Show Posts

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

Topics - woof

1
This looks like a good book.

http://tinyurl.com/2tmoot

Whisker Rubs: Developing the Masculine Identity


From A Press Release
Book Description

Embracing God's intent and design between the sexes
Boys are falling further behind in school, spend more time in special education classes, are prescribed Ritalin or other drugs to control behavior and have a higher dropout rate than girls. Meanwhile, women now receive more bachelor's degrees than men (133 to 100), and they are more likely than men to become top executives in major corporations before the age of forty.

The sociological landscape between the sexes is clearly changing and not all for the good. In a society that was eager to embrace feminist ideology to right perceived imbalances, men and boys are now suffering the residual effects at home, in relationships, in school and in the workplace. And men are increasingly confused about their role in the world as media images of stupid or abusive fathers degrades and minimizes masculinity.

Don Otis, the author of Whisker Rubs: Developing the Masculine Identity suggests we have been sowing the seeds of social upheaval for decades without considering the consequences. "Lost hurting boys become hurting, angry men. Is this what our society wants to foster?" He chides the feminist movement for their nearsightedness and suggests the move to eradicate gender differences is hurting male-female relationships. "Weak men do not make good husbands and they make even worse fathers," says Otis. "A culture that de-masculinizes boys or men leaves a woman unprotected. Meanwhile, a woman who emasculates a man leaves herself vulnerable."

Boys who feel marginalized by social or media forces will find little motivation to take responsibility for their lives, let alone the lives of others. "Boys are less likely to want to grow up if being a man carries negative baggage or stigma. In the rush to create a culture of sameness, we educate the natural aggressiveness out of boys," explains Otis. He believes the trend toward masculinizing girls and feminizing boys is destroying the differences placed there by the Creator.

In Whisker Rubs, Otis doesn't pull any punches about what he sees happening to boys and men. Feminism has been a double-edged sword, providing some good opportunities for women but leaving boys and men gradually more confused about what's expected of them. He encourages men to push their sons and involve themselves in the lives of other boys. "God has placed men in the lives of other men and boys for a purpose-to push them beyond what they think they can do, beyond their zones of comfort."

Otis looks at what he refers to as "The stages of bewilderment," the five key phases of a man's life. Masculine development begins early and runs through the teenage years, mid-life, and into the so-called Golden Years. Next, he examines the forces that have led to the marginalization of men and boys. Lastly, Otis looks at what we must do, in churches, in schools, in relationships and in the media to develop a healthier view of maleness. "Masculinity is not a pathology for which men need to apologize, it's a God-given gift we can harness for his purposes."

About The Author:
Don Otis is the founder of Veritas Communications, a publicity agency based in Sandpoint, Idaho. He has worked as a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist with troubled boys and raised three sons of his own. He is also the author of Teach Your Children Well, Staying Fit After 40 and Trickle-Down Morality and his articles appear in national publications like Focus on the Family magazine.
2
Note what a burden this law would put on the legal system and not one word about the best interest of the children. Anyway, progress none the less, if passed.


http://tinyurl.com/yyofxb

Martinez files child custody bill
December 26,2006
Elizabeth Pierson
Monitor Staff Writer

AUSTIN -- State Rep. Armando "Mando" Martinez, D-Weslaco, has filed a bill that would make violating a temporary child custody order punishable by two years in jail.

Violation of a temporary order from a judge is already a crime because it is considered contempt of court. But Martinez's bill would place the violation in the penal code on the same level as violation of a permanent order.

Martinez had personal experience with a temporary child custody order earlier this year, during a heated divorce battle with his ex-wife. When repeatedly asked whether he filed the bill based on that experience, Martinez refused to say.

"All I'm going to say is that when a temporary order is violated, it's not enforced; but it is signed by a judge, so that's what gave me the idea," he said. "I believe a temporary order should have the same type of bearing."

Even if the bill passes, district attorneys will almost certainly not prosecute, said Jack Sampson, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law and expert in family law and legislative process.

Slapping criminal charges on a party during a messy divorce dispute could make a bad situation worse for all parties involved, especially before the court has made its final determination about what is best for the children, he said.

When asked whether district attorneys would be unlikely to prosecute under the proposed law, he said: "I think 'unlikely' states it too mildly. 'Assuredly' is more accurate."

With larger, more important cases not prosecuted because of lack of resources and overcrowded jails, local prosecutors have to pick their battles, he said.

"One thing the Legislature can and does (do) every session is pass a whole bunch of new laws making additional conduct prosecutable by criminal (statute)," Sampson said.

"But the county commissioners would freak out if somehow everybody who got cross-eyed over a divorce somehow ended up ... in the Travis County or the Cameron County jail."

Martinez said he simply wants to make sure district attorneys have the option of prosecuting when a temporary order is violated.

"Hey, that's up to them if they don't want to prosecute it," Martinez said.
3
Main / Fight Sexual Assault in Denver
Dec 18, 2006, 04:40 PM
I saw this employment add and was shocked to learn one of the requirements is to have an interest in "feminist issues". Also note that sexual assualt (rape) is directly tied into "oppression" by this rape crisis center.
Isn't this discrimintory hiring?


Fight Sexual Assault in Denver

Date: 2006-12-18, 10:01AM MST


Denver's only rape crisis center (the Rape Assistance and Awareness Program) is seeking individuals committed to social action. For 23 years, our outreach campaign has been responsible for grassroots organizing, public education and fundraising efforts. To be part of this dedicated team, you must show great communications skills and a genuine interest in fighting oppression. Raising awareness in our communities is the first step to fighting sexual violence everywhere!

Requirements:
High school diploma or GED
Interest in feminist and/or social justice issues
Previous activist or volunteer work a plus


Benefits:
Paid-time off
Medical and dental plans
Opportunities for advancement
College credit and part-time positions available for students
4
Main / Miller Lite "Man Laws" commercials
Oct 25, 2006, 05:06 AM
Has anyone seen these commercials?......pretty funny and very PC incorrect.

From my view, they make fun of the feminist idea of the patriarch were men get together and make all of the rules that keep woman down.  :shock:

If you haven't seen them, you can watch them here.
http://www.manlaws.com/

"A man should never go to a manicurist!"

"A man should never say, 'Let's take my scooter'"

"If a man carries a cooler weighing more than 20 lbs, he is entitled to the first Miller Lite"

Manroom Magazine
http://tinyurl.com/y5xms8
5
It never ceases to amaze the length that our governmental officals will go to shame fathers about taking care of their kids.......a new low.
No mention of how much time these deadbeats get to spend with their kids.

http://tinyurl.com/sl5zo
Quote
Westchester: Embarrass `deadbeat dads,' then seize their cars
By JIM FITZGERALD
Associated Press Writer

October 17, 2006, 5:59 PM EDT

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- The next step in Westchester County's drive to collect child support from deadbeat parents may be seizing their cars and selling them, the Social Services commissioner said Tuesday.

Commissioner Kevin Mahon spoke as the county, hoping to shame some parents into compliance, took out a newspaper ad to publish the photographs of four men who have skipped out on a total $193,000 in child support payments.

Mahon said he would do whatever works, including impounding an offender's car and then selling it if there's no support payment in 30 days.

"If you don't want your picture in the paper, you don't want your license suspended, you don't want your car impounded, you don't want to go to jail, do the right thing," Mahon said. "Pay your child support."

County Executive Andrew Spano said the newspaper photos could accomplish three objectives:

_Embarass the four men into making payments.

_Prompt people who recognize them to report their whereabouts.

_Put other offenders on notice that their pictures, too, might appear in the newspaper or on TV.

He noted that reneging on court-ordered child support "not only changes the quality of life of the spouse and children but it also dips into the pockets of the taxpayers" by forcing many families onto welfare rolls.

"If we could get one of these guys it would pay for the ad 10 times over," Spano said. The quarter-page ad in Tuesday's New York Post cost $6,624. Spano said it would not be repeated until results are evaluated.

The county executive said he paid support for four children from a previous marriage and had to adjust his spending to do it.

"I could not afford to live the lifestyle I (previously) lived because I had to pay child support, so I didn't live that lifestyle," he said. "I changed it. I downgraded it. I made sure I had the money, because it's an important thing for families to make sure that their children are taken care of."

Mahon said parents who are tracked down often say they don't have enough money but have new cars and take vacations.

"They're not willing to say, `What's my first responsibility?"' he said.

If someone who owes child support has no job, he said, the county would help that person find one.

Spano said about $144 million is owed in the county, and the office of Child Support Enforcement is hoping to collect $60 million this year, up from $58 million last year.

Carmen Almeida, ex-wife of one of the men pictured in the ad, is owed $63,000. She said Tuesday that her husband has never paid any support in the seven years they've been divorced. As a result, she said, their 18-year-old daughter may have to drop out of American University in Washington next semester when a scholarship runs out.

She fears her ex-husband, Alberto Almeida, may have fled to Portugal, but hopes friends of his who see the picture "will speak to him and see if he can send his daughter something. She needs the money and he always said he loved her very much."

Manuel Barreiro, director of the child support office, said he had no record of an attorney representing Alberto Almeida, and Carmen Almeida did not recall the name of her ex-husband's divorce lawyer.

___

On the Net:

Link to Westchester County's `Wanted for Failure to Pay Child Support' page: http://www.westchestergov.com
6
Main / The cost of a divorce
Oct 14, 2006, 07:04 AM
Food for thought.......


http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/advice/19990903a.asp

The cost of a divorce
Kevin McDonald

Death is the final stage of life, something we all must face. But many people go through another kind of death well before the coffin. It's divorce.

