "Breaking The Silence" supposedly gave voice to a mother they claimed was the "real" abuser. PBS didn't agree.

Yes, PBS has thrown fathers' rights activists a bone in commissioning a new documentary that will delve further into the issue, but I wouldn't crow about it if I were a fathers' rights activist. Since this documentary will not present fathers' rights views alone with no countering commentary, the fathers' rights side will not look good. Their propaganda will be effectively dealt with by people who have the facts and valid research on their side. PBS already found "Breaking The Silence" to be a balanced and fair documentary. The research cited by the producers was supported well by the program. I wouldn't be so quick to call the PBS final statement a win if I were a fathers' rights activist. FRsters did not get everything they wanted in the end from PBS - in fact, they got next to nothing - and what they did get could easily backfire on them. I for one look forward to seeing fathers' rights propaganda shot out of the ballpark by experts with valid facts and research on their side.

Posted by: The Countess at Dec 21, 2005 9:51:27 AM

"I wouldn't be so quick to call the PBS final statement a win if I were a fathers' rights activist."

Well we must wait to see what the next documentary looks like before saying they did not get a win.

It remains to be seen.

It's interesting however how ungracious they are, even in victory. They are always screaming about how chivalrious men are, yet they can't even accept a 'win' for themselves graciously...

They even attacked Glenn Sacks, like why didn't he tell them...who the heck are they that Glenn Sacks has to cross-check anything with them.

They are a website ...hello, not a group. There are many other men out there who would be grateful for this second chance to tell another side to the story...

A bunch of idiots...and that Sir Percy should fall in a moat somewhere preferably with a crocodile lurking in it...the guy isn't even from the US yet keeping talking about getting rid of people at PBS...

Please like who is he to say anything?????

A bunch of nobodies who can't even show appreciation to those who are trying to work with them...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 21, 2005 12:21:05 PM

Sacks is running for cover. He's saving face as best as he can because in the end PBS didn't cave to fathers' rights demands. He spearheaded the biggest attack against the documentary, put his name behind it, and that attack had failed to discredit the documentary. PBS in the end supported the documentary. It declared "Breaking The Silence" "open-minded" and "fair". Not good as far as fathers' rights activists are concerned. That's why he couldn't post the entire final statement by PBS - it would show just how little fathers' rights activists have gained. Note that one fathers' rights activist gave Sacks grief for cherry-picking the final statement, and not letting them know how poorly they fared in their attacks. They were thrown a bone about a new documentary, but that new documentary won't necessarily voice their agenda. Just check my latest post about all the ugly comments from fathers' rights activists to see that even they think that.

Posted by: The Countess at Dec 21, 2005 12:33:10 PM

But don't you think that they are a bunch of ingrates for their complaints?

I mean yes, it's not definite that they will like the next documentry either, but they have a shot at least.

Which PBS did NOT have to do even that...and this crap about attacking Sacks is ridiculous. I mean the bottom line is that if it wasn't for him I don't even think PBS would have given them that little bit.

They need to learn to be gracious when people go out of the way for them.

AND this guy from New Zealand or something talking about a clean sweep of PBS is just outrageous. PBS has existed since before my kids were born as BOTH of them grew up with Sesame Street...who is this character to be talking about firing people in PBS.

It just annoys me because he's the same one who has been telling people on SYG to find out the names and private email/addresses of people they disagree with and start harrassing them at HOME or work...like this is okay to bother people like this at PBS or anywhere else for that matter...

The nerve of these people is what aggravates me...and the ingratitude...

PBS didn't have to give them diddly...nothing...so they need to shut up and say thank you...


Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 21, 2005 7:20:41 PM

PBS says one thing, PBS and CPD ombudsmen say another...then PBS conceeds to produce a more balanced documentary on the subject which is what they should have done in the first place.

Even corporations that pay out in multi-million dollar damage settlements do so without any admission to guilt or liability. That's the way of it.

We never wanted a biased story for our benefit...we demanded a balanced story from the beginning. That is what PBS is supposed to be about. Remember...PBS 'commissions' stories. They're not a private network. They are not supposed to, nor are they permitted to take a side for or against a particular issue. How is it that you continue to miss this very simple point? And while you're gloating, you might want to remember that there is pending litigation against PBS on this issue.

