Category: Blog

Boston, MA–Kevin, a reader, writes:

Glenn, this is a great story concerning the type of women you want to be involved with. She did not sell out her husband when he was charged wrongly with child pornography. In fact he said this about her, “My wife is very, very understanding. She took the bull by the horns and found an attorney. I was just paralyzed, I couldn’t do anything. I can’t describe the feeling to you. I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy. It’s just devastating.”

A very frightening example of how decent men can be falsely accused in this high tech and anti-male age. According to A Misconfigured Laptop, a Wrecked Life (IDG News Service, 6/17/08):

When the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued Michael Fiola a Dell Latitude in November 2006, it set off a chain of events that would cost him his job, his friends and about a year of his life, as he fought criminal charges that he had downloaded child pornography onto the laptop. Last week, prosecutors dropped their year-old case after a state investigation of his computer determined there was insufficient evidence to prove he had downloaded the files.

An initial state investigation had come to the opposite conclusion, and authorities took a second look at Fiola’s case only after he hired a forensic investigator to look at his laptop. What she found was scary, given the gravity of the charges against him: The Microsoft SMS (Systems Management Server) software used to keep his laptop up to date was not functional. Neither was its antivirus protection. And the laptop was crawling with malicious programs that were most likely responsible for the files on his PC.

Fiola had been an investigator with the state’s Department of Industrial Accidents, examining businesses to see whether they had worker’s compensation plans. Over the past two days, however, he’s become a spokesman for people who have had their lives ruined by malicious software.

Read an interview with Fiola here.

Los Angeles, CA–From Ella Schwartz, a reader:

Glenn,

My husband and I are supporters of you, thanks for all your efforts.

There is an actress who is considered a soap superstar. Her name is Deidre Hall (pictured) and she is on Days of Our Lives, which airs on NBC. On the cover of the July 1, 2008 Soap Opera Digest magazine there is a photo of her and a quote, “The happiest days of my life were when I got divorced.”  In the article it states the following:

Hall says she’s adjusted well:

“I said to somebody the other day that the happiest days of my life were when I got divorced,” she muses, “And unfortunately that’s true, but this comes with a whole new level of acceptance and joy and freedom and capability. I didn’t have children by myself because I wasn’t completely confident I could manage that the way I wanted to. And now that I’m doing the single parent thing, I had nothing to be afraid of. I’ve had single moms say to me, “The hardest part about being a single parent is when you don’t have someone to turn to and say, “Did we give him the shot or not?” “Do we get him braces or not?” “The good part about that is that there’s no other voice in the decision.”

Her sons are 15 and 13 years old and apparently she doesn’t think a father figure is essential to their emotional well-being, I suppose her plan is for the dad to be an ATM and exclude him from their lives. There was not one positive or neutral comment about the dad in the article.

I am appalled at the comments, and while I do not watch this show, I am planning to write to her and to the magazine.

Thank you.
Ella Schwartz

The father Schwartz references is author, television screenwriter, and former network television executive Steve Sohmer. I don’t know if he’s excluded from his sons lives or is “an ATM,” but Hall’s comments don’t leave one with the impression that she gives him much consideration as a father.

The idea that the children of single mothers are better off because they don’t have to consult with their children’s fathers is a popular one in the Single Motherhood by Choice movement. In a column I wrote about feminist professor Peggy Drexler’s work called Raising Boys Without Men: Lesbian Parents Good, Dads Bad (World Net Daily, 9/10/05), I wrote:

Drexler holds up a variety of other family forms and “nonofficial parenting figures’ as alternatives to heterosexual, married families, including Hillary Clinton”s village, “communal living,’ and “seed daddies.’ She approvingly quotes a columnist who writes “with so many single mothers around, and double mothers becoming less of a novelty, it is the children of traditional couples who are going to be asked ‘who is that man in your house?”‘

The boys Drexler studied don”t need their dads, but instead benefit because their absence helps create what one might call the “maternal dictatorship.’ For Ursula, the single mother of two boys, Drexler enthuses that there”s “no discussion about parenting methodologies. No crossed signals…no compromising…the decisions, the choices, the priorities were all hers.’ Better yet, “Lesbian co-parents ‘achieve a particularly high level of parenting skills…[and] a greater level of agreement than heterosexual couples. A higher degree of consensus cut down on conflict in the home, enabling a clear message of love and support to be heard by the kids.’