Divorce is death of a marital relationship that is supposed to last a lifetime. For whatever reason -- broken promises, infidelity or poor communication -- some marriages do not work out.

"We did not enter into divorce lightly. We sought counseling. We tried to overcome our differences," says Sue Reddy, a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., resident whose divorce was finalized December 1998. "I gave 100 percent to my marriage. But we just could not get along."

Divorce is big business in the United States. According to maritalstatus.com, a Web site geared toward divorce and remarriage, divorce is a $28 billion-a-year industry with an average cost of about $20,000.

If you're contemplating divorce, there are short-term and long-term costs you should consider before legally saying sayonara to your spouse. Short-term costs mainly pertain to paying a lawyer, if you decide to hire one. Long-term costs will include financial lifestyle issues.

Do-it-yourself divorce kits

There's no law that says you have to hire an attorney. You can purchase a divorce kit if you feel that you and your spouse can rationally come to an agreement on who will get what. It's perfect for the couple who has nothing to dispute and no children.
- advertisement -

The kits generally include legal forms that cover a variety of details such as personal property and real estate, alimony and name changes. You file the finished documents with the court and make an appearance before a judge to explain your reasoning. The divorce becomes final when the judge signs the documents.

The kits range from $25 to $70 and are valid in many states and Washington.

"Each state is different, and each one has different legal forms. In getting a divorce kit, I would use caution and get one that is particular to your state," says Ginita Wall of San Diego, a Certified Public Accountant who specializes in divorce.

Getting an attorney

When a divorce is contentious, most couples hire an attorney to ensure that assets, child support, alimony and other aspects are handled fairly and equitably.

If your divorce is uncontested, meaning you and your spouse have worked out the terms, then it's usually a matter of the lawyer making sure all issues have been addressed. The legal fees are generally lower than a mediated or contested divorce.

Here's a general rule of thumb: The more complicated and emotional the divorce, the more expensive it will be, according to several attorneys nationwide. Reddy knows all too well how a cantankerous divorce can drive up costs.

Most of the disagreements in her case, she says, pertained to the custody of her 5-year-old son. The divorce ended up costing her $25,000 in legal and court fees. That money, she says, could have been used for more important things.

"That was my child's (college) education fund," says Reddy. "But I still have 13 more years to save."

Most lawyers charge an hourly rate, so expect to pay between $100 and $450 an hour, says Jan Warner of Columbia, S.C., a divorce attorney for 30 years. Some lawyers may charge as little as $75 an hour, according to maritalstatus.com, with an up-front retainer of $500 to $10,000.

A retainer is the initial fee you pay the lawyer for his or her services. The attorney's hourly rate is then deducted from the retainer. Once the money is gone, you pay additional money to keep the attorney on your case.

California divorce attorney Marilyn S. Slifman says many couples simply cannot afford to hire a lawyer and are forced to look for other ways to settle matters.

Some couples hire an attorney only for certain services, such as reviewing a settlement agreement or handling alimony particulars. The choice is yours.

Other fees

There are other lawyer-related fees to keep in mind. Slifman says couples should factor in the cost of the initial court filing fee, process serving and subpoenas. If the case goes to trial, then allow for daily court fees for witness preparation, temporary orders and discovery.

Some lawyers charge for faxing, photocopying, travel expenses and phone calls.

When you talk to your attorney over the phone, even for a minute, it can cost you.

Let's say a lawyer charges $120 an hour. He may have a minimum billing unit of $30, which is the fee for a 15-minute call. Even if you call to ask if he received a copy of the apartment lease, that 30-second call will still cost you $30.

Lifestyle costs

The true cost of a divorce encompasses much more than just paying off the lawyer's fees and court bills. Often, the bigger issue is dealing with a drastic reduction of income since your spouse is no longer helping you financially. For some, that can be a challenge.

Wall says it's difficult for many to adjust to the economic realities of life after marriage. Without the help of your ex-spouse, it's virtually impossible to maintain your previous standard of living when your income is cut in half, maybe more -- yet you don't lose half your expenses.

Prepare for this blow from the beginning.

"Separate the finances from the emotions. Think about the divorce as a business deal and what is best for you. Formulate goals and work toward them," says Wall.
7
http://www.nownys.org/fathers_resp.html
Quote
Fathers' Responsibilities Before Fathers' Rights
July 29, 2006

By Irene Weiser and Marcia Pappas
   

In their July 27 opinion piece, fathers' rights proponents Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks promote mandatory joint custody saying "children love, want and need their fathers" and therefore should have equal time with them. But their cookie cutter solution disregards the individual decisions and needs of separating families while tying judges' hands, endangering battered women, and placing the father's interests above the best interest of the children.

We agree that joint custody can work in financially secure families when the parents live near each other, have flexible work schedules, and neither has remarried. But when parents are forced into a custody arrangement they don't agree to, and when parents don't get along - as is often the case when relationships end - studies show joint custody can be disastrous for the children.

Under current law, any separating couple in NY State can choose joint custody if they think that is best for their family, and both the National Organization for Women (NOW) - New York State and StopFamilyViolence.org support their right to do so.

Nevertheless, most parents do not voluntarily choose joint custody for a variety of reasons based on their individual circumstances. The vast majority choose to leave the children in the custody of the historical primary caregiver - most often the mother - with visitation by the non-custodial parent.

Moreover, 95% of separating parents reach agreement on custody arrangements without courtroom battles or judicial intervention. Mandatory joint custody laws would override these parents' careful decisions about what is best for themselves and their children.

Of the five percent of custody cases that do involve courtroom battles, at least three quarters of them involve domestic violence. Abusers often use ongoing, costly litigation - seeking joint or sole custody - as a tactic to continue the abuse and to punish the mother for leaving.

We all know that abusers don't make good role models or good parents and Sacks and McCormick agree that mandatory joint custody should not apply in these cases. That means they are promoting mandatory arrangements that will hamstring the choices of almost all separating families in order to benefit, at most, only 1.25% of them.

But even in cases without abuse, judges still need the flexibility to protect the safety and best interests of the children when a parent is alcoholic, a drug abuser, a hardened criminal, or when children are the product of one-night stands, rape or incest. Neither NOW - NYS nor StopFamilyViolence.org support legislation that would tie judges' hands in these or other difficult family situations.

The people who advocate most strongly for mandatory joint custody laws are parents who do not want to pay child support. Child support payments are paid by the non-custodial parent to the custodial one. Under mandatory joint custody laws, regardless of which parent actually ends up supervising and raising the children, there would be no non-custodial parent and neither parent would be required to pay child support. This outcome is certainly not in the best interests of the children.

McCormick and Sacks accuse NOW of using scare tactics in cautioning about the dangers of mandatory joint custody legislation for battered women and their children. Considering how often we read of courts ignoring signs of domestic violence and then later read headlines of the woman or children's murder, NOW's caution doesn't seem overstated at all.

Ironically, it is members of the so called "father's rights" groups that have engaged in scare tactics. After the mandatory joint custody legislation, A330, was defeated in the New York legislature, NY State Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver received a threat from the co-director of the father's rights group of NY State, an affiliate of McCormick's national organization, implying there could be violence if joint custody legislation is not passed.

It's time for Sacks and McCormick to come clean about their true agenda and to stop bullying New Yorkers into misguided legislation that will usurp the choices of most separating parents, endanger women, tie the hands of judges, and substitute "father's rights" for something we all support - father's responsibility.

Weiser is the executive director of StopFamilyViolence.org. Pappas is the President of the National Organization for Women (NOW) - New York State, Inc.
8
This is a long article but has some good reference material, and gets to the heart of the feminist agenda.
The VAWA funding is the fuel that keeps the feminist ideology fire burning.  :evil:


Femininist Ideology Dominates Perpetrator Programs

1997 by Sally L. Satel,M.D.
Psychiatrist and lecturer at the Yale School of Medicine
Women's QuarterlyReprinted with kind permission from The Women's Quarterly (ISSN:1079-6622) published by the Independent Women's Forum.
Summer 1997 - Number 12

Battered Men - The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence
Battered Men in Washington and Nationwide

Let's call him "Joe Six Pack." Every Saturday night, he drinks way too much, cranks up the rock 'n roll way too loud, and smacks his girlfriend for acting just a bit too lippy. Or let's call him "Mr. Pillar of the Community." He's got the perfect wife, the perfect kids. But he's also got one little problem: every time he argues with his wife, he loses control. In the past year, she's been sent to the emergency ward twice. Or let's say they're the Tenants from Hell. They're always yelling at each other. Finally a neighbor calls the police.

Here is the question. Are the men in these scenarios:
a) in need of help;
b) in need of being locked up; or
c) upholders of the patriarchy?

Increasingly, public officials are buying into Gloria Steinem's assertion that "the patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself." They are deciding that perpetrators need to be indoctrinated in what are called "profeminist" treatment programs. And they are spending tax dollars to pay for these programs.       

Most people would likely say a) or b) or perhaps both. In fact, however, c) is the answer that more and more of the agencies that deal with domestic violence--including the courts, social workers, and therapists--now give. Increasingly, public officials are buying into Gloria Steinem's assertion that "the patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself." They are deciding that the perpetrators of domestic violence don't so much need to be punished, or even really counseled, but instead indoctrinated in what are called "profeminist" treatment programs. And they are spending tax dollars to pay for these programs.

