PARENS PATRIAE

Japan considers limits to children's cell phones

2008-05-27T17:38:00.003-04:00

(CHICAGO) -- The Japanese government is concerned about how elementary and junior high school students are getting sucked into cyber-crimes--reportedly spending long hours exchanging e-mail messages and suffering other negative effects of cellphone overuse, said Masaharu Kuba, a government official.

"Japanese parents are giving cell phones to their children without giving it enough thought," he said. "In Japan, cell phones have become an expensive toy."

Officials claim that some youngsters are spending hours at night on e-mail with their friends. One fad is "the 30 minute rule," in which a child who doesn't respond to e-mail within half an hour, gets targeted and picked on by other schoolmates.

Other youngsters have become victims of Internet crimes. In one case, children sent in their own snapshots to a Web site and then ended up getting threatened for money, Kuba said.

Some Japanese children commute long distances by trains and buses to schools and cram-schools and parents rely on cell phones to keep in touch with their children.

About a third of Japanese sixth graders have cell phones--while 60 percent of ninth graders have them, according to the education ministry.

Cell phones tend to be more personal tools than personal computers. Parents find that what their children are doing with them are increasingly difficult to monitor, Kuba said. Parents typically pay about 4,000 yen ($39) a month for cell phone fees per child.

Recommendations have been submitted from an education reform panel to Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda's administration, and were approved this week. The panel is also seeking the help of cellphone makers to develop phones with only the talking function, and a GPS satellite-navigation feature to help ensure children's safety.

Dallas Judge Tracks Chronic Truants with GPS devices

2008-05-25T16:22:00.002-04:00

A county juvenile judge in East Dallas has ordered nine students at Bryan Adams High to wear a GPS monitoring unit as part of an Attendance Improvement Management Program, funded by a mix of county, nonprofit and private funds, according to a report in the Dallas Morning News.

Students are being fitted with a Global Positioning System device that allows truant officers to zero in on their location 24 hours a day. The device also contains a cellphone programmed with voice recognition software to prevent students from giving it to a friend to take to school in their place.

The project's use of GPS tracking devices is unusual but not unique.

"We're still evaluating the program," said Jon Dahlander, citing cost concerns and the number of students currently enrolled in the project.

Last year, Maryland lawmakers proposed something similar for truants in Prince George's County, but the measure went nowhere. And this spring, a Midland, Texas, judge created a GPS-based monitoring program for 15 truants in his court.

In Dallas, the program exists only in Judge Chavez's court, and thus far has touched just 55 students. Judge Chavez places teens into the program only after their truancy becomes so bad that they face the prospect of being sent to juvenile detention.

The students selected for the program averaged 55 missed school days a year and were at the bottom 1 percent of the approximately 9,000 students adjudicated by Dallas County Truancy Court last year. If the students continue to skip school, they end-up back in Judge Chavez's court and face a misdemeanor contempt of court charge.

Years ago, the criminal justice system discovered that Global Positioning System devices are useful in tracking parolees and those under house arrest. GPS units proved to be an inexpensive and effective alternative to incarceration.

Debates on technology-related blogs and among civil libertarians center on whether GPS devices are too invasive for misdemeanor truants.

Nifong and HRES 590

2007-10-03T18:53:00.000-04:00

By David Heleniak

The Nifonging of the three lacrosse players from Duke University did not rise out of a vacuum. Rather, it was the product of two systemic problems in America, the tendency amongst many prosecutors and judges to replace the concern for justice with the concern for self-promotion and career advancement, and, in cases of certain politically charged crimes, anti-male bias.

Illustrative of the bias, on September 25, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution on domestic violence, HRES 590, that stereotypes men as wife-beaters. A thorough analysis of the resolution by RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) found that 18 of its 23 statements are either misleading or simply wrong. Two in particular unfairly smear fathers:

"Whereas 40 to 60 percent of men who abuse women also abuse children."
"Whereas according to one study, during court ordered visitation, five percent of abusive fathers threaten to kill their spouses, 34 percent of abusive fathers threaten to kidnap their children, and 25 percent of abusive fathers threaten to physically hurt their children."

With the passage of HRES 590, savvy prosecutors and judges will clearly perceive the political winds as blowing against men, as they have been for some time.

In the April 24, 1995 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal, a judicial training program on domestic violence caught on tape was recounted. The program openly encouraged judges to ignore constitutional considerations in granting temporary restraining orders. “Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order,” they were advised. “Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’” Attendees were given additional advice: “If you’ve got any hint whatsoever there’s a problem, sign the TRO. Don’t take the chance;” “Quite frankly, the standard really is by a preponderance of credible evidence. That’s what the law is. But what he’s saying to ya, ‘Don’t make that mistake at three o’clock in the morning.’ You may be a little tired. Err on the side of being cautious;” and “So don’t get callous about the fact that these people are pestering you again. You know, grant the restraining order. It’ll be the one time that you don’t grant the restraining order that you’ll be tomorrow’s headlines.”

Similarly, in “Criminal Law Comes Home,” Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk reveals that in Manhattan, the vast majority of “domestic violence” cases do not involve serious physical injury, and many do not involve any physical injury. But “[e]ven as the ‘violence’ of DV has been defined down,” to the point where harassment is considered violent, these cases “trigger application of a ‘mandatory domestic violence protocol’ different from other crimes.” As Suk explains, “[t]he uniform application of a mandatory protocol in every case represents the prosecutorial response to a paradigm story in which DV victims can turn into murder victims overnight. In the oral culture of a prosecutor’s office, a misdemeanor DV defendant has the potential to turn out to be an O.J. Simpson.” Indeed, reminiscent of the warnings given to the New Jersey judges, “[r]ookie prosecutors are warned that their DV misdemeanors are the cases that could get their names in the newspaper for failure to prevent something serious.” Consequently, “every case is treated as a potential prelude to murder.”

In light of the legal culture that has developed around the issue of domestic violence, it is no wonder that rape cases are sometimes prosecuted despite the absence of good evidence to support them. The actions of DA Nifong in the Duke rape case should not be viewed as the actions of a “rogue prosecutor,” but as a predictable result of years of prosecutors being encouraged to zealously prosecute crimes involving women, and of judges and prosecutors being discouraged to respect the due process rights of men. What makes the Duke case unique is defendants with the resources to vigorously and successfully defend themselves. Can anyone doubt that there are innocent men in prison right now who simply did not have the ability to oppose a rush to judgment?

Legislatures must tell the executive and judicial branches that Nifonging is unacceptable. Repealing HRES 590 would be a good start.

PC Feminism and the DV Courts

2007-08-20T20:49:00.000-04:00

Political correctness is not, as many believe, the act of being non-offensive. It is, rather, an ideology resulting from the transformation of the Marxist concept of class oppression. Orthodox Marxism teaches that the world is made up of two economic classes, the capitalist class and the working class, and that the capitalist class oppresses the working class. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

When the orthodox Marxist theory of class oppression was shown to be a dead end, some leftist intellectuals turned their attention from economic classes to social classes. It’s not capitalists oppressing workers, they determined, it’s dominant social groups oppressing non-dominant groups, as in whites oppressing blacks, heterosexuals oppressing homosexuals, Christians oppressing non-Christians, and men oppressing women. Of the various branches of political correctness, PC feminism has arguably been the most successful.

PC feminism is not your mother’s feminism. As Cathy Young states in her book Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, we owe a lot to the feminists of the past. “They deserve credit for helping break down the barriers of discrimination in the public arena; for making gender neutrality an accepted legal principle; for challenging stereotypes about women’s nature. Thanks to them, achievement and ambition are no longer considered unfeminine and women are expected to make something of themselves, not just marry. Thanks to them, most of us believe that both parents can nurture young children.” Thanks to PC feminists, in contrast, we have the theory of the patriarchy and the PC conception of domestic violence (DV), two ideas that are responsible for widespread violations of the civil rights of men and pervasive damage to father-child relationships.

PC feminist Adrienne Rich defines patriarchy in her book Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution as “the power of the fathers: a familial--social, ideological, political system in which men--by force, direct pressure or through ritual, tradition, law, and language, customs, etiquette, education, and the division of labor, determine what part women should or shall not play.”

In her article “Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State,” law professor Linda Kelly states the PC feminist definition of domestic violence “as the use of physical power by men against women not motivated simply by a desire to inflict physical pain or even emotional suffering but rather as part of a larger effort by men to gain and maintain control over women.” A more detailed explanation of the relationship between domestic violence and the patriarchy is provided by social psychologist Donald G. Dutton, in his article “Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The Ecological Fallacy,” where he observes that according to the PC feminist theory of domestic violence, “wife assault is seen to be a systematic form of domination and social control of women by men. All men can potentially use violence as a powerful means of subordinating women. Men as a class benefit from how women's lives are restricted because of their fear of violence. Wife abuse reinforces women's dependence and enables all men to exert authority and control.... Wife assault is mainly ‘normal’ violence committed, not by madmen who are unlike other men, but by men who believe that patriarchy is their right, that marriage gives then unrestricted control over their wife and that violence is an acceptable means of establishing this control.” Wendy McElroy sums up the PC feminist approach to domestic violence in her book Sexual Correctness: The Gender-Feminist Attack on Women this way: “men are said to beat women to retain their place in the patriarchal power structure.”

A critical component of the PC feminist conception of domestic violence is the denial that women commit domestic violence against men. Studies of domestic violence have consistently revealed that women are at least as likely as men to commit domestic violence, that in about half of all cases, minor and severe, the aggression is mutual, that about 38% of the people injured by domestic violence are men, and that self-defense accounts for less than one-fifth of domestic violence committed by women. PC feminists, however, refuse to accept the findings as true. Linda Kelly explains why. “Domestic violence is not viewed as just another tool used by men in the subordination of women. Rather, it is considered ‘one of the most brutal and explicit expressions of patriarchal domination.’ Such strong roots in patriarchy have produced an equally strong force against accepting female violence. Acknowledging female violence risks negating the very basis of the existing domestic violence definition.” As Kelly perceives, “[d]omestic violence represents the prized gemstone of ... [the] message that our legal, social, and cultural norms are fashioned in a manner which permit men to engage in a constant and pervasive effort to oppress women by any and every available means.”

