Maternal Deprivation Inflicted on Battered Women and Abused Children

 

Source: American Mothers Political Party

"Maternal Deprivation Abuse is featured on BMLCTA Blog in an effort to wipe out this heinous crime against mothers and children."

Maternal Deprivation, or Motherlessness, is occurring with alarming frequency due to the unethical treatment of women and children in family court. Maternal Deprivation is inflicting abuse by severing the mother-child bond. It is a form of abuse that men inflict on both the mother and children, especially men who claim they are “parentally alienated” from their children when there are complaints of abusive treatment by the father.

Maternal Deprivation occurs when men seek to keep their children from being raised by their mothers who are the children’s natural caretakers. Some men murder the mothers of their own children. Others seek to sever the maternal bonds by making false allegations of fictitious psychological syndromes in a deliberate effort to change custody and/or keep the child from having contact with their mother when there are legal proceedings. A twisted form of Maternal Deprivation is to kill the children, so that the mother will be left to suffer. Sometimes there are family annihilation murders where the father kills the children and himself (or dies by cop), but the mother is not killed because she has received protective orders and her children have not as in the case of Jessica Gonzales.

In seeking to define this form of abuse certain common elements are found in the Maternal Deprivation scenario as follows:

• History of domestic abuse that could be physical, psychological, sexual, and/or social abuse occurring on or off again, occasionally, or chronically which could be mild, moderate, or severe, including homicidal and/or suicidal threats.
• Legal proceedings relating to abuse
• Hiring of “Fathers Rights” attorney
• Use of “Hired Gun” mental health professionals to make accusations of psychological disorder against the mother and children in deliberate effort to excuse abuse and change custody or grant visitation that is contrary to safety concerns. Another name for these unethical professionals are “Whores of the Courts“
• Raising claims of “psychological disorders” against the mother such as “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS),Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, Malicious Mother Syndrome, Lying Litigant Syndrome, Hostile Aggressive Parenting or any other mother-blaming psychological disorder that can be used by the unethical professional to re-victimize the victims.
• Infliction of “Legal Abuse” by continually and excessively filing motions so that the mother continually has to defend herself and her child(ren) causing financial and emotional devastation.
• Can occur in response to child support legal proceedings as retaliation.

The intent of “Maternal Deprivation” is to punish the mother and the child for revealing the abuse and to falsely claim that they are not abusive. This very commonly occurs as there are more and more “abuse-excuse” parental alienation accusing professionals who use this scientifically invalid theory over and over to achieve specific goals of the person paying them. Maternal Deprivation can also occur in response to child support legal proceedings. When occurring in this manner, Maternal Deprivation is a response to the financial demands as retaliation. Suddenly the father who had little prior involvement wants to take the kids half the time to avoid child support obligations, etc. When the men are really abusive, they ask for sole custody and demand the mother of the child pay them.

Although some people call this “Maternal Alienation”, a distinction needs to be made as the pro-pedophilia“Parental Alienation Syndrome” and the use of the word “Alienation” are most often used AGAINST battered women and abused children. There needs to be a distinction between the phony psychological syndrome and the intentional infliction of abuse on a mother and child by intentionally severing their natural bond. This distinction can best be made by NOT using the label of “Alienation” which will always be associated with the pro-pedophilia monster Doctor Richard Gardner.

Some of the characteristics of the especially heinous abusers who inflict Maternal Deprivation include but are not limited to the following:

• Angry
• Abusive
• Violent
• Coercive
• Controlling
• Threatening
• Intimidating
• Demanding
• Domineering
• Harassing
• Stalking
• Tyrannical
• Oppressive
• Forceful
• Manipulative
• Deceptive
• Unethical
• Un-empathetic (Lacks Empathy)
• Entitled
• Immature
• Self-centered
• Neglectful
• Guilt inducing
• Pushy
• Intentionally tries to humiliate mother and/or child
• Harsh, rigid and punitive parenting style
• Outrage at child’s challenge of authority
• May use force to reassert parental position
• Dismissive of child’s feelings and negative attitudes
• Vents rage, blames mother for “brainwashing” child and takes no responsibility
• Challenges child’s beliefs and/or attitudes and tries to convince them otherwise
• Inept and unempathic pursuit of child, pushes calls and letters, unannounced or embarrassing visits

There is a distinct overlap of the intimate terrorist type domestic violence abuser with the Maternal Deprivation abusers as follows:

• Coercion and threats
• Intimidation
• Emotional abuse
• Isolation
• Minimizing, denying and blaming (Hallmarks of PAS)
• Using children
• Economic abuse
• Male privilege

The people who most often engage in Maternal Deprivation Abuse are most often:

• Abusive men
• Vindictive second wives who don’t want to deal with the real mother of the children
• Paternal grandparents who raised dysfunctional children (abusers)

The effects of Maternal Deprivation often cause the children to become psychotic, depressed, and sometimes suicidal or to have suicidal ideations. Another terrible reaction is when the child retaliates against the parent who accuses Parental Alienation Syndrome as in a Texas case where the child killed his father.Other times when the Maternal Deprivation abuser completely takes over the will of the child by usingbrainwashing techniques similar to those used in prison camps where deprivation and isolation are used to force ideological changes in captives, these children often have a sort of trauma-bonding with the abuser and model their behavior. Sometimes these children will also abuse the mother in the same manner as the father. Another generation is created to carry on the abuse, and will likely do the same to their own spouse and children.

For more articles involving Maternal Deprivation:

• The Crime Report - Failure To Protect The Crisis in Family Courts
• Failure of Family Court System Leads To Death and Devastation
• Doctor Who Intentionally Severs Bonds With Mothers Is a Monster
• Child in imminent fear shoots father – vindicated in appeal – PAS fraud nightmare
• Cincinatti PAS
• VAWnet Joan Meier on PAS - Parental Alienation Syndrome & Parental Alienation: Research Reviews

Abusers vs The Abused

Source: The Shared Parenting Disaster

There is no logic in tip- toeing around the subject of who these movements are and what they really are about.
On one side we have the movement that promotes the following messages:

• Children are brainwashed by their mothers(Parent Alienation Syndrome)
• Statistics on violence against women are false(RADAR)
• Pathways to full custody for fathers(Shared Parenting)
• Mothers are mostly abusers(RADAR)
• Abused Children and Mothers are liars(false allegations)

On the other side we have a protective movement that promotes the following messages:

• False allegations are a small factor in the Family Courts
• Violence against women and children is on the rise and acknowledged by United Nations as a world wide issue across all cultures and classes.
• Shared Parenting is inclusive of violent fathers
• Fathers are responsible for the most dangerous forms of abuse that lead to death and disability.
• Most allegations are not investigated in Family  Courts and this process is often halted and sometimes legally barred from access to investigations in other courts.

The Family Court supports:

• Reporting cases to the media that are aligned with the first movements interests.
• Patriarchal models of family where the mother must do all of the work to foster relationships between the child and father even if they are abusive.
• That the Father is always right and the mother is mentally ill if she disputes this.
• Full custody to abusive fathers if the mother voices her concerns.
• Unsupervised access to fathers regardless of criminal histories of pedophilia, murder, drugs and violence.
• Punishing the child for speaking about abuse.
• Punishing the mother for trying to protect her child.

Family Court psychologists support:

• Using diagnosis's that have not been approved by any scientific organization in the world.
• Recommending abusive practices such as Gardner's, "Threat therapy" which involves threatening the child with isolation from key-stakeholders that can document and provide evidence of abuse.
• Nineteenth century recommendations on the model of family.
• Coercive control of the mother for the sole goals and purposes of ensuring that she will eventually break down.
• Using tests that are confirmatory bias towards mothers.

