We are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it any more!!
http://AmericanMothersPoliticalParty.org/
AMPP—Back from the 8th Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference 2011.This is the year of the child.
Until Mothers and children’s voices are heard—We will NEVER shut up- We will never Give up—And we will NEVER Go AWAY
Court Whores – Your Days are Numbered!
Your Mother Claudine Dombrowski Loves you and she is here for you when you can finally break free. She has not given up, she will not shut up and she will not go away!
“Granny died and her grand-daughter was not allowed to attend her funeral.”
“This tribute video was made– for three generations lost—destroyed by the Family Courts.”
“Granny, Mom and Rikki three hearts united across the universe and above and beyond the Shawnee County Courthouse MAFIA.”
Hope Love Power and enlightenment
I am a thousand winds that blow,
I am the diamond glints on snow,
I am the sun on ripened grain,
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning’s hush,
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there; I do not sleep.
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
I am not there; I did not die.
by, Mary Elizabeth Frye
Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sham-shawnee-county-topeka-kansas
Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) The last time I did court watch for protective mother CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, I called my subsequent posting on the experience "Showdown in Shawnee County." See the post here:
http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2010/02/showdown-in-shawnee-county-we-finally.html
I can't even call the hearing held on October 19, 2010 a showdown. It was just a sham.
Let's do a little review. Claudine is a battered mother who lost custody of her only daughter in an ex parte hearing in 2004. (Ex parte means the mother wasn't even represented at the hearing.) Since then, she has had very little visitation. The hearing in January 2010 (see post above) was supposed to fix that. And finally, Claudine was awarded two hours of unsupervised visitation on Sunday and telephone contact twice a week. We figured it was a start.
Well, this was not to be. And not because of anything Claudine did.
As Claudine testified, visitation went well. She taught her now teenage daughter to drive. They shopped. They went to Barnes and Noble. They talked about girl stuff. Boy stuff. Just like any other mother and daughter. In fact, Claudine was able to enjoy her first mother's day with her daughter in ten years. There were no negative interactions. In fact, it looked like some serious healing was going on.
And in that lays the problem. You see, abusers and their enablers don't like healing. They find that supremely threatening to their power and control. So of course, the process must be stopped lest their domination of the child and the overall "situation" be compromised.
So in May 2010, all visitation stopped at Dad HAL RICHARDSON's personal discretion--which he admitted during his own testimony. He made the unilateral decision that he would no longer take his daughter to the law enforcement center for visitation (presumably at her "request"--but more on that later.) He made sure that during the times of designated phone contact, the phone was never answered as it was set on fax. (67 Direct Contempt's Dad admitted under oath that the phone does go to fax mode when not answered--though he denied "inhibiting" phone access, which is not surprising. But then, how did Mom know to testify that the phone was set on fax when she called? Oh those little details....) But of course, Dad didn't exactly encourage or welcome contact either--that much was evident. In fact, it was pretty clear to me that he was extremely negative about Claudine, and doing his best to crush any contact between her and her daughter.
But like many abusers, he projected his own motives onto the child, now a teenager. SHE was the one who was "uncomfortable." She was the one who was "afraid." Afraid of what? Physical abuse, sexual violence? No, there was no evidence of that beyond vague innuendos about "fighting" that allegedly occurred in the distant past (These innuendos weren't even brought up in January. Must be a new game plan.)
Apparently we are supposed to believe that this teenage girl is "afraid" because Mom allegedly doesn't "follow the rules." What rules? Apparently the court's rules regarding discussion of this case.
All this was echoed by Guardian ad Litem JILL DYKES. And once again, just as in January, Ms. Dykes didn't even feign professional neutrality in this case, as she literally sat at Daddy's elbow the whole time.
Are you kidding me? The typical teenager would blow off a parent's attempt to discuss court matters--ASSUMING any such discussion took place, which Claudine denies. They certainly wouldn't be "afraid" of such a discussion. Annoyed perhaps. But not "afraid" or traumatized. This is just classic projection. That this teenager is such a hothouse flower that she is somehow irreparably injured by any possible or potential references to her parents' legal issues, which I'm sure she already knows all about anyway. Nonsense.
I would humbly suggest that it is Hall Richardson and his enablers who are "afraid" of any possible open or frank discussion of this case. Or any contact between this mother and daughter. And their little "feelings" shouldn't play any part of this.
Under Kansas law, visitation isn't shut off because somebody is "uncomfortable" for vague and specious reasons. If that were the case, then controlling and manipulative parents would be cutting off access for whatever reason they dreamed up that day.
Unfortunately, given the dynamics of domestic violence, children who are in the control of abusers often find it necessary to parrot what the abusers want for their own survival. Which makes if very difficult for this child to speak up and articulate what she wants--except in private to her own mother.
And frankly, this ordeal shows a complete double standard. Were this a custodial mother blocking visitation for such vague and specious reasons, she would no doubt be labeled as an "alienator" with "parental alienation syndrome" (PAS). And the situation would be addressed immediately--either visitation would be enforced by the courts or the mother would lose custody all together. But I digress.
So no visitation from May to the present. But this actually was a minor issue as far as the court was concerned.
No, once again our major concern was Claudine's political activity. The players in Shawnee County are very upset with how well known this case has become (my last blog posting on this case had readers as far away as Australia.) And they are blaming Claudine for all of it, even though when pushed, Judge DAVID DEBENHEIM fiercely denied that he was trying to "stomp" on Claudine's first amendment rights. (Huh. Could have fooled me.)
But even in cases where OTHER bloggers like Nancy Carroll at Rights for Mothers had discussed this case (http://rightsformothers.com/), Claudine was blamed. In fact, the opposing attorney submitted into evidence printouts from NANCY's blog to show that Claudine was out of compliance with their gag order. Message to the Hoffmans: Nancy is not Claudine. I'm not Claudine either, for that matter. And you can't shut us up.
And honestly, did the Hoffmans really have to embarrass their employee like that? They trotted out a young and painfully ignorant employee of theirs to "testify" about Claudine's "alleged" facebook and twitter activities. This fresh-faced young woman--no more than a high school graduate with a few "computer" classes--earnestly told us that every posting and link on somebody's facebook page had to personally "approved" and/or "posted" by that person. Yes, dear friends. She did say that. And meant it too, so far as I can tell. I won't give her name, though it's in my notes. I refuse to further humilate her. But honestly, your great aunt Rose probably knows more about facebook than this girl.
So the significance of this was what? There are supposedly "references" to her case on Claudine's facebook page! Oh the horror! And you know what? This blog may very well end up with a link on Claudine's facebook page, too--through an automatic feed mechanism. It will go straight to facebook--even when Claudine is sleeping or brushing her teeth. Or sitting in court. Because you know what? Claudine is a well networked activist with probably hundreds of facebook friends working on issues related to child abuse, domestic violence, human rights, and family court reform. Many of us have discussed this case before. Just as we have discussed many other cases like this one, where the courts have backed up the abuser and shut out or ignored the protective mother. And for your information, you'll find articles and links about those cases as well.
