Category: Blog

March 8, 2018 by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

To the great indignation of the domestic violence establishment in Minnesota, a state appellate court has ruled that individuals claiming to be victims of DV and DV shelters may not libel or slander alleged perpetrators. I first wrote about the case here. I did so because, amazingly enough, the trial court in the case of Maethner vs. Jorudruled that slander and libel regarding DV are protected by qualified immunity. Stated another way, because there’s a public policy against domestic violence, anyone can lie about anyone else regarding domestic violence and be free of civil liability for doing so. Make sense?

No, it didn’t make sense when the court issued its opinion and it doesn’t make any now, but, until now, Kurt Maethner simply had to sit back and let his friends, relatives, neighbors and co-workers read what his ex, Jacki Jorud said about him. All of that he stoutly maintains was untrue.

Kurt and Jacki were married for a time and then divorced. During their divorce, Jacki never said a word about domestic violence although she did contact an organization called Someplace Safe that provides services to domestic violence victims. Someplace Safe once sent a representative to attend a court hearing, but the divorce was granted and the two went their separate ways.

That lasted almost four years.

On May 9, 2014, Someplace Safe celebrated its 35th anniversary at a fundraising banquet and gave a “Survivor Award” to Jorud as a “survivor of domestic abuse.” The certificate stated that the award was given to “Jacki Maethner Jorud for empowering yourself and inspiring others to stand against violence.” Someplace Safe issued a press release about the banquet and the award recipients and posted statements about the award on its Facebook page, mentioning Jorud by name and including a photograph of her receiving the award as a survivor of domestic violence. Regional newspapers republished some of the information from the press release.

After the banquet, Someplace Safe asked Jorud to write about “surviving domestic violence” and “thriving through recovery” for an upcoming newsletter. The newsletter was seven pages; the last page was a donation request. Jorud’s article was titled, “Jacki’s Story” and approximately one page in length. In his submissions to the district court and on appeal, Maethner points to the following language from the article in support of his claims:

“I was asked to write a short article celebrating the fact of not just surviving domestic violence, but thriving through recovery.”

“Getting out of an unhealthy, threatening and dangerous relationship is hard. It is scary.”

“Just because you have left, or the divorce is final, . . . doesn’t mean the slate is []wiped clean and you can just start a new life.”

“I don’t know if there will ever be a time when I can be certain I am no longer being stalked and watched.”

“I didn’t want to live in a constant state of fear.”

“I didn’t want daily conflict and fighting.”

Jorud signed the article “Jacki Maethner Jorud.”

Now, Jacki never mentioned Maethner, but he points out that his name is unusual and that reasonable people who know him would connect Jacki’s claims with him. But the trial court ignored him and the distress his ex and Someplace Safe had cause him and ruled that, whether true or false, slanderous or not, Jacki was free to say what she said and Someplace Safe was free to publish her remarks and to refer to her as a “survivor” of DV.

That opinion never made sense and the appellate court’s decision underlines the fact. After all, we have public policies against all sorts of things about which it is not legally acceptable to slander or libel another person. We don’t approve of murder, but it’s not OK to call your neighbor a murderer if he/she’s not one. It’s an obvious fact, but one that escaped the trial court.

Not only that, but the appellate court also said that Someplace Safe had a duty to investigate Jacki’s claims before publishing them. Failure to do so could result in civil liability.

So it’s back to the trial court for Kurt Maethner, his ex and Someplace Safe. He’ll now get to present his case to a jury and learn what they think about the behavior of Jacki and Someplace Safe.

Meanwhile, Minnesota’s DV establishment isn’t happy. To them slander, libel and defamation of character should be all in a day’s work just as long as a person claims to have been abused. To them, actually finding out whether a person is telling the truth about being a victim of violence is a burden no organization should have to bear. The consequences to the innocently defamed?They’re not concerned in the least.

In the post-#MeToo era, we implore society to believe women. But the Minnesota Court of Appeals has now explicitly held that believing women and encouraging victims to come forward for their own safety and healing through outreach and advocacy will open victims and organizations up to defamation liability. This decision is quite literally endangering women’s lives and perpetuates the silencing of survivors. In conjunction with the overwhelming societal, emotional, and financial burdens victims of domestic and sexual violence face, legal barriers such as this case further chill the speech of survivors.

No, actually all the case says is that lying about others is, as it has been for many centuries, a violation of civil law. That the DV establishment should go to bat for slander, libel and defamation speaks volumes about its ethical standards.

And if you really want “society to believe women,” you’ll do exactly as the Court of Appeals instructs. You’ll make sure that statements you place into the stream of public discourse are in fact true. All too often, they’re not. And every time they’re not, they damage true victims of crime and violence.