We have three movements that are aligned against one movement.  This one movement has managed to not only survive but thrive regardless of the stakes.  The reason why they have survived is that all actors strive to ensure that the facts that are circulated are correct and the motives are child focused with a secondary concern for mothers.  in cases of family violence, the issues of abuse for both the mother and child are intertwined.  The priority for the safety of both members are crucial, but not nearly enough to reach the status of protected from further violence and permanent damage from the current climate.  
It is largely a case of organizational abuse where women and children in already vulnerable situations go to the family court believing wholeheartedly that these courts will provide orders to protect them.  The problem is that most of the key-stakeholders are men that are fathers and some who have abused or are currently abusing.  The best way to understand how these interests have dominated the family law practice is to look into previous cases of genocide and how large organizations aligned to commit it. 

One of the most well known cases is the holocaust, where thousands of members of the jewish community were murdered.  It all began with the gold star, documenting how many there were of them and then isolating them into an area where they were tortured, murdered or enslaved.  The techniques that were used back then were primitive, but effective in carrying out their goals. Today, we have a more complex world with more of an ability to monitor the masses more effectively.  
Networking to achieve goals are now at our fingertips and thanks to facebook - we can track who is loyal to who.  Compilation of information in the wrong hands could lead to future genocides.  Most of our private information is available to anyone and in some countries people can find out where you live just by googleing your name. 

In the family court system, women are required to inform the courts if there is any violence or child abuse often at the beginning.  The catch is that throughout the proceedings, lawyers(including yours), child protection workers and family consultants will work in unison to undermine your claims and even destroy the evidence that you have provided them.  
On a mental level, they will they will often say that you don't have evidence even if you have provided them hospital reports, affidavits from specialists and  the abuser has a criminal history.  Sometimes, they might include processes that don't exist or obey only processes that were pushed in by the abusers movement.  Most Family Courts have too much power to make decisions upon their own accord similar to the old, "at her majesties pleasure" which leaves a lot of room to instigate what some have considered an act of torture. 

Each case is often isolated to lead the victim to believe that they are the only one and that they will “help" protect the child.  It is often too late before the victim discovers that the members worked together to not only diminish your ability to protect yourself and your child, but to ensure that either no one will know or that no one will believe you.  That is why a majority of mothers that lost custody were for the reasons of mental illness and is not consistent to the average statistics of mental illness out side this organization.
  A majority of the cases are only diagnosed by one practitioner - the family courts practitioner.  In the process of pursuing information on what appears to be deciding on the best interests of the children, the information that is most valuable is often how much you might be aware of psychology, whether you could prove them wrong and how many people outside of the court community knows about your case.  In cases like these, one of the first instincts are to go to an authority about it.

Most authorities are so ignorant or involved  that these cases are often ignored.  Thus continues the monopoly.  The next instinct is to contact the media, but family courts can either order suppression of the case by using the child as a justification or in some countries use a general law that prohibits any discussion without the courts approval.  This means that only cases that compliment the courts interests are getting out in the mainstream media.  It also means that deaths that were a result of court orders are also withheld, causing more pain to families. 

So what we have here is a silent genocide. Where children and mothers are being killed and no one knows who and why they are dead.  The manipulation that goes on to ensure that grieving families do not speak out is abhorrent, but all too common.  Like the Holocaust, the ones that are not dead are often tortured by their abuser and isolated from the only one that can help them - the mother.  
Each time protective groups try to advocate they have the family courts abusers lobby group either bullying the media or threatening the advocates into silence and oppression.  Maternal alienation was a grooming strategy that began with pedophiles in order to lock in the abuse.  It is now a widely used systematic tactic to not only alienate the children from the mother, but deprive them for life.  This is because they know that the earning potential when a protective mother has lost custody is more than the father as we know that fathers often give up a lot sooner and thus not as much revenue from court attendance and lawyers.

They know that a protective mother will continue to return to the courts begging them for the children, especially when concerns for the child is amplified by the abuser.   Keeping this extra business concealed from the public is a major priority that these courts will often attend to and worth investing in.  It does not surprise me to see shared parenting councils have a public relationship with chiefs of courts or the government funding fatherhood programs that they know continue to harvest family violence.

The downfall is that they often expect that survivors will indulge in the feeling of being beaten down or that they will forever be afraid of the laws that violate universal laws.  More and more mothers are now discovering that breaking this silence is saving not only their childrens lives but also the lives of others.  People who never knew what the inside of court room doors are beginning to know what is actually happening.  
The united nations is beginning to work on divorce for families affected by violence and reporters have learned that the courts cannot stop them from reporting if everyone reports it in synchronicity on the internet.  The propaganda that has been spread out by the abusers is falling apart because it simply does not match the masses experiences.  We've all been touched by family violence in some way or another. Not one person I know has not had a mother sister, daughter, gran-daughter or aunt affected by it as it is that common. 

As a society, we have just begun to learn the consequences of giving feeding abusers and now more and more people are making an effort to stop it from occurring.   It is about time that family courts start to move with the rest of the world and let go of the interests that harm.  If you are a human resources worker, then you have the power to change this by changing the culture of the courts so it reflects a real sense of transparency.  If you are one of the law makers, then you have the opportunity to be the first to role model best practice laws in protecting children and women from violence.  None of them are working as there is always a loophole that transform into a gateway for the abuser to the abused. 

Really listening to the women and children that have been affected by it is the first step, putting in tough laws that protect them and provide equal access before is the last step towards stopping violence from continuing and a conviction that you and your country do not tolerate violence against women and children.

Only then do western countries honestly say that they do not tolerate it and have conviction when they ask other countries to do the same.   

How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?

Source American Mothers Political Party

Contact: Joyanna Silberg, PhD, Executive Vice President
tel: (410) 938-4974 or email Joyanna Silberg

According to a conservative estimate by experts at the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (LC), more than 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States. This is over twice the yearly rate of new cases of childhood cancer.

Experts at the LC consider the crisis in our family courts to constitute a public health crisis. Once placed with an abusive parent or forced to visit, children will continue to be exposed to parental violence and abuse until they reach 18. Thus, we estimate that half a million children will be affected in the US at any point of time. Many of these children will suffer physical and psychological damage which may take a lifetime to heal. The Leadership Council urges citizens to work with legislators and agencies in their communities to examine this problem, review state agency policies and procedures, and develop legislative and policy solutions that help ensure safety from violence for children following divorce.

How We Obtained This Estimate:

No one knows the exact number of children who are left in the unprotected care of an abusive parent following their parents' divorce. The Leadership Council has studied the problem and using the best available research has attempted to come up with a conservative estimate of the problem. We estimate that each year, 58,500 minor children are placed at risk for injury because the courts ordered them into the unsupervised care of a violent parent.

The estimate is meant to be conservative and was obtained using the figures in the following table. The research that we used to obtain these figures is explained in more depth in the following section.