Posted by: Masculiste at Dec 21, 2005 9:46:23 PM

"They are not supposed to, nor are they permitted to take a side for or against a particular issue."

I don't think this is correct.

As thinking about it, PBS has done what many would call 'biased' stories for environmentalism against particular companies that pollute, for instance. AND they are not then called to do one for the oppposite side.

It's not like this is a political campaign where equal time is supposed to be given to each party.

That documentary was legitimate and stands alone. If they wish to make a second one now, you might not be as pleased with it as you might wish as I think a real hard look at statistics on who really 'wins' in our court system might surprise many people. AND could eventually have laws and public policies made that will disadvantage groups that you favor.

Even if they look at all that money being given to promote fatherhood and what's it being used for...there have been people trying to unsuccessfully trace that for years...

These are issues that your group might not want the general public to become aware of...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 22, 2005 10:44:29 AM

You'd be wrong NYMOM. This is why they are facing a major lawsuit. Again, PBS "COMMISSIONS" programs, which, in Hollywood speak, means produces programs. They bring them to viewers, they are not permitted to promote their own message to the public. Their job, their commitment, is to educate and inform. In order to do that, there must be balance...two sides to the story. Even 60 Minutes and Dateline provide balance. And ALL of their programming is supposed to be about balance, not special interests.

And because of the PBS's commitment to balance, equal time is exactly what their supposed to be giving.

And when you talk statistics it would do you well to remember that even the producers conceeded that this program represented a significant minority of cases involving disputed custody where domestic violence was at issue.

And EXACTLY where do you get that "all that money" is being given to promote fatherhood? Who's EXACTLY trying to unsuccessfully trace that? You never change...you keep making things up.

Posted by: Masculiste at Dec 22, 2005 11:05:22 AM

"And EXACTLY where do you get that "all that money" is being given to promote fatherhood? Who's EXACTLY trying to unsuccessfully trace that? You never change...you keep making things up."

No...that lizgate site has frequently posted about the efforts to trace what is done with that money being given to 'promote' so-called responsible fatherhood..

Much of it appears to being used to open up clinics to give the equivalent of free attorneys to fathers ONLY. AND to instigate men into starting custody fights with the mothers of their children.

Even a lot of these parental abductions by fathers are instigated, I believe, by these fatherhood programs...where you advise men to not return their children after visits and instead race down to the courthouse with the child's birth certificate and petition for custody for themselves. Frequently the mother of the child is not even informed this is going on until after it's over.

You take advantage of loopholes in state laws where if custody is not established through the courts, either parent can file and get temporary custody established for themselves without the other parent being present...all they need to do is bring the child's birth certificate with them to file.

There is a blog right now on mensnewsdaily which has just such a story on it...A mother of a 7 month old is in jail in Kentucky right now, after the child's father pulled exactly this sort of stunt. AND I bet if we trace the origins of that situation we can trace it right back to one of those clinics being set up with fatherhood funds from the govnernment. AND many others situations as well...

I freqeuntly wonder how that Christopher Rhodes got custody of that little girl and if some fatherhood funds weren't misused in that situation...

The government did NOT give grants to promote responsible fatherhood with this in mind...

So those people handling that money have much to answer for...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 22, 2005 11:53:17 AM

To: Masculiste

BTS Childrens' Stories doesn't have 2 sides, that is why it is called *Children's Stories*. The children (teens) speak out against the abuse, custody wars, family court failures and trauma. The only other "side" would be justification of abuse to the children. Are you willing to publicly state that there is somehow justification to harming children? Is your story going to be submitted for the new documentary? Please show how the mind of an abuser justifies the harm done to children. I really (and the public in general) would be very appreciative if you could show how this is done.

If there is going to be the *real* truth brought out about PAS, stalking, perjury, threats, DV and child sexual abuse, and how it is used to help the accused abuser gain sole custody and isolate his chosen victims, I just gotta see that!

If there is going to be a FR poster child case, please let it be my X. I would love for the FR groups to rally 'round this man and I will help you. I will give you the paperwork from CPS, medical reports, psych and drs. I will also give you copies of his declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, as well as the falsified court order signed by the judge in a secret chambers meeting giving the abuser sole temp custody and having me arrested for going into a dv shelter legally, as per instructions from the DA.

