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.

My Rules on Blog Comments

I started this blog in January of 2007 after many years of doing most of my writing for newspapers.  When I started it, I probably should have laid out ground rules for blog commenters, as most blogs do.  I didn't, probably because I was new to blogging.  This is no longer the case. 

My blog now gets well over 400,000 unique visits and 5,000 comments per month.  Given this, and given some recent controversies on this website, it is probably time for me to explain my moderation rules.

I have tried, and will continue to try to leave this blog as open as possible, particularly to those who dissent.  However, just because I want an open forum and I want dissent doesn't mean that I have an obligation to allow anybody to post whatever they want here.  I have been very loose in my moderating of this blog. The vast majority of those who post here--95%, probably--present no problem at all. However, a few people have taken advantage of the situation.  Below is a list of the types of comments which are subject to being edited or deleted:

1) Personal attacks on other commenters or on myself.

2) Profanity.

3) People who want to endlessly carp over tiny points.

4) Comments which advocate or suggest violence.

5) Comment on the choice of subject, as opposed to comments on the subject itself.

6) People who stray too far from the issue being discussed.  I'm pretty tolerant of this, but it has limits.

7) People who make potentially libelous statements about their ex-wives or ex-husbands and use their last names.

8) Comments whose main purpose is commercial advertising.

My moderation is at times sporadic because of the many demands on my time. It is perfectly true that there will be times when I will moderate one comment and not moderate a similar one, simply because I missed one of them or did not have time to deal with it.

There are times when I edit or delete a comment and I have time to send an email explaining why. There are other times when I do not. In addition, some people do not leave a true email address.

A newspaper has an obligation to allow both sides of an issue to be heard, but it does not have an obligation to publish whatever someone sends them. There's a big difference between moderation and censorship.

In summation, you, the reader and blog commenter, do not have the right to post here.  You have the privilege to post here.  I very rarely revoke that privilege. But remember, what you see on this blog and website--my columns, my radio commentaries, my blog posts, my radio and TV appearances, etc.--is my work and my livelihood.  In moderating, that comes first.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Activism Opportunity: Joint Custody Resolution Now Being Considered by U.S. Senate

Background: I'm a strong believer in Shared Parenting (aka Joint Custody)--the legal presumption that upon divorce or separation, as long as both parents are fit, they will equally share custody of their children. Research shows that this is best for kids, in large part because it protects their relationships with both parents.

I discussed the arguments in favor of Shared Parenting and addressed the National Organization for Women's arguments against it in my co-authored column HB 5267 Will Help Michigan’s Children of Divorce (Lansing State Journal, 5/28/06). To learn more about Shared Parenting, click here.

A note from David L. Levy, Esq., Chief Executive Officer of the Children's Rights Council:

A joint custody resolution is now being considered by the U.S. Senate -- S. Con. Res. 59, introduced by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI). It was introduced in the House last Fall -- H. Con. Res. 241, by Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI). The resolutions express the sense of Congress that the states pass more joint custody laws.

WE MUST NOW WORK TO GET THESE RESOLUTIONS PASSED.

You can view the Resolutions on the Library of Congress "Thomas" website. Please write to your House Member something like this in your own words:

Dear Congressmember --- (for House member)

Please co-sponsor H. Con. Res. 241, a resolution that asks the states to pass more joint custody laws. Children do better in school, experience less poverty and less involvement in crime and drugs, when they have two parents in their lives, even in divorce or never-married situations. Joint custody (shared parenting) for fit parents would help assure that more moms and dads, as well as grandparents, are more involved in children's lives. Please let me know if you can co-sponsor H. Con. Res. 241.

Sign your name
then Print your name,
Address, phone number, email address.

AND

Dear Senator -- (for each of your two Senators)
Please co-sponsor S. Con. Res. 59, a resolution that asks the states to pass more joint custody laws. I want to point out that children do better in school, and are less involved in drugs and crime, when they have two parents in their lives, even if divorced or never-married. Joint custody (shared parenting) for fit parents would help assure that more mothers and fathers are active in their children's lives, and also assure more contact with their grandparents. Please let me know if you can co-sponsor S. Con. Res. 59.