If the PC feminist theory of domestic violence was only being taught to womens’ studies majors, that would be one thing, but it’s being taught to judges charged with the responsibility of granting temporary and permanent DV restraining orders, and, to some degree, with the responsibility of deciding custody and visitation issues. In a report entitled “Education for Injustice,” RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) identified a number of examples of this. Here are two: West Virginia's benchbook on domestic violence, the official judicial handbook, states, incorrectly, that “women are overwhelmingly the typical victims of domestic violence;” similarly, Alabama’s benchbook puts forth the false claim, “National crime statistics show that about 95% of spouse-abuse victims are women.” This “education” is funded by the federal government pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

For years, many family court judges have held the view that fathers are ice cream, moms are the meal. Dads are nice, but nonessential. Kids can easily do without them, just like they really don’t need dessert. In 1985, the “Honorable” Richard Huttner, former chief judge of the King's County (Brooklyn) Family Court took this further, telling New York Magazine: “You have never seen a bigger pain in the ass than the father who wants to get involved: he can be repulsive. He wants to meet the kid after school at three o'clock, take the kid out to dinner during the week, have the kid on his own birthday, talk to the kid on the phone every evening, go to every open school night, take the kid away for a whole weekend so they can be alone together. This type of father is pathological.” VAWA was passed in 1994. Considering the “men are bad and women are victims” ideology that’s been promoted since then, one can only believe that the bias against fathers is even worse than it was in the 1980s. Fathers are not just useless pains in the asses, they’re evil.

Parental Rights Under Attack in Massachusetts

2007-06-07T16:15:00.000-04:00

Parental-rights advocates in Massachusetts remain stunned by what happened in February when a federal judge in Boston shot down a lawsuit by some parents who objected to what Lexington schools were teaching their young children about sexuality.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Mark Wolf told David Parker, and Rob and Robin Wirthlin that they had no legal right to challenge the schools--at all.

"It's so absurd, you can hardly even discuss it," said Brian Camenker, executive director of the Boston-based group MassResistance. "The judge said that the schools have a right and an obligation to teach about same-sex relationships, even in the elementary schools -- and that parents' rights end at the schoolhouse door."

The judge also indicated that if parents don't like what the schools teach, they are free to put their kids in a private school or to home school their kids.

"That's pretty offensive," Camenker said. "You can imagine a federal judge, during the civil-rights era when blacks wanted to vote or be seated in restaurants, saying, 'Your options are to either start your own restaurant or elect a city council that allows that.' "

Parker had objected to a book bag that his son brought home from kindergarten that included a book on "diversity" called 'Who's in a Family?" It portrays same-sex couples as just a different type of family.

The Wirthlins objected to a book their second grader was forced to read called "King & King," in which one prince kisses another prince.

Both families wanted to be alerted when homosexually-themed material was to be taught.
In his 38-page decision, Wolf said parents "have a fundamental right to raise their children . . . (But) the Constitution does not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught."

The judge said diversity is "a hallmark of our nation" which trumps everything else.
"It is reasonable," he wrote, "for . . . educators to find that teaching young children to understand and respect differences in sexual orientation will contribute to an academic environment in which students who are gay, lesbian, or the children of same-sex parents will be comfortable and, therefore, better able to learn."

Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, isn't surprised at the decision. Courts increasingly view parents as nuisances whom public schools can ignore.

"I think what the Massachusetts judge said was consistent with what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said last year -- basically, that 'the right of parents to direct the education of children stops at the schoolhouse door,' " Lavy said.

In the 9th Circuit case, (Fields vs. Palmdale School District) the court told parents they couldn't challenge a California school district that had elementary students complete a questionnaire about their sexual thoughts and activity.

"The questions assumed that the kids were all having sexual experiences," Lavy said. "The 9th Circuit told the parents who sued the school -- 'It's basically none of your business. The school can do whatever it wants.' "

The overarching message is a dismal one for parents, Lavy added.

"If you put your child in public education, you have no ability to determine what that child is going to be taught, regarding morals or anything else," he said. "We got to this point by having a legal system where judges do not feel constrained by law, do not feel constrained by history; do not feel that what the Founding Fathers intended to create in our legal system has any bearing on what they do today."

Even if the parents in Lexington and California appeal, Lavy said, they're not likely to prevail.
"I don't know that we have support even in the U.S. Supreme Court for overturning that kind of decision," he added. "We need people to be involved politically, to elect politicians who are going to pass good laws, and who will appoint judges who do not believe that they are mini-monarchs."

Parents Outraged After Fifth-Graders Told to Read Gay-Marriage Column

2007-06-07T15:59:00.000-04:00

Moms and Dads of some Derby Ridge Elementary School students in Columbia, Mo., were upset to learn their 10-year-olds were assigned to read an editorial in support of same-sex marriage, the News-Leader of Springfield reported.

Students were told to read the column then write their own editorial.

“The purpose was to become familiar with editorial writing,” said Jack Jensen, assistant superintendent of elementary education for Columbia Public Schools. “But it was not an appropriate topic to use at this age level.”

Jensen said administrators spoke to the teacher, but chose not to take further disciplinary action.

Parents Maintain Objections to Mandatory HPV Vaccinations

2007-06-07T15:47:00.000-04:00

Poll finds moms and dads want the right to decide.

Just 44 percent of parents support a mandate to have their school-age daughters vaccinated for the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV), according to a poll from the University of Michigan.

Dr. Matthew Davis, a senior researcher at the C.S. Mott Children's Hospital at the University of Michigan, said the poll revealed similar worries in every state, even those not considering required vaccinations.

"Concerns that the vaccine may promote promiscuity are on the minds of parents who are against HPV vaccine in general."

So far this year, 24 states have considered HPV-vaccination legislation. Virginia has passed its bill. In Texas, an executive order by the governor mandating HPV vaccination was overridden by the Legislature.

Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum, said she sees a lesson in the numbers: "Parents say, 'We can and we will take on the responsibility that God has given us, which is to make decisions concerning our own children's health care.' "

Manhattan Prosecutors Declare War on Families

2007-02-26T02:03:00.000-05:00

By David Heleniak

2006 saw a refreshing increase in the number of commentary pieces tackling the problems with state domestic violence (DV) restraining order systems. Most if not all of these articles focus on civil DV restraining orders. In the October 2006 issue of The Yale Law Journal, Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk exposes a disturbing development that had not been commented upon before. In her eye-opening article “Criminal Law Comes Home,” Suk examines a practice in Manhattan that has become routine in criminal cases involving DV, the imposition of de facto divorces in which the government “initiates and dictates the end of ... intimate relationship[s]” by subjecting “the practical and substantive continuation of the relationship[s] to criminal sanction” (10).

The path to de facto divorce begins when a man is arrested for domestic violence. “The arrest may have come at the behest of neighbors rather than the victim herself. Or the victim may have called the police to seek specific intervention in that moment” (59). Whatever led to the arrest, with it, the alleged victim’s marriage to the defendant is very likely over, whether she likes it or not.

In Manhattan, “a leading jurisdiction … considered to be ‘in the forefront of efforts to combat domestic violence,’” domestic violence is defined by the D.A.’s Office as “‘any crime or violation committed by a defendant against … a member of his or her same family or household’” (42). A vast majority of these cases do not involve serious physical injury, and many of the cases charged do not allege any physical injury. But “[e]ven as the ‘violence’ of DV has been defined down,” to the point where harassment is considered violent, these cases “trigger application of a ‘mandatory domestic violence protocol’ different from other crimes” (44). As Suk explains, “[t]he uniform application of a mandatory protocol in every case represents the prosecutorial response to a paradigm story in which DV victims can turn into murder victims overnight. In the oral culture of a prosecutor’s office, a misdemeanor DV defendant has the potential to turn out to be an O.J. Simpson” (44). Indeed, “[r]ookie prosecutors are warned that their DV misdemeanors are the cases that could get their names in the newspaper for failure to prevent something serious” (44-45). In this culture of fear, “every case is treated as a potential prelude to murder” (44). This is despite the fact that “[p]rosecutors generally expect that DV victims will be unwilling to cooperate in prosecution” (46), a fact that speaks volumes about the level of the crimes being charged and the victims’ own take on the likelihood of serious crimes being committed in the future.

At arraignment, “the D.A.’s Office’s mandatory practice involves asking the criminal court to issue a temporary order of protection (TOP) as a condition of bail or pretrial release” (48). The TOPs typically prohibit all contact with the alleged victim and, naturally, with the defendant’s own home if the alleged victim lives there. “Ascertaining whether the victim wants the order is not part of the mandatory protocol. The prosecutor generally requests a full stay-away order even if the victim does not want it” (48). And, if children are involved, Suk’s copy of a D.A.’s Office’s manual instructs that since “‘[a]s a rule, criminal courts are not well-suited to determine issues of custody and visitation,’” prosecutors are “to prohibit DV defendants from contacting the children ‘except as permitted by a Family Court order’” (57, n. 241). Add to this the proviso: “‘However, in cases where there is danger of the defendant harming, intimidating, or improperly influencing the children, it is appropriate for the court to prohibit any contact…’” (57, n. 241). In other words, as Suk puts it, “the rule is no contact with the children unless the family court modifies the particular criminal court order (which itself occurs in the unlikely event that an A.D.A. anticipates no negative impact on the children)” (57, n. 241).

The de facto divorce is finalized at the plea bargain stage. “[T]he prosecutor offers the defendant a plea bargain consisting of little or no jail time (or time served) and a reduction of the charge, or even an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, in exchange for the defendant’s acceptance of a final order of protection prohibiting his presence at home and contact with the victim.” Unlike the TOP, this order is of a substantial duration. Nevertheless, “[t]he offer is particularly attractive for a defendant who has remained in jail since arraignment pending disposition of his case; if he agrees he will be released” (55). And, for someone not in jail but at risk of losing his job because of the repeated court appearances he has had to make, an offer of a restraining order with no jail time is also attractive.

Of course, a final order of protection does not formally end a marriage. “Spouses can surely remain legally married even as they obey all the prohibitions of the order, but cannot live or act like they are married” (57). While no formal arrangements for custody, visitation, and support are put in place, “de facto divorce does entail de facto arrangements regarding custody, visitation, and support—that is, no custody, no visitation, and no support” (58). And, in this bizarre no-man’s land where criminal and family law converge, “the parties cannot contract around the result except by risking arrest and punishment of one of them” (58). All the while, the wishes of the victims, for whose benefit the system supposedly exists, are completely ignored.