And all this policing of Claudine's personal and political activities on the internet is particularly hypocritical when you consider the following: Attorney JASON P. HOFFMAN and GAL JILL DYKES had no qualms about violating professional ethical boundaries and becoming facebook "friends" with this child! (I saw the screen shots.) Mom can't even post a photo of her daughter per court order, but these folks feel free to do as they like. Not that the judge was interested in this matter at all. Big surprise there.
And this is the crux of the matter. What the court in Shawnee County REALLY doesn't like is that--as they put it--this lady "has a cause." Or she has "become a cause." They don't like the "venom" (i.e. the truth) that has come out about this case, and the attention it has received nationally and even internationally. They don't even like Claudine's facial expressions! (Yes, the judge made a point of addressing this. "You are your own worst enemy!" he thundered at Claudine--apparently over some grimace or frown that I didn't see.)
So make sure you never show anything but a happy face in front of Judge Debenham, even when you are possibly losing all contact with your only child!
Claudine is supposed to hear later this afternoon what the court's decision is--after her daughter will presumably be allowed to speak her mind with the judge. But of course, she can't really speak her mind--not as long as she's a minor and dependent on her father.
We are not optimistic as to the outcome.
But you know what? In a little over two years, this girl ages out of the system's control over her life. Perhaps then, real change will come about.
Abusers and their enablers often win the battles. But they seldom win the war. That puts off any real healing in this case for another two years.
But at least it's something to hope for.
Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sham-shawnee-county-topeka-kansas#ixzz1CN6yB4FW
Claudine Dombrowski and the love for her Daughter Rikki Dombrowski – Fly High Fly Free--- they can not chain the wind, no matter how hard they try.
Cathy Meyer of the Huffington Post – a pro abuser and pro pedophile used the title
Parental Alienation: It's About More Than "A Uterus, Divorce Papers and Bruises"
to once again Diminish Domestic Violence, protect the abusers, and pom-mom ra-ra for the psycho quacks like Dr. Richard Warshak who make a profit pushing this dangerous child and mother killing yet highly profitable ‘theory’ —
Sadly after the few articles that are factual in content get published as with below article – and Cathy Meyer -- in response to – article as titled above--as is the trend with mainstream media. http://huff.to/dXUDKG -- Huff post really goes all out to protect these abusers, pedophiles and killers. HuffPo should be disgraced—but they are not.
So Cathy Meyer and HuffPo --here’s to you and your inept journalistic skills—fortunately there are other and better bloggers.
Parental Alienation and Domestic Violence
by Joan Dawson
“I hope there’s more cases just like this, where people don’t want to let their spouses see their kids…I hope it happens more and more, until the law finally says you know what? There needs to be something done so these parents can be with their kids.”
These were the words fired by Randall Todd Moore as he denied having “not one ounce of remorse” for kidnapping, sexually assaulting and killing his ex-wife.
But was his ex-wife ‘alienating’ the kids, as Moore alleged, or trying to protect them from danger?
This case is clear, but as those working in domestic violence and child abuse realize, all too often clarity comes at a price.
Parental alienation (PA, or PAS for Parental Alienation Syndrome), a topic pro-PA psychologist Richard Warshak recently covered on Huffington Post, alleges a parent poisons the mind of a child to fear or hate the other parent. The defamation results in a damaged relationship or estrangement.
Those opposing parental alienation admit parents can bad-mouth the other parent either deliberately or inadvertently; however, factors such as poor parenting skills or personality on the part of the mother or father and stages of normal development or reactions to divorce on the part of the child can also cause alienating behaviors.
Dr. Paul Fink, President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, and a former President of the American Psychiatric Association states, “Science tells us that the most likely reason that a child becomes estranged from a parent is that parent’s own behavior. Labels, such as PAS, serve to deflect attention away from those behaviors.”
More dangerously, parental alienation can mask domestic violence, child abuse and child sexual abuse. What is the difference between fearful or uncooperative battered women and alienating,” vindictive” mothers? If parents try to withhold access to children, are they alienators or protectors? If they try to provide evidence of abuse – interviews with psychologists, medical examinations or discussions with the child – are they gathering proof or further alienating the ex? What is the difference between alienated children and abused children?
The behaviors can be indistinguishable.
Indeed, it’s not just domestic violence survivors’ advocates who witness the problem with PA. The American Bar Association, American Prosecutors Research Institute, National District Attorneys Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges all denounce the use of parental alienation in the courtroom. The National District Attorneys Association says on their Web site, “PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children.”
That hasn’t stopped courts from using PAS, resulting in accusations against individuals, mostly women, of maliciously denying access to children.
Katie Tagle, for instance, sought a restraining order on Jan. 21, 2010 against her ex-boyfriend Stephen Garcia to stop him from having unsupervised visitation with their nine-month-old child.
She told the judge Garcia threatened to kill the infant. The court transcript records Judge Robert Lemkau as saying, “One of you is lying,” and later, “Mr. Garcia claims its total fabrication on your part.” Garcia also referred to it as “little stunts and games” that she used to deny him access to his son.
Even when she tries to produce evidence of the threats, he says, “Well, ma’am, there’s a real dispute about whether that’s even true or not.” And finally, “My suspicion is that you’re lying” (said twice). He denied her the order (as did two other judges). Garcia took their son that day and drove off into the mountains. Ten days later, they were both found dead.
The transcript is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26434649/tagle-garcia-court-transcript-dent-protection-to-baby-now-bay-is-DEAD
This case clearly demonstrates another issue women have in courts: credibility. It’s easier to believe a woman is lying than to believe a man can abuse or kill a woman or child. In reality, in family court, denying abuse is more common than fabricating tales of abuse. Most allegations are made in good faith (see the American Bar Association’s 10 Custody Myths and How to Counter Them). And most denials are made by perpetrators, perpetrators skillful at manipulation – even of professionals.
Indeed, we must not forget family court is the place for couples with high conflict and abuse. The overwhelming majority (up to 90%) of couples create their own parenting plans. Those that cannot, go to family court.
Judges, though, have been known to downplay even well-documented cases of abuse and to give more weight to parental alienation than to abuse allegations. In the case of Jennifer Collins, for example, the judge told her mother to “get over” the abuse as at least two years had passed, according to Collins’ Web site. The judge reversed the custody decision because her mom’s fear was “interfering in his relationship with us.” Jennifer’s mother Holly took her two children and fled to the Netherlands, where they were granted asylum. (See also the Courageous Kids Network of children who were court-ordered into relationships with abusive parents.)
