Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com

Ned Holstein, MD, MS
www.fathersandfamilies.org

PBS Ombudsman Criticizes Breaking the Silence on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Says New Film Will Take 'Broader Look' at Issue

PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler criticized Breaking the Silence on News Hour with Jim Lehrer, saying the film "had no balance" and was "quite a one-sided presentation." He also mentioned that PBS is "going to do another documentary to take a broader look at this issue."

To listen to audio of Getler's appearance, click here.
 

Glenn Discusses PBS's Breaking the Silence on The Larry Elder Show

Glenn discussed the campaign against PBS's Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories on the nationally-syndicated Larry Elder Show on December 22, 2005.

Glenn Discusses PBS's Breaking the Silence on KFAX in San Francisco

Kim Basinger's Mom: Kim is 'Alienating' Her Daughter from Alec Baldwin

Basinger's mum speaks out about custody battle 

Kim Basinger's mother has blasted her own daughter for wrecking relations between her ex-husband Alec Baldwin and the couple's daughter.

Baldwin recently took Basinger to court in a bid to extend his custody terms after the actress allegedly violated a court imposed settlement, and now little Ireland's grandmother is speaking out about the court battle, which has now been settled.

Ann Basinger admits she sides with Baldwin, who she calls "wonderful," adding, "My heart is sad for Ireland. She's the one that's suffering the most. All this is killing her.

"I think Kim has tried to alienate Ireland from her father. Alec loves his daughter with all his heart. He really is a family man."

And in the National Enquirer expose, Basinger's mother reveals she can understand what her former son-in-law is going through, because she too rarely sees her granddaughter.

She adds: "Kim and I used to be close but now I don't see Ireland very often because Kim won't let me and that's because I won't take her side about everything.

"She's my daughter and I love her, but I hate what she's doing, that she is being this way... I wish I could see more of Ireland. She's such a sweetheart."

A Victory for Military Parents

Michigan military parents scored a big victory last week with the signing of a military custody bill by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (see the Associated Press' Granholm signs bills to protect custody for deployed parents). I've written several columns on the problems which divorced military personnel face--to learn more, see Laws Must Protect the Rights of Military Dads (Army Times, Marine Corps Times, 3/28/05).

Jim Semerad and Dads of Michigan worked hard to pass the bill. Jim writes:

"Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has signed the military custody bill which would provide:

1. Prevention of a change of custody while a military service member is deployed
2. Prevent the absence from regular parenting time to affect the weighting of the 12 custody factors in custody determination.

"Thanks to Joseph McNeilly, a National Guardsman from Lansing, MI, for his tireless effort and testimony to make this happen, Rep Rick Jones, House sponsor, Sen. Patty Birkholz, Senate sponsor, CDR Jim Semerad, SC, USNR, and DADS and MOMS of Michigan PAC for testimony, numerous correspondence, and telephone contact.

"The staff at Rep. Jones office were enthusiastic and very supportive in making this happen."

The following press release has been issued:

"Governor Granholm Signs Legislation to Protect Parental Rights for Military Personnel

"LANSING--Governor Jennifer M. Granholm today signed legislation that will protect the parental rights of military personnel serving in the Michigan National Guard while they are on active duty.

"'The men and women serving in the military and the reserves sacrifice on our behalf every day,' Granholm said. 'I am proud to sign legislation that will protect them from having to sacrifice even more for their service.'

"The issue of parental rights of military personnel serving overseas gained prominence earlier this year after the story of one mid-Michigan solider received media attention. The soldier, a member of the Michigan National Guard, lost shared custody of his child while serving in Iraq. Friend of the Court papers cited the man's 'abandonment' of the child as a reason for the custody change. Media reports at the time indicated the case was not an isolated problem.

"The two bills signed today by Granholm prohibit Michigan courts from changing custody orders or a child's placement while a parent is on active military duty unless there is convincing evidence that such a change is in the best interests of the child. The bills were given immediate effect.