Number of children affected by divorce each year	1,000,000
Number of families with allegations of child abuse and/or severe domestic violence (13%)	x.13
	=130,000 cases
When investigated, percentage of cases found to be valid or suspected to be valid. (Research suggests that the number is between 43 and 73%, with most data showing the rate is closer to 70%. To be conservative we will use 60%)	X .60
	=78,000
Percentage of children left unprotected. (Research suggests that the number is between 56-90%, with most data showing the rate is closer to 90%. A conservative estimate is 75%)	X .75
Estimate of children in the U.S. who are left in the unprotected care of an abuser after their parents' divorce	=58,500

The research:

Estimates suggest that between 1 and 1.5 million children experience the divorce of their parents each year -- ultimately 40% of all children are affected by divorce.1,2,3

It is difficult to determine the number of divorcing families affected by violence. The Women's Law Center of Maryland analyzed an extensive dataset, which consists of a random sampling of all divorce and custody cases filed in Maryland during fiscal year 1999. Domestic violence (including child abuse) was alleged by at least one party in 240 cases out of 1,847 (13.0%).4

This is likely an underestimate as court records often fail to note domestic violence5 and other studies have shown higher rates. For example, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), looking solely at court records, found documented evidence of domestic violence in 24%-55% of custody court records depending on the state.6

In addition, studies suggest that in divorces marked by ongoing disputes over the custody and care of children, there is often a history of violence in the family and a likelihood that the violence will continue after the separation. In many cases, the violence involves severe battering and/or the use of weapons.7

To be conservative we will go with 13%. So how many of these allegations are likely to be valid. Research suggests when allegations of child abuse are investigated, approximately 50-73% are found to be valid.8

However, when courts get involved in determining custody, children are rarely protected from the violent parent. In at least 75% of cases the child is ordered into unsupervised contact with the alleged abuser. (Research has found results ranging from 56-90%; a conservative estimate is 75%).9

So how many children whose parents divorce are left in the unprotected care of an abuser each year in the United States ? Thus a conservative estimate based on available research is that approximately 58,500 are left at risk of physical and psychological injury after being ordered into the unsupervised care of an abuser after their parents divorce. This number includes both those who are left in the sole care of an abuser and those who are required to have unsupervised visits.

Compare this to the number of cases of childhood cancer per year. In 2004 the incidence rate of newly diagnosed childhood cancers in the U.S. was 22,586.10

Most people who divorce do so early in their marriage,.3 and children who are court-ordered into the custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, an abuser will be at risk of abuse until they reach adulthood. Consequently, at any point in time it is likely that a half a million children are left unprotected from a violent parent after their parents' divorce.

References

1. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2000). Divorce - Helping Children Adjust. http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZ4KZADH4C&sub_cat=0
(“Every year, more than one million children in the United States experience the divorce of their parents.”)

2. National Institutes of Mental Health. (2002, October 15). Preventive Sessions After Divorce Protect Children into Teens.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2002/preventive-sessions-after-divorce-protect-children-into-teens.shtml
(“About 1.5 million children experience the divorce of their parents each year—ultimately 40 percent of all children.”)

3. Shiono, P. H., & Quinn, L. S. (1994, Spring). Epidemiology of Divorce.Future of Children, 4 (1). Available athttp://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol4no1ART2.pdf
(Each year since the mid-1970s, more than 1 million children have experienced a family divorce.”)

4. The Women's Law Center of Maryland. (2004). Custody and financial distribution in Maryland: An empirical study of custody and divorce cases filed in Maryland during fiscal year 1999. Towson, MD.
http://www.wlcmd.org/pdf/CustodyFinancialDistributionInMD.pdf
(“Domestic violence (including child abuse) was alleged by at least one party in 240 cases out of 1,847 (13.0 percent). Of these, 169 allegations were made by women and 36 by men.”)

5. Kernic, M.A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 11 (8), 991-1021.
(Researchers at the Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center in Seattle , studied divorce cases and found that in 47.6% of cases with a documented, substantiated history of domestic violence, no mention of the abuse was found in the divorce case files. Similarly the National Center for State Courts that a screening process [utilized by the mediation program] revealed a much higher incidence of domestic violence than a review of court records alone would have indicated [see ref 6 below]).

6. Susan Keilitz et al, Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes: A Resource Handbook for Judges and Court Managers , prepared for the National Center for State Courts; State Justice Institute," NCSC Publication Number R- 202, p. 5.

7. Johnston, J. R. (1994). High-Conflict Divorce. The Future of Children, 4(1), 165-182, p. 167.

8. Research used in substantiation estimate:

Brown, T., Frederico, M., Hewitt, L., & Sheehan, R. (1997). Problems and solutions in the management of child abuse allegations in custody and access disputes in the family court. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 36 (4), 431-443.
(Researchers reviewed court records of some 200 families where child abuse allegations had been made in custody and access disputes in jurisdictions in two states, observed court proceedings and interviewed court and related services' staff.The allegations of abuse were usually valid. 70% were determined to involve severe physical and/or sexual abuse. The overall rate of false allegations during divorce to be about 9%, similar to the rate of false allegations in noncustody related investigations.)

Faller, K. C., & DeVoe, E. (1995). Allegations of sexual abuse in divorce. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4 (4), 1-25.
(Researchers examined 214 allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases that were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team at a university-based clinic. 72.6% were determined likely; 20% unlikely; and 7.4% uncertain. Of the 20% of cases that were judged to be false or possibly false cases, only approximately a quarter (n = 10) were determined to have been consciously made. The remainder were classified as misinterpretations.)

Thoennes, N., & Tjaden, P. G. (1990). The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody and visitation disputes. Child Sexual Abuse & Neglect, 14(2), 151-63.
(Researchers examined court records in 9,000 families in custody/visitation disputes. In the 129 cases for which a determination of the validity of the allegation was available, 50% were found to involve abuse , 33% were found to involve no abuse, and 17% resulted in an indeterminate ruling. [*note: Court records provide less reliable than evaluations by multidisciplinary teams trained in recognizing child abuse].)

Jones, D.P.H., & Seig, A. (1988). Child sexual abuse allegations in custody or visitation disputes: A report of 20 cases. In E.B. Nicholson & J. Bulkley (Eds.), Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody and Visitation Cases: A Resource Book for Judges and Court Personnel. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, pp. 22-36.
(This article reports on 20 cases evaluated by the C. Henry Kempe Centre which involved both sexual abuse allegations and a parental custody dispute. 70% of cases were found to be reliable and 20% of the cases appeared fictitious.)

McGraw, J.M., & Smith, H.A. (1992). Child sexual abuse allegations amidst divorce and custody proceedings: Refining the validation process. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1(1), 49-61.
(This study describes 18 cases of child sexual abuse allegations made during divorce and custody disputes. The cases were reviewed using the clinical process of validation used at the Kempe Center in Denver, Colorado. The number of cases categorized as founded was eight [44.4%].  In two cases [ 11%]) there was insufficient information to make a determination, and five were judged to be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion. Three cases were judged to be fictitious [16.5%], only one of which came from a child.)

Paradise, J. E., Rostain, A. L., & Nathanson, M. (1988). Substantiation of sexual abuse charges when parents dispute custody or visitation. Pediatrics, 81(6), 835-9.
(Researchers systematically evaluated child sexual abuse cases in a hospital-based consecutive series and one author's practice were systematically reviewed. Abuse allegations made within the context custody or visitation dispute [39% of the sample] were compared with cases in which custody or visitation was not an issue. Cases involving custody problems were found to involve younger children [5.4 vs 7.8 years]. Sexual abuse allegations were substantiated less frequently when there was concomitant parental conflict [nonsignificant] but were nevertheless substantiated more than half of the time.)

Trocme, N., & Bala, N. (2005). False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(12), 1333. (PDF)
Using data from the 1998 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS-98), this paper provides a detailed summary of the characteristics associated with intentionally false reports of child abuse and neglect within the context of parental separation. The national study examined abuse and neglect investigated by child welfare services in Canada.
When there was an on-going custody dispute the substantiation rate by CPS was 40% and an addition 14% were suspected but there wasn't enough evidence to make a final determination. 12% were believed to be intentionally false. Allegations of neglect was the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment. Substantiation rates varied significantly by source of report, with reports from the police (60%), custodial parents (47%), and children (54%) being generally most likely to be substantiated, while noncustodial parents (usually fathers) have a lower substantiation rate (33%), and anonymous reports being least likely to be substantiated (16%). Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the study, custodial parents (usually mothers) and children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.

