New Column: Conscientious Judge Railroaded for Denying
Restraining Order Based on False Domestic Violence
Charges
 My
new co-authored column,
Virginia Supreme Court Should Reinstate Local Judge
Who Was Suspended for Doing His Duty (10/26/07),
defends conscientious judge James Michael Shull,
who smoked out a woman who sought to extend a restraining
order based on false charges of domestic violence.
The column ran in the Coalfield Progress,
a newspaper in Wise County, where Shull serves.
I have examined the evidence in this case and
it is clear to me that Shull is being railroaded.
The case provides a sad but excellent example of
what can happen to judges who take their responsibilities
seriously when adjudicating domestic violence claims.
Most of all, the case is an infuriating example
of how lightly our legal system takes false accusations
against men. In this case, everyone agrees that
Judge Shull was placed in a very difficult situation,
and that he had to make a tough call where children
could have been in imminent danger. Nobody even
disputes that he got it right--and it doesn't
even matter!
The Virginia Supreme Court will decide Shull's
fate this week. The column, co-authored with Mike
McCormick, Executive Director of the
American Coalition for Fathers and Children,
is below.
Virginia Supreme Court Should Reinstate Local Judge
Who Was Suspended for Doing His Duty
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
The Virginia Supreme Court is currently considering
removing a judge who should instead be honored.
James Michael Shull, a local district judge who
sits in Lee, Scott and Wise counties, has been suspended
since December 20, 2006, and may be removed from
office by the Supreme Court on November 2.
Shull's problems stem from a case which came
before him on December 15, 2006. In that case, Tammy
G. had obtained a domestic violence protection order
against her husband Keith G., claiming that he had
stabbed her.
Protection orders based on dubious domestic violence
accusations are a serious problem, both in Virginia
and the United States as a whole. Under a protection
order, one spouse--usually the father--is booted
out of the marital home and pushed to the margins
of his or her children's lives. The orders are often
used as custody maneuvers, or as punitive measures
by angry intimate partners.
Some judges simply rubber stamp protection order
requests. Others may doubt the veracity of the charges
but nevertheless decide to "err on the side of caution"
by granting them. Shull, to his credit, carefully
examined the evidence in the G. case.
At the time of the G. hearing, the couple's two
young children, then ages three and five, were staying
with their paternal grandmother. Keith testified
that he hadn't harmed Tammy, and that if she did
have a wound, she had cut herself. Keith also testified
that Tammy had committed a similar act on March
22, 2006, harming herself and then calling the police
to report that Keith had attacked her.
Shull reasoned that he had to find the truth
in order to protect the children from either a father
who had stabbed their mother, or a mother who is
a psychologically disturbed cutter...
To read more and to discuss this issue on my
blog, click
here.
 |
The American Coalition for
Fathers and Children
The American Coalition for
Fathers and Children is
dedicated to creating a
family law system which
promotes equal rights for
all parties affected by
divorce. Contact the ACFC
at 1-800-978-3237 or visit
them on the web at
www.acfc.org. |
|
 Parenting
Plan Calendar Software
Shared Ground (R) is
an easy-to-use software
program designed for divorced
parents to track their parenting
plan schedules over many
years. Do-it-yourself or
let us build your approved
parenting plan into a multi-year
calendar so that you can
print, share, or modify
the calendar later. Parents,
attorneys, arbitrators and
mediators can generate equitable
parenting plans, which is
especially useful for parents
seeking fair division of
their children's time. FREE
ASSISTANCE TO OUR CLIENTS-
$49.95 one-time charge,
FREE TRIAL & MONEY-BACK
GUARANTEE. Click
here for more information.
|
|
|
New Column: New Justice Department Report's Recommendations
Could Reduce Prisoner Recidivism
 My
new co-authored column,
New Justice Department Report's Recommendations
Could Reduce Prisoner Recidivism (Chicago
Sun-Times, 10/26/07), discusses one of the
child support system's more insane aspects. The
column, co-authored with family law attorney Jeffery
M. Leving, is below.
New Justice Department Report's Recommendations
Could Reduce Prisoner Recidivism
By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks
Ex-cons and "deadbeat dads" are two of society's
least favorite groups. As a result, it's hard to
formulate and implement reasonable policies and
laws concerning the two. A new Department of Justice
study on reducing prisoner recidivism focuses on
an important but little-mentioned problem ex-offenders
face--the crushing child support debts which accrued
while they were behind bars. Upon release, child
support enforcement agencies attempt to collect
huge arrearages--sometimes $20,000 or more--out
of dead broke, unskilled, and uneducated ex-offenders.
Since interest and penalties accrue rapidly,
many former prisoners struggle under a staggering
debt they will never pay off. Some return to jail
because of nonpayment of child support. Others are
re-incarcerated after turning to illegal activity
to support themselves, because at low wage lawful
jobs, 40 or 50% or more of their paychecks are garnished
to pay the debt. The costs of these crimes and of
re-incarcerating the ex-offenders vastly outweigh
the puny sums states collect in back child support.
