Category: Blog

Background: Mary Winkler–who shot her husband in the back and then refused to aid him or call 911 as he slowly bled to death for 20 minutes–walked away a free woman last summer after serving a farcically brief “sentence” for her crimes.

Mary Winkler”s claims of abuse were largely uncorroborated during the trial. According to the testimony from Matthew Winkler’s oldest daughter, Patricia, the dead father–who as he lay dying looked at his wife and asked “why?”–was a good man and did not abuse her mother.

Mary Winkler is currently in a custody battle with Matthew Winkler’s parents, who have been raising their three daughters for the last two years. The Winklers seek to terminate Mary Winkler’s parental rights and adopt the girls. I support their position. In September Mary Winkler was granted supervised visits with her daughters–an important step towards getting custody of them. Shortly afterwards an appeals court blocked the visit after a last-minute application from the children’s paternal grandparents, but this appeal was recently set aside.To learn more about this horrendous injustice, see my co-authored column No child custody for husband-killer Mary Winkler (World Net Daily, 9/14/07), or click here.The article below–Doctor: Winkler’s Oldest Daughter Afraid Of Her–details the latest in Matthew Winkler’s parents’ struggle to keep their grandchildren away from the woman who murdered their son. In the story, Mary Winkler says:“I long for the day when Dan and Diane [Winkler] will sit down and talk with me and let us please work this out.”

Funny, but she didn’t take the same approach when dealing with her husband Matthew. He didn’t have a chance to try to “work things out” when Mary Winkler shot him in the back as he slept.

According to the article:

“The court filing indicates that the children exhibit fear and confusion toward their mother and her role in their father’s death.

“A doctor testified that the 9-year-old girl said, ‘She killed my father. I don’t know if she will kill me. I want to ask her if she will do that to me. It scares me, kind of, if she did. Well, I guess I would see my father’…

“Dan Winkler testified that her phone calls to the girls triggered flashbacks and sparked sleeping problems that included graphic nightmares and sleepwalking.”

I can believe it.

Jim Todd, a Nashville attorney, says that the Winklers must convince the court their former daughter-in-law is a threat to her children, and that Mary Winkler will probably regain custody. It makes me wonder–if shooting the children’s father in the back doesn’t indicate she “poses a threat,” what on earth could?

The full story is at Doctor: Winkler’s Oldest Daughter Afraid Of Her. The three children–none of whom Mary has killed–are pictured above.

Background: I’ve complained on numerous occasions about the way the media trivializes domestic violence against men, and makes it into a joke, misreports it, and ignores it. For a few examples, see:

Woman Hits Husband with Car, Drives 1/2 Mile with Him Clinging to Roof, Injures Him–but Don’t Call It ‘Domestic Violence’

TV News Reports Woman’s Excuse for Her Domestic Violence Even Before It Mentions the Violence

His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentary Road Rage or Domestic Violence?

Ex-Wife Rams Ex-Husband’s Car While His Three Kids Are Inside–Don’t Call It ‘Domestic Violence,’ Though

I’ve also criticized some of the New York Post’s sensationalistic reporting–for one example, see NY Post Hatchet Job–In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part IV).

Feminist blogger Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare’s Sister criticizes the headline pictured, explaining:

“[This is ] the ‘hilarious’ headline the New York Post gave to Ike Turner’s obituary…Ha ha! Get it?! Get it?! Because Ike Turner used to beat the crap out of Tina when they were married! Oh my aching sides! Even for the trashy New York Post, that’s appalling.”

I agree. Domestic Violence against either gender shouldn’t be trivialized or made into a joke. It’s wrong when it’s done to male victims, and it’s wrong when it’s done to female victims.

[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.]

How many damn times have I received a letter like this?

Dear Glenn:

I share joint custody of my daughter with my ex-wife. She was granted physical custody. A few weeks after the custody hearing, my ex-wife brought my daughter back to me and I’ve had physical custody ever since (almost 4 years).

Our divorce decree came a short time later and it stated that I should pay $700/month to her in support of my daughter. Since I had already gotten my daughter back I never paid her.

Recently I received a letter from the Department of Social Services stating that I am being sued for child support on behalf of my ex-wife. It seems she has been collecting welfare and my daughter is on her budget as a dependent.

The magistrate at the hearing refused to listen to the fact that my daughter lives with and has been living with me for the past 4 years. He entered an order for me to pay her $700 starting 1/1/08. Help!

He raises the kids, she commits de facto welfare fraud, and the government wants him to repay the money she filched. No mention of getting the money back from her or going after her for her welfare fraud. And of course, the judge won’t hear a word of it–he just wants dad to shut up and pay.

Granted, dad was foolish to fail to resolve the situation several years ago, but many of those inexperienced with the child support system are under the illusion that the system is rational. They don’t understand the nefarious financial incentives that underly it.

Some fathers even think that the system isn’t biased and stacked against men. They’re in for a rude awakening.

