Still, advocates of reform say a few widespread problems lead to poor court decisions, such as inadequate procedures for investigating abuse; the use of controversial and potentially dangerous psychological theories about child welfare; and a prejudice toward joint parental custody, even when one parent is clearly violent. Compounding these issues, critics say, is a lack of accountability for judges, attorneys, custody evaluators, and other court personnel, who enjoy immunity from lawsuits even in cases where they make decisions that do obvious harm to children and parents.

"The family court system is supposed to work in the best interests of the child, but very infrequently does that happen," says Susan Wilde, a Berkeley psychologist and expert on child abuse intervention. "Families find themselves in the grip of a system that has no responsibility to them or to the children, that just kind of runs amok."


Karen Anderson, who now lives in Manteca with her daughter and son, still looks back ruefully on her experience in the Santa Clara Family Court. Her allegations about her husband were met with skepticism not only by Packer, she says, but by the attorney, Miki Minzer, whom the court had appointed to represent the interests of her children. "They didn't believe me," she says. "The children's attorney, I was so angry with her ... she treated me terribly during the whole thing."

Nine-month-old Wyatt Garcia, pictured with his older brother, Dakota, was murdered by his father after a judge refused to heed his mom’s request for a protective order.
Courtesy of Katie Tagle
Nine-month-old Wyatt Garcia, pictured with his older brother, Dakota, was murdered by his father after a judge refused to heed his mom’s request for a protective order.

(Anderson's case is distinct from that of California Protective Parents Association executive officer Karen Anderson, a resident of Amador County and well-known activist on family court reform. The two women are not related.)

Minzer now practices law in Colorado.She declined to comment on the Anderson case. "I am not in a position to speak with you about that case," she wrote in an e-mail. "I have no authorization from my former client to do so. I am sure you understand."

Packer likewise declined to comment, saying in an e-mail, "The ethics of client confidentiality are such that I cannot speak to you about this case, or any other case." Stewart retired in 1999 shortly after hearing the case; he died in 2004.

If the way events unfolded in the Anderson case sounds odd, it should. Despite the enormous impact of family courts' decisions, they are in many ways unrecognizable when compared to other branches of the judiciary, particularly in their lack of mechanisms for due process.

Family courts have no juries, and litigants who lack the money for a private attorney have no right to counsel. (As a result, many parents without financial means must represent themselves.) In the place of the traditional fact-finding apparatus that operates daily in criminal and civil courtrooms — dueling lawyers, and jurors charged with determining the facts of a case from available evidence — family court substitutes a cadre of individuals who make decisions in concert. Foremost is the judge. And it is with the judges, in some ways, that the problem starts.

Few aspirants to the bench relish the idea of refereeing the roughly 20 percent of divorces that are hostile enough to end up in family court. As a result, many assigned to this branch of the judiciary are rookies — paying their dues for a year or two before moving on to the more genteel arenas of civil or criminal law — or lifers without the aptitude to move on. "Family courts are the ugly stepchild of the law," Oakland family law attorney Kim Robinson says. "It's considered the bottom of the barrel. Almost no one wants to be there as a judge. The judges come in with a major attitude about it from the get-go."

Family law judges are aided by a range of subjudicial officials, including psychological evaluators and minors' counsels, attorneys appointed to represent the children in disputed custody cases. The courts also rely on mediators, who attempt to arbitrate custody agreements between parents. Failing such an agreement, they have the authority in many California jurisdictions to make a recommendation about custody rights.

Complaints about how all these people do their jobs aren't new, and in light of their high-stakes, high-conflict work environment, some amount of dissatisfaction among litigants is to be expected. But officials in state government have begun to take the sheer volume of those complaints seriously.

Last year, the California State Auditor's office conducted reviews of two heavily criticized family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties. The audit, released in January, presented troubling findings. Among them were the observation that seven of the Sacramento court's 20 mediators "appeared not to possess the minimum qualifications and training requirements" for their jobs, and that in Marin the court "did not verify that the mediators had met the initial training requirements" during the hiring. The report also noted problems with record-keeping at both courts, particularly with regard to written complaints about court personnel.

Auditors did not address the prevalence of cases where child custody is awarded to a spousal batterer or child molester. But as they were conducting their work, one such case was unfolding in San Francisco.


On April 14, 2010, Shari Rivers appeared before San Francisco Family Court Judge Lillian Sing to ask for a restraining order preventing Derrick Perryman, the estranged father of her 5-month-old son, from contacting her or her family members. The previous month, Rivers said, he had struck her during an argument, leaving her with bruises on her face.

« Previous Page
 |
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
1872 comments
dannyantwi_89
dannyantwi_89

Wow im touched, the system in America is really screwed up then. I come from Ghana, child abuse isnt that common here, but then it probably isnt recorded as much since it is considered ok for a parent to give his or her child a spanking. Iv been reading about the family court systerm in America and there seems to be two very different sides to the story, on one hand are the fathers who claim the judicial system is unfair towards them. I have heard really terrible stories of ex-parte restraining orders as a tactic in judicial proceedings, false abuse charges, huge and unrealistic child payments and even paternity fraud. Some have even aluded to a feminist conspiracy to hijack the family court system.

And on the other hand are views similar to the article above that states that divorce proceedings are unfair to women and that the courts isnt doing enough to protect women and children.

As an outsider with a particular interest since Ghana is considering adopting similar laws to those that exist in the west, which side is telling the truth. And another thing i find strange is th huge discrepancy in figures quoted by both camps.

Honestly im confused

redtemple
redtemple


I want to share my testimony to you all which i believe you can still try your best to give a testimony like this so i was married to Henry at first will both love each other but short time he started a new behavior which i cannot even explain to any one then i keep it to my self hopping one day he will change for good no way he did not change so i was in pain every day don’t no what to do on till one day when a friend of mine visited me in my office she met me crying then she was asking me what is going on i try to be cam but i could not then i open up to her telling me there is a way out which i will do before he left me with my kids i look up and not knowing what to do then i ask her to tell me. shortly she open up to me and say there is a man called Dr.Igbodo he is a spirit man he can do it with in three days then i look an said okay i will try my best to contact him, four days later, my husband did not come home i called his phone switch off then i try my possible best i did not hear from him so i began to look for one way for a help so i remember my friend told me about one man call Dr.Igbodo i quickly run to my friend asking her if she still have Dr.Igbodo contact then she gave it to me that was how i contacted this great man of spirit he did it for me so quick so now i can now control my husband in any thing even i can tell him that i don’t want him outside today he will not. Now i have a happy family today. you can contact Dr.Igbodo via email igbodospiritualtemple@gmail.com origbodospiritualtemple@live.com

tammyrisa
tammyrisa

Just follow the $$$! THAT's why this is happening! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why good mothers are losing custody to abusive fathers at alarming rates. Www.scribd.com

George1McCasland
George1McCasland

Looks like another typical bash dads article, as noted by the first graphic. Mothers are 8X more likely to break a child's arm from abuse than a father. Also far far more likely to kill the child due to abuse, according to the US Justice Dept. Study, "Murder In Families".

 

As for sexual abuse, remember the case from last Spring involving the :Los Angeles mother who was claiming the father was sexually abusing the child, and the child showed signs of sexual abuse? Turned out the mother was the one doing it because she wanted custody.

 

If they are to review the custody guidelines, than they should also review making it a felony to make a false allegation of child abuse or domestic violence, because those who are doing it are what is causing the problem by overloading the system. For every true claim there are several false claims, and being convicted does not mean they actually did anything to get convicted, as has been noted with all the recent releases of men from prison who were convicted due to false claims of sexual abuse.

Rhonda Ellifritz
Rhonda Ellifritz

A good evaluator is essential when a situation rises to the level of needing a 730 custody evaluation. An experienced family law attorney should know evaluators that will be more likely to provide the result desired. They will also prepare you on how to present yourself to the evaluator. For more information, visit http://www.ellifritzlaw.com .

