Category: Blog

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

Top designer fights domestic violence charges (Sydney Morning Herald, 6/26/08)

Bill Murray’s divorce is finalized (Associated Press, 6/26/08)

Divorce gives Russell Simmons’ daughters a big phat allowance (New York Daily News, 6/26/08)

Deadbeat dad gets a year in prison (Plain Dealer, 6/26/08)

Lubbock County Sheriff Cracks Down on Deadbeat Parents (KCBD, 6/26/08)

Don’t expect federal rebate if you owe taxes, child support (Columbus Dispatch, 6/26/08)

Feds ok state child support tracking (San Diego Union Tribune, 6/28/08)

Parents loses licenses because of debts (Grand Forks Herald, 6/29/08)

Changes in child support to begin (Sydney Morning Herald, 6/30/08)

Man must pay support for child who’s not his (Clarksville Leaf Chronicle, 6/30/08)

Madrid, Spain–One of the more bizarre and unfortunate aspects of the controversy over family law in the United States is the insistence of many misguided women’s advocates that Parental Alienation does not exist. To learn more about Parental Alienation and the controversies surrounding it, see my co-authored column Protect Children from Alienation (Providence Journal, 7/8/06) or click here.

According to activist Diego Hernán Cecchini, Parental Alienation has now been accepted by Spain’s Coordinating of Legal Psychology of the General Council of Associations of Psychologists of Spain (Coordinadora de Psicología Jurídica del Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Psicólogos de España). In “Considerations about the relevance of Parental Alienation Syndrome” (6/18/08) they write:

As part of the Coordinator of Legal Psychology General Council of Official Colleges of Spanish, we want to endorse the desirability of the analysis of the problem known as Parental Alienation Syndrome in the psychological evaluation, both within the forensic field of family law, and as otherwise related.

Researchers and psychologists show a broad consensus to consider PAS as a cognitive, behavioral and emotional alteration in which the the child despises and criticizes one of their parents. This behavior and attitude of rejection and disparagement is unwarranted or shows a clear exaggeration of alleged defects of the alienated parent…

Like any scientific and professional breakthrough, it is subject to continuous review, but cannot be denied “a priori” when there is scientific literature and professional activity that describes it, and recognizes its usefulness.

London, England–A reader recently reminded me of a great father-son story–the Derek Redmond story. According to Wikipedia:

Derek Redmond (born September 3, 1965 in Bletchley) is a retired English athlete…As a 400 metres and 4 x 400 metres runner, he won gold medals at the European, Commonwealth, and World Championships. His career highlights included a fifth place finish over 400 m at the 1987 World Championships and a 1991 World Championships 4×400 m gold medal. However, disappointment came at the 1992 Summer Olympics in the 400m race. He posted the fastest time of the first round, and won his quarter-final. In the semi-final, Redmond started well, but in the back straight about 250m from the finish, his hamstring tore. Redmond hobbled to a halt, and then fell to the ground in pain. As stretcher bearers made their way over to him, he knew he wanted to finish the race. He began to hobble along the track, with pain etched upon his face. He was soon joined on the track by his father, Jim Redmond, who had supported Derek for his whole career. Jim shocked the world by barging past security to get to his son. Shortly before the line, Jim let go of his son, and he completed the race, with a standing ovation from the crowd of 65,000. Unfortunately, since his father had helped him finish, Derek was disqualified from even listing as finishing. After he finished his race, sitting alone under the stands, Redmond was approached by Linford Christie, the 100-meter gold-medal winner. The two British runners had never liked each other. They rarely spoke. This time, Christie put his arms around Redmond. Both men cried. “He has a heart,” Redmond said. “I’ve changed my views of him completely.” Redmond later became the subject of one of the IOC’s ‘celebrate humanity’ videos. The video featured his struggle in the 1992 Olympic semi-final… In 2008 Redmond was featured in a Visa advertisement promoting the Olympic Games. The advertisement highlights the 1992 injury. The advertisement emphasized the fact that both he and his father finished “dead last, but he, and his father finished”. However, the Olympic results list that he “Did Not Finish” and remains unranked.

