Mothers Intelligence Secret Service

Report Details Sabotage of Birth Control

2011-02-16T06:52:00.001-08:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/health/research/15pregnant.html

February 15, 2011

Report Details Sabotage of Birth Control

By RONI CARYN RABIN

Men who abuse women physically and emotionally may also sabotage their partners’ birth control, pressuring them to become pregnant against their will, new reports suggest.

Several small studies have described this kind of coercion among low-income teenagers and young adults with a history of violence by intimate partners. Now, a report being released Tuesday by the federally financed National Domestic Violence Hotline says 1 in 4 women who agreed to answer questions after calling the hot line said a partner had pressured them to become pregnant, told them not to use contraceptives, or forced them to have unprotected sex.

The report was based on answers from more than 3,000 women, but it was not a research study, those involved said.

“It was very eye-opening,” said Lisa James, director of health at the Family Violence Prevention Fund in San Francisco, which worked with the hot line on the report. “There were stories about men refusing to wear a condom, forcing sex without a condom, poking holes in condoms, flushing birth control pills down the toilet.

“There were lots of stories about hiding the birth control pills — that she kept ‘losing’ her birth control pills, until she realized that he was hiding them,” Ms. James added.

One respondent described having to hide in the bathroom to take her pill. Another said that when she got her period recently, her partner was “furious.”

The hot line’s report did not include a comparison group and did not gather information about the participants, who were questioned anonymously; nor was it published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was based on answers to four questions posed to 3,169 women around the country who contacted the domestic violence hot line between Aug. 16 and Sept. 26, 2010, who were not in immediate danger and who agreed to participate. About 6,800 callers refused to answer the questions.

Of those who did respond, about a quarter said yes to one or more of these three questions: “Has your partner or ex ever told you not to use any birth control?” “Has your partner or ex-partner ever tried to force or pressure you to become pregnant?” “Has your partner or ex ever made you have sex without a condom so that you would get pregnant?”

One in six answered yes to the question “Has your partner or ex-partner ever taken off the condom during sex so that you would get pregnant?”

The questions were devised by Dr. Elizabeth Miller, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the School of Medicine at the University of California, Davis, whose earlier papers on reproductive coercion prompted interest in the subject.

“It’s really important to recognize reproductive coercion as another mechanism for control in an unhealthy relationship,” Dr. Miller said. At the same time, she added, younger women and girls dating older men may be confused by the pressure to become pregnant.

“If you can put yourself in the shoes of a 15-year-old dating an 18- or 19-year-old man, which is not an unusual scenario, and he says to her, ‘We’re going to make beautiful babies together,’ that’s pretty seductive.”

But Dr. Miller said more research was needed to understand the men’s motivations.

“One of the things that comes up a lot is: What are the guys thinking?” she said, adding that her own research suggested some answers.

“Some have an intense desire for a nuclear family, and many who had experiences of a dysfunctional family home want something better,” she said. Some young men, she said, “want to leave a legacy, and say, ‘I’m not sure how long I’m going to be around.’ Gang-affiliated young men want the status that comes with having babies from multiple women.”

Dr. Miller’s paper, published last year in the journal Contraception, reported that at five family planning clinics in Northern California, one-third of 683 female patients whose partners were physically abusive said the men had also pressured them to become pregnant or had sabotaged their birth control. Of 191 women who reported birth control sabotage, 79 percent also reported physical abuse, the study found.

The associations help explain why young victims of violence by intimate partners are at an increased risk for unplanned pregnancies and for sexually transmitted diseases.

Ms. James, of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, said that despite the new attention to reproductive coercion, she doubted it was a new phenomenon.

“I just think not enough people have been asking the question,” she said.

SAY NO - UNiTE to Stop Violence Against Mothers And Their Children

2011-02-08T07:00:00.001-08:00

Please go to link below sign in and SAY NO-UNiTE To End Violence Against Women AND THEIR CHILDREN.

Stop Violence Against Mothers And Their Children

As many are aware, there is a silent genocide occurring against women. This is part of a major reason why women all over the world are united to end violence against women. What many do not know or connect is that a lot of women experiencing violence perpetrated against them are also mothers. Many ads on stopping violence against women portray women without children as a means to get the message across clearly; but they fail to represent the large proportion of mothers in this situation.

Experts in intimate partner violence have noted that there is a high correlation between abuse and pregnancy. Some scholars state that this is because they are envious of the relationship between the mother and the child. Using violence, coercion and control is often part of the effort to destroy these bonds. The problem then exacerbates when a mother tries to leave--often not to save herself but to save the child. Leaving is one of the most dangerous times for all women enduring intimate partner violence, and, accompanied with an inadequate system, the odds are stacked against her. With a community plagued by stereotypes on child custody cases, closed courtrooms and loopholes in laws compounded by pop-psychology, we have a situation where most mothers in this predicament are torn away from the children they tried to protect. In the 1980s, Dr Richard Gardner coined the term, “Parent Alienation Syndrome”. This term remained a term only, because most of the scientific community rejected it. His literature promoted ideas that victims of abuse were mentally ill and deliberately raised concerns about the abuse as an act of hate. Dr Richard Gardner also testified in a homicide case where a mother was shot 13 times. Gardner claimed that her “alienating behavior” drove him to kill her. Although the scientific community rejected Parent Alienation Syndrome, the legal community embraced it. Carefully removing the word "syndrome", the belief set remained. Whilst his work began in US, he traveled around the world promoting these ideas to court professionals and others who had a direct influence on child custody case outcomes. Some organizations that offer training for judges even held workshops on “maternal gate-keeping”, which trivialized the experiences of women and children leaving intimate partner violence. Whilst Dr. Gardner passed away several years ago, his doctrine lives on and others have polished up his work to continue its grave influence upon the legal community.

Mothers are often subjected to degrading treatment within the courtrooms where they are forced to deny their experiences and their need to survive and protect--or they will face jail. All legal avenues within this culture are blocked. This is why we have a battered mothers custody conference where mothers, professionals and young people unite to end violence against women and children through the system. It is why I traveled all the way from Australia to be there this year amongst others who have also traveled from other parts of the globe to attend. It is a global issue that affects many. This year, Holly Ann Collins, the first American to receive asylum in Netherlands, spoke about her ordeal. Revered by many as a brave mother who, against all odds, was able to save herself and her children. She was listed and hunted by US as an abductor even though they knew why she ran. She arrived at the airport with a suitcase of evidence which led to her being granted asylum. She was hard on herself because she did not do it sooner. Whilst leaving with the children under these circumstances should be seen as the best thing to do, there is no legal avenue to do so. Some laws and treaties appear from the surface to have some consideration of women and children experiencing violence, but the processes, culture, economics and ambiguity of the situation stifle opportunities to do so. Holly Ann Collins' outcome is a rare one. We need better laws that protect mothers and children from violence without punishment or further victimization.

SPONSORED by UN MOTHERS

CONTACT INFORMATION

Name: UN Mothers

Title: Advocate

Email: smith@ssl-mail.com

OTHER PARTNERS

American Mothers Political Party

Australian Mothers Political Party

Battered Mothers Custody Conference

Rikki Dombrowski: Don’t Give Up – Love, Hope and Empowerment—The Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)

2011-01-28T15:25:00.001-08:00

Your Mother Claudine Dombrowski Loves you and she is here for you when you can finally break free. She has not given up, she will not shut up and she will not go away!

“Granny died and her grand-daughter was not allowed to attend her funeral.”

“This tribute video was made– for three generations lost—destroyed by the Family Courts.”

“Granny, Mom and Rikki three hearts united across the universe and above and beyond the Shawnee County Courthouse MAFIA.”

Rikki Dombrowski– Run Like The Wind http://rightsformothers.com/2010/08/2…
"DANGEROUS" CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI ATTENDS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RALLY: DOES SHE FACE JUDICIAL RETALIATION AGAIN http://rightsformothers.com/2010/10/2…

Hope Love Power and enlightenment

Rikki, Granny, Mom ,apos;Dont give up apos; Love power ... - Google Video - Motore di ricerca video Truveo - Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

I am a thousand winds that blow,

I am the diamond glints on snow,

I am the sun on ripened grain,

I am the gentle autumn rain.

When you awaken in the morning’s hush,

I am the swift uplifting rush

Of quiet birds in circled flight.

I am the soft stars that shine at night.

Do not stand at my grave and weep

I am not there; I do not sleep.

Do not stand at my grave and cry,

I am not there; I did not die.

by, Mary Elizabeth Frye

Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sham-shawnee-county-topeka-kansas

Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) The last time I did court watch for protective mother CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, I called my subsequent posting on the experience "Showdown in Shawnee County." See the post here:

http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2010/02/showdown-in-shawnee-county-we-finally.html

I can't even call the hearing held on October 19, 2010 a showdown. It was just a sham.

Let's do a little review. Claudine is a battered mother who lost custody of her only daughter in an ex parte hearing in 2004. (Ex parte means the mother wasn't even represented at the hearing.) Since then, she has had very little visitation. The hearing in January 2010 (see post above) was supposed to fix that. And finally, Claudine was awarded two hours of unsupervised visitation on Sunday and telephone contact twice a week. We figured it was a start.

Well, this was not to be. And not because of anything Claudine did.

As Claudine testified, visitation went well. She taught her now teenage daughter to drive. They shopped. They went to Barnes and Noble. They talked about girl stuff. Boy stuff. Just like any other mother and daughter. In fact, Claudine was able to enjoy her first mother's day with her daughter in ten years. There were no negative interactions. In fact, it looked like some serious healing was going on.

And in that lays the problem. You see, abusers and their enablers don't like healing. They find that supremely threatening to their power and control. So of course, the process must be stopped lest their domination of the child and the overall "situation" be compromised.

So in May 2010, all visitation stopped at Dad HAL RICHARDSON's personal discretion--which he admitted during his own testimony. He made the unilateral decision that he would no longer take his daughter to the law enforcement center for visitation (presumably at her "request"--but more on that later.) He made sure that during the times of designated phone contact, the phone was never answered as it was set on fax. (67 Direct Contempt's Dad admitted under oath that the phone does go to fax mode when not answered--though he denied "inhibiting" phone access, which is not surprising. But then, how did Mom know to testify that the phone was set on fax when she called? Oh those little details....) But of course, Dad didn't exactly encourage or welcome contact either--that much was evident. In fact, it was pretty clear to me that he was extremely negative about Claudine, and doing his best to crush any contact between her and her daughter.

But like many abusers, he projected his own motives onto the child, now a teenager. SHE was the one who was "uncomfortable." She was the one who was "afraid." Afraid of what? Physical abuse, sexual violence? No, there was no evidence of that beyond vague innuendos about "fighting" that allegedly occurred in the distant past (These innuendos weren't even brought up in January. Must be a new game plan.)

Apparently we are supposed to believe that this teenage girl is "afraid" because Mom allegedly doesn't "follow the rules." What rules? Apparently the court's rules regarding discussion of this case.

All this was echoed by Guardian ad Litem JILL DYKES. And once again, just as in January, Ms. Dykes didn't even feign professional neutrality in this case, as she literally sat at Daddy's elbow the whole time.

Are you kidding me? The typical teenager would blow off a parent's attempt to discuss court matters--ASSUMING any such discussion took place, which Claudine denies. They certainly wouldn't be "afraid" of such a discussion. Annoyed perhaps. But not "afraid" or traumatized. This is just classic projection. That this teenager is such a hothouse flower that she is somehow irreparably injured by any possible or potential references to her parents' legal issues, which I'm sure she already knows all about anyway. Nonsense.

I would humbly suggest that it is Hall Richardson and his enablers who are "afraid" of any possible open or frank discussion of this case. Or any contact between this mother and daughter. And their little "feelings" shouldn't play any part of this.

Under Kansas law, visitation isn't shut off because somebody is "uncomfortable" for vague and specious reasons. If that were the case, then controlling and manipulative parents would be cutting off access for whatever reason they dreamed up that day.

Unfortunately, given the dynamics of domestic violence, children who are in the control of abusers often find it necessary to parrot what the abusers want for their own survival. Which makes if very difficult for this child to speak up and articulate what she wants--except in private to her own mother.

And frankly, this ordeal shows a complete double standard. Were this a custodial mother blocking visitation for such vague and specious reasons, she would no doubt be labeled as an "alienator" with "parental alienation syndrome" (PAS). And the situation would be addressed immediately--either visitation would be enforced by the courts or the mother would lose custody all together. But I digress.

So no visitation from May to the present. But this actually was a minor issue as far as the court was concerned.

No, once again our major concern was Claudine's political activity. The players in Shawnee County are very upset with how well known this case has become (my last blog posting on this case had readers as far away as Australia.) And they are blaming Claudine for all of it, even though when pushed, Judge DAVID DEBENHEIM fiercely denied that he was trying to "stomp" on Claudine's first amendment rights. (Huh. Could have fooled me.)

But even in cases where OTHER bloggers like Nancy Carroll at Rights for Mothers had discussed this case (http://rightsformothers.com/), Claudine was blamed. In fact, the opposing attorney submitted into evidence printouts from NANCY's blog to show that Claudine was out of compliance with their gag order. Message to the Hoffmans: Nancy is not Claudine. I'm not Claudine either, for that matter. And you can't shut us up.

And honestly, did the Hoffmans really have to embarrass their employee like that? They trotted out a young and painfully ignorant employee of theirs to "testify" about Claudine's "alleged" facebook and twitter activities. This fresh-faced young woman--no more than a high school graduate with a few "computer" classes--earnestly told us that every posting and link on somebody's facebook page had to personally "approved" and/or "posted" by that person. Yes, dear friends. She did say that. And meant it too, so far as I can tell. I won't give her name, though it's in my notes. I refuse to further humilate her. But honestly, your great aunt Rose probably knows more about facebook than this girl.

So the significance of this was what? There are supposedly "references" to her case on Claudine's facebook page! Oh the horror! And you know what? This blog may very well end up with a link on Claudine's facebook page, too--through an automatic feed mechanism. It will go straight to facebook--even when Claudine is sleeping or brushing her teeth. Or sitting in court. Because you know what? Claudine is a well networked activist with probably hundreds of facebook friends working on issues related to child abuse, domestic violence, human rights, and family court reform. Many of us have discussed this case before. Just as we have discussed many other cases like this one, where the courts have backed up the abuser and shut out or ignored the protective mother. And for your information, you'll find articles and links about those cases as well.

And all this policing of Claudine's personal and political activities on the internet is particularly hypocritical when you consider the following: Attorney JASON P. HOFFMAN and GAL JILL DYKES had no qualms about violating professional ethical boundaries and becoming facebook "friends" with this child! (I saw the screen shots.) Mom can't even post a photo of her daughter per court order, but these folks feel free to do as they like. Not that the judge was interested in this matter at all. Big surprise there.

And this is the crux of the matter. What the court in Shawnee County REALLY doesn't like is that--as they put it--this lady "has a cause." Or she has "become a cause." They don't like the "venom" (i.e. the truth) that has come out about this case, and the attention it has received nationally and even internationally. They don't even like Claudine's facial expressions! (Yes, the judge made a point of addressing this. "You are your own worst enemy!" he thundered at Claudine--apparently over some grimace or frown that I didn't see.)

So make sure you never show anything but a happy face in front of Judge Debenham, even when you are possibly losing all contact with your only child!

Claudine is supposed to hear later this afternoon what the court's decision is--after her daughter will presumably be allowed to speak her mind with the judge. But of course, she can't really speak her mind--not as long as she's a minor and dependent on her father.

We are not optimistic as to the outcome.

But you know what? In a little over two years, this girl ages out of the system's control over her life. Perhaps then, real change will come about.

Abusers and their enablers often win the battles. But they seldom win the war. That puts off any real healing in this case for another two years.

But at least it's something to hope for.

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sham-shawnee-county-topeka-kansas#ixzz1CN6yB4FW

Claudine Dombrowski and the love for her Daughter Rikki Dombrowski – Fly High Fly Free--- they can not chain the wind, no matter how hard they try.

Did Maui Judge Tanaka Give Baby to Abuser Contrary to Law?

2011-01-27T14:48:00.001-08:00

Courtesy AngelGroup

A domestic violence survivor, Maria Styke-Marquez, appears alone in Judge Keith Tanaka's Second Circuit courtroom where, according to documents filed by the perpetrator's attorney, Mimi DeJardins, the judge will grant her abuser's request to permanently relocate to Minnesota with the former couple's 2 1/2 year-old daughter, removing her not only from the island of her birth, but from her mother.

The child's father, Bruce Anthony Sotelo Jr., was convicted and held in jail for beating a pregnant Ms. Styke-Marquez so severely in 2007 that the 4 month-old baby she was carrying may have died as a result of the attack that left Ms. Styke-Marquez with a concussion, broken ribs, cracked teeth, a split lip and contusions.

Hawaii State Statute 571-46(9) perpetrators of family violence are not candidates for custody of their children, yet in September, Judge Tanaka ruled to give full physical/legal custody of the little girl to the man who put her mother in the hospital. Is that contrary to statute? Not if facts support the ruling.

Financially devastated from the litigation her abuser has put her through, Ms. Styke-Marquez, unable to afford an attorney, walked into the courtroom alone to face her abuser (who as recently as November 19th has a criminal contempt charge lodged against him), his attorney (who is also a Per Diem judge) and a judge who has already ruled against he. "My last and only hope to save my daughter is to call public attention to what's going on and I'm not the only one this is happening to - I know so many other domestic violence survivors who have lost custody of their

children to their perpetrators as well which only tells me that this is no small problem. I'm a protective parent, not a perfect one, and never tried to keep our daughter from her father so I can't understand how this is being allowed to happen" says Ms. Styke-Marquez.

She reportedly collapsed in courtroom, and was transported to hospital and the hearing continued without her.

Final outcome of the hearing is at this time, unknown. But words from the Judiciary allege factual mistakes and erroneous statements of law by Angels.

Comments

-1#4 mia kai 2011-01-23 21:13

Tanaka allowed him to move so he can live with his parents rent free and work as a food server for 7.25 an hour when as a nurse i can make 35.00 an hour, how does that make sense? and for him to rip her away from her mother who nursed on MY breasts, and took care of her better than they ever can????? My question to Tanaka is, What happened to you? What happened in your marriage or your high school love, some woman must have hurt you extremely bad and it must have been with children or you just know the way to get back at them or hurt the woman who has hurt you is through their children, because you men all know that our hearts mend after leaving you, actually our life's our better without you men in em.....so you men see this and know the only way to truly beat us once again is through our children! I'm considering having an investigation done on Tanaka to see about the women in his past and to see who he was abusive to? Tanaka is to evil you can see it in his eyes, beetle eyes- hatred

Quote

-1#3 mia kai 2011-01-23 21:05

I have filed asking for a "New trial and or alternative reconsideration on his decision, but we all know he will deny this, I had filed an emergency stay on 12-30-10 and he put it on the calender for 1-26-11 at 1:30pm but still allowed for my angel to be moved to the mainland without even saying goodbye to her primary attachment "me- her mother"... How can "paradise" be so corrupted? Bruce may have beat me and terminated my pregnancy, and I dealt with that by leaving him and living my life for my then 5 month pregnancy (I was 5 months prego when he started to push me again, so I kicked him out for good) and then I had my precious angel Malie alone in the hospital and raised her by myself working as a nurse and then he wants to take take her from me because he seen I picked up and was living well without him and plus they upped his CS from $50.00 a month to $780.00 a month, this is when his mother stepped in and said her son will not give me that money and they hired Desjardins

Quote

-1#2 mia kai 2011-01-23 20:50

YES this BEAST of a Judge did give my precious angel to my abuser. When I had filed for a pre-trial before my trial to ask for a "custody evaluator and a GAL appointed, he denied it, and during the trial in the beginning I asked for him to reconsider because this would be a "traumatic life changing experience to be separated across the ocean from her mother" and he the BEAST stated "well you just declared yourself to be indigent so how are you going to pay for one?" I said, I am a mother,a protective mother at that and this is my precious little babies life we are talking about, I'm positive given the opportunity to be evaluated I will find the monies to pay for one". He said NO!!!!!!! and allowed my abuser and to the abuser's own flesh and blood to move to the mainland... Tanaka, on the bench stated "Ms. Styke I know you are a fit and loving parent" but b cuz i had to call the police 14 times for custodial interference I was at fault and he said I was putting my daughter in harms way.

Quote

-4#1 valeriemaui 2010-12-04 17:19

Tanaka needs a seat not one on the bench! aeeed

Quote

Joan Dawson: Parental alienation and domestic violence

2011-01-20T14:07:00.001-08:00

Joan Dawson

Posted: January 20, 2011 02:36 PM

Parental alienation and domestic violence

"I hope there's more cases just like this, where people don't want to let their spouses see their kids...I hope it happens more and more, until the law finally says you know what? There needs to be something done so these parents can be with their kids."

These were the words fired by Randall Todd Moore as he denied having "not one ounce of remorse" for kidnapping, sexually assaulting and killing his ex-wife.

But was his ex-wife 'alienating' the kids, as Moore alleged, or trying to protect them from danger?

This case is clear, but as those working in domestic violence and child abuse realize, all too often clarity comes at a price.

Parental alienation (PA, or PAS for Parental Alienation Syndrome), a topic pro-PA psychologist Richard Warshak recently covered on Huffington Post, alleges a parent poisons the mind of a child to fear or hate the other parent. The defamation results in a damaged relationship or estrangement.

Those opposing parental alienation admit parents can bad-mouth the other parent either deliberately or inadvertently; however, factors such as poor parenting skills or personality on the part of the mother or father and stages of normal development or reactions to divorce on the part of the child can also cause alienating behaviors.

Dr. Paul Fink, President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, and a former President of the American Psychiatric Association states, "Science tells us that the most likely reason that a child becomes estranged from a parent is that parent's own behavior. Labels, such as PAS, serve to deflect attention away from those behaviors."

More dangerously, parental alienation can mask domestic violence, child abuse and child sexual abuse. What is the difference between fearful or uncooperative battered women and alienating," vindictive" mothers? If parents try to withhold access to children, are they alienators or protectors? If they try to provide evidence of abuse - interviews with psychologists, medical examinations or discussions with the child - are they gathering proof or further alienating the ex? What is the difference between alienated children and abused children?

The behaviors can be indistinguishable.

Indeed, it's not just domestic violence survivors' advocates who witness the problem with PA. The American Bar Association, American Prosecutors Research Institute, National District Attorneys Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges all denounce the use of parental alienation in the courtroom. The National District Attorneys Association says on their Web site, "PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children."

That hasn't stopped courts from using PAS, resulting in accusations against individuals, mostly women, of maliciously denying access to children.

Katie Tagle, for instance, sought a restraining order on Jan. 21, 2010 against her ex-boyfriend Stephen Garcia to stop him from having unsupervised visitation with their nine-month-old child.

She told the judge Garcia threatened to kill the infant. The court transcript records Judge Robert Lemkau as saying, "One of you is lying," and later, "Mr. Garcia claims its total fabrication on your part." Garcia also referred to it as "little stunts and games" that she used to deny him access to his son.

Even when she tries to produce evidence of the threats, he says, "Well, ma'am, there's a real dispute about whether that's even true or not." And finally, "My suspicion is that you're lying" (said twice). He denied her the order (as did two other judges). Garcia took their son that day and drove off into the mountains. Ten days later, they were both found dead.
The transcript is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26434649/tagle-garcia-court-transcript-dent-protection-to-baby-now-bay-is-DEAD

This case clearly demonstrates another issue women have in courts: credibility. It's easier to believe a woman is lying than to believe a man can abuse or kill a woman or child. In reality, in family court, denying abuse is more common than fabricating tales of abuse. Most allegations are made in good faith (see the American Bar Association's 10 Custody Myths and How to Counter Them). And most denials are made by perpetrators, perpetrators skillful at manipulation - even of professionals.

Indeed, we must not forget family court is the place for couples with high conflict and abuse. The overwhelming majority (up to 90%) of couples create their own parenting plans. Those that cannot, go to family court.

