Family Court Mafia: AMPP Mothers Are Coming For You!
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
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Rikki Dombrowski: Don’t Give Up – Love, Hope and Empowerment—The Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)
Your Mother Claudine Dombrowski Loves you and she is here for you when you can finally break free. She has not given up, she will not shut up and she will not go away!
Granny died and her grand-daughter was not allowed to attend her funeral.
This tribute video was made– for three generations lost—destroyed by the Family Courts.
Granny, Mom and Rikki three hearts united across the universe and above and beyond the Shawnee County Courthouse MAFIA.
Rikki Dombrowski– Run Like The Wind
http://rightsformothers.com/2010/08/2…
"DANGEROUS" CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI ATTENDS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RALLY: DOES SHE FACE JUDICIAL RETALIATION AGAIN?
Hope Love Power and enlightenment
Vodpod videos no longer available.
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.
- Claudine Dombrowski: Will She and Her Daughter Finally Get Justice?
- Rikki Dombrowski: Run Like The Wind
- Worldwide Outrage Over Custody Tragedy: Rikki Dombrowski Needs Her Mother
- Rikki Dombrowski: The President of the USA Now Knows WTF is Going On
- Kansas Clown Jason P. Hoffman Corrupts Justice Again: Claudine Dombrowski is Screwed Over As Usual in Court
- Internet Trolls: Don and Jason P. Hoffman
- PHOENIX « MamaLiberty’s Weblog
- WHAT IS SHAWNEE COUNTY HIDING?
- FASTER THAN A FLYING MONKEY!
- WHERE IN THE WORLD IS CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI?
- Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) protective mother CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
Did Maui Judge Tanaka Give Baby to Abuser Contrary to Law?
Courtesy AngelGroup
A domestic violence survivor, Maria Styke-Marquez, appears alone in Judge Keith Tanaka’s Second Circuit courtroom where, according to documents filed by the perpetrator’s attorney, Mimi DeJardins, the judge will grant her abuser’s request to permanently relocate to Minnesota with the former couple’s 2 1/2 year-old daughter, removing her not only from the island of her birth, but from her mother.
The child’s father, Bruce Anthony Sotelo Jr., was convicted and held in jail for beating a pregnant Ms. Styke-Marquez so severely in 2007 that the 4 month-old baby she was carrying may have died as a result of the attack that left Ms. Styke-Marquez with a concussion, broken ribs, cracked teeth, a split lip and contusions.
Hawaii State Statute 571-46(9) perpetrators of family violence are not candidates for custody of their children, yet in September, Judge Tanaka ruled to give full physical/legal custody of the little girl to the man who put her mother in the hospital. Is that contrary to statute? Not if facts support the ruling.
Financially devastated from the litigation her abuser has put her through, Ms. Styke-Marquez, unable to afford an attorney, walked into the courtroom alone to face her abuser (who as recently as November 19th has a criminal contempt charge lodged against him), his attorney (who is also a Per Diem judge) and a judge who has already ruled against he. "My last and only hope to save my daughter is to call public attention to what’s going on and I’m not the only one this is happening to – I know so many other domestic violence survivors who have lost custody of their
children to their perpetrators as well which only tells me that this is no small problem. I’m a protective parent, not a perfect one, and never tried to keep our daughter from her father so I can’t understand how this is being allowed to happen" says Ms. Styke-Marquez.
She reportedly collapsed in courtroom, and was transported to hospital and the hearing continued without her.
Final outcome of the hearing is at this time, unknown. But words from the Judiciary allege factual mistakes and erroneous statements of law by Angels.