To watch the video, click here or see below. One amusing part is when the father tells off a security official who tries to separate him from his hobbled son. Thanks to Mister-M, a reader, for the video.

Washington, D.C.–Attorney Tim Murray, a frequent commenter on my blog, has an interesting perspective on the new Supreme Court decision on child rape.

We have often discussed the problems of false allegations of molestation, particularly in the context of custody battles. Here, the Supreme Court cited this problem as one reason for declaring that the death penalty is unconstitutional for child rape.

Murray writes:

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court just overturned the death sentence of a Louisiana man convicted of the aggravated rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter. Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5262 (June 25, 2008). Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, explained that the practice imposing the death penalty for child rape violated “evolving standards of decency,” the yardstick the court uses to decide whether a punishment is cruel and unusual.

The court expressly noted that one of the bases for its holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional for child rape is the risk of false claims. Here is what the court wrote:

There are, moreover, serious systemic concerns in prosecuting the crime of child rape that are relevant to the constitutionality of making it a capital offense. The problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined child testimony means there is a “special risk of wrongful execution” in some child rape cases. . . . .

This undermines, at least to some degree, the meaningful contribution of the death penalty to legitimate goals of punishment. Studies conclude that children are highly susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques like repetition, guided imagery, and selective reinforcement. . . . .

See Ceci & Friedman, The Suggestibility of Children: Scientific Research and Legal Implications, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 33, 47 (2000) (there is “strong evidence that children, especially young children, are suggestible to a significant degree–even on abuse-related questions”); Gross, Jacoby, [*63] Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, Exonerations in the United States 1989 Through 2003, 95 J. Crim. L. & C. 523, 539 (2005) (discussing allegations of abuse at the Little Rascals Day Care Center); see also Quas, Davis, Goodman, & Myers, Repeated Questions, Deception, and Children’s True and False Reports of Body Touch, 12 Child Maltreatment 60, 61-66 (2007) (finding that 4- to 7-year-olds “were able to maintain [a] lie about body touch fairly effectively when asked repeated, direct questions during a mock forensic interview”).

Similar criticisms pertain to other cases involving child witnesses; but child rape cases present heightened concerns because the central narrative and account of the crime often comes from the child herself. She and the accused are, in most instances, the only ones present when the crime was committed. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60, 107 S. Ct. 989, 94 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1987). Cf. Goodman, Testifying in Criminal Court, at 118. And the question in a capital case is not just the fact of the crime, including, say, proof of rape as distinct from abuse short of rape, but details bearing upon brutality in its commission. These matters are subject to fabrication or exaggeration, or both. See Ceci and Friedman, supra; Quas, supra. Although capital punishment does bring retribution, and the legislature here has chosen to use it for this end, its judgment must be weighed, in deciding the constitutional question, against the special risks of unreliable testimony with respect to this crime.

(Emphasis supplied.)

It seems worth noting, if only to buttress the Supreme Court’s rationale, that the victim in this particular case made a false accusation before the real rapist was arrested. Specifically, after the victim was raped by her stepfather, the victim and her stepfather both claimed that the girl was raped by two neighborhood boys. “She told the psychologist that she had been playing in the garage when a boy came over and asked her about Girl Scout cookies she was selling; and that the boy ‘pulled [her by the legs to] the backyard,’. . . where he placed his hand over her mouth, ‘pulled down [her] shorts,’ . . . .”

This, of course, turned out to be a false accusation. We don’t know if the two neighborhood boys were arrested and charged, but cases are legion where innocent victims of false accusations spend decades in prison for rapes they did not commit. It is not far-fetched to imagine that this could have happened here, too.

The Supreme Court reached the correct decision.