The CYA impulse to avoid negative headlines at all costs, even the breakup of families and the destruction of father/child relationships, is craven and despicable. Social conservatives, libertarians, and traditional liberals must unite to end this practice and, at the very least, prevent it from spreading if it has not already.

---------------

David Heleniak is a civil litigation attorney in New Jersey and Senior Legal Analyst for the True Equality Network.

Canadian Court Says Lesbian Can be Third Parent

2007-01-04T21:23:00.000-05:00

(Ottawa) -- The Ontario Court of Appeals has determined a same-sex partner is entitled to the same parental rights as a child's biological parents, the Globe and Mail reported.

The child, a 5 year-old boy, now has three parents: his mother and her partner – with whom he lives – and his father, who visits twice a week.

In its decision, the court also ruled that the Children's Law Reform Act -- drafted in the 1970s to protect the rights of children born out of wedlock -- no longer provides for the best interests of children.

C. Ann Nelson, an attorney and co-author of the act, praised the court for taking and active role in updating legislation.

"I don't think there's much question that those sections (that were challenged) that deal specifically with the declaration of parentage are outdated," she said. "I think it would be preferable for the Ontario government to take a look at this particular legislation -- and all of our family-law legislation -- and ensure that it is up to date and takes into account some of the changes in reproductive technology and some of our social values we have today."

Joseph Ben-Ami, executive director of the Institute for Canadian Values, said Nelson is wrong about the role of the court in legislation. He called the ruling "an act of naked judicial activism."

The decision has far-reaching implications, he said, and paves the way for other adults, including step-parents and grandparents, to seek parental rights.

Scholar Warns U.N. Delegates about Sex-Selection Abortions Against Baby Girls

2006-12-08T21:34:00.000-05:00

A top scholar and former American diplomat this week warned delegates to the U.N. that prenatal sex-selection abortions are on the rise.

Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute, said a global war is being conducted against baby girls, many of whom are aborted because the parents prefer a son.

According to Eberstadt, the natural birth rate for boys and girls is 105 to 100. meaning that five more males will come into the world than females.

With increased sex-selection abortion, the scholar said the gap has widened to 115 to 100.

Lesbian Custody Rights Upheld on a Technicality

2006-11-29T20:29:00.000-05:00

A Virginia appellate court ruled Tuesday that the biological mother in a lesbian custody dispute must abide by the laws of Vermont, where she and her former partner entered into a civil union.

The ruling avoided the more important question: whether Virginia can be forced to recognize a same-sex union sanctioned in another state.

The Los Angeles Times reported the decision was still celebrated by gay and lesbian groups. Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called it a "big deal."

"The fact that the court would apply that rule of law objectively and fairly to a lesbian plaintiff is an enormously important victory," she said.

Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which represented the biological mother, called the case "the tip of the iceberg of what's to come if one state cannot define its own marriage policy and must be subservient to the same-sex marriage policy of a sister state."

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the case may have had a different outcome if the mother had moved first and then filed to dissolve the civil union.

"This decision was really not about the state of Virginia being forced to recognize a Vermont civil union," he said.

"This was a custody/visitation-rights case that was decided by a federal statute originally passed to handle disputes like this involving multiple state-court proceedings."

The Silence of the Wedding Bells

2006-11-29T19:24:00.000-05:00

November 29, 2006
By Carey Roberts

Am I the only one who is worried about the collapse of the traditional American family right before our very eyes?

Census Bureau bureaucrats are not in the habit of making apocalyptic pronouncements, but last year Mark Mather reported that the “dramatic decline” in the married population is “one of the biggest demographic stories of the past several decades.” Now, married couples now account for a minority – 49.7% to be exact – of all U.S. households.

The cause of this extraordinary demographic shift is two-fold. First, Americans are getting married only half as often as we used to. Second since 1960, the share of divorced Americans rose from 2% to 10%.

African-American communities have been especially hard-hit. In 1960 four-fifths of all Black families had fathers and mothers at home. Three decades later, that number had plummeted to 38%.

As a result of the decline of marriage, illegitimacy is on the upswing. Just last week the National Center for Health Statistics announced that almost four in 10 babies were born out-of-wedlock in 2005.

All this is very bad news for kids, since children raised only by mothers are more likely to be poor, suffer from a host of behavioral and academic problems, and get in trouble with the law.
For sure, the great majority of young women say they plan to get married and have kids some day.

So why has Cosmo replaced Bride magazine in the supermarket check-out lines?

Some experts cite the “greater economic independence of women,” as if a single mom scraping by on a welfare check is what female liberation is all about. Others argue that Americans are simply delaying the age of marriage, suggesting that women who are nervously watching their biological clocks just need to be a little more patient.

But there’s one fact that’s hard to dispute: our country faces an acute shortage of marriage-minded men.

Two years ago Barbara Whitehead and David Popenoe of Rutgers University did a national survey of single heterosexual men, ages 25-34. To everyone’s shock, they found 22% of the men declared no interest in finding their One and Only.

[http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2004.htm]

That means two million American women will likely never see the inside of a wedding chapel.

Now, hooking-up is replacing that quaint courtship ritual that used to be known as “dating.” When Norval Glenn and Elizabeth Marquardt surveyed college senior women, they found that one-third of the women had been asked on fewer than two dates.

And this past August the New York Times ran a piece on “Facing Middle Age with No Degree, and No Wife,” which revealed the reluctance to wed runs especially deep in less educated men.
There is overwhelming research that shows marriage benefits both men and women in terms of their financial and emotional well-being. Plus, married folks live longer. So what do we need to do to entice men back into the courtship ritual?

The Nasty Nellies have been giving marriage a bum rap for years, so sadly there are no quick fixes. But this is what we need to do.

First, we need to dispose of the boogeyman of the patriarchal ogre lording over his beleaguered wife. If that image was ever true, it certainly doesn’t apply to any couple that I know of. In fact, the reverse now seems to be more commonplace: the harried, henpecked husband who’s hectored to keep his feet off the furniture during the ball game.

Second, we need to consider the effects of the 1992 Supreme Court’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that banned fathers from participating in decisions to keep the unborn baby, thus leaving them biologically disenfranchised.

Third, we’ve got to do more to help boys excel academically. Trash the Title IX quotas, provide special help for boys who are lagging, and tell teachers to stop expecting boys to act like girls.

Fourth, we need to do a major overhaul of our nation’s domestic violence laws, which allow any woman to plunder her husband’s assets and steal his children by merely claiming “abuse.”

And fifth, reform of our divorce laws is long overdue, so fathers are encouraged to remain involved in their children’s lives as parents, not every-other-weekend visitors.

Sadly in low-income Black communities, marriage is essentially a dead institution. And there are groups in our country that now want to extend their agenda of family destruction to society at large.

The family is the very building block of a civilized and prosperous society. What will it take to bring back the exuberant peal of June wedding bells?

U.S. Supreme Court Turns Away School-Voucher Case

2006-11-28T20:37:00.000-05:00

Parents sought to use vouchers for religious-school tuition.

The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal Monday to hear a school voucher case out of Maine leaves a confusing patchwork of laws around the country.

Eight families from rural communities without high schools sought to use vouchers to send their kids to religious schools, but a state court ruled that an impermissible mixing of church and state.

All the children involved in the suit have since graduated.

Their attorney, Dick Komer of the Institute for Justice, called the high court's refusal the "end of the road."

"This was their final shot," he told Family News in Focus. "As long as parents are making free and independent choices, they should be entitled to select whatever school they prefer."

Legal experts warn against reading too much into a denial from the high court. But Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the decision leaves the country split on vouchers and religious schools.

"Every state statute is different," he said, "so every result comes out a little bit differently."
Five states offer school vouchers – Wisconsin, Arizona and Ohio allow them to be used for religious schools, Maine and Vermont do not. The provision in Arizona is being challenged.

Sean Parnell, vice president for external affairs at the Heartland Institute, said if there's an upside to the confusion, it's that states allowing religious schools to participate will have the opportunity to prove it can work.

"At this early stage in the school-voucher movement," he said, "we're going to see the states act as 'laboratories of democracy.' "

Feminist Takeover of the U.N. is an Issue of National Security

2006-11-20T02:04:00.000-05:00

by David R. Usher

A November 11th Washington Times article “[1] Abused wives in India pin hope on anti-violence law” resulted in a number of letters to the editor of the Times, claiming that the article is biased. The Times article blithely repeated an eye-popping claim that “A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape”, without even questioning it.

On November 17th, the Times published [2] three identical letters to the editor, but prefaced them with this highly unusual editorial set-up:

[Editor’s note: All of the letters below use the same phrasing to try to make a case that women aren’t the only victims of domestic abuse. But the writers detract from the issue. First of all, the article was not biased against men; it set out to report on the new laws in India and it did precisely that. Moreover, writers’ arguments would likely be taken more seriously if they were to dispense with the deceit. We asked each of the writers if they had personally written the letter and each said yes. Obviously, that is not the case. Domestic abuse, whether at the hands of a man or a woman, is a serious offense. Relegating such an issue to chain letters and false claims hurts victims of both genders. We stand by our news story.]

Anyone who has been in politics knows that “form” emails on issues of import are frequently originated by organizations who know the ropes, and lots of little guys send them everywhere. And, what Lilliputian would not like to see his or her name in the Washington Times?

The Problem of Feminism in Media, Government, and Politics

Now we get to the heart of the subject raised in the letters the Washington Times glossed over. The “form” letter was originated by [3] RADAR, a highly credible organization comprised of scientists, lawyers, and scholars in an alert titled [4] Fake Statistics Used to Claim that Wife-Beating is Men’s “Birthright”.

In its alert, RADAR did the research the Times failed to do. RADAR discovered that the U.N Population Fund’s claim that “70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape” is founded on surveys by women’s advocates that are neither consistent nor scientific. Let me demonstrate the feminist rumor mill in action right before your very eyes.

The study “Profiling Domestic Violence: A Multicountry Study”, by Kishor and Johnson, is heavily cited as the basis for positions adopted within the [5] UNPF report. To my knowledge, the Kishor study has not been subjected to peer review. Nonetheless, the convenient parts were extracted for the purposes of the UNPF report.

