Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - MYSONSDAD

#91
Father's Issues / WENDY'S BACK!!!!
Nov 08, 2005, 04:20:34 PM
 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174854,00.html

PBS Film Ignites Fathers' Rights Debate

Monday, November 07, 2005

By Wendy McElroy

A father is demanding a public retraction from the Public Broadcasting System and threatening to sue for libel after the network broadcast a show that he says wrongly portrayed him as an abusive husband and father.

Dr. Scott Loeliger says the producers of the show ignored extensive court findings, records and testimony that he claims prove it was his ex-wife, and not he, who abused their daughter and her half-sister.

Loeliger, a medical doctor in Northern California, says he provided documentation of the mother's abuse to a co-producer of the show, "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," six months before it aired, and that his pleas to have his case removed from the show were ignored.

Aired by PBS on Oct. 20, the much-publicized documentary presents "children and battered mothers [who] tell their stories of abuse at home and continued trauma within the courts," which allegedly return children to abusive parents.

A spokeswoman for PBS, Director of Corporate Communications Jan McNamara, says the accuracy of "Breaking the Silence" is under "official review."

In the show, Loeliger's daughter, identified as Amina, now 16, says: "My father has a way of making important people...[believe]...he is a good father and he has never done anything wrong and that I am almost crazy and abusive."

But Loeliger says Amina's mother lost custody of Amina and her half-sister on Aug. 19, 1998, when a Tulare County, Calif., juvenile court found her liable for eight counts of child abuse, including physical abuse.

Loeliger received full custody of Amina in 1998; a torturous custody battle ensued over the next six years until, at Amina's request, full custody was returned to the mother in 2004.

Last April, the father provided documentation of the his ex-wife's abuse to co-producer Dominique Lasseur of Tatge-Lasseur, a New York-based production company.

Five letters ensued, two from Loeliger's attorney, Dennis Roberts.

Loeliger demanded the removal of the segment with Amina and her mother. Lasseur responded by email, "whatever may have happened in..." Amina's..."early childhood, the courts at this time are not persuaded by your arguments and have awarded physical custody...to her mother."

Lasseur gave assurance that real names would not be used and extended a disclaimer to Loeliger, who refused to be interviewed for the documentary. The father explained, "I didn't want to be on national TV 'outing' my daughter as a liar or debating about her life."

The disclaimer is displayed at the end of the segment featuring Amina and her mother. It reads, "Amina's father...contends that her mother deliberately alienated her from him. He is trying to regain physical custody of her through court proceedings."

The controversy is broader than one father's protest.

The show argues against what has become a cause celebre in the father's rights movement: Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). PAS is said to occur when one parent willfully causes a child to become indifferent or hateful towards the other parent. Father's rights advocates point to PAS to explain the hostility and accusations expressed by some children toward alienated parents, usually fathers.

Critics of the fathers' rights movement and "Breaking the Silence" contend that PAS does not exist as a valid psychiatric syndrome.

National radio host Glenn Sacks launched a campaign to protest what he called the film's "extremely one-sided" "harmful and inaccurate view of divorce and child custody cases."

In an article entitled "PBS Declares War on Dads", Sacks not only disputed the premise of the documentary -- that courts assign custody to abusive fathers -- but also its use of statistics. PBS has reportedly received over 6,000 protest calls, emails and letters.

Women's rights organizations have launched a counter-effort. The National Organization for Women advised their membership to send emails of support to PBS, noting, "Your emails are especially important, as we know that PBS is being flooded with emails from bogus 'fathers' rights' activists opposing the airing of the film."

The documentary's ultimate credibility may hinge on one question: does it incorrectly portray Amina's mother as an heroic mom instead of a child abuser?

Loeliger's argument that he and the mother have been misrepresented has precedent. Loeliger says he first learned of the accusations of his abuse through a Jan. 20, 2005 Davis Enterprise article titled "Teen Turns Tug-of-War Lessons Into Message." It claimed that Loeliger had verbally and physically abused his daughter.

On April 5, the Enterprise published a retraction and an apology to Loeliger, stating that the story "contained many factual inaccuracies."

The stakes on a comparable apology from PBS are high.

Amina has become one of the public faces of child abuse promoted by organizations such as the Courageous Kids Network (CKN), a California group that endorsed "Breaking the Silence." CKN is self-described as "a growing group of young people, whose childhood was shattered by biased and inhumane court rulings, which forced us to live with our abusive parent, while restricting or sometimes completely eliminating contact with our loving and protective parent."

Such advocates point to "Breaking the Silence" as a reason to reform the family court system. But Loeliger and father's rights advocates demand verification for the stories and statistics upon which future policy may be based.

