Newspaper Annoyed After Being Bombarded with Angry Letters over Plan to Release All Female Prisoners

On my blog and in my E-Newsletter last week I advised you of a plan by La Crosse County, Wisconsin to release all of its female prisoners. Many of you wrote letters about the plan to the La Crosse County Tribune and reporter Reid Magney, who wrote the story. The Tribune's recent editorial La Crosse County plan makes sense for female jail inmates (12/27/07) asks readers to "curb your hysteria" and complains:

"La Crosse County's proposal to offer more services to women jail inmates -- and to deal with them through electronic monitoring and in a halfway house rather than in jail -- has caught the attention of 'men's rights' advocates throughout the nation. They are flooding the Tribune with e-mails about what a disgusting idea this is, and how it will result in violent women being released on the community."

In Online Outrage Over La Crosse County Women's Jail Alternative Program, Reid Magney similarly notes:

"Man, oh, man! I got back to work this morning after a long Christmas weekend to see my e-mail inbox had exploded with comments from people upset about La Crosse County's new jail alternative program for women, which I wrote about in the Dec. 21 Tribune.

"Apparently the story got noticed by a men's rights blogger or two, and they were off to the races. Most galling to them was Supervisor Keith Belzer's quote, that women are almost always in the criminal justice system 'because of some kind of relationship with a man.'

"I can't possibly respond to all the e-mails, some of which are also letters to the editor."

The thrust of the paper's defense of the policy is that most of the women offenders who may be released are nonviolent, and are often incarcerated for drug abuse. This is a perfectly valid point, but it in no way contradicts my point. I've stated on many occasions that I oppose incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders in the "War on Drugs," and if La Crosse wants to release nonviolent drug offenders, that's great. The point is that these offenders should be released regardless of their gender. The policy should not be "we're going to release women offenders," the policy should be "we're going to release non-violent drug offenders."

Magney also brings up some points which were not in his original article, including problems with the facilities the women prisoners are jailed in. Some of his other points seem less convincing, but I'm not familiar with the details. But our point--that we should not dismiss women's crimes simply because they are women--remains valid and applicable.

Thanks to all of the readers who responded to Magney and the Tribune, including members of the National Coalition of Free Men. Many of the letters are reprinted on Magney's blog.

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.

"When fathers are awarded time with their children, it is still up to the mother to open the door. The courts rarely punish mothers who ignore court orders and ultimately many fathers get worn down and give up.

"A 1998 government paper indicates that 40% of separated mothers admit to blocking contact. There has been no indication of a positive change since then.

"The Daily Telegraph newspaper recently quoted a family court judge as saying, 'A father spent $120,000 to secure a defined court order." But the mother ignored it, refused contact and now 'the father is penniless and the case is still unresolved.'

"Another judge conceded, 'Enforcement of an order repeatedly contravened is extremely difficult. Fines and imprisonment of offending mothers are detrimental to the child.'

No comment needed...

London's Absent Dads
When It Comes To Divorce, British Dads At A Disadvantage
CBS/AP, Dec. 29, 2007

(CBS) Families across Britain are spending quality time over the holidays, except for the many fathers who aren't, because the courts or their former partners won't allow them access to their children.

In the vast majority of cases here, mothers receive residence, regardless of how involved the father was the children's lives before the parents separated.

Government figures indicate that more than 90 % of the time mothers are awarded residence (custody) of the children. Since 90% of divorce cases never get to court, it is presumed 90% of fathers are satisfied. The fact is, most men know the odds are stacked against them, and don't have the money or heart to go through a debilitating legal process they are sure to lose.

British family court judges rarely see the children involved in custody cases, relying on reports by child welfare officers. These are overwhelmingly parole officers, whose specialty is dealing with convicted criminals. It is highly unusual for a judge to contradict their recommendations. There have even been cases where the courts acknowledged a man has been a good and involved father, but refused contact because the mother says that would make her unhappy.

There was the case of a father who had been phoning his children most every night for six years. Suddenly, the court restricted him to calling just twice a month because the mother insisted his calls were "disruptive to the household routine." The court also refused him permission to give his children cell phones.