Judges, though, have been known to downplay even well-documented cases of abuse and to give more weight to parental alienation than to abuse allegations. In the case of Jennifer Collins, for example, the judge told her mother to "get over" the abuse as at least two years had passed, according to Collins' Web site. The judge reversed the custody decision because her mom's fear was "interfering in his relationship with us." Jennifer's mother Holly took her two children and fled to the Netherlands, where they were granted asylum. (See also the Courageous Kids Network of children who were court-ordered into relationships with abusive parents.)

58,000 children a year go into sole or joint custody arrangements or unsupervised visitation with physically or sexually abusive parents, according to an estimate by the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence. That's over 1,000 children a week the courts place in harm's way.

Giving custody to the supposedly alienated parent is one way to "solve" the problem of parental alienation. Jailing the mother is another.

Tiffany Barney and Joyce Murphy are two women who've been jailed; their cases were covered in the media. Both alleged child sexual abuse and neither were believed. Barney fought for five years, at times losing custody or having limited supervised visitation. Murphy was called "toxic" to her daughter and deemed the cause of the child fearing her father. She fled with her daughter. When found, she was jailed for felony abduction and later granted limited visitation. It wasn't until three more girls came forward with molestation charges that her ex was finally the one jailed.

A few other cases making headlines include: Court Punishes Woman in Alienation Case; WI: Judge Jails Mother over Daughter's Refusal to Visit Father and Judge Dismisses Abuse Allegations.

To sum it up, any behavior that does not promote access to children can be classified as parental alienation and punished with jail time or limits on/loss of custody. With this threat, parents are less likely to report abuse and more likely to share custody with an abuser.

It should also be noted that when violent partners make good on their threats to take the kids away, it's referred to as domestic violence by proxy -a continuation of domestic violence - rather than PA or PAS. Some battered women who've lost custody use PA or PAS to describe their particular situation. This both minimizes the nature and scope of abuse women face and promotes the use of a dangerous weapon (PA/PAS) that can be used against them in court.

I wouldn't hand an angry man a agun, nor would I readily hand over a legal strategy to potential pedophiles, abusers or killers. Yet that is exactly what PA/PAS is doing.

For more information, visit:

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence

Stop Family Violence

Center for Judicial Excellence

2011-01-18T16:13:00.001-08:00

Responsible Fatherhood”: What Do Women Have to Do with It?

(found on a blog titled: soros.org, surely identifying with the downtrodden, and labeled “OPEN SOCIETIES — building Vibrant and Tolerant Democracies. How many people do you know whose mission is “building” a democracy? How about some live and let live?)

October 12, 2010 | by Stacey Bouchet and Julia Hayman Hamilton
There are many national and local efforts focused around the issue of fatherhood in the United States. They are necessary and encouraging, but we are convinced that women’s voices are also essential to their success and sustainability. That’s why our organization, Women In Fatherhood, Inc.(WIFI), recently joined with the Open Society Campaign for Black Male Achievement in its work to strengthen low-income families and communities through the support of positive father involvement.
We are launching a media campaign, “In the Words of Women,” to raise awareness about the importance of fathers.

What — FATHERHOOD.gov, Fatherhood.HHS.gov, Fathers.com, and Fatherhood COmmissions around the country, National fatherhood initiative, state-level “fatherhood initiatives” and all the CFDA 93086 on “Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood” millions — and it indeed Was then, Is Now, and I gather “Ever Shall Be” million$$ — to promote these things — again with PUBLIC $$ and faith-based collaboratives at times — isn’t that enough?

It takes more than absence of Y chromosome to qualify to be a VOICE of a WOMAN that needs to be heard nationwide . This is more paid-for static paid for by the majority white male, still, Congress. And I never used to talk like this before. I’ll try to post the brochure which states this clearly — but my laptop battery is about to die.

Here’s just one of this august board of directors (probably great women in their own rights — but they are on a cause that is hurting others, so I feel very free to speak out about the farce. First white dudes (Wade Horn et al), go after inner-city urban churches (i.e., the black vote) to make like fatherhood agenda is NOT racist. That under the belt, they then go get some women (including, in case below, a wife of a fatherhood pioneer) and front them to say “we speak for women.”

Frances Ballard

Frances Ballard is the Executive Director for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). In her role she is responsible for the strategic direction and leadership for activities regarding the NRFC, including the coordination of the media campaign, clearinghouse and Web site, Training and Technical Assistance (T & TA) to responsible fatherhood demonstration sites, and building relationships and partnerships for NRFC.She has over 20 years experience working with fathers, families and healthcare. Her previous positions include 12 years serving as the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization; Consultant to The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Making Connections Program; ***
Director of Corporate Development and Clinical Manager-Ambulatory Care, Grace Hospital; and Nurse Consultant/Program Developer, The Institute For Responsible Fatherhood and Family Development. She holds a Masters of Science Degree in Nursing Administration, a B.A. in Social Work, an A.S. in Nursing, and numerous executive management certifications.She is married to Dr. Charles A. Ballard, “pioneer” of the Fatherhood Movement and the mother of their three children, Jonathan, Lydia and Christopher.
At the bottom is a link to her husband, and his “faith.” Makes me wonder about the separation of church and state, and where it went…***
** kind of reminds me of Wade Horn and the HHS Connection. Maybe that’s the “CONNECTIONS” they are really dealing with ..

Well, has your local church (wear the shoe if it fits) stopped seeking tithes and offerings yet? Has hell (fatherlessness, I guess) froze over yet. Is the Vatican scaling back? Then the answer, evidently, is NO.

Again, I repeat: ”How gullible

do they think we (mothers) are?”

Look — if readers can put up with my (lack of proper) formatting and failing to spellcheck on this post, the URLs on it are great lead-ins to what the courts are about. I have the links, it’s up to you to THINK, and continue to see if the puzzle pieces are starting to assemble into the larger picture. More later, I hope, and this is my contribution to the Major Holiday that today represents. What depths we have sunk to on high, sacrificing civil rights and consitutional rights for someone (else’s, not Martin luther King, Jr.’s) “I HAVE A DREAM” about Fathers & Families (no “mothers”) and a totally organized, uniform controlled workforce run by foundations, and executed through the family law and etc. court systems, all a seamless, no-conflict whole, run from the top. Sounds like what some World Wars were fought over, last century, only we’re on the wrong side, on this one — in trying Designer Family USA.

I’ll try & include the ilnk to the brochure stating, clearly, that the HHS paid to have certain dialogues put forth, and that NCADV was a recommended conference to attend in the Fatherhood matters. Also telling in that brochure is that (unlike the Bible, which seems to be so foundational to many of these agenda) the phrasing was fathers & families, or Fathers & children, community, etc. The word ‘mother”? I don’t think it was even on the two -page glitz blitz promo page.

It’s in the Ten Commandments. But, these family folk can’t seem to consistently choke out the word in their rhetoric.

Remember — Please THINK about the LINK — and the word “Please” has a “PLEA” in it — from me, at the start of 2011, and over four years since my profession was destroyed by the presence of these programs in and around the courtrooms.

We'd Like To Give Fathers Their Rights Back, But First We Need to Figure Out Who Took Them Away

2011-01-18T15:31:00.001-08:00

We'd Like To Give Fathers Their Rights Back, But First We Need to Figure Out Who Took Them Away

I am always so excited when Barbara Kay has an article published. She is so truthful and factual in her support of father's rights. Let's take a look:

We have British Columbia's first review of family law in B.C. since the Family Relations Act came into force more than thirty years ago. Their July "White Paper on Family Relations Act Reform" (accepting submissions until Oct. 8) contains progressive draft legislation and policy proposals: It recommends stepping away from courts and the adversarial model in order to "adopt a conflict prevention approach to family law disputes" and urges making "children's best interests the only consideration in parenting disputes."

Damn this is really groundbreaking. I am totally impressed that it took 30 years to come forward with this information. I mean, who knew that children's best interests should be so exclusively focused on?

Next up is the Green Party's unequivocal adoption of a policy of equal parenting at their August convention. By my reckoning that means every single federal party is on board with the idea that both parents have the right to maintain a strong, loving bond with their children, established through credible sociological research as necessitating 40% of the time with children beyond infancy.

Fathers Aren't Necessary: Finally Getting Off the Patriarchal Bullshit Bandwagon

2011-01-18T15:30:00.001-08:00

Fathers Aren't Necessary: Finally Getting Off the Patriarchal Bullshit Bandwagon

Not many people will argue against the necessity of having a father in one's life. We have been so ingrained to accept this as a fact that to challenge this assertion would seem absurd. Everyone from from religious persons to psychologists will tell you how important a father is in a child's development. But they have been lying. It has been a social control mechanism. Ohh, but get ready for the backlash...men don't like being told that they aren't important, and the women who support these notions, love to support these men (meaning, they, the women, will be angry, too)!

Yesterday's article on CNN entitled, Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests, is sure to have "them" screaming mad:

A nearly 25-year study concluded that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.

The study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, followed 78 lesbian couples who conceived through sperm donations and assessed their children's well-being through a series of questionnaires and interviews...

Children from lesbian families rated higher in social, academic and total competence. They also showed lower rates in social, rule-breaking, aggressive problem behavior.

Ouch! Kinda tramples on the male ego...at least those in the fathers' rights camps...the ones that think single mother households are such a nasty infection, feminism is evil, and welfare lets women birth unlimited babies while replacing/eliminating the man. *eye roll*

But as I said, there are women who will be upset as well:

Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, a group that supports biblical values, questioned the legitimacy of the findings from a study funded by gay advocacy groups.

"That proves the prejudice and bias of the study," she said. "This study was clearly designed to come out with one outcome -- to attempt to sway people that children are not detrimentally affected in a homosexual household."

Wright questioned the objectivity of Gartrell's research, saying the author can "cherry pick people who are involved and the info they release."

"In essence, this study claims to purport that children do better when raised by lesbians," she said...

Studies have shown that children thrive having both a mother and a father, Wright said.

"You have to be a little suspicious of any study that says children being raised by same-sex couples do better or have superior outcomes to children raised with a mother and father," she said. "It just defies common sense and reality."

Well, Wendy, unfortunately, we'd have to pull a hell of a lot of studies off the market for bias related to funding. In fact, we should probably stop letting the government give out grant monies for all these "fatherhood demonstration" projects...and while we are at it, pull money from religious groups as well. To which studies are you referring, Wendy? What were theirfunding sources? And why shouldn't we be suspicious of studies regarding heterosexual, married persons? Not applying equal skepticism just defies commons sense and reality. If you really want to know about funding and bias, see the Let's Get Honest blog.

And we also have a recent article entitled, Are Fathers Necessary?, which begins by talking about Barack Obama, who we already know to have some serious psychological issues regarding fatherhood (see Obama and His Fathercentricism):

There’s only one problem: none of this is proven. In the February issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family, Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University, and Timothy Biblarz, a demographer from the University of Southern California, consolidated the available data on the role of gender in child rearing. As Stacey and Biblarz point out, our ideas of what dads do and provide are based primarily on contrasts between married-couple parents and single-female parents: an apples-to-oranges exercise that conflates gender, sexual orientation, marital status, and biogenetic relationships in ways that a true comparison of parent gender—one that compared married gay-male couples or married lesbian couples to married heterosexuals, or single fathers to single mothers—would not. Most of the data fail to distinguish between a father and the income a father provides, or between the presence of a father and the presence of a second parent, regardless of gender.

So, the conclusion, once again, is that gender is irrelevant. Children do well when they have the emotional and financial support of whomever raises them (which still happens to be mothers, you know. I mean, this could change if men continued to increase their roles, beginning in infancy, but with women still being the ones bearing the pregnancy, and having the lactating breasts, it can be so damn hard to break this!) Damn, is this so hard to understand? How much more money must be spent covering this same shit?

Battered Mothers: No Longer Silenced!! Eighth Annual Battered Mother's Custody Conference

2011-01-14T07:11:00.001-08:00

Battered Mothers: No longer silenced.

The Battered Mother's Custody Conference focuses on legal and human rights issues surrounding divorce and custody cases for victims of domestic violence.

The Eighth Battered Mother’s Custody Conference: held in Albany, New York January 7 through January 9, 2011. The conference was founded by Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D. of Albany, New York and Liliane Heller Miller of Charlotte, North Carolina in 2003. Dr. Hannah’s most recent publication was as co-editor of “Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody: Legal Strategies and Policy Issues” with Barry Goldstein, which was published in 2010.

The conference brings a laser focus to the little known phenomenon of battered mothers losing custody of their children to their abusers in divorce and custody cases. The conference focuses on both domestic and international aspects of the issue; scholarly research; and legal and human rights cases related to domestic violence and child custody cases. Members bring international advocates together once a year. Twenty-eight advocates are scheduled to make presentations at this year's conference.

In a society that sees itself as progressive, and a champion of the needs of the disenfranchised; domestic violence continues to cover the United States in a cloak of disgrace. Many individuals are led to believe that if a victim of domestic violence seeks the aid of police, social service agencies, or sincerely pursues leaving a dangerous marriage through divorce, that the end of her nightmare is close at hand. However, once inside the judicial system, asking for help becomes a myth, as victims of domestic violence do not fare well.

According to attorney Joan Meir in a 2005 article published on “Stop Family Violence Now” (Meier), within U. S. divorce and custody cases, contested cases by abusers result in fully seventy percent (70%) of abusers receiving custody of the couple’s children. Trends like these as well as an increase in petitions protesting the violation of human rights to the Inter America Human Rights Commission, tell a different story.

Ironically, the U.S. was once seen as a safe harbor and respite from injustice in other parts of the world. The U.S. was petitioned as the grantor of political asylum to world citizens suffering from unfair political and legal persecution. Yet, the tide began to turn when the first U. S. citizen was granted asylum from the United States by The Netherlands in 1994.

Holly Ann Collins appealed for protection from an abusive ex-spouse and the right to raise her three children in The Netherlands. Scheduled to appear this weekend, Ms. Collins and her son Zachary Collins will discuss their experience. Now grown, Ms. Collins’ children serve as advocates for the plight of children caught in the middle by the court systems. Her daughter Jennifer Collins founded CA3, “Children Against Court Appointed Child Abuse” in 2008.

Even in cases where the murder of a couple’s children was the ultimate tragic result, injustice has proven extremely difficult to remedy within U.S. Courts for mothers plagued by domestic violence. In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales, that the state of Colorado was not obligated to enforce the restraining order that was issued to protect Jessica Gonzales' family from her ex-husband, Simon Gonzales. The murder of her three daughters at the hands of their father was battled out in U. S. courts for five years.

Gonzales made ten requests over a ten hour period of time asking police to enforce her restraining order against Simon Gonzales, but they repeatedly put her off. Ultimately her ex-husband opened fire into the police station with an assault weapon, was killed, and her daughters were found dead in his bullet riddled car in front of the police station.

With both protection and justice denied by her own country, Ms. Lanahan (formerly Gonzales) filed a complaint with the Inter America Human Rights Commission protesting the violation of her human rights. The case, Jessica Ruth Gonzales v. USA, was accepted for argument by the IAHRC in 2007.

Subsequently at least ten more victims of domestic violence have filed petitions protesting the violation of their human rights against the United States with the IAHRC.

Their cases known as (Dombrowski et el v US 2007) are currently pending acceptance.

While the United States never ratified the signed agreement making it accountable to the IAHRC for human rights offenses, hope remains that if justice will not motivate the U. S. government to take protective action on behalf of battered mothers and their children, shame will.

Meier, Joan. “Rates at Which Batters Receive Custody”. Stop Family Violence, a Project of the Tides Center. NewYork, NY. November 30, 2005. stopfamilyviolence.org

LIVE STREAM FOR THE The 8th Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference

2011-01-07T15:56:00.001-08:00

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/battered-mothers-custody-conference

The 8th Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference

Total views: 7CONFERENCE AGENDA

Friday, January 7th, 2011

4:00 – 5:30 p.m. Special pre-conference workshop: Karen Winner, Esq. How to Think Like a Lawyer on Legal Billing Issues

• Registration begins at 4:00 p.m.

• Exhibitors, book sales, and Silent (Chinese) Auction beginning at 5 p.m.

6:00 Opening greetings by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and other BMCC co-sponsors; song by Tynia Canada

6:30 – 8:00 Lundy Bancroft

8:00 – 9:00 p.m. Meet and Greet with Coffee, Tea, and Cookies

9:00 - Special Friday Night Workshop: Meditation with Rev. Anne Curtin

Saturday, January 8th, Morning Session

8:30 Plenary I: Attorney and Author Wendy Murphy, J.D. : Landmark Massachusetts ruling: Ensuring the Rights of Disabled Victims in Judicial Proceedings.

9:15 – 10:15 Introductions by Barry Nolan Plenary II: Protective Mother Holly Collins and her son Zachary Collins with Attorney Alan Rosenfeld, J.D.

10:15 – 10:30 Break

10:30 – 11:30 Barry Goldstein, J.D., Joan Zorza, J.D. and Nancy Erickson, J.D. Panel on the book: Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and Abuse: Legal Practices and Policy Issues

11:30 – 12:15 Psychologist and Expert Joy Silberg, Ph.D.: Perspective of a Psychologist on the Front Lines

12:15 – 12:30 Break

Saturday, January 8th, Afternoon Session

12: 30 – 1:30 Saturday Working Luncheon: Professor and Producer Garland Waller: Screening and Discussion of No Way Out But One (working title): An Independent Documentary on Holly Collins - The First Woman to Be Granted Political Asylum on Grounds of Domestic Violence

1:45 – 3:30 Panel: Karin Huffer, Ph.D., Renee Beeker, Wendy Murphy, J.D., & Robin Yeamans, J.D.: Groundbreakers Present A New Trajectory: Managing Family Court Cases

3:45 – 4:45 Concurrent Workshop Session I

1. Renee Beeker & Paul Holdorf: The National Family Court Watch Project

The National Family Court Watch Project believes that large-scale data will reveal national trends and ignite a call for change in the family court system. The project is a conversation springboard and uses the technique of "quiet observer" to get a sense of what's happening inside family courts. We report those findings publicly through a new conduit and work with judges and the public to find solutions. We will be sharing latest data update as well as information about the increasing involvement from professionals and educators as we expand this effort around the country.

2. Joy Silberg: Using Expert Witness Testimony in Family Court Child Abuse Cases

This presentation will review some of the effective ways to use expert witness testimony in family court child abuse cases. The roles for an expert in these cases can include criticizing existing custody evaluations, reviewing symptoms and disclosures of the child, or being court appointed to do a child protection evaluation. The presenter will emphasize how to avoid pitfalls and what points to emphasize when helping a judge look at the information from a new perspective.

Saturday, January 8th, Afternoon Session

Concurrent Workshop Session I (cont.)

3. Massachusetts Protective Mothers for Custodial Justice, Inc. RESPECT FOR ADVOCACY-- PART II of “The Basics” RESPECT FOR ADVOCACY (PART II of “The Basics”)

I. Advocacy Basics

Working with Battered Mothers: Active Listening, Getting to the Matter, Getting to the HELP!

Supporting Battered Mothers: Resources, Abilities

Using Systems that Support Battered Women, Using Supports for Battered Mothers: What They Offer, What They Can’t & Why We All Need Each Other

II. Advocacy as Activism

• When to Resist, When To Comply & Whose Call That Is

• Unity: Defining our “Same Page”

Eliminating the Extraneous

Defending What We Fought For In the New War for our Children

4. Karin Huffer, Crystal Morgan-Huffer, & Jason Huffer: Silenced No More - Self Protection in the High Tech Age: You are Not Paranoid--Just Hypervigilant and Smart

Thirty self-protective actions you must take to ensure your safety and self protection in this high tech age. Domestic Violence victims suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and if they are stalked, intruded upon, and left unprotected they suffer legal abuse syndrome. Learn to safeguard yourself in and out of court proceedings. Privacy protection, the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, and Violence Against Women Act provide more protection than you may think.

5. Barry Goldstein, J.D.: How to Use the Book "Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, and

Custody." Earlier in the day, Joan Zorza, Nancy Erickson and Barry Goldstein will discuss how to use the research in the book to help your case. The workshop will be a more interactive session in which protective mothers can ask questions about how to use the book in their individual cases.

5:00 – 6:00 p.m. Concurrent Workshop Session 2

1. Erica Olsen: Violence Against Women in the Digital Age

Do you know how easy it is for some abusers to track their victim's every move, to monitor everything they do on a computer, in their cars, or on certain phones? Like many criminals, perpetrators of stalking and domestic violence are often ahead of the curve on the use of technology. Through the Internet, high-tech global positioning systems (GPS), cell-phones and handheld computers, abusers use technology to further harm and control their victims. Understanding technology misuse is crucial to both supporting victims and holding offenders accountable. Drawing from survivor experiences and through videos and demonstrations, this training will illustrate the safety risks of phone, GPS, camera, Internet, and computer technologies.

2. Karen Borders: High Risk vs. High Conflict Family Law Matters, Identifying the Differences

This workshop will discuss Family Violence Risk Assessments which address high-conflict risk cases, which get labeled as high conflict cases and rarely get the proper assessment, leaving the risk to children and to abuse victims. While the goal remains to serve the best interest of the children, it is critical to prove or disprove any allegations before determining best interest of the children. This new risk based approach is well rooted in evidence-based practices and truly addresses the best interest of the children while keeping safety as the priority. Courts throughout the United States are recognizing this multi-disciplinary team approach and methods of assessment in handling these volatile matters.

3. Nancy S. Erickson, J.D., LL.M., M.A. (Forensic Psychology): On Custody Evaluations

We will address as many of the following questions as time permits: Why are Custody Evaluations (CEs) ordered by courts? Have custody courts always used evaluators? Are they helpful to courts? Which mental health professionals (MHPs) are authorized to conduct them? How can I tell which MHPs are good evaluators? What rules, if any, are they bound to follow? What are the financial and other costs of CEs? How can I avoid an order for a CE? How can I prepare for one if necessary? How can I fight a bad one -- including one that uses against protective parents junk science like Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)? What other psychological theories should I watch out for? What psychological “tests” are often used? Are they valid and reliable? How can I fight a bad CE in court? How can I report an incompetent or biased evaluator?

4. Dara Carlin & Dr. Joyce Braak: Advocacy with an Open Case

Professional advocacy is one thing but when you're a mom with an open family court case, you're dealing with an entirely different ball of wax; a mistake for you doesn't mean a disciplinary reprimand - it could cost you your kids. This workshop will identify factors to bear in mind as you fight for your children (and your life!) with consideration for strategies that have worked (and failed). More than simply giving a presentation, I hope to encourage an exchange of experiences that will generate a list of ideas that we can disseminate to all conference participants. Mom Bloggers, especially - please come!

Saturday, January 8th, Evening Session

6:00 – 7:30 p.m. Screening of the documentary Power and Control: Domestic Violence in America in the main conference ballroom (take-out dinner available on site at hotel restaurant)

7:30 pm Ben Atherton Zeman: Voices of Men Redux [Warning note: Includes graphic images of violence.]

9:00 Special Saturday Night After-Hours Session: Strength in Numbers: Sharing stories, sharing strategies, and organizing at the local level. Organized by Nancy Erickson, J.D., Janice Levenson (Protective Mothers Alliance), Renee Beeker (National Family Court Watch), and Paul Holdorf, J.D.

We are calling all protective mothers to meet and organize at their local levels. We will discuss general objectives and report on progress made in 2010 for protective moms (PMs). We will then break up into small groups based on residence (or location of the court involved, whichever is more important): county, part of the state, state, or other geographic area. In the small groups, facilitated by PMs, we will find out what are the worst problems for protective moms in that geographic area, what are the resources for PMs, and what we think can be done to help PMs. Each group will report back to the larger group, and we will plan our strategies for 2011.

Sunday, January 9th Morning Session

8:30 Plenary 2: Attorney Toby Kleinman: Our children are at risk, and their health is endangered: How can we hold the court accountable to protect them?

9:30 Plenary 3: Attorney Michael Lesher: Facing family court dangers: CPS, law guardians, experts -- Oh, my!