The DV establishment still doesn’t get it. I wish I could say I’m surprised.

 

Donate

 

National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization

National Parents Organization is a non-profit that educates the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents, and extended families. Along with Shared Parenting we advocate for fair Child Support and Alimony Legislation. Want to get involved?  Here’s how:

• Become an official member of the National Parents Organization team.
• Join our Facebook Page.

Together, we can drive home the family, child development, social and national benefits of shared parenting, and fair child support and alimony. Thank you for your activism.

#DomesticViolence, #slander, #libel, #defamation, #KurtMaethner

March 7, 2018 by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

Every so often we hear from a parent (almost invariably a mother) who writes to tell about her experiences in a shared parenting arrangement. Those generally fall into two categories. The first is the parent who lets us know all the benefits of shared parenting, of not having 100% or 80% of the parenting time, of not being forever exhausted, of never having the time to earn the money to support the parent and the child and save for retirement, of the joy of knowing that the child hasn’t lost its father in the divorce process.

The second is this type (Time, 3/5/18). For writer Jessica Ciencin Henriquez, co-parenting “sucks.” If I were her, I’m sure it would “suck” for me too. That’s because for Henriquez, her life post-divorce seems to be all about her. Her rather lengthy piece dwells, not on the child’s well-being, not on his need for both parents and certainly not on the science that shows that shared parenting is by far the best arrangement for most couples when they split up.

I can’t think of anything more difficult than failing at marriage, and then having to raise a child together without having the necessary time and distance to recover from every micro and macro heartbreak that has occurred…

When I filed for divorce in 2012, I wasn’t yet ready to let go. I still felt so much love for the man I was leaving and I was still gripping onto the idea of a perfect family. What I didn’t understand back then is that the love I have for my son and the love I had for his father would always be tangled up together in knots…

I didn’t know back then, when I was one foot in the fantasy and one foot out, how much I would dread dropping off my son with his father. How do I describe how alone a home feels when a child has left it? Maybe you already know this feeling. Maybe you too have sat, or collapsed, on the living room floor and looked at old photos and videos of your child. Maybe you too have given in to the unexpected and overwhelming feelings of nostalgia and self-pity and regret…

The minute my son is gone I wonder where he is and what he’s doing. I wonder whether he’s hungry, tired or sad. I fill up my calendar so that every hour we’re apart is accounted for because if I don’t do this there’s a good chance I won’t get out of bed. 

On and on she goes. I, I, I, I, etc. So yes, I’m sure that co-parenting, never easy, becomes all the harder as long as it’s only about Mom. As long as there’s nothing to keep one’s attention focused but one’s own sense of loss, I’m sure co-parenting can be a bear. But if Mom were to wake up and notice that there’s a little person who needs and deserves her best, who needs her love and support now more than ever and, unlike her, isn’t an adult capable of handling serious emotional trauma, she might grasp better the need for shared parenting. If Henriquez would get over herself, she might be able to notice the raison d’etre of shared parenting – children’s well-being.

But that would require Henriquez not only to be less self-centered than she is, but more of an adult. Throughout her piece, she bemoans the loss of “the fantasy.” I take that to mean the ideal marriage with children she probably dreamed about as a kid.

We tried really hard to be the world’s friendliest exes and in photos it was believable, but in reality we were actually two people desperately clinging onto the fantasy of what we thought our family could look like. A fantasy where there was one Christmas, not two, no separate mommy time and daddy time, no elaborate and colorful calendar to help us keep track of where our child would be sleeping on any given night. It would take years to face the facts of separating. No matter how much my ex-husband and I love each other, how much we’ve forgiven one another and how much we’re willing to work together, divorce means we set fire to the fantasy.

The problem of course being that adult life rarely lives up to anyone’s childhood fantasies. Children don’t grasp what it means to be an adult, but most of them grow up to be adults who do. Henriquez looks very much like a person who has become an adult but has not “put aside childish things.” Demanding that one’s adult relationships live up (down?) to one’s childish imaginings is as sure a way as I know to make them fail.

The good news in all this is that, for all her failures, Henriquez and her ex seem to be truly trying to make co-parenting work.

We’ve tried mediation and meditation, and seeing each other in moderation. We’ve lived separately, together and have even tried nesting (a name for the cohabitation set-up where the child stays in one home while the parents rotate in and out). We’ve tried cooperative parenting and parallel parenting, going no-contact and going full-contact (a name for the emotional set back where you start sleeping together again against all better judgment).

