Categories
Blog

Court Rules Boy Must Pay Child Support to His Rapist

“I couldn’t believe that our son has to pay child support to his abuser.”

Lancaster, OH–I’ve previously discussed cases where boys who have been statutorily raped by older women are forced to pay child support to their rapists. Here’s a new one, from Ohio. From Boy’s parents sue to get his baby from mom, 21 (Columbus Dispatch, 8/16/08):

LANCASTER, Ohio — A Pickerington couple and their son are fighting for custody of a baby born to a Lancaster woman charged with having unlawful sex with the boy, who was 15 at the time of conception.

A paternity test shows that the teen is the father of the baby born April 7 to Jane C. Crane, who was 19 when she became pregnant. Now, a judge has ordered him to pay $50 a month in child support and set visitation at seven hours a week.

Crane, meanwhile, faces criminal charges. A Fairfield County grand jury indicted her last month on two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a fourth-degree felony. Conviction carries a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender for 25 years.

Crane is living with the baby and her family in Lancaster.

The boy’s parents say they can provide a better upbringing for the baby than Crane can. Her household includes her stepfather, David L. Jacobs, who was convicted of domestic violence last year for hitting, choking and pointing a gun at Crane’s 17-year-old sister and was placed on two years’ probation, court records show.

“We don’t want to have our granddaughter abused by these people,” the boy’s father said. “We are trying to do the right thing.

“The child support was the icing on the cake. I couldn’t believe that our son has to pay child support to his abuser.”

Note also that the boy is allowed only seven hours a week of “visitation” with his son. He’s really getting an early education on the joys of the family law system…

Read the full article here.

[As an aside, I don’t believe a 19-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old should be statutory rape. However, legally in this case it is statutory rape–just as it would be if it were a 35-year-old with a 15-year-old–so demanding that the victim pay child support should be out of the question.–GS]

Categories
Blog

Surprise — only a tiny percentage of gang members live with their fathers

Fort Worth, TX–The City of Fort Worth recently supplied the following data on “Whom gang members live with”:

40 percent mother only

19 percent grandparent

15 percent both parents

14 percent other

11 percent their own housing

1 percent father only

At most, only 16% of gang members live with their fathers, but it’s probably far less than that.  I strongly suspect that much of the “15 percent both parents” classification includes stepfathers or transitional male figures who happen to be living with the mother at the time.  It’s quite possible that less than 5% of gang members live with their fathers.

This is not news, of course.  There is a very strong correlation between fatherlessness and gangs — a correlation far stronger than that between ethnicity and gangs and race and gangs. 

To learn more, see my co-authored column CA Anti-Gang Bills Miss Central Truth About Kids & Gangs (Pasadena Star-News & Affiliated Papers, 3/25/07).

Also see my blog posts Combating Gangs by Combating Fatherlessness and ‘The first thing one notices about the gang world is this: There are no fathers’.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, thanks to Don Mathis for sending the information.

Categories
Blog

Heather Mills’ Ex-Press Rep-Mills Lied about Video of McCartney Abusing Her

Los Angeles, CA–As many of you know, during the Heather Mills-Paul McCartney divorce, Mills made many serious accusations of abuse against McCartney. 

In previous posts I’ve discussed contradictions in her story and speculated that her claims of abuse may be false. 

Now Heather Mills press representative for four years has come forward and helped confirm that Mills lied.

From Heather Mills”s Rep Confirms Abuse Tapes Were Imaginary:

Michele Elyzabeth, who was Heather Mills”s press rep for four years before she had enough, confirmed to Access Hollywood that her client never really had those video tapes of Paul McCartney being abusive toward her.

She told US news show Access Hollywood: “I really don”t believe she did (have the video).

“I was close enough and I heard a couple of conversations. Now that I know what I know, I don”t really think that Paul really went after her for anything.

“She had basically nothing – she had tapes of her being in the studio with him, her being on the road with him, private moments.

“She told me a bunch of stuff… (but) I don”t see him being a violent person.’

In case you didn”t follow the divorce mess too closely, Mills once claimed she had ten tapes that showed Sir Paul behaving badly, including one situation where he called her a “one-legged bitch.’

She threatened to show the sensational evidence to the court but mysteriously never did.

