Category: Blog

First an excerpt from the article, and then a few thoughts:

Rape claim was cover for cheating on husband, charges allege
Minneapolis Star Tribune
12/18/07

A St. Paul psychologist who claimed she was raped by a patient in her office in October 2006 has instead been charged with falsely reporting a crime.

Authorities say that Jill Ajao, 41, made the rape claim to conceal an extramarital affair and to “protect herself and her family.” The false report prompted a detailed police investigation, the release of a suspect sketch and surveillance photo and the sifting through of hundreds of tips, according to the criminal complaint filed last week.

Police spokesman Tom Walsh said Tuesday that it was unusual for his department to seek the charges against a woman who claimed to be a victim and police did so only after a thorough investigation.

“It’s extremely rare. It’s rare because we don’t want victims not to report” a crime, he said. “But it’s very clear that this young woman was not sexually assaulted. And given the fear that she created in our community, we felt that this action was necessary.”

Falsely reporting a crime is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine…

“A factor in seeking charges, Walsh said, was that the man she said raped her had been subjected to public attention when his photo was shown in the media to help police solve an alleged rape”…

A few thoughts:

1) It is interesting that the police spokesman said that it is unusual for his department to charge women who have made false rape reports. For one, he does not deny that false claims happen, or try to say they are rare. Also, he sounds almost apologetic about charging the woman. Here the woman did great harm to an innocent man, and at worst she may get a whopping 90 days in jail, yet the police seem almost embarrassed to be bringing charges.

2) In these types of cases usually everybody ignores another factor– this man was publicly identified as a rapist on the loose, and could easily have been the target of vigilante action.

3) The police claim that they do not want to prosecute false accusers because it will make genuine rape victims hesitant to come forward. I’ve never seen much validity to this argument. I can’t imagine that a woman who came forward with a credible rape accusation would ever be prosecuted for it. Perhaps one of the feminists who read this blog knows of such a case–if so, please feel free to bring it to my attention.

It seems to me that by prosecuting false accusers we will not reduce the number of genuine victims reporting rape but instead reduce the number of false accusers.

4) I try hard to be fair to feminists and feminist organizations, but I find their silence over false rape accusations to be increasingly infuriating. “Silence” is actually a kind way of putting it, since they usually deny that false accusations are a problem. (To learn more about the prevalence of false accusations of rape, see my recent column U. of Maryland right to deny protesters a forum to publicly name alleged rapists, Baltimore Sun, 10/15/07).

I wish that in reading these types of articles, which readers send to me continuously, that once, just once, I would read something like this:

“Jane Doe, executive director of the local chapter of the National Organization for Women, expressed her displeasure with Ajao. Doe explains:

“‘What Ajao did is very harmful. It is terrible to falsely accuse a man of a serious crime like rape. It hurts him, and it also hurts all women who are victims of sexual assault, because it undermines the credibility of their claims. We want rapists in jail. We do not want innocent men victimized.'”

Is that too much to ask?

The full story, with a timeline of the case, can be seen here.

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

The media generally has a rule when covering domestic violence cases–if it’s domestic violence, and it’s committed by a woman against a man, it’s not domestic violence.

Happily, Tim, a reader, recently sent me an exception, at least a little bit–the story mentions “domestic violence” at the end, which is nice.

Police Say Woman Shot At Husband, Hit TV
Husband Calls 911 From Basement
WISN.com
12/18/07

WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A Michigan woman, accused by police of trying to shoot her husband in the head and missing, hitting the plasma TV instead, could face prison time.

Washington Township resident Cheryl Grucz, 61, was arraigned on charges ranging from assault with intent to do bodily harm, which carries a 10-year sentence, to possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, which carries a two-year sentence. She also was charged with a misdemeanor because the firearm did not pass safety inspection, WDIV-TV in Detroit reported.

Her frantic husband locked himself in a room in the basement of their home and called 911 after she fired the shot, police said.

“My wife’s got a gun, and she’s shooting at me,” said her husband, who is 65.

A Romeo District Court judge set a bond of $50,000 or 10 percent, with conditions.

The court also ordered Grucz to enroll in a domestic violence program.

Grucz’s preliminary hearing is scheduled for Jan. 15.

[Note: If you or someone you love is being abused, the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women provides crisis intervention and support services to victims of domestic violence and their families.]

A heroic little girl kept her head and saved her father’s life after he had a heart attack during a trip in the woods. The little girl saved him by driving 10 miles to get help. According to one news report:

“Timothy Webber and his daughter Cheyanne were spending an evening at a hunt club in a remote part of town, far from the sound of passing cars or even cell phone service. Shortly after leaving for home, things went wrong.