Sign your name
then Print your name,
Address, phone number, email address.

Tips:
1. Find out how to contact your Congressmembers at the Children's Rights Council's (CRC) website, www.CRCkids.org. Under "Government," look up House and Senate. Phone, e-mail or fax to Congress (snail mail takes forever after 9/11). Fax is best, but not all Congressmembers list their fax numbers. Obtain fax number by phoning your Congressmember at 202/225-3121 during normal business hours. Ask for the name of the staff member working for the Congressmember who would handle the joint custody resolution and write to his/her attention. FOLLOW UP EVERY 10 DAYS TO TWO WEEKS; ONE PHONE CALL, FAX OR E-MAIL WILL NOT DO IT. Always be polite; remember, you are asking your Congressmember to lay down the one thousand other things on his/her plate and to focus on the joint custody resolution. Keep CRC informed of results, at info@crckids.org

Note: These resolutions do not "require" the states to pass stronger joint custody laws; there are merely "requests." But requests in other areas over the years have produced positive results in the states. So please do not underestimate the power of a resolution. Joint custody is now a presumption or preference in 37 states and Washington, D.C. But it is applied unevenly in many of those states, let alone the 13 states that have no preference or presumption. Shared parenting has grown enormously over the past 20 years, but much more remains to be done. Thank you, on behalf of children and families everywhere.

David L. Levy, Esq.
Chief Executive Officer
The Children's Rights Council
8181 Professional Place, Suite 240
Landover, MD 20785
1-800-787-KIDS
dlevy@crckids.org 

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Anti-Male Advertising: Our Readers Make an Impact Again--this Time in the Washington Times

Brandweek Magazine is a weekly marketing trade publication, one of the largest in the advertising world. Brandweek editor Todd Wasserman discussed the problem of 'Dad as Idiot' advertising in his column The Surviving Dads Of Ads (Brandweek Magazine, 11/12/07), writing, "It’s hard to argue that guys like Sacks don’t have a point". He discussed several of the anti-male ads we cover on this blog, as well as some of our campaigns against anti-male advertising.

After the article I came out, I suggested that readers share their views with Brandweek. Our readers flooded the magazine with letters, 12 of which were printed--to read some of them and learn more, see my blog post Brandweek Prints Dozen Letters Criticizing Anti-Male Advertising.

This week the Washington Times published an article on the subject of father-bashing in TV advertising. The Times wrote:

"Todd Wasserman knew he had touched a nerve when he saw the enormous number of responses from readers.

"As editor of Brandweek, a New York-based magazine that covers the nation's marketing industry, Mr. Wasserman penned a column in November bemoaning the treatment of fathers in advertising.

"The dad-as-buffoon and the anti-father imagery seemingly permeated advertising and marketing campaigns, which continually use stereotypes about men to get cheap laughs, he observed. And they are increasingly the norm.

"The letters poured in.

"'I don't think we ever got so much reaction,' said Mr. Wasserman, the father of a 5-month-old. 'That fathers are often the butt of ads and accepted as idiots, that was just commonly accepted. But for me, it just seems like a stale target, a safe target for someone trying to get an easy laugh in an ad. The more people I talked to, the more it seemed a lot of people felt that way.'"

To write a Letter to the Editor of the Washington Times about Father figures (1/31/08), click here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

His Side with Glenn Sacks Radio Commentary: Christian Conservatives & Shared Parenting

To listen to the commentary, click here.

To learn more, see my blog post Prominent Christian Conservative Speaks out for Shared Parenting.

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.

So Heartbreaking and So True

Credit Indianapolis Star cartoonist Gary Varvel for this so-true-it's-painful depiction of the fatherless modern American family. The picture in the upper left of the album is the saddest of all. Ouch.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

NY NOW's Pappas Throws Baby Fit over Kennedy's Endorsement of Obama over Hillary--and This Woman Defeated Us?!