10:30 – 10:45 Break

10:45 – 12:30 Panel: Join Up! Leaders of the protective mothers’ movement share what they’ve been doing—and ask you to join them

• Janice Levinson/Lundy Bancroft, Protective Mothers Alliance

• Kathleen Russell, Center for Judicial Excellence

• Holly Collins

• Dara Carlin

• Ayanna Najuma, Inspirational Spirit of the Phoenix

• American Mothers Political Party

-Nancy Carroll: www.RightsForMothers.com

-Claudine Dombrowski: www.angelfury.com

-Lorraine Tipton: www.mamaliberty.wordpress.com

-Melanie Smith: Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate

-Randi James- www.RandiJames.com

• Kathy Lee Scholp & Jay Sutter: H.eroes O.n L.ine DE.fense N.etwork

12:45 – 2:00 Sunday luncheon-- Q & A and Community Dialogue

2:00 Close ( show less )

Videos

Highlights

Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute

2010-12-26T10:08:00.001-08:00

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16934218?nclick_check=1

WALNUT CREEK -- Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers who tried to arrest him.

Don West, 50, of Walnut Creek, was booked at the County Jail in Martinez on suspicion of domestic violence and making criminal threats after being evaluated at a hospital.

The assault took place at 5:50 p.m. in a municipal parking lot near a pub in the 1500 block of North Broadway, police Sgt. Lanny Edwards said.

Several people called 911 after seeing West argue with the victim over the custody exchange of two children, before knocking her unconscious with a punch.

West ran away, but returned later, police said. When officers tried to arrest him, he fought back and resisted arrest.

The victim was taken to a hospital with minor injuries.

Roman Gokhman covers public safety. Contact him at 925-945-4780. Follow him at Twitter.com/RomiTheWriter.

APA GUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

2010-12-23T07:51:00.001-08:00

GUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

FILED IN: AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, BAD CUSTODY EVALUATORS, BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN, BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE, CHILD CUSTODY ISSUES,CHILD CUSTODY FOR SALE, CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, CORRUPT CUSTODY EVALUATORS, CUSTODY EVALUATORS, CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

This is new (December, 2010) from the American Psychological Association. I want to get this out there to help moms…I’ll reserve my commentary to the comments section below.

Introduction

Family law proceedings encompass a broad range of issues, including custody, maintenance, support, valuation, visitation, relocation, and termination of parental rights. The following guidelines address what are commonly termed child custodyevaluations, involving disputes over decision making, caretaking, and access in the wake of marital or other relationship dissolution. The goal of these guidelines is to promote proficiency in the conduct of these particular evaluations. This narrowed focus means that evaluations occurring in other contexts (e.g., child protection matters) are not covered by these guidelines. In addition, the guidelines acknowledge a clear distinction between the forensic evaluations described in this document and the advice and support that psychologists provide to families, children, and adults in the normal course of psychotherapy and counseling.

Although some states have begun to favor such terms as parenting plan, parenting time, or parental rights and responsibilities over the term custody (American Law Institute, 2000, pp. 131–132), the substantial majority of legal authorities and scientific treatises still refer to custody when addressing the resolution of decision-making, caretaking, and access disputes. In order to avoid confusion and to ensure that these guidelines are utilized as widely as possible, these guidelines apply the term custody to these issues generically, unless otherwise specified. It is no longer the default assumption that child custody proceedings will produce the classic paradigm of sole custodian versus visiting parent. Many states recognize some form of joint or shared custody that affirms the decision-making and caretaking status of more than one adult. The legal system also recognizes that the disputes in question are not exclusively marital and therefore may not involve divorce per se. Some parents may never have been married and perhaps may never even have lived together. In addition, child custody disputes may arise after years of successful co-parenting when one parent seeks to relocate for work related or other reasons. These guidelines apply the term parents generically when referring to persons who seek legal recognition as sole or shared custodians.

Parents may have numerous resources at their disposal, including psychotherapy, counseling, consultation, mediation, and other forms of conflict resolution. When parents agree to a child custody arrangement on their own—as they do in the overwhelming majority (90%) of cases (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 2007)—there may be no dispute for the court to decide. However, if parties are unable to reach such an agreement, the court must intervene in order to allocate decision making, caretaking, and access, typically applying a “best interests of the child” standard in determining this restructuring of rights and responsibilities (Artis, 2004; Elrod, 2006; Kelly, 1997).

Psychologists render a valuable service when they provide competent and impartial opinions with direct relevance to the “psychological best interests” of the child (Miller, 2002). The specific nature of psychologists’ involvement and the potential for misuse of their influence have been the subject of ongoing debate (Grisso, 1990, 2005; Krauss & Sales, 1999, 2000; Melton et al., 2007).

The acceptance and thus the overall utility of psychologists’ child custody evaluations are augmented by demonstrably competent forensic practice and by consistent adherence to codified ethical standards. These guidelines are informed by the American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code; APA, 2002). The term guidelines refers to statements that suggest or recommend specific professional behavior, endeavors, or conduct for psychologists. Guidelines differ from standards in that standards are mandatory and may be accompanied by an enforcement mechanism. Guidelines are aspirational in intent. They are intended to facilitate the continued systematic development of the profession and to help facilitate a high level of practice by psychologists. Guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or exhaustive and may not be applicable to every professional situation. They are not definitive, and they are not intended to take precedence over the judgment of psychologists.

Read more ›

House and Senate Pass Act to Provide Lifesaving Services

2010-12-10T18:50:00.001-08:00

For Immediate Release

Contact Person: Rita Smith
Phone: (303) 839-1852

Email: rsmith@ncadv.org

December 10, 2010

House and Senate Pass Act to provide lifesaving services

and programs for community shelters and crisis centers

President set to sign the renewal of The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act

(December 10, 2010) Washington, DC - The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence joins our member programs and services all across the nation in celebrating the passage of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVSPA) as part of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). These vital programs, first passed in 1984 and 1974 respectively, were long overdue for reauthorization.

"In these grueling economic times, our community battered women's shelters were facing severe funding cuts and service reductions at the hands of state and private funders trying to staunch budget shortfalls. Reauthorizing FVPSA will ensure the funds reach the states and programs so that families facing domestic and sexual violence have an escape path," noted Rita Smith, Executive Director of the 32-year old coalition, NCADV, representing over 2,000 shelters and programs and individuals across the country.

The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) is an essential component of our nation's campaign to raise awareness about the cruel epidemic of domestic and sexual violence that shreds the lives of girls and women, boys and men. FVPSA authorizes lifesaving services to victims of domestic violence and their families, through shelters, support group and prevention counseling, legal assistance and service referrals to economic support systems and essential health services. The bill passed by the House on Wednesday and by the Senate today is an important improvement in our ongoing effort to address the criminal assault and sexual violence that affects our children, women and girls of all races, religions, ages, abilities and identities regardless of their economic or citizenship status or where they live. "Our vision is 'Every home a safe home,' but it's more than a slogan. It is a promise that NCADV makes to women and their families that our organization and our colleagues in the movement will never cease in our determination to stop violence against women," declared Ms. Smith.

Major thanks must go to individual members of Congress who championed FVPSA and CAPTA. In the House, Representatives Gwen Moore (D-WI) and Aaron Schock (R-IL), along with Judy Biggert (R-IL) and Gregorio Sablan (D-MP), introduced FVPSA (H.R. 4116) early this year and gathered 123 sponsors including 17 Republicans - a truly bipartisan bill. They were joined by Ed and Labor Committee chair George Miller (D-CA) and his committee colleagues John Kline (R-MN), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), and Todd Platts (R-PA). In the Senate, HELP committee chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) and ranking member Mike Enzi (R-WY) pulled together the bipartisan Senate bill, spurred by subcommittee chair Chris Dodd (D-CT) and ranking member Lamar Alexander (R-TN). Victims of sexual and domestic violence owe them a big thank you for their stewardship.

FVPSA is the only dedicated federal funding source for domestic violence shelters and services, supporting emergency shelters, crisis hotlines, counseling services, victim assistance initiatives and programs for underserved communities. This year's bill builds upon FVPSA's core strengths and includes critical improvements for the National DV Hotline, initiatives dealing with teen dating violence, services for our nation's territories and programs helping children who witness violence to name just a few. Additionally, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) not only continues its important work addressing child abuse, neglect and sexual violence, but adds an important cross-cutting component to improve services for both victims of child abuse and families that are experiencing domestic violence and child maltreatment.

"The fact that FVPSA/CAPTA reauthorization passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate and under suspension of the rules by a unanimous voice vote in the House proves that this bipartisan Act is a national priority," added Ms. Smith. "NCADV looks forward to the President signing this bill so that advocates can begin work on next year's challenge -saving lives and reauthorizing the 1994 Violence Against Women Act."

###

Forward email

'You'll never see him again': Jilted father's chilling message to mother before he killed his son, 6, then committed suicide

2010-12-09T00:52:00.001-08:00

'You'll never see him again': Jilted father's chilling message to mother before he killed his son, 6, then committed suicide

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 1:34 PM on 8th December 2010

Little Chris Hall, six, was killed by his father in their family home in Dorset

A jilted father killed his six-year-old son and then himself after snatching the boy from his ex-partner and chillingly telling her: ‘You’ll never see him again.’

Chris Hall, 52, had feared he was about to lose his son, also called Chris, in a custody battle after former common-law wife Rachel Wild left him and started a relationship with another man, an inquest heard.

Miss Wild told how her former partner 'lost it' when he spotted her new lover in her car the last time she dropped her son off at Hall's house.

The keen body-builder dragged the youngster from her and told her: ‘I will take him to a place where you will never see him again.’

She never saw her son alive again.

Two days later the 35-year-old received a note from her ex telling her to come to the former family home.

She rushed to the £300,000 property and let herself in but then left after a few minutes because it felt ‘eerily quiet’.

She called the police and officers arrived and discovered the father and son - known as Big Chris and Little Chris - dead in bed, lying side by side.

Mr Hall, a handyman, had given her diabetic son a fatal mixture of insulin, morphine, and sleeping pills before overdosing on painkillers.

The inquest heard Mr Hall, a former gravedigger and postman, and Miss Wild had lived happily with their son in Poole, for several years.

But in May this year she walked out on him and began a relationship with another man, Christian Bryant.

At about the same time Mr Hall’s business began to fail and a cafe the couple co-owned hit financial problems.

Little Chris was living with his father ahead of a custody court case. On August 16, Miss Wild had access with him before dropping him off at home.

She said: ‘I was in the back seat of the car with Little Chris.

‘He didn’t want to go back and when we got round the corner we noticed Chris leaning against the wall.

Calculating: Chris Hall, 52, 'lost it' when he spotted Rachel Wild's new lover when she dropped off their son

‘I told Christian to pull over on the other side of the road.

‘Chris stormed over, opened Little Chris’ door and dragged him out at started shouting abuse.

‘It was aimed at me in anger. He said ‘you’ve been sleeping with this man, you’ve been sleeping with him in front of Little Chris.’ ‘His face was just anger. I knew then that I wasn’t going back, (to him). I think he had lost it.

‘He said ‘basically, you’ll never see Little Chris again, I will make sure of it.’ He said: ‘I will take him to a place where you will never see him again.’ ‘In thought he meant was going to take him to his brother Duncan’s.

‘Christian was crying because it was very hurtful and loud and I was just basically shocked and upset.

‘I felt like I wanted to go back and get Little Chris but you have got to do things by the law. I had to write down everything that Chris said to me.’

Two days later a letter arrived from Chris at the cafe she ran with her brother. He opened it and showed it to his sister.

The contents of the letter were not disclosed at the hearing but they were instructions for Miss Wild to go to the three bed house in Queens Road straight away.
She said: ‘The door was left unlocked.

‘The dogs were quiet and happy to see me and were licking my face, I knew then that something was wrong. I opened the kitchen door and popped my head in.

‘I thought the dogs were acting like someone was in the house because it was odd behaviour. I thought maybe Chris was upstairs with Little Chris and saying ‘ssshhh, we don’t want mummy to find us.

‘It felt eerie and I didn’t like it.’

She called the police when neighbours told her that they had not seen the father and son for a while.

The Bournemouth inquest heard that Mr Hall had suffered from depression in the past and had slit his wrists on three occasions.

Mr Hall, whose brother is the famous London-based clothes designer Nigel Hall, had met Miss Wild while she worked as a check-out girl at an Asda supermarket.

Little Chris attended Courthill First School in Poole and was a big fan of the cartoon character Ben 10.

The inquest continues.

Dr. Richard Gardner's Complete Autopsy Report- Parental Alienation Syndrome

2010-12-08T21:18:00.001-08:00

`Suicide http://www.cincinnatipas.com/dr-richardgardnerautopsy.html`

Dr. Richard Gardner's Complete Autopsy Report

Dr. Richard Gardner, M.D.
born April 28, 1931

Committed Suicide
May 25, 2003

"CAUSE OF DEATH:

Incised wounds of chest and neck."

Allow us to disabuse the pro-abusers. Dr. Richard Gardner's son told the New York Times that his father committed suicide. Contrary to false assertions made by the father's rights movement, Richard Gardner most certainly did not die peacefully in his sleep.

It was far uglier than that.

The Bergen County (New Jersey) Medical Examiner reported that Dr. Richard Gardner died a gory, bloody and violent death - from his own hand. Gardner took an overdose of prescription medication while stabbing himself several times in the neck and chest. Gardner plunged a butcher knife deep into his heart.

The medical examiner removed the knife from Gardner's chest and listed the stabbing wounds as the cause of death.

(Here is Gardner's autopsy report and the NY Times obituary.)

County Of Bergen
Department of Public Safety
Medical Examiner Autopsy Report

May 27, 2003

02030860.aut
GARDNER, Richard A.

¬Ý

New York Times

June 9, 2003, Monday

METROPOLITAN DESK

Richard Gardner, 72, Dies;
Cast Doubt on Abuse Claims

By STUART LAVIETES

"Dr. Richard A. Gardner, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed a theory about parental alienation syndrome, which he said could lead children in high-conflict custody cases to falsely accuse a parent of abuse, died on May 25 at his home in Tenafly, N.J. He was 72.

The cause was suicide, said Dr. Gardner's son, Andrew, who said his father had been distraught over the advancing symptoms of reflex sympathetic dystrophy, a painful neurological syndrome.

Dr. Gardner, who testified in more than 400 child custody cases, maintained that children who suffered from parental alienation syndrome had been indoctrinated by a vindictive parent and obsessively denigrated the other parent without cause.

In severe cases, he recommended that courts remove children from the homes of the alienating parents and place them in the custody of the parents accused of abuse.

His theory has provoked vehement opposition from some mental health professionals, child abuse experts and lawyers. Critics argue that it lacks a scientific basis, noting that the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association have not recognized it as a syndrome.

They also say that the theory is biased against women, as allegations of abuse are usually directed at fathers, and that it is used as a weapon by lawyers seeking to undermine a mother's credibility in court." ...

... "His marriage to Lee Gardner ended in divorce. In addition to his son, of Cherry Hill, N.J., he is survived by two daughters, Nancy Gardner Rubin of Potomac, Md., and Julie Gardner Mandelcorn, of Newton, Mass.; his mother, Amelia Gardner of Manhattan; eight grandchildren; and his partner, Natalie Weiss.

Correction: June 14, 2003, Saturday An obituary on Monday about Dr. Richard A. Gardner, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, misstated his position at Columbia University. He was a clinical professor of psychiatry in the division of child and adolescent psychiatry -- an unpaid volunteer -- not a professor of child psychiatry."

End of Obituary Excerpt

¬Ý¬Ý

A comment about Dr. Richard Gardner's suicide released by the last man to cross examine him, attorney Richard Ducote:

¬Ý¬ÝJune 1, 2003

"Parental Alienation Syndrome is a bogus, pro-pedophillic fraud concocted by Richard Gardner. I was the last attorney to cross examine Gardner. In Paterson, NJ, he admitted that he has not spoken to the Dean of Columbia's medical school for over 15 years, and has not had hospital admitting privileges for over 25 years.

He has not been court appointed to do anything for decades.

The only two appellate courts in the country who have considered the question of whether PAS meets the Frye test, i.e., whether it is generally accepted in the scientific community, said it does not. As Dr. Paul Fink, former president of the American Psychiatric Association has stated, Dr. Gardner and PAS should be only a "pathetic footnote" in psychiatric history. Gardner and his bogus theory have done untold damage to sexually and physically abused children and their protective parents. PAS has been rejected by every reputable organization considering it.

In a Florida case in which I was recently involved, when the judge insisted on a Frye hearing, Gardner simply did not show up. Perhaps because he finally realized that the entire nation was on to his scam, he committed suicide on May 25. Let's pray that his ridiculous, dangerous PAS foolishness died with him."

Richard Ducote
attorney at law
New Orleans, LA

Dr. Richard Gardner, seen here at age 67 in February 1999, authored the money making PAS theory that made him a very rich man. Gardner committed suicide on May 25, 2003, plunging a seven inch butcher knife into his neck and heart. Gardner testified mostly for men, charging $500 per hour, routinely recommending custody to abusers, deprogramming children and threat therapy for mothers. Gardner was against society's overly moralistic and punitive reaction to pedophiles.

To get a better understanding of the damage Dr. Richard Gardner did in his lifetime, go to this link:

Dr. Richard Gardner - Parental Alienation Syndrome

Part 2: Questions for Richard Warshak and His Parental Alienation Syndrome...or Divorce Poison...or Whatever

2010-12-08T17:39:00.001-08:00

Source: The New Randi James

http://www.randijames.com/2010/12/part-2-questions-for-richard-warshak.html

Dear Dr. Warshak,

I have been accused of parental alienation because my adolescent child won't visit his father, my ex husband. If my son's father is an alcoholic and chronic cheater that is into child porn, and my son knows about at least 2 out of 3 of what I mentioned, how do you suggest that I promote the relationship between father and son in order to remove the parental alienation label? I mean seriously, it's not my fault that my ex is a sick fucking asshole. I just don't want it to rub off on my our son (<--see, I'm trying!).

Kansas Watch Dog: "Claudine Dombrowski: An abused mom victimized again by the Kansas Courts"

2010-12-07T12:39:00.001-08:00

Compelling stories from parents and grandparents about problems with placement and removal of children

By Earl Glynn On December 4, 2009

See this video: Claudine Dombrowski Abused Mom Wants Unsupervised Visits with Daughter

Listen to Claudine Dombrowski Testimony to Joint Committee on Children's Issues:

http://kansas.watchdog.org/2010/compelling-stories-about-problems-with-placement-and-removal-of-children/

Claudine Dombrowski

Claudine Dombrowski: An abused mom victimized again by the Kansas Courts

Read details in written statement.

This is an truly incredible story that should never have happened in America.

Parts of the Kansas Judicial system should be disciplined for how it has victimized Ms. Dombrowski, who was an abused mom.

Instead of quotes from the audio, please consult these pages that document Dombrowski’s long and difficult battle to protect her daughter:

Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse

As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the “man” who did this to Claudine.

Courts Have Continued Abuse of Manhattan Women, Manhattan Free Press, July 12, 2001.
Manhattan resident fights custody battle for daughter, Kansas State Collegian, July 26, 2001.

State Rep Bill Otto: “No crime? You haven’t been guilty of anything? This is a court order that says you can’t go to any school functions?”

“I was under court order till 2004 to not even call the police after I was being beaten because … I was not ‘co-parenting’”

Dombrowski: “These friends of the court make recommendations to the judge. The parents … don’t have a right to see these documents. They do this behind closed doors.”

Otto: (To Secretary Jordan): “You have no rights as a parent …?”

Secretary Don Jordan: “This would be something extreme … I’m not familiar with the situation.”

Otto: “Can a judge do that? … Is that legal… ?”

Jordan: “Under the right circumstances … I hesitate to speculate.”

Sen. Roger Reitz: “This is something that only … the judicial system can really answer … It would be helpful … to have someone … representing the judicial system … to give us some ideas how this could happen.”

Dombrowski: “When you are a victim of domestic violence, and suddenly there’s a child involved, the typical …. power of control is that ‘I’ll take your children from you’. They will and they can the way the laws are setup.” …

“I was told that I’m not to talk to my daughter about the violence. That’s why I don’t see her. That’s why I see her supervised. He was criminally convicted. “

“When women try to get away from people who hurt them … I heard somebody say it’s really hard to believe you won’t call the police … I tell people not to contact the police, because as soon as you walk into court with a DV (domestic violence) and children, you’re already cutting your throat. You will lose your children. That’s the way it is right now.”

“… on the 16th of this month I’ll probably go to jail for breaking the gag order and talking about [being the victim of] violence as it relates to my case.”

Reitz: “… someone ought to be able to deal with this in a way that would address her problem. It doesn’t seem like we’ve done the right thing with regards to this little niche of the law.”

Dombrowski: “The criminal convictions are completely tossed aside and they don’t have any bearing on the family court … The eight criminal convictions that my ex had before getting custody of my daughter were completely dropped [in family court]“

Chair Kiegerl: “I cannot believe that abuse is totally ignored. I cannot believe you can prohibit a person from speaking about their own case.”

“The one thing [where] … I disagree with you is abuse should always be reported.”

State Rep Peggy Mast (R-Emporia): “Domestic violence is a control issue. Sexual abuse is a control issue. Is there any correlation between domestic violence and sexual abuse? Why is that not something that is considered when we take someone to [family] court that has a history of domestic violence?”

Dombrowski: “Yes. That is something I’ve asked myself for 16 years. … It comes back to the family court that has a veil of immunity. … They don’t fully understand the impact of the violence. What battered women have … if they report the abuse, then they’re failing to protect their child … if they don’t report the abuse, they’re still failing to protect their child. So, both ways, they’re going to lose their children …”

For anybody who abuses their wife … [from] a 1996 presidential task force … there is a 70% increase that those children will be abused and/or sexually abused after there’s been battery with the mother.

Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudea: “In 2004 …. I talked with the homicide department in Sedgwick County…. During that time there had been 21 homicides in Sedgwick County and 18 were due to domestic violence …”

“A lot of women do make those phone calls and unfortunately, sometimes it ends in their death.” …

“I want to apologize to you for being treated like a pedophile … not being able to go to a music concert.”

“I commend you for what you’re doing.”

Dombrowski: “I have not talked to my daughter in 10 years [except] for the confines of supervised visits. I’m not allowed to talk to her about anything. All she knows is what her dad has told her.”

See this video: Abused Mom Wants Unsupervised Visits with Daughter

Listen to Claudine Dombrowski:

http://kansaswatchdog.podbean.com/2009/12/04/claudine-dombrowski-an-abused-mom-victimized-again-by-the-kansas-courts/

COURT WHORE OF THE WEEK Judge David Debenham Topeka, Kansas

2010-12-06T18:36:00.001-08:00

http://www.courtwhores.com/

COURT WHORES

Court Officials and their Accomplices who sell out

**Innocent Children**

to ABUSERS and MOLESTERS

for
PROFIT and POWER

========================

The Blood of Countless Children is on the hands of these Court Whores
______________________

*This website is Dedicated to all the Children harmed by Court Whores*

Together we will Change the System to protect Children, not Abusers!!

***COURT WHORE OF THE WEEK***

Judge David Debenham
Topeka, Kansas
For more info: http://www.angelfury.org/
______________________

Kansas -- Domestic violence is on the rise—again- YEAR 2010--

2010-12-06T14:27:00.001-08:00

Kansas -- Domestic violence is on the rise

"A KBI report issued this fall indicates 23,864 domestic violence incidents were reported to law enforcement in 2009, up 11 percent from 2008 and the highest number since the bureau began releasing the statistic in 1992." http://cjonline.com/news/local/2010-12-05/domestic_violence_on_the_rise

Kansas State University: NON-CUSTODIAL MOTHERS: THEMATIC TRENDS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

2010-06-08T14:59:00.001-07:00

Non-custodial Mothers: Thematic Trends and Future Directions

Michelle Bemiller ¹*

¹ Kansas State University

Sociology Compass 2/3 (2008): 910–924, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00117.x

ABSTRACT

The non-custodial mother is an anomaly. She does not live with her children on a full-time basis, putting her outside of the dominant expectations associated with motherhood. Although there has been an increase in the number of non-custodial mothers in recent years, information on the experience of being a non-custodial mother is minimal. The majority of our knowledge of non-custodial mothers stems from research conducted during the mid-1980s through the 1990s. This research was primarily descriptive in nature, lacking theoretical density. This article provides an overview of research completed on non-custodial mothers over the past two decades, with attention to the family and the role of the courts. After reviewing past research, the current state of the field is discussed, and future research directions are suggested.

DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)

10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00117.x About DOI

Article Text

For well over two decades, scholars have examined the connection between being a woman and motherhood (Schur 1984; Glenn 1994; Hays 1996). Early research examined the quality of mothering and its effects on children. More recent research has focused on mothers’ activities and the meaning attached to motherhood, drawing attention to the intensive nature of mothering in western society (Hays 1996; Arendell 2000). Feminist scholars have critiqued this literature, arguing that our knowledge of mothers has been based on a white, heterosexual woman’s point of view (Collins 1990;Glenn 1994). As a result, recent motherhood scholarship has drawn attention to mothers who do not fit the dominant ideology of motherhood–mothers of color, working mothers, single mothers, lesbian mothers, and non-custodial mothers, to name a few. These mothers, often referred to as resistant mothers, do not fit neatly into the intensive motherhood paradigm (Garey 1999; Glenn 1994; Hill Collins 1987).

One such mother, the non-custodial mother, is the subject of this article. Although it is true that women still receive custody of children in the majority of custody cases, the custodial father has become more visible over the years. Despite the increase in the number of non-custodial mothers, little information exists on this population as Arditti and Madden-Derdich (1993), Arditti (1995), Fischer and Cardea (1981), and Greif (1987a, 1997) have noted. In an attempt to synthesize the scholarship on non-custodial mothers, this article provides an overview of research completed on non-custodial mothers over the past two decades, drawing attention to shifts in the scholarly coverage of these women. After reviewing past research, the current state of the field is discussed, and future research directions are suggested.

Non-custodial mothers: The 1980s and 1990s

The structure and content of research on non-custodial mothers is the product of social and political forces operating from decade to decade. The majority of our knowledge of non-custodial mothers stems from research completed during the mid-1980s through the 1990s (see Arditti 1995; Arditti and Madden-Derdich 1993; Babcock 1997; Chesler 1986; Christensen et al. 1990; Clumpus 1996; Dolan and Hoffman 1998; Edwards 1989; Ferguson 1994; Fischer 1983; Fischer and Cardea 1981; Fox and Kelly 1995;Furstenburg et al. 1983; Greif 1987a, b; Greif 1997; Greif and Pabst 1988; Herrerias 1984; Herrerias 1995; Hetherington 1993; Maccoby and Mnookin 1992; Meyers and Lakin 1983; Rosen and Etlin 1996; Santora and Hays 1998, Stewart 1999a, b; Zuravin and Greif 1989). During this time, fathers started to receive custody of children in increasing numbers, placing non-custodial mothers under the social microscope. As indicated by the title of Harriett Edwards’ (1989) book, as more and more mothers lost or gave up custody of their children, the question on the minds of society was, How Could You? These thoughts, of course, were intimately connected with the notion that mothers should have primary custody of their children because of their nurturing and loving characteristics – these notions still permeate our society today, affecting the actions of both mothers and fathers. As a case in point, Cowdery and Knudson-Martin’s (2005) qualitative analysis of 50 couples pointed to an unequal division of childcare labor between mothers and fathers. This division of labor was created based on idealized beliefs about motherhood. As a result, mothers were intimately connected with children, whereas fathers were encouraged to step aside (see also Aldous et al. 1998). In these families, and within society at large, this lesser involvement of fathers was expected and tolerated (see also Hochschild 1989) because of the belief that mothers should, by virtue of their gender, be the primary caretakers of children. For mothers who do not have custody of their children, this ideology is problematic on a personal and social level.

In an attempt to better understand these mothers’ experiences of custody loss as well as their individual experiences as non-custodial mothers, scholarly research increased in the social sciences. The focus of this research ranged from individual experiences of mothers (i.e., social judgments and relationships with children) to structural processes that influenced women’s experiences (i.e., reasons for relinquishment and letter of the law).

One structural change that has led to women’s loss of custody is the family courts’ movement toward gender neutrality. The movement toward a gender neutral custody process emerged in the family courts around 1970 and gained momentum during the 1980s (Fox and Kelley 1995). Gender neutrality – the idea that both mothers and fathers can equally parent their children – challenged the historical notion that mothers are better suited to care for young children emotionally and physically than fathers (i.e., ‘the tender years doctrine’). As more women entered the workforce and the culture began to open up regarding parental roles, fathers started to become more active in caregiving. As a result, in family court, it was no longer assumed that mothers were the better parent and fathers began to seek and gain custody in increasing numbers (Fox and Kelley 1995; Greif and Pabst 1988; Greif 1995; Thompson 1983).

According to Chesler (1986), the by product of this ‘gender-neutral approach’ was a court system that privileged fathers’ rights over mothers’ rights as judges expressed their approval of fathers’ involvement while at the same time scrutinizing mother’s maternal responsibilities. Fathers’ suitability as custodial parents was further endorsed when economic stability was added into the equation. In a study completed for the American Bar Association, Mason (1997) found that custody decisions mentioned economic stability 46.5% of the time. Generally speaking, men have an economic advantage over women, putting women in a precarious position in custody cases.

Research by Babcock (1997), Chesler (1986), Greif and Pabst (1988), and Herrerias (1984, 1995) rigorously examined the experiences of non-custodial mothers through the lens of social psychology, social work, and symbolic interactionism. These works contributed a great deal to what we know about non-custodial mothers’ experiences during the 1980s on both an interpersonal and structural level. These are notable exceptions to what consisted mostly of descriptive studies that provided a great deal of background information about women’s experiences, but failed to rigorously examine women’s experiences through a theoretical lens.

Methodologically speaking, it is important to point out that the research completed during this time varied tremendously. Some studies used quantitative data collection methods, yielding large samples of non-custodial mothers (see Greif and Pabst 1988;Herrerias 1984), whereas other studies used qualitative methods involving interviews with small samples of non-custodial mothers (see Clumpus 1996; Ferguson 1994 for two examples of qualitative scholarship). In addition, differences also existed regarding survey instruments used during data collection (see Greif and Pabst 1988; Herrerias 1984). Because the quality and specificity of the data within these studies varied significantly, caution must be taken when comparing studies to one another.

That having been said, the studies completed during the 1980s and 1990s provided much needed insight into the lives of non-custodial mothers. Research focused on social beliefs about non-custodial mothers, reasons for relinquishing custody of children, relationships with children, adjustment to the status of non-custodial mother, and the family courts.

SOCIAL JUDGMENTS

Studies during the 1980s and 1990s indicated that non-custodial mothers experienced a great deal of social stigma because of the loss of their children. In a comparison study of custodial (n = 14) and non-custodial mothers (n = 17), Fischer and Cardea (1981) found that mothers, regardless of their custodial status, felt that society had a negative view of women who had relinquished custody of their children. This study also found that over half of the non-custodial mothers had received negative reactions from friends and family due to the loss of their children.

In 1983, Fischer polled 34 respondents from the human development and family studies faculty as well as graduate students at a university in West Texas regarding attitudes toward couples with children and couples living childfree lifestyles (i.e., homosexual couples, cohabiting heterosexual couples, empty nest couples, married couples without children, couples who lost children to accidents, and non-custodial parents). Using a 7-point scale, respondents were asked to rank the categories on two dimensions: whether the situation was common or uncommon in society and whether society approved or disapproved of this lifestyle. Findings indicated that respondents thought society most disapproved of homosexual couples and non-custodial mothers.

In her study of 100 mothers, Edwards (1989) reported mixed results regarding non-custodial experiences. Some of the women in her study spoke of being stigmatized by family, friends, and acquaintances, whereas others pointed to the strong support that they received from people in their lives. Thus, not all women incurred harsh judgments because of their status.

Ferguson (1994) used two case studies to highlight the experience of being a non-custodial mother. Using these two cases as well as past literature, Ferguson pointed out that women are prepared for the role of mother through gender socialization from an early age. Furthermore, the mothers are blamed for children’s pathologies, are expected to be self-sacrificing, and experience inequality when they work in the paid labor force. These stereotypes, and the outcomes from these stereotypes, led to negative evaluations of non-custodial mothers and also affected women’s choices when relinquishing custody (see also Babcock 1997). Accordingly, Ferguson recommended support groups to help non-custodial mothers adjust to this role.

Using one on one interviews obtained through Mothers Apart from Their Children (MATCH), Clumpus (1996) explored the lives of 10 non-custodial mothers. Her goal was to understand how the social construction of non-custodial mothers as ‘unfit’ parents affected these women’s self-perceptions. Clumpus (1996) found that the non-custodial mothers in her sample perceived themselves as deficient and blamed themselves for their non-custodial status. Because of these perceptions, the mothers separated themselves from their children, family, and friends.

Using a convenience sample of 120 participants from the general population (60 male and 60 female), Dolan and Hoffman (1998) conducted a study of perceptions of parent custodial status using vignettes depicting persons as married parents, divorced parents with custody, and divorced persons without custody. Their findings indicated that participants were most likely to rate both mothers and fathers who were non-custodial parents negatively. However, over all other parental forms, non-custodial mothers were the most negatively evaluated parents in the study.

Babcock (1997) focused on the effect that non-custodial status had on the salience of identity and general self-esteem for non-custodial mothers. Her most important finding was that all of the 41 non-custodial mothers that were interviewed had experienced negative appraisals on at least one occasion. In order to compensate for these negative appraisals, Babcock deduced that the non-custodial mothers were attempting to fit the ideal model of mothering by altering their mothering role to more closely match social expectations of mothers. According to Babcock’s analysis, the mothers increased physical visitation and contact by phone and letter, showing their dedication to their children. When these efforts to be more like ‘traditional’ mothers failed, the mothers redefined their mothering role, becoming more like sisters, aunts, or friends to their children. The participants claimed that these relationships were mutually satisfying for themselves and their children.

REASONS FOR RELINQUISHMENT

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, mothers gave up or lost custody of their children for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons included inability to financially support children, children choosing to remain with their father or another custodial caregiver, mothers’ emotional difficulties, and the courts’ view that fathers were the better parents – usually because of one of the reasons listed (Arditti and Madden-Derdich 1993;Fischer and Cardea 1981; Fischer 1983; Greif and Pabst 1988; Herrerias 1984;Meyers and Lakin 1983; Santora and Hays 1998; Zuravin and Greif 1989). These studies distinguished between voluntary and involuntary relinquishment of custody. In voluntary cases, mothers chose to give up custody of their children. In involuntary cases, the mothers were forced by the courts to give up custody due to their perceived inability to care for the children (Herrerias 1995). In a departure from these descriptive analyses, Clumpus (1996) examined the repercussions of lack of resources on mothers and children, finding that mothers felt that the unequal distribution of power between them and their ex-spouses led to their children becoming tactical pawns in their ex-husbands’ attempts to control the post-divorce relationship between them and their children.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN

For the most part, mothers were involved with their children after giving up or losing custody. Greif (1987b) found increased mother involvement when: (i) the father shared responsibility for the break-up with the ex-wife; (ii) custody was gained through mutual agreement; (iii) the father was earning the higher income; (iv) the father was raising one or two children (rather than three or more); and (v) the mother lived nearby. Using questionnaire responses from 1,136 custodial fathers, Greif found that 73 percent of fathers indicated that their ex-wives were somewhat or slightly involved with their children, whereas only 7 percent of the men indicated that their ex-wives were very involved. It should be noted that these findings were only indicative of face-to-face interaction; they did not account for contact by mail or telephone.

In a comparison of non-custodial mothers and fathers, Furstenburg, Peterson, Nord, and Zill (1983) indicated that mothers were more likely to have higher levels of contact with children than non-custodial fathers. Non-custodial mothers were more likely to visit their children regularly, to have overnight visits, and to write letters and phone the children. These results, however, should be looked at with caution given the difference between the sample of non-custodial fathers (n = 395) and the sample of non-custodial mothers (n = 28).

In 1984, Herrerias reported results from 18 page questionnaires collected from non-custodial mothers who lived in Texas, Oklahoma, and New York. Her findings indicated that upon relinquishment, roughly 97% of the 130 women in her sample maintained an active relationship with their children. The majority (71%) were happy with their decision to give up custody, and with their mother–child relationships. Nearly 77 percent described their relationships with their children as close and caring. Greif and Pabst (1988) analyzed 517 questionnaires that were disseminated to non-custodial mothers through the Parents Without Partners magazine and through the Mothers Without Custody organization. Findings indicated that mothers remained involved with their children after relinquishing custody. Out of 517 non-custodial mothers, roughly 23 percent of the mothers claimed to be very involved, 33 percent were somewhat involved, 29 percent were slightly involved, and 15 percent were not involved at all.

In an attempt to fully understand the relationship between non-custodial mothers and their children, the research in the 1990s focused on both quantity and quality of visitation. Although past research from the 1980s addressed the issue of quality to a degree, most of the attention focused on quantity of visitation, excluding parents’ actual involvement in their children’s daily lives and activities. As Greif (1997) noted, parents may pay child support and visit their children regularly, but this is not indicative of involvement in their children’s daily lives. For example, non-custodial fathers have been dubbed ‘Disneyland Dads’ because they do not actively participate in their children’s day-to-day routine (e.g., helping with homework), but instead engage in social and recreational activities (Hetherington 1993).

In two studies completed by Arditti, quantity of visitation was addressed, but quality of visitation was largely ignored. Arditti and Madden-Derdich (1993) found that over half of the 13 mothers in their study indicated that they saw their children several times a month and felt that the visitations went well, for the most part. Mothers did, however, report that they felt a decline in closeness with their children after the divorce.

Arditti (1995) argued that there are clear distinctions between non-custodial mothers and fathers, especially with regards to involvement with their children. The literature cited in this review pointed to the fact that mothers were much more likely to feel a connection with their children despite their living arrangements, and that they were more likely to try to maintain an active relationship with their children through visitation, phoning, mailing letters, etc. Although this article focused on the connection between mothers and children, involvement in children’s day-to-day lives was ignored.

In their work, Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) examined divorced families in California, showing that non-custodial mothers were more involved in day-to-day aspects of parenting such as buying clothes, keeping track of doctor appointments, and supervising homework than were non-custodial fathers. Non-custodial fathers also reported more problems monitoring their children’s activities during visitation than did non-custodial mothers.

Using the 1987 to 1988 National Survey of Families and Households, Stewart (1999a) addressed structural impediments to visitation activities (e.g., living far away from children and lack of finances), a finding that parents who lived further away from their children were less likely to see their children and when they did see their children were more likely to participate in leisure activities rather than school or organized activities. Parents with low levels of education were more likely to focus on leisure activities when they were with their children. Level of earnings had no impact on the choice to participate in leisure versus school activities. Overall, Stewart’s findings revealed that both non-custodial mothers and fathers have similar types of visitation patterns, leading to the conclusion that emotional issues and practical barriers make day-to-day contact with children difficult to maintain, regardless of parents’ gender.

In a similar analysis using the same dataset, Stewart (1999b) found that non-resident mothers were slightly more likely to maintain contact via phone and mail than fathers. About 30 percent of non-resident mothers talked to their children several times a week compared with 20 percent of fathers. She found no difference between how many times mothers and fathers saw their children during the year. Yet, overall, children spent significantly more weeks visiting non-resident mothers than fathers. Over two thirds of non-resident fathers reported never having had their children come to stay with them compared with half of mothers. Over one third of non-resident mothers reported that their child stayed with them for over one month in the last year, compared with only 14 percent of fathers.

ADJUSTMENT AND COPING

Adjusting to and coping with the role of non-custodial parent can be a complex process. Scholarship during the 1980s and 1990s indicated that some women adapted quickly and coped well in their new parenting role, whereas others experienced difficulties associated with relinquishing their children. Greif (1987a) found that one third of his sample of 517 non-custodial mothers were comfortable being non-custodial parents, were comfortable telling people that they were non-custodial parents, did not feel guilty about their non-custodial status, felt the children were better off where they were (i.e., outside of mothers’ custody), and were satisfied with their relationship with their children. Focusing on these women’s experiences, Greif (1987a) found that mothers’ comfort was most highly correlated with their satisfaction with their relationship with their children, not feeling guilt, and believing that the children were better off with their fathers. Personal factors that were predictors of comfort included the choice to voluntarily give up custody, the reason the mother gave for the divorce (e.g., if she felt that the blame was shared she was better off), the reason why the mother did not have custody (e.g., mothers whose children wanted to live with their father were better adjusted), the stress at the time of relinquishment (i.e., mothers who felt less stress were better adjusted), mother’s religion (i.e., those with no religious affiliation felt more comfortable), and the way the mothers dealt with changes in their lifestyles (i.e., those who felt content with a changing financial lifestyle were more comfortable as non-custodial mothers).

In their book Mothers Without Custody, Greif and Pabst (1988) found that women who demonstrated the highest level of adjustment reported seeing their children often and having grown up in a family with liberal views on the role of mothers and fathers in children’s lives. Similar to Greif (1987a) and Greif and Pabst (1988), Edwards (1989) found that out of the 100 non-custodial mothers she surveyed, more than 90 percent expressed satisfaction with their decision to relinquish custody because they felt that it was in the best interests of the children financially, physically, and emotionally.

Fischer and Cardea (1981), on the other hand, found that mothers had a difficult time coping with their non-custodial status. This research indicated that non-custodial mothers were under a great deal of stress, were economically disadvantaged, and lacked a sufficient support system. Herrerias (1984) asked 130 women to reflect on their experiences with custody relinquishment. Twenty-two percent of these mothers regretted their custody decision, citing experiences with low self-esteem and non-psychotic depression.

Edwards (1989) found that the women in her study used a variety of coping tactics, some positive and some negative. Methods of coping included staying in contact with children, keeping a journal about their feelings, staying physically active, reading self-help books, using pills and alcohol, going to therapy, staying active with people, and staying busy.

Santora and Hays (1998) asked their 26 participants how they had coped with the status of non-custodial parent. The majority pointed to the need for a non-judgmental social support network composed of family, friends, other non-custodial mothers, and support groups to help them in adjusting to this role. When asked what they would recommend to other women in similar positions, the women recommended redefining one’s role as a mother, recognizing that this is a time for grieving, allowing this process to take place, using prayer and spirituality, educating oneself about women’s issues, and doing things for your children (e.g., making scrapbooks). Of the 26 women inSantora and Hays’ (1996) study, the majority (69 percent) experienced significant levels of anxiety and/or depressive symptoms, half reported significant health problems, and five of the women were using antidepressants.

THE COURTS

The research of the 1990s began to focus on women’s experiences within the court system and how custody was actually determined within the legal system. As more fathers were awarded custody of their children, the reasons for this increase were explored as well as mothers’ visitation, child support, and overall treatment in the system. Using data from 509 divorce cases in Michigan during the early 1980s, Fox and Kelly (1995) examined who was most likely to receive sole physical custody in final court judgments. Their findings indicated substantial gender differences in the effects of socioeconomic and legal process variables on custody outcomes.

More specifically, they found that fathers were more likely to gain custody of older male children than female children. When shifting attention to socioeconomic factors in custody decisions, they found that mothers were more likely to be awarded custody of their children if they had a college degree. Education did not play a role in the court-based custody decision for fathers. Mothers’ income had no effect on whether or not she obtained custody. On the other hand, fathers with high incomes were less likely to have custody of their children. This was not because the court was unlikely to give higher income fathers custody, but was related to the high opportunity costs involved in being the sole custodial parent of a child or children. In other words, these fathers opted to not go for custody. Courts were less likely to give custody to unemployed fathers while women’s employment status had no effect on custody decisions.

Shifting to the legal process, findings indicated that when husbands were the plaintiffs in custody cases, they were more likely to obtain sole custody of the children (Chesler 1986; Fox and Kelly 1995). Fox and Kelly (1995) argued that this finding was indicative of the shift to gender-neutral custody outcomes. This study also found that when a court investigation took place regarding the children’s current living situation that fathers were more likely to gain custody of the children.

Using 1153 court case records from 10 Minnesota counties in 1986, Christensen, Dahl, and Rettig (1990) examined the differences in treatment of non-custodial mothers and fathers by the courts. Christensen et al. (1990) found that non-custodial mothers pay child support less frequently than non-custodial fathers. More specifically, out of 114 non-custodial mother cases, 38 mothers paid support. When non-custodial mothers paid child support, they also paid less child support than non-custodial fathers (i.e., 20 percent of their income versus 25 percent of fathers’ income). Upon closer inspection, it was found that non-custodial mothers pay less because of their disproportionately low incomes in comparison with men. More specifically, non-custodial mothers had a net yearly income that was about 63 percent of non-custodial fathers. Non-custodial mothers were likely to be employed in jobs with few fringe benefits and were also less likely to have pensions in comparison with non-custodial fathers.

To some degree, studies during the 1990s drew attention to the connection between child custody and domestic violence. Rosen and Etlin (1996), for example, found that judges were more likely to give custody of children to abusive fathers because of the assumption that battered mothers were unable to take care of themselves (i.e., could not stop the abuse) and therefore could not care for or protect their children.

The non-custodial mother: Current knowledge (2000 to present)

The descriptive studies conducted during the 1980s and 1990s provided much needed background information about non-custodial mothers. With the exception of Chesler (1986), Greif and Pabst (1988), and Herrerias (1984), these studies lacked theoretical depth. As research continued into the 1990s, similar trends continued until the middle of the decade. At this time, a more theoretically rigorous examination of non-custodial mothers’ experiences became apparent. In particular, Clumpus (1996) used a social constructionist framework to understand mothers’ experiences with social stigma, whereas Babcock (1997) examined social stigma through the use of identity theory. During this decade, we also saw a shift toward focusing more on structural forces that affect women’s experiences in the courts and during visitations with their children.Stewart (1999a) discussed how a mother’s economic situation as well as her living arrangements could impede her ability to see her children. Both issues are intimately connected to gender. Studies by Fox and Kelly (1995) and Christensen et al. (1990) also point to how gender and economic situation affects women’s experiences with custody and child support.

Studies on non-custodial mothers from 2000 up to today have been minimal. Bemiller’s (2005) recent qualitative study, used 16 one-on-one interviews to further understand the connection between being a woman and motherhood in Western society. This study explored how non-custodial mothers define and enact motherhood in a society that emphasizes that mothers should be the primary caregivers for children. Bemiller notes that non-custodial mothers are perceived as ‘deviant’ mothers because they live apart from their children most of the time and therefore are unable to be full-time, intensive mothers. As a result, non-custodial mothers struggled with their role as mother, vacillating between accommodation of dominant definitions of motherhood and resistance of the same ideology.

Other research has drawn attention to non-custodial mothers’ experiences within the family court system. Adding to past research on child support payments, Grall (2007) reported that non-custodial mothers’ and non-custodial fathers’ child support payments were comparable. The proportion of mothers (47.3 percent) and fathers (43.1 percent) receiving full payments of child support in 2005 were not statistically significant. In addition to Grall’s census report, a report from the National Organization for Women (NOW) documented women’s experiences with family court dysfunction in California (Heim et al. 2002). This report found corruption, denial of due process, and gender bias in the family courts. Similarly, The Wellesley Centers for Women published a report that examined violations of human rights laws and standards in the Massachusetts family courts. These violations included failure to investigate allegations of child abuse in contested child custody cases (Cuthbert et al. 2002).

In an attempt to further understand the effects of interpersonal violence (IPV) on custody outcomes, Kernic et al. (2005) completed a retrospective cohort study of 2,516 couples with children under the age of 18 years in Seattle, WA. The authors found a history of IPV in 11 percent of the cases that they examined. Kernic et al. (2005) found that mothers with a history of IPV were no more likely than comparison group mothers to be awarded child custody, although overall mothers in the study were more likely to be awarded custody of children than fathers. The authors also found that fathers who were known perpetrators of IPV were not expected to have third-party supervision during child visitation, but were often remanded to counseling. The overall findings of this study led to the conclusion that IPV is often not identified within the custody proceedings even when there is a documented, substantiated history of IPV present, and that there was a lack of strong protections ordered among cases where a history of substantiated IPV was known to exist.