A portion of the money for the re-education of batterers comes from Washington, courtesy of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). To obtain passage of VAWA, feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women and even secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, pelted legislators with facts and figures: "The leading cause of birth defects is battery during pregnancy." "In emergency rooms, twenty to thirty percent of women arrive because of physical abuse by their partner." "Family violence has killed more women in the last five years than Americans killed in the Viet Nam War." Happily, these alarming factoids aren't true. But the feminist advocacy groups were able to create new bogus statistics faster than the experts were able to shoot the old ones down. And some of the untruths--like the fiction that wife-beating soars on Super Bowl Sunday--have become American myths as durable as the story of young George Washington chopping down the cherry tree.

Congress generously authorized $1.6 billion to fund VAWA. But there is increasing evidence that the money is being used to further an ideological war against men--one that puts many women at even greater risk.
... The feminist theory of domestic abuse, like the feminist theory of rape, holds that all men have the same innate propensity to violence against women. ... Domestic abuse, in feminist eyes, is an essential element of the vast male conspiracy to suppress and subordinate women.       

Still, the problem of domestic violence, even if grossly exaggerated, is horrific enough. So Congress generously authorized $1.6 billion to fund VAWA. Few taxpayers would begrudge this outlay if it actually resulted in the protection of women. But instead there is increasing evidence that the money is being used to further an ideological war against men--one that puts many women at even greater risk. The feminist theory of domestic abuse, like the feminist theory of rape, holds that all men have the same innate propensity to violence against women: your brother and my boyfriend are deep down every bit as bad as Joel Steinberg. Men who abuse their mates, the theory goes, act violently not because they as individuals can't control their impulses, and not because they are thugs or drunks or particularly troubled people. Domestic abuse, in feminist eyes, is an essential element of the vast male conspiracy to suppress and subordinate women. In other words, the real culprit in a case of domestic violence is not a violent individual man, it is the patriarchy. To stop a man from abusing women, he must be taught to see the errors of the patriarchy and to renounce them.

"Battering is a fulfillment of a cultural expectation, not a deviant or sick behavior."       

Thus, a position paper by the Chicago Metropolitan Battered Women's Network explains: "Battering is a fulfillment of a cultural expectation, not a deviant or sick behavior." Thus, too, the Seattle-based psychologist Laura Brown, a prominent feminist practitioner, argues that feminist psychotherapy is an "opportunity to help patients see the relationship between their behavior and the patriarchal society in which we are all embedded."

As well, feminists have stretched the definition of abuse to include acts of lying, humiliation, withholding information, and refusing help with child care or housework, under the term "psychological battery." A checklist from a brochure of the Westchester Coalition of Family Violence agencies tells women if their partner behaves in one or more of the following ways, including "an overprotective manner," "turns minor incidents into major arguments," or "insults you," then "you might be abused."

With money provided by VAWA, this view has come to pervade the bureaucracies created to combat domestic violence. In at least a dozen states, including Massachusetts, Colorado, Florida, Washington, and Texas, state guidelines effectively preclude any treatment other than feminist therapy for domestic batterers. Another dozen states, among them Maine and Illinois, are now drafting similar guidelines. These guidelines explicitly prohibit social workers and clinicians from offering therapies that attempt to deal with domestic abuse as a problem between a couple unless the man has undergone profeminist treatment first. Profeminists emphatically reject joint counseling, the traditional approach to marital conflict. Joint counseling and other couples-based treatments violate the feminist certainty that it is men who are always and solely responsible for domestic violence: any attempt to involve the batterer's mate in treatment amounts to "blaming the victim."

The dogma that women never provoke, incite, or aggravate domestic conflict, further, has led to some startling departures in domestic law.       

The dogma that women never provoke, incite, or aggravate domestic conflict, further, has led to some startling departures in domestic law. Hundreds of jurisdictions have adopted what are called "must-arrest" policies: that is, when local police are called to a scene of reported domestic abuse, they must arrest one partner (almost always the man) even if, by the time the authorities arrive, the incident has cooled off and there is no sign of violence, and even if (as is often the case) the woman doesn't want the man arrested. Many of these same jurisdictions have also enacted "no-drop" policies--meaning that if a woman does press charges, she will not be permitted to change her mind and drop them later. Under VAWA, $33 million will be spent this year on the "Grants to Encourage Arrest" program, which uses federal money to induce localities to adopt must-arrest policies. Next year, the budget of the "Grants to Encourage Arrest" program will jump to $59 million.
      

Of course, it's hard to feel sorry for men charged with abuse. And there is a satisfying, frontier-justice aspect to the feminist treatment programs: what better punishment for a loutish man than to make him endure hours of feminist lecturing? The trouble is, domestic violence--as these same feminists constantly remind us--is no joke. And there are virtually no convincing data that this feminist approach to male violence is effective.

As Judge Cannon says, "We treat women as brainless individuals who are unable to make choices."       

Indeed, the paternalistic intrusiveness that characterizes so much of feminist domestic violence policy frequently has the unintended consequence of harming the very women it was meant to protect. Judge William S. Cannon, who has handled thousands of domestic violence cases through South Bay (San Diego) Family Court, finds that "about eighty percent of the couples we see in court end up staying together." Nonetheless, the California legislature has made it mandatory for judges to issue a restraining order separating the parties in all domestic violence cases. "It's ridiculous," the judge says of this mandatory separation, "each situation is different." Sometimes a woman doesn't want the separation, particularly if the threat from her husband is mild. "If the woman feels relatively safe, she might well rather have her kids' father home with the family," Judge Cannon says. In California, however, this option is no longer open to women. As Judge Cannon says, "We treat women as brainless individuals who are unable to make choices. If a woman wants a restraining order, she can ask us for it."

Persuading victims of domestic violence that they need no psychological help or are never to blame can also backfire, because it pushes many women away from seeking counseling that they plainly need.



Some of these women end up doing the killing themselves, a tragedy that has happened "more than once on my watch," the prosecutor said.       

Persuading victims of domestic violence that they need no psychological help or are never to blame can also backfire, because it pushes many women away from seeking counseling that they plainly need. A prosecutor from Southern California, who preferred not to be identified, told me that many of the women he refers to treatment reject his advice. "They're influenced by the prevailing view in the advocate community that tells them they don't need help. Meanwhile, I'm accused of blaming the victim," the prosecutor says. Some of these women return to husbands who injure or even kill them, when a therapist might have helped them find the strength to stay away. Others end up doing the killing themselves, a tragedy that has happened "more than once on my watch," the prosecutor said. The defense attorneys then claim that the wife is "a victim of battered woman syndrome. They'll say the system failed her because she was never referred for professional help."

It is likewise far from clear that must-arrest policies help victims of domestic abuse. Several studies--including one by Lawrence W. Sherman of the University of Maryland, whose early study on mandatory arrest in a single midwestern city actually gave rise to the program's popularity--suggest that mandatory arrest can escalate spousal violence in some men by further enraging them, and causing them to seek revenge on their lovers once they are released from jail.

But the implicit goal of feminist treatment and legal responses is to separate women from their abusive partners--no matter what the circumstances, and no matter how fervently the women wish otherwise. Many shelter counselors interviewed by Kimberle Crenshaw of the UCLA School of Law believe that a batterer is incapable of breaking the cycle of abuse and the woman's only hope of safety is to leave the relationship. In a New York Times Magazine story about spousal abuse, writer Jan Hoffman summed up the advice of Ellen Pence, founder of the much-replicated Duluth Abuse Intervention Program and a staunch believer that all batterers are gripped by a hatred of women: "Ellen Pence's advice to women in battering relationships is simply this: Leave. Leave because even the best of programs, even Duluth's, cannot ensure that a violent man will change his ways."

Not very encouraging words from a nationally regarded expert. Perhaps if feminist treatment of domestic violence recognized some cold truths about women and intimate violence, success rates might improve.

For example, contrary to the prevailing view of battered women as weak, helpless, and confused, professor Jacquelyn Campbell reported in 1994 in the Journal of Family Violence, that the majority of battered women do take steps to end the abuse in their relationships. In truth, the average abused woman is not Hedda Nussbaum (the obsessed lover of psychopath Joel Steinberg). The sad facts, as discussed by Christine Littleton in the 1993 book Family Matters: Readings on Family Lives and the Law, are that many "women who stay in battering relationships accurately perceive the risks of remaining, accurately perceive the risks of leaving, and choose to stay either because the risks of leaving outweigh those of staying or because they are trying to rescue something beyond themselves"--such as their family.

And here is the cruelest failure of profeminist therapy. Since many victims of domestic abuse do want to hold their families together, and since they are trying to weigh the risks of staying with an abusive mate, it does them an enormous disservice to put a dangerous man through a program that cannot fulfill its promise to cure him.       

And here is the cruelest failure of profeminist therapy. Since many victims of domestic abuse do want to hold their families together, and since they are trying to weigh the risks of staying with an abusive mate, it does them an enormous disservice to put a dangerous man through a program that cannot fulfill its promise to cure him. "The woman thinks to herself, 'Well, now he's changed,' so she goes back to him and drops her guard. Sometimes with devastating effects," says Dr. Richard J. Gelles, of the University of Rhode Island's Family Violence Research Program, a pioneer researcher in domestic violence. [Dr. Gellis is now Joanne T. and Raymond B. Welsh Chair of Child Welfare and Family Violence, University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work.] Professor Richard M. McFall, an expert on marital violence with Indiana University, observes that "typically, the man comes out of a useless mandated treatment program no less violent than when he went in, but now he's got a clean bill of psychological health."