Now we know why.

You know what really bothers me about this?  It’s not that Mills made false accusations of abuse — as bad as that is, women do that in divorce and custody battles all the time.  What bothers me is that here a famous person did it and yet it doesn’t seem to matter. 

Many people have come forward condemning her for being a “gold digger” or whatever.  But how many have criticized her for making false accusations of abuse?  How many have drawn a connection between Mills’ accusations and what so many divorced dads have had to endure?

And why hasn’t anybody from the other side — the feminist side — criticized her for this?  You would think we would at least get a “false accusations are bad because they harm abused women” quote.  I haven’t seen anything.  If anybody has, please let me know at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

Thanks to Wayne, a reader, for sending me the article.

Categories
Blog

Saddleback Forum-Anybody Guess Which Key Issue Was Missing?

Orange County, CA–I appeared on Al Jazeera Saturday evening to discuss the Saddleback Civil Forum, where both presidential candidates vied for the Christian vote in a televised two-hour forum at the Saddleback Church in Orange County, California.

I thought both candidates came off well.  McCain was, if you like him, blunt and direct.  If you don’t, he was simplistic and moralistic. 

Obama was, if you like him, philosophical and thoughtful.  If you don’t, he was wishy-washy and evasive.

Obama has a very difficult row to hoe with Christian conservatives.  Much of the Democratic Party support comes from liberal women’s activists/feminists, and Obama is understandably hesitant to cross them on what is perhaps their most emotional and important issue — abortion.

I suppose he is throwing conservative Christians a bone by opposing gay marriage, which probably does annoy some Democratic Party stalwarts.

A few of my comments can be seen on the Al Jazeera website here or on the Media with Conscience website here.

I was disappointed and surprised that evangelist Rick Warren, who asked an hour’s worth of questions to each candidate, did not mention family breakdown and divorce.  If there is any “moral” issue for our time, it is the breakdown of the family and the way millions of children are being separated from the fathers they love and need.  There was no mention of this though, and the only discussion about marriage was the damn gay marriage sideshow.

I also believe that Saturday’s events represent yet another failure of the fatherhood movement.  Warren should have been under pressure to raise this issue, but he obviously wasn’t.

And why couldn’t there have been a pro-fatherhood act of civil disobedience there? Or even simply one divorced dad/activist in the audience standing up during the debate and shouting at Warren about how he has been separated from his children? Yes, it would be somewhat rude, but it would raise the issue in the national media and generate a round of buzz. 

Categories
Blog

‘We finally made the decision that my husband’s girl stop coming…sad, but the only way to have peace’

Los Angeles, CA–The website www.exrants.com has some interesting rants from people about their exes, and the one below is no exception.  In some ways it’s a classic first wife versus second wife story, with the first wife doing everything she can to make the second wife miserable.  On a larger level, it’s a parental alienation story, and a very sad one.  A daughter has a father who loves her, but she isn’t allowed to know it and may never know it. In His ex is driving me crazy!!, the second wife writes:

I have been married to my husband now for over 5 years and been with him over 7. He has a daughter with his ex wife and when I tell you that this woman is a psycho, trust me, she is a psycho. In the beginning, it was the normal 50 phone calls a day, phone calls that pertained nothing to the child. She has tried to have his business license taken from him. She has called the IRS on us. She has turned all of his family against him. She was using the child to get her way for a long time until we finally put a stop to that. One day, she called DSS on us and told them we were on drugs, we got drunk every weekend the child was with us, the child was being neglected and that the child was being sexually abused in our home. We took our drug test, which were of course negative, the other crap spoke for itself when the social workers came into our home. Well, after the first drug test, they kept coming back to do random drug tests because she kept calling in saying the same crap. We finally made the decision that the child just stop coming. It was sad, but it was the only way we would ever have any peace in our home. The child by the way was so brainwashed by her mother, that you couldn’t hardly deal with her anyways. It has been over 3 years since we have had any dealing with the mother or saw the child and to this day, his ex is still doing her same psycho stuff. She runs my name all over town, down-grades me like I am nothing, she puts my husband down to everyone that will listen and makes everyone think she is the best thing in the world and we are these horrible monsters. He pays his child support and I have kept every piece of paper in a folder so when she grows up I can put that folder in front of her and let her make her mind up on which parent was sane and which was crazy……What else can I do?

