India's upper house of Parliament has passed a bill that would amend the country's constitution to require that 30% of MPs be women.  Read about it here (New York Times, 3/9/10).  Just how that would be accomplished, I don't know; the logistics alone look either farcical or enraging depending on my mood.  But however I may feel about it, the bill was passed and it's just the first step of four required for a constitutional amendment to become effective.  The bill would need to pass the lower house, be ratified by at least half the states and be signed by India's president.

Passage of the bill plunged the upper house into what the article variously calls "chaos" and "pandemonium."  Factions opposed to the bill threatened to desert the ruling party, leaving it with a razor-thin majority.

Amazingly, the article makes no mention of the fact that such a provision is facially anti-democratic.  The very concept of democracy means that the people choose who governs them.  A law "reserving" 30% of parliament's seats to a certain group solely based on their sex plainly disenfranchises voters.  What if they don't want Ms. X to hold office?  Tough, she holds it anyway, not because she was voted in, but because of a pre-established quota.

Now, "reserving" seats may make sense if those who benefit are a minority.  The argument would be that they can never achieve what they need by voting because there aren't enough of them.  The same cannot be said of women who, not being a small minority, can vote themselves into office if they choose.

As in the United States, although women in India are roughly half the population, they make up nothing like half the elected MPs.  But the appropriate response to that is not to fix the game - or even 30% of it - in their favor.  The appropriate response is for women to work harder as candidates so they can appeal to more voters.

The other appropriate response is for Indian women to be perceived as the equals of men.  That is, they must be legally equal and must also be thought of that way.  That's a cultural change that must take place in order for true equality to reign.  Just to state the obvious, goading Indians to view women as the equals of men is ill served by granting them more and more special rights and privileges. 

I've often thought that, in the United States, one of the keys to greater female representation in local, state and federal offices is military service.  If women were required to register with the Selective Service System and serve in combat units, the perception of male/female equality would be much enhanced.  Like it or not, military service can provide a candidate for office a leg up on his/her opponent.  But beyond military service, I think there's a broad public perception, on the part of both men and women, that women are still a privileged class, shielded from many of the rigors of life that males have to deal with.  And until that perception no longer exists, women will remain a minority in elected offices.

Back to India, one of the comments to the article linked to pegs the legislation as a stalking horse for Brahmin caste elites edging lower caste MPs out of office.  One of the comments about the piece makes enough sense that I quote it in full.  It's by a gentleman named Ghulam Muhammed.

"Caste based" political parties in fact are protecting the majority of lower caste people of India, which are cleverly sidelined by the Brahmin caste comprising of mere 3% of the population together with the other upper castes of Kashtriya and Vaish, and have been ruling India in the name of a fake majority. The stranglehold of these highhanded upper castes is directly linked and strengthened by the new much publicized women's reservation bill.

The Bill in practice will make it that much impossible for lower caste political groupings to get even a proportion of their proportion of voting strength in Parliament and State Assemblies. So the propaganda of women's rights should not fool anybody.

The line up of 3 major political parties --- Congress, BJP and Communists --- to pass the bill is proof enough that all these Brahmin led political parties have ganged up to drive out the lower caste parties like Samajwadi Paty, RJD and BSP from the political arena. This is an open coup d’etat camouflaged as ‘Women’s Reservation Bill’.

The high-caste commentator with The Times of India, Dileep Padgaonkar translated his triumphalist comment to herald the 'last gasps of Mandalisation' --- Mandal reservations gave the lower caste the chance to enter the political arena.

It is shameful of Congress, the opposition Hindutva extremist BJP and the so-called secular Communist parties, to defraud the people as well as the world at large, by moving this retrograde anti-democratic legislation in the name of women. Only the high-caste women will end up further strengthening the upper caste stranglehold in India's power politics. The deprived cannot hope for any remedy from India’s skewed democracy and may resort to violent protests.
 

In other words, the 30% women's reserve is just a political ploy.  That many women are going along with it says a lot.  It says that they're having the wool pulled over their eyes; it says they value political expediency over democracy; it says that they don't see the obvious damage such a provision could do to their own cause; it says they're willing to kick their lower caste "sisters" to the curb (reminiscent of white suffragists doing the same to black suffragists in the early 20th century in the U.S.); it says that class makes more difference than sex, and it says that they still have some idea that privilege and equality can coexist.