Future directions

Although the scholarship of motherhood is alive and well within Sociology, the focus on non-custodial mothers has been limited. This article has provided an overview of some of the seminal studies conducted during the 1980s up to the present. As noted, the majority of the studies completed during the 1980s and 1990s were descriptive, lacking theoretical analyses (for exceptions see Babcock 1997; Chesler 1986; Clumpus 1996;Greif and Pabst 1988; Herrerias 1984). Although these studies provided important background information on these women, they did not theoretically frame their experiences, nor did they provide a detailed examination of social forces that affect non-custodial mothers.These omissions open up many possibilities for research with this population of women. One area that deserves attention is the social construction of motherhood for non-custodial mothers. With the exception of Babcock (1997) andBemiller (2005), researchers have failed to examine how non-custodial mothers define motherhood as well as how they enact mothering in light of the contradictions that exist between personal and social definitions of motherhood. It is important to understand how non-custodial mothers define motherhood and mothering because these definitions affect how they perceive themselves as women and mothers. How non-custodial mothers define and enact mothering may influence their day-to-day interactions with their children, ex-spouses, and family. It may also affect how they cope with the status of non-custodial parent.

Along these same lines, recent scholarship on motherhood has addressed the need to examine the diverse experiences of mothers in relationship to the intensive mothering paradigm. Non-custodial mothers provide a unique opportunity to examine accommodation of or resistance to the intensive mothering paradigm. Because these women do not live with their children the majority of the time, and because they are often in financially unstable situations, these mothers may have a difficult time intensively mothering their children (e.g., cooking for them, buying for them, and nurturing them). Bemiller (2005) has examined this issue with 16 non-custodial mothers, but further research must focus attention on non-custodial mothers and the intensive mothering paradigm.

Social stigma also warrants further examination. In her study of 100 mothers, Edwards (1989) reported mixed reactions regarding non-custodial mothers’ experiences. Some of the women in her study spoke of being stigmatized by family, friends, and acquaintances, whereas others pointed to the strong support that they received from people in their lives. Thus, not all women incurred harsh judgments because of their status. Babcock (1997), on the other hand, found that all of the women in her sample had experienced stigmatization, leading them to redefine the role of mother. Babcock argued that this redefinition of the mother role was connected to the social construction of motherhood. Further exploration into non-custodial mothers and social stigma would be useful. In particular, future research should focus attention on factors that lead some women to define their personal interactions as non-custodial mothers as stigmatizing while others do not. Like Babcock’s findings, new research may continue to find a connection between the social construction of motherhood and the definition of and internalization of stigma.

The relationship between custodial and non-custodial parents must also be explored. Past research has given this topic cursory attention, but has failed to discuss how the relationship between parents affects non-custodial mothers’ access to children and their feelings about motherhood. Although motherhood can be empowering for women (Collins 1987; Johnson 1988), it may also be viewed as disempowering if mothers do not have access to children. Given the barriers that some non-custodial mothers face when attempting to see their children, it is important to understand the short and long term effects on the family.

Last but certainly not least, research should continue to explore the connection between domestic violence and child custody in the family court system. Recent research has documented that fathers receive custody of children despite allegations of family violence (Kernic et al. 2005; Neustein and Lesher 2005; Rosen and Etlin 1996). To better understand how and why this happens research must continue to evaluate court processes and decision-making strategies. In particular, research should focus on court appointed custody evaluators, addressing how they handle contested custody cases that involve allegations of domestic violence.

The above-mentioned are only a few suggestions for areas of exploration. Research opportunities are numerous within this population of mothers. Future research should continue to explore the diversity of contemporary family life, contributing to our understanding of motherhood, fatherhood, and family as gendered social institutions.

Short Biography

Michelle Bemiller is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Kansas State University. Her research is located within the areas of gender, deviance, and criminology; she has authored or co-authored refereed articles and book reviews in these areas forSociological Focus, Journal of Family Issues, Gender & Society, Contemporary Sociology, and the Criminal Justice Review. She is currently completing a multi-method analysis of occupational burnout amongst sexual assault and domestic violence workers in the state of Kansas. She holds a BA in Political Science/Criminal Justice from the University of Akron, an MA in Justice Studies from Kent State University, and a PhD in Sociology from the University of Akron.

Note

* Correspondence address: Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Kansas State University, 204 Waters Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506–4003, USA. E-mail:Bemiller@ksu.edu

References

Aldous, J., G. M. Mulligan and T. Bjarnason 1998. ‘Fathering Over Time: What Makes the Difference?’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 60: 809–20. Links
Arditti, J. A. 1995. ‘Noncustodial Parents: Emergent Issues of Diversity and Process.’ Marriage and Family Review 20: 283–304. Links
Arditti, J. A. and D Madden-Derdich 1993. ‘Noncustodial Mothers: Developing Strategies of Support.’ Family Relations 42: 305–14. Links
Arendell, T. 1995. Fathers & Divorce. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Arendell, Terry 2000. ‘Conceiving and Investigating Motherhood: The Decade’s Scholarship.’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 1192–1207. Links
Babcock, G. M. 1997. ‘Stigma, Identity Dissonance and the Nonresidential Mother.’ Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 28: 139–56. Links
Bemiller, M. 2005. Mothering on the margins: the experience of noncustodial mothers. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Akron: Department of Sociology.
Chesler, 1986. Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody. Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
Christensen, D. H., C. M. Dahl and K. D. Rettig 1990. ‘Noncustodial Mothers and Child Support: Examining the Larger Context.’ Family Relations 39: 388–94Links
Clumpus, L. 1996. ‘The Feminism & Psychology undergraduate prize 1995: Prizewinning Entry No-woman’s Land: The story of Noncustodial Mothers.’Feminism & Psychology 6: 237–44. Links
Collins, Patricia Hill 1987. ‘The Meaning of Motherhood in Black Culture and Black Mother/Daughter Relationships.’ Sage 4: 3–10 Links
Collins, Patricia Hill 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Cowdery, R. S. and C. Knudson-Martin 2005. ‘The Construction of Motherhood: Tasks, Relational Connection, and Gender Equality.’ Family Relations 54:335–45 Links
Cuthbert, C., K. Slote, M. G. Driggers, C. M. Mesh, L. Bancroft and J. Silverman2002. Battered Mothers Speak Out: A Human Rights Report on Domestic Violence and Child Custody in the Massachusetts Family Courts. Wellesley, MA:Battered mothers’ testimony project at the Wellesley Centers for Women.
Dolan, M. and C. Hoffman 1998. ‘The Differential Effects of Marital and Custodial Status on Perceptions of Mothers and Fathers.’ Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29: 55–64 Links
Edwards, H. 1989. How Could You: Mothers without Custody of Their Children.Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.
Ferguson, S. K. 1994. ‘Mothers Without Children: Implications for Practice.’ Affilia9: 401–16. Links
Fischer, J. L. 1983. ‘Mothers Living Apart from Their Children.’ Family Relations32: 351–7. Links
Fischer, J. L. and J. M. Cardea 1981. ‘Mothers Living Apart from Their Children: A Study in Stress and Coping.’ Alternative Lifestyles 4: 218–27. Links
Fox, G. and R. F. Kelly 1995. ‘Determinants of Child Custody Arrangements at Divorce.’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 57: 693–708. Links
Furstenburg, F., J. L. Peterson, C. L. Nord and N. Zill 1983. ‘The Life Course of Children of Divorce: Marital Disruption and Parental Contact.’ American Sociological Review 48: 656–78. Links
Garey, A. 1999. Weaving Work and Motherhood. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Glenn, E. 1994. ‘Social Constructions of Mothering: A Thematic Overview.’ Pp.1–32 in Mothering: Ideology, Experience, and Agency, edited by E. N. Glenn, G.Chang and L. R. Forcey. New York, NY: Routledge.
Grall, T. 2007. ‘Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2005.’Current Population Reports 60–234. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Greif, G. 1987a. ‘Mothers without Custody and Child Support.‘ Family Relations35: 87–93. Links
Greif, G. 1987b. ‘Single Fathers and Noncustodial Mothers: The Social Worker’s Helping Role.’ Journal of Independent Social Work 1: 59–69. Links
Greif, G. 1995. ‘Single Fathers with Custody Following Separation and Divorce.’Marriage and Family Review 20: 213–31. Links
Greif, G. 1997. Out of Touch: When Parents and Children Lose Contact after Divorce. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Greif, G. and M. S. Pabst 1988. Mothers without Custody. Lexington, MA: DC Heath.
Hays, S. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Heim, S., H. Grieco, S. D. Paola and R. Allen 2002. California National Organization for Women Family Court Report 2002. Sacramento, CA: California NOW.
Herrerias, C. 1984. Noncustodial mothers: A study of self-concept and social interactions. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Texas at Austin: Social Work Department.
Herrerias, C. 1995. ‘Noncustodial Mothers Following Divorce.’ Marriage & Family Review 20: 233–55. Links
Hetherington, E. M. 1993. ‘An Overview of the Virginia Longitudinal Study of Divorce and Remarriage with a Focus on Early Adolescence.’ Journal of Family Psychology 7: 39–56. Links
Hill Collins, P. 1987. ‘The Meaning of Motherhood in Black Culture and Black Mother/Daughter Relationships.’ Sage 4: 3–10. Links
Hochschild, A. 1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New York, NY: Viking Press.
Johnson, Miriam 1988. Strong Mothers, Weak Wives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Kernic, M. A., D. J. Monary-Ernsdorff, J. K. Koepsell and V. L. Holt 2005.‘Children in the Crossfire: Child Custody Determinations among Couples with a History of intimate Partner Violence.’ Violence against Women 11: 991–1021.Links
Maccoby, E. E. and R. H. Mnookin 1992. Dividing the Child: Social and Legal Dilemmas of Custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mason, M. A. 1997. ‘Read My Lips: Are Mothers Losing Custody? Trends in Judicial Decision-Making in Custody Disputes.’ Family Law Quarterly 31: 215–37.Links
Meyers, S. and J. Lakin 1983. Who Will Take the Children? New York, NY:Bobbs-Merrill.
Neustein, A. and M. Lesher 2005. From Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers Are Running from the Family Courts- and What Can Be Done About It. Boston, MA:Northeastern University Press.
Rosen, L. N. and M. Etlin 1996. The Hostage Child: Sex Abuse Allegations in Custody Disputes Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Santora, J. and P. A. Hays 1998. ‘Coping Outside Traditional Roles: The Case of Noncustodial Mothers and Implications for Therapy.’ Women & Therapy 21:53–66. Links
Schur, E. 1984. Labeling Women Deviant: Gender, Stigma, and Social Control.New York, NY: Random House.
Stewart, S. D. 1999a. ‘Disneyland Dads, Disneyland Moms? How Nonresident Parents Spend Time with Absent Children.’ Journal of Family Issues 20:539–556. Links
Steward, S. D. 1999b. ‘Nonresident Mothers’ and Fathers’ Social Contact with Children.’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 61: 894–907. Links
Thompson, R. A. 1983. ‘The Father’s Case in Child Custody Disputes: The Contributions of Psychological Research.’ Pp. 53–1000 in Fatherhood and Family Policy, edited by M. Lamb and A. Sagi. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zuravin, S. and G. Greif 1989. ‘Low-income Mothers Without Custody: Who Are They and Where Are Their Children?’ Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare16: 163–79.

Sociology Compass 2/3 (2008): 910–924, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00117.x

WordPress Tags: Kansas,State,CUSTODIAL,THEMATIC,FUTURE,DIRECTIONS,Michelle,Bemiller,Blackwell,Sociology,Compass,ABSTRACT,children,basis,expectations,Although,knowledge,nature,article,overview,attention,role,courts,DIGITAL,OBJECT,IDENTIFIER,About,Text,connection,woman,Schur,Glenn,Hays,activities,Arendell,Feminist,literature,Collins,result,scholarship,ideology,paradigm,Garey,Hill,subject,custody,cases,father,Despite,population,Arditti,Madden,Derdich,Fischer,Cardea,Greif,coverage,product,forces,Babcock,Chesler,Christensen,Clumpus,Dolan,Hoffman,Edwards,Ferguson,Furstenburg,Pabst,Herrerias,Hetherington,Maccoby,Mnookin,Meyers,Lakin,Rosen,Etlin,Santora,Stewart,Zuravin,numbers,Harriett,Could,notion,characteristics,notions,actions,Cowdery,Knudson,Martin,analysis,beliefs,Aldous,involvement,Hochschild,belief,virtue,gender,relationships,letter,movement,momentum,Kelley,parent,doctrine,workforce,culture,Thompson,system,rights,judges,approval,responsibilities,American,Association,Mason,advantage,Research,background,Some,data,collection,addition,adjustment,status,SOCIAL,stigma,comparison,friends,human,development,West,Texas,nest,situation,lifestyle,Findings,results,acquaintances,Thus,self,Apart,MATCH,goal,construction,convenience,male,persons,dedication,efforts,RELINQUISHMENT,Throughout,departure,distribution,relationship,wife,agreement,income,questionnaire,interaction,account,Peterson,Nord,Zill,difference,Oklahoma,York,decision,Parents,Partners,magazine,organization,degree,example,Disneyland,Dads,homework,times,fact,arrangements,California,doctor,appointments,problems,National,Survey,leisure,education,Level,earnings,impact,Overall,conclusion,Over,satisfaction,guilt,Personal,religion,affiliation,Similar,interests,depression,journal,feelings,pills,therapy,prayer,health,treatment,Michigan,college,words,employment,investigation,records,Minnesota,Dahl,Rettig,Upon,inspection,benefits,violence,assumption,Current,exception,depth,examination,framework,theory,Both,Western,notes,accommodation,resistance,payments,Grall,proportion,census,Women,Heim,corruption,denial,bias,Wellesley,Massachusetts,failure,Cuthbert,Kernic,retrospective,cohort,Seattle,history,supervision,proceedings,possibilities,area,interactions,Along,Further,exploration,definition,Past,topic,Johnson,Given,Last,Recent,Neustein,Lesher,life,Short,Biography,Assistant,Professor,Sociological,Focus,Contemporary,Criminal,Justice,Review,method,workers,Political,Science,Akron,Kent,Note,Correspondence,Department,Anthropology,Work,Waters,Hall,Manhattan,Mulligan,Bjarnason,Time,Marriage,Links,Noncustodial,Emergent,Support,Relations,Divorce,Thousand,Oaks,Sage,Terry,Decade,Dissonance,Nonresidential,Mother,Remarriage,margins,thesis,Trial,Battle,Seal,Child,Larger,Context,Feminism,Psychology,undergraduate,Entry,Land,Patricia,Black,Daughter,Thought,Politics,Empowerment,Boston,Unwin,Hyman,Tasks,Relational,Slote,Driggers,Mesh,Bancroft,Speak,Report,Domestic,testimony,Differential,Effects,Marital,Freedom,Practice,Affilia,Study,Alternative,Determinants,Course,Disruption,Parental,Contact,Philadelphia,Temple,Experience,Agency,Chang,Forcey,Routledge,Reports,Washington,Bureau,Single,Worker,Independent,Separation,Lose,Oxford,Lexington,Heath,Cultural,Haven,Yale,Grieco,Paola,Allen,Court,Sacramento,concept,Austin,Virginia,Longitudinal,Adolescence,Second,Shift,Revolution,Home,Miriam,Strong,Weak,Berkeley,Monary,Ernsdorff,Koepsell,Holt,Crossfire,Determinations,Partner,Legal,Cambridge,Harvard,Read,Lips,Judicial,Take,Bobbs,Merrill,From,Mutiny,Northeastern,Hostage,Abuse,Bloomington,Indiana,Outside,Traditional,Case,Deviant,Control,Random,House,Moms,Nonresident,Spend,Absent,Steward,Contributions,Psychological,Policy,Lamb,Sagi,Hillsdale,Lawrence,Erlbaum,Associates,Where,Welfare,TRENDS,scholars,fathers,caretakers,judgments,roles,decisions,methods,examples,differences,instruments,reactions,students,attitudes,lifestyles,accidents,categories,outcomes,evaluations,perceptions,participants,appraisals,analyses,repercussions,spouses,responses,questionnaires,distinctions,aspects,impediments,barriers,factors,symptoms,incomes,pensions,definitions,violations,allegations,authors,protections,omissions,contradictions,situations,strategies,suggestions,areas,institutions,articles,References,Publications,Implications,Constructions,Dilemmas,decades,heterosexual,qualitative,structural,lens,interpersonal,exceptions,respondents,homosexual,whether,visitation,husbands,month,visitations,third,socioeconomic

The Batterer As Parent

2010-06-08T14:32:00.001-07:00

Published March 27, 2006 by Synergy 6(1) P 6-8 Ncjfcj Newsletter

The Batterer As Parent

by Lundy Bancroft

Research on children's exposure to domestic violence has tended to focus primarily on two aspects of their experience: the trauma of witnessing physical assaults against their mother, and the tension produced by living with a high level of conflict between their parents.1 However, these are just two elements of a much deeper problem pervading these children's daily life, which is that they are living with a batterer. The parenting of men who batterer exposes children to multiple potential sources of emotional and physical injury, most of which have not been recognized widely.

This article looks at the characteristics of men who batter and identifies ways in which these characteristics also influence their ability to parent appropriately. Additionally, the article will address the implications of such parenting for child protective and custody determinations.

Characteristics of Men Who Batter

Most of the characteristics that are typical of men who batter have potential ramifications for children in the home. Batterers often tend toward authoritarian, neglectful, and verbally abusive child-rearing.2 The effects on the children of these and other parenting weaknesses may be intensified by the children's prior traumatic experience of witnessing violence.3 Consider the following selected examples of characteristics of men who batter:

Control: Coerciveness is widely recognized as a central quality of battering men,4 and one of the areas of life heavily controlled by many men who batterer is the mother's parenting. A man who batters may cause or forbid his partner to terminate a pregnancy, overrule her parenting decisions, or assault her when he is angry over the children's behavior. Battered women are far more likely than other mothers to feel that they have to alter their parenting styles when their partners are present.5

Entitlement: A man who batters considers himself entitled to a special status within the family, with the right to use violence when he deems it necessary.6 This outlook of entitlement can lead to selfish and self-centered behavior on his part. For example, he may become irate or violent when he feels that his partner is paying more attention to the children than to him. It is difficult for children to have their needs met in such an atmosphere and they are vulnerable to role-reversal, where they are made to feel responsible to take care of the battering parent.

Possessiveness: Men who batter often have been observed to perceive their partners as owned objects.7 This possessive outlook can sometimes extend to their children, partly accounting for the dramatically elevated rates of physical abuse8 and sexual abuse9 of children perpetrated by batterers, and for the fact that these men seek custody of their children more often than non-battering fathers do.10

Other characteristics that can have an important impact on children include manipulativeness, denial and minimization of the abuse, battering in multiple relationships, and resistance to change.

Influence of Battering on Parenting

The characteristics discussed above influence the parenting of men who batter and have a negative impact on the children by:

creating role models that perpetuate the violence
undermining the mother's authority
retaliating against the mother for her efforts to protect the children
sowing divisions within the family
using the children as weapons against the mother

Creating role models that perpetuate the violence:
Boys who are exposed to domestic violence show dramatically elevated rates of battering their own partners as adolescents or adults.11 Research suggests that this connection is a product more of the values and attitudes that boys learn from witnessing battering behavior than of the emotional trauma of being exposed to such abuse.12 Daughters of battered women show increased difficulty in escaping partner abuse in their adult relationships.13 Both boys and girls have been observed to accept various aspects of the batterer's belief-system,14 including the view that victims of violence are to blame, that women exaggerate hysterically when they report abuse, and that males are superior to females.

Undermining the mother's authority: Domestic violence is inherently destructive to maternal authority because the batterer's verbal abuse and violence provide a model for children of contemptuous and aggressive behavior toward their mother. The predictable result, confirmed by many studies, is that children of battered women have increased rates of violence and disobedience toward their mothers.15 Some battered mothers make reports of being prevented from picking up a crying infant or from assisting a frightened or injured child and of being barred from providing other basic physical, emotional, or even medical care. Interference of this kind can cause the children to feel that their mother does not care about them or is unreliable. The batterer may reinforce those feelings by verbally conditioning the children through statements such as, "Your mother doesn't love you," or, "Mommy only cares about herself."

Retaliating against her for her efforts to protect the children: A mother may find that she is assaulted or intimidated if she attempts to prevent the batterer from mistreating the children, or may find that he harms the children more seriously to punish her for standing up for them. Therefore, she may be forced over time to stop intervening on her children's behalf. This dynamic can lead children to perceive their mother as uncaring about the batterer's mistreatment of them, and can contribute to her being labeled by child protective services as "failing to protect."

Sowing divisions with the family: Some batterers use favoritism to build a special relationship with one child in the family. As some researchers have noted, the favored child is particularly likely to be a boy, and the batterer may bond with him partly through encouraging a sense of superiority to females.16 Batterers also may create or feed familial tensions deliberately. These manipulative behaviors are a likely factor in the high rate of inter-sibling conflict and violence observed in families exposed to battering behavior.17

Using the children as weapons: Many men who batter use children as a vehicle to harm or control the mother18 through such tactics as destroying the children's belongings to punish the mother, requiring the children to monitor and report on their mother's activities, or threatening to kidnap or take custody of the children if the mother attempts to end the relationship. These parenting behaviors draw the children into the abuser's behavior pattern. Post-separation, many batterers use unsupervised visitation as an opportunity to further abuse the mother through the children.19

Implications for Child Protective and Custody Determinations

Determinations regarding child protection, custody, and visitation in the context of domestic violence need to be informed by an awareness of the destructive parenting behaviors exhibited by many men who batter, and their effects on children and their mothers. These behaviors have especially important implications for children who are struggling with two sets of psychological injuries, one from exposure to the battering behavior and the other from their parents' divorce or separation. Some elements to examine closely when crafting interventions for families include:

Addressing the healing needs of children: There is a wide consensus that children's recovery from exposure to domestic violence (and from divorce) depends largely on the quality of their relationship with the non-battering parent and with their siblings.20 Therefore, in addition to safety consideration, court determinations should take into account whether the batterer is likely, based on his past and current behavior, to continue to undermine the mother's authority, interfere with mother-child relationships, or cause tensions between siblings. Because children need a sense of safety in order to heal,21 juvenile and family court decisions may not want to include leaving the children in the unsupervised care of a man whose violent tendencies they have witnessed, even if they feel a strong bond of affection for him.

Making appropriate assessments, especially in custody determinations: A batterer's history of abusive behavior, and how such abuse reflects on his parenting, needs to be investigated carefully, assessing for the presence of any of the common problems described above and paying particular attention to that children may become a vehicle for continued abuse of the mother.22 Courts need to ensure that custody evaluators have extensive training on the multiple sources of risk to children from custody or unsupervised contact with the abusive parent.

Safely fostering father-child relationships: Except in cases where the children are terrified of the battering parent or have been abused by him directly, children tend to desire some degree of ongoing contact with their fathers. Such contact can be beneficial as long as adequate safety measures are provided for the mother and children and the abuser is not given the opportunity to cause set-backs to the children's emotional recovery. These goals can be fostered through custody arrangements that take into full consideration the violence in the home caused by the battering parent and through the use of professionally supervised visitation, ideally based in a visitation center. Where unsupervised visitation is found to be safe, the use of relatively short visits that do not include overnight visits can reduce the batterer's ability to damage mother-child relationship, limit his negative influence on the children's behavior and value-systems, and ensure that the children feel safe and secure—while still allowing them to feel a continued connection to their father.

ORDER THE BOOK!
The Batterer As Parent, by Lundy Bancroft
http://www.volcanopress.com/pages/catalog.cgi?mrchcatid=4&mrchid=81&#top

NOTES

1. See for example, Rossman, R., Hughes, H., & Rosenberg, M. (2000). Children and interparental violence: The impact of exposure. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

2. Bancroft, L. & Silverman, J. (2002). The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

3. Margolin, G., John, R., Ghosh, C., & Gordis, E. (1996). Family interaction process: An essential tool for exploring abusive relationships. In D. Cahn & S. Lloyd (Eds.), Family violence from a communication perspective (pp. 37-58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

4. Lloyd, S., & Emery, B. (2000). The dark side of courtship: Physical and sexual aggression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

5. Holden, G. & Ritchie, K. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing, and child behavior problems: Evidence from battered women. Child Development, 62, 311-327.