The Children's Act of 1989 passed by Parliament was intended to promote shared parenting, but with few exceptions, the family courts have interpreted the law otherwise. Joint custody or 'shared residence' is almost never considered a viable option by family judges, even if that is the expressed desire of the children...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

An Exaggeration to Be Sure, but One That Holds Some Truth

"When they told me that by the year 2100 women would rule the world, my reply was 'Still'?"--Winston Churchill

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here

Some Thoughts on the 'Push Presents' Now Expected From Expectant Fathers (Part II)

Background: The recent New York Times piece A Bundle of Joy Isn't Enough? (12/6/07) discusses "push presents":

"In a more innocent age, new mothers generally considered their babies to be the greatest gift imaginable. Today, they are likely to want some sort of tangible bonus as well....

"That's 'push' as in, 'I the mother, having been through the wringer and pushed out this blessed event, hereby claim my reward.' Or 'push' as in, 'I've delivered something special and now I'm pushing you, my husband/boyfriend, to follow suit.'

"It's more and more an expectation of moms these days that they deserve something."

 As I discussed in Some Thoughts on the 'Push Presents' Now Expected From Expectant Fathers (Part I), I have mixed emotions about "push presents." I wrote:

"If this gift is about love, if it is about a man wanting to give his wife something special to show his appreciation, then I'm 100% for it. If instead the gift is yet one more obligation, another example of why she has its so hard and he has it so easy, why he could never understand how much he suffers, why she's good and he's bad, and dammit isn't it the least he could do for her, well, then count me out. Men already have to deal with way too much minimization of their contributions to their families, along with exaggeration of women's contributions. In in this particular instance, of course, the woman's contribution is tremendous.  In most cases, it is no more (and no less) than the man's contribution."

As one person noted in the New York Times story, I think the period right after the birth of a child is a rather poor time to choose to buy luxuries such as expensive jewelry. Unless one is rich, it is easy to become financially overwhelmed in the years after the birth of a child.

The primary caregiving parent's income goes down, at the same time that expenses rise. It can be nerve-racking worrying if you will have the money to properly support your children. My father always said:

"People should not have children until they are sure that they can financially provide for them--but if everyone waited to have children until they were sure they could financially provide for them, nobody would have children."

I would also argue that in many if not most cases, men very much are giving their wives the equivalent of a push present, though of course it is not acknowledged by our politically correct media. For example, it has been many years since I had a child, but thinking back to the birth of my first child, it is hard for me to see myself as a slacker. We had just bought a new house on an acre of land and at an excellent price. The downside was that the house was a disaster.

In the couple years leading up to the birth of our child and right afterwards, I was working seven days a week. During the day I would either do construction jobs or do construction work on our house, and at night I taught English and citizenship classes in South Central Los Angeles. On Saturdays I would teach, and then spend the afternoon/evening and Sunday building and fixing our house.

I ripped up our decaying old floor and installed hardwood flooring. I did numerous plumbing and electrical jobs. With the help of my father-in-law, I put a new roof on the house. I built a redwood front fence and front gate, as well as a back fence.

I cut down numerous large, diseased pine trees from our front yard, and built my son a bunk bed out of them. I cleared an enormous amount of junk out of the yard, enough to fill several huge dumpsters. If I choose to, I could walk around our house or our yard and probably find something that I did in practically every single area, while also working full time. Given everything I was doing, a "push present" would seem pretty trivial. And as I was building and fixing the things needed to make our house the wonderful home it now is, a good deal of my motivation was seeing how happy it made my wife.

(The best part of cutting down the pine trees was this--I had a chainsaw and was very, very careful to cut the tree so that it would not fall on our phone lines or on our house. I succeeded--the tree fell in exactly the opposite direction, right onto our power line. Fortunately my wife was not home at the time. It would have been hard to explain to her that she shouldn't worry, because cutting the tree onto our power line was, um..."all part of my plan, honey.")

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Domestic Violence 'Training' for Judges

Texas criminal defense attorney Paul Stuckle (pictured), who specializes in defending men falsely accused of domestic violence or sexual abuse, wrote me recently concerning the Domestic Violence Benchbook used for judges in the state of New Mexico. It is put out by the Rozier E. Sanchez Judicial Education Center of New Mexico, which was established under a federal grant to provide education and training to the judges, administrators and other staff of the New Mexico judicial branch. The Benchbook contains numerous gems, including this one:

"Domestic violence perpetrators can be men or women involved in heterosexual or same-sex intimate relationships, and New Mexico's laws against domestic violence make no distinction based on the parties' gender or sexual orientation. Nonetheless, the discussion in this chapter will assume a heterosexual relationship with a male abuser unless otherwise indicated. The discussion uses this assumption because most domestic violence research has been done in this context.