According to the Albany Times-Union, NY NOW president Marcia Pappas (pictured), in an angry, vindictive screed which sounds like it was written by a 13-year-old, recently announced:

"Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

"And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not 'this' one).

"This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.'"

Amazing. Ted Kennedy has been a huge advocate of women's and feminist issues for decades, but like a carping wife with a memory that never forgets, Pappas feels compelled to remind him of every time he apparently didn't snap to fast enough for New York NOW. Pappas says that, graciously, "women have forgiven Kennedy." But now that Kennedy has chosen one liberal candidate (Obama) over another (Hillary), it is "the greatest betrayal," the "ultimate betrayal," and "abandonment."

Note that Pappas does not mention any political differences between Hillary and Obama--it's all about voting for a woman. This is particularly ridiculous because here the contest is between a white woman and a black man. Despite women's struggles, white women have always had and continue to have it vastly better than black men.

But you know what really amazes me about this? These people--Pappas and NY NOW--beat us. In 2006, we launched a our Campaign in Support of New York Shared Parenting Bill A330. Pappas was the opposition's main point person.

After we launched the campaign, NOW and other feminist groups counterattacked, launching Action Alerts and campaigns against the bill. The number of calls and letters we generated greatly dwarfed those of our opposition--by a ratio well over 10 to 1--but the Shared Parenting Bill was defeated anyway. It was a stunning commentary on the stranglehold feminist groups have over gender issues in political circles in New York and many other states.

To learn more about that battle, and to read our dueling op-eds in the Albany Times Union, click here. Pappas also criticized the fatherhood movement and my co-authored New York Daily News column NOW at 40: Group's Opposition to Shared Parenting Contradicts Its Goal of Gender Equality (7/27/06) in her column Fathers' Responsibilities Before Fathers' Rights.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

'Hillary has been using her husband as an attack dog against Obama, but escapes criticism because of her gender'

"Hillary has been using her husband as an attack dog against Obama, but escapes criticism because of her gender. While the former President is widely condemned, Hillary is even portrayed sympathetically for 'putting up with Bill's antics yet again.' In contrast, when Elizabeth Edwards criticized Ann Coulter for Ann's distorted criticisms of her husband, John was ridiculed as hiding behind Elizabeth's skirts."

I think he has a point. From the beginning I figured it would play out like this. Bill and Hillary work to get Hillary elected. If Hillary wins, it's Hillary's win. If she loses, it's Bill's fault, at least partly. I don't know how far this will go, but I think the post-South Carolina events Phil mentions support this theory.

On a related note, during the recent California Democratic debate the following exchange occurred:

Moderator: Senator Clinton, your husband has set off several firestorms in the last few weeks in early primary states with the way that he has criticized Senator Obama. Greg Craig, who was one of your husband's top lawyers campaign can't control the former president now, what will it be like when you're in the White House?

CLINTON: Well, one thing I think is fair to say, both Barack and I have very passionate spouses...

OBAMA: We do, no doubt.

CLINTON: ... who promote and defend us at every turn. You know, but the fact is that I'm running for president, and this is my campaign. And I have made it very clear that I want the campaign to stay focused on the issues that I'm concerned about, the kind of future that I want for our country, the work that I have done for all of these years. And that is what the campaign is about. And of course, I'm thrilled to have my husband and my daughter, who is here tonight, you know, representing me and traveling around the country speaking with people, but at the end of the day, it's my name that is on the ballot, and it will be my responsibility as president and commander in chief, after consulting broadly with a lot of people who have something to contribute to difficult decisions, I will have to make the call. And I am fully prepared to do that.

CLINTON: And I know that as we go forward in this campaign, it's a choice between the two of us. And we are proud of our spouses, we're proud of our families, we're proud of everybody supporting us. But at the end of the day, it's a lonely job in the White House, and it is the president of the United States who has to make the decisions. And that is what I'm asking to be entrusted to do.

What Hillary said was OK, I guess, but I thought it was a little underwhelming. I would have been more impressed if she defended her husband more directly.