Drexler has it exactly wrong–conflict over parenting methods and strategies is not a negative but a positive, for two competing and different viewpoints weed out bad ideas and help preserve good ones. This is particularly true in heterosexual couples, where both male and female perspectives are considered in decision-making. By contrast, in single parent homes ideas and parenting strategies are implemented without consultation, and the effect can be harmful. In lesbian homes, parenting strategies are used on boys without input from anyone who actually knows what it”s like to be a boy.

Gloucester, MA–I discussed the Gloucester High School pregnancy scandals on the Al Rantel Show on KABC AM 790 in Los Angeles last night. Many are drawing links between Gloucester and the way single mother actresses/stars are glamorized and extolled. I believe this is true, but one of the points I made on the show is that I also believe that there’s a link between the Gloucester issue and the Single Motherhood by Choice movement.

There have been three highly-publicized books overt the past couple years which advocate single motherhood as a choice: Stanford Gender Scholar Peggy Drexler’s Raising Boys Without Men, Wellesley College Women’s Studies Professor Rosanna Hertz’s Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice; and Louise Sloan’s Knocking Yourself Up.

I certainly sympathize with those single mothers whose husbands or lovers abandoned or mistreated them, and who soldiered on in the raising of their children without the father those children should have had. However, the Single Motherhood by Choice movement goes well beyond this, openly advocating single motherhood as a lifestyle choice.

Drexler portrays father-absent homes–particularly “single mother by choice” and lesbian homes–as being the best environments for raising boys. Hertz interviewed 65 single mothers and concluded that “intimacy between husbands and wives [is] obsolete as the critical familial bond.”

Whereas a family was once defined as two parents and their children, Hertz asserts that today the “core of family life is the mother and her children.” Fathers aren’t necessary–“only the availability of both sets of gametes [egg and sperm] is essential.” In fact, Hertz explains, “What men offer today is obsolete.”

Each of these three writers has received a very friendly reception from the mainstream media. Those of us who point out the damage caused to children by Single Motherhood by Choice are portrayed as meanies, grumps, and stuffed shirts who won’t get with the program. Some of you may remember I debated Sloan on Fox’s nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet last fall–to watch, click here.

Al & I also discussed the way the damage caused by divorce goes from generation to generation. The man or woman whose parents divorced when the kids were 12 and 9 is going to hesitate to marry because he or she will expect that the same thing will happen to their family. When children of divorce do get married, they are in turn more likely to divorce.

One other aspect of divorce which I noted was that children will inevitably blame themselves for what has happened. There was a poignant scene in the movie The Pursuit of Happyness where Will Smith’s son asks, “Did mommy leave because of me?” and Smith tells him, “No, mommy left because of mommy.” To use an excessively harsh example, I always remember this from the Andrea Yates killings: as she was drowning one of the little boys, the boy kept fighting his way to the surface of the bathtub and saying, “I’m sorry, mommy, I’m sorry.” But that’s how a child understands his or her parents’ anger and often their divorce–they blame themselves.

Al also made the point that he believes that boys are particularly harmed by fatherlessness. In one way I think he’s correct, but I also wonder if the damage to girls isn’t just as bad, but more subtle. Do readers have any thoughts on the question?

Trenton, NJ–From Palimony ruling sets precedent in Jersey (Star-Ledger, 6/18/08):

In a decision described as the first of its type in the nation, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a couple does not have to live together in order for one partner to sue the other for palimony after a breakup. The high court ruled that judges should consider the “entirety” of a couple’s relationship, and that cohabitation is only one factor in deciding whether they had a “marital-type relationship.”

The ruling overturned an appeals court decision last year that said there is no basis for a palimony suit unless a couple lived together.

“It is the promise of support, expressed or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are the indispensable elements to support a valid claim of palimony,” Justice John Wallace wrote for the court. The high court was ruling in the case of a former North Bergen woman who was attempting to sue a prominent, wealthy and married Manhattan ophthalmologist for palimony after he ended a 20-year relationship.  