What a sad parental alienation case.  And I’m sure the daughter has been told that her father abandoned her and only cares about his “new” wife and not his daughter.  I wonder when, if ever, the daughter will discover or will be allowed to discover the truth.  I also wonder how many adult children still believed they were “abandoned” by their fathers when sometimes the fathers were in fact driven away by tactics like this.

Categories
Blog

Program to Help CA. Low-Income Noncustodial Fathers Extended

Low-income noncustodial fathers often face problems with the child support system which hinders their ability to function as fathers to their children. These fathers are often buried by unrealistic child support obligations and charged to repay the cost of the welfare benefits their children’s mothers received.

California”s Compromise of Arrears Program provides an example of the type of pragmatic approach these men need. According to a California Judicial Council report, 80% of California child support debtors earn poverty level wages, and over a quarter of the arrears total is interest. Under COAP, these obligors can settle their paper debts to the state for realistic amounts.

Sacramento legislative advocate Michael Robinson, who worked on the legislation, explains:

‘Rather than engaging in the ‘we”ll crack down on deadbeats” chest-thumping so often employed by politicians, COAP is a common sense, everybody wins solution. Instead of hounding and jailing low income dads, the COAP program allows these dads to provide their children real support, both emotional and financial.’

COAP was originally a result of a Rod Wright bill that passed the California legislature in 2002, but former California Governor Gray Davis vetoed it. Robinson got the bill through in 2003. It was to set to sunset on January 1, 2007, but Robinson got it extended until January 1, 2009.

Robinson explains:

From COAP’s inception to 2007 the program has received more than 10,540 applications. Of those 3,584 applicants qualified. The total debt for the settled cases was more than $89 million and the Department of Social Services (DCSS) settled those cases on an average of 11 cents on the dollar collecting over $12 million. This translated into approximately $77 million of relief to non-custodial parents.

On March 10, 2008, DCSS released its 2008 report on the Compromise Of Arrears Program (COAP). The report states that since its implementation in 2004, COAP has “demonstrated effectiveness in reducing arrears.” The report further lauds the program as “a valuable tool for collecting arrears that were once deemed uncollectible and reducing California’s growing child support arrears balance.”

This year DCSS formed a workgroup composed of state department officials and Local Child Support Agency (LCSA) representatives to improve the effectiveness and outreach of COAP.

Robinson says “There is general agreement in the Legislature and the Administration to expand the program and make it permanent.”

Categories
Blog

Bad news on the male birth control pill

Los Angeles, CA–Bad news on the long-awaited male birth control pill. From Adam Goodman’s The Long Wait for Male Birth Control (Time, 8/3/08):

Just a few years ago, the new male contraceptive seemed like an inevitable reality. Major pharmaceutical companies like Wyeth, Schering and Organon were pumping millions into hormonal birth-control development programs for men, and researchers were breathlessly promising imminent production. But in 2008, there’s still no birth control for men.
What happened? In a word: money. With the cost of new-drug development hovering in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the pharmaceutical industry decided there wasn’t enough of a market to make male hormonal contraceptives worthwhile. The German drug giant Schering halted its development program in 2006 (after its high-profile acquisition by Bayer), and other drug companies quickly followed suit, abandoning several projects that were — at least by the researchers’ accounts — on the verge of success. According to Kirsten Thompson, director of the Male Contraception Coalition, if Phase III clinical trials were to begin tomorrow on some of those discarded drugs, men would probably have their pick of contraceptive gels or implants — just like women — within five years. Yet, she says, drug companies still aren’t interested. Though industry representatives refused to speak to the marketability question for this article, one spokeswoman for Organon, Monique Mols, told the industry journal Chemistry World in 2007, “Despite 20 years of research, the development of a [hormonal] method acceptable to a wide population of men is unlikely.” That’s left some researchers, unsurprisingly, jaded. “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink,” says Dr. David Handelsman, an Australian researcher who has spent two decades studying male contraceptives, including an implant-injection system that delivers testosterone via an implant in the arm, plus a progestin in four yearly injections. “The pharmaceutical industry is completely disconnected from the public and medical perceptions of need.” Indeed, many men say they are open to trying new forms of birth control. In a 2005 global survey conducted by Schering of 9,000 men ages 18 to 50, 55% expressed an interest in a “new male fertility control,” and roughly 40% of the American respondents who said they would be interested in new male contraceptives further said they would be willing to use an implant or receive regular injections to control their fertility. If even a small percentage of sexually active men agreed to try a new method of birth control, that would amount to a colossal number of potential consumers. That’s why Thompson doesn’t believe the drug industry’s hesitance to develop male hormonal birth control is merely about money. “The biggest hurdle that I’ve encountered in trying to share this information is a sort of knee-jerk reaction that men aren’t interested in these kinds of contraceptives and that women won’t trust them to take them,” she says. “Neither of those assertions are supported by the data.” Ask Durwin Foster, 40, a happily married father of three in North Vancouver who has long been dissatisfied with his lack of birth control options. He says condoms are a hassle and reduce pleasure. For men who want to at some point be fathers, however, the next best alternative — the oft-irreversible vasectomy — is hardly a more appealing option. “My wife has never been that comfortable with the Pill, so it would be nice to have some other options on my end,” says Foster. “Something we could take turns with”… For now, however, male hormonal contraceptives perpetually remain five to 10 years away. And Durwin Foster wasn’t willing to wait. He got a vasectomy in January. It was the only option he had left.