Not only dv, and child abuse evidence, perjury and falsified court documents, evidence and witness tampering and fraud upon the court can then be made public so that the very important questions of WHO benefitted from these crimes, HOW it was accomplished, who conspired to commit these crimes and who was in collusion to cover it up. WHERE did the money come from, and WHAT was the real goal of these crimes.

Oh, Please, please allow me to help you. I want to show that the FR groups are behind the publication of the evidence these judges in Marin County have worked so hard to cover up. I have other cases I can help you with. I can show where the FR groups received the gov't money, how it was used to assist white males with money and their attorneys to further their abuse agendas, and to assist at least one black convict to take sole custody of his daughter whom he hadn't seen in about 9 years, a widely publicized case for the DA to show justification for the $600,000 they received for responsible fatherhood, in the county that bragged to the media that they had one of the highest rates of fathers who took custody away from mothers. (Not bad moms, not even good dads, just legal kidnapping to prevent having to pay child support)

Again, if this is to be a story about the truth, let me help you with the evidence.

Posted by: justonemom at Dec 22, 2005 2:36:02 PM

RE: BTS

My 15 yr old son just told me that his high school teacher saw BTS (after he told her about it in Oct) and took her copy to the school for the principal and staff to watch. He said that they saw it as a problem that many of their students were effected by. I think the teacher needed it to understand why my son has so many emotional problems, especially after failing to get his father to acknowledge that he has got to take action to help our son and his siblings.

Hurrah, for the teachers who want to know their students personal lives in order to help them. It was also suggested that the students may have the opportunity to view the film as a class assignment. I will let everyone know later if this happens and how it turned out as I get all my information from my son and not from the teacher.

Posted by: justonemom at Dec 22, 2005 2:59:30 PM

The effects of DV, abuse and sole custody to the abuser:

My son, his twin brother and his sister have had many problems in school, violent outbursts and failure to progress in the 4 years they have been in their fathers sole custody. Drugs, alcohol, deviant/sexual behaviors, threatening teachers and attacking other students, threatening to get their father's guns and kill kids at school included. (Yes, they have unlimited access to a whole cache of weapons and ammo) Diagnosis of severe mental/emotional disorders, taken off meds and out of behavorial therapy-father said this psychobabble is unnecessary since they behave just like him and he is just fine.

My son said that he had a total of over 6 weeks suspension time in less than 3 years of jr high. He wasn't even allowed to attend 8th frade graduation ceremonies. The court orders them into family counseling, which father begins then quits after submitting the paperwork to the court showing that he complied. It takes alot of money to get the family court to do their job and follow-up, and I don't have any.

The DA, with Responsible Fatherhood funds assisted this man in illegally taking custody of our children and for the DA to expose his criminal behaviors, would also expose the DA and judges complicity in the crimes. In this case they would not be protected by judicial immunity since the judge knowingly signed a court order that was falsified. (Fraud upon the court) The DA investigator tampered with the evidence and the DA lied in court about having received the required paperwork. The corruption runs deep. The subsequent judges and DA conspired to hide the evidence, even after being re-informed of the crimes each time I entered the court. Trying to silence me hasn't helped them and they are aware of the situation that the children are exhibiting problems associated with continued abuse.

Mine isn't the only case, they have done this to other women and they are afraid of exposure. It is said in the bible that time itself cannot erase a sin, but that is what the family court is trying to do. Dragging it out so that evidence can be wiped out where ever possible. I can't wait for this new PBS documentary, I have so much evidence. Since this is not a venue for the children to speak again, I want to help with showing evidence of what the fathers' rights group in Marin County have done to harm my children and others that I know of. I want to show the physical evidence that the family court ignored in favor over a liar making false statements in the courtroom, and with tapes and transcripts a judge stating that he never reads anything in the files and another one saying that my X would never be prosecuted for the his crimes. ("why can't you just forget about it and pretend none of this has ever happened, we'll let you see your kids again")

Posted by: justonemom at Dec 22, 2005 3:22:03 PM

Justonemom, I appreciate your posts. I'm glad that PBS has stood by "Breaking The Silence". I have some contact information for you that might help you contact PBS to tell them your story, since they're still looking into abuse cases and PAS with the new documentary. Email me next week, after Christmas. I won't be blogging much until next week because we've started celebrating the Christmas holiday.

