Category: Blog

This story details the hard lives and heroism of two women who remained loyal to their husbands for three decades as the men were incarcerated for crimes the FBI knew they didn’t commit. Both women raised their children, and kept up theirs and their children’s relationships with their husbands as best they could.

Recently, their husbands and their families were awarded $102 million for the FBI’s withholding of evidence of the men’s innocence.

These two women, Marie Salvati and Olympia Limone, are heroines. Olympia is pictured with her husband.

Hard lives for wives of men wrongly imprisoned: Ruling that frees spouses ends 30-year wait for Mass. women
The Associated Press, 8/16/07

BOSTON – For three decades, Marie Salvati and Olympia Limone essentially lived as widows, struggling to make ends meet as they raised four children on their own. Their husbands grew old behind bars after being convicted of a murder the FBI knew they did not commit.

Now the women hope a judge’s ruling awarding them and two other families nearly $102 million marks the end of their struggle in a long story of love, devotion and survival.

For many years, the two women would see each other about once a month, across the visiting room of a state prison. Their conversations were rarely more than a wave hello or a “how’s the family?” but they didn’t need words to understand each other’s lives.

In the days after the verdict, the two women and their husbands spoke to The Associated Press about living apart for so long, and the bonds that kept them together.

Never any doubt
For Marie Salvati, there was never a moment of doubt, even after her husband, Joe, was charged with murder, convicted and sentenced.

“He told me, ‘Marie, I want you to know I had nothing to do with this,’ and you know, from that moment on, I knew I was in this with him for his life sentence,” she said.

“I used to tell him, ‘You take care of yourself in there and I’ll take care of the family on the outside’,” she said.

And for 30 years, that’s what she did.

Every week, she traveled up to two hours each way to visit her husband in prison. She and the kids endured humiliating pat-downs and searches. The visits, she said, were to buoy her husband’s spirits and to preserve the bond between a father and his children.

It was hardly the life they had planned.

One of the reasons for the dramatic increases in child support guidelines over 20 years is the pervasive and mistaken notion that divorced fathers gain economically from divorce while women suffer from it. The myth stems from a now-discredited study conducted over two decades ago by feminist Lenore Weitzman, author of the 1985 book The Divorce Revolution. Weitzman concluded that women’s standard of living after divorce dropped by three quarters while men’s rose over 40%. The media trumpeted her research–some have called it one of the most widely reported studies in media history–and it led to sharp increases in child support guidelines. However, years later Weitzman was forced to admit that her findings were vastly overstated, due to a huge mathematical error.

Despite this, the myth that men gain economically from divorce remains pervasive, and is repeated even today by numerous writers and commentators, including conservatives like Dennis Prager, feminists like Ann Crittenden, and even by masculists like Tom Leykis.

Sanford Braver, Ph.D., one of the nation’s leading experts on the economics of divorce, helped uncover and expose the Weitzman hoax. His research demonstrates that when all relevant factors are taken into account, including the numerous tax advantages custodial parents enjoy, the “men gain/women lose” idea is badly in error. In fact, his new research indicates that the opposite outcome may be more common. To learn more about Braver’s research, click here.

Child support expert Jane Spies of the National Family Justice Association also discusses the Weitzman hoax in her recent article The Myth of the Successful Child Support System.

MSNBC, in its recent report on divorce, pushes the myth that men gain financially from divorce and women suffer from it. According to MSNBC:

“After a divorce, a woman’s cost of living can increase dramatically, hence the reason why court-ordered alimony and child support payments most often go to women. Even so, experts report the average woman experiences a 45 percent decrease in her standard of living after going through a divorce. Meanwhile, the average man experiences a 15 percent improvement in his standard of living.”

These statistics are in error. The MSNBC report is below.

From money to emotions: Get over your divorce How to deal with the financial and emotional pitfalls of a split
MSNBC, Aug 21, 2007

No matter what the circumstances, divorce is never easy. Both sides have to deal with heart-wrenching personal and financial decisions, but women in particular often find themselves in need of solid financial and emotional advice.

Divorce financial analyst Stacy Francis and psychologist and author Debra Mandel offer their advice on how deal with divorce on both fronts.