58,000 children a year go into sole or joint custody arrangements or unsupervised visitation with physically or sexually abusive parents, according to an estimate by the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence. That’s over 1,000 children a week the courts place in harm’s way.
Giving custody to the supposedly alienated parent is one way to “solve” the problem of parental alienation. Jailing the mother is another.
Tiffany Barney and Joyce Murphy are two women who’ve been jailed; their cases were covered in the media. Both alleged child sexual abuse and neither were believed. Barney fought for five years, at times losing custody or having limited supervised visitation. Murphy was called “toxic” to her daughter and deemed the cause of the child fearing her father. She fled with her daughter. When found, she was jailed for felony abduction and later granted limited visitation. It wasn’t until three more girls came forward with molestation charges that her ex was finally the one jailed.
A few other cases making headlines include: Court Punishes Woman in Alienation Case; WI: Judge Jails Mother over Daughter’s Refusal to Visit Father and Judge Dismisses Abuse Allegations.
To sum it up, any behavior that does not promote access to children can be classified as parental alienation and punished with jail time or limits on/loss of custody. With this threat, parents are less likely to report abuse and more likely to share custody with an abuser.
It should also be noted that when violent partners make good on their threats to take the kids away, it’s referred to as domestic violence by proxy -a continuation of domestic violence – rather than PA or PAS. Some battered women who’ve lost custody use PA or PAS to describe their particular situation. This both minimizes the nature and scope of abuse women face and promotes the use of a dangerous weapon (PA/PAS) that can be used against them in court.
I wouldn’t hand an angry man a gun, nor would I readily hand over a legal strategy to potential pedophiles, abusers or killers. Yet that is exactly what PA/PAS is doing.
For more information, visit:
The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanmotherspoliticalparty/2011/01/27/still-standing
Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977
AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts.
Behind the closed doors of the dirty little secret of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse Mothers and Children.
Family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child.
Until Mothers and Children's voices are heard we will never shut up, give up or go away!
Hello Everyone, I am so excited to tell you that we found him! We found the visitation supervisor from Katahdin Inc!
His name is James E. Seas from Minneapolis Minnesota.
In all fairness I want to give Mr. Seas a chance to explain his side of the story.
Maybe he was misdirected from someone from the family court & he was just doing his job.
I want to thank everyone for you help. I can’t believe how fast this moved.
At least I am one step closer to getting answers.
~Jennifer
Posted: January 20, 2011 02:36 PM
"I hope there's more cases just like this, where people don't want to let their spouses see their kids...I hope it happens more and more, until the law finally says you know what? There needs to be something done so these parents can be with their kids."
These were the words fired by Randall Todd Moore as he denied having "not one ounce of remorse" for kidnapping, sexually assaulting and killing his ex-wife.
But was his ex-wife 'alienating' the kids, as Moore alleged, or trying to protect them from danger?
This case is clear, but as those working in domestic violence and child abuse realize, all too often clarity comes at a price.
Parental alienation (PA, or PAS for Parental Alienation Syndrome), a topic pro-PA psychologist Richard Warshak recently covered on Huffington Post, alleges a parent poisons the mind of a child to fear or hate the other parent. The defamation results in a damaged relationship or estrangement.
Those opposing parental alienation admit parents can bad-mouth the other parent either deliberately or inadvertently; however, factors such as poor parenting skills or personality on the part of the mother or father and stages of normal development or reactions to divorce on the part of the child can also cause alienating behaviors.
Dr. Paul Fink, President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, and a former President of the American Psychiatric Association states, "Science tells us that the most likely reason that a child becomes estranged from a parent is that parent's own behavior. Labels, such as PAS, serve to deflect attention away from those behaviors."
More dangerously, parental alienation can mask domestic violence, child abuse and child sexual abuse. What is the difference between fearful or uncooperative battered women and alienating," vindictive" mothers? If parents try to withhold access to children, are they alienators or protectors? If they try to provide evidence of abuse - interviews with psychologists, medical examinations or discussions with the child - are they gathering proof or further alienating the ex? What is the difference between alienated children and abused children?
The behaviors can be indistinguishable.
Indeed, it's not just domestic violence survivors' advocates who witness the problem with PA. The American Bar Association, American Prosecutors Research Institute, National District Attorneys Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges all denounce the use of parental alienation in the courtroom. The National District Attorneys Association says on their Web site, "PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children."
That hasn't stopped courts from using PAS, resulting in accusations against individuals, mostly women, of maliciously denying access to children.
Katie Tagle, for instance, sought a restraining order on Jan. 21, 2010 against her ex-boyfriend Stephen Garcia to stop him from having unsupervised visitation with their nine-month-old child.
She told the judge Garcia threatened to kill the infant. The court transcript records Judge Robert Lemkau as saying, "One of you is lying," and later, "Mr. Garcia claims its total fabrication on your part." Garcia also referred to it as "little stunts and games" that she used to deny him access to his son.
Even when she tries to produce evidence of the threats, he says, "Well, ma'am, there's a real dispute about whether that's even true or not." And finally, "My suspicion is that you're lying" (said twice). He denied her the order (as did two other judges). Garcia took their son that day and drove off into the mountains. Ten days later, they were both found dead.
The transcript is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26434649/tagle-garcia-court-transcript-dent-protection-to-baby-now-bay-is-DEAD
This case clearly demonstrates another issue women have in courts: credibility. It's easier to believe a woman is lying than to believe a man can abuse or kill a woman or child. In reality, in family court, denying abuse is more common than fabricating tales of abuse. Most allegations are made in good faith (see the American Bar Association's 10 Custody Myths and How to Counter Them). And most denials are made by perpetrators, perpetrators skillful at manipulation - even of professionals.
Indeed, we must not forget family court is the place for couples with high conflict and abuse. The overwhelming majority (up to 90%) of couples create their own parenting plans. Those that cannot, go to family court.
Judges, though, have been known to downplay even well-documented cases of abuse and to give more weight to parental alienation than to abuse allegations. In the case of Jennifer Collins, for example, the judge told her mother to "get over" the abuse as at least two years had passed, according to Collins' Web site. The judge reversed the custody decision because her mom's fear was "interfering in his relationship with us." Jennifer's mother Holly took her two children and fled to the Netherlands, where they were granted asylum. (See also the Courageous Kids Network of children who were court-ordered into relationships with abusive parents.)
58,000 children a year go into sole or joint custody arrangements or unsupervised visitation with physically or sexually abusive parents, according to an estimate by the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence. That's over 1,000 children a week the courts place in harm's way.
Giving custody to the supposedly alienated parent is one way to "solve" the problem of parental alienation. Jailing the mother is another.