-1#4 mia kai 2011-01-23 21:13
Tanaka allowed him to move so he can live with his parents rent free and work as a food server for 7.25 an hour when as a nurse i can make 35.00 an hour, how does that make sense? and for him to rip her away from her mother who nursed on MY breasts, and took care of her better than they ever can????? My question to Tanaka is, What happened to you? What happened in your marriage or your high school love, some woman must have hurt you extremely bad and it must have been with children or you just know the way to get back at them or hurt the woman who has hurt you is through their children, because you men all know that our hearts mend after leaving you, actually our life’s our better without you men in em…..so you men see this and know the only way to truly beat us once again is through our children! I’m considering having an investigation done on Tanaka to see about the women in his past and to see who he was abusive to? Tanaka is to evil you can see it in his eyes, beetle eyes- hatred
-1#3 mia kai 2011-01-23 21:05
I have filed asking for a "New trial and or alternative reconsideration on his decision, but we all know he will deny this, I had filed an emergency stay on 12-30-10 and he put it on the calender for 1-26-11 at 1:30pm but still allowed for my angel to be moved to the mainland without even saying goodbye to her primary attachment "me- her mother"… How can "paradise" be so corrupted? Bruce may have beat me and terminated my pregnancy, and I dealt with that by leaving him and living my life for my then 5 month pregnancy (I was 5 months prego when he started to push me again, so I kicked him out for good) and then I had my precious angel Malie alone in the hospital and raised her by myself working as a nurse and then he wants to take take her from me because he seen I picked up and was living well without him and plus they upped his CS from $50.00 a month to $780.00 a month, this is when his mother stepped in and said her son will not give me that money and they hired Desjardins
-1#2 mia kai 2011-01-23 20:50
YES this BEAST of a Judge did give my precious angel to my abuser. When I had filed for a pre-trial before my trial to ask for a "custody evaluator and a GAL appointed, he denied it, and during the trial in the beginning I asked for him to reconsider because this would be a "traumatic life changing experience to be separated across the ocean from her mother" and he the BEAST stated "well you just declared yourself to be indigent so how are you going to pay for one?" I said, I am a mother,a protective mother at that and this is my precious little babies life we are talking about, I’m positive given the opportunity to be evaluated I will find the monies to pay for one". He said NO!!!!!!! and allowed my abuser and to the abuser’s own flesh and blood to move to the mainland… Tanaka, on the bench stated "Ms. Styke I know you are a fit and loving parent" but b cuz i had to call the police 14 times for custodial interference I was at fault and he said I was putting my daughter in harms way.
-4#1 valeriemaui 2010-12-04 17:19
Tanaka needs a seat not one on the bench! aeeed
Jennifer and Holly Collins Update: We found the visitation supervisor – Jim Seas!
We found the visitation supervisor – Jim Seas!
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
State Audit Questions Qualifications of Family Court Personnel
State Audit Questions Qualifications of Family Court Personnel
By Peter Jamison, Thu., Jan. 20 2011 @ 5:13PM
The California State Auditor released a report today questioning the qualifications of experts who make child-custody recommendations for the family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties.
The report, which you can read in full here, found that neither county’s family court system could produce adequate documentation of the competence of the psychologists and social workers who make critical recommendations to judges in disputed custody cases.
The audit noted, among other findings, that seven of the Sacramento family court’s 20 mediators "appeared not to possess the minimum qualifications and training requirements" for their jobs and and that the Marin family court "did not verify that the mediators had met the initial training requirements" when hiring them.
The audit also found that neither court was keeping track of complaints from families.
"We finally have credible government data to back up the many years of horrific complaints we’ve received from parents and children whose lives are being destroyed by a family court system run amok," Kathleen Russell of the Marin County-based Center for Judicial Excellence, which has pushed for reform of family courts across the country, said in response to the audit.
Policy matters regarding the state’s family courts are emotionally charged, given the nature of the cases and and their life-altering outcomes. Activists have criticized the system for poor custody decisions and a lack of transparency.
Follow us on Twitter at @SFWeekly and @TheSnitchSF
Tags:
California State Auditor, family court, Marin County, Sacramento
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? LEARN TO BLOG!
In keeping with the spirit the BADASS Bloggers (Bloggers AgainstDeprivation, Alienation Science, and junk Syndromes) had during their presentations at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, I want to help any mom learn how to blog if she has something to say. As Randi Jamessaid in her presentation, you can blog about what is going on…take any asshole in the news (i.e. Alec Baldwin, Mel Gibson, etc.) and compare to your case or another protective mom. Write to your children. You can blog anywhere, anytime. You don’t have to say anything that would endanger your case…leave it very generic, don’t use last names or images of your children. At the very least, it would be a record for them someday of what you have been going through, and how much you love them. Best case is that they could read it and have a real connection with you. I have seen children lifted by knowing their mother cares for them and loves them very much, and mostly that they know mom is still out there.
So let’s get to work and help you start a blog! Start by getting yourself a GMail e-mail account. Go to their website and set up an e-mail account. By having a GMail account, this will make setting up a blog a lot easier. We are going to start with BLOGGER, which is a Google partner. I prefer BLOGGER because once you learn how to blog, it will be easier to do different things with it.
Next, send your e-mail address to rightsformothers@gmail.com, with “BLOG Conference” in the subject line (doesn’t have to be the new GMail address). Send only your e-mail address please. You will receive an invitation back giving you the telephone number to dial in on, and the pin number. You will also receive some preliminary “homework” to do also, involving selecting a template for your blog. This is the code giving the blog your own special look.