And nowhere does she say that she should have the child and Daddy can disappear. Nowhere does Henriquez suggest that their son doesn’t need both parents. Her complaints are that it’s hard to make it work. I’m sure it is. But as long as everyone realizes that putting forth the effort is not for Mommy, not for Daddy, but for their son, they ought to be able to make their arrangement work.

Henriquez understands that, when two people have a child, they remain a family, whether divorced or together.

I didn’t realize that divorce doesn’t really exist when you have children. If it does, it looks something like this: “I now pronounce you ex-husband and ex-wife, you may keep seeing each other for the rest of your lives.” That’s where I am now, the separate but together forever until death do we part. That vow doesn’t go away even after all of the other vows have been broken.

She ends with good advice.

What I know now and desperately needed to hear [when I divorced] is this: Let go of the family you thought you’d be and accept the family that you are. Redefine your reality. It won’t be easy and there will be days when it feels nearly impossible. You will feel guilt, but you are not guilty. You will feel shame, but you did nothing shameful. You will feel regret, but you did the right thing. There is a space that exists between the family that you were and the family that you’ll end up being.

I suspect that, when her son grows up, he’ll appreciate the fact that his parents worked to give him the parenting he deserved, despite how hard it was for them. Henriquez doesn’t seem terribly mature, but, to her credit, she’s maturing. And above all, she and her ex understand that their son needs them both.

 

Donate

 

National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization

National Parents Organization is a non-profit that educates the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents, and extended families. Along with Shared Parenting we advocate for fair Child Support and Alimony Legislation. Want to get involved?  Here’s how:

• Become an official member of the National Parents Organization team.
• Join our Facebook Page.

Together, we can drive home the family, child development, social and national benefits of shared parenting, and fair child support and alimony. Thank you for your activism.

#sharedparenting, #children’swell-being

A Personal Message from Ned Holstein

National Parents Organization has launched a nationwide search for a new, full time, professional Executive Director! Having an experienced, accomplished, full time, well-paid Executive Director will vastly improve our strength and effectiveness. If you like NPO now, wait til you see 2018!

At considerable expense, we have contracted with a major national executive search firm in New York City that specializes in non-profits. Known as DRG, they have successfully placed high executives ranging from non-profits smaller than ours to behemoths. DRG has thousands of nationwide contacts they can tap to locate good candidates. And they are experienced in how to use social media for maximum effectiveness in recruiting.

We hope to have chosen a candidate and reached an agreement with her/him by the end of January, 2018. We are excited that the Search Consultant we will work with at DRG already understands the family law issues and does not need an education in these matters.

We will be offering a substantial salary, because NPO’s success will hinge on the quality of the Executive Director we are able to attract. Candidates will be able to stay where they currently live, if they so desire. Our key people are already distributed around the country, and we work from a “virtual office.” With growth, we may need to establish a central office, but that is for the future.

Since I work without compensation, this change will cause a substantial increase in our expenses. So we do need you to continue and to even increase the gifts you have made to support this organization.

Imagine: many more media appearances; much more social media action; many more interactions with thought leaders in the areas of family court, child development and justice; much more lobbying; many more online and in-person campaigns; many more state affiliates getting much more support from the national organization; many more meetings and rallies; in short, much more of everything!

That is, much more of everything if you support us, which you can do by clicking here.

If you are interested to learn about this position, click here to see the job posting that has already gone out through multiple platforms. If you are personally interested in the position, please note that you should reply to our Search Consultant, Sara Lundberg, not to me.

Which brings up a personal note. I have been running National Parents Organization off and on since 1998 — with lots of help from many others. During these years, we have also had Dan Hogan, Glenn Sacks and Rita Fuerst Adams as Executive Directors for many of those years. Now we are taking a major step upwards towards more highly paid, experienced and professional non-profit leadership. The time is ripe for renewal, new blood, and change.

I will continue on the Board of Directors for at least one year, to ensure continuity and success with our new Executive Director. I will also lead a few specific projects, with the agreement of the new leader. So you can be sure there will be continuity, effectiveness and dynamism at the top.

We ain’t seen nothing yet!

Looking forward with excitement to the next chapter…

Together with you in the love of our children,

Ned Holstein

March 5, 2018 by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

The Bright Horizons survey I discussed yesterday relies on a single factoid to make the case that mothers do too much housework and childcare and are therefore shortchanged at paid work.  That factoid is that 40% or more of households have a woman as their chief wage earner.  That’s true, but for the overwhelming majority of those (about two-thirds) the only reason Mom is the primary wage earner is that she’s the only one.  The only other members of her household are her kids.  But Bright Horizons wants readers to believe that, in general women are doing as much or almost as much paid work as are men, but are doubly burdened by carrying all or most of the “mental load” of seeing to family schedules, etc.