Posted by: The Countess at Dec 22, 2005 4:05:29 PM

"pending litigation", whoo-hoo! I'm laughing so hard, tears
are rolling down my cheeks.

Have you ever noticed that these guys ALWAYS fire up a lawsuit, as soon as
they hear something that doesn't suit their world view?

Posted by: Txfeminist at Dec 22, 2005 4:48:01 PM

Yep, Txfeminist, I've noticed that they're especially litigious. The infuriating thing is that they take their litigation out on their ex's, costing them thousands of dollars due to their frivolous and antagonistic lawsuits.

Posted by: The Countess at Dec 22, 2005 5:00:54 PM

I think if Justonemom has all this stuff, she should start a blog and pony it all up for the public to see. If she's not sure how to do that, the Countess or I will be happy to advise her on exactly how. Failing that, I'm sure the Countess would be more than happy to provide a forum for JOM. If you've got evidence of a conspiracy theory, take it public.

It's also amusing how you all keep accusing Fatima's dad of abuse when the accused and documented abuser was Fatima's mom, not her dad. And the accuser, among others, was Fatima herself. The child's current accusations that contradict her previous accusations are what happen when continual abuse of children goes unchecked.

It's also interesting how when women challenge authority, unfair laws and policies with lawsuits (which is what garnered the feminist movement the attention and change in laws that feminists now enjoy today), it's just fine...but when men challenge authority, unfair laws and policies with lawsuits, it's frivilous, antagonistic, vicious, vile, etc. etc.

The double-standard never ends in your camp does it?

Posted by: Masculiste at Dec 22, 2005 7:42:13 PM

"And the accuser, among others, was Fatima herself. The child's current accusations that contradict her previous accusations are what happen when continual abuse of children goes unchecked."

She was EIGHT YEARS OLD when those accusations were made while whe was on a visit with her father.

NOW she's SIXTEEN YEARS OLD...

Your camp is willing to listen to an 8 year old but not a 16 year old...

What a joke...

What possible possible motivation would she have to lie now at 16...when she can live with either parent she wishes to now. Why would she chose her mother if her mother was this horrible abuser???

In fact the whole thing was obviously a made-up story by the father with help from his friends in the legal system...and beleive it or not I'm not even mad at the father here...I want to get those idiots who helped him do this...

Those are the ones who need to be in jail...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 22, 2005 9:32:01 PM

"In fact the whole thing was obviously a made-up story by the father with help from his friends in the legal system...and beleive it or not I'm not even mad at the father here...I want to get those idiots who helped him do this..."

That's so childishly, ridiculously, bizarre an accusation that it's not worth more of a response than what I've just wasted my time writing here this moment.

Posted by: Masculiste at Dec 22, 2005 9:58:13 PM

"That's so childishly, ridiculously, bizarre an accusation that it's not worth more of a response than what I've just wasted my time writing here this moment."

Why is it so childish and bizarre?

Fatima clearly stated she and her father went on family outings with a number of the people who worked in the court...his g/f wrote some psychological report about her that was used by the Judge in the custody hearing....

This was the same situation with the Alana Krause case, where her farther also had the same sort of connections in the court.

Again why would Fatima lie about this????

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 22, 2005 10:17:02 PM

Actually Alana Krause's father plead no contest to a charge that he had his daughter committed to an out of state juvenile detention facility, based upon a report his girlfriend phonied up for him. Alana was a former honor roll student put in with drug addicts, prostitutes, and other criminals...she got beat up a number of times there, she was lucky she wasn't seriously injured or even killed.

All for the same reason as this Fatima Loeliger because she wanted to live with her mother.

So Marshall Krause, Alana Krause father was charged with this as a crime...and he pled no contest...I think he probably made a financial settlement to shut the case down and the details weren't allowed to be disclosed. That Richard Ducote represented her, so I'm sure he got her a nice settlement that allowed her to go to college...

So it happens....you keep acting like this is sooooo impossible to happen ...

It's pretty clear to me what's been going on here...one was an attorney, the other a doctor...This whole thing is probably about two high income fathers trying to get out of paying child support.

