Top Stories |
CPS Seizes Couples' Kids, Puts Them in Foster Care over Toddler Bathtub Photos
"As crazy as it may seem, what you may think are the most beautiful innocent pictures of your children may be seen as something completely different and completely perverted."—Lisa Demaree
"Ninety-nine percent of the families in America have these exact same photos."—A.J. Demaree
But that didn't stop the police and "child protective services." The Demarees had their children seized and placed in foster care for a month. The parents' names were placed on the state's sex offender registry. Lisa was suspended from her school job for a year. They spent $75,000 in attorney's fees to get their children back...
Fathers & Families Hosts Debate Between 2 Leading Domestic Violence Authorities
Domestic violence and the DV policies of family courts and law enforcement is a multi-faceted issue that has an enormous impact on American families. Fathers & Families is hosting a debate between two of North America's leading domestic violence authorities, feminist DV expert Professor Evan Stark, Ph.D, MSW, and dissident DV expert Dr. Donald G. Dutton (pictured).
The debate is being posted on bothwww.fathersandfamilies.org andwww.glennsacks.com. Readers are asked to keep comments respectful and on topic. Our rules of moderation can be seen here.
Below is an excerpt from the debate--Dr. Dutton's views on how the Obama administration should alter current DV policies.
Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director, Fathers & Families
Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Founder, Chairman of the Board, Fathers & Families
Dutton:
If I were to give President Obama one piece of advice on domestic violence it would be this: stick to the principles of engaging in social policy that has empirical support. Well-intended domestic violence legislation has run off the rails.
"Gender policy advocates [teach] that helpless female victims often tell no one about their victimization, so it's not unusual for them to 'remember' past assaults on the brink of a custody dispute."
It is time that criminal justice personnel, including police and judges, were given discretion back. It is also crucial that they stop being "educated" by gender policy advocates who pretend to have some mystical truth about domestic violence; it is only committed by males (at least the only serious kind--coercive violence), that it is motivated by male power needs, is a political act against women, and that helpless female victims often tell no one about their victimization (so it's not unusual for them to "remember" past assaults on the brink of a custody dispute).
The truth is, our conceptualization of domestic violence is wrong. It is not solely male perpetrated violence to control women. Two large sample studies show that the most common form of domestic violence is bilateral violence, matched for level of severity, and that this constitutes 50% of all domestic violence. What happens is a called a coercion trap, with both partners becoming increasingly angry and violent.
It is unclear in this form of violence who starts it, escalates it, etc. Even the combatants frequently don’t remember. Women are injured more by this form of violence than by unilateral male violence (so-called wife battering). However, this increased risk to women goes untreated because accepting two–way violence as a fact violates the gender paradigm: the belief that all domestic violence is male instigated.
"Women are injured more by [bilateral] violence than by unilateral male violence...a domestic violence policy group [asked] me to come to Chicago to do a workshop on spousal homicide. When I sent along a PowerPoint showing how risk prediction could be improved by including women’s violence in the predictive equation, they cancelled the talk immediately’; that was victim blaming."
A domestic violence policy group in Chicago persisted in asking my workshop coordinator, for me to come to Chicago to do a workshop on spousal homicide. When I sent along a PowerPoint showing how risk prediction could be improved by including women’s violence in the predictive equation, they cancelled the talk immediately’; that was victim blaming. Mr. President, make empirical studies the basis for legal and public policy. If bilateral violence is the most common form of domestic violence, treat it as such--use martial therapists and focus on reciprocal negative reciprocity as a cause of severe domestic violence. Do not feed stereotypes of all domestic violence as reported by shelter houses. Recognize too, that men are injured by domestic violence (9).
"[After bilateral violence], the second most frequent form of domestic violence is unilateral violence by women against non-violent males."
This becomes important when we realize that the second most frequent form of domestic violence is unilateral violence by women against non-violent males. The Center for Disease Control study by Whittaker found that 70% of unilateral violence was female perpetrated, yet another finding that contradicts the "innocent female" paradigm where women only use violence in self defense.
In fact, violent women are traceable from their early years. Lisa Serbin’s longitudinal studies at Concordia found patterns from aggressive girls in public school through to women’s whose children suffered more physical injuries. Yes, women are the most likely perpetrators of physical child abuse (11). A huge survey by Health and Human Services found mothers involved in 64% of all physical child abuse. The plight of these children is caused by a gender paradigm that lumps "women and children" together into government bureaucracies and teaches custody assessors that the only risk to the child is from the "abusive father."
"[W]omen are the most likely perpetrators of physical child abuse...an empirically based policy...would preclude misleading paradigms being used as weapons in family court."
An empirically based policy, Mr. President would preclude misleading paradigms being used as weapons in family court, would recognize the potential danger to children from both parents, and would develop preventive policies to alter the developmental trajectories of aggressive girls and boys.