"Violence in same-sex relationships and in heterosexual relationships with female abusers has not been much studied to date, and is not well understood. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-1996), about 85% of victims of intimate violence are women. Although less likely than men to experience violent crime overall, women are 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate. Greenfeld, et al, Violence by Intimates, p. 1, 4 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998)."

As I've explained on numerous occasions, crime surveys dramatically and consistently undercount male victims of domestic violence, for reasons that are logical and understandable. (To learn more, see my co-authored column New DOJ Domestic Violence Study Undercounts Male Victims, Baltimore Sun, 1/12/07). Domestic violence research clearly shows that women are at least as likely to attack their male partners as vice versa, and that one-third of domestic violence injuries are sustained by heterosexual males.

The Domestic Violence Benchbook even cites and treats as good coin research from Dr. Lenore E. A. Walker's The Battered Woman Syndrome (aka the "How to Murder Your Husband and Get Away with It" defense).

This is another example of the importance of the California Alliance for Families and Children's upcoming conference "From Ideology to Inclusion: Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence." The dissident domestic violence authorities and researchers speaking and directing the conference are challenging the domestic violence establishment's discredited yet pervasive "man as perp/woman as victim" model of domestic violence. To learn more, see my recent post Group of Domestic Violence Dissidents/Authorities Sponsors Historic Conference.

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.]

Postcards from Splitsville (Part V)

The drawings above were taken from Kara Bishop's www.postcardsfromsplitsville.com. Bishop works with Children of Divorce, a class run by Tucson, Arizona-based Divorce Recovery. The class did an art project that included "sending away" the frustrations of divorce. The website is a place where Kara says "children can share their divorce-related feelings anonymously and parents can get a new perspective on how this life-changing experience impacts their children's lives."

To learn more, click here. Kara can be reached at Kara@PostcardsfromSplitsville.com.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

'Why are men so scared to admit that they have a responsibility when it comes to sex'?

Recently a feminist blog commenter who did not like my column Do Women Really Want a Male Birth Control Pill? (Newsday, 4/11/05), wrote the following:

"[Regarding birth control] I think it's easier for a lot of men, like Sacks, to put the focus on women rather than admit that they really don't want any responsibility when it comes to sex. Then the question is why are men (like Sacks) so scared to admit that they have a responsibility when it comes to sex? And if a guy is in a committed relationship why wouldn't he also want to contribute to protecting him and his partner from an unwanted pregnancy?"

Totally wrong of course, but what else is new?  I do not believe, and never did believe, that men do not have "any responsibility when it comes to sex." I believe that men do have a responsibility, but that men's options have been limited.  One reason why I am very much in favor of the male birth control pill is that it will give men the chance to take the responsibility for birth control into their own hands and not have to rely upon their sometimes unreliable partners.

I have criticized manipulative and unscrupulous women for intentionally getting pregnant against their partners' will, and I will continue to do so.  However, many times I have been appalled at how thoughtless some men are about birth control, often to their own detriment.  I do not believe these men are sexist or mean-spirited, but I do believe they are  irresponsible.

As for the comment that I am "scared to admit" that I have a responsibility when it comes to sex,  that is ludicrous. When I was single, I always paid attention to that responsibility.  After I had two children, I got a vasectomy.  It was actually a little humorous, because my parents still hoped for another grandchild, and I had neglected to mention the vasectomy to them.  They found out when I mentioned it on the radio.  My dad later remarked, with a tiny bit of bitterness, "It's amazing the important things one can learn by listening to the radio."

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

The Top 20 Sexual-Harassment Cases of All Time

Amy S. Quinn of the Human Resources website www.hrworld.com recently sent me a link to their post The Top 20 Sexual-Harassment Cases of All Time. I'm not sure if I would agree with their definition of the Top 20--it seems as if the list is missing some of the influential sexual-harassment cases from the 1970s and 1980s that helped make sexual-harassment the issue it is. Nevertheless, I found their list interesting. Below are a few examples:

1) 6-Year Old Boy v. Brockton School District: How old do you have to be in order to stand accused of sexual harassment? In this particular case, involving the Brockton School District near Boston, you only have to be 6 years old. The elementary school boy was apparently found with "his hand inside the waistband of a girl's pants, touching the skin on her back," a violation of the school's sexual-harassment policy. According to the boy's mother, however, her son "doesn't even know what that word 'sexual' is. I don't see how I'm going to explain it to him," she added. Though the school wished to press charges, the district attorney's office deemed the boy too young to be prosecuted.

