« Another Case Of An Angry Divorcing Guy Threatening A Judge | Main | Interesting Article About Loneliness »

June 24, 2006

For Darren Mack, It Was All About The Money

Lots of bloggers who have been following the Darren Mack case wondered if he was angry because Judge Weller might have given his wife custody of their daughter. I just found out that Weller ordered joint custody, alternating weeks. Weller should never have ordered joint custody for two warring parents. Joint custody only makes extreme conflict that was the case in their divorce worse.

Mack was a millionaire, and his wife was a stay-at-home mom. What really pissed off Mack was the money he was ordered to pay his wife.

The judge said the non-custodial parent should pay 18 percent of his or her gross monthly income for child support, not to exceed $849 per month. Since Darren Mack earned a gross monthly income of $44,000, and Charla's income was zero, Darren was required to pay child support each month.

Eighteen percent of $44,000 would be about $7,920 per month, but state law capped child support at $849, so Darren was required to pay that amount, Weller said in his order.

Weller then ordered Darren Mack to help Charla with her household expenses: $10,000 per month. And he awarded Charla the "temporary exclusive possession" of the couple's home, "as long as she fully cooperates with the sale of the home."

The judge made Darren Mack responsible for paying the mortgages, "taxes, lawn, gas, electric, pool/Jacuzzi, TV/satellite, insurance, water, alarm, garbage, pest control and telephone."

He was not allowed to enter the home without Charla's permission, Weller's order said.

Mack had tried to bully his wife into a settlement that satisfied him, telling her that if she refused, he would file for bankruptcy and destroy her, and she wouldn't get a red cent. That's exactly what he had done. I've heard other mothers describe a similar tactic taken on by their husbands when the guys don't want to pay child support or other financially-related orders. Child support is not affected by bankruptcy, so that backfires on them.

While Charla Mack was trying to prevent the house from being foreclosed upon and trying to pay her bills without any money, Darren Mack was traveling around the world, enjoying his swinger lifestyle. I have nothing against swingers. Whatever floats your boat. I do have problems with a man trying to dodge his financial responsibiliities, harming his daughter's peace of mind, welfare and home, all the while traipsing around the world bedding a different woman nearly every other weekend.

The RGJ.com article stated that "[b]etween May and August 2005, Darren Mack only paid his wife $9,000 of the $40,000 he owed her in alimony and also failed to pay court-ordered mortgage payments on the home in which the mother and daughter lived, according to court records. The home was valued at more than $1 million, according to court records." At one point, Weller had to order Mack to pay his wife $2,000 so that the power could be turned back on in her home. His daughter lived in that home, according to the joint custody arrangement. His daughter lived in a home without power because her father didn't care enough to make sure she'd be secure and safe.

Despite filing for bankruptcy, Mack continued to live his "lavish lifestyle", traveling and engaging in swinging. He has a Myspace site where he wants to find a "beautiful, sensual, sexual, smart, fun woman with a respectful attitude and enjoy all life has to offer. Get ready for too much fun.""

Darren Mack was even named "Father Of The Year" on a billboard, with Charla's blessing. This "Father Of The Year" let his daughter's household go to the dogs by not paying what he owed. It wasn't like he couldn't afford it. The guy is a millionaire.

Here's something I found very interesting. Mack was one of Dahlia Lithwick's former clients, and she helped him with his first successful custody case that he had fought with his first wife. Charla Mack was Mack's second wife. Lithwick described how Darren Mack and Charla Mack frequented her office, filling out paperwork to take his children away from their mother. He eventually won custody. The two children are now in their late teens.

I billed hundreds of hours on the Mack case many years ago, when I was clerking for a small family law firm in Reno and he was fighting his first wife for custody of their children. Darren and Charla logged countless hours with us at our conference table, drafting pleadings and preparing for depositions; after court hearings, we would unwind at some nice casino restaurant. Darren was somehow always at the other side of my desk, or on the other end of the phone line, urging me to think about why his kids needed him, and why he alone was their ally. The firm was not involved in this second divorce and custody fight.

So, Charla Mack was a second wife who helped her non-custodial dad husband gain custody of his children. When they divorced, he pulled the same malicious litigation tactics on her. I have heard from plenty of second wives who had helped their husbands with their custody cases, only to get the same treatment from him when they divorced. They have a big wake-up call when that happens. Charla Mack's case ended in the most unspeakable way, but knowing that she had helped him win custody of his children from his first wife really gave me pause.

Posted on June 24, 2006 at 04:12 PM | Permalink

Comments

Proponents and opponents keep lining up on one side or the other, flaming and inflaming the opposition. There is ample evidence to show that, for example, men are monsters who have only their evil patriarchal instincts to honor as they continue their globe-wide campaign to oppress women. And there is equal evidence to support the view that women are weak-minded money-grabbers who have constructed a lobby-dominated religion of state that shoves all fathers to the curb for revenge and profit.

Whatever. The reality, folks, is this: There are a lot of bad people out there. And with a lot of those bad people being parents, there's a war going on. And it's been fanned by special interest that does not yet include any kind of organized, legislated father's rights voice. The feminist sites can reference all kinds of bad-father evidence but one thing they cannot do is point to the male equivalent of the NOW, the VAWA, the multi-billion dollar socialist welfare and DHHS juggernaut, or even the Bradley Amendment, who's business is indeed impoverishing and jailing a great statistical majority of fathers.

Speaking of fathers, lets get to some numbers, every one of which is verified by at least one federal or state-level study, and many times, years of them:

-Primary custody is awarded to dads only 15% of the time, giving rise, naturally, to the great majority of mothers taking steps to break apart families;

-Domestic violence is gender neutral, with women committing far more initiating acts and men committing more of the acts resulting in serious harm. In short, the feminist mantra of 95% (or 99% or 100%) of DV being perpetuated by men is unsupported by fact;

-Nearly two-thirds of all abuse of children is not committed by men;

-As a group, women own literally tens of billions more in personal property;

-Family law eliminates the rights that law critically and absolutely depends on elsewhere. In family law, a simple allegation constitutes as much as a ruling.