"Oftentimes the sole qualification to work with battered women is to be one yourself and, of course, to have an abiding hatred of men."


Furthermore, the woman herself can be swept into the vortex of misguided efforts prescribed by feminists. While her partner is being reprogrammed to challenge his sexist assumptions, the wives are often sent to feminist support groups. Valerie T., a patient of Dr. Virginia Goldner, a couples therapist at New York's Ackerman Institute for the Family, attended such a group. "Valerie came back and told me she'd felt worse about herself ever since joining the group because 'everyone was supposed to hate the men and want to leave them,'" said Goldner. Cathy Young, author of the forthcoming book, Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, says, "Oftentimes the sole qualification to work with battered women is to be one yourself and, of course, to have an abiding hatred of men." In the course of her research, she said, "I remember Renee Ward, director of a Minneapolis shelter, telling me how the advocates' own unresolved anger at men made it very difficult for them to be helpful to the clients, most of whom very much wanted to be in relationships. But it was unthinkable to ever discuss this tension."

Many advocates are also apparently so blinded by ideology that they are unable to draw distinctions between types of abusers. Some men, for example, are first-time offenders, others are brutal recidivists, others attack rarely but harshly, others frequently but less severely, and many are alcoholics. Such a heterogeneous population cannot be treated with a one-size-fits-all approach. Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, an associate professor of psychology at Indiana University, says, "states are basing rigid treatment policy on rhetoric and ideology, not data."
      

Take the case of "Don," a senior administrator at a southern university. Arrested once for slapping his wife (they are still together), Don was required to attend a Duluth-model program. About fifteen men sat for three hours on ten consecutive Wednesday nights in a classroom headed by two counselors. "The message was clear," Don told me, "whatever she does to you is your fault, whatever you do to her is your fault. It would have been a lot more helpful if they taught us to recognize when we felt ourselves being driven into positions where we lash out. The message should have been 'recognize it, deal with it, and quit hitting.' But all they gave us to work with was guilt." According to Don, "bathroom and cigarette breaks were filled with comments about the whole thing being stupid. In the sessions, group discussions among participants were not allowed to develop--maybe the leaders were afraid we'd unite and challenge their propaganda." Rather than improve their relationships, Don felt the therapy only helped to increase polarization between men and women. "Wives went to support groups and we went to our groups."

Don's group leaders were adamant that alcohol was never a cause of violence. Feminist theory downplays the relevance of alcohol abuse, and as a particularly foolish result in Don's program, failed to make sobriety a condition of the treatment for domestic batterers.       

Complementing these biases was an equally great omission: the role of alcohol in domestic violence. Though studies show a persistent correlation between intoxication and aggression in families, Don's group leaders were adamant that alcohol was never a cause of violence. Don claimed, however, that "every man in the room had been drinking when he was arrested." Booze, of course, is never an acceptable excuse for bad behavior, but there's no question that alcohol pushes some people into violence. Feminist theory downplays the relevance of alcohol abuse, and as a particularly foolish result in Don's program, failed to make sobriety a condition of the treatment for domestic batterers.

"The course leaders were fixated on male-bashing."       

Glenna Auxiera, a divorce resolution counselor in Gainesville, Florida, attended a training course on male batterers sponsored by the Duluth Abuse Intervention Program. She reports being "stunned" by what she heard. "The course leaders were fixated on male-bashing," Auxiera says. "I was a battered woman, too, and I see the part I played in the drama of my relationship. Hitting is wrong. Period. But a relationship is a dynamic interaction and if both want to change, counselors should work with them."
      

But this, of course, is precisely what state guidelines in nearly half the country now or will soon prohibit as the first course of treatment. They would outlaw, for instance, the kind of help that saved the decade-long marriage of a midwestern couple we'll call "Steve and Lois M." Mr. and Mrs. M. were regarded by their community as a model couple. Mr. M. was in fact a high-profile businessman. But two or three times a year, he turned violent. After their last fight, in which he gave Mrs. M. a fractured arm, she gave him an ultimatum: unless he went with her to marriage therapy, she would take their nine-year-old son and leave. He agreed, and the couple saw Eve Lipchik, a Milwaukee, Wisconsin expert in family therapy. "One can still deplore the aggression and be an advocate for the relationship when two people want to stay together and are motivated to make changes in the relationship," says Lipchik. "It's too easy to stuff people into boxes labeled villains and victims."

Mrs. M. did not feel "blamed" when she and her husband saw Lipchik together for four months with follow-up sessions at six and eighteen months. She got what she most wanted: her marriage saved and the violence ended. Of course, the happy ending of the story of Mr. and Mrs. M. does not necessarily await every combative couple: spousal assault is a difficult behavior to change. But with a good therapist, difficult change is not impossible. Richard Heyman, of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, found that group conjoint therapy (several couples treated together) produced a significant reduction in both psychological and physical aggression immediately following treatment and one year later. This applied when the couple was intact, the degree of violence not severe, and the couple acknowledged that aggression was a problem, and often a mutual one.

Of course, joint-therapy is not for everyone. It may even be outright dangerous when the man causes frequent injury or when the woman is afraid of him. Not only will the woman be hesitant to tell the truth in counseling sessions, but her husband might well retaliate for disclosures she makes to the counselor. A woman in such a situation is at real risk and must protect herself though she may find it hard--psychologically and physically--to pull away. For her, writes Dr. Virginia Goldner, "the ideological purity and righteous indignation of the battered woman's movement is all that protects her from being pulled back into the swamp of abuse." Maybe so, but more often the violence is less intense and, as psychologist Judith Shervin writes, "men and women are bound in their dance of mutual destructiveness.... Women must share responsibility for their behavior and contributions to domestic violence."

These contributions are far bigger than feminists are willing to admit. According to the landmark 1980 book, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family by Murray A. Straus, Richard J. Gelles, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz, about twelve percent of couples engage in physical aggression. Severe violence such as punching, biting, kicking, or using a weapon is as likely to be committed by wives as husbands--at a rate of about one in twenty for both sexes. Rates of less severe assault such as pushing and grabbing are also comparable, about one in thirteen for both men and women.

At first glance, these data don't seem consistent with those of the Department of Justice's statistics. Its 1994 National Crime Victimization Survey stated that "women were about six times more likely than men to experience violence by an intimate." But this merely reflects the fact that women, unlike men, are rarely violent outside the home. Sometimes their aggression is in self-defense. A 1995 DOJ report showed that wives committed forty-one percent of all spousal murders in 1988 (the year covered in the report). However, eighty-one percent of the accused wives, compared to ninety-four percent of the accused husbands, were convicted of homicide. The lower conviction rate for wives, the report said, reflected the fact that they were more likely to have killed in self-defense. Even so, the sentences varied dramatically: wives received average prison sentences of six years, husbands sixteen and a half years.

But self-defense doesn't explain all female-on-male aggression. The National Family Violence Survey, developed by Straus and Gelles and funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, is a widely respected assessment that taps a representative sample of married and cohabiting couples. The researchers interviewed thousands of couples in 1975, 1985, and 1992. Extrapolating from their 1985 survey of more than six thousand couples, the authors estimate that 1.8 million females are the victims of severe domestic violence each year (with injuries suffered by one in ten), but so were about 2.1 million men. The rates of male-on-female aggression declined between 1975 and 1992 while female-on-male stayed constant. The surveys also revealed that women suffered actual injury at about seven times the rate of men but that they used weapons such as baseball bats, boiling water, and knives (among other things) to make up for their physical disadvantage. Many of these women freely admitted on the survey that their use of weapons was not in self-defense.

Actually, when it comes to the murder of intimates, as criminologist Coramae Richey Mann documented in her 1996 study of female killers, When Women Kill, murderesses are seldom helpless angels: seventy-eight percent of the women in Mann's study had prior arrest records and fifty-five percent a history of violence. Lately, Straus has been revising his views. "I [once] explained the high rate of attacks by wives largely as a response to or as a defense against assault by the partner. However, new evidence raises questions about that interpretation," he wrote in his contribution to the 1996 book, Domestic Violence.

After reviewing the available research, Straus concludes that twenty-five to thirty percent of violent married and cohabiting couples are violent solely because of attacks by the wife. About twenty-five percent of violence between couples is initiated by men. The remaining half is classified as mutual. This is true whether the analysis is based on all assaults or only potentially injurious and life-threatening ones. (These findings are corroborated by other studies, including the 1991 Los Angeles Epidemiology Catchment Area study, and the 1990 National Survey of Households and Families.)

In fact, among America's rapidly growing population of elderly couples, violence by women appears more common than violence by men.       

In fact, among America's rapidly growing population of elderly couples, violence by women appears more common than violence by men. A well-regarded 1988 Boston survey by Karl Pillemer and David Finkelhor found that wives were more than twice as likely to assault an elderly husband as vice versa.

Anyone still inclined to blame domestic violence on the patriarchy and male aggression ought to take a look at the statistics on violence against children.       

Anyone still inclined to blame domestic violence on the patriarchy and male aggression ought to take a look at the statistics on violence against children. A just-released report from the Department of Health and Human Services, "Child Maltreatment in the United States," finds that women aged twenty to forty-nine are almost twice as likely as males to be "perpetrators of child maltreatment." According to a 1994 Department of Justice report, mothers are responsible in fifty-five percent of cases in which children are killed by their parents. The National Center on Child Abuse Prevention attributes fifty percent of the child abuse fatalities that occurred between 1986 and 1993 to the natural mother, twenty-three percent to the natural father, and twenty-seven percent to boyfriends and others.