Hlady, L.J., & Gunter, E.J. (1990). Alleged child abuse in custody access disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(4), 591-3.
(Researchers reviewed the charts of all children involved in custody access disputes seen by Child Protective Services (CPS) at British Columbia's Children's Hospital in 1988. Of the 370 such children evaluated by CPS, 34 involved allegations of child sexual abuse (CSA) that arose during custody/access disputes. These children's physical examinations were then compared with the 219 children seen during the same one-year period for alleged CSA not involving custody/access disputes. A similar percentage of positive physical findings were found in both groups. It is concluded that the concern that allegations of CSA that arise during custody/access disputes are likely to be false is not borne out by these findings.)

9. Research used in this estimate:

Neustein, A., & Goetting, A. (1999). Judicial Responses to Protective Parents, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 103-122.
http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/SampleText/J070.pdf (go to page 109 of pdf)
(Examined judicial responses to protective parents' complaints of child sexual abuse in 300 custody cases with extensive family court records. The investigators found that only in 10% of cases was primary custody was given to the protective parent and supervised contact with alleged abuser.Conversely, 20% of the cases resulted in a predominantly negative outcome where the child was placed in the primary legal and physical custody of the allegedly sexually abusive parent (see p. 108). In the rest of the cases, the judges awarded joint custody with no provisions for supervised visitation with the alleged abuser.)

Lowenstein, S. R. (1991). Child sexual abuse in custody and visitation litigation: Representation for the benefit of victims. UMKC Law Review, 60, 227-82.
(This study examined 96 custody and visitation disputes involving allegations of child sexual abuse from 33 states. Visitation was the principal issues in 36 cases. The father was alleged to have sexually molested their child in each of these 36 cases. Yet in two-thirds (24) of these cases the alleged perpetrator was granted unsupervised visitation.
Custody was the principle issue in 56 cases. In 27 of the 56 cases (48%) mothers lost custody. In 17 of these cases (63%) the mother lost custody to a father alleged to be a perpetrator. In two cases (3.6%) fathers lost custody. No father lost custody to a mother whose household included an alleged perpetrator (either the mother, a stepfather, the mother's boyfriend, or one of mother's relatives).

Kernic, M.A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 991-1021.
(Examined the effects of a history of interpersonal violence on child custody and visitation outcomes. Mothers in cases with a violent partner were no more likely to obtain custody than mothers in non-abuse cases. Fathers with a history of committing abuse were denied child visitation in only 17% of cases.)

Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, N. E. (2004). Child custody mediation's failure to protect: Why should the criminal justice system care? National Institute of Justice Journal, 251, 21-23. Available at http://ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/jr000251.pdf
(Researchers compared 200 child custody mediations involving charges of domestic violence with 200 mediations that did not.Joint legal custody was awarded about 90% of the time, even when domestic violence was an issue.)

See also:
Johnson, N. E., Saccuzzo, D. P., & Koen, W. J. (2005). Child custody mediation in cases of domestic violence: Empirical evidence of a failure to protect. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1022-1053.

10. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. (2007). United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2004 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute.Available at: www.cdc.gov/uscs .

For more information see:

Dallam. S. J., & Silberg, J. L. (Jan/Feb 2006). Myths that place children at risk during custody disputes. Sexual Assault Report, 9 (3), 33-47. (PDF)

American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. (2006). 10 Myths About Custody and Domestic Violence and How to Counter Them. Washington, DC: Author.http://leadershipcouncil.org/docs/ABA_custody_myths.pdf

More research is available from the Leadership Council web site
www.leadershipcouncil.org

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence is composed of national leaders in psychology, psychiatry, medicine, law, and public policy who are committed to the ethical application of psychological science and countering its misuse by special interest groups. Members of the Council are dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of children and other vulnerable populations. More information can be found at: www.leadershipcouncil.org

Stepmothers Cannot Replace Biological Mothers

By the awesome RANDI James

Stepmothers Cannot Replace Biological Mothers  (emphasis mine)

Myth -- Stepmothers are acceptable substitutes for children's real mothers. [This is the cherished belief of many re-coupled nonprimary caregiving fathers who seek custody, and also of the custody evaluators who indulge them.]

Fact: "It has been consistently found that stepfamilies are not as close as nuclear families (Kennedy, 1985; Pill, 1990) and that stepparent-stepchild relationships are not as emotionally close as parent-child relationships (Ganong & Coleman, 1986; Hetherington & Chlingempeel, 1992, Hobart, 1989) Many clinicians and researchers assume that stepfamilies tend to become closer over time. However, previous longitudinal studies conducted on stepfamilies have found little empirical support for this (Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992; Kurdek, 1991).

"Exploring the Stepgap: How Parents' Ways of Coping with Daily Family Stressors Impact Stepparent-Stepchild Relationship Zuality in Stepfamilies," by Melady Preece. University of British Columbia. (1996) http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~mpreece/compdoc.pdf

 

Fact: "The one most significant factor that neutralizes the advantages of remarrying is the psychological dilemma the child goes through over whom to love. The child seems to be polarized, for example, between loving the woman (the mother) who is now, as it usually happens, hated by the father, and the new woman (the stepmother) whom the father deeply loves. Virginia Rutter describes this conflict as "divided loyalty". She further explains that the child feels torn because their parents are pulling them in opposite directions. The symptoms of this divided royalty are that they brew up bad behavior or depression, a forced psychological path to resolve the conflict between the parents(Rutter). On the other hand children whose parents remain single do not experience this because no new figure (stepparent) is introduced to trigger that psychological trauma."

"Reconstituted families vs Single-Parent Families." http://wl.middlebury.edu/derick/ ; Rutter, Virginia. "Lessons From Stepfamilies". Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, Inc. May-June 1994 Vol27 n3 p30 (10). Oct. 31, 2002.

Fact: "Adolescents, however, would rather separate from the family as they form their own identities. "The developmental needs of the adolescent are at odds with the developmental push of the new stepfamily for closeness and bonding,".

Id. Also see "NEW PERSPECTIVES ON STEPFAMILIES:STEP IS NOT A FOUR LETTER WORD," by Susan Gamache, M.A., R.C.C.* STEPFAMILIES, Fall 1994 http://www.saafamilies.org/education/articles/prof/gameche.htm

Fact: "Only about 20% of adult stepkids feel close to their stepmoms, says the pioneering work of E. Mavis Hetherington involving 1,400 families of divorce, some studied almost 30 years. 'The competition between non-custodial mothers and stepmothers was remarkably enduring," she writes in For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered. 'Only about one-third of adult children think of stepmoms as parents,' suggests Constance Ahrons' 20-year research project. Half regard their stepdads as parents. About 48% of those whose moms had remarried were happy with the new union. Only 29% of those whose dads had remarried liked the idea of a stepmom.'

"Stepmoms step up to the plate," by Karen S. Peterson, USA TODAY. 5/6/2002) http://www.usatoday.com/life/2002/2002-05-07-stepmom.htm

Fact: "Stepmothers have the most difficulty building a relationship with stepdaughters. There is generally less affection, less respect, and less acceptance in this relationship than in other stepfamily relationships. The daughter may resent the stepmother's closeness with her father... Attempts by the stepmother to fulfill her role in the stepfamily may be perceived by the stepdaughter as efforts to replace her mother."