Read the full article here. What’s particularly sad — and particularly amazing — is that the decision to put the male birth control pill on the backburner is apparently driven in part by false stereotypes about men.  For one, I find it very hard to believe that men aren’t interested in the male birth control pill.  As for the canard that “women won’t trust them to take them,” you must be kidding.  Yes, I’m sure there will be a certain number of men who will not be responsible with the pill, but if there is anybody who has shown that they can’t always be trusted to take the pill, it’s women.  There are countless “accidental” pregnancies for which men have to assume financial responsibility. Goodman did a good job on the article — to write him a friendly letter, click on his name on this page. I discussed my views on the male birth control pill in my column Do Women Really Want a Male Birth Control Pill? (Newsday, 4/11/05) and in various blog posts which can be seen here.

Categories
Blog

Newsweek Has Shockome Syndrome

It took six years for Genia Shockome to gather the courage to leave her husband, Tim. He pushed her, kicked her and insulted her almost from the moment they married in 1994…Tim called her constantly at work and, after they split up, pounded on her door and screamed obscenities…

Genia is one of many parents nationwide who have lost custody due to a controversial concept known as parental alienation…

[P]arents like Genia keep fighting. “It’s so hard, having my children lost,” she says, her voice breaking. “This was my life­-my children.”–Newsweek, 9/25/06

NY, New York–Two years ago women’s advocates snookered Newsweek into making Genia Shockome out to be a heroine in their article Why Parents Who Batter Win Custody (9/25/06).

I pointed out at the time that the article was riddled with problems and mischaracterizations, and hundreds of my readers wrote to Newsweek criticizing their article. Shockome didn’t lose her custody battle kids because of “gender bias” or underhanded “fathers’ rights” tactics–she lost because she’s so nuts that even the pro-mother family courts were forced to side with the kids’ father.

For this reason, I was surprised to see Why Parents Who Batter Win Custody reemerge recently after it was linked to a new Newsweek article about family law. Two years ago I dissected Shockome’s claims about her case in my co-authored piece Shockome Syndrome. It’s long but I daresay it’s worth the read.

For those who’d like to comment on the Newsweek piece in the discussion section of their website, click here. As of this writing the discussion is dominated by Shockome’s feminist supporters.

Two years ago I wrote:

The Feminist Family Law Movement’s current ‘Custody-Visitation Scandal’ cause celebre is Genia Shockome, a New York mother who in 2003 lost custody of her two children, now ages 11 and 9, to her ex-husband, Tim Shockome. Genia claims that Tim had abused her during their marriage, which ended in 2000. She has drawn support from officials from many branches of the National Organization for Women, as well as from Justice for Children, the Battered Mothers” Custody Conference, Stop Family Violence, and much of the feminist blogosphere.

