Category: NPO in the media

May 3, 2011

Fathers and Families Board Chair Ned Holstein, MD, MS criticized the anti-father bias in the media coverage surrounding the Lashanda Armstrong triple murder on the nationally-syndicated Lars Larson Show on Friday, April 29. According to Talkers Magazine, Larson has an audience of 2.25 million listeners, and his show is heard on over 200 stations nationwide.

Armstrong is the New York woman who drove herself and her four children into the Hudson River, killing herself and three of the kids.  The oldest child, who managed to get free, said his mother held the other children down as the car sank.

According to Holstein:

In a familiar pattern, the mainstream media’s reporting of the Lashanda Armstrong triple murder is drenched in gender bias. The media immediately cast sympathy on Armstrong and blame on Jean Pierre, the separated young father of the three dead children.

The gender bias is so pervasive that the Associated Press felt it necessary to generously allow that “whatever [Pierre’s] faults, it’s wrong to blame the tragedy entirely on the father.” “Entirely?” One wonders who it was who drove the car into the Hudson River.

Were Pierre a mother, not a father, despite her blemishes she would receive enormous sympathy as the parent of murdered children.. Somehow Pierre, because he’s a father, is not entitled to the same consideration. He was even vilified because he wanted to hold a separate funeral and burial for his children, rather than the joint service the murderess’ family had planned. Yet who would want to mourn for their dead children at the same service held for their killer?

To listen to the audio of Holstein’s interview, click here.

Fathers and Families Executive Director Glenn Sacks appeared on the Dr. Helen Show on PJTV alongside radio host Tony Katz and media commentator Alfonzo Rachel on Wednesday, March 16. The subject of the show was Kay Hymowitz’s controversial new book Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys. To watch the show, click here.

December 20, 2010

Fathers and Families Executive Director Glenn Sacks is quoted in the recent Huffington Post piece If You Were More Religious, Would You Have Stayed Married? (12/17/10). Author Jill Brooke writes:

Many of my colleagues in the divorce business lament how too many throw in the towel too early. The pursuit of personal happiness at all costs has trumped the value of loyalty and commitment.

“Religion is one of the few institutions in society which requires and emphasizes introspection,” says Glenn Sacks, the National Executive Director of Fathers and Families.

“Too many divorces are initiated haphazardly and unnecessarily. Some of these marriages–not all, but some–could be saved and revived if the parties were more honest with themselves about their own failings, fairer and more realistic in their expectations for their partners, and more deeply concerned about the negative effect divorce often has upon children. These values–honesty, humility, forgiveness, and concern for others–are common religious values.”

Fathers and Families takes no position on religion in general nor on any religion in particular. However, we do believe that introspection, whether religious or nonreligious, is important for a successful marriage and family life.

October 18,2010

Donald Hubin, Ph.D., Chairman of Fathers and Families of Ohio’s Executive Committee, appeared on the Scott Sloan Show on WLW AM 700 in Cincinnati today. He discussed SB 292, a new Ohio bill that will raise child support amounts in the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression. To listen to the audio archive of the interview with Don, please click here. Sloan devoted a full two hours to the subject–to listen to the second hour, click here.

Sloan said that he planned to ask the bill’s co-sponsor, Senator Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati), about SB 292 when Seitz appears on his show at 10 EST tomorrow (Tuesday). To listen to Seitz and Sloan live tomorrow, click here.

To participate in F & F of Ohio’s campaign against the bill, please click here.

August 26, 2010

Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Founder and Chairman of the Board of Fathers and Families, criticizes Massachusetts Senator Cynthia Creem, co-chair of the Joint Committee on The Judiciary, for her opposition to shared parenting bill in his new column Holstein: Senator Creem and Mr. Rudnick, Help our children (Newton Tab, 8/24/10). HB 1400, Fathers and Families’ most recent bill promoting the presumption of shared parenting, was bottled up in committee this legislative session, despite enjoying widespread support. The Newton Tab is an influential local paper in Creem’s district. To join the debate in the comments section, click here. Dr. Holstein wrote:

Senator Creem has represented her district well in many respects. But Adrian Walker of the Boston Globe was correct when he pointed out that as co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, she has a conflict of interest on alimony reform. This is because her main livelihood as a divorce lawyer thrives when parents have something big to fight about. She also has a conflict of interest on child custody legislation. Because what could be bigger than the custody of one”s children? As an actively practicing divorce attorney, Senator Creem should not simultaneously be holding up legislative reform of child custody when doing so has the potential to create parental battles from which she may profit. Especially when 86 percent of voters have shown that they want change. And if she does not already do this, she should inform her clients who wish to share the parenting of their children that she opposes shared parenting legislation. Meanwhile, Senator Creem”s opponent in the Democratic primary, Charles Rudnick, has remained unduly cautious on these issues despite the clear mandate from voters to reform custody law. There is no indication that he would help children any more than Senator Creem has, but at least he would not have a financial conflict of interest and would not be able to blunt reform as co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I urge him to support shared parenting legislation that would help children, diminish parental conflict, and preserve the loving bonds between both parents and their children. There is a large and growing movement of parents nationally who call for urgent reform of our family courts to rid them of practices that do not serve modern needs. We need Mr. Rudnick to tell us where he stands on issues that affect nearly 40 percent of our children. Senator Creem, whose positions are clear, should recuse herself from deliberations on child custody, alimony and other issues on which she has a conflict of interest.