I will hold two conference calls. The first will be Saturday, January 22nd at 2:00 p.m. EST. The second will be Thursday, January 27th, at 9:00 p.m. EST. We will work together at our computers to set up your blog. There are 96 callers allowed on a call, so when the spots fill up, any other requests will returned with an invitation to register at a later date. If there are additional requests, I will schedule further conference calls.
The conference calls will be recorded and will be available to those who registered for the time slot to review anything that needs to be listened to again.
This will be my first time holding a conference call, so hopefully it will go off well. I think this is great therapy for moms out there that are hurting…I know it has been for me and other bloggers that I am friends with. I hope you will be able to make it, and be able to grab your part of the internet for yourself!
Media Distortions by Fathers’ Rights Advocates
Media Distortions by Fathers’ Rights Advocates parallel parenting shared custody parenting plans
(originally published at http://nnflp.blogspot.com/)</FONT-SIZE=-1>
Glenn Sacks has complained about recent responses to his and other fathers’ rights advocates’ comments about joint custody. In one of his columns of August 1, 2006, ” Feminist Columnist Slams Glenn, ACFC Over North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative,” he attacks Trish Wilson’s recent commentary with distortions and misrepresentations.
One has to wonder: if the facts have to be distorted to make your case, isn’t that a clue that perhaps your conclusions are incorrect?
The joint custody advocates’ primary claim is that men are not being treated equally as parents by the courts. But let’s look at what that word “equality” actually means in the law, and not the propaganda and rhetoric.
“Equality before the law” means that persons who are in similar positions will be treated similarly. Thus, for example, if a father is a child’s primary caregiver, that fact will be given the same weight as it would if a mother is a child’s primary caregiver. And, for example, if a husband is a dependent homemaker spouse, he would be as entitled to alimony as a wife in the same position.
However, a contrived equality of outcome when persons come before the law in dissimilar positions would be tantamount to disparate treatment. It would require taking persons who were not equally situated and treating them differently in order to effect “equality.” That’s not what “equality under the law” means; in fact it’s the anti-thesis of it.
Leaning on his erroneous premise of “equality,” Sacks criticizes Wilson’s point that “ninety percent of parents settle without the need for court intervention in deciding what form of custody is best for them and for their children.” Sacks claims that her “statement is misleading because it implies genuine agreement between parents.” Sacks writes that “such accords aren’t made in a vacuum — they’re bargained in the shadow of the law. What happens in most cases is that fathers must agree to having a very limited role in their children’s lives because they don’t have the tens of thousands of dollars (or more) necessary to fight for shared parenting in family law proceedings which are heavily stacked against them.”
But Sacks’s position is specious. Not only are the fathers coming into court without a marital track record of having been equal carers of the children and household, but when it comes to litigation, it is the men who generally have greater access to funds to litigate, more time to litigate, and more sophistication and ability to network, hire lawyers, and make a case. And be this as it may, the reality is that most men simply don’t want joint custody. They don’t want it for the very same reasons they were not doing half or more of the housework and childcare when they were married. Their careers and habits don’t suddenly alter merely because they are getting divorced. And that’s why the vast majority leave “custody” where it de facto was during the marriage, changing as little as possible in their and their children’s lives.
Sacks also criticizes Wilson’s statement that “when dads make an issue of custody, they get some form of it more than half the time.” This was the finding of every single state gender bias commission who looked at the issue (there were 40 of them.) Sacks pretends that Wilson’s statement is based on one small study of 60 women, and purports to debunk that as nonrepresentative. But it wasn’t. The reality simply is not debatable. Sacks also claims that the Massachusetts gender bias task force findings by lawyers and scholars have been discredited, based on speculations made by libertarian men’s rights journalist Cathy Young in an opinion piece. But she did not get her facts right or conclusions correct then. Repeatedly citing to secondary opinion sources that were wrong to begin with is not tantamount to documentation. It doesn’t matter how many times a claim is made, such distortions just do not gain veracity with repetition, any more than the children’s game of telephone.
The reasons mothers more often end up with custody after divorce encompass all of the same reasons that mothers end up being the majority of child caregivers and homemakers while marriages are intact. To the extent the factors moving this include bias, it’s bias that’s occurred long before anything that ever happens in connection with a divorce. In fact, that more men post divorce end up with far more custody time than they ever spent caregiving, homemaking, or with their children during their marriages attests to a divorce court bias that far and away favors fathers.
BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN:
The following factors are the only ones that consistently have been related to positive child adjustment post divorce and are consistent with the findings of all relevant research:
1. Positive “custodial parent” adjustment (i.e. maternal adjustment — most “custodial parents” in the research were not androgynous parent units but mothers), which is associated with effective parenting;
2. A positive relationship between the “custodial parent” (i.e. mother) and child; and
3. A low level of conflict between parents (more likely when post-divorce parenting arrangements mirror the patterns set in the family prior to the divorce.)
See Marion Gindes, The Psychological Effects of Relocation for Children of Divorce, AAML Journal, Vol. 15 (1998), pp. 144-145
The following factors are the only ones that consistently have been related to positive effects of father involvement, and are consistent with the findings of all relevant research:
1. How the child perceives the father to feel about the child (which is not related to how much time he spends with the child, and not necessarily related to how the child feels about him, a factor that is comparatively insignificant vis a vis the child’s well-being); and
2. A father who emotionally cares for, financially supports, respects, is involved with, takes some of the work load off of, and generally makes life easier, happier and less stressful for… his children’s mother.
Suicide: How Father’s Rights Groups Drive Men Over the Edge
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.
Fathers have Rights, Children’s Rights, Fathers kill custody battle fathers abuse and kill families, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) Stuart Showalter Neo Nazi-Fathers Rights Advocate-Abusers Rights Advocate Glenn Sacks-Abusers Advocate,Right Wing Terrorist- Fathers Rights. Warren Farrell, Mike J Murphy, Jeremy Swanson, Mark K Godbey, Donald Tenn, Stan Rains, Richard A. Gardner coined the term, Parental Alienation Syndrome
Understand Parental Alienation. Read Between the Lines. There Are HUGE Spaces…
Understand Parental Alienation. Read Between the Lines. There Are HUGE Spaces…
Let me borrow from a post I just did on this matter:
A father was convicted of child pornography offenses a couple of years ago.
His wife left him.
Subsequently, the father has been trying to get access to his children.
The court previously found that he had behaved inappropriately in bed with one of the children.
But JUDGE ROBERT BENJAMIN ordered that the two children, who are girls aged 8 and 10, spend weekends with their father.
Eldest daughter is afraid.
To facilitate the father’s rights, JUDGE ROBERT BENJAMIN orders that:
1. the girls sleep in the same bedroom (to "support" each other), and
2. the father place a lock on the bedroom door for the girls
3. the father have an adult friend stay overnight when the girls are present
Additionally, some UNNAMED Family Court counselor has stated that the girls don’t pose a risk to the father, at their current ages, when they are awake, clothed, and together.
Wait a minute!"Awake, clothed and together"? Isn’t that the spiel they give us women-folk for rape-prevention measures? Never mind that this notion of security is false in stranger rapes and so should be presumed to be false for non-stranger rape as well.
Guess who supports JUDGE ROBERT BENJAMIN’s order?
John Abbott from the fathers’ rights group Blackshirts says the court has taken all precautions to protect the children.
"What we have here is a situation where there’s no real allegation that the court has found against the father molesting his own children," he said.
"And we have to keep in mind that alienating children from parents is a very serious matter."
Alienation. Parental alienation. We keep telling you. We keep trying to show you what this is about. Parental alienation is a claim made by fathers, to benefit fathers, that masks child sexual abuse–just as false memory syndrome has done to adult survivors.
This case doesn’t have a gawddamn thing to do with alienation. The father is convicted of child pornography. The daughter doesn’t want to visit overnight. The court is overruling the child’s desires and best interest in the name of the father.
In the words of Dr. Richard Gardner, father of parental alienation syndrome:
“There is no question that abuse cases are ‘turn ons’ for the wide variety of individuals involved in them, the accuser(s), the prosecutors, the lawyers, the judges, the evaluators, the psychologists, the reporters, the readers of the newspapers, and everyone else involved— except for the falsely accused and the innocent victim . . . Everyone is getting their ‘jollies,’ except the two central figures, who are not only getting little if any sexual pleasure out of the whole thing but whose lives are being destroyed in the process.”
RICHARD A. GARDNER, SEX ABUSE HYSTERIA: THE SALEM WITCH TRIALS REVISITED 31 (1991)
“Judges are not free from the psychopathological mechanisms. . . They too may have repressed pedophilic impulses over which there is suppression, repression, and guilt. Inquiry into the details of the case provides voyeuristic and vicarious gratifications. . . Incarcerating the alleged perpetrator may serve psychologically to obliterate the judge’s own projected pedophilic impulses.”