Shockome”s case gained national attention when she was jailed for 30 days for contempt of court by Poughkeepsie Family Court judge Damian Amodeo in May, 2005. The New York Post reported that Genia, a seven months pregnant ‘Mother of the Year,’ was sent ‘to prison over Mother’s Day,’ and portrayed Shockome as a heroic mother resisting a tyrannical judge. The FFLM, including many feminist bloggers, organized a petition drive to free Genia and to get Amodeo removed from the New York State Matrimonial Commission.

On a superficial level, Genia appears to be an excellent poster child for the types of injustices the FFLM highlights. A closer look at the Shockome case, however, reveals as many problems with the FFLM”s characterization of it as one could take the time to name.

The entire premise of the Genia Shockome story hinges on the notion that Tim battered Genia prior to 2000 and, in repeatedly violating court orders to allow her children access to their father, she was acting to protect them. However, Genia’s allegations of domestic violence and child sexual abuse have never been substantiated in any court proceeding, nor supported by any witnesses. Writing with admirable restraint, Judge Amodeo, whose decisions in the case have been repeatedly upheld by higher courts, noted:

‘In [Genia’s] August 2000 complaint in the divorce action, no mention is made of the domestic violence which Genia later asserted. She claimed that she was unaware that she was the victim of domestic violence; however, such a lack of awareness would not have made her unable to recount historical facts, especially if the severity and frequency of the abuse she alleged were true. Why didn’t she mention the abuse earlier in the case?’

There were three independent custody evaluations in the case, none of which found anything negative of substance against Tim Shockome. The first one called him a good parent, and the other two went as far as to recommend he get custody because of his parenting and because of Genia’s relentless attempts to drive him out of his children’s lives.

The most recent of these evaluators, Dr. Meg Sussman, has a feminist background and worked for Pace University’s Battered Women’s Justice Center. Sussman, who specializes in domestic violence and child abuse cases, recommended that Genia have only supervised visitation until she could accept the children’s father’s role in their lives.

In two in camera (in chambers) interviews conducted with the Shockome children on May 27, 2003 and January 22, 2004, neither child recalled any physical altercations between their parents, despite Genia’s claims that her children had witnessed Tim’s alleged violence against her. Moreover, neither child expressed any fear of Tim.

Genia’s only support for her contention that she had previously been battered came from the FFLM domestic violence advocates who testified in her trial. Yet none of these ‘experts’ had ever spoken with Tim Shockome, and had no evidence of Tim’s abuse except for Genia’s assertions.

In trying to deny the children their father, Genia also made the obligatory child sexual abuse allegation. Tim consistently and adamantly denied this accusation, and Child Protective Services investigated these claims and concluded they were unfounded.

Two of Genia’s own witnesses testified that, in hundreds of visits made to Tim’s home, they never observed any inappropriate or sexually provocative conduct on the part of the children. Dr. Sussman concluded that Tim had not sexually abused the children, and noted that the children did not display any symptoms consistent with children who have been sexually abused.

Ina Berg, the children’s therapist, did not observe any sexualized behavior in the children. The children themselves did not speak of any inappropriate behavior exhibited by the father. Genia alone professed to see the children’s behavior as indicative of sexual abuse, and none of the neutral experts in the case supported her interpretation.

Genia’s ‘evidence’ of her husband’s sexual abuse of her children was that Tim ran the back of his fingers on the backs, arms, and legs of the children. However, during the trial, Linda Meeker, the nurse-teacher at the children’s school, testified that Genia herself had admitted that she also had engaged in the same innocuous method of massaging the children.

The mother’s side also alleges that Timothy harassed and threatened Genia through excessive phone calls and letters, and that Timothy was observed banging on Genia”s door while shouting expletives at her. An alleged witness to the door incident, Rebecca Watson, was supposed to testify on the mother”s behalf and confirm Timothy”s alleged violent outburst; however, Watson inexplicably failed to appear in court on two separate occasions to corroborate this incident. The Court noted in its findings:

‘While it is acknowledged that the number of telephone calls made by father to the mother may have been outwardly excessive, these calls were not unjustified in light of the mother”s persistent refusal to abide by the terms of the Court order with respect to the father”s right of telephone contact with the children…[the calls] were not made with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm the mother, but were a direct and logical consequence of the mother’s lack of compliance with specific Court directives…Even if the father engaged in some rude conduct, that does not rise to the level of a family offense, particularly when viewed in the context of his frustration with the mother”s longstanding interference with his contact and involvement with the children.’