Fred
Fred

To Eidienorth531: Try Shirley Buckley in Santa Ana...714...973...9111....Your child needs to call social service and tell them that he is unsafe. 3 years is nothing. my father took my mother to court for over ten years. the secret to social service is to keep calling. they have to investigate each time. if your son does not get any help, then ask to go into foster care. in foster care, he won't be forced to go with his dad and the family court cannot punish him by attacking you. Yes...in family court...money wins no matter what the evidence shows. My father had lots paid psychologists. I went for counseling and would be mentally tortured. I am turing 15 and hope to get a new law that teens cannot be forced to visit. In Iowa a 14 yr old can get married, and in any state, have an abortion but then we have the rights of a newborn in visitation. There is a law that says that the court should listen to the teen but it does not give the teen any rights. Social Service is the only solution. But realize that family court has a way of influencing dependency court too. It is all corrupt. But the social workers will be your son's only advocate. He has to do it...not you. The abusers will always claim parent alienation. Sadistic people enjoy that the kid is forced to be there and terrorized the entire weekend. write to these people: cppa001@aol.com; protectiveparents.mn@gmail.com;

Eidienorth531
Eidienorth531

Where can I go in LA county to get help. I am losing a child. His dad has successfully swayed the court evaluator. I had a lazy lawyer. My new one has good intentions but nobody knows how slick, (sociopathic), the other parent is & seem to believe him. All were provided with lots of documentation & evidence but I'm watching the ship sink. I've spent all of my resources. After 3 years of fighting & paying retainers, I think it's over.

derbis
derbis

Alarmist propaganda

Women are given primary physical custody as a matter of course in this country. The vast majority of abused children are abused by their mothers. This is a well established fact that can be verified with a simple google search.

Persist
Persist

You display a tremendous lack of information in the subject are of CDV. (criminal domestic violence)

Megalina
Megalina

the statiistic of domestic violence is way off realistically - it maybe factually from what has been reported correct. There is a huge bias to response to men who are abused by their partners. To complicate the issue is the society who thinks men can't be abused they are men and stronger then women. This is an idiot view to have. They are just as easily abused as any woman can be. Most men would have a huge problem admitting to it publicly or to any official. Mostly due to personal pride but also police officers are known to not take these reports seriously. So the only reason the numbers of women being the victim is so high is because they have no problem with admitting to being abused by a man. In many domestic violence issues women start the abuse and when the male partner reacts and hits her defending himself or out of anger and reaction to her abuse - the man gets blamed because of the view people have in their minds seeing the men overpowering women only rather than any facts which could show otherwise. Its easier to blame the men all the time which is accepted then to investigate all the facts. I personally know men who were abused by the women they lived with. They endured the abuse for years and years not saying anything to any of the friends who knew them both. I asked them after it was obviously a problem and came to our attention when one was shot and died - why did neither of you tell anyone? He said who would believe us? He thought he would be laughed at because he was a big manly man. Women may be smaller but they abuse men way more then what is reported honestly.

Deborah Parks
Deborah Parks

Yes, abusers sound like that. And so do narcissists, which most abusers can also claim as one of their personality traits. Believe me, I have way too much experience with the men who abuse women and take their children, not only so they don't have to pay child support, but so they can make the women "pay" for getting away... just like they had to pay for any form of disagreement with the men who controlled and abused them. Yes, we KNOW what you sound like. We've heard it so many times before, and possibly one of us, even knows YOU. AND I don't even CARE anymore if you know what I have to say because you have HURT ME AN MY FAMILY SO MUCH - show me what you've got, I WE WILL NEVER GIVE UP AND SOMEDAY YOUR CHILDREN WILL KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO THEIR MOTHER. love to all... lonely nanna in florida

 remove the blinders
remove the blinders

of course every father is an abuser...the devil...the evil one lurking in the shadows..while the mothers are all saints. The parents that truly are victims...be cautious who you associate with. Its a shame when true victims lose credibility by being associated with liars and manipulators. This extremely biased article fails in showing the overall picture. Since this article was first posted there have been parents that have been exposed. The ones who have had there"story" discussed on the American Mothers Moron Party...they are in jail or going to jail for lying and being detrimental to the lives of their children. Will anyone do a story about them...probably not. Instead brush them off to the side and talk about another case so you can keep the self-serving agenda going.

Used HP Computers
Used HP Computers

Indeed a very good read! Very informative post with pretty good insight on all aspects of the topic! Will keep visiting in future too!

Claudia Godoy
Claudia Godoy

This is true my ex husband is an abuser and he took custody of our son. He brought a bunch of lies to court and took my son 8 years ago. I had run away to NY to get away from his abuse and poison. It is sad that judges do not even review the facts. This justice system is severely broken. Then you wonder why today's youth is so broken...

NeverGiveUp
NeverGiveUp

RKW you are the mop up crew that comes out of the woodwork when protective parents try to expose how the Courts hand over their vulnerable children to abusers.... to be molested and killed. Those of us that work to protect children have no sympathy for your disappointment. As hard as you try, bad mouthing parents bare no moral equivalence to the parents that kill and or molest their children. These issues are not even on the same planet... accept, that ALL the protective parents of dead and molested children in this article who tried desperately to protect their children were accused of bad mouthing, lying to the Court about the other parent, and accused of PAS. And in each of these cases evidence was ignored because PAS was believed and the protector was looked at with suspicion and punished... Countless numbers of children have died this way. In every case this idiot PAS campaign that you fight so hard to promote is responsible for the pain, misery and loss of life of at least 141 children since baby Wyatt was killed on February 20, 2010.

Cold North Wind
Cold North Wind

Children First, it is a good thing that you have posted this (yet another) horrendous case. It should be obvious to any thinking person , that something is dreadfully wrong and amoral when a society and its organizations "allow" this kind of destruction.

Childrenfirst
Childrenfirst

45 Counts in graphic detail were recently filed (amended) against Mark Mesiti in Stanislaus County for the molestation and murder of his daughter Alycia Mesiti-Allen. Judge Vincent Chiarello, aided by his staff ignored many laws (there was a domestic violence suit in process) and sent Alycia to live with him. 9 months later he had her declared a runaway and 21/2 years after that (March 2009), she was found buried in his former backyard. My complaint to the CA Commission on Judicial Performance resulted in a reply, "the Judge did nothing wrong." When is our Legislature going to take the Family Court danger to our defenseless children seriously?Children are not garbage objects to be handed off to dangerous, evil persons. What was done to Alycia were multiple attrocities un til she was finally murdered. It seems that to the powers that be (in Family Court) she was insignificant and disposable! When are the adults who run our civil society going to actually protect our children and not protect the prestige and power of those who can hold themselves immune from being accountable and from taking responsibility for their actions?

Fathers and Families
Fathers and Families

What a disappointment this story is. After four months of research, you came up with 2 miserable cases and try to pass this issue as critical. Sorry but in a state with over 30 million people and the family breakup champion of the world there are more critical issues by far. At the top of the list is the anti-father / father-hatred movement.

Thousands of fathers are disparaged, saddled with crazy accusations, exploitative debts that push them into bankruptcy and/or despair. The father-hate movement also is trying to pass laws making it a crime to as much as mention when a mother brainwashes her own kids to hate their father. Thousands of lawyers milk this scenario daily and enrich themselves on the backs of breaking families.

Another example: 18th century style debtors prison still exist for fathers who cannot keep up with fantasy 'imputed incomes' and are kept in prison... until they pay? What kind of demented culture is this? Now why don't you guy cover this? it is just as sensational and affects *thousands* and not just a few.

Liora Tziporah Farkovitz
Liora Tziporah Farkovitz

I saw this related case on Family Courts in America today, Mr. Jamison, if there is anything you could do to share this story, maybe it could save this child. I do not know any of the parties - I just was aghast. http://www.saveaaliyah.com/ - Connie Bedwell is being threatened with imprisonment for protecting her daughter from "Daddy's Worm"

momisbuff
momisbuff

A gigantic thank you to Peter Jamison for shining a light on this broken system. Children are not chattel or property to be divided. Their safety is paramount and the system needs to protect them or be dismantled altogether.