Both sides are in eloquent agreement on one point: they wish to protect children.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Respond to the Writer

````````````````````````````````````


"Children learn what they live"
#92
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C5478%2C17171391%25255E661%2C00.html

Expert team saves axe-attack toddler
Michelle Pountney and Anthony Dowsley
08nov05

SURGEONS have reattached the leg of a toddler after it was severed below
the knee in an axe attack. A team of 13 medical experts, including six
surgeons, at the Royal Children's Hospital operated for more than 8 1/2
hours to attach the limb.

The marathon surgery began at 2.30am, less than an hour after the attack
at a Mont Albert house.

Ambulance officers were called to the house at 1.43am where they found the
boy, 17 months, and his severed left leg.

A call ahead to the Royal Children's Hospital triggered frantic calls to
three plastic surgeons, two orthopedic surgeons, a general surgeon, two
anaesthetists and five nurses who rushed back to the hospital to prepare.

At 11am, with the leg attached, the boy went to intensive care where he
was last night in a critical but stable condition.

But it will be several days before doctors know whether the complicated
surgery was a success.

The 21-year-old mother of the boy allegedly attacked her son with an axe
after, neighbours claimed, he cried most of the day and night from the
pain of teething.

The mother and son, who cannot be named for legal reasons, moved to
Melbourne on Saturday seeking refuge.

It is believed they moved from a Victorian country town to the church-run
private care house.

A source said the woman had a history of mental illness and a former
partner was released from prison on Friday.

The attack occurred after the teething baby allegedly could not be soothed
for most of the day and night.

It is believed the woman took an axe from a backyard shed and repeatedly
struck him.

Surgeons who operated on the tot would not discuss the operation, but
Sydney plastic surgeon Norman Olbourne, said limb reattachment was one of
the most complex.

"It would be up there in the A grade of complexity," Dr Olbourne said.

Surgeons have about four hours to reattach amputated limbs before the limb
starts to die.

Neighbours were shocked at the attack's severity.

One said another woman in the house wrestled the axe from the woman and
phoned police.

It is believed there were two children aged 10 and 12, and a teen in the
house at the time of the attack.

The neighbour said he could not hear the baby's screams over the banging
of the axe.

"It's a tragic occurrence no one could expect," he said. "He had been
crying and all day they had been trying to soothe him . . .

"I couldn't hear the baby screaming. All I heard was the banging."

Paramedics and police who attended the scene were shocked.

New father Acting Sgt Andrew Huntington from Box Hill police, said the
incident upset him.

"I have an 11-week-old baby myself and this was a bizarre scene to go to,"
Sgt Huntington said.

"You just have to go there and do your job."

A psychiatric team assessed the woman at Box Hill Hospital.

Police have yet to interview her.

A Department of Human Services spokeswoman said the child was now under
its care.

A Children's Court order was taken out to protect the child's identity.

The DHS did not run the care house.


© Herald and Weekly Times
"Children learn what they live"
#93

Please go to http://www.houstonpbs.org/site/PageServer?
pagename=con_children_family_court

To view a balanced view of the information contained in the
documentary, Breaking the Silence. The program called The Connection
features Reginald Hirsch (Attorney at Law), Dr. Reena Sommer (Board
member of Help Stop PAS), and Andy Sperling (Fathers for Equal
Rights, Houston). Tom Burton (Justice for Children) appears to defend
the documentary. These four individuals have a half hour discussion
regarding the documentary and the information and misinformation it
contains.



There will be a follow up interview with Dr. Reena Sommer and Andy
Sperling available online at //www.helpstoppas.org in the very near
future. Help Stop PAS has also dedicated a forum to discuss the
documentary Breaking the Silence and the follow up program The
Connection. Please visit the message boards at //www.helpstoppas.org
and click on the forum titled "Breaking the Silence and The
Connection" to let us know your thoughts and opinions of these
programs.



Warm Regards,



Barbara "Judy" Sweet, Administrative Director

Help Stop PAS

A 501 (c)(3) Non-Profit Organization

3118 FM 528 Ste. 234

Webster, TX. 77598

409-789-7482

[email protected]







"Children learn what they live"
#94
Father's Issues / RADAR ALERT
Nov 07, 2005, 05:44:03 AM

RADAR ALERT:

"Breaking the Silence" = Junk Journalism

The program Breaking the Silence has been widely criticized for bias and inaccuracy in depicting a world in which the only abusive parents are fathers. The program amounts to a libel that dads who seek child custody are wife-beaters.

In light of recent revalations (listed below), it's no longer appropriate to ask that the show be revised. The bias is so widespread and so egregious that there's no solution other than to pull the plug on this sad example of a "documentary."

The local PBS affiliates choose which shows they will air. This week, we're asking you to contact your local PBS station. Explain to them:

It is now known that the filmmakers were informed on numerous occasions that one of the mothers featured in the film had been found by a court to have committed eight counts of child abuse. But the producers chose to portray her as the victim anyway. [http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger.php]
The American Psychological Association has now called the film's claims "incorrect", and says that far from having debunked PAS, the APA has no official position on PAS. [http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/apa-102405.php]
A number of people with stories of anti-father court bias have now come forward to say that the producers scheduled and then cancelled interviews with then. [http://www.familytx.org/research/articles/PAS/BreakingTheScience-OstrichSyndrome.html#rejected-interviewees]
Then request that they:
Not broadcast Breaking the Silence.
Produce a documentary focusing on the plight of children abused by their mothers, and the anguish of fathers who are prevented by the courts from protecting their children.
To find your local PBS affiliate:
Go to http://www.pbs.org/stationfinder/index.html and enter your zip code, or
Look in your local telephone directory

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of RADAR Release: November 6, 2005

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a network of concerned men and women working to assure that the problem of domestic violence is treated in a balanced and effective manner: http://www.mediaradar.org.
#95
Father's Issues / HELP STOP PAS ALERT
Nov 03, 2005, 08:00:41 AM
To Our Supporters,

 

We are asking you all to write or email the President of the Mary Kay Ash Foundation, Michael Lunceford, to ask that PBS withdraw their support of Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories. Evidence has been uncovered that one of the parents portrayed as a victim of the courts in this documentary was actually charged and convicted of eight counts of child abuse. More details are below along with contact information for Mr. Lunceford.

 

Michael Lunceford, President

 

Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation

P.O. Box 799044

Dallas, Texas 75379-9044

 

Tel: (877) 652-2737

Direct email: [email protected]

General email  [email protected]

 

 

The Facts:

 

1.                  Breaking the Silence is full of misinformation and lies regarding the status of parental alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Denial of PAS does harm to the millions of children who are affected by alienation and the parents who are also targets of this abuse. The American Psychological Association has stated many times that they have not discredited PAS and at this time do not hold a position on it either way. PAS has been accepted as legitimate in the psychological community. The Mary Kay Ash Foundation has acknowledged the distorted truth in the so called documentary yet they continue to advertise the production on their web site.

2.                  Breaking the Silence portrays men as abusive disproportionately to women. The National Clearinghouse of Child Abuse and Prevention published a study in 2005 from information obtained from the US Department of Health and Human Services which stated that 58% of all abuse is perpetrated by mothers. In the documentary all of the "abusers" were men, which is a gross misrepresentation of the statistics.

3.                  This program portrays convicted child abusers as heroes and victims of the court. One of the mothers showcased in the program was charged and convicted of 8 counts of child abuse in 1998. The girl's babysitter characterized the mother as violently abusive towards the child, an alcoholic, and said that the mother has been physically abusive towards her as well. The daughter testified at the time that she was afraid of her mother. Glenn Sacks was able to obtain details of these convictions including court room testimony from the babysitter. This information is available online at http://www.glennsacks.com/pbs/loeliger.php.

4.                  This documentary makes the inference that male child abusers frequently win custody of their children in court by using PAS as a defense against abuse accusations. When accusations of abuse are raised the courts, police departments, and social services all investigate the charges thoroughly. There may be rare cases where accusations of abuse are not handled appropriately by authorities, however to say that this happen in the majority of abuse cases is not only inaccurate it is an insult to the professionals who deal with these situations on a daily basis. Those involved in investigating child abuse are well trained to recognize true abuse from false accusations. To say that they are this incompetent is an attack on the credibility of these professionals who devote their careers to helping abused children.

5.                  Dr. Rick Lohstroh was shot and killed by his ten year old son in August 2004. His son was severely alienated at the time. Dr. Lohstroh's parents now have temporary custody of both of their grandsons. One is in their custody; the other is still awaiting trial in a Houston juvenile detention facility. The permanent custody hearing will be heard this month. Dr. Lohstroh's mother, Joanne Greene, has been a Mary Kay saleslady for many years and her husband is a retired minister. Severe PAS has been recognized by the courts in their case. By supporting this documentary Mary Kay is turning their back on one of their own people who lost her son to PAS.

 

 

The Mary Kay Ash Foundation did not have any say in the contents of this documentary; however their continued support of this program is very disturbing. We are asking that the Mary Kay Ash Foundation withdraw the ad for this documentary from their website, and make a public statement regarding their official position on the controversy this film they have funded has raised. We are also asking the Mary Kay Ash Foundation to review their grant policy and make appropriate changes in an effort to avoid funding this type of campaign in the future.

 

Help Stop PAS continues to receive copies of your emails and letters protesting the support of this program by PBS, the Mary Kay Ash Foundation, and Connecticut Public Television. Denial of PAS is devastating to those children and parents who have and are continuing to deal with this emotionally and mentally abusive issue. If ever there was a form of domestic violence that needs to be brought to light it is the plight of children and parents who are torn apart by alienation.

 

Thank you for your continued support.

 

Regards,

 

Barbara "Judy" Sweet, Administrative Director

Help Stop PAS

A 501 (c)(3) Non-Profit Organization

//www.helpstoppas.org

3118 FM 528 Ste. 234

Webster, TX. 77598

409-789-7482

[email protected]

 

 


"Children learn what they live"
#96
Father's Issues / Kathleen Parker article
Nov 03, 2005, 07:58:22 AM

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-parker0205nov02,0,4570578.column

Feminism's devolution from hoaxers to whores
Published November 2, 2005


  E-mail this article
  Printer friendly version
  Most e-mailed articles

 
 
"So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? Do women get less desirable as they get more successful?"

Columnist Maureen Dowd posed those questions in Sunday's New York Times Magazine in an essay adapted from her forthcoming book: Are Men Necessary: When Sexes Collide.

Entertaining as usual, Dowd explored her premise that many women end up unmarried and childless because they're successful by reviewing women's evolution since her college days, which happen to have coincided with my own. We both came of age as women's lib was being midwifed into the culture by a generation of women who felt enslaved by homemaking and childbearing.

Now, in the span of a generation, all that business about equality apparently isn't so appealing to a younger generation of women, who are ever inventive as they seek old ways to attract new men. Dowd writes:

"Today, women have gone back to hunting their quarry . . . with elaborate schemes designed to allow the deluded creatures (men) to think they are the hunters."

Dowd, herself unmarried and childless, wonders whether being smart and successful explains her status. She observes that men would rather marry women who are younger and more malleable, i.e. less successful and perhaps not so very bright.

No one vets the culture with a keener eye than Dowd. Her identification of trends -- especially the perverse evolution of liberated women from Birkenstock-wearing intellectuals into pole-dancing sluts -- is dead on. But while she sees women clearly as they search for identity in a gender-shifting culture, she doesn't seem to know much about men.

Men haven't turned away from smart, successful women because they're smart and successful. More likely they've turned away because the feminist movement that encouraged women to be smart and successful also encouraged them to be hostile and demeaning to men.

Whatever was wrong, men did it. During the past 30 years, they've been variously characterized as male chauvinist pigs, deadbeat dads or knuckle-dragging abusers who beat their wives on Super Bowl Sunday. At the same time women wanted men to be wage earners, they also wanted them to act like girlfriends: to time their contractions, feed and diaper the baby, and go antiquing.

And then, when whatshisname inevitably lapsed into guy-ness, women wanted him to disappear. If children were involved, women got custody and men got an invoice. The eradication of men and fathers from children's lives has been feminism's most despicable accomplishment. Half of all children will sleep tonight in a home where their father does not live.

Did we really think men wouldn't mind?

Meanwhile, when we're not bashing men, we're diminishing manhood. Look around at entertainment and other cultural signposts and you see a feminized culture that prefers sanitized men -- hairless, coiffed, buffed and, if possible, gay. Men don't know whether to be "metrosexuals" getting pedicures, or "groomzillas" obsessing about wedding favors, or the latest, "ubersexuals" -- yes to the coif, no to androgyny.

As far as I can tell, real men don't have a problem with smart, successful women. But they do mind being castrated. It's a guy thing. They do mind being told in so many ways that they are superfluous.

Even now, the latest book to fuel the feminist flames of male alienation is Peggy Drexler's lesbian guide to guilt-free narcissism, Raising Boys Without Men. Is it possible to raise boys without men? Sure. Is it right? You may find your answer by imagining a male-authored book titled: Raising Girls Without Women.

Returning to Dowd's original question, yes, the feminist movement was a hoax inasmuch as it told only half the story. As even feminist matriarch Betty Friedan eventually noted, feminism failed to recognize that even smart, successful women also want to be mothers. It's called Nature. Social engineering can no more change that fact than mechanical engineering can change the laws of physics.

Many of those women who declined to join the modern feminist movement learned the rest of the story by becoming mothers themselves and, in many cases, by raising boys who were born innocent and undeserving of women's hostilities.

I would never insist that women have to have children to be fully female. Some women aren't mother material -- and some men don't deserve the children they sire. But something vital and poignant happens when one's own interests become secondary to the more compelling needs of children.

You grow up. In the process of sacrificing your infant-self for the real baby, you stop obsessing and fixating on the looking glass. Instead, you focus your energies on trying to raise healthy boys and girls to become smart, successful men and women.

In the jungle, one hopes, they will find each other.

Kathleen Parker can be reached at [email protected] or 407-420-5202.



Copyright © 2005, Orlando Sentinel | Get home delivery - up to 50% off
#97
In the afternath of the PBS film presentation by Tatge-Lasseur Productions, Breaking the Silence, Shock Television Producer Jerry Springer immediately decided to purchase the PBS conglomerate citing that the financial move would work toward his benefit in amassing millions of dollars in time-cost saved revenue in looking for morons to perform on his show.

In speaking with Mr. Springer about the move, Mr. Springer stated that the producers, cast and crew of the recent film "Breaking the Silence", Underwritten by a $500,000 grant from the Mary Kay Dumb-Ash Charitable Foundation and Produced by Tatge-Lasseur Productions and Connecticut Public Television (CPTV) has broken the barriers on stupidity and THAT is what we so desparately need for our show.

To think that I can go to the bank and actually write a check to buy the PBS empire, turn around and start broadcasting a new series immediately! It is just too good to be true that by them lowering themselves far below the standards that even I would stoop for any of my shows, I just had to get in on that bonanza immediately so that we wouldn't lose any waning potential of these low-life's at PBS.

Mr Springer eyed the move as an excellent opportunity at a great price as he knew that the executives and producers of the PBS HIT: Breaking the Silence would all be seeking employment soon.

He further commented; "Where else can I get a cast and crew that would provide me with the raunchy ignorance and personnas that we often spend countless hours and millions of dollars to find for our shows?" This is greater than striking oil!

In speaking with Jerry's prime-time security guard Steve about the move he gave us this response: "This is great! Now I will finally have someone available to wax my bald head!"

Upon further investigation and fact finding by the SEC and the FCC over concerns of the purchase by Springer, it has been found that the PBS family actually though that they were professionals up to the point of airing their recent debacle "Breaking the Silence" which confirmed to the organization's findings that PBS was just "Breaking the Wind".

It was also reported that "some bogus Father's Rights Activists" actually approved of the Springer buy-out saying that even those poor, dumb masses at PBS need work.

"Children learn what they live"
#98




Campaign Update: PBS BOMBSHELL
 
November 1, 2005
 
 
PBS Portrays Known Child Abuser as Hero:
Juvenile Court, CPS, Family Court Records Detail Mother's Physical Abuse

Sadia Loeliger, one of the central characters in Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories, is portrayed by the filmmakers as a heroic mom. The filmmakers spotlight and applaud her fight  to gain custody of her daughter Fatima, who is also featured.

After the film's debut I was contacted by Dr. Scott Loeliger, Sadia's ex-husband, and we are now revealing, for the first time publicly, Sadia's long, documented history of child abuse--a history which the film's producers chose to ignore despite repeated warnings.

We are launching Round 2 of our campaign against Breaking the Silence today--read the shocking Loeliger revelations here and then return to this E-newsletter for instructions on how you can participate.


Round 2 of the Campaign Begins

To date, we have generated over 4,000 calls and letters to PBS protesting Breaking the Silence. Round 2 begins now--I want all of you to join our campaign by clicking here.

There have been many indications, some of which I am not at liberty to discuss, that our protests have concerned PBS. The film, which aired on some PBS affiliates on October 20 and will air on many others in the coming weeks, is a direct assault on fatherhood. The film portrays fathers as batterers and child molesters who steal children from their mothers. We want PBS to allow both sides of this issue to be heard.

Again, I want all of you to join our campaign by clicking here.


Our Side Gets Chance to Speak on Houston PBS

To its credit, Houston PBS followed through on its commitment to allow our side to air its view of Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories and Parental Alienation Syndrome on its round-table discussion show The Connection on Friday, October 28 at 8 PM CST and again on Sunday, October 30 at 5 PM CST.

The show featured Dr. Reena Sommer, an expert on Parental Alienation Syndrome, as well as Andy Sperling, director of Fathers for Equal Rights in Houston. The opposition was represented by Thomas H. Burton III, General Counsel for the nonprofit organization Justice for Children.

Burton labeled Parental Alienation Syndrome "junk science" and his group's website calls claims of PAS an "unethical, immoral" tactic.

According to Barbara Sweet of Help Stop PAS Inc, our side's points came across loud and clear.

Thanks to Sweet, who has done a lot of good work on this issue, as well as to Sommer and Sperling.

Also, I suggest you commend Ken Lawrence, the Director of Programming for PBS of Houston, for his evenhandedness--to write him, click here.

To read a more detailed description of the Houston broadcast, click here.

I'm disappointed and a little surprised at the position Justice for Children is taking on PAS. I had one of their leaders, Donnalee Sarda, on His Side with Glenn Sacks earlier this year, and while Donna and I certainly don't see eye to eye on everything, she seems much more reasonable than what is posted on their website.

I receive a steady stream of letters from target parents of PAS, and I told some of the stories I was able to investigate in the first part of my co-authored column PBS Declares War on Dads (World Net Daily, 10/20/05).  To deny that alienation exists, or that children can buy into the alienation and align themselves with the alienating parent against the target parent, seems to me to be an intellectually untenable position.

However, this is certainly not to say that claims of PAS are not misused--in my co-authored column PBS' Breaking the Silence: Family Law in the Funhouse Mirror (Albany Times Union, 10/20/05, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 10/24/05) I noted:

"To be fair, it is true that there are fathers who have alienated their own children through their abuse or personality defects, and who unfairly blame their children's mothers by claiming PAS. Yet parental alienation is a common, well-documented phenomenon. For example, a longitudinal study published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 'high conflict' divorce cases over a 12 year period, and found that elements of PAS were present in the vast majority of them."