2) Maxine Henderson and Gwen: In 1996, artist Maxine Henderson's impressionist portrait of a nude woman named Gwen rocked the small town of Murfreesboro, Tenn. A local assistant superintendent noticed the painting when it was hung on a wall in City Hall and was so offended by its alleged vulgarity that she "submitted a sexual harassment complaint to the city legal department." The city ultimately decided that the painting violated its own sexual-harassment policies and removed it. As a result, the artist sued the city "for violating her First Amendment rights." Henderson won the case in a U.S. District Court, under the pretenses that the painting hung in a public space and that the city's sexual-harassment policy was not detailed enough in its description of what constituted offensive material...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Nicole Kidman: 'There comes a time when you're a daughter, that you need your father'

"There comes a time when you're a daughter, that you suddenly need your father. And when you reach out for your father and he's there for you, well, that's a very special thing...My father really stood by me at a tough time. He was strong and dignified, and I'm very grateful..."--Actress Nicole Kidman

Nicole Kidman pays a fine tribute to the importance of the father-daughter bond in the Australian news article below. She's pictured in the movie Cold Mountain above, with Jude Law. I had read the book before I saw the movie and thought both Kidman and Law did a good job.

Kidman says dad helped cope with divorce
12/24/07, AAP

NICOLE Kidman has revealed how her father helped her through the darkest days following her break-up with Hollywood star Tom Cruise.

Kidman said her 2001 divorce from her Scientologist husband of 10 years brought her closer to her father Anthony, a devout Catholic who is a biochemist and psychologist.

"When I was growing up, I was always much closer to my mother. Dad's a bit of a loner. He was always going off and reading books," Kidman told Britain's The Catholic Herald.

"But when I went through ... what I went through ... I found out who my father was.

"Because there comes a time when you're a daughter, that you suddenly need your father. And when you reach out for your father and he's there for you, well, that's a very special thing.

"My father really stood by me at a tough time. He was strong and dignified, and I'm very grateful that I do have a good father, because having him there with me at that time put me in good stead for carrying on with my life and learning to trust again"...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Did Child Support Enforcement Help Drive this Innocent Father to His Death? (Part II)

Background: Those who suffer from child support enforcement's abuses and errors lead difficult and stressful lives. Sadly, child support enforcement abuses may have contributed to the recent heart attack and death of an English father.

According to the Equal Parenting Alliance, in December "36 year-old veteran soldier Lee Wilkins died while out running. He survived action in Northern Ireland, but those who knew him well believe it was the battles he had with Family Courts and the Child Support Agency which killed him.

"His son lived with him, and in these circumstances, one wonders why the CSA were hounding him to pay them 650 GBP, instead of paying money to him. Lee could not understand this either, and we saw the increasing stress which this alleged debt, and the threat of bailiffs caused him." Lee is pictured with his son. To learn more, see my blog post Did Child Support Enforcement Help Drive this Innocent Father to His Death? (Part I).

F4J member John Ison, who was Wilkins' legal advisor, sent the following letter:

"My name is John Ison. I used to be one of the spokesmen for the original F4J here in the UK.

"I have since moved into politics and stood against the current Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, in the 2005 UK General Election but still campaign for fathers rights and those of our children.

"The reason for my post here is that I was also Legal Advisor to Lee Wilkins.

"Lee contacted me in 2003 when he had no contact with his son and at a time when his son had been partially blinded whilst in the care of his mother. I worked with Lee right up until his death on the 6th December to get justice for his child and for himself and every other law abiding father who has become a victim of the bias family court system.

"Lee and I became extremely good friends and for the last three years always spend our summer vacations together with our children. He became my best mate.

"I was dealing with the threat of the bailiffs since he received the demand detailed above. The date of their contact was the 14th February 2007 - how romantic.

"Lee won't mind me telling the world that he had no spare money. For every 1 GBP he spent on himself he would spend 2 GBP on his little boy...