"Building Step Relationships." Stepping Stones for Stepfamilies. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1832.pdf

Fact: "Stepmothers are also found to have more problematic relationship with stepchildren; while children, particularly girls, also experience higher stress when they are living with their stepmothers. (Jacobson, 1987 in Visher & Visher, 1993). Visher & Visher (1979) suggested that teenage daughters identify strongly with their mothers and resent any woman who replaces their mother for the father's affection. Teenage daughters also exhibit much competitiveness with their stepmothers for their father's affection. These findings suggested that there are strong situational dynamics at work that create special relationship problems for stepmother families. Difficulty between the children's mother and stepmother has also been mentioned as a possible contribution to the greater stress in stepmother families. (Visher & Visher 1988)

"Exploring the Difficulties of stepmothers in the Hong Kong Chinese Society," by Kwok Yuen-ching, Lily.The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (1998) http://swforum.socialnet.org.hk/article/fulltext/990502.doc

Also see: Ganong & Coleman. Remarried Family Relatioships Sage Publications. (1994); Visher, J.S. & Visher, E.B. "Stepfamilies: A Guide To Working With Stepparents & Stepchildren." Brunner/Mazel New York (1979); Visher, J.S. & Visher, E.B. "Old Loyalties,New Ties." Therapeutic Strategies with Stepfamilies Brunner/Mazel New York (1988); Visher, J.S. & Visher, E.B. " Remarriage Families and Stepparenting" in Walsh, T. (ed.) Normal Family Processes. New York Guilford Press (1993); Vuchinich S. et al (1991) "Parent-Child Interaction and Gender Differences in Early Adolescents." Adaptation to Stepfamilies. Developmental Psychology 1991 Vol. 27, No.4; Smith, Donna. "Stepmothering." Harvester Wheatsheaf. New York (1990)

Fact: "Children raised in families with stepmothers are likely to have less health care, less education and less money spent on their food than children raised by their biological mothers, three studies by a Princeton economist have found. The studies examined the care and resources that parents said they gave to children and did not assess the quality of the relationships or the parents' feelings and motives. But experts said that while the findings did not establish the image of the wicked stepmother as true, they supported the conclusion that, for complex reasons, stepmothers do invest less in children than biological mothers do, with fathers, to a large extent, leaving to women the responsibility for the family's welfare."

"Differences Found in Care With Stepmothers," by Tamar Lewin, Tim Shaffer for The New York Times Susan Sasse, vice president of the International Stepfamily Association, with her husband, Erik, and their children in Chesapeake City, Md. (August 17, 2000) http://www.geocities.com/thesagacontinues2000/stepmoms.html

Also see http://www.geocities.com/wellesley/9204/custody.html; and "What's Normal In a Stepfamily"? by Peter K. Gerlach, MSW. Board member Stepfamily Association of America http://sfhelp.org/04/reality3.htm

Also see: Children living with custodial fathers are less likely to have health insurance than children who live with their mothers. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-224.pdf

Fact: "[C]hildren experiencing multiple transitions, experiencing them later in childhood, and those living in stepfamilies fared poorly in comparison with those living their entire childhood in stable single-parent families or moving into two-parent families with biological or adoptive parents. Other studies show benefits of stable single-parent living arrangements for children's socioemotional adjustment and global wellbeing (Acock & Demo, 1994), and deleterious effects of multiple transitions (Capaldi & Patterson, 1991; Kurdek, Fine, & Sinclair, 1995), supporting a life-stress perspective."

David H Demo, Martha J Cox (2000) Families With Young Children: A Review of Research in the 1990s Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (4), 876-895.

Fact: "[R]esearch suggests that being a stepparent is more difficult than raising one's own biological children, especially for stepmothers, and that stepmothers may compete with the child for the father's time and attention."

Pasley, K., & Moorefield, B. S. (2004). Stepfamilies: Changes and challenges. In M. Coleman & L. H. Ganong (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary families (pp. 317-330), cited in Valarie King (2007) When Children Have Two Mothers: Relationships With Nonresident Mothers, Stepmothers, and Fathers Journal of Marriage and Family 69 (5), 1178-1193.

You can read more at the Liz Library

____

We all know good and bad stepmothers, some are well-intentioned, others are.... These women are often in quite a mess of a situation: They are in their 2nd and 3rd marriages, determined to make the current marriage work, insistent that thishusband is the best (or at least a little better than the last), and sometimes constantly having to convince themselves of this. They often already have children that they are fully responsible for and in addition, they become the caretakers of the husband's children (please read Remarried Custodial Fathers As Caregivers).

Stepmothers generally believe their husband's word, as gospel, about his ex wife and are often staunch leaders in the attack against his former girlfriends and wives. She must believe it because it was her choice to marry such a "wonderful" man and surround herself in this complex situation. She cannot look stupid, again. Any woman before her can become the enemy in her attempt to boost her self-esteem.

A stepmother is a husband's greatest advocate. A judge in an Australian child sex abuse custody case opines [on the stepmother]:

"This lady was an impressive person and witness. I thought she was honest and attempting to assist the court. She clearly supports the father and trusts him implicitly. She would not contemplate a future with him if she suspected that he had been abusing his child .

**Custody was given to the father

They can be like Bonnie and Clyde.

(See: Father Let His 12 Year-Old Daughter Die A Slow Hideous Death After Beating and Scalding

Father Accused Child's Mother of Abuse in Custody Case; Stepmother Kills Child

Father and Stepmother Tortured 9 Year-Old Child

Stepmother Stabs 14 Year-Old Boy

Father and Stepmother Punched Around 8 Year-Old to "Toughen Him Up" and/or as "Play Hitting"

Where was Her Mommy? Dad and Stepmonster Charged with Criminal Mistreatment

Child Abuse Charges for Minnesota Father, Stepmonster)

From Family in Court for Brutal Child Abuse (in a rare case in which a father was charged for failure to protect, emphasis mine):

The future is uncertain for a two-year-old boy allegedly beaten unconscious by his stepmother. As he continues to recover from severe brain injuries, his family appeared before a Lee County judge trying to decide who will take care of young Kaydin on his long road to recovery.

Rosemary Kunz showed up for family court Wednesday morning.

The Department of Children and Families is investigating child abuse allegations against Kunz.

Detectives say she confessed to hitting her stepson, tripping him, and knocking him unconscious.

She went as far as to say she was "addicted to abusing him" and that she "liked to see him cry."

**Kinda makes you afraid to let your kid go with dad. All we ever hear about is stepDADS and mothers' boyfriends who do the abusing.

Child support is owed to the ex, taking money away from the family, custody battles may ensue...Stepmothers get stressed trying to hold up the family and juggle each situation as it presents. Much anger and resentment is built. I have seen many a stepmother talk absolute shit about her husband's ex AND the children.

Here's an excerpt by Leeahn Griffin-Scott:

"The 2nd X is a psychopathicredheadedfreakofnature. I kid you not. This woman is an unmittigated lunatic. My wonderful husband partnered with her as he walked out the door of his first marriage. Long story. My wonderful husband has a 9yr old child to this fool...

I know this is an awful thing to say, but if I never saw his children again it would be too too damn soon. I cannot and never will forgive them for what they have done to their father. I on the other hand, can and should expect some problems. But what they have done to the only parent that loves them more than life itself, is absolutely without question unforgiveable."

Is it her place to judge a woman she truly knows nothing about? Do stepmothers not understand karma?

My advice to stepmothers or potentials would be to do a background check on your prospective mate...maybe all of those injunctions for protection aren't just "false allegations." Get to know his family members. Keep in mind that their beliefs about him may be exaggerated in either direction. And most of all, don't make enemies with his ex. Everything that she is saying may not be false...Think about it! She knows him better than his mama because she's been sleeping with him and putting up with his shit. She knows his mannerisms, habits, friends...She should be your ally because you never know, one day, you made need her assistance so that you can join forces.