To hear Sommer and Judy Jones of Help Stop PAS Inc on His Side, see The Lohstroh Case: Alienating Mother Pushes 10 Year-Old Boy to Kill Father (10/31/04).


More News on Breaking the Silence Protests

Sacks Discusses PBS Campaign on NPR's CrossTalk (11/1/05)
Sacks Discusses PBS Campaign on 700 WLW in Cincinnati (11/1/05)

Judge Featured in Breaking the Silence Attacks Sacks in LA Newspaper

Jeff Leving & Glenn Sacks--"Film Goes Too Far as Advocate for Cutting Fathers Off From Kids"
(Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 11/1/05)  

No Justice for Dads/Dads Protest Too Much
(Norfolk Virginian Pilot, 10/31/05)
Documentary failed to show the system also victimizes men
(Albany Times Union, 10/29/05)

New documentary shines light on bitter custody fights, draws fire from fathers
(Sacramento News & Review, 10/27/05)

Columnist: PBS Film Unfairly Represents Fatherhood
(Agape Press, 10/27/05)

PBS Documentary Has Fathers Seething
(Family News In Focus, 10/26/05)


Mental Health Professionals Condemn PBS's Breaking the Silence, Endorse Campaign

Last E-newsletter we announced that the American Psychological Association Says Breaking the Silence Misrepresents Its Position on PAS. Over two dozen mental health professionals have now endorsed our campaign. To read their statement, click here.


Breaking the Silence: More Credibility Problems

American Psychological Association Says Breaking the Silence Misrepresents Its Position on PAS

A spokeswoman for the American Psychological Association says that PBS's new documentary Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories distorts the APA's position on Parental Alienation Syndrome.  The film criticizes PAS, which arises when one parent tries to turn his or her children against the other parent during a divorce or separation.

In the documentary Joan Meier, a professor of clinical law at George Washington University and one of the film's chief spokespersons, states that PAS  "has been thoroughly debunked by the American Psychological Association." Connecticut Public Television, one of the film's producers, put out a press release promoting the film which stated that PAS had been "discredited by the American Psychological Association."

However, according to Rhea K. Farberman, Executive Director of Public and Member Communications of the American Psychological Association, these claims are "incorrect" and "inaccurate."  Farberman says that the APA "does not have an official position on parental alienation syndrome--pro or con." She adds:

"The Connecticut Public Television press release is incorrect.   I have notified both Connecticut Public Television and their PR firm of the inaccuracy in their press release."  

To learn more, click here.


Leader of Domestic Violence Shelter Which Helped Fund Breaking the Silence Criticizes Film

Calling Breaking the Silence imbalanced and focused on extreme cases, Pam Kallsen, executive director of the Marjaree Mason Center, a domestic violence shelter in Fresno, California, contacted her
 
 Want to Reach 10,000+ People?
Are you looking for an affordable way to reach 10,000+ people with your business, organization or message? My weekly E-Newsletter has over 10,000 subscribers. Contact us for more information.
 
 
 
 
Advertisers
 
Introducing Leving's Divorce Magazine
Family law attorney Jeff Leving has just introduced Leving's Divorce Magazine to provide challenging and compelling content for the modern divorced man.  levingsdivorcemagazine.com

BE THE FIRST TO KNOW
The Levine Breaking News E-LERT is Hollywood's premier Breaking News e-zine sent every day (7 days a week) to approximately 80,000 "influencers" in all 50 United States and 22 Foreign Countries. Referred to as "part CNN-part Variety-part Drudge Report." To receive the LBN E-LERT everyday, send an email to [email protected].

Are You Looking to Earn Money Working from Home?
Many people are earning good incomes working from the comfort of their own homes, while also being there for those special moments with their children.
EntrepreneurfromHome.com

Responsible, Intelligent, Insightful Help for Men from a Woman Who Can Think Like One
Therapist Shari Schreiber, M.A. addresses gender issues in her male-friendly Forum, and would like to hear from you! Articles and forum topics include: sex, making your marriage work, online dating, men blackmailed into marriage/fatherhood, dangerous/Borderline disordered women, weight issues and MUCH more. ShariSchreiber.com/forum.html

Legal Help for Fathers in New Jersey
If you're a New Jersey father facing a divorce or separation, the law firm of Pitman, Pitman, Mindas, Grossman & Lee can help.  
PitmanLaw.com

Help, Support for Noncustodial Parents
MyKidsToo.com is a website designed to provide safe, peer-to-peer support to non-custodial parents and parents finding themselves in a divorce situation. The site is designed to be a clearinghouse of information.
MyKidsToo.com

Prostate Cancer Treated Without Surgery or X-Rays
Bill Vancil's book, "Don't Fear the Big Dogs", is the remarkable story of one man's quest to conquer a life threatening disease and bond with his teenage daughter. This highly readable tale takes us from diagnosis through treatment; a journey that will make you feel good just to be alive. Proton treatment has none of the side effects of surgery or standard radiation. This potentially life-saving book is an enjoyable read for anyone and a must-read for all dads.
dontfearthebigdogs.com

The LaMusga Company
The LaMusga Company provides customized solutions to assist individuals and business owners in reaching their financial goals. The LaMusga Company is committed to helping you accomplish your long-term financial objectives.
LaMusgaCo.com

Militant Grandmas Fight for Shared Parenting
Three Sides to Every Story is an organization set up by militant grandma Bessie Hudgins to help fathers stay in their children's lives after divorce.
Three-Sides-to-Every-Story.org

Legal Help for Fathers
If you live in Los Angeles, Riverside or Orange counties and you're facing a divorce, separation, or a child custody issue, the law firm of Oddenino & Gaule can help you protect your relationship with your children and get a fair financial settlement.  
OddLaw.net

Are You Interested in Career Advancement?
The PlayBook from the Job Coach is a complete online tutorial guide to self-promotion and career advancement. It gives you insider techniques and strategies previously known only to top job placement experts and "headhunters."
TheJobCoach.com

Legal Help for Dads
For $26 dollars a month Pre Paid Legal Services Inc. answers any legal question you have--an indispensable service for divorced dads.
HarryHelpsDads.com

The Dakapa Handbook
Tom Whelan's The Dakapa Handbook is the story of how a father's love for his children enables him to create an adventure that will forever bond them together.
Order the book here.  

Shared Parenting Advocate Runs for State Legislature
Shared parenting advocate Ron Grignol of Fathers for Virginia has won the Republican Party nomination for a seat in the Virginia state legislature and is making shared parenting one of the key issues of his campaign.
RonGrignol.com  

Rantings of a Single Male
The Rantings of a Single Male: Losing Patience with Feminism, Political Correctness... and Basically Everything describes the rise of feminism from the mid '70s to the present, through Ellis' personal experiences and is loaded with outrageous stories. To learn more, click here.

The American Coalition for Fathers and Children
The American Coalition for Fathers and Children is dedicated to creating a family law system which promotes equal rights for all parties affected by divorce.  Contact the ACFC at 1-800-978-3237 or visit them on the web at //www.acfc.org.

Help for Men Struggling with Relationships, Depression, Anger or Anxiety
If you're a man struggling with relationships, depression, anger or anxiety, the Men's Center Los Angeles can help. The Men's Center Los Angeles offers individual, couple, family and group counseling with a focus on men's issues. Call them at (818) 348-9302 or go to MensCenterLosAngeles.com  

File Taxes Online with  Professional Help
MENstax.com allows you to file your taxes, check your refund status, and have your return reviewed by an experienced tax professional--all online.  
MENstax.com

To advertise on the Glenn Sacks E-Newsletter, contact [email protected].
 
 
 
 
 
local PBS affiliate and told them she was distressed that her shelter's name and logo were associated with the program.

Kallsen had been a staunch supporter of the film project, even helping to secure funding for it, but says she changed her mind after seeing the film.

To learn more, click here.


The National Organization for Women Attacks Our PBS Campaign, Urges Followers to Contact PBS

The National Organization for Women's national office and several other feminist groups have sounded the alarm over our campaign. According to the MND Newswire story PBS Bombarded by Protests over Father-Bashing Show:

"The National Organization for Women sent out an Action Alert urging its members to fight 'bogus 'fathers' rights' activists' and support the film. Irene Weiser of Stop Family Violence urged supporters to counter the protests by calling PBS and urging them to run the program. Toni Troop of Jane Doe Inc./The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence warned against the protesters, saying that film angers the 'mad dads whose tactics and efforts to further the abuse through the court systems are exposed.'"


PBS Internal Memo Tells Affiliates to Stonewall Protesters

A source at PBS sent us this confidential internal memo on Friday. The memo is an instruction sheet that PBS's national office has dispensed to their affiliates to instruct them as to how to deal with the thousands of people who have called or written them to protest Breaking the Silence. As you'll notice, the common theme of this memo is to stonewall protesters.


Manipulating Children into Making or Corroborating False Charges

An important element of Parental Alienation Syndrome is the way children can be manipulated into making or corroborating false charges. Ironically, the Los Angeles Times just published this article--McMartin Pre-Schooler: 'I Lied': A long-delayed apology from one of the accusers in the notorious McMartin Pre-School molestation case--which could serve as a textbook for the method. Kyle Zirpolo, now 30 years-old, writes:

"[As a child] I remember them asking extremely uncomfortable questions about whether Ray touched me and about all the teachers and what they did--and I remember telling them nothing happened to me. I remember them almost giggling and laughing, saying, 'Oh, we know these things happened to you. Why don't you just go ahead and tell us? Use these dolls if you're scared.'

"Anytime I would give them an answer that they didn't like, they would ask again and encourage me to give them the answer they were looking for. It was really obvious what they wanted...

"I felt uncomfortable and a little ashamed that I was being dishonest. But at the same time, being the type of person I was, whatever my parents wanted me to do, I would do. And I thought they wanted me to help protect my little brother and sister who went to McMartin...

"My parents were very encouraging when I said that things happened. It was almost like saying things happened was going to help get these people in jail and stop them from what they were trying to do to kids. Also, there were so many kids saying all these things happened that you didn't want to be the one who said nothing did. You wouldn't be believed if you said that.

"I remember feeling like they didn't pick just anybody--they picked me because I had a good memory of what they wanted, and they could rely on me to do a good job. I don't think they thought I was telling the truth, just that I was telling the same stories consistently, doing what needed to be done to get these teachers judged guilty. I felt special. Important.

"It always seemed like I was thinking. I would listen to what my parents would say if they were talking, or to what someone else would say if we were being questioned at the police station or anywhere. And I would repeat things. Or if it wasn't a story I'd heard, I would think of something in my head. I would try to think of the worst thing possible that would be harmful to a child. I remember once I said that if you had a cut, instead of putting a Band-Aid on it, the McMartin teachers would put on dirt, then put the Band-Aid over the dirt. That was just something in my head that was bad. I just thought of it and told [the investigators]...

"The lawyers had all my stories written down and knew exactly what I had said before. So I knew I would have to say those exact things again and not have anything be different, otherwise they would know I was lying. I put a lot of pressure on myself. At night in bed, I would think hard about things I had said in the past and try to repeat only the things I knew I'd said before..."


Male Domestic Violence Victim Sues over Being Denied Access to Services

My friend Marc Angelucci, Esq. is at it again, bringing a California lawsuit on behalf of a gentleman who was badly abused by his wife and repeatedly refused services by domestic violence treatment providers. The case has several interesting twists--see Men's Rights Group: Victim Support Only For Women or watch the video here. To write to CBS13 and commend them for their coverage of this important issue, click here.

Similar suits have been brought against California shelters in the past--to learn more, see my column Plaintiff in Suit Against LA DV Shelters is Right to Demand Services for Abused Men (Los Angeles Daily News, 6/12/03).

 

Have You Been the Victim of a Child Support Error?

If you feel you have been billed for child support payments that you believe you do not owe, or if you believe you have experienced a questionable practice by a child support agency, Jane Spies and the National Family Justice Association are conducting a study on this issue and want to hear from you. Click here for more information.
 

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com
HisSide.com

Subscribe to this E-Newsletter

Email this E-Newsletter to a Friend

Missed an E-Newsletter? Find all of Glenn's E-Newsletters here

GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com

To be removed from our list, send an email to [email protected] with the subject line "Remove." Please allow up to 2 weeks for removal to be processed.
 
 

"Children learn what they live"
#99
 

   

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/oct05/psroct05.html

Time to Defund Feminist Pork — the Hate-Men Law

If Congress is looking for a way to return to principles
of limited government and reduced federal spending, or to
help finance the expenses of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
without raising taxes, a good place to start would be to
reject the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) sponsored by
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). It's a political mystery why
Republicans continue to put a billion dollars a year of
taxpayers' money into the hands of radical feminists who
use it to preach their anti-marriage and anti-male
ideology, to promote divorce, to corrupt the family court
system, and to engage in anti-family political advocacy.

Accountability is supposed to be the watchword of the Bush
Administration, but there's been no accountability or
oversight for VAWA's ten years of spending many billions
of dollars. There is no evidence that VAWA has benefited
anyone except the radical feminists on its payroll. The
Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on VAWA in
mid-July, but no critic of VAWA was permitted to speak.

VAWA was first passed in 1994 after the feminists floated
such bogus statistics as "a woman is beaten every 15
seconds" and "80% of fathers who seek custody of their
children fit the profile of a batterer." Remember the
Super Bowl Hoax, the ridiculous claim that "the biggest
day of the year for violence against women" is Super Bowl
Sunday (an assertion conclusively refuted by the scholarly
research of Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers)?

VAWA was passed when the Democrats controlled both Houses
of Congress and was signed by Bill Clinton in 1994. VAWA
is the biggest legislative achievement of NOW Legal
Defense and Education Fund (which has since changed its
name to Legal Momentum). This tax-exempt organization
brags on its website that it "was central to the crafting
and passage of VAWA 1994 and [its first reauthorization
in] 2000 [and] we are currently hard at work to secure
reauthorization and full funding for VAWA 2005."

VAWA assumes fluid definitions of domestic violence that
blur the difference between violent action and
run-of-the-mill marital tiffs and arguments. Definitions
of abuse can even include minor insults and irritations
that occur in most marriages or relationships.

A woman seeking help from a VAWA-funded center is not
offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce
him, accuse him of being a criminal, and have her sons
targeted as suspects in future crimes. VAWA ideology
rejects joint counseling, reconciliation, and saving
marriages.

VAWA refuses to recognize that alcohol and illegal drugs
are a cause of domestic violence, a peculiar assumption
contrary to all human experience. Numerous studies
demonstrate a high correlation between domestic violence
and alcohol or drug abuse.

VAWA forces Soviet-style psychological re-education on men
and teenage boys. The accused men are not given treatment
for real problems, but are assigned to classes where
feminists teach shame and guilt because of a vast male
conspiracy to subjugate women.

VAWA funds the re-education of judges and law enforcement
personnel to teach them feminist stereotypes about male
abusers and female victims, how to game the system to
empower women, and how to ride roughshod over the
constitutional rights of men.

VAWA encourages women to make false allegations and then
petition for full child custody and a denial of fathers'
rights to see their own children. VAWA promotes the
unrestrained use of restraining orders, which family
courts issue on the woman's say-so.

VAWA-funded centers engage in political advocacy for
feminist legislation such as the "must-arrest" laws even
if there is no sign of violence and even if the woman
doesn't want the man arrested, and the "no drop" laws
which mean the government must prosecute the man even if
the woman doesn't want him prosecuted.

It's time to stop VAWA from spending any more taxpayers'
money to promote family dissolution and fatherless
children.


VAWA Based on Radical Feminist Ideology
The groundwork for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
was laid by Gloria Steinem's nonsense, such as "The
patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of
violence in order to maintain itself" and Andrea Dworkin's
tirades of hate such as, "Under patriarchy, every woman's
son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or
exploiter of another woman."

During the Clinton Administration, the feminists parlayed
their hysteria that domestic violence is a national
epidemic into the 1994 passage of the Violence Against
Women Act. It quickly became a gigantic gravy train of
taxpayers' money - known as feminist pork — that provided
jobs for radical feminists and empowered them to pursue
their goals at our expense.

We have always had laws against assault and battery in all
50 states, but that doesn't satisfy the feminists.
Feminist ideology teaches that domestic violence threatens
every woman because of our alleged patriarchal society and
is of epidemic proportions that demand an expensive
federal remedy.

Feminist ideology teaches that domestic violence is not a
matter of the misbehavior of some men who may be bad
individuals or drunks or psychologically troubled, but
that all men share the blame for domestic violence because
they benefit from a system that empowers men and keeps
women subservient. Feminists staged public tantrums this
year against the president of Harvard University because
he dared to discuss math-aptitude differences between men
and women. But VAWA is based on the unscientific notion
that all men are potentially if not actually abusive, and
that all women are victims or in danger of becoming
victims.

Since 1994, VAWA has dished out massive grant money that
validated a feminist network of organizations called the
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The
following passage, taken from the website of the Arizona
chapter, is typical of VAWA ideology:

"Using Male Privilege. As long as we as a culture accept
the principle and privilege of male dominance, men will
continue to be abusive. As long as we as a culture accept
and tolerate violence against women, men will continue to
be abusive. . . . All men benefit from the violence of
batterers. There is no man who has not enjoyed the male
privilege resulting from male domination reinforced by the
use of physical violence. . . . All women suffer as a
consequence of men's violence. Battering by individual men
keeps all women in line. While not every woman has
experienced violence, there is no woman in this society
who has not feared it, restricting her activities and her
freedom to avoid it. Women are always watchful knowing
that they may be the arbitrary victims of male violence."

Your tax dollars paid for a 1993 National Woman Abuse
Prevention Project pamphlet which stated that "society has
accepted the use of violence by men to control women's
behavior."

Not satisfied with getting a billion dollars a year from
the U.S. Treasury, 67 feminist and liberal organizations
supported a lawsuit to try to get private allegations of
domestic abuse heard in federal courts so they could
collect civil damages against men and institutions with
deep pockets. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, in Brzonkala
v. Morrison (2000), declared unconstitutional VAWA's
section that might have permitted that additional
mischief.

However, VAWA's billions of dollars continue to finance
the domestic-violence industry, and there is a deafening
silence from conservatives who pretend to be guardians
against federal takeovers of problems that are none of the
federal government's business. Local crimes and marital
disputes should not be subjects of federal law or
spending. Shame on Members of Congress who lack the
courage to stand up to feminist outrages.

Feminists have always made divorce a major component of
women's liberation and political freedom and they brag
about their role in passing the unilateral divorce laws
that swept the country during the 1970s. When I was
debating the proposed Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s,
feminists were already propagating the lie that marriage
is an inherently abusive institution that makes wives
second-class citizens. Feminist dominance in the
universities assures that college textbooks portray
marriage as bleak and dreary for women. Assigned readings
are preoccupied with domestic violence, battering, abuse,
marital rape, and divorce.

For three decades, feminists have toyed with the question
that Maureen Dowd chose as the title of her new book, Are
Men Necessary? That's just the latest version of Gloria
Steinem's famous line, "A woman without a man is like a
fish without a bicycle." Currently, the media are
publicizing a ridiculous book called Raising Boys Without
Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of
Exceptional Men by Peggy Drexler.

The famous 1965 Daniel Patrick Moynihan report, The Negro
