Categories
Blog

Researchers Seeking Participants for National Institutes of Health-Funded Study on Male DV Victims

January 23rd, 2012 by Glenn Sacks
Professors Denise Hines, Ph.D. and Emily M. Douglas, Ph.D. are conducting a new National Institutes of Health-funded study on men who have experienced female partner aggression, and have asked Fathers and Families to post the following recruitment statement:

Researchers at Clark University and Bridgewater State University are conducting a study on men who experienced aggression from their girlfriends, wives, or female partners. If you are a man between the ages of 18-59 and have experienced aggression from a female partner at some point during your life, you may be eligible to participate in this study. We invite you to follow this link to the study webpage http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/mensdvstudy.htm  where you can complete an Internet survey about your experiences.

The survey takes about 20-30 minutes to complete, is under the direction of Denise A. Hines, Ph.D., Clark University, and is being funded by the National Institutes of Health.  Participation is completely voluntary and you can withdraw your participation at any time.

Categories
Blog

Victory! F & F Helps Win Child Custody Case in CO Supreme Court

January 24th, 2012 by Glenn Sacks Fathers and Families and its legislative representative Michael Robinson have been at the forefront of the fight to protect military servicemembers’ often tenuous child custody rights. We’ve successfully worked to pass military parent legislation in dozens of states, including Ohio, Georgia, California, Indiana, Nevada, and Arizona over the past two years.

Captain Christine Brandt of the U.S. Army Nurse Corps, who has been deprived of child custody because of her military deployments.

While the family court system in general is biased against fathers, Fathers and Families has repeatedly warned that there are fathers who have learned how to work the system against mothers, and use it to their unjust advantage. When this occurs, Fathers and Families is on the side of the mother whose loving bonds with her children are being endangered.

In Re the Marriage of Brandt, decided this week by the Colorado Supreme Court, is such a case. Fathers and Families has been assisting Captain Christine Brandt of the U.S. Army Nurse Corps to regain custody of her 12-year-old son.

In short, Brandt’s ex, George Brandt, tried to take custody of their son away from Christine by using her military service against her. As Brandt’s attorney Stanley G. Lipkin, Esq. explained to the Court, this case is “about an active duty military person who has been deprived of the custody of her child solely by reason of her deployments.”

Fathers and Families favors equally shared physical custody in most cases, but we acknowledge that in some cases, such as this one, factors such as geography prevent true shared custody arrangements. When true shared custody is impossible, we believe that noncustodial parents should not try to take advantage of the custodial parent by using factors such as military service against them.

Christine Brandt has made significant efforts to respect George Brandt’s role in their son’s life. For example, in October of 2010, shortly after the beginning of the school year, Christine allowed their son to live with George for the rest of the school year, even though the year had just begun and she could have had her son live with her.

Fortunately the Colorado Supreme Court saw through George Brandt’s various child custody maneuvers, and issued a January 23, 2012 ruling wherein the Court “reverses and vacates the district’s court’s order assuming jurisdiction and remands this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision can be seen here. The full chronology of the case is available below. The case now goes back to Maryland, where it should have been all along, for a hearing this spring. We will keep our supporters informed of further developments.

Christine Brandt and Her Attorneys Thank Fathers and Families

Fathers and Families’ legislative representative Michael Robinson has advised Brandt and her legal team during their Supreme Court fight, and Brandt’s attorney included some of our materials, including documentation on changes to the SCRA, military parent legislation that F & F has helped pass in other states, in their brief.

Brandt’s mother Marianne Rufty, who served as Executive Director of the Commission on Child and Family Welfare during the Clinton Administration, has worked hard to help her embattled daughter. She recently thanked Fathers and Families, explaining:

As far as I’m concerned, Michael Robinson helped me as much as anybody with this case. Our response is good in large part because you sent us the latest Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the judge’s guide [A Judge’s Guide to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by Mark E. Sullivan], the update of state legislation affecting military deployment and custody, and other states’ cases. In addition, you helped us understand what’s going on in California and across the nation.

After the Colorado Supreme Court victory, Brandt’s attorney Stanley G. Lipkin, Esq. thanked us for our help and wrote that this decision will “help deployed parents.”

The Fathers and Families Legal Defense Fund

The Fathers and Families Legal Defense Fund takes on cases, writes amicus brief, or advises in cases which can help advance the cause of family court reform, such as the Brandt case.

For example, Fathers and Families brought a lawsuit to block the new Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines from being implemented in 2009. The lawsuit has been covered by the Associated Press, the New York Times, CBS, WRKO, the Boston Globe, NPR, Newsweek, and numerous other major media outlets. The case went all the way up to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, where our side lost in September of 2011. To learn more, click here.

In another recent case, duped dad Pedro Soto and his attorney Richard A. Lowe, Esq. prevailed against the Orange County Department of Child Support Services in a paternity fraud case emblematic of the numerous outrageous injustices faced by men and fathers in family court. In this case, Soto has paid over $75,000 in child support for a child DNA tests have established is not his, and who has been living with both of his biological parents for many years. Fathers and Families was instrumental in that win–to learn more, click here.