I do believe that alimony is appropriate under certain circumstances, such as when one parent has made substantial career sacrifices in order to be the primary caregiver for the couple’s children, and upon divorce their incomes are very unequal because of these sacrifices. This case, however, goes well beyond that–no kids, no real sacrifices, etc. While the woman in this case apparently isn’t going to win her bid for alimony, the case opens the possibility for alimony in other cases where it is inappropriate.

I covered this case earlier this year when the New Jersey Supreme Court first heard testimony in the case. I wrote:

It’s hard to have too much sympathy for the guy in this case–he was married with children and had a 20-year-affair. Still, I think it’s an outrage that his mistress is seeking alimony, and may get it.

They never lived together, he put her through graduate school and provided her with an apartment, but it wasn’t enough, and now she wants palimony. She claims she needs his money and can’t support herself because her degree is in Art History–as if her choice of study is his fault!

He allegedly “deceived” her by not divorcing his wife to marry her. It’s great how these women have affairs with wealthy, adulterous married men–hardly a trustworthy group in general–and then are shocked, shocked! when the men don’t keep their promises to them.

As an attractive young woman she could have had any man she wanted, but the nice guy next door was never good enough–she had to have the most wealthy, powerful man she could get. And now she’s an angry, betrayed “victim.”

You also have to love Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto, who says, “He was an adulterer and he shouldn’t be held liable? That’s a little troubling to me.” It’s troubling that he doesn’t pay alimony to a mistress? Since when?

The article I was referring to in my previous post is excerpted below.

N.J. High Court Hears Pitch for Palimony Sans Cohabitation
Michael Booth
NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL
January 23, 2008
For the nearly three decades that New Jersey has recognized a cause of action for palimony, cohabitation has been the litmus test. No degree of love, devotion, mutual assurance or sacrifice has been found sufficient without it.

But what if the couple is intimate for two decades but can’t cohabit because one party stays married to someone else? Put more bluntly, is there equitable power to award palimony to a mistress?

Continue reading “NJ Supreme Court Opens Door for Alimony for the Mistress”

Gloucester, MA – Last week, in “Senator Obama, Meet Gloucester High School” we wrote about the 17 pregnancies in this school of 1200. We said Gloucester officials and the media are debating the wrong points. This week, Gloucester officials’ and some teens claimed there was no pact. They miss the point. Pact or no pact, Gloucester illustrates the widespread attitude that it is acceptable to produce babies who will most likely end up fatherless. On Tuesday’s (6/24) Good Morning America (ABC TV), one of the pregnant Gloucester teens – 17 year old Lindsey Oliver – appeared with her boyfriend, 20 year-old Andrew Psalidas. The expecting parents appeared to take their looming parenthood far more seriously than host Chris Cuomo. But first, in the introductory report, ABC gave more evidence of what we called last week a “sad adolescent fantasy.” Other Gloucester teen moms, “Believe some of the younger girls intentionally became pregnant, thinking it would be fun to raise their babies together,” and the teens, “tell us having a baby gave them a purpose in life.” A 16 year old mom stated, 
“They see all of the older girls doing it.” Expectant mom Oliver told Cuomo, “There was definitely no pact.” Cuomo then pointed out the pregnancies were four times the normal rate but let her off the hook, turning to expectant father Psalidas for an answer, who opined that girls were “getting unlucky.” Unlike some of the other Gloucester teens, Psalidas stated the couple did not plan to get pregnant; Oliver was on birth control and “was careful” because, “Obviously at 17 or 20 you’re not ready to have a kid.” But now they’re “Trying hard to get ready.” Expectant mom Oliver was asked whether the movie Juno promoted teen pregnancy. “Definitely not,” pointing out that the movie’s lead character, “couldn’t even take care of the baby.” Sounds like the young couple is sobering up to their new reality. Psalidas, who works and attends school full time, said, “We’re trying to do everything we can to make it right for the mistake that we made.”  This young man my be committed, but the sad statistical reality is he is unlikely in 5 years to be involved in the child’s life, whether by his or her choice.   Cuomo, however, wasn’t finished glorifying the pregnancy. “Yes, you’re young… you’re going to have to struggle a little bit here to make this work. What’s it been like going through all this drama surrounding it, making it seem like a bad thing, the pact?” Cuomo is not your everyday TV anchor. He’s the youngest son of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and the younger brother of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo closed the interview with, “One person says a mistake, another says a blessing.” You can view the interview here.