“‘When we got ready to leave I started having chest pains,’ said Webber.

“He was having a heart attack. That’s when Cheyanne took control of the car and drove nearly 10 miles to cell phone range.

“‘I steered and I mostly pushed the gas and the brake,’ recalls the young girl.

“On her dad’s lap, Cheyanne drove their Ford pickup truck down some windy, narrow roads at looking for a place to pull over and call for help.

“‘And then I called Mom ’cause I found that I had service on the phone and then she said she was on her way to come pick us up,’ Cheyanne added.

“Her mother, Jessie Webber, said ‘I knew something was wrong. I didn’t know what exactly was wrong until I got up there and he wasn’t responding.’

“Jessie drove Timothy to the hospital where doctors found his major artery to be 90 percent blocked.

“‘I probably would have hurt myself if Cheyanne wouldn’t have been with me and if she wouldn’t have known how to drive the truck, both of us probably would have been hurt,’ Timothy said.

“Cheyanne said her dad taught her how to drive a tractor and once drove a car on private property, something she enjoys doing, but as for driving on main roads again, she plans to wait until she’s 16.”

To watch the video of Cheyanne, her dad, and her family, click here.

Probation. Yup, probation. It makes poor Mary Winkler’s 67 day jail stint for shooting her husband in the back as he slept seem positively cruel…

10 Years Probation For Traci Rhode
December 11, 2007
KGBT TV

She was found guilty of murder but received no jail time.

On Thursday, several people reacted negatively to 37 year old Traci Rhode’s 10-year probation punishment.

Rhode (pictured) was convicted of First-Degree Murder on Monday and after two days of deliberation, the jury handed down what police and the prosecution team described as a “very” disappointing sentence.

“No amount of jail time assessed will bring back Mr. Rhode,” said Brownsville Police Chief Carlos Garcia. “She’s going to have to live her life knowing she was convicted of murder.”

Cameron County Assistant District Attorney, Chuck Mattingly held a press conference shortly after the sentence.

“(We) have serious concerns about the message that this sends to our community when a person found guilty of first degree, pre-meditated murder walks out of the courthouse after killing her husband,” he said.

Mattingly added he believes the jury took long establishing a punishment because Rhode’s two young sons took the stand and that might have affected their outlook on the case.

The full article can be seen here. Thanks to Bruce, a reader, for sending it.

As we continue our nationwide contest for “most ridiculous family law bill in the country,’ I am pleased to present the worst entry from Massachusetts. The second, third and fourth-worst entries were presented over the previous week. So far, I have few entries from other states. Just as with the Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics, New England may be running away with the competition. I invite your nominations from all states for winner of this contest. The winner will be chosen according to secret criteria that are 100 percent subjective. (To enter the contest, your email must include the text of the bill, or a link to the text. The bill must be current. Please indicate whether I can use your name as the submitter.) I now offer the winner and champion in Massachusetts:

 

Massachusetts Doozy Number One: “Babies in Prison’   Massachusetts HB 104 When an incarcerated woman delivers a baby, HB 104 provides that “…every effort shall be made to keep infants of twelve months or less born to incarcerated mothers with their mothers.’  (emphasis added) (The word “shall’ is important because in law, it means that the thing must be done, without room for discretion.) But suppose there is a perfectly good Dad?  This bill would have the baby stay with Mom in prison even if there is a perfectly good Dad on the outside ! Or suppose Mom is in prison for domestic violence or other violent acts, or child abuse, or is psychologically unbalanced, or is on drugs? And what happens after twelve months? Is baby suddenly expelled from prison into the care of someone he/she has hardly ever seen before? The hazards of prison are very real. Violence. Drug use. Infectious diseases. Sensory deprivation. Lack of pediatric medical care. There are strong medical benefits to nursing, but these benefits max out after a month or so. At that point, even with a great mother, baby needs to get out of the big house if there is a competent caretaker outside, such as Dad. Maybe even before. In summary, this bill is dreadful for babies. And it demonstrates how ready our society is to simply throw away what Dads have to offer children.

As we continue our nationwide contest for “most ridiculous family law bill in the country,’ I am pleased to present the second-worst entry from Massachusetts. The fourth- and third-worst entries were presented last week.

I invite your nominations from all states for winner of this contest. The winner will be chosen according to secret criteria that are 100 percent subjective.

(To enter the contest, your email must include the text of the bill, or a link to the text. The bill must be current. Please indicate whether I can use your name as the submitter.)

