Author: Super User

I recently stumbled across this article from last year from the Children’s Rights Council’s publication. It’s unbelievable and, given the letters I get and the stories I hear, totally believable. Very, very sad.

CRC Member Loses Child

CRC member and child advocate Tim Dycus of Nebraska lost his 11-year-old daughter, Addie, to brain cancer on July 8, 2005. The day after the funeral, Tim learned that the funeral home had given cards and memorials left for the “Dycus Family” to the mother with the expectation that she share those with him.

Over many months, Tim and the funeral home spent considerable effort trying to get the child’s mother to share the cards left in memory of their daughter with Tim. He wanted to acknowledge and thank those people who were so gracious and compassionate to his family. Tim said that the mom refused to comply, and with her attorney, took the position that his rights to any information about Addie, including cards and memorials, terminated upon her death. They also stated that Tim was not entitled to any of Addie’s clothing to keep as mementos, as they stated that Addie’s personal property is the mother’s exclusive property. Since Tim was divorced, he had paid more than $70,000 in child support.

Tim attended almost all of Addie’s school, church, and recreational events including soccer, softball, and dance, in or out of town since her birth, and continually tried to get more time with his daughters but was confined to the typical every other weekend and a few hours on Wednesday evening.

In a request to the judiciary, the District Court in Adams County, Nebraska ruled for the mother. The court stated that the decision as to whether to share was up to her, stating Tim needed “to wait while the other parent processed and went through the grieving process.” She then ordered Tim to pay the majority of the mother’s attorney fees!

Tim is also grieving.

I debated the issue of Single Motherhood by Choice on Fox’s nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet yesterday. Also on the show were two single mothers by choice, including Louise Sloan, author of the new book Knocking Yourself Up, a psychologist, and 18-year-old Katrina Clark, a child of a single mother by choice.

As you can imagine, I was badly outnumbered, and was the only one representing the fathers’ side, which is always fun. They extended our topic over three segments, so it’s lengthy as far as TV goes–to watch the video of the show, click here.

I enjoy reading about Michigan family law attorney Mindy L. Hitchcock’s various battles and victories against the anti-male family law system, and I thought I’d share this one with my readers. It involves a dad who was the victim of his ex-wife’s phony, tactical-maneuver-in-divorce domestic violence restraining/personal protection order. He was almost jailed for the “crime” of visiting his little daughter’s kindergarten

Mindy (pictured) writes:

“David and Julie had five kids during their marriage. Julie was unable to win the exclusive legal custody of her children in the divorce court, so she filed another case and persuaded the judge to issue a personal protection order. The PPO prevented David from appearing within Julie”s sight or communicating with her except by email.

“Armed with this order, Julie then proceeded to make child rearing decisions without input from David. When September came, she picked a kindergarten for their youngest daughter. On the first day, David showed up to meet the headmaster, and there was his ex-wife with their daughter. Julie ran to the county prosecutor, who dragged David into court on an alleged violation of the PPO.

“David had previously faced a similar ‘violation’ with a lawyer who advised him to simply plead guilty, so this was a second offense and he was looking at jail time. When we appeared with David at the arraignment, the judge showed that he was biased against him by volunteering to the prosecutor, ‘If you had asked me to, I would have terminated his parenting time.’

“Nevertheless, we decided to take the case to trial. We told the judge that Julie was using the PPO as a sword, not a shield. With a few well-placed questions we were able to establish that Julie”s goal for getting the PPO was to freeze David out of the children”s lives.

“David also got a little help from the headmaster, who testified that David was never closer than 25 feet from his ex-wife and not 4 feet, as she claimed. David was exonerated of the charge, and Julie”s bad purpose was exposed. He and his ex share joint legal and joint physical custody of their children.”

Background: Recently Newsweek magazine and the British UK Guardian have written sympathetic articles about Single Motherhood by Choice–Knocking Yourself Up–Some women laugh about turkey basters replacing Mr. Right. The ongoing debate over going it alone (Newsweek, 11/5/07) and There’s no shame in going solo, says mum: Career women with eyes on their biological clocks now have a ‘how to’ guide to single parenting, but the topic is provoking a backlash in America (U.K. Guardian, Observer, 11/4/07).