Chronology of the Brandt Case

The basic chronology of the case is as follows:

  1. George and Christine Brandt had a son in 1999 and divorced in Montgomery County, Maryland in 2006. George and Christine agreed that the parties would have joint legal custody of their son, with Christine designated as the primary physical custodian. There has never been a modification of these orders, and Christine has remained a continuous legal resident of Maryland.
  2. At the time of the divorce, George was a member of the Army, and lived close to the minor child and shared custody with Mother. In 2008, Father requested and received a military transfer to Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Father retired from the Army in 2010, remarried that same year, and moved from Colorado Springs to Littleton, Colorado.
  3. Mother became an active duty member of the Army Nursing Corp in 2009, was stationed at Fort Hood, Texas and later deployed to Iraq on active duty for six months in 2010 before returning to Ft. Hood. In May of this year she returned to Maryland.
  4. At the time Christine was to be deployed to Iraq, she and George agreed to allow their son to temporarily stay with George in Colorado. After Christine returned from Iraq in October 2010, George asked her to allow their son to complete the 2010-2011 school year in Colorado. Christine was amenable to this, and the parties entered into a notarized agreement, and the child was returned to Christine in Texas in May 2011, after the end of the school year. Christine then returned to Maryland with her son, and is now in a non-deployable assignment at Fort Meade, Maryland.
  5. Without notice to Christine, George asked the Arapahoe County District Court in Colorado to assume jurisdiction of the case and modify the original Maryland child-custody order. George’s petition argued that Maryland should no longer have jurisdiction because Christine had not been in Maryland since March 2009. However, George’s Petition did not inform the Arapahoe District Court that the reason for Mother’s absence from Maryland was due solely to mandatory military assignments.
  6. On May 18, 2011, Mother was served in Texas with the Petition, which stated that she had 20 days to object. Yet on May 25,2011, prior to the expiration of the 20-day period, the Arapahoe District Court entered an order assuming child custody modification. Mother had not been afforded even the time set out in the Notice to file any objection.
  7. Mother responded appropriately and in a timely manner to the Arapahoe District Court, with proper documentation to support her version of events, including a request for a 90-stay of proceedings under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.  Yet, despite her request and after three telephonic hearings, the Arapahoe District Court continues to claim exclusive jurisdiction of the case, based upon a fallacious finding that Christine Brandt no longer resided in the original decree state, Maryland.
  8. George then filed an emergency petition to take custody of the child (based on a series of misleading statements), and the District Court issued ex parte order for the father to take custody of the child without affording any opportunity for Christine’s side to be heard. In late June, Christine had to return briefly to Texas to out-process from her military installation, and left the child with her mother. While she was gone, George went to Maryland and took the child back to Colorado. The boy has not seen his mother since, and they’ve been able to communicate only via monitored and restricted phone calls.

Christine’s case is based upon the fact that Arapahoe improperly assumed custody modification jurisdiction, even though the Maryland court has exclusive continuing jurisdiction over its original custody orders, and has deprived the rightful custodian of the custody of her child.

Categories
Blog

Bill Hudson, Goldie Hawn’s Ex, Pens Book on Parental Alienation, Praises Fathers and Families

January 24th, 2012 by FAF Staff

Goldie Hawn and Bill Hudson, circa 1976.

Bill Hudson, father of Kate and Oliver Hudson and the ex-husband of Goldie Hawn, has authored a new book, Two Versions, in which he claims he was alienated from his children by his ex-wife. According to Amazon.com:

Bill Hudson of the Hudson brothers, ex-spouse of Goldie Hawn, explores in this book aspects of the family dealing with fame, marriage, divorce, and the ugliness that can cause relationships between parent and child to become stilted…he covers the bitter side of divorce, his own foibles, as well as such issues as parental alienation and fathers’ rights. Not a ‘Hollywood tell-all’, but instead an emotional outreach to those who have been in or are in the same situations Bill saw.

In a recent appearance on Good Day LA, Hudson said he was unfairly portrayed as a “bad father” who “walked away” from his children. He claims he has tried everything to reestablish a relationship with his children, but that Kate has “followed the path of her mom,” accusing him of abandoning this children, etc. He sadly noted, “I’ve never met my grandchildren.” To watch the interview, click here.

Bill Hudson’s new book, “Two Versions.”

Hudson quotes Fathers and Families Executive Director Glenn Sacks extensively in the book. Hudson wrote:

[I]n addition to educating people, Glenn and his organization actually work to implement change…It’s refreshing to see them use the media to provide a voice for fathers, the same media that often created strife in my situation. Fathers and Families also gets involved in lobbying for family court reform…and are…changing some of the ways family issues are handled within our legal system.

As in my case, Glenn said that a parent (usually the mother) often decides they want to bring in a new parental figure to create an ideal family unit. Just as Goldie encouraged my children to address Kurt as “Pa,” it happens to many others after a divorce. “We see that a lot,” says Glenn. “The woman attempts to make the father a blank space in their family history. She replaces him with a new dad and convinces the children to minimize the role of the biological father.” That puts the father in a no-win situation.

“The more time the children are in mom’s care, which is usually most of the time since she often gets sole custody, the more likely the father will be alienated from his children.” If fathers keep their mouths shut and don’t fight it, they are accused of abandoning their kids. If they speak up for their rights, they are the bad guy for disrupting the new family.

Glenn points out that…with celebrity divorces, the media often describes the divorce as a “nasty custody battle” or “messy.” This is misleading in that it draws a moral equivalence between a father trying to get joint custody so he can share parenting with the mother of his child, and a mother demanding sole custody. There’s a huge moral distinction between these two positions, and fathers are often described as being contentious or litigious simply because they’re trying to remain a meaningful part of their children’s lives—a fact usually lost on the unsuspecting public…

There is good news though. Based on all of the cases he has seen, Glenn says, “It’s not uncommon for alienated children to reunite with fathers when they are older. Sometimes it’s a spontaneous reunification brought on because of a life-altering event that makes one party reach out and try to reconnect. It could be money for college, the birth of their own child, or they feel the absence of a grandparent. Sometimes children grow up and go through their own divorces and then find out what can happen. It helps them see things differently.”

