Author: Super User

Below are some recent articles and items of interest from Fathers & Families’ latest News Digest.

Male domestic violence victims increase (East Anglian Daily Times, 11-6-07)

Mills is dumped by divorce lawyers (San Francisco Chronicle, 11-9-07)

Michael Jordan finally speaks about divorce (Chicago Sun-Times, 11-9-07)

Becker’s child custody triumph (The Sun, 11-9-07)

Osmond goodbye: family shares memories of father (Deseret Morning News, 11-10-07)

Ex-NBA player with at least 8 kids files for bankruptcy (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11-11-07)

Cate Edwards: on the Trail for Dad (Associated Press, 11-11-07)

Like father, like son for Broads (Times Online, 11-11-07)

Broward residents can now go online to file for divorce, small claims (South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 11-12-07)

Brooklyn woman stabs father of child to death (WNBC, 11-12-07)

Father finally figures into her life (Fay Observer, 11-12-07)

Background: I recently partnered with Dr. Ned Holstein and Fathers & Families in a campaign to protest Florida Department of Children & Families’ actions in the “Elian Gonzalez II” case in Miami. In that case, Rafael Izquierdo, a fit, loving father, has faced numerous obstacles to reunite with his 5-year-old daughter.

In our letters and faxes to Florida DCF, we asked that they contact Dr. Holstein and meet with him to discuss the issues put forward in our protest. In the photo, Dr. Holstein shakes hands with Gilda Ferradaz, head of DCF’s Miami division. Dr. Holstein met with Ferradaz, Mary Cagle, DCF’s Director of Child Welfare Legal Services, and other DCF officials last week. In addition, Dr. Holstein met with embattled Cuban father Rafael Izquierdo.

To learn more about our campaign, click here.

Dr. Holstein and I had urged DCF to examine the Urban Institute’s recent report What About the Dads? Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate, and Involve Nonresident Fathers, which studied the foster care systems of four states. The report contains a shocking finding: when fathers inform child welfare officials that they would like their children to live with them, the agencies seek to place the children with their fathers in only 15% of cases.

In Ferradaz’s letter below, she says that DCF will “review in detail” the Urban Institute report. Changing a misguided bureacracy’s policies can be a Sisyphean effort, but, to be fair, DCF has in general responded to our campaign in a meaningful and intelligent manner.

Ferradaz wrote:

“Thank you for your correspondence to Florida Governor Charlie Crist and the leadership of the Department of Children and Families regarding a Miami child custody case.

“Your willingness to raise your voice shows your compassion for the well-being of children in our state. As requested in your correspondence, Department of Children and Families leadership contacted Dr. Ned Holstein, President of Fathers and Families, and met with him on October 24, 2007 to hear his concerns. Dr. Holstein shared with us the report prepared by the Urban Institute which you cite in your email and we will review it in detail. Please be assured that the best interest of the child is always the primary concern of this Department.

“We thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.

“Gilda P. Ferradaz,
Circuit Administrator”

Background: Mary Winkler–who shot her husband in the back and then refused to aid him or call 911 as he slowly bled to death for 20 minutes–walked away a free woman last month after serving a farcically brief “sentence” for her crimes. She is currently in a custody battle with Matthew Winkler’s parents, who have been raising their three daughters for the last 18 months.

The Winklers seek to terminate Mary Winkler’s parental rights and adopt the girls. I support their position.

To learn more about this horrendous injustice, see my co-authored column No child custody for husband-killer Mary Winkler (World Net Daily, 9/14/07), or click here.

In the new article below, District Attorney Michael Dunavant asserts that Mary Winkler also intended to kill her three young children and herself. He says:

“I would suggest to you that the evidence was clear that not only did she make up her mind that she was going to kill him when she did, but she was going to end it for her children and herself, too.

“[When Winkler left the state after shooting her husband in the back in their bed, she had] less than $200 in cash, a pair of socks for her baby, a shotgun and a box of shells in a minivan. That”s it…She drove hundreds of miles to Jackson, Mississippi, spent one night, and then to Orange Beach, Alabama, and was in a hotel the next night. She was running out of money. How was she going to feed her children? How was she going to get back to Tennessee?