Family: The Case for National Action, warned that the rise
in single-mother families was not a harmless lifestyle
choice, but was unraveling "the basic socializing unit"
and causing high rates of delinquency, joblessness, school
failure and male alienation.

Moynihan was bitterly attacked for speaking what is now
universally recognized as the awful truth. Kay S.
Hymowitz, in the Manhattan Institute's August City Journal
writes that Moynihan's critics romanticized female-headed
families as a good thing. She described how the feminists,
who were fixated on notions of patriarchal oppression,
claimed that criticism of mother-headed households was
really an effort to deny women their independence, their
sexuality, or both.

VAWA gives the radical feminists a billion dollars a year
to pursue their anti-marriage, pro-divorce anti-male
activism and to expand mother-headed households even
further into our society.


What Is Domestic Violence?
Most people think of domestic violence as the sad or
tragic cases of men beating up women. Assault and battery
are obviously crimes that should be prosecuted and
punished. But domestic violence doesn't just mean criminal
conduct. The feminists have expanded the definition of
domestic violence to include an endless variety of
perfectly legal actions that are made punishable because
of who commits them.

VAWA's gender-specific title is pejorative and
sex-discriminatory: the Violence Against Women Act. VAWA
means violence by men against women. VAWA does not include
violence by women against women. VAWA's funds are
routinely denied to male victims of domestic violence. For
example, the Texas VAWA grant application makes its sexist
goal specific: "Grant funds may not be used for the
following: Services for programs that focus on children
and/or men."

Professor Martin Fiebert of California State University at
Long Beach compiled a bibliography of 170 scholarly
investigations, 134 empirical studies and 36 analyses
which demonstrate that women are almost as physically
abusive toward their partners as men. Studies by the
leading domestic violence researchers found that half of
all couple violence is mutual, and when only one partner
is physically abusive, it is as likely to be initiated by
the woman as the man.

The term domestic violence has morphed into domestic
abuse, a far broader term. Domestic abuse doesn't have to
be violent — it doesn't even have to be physical. The
feminists' mantra is, "You don't have to be beaten to be
abused."

A 1979 book called The Battered Woman by Lenore Walker is
credited with establishing feminist theory on domestic
violence and in originating what is called the "Battered
Woman Syndrome." This book is all hearsay without credible
statistical data. She admitted that her "research" and
generalizations were based on "a self-volunteered sample"
of women who contacted her after hearing her speeches or
interviews. Walker mentions the large study of domestic
violence undertaken by the National Institute of Mental
Health-financed survey of Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz,
but fails to tell her readers that its final conclusion is
that women initiate violence in intimate relationships at
least as often as men do.

Nevertheless, Walker's unscientific book had a big impact
in spreading the propaganda that the "battered" are always
women, that "batterers" are always men, that "battering"
is not necessarily a violent or even a physical act. She
admitted that "Most of the women in this project describe
incidents involving psychological humiliation and verbal
harassment as their worst battering experiences, whether
or not they had been physically abused." While
psychological abuses can be hurtful, they are completely
subjective, and it is absurd to pretend that verbal abuse
is done only by men against women and not vice versa.

As an example of "battering," Walker defended the woman
who admitted she "began to assault Paul physically, before
he assaulted her," but "Paul had been battering her by
ignoring her and by working late, in order to move up the
corporate ladder." So, trying to do a better job of
supporting his family was construed as domestic abuse.
Like many feminists, Walker is not trying to improve
marriage but rather to destroy it. She urged that
"psychotherapists must encourage breaking the family
apart."

Domestic violence has become whatever the woman wants to
allege, with or without evidence. Examples of claims of
domestic abuse include: name-calling, constant
criticizing, insulting, belittling the victim, blaming the
victim for everything, ignoring or ridiculing the victim's
needs, jealousy and possessiveness, insults, put-downs,
gestures, facial expressions, looking in a certain way,
body postures, and controlling the money. A Justice
Department-funded document published by the National
Victim Assistance Academy stated a widely accepted
definition of "violence" that includes such non-criminal
acts as "degradation and humiliation" and "name-calling
and constant criticizing." The acts need not be illegal,
physical, violent, or threatening.

The domestic violence checklist typically provided by
family courts to women seeking divorce and/or sole child
custody asks them "if the other parent has ever done or
threatened to do any of the following": "blaming all
problems on you," "following you," "embarrassing, putting
you down," "interrupting your eating or sleeping."

Such actions are not illegal or criminal; no one has a
right not to be insulted. But in the weird world of the
domestic-violence industry, acts that are not criminal
between strangers become crimes between members of a
household, and such actions can be punished by depriving a
man of his father's rights, putting him under a
restraining order, and even jailing him. Family courts
mete out punishment based on gender and relationships
rather than on acts.

Creating a special category of domestic-violence offenses
is very much like legislating against hate crimes. Both
create a new level of crimes for which punishment is based
on who you are rather than what acts you commit, and the
"who" in the view of VAWA and the domestic-violence lobby
is always the husband and father.


VAWA: Feminist Weapon Against Men
When a woman appeals to a VAWA-funded shelter, she is
immediately told she must file for divorce and accuse her
husband/boy friend of domestic violence so that a
restraining order can be issued against him. That would be
rational if we were talking about life-or-limb
endangerment. But it makes no sense if abuse involves
merely run-of-the-mill disagreements for which mediation
and reconciliation could be better for all, especially the
children. No VAWA programs teach women how to deal with
family disputes without resorting to divorce. No VAWA
programs promote intact families or better male-female
relationships. VAWA has no provision for addressing
problems within the context of marriage.

What VAWA does is to promote divorce and provide women
with weapons, such as the restraining order and free legal
assistance, to get sole custody of their children.

The Illinois Bar Journal (June 2005) explained how women
use court-issued restraining orders as a tool for the
mother to get sole child custody and to bar the father
from visitation. In big type, the magazine proclaimed:
"Orders of protection are designed to prevent domestic
violence, but they can also become part of the
gamesmanship of divorce." The "game" is that mothers can
assert falsehoods or trivial complaints against the
father, and get a restraining order based on the
presumption that men are abusers of women.

The Final Report of the Child Custody and Visitation Focus
Group of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges admitted that "usually judges are not required to
make a finding of domestic violence in civil protection
order cases." In other words, judges saddle fathers with
restraining orders on the wife's say-so without
investigation as to whether her claim is true or false,
and without accountability if it is false. If a hearing is
held, the woman merely needs to prove her claim by a
"preponderance of the evidence." That means she doesn't
have to prove the abuse happened, only that it is more
likely than not that it happened.

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts
Women's Bar Association, admitted in 1993: "Everyone knows
that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted
to virtually all who apply . . . In many [divorce] cases,
allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage."

The consequences of the issuance of restraining orders are
profound: the mother gets a sole-custody order, and the
father can be forbidden all contact with his children,
excluded from the family residence, and have his assets
and future income put under control of the family court. A
vast array of legal behavior is suddenly criminalized with
harsh penalties. The restraining order frequently
precludes the father from possessing a firearm for any
purpose, which means he loses his job if he is in the
service or law enforcement, or working for a company with
so-called zero tolerance policies.

Nevertheless, one study that evaluated the effectiveness
of restraining orders concluded that "they were
ineffective in stopping physical violence" and another
stated that "having a permanent order did not appear to
deter most types of abuse."

Billions of dollars have gushed forth from VAWA to the
states to finance private victim-advocacy organizations,
private domestic-violence coalitions, and the
indoctrination of judges, prosecutors and police in
feminist ideology. This tax-funded network is staffed by
radical feminists who teach the presumption of male and
father guilt. VAWA gives $75 million annually in grants to
encourage arrest and enforcement of protection orders, and
$55 million annually to provide free legal assistance to
victims (but not to the accused men).

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH) said during the VAWA debate,
"Since 1995, states have passed more than 600 laws to
combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking."
Congress should investigate how many of these laws were
the result of lobbying by VAWA employees using taxpayers'
money. VAWA employees are aggressive advocates of the
"must arrest" laws (that require the police to arrest one
person [you can guess which one] despite the trivial
nature of the alleged abuse and despite the woman's plea
that she doesn't want the man arrested), and the "no drop"
laws (that require prosecution even though reconciliation
has taken place). VAWA employees also lobby against the
shared-custody laws that respect father's rights. Studies
show these "must arrest" and "no drop" laws don't stop
domestic violence, but flood the courts with trivial cases
(about pushing, hair-pulling, etc.) alongside of real
cases of battering that deserve prosecution.

Congress should not be spending taxpayers' money to deal
with marital disputes, and courts should not deprive
children of their fathers on the feminists' presumption
that fathers are dangerous. The current VAWA
reauthorization bill not only continues an extraordinary
level of federal funding without accountability, but it
makes sure that future funding can go only to the same
feminist organizations that have been getting VAWA funds
in the past.

An estimated 40% of our nation's children are now living
in homes without their own father. Most social problems
are caused by kids who grow up in homes without their own
fathers: drug abuse, illicit sexual activity, unwed
pregnancies, youth suicide, high school dropouts,
runaways, and crime. Where have all the fathers gone? Some
men are irresponsible slobs, but no evidence exists that
nearly half of American children were voluntarily
abandoned by their own fathers; there must be other
explanations.

Congress should conduct an investigation to find out how
much of this fatherlessness is the result of bad
government policies and putting taxpayers' money in the
hands of a small radical group that is biased against
marriage and fathers. Congress should terminate funding
for the Violence Against Women Act - a hate-men law that
throws husbands and fathers out of their homes and
deprives them of their children after a very ordinary
squabble masquerading as domestic violence. VAWA is not
about stopping domestic violence - it is about empowering
radical feminists, using taxpayers' money, to change our
culture.

#100
 

   
World Net Daily - a major U.S.-based conservative Christian website - this morning joined the growing negative reaction against dishonest and sexist attacks on fathers by America's alleged 'Public Broadcasting Systems' (PBS) by offering its millions of readers the following commentary:
 
 

Thursday, October 20, 2005

PBS declares war on dads

Posted: October 20, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks


© 2005 Jeff Leving & Glenn Sacks
The 4-year-old boy is jumping up and down with joy.

"Daddy! Daddy!"

Dad gets out of the car.

"Daddy's here! Daddy's here!"

The boy is behind a locked screen door. He tries to open it.

"Daddy's here! Mommy, look, daddy's here!"

Dad knows he shouldn't open the door. He waits for his ex-wife to open the door. She doesn't do it.

"This is my visitation time," Dad says, waving a court document.


Mom still won't open the door.

The boy jumps up and down, saying, "Daddy, Daddy." He yanks on the screen door handle but still can't get it open.

Dad looks at his little boy. He pauses, takes a deep breath, and walks back to his car.

The little boy doesn't understand. Why won't Daddy come? Why is Daddy walking away from him?

The little boy disappears inside the house.

Dad calls the police. When the officers arrive he shows them his court documents. The officers go inside to investigate. They come out a few minutes later.

"Your son says he doesn't want to see you," the officer says. "There's nothing I can do. You'll have to deal with it in the court. I can't make him go with you if he doesn't want to."

Dad finally gets to see his kids three months later. The children spit on both him and their grandmother. Almost in unison they repeat, "I don't want to be here. I want to go home with mommy."

After Jim L.'s wife divorced him and moved his daughters out of state, she sent the two girls fake or altered e-mails purporting to be Jim. Afterwards, Jim's daughters refused to see him, explaining only: "You know what you've done; you know what you said; you know what you wrote."

Once when Jim flew to see his girls for his scheduled weekend visit, his ex-wife decided at the last minute to block the visit. Jim flew home on Sunday without having seen his girls. When he arrived at the airport back home he checked his messages and found a message from his ex-wife. On the recording, his girls could be heard crying in the background. His ex-wife said:

"Jim, the girls are here at the restaurant waiting for you to come pick them up. You said you'd meet them here for breakfast and spend the day with them, and you didn't show up. The girls are very upset. Jim, where are you!?"

These cases are examples of Parental Alienation Syndrome – the phenomenon of a parent (generally the mother/custodial parent) turning his or her children against the noncustodial parent after divorce or separation. PAS is the focus of the controversial new PBS documentary "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories" which airs tonight on Public Broadcasting Service stations in dozens of major cities.

In it the filmmakers label PAS "junk science" and assert that it "has been used in countless cases by abusive fathers to gain custody of their children" by falsely accusing the mothers of PAS.

Despite the film's claims, research shows that parental alienation is a common facet of divorce or separation. For example, a longitudinal study published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 "high conflict" divorce cases over a 12-year period and found that elements of PAS were present in the vast majority of them.

The most extreme examples of PAS are the false allegations of sexual abuse, which are often used for advantage in custody cases. Canadian Sen. Anne Cools, a prominent feminist who led Canada's battered women's shelter movement during the 1970s, labels this tactic "the heart of darkness." She says:

"I've studied this extensively, and I've placed on the Canadian Senate record 52 cases where there was a finding that the accusations were false, and there are countless more. Studies have shown that under these circumstances false accusations far outnumber truthful ones." According to a study published in Social Science and Modern Society, the vast majority of accusations of child sexual abuse made during custody battles are false, unfounded or unsubstantiated. Cools notes that in the 52 cases she studied, "there were absolutely no consequences at all for the women who knowingly made the false accusations."

In a strange reversal, the filmmakers claim that the real problem is that many mothers are losing custody for "revealing" that their husbands have molested their daughters. Yet in the few cases where a mother has lost custody for making false allegations, the courts usually had good reason for acting as they did. The two most famous cases – those involving model Bridget Marks and sociologist Amy Neustein – are illustrative of the point.

Despite widespread media sympathy, all five judges in Marks' case concluded that Marks had coached her girls to believe they had been sexually molested by their father. Earlier this year, Neustein's now adult daughter, Sherry Orbach, publicly refuted her mother's claims.


"Breaking the Silence" is a direct assault on American fathers and the minimal, hard-won gains they have made in protecting their children's right to have their fathers in their lives. Courts still reflexively side with mothers and often allow them to deny visitation, make false allegations of domestic violence or child sexual abuse, and drive fathers out of their children's lives.

As a society, we pretend that broken families are all men's fault, pay lip service to the importance of fathers and close our eyes while millions of children are separated from the fathers they love and need. Because that's what mom wants. Because it's easier to blame everything on dad than it is to confront mom on her destructive behavior. Because trying to hold a divorcing mother accountable for her behavior is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Because there's a high political cost to be paid for crossing mothers and none to be paid for crossing fathers. Throwing objectivity, fairness and reason to the wind, PBS and "Breaking the Silence" don't merely ignore or minimize this problem, but instead turn it on its head.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeffery M. Leving is one of America's most prominent family law attorneys. He is the author of the book "Fathers' Rights: Hard-hitting and Fair Advice for Every Father Involved in a Custody Dispute." His website is //www.dadsrights.com.

Glenn Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. He invites readers to visit his website at //www.GlennSacks.com.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article.
To view it online, visit: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46931
#101
Father's Issues / Another sad story
Oct 20, 2005, 08:37:22 AM
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5679855.html



Woman throws 3 children into San Francisco Bay
Associated Press
Last update: October 20, 2005 at 10:18 AM


Woman throws 3 children into San Francisco Bay

SAN FRANCISCO — The Coast Guard resumed searching for two missing children Thursday, a day after their mother allegedly threw them into San Francisco Bay near Fishermen's Wharf. The body of a third sibling was recovered.

The mother, Lashaun Harris, 23, of Oakland, was booked on three counts of murder, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Thursday. Her children were identified as Trayshaun Harris, 6, Travante Greely, 3, and Joshua Harris, 1.

Police contacted Thursday by The Associated Press declined to confirm the arrest report. The department's spokeswoman, Maria Oropeza, did not immediately returned a message.

A child's body was found about four hours after a witness reported seeing a woman drop the children into the bay Wednesday near Pier 7, said Jonathan Guerra of the U.S. Coast Guard. The identity of the body was not immediately able to be confirmed, but the San Francisco Examiner reported Thursday that it was that of the 3-year-old.

While rescuers searched for the children Wednesday night, an empty stroller was visible on the pier. A small inflatable Coast Guard boat hugged the water front as rescuers used hand-held flashlights to search under the pier. Larger Coast Guard and San Francisco police boats searched the water with high-powered flashlights.

Mayor Gavin Newsom came to the scene to get briefed by authorities, telling reporters, "I'm sick to my stomach,'' before leaving.

Lashaun Harris told authorities that voices had told her to throw her children into the water, the Chronicle reported. It was not immediately known whether she had an attorney.

Harris had been staying with her children at a Salvation Army shelter in Oakland, the Chronicle reported.

"I just talked to her yesterday,'' Mary Ann Ramirez, the shelter's social services manager, told the newspaper Wednesday. "We had our usual how are you doing, how's the kids. I would never have guessed in a million years that today she would do that.''

The pier is in the Embarcadero area, which draws tourists to the historic Ferry Building within view of Coit Tower and the landmark Transamerica pyramid. It's about a mile from Fishermen's Wharf.

"Children learn what they live"
#102
From Jim Loose:
 


All:
 
I'm please to confirm that I spoke by phone this morning with Mrs. Schlafly who has agreed to be PEP-Talk's guest for our Dec. 11th show. http://www.pepintexas.org/radio.htm
 
It's hard to overstate the importance of this.  Mrs. Schlafly is probably second only to Ronald Reagan as the most influential political conservative in recent American history http://www.eagleforum.org/  She's now come out powerfully for Equal Parenting.
 
Please spread the word to everyone you know.
 
Best,
 
Jim Loose

"Children learn what they live"
#103
Father's Issues / A tear jerker, A MUST READ...
Oct 19, 2005, 07:14:59 PM
Mom Who Set Son On Fire With His Puppy May Get Death

http://www.wftv.com/news/5114454/detail.html?treets=orlc&tid=2651334445813&tml=o\
rlc_12pm&tmi=orlc_12pm_1_11000310182005&ts=H

POSTED: 6:52 am EDT October 18, 2005

ELYRIA, Ohio -- A woman who was severely burned as a
child has been found guilty of killing her 4-year-old
son and setting his body on fire.

An Ohio jury convicted Nicole Diar on 10 counts
Monday, including two of aggravated murder aggravated
arson and tampering with evidence. The 28-year-old
woman could receive the death penalty.


When firefighters discovered her son Jacob's body, he
was so badly burned that the coroner was unable to
determine a cause of death. Prosecutors believe Jacob
was suffocated or drowned before Diar burned his body
and his new puppy.

Prosecutors allege Diar drugged Jacob with codeine,
then strangled him as he slept in his bedroom, before
setting the house on fire.

"Jacob went to bed one evening in his mother's home,
in his mother's care and never woke up again," said
Gary Bennett, the Lorain County prosecutor.

The October coroner's report ruled the death a
homicide and stated that the cause of death was
"violence of an unknown origin."

The defense said the woman wasn't capable of setting
the blaze because Diar herself sustained disfiguring
injuries in a fire when she was also 4 years old. The
woman was burned as a child when her brother ignited
her nightgown with a lighter. She underwent years of