Thanks to Mike for the heads-up.

In recent days, we've been treated to New York State NOW chapter president Marcia Pappas demanding that the governor resign.  I've written before about the antipathy so many public feminists feel for the concepts of democracy and due process of law. 

When New York State Senator Hiram Monserrate was charged with assaulting his girlfriend, Pappas immediately proclaimed that he was unfit to hold the office to which he'd been elected.  That was long before anyone knew the facts of the case and longer still before Monserrate had been charged with or convicted of anything.  For Pappas, mere allegations were sufficient for her to flick aside the desires of the voters of his district and the concept that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Well, she's back.  (Did she ever leave?)  This time she's demanding New York Governor David Paterson's immediate resignation (Legislative Gazette, 3/8/10).  This is an elected official who has announced his intention to not seek another term and so has only a few more months yet in office.  More importantly, this is an elected official who's been neither charged with nor convicted of any form of wrongdoing.  As the matter stands, an aide to Paterson may or may not have assaulted a woman last year.  Regarding whether the man did or did not do what the woman claims, there've been no charges filed and, obviously no adjudication of those allegations.  In fact, that's exactly what they are - allegations.

What's all that got to do with Paterson?  Well, it now seems that he may have intervened, through staff members, to get the woman to not pursue charges.  Apparently one staffer talked to the woman and another attempted to contact her but failed.  Clearly, if Paterson did intervene in an onging criminal investigation, he's violated his oath of office and very likely violated criminal laws on witness tampering.

Governor Paterson denies any wrongdoing.

So if there was a DV incident and if Paterson pressured the woman to refuse to testify or assist police, then he should face the appropriate consequences.  But right now, all we and Marcia Pappas have are those big ifs.  As in the past, allegations are all she needs to demand punishment.  For her to claim now that Paterson should resign, before a single finding has been made by anyone about any aspect of the case, in the face of his categorical denials, is outrageous.

It shows once again her arrogant disdain for due process of law and for the will of the people.  It's not the first time, and I'm confident that it won't be the last.

As a brief aside, the article linked to is a rather astonishing piece of agitprop masquerading as journalism.  It is in fact, nothing but a forum for Marcia Pappas.  Did the reporter bother to contact the office of the people's executive in Albany?  Did she ask anyone anything about the facts of the case?  Did she ask Marcia Pappas about the propriety of demanding that an official of state government resign his office based on nothing but allegations?  Did she wonder rhetorically about the impact on democracy of such a thing? 

All those look like pertinent questions to me, but none of them were asked.  In violation of Rule 1 of journalism - get the other side of the story - the Legislative Gazette chose to do nothing but channel Marcia Pappas and her invariable disdain for democracy and due process of law.

Meanwhile, we have former super model Naomi Campbell once again assaulting an employee.  She seems to make a habit of it and has been sued several times by people on her payroll.  Sometimes she varies her routine by assaulting police officers instead of employees.   She's been convicted of criminal assault at least twice and paid civil damages several more times.   Well, I suspect she'll be paying up again.

As this article says, Campbell was being driven through Manhattan by her hired driver when she struck him from behind violently enough that his head hit the steering wheel causing bruising under his right eye (Associated Press, 3/2/10).  He pulled over and talked to a traffic agent who called the police.  By the time they arrived, Campbell had left the scene, leaving underlings to explain things.

Apparently the driver isn't interested in pursuing a criminal complaint.  Strangely enough, neither are the police.  The article linked to makes reference to the fact that, because the police didn't witness the incident, they can't arrest Campbell or charge her with anything.  That, of course, is the purest bunk.  How many DV assaults do police witness?  Very few, but they have no problem arresting people in those cases.  For that matter how often do the police actually witness any of the crimes they charge?  Seldom, but they charge people with offenses anyway.  The simple fact is that they have a witness who says he was assaulted and who has the injury to prove it.  That's probable cause to arrest, charge and prosecute.

