Wednesday, November 30, 2011

‘Monsters’ Short Animated Video That Depicts Devastating View of Domestic Violence From a Child’s Perspective Launched by Verizon and National Domestic Violence Hotline

Verizon and National Domestic Violence Hotline Launch ‘Monsters,’ a Short Animated Video That Depicts Devastating View of Domestic Violence From a Child’s Perspective

Monsters 1Monsters 2


Video (below) Aimed at Encouraging Public to Support Domestic Violence Prevention Efforts and to Call for Help


BASKING RIDGE, N.J. —“Monsters,” a provocative new video, portrays the alarming impact of domestic violence on families and children, as seen through the eyes of a young girl. Produced and funded by theVerizon Foundation and supported by the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the video encourages the public to get involved in domestic violence prevention and education efforts, and also emphasizes that help for victims and their families is just a phone call away: 1-800-799-SAFE (1-800-799-7233).

Verizon Wireless customers can quickly reach the National Domestic Violence Hotline by dialing #HOPE. The hotline offers confidential help 24/7. To help support the hotline’s efforts, Verizon Wireless, through HopeLine has donated $75,000. HopeLine collects no-longer-used wireless phones and recycles or refurbishes them to support domestic violence victims and survivors.

The video, two minutes and 34 seconds long, graphically describes how domestic violence affects children. The child’s voice states:

“A child who lives with domestic violence lives in darkness. …She struggles to separate her nightmares from reality because there’s very little difference. The child who lives with domestic violence isn’t afraid of the dark. She’s afraid of her dad because the monster doesn’t live in her closet – it’s just down the hall.”

Studies suggest that between 3.3 million and 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence each year. And according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, witnessing violence between parents or caregivers is the strongest risk factor for transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next. The video notes that girls who witness abuse are more likely to be abused later in life, and boys are twice as likely to abuse their own partners – “because that’s the world they know.”

Rose Kirk, president of the Verizon Foundation, said:

“To end this devastating cycle of violence, we must motivate silent bystanders to take action. People need to understand that when they look the other way, they condone this deplorable behavior. Verizon is committed to preventing domestic violence by educating our employees, customers and the public about the importance of stepping in to help someone in need. We believe that this provocative video will help us accomplish this life-saving goal.”

According to some studies, less that 1 percent of domestic violence cases are reported to the police.

Dyanne Purcell, CEO of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, said: “It takes an incredible amount of courage to come forward and ask for help. The more established domestic violence is in our national dialogue, the more likely victims will be able to seek help and make a lasting change.”

The video concludes with the child narrator making a poignant plea for the public to help:

“Maybe you don’t wake up every day shaking, or jump every time the phone rings. But maybe you should look a little harder. Maybe it’s a friend, a co-worker, or your neighbor. …Your help could make all the difference. We need everyone to bring domestic violence into the light.”

Kirk said, “Please share the link to the ‘Monsters’ video with your family, friends, neighbors and colleagues. It’s a simple action that may have a huge impact.”

The “Monsters” video can be viewed at

About the National Domestic Violence Hotline

The National Domestic Violence Hotline was established in 1996 as a component of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed by Congress and is supported by funding from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The Hotline is a nonprofit organization providing crisis intervention, information and referral to victims of domestic violence, perpetrators, friends and families. The Hotline answers a variety of calls and is a resource for domestic violence advocates, government officials, law enforcement agencies and the general public.

About Verizon Foundation

The Verizon Foundation, the philanthropic arm of Verizon, uses its technology, financial resources and partnerships to address critical social issues, with a focus on education and domestic violence prevention. Verizon has invested more than $28 million in domestic violence prevention. For more information on the foundation, visit

About Verizon

Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE, NASDAQ:VZ), headquartered in New York, is a global leader in delivering broadband and other wireless and wireline communications services to consumer, business, government and wholesale customers. Verizon Wireless operates America’s most reliable wireless network, with more than 106 million total connections nationwide. Verizon also provides converged communications, information and entertainment services over America’s most advanced fiber-optic network, and delivers integrated business solutions to customers in more than 150 countries, including all of the Fortune 500. A Dow 30 company, Verizon employs a diverse workforce of nearly 196,000 and last year generated consolidated revenues of $106.6 billion. For more information, visit

VERIZON’S ONLINE NEWS CENTER: Verizon news releases, executive speeches and biographies, media contacts, high-quality video and images, and other information are available at Verizon’s News Center on the World Wide Web To receive news releases by e-mail, visit the News Center and register for customized automatic delivery of Verizon news releases.

Friday, November 25, 2011

U. S. Department of Justice v. Custody Court System

(Battered Mothers, Abused Children are Being Further Battered and Abused by the US Courts failure to let Domestic Violence Mothers Leave With Their Children. Many Ask, “Why Doesn’t She Just Leave?” When it comes to Domestic Violence, besides all the other very unsafe reasons those with children will loose their children to the very animal who hurt them and their children. Many mothers,(most) have never seen their children again after the Courts gave their child[ren] to the Abusers. Most Children, if the survive, end up just like they were taught raised and reinforced by the Courts, as abusers themselves for boys and victims for girls. That is not county all the other trauma related issues. This has passed beyond just injustice but has stepped full fledge in Human Rights Violations. It truly is like the holocaust, the destruction of women and their children by the USA, Sanctioned Genocide Against Mothers and their Children. Right in Plain View, See: Mothers Day Law Suit filed Against the U.S. at the Inter American Commission Human Rights. (still pending)

From Times –Up!! Attorney Barry Goldstein


photo courtesy of Family Court Crisis-Abusers Getting Custody!

By Barry Goldstein

Protective mothers have been complaining about mistreatment by the custody court system, but have routinely been dismissed as “disgruntled litigants.” As recently as the beginning of the Battered Mothers Custody Conferences in 2004, there was little professional support for protective mothers. The mothers’ complaints have now been confirmed and supported by the domestic violence community, many women’s organizations, numerous governmental agencies, many in the academic community and a substantial body of research such as contained in our book DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY.

Last summer at the NCADV Conference, Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan and some of his colleagues presented their findings from a major Department of Justice study that confirms the findings in our book and other research that the present custody court practices for domestic violence cases are deeply flawed. The publication of these findings has taken longer than expected as Dr. Saunders and the Justice Department seek to carefully present the information in a clear and accurate manner, but they should soon be available on the Department of Justice web site. Many of us who seek to reform the broken custody court system are excited about this study because it should be difficult for the courts to dismiss or ignore because of where it comes from. Significantly, the findings are incompatible with a continued belief that the present practices are working for the benefit of the children the courts are supposed to protect.

Custody Courts Frequently Disbelieve Valid Abuse Complaints

Custody courts have a particularly poor record in responding to domestic violence cases. The research demonstrates that court professionals reject a high percentage of valid complaints by protective mothers. This problem has been confirmed in many ways. It is confirmed based on the frequency of mistaken outcomes. Although battered mothers make deliberately false allegations only one or two percent of the time, in contested custody cases the alleged abuser wins custody or joint custody over seventy percent of the time. Subsequent events regularly confirm courts’ mistakes. This occurs when men found safe by the court professionals are later convicted or otherwise found to have to have committed domestic violence, sexual abuse, murder or other similar crimes.

The revelations of the Courageous Kids Network further demonstrate the frequency in which courts fail to recognize valid complaints of abuse. Courageous Kids are young adults who have aged out of their custody orders and decided to speak out about the harm caused by these orders. The context is important in understanding their stories. These are cases in which the court disbelieved the mothers’ abuse allegations and gave the fathers complete control. The children have been threatened, coerced and punished if they continue to complain about their father’s abuse or seek a relationship with their mother. In other words the fathers have had tremendous assistance in silencing the children. Accordingly the children now speaking out represent a small minority of those mistreated by fathers the court believed were safe. The descriptions by the Courageous Kids demonstrate the fathers deliberately sought to hurt the mother and children based upon their belief system that the mother had no right to leave them. The children have had little or no contact with their mothers often for many years so we know the mothers could not be influencing the children’s decision to speak out about the fathers’ abuse. These are all too common examples of cases in which the court professionals failed to believe valid allegations of abuse.