I’m also thrilled that Glenn and the Fathers and Families organization will continue to help promote not just father’s rights, but family rights. Their position is that if both parents are fit, once there is a divorce or an end to a relationship, custody should be shared.

Categories
Blog

In King County, Dads’ ‘Day in Court’ Lasts Five Minutes

January 25th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
Family courts in King County, Washington are so busy and the rules of evidence on claims of domestic violence so lax, that the wholesale removal of fathers from children’s lives is inevitable.  Here again is Nina Shapiro’s fine piece (Seattle Weekly, 1/18/12).

I’ve written a series of pieces about Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer, Jeffrey Ruggierro in New Hampshire.  His ex-wife Kristin managed to deprive him of all rights to his daughter by her false claims that he threatened and stalked her.
  Too late to save his parental rights, the police figured out that the threatening email messages she used to destroy his parental rights had actually been sent by Kristin herself, not Jeff.

So she was eventually hauled into criminal court where she continued to lie to police and prosecutors.  Eventually, Kristin was convicted of 12 felony counts of perjury, lying to police, etc.  After that trial, the assistant District Attorney who’d won the convictions said an interesting thing.  He said “I guess she didn’t realize she wasn’t in family court any more.”

In other words, Kristin’s mistake was to believe that the criminal courts of New Hampshire operate under the same lax evidentiary standards as do the family courts.  They don’t, and she was sentenced to 7 – 14 years behind bars because of her mistaken belief that they do.

What more damning indictment of a court system could be made than that ADA’s offhand remark?  He knew full well that the state’s family courts accept a mother’s bare allegations as fact and daily turn a blind eye to perjury.  And so they do, both in New Hampshire and in Washington State. 

Here’s Nina Shapiro again.

Had [Jim] been charged with domestic violence in criminal court, where guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the standards of due process are high, this might not have happened. But Jim’s fate was decided in a very different venue: family court.

It’s a court like no other—a hugely busy and rancorous place where the most personal aspects of people’s lives are not only on display, but judged and reshaped in proceedings that often last no longer than 20 minutes. Appointed commissioners, rather than elected judges, make many of the most crucial decisions. And the standard of evidence (known as “preponderance of the evidence”) is the lowest allowed by law…

Commissioners preside over hearings on what is called the family-law “motions calendar.” Technically, the decisions reached—on custody, child support, maintenance (what used to be called alimony), and who gets the house—are temporary. Either a trial before a regular Superior Court judge or a settlement will yield the final decisions.

But, concedes James Doerty, assistant presiding judge for King County Superior Court, “Once the tank is moving in a certain direction, it’s very hard to turn it.” And even if it does turn, it takes a long time. The wait for a trial currently averages 14 months. What’s more, the vast majority of cases never make it that far—one lawyer estimates that “95 percent” settle beforehand—meaning that the commissioners’ rulings are often first and final.

This wouldn’t be a problem if hearings in family court were comprehensive. But they’re not. In a single morning, a commissioner might handle as many as 14 hearings—as did Les Ponomarchuk, the lead family-law commissioner, one day last month.

Consequently, King County imposes strict rules to keep these hearings short. Each side is only allotted five minutes to speak. There are no witnesses, beyond the parties themselves, and no allowed cross-examination. There are even limits on what kind of documents a party can submit before a trial to bolster their case. At a recent hearing, Commissioner Meg Sassaman fined an attorney two hours of his opposing counsel’s time, a net loss that amounted to $500, for writing too much in defense of his client.

In other words, the most precious relationships in people’s lives—relationships that impact not only the adults standing before a commissioner but the unseen children used to being around both parents every day—are reconstituted according to whatever spin embittered spouses can put forward in the time it takes to walk around the block.

So if you’re a dad in King County, your attorney has five minutes to make your case for you.  That’s five minutes to rebut a claim of domestic violence your soon-to-be-ex-wife has already used to get a no-contact order against you.  That’s five minutes to make the case that you’re a good dad, entitled to custody over the anti-father biases of the commissioner that various female attorney’s detailed in Shapiro’s article.

[Family attorney Rhea] Rolfe calls herself “a very strong feminist.” She believes domestic violence and male denial are big problems. Yet considering the way women can “use the system,” she says, “It absolutely infuriates me.”

“I have always seen gender bias,” says [Deborah] Bianco, who has been practicing law for more than 20 years. “What’s changed is that it’s no longer gender bias against women—now it’s against men.”

As Shapiro correctly points out, those five minutes are likely a father’s entire “day in court” in King County.  That’s because, although the commissioner’s orders are nominally temporary, in the vast majority of cases, they’re not.  If you want a full trial before a judge, you wait 14 months, during which time the status quo of the temporary orders remains in effect.  That means a father has to have an unusually strong case in order to convince the judge that he/she should overturn that status quo.  It also requires the man to have the money to pay a lawyer, a private investigator and various and sundry mental health professionals to make that unusually strong case.  Small wonder that only 2% of custody cases in Washington State go to trial.

A few more things about the anti-father bias of King County family law commissioners.  First, Shapiro says that 80% of requests for no-contact orders are granted.  Second, four of the five family law commissioners in King County are women.  Last, here’s what one veteran of the family law system says about Commissioner Meg Sassaman.