So where does this leave us, given that both men and women are jerks all over this land and can both write incendiary things in blogs such as this, painting only the other side as intractable villains? It means that the current pendulum swing has women far out-organizing men to make government their parent and their toolkit. It means that every state-level agency, service, and court ruling is indeed influenced by the women's lobby without reply from a corresponding men's lobby. And it means that despite all the dust thrown in the air against men, factually fathers do indeed suffer a systemic bias that can be traced to the money and power.

It means that feminist political correctness makes it damn nigh impossible to be a single father and fathers absolutely know that.

But I've left the most important part for last, and this is a point I'd encourage fathers to adopt before they ever become merely politically rhetorical and obscene and just bash women, no matter how evil their personal experiences: Where is the fundamental, constitutional right to the freedom to be a law-abiding parent? When and how did the feminist lobby, aided by the profitable divorce industry, suspend due process, the presumption of innocence, gender equality, equal protection, rules of evidence, and 200 years of countless Supreme Court rulings making parenting a fundamental right?

Why did this land destroy its most cherished rights in order to become a gender war for revenge and profit? And how can we expect the law to operate this way and there not to be personal ruin?

Exactly when and by what means did the presumption of male-only guilt, the loss of the right to parent without recourse or representation, debtor's prison, and the gross statistical bias favoring women in custody, “support” and divorce come from if not special interest?

So before you prove your point about your pet gender being perfect just because the opposite gender is completely corrupt from the womb, stop and consider the facts. Then follow the money. And then ask yourself why you'd continue to void the constitutional rights to parent and be parented just because it served your personal dogma about the sexes.

(By the way, I find it interesting that a blog that promotes homemade chocolate genetilia and sex acts and links to an online sex ring takes issue with anyone else's preferences presumably in order to question their character. That's not a criticism, it's an observation about relative norms and values, the core problem with the gender war being waged in family court from shore to shore...)

Posted by: NV Dad at Jun 25, 2006 10:07:48 AM

DV Dad wrote: "-Primary custody is awarded to dads only 15% of the time, giving rise, naturally, to the great majority of mothers taking steps to break apart families;"

Most parents settle out of court and decide on their own that mom should have custody. Most divorces aren't decided by a judge. Only about 10% of divorces must be decided by a judge, and those include "problem" case, such as those involving child abuse, domestic violence, power/control issues, substance abuse and alcohol problems, mental illnesses, and the like. Mothers usually get custody because that's what both parents decided, on their own, is best for their children. When dads make an issue of custody, they get some form of it more than half the time. So, there is not rampant bias against dads in divorce. Besides, I think the accurate stats are that fathers get sole custody about 5% of the time. Joint custody is awarded either 10 - 15% of the time.

NV Dad wrote "-Domestic violence is gender neutral, with women committing far more initiating acts and men committing more of the acts resulting in serious harm. In short, the feminist mantra of 95% (or 99% or 100%) of DV being perpetuated by men is unsupported by fact;"

The misguided Conflict Tactic Scales are used to give the mistaken impression that women are as violent as men, and that women initiate violence far more than men. The CTS isolates individual "hits" without taking them in the context of the abusive incident. They also don't take the incident in the context of the abusive relationship. When the abusive relationship is look at without using the misguided CTS, it is clear that women are most often victims of abuse. In addition, men in same-sex relationships are much more likely to be abused by their partners than are men in heterosexual relationships.

One of the creators of the CTS is Dr. Richard Gelles. He had the following to say about people who take the CTS and claim that women are as violent as men:

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FACTOIDS
by Richard J. Gelles
University of Rhode Island Family Violence Research Program

[Excerpt]
MYTH: WOMEN ARE AS VIOLENT AS ARE MEN, AND
WOMEN INITIATE VIOLENCE AS OFTEN AS DO MEN.

This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
NOT AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD
By Richard J. Gelles

[excerpt]
[W]hen we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of "battered" men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men.

NV Dad wrote: "-Nearly two-thirds of all abuse of children is not committed by men;"

Mothers are most often cited for neglect. Men continue to commit the most egregious forms of child abuse.

NV Dad wrote: "-As a group, women own literally tens of billions more in personal property;"

Another popular men's rights claim that has no basis in reality. Women don't own the majority of personal property. After divorce, a woman's standard of living drops about 40%, and a man's rises about 15%.

NV Dad wrote: "-Family law eliminates the rights that law critically and absolutely depends on elsewhere. In family law, a simple allegation constitutes as much as a ruling."

False allegations of abuse are no more common in the context of a divorce or custody case than they are in the general population. Bona fide false allegations of abuse are rare - around 2 to 4 percent. Also, a Canadian study found that men more often than women make false allegations of abuse.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 25, 2006 10:45:05 AM

I cannot quote statistics, nor can I come up with witty remarks. I do not know of many of the research that can and probably will be quoted on this blog. What I do know is my life. And I know my life for 6 years beginning in 1999 and finally stopping in 2005 started idealic and ended up being a nightmare. I do know that my HUSBAND isolated me and I did not even see it happening until it was too late. I do know that my husband was so mentally cruel that I would beg for him to beat me. To beat me, you say incredulously? Yes, to beat me simply for the fact that beatings I would know why I was hurting. I would not think I was crazy. This was his whole intention, to make me feel like I was crazy and to become even more dependent on him.

I saw the light so to speak when our child who at the young age of 3 informed me that if I did not bow to her commands she would tell her father to beat me. Who still to this day has severe issues with proper and improper choices as far as voicing her opinion. Spitting, hitting, punching, kicking, and severe temper tantrums are inappropriate ways for a child to express anger. Does this behavior occur all the time? No only when the child has been with her father. Do I think he condones this behavior? Who knows since I am not allowed to be privy to anything that occurs in his household. Yet he demands to know what happens in mine simply because our child lives here. He has made several comments that lead me to believe that he is either stalking me himself or he has people doing it for him.