A record 40% of families have female breadwinners , and even those primary earners are roughly twice as likely as men to handle all household responsibilities.

See what I mean?  Yes, they’re twice as likely to do all the household responsibilities because they’re the only adult in the house.  Four year olds are lousy at balancing the check book, remembering doctor’s appointments and baking casseroles.  But Bright Horizons never lets on about the “why?” behind their most-cherished datum.

What they’re complaining about, thought they’ll never admit it, is single-motherhood.  Even a casual glance at the wealth of information on how men and women spend their time reveals that men do the lion’s share of the paid work while women do most of the household duties including childcare.  There’s nothing sinister about that.  In fact, it’s the way of life preferred by both sexes, as much data demonstrate.

And that’s another place in which Bright Horizons is woefully confused.

Deep-seated gender roles are costly across the board, holding women back at work in the short term, and compromising women’s growth across whole careers.

That’s the old theory we see so often.  It holds that society and culture are, in some unexplained way, things apart from the human beings of which they’re composed.  Some strange and alien thing called “society” created “gender roles” without asking for input from human beings, and now imposes those roles on unwilling individuals.  So goes the theory.

But that, like most of Bright Horizons’ assumptions is silly.  The fact is that we have very loosely defined sex roles for men and women for a number of very good reasons.  They’ve been there for countless millennia and are with us today.  They’re there partly because they work and all social mammals behave in gendered ways.  Of course we humans live in societies that, particularly in the industrialized West, allow men and women to step outside of their traditional roles more than at any time in history.

But mountains of data show both men and women resisting that deviation.  Overwhelmingly men see themselves as protectors and resource providers and women see themselves as caretakers of children and queens of the domestic scene.  And men and women view each other in the same way.  Bright Horizons would have no explanation for why the greatest predictor of divorce for a man is his loss of a job.

So what Bright Horizons is trying to change isn’t misogynistic oppression; it’s the choices men and women make every day.  Whatever policy and opinion makers may desire, We the People aren’t at all certain that abandoning sex roles is a sensible way to conduct the business of society.

And don’t we have a point?  After all, if men and women want to keep to traditional roles, why should elites tell them they can’t?  That’s precisely what Bright Horizons is aiming at.  It wants us to spend large amounts of money and hamstring business enterprise for the sole purpose of imposing on the rest of us behaviors we don’t generally desire.  This is democracy?

Meanwhile, Bright Horizons leaves no doubt about its real goal.

Upending the order will require changing expectations. To allow women’s and men’s careers to flourish, employers will need to offer family-friendly benefits that appeal to both genders. Perhaps more importantly, they will need to ensure employees have equitable, gender-blind access to support. The goal is to change workplace cultures that quietly favor men as employees and women as mothers, and so to create environments and cultures in which mothers and fathers feel they can equally share the load.

Yes, it wants to “upend the order” of work and family, not because either men or women want to abandon their traditional roles, but because the likes of Bright Horizons deem it appropriate that they should.  And as usual, businesses will be asked to sacrifice competitive advantages in order to accomplish the task.  It makes no sense.

And of course Bright Horizons makes no mention of the one reform that would do more than any other to make the burden of work and family lighter for women.  I refer of course to shared parenting.  By cutting down mothers’ childcare obligations, shared parenting allows them to work more, earn more, advance more and save more for retirement.  It also allows fathers more time with their kids that most of them say they want.  And best of all, it’s good for kids.

So naturally it goes unmentioned by Bright Horizons.

A Personal Message from Ned Holstein

National Parents Organization has launched a nationwide search for a new, full time, professional Executive Director! Having an experienced, accomplished, full time, well-paid Executive Director will vastly improve our strength and effectiveness. If you like NPO now, wait til you see 2018!

At considerable expense, we have contracted with a major national executive search firm in New York City that specializes in non-profits. Known as DRG, they have successfully placed high executives ranging from non-profits smaller than ours to behemoths. DRG has thousands of nationwide contacts they can tap to locate good candidates. And they are experienced in how to use social media for maximum effectiveness in recruiting.

We hope to have chosen a candidate and reached an agreement with her/him by the end of January, 2018. We are excited that the Search Consultant we will work with at DRG already understands the family law issues and does not need an education in these matters.

We will be offering a substantial salary, because NPO’s success will hinge on the quality of the Executive Director we are able to attract. Candidates will be able to stay where they currently live, if they so desire. Our key people are already distributed around the country, and we work from a “virtual office.” With growth, we may need to establish a central office, but that is for the future.

Since I work without compensation, this change will cause a substantial increase in our expenses. So we do need you to continue and to even increase the gifts you have made to support this organization.

