NPO Blog Archive

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.

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 last week. To learn more or to join our campaign, click here.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist (pictured) has sent out the letter below to those who have joined our protest campaign. We knew, of course, that he couldn’t discuss the Izquierdo case directly, but our larger concern is the child welfare system’s disregard for fathers, an issue Crist’s letter doesn’t address.

To be fair, I’ll give Crist credit for responding, and also for acknowledging to the press that it has been a sizeable protest campaign. I suspect that one reason DCF has acted as it has is that Governor Crist seeks the loyalty, votes, and campaign donations of the large Cuban-American community. Crist (correctly) sees defeating Rafael Izquierdo and keeping his five-year-old girl in the US against his will as a way to win Cuban-American votes. In Florida, sticking it to Cuba’s government is a crowd-pleaser, similar to the way politicians win popularity by beating up on “deadbeat dads.”

Crist’s letter is below.

Thank you for contacting Governor Charlie Crist. The Governor appreciates your concerns about the Izquierdo child custody case and asked me to respond on his behalf.

Governor Crist wants to know how people feel about the many critical issues we face. Rest assured, the Governor is committed to ensuring the safety and well-being of all children in Florida. The Department of Children and Families is charged with assisting abused and neglected children. The department does this by providing support services to children and their families, and, in some cases, by providing a place outside of the home for children to live while their family problems are resolved in the courts.

Governor Crist appreciates your sharing suggestions for changes to the department”s procedures. It is our understanding the Department of Children and Families has communicated with Dr. Ned Holstein to discuss these very issues.

Thank you again for contacting the Governor”s office. Please do not hesitate to write in the future to share your concerns about issues that are important to you.

Sincerely,

Warren Davis
Office of Citizen Services

This ad for Kohler bathroom fixtures is funny, but, as I’ve said many times before, the “man as idiot” theme got old a long, long time ago.

On the positive side, I wish my plumber looked like that…

To watch the commercial, click here or see below.

To watch some other videos of “dad as idiot” TV commercials, click here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, or here.

To see ads that the National Organization for Women considers to be offensive to women, click here.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_RLXfxtouE]

Background: Newsweek magazine writer Lorraine Ali briefly quotes 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 new 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.

In the article, Ali writes “Sloan found herself single at 41, though she’d always considered herself ‘definitely the marrying kind.'” A few comments:

1) This is a common claim made by single mothers by choice but I don’t buy it. Sloan didn’t “find herself single at 41”–she chose to be single at 41. If she wants to be single, fine, that’s her choice, but it’s a choice, not an accident.

The choice probably stems from the excessive pickiness which afflicts some women–they’re always so good at finding reasons why this guy and that guy and all guys somehow aren’t right for them or aren’t good enough. I wrote about this in some detail in my co-authored column Men Blamed for Marriage Decline but Women’s Relationship Wounds Often Self-Inflicted (Chicago Tribune, 1/21/07). Feminist bloggers Catherine Price of Salon.com/Broadsheet and Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon called the column “Hateful” and “Virulent” but sorry, I think it was neither and I stick by it. I wrote:

“The current trend away from marriage and towards divorce and/or remaining single has more to do with overcritical women and their excessive expectations than it does with unsuitable men…

“Nobody would dispute that, in selecting a mate, women are more discerning than men. This is an evolutionary necessity–a woman must carefully evaluate who is likely to remain loyal to her and protect and provide for her and her children. If a man and a woman go on a blind date and don’t hit it off, the man will shrug and say ‘it went OK.’ The woman will give five reasons why he’s not right for her.

“A woman’s discerning, critical nature doesn’t disappear on her wedding day. Most marital problems and marriage counseling sessions revolve around why the wife is unhappy with her husband, even though they could just as easily be about why the husband is unhappy with the wife. In this common pre-divorce scenario there are only two possibilities-either she’s a great wife and he’s a lousy husband, or she’s far more critical of him than he is of her. Usually it’s the latter.

“Despite this week’s media homilies, it’s doubtful that many men or women are truly happy alone. Much of women’s cheerful ‘I don’t need a man/I love my cats’ reaction has a hollow ring to it, and sounds a lot more like whistling in the dark than a celebration.