Moreover, these debts often make it impossible
for ex-offenders--many of whom are young mothers
and fathers who were incarcerated for nonviolent
drug offenses--to play a meaningful role in their
children's lives. And prisoners pay for their crimes
with their time behind bars--these debts often amount
to a punishment artificially extended beyond their
sentences...
To read more and to discuss this issue on my
blog, click
here.
 |
A Legal Advocate for Fathers
in Los Angeles & Ventura
Counties
The Law Offices of Adam
Michael Sacks, Esq., handles
cases of all sizes with
compassion, understanding,
and a commitment to helping
fathers protect themselves
in a divorce. Don't assume
anything and don't sign
anything--call Adam Sacks,
Esq. at 1-800-340-7320,
or write him at
adam@adamlawyer.com.
www.adamlawyer.com (No
relation) |
 |
FALSELY ACCUSED
IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA?
If you've been
falsely accused of domestic
violence, sexual abuse,
child molestation, or other
crimes of a sexual nature,
contact
The Law Offices of Douglas
R. Slain. Slain is a
specialist who has worked
for over 30 years to defend
falsely accused men and
fathers. To learn
more, click
here,
or call 800-438-6820. |
|
|
Life Without Parole for 13-Year-Old Boys?
 The
common practice of trying children--male
children, that is--as adults has always seemed somewhat
barbaric to me. Now I see that, according to family
law/criminal defense attorney
Doug Slain's blog, the United States has 73
prison inmates serving sentences of life without
the possibility of parole for crimes committed
when they were only 13 or 14 years old.
When the United Nations voted to call for the
abolition of life imprisonment without the possibility
of parole for children and young teenagers, the
vote was 185 to 1 in favor--can anybody guess what
country opposed?
Read Slain's full blog post
here.
To discuss this issue on my blog, click
here.
New Column: From a Felony to a Phone Call: Texas
Prop 13 Will Allow Innocent Men to Be Jailed Without
Bail
 
My new co-authored column,
From a Felony to a Phone Call: Texas Prop 13 Will
Allow Innocent Men to Be Jailed Without Bail
(Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, Austin-American Statesman,
10/22/07), criticizes a Texas Proposition which
has drawn the support of many state newspapers.
The column appears below.
I co-authored the piece with Mike McCormick,
Executive Director of the
American Coalition
for Fathers and Children.
From a Felony to a Phone Call: Texas Prop
13 Will Allow Innocent Men to Be Jailed Without
Bail
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
Texas voters will decide on November 6 whether
to approve Proposition 13, a dangerous measure which
will harm innocent men by greatly eroding the rights
of those accused of domestic violence. The measure
grants judges the ability to hold without bail those
accused of nonviolent, trivial, or accidental violations
of temporary restraining orders.
Under current Texas law, the only defendants
ineligible for bail are those accused of capital
crimes. In addition, judges are provided discretion
to deny bail to those who have been both charged
with a felony and convicted or indicted for a previous
felony. To deny bail, there must be "evidence substantially
showing the guilt of the accused."
Prop 13 obliterates this, and opens the road
for many innocent men to be held without bail. Like
many states, Texas has adopted aggressive arrest
procedures on domestic violence calls. The result
has been that men are sometimes arrested for misdemeanor
domestic violence based on thin evidence. After
the arrest, Emergency Protective Orders are entered
against the accused, typically barring him from
going home or having any contact with his children.
Fathers can violate the orders by innocent acts
such as calling their own children, accidentally
running into them and their mother in the mall,
or going to their Little League games.
Under Prop 13, judges will have the power to
incarcerate without bail men who violate their EPOs.
Moreover, the Proposition lowers the evidence standard
from Substantial Showing to Preponderance of the
Evidence, which can rapidly degenerate into a "he
said/she said" contest that men usually lose.
Even worse, Prop 13 also encourages the legislature
to pass a law which would allow fathers who violate
temporary ex parte protective orders to
be jailed without bail. Women can obtain these orders
by claiming their male partners abused them, and
the men are then booted out of their own homes without
ever having a chance to defend themselves in court...
To read more and to discuss this issue on my
blog, click
here.
 |
HELP FOR
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
FATHERS
If you're
a father in Northern
California who's
going through a
divorce or its aftermath
and need legal help,
contact
The Law Offices
of Douglas R. Slain.
Slain, a graduate
of Stanford Law
School, has over
30 years of experience
in family law and
criminal defense.
He can help you
protect your relationship
with your kids and
your finances.
To learn
more, click
here,
or call 800-438-6820. |
Jeff Leving's New
Book--Divorce
Wars
Jeffery M. Leving,
one of America's
most prominent divorce
lawyers, has written
a new book on how
to win any divorce
fairly, even when
your spouse brings
out the heavy artillery.