And it's not exactly like she's "learned her lesson."  Previous criminal convictions have resulted in minor sentences like 100 hours of community service.  So, far from taking a more lenient approach, you might think the police would take an ever-harder line against a woman who so far hasn't gotten the message that assaulting other people is criminal.  But you'd be wrong.  Maybe the next victim will get the attention of police and prosecutors.  Maybe they'll actually put her in jail. 

One interesting aspect of the article linked to is its semi-reverential description of Campbell's "feisty temper."  Ooooh, she's a tiger, that Naomi.  Can anyone imagine the same term being used to describe a male celebrity with a lengthy history of beating up his employees?  Can anyone imagine the feminist outcry in such a case?  After all, that's a movement that routinely calls for the ouster of politicians and even football coaches for the merest allegation of violence.  Can anyone hear the faintest peep from feminists about serial abuser, Naomi Campbell?

Fathers & Families' legislative representative Michael Robinson was instrumental in the 2009 passage of  California SB 285, a bill to protect disabled parents from child support and alimony abuses in California. California laws have an enormous impact on those of other states, and now similar legislation is on the move across the country.

Indiana's HB 1165 is moving rapidly through the Indiana legislature and is expected to be signed by Governor Mitch Daniels within the next few weeks. The force behind the bill is activist Lisa Wilken, who modeled her legislation on California SB 285.

To watch P & G's "To Their Moms, They'll Always Be Kids" Olympic-themed TV commercial (pictured above), click here.

Thanks to Mark, a Fathers & Families supporter, for sending it.

A group of 50 mental health experts from 10 countries are part of an effort to add Parental Alienation Disorder to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychiatric Association's "bible" of diagnoses. This scientific coalition is led by psychiatrist William Bernet, who explains that adding PAD to DSM "would spur insurance coverage, stimulate more systematic research, lend credence to a charge of parental alienation in court, and raise the odds that children would get timely treatment."

Fathers & Families wants to ensure that the DSM-5 Task Force is aware of the scope and severity of Parental Alienation. To this end, in December we asked our supporters to write the Task Force to urge them to consider including Parental Alienation Disorder in DSM-5. As usual, the response was overwhelming. It also helped lead to progress--while as expected the newly-released draft version does not specifically include Parental Alienation Disorder, the DSM-5 Task Force has now listed Parental Alienation Disorder among the "Conditions Proposed by Outside Sources...that are still under consideration by the work groups."

Gaining inclusion isn’t easy–David J. Kupfer, M.D., the chair of the DSM-V Task Force, recently told the media that with any disorder proposed for inclusion, ”The door to get in [the manual] is pretty hard.”

The DSM must consider whether Parental Alienation Disorder fits their scientific criteria for inclusion. Experts will say that they do not want this process politicized, and we agree. We are not seeking to influence the Task Force's view of the scientific aspects of PAD, nor are we asking the Task Force to include Parental Alienation Disorder due to pressure politics or our campaign. Our purpose is simply to ensure that the DSM Task Force is aware that Parental Alienation is a common problem in divorce/child custody, and to take a serious look at whether PAD meets their scientific criteria. Our campaign page is here, those who would like to participate in our efforts can do so by clicking here.

The National Organization for Women has learned about our efforts and is concerned about them. They have now sent out an Action Alert to counter our campaign. According to NOW's Tracy Simmons:

I am writing you, the leaders of various groups that represent battered women, for your help in one of the most important matters we will address this year. The American Psychiatric Association is considering adding Parental Alienation to the Diagnosticians book, which would legitimize this legal tactic into a real disorder.

Parental Alienation Syndrome has now morphed into Parental Alienation Disorder thanks to the fathers' rights organizations who are wildly pushing this through, and why wouldn't they? It benefits the abuser and discriminates against the victims of abuse, which are overwhelmingly women.

This gender specific, abuse excuse, junk science can not be allowed to enter into the scientific community as there is nothing scientific about a syndrome/disorder whose only symptoms are a uterus, divorce papers, and bruises. I ask that you all to take action against legitimizing this outrageous theory by e-mailing the APA and asking your groups to do the same.

While Simmons' claims aren't credible, there are legitimate questions to be asked about Parental Alienation Disorder, as there are with all mental health issues. We address many of these in Frequently Asked Questions about Parental Alienation and also summarize the scientific perspective in the Case for Including Parental Alienation Disorder in DSM V.