On a personal note, I once, very briefly and nebulously tried to tell my ex's current wife about the abuse we had suffered, and why I was fighting so hard in my custody battle. She told me that she would never allow "those types" of things to go on in her household, and that they had a very "loving" family. Verbatim, she said,

"There are three sides to every story..."

Which I took to mean,

"Whatever, bitch!"

But she was cordial and reminiscent of a virgin. I left it at that.

Here this "woman" was trying to tell me about the man she had been married to for one year. One. I've known him for more than a decade.

Federal Judge's Ruling Sets Landscape for 'Kids-for-Cash' Civil Suits

The Legal Intelligencer

A federal court judge this week dismissed three defendants from civil suits related to the "kids-for-cash" scandal in Luzerne County, Pa., effectively clearing the way for the case to move forward.

Judge A. Richard Caputo of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted motions filed by the wives of former Luzerne County Common Pleas Court Judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan, as well as one filed by Conahan's brother-in-law, who served as a psychologist for the county's probation department.

It had not been proven by the plaintiffs in the cases, Caputo wrote in Wallace, et al. v. Powell, et al., that either Ciavarella's wife, Cindy Ciavarella, or Conahan's wife, Barbara Conahan, knew of or were involved in any conspiracy among their husbands and others to send juveniles to a pair of private, for-profit juvenile detention centers in exchange for $2.6 million.

Likewise, ruled Caputo, it could not be proved by the plaintiffs that Michael Conahan's brother-in-law, Frank Vita, knew his contract with the county would allow for the creation of a case backlog that would require juveniles to spend more time in the juvenile detention centers while awaiting evaluations.

The rulings mean the plaintiffs in the cases may proceed with claims against Mark Ciavarella; Michael Conahan; Robert Powell, the former co-owner of the juvenile detention facilities; and Robert Mericle, the builder of the juvenile detention facilities.

Also remaining as defendants in the cases are Mericle's company, Mericle Construction; a company owned by Powell to allegedly help funnel money to the judges, Vision Holdings; the company that operated the juvenile detention facilities, Mid-Atlantic Youth Services; and the juvenile detention facilities themselves, PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care.

In early July, Caputo dismissed Luzerne County as a defendant in the case.

Marsha Levick, chief counsel for the Juvenile Law Center, which is representing many of the plaintiffs in the case, said the plaintiffs had conceded the claims against the recently dismissed defendants.

The decision, she said, sets the path for the case to move forward.

A settlement conference is scheduled for Sept. 15. Levick said the fact Caputo's ruling came in advance of that conference was important because "we know what the landscape of the case is."

"This, really, was a tremendous victory, I think," Levick said. "We're very gratified."

Powell's attorney, Mark B. Sheppard of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads in Philadelphia, said anything that helps parties "focus on the issues in terms of a possible settlement is a good thing."

"I think the court's decision here advances that ball," he said.

One of Mericle's attorneys, Joseph B.G. Fay of Morgan Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia, had no comment on the rulings. Fay, along with other attorneys from his firm, also represent Mericle Construction.

Neither Bernard M. Schneider of Brucker Schneider & Porter in Pittsburgh, who represents PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care, nor Edward P. McNelis, the attorney for Barbara Conahan and Cindy Ciavarella, could be reached for comment.

Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella, who are representing themselves pro se, also could not be reached for comment.

The lawsuit stems from federal racketeering charges alleging the former judges took more than $2.8 million from Powell and Mericle.

Michael Conahan has pleaded guilty and Mark Ciavarella is awaiting trial.

The plaintiffs in the civil suits have alleged the sums received by the judges were "kickbacks" and that the money was in exchange for sending juveniles to PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care.

Caputo previously ruled that the former judges were partially protected from claims because of judicial immunity. Neither, Caputo ruled, could be held liable for his in-court actions. Caputo, however, ruled that the two men can still be sued for their out-of-court actions related to the alleged conspiracy.

Caputo, in his decisions, dismissed Luzerne County from the case because municipal liability can only be established when "unconstitutional actions" are committed by final policymakers for the county. Judges, probation officers, district attorney's office officials and public defender's office officials could not be considered final policymakers for the county, Caputo ruled.

Further, Vita had to be dismissed from the case because the plaintiffs could not prove he had a role in the alleged conspiracy.

The plaintiffs did, however, offer significant enough allegations against Powell and Mericle, along with the host of companies, Caputo ruled.

And though Pinnacle, a company allegedly used by the former judges to collect payments from Powell and Mericle, was at the center of the alleged conspiracy, that was not enough to keep the former judges' wives, who were listed as Pinnacle's owners, in the case as defendants, Caputo ruled.

According to Caputo, allegations of ownership are enough to bind Pinnacle for the women's actions, but the inverse does not have to be true. Actions undertaken by Pinnacle did not necessarily have to involve the judge's wives.

"In the present case, plaintiffs even allege that while Mrs. Conahan and Mrs. Ciavarella owned and operated Pinnacle generally, that their husbands controlled Pinnacle during the conspiracy," Caputo wrote. "Plaintiffs provide no further factual allegations that the wives agreed, assisted, knew of, or otherwise participated in the alleged conspiracy beyond 'owning and operating' an entity used by the conspiracy."

Interview with Jan Kurth who wrote the Chapter on the Father’s Rights Movement in the book “Domestic Violence, Child Custody and Abuse” Edited by Barry Goldstein and Mo Hannah Civic Research Institute

ABUSIVE FATHERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SEEK SOLE CUSTODY IN CHILD ...

American Mothers Political Party: For Arbiters In Custody Battles ...

Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody

Written by Staff

Wednesday, 14 July 2010 11:47

As reported by The Civic Research Institute; written with the expressed goal of helping battered mothers assert their rights to a safe family life free from violence, the contributors to this book take a firm stand against so-called “balanced” points of view that attempt to explain or justify abusive behavior. This book is grounded in the belief that battering is never justified, and batterers are not entitled to “equal rights” to custody when the safety of a child is in question. Advocates who share that view will find this book a uniquely compelling ally in protecting and defending the rights of battered mothers.

Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody Legal Strategies and Policy Issues - Editors: Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D. and Barry Goldstein, J.D.

“Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody will be instructive for policymakers, those working in the family justice system, and members of the media–which the authors say has by-and-large failed to expose custody court scandals. But it is a must-read for any mother involved in a child custody battle, and especially for mothers trying get free from an abusive relationship." - R. Dianne Bartlow, Ms. Magazine Blog

“The stories of injustice in this book will shock you, and make you cry--but keep reading. Abusers are hoping you won't pay attention because it will be too painful. Prove them wrong by reading this book again and again and again--and share it with everyone who needs to know the truth.” Read More - Wendy Murphy, J.D., New England Law-Boston; author of And Justice For Some

"We are excited about Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody, a new book that we believe can be used to change the broken custody court system." Read More — Rita Smith, Executive Director, NCADV(National Coalition Against Domestic Violence)

“This book serves as a beacon of light to all those who have become jaundiced by the malfunctioning family court, social services, law guardian and mental health system.” Read More — Amy Neustein, Ph.D., Co-Author of From Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers Are Running From the Family Courts—And What Can Be Done About It

“Wise judges will use the up-to-date research now available to take a fresh look at practices and assumptions deeply ingrained after thirty years.” Read More — Judge Sol Gothard, J.D., MSW, ACSW, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, State of Louisiana (ret.)