“You know what she was going to do. She was going to kill her children and herself, and she was just going to do it at the beach instead of in Selmer, Tennessee.”

The full article can be seen at DA says Winkler aimed to kill kids (Jackson Sun, 11/11/07). As critical as I am of Mary Winkler, I don’t find the DA’s assertion terribly convincing. If Winkler really wanted to kill her children and kill herself, she could have done it in the house after she killed her husband. It’s certainly possible that this is how things would have turned out in Alabama, but I hardly think we could be sure what she was going to do, as this DA implies.

This might be a good example to help explain one reason (of many) why men commit more murder-suicides than women do. While in Alabama, Winkler probably thought that even if she is caught, she still has a chance to bamboozle the legal system and get off, as in fact she was able to do.

By contrast, a man in her situation would know that he was doomed, that there was no chance for him to get off through the system, and would be more likely to end it all with a murder-suicide. This in no way excuses it for either gender, of course.

Background: In my co-authored column, From a Felony to a Phone Call: Texas Prop 13 Will Allow Innocent Men to Be Jailed Without Bail (Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, Austin-American Statesman, 10/22/07), Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, and I criticized a Texas Proposition which drew wide support from many state newspapers. Unfortunately, our column was the only published opposition I saw, against a slew of editorials and op-eds in favor. Reflecting again the weakness of our movement, Proposition 13 passed with Texas voters by a wide margin on Tuesday. Proposition 13 is a dangerous measure which will harm innocent men by greatly eroding the rights of those accused of domestic violence. The measure grants judges the ability to hold without bail those accused of nonviolent, trivial, or accidental violations of temporary restraining orders.
Under current Texas law, the only defendants ineligible for bail are those accused of capital crimes. In addition, judges are provided discretion to deny bail to those who have been both charged with a felony and convicted or indicted for a previous felony. To deny bail, there must be “evidence substantially showing the guilt of the accused.’ Prop 13 obliterates this, and opens the road for many innocent men to be held without bail. Like many states, Texas has adopted aggressive arrest procedures on domestic violence calls. The result has been that men are sometimes arrested for misdemeanor domestic violence based on thin evidence. After the arrest, Emergency Protective Orders are entered against the accused, typically barring him from going home or having any contact with his children. Fathers can violate the orders by innocent acts such as calling their own children, accidentally running into them and their mother in the mall, or going to their Little League games. Under Prop 13, judges will have the power to incarcerate without bail men who violate their EPOs. Moreover, the Proposition lowers the evidence standard from Substantial Showing to Preponderance of the Evidence, which can rapidly degenerate into a “he said/she said’ contest that men usually lose. Even worse, Prop 13 also encourages the legislature to pass a law which would allow fathers who violate temporary ex parte protective orders to be jailed without bail. Women can obtain these orders by claiming their male partners abused them, and the men are then booted out of their own homes without ever having a chance to defend themselves in court. To learn more about Proposition 13, click here.

Background: Conscientious Virginia judge James Michael Shull, who smoked out a woman who sought to extend a restraining order based on false charges of domestic violence, was just removed from the bench by this Virginia Supreme Court ruling. Not only was Shull railroaded, but he has been the target of widely-disseminated lazy, misleading reporting by the Associated Press, the New York Post, and others.

To learn more about the case, see my blog posts In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part I), Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V, or read my co-authored newspaper column defending Shull here.

Several dozen legal and mental health professionals who worked with Judge Shull wrote to the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission earlier this year testifying to Judge Shull’s good character and conduct as a judge. Below we quote from a few of them.

Lana R. Mullins, MSW, on Judge Shull:

“In regards to his professional behavior it has been my observations that he has researched and familiarized himself with the laws pertaining to the Juvenile Court and has worked very hard to properly administer foster care and child protective services cases. Judge Shull has demonstrated an understanding of the crisis-oriented response DSS must make in certain cases and haw made himself available for emergency hearings as needed. In my experience, Judge Shull has been fair in his decisions and above all has considered the overall safety of the children before his court.”

Read Ms. Mullins’ full letter here.