New York, NY–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] 

Jersey City, NJ–A single justice of the Superior Court of New Jersey has ruled that a key element of the New Jersey Domestic Violence Act (DVA) is unconstitutional.

In law, lives are shattered or saved based on the meanings of words. In this case, the difference between “preponderance of the evidence’ and “clear and convincing evidence’ may determine whether Mr. Anibal Crespo of New Jersey gets to live a normal life or instead permanently loses his home and his relationship with his children.

Mr. Crespo, in a typical restraining order proceeding, was kicked out of his home and largely separated from his children in a typical “he said, she said’ dispute concerning alleged domestic violence. The court, as it almost always does, issued the restraining order and made it final based on “a preponderance of the evidence.’ But another judge has now found that the proper legal standard of proof should have been “clear and convincing evidence.’

“Preponderance of the evidence’ simply means that the matter seems more likely than not, 51 percent to 49 percent. Under this standard of proof, almost any “he said, she said’ situation will be decided in favor of the plaintiff, unless the complaint is obviously fraudulent or is off-the-wall. In fact, under the “preponderance of the evidence’ standard, even off-the-wall complaints often result in restraining orders. For instance, remember the lady in New Mexico who successfully obtained a restraining order against television late show host David Letterman in New York because his shows allegedly contained coded messages that harassed her.

Under a standard that would demand “clear and convincing evidence,’ the complainant has a higher hill to climb to prove her case. This is as it should be, at least in cases in which the two parties share a home, assets or children.

In arguing for the higher standard of proof, the New Jersey Supreme Court relied on the Due Process Clause of the 14^th Amendment, a United States Supreme Court decision in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96, S.Ct. 893, 903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33 (1976), and a New Jersey Supreme Court decision In re Polk License Revocation, 90 N.J. 550, 562 (1982).

The Superior Court also found that the DVA was unconstitutional in that it dictates numerous details about how the courts will operate. The decision pointed especially to the requirement that the restraining order hearing occur within ten days. The court pointed out that it is unconstitutional for the legislature to tell the courts how to operate.

The difference between “preponderance of the evidence’ and “clear and convincing evidence’ may seem like just so many words, like Twiddle Dum versus Twiddle Dee, but actually have the potential to make a big difference. Whether or not they do make a big difference will depend on subsequent actions of the courts. This ruling, unfortunately, is not binding on any court in New Jersey or elsewhere.

Who was the true aggressor in whatever happened between Anibal and Vivian Crespo? So often in such cases, the law ignores evidence that the woman was the true aggressor. Although the present ruling does not attempt to review what actually happened, a June 24 article in the N.J. Law Journal suggests that Vivian could be at fault. The article states that her arms were injured when he caused her arms to be trapped “in the electric windows of his car when she tried to talk to him about unpaid child support.’  To be trapped in the windows of his car, her arms had to be extended into his car. If this report is accurate, she almost certainly had to be the one initiating physical contact, and he may well have been trying to get her to remove her arms from his personal space, and/or to protect himself from her. Other interpretations are also possible, and further information must be awaited as this case gains public attention.

Of course, the decision also contained many elements which we do not like. It is in the nature of courts that they usually move cautiously, one step at a time. This decision is a step in the right decision, even if it is far from perfect.

Tell us what you think below.

New York, NY–Our stories on Senator Obama”s Father”s Day speech aroused the ire of some readers both within our membership and beyond.

Fathers & Families is resolutely non-partisan. I tried to maintain partisan balance by showing that Obama”s position on fatherlessness is identical to Bush”s. Some readers felt this was not good enough–we should have made a comparison to McCain. I think these commentators are right, if only for the purpose of protecting Fathers & Families from partisan charges. But McCain, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet announced a policy on fatherlessness.