The research not only demonstrates the fact that the custody courts get a large majority of domestic violence cases wrong, but also that the standard practices used by court professionals are deeply flawed and make it difficult for judges to recognize legitimate complaints about domestic violence and child abuse.
Court professionals routinely discredit allegations of abuse based upon factors that are not probative. At the same time these professionals do not understand the importance of looking to the abusers’ patterns of controlling and coercive behavior in order to recognize domestic violence. The court professionals often make the mistake of considering each incident and each allegation separately. Genuine domestic violence experts understand the importance of context in recognizing domestic violence, but the mental health and other professionals relied on by the courts do not understand the importance of context and thus make it more difficult to recognize valid allegations of abuse.

One of the big obstacles to recognizing valid abuse complaints is the common use of mental health and other professionals without expertise in domestic violence. The main purpose of considering domestic violence in custody cases is to protect the safety of children. Nevertheless the evaluators relied on by custody courts rarely know how to conduct a safety assessment or what behaviors have been associated with higher lethality and other dangers. The evaluators do not understand domestic violence dynamics and often are unfamiliar with the effects of domestic violence on children or other information based upon the specialized body of scientific research that could be used to better understand domestic violence issues and recognize truthful allegations of abuse.

The new Department of Justice study helps explain why the evaluators and other professionals relied on by custody courts routinely fails to recognize domestic violence. The study found that most evaluators and other professionals relied on by the courts do not have adequate domestic violence training and those with inadequate training are more likely to believe in the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse to gain an advantage in litigation. The professionals who believe this myth, in turn are more likely to make recommendations that harm children. In other words judges have little chance to protect the children under their control as long as they rely on these unqualified professionals and tend to believe their deeply flawed analysis.

Judges often become defensive when protective mothers or their attorneys request that any evaluator or other court professional be required to have domestic violence expertise in order to be appointed. We have repeatedly seen judges refuse to listen to domestic violence experts offered on behalf of protective mothers. The courts often focus on the need for a mental health degree even though the academic training for most mental health professionals included no or virtually no domestic violence instruction and the law does not require advance degrees to qualify as an expert (a common example is a mechanic without a high school degree who can testify as an expert in automotive repair based on experience and training).

In recent years most court systems have encouraged and usually required some domestic violence training for court professionals. This is a good thing but has often been implemented in ways that undermine the purpose. Many of the trainings include substantial misinformation such as the belief most contested custody cases are “high conflict” when the research establishes a large majority are really domestic violence cases. Some of the trainings even include Parental Alienation Syndrome (sometimes by another name because of its deserved notoriety) even though it was recently again rejected for inclusion in the DSM-V because there is no scientific basis for it. Many of the trainings fail to include domestic violence advocates or other genuine experts in domestic violence.

We have also seen some really good programs used to train court professionals, but I have heard many trainers complain that some of the judges, evaluators and lawyers pay little attention to the valuable information presented. In one Queens County, New York case I cross-examined an experienced evaluator who went to a really excellent domestic violence training in order to qualify as a parent coordinator. They provided numerous excellent research studies that could have helped him recognize domestic violence and protect children. During my cross-examination it became clear he never read the research and was unfamiliar with the current scientific research he needed to understand the case. When I pressed him about the training he described it as “not a life changing experience.” This was a man who needed a life changing experience because he failed to recognize the obvious history of abuse by the father, demanded the mother cooperate with her abuser and when she continued to try to protect herself and her son, the unqualified evaluator recommended custody for the abusive father. The judge failed to discredit the evaluator based on his failure to read or consider the current scientific research provided at the training.

We need much more and better trainings for court professionals, but there is also the danger that attending trainings can give judges and other professionals a false sense of confidence in their understanding of domestic violence. The findings by Dr. Saunders and his colleagues that most court professionals have inadequate training in domestic violence confirms our concern that in most cases the professionals relied on by the court are not qualified to participate in a domestic violence case without the assistance of a genuine expert. Even if the judge has received good training the court is likely to be influenced by unqualified evaluators and other court professionals.

The failure to possess adequate training in domestic violence means that it will be difficult for these professionals to recognize and respond effectively to domestic violence, but the widespread belief in the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse is a bias that strongly undermines the cases of protective mothers. These mistakes result in frequent findings denying the mother’s abuse allegations which is exactly what the other research has found. If a professional believes the myth they will expect to see false allegations and without training in how to recognize domestic violence they have little chance to get these cases right and protect the children. Even worse, courts having found against the mothers because of the deeply flawed practices and biases are severely punishing mothers and children because the mothers continue to believe their true allegations despite the disbelief of the unqualified court professionals.

A few months ago, in this forum, I wrote an article about the extreme decisions we often see in domestic violence cases. These are decisions in which the alleged abuser receives custody and the mother who was the primary attachment figure is limited to supervised or no visitation. The primary attachment figure is the parent who provided most of the child care during the first couple of years of the child’s life. When children are separated from their primary attachment figure they are significantly more likely to suffer depression, low self-esteem and to commit suicide when older. It can never be right to separate children from their primary attachment figure unless she is unsafe such as a drug addict, someone who beats the kids or otherwise poses a danger. In most of these cases the father allowed or even demanded the mother provide child care until she decided to leave him. It should be obvious that her decision to leave a man she found to be abusive does not make the mother unsafe. Unqualified court professionals frequently limit the mother’s contact with her children based upon some version of alienation or pathologizing the mother based on psychological tests that were not made for the populations seen in custody cases. We know the diagnosis is not safety related because the mother functions fine in all other aspects of her life except interacting with her abuser and the court professionals supporting him. These are not safety issues so these extreme decisions can never be beneficial to the children.

The reliance on court professionals with inadequate training and belief in the myth takes place in the context of many other common mistakes discussed in earlier research. The courts cannot protect mothers and children in domestic violence cases if they cannot recognize domestic violence when it is present. The frequent decisions that harm children are confirmed by later findings and information, the extensive research court professionals routinely fail to consider and the new Department of Justice study and they provide multiple confirmations of the present inability of custody courts to recognize domestic violence and child abuse when it exists.

Misuse of Mothers’ Anger and Emotion

Let’s look at this issue from the mother’s perspective and in the context of her experience. These are domestic violence cases. The father usually has a long history of controlling and coercive behaviors and the mother has finally gained the courage and resources to leave her abuser in order to protect her children. She is fearful because of the many threats he made of what he would do if she left and knowledge that the most dangerous time for a woman is after she has left. She is angry at the way he has mistreated her and often the children. She may be worried about her ability to support and protect her children because her partner has been telling her how useless she is throughout their relationship.

Even if the father’s physical abuse ends when he no longer has access to the mother (which makes unqualified court professionals believe he is now safe), he continues his domestic violence through litigation abuse and often other ways. The abusers often use any contact provided by the court to seek reconciliation and/or to harass and attack her verbally or psychologically. Many women expect the courts to protect her children because the evidence is so overwhelming and instead find the court pressuring her to cooperate with her abuser and punishing her if she tries to protect her children from a man they have found to be hostile and dangerous. In other words she has good reason to be angry and emotional and in fact this would be a normal reaction to her experiences.

The research contained in our book and elsewhere supports this understanding and analysis. We discussed the common mistake of custody courts that treat the mother’s actions as a litigant as if they were an indication of her behavior as a parent. Over forty states and many judicial districts have created court sponsored gender bias committees. These committees have found widespread bias particularly against women litigants. One of the common examples of gender bias was blaming women for the actions of their abusers. One of the typical examples of this bias is when courts blame mothers for their anger and emotion caused by the father’s mistreatment of them and their children. In many cases the abusers deliberately harass or pressure them shortly before a court appearance is scheduled in order to obtain an emotional reaction the court is likely to misunderstand. Abusers tend to be extremely manipulative and so after their abuse that the judge does not see, come to court calm and cooperative. Court professionals are often fooled by this act.

The new Department of Justice study confirms what we said in our book and other similar research. Dr. Saunders found that court professionals frequently treat mothers’ anger and emotion as far more important than it actually is in terms of the well being of children. These professionals may be uncomfortable with the mothers’ emotions particularly if she criticizes their response to the father’s abuse. Clearly these are difficult and unpleasant issues to confront. The misinformation treating contested custody as if it were “high conflict” when it is actually domestic violence contributes to the misunderstanding of the mothers’ anger and emotion. The professionals are focused on forcing the parties to cooperate even though this is not the best approach for children. When the parties have difficulty cooperating and certainly in domestic violence cases, parallel parenting is a more effective approach for children. The problem, as demonstrated by the Saunders’ study is that these professionals are focused on their beliefs and preferences rather than research about what works best for children. The custody courts did not get into the practice of looking to current scientific research and particularly the specialized body of research about domestic violence because there was no such research when the initial court practices were developed. We now have substantial research that would help inform court decisions and avoid the frequent mistakes but court professionals rarely look to this research to help them make better decisions. This is why we rarely see custody courts weigh the benefits and harms to children of a proposed resolution. The Department of Justice study establishes that these flawed practices lead to decisions that hurt children.