I now offer:

Massachusetts Doozy Number Two:

“Unwanted Baby Deposit Box’     Massachusetts HB 92

This bill expands the already-passed “Safe Havens Law.’ A better name would be “The Baby Abandonment Law.’ This law allows a person to drop off a baby less than 7 days of age at a hospital, police station or fire station  —  no questions asked. Under HB 92, abandonment sites would be increased to include any “emergency respondent’ to a 911 call. That”s neat – a baby pick-up service.

Similar laws now exist in 48 states, so a lot of people think they are a good idea. The purpose is to provide an alternative for desperate young women who might otherwise leave their unwanted baby in a dumpster in January. So maybe this is a good idea  — but not judging by the number of abandoned babies, since this has been going up, not down, during the last ten years as these laws have been passed (Texas was first, in 1999).

But that”s not all. The publicity in most states emphasizes that the process is totally anonymous. Illinois is typical. Their website says, “… you can walk away with no questions asked…. The baby will be cared for and placed in a loving home for adoption. No attempt whatsoever will be made to contact you. No crime will have been committed. This is a TRULY safe process.’

Whatever happened to parental responsibility  — you know  — that concept that requires you to pay child support even if you never get to see the child? Does it apply only to men?

Which brings to mind the following thought: What if someone proposed a law that said any dad who did not want to pay child support could just drop the baby off?  I can just imagine testimony for such a bill at a legislative hearing: “Yes, Mr. Chairman, we need this bill so that fathers who don”t want to pay child support won”t throw the baby in a dumpster. After all, some of them are desperate, you know.’

So think about these scenarios:

a) Unmarried mom drops off baby anonymously without informing dad, who is a fit parent and eager to raise the child. So much for fathers” rights. So much for baby”s rights to know his parents, to be raised by a biological parent, to remain out of the foster care and adoption system, and to know his medical history (increasingly important in these days of genetic medicine.)

b) Married mom drops off the baby anonymously without informing dad, who is a fit parent and eager to raise the child, and disappears.

c) Dad drops off the baby anonymously without informing mom, then disappears, thus dispensing with the need to pay child support. (Somehow I don”t think the authors of this bill thought of this one.)

As we continue our nationwide contest for “most ridiculous family law bill in the country,’ I am pleased to present the third-worst entry from Massachusetts. The fourth-worst entry was presented yesterday.

I invite your nominations from all states for winner of this contest. The winner will be chosen according to secret criteria that are 100 percent subjective.

(To enter the contest, your email must include the text of the bill, or a link to the text. The bill must be current. Please indicate whether I can use your name as the submitter.)

I now offer:

Massachusetts Doozy Number Three:

“More Restraining Order Follies’     HB 1396 and HB 1546

Under HB 1396, your restraining order could be extended by the court without ever notifying you of the proceeding if you had previously been convicted of violating the order.

So here”s a scenario I guarantee will occur within the first month:

Mom is abusive to the kids and ruthless towards dad. He gets a new girlfriend, so she gets a restraining order against him out of spite, claiming that she is in fear.

 Unfortunately, he is the kids” only protector. One day they text message him that mom is drunk and is hitting them. They beg him to pick them up.  He goes over and calmly and quietly rescues the kids. The DA, naturally, prosecutes dad for violating the restraining order, since he/she is not allowed to use discretion and drop such cases, and wins a conviction.

A year later, mom goes to court under the new bill with no notice to dad, so there is no one to tell the judge about her multiple encounters with the child protection agency for child abuse. Dad has the restraining order against him extended another year in his absence. Meanwhile, the kids are getting the living h… beaten out of them by mom, with no one to protect them. Somehow I don”t see the judge or the social worker or the domestic violence “victim advocate’ being there Saturday evening at 9:00 PM to protect them.

Here”s more:

Under HB 1546, (“The Goldfish Protection Act’) when mom gets the restraining order against him, just to make it smart a little more, she can also take possession of the pets  — his beloved dog Daisy, for instance. Daisy, of course, was his long before he even met her.

Of course, bills like these make some sense if you buy into the vision of a cruel, calculating, implacable, life-threatening batterer. No problemo   — except that the courts utterly fail to make any attempt whatsoever to determine the truth of the matter. This lack of procedural and substantive rights pollutes and corrupts this entire area of law and turns it into tyranny. It is astonishing that our guardians of civil liberties continue, after all these years, to turn a blind eye to this enormous affront to civil rights.

Here are four candidates for the most dubious family bills in the Massachusetts Legislature. We will count down in a series of emails over the next week, beginning with the merely misguided and progressing to the truly Orwellian. These are my Christmas presents to you.

Reading these will hopefully remind you why you need to support Fathers & Families or your local family court reform organization. Who else is going to oppose the lunatics?

I would like to hear from those in other states – tell me about the legislative doozies in your state. Then we will determine the winner of “most ridiculous family law bill in the country.’ The winner will be chosen according to secret criteria that are 100 percent subjective.