Protect yourself financially
After a divorce, a woman’s cost of living can increase dramatically, hence the reason why court-ordered alimony and child support payments most often go to women. Even so, experts report the average woman experiences a 45 percent decrease in her standard of living after going through a divorce. Meanwhile, the average man experiences a 15 percent improvement in his standard of living.

Divorcing women often react financially to their feelings. They operate from a place of feeling hurt, angry and unappreciated, and that influences spending–for good and bad. They may overspend to compensate for their feelings of loss or fear becoming a bag lady and eat nothing but Ramen noodles to save money. This is a time to look realistically at hard-core finances, and Francis recommends taking the following steps:

Read the full article here.

I’ve noted on countless occasions that when a woman commits domestic violence, we don’t call it “domestic violence.” In this story, Rebecca Harvey allegedly rammed her ex-husband’s car while their three children were in his car.

She’s been arrested, and is being charged with felony charge of reckless conduct and three misdemeanor counts of endangering the welfare of a child. I’m sure she will probably be sentenced to a fine of at least $25 and a minimum of a half hour of community service. It will hurt her in family court, too–possible sanctions include a disapproving look from the judge.

Beyond Rebecca Harvey’s violence–which, since it was committed by a woman isn’t really violence at all and will not be treated as such–she’s a real charmer. She’s an attorney and according to the story, during her divorce:

“In spite of her membership in the N.H. Bar Association and law degree, Rebecca asked the court to rule she should not have to work outside the home while their children were minors and cited depression as limiting her ability to work. The court ruled her depression was short-term and brought on by the divorce–which included splitting $2.9 million–and ordered her to establish an income source.

“She also asked for alimony for life and argued that $3,000 a month in alimony–in addition to $6,000 a month in child support–was insufficient.”

Rebecca Harvey’s chump mother-in-law and father-in-law also loaned her and her ex-husband $275,000 while they were married, and she won the right in court to stiff the elderly couple.

The domestic violence story is below. A previous story about their divorce can be found here.

Mom reportedly rams car with kids inside
By Elizabeth Dinan
August 21, 2007 1:27 PM

PORTSMOUTH–A local lawyer who took her multi-million dollar divorce to the state Supreme Court is facing four criminal charges alleging she rammed her car into one driven by her former husband with their three children inside.

Rebecca Harvey, 44, of 48 Ball Street, was arrested July 4 by Portsmouth police on a felony charge of reckless conduct and three misdemeanor counts of endangering the welfare of a child.

According to the complaints, filed by Officer Adam Kozlowski, Harvey placed her former husband–Islington Street dentist Paul Harvey Jr.–“in danger of serious bodily injury” when she “used her vehicle to push his vehicle while he was inside.”

The three counts of child endangerment allege she “purposely violated a duty of care” by endangering the welfare of their three children who were in Paul’s car when she struck it with hers.

In April of 2006, the couple’s divorce proceedings became public when the N.H. Supreme Court released a decision on their cross appeals of seven decisions made by a lower divorce court.

In spite of her membership in the N.H. Bar Association and law degree, Rebecca asked the court to rule she should not have to work outside the home while their children were minors and cited depression as limiting her ability to work. The court ruled her depression was short-term and brought on by the divorce–which included splitting $2.9 million–and ordered her to establish an income source.

She also asked for alimony for life and argued that $3,000 a month in alimony–in addition to $6,000 a month in child support–was insufficient.

Harvey was scheduled for an August 21 Portsmouth District Court hearing on the endangerment charges, but with permission from Judge Stephen Morrison, the case was continued until September 25.

A letter from a reader:

“Dear Glenn:

“My 16 year old son is one of a kind, the one most mothers of teenage daughters would love to have if teen pregnancy was an issue. He works and goes to school straight A student. He did however get his girlfriend pregnant. But he has stepped up and took the responsibility from day one. He has gone out and bought a crib, Bassinet, and swing. He tries to go to the doctor’s appointments and even schedules his job around them. But his girlfriend’s mother is a controlling one–she doesn’t want my son to be a part of this child’s life.

“I just don’t get it. There are so many teenagers that would have ran at the first word ‘pregnant.’ Not him–he wants to be a part, he wants to be there when the baby is delivered, and he wants to be in his life everyday for the late night feedings and the diaper changes. Yet her mother has done everything in her power to keep him from whatever she can.