Cottage Industry Supporting Abusive Fathers

We often hear complaints about corruption in the custody court system. This belief is supported by the many cases in which courts make findings that are far removed from a fair evaluation of the evidence and decisions that seem to be disconnected from the well being of the children involved. There are cases of outright corruption such as the Garson case in Brooklyn, New York, but more often, I believe courts create the appearance of corruption because of bias, ignorance and deeply flawed practices. One of my concerns with complaints about corruption is that it makes it harder for judges in the broken system to hear the complaints and create the reforms that are needed. An important contributing factor to the widespread belief in corruption is the cottage industry that has been created to support abusive fathers.

Most contested custody cases involve abusive fathers seeking custody as a tactic to pressure their victims to return or punish them for leaving. Domestic violence is all about control so these abusive fathers usually have controlled the family finances and have these resources to support their custody litigation. Some lawyers and mental health professionals have figured out that they can make a large income by supporting practices and approaches that support abusers. We often see them advertise as supporting “fathers’ rights.” In many cases we see fathers’ attorneys and GALs promoting the appointment of evaluators who support abusive fathers. It is particularly frustrating when judges refer to these professionals who regularly support abusers as “neutral professionals.”

Protective mothers often have no chance when these biased professionals are appointed regardless of how strong their cases may be. Many of the mothers have complained that the evaluators and GALs make misrepresentations to the court in order to justify findings in favor of the abusive fathers paying their fees. When such professionals lie to the court about the evidence or to justify fees they did not earn, the mothers are justified in complaints suggesting corruption.
Many of these biased professionals strongly support PAS despite a lack of scientific justification. Significantly, PAS is based upon the assumption that virtually every complaint by mothers about the father’s abuse is deliberately false. The Department of Justice study found a problem with inadequately trained professionals who believe the myth that women frequently make deliberately false allegations of abuse. The unqualified professionals supporting PAS are even worse assuming that virtually all such allegations are false. The courts have virtually no chance of making the right decision if they treat such biased professionals as having any credibility.
The Department of Justice study’s contribution to this issue is a finding that evaluators working for the court or the county made recommendations that worked better for children than those of evaluators in private practice. When Dr. Saunders described this finding at a workshop during the NCADV Conference I asked him if he thought the findings supported our concerns about the cottage industry that has developed to support abusive fathers. He agreed this was a good interpretation. Evaluators working for the court or county are not paid extra for each evaluation so they have no incentive to favor the wealthier parent.

Professionals often have fundamental conflicts of interest. Medical doctors who schedule tests or procedures will earn money from performing the services they recommend. Tests may be scheduled to shield the doctor from potential lawsuits rather than to benefit the patient. Lawyers who recommend going to trial, starting a lawsuit or making a motion will earn money when the client takes their advice. Similarly, mental health professionals benefit financially when patients accept recommendations for more services. The conflict of interest is largely unavoidable and the professionals are expected to have the integrity to act in their client’s best interests instead of their own. Unfortunately some of the evaluators and lawyers, particularly those supporting abusive fathers have not fulfilled this ethical obligation.

We have repeatedly seen problems in custody courts with mental health professionals and particularly ones sympathetic to abusive fathers making recommendations requiring protective mothers to use their unwanted and unneeded services. We see these biased professionals pathologizing mothers who have always taken good care of their children with diagnoses that are clearly wrong. This would include the frequent finding of rare conditions such as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, conditions like paranoia or delusional based on the mothers’ continued belief in the father’s abuse despite the failure of the court professionals to recognize his abuse and other emotional problems that magically seem to affect only her relationship with her abuser and the court. They seem oblivious to the fact that that she does fine in other parts of her life that under any unbiased circumstances would rule out the claimed diagnosis.

Some of these mistakes are clearly deliberate and qualify as corruption. Other cases may involve bias and ignorance and a lack of the needed qualifications as the Saunders’ study demonstrates. When the professionals who are part of the cottage industry engage in gender bias they usually do so without realizing it. Many actually believe in the theories and practices they use despite a lack of scientific basis. Some of this can be explained by confirmation bias where the professional focuses on information or accusations that support what the professional expects to find and ignores information that undermines their theories and assumptions. We see this kind of mistake frequently in domestic violence custody cases and the mental health professional is often unconscious that they are engaging in confirmation bias. In fact they are likely to become defensive and angry at the suggestion. The Department of Justice study demonstrates the harm of using professionals who are part of the cottage industry and the need for custody courts to screen court professionals to avoid relying on them. Even worse, courts often use these unqualified professionals to train other court professionals. This can only serve to spread misinformation which makes it harder for court officials to recognize the problems demonstrated by the Saunders’ study and other current scientific research.


The custody court system tends to look at each case and each issue or event in a case separately. This is based on a belief that just because a man slapped his wife on Monday does not mean he punched her on Friday. The court system uses stare decisis which means once a case or an issue has been decided the same parties cannot relitigate it. There are good reasons for these practices, but they work poorly in domestic violence cases because of the importance of context in understanding domestic violence. We often see cases where the court denies allegations of domestic violence and they may even have been right if there was insufficient evidence. Naturally the abuser continues his abusive behavior so more evidence becomes available, but many courts refuse to hear the new evidence or refuse to consider it in the context of the previous evidence because those issues were previously litigated. In doing this the court is denying itself the ability to recognize the pattern of the father’s abuse and protect the children. Domestic violence experts are confident that the custody court system is broken because we see the pattern of mistakes and harmful decisions, but the powers in the court system are offended at the criticism and cannot believe the problem because they refuse to look at the patterns.

The findings of the Department of Justice study, by itself, provides convincing documentation that the custody court system is getting a large majority of domestic violence custody cases wrong. It would be impossible for courts to get most cases right when most of the court professionals have inadequate domestic violence training, those with inadequate training tend to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations, the courts are placing too much weight on mothers’ anger and emotion and the evaluators who earn additional money through appointment in custody cases are making decisions more harmful to children then those who do not have a financial incentive. This study was not made in a vacuum, but was produced in the context of a substantial and growing body of scientific research that establishes the custody courts are making bad decisions in contested custody cases that endanger children. The research also establishes that the standard practices used in the custody courts are deeply flawed and outdated.

I am hopeful that a study coming from the U. S. Department of Justice will be harder for the custody court system to ignore. They have a strong reputation and can only be considered neutral. Furthermore, the courts frequently seek grants and other funding from the Department of Justice. Protective mothers and their attorneys can cite this research and it should be harder for the courts to ignore. I can’t wait until it is published on the DOJ web site.


Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

One More Battleground: Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and the Batterers’ Relentless Pursuit of their Victims Through the Courts

Courtesy Source: AMPP




When a couple divorces, the legal system may become a symbolic battleground on which the male batterer continues his abuse. Custody and visitation may keep the battered woman in a relationship with the battering man; on the battleground, the children become the pawns.36

After looking at how domestic violence operates as a mechanism of control, perhaps it is not surprising to discover that batterers manipulate the courts and their victims during dissolution, custody, and visitation proceedings. After all,domestic violence is a pattern of behavior that is not easily reversed, so separation alone is unlikely to break the pattern of abuse.

There are numerous reasons why a batterer chooses to use the courts and the litigation process; many of them are explored below. Before delving into the specific reasons, it is important to discuss the frequency with which batterers decide to participate in family court proceedings.

As mentioned earlier, fathers who abuse are twice as likely to seek sole custody of their children as nonviolent fathers, and notably, abusive fathers are three times as likely to be in arrears of child support.37 In one recent study in Massachusetts, fifteen of the forty fathers (approximately 38 percent) who sought custody received sole or joint custody of the children, despite the fact that each and every one of these men were reported to have abused both the mother and the child/children prior to separation and continued to do so after separation.38

Thus, before exploring why courts may choose to disregard a history of domestic violence,39 it is important to note that a history of violence does not stop batterers from obtaining custody. In fact, a history of abuse seems to increase the likelihood that the batterer will seek custody.

So, why do batterers use family courts as a battleground at all? What is it about the courts, and family courts specifically, that is so appealing to them?