Consider domestic aggression within lesbian couples. If feminists are right, shouldn't these matches be exempt from the sex-driven power struggles that plague heterosexual couples? Instead, physical abuse between lesbian partners is at least as serious a problem as it is among heterosexuals.       

Finally, consider domestic aggression within lesbian couples. If feminists are right, shouldn't these matches be exempt from the sex-driven power struggles that plague heterosexual couples? Instead, according to Jeanie Morrow, director of the Lesbian Domestic Violence Program at W.O.M.A.N., Inc. in San Francisco, physical abuse between lesbian partners is at least as serious a problem as it is among heterosexuals. The Battered Women's Justice Project in Minneapolis, a clearinghouse for statistics, confirms this. "Most evidence suggests that lesbians and heterosexuals are comparably aggressive in their relationships," said spokeswoman Susan Gibel.

Some survey studies have actually suggested a higher incidence of violence among lesbian partners, but it's impossible to know for certain since there's no reliable baseline count of lesbian couples in the population at large. According to Morrow, the lesbian community has been reluctant to acknowledge intimate violence within its ranks--after all, this would endanger the all-purpose, battering-as-a-consequence-of-male-privilege explanation. Morrow's program treats about three hundred women a year but she wonders how many more need help. Because they are "doubly closeted," as Morrow puts it, women who are both gay and abused may be especially reluctant to use services or report assaults to the police.

Like so many projects of the feminist agenda, the battered women's movement has outlived its useful beginnings, which was to help women leave violent relationships and persuade the legal system to take domestic abuse more seriously. Now they have brought us to a point at which a single complaint touches off an irreversible cascade of useless and often destructive legal and therapeutic events. This could well have a chilling effect upon victims of real violence, who may be reluctant to file police reports or to seek help if it subjects them to further battery from the authorities.       

Like so many projects of the feminist agenda, the battered women's movement has outlived its useful beginnings, which was to help women leave violent relationships and persuade the legal system to take domestic abuse more seriously. Now they have brought us to a point at which a single complaint touches off an irreversible cascade of useless and often destructive legal and therapeutic events. This could well have a chilling effect upon victims of real violence, who may be reluctant to file police reports or to seek help if it subjects them to further battery from the authorities. And it certainly won't help violent men if they emerge from so-called treatment programs no more enlightened but certainly more angry, more resentful, and as dangerous as ever.

Aggression is a deeply personal and complex behavior, not a social defect expressed through the actions of men. Yet to feminists, it can only be the sound of one hand slapping: the man's. So long as this view prevails, we won't be helping the real victims; indeed, we will only be exposing them to more danger. *

Sally L. Satel, M.D., is a psychiatrist and lecturer at the Yale School of Medicine. She also serves on the National Advisory Board of the Independent Women's Forum.
9
The only good news from this is that they didn't use the "75% of fathers who seek custody of their children are batterers" propaganda. The governments compliance in this country's epidemic of fatherless children is becoming more transparent everyday.
http://www.kxma.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=34580
Quote
State Of North Dakota To Oppose Shared Parenting
Aug 16 2006 9:51AM
http://sayanythingblog.com/index.php
Disclaimer: This article is a blog post and does not represent the views or opinions of Reiten Television, KXNet.com, its staff and associates and is wholly owned by the user who posted this content.

I just heard from North Dakota Shared Parenting Chairman Mitch Sanderson that the State of North Dakota will be taking an official stance in opposition to the Shared Parenting Initiative. Mitch got a call from Duane Houdek, a lawyer working in Governor Hoeven's office, who told Mitch that it is the state of North Dakota's position that the shared parenting initiative would put North Dakota child support guidelines out of compliance with federal standards, something that would in turn cause North Dakota to lose some $70 million in federal funding.

Mr. Houdek, and by extension Governor Hoeven, could not be more wrong on this issue.

As I have explained before, the Shared Parenting Initiative would not put North Dakota out of compliance with federal standards. The standards for state child support guidelines are found in federal code Title 45, Volume 2, Section 302.56 which you can all read for yourselves here.

Basically, all federal law requires of state child support guidelines is a) that the state have a formula for determining the amount of child support and b) that the formula take into account all of an obliged parent's income. That's it. Federal law does not prohibit additional calculations (such as determining the actual cost of raising a child) from being used to determine the amount of child support pays, nor does the Shared Parenting Initiative prohibit the amount of income to be used as well.

In short, the Shared Parenting Initiative is explicitly in compliance with federal standards.

So why is Governor Hoeven's office saying that the SPI isn't in compliance with federal standards? It helps if we follow the money.

The federal funding the North Dakota Child Support agency receives is based on the number of dollars that agency collects in child support. The more child support money they collect the more federal funding they receive. The NDSPI would more than likely reduce the amount of child support collected in North Dakota by preventing support payments from exceeding the cost of raising the child. Currently many parents pay hundreds of dollars a month more than they need to because current child support guidelines are based only on income, not the needs of the children. The bureaucrats down at the child support offices like that because it means more federal dollars for them.

What we need to ask ourselves is this: What's more important? A family law system that is equitable to both parents of a child and does not require child support payments in excess of what is needed or keeping the amount of federal funds the child support agency receives high?

Personally, I pick the first one. Especially in light of a recent announcement that North Dakota has a half a billion dollar budget surplus.

There is no reason to be sacrificing equality for the sake of some federal dollars right now.
10
Now were talking!.....I doubt he will win, but I bet this will get some people to sit up and take notice.

Quote
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11878

FATHER FILES $3 BILLION SUIT AGAINST STATE OF OREGON
Alex S. Gabor

Alex S. Gabor is a freelance writer who lives in Hollywood.

August 5, 2006

What may become a severe blow to the welfare state of Oregon, the father of two minor children who live in Eugene has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the State of Oregon, naming over a dozen of its employees, including Governor Kulongoski, and the three major credit bureaus for civil damages amounting to $3 billion.

The civil case pending in California Central District Court, Western Division alleges violations of the father's civil rights, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The plaintiff is asking for $3 billion in various compensatory, punitive and aggravated damages.

It all stems from the Plaintiffs ex wife who filed fraudelent bankruptcies twice in ten years, went on welfare, and embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Plaintiffs business corporations, caused his businesses to collapse, ruined his public image and business reputation, then lied to the State of Oregon to again collect welfare almost a decade later, according to the suit filed on July 10th, 2006.

The suit names the three major credit bureaus, Experian, Transunion, and Equifax alleging that a fraudelent child support claim filed by one of the Defendants ruined the Plaintiffs chances of buying real estate during the hottest market in history.

Other parties named in the suit include Lane County, various law enforcement agencies in Oregon, the State Attorney General, and other public officials claiming negligence in dealing with the issues which the plaintiff apparently had sought to resolve for ten years.

The suit further alleges that the State of Oregon is engaging in a massive welfare fraud scheme in which fathers rights are trampled in order to recieve funding from the Federal Government. The suit calls for criminal investigations into the entire welfare system being operated in the State of Oregon.

The Plaintiff says if he wins the case, he will set up a non profit public benefit foundation that helps fathers all over America with their legal issues and family rights.

The father says he is also considering filing class actions against any state on behalf of fathers in America who are faced with the problem of not being able to receive proper and competent legal assistance in dealing with child support, custody, and family rights issues, particularly when the mother has fraudelently obtained welfare benefits when the State knew or should have known they were being defrauded.

In March 2000, 60 percent of noncustodial parents in California owed back debt of $14.4 billion, according to a 2002 Center for Law and Social Policy report. In 2006, non custodial fathers in both Oregon and California owe an estimated $20 billion, mostly owed by low income fathers whose credit reports impact their ability to get higher than minimum or anything but under the table wages.

According to one father, the entire child custody, child support and welfare system in this country is a lose-lose proposition and the most damaged are the children.

11
Main / Lorem Ipsum
Aug 06, 2006, 07:32 AM
What happened to Steven Baskerville's web site? I went there to see if he had written any new articles and I get this........? WTF.... :shock:

http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/

Lorem Ipsum
Submitted by admin on Thu, 2006-07-06 23:10.

Fusce porta pellentesque mi. Mauris congue, pede eu scelerisque pellentesque, ante elit malesuada mauris, et dictum dolor sapien ac mauris. Pellentesque semper, tellus sit amet ullamcorper tristique, nisl risus faucibus velit, at porta diam mi ut metus. Aliquam pulvinar, diam non sagittis molestie, urna dui semper velit, eu dapibus magna nunc in neque. Suspendisse potenti. Nunc ac purus. Integer sagittis justo commodo felis. Nullam suscipit nisi. Sed at elit in augue sollicitudin egestas. Nulla pellentesque auctor diam. Nam pharetra rhoncus mi. Duis rutrum erat nec turpis. Pellentesque euismod, metus ut bibendum interdum, sapien augue consectetuer ligula, ac tempor augue nibh vel magna. Maecenas metus lorem, vehicula ac, rhoncus in, ultrices sed, ante. Fusce auctor, turpis non ornare sodales, augue sapien viverra neque, hendrerit accumsan neque ligula pharetra felis. Donec diam. Maecenas faucibus eros non enim. Nulla erat leo, aliquam vel, pulvinar sit amet, nonummy et, mi. Sed quis diam. Fusce fermentum pharetra arcu.