RICHARD A. GARDNER, SEX ABUSE HYSTERIA: THE SALEM WITCH TRIALS REVISITED 107 (1991).
Special care should be taken not alienate the child from the molesting parent. The removal of a pedophilic parent from the home "should only be seriously considered after all attempts at treatment of the pedophilia and rapprochement with the family have proven futile."
Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 537)
The child should be told that there is no such thing as a perfect parent. "The sexual exploitation has to be put on the negative list, but positives as well must be appreciated"
Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 572)
Older children may be helped to appreciate that sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. The child might be helped to appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who said, "Nothing’s either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 59)
"In such discussions the child has to be helped to appreciate that we have in our society an exaggeratedly punitive and moralistic attitude about adult-child sexual encounters"
Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 572).
"He must learn to control himself if he is to protect himself from the Draconian punishments meted out to those in our society who act out their pedophilic impulses."
Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill , NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (pp. 585-592)
And there is another case (like I said before, one of many): Yet ANOTHER family court outrage: 6-year-old girl ordered to live with dad despite child porn fears (Sydney, Australia)
God bless the children.
Fathers have Rights, Children’s Rights, Fathers kill custody battle fathers abuse and kill families, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) Stuart Showalter Neo Nazi-Fathers Rights Advocate-Abusers Rights Advocate Glenn Sacks-Abusers Advocate,Right Wing Terrorist- Fathers Rights. Warren Farrell, Mike J Murphy, Jeremy Swanson, Mark K Godbey, Donald Tenn, Stan Rains, Richard A. Gardner coined the term, Parental Alienation Syndrome
Courts are being paid by Father’s rights groups, by minors counsels and others favorite appointees’ to give custody to the abuser.
Glenn Sacks Gets Served by Domestic Violence Survivor
UPDATED!! 2/15
Jennifer Collins has done a great write-up on the "father’s right’s" coward, Glenn Sacks, that has continuously vilified her mother, Holly Collins. Holly Collins fled to the Netherlands with her children after the Hennepin County Minnesota family court system awarded child custody to a man who abused them all. Glenn Sacks accuses the mom of fabricating the abuse and continues his vengeful attack on Holly’s grown daughter, Jennifer. He insists that Jennifer is suffering from parental alienation syndrome (although "psych" "diagnoses" cannot be made without a "professional" interviewing and evaluating all parties) and lying about the past abuse.
Read Jennifer’s two-part piece:
and
College Student Jennifer Collins Exposes the Real Glen Sacks
If you are unfamiliar the the entire ordeal, it would help if you read some of the other posts she has done in which she describes how Glenn Sacks has assaulted her family.
I can only admire the courage Jennifer has continue to exhibit in battling this coward and his minions. Many have told her to stop, because he will cause her more harm, but I can understand that when someone just lies so damn much, you can’t help but to defend yourself. Glenn Sacks is a bully and most people don’t stand up to bullies. But this isn’t grade school.
After reading both of Jennifer’s pieces, the conclusion I have come to is that Glenn Sacks has very poor self-esteem and resulting extreme projection issues. I mean, it’s really, really bad. So bad that I wonder if secretly he believes all these bad things about men…you know, deep, deep, down inside. He must know, deep, deep down inside, that all of the men that flock to him can’t possibly all be falsely accused, or "robbed" of their parental relationships.
For now, I’m going to jump on the train of pscyhoanalyzation…shit, everyone else does it!
Glenn Sacks is indeed a bully. From WebMD:
(emphasis mine)
Children who bully:
* May witness physical and verbal violence or aggression at home. They have a positive view of this behavior, and they act aggressively toward other people, including adults.
* May hit or push other children.
* Are often physically strong.
* May or may not be popular with other children around their same age.
* Have trouble following rules.
* Show little concern for the feelings of others.
Many bullies think highly of themselves. They like being looked up to. And they often expect everyone to behave according to their wishes. Children who bully are often not taught to think about how their actions make other people feel.
