Gynocentrism Sucks
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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]
http://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/:roll: ......right, there is NO DV shelther for the husband to call, NO recomendation for him to leave a abusive relationship.....counseling for her.
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.
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/
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/
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."
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..."
Custody bill fight turns frightful[/url]
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]