Author: Super User

Ford has come out with a new father-positive car commercial for its 2008 Taurus. The ad, called “We Know,” depicts a father looking out for his little son as he rides his bicycle, and then draws an analogy between the way the father knows how to keep his son safe and the way Ford says its automobile engineers know how to keep people safe. The ad depicts the father as being what the vast majority of fathers (and mothers) are–caring, loving parents. To watch, click here. Last year there was considerable controversy in the fatherhood movement over Ford’s controversial “Bold Moves’ divorced dad ad for the Ford Freestyle. The ad can be viewed here.
Some saw the ad as degrading or insulting to divorced dads, and I received numerous letters urging me to launch a protest campaign against the ad, as we’ve done in the past. Others saw the commercial as a positive for divorced dads. I discussed the ad’s pros and cons in my E-newsletter here. As I’ve noted, while I understand people’s negative reaction to the commercial, as a whole I see it as a positive development. In my co-authored column Dads finally get fair shake in the media (Chicago Sun-Times, 12/24/06) I explained: “[The ad] was another step forward for fathers. The ad begins with a stereotypically happy family taking a trip to the beach in a Ford Freestyle SUV. At the end of the commercial comes an unexpected twist–the car pulls into a housing complex, and dad gets out. He hugs his kids, tells them he”ll see them next week, tells his ex-wife, ‘Thanks for inviting me this weekend,’ and waves goodbye. “The ad does more than give heretofore invisible divorced dads some needed visibility; it also provides an important image of a divorced couple working to preserve their children”s relationships with both parents. Dad remains involved, and his ex, instead of putting forth her new husband as the children”s ‘new dad,’ invites him along.” Thanks to Justin, a reader, for sending me the new Ford commercial.

A recent episode of Law and Order SVU has a nice depiction of Parental Alienation. It depicts a grandmother falsely accusing a mother of molesting the child as part of a custody maneuver. (It would have been better, of course, if they had depicted a false charge being leveled against a father, since they’re the most frequent targets, but I’ll take it).

When the police psychologist says the charges are false and are the result of “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” another cop says, “I thought PAS was when a couple splits up and the mom brainwashes the kids into thinking the Dad’s a bastard.” The police psychologist explains that, in this case, it’s “emotional abuse inflicted [on the girl] by her ‘loving’ grandmother’.”

Watch the short video clip here.

Thanks to Greg Andresen of Dads on the Air in Australia and Keryn McLachlan for the video.

“Instead of getting married again, I’m going to find a woman I don’t like and just give her a house.”–Rod Stewart

It’s a funny quote with some truth to it, but, to be fair, Stewart has been married three times, divorced twice, and has fathered seven children with five different women.

Thanks to Michael Robinson of the California Alliance for Families and Children for the quote.

“The monster that you have painted for the world to see, I don’t think that monster existed…for everything you’ve accused him of, there never was proof, just accusations. I think that’s sad because he can’t speak for himself.”– Diane Winkler, Matthew Winkler’s mother

My new co-authored column, No child custody for husband-killer Mary Winkler (World Net Daily, 9/14/07), argues that Winkler got off with a slap on the wrist, is psychologically disturbed, and shouldn’t be granted custody of her three children.

To write a Letter to the Editor of World Net Daily, click here. I penned the column with Ned Holstein, M.D., Executive Director of Fathers & Families, a shared parenting organization.

No child custody for husband-killer Mary Winkler
By Glenn Sacks and Ned Holstein, M.D.

A killer shoots his spouse in the back, and then pulls the phone cord out so the victim can”t call 911. As the victim slowly bleeds to death, the killer abducts their three children and flees to another state.

An Amber Alert is declared for the missing children, and the killer is hunted down by police, caught, and tried. Were the killer a man, he would be locked away for life. However, this killer is a woman, Mary Winkler. The kid gloves treatment she has received from the legal system demonstrates how courts tilt heavily in favor of women when adjudicating claims of domestic abuse.

Mary Winkler told the court that Matthew had abused her physically, sexually and emotionally. For that reason, the Selmer, Tennessee jury convicted her of voluntary manslaughter, not first degree murder.

Since the March 22, 2006 killing, Mary and Matthew”s three children–girls ages 2, 8 and 10–have lived with Matthew”s parents, Dan and Diane Winkler. The Winkler grandparents seek to terminate Mary”s parental rights and adopt the girls. Mary, who served only 67 days for the killing, wants custody of her girls, and went on Oprah this week to win public sympathy for her cause. The custody trial begins in Carroll County Chancery Court next week, and many Tennessee family law attorneys believe she has a good chance to gain custody.

A win for Mary would be a loss for the three girls, as well as a terrible injustice. Despite the sympathetic media Mary Winkler has received, she is a dangerous, psychologically disturbed woman who is unfit to raise her children, and whose parental rights should be terminated.

Mary Winkler”s claims of abuse were largely uncorroborated during the trial. According to the testimony from Matthew Winkler’s oldest daughter, Patricia, the dead father–who as he lay dying looked at his wife and asked “why?”–was a good man, and did not abuse her mother.