Count me out
Count me out

April 15th coming up. There has been quite a bit of anger directed at women's groups and women on these comments boards (including the other article). A common complaint is about the VAWA funding, DV funding, and I've heard the term "free money" and other such terms.

I've also pointed out that there is plenty of "fatherhood" funding also (which has been ignored by both sides of the PAS debate. Because to sustain thePAS debate, oine must swallow almost whole (certainly undigested) that the family courts are biased against fathers because of DV funding -- and also that, well you know how many liars there are in this world.

I've repeatedly encouraged people to look at the financing of the courts and at a few key organizations -- AFCC (formerly "CCC") and the CRC (Childrens Rights Council). The chief characteristic of the AFCC (which to this day promotes Gardner and PAS, and has a membership in California from the top to the bottom -- members of the California Judicial Council, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families and Children in the Courts ("CFCC") include AFCC members (Diane Nunn, et al.) and nationwide, many Superior Court Judges).

The AFCC history shows that a lobbying, tax-dodging organization called then "CCC" started in 1962, and by 1975 was called AFCC, shifting shape and incorporation status as the they were challenged about paying taxes and failing to incorporate (and report income to the IRS) several times. In other words, appears to have possibly started as itself a Slush Fund.

The Key years 1962 through 1975 match with also a recent account of the fatherhood industry as told by fatherhood promoters themselves (a study underwritten by the Annie E. Casey Foundation -- and describing things underwritten by the Ford Foundation).

I believe at least all protective mothers should know about the FR history in its own terms, and not just take the advocates approach of "it's about a psychological theory!! !!!" at face value the next time you hear it from some advocacy organization. Knowing this history and the AFCC history helps both men and women, because apparently both have been deceived by their own advocates to just not talk about this when attacking the other side.

Here's a quote from a pdf booklet (free) called:

MAKING FATHERS COUNT -- ASSESSING THE PROGRESS OF RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD EFFORTS.

"The Fatherhood ‘Field’ Takes Shape:A BRIEF HISTORYTHE FATHERHOOD ISSUE EMERGES19 6 8 -19 8 7During the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, the drive for gender equality changed the roles the women and men—in the larger society as well as in the family—profoundly. With increases in divorce and single parenthood, fathers were no longer narrowly defined as breadwinners for their families.

In 1975, in reviewing the literature about fathers and children, psychologist Michael Lamb argued that the father-child relationship deserved more attention than it received in research. In Fathers: Forgotten Contributors to Child Development,11 Lamb suggested that future research about the father’s role could be organized around the hypothesis that in contrast to the mother’s caretaker role, the father’s main socializing role is introducing his child to the world and reality beyond the home. It was a challenge that many researchers would accept, resulting in important work that redefined the role of fathers and deepened understanding of fathers’ effects on the lives of their children.

The year 1975 also saw the publication of Who Will Raise the Children? New Options for Fathers (and Mothers) by Dr. James A. Levine, based on research that he began in 1973 with support from the Ford Foundation."

1968-1987. The AFCC was founded (as CCC) as 1962 and were international b y 1967. As of 1969, they still weren't properly incorporated as a nonprofit and had not yet begun to pay taxes like corporations should. By 1975, it appears the Franchise Tax Board had caught up with them, AFCC being registered in Illinois as a new "Charity." Real "new" when right after incorporation, Meyer Elkin, who started the 1962 group, with a (childless, incidentally) Judge Roger Alton Pfaff, took over the Illinois 1975 group, now called AFCC." (Sources, AFCC's own history and stopcourtorderedchildabuse org page on "Beware AFCC" which has a timeline they got from elsewhere...

In this same timeframe, about 1985, the organization (also a Gardner-promoter at least originally) CRC (under an earlier name) got formed. It credits itself with changing terminology to "access visitation" -- and has Access Visitation groups nationwide. It, also, is a lobbying group with strong Washington, D.C. connections. which I yak about all the time ($1mil/year to California since 1996, who is accounting for its use? A report from the OMB admits, not too well accounted for).

Google the title and see how much information comes up. Upload it and then search for "parental alienation" -- you will come up with zero. On the other hand, google the term "access visitation" and you will come up with a bit of history and some $$ attached and learn something:

It reads:

"In addition, PRWORA provided $50 million over five years for a block grant to improve access and visitation. OCSE also provided waivers to ten states involved in the Partners for Fragile Families demonstration, allowing them to use federal child support funds to support the project."

What's PRWORA and what's that got to do with custody cases? Well, quite a bit:

"Under Ross’s leadership, the OCSE increased collections while supporting efforts to help fathers improve relationships with their children and the children’s mothers. From 1992 through 2000, the department increased collections from $8 billion to $17.9 billion. The number of families receiving support increased from 2.8 million in 1992 to 7.2 million in 2000.59"

1992-2000

Got anyone's attention yet? 1992 through 2000, whoever "Ross" is helped the OCSE (you know who they are right? No? Look it up then) IMPROVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR CHILDREN. (Yes, it's not about child support collection, but improving relationships with mothers -- as a means to increase child support collection, allegedly).

Who is "Ross""?

"ACCOMPLISHMENT: BROADENING THE MISSION OF CHILD SUPPORT POLICY

{{well, a former Circuit Court Judge who helped Broaden the mission of Child Support Policy, among other things....}}

"It was not until the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, which overhauled the welfare system, that federal efforts aimed at fathers broad- ened to include several new goals: helping low-income fathers develop the tools they need to find jobs, become better parents, and improve their relationships with their children’s mothers."

WELFARE FUNDS USE TO MEND PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS OF LOW-INCOME FATHERS.

"Judge David Gray Ross served as OCSE commissioner for the duration of the Clinton administration was responsible for implementing much of this shift. “Before I came,” he says, “this office was just not a father-friendly place. The mission was to collect child support. Now, it’s more to provide for financial and emotional support of children.”58Ross drew on his experiences as a circuit court judge from Prince George’s County, Maryland. From Ross’s point of view, it was important not only to identify fathers and explain their responsibilities for their children, but also to tell them about their rights to see their children—and to help ensure those rights. As Ross sees it, “When people are paying for their children, they really take a greater interest.”

About that Broadened Support, somehow it always involves research and demonstration projects, federally funded, with an extra kick from some tax-exempt foundation, too, often:

As I recall (you can double check) David Gray Ross is on the Board of CRC. He's probably also a member of AFCC, but I DNK. So, the policy setters -- "more access visitation!" working through the child support system have helped originate the word "access visitation," got lobbying for it (having a few tax-exempt hugely wealthy foundations behind the cause didn't hurt) -- and then also support and help run the groups that benefit from this policy. Go look at the site and read the history page too. CRCKIDS org. Also see their 990s on Guidestar.

Will fathers EVER feel that the odds aren't stacked against them, according to followers of Glen Sacks, according to PAS-promoters (using this term to deflect claims of domestic violence by mothers in a custody fight) or according to whoever puts out these foundation-funded studies that talk about there federal and county-funded programs to correct the balance? Did even low-incomie fathers really ask for this to start with, or was it a top-down, Judge-initiated, psychology-driven policy? Are all these people in it becuase of poor people?

(If unclear, go over to the Parental Alienation article, Jamison's, and scroll through and listen to a certain PA-promoter talk about trying to jail a trouble'd teen's mother for life and cursing out another noncustodial mother who is perceived to be on welfare, and just get the picture of who is most adamant about promoting this theory, and the self-described lifestyle...And others....)

More from that brochure:

"CHALLENGE: POLICY REFORMS STILL NEEDEDBroadening the mission of OCSE will not be sufficient to address the practical issues faced by many noncustodial fathers and families, however. Geraldo Rodriguez is project manager of the Los Angeles Parents’ Fair Share program, a county government program to increase the positive involvement of low- income fathers in their children’s lives. Rodriguez puts it simply:

“Fathers don’t come forward becausethey feel the cards are stacked against them.”60 Many low-income noncustodial fathers, he explains, view the child support system as one that takes them to court and puts them in jail when they don’t pay. Courts rarely help them see their children, generally fail to take into account their financial circum- stances, and do not recognize their efforts—however minimal—

Fathers don’t come forward because they feel the cards are stacked against them.to support their children."