Both articles focus on author/”choice mom” guru Louise Sloan, and hold me up as an example of the “vehement” backlash against single mothers by choice. To learn more, click here.

Single mother by choice guru Louise Sloan, author of Knock Yourself Up, and I debated on the BBC Radio 5 Live’s Stephen Nolan Programme on the BBC Sunday evening. To listen to the show, click here.

The most important part of the show, even though it was a little off topic, was a letter from a 13-year-old boy named James which Nolan read on the air. The letter said:

“My mother loves me but she stops me seeing my dad though I want to. I’m starting to hate her for this. Because she hates my dad, why should I hate him?”

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, or Part III, or read my co-authored newspaper column defending Shull here.

Tim Perone of the New York Post writes the following:

“A family court judge in Richmond, Va., was removed from the bench after several kangaroo-court moments, including flipping a coin to decide a custody case. James Michael Shull was unanimously stripped of his robe by the state’s Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, which also found the jurist guilty of calling a teen a ‘mama’s boy’ and a ‘wuss’ as well as telling a woman to marry her abusive boyfriend.”

I’ve dealt with and have been quoted (and misquoted) by plenty of lazy reporters, but this one takes the cake. The Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission did not “find” Shull “guilty” of anything alleged above. The widely-disseminated Associated Press article by Larry O’Dell that Perone cribbed from states that Shull “had appeared before the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission in 2004 for allegedly calling a teenager a ‘mama’s boy’ and a ‘wuss’ and advising a woman to marry her abusive boyfriend. That complaint was dismissed…” (emphasis added). There was no finding of anything against Shull at all.

The “marry her abusive boyfriend” is dubious, as I explained here. The “mama’s boy” allegation is also dubious. Shull asserts that the witness that alleged that Shull called a 14-year-old boy a “wuss” was Guardian ad Litem Kristen Dean.

I checked up on Dean and found that, according to the Virginia State Bar’s website, the Bar “suspended Kristen Dawn Dean’s law license for five years, effective on or before December 16, 2005, for misappropriating portions of a client’s personal injury settlement for her own use and then taking steps to deceive and to conceal the misconduct. The board found that Ms. Dean failed to properly communicate with her client; failed to obtain a written contingency fee agreement, failed to provide an appropriate account of the client’s funds; made false statements; engaged in deliberately wrongful conduct; and engaged in fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” What a great witness.

Shull also asserts that the parties in the case contradicted Dean’s accusations. I don’t know if this is true, but the JIRC did dismiss the allegation.

The New York Post also asserts that Shull “flipped a coin to decide a custody case.” Not true–custody had already been decided. All that the coin toss settled was who would get the kids on Christmas, and, given the specific context of the case, Shull was right to determine this in the manner he did. To learn more about this non-incident, click here.

Background: Newsweek magazine writer Lorraine Ali quoted from my co-authored column Rise in Out-of-Wedlock Births Is Bad News for America”s Kids (Washington Times, 12/4/06) in her recent piece Knocking Yourself Up–Some women laugh about turkey basters replacing Mr. Right. The ongoing debate over going it alone (Newsweek, 11/5/07). The piece centers around Louise Sloan, author of the new guidebook Knock Yourself Up: A Tell-All Guide to Becoming a Single Mom. Sloan now has a fatherless 16-month-old son. The piece favors women who decide to have fatherless children. To learn more, click here.

The liberal British UK Guardian, one of the world’s premier newspapers, has a new piece out extolling the virtues of single motherhood by choice–There’s no shame in going solo, says mum: Career women with eyes on their biological clocks now have a ‘how to’ guide to single parenting, but the topic is provoking a backlash in America (U.K. Guardian, Observer, 11/4/07). The article focuses on choice mom guru Louise Sloan. Needless to say, the article sympathizes with Sloan, and holds me up as an example of the “vehement” backlash against single mothers by choice.

The article says that Sloan is “shocked by the vehemence of the backlash” against her. She says:

“I think that if you have reservations or shame about having become a single mother and having chosen to be an alternative family in that way, that shame is going to be transmitted to the people you speak to about it. And it’s also going to come through to your child…I think that it’s really important to make sure that your child feels that the way he or she came into this world was a positive and happy thing. And so you need to have that attitude yourself. Also, in speaking about it to other people, if you present it as a weird, questionable thing, you’re more likely to get a negative response.”