Tiffany Barney and Joyce Murphy are two women who've been jailed; their cases were covered in the media. Both alleged child sexual abuse and neither were believed. Barney fought for five years, at times losing custody or having limited supervised visitation. Murphy was called "toxic" to her daughter and deemed the cause of the child fearing her father. She fled with her daughter. When found, she was jailed for felony abduction and later granted limited visitation. It wasn't until three more girls came forward with molestation charges that her ex was finally the one jailed.
A few other cases making headlines include: Court Punishes Woman in Alienation Case; WI: Judge Jails Mother over Daughter's Refusal to Visit Father and Judge Dismisses Abuse Allegations.
To sum it up, any behavior that does not promote access to children can be classified as parental alienation and punished with jail time or limits on/loss of custody. With this threat, parents are less likely to report abuse and more likely to share custody with an abuser.
It should also be noted that when violent partners make good on their threats to take the kids away, it's referred to as domestic violence by proxy -a continuation of domestic violence - rather than PA or PAS. Some battered women who've lost custody use PA or PAS to describe their particular situation. This both minimizes the nature and scope of abuse women face and promotes the use of a dangerous weapon (PA/PAS) that can be used against them in court.
I wouldn't hand an angry man a agun, nor would I readily hand over a legal strategy to potential pedophiles, abusers or killers. Yet that is exactly what PA/PAS is doing.
For more information, visit:
The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence
Stop Family Violence
Center for Judicial Excellence
Courtesy RightsForMothers
Ha! Both of these courts are busted! It didn’t work trying to shed documents as fast as they could and stall allowing the auditors into their files! Thank you to all the California activists that worked hard to get this audit started and completed.
To download the report “Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts” by the California State Auditor, please click here. Here is the synopsis of the report:
Date: January 20, 2011
Report: 2009-109The California State Auditor released the following report today:
Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts
Both Courts Need to Ensure That Family Court Appointees Have Necessary Qualifications, Improve Administrative Policies and Procedures, and Comply With Laws and Rules
BACKGROUND Every superior court in each of California’s 58 counties has jurisdiction over family law matters typically within their family courts. Judges assigned to the family courts decide various family law matters, such as the dissolution of marriages, and where child custody or a determination of the legal relationship between natural or adoptive parents and a child is at issue, the family court may issue an order for child custody and visitation. At the Sacramento family court, where more than 92,500 family law cases were filed during the four-year period we reviewed, its staff conducted mediations and certain evaluations that the family court ordered and the court appointed private mediators, evaluators, and minor’s counsel. In contrast, the Marin family court, which opened 2,352 cases that involved child custody and visitation during the same four-year period, had staff who performed only child custody and visitation mediations and it appoints private evaluators and minor’s counsel to contested child custody and visitation cases. The Family Code requires family courts to design all child custody and visitation orders to reflect what is in the best interest of the child.
KEY FINDINGS Our audit of the Sacramento and Marin County Superior Courts’ processes for identifying, assessing, and evaluating court appointees in child custody disputes during the four-year period—from April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2010—revealed the following:
• The Sacramento County Superior Court could not demonstrate that its staff performing mediations and evaluations and the private mediators, evaluators, and minor’s counsel it appoints are qualified or trained.
•The Marin County Superior Court could not demonstrate that the mediators always met the minimum qualifications or training requirements and that its private evaluators were qualified and met certain training requirements. Further, the family court did not ensure that minor’s counsel were qualified before making appointments.
• Although both family courts have a process for reviewing and resolving complaints about their mediators or evaluators, neither court kept logs of complaints received. In addition, both family courts did not consistently follow processes for dealing with complaints about their mediators.
• Even though courts may pay for minor’s counsel when it determines that the parties cannot pay, both courts need to improve their processes. The Sacramento family court did not always make the legally required determination about the parties’ ability to pay and the Marin Superior Court did not have a policy outlining the costs it reimburses.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS We make numerous recommendations to the Sacramento and Marin County Superior and Family Courts to ensure that the individuals who provide mediation and evaluation services and who act as minor’s counsel in cases before these family courts are qualified and trained. Further, we recommend that both the Sacramento and Marin family courts track all complaints properly and review them promptly and keep a log of complaints they receive. Moreover, both family courts need to improve their policies and rules for receiving, reviewing, and resolving complaints. We also recommend that the Sacramento Superior Court improve billing procedures and for determining and reviewing parties’ ability to pay appointing minor’s counsel costs.
And what was the court’s response to this report? Read here:
Agency Comments
The Sacramento Superior Court stated that it was largely in agreement with the report’s recommendations and has already begun the process of implementing the great majority of them. The court also stated that it is taking other recommendations under consideration, but some of them will likely prove difficult to implement due to a lack of resources.
The Marin Superior Court stated that it believed many of the findings and recommendations were focused primarily on ministerial tasks. Further, the court expressed an opinion that eight of the 13 recommendations are suggested changes to existing practices that are not governed by laws, rules of court, or any other directives. The court stated that, although it intends to implement the recommended changes and has either already implemented a new process or is engaged in developing a new rule or protocol, it questions whether some of the recommendations actually enhance internal controls and accountability.
Here’s hoping that anyone with cases in these two courts can use this report to correct horrible actions that have happened to them.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanmotherspoliticalparty/2011/01/20/still-standing
Upcoming Show: 1/20/2011 5:00 PM CST 6 PM EST
Host Name:
American Mothers Political Party
http://vodpod.com/watch/1533683-evolution-of-propaganda?u=ampp&c=ampp
AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts.
We as mothers demand CITIZENSHIP and our Rights to our Children.
We demand that our children not be used as pawns by our abuser in a custody dispute.
We demand that Mothers and Children be equally protected against court ordered visitation with an abuser.
We demand that Mothers and Children be given the same rights, privileges and voice that the abuser gets in family courts!
We demand that our President take action now as can no longer afford to be silent and we won’t.
We demand the same "rights and freedoms" to which all humans are entitled.
Behind the closed doors of the dirty little secret of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse Mothers and Children.
Family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child.
Until Mothers and Children's voices are heard
Robin Yeamans is one of three California attorneys certified as a specialist in both family and appellate law. Her website at www.divorcecal.com features videos that help people without attorneys. In this video, she answers Anne Grant’s questions about due process, equal protection, and taking custody scams to the federal courts.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/battered-mothers-custody-conference
·http://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/?s=fathers+rights
Referees, Umpires, or any other paid professionals, should go to the Association that is promoting the terms “high-conflict” to describe assault and battery, and “mental health” to characterize unruly (not submissive enough) mothers, as has happened probably since time began. All such truly committed court professionals should (and many will) go to an “AFCC” conference. That would be in Florida, June, 2011. At this conference, now that fatherhood-based grants are entrenched in the CFCCs around the country, the topic will be — in a cruel twist of a Title by Tina Turner, who got OUT of that, and became the true star she always was with no more IKE– “what’s Gender Got to DO with it?”
Look up AFCC What’s Gender Got to Do with it?
(etc.)