Here is the first tip-off that the Kishor “study” is a misrepresentation of science: Real studies are publicly published for peer review, and not used for anything until review is complete and scientists substantively agree the report is solid.

The second tip-off: The Kishor and Johnson study is not a study. It is a collection of “surveys”, as evidenced by statements in the UNFP reports. There are major differences between studies and surveys. If the authors had intended to be scinetifically honest, the paper would have been titled “Profiling Domestic Violence: A Multicountry Survey”.

The third tip-off: The Kishor study was published by [6] Macro International, Inc. ORC Macro is an opinion research corporation, not a scientific research organization.

The Fourth tip-off: world feminists base their claim that “70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape” on the following illustration from the UNPF report:

What is wrong with this chart?

The title of the graphic reads “Women Who Believe Wife Beating is Justified for at Least One Reason”. But vertical axis of the graphic reads “Percent of ever-married [sic] women ages 15-49 who have ever experienced domestic violence”. There is no way to determine what, if anything, this chart is supposed to show. “Rape” is not even mentioned (as claimed in the UNPF report). A 7th grade student would get an “F” for turning in a classroom assignment like this.

The final tip-off (and the clincher): The UNPF [7] Fact Sheet contains the following graphic extracted from the same Kishor and Johnson “study”. There is a problem here: the authors claim here that only 19% of Indian women are subjected to domestic violence, disagreeing tremendously with the meaninless 70% figure claimed in the chart above:

No more discussion is needed about the UNPF report. Kishor and Johnson are throwing ping pong balls at the wall, hoping that one of them will stick. This is yet another classic example of the [8] feminist rumor mill in action.

The one thing we can believe about the UNPF report is that it is simply incredible. It is indeed terrifying that the U.N is about to embark on the feminist plan for world conquest based on nothing more than wildly inconsistent informal surveys done by women’s advocates (if they were even done at all).

To make sure there are no misunderstandings on the facts of international domestic violence, RADAR cited a reputable international study on the matter by the reputable Dr. Murray Straus, titled [9] “Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations”. His study proves that international domestic violence is essentially evenly distributed, and calls for substantially different approaches to domestic violence intervention than what is being forced on the world today by power-crazed feminists.

Feminism is an Issue of National Security

Those who do not wish to see India become yet another terrorist state need to focus immediately on stopping what feminists are doing in the United Nations. Indians I am in communication with see their new domestic violence law as a “cultural invasion by western feminists”. They know it is phony, and intended to destroy marriage and Indian society by empowering foreign radicals to take over the country and dictate from a pink pedestal of feminist dictatorship. Indians are both terrified and furious. They know this invasion is predominantly coming from America.

We must realize that feminists are terrorists too. You cannot see their guns or bombs. Feminists use the invisible weapons of sexism, fear, misinformation, hate, and allegory to achieve the same level of control of entire societies. This has been accomplished in most western societies. Feminists now wish to take control of the United Nations.

Feminism is exactly what Muslim radicals oppose. Mark my words: if India becomes radicalized against America, we will not be able to say that we did not ask for it. Let us do the right thing and shut down the export of radical feminism now, while we still have a chance.
Let the American people not get caught again between these two very radical and dangerous factions. Before we can expect to see declines in Muslim radicalism, we must first reign in American feminist terrorists who have made us the most deeply hated country in the Muslim world. A lively national debate about this should commence immediately. Our future national security depends decisively on it.

We must realize that feminism is a political problem. Virtually every feminist “study” ever done has been thoroughly debunked, but not until after great damage was done in politics and law. For many years, the feminist game has been to lay out false science faster than politicians and scientists can figure out they have been had. Politicians must stop playing sucker to this classic feminist trick. The only way to handle this problem is for politicians and policy makers to ignore feminists and send them packing faster than they can walk in the door.
This is an international fiasco which, if unchecked, will drag American into untold wars against a growing number of countries who hate our guts.

I fully realize that my identification of feminism as being a terrorist movement, and how it is a major driver of anti-American Muslim radicalism, is way ahead of conventional wisdom. Folks, whether you like it or not, the evidence points to this conclusion. Reigning in radical feminism is just as much a national security issue as is stopping would-be bombers from entering our borders. This does not include the tremendous benefits to the American economy and the taxpayers that will result from reform of federal policies presently destroying marriage while doing nothing to help it.

My message to President Bush: We did not allow Russian Prime Minister Molotov dictate the shape of the United Nations when it was founded (you can listen to an [10] mp3 of my grandfather, [11] Dr. Roland G. Usher reporting about Molotov from San Francisco during the founding of the U.N.) .

We cannot allow American Marxist-socialists to do it now and end up with much of the world in full revolt. We could not bear the cost of securing every square inch of America, and the rest of the world too. It is therefore, in our national interest, to have Ambassador Bolton block the acceptance of the U.N. Secretary-General’s report on Domestic Violence.

Where feminist take-over of the U.N. is clearly an issue of national security, you might wish to send a copy of this article to the Washington Times. The email address for the International editor is djones@washingtontimes.com. You might want to copy Mr. Francis Coombs, Managing Editor, at [12] fcoombs@washingtontimes.com.

——————————————————–----------------------------------------------------------
[Note to readers: This article was modified on Sunday, Nov. 19th, to include new information relevant to the story, and to correct errors in the first version published on Saturday, Nov. 18.]

Domestic Violence Rumor Mill Runs the United Nations

2006-11-13T22:46:00.000-05:00

By David R. Usher

If United States Ambassador John Bolton fails to act, world feminists will seize vast powers to destroy families internationally while committing tremendous human rights violations against men, women, and children in every country of the world.

The Secretary-General’s study on domestic violence against women [DAW], developed under the corrupt leadership of Kofi Annan, is a much greater threat to America than the rejected Kyoto Protocol ever was. It calls for the establishment of a new feminist world order, possessing unilateral powers to mindlessly destroy marriage and steal family and business assets by teaching women how to holler “abuse”.

Everyone agrees that domestic violence is a problem. Feminists dishonestly pretend it is entirely problem of unruly men, buttressed by unreliable myopic surveys of women. The purpose of this feminist approach is to achieve the primary goal of radical feminism: to destroy marriage, seize children and family wealth, and establish the liberated single-mother family.

Unfounded allegations of abuse are the political and legal vector already used in many western countries to achieve this end.

The senseless destruction of marriage, homes, families, and the lives of children in western cultures has deeply violated the human rights of everyone. It has transformed many good cities into third-world urban disasters suffering from rampant illegitimacy, prostitution, crime, child sexual predation, and poverty. Radicals at the United Nations wish to force their new world order on the rest of the world.

The truth is this: women are as likely, or even more likely than men to engage in, and initiate, domestic violence. According to a 32-nation by Murray Straus, female-only partner aggression is twice as prevalent as male-only partner abuse.

Many credible individuals now recognize this fact. They acknowledge the truth, and in many cases advocating strongly against the looming radical takeover of the United Nations. You can count on leaders and knowledgeable professionals (not driven by entitlements or political power) such as President Bush, Phyllis Schlafly, Dr. Gerald Koocher (President of the APA), Dr. Murray Straus, Dr. Don Dutton, Wendy McElroy, Dr. Felicity Goodyear-Smith, and Lee Newman [SAFE International] to speak the truth.

Even a child could see through the rumor-mill-fed machinations of feminists. Here are a few examples:

The 113-page United Nations Report admits it is based on a “lack [of] systematic and reliable data on violence against women”. There is no evidence in the report that any information was collected about women’s violence against men.

Without any supportive factual foundation, the U.N. Report claims that “Violence against women persists in every country in the world as a pervasive violation of human rights and a major impediment to achieving gender equality”.

The U.N. Commission on Human Rights framework for model legislation on domestic violence is a carte-blanche vehicle empowering feminists to violate science and human rights in every country of the world. It defines domestic violence solely as “gender-specific violence directed against women“, and admonishes states to “adopt the broadest possible definitions of acts of domestic violence”.

It states, “There shall be no restrictions on women bringing suits against spouses or live-in partners”. The victim must be advised “of her rights as outlined below”. The responding officer must “arrange for the removal of the offender from the home and, if that is not possible and if the victim is in continuing danger, arrest the offender”. It permits immediate seizure of assets, and criminal conviction on the sole basis uncorroborated testimony by the alleged victim.

WHO’s director Lee Jong-Wook made a stunning, scientifically-juxtaposed claim about global domestic violence: “Women are more at risk from violence involving people they know at home than from strangers in the street.”

The World Bank estimates that “sexual and domestic violence accounts for 19 per cent of the disease burden among women aged 15-44 in industrialised countries”. Do banks scientifically study domestic violence?

A UNPF report alleges that two-thirds of married women in India were victims of domestic violence, and then contradicts itself by claiming that 70 per cent of married women in India between the age of 15 and 49 are victims of beating, rape or coerced sex. This report also asserts that the rate of domestic violence is much higher in Egypt with 94 per cent and Zambia with 91 per cent.

UNICEF makes a wild assertion based on a “study” done in conjunction with Body Shop International (a mail-order firm specializing in toiletries) “at least one in three women globally has been beaten, coerced into sex, or abused in some other way-most often by someone she knows, including by her husband or another male family member. Globally, one woman in four has been abused during pregnancy.” If one-quarter of pregnant women are beaten, that leaves only 8% being beaten when they are not pregnant. The report spends much time discussing children living in situations of domestic violence, but fails to determine whether domestic abuse by the mother or father is the cause of child problems.

Where do these dangerous claims come from?

Non-Governmental Womens organizations around the world generate volumes of narcissistic surveys about violence. These are fed to feminists in the United Nations, whose re-sytheses are recited round-robin by NGO’s, creating vast illusions for predatory political use.

Here are a few examples how the revolving feminist rumor mill works:

Women’s activists in Russia claim that 50,000 Russian women are beaten every hour.
If this is true, every one of the 66,758,805 women in Russia would be beaten every 13 days.

The Texas Council on Family violence makes unfathomable claims based on nothing more than informal surveys of women: “Over 24,000 women from 15 sites in 10 countries were interviewed for the World Health Organization’s study which showed that over 75 per cent of them were physically or sexually abused since the age of 15 and reported a partner as the culprit.”

Based solely on self-generated “surveys” of women, feminist activists in India claim that 70% of women are abused, despite the fact that no credible scientific studies have ever been undertaken to support the claim.