Phil also writes:

"It was particularly evident in the Nevada debate that Hillary's sex afforded her the special privilege to preempt her male opponents, and the moderator, if she chose to speak out-of- turn. There are numerous examples, but consider that she was permitted to ask two debate questions of the other candidates although the moderator enforced a limit of only one to the male opponents."

I didn't see the Nevada debate, but I did see the last New Hampshire one and then the California one this past week, and I didn't see Hillary preempting her opponents or being treated with any extra deference. If readers have seen this during the debates, feel free to chime in.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

''Lazy husband' is definitely not a myth in my house...[Most men] have grown up with a mommy waiting on them hand and foot'

Amanda, a reader, takes exception to my column and my views. She writes:

"'Lazy husband' is definitely not a myth in my house. My husband has not had a job or done anything beside play video games and take the trash out for the past 15 months. I've worked, gone to school, cooked, cleaned, and tried to find him a job because he refused.

"The laziness has not been limited to those recent months, either. Previously--when he actually did work--he would not lift a finger to help around the house (meaning he would just let the garbage overflow). He thought that he had done his part by going to work all week. The problem with that logic is- I'd also 'done my part' and gone to work all week, so where did that leave us? Obviously, it left me with a second job when I came home and a lazy slob husband in front of the TV. This is a trend more than my isolated bad luck.

"Sure some of you guys out there are not this way, but most of them seem to have grown up with a mommy waiting on them hand and foot and never expected that to change."

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

A Small Victory for Civil Liberties vis a vis the War on Drugs

I also believe that while our society insists on treating drug abuse as a criminal justice problem, it is in reality a public health problem. I suppose one could argue that locking them up separates them from their drugs, but I doubt this is true--there are plenty of drugs in prison.

One time I heard a radio interview with an ex-convict who said that he used to sneak under the guard tower at his prison, meet his dealer and do his drugs. I remember thinking, "Here's a guy who's locked up in prison, surrounded by huge cement walls and barbed wire, standing underneath a tower with two guards and a machine gun, and he still got his drugs. Prison is not the answer."

Another problem with the War on Drugs is the way it often erodes our civil liberties. (The war on "deadbeat dads" also erodes our civil liberties, but we're not supposed to talk about that.) Criminal defense/family law attorney Doug Slain has a little bit of good news on this front from his blog Men on the Defensive. Slain writes:

Cops cannot enter your home just because they smell your dope (even if they see you acting dope-y)

On January 11, 2008, in People v. Jua, District: 1 DCA, Division: 5, Case #: A116578, the California appellate court upheld the need for a warrant before entering a home based on suspicions of minor offenses, including smoking marijuana.

In this case the cops detected the “distinct order” of marijuana emanating from a residence, followed by their observation through the window of someone in the living room “whose conduct was consistent with smoking marijuana.”  

The cops knocked on the door, the defendant opened it, the cops smelled more dope, entered uninvited, did a search, and found 46 growing plants. 

The appellate court reversed the lower court, ruling that the nature of the crime was “insufficient in gravity” to warrant the entry without a warrant.  

This is a strike against the Constitutionally-bereft practice of so many law enforcement officers: enter first, and decide later the reasons for doing so. 

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Ned Holstein on New Research on Move-Aways

"Mr. and Mrs. Miller have two sons. Mrs. Miller began an affair with Mr. Pizzino. After awhile, it was discovered and led to a divorce. Despite her misbehavior, Mrs. Miller was awarded physical custody of the children – no surprise there. Over the next year or so, she acquired a few contempt citations for interfering with Mr. Miller’s access to his boys. After awhile, she married Mr. Pizzino. There was only one problem: Mr. Pizzino was active duty military and was stationed in South Carolina.

"The new Mrs. Pizzino applied to the court to move to South Carolina with the two boys. She wanted to live with her new husband, of course. The GAL (a psychologist retained by the court) found that Mr. Miller was a great dad and the children were closely bonded to him. The psychologist recommended against the relocation, and the family court denied the moveaway.