Spanish?........anyone know what it says?
12
Main / Child Support Enforcement A Fraud
Aug 04, 2006, 06:19 AM
Quote
Child Support Enforcement A Fraud
By Bruce Eden

After reading the article "NYS Child Support Collections Top $1.5 Billion"
(Feb. 25, 2006), the words that come to mind are "fraud", "scam",
"extortion", "racketeering" and "government oppression".

The state talks a good story about how all the increased child support
enforcement and collections benefits the children. This is pure fantasy. The
monies that the state awards, enforces and collects is directly proportional
to how much it receives from the federal government as incentive
reimbursement funding.

And that amount is in the several hundreds of millions of dollars. The
monies that the state receives for child support enforcement has no strings
attached. The state uses this funding to bolster their state employee and
judicial pension plans. Sounds like a massive conflict of interest and
criminal conspiracy to me. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Tumey v. Ohio,
Ward v. Monroeville and Gibson v. Berryhill that judges cannot sit on cases
where they have a pecuniary interest in them because it would be a
demonstration of actual bias.

Yet, judges, or state employed judicial hearing officers, in the domestic
relations courts, sit on these cases every day. This has created a tyranny
by having the state criminalize a civil matter. As stated in the article, it
says that the district attorneys are getting into the act in prosecuting
people for child support arrearages.

Again, this is a blatant due process and equal protection violation. When
were the payor parents told, at the inception of the child support matter,
that the matter would be converted from a civil case into a criminal case?
When were they read their Miranda rights, such as right to remain silent
about their financial situation, or given their right to trial by jury or
right to appointed, competent effective counsel to defend them properly.

As can be seen by this lack of substantive due process, the entire child
support enforcement mechanism is a fraud and a scam that smacks of
racketeering. If any debt collection agency did this for any other debt,
they be facing massive fines and criminal charges. They would be put out of
business immediately.

New York State claims it is going after so-called "deadbeats" by
criminalizing child support delinquencies and jailing those with large
arrearages. Sounds good. However, if one were to investigate the situation
they would find that most of the state's largest delinquent child support
obligors are unemployed, underemployed, undereducated, disabled, minorities,
or deceased. That's right-deceased! The state needs to keep those numbers on
its books in order to maximize the federal funding it receives.

According to a 7-year longitudinal academic study done by Arizona State
University that became the book, "Divorced Dads-Shattering the Myths", it
was uncovered that less than 5% of all delinquent child support payors are
true "deadbeats"-those with the expensive sports cars and trophy wives half
their age. So, where is the child support "deadbeat" hysteria? There is
none. It is being contrived by the federal and state governments in order to
control families, steal children, and eliminate fathers from families so
that the state can become the "super-parent". It is another tyrannical
government program to extract money from taxpayers to support the
government's own largesse.

The state defrauds the taxpayers by claiming they are doing it "for the
children". The government never does something for its citizens without a
quid pro quo. In the U.S. Supreme Court case DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Board of Social Services, the high Court ruled that the state owes no duty
to protect its citizens. So, the question begs: "Why is the state
discriminating against one-half of the population to enforce child support?"
It is obvious. It is not about the children or getting people off of
welfare. It is about how much money the states can rake in so they can
appropriate more money from the feds to balance their own budgets.

Federal child support enforcement laws were designed solely for TANF
(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and for welfare families. It was
never designed for the "never-welfared" middle class. However, child support
bureaucrats and other hangers-on testified before Congress that they needed
to bring the middle-class into the fray in order to receive maximum benefits
from the federal government in order to bolster state budgets.
Interestingly, not one child support payor, or any advocacy group for child
support payors was allowed to testify before Congress and the New York State
legislature (or for any other state for that matter) in devising child
support enforcement legislation. Again, we see a pattern of racketeering
conspiracy and government tyranny at the expense of innocent taxpayers.

There is a large hue and cry across the country to curtail divorces because
it threatens the very fabric of our society. The reason is because one
parent is allowed to divorce the other without any grounds. One parent can
divorce and abuse the legal system to win the divorce, all of the money and
assets of the marriage, and win custody of the children (with all the
attendant financial benefits that come with this). It's all because of child
support. Child support enforcement has created the "divorce state". Not only
does child support increase the amount of divorces because of the financial
windfall to the custody-winning parent, it threatens society. Child support
enforcement laws are in reality a threat to national security.

The time has come for lawmakers to take a second look at the draconian child
support enforcement laws in this country because these laws are not
constitutional. Child support enforcement laws are a threat to national
security. To stop this threat, lawmakers either need to eliminate or
seriously curtail child support enforcement against innocent taxpayers, or
they must tax child support the way alimony is taxed. This would immediately
slow down divorces in this country. This is because the custodial parent,
(in over 80% of all cases it is the mother-further gender discrimination
against males), would think twice about divorcing on grounds that their
marriage is not satisfactory, before having to pay the additional large
income tax burden.

Bruce Eden is the director of DADS (Dads Against Discrimination),
New Jersey and New York chapters,
Fathers Rights Association of New Jersey,
PO Box 4075, Wayne, NJ 07474
(973) 616-9558.
[email protected]

13
This crap really gets my goat.............at least it passed.
But who are these people to say we aren't worthy advisors to our own children!
Quote
The bill's blanket requirement of parental consent wrongly assumes that all parents are worthy advisors. They are not.
:shock: .......really.....who ya going to call? ......NOW? ...... Planned Parenting?......another case of the extreme minority wanting the laws to revolve around them to better suit their agenda.


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/15160986.htm
Quote

Child Custody Act doesn't protect
OUR OPINION: NEW LAW MEANS WELL BUT HURTS YOUNG WOMEN

In passing the Child Custody Protection Act, the Senate meant to do good, but does harm instead. It compromised not only personal choice, but also personal safety. The bill makes it a federal crime to help an under-age girl cross state lines to avoid parental notification laws for an abortion. The bill's blanket requirement of parental consent wrongly assumes that all parents are worthy advisors. They are not. When the House and Senate negotiate a final version of the bill, they should rethink this approach to helping conflicted young women.

Parental counsel

The decision to get an abortion is stressful and traumatic, particularly for a minor. The intent of the bill, to encourage parental counsel when teens face an unintended pregnancy, is good policy and good common sense. Most minors, thankfully, already turn to their parents for assistance when faced with such a life-changing decision.

But this bill fails to recognize that, sadly, some parents are not always a positive presence in a minor's life. It attacks those who don't have parental counsel as an option. Nearly one-third of the young women who do not involve their parents in the decision to get an abortion would face serious consequences if they did, such as violence or being forced to leave home, according to the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association. The bill ultimately could disproportionately affect these alienated girls who already do not have counselors from which to choose. Oftentimes, they are the victims of incest or abuse.

A more helpful, thoughtful approach would encourage some form of adult advice prior to an abortion, regardless of the relationship of the adult to the young girl.

In the best circumstances, someone should always help young girls weigh their options, regardless of their relationship. But this bill does not allow for this and, in fact, penalizes extended family or friends who try to assist in situations where parents have failed.

Provide counseling

Congress should focus on preventing or helping teens through their pregnancies -- not punishing them. Instead of continuing to split hairs over the issues of personal liberty and privacy surrounding abortion, Congress should consider funding a national family-planning program or strengthening social-welfare networks. Other options would be to improve school counseling systems and provide scientifically correct and current information in sexual-education programs.

Whatever the plan, we hope that it helps all under-age girls understand the obstacles they face, instead of creating more hurdles for them.

Content / Editorial
Suzanne Levinson
Online Managing Editor
[email protected]
305-376-4676

Tom Fiedler
Executive Editor
305-376-3477
[email protected]

Dave Wilson
Managing Editor/News
954-538-7130
[email protected]
14
Main / DEAR ABBY: Last week I hit my husband.
Jul 31, 2006, 09:09 AM
Quote
http://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/
REMORSEFUL MOM SEEKS HELP ENDING HER HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

DEAR ABBY: Last week I hit my husband. My daughter saw me do it. My parents were violent when they were drunk, and I swore I would never do that, but it happened.

Abby, can my children forget my mistakes, or are they doomed to keep repeating this violence from generation to generation? Can it stop here if I get proper help? How do I prevent my children from following in my -- and my parents' -- footsteps in this regard? -- SORRY MOM IN CANADA

DEAR SORRY MOM: Your children are not "doomed." They can learn better ways to manage their anger, and so can you. Tell your daughter you were wrong to hit her father, and you regret it. Explain that you are going to see a counselor and learn more appropriate ways to deal with your anger and frustration, and that you'll share what you learn with her and your other children.

Make an appointment with a therapist as soon as possible, and locate the nearest chapter of Adult Children of Alcoholics. (They are in your phone book.) ACA is a 12-step group of people who grew up much as you did. They can help you understand the dynamics of your behavior and assist you in overcoming your learned reaction to problems.

If there's no listing in your telephone directory, write: Adult Children of Alcoholics World Services Organization, P.O. Box 3216, Torrance, CA 90510 for the location of the nearest chapter. You may also go to its Web site: www.adultchildren.org.
:roll: ......right, there is NO DV shelther for the husband to call, NO recomendation for him to leave a abusive relationship.....counseling for her.
15
Main / Whats the context of marriage?
Jul 23, 2006, 01:43 PM
I have been thinking about marriage, not for myself......but looking at it, and wondering why a man would marry today.
I have been married and divorced so I have a certain vantage point. The question I have pondered is"would I ever marry again", and the answer is no.
What I see is that, from a societal, and a governmental point of view the context of marriage is "Women and Children". That is to say marriage is for the care of, and the benefit of women and children.
I am curious to hear from men who have been through a divorce, and than married again,  :shock: and the wise, or lucky men who have never been married.
16
Unreal........


http://americandaily.com/article/14242
Quote
California Spousal Rape Bill Will Harm Innocent Men
By Glenn Sacks (06/26/2006)

By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks - False accusations of violence or abuse are endemic in family law cases. The California Senate and the Assembly Committee on Public Safety recently approved a misguided bill which will make the problem worse by easing the way for spurious spousal rape allegations to be used against fathers.