Newsweek pictured Genia holding up a large drawing apparently drawn by her children, and explained:

‘Parents like Genia keep fighting. ‘It’s so hard, having my children lost,’ she says, her voice breaking. ‘This was my life–my children.’

What Newsweek ignores, though it’s right there in the court records, is that it is Genia who refuses to visit her own children, despite ample opportunities to do so. When asked during the trial why she had not visited her children, Genia claimed that she could not afford to pay the supervised visitation program’s fees. These programs were originally available to her free of charge, and later cost all of $25. At the same time, Genia had just purchased a new television set for her home.

In the type of exchange typical of Genia’s behavior throughout the case, Genia then claimed that she hadn’t paid for the television set–it was her boyfriend who bought it. However, the boyfriend, Aja Butler, later testified that he had no knowledge of how the TV set was purchased.

Genia refused to visit her children for two long periods prior to the May, 2004 decision, including the period which included her daughter’s birthday in November of 2003 and also Christmas of 2003. At one point, Genia refused to visit her own children for a stretch of nine weeks. The law guardian–another neutral party–said that Genia had explained that she didn’t visit her kids as part of her ‘strategy’ in the case. Genia Shockome claims her children are ‘her life,’ but apparently they weren’t even as important as a new TV set or a custody ‘strategy.’

Nor did Genia’s professed concern for her children lead to a desire to provide for them financially–she failed to make court-ordered child support payments until it was involuntarily deducted from her pay.

Genia and her FFLM allies attempt to portray her as a weak, naïve Russian immigrant. However, Genia earned a college degree in Mathematics at an American university, had a very high grade point average, and works a well-paid technical job at IBM.

Genia’s supporters have touted her as ‘Mother of the Year,’ but this deceptive ‘award’ has nothing to do with Genia’s parenting skills. As the New York Post explained, Genia was ‘named mother of the year by two victim-advocacy groups in 2003 after battling in court with her husband.’

The FFLM portrayed Judge Amodeo as a bully for jailing Genia for contempt in May of 2005; however, the transcript of the hearing shows that Genia interrupted Amodeo on over 50 separate occasions. Amodeo bent over backwards to accommodate Genia, and only held her in contempt after countless warnings. Genia appealed Amodeo’s holding of contempt but a four judge panel of the New York Supreme Court unanimously upheld Amodeo’s decision.

Genia and her supporters contend that Genia has been the victim of ‘gender bias’ and a judge with a grudge. This explanation fails to account for the fact that Amodeo’s decision was based on the opinions of many neutral experts, both male and female, some of them with feminist backgrounds. The ample legal help Genia has been provided by domestic violence organizations allowed her to appeal the case, and apparently all of the justices on the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate division are also biased against Genia, because they unanimously rejected her appeal in June. The court wrote:

‘We discern no basis, on this record, to interfere with the Family Court’s findings, inter alia, that the mother lacked credibility…or that the opinions of her [domestic violence] experts were of little value, since none of them had ever spoken with the father…The Family Court concluded, among other things, that the mother’s animosity toward the father and her attempts to undermine the children’s relationships with him were harmful to the children and rendered her the less fit parent…Exercising our independent review, we find that the Family Court’s determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.’

In fact, though Genia’s bankruptcy case had nothing whatsoever to do with her family law matter, she even managed to annoy the bankruptcy judge, Cecelia G. Morris. Morris–no surprise–noted numerous contradictions in Shockome’s statements, and decried Genia’s ‘refusal to accept any order or ruling that is in conflict with her demands.’

Genia Shockome’s supporters expected Judge Amodeo–who was presented with no evidence of any violence against Genia beyond her own statements–to simply take her word for it, and allow her to destroy the bonds between the Shockome children and their father. Genia claims that a video filmed at the visitation center which shows her kids jumping up and down on a couch actually shows them masturbating–an interpretation which no other participant in the court proceedings shared.