In a trend that started in the 1980s, and increasingly since then, family court judges across the U.S. have ordered thousands and thousands of children into unsupervised visitation with abusive biological fathers. In many cases, mothers have been denied any form of custody, with some losing all contact with their children. In the last few years, attorneys and social service advocates have met to address this issue at the annual Battered Mother’s Custody Conferences. This book brings together the expertise and perspective of more than thirty contributors to BMCC in a comprehensive resource that arms advocates with the best thinking and most effective legal strategies in the battle to protect mothers and families from a system that often fails to address abuse and sometimes actually worsens the problem.

Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody presents insights and hands-on practice guidance from the leading experts on child custody cases that involve intimate partner violence and child abuse. Chapter authors address the prevalence of these problems, the complex reasons why protective mothers lose custody of their children, the things court agents and other professionals often do that contribute to bad outcomes, and the corrective measures that must be put into place to ensure legal protections for abused women and their children.

• Understand the harm caused by all types of abusive behavior, whether physical, verbal, financial, legal, or other forms.
• Guide the representation of protective mothers through research, case law, and consultation to improve case outcomes.
• Establish the paramount importance of children’s safety beyond all other priorities that may emerge in a child custody case.
• Provide judges with new insight into the dynamics of violence, recognize when experts and other types of witnesses are providing testimony based on myths, stereotypes, and discredited theories, and provide an empirically based, real-world rationale for orders emphasizing the safety of protective mothers and the accountability of batterers.

Praise for this important new resource ...

“This comprehensive book is a gift to the cause of justice not only for victimized women and children but for anyone who cares about the integrity of law itself. The American legal system has for too long facilitated the very violence it purports to forbid, often allowing abusive men to use the courts to punish women and children who speak out against child sexual abuse and domestic violence. Mo Hannah and Barry Goldstein have created a desperately needed manual that will empower generations of victims to fight back. My favorite section is the one that reminds us of the obvious: 'Therapy is Not the Answer' to violence. The stories of injustice in this book will shock you, and make you cry--but keep reading. Abusers are hoping you won't pay attention because it will be too painful. Prove them wrong by reading this book again and again and again--and share it with everyone who needs to know the truth.” - Wendy Murphy, JD, New England Law-Boston; author of And Justice For Some

"We are excited about Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody, a new book that we believe can be used to change the broken custody court system. The book contains chapters by over 25 of the leading experts in the US and Canada including judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists and domestic violence advocates. The co-editors, Mo Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein and many of the contributors like Joan Zorza and Lois Schwaeber are long-time friends and supporters of our movement. Although the contributors come from very different disciplines and backgrounds, there is remarkable agreement that thousands of children are being forced to live with abusers because of common mistakes and discredited practices used by the family court system. The book is meticulously researched and cited so the findings have the highest credibility." — Rita Smith, Executive Director, NCADV (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence)

“This book serves as a beacon of light to all those who have become jaundiced by the malfunctioning family court, social services, law guardian and mental health system. Whether the reader is a protective parent, child advocate, attorney, judge, social worker or mental health expert, this exquisitely organized and illuminating volume will help the reader to better understand the socio-historical, socio-legal, and socio-cultural forces shaping today’s domestic relations courts. The editors have assembled eminent scholars, practitioners, and child advocates in one volume that flows like a brilliantly conducted orchestral piece. This fine collection clarifies the core issues at hand and provides a full panoply of solutions; it adds a significant contribution to an expanding body of literature on domestic violence, abuse and child custody.” — Amy Neustein, Ph.D., Co-Author of From Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers Are Running From the Family Courts—And What Can Be Done About It, recipient of the NARCCW 2010 Pro Humanitate Literary Award, shared with Attorney Michael Lesher, a contributor to this volume.

"For years custody courts have confidently denied complaints by mothers of unfair treatment in domestic violence cases. If the court system had commissioned research to determine how the present practices are working, the result would be the information contained in Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody. The research findings demonstrate court practices are outdated and their confidence misplaced. Wise judges will use the up-to-date research now available to take a fresh look at practices and assumptions deeply ingrained after thirty years. No one wants to be known as the judge who hurts children and this research can prevent the kinds of tragic outcomes we see too frequently.” — Judge Sol Gothard, JD, MSW, ACSW, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, State of Louisiana (ret.)

• Media
  • Dr. Phil Exposes the Crisis in Family Court
  • INTERVIEW WITH DOMINIQUE LASSEUR, PRODUCER OF “BREAKING THE SILENCE: CHILDREN’S STORIES”
• Family Court Related Research and Articles
  • Family Court and Fathers’ Rights = A Deadly Combination
  • Mother’s Day Proclamation at the White House 1870 and 2010
  • NIMH - Monkey Brain Scans With and Without Mom
  • Confirmed: Protective Mothers Were Right
  • Justice is biased!! The laws play Russian Roulette with children’s lives
  • 88 Killer Dads - Father's Rights
  • High Conflict Cases Likely Have History of Domestic Violence
  • Family Law Act Aids Abusive Fathers, Imperils Children
• Federal Fatherhood Initiatives
  • U. S. Fatherhood Initiatives - Control of Women and Children Under the Guise of "Responsible Married Fatherhood"
  • Attention Judges and Lawmakers: This is the REAL AGENDA of the Father’s Rights Movement
  • Maternal Deprivation Inflicted on Battered Women and Abused Children
  • Senate Judiciary Chairman - Response to Proposed Changes to Child Custody Law
  • Hearing to Review Responsible Fatherhood Programs
  • The National Fatherhood Initiative: Supporting a Misogynistic Agenda
• Family / Criminal Law and Research
  • ABUSIVE FATHERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SEEK SOLE CUSTODY IN CHILD CUSTODY BATTLES
  • Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life
  • Whores Of The Court and the Rape of American Justice
  • Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody

Some Concerns About False Allegations of Abuse Are Accurate

Time’s Up! By Barry Goldstein

We often hear complaints about false allegations of abuse. The research is definitive that women rarely make deliberately false allegations of abuse. Victims who make such allegations are subject to vicious attacks, discussion of painful and embarrassing circumstances and very often cruel retaliation for telling the truth. Accordingly it is not surprising unless you live in the pretend world of abusers that only one-two percent of allegations of abuse by women are deliberately false. While unqualified professionals often discount or discredit such allegations particularly when made in the context of contested litigation, we rarely hear the question of how frequently men's denials of abuse are accurate. Abusers virtually always deny charges against them despite the fact they are almost always accurate, but these same professionals are rarely skeptical of abuser denials that have far less truth value. This is another example of gender bias that tends to be invisible to those who unconsciously use gender biased methods.

The myth that women frequently make false allegations has serious consequences. Many prosecutors and child protective agencies routinely refuse to investigate allegations by mothers if there is a contested custody case pending. Custody courts often punish mothers for making such allegations. Even when the allegations are not immediately discounted, they are generally treated with tremendous skepticism.

What happens when fathers make allegations against mothers in the context of contested custody cases? These allegations are taken seriously and agencies that routinely discount mothers' allegations make a full investigation of fathers' complaints. These complaints are often used as a strategy by abusers to quickly switch custody at the start of litigation in order to gain an advantage. Nevertheless, agencies that see far more allegations by mothers because men in our society are so much more abusive tend to believe they need to take men's allegations seriously in order to appear neutral.

An important research study was done for the Canadian government led by Nicholas Bala. The researchers investigated complaints to child protective agencies involving allegations of sexual abuse in the context of contested custody cases. This research established that fathers are sixteen times more likely to make deliberately false allegations than mothers. The research is not saying mothers are sixteen times more honest than fathers. This research is limited to parents in contested custody cases. Most contested custody cases cannot be settled because the father is an abuser using custody as a tactic to pressure the mother to return or punish her for leaving. These abusers believe the mother has no right to leave them so they are entitled to use any tactic including false allegations to get their way. Most of the inadequately trained professionals relied on by the custody courts believe the myth that mothers frequently make false allegations, but are unaware of the scientific research that fathers in contested custody cases are much more likely to make false allegations. This research has important implications in criminal cases, child protective proceedings and custody disputes.