[because they can]

A. Only Available Contact Left

One of the most obvious reasons batterers use family courts is because it is often the only way they can legally maintain any contact with the survivor.40 After leaving their abuser, survivors may try to keep their contact information private in order to keep as much distance from the batterer as they can. They may seek formal protection through restraining orders or civil protection orders. They may move without allowing the batterer access to their current address or phone number. However, even if a survivor can achieve this physical distance from a batterer, the batterer may try to initiate contact through the courts by seeking custody of or visitation rights with his child/children. In this way,the courtroom may present an opportunity to prolong contact with the victim or seek contact that is not otherwise available.41

As mentioned earlier, not all batterers who abuse the mothers will abuse the children. Certainly, nuanced solutions exist that can provide an opportunity for fathers, even those with a history of domestic violence, to remain in some sort of communication with their children. Every family has unique circumstances that can allow for a variety of solutions;however, because the courts may be the only way and the only forum for abusive fathers to continue abusing their former spouse and children, it is important for courts to take a comprehensive look at each situation and to act carefully if a history of abuse is present.

See Full Document From Journal Here:
One More Battleground: Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and the Batterers’ Relentless Pursuit of their Victims Through the Courts


One More Battleground Domestic Violence, Child Custody, And the Batterers' Relentless Pursuit of Their Vict...

Sunday, November 20, 2011

One More Battleground: Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and the Batterers’ Relentless Pursuit of their Victims Through the Courts



When a couple divorces, the legal system may become a symbolic
battleground on which the male batterer continues his abuse.
Custody and visitation may keep the battered woman in a
relationship with the battering man; on the battleground, the
children become the pawns.

After looking at how domestic violence operates as a mechanism of
control, perhaps it is not surprising to discover that batterers manipulate the
courts and their victims during dissolution, custody, and visitation
. After all, domestic violence is a pattern of behavior that is not
easily reversed, so separation alone is unlikely to break the pattern of abuse.
There are numerous reasons why a batterer chooses to use the courts and
the litigation process; many of them are explored below. Before delving
into the specific reasons, it is important to discuss the frequency with which
batterers decide to participate in family court proceedings.

As mentioned earlier, fathers who abuse are twice as likely to seek sole
custody of their children as nonviolent fathers, and notably, abusive fathers
are three times as likely to be in arrears of child support
.37 In one recent
study in Massachusetts, fifteen of the forty fathers (approximately 38
percent) who sought custody received sole or joint custody of the children,
despite the fact that each and every one of these men were reported to have
abused both the mother and the child/children prior to separation and
continued to do so after separation.38 Thus, before exploring why courts
may choose to disregard a history of domestic violence,39 it is important to
note that a history of violence does not stop batterers from obtaining
custody. In fact, a history of abuse seems to increase the likelihood that the
batterer will seek custody.

So, why do batterers use family courts as a battleground at all? What is it
about the courts, and family courts specifically, that is so appealing to

[because they can]

A. Only Available Contact Left
One of the most obvious reasons batterers use family courts is because it
is often the only way they can legally maintain any contact with the
survivor.40 After leaving their abuser, survivors may try to keep their
contact information private in order to keep as much distance from the
batterer as they can. They may seek formal protection through restraining
orders or civil protection orders. They may move without allowing the
batterer access to their current address or phone number. However, even if a
survivor can achieve this physical distance from a batterer, the batterer may
try to initiate contact through the courts by seeking custody of or visitation
rights with his child/children.
In this way, the courtroom may present an
opportunity to prolong contact with the victim or seek contact that is not
otherwise available.41

As mentioned earlier, not all batterers who abuse the mothers will abuse
the children. Certainly, nuanced solutions exist that can provide an
opportunity for fathers, even those with a history of domestic violence, to
remain in some sort of communication with their children. Every family has
unique circumstances that can allow for a variety of solutions; however,
because the courts may be the only way and the only forum for abusive
fathers to continue abusing their former spouse and children, it is important
for courts to take a comprehensive look at each situation and to act carefully
if a history of abuse is present.

Full Document Here:

One More Battleground Domestic Violence, Child Custody, And the Batterers' Relentless Pursuit of Their Vict...

WHEN BATTERED WOMEN LOSE CUSTODY: Dangerous Parents or Systems Failure?

By: Daniel G. Saunders, Ph.D.
University of Michigan School of Social Work

Note: This article is summarized in part from the article, Child Custody and Visitation Decisions in Domestic Violence Cases: Legal Trends, Risk Factors, and Safety Concerns (Revised 2007) by Daniel G. Saunders (, and published by VAWnet, a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence/Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The article can be retrieved from See this source for a complete list of supporting citations.

When a mother enters a visitation/exchange program as the visiting parent, workers may be quick to assume she failed as a parent or, worse, that she’s dangerous. After all, her referral to the center probably came at the end of a lengthy process of expert evaluation and court hearings. However, in all too many domestic violence cases, community systems have failed her. There is growing evidence that gender bias and myths about battered women stack the cards against them in child custody disputes. Ironically, their very attempts to protect their children may make it more likely they will lose custody to an abusive ex-partner.

Slowly, battered mothers have received increased legal protections. For example, some states in the U.S. exempt them from mandatory mediation or make it easier for them to move a safer distance from an abuser. Approximately half of all states have a legal presumption that an abuser should not have sole or joint physical custody. In the remaining states, the judge must consider domestic violence in custody and visitation decisions, but as just one of many factors for consideration. Canada has no presumption in its federal law against granting custody to abusers and the law states that maximum contact should be given to the noncustodial parent. However, protections are increasing in some provinces through consideration of domestic violence as a factor in decision making. Some provinces also apply conditions to temporary protection orders and order abusers into treatment as a condition of visitation. With new legal protections have come more domestic violence training and resource manuals for judges, custody evaluators, and others involved in custody decisions.

Despite this progress, misconceptions and faulty practice continue. One common misconception is that allegations of domestic violence are common in disputed custody cases. There is also no evidence, despite claims from fathers’ rights groups, that false allegations of domestic abuse or child abuse are common, especially from mothers. On the contrary, evidence shows that false allegations are rare. In addition, a recent comparison of mothers’ and fathers’ abuse allegations showed that mothers’ allegations were substantiated more often. Another misconception is that “high conflict” do not involve domestic violence. It is now clear that domestic violence is a current or past reality in the majority of these “high conflict” relationships. Domestic violence simply goes undetected in many cases, an oversight that increases danger to children and their mothers.

More alarming are findings that, even when detected, domestic violence is often not considered or taken seriously in court decisions and mediators’ and evaluators recommendations. A 1990s study found that custody evaluators did not consider domestic violence to be a major factor in their recommendations, yet they often considered parental alienation to be crucial. In a more recent study, evaluators reported that domestic violence weighed heavily in their recommendations, but only a third of them attempted to systematically detect the violence. The impact of the violence must also be considered. Psychological and custody evaluations can be misleading when a survivor’s trauma history is ignored. Her traumatic stress symptoms can mimic severe mental illness or personality disorders. Survivors are usually at a disadvantage due to the effects of overwhelming stress, not only from domestic violence, but from the intense fear of losing a child to an abuser.

Several studies show that knowing the history of domestic violence appears to have little influence on judges’ decisions and mediators’ recommendations. A likely explanation for courtroom outcomes is gender bias. Gender bias commissions over the last decade report frequent, negative stereotyping of women, especially about their credibility. When domestic violence is not adequately understood, victim-blaming, accusations of lying, and trivializing the abuse are more common. Judges may hold images of the “good” or “typical” victim -- terrified and submissive – and lack understanding of those who are angry or with a history of substance abuse. A study of cases brought to appeal showed reversals in the mothers’ favor when domestic violence was considered. Not surprisingly, there is some evidence that female judges show more support for victim protection. Training also seems to matter. In one study, judges with domestic violence education and more knowledge of domestic violence were more likely to grant sole custody to abused mothers.