Do I sound paranoid? I prefer to think of it as cautious. Do I think this poor woman is being put the wash with no way to defend herself? You bet. And you can bet that when Mack is apprehended (and he will be apprehended) that he will paint his victim in the worst light he possibly can. And he will have all of the wonderful fathers jumping on the bandwagon to show how they understand how Mack could have snapped. After all us women are so evil and vindictive. All we care about is the money. We want to take all of these poor men's children away from them. Do you honestly think for one-second we would take a child away from a good father? There might be some women out there like that, but again only speaking from my experience and my history I know that my husband is a control freak. He is abusive towards me, was abusive to his first ex-wife (so abusive in fact that the divorce was longer than the marriage) And he was abusive to his first child (finding out all this after the fact does not help). So what does this say? This says that at least one other woman out there truly wants her child to have a relationship with their father but yet again another father who is only interested in how much this will cost him.

What is the solution? Tougher dv laws maybe? No custody for anyone convicted of dv? No custody for someone accused more than once of dv? There are no easy answers. Perhaps the solution would be to listen to those who know about dv. To those who try to help both victim and abuser. Or maybe we should just do like the father's rights people want us to do. Completely remove the mother from the picture and give the abusive good dad carte blanche to do as he chooses. Oh wait then there would be no law or order and it would be chaos. So what is the solution?

From my experience I take everything that spews from a fr mouth with a grain of salt. You talk of the billions that goes to VAWA? Well, where I live the shelter staff are not going to be receiving any type of raise. They often have to work many long long hours. The shelter depends on the generosity of donations and volunteer hours to ensure they are properly staffed and able to handle the influx of clients. I guess that is the magic of VAWA funding at work.

One last note concerning lifestyles. While we were considered middle class due to my husband's income and the area where we lived, we both still live in the same area. He is now considered upper middle class due to adding his new girlfriends income with his. I am now considered just above poverty level. So how is it that women fair so much better during divorce. While not complaining the fun I share with our child is going to church twice a week. My ex has been to Disney and the beach (staying at a motel for the beach visit). So whose lifestyle has changed?

I think posters really need to think twice before they post anything and one last comment:

May God take mercy on Mack's soul for making the choices he has made. And God Bless Darla Mack. She is yet another unseen victim who has been pushed aside again because of a higher profile, seemingly more important living victim.

Posted by: Jen at Jun 25, 2006 12:02:39 PM

Trish's blog; Your source for feminist advocacy research and bogus feminist statistics from a man-hating mothers rights activist.

The most abusive parent is the mother who chooses to irrepairably damage her children by rupturing the family unit in search of herself, boyfriends and a good time. Who pays for this irresponsible lifestyle; why the man of course, paying spousal support in the guise of excessive child support.

Wake up and smell the roses...remarks like this above can only have been madwe by a man-hater.

Posted by: John at Jun 25, 2006 12:05:21 PM

Not that it's specific to the topic of a needed but nonexistent Constitutional presumption of innocence in family court and the essential, SC-ruled right to parent in the context framed by your evasive reply, but the State of Nevada itself reported in 2002 (the last year previously on record -- now such stats are mysteriously concealed as far as I can tell) that 63% of all *abuse* was committed by women, Trish.

Likewise the Feds report well over 60% nationally gets chalked up in the female category. *Abuse*, Trish. Call it what you will at your own peril. Frankly, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: I suspect that were shared equal parenting the standard (as it will eventually become) that figure would equalize -- women and men alike are abusers.

As far as DV, the most comprehensive report and aggregate compilation on DV ever conducted shows beyond a shadow of doubt that it is, in fact, gender-neutral. Meanwhile, that ~90% (or 95% or whatever) figure has been outed as outright fraud perpetuated by the feminist lobby. Sorry; take it up with them.

Women absolutely own billions more in personal property more than men. It's a federal statistic and pretty hard to steamroll.

If you like, I can link to each of these claims and to *another* Canadian study found women the overwhelming aggressors. We can trade stats all day long, although I think mine, having been researched only *after* the bogus preemptive feminist claims were exposed for what they were would show substantially more credibility.

But the point remains and I'd like an answer: How do you and other gender feminists condone the loss of all primary legal and constitutional rights for fathers as they enter the family law/social services circus and nightmare?

How can feminists possibly suggest that a system that literally runs on the presumption of guilt as well as the elimination of due process *and* literally takes private allegations (conveniently not liable to perjury penalties) as a finding of fact when awarding custody is constitutional ethical? Or even *legal*?!

Posted by: NV Dad at Jun 25, 2006 12:08:19 PM

I'm truly sorry to hear of your challenges, Jen. I hope you are spared further anguish.

And I have another point too, before I forget. Let's construct a scenario and see where this mental experiment leads us:

A father previously fit enough to be granted the "right" by the State to father a child with his wife returns home to find his children missing and his home locked down. He's met with a restraining order alleging DV and/or abuse and made to vacate. In the days and weeks to come, he has absolutely no one to hear his cause or allow him access either to his joint property, income, family, or due process.

It turns out mom either had an affair or just flat decided to game the system. Either way she had tons of help from government, none of which would pass constitutional muster.

Mom is rewarded for her choice by a list of benefits:

1. The home;
2. The kids;
3. Infinite support from the state's social arm and the local divorce industry;
4. Due to #1 and #2, a ruling of sole or primary custody;
5. Pursuant #4, "child support" amounting to hundereds or even thousands a month, depending on the number of kids and state's laws and jurisdictions;
6. A semi-permanent restraining order and black mark on hapless daddy that maintains her new lifestyle.

Perhaps even the boyfriend moves in to enjoy the fruits of the process. So goes "no-fault" divorce, feminist style.

And what of dad?

1. Child alienation, even if he was their favorite and most dedicated parent;
2. Ruin by court;
3. Guaransheed wages;
4. Entry into the state's DV database;
5. Loss of the home, his wage, his career, etc.

Eventually dad succumbs to all the sorts of sress-related diseases we now know of. And not a finger is lifted to enforce his constitutional rights to the presumption of innocence, due process, equal protection, and life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc., etc.

Pretty much legalized kidnapping and extortion, wouldn't you say?

So, two questions: Can you say you know how many times this goes on a year? A hint: Estimates place beat-dead father suicide at over 10,000 a year. But more importantly, and the question I never get answered from gender feminists; how would you justify this wreckage constitutionally?