"Now enter the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Under crazy Massachusetts case law, the Appeals Court found that mom’s history of interfering with dad’s access to the children was not relevant (!). Also, the children’s strong relationship with dad was not a good enough reason to prevent the move. Therefore, the family court judge’s ruling should be overturned and the kids should go to South Carolina.

"Somebody smarter than I please explain to me how this is good for the boys..."

Post-divorce move-aways are often a devastating blow to the relationship between children and their noncustodial parents. Below, Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Executive Director of Fathers & Families, discusses some new research on the issue.

Moveaways: Another Scholar Looks at the Evidence. Are Children Helped?

Denver, CO–Still another scholar has concluded that moveaways hurt children in most cases.

Dr. William G. Austin of Denver reviewed 77 research studies and summarized them in the January, 2008 issue of Family Court Review. He concluded:

"Methodologically sound survey studies show strong effects on child outcomes due to residential mobility following divorce. The measurement of child adjustment problems . . . ranges from greater frequency of school behavior problems with younger children to lower academic achievement, greater teen pregnancy, and lower psychological well-being in older children."

Kenneth Waldron looked at over 70 published studies and reached similar conclusions in the Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers in 2005.

As did Sanford Braver in the Journal of Family Psychology in 2003.

As did Richard Warshak in the Family Law Quarterly in 2000.

Unfortunately, Austin also wrote, “It would be unsound to use the research reviewed here as a basis for a presumption or bias against relocation of a child . . . ” Why do the psychologists usually oppose presumptions that would work well for most children? Because they hold the illusion that every case can be analyzed in depth by wise students of human behavior such as themselves. Lawyers file motions. Surgeons operate, and psychologists analyze.

They overlook the real world of crowded courtrooms, apathetic judges, no money for psychologists, and incompetent attorneys (if there is any attorney at all). In the real world, a presumption that works for most children is an absolute necessity.

In truth, there is already a presumption at work – but it is the wrong presumption, the one that says the custodial parent can leave with the kids. Even if not written into the statute book, it is very real in the courtrooms of many states. We need to replace the wrong presumption with the right one.

If there is no de facto presumption already in effect in Massachusetts in favor of moveaways, please explain to me the outcome in the case of Pizzino v. Miller...

Read the rest of it here--it's good stuff.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

A Street Cop's Perspective on Domestic Violence Prosecutions

I often use pull quotes to highlight the most important points of the stories I discuss, but in this one the punch line is just too good to give away...

A Domestic Violence Story You Won't See on Lifetime Television
By WolfmanMac 
 
Late one afternoon in 1997 I was radio assigned to investigate a report of domestic violence. Upon my arrival I made contact with the reporting party. She was of average height and build, not unattractive, and was very composed as she told me the story. She and her husband had been arguing and during the course of the argument he, while wearing “work boots,” had kicked her in the shin. She showed me the bruise (approximately the size of a dime) about midway up her shin that she stated had been caused by the blow.

She was very much in favor of charges being pressed, but that was in any event irrelevant – the jurisdiction in which I worked had a “shall arrest” law which stated that if a woman stated she had been hit and displayed marks or bruises less than 72 hours old, arrest was mandatory.

I traveled to his place of business (approximately 5 minutes drive from the house). Finding him there, I interviewed him about the day’s events. In the course of the interview, he admitted they had an argument earlier in the day, that he had come to the shop “to cool off” (he owned the business), but he denied touching her, much less kicking her in the shin. Of course he would say that, thought I. These wife beaters always lie. But it really didn’t matter – I just wanted to get an incriminating statement from him to assist in prosecution. With her statement, and a photograph of a visible bruise, I had all I needed.

Smug in the knowledge that I was striking a blow for the powerless and hoping he would resist, I arrested, transported and booked him for Domestic Violence/Assault and Battery. As time went by, the arrest faded into the routine of calls and arrests, calls and reports, hours without calls and traffic stops.

But a couple of things came to my attention that caused me to approach the District Attorney’s office about the case, and it is there the story really begins – it is there I should have taken note, years before I finally did, of the rot that is the “Violence Against Women Industry.”