The Guardian counterposes this with my comment:

“To openly advocate single motherhood as a lifestyle choice is to fail to understand how powerfully children hunger for their fathers and the immense benefits reaped by the children who do have fathers in their lives. This misunderstanding is very destructive. At the core of this work is a ‘you go, girl’ belief that mothers can do it alone and always know best. Unfortunately, many women are choosing this lifestyle and it’s our children who are suffering for it.”

The article also has a disturbing statistic near the bottom–one in seven birth certificates in England and Wales in 2006 had no father listed.

Sloan has now joined Rosanna Hertz, author of Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice, and Peggy Drexler, author of Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men, to form a troika of feminist gurus advocating voluntary single motherhood. To read my previous critique of Hertz and her book, see my co-authored column Are Single Mothers the ‘New American Family?’ (World Net Daily, 9/28/06). To see my previous critique of Drexler and her book, see my columns Are Boys Really Better off Without Fathers? (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/31/05) and Raising Boys Without Men: Lesbian Parents Good, Dads Bad (World Net Daily, 9/10/05).

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) and In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part II), or read my co-authored newspaper column defending Shull here.

The Virginia Supreme Court’s opinion criticizes Shull for “making an improper ex parte telephone call during a recess in the custody hearing to obtain information on a disputed factual matter” and that this “ex parte communication serves to illustrate again Judge Shull”s lack of concern for litigants appearing before him.”

Nothing could be further from the truth–Shull made the phone call out of concern for the litigants before him, principally the two young children whose placement he had to decide. Shull had to give the children either to the husband, who the wife claimed stabbed her, or the wife, who the husband claimed was a mentally-disturbed cutter.

In the case, Tammy G. claimed that her husband had stabbed her and that she went to a local emergency room for treatment. Shull’s violation consisted of–brace yourself–calling the local hospital to confirm that Tammy G. had been admitted. Once again, Shull is in trouble for examining the facts in the case before him–he made the call as part of his duty to protect the G. children.

Shull also says that he informed everyone in the courtroom that he planned to call before he made the call.

It is true that the Virginia Canons of Judicial Conduct states:

“A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding.”

Shull says, “It is not uncommon for judges in the juvenile and domestic relations court to place telephone calls to ascertain the truth when resolving a factual dispute.”

The Virginia Lawyers Weekly article JIRC: Censure or remove J&DR judge (5/28/07) contains an interesting tidbit about this issue. The lead judge in the court where Shull heard this case, Elizabeth S. Wills, “testified that she very seldom makes such calls.”

“Seldom?” So Wills, who is Shull’s boss and who is largely responsible for him being railroaded, admits to the Judicial Commission that she too has made the same kind of phone calls–the type of calls which Shull is in trouble for doing once and only once.

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. I have examined the evidence in this case and it is clear to me that Shull is being railroaded. The case provides a sad but excellent example of what can happen to judges who take their responsibilities seriously when adjudicating domestic violence claims.

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

Both the Virginia Supreme Court’s opinion and the widely-disseminated Associated Press article by Larry O’Dell ignore the most important facts in this case and criticize Shull for the “coin toss” incident. According to the AP:

“According to the court, Shull admitted tossing a coin to determine which parent would have visitation with a child on Christmas. Shull said he was trying to encourage the parents to decide the issue themselves but later acknowledged that he was wrong.”

What happened was this–a mother and father had shared physical custody of their children, and could not agree as to who would have them on Christmas Day. Shull urged them to come to an agreement themselves, but they were unable to. Normally at this point (or actually, long before it) the judge would’ve just decided to give the kids to mom for Christmas, but Shull told both parents that he considered both of them to be good, loving parents and that he did not want to have to choose between them.

When they were unable to decide, he decided to toss a coin to make the decision, sending a clear message that the court was not going to favor one parent over the other. I applaud Shull for this, yet, amazingly, this non-event is one of the major charges against him.

Also, according to Shull, the coin toss was not objected to by either of the two parties, both of whom were represented by attorneys. Shull determined who got the 1st week of Xmas vacation the first year, with vacation to be alternated thereafter.