Divorce Wars: A
Field Guide to the
Winning Tactics,
Preemptive Strikes,
and Top Maneuvers
When Divorce Gets
Ugly provides
essential advice
on everything from
picking the right
lawyer and devising
a winning settlement
strategy to getting
the most from your
day in court and
dealing with an
ex-spouse.
Divorce Wars
is available
here. |
Help, Resources
for Dads
The
National Fathers'
Resource Center
is a division of
Fathers For Equal
Rights, Inc.
(FER), located in
Dallas, Texas, with
offices in both
Dallas and Houston.
In existence for
over three decades,
it has services
and resources for
dads nationwide
and is one of the
largest and most
active fathers'
rights organizations
in the U.S.
www.fathers4kids.org
|
|
|
|
Welcome Home, Soldier--Dad Comes Back from Army
in Iraq to Visit His Daughters, Is Jailed for Child
Support
 Background:
In my co-authored column,
Servicemen victimized by child support system
(World Net Daily,
6/27/07), I discuss the ways the child
support enforcement system victimizes innocent citizens,
particularly military personnel. I wrote:
"Many men--particularly those in the military--are
targets of abusive child support enforcement practices.
While states receive federal funds for every child
support dollar they collect, there are scant penalties
for abuses. As a result, enforcement agencies have
little incentive to give targeted men due process,
to fix mistakes, or to write off erroneously or
unfairly accrued debt. Instead, the bureaucracy
simply charges ahead in trying to collect as much
as possible."
I have also discussed how difficult it often
is for deployed servicemen to litigate or resolve
their divorce and child custody matters while they
are overseas. In my co-authored column
Protect Deployed Parents' Rights
(Tucson Citizen & others, 11/9/06), I wrote:
"Divorced or separated military parents often
lose custody of their children--and sometimes permanently
forfeit any meaningful role in their lives--simply
because they have served their country. Many married
parents deploy overseas, never suspecting that their
parenthood essentially ended the day they left home."
Here is another
example of how our child support and family law
system mistreats military fathers. In this case,
a father serving with the 3rd Infantry Division
in Iraq comes back to the United States to visit
his two daughters and ends up in jail for child
support!
Yes, he is behind
on it--apparently because he was out of work for
a while--but he has been paying child support directly
out of his paycheck each pay period. No, it doesn't
sound like this dad did everything right, but it
doesn't sound like he did much wrong either.
It looks more like he was a victim of the child
support system and his inability to fully litigate
his divorce while overseas.
Moreover, it sounds like this so-called "deadbeat
dad" joined the Army and went to Iraq partly because
he needed to earn money to help support his children.
Now his short two-week visit home, in which he hoped
to spend time with his two little daughters, has
turned out so badly that he says he's looking forward
to going back to Iraq! Welcome home, soldier.
Thanks to Mark, a reader, for sending me the
story.
Local GI sent to jail
Oneonta Daily Star (10/23/07)
By Jake Palmateer
Staff Writer
COOPERSTOWN --A soldier from Oneonta on leave
from Iraq said Monday he can't wait to return.
Aaron O'Connor, serving with the 3rd Infantry
Division, had 15 days back in the United States
and said he intended to take care of personal business
at Fort Stewart, Ga., as well as get his divorce
finalized in Cooperstown.
He said he also hoped to spend time with his
two daughters.
His ex-wife, Christina O'Connor, has full custody
of their 8-year-old and 4-year-old daughters.
What he said he didn't count on was spending
a night in Otsego County jail on a contempt-of-court
warrant issued in January relating to not paying
child and spousal support. That warrant is based
on a Dec. 13, 2006, judgment by Otsego County Family
Court Judge Brian Burns that ordered O'Connor to
a six-month commitment to jail unless he remained
current on his support payments for 12 months and
paid all medical and dental bills for the children.
O'Connor said he was arrested on that warrant
Friday while in Cooperstown to finalize his divorce.
The arrest, he said, came as a shock because he
has had his child and spousal support payments automatically
deducted from his Army pay. He was released for
the weekend to see his daughters but was ordered
to report back to the jail Sunday night.
After a family court appearance Monday, O'Connor,
30, said he was released from jail after paying
$378, including money for an eye appointment and
glasses for one of his two daughters.
"I just spent time in jail for under $400," O'Connor
said from a cell phone as he drove with his girlfriend
to Dulles International Airport near Washington,
D.C. "This never should have happened."
From Dulles, O'Connor will fly to Atlanta and
then to Kuwait. After that, he said, his next stop
is Camp Korean Village in Ar Rutba, Iraq.
A former Marine, O'Conner joined the Army last
fall with the rank of sergeant and shipped out to
Iraq in January.
"I don't like being away from my daughters. But
it pays. It's what I know. It's what I do," O'Connor
said.
To read more and to discuss this issue on my
blog, click
here.
Power & Control in the Domestic Violence Industry--a
New DV Wheel
Many readers are familiar with the Duluth Wheel,
a visual representation of the feminist view that
domestic violence is perpetrated almost exclusively
by men and is a function of the patriarchy and men's
alleged patriarchal privileges. To see the Duluth
Wheel, click
here.