A further barrier for battered women is that some laws and psychiatric theories often put them in a “Catch-22.” As a result of the “friendly parent” legal standard and the nonscientific “parent alienation syndrome,” actions to protect themselves and their children often work against them. In many cases, battered women are reasonably reluctant to co-parent out of fear that their ex-partner will harm them or their children. These women may sense that separation increases the risk of homicide, which in reality it does. In addition, physical abuse, harassment, and stalking of women continue at fairly high rates or escalate after separation, affecting as many as 35% of survivors. Up to a fourth of battered women report that their ex-partner threatened to hurt the children or kidnap them. Women may be reluctant to reveal their address or allow unsupervised visits. Yet such reluctance means they are more likely to be seen as “unfriendly” or “uncooperative,” which counts against them in the custody criteria of most states and the Canadian Divorce Act. Claims of “parent alienation syndrome” (PAS) similarly place women in a Catch-22. If mothers report child abuse or even raise concerns about danger to their children, some evaluators and courts immediately label them as “alienators.” In the original formulation of PAS, no investigation of her allegations has to occur and she is labeled as pathological simply for exercising a legal right. The syndrome assumes that programming has occurred if an allegation is made and thus has a circular definition. PAS does not have legal standing, yet the general concept or label may influence decision makers.

What are the implications of these findings for supervised visitation/exchange programs? First, providers would be wise to check for their own potential biases about visiting mothers who are survivors. Second, comprehensive provider training is essential. Topics need to include methods for detecting abuse and assessing danger, the impact of domestic violence on children, the ways that abusers often manipulate court and social systems, and, in particular, the impact of violence on survivors. Visiting mothers are often depressed and have post-traumatic stress symptoms as a result of being battered and losing their children. Providers need to realize that depression and traumatic stress symptoms often manifest as anger or apathy. Without such understanding, providers may be quick to label these mothers as “hostile,” “uncooperative,” or “disinterested.”

Third, although supervised visitation/exchange programs cannot act as advocates for individual women who lose custody disputes, they can raise concerns about apparent systems failures with their community’s domestic violence coordinating councils. Building a close collaborative tie with your local coordinating body can place visitation/exchange programs in a position to help make changes in local policies and practices. (For more information on advocacy roles for supervised visitation programs, see “Guiding Principles: Safe Havens Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant Program” at

In addition, providers may need new skills for protecting mothers and their children. Supervised Visitation Network (SVN) standards require that programs “refer any victim of domestic violence to a resource expert that can assist and help the victim in developing a personal safety plan.” This assumes that program staff have the skills and screening tools to detect domestic violence among their clients. In addition, a referral for safety planning may not go far enough. A referral for legal advocacy, such as help with stalking, threats, and restraining order violations, may be necessary to protect a mother and her children. Recent evidence shows surprisingly high rates of stalking and threats occur between visits and exchanges. Close working relationships with domestic violence programs will help make the most meaningful and effective referrals – through first hand knowledge of these programs and the ability to learn detection and referral skills from them. By failing to take steps to help, supervised visitation centers risk being one of a long line of so-called “helping systems” that fail survivors, adding another blow to their psyches.

(For more information on domestic violence practice in supervised visitation see “Beyond Observation: Considerations for Advancing Domestic Violence Practice in Supervised Visitation” at

Providers may be reluctant to make referrals or give other help for fear of violating a standard of “neutrality.” However, SVN Standards are clear: “Neutral/neutrality means maintaining an unbiased, objective, and balanced environment. . . . Being neutral does not mean providers disregard behaviors such as abuse or violence of any kind.” Centers can create a neutral “environment” for parents to visit with their children, but they should never be neutral toward violence against either children or adults. Specialized help can also be given to abusers without violating the standard of neutrality. Supervised visitation programs are in a unique position to encourage men to become responsible fathers, which in turn can increase their motivation to participate in abuser intervention and fathering-after-violence programs. (For more information on fathering-after-violence programs, see “Fathering After Violence: Working with Abusive Fathers in Supervised Visitation” at

On a broader level, programs can work with other agencies and professional organizations to ensure that judges, mediators, custody evaluators and other professionals have adequate domestic violence training. Systems advocacy can mean working to remove “friendly parent” standards for cases of domestic violence. In this way, programs can help those who have suffered doubly - from the personal injustice of intimate partner abuse and from the social injustice of “helping systems” that fail to help. A likely result will be greater long-term safety for the children and parents who are your clients.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women, and the Real Gender Gap. Why We Should Reconsider Gender Neutral Family Leave Policies

The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women, and the Real Gender Gap by Susan Pinker


Myth -- "Equality under the law" means that men and women are the same in all ways.

Fact: -- "Equality" under the law means that WHEN men and women are the same in all ways, the law will treat them that way, and that when they are not,
the law will not default to what is characteristic of "man" as the standard.

Thus, "equality under the law" means more than merely consideration of each person as an individual. It also means that that "consideration" will not be cast in terms of standards and rights that can attain only to non-gestating human beings. The law will not determine what is "reasonable" with reference solely to what would be "reasonable for a man;" the law will not determine what is "just" by reference solely to what could be "achievable by someone who cannot gestate;" and the law will not ignore reproductive differences between mothers and fathers where they do indeed exist and have effect.



Why We Should Reconsider Gender Neutral Family Leave Policies

Pages 79-80:

"...One might expect that men married to female university professors would be more likely to have egalitarian views and share child care
equally, but this is another myth. Steven Rhoads, a professor of public policy at the University of Virginia, had similar assumptions. He ran a nationwide study and found that 75 percent of female faculty believed their husbands should take on equal amounts of child care, housework, and
paid work. Just over half of their husbands agreed. Yet the women spent much more time with their children than their husbands did, and in
universities where they were offered paid parental leave, 67 percent of the eligible women took advantage of it, only 12 percent of male faculty
took that time off, and when they did, they didn't use the time the same way. 'We heard stories of male academics who took paid post-birth leave in
order to advance their publishing agendas,' wrote Rhoads, commenting that he'd heard of one school that changed its rules as a result. Upon
returning from her maternity leave, one female colleague recalled being asked by a male colleague how the leave had gone. She replied, 'I used the
time well.' Then the man said, 'So you got a lot of work done.' But that's not what she meant.

"If more academic mothers use a leave to spend time with their baby and more new fathers use the time to publish, then a system based on men and
women being identical ends up punishing women. When these family-friendly policies are applied equally to both sexes, academic women experience more discrimination, not less. One unofficial study at an Ivy league college found that parental leave benefits available to both sexes had that
paradoxical effect: no woman who had taken a family leave in the previous fifteen years had subsequently received tenure. Most if not all of the
small number of men who had taken family leave did. This was never published or even tallied up as a real study, but it became commonly cited
during the tenure discussion, summarized as 'a woman takes family leave and comes back with a backlog, a man takes family leave and comes back
with a book'... Realizing what was happening, a committee at the college tweaked the policy to allow additional leave for those who give birth
(obviously, fathers wouldn't be eligible). This helped... [N]o one wanted to discuss the issue openly, allow the college to be named, or be
identified in any way. The topic was taboo..."

Mothers and Fathers are Different

Pages 163-164:

"...given the choice, 60 to 80 percent of American and European women choose part-time work over full-time schedules or staying home full-time
-- even if they had initially intended to work full-time and even if the decision will cost them in job security and earnings. 'The vast majority of women who claim to be career-oriented discover that their priorities change after they have children.' writes [British sociologist Catherine] Hakim. Eroding the idea of a united sisterhood, Hakim has amassed data from European and American census and national surveys that clearly show that women in modern societies are hardly homogeneous. Instead, they separate fairly cleanly into three groups. There are those who want to stay home full-time, whom she calls 'home-centered' (approximately 20 percent). There are those whose careers take precedence, whom she calls 'work-centered' (approximately 20 percent). These career-oriented women experience few disadvantages to being female; if they have the same credentials and put in the same hours, they achieve the same rewards as men.

"The majority, the remaining 60 percent, are women who try to combine children and career, drifting between various work schedules and
positions, looking for the perfect arrangement. There 'adaptive' women adjust their careers to accommodate their families' needs and their own values, a trend as powerful in socially progressive Sweden and Norway as it is in the United States...

"Calling it 'Preference Theory,' Hakim nailed two realities. Not all women want the same thing. And when women have choices, only about 20 percent
will choose what men choose... exclusively career-oriented women are a minority, Hakim says..."

Pages 168-170:

"If you had asked me before my first child was born to choose from Hakim's three groups, I wouldn't have hesitated before placing myself with career
oriented women. I didn't expect to feel any differently after my baby was born than I did before -- or much differently than her father would. But
my plans for a swift return were shot to hell when a wrinkly, underweight, and squalling baby appeared instead of the placid, pink-cheeked, robust infant I'd imagined cheerily handing off to a babysitter... Work demands seemed remote... I was shocked by my protective feelings. I needed to be
with her. I needed her to be healthy....