(To enter the contest, your email must include the text of the bill, or a link to the text. The bill must be current. Please indicate whether I can use your name as the submitter.)

For our first entry from Massachusetts, I offer:

“Don”t Get in a Car Accident in California’

Massachusetts Doozy Number Four,   HB 113:

OK, so you are happily married and live in Massachusetts and lose your job, so you go to California where you think you have a better shot. On your second day there, you get in a horrendous car wreck and are hospitalized for the next four months. Under HB 113, a court shall issue a warrant for your arrest because you left Massachusetts for over 90 days without making “provisions for the support’ of your spouse.

(The word “shall’ is important because in law, it means that the thing must be done, without room for discretion.)

Yes, that”s right, this law would apply even to marrieds, even without kids. And failing to find a job in California despite best efforts. And falling ill. And working on commissions, which do not arrive in 90 days  — you get the picture.

Naturally, it would also extend to those with child support orders.

So don”t try to better your family”s circumstances by going out of  state  — you might end up in jail if things don”t work out. (This could get bad if the dollar keeps falling and we start going to Mexico for work.)

Presumably, like all family law, this would be applied in a gendered manner, so that women would rarely, if ever, be arrested under its provisions. And speaking of the little woman, this bill seems to assume that she is helpless and cannot support herself while you are gone  — and no exception just because you and she are childless.

Ned Holstein, MD, MS
Executive Director

Fathers 4 Justice Canada is sending this Equal Parenting Christmas Card (pictured) to all members of the Canadian Parliament, as well as all Senators and Provincial Premiers. F4J Canada has done a series of highly-publicized stunts and acts of civil disobedience as part of their campaign to protect children’s right to have a relationship with both parents after divorce.

Earlier this month two F4J superheroes–Spiderman and The Hulk–climbed high onto the structure surrounding the Sapperton Skytrain Station in New Westminster, British Columbia. The rush-hour protest was seen by over a million people, as the protesters braved high winds and heavy rains for five hours before giving themselves up to authorities. According to F4J Canada:

“These superheroes are taking action to highlight the plight of children who have been denied their right to the full benefit of both of their parents.”

Some of you may recall F4J Canada’s 2005 “Month of Mayhem.” In a series of spectacular acts of civil disobedience, F4J protesters shut down Montreal Bridge, scaled Mount Royal cross (pictured), took over several other bridges, and forced evacuations of courtrooms. The campaign garnered a great deal of media attention, most of it surprisingly favorable.

F4J Canada works in the tradition of the UK Fathers 4 Justice, led by Matt O’Connor. F4J’s stunts have received worldwide publicity, including the Buckingham Palace protest and David Chick’s heroic six day, one-man protest over Tower Bridge in London. Chick’s protest created 10 mile traffic jams and cost businesses an estimated £50 million. Facing a prison sentence, Chick was acquitted by an English jury, some of whom were reportedly moved to tears by his testimony.

F4J Canada can be reached at office@fathers-4-justice-canada.ca or via their website here. Leaders of the group include:

1) Hal Legere, who scaled the huge, heavily-trafficked Pattullo bridge in Surrey BC, leading authorities to close the bridge for five hours and garnering national publicity.

2) Kris Titus (aka “Wonder Woman”) who helped crash the Ontario Law Society’s Christmas Wine & Dine in 2005 by scaling the building in protest.

3) Rob Robinson (aka “Burnaby Batman”), who launched F4J’s inaugural action by perilously perching on a 200-foot tower crane in downtown Burnaby, British Columbia for 18 hours in protest.

According to Titus (pictured below on a balcony during the Ontario Law Society protest), the group is making significant inroads in Canada’s parliament, and has ambitious plans for 2008.

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

High court to rule in kidnapping case (The Star-Ledger, 12-12-07)

Idaho judge rules in favor of biological father in American Fork adoption (ABC4.com, 12-12-07)

‘Robin’ of Fathers 4 Justice fails in Supreme Court appeals (The Vancouver Sun, 12-12-07)

Veteran lawmaker ordered to pay $16,000 in late child support (Associated Press, 12-12-07)

Mother loses custody battle for son (Legalbrief Today, 12-13-07)

Court cancels father’s support for ‘special needs’ child (The Morning News, 12-13-07)

Former Bengal settles child support charges (WKRC-TV, 12-14-07)

Ex-girlfriend of falsely jailed man denied 18 years child support (Associated Press, 12-14-07)

Convicted smuggler on run in child support case (The Star, 12-16-07)

When parents divorce but behave like, well, adults (The Vancouver Sun, 12-17-07)