To participate in our campaign, click here.

Opponents of recognizing Parental Alienation in California have introduced AB 612 which would ban Parental Alienation from being mentioned in any way, shape or form in a California family court. Should such efforts succeed, they could easily spread to pother states. Last year Fathers & Families' legislative representative Michael Robinson was instrumental in blocking the bill's passage but it will be heard in the Senate this spring. Robinson and I detailed the problems with AB 612 in our recent column Preventing courts from considering parental alienation will harm kids
(Capitol Weekly, 2/25/10).

Fathers & Families' crucial work on Parental Alienation costs money--to make a tax-deductible contribution to support this effort, click here.

Sincerely,

Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director, Fathers & Families

Cincinnati City Beat's Jacob Baynham has written a front page story on a high-profile Mullen-Hobbs lesbian custody battle in Ohio. In that case, lesbian biological mom (Kelly Mullen) and sperm donor (Scott Liming) are pitted against social mom Michele Hobbs. The child, 4-year-old Lucy Mullen, has resided with Kelly since the breakup of the Mullen/Hobbs relationship.

Liming was originally intended to be simply a sperm donor. However, after the girl's birth, to his credit, he fell for the little girl and decided he wanted to have an active role in the child's life. The girl spends every Monday with Liming. Hobbs hasn't been allowed to see the girl since Christmas.

As we've explained, while Fathers & Families takes no position on gay marriage, we do defend the right of all fit parents to play a meaningful role in their children's lives, and Hobbs clearly has a parent-child relationship with Lucy.

Fathers & Families views these cases as analogous to cases of married heterosexual couples where the man is infertile and the couple uses a sperm donor. Such children are considered the children of the marriage, and are raised by both the mother and father.

If the couple divorces, the woman can't decide that because she's the only biological parent, she can drive her ex out of their child's life. She agreed to have children with her then-husband, and the former husband has a parent-child relationship with their child. The husband is the child's father and the child's right to a relationship with him must be protected, regardless of the mother's recalcitrance.

The lesbian custody cases Fathers & Families has gotten involved in are no different--the couple agreed to have a child together, had one via a sperm donor, and raised the child together. The loving bond the non-biological/social mother has with the child doesn't dissolve upon breakup, nor can it be tossed aside because the biological mom no longer finds it convenient--the bond must be protected.

To learn more about the case, click here or listen to my interview on the Bill Cunningham Show on 700 WLW in Cincinnati by clicking here.

From Cincinnati City Beat's Losing Lucy (3/3/10):

[F]or [Michele] Hobbs, the situation is tragically simple: Somewhere in Cincinnati is a four-year old girl named Lucy, who she helped raise for two years and loves as her daughter. Because she is not biologically related to Lucy, the courts have ruled that Hobbs has no legal right to see her. But love isn’t so easily thwarted...

Sandwiched between court documents in one of her binders is a photo taken five years ago, in another era in Hobbs’ life. It is an ultrasound of Lucy, when she was a fivemonth-old fetus in the womb of Hobbs’ former partner, Kelly Mullen. The couple had used in vitro fertilization to impregnate Mullen — the younger of the two by eight years. Mullen and Hobbs were so excited to see their daughter that a month later they paid for another photo. The amniotic peace of the pictures is a stark contrast to the bitter tug of war that would begin two years later...

Hobbs and Mullen met at a business expo at the convention center in spring 2000. They started dating, and three years into their relationship they built a house in Prospect Hill together, for which Hobbs was the general contractor. At the same time, the couple started talking about having a child by way of in vitro fertilization, a $12,000 procedure that they paid for by securing a second mortgage on their home.

Hobbs had a gay friend in Atlanta named Scott Liming who she thought would be the perfect sperm donor. Hobbs first met Liming in 1996 and thought he was “gorgeous.” She joked about having his kids one day. At Hobbs’ request, Liming visited Cincinnati to meet Mullen, who agreed to use him as the father. When the timing was right, Liming Fed-Ex’ed his sample to Cincinnati, and with the help of the Center for Reproductive Health, Mullen was impregnated.