First, the District Attorneys Domestic Violence Section called me about the photographs – the Evidence Room had lost them and they wanted to know if I was sure I had submitted them as evidence. I assured them that yes, I had. They asked me if the woman, upon our initial contact, had told me she suffered from a Thyroid condition which causes her to bruise almost upon any contact. I answered no, she had not disclosed that. They asked me to describe the bruise – I answered that it was about the size of a dime, midway up her shin and faint, but clearly a bruise. But in the back of my mind, I was picturing him, picturing her, picturing him kicking her in the shin (wearing work boots no less) and leaving a faint bruise on a person who bruises at a touch. But I dismissed the thought, that wasn’t my end of the deal.

The Assistant DA thanked me, said she’d get back into contact with the Evidence Room and see if they could find the pictures, but if they couldn’t, my testimony would be necessary as he was pleading “not guilty.” I laughed out loud at that revelation, said something sarcastic like “good luck with that,” and got off the phone. Months passed, during which I got a couple more phone calls about the photographs as the DA prepared for trial and both times had occasion to wonder why this one stupid case would not go away.  

I don’t remember exactly how I came by the information, but I think it was another deputy acquainted with some of the players in the case who gave me a number and suggested I call it for information pertinent to the investigation. In any event, I wound up with a copy of a protective order this woman had filed against her ex-husband, some two years before. In it, she had requested (and was granted) an Order of Protection against her ex based upon the exact same details she gave to me in her initial report on the afternoon I arrested her current husband. Two men, and the exact same statement. Not just the story was the same – she used the exact same words to complain of the exact same attack (kicking her in the shin wearing work boots), to describe her fear of him and to express her intention to prosecute.

That was enough for me at that point. I had been beginning to suspect I had been had, and this revelation convinced me it was so. I determined to go to the DA’s office and get this case dismissed...

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

A New Way to Suck Money out of Men--Alimony for the Mistress

They never lived together, he put her through graduate school and provided her with an apartment, but it wasn't enough, and now she wants palimony. She claims she needs his money and can't support herself because her degree is in Art History--as if her choice of study is his fault!

He allegedly "deceived" her by not divorcing his wife to marry her. It's great how these women have affairs with wealthy, adulterous married men--hardly a trustworthy group in general--and then are shocked, shocked! when the men don't keep their promises to them.

As an attractive young woman she could have had any man she wanted, but the nice guy next door was never good enough--she had to have the most wealthy, powerful man she could get. And now she's an angry, betrayed "victim."

You also have to love Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto, who says, "He was an adulterer and he shouldn't be held liable? That's a little troubling to me." It's troubling that he doesn't pay alimony to a mistress? Since when?

N.J. High Court Hears Pitch for Palimony Sans Cohabitation
Michael Booth
NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL
January 23, 2008
For the nearly three decades that New Jersey has recognized a cause of action for palimony, cohabitation has been the litmus test. No degree of love, devotion, mutual assurance or sacrifice has been found sufficient without it.

But what if the couple is intimate for two decades but can't cohabit because one party stays married to someone else? Put more bluntly, is there equitable power to award palimony to a mistress?

The lower courts have said no, putting the issue before the state Supreme Court in L'Esperance v. Devaney, A-20-07.

Palimony is shorthand for equitable recovery based on a long-term, spousal-type relationship between two parties not married to each other. It was first recognized three decades ago in California in Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976). New Jersey followed suit in Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, 80 N.J. 378 (1979), a case also involving a married man in a relationship with another woman.

But in Kozlowski, there was cohabitation, unlike the case now before the court, which presents other factors that arguably made the relationship just as strong as if the couple lived together.

In 1983, Helen Devaney started working as a receptionist for Dr. France L'Esperance, a New York City ophthalmologist. She was 23 and single, he 51 and married with children. When they became romantically involved, he purchased an apartment for her in North Bergen, N.J., where he visited her frequently over the course of 20 years...