“I have been a family law paralegal in King County for 24 years. I have never seen anyone as obviously biased and hateful towards men as this woman.”

Keep in mind, this is what we do to children.  This is the elaborate mechanism called family courts whose inevitable result is the removal of fathers from their children’s lives.

Categories
Blog

VAWA Committee Vote Tomorrow; Call Members and Let Them Know Your Thoughts

January 25th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
The following is a message from Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (S.A.V.E.).  Allegations of domestic violence are one of the chief ways in which children are separated from their fathers.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) this coming Thursday at 10am. As you know, we have found many flaws in this bill, which is why we created the Partner Violence Reduction Act (PVRA).

The Partner Violence Reduction Act:

1. Gives priority to real victims.
2. Reduces false allegations.
3. Removes provisions that violate the Constitution.
4. Protects families.
5. Provides legal assistance for alleged victim and alleged offender.
6. Requires third-party accreditation.
7. Curbs immigration fraud.
8. Makes the law gender-inclusive.

Today we’d like you to call members on the committee. Tell them to reject VAWA and to support the Partner Violence Reduction Act. More info: www.saveservices.org/pvra

Please contact the members listed below:

Chuck Grassley (202) 224-3744
Orrin G. Hatch (202) 224-5251
Jon Kyl (202) 224-4521
Jeff Sessions (202) 224-4124
Lindsey Graham (202) 224-5972
John Cornyn (202) 224-2934
Michael S. Lee (202) 224-5444
Tom Coburn (202) 224-5754

Call them once, call them twice, call them several times. Call Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Ask your family, friends, church family, co-workers and neighbors to call. And don’t forget to ask your Facebook, Twitter and Google, and friends too.

Sincerely,

Teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director

Stop Abusive and Violent Environmentsv

Categories
Blog

Family Courts’ ‘Cottage Industry’ Skirts Law to Separate Children from Fathers

January 26th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Aptly entitled “Ripped Apart,” Nina Shapiro’s article describes not only the plain anti-father bias of King County, Washington’s family courts, but as well the main excuse for it – spurious domestic violence accusations by mothers.  Here’s Shapiro’s article again (Seattle Weekly, 1/18/12).

As I said in my previous piece, that’s in line with the findings of a study by Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen regarding Oregon family courts.  Back in 1997, 
the Oregon legislature attempted to reduce the number of cases resulting in sole custody to mothers, only to be thwarted by the law’s domestic violence exceptions.  Put simply, allegations of domestic violence by mothers, often accompanied by little or no objective evidence, were sufficient to deny to children a relationship with their fathers post-divorce.

It’s not included in Shapiro’s piece, but the recent case of Solomon Metalwala is an excellent, if tragic, example of the genre.  Metalwala’s wife had been diagnosed as having emotional problems that were serious enough to at first get him custody of the couple’s two young children.  But, once out of the mental hospital, his wife leveled domestic violence charges against him that had virtually no evidence to support them.  Sure enough, that was enough to lose Metalwala all contact with his children for a time.  That was later replaced with closely supervised visitation.

Then one of the children went missing.  His mother reported two-year-old Sky Metalwala had been abducted by persons unknown from her car when she’d left him there and gone to get gas.  No one, including the police believes her story and yet the child has still not been found, either dead or alive.

I’ve argued before that the commissioner who issued the no-contact order against Metalwala is at the very least complicit in Sky’s disappearance.  She knew the danger of giving custody to the child’s mother, but used questionable claims of domestic violence as an excuse to do so.  As if to make the point, custody of the older child was returned to Metalwala shortly after Sky’s disappearance.

What had changed?  Had Metalwala suddenly gone from an abuser to a non-abuser?  Of course not.  He was never an abuser to begin with, but with egg running down her face, the family court judge couldn’t very well keep up the pretense that it was Metalwala and not his wife who was the deficient parent.

As I mentioned in my previous piece, one of the amazing facts to come out of Washington State’s data on child custody cases is that, when the mother has a “risk factor” and the father none, the father still only gets custody in 24% of cases.  “Risk factors” are things like abuse or neglect of children, drug or alcohol abuse and mental health issues.  Sure enough, Solomon Metalwala had no risk factors and his wife had one – mental health problems – but she was given custody of the children.

Nina Shapiro hits all the high points about how claims of domestic violence are used to come between fathers and children.  She starts with “Jim,” who came home one evening to find a police officer with a suitcase with some of his belongings and a no-contact order courtesy of his wife and a commissioner of the family courts of King County.

In it, his wife wrote that she felt like she had to “walk on eggshells” around Jim due to his unpredictable temper. He would scream to such an extent that “veins in his neck were bulging” and “spittle from his lips was hitting me in the face.” She also described him yelling at their dogs, roughly handling their cat, and driving aggressively and recklessly.

But there’s one thing she never claimed—that Jim had ever hit her or their son. Nor did she accuse Jim of threatening either of them.

Jim, an insurance agent periodically unemployed, had at times performed more child-care duties than his wife, according to a court-assigned social worker hired to assess each spouse’s parenting skills. Observing interactions between Jim and his son, and talking to friends, relatives, and neighbors, she called the bond between them “relatively strong, happy, interactive, comfortable, playful, and full of physical play and affection.” Yet it would still take 15 months for Jim to be allowed to have normal visits with his son.

It’s a familiar refrain; domestic violence needn’t have anything to do with – well – violence.  Assume that every word in Jim’s ex-wife’s claim was true.  He may have been guilty of being obnoxious and he probably irritated his wife.  But there is simply no way in which a man described as Jim was by the social worker should be kept out of his children’s lives for any amount of time, much less 15 months.