Meanwhile, the Village Voice lumped us in with “rightbloggers.’ It”s strange how often this movement is attacked and dismissed as right wing. What is so right wing about saying, “I love my children, I have much to offer them, and I want to help do the hard work of raising them?’ The Village Voice piece is sarcastic and it actually gave me a few chuckles. I doubt if any amount of self-protective language would have kept us out of their gunsights, since our main point was critical of Obama (and Bush).

The second paragraph of the story in the Voice was revealing. The author complained of the “rightbloggers’ that, “Few serious governmental remedies were proposed….’ As always, a “governmental remedy’ is the only imaginable answer for liberals (while conservatives will often simply ignore the problem altogether). Fathers & Families has a simple, non-governmental solution: make fathers and mothers equal under the law and equal in our cultural attitudes and much of the problem will solve itself. No cost, no bureaucracy, no mandates.

Do you think we crossed the partisan line in our earlier posts? Tell us below.

Nashville, TN–Have “poll taxes” — a Jim Crow practice designed to keep African-Americans and poor people out of the voting booth — returned to Tennessee?

In 2006, the Tennessee legislature passed reforms to allow convicted felons to regain voting rights after serving their time. Amendments were attached specifying that voting rights could not be regained unless all criminal restitution payments and child support were current. Approximately 48% of Tennessee male prisoners are African American, and the vast majority of those of all races who are behind on child support are indigent. So the bottom line is, Tennessee has come up with yet another way to keep large numbers of African Americans and poor people from voting

The American Civil Liberties Union – initially a supporter of the reform effort — sued Tennessee state and county officials in February to eliminate the provisions about child support and restitution. It represents three men who have served their time but cannot regain the right to vote because of the amendments.

Said Plaintiff Terence Johnson, “I’ve served my time, I am a taxpaying citizen and I have custody of my daughter. It is wrong for the state to punish me and other people while we get our lives back on track.” Read more about here.

Tennessee Child Support Guidelines do not specifically address incarcerated obligors. Thus by default they are treated similarly to most other states, i.e., imprisonment is considered “voluntary unemployment.”

Let’s consider a hypothetical father who paid $6,000 annually in support prior to his three year incarceration for a property crime. Assuming that he has the knowledge or legal assistance to get a child support modification hearing while incarcerated, his best case scenario would be a reduction to the state minimum Basic Support Order of $100 per month. He would still leave prison owing $3,600 in back support and would be unable to vote. If he did not know to seek a child support modification while in prison, he would come out owing at least $18,000. This could mean many years without the right to vote.

ACLU of Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg said, ” The ability to vote should not be based on one”s financial status.’

And ACLU Voting Rights Project attorney Nancy Abudu told the Memphis Flyer, “You can’t ignore the racial implications.” Read the full article here. 

The ACLU charges the law violates the 14th amendment equal protection clause, 24th amendment voting rights provisions, and due process protections in the federal and state constitutions.

The case is not expected to be heard until later this summer, at earliest. As Tennessee is the only state with a child support restriction on ex-offender voting rights, the outcome will have implications for other states tempted to enact similar restrictions.

La Jolla, CA–Tiger Woods recently won the U.S. Open at Torrey Pines despite a painful injury, and there was a beautiful little scene afterwards.

Tiger was walking while holding his little 1-year-old daughter Sam Alexis Woods in his arms. Given the media crush and his leg injury, he decided to hand the girl over to his wife Elin Nordegren.

Once the girl was in mom’s arms she immediately turned back to dad and reached for him, and Tiger took her back. It was a touching scene that brings back wonderful memories for any dad.

To watch, click here.

According to the People magazine article Tiger Woods Calls Daughter the ‘Greatest Thing in the World’:

“After his historic (and close) victory in San Diego, following months of knee troubles, Woods said, ‘There’s no way I could have gotten through this without Sam being there … just watching her grow, walking, running now, it’s been just the greatest thing in the world.'”

As we’ve previously discussed, Tiger Woods was very close to his late father Earl, and credits Earl with much of his success. To learn more, click here.

Also, see the recent ESPN story The connection still between Tiger and his late father helped Woods win Open (6/21/08).