-
is a convincing, practised liar and when called to account, will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at that moment
-
has a Jekyll and Hyde nature – is vile, vicious and vindictive in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses; no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive nature – only the current target of the serial bully’s aggression sees both sides; whilst the Jekyll side is described as "charming" and convincing enough to deceive personnel, management and a tribunal, the Hyde side is frequently described as "evil";Hyde is the real person, Jekyll is an act
-
excels at deception and should never be underestimated in their capacity to deceive
-
uses excessive charm and is always plausible and convincing when peers, superiors or others are present (charm can be used to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy)
-
is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine words and lots of form – but there’s no substance
-
is possessed of an exceptional verbal facility and will outmanoeuvre most people in verbal interaction, especially at times of conflict
-
relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince others that he or she is both a "normal" human being and a tough dynamic manager, as in extolling the virtues of the latest management fads and pouring forth the accompanying jargon
-
is unusually skilled in being able to anticipate what people want to hear and then saying it plausibly
-
is emotionally retarded with an arrested level of emotional development; whilst language and intellect may appear to be that of an adult, the bully displays the emotional age of a five-year-old
-
is emotionally immature and emotionally untrustworthy
-
exhibits unusual and inappropriate attitudes to sexual matters, sexual behaviour and bodily functions; underneath the charming exterior there are often suspicions or hints of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, perhaps also sexual dysfunction, sexual inadequacy, sexual perversion, sexual violence or sexual abuse
-
is self-opinionated and displays arrogance, audacity, a superior sense of entitlement and sense of invulnerability and untouchability
-
is a control freak and has a compulsive need to control everyone and everything you say, do, think and believe; for example, will launch an immediate personal attack attempting to restrict what you are permitted to say if you start talking knowledgeably about psychopathic personality or antisocial personality disorder in their presence – but aggressively maintains the right to talk (usually unknowledgeably) about anything they choose; serial bullies despise anyone who enables others to see through their deception and their mask of sanity
-
undermines and destroys anyone who the bully perceives to be an adversary, a potential threat, or who can see through the bully’s mask
-
may pursue a vindictive vendetta against anyone who dares to held them accountable, perhaps using others’ resources and contemptuous of the damage caused to other people and organisations in pursuance of the vendetta
-
is also quick to belittle, undermine, denigrate and discredit anyone who calls, attempts to call, or might call the bully to account
I utilize the child bully article because Glenn Sacks’ behavior is really childlike. I can imagine him sitting at home searching for misandry with a magnifying glass, with his arms crossed in front of his chest and his bottom lip poked out. My thought is that his bullying behavior prevents him from other destructive behaviors like drug abuse or alcoholism.
But here’s a piece on adult bullying. Wait, there are waaaay too many characteristics! Let’s just pick out the best:
(emphasis mine)
Was that enough?
I have separated the last few because I think they so perfectly fit in with Glenn Sacks and his role in the fathers’ and men’s right movement and the movement at large.
poisons peoples’ minds by manipulating their perceptions
is arrogant, haughty, high-handed, and a know-all
often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic attention-seeking need to portray themselves as a wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate person, in contrast to their behaviour and treatment of others; the bully sees nothing wrong with their behavior and chooses to remain oblivious to the discrepancy between how they like to be seen and how they are seen by others
is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication
Now I’m going to borrow some of the Glenn Sacks quotes that Jennifer displayed:
“I told my dad that I thought he lived a pathetic existence and I did not understand why he had much will to live at all.”
Isn’t it true that some people just love to work and in fact, are workaholics? Or maybe they just love money? Or maybe they love being providers? And if given the choice between working outside the home and perhaps being a homemaker, they would still choose the former? Why not respect that instead of the suicidal implications? People do not have the same desires or values.
“The only credit left for men is the military, and even this has been partially hijacked. We now speak of ‘the men and women who fought and died in our wars’ as if even one percent of our military casualties were ever suffered by women, or as if women were ever conscripted the way men were.”
Hijacked? Rather dramatic. No one said the deaths were equal but it would be correct to acknowledge that men and women die in the military…and they don’t always have to be in combat. Is that so painful to admit?
“While it’s easy and popular to blame men, many of the wounds women bear from failed relationships and loneliness are self-inflicted.”
There is enough blame to share. But a harsh reality that Sacks, and others like him, don’t acknowledge (on purpose) is that a lot of this can be attributed not to fatherlessness, but to childhood sexual abuse or family violence in general (ask some real psychologists/psychiatrists who are fortunate to know their patients’ entire histories). If abuse is a child’s first intimate experience, it would stand to reason that there may be complications with adult intimate relationships.
"Fathers need to start parenting the way they want to parent. When they do there’s no guarantee that the mother will go along with it, and that can cause problems, but men need to stop waiting for their wives’ approval."
Hold up. This is a major red flag. I thought parenting in a relationship was a joint venture? If you want to have it your way, you should remain single and try adoption.