The date of the publication is 2002. It's now 2011, and we are still hearing that the courts are stacked against the fathers. To "prove" this exaggerated claim, they include statistics that include non-contested custody decisions and decisions where no allegations of abuse (either kids) are present. They talk about ALL mothers get too much custody. (Read the comments, am I right?)

Well, they aren't. So, to overcompensate, allegedly, for poor noncustodial fathers, the entire system is overhauled, including the courts and child support, when it's quite clear that about half the population divorces, and certainly obvious that half the population is not necessarily poor. But these programs are driving things in this direction -- AND they are promoted by people in high places with connections to washington, severe conflicts of interest (policymakers sitting on boards of and running nonprofits that profit from the policies, have key personnel sitting on programs that direct and sometimes (how much won't be known til people stop arguing and start consistently checking!) the funds (Karen Anderson of CPPA case) and use money they get to continue promoting and expanding the same programs.

The greater the drama and conflict, the higher the profits, and the more distressed the litigants are, the less likely that are going to put on a cool head and start looking into who runs what, even though Marv Bryer did a whole lot of this, as ONE father of a daughter in a custody fight. He giot and accountant adn found the kickback, and systems of them,, in 1999 or earlier. And it's available on-line, in several formats -- audits of the funds and these organizations.

And child support is most definitely central and influential in custody cases, no matter what anyone else tells you. See Silva v. Garcetti. A lot of greed is definitely involved between couples, but it really pales in comparison to these other outfits and those who run them.

OK now, who else has been talking about this, of all the professionals commenting on-line complimenting OR attacking this article? AFCC, CRC, FR movement, yes the DV movement also (funding) and conflicts of interest in people who decide where kids live and waste those kids inheritances, where some existed, by prolonging the sport. As does this series of articles which reported NOTHING on ANY of the above.

Our job as mothers and fathers is to ask, why NOT? Why haven't our leaders (so to speak) and advocates that we donate to, w ho we support, or who even are even sometimes active in selected custody litigation cases -- teaching this properly?

Perhaps because they'd rather do PR, get a name, write, work on a Ph.D., run "institutes" go to conferences, sit on some panel to "REFORM THE COURTS" (allegedly), do symposiums, trainings, and sell stuff, including their own professional reputation as an advocate -- like the same organizations I mentioned above do...

I think that's why, and keep it in mind when someone asks me to forward a news alert or come to the next rally or conference, including BMCC in New York, or anything NCADV-sponsored. I've BEEN to some. None of them told anything what I just said, above, although it really is critical information.

Francis
Francis

The reason abuse to children by women is more reported in papers is because it's more exceptional and therefore more sensational, news grabbing. This gives a false impression.

kia01
kia01

@George1McCasland 

wow, u don't understand the issues at all, that is clear from ur 1st sentence.  The article was actually examining a totally rogue, corrupt, self-reinforcing failure of a government system that has demonstrated a frightening pattern of ignoring legal statutes and failing in its sole duty of protecting the child and acting in the child's best interest by willfully endangering the child.

If your stat on arm breaks is true, that does not necessarily mean that mother's are 8x more violent with their kids. If true, it's most likely  because moms are more actively involved with their kids.  A friend of mine took her 3yo girl to the ER with a dislocated shoulder awhile back- it happened as she was playing with the child, who loved it when mommy would hold her hands and swing her around in circles.

"Since 2007, the San Francisco District Attorney's Office has reviewed about 8,600 criminal cases, and dropped about 6,200 of them, according to SF Public Press." 

I called 911once, after my ex had kicked in my front door, chased me upstairs & forced his way into my bedroom. The 911 operator had just picked up when a sudden blow across the face knocked me to the floor, causing me drop the phone. My attack was recorded on the 911 call, but when officers arrived, I heard 1 of them tell his partner, "This lady is always calling us, lying about her husband hitting her",  as they carefully stepped over sharp, splintered pieces of wood strewn in front of the open entryway that used to hold my front door..

They didn't arrest my ex that day, or any other time. He kicked me in the face once, his foot came down hard on my son's arm & almost broke it. No arrest.  He kidnapped my son twice, yet after recovering my son, they didn't arrest my ex. He violated his latest restraining order. Police refused to arrest him. He got so empowered by his immunity to the law, that he had friends make a series of false reports to cps about me, saying i get high & leave my son alone. despite 25 clean drug tests (no dirties), my ex was awarded full custody (prior to that he had supervised visits & never went to a single 1).


my psych eval was done by the same leslie packer of menlo park. she said i exhibit paranoid delusions after i told her my story. she would rather comment on a person's supposed psychosis, rather  than be bothered to learn any of the facts about a person or their case. 

i don't need to bash dads or speak poorly about the sick court system that took my baby & gave him to an abusive criminal. their deplorable actions speak for themselves.

Fred
Fred

Go to Shirley Buckley in Santa Ana.

Fred
Fred

You really don't know your facts at all. The organizations for father rights have skewed the courts toward the father, the kid and mother have no rights. Too many psychologists are for sale. The MFT and Psych boards should pull their credentials.

Fred
Fred

either parent can be a jerk or mentally ill. Listen to the kids. They know. Let them set up the visitation schedules. They aren't chattle to be passed around like luggage.

Deborah Parks
Deborah Parks

How do you know? What do you mean? Do you have evidence/proof... What are you going to do about it? What do you want ME to do about it? love to all...

Spanaya
Spanaya

Thanks for sharing Deborah... I have a couple friends that are going throught what you explained. You nailed it right on the head.

Focus
Focus

you're probably one of the abusers, trying to find a way to abuse

Count Me Out
Count Me Out

Actually, whether or not PAS was actually believed by the court players, that IS the agenda of the AFCC. Gee, funny how the people so sure that PAS is wrong wont actually (for the most part) consider who is promoting it, how, where, and what's in it for them when they do.

A much more useful approach would be to get familiar with the organizations promoting this (if one is opposed, which I am, because the term conveniently is applied more one direction than another), figure out who is funding them (which includes taxpayers) and then do something about that.

The PAS is the wallpaper -- it is not the scaffolding. I blog on the scaffolding and the foundation at familycourtmatters wordpress com, FYI. So do several others, who are not on the federal grants stream, the referral business from the courts stream, or the "I have a Dream" book-marketing teams appealing to parents (mostly moms) who have lost their kids through having PAS thrown at them, and many times, the children became "alienated" because of this -- but no $$ benefit attached, so THAT "alienation" is not addressed in the court.

Such as Dr Stahl:(from 'parenting after divorce (com)'):"Take Dr. Stahl's online CE courses at the Steve Frankel Group.

"Philip Stahl, Ph.D., ABPP (Forensic) is a psychologist licensed in California (#PSY 10272), Michigan (#6301001615), and Arizona (#3843). Dr. Stahl lives in Maricopa County Arizona, though his work takes him all over the country. Dr. Stahl is a practitioner, author, and teacher, specializing in HIGH CONFLICT** families of divorce. He has served on numerous committees and task forces designed to improve the quality of work in his field. He teaches judges, attorneys, psychologists and other mental health professionals about issues affecting families and children. His expertise is accepted in courts across the country."

{{**....Bio page makes it clear, this includes parental alienation. "High-conflict" is code for AFCC. It's like their battle cry.... BIO page, bottom, reads like this: "His articles have been on parental alienation, ethics, child custody evaluations, psychological testing, and high conflict." Notice that "parental alienation" comes before ethics, and of course wrapping it up with high conflict, which is always bad, even if it's one parents conflict with criminal behavior, or court order violations, by the other......}}

"If you are a professional, you will probably be interested in his training, either at conferences or for ongoing continuing education. Dr. Stahl specializes in training judges, presenting workshops to judges in Arizona, California, Virginia, Utah, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, and other states.