"What was VERY apparent was the way he conducted his life - HE LIVED IT FOR HIS SON.

"Lee was a fit man, he ran 5 miles a day, swam, enjoyed judo and cycled instead of using his car. His death certificate indicates that stress cannot be ruled out as a cause, which if anyone knew Lee as well as I did, would know that he was in a personal turmoil with the attitude of the CSA...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

His Side with Glenn Sacks Radio Commentary: The Clothesline Project Controversy

My recent His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentary for KLAA AM 830 in Los Angeles defends the University of Maryland's decision to forbid campus feminist protesters from publicly naming alleged rapists during their "Clothesline Project"/Sexual Assault Awareness Week activities.

To listen to the commentary, click here.

To learn more, see my column U. of Maryland Correct to Deny Clothesline Project Protesters a Forum to Publicly Name Alleged Rapists (Baltimore Sun, 10/15/07).

His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentaries are broadcast daily on KLAA AM 830, a 50,000 watt talk station in Los Angeles and Orange County. KLAA AM 830 is owned by Arte Moreno, owner of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

From 2003-2005, His Side with Glenn Sacks ran in a syndicated talk show format in Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, Seattle, and other cities. To listen to show archives, click here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

What's the World Coming to? 6 Year-Old's Essay for Hannah Montana Tickets Turns out to Be a Lie

Background: If you have a daughter in the nine-year-old range, you're probably familiar with the Disney show Hannah Montana. My daughter often forces me to watch it with her. Well, "forces" isn't exactly accurate, since she snuggles up in my arms as we watch, which would probably make even going to the opera worth it.

Anyway, there's a surprising thing about this show. In an era when we have a long parade of "doofus dads," in Hannah Montana the family is being raised by a single father, and the father is actually a smart, loving, very-competent dad who is respected by his children. It's refreshing to watch a show where a father's intervention in a crisis or incident isn't just a set-up for a joke about what an idiot he is.

In the show, the father, played by country singer Billy Ray Cyrus, is a widower who is the sole caretaker of his children and who gave up his successful career as a country singer to raise his kids. Hannah is played by Billy's real-life daughter and the show often has nice flashbacks of pictures of the two of them together as the little girl grew up.

In the story below, a six-year-old girl's heart wrenching essay for Hannah Montana tickets--in which she discussed her father's apparent death in Iraq--turns out to be a lie.

Garland girl, 6, wins Hannah Montana tickets with false essay
December 28, 2007
By BYRON HARRIS / WFAA-TV

It was supposed to be a giant surprise for a six-year-old Garland girl - free tickets to a Hannah Montana concert in New York, after winning a "Rock Your Holidays" essay contest.
But what started out as a happy story turned into an investigation.

The young Garland girl won her tickets to Hannah Montana with an essay that started out "My daddy died this year in Iraq."

It was sure to pull on the heartstrings of any judge but it turns out that wasn't true, setting off a string of shocks that began at Hannah Montana's retail partner for young girls, called the Club Libby Lu.

Club Libby Lu stores across the country sell rock star dreams.

Little girls who walk in are sprinkled with fantasy dust and make a wish.

To help them become more like Hannah Montana, girls can get "Secret Celebrity makeovers."

When a Garland girl came in with her mom, she was presented with a surprise makeover.

Then came an even bigger shock...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

The Bren Case: A Refreshing Perspective on Child Support

Background: According to the latest U.S. Government estimates, the average family in the highest income bracket (average income--$112,000 per year) spends $1,340 a month to raise each child. Yet some men are paying 20 times that much a month in child support. Most of this money is not going to the child, but instead to finance a wealthy lifestyle for the custodial parent. That's not the purpose of child support, which is supposed to be for the child. To learn more, click here.

In the Los Angeles Times opinion column below, Dana Parsons makes some relevant points about child support in the Bren case. Donald Bren, the chairman of the Irvine Co., pays $17,000 per month per child in child support but his two teenage children want a readjustment that would bring the total to over $2 million a month.

Parsons spares us the usual lecture on Bren's stinginess and hesitance to man up to his "responsibilities," and instead looks at the case from a refreshing angle.

Hey, Bren kids, make your own way
Los Angeles Times, 12/27/07
By Dana Parsons

Some teenagers need an iPhone in the worst way. Not that a 40-inch plasma TV wouldn't do nicely in the bedroom too.