And that of course raises one of the main issues about domestic “violence” restraining orders; many of them don’t even allege violence.  And they don’t need to in order to achieve the desired effect – keeping Dad and children separate.

Now, Washington criminal law defines domestic violence as some sort of assaultive behavior.  The problem comes, not from its definition by criminal law, but from the fact that family courts and their various minions simply ignore the definition in favor of their own hugely expanded one.

In Jim’s trial, his wife’s attorney, Jan Dyer, called that bane of fathers throughout the state, Doug Bartholomew as an expert witness.

After noting that he had worked in the field of domestic violence since 1982, providing both risk assessments and treatment, the counselor explained that he didn’t have much use for the definition of domestic violence provided by state law.

The law, Bartholomew said, “is an extremely limiting definition in that basically you have to rape, assault, or kidnap someone, or stalk them. And that doesn’t allow for addressing the bulk of domestic violence.” Instead, he said he had used a “judges’ manual” on the subject that is put out by the state Administrative Office of the Courts. That definition cites “a pattern of assault and coercive behaviors, including physical assaults, psychological attacks, and economic coercion.”

Bartholomew is not alone in using an expansive concept of domestic violence, though there seems to be no one precise definition that is generally understood. Jim’s risk assessment, by a now-retired therapist named Warland Wight, began by listing three definitions: the state law, that of the judges’ manual, and a similar definition that takes into account both physical incidents and “control tactics.”

“What the general public needs to understand is that domestic violence is more than just physical assault,” says Commissioner Ponomarchuk. “It has to do with control . . . When you control the keys to the car and check [your wife’s] cell phone to see if she’s having an affair, that’s control.”

It’s a problem when counsellors, judges and the cottage industry that makes up the DV area of family courts sees the law as little more than a worrisome inconvenience that they’re free to ignore or sidestep in the service of a larger goal of keeping fathers and children separate.  But Bartholomew and others are laudably frank about doing just that.

Indeed, what they’ve done is usurp the law in favor of long-discredited notions of what is and isn’t domestic violence.  One of the many logical fallacies of the DV industry is its claim that, because (according to the DV industry) all DV involves “control,” then all “control” must be DV.  That’s obviously false, but logic has never been the DV industry’s long suit.

In fact, there is a great deal of domestic violence that has nothing to do with controlling the actions of the other person.  Most DV is non-injurious and either a one-time incident or very rare.  A small percentage of DV incidents do involve an effort to monitor and control every aspect of the other person’s life, and include some sort of assault as well.  That’s now called Intimate Terrorism, and is rightly the subject of concern and even intervention by police and courts.

What should have nothing to do with police, courts or child custody is what every couple does with some frequency – make emotional demands on the other person.  The simple fact is that couples do control each other’s behavior and should.  It’s entirely appropriate for a wife to tell her husband “call me when you get there” when he goes on a business trip.  She has a right to know that he arrived safely.  But according to the DV industry, if a husband does the same on a regular basis, he’s an abuser.  To DV “experts” like Doug Bartholomew, it’s cause for losing his children.

And that, among many other things, is how we’ve gotten DV so terribly wrong in this country.

Categories
Blog

Media Search in Vain for Wealthy Child Support Debtors

January 27th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
Australia’s Courier Mail is pleased to promote the myth of the deadbeat parent.  Here’s its latest effort (Courier Mail, 1/27/12).

It’s a staple of the U.S. news media that, although the term “deadbeat dad” has fallen out of favor, the myth persists that parents, and particularly fathers, routinely don’t pay their child support, not because they can’t, but because they’re too callous toward their kids to care.  Of course there doubtless are such people, but overwhelmingly, they’re the exception, not the rule.

Still, the media like nothing better than a tale of the perverse and hardhearted working their evil schemes against the innocent and long-suffering.  So, in their telling, it’s Snidely Whiplash turning Little Nell out into the cold, hungry and unshod.

Into the bargain, we’re asked to believe that these non-custodial parents have plenty of money that they manage to hide from the courts, taxing authorities and child support enforcement agencies.  So certain are the media that these wealthy parents abound that they’ve convinced legislatures to pass laws allowing for the imputation of income to non-custodial parents.  That way, the little matter of not having a job in the worst economy since the 30s won’t prevent a judge from ordering unpayable child support anyway.

The notion that these parents are likely to have vast sums of money squirreled away in the mattress is right up there with the myth of the “welfare Cadillac.”  It’s almost never the case, but there’s just enough truth to it to keep the myth alive.

And that’s where the linked-to story starts.

PARENTS shunning child-support payments while living it up have been spied on by the Federal Government, with Queensland parents boasting some of the nation’s biggest debts.

Private detectives using video surveillance techniques have spied on 64 of Australia’s worst debtors, who are suspected to be living the high life at the expense of meeting child-support financial requirements while they operate lucrative cash-in-hand businesses.

Pretty lurid stuff, right?  Well, maybe not so lurid after all.

Reading further we find that the article mentions no names, no arrests, indeed nothing whatsoever to indicate that a single such parent, “living it up” at the expense of Little Nell, was ever actually found.  No, it cites some figures about how much is owed all together, and how much that is per debtor.  But there’s not a word to suggest that any of those owing support are actually able to pay.