"'Ensuring that children are protected while their parents serve our country is critically important,' Granholm said. 'This legislation balances the needs of the child and the rights of the parents in challenging circumstances.'"

"House Bill 5100 (Public Act 328) was sponsored by Representative Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) and Senate Bill 714 (Public Act 327) was sponsored by Senator Patty Birkholz (R-Saugatuck)."

The success in Michigan in helping military parents follows on the heels of our success in California. In September, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 1082, which addresses the way parents who serve are often taken advantage of in custody and family law matters while they are deployed. It will also help resolve the child support nightmare many mobilized reservists face. To learn more about SB 1082, see my co-authored column California's Military Reservists Need SB 1082 (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 4/14/05).

Working through the Military Parents Alliance, the Sackson Horde helped build support for the bill. In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee Analysis of SB 1082 made specific note of your calls and letters. 

Special credit goes to lobbyist Michael Robinson and Stan Diorio of the  California Alliance for Families and Children for their fantastic work in passing this bill. The bill was sponsored by Senators Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego) and Bill Morrow (R-Oceanside).

According to Robinson, Senator Morrow was first inspired to take up this cause after he read The Betrayal of the Military Father (Los Angeles Daily News, 5/4/03). It is the story of Gary S., a San Diego-based US Navy SEAL whose little boy was permanently moved from California to the Middle East against his will while he was deployed in Afghanistan after the September 11 terrorist attacks.  To hear an interview with Gary on His Side, go to Two Years into Iraq War, Little Has Been Done to Protect the Rights of Military Fathers (3/13/05).

Male Feminist Under Siege

Prominent male feminist blogger Barry Deutsch (aka Ampersand), who runs Alas, a Blog, one of the leading feminist blogs, is under attacks from self-described radical feminists at Why Alas Needs Radical Feminist Woman Only Threads.

It's an interesting discussion, and one which tells you more than you'd ever want to know about the thinking process of radical feminists. For example:

"Ampersand treats feminists and anti-feminists as if our positions had moral equivalence. Why do radical feminists have to request space from a man in the first place? I can't honestly imagine having real feminist discourse in a place run by and for a man, especially a man who has behaved in such a sexist manner towards women previously."

The thrust of the attacks is that Barry is sexist, has betrayed his radical feminist allies, is overly solicitous of MRAs (men's rights activists), and is mistreating a few of the women who post there.

I guess I should keep my yap shut about it, particularly since Barry has criticized me on numerous occasions, but these attacks on him seem pretty unfair. I don't know the details so I could be wrong,  but I doubt that Barry has mistreated radical feminists, and he does seem to make an effort to be fair to all of the posters there. He's worked for years supporting feminists and feminist issues. He's also one of the few feminists on the web who tries to use logic, research, and reason to argue a point.  The attacks on him seem not only inaccurate but downright ungrateful.

Child Support Enforcement Attorney Has Interesting Comments on My Column

A child support enforcement attorney wrote to me about my recent co-authored column, Federal Child Support Enforcement Cuts Will Hurt Bureaucrats, not Children (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 12/17/05, Riverside Press-Enterprise, 12/16/05), and had some interesting comments. Here are a few:

"I agree with the tone of your article...I feel that the guidelines here in my state are very unfair at the lower income levels.  Take the scenario where there are three children.  The guidelines say that at minimum wage, $892.00, a child support order should be $345 which is 38%.  If the combined income is $15,000, then the child support order should be $1,990 or 13%.  So those who make less are expected to pay a greater percentage of their income than those who earn more and are in a better position to deal with a child support order.  I agree, this is absurd."

"It also annoys me that there is no responsibility on the mothers. Sure, they have the right [noun] to procreate ad nauseum, but it doesn't make it right [the adjective].  Most don't appreciate the difference.  But they will have five kids by four fathers then bitch at us because we can't locate the losers they chose to sleep with."

"I have been solicited about a half-dozen times in the last two weeks to contact my congressmen regarding the legislation [the cut in federal reimbursement funds for child support enforcement].  I find it objectionable to solicit me to take political action for a particular position."