6. Silverman, J., & Williamson, G. (1997). Social ecology and entitlements involved in battering by heterosexual college males: Contributions of family and peers. Violence and Victims, 12(2), 147-164.

7. Adams, D. (1991). Empathy and entitlement: A comparison of battering and nonbattering husbands. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. (Available from Emerge, 2380 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA, 02140.); Lloyd & Emery, op. cit.

8. E.g. Straus, M. (1990). Ordinary violence, child abuse, and wife-beating: What do they have in common? In M. Straus & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical Violence in American Families (pp. 403-424). New Brunswick: Transition; Suh, E., & Abel, E.M. (1990). The impact of spousal violence on the children of the abused. Journal of Independent Social Work, 4(4), 27-34; and several other studies.

9. E.g. McCloskey, L.A., Figueredo, A.J., & Koss, M. (1995). The effect of systemic family violence on children's mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239-1261; Paveza, G. (1988). Risk factors in father-daughter child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3(3), 290-306; and several other studies.

10. American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family (1996). Violence and the family. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

11. Hotaling, G., & Sugarman, D. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1(2), 101-124; Silverman & Williamson, op. cit.

12. Silverman & Williamson, op. cit.

13. Doyne, S., Bowermaster, J., Meloy, R., Dutton, D., Jaffe, P., Temko, S., & Mones, P. (1999). Custody disputes involving domestic violence: Making children's needs a priority. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 50(2), 1-12; Hotaling & Sugarman, op. cit.

14. Hurley, D.J., & Jaffe, P. (1990). Children's observations of violence: II. Clinical implications for children's mental health professionals. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 35(6), 471-476.

15. Jaffe, P., & Geffner, R. (1998). Child custody disputes and domestic violence: Critical issues for mental health, social service, and legal professionals. In G. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research, and applied issues (pp. 371-408). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; Dutton, M.A. (1992). Empowering and healing the battered woman. New York: Springer.

16. See for example Johnston, J., & Campbell, L. (1993b). Parent-child relationships in domestic violence families disputing custody. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 31(3), 282-298. (Johnston & Campbell seem to overlook the implications of many of their own observations - see Bancroft & Silverman, op. cit., for an extended discussion.)

17. op. cit.

18. Erickson, J., & Henderson, A. (1998). "Diverging realities: Abused women and their children. In J. Campbell (Ed.), Empowering survivors of abuse: Health care for battered women and their children (pp. 138-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19. Bancroft & Silverman, op. cit.

20. See review of studies in Heller, S., Larrieu, J., D'Imperio, R., & Boris, N. (1998). Research on resilience to child maltreatment: Empirical considerations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23(4) 321-338.

21. van der Kolk, B., & McFarlane, A. (1996). The black hole of trauma. In B. van der Kolk, A. McFarlane, & L. Weisaeth (Eds.), Traumatic stress: The effects of overwhelming experience on mind, body, and society (pp. 3-23). New York: Guilford.

22. For a detailed assessment guide, see Chapter 7 of Bancroft & Silverman, op. cit.

WordPress Tags: Batterer,Parent,March,Synergy,Ncjfcj,Newsletter,Lundy,Bancroft,Research,children,exposure,violence,trauma,tension,life,injury,article,characteristics,custody,Batter,Most,Batterers,Consider,Control,behavior,partners,Entitlement,status,outlook,self,example,attention,needs,atmosphere,role,reversal,objects,rates,fact,impact,denial,relationships,resistance,Influence,efforts,weapons,adolescents,connection,product,Daughters,Both,belief,system,victims,Domestic,result,disobedience,Some,reports,infant,Interference,feelings,Mommy,harms,mistreatment,services,favoritism,relationship,factor,Many,vehicle,belongings,activities,abuser,Post,separation,Child,Protective,Determinations,protection,context,consensus,recovery,addition,account,affection,history,problems,Courts,father,Except,cases,degree,measures,arrangements,Where,ORDER,BOOK,catalog,NOTES,Rossman,Hughes,Rosenberg,Philadelphia,Brunner,Mazel,Silverman,Thousand,Oaks,Sage,Margolin,John,Ghosh,Gordis,interaction,tool,Cahn,Lloyd,communication,perspective,Emery,Physical,aggression,Holden,Ritchie,discord,Evidence,Development,Williamson,Social,ecology,college,Contributions,Adams,Empathy,comparison,dissertation,Available,Emerge,Massachusetts,Cambridge,Straus,Ordinary,wife,Gelles,American,Brunswick,Transition,Abel,Journal,Independent,Work,McCloskey,Figueredo,Koss,health,Paveza,Risk,daughter,Interpersonal,Psychological,Association,Presidential,Task,Force,Washington,Sugarman,analysis,husband,knowledge,Doyne,Bowermaster,Meloy,Dutton,Jaffe,Temko,Mones,Juvenile,Court,Hurley,observations,Clinical,Canadian,Psychiatry,Geffner,Critical,Jouriles,Theory,woman,York,Springer,Johnston,Campbell,Conciliation,Review,discussion,Erickson,Henderson,Heller,Larrieu,Imperio,Boris,resilience,maltreatment,Empirical,Abuse,Neglect,Kolk,McFarlane,Weisaeth,Traumatic,Guilford,assessment,Chapter,aspects,exposes,implications,ramifications,examples,areas,decisions,fathers,attitudes,statements,tensions,injuries,interventions,tendencies,assessments,goals,systems,factors,markers,parents,women,sexual,males,females,behaviors,visitation,siblings

Talking Points DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY

2010-06-08T14:31:00.001-07:00

Talking Points

The Civic Research Institute From: Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody-

These talking points were designed for domestic violence advocates and other allies of protective mothers to speak with administrative judges in the hopes of
convincing them to use the research contained in the new book to train judges and
other court professionals and reform custody practices to improve the safety and
potential of children in domestic violence custody cases. Feel free to use any part of
the material in any order that makes sense to support your efforts. Use your own
knowledge and concerns and focus the discussion based upon the local circumstances and situations the domestic violence community is concerned with. If you have any
questions, you are welcome to contact Barry Goldstein at BarryG78@aol.com The
information in parenthesis at the end of each paragraph are the authors of chapters in the book that provide the information in the paragraph.

1. In recent years, the court system has developed many practices that are designed to help parents work together. These ideas include mediation, shared parenting, parenting coordinators, parenting classes, friendly parent approaches and programs to promote communication skills and compromise. These may work well in other cases, but are harmful in domestic violence cases (see Zorza, Fields)

2. Over 95% of cases eventually settle more or less amicably. Some of these involve
domestic violence and could be handled better with domestic violence knowledge, but
the real problem are the less than 5% of the cases that cannot be settled and will
require a trial and often much more. Courts usually refer to these as "high conflict"
cases and literally they are, but 90% of these cases are actually domestic violence
cases that can't be settled because it reflects an abusive father's tactic of using the
children as a way to get access to his victim or punish her for leaving. The court system has been very slow to recognize this tactic and instead frequently use approaches that
collude with abusers to help them maintain control over their ex-partners. Frequent
mistakes in these cases have resulted in thousands of children being sent to live with
abusers. (see Zorza, Fields and Goldstein)

3. If there was a scientific basis for the custody evaluations regularly relied on by the
custody courts, the evaluators could tell the courts how their recommendations have
worked out for children based upon outcome studies. In fact they have no such
research. This flaw is obscured in part by the assumption that once a court makes a
decision, the findings are confirmed. Many of these decisions have been discredited by
later convictions of abusers found to be safe, poor outcomes for children and reports by
children of horrific abuse after they age out of court orders giving custody to abusers.
This is not surprising because the research demonstrates the custody court system regularly uses flawed methods that make it difficult for judges to recognize domestic violence and child abuse or understand the consequences proposed orders are likely to have on the children. (see Yeamans, Anderson and Waller)

4. The Truth Commission and the research in the book, recommends that court professionals receive not just generalized training in domestic violence, but specific
training in Recognizing Domestic Violence, Gender Bias and The Effects of Domestic
Violence on Children. It is hard to imagine any objection to these recommendations.
The courts can't protect battered mothers and children if they miss the signs of domestic
violence. Gender bias is particularly difficult because professionals acting in good faith
often engage in gender bias without realizing they are doing so. The problem is
compounded because some good professionals have suffered retaliation for pointing
out examples of gender bias. Children who witness domestic violence, including non-
physical abuse can face long-term harm as a result, but courts can't protect the children
if they don't understand the risk. (see Hannah, Crooks, Jaffe and Bala, Schwaeber, Dragiewicz and THE BATTERER AS PARENT).

5. Judge Mike Brigner writes that when he trains judges about domestic violence he
often is asked what to do about women who are lying. When he asks what they mean
they refer to women who return to their abuser, withdraw petitions for restraining orders,
fail to make police reports or seek hospital treatment and the myth (obviously they don't
realize it is a myth) that women frequently make deliberately false allegations of abuse.
All of these actions are normal responses by women partnered with abusers for safety
and other reasons. In no way do they support the assumption that the woman is lying.
Nevertheless the widespread belief by judges, lawyers and inadequately trained mental
health professionals that it does, results in thousands of valid claims of abuse to be
disbelieved and other evidence ignored. Similarly, unqualified professionals often look
only to evidence of physical abuse and in doing so miss a lot of other evidence of
controlling behavior courts could use to confirm abuse allegations. (see Araji and
Bosek, Brigner, Schwaeber and Goldstein)

6. One of the ways we know there is a problem in the custody court system is the frequent finding of circumstances that are rare. It is certainly possible for a woman to
make a false allegation of abuse, an abuser to commit one act or a few acts and then
stop without any intervention or for a mother to suffer from Munchausen by Proxy.
Accordingly, we can't tell if an individual case was wrongly decided without substantial
investigation, but when researchers look at hundreds and thousands of cases it is easy
to see patterns of results that cannot possibly be accurate. The improper practices
confirm how courts get so many cases wrong. (see Zorza, Araji and Bosek, Dragiewicz
and Goldstein)

7. Most abusers do not beat their victims frequently. Instead they commit one or a few physical assaults and then use other coercive and intimidating tactics to maintain their control. Their purpose is not to enjoy beating their partners but rather to maintain
control and exercise what they believe is their right to make the major decisions in the relationship. Inadequately trained professionals fail to see the abuser's use of
excessive litigation, strategies that bankrupt his victim and use of the children to gain access to her as a continuation of his pattern of abuse. When a woman seeks to limit contact with her abuser because she understands his tactics she is labeled as
uncooperative or unfriendly when better practice would be for courts to use their
authority to discourage abusive men from intimidating and scaring their ex-partners.
(see Schwaeber, Fields, Goldstein and Araji and Bosek).

8. Many professionals in the custody court system believe they have the ability to determine who is telling the truth just from observing them. There is no research to support this belief and only a very few elite CIA and FBI agents have demonstrated this ability. In the context of domestic violence custody cases this is particularly dangerous because abusers are very manipulative and plan out their tactics to fool the
professionals. At the same time women's normal reaction to their partners' abuse tends to be anger and emotion and this is used to discredit their concerns. The false belief by professionals that they can tell who is truthful, just from watching them creates a false sense of confidence in these wrong judgments and favors abusers. ( see Schwaeber, Araji and Bosek, Zorza and Washington Post article).

9. Over forty states and many other judicial districts have created court-appointed gender bias commissions. These commissions have found widespread gender bias particularly against women litigants. They have found the courts give women less credibility than men, blame victims for her abuser's actions and create higher standards of proof for women. We see this when courts punish women for seeking to limit contact with abusers instead of pressuring abusers to stop their intimidating tactics. We see it when they expect mothers to provide better care of children but don't reward them for their care or punish women more severely than men for extramarital affairs. (see
Dragiewicz, Araji and Bosek and Zorza).

10. In one case, the trial court used a certainty standard for the mother and a probability standard for the father. Even a first year law student would know this was a
fundamental violation of due process and equal protection that demands reversal. The
use of the higher standard for the mother was in writing in the evaluator's report and the
transcript of her testimony. Using a the proper probability standard she admitted the
father abused the mother physically, emotionally and verbally throughout the marriage,
did so in front of the children and abused her so badly as to cause PTSD. Accordingly
the court could not claim the mistake did not affect the outcome. In the two related
cases between 15 and 20 different judges reviewed the case but failed to object to the biased approach. Clearly the judges were smart enough to recognize the mistake and it
is not possible they were all corrupt or in favor of abusers. The problem is that for thirty
years the court system has been using invalid practices and the often inadequately
trained professionals they rely on have reinforced misinformation so that the judges
could not imagine a trial judge could be so unfair to a battered mother. They permitted
a decision where a safe mother was denied any contact with her children and the
abuser received custody. Only in a broken custody court system could so many judges
make such an obvious mistake. (see Dragiewicz, Goldstein and Fields)

11. More commonly, the higher standard of proof for mothers is not put in writing, but is demonstrated by the many double standards women face. Frequently protective
mothers are punished because they seek to restrict the father's contact because he is abusive. Courts give custody to the alleged abuser on the grounds that he is more
likely to encourage the relationship between the mother and children. Once he receives custody, abusive fathers interfere with visitation and take mothers out of their children's lives, but the same courts fail to require the father to facilitate visitation. (see
Dragiewicz, Araji and Bosek, Zorza and Hannah)

12. In a typical domestic violence case, the protective mother claims to be the primary
attachment figure to the children and that the father abused her and/or the children.
The father claims alienation. Primary attachment refers to the parent who provided
most of the child care for the first couple of years of the child's life. Children who lose
their primary attachment figure are significantly more likely to commit suicide, suffer
depression, low-self-esteem and other problems. Accordingly it doesn't make sense to
separate a child from their primary attachment figure unless the parent is unsafe.
Children affected by domestic violence are as likely as children directly abused to
engage in a wide range of dysfunctional behavior. There is no research that children
who hear negative remarks about the other parent (as occurs in most intact families) or
have mothers who seek to protect them by limiting contact with an allegedly abusive
father experience any long-term harm as a result. At the same time almost all children
have a primary attachment figure which is usually the mother because in this still sexist
society, mothers continue to perform most of the child care. Despite the myths, mothers
rarely (1-2% of the time) make deliberately false allegations of abuse. False or
exaggerated complaints of alienation by fathers are very common and is taught by male
supremacist groups as a tactic to obtain custody. Although the mothers' complaints are
more likely to be true and significantly affect the safety and potential of the children,
courts are granting custody or joint custody to the fathers in these cases between 70
and 83% of the time. (see Sussman, Erickson, Crooks, Jaffe and Bala, Araji and
Bosek).

13. Courts tend to emphasize the belief that children do better with both parents in their lives. This belief is supported by research, but not if one of the parents is abusive. "Fathers' rights" groups have sought to promote and courts have accepted the idea that
when the parents come to court they should have equal rights to the children. On the
surface this sounds reasonable, but only if their history of parenting supports this
practice. There is no reason to treat the parents the same if one has performed
significantly more child care, has better parenting skills or if one parent has been
abusive. The best predictor of future parenting is past parenting, but courts often treat
mothers based on past parenting and fathers on expectations of future parenting.
These kinds of gender biased practices place an unfair burden on mothers and more
importantly result in decisions harmful to children. (see Zorza, Erickson, Araji and Bosek)

14. The widespread use of mental health professionals for evaluations and expertise
developed at a time when it was widely believed domestic violence was caused by
mental illness, substance abuse or the victim's behavior. Courts assumed that the
mental health professionals had expertise in domestic violence. At the time there was
no specialized body of knowledge about domestic violence. Mental health professionals
can help custody courts understand the circumstances when there is credible
information that one of the parties or the children suffer from a mental impairment that
significantly affects the ability to parent. There are a few mental health professionals
who also have substantial knowledge and experience in domestic violence and are
familiar with up-to-date research. The problem is that most mental health professionals
relied on by custody courts have at most a few hours of domestic violence training and
are unfamiliar with the up-to-date research. The research demonstrates they often fail
to recognize domestic violence because they don't know what to look for and tend to
minimize its significance. This is particularly harmful because they provide a false
confidence that there is a scientific basis for their recommendations. (see Yeamans,
Erickson, Araji and Bosek, Zorza and Fields)

15. Best practices are for mental health professionals to consult with domestic violence
experts when handling a case involving allegations of domestic violence. There have
been several demonstration projects including Rockland County, New York where child
protective agencies work with the local domestic violence shelter on cases involving
suspected domestic violence. The agencies cross-train each other and when
caseworkers have a potential domestic violence case they consult with a domestic
violence advocate. This practice has proven effective in helping caseworkers recognize
and respond appropriately to domestic violence cases. Psychologists and psychiatrists
are ethically required to consult with experts when they are handling a case that
involves a subject they are not expert in. It should be a standard practice for evaluators
to consult with domestic violence experts when they respond to domestic violence
cases. Unfortunately, these professionals, often with only a couple of hours of training
in domestic violence and unfamiliar with the specialized body of research about domestic violence wrongly believe they don't need to consult with a genuine expert. Many lawyers don't know to raise this issue when questioning evaluators, but even when the issue is raised, judges rarely discredit an evaluators testimony for failing to consult a domestic violence expert or have familiarity with up-to-date research. (see Zorza, Fields, Goldstein and Hannah)

16. The use of psychological tests increases costs, delays cases and creates a false
assumption that there is a scientific basis for recommendations. Psychological tests
were developed for populations very different than those engaged in custody disputes.
They cannot determine issues like domestic violence or parenting skills. They were
designed to determine mental illness. Psychologists rarely tell the courts that the
findings are based on probabilities and most tests reach conclusions accurate in 55 to
65% of the cases. Other factors such as not being part of the intended population for
the test, domestic violence or the stress of litigation further reduce the percentage of
accuracy. Mothers' normal response to their partners' domestic violence is often
misinterpreted as paranoia or delusion. This is particularly a problem where
inadequately trained evaluators fail to recognize domestic violence and then pathologize
the victim for believing she was abused. (see Yeamans, Zorza, Erickson and Fields)

17. Mental health professionals relied on in custody cases often use a family systems
approach which is not appropriate and in fact is dangerous in domestic violence cases.
The approach seeks to have the parties forget past problems and develop new ways to
work together in the future. This does nothing to change the belief system of abusers
who are skilled at manipulating professionals who use such an approach. The
professionals are usually unfamiliar with scientific research including the fact that only
accountability and monitoring have been shown to change abusers' behavior. At the
same time protective mothers are punished because they couldn't overcome their fear
caused by a long history of their partner's abuse. This is another example of blaming
the victim for her normal reaction to the father's abuse. (see Fields, Zorza and Crooks,
Jaffe and Bala).

18. Context is particularly important in understanding and recognizing domestic violence. Repeatedly we have seen cases in which the court initially determines a mother's domestic violence allegations are false. When the father commits new abusive
tactics (such as limiting contact between the mother and children after he gets custody
or using the visitation exchanges to harass his victim, the courts usually refuse to
consider the new information in the context of prior evidence of abuse on the ground
that the court already denied the abuse. Courts often miss that the same acts should
be treated very differently depending on motivation. There may be evidence that each
party hit the other, but they may not be equivalent. One party may hit harder, one party
may hit in self defense or to stop his abuse and the other to maintain control, and
particularly important only one party may fear the other. Both parties may file complaints about professionals in the case. While they both would claim they have
valid objections it is important to see the context of whether one of the parties had
previously sought to isolate their partner from friends and family. (see Dragiewicz, Goldstein and Zorza)

19. Not all children react the same to domestic violence and child abuse. Inadequately
trained professionals expect abused children to have serious social or academic
problems as a result of the abuse. Some children react by taking on adult roles, being
the good child or zoning out. On the surface it appears the children are doing well, but
the problems play out years later. Such unexpected reactions often lead to courts
assuming valid abuse complaints are false. (see Crooks, Jaffe and Bala, Araji and
Bosek)

20. We are particularly concerned with cases involving retaliation against protective mothers and extreme results that give custody to alleged abusers and supervised visits
or no contact with children to the mothers. Unless the mother is unsafe (drug addict,
beats the children) such extreme results are virtually always harmful to children. Many
mothers have been punished for continuing to believe the father is dangerous after the
court fails to find he committed abuse. Fathers are not similarly punished when they
continue to deny their abuse after the court finds against him. Given the frequency in
which courts fail to confirm valid claims of abuse, courts should be extremely reluctant to penalize mothers who continue to complain of their partner's abuse. (see Zorza, Araji and Bosek)

21. Surprisingly there have been some judges who object to training about up-to-date
research in domestic violence based on the belief that somehow neutrality requires
judges to stay ignorant of this information. In reality such ignorance is not neutral as the myths, stereotypes and misinformation used instead of scientific research strongly
favors abusive fathers.

The training of judges and other court personnel in domestic violence should be
conducted by domestic violence advocates and other experts familiar with the kind of
up-to-date research contained in this book. It is important that administrative judges
foster an attitude that the present system has resulted in thousands of children being
sent to live with abusers so judges must be open to the likelihood that many of the
beliefs and practices they have long used have been wrong. Courts should consider
holding an evidentiary hearing about domestic violence early in custody proceedings. If
the allegations of domestic violence are true and the other parent is safe (alienation
allegations are not about safety), the non-abusive parent should receive custody and
the abusive parent held accountable. This procedure would save courts time and
money while achieving results that benefit children. Courts should consider not
appointing an evaluator unless there is substantial reason to believe one of the parties or the children have a mental condition that would significantly interfere with parenting.
If an evaluator is used judges should seek experts with substantial domestic violence
training or at least have the evaluator consult with such an expert. Mediation and joint
counseling are always inappropriate in cases with abuse allegations. The safety of the
parties and the children must always be the first priority. Research demonstrates that
the best way to prevent domestic violence is to hold the abuser accountable and monitor his behavior. Abusers tend to be extremely manipulative and court professionals must be careful to avoid colluding with an abuser. Most important, we are not seeking to challenge or criticize judges, but rather to work together to support the policy and laws of every state which is to prevent domestic violence.

Domestic Violence 20/20 News

2010-06-02T10:43:00.001-07:00

Murder-Suicide Reported At Winter Haven Hospital –CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST OTHERS ARE NOT TRAGEDIES-THEY ARE OUTRAGES!! Stop it!

2010-05-11T08:30:00.001-07:00

Why do they always say “Tragedies” v the real fact that they “OUTRAGES” like they want to all sugar coat the epidemic of men murdering their families as if-What could have MADE ‘him’ do it (poor baby)? v he was a freeking sociopath and needs to NOT be Glorified..?

ahhh I recall the whole “family Preservation thing” right up till “Death do US Part”

….and death indeed.

In every single murder suicide- I read- :

”he was such a nice guy”- “the family was quiet”-or, there were “health issue”—or “he” just lost his job- or he was going through a “custody battle”- or.. or.. or.. and the media bites this shit hook line and sink… Blame Every one and Every thing but the source- why must WE keep protecting those who murder?

Stop it- it is an Outrage- Crimes committed against others are NOT tragedies- they OUTRAGES!!

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2010/5/10/murdersuicide_reported_at_winter_haven_hospital.html

Murder-Suicide Reported At Winter Haven Hospital

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 1:02:05 AM

WINTER HAVEN -- A murder-suicide was reported in a patient's room at Winter Haven Hospital Monday afternoon.

Witnesses heard gunshots on the 5th floor of the hospital in the medical surgery unit, just after 1:20 p.m.

Police say a 77-year-old man shot his sick wife to death.

The patient was identified as 76-year-old Patrricia Duckworth. Her husband, Raymond Duckworth, 77, was visiting her.

"It's a tragedy," said hospital vice president Joel Thomas. "Everybody here on our whole staff are obviously shaken. Our hearts go out to the family members who are affected here."

The hospital was not evacuated, but the floor where the shooting happened was locked down for most of Monday night.

This story is from our Bright House Networks partner, Bay News 9.