Why does mom get primary custody 85% of the time in a culture that prides itself on gender neutrality and equity, Trish? Because dad *knows* the system is lethally rigged.

But wasn't gender equality that your original platform 50 years ago?

Posted by: NV Dad at Jun 25, 2006 12:23:37 PM

Hi, Jen. Thanks so much for telling your story here. I'm sorry that things are so hard for you and your daughter.

I definitely agree with what you wrote here:

"Perhaps the solution would be to listen to those who know about dv. To those who try to help both victim and abuser."

I would like to see courts educated more about domestic violence issues. Too often abusive fathers are able to use junk science like Parental Alienation Syndrome to continue abusing their ex's and the kids. Courts need to know that PAS is not recognized as a valid medical syndrome, and that more general versions of "alienation" also don't hold up to scrutiny. These are weapons used to punish women and children.

You also wrote: "And you can bet that when Mack is apprehended (and he will be apprehended) that he will paint his victim in the worst light he possibly can. And he will have all of the wonderful fathers jumping on the bandwagon to show how they understand how Mack could have snapped. After all us women are so evil and vindictive. All we care about is the money. We want to take all of these poor men's children away from them. Do you honestly think for one-second we would take a child away from a good father? "

Mack turned himself in to authorities. He's talking to his lawyers now. I can only imagine what kind of defense he's going to use.

Mothers don't deny contact to good fathers. They welcome it. I don't think it's an accident that the men who complain about the court system and denial of access to their children frequently have restraining orders against them. Sometimes there is a good reason for a dad to not have access to his children. Of course, fathers' rights activists claim that women frequently lie about abuse to get an upper hand in court. The research out there shows that that is definitely not true. Bona fide false allegations of abuse are rare.

You wrote: "So how is it that women fair so much better during divorce."

They don't. On average, a woman's standard of living after divorce drops about 40%. A man's standard of living after divorce rises about 15%.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 25, 2006 12:24:05 PM

"Mothers don't deny contact to good fathers. They welcome it."

The usual rhetoric, but dependent on myth and baselessness and therefore transparent. Or, you can just ask a hundred thousand fathers...

Consider, Trish, that what you're really asserting is that women, as a unique group, simply cannot commit harm against the family. Being women, thay are always, to a gal, perfect when it concerns their children (and the admittedly hated American father/male.) That a rather interesting presupposition from someone who just admitted women already commit the higher percentage of abuse, wouldn't you say?

To put it mildly.

It's over Trish, face it. The fraud of anti-male, anti-father gender feminism is over.

But my question isn't: How is it acceptable for the anti-father crusade to trash the Constitution just to exist? Doesn't it like an equal playing field?

Posted by: NV Dad at Jun 25, 2006 12:47:18 PM

Let me put it into context for you NVdad.

I'm 4'11 and 108 lbs. My boyfriend is 6'3 and about 170. If he stands over me and screams, trying to indimidate or scare me and I PUSH him away, THAT is considered violence on my part, according to the studies on DV.

Do you see the problem here? My pushing him away from me as he towers over me screaming in anger would make me equally violent.

That is how those stats get determined and how gender nuetral gets decided.

Sound realistic in any way to you?

Posted by: pheeno at Jun 25, 2006 12:51:56 PM

"Bona fide false allegations of abuse are rare."

Bona fide false allegations of abuse are standard operating procedure. Ask. An. Attorney. Lynn Gold-Bilkin, national attorney head and presumed genderist, is on record actually stating that a "few innocent fathers" are an acceptable price to pay! And this despite the fact that most abusers are women.

Should we throw some moms under the bus when the pendulum swings back? Would you like a cite for that remark, Trish?

But answer the Unanswerable Question: When did an allegation become a conviction, Trish, and *who* made such a violation of due process and the presumption of innocence de facto law?

Posted by: NV Dad at Jun 25, 2006 12:53:20 PM

"Sound realistic in any way to you?"

Sure does. And that sucks, doesn't it?

Here's another realistic scenario: Head on over to Masculist and view the countless women-on-men and women-on-child incidences of violence that make the news virtually daily. Or ask me about my experiences, my being the hated male and father (and primary custodian and loving dad of a great teen child.)

So what's your point? It appears the answer is that you need to either turn and walk away or take responsibility for not doing so. The rest of us aren't responsible for your choice, just to provide one another sane law and practice.

An *unacceptable* solution is to just haul off and make all men guilty until presumed innocent, which is just about where society is these days, courtesy of the feminist lobby and local standards of practice.

But that's your point and your challenge.

My point is to show you that presuming guilt and denying due process is unconstitutional. But that both of them (and other goodies) pass as completely acceptable procedure for gender feminists and other father-haters (and occasionally, wife-haters. Hoisted by your own petard, so to speak.)

Does that sound like a problem to you or are feminists willing to also pay *that* price for the rest of society?

Posted by: NV Dad at Jun 25, 2006 1:01:13 PM

Head on over to Masculist and view the countless women-on-men and women-on-child incidences of violence that make the news virtually daily


Try looking up the pages upon pages of man on woman abuse (and murder..you tend to kill us if you didnt know) that doesn't make the news because it happens so often thats ALL that would make up the news.

And walk away? Walking away ups the odds I'd be more seriously injured. Leaving pisses men off. Leaving gets you killed.

"An *unacceptable* solution is to just haul off and make all men guilty until presumed innocent, which is just about where society is these days, courtesy of the feminist lobby and local standards of practice."

Men are all assumed guilty until proven innocent? In what world? You get less jailtime for the same crimes. Rapists can be caught on TAPE and get off.

Since you find no fault with federal stats, go compare the number of violent crimes committed by men to violent crimes committed by women. And, take a good long look at how many men commit violent crimes on OTHER men.

Then figure out the common denominator.

You want a fair look at aggression and violence, you'll get one right there.


Posted by: pheeno at Jun 25, 2006 1:11:34 PM

You make little sense, pheeno.