The Feminist Majority cites World Health Organization (WHO) surveys of women, saying that “More than 25 percent of women said they had experienced moderate to severe domestic violence in the last year.

At six of the 15 sites, over 50 percent of women had experienced a moderate to severe level of domestic violence. The study found that rural Ethiopia had the highest rate of domestic violence, with 71 percent of women experiencing violence in the home.

United Nations should be involved in ending domestic violence. The approach must be realistic and scientifically appropriate on a country-by-country basis. Clearly, the ideological feminist approach will harm many women, men, and families, and be dangerous to the world. The United States must not submit to foreign controls that lump it in the same category as Sudan.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Ambassador Bolton should testify against acceptance of the Secretary General’s Report, and state why it is unacceptable. President Bush should send a message that the United States will not support the United Nations at the present level of $5.3 billion annually, should it pursue a course of action that will clearly violate human rights in most egalitarian countries of the world.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

How HHS Bullies North Dakota Citizens

2006-11-10T22:07:00.000-05:00

by Stephen Baskerville and Mitchell S. Sanderson
(This article originally appeared in the Aug 17, 2006 edition of Human Events)

Those who work in what was once nobly known as the civil service -- and what has degenerated into the "bureaucracy" -- are required by law and ethics to be politically neutral.

Presidents and members of Congress, cabinet and sub-cabinet secretaries can voice opinions. Even judges are permitted (and often abuse) a privilege of obiter dicta. But career officials are supposed to implement the policies of the people and their elected officials, not publicly advocate what those policies should be.

To allow lobbying by federal officials, who after all have coercive authority over citizens, turns the civil service from the people’s servants into a taxpayer-funded advocacy organization that can suppress citizens’ opinions or activities it considers incorrect or threatening. "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation," wrote Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, "it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox politics, nationalism, religion, or any other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

So it is disturbing to learn that Thomas Sullivan, regional administrator for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), sent a letter last month to North Dakota state Sen. Tom Fisher urging the defeat of a proposed ballot initiative. North Dakota citizens are now collecting signatures for a popular measure providing for shared parenting for children of divorce. This would alleviate the problem of fatherless children and ease the impact of family breakup on both children and society. But these citizens must now contend with the opposition of not only the state’s powerful divorce lobby, but also a $47 billion agency of the $500 billion U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

A ballot initiative allows citizens to act when legislatures do not. To pressure a legislator to thwart their action -- marshaling the full weight of the multi-billion dollar federal bureaucracy -- is a serious obstruction of democracy and violation of federalism. (To his credit, Sen. Fisher has given no sign of responding to this pressure.) Sullivan insists categorically (and erroneously) that North Dakota will lose "all" money for welfare and child support enforcement if the people’s will prevails. He explicitly urges Sen. Fisher to take "whatever steps are necessary to ensure that initiated measures are not enacted."

Advisory interpretations of regulations in response to legislative requests are one thing. But Sullivan’s letter reads more like a threat. Since he is interpreting the likely impact of a future measure under federal regulations -- a speculative matter that is subject to final interpretation through administrative processes or courts -- one would expect qualified language: words like "could" or "may." Instead Sullivan issues what amounts to an ultimatum to North Dakota: Voting the initiative into law "will result in immediate suspension of all Federal payments for the State’s child support enforcement program."

This is almost certainly not true. Leaving aside the fact that an advisory opinion is normally issued by the agency’s legal counsel, not an administrator, what is missing (and troubling) in Sullivan’s threat is the routine give-and-take when civil servants implement legislative actions. Sullivan ignores the possibility that regulations might be interpreted in ways that avoid triggering suspension of funds, let alone the option of a waiver. Many states have been out of compliance with child support regulations for different reasons for years; by some critical measures, all states are arguably out of compliance today. Yet these states have not lost any of their funding, let alone "all" of it and "immediately."

Those who argue that federal funds are used for "extortion" could hardly find a clearer illustration. Kansas officials used precisely this language to describe related HHS regulations. "Under the guise of cracking down on so-called deadbeat dads, the Congress has required the states to carry out a massive and intrusive federal regulatory scheme by which personal data on all state citizens" is collected, the attorney general’s office charged in a federal suit. Echoing terms frequently used by fathers to describe coerced child support, one Kansas legislator called the federal directives "extortion," and colleagues in neighboring Nebraska described them as "a form of blackmail."

HHS, and specifically ACF, already embarrassed the Bush administration last year by paying journalists. Though conservatives were unfairly excoriated for transgressions that liberals have practiced for years, the point is that HHS is a constant temptation to corruption because it serves as an engine for placing large numbers of people on the federal payroll.

The head of ACF, Assistant Secretary Wade Horn, is justly famous for publicizing the terrible costs of fatherless children. The North Dakota initiative offers the first concrete hope of actually alleviating this crisis, with no cost to taxpayers (and savings for federal taxpayers). But his agency is now telling states that their fiscal solvency depends on broken families: no broken families, no federal money.

We have allowed both federal and state governments such a stake in family breakdown that the financing of state budgets has converted government into a family destruction machine.

Predictably, federal bureaucrats are now using taxpayers’ money to strong-arm citizens from democratic decisions that, by relieving a serious social problem, threaten to render the bureaucrats redundant. What is unusual in this federal official’s intervention into North Dakota politics is not that he did it but that he felt no need to disguise it.

Letter to President George W. Bush

2006-11-08T00:29:00.000-05:00

faxed today

November 7, 2006

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Re: Ambassador Bolton and the United Nation’s Report on Violence Against Women

Dear Mr. President:
Last month the UN issued the Secretary-General Study on Violence Against Women, which can be viewed at: www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw/ (UN report). To say this study is flawed is a huge understatement. I have joined women and men from around the world who are speaking out against this report.

Kris Titus of Fathers 4 Justice of Canada observes
“Over 8 years ago I was told by a shelter worker I was lucky my boys were not 12 years old, because they would then be considered potential perpetrators and not able to stay in the shelter with me. Until we stop looking at this issue through gender specific-glasses, we will never solve it. A broken nose is a broken nose whether it’s on a man or a woman.”

Mary Cleary of Amen (Abused MEN) notes
“Amen, the lead organization in Ireland dealing with male victims of domestic abuse, rejects the anti-man bias in the UN Report/Study on Violence Against Women. The basic presumptions of the report are contradicted by every independent study on domestic violence which show that men and women are both victims and perpetrators in almost equal numbers. The United Nations are, obviously, mis-informed on this matter.”

Erin Pizzey, international founder of refuges (shelters) for victims of domestic violence, United Kingdom:
“In the early seventies the emerging feminist/Marxist movement failed to attract funding so the advent of refuges (shelters) across the world gave them an opportunity to hi-jack the domestic violence movement and divert the funding to further their ideological war against men and the family.

Domestic violence is not and never has been a gender issue. Violence is a learned pattern of behaviour in early childhood. Children born into violent and dysfunctional families internalise their parent’s behaviour, and most grow up to repeat those patterns.

For the last 30 years the UN has been infiltrated and brain-washed by feminist activists, thus the UN has published its Study on Violence Against Women. This study is a Chimera* and must be resisted by everyone.

* Chimera: A fire-breathing female monster with a goat’s body and a serpent’s tail (Greek mythology)”

While the UN report purports to be an “in-depth study,” it ignores the failings of the current system. Many severely-abused victims discover to their surprise that trivial and false claims are consuming the resources that should be going to those most in need.

Just as our own "Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)," was promulgated and has been perpetuated using patently false statistics, the UN report lacks even the pretense of objective evaluation of the problem.

The UN Report portrays domestic violence as a male only problem, perpetuating the myth that females are always and only the victim, making the UN Report amount to nothing more than ideological propaganda, just as VAWA is. Moreover, the complete reverse is the truth.

The process under which VAWA was and is currently promoted in our country is clearly being duplicated by the United Nations. I assure you, Mr. President, this will cause more harm to women, men, and children than you can imagine. We are now seeing the fall-out from these failed policies in our own country today. However, our Congress, Departments under the Executive Branch, and most onerously, our Judiciary chooses to ignore the misery it is creating daily.

By following our lead, the UN report has defied long established facts as reported by; The Center for Disease Control, over one hundred fifty scholarly studies spanning over two decades and countless science based studies.

Also, the UN Report fails to address that victims of severe domestic violence aren't receiving the help they need. This is due to a support system that is polluted with advocacy research, promoted solely with ideological propaganda, and its operation is rife with fraud.

My two recent opinion pieces; Violence Against Women Act: The Fast Food of Law and VAWA Fails to Protect the Women Who Need Protection the Most cover True Equality Network's undercover investigation into the problem.

Additionally, the Center for Disease Control's "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report" from May 19, 2006 reported that High School girls physically attacked their boyfriends at an almost nearly identical rate, as High School boys have attacked their girlfriends. The girl’s attack rate, however, was the slightly higher rate.

The nationally representative survey was conducted in 2003 on almost 15,000 students in grades 7-12. The survey defines dating violence as hitting, slapping, or physically hurting the partner on purpose (See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5519a3.htm).
The CDC repor of May 19, 2006 also confirmed that there are over 150 previous studies have found females are equally likely as males to engage in domestic violence and again, the female rate was slightly higher in most of these studies (See http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault).

The most comprehensive research into dating violence worldwide is the University of New Hampshire's Family Research Laboratory's ongoing International Dating Violence study -- covering 19 countries at first, then expanded to 32 -- finds that the median rate of female-on-male dating violence (29.2%) is actually higher than the rate of male-on-female dating violence (24.7%). Even when limited their investigation to severe violence, female perpetrators predominated at 9.4% as compared to 9.0% male perpetrators (See: http://www.nh.gov/csm/dv_straus.html and http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf).

The Trends in Intimate Violence Intervention conference was held in New York City from May 22-25, 2006. During which several scientists presented studies and papers that show it is males who comprise the largest victim’s group where IPV and dating violence is concerned and women are the largest perpetrator group.

Recently Professor Murray Straus, co-director of the Family Research Lab at the University of New Hampshire, completed an international study on partner violence among university students. His queries of more than 13,600 students revealed that the most common instance of partner violence is mutual abuse.

The second most common situation of partner violence is when the female is the perpetrator against the male, he said. This leaves the reverse — when males abuse females — to be the least common in practice, although the most common in publicity (See:http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060705/NEWS0202/107050327&SearchID=73249782067412).