Imagine: many more media appearances; much more social media action; many more interactions with thought leaders in the areas of family court, child development and justice; much more lobbying; many more online and in-person campaigns; many more state affiliates getting much more support from the national organization; many more meetings and rallies; in short, much more of everything!

That is, much more of everything if you support us, which you can do by clicking here.

If you are interested to learn about this position, click here to see the job posting that has already gone out through multiple platforms. If you are personally interested in the position, please note that you should reply to our Search Consultant, Sara Lundberg, not to me.

Which brings up a personal note. I have been running National Parents Organization off and on since 1998 — with lots of help from many others. During these years, we have also had Dan Hogan, Glenn Sacks and Rita Fuerst Adams as Executive Directors for many of those years. Now we are taking a major step upwards towards more highly paid, experienced and professional non-profit leadership. The time is ripe for renewal, new blood, and change.

I will continue on the Board of Directors for at least one year, to ensure continuity and success with our new Executive Director. I will also lead a few specific projects, with the agreement of the new leader. So you can be sure there will be continuity, effectiveness and dynamism at the top.

We ain’t seen nothing yet!

Looking forward with excitement to the next chapter…

Together with you in the love of our children,

Ned Holstein

A Personal Message from Ned Holstein

National Parents Organization has launched a nationwide search for a new, full time, professional Executive Director! Having an experienced, accomplished, full time, well-paid Executive Director will vastly improve our strength and effectiveness. If you like NPO now, wait til you see 2018!

At considerable expense, we have contracted with a major national executive search firm in New York City that specializes in non-profits. Known as DRG, they have successfully placed high executives ranging from non-profits smaller than ours to behemoths. DRG has thousands of nationwide contacts they can tap to locate good candidates. And they are experienced in how to use social media for maximum effectiveness in recruiting.

We hope to have chosen a candidate and reached an agreement with her/him by the end of January, 2018. We are excited that the Search Consultant we will work with at DRG already understands the family law issues and does not need an education in these matters.

We will be offering a substantial salary, because NPO’s success will hinge on the quality of the Executive Director we are able to attract. Candidates will be able to stay where they currently live, if they so desire. Our key people are already distributed around the country, and we work from a “virtual office.” With growth, we may need to establish a central office, but that is for the future.

Since I work without compensation, this change will cause a substantial increase in our expenses. So we do need you to continue and to even increase the gifts you have made to support this organization.

Imagine: many more media appearances; much more social media action; many more interactions with thought leaders in the areas of family court, child development and justice; much more lobbying; many more online and in-person campaigns; many more state affiliates getting much more support from the national organization; many more meetings and rallies; in short, much more of everything!

That is, much more of everything if you support us, which you can do by clicking here.

If you are interested to learn about this position, click here to see the job posting that has already gone out through multiple platforms. If you are personally interested in the position, please note that you should reply to our Search Consultant, Sara Lundberg, not to me.

Which brings up a personal note. I have been running National Parents Organization off and on since 1998 — with lots of help from many others. During these years, we have also had Dan Hogan, Glenn Sacks and Rita Fuerst Adams as Executive Directors for many of those years. Now we are taking a major step upwards towards more highly paid, experienced and professional non-profit leadership. The time is ripe for renewal, new blood, and change.

I will continue on the Board of Directors for at least one year, to ensure continuity and success with our new Executive Director. I will also lead a few specific projects, with the agreement of the new leader. So you can be sure there will be continuity, effectiveness and dynamism at the top.

We ain’t seen nothing yet!

Looking forward with excitement to the next chapter…

Together with you in the love of our children,

Ned Holstein

March 2, 2018 by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

The tiny but determined cadre of the anti-dad crowd that likes to claim that family court judges routinely remove children from “protective” mothers and hand them to abusive fathers just keep getting stranger and stranger. This piece by Michael Volpe is the latest example (Daily Caller, 3/1/18).

Volpe of course is the one who claims that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is a woman done dirt by a nefarious ex-husband and a family court judge. If you don’t recall, Grazzini-Rucki is the Minnesota mother who abducted her two children and kept them in hiding for over two years before finally being located by the police. That stunt got her convicted of six felonies and lost her custody of her kids, which should surprise no one, but Volpe swallowed her claims of domestic abuse by her ex-husband despite their having been aired in court and found meritless. In a Facebook exchange I had with Volpe, he claimed the judge had accepted a bribe of $800,000 to switch custody. I asked Volpe for proof but – surprise, surprise! – none was forthcoming.