1. If walking away "gets you killed", (aside from not a shred of evidence to back that up) how do you reconcile that the majority of DV is initiated by women, presumably against these automatic male killers walking around our houses? Or that the restraining order is the placebo of our time, with a *half million* being active at any one second in the state of California alone? Seems to me that if all these deranged male-only killers (ignoring all the murdered men for the moment) snapped when 4'11" innocent girls get all up in their faces, that the restraining order is the last thing they'd seek.

2. Men are absolutely considered guilty by social services, DV offices, family law, and the feminist divorce industry that operates in your legislature for profit and revenge. (In mine we met them in the flesh and recorded their testimony so I think the chances we made it all up for political gain of a national organization that doesn't exist are slim...)

WRT violent males *outside of the home*, you get no argument from me there. But what's your point when the context is clearly DV and children and the sanctity of the family (prior to feminism wrecking it, anyway?) Last I checked, non domestic violent criminals also tended to lead the male/female ratio in prison by a pretty substantial margin too...

(And when will I get an answer to the constitutionality question?)

Posted by: at Jun 25, 2006 1:22:57 PM

Oops, meant to write: "Last I checked, *male* non domestic violent criminals also tended to lead the male/female ratio in prison by a pretty substantial margin too..."

Posted by: NV dad at Jun 25, 2006 1:25:42 PM

NV Dad, I already had shown you were the "equal abuse" figures came from - the Conflict Tactic Scales. One of the creators of those scales had even criticized men's rights activists for misrepresenting them to "prove" that women are as violent as men. Women are not as abusive as men. Most victims of domestic violence are women. Most male victims of domestic violence are victims of male partners.

You are forgetting that government stats on child abuse focus on single mothers without a father present in the home, so of course they're going to find that most abuse is done by mothers. Also, you've fallen for the misrepresentations of child abuse statistics, which (1) lump neglect in with things like physical and sexual abuse, (2) fail to take into account "failure to intervene" which is what mothers are accused of when fathers and other men abuse, and (3) fail to take into account the far higher numbers of women who care for far higher numbers of children for far greater amounts of time. From a statistical standpoint, women are not even close to being the primary child abusers. In fact children are at much greater risk being cared for by a man than a woman. When you break down the information according to gender and neglect or abuse, men account for a substantially large percentage of child abuse, even taking into consideration that they spend much less time with children than do mothers.

There is no single profile of a perpetrator of fatal child abuse, although certain characteristics reappear in many studies. Frequently the perpetrator is a young adult in his or her mid-20s without a high school diploma, living at or below the poverty level, depressed, and who may have difficulty coping with stressful situations. In many instances, the perpetrator has experienced violence first-hand. Most fatalities from physical abuse are caused by fathers and other male caretakers. Mothers are most often held responsible for deaths resulting from child neglect. However, in some cases this may be because women are most often responsible (or assumed to be responsible) for children's care.

In addition, there is this document:

The Role Of Fathers In Risk For Physical Child Abuse
http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/10/2/136

"Consideration of the role that fathers play in the risk for future physical child abuse and neglect is long overdue. A growing body of evidence has pointed out that fathers, as well as father figures, are highly over-represented as perpetrators of physical child abuse, particularly in its more severe forms. [...] For example, Sinal et al.'s (2000) review of inflicted closed-head injury (shaken baby syndrome) cases in North Carolina reported that 44% were perpetrated by fathers and 20% were perpetrated by mothers' boyfriends, in contrast to 7% perpetrated by mothers. Similarly, a review of child-maltreatment-related fatalities in the state of Missouri reported that while 21% of identified perpetrators were biological mothers, 23% were biological fathers, and 44% were unrelated males in the household. [...]. Given that fathers provide, on the whole, substantially less direct child care than mothers [...], these proportions of fathers and possibly father surrogates as perpetratorrs of severe child abuse appear as rather startling."

Then there is this:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/HSP/05/child-maltreat/rs.htm

"Male and female perpetrators had distinct patterns of maltreatment. More than one-third of male perpetrators (36%) were associated with neglect; 66 percent of female perpetrators were associated with neglect (see Figure 6). A quarter of males (26%) were associated with sexual abuse, while 2 percent of female perpetrators were associated with sexual abuse. The percentages associated with physical abuse were comparable, although slightly higher for males (22%) than for females (18%)."

---

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16263983&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

Child deaths resulting from inflicted injuries: household risk factors and perpetrator characteristics.

Schnitzer PG, Ewigman BG.

Department of Family and Community Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA. schnitzerp@health.missouri.edu

OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of household composition as an independent risk factor for fatal inflicted injuries among young children and describe perpetrator characteristics

[...]

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Inflicted-injury death. Household composition of case and control children was compared by using multivariate logistic regression. We hypothesized that children residing in households with adults unrelated to them are at higher risk of inflicted-injury death than children residing in households with 2 biological parents.

RESULTS: We identified 149 inflicted-injury deaths in our population during the 8-year study period. Children residing in households with unrelated adults were nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries than children residing with 2 biological parents (adjusted odds ratio: 47.6; 95% confidence interval: 10.4-218). Children in households with a single parent and no other adults in residence had no increased risk of inflicted-injury death (adjusted odds ratio: 0.9; 95% confidence interval: 0.6-1.9). Perpetrators were identified in 132 (88.6%) of the cases. The majority of known perpetrators were male (71.2%), and most were the child's father (34.9%) or the boyfriend of the child's mother (24.2%). In households with unrelated adults, most perpetrators (83.9%) were the unrelated adult household member, and only 2 (6.5%) perpetrators were the biological parent of the child.

CONCLUSIONS: Young children who reside in households with unrelated adults are at exceptionally high risk for inflicted-injury death. Most perpetrators are male, and most are residents of the decedent child's household at the time of injury.


Posted by: The Countess at Jun 25, 2006 1:59:54 PM

NV Dad: "Bona fide false allegations of abuse are standard operating procedure."

Bona fide false allegations of abuse are rare.

These studies also show that only approximately 2% (a few studies report a range of 2 - 8%) of all cases of allegations are in fact false. Men's and fathers' rights groups prefer to lump unproven yet most likely true allegations of abuse into the bona fide false allegations category. Since a great number of these cases are very difficult to prove, the Men's Lobby doctors up its "false allegation" figure with unproven cases. In the eyes of the Men's Lobby, "unproven" equates with "false."