Now this guy has to pay stiff child support arrearages for a kid he’s raised largely by himself. When he’s unable to, he’ll be a “deadbeat dad” and will be lucky to stay out of jail. Refresh my memory–how exactly does this help his daughter?

Husbands are jackasses, kids are pigs, and mom is mom in the anti-male iRobot commercial “Animal House.”

To watch the ad, click here.

For those who’d like to express their views of the commercial to iRobot’s Corporate Headquarters, see:

iRobot Corporate Headquarters
63 South Avenue
Burlington, MA 01803
Phone: 781.345.0200
Fax: 781.345.0201
info@irobot.com
M-F 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.EST

Thanks to Rick, a reader, for sending me the commercial.

Background: A couple months ago we discussed Garland M. Baker’s A.M. Costa Rica piece Her word rules, and he goes to jail Some women swindle with domestic violence law. Baker wrote:

“Women are kicking their mates out of the house in record numbers in Costa Rica. Some of them are enjoying it and using the law designed to protect women against domestic violence to swindle expats [American expatriates]…

“Police in Heredia say women are abusing Law 8589 Article 7 [the protction / restraining order law]…

“Yes, an expat male — or any male in Costa Rica for that matter — can be tossed out of his own home by his wife or girlfriend by merely having a complaint filed against him by the woman if she says he was being abusive. Abusive, as it stands today, can mean anything, including just raising one’s voice.

“Two weeks ago a woman put her expat boyfriend in jail all night when he raised his voice to her adult son — he is over 18 years of age — for popping bubble pack and painting satanic symbols on the wall. The son, who has tested positive for drugs in the past, became vocally abusive, so the expat called 911. When the police arrived, the girlfriend and her son asked the police to take the expat to jail. Officers did so without question…

“The man who was jailed is the legal owner of the home…In the morning, the police escorted the tired man from his jail cell to the court…The judge told the man that the police would take him to his own house where he could pack two suitcases of essentials but that he had to vacate his home immediately.

“A police officer escorted the expat and his attorney into the house. While the retired man gathered his belongings, the police officer told the attorney that throwing men — mostly foreign men — out of their homes in Heredia was their daily routine. He said they use to chase robbers and other bad people, but now they were bored because mostly they just deal with domestic violence cases. The police officer further said: ‘Women in Costa Rica are taking advantage of this new law. They throw out their boyfriend and then steal their things and leave.’

“Other women do not leave. They start court cases against expats for damages or palimony to wear them down to get a payoff.”

Baker now updates us on the saga of the falsely accused man in New chapter: ‘I want my house back!’ Judges are a girl’s best friend when extortion’s afoot. He writes:

“The second part of a true story of an expat’s agony and defeat is supposed to end today. The Gringo has to pay his girlfriend to get his house back.

“This poor man was thrown out of his house one evening for raising his voice to his girlfriend”s adult son, a punk rock type known to use hard drugs like crack cocaine. The expat spent the night in a very cold and uncomfortable jail cell…The morning after, the police took him in front of a judge who gave him a cold shoulder and would not listen to his side of the story. Every since that awful day the poor man has had to rent another place and fight for his rights. In the hotel where he is now living, there are two other men in the same predicament.

“Rights? What rights? No one at the court ever listened to him. The judge set a preliminary hearing for Sept. 27, but on the day of the audience, the judge canceled the hearing and set a new date of Nov 1. This was maddening for the expat. He had arranged to travel back to the United States to accompany his elderly mother through some medical treatments and did not expect to be back in Costa Rica Nov. 1. His father passed away last year leaving his aging mother alone. He wrote a petition to the judge asking for an earlier court date. What a mistake. The judge set the hearing back even more to Dec. 4, three long months from the date he was forced out of his own home by a live-in girlfriend.

“The expat could do nothing but wait for Dec. 4 so he could have his date in court and, hopefully, an honest hearing of the facts. He wanted to be well prepared so he asked the court if he could have a translator. Officials at the court told him he could bring any translator in whom he had confidence.

“Dec. 4…The judge appeared at around 10 a.m. for the scheduled 9:30 a.m. hearing only to say she had another case and would have to postpone the hearing again until after the holidays. The court system closes this year from Dec. 21 to Jan. 7. The expat”s lawyer insisted on a hearing. The judge conceded but said everyone would need to wait three hours for her to finish the other case. Everyone decided to wait.

“The girlfriend’s attorney walked over to the expat”s lawyer and gave him a file. He said, ‘Does your client want his house back?’

Canadian New Democrat MP Irene Mathyssen (pictured), the shadow cabinet minister for the anti-male Status of Women Canada, chose to falsely accuse and humiliate a male colleague on the floor of the Canadian House of Commons last week. In a recent column, Canadian National Post columnist Barbara Kay wrote:

“New Democrat MP Irene Mathyssen looked over the shoulder of Conservative MP, James Moore where he sat in the front row of the government benches Tuesday night, and saw what seemed to her to be a seductively dressed woman on the screen of his laptop computer. This is his personal computer, you understand, so her inspection of his screen was tantamount to viewing his private papers or mail, and she had not asked permission or been invited to look at it. Just so we”re clear on the principle.