Technorati Tags: Murder,Suicide,Winter,Haven,Hospital,Stop,fact,sugar,MADE,needs,Preservation,Death,Part,health,custody,hook,Blame,Outrage,News,Local,room,afternoon,surgery,unit,Police,wife,Patrricia,Duckworth,husband,Raymond,tragedy,president,Joel,Thomas,Everybody,House,Crimes,tragedies,hearts,members

CONFIRMED: PROTECTIVE MOTHERS WERE RIGHT

2010-05-09T07:15:00.001-07:00

A special Mothers Day Article

By Barry Goldstein

For many years, protective mothers have complained about a broken custody court system giving custody to abusive fathers. The courts dismissed the complaints by saying they came from disgruntled litigants. Now, a new book based on multi-disciplinary research has confirmed that common mistakes in the custody courts have resulted in thousands of children being forced to live with abusers. Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody: Legal Strategies and Policy Issues, co-edited by Dr. Mo Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein includes chapters by over 25 of the leading experts in domestic violence and custody in the U.S. and Canada including judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists and domestic violence advocates. Although the writers come from different disciplines and professional experience, there is remarkable agreement that the courts' failure to use up-to-date research is responsible for placing children at risk and undermining laws designed to prevent domestic violence.

The custody court system developed practices to respond to domestic violence allegations over thirty years ago at a time when there was no research. The courts relied on popular assumptions such as the belief domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse and the victims' behavior. They assumed domestic violence only involved physical abuse and children were unaffected unless directly assaulted. All of these and many other assumptions relied on by the courts have proven wrong, but the court continues to use outdated and discredited practices. Even worse, after hearing misinformation constantly repeated for over thirty years the myths and stereotypes are so deeply ingrained that courts often don't believe accurate information based upon up-to-date research because it is so different from what they have heard repeated their entire professional careers. Hopefully by putting all the research together in one volume, the book will force the courts to take a fresh look at practices that have worked so poorly for children.

Most cases are settled more or less amicably. The problem is with the 3.8% of contested custody cases that continue to trial and usually far beyond. The courts think of these as "high conflict" cases and literally they are, but 90% of these cases involve abusive fathers which is why they can't be settled. Male supremacist groups have developed an unspeakably cruel tactic of encouraging abusers to go after the children as a way to pressure the mother to return, punish her for leaving and avoid child support. As a result, the courts repeatedly see cases in which fathers who had little involvement with the children before the separation suddenly seeking custody, but the court system has been slow to recognize the tactic or respond to it. Judges have constantly been told that children do better with both parents in their lives but not that this is untrue if one of the parents is abusive.

In the typical case, the mother is the primary parent. She complains about the father's abuse and he counters by claiming alienation. Primary attachment refers to the parent who does most of the child care in the first couple of years of a child's life. If the child is separated from their primary attachment figure, the child is more likely to commit suicide, suffer depression, have low self-esteem and other harmful attributes. Children who witness domestic violence are more likely to engage in a wide range of dysfunctional behaviors when they are older and their developmental progress is interfered with. On the other hand, it is common even in intact families for parents to make negative statements about the other parent and there is no research that alienation causes long-term harm to children.

At the same time, in our still sexist society, mothers continue to do most of the child care so claims of primary attachment are virtually always true and often not contested by the father. Contrary to popular myths, women rarely make false allegations of abuse so that at least 98% of a mother's allegations of abuse in custody cases are accurate. Fathers on the other hand, are 16 times more likely to make false allegations in contested custody cases than mothers. This is not because women are so much more honest, but that most fathers in custody cases are abusers using the children to maintain control of their ex-partner and they seem to believe they are entitled to use any tactics to win custody.

Accordingly most allegations of alienation by fathers in custody cases are false. In other words the allegations by the mothers have the most consequences for the children and are most likely to be true, but the courts are paying more attention to the allegations by the fathers that are likely to be false and of little consequence to the children.

The book can be used by mothers and their attorneys to challenge the common mistakes made in domestic violence cases. One of the big problems is that because of the original mistaken assumption that domestic violence is caused by mental health or substance abuse issues, the courts have relied on mental health professionals who have little or no understanding or training in domestic violence. They rarely have any familiarity with up-to-date research and instead frequently rely on myths and stereotypes.

Although professional ethics require psychologists and psychiatrists to consult with an expert if they are handling a case involving an issue in which they lack expertise, evaluators and other court professionals routinely ignore this requirement by pretending they have expertise even with only an hour or two of training.

Evaluators often rely on psychological tests to create the illusion of a scientific basis for their opinions. These tests were developed for a population very different from the parents seen in custody court. When advocates for mothers tell courts that most abusers tend to be manipulative or mothers rarely make deliberately false allegations they respond by saying they are judging THIS case and cannot rely on probabilities. Under the best of circumstances the psychological tests are accurate between 55-65% of the time. So what happens if the mother is part of the 35-45% for which it is not accurate? Even worse factors like domestic violence or the pressure of going through a contested custody case reduce the accuracy significantly.

Furthermore, many of the tests are gender biased and criticize women but not men for the same responses. Of course the evaluators rarely inform courts of this information and most attorneys don't know enough to raise these issues.

A critical problem that does not receive the attention it deserves is that judges and the professionals they rely on repeatedly fail to recognize domestic violence because they don't know what to look for. Judge Mike Brigner wrote a chapter for the book in which he discusses his training of judges about domestic violence. They constantly ask him what to do about women who are lying. When he asks what they mean they refer to women who return to their abuser, seek protective orders, but don't follow-up or don't have police or medical reports after alleged assaults. In reality battered mothers do all these things for safety and other good reasons, but when ignorant professionals use this to discredit allegations of abuse, they have no chance to get it right.

Another common example is when judges, lawyers or evaluators watch fathers interact with the children. If the children show no fear, it convinces these professionals that the abuse allegations must be false. What the children understand is that their father would never hurt them in front of witnesses, especially someone he is trying to impress and in fact they could be punished if they showed fear. At the same time the mental health professionals are discrediting valid allegations based on information that is not probative, they tend to look only for physical abuse and miss many other domestic violence tactics that demonstrate the control and coercion he practices.

The mistaken practices give the courts little chance to recognize the father's abuse, but it is even worse than that. The mental health professionals often use their failure to recognize domestic violence as an excuse to pathologize the mother. She is often called delusional or paranoid because she believes something they missed. This or the assumption she is deliberately trying to interfere with the father's relationship with the children often results in extreme outcomes in which the mother is given supervised or no visitation based on the court's mistakes.

In her chapter on retaliation and manipulation, Joan Zorza says that in light of the frequency in which courts fail to recognize domestic violence they should avoid retaliating or penalizing mothers who continue to believe the allegations of abuse after the court finds against them. This recommendation can be used to ask courts to modify orders with extreme results when there is no proof the mother is unsafe.

Some child protective agencies have participated in programs in which they work with the local domestic violence agency. The train each other and when there is a case with possible domestic violence issues, the child protective caseworkers consult with domestic violence advocates. This helps them recognize and respond more appropriately to domestic violence cases. This should be considered best practices and needs to be expanded to the custody courts.

The custody courts do a particularly bad job of responding to allegations of sexual abuse. By the time a child reaches the age of 18, one-third of the girls and one-sixth of the boys have been sexually abused. The myth is that rape and sexual abuse are mostly committed by strangers but in fact 83% of the time it is someone they know, often the father. Courts don't want to believe a father could do something so heinous especially if he is successful in other parts of his life. Accordingly a very high percentage of sexual abuse allegations result in custody to the alleged abuser.

One of the problems is that sexual abuse of children is very hard to prove. Often there is no physical evidence particularly if the child does not reveal it immediately. Younger children may not have the language to describe what was done to them and older children may have been threatened or don't want someone they love to get in trouble. Few of the evaluators relied on by courts have expertise in child sexual abuse. What is a mother supposed to do when the child's behavior or other clues suggest sexual abuse? If she does nothing she is placing the safety and well-being of her child at risk, but if she asks for an investigation she can lose custody.

We have seen many cases in which a child acts out because the father violated the child's boundaries such as by sleeping with the child. The father did not inappropriately touch the child. The issue could easily be handled by instructing the father to change his routine and it would be totally safe for the father to continue with normal visitation. This would be a win-win situation, but instead courts and the unqualified professionals they rely on assume the mother is making deliberately false allegations and so separate the child from their primary attachment figure and deny the child a relationship with her.

The book also takes on Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) which is one of the major reasons courts get so many cases wrong. Dr. Paul Fink past president of the American Psychiatric Association wrote a chapter about PAS and Nancy Erickson who is an attorney and law professor who went back to school to become a psychologist wrote about how to challenge false allegations of PAS. Richard Gardner concocted PAS based on his belief system which included many statements to the effect that sex between adults and children is appropriate. Many of his quotations are in the chapter and can be cited to judges who presumably will not want to be associated with such behavior.

There is no scientific basis to PAS and it is not recognized by any reputable professional organization. It is based on the myth that most allegations of abuse are false. Psychologists are starting to lose their licenses for using PAS because they are in effect diagnosing something that does not exist. As PAS has become more discredited, abusers and the professionals they pay to support them have started using PAS by other names such as parental alienation or just alienation. It the idea is to assume allegations of abuse must be wrong or to justify giving custody to the alleged abuser and supervised or no visitation to the protective mothers they are using the discredited PAS by another name.

Professor Garland Waller wrote a chapter about the failure of the media to cover the crisis in the custody court system. She writes about the tipping point when enough information reaches the public so that they will no longer tolerate frequent court mistakes that place children in jeopardy. We believe this book can move us towards the tipping point and hope those committed to ending the injustice in the custody court system will consider some of the following actions to help us reach the tipping point.

1. Inform the courts in your area about this book. They can find additional information atwww.domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com Ask the courts to use the research in the book to train judges and other court personnel and to reform practices that the research demonstrates are working poorly for children.

2. Contact your local media to cover the crisis in the custody court system by using the research in the book to understand the harm the courts are doing to children. If you want to seek publicity for your case use the book to show the context and national problem and then your case illustrates how it played out in a local case. When there are local domestic violence stories bring the information in the book to the reporters.

3. If you have local colleges, universities or law schools in the area, ask them to incorporate the research from the book into the curriculum and to sponsor programs about the custody courts based on this research.

4. Ask local and college libraries to obtain a copy of the book. This would be particularly helpful for protective mothers who cannot afford to purchase the book.

5. Cite the book in court cases and appeals. Use the research to challenge unqualified evaluators and other court professionals and to obtain experts who can put this research into evidence.

6. Use the book to inform legislators of the problems in the court. Ask them to hold hearings and sponsor legislation to protect children and prevent abuse. We will soon have legislative proposals available based on the research in the book.

7. Work together with domestic violence agencies, women's groups and anyone else sympathetic to the cause.

8. Come up with your own ideas. We cannot tolerate a system that continues to place children in jeopardy because they fail to use the up-to-date research now available.

Technorati Tags: PROTECTIVE,Article,Barry,Goldstein,custody,system,courts,disciplinary,children,Domestic,Violence,Abuse,Child,Legal,Policy,Therese,Hannah,Canada,judges,journalists,Although,agreement,failure,belief,substance,victims,behavior,misinformation,myths,Most,cases,Male,tactic,result,involvement,separation,parent,father,alienation,Primary,attachment,life,depression,self,sexist,Contrary,times,words,consequences,attention,consequence,problems,assumption,health,ethics,expertise,requirement,Evaluators,basis,population,Under,accuracy,gender,Judge,Mike,Brigner,chapter,abuser,orders,reports,Another,example,fact,coercion,relationship,results,retaliation,manipulation,Joan,Zorza,frequency,recommendation,Some,agency,needs,myth,percentage,Often,Younger,language,investigation,boundaries,situation,Parental,Syndrome,Paul,Fink,president,American,Psychiatric,Association,Nancy,Erickson,attorney,professor,Richard,Gardner,Many,organization,Psychologists,Garland,Waller,crisis,jeopardy,injustice,actions,Inform,area,personnel,Contact,context,reporters,curriculum,college,Cite,Work,Come,ideas,fathers,complaints,Strategies,chapters,lawyers,psychiatrists,allegations,assumptions,careers,statements,opinions,factors,responses,outcomes,agencies,strangers,clues,quotations,colleges,proposals,abusers,parents,women,attorneys,visitation,sexual

The Myth of the "Battered Husband Syndrome

2010-05-08T19:01:00.001-07:00

iled under Ending Men's Violence, Paper.

By Jack C. Straton, Ph.D.

The most recurrent backlash against women's safety is the myth that men are battered as often as women. Suzanne Steinmetz [1] created this myth with her 1977 study of 57 couples, in which four wives were seriously beaten but no husbands were beaten. By a convoluted thought process [2] she concluded that her finding of zero battered husbands implied that men just don't report abuse and therefore 250,000 American husbands [3] are battered each year by their wives[4], a figure that exploded to 12million in the subsequent media feeding frenzy [5].

Men have never before been shy in making their needs known, so it is peculiar that in 17 years, this supposedly huge contingent of "battered men" has never revealed itself in the flesh. Could it be that it simply does not exist? Indeed, a careful analysis of domestic violence, using everything from common experience to medical studies to U.S. National Crime Survey data, shows that only three [6]to four [7] percent of inter-spousal violence involves attacks on men by their female partners.

In the myth's latest incarnation, Katherine Dunn (The New Republic, 8/1/94) is unable to counter these hard scientific data so she turns to disputed sociological studies by Murray Straus and Richard Gelles [8,9] for "proof" that violence rates are almost equal. She first implies that these studies are unassailable by calling the authors "two of the most respected researchers in the field of domestic violence." Then she cynically attempts to undercut Straus' critics by labeling them as" advocacy groups." In fact Straus' critics are unimpeachable scientists of both genders, such as Emerson and Russell Dobash [10,11] and Edward Gondolf [12], who say his studies are bad science, with findings and conclusions that are contradictory, inconsistent, and unwarranted [13,14,15].

There are three major flaws in Straus' work. The first is that he used a set of questions that cannot discriminate between intent and effect [16]. This socalled Conflict Tactics Scale (or CTS) equates a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs [17]. It labels a mother as violent if she defends her daughter from the father's sexual molestation. It combines categories
such as "hitting" and "trying to hit" despite the important difference between them [18].

Because it looks at only one year, this study equates a single slap by a woman to a man's 15 year history of domestic terrorism. Even Steinmetz herself says the CTS studies ignore the difference between a slap that stings and a punch that causes permanent injury [19]. Indeed, after analyzing the results of the U.S. National Crime Surveys, sociologist Martin Schwartz concluded that 92% of those seeking medical care from a private physician for injuries received in a spousal assault are women [20]. The NCS study shows that one man is hospitalized for injuries received in a spousal assault for every 46 women hospitalized [21].

Even if we ignore all of the reviously mentioned flaws in Straus' CTS studies, they are bad science on a second set of grounds. Straus interviewed only one partner, but other studies [22,23] that independently interviewed both partners found that their accounts of the violence did not match. Also a study by Richard Gelles and John Harrop [24] using the CTS failed to find any difference in self-reporting of violence against children by step-parents versus birth-parents Ã¢â‚¬â€ in vivid contrast to the actual findings that a step-parent is up to 100 times more likely to assault a small child
than is a birth parent [25,26]. Any research technique that contains a 10,000 percent systematic error is totally unreliable.

In fact a third independent case can be made against Straus' study. It excluded incidents of violence that occur after separation and divorce, yet these account for 75.9 percent of spouse-on-spouse assaults, with a male perpetrator 93.3 percent of the time, according to the U.S. Department of Justice [27]. The Straus study relied on self-reports of violence by one member of each household, yet men who batter typically under-report their violence by 50 percent [28]. Finally, the CTS does not include sexual assault as a category although more women are raped by their husbands than beaten only [29]. Adjusting Straus' own statistics to include this reality makes the ratio of male to female spousal violence more than 16 to one.

Police and court records persistently indicate that women are 90 to 95 percent of the victims of reported assaults [30]. Promoters of the idea that women are just as abusive as men suggest that these results may be biased because the victims were selfreporting. But Schwartz's analysis of the1973-1982 U.S. National Crime Surveys shows that men who are assaulted by their spouses actually call the police more often than women who were assaulted by their spouses [31].

Ã‚Â· In any case, criminal victimization surveyusing random national samples are free of any reporting bias. They give similar results
Ã‚Â· The 1973-81 U.S. National Crime Survey, including over a million interviews, found that only 3 to 4 percent of marital assaults involved attacks on men by their female partners [32,33].
Ã‚Â· The 1981 and 1987 Canadian surveys [34,35] found that the number of assaults of males was too low to provide reliable estimates.
Ã‚Â· The 1982 and 1984 British surveys found that women accounted for all of the victims of marital assaults [36].

This is not to say that men are not harmed in our society, but most often men are harmed by other men. Eighty-seven percent of men murdered in the U.S. are killed by other men [37]. Those doing the killing in
every major and minor war in this and previous centuries have mostly been men! Instead of attempting to undercut services for the enormous number of women who are terrorized by their mates, those who claim to care for men had better address our real enemies; ourselves.

Of course we must have compassion for those relative few men who are harmed by their wives and partners, but it makes logical sense to focus our attention and work on the vast problem of male violence (96 percent of domestic violence) and not get side-tracked by the relatively tiny (4 percent)problem of male victimization. The biggest concern, though, is not the wasted effort on a false issue, it is the fact that batterers, like O.J. Simpson, who think they are the abused spouses are very dangerous during separation and divorce. In one study of spousal homicide, over half of the male defendants were separated from their victims [38]. Arming these men with warped statistics to fuel their already warped world view is unethical, irresponsible, and quite simply lethal.

References
[1] Suzanne Steinmetz, "The battered husband syndrome," Victimology 2, 499-509 (1978).
[2] Mildred Daley Pagelow's comprehensive history, "The 'battered husband syndrome': social problem or much ado about little," in Marital Violence, Norman Johnson,
ed., Sociological review Monograph 31 (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1985), pp. 172-195.
[3] Suzanne Steinmetz, "Wife beating, husband beating Ã¢â‚¬â€œ a comparison of the use of physical violence to resolve marital fights," in M. Roy (ed.), Battered Women, (Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York,1977), p.33.
[4] Time Magazine, "The battered husbands," March 20, 1978, p. 69.
[5] G. Storch, "Claim of 12 million battered husbands takes a beating," Miami Herald, August 7,1978, p. 16.
[6] Deirdre A. Gaquin "Spouse abuse: data from the National Crime Survey," Victimology 2,632-643 (1977/78).
[7] Martin D. Schwartz, "Gender and injury in spousal assaults," Sociological Focus 20, 61-75(1987).
[8] M.A. Straus, R. J. Gelles, and S. Steinmetz, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, (Doubleday, 1980), p. 36.
[9] Murray A. Straus, Richard J. Gelles, J of Marriage and the Family 48, 465-479 (1986).
[10] R.E. Dobash and R.P. Dobash, "A context specific approach to researching violence," in N.Johnson (ed.), Marital Violence, Sociological review Monograph
(Newcastle, England, 1981).
[1]1 R. Emerson Dobash and Russell P. Dobash, "The Case of Wife Beating," J of Family Issues 2,439-470 (1981).
[12] Edward G. Gondolf, Social Work 32, 190 (1988).
[13] Elizabeth Pleck, Joseph H. Pleck, Marlyn Grossman, and Pauline B. Bart, Victimology 2, 680-684 (1978).
[14] M. Pagelow, "Double Victimization of battered women." Presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, November, 1980.
[15] Daniel G. Saunders, "Other 'Truths' about Domestic Violence: A Reply to McNeely and Robinson-Simpson," Social Work 32, 179-183 (1988).
[16] P. Newton and G. Gildrnan, "Defining Domestic Violence: Violent Episode or Violent Act?" Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Conference,
Detroit, Illinois, 1983.
[17] Jann Jackson, Social Work 32, 189-190 (1988).
[18] Mildred Daley Pagelow, "The 'battered husband syndrome': social problem or much ado about little," in Marital Violence, Norman Johnson, ed., Sociological review
Monograph 31 (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1985), pp. 172-195 (see p. 178).
[19] Suzanne K. Steinmetz, Am. J. of Psychotherapy 34, 334-350 (1980).
[20] Martin D. Schwartz, "Gender and injury in spousal assaults," Sociological Focus 20, 61-75 (1987).
[21] Daniel G. Saunders, "Other 'Truths' about Domes tic Violence: A Reply to McNeely and Robinson-Simpson," Social Work 32, 179-183 (1988).
[22] Maximiliane E. Szinovacz, "Using couple data as a methodological tool: The case of marital violence," Journal of Marriage and the Family 45, 633-644 (1983).
[23] Ernest N. Jouriles and K. Daniel O'Leary, "Interspousal reliability of marital violence," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 53, 419-421 (1985), as
analyzed in R. Emerson Dobash, Russell P. Dobash, Margo Wilson, and Martin Daly, "The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence," Social Problems 39, 71-91 (1992).
[24] Richard J. Gelles and John W. Harrop, "The Risk of Abusive Violence Among Children with Nongenetic Caretakers," Family Relations 40, 78-83 (1991).
[25] Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, "Evolutionary Social Psychology and Family Homicide," Science 242, 5219-524 (1988).
[26] R. Emerson Dobash, Russell P. Dobash, Margo Wilson, and Martin Daly, "The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence," Social Problems 39, 71-91 (1992).
[27] U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence April 1984, p. 4.
[28] J. Edleson and M. Brygger, "Gender Differences in Reporting of Battering Incidences," Family Relations 35, 377-382 (1986).
[29] Diana E. H. Russell, Rape in Marriage (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 19990), p. 90.
[30] R. Emerson Dobash, Russell P. Dobash, Margo Wilson, and Martin Daly, "The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence," Social Problems 39, 71-91 (1992).
[31] Martin D. Schwartz, "Gender and injury in spousal assaults," Sociological Focus 20, 61-75 (1987).
[32] Deirdre A. Gaquin "Spouse abuse: data from the National Crime Survey," Victimology 2, 632-643 (1977/78).
[33] Martin D. Schwartz, "Gender and injury in spousal assaults," Sociological Focus 20, 61-75 (1987).
[34] Solicitor General of Canada, "Female victims of crime." Canadian Urban Victimization Survey Bulletin No. 4. (Programs Branch/Research and statistics Group, Ottawa, 1985).
[35] Vincent F. Sacco and Holly Johnson, Patterns of Criminal Victimization (Statistics Canada, Ottawa, 1990).
[36] A. Worrall and Ken Pease, Patterns in Criminal Homicide: Evidence from the 1982 British crime Survey (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1986).
[37] U.S. Department of Justice, Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports, 1991, pp. 17.
[38] G.W. Bernard, H. Vera, M.I. Vera, and G. Newman, "Till Death Do Us Part: A Study of Spouse Murder," Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 10 (1982).