Myth: Mothers frequently make false allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases in order to gain advantage in custody litigation.

Fact: "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.

---

Frequency of Divorce-Related Sex Abuse Allegations: Not True
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)

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 25, 2006 2:05:56 PM

More on bona fide false allegations of abuse - most bona fide false allegations are made by men.

Canadian Study Finds That Most Bona-Fide False Allegations of Abuse Are Made By Men

National Post Online

Thursday, May 27, 1999

False claims of child abuse rampant: study
Custody battles: 30% of allegations in cases examined unprovable or false

Sarah Galashan
National Post

Excerpts:

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.

More on this study:

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.

Canadian Family Law Judgments: Nicholas Bala and John Schuman, two Queen's University law professors, reviewed judges' written decisions in 196 cases between 1990 and 1998 where allegations of either physical or sexual abuse were raised in the context of parental separation. Only family law cases were considered; child protection and criminal decisions were excluded.

The study showed that the judges felt that only a third of unproven cases of child abuse stemming from custody battles involve someone deliberately lying in court. In these cases, the judges found that fathers were more likely to fabricate the accusations than mothers.

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.

The cases involved 262 alleged child victims (74% of them alleged sexual abuse). Thirty-two percent of these children were under 5 years of age, 46% were 5 to 9 years of age, 13% were 10 or older; for 9% the age was not specified. About 71% of the allegations were made by mothers (64% custodial and 6% non-custodial), 17% were by fathers (6% custodial and 11% non-custodial), 2% were from grandparents or foster parents. In about 9% of the cases the child was the prime instigator of the allegations. This study found that fathers were most likely to be accused of abuse (74%), followed by mothers (13%), mother's boyfriend or stepfather (7%), grandparent (3%) and other relatives, including siblings (3%).

A judicial finding on the balance of probabilities (the civil standard) that abuse occurred was made in 46 cases (23% of all cases). In 89 cases, the judge made a finding that the allegation was unfounded, while in 61 cases there was evidence of abuse but no judicial conclusion that abuse occurred. In 45 of the 150 cases (30% of the cases where abuse was not proven) the judge believed that it was an intentionally false allegation.

In the 89 cases where the court found that the allegation was clearly unfounded, the accusing party lost custody in 18 cases, though this was usually for reasons not directly related to the making of an unfounded allegation of abuse.

In only one case was the accuser charged (and convicted) for false reporting (mischief) in connection with the false allegation, though in 3 other cases the accuser was cited for contempt of court in connection with denial of access. In the 51 cases where abuse was proved on the civil standard, access was denied in 21 cases, and supervised in 16. The abuser was criminally charged in only 3 of these 51 cases.

Note: This study may not be representative of all cases where abuse allegations are made after parents have separated, as in cases with strong evidence of abuse, the perpetrator is likely not to contest the issue of abuse in family law proceedings. This study may, however, give a good sense of the cases that are likely to be litigated in the family courts.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 25, 2006 2:07:30 PM

NV Dad, quit bellowing on my blog, and take your garbage elsewhere. You have nothing of substance to contribute here. All you want to do is bash me and bash feminism. Your opinions are baseless and harmful to women - and to fathers. Now get lost.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 25, 2006 2:10:01 PM

I see you aren't asking for my cites, Trish. Instead, we'll just trade stats and figures and then you'll just go and crush dissent completely. To the contrary, I have everything of substance to offer here, which is naturally why you shout me down.

As far as bellowing, the central question willfully and perpetually ignored by the shrill, opportunistic genderists who won't let go of the family law gravy train is this:

Why does their entire anti-father dogma hinges on the habitual, systemic violation of somebody else's preexisting rights to a half dozen core principles embodied in the US Constitution?

The last time I looked it up, that was fascism.

But whatever. Go make some candy or something, but please don't hold this place up as anything approaching a facsimile of the legal crisis ruining the American family..

Posted by: NV Dad at Jun 25, 2006 2:24:59 PM

NV Dad: "Blather blather whine whine whine moan moan moan..."

*yawn*

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 25, 2006 2:27:30 PM

"1. If walking away "gets you killed", (aside from not a shred of evidence to back that up) "


Evidence like this

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000250c.pdf#search='abused%20women%20more%20likely%20killed%20leaving'

or this

http://endabuse.org/resources/facts/HealthCare.pdf#search='abused%20women%20more%20likely%20killed%20leaving'


They cleverly hide this information in things I like to call BOOKS.

2. Men are absolutely considered guilty by social services

Everyone is considered guilty by social servcies.

And just out of curiosity, pray tell how did feminism "wreck" families? Are you asserting everything was fair and balanced and perfectly fine before feminism came about?

Posted by: pheeno at Jun 25, 2006 2:27:35 PM

Comments such as those by NVDad would typically amuse me. Tonight hjowever I am not. He talks about how unfair restraining orders are. Where I live you have the absolute right to a hearing within 10 days of the original order being signed unless you canot or will not be served. I asked for a restraining order on 1/21. He was served on 1/22 and our hearing was 2/3. And when our divroce was finalized I guess our family court judge in all of his infinite wisdom decided that since we were no longer married and no longer residing in the same house and lets not forget that his new girlfriend said he is not violent, this judge felt I no longer needed the restraining order.

Lets not take into account my ex's numerous comments about things occuring in my house to which he should not have knowledge unless he or someone he has asked to do so is peering in my windows like a peeping tom. He has also amde comments about items I have on my fornt porch. Oh gee so sorry you cannot see anything from the street - you would need to yet again be in my yard and climbing up the stairs into my house to see this as well. And how about all the strange vehicles my neighbor sees or is stopped by? One woman stopped my neighbor to tell her what a terrible person I am. This woman split quickly when my neighbor suggested they both come next door to speak to me about this (good job neighbor!!!).