For three decades, research has shown that this
model is faulty, that women are at least as likely
to attack their male partners as vice versa, and
that a significant percentage of injuries in heterosexual
domestic violence are sustained by men. Research
shows that women use weapons and the element of
surprise to help balance the domestic scales. To
learn more, see my co-authored column
October's Domestic Violence Awareness Month Ignores
Many Victims (Louisville Courier-Journal
& others, 10/4/06).
Recently an authority in the domestic violence
field sent me and others this new Domestic Violence
Wheel which "visually represents some of the obstacles
that reform-minded individuals such as yourselves
have had to encounter over the years."
To discuss this issue on my blog, click
here.
[Note: If you or someone you love is being
abused, the
Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women provides
crisis intervention and support services to victims
of domestic violence and their families.]
|
|
Families Against Confiscatory Child
Support (FACCS)
FACCS is the national voice for
fair and reasonable child support.
FACCS believes all parents have
an obligation to support their children
financially. However, in high income
cases, state and federal laws often
result in excessive awards that
are effectively alimony in disguise
and have little to do with supporting
children. Huge child support awards
lead to protracted custody disputes,
undermines co-parenting, and leaves
children worse off financially.
www.faccsonline.org /
contact@faccsonline.org
|
|
Darren Mack's Mary Winkler Defense
 Background:
In June 2006, Darren Mack (pictured), a wealthy
Nevada father who was involved in a divorce, stabbed
his estranged wife to death and then executed a
well-planned murder attempt on a Nevada judge. Mack
shot and wounded the judge but failed to kill him.
According to the Reno Gazette-Journal,
when police searched Mack's residence they found
he "had bombmaking materials in his bedroom" as
well as "several boxes of firearm ammunition." At
the time of Mack's murder spree, I wrote:
"I condemn without qualification the crimes
allegedly committed by Darren Mack in Nevada last
week. Mack was angered by his divorce and custody
case. Some on the not insubstantial lunatic fringe
of the fathers' rights movement see Mack as some
sort of freedom fighter. Most of the commentary
by other fathers' rights advocates seem to be of
the 'he couldn't take it anymore and snapped' variety.
"I don't buy it. Though everyone is focusing
on Mack's attempted murder of a judge, everyone
seems to forget that he first stabbed and killed
his ex-wife. After murdering her, he shot the judge
through the judge's third-floor office window with
a sniper rifle from over 100 yards away. That's
not 'snapping'--that's premeditated murder. Mack
is not a good man trapped in a bad system. He
is a bad guy. Because of men like him the system
had to create protections for women, and unscrupulous
women have misused those protections to victimize
countless innocent men. Men like Mack aren't the
byproducts of the system's problems--they are
the problem."
My remarks caused some controversy within
the fathers' right movement--to learn more, click
here.
From the description
of the opening arguments in Darren Mack's trial
from the Associated Press (Lawyer:
Reno man killed wife in self-defense, spun into
delusions, 10/24/07), it appears that Mack's
defense team is employing what I'll call the "Mary
Winkler Defense."
(Mary Winkler
shot her husband in the back and then refused to
aid him or call 911 as he slowly bled to death for
20 minutes. She claimed--with little corroborating
evidence--that she was a battered wife who suffered
from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome because of her
husband's violence towards her. She was convicted
of voluntary manslaughter and walked away a free
woman in September after serving a farcically brief
'sentence' for her crimes. To learn more about this
injustice, see my co-authored column
No child custody for husband-killer Mary Winkler
(World Net Daily,
9/14/07),
or click
here.)
Darren Mack's defense is very Winkleresque:
1) Both Mary Winkler and Darren Mack are trying
to escape punishment for their crimes by trashing
their victims (Matthew Winkler/Charla Mack). Yet
in both cases we have no evidence that either victim
did anything wrong. Mary Winkler claimed--with no
corroboration--that she decided to "confront" Matthew
after he tried to harm their baby. Mack says he
stabbed Charla after Charla pointed a gun at him.
In both cases the defense's claim is possible, and
in neither case is it likely.
2) Both Mary Winkler and Darren Mack want to
convince us that their murdered spouses had histories
of violence when little evidence of such history
exists. Winkler claimed her husband had battered
and abused her for a decade, but produced little
substantiation of her claims. In the Mack case,
according to the Associated Press, "The defense
would point to several instances in which Charla
Mack, who he said was trained in Tae Kwan Do, physically
attacked her husband...Mack had begun to carry a
knife with him after a psychic and family member
warned him 'you can't turn your back on Charla,
she will stab you with a knife,' [co-counsel Scott]
Freeman said."
3) Each give highly implausible descriptions
of how they committed their crimes but somehow weren't
at fault. Winkler says she was angry at her husband
and "just wanted to talk to him," and then she "heard
a boom." A more complete description of the incident
would have been that she wanted to talk to him,
waited until he fell asleep, retrieved the shotgun,
pumped it, aimed it at his back, pulled the trigger,
and then "heard a boom."