It's not too complicated to me, although everyone else here keeps trying to make it that way...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 22, 2005 10:28:16 PM

<...I think if Justonemom has all this stuff, she should start a blog and pony it all up for the public to see. If she's not sure how to do that, the Countess or I will be happy to advise her on exactly how...>

Why thank you Masculiste, I would love to have your assistance and/or advice. I have been working out the details with a few other women to scan our documents and video tape the evidence to submit to the media, Attny General, legislators, attorneys and to Tatge and Lasseur. I didn't have the money to begin the project until now, so we expect to go full steam ahead in Jan. DVDs are pretty cheap to mass produce and it is a better method of exposing corruption than trying to work within the legal system without the money to hire attorneys. My intent is not so much restitution in a civil rights or personal injury case as that would take too long, and I would be using the very system that I want to expose for being a morally bankrupt money pit that benefits only those individuals whose job it is to keep it in operation.

My goal now is really about exposing the truth of judicial corruption as the family court has held my children captive for 4 years, while I foolishly went from one hearing to the next like a zombie trying to work within a system that is severely broken.

I didn't know about the PBS' new documentary before a day or 2 ago but my dvd will make it easier for them to see exactly what evidence I have. I will freely give it out, but it will all be given out on the same day.

I have some interesting cases that I hope to highlight besides my own and some insiders who also agreed to assist. My dvd may not be done professionally, but I guarantee that the evidence I have will be compelling and it will bring some attention to how the family court deals with dv and abuse.

Countess: I received an email from Cindy R, thanks, and I will get back to her and you in a week, possibly 2 since I have to work out of town until then.

Merry Christmas to all, even the FR supporters. I pray that each of you spend quality time with your children and that the kids enjoy being with you too. I have learned that Christmas is a state of mind, and not a particular day, so my own kids do not feel guilty about not being with me on the holiday itself and we celebrate when we are together, without regrets and usually after I have taken advantage of the post Christmas sales.

Posted by: justonemom at Dec 23, 2005 12:24:59 AM

<...It's also interesting how when women challenge authority, unfair laws and policies with lawsuits (which is what garnered the feminist movement the attention and change in laws that feminists now enjoy today)...>

One last thing, exactly what feminists laws are you talking about?

The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution. It has been ratified by only 35 of the necessary 38 states to make it an amendment to the Constitution. A man recently said to me that we don't need to include the word "woman" in the Constitution since it is implied when the word "man" is used. Well, I think we should change the wording to "woman" and let "man" be implied, so what do you think of that!

Posted by: justonemom at Dec 23, 2005 12:41:51 AM

*I love this man! No, not Getler, the professor! Val

From PBS http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/
The Ombudsman's Mail Bag
By Michael Getler
December 21, 2005


...I am concerned that you would actually endorse the concept of "balance" in a program opposing public support of child abuse. "Breaking the Silence" exposed the use of the nation's court system to give children to abusers. What, exactly, is the opposing viewpoint?

As were several other authors, you seem to be misled by folks who have tried to create a controversy where there is none. Like the 'intelligent design' folks who write articles and speeches, then demand that schools 'teach the controversy,' this is an invented conflict unworthy of such journalistic support. There is no controversy about evolution among real experts. And there is no controversy about whether to award children to violent parents among real experts. You are feeding a nonexistent controversy created for ideological purposes.

Fathers' rights groups have nothing to complain about. BTS does not advocate for mothers against fathers. It advocates for non-offending mothers against abusive fathers. Who, exactly, would you have interviewed to represent the viewpoint supporting abusive fathers? Certainly not the fathers' rights organizations who are complaining, because they will not tell you that they represent abusive fathers. They will tell you they only represent good fathers. But good fathers are not the issue here.

So why, exactly, would good fathers create such a 'controversy' over a program that opposes child abuse inflicted by abusive fathers and incompetent courts? Have any of the columnists or ombudsmen who have written about BTS asked these groups, if these are such good fathers, why are they not outraged that abusive fathers are getting custody? Why are they not outraged that children are being abused? Why are they not outraged that some courts are so incompetent that they place children at further risk of harm? Have you heard any such objections from the pressure groups who object to BTS? Doesn't it even tickle your journalistic curiosity enough to ask why any legitimate interest group would stake out a position that in effect endorses child abuse โ€” or at least vehemently objects to a documentary opposing child abuse? Doesn't it even raise a hint of journalistic suspicion that the objectors do not loudly lament that children are being harmed by other men? In your quest for context, didn't it even flicker to ask whether the ones raising hell are the ones causing it?