To this day Genia accuses Tim of all of the following: being a pedophile who got sexually aroused by changing his daughter’s dirty diapers; sexually abusing his children; masturbating in front of his children; taking his children to a sexual store; having a ferocious sexual appetite for women; having a ferocious homosexual appetite for men; being an abusive father who “beat the kids very often, 2-3 times a day” when Genia and Tim lived together; being a wife-beater; secretly beating his former wife who had a secret miscarriage; beating Genia so she almost had a miscarriage; intimidating five of Genia’s witnesses; insurance fraud, identity theft; immigration fraud; defrauding the federal government of $60,000; stealing; embezzlement; extortion; bankruptcy fraud; almost driving over Genia’s neighbor’s little son; and of violating a protection order over one million times. To say that Genia Shockome lacks credibility is like saying Attila the Hun had bad table manners–what judge in his right mind would take this woman’s word for anything?

Below are links to the court documents in the Shockome case:

To read the Court Order from May 10, 2004 where the judge gives sole custody to Timothy Shockome and grants Genia visitation rights, click here.

To read the decision handed down on June 13, 2006 by the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department upholding the May 10, 2004 Court Order, click here.

Genia”s motion for leave to reargue an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County rendered May 10, 2004, is denied by the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department on August 18, 2006. To read the court document, click here.

To read the Bankruptcy Court decision rendered by Judge Cecelia G. Morris on May 11, 2006 denying Genia”s request for a stay pending appeal, click here.

To read the transcript of the May 5, 2005 court hearing where Genia was found in contempt of court and sentenced to jail time after interrupting Judge Amodeo over 50 times, click here.

Categories
Blog

Alienating Mom Denies Dying Man Chance to See Child

Sydney, Australia–I get countless letters detailing the horrors that alienating parents visit upon their exes and their children, but this story surprised even me. From ‘If you see this DVD, I love you’ (The Age [Australia], 8/13/08):

A dying man has been told by the Family Court that he may leave a “time capsule”, consisting of a letter and DVD, for the 11-year-old daughter he has not seen for five years. The main purpose is to exonerate the girl for her father’s death.
The girl has consistently expressed a wish that “her father was dead”, the court was told. The man, who has terminal liver cancer, has as little as six to 12 months to live. The court’s family consultant has expressed concern for the girl’s emotional health in light of the vehement remarks she has made about her father over years. The girl’s lawyer, Duncan Holmes, said: “While wishing your father dead might be a typical childish remark, in this case the little girl’s wish is going to come true, quite quickly. In the circumstances, you have to do what you can.” The girl was three when her parents separated in 2000. The trial judge, Justice Le Poer Trench, said the mother was “permeated with hatred for the father” and was unwilling to foster the relationship between father and daughter. In 2002, the court ordered that the father be allowed regular phone contact, and be able to send letters and gifts. The parents were ordered to attend counseling. The girl last saw her father in December 2003. He applied in 2006 to see her every second weekend and half the school holidays. But, according to Mr Holmes, the case had “meandered through the court for 2½ years until it clicked into gear after his diagnosis of inoperable liver cancer”. Mr Holmes said the child had expressed hatred of her father from a young age. Yet the court records showed there was no abuse or serious violence. Mr Holmes said the mother had not believed her ex-husband was dying, and it had been necessary to bring his doctor to court to give his diagnosis. The court has said the father should provide the letter and DVD to Mr Holmes, who would check it to ensure it was suitable, containing, for example, nothing that disparaged the mother. The time capsule will be lodged with the court and the girl will be told how to access it. Mr Holmes said the court had also made orders to attempt to set up a last meeting, but he held little hope it would proceed. He said it was rare for a court to go to such lengths to allow a father “to convey his love to his daughter”.