In the Mack case, according to the Associated
Press:
"One the day of her death, Charla Mack attacked
her husband from behind after dropping off her daughter,
he said. In the scuffle, a pistol fell from Darren
Mack's pocket. Charla Mack picked it up, and pointed
it at her husband as the two wrestled on the ground.
The pistol misfired, Freeman said, and Mack instinctively
pulled out a knife he also was carrying.
"'Darren plunges the knife into her neck once,'
Freeman told the jury. 'Charla's violence has stopped.'"
Then, according to the AP:
"That's when Mack drew up the list on the notepad,
and began to spiral into delusion, the defense said.
A longtime marksman, Mack drove to a parking garage
across from the courthouse and shot the judge. 'He
was basically on autopilot,' [Mack's lawyer David]
Chesnoff said."
4) In both cases, the defendants portray their
victims as being some sort of sexual deviants. In
the Winkler trial, one of the main instances of
"abuse" she said she suffered was that Matthew allegedly
made her wear an unusual pair of white high heels.
In Mack's case, according to the AP:
"[Charla Mack] had 'an unusual sexual appetite'
that involved swingers clubs, various partners and
drug use, he said."
In conclusion, a word of advice to Darren Mack--the
Winkler-style defense only works for women. It shouldn't
have worked for Winkler, but it did. It shouldn't
work for you, and it won't.
To discuss this issue on my blog, click
here.
 |
Online Dating Rights
Online Dating Rights
opposes the new federal
International Marriage Broker
Regulation Act, which requires
Americans who seek to meet
foreigners via the internet
to have a criminal background
check and an intrusive report
about intimate details of
one's life BEFORE any communication--the
first time in US history
that such checks have been
required.
www.onlinedatingrights.com
|
|
|
Salon.com's Feminist Blog Takes Cheap Shot at Me
 Carol
Lloyd of Salon.com's feminist blog
Broadsheet took a cheap shot at me in her
recent blog post
What's so funny about abusive girlfriends? Lloyd
linked to one of my blog entries about female perpetrators
of domestic violence and wrote:
"Beyond (below?) the search for statistics are
the pundits who use (and abuse) study sound bites
to beat their political horses. Recently, the combined
bonanza of Amy Winehouse's public battering of her
husband and the 71 percent finding has
unleashed
new war cries in the defense of men and the defamation
of feminism."
The "defamation of feminism"? I've often criticized
feminism (while also acknowledging the considerable
good feminism has done), but I would be interested
to know when I've "defamed" feminism.
In the blog post she cites,
U.K.
Singer/Songwriter Amy Winehouse Brags About 'Beating
Up' Her Husband, I wrote:
"U.K. singer/songwriter Amy Winehouse recently
bragged openly about physically abusing her husband.
Men who beat their wives are locked up, stigmatized,
and vilified--and rightfully so. Yet here a high-profile
woman admits--no, brags--that she beats her husband,
and it's OK. No backlash or even recognition that
this is wrong.
"Winehouse is set to perform at Lollapalooza
in August and has a hit high on the charts. Somehow
I find it hard to believe that a man who brags about
getting drunk and beating his wife would be welcomed
at Lollapalooza, or anywhere else."
Seems fair enough to me. Tell me, Ms. Lloyd,
how have I "defamed" feminism?
(To learn more about the Winheouse case, also
see my blog post
Female
Batterer Amy Winehouse: 'Your ability to fight doesn't
have anything to do with how big you are--It's how
much anger is in you').
To discuss this issue on my blog, click
here.
Hell Hath no Fury--Woman Launches Plot to Destroy
Ex-Boyfriend's MarriageEight years after
she broke up with her boyfriend, Pilar Stofega is
by her own admission still so vindictive and vengeful
that she
launched an elaborate scheme to destroy her
ex-boyfriend's marriage. She got caught, fortunately.
The man targeted is lucky he didn't have a kid
with her. If he did, she would have used the kid
and his love for his child as a tool of her vindictiveness.
And the family court probably would have allowed
her to get away with most everything because in
family law, when a mom does something it's "see
no evil, hear no evil."
The story is below. Thanks to Rob Whitfield.
Woman Charged in 'Internet Revenge' Case
The Associated Press
2007-10-26 20:16:53.0
WATERFORD, Conn. - A 34-year-old woman has been
charged with using the Internet to try to get revenge
on an old boyfriend by breaking up his marriage.
Pilar Stofega has been charged with second-degree
harassment and breach of peace and released on $2,500
bond.
Waterford police say she created phony profiles
of the former boyfriend's current wife on some web
sites that included the wife's home and work phone
numbers and high school yearbook picture.
Stofega said she did to it "to be vindictive,
knowing that the profiles would create marital problems
between" the victim and her husband, according to
court documents.
The plot came to life when strange men started
calling a Waterford woman's house over the summer,
saying they had seen her profile on an web site.