A 'Great Step Forward' for Male Domestic Violence Victims as Violence Against Women Act Passes

David Burroughs, Esq., of the Safe Homes for Children and Families Coalition, has done great work in getting Congress to reform the Violence Against Women Act to include all victims of domestic violence, regardless of gender. VAWA was just re-authorized before the Congressional recess. According to Burroughs:

"The effort to remove the gender bias of the Violence Against Women Act and of domestic violence policy in this country in general moved significantly forward this weekend. As many of you know the Safe Homes for Children and Families Coalition, in cooperation with a number of independent organizations, headed up the campaign to make the VAWA re-authorization gender neutral.

"This weekend the Congress Re-authorized the Violence Against Women Act with two very significant sections. First, the Congress inserted language making it clear that the legislation was intended to cover all victims; not just females. Unfortunately, as to this language, the Conference Committee settled on language from the Senate version that, while still clear, will likely cause us to have do battle with the Office of Violence Against Women in the Dept. of Justice to ensure it ceases and desists its past discriminatory funding policies. Nevertheless, Congress is on record both in the legislation and in the Congressional Record that male victims must be given equal standing.

"Secondly, and at least as importantly, the Congress did incorporate the very stringent directive language provided by the Safe Homes for Children and Families Coalition instructing the GAO to conduct a study of both the DOJ and Federal recipients as to what services they provide and reporting exactly how many men versus women received those services. An honest study (and the GAO is highly respected for its non-political reports) will put the lie to the DOJ's and the radical feminist shelter advocates' protestations to Congress that men do receive services.

"This is a great step forward. Never before has Congress acknowledged male victims in the now ten year history of this  legislation. And never before has a Congressional Committee hearing, as was the case at the July 19 Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on VAWA, witnessed and recorded repeated questions of witnesses by multiple Senators about male victims and their right to equal treatment.

"More importantly, we now have an opportunity to seek funding, demand equal services and create a record to take back to Congress next year for Amendments to this still flawed legislation."

Burroughs praised Michael Robinson of California Alliance for Families and Children in particular for his "tireless work on this effort," and cited numerous other groups and activists. These include: the American Coalition for Fathers and Children; Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting; Marc Angelucci of the National Coalition of Free Men - LA Chapter; Jan Brown of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women; Tom Golden, who organized the Men's Equality Conference 2005; and numerous others.

To learn more about some of the problems with VAWA and why activists wanted to reform it, see: Congress to Vote on Renewing Anti-Male Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) (His Side, 7/3/05); VAWA Renewal Provides Opportunity to Stop Destruction of Innocent Cops' Careers (Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, 7/19/05); Domestic Violence Treatment Policies Put Abused Women in Harm's Way (Daily Breeze [Los Angeles], 11/7/05); Plaintiff in Suit Against LA DV Shelters is Right to Demand Services for Abused Men (Los Angeles Daily News, 6/12/03); and Schlafly on VAWA, Fathers' Rights, and Conservatives' Failure to Defend Fatherhood & Families (His Side, 7/24/05).
 

A Woman Who Lost the Father She Loved in Her Parents' Divorce Speaks Out

Therapist Shari Schreiber, M.A., who watched helplessly as the father she loved and needed was ripped out of her life by her mother at age five, is speaking out about her experience. In a heartbreaking new column she writes:

"At five years old, I was caught in the middle of a divorce and custody battle between my parents. ...my father was the healthier parent, and had the presence of mind to recognize this at the time. Still, I was 'awarded' to my mother. Two years after my parents split, my mother was hospitalized and was absent physically and/or emotionally for long stretches of time throughout the remainder of my childhood...Back in the fifties, custody was automatically awarded to mothers. Unfortunately this practice still exists, and the consequences to children can be tragic.

"My father was the source of virtually all my affection and attention, and we shared a very close and special bond. When he left, the bottom of my world dropped out. Being without him trapped me in unimaginable pain and emptiness, and there was no one capable of comforting me or picking up the slack. My mother had [falsely] accused him of 'molestation,' a reliable 'catch word' among vindictive wives and divorce attorneys back then [and now]...