Technorati Tags: Myth,Husband,Syndrome,Violence,Paper,Jack,Straton,backlash,Suzanne,Steinmetz,zero,American,frenzy,needs,flesh,Could,analysis,National,Crime,Survey,data,partners,incarnation,Katherine,Dunn,Republic,Murray,Straus,Richard,Gelles,rates,advocacy,fact,Emerson,Russell,Dobash,Edward,Gondolf,science,findings,Conflict,Tactics,Scale,woman,self,defense,daughter,father,difference,history,terrorism,injury,results,Martin,Schwartz,physician,Also,John,Harrop,children,parent,times,technique,error,separation,account,spouse,male,perpetrator,Department,Justice,reports,member,category,statistics,ratio,Police,records,victims,victimization,bias,Canadian,British,Instead,services,compassion,attention,effort,Simpson,homicide,world,Victimology,Daley,Marital,Norman,Johnson,Sociological,Monograph,Routledge,Kegan,Paul,London,Wife,comparison,Women,Nostrand,Reinhold,York,Time,Magazine,March,Storch,Claim,Miami,Herald,August,Deirdre,Gaquin,Gender,Focus,Behind,Marriage,context,Newcastle,England,Case,Social,Work,Elizabeth,Pleck,Joseph,Marlyn,Grossman,Pauline,Bart,Double,Criminology,Francisco,November,Daniel,Saunders,Domestic,Robinson,Newton,Gildrnan,Violent,Episode,Association,Conference,Detroit,Illinois,Jann,Jackson,Psychotherapy,Domes,Maximiliane,Szinovacz,tool,Journal,Ernest,Jouriles,Leary,Interspousal,Clinical,Psychology,Margo,Wilson,Sexual,Symmetry,Problems,Risk,Abusive,Among,Nongenetic,Relations,Evolutionary,Bureau,April,Edleson,Brygger,Diana,Rape,Indiana,Bloomington,Solicitor,General,Canada,Female,Urban,Bulletin,Branch,Research,Group,Ottawa,Vincent,Sacco,Criminal,Worrall,Pease,Evidence,Pennsylvania,Philadelphia,Uniform,Bernard,Vera,Newman,Till,Death,Part,Study,Murder,Academy,Psychiatry,authors,critics,genders,conclusions,flaws,categories,injuries,incidents,Promoters,spouses,enemies,References,Doors,Truths,Caretakers,Differences,Incidences,four,husbands,three,spousal,parents,million

“Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody” Documentary Special Viewing Event’s (CO)

2010-05-04T20:36:00.001-07:00

In conjunction with The MOTHERS DAY SILENT VIGIL AT THE WHITE HOUSE

Mothers Of Lost Children To Gather For White House Vigil On Mothers Day

Download Flyer here:

Domestic Violence 8

Technorati Tags: Violence,Abuse,Child,Custody,Premiere,Program,Audience,Discussion,Auraria,Campus,North,Classroom,Domestic,Sharon,Araji,Professor,Chair,Department,Sociology,victims,partners,cases,features,Tanya,Brown,Nicole,Simpson,Robert,Geffner,children,Lundy,Bancroft,Colorado,Documentary,Denver,Police,Unit,Randy,Royal,Benito,Trujillo,Director,Tree,Scott,Attorney,Advisor,Project,Safeguard,Chris,Radolf,Protective,area,presentation,conjunction,publication,April,Mother,nation,capital,Alpha,Kappa,Delta,International,Honor,Women,Gender,Center,School,Public,Affairs,Award,Excellence,Promotional,CLAS,Dean,Fund,Development,REFRESHMENTS,RSVP,Paid,Download,Flyer,mode,officers,Participants,ucdenver

Mothers Of Lost Children To Gather For White House Vigil On Mothers Day

2010-05-04T07:22:00.001-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contacts: Connie Valentine 916-233-8381

May 3, 2010 Kathleen Russell 415-250-1180

MOTHERS OF LOST CHILDREN TO GATHER FOR

WHITE HOUSE VIGIL ON MOTHERS DAY

12 Noon Press Conference with Grieving Moms from Across America

<PHOTO OPPORTUNITY>

Mothers from across America who have lost their children because family courts ordered them into full custody or unsupervised visitation with their alleged abusers will gather for their first silent vigil at 11:00 am on Mothers’ Day, May 9, 2010 in front of the White House.

"We decided that Mother’s Day was the perfect time to stand vigil in front of the White House with mothers from all over America whose children are either dead or living in harm’s way because of the broken family court system," said Connie Valentine, the vigil organizer and Co-founder of the California Protective Parents Association.

Experts at the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence estimate that more than 58,000 children each year are either placed into dangerous homes or forced to go on unsupervised visits with their alleged abusers by divorce courts that simultaneously deny the children’s safe, protective parents access to their sexually and physically abused children.

The 11am silent vigil and 12noon press conference will take place in front of Lafayette Square, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.

Mildred Muhammad, the ex-wife of the Beltway Sniper, will join grieving mothers who recently appeared on the Dr. Phil Show’s Crisis in the Family Courts. California mother Katie Tagle, whose nine-month old baby Wyatt was murdered by his father, and Illinois mother Amy Leichtenberg, whose two school-aged children Duncan and Jack were murdered by their father, will share their tragic stories of desperately trying to keep their children alive. Advocates Kathleen Russell from the Center for Judicial Excellence and Eileen King from Justice for Children, who have been closely monitoring this escalating crisis for years, will discuss their work to expose and remedy the most under-reported human rights scandal in the United States.

These mothers of lost children are soccer moms, kindergarten teachers, physicians, flight attendants, dentists and homemakers. Most of them are middle class, educated and ordinary. They are safe, loving mothers (not addicts or abusers) who have been rendered powerless to protect their children from court-ordered child abuse. Most are battered women who tried to flee domestic abuse to save their children, only to end up mired in our nation’s family courts, unable to protect them at all.

"America’s Moms are coming to the President and First Lady to request a federal investigation into these horrific civil and human rights abuses. I need to make sure that that no parent has to ever go through this incredible pain again, and that my Duncan and Jack’s deaths mean something, " said Amy Leichtenberg.

A cottage industry of mental health professionals and attorneys with cozy relationships with family court judges routinely bankrupt families with enormous court-ordered fees and often recommend that children be placed with their sexually or physically abusive fathers. Family court judges frequently ignore evidence of abuse, refuse to hear direct testimony from the children, and rubberstamp their cronies’ recommendations.

Nurturing mothers are forced to pay costly fees to attend supervised visits with the children they raised, watching helplessly as their children continue to report abuse by their abusers to uncaring visitation monitors. Mothers who speak out about system failure often face judicial retaliation and lose what little time they have with their children. The unregulated cottage industry churns away, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to experts, while some of the worst cases settle only when the children turn 18. This is a national epidemic that is destroying families across America.

Technorati Tags: Lost,Children,Gather,White,House,Vigil,IMMEDIATE,RELEASE,Contacts,Connie,Valentine,Russell,Noon,Conference,Moms,Across,America,PHOTO,courts,custody,Mother,system,organizer,California,Protective,Parents,Association,Leadership,Council,Child,Abuse,Interpersonal,Violence,Lafayette,Square,Pennsylvania,Avenue,Washington,Muhammad,wife,Beltway,Sniper,Phil,Crisis,Katie,Tagle,Wyatt,father,Illinois,Leichtenberg,Duncan,Jack,Center,Judicial,Excellence,Justice,expose,human,rights,scandal,kindergarten,attendants,Most,nation,President,Lady,investigation,parent,pain,cottage,industry,health,relationships,judges,fees,testimony,cronies,failure,retaliation,cases,teachers,physicians,addicts,deaths,fathers,recommendations,visitation,abusers

Fired Pittsburgh Cop Not Guilty;Says He Hurt Woman In Defense (what a crock of SHIT)

2010-05-03T15:21:00.001-07:00

Video: Ex-Girlfriend Talks About Domestic Injuries At Fired Pittsburgh Cop's Trial

BE SURE TO WATCH THE the video.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/23194564/detail.html

Fired Pittsburgh Cop Not Guilty; Says He Hurt Woman In Defense

Former Sgt. Eugene Hlavac Testifies At Trial on Simple Assault Charge

Allegheny County, Pa.: PITTSBURGH --A man who lost his job as a Pittsburgh police sergeant after being accused of domestic violence against his child's mother was found not guilty Tuesday after he testified that self-defense was the reason for the woman's injury.

"The one thing I'm not sorry for at all is the defensive action I took," Eugene Hlavac said on the witness stand. "I would have been justified in using more force."

Allegheny County Judge Tom Flaherty acquitted Hlavac of a charge of simple assault after hearing testimony from both sides in a nonjury trial. Now, Hlavac wants his job back.

"I have always been an innocent man," Hlavac told reporters outside the courtroom. "I was found guilty before I was proven innocent, is actually what happened, and I have one focus right now, and that's to get my son back home with me."

Hlavac was fired in January, against the wishes of the Fraternal Order of Police union leaders who wanted to wait until his case went to court. At that time, union president Dan O'Hara warned that "taxpayers will be paying for a rash decision based on women's groups wanting swift justice."

Joanna Doven, a spokeswoman for Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, had no comment about Hlavac after Tuesday's verdict.

"My client will be reinstated on the police force, or there will be consequences," said Hlavac's defense attorney, Phillip DiLucente.

Hlavac's ex-girlfriend, Lauren Maughan, said she went to a hospital with a dislocated jaw after an argument broke out when she arrived to pick up their 3-year-old child at Hlavac's Greenfield home in December.

Hlavac's side of the story was that Maughan initiated the violence, not the other way around.

"My defensive action was to block the assault," Hlavac testified. "I fell backwards toward my car. I raised my hand to push away in defensive mode."

"With so much force you dislocated her jaw?" Assistant District Attorney Rebecca Auld asked him.

"I'm not a medical professional," Hlavac responded.

In Maughan's testimony on Monday, she said that Hlavac was irate when she showed up late, slamming the car door as he put their child inside, and she said he hit her with an open hand when she got out of the vehicle.

Technorati Tags: Pittsburgh,Hurt,Woman,Defense,SHIT,Video,Girlfriend,Talks,About,Domestic,Trial,SURE,WATCH,news,Former,Eugene,Hlavac,Simple,Assault,Charge,Allegheny,violence,self,injury,action,Judge,testimony,reporters,January,wishes,Fraternal,Order,Police,leaders,president,Hara,decision,justice,Joanna,Doven,spokeswoman,Mayor,Luke,Ravenstahl,verdict,client,consequences,attorney,Phillip,DiLucente,Lauren,Maughan,hospital,argument,Greenfield,December,mode,Assistant,District,Rebecca,Auld,door,vehicle,Injuries

(FL) Custody Feud: Fair Hearing Denied for Linda Marie Sacks

2010-04-30T10:20:00.001-07:00

From MomLogic

Gina Kaysen Fernandes: A Daytona Beach, Florida mother who lost custody of her two girls whom she believes are being sexually abused by their father was dealt a crushing legal blow in her the latest courtroom clash. Linda Marie Sacks recently shared her heartbreaking story with momlogic, describing how a judge punished her in family court for raising concerns about her children's documented abuse.

ncmbts.blogspot.com

After going public with her story, Linda Marie filed an appeal with Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeals in her third attempt to regain custody of her kids. The self-described "squeaky clean" mom has only been allowed to see her teen-aged daughters two hours a month during supervised visits. "After 3 years with only 64 hours of contact with my children... enough is enough, " said Linda Marie.

This week Volusia County Judge Shawn L. Briese canceled a scheduled hearing and refused to allow the testimony of a clinical psychologist who believes Linda Marie's two daughters are victims of child sexual abuse. Dr. Kathy Pearce intended to testify about case notes she recently reviewed from the children's therapist's file. "I had seen the summary of her [the therapist's] files but I had never seen her actual notes," Pearce said. "There was much more there than I ever knew."

Linda Marie faced an uphill legal battle from the get-go. Her wealthy ex-husband hired aggressive attorneys to maneuver his way through the courts. He also paid out of pocket for his own psychologists who are essentially hired guns intended to repeat the father's version of events on the stand. The evaluator claimed the father's sexual behavior was within "normal limits". The teens' father has admitted to inappropriate behavior such as wiping down the vaginas of his school-aged daughters.

Cashing in on child custody fights

Legal watchdog groups say the family courts are ripe for corruption. "The whole system is set up to churn fees," says Kathleen Russell of the Center for Judicial Excellence. In high conflict custody cases, a family court judge typically assigns "court appointees" to provide counseling and evaluations of the parents and their children. The cost of these sessions, which are paid by the parents, can add up quickly. "It's a very lucrative industry," says Russell "these mental health professionals are making a handsome living."

What concerns Russell most is that there's no regulation or oversight of this cottage industry. Many of the accused abusers will pay the evaluator directly which can lead to collusion. The court appointees also have legal immunity that prevents them from being sued for unethical behavior. "There's no checks and balances and no questioning of authority," said Russell. The court-hired professionals have significant power when it comes to determining a child's future. Judges generally defer to the appointee's recommendations before making a custody ruling.

Linda Marie says the custody evaluator ordered to examine her case in 2004 never called the abuse hotline, despite having a legal obligation under the mandatory reporting laws.
The psychologist dismissed the girls' abuse history and their father's inappropriate behavior. However the therapist determined Linda Marie had a better psychological bond with the children and recommended the mother should be the primary parent.

Two years later, that same therapist reversed her decision and decided that Linda Marie's ex-husband should have sole custody of their kids. This change of heart happened coincidentally while an associate in her office was hired to evaluate the father. "Money can buy the outcome you want, with total disregard to the children's welfare or safety," said Linda Marie.

While the family courts may initially have had good intentions by relying on mental health professionals, critics argue it's only making the situation worse. "These are criminal matters," says Russell "They need to be investigated as crimes." She advises parents to avoid family court at all cost and try to mediate your divorce instead. If you end up in family court, Russell recommends you collect as much evidence as possible, report abusive behavior when it happens and document it with photos.

There's no turning back for Linda Marie Sacks who intends to keep fighting as long as it takes to get her girls back. "I have my sights on the US Supreme Court if they do not give me my children back and a new judge." While Linda Marie's case may seem extreme, it's not unique. "It's happening to thousands of mothers stuck in family court trying to protect their children," says Russell. "It's a bottomless pit."

Blogger Labels: Custody,Feud,Fair,Linda,Marie,From,MomLogic,Gina,Kaysen,Fernandes,Daytona,Beach,Florida,father,children,Fifth,District,Court,kids,self,Volusia,Judge,Shawn,Briese,testimony,victims,Kathy,Pearce,notes,therapist,files,husband,courts,version,events,evaluator,behavior,teens,Legal,watchdog,corruption,system,fees,Russell,Center,Judicial,Excellence,cases,cost,industry,health,regulation,cottage,Many,collusion,Judges,obligation,history,parent,decision,heart,office,Money,outcome,welfare,situation,Supreme,Read,evaluations,sessions,recommendations,intentions,critics,crimes,photos,girls,daughters,hours,psychologist,sexual,appointees,parents

REPORT: Right Wing Terrorism (MISS) Mothers Intelligence Secret Service

2010-01-22T04:59:00.001-08:00

Right Wing Terrorism

Right wing terrorism is most notably known for their attacks on races, but other attacks seem to fall by the wayside invisible to the security realm. The Christian party website that has obtained more than 3000 signatories for the "fathers manifesto" reveals the historical roots beyond their current campaigns. The site contains over 3000 signatures supporting forced marriage, hate towards single mother households and diminishing human rights towards women in general. The Christian party also had a poll promoting the exiling of blacksfrom America among other race hate propaganda. Racial hate is now in most developed countries regarded as a social taboo. It was in the 1970s that the Klu Klux Clan and other white supremest groups diminished when mens groups began to form. With the white supremacy ideology, it evolved to promote the ideology that households without men were problematic, some even describing them as anabomination of society. It is as comparable as the rise in stork populations and human birth rates - there is no link, but the statistics appear as though there is.

Google, "Fathers rights" and "bombs", it will take you to UK Fathers4Justice flour bombs and Australian Family Court Bombings in 1984. The Taliban would prefer to be called "I slamic Emirate of Afghanistan " as the taliban has almost become the definition of terrorism as their a ctions have spoken louder than the title that did not serve those who read it. The same can be said for fathers rights groups and shared parenting organizations who are in practice right wing terrorists. As the Taliban alter their image to appeal to the public as civilized members of the community seeking a worthy cause - so have right wing extremists in UK, USA, Canada, India and Australia.

In UK, Fathers4justice drove a minister out of her home whilst they sieged her roof for the platform of propaganda. After a plot by the group was revealed to kidnap the prime ministers son, they reorganized as a supposed, "New Group".

The problems as to why governments are not responding effectively enough to these groups is not that they do not meet the criteria as a terrorist organization, the issue is more complex than that. In many countries, the media has supported these groups with favorable articles in fear that the large number of complaints to media authorities would harm their career in journalism. In Canada, a lawsuit was launchedagainst a researcher for the critical review of their movement.

As the Phillipine government reacted to the Moro National Liberation Front(MNLF), so did other governments by injecting funding into these organizations. The funding did not dissolve the organizations animosity, but simply resourced them for future activities. Often the difference between home grown right wing terrorists and Taliban terrorists is that of economical value. Upon the surface, imposing sharia law significantly reduces governments ability to participate in global markets, whereas homegrown terrorists do not immediately appear to affect trade. When considering the impact of right wing laws that promote:

Not legally recognizing domestic and child abuse(Family Violence).
Enforcing marriage against the will of women.
Children as the property of men.
Women not participating in the workforce(income reliance on men)
There are some striking similarities in Sharia law and right wing terrorists are astounding. The difference is that right wing extremists do not wish to impose trade restrictions. The economical impacts are similar as they seek to exclude a large portion from the workforce, raise the skyrocketing stats in family violence murders, the insurance price on healthcare costs and a major reduction in productivity. It will convince companies to turn to overseas workforces where workers are consistent and high in supply. Whilst lawmakers may be illumed that social problems spill out within the boundaries of the home, they are greatly mistaken. As the domino effect of these issues continues spill out over the world, there is a failure to recognize where it started and take effective action in confronting these issues. Failure by allowing such groups to thrive is already evident in the war against currently listed terrorist organizations. Whilst the problem grows and becomes exacerbated with funding and support form the media, so does the opportunity for both groups to join forces and meet a common goal. This is evident in India's right wing movement as some members tie radical Islam in the toxic mix.

Technorati Tags: REPORT,Terrorism,MISS,Intelligence,Secret,Service,wayside,realm,Christian,manifesto,roots,marriage,human,rights,America,propaganda,Racial,Klux,Clan,supremacy,ideology,abomination,rates,statistics,Google,bombs,Australian,Court,Bombings,Taliban,Emirate,Afghanistan,definition,image,Canada,India,Australia,roof,platform,Group,problems,terrorist,organization,authorities,career,journalism,lawsuit,researcher,movement,Phillipine,government,Moro,National,Liberation,Front,MNLF,activities,Often,difference,Upon,impact,Violence,Children,Women,workforce,income,reliance,Sharia,restrictions,portion,insurance,reduction,workers,Whilst,boundaries,world,failure,action,forces,goal,Islam,signatories,fathers,signatures,organizations,members,extremists,governments,criteria,articles,complaints,impacts,lawmakers,towards,terrorists

Dossier: Warren Farrell

2009-11-24T07:49:00.000-08:00

Warren Farrell is an icon for radical mens cells as Osama bin laden is for the violent Jihad movement. References from his books can bee seen on nearly every radical mens cell in the world. In his book The Myth of Male Power, he distorts the perception of women as though they are an object to exploit and despise of if they do not submit to every demand. His literature has become the precipice of rage towards government and the erosion of basic human rights of women and children at their mercy. One of the most alarming aspects of this leader, is his promotion of incest and rape:

In penthouse magazine interview, he referred to incest as though it were a positive experience for all family members concerned:

In an article called Jihad and rape go hand in hand, the words are different, but the intent is the same:

One of the quotes of Warren Farrell, compares womens rights as though they are the war instigators:

The Al Qaeda had a similar message when France made a law against burkas to stop the subjecting of women:

In both statements, it was made out to be that those who try to promote the rights of women are the ones who are terrorists.

Filed under: Mothers Rights | Tagged: Divorce, Fatherhood, Family, Dangerous, Parent Alienation Canada, Warren Farrell, Incest: The Last Taboo, The Myth Of Male Power, Jihad, Al Queda,Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, Berkas, France, Feminism, Terrorists, Rape, Child Sexual Abuse, Violence Against Women, Terrorism, Date Rape, Penthouse, Fathers Rights Movement,Mens Cell, Domestic Extremists, Childrens RIghts Council | 1 Comment »

Mothers Intelligence Secret Service

Report Details Sabotage of Birth Control

Report Details Sabotage of Birth Control

By RONI CARYN RABIN

SAY NO - UNiTE to Stop Violence Against Mothers And Their Children

Rikki Dombrowski: Don’t Give Up – Love, Hope and Empowerment—The Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)

Did Maui Judge Tanaka Give Baby to Abuser Contrary to Law?

Joan Dawson: Parental alienation and domestic violence

Again, I repeat: ”How gullible

do they think we (mothers) are?”

We'd Like To Give Fathers Their Rights Back, But First We Need to Figure Out Who Took Them Away

Fathers Aren't Necessary: Finally Getting Off the Patriarchal Bullshit Bandwagon

Battered Mothers: No Longer Silenced!! Eighth Annual Battered Mother's Custody Conference

LIVE STREAM FOR THE The 8th Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference

Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute

APA GUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

House and Senate Pass Act to Provide Lifesaving Services

'You'll never see him again': Jilted father's chilling message to mother before he killed his son, 6, then committed suicide

'You'll never see him again': Jilted father's chilling message to mother before he killed his son, 6, then committed suicide

Dr. Richard Gardner's Complete Autopsy Report- Parental Alienation Syndrome

Suicide http://www.cincinnatipas.com/dr-richardgardnerautopsy.html

Dr. Richard Gardner's Complete Autopsy Report

May 27, 2003

02030860.aut GARDNER, Richard A.

New York Times

June 9, 2003, Monday

METROPOLITAN DESK

Richard Gardner, 72, Dies; Cast Doubt on Abuse Claims

By STUART LAVIETES

"Dr. Richard A. Gardner, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed a theory about parental alienation syndrome, which he said could lead children in high-conflict custody cases to falsely accuse a parent of abuse, died on May 25 at his home in Tenafly, N.J. He was 72.

The cause was suicide, said Dr. Gardner's son, Andrew, who said his father had been distraught over the advancing symptoms of reflex sympathetic dystrophy, a painful neurological syndrome.

Dr. Gardner, who testified in more than 400 child custody cases, maintained that children who suffered from parental alienation syndrome had been indoctrinated by a vindictive parent and obsessively denigrated the other parent without cause.

In severe cases, he recommended that courts remove children from the homes of the alienating parents and place them in the custody of the parents accused of abuse.

His theory has provoked vehement opposition from some mental health professionals, child abuse experts and lawyers. Critics argue that it lacks a scientific basis, noting that the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association have not recognized it as a syndrome.

They also say that the theory is biased against women, as allegations of abuse are usually directed at fathers, and that it is used as a weapon by lawyers seeking to undermine a mother's credibility in court." ...

End of Obituary Excerpt

Part 2: Questions for Richard Warshak and His Parental Alienation Syndrome...or Divorce Poison...or Whatever

Kansas Watch Dog: "Claudine Dombrowski: An abused mom victimized again by the Kansas Courts"

Compelling stories from parents and grandparents about problems with placement and removal of children

***COURT WHORE OF THE WEEK*** Judge David Debenham Topeka, Kansas

COURT WHORES

Kansas -- Domestic violence is on the rise—again- YEAR 2010--

Kansas State University: NON-CUSTODIAL MOTHERS: THEMATIC TRENDS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

ABSTRACT

Non-custodial mothers: The 1980s and 1990s

SOCIAL JUDGMENTS

REASONS FOR RELINQUISHMENT

RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN

ADJUSTMENT AND COPING

THE COURTS

The non-custodial mother: Current knowledge (2000 to present)

Future directions

Short Biography

Note

References

The Batterer As Parent

Talking Points DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY

Domestic Violence 20/20 News

Murder-Suicide Reported At Winter Haven Hospital –CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST OTHERS ARE NOT TRAGEDIES-THEY ARE OUTRAGES!! Stop it!

Murder-Suicide Reported At Winter Haven Hospital

CONFIRMED: PROTECTIVE MOTHERS WERE RIGHT

The Myth of the "Battered Husband Syndrome

iled under Ending Men's Violence, Paper.

“Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody” Documentary Special Viewing Event’s (CO)

Mothers Of Lost Children To Gather For White House Vigil On Mothers Day

Fired Pittsburgh Cop Not Guilty;Says He Hurt Woman In Defense (what a crock of SHIT)

(FL) Custody Feud: Fair Hearing Denied for Linda Marie Sacks

REPORT: Right Wing Terrorism (MISS) Mothers Intelligence Secret Service

Dossier: Warren Farrell

`Suicide http://www.cincinnatipas.com/dr-richardgardnerautopsy.html`

02030860.aut
GARDNER, Richard A.

Richard Gardner, 72, Dies;
Cast Doubt on Abuse Claims

COURT WHORE OF THE WEEK Judge David Debenham Topeka, Kansas