The rest of you should all, please, go to work, because I assure you, your income-withholdings are helping support some of these,
through any number of federal funding streams, monitored by the gatekeepers, to make sure none particularly gets all the way through (except maybe a slow trickle, in a few places, that leaked through) to the actual people named on the face of the grant program. Even the Arizona massacre that happened duing the first conference, of a U.S. Rep, Federal Judge, 9 year old girl, others — is not likely to even slow down this processes, or change these procedures. Oh yeah– Arizona is a nice place for the AFCC, I believe there’s a chatper there, to help spread some love around and train court professionals. Not to brag, but I found an OHIO based task force (fatherhood commission stuff) flying out to Phoenix to attend classes by some AFCC participants and presenters to learn how to fix families, right (submit comment if you want me to look up the link. It dates back to early 2000s).
Families are getting massacred regularly, and as shocked as I am about a judge and a U.S. Rep, and outraged, I am also outraged that it provokes more outrage, on nationwide press, than the regular,relentless deaths that come from families run through this gauntlet and farmed out in the family law gulag.
Such as diverting TANF funds to collect child support (a program in place since 1996). If that’s what you think the OCSE is doing with some of these grants to the states, I have some land under the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.
A sample of how a man in the TEXAS ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, CHILD SUPPORT DIV, views some of these grants, paraphrased well (and I added a comment) by Randijames;com:
http://www.randijames.com/2009/07/michael-hayes-wants-to-build-family.html
You got to respect a person who — when women affected aren’t supposedly listening in– comes right out and shoots straight from the hip — this is not abut collecting child support, but about a good deal more, per the blog:
Michael Hayes Wants to Build “Family-Centered” Child Support
I must continue to emphasize that the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE) is no longer about collecting child support. It is about meddling in your family business and exercising government control over families (which begins with the “birth certificate” and “marriage licenses”), with emphasis on removing control from women as childbearers and autonomous beings. This money is NOT going to raise the children–it is going into million-dollar research at the hand of psychologypseudoscience and court litigation.
Well, who is Michael Hayes?
I’m glad you asked.
(emphasis mine)
Michael Hayes is the Deputy for Family Initiatives in the Child Support Division of the Texas Office of the Attorney General. His extensive experience includes the development of policy, partnerships, and projects that support family stability, paternity establishment, father involvement, and child support program improvement. Before his current post, he helped create and was director of the Texas Fragile Families Initiative, a statewide project involving community-based, faith-based, and public agencies to support fragile families.
Fragile Families is one of the many phrases starting in “F” that seem to just roll off the tongue and bring out true eloquence (immediately before, during, and after some FR grants become available) that seem to end up with the word “mother” and especially if single, becoming an archaic usage, and women getting “F . . . . ‘ed” by the courts if they don’t get oFFed by their exes, or poverty, first. This, CitySlickers, is how Families get redesigned and Moms become “long-distance” and “noncustodial,” often enough. Essentially, this means, with the gradual elimination of the word “mother” and with it the FUNCTIONS of mother, including protection where necessary, they are being used as brood mares. (Forgive, please, my poor attempts at cowboy analogies in honor of Mr. Hayes fromTexas,… but it helps my blood pressure to release some sarcasm when reading this rhetoric. ) — but doesn’t it strike you odd that someone would go from a Fragile Families Initiative (look it up yourself, it’s a fatherhood grant) into Child Support Services, at a “Deputy” level? where’s the gold medalllion for this posse?
If people get this pattern, they can get a LOT. The blog post puts the charts in, you’ve seen similar ones here, on my blog. Just read what they wrote, then watch who they hang with, and what happens. Randijames.Com, quoting Mr. Michael Hayes
I also want to acknowledge the value that OCSE Section 1115 and SIP grants have had forthe evolution of child support, both in Texas and around the country. Through Section 1115 grants, our Family Initiatives Section in Texas has been able to pursue the projects I’ve talked about, since these grants may be used to fund certain activities not normally allowed under FFP rules. The creativity and innovation that those grant programs have fostered play a big part in child support’s continued growth and vision. We take pride in how we’ve been able to keep the work going after the grant funding expires by using careful collaboration and coordination. For example, we found we could provide additional services to parents by linking Access and Visitation partners to our child support offices. Once the parents meet with us about the support order, they are escorted to the AV staff so they can develop a parenting plan. We could not have moved as thoughtfully or as quickly without that support.
Thank you, Michael Hayes, for making this so easy for us! I don’t even have to explain it anymore.
And THAT — and not so much PAS theory, my fine-feathered, female friends — is likely how you lost custody, or have now to pay to see your kids. Audio-Visual/ Access-Visitation, A/V, Access-Visitation. Not TOO hard to remember, is it
GRANTS TO STATES FOR ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAMS(this is the official, government, site describing these)
SEC. 469B. [42 US.C. 669b]
a. IN GENERAL—The Administration for Children and Families shall make grants under this section toenable States to establish and administer programs** to “support and facilitate “**noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children, by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral dropoff and pickup), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements (etc.)
{{**support and facilitate– it HAS to read like that, “order” is not within the federal government’s jurisdiction to. This is just short of — and the mediators, supervisors, etc. understand this clearly, I”m sure.., what their role is. This role is not, of course, broadcast to custodial mothers coming before them at any stage of the game.}}
{{AND if many, or some , of those programs, judges and attorneys involved in this system, nay, even in open cases that get cases referred to these programs for “services”, just happen to have been on the Board of Directors — or, heck, have been a judge, or an attorney’s brainchild to start with (can you say Kids’ Turn? in SF Bay Area, now internationally minded, at least a few countries, and several states), and promoted heavily in (see #3, above) certain types of conferences as the model curriculum, etc.)-who are we to protest these many coincidences?}}
{{“Both voluntary and mandatory” and “support and facilitate” carry a little different tone, don’t you think? It’s MANDATORY, but these programs are only three in a “supporting and facilitating” capacity. At public expense. To help reduce welfare Moms and child support arrears.}} Child support arrears ARE getting reduced, at least in many cases I’ve seen, including my own — by the means of an electronic eraser. Their stats look better, my kids lose out on child support, which I was trying to help collect, as the same agency (national level) that was charged to help collect child support, failed to do so locally.}}
Annual Funding
· $10 million in federal funds is divided among the states annually based on a funding formula contained in the statute.
That’s since 1996, folks. Have I got your attention yet, and is it THAT much harder to remember “A/V” in connection with “DV” for “domestic violence,”which is what these grants help cover up in the custody venue?