In court testimony, Mullen claims that she always wanted to be a mother, and that Hobbs was merely playing the role of “supportive girlfriend.”

But Hobbs says Mullen fully intended for her to be a co-parent. As evidence, she points to the in vitro fertilization consent forms, on which Hobbs’ name appears as “partner” and “female participant.” Before Lucy’s birth, Mullen also signed a will and two powers of attorney, all of which included the sentence: “I consider Michele Hobbs to be Lucy’s co-parent in every way.” (Mullen later revoked these documents when she separated with Hobbs.) Hobbs attended doctor appointments and Lamaze classes with Mullen, cooked for her — Hobbs’ homemade chicken wings were one of Mullen’s favorite dishes — and drove her to the hospital when her water broke.

Mullen gave birth to a 7-pound, 10-ounce Lucy Kathleen Mullen at Christ Hospital on July 27, 2005. Hobbs was in the delivery room and cut the umbilical cord. The names of both Mullen and Hobbs appear on Christ Hospital’s ceremonial birth certificate, above Lucy’s ink footprints. Hobbs has a black and white photo of the three of them together in the delivery room. Hobbs has Lucy in her arms, and she and Mullen are glowing.

According to friends testifying at the trial — including Cincinnati City Councilwoman Leslie Ghiz — as Lucy grew, Hobbs and Mullen behaved as a family and shared responsibilities for raising her. Hobbs says she taught Lucy how to brush her teeth, potty trained her, cooked for her and drove her to and from daycare. According to Hobbs and others, Lucy called Mullen “Mommy” and Hobbs “Mama.” They attended Christ Church Cathedral on Sundays.

In July 2007, when Lucy was two years old, Mullen and Hobbs decided to split. Hobbs says the relationship had begun to unravel, and after going through counseling they decided to end it. The pair lived in separate rooms of their house for three months, still sharing in Lucy’s care, before Mullen left with Lucy and refused Hobbs’ requests to see her. Hobbs filed a complaint for joint custody in December 2007.

The case went to trial in July 2008 before Hamilton County Juvenile Court Magistrate David Kelley. The trial lasted for two days. Christopher Clark, a senior attorney with the national gay-rights group Lambda Legal, represented Hobbs pro bono and argued on her behalf at the trial.

“It was proven conclusively,” Clark says, “that Michele Hobbs is a mother to her daughter and that was the agreement that she and her partner had all along.”

The evidence was overwhelming that Hobbs and Mullen wanted to have a child together, Clark adds. “They told their family, their community, their friends, their daughter and each other that they were both mothers,” he says.

In December 2008 Kelley ruled in Hobbs’ favor, granting her shared custody of Lucy. “The evidence and testimony presented at trial shows that the women had an agreement to have and raise a child together,” Kelley writes in his decision. “Ms. Hobbs’ testimony on this issue was very credible.” Kelley adds that Mullen’s testimony to the contrary “is not supported by (her) actions during the period leading up to and immediately following Lucy’s birth.”

Mullen appealed the decision, and appeared on Channel 5’s newscast the following month with Liming, Lucy’s biological father, who had moved to Cincinnati to be a part of Lucy’s life.

“Right now every Saturday, my daughter goes and spends six hours of unsupervised time with someone that I don’t even want her to be with,” Mullen said...

Oddly, Mullen’s argument has been repeated by conservative groups such as Virginia-based Liberty Counsel, affiliated with Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. The group has also fought against same-sex marriage and adoptions by gay people.

Lambda Legal’s Clark points out that Hobbs went to fertility treatments with Mullen, injected her with hormones, attended a birthing class, was in the delivery room with Mullen, and cut Lucy’s umbilical cord.

“To compare her situation to that of a babysitter or nanny is absurd,” Clark says. “There is nothing under the law that would allow a baby-sitter or a nanny to go into court and seek custodial rights. These are mean-spirited scare tactics of the lowest order.”

“We’re talking about a woman who is a mother and whose little girl calls her ‘Mama,’ ” Clark adds, “and no rewriting of history by Kelly Mullen is going to change that.”