Tragically, feminist groups such as the National Organization for Women serve as enablers for alienating parents by denying that Parental Alienation exists.  This case has many of the hallmarks of a classic PA case.  For one, abused children usually have mixed emotions about their abusers.  The alienated child is different — he or she is filled with nothing but rage or hatred or anger towards the targeted parent. Also, the alienating parent will raise heaven and earth to prevent the targeted parent from having a relationship with the alienated child.  Here the father is dying and the mother claims she doesn’t believe it, and refuses to allow him to see his daughter.  The alienation is so bad that even the Family Court–which generally has a “see no evil, hear no evil” attitude towards Parental Alienation (particularly if the alienator is a mother)–recognized and cited the alienation. The daughter has no doubt been told that her father abandoned her.  In the DVD, the father will not be allowed to set the record straight on that or on the other lies the mother has probably told the daughter.  However, it is to his credit that he wants his daughter to know that she had nothing to do with his death.  If something happens to a parent, children often blame themselves. I have written extensively about Parental Alienation — to learn more, see my co-authored column AB 612 Will Make It Harder to Protect Children from Parental Alienation (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 4/2/07) or click here.

Categories
Blog

Leading Olympian Jessica Mendoza Credits Her Father

Camarillo, CA–Olympian Jessica Mendoza led the 2004 US gold-medal team in Athens, hitting .495 with 107 RBIs in 59 games during a pre-Olympic tour. She is a four-time, first-team All-American at Stanford, where she graduated in 2002 and received a master’s degree in social sciences and education in 2003. She is a valuable member of the 2008 Olympic team, stealing a base and scoring a run in the team’s recent victory over Venezuela.

Mendoza credits much of her success to her “incredible” father, Gil Mendoza. From the Ventura County Star’s Olympian is unafraid to debate issues (8/3/08):

Gil Mendoza, a long-time teacher and coach — primarily at Moorpark College, although he’s been a football assistant at a number of high schools — is a classic American up-from-the-bottom story, although his upward path hardly proceeded in a straight line.

A child of Mexican immigrants, he spent his early years in poverty in Watts with uncles, who were key figures in a street gang. “Imagine 10 people in a two-bedroom house,” said his wife. He was expelled from two school districts, once, he said, for “hitting a kid with a baseball bat and breaking his jaw” after that student had beaten him in a fight the day before.

The family eventually moved to Long Beach, and Mendoza gradually changed his path.

“I could see the light,” he said. “I could see that education was the way out, and it wasn’t easy, because I had these learning disabilities.”

Sports, as much as education, helped provide the illumination. As a junior high student, he broke into a gym and was playing basketball when a coach appeared.

He eluded the coach and got away, for a while.

“It took him about a month to find me in a PE class,” he said. ” He said, You think you’re a tough guy. Well, I’ve got 10 guys out here after school, and I think they’re tougher than you.’

“I thought I was going to show up and fight 10 guys. But it was a football team. That was the first time I ever played organized sports.”

Gil Mendoza went on to be a multisport standout in high school — all while holding down an outside job — and after attending junior college, earned a football scholarship to Fresno State.

Those experiences were a major influence on his teaching and coaching career.

“The whole thing is reaching back and helping out,” he said of a history of helping troubled student-athletes. ” That’s why I think I was put in this arena, to help someone, people like myself. And I’m able to reach a lot of them, because I’m sincere. I can relate to their backgrounds and where they come from.”

This, in turn, made a huge impact on young Jessica…

While Jessica was soaking these lessons in, she also was getting some valuable athletic instruction from her father.

Gil was the primary coach for Jessica and her younger sister, Alana, who would go on to play softball at Oregon State University. There are also two older children, a brother and a sister; all will be in Beijing. He’d take them to the fields at a school near the family’s Camarillo home.

“We’d go to the park and take batting practice every day,” he said. The sessions were short, purposeful, and not just about hitting.

“They’d never shag the balls,” he said. “I would go shag the balls, put the bucket next to them, and they would stand at second base. I would throw one-hoppers and they would catch and tag, catch and tag. Hours and hours of doing that (over the years).” That drill was invaluable when both girls played shortstop; another helped when they moved to the outfield.

“Before we went home, I would hit them fly balls,” he said. “I could cut the ball and make it slice or make it take off, so they could see it move, and it helped them become outfielders.”

While he admitted there were times when he’d get upset because the girls weren’t working hard, he also did his best to make such drills not so much of a chore.

When the family went to the beach, they’d play a game with tennis balls that also helped develop their skills.

“I’d say, This game is not to catch the ball, but to run to where you think the ball is going to go. They’d turn and run to that spot, and if the ball hit them, depending on how many times it hit ’em, they’d win an ice cream.

“We had fun, and yet they were learning something.”

Read the full article here.