The debacle in family court is simply that judges are being brainwashed with the gender paradigm policy. A recent Wingspread Conference on Domestic Violence and Family Courts congratulated itself on opening a dialogue between scientists and practitioners. In fact, the "dialogue" was biased in the usual way.
Papers by Michael Johnson and Peter Jaffe developed models for custody assessment based on Johnson’s dichotomy: mild DV is two-way (common couple violence), serious DV is male perpetrated ( coercive violence). This model was based on asking women in transition houses about violence perpetrated by their male partner towards themselves or their children. Johnson never asked them about their own use of violence. It did not attempt to test other samples drawn with different self selection criteria. If one does either, the results change dramatically. Instead of the sole risk to children coming from the male, it now clearly stems from both mother and father.
"[A researcher] asked women in shelter houses about their own use of violence. Sixty seven percent reported using severe violence against their male partner."
Renee McDonald did the unthinkable in Texas--she asked women in shelter houses about their own use of violence. Sixty seven percent reported using severe violence against their male partner. This 67% is completely off the screen in Johnson’s work--he never asks the question.
Not asking about female violence is the norm in the gender paradigm; Ed Gondolf’s ‘multi-site" studies on the effects of psychoeducational intervention on male recidivist violence found that 40% of the men in treatment were partnered with women who hit them first (according to the woman). Of course, you have to look hard at the fine print of Gondolf’s method section to find this out--he is solely focused on the male.
Neil Jacobson went Gondolf one better- -he published a book on male batterers called "cobras" and "pitbulls" and even went onOprah and got her to tout the book. Of course, in Jacobson’s fine print there is also a statement that 40% of his sample showed severe violence by females. Johnson, Jaffe, Gondolf and Jacobson avoid female violence because it is dismissed as infrequent, reactive and inconsequential.
"The majority of child homicides are perpetrated by women and [researcher] Renee McDonald found children were 2.5 times as likely to be exposed to violence by their mothers than their fathers."
In fact, it’s injurious both to male partners and to children. The majority of child homicides are perpetrated by women and Renee McDonald found children were 2.5 times as likely to be exposed to violence by their mothers than their fathers.
These data surprise professionals whether they are police, custody assessors or judges. The surprise stems from the gender paradigm-categories for conceptualizing domestic violence that views it as solely male perpetrated. The categorical expectations are so strong that experimental variations of actions are described as abusive when depicted as perpetrated by men, as non- abusive when the same action is perpetrated by women. This is true for both the general public and psychologists.
"The categorical expectations of custody assessors and judges have been distorted."
For example, "X asks Y where they have been" is abusive if a male asks but not if a female asks. The categorical expectations of custody assessors and judges have been distorted even more. The Jaffe and Johnson "gold standard" for custody assessment is based solely on samples of women in shelter houses. The obvious self-selected bias of this sample is ignored. When other samples are used, women commit coercive violence as much as men.
It is for this reason that Evan Stark’s suggestion for the policing of coercion is a blueprint for totalitarianism--the state decides how families should make everyday decisions? Police and custody assessors who are already trained in the gender paradigm to be suspicious of males, would now be making determinations about coercive control? That would be the final straw in a feminist police state and something that must be avoided at all costs.
What would happen is that male forms of control would be criminalized and female forms of control overlooked same as with domestic violence now. The research findings that males and females use control in intimate relationships equally would be ignored. This should never happen.
"We need to develop preventive programs that recognize that both boys and girls can grow up to be violent, get rid of stereotyping posters depicting boys as future batterers."
Mr. President, we need to develop professional groups to triage domestic violence without the preconceived notions of the gender paradigm. We need to develop preventive programs that recognize that both boys and girls can grow up to be violent, get rid of stereotyping posters depicting boys as future batterers. We need to ask research questions of both partners in community samples and use these as the basis for generalization to custody groups. The gender paradigm did bring domestic violence to the public view but it is a very skewed perspective.
|
|
| Join Fathers & Families |
Fathers and Families is a family court reform organization with a comprehensive strategy, an impressive history of fundraising success, and the largest reach of any advocacy group of its kind:
|
|
|
Please Take a Moment to Fill Out This Form |
Fathers & Families has a massive E-Newsletter list numbering over 50,000 members and supporters. However, we could do more with more information about our supporters. We ask that each person reading this email take a brief moment to fill out this form. It will help our movement organize better and grow stronger.
Please click here to fill out the form.
Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director, Fathers & Families
Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Founder, Chairman of the Board, Fathers & Families |
|
|
Kids & Dads |
Tim Russert Sr. & Jr., and America’s Father Hunger
It is with sadness that we note the passing of Timothy Joseph Russert Sr., the father of the late Tim Russert of NBC’s Meet the Press.