This study has important implications for the work of prosecutors and child protective workers because they must exercise caution before bringing charges based on allegations by fathers involved in custody disputes. Not only are such allegations often false, but the professionals are likely to be fooled because abusers are particularly adept at manipulation. Professionals who believe they have the ability to determine if someone is telling the truth just from observing them are particularly vulnerable. Best practices would require these professionals to speak with the mother and consult with domestic violence experts (such as advocates) before reaching any conclusions. Prosecutors and case workers should require independent evidence and be cautious about children who normally are very credible but might be under the influence of the abuser.

One of the last cases I worked on as an attorney illustrates what can happen if professionals fail to consider an abuser's motivation and permit themselves to be manipulated. The father started by making false allegations to Child Protective Services (CPS), but the children told the caseworkers nothing happened so the reports were quickly dismissed.

The father learned his lesson so that when the parties separated he made new complaints to CPS and pressured their older daughter to support his charges. Thereafter he convinced the district attorney that his wife had cut him with a surgical instrument (she is a nurse) and they brought criminal charges against her. The case went to the domestic violence court so the judge could handle both criminal and custody issues. The father obtained a protective order for himself and the children and received temporary custody based upon the criminal charges and the indicated cases by CPS. The judge was relatively reasonable under the circumstances and permitted the mother regular visitation with the two daughters.

The court appointed an evaluator who recommended custody for the father based on the indicated CPS charges and pending criminal charges. The mother's prior attorney encouraged her to settle by giving the father custody since it looked like this was the likely outcome. The criminal charges against the mother and father (he had earlier assaulted her) were each settled by plea agreements that made no findings, avoided convictions and continued mutual orders of protection. It was at this point that I was brought into the case.

We appealed the indicated case from CPS and at the hearing some of the earlier caseworkers testified that the child told them the father was pressuring her to make false complaints against the mother. The new caseworker had not bothered to investigate the history and was intimidated by the father who kept calling the office until they made findings against the mother. The hearing also established the father's history of domestic violence. The administrative judge wrote a strong opinion establishing the falsity of the charges against the mother and left two indicated cases against the father for assaulting the mother in front of the children.

With the findings from CPS, the mother now had a good chance to win custody. The father had stopped paying his share of the mortgage and his aggressive litigation tactics forced the mother to file for bankruptcy. They would lose the family home unless it was sold, but he would only cooperate if she used a broker he designated. The broker represented the father at the closing and the sale went through. The father then sought additional child support claiming the mother received money from a fraudulent sale of the home. He also started a divorce action in another county seeking to punish her for the alleged fraudulent sale of the home.

We were able to prove that the father signed the real estate contract and power of attorney for his agent. I insisted on a hearing on grounds for divorce which was the first time we had the opportunity to prove the father's history of abuse (the custody trial was taking years because the judge could give us only a few hours at a time and the father's attorney was often unavailable which helped the abuser who had fraudulently obtained custody). The divorce judge was experienced and understood domestic violence resulting in a strong decision exposing the father's history. The court found the father had used the child to make false CPS complaints, cut himself and then brought false criminal charges and there was a long pattern of coercive and abusive behavior by the father. These findings were fully binding on the father because he was a party to the divorce case. Accordingly we had a strong chance to win custody. I made a motion to immediately return the children based on the divorce court findings. I expressed concern the abuser would again pressure the children to make more false complaints if he maintained control, but the judge decided to wait until the trial on custody could be completed.

Knowing he was going to lose custody, the father contrived still more false charges. At a visitation exchange the father instructed the older daughter to refuse to go with her mother and instead claim her mother twisted her wrist causing a black and blue mark. The prosecutor filed new charges against the mother and the father unilaterally stopped visitation sometimes claiming the children refused to go. Of course if a mother ever did this she would be in jail and custody changed, but the judge limited himself to repeatedly ordering the visitations to take place, finally arranging the transfers in the court.

I contacted the prosecutor and showed her the long history of false complaints by the father including pressuring the daughter to lie about her mother. The prosecutor refused to drop the charges and wanted the mother to plead guilty which of course would have destroyed her custody case. At the trial, the police officer who interviewed the child revealed that contrary to the charges, the child had no marks on her after the attempted exchange. A witness the district attorney failed to interview testified that the alleged incident never happened and the child never testified. The judge dismissed the charges after trial.

The judge tried to avoid further problems by allowing the mother to pick the children up at school so there could be no interaction between the parents. During the weekend visitation the mother dropped the children at the church for religious instruction. Unbeknownst to the mother the father came to the church threatened the nun so badly that she was scared of him and instructed the older daughter to make new charges against the mother. Since the criminal charges were dismissed in part because there was no injury, the girl bit her arm and told the school nurse her mother had squeezed it. CPS was called and the caseworker investigated the charges without interviewing the nun, reviewing the prior history or considering what the mother had to say. Instead they brought new charges and the county attorney filed petitions in Family Court that resulted initially in supervised visitation, but often no visitation as the father used his control over the girls to destroy their relationship with the mother.

The mother had a lot of things going for her that many domestic violence victims did not. She had a strong relationship with her daughters and support from her family. She was a nurse and so had income to try to protect her children. The divorce judge and administrative judge were outstanding and I would like to think she had a good attorney. While the domestic violence judge could have done a better job, he was not as hostile as many other judges. The District Attorney's Office in Westchester County was the first prosecutor to have a special office to prosecute domestic violence crimes. Some of the CPS caseworkers and particularly the earlier ones had the integrity to speak out when the agency became intimidated by the abusive father. Nevertheless, the abuser was able to manipulate the system to destroy the children's lives.

False criminal, child protective and other charges have become a common practice among abusers in contested custody cases. Professionals in these systems need to be trained to be aware of these practices and conduct the kinds of investigations necessary to avoid colluding with abusers. Our children are depending on it.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY.

David C Rodeheffer PHD- Topeka Kansas Court Whore

Please rate him –you can do so anonymously- no sign in needed to comment

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/topeka-ks/TIJER9K3SIGD9SK6G#lastPost

Review: Albott & Assoc - David C Rodeheffer PHD

909 SW 10th Ave
Topeka, KS 66604 -1101

(785) 234-4743

Business Hours

No hours available

 

THIS MAN IS LYING SACK OF SHIT WHO MAKES EVERY SINGLE DIME FROM BEING APPOINTED AS COURT WHORE THROUGH THE SHAWNEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HIS SPECIALTY IS MAKING SURE KIDS KEEP GETTING RAPED HE DEFENDS PEDOPHILES FOR PAY WHILE PROFITING FROM THE SPILLED BLOOD OF INNOCENT YOUNG CHILDREN.
RUN FAST AND DONT LOOK BACK.
GOD HELP THE CHILDREN THAT DR. PEDOPHILE- AKA DAVID CRAIG RODEHEFFER EVER COMES INTO CONTACT WITH

OMG

Topeka, KS

 

i took my daughter there because the courts ordered me to-- her daddy confessed to sexually raping her-- the good dr told me to let daddy do it-- it was healthy for my child-- to be taught about her "inner sexual awareness" by daddy-- that it is HIS job a good fathers job to do this!!!
i reported to bsrb and they dismissed it-- he is protected by his peers omg-- i had to flea the state b/c of this--