The man Stofega had dated eight years ago used
his own computer to investigate and discovered someone
had created a profile for his wife on several Internet
sites, according to court records.
Police say the husband did more online investigating
and was able to find out that the person behind
the phony profiles of his wife was the woman he
dated in 1999. He passed the information on to Waterford
police, leading to Stofega's arrest last week.
Waterford police got a court order to seize Stofega's
Internet records. They reviewed the account records
before searching her house in late September.
Stofega was at the house when police served the
warrant. Officers said she provided them with a
sworn written statement in which she admitted to
intentionally creating the profiles in the victim's
likeness on the web sites.
Stofega is scheduled to appear in New London
Superior Court on Monday. Court records did not
list an attorney and her phone number was not listed.
To discuss this issue on my blog, click
here.
|
Alicia M. Crowe's Real Dads Stand
Up!
Alicia M. Crowe's new book Real
Dads Stand Up! explains what
every single father should know
about child support, rights and
custody. Learn how to exercise your
legal rights, avoid 'baby mama drama',
navigate the child support system,
gain and maintain access to your
children, and settle issues without
going to trial.
www.realdadsstandup.com |
|
Fathers' Rights Legal Help
If you need help with divorce, child
custody, child support, alimony
and visitation issues,
The Law Offices of Jeffery M. Leving,
Ltd. is one of the only law
firms in the country focused almost
exclusively on fathers' rights in
divorce. Leving did heroic work
on the Elian Gonzalez case, helping
reunite Elian with his father. He
also co-authored Illinois' Joint
Custody Law, and was named one of
"America's Best Lawyers" by Forbes
Radio. Leving is the author of
Fathers' Rights: Hard Hitting and
Fair Advice for Every Father Involved
in a Custody Dispute. Call
today for an initial consultation
(312) 807-3990 or visit us on the
web at
www.dadsrights.com.
|
|
1 Salesperson Doesn't Have Your Best Interests
in Mind, and 1 Does--Can Anybody Guess the
Gender Breakdown?
To discuss this issue on my blog, click
here.
 Help
for Los
Angeles/Ventura
County Dads
Certified
Family Law
Specialist
Peter M.
Walzer was
one of the
key figures
in our successful
legislative
struggle
to preserve
the LaMusga
move-away
decision.
As Chair
of the State
Bar of California
Family Law
Section
Executive
Committee,
Walzer lobbied
the state
legislature
to improve
California
laws on
child support
and child
custody.
He's an
American
Academy
of Matrimonial
Lawyers
Fellow who
has authored
numerous
articles
on custody
issues,
business
valuation
in marital
dissolutions
and spousal
and child
support.
www.California-Divorce.com
|
The LaMusga
Company
The LaMusga
Company
provides
customized
solutions
to assist
individuals
and business
owners in
reaching
their financial
goals. The
LaMusga
Company
is committed
to helping
you accomplish
your long-term
financial
objectives.
LaMusgaCo.com
|
|
|
|
Fathers & Families News Digest, 10/30/07
 Below
are some recent articles and items of interest
from
Fathers & Families' latest News Digest.
Larry David's divorce mirrored on 'Curb'
(Associated Press, 10-23-07)
More seniors consider divorce (The
Korea Times, 10-23-07)
Divorce will put woman on stand at first-degree
murder trial (Vancouver Sun,
10-23-07)
Center for Family Development serves in
many ways (Shelbyville Times-Gazette,
10-24-07)
Domestic Violence Laws Require Reform, Groups
Say (Hawaii Reporter, 10-24-07)
Divorce: a better way out of marriage
(Telegraph, 10-24-07)
African American divorce rates outpace other
races (Kansas City Call, 10-24-07)
Separating with civility (The Globe
and Mail, 10-25-07)
Couple's divorce experience helps others
(SunHerald.com, 10-26-07)
Kansas high court rules against sperm donor
(Kansas City Star, 10-26-07)
To discuss this issue on my blog, click
here.
 Dr.
Warren Farrell's Shared
Parenting Evidence Kit--What
You Need to Win Shared Physical
Custody
Dr. Warren Farrell, a top
expert on children of divorce
now offers a complete evidence
kit to help you win shared
custody. The DVDs,
audio CD and electronic
files summarize the best
scientific research available
collected over decades.
Scientific research has
proven that children do
far better with near equal
time with both parents with
minimal conditions.
This video set was developed
to educate parents, judges,
lawyers, psychologists and
other divorce professionals.
Most judges are doing exactly
what is worst for children
with sole-custody.
Submitted as evidence this
will maximize your chances.
Divorce Reform groups call(508)
381-1450 to use as fundraiser.
www.BestInterestofChildren.org |
 |
Help for Michigan Dads
Michigan family law
attorney Mindy L. Hitchcock
has experience fighting
for noncustodial parents
against Michigan's abusive
FOC. Her
holistic approach to
divorce gets results for
her clients while avoiding
the scorched earth approach
to law that leaves families
emotionally and financially
devastated.
