Category: Blog

Gloucester, MA–[M]y sources had informed me that a significant number of the pregnancies, especially among the younger students, were the result of deliberate and intentional behavior. I also told her that the issuance of birth control prescriptions or the distribution of prophylactics would not take place at the Health Center unless it was with parental consent and school department approval.

“I honestly do not remember specifically using the word “pact” in my meeting with the Time magazine reporter, but I do specifically remember telling Ms. Kingsbury that my understanding was that a number of the pregnancies were intentional and that the students within this group were friendly with each other.”

According to this MSNBC story, Joseph Sullivan, the principal of Gloucester High School, “who said a group of students intentionally got pregnant stood by his comments Thursday, saying his information ‘was and is accurate.'”

Principal Sullivan said:

At the request of the School Department, I have made no public comments since the publication of the Time magazine article. I am issuing this statement today to put to rest the notion that I am “foggy in my memory” or that when pressed, “my memory failed,” statements attributed to the mayor in her press conference this past Monday.

On June 11, near the end of a regularly scheduled meeting with staff, I was informed by a school secretary that a magazine reporter was in the main office lobby to see me. When the meeting concluded, I went to my office and introduced myself to Kathleen Kingsbury, who identified herself as a Time magazine correspondent. She told me that she had questions about the previously published reports about the increased incidences of pregnancy at the high school.

We met in my office. Ms. Kingsbury’s initial questions to me were general in nature and centered on the origin and role of the Health Center and the child-care program at the high school, which I answered. Her direct question to me was whether I thought the distribution of birth control prescriptions or prophylactic devices at the Health Center would have prevented the spike in the number of pregnancies that have been reported this year.

I told her “no” because my sources had informed me that a significant number of the pregnancies, especially among the younger students, were the result of deliberate and intentional behavior. I also told her that the issuance of birth control prescriptions or the distribution of prophylactics would not take place at the Health Center unless it was with parental consent and school department approval.

I honestly do not remember specifically using the word “pact” in my meeting with the Time magazine reporter, but I do specifically remember telling Ms. Kingsbury that my understanding was that a number of the pregnancies were intentional and that the students within this group were friendly with each other. At no time in the interview did I mention any student names nor did I breach any confidences and at the conclusion of the meeting, I told Ms. Kingsbury to leave the high school property because I did not want her to be trying to interview students…

I believe everything I told Kathleen Kingsbury was and is accurate.

Read the full statement here. I’ve discussed the Gloucester case on numerous radio shows and on this blog–to learn more, click here.

Boston, MA–This movement is about self-respect.You stand up for justice because you respect yourself. You unite to oppose oppression. You do not fear sacrifice.

This is a time that demands sacrifice. I am asking you right now to sacrifice by giving to this cause now.

You can do so three ways:

1)      Click here and use a credit card.

2)      Call us at 617.542.9300 with a pledge or credit card information.

3)      Mail us a check at 20 Park Plaza, Suite 628, Boston, MA 02116

You have already demonstrated that you have self-respect.

You helped us protest Fox television”s proposed show “Bad Dads.’ You helped us return a little girl to her father, Rafael Izquierdo. And you helped us bury a biased PBS documentary that slandered fathers. We banded together, we took action, and we won.

Continue your activism by giving now.

Those with self-respect know they are not perfect, but they put shame about their human mistakes behind them. They move forward. They know they are good human beings, and they are determined to do their best.

Fathers & Families needs your gift so we can continue and expand the work we do–standing up for good people like you against oppression and injustice.

Are you just an internet browser, or do you want to be part of a growing movement? A movement needs sacrifice, including financial support.

Just as we won the “Bad Dads’ campaign, we can expand our efforts to many states, on many fronts, against many oppressors–with your gift.

At Fathers & Families, we watch every penny to be sure it is well spent. We are dedicated and determined–just like you.

Why do I call on you now? Because mid-summer is always the lowest ebb in the finances of any non-profit. We need your gift now.

To reach our financial goal, some of you will need to sacrifice in the $100 to $250 range. This is reality. Small gifts are also welcomed–they demonstrate determination and loyalty.