Attorney Daisy N. Compton on Judge Shull:

“Since Judge Shull was appointed to the bench about four years ago I have been before him on various cases in the Scott County J&DR District Court on at least a weekly basis…On a professional level I have the highest regard for Judge Shull who has proved to me to be a good judge who has made good decisions when faces with those most difficult of family situations that we are all familiar with in the J&DR courts.”

“As a matter of fact, my sister, who is employed by my office part-time as a legal secretary, and I, have often commented on his most courteous of manners and demeanor as a ‘perfect Southern gentleman,’ to all persons in public.”

Read Ms. Compton’s full letter here.

Lee County District Court Clerk Linda Gibson on Judge Shull:

“Judge Shull has been an excellent judge. He has always treated me and other Court personnel with kindness and respect. The attorneys that appear before him are treated with respect also. The litigants that appear before him are allowed to tell their side and leave the courtroom, whether they win their case or not, with the knowledge that they have been before a fair and decent judge.”

Read Ms. Gibson’s full letter here.

Retired Attorney Melanie L. Jorgensen on Judge Shull:

“I am a retired attorney in Jonesville, Lee County, Virginia and have practiced law in the state courts of Lee, Scott, and Wise Counties Virginia since 1983. I served as substitute judge for many years and was appointed to serve as a Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Judge from 1998 to 1999.

“As such, I met and practiced with James Michael Shull for many years. I also practiced law before him when he began to serve as a Juvenile & Domestic Relations Judge. I limited my practice to the domestic relations area only, and I practiced before Judge Shull in Lee, Wise and Scott Counties weekly.

“Judge Shull has always maintained the highest standards of conduct and decorum in courtroom. My experience in family law practice has taught me that participants’ emotions can sometimes run high and reason is quickly lost. I have never witnessed any situation where he has exhibited improper behavior towards a witness. I have observed multiple incidents where he deftly and professionally defused potentially explosive confrontations of litigants.”

Read Ms. Jorgensen’s full letter here.

Pajamas Media advice columnist Dr. Helen Smith (pictured) is a forensic psychologist who often has an interesting perspective on gender issues. One of Helen’s recent blog posts concerns false information about domestic violence being put out by the Tennessee Department of Health. Apparently the Department is putting forth the you-must-be-kidding claim that “Approximately 98% of documented domestic assaults are committed by men against women.”

Helen’s post is below.

My Efforts at Educating Officialdom

So I received this card in the mail announcing the new domestic violence reporting requirements for the Tennessee Department of Health. I decided to check out their website and found it to be lacking in the recent research on the role women play in domestic violence. I also noticed that the reporting form had the word “female” listed first under “patient” and under perpetrator in the first column listed:

o Husband
o Ex-husband
o Boyfriend
o Ex-boyfriend

So I sent them this letter:

Division of Health Statistics/DV
4th Floor, Cordell Hull Building
425 5th Avenue North
Nashville, TN37243

Dear Domestic Violence Reporting Coordinator:

As a licensed psychologist, I recently received a card on the new domestic violence reporting requirements that states that licensed professionals are now required to report cases of suspected or confirmed domestic violence/abuse to the Tennessee Department of Health. I am writing out of concern after reading the information on your site and noticing that much of this information is not updated with the most recent research on domestic violence.

I am a psychologist who has worked with numerous patients who have been victims of domestic violence over the years. As you may well know, domestic violence is not just perpetrated by men against women, it is also perpetrated against men by women. Many professionals do not know this and it is not apparent in your literature. For example, your information to EMS workers states:

“Approximately 98% of documented domestic assaults are committed by men against women. As a result, throughout this text, we will refer to the perpetrator as ‘he’ and the survivor or victim as ‘she’ even though some domestic violence is initiated by women and some cases involve people of the same sex.”

Recent studies are finding that both men and women act out physically in relationships and in one recent study, women initiated violence in over 70% of cases. Here is some information from the head of the American Psychological Association:

“Several studies of domestic violence have suggested that males and females in relationships have an equal likelihood of acting out physical aggression, although differing in tactics and potential for causing injury (e.g., women assailants will more likely throw something, slap, kick, bite, or punch their partner, or hit them with an object, while males will more likely beat up their partners, and choke or strangle them). In addition, data show that that intimate partner violence rates among heterosexual and gay and lesbian teens do not differ significantly.”