That’s by way of introduction to the Daily Caller piece in which Volpe once again unquestioningly accepts the notion that an innocent mother had her children wrested from her loving arms once again by an ex-husband and know-nothing judge. And, like every other person who makes those claims, Volpe’s theory is that Dad used dubious allegations of parental alienation to do his dastardly deed.

All of that is more or less par for the course. We’ve seen many similar pieces by a variety of zealots, none of which bore even casual scrutiny. Volpe’s is every bit as bad, but with a twist that gives it its unique strangeness.

The case Volpe discusses is that of an Ohio couple, Peter and Julie Goffstein who began their married lives as Chabad-Lubavitch Jews. They had six children, but at some point, Peter moved away from the strict orthodoxy of the Chabad-Lubavitch sect, prompting Julie to file for divorce. As night follows day, she was given primary custody by the trial court, but, less than a year later, Peter was back in court asking for custody to be modified with him as primary parent. The judge gave him custody or the four youngest children and later modified that order to further marginalize Julie in the children’s lives. The reason given by the judge was Julie’s alienation of the children from Peter and her frankly-admitted refusal to send them to school.

To Volpe, all that is highly suspicious. Just what he’s complaining about though he never makes clear. He links to the judge’s orders that make plain the reasons for modifying custody and parenting time, so readers can judge for themselves how sensible his argument is. That argument, in a nutshell, is that the trial judge violated Julie Goffstein’s right to freely exercise her religion by denying her primary custody of the children.

Put simply, that’s absurd. There is no jurisprudence under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to suggest that (a) an adult’s rights automatically devolve to the children or (b) abusing children via parental alienation (or in any other way) is permitted or shielded by that clause. Understandably, Julie’s lawsuit against the trial judge claiming deprivation of religious liberty was dismissed as the junk case it was.

Undeterred, Volpe soldiers on. By “soldiers” I mean he continues his narrative despite its obvious falsity.

Peter Goffstein argued that his ex-wife’s religious choice was alienating him: “In so doing, Mr. Goffstein cited as reasons for the change in custody Mrs. Goffstein’s religious practices and the extent to which she imposed those religious practices on the children, which he claimed alienated the children from him,” a lawsuit filed by Julie Goffstein noted.

The only problem with that claim is that the judge’s orders make it crystal clear why the original order was modified.

The court finds that Jeremy, the parties’ oldest child, was not enrolled in any state-accredited school from September 12, 2012 to March 12, 2013. The court finds that this lack of education for such a lengthy period of time is demonstrative of Mother’s misplaced priorities. Father’s serious concerns regarding the secular education of the children while under mother’s custody are well-founded. The history of Mother’s enrollment of her children in online educational providers has been sporadic with minimum success. Secular education for these children must be given a much higher priority than the level of online consistency chosen by Mother in the past. Therefore, the Court considers Father’s emphasis upon more consistent, traditional school enrollments to be better in advancing the secular education needs of the children. Fulfillment of their secular education requirements is quintessential to the best interests of these young children; Father presents the best likelihood for its accomplishment.

What Volpe wants readers to believe is that the judge’s repeated use of the term “secular education” was meant to exclude the children’s religious education. That of course is untrue. The judge was merely differentiating one type of education from another and acknowledging that public schools aren’t in the business of providing training in Chabad-Lubavitch Judaism.

The court went on to detail Julie’s alienation of the children from Peter and her frank unwillingness to obey court orders if they conflict with the instructions of her Rebbe.

In short, as described by the judge, this is a very good case for Peter to have custody. Julie, for whatever reason, wasn’t seeing to the children’s education except in the Jewish faith. That education is a fine thing, but it needs to supplement secular education, not replace it. Everyone except Volpe and presumably Julie understands that simple concept.

What’s remarkable is that Volpe seems to want readers to conclude that Peter has done some wrong to his kids, but, as far as I can see, he not only hasn’t, but no one’s ever claimed that he has. If the children are doing anything but well, no one’s letting on.

That’s particularly strange in light of this:

Dr. Joy Silberg, who is president of the Leadership Council on Interpersonal Violence, said the term is often misused; her organization found in 2008 that approximately 58,000 children per year are forced to live in an abusive home by American family courts yearly, largely due to the false diagnosis of parent alienator to a protective parent.

Why would anyone writing an article that nowhere claims that Peter Goffstein, the custodial parent, is abusive, cite a claim by an organization to the effect that courts give custody to abusive parents? It just doesn’t make any sense. It’s utterly irrelevant to the rest of the article.

But then, why would anyone writing anything cite Joyanna Silberg, who is surely one of the least responsible commentators extant?