So the problem as you describe it NVDad is this: You see women using the restraining order to gain a leg up in family court. I see family court not giving a woman in need of protection the protection she is allowed and entitled to have under the law. So whose vision is skewed here? And while you ask I endured 6 years of severe emotional abuse and isolation (this all happened slowly so as not to alarm me and get me to wise up and leave). The last 3 years were extreme mental torture and the last year and a half was extreme physical violence. You might notice several typoes in my comments? This is due to the paralysis in my left hand and arm. This paralysis will never go away. The dr's do not think that even with the operation that it will get any better. So as a person who does not have the best typing skills to begin with, I am stuck typing with one hand and one finger. Works great don't ya think?

Anyway I will be watching the news and the internet to see what this "wonderful" father Mack will come up with for a defense. Yeah rah!!!!

Posted by: Jen at Jun 25, 2006 11:22:32 PM

Trish I apologise right now for venting so harshly to NVDad. Right now my anger at my ex is so perplexing (can't think of any other word that will fit right now) that I cannot even see straight. So when I see a man such as NVDad coming off sounding just like my ex - oh poor me these women are so terrible look what she is doing. Alll I want is to be a daddy to my child(ren). Well why did you not be a daddy to your children when you two were still together? Why did all of the responsible stuff fall on our shoulders while you had all the fun stuff. And yep you guessed it - my ex is now a true disney daddy. Finding out from our child that I had tickets to take her in August for my bday he decided to take her now to "one-up" me and throw it in my face as well that he got to take her "first". Again whatever floats your boat.

Posted by: Jen at Jun 25, 2006 11:37:47 PM

Jen, frankly, not that I'm Trish, but NVdad was an asshole who didn't listen and idn't learn, so what do you have to apologize for? It's not like he was trying to learn a damned thing.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 26, 2006 8:25:49 AM

"NV Dad" sounds a lot like "NEP Admin", who was saying exact same bilge over at RSF. He said he "only posts as" NEP Admin though. Trish, let's compare IP addresses, shall we?

I am assuming he is also "Nevada Parent", who wrote such inflammatory comments about Judge Weller at Legal Reader and left links to Nevadans for Equal Parenting. That is the org that Mack was a member of. They were planning to file a complaint against Weller, but he got shot by Mack instead. Now NEP are mad, and are covering their tracks, trying to defend themselves at all the blogs that have outed them as FRs, instead of the amicable "shared parenting advocates" they pretend to be. Their cred is up in smoke.


Posted by: Txfeminist at Jun 26, 2006 1:40:39 PM

I forgot to say that one of the two who run NEP was running for a place in the legislature in Nevada. He lost horribly last time, so he changed parties. With all this uproar about Mack, I'm sure he will lose again. He won't be able to advance his FR agenda through being elected.

Posted by: Txfeminist at Jun 26, 2006 1:43:09 PM

I noticed that, too, Tx. I wondered if he was also Nevada Parent and NEP Admin. I just sent you his IP address. Same guy?

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 26, 2006 1:45:02 PM

It would appear to be so.

Posted by: Txfeminist at Jun 26, 2006 3:03:16 PM

Gee, I'm shocked, shocked that an FRA would resort to disguising their identity. Yeah, shocked.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 27, 2006 9:50:18 AM

Those of us who work in the trenches know that that the violence is not limited to a bunch of losers who can't get dates. Even (especially) the acknowledged leaders get into the act, as this recent article from the Albany [NY] Times Union shows. Mr. Dickinson sure has the disassembling act down. Like the guy who beats his fist into his hand, and then tells you "you're crazy" for seeing that as a threat. Why do I suspect that this guy's tough guy act is probably an ongoing presence in the lives of his ex and his children? Unfortunately, I am all too familiar with this kind of bullshit. One of my ex's favorite tactics was sneaking up behind me and shoving me into the ground, and then telling me it was accident and that I was paranoid. So, unfortunately, I'm pretty familiar with these tactics.
-------------
First published: Monday, June 26, 2006

One of the Capitol's best-known father's rights advocates found himself under investigation after he circulated a news story about the shooting of a judge.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's office said it couldn't discuss matters under investigation. State Police could not immediately provide details this weekend.

Randy Dickinson, vice president of the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, said he sent an e-mail out to legislators earlier this month. It contained an Associated Press story about the June 12 shooting by a sniper of a Nevada family court judge.

According to published reports, Darren Mack, 45, allegedly stabbed and killed his estranged wife and shot Washoe County Family Court Judge Chuck Weller, who had been handling their divorce case. Mack surrendered to authorities Thursday in Mexico.

Dickinson also attached a quote from John F. Kennedy: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

According to Dickinson, someone apparently took the missive as a threat and Silver's counsel, Dan Conviser, contacted State Police.

Police showed up at Dickinson's house at 11:20 p.m. on June 16, "ringing the bell, pounding on the door, and calling my number via cellphone from outside the house." He didn't answer, he said, since he didn't know who was there.

Another officer showed up at 10 a.m. the next day and interviewed him. The officer, Dickinson said, found no crime had been committed, and told him "it was a little absurd for him to have even been instructed to look into the matter." Dickinson said he believes the case was closed.

Dickinson's group has been pushing for what it claims would be more equitable divorce and custody laws in New York. One of its priorities this year was a shared-parenting bill opposed by the National Organization for Women's New York chapter. It died in committee.

Dickinson said he was just trying to make a point the group has communicated in the past to legislative leaders, that "they cannot continue to ignore our issues and refuse to provide any relief or accommodation, without encouraging violence from those more inclined to express their frustration and anger in that manner."

The quote, he said, "was meant to emphasize that one of their own heroes and an icon of the Democratic Party warned them that the lid cannot be kept on people's passions forever, without expecting trouble."

"You'd think they might appreciate being made aware of public sentiment and the consequences of ignoring it," Dickinson said. "Maybe not."

Marchi bids farewell

It was a bittersweet moment Friday when 50-year Senate veteran John Marchi said goodbye to his colleagues just before the Senate adjourned, probably until the fall.

"I love everybody in this building," Marchi said. "It just pains me to be away and not seeing you regularly ... It's a memory I'll carry with me the rest of my days ... You can't imagine the joy that I've had and the happiness I've experienced being with all of you."

"Maybe I'll sneak back once in a while," he said.