And I am sorry, but a demand for a neutral point of view on some topics โ€” child abuse, animal abuse, slavery, the Holocaust โ€” is a shallow excuse for critical thinking, and an endorsement of the modern inanity that all ideas are created equal.

Finally, if you are really interested in digging into the gory details of custody litigation or the thoroughly discredited Parental Alienation Syndrome, for starters you can check the resources cited below, in a copy of a response I wrote to my local PBS station. (If you want the attachments mentioned, you will have to send me a real e-mail address.) I can't blame you if you really don't want to dig this deep into an esoteric area of the law. But then again, if you don't, perhaps you ought not be second guessing bona fide experts on an area so critical to the survival of battered women and their children.

Mike Brigner, Dayton, Ohio
Associate Professor, Paralegal Program at Sinclair Community College

Posted by: justonemom at Dec 23, 2005 1:32:16 AM

I think I like this professor as well.

He made some good points.

Men will say, however, that they want their own documentary showing abusive mothers getting custody from good fathers and then the court terminating a father's contact due to PAS for making false abuse charges.

If they can find ONE FATHER this has happened to, of course, never mine FIVE, it will be a miracle...but I say let them try for this next documentary.

I would be interested in seeing their stories...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 23, 2005 4:32:07 AM

"It advocates for non-offending mothers against abusive fathers..."

That's the problem in a nutshell JOM.

And in THIS case, Sadia Loeliger, they absolved the mother of the abuse she CLEARLY and DOCUMENTEDLY engaged in, by accusing the father, who was NEVER at any time, accused of abuse whatsoever. At least until now, years after the fact.

It should have advocated for non-offending parents against abusive parents and demonstrated what we all know...mothers AND fathers engage in abuse, and further abuse the system to garner custody of children from decent, loving parents.

I'm also very sorry for your situation JOM. Unfortunately you're experiencing what I and millions of dads like me have been living with for years and years.

My own daughter tells me on a routine basis now, the abuse she endures at the hands of her mother.

10 years ago I was going to bash her mother's boyfriend's head in because my daughter had been telling me how they used to smoke homemade cigarettes and "sniff white stuff" in front of my kids, among OTHER things. In an act of rage, I went after the party boy while my kids were present. My daughter had just turned 5. For years after that, her mom kept trying to refresh the vague memory she had of the incident in her mind so that she would think me a 'bad daddy.'

10 years later, my daughter is on anti-depressents and is in regular psychological therapy. She's about to turn 16 now, so she's been telling me how her mom hits her, ignores her, goes into rages, keeps trying to get guys to move in with her and and discourages contact between us.

The point is...my daughter can barely recall my attack on Bruce, but she's in therapy for the shit she sees everyday with her mom now, not what her mom kept trying to pressure her into recalling 10 years ago. And she's informed me that this is what she discusses with her therapist. That even the therapist would like me to be involved in my daughter's care, yet her mother forbids it. Yet she still loves her mom very much.

We've talked about her and her brother moving here to Chicago with me, and in spite of everything, she's concerned that if she does, she'll lose her mother completely. You see, she worries that I'll do the same thing that her mother did for all those years (parental alienation) or worse that her mom will disown her for choosing to live with me.

And this has occured with millions of dads in one form or another.

So you see, if BTS: Children's Stories was truly concerned about the abuse children suffer, then the program would have simply been about child abuse. Again, I spent the better portion of my youth as a ward of the state due to physical and emotional abuse suffered at the hands of my mother. Or it would have indicted abusive parents going through custody issues, both of which are mothers AND fathers. And BOTH of which are a MUCH bigger problem than the one-sided propaganda piece PBS chose to produce.

And as the Countess has said, this program sought to discredit Parental Alienation. When it did, it attempted discredited one of, if not THE most serious form of child abuse.

And NYMOM knows all-too-well, having been to my site, that I have enough examples to produce a show all by myself.

Posted by: Masculiste at Dec 23, 2005 10:58:37 AM

"And NYMOM knows all-too-well, having been to my site, that I have enough examples to produce a show all by myself."

I'll ignore that deliberate attempt to provoke me into negatively commenting on your site as the owner of this one asked me NOT to attack her posters.

I'm sure justonemom will see for herself what your site is about after one visit...