surgery so that she could move her arms and neck.

Diar had said that God was responsible for the death
of her son Jacob's August 2003 death. She said, "He
burned me, and now He burned him."

Some of the most damaging testimony came from baby
sitters who watched Jacob, according to WEWS in
Cleveland.


Months before Jacob's death in August 2003, Diar
drugged him with codeine while she went out to party,
baby sitters testified.

"His well-being was secondary to her lifestyle,"
Assistant Prosecutor Tony Cillo said. "She couldn't be
bothered."

Sitters told the court Jacob was actually afraid to
sleep in his second-floor room.

Police also said that on the night of the crime, Diar
was out for a night on the town, drinking and singing
into a karaoke machine.

But the defense painted a different picture of a
loving mother who always cared for the well-being of
her son.

Some neighbors alleged the boy was at times neglected.


Diar's lawyer, Jack Bradley, admitted his client
wasn't the best mother but questioned a report from
state fire investigators that had the fire starting in
different rooms.

"Faulty forensics can lead to faulty evidence,"
Bradley said in closing arguments Monday.

If she gets the death penalty, Diar would be the
second woman on Ohio's death row.
Distributed by Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc.

"Children learn what they live"
#104
Father's Issues / ABC on Paternity Testing
Oct 06, 2005, 06:52:02 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1185107&page=1

"Children learn what they live"
#105
Preview Screening of, Breaking the Silence: Children's  Stories.

Join A Safe Place and the NH Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual  
Violence
for a free preview screening  of this film to debut nationally on
PBS-TV in
late October. This film explores  the anti-battered woman phenomenon in
child
custody cases. To be held  this  from 4:30-6:30 at the indoor play room
at the
Community  Campus, Portsmouth.  
Limited seating so please call ahead. Refreshments will be available.  
Call Vicky Jaffe at the Coalition to reserve your seat 603.224.8893  
x311.
Please see below for an article about the film...
_____________________________________________________________________
News: Taking away battered women's  kids By Sara Catania July 1, 2005
/Mother
Jones  

When award-winning documentary filmmakers Catherine Tatge and Dominique  
Lasseur set out to chronicle the effect of domestic violence on
children, the  
husband and wife team imagined they'd be spending most of their time  
researching
approaches to therapeutic healing. What they found instead was a  
system that
routinely penalizes women who are victims of domestic violence by  
favoring
their abusers in battles over child custody.
While there are a growing number of  courts responsive to the specific
needs
of domestic violence victims (see  Order in the Court), most family
violence
cases bounce women from court to  court in a judicial system that takes
no
account of their unique circumstance.  The scenario Tatge and Lasseur
encountered
time and again goes like this: A  woman separates from her abuser and
files
for divorce. The father, who has  shown little prior interest in the
children,
decides he wants joint or sole  custody. The judge, seeing no link
between
spousal battering and child abuse,  grants the request. "The abuser
files motion
after motion to slowly gain more  custody of the kids," says Lasseur,
who first
became aware of the issue while  working on a documentary about victims
of
domestic violence five years ago.  "In some cases he gains full legal
and
physical custody of the kids."  
The problem, Lasseur says, is that  studies have shown that in cases
where
the father chooses to seek some form of  custody over the motherís
objections,
there is a high probability that he has  either battered the mother,
abused the
children or both. However, if the  mother accuses the father of child
abuse
in court, the judge could suspect she  is motivated by revenge and to
reject
the accusation as false.  
Lasseur attributes this pervasive  misperception to what he calls "an
anti-woman bias in court" and to a theory  called parental alienation.
First
introduced by Connecticut psychologist  Richard Gardner in the
mid-1980's, the theory
states that women will concoct  stories of physical and sexual child
abuse out
of vindictiveness toward their  former partners. Though the theory has
been
denounced as junk science, it has  caught on among batterer's defense
attorneys
and father's rights groups, as  well as in the courts. "When they get
to
court, what does the judge see? The  abuser usually has the better job,
owns the
house, has more money, and like  all abusers, has a great talent to be
together
and likeable," Lasseur says.  "The woman is upset, emotional, she comes
undone. It's like, wow, a crazy  woman."  
The anti-battered-woman phenomenon in  child custody battles was first
explored in Small Justice, a 2002  documentary by Garland Waller. Since
then it has
become a major battleground  for the battered women's movement. "What's
happening is threatening to undo  the past 20 years of progress,"
Lasseur says. "Now
you have police officers  who explicitly tell women, if you are in a
custody
battle and you don't want  to lose your kids, donít mention sexual
abuse or
domestic violence."  
Lasseur and Tatgeís hour-long  documentary, Breaking The Silence:
Childrenís
Stories, is scheduled to air  nationally on PBS in October.


"Children learn what they live"
#106
The Allstate Foundation Awards $250,000 to Domestic Violence Organizations; Grants to Promote Economic Empowerment of Domestic Violence Survivors Given Through New SAFE HANDS Domestic Violence Program

October 06, 2005 15:57:01 (ET)

 
NORTHBROOK, Ill., Oct 06, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- On Sept. 29, 2005, The Allstate Foundation, through its newly formed program, SAFE HANDS: The Allstate Network for Empowering Women, awarded a total of $250,000 in grants to five state domestic violence coalitions to extend support to survivors of domestic violence. In alliance with the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) Fund and its membership of domestic violence coalitions, SAFE HANDS offers resources related to financial security and economic empowerment to aid survivors of domestic violence.

"Domestic violence is a pervasive and often overlooked social issue that impacts women of all ages, ethnic, racial, religious and socioeconomic groups. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, one-in-four women will experience physical or sexual violence at the hands of an intimate partner in her lifetime," verifies NNEDV President Lynn Rosenthal. "Through these grants from The Allstate Foundation, domestic violence coalitions will help further support front-line service providers who assist thousands of survivors every day."


"At Allstate, we believe in the importance of protecting a person's financial future. Many domestic violence victims struggle with life's basic needs, such as shelter, transportation and medical care," said Thomas J. Wilson, president and chief operating officer, The Allstate Corporation. "SAFE HANDS is about addressing and having a positive impact on the financial independence of survivors, so that they can prepare for futures of economic autonomy and opportunity."

Five new grants of $50,000 each were awarded to the following domestic violence coalitions to enhance economic empowerment programs throughout their respective states:


-- Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence: Together with two metro-Atlanta-area partners, Project Safe and Partnership Against Domestic Violence, the Coalition operates a transitional housing program that provides long-term housing for 15 victims of domestic violence and their children. The grant will make transportation options available for the program residents, enhancing their ability to access the metro-Atlanta job market and better provide for the needs of their families. SAFE HANDS funds will extend reliable transportation to these families by covering costs such as car down payment, monthly car payments, car maintenance, insurance coverage and gas.

-- Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence: With the SAFE HANDS funding, survivors of domestic violence impacted by Hurricane Katrina will be provided with emergency grants of up to $2,000 to help them relocate. Damage from the hurricane closed the doors of four domestic violence shelters and two non-residential domestic violence programs in the New Orleans area alone, and many survivors have been forced to seek shelter elsewhere. The grants will be used for moving costs, rent or utility payments, and down payments and security deposits for housing as the survivors rebuild their lives.

-- Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence: Together with two metro-Atlanta-area partners, Project Safe and Partnership Against Domestic Violence, the Coalition operates a transitional housing program that provides long-term housing for 15 victims of domestic violence and their children. The grant will make transportation options available for the program residents, enhancing their ability to access the metro-Atlanta job market and better provide for the needs of their families. SAFE HANDS funds will extend reliable transportation to these families by covering costs such as car down payment, monthly car payments, car maintenance, insurance coverage and gas.

-- Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence: The SAFE HANDS grant will be used in partnership with two Michigan domestic violence service providers -- AWARE, Inc. and SIREN/Eaton Shelter Inc. -- to create a micro-loan program to support the economic needs of domestic violence survivors. The partners will create a pilot program to provide 20 survivors of domestic violence with economic support as they transition out of abusive relationships. The micro-loans granted with the new funding will cover up to $2,000 per person for various expenses, including: rent, security deposits, professional clothing for new jobs, transportation, relocation, repairing credit, access to educational opportunities, home ownership and utilities.

-- New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence: The grant will be divided among three domestic violence programs across the state to provide long-term support to survivors of domestic violence: Circulo de la Hispanidad, Inc., Vera House, Inc., and Victim Resource Center of the Finger Lakes, Inc. The organizations will each use SAFE HANDS funding to provide job training and job-readiness programs, financial management skill building, economic advocacy, and emergency assistance for housing and other expenses. The New York State Coalition will use best practices from these programs to create an economic justice manual that will be distributed to domestic violence advocates throughout the state.

-- Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence: The SAFE HANDS grant will be used to help four domestic violence programs in the state advance their economic empowerment work. The Forks Abuse Program will collaborate with the local business community and other service providers to offer classes for domestic violence survivors --in both English and Spanish -- on credit, budgeting, housing and how to start-up a small business. The YWCA of South King County will provide support services and incentives to approximately 90 adult victims of domestic violence. By attending weekly economic literacy classes, survivors will learn skills including saving and budgeting, overcoming bad credit, and how to feed their families nutritious meals while on a limited budget. The Family Resource Center will help survivors become self sufficient in purchasing and maintaining their own homes and vehicles. Alternative to Domestic Violence will present tailored economic literacy courses to approximately 300 victims of domestic violence.

The path to a survivor's economic well-being often includes searching for a job, participating in job-readiness programs, continuing educational goals, finding affordable housing and childcare, repairing credit damaged by an abusive partner, and all the while trying to keep herself and her family safe from harm. With more than 1.35 million American women accessing domestic violence support services each year, SAFE HANDS provides knowledge and skills -- particularly those related to financial security and economic independence -- to help survivors connect to resources that can lead to safe and secure lives.

For a downloadable high-resolution image please call the media hotline at 847-402-5600 or visit //www.allstate.com/media .

About the National Network to End Domestic Violence Fund

The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) Fund is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt social change organization representing state domestic violence coalitions. The NNEDV Fund is dedicated to creating a social, political, and economic environment in which violence against women no longer exists. The NNEDV Fund accomplishes these goals through capacity building for coalitions, public education, training, and technical assistance to maintain and develop the professional expertise of advocates. The NNEDV Fund strives to strengthen advocates as organizers and activists in the tradition of social change movements. For additional information, visit //www.nnedv.org.

About The Allstate Foundation

Founded in 1952, The Allstate Foundation is an independent corporation funded by contributions from subsidiaries of The Allstate Corporation. The Allstate Foundation consistently invests millions of dollars annually in communities and issues crucial to protecting and preparing Americans for a better life. In 2004, The Allstate Foundation donated $14 million to non-profit organizations, including $450,000 in scholarships. For additional information, visit //www.allstate.com/foundation.

SOURCE: The Allstate Foundation


The Allstate Foundation                  
Jennifer Topolewski, 847-402-5600  
[email protected]          
or  
NNEDV                                  
Cheryl O'Donnell, 202-543-5566  
[email protected]  


"Children learn what they live"
#107


Hello ,

The message below is coming to you from ANCPR http://ancpr.org

Links for changing your subscription information (name and state, as well as your email address), along with a link for unsubscribing from the list are at the bottom of this message.

If you have Family Law issues, you need the ANCPR Winning Family Law Strategies Handbook .  It is available for immediate download when you sign up for ANCPR Membership.  You can do it right now. Click here.


Man cleared of paternity, but not support
Posted in Courts and Legislatures by ANCPR on the October 6th, 2005
Kansas City Star | 10/05/2005 | Man cleared of paternity, but not support
Posted on Wed, Oct. 05, 2005

Under the law, truth came too late to release him from financial obligation

Man cleared of paternity, but not support

By JOE LAMBE

The Kansas City Star

"If the result seems unfair, it's unfair because this person didn't do what he should have done in a timely way."

Paula Roberts, a lawyer with the Center for Law and Social Policy

Richard Carter of Kansas City is not the father of a 13-year-old boy but must continue paying child support anyway, a Missouri appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The ruling overturns the decision of a Jackson County Circuit judge. It also exposes what experts say is a national problem that pits fairness to men against what is considered best for children.
(more...)

0 Comments
Protest 'brought commuter chaos'
Posted in Protests and Groups by ANCPR on the October 4th, 2005
BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Protest 'brought commuter chaos'
Note from ANCPR: If you want to do something to help correct the injustice of the Family Court System - do what these guys have been doing. It only takes one or two people to pull this off!) Organizing marches and rallies doesn't work. Working in the legislatures is a waste of time until you have some power. This is the only way to get power! Get press!
______________

Protest 'brought commuter chaos'

The court heard the protest brought long delays
Thousands of commuters got caught in rush hour delays when father's rights campaigners scaled a signal gantry over a busy rail line, a court heard.
They dressed as Father Christmas for the protest, between Waterloo and Clapham Junction, on 16 December 2004.
(more...)

1 Comment
Witnesses say Shamokin hospital slaying was over child support
Posted in Tragedies by ANCPR on the October 4th, 2005
Newsday.com: Witnesses say Shamokin hospital slaying was over child support

October 1, 2005, 2:22 PM EDT

ASHLAND, Pa. — A police officer was ordered to stand trial in the shooting death of his ex-wife.

Richard Curran, 31, of Shamokin, who worked for the Bernville police at the time of the Aug. 24 shooting of Tina Curran, 31, of Mount Carmel, faces an open count of homicide. Northumberland County District Attorney Tony Rosini said a jury ultimately will determine the degree of homicide.

The victim's fiance, Jesse James, testified at Friday's preliminary hearing that Richard Curran had come to his home repeatedly looking for Tina Curran to discuss child support.
(more...)

0 Comments
The Rise of Big Sister-ism
Posted in News by ANCPR on the October 4th, 2005
TheRealityCheck.Org Guest Writer
by Carey Roberts

I have seen their shell-shocked eyes and unbelieving expressions.

Men saddled with crushing child support obligations, forced to live on scraps or else fall into a desperate sea of mounting debt. A few of them are white-collar guys who once held respectable jobs and lived in comfortable houses.

(more...)

6 Comments







#108
Father's Issues / PAS Newsletter
Oct 01, 2005, 09:32:07 AM
Hello everyone!
 

Here is the link to the October issue of the Journal of Parental Alienation which will be distributed at the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) conferences in Houston, TX and Tampa, FL. In the coming month:  //www.helpstoppas.org  
 

Click on "Newsletter" and then download the online journal as a .pdf and print.


Inside this issue:

Understanding Parental Alienation Syndrome - By Katherine C. Andre, Ph.D.
False Allegations of Child Abuse in Custody Cases - By Douglas Dougherty, Esq.  
Editorial—Opinion - By David M. Summers
Letters to the Editors
Millon & MMPI-2: NOT For Custody Evaluations - By Robert A. Evans, Ph.D.  
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI I &II) - By Underwager & Wakefield
Two Peas In The Same Pod: PA & PAS - By Richard A. Gardner, M.D.
Product Reviews - By Collette Summers
Please enjoy this issue and be sure to download the August and September issues as well.

 

In appreciation of any online tax-deductible donation you will receive a copy of the e-book written by Dr. Reena Sommer titled The Divorce and Custody Resource Handbook. Dr. Sommer is an international expert on divorce and Parental Alienation Syndrome. This e-book will be emailed to you upon making your donation to Help Stop PAS. We sincerely appreciate your support.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dr. Laird A. Sweet, Executive Director

Help Stop PAS
A Non-Profit Organization

3118 FM 528 Suite 234

Webster, TX. 77598

409-789-7482

[email protected]
 

We appreciate your feedback! Please send your comments, letters to the editor, PAS success stories, and any feedback regarding the newsletter to:

 

David & Collette Summers
Editor and Associate Editor
Journal of Parental Alienation
[email protected]


"Children learn what they live"
#109
Father's Issues / Heads up Massachusetts...
Oct 01, 2005, 08:41:49 AM


http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3072006

Article Launched: 09/29/2005 11:01:10 AM  

Garry: Give dads more custodial privileges
By ERIK ARVIDSON, Sun Statehouse Bureau  

 
 
BOSTON -- State lawmakers have proposed legislation that would give fathers greater custodial rights of their children in divorce and separation cases.

State Rep. Colleen Garry, D-Dracut, has filed a bill that would give temporary shared legal and physical custody to both parents, as long as both parents are considered by a judge to be fit.

Currently, judges determine the custody of a child based on what is in the child's best interest. But critics say that judges in child custody cases tend to favor the mother when determining sole custody of the child.

Garry, who is also a family law attorney, said that while the current law gives both parents shared legal custody, and both parents are involved in making parental decisions for the child, only one parent is given physical custody.

"Unfortunately, it really comes to a point that people are using their children as a bargaining chip. That's the most unfortunate part of all," Garry said. "There are difficulties, such as who is going to have the children on Christmas Eve. But those are also problems in sole custody cases."

Proponents of the bill cited the results of a nonbinding referendum in last November's election, in which 86 percent of the voters in 31 legislative districts in Massachusetts supported the concept of shared parenting.

The initiative asked people if they would instruct their legislator to vote in favor of legislation to create a "strong presumption" in favor of joint physical and legal custody.

Stephen Carrier, president of the Massachusetts Children's Rights Council, said there are numerous benefits to a child of a shared custody arrangement, including the fact that it cuts down on unnecessary litigation.

"Denying custody and limiting access tells a good parent that 'You are no longer important or necessary to a child,'" Carrier said.

Opponents of so-called shared parenting laws argue that they do little to help the child, and are focused on making both parents feel important.

Some opponents also say that children are better off living in one home and sleeping in one bed, as opposed to traveling between the homes of each parent.

Currently, 11 states and the District of Columbia have laws that presume legal custody to be shared by both parents, while eight other states allow for shared custody when both parents agree to it.

Garry's proposal still leaves it to the discretion of a judge to revoke a shared custody agreement in a situation where a member of the family abuses alcohol or drugs, or has deserted the child, and whether "have a history of being able and willing to cooperate in matters concerning the child."

The bill is being considered by the Legislature's Judiciary Committee.
 
     


"Children learn what they live"
#110


HALF OF U.S. SEES 'JUDICIAL ACTIVISM CRISIS'
http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/s30survey.html

ABA Journal Survey Results Surprise Some Legal Experts

BY MARTHA NEIL
More than half of Americans are angry and disappointed with the nation's judiciary, a new survey done for the ABA Journal eReport shows.
A majority of the survey respondents agreed with statements that "judicial activism" has reached the crisis stage, and that judges who ignore voters' values should be impeached. Nearly half agreed with a congressman who said judges are "arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable."

The survey results surprised some legal experts with the extent of dissatisfaction shown toward the judiciary. "These are surprisingly large numbers," says Mark V. Tushnet, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C.

"These results are simply scary," adds Charles G. Geyh, a constitutional law professor at Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington.

The Opinion Research Corp. conducted the survey, calling 1,016 adults throughout the country in early September. Participants included 505 men and 511 women aged 18 or older. Due to the effects of Hurricane Katrina, residents of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi were not polled.