I am giving $2,500 today as an installment of my annual gift. Please join me in stretching as far as you can.

I am again reminded of the day Martin Luther King was shot in Memphis in 1968. He was there to support a strike by garbage collectors.

The signs these men carried did not say “Higher Wages.’ They did not say “More Paid Holidays.’

The signs said, “I Am A Man.’ The oppressed men holding these signs never looked prouder. This was a statement of pride among men who were accustomed to shame and defeat.

I know that you will join me in giving. You will be proud to say, “I Am A Man. I Am A Father.’

Sydney, Australia–“I knew Sean was dead because Sean would never leave Louis”–Gemma Hurditch

Stories where fathers risk or sacrifice their lives to save their children are common, and serve as a testament to the loving bonds dads share with their kids. In the story Boy, 5, saw brave father drown (Sydney Morning Herald, 7/8/08), hero father Sean Staunton saved the life of his five-year-old son Louis after their boat capsized during a fishing trip.

One notable thing about this story is that it involved a separated father who shared custody with his ex. Gemma Hurditch recognized that Sean was a good father and respected his relationship with their son.

According to the newspaper report, Hurditch said she had a gut feeling her former partner was dead when news of the boating accident broke on Thursday. She explained:

“I knew as soon as I heard that they had found the body of a young boy. I knew if it was Louis, and I had a sense of dread that it was, that Sean was dead because Sean would never leave Louis. I knew he was gone…[Louis] was on Sean like a surfboard to keep him out of the water, to try to keep him warmer. I am really proud of Sean. He did everything he could to save Louis and Louis has been saved.”

“I am grateful that things turned out the best we could have hoped for regarding Louis but I’m really sad that his dad’s not around. Louis’ dad was an exceptional father and always took him outdoors hiking, fishing and snorkeling, they had such fun outdoors. I hope Louis will carry the memories that Sean was such a supportive and playful dad. Sean was kind, generous and good for the sake of being good, you would not meet a person with a more generous and loving spirit.”

Read the full article here.

Other heroic dads we’ve covered include Steve Whissell, Joseph Richardson, Albert Collins, Eduard Burceag, Robert N. ‘Bobby’ Klein and James Kim.

Boston, MA–Okay, I admit it: This has nothing to do with Obama or McCain.Before you click away in disgust: Why are you more impassioned about Obama and McCain, either of whose impact on your everyday, real life will be very small, than you are about the family courts?

Now I have my political passions, just like you. But the family courts have a massive effect on your life. The small changes that Obama or McCain may or may not make in tax policy, the economy, or the war will be miniscule by comparison.

So why is it easier to get your attention with Obama and McCain than with our REAL issues?

Here is where we actually DO need your vote:

We alerted you yesterday that we need your vote on a Parade Magazine online poll asking whether fathers should get equal parenting time. Only 21 percent of you opened the email. Only 15 of you forwarded the message to a friend (but to your credit, you forwarded it to 76 people).

If you did not vote on the Parade Magazine on-line poll, please do so right now by clicking here. When we intervened, the vote was about 52 percent to 48 percent in favor, a dangerously small margin. We pushed it to a peak of 68 percent to 32 percent, but it has now slipped back to 65 percent to 35 percent.

We want at least a two to one margin (67 percent to 33 percent). So please vote now to support something that is nearer and dearer to your heart than Obama or McCain can possibly be if elected President.

Tell me what you think below–but I am much more interested in what you plan to do to support this movement than why I am allegedly wrong about the miracles that McCain or Obama will supposedly perform for you.

VOTE NOW!

Salem, MA–We wrote last week about the case of 8-year-old Jeremy Fraser, whose mother Kristin LaBrie made international news after being charged with child endangerment for stopping the boy’s life-saving cancer treatment while she had primary custody. To read more, click here. 

We have since spoken at length with father Eric Fraser, who now has custody and who is preparing for Jeremy’s likely death from leukemia. According to the doctors, Jeremy”s illness was curable until his mother allegedly delayed and obstructed his chemotherapy. Meanwhile, Eric was allegedly kept at arm”s length by Kristin”s accusations, aggressiveness and conflict-seeking behavior. Now it is too late: Jeremy”s outlook is near-hopeless.