"In the early eighties I was not alone in thinking that men and women had nearly identical brains, but that we had been socialized to take on
different roles. If my husband, a doting father, could leave his scrawny newborn after two weeks at home and go to work for ten hours a day without
a backward glance or a blip in his concentration, the script dictated that this was because he had learned that his role was to be the provider. And
if I felt physical distress about tearing myself away from a six-week-old baby -- notwithstanding the monotony and isolation of new motherhood -- I
had internalized mine as a maternal caregiver. Never mind that my mother and both grandmothers worked outside the home, as well as in it. Many of
us thought that if only women could tame their outdated sentimentality, if only men were present and willing to offer their babies more bottles, then
our parental roles could be reversed... At the time we assumed that men and women were equals -- not just in rights and opportunities, as they should be, but also in underlying psychology and behavior. Any differences, including physical differences, could be fixed via technology, policy, or force of will...

"This is the vanilla gender assumption: that female is just a variation of male. But more than two decades after my daughter was born, brain imaging
and neuroendocrinology have unveiled many of the biological networks underlying mothers' specific longing for their infants and their drive to nurture them... "

Pages 210-211:

"[Harvard professor Robert] Trivers's theory suggests that competitive risk-taking is wired into males. Due to her own unique wiring, a female invests greatly in her future offspring, feeding them nurturing them, and raising them to maturity, all at significant cost to herself... once pregnant, that's it. She's committed. No matter how many one-night stands she has, a female will only have a given number of offspring during her lifetime -- which she's programmed to guard with her life -- while a successful, competitive male striver can father... even a hundred...

"The math was demonstrated by Lucky Moulay Ismail the Bloodthirsty of Morocco (1646-1727), who fathered 888 children with multiple wives. Meanwhile, the female record holder, Madalena Carnauba of Brazil, married at 13 and gave birth to 32 children. The evolutionary anthropologist Sarah Hrdy points out that the context is missing. We don't know how many children from each family survived, or how many of their rivals' offspring were done in by Moulay's more competitive wives. But the difference in output between Lucky and Madalena is still 856 children. More recent accounts... Rahman, who has fathered seventy-eight children and set a target of one hundred children by 2015... Jogi... who became the world's oldest dad when he fathered his twenty-first child with his fourth wife..."According to Trivers, the parent who invests more in their offspring is the one who ultimately limits how many there are -- namely mothers..."

Feminist Fear and Political Correctness

Pages: 258-263:

"[T]There's a fear that if we recognize the existence of sex differences we'll become part of a conservative backlash that will send women back to the kitchen. I'd argue that a more nuanced understanding of the average differences between men and women can lead to progress instead. In fact,
several problems arise from NOT acknowledging that sex differences exist. Workplaces and career schedules designed for a single, standard male approach to competition and success now discourage many women, notwithstanding their native smarts, their educational opportunities, and
their impressive accomplishments...

"Exhorting women to make 'male' choices is more pernicious than simply encouraging them to earn more. Educated women who forgo the highest paying or high-status jobs are usually aware of their options and have weighed the pros and cons. The finger-wagging about being influenced by the media,
not knowing the consequences of their actions, or giving license to employers to discriminate against women... follows in a long tradition of assuming that women don't know their own minds... the prevailing message is that these women are either patsies or victims. The idea that women don't know what they want, or don't have the power, interest, or inclination to determine their own fate lends a feeling of deja vu to the debate about men, women, and work. Telling women that they'd prefer computer science to a degree in English or history if only they weren't blindered by cultural norms, or that putting in fourteen-hour days when their children are toddlers is really what's in their best interests, is a form of infantilization. It's also a form of homogenization. The problem is not that some women choose to opt out, others to work part-time, or that other women prefer to keep working as long and as hard as they can. The problem is that only one choice is seen as the right one..."

Subheadings on the excerpts above are by
The URL for this webpage is

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Fathers' Rights Movement

  • Busting the Fatherhood Myth by Lily DeVilliers
  • Case for Father Custody, The email exchange between liz and FR Nick Szabo
  • Deconstructing Fatherhood Propaganda: liz versus Wade Horn editorial by liz
  • Deconstructing the Deconstructing: liz versus Silverstein and Auerbach editorial by liz
  • Disagreeing with Helen Alvare editorial by liz
  • Father's Rights Joint Custody Propaganda from the AAML editorial notes by liz
  • Media Distortions by Fathers' Rights Advocates editorial by liz
  • Myths and Facts about Fathers and Family Law CITATIONS TO RESEARCH
  • The National Fatherhood Initiative editorial criticism by liz
    with email comments by David Usher (FR lobbying 1995 welfare deform)
  • Politics of Fathers' Rights Advocates by Mandy Dunn DOC CITATIONS TO RESEARCH
  • Response to "Be Thankful for Fathers" by Amy Ridenour editorial by liz
  • Stalking Through the Courts: the father's rights movement by Janet Normalvanbreucher SCHOLAR
  • Index: "The Pig Page" - The Father's Rights Movement In Their Own Words
  • "The Pig Page" - The Father's Rights Movement In Their Own Words page 2
  • "The Pig Page" - The Father's Rights Movement In Their Own Words page 3
  • About the Children's Rights Council circa 1998 by liz
  • ANCPR readers defend Darren Mack, wife-murderer and judge shooter
  • Wolfgang Hirczy de Mino on Linda Elrod's Washburn family law listserve
  • Dean Hughson (FR originator of web site sold to current owner of Divorce Source)
  • Anne P. Mitchell's F.R.E.E. bit.listserve defending murderer
  • NCFC Dispute with ACFC (in-fighting)
  • Attorney Steven Imparl's "men-law" listserve
  • More posts from the"men-law" listserve
  • And yet more posts from the"men-law" listserve
  • Ralph Underwager's "Litany for Fathers" with Paedika pedophilia comments by liz
  • Ralph Underwager feeling misunderstood and falsely accused by liz
  • Response to Father's Rightster "Pearle Harbour" by liz
  • Trish Wilson's Articles and Materials
  • Warren Farrell materials index
  • Warren Farrell and "family sex" (Off Our Backs interview) annotated by liz
  • manuscript with editing notations of Farrell's "Three Faces of Incest" article source unknown
  • Warren Farrell and "genitally caressing" (Penthouse interview) annotated by liz
  • complete html text of the 1977 Penthouse article "Incest: The Last Taboo"
  • jpg images of original magazine pages:    1  |   2  |   3  |   4  |   5  |   6
  • Farrell emails libeling liz, interspersed with comments by liz
  • More Farrell emails libeling liz, interspersed with responses by liz
  • Warren Farrell's research distortions in "Myth of Male Power" by Cynthia Teague
  • Warren Farrell's "Top Ten Holiday Suggestions" by liz
  • Warren Farrell Does a Custody Evaluation by liz

    Children need. . . THIS?

    Page 2

    GARY CLARK" ...proof in itself why the rest of us NEED GUNS!

    "We need them to KILL people who want to MOVE our money into the pockets of the criminals (like her) who want to take our money to foster her immoral ideas of how a society should be.

    "Let's make no mistake about why assholes like her want to see our guns taken away."

      Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:33:48 -0700 From: Gary Clark <> To: Fathers Manifesto <> Cc: liz <>, Fathers' Manifesto <>, Mark Hall <> Subject: Re: SMH

    Las Vegas, NV

    STEVEN IMPARL'S men-law listserve". . . concerning the jailing of Christopher Robin, founder of the Purple Heart House in Hollywood, California. . . I have discovered the home address of the judge.  If you would, send a second copy of your letter to his home.  I want this man to know that we are paying attention to what he is doing, and that we intend to break through the barrier of anonymity that so many of these bureaucrats operate behind with impunity.

    "We had originally planned to burn just our support orders.  But now, the first thing to burn will be a miniature effigy of Judge Schoenberg.  We hope he gets the message.  We're watching, we're paying attention, and we're ready to fight back."

      Received: (qmail 25567 invoked by uid 505); 24 Oct 1998 02:36:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact Precedence: list X-URL: X-Mailing-List: Delivered-To: Received: (qmail 7472 invoked by uid 7770); 24 Oct 1998 02:04:38 -0000 Received: from ( by with SMTP; 24 Oct 1998 02:04:38 -0000 Received: from by (IMOv16.10) id XVTCa29185 for <>; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:03:39 +2000 (EDT) From: Message-ID: <> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:03:39 EDT To: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 84 Subject: [men-law] Fwd: ancpr post, Chris Robin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitX-UIDL: 60fb809fa1f64c64dcefb62d0ac5a594

    kidnapper and founder of ANCPR
    9903 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 267
    Beverly Hills, CA 90212


    RALPH UNDERWAGERThe Influence of Underwager

    PAIDIKA: Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individual?