Russert Sr., who recently died from natural causes at age 85, was the subject of his son’s 2004 book Big Russ and Me, which in turn led to him to write the 2006 book Wisdom of Our Fathers: Lessons and Letters from Daughters and Sons.
After Big Russ and Me, Tim Russert Jr. said he received an "avalanche" of letters from men and women who wanted to tell him about their own dads, and Wisdom is largely a sampling of those 60,000 letters. The book was a surprise runaway hit. Sadly, Tim Russert later died of a heart attack at age 58.
Wisdom is an incredibly touching book. I co-authored a column on it in 2006, and it is below:
America’s Father Hunger
(World Net Daily, 10/13/06)
Are fathers irrelevant? Are they really the useless buffoons we see on TV? The irresponsible deadbeats the local DA says they are? The controlling abusers we see in domestic violence PSAs?
That’s not the way Tim Russert’s readers see them...
In heartwarming and heart-wrenching stories, Russert’s readers remember their fathers as strong, devoted and honorable.
In the chapter "Daddy’s Girl," one woman tells Russert that she was her "father’s princess," and explains "growing up in a rural area of the Deep South could have been a harsh experience for a little black girl, but I was insulated by his love and tenderness."
Another "Daddy’s Girl" writes:
"When I was a little girl and my father put me to bed…I had a litany of things I went through every night. ‘Can I call you if I need anything?…Can I call you if I get scared?’…He would listen and say yes after each one, and I would fall asleep, secure that I was completely loved and cared for."
Another remembers:
"When I was four, my father took me on my first official date…I got all dressed up in my prettiest pink dress and shiny black-leather shoes…I was so excited and proud to be his date, and he made me feel so special to be ‘his little girl.’ To this day I am still proud to be his little girl, even if I’m not so little anymore. My dad was the strongest and handsomest man I have ever known, and he will have that title in my heart forever."
Another remembers:
"I was an only child. Mom said I was plenty; Dad said I was perfect. He worked hard to support us: twelve-hour shifts with thirteen days on and only one day off, because overtime paid the bills. He left early in the morning, long before Mom and I were awake; He came home exhausted and slept until it was time to do it all over again. It was hard on him because he had so little time with us. It was hard on us too.
"We all found little ways to compensate…I would put my favorite toy in his lunchbox so he would have something to play with at work.
"Dad’s special time for me was morning coffee. He would get up at 4 A.M., start the coffee brewing, and get ready for work. When the pot was ready, he would come into my room and wake me up. I would sit at the kitchen table as he poured two cups of coffee. His was always black. Mine was barely brown, full of milk and sugar, sweet to the taste. Dad would tell me about his day and ask about mine. When the cups were empty, he would tuck me back into bed and kiss me good night before heading out to work. It was our special time together, and we never missed."
Perhaps the book’s most striking feature is the overwhelming outpouring of love from women towards their fathers.
The Russert dads also knew when to take a stand. One letter writer remembers:
"By 1963, white flight was beginning to transform our neighborhood, and before long the first African American child took a seat in my Catholic school classroom. Birthday parties were about the biggest social events a third-grader had to look forward to, and I was delighted to receive an invitation to her party. Then I learned that none of my friends were going. I remember being confused by that, because we all went to one another’s parties. But if my friends weren’t going to this one, I wasn’t going to go either, especially when they seemed convinced that there was something wrong with the very idea.
"…Dad put his foot down and told me that, like it or not, I was going to that party. He took me to the five-and-dime and we bought a card and a gift. The day of the party, he took me by the hand and we walked the three or four blocks to the girl’s apartment. My whining and complaining were useless, and it wasn’t until many years later that I understood why he made me go. He knew why none of my friends was there, and he wanted no part of it. No child of his was going to contribute to the hurt that would surely be felt by a little girl sitting at an empty birthday table"..
Wisdom’s significance goes far beyond that of a sentimental journey. It’s success is a testament to the hunger so many Americans feel for what recent generations have lost–their fathers. The book’s letters are overwhelmingly from baby boomers—perhaps the last generation of Americans who could ever be reasonably confident that they’d have a father in their lives.
The fathers in Wisdom are largely men of modest means who sacrificed greatly to provide for their families. Wisdom begs the question why, in one generation, have so many fathers apparently thrown off all their responsibilities and abandoned their children?
The answer is simple–most of them haven’t...
|
|
|
 |
My Dad, Big Russ, is a fiercely independent man—always has been. He left high school to fight in World War II and was badly injured when his B-24 Liberator crashed.
Back home in Buffalo, N.Y., he raised four kids with my Mom...He always met every challenge, working round the clock with two fulltime jobs. |
| —Tim Russert Jr., on his father "Big Russ" |
 |
|
|
|