The AP article by O’Dell also says the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision was “unanimous,” which sounds impressive but is factually questionable. According to Shull:

“It is hard to say the opinion was ‘unanimous.’ The opinion was authored by Justice Keenan, but no one else signed on to it. It does not have any dissents, but in cases of this type, they sometimes do opinions in this manner to mask their differences because it’s more politic.”

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. I have examined the evidence in this case and it is clear to me that Shull is being railroaded. The case provides a sad but excellent example of what can happen to judges who take their responsibilities seriously when adjudicating domestic violence claims.

Shull”s problems stem from a case which came before him on December 15, 2006. In that 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 reasoned that he had to find the truth in order to protect the children from either a father who had stabbed their mother, or a mother who is a psychologically disturbed cutter. 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.’ The report discusses charging Tammy with filing a false police report over the incident.Shull got in trouble because, according to the Virginia Lawyers” Weekly, Tammy and Teresa Castle, the deputy clerk, claim that, in order to inspect the wound, he directed Tammy to expose herself twice during the hearing. The Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission “summarily suspended’ Shull for “a substantial and serious breach of the dignity and decorum required in a Virginia courtroom.’Shull and Daniel Fast, Keith G.”s attorney, assert that Tammy had offered to lower her pants both times in order to show Shull the wounds. According to the VLW, neither side disputes that “the privacy curtains in the courtroom were pulled before G. exposed herself.’Tammy”s wound was on her right thigh, she was wearing pants, and the only way Shull could examine the wounds was to have her lower them. Perhaps Shull should have acted more cautiously. However, his need to protect the G. children by ruling correctly in this difficult, contentious case vastly outweighs Tammy”s privacy concerns. Most importantly, no party in the dispute is even claiming that Shull made the wrong decision in finding that the wounds in question were self-inflicted. Shull”s conscientious pursuit of the truth in the G. case, for which he has been removed, was admirable.To read my co-authored newspaper column defending Shull, click here.

“The court said [the most ‘egregious’ incident] occurred when a woman was seeking a protective order against a partner who she said had stabbed her in the leg. Shull knew the woman had a history of mental problems and insisted on seeing the wound, the court said.”

It is unclear that Shull was in a position to decide with finality that the woman, Tammy G., had “mental problems.” More importantly, even if he was, what did the Court expect Shull to do? Shull had three options:

1) Decide that since the woman is mentally ill, he’s not going to subject her to a full effort to find out whether or not her husband really did stab her, but instead just give the husband the children. In other words, don’t ascertain the truth, but instead turn the kids over to a man who she claims tried to kill her.

2) Decide that since the woman is mentally ill, he won’t put her through a full effort to ascertain the truth, but instead give her possession of the kids. In other words, give the kids to a mentally ill woman.

3) Ignore her apparent “mental problems,” and make a real effort to ascertain the truth in the case in order to protect the children. Shull did that, and it cost him his job, his reputation, and his retirement pension.

In the AP article, Larry O’Dell writes that several years ago Shull had “advised a woman to marry her abusive boyfriend” and that he got in trouble with the JIRC because of it. I have not investigated this charge separately, but Shull very much disputes this account:

1) Shull disputes his alleged knowledge that relationship was “abusive.”

2) Shull claims that his advice to get married occurred in a case where a woman’s ex-husband had custody of their children and the woman wanted to know what she could do to improve her chances to get the kids back. Shull told her that social services would look more favorably on her situation if she were living in a more stable relationship, like being married as opposed to just living with someone. He didn’t tell her she had to get married to get her kids back, he just told her it would strengthen her case.

3) Shull says that when JIRC investigated this accusation and others in 2004, his opponents’ versions unraveled. He says, “These cases were dismissed not because of mercy toward a rookie judge, but because they imploded.”

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.

Thousands of you answered our call to action, and the campaign has been covered or cited in hundreds of newspapers. Florida DCF, to its credit, met with us. To learn more or to join our campaign, click here.

I discussed our Elian Gonzalez II Campaign on the Maria Sanchez Morning Show on KKZZ AM 1590 in Ventura, CA yesterday. The audio of the interview is available–to listen, click here or on the audio button below.