    "Certainly it is responsible... Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian, and as a theologian, I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: "This closeness is possible for me within the choices that I've made."

    "Paedophiles are too defensive.... With boldness they can say, 'I believe this is in fact part of God's will.'

    PAIDIKA: You are speaking mostly about paedophiles in the U.S. What tack should they take given the societal attitudes? What solutions do you envision for their lives?

    "The solution I'm suggesting is that paedophiles become much more positive. They should directly attack the concept, the image, the picture of the paedophile as an evil, wicked, and reprehensible exploiter of children...

    "I was in the courtroom for the case that Holly just cited and I actually heard the prosecutor say, 'No man should ever be permitted to claim as an excuse that he was just being affectionate when a child says they were uncomfortable.'

    "I don't know; I don't think, we can just label these attitudes 'hysteria.' Perhaps 'madness' is better, or 'pathology.' What we see going on in the United States is the most vitriolic and virulent anti-sexuality I know of in our history."

    Read the whole interview in:
    PAIDIKA: The Journal of Paedophilia
    Vol. 3, No. 1, Issue 9, Winter 1993, Netherlands
    MORE -- from the courts of Minnesota...

    KEN PANGBORN"Just how the shit would YOU know?  Were you raped as a child? ... You are one clueless bimbo...

    "BTW, are your panteis in a bunch about the "Seinfeld Case" in Milwaukee?  Bet you'll walk bowllegged for a year on that one.  $26.6 MILLION Miller will have to pay out, and the broad another $1.5 MILLION for being a bitch! HA HA!  We FRstersd are coming to get you HA HA!

    "... there are TWO lying broads to every one who tells the truth!  Just all in how you want to look at the stats.  I really lopve it whjen Femiwhackos like you MAKE UP statistics! I love craming them right up your ass!  The biggest nightmare you have is when I ACCEPT your fabricated stats!

    "BULLSHIT!  You sure can turn a phrase Liz."

      Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 19:19:40 -0400 (EDT) From: To: Cc: Subject: Re: Questions About Divorce & Custody Nobody Asks

    "THE A-TEAM"
    With DEAN TONG / "F.R.O.N.T." and "Abuse-Excuse"
    NCFC vs ACFC and continuing FR in-fighting...

    DEAN TONGMug shot of Dean Tong, former allegedly falsely accused "forensic consultant", and PAS (parental alienation excuse) and therapeutic jurisprudence promoter, who after being accused in his own divorce case, started a business to help defend men accused of child sex abuse, domestic violence, and other charges, including as a freelance assistant to their lawyers.
      Mr. Tong apparently was accused again of stuff (this time domestic violence and witness tampering) on January 28, 2008 per Hillsborough County, Florida sheriff's website at

      Self-styled false abuse expert arrested
      The man is charged with domestic violence by the Sheriff's Office after his wife calls 911.
      By S.I. ROSENBAUM, Times Staff Writer
      Published January 30, 2008

      TAMPA - A Riverview man who has built a career as an expert on "false child abuse accusations" has been charged with domestic violence and tampering with a witness to avoid prosecution.

      Dean Bryan Tong, 51, of 10246 Hunter's Haven Blvd., was accused of grabbing his wife's arm and slamming her foot in the bedroom door during an argument on Jan. 21, according to an arrest affidavit filed by sheriff's deputies.

      He then allegedly took her telephone as she tried to call 911 and told her he would "ruin her" if she called police, the affidavit states...

      On his Web site,, Tong writes that he was accused of sexually abusing his then-preschool-age daughter during a contentious divorce; the charges were later dropped, he writes.

      "Having seen the seedy underbelly of divorce law, Dean Tong decided to work to reform the system that tore his life apart," the Web site says.

      LIZNOTE: Dean Tong was not originally included on the Pig Page when it first was published in 1998 because he managed consistently to comport himself politely in his emails and other communications with liz. However, this latest event, coupled with his performance in August 14, 2006, on Lisa Macci's Justice Hour radio show has put him over the top. Congratulations, Dean -- it took more than a decade but you've finally achieved your place on a shelf in the liz library..


    JOHN KNIGHTliz on: Wade Horn on The Importance of Being Father[Wearing his Father's Manifesto poloshirt.]

    "Very eloquently and succinctly stated, Gary!  "There is no reason to dance around the issue. We are dealing with a slut who must be treated like and called a slut.  The word 'slut' has a very important meaning, and it was developed to describe people just like Liz."

      Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:04:34 +0600 From: Fathers Manifesto <> To: Gary Clark <> Cc: liz <>, Fathers' Manifesto <>, Mark Hall <> Subject: SMH

    "... it is the act of adultery which led to the psychological problems which brought the majority ... of those criminals to death row in the first place... this would put about 10.5 million American wives on death row.  Everything is feminists' fault."

      Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 03:05:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Fathers' Manifesto <> To: Asherah <> Cc:,, Subject: Re: common thread

    "It is time to update our data base regarding the state of the 19th Amendment... the last survey... onwomen's suffrage resulted in 80% of us advocating (in confidentiality) the repeal of this Amendment. This survey also will be held in confidence, so feel free to "vote your heart..."

    "The Talmud played a key role in the destruction of America's families."

    "The appointment of Jewish judges contributed greatly to our current social pathologies."

      The above two statements from John Knight's "Talmud Survey" originally published at:

    aka DANIEL AMNEUS, Ph.D.
    Author of The Garbage Generation

    WARREN FARRELL"family sex."

    " The VAWA and VAWA II are blatant violations of the 14th Amendment..."
    "We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape... we called it exciting."

    "...millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, andgenitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves."

    Author of The Liberated Man and Myth of Male Power
    Board of Directors "CRC" CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COUNCIL
    Ideological icon of AFC aka ACFC (Stu Miller et al. father's rights lobbyists)
    Against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

    STUART MILLERLitany for Fathers"The New Jersey Supreme Court executed a father because he wanted to accept his parental responsibilities... Alan Gubernat shot himself and his three-year-old son...

    "Feminist women have almost completely destroyed the family and all associated with it that is holy.

    "The Bible clearly states that the fathers are to be the head of the household.

    "This is not to mention the Magna Carte, upon which all of our constitutions and institutions are founded. But the government, with its judicial henchmen, have propagated upon society a system that is diametrically opposed to the Word of God...

    "It is interesting to note, not only the outrageousness of the NJ decision, but the gradual "move forward" in the judiciary's attitudes, whereby women are no longer disgraced by bearing children outside of wedlock, men are. Men are also vilified by the Pimp and the Vice-Pimp of the United States. No longer are men warned not to fall victim to the wiles of "loose women."...

    "...did a penis just fall out of the sky and impregnate you..."

    Ranting on F.R.E.E.'s bit-listserve after unwed noncustodial father, Alan Gubernat, murdered his 3 year old son for the reason that the New Jersey Supreme Court would not let him change the boy's last name. More...

    Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 20:18:51 -0400 From: Stuart Miller <> Newsgroups:

    AFC (Father's Rights groups lobbyist)
    Signer (among other AFC members), THE "FATHER'S MANIFESTO" --
    Men's Rights Lobbyists ANTI- welfare, -child support, -VAWA, -mothers

    "If you go to jail, we will kick their butt so hard that they will be sorry ever messed with you!!!  Our advice to you Stuart?  Please accept their "sentence" and go to jail!  You will immediately be considered a political prisoner, and we will file a claim with the United Nations on behalf of all fathers in America...

    "Stu, you got our words that we will publicize the heck out of this. "

    Brouhaha on F.R.E.E.'s bit-listserve after Stuart Miller wrote that the judge in his divorce case was threatening to throw him in jail for contempt of court. More...