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 23, 2005 12:37:58 PM

about that litigation comment...I was not trying to be
insensitive. Well do I know it, Trish... my family has
first hand experience with this. They are real good at
hurting individuals-not so good at making a dent with their
silly lawsuits when dealing with the big networks, who
have big legal teams to deal with them. Now if only
battered women & children had that kind of backing.
maybe after a few more documentaries.

Posted by: Txfeminist at Dec 27, 2005 11:58:23 AM

I know you weren't being insensitive, Txfeminist. I agreed with you. These angry people tend to be very litigious. Just to let you know, fathers' rights activists are so unhappy about PBS's final statement that they're talking about going to Congress to crack down on PBS, even though PBS decided that "Breaking The Silence" was a worthwhile documentary. They want to see people fired from PBS, and if they can sue, they'll try to. I seriously doubt they'd be able to pull it off. I read on one men's rights forum that the guys are even monitoring me in case I say anything litigation-worthy, which is a laugh. They're just angry and acting out, as usual.

Posted by: The Countess at Dec 27, 2005 12:36:59 PM

They're angry because they know they're not going to get what they want, and what they want is total control over their things---women nad children. It's like watching kids have temper tantrums. If they don't get waht they want it's a tragedy, and they imagine that it's happening to 'millions' of dads, to quote Masculiste.

Posted by: ginmar at Dec 28, 2005 12:11:48 PM

You're right that they aren't getting what they want, Ginmar, and they're very angry about it. They've recently lost in their attempts to destroy VAWA, and now they've lost in their attempts to destroy "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories". They've repeatedly lost world-wide in their attempts to make presumptive joint physical custody the law of the land. There is some talk in Australia about "shared parenting", but it's unlikely that presumptive 50/50 shared parenting will become the norm Down Under. It's already been rejected.

Fathers' rights activists were given only lip-service recognition in VAWA, but VAWA continues to do what it is supposed to do - provide assistance and funding to help female victims of domestic violence, who are by far the largest number of victims. I understand that The International Marriage Broker Act has been added to VAWA. That will provide protections for foreign brides. Bean at Cool Beans wrote about it.

When fathers' rights activists lose, they let their true colors out. They rant and make threats. They are demanding that heads roll at PBS because their demands weren't met. They were so busy crowing over the ombudsman's two articles without understanding what the purpose of an ombudsman is. The ombudsman merely plays mediator between people and groups with different views. PBS isn't beholden to the ombudsman. PBS did the right thing in supporting "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" because the documentary was fair and well-researched.

Fathers' rights activists kept whining about wanting "the other side" presented. What would that other side be, since the documentary was about abused children and young adults speaking about the abuse they experienced from their fathers. Would a "fair" documentary in their view be supportive of abusive fathers getting custody of their children, with garbage like complaints about "rampant" false allegations of abuse by mothers and cites of Parental Alienation Syndrome? Such a documentary would only attack children who speak out about abuse, and it would not have been appropriate.

Posted by: The Countess at Dec 28, 2005 12:27:46 PM

I am very interested in the fact that some people
on this site have made the important point that the "opposite"
side of the story, as the FRs like to frame it, is actually
"against" abused children or "pro" abusive fathers
getting custody. This is so important because it breaks the
argument out of the Father's Rights semantic frame completely.
It's so critical to point this out wherever this situation is
in the public eye.


Posted by: at Dec 29, 2005 11:05:46 AM

Anonymous: "I am very interested in the fact that some people on this site have made the important point that the "opposite" side of the story, as the FRs like to frame it, is actually "against" abused children or "pro" abusive fathers getting custody. This is so important because it breaks the argument out of the Father's Rights semantic frame completely. It's so critical to point this out wherever this situation is in the public eye."

I didn't even notice the valid point that the "opposite" of the point of view presented in "Breaking The Silence" would be siding with abusive fathers until another commenter pointed it out. That same point was brought out in a letter to the PBS ombudsman. I read it online. It's a powerful statement. Fathers' rights activists ignored the fact that the documentary was about children's voices. Those children talked about abuse they experienced at the hands of their fathers. The "opposing" view would be supportive of abusive fathers gaining custody. The documentary wasn't about custody wars between men and women. It was about children speaking out about abuse. Fathers' rights activists, as usual, try to make everything about themselves. They failed this time, since PBS came out in support of the documentary.

Posted by: The Countess at Dec 29, 2005 2:17:23 PM