Maybe $10M/year (for 14 years, so far) is peanuts, in the larger picture — but what is it doing to the court process? Or reduce the familywipeouts after domestic disputes, etc.? Besides which, recruiting Dads and failing to tell moms one is doing this just ain’t honest. Besides which, grant usages isn’t tracked fully, and there has been evidence of custody-switching scams (i.e., steering cases to certain court personneL) in many cases. This is a PUBLIC issue, along with the huge superstructure of DV cancelling out FR grants because it appears they are maybe splitting the proceeds, and keeping parents in the dark, except some of us who got mad enough to pursue answers (and we don’t show up in public and shoot bullets).
Who administers this?
Federal Administration
The Office of Child Support Enforcement — part of the Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services — has responsibility for administering the Access and Visitation Grant Program.
OK, so there you are. The FEDERALIZING of what otherwise would be state-level, county-level, and district-level legal procedures played out in front of judges who have sworn to uphold the state, at least, constitution, or so one might hope.
. Liz Richards of VA (D.C. area) has been collecting evidence on this since around 1993, and it’s critical to how the system works. Needless to say, she is not invited to present at any of the above conferences. Just because a site doesn’t have a link to YouTube of Blog Talk Radio, or Facebook, twitter, etc. — think it doesn’t have relevant information? This is mostly WORDS (remember those?)
And some women who attempted to present some of this material at the end of BMCC were filibustered out of it, which at least left a witness, I hope, to the audience of the gamesmanship. A mother who’d flown in from Australia was talking about on-line safety, and was not allowed to finish even her short, well-organized powerpoint, including about on-line safety for women. She got about 7 minutes. The previous presenter, a man, whose name was on some of the books were on the table outside, was an hour over schedule, and no one interrupted.
Meanwhile, and possibly at public expense? Mr Hayes, of Texas, is going to fly North to Minnesota to promote the same stuff, I’m sure…He’s all about fathers, and someone who is favorable to fathers is of course needed to really “tow the line” in collecting past-due child support, to help custodial mothers who need it to help raise their children in safety, and with food, and not begging for it, or working a third shift.
Here’s more from the RandiJames.com commentary on this, from the TEXAS perspective (don’t forget to check out some charts she posts up there, too, with $$ figures on them).
Another great part about our work in the Family Initiatives Section is the way we use research to develop theoretical models for project development, and then take that theoretical model and design the intervention, track and evaluate implementation of the intervention, and then use what we learn to inform the next generation of programs and policy.
And so we conclude with how the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration of Children and Families (ACF) fuels their own research and sets propaganda in action through the creation of public policy.
That’s exactly what they are bragging about. Too bad more MOms aren’t trained to look up this stuff.
SO, TO SUMMARIZE REGARDING THE 1, 2, 3 conferences:
Someone has to wave a red flag around to make sure the bull keeps charging the flag, and is not distracted and actually reaches a matador or an on-looker in the crowd. That red flag in this case has any number of paychological terminologies, or pet phrases on it, to distract, as we say, the bulls, and appease the crowds, who come in for the spectacle. If you’re living in the US and paying taxes, you are part of the spectators.
Maybe not badgered, just relentlessly marketed to. … The name of the conference should be adjusted to reflect “Good Cop/Bad Cop Press Releases.” The Good cops had control of the microphone, pointed to the bad judges, custody decisions, evaluators, etc. (from whom they derive their livelihood) as the Bad Cops, cough up your stories (women were, literally, asked to send theirs in to help Mr. Bancroft with the next literary masterpiece based on something that had inspired him), and dollars (what’s left of them) and (if I may switch from gangster movies to The Wizard of Oz) “pay no attention to that man — and the word applies, overall — behind the curtain.”
Another mother who attended the first conference, commenting obliquely upon it, I”m sure, and a book being sold for $100 to mothers, which it is declared will fix our broken dreams, and change the scope of family law practice, because it “explains” why judges “don’t understand” domestic violence. And $ 100 was a discount.
VENI, VIDI, Vomiti. (It was shameless; I was there…)
I would write a more stringent post, but am overburdened, like many of us, and sickened at the whole scene, particularly the marketing of other Moms’ stories. Reminds me of The Amazing Cells of Henrietta Lack. I think Moms are starting to catch out that their ongoing troubles (caused by court professionals in many cases) are a new target market — because Fatherhood and Domestic Violence niches are taken.
How gullible do these people with Esq.,Ph.D., and M.S.W behind their names think we are? ???
I recommend, NEXT year, attend the conference that’s NOT in your designated area of concern, and find out what’s being said.
The Minnestoa Fatherhood site has a new phraseology you should learn: “Women in the Fatherhood Movement.” This is abbreviated WIFI, which I think is catchy and current — don’t you?
They, too, got a grant from HHS to blog about how great everyone is, and the real way to stop DV is to get families re-united (with Dads in there). The word ‘mother” rarely appears in the handout, even though some of these specially-selected women of color and highly-placed (in the fatherhood movement) are indeed Mothers (at least one, I read), their lives and lifestyles have LITTLE in common with the hellish things happening, across the board to women in the court systems. and in high-profile cases many times involving very wealthy, white males — such as I blogged on in Nassau County, NY, recently. These women are Executive Directors, leaders, professionals, and one is even married to a pioneer in the fatherhood movement.
And YOUR tax dollars (or, at least a single HHS contract identified so far), like Bush paying Maggie Gallagher $20K to push his marriage movement long ago– are helping pay for the glitz. I hope I caught THIS one out the gate — the organization (nonprofit) is so new, dating to 2008, it hasn’t even got its data up on Guidestar.org yet.
http://womeninfatherhood.org/main/
In December 2005, the Annie E. Casey Foundation convened a meeting of men and women working in responsible fatherhood to assess the influence women were having in the field. After extensive consultations with experts in the field, the group found a high level of need for a collective effort of women*** to provide a unique and necessary voice for:
· Effective advocacy and support of Responsible Fatherhood in program and policy;
· Fatherhood awareness, education, legislation, & policy initiatives, which benefit from the input of mothers and other women;
· Effective programs designed to involve fathers–the perspective of mothers and their advocates is essential to their success.
This led to the formation of Women In Fatherhood—A diverse* group of women dedicated to advancing the responsible fatherhood field through public awareness and education, policy advocacy, research, and collaboration.
* there is a token white woman, or three? but look at the bios and I don’t see one family court scapegoat noncustodial mother. I don’t see one person who has identified experiencinug domestic violence, or dealing with child molestation in the family, or a broke person, or a mother whose wages are being garnished to pay her ex-abuers (for example, see “rightsformothers.com” blog, which represents that voice). There is one who identified as having experienced divorce (at what level, not shown). Are there atheists on the group? Jews? Are there feminists?
Well, then how diverse is it? The photo is refreshingly different, but photos are photos, and show faces, and smiles. Look at the backgrounds.
“collective” — they chose and assembled certain kinds of experts, and excluded others. Hence “collective.” Kind of like national Fatherhood Initiative started with “a few prominent thinkers,” and the website actually did say that, last I checked. A FEW prominent “thinkers.”