Victims of spousal rape deserve protection, and current California law provides it. In order for the state to prosecute a spousal rape charge, the accuser need only to have mentioned the violation within a year of its occurrence to any of a wide variety of medical, law enforcement, clerical, legal or psychological personnel, or there must be corroborating, independent, court admissible evidence.

SB 1402, sponsored by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles), eliminates the distinction between spousal rape and other rapes, thus allowing for spousal rape prosecutions six years later, even if there was no mention or independent evidence of the crime in previous years. Under SB 1402, when aggravated spousal rape is alleged, there would be no statute of limitations.

In family law proceedings there are a multitude of important and emotionally-charged issues which are often contested and re-contested over many years. These include: legal and physical custody; child support; alimony; division of marital assets; liability for legal, health care and child care expenses; requests for relocation; and others. False accusations often allow accusers to gain leverage in these proceedings.

The Senate Judiciary Committee recognized that false spousal rape accusations could be used in this manner when the spousal rape evidence requirement was created in 1979. They noted that in rape cases "the issue of consent often boils down to the word of the victim versus the word of the accused...[in spousal rape] these problems of proof would be exacerbated [by]...the issue of the complaining witness' motive for making the accusation."

The current wave of domestic violence restraining orders based on dubious allegations are illustrative of the problem. According to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, there are nearly a quarter million domestic violence restraining orders currently active in California. A recent article in the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, asserts that the Bar is concerned that the orders are given out practically on demand, and that they are "being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody."

Similarly, false allegations of child molestation are also often used for this purpose. According to a study published in Social Science and Modern Society, the vast majority of accusations of child sexual abuse made during custody battles are false, unfounded or unsubstantiated. Reginald Brass, president of My Child Says Daddy, a parenting organization which works with young African-American fathers in Los Angeles, says that when custody is contested, "if the man has a daughter, we always warn him that at some point the mother may well accuse him of sexually molesting his daughter."

Evidence shows that rape accusations in general are often false. Former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin conducted two studies of rape allegations and found that between 40 and 50 percent of the accusations were false. An Air Force study of 556 rape accusations found that 60 percent of the allegations were false.

Several prominent prosecutors have attested to this problem, including Linda Fairstein, who headed the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen."

Former Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman, known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says "rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes." In an ABC television commentary during the Kobe Bryant trial he cited a Denver sex-assault unit commander's estimate that nearly half of reported rape claims are false.

The widely reported William Hetherington case provides an example of how spousal rape accusations can be used strategically. Hetherington was convicted and incarcerated in the middle of contentious divorce proceedings in which he was likely to win custody of his children because his wife had abandoned the family and moved out of state.

As Hetherington fought the spousal rape charge the family law court froze his assets (as is common in divorce cases), leaving him unable to afford a lawyer. However, the criminal court refused to provide him legal representation as an indigent, since he was employed in the automobile industry.

After being convicted Hetherington was unable to raise funds for an appeal, since his ex-wife won his home and all his assets (as well as custody of his three children). Substantial evidence, including photos taken at the crime scene and obtained through a public records act a decade later, cast grave doubts upon the spousal rape claim.

The accused needn't be convicted to suffer egregious harm. The cost of criminal defense is often ruinous, and the emotional toll can be worse. The mere threat of allegations can and is often used to extort post-divorce concessions from fathers.

Not only is Kuehl's bill damaging but it is also unnecessary, since current law is equitable and respectful to spousal rape victims. SB 1402 won't help victimized women--it will only serve to harm decent fathers.


By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks

This is an expanded version of an article which first appeared in the Sacramento News & Review (6/15/06).

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

Glenn Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at http://www.GlennSacks.com/
17
Unreal.......


http://americandaily.com/article/14242
Quote
California Spousal Rape Bill Will Harm Innocent Men
By Glenn Sacks (06/26/2006)

By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks - False accusations of violence or abuse are endemic in family law cases. The California Senate and the Assembly Committee on Public Safety recently approved a misguided bill which will make the problem worse by easing the way for spurious spousal rape allegations to be used against fathers.

Victims of spousal rape deserve protection, and current California law provides it. In order for the state to prosecute a spousal rape charge, the accuser need only to have mentioned the violation within a year of its occurrence to any of a wide variety of medical, law enforcement, clerical, legal or psychological personnel, or there must be corroborating, independent, court admissible evidence.

SB 1402, sponsored by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles), eliminates the distinction between spousal rape and other rapes, thus allowing for spousal rape prosecutions six years later, even if there was no mention or independent evidence of the crime in previous years. Under SB 1402, when aggravated spousal rape is alleged, there would be no statute of limitations.

In family law proceedings there are a multitude of important and emotionally-charged issues which are often contested and re-contested over many years. These include: legal and physical custody; child support; alimony; division of marital assets; liability for legal, health care and child care expenses; requests for relocation; and others. False accusations often allow accusers to gain leverage in these proceedings.

The Senate Judiciary Committee recognized that false spousal rape accusations could be used in this manner when the spousal rape evidence requirement was created in 1979. They noted that in rape cases "the issue of consent often boils down to the word of the victim versus the word of the accused...[in spousal rape] these problems of proof would be exacerbated [by]...the issue of the complaining witness' motive for making the accusation."

The current wave of domestic violence restraining orders based on dubious allegations are illustrative of the problem. According to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, there are nearly a quarter million domestic violence restraining orders currently active in California. A recent article in the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, asserts that the Bar is concerned that the orders are given out practically on demand, and that they are "being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody."

Similarly, false allegations of child molestation are also often used for this purpose. According to a study published in Social Science and Modern Society, the vast majority of accusations of child sexual abuse made during custody battles are false, unfounded or unsubstantiated. Reginald Brass, president of My Child Says Daddy, a parenting organization which works with young African-American fathers in Los Angeles, says that when custody is contested, "if the man has a daughter, we always warn him that at some point the mother may well accuse him of sexually molesting his daughter."

Evidence shows that rape accusations in general are often false. Former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin conducted two studies of rape allegations and found that between 40 and 50 percent of the accusations were false. An Air Force study of 556 rape accusations found that 60 percent of the allegations were false.

Several prominent prosecutors have attested to this problem, including Linda Fairstein, who headed the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen."

Former Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman, known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says "rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes." In an ABC television commentary during the Kobe Bryant trial he cited a Denver sex-assault unit commander's estimate that nearly half of reported rape claims are false.

The widely reported William Hetherington case provides an example of how spousal rape accusations can be used strategically. Hetherington was convicted and incarcerated in the middle of contentious divorce proceedings in which he was likely to win custody of his children because his wife had abandoned the family and moved out of state.

As Hetherington fought the spousal rape charge the family law court froze his assets (as is common in divorce cases), leaving him unable to afford a lawyer. However, the criminal court refused to provide him legal representation as an indigent, since he was employed in the automobile industry.

After being convicted Hetherington was unable to raise funds for an appeal, since his ex-wife won his home and all his assets (as well as custody of his three children). Substantial evidence, including photos taken at the crime scene and obtained through a public records act a decade later, cast grave doubts upon the spousal rape claim.

The accused needn't be convicted to suffer egregious harm. The cost of criminal defense is often ruinous, and the emotional toll can be worse. The mere threat of allegations can and is often used to extort post-divorce concessions from fathers.

Not only is Kuehl's bill damaging but it is also unnecessary, since current law is equitable and respectful to spousal rape victims. SB 1402 won't help victimized women--it will only serve to harm decent fathers.


By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks

This is an expanded version of an article which first appeared in the Sacramento News & Review (6/15/06).

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

Glenn Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at http://www.GlennSacks.com/
18
"In a case that caught the attention of several fathers' rights groups, Vonderheide has claimed that Flanders sought the PFA specifically to punish him as the result of an acrimonious breakup."

Good work from these groups!!.......this is good news indeed!


Quote

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/22544

In 'he said, she said,' DA gets in a word
Woman, who said ex-husband violated PFA, charged with lying.

By Gil Smart
Sunday News

Published: May 06, 2006 10:58 PM EST

LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - A child custody case that has landed in county court, county commissioners' meetings and has ensnared the largest church in the county took a new twist late last month.

The Lancaster County District Attorney's office accused two people of making false statements to police and with criminal conspiracy after they made allegations that were contradicted by several witnesses -- as well as two different videotapes.

Wendy Flanders of Leola and Theodore P. Yoder, also of Leola, were each charged April 28 with making false reports to law enforcement, unsworn falsification to authorities and criminal conspiracy to commit unsworm falsification as the result of an investigation into their claims that Bennett J. Vonderheide had violated a protection-from-abuse order and behaved in a threatening, abusive manner toward them.

Flanders and Vonderheide are embroiled in a custody case involving their 7-year-old son. Yoder is described in the affidavit as a friend of Flanders.

PFA granted


In 2004, Flanders sought a PFA against Vonderheide. That petition was granted and ultimately amended to remain in effect through April 20 of this year; as part of the order, Vonderheide was constrained from "threatening, harassing, abusing or striking his former girlfriend.