Indeed, they’ve only actually spied on 64 parents in all of Australia.  In Queensland alone, there are some 54,000 parents behind on their payments.  New South Wales adds another 60,000 to the total and Victoria another 42,000.  Out of those and many more, the government gumshoes are checking out a grand total of 64 people who may be able to pay.

Truth to tell, Queensland’s payment rate turns out to be pretty good.  Some 70% of Queensland parents are paid up to date on their support obligations.  Compared to the United States, that’s a stellar performance.  Here, the Census Bureau reports that only about 42% are paid up.

There are truths about child support that the MSM don’t seem particularly interested in letting the general public know.  And that’s not because the information isn’t readily available.  The Office of Child Support Enforcement and the Census Bureau are just a few clicks of a mouse away, but reporters can’t be bothered to, literally, lift a finger.

Besides, the myth of the deadbeat parent is just too enticing.  I suppose it satisfies our desires for a Dickensian world of villains and the virtuous.  And the truth is too complicated and nuanced to hold the media’s interest.

I suspect what’s true in the U.S. is true in Australia as well.  Here, the OCSE reports that 64% of those in arrears on their payments report earning less than $10,000 per year.  Sweeps of child support debtors conducted by law enforcement routinely gross a few cents on the dollar.  For example, New Jersey manages to collect but one cent for every dollar owed by those facing jail if they don’t pay up.  What does that tell you about their ability to pay?

The little matter of visitation is essentially never mentioned by the press in dealing with child support issues.  It’s true that a mother’s right to receive child support from a father isn’t conditioned on her allowing him access to the child.  But Arizona State University researcher Sanford Braver and others have shown time and again that fathers who pay tend strongly to be those whose wives don’t interfere with visitation.  So for each story of a man who doesn’t pay, there’s potentially an inside story of a mother who feels free to keep the guy out of his child’s life.  But the media ignore the latter story.

Then there are the courts that refuse to enforce visitation.  That tells the dad loudly and clearly that, to them and to the mother, he’s a wallet, not a father.  Those repeated slaps in the face understandably breed resentment which in turn leads to non-payment.

Last is the fact that, in the U.S. at least, mothers are significantly less likely to pay support than are fathers.  Again, the Census Bureau data show that plainly, but, as with the rest of the story, the media aren’t interested.

They’re probably too busy to look into those matters.  After all, they’re still trying to find the wealthy dad, “living it up” while his child goes without.  But come to think of it, he should be easy to locate; he’s the guy with the welfare Cadillac in the garage.

Categories
Blog

Boy Taken by Norwegian Child Welfare to be Sent to Uncle in India

January 27th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
The Indian couple whose child was taken by Norwegian child welfare authorities may finally get him back.  But they’ll have to go back to India to do it.  Read the latest here (Hindustan Times, 1/25/12).

The case has been making international news since the child was taken some two weeks ago.  What’s caught people’s eye is the reason given by Norwegian officials for taking the three-year-old boy in the first place.
  It seems his parents, Anurup and Sagarika Bhattacharya, fed the child by hand instead of with a spoon or other implement.  They then compounded the “abuse” by letting their son sleep in the same bed with them.

The fact that parenting habits may differ from culture to culture apparently never occurred to the Norwegian officials.  The fact that the little boy was in perfectly good health and was in no danger from his parents’ actions seems not to have made much of an impression either.  Nor did the fact that children tend to do worse in foster care than they do in parental care, even when the parents are less than the best.

So it was off to foster care for the three-year-old and the story blew up in the faces of the Norwegians, as it should have.  For those unfamiliar with the behavior of child welfare officials, it came as a shock and a surprise that the state could take a little boy from his parents for such benign parenting habits as feeding him with their fingers.  (Is there a parent alive who hasn’t done that on occasion?)  As such, the case provides yet another valuable lesson in the abuses of governmental power and arrogance.

More importantly, in this era of postmodernism, the concept of what the late Edward Said termed “cultural imperialism” has taken root and flowered.  Those for whom that concept holds particular interest will be able to see it at work in Norway’s outrageous conduct.  In that way, it’s just barely possible that they’ll notice the problem of allowing ever greater governmental intrusion into family life.  After all, shouldn’t parents, even Indians living in Norway, be able to deliver food to the mouths of their young as they see fit as long as the child is healthy and happy as the Bhattacharya’s was?  Or is that rightly a matter of public concern?  Should taxpayers foot the very pricey bill for foster care because Mom failed to wield a spoon?

Those questions should be easy enough to answer, even for those who instictually believe that Big Brother always knows best.

As it’s turned out, the Norwegian government has been humiliated into settling the matter.  Predictably, it’s not doing the simple, honest thing; it’s not admitting its child welfare officials screwed up and handing the boy back to his parents.  No, that might get the government sued for its wrongful behavior, and we can’t have that, now can we?

So the deal that’s been struck is to turn the boy over to his uncle who lives in India.  The practical effect of that will be that the parents will move back to India where the uncle will do what Norway should have done – hand the child over to them.  That in turn will mean that Anurup will have to quit his job as a geo-scientist and try to find another one in India.

This strikes me as the right time to ask the question “could Norway have done worse by this family?”  The Bhattacharyas seem to have been doing well in Norway.  Anurup had a good job, probably a better job than he could have gotten in India.  Otherwise, why was he in Norway?  Mother and child seem to have been doing fine as well.  In comes child welfare and traumatizes the boy, costs the taxpayers money for foster care and court expenses.  The uncle has to travel from India to take the child back there.  Anurup will have to quit his job and he and his wife move back to India where they and their child will likely have a lower standard of living than they did in Norway.  All the disruption of the family and the trauma of foster care to the boy, all the expense to everyone were caused by a single governmental agency that couldn’t manage to see what’s been obvious to all since the day the story broke. 