“Most marital problems and marriage counseling sessions revolve around why the wife is unhappy with her husband,”
There is a good damn reason for this: It is typically the women who profess to be unhappy, and the men who still don’t have a clue for some reason. Also, women are the ones who initiatecounseling with the desire to improve the marital relationship. It is a good sign because she cares enough (or maybe bad sign because she still wants to hold on).
“People in general seem convinced that stay-at-home moms get a raw deal and work much harder than breadwinner dads… Having been a stay-at-home dad with two kids during the years when they need the most intensive care, I can tell you that this is nonsense.”
This one was hilarious. First, no two stay at home parents do the exact same thing in a day, parent the same, have the same responsibilities, etc…so it is completely unfair to make this generalization. There are some stay at homes whose kids are gone for the school day, and then have extra-curricular activities…perhaps the kids are independent and there is no need for parental help with school work. Too many variations. And sometimes it really isn’t about the kids, wholly, but the totality of what is to be accomplished, or expected to accomplished, for the entire family.
"I can’t eliminate … rap music that trashes women. So I choose the battles I can win, and go from there."
The old misogynistic rap music argument used by White men…except they somehow fail to realize how it is evidence of misogyny, in general, that is endemic in our society. Black men don’t trash Black women in a vacuum. Read some bell hooks. But the father’s rights movement makes sure to target Black men into their hate camp without addressing Black issues at large. Works out quite nicely, doesn’t it? (see Father’s Rights Co-opting of Issues that Affect Families of Color)
“Success in school is tightly correlated with the ability to sit still, be quiet, and complete work which is presented in a dull, assembly-line fashion… the methods and structure they employ are not suited to our sons’ needs.”
It doesn’t fit many children’s needs…boys and girls. However, seems that with all the complaining Sacks does, he’d just homeschool his son, especially since being a stay at home is so simple.
“Many of our boys will have spent much of the day being scolded and punished, often for doing nothing more than being boys… each of these mistreated little boys…Everyone always says girls in school suffer; they have low self-esteem; teachers make them feel second best, blah blah blah… But it’s obvious that, in general, girls are doing better in school, and boys are falling behind."
Consider for a moment that boys may be suffering in our public school system because of the rigid gender roles that society, and their fathers parents, confine them to. Boys may want to be teachers, daycare providers, seamstresses, etc, but maybe they are limited by what peoplethink they should be. Feminism has opened up the realm for women to not only dream of being, but to be. Maybe that’s why girls are excelling. But the folks in the fatherhood camps are always try to throw men back with the reclaiming of masculinity and other bullshit (note the number of times they talk about "emasculation"). The next part is a nice display:
"we’ve made a lot of fathers into wimps–not only have many fathers been driven out of their kids lives by the family courts, not only do we have many women deciding to have kids on their own, but the fathers who are in the home have become a lot weaker because we’ve made the idea of a strong father into a bad thing."
Wimps? And is this true, or have we made putting up with an abusive, drunk, cheating, assholish father a bad thing?
Thank you Jennifer for doing the research and continuing to be strong. You are a survivor.
I’d like to end with a clip to lighten things up a bit:
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Thought I was done. I want to include some lucid thoughts from an online divorce forum:
(emphasis mine)
That statement is the only REAL thing that exhists in Family Law Court. Don’t contact Glenn S.u.c.k.s., excuse me, Sacks, for he and his group Fathers and Families are the REAL reason the Family Law Courts are out of control.
This child was hurt because the system failed, not because the "mother" was diabolical. Glenn and his rabbid pack of dogs have been funding court corruption and there is plenty of proof. While they think they are getting the upper hand in Courtrooms all over the country, the only thing that is progressing is the just how much money the Judges, and all the corrupt players they appoint are now getting.
You are supporting the corruption. Shame on you. This isn’t happening because of women’s groups. This is happening because of greed. Glenn S u c k s is not an expert, although, he is making money hand over fist, leading disturbed men astray, speaking and changing laws that were designed to protect children from abuse. He himself decided that NO child needs to be protected from abuse, be it abuse of a mother, or a father. He supports "alienation" theorys, which means that no child will be protected. Open the door and they all come flooding in, with excuse after excuse to drag court cases out for years, while the children are emotionally raped, and the parents are financially raped. Today the hot button is alienation, and tomorrow it will be something else. Stop supporting people that make excuses, solely for profit, which Glenn and all the other’s have done.
And another thing for Glenn to realize, by the age of three or four, children have either bonded or not to the parent. A court order isnt going to make them love you, respect you, or even want to be around you. It’s the ego’s of these parents that get in the way, of what the child needs.