"Dazed, I wandered around for months with what seemed like a huge hole in my middle, like a cannon ball had been shot through me."

Read the rest of Schreiber's gripping story here. Schreiber has endorsed many of our campaigns over the past few years. To learn more about Schreiber and read her other columns, click here.

Congressional Candidate Takes Strong Stand for Noncustodial Parents' Rights

As you know, in my newspaper columns and on the air I avoid political partisanship and do not endorse any political party. My feeling has always been that I'm happy to work with whichever party is willing to promote our issues and help keep fathers and children together.

Last year, for the first time ever, a presidential candidate came out with a strong position in defense of noncustodial parents' rights. For this reason, I endorsed  Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. My endorsement was  based specifically on the very important issue of fatherhood and noncustodial parents' rights, and was in no way, shape, or form a comment on the various candidates' policies on the war in Iraq, the economy, or any other issue. I noted the following:

• Badnarik is clearly aware of and sensitive to the basic problems fathers today face, particularly the sole custody norm and the denigration of noncustodial parents to "second class parent" status.

• Badnarik is also aware of and concerned about civil rights violations by child support enforcement agencies, the rights of unwed fathers, widespread abuses by Child Protective Services, abuses of judicial discretion and the excessive power of family courts.

• This awareness places Badnarik miles ahead of all other candidates.

To learn more, click here.

Badnarik is running for Congress in 2006, and again he has a strong noncustodial parents' rights platform. I endorse him, and I urge fatherhood advocates to work for him and with him. His campaign can be reached through his website at www.badnarik.org

To hear Badnarik on His Side with Glenn Sacks, go to Libertarian Presidential Candidate Defends Noncustodial Parents' Rights.

CPB Ombudsman Blasts Breaking the Silence Again

In November the Corporation for Public Broadcasting released a report which endorsed the central charges we've made against PBS's film Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories. In the report CPB Ombudsman Ken A. Bode declared that there is "no hint of balance in Breaking the Silence."

Bode did it again in "Breaking the Silence Redux" (12/19/05). In the new report Bode comments on the reactions to his previous report from major players in the controversy, including the film's co-producers Catherine Tatge and Dominique Lasseur of Tatge/Lasseur Productions, Inc., and Michael Lunceford, President of the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation.

Bode's new report can be found here. His previous report can be read here. To contact Ken A. Bode, click here.

CPB Ombudsman: Producers' 'Defense' Amounts to 'Plea of Guilty to Violating the Fairness and Balance Standards of PBS'

Bode wrote that in response to his previous report, "We also heard from the program's co-producers Catherine Tatge and Dominique Lasseur Productions.'" Bode writes:

"In my original posting I concluded that there was no hint of balance in the documentary Breaking the Silence. Tatge/Lasseur said that my report was damaging to their professional reputation and even more to the women and children who are faced with the situations described in their film.

"In discussing their research and reporting Dominique Lasseur said the following:

'We spoke with members of fathers' rights organizations and did extensive research on their views. We made the decision not to interview them on camera because they would not have provided any balance or fairness to the piece.'

"It was precisely the lack of balance and fairness that caused so many viewers to contact PBS and CPB. That was also the main thrust of my report. Lasseur now says that was intentional. Simply put, that amounts to a plea of guilty to violating the fairness and balance standards of PBS."

As for the producers' claim that Bode's previous report was "damaging to their professional reputation," don't blame Bode--you did that to yourselves. To learn more about the film's credibility problems, click here.

Also, see my co-authored columns PBS's Breaking the Silence: Family Law in the Funhouse Mirror  (Albany Times-Union, 10/20/05, Norfolk Virginian Pilot, 10/24/05) and PBS Declares War on Dads (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 11/1/05), as well as Wendy McElroy's PBS Film Ignites Fathers' Rights Debate (Fox News, 11/7/05) and Cathy Young's PBS's negative picture of fathers (Boston Globe, 11/21/05).