“I have done so much research on what is my sons rights and there isn’t a whole lot out there. Does he have rights? His girlfriend would like to live here with the baby and my son in our home and finish high school. We are behind them 100 %, but the mother says no.

“She recently went and filed for emancipation from her mother. She will be 17 in a few months and we are not sure if the judge will grant it to her. Although for the unborn child and the mother and father we do hope the judge sees the importance of them wanting to be parents and raising the child.

“They have carefully planned how they will finish high school and go to college. I sure am proud that I have raised my son to be so responsible for his actions. Who does this woman think she is? If you can give me any advice on anything we can do so that this child will have his father in his life I would greatly appreciate it. The baby is due in a few weeks–we are at a stand still with this.

“Thank you

“A loving mother”

Reflecting the weakness of the fatherhood movement, fathers’ issues haven’t been much of a part of the current presidential election yet. However, as I’ve reported on this blog, several candidates have made statements on fathers and child support, including Republican candidate John McCain and Democratic candidates Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson. Of the four, McCain, Edwards and Richardson have been negative or largely negative, while Obama has said some positive things as well as some negative things. Their statements are briefly encapsulated below.

John McCain

In March, Republican presidential candidate John McCain was asked about fathers’ concerns over family law at a mid-day town hall meeting in Cedar Falls, Iowa. Shared parenting activist Tony Taylor asked McCain if he “would be bold enough to address the issue of equal access to children for fathers that have gone through divorce.” McCain testily replied:

“I’m sorry to disappoint you, I am not going to overturn divorce court decisions. That’s why we have courts and that’s why people go to court and get a divorce. If I as President of the United States said this decision has to be overturned without the proper appeals process then I would be disturbing our entire system of government… But for me to stand here before all these people and say that I’m going declare divorces invalid because someone feels that they weren’t treated fairly in court, we are getting into a, uh, uh, tar baby of enormous proportions.”

In other words, McCain is saying, “the family court issue is a mess. Given the power of the women’s groups and the lack of power of fathers’ groups, there’s nothing for me to gain and much for me to lose in tackling the issue.”

It”s unfortunate, but McCain’s assessment of the politics of the issue is probably accurate at this point, and is one reason why we can”t get politicians to meaningfully act on our issues. And as unfortunate as McCain”s response is, to be fair, at least answered the question honestly. Whereas some politicians will give a vague, meaningless answer designed to appease the questioner into thinking he was going to do something about the problem, McCain made it clear he had no interest in the issue.

John Edwards

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, as part of his new “Initiative to Strengthen Families,” pledges to restore child support enforcement cuts, explaining that restoring the enforcement funds will “increase collections by more than $8 billion over the next decade.” I’ve explained numerous times that this is an illusion–the overwhelming majority of child support debtors earn low-incomes, and increased enforcement measures cost more money than they bring in. To learn more, see my co-authored column Federal Child Support Enforcement Cuts Will Hurt Bureaucrats, not Children (Las Vegas Review-Journal & others, 12/17/05).

Barack Obama

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama criticized fathers around Father’s Day, saying, “Let’s admit to ourselves that there are a lot of men out there that need to stop acting like boys; who need to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; who need to know that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise a child.” He also calls for restoring child support enforcement cuts, under the same illusions that Edwards (see above) shares.

On the other hand, Obama’s recently introduced Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007 does have some positives. In my co-authored column Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood Bill–Not Enough Carrot, Too Much Stick (Wisconsin State Journal, 6/30/07), I explained:

“Currently many noncustodial fathers–particularly African-American and Latino fathers, upon whom Obama often focuses–are required to pay their child support to the state to reimburse the cost of public assistance, instead of to the children”s mothers. This is demoralizing for low-income men struggling to make a difference in their kids” lives.

“The Responsible Fathers Act will make this money go directly to the mothers, instead of the state, a policy which research shows helps bring fathers closer to their children. The bill will also expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and provide fathers with job training services.”

Bill Richardson

Democratic Presidential Candidate Bill Richardson says he wants to crack down on so-called “deadbeat dads.” When asked what his plan is on “strengthening families,” Richardson replied: “I believe the key is strong child support, finding those deadbeat dads. And, I would have stronger laws between states, because what happens is they move from state to state. We don’t have those reciprocal agreements. I would have a national law that would tighten child enforcement.”