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

Fathers & Families News Digest, 2-5-08

Below are some recent articles and items of interest from Fathers & Families' latest News Digest.

Avoid sides when friends divorce (Contra Costa Times, 1-30-08)

New documents filed in Bollea divorce battle (ABCactionnews.com, 1-30-08)

Social worker advises families in process of divorce (WISHtv.com, 1-30-08)

Marriages on ice in January? (Saginaw News, 1-31-08)

Seeking a stable home for a child of divorce (Washington Post, 2-1-08)

The season of divorce (Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 2-4-08)

Child support sweep lands 13 men in jail (Houston Chronicle, 1-28-08)

Child support cases slated for review increase (Ventura County Star, 1-29-08)

State accepting input on child support rules (The Examiner, 1-29-08)

Candidate with bill for child support released (The DC Examiner, 1-30-08)

Mom forms group for parents without custody (Bridgeton News, 2-4-08)

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here, or visit the Fathers & Families blog here.

Ex-Cop John McLaughlin: How to Cut Through the 'He Said/She Said' in Domestic Violence Cases

"Research shows that domestic violence, child abuse or child sexual abuse are all patterns of behaviors. No one wakes up one morning and begins to beat their spouse or children. There is a pattern of behavior that happens over time. When time is spent looking for these patterns of behavior it becomes very clear whether or not the allegations are true or false."

One of the biggest problems accused fathers face in divorce and custody are false allegations of domestic violence. John McLaughlin (pictured) and Karen Borders of Borders, McLaughlin & Associates are former police detectives who employ an investigative approach to "He said/She said" domestic violence cases. Their Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Risk Assessments are designed to prove or disprove abuse allegations, and to answer the questions judges face.

Below is Part I of my interview with John.

Q. What is wrong with the way courts and the family law system currently deal with allegations of domestic violence?

The problem in the family law system is that when allegations of domestic violence, child abuse or child sexual abuse are made against one party or the other, the court is often forced to make decisions with limited information. Depending on the state, certain mandates require actions by judicial officers, which include restraining orders, no visitation or supervised visitation orders, move out orders and other actions. The court is forced to act with little or no evidence.

When there are children involved, the courts order a mental health evaluation to provide input back to the court about child custody. This evaluation involves mental health testing (i.e. MMPI-2, Parenting inventory test, etc).

These evaluations are supposed to serve the best interest of the children. The problem is that most mental health providers do not spend enough time proving or disproving the allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, or child sexual abuse. In reality, how can you address the best interest of the children if you do not prove or disprove the allegations in the first place?

Additionally, the mental health professional is not trained in investigations. These serious allegations require an investigation. Once the allegations can be investigated, proved or disproved, then and only then can the best interest of the children be served properly.

Until now, there has been no service or process to accomplish this. Based on what we developed, a collaborative approach, where a mental health professional is teamed up with a professional investigator to figure out what is going on. Then using statistics and probability, we can make recommendations to the courts on what the likelihood of the allegations are and what risk might be present in the future.

Q. It seems that most domestic violence cases revolve around a "He Said/She Said" scenario that men usually lose. You claim your services can get men beyond this dilemma--how?

First, this is very easy to get beyond if time is spent looking into the allegations. Research shows that domestic violence, child abuse or child sexual abuse are all patterns of behaviors. No one wakes up one morning and begins to beat their spouse or children. There is a pattern of behavior that happens over time. When time is spent looking for these patterns of behavior it becomes very clear whether or not the allegations are true or false.

For example, if a man has never shown any warning signs or behaviors associated with domestic violence and now there is a single allegation of DV, there is not a great likelihood that it occurred, especially if it was not witnessed by anyone. The reality is family, friends, neighbors and others know what is going on. They might not know that they know what is going on, but when they are asked the right questions, they have a wealth of information. It is like putting a puzzle together. Pieces come from many different sources.

Domestic violence homicides are the most predictable and preventable homicide that occurs. They read like a map book if someone who understands the patterns of behaviors is looking at it. Once you understand this, it becomes pretty clear what is happening and whether an allegation is true or false.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.