I suppose the answer is what it so often is with the “protective mother” crowd. When you don’t have anything with which to support your threadbare and, as often as not, patently false claims, you end up just throwing stuff at the wall in the hopes some of it sticks. Volpe did the same and the wall’s still clean.

 

Donate

 

National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization

National Parents Organization is a non-profit that educates the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents, and extended families. Along with Shared Parenting we advocate for fair Child Support and Alimony Legislation. Want to get involved?  Here’s how:

• Become an official member of the National Parents Organization team.
• Join our Facebook Page.

Together, we can drive home the family, child development, social and national benefits of shared parenting, and fair child support and alimony. Thank you for your activism.

#parentalalienation, #child’sbestinterests

A Personal Message from Ned Holstein

National Parents Organization has launched a nationwide search for a new, full time, professional Executive Director! Having an experienced, accomplished, full time, well-paid Executive Director will vastly improve our strength and effectiveness. If you like NPO now, wait til you see 2018!

At considerable expense, we have contracted with a major national executive search firm in New York City that specializes in non-profits. Known as DRG, they have successfully placed high executives ranging from non-profits smaller than ours to behemoths. DRG has thousands of nationwide contacts they can tap to locate good candidates. And they are experienced in how to use social media for maximum effectiveness in recruiting.

We hope to have chosen a candidate and reached an agreement with her/him by the end of January, 2018. We are excited that the Search Consultant we will work with at DRG already understands the family law issues and does not need an education in these matters.

We will be offering a substantial salary, because NPO’s success will hinge on the quality of the Executive Director we are able to attract. Candidates will be able to stay where they currently live, if they so desire. Our key people are already distributed around the country, and we work from a “virtual office.” With growth, we may need to establish a central office, but that is for the future.

Since I work without compensation, this change will cause a substantial increase in our expenses. So we do need you to continue and to even increase the gifts you have made to support this organization.

Imagine: many more media appearances; much more social media action; many more interactions with thought leaders in the areas of family court, child development and justice; much more lobbying; many more online and in-person campaigns; many more state affiliates getting much more support from the national organization; many more meetings and rallies; in short, much more of everything!

That is, much more of everything if you support us, which you can do by clicking here.

If you are interested to learn about this position, click here to see the job posting that has already gone out through multiple platforms. If you are personally interested in the position, please note that you should reply to our Search Consultant, Sara Lundberg, not to me.

Which brings up a personal note. I have been running National Parents Organization off and on since 1998 — with lots of help from many others. During these years, we have also had Dan Hogan, Glenn Sacks and Rita Fuerst Adams as Executive Directors for many of those years. Now we are taking a major step upwards towards more highly paid, experienced and professional non-profit leadership. The time is ripe for renewal, new blood, and change.

I will continue on the Board of Directors for at least one year, to ensure continuity and success with our new Executive Director. I will also lead a few specific projects, with the agreement of the new leader. So you can be sure there will be continuity, effectiveness and dynamism at the top.

We ain’t seen nothing yet!

Looking forward with excitement to the next chapter…

Together with you in the love of our children,

Ned Holstein

March 1, 2018 by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

In this blog I’ve chronicled the many astonishing and utterly senseless efforts by Nebraska’s legislature, courts and various related entities to keep fathers out of children’s lives. The litany of those efforts is far too long to reprise here, but the most recent one is the state Supreme Court’s proposed rule to exempt the judiciary from disclosing to the public materials used to train them in the matters of child custody and parenting time.

Now, inquiring minds may want to know what could possibly be so threatening about a few written materials, power point presentations, etc. that do nothing more than acquaint judges with the science on those issues that could necessitate their being kept from the public. The Nebraska Open Records Act is quite broad, indicating the intention of the legislature that the public be generally informed about the doings of its government. So why should something as innocent as judicial training materials be an exception to the overarching rule of disclosure?

As I’ve written before, when those materials were finally made public, people who know something about the science on parenting time and children’s welfare were appalled. Much as we’d expected, the judges were intentionally being taught that which isn’t true. I say “intentionally” because the invitation to give a workshop issued to Professor Linda Nielsen, who would have taught the truth about the state of the science, was rescinded with the patently false claim that the state didn’t have the money to pay her plane fare and accommodations. Amazingly, it did have the money to pay the expenses of Dr. Robert Emery, longtime opponent of children having meaningful time with their fathers.

But, I now learn, it’s worse than that. Various Nebraska organizations and others have written to oppose the proposed new rule that would make secret judicial training materials. My previous blogs excoriating the judges’ bid to hide the truth from the public were, as it turns out, far too kind.