Former judge and prosecutor Jeanine Pirro says the case “sends a terrible message about the criminal justice system, that you can commit a homicide and literally get away with it…You had a preacher, who by all accounts was loved in his community, who was shot in the back while he slept. You have a woman who says she was abused with absolutely no history, no shred of evidence.’

At the trial, Diane Winkler, Matthew Winkler’s mother, said:

“The monster that you have painted for the world to see, I don’t think that monster existed…for everything you’ve accused him of, there never was proof, just accusations. I think that’s sad because he can’t speak for himself.”

A few of Mary Winkler”s friends and family members have publicly claimed that they had previously seen indications that Mary was being abused. These witnesses will probably be out in full force during the upcoming custody case, and Matthew is unavailable to contest their version of events. It’s easy to smear a dead man.

Mary Winkler says she”s sorry for killing Matthew, but she does everything she can to portray him as a monster and herself as his meek, timid victim. Despite her protestations, she has no concept of the gravity of her crime, and claims her dead husband’s parents are mistreating her by not letting her be with her children. Her court pleading reads, “The three minor children continue to be withheld from their mother without just cause,’ which her legal team deems “unconscionable.” Winkler killed the children”s father–if that’s not “just cause” for withholding a child from a parent, what is?

In describing her crime to Oprah, Mary Winkler says she was angry at her husband and “just wanted to talk to him,” and then she “heard a boom.’ A more complete description of the incident would have been that she wanted to talk to him, waited until he fell asleep, retrieved the shotgun, pumped it, aimed it at his back, pulled the trigger, and then “heard a boom.’ Her description of the killing was so devoid of personal responsibility that even a sympathetic Oprah didn”t accept it.

Perhaps the most absurd aspect of both the trial and Oprah was the way Mary highlighted the white platform shoes which she claimed Matthew “made her’ wear, and which she said were deeply humiliating to her. During the trial, Mary held up the shoe and bowed her head down in mock pain and shame. Oprah bought it, telling her audience that on her show “everybody gasped when they saw the shoe.’ It was up to feminist Court TV commentator Lisa Bloom, Gloria Allred”s daughter, to explain to Oprah that in any “big city” people would have “laughed at’ Mary”s claims that the shoes were part of the “abuse’ she suffered. Bloom added:

“We [at Court TV] all thought it was a first degree murder case.”

In order to win permanent custody, Dan and Diane Winkler must show that Mary Winkler poses a “substantial threat of harm to her children,’ and that ending her parental rights is in the best interests of her children. In family court, claims of abuse in custody cases are often decided merely by the preponderance of the evidence standard–if the judge believes that there”s a 51% chance one side is telling the truth, they win. Yet Mary was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, not by preponderance, nor even by the clear and convincing evidence standard, but instead by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt–the highest standard in our legal system. That alone is sufficient evidence that Winkler poses a “substantial threat of harm.’

Mary says she”s a different and better person now, and that she”s learned important things. She told Oprah:

“I communicate better. I speak up when there”s something I don”t like.’

The last time Mary Winkler faced something she “didn”t like’ and sought to “communicate,’ she did it with a shotgun. Is this a fit parent for three young girls?

Glenn Sacks” columns on men’s and fathers’ issues have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. He invites readers to visit his website at www.GlennSacks.com.

Ned Holstein, M.D. is the Executive Director of Fathers & Families, a shared parenting organization. Their website is www.FathersandFamilies.org.

If you ask most women athletes about their careers, they’ll tell you about a male coach they had somewhere along the way who encouraged them, taught them, and help them become what they are. There’s no hint of this, however, in Nike’s women’s soccer commercials.

The men are idiots in both “Tearaway” (pictured) and “Mask.” In “Tearaway,” a woman also inflicts great pain on a man, which is, of course, “funny.”

To watch “Tearaway,” click here. To watch “Mask,” click here.

“George Howard Buell, an inmate wrongfully imprisoned at Stateville Correctional Center for third-degree sexual assault and aggravated battery, won’t shut the hell up about being innocent.“Buell, 46, an Elmhurst, IL electrician, was convicted of raping and burglarizing his elderly neighbor in 1994, despite the fact that he was at work when the crime occurred. He was mistakenly sentenced to a prison term of 20 years to life. Since then, his imprisonment has been a source of nonstop bellyaching.”

The theme of the 2005 Onion satirical piece “Wrongly Imprisoned Man Won’t Shut Up About It” is that George Howard Buell, an innocent man serving 20 years to life in prison, won’t shut up and quit complaining about his situation. The piece is funny but also sad, and it’s always reminded me of the reaction so many divorced dads get when they complain about the way they were treated in family court. Perhaps one day we’ll see an Onion piece that reads something like this:

“George Johnson, a loving father of three who was permanently separated from the children he loves because of false charges of domestic violence, just won’t shut up about it. Johnson, who was very involved in his children’s lives until his wife decided she wanted a divorce and booted him out of his house on a restraining order, bellyaches nonstop over the fact that he cannot see his children.”

Perhaps someday. The Onion piece is below.