Well, what about some obscure, underground” thinkers? for a change?
** No doubt because the heavy-handed male dominance of the father’s rights groups, plus some blogger dads like Glenn Sacks who took their free (Stay-at home?) time to go after, say young adult survivors of domestic violence and fleeing to escape it, such as Jennifer Collins. Or others. They needed some articulate, poised, and not about to cause a ruckus in the movement FEMALES to front the MALE agenda, which the fatherhood movement is. In other words, they correctly realized, the image was tarnished and needed a facelift.
Annie E. Casey foundation convened. Well, two (that I noticed) of hte Boards of Directors — and that’s a well-rounded one, plenty on the Board — had connections already with Annie E. Casey, who funds lots of fatherhood stuff. I’m really puzzled why the need more. Look yourself, although I don’t have the timing of it yet
Suicide: How Father's Rights Groups Drive Men Over the Edge
Psychology tells us that if you want to get a good opinion on that Toyota Camry you've been thinking about, do NOT ask someone who has just recently purchased one. Why? Because of confirmation bias.
What does this have to do with father's rights groups? Give me a minute and let me work through this ;P
Most support groups seek to validate the victim's experience and console those who are in pain. When men seek the assistance of these father's rights groups, many of them haven't a clue what they are stepping into. The men that make up the most vocal minority of these groups feel that they've been unfairly taken advantage of by their ex-wives/ex-girlfriends and shitted on by the family court system. This isn't so much of a support group as it is a terrorist organization. Their solutions include, but are not limited to, flooding, intimidating, bullying, and threatening anyone who speaks or writes against their mistaken beliefs. They hype each other up with pissing matches on whose ex was the biggest bitch. Nothing is their own fault.
What some of the men in these father's rights group fail to reveal is that they weren't really dicked by the court system or their exes--they either failed miserably in their relationships (and somehow it wasn't apparent to them) and/or, they didn't participate (perhaps even acquiescing) in any court "battle" but rather made assumptions based off of what their other male counterparts (who have also "lost") have fed them.
These father's rights groups should come with warning labels to the men who fall prey to them. Any half-decent man may seek answers to some basic questions only to be mind-fucked into a hate campaign against his current or ex-partner. He then goes into a downward spiral beginning with trying to play games with his ex instead of confronting the situation honestly and trying to figure out peaceful solutions.
Let's review this e-mail circulating through the father's rights groups right now, notice the title:
(emphasis mine)
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Swanson
To: swanson@storm. ca
Sent: 12/26/2009 6:16:54 PM
Subject: Read this (Another Dad dead by suicide. Another child fatherless)
Fathers' and Children's Equality (FACE)
Jeff Golden
It grieves me deeply to report this:
About two weeks ago, I received a call from Chris Wise of Hammonton NJ. He had been referred to us by an attorney-friend of ours who gave him my cell phone number. He told me he and his girlfriend had an almost two month old son. Both parents are in their early 30s, they lived together in his house throughout the pregnancy, he is disabled and not working, and his mother and brother also live in his house. The girlfriend and her mother were telling him they were going to take away the baby, never let him see the baby again, and take away from him everything he has.
(notice the connection)
There's nothing unusual about threats like that. We handle them all the time. Personally, I don't like to give too much information on a first call. What I tell about fathers' rights is probably exactly the opposite of what they have always believed and what they will be told by police, lawyers, court personnel, DYFS, etc. I prefer people to come to a meeting where a whole room-full of people will reassure them that what we say is true.
(doesn't this sound like when one of your friends starts selling Amway and they "need" you to come to the meeting to find out more...and then you get there and everyone is so friendly and excited...almost cult-like???)
I asked Chris if anyone had been to court yet for anything. They had not. I explained to Chris that at their first time in court, one of the parents will leave with less parental rights than s/he came in with, but until they go to court both parents had equal rights. I asked where the baby was right then. Chris said the mother was about to return to work from maternity leave, and she had made arrangements to move in with some strange older woman she will be working with. I suggested that won't last long because this stranger won't like a crying infant interfering with her household routine. I asked why the mother didn't go to her parents' home. She couldn't. Her parents are divorced. Her mother and step-father live in a little one bedroom apartment, they both smoke, and they have dogs. She had no contact with her real father until quite recently, and he also did not have proper accommodations for a new-born.
I reminded Chris of the adage "possession is nine tenths of the law," and told him that whoever had possession of the baby on that day they first go to court will have a very good chance of keeping him. "But," said Chris, "I don't want to take the baby away from his mother." Of course not ... you WANT her to have liberal visitation. But remember, she already told you that if she gets custody she doesn't want you to ever see the child again. Are you capable of taking care of the baby and doing everything that child needs? "Yes." Who do you want to have custody?
(notice the initial resistance from Chris)
I asked Chris if he thought it would be possible for him to get possession of the baby without breaching the peace. He very confidently answered "Sure!" I asked how he could be so sure of that, and where and how would he do it? He said the mother was bringing the baby back to his house that evening, and they were all going to sleep in his house that night! Under these circumstances I couldn't make Chris wait for our next meeting; he needed help NOW!
(notice the urgency...kinda like a snake oil salesman)
I told Chris there were two things he needed to know: First we discussed the domestic violence law. I emailed him a copy of the statute, listing all the acts that are considered to be domestic violence in New Jersey. I pointed out that whoever gets a domestic violence restraining order against the other can also automatically get custody, and that "domestic violence" does not necessarily have to have anything to do with violence. I told him if he is holding the baby and won't release him to her, and she commits an act of domestic violence to get him away from you, especially with your mother and brother as witnesses or if she leaves marks on you, you can get a restraining order against her and get custody of the child.
(a lot of premeditation)
Second, what happens if there is no domestic violence, but she calls the police and says "He won't give me my baby?" When the police arrive, the first thing they will do is ask to see the custody order. When they find there is no order, both of you will have equal rights. Still, to smooth things out, the police might say to you something like "Why don't you just be a nice guy and give her the baby? You can go down to family court and straighten it all out." JUST SAY NO! Remember, possession is nine tenths of the law, and when you go into family court that first time YOU want to have possession.
Chris called me the next morning. It was a very cold day -- low 20s. The mother was getting ready to take the baby out. She wasn't going to her co-worker's house. She was going to some other friend's house where she and the baby would sleep on air-mattresses on the floor until she could get into her friend's house. She wouldn't identify the friend or where she would be. I reminded Chris to get possession of the baby without breaching the peace, and what to say if and when the police arrived.