    Subject: Put Stu in Jail and We Kick Your Butt From: fgj@ELECTRICITI.COM Date: 1995/06/03 Message-Id: <> Sender: "Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange"

    San Diego, CA

    RICHARD BENNETT"Would you have the name of that judge handy?  And perhaps a residence?  Or a phone number?  A little education is in order.  RB"

      Subject: Re: Stu in Jail? From: (Richard Bennett) Date: 1995/06/11 Message-Id: <3rdj4u$> References:>

    "Governor Wilson signed SB 509 into law late last night... The femaroids fought this measure tooth and nail, resorting to dirty tricks at every step of the process... But this year we drew the line on domestic violence legislation by killing a bill granting custody to victims automatically, we ended welfare as we used to know it, and we ended lifetime alimony... "

      Subj: The End of Idleness Date: Tue, Oct 1, 1996 4:31 PM EDT From: TALK-MAN@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU X-From: Richard@BENNETT.COM

    Original Signer #147, THE FATHER'S MANIFESTO
    Cupertino, CA

    GARDNER'S THREAT THERAPY:  Did it Kill This Child?''What I am against is the excessively moralistic and punitive reaction that many members of our society have toward pedophiles ... (going) far beyond what I consider to be the gravity of the crime.''

    "...there is a bit of pedophilia in every one of us."

      Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited Creskill, NJ, Creative Therapeutics, 1991. p. 118.

    a "diagnosis" generally applied to mothers who accuse fathers
    Cresskill, NJ

    "There is every reason for men to feel threatened... if only a few "top-quality" males... remain in the gene pool due to the reproductive choices of women, regular guys do not get to perpetuate themselves into the next generation....

    "Advocacy of lesbian childrearing practices and single motherhood as a desirable life-style choice undermines fatherhood. ...

    "Government is usurping the role of fathers/husbands... providing low/no-income women a financial security blanket, while forcing men to pay for it without receiving the benefit of the a wife's company and services in return, a necessary element in the traditional marriage contract...

    "As to "lack of men to fill the role" this is also in part a function of mate-selection and family formation behavior on the part of women. This is virtually never mentioned in the literature and in the public debate.

    "The loosening of constraints on the sexual and reproductive behavior of women is in part responsible for paternal "irresponsibility". Secondly, the rejection of monogamy by women combined with no-fault divorce...

    "Specifically, husbands no longer enjoy an assurance of a monogomous sexual relationship with the wife... not even a right to be informed of an abortion, much less a veto...

    "The husband's claim on the wife's love is no longer recognized at all. Worse, it has been criminalized and is now known as "marital rape".

    "Even a mere effort to maintain the nonsexual aspects of consortium can now land a man in jail for violation of a restraining or protective order, on charges of harassment, or for committing the new crime de jour, stalking.

    Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 22:05:32 -0600 From: Wolfgang Hirczy <> Reply to: To: Multiple recipients of list <> Subject: If only things were different ....

    aka "ADAM NEVE"

    "Feminists should be charged with nothing less than Crimes Against Humanity, sentenced, and summarily executed in public squares."

    St. Louis, MO

    " [if women could marry women] ... six income sources ... from the two mothers, two sets of government entitlements, and two banished fathers ... would be economically far superior ... We must fight lesbian rights ..."

    A Winning Strategy For Fathers, by David R. Usher

    "On the marriage market, men trade their social needs and women trade their economic needs.  Every ... child support order weakens the marriage market ..."

    The National Playboy Boycott Page - Will Republicans change? by David R. Usher

    "Dear John ... why not E-mail the whole thing to all Congressmen and Senators on the Net, with a foreward by you as the organizer.  I think they should get the buzz from people, not the entitled feminist organizations ... just ask Stuart Miller or Hugh Harrington about this ...

    "If I do a good job creaming the feminists, and they can see it, maybe they will have the political guts to do something more than flush the toilet."

    From usher@mo.netMon Sep 25 14:37:57 1995 Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 02:28:33 -0500 From: Dave Usher To: fathers Subject: Debate purpose

    until recently: Board of Advisors, NCFC "NATIONAL CONGRESS FOR FATHERS AND CHILDREN"

    DEAN HUGHSON"What the radical Womens Rights (sometimes referred to as Mothers Rights but since the influx of lesbian leadership has been more likely to be referred to as Rights for Women, Women of Color, and Gay and Bi-Sexual Women) and the Radical mens groups (who sometimes also call themselves fathers groups) have in common is dislike of the idea of human rights."

      Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:33:34 -0600 From: Dean Hughson <> Reply-To: To: Multiple recipients of list <> Subject: Re: Observance of Herstory Month

    "You know you are an insider in the fathers movement when... your closest online friends have been accused in a court battle of child abuse as a ploy by their ex's to win custody."

      Subject: Top 10 Reasons You Know You are an insider in the Fathers Movement From: Dean Hughson <dean@PRIMENET.COM> Date: 1995/12/04 Message-Id: <> Sender: "Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange" <FREE-L@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU> X-Sender: Comments: To:, Newsgroups:

    "My wife and I sat watching the TV and could only think......why do these people attack the legal system? When it puts men in jail for not paying child support or for false allegations, those same people cheer the actions of the court. The hatred towards men in general and fathers,such as OJ Simpson,specifically sickens me."

    From owner-witchhnt@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Tue Oct 3 19:32 EDT 1995 Return-Path: <owner-witchhnt@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> Posted-Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 19:32:21 -0400 Received-Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 19:32:21 -0400 ...From: Dean Hughson <> Subject: What I've Learned About Justice via OJ To: FREE <>, Multiple recipients of list WITCHHNT...

    "Radical feminist... Liz... and her alleged husban Nick have posted pictures and quotes from some men,including Ralph Underwager and myself on her attack web site at "Thought that some of you might find it interesting to see the pictures. incidentally I stand by my post."

    Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 07:52:58 -0700 Reply-To: Dean Hughson <dean@PRIMENET.COM> Sender: Is there a child sex abuse witchhunt? <WITCHHNT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> From: Dean Hughson <dean@PRIMENET.COM> Subject: pictures To: WITCHHNT@MITVMA.MIT.EDU X-UIDL: 81b7412e8726f1047ec191867a20b121

    Self-proclaimed "Eggman" and "Internet Divorce Expert"
    Author of's "Ask the Divorced Guy"
    BACKLASH! columnist (as is Stu Miller, John Knight, Armin Brott, Ken Pangborn...)
    [as of 1998] "Director of Resource Management," Father's Rights and Equality Exchange

    GEORGE GILLILAND"And for the next two cents, per the below post, good Femnazi bitch Asyerass[Trish Wilson], I too say "ditto" and stay the hell out of where you're NOT INVITED, NOR WELCOME!! ... up yours BITCH!!!!!!!!!!

    "...'fathers die at the hands of the Divorce Industry and the anti-christ/gender genocidal feminists... "KISS MY PURPLE BUTT" (OR KISS MY PURPLE ASHerah).' "

      Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 18:32:45 -0500 From: To: Cc: Subject: agendas, etc., up yours!

    "[Sex offenders] ... could serve a USEFUL purpose to society also, by being ordered, and they would probably happily comply, to go out and rape and pillage all the damn man hating Feminaz's!!!!!!!!!!"

      Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 01:42:24 -0600 From: To: Subject: [men-law] Re: Gulag in MINNESOTA

    the "proadvocate"
    Operator of a "BATTERED MEN'S SHELTER"
    "Men's & Father's Rights!!" DOMESTIC RIGHTS COALITION
    St. Paul, MN

    "Her world is her husband, her family, her children, and home.  We do not find it right when a women presses into the world of men.  Rather we find it natural when these two worlds remain separate ... Woman and man represent two different types of being.  Reason is dominant in man."

    Mein Kampf
    Adolph Hitler

    "Shut the hell up you tired old hag... your fellow females are killing their kids for the same reason you lie thru your teeth, YOUR WORTHLESS, YOUR SPOILED, YOUR DECADENT, YOUR LAZY, ...YOUR.


    "It's no wonder women are the brutes and kid killers they are today, look where they came from, rotten, filthy, scumball feminists like you!

    "Earl!!!!!! "

    Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:44:45 -0500 (CDT) From: To:,,,,,, Cc: Subject: Re: Another intact home?


    "True gender equality will exist when, and only when the verbal and psychological abuse women often inflict upon their husbands is regarded as EQUALLY SERIOUS as the physical abuse men inflict upon their wives."

    From: (Gary Clark) Newsgroups: alt.mens-rights,alt.feminism, Subject: Re: Men's Movement Date: 28 Apr 1995 03:03:15 GMT

    "If the slut feminists really want EQUALITY, I suggest DEATH IN THE ELECTRIC CHAIR to be the very first area in which such equality is achieved.  Once we've done that, I might be willing to listen to another one of their idiotic "equality" arguments."

      Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 21:49:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Gary Clark <> To: liz <> Cc: Fathers Manifesto <> Subject: Re: SMH