Calls were made to a random sample of American households. Those surveyed were asked questions about their age and education levels, and were asked to give one of six answers—strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree or don't know—in response to public statements criticizing the judiciary.

Fifty-six percent of the respondents strongly or somewhat agreed with the opinions expressed in each of two survey statements:

A U.S. congressman has said, "Judicial activism ... seems to have reached a crisis. Judges routinely overrule the will of the people, invent new rights and ignore traditional morality." (Twenty-nine percent strongly agreed and 27 percent somewhat agreed.)
A state governor has said that court opinions should be in line with voters' values, and judges who repeatedly ignore those values should be impeached. (Twenty-eight percent strongly agreed and 28 percent somewhat agreed.)
Forty-six percent strongly or somewhat agreed with the opinion expressed in a third statement:

A U.S. congressman has called judges arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable. (Twenty-one percent strongly agreed and 25 percent somewhat agreed.)
Among the respondents, younger adults were less likely than older adults to agree with all three statements. Those with a college education were more likely to disagree with the statements than high school graduates.

Only 30 percent of respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed with the first statement and 32 percent felt the same way about the second statement. The most disagreement was reflected in the responses to the third statement, with which 38 percent took issue.

Two percent to 3 percent responded "don't know," and the remainder of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the statements.

The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 3 percentage points, at the 95 percent confidence level. Opinion Research Corp. says survey results were "weighted by age, sex, geographic region and race to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total population."

The congressman referenced in the first question is Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who made the comment at an April 2005 rally in Washington, D.C. The governor in the second question is Matt Blunt, a Missouri Republican, who reportedly made the comment during an interview with a religious publication in May 2005. The congressman in the third question is House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, who made the comment in March 2005.

Several legal scholars responding to the survey results were startled by the numbers.

Georgetown's Tushnet says he didn't realize the level of dissatisfaction was so high. "What I had thought was the case was that there was a significantly higher residue of general respect for the courts," he says. "And these numbers suggest that that's not true."

Geyh of Indiana University says the survey suggests "a trajectory" upward in the number of people unhappy with the American judiciary—apparently simply because these critics disagree with the law that judges have a duty to apply.

The idea that judges should "somehow follow the voters' views really reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what judges are supposed to do," he continues. "They should only be criticized when they ignore the law and start infusing their own values into the law regardless of the law."

But one legal scholar with an alternative viewpoint is not surprised. The survey results reflect the reality that "there is a lot of judicial activism under any definition," says John O. McGinnis, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago.

"This problem has been coming for a very long time," he says. "I think, for most of [the past] century, the idea of the Constitution as a document that should be interpreted formally and without regard to the judge's own values has been under attack." Judges today also do not give due deference to legislative decisions, and too frequently strike down statutory law, he adds.

Part of the problem, too, McGinnis believes, is that legislators on both sides of the aisle are conducting judicial confirmation hearings as though the candidates' personal political views are relevant to their role on the bench. "Everyone thinks that's what [judges] do, and they just want their own values" to be reflected by the judiciary, McGinnis says.

In a written statement, Rep. Smith said judges today "seem to be promoters of a partisan agenda, not wise teachers relying on established law." As a co-equal branch of the federal government, however, the judiciary is subject to congressional oversight as part of our system of checks and balances, he continued. So "Congress is right to evaluate judges when they behave like unelected superlegislators who want to implement their own social agenda."

Spokespersons for Blunt and DeLay did not respond to requests for comment.

The survey figures did not catch ABA President Michael S. Greco by surprise, either. Instead, he views the results as further confirmation of the need for new ABA programs now under way to educate the public about how American government works, and the role played by judges in a democratic society. Judicial independence is also the subject of three feature articles in the October issue of the ABA Journal.

One of Greco's first actions after taking office in August was to appoint a Commission on Civic Education and the Separation of Powers. In his President's Message in the October Journal, Greco said the commission was created to address what he terms an "alarming increase in rhetorical and physical attacks on the judiciary." The bipartisan commission is intended to educate Americans about the role of an independent judiciary in U.S. government.

A poll commissioned by the ABA in July from Harris Interactive showed a "shocking" 40 percent of respondents could not correctly identify the three branches of government, Greco wrote.

The commission will help rectify this situation, Greco says, in two ways: First, it will "find out why it is that half the people polled don't know how their government works." Second, it will work with teachers' groups to address "this sorry state of civic education."

Greco hopes to bring lawyers throughout the country into the nation's schools on Law Day as part of a larger program of civic education about the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary. "This is in the preliminary stages, but the thought is, around Law Day, have a program that is carried on C-Span and perhaps beamed into every school in the country."

Held on May 1 each year, Law Day is recognized as a time to focus on how the rule of law makes democracy possible.

Robert H. Rawson Jr., a Cleveland lawyer who chairs the commission, emphasizes that these educational efforts will be nonpartisan. "Our objective is not to get into the politics of judicial selection, but rather to fill what appears to be a gap in general public understanding of the fundamental role of a judge," he says, and "restore what needs restoring—the confidence and trust of the American public in the judiciary."

The commission has two honorary co-chairs: retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and former U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey.

The October ABA Journal includes three features on judicial independence:

A roundtable discussion by legal experts on recent attacks on the judicial branch.
A look at hot-button cases that are raising the hackles of the American public.
A report on how Serbia is addressing issues of judicial independence and the rule of law in its effort to enter the European Union.
 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________

Victims-of-Law http://victimsoflaw.net

A Web Service for the Reform Communities

"Children learn what they live"
#111
Father's Issues / One Nation under Therapy
Oct 01, 2005, 08:12:21 AM
Salvation through Psychology

'One Nation Under Therapy'

http://new.townhall.com/opinion/columns/chuckcolson/2005/09/29/158823.html

Sep 29, 2005
new.townhall.com
by Chuck Colson (bio | archive)


Whether it's the Columbine shootings, September 11, or
Hurricane Katrina, in the wake of the initial crisis,
an army of grief counselors descends on the survivors.
Is that a good thing? Probably not.

In their excellent book One Nation under Therapy,
ethicist Christina Hoff Sommers and psychiatrist Sally
Satel show how junk science has promoted the notion
"that seemingly content and well-adjusted
Americans—adults as well as children—are emotionally
damaged." They trace the history of what they call
"therapism," which "valorizes openness, emotional
self-absorption and the sharing of feelings."

This trend was popularized by twentieth-century
psychologists like Abraham Maslow. He believed—though
he had no scientific proof for it—that restraint was
unhealthy and that "self-actualization" and high
self-esteem were crucial to human development. It was
Maslow who said, "I sometimes think that the world
will either be saved by psychologists . . . or it will
not be saved at all."

We see the fruits of that philosophy everywhere. From
schools to talk shows, people are coached to focus on
themselves and obsess about their own feelings—in
short, to "save themselves" through psychology. No
wonder that Jim Windolf, writing in the Wall Street
Journal, said, "If you believe the statistics, 77
percent of America's adult population is a mess. And
we haven't even thrown in alien abductees, road ragers
or Internet addicts."



Valid scientific studies show that self-absorption, or
self-pity, is actually the worst possible way to
respond to tragedy. Study participants who were told
to focus on their emotions and express them aloud
actually ended up more depressed than those who tried
to distract themselves and find constructive ways to
cope.

We have bought into the myth of "therapism" so
completely that after every one of these disasters,
these armies of "grief counselors" descend upon us.
Well, the good news is that some folks are catching
on. After Columbine and September 11, even members of
the media saw the failure of the therapeutic model.
The Washington Post's Jonathan Yardley wrote, "Surely
there are few sights in the contemporary landscape
more repellent than that of these leeches attaching
themselves to the stunned, bewildered survivors of
affliction, demanding that they give vent to their
'feelings.'"

As I reported in a "BreakPoint" at the time, kids at
Columbine were ignoring grief counselors, but flooding
the churches. Those kids understood. But the grief
counselors, after all, are after clients. That's what
keeps them paid. So after September 11, Sommers and
Satel report, grief counselors literally walked the
streets trying to recruit patients. One mental health
center tried to hire someone to sit in a general
practitioner's waiting room and ask every patient who
came in if he or she was having problems dealing with
September 11.

No wonder people are getting disgusted with
in-your-face tactics and pop psychology. What these
people do not need is more high pressure. What they
really need is counseling from the Great Counselor.

For further reading and information:

Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship by
Paul C. Vitz.

Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel, M.D., One
Nation under Therapy: How the Helping Culture Is
Eroding Self-Reliance (St. Martin's Press, 2005).

Sally Satel, M.D., and Christina Hoff Sommers, "The
Mental Health Crisis That Wasn't," Reason,
August/September 2005. (Reprinted by the American
Enterprise Institute.)

Christina Hoff Sommers, "I'm Okay, You're Okay,"
Forbes, 11 April 2005. (Reprinted by the American
Enterprise Institute.)

Jim Windolf, "A Nation of Nuts," Wall Street Journal,
22 October 1997. (Reprinted by BrianWilson.net.)

BreakPoint Commentary No. 90513, "Good Grief: Faith
versus Freud." (Free registration required.)

Kate Drolet, "Seek counseling for post-disaster
depression," The Current Online, 26 September 2005.

"Despair among some Katrina survivors," CNN, 23
September 2005.

John Fischer, "Forget about Self-Esteem: (Now They
Tell Us!)," BreakPoint Online, 10 February 2005.

"Children learn what they live"
#112
Father's Issues / Moms can be "deadbeats" too
Oct 01, 2005, 08:03:17 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59963,00.html

Moms Can Be Deadbeats Too
Friday, August 09, 2002
By Liza Porteus

Single dads are sick and tired of being labeled "deadbeats" when it comes to paying child support. And data suggest they have good reason to be upset.

The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is actually higher than that of dads who won't pay, even though mothers are more consistently awarded custody of children by the courts.

Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.

That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures.

Men who are due child support are also getting tired of deadbeat moms' excuse that they can't pony up the money, and some courts have responded.

California lawyer Eudene Eunique in February was denied a passport because she was $30,000 behind in child-support. Instead of spending money on visiting her family in Mexico and on business contracts, the appeals court ruled Eunique's money should go to her kids.

Meanwhile, warrant officers in southwest Florida earlier this summer dubbed an effort to list the area's top deadbeat moms who owed up to $19,000 in support as "Operation Father's Day." Included on the list were Trudi Dana, 43, who owes $19,001 and 29-year-old Mary Mahadie Friar, who owes $16,493.

Of course, the problem of deadbeat dads remains a serious one. Many more men than women have to pay child support, making the overall number of deadbeat dads much greater.

The statistics show 4.3 million moms out of 6.3 million who are supposed to receive child support actually get it. That leaves the alarming figure of about 2 million deadbeat dads, putting them more in the media spotlight than deadbeat moms.

But men also still pay much more in child support. The Census Bureau last month also released numbers showing fathers paid an average of $3,000 to custodial moms in 1997. Women paid little over half that. Moms also get about 60 percent of what they are owed, whereas dads only get 48 percent.

Not only are the dads paying up more when they don't have custody, but when the court does hand the kids over to dads, they work more than moms who have custody.

While 7 percent of custodial moms work more than 44 hours a week, 24.5 percent of single custodial dads work more than 44 hours. And only about half as many custodial dads get government help than moms.

Some dads say it's not for a lack of laws that moms are getting away with not paying up.

Bill Henry is head of Dads Against Discrimination of West Virginia and a single dad. In 1983, his first ex was ordered by the court to pay $25 a month in child support – which he did not start actually receiving until 1987 – even though the state minimum then should have been $75 a month.

Henry said dads are often discouraged from pursuing custody battles by attorneys and often don't like to make waves in the system, as long as they get to regularly see their child or get complete custody.

"A lot of men are afraid to ask for child support simply because they think if they're asking for child support, they won't get a chance to get custody," Henry said.

California dad Scott Downing has also experienced child-support snafus and said courts continue to give dads the short end of the custody stick. "The laws are there, but it's the way the courts interpret those laws," he said.

Single dad David Wood of North Carolina has similar concerns.

"My frustration ... is not so much there's any biases in me getting child support ... it's just the whole system needs a lot of work. If you don't get aggressive with it ... you have to really work to get it if someone doesn't want to play the game" and pay up.

Wood, whose ex-wife has had trouble in court, said there are four men he knows of just at his workplace who are currently or are going to be single dads, or are grandparents of kids who had deadbeat moms.

"It's not the exception anymore," Wood said, adding that before he became a single dad two years ago, "I would have almost bought into that stereotype" the dads are usually the deadbeats. But "that philosophy is just 30-40 years out of date."

But more moms that don't have the kids simply can't afford to pay child support since they are poorer, said Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support. Studies show the average income for non-custodial moms is only $15,000 a year, whereas non-custodial dads average about $40,000 a year.

And moms who don't have custody of the kids often remarry and have more kids, and often choose to not work.

But "that's certainly no excuse," Jensen said. "It doesn't matter if you're a mom or dad, you should meet your child support obligations."
 


"Children learn what they live"
#113

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46555

Joseph Farah

American insanity

Posted: September 28, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

As a newsman of 30 years, I've become coarsened to immersing myself in
stories that are disturbing, revolting, demoralizing, shocking and
disgusting.

Usually, I can vent about the reports to my wife, my radio talk-show
audience or you, dear readers of my daily column, and move on.

Talking about these kinds of stories, shouting about them, can be
cathartic and good for the soul.

But even though I have a wife with a sympathetic ear, a nationally
syndicated talk show and a daily column, sometimes the outrages come so
fast and furious, I can't keep with them.

Last month, one of those outrages occurred ? and I haven't been able to
stop thinking about it. I haven't been able to get past what it suggests
about the direction of our nation. I haven't been able to comprehend the
massive injustice.

And, so, this grizzled old newsman is venting once again ? in hopes that
it helps me cope and serves to awaken the vast universe of sleepwalking
Americans who haven't a clue yet that we've lost our freedoms in this
country, lost our property rights, lost our ability to distinguish right
from wrong, lost our ability to govern ourselves.

This story is not breaking news any longer, but I dare suggest fewer than
one in 100 Americans are aware of it. Maybe we can raise that percentage
today.

In March 2003, Casey Nethercott caught two illegal aliens sneaking onto
his 70-acre Texas ranch, which he used his life savings of $120,000 to buy
earlier that year. Edwin Alfredo Mancia Gonzales and Fatima del Socorro
Leiva Medina had trekked through Mexico from El Salvador when they
stumbled on to Nethercott's ranch.

Though the pair admitted Nethercott's ranch hands provided them with
cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour, the illegal
invaders enlisted the legal help of Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty
Law Center to represent them in a suit charging they were abused by
Nethercott.

Because Nethercott was in possession of a gun illegally, he got five years
at the hands of Texas prosecutors.

And since he was in jail and unable to defend himself against Dees' civil
lawsuit, Nethercott's ranch was seized and handed over to the illegal
aliens.

Two illegals who should have been deported are now living comfortably in
the land of the free and home of the brave ? the recipients of visas
available to immigrants who are victims of crimes and cooperate with
authorities. They are living on a ranch they stole, with the complicity of
the government. An American is in jail, and illegals who trespassed on his
property have taken ownership of his home.

It's incomprehensible. It's mind-boggling. It's a sign of the time.

Americans once looked out for Americans. Our governments ? local, state
and federal ? were designed to protect our rights and our safety. Our laws
were made for the benefit of the people, not to victimize and entrap them.

No longer.

I can't help but think the emerging pattern of government abuse against
the people is purposeful and by design.

We are being told, in no uncertain terms, that we the people are no longer
in control of our destiny. We are now subjects ? our "rights" merely
privileges extended by the government and revocable at the slightest whim.

Think about it.

Nethercott was defending his property from invasion. The government long
ago abdicated its responsibility to defend our national borders ? leaving
us all to fend for ourselves from higher crime rates, terrorist threats,
higher taxes and a thousand other problems related to illegal immigration.
Now he's in jail and his property in the hands of those who trespassed.

It's a metaphor for the insanity that is gripping America.

Our most basic rights have been lost.

Justice has been perverted. Truth has been obscured. Morality has been
turned upside down.

Maybe you think this just happens to other people?

If it can happen to homeowners in New London, Conn., it can happen to you.
If it can happen to ranchers out West who discover "protected" critters on
their property, it can happen to you. If it can happen to Casey
Nethercott, it can happen to you.


Joseph Farah is founder, editor and chief executive officer of WND and a
nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. He is also the founder of WND
Books, publishes the premium, online, intelligence newsletter Joseph
Farah's G2 Bulletin, and is the author of the highly acclaimed book
"Taking America Back." In addition to his daily column in WND, he writes a
nationally syndicated weekly column available to U.S. newspapers through
Creators Syndicate.

"Children learn what they live"
#114

The Senate Spent the Day Extending Time Until November 18, 2005!

The hidden VAWA 2005 Reauthorization did not get voted on today!

Please Forward to Every List and Forum You are On!

The is the Time to Redouble Our Efforts  - Contact All Senate Offices - D.C. and Local!

Your Senators need to get something from you everyday including Saturday and Sunday!

Email - Fax - Call - all or any will do. Faxes are best for their home offices.

New Sample Text  (which I did fit on one page fax)

As usual, below the sample text is the list of the home offices for the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee Some have emails addresses, but most do not. There is an easier answer than the House's writerep webform.

First: Send this to your own Senators via the RightMarch.com Mail System at:      
http://capwiz.com/sicminc/dbq/officials/  

Second: Email this to the address list below.

Then:  Fax the your letter or the sample below to as many home offices of the Senate Judiciary Committee members as you can (they keep turning off their DC fax machines). Call them as well.


Please - No Long Diatribes!

They rarely read past the subject line. Keep it to one page, everything past that is a waste.

IMPORTANT:
Make sure what you sent has a subject line (i.e. Re: or Subject:) that states your position.
Sometimes that's all they read!

=============================================================
            SAMPLE TEXT to Senators
=============================================================

Subject: or Re:


VOTE Against H.R. 3402. I oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) [S.1197] which is hidden in this bill.  



Email Body:


I oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Please VOTE Against VAWA by VOTING Against H.R. 3402 or any other attempt to reauthorize VAWA. HR 3402 contains bill S. 1197, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization.

This bill, S.1197, is an unconstitutional travesty.