However, despite the overwhelming evidence that men represent the largest victims group there is no funding for support or services for male victims of abuse or their children. They are lucky if they get a piece of paper.

Given overwhelming facts that men comprise the majority group of abuse victims one has to question the wisdom and motives behind the construct of the United Nations' report on Violence Against Women.

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV a.k.a domestic violence) and dating violence are the two areas where the most false and/or misleading information is produced and disseminated into our daily lives. The major result of this is widespread, systemic abuses of human and civil rights.

By ignoring established facts, the United Nations is about to be among those causing serious harm to over half the victims of domestic and dating violence in the world today. Hopefully the United States, via our Department of State, won't join them in helping half of the world’s perpetrators of domestic violence escape justice, while abandoning their victims in favor of supporting a destructive, radical ideology.

The Secretary-General’s report is rooted in a radical gender ideology. It is deeply flawed in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. By ignoring the problem of physically abusive women, it will never solve, and may actually worsen, the problem of domestic violence. If the report is welcomed and implemented, that will give rise to false allegations of abuse and violate the civil rights of men worldwide. This will ultimately cause profound damage to families and children.

I have also joined with over 110 organizations around the world who are calling on the UN Third Committee to not welcome this report. As I have said, I am writing to urge you to instruct Ambassador Bolton to make a statement to the Third Committee, expressing strong reservations about this harmful report.

Therefore, I join with many to ask you to instruct Ambassador Bolton to urgently call on the Third Committee to:

Simply “Note” (but not “Welcome”) the recent Secretary-General’s report.
Discourage implementation of the recommendations of the Study on Violence Against Women until its effects on families and children are analyzed and understood.
Request incoming UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to undertake a counterpart study on Violence Against Men.

I have included a copy of the internationally supported Resolution on the UN Report on Violence Against Women constructed and promoted by the Maryland based think-tank, RADAR – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Violence Reporting (www.mediaradar.org).

The question I have for the United Nations and our own government is: What are the scientific, ethical, and moral bases being used to justify supporting a system that knowingly excludes the majority of abuse victims and their children from receiving any support or services, while ignoring the majority of the perpetrators?

Yours truly,
Terri Lynn Tersak

Equal Protection Under the Law is True Equality

Cc:
Senator Richard Burr
Senator Elizabeth Dole

Included: Resolution Regarding the UN Study on Violence Against Women

California School District to Fingerprint Students?

2006-11-06T17:57:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press reported today on a plan by a California school district to fingerprint elementary school students when they buy lunch.

Hope Elementary School District has notified parents that, beginning this month, students at Monte Vista, Vieja Valley and Hope elementary schools will press an index finger to a scanner before they are able to buy cafeteria food. The scan will identify the student's name and student ID, teacher's name and how much the student owes, since some receive government assistance for food.

"It raises sanitary issues, privacy issues — it is kind of Orwellian," said Tina Dabby, a parent of two at Monte Vista Elementary. "It just sounds kind of creepy."

The current process allows for information to be written on paper and transferred to computer so reports can be compiled and sent to state and federal government agencies, which reimburse school districts for the subsidized lunches served. School officials claim that the idea is meant to speed up cafeteria lines.

"It's so archaic to transfer something from a sheet of paper to a computer day-by-day," Hope schools Superintendent Gerrie Fausett told a local newspaper.

A similar procedure is already in use in the Santa Barbara School Districts, where students punch a six-digit number into a keypad that calls up their name, photograph and other details, including whether they have food allergies.

Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Unanimously on Parental Rights Proceedings

2006-10-31T17:49:00.000-05:00

Parental rights advocates in Connecticut may have more to celebrate today, after the state Supreme Court ruled that parents involved in proceedings to terminate parental rights have a right to challenge the quality of work done by lawyers representing their children.

In a precedent-setting and unanimous ruling, the court recognized the high-stakes nature of termination proceedings for both parents and children. "The rights of the [parents] are inextricably intertwined with those of their children," Justice Joette Katz wrote.

"Inadequate representation of the children ... could harm the [parents] because those roles help shape the court's view of the best interests of the children, which serves as a basis upon which termination of parental rights is determined."

The justices stopped short of deciding whether a child's right to representation in termination proceedings, which is now dictated by state law, rises to the level of a constitutional guarantee.

They said the record of the case, after a three-day hearing, did not support the parents' contention that the lawyer representing their children, who favored termination of their relationship, did not adequately protect or convey the wishes of the children.

"We conclude that the record of this case does not support the existence of a conflict of interest, as claimed," Katz wrote.

The court's ruling upholds the trial court's termination of the parents' relationship with their three daughters.

To protect the identities of the minors, no last names are used in the ruling. The Department of Children and Families, in its petition to terminate parental rights, alleged the children were neglected and abused, and that their parents had failed to benefit from efforts by social workers to reunite them.

The parents maintained that a second lawyer or guardian should have been appointed to represent their children's purported statements that they wanted to remain with their parents.

The court noted, in its ruling released Monday, that the only statement that appeared in conflict with the children's lawyer's advocacy of termination was a comment made to a psychologist by one daughter nearly four years ago, when she was 61/2, that she wanted to "go home with mommy and daddy."

At the time "Christine M." was living in a foster home she didn't like and had no memories, according to the psychologist, of any abuse or violence she had experienced.A subsequent foster mother, with whom Christina and her sisters were living at the time of the hearing in December of 2003, testified Christina told her she wanted to live with them forever.

"The record is insufficient to support a determination that the trial court knew or reasonably should have known that a particular conflict existed between what Christina wanted at the time of the trial and what the attorney had advocated," Katz wrote.

Sarah Eagan, staff attorney for the child abuse project at the Center for Children's Advocacy, said the decision "is very significant." The center filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of eight child welfare and protective agencies.

"I think it's a very positive thing to be taken from the case for lawyers, that the court is acknowledging a termination proceeding is one of the most profound things that can occur, and that the rights of parents and their children must be zealously guarded by both the parties, and their lawyers," Eagan said.

Katz wrote, "Both the [parents] and the children have a mutual interest in the preservation of family integrity, and the termination of parental status is irretrievably destructive of that most fundamental family relationship."

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who represented DCF on appeal, said the ruling should not be read to invite wholesale challenges by parents whose parental rights have been terminated.

"As we read it, the decision assures that parents must have a solid reason to challenge the effectiveness of the child's counsel," Blumenthal said.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics at UNICEF

2006-10-31T17:38:00.000-05:00

by Carey Roberts

At first I assumed UNICEF director Ann Veneman had been terribly misquoted.

This was the statement the media attributed to her: "We know that women do about 66% of the work in the world, they produce 50% of the food, but earn 5% of the income and own 1% of the property." But then I checked, and that's what she had said. It was right on the UNICEF website.

The implication of Veneman's comment was clear: Around the world, men are lazy dolts who lord over down-trodden women.

But I was a skeptical. So I called the UNICEF press office and asked for the source of those damning statistics. Press aide Kate Donovan cheerfully reassured me that Veneman is "very picky about her facts" and promised she'd get back to me. She never did.

Google to the rescue. Many mouse-clicks later I arrived at another UN web page devoted to the Millenium Development Goals.

Ah ha! -- right there on the page 2 was the elusive quote, along with its source: Womankind Worldwide.

So then I contacted Womankind Worldwide, asking for the exact name of the source document. And here's the long-awaited response from a Julia Czastka: "I can tell you that the facts given in this quote are from the UN."

Let's see. Group A relies on Group B, Group B bounces us over to Group C, and Group C sends us back to Group A. In my neck of the woods, that's called recycling the trash. Ms. Veneman, may we consider your statement a candidate for the Phony Statistics Hall of Fame?

While I was perusing the UNICEF website, I couldn't help but notice some other questionable claims.

A March 8 press release quoted Veneman as saying, "Violence against women is the extreme form of inequality." So how does she reconcile that statement with the UN's World Report Violence and Health, which showed 14% of men die from violence-related causes, compared to only 7% of women? Or the recent survey showing women are twice as likely as men to initiate partner abuse?

And a 2005 News Note claims, "Violence in the family affects mainly girls ..." Wrong again, UNICEF.

According to a compilation of 172 studies by Lytton and Romney, it's boys who are consistently subjected to more physical punishment than girls. (This News Note also maligns the traditional family, recklessly claiming that "values promoted by the family . use violence as their main tool.")

Remember the Yiddish proverb, "A half-truth is a whole lie"? If that is true, then UNICEF, which now views the world through the lens of patriarchal oppression, is immersed in a complete and utter lie.

The UNICEF home page informs us, "Women's political power is growing," as if that's somehow going help kids get their tetanus shots and clean drinking water. Its website recounts the woes of girls: educational attainment, female circumcision, abuse, and discrimination. It even has a newsletter called Girls Too!

But nowhere does UNICEF admit to the inequities facing boys: higher rates of suicide, undernourishment, and low healthcare utilization. Not a word about the 12-year-old lads forced into armed combat, or kids sent off to become camel jockeys in the Persian Gulf.

Remember, we're talking about BOYS -- those impish lads who are made of snips and snails and puppy dog tails. It's those tykes who trek through the woods in search of a handful of wilted daisies to proudly present to their moms.

Over the last three years I have chronicled the steady descent of UNICEF into the slough of gender advocacy. These reports have documented how UNICEF has systematically:
Ignored the needs of boys, Given short shrift to children's survival needs in favor of "women's issues", and Fallen under the sway of a radical socialist ideology.

UNICEF has become the target of blistering critiques. In 2004 the Catholic Family and Human Rights Group charged, "Radical feminism has come to define the current UNICEF." Two years ago the prestigious Lancet journal accused UNICEF of "shamefully" failing to develop an effective child survival strategy.

But the gals at UNICEF have turned a deaf ear on their critics.

Last week the Heritage Foundation released an analysis titled "The Status of United Nations Reform." Its sobering conclusion reads: "There has been quite a bit of smoke on reform, but very little fire . Without tying reform to financial incentives, the sound and fury of the current U.N. reform effort, as with past efforts, will prove grossly insufficient."

Ambassador Bolton, we need to make UNICEF the first example of our towering resolve and moral disgust.