“Yes, there are some men who make poor mates, but not nearly enough to account for the divorce epidemic and the decline of marriage. While it’s easy and popular to blame men, many of the wounds women bear from failed relationships and loneliness are self-inflicted.”

2) The degree to which women are (or claim to be) in denial about how they “find themselves single” as they approach or pass 40 has surprised me on numerous occasions. One example was during my debate on the Roman v. Roman Texas frozen embryo case on Fox’s nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet in June. In the case, the couple had tried for several years to have a child (and had one miscarriage) before undergoing infertility treatments. The day before the embryos were to be implanted, Randy Roman told his then-wife Augusta that he was troubled by certain aspects of their relationship and wanted to wait to implant the embryos until they had resolved their problems. They went to counseling for six months and later divorced. Augusta, 47, still wants to have the children, and Randy has refused.

On the show I debated the issue with Augusta Roman and her attorney Becky Reitz. The co-hosts, Mike Jerrick and Juliet Huddy, were sympathetic to Augusta, and Juliet at one point got annoyed over my suggestion that Augusta could adopt a child instead of having one herself. I also questioned Augusta’s decision to blame the fact that she never had a child on Randy, pointing out that she’s 47 years-old and had had many opportunities.

Huddy got very angry at me, saying that what I said could apply to her (at age 37) and that it wasn’t her (Juliet’s) decision to not have had a kid yet. I didn’t want to push the issue too far because I didn’t want to hurt her feelings and it wasn’t central to what we were debating, but we sparred briefly over it and I found it hard to believe that Juliet could claim that she hadn’t exercised a choice in the matter. To watch the video of the odd exchange, click here.

“[Going to a strip club] is ABUSE. It is no different from hiring a hooker for sex except that you don’t stick it in…the man did deserve an ashtray in his skull (or perhaps the loss of one important piece he needs to get excited for strippers)…”

Syndicated columnist Amy Alkon (aka “The Advice Goddess”) often emails me amazing stories, and this one is no exception. Recently one of Alkon’s readers sent her the following letter:

“My husband of two months has always treated me very well, and is usually thoughtful. But, one week before our wedding, he broke a promise. I hate the whole stripper thing, so he agreed to a coed party at a dueling piano bar. There was a strip club next door, but he promised he wouldn”t go in. All was well until I learned that he and his brother (who”s nothing but trouble) were at the strip club. I went over and went crazy and tossed an ashtray at his head. I was kicked out, they followed, and his brother yelled at me. I wanted to call off the wedding, but we still got married. Since then, I keep bringing this up and he keeps begging for forgiveness, saying he”d never been so drunk, and he didn”t know what he was doing. I just can”t understand how he could hurt me this way.–Still So Angry Inside”

Alkon responded:

“If your husband tossed an ashtray at your head, do you think he”d be describing himself as ‘Still So Angry Inside’ or ‘Still In Court Trying To Get The Charges Reduced’?

“It doesn”t take much for domestic violence against men to be taken seriously…usually, just a chalk outline where a man”s body used to be. The rest of the time, people tend to shrug it off or even find it cute: ‘Well, well, well, she”s quite the firecracker!’ Granted, male abusers can do much more damage with their fists, but put a heavy object in a woman”s hands, and good morning brain damage!”

Alkon then received the letter below:

“I just had to write back over this one. My mother sends me your articles and this one just set me off. Just like the woman whose husband went to a strip club, so did my husband of 10 years (we have 3 kids together). I have to say that I had much the same reaction as she did. I do not advocate any type of abuse from either side of a relationship, but going to a strip club IS JUST THAT….ABUSE. It is no different from hiring a hooker for sex except that you don’t stick it in. I find it disgusting that you attack this woman for her reaction, and then advocate this strip club behavior as ‘normal’…I think the man did deserve an ashtray in his skull ( or perhaps the loss of one important piece he needs to get excited for strippers)…This behavior should not be legal ANYWHERE…”

Alkon’s full post, including her response, can be seen here.

[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.]