Lady4Justice.com
|
|
|
Some Good News on Domestic Violence
in California
 Background:
As I've often noted, three decades
of research shows that women are
at least as likely to attack their
male partners as vice versa, and
that a significant minority of domestic
violence injuries are sustained
by heterosexual men. Research shows
that women use weapons and the element
of surprise to help balance the
scales. To learn more, see my co-authored
column
October's Domestic Violence Awareness
Month Ignores Many Victims (Louisville
Courier-Journal & others, 10/4/06)
I've noted on various occasions
that the only domestic violence
shelter which accepts male victims
in all of Southern California is
the Valley Oasis shelter out in
the desert north of Los Angeles.
Feminists sometimes assert that
California women's shelters will
accept male victims, but it isn't
true.
When I was writing a newspaper
column about this a few years ago,
I posed as a male victim of domestic
violence and called every domestic
violence shelter in all of Los Angeles
and San Diego counties. Not a single
one would accept me or offer assistance,
with the exception of Valley Oasis.
Most flatly refused any assistance
at all, but a couple did offer me
space in a homeless shelter. When
I asked, "Am I supposed to take
my children to a homeless shelter?",
they replied, "That's all we can
do."
To their credit, however, several
of the shelter directors and workers
did sympathize, telling me that
we need shelters and services for
men.
Marc Angelucci, president of
the National Coalition of Free Men
Los Angeles, writes with some good
news--WomenShelter of Long Beach
is becoming the second shelter in
Los Angeles County to provide outreach
and services to male victims. Below
is a letter Marc had published in
a local paper.
Male Victims
To The Editor,
As an organization that examines
the way sex discrimination affects
men and boys, we are pleased that
the WomenShelter of Long Beach is
increasing its outreach to male
victims and to other historically
neglected victims and that it recognizes
how its gender-specific name can
be a barrier to male victims. ("WomenShelter
Celebrates Three Decades Of Service,"
Oct. 11)
We hope that the WomenShelter
will eventually change its name
to be gender-inclusive so no victims
will be discouraged from seeking
services...
To read more and to discuss this
issue on my blog, click
here.
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims These
Ads Are 'Offensive to Women'--Are
They? (Part III)
  Background:
TV often portrays men and fathers
as idiots--to watch some videos
of "dad as idiot" TV commercials,
click
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here, or
here.
As
Bill Maher says, "Look at television...the
wife is always brilliant and ethereal
and right about everything and the
husband is always just a dumb jerk
who's lucky to have found her."
The National Organization
for Women/NOW Foundation has launched
a new campaign around ads which
they label "Offensive to Women."
The campaign involved Love Your
Body Day 2007, which was October
18.
In this series, I'm reprinting
some of the ads which NOW tells
us are "Offensive to Women," giving
my own humble opinion on the matter
and soliciting yours. In
You Be the Judge (Part I),
I agreed with NOW. In
Part II, I agreed
with them on one out of two.
Regarding the Winston ad on the
left, NOW writes:
"Winston tries to convince young
women how tough and cool they can
be by smoking while waiting for
a man. Hope he arrives soon...before
lung cancer sets in."
Regarding Brown & Williamson,
they write:
"Brown & Williamson appears to
be marketing cigarettes to pre-teen
girls with this ad that practically
makes smoking look wholesome. Really
not."
Regarding the Winston add, this
is (sigh) another example of feminists'
absolute refusal to acknowledge
anti-male sexism. The ad isn't hostile
to women, it's hostile to men who
are, of course, not good enough,
not "real men," etc. Regarding Brown
& Williamson, yes, marketing cigarettes
to young women is bad, but I doubt
they market them any more to young
women than to young men, so I don't
see it as being a gender issue.
I think NOW is very wrong on the
Winston ad, and off mark on the
B & W ad.
That brings NOW's score, in my
book, to 2 out of 5 correct.
To discuss this issue on my blog,
click
here.
|
|
Are You the Target of Parental Alienation?
Parental alienation cases are among
the most difficult and complicated
in family law.
J. Michael Bone, Ph.D., is an
expert on parental alienation. If
you're a target parent, he can help
you get back into your children's
lives. Bone has worked as a custody
evaluator and as a therapist and
knows how to help the court find
the truth. His services are available
throughout the U.S. Dr. Bone can
be reached by phone at (407) 645-0662
or by email by clicking
here.
www.jmbconsulting.org
|
Help for Colorado Dads
As someone who has personally
experienced the heartbreak
of divorce and family breakup,
Brett W. Martin, Esq.
works to advance the interests
and concerns of fathers
in domestic and family law
litigation. Personal attention
is given to clients to help
them through a very difficult
time in their lives.
www.brettwmartin.com
|
|
|
Feminist Criticism of My Column 'UM Correct to Deny
Clothesline Project Protesters a Forum to Publicly
Name Alleged Rapists'Background:
My recent column
U. of Maryland Correct to Deny Clothesline Project
Protesters a Forum to Publicly Name Alleged Rapists
(Baltimore Sun,
10/15/07), defends the University of Maryland's
controversial decision to forbid campus feminist
protesters from publicly naming alleged rapists
during their "Clothesline Project"/Sexual Assault
Awareness Week activities. I explained:
"The university cites the danger of lawsuits
from those named, and that's certainly a reasonable
fear. Yet the university should also oppose naming
alleged rapists because it could defame and harm
innocent men. A significant percentage of allegations
of sexual assault are false."