In April 2009 Mullen’s appeal was considered by Juvenile Court Judge Thomas Lipps, who overturned Magistrate Kelley’s decision and terminated Hobbs’ custody of Lucy. Lipps based his ruling on Mullen’s “consistent refusal” to enter into a written custody agreement with Hobbs. According to Hobbs, a year after Lucy’s birth the couple discussed signing a written agreement — which helps cement the custodial rights of a non-biological parent, but isn’t mandatory proof of parenthood. (Hobbs’ lawyers argued, and the First District Appellate Court later confirmed, that a contract of shared custody can be implied on a non-biological third-party through words, actions or deeds, not just a written agreement.)

Hobbs says Mullen was afraid that Liming would need to be involved in the agreement, and might assert custody rights of his own. Hobbs dropped the idea, and didn’t raise it again until she had broken up with Mullen...

Hobbs appealed Lipps’ decision to the First District Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel reviewed the case. On Dec. 31, 2009, Judge Sylvia Hendon ruled in favor of Mullen again, stating, “We do not doubt that Hobbs bonded with Lucy. The record is replete with evidence that Hobbs loves this little girl. But the trial court did not err. Hobbs has no legal right to share in Lucy’s custody.”

The appellate court, which is typically deferent to the fact-finding of lower courts, relied heavily on Lipps’ conclusion that Mullen’s refusal to sign a written agreement indicated that she never intended to share Lucy’s custody.

Hobbs hasn’t seen her daughter since Christmas, and although she feels desperate at times, she remains determined...

Hobbs’ case has attracted the attention of Glenn Sacks, executive director of Fathers and Families, a national organization that advocates for fathers who have lost custody of their children. Hobbs’ situation involves some of the same family court issues that his group is fighting to reform, Sacks says.

“I see it as a parenting issue, not a gay issue,” he says. “The relationship between children and their parents needs to be protected.”

Children who are denied access to one of their parents can blame themselves, Sacks says, creating deep emotional and psychological problems. “These children are greatly harmed when they lose one of their parents, be it a father or a mother,” he adds...

Hobbs has a recording of Lucy’s voice from August 2008. Magistrate Kelley’s decision was still pending at that time, but Hobbs had interim visitation rights to see Lucy for six hours every Saturday. On this particular day, they were going to the zoo. Lucy was three years old, and was trying to explain that Mullen wanted her to call Hobbs “Michele.” It takes her little mind a full stammering minute to arrange the syntax of the sentence, but finally she gets it right, capturing her complex situation with a child’s clarity.

“Mommy says that ‘Mama’s not Mama, Mama’s Michele,’ ” Lucy says. “So I say, ‘No Mommy, she’s Mama!’ ”

Read the full article here.

In January, Fathers & Families issued an Action Alert in support of Arizona HB 2348, a bill to protect disabled parents from child support and alimony abuses.  The bill passed the Arizona House Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee unanimously. Thanks goes to Arizona House Member Frank Antenori, who sponsored the bill, as well as Mark Beres of the American Retirees Association and the ULSG, and Fathers & Families' legislative representative Michael Robinson, who worked with Beres. Robinson was also instrumental in the passage of a similar bill, SB 285, in California last year.

Beres now informs us that the bill has made it out of the Rules Committee and is on the consent calendar, meaning it is out of committee and being fast-tracked to the Arizona House floor for a full vote. We will be following the bill as it advances through the Arizona legislature---thanks again to all of you who responded to our Action Alert and participated.

F & F is also working with advocates and legislators on similar legislation in numerous other states. The abuses being committed in family court concerning disabled parents' VA benefits remind many F & F supporters of their own experiences in family court--a lack of respect for the law, violations of due process, fathers (and sometimes mothers) being financially plundered and shook down for money they don't owe, and similar abuses.

This article tells us about a bill before the Tennessee Legislature to make equal parenting the "default position" of family courts in child custody matters (WPLN, 3/1/10).  The bill of course includes exceptions to the equal parenting arrangement for violence, abuse, neglect, abandonment or unfitness.

The bill's author is Representative Mike Bell who also chairs the House Family Justice Subcommittee that is taking testimony on the bill.  As he describes the bill, the child's best interests are, absent those exceptional circumstances, best served by equal relationships with both parents.