But those teens aren't the offspring of Donald Bren, the chairman of the Irvine Co., a man of the world and always at or near the top of the list of Orange County's richest men. His kids, it turns out, set their sights a bit higher.

The Times reported this week that two of Bren's teenage children want a readjustment in the child support he's been paying. Through their lawyer, the teens say the formula for determining such things might put their fair share at roughly $2.2 million a month.

For each of them.

They've gone to court to collect, after alleging a few years ago that Dad hadn't made good on a promise to support them in a style to which they'd like to grow accustomed and that reflected the way he lives.

The next courthouse showdown is set for a week from today.

I'm a little skeptical of monetary figures in lawsuits, but Bren's lawyers say he's been paying $17,000 a month for each of the two children, per an agreement with the children's mother, whom he never married.

Not to get bogged down in minutia, but the $2.2-million figure may not be etched in stone. The teens' lawyer told The Times that a precise and fair amount -- based on the state's child-support formula -- can't be determined without a full accounting of Bren's actual wealth. The $2.2 million was divined by taking published accounts of Bren's wealth -- Forbes magazine, for example, has estimated his wealth at $8.5 billion -- and crunching some numbers.

Most rich guys would rather tell you they're using Viagra than reveal their net worth, so don't hold your breath on Bren going that route. The matter sounds like something that will be negotiated behind closed doors.

But let's play along. Let's talk about what's fair. About what makes sense.

Who wouldn't be sympathetic to a couple of teenagers who just want a fair shot? They didn't ask to be born to a rich guy. Should they be downgraded as if they were some kind of junk bond?

If I could just have a minute of the kids' time. . . .

Kids, you don't want $2.2 million a month. You don't even want $2 million. Or $1 million. You don't even want $50,000 a month.

You may think you do, but you don't. You're much too young to have your own yacht or to fly off, if the mood strikes on a slow weekend when there's nothing good on TV, to the French Riviera.

For now, settle for Turtle Rock in Irvine, not Turtle Island in Fiji.

Make friends, don't buy them. When you have millions of dollars coming in every year, it's hard to know who your real friends are. Just ask Britney Spears...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Oh Come Now Judge--It Must've Been Dad's Fault, Think a Little Harder...

Someone needs to straighten the judge in the Dillon Cossey case out. The 14-year-old boy apparently planned a Columbine-style attack on a local school. Dillon Cossey apparently wasn't too close to carrying out the plan--for one, he didn't have ammunition. But the case's real shocker is this--Montgomery County Judge Paul Tressler put some of the blame for the boy's pathology on the boy's mother.

According to news reports, the judge criticized her for creating an "unhealthy relationship" with her son, and for instilling in him a "me and mom against the world" attitude. Tressler said, "This kid has been so totally desocialized, he has no friends." Looking directly at Michele Cossey, he said: "You want this kid dependent on you? Go buy a dog, go buy a pet."

I'm floored--normally we fall all over ourselves to figure out how somehow it's never mom's fault. The men in black robes do it as much as anybody. At best, we usually get the "it's really mom's fault but that's not PC, so we're going to pretend it's 'both' parents' fault." In this case the boy's dad is no prize, either, but the judge was willing to tell the truth as he saw it.

Of course, perhaps the judge's reaction is understated--after all, the mother apparently helped the boy build his weapons stash by buying him a .22-caliber handgun, a .22-caliber rifle and the 9 mm semiautomatic rifle.  Wow.

The mother is awaiting trial, where she can expect to receive a punishment a fraction as severe as she would if she were a man. The story is below. Thanks to Jay, a reader, for pointing it out.

Judge blames mom in school attack case
Thursday, December 20, 2007

By KATHY MATHESON
Associated Press Writer

NORRISTOWN, Pa. (AP) -- A 14-year-old boy who admitted that he planned a Columbine-style attack on a suburban Philadelphia high school was sentenced Wednesday to up to seven years in a juvenile treatment center.

Dillon Cossey will remain at the western Pennsylvania facility until he turns 21, unless the courts deem he has been sufficiently rehabilitated before then, Montgomery County Judge Paul Tressler ruled.

The boy apologized in court for amassing a cache of weapons and plotting the assault on Plymouth Whitemarsh High School. Authorities do not think Cossey was close to pulling it off; he had no ammunition.