I was a long time supporter of Glenn, but once I found out about the funding, the corruption, and his own selfish goals, it became clear to me, he is just one more person, looking to profit.
Research Justice4Fathers, the leader of that group (the origional group) abandon ship, once he saw just how far some men will go to "Win". This isn’t a game. Children’s lives are at stake. You have no idea what is really going on behind the scene, and to blame women for this, you are dead wrong.
There are far more "groups" of men, who program them into thinking that if they use the system, they will get custody. They have stopped thinking about the children and their best interests. You want to read an article…
Click to access Ten_Reasons_Not_to_Fight_Custody_Battles.pdf
Father’s rights, Mother’s rights…Enough is enough. You all are forgetting that children have rights. If you don’t treat your children right, they will hate you. If you force them to be with you for the small amount of time until they become adults, and they just don’t want to be with you, they will hate you for the rest of their lives. This is not a game. The mother for this child, may have played the game, but she lost now didn’t she? Father’s will loose too, because they have made and funded a new war.
STOP THE FUNDING, AND JUST START BEING A GOOD PARENT.
and:
I agree. There is no protection for abused children in Family Law Courts. The origional post from the child unfortunately happened many years ago. Now things are different, and if you are a protective parent, like the poster #2, you will never be able to protect a child from abuse. Father or Mother, the courts will give custody to the parent who is abusing the child, only to profit. If the courts would listen to the children, the cases would move quickly, and the children’s lives wouldn’t be destroyed. BUT, to ignore child safety, the courts know that the protective parent, Father or Mother, will keep expecting truth and justice to prevai, guaranteeing many years of money rolling into the courts. I also agree about Glenn’s group. He has lost sight of the real issues. He is jaded by financial gain, much as anyone who pits profit over protection. Why some parents feel that they have the "right" to abuse their children, is beyond me. Just look at the numerous different posts for Judges in Family Law, and they are all the same. People complaining that the Judges are corrupt, that the child is in danger and no one is presenting the evidence that one of the parents is abusive, or the courts will just ignore it. We need a reality check here in America. People are out of control, and there are parents abusing their children everywhere. Mr. Sacks seems to think that this is a falsehood, and only used by mother’s. Then I have to ask, why are children dying at the hands of the parent? Why is there such a rise in Familicides? We see only a mere fraction of murders on t.v. because the reality is too harsh. People would rather ban together and save the polar bears.
and finally:
Wake up Grandma, that is the biggest load of c r a p. That is exactally what Glenn Sacks and Fathers rights groups want the world to think, ONLY for the purpose of making money. Glenn is not doing this for any other reason than to profit, and all those parents that support him or groups like his, are being manipulated.
Good father’s, concerned father’s, protective father’s like post 2, don’t have custody, BECAUSE they are trying to PROTECT A CHILD FROM ABUSE.
BUT that is no different from the thousands of protective mothers that are losing custody daily. You need to research, before you jump on the band waggon. Glenn’s group has made ANY parent looking to say "MY CHILD IS BEING ABUSED" a liar.FATHER OR MOTHER. Therefore, the child will be placed with the abuser, so the court and their cohorts can profit. So can Glenn. Any parent can say, "alienation" to get away with abuse, and the courts say, "cool, we can run this case into the ground now".
You said it before, your ex daughter in law is abusive, and sounds like your son doesn’t have custody. The reality for any protective parent, is that there is NO protection any more. The lies are a profit center.
NO CHILDREN ARE BEING PROTECTED FROM ABUSE. THIS IS MERELY A PROFIT CENTER FOR ANYONE WHO IS INVOLVED.
Courts are being paid by Father’s rights groups, by minors counsels and others favorite appointees’ to give custody to the abuser. THAT’S IT. Period.
This has nothing to do with reuniting children with their fathers. It has nothing to do with getting to the bottom of an abuse allegation. This has nothing to do with truth and justice.
TRUTH WOULD BE LESS LUCRATIVE
Fathers have Rights, Children’s Rights, Fathers kill custody battle fathers abuse and kill families, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) Stuart Showalter Neo Nazi-Fathers Rights Advocate-Abusers Rights Advocate Glenn Sacks-Abusers Advocate,Right Wing Terrorist- Fathers Rights. Warren Farrell, Mike J Murphy, Jeremy Swanson, Mark K Godbey, Donald Tenn, Stan Rains, Richard A. Gardner coined the term, Parental Alienation Syndrome
Crisis In The Family Courts 
leave a comment