“As long as both parents are fit, and you know, as long as the judge has not found one to be unfit, for one reason or another, I think it’s in the best interest of the child that they know both parents equally.”

Not surprisingly, parents and their organizations favoring the bill agree.

Proponents, largely representing dads, say that the bill will help families and give the child a continuous relationship with both parents.

Those opposed argue that,

every child is different and the current system establishes a custody and visitation plan that is supposed to be best for the child – not the father or the mother.

The obvious problem with the opponents' point of view is that (a) equal parenting laws are about the child's best interests and (b) current laws and court practices that establish primary custody/visitation arrangements post-divorce result in the non-custodial parent's being eased out of the child's life fairly quickly.  A significant body of social science bears that out.

An even more significant body of social science also bears out the fact that, overwhelmingly, the parent who's marginalized is the father because 84% of non-custodial parents are fathers, and that father absence tends to result in serious personal and social problems for their children.  There is much less literature on mother absence because, again, mothers get custody the vast majority of the time.  But it's a safe bet that mother absence would prove to be as damaging to children as is father absence, and perhaps more so.

Therefore, equal parenting laws are aimed at setting aright what we've been doing wrong for many, many years.  Our current system deprives children of their dads; sometimes it deprives them of their moms.  That's bad for kids. 

The current system isn't working; we know it's not working.  Those who argue for the status quo have the burden of proving why we should continue to use a child custody arrangement that has failed the test of time, that has proven itself to be bad for the very children whose best interests are supposedly paramount.

Although most of Bell's co-sponsors are conservative Republicans, he has one who's a Democrat.  That person also sits on the House Children and Family Affairs Committee.

One House member, Democrat Jeanne Richardson criticized the bill because,

“This bill would increase litigation in that it would encourage some parents to try to find the [evidence], or give evidence that would make the other parent seem unfit so that they could have custody, and that’s always a bad idea.”

Earth to Richardson, come in please.  Someone might want to let her know that that happens now.  Parents denigrate other parents in family court for the purpose of trying to gain an advantage in child custody matters.  Is it possible she doesn't know that? 

As I've said before in other instances, if those are the best arguments opponents of equally-shared parenting can muster, our side is in better shape than we thought.

We've learned over the years that when a woman is the perpetrator of domestic violence, the news media reporting the event rarely call it "domestic violence."  Articles on male-perpetrated DV not only call it that, but often branch out into recitations of boilerplate statistics on DV that are either outright false or misleading.  So, even if an article reporting DV by a woman refers to it as 'domestic violence,' there will be no additional context such as "hundreds of studies over 35 years show that women are as likely as men to commit domestic violence."

So when this article fails entirely to mention the words 'domestic violence' in connection with the apparent murder of a man by his wife in front of numerous witnesses, we wouldn't be much surprised, except there's another little matter that the article neglects to mention - the woman who pulled the trigger is a domestic violence advocate (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/3/10)--learn more here.

In fact, she's a registered lobbyist on domestic violence issues with a group called The National Declaration for Domestic Violence Order.  The NDDVO's name may suggest gender neutrality on the issue, but the organization is anything but.  In fact it's all about violence against women; the possibility of violence against men is never mentioned.

Interestingly, the NDDVO's website does champion shelters that accept teenaged sons of DV victims (women only), and rightly says that most DV shelters don't do that.  The organization's main objective seems to be to get $750 million from governmental sources to establish gated communities in which each DV victim and her children would have her own separate house.  Well, no one could accuse them of thinking small.

According to witnesses, Arelisha Bridges had an argument with her husband, Anthony Rankins, shot him four or five times, and then "calmly walked away."  The article explains,

Warren Van Nus, who saw the scene from his ninth-floor room in one of Georgia Tech's dorm, said she appeared unaffected after the shooting as everyone around her was in a frightened uproar.

"I saw her walking with the gun in her hand past Goodfellas ... and get in her car in the parking lot," sad Van Nus, who took photos of Bridges being arrested. "There were people running past the Varsity and the MARTA station, and she didn't seem to be in any hurry."

Arelisha Bridges has been charged with murder and is being held without bond.

Thanks to Bob for the heads-up.