"I am very sorry, but I do want to get help," Cossey told the judge. "I also hope that me and my family as a whole can get help."

Tressler placed much of the blame for Cossey's troubles on his mother, Michele Cossey. He criticized her for doting on Dillon to the point of creating an "unhealthy relationship" with her son, and for instilling in him a "me and mom against the world" attitude.

"This kid has been so totally desocialized, he has no friends," Tressler said.

Looking directly at Michele Cossey, he said: "You want this kid dependent on you? Go buy a dog, go buy a pet"..

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Disciplining Children Caught Between Conflicting Divorced Parents

This is an interesting letter to the editor on the dicey subject of disciplining children who are caught between conflicting divorced or separated parents. First the story, then a few comments.

Mom feels courts need to support parental discipline
(Palladium-Item, 12/28/07)

I'm the mother of a 15-year-old boy, a great kid who's active in school.

I've been a single mother trying to raise him the best I can. I've struggled at times but never found help from his father. I've had to lean on my mother and stepfather to help with after-school care and running him places while I worked.

It's a constant battle any time I try to discipline him. Recently he was grounded for the weekend. His grandparents felt he shouldn't have been grounded. This caused a fight. The next thing I know, I'm in a custody battle over a simple grounding punishment. I agreed to give his father temporary custody because I feel he needs to experience what it would be like to live there. But if the court allows him to be there permanently, there will no longer be any discipline in his life. How will anyone be able to discipline him when the courts have shown him that any time he doesn't get his way, he can just run away from his problems?

I know the court considers a child's preference of where they want to live when they reach a certain age, but why can't they see the whole picture and realize this isn't in the best interest of my son? What will happen to him without rules, discipline and responsibilities? Is our legal system failing our children by giving them their way? Why take a child from a parent who has provided for them, loved them and given them a good life just because they don't want to be grounded?

I'm afraid my son will be ruined and there's nothing I can do about it. I don't have money to hire an attorney. I just have to put my faith in our court system.

A.S. Moody,
Richmond

A few thoughts:

1) I'm a little suspicious of mom's claims that she "never found help from his father"--for better or worse, the father does seem to be a part of the kid's life.

2) I think the problem the mother points to is very real. Often parents are afraid to properly discipline or set limits for their teenagers because they're afraid that if they do so, the child will want to go live with the other parent, who may be enticing them with a sweeter deal. My intuitive sense is that this is a greater problem for fathers than for mothers, since fathers generally are more focused on and effective at providing limits and discipline for their kids. However, I can certainly see it happening both ways.

3) In general I'm dubious about family courts allowing children age 12 or older to decide which parent they want to live with. Some children that age have the maturity to make a good decision, some don't. Also, kids can be easily manipulated and bribed, not to mention alienated or poisoned by one parent or another.

4) In this case it seems as if the only choices are to live with mom or live with dad. The boy would probably be better off spending significant time with both parents, not one or the other. And perhaps if each parent felt assured that their role in their child's life was protected, they'd be less likely to be competing for the child's short term loyalty and more likely to coordinate discipline and back each other up. Perhaps.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Ohio Child Support Official Talks Some Sense on 'Deadbeat Dads'

I've been hard on child support officials for their ridiculous pretense that when fathers don't pay their child support, it must mean that they have the money but are being stingy with their kids. Research shows just the opposite--usually the fathers who can pay, do so. Most who don't pay, can't. To learn more about the problems with the child support system, see my co-authored column When Beating up on 'Deadbeat Dads' is Unfair (Houston Chronicle, 1/7/07), or click here.

In this article, Doug Thompson, deputy director for Ohio's Office of Child Support, says:

"When you've got a parent in front of you who says, 'I want to pay child support but I need help,' before we lock that person up, before we put them on TV, we want to give them that opportunity to do the right thing."

I'm not laying up nights waiting for child support enforcement bureaucrats to do the right thing, but there does seem to be an increasing recognition of the unfairness of the "deadbeat dad" raids and the child support system as a whole. In August, David Engle, director of Ohio's Washington County Department of Social Services explained that one of the biggest barriers to paying support is unemployment. He said:

"The No. 1 reason why people can't pay their support is they're not able to find a job, or a job doesn't give them sufficient funds to pay the support," he said.

On a separate note, I absolutely do not con