Help restore morals, values, and dignity to the daily lives of American families and our children. Renewal of VAWA will expand the level of civil rights violations unequaled since the abolition of slavery.


VAWA punishes the innocent and frees the guilty. Nothing in VAWA 2005 or HR 3402 will change this. If anything it is going to make it worse.

Again I ask you to please VOTE Against VAWA by VOTING Against H.R. 3402 or any other attempt to reauthorize the "Violence Against Women Act" (VAWA), it is not in the best interest of America, our  children, or families.

VAWA has promoted, funded, or mandated:

Mandatory arrests without a warrant, often based on nothing more than hearsay;
A standard under which the accused is guilty until proven innocent and mere allegations now suffice as proof;
Forced citizens from their homes and children with nothing more than the clothes on their back without any pretense of due process;
Endorsed searches of homes without a warrant;
Allowed seizures of property without redress;
Denied defendants the assistance of counsel, the right to confront their accuser and obtain witnesses in their defense;
Punishment and imprisonment that occurs before a trial or without one;
Invoked public censure for crimes men have not committed.
The needed reforms are:

Domestic violence is a state matter. Existing Federal laws should be repealed or allowed to expire.
Domestic violence laws must be gender neutral in all respects and practice.
Domestic violence and abuse laws must not violate the rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
False allegations of domestic violence and suborning perjury must be dealt with as criminal acts.
Domestic violence laws at all levels of government must exist solely in the criminal codes.
Please VOTE Against VAWA for the good of all Americans. The rework suggested in VAWA 2005 only promises to provide more funding to the current fraud-ridden system riddled with advocacy research studies and government propaganda.

Our domestic violence laws and their operation throughout the country need reviewing under the highest level of scrutiny possible. Qualified scientists must conduct a comprehensive, well-funded study of domestic violence rather than ideologues in order to establish how pervasive this problem is and what methods are most effective in reducing it.

Yours truly,
Your Name
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code +4
Phone Number with area code


"Equal Protection Under the Law is True Equality"


=========================================
Senate Jud. Com. Home Office CONTACT LIST
=========================================

Judiciary Committee
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone:  202-224-5225
Fax:  202-224-9102

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Main District Office:
600 Arch St., #9400
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone:  215-597-7200
Fax:  215-597-0406

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)
Main District Office:
8402 Fed. Bldg., 125 South State St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
Phone:  801-524-4380
Fax:  801-524-4379

Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA)
Main District Office:
210 Walnut St., Rm. 721
Des Moines, IA 50309
Phone:  515-288-1145
Fax:  515-288-5097

Senator Jon L. Kyl (R-AZ)
Main District Office:
2200 East Camelback Rd., #120
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone:  602-840-1891
Fax:  602-957-6838

Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Main District Office:
37 West Broad St., Ste. 300
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone:  614-469-5186
Fax:  614-469-2982

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Main District Office:
7550 Halcyon Summit Dr., Ste. 150
Montgomery, AL 36117
Phone:  334-244-7017
Fax:  334-244-7091

Senator Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC)
Main District Office:
101 East Washington St., Ste. 220
Greenville, SC 29601
Phone:  864-250-1417
Fax:  864-250-4322

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)
Main District Office:
221 West 6th St., Ste. 1530
Austin, TX 78701
Phone:  512-469-6034
Fax:  512-469-6020

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Main District Office:
612 South Kansas Ave.
Topeka, KS 66603
Phone:  785-233-2503
Fax:  785-233-2616

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Main District Office:
401 South Boston, 3310 Mid-Continent Tower
Tulsa, OK 74103-4007
Phone:  918-581-7651
Fax:  918-581-7195

Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT)
Main Office has no listed Fax Number Use Montpelier numbers
Montpelier Office
87 State St., Rm. 338
Montpelier, VT 05602
Phone:  802-229-0569
Fax:  802-229-1915

Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
Main District Office:
2400 John F. Kennedy Fed. Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
Phone:  617-565-3170
Fax:  617-565-3183

Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE)
Main District Office:
1105 North Market St., Ste. 2000
Wilmington, DE 19801-1233
Phone:  302-573-6345
Fax:  302-573-6351

Senator Herbert H. Kohl (D-WI)
Main District Office:
310 West Wisconsin Ave., #950
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Phone:  414-297-4451
Fax:  414-297-4455

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Main District Office:
One Post St., #2450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone:  415-393-0707
Fax:  415-393-0710

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Main District Office:
1600 Aspen Commons, Rm. 100
Middleton, WI 53562
Phone:  608-828-1200
Fax:  608-828-1203

Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
Main District Office:
757 Third Ave., Ste. 17-02
New York, NY 10017
Phone:  212-486-4430
Fax:  212-486-7693

Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)
Main District Office:
230 South Dearborn St., Ste. 3892
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone:  312-353-4952
Fax:  312-353-0150

======================
Email Addresses:
======================


[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]


"Children learn what they live"
#115
Father's Issues / NIJCDC pdf file
Oct 01, 2005, 07:54:41 AM

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/172837.pdf

"Children learn what they live"
#116
Father's Issues / Court Watchers anyone?
Sep 12, 2005, 11:26:34 AM
http://courtwatchers.us/


"Children learn what they live"
#117
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/62005e.asp

         
Schlafly: Congress Has Constitutional Power to Reign in Activist Judges

By Ed Thomas
May 6, 2005

(AgapePress) - One of America's leading grassroots activists says Congress must accept the responsibility of curbing a runaway judiciary, and she suggests the legislators start by applying the powers they were given to do so in the Constitution of the United States.

In her new book, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It (Spence, 2004), Phyllis Schlafly says Article III of the Constitution is the answer to judicial activism. She says that is because Article III can help Congress take away federal judges' power to legislate from the bench.

Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum, says a whole list of issues that have been controversially ruled can be put out of the reach of the federal bench. "The first method, if we want to do this," she notes, "is to withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts over the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the definition of marriage, and the Boy Scouts, because we don't trust what they're doing in those areas."

Another part of the strategy the conservative activist recommends is something she calls "starving" the courts; that is, limiting their power by limiting their money. "Now, we can't cut the salaries of the judges," she explains, "but we certainly can cut their budgets and cut off some of these perks, like traveling to foreign conferences where they get a lot of bad ideas about foreign law."


Phyllis Schlafly  
Schlafly says U.S. legislators need to realize that it is their job to provide a check and balance to the power of the judiciary, and they must act to restore the proper balance to America's system of government. And, she adds, the federal legislature "has every right and power to do this under Article III of the Constitution. There's nothing new about it. Congress has limited jurisdiction dozens of times in our history."

The author and head of Eagle Forum, who is also a constitutional lawyer, spells out what she calls a "battle plan for action" in her new book. Schlafly hopes The Supremacists will help pass the urgent word to the America's leaders in Congress that it is time they used their constitutional powers to curb activist judges.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Thomas, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
© 2005 AgapePress all rights reserved.

E-mail this page to a friend

Printer-Friendly Version

Read all of our current headlines
 

"Children learn what they live"
#118
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168632,00.html

 
Paternity Case Marks Progress for Defrauded Fathers

Tuesday, September 06, 2005
By Wendy Mcelroy

On Aug. 31, a small but precedent-setting case was decided in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The plaintiff discovered he was not the biological father of his eldest 'son', now in his 30s. The court affirmed the duped dad's legal right to sue the natural father for the cost of raising the 'child' and removed some limitations imposed by a lower court.

The precedent: for the first time, New Jersey has extended a clear statutory deadline for filing on paternity cases. For the first time, a biological parent may be forced to pay child support for an offspring emancipated over 15 years ago.

The significance: family courts are beginning to reflect a growing impatience with paternity fraud; perhaps this is in reaction to a shift in societal attitudes.

Predictably, the pathbreaking New Jersey decision raises more questions. For example, if a deliberate fraud was perpetrated for 30 years by both the biological mother and father, why is only the father held liable?

The answer — right or wrong — lies in the facts of the case, which are as follows.

In 1957, RAC — the duped dad — and BEC were married; in 1980, they divorced. Three children resulted, including DC born in 1969. (Court documents reveal the parties only through initials.)

The mother was "virtually sure" that PJS was DC's father but she did not disclose this to her husband. Instead, PJS became the child's godfather. Upon divorce, RAC fulfilled the obligations of both child support and educational expenses for DC, all the while maintaining a close, loving relationship with the three children.

In 1996, DC — then 27-years-old — was about to wed. The mother revealed her paternity fraud to DC because his natural father had a pronounced family history of muscular dystrophy, a condition which could be genetically transmitted. She promised to inform RAC of the deception but waited three additional years to do so.

In September 2000, the sadly-enlightened RAC filed a complaint against PJS, which also named the mother and included a demand for DNA testing. PJS was the biological father and a judgment of paternity was entered against him in June 2002.

In February 2003, RAC was awarded $109,697 for child support reimbursement up to DC's 22nd birthday. The reimbursement excluded legal expenses and money spent on DC's education between the ages of 22 and 25.

The judge also dismissed RAC's claim for "fraudulent concealment and intentional infliction of emotional distress." This effectively barred a cross-complaint against the mother.

RAC appealed.

PJS countered with a technicality, albeit an important one. The time limit for initiating a paternity fraud suit had expired under New Jersey's Parentage Act before RAC had brought the original suit. The relevant passage states, "No action shall be brought under [the Parentage Act] more than five years after the child attains the age of majority."

Thus PJS claimed RAC's suit was invalid. RAC answered that information on paternity was concealed until the time limit had expired. In other words, PJS and the mother had "conspired" to prevent the very possibility of a legal remedy.

The Superior Court agreed with RAC...but only so far. The deadline for filing was waived. The Superior Court fell back on the intention of the Parentage Act rather than its specific wording. The Act was not intended to facilitate fraud; thus, the court extended the principle of "equitable tolling" to paternity fraud.

This principle states, "a statute of limitations will not bar a claim if despite use of due diligence the plaintiff did not or could not discover the injury until after the expiration of the limitations period."

The claim for legal fees was sent back to the lower court for reconsideration. But the claims of "fraudulent concealment" and "emotional distress" were denied, as was the filing of action against the mother.

Why was the mother exempted? The court found, "BEC owed plaintiff nothing for the support of DC" because she had also paid her fair share. Moreover, "the act of adultery...does not violate any law" and was mitigated by the joy and benefit "plaintiff enjoyed from the love and affection" of the "child he thought was his."

I am uncomfortable with this reasoning.

Adultery is not and should not be against the law; consenting adults have an absolute right to have sex together without government interference. The sexual act may be immoral or otherwise unsavory but it should not be illegal.

But making an innocent third party legally and financially responsible for the consequences of that sex act is an entirely different matter. And the mother must have perjured herself on several legal documents during the divorce and child settlement arrangements when she attested to RAC's fatherhood.

At least two questions bear on whether the mother should be liable. The first: should the law intrude into family matters? The second: if the law becomes involved, should fraud be tolerated?

My ideal society includes explicit contracts into which people voluntarily enter before becoming parents; DNA testing might be a standard provision. The law (or other third party) would become involved only as an arbiter of disputes or as a rescuer in cases of physical abuse.

That society doesn't exist. People resist parental contracts and the law inevitably becomes involved in competing claims over children.

And, when a legal proceeding occurs, intentional fraud should be punished. BEC — along with the natural father — committed intentional fraud.

The New Jersey decision is beneficial in granting increased recognition to the plight of paternity fraud. But an obvious problem remains. Two people committed fraud. Only one of them bears any liability.


Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Respond to the Writer
 
 
#119
Father's Issues / ATTENTION/MILITARY IN CA
Sep 07, 2005, 10:06:38 AM




Victory in CA Plus New Column
 
September 7, 2005
 

Victory: Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Military Parents' Bill!

Last week California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 1082, a bill which will help military parents. The bill addresses the way parents who serve are often taken advantage of in custody and family law matters while they are deployed. Also, it will help resolve the child support nightmare many mobilized reservists face.

Lobbyist Michael Robinson has asked me to thank the Sackson Horde for all the calls and letters you made in support of the bill during our campaign back in April. Working through the Military Parents Alliance, your efforts helped build support for the bill. In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee Analysis of SB 1082 made specific note of your calls and letters. To learn more about SB 1082, see my co-authored column California's Military Reservists Need SB 1082 (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 4/14/05).

Special credit goes to Robinson and Stan Diorio for their fantastic work in passing this bill. The bill was sponsored by Senators Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego) and Bill Morrow (R-Oceanside).

According to Robinson, Senator Morrow was first inspired to take up this cause after he read The Betrayal of the Military Father (Los Angeles Daily News, 5/4/03). It is the story of Gary S., a San Diego-based US Navy SEAL whose little boy was permanently moved from California to the Middle East against his will while he was deployed in Afghanistan after the September 11 terrorist attacks.  To hear an interview with Gary on His Side, go to Two Years into Iraq War, Little Has Been Done to Protect the Rights of Military Fathers (3/13/05).

This is a nice victory but there is much to be done and many more battles to fight. Working with the Military Parents Alliance we are pursuing action for military parents in several states (most notably Michigan), and also at the federal level. Victories cost money--I urge all of you to donate to support our efforts by clicking here.


Arnold Schwarzenegger & My Wife

I was asked to be a part of the signing ceremony for the bill, which made my wife--a huge Arnold fan--very jealous. She has made it clear she would leave me for him if she had the chance. I can't say I'd blame her. Last week I was all set to go to Sacramento and get a picture of Arnold and I grinning and shaking hands, but Schwarzenegger decided to dispense with the signing ceremony and went ahead and signed the bill. Damn--I was looking forward to rubbing that picture in my wife's face for at least a decade or two...


New Column: Striking in the Belly of the Beast

My co-authored column, Virginia Declares War on Deadbroke Dads (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 8/30/05), criticizes the humiliating "wanted" lists of fathers behind on their child support being published in Virginia newspapers. Our article was published in Virginia's largest newspaper on the same day that newspaper published a new list. The lists contain requests for people to call the Crime Line at 1-800-LOCK-U-UP if they know of the whereabouts of one of these fathers.

As we note in the article, Nick Young, Virginia's Director of Child Support Enforcement, claims that 125,000 parents are behind on child support. Yet Young & Co. were unable to produce one alleged deadbeat--one--who actually has a white collar job. I and my co-author, family law attorney Jeff Leving, wrote:

"A laborer. A cashier.  A carnival hired hand. A construction worker. All with children.  Are they the featured men and women in a newspaper article about hard times in the state of Virginia?  The hopefuls for a local job training program?  The applicants for emergency relief? No--they are the 'deadbeat parents' who top the list of Virginia's 'Most Wanted' for falling behind on child support. These three men and one woman together somehow owe well over a quarter of a million dollars in back child support."

As is always the case when defending fathers behind on child support, our column is drawing a lot of hostility, and the Virginian-Pilot has printed many anti-father letters. To defend Virginia's fathers I suggest you write a Letter to the Editor of the Virginian-Pilot--click on [email protected].  

I specifically commend Roger Chesley, associate editor of the editorial page of the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, for having the guts to run our piece. Newspapers are supposed to have an unbreachable wall between their advertising and editorial content, and Chesley showed editorial independence at its finest. As I told Roger, I hope it don't cost him his job.

To learn more about the lists, see Virginia's newspaper ad flushes out deadbeat parents (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 8/25/05), News ads identify deadbeat parents: Va. officials hope ads prompt them to pay up on child support (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 8/19/05) and Ad Shows Parents Who Are Behind in Child Support (WSLS, 8/24/05).
 

Child Support Injustice: Francis Borgia Speaks

In several of my newspapers columns and on His Side I have discussed the case of  Francis Borgia, a deadbroke dad who attempted suicide in a Kentucky courtroom after being sentenced to prison for two years for a fake $7,000 child support arrearage. Like so many so-called "deadbeat dads," Borgia's problem was not a refusal to pay, but instead his inability to get a downward modification on his child support after he was laid off of a good paying job. To learn more, read my co-authored column Persecuting Low Income Parents (Cincinnati Post, Kentucky Post, 8/26/05) and listen to my radio commentary on Borgia at Deadbeat Dad or Deadbroke Dad?

Borgia now works two jobs to pay his child support and fake arrearages. He leaves his home every day at 6:30 AM and returns at 11:30 PM--guaranteeing that he will have no family time, and not even enough time to get 7 hours of sleep. He says "I feel like a slave." His recent letter to me is below. Borgia can be reached at [email protected].

"Dear Glenn,

Hello, First let me introduce myself. My name is Francis Borgia. I read your article on Persecuting Low Income Parents.

Will the courts ever relieve us of this torment? Probably not. I am still a 'deadbroke' Dad, only now I am dead tired. I am Dead Tired and exhausted of working 2 jobs trying to meet the courts obligations for child support. (The court ordered me to work 2 jobs or I will be put back in jail.)

I have asked to have my child support reduced because my son is now a grown man 18 years of age.  I am still waiting. I have been waiting since May. So how long does it take the state to make modifications to lower the obligations? They are real quick to point fingers and have somebody thrown in jail, but take their sweet time to make any changes when it comes to lowering the obligations. (That's the reason why I was behind in the first place.)  I have been jailed again after I got out of prison because of failure to pay child support again (mostly because I had no work). My new wife Karen bailed me out and it took everything we had to do it. A lot of the cause is my remarried ex-wife. She married a very wealthy man. She told me that she would do anything in her power to make sure that I never get to see my daughter again, and that she will do anything in her power to make sure that I live the rest of my life in prison or see me dead.

I don't know what I did to make her so bitter and angry. (Besides being broke all the time.) Now the only life I have is working 2 jobs every day and hardly ever seeing my family. What kind of life is that? I LOVE my children very much and miss them dearly. I am sure their mothers told them I don't care about them and don't love them.

I would like to see them again and be a part of their lives. (hard to do working 2 jobs. Believe me; If there is any way I could contact them I would. Well I have get to go get ready to go back to work. I wish all fathers that care for their children the best.

Francis Borgia
[email protected]"


Uniting the Fathers Movement and Fighting Fatalism  

While one often hears a lot of fatalism within the fatherhood and shared parenting movements, the reality is that we have made substantial progress over the past year. I noted some of these accomplishments in my Father's Day column This Year Daddy Began a Comeback (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 6/19/05).

However, one of the biggest problems the shared parenting movement faces is its seemingly endless factionalism. It is vitally important for fatherhood and shared parenting advocates to unite politically. The American Coalition for Fathers and Children has a solid program and is the largest and strongest force representing shared parenting.