In a case that caught the attention of several fathers' rights groups, Vonderheide has claimed that Flanders sought the PFA specifically to punish him as the result of an acrimonious breakup.

Neither Flanders nor Yoder returned messages seeking comment for this article.

According to the affidavit, filed by the District Attorney's office in the case, on Jan. 13 Flanders and Vonderheide were at the Lancaster County Courthouse relative to the custody issue when Flanders and Yoder say Vonderheide violated the terms of the PFA by following and verbally harassing her, calling her a profane name, coming within three to four feet of her and telling Flanders "she was not going to get her way, or similar words."

Flanders and Yoder went to the county sheriff's office and less than a week later, Jan. 19, Flanders signed a four-page statement detailing the allegations. Feb. 1, Yoder told county detectives that Vonderheide blocked Flanders' path as she came down the stairs in the courthouse, and even demonstrated "the relative positions and movements he alleges occurred."

But in his affidavit, Det. Jan Walters of the county district attorney's office noted that deputy sheriffs witnessed the incident, and that it was caught on tape by surveillance cameras mounted in the county courthouse. That tape shows that at no time was Vonderheide closer than 15 to 20 feet of Vonderheide and Yoder.

No expletive heard

Vonderheide also videotaped the encounter; his tape, which he said county officials reviewed, captured sound. In it, he is heard to say "Good morning, Mr. Yoder," but not the expletive Flanders said he directed at her.

In the affidavit, Walters concluded that "Mr. Yoder's account is consistent with that of Mrs. Flanders, but is contrary to the deputies' accounts and the video recording to such a great extent that it cannot be reconciled ... this investigation has determined both Wendy Flanders and Theodore Yoder fabricated their stories in an attempt to have Bennett Vonderheide falsely arrested for violating a Protection from Abuse Order."

Vonderheide said he felt vindicated, and that this situation was exactly the reason he has begun taping all his interactions with his child's mother.

"Since I got my camera out, I've been exonerated of every charge against me, by my own camera," Vonderheide said.

The custody case is the subject of a lawsuit in Lancaster County Court, in which Vonderheide accuses Flanders, as well as her church -- Calvary Church in Manheim Township, the largest in the county -- of conspiring to alienate him from his son and enable Flanders to maintain custody of the child.

Theodore Yoder is the husband of Kathy Yoder, a former counselor at the church who worked with Flanders; both are among 36 defendants named in the suit.

Vonderheide is seeking $700,000. The church and its attorneys have denied the allegations. The Sunday News reported last December that several prominent members have left the church as a result of the suit.

Commissioner confronted

In November, Vonderheide confronted a church member -- Lancaster County Commissioner Dick Shellenberger -- during a commissioners' meeting, demanding to know whether Shellenberger had used his position to intervene in the case. Shellenberger denied that anyone named in Vonderheide's lawsuit against the church had contacted him about the custody issue.

Shellenberger is not named in the lawsuit.

The case also has drawn the attention of 5thEstate.com editor Ron Harper Jr., who has written about it on his Web site and who was cited by city police for harassment in October as he attempted to act as an intermediary in the exchange of Flanders' and Vonderheide's child. Harper said Flanders called city police and accused Harper of harassing her; as police arrived, Harper switched on his ubiquitous video camera and caught the event on tape. Though police initially cited Harper for harassment, they withdrew the charge a few days later.

Lancaster County District Attorney Donald Totaro said it is uncommon for charges of making false reports to police, unsworn falsification and criminal conspiracy to commit unsworn falsification to be filed in a custody dispute.

The maximum penalty for each charge is up to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

Vonderheide said the charges were so rare, that they were the subject of an April 29 conference call involving 14 different "fathers' rights" groups from around the country.

"I have a lot of gratitude for [District Attorney] Totaro and [Det.] Walters," Vonderheide said. "What they have done is hugely courageous."
19
For those fathers in Texas, a rally May 11th.
Since this is a private email I get from this group so I took out the phone #.
If anyone wants it you can PM me, or google "People for Equal Parenting" for their web site.

Progress is being made when family court judges start to whine like this:

"What are we going to do with the guy who protests there by the courthouse? He is irritating me..."

Spread the word, if a few protesters are irritating, 1000 protesters will be worth listening too.....now that we have their attention, we have to act on it!

Quote
People for Equal Parenting announces the Huntsville, Texas, PEP-Rally.  In honor of Mother's Day on Thursday May 11, 2006 People for Equal Parenting will host a rally and march in Huntsville.  Marchers will include moms and dads, students, grandparents who can't see their children because of TX's child custody laws, and all citizens who've decided the time has come to Restore the Traditional American Family.  Marchers will assemble in the 11th Street McDonald's parking lot at 11 a.m. and march to the courthouse where they will hear presentations by leaders from People for Equal Parenting.  Rally organizer and PEP board-of-directors member, Mark Bitara, invites everyone to come support freedom, dignity, and restoring the rule of law to Texas families.  Student leaders from Sam Houston State University are co-sponsoring the march.  For more information call.....

PEP is proud of our courageous members, sympathizers, and especially our student leaders who've stepped out front to do what's right.

Certain politicians in Walker County, TX, on the other hand, have a reaction other than pride when witnessing citizens who know and assert their human rights.  Mark Bitara sent me the following email today:


Team, I thought that this is significant enough to share with you.

You may recall that a few days ago I have called and emailed the Walker County Judge, Danny Pierce, to ask if I needed permission to use the courthouse gazebo for our May 11 rally in Huntsville.

A few moments ago, Mr. Pierce called to ask why I called. And I told him why. He asked if our number will fit in the gazebo, and I replied that I don't know since I don't know how many will attend.

He then said, yes, we can use the gazebo. Now, he said that since I was already on the phone with him, he wanted to ask me some questions/make comments. Among them:

1. The 3 x 6 banner (announcing the May 11 rally) that I hang from a ramp railing whenever I demonstrate by the courthouse - he said that it was owned by the Texas DOT and if I had no permission to hang it there, a legal issue may come up.  

2. He asked when I would quit. He said that my demonstration is becoming like a game. I replied: I will only quit when the legislation we deserve is passed. (Any opinion how Judge Pierce would think it is "becoming like a game"? I do not feel like I was having fun standing there in 40 or 90 degree weather.)

3. He said that he has been receiving many calls from businesses complaining of the noise (from honkers).

4. He said that "it is illegal to honk according to state statutes, except when it is done to avoid an accident". (Maybe correct. So those state troopers and police officers who honked violated the law?)

Team, especially the lawyers on this list, please give me your advice.

See you on the May 11 rally.

PS: A retired lawyer who is sympathetic to our cause pulled me aside when he saw me at the library a few days ago. He said that during a local bar meeting, a family court judge made this remark to the assembly: "What are we going to do with the guy who protests there by the courthouse? He is irritating me..."

20
Main / Custody bill fight turns frightful!!
Apr 21, 2006, 11:59 AM
story]
Those Dangerous, violent, abusive fathers who just want to share in the care of their own children are at it again.

Quote
Custody bill fight turns frightful
Women's groups say they are being threatened over their stance on legislation

By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer
Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Friday, April 21, 2006

ALBANY -- Women's groups who oppose legislation that would allow divorced couples a chance at equal time with their children accused fathers' rights activists on Thursday of threatening violence -- and death -- if a campaign to kill the bill doesn't stop.

"The depraved threats our organizations have received are the same kind of threats abused women and their children endure," said Irene Weiser, executive director of StopFamilyViolence.org.

"We will not be silenced," Weiser said. "These acts are crimes, and they have no place in politics or in the family."

As part of the ongoing clash, representatives of Fathers and Families New York said it wouldn't surprise them if the National Organization for Women and others fabricated the claims to get attention.

It's all part of a plan to paint non-custodial parents as extremists, said Jim Hayes and Randy Dickinson, who are president and vice president, respectively, of FAFNY.

Both denied anyone in their group, which serves millions around the state, played any part.

"Years ago, we stepped away from the radical fringe," Hayes said. "I'm not saying that a father who has lost his kids hasn't (made threats). I'm saying we have no knowledge of it."

But for Weiser, the threat was very real.

She said a message left on her Web site April 14 "was brutal and graphic in its depiction of the assault and the implement to be used."

Other threats, she said, promised to "kick the (expletive) (expletive) of the Legislature until their noses bleed," should lawmakers not support the bill.

The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg, D-Long Beach, requires "statutory presumption of joint custody," so both parents have a chance to raise their kids. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Finance Committee Chairman Owen Johnson, R-Babylon.

The legislation would require judges to award joint custody unless there was an obvious reason why they should not, such as domestic violence. The party seeking sole custody would then have to prove why the other parent is unfit for joint custody.

Advocates for women say the legislation will send children into the arms of abusers.

A vote in the state Assembly's Children and Families Committee has already been postponed twice.

The women's groups have reported the harassment to federal and state authorities, as well as to the Albany County district attorney's office.


Other incidents include phone calls to advocates' families seeking personal information, a barrage of harassing e-mails, threats to begin blowing up courthouses and a continual depiction of members of the National Organization for Women as "murderers," said NOW state president Marcia Pappas.

"Fathers who claim to be nonviolent think they can fool the public into believing they are caring and nonviolent," Pappas said.

Albany County District Attorney David Soares said an investigator has already retrieved the documents in question.

"Unfortunately, these cases aren't easy to make," Soares said. "People have a constitutional right to free speech. However, we are on notice."

So, he said, is anyone making threats.

Michele Morgan Bolton can be reached at 434-2403 or by e-mail at [email protected]
[/url]