{{He is on the faculty of National Judicial College and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. ("NCJFCJ"). If he's on the faculty of a national council of judges (major player in custody court system) and he teaches PAS, are we still puzzled why it is frequently named in custody hearings?}}

Most recently, Dr. Stahl, along with several co-faculty, has developed and begun to teach a course titled Modern Divorce Advocacy through the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. As an approved provider of continuing education for the American Psychological Association and an approved provider of legal specialist education (family law) for the California Bar Association, Dr. Stahl also provides ongoing training and continuing education workshops for psychologists and attorneys. See the links to training for more information on past and future trainings."

Good work, if you have the connections."Both Days of Workshop - Registration faxed or postmarked before 7/17 $340.00

Friday Workshop Only - Registration faxed or postmarked before 7/17 $250.00

Saturday Workshop Only - Registration faxed or postmarked before 7/17 $120.00"

.......BIODr. Stahl's Bio

"Philip Stahl, Ph.D., ABPP (Forensic) is a licensed psychologist who resides in Maricopa County (Arizona). Dr. Stahl began his work in child guidance clinics in Michigan, while studying for his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan. It was there that he began to develop his interest in divorce. His dissertation thesis was a study on attitudes and beliefs on joint custody. He received his doctorate in 1983. Soon thereafter, he began to do child custody evaluations for the Macomb County Courts and took mediation training when mediation was just getting started as a service for divorcing families.

"Dr. Stahl moved to California in 1987 and continued his work in the field of divorce. As an active member of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), he later joined the AFCC Board of Directors and became Chair of AFCC's Custody Evaluation Committee. It was there that he began to develop his teaching style, presenting at many workshops, institutes, and plenary sessions. He was on the Board of Directors and was Treasurer of the AFCC California Chapter and is on the Editorial Review Board of AFCC's journal, Family Courts Review. He has returned to the Board of Directors of AFCC."

Some of the PAS-friendly books are also required of divorcing or separating parents through mandated parenting education in several states.

I saw in Pennsylvania where a judge (an AFCC one no doubt) got it written into the rules of court that parents had to take a "KidsFirst" (Or whatever the Kids Turn knockoff names was) into the civil rules of court AND onto the actual form downloadable for any custody modification. The form contained a warning that sanctions and fines, possibly jail, would attend if one didn't register for the parenting education class. This is how they can say it's in great "demand".... (Schuykill County, if you're curious).

McDonalds understands marketing, and so do AFCC professionals; the difference is some of them are top judges, which is quite a bit of influence to propose legislation favoring certain propaganda in the family law system, whereas most people who like to eat, do not HAVE to eat all the time at McDonalds; they can opt out.

Count Me Out
Count Me Out

The people who make court decisions like this also promote "children first" and claim they are protecting them (from parental alienation and other spectres). SOme of this energy could be directed to figuring out what is the power structure from the California Judicial Council down to the local (Superior Court) judge, commissioner, or other county- or grants-paid professional.

I blog them, as do some others. Am still doing so at familycourtmatters(dot)wordpress(dot)com -- see recent "Happy Fatherhood Day — and where would “Fatherhood” be without the HHS?" and posts before that talking about how Parenting Coordinators coach each other to trash the mother, and after that, showing some of the principal nonprofits supposedly stopping violence against women and children who are, instead, promoting marriage and fatherhood (and taking grants to do so).

A post on Policy Studies Inc. of Denver (on June 21) prints some concise summaries of who is doing what with various programs, and yes, these do affect custody decisions. I also recommend Bill Berkowitz (of ARC, Oakland) 2001 piece on " “PROSPECTING AMONG THE POOR: WELFARE PRIVATIZATION”" which talks about how come major government work gets outsourced to private groups, including ones that already were convicted of embezzlement, fraud, and other behaviors. Ten years later, we think this has no bearing on the family law business(es)?

Formatting isn't great on my blog, but at least one can learn something useful about why so many judges just don't take people seriously and how it's the child support system (OCSE, nationally) that deserves a lot more scrutiny, as that is a primary office organizing the various social demonstration projects (on our relationships, divorces, and kids).

Not to mention a recent bill, HB 2193:

"H.R. 2193 To amend title IV of the Social Security Actto ensure funding for grants to promote responsible fatherhood and strengthen low-income families,***and for other purposes,***" proposed on 6/15/2011, and mostly (surprise!) Democrat sponsorship. I figured this comments trail was at a standstill, but just for the record -- anyone want to ask these guys what they're doing with that funding?

freedomfighter101
freedomfighter101

cut it out... there are thousands... really?  The "anti-father/father hatred movement?   That is laughable... You must be a "father's rights activist,"  which isn't about securing fathers' rights so much as it is specifically an anti-mother movement... You give yourself away with your misinformation and perceived victimization.  No more of this garbage. 

Nobody
Nobody

I could tell you my own story; it's equally as miserable. It's very much like the first story, false accusations, embellishments, legal abuse....and it worked. It's difficult to site abuse when there are no bruises.Psychological terrorism is a different animal altogether. He got custody of MY children. A pedophile, into child pornography, sexually abused my daughter for years...in front of her brother!! Hey and get this...I HAD to pay him child support. I don't want to hear any sniveling.

Custody-switched Mom
Custody-switched Mom

With news coverage like yours (and the last PAS article (in May) linking directly to a FaF site), what is really lacking in positive "coverage" of men's groups?

2009 Broadsheet / "Salon" article talking about men's groups going mainstream (it's about 10 yrs behind reality, but 2 yrs old even so), relates:

"Men's rights" groups go mainstreamOnce seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability"Nov 5, 2009 Judy Berman"

She writes, in 2009 "What's really frightening is the impact men's rights activists (MRAs) are having on mainstream politics. "

[No mention of the 1994 National Fatherhood Initiative, 1995 Clinton Executive Memo on Fatherhood, no mention of the HHS "fatherhood.hhs.gov" site; none of that....What might we call those? Non-mainstream political involvement of men's rights groups?]]

"One of the respectable new faces of the movement is Glenn Sacks, a fathers' rights columnist and radio host with 50,000 e-mail followers, and a pragmatist in a world of angry dreamers. Sacks is a former feminist and abortion-clinic defender who disavows what he calls “the not-insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers’ rights movement.”

He recently merged his successful media group with the shared-parenting organization Fathers and Families in a bid to build a mainstream fathers' rights organ on par with the National Organization for Women. Many of Sacks’ arguments—for a court assumption of shared parenting in the case of divorce, or against child-support rigidity in the midst of recession—can sound reasonable.

{"against child support rigidity?"....}----------------------------------------"But do any of their arguments hold up? Many of the men for whom Sacks advocates are involved in extreme cases, says Joanie Dawson, a writer and domestic-violence advocate who has covered the fathers’ rights movement. * * *The great majority of custody cases, in which shared parenting is a legitimate option, are settled or resolved privately. * * * *----------------------------------------But of the 15 percent that go to family court—the cases that fathers’ rights groups target—at least half include alleged domestic abuse."

Custody-switched Mom
Custody-switched Mom

If I were you, I'd be real thankful that more people (including fathers) were not investigating Fathers and Families' involvements in the family law case, particularly in the child support department. While it's sure hard to keep the fathers' groups separate by name, I'm sure anyone with a little persistence, who got tired of being incited by you, could do so, either by EIN# or a little legwork.

Mr. Jamison has probably found more than he's reporting (I just looked at a recent sunshine log request to the SF Controller from last November, although it didn't appear to have been fulfilled yet).

ANYONE can do this -- but reporters are more adept at it, I guess: Having narrowed what it is you are curious about, a typical letter could start like this:

= = = = = = = = ="Pursuant to Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, theSunshine Ordinance, I hereby request to inspect and possibly make copiesof all records of (Fill in the blank _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _)

"Should you choose to deny this request in part or in full, please citethe specific exemptions in the ordinance on which you are relying. I canbe reached (etc.) ......"

"These records include, but are not limited to...." and make sure to include a timeframe. (When I searched, it came up as "Scribd" document, and (FYI) the "search" field pops up at the bottom. I imagine)

This site may be interesting for those who can navigate it:http://prosfclearinghouse.word...

Apparently you can get records of who requested what, i.e, logs of "public records request" showing date requested, who requested what, who fulfilled the request (if they did) and when).