It’s some sort of evil genius at work.  And, however unique the details of this particular story, the lesson is the same as ever: governmental power is inevitably abused.  When that power is over families, children will be abused, as here.

Categories
Blog

Adoption Agencies Sue Mom Who Returned Adopted Boy to Russia for Child Support

January 29th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
Two U.S. adoption agencies have sued Tennesseean Torry Hansen for child support for a Russian boy she adopted but then sent back to Russia when she determined he had psychological problems.  Read about it here (The Republic, 1/24/12).

It’s a strange plot twist in an already strange story.  About three years ago, Torry Hansen, who was single, decided she wanted to adopt a child.  Assisted by the World Association for Children and Parents and the National Council for Adoption, she adopted a little boy out of a Russian orphanage.  He was seven at the time. 

But little Artem Saveliev spent only a few months with Hansen before she decided he was too much of a problem for her to deal with.  Saying he had psychological problems and citing a drawing he made of a burning building with people inside as proof, Hansen bought him a one-way ticket back to Moscow.  She was done with him.

Since then, Artem has lived in what we in the United States would call a group home.

The SOS village — although technically an orphanage — provides home and family environment to children who have lost hope of being adopted. Children at Tomilino range from 7 to 16 and are typically watched over by a woman who also serves as a teacher.

In short, abandoned by Hansen, Artem will never have real parents.  Here in the U.S., group foster homes are among the worst places a child can be.  Children grow up with little hands-on parenting and with a great likelihood of being abused by caretakers and older children.  Whether the same holds true in Russia, I can’t say, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

Hansen treated Artem like a fish she’d caught; she wanted a trout but got a mullet, so she threw it back.  That’s despicable behavior by anyone’s definition, but what makes it more so is the fact that she never gave the boy a real chance.  She took a little boy who’d lived most of his life in an orphanage and who was then sent to a strange culture with a strange language in the care of a woman he didn’t know and figuratively said “you’ve got six months to shape up or you’re out.”

Apparently he failed the test so she pinned a note on him saying he was a problem and she didn’t want him anymore, and put him on a plane.  At least she didn’t box him up and send him by FedEx.

Meanwhile, the Russians who run Artem’s group home disagree with Hansen’s assessment.

[SOS Village Director Anatoly]Vasilyev said Artem “tries to forget about his life in the States”, and that’s the reason why the orphanage is not allowing the media to see him for the time being. He added that the child gets along well with other children and has almost forgotten English and doesn’t seem to want to speak it…

Staffers at the SOS village outside Moscow said Artem has no real issues to speak of.

“He does have psychological problems,” Vasilyev said. “But they are not as serious as she described. It’s mostly due to the psychological traumas he’s had, and it’s not something that cannot be dealt with.”

Hansen’s behavior has apparently made the adoption agencies who facilitated her adoption of Artem very, very unhappy.  So they’ve filed suit in Tennessee court to force her to pay child support, presumably to the group home in Russia.

The legalities of that I can’t begin to figure out.  For one thing, Hansen claims that a Russian court annulled the original adoption, so it’s possible that she’s no longer Artem’s legal mother, although she certainly was for a while.  But what effect does that annulment, if it exists, have on U.S. courts?  Surely Tennessee acquired jurisdiction of the boy once he began residing there.  But that only lasted six months, so who has the right to say what about child support?  I don’t have a clue. 

Further, no Tennessee court or law enforcement agency has taken any action against Hansen, which I count as strange.  After all, can any parent do what Hansen did?  If Mom gets tired of junior, can she just put him on a plane to a land far, far away and be done with him?  No, so why can Torry Hansen?  Her adoption of him conferred certain rights on her, so what about her obligations?  Whatever the answers to those questions, Tennessee courts aren’t interested in them.

At the same time, how can it be the business of the adoption agencies to force her to pay child support?  What legal dog do they have in that fight?  None that I can see.  Oh, I’m sure their adopton business with Russian authorities has suffered on account of Hansen’s irresponsible action, but I can’t see that that gives them the power to take her to court for child support.

From where I sit, it looks like a case of a couple of mightily p.o.’ed adoption agencies looking to make an outrageously irresponsible woman suffer in any way they can.  I can understand their motives, but I doubt they’ll succeed.

In the mean time, Torry Hansen’s outrageous behavior has dealt a blow to the business of international adoption.  There are millions of children worldwide being warehoused in orphanages where they get only the bare minimum of care.  That means they get fed and kept clean.  Beyond that, they receive little or nothing in the way of actual care.  They aren’t cuddled, sung to, read to, held or made to feel special.  They aren’t special; each is one of too many to count.

In her small way, Torry Hansen helped to block their access to a better life.

Categories
Blog

Simon Boswell Acquitted of False Abuse Charge

January 30th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
Yet another father has come forward to detail his abuse at the hands of the mother of his child and the police.  Here’s the article (Daily Mail, 1/22/12).

This time it’s renowned British musician and composer Simon Boswell who was acquitted of the false claim of domestic violence levelled at him by his partner, the sometime actress, Lysette Anthony.  His story is by no means the most horrendous we’ve ever read.  Boswell has been a well-regarded and well-paid musician for decades and, financially at least, could afford to defend himself and did so successfully.