The bottom line for me is that this child”s life would probably have been saved if Massachusetts had a shared parenting law.

Troubled parents are a fact of life. That”s where shared parenting comes in. When parents are less than perfect  — which is most of the time – shared parenting allows each parent to be the child”s safeguard against failure by the other parent. By ordering sole custody to one parent in most cases, and giving the non-custodial parent only a few days per month with the child, the courts remove the child”s best protection against failure of the custodial parent – the other parent.

Jeremy”s plight is not at all unusual. The rates of child abuse and neglect are astronomical in single-parent households. The rates for single mothers, their boyfriends and their second husbands significantly exceed those of biological fathers. Many of these children would be protected if their biological dads were allowed more access to their children so they could monitor how their children were being treated.

The overall picture, based on our lengthy conversation with Fraser, is of the family court and the Department of Social Services (DSS  — Massachusetts” child protective agency) ignoring mountains of evidence of an unstable mother. This was so extreme that DSS and the courts switched custody of Karin LaBrie”s older son to his father (not Fraser) in 2000. So her parenting limitations were well known by the time of her subsequent divorce from Fraser. Yet she was awarded sole custody of Jeremy, with subsequent tragic results.

Fraser too is not without fault. This is exactly the kind of situation in which children most need shared parenting  – so that each imperfect parent can keep an eye on the other.

Fraser claimed numerous instances of LaBrie’s unstable behavior stretching from 2000 to their 2002 separation, the 2005 divorce, and to the present, many of which can be verified by court, police, and agency records. These allegedly included “endless” threats by LaBrie and LaBrie”s boyfriend to harm Eric Fraser, his family and new partner; physical confrontations; several domestic violence incidents between LaBrie and her boyfriend; drunken rages; scrapes with her landlord, and sustained efforts at parental alienation. At one point, Fraser’s elderly parents were forced to get a restraining order against the boyfriend.

In 2000, police were allegedly called to the couple’s home and were said to find LaBrie drunk and unable to care for baby Jeremy and the older son from LaBrie”s previous relationship. That is when the older boy was put in the custody of the first father.  DSS investigated LaBrie twice in 2006 and investigated Fraser once in 2005 – the latter a case Fraser says he initiated when he observed bruises on his son. All of the investigations were closed without a finding. Fraser made several impassioned pleas for court intervention that were not answered.

The Eric Fraser we heard describes himself as a hardworking dad with 19 years of employment by UPS who went to great lengths to maintain the peace for the benefit of Jeremy. At times when relations got particularly rough, he withdrew from contact with Kristin and his son, feeling he had run out of options for keeping the peace, and holding no faith that the courts would intercede fairly – a common refrain from non-custodial fathers.

Massachusetts needs a shared parenting law to prevent this kind of tragedy. Let”s call it “Jeremy”s Law.’

Let us know what you think.

Below are some recent articles and items of interest from Fathers & Families’ latest News Digest.

Influence peddler Levine ends 33-year marriage (Chicago Sun Times, 7/2/08)

Jailed mom let go, will return some divorce money (Palm Beach Post, 7/3/08)

Up to date on changes to child support scheme (Inverell Times, 7/4/08)

Delinquent support pay earns man prison time (Columbus Dispatch, 7/4/08)

After 11 years, Fort Worth man hopes to see his daughter again (Fort Worth Star Telegram, 7/6/08)

Peter Cook’s team set to paint ugly picture of Christie Brinkley (New York Daily News, 7/6/08)

Actor John Cleese faces long and costly divorce, says Michael Winner (Telegraph.co.uk, 7/7/08)

Reports: A-Rod’s wife to file for divorce (Associated Press, 7/708)

Judges told to hammer obstinate parents (Associated Press, 7/7/08)