Read the full piece here.

July 6, 2010

“I was very upset,” said Brian Ayers, 30. “I thought, in this country, you wouldn”t have to necessarily fight to spend time with your own child.”” That struggle, according to fathers” groups, is a product of a Massachusetts probate system that they say tilts physical custody of children to the mothers. As a result, they are championing a pending House bill that would begin each custody case with a presumption that fathers and mothers are entitled to equal amounts of time with their children. “What we have right now is essentially a maternal veto”” over joint physical custody, said Ned Holstein, executive director of Fathers & Families,
a national advocacy group based in Massachusetts. “We don”t understand why mom should have a veto over what is in the best interests of children.”” Brian MacQuarrie’s new story Fathers back bill on rights of parents, Say judges must consider joint physical custody (Boston Globe, 7/5/10) focuses on HB 1400, Fathers & Families’ Shared Parenting Bill currently before the Massachusetts Joint Judiciary Committee. MacQuarrie details the problems faced by F & F supporter Brian Ayers, who wants to play a meaningful role in his little son’s life but has been relegated to an every-other-weekend dad by the family court system. We suggest that you thoughtfully and responsibly:

1) Write a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe by clicking letter@globe.com or using their online form here. The shorter the letter, the better chance it has of being published. 2) Comment on the story on the Globe website by clicking here. 3) Commend reporter Brian MacQuarrie for bringing attention to this important issue–his email is macquarrie@globe.com.

MacQuarrie writes that “organizations that deal with women”s and children”s issues say there is no such thing as a maternal veto.” Nancy Scannell of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children says the process already prefers joint physical custody. Yet MacQuarrie also tells us:

[A] 1999 doctoral thesis by Joseph McNabb, the president of Laboure College in Dorchester, found that joint physical custody was awarded at Worcester Probate and Family Court only 8 percent of the time in 501 cases in 1993. Mothers obtained sole physical custody 83.2 percent of the time, and fathers received sole physical custody in 8.8 percent of the cases, according to the study.

If Massachusetts courts award joint physical custody less than 10% of the time and custody to the father less than 10% of the time, it seems pretty clear we do have a “maternal veto”–moms who want sole custody are very likely to get it, and dads who want joint physical custody rarely get it. According to MacQuarrie, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children opposes the bill. This is terribly misguided–abuse is less likely to occur when both parents are involved in the kids’ lives, as opposed to when dad (or mom) is excluded. And since most child abuse and parental murder of children is committed by moms, not dads, there’s no basis for claiming the sole custody to mom norm protects children from abuse. The National Organization for Women, which has fought tooth and nail since 1980 to protect sole custody for moms, also opposes HB 1400. MacQuarrie writes:

James Edwards, a family-law attorney who represents the mother of Ayers”s child, said the custody settlement signed by both parents is relatively generous in the parenting time granted to the father. Ayers cares for his son every other weekend and has other sleepovers and meals built into the agreement. But to Ayers, who said he could not afford to go to trial to seek equal time with his son, such a right should be the norm unless evidence shows otherwise… But in this case, Edwards said, the mother”s argument for sole physical custody was aided by the child”s status as a newborn, her occupation as a nurse, and third-shift work that enabled her to care for the baby during the day. Ayers, however, insisted he has been treated unfairly.

The primary role of mothers’ attorneys in child custody cases is often to minimize the father’s role in his children’s lives, and this case is no exception. But the excuse put forward by the mother and her attorney is a common tactic–the child is very young, so he belongs with mom. This is nonsense–I was the primary caregiver for my baby daughter from the time she was 6 weeks old and nothing I’ve ever done in my life came as naturally to me. Dads are perfectly capable of caring for infants–all they need is the chance. It’s nice that the mother’s third-shift work allows for her to be with the baby during the day, but since she apparently works full-time, it’s hard to see why there isn’t plenty of time when Ayers could provide primary care for the little boy, too. Ayers works two jobs because of the onerous child support he’s charged with paying—under a more child-friendly system, Ayers’s son would have more time with dad, and dad wouldn’t be forced to work the second job. Read the full article here.

July 23,2010

Please send an email in support of HB 1400, Massachusetts’s Shared Parenting Bill, to Keith McFarland in Joint Judiciary Committee Chairman Eugene O’Flaherty’s office. To write your letter or send our form letter, please click here. We have been successful in getting HB 1400 extended while many other bills have died, but we need to get the bill out of the Judiciary Committee. HB 1400 will help Massachusetts’ children–to learn more about the bill, click here. We have been getting major and often favorable media coverage on HB 1400. For example, last night Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S., Chair of the Board of Fathers and Families, discussed HB 1400 on ABC’s Boston affiliate WCVB. The story also featured longtime F & F member Rob Derosier, who told WCVB about his long, hard fight to remain a meaningful part of his daughter’s life after his divorce. To watch the show, click here. Last week Holstein debated the bill on NPR’s Boston affiliate WBUR–to listen to the debate, click here. Over the past several weeks, both the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, Massachusetts’ 3rd largest newspaper, published editorials on HB 1400, and Holstein’s newspaper column Time for shared parenting appeared in the Telegram. Together with you in the love of our children, Glenn Sacks, MA Executive Director Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S. Chair of the Board