For example, on 1/5/2011, our author requested "1. Amounts and categories of "premium pay" paid to employees of the City and County of SF by each municipal department for FY 2009-2010 & 2008-2009. #2. Any budget, analysis or report prepared at the behest of the Board of Supervisors Budget and Legislative Analyst for an audit that the office is performing of certain types of premium pay..." etc.

I found this by googling something like "Sunshine request SF Controller Jamison..."While this request may not relate to the family law issue, the fact is, "premium pay" (from grants streams) has proved an issue in some high-profile cases (I DNR if it was Shockome or another) -- of course the mother was not informed when the opposing attorney tapped into this category of "premium pay" based on how the case was flagged . . . . . (high-conflict, or something, I'll try & look it up).

But the fact is, you don't have to be a reporter to make a public records request. And when it comes to custody, I'd definitely be looking into the child support enforcement pay records and seeing who pays whom to do what.... Or almost any category.

And of course Fathers and Families related payments of any sort. Or payments to any nonprofit operated by judges, attorneys, or other private groups while one of the individuals was functioning as a public official and making decisions as to which child lives where and how much their Moms and Dads got to see them.....

If I were Glenn Sacks, I'd not tempt me to investigate further....

Count me out
Count me out

Isn't this, coming out around 1975, hearkening back (nostalgia) to the 1950s? and Leave It to Beaver? I mean, does tis view reflect reality?

" In Fathers: Forgotten Contributors to Child Development,11 Lamb suggested that future research about the father’s role ~ ~ ~could be organized around the hypothesis that in contrast to the mother’s caretaker role, the father’s main socializing role is introducing his child to the world and reality beyond the home. ~ ~ ~It was a challenge that many researchers would accept, resulting in important work that redefined the role of fathers and deepened understanding of fathers’ effects on the lives of their children."

It's a hypothesis! And further researchers accepted it .. . . . . Was it ever proved to be true?

(1970s, feminism developing also. I think more likely Dads were very concerned about lack of attention to them, and this would help).

Consider -- what caretaking involves as kids get older -- they are in school somewhere. If they are in pubic school, and anyone can pull this off, someone is going to need after-school activities (sports, YMCA, etc.) to actually get a decent education. Mothers are often in some families that can do this, chauffeurs, and work. Mom is herself engaged in world beyond the homes... I mean, across the entire nation, at that time, was it really true that fathers were "socializers" and mothers were the home help in caretaking and meals and laundry, etc.?

The theme of the school systems was becoming then, and has become now, socialization anyhow. They wanted that job. No wonder Dads felt left out if they were the primary breadwinners in a standard job -- but was that all Dads?

This is why I think we should look at the literature used to transform welfare AND the courts AND child support. I mean, this is the policymakers' languages -- and how sensible is it, really?

quest
quest

The writers keep us going..............But you are wrong and very ignorant has to what happenseveryday in this world today. I live in a City of 6 million people, if you read the paper and then some- there is always something henious some mother or mothers have done to her children. Yesterday, some mother locked her children in the attic. Again, it is proven more mothers kill children than men. It is written.

Remove the Blinders
Remove the Blinders

Truth hurts? If you refuse to see that there are people who falsely accuse in custody disputes, then you must be guilty of that behavior.

Elhickster
Elhickster

I agree, exactly how one would respond, project, defer, blame, smoke&mirrors, bs and cowardice. If you aren't one, then you should know, you responded exactly like one, and they(batterers, abusers, sociopaths, etc) are amazingly consistent in that regard. And if you find that insulting, then I'd bet my life you are one. A reasonable, normal person would just restate their point more clearly.......

Persist
Persist

Nobody- but- that's what abusers DO ! Abuse, whine and snivel- and fling around theusual blame, myths etc.-

Remove the blinders
Remove the blinders

You are funny when you try to conjure up some validity to your horsesh*t.

Count me out
Count me out

(sorry to drive this in , but I just looked at the two ladies' backgrounds who put this together, kathleen Sylvester (directs a 1997 nonprofit) and Kathleen Reich (former legislative assistant to US Senator Dianne Feinstein (date of publication, about 2000). Dianne Feinstein I believe has a daughter who is a judge (on Judicial Council? DNR).

The backgrounds are: Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, JEK school of Government, Stanford, Wesleyan. Are these top brains or what?

Foundations mentioned involved in this include also David & Lucille Packard Foundation,which puts out a publication "The Future of Children."

"Kathleen Sylvester is director of the Social Policy Action Network, a nonprofit intermediary that she founded in 1997. Ms. Sylvester advises federal, state, and local officials on a variety of domestic social issues. Before her policy career, she spent more than two decades as a journalist, ". . . .

So, how is a woman who spent two decades as a journalist asssociated with a publication that came up with and endorsed the concept that (year, 1975) fathers are the ones to introduce children to "socialization beyond the home." ??? And why???

I mean, c'mon, Let's Get Real! This is typical of who is driving policy and centralized planning for our (broke) country???

tammyrisa1
tammyrisa1

@questShare your stats Quest. Many of the media outlets get funding from the Fathers Initiative Group...Here are MY facts! www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31025.pdf‎

Cold North Wind
Cold North Wind

"It is written" ???? By some who repeat the patriarchal mind set that women and children must do anything and everything a man tells them to do.(that incudes all knd of abuses to be accepted,and includs being murdered if one does not -obey)The "mothers/women are bad "twaddle is flung around , along with other nonsense . Those who buy into these myths, are buying into the domination ideas that ,sadly, permeate our societies. The fact that there are more and more people demonstrating a certain evolution, is hopeful !

Anita
Anita

Id like to ask where are you getting your information from ??? Or did you just make that determination based on your own knowing.

You really should get that FACTS first then put the information out ....if you were to get the FACTS it is screamingly clear that men by far perpetrate the greater % of all crimes against children !!! You need to get the FACTS from the credible scientifically based studies in which reports come from various resources such as emergency room care for DV injuries, CPS reports and EVIDENCE etc.

That is not to say that no women commit crimes against children .....rather it is to offer some reality to the comments.

Francis
Francis

I don't think I am 'very ignorant'.Did you not read my post that told you, what I was going through. What exactly is your job with families? Obviously, some Mothers are violent. Some have post post-partum depression, some I'm sure find it hard not to be able to console a crying baby. It's a source of frustration. If you want to delve further into this aspect of things, you might arrive at the conclusion that new mothers, are left very often to deal with this alone. It's a big and underestimated job for one person. Once isolated, it's not easy to break the pattern. Mothers of young children become used to 'multi-tasking', the priority always going to watching the said child for safeties sake. Perhaps, we have gone down the wrong road with child rearing, perhaps both parents should be there.

Count me out
Count me out

By your reading of newspapers, evidently?

ChildProtectiveServi
ChildProtectiveServi

@quest You can't read.  You act like an ape and your IQ is probably below that of an ape, "Quest"

quest
quest

Wow.....I thought we were talking about people--but it's Monkeys. No wonder the dysfunction runs rampid thru your mind--and confusion.

quest
quest

Whoooooooooooooo. Once again. You tell us Lady of Ward #304 - you know all the answers.Prozac might be beneficial to you tho.

Custody-switched mom
Custody-switched mom

(reviewing this site). It sounds to me like you really don't know what domestic violence is. It's not just a family squabble one can walk away from, and whatsamatta you if you do?

You've chosen the most comfortable position, apparently -- having also dismissed "facts" as irrelevant, and hard experience (whatever that is) as more important .... and are somehow a professional. In any profession, facts at least about the subject matter of that profession count, and understanding them right as well as a little ongoing humility in case one has misread the facts or the situations.

Custody-switched mom
Custody-switched mom

Part of making sense includes having some in the reader to start with.

"all over the place" is in the mind of the beholder. I connect dots -- the family law system DOES entail behavioral modification programs (cf. "Batterers Intervention" "Therapeutic Supervised Visitation" and so forth) -- and behavioral modification techniques (including isolation) yes, were tried on monkeys also, with devastating results, producing dysfunctional adult monkeys who couldn't parent, and many of the didn't want to mate, either. The experiments were cruel:

"Try to emotionally destroy mothers raising kids, and you get traumatized dysfunctional kids."connects to:"This was proved years (decades) ago on monkeys! resulting in some animal protection laws."