Wrongly Imprisoned Man Won’t Shut Up About It
The Onion
August 31, 2005 | Issue 41•35

JOLIET, IL–George Howard Buell, an inmate wrongfully imprisoned at Stateville Correctional Center for third-degree sexual assault and aggravated battery, won’t shut the hell up about being innocent.

Buell, 46, an Elmhurst, IL electrician, was convicted of raping and burglarizing his elderly neighbor in 1994, despite the fact that he was at work when the crime occurred. He was mistakenly sentenced to a prison term of 20 years to life. Since then, his imprisonment has been a source of nonstop bellyaching.

“I’m completely innocent of the charges brought against me,” Buell said in yet another long-winded jailhouse statement last week. “I am a victim of inept police work, conflict-of-interest issues among the prosecution, and a lackadaisical defense. Anyone with even a peripheral familiarity with my case could see the inconsistencies. It’s a complete miscarriage of justice.”

Buell’s insufferable tirades have taken the form of numerous appeals to state and federal courts, unsuccessful attempts to launch public petitions, and e-publishing a 400,000-word autobiography titled Won’t Someone Please Hear My Anguished Plea?

“Okay, I get it–he’s innocent already,” said Eric Holsapple, Buell’s court-appointed attorney. “Like I don’t know that. I only toiled for, like, forever years making a case out of it. Every time I talk to him, I have to brace myself–okay, here comes the sob story, again.”

After spending four years trying to capture the media’s attention with the story of his innocence, the wrongfully imprisoned inmate began pestering the courts in 2001 for additional DNA testing or a declaration of a mistrial.

“I will take a lie-detector test. I will do anything. I don’t belong in prison,” the incessant motormouth said. “The security tape in the garage where I work shows me pulling into the lot at the time the crime took place. It wasn’t admitted as evidence. That fact alone should be grounds for a mistrial.”

Buell’s cellmate, Bob Hannan, has heard the “in jail for a crime I didn’t commit” song and dance “about a million times.” Said Hannan: “The parking lot surveillance videotape, the horrible injustice. I’ve heard it all. A lot. I didn’t like the way they handled my case either. But you don’t hear me yammering about it all the time. It’s called moving on.”

Read the full article here.

John Hamel, LCSW, a court-certified batterer treatment provider and author of the book Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse, has just come out with The Context of Intimate Partner Violence: Three Common Myths–An Annotated Bibliography. In it, Hamel identifies three common myths about Intimate Partner/Domestic Violence:

MYTH #1: Mutual abuse is a rare phenomenon. Even if men and women assault each other at comparable rates, men are typically the initiators and the dominant partners.

THE FACTS: Most Intimate Partner Violence is mutual. Women initiate somewhat more often than men.

MYTH #2: Men use violence intentionally to control their partners, whereas women use violence in self-defense, or as a way to express frustration or to communicate.

THE FACTS: Self-defense is an equally unlikely motive for both genders. Male and female perpetrators are motivated to abuse their partners for various reasons, including a desire to retaliate or to communicate feelings, and there is no convincing evidence that men are significantly more motivated to control.

MYTH #3: Only men are controlling and engage in the combination of repeat emotional and physical abuse known as “battering’ or “intimate terrorism.’

THE FACTS: Although women are far more often the victims of sexual coercion, they are just as likely as men to be the perpetrators of most psychological abuse and controlling behaviors, and this includes stalking when broadly defined.

To read Hamel’s full paper, click here.

Hamel helped found the National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center and works with Michael Robinson and the California Alliance for Families and Children to reform California’s domestic violence policies. The pair are sponsoring the ground-breaking conference “From Ideology to Inclusion” early next year.

[Note: If you or someone you love is being abused, the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women provides crisis intervention and support services to victims of domestic violence and their families.]

Background: My recent co-authored column, Passport Rules Unfair to Child Support Debtors (San Antonio Express-News, 9/8/07), criticizes the new child support/passport rules which are so overwhelmingly popular among the editorial boards of our nation’s newspapers. The column was a response to the Express-News’ recent editorial “Federal law catching up with deadbeat parents’ (8/23/07). I commend the paper for its willingness to publish such criticism.

Texas shared parenting advocate Don Mathis had a letter published in the Express-News concerning my column, in which he called upon the paper to “remove the word ‘deadbeat’ from its lexicon.” His letter is below, and can also be seen here.

Dads are dead broke, not deadbeat

The statistic from the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement quoted by Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks is more than interesting (“Passport rules unfair to child support debtors,’ Sept. 12). It was reported that fewer than 4 percent of the national child support debt is owed by those earning $40,000 or more a year.

Why is it that if a poor custodial mom cannot make ends meet, we offer her assistance? And if an impoverished noncustodial dad has the same problems, we make him a criminal?

It is time for the Express-News to remove the word “deadbeat’ from its lexicon. “Dead broke’ is more like it. Being poor should not be a crime.

–Don Mathis,
Sherman, Texas

To write a Letter to the Editor regarding Passport Rules Unfair to Child Support Debtors (9/8/07), write to letters@express-news.net.