I oppose the death penalty in general, for any crime, but I am pleased that the Court acknowledged the false accusations issue.

Fullerton, CA–A few months ago domestic violence defense expert John McLaughlin of Borders, McLaughlin & Associates sent me a story about teacher Gregory Abbott, whose wife apparently conspired with her boyfriend to frame him as part of a custody dispute. She and her boyfriend planted a shotgun and some marijuana in his car while he was at school teaching, and made numerous fake police reports. Abbott was arrested but, thankfully, the police figured out the ploy and, to their credit, publicly proclaimed the Abbott’s innocence. My original blog post is here.

McLaughlin recently sent me an update to the case. So far Greg Abbott is being treated quite fairly. He was given full custody of his kids, the police have arrested his ex-wife and her boyfriend, and the DA has filed charges. The ex-wife is pictured above, talking to her lawyer from jail.

So far the only evidence of the preferential treatment women receive in the criminal justice system is the vastly different bail amounts given to the ex-wife and her co-conspirator boyfriend–$50,000 for her, $750,000 for him. Perhaps the judge was right to do this (he says the boyfriend is a greater flight risk) but I wonder–when was the last time a man and a woman were held in bail on the same charges and her bail was 15 times greater than his?

One more nice thing–the ex-wife apparently was willing to “use her children to locate [Greg Abbott] over the phone.” The new article on the case is excerpted below

Text records may reveal plot to frame teacher with drugs
Bail set for estranged wife and her boyfriend, who are in Orange County Jail.
By DENISSE SALAZAR and BARBARA GIASONE
The Orange County Register

FULLERTON – A woman and her boyfriend appeared in court today after being accused of conspiring to have the woman”s estranged husband – a Sunny Hills High School teacher – arrested for crimes he had not committed, authorities said.

Devon Eileen Abbott, 33, of Mira Loma, and Soloman Brian Silver, 42, of Portland, Maine, appeared at the North Justice Center in Fullerton for an arraignment hearing this morning, which was continued to July 10.

Abbott”s bail was set at $50,000 and Silver”s bail was set at $750,000 by Superior Court Judge Roger B. Robbins. They are being held at the Orange County Jail.

Los Angeles, CA–The woman is unhappy and guess who’s the problem?

Guess who needs to change?

Guess who needs her advice and direction in order to rise above his lowly, slovenly status?

To watch the ad, click here.

Thanks to Dave, a reader, for sending it.

To learn more about the problems with the way men and fathers are portrayed in advertising, click here.

Augusta, Canada–This story encapsulates many of the problems with the modern domestic violence system–it’s anti-male bias, it’s insistence on holding only men accountable and sweeping female violence under the rug, and “Zero Tolerance”-style idiocy.

In this case, the woman says she was just as responsible as her ex was for the domestic violence incident, yet he’s the one in jail. Then when she visits him, he’s sentenced to serve nine months in jail because he violated his restraining order. How? By not refusing to see her when she visited him in jail!

The best line in the story is this:

Asked how an inmate could have avoided contact with a banned person while incarcerated, District Attorney Evert Fowle said Crandall should have notified jail officials.

“He should have said, ‘I’m not supposed to have contact,'” Fowle said.

Get it? See, the woman is a child who should not and cannot be held accountable for her own actions and decisions. The man–because he’s the only one in the scenario who can be treated as an adult capable of being held accountable–has to be responsible for her decisions. She decides to visit him? He needs to make the decision for her–or he’s punished.

It’s kind of a shame, too–instead of playing victim-for-gain, the woman here voluntarily took responsibility for her part in their problems. Sad to see her class act turned upside down.

From Jail visits lead to more time locked up (Kennebec Journal, 6/25/08):

AUGUSTA — As soon as an inmate from Vassalboro had a visitor at the Kennebec County jail in Augusta, he was violating a court order.