Background: Conscientious Virginia judge James Michael Shull, who smoked out a woman who sought to extend a restraining order based on false charges of domestic violence, was just removed from the bench by this Virginia Supreme Court ruling. To learn more about the case, see my blog posts In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part I), Part II, Part III, or Part IV, or read my co-authored newspaper column defending Shull here.

In the Shull case, Tammy G. had obtained a domestic violence protection order against her husband Keith G., claiming that he had stabbed her. At the time of the G. hearing, the couple”s two young children, then ages three and five, were staying with their paternal grandmother. Keith testified that he hadn”t harmed Tammy, and that if she did have a wound, she had cut herself. Keith also testified that Tammy had committed a similar act on March 22, 2006, harming herself and then calling the police to report that Keith had attacked her.

Shull examined the wounds and found that they were four nearly identical razor blade-like slices in two sets of parallel lines spaced evenly apart–hardly the type of wounds one would receive in domestic combat, and entirely consistent with Keith”s allegations that Tammy had cut herself. Shull also examined the Wise County Sheriff”s Incident Report about Tammy G.”s March allegations. According to the report, Tammy “gave a statement that she had done this to herself to get attention,’ and “admitted that she had self-inflicted her wounds.’

Shull concluded that Tammy G.’s claims were false, and he ruled against her. Despite the later controversy over the case, no party in the dispute is even claiming that Shull made the wrong decision in finding that the wounds in question were self-inflicted.

In this case, Tammy G. attempted to inflict great harm on her husband and their children by falsely accusing her husband of stabbing her. Yet while the judge who worked hard to discover the truth has been relentlessly persecuted, Tammy G. faces no consequences for her false allegations.

The list above is a partial list of the various crimes Tammy G. faces charges for. I have one question–why can we criminally charge her for credit card fraud but we can’t charge her for attempting to defraud the court? Why can we charge her with identity theft, but we can’t charge her for attempting the theft of a father’s children?

Some of you may remember several weeks ago in one of my weekly E-newsletters I asked for Texas custodial dads who receive or are supposed to receive child support. Many of you responded–so many, in fact, that the Houston FOX affiliate on whose behalf I wrote the notice told me they had to have a “cattle call” of all the dads. FOX ended up using three of the dads in the show (pictured, above right), and they spoke about their situations and their struggles.

While I have no complaint about what’s in the show’s clip of me, the totality of my interview was more nuanced. In the interview I also pointed to the many problems with the child support system, and explained that noncustodial moms sometimes fall victim to them just like noncustodial dads often do.

To watch the FOX special, which aired in Houston on Monday, November 5, click here. (Warning, it may take a moment to load.)

To write Emmy Award winning reporter Melinda Spaulding, who put the special together, click here.

I’m usually not one for crime shows, but I saw a touching episode of NCIS while on an airplane recently. It’s about a father’s love for his daughter, and I’m a sentimental sucker on the subject, so be forewarned before you proceed.

NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service) is an action drama starring Mark Harmon as NCIS Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs, a former Marine who is now a skilled investigator. Gibbs’ daughter Kelly died 15 years ago, when she was 7. In the recent episode “Requiem,” Kelly’s best childhood friend Maddie is in trouble and later kidnapped, and Gibbs saves her.

When Kelly was little she and Gibbs made a time capsule (pictured) out of one of her lunchboxes and buried it in the front yard. When Maddie first contacts Gibbs, he digs up the time capsule from his front yard but can’t bring himself to open it.

At the end of the show, he takes out a picture of the two girls with their arms around each other as children and a picture of him with his arm around Maddie as an adult, puts them together, and starts to open the time capsule. To watch this final scene, click here.

When it comes to the time capsule, open the letter little Kelly wrote to her dad when he was deployed to Kuwait in 1990, and also click on the dog tags.

It’s nice to see an accurate TV portrayal of father-daughter relationship.