“OK, so let”s start again. Ms Mathyssen was eavesdropping on Mr Moore. She didn”t know who the ‘scantily clad’ woman on the screen was, but having brooded on the possibilities overnight, then rose the next day on a point of privilege to allege he was viewing inappropriate material. The implication in such an allegation, let”s be clear, is that the man is a pervert. As a result a mortified Moore was forced to issue a public denial that he was looking at pornography. Turns out it was his girlfriend. Oops, my bad, Ms Mathyssen realizes, so she calls Mr Moore and apologizes. Case closed for her.

“But perhaps not for Mr Moore. He just got put through a bit of a wringer for nothing.

“Let”s unpack this incident a bit. What MP would be so idiotic as to take the risk of visiting a porn site in the House of Commons on a computer whose screen is open to any busybody? What was Ms Mathyssen”s motive in ‘outing’ him when she had no evidence to support her supposition? Scantily clad women are all over the Internet and also all over real life. Scantily clad is in fact the norm in fashion.

“What would Ms Mathyssen have done if she happened to look over the shoulder of a female MP and actually did see soft porn? Would she rise on a point of personal privilege to humiliate a woman colleague? I think not. I think she would have protected her. And let’s not pretend that women never look at porn. Ms Mathyssen clearly relished the opportunity to embarrass a man caught in the act of being a typical man according to the feminist playbook.”

Kay suggests that the men in Mathyssen’s district vote her out of office. I heartily agree. The full article is False allegations claims another male victim, this time MP James Moore (12/7/07).

This AOL/McAfee software security ad portrays an obese black man as being too stupid to operate his computer properly, while the woman is, of course, super smart and competent.

To watch the commercial, click here.

Thanks to Jon, a reader, for sending it to me.

My new co-authored column, Biden”s Misguided S1515 Will Exacerbate Domestic Violence System”s Problems (Philadelphia Daily News, 12/7/07), criticizes a new bill which will enlist 100,000 volunteer attorneys to help purportedly abused women win custody of their children from their alleged abusers. Our principle objection to the bill is that there is no mechanism within it to distinguish between false accusations and legitimate ones.

The National Organization for Women is currently running a campaign in support of the bill. The bill is also supported by the American Bar Association and the Family Violence Prevention Fund. The bill can be seen here. Biden’s recent presidential campaign pitch for the bill can be seen here.

To write a Letter to the Editor of the Philadelphia Daily News regarding the column, click here.

The column, co-authored with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, is below.

Biden”s Misguided S1515 Will Exacerbate Domestic Violence System”s Problems
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

When it comes to domestic violence legislation, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and Senator Joe Biden (D-Del) owns an asphalt company. Biden”s latest domestic violence bill is the National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act, which amends Biden”s Violence Against Women Act to create an extensive network of volunteer attorneys to help abused women. The attorneys would provide free legal help in forging divorce or separation agreements and in winning child custody.

According to Biden, S.1515, which will soon be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee and is co-sponsored by Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, will enlist 100,000 volunteer attorneys. The bill is supported by the American Bar Association, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, and the National Organization for Women, which is currently running a campaign in support of the bill.

S.1515 will do some good in aiding abused low-income women. The problem is that the bill will also greatly exacerbate the already widespread problem of false domestic violence claims being used to strip decent, loving fathers of custody of their children. There is no mechanism within the bill to distinguish between false accusations and legitimate ones.

Currently, domestic violence service providers assist women who claim to be abused. Let”s say Bob and Jane are married and have two kids. If Bob abuses Jane, Jane can go to a local shelter and receive legal assistance in obtaining a personal protection order (aka restraining order) against Bob. Bob is forced to vacate his house immediately. A couple weeks later there is a hearing to determine if the protection order will be made permanent, and the domestic violence service provider again furnishes assistance for this hearing. At these hearings, the protection orders are usually extended.

All this is as it should be–provided Bob is guilty. The problem is that the same process and laws which protect a battered Jane from an abusive Bob also allow an unhappy but not abused Jane to boot an innocent Bob out of their home and set a child custody precedent with herself as sole caregiver. This aids Jane greatly during the divorce process.

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

26 arrested in raid over child support allegations (Courier-Post, 12-6-07)

Holidays a high time for divorce (Atlanta Journal Constitution, 12-6-07)

Rhode Island court denies same-sex divorce plea (Reuters, 12-7-07)

The plight of divorced dads (National Post, 12-8-07)

Arizona coach Olson files divorce petition (Baltimore Sun, 12-8-07)

Correct Call: Free divorce lawyers? State court says no (The Columbian, 12-8-07)

Holiday sweep nets $354,000, and 1,020 deadbeat parents (NorthJersey.com, 12-9-07)

Meditation can make divorce more tolerable (TheDay.com, 12-9-07)

New Mexico advocate for dad’s rights takes on child support (Albuquerque Tribune, 12-10-07)