Your comment:The assumption that people physically/other ways abused (in marriage, is context, or adult romantic relationships) started in early in their lives is true sometimes -- not all the time. .... However, sounds like you blame them -- and not whoever abused them -- going back to their childhood, either way. 'allow the abuse to go on" -- kids have few ways to escape, and it's not only hard, but also dangerous (potentially lethal -- headlines are clear on that one....) to leave an abuser (especially if you have children together and the court is insisting on shared parenting, no matter what....).

Quest, you made no mention in either case of whoever was committing the abuse. Was this unconscious communion with them, or intentional? A kids is not responsible for what was done to him or her. When an adult physically assaults, injures, attacks, or threatens another person -- destroys property, etc. -- the person responsible is the adult -- not the person attacked, injured, or whose property was destroyed.

Our legal code calls people responsible for their own actions. Family law rather reverses that, and blames both parents (and indoctrinates, attempts to coach them to "get alone" etc.) so as to promote their counseling, evaluation, visitation, and (. . . . . . etc.) courses and businesses.

They must've been doing a great job -- because large sectors of the public still don't think abuse is wrong -- but like to criticize people (particularly mothers/women) who can't get out of it, for not getting out -- just not criticize the perpetrators.

quest
quest

Oops, you don't make any sense at all Lady - you're all over the board and then some. But, ususally people that have been abused verbally or physically (I quess you were talking about women)? started early on in their lives so they continue into adulthood to allow the abuse to go on. Or, were you talking about the "monkeys"?

q

Custody-switched mom
Custody-switched mom

Breaking news -- not all women have the physical strength to defend themselves -- in home -- against a man. Moreover, they may not, especially with small children, have the resources to get free.. "abuse" has loose-lips definition and but assault & battery, legal definitions. "Domestic violence" (a term abusers don't like to use; PAS is the preferable antidote) is actually a crime against society and NOT the victim's fault. It is not essential to life to assault one's partner repeatedly, or dominate/intimidate/threaten/batter, etc. her as a lifestyle.

Any criminal defense lawyer knows this. Here's one from Los Angeles area:

"PENAL CODE 273.5, PENAL CODE 243(E)(1)

In any relationship, arguments and disputes occur. However, anytime there is an allegation of physical injury reported to the police, it is very important to get a an experienced domestic violence defense attorney. We can help you today.

What are some of the ramifications of a domestic violence conviction?

The ramifications may include the possibility of state prison up to four years in prison if filed as a felony. If the case is filed as a misdemeanor, the defendant faces up to one year in the county jail."

(NOTE: many domestic violence advocates don't even tell women half of what a criminal defense attorney would)

Does this sound like they believe it's the attacked person's fault? ??

This comment makes sense only IF domestic violence ("abuse" being the softer term) is legal in all 50 states, and no consequences for perpetrating it.

"I am sorry, but this is your problem that you were abused or what ever. Don't you have a brain or the strength to say no. I don't feel sorry for people like you. "

All functional brains need to be collectively applied to answer why family law undermines criminal law, and why criminal law is not being enforced sufficiently to protect victims of domestic violence, young or old, despite all that 's been poured into the system. Where is that money going?? And why society still cannot accept women as full-status human beings it is wrong to assault, ditto children....we are still needed to produce children, why not try treating us a little better overall? Harm the Mom, you are harming the baby. Try to emotionally destroy mothers raising kids, and you get traumatized dysfunctional kids.

This was proved years (decades) ago on monkeys! resulting in some animal protection laws. Hopefully the treatment of women & children will eventually catch up to penalties for abusing animals. (some guy going through a tough time with his wife and depression, created something called "the pit of despair" on monkeys under his control finding out -- "suprise" -- that they matured into adult uninterested in sex or parenting, for which he constructed something called a "rape rack." This was an adult male,, probably Ph.D.'s human being that came up with the brilliant thesis that depression & isolation affects monkeys.

Well, it affects human beings subjected to similar conditions too. So if we value human life, why not stop the forms of treatment that humiliate, isolate, intimidate, deprive -- and assault -- each other? Look it up: -- it was MATERNAL deprivation that created sick, dysfunctional, disturbed monkeys....

Harry Harlow, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, did this. It's infamous:

"Harry Frederick Harlow (October 31, 1905–December 6, 1981) was an American psychologist best known for his maternal-deprivation and social isolation experiments on rhesus monkeys, which demonstrated the importance of care-giving and companionship in the early stages of primate development. He conducted most of his research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he worked for a time with humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow.”

"The guy was an evil son of a bitch. He did horrendous, sickening, things to monkeys in the name of science, and was somehow a respected member of the scientific community.

“Some of Harlow’s experiments involved rearing infant macaques in isolation chambers that prevented them from having any contact with other monkeys or human beings. The monkeys were left alone for up to 24 months, and emerged severely disturbed.”

Note: He was a psychologist conducting cruel experiments on baby monkeys.Now, we have psychologists helping run the courts, assigning parents to baby kids...We have a major US Dept of Exec Branch full of programs started by psychologist Wade Horn. We have psychological theories (Gardner, etc>) and we come up with adults blaming women for their own abuse and blaming kids for not liking to witness or participate in it. The courts are a virtual torture chamber for humans, and degrees and professional advancement for the paraprofessionals in them.

Now you tell me how much sense that makes.

quest
quest

You are not worth the effort .............................

Cold North Wind
Cold North Wind

You did not write :" It is written."????? Dang. I really wanted to ask if the stone tablets were heavy. Oh well.

quest
quest

I am sorry, but this is your problem that you were abused or what ever. Don't you have a brain or the strength to say no. I don't feel sorry for people like you. You have the right to fix the problem - not the blame. Besides, whats your point anyway - that's not what I said.

Francis
Francis

quest. The bias that you show sincerely concerns me if you really work with children & families.

Count me out
Count me out

There you have it, Anita -- how a "professional" proves something. (similar to the "take it on faith" one finds in a church....)

quest
quest

Hah, Hah, I found this all so amazing that several of you are so hung up on facts. Facts are not always accurate. It also depends on where they come from and who. I will just say for now, it is my profession. And besides most people do not want to spend the time on facts - they would rather visually and verbally experience the situation in hand. Comsumer Reports gives you dataand facts, they are not always accurate.

q

ChildProtectiveServi
ChildProtectiveServi

@quest If an abusive bully like you were one of my parents...I would run away or refuse to visit or answer the phone when you called BTW.

Francis
Francis

quest. When I say both parents need to be there, I mean both parents need to be with the child at all or at least most times.

quest
quest

That's the only thing you have said, that makes sense - child rearing does take two good parents to bring up a child. Children thrive with two good parents. But apparantly you had a bad experience. Now strive to make yourself better.

q

freedomfighter101
freedomfighter101

Dear Count me out,

i would like to tap into your expansive research and knowledge if this is at all possible.  Do you have a blog or contact info that can be safely and securely shared? 

ChildProtectiveServi
ChildProtectiveServi

Quest: It is very very disturbing that you work with abused children.  You rant like a lunatic.  Perhaps you yourself have been popping too many pills.  Get some help for your abusive behavior.

ChildProtectiveServi
ChildProtectiveServi

@quest Yes "quest" you do have deep seated issues which you project onto the "women" you rage at.  It's called Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  Get treatment.

quest
quest

Oh, I forgot to ask you the last time - how long do you think post-partum depression lasts, into adulthood...........Do you think that might be another excuse that mothers are using against the fathers? Kinda, like Menopausal.

I know alot of great men that are terrific care-givers too and the never hunted a day in their lives.They don't believe in it.............

q

quest
quest

Oh gosh, you really do have deep seeded issues - and please don't talk to me about being bias. In my business there is no room for biases like yours and the other woman. I only want what is best for the child and the parents. And that is shared parenting - with two good parentsno matter what their marital status. This is in the childs best interest for a chance at a normal lifeand happy life. But sadly, this does not happen all the time.