Tatge/Lasseur See No Credible Advocates for Fathers

Tatge/Lasseur's slap at fatherhood advocates is priceless:

"We spoke with members of fathers' rights organizations and did extensive research on their views. We made the decision not to interview them on camera because they would not have provided any balance or fairness to the piece."

In reality, there are countless fine advocates for fathers who would have provided desperately needed "balance" and "fairness" to the piece. For example, Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, was in contact with Lasseur during the production of Breaking the Silence, and would have been a valuable part of the film. Ned Holstein and Dan Hogan of Fathers & Families of Massachusetts, who have helped lead this campaign, would also have been excellent choices.

Has the Film's Backer Backed Down?

In mid-October, Massachusetts domestic violence advocates prescreened Breaking the Silence at the Massachusetts State House in Boston. At the screening it was announced that this presentation and others planned across the country had been financed by a stipend from the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation, which had previously given $500,000 towards the production of the film.

Bode's report indicates that the leaders of Mary Kay may have changed their minds.

According to Bode, Michael Lunceford, president of the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation, wrote to him and distanced his organization from the film. Lunceford  says:

"The Foundation has no plan to distribute this documentary the way it did the 2001 program Breaking the Silence: Journeys of Hope, which was sold through the foundation with an accompanying program guide."

Lunceford also appeared anxious to disassociate himself from the film, telling Bode that after making the grant for the production, the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation had no further involvement with the project. Lunceford wrote:

"Our agreement with CPTV was for a program regarding the effects of domestic violence on children. The co-producers CPTV and Tatge/Lasseur had full independence within that topic in researching and producing the program. As you are aware, under PBS National Program Funding Standards and Practices, the co-producers are fully responsible for the program research and content."

CPB Condemns Tatge/Lasseur's Defamation of Dr. Scott Loeliger

As many of you know, after Breaking the Silence was shown nationally on PBS on October 20, I was contacted by Dr. Scott Loeliger, a father who was defamed in the film. Together Scott and I worked to prepare and release his side of the story, and it has subsequently been discussed and reported on by Fox News, the Boston Globe, Reason magazine, and several radio networks.

Scott and I released extensive documentation that shows that his ex-wife Sadia Loeliger--portrayed as a heroic mom in the film--was found by a California Juvenile Court to have abused children under her care, and that both of her daughters were adjudged to be dependents of the Juvenile Court. Bode wrote:

"We heard from Dr. Scott Loeliger whose daughter and former wife were featured in the documentary. Loeliger says the producers knew that he possesses documents from a juvenile court proving his wife was the abuser. He asked that his daughter be removed from the program and says that failure by the producers to do so was 'a poison pill that destroyed the entire premise of the documentary.'

"Producers Lasseur and Tatge replied in a letter to CPB that Dr. Loeliger declined their offer to interview him so that his views could be aired. Had he agreed to be interviewed Loeliger would have been the only father represented.

"They also say that after speaking to Dr. Loeliger they changed the names of the mother and daughter. What difference does that make? Their faces were still on public television screens all over the country. Did they think that Dr. Loeliger, to whom they caused pain, would mistake them for strangers?

"Loeliger says he has received no satisfaction from PBS, CPTV or the producers and still threatens to release the juvenile files and sue."

Loeliger declined to be interviewed on the show because he did not want his daughter to be caught between warring parents on national television. Scott shied away from publicity on the issue, and requested of the filmmakers only that they leave his daughter out of the film--click here to read Scott's letters to the producers. These requests were ignored. Finally, after being defamed on national television, Scott figured there was little left to lose and contacted me so he could tell his story for the first time.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com
HisSide.com

Subscribe to this E-Newsletter

Email this E-Newsletter to a Friend

Missed an E-Newsletter? Find all of Glenn's E-Newsletters here

GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com

To be removed from our list, send an email to remove@glennsacks.com with the subject line "Remove." Please allow up to 2 weeks for removal to be processed.