Got a tip? Call 454-5424 or e-mail jjochnowitz@timesunion.com.

Posted by: silverside at Jun 27, 2006 10:29:05 AM

>...One of my ex's favorite tactics was sneaking up behind me and shoving me into the ground, and then telling me it was accident and that I was paranoid...<

At least your X said it was an accident. Even when I was bruised, cut and bleeding, my X said "never happened", "you did it to yourself", and "no one will ever believe you"

I was also accused of making it up so that I could accuse him of DV, but I never called the cops because I believed that no one would ever believe me (he was so calm and convincing) and his threat that he would take the kids from me and I would never see them again if I did anything that would get his guns taken away.

???What was I thinking when I said "I do"??

Posted by: justonemom at Jun 27, 2006 9:49:07 PM

"For Darren Mack, It Was All About The Money". A millionaire commits murder knowing he will receive the death penalty or life in prison, all to save 10K a month and you say it’s all about the money. Your logic is flawed. Sound bite psychology. There are real lives being destroyed. Darren was no sicker than Carla. Seems everyone got what they deserved, including the judge. The only ones I feel sorry for are the children. The entire divorce system needs to be overhauled. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” - John F. Kennedy
I don't expect to see any great change in the future, so I will continue to see courts fallow the "tender year presumption", mothers make out like bandits, fathers loose everything, and the killing of ex-wives continue. I hope evolution hurries up; I'm tired of living with all these human animals.

Posted by: John Doe at Jul 2, 2006 9:14:15 AM

"John Doe": "Seems everyone got what they deserved, including the judge."

Another fathers' rights supporter who condones Judge Weller being shot. Lovely.

"John Doe": "The entire divorce system needs to be overhauled. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” - John F. Kennedy "

The other person who referred to this same quote was Randy Dickinson, the vice president of the Coalition of Fathers and Families in New York. The authorities took that as a threat. What "John Doe" is saying is that if fathers' rights activists don't get their way, violence will result. Even more lovely.

Keep it up, guys. Your statements are sinking you.

Posted by: The Countess at Jul 2, 2006 10:50:14 AM

A millionare never thinks he's going to get punished.

He sure as shit didn't do it for his kids.

He didn't do it for any other father either.

"Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.”
— Albert Einstein

“Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself…She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men.”
— Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: at Jul 2, 2006 11:40:56 AM

oops, that was me

Posted by: pheeno at Jul 2, 2006 2:22:37 PM

No problem, Pheeno. I was wondering who that was. I didn't check into to see who had posted.

Posted by: The Countess at Jul 2, 2006 2:29:56 PM

I figured since they like quotes so much, they could chew on those for awhile.

Posted by: pheeno at Jul 2, 2006 2:33:49 PM

How about these, Pheeno?

"Don't degrade me into the position of giving you useful information. Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught." - Oscar Wilde

"Hate is the coward's revenge for being humiliated." - George Bernard Shaw

"It's not that I object to your being a bastard. Don't get me wrong there. It's your being such a stupid bastard that I object to." - Gore Vidal

"It is better to be hated for what one is, then to be loved for what one is not."
---by Andre Gide

Liar- One who tells an unpleasant truth.
--Oliver Herford

"The men's separatist movement's frightening. Separatism breeds feelings of superiority
and imbalance -- male bonding usually offers permission to regress."
--Carol Bly, ex-wife of Robert Bly, founder of the mythopoetic men's movement
and author of "Iron John." Utne Reader, Nov.-Dec. 1989

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
-- Winston Churchill

"The truth is incontrovertible;
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end, there it is."
--Winston Churchill

"All cruelty springs from weakness."
--Seneca, 4BC-AD65

And my favorite:

We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true.
--attr. to Prof. Robert Wilensky, UC Berkeley

Posted by: The Countess at Jul 2, 2006 2:50:24 PM

Jen, you have my complete sympathy. You are a survivor.
I met a man who was separated from his wife for six months. She was violent with him, neglected her children, and meeting with truancy officers. We quietly dated for one year before I met his children. I moved in with him after two years. His divorce proceedings lasted three years after a year of separation. His wife was angry and losing control and decided to focus her attention on us. While preventing her daughter from being scalded with boiling water, i.e. pushing her out of the way as she had walked directly in front, we returned from a business trip to find that I was being called a child abuser by their mother. It was a bona fide FALSE claim. She based her request for full custody of the children on this FALSE claim.

After meeting with police officers, social workers, and discussing it as a family with all members there, only now one year later have things started to repair. I will never forget the horror of being called something so despicable and cruel. There are other affects. The children threaten each other to call the police when they are arguing over toys. Their mother's judgement has always been strange. She met a man online and within two weeks, he was living in her house. He has since taken his eight-year old daughter on overnights with him (he is a truck driver) and parked near a lake with nothing else around. When my partner questioned the mother, she said, "Nothing has happened yet."

I agree that there will always be cruel people. There will always be adults that can not see the importance of the greater issue. There are many adults that are not parents. My grandmother used to say, "There are a lot of idiots pushing baby buggies."

I have had close friends that have suffered abuse at the hands of their husbands. I drove one friend with her three children in the country for hours as her husband was being wanted by the police, had a gun, and was out looking for her.

My partner, soon-to-be husband is a good man. He loves his children. He thought he would lose them forever because of his ex-wife's anger. We haven't. Aside from occasional and slightly unnerving statements from their mouths, the children are coping very well. We are not wealthy and we spent what little we have on his custody fight.

NV dad, if it hasn’t been fair then keep fighting or resolve yourself that this decision has been taken out of your hands. There are other options; become a lawmaker and fight the law. I understand why fathers are dancing in front of Buckingham Palace. I understand that just as surely I understand a woman and her three children should not be hiding out from Daddy with a handgun.

We have serious social and legal flaws. If we wrap ourselves in our grief, what good can it do? Surely we can take measures to teach our children that adults can cope with grief and hurt, that society learns just as they do everyday, that progress comes sometimes in leaps and bounds and sometimes, regrettably, painfully slow.

Posted by: JustMe at Jul 3, 2006 7:33:35 AM