Salem, MA–Eight-year-old Jeremy Fraser is not expected to live because his mother, Kristen A. LaBrie, refused to give him chemotherapy for his cancer, according to police reports. Several months ago doctors said Jeremy would probably live–today, because of the lack of treatment, doctors say his chances of surviving the cancer are down to 10%. “He’s declining,” said Jeremy”s father Eric Fraser. Fraser is seeking hospice care for Jeremy. “I feel like my son already has his wings.” The media are focusing on the mother”s failures in this tragic story here and here. But LaBrie may not be the only culprit here–Massachusetts” gendered family courts may bear equal blame for this tragedy. This will become clear as Fathers & Families seeks further details.
DSS removed an older child by another father from LaBrie”s custody due to neglect, according to press reports. And Jeremy was the subject of a DSS investigation in 2005. Read more here. Did these events occur before or after the award of custody to Kristen? If before, it would appear that the default action of the family courts  — giving custody to mothers  —  took precedence over serous warning signs about Kristen”s fitness. Fathers & Families is continuing to investigate the order of events. After winning custody, Kristen allegedly peppered Fraser with verbal and physical threats, and later filed an action in court to terminate his parental rights. Jeremy was found by the police wandering the streets in 2006. Mom appears to be particularly prone to conflict, including to what the Salem News called, “a pattern of domestic disputes at LaBrie’s home,” involving her boyfriend and her landlord.  The Salem News concluded, “Police and court documents paint a picture of a woman in an unsteady existence.” Yet she retained custody of Jeremy until the recent developments that threaten Jeremy”s life. Must a child be in danger of death in a mother”s care before the courts will consider either shared custody or custody to the father? Fathers & Families has innumerable members who would say “yes.’ As long as gender bias and gender stereotypes persist in the family courts, children will continue to be victimized in some cases by being put into the care of less-fit parents. In fairness to Kristen, it is not easy to be the sole parent of a seriously ill child. Not only has Jeremy suffered from cancer for the past year or two, but he is autistic. And it is not clear at this point whether the dad is a poster-boy for fatherhood. All the more reason why the courts should award shared custody  — so that each parent can be the child”s safeguard against failure by the other parent. And if the court finds that shared parenting simply will not work for a couple such as this one, it needs to pick the custodial parent who will do the best job, without gender bias or preconceived stereotypes. There is a long record of questionable mothers being given the benefit of the doubt, while men seeking custody receive the opposite treatment, sometimes with tragic results. Readers may remember the case of Massachusetts father Wayne Cann, who petitioned for custody of his three daughters, warning of the violence of his ex’s boyfriend Robert McDermott. Cann gave up when he learned that a court-ordered change in custody would be almost impossible to win. In August 2007, his predictions came tragically true as McDermott killed the ex-wife and himself, while severely wounding two of the three daughters. Read more here. In another highly-publicized case, then seven year-old Kaili Warrington-Sims was starved down to 29 pounds and imprisoned in a bedroom by her mother and her mother’s live-in boyfriend before being rescued by her father, Daniel Sims. The couple had spirited the girl around New York State and then to Florida to deny Sims access. Sims struggled through a maze of bureaucratic indifference and hostility to get to his daughter. He arrived just in time–the girl would have lived only a few more weeks in her condition. Jeremy Fraser is now in the sole custody of father Eric Fraser, but the move by the Essex Probate and Family Court appears to be too little, too late. We will keep you informed as we learn more details. Meanwhile, let us know what you think below.

Los Angeles, CA–A reader tipped us to a recent “Judge Judy” episode in which mother Amica Coleman is berated for a planned move-away and grilled about her accusations against father Donald Ballard, Jr. The “judge” here is Judtih Sheindlin, a former New York family court judge who has presided over a top-rated reality-based court TV show for 11 years.

In the episode, which you can watch here, the mom is seeking payment from the father for day care costs from a brief period when they shared custody. A big part of the show’s popularity is Judge Judy’s lecturing of plaintiffs or defendants as she loses patience with them, and she doesn’t fail to disappoint here.

In response to mom’s plan to move the son from California to North Carolina, the Judge tells mom, “Your child has known his father since the time he was born. Don’t you think that’s rather selfish of you?”

And, “Ms. Coleman, it’s always a bad thing when you take a child away from a parent. You chose Mr. Ballard to father your child, you lived with him for a long time, unfortunately you haven’t been able to work out the custody aspects in a way that respects the child’s long-term well-being.”