At the "Healing Our Families Conference" in Detroit, Michigan in June, attendees unanimously designated the American Coalition for Fathers and Children as the national organization promoting Shared Parenting as the core mission. With 40,000 members nationwide and affiliated organizations in nearly two dozen states, the ACFC is working to creating a family law system which promotes equal rights for all parties affected by divorce.

Recent events show that we can win victories. I urge you to join the ACFC or, if you are already a member, to renew your membership. A list of ACFC affiliates can be found here. You can join or renew by clicking here.


California NOW Pays Homage to His Side

Helen Grieco, Executive Director of the California National Organization for Women, has just launched an Internet radio show. The name? You guessed it--Her Side. Grieco, you may recall, labeled me a "A women-bashing, backlash shock-jock radio host" in a newspaper article last year about my work--see Bashing boys is, like, not OK Christian Science Monitor (3/31/04). Naturally I felt compelled to contact her and offer her some pointers--an offer which, remarkably, she accepted.

Helen's show broadcasts live (with call-ins) on //www.voiceamerica.com, an internet radio service, every Thursday at 1 PM PST. To listen to archives of Helen's show, clickhere.

I have criticized California NOW on more occasions than I can remember. A few examples are: California NOW's Family Court Report 2002: Faulty Research, False Conclusions (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 7/11/02); California NOW Takes Stand Against Working Mothers (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/23/04); Preserving Paternity Fraud (Orange County Register, 10/3/02);  Fathers Bear the Brunt of Gender Bias in Family Courts (Insight magazine (8/19/02); and New California Move-Away Law Hurts Children of Divorce (Long Beach Press Telegram, 10/18/03).


Column: Persecuting Low Income Parents

As some of you may have read, Kentucky launched a new jihad against deadbroke/"deadbeat" dads recently. My co-authored column, Persecuting Low Income Parents (Cincinnati Post, Kentucky Post, 8/26/05), criticizes the campaign. To learn more, see the Associated Press' article Jefferson to publicly expose deadbeats (7/25/05), in which my co-author, family law attorney Jeff Leving, was quoted, and Child-support ad pays off in tips (Louisville Courier-Journal, 8/2/05).


Glenn Criticizes Kentucky's Humiliating 'Deadbeat Dad' Lists on Radio in Atlanta, Lexington
I criticized Kentucky's humiliating 'Deadbeat Dad' lists on the Martha Zoller Show on WDUN AM 550 in Gainesville/North Atlanta on Thursday, August 11, and on Dave Krusenklaus' "Kruser and Krew" afternoon drivetime show on WLVK AM 590 in Kentucky on Wednesday, August 10. To learn more about the lists, see my new co-authored column Persecuting Low Income Parents (Cincinnati Post, Kentucky Post, 8/26/05).


His Side on Fox News

His Side was filmed and I was interviewed for a recent Fox special about paternity fraud victim Taron James. To watch, click here.

As part of Operation Northern Watch, James carried out hazardous reconnaissance missions behind Iraqi lines aftermath of the Gulf War. He earned four service medals and three ribbons before his honorable discharge in 1994. Yet his reward for his service has been a decade of unremitting government harassment, financial deprivation, and a struggle to stay out of jail.

James was the victim of a false paternity declaration made while he was serving overseas. To learn about Taron's story, see my co-authored column Defrauded Veterans Have Mixed Emotions on Veterans Day (Daily Breeze [Los Angeles], 11/11/03). I told Fox of my exasperation that this case--which should have been open and shut--has dragged on so long.

The good news is that this month the paternity judgment against Taron--for a child he never knew, much less fathered--was finally, finally overturned. Congratulations to Taron, and also to Marc Angelucci, Taron's attorney.

Also congratulations to Raegan Phillips, James' longtime fiancee who has stood by him during this battle. Any man would be lucky to have such a loyal partner.

The battle against paternity fraud in California has been a long one. To learn more, see my column Paternity Fraud Victims Need Justice (Los Angeles Daily News, 3/15/02), concerning the Paternity Justice Act of 2002 (AB 2240). The bill passed the legislature but was vetoed by then Governor Gray Davis at the urging of the California National Organization for Women and other feminist groups. I blasted Davis' veto in my co-authored column Preserving Paternity Fraud (Orange County Register, 10/3/02).

We turned the tide on paternity fraud in California last year, due in large part to the work of advocates like Michael Robinson, Marc Angelucci,  Men Enabling New Solutions, the National Coalition of Free Men Los Angeles, and numerous others.  AB 252 passed and is now law. Also, in the Navarro case last summer, Second District Court of Appeal Justice Rubin spat on Los Angeles County child support enforcement, telling them that his court refused to "sully its hands" by enforcing false paternity judgments. To learn more, see the His Side show Appeal Court to LA County: 'We Won't Sully our Hands' Enforcing False Paternity Judgments (8/8/04).

The Fox show also contained some bizarre clips of arch-feminist California legislator Sheila Kuehl waxing nostalgic about two of her usual targets--tradition and fatherhood. In arguing against AB 2240 (so that men would still be compelled by the state to pay child support for children who are not theirs), Kuehl informs us that fatherhood is more than "donating genetic material," and pointed to the loving bonds between fathers and children. Yet Kuehl has done everything she could to destroy fathers in California.

For one, she has sponsored and helped pass domestic violence legislation which makes it easier for unscrupulous mothers to drive fathers out of their children's lives by false charges of domestic violence. Also, Kuehl very much opposed the LaMusga decision and our campaign to preserve it. To learn more, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Daily News, 5/4/04), and California Senate Leader Pulls Anti-Child Bill in Face of Huge Opposition (MND Newswire, 8/16/04).

On the Fox special Kuehl also defended the ancient tradition that any child born during a marriage is presumed to the child of the husband, thus allowing mothers to force divorced dads to child support for children they conceived through adulterous liaisons. Kuehl emphasized that we must stick with tradition. This touching faith in tradition is very odd coming from Kuehl, a lesbian who would have been treated very cruelly and unfairly in any traditionalist society.

 
Glenn Quoted in Dallas Morning News on TV Dad Bashing

I'm quoted on TV dad bashing and stay at home dads in the news story Homer, make room for real dads (Dallas Morning News, 8/17/05). The article also discussed the His Side Campaign Against Anti-Father Verizon Commercial. To learn more about TV dad bashing, see Father Knows Best? (CBS News Sunday Morning with Charles Osgood, 6/19/05), in which both I and Warren Farrell appear, as well as my column Why I Launched the Campaign Against Verizon's Anti-Father Ad (Pasadena Star-News, 11/18/04).

The Dallas Morning News article also discussed CBS' new dad-mocking reality TV show Meet Mister Mom. To watch excerpts of Meet Mister Mom, click here. To comment on Meet Mister Mom, click here.

To learn more about the contributions fathers make to their families, see my co-authored column Indiana Woman's 'Housework Strike': Maybe It's Husbands Who Should Strike (Gary Post-Tribune, 11/8/02) and my column Stay-at-Home Dads: A Practical Solution to the Career Woman's Dilemma (Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/29/02).


Debtors' Prison in Michigan?

While in Kentucky fathers are being hounded and publicly humiliated for being poor, in Michigan Louie Joe Kalman is being imprisoned for it--see Debtors' prison claimed in appeal (Daily Telegram, 8/23/05). His attorney argues that the two- to four-year prison term he was given in December amounts to debtors' prison. As we've discussed before, there are many fathers who are jailed or imprisoned simply because they were unable to pay the child support amounts the state demanded.

There is another interesting element of the Kalman case--the cruel and insane policy of most states that allows child support to be charged to incarcerated men, so that when they emerge from prison they are way behind on support. In my column California Child Support Bill Will Help Newly Released Prisoners Rebuild Their Lives (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 5/9/02), I quoted Elena Ackel, senior attorney for the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, on the genius of this policy:

"The wonder of the current system is that everybody loses. The state tries to beat astronomical child support arrearages--$20,000 or $30,000 in many cases--out of dead broke, unskilled, and unemployed people who just got out of prison. Some of these people even end up back in jail because they couldn't pay the child support which accrued while they were in jail. Who benefits from this?"

Kalman is certainly no prize--he served a decade in jail for auto theft, bad checks, and attempted robbery. Still, my view of ex-convicts has always been this--I don't care about punishing them, I just want them to not commit more crimes. Also, Kalman's debt to society was repaid through his many years in prison--the punishment is supposed to end when he is released. Piling a staggering fake child support arrearage on an ex-con only guarantees that he'll slip back into crime, live on the margins of society, or, as in this case, go back to jail. Apparently most if not all of Kalman's staggering $37,345 child support debt in Lenawee County, Michigan piled up during his decade in prison.

In 2002 former Los Angeles Assemblyman Rod Wright introduced AB 2245 into the California State Assembly to solve this problem. The bill was killed in committee about a week after my column supporting it was published. Wright is one of the few politicians in the nation to pay attention to fathers' issues, and has done a lot of good work on paternity fraud and child support enforcement abuses. Wright was termed out but will be running for the legislature again next year--I will be supporting him and will let you know what you can do to help.


Feminists, Men's Activists Clash at LA Movie Screening

Feminists and men's activists clashed during a screening of the documentary "Before the Fact" at the Raleigh studios in Los Angeles on Wednesday, August 17. The film is the work of filmmaker Michael J. Holland and focuses on violence in intimate relationships. Holland was arrested for shoving his wife in an argument, and accepts full responsibility for what he did. However, he contends that his wife, who he says did everything she could to provoke him, should also be called upon to examine her own behavior. It was an interesting and provocative film.

I sat on the discussion panel along with reverend Jesse Lee Peterson of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), gender studies professor Dr. Hugo Schwyzer, lobbyist Michael Robinson, and Marc Angelucci, president of the National Coalition of Free Men Los Angeles.

I clashed with Peterson, who make several wild and insulting generalizations about women, including "99% of [family] violence is coming from women." After I distanced myself from his comments he accused me of wimping out, and he and got into a brief, angry jawing match in front of everybody.

To read Schwyzer's perspective on the panel, click here. Schwyzer's depiction of the events is accurate enough within the context of (sigh) Hugo's pro-feminist blinders, but I would dispute a few points. For one, since the film focused on men's violence against women and never mentioned women's physical violence against men, it was appropriate to discuss the convincing evidence that heterosexual men are also often the victims of their female intimates' violence. To learn more about male victims of domestic violence, see my column Plaintiff in Suit Against LA DV Shelters is Right to Demand Services for Abused Men (Los Angeles Daily News, 6/12/03).

Schwyzer wrings his hands that there was such a somewhat lengthy discussion of "statistics." While I agree that it went on too long, I also believe that since feminists have so often used fallacious statistics to vilify and stiSLURPize men, it is appropriate and necessary for men's activists to correct the record.

Schwyzer contends that the feminists in the audience walked out in protest, though I'm not sure that that's what happened. There was a lot of commotion and the camera lights were so bright in my face that it was hard for me to see exactly what was happening. There were certainly many heated exchanges.

Schwyzer criticizes the screening for having an all-male panel with only one pro-feminist panelist. However, filmmaker Adryenn Neuenburg, who organized the event, says she invited several women's groups and feminist activists to be on the panel but they declined.

BTW, Hugo is getting married next week--I congratulate him and wish him luck.


English Fathers' Rights Protestors Go Free After Bridge Occupation

Four English fathers' rights protestors involved in a high profile bridge occupation last November walked free this week--for details, see Fathers' rights protesters walk free after Severn Bridge demo (ic Wales - United Kingdom, 8/16/05).

The popular support these protestors have is evident both in the outcome of the case and the judge's courtroom comments. The bridge protest featured the heroic Jolly Stanesby, a divorced father of one who has been involved in several daring, creative protests. Stanesby handcuffed himself to the English anti-father "Children's" Minister Margaret Hodge at a family law conference in Salford in November, 2004.

Stanesby also spent seven days on Tamar Bridge in Plymouth, England in January, 2004, refusing to come down from his freezing perch despite being told "you could die up there," and then enraging British police by cleverly eluding capture. Stanesby is a registered child care provider and is thus allowed to care for any child in England except his own, who he is barred from calling and is allowed to see only four days a month. Stanesby , who became a registered child minder in the hope he could spend more time with his five year-old daughter, also made news in 2003 as the "Ms. Doubtfire Dad." Stanesby appeared in court dressed as a woman, making the point that if he switched genders he would be treated more fairly.

To hear Stanesby on His Side, go to Nonviolent Resistance by British 'Dads Army' Rocks UK (2/15/05). I also discussed Stanesby in my Address to the 2004 Men's Rights Congress in Washington DC The Future of the American Father (6/19/04). In that speech I defended Fathers 4 Justice's tactics and called for them to be expanded into the United States.


Glenn Quoted on Geisel Statutory Rape Case
I was quoted on the Geisel statutory rape case in the story Columnist Sees Inconsistency in Punishment of Male and Female Sex Offenders (Agape Press, 8/8/05).


Militant Grandmas Fight for Shared Parenting

Three Sides to Every Story is an organization set up by militant grandma Bessie Hudgins to help fathers in their fight to stay in their children's lives after divorce or separation. Hudgins has fought a 16-year battle to keep in touch with three of her granddaughters. Her son is a divorced dad who was pushed out of his daughters' lives. Bessie can be contacted at [email protected] or at 706-882-2897.


Shared Parenting Advocate Runs for State Legislature

Shared parenting advocate Ron Grignol of Fathers for Virginia has won the Republican Party nomination for a seat in the Virginia state legislature. Grignol is campaigning against Democrat Mark Sickles for the House of Delegates in the 43rd district, and is making shared parenting one of the key issues of his campaign. If successful in the November elections, Grignol hopes to become part of the Civil Law subcommittee of the Courts of Justice Committee of the House of Delegates, which handles family law matters.

I know Ron personally, he's a good man, and a win here would be a definite victory for the fatherhood movement. Obviously only a small percentage of the 10,000+ people on this elist are in Ron's district, but there are many other ways you can help. If you're willing to donate time or money, write to Ron at [email protected].
Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, calls Grignol a "strong, consistent advocate for family law reform and shared parenting."  David Levy, Esq., president of the Children's Rights Council, says he personally knows Ron Grignol to be a "strong shared parenting advocate who believes in father involvement with their children" and supports his candidacy.

 

Are You Looking to Earn Money Working from Home?

If you're tired of working long hours away from home and are interested in starting a home based business, check out //www.EntrepreneurfromHome.com. Many people are earning good incomes working from the comfort of their own homes, while also being there for those special moments with their children. To learn more, go to //www.EntrepreneurfromHome.com or call 1-800-705-0528. Don't your kids deserve to have a happy parent at home?


Tom Ellis' Rantings of a Single Male Sells out First Printing
Congratulations to Tom Ellis for selling out his first printing of The Rantings of a Single Male: Losing Patience with Feminism, Political Correctness... and Basically Everything. Tom will have a new edition out soon. Rantings describes the rise of feminism from the mid '70s to the present, through Ellis' personal experiences.  Not for the faint of heart, The Rantings of a Single Male is loaded with outrageous stories. The Rantings of a Single Male is available only on Amazon.com. To learn more, click here.  


Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com
HisSide.com
 

Email this E-Newsletter to a Friend

GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com

To be removed from our list, please email [email protected].  An autoreply will send
 
 
#120
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20050905.shtml

Family court ruling wounds National Guardsman in the heart
Phyllis Schlafly (archive)


September 5, 2005 |  Print |  Recommend to a friend


Gallant Americans are risking life and limb in Iraq to defend home and country. But they never dreamed they might lose their children, too.

When Army National Guard Spc. Joe McNeilly of Grand Ledge, Mich., came home after 15 months in Iraq, he found that a family court "referee" had taken away his joint custody of his 10-year-old son and given full custody and control to the boy's mother.

For five years, McNeilly had had a 50-50 no-problem custody arrangement with his ex-girlfriend Holly Erb. When called up to go to Iraq, he gave her temporary full custody while he was overseas.

While he was gone, Erb persuaded a family court to make her full custody permanent. When McNeilly protested, he was told that his year-long absence constituted abandonment and produced custody "points" against him.

"You want to make a soldier cry, you take his son away," McNeilly said. "It's devastating."
Michigan State Rep. Rick Jones became interested in this injustice. When he contacted the Judge Advocate General's office, he discovered that there are 15 to 20 similar cases in Michigan and it is a common problem all over the United States.

Jones has introduced legislation (HB 5100) providing that absences for military service cannot be used against a parent and that a permanent custody arrangement cannot be established while a parent is on active duty. He is hearing from legislators in other states who want to sponsor similar bills.

Since McNeilly's case was reported in the press, Erb's lawyer and the court's representative are trying to claim that depriving him of his father's rights wasn't because he was serving in Iraq, but because of his poor parenting skills.

The proof? McNeilly sent a couple of postcards to his son that showed soldiers training with a gun. Horrors! How un-politically correct to tell a son that soldiers in Iraq carry guns.
Erb's lawyer asserted that the postcards frightened the boy and showed that McNeilly is not a fit parent. But surely the boy had a right to know about his father's career and that soldiers who use guns are pursuing an honorable vocation.

The referee's report also justified deciding for mother custody because she was the "day-to-day caretaker and decision maker in the child's life" while McNeilly was deployed. But that's what mothers have always done when their men go off to war and it's no argument for taking the child away from his father upon return.

Day-to-day caretaker is feminist jargon to promote their ideology that the mother should have full custody and control because the father is not around to change diapers and do household chores. He is merely working a job, or sometimes two jobs, to support his family.

Follow the money to explain some of the motivation. When the mother was given full custody, the court ordered McNeilly to pay her $525 a month, which she would lose if they return to joint custody.

The real problem in this case is the arrogance of family courts, which claim the right to decide child custody based on their subjective personal opinions about the "best interest of the child." Family court judges, and the psychologists and referees they hire, routinely violate the fundamental right of parents to make their own decisions about the best interest of their own children.

Family courts are subjective and arbitrary, so unlucky divorced parents could get a judge or a referee who is anti-gun, or anti-military, or anti-spanking, or anti-homeschooling, or anti-religion, or a feminist who wants to transform the middle class into a matriarchal society as has already been done to the welfare class, with tragic results.

The notion that family court judges, psychologists and referees can impose personal views about what is "the best interest of the child" rather than a child's own parents is just another way of saying "it takes a village to raise a child." Thousands of good fathers have been deprived of their fundamental rights in the care and upbringing of their children by courts that treat fathers as good for nothing more than a paycheck.

The large number of fathers who have been the victims of family-court fatherphobia is no doubt the reason that one of the most popular songs on country music stations this year is Tim McGraw's "Do You Want Fries with That?" The lyrics are the cry of a father who is working a minimum-wage second job in a fast-food restaurant, living alone in a tent, after being ordered by a judge to support his children living in his house with his ex-wife and her boyfriend.

The father laments, "You took my wife, and you took my kids, and you stole the life that I used to live; my pride, the pool, the boat, my tools, my dreams, the dog, the cat."



©2005 Copley News Service

 Print |  Recommend to a friend
Contact Phyllis Schlafly | Read Schlafly's biography

Phyllis Schlafly's latest!
The Supremacists:
The Tyranny Of Judges And How To Stop It
The gravest threat to American democracy is the supreme power of judges over political, social, and economic policy. In this bracing indictment, Phyllis Schlafly exposes the courts' 50-year conquest of legislative authority, made possible by presidents, congressmen, and voters who surrendered without a fight. The Supremacists is both a warning that self-government is in peril and a battle plan for overthrowing the tyranny of judges. But Schlafly's most startling revelation is the origin of judicial supremacy...
Save 32% when you purchase The Supremacists this week!