It turns out that Dr. Emery, in his presentation to Nebraska’s judges frankly misrepresented the research on parenting time. So, for example, Emery cited a study by Adamsons and Johnson for the proposition that contact with fathers made “zero” difference to children’s psychological well-being, but that “father quality matters.” But Adamsons explicitly disavowed that take on the matter saying,

“Nowhere did we suggest or find that fathers should not be spending time with their children or argue against joint custody in any way and it is a gross misrepresentation of the findings of the last 5 decades of research to say so.”

Scientists in academia essentially never use such blunt language, particularly about the behavior of their peers. Meanwhile, Prof. Amato echoed something I’ve said many times:

Contact without a good quality relationship is unlikely to be beneficial… But contact is a necessary condition for a high-quality relationship to develop and be maintained.

It’s one of the anti-dad crowd’s favorite claims that limiting parenting time to 20% or so for fathers is acceptable because “it’s not the quantity but the quality that’s important.” As Amato points out, it’s all but impossible to establish or maintain a high-quality relationship with one’s child when seeing him/her every other weekend. Indeed, the science on the matter indicates that parenting time that’s so limited tends to degrade to nothing over time.

But Emery wasn’t through misrepresenting the science on shared parenting. Most of it he simply ignored. As one of the organizations opposing the proposed rule said,

Prof. Emery failed to disclose any of the extensive research, consisting of more than 40 studies, that contradicts his principle thesis. The vast majority of the mental health literature disagrees with his thesis…

This is the man who was specifically sought out to teach Nebraska’s judges about custody and parenting time. Stated simply, he’s not honest about the research and he conveys a starkly misleading image of it to the judiciary. There are many researchers the state could have chosen; Emery’s who they came up with.

He, and the mysterious process that substituted him for Prof. Nielsen, are precisely the reason why the public needs to know what judges are being taught about the all-important issue of child custody and parenting time.

 

Donate

 

National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization

National Parents Organization is a non-profit that educates the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents, and extended families. Along with Shared Parenting we advocate for fair Child Support and Alimony Legislation. Want to get involved?  Here’s how:

• Become an official member of the National Parents Organization team.
• Join our Facebook Page.

Together, we can drive home the family, child development, social and national benefits of shared parenting, and fair child support and alimony. Thank you for your activism.

#childcustody, #parentingtime, #Dr.RobertEmery, #Dr.LindaNielsen

A Personal Message from Ned Holstein

National Parents Organization has launched a nationwide search for a new, full time, professional Executive Director! Having an experienced, accomplished, full time, well-paid Executive Director will vastly improve our strength and effectiveness. If you like NPO now, wait til you see 2018!

At considerable expense, we have contracted with a major national executive search firm in New York City that specializes in non-profits. Known as DRG, they have successfully placed high executives ranging from non-profits smaller than ours to behemoths. DRG has thousands of nationwide contacts they can tap to locate good candidates. And they are experienced in how to use social media for maximum effectiveness in recruiting.

We hope to have chosen a candidate and reached an agreement with her/him by the end of January, 2018. We are excited that the Search Consultant we will work with at DRG already understands the family law issues and does not need an education in these matters.

We will be offering a substantial salary, because NPO’s success will hinge on the quality of the Executive Director we are able to attract. Candidates will be able to stay where they currently live, if they so desire. Our key people are already distributed around the country, and we work from a “virtual office.” With growth, we may need to establish a central office, but that is for the future.

Since I work without compensation, this change will cause a substantial increase in our expenses. So we do need you to continue and to even increase the gifts you have made to support this organization.

Imagine: many more media appearances; much more social media action; many more interactions with thought leaders in the areas of family court, child development and justice; much more lobbying; many more online and in-person campaigns; many more state affiliates getting much more support from the national organization; many more meetings and rallies; in short, much more of everything!

That is, much more of everything if you support us, which you can do by clicking here.

If you are interested to learn about this position, click here to see the job posting that has already gone out through multiple platforms. If you are personally interested in the position, please note that you should reply to our Search Consultant, Sara Lundberg, not to me.

Which brings up a personal note. I have been running National Parents Organization off and on since 1998 — with lots of help from many others. During these years, we have also had Dan Hogan, Glenn Sacks and Rita Fuerst Adams as Executive Directors for many of those years. Now we are taking a major step upwards towards more highly paid, experienced and professional non-profit leadership. The time is ripe for renewal, new blood, and change.

I will continue on the Board of Directors for at least one year, to ensure continuity and success with our new Executive Director. I will also lead a few specific projects, with the agreement of the new leader. So you can be sure there will be continuity, effectiveness and dynamism at the top.

We ain’t seen nothing yet!

Looking forward with excitement to the next chapter…

Together with you in the love of our children,

Ned Holstein