The show isn’t perfect, and the dad gets taken to task too. Yet a litany of accusations from the mom are countered by the dad, or shot down by Judge Judy. The overwhelming message is that the father is fighting to stay involved in his son’s life while the mom erects every roadblock possible. Hence Judge Judy’s frustration. And, Judge Judy denies the mother’s financial claim at the end.

We’re sensing a theme here: in another episode this year, Judge Judy rips into a mom whose son is forced to sue her for visitation rights to see his little sister. Watch here.

And, in response to another recent show involving paternity fraud, Judge Judy’s website is running a poll asking, “Do you think paternity testing should be mandatory in cases involving child support?”

We encourage all readers to go here and vote “yes”. The results so far: 80% in favor.

Los Angeles, CA–The media frequently devotes much attention to mothers who are separated from their children by deportation actions. The treatment is usually highly sympathetic to the mothers. When fathers are deported away from their children, little attention is paid. Even when the media covers the issue, there is little handwringing, as evidenced in a recent straight-facts story from the Los Angeles Times–Custody case of Long Beach boy complicates deportation of illegal immigrant (6/30/08). The story details the case of Michael Campo, a 10-year-old Los Angeles boy whose father Carlos Alvarado is an illegal immigrant. Alvarado is fighting deportation proceedings, saying that he should be allowed to stay in the U.S. because of his son. According to the Times:

Alvarado sneaked across the Mexican border in 1991. He and Marla Campo met about five years later and she gave birth to Michael in October 1997. After a few years, the couple separated. In 2003, Campo disappeared with Michael. Alvarado called police, who tracked her down…the couple returned to court and the judge gave the parents joint legal custody…Michael spends every weekend with his father. Alvarado pays child support and pays for Michael’s health insurance. Alvarado’s trial in immigration court took place in June 2005. The judge ruled that he could stay in the U.S…The government attorney appealed the case, saying in court papers that ‘this separation is no different than if [Alvarado] relocated to another state in the U.S.'”

Read the full article here. A few points: 1) The government attorney’s argument in favor of deporting the father–“this separation is no different than if [Alvarado] relocated to another state in the U.S.”–is ludicrous. Forcing Carlos Alvarado to move back to Mexico will drive a huge wedge between him and his son, and the relationship might be lost altogether. Consider:

Carlos Alvarado will be unable to visit his son in the United States Alvarado is dependent upon the child being sent by the custodial mom to visit him in Mexico. She may not do this–she already kept the child away from his father in the past, and may well do so again.  Though the exes are getting along well right now, that could change. We also can’t help noticing that the mother gave the child her last name, not his father’s. Moreover she is already saying she doesn”t feel safe sending him to a border town in Mexico. Carlos Alvarado will have far less income available to him to spend on visiting his son, communicating with him, buying him gifts, etc.

2) There are many exceptions made in immigration cases. The most notable one is for women who claim to be victims of domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Act provides allegedly battered immigrant women a way to become US residents. For example, women in deportation proceedings can claim domestic violence and get a “cancellation of removal” and obtain residency. We have mixed emotions about this VAWA provision. We certainly favor aiding battered women, but we know from family court how frequently false claims are made in order to gain advantages. Regardless, if we can make an exception to immigration laws for allegedly battered wives, we should also be able to make exceptions to protect a 10-year-old boy from losing his father. 3) Let’s look at it from another angle. First, let’s disregard the human factor. Second, let’s assume that illegal immigrants really are harmful to the US–a debatable assertion, but let’s use it for the purposes of this argument. Looking at this case only in light of dollars and cents, the father still should be allowed to stay in the US. Why? Consider: a) The boy is a U.S. citizen–whatever problems he encounters or creates, the US will have to deal with them. The boy is far less likely to become involved in crime or drugs, drop out of school or become a burden to society if he has a dad in his life than if he doesn’t. All of those cost the taxpayer money–allowing Alvarado to stay would probably save taxpayers money in the long run. b) The father pays child support and also pays for the boy’s health insurance. If he’s deported, both will cease, and the taxpayers will likely end up footing the bill. 4) If Alvarado is deported, he might also face child support enforcement action. He would have to get a downward modification of his child support based on his new, lower earnings in Mexico, which isn’t easy to do for anybody, much less a low-income man living in Mexico. Arrearages will mount. Even if he finds legal ways to return to the US to see his child, marry, or work, he will be subject to arrest for child support arrearages. It is even possible that an extradition treaty with Mexico exists such that he will be arrested and brought to the US for child support arrearages. Any way you look at this, everyone is better off if this hardworking and devoted dad is allowed to stay in the US  — the child, the mom, the dad, his employer, and the US taxpayer.