Chris DID get possession without breaching the peace. Mom was lying on the bed with the baby. Chris said "Let me just kiss him goodbye," took the baby from her and would not let go of him. Mom called the police. Chris called the police too. "The mother wants to take the baby out somewhere in the cold where they're going to sleep on an air mattress." Two police officers arrived, one male and one female. The male officer spoke with the mother in the bedroom and the female officer spoke with Chris. They asked about a custody order and found there was none. The officers told both parents they could not force the father to give the baby to the mother! The mother said she would leave, but she wanted to come back for her personal property.The female officer recommended to Chris that he not allow the mother back into his house. Instead he should pack up all of her stuff and leave it on the porch for her.
Chris called me later to let me know what happened. GREAT, I said, now YOU have possession of the baby! "No," he said, "something else happened too. Before she left, while the police were here, she asked to have a private conversation with me. We went into the bedroom together. She said she wanted to take the baby to her father's house,and I said OK. She and the baby are gone." Well, I said, we'll either have to get possession again, or it will just be a little more difficult for you on that first day in family court.
We had a FACE meeting on Monday evening. I sent Chris a meeting schedule, asked him to come to this meeting, and gave him directions. I called him again Monday to remind him, and left a phone message. He didn't show up.
That's it, I thought. I scared another one away. I've said it before, but now I'm really NEVER again going to give a lot of advice on the phone. Regardless of urgency, they've got to come to a meeting first.
Chris's mother left a message on my phone this morning. "Mr. Golden, I don't quite know how to say this, but I didn't want to leave you hanging. Christopher took his own life." I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I had to replay it a few times, then I called her.
On Monday, Chris left the house to go to a doctor appointment and then go to family court. He called his mother later and told her he was in Atlantic City, about 15 minutes away from both. That was the last she heard from him. On Wednesday she got a call from the Port Authority police. Chris' truck was found at the Ben Franklin bridge. They had video of him entering a parking area at the base of the bridge. They don't know how long he was there. He left his wallet, cell phone and keys in his truck, along with a note, and then he apparently went up on the bridge. They also had video of someone going over the side of the bridge.
Why did this happen? Chris' custody situation wasn't too bad ... yet. He had let defeat get snatched from the jaws of victory in his first skirmish, but, I told him, that would just make things a little more difficult. I never met him face-to-face, but Chris was a very soft-spoken guy. At times during our conversations, I thought he was hyperventilating. His child's mother was herself an adult child of Parental Alienation Syndrome who was not allowed a parent-child relationship with her own father, and was now being coached by her PAS-inflicting mother.Maybe he just didn't want to face the conflict that he knew was coming. Now fatherlessness will go one generation further in that family.
(how could he diagnose the child's mother and grandmother? he must be friends with Warshak, Rand, or Bone)
There is one thing I regret never having had an opportunity to discuss with Chris. He wasn't far enough into the process yet to understand it. As one FACE member was known to say: "If things ever get so bad that you consider taking your own life, don't let it be a total waste. Take a judge or a lawyer with you."
Jeff Golden
Fathers' and Children's Equality (FACE)
Cinnaminson NJ
I cannot find any record of this suicide on the www. The more that I think about it, doesn't it sound like one of those serious, emotionally compelling e-mail forwards you get from your associates? Well, I happen to do my part and look up those forwards and I have found that 90% of them are on Snopes.com as untrue. Whether or not this is true isn't even important.
What is important is how the father's righters try to shift the blame for this. Chris committed suicide. If it were to be anyone else's fault (other than his own), it would lie with the person who gave him all this "advice." In fact, if I were the mother of Chris, I would sue the hell out of Jeff Golden. Chris didn't know how his situation would turn out, and neither did Jeff Golden. Chris could have done well by using common sense and talking to, or appealing to his wife; but instead, Jeff Golden wanted him to engage in a powerplay with a war mentality.
Check out this further commentary on the e-mail:
(emphasis mine)
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Shatteredmen
To: Shatteredmen@yahoogroups.com; MensIssuesOnline@yahoogroups.com; female-male@yahoogroups.com; Fathers_are_Parents_too@yahoogroups.com; abusedguys@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 27 December, 2009 5:38:25 PM
Subject: [Shatteredmen] FW: Read this (Another Dad dead by suicide. Another child fatherless)
I received this in an e-mail today. I do have to say that I totally disagree with the last statement... "If things ever get so bad that you consider taking your own life, don't let it be a total waste. Take a judge or a lawyer with you." It contend it would be far better to become....A Formidable Enemy
http://shatterdmen. com/Enemy. htm
I also believe that many of the "murder/suicides" we see may often be a result of situations like this but instead of taking a lawyer or judge with them, they take the one that they believe caused the problem.
This is all a waste...a waste of precious human lives due to a radical agenda that is well hell bent on destroying families.
http://shatterdmen. com/Bitter. htm
When our society finally (if ever) realizes that children need BOTH parents, maybe then we will not have to see reports such as this. Meanwhile according to most of society, children are "her children" until it comes time to get the support check. When the right of either parent to have an active and equal part in their children's lives is as important as that child support check, then and only then will we see an improvement not only in a major reduction of these suicides, but we will see a major reduction in all the results of fatherless or motherless homes
http://shatterdmen. com/Fathers% 20who%20needs% 20them.htm
ken</KEN4THELAMB@YAHOO.COM>
</KEN4THELAMB@YAHOO.COM>Blame it on everything, minus the ones doing the killing. Chris was disabled and stressed (unemployed, living with several people in the household) and on top of that suicidal...a very difficult combination for parenting. But somehow, father's righters seem to think that the answer to all of fathers' problems, is 50/50 child custody. Part of the Australian father's rights groups platform is the supposed correlation between men "suiciding" and those who are divorcing and have "lost custody."
It just so happens that many of the murder-suicides that continue to happen, involve families with joint custody. So, how can joint custody be the solution? Furthermore, do we want our children around suicidal people? I don't think so.
If Chris is real I sympathize with his loved ones. Sometimes I wonder if it would be best if men solicited the advice of a good woman, instead of selling their souls to the devil. Chris was driven over the edge by a father's rights group member who gave him an unfair, limited vantage point. I wonder how many other men they have killed.
I am always so excited when Barbara Kay has an article published. She is so truthful and factual in her support of father's rights. Let's take a look:
We have British Columbia's first review of family law in B.C. since the Family Relations Act came into force more than thirty years ago. Their July "White Paper on Family Relations Act Reform" (accepting submissions until Oct. 8) contains progressive draft legislation and policy proposals: It recommends stepping away from courts and the adversarial model in order to "adopt a conflict prevention approach to family law disputes" and urges making "children's best interests the only consideration in parenting disputes."Damn this is really groundbreaking. I am totally impressed that it took 30 years to come forward with this information. I mean, who knew that children's best interests should be so exclusively focused on?
Next up is the Green Party's unequivocal adoption of a policy of equal parenting at their August convention. By my reckoning that means every single federal party is on board with the idea that both parents have the right to maintain a strong, loving bond with their children, established through credible sociological research as necessitating 40% of the time with children beyond infancy.