But even though there’s been no actual blood spilled, his story is worth reading and the fact that it’s prominently displayed in one of the most widely read newspapers in the U.K., means a lot.  The more of this that gets into public discourse, the more likely laws are to be changed to inject some measure of sanity into the utterly dysfunctional system we have in place to deal with domestic violence.  And that, not a desire to revel in scandal, is why Boswell decided to publish his story.  He, like many before him, demands change.

Simon Boswell’s story is familiar.  It’s the tale of the abusive mother who cries “abuse.”  As is so often the case, her abuse of her male partner and their child was entirely overlooked by the police and courts.  If she’s paid any price for her many misdeeds, Boswell doesn’t mention it.

According to Boswell, Anthony had an affair with a man Boswell doesn’t name.  She denies the affair, but Boswell has emails from both her and the man admitting it.  As if the affair weren’t hurtful enough, Anthony pursued it while he was on the continent working to support her and their son Jimi who was seven at the time.

Lysette contributed virtually nothing financially to our life, though I know she would have if she could.  I supported her many theatre tours, from which she earned very little, but I was happy to do it to keep her content and busy and to support our son. I paid all the bills – mortgages, shopping, you name it.

But when Boswell mentioned to her that he’d met the man in Los Angeles, Anthony went ballistic.  For reasons only she can tell us, she called the police claiming that Boswell had assaulted her.  He was arrested, held for a few hours, and released with no charge ever being filed against him.  That’s partly because Anthony retracted the charge before he was ever arrested.  Readers will be unsurprised to learn that he was hauled off to jail anyway.

In spite of the advice of the minicab driver from India in whom I confided my woes on the way home, and who had warned ‘This woman, she is a snake. Cut the  poison out of your life or she will strike again’, I returned to the house and wearily climbed into bed with Lysette and Jimi.

After all, they had a child together, so leaving her likely meant leaving Jimi as well, and Boswell wasn’t ready to do that.  Still, it’s worth mentioning the nature of the relationship between Boswell and Anthony at the time.  He alone supported them and their son, she had an extramarital affair and levelled a false charge of domestic abuse at him.  In short, she’s a User.  Somehow, Boswell managed not to see that; somehow he deceived himself into believing that his partner was worth the effort.

She wasn’t.  Not content with humiliating him in several ways, it wasn’t long before Anthony upped the ante just as the cab driver had warned.  Eventually, they decided on a trial separation which Anthony used as her cue to demand that Boswell buy her a house.  And not just any house, but one that was too expensive for him to afford.  Did I say “User?”

There followed several months during which Anthony called the police several times with phony claims of abuse.  Into the bargain, she attempted more than once to jump off their balcony and once slit her wrist with a broken wine glass.  While the two were still living together, she went to a doctor and claimed Boswell had assaulted her on April 9th of last year.

The doctor, as he/she is required to do by law, reported her claim to Social Services who investigated the pair’s relationship and the welfare of their son.  Amazingly, Social Services managed to do so without ever contacting Boswell.

Eventually, Anthony called the police again with yet another false charge and Boswell was once again arrested.  This time he spent 22 hours in jail before being interviewed.  On advice of counsel, he said nothing.  A restraining order was issued so he could have only limited contact with his son and none whatsoever with Anthony.  Needless to say, she used her position to deny him access to Jimi.

Another six weeks passed before his trial on a single count of common assault stemming from Anthony’s claim of abuse by Boswell on April 9.  At that trial, the Crown Prosecution Service produced but a single photograph of Anthony’s knee sporting a bruise she’d incurred in one of her attempts to jump from the balcony.

By contrast,

I had assembled a number of witnesses, including my son Jack, who had actually been present on the night of the alleged assault. That night, Lysette had gone to bed early, and Jack and I had sat up watching DVDs of our favourite show, Curb Your Enthusiasm.

No argument or fight took place at all, and Jack was to testify to that. Other witnesses were to recount the many desperate conversations I had had with them about Lysette’s  window-jumping attempts. In the end, neither I nor any of these witnesses were called. 

On December 13th, some seven months after his arrest, Boswell was acquitted of the charge.  Anthony requested that the judge issue a restraining order against him, but her request was denied.  She was ordered to pay his costs.

So, according to the justice system, Boswell won, but of course he didn’t.  He was jailed twice and repeatedly made to face the police in his home and answer their questions about claims of abuse fabricated by Anthony against him.  He paid large sums to lawyers, was thrown out of his house paid for by his money and, worst of all, separated from his son for seven months.

It’s one of the major achievements of the domestic violence system – the separation of children from their fathers.  It’s no secret to anyone; a mother can level false charges of abuse at a father and he will certainly lose his children at least for a time, and they him.  Whether the separation is permanent or not is often a matter of how much money he can throw at the problem.  It took one father, detailed in the Seattle Weekly, $240,000 and over a year to get his child back.  Needless to say, most men don’t have the financial wherewithal to do that.

Meanwhile, as here, mothers who falsely accuse fathers in order to keep them from their children usually pay no price for doing so.  Did Anthony lose custody?  Apparently not, but why not?  She plainly fabricated an incident and she did so for the purpose of alienating Jimi from his father.  In what sane system does that behavior go unpunished?  As if her child abuse weren’t bad enough, what about her abuse of the justice system?  Why is it OK for her to waste the time of the police and courts?  Neither the article nor the British justice system answers those questions.

Someday we’ll admit to the pernicious effects of abandoning due process of law and replacing it with mothers’ say-so.  When we do, we’ll remember that Simon Boswell’s experience and his willingness to publicize it played a role in our move toward sanity.