Marshall Crandall IV, of Vassalboro, was sentenced to serve nine months in jail Tuesday at a Kennebec County Superior Court hearing after he pleaded guilty to three counts of violating conditions of release for having contact with the visitor.

Crandall, 39, had been arrested April 4 and charged with domestic assault. That charge was dropped Tuesday in exchange for his plea to violating the court order.

A condition of release on the domestic assault charge banned him from contact with the woman — the same woman who visited him at the jail.

The violations occurred April 5, 10 and 15, when the woman named as the assault victim visited Crandall, according to jail records.

The woman told the judge on Tuesday the domestic assault was mutual, and that she could have been charged with the same offense in the incident.

“I picked him up three or four times and slammed him on the ground,” she said.

The incident ended when the woman said she asked a neighbor to call police.

“All I wanted was for them to take him for the day so I could move my stuff out of the house,” she said.

Read the full article here. To learn more about the problems with the domestic violence system, click here.

Los Angeles, CA–For Christie Brinkley (pictured), apparently her anger at her husband is far more important than the welfare of her kids. Whereas most stars want their divorces private, she’s fighting to keep it as public as possible.

To be fair, it sounds like Brinkley certainly had reason to be mad at soon-to-be-ex-husband Peter Cook over his infidelities and the harm he caused to their marriage. But having now married and divorced four separate times, it’s doubtful that Brinkley is going to be giving lectures on “Why It’s Important to Make Your Marriage Work” or “How to Be a Good Wife” any time soon.

(BTW, we do apply that both ways. When we’re contacted by a man who wants to convince us what a bitch each one of his four ex-wives was, we don’t put much stock in it.)

The key issue here, though, is the children. They have a nine-year-old daughter together, and Brinkley’s 12-year-old son from her 3rd marriage also lives with them. Despite this, Brinkley seems determined to thrust this divorce into the spotlight as much as possible. From MSNBC’s Are Christie Brinkley”s kids pawns in her divorce? (6/24/08):

Christie Brinkley is pursuing Brinkley-style brinkmanship by fighting to keep her messy divorce proceedings public, a celebrity divorce lawyer and a psychologist agreed.

“They”re playing a dangerous game of chicken with her children”s lives,’ attorney Lois Lieberman told TODAY’s Meredith Vieira Tuesday in New York.

The 54-year-old supermodel filed for divorce nearly two years ago, citing an affair her fourth husband, architect Peter Cook, 49, admitted having with his 18-year-old office assistant. The couple have one child together, 9-year-old Sailor. Also part of the family is Brinkley”s son, Jack, 12, from her third marriage.

An attorney appointed to represent the interests of the children joined with Cook”s attorney to keep the divorce trial, scheduled to begin July 2, private to protect the children. But Brinkley and Long Island newspaper Newsday asked to keep the trial public, and the judge agreed.

Lieberman told Vieira that it seems clear that Brinkley is trying to force Cook to settle on her terms rather than face the prospect of having his dirty laundry aired in public. In addition to the affair with his assistant, there have been allegations linking him to Internet porn and swingers” groups.

A woman scorned?

Lieberman also feels Brinkley wants to get back at Cook for his infidelity to her.

“I truly believe that there is some vindictive measure that is part of this aspect of looking for the trial to be public,’ the attorney said.

She said Brinkley”s motion to keep the trial public runs counter to normal procedure in celebrity divorces. Usually, she said, both parties try to keep proceedings private to protect their own reputations and their children.

In this case, many of the tawdry details have already been splattered all over the New York tabloids, and the children”s pictures have been published frequently. The couple live in the Hamptons, a Long Island retreat of the rich and famous and a small community in which everyone knows everyone else”s business.

[Added note: In reference to the photo above, Ned Holstein insists I insert the phrase “In Christie’s favor is the fact that she appears to be a member of Red Sox Nation.” As an Angels fan who sat with my long-suffering father through the Red Sox sweep of the Angels last October, I do so under protest.–GS]