Boston, MA – Skyrocketing food and gas prices…foreclosures and a credit crisis…small businesses struggling to hold onto paying customers…just some of the recession worries shared by millions of Americans. But perhaps not everyone — as reported in last week’s Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly: “For divorce lawyers, slump in economy can boost business.” Read more here.

Boston attorney John G. DiPiano said, “We have seen just as many contested custody cases in the last 12 months as in the previous 12 months.”

“People will find resources for those kinds of cases, either through loans or borrowing from relatives.”

And attorney Regina Healy said, “I hate to say it, [but] there’s always work for lawyers in this field.”

The root problem is a family court system that breeds conflict; a legal maze that requires a skilled attorney, whether to initiate legal action — or to defend yourself from it. That is, if you can afford one.

Because family courts across the US usually assume the need to award sole custody to a “primary” parent and “visitation” to the other, they encourage a “winner-take-all” and “go-for-broke” strategy in custody disputes.

Fathers & Families believes that a remedy is right at our fingertips that creates incentives for parents to cooperate rather than litigate. Couples should know from the outset that if both are fit and if there is no serious domestic violence, shared parenting would be tried first. Only if shared parenting failed would the court modify the custody order to award sole custody to one parent. A critical part of this idea is that each parent should have an equal chance of becoming the custodial parent if shared parenting failed. That way, the parents would start out as equals, and each would be motivated to cooperate rather than litigate by the fear that they might be the one demoted to “visitor’ should shared parenting fail.

This approach would diminish parental conflict both inside and outside the courthouse. Vicious custody battles would decrease dramatically. Children would no longer be placed between warring parents. They would benefit from the long term love, care and guidance of both their parents. In cases requiring child support, it would be paid without the need for a huge child support collection bureaucracy because the payer would still have a loving bond with the child.

In a case I know well, the father sought shared legal and shared physical custody, but his lawyer insisted that he go for primary custody as a defensive maneuver. He was asked to recall any possible “gotcha” details about his ex – like drugs, mental illness, abuse, and so on – none of which existed. The implication was: if he wanted to stay in his kids” lives as an active parent, he should hold his nose and destroy the other parent.

He eventually ended up with the court’s mediator, who glared at the parents as she complained, “I’ve already spent an hour with you people…. a lot longer than you’re supposed to get.”  One hour to determine the life of a family for decades to come!

This is a classic case of too much government. First it creates the problem by insisting on sole custody to one parent, then it attempts to solve the very problem it has created by hiring therapists, parenting coordinator, GALs, psychological testers, and mediators. Except that the remedy to the problem they have created is feeble and doomed to failure, once the parents have been set up to fight for what is dearest to them  — their children.

The courts do not and will not have the staff, time and money to resolve custody disputes once they have set them in motion. Only a system that creates incentives for parents to cooperate rather than litigate will work  — then they will solve their own problems.

In Massachusetts, we support legislation to establish shared parenting as the first option for the court. We successfully lobbied the Boston Globe to become the first major newspaper in the country to endorse shared parenting in principle.  The Globe editorial said our bill would “…theoretically put mothers and fathers on equal footing by creating a legal presumption that in divorce cases – where there is no child abuse or neglect – both parents would share legal and physical custody of the children. Judges could still rule that one parent should get sole custody, but they would have to explain why.” Read more here.

86% of Massachusetts voters said yes in 2004 to our non-binding ballot question favoring shared parenting. We have made shared parenting the most-supported issue on Governor Deval Patrick”s website, and he has said that if the legislature passes shared parenting, he will sign it.

The Massachusetts Bar Association, however, supports continuing the status quo. No surprise, considering their recession-proof rewards.