Francis
Francis

If, as a woman, you think women are more likely to commit infanticide, than men, then I sincerely wonder what you are like as a woman? You can see the possibility of this happening, with yourself, Am I right? There is a situation where women kill their children. It is usually when they suffer from extreme post-post-partum psychotic depression. This is why I suggest that parenting is a full time, two person job. Apart from the situation as described above, it is clear that men are more likely to be aggressors & kill, than women. This is clearly as a result of testosterone. Men are traditionally hunters & fighters, women are primarily care-givers and food-gatherers. The actions of hormones can not be underestimated or ignored or pushed to one side because it is an inconvenient truth that does not coincide with our decisions.

quest
quest

Yep, and someone like you who has so much hate...........in them - the med's would make them more consistant in what they say. The vascillating back and forth would stop. And it certainly, would help your OCD ranting and raving....! You would also, be more level headed - Geez, then you could read the papers............and learn something.

quest

quest
quest

Whoops, meant to write this earlier, several of you other OCD fact activists and OCD women activists were the ones that started the comments on "more mothers kill children" (true)NOT I....But you seem to carry the issue along with everything else you write - Oh my Gosh,and nobody cares about the statistics just truth. Join the real world and quit your ranting and raving about subjects you know nothing about - you should hear yourself you don't even sound coherent. Please do yourself a favor and get on prozac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

q

quest
quest

Hah, are we jealous......Actually, I work for a living unlike some people I know of. Oh dear.........we're beginning to sound like the typical caddy and dumb women I hate to associate with.

Q

quest
quest

Yes Miss OCD (Liz Library follower), it is really sad that mothers would do such a thing. Some people just still have that antiquated mind set about the poor innocent mother. Yep, another one in the paper today. Papers really give you alot of information, obviously, you don't read them.I do feel sorry for your children - you sound like you have extreme and deep issues.q

Cold North Wind
Cold North Wind

Count me out- that person is just repeating the mantra (one of them!) of some masculinist groups. You were close when you wrote : catechism !!

Cold North Wind
Cold North Wind

What it says about that profession- in my opinion, is that ,these systems also buy into the prevailing and ubiquitous patriarchal mindset- essentially- control- (domination) own-' Often, ideas are taught and accepted and acted on - without any other learning.Even, it seems, the continous stream of murdered women and children,does not impact certain beliefs.

Count me out
Count me out

Oh, I get it -- you are in the business of being married, which make you the expert on others.....Well, what does that say for your self-opinion (and how your husband has handled you) -- gullible, obviously.

Count me out
Count me out

Yes, if you medicate someone enough, they will for sure, sooner or later, forget about facts so you can go about your business...without pesky inquiries about what you are doing..

Count me out
Count me out

A professional Family and Children person believes that mothers murder more based on s/he lives in an urban area and reads (selectively) newspapers.

What does that say for your profession?

quest
quest

Geez...............you love to hear yourself talk. Do you record these posts for entertainment.You truly are OCD about facts. You need to make an appt. with my office and I'll tell you what the true facts are. And put you on MED's!! My husband will be the "Judge." Hopefully, he will charge you with outrageous ranting and lies..........And put you in the corner with a Donce Hat

Sorry your the one that's so angry.

q

Count me out
Count me out

No need to add insult to someone who questioned your comment, or where you got this "mothers kill more kids" from. I am a mother. I am tired of hearing this sick "factoid," out of context, and with no reference to on what authority. "It is written" -- huh?

Are you talking U.S.? California?

"The writers keep us going..............But you are wrong and very ignorant has to what happens everyday in this world today. I live in a City of 6 million people, if you read the paper and then some- there is always something henious some mother or mothers have done to her children. Yesterday, some mother locked her children in the attic. Again, it is proven more mothers kill children than men. It is written."

it is most certainly not proven anywhere here on these comments -- and how many people keep repeating this as if it were part of a catechism? It's like a security blanket they cling on to.

Hey, let's consider. In one year, suppose you are right. More mothers (nationwide) do kill there children. So, how does that relate to this article, are what are you suggesting be done -- give all young children to fathers every time there is a separation? Surely nature tells you fathers are more equipped to care for an nurse (?) young children. They are real great a multi-tasking, and, well, they are maybe more able (in this culture) to go out and get some other woman or caretaker -- or their own mothers -- to take care of the baby while they work?

Or involve the child support system, and EVERY time there is a custody dispute -- just give it to the Dad (end of story)? Then we could eliminate about six different types of federally funded programs and fire all the custody evaluators and people running the courts. SO and so say, more moms kill their babies, so profile people by their gender, and take babies away from all moms. Simple, right?

OK, suppose, over a five- year period, this actually happens . And then someone does another study. More Dads are killing their children now -- possibly stressed by taking care of them and/or trying to pay for nannies, child-care, or whatever. Perhaps more Dads killing their children (this is hypothetical, after the total social restructuring to eliminate mother hood because allegedly "more mothers kill their children."

So, then oops -- we have to base our court procedures on statistics (from which source? and not on the Constitution, fact-finding, due process or anything remotely resembling civil rights or individual rights. So, the pendulum swings back -- more Dads killing kids.

well, to be consistent, and honest, then they should again totally restructure everything back towards mothers, and experiments some more, run some programs, do some studies, and of course throughout the whole time make sure those fatalitiy review teams keep on going. . . . . .

And so on.

The argument is ridiculous, anyhow. What's the application of

1.More (fill in either: Moms / Dads) kill children. Because (fillin the blank) said so.

Application:

2. Eradicate Family Court laws completely (because this set of laws, to my udnerstanding, says every time there is a custody dispute, the Court AUTOMATICALLY has Jurisdiction)

3. Suppose there is an exception -- there is a really bad (fill in the blank) and a really good (fill in the blank -- opposite gender parent)? How can this person then switch custody under the statistics-based legal process ??? Good griefi!+ + + + + + + + But wait a minute! What about same-sex couples with children Oh my God, how are going to straighten THAT one out? No lesbians allowed to adopt, or have children where one is bioMom, but it's fine for homosexual male couples (after, obviously an ex partner or surrogate mothers somewhere, I mean, biology is biology....).

OK, so a homosexual couple, married in a state that allows marriage, splits up and have a custody dispute. So what does a court based on "more mothers kill" do then?

+ + + + + + + + +

That whole scene is ridiculous. I am not a statistic. My ex is not a statistic. And while statistics are helpful, they also represent selective questions, and usually some kind of viewpoint. When they are paid for by any party with a stake in the outcome, (i.e, a policy it wants to promote), then they are lobbyist statistics used to justify whatever the lobby is. + + + + + + + + +

This is not much different than racism, and comes from the same source. Try that formula again, and instead of filling in gender, fill in race. You would see how ridiculous it sounds, and you would probably recognize this is right back to the institution of slavery based on innate superiority/inferiority of certain races. Back to Square 1.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Sorry to jump on one particular person who blurted it out (again) but look through the comments -- and the PAS article comments also (probably up to 600+ by now) -- and you'll see again, as I recall (got to qualify it there) -- lots of people saying "more mothers kill children." Another person said "more SINGLE mothers kill children" So, I posted DOJ study spanning a 31-year period (1976-2005) which broke it down precisely, pretty much (except including step-parents with bio -parents) -- and not only did the stats say this, but the summaries said it too -- in every category, it was more males (including more fathers) responsible for killing children.

Then the people that said this got mad at me -- not at the DOJ. Take the complaints to the source -- if you don't like what it said, don't just go lie, or ad-lib! Write to the government and tell them to switch around it's statistics because some pest on-line is quoting them each time she hears "more mothers kill children"!

AND -- in this article's context, we are talking about custody disputes. So a subset of "mothers" should be shown that means, after separation or a custody dispute.

I am sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, or angry. However, I am a mother, and I never thought about killing anyone, let alone my children, and the idea is abhorrent. And I'm tired of hearing my gender profiled as murdering kids more.

Especially when it's not true.

quest
quest

Yeah, the general public - Geez, I quess that's the best way. But, that's my profession - Family and Children. What's yours- leading the blind...

 
©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...