I recently received a critical letter about the
column from a Sondheim Public Affairs Scholar named
Lesa. I thought the letter gives a fairly good description
of the feminist argument over the issue, so I thought
I would share it with my readers, along with my
response. Lesa's letter is in quotation marks and
normal type below, my responses are in italics.
Lesa writes:
"I just had the opportunity to read you piece
on the University of Maryland Clothesline Project
issue and I must say, I was shocked. More than that,
I was saddened at your lack of concern for the innocent
female victims who give voice to their hurt and
pain through the Clothesline Project. I contribute
to that project at my own university and the ability
to express your story brings far more relief to
a victim than you realize."
Perhaps Lesa is correct that I underestimate
the therapeutic value of the Clothesline Project
for rape victims. However, I believe what rape victims
really need isn't the Clothesline Project, but instead
criminal convictions of their rapists, along with
stiff prison sentences for them. And one of the
biggest problems preventing justice for rape victims
is the substantial percentage of rape accusations
which are false.
"I understand your concern about young men being
defamed if they are innocent. The presumption of
innocence is something that is greatly valued in
this country but just because a man was not convicted
of rape does not mean he did not commit the crime.
The legal system is not infallible. Sometimes the
guilty go free."
I respect Lesa for acknowledging the issue
of false accusations and the potential for defamation
of innocent men. Lesa is absolutely correct that
"just because a man was not convicted of rape does
not mean he did not commit the crime." There's a
significant difference between what happens in real
life and what can be proven in a courtroom, particularly
with sexual acts or violations.
As an aside, one of the (many) inaccurate
things feminists write and say about me is that
I believe that when women report rape and the man
is not convicted, the woman should be prosecuted
for making a false allegation. This is ludicrous--I've
never said anything close to that. I do believe
that women should be prosecuted when they've made
a false allegation--not an unproven one, but a false
one. One example where a prosecution is appropriate
is the Tamara Anne Moonier case I mentioned in the
article. However, there can be a big difference
between a rape accusation which did not result in
a conviction and one which is false...
To read more and to discuss this issue on my
blog, click
here.
|
My Family Has Two Houses...and
I'm Okay
A workshop for children
of separation or divorce
in a workbook! In the privacy
of your own home, you can
provide your child with
a safe way of looking at
their thoughts and feelings
and help to open
discussion of relevant issues
for them with you. This
workbook can make the difference
between your child surviving
your divorce and thriving
despite it! To learn more
about My family has
two houses ...and I'm Okay!
and to order, click
here. |
|
How to Win Shared Custody
Here are the litigation
secrets to winning shared
physical & legal custody
from Boston trial lawyer
Nick Palermo, Esquire
who has won
these cases for 24 years.
It costs $5,000. or more
in legal fees to gain the
knowledge and guidance contained
in this $10 handbook--The
Ten Essential Elements to
Winning Joint Shared Physical
and Legal Custody.
www.TenEssentialElements.com
|
|
|
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims These Ads Are 'Offensive
to Women'--Are They? (Part II)
  The
National Organization for Women/NOW Foundation has
launched a new campaign around ads which they label
"Offensive to Women." The campaign involved Love
Your Body Day 2007, which was October 18. In this
series, I'm reprinting some of the ads which NOW
tells us are "Offensive to Women," giving my own
humble opinion on the matter and soliciting yours.
In
You
Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to
Women'--Is It? (Part I), I agreed with NOW in
their criticism of a
Maker's Mark whiskey ad.
NOW pairs the two ads above together, one for
Calvin Klein (left), the other by Ralph Lauren Polo
(right). NOW writes:
"Calvin Klein: Does this dress make me look fat?
Exhibit A in why women think they can never be thin
enough."
and
"Ralph Lauren Polo: Not to be outdone, Ralph
offers that perfect look to wear while scratching
your back on a tree while waiting for, um...the
stable boy?"
NOW believes that ads which hold up thin women
as examples of beauty are "Offensive to Women."
I would disagree in general, but can agree in extreme
cases. The picture on the left seems like an extreme
case to me--she looks like she just got out of Auschwitz.
The woman on the right is a little too thin, too,
but is very attractive. Granted that it's a subjective
judgment, I'd give NOW a split, agreeing with them
about Calvin Klein but disagreeing about Ralph Lauren
Polo.
That brings NOW's score, in my book, to 2 out
of 3 correct.
To discuss this issue on my blog, click
here.
|