Newsweek magazine writer Lorraine Ali quotes 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 new 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.

As you could guess, the piece favors women who decide to have fatherless children–the only named opposition to the practice in the piece is my short quote. Ali also quotes Rosanna Hertz, author of Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice. Hertz and Peggy Drexler, author of Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men, are the leading feminist gurus of 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 column Raising Boys Without Men: Lesbian Parents Good, Dads Bad (World Net Daily, 9/10/05)]

Obviously I disagree with much of what Ali (and Hertz and Drexler) have written, but I’ll limit myself to just two:

1) Ali tries to denigrate the importance of fathers in children’s lives by downplaying the numerous studies which show the vast differences in child well-being between single mother and two-parent households. She is correct that this difference is narrower when looking only at highly-educated, economically-secure mothers. However, the difference is still there.

2) Not all “well-being” can be measured by social scientists. Are there any adults who really believe that it won’t matter to Sloan’s 16-month-old boy that he doesn’t have a father?

Ali’s article is below.

Knocking Yourself Up–Some women laugh about turkey basters replacing Mr. Right. The ongoing debate over going it alone
By Lorraine Ali
Newsweek, 11/5/07

Sex And The City’s” Carrie Bradshaw once asked, “What if Prince Charming had never shown up? Would Snow White have slept in that glass coffin forever? Or would she have eventually woken up, spit out the apple, gotten a job, a health-care package and a baby from her local neighborhood sperm bank?” Though it’s hard to say how Disney would have grappled with a no-show prince, if Ms. White were to awaken alone today, it’s possible she’d take the advice of Louise Sloan, author of the guidebook “Knock Yourself Up: A Tell-All Guide to Becoming a Single Mom.”

Sloan found herself single at 41, though she’d always considered herself “definitely the marrying kind.” Determined to become a mother, the Brooklyn-based writer inseminated herself with sperm from an unknown donor she refers to as No. 2, “a tall, handsome green-eyed actor (Favorite color: blue. Favorite pet: dogs)” in the attic of her conservative family’s Kennebunkport, Maine, summer house. Sloan now has a 16-month-old son, and uses her experience–as well as those of almost 50 more unpartnered, educated and financially independent straight and gay females over 30–to propel her humorous “how to” book for aspiring single moms. She offers practical advice on choosing the right donor and informing prospective grandparents in chapters titled “Oops, I Forgot to Have a Baby” and “Trysts With the Turkey Baster.”

Sloan’s amusing take on this provocative subject is already spurring caustic feedback online, though it’s the lightest offering among several recent books that include Rosanna Hertz’s academic account, “Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice,” and Mikki Morrissette’s firsthand account/guide, “Choosing Single Motherhood.” “We’re in a transition period–people are not just getting married because that’s what you do if you want to have kids,” says Sloan. “Women now have careers, are financially independent and waiting until they find the right guy. Most of us want to meet the perfect person and live happily ever after, but sometimes we don’t.”

Whether by choice or circumstance, the evidence suggests that more and more women are considering single parenthood. Unwed births among 30- to 44-year-olds rose 20 percent from 1991 to 2006, and last year alone, four in 10 U.S. babies were born outside of marriage even though teen pregnancies hit their lowest point in 65 years. Fairfax Cryobank, one of the biggest sperm banks in the United States, says its single-female clientele jumped 20 percent in the last decade and now accounts for 60 percent of its customer base.

Not everyone is embracing the unorthodox version of mommy. Fifteen years after Vice President Dan Quayle admonished TV’s Murphy Brown for having a baby out of wedlock, a recent review of “Knock Yourself Up” on Salon.com generated plenty of criticism, like that from someone who identified himself as “straight, married white male, three biological children.” He wrote that Sloan is an “upper-middle-class white woman pursuing her pregnancy fantasies.” And recently, blogger Glenn Sacks wrote on the Fathers & Family Web site that the rise of single mothers by choice was a “disturbing” phenomenon and is “bad news for America’s children.” “It’s provocative, this question of ‘Do men bring something unique in the raising of a child?’?” says Hertz, chair of the women’s studies department at Wellesley College…

Read the full article here.