_______________________________________________________________
Carey Roberts has been published frequently in the Washington Times, Townhall.com, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Intellectual Conservative, and elsewhere. He is a staff reporter for the New Media Alliance.
_______________________________________________________________

Study Says Divorce Increases Chronic Stress, Later Illness in Women

2006-10-31T15:32:00.000-05:00

AMES, Iowa -- There's a popular belief among spouses in bad marriages that divorce might relieve their stress and lead to a happier life. But divorce actually increased chronic stress and produced greater physical illness over a 10-year span, according to a study of 416 rural Iowa women by researchers from Iowa State University's Institute for Social and Behavioral Research.

Fred Lorenz, K.A.S. Wickrama, Rand Conger and Glen Elder produced the latest paper on their research titled "The Short-Term and Decade-Long Effects of Divorce on Women's Midlife Health," which was published last summer in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, a professional journal.

"What we found was that the act of getting a divorce produced no immediate effects on health, but it did have effects on mental health," said Lorenz. "Ten years later, those effects on mental health led to effects in physical health."

The researchers have been studying romantic relationships and marriage in middle-aged adults through Iowa Youth and Family Project and Midlife Transition Projects -- an ISU study of more than 500 young adults from an eight-county area northwest of Ames that began in 1989. The team just received a $2.5 million, five-year grant from the National Institutes of Health to continue the study of romantic relationships and marriage in young adults, and the link of relationship development to changes in physical and emotional health.

The methodology

In this study, they used data from rural Iowa women who were interviewed repeatedly in the early 1990s when they were mothers of adolescent children. Of the 416 women, 102 were recently divorced mothers. The women were interviewed again in 2001.

The researchers found that in the years immediately after their divorce (1991-94), divorced women reported seven percent higher levels of psychological distress than married women, but no differences in physical illness. The increased distress among the recently divorced women was found after controlling for other sources of stress, including income, which was only about half ($20,300) the amount reported by married women ($41,400). An important factor linking divorce to later psychological distress was the experience of stressful life events, according to Lorenz.

A decade later (2001), the divorced women reported 37 percent more illness when compared to their married counterparts -- even after the researchers controlled for age, remarriage, education, income and prior health. Lorenz believes that other conditions associated with divorce -- perhaps social isolation and relatively poor job opportunities -- are important in explaining why divorced women report more illnesses a decade after their divorce.

"According to the data, it looks like they (divorced women) are trapped in this vicious circle of financial problems and other stressful life events -- such as having their safety net destroyed in the form of housing, insurance, transportation, social support, sharing in the kids, etc.," said Wickrama. "There are more than 100 events documented in the event history calendar, including such things as demotions, layoffs, accidents, critical illness, and parental problems."

Types of illness

The researchers documented 46 illnesses for the women in this study to choose from -- ranging from the common cold and sore throats, to heart conditions, diabetes and cancer. The severity of these illnesses appears to be linked to the quality of the marriage before the divorce.

"Among married couples, we predicted couples with good quality marriages did not experience early onset of hypertension, while those with bad marriages were more likely to have experienced onset of early hypertension," said Wickrama. "In 1997, we wrote one article that related marriage qualities and physical illness. We showed change in marriage quality links to change in physical illness for both men and women."

Forty of the divorced women in the sample either remarried or cohabitated with a partner. Remarriage was found to have a positive influence on family income, eventually improving health outcomes.

"We found that divorced individuals who remarried indirectly decreased the risk of health problems because they saw beneficial influences on their financial difficulties," Wickrama said. "Consistently divorced people continued to experience higher level of economic and health problems."

The researchers wrote in a related paper that women's self-reports of earlier deviant behavior -- which included adolescent delinquency -- rivaled divorce as a predictor of stressful events and depressive symptoms, suggesting that deviant behavior earlier in life may be influencing both the likelihood of future divorce and future physical and emotional health problems. They are planning future research that prospectively links childhood experiences to adult physical and mental health.

"Comprehensive panel studies that examine multiple health outcomes over time are still few in number, and more are needed if the health consequences of divorce are to be more completely understood," they wrote.

Parents Raise Concern About "Realistic" Safety Drills that Fail to Inform Children

2006-10-29T01:31:00.000-05:00

WYOMING, Mich. -- A school safety drill that included police officers in riot gear with weapons has caused concern among some parents who say it was too realistic and frightened some students.

Police in the western Michigan community of Wyoming entered two classrooms at Lee Middle and High School on Thursday and announced there was a threat to the school, the Grand Rapids Press reported.

Students were unaware police were conducting the drill and were taken from the classroom into the halls, patted down by officers and asked what they had in their pockets, the newspaper said.

"Some of these kids were so scared, they just about wet their pants," said Marge Bradshaw, a parent with four children in Godfrey-Lee Schools. "I think it's pure wrong that the students and parents were not informed of this."

Officers wore protective gear, including vests and helmets, and carried rifles that were unloaded and marked with colored tape to indicate they were not live weapons, the newspaper said.

Diana Silva, a parent of an eighth-grade student, said the drill went too far.

"My child was with his face to the wall in the hallway of the high school," Silva said. "I certainly don't want anything like this happening to my child."

Principal David Britten said students weren't told ahead of time to make the drill as realistic as possible. Teachers were informed moments before it took place, he said.

"I think this is the best way to do it," Britten said. "We're not looking to scare anyone, but we want a sense of urgency."

But Wyoming Police Chief James Carmody said his officers were not aware students and parents were not told. He said his department will mandate that parents be notified ahead of time in the future.

"The purpose was to show how we will evacuate the classroom, not to assault the classroom," Carmody said.

Expert Promotes Efforts to Teach Children to Combat School Shooters?

2006-10-28T13:09:00.000-04:00

A controversial program encouraging students to confront and counterattack a violent intruder in their school is earning the praise from a Professor at Kansas State University.

Charles Smith, professor of family studies and human service at Kansas State's College of Human Ecology, wrote "Raising Courageous Kids: Eight Steps to Practical Heroism." When he heard about a school district in Texas that is training its students to fight back against an attacker, Smith thought the idea was right-on.

"Finally somebody is really looking at this and saying, 'Don't be a lamb,'" he said. "It's telling kids to keep their heads up and to defend themselves with a sense of honor and self-respect."

Smith said fighting back and fighting for your life is a message that's been delivered to adults as a self-defense tactic for years, and that it's about time children start hearing the same thing.

When he conducts bullying-response programs in schools, one of Smith's messages to children is "don't feed the bully," don't give bullies what they want. Bullies want to intimidate and cause fear in their targets. That's why Smith said a program like the one in Texas is good in that it encourages children to overcome their fear.

Of course, what this issue doesn't explore is the increased chance of a child being shot or stabbed if the attacker poses a serious harm, or has the intent to kill regardless of the outcome.

"I don't think we do a very good job of teaching kids about and learning to respond to their own fear," Smith said. "One of the greatest things this program is doing is to encourage public discussion about issues of fear, courage and risk management in kids. I think this is going to bring a sea change in how we look at these kinds of circumstances."

Smith asserts that he has seen firsthand the power that even half a dozen preschoolers can have. When Smith was a preschool teacher, he once engaged his preschool group in a game of tug-of-war. He was surprised by the children's combined strength, as they dragged him around the playground despite his strongest efforts to resist.

Great comparison.

"Although in theory, a group of older grade-schoolers may have enough physical power to combat an attacker, it doesn't mean they can keep their composure in a school shooting situation in the way a middle school or high school student might. They don't have the capacity to control fear, avoid panic and act in any decisive way," Smith said.

Smith said respecting differences in age and maturity level is something schools will have to keep in mind as they consider implementing this kind of program.

"And, adults still have to assume the primary responsibility to do all they can to protect children at all grade levels," he said.

If children are taught how to confront an attacker at school, their parents may worry about whether their children make the right choice.

"It's a matter of how you want your children to live their lives," he said. "Do you want them to manage and overcome fear, to have self-respect and a personal strength that courage can give them? The alternative is to leave them powerless and vulnerable."

Then again, we could just leave it up to the parents to decide what's best for their kids in such a scenario.

New Jersey Rejects Abstinence Funding

2006-10-27T20:07:00.000-04:00

The State of New Jersey will not accept federal abstinence dollars--since doing so requires teachers to say that sex within marriage is best, the Kaiser Network reported this week.

The state's health and education department sent a letter to the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that declines about $800,000 in abstinence-education funds -- the first time the state has declined such funds since 1997.

Fred Jacobs, the state health commissioner, said the requirements for schools to teach abstinence until marriage are too limiting.

"Monogamy is not a bad idea," he said, "but having the government of New Jersey dictate these things for families is not something we wish to do."

State government, he said, shouldn't create a standard for sexual activity.

But Linda Klepacki, analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family Action, said remaining sexually abstinent is the best health choice for any person before marriage.

"And state government has always had a place in determining the best preventative health care for students," she said. "This has been the standard since health education began in public schools. Abstinence not only prevents sexually transmitted infections, it also allows individuals to reach their highest goals."

Massachusetts Appeals Court Says Parental Kidnapping Ok?

2006-10-26T11:54:00.000-04:00

A few months ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court refused to allow James Mason’s sons to be moved out of state against his will.

Last week, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a Family Court decision and sent Mark Evans’ seven-year-old boy packing to Connecticut . The decision can be read here.

Not surprisingly, parental rights advocates in the northeast find the case to be disturbing on several fronts.

Advocates note that early on, the mother broke the law by moving with the child to Connecticut before obtaining court permission to do so. Later, Family Court Judge E. Chouteau Merrill ordered her to move back.

Judge Merrill found that, “The move is not in [the child’s] best interest.” Judge Merrill also found that “The most generous characterization of the Wife’s reason for moving to Connecticut is because ‘she wants to’. . .” Judge Merrill also found that the wife’s claims that she could not afford to stay in Massachusetts, was able to find employment only in Connecticut, and that she had no support system in Massachusetts all lacked credibility.

Most fathers who have contemplated appealing bad family court decisions have learned that it is almost hopeless to get the Massachusetts Appeals Court to overturn a family court decision.

“Don’t bother,” say the lawyers, “The Appeals Court will never overturn this.” A pattern seems to be emerging that it does so mainly when the aggrieved party is a mother. See, for instance, Rosenthal v. Maney, another case in which the family court had denied a moveaway by a mother only to be overturned by the Appeals Court . It is getting harder and harder to believe that gender bias is absent. <>

Similar patterns are seen elsewhere.

In Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, the Washington , D.C. courts found that the Child Support Guidelines were excessive and unconstitutional – when the plaintiff was a non-custodial mother.

In Georgia , a moveaway was reversed by a higher court – when the plaintiff was a non-custodial mother.

In Pennsylvania , the State Supreme Court suddenly discovered that non-custodial parents have substantial expenses for parenting time – when the plaintiff was a non-custodial mother.

Of course, there are many cases in which higher courts have supported the appeals of fathers or rejected the appeals of mothers. But these tend to be cases in which the lower court decisions were flat-out, no-brainer mistakes.

Parental rights advocates hope that their suspicion of gender bias in the Appeals Court is wrong. But it is striking that it reversed Judge Merrill in this case, abandoning its long-established standard that it would do so only when the findings of the lower court were “clearly erroneous.”

Just to add insult to injury, the Appeals Court cited, among other reasons, for the move “the companionship of family, and readily available child-care assistance from family.”

In other words, the court recognized that the mother needed the “companionship of family,” but denied her boy the companionship of his family – namely his father. Likewise, in mentioning the availability of child-care assistance from family, the court seemed to think that an uncle or grandmother is preferable to the child’s own father.

Parental Rights: Are They in Jeopardy?

2006-10-25T00:08:00.000-04:00

By Michael Farris

The new term of the Supreme Court opens with a less-than-scintillating lineup of cases for the first two weeks of oral argument. Should immigration authorities use state or federal standards for drug abuse convictions? Does the holder of a patent have to wait until a complete breach of contract has occurred before filing suit? What is the correct statute of limitations for filing claims for leases when a federal agency is the lessor?

The case with the most human interest comes from the notorious Ninth Circuit. It seems that the court from our left-most coast decided to overturn a state murder conviction because three family members of the victim wore buttons to the courtroom that had a photo of the victim. One can only wish that the Supreme Court would issue its first three-word opinion in response: "You idiots! Reversed."

Perhaps it is appropriate to use this period of relative lull at the beginning of the term to focus on something far more important than particular cases and individual decisions. American citizens need to pay a great deal more attention to the development of Supreme Court theories and doctrines than is often the case.

A recent article in the American Journal of International Law tells this story:

In the keynote address to the 2003 annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, Justice Stephen Breyer declared that "comparative analysis emphatically is relevant to the task of interpreting constitutions and enforcing human rights." Justice Breyer concluded that nothing could be "more exciting for an academic, practitioner, or judge than the global legal enterprise that is now upon us." In a room filled with international lawyers and academics, he received a home court standing ovation.

Breyer's use of the term "comparative analysis" means that the Supreme Court should use international law sources to help interpret American law, including the U.S. Constitution. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist said it even more directly: "Now that constitutional law is solidly grounded in so many countries, it is time that the United States courts begin looking to the decisions of other constitutional courts to aid in their own deliberative process."

There is no doubt that the Court has already begun this process. In the 2003 decision of Lawrence v. Texas, the Court used international political and legal developments to invent a constitutional right to commit homosexual sodomy.

Since this right was "found" in the 14th Amendment, one has to wonder if the Supreme Court was tacitly embracing a theory that post-Civil War lawmakers engaged in time travel so that they could be guided by the political opinions of modern western Europeans as they penned the words to the Amendment. Correct constitutional analysis asks the question: "What did these words mean to the people who wrote and ratified this provision of the Constitution?" Modern European thought is utterly irrelevant to such an approach.

Similarly, international law was used to interpret the Eighth Amendment in the 2005 decision of the Supreme Court declaring that it was unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on a juvenile murderer. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child – a treaty that has never been ratified by the United States – was employed to protect the rights of a 17 year-old thrill murderer who threw an elderly woman off a bridge.

A decision last month by the European Court of Human Rights shows us what is in store if our Supreme Court continues on this path of using international sources to interpret our constitutional protections of human rights.

Germany banned homeschooling. Christian homeschooling families who faced criminal prosecutions, jail sentences and removal of their children by social services agencies raised religious freedom and parental rights claims in defense of their right to homeschool their children. Declaring that "pluralism in education" is "essential for the preservation of the 'democratic society,'" the European high court declared that "in view of the power of the modern State, it is above all through State teaching that this aim must be realized."

Even though the decision was addressing a home education case, no one should miss its bigger meaning. The state has the power to demand attendance at government schools so that children may receive indoctrination in today's theories of pluralism.

Will this European decision be followed in the United States? The Supreme Court has declared parental rights to be a fundamental right, but it's an open question whether the Supreme Court will follow its own precedents or the decisions of modern Europe. In both the death penalty case and the homosexual sodomy case, the Court used international law to overturn its own precedents.

And it must be remembered that parents' rights are protected because the Supreme Court found such rights to be implied in the text of the 14th Amendment. Because parental rights are not listed in the specific text of the Constitution, Justice Scalia – who is no fan of international law – voted against judicial protection of parental rights.

If parental rights are going to survive as a viable legal theory for the rest of this century, it is going to be necessary to place a specific provision into the text of the Constitution. We must give conservatives like Scalia a text to rely on in order to stop the internationalists from using European law to erode our liberty to educate our children outside the orb of state efforts to indoctrinate them in pluralism.

__________________________________________________________________

Michael Farris is the chancellor of Patrick Henry College where he teaches constitutional law. He is also the chairman and general counsel of Home School Legal Defense Association.
__________________________________________________________________

Ohio Dad Files Writ of Certiorari to Protect Parental Rights in Custody Determinations

2006-10-24T22:12:00.000-04:00

(COLUMBUS) – An Ohio father who has been doing battle with that state’s lower courts pertaining to the custody of his children for more than 12 years is finally moving up in the world. On Oct.17th, Michael Galluzzo, who has been challenging his state's child custody statutes as being unconstitutional, filed 2 Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The first case derives from a constitutional challenge to the state's custody statutes. At issue is the authority of the state to deprive a fit parent of custody in a divorce case without a finding of unfitness by the use of clear and convincing evidence to deny custodial rights.

The second case derives from a child support issue originating from Champaign County, raising a number of constitutional issues to address the failures of the Ohio courts, including the right to custody, right to compel witnesses, and double jeopardy.

Originally filed in April 2001, the case has slowly worked its way through the lower courts to where it is presently. The cases are tied together in several ways.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in many cases that parents have fundamental liberty interest to raise their children, upholding the rights of parents to raise their children without undue state intrusion for more than 80 years.

Galluzzo cites cases such as Stanley v. Illinois (1971), Santosky v. Kramer (1982), and Troxel v. Granville (2000), where the Supreme Court held that parental rights constitute a fundamental liberty interest. Laws and individual orders against such rights have a level of review called strict scrutiny applied.

In Santosky, the court articulated that in order to terminate parental rights, the state must prove its allegations of parental neglect or misconduct by “clear and convincing evidence.” Lacking a compelling interest where fundamental rights are at stake, the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment does not allow the placing of citizens into separate classes (custodial and non-custodial), without a finding of clear and convincing evidence of unfitness by one of the parents.

The cases are seminal in a long history of U.S. Supreme Court decisions pertaining to fundamental rights that should properly establish constitutionally compliant procedures between suitable and fit parents in a divorce situation with children.

The Court has addressed the rights of adoptive parents, grandparents, unwed parents, single parents, unfit parents, state agencies, and legal guardians. The ultimately critical, and unresolved issue remaining is the determination of the rights of fit parents in divorce and child custody cases.

Department of Education Approves New Regulations that Deny School Districts the Ability to Evaluate Homeschoolers without Parental Consent

2006-10-24T17:47:00.000-04:00

(CHICAGO) On October 13th, the U.S. Department of Education placed regulations into effect that explicitly deny school districts any ability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) to override a parent’s refusal to have their homeschooled child evaluated for disabilities.

Advocacy groups such as the Home School Legal Defense Association have seen an increase in such cases over the last several years where homeschooling parents deny consent for an evaluation and the school district files a due process procedure against the family.

The new regulations are in part a result of HSLDA’s victory in the case Fitzgerald v. Camdenton R-III School District (2006), where the trial court ruled that a school district did not have the right to override a parent’s consent.

“Where a home-schooled child’s parents refuse consent [for an evaluation], privately educate the child, and expressly waive all benefits under the IDEA, an evaluation would have no purpose. . . . [A] district may not force an evaluation in this case.”

After the Fitzgerald decision, HSLDA inspired thousands of homeschooling parents from across the country to attend meetings and sent in comments regarding the Department of Education’s proposed regulations.

The Fitzgerald case, in conjunction with the comments of HSLDA and it's members resulted in an expansion of the language that was already in the comments on the proposed IDEA regulations.

Now, it appears that a completely new section in the IDEA regulations provides protection for parents who homeschool. The new regulations state that if a homeschooling parent does not provide consent for any initial evaluation or reevaluation of their child, the school district cannot even initiate a due process procedure to override that consent.

<>“Our hard-won victory in Fitzgerald brought this matter to the attention of the Department of Education,” according to HSLDA Attorney Jim Mason. “Even the DOE acknowledged that this has always been the intent of the law. Now they say it clearly.”

APA President Says Psychological Science Is Not P.C.

2006-10-20T16:48:00.000-04:00

American Psychological Association President Dr. Gerald P. Koocher recently chimed-in on viewpoints provided on the topic of domestic violence in an APA article published October 9, 2006, where he says that many groups and individuals have tried to use the topic of behavioral science as a rationale to promote or oppose a political and social policy agenda.

Koocher asserts that in many instances, psychological science can provide important answers to guide policy, but that the very nature of behavioral science data will often contribute ambiguity.

He says that most of the variables psychologists study originate with hypothetical constructs (e.g., adaptation, coping, intelligence or personality). How people choose to define and measure these constructs leads to assorted claims of validity in all its forms.

Koocher offers that as we strive to conduct and disseminate high quality behavioral research, some people might respond angrily to, discount or ignore data that do not comport with their beliefs about how things are or ought to be, and lists the following example:

John Jost and his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 88 samples from 12 nations analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition and confirmed that several psychological variables predict political conservatism (e.g., heightened dogmatism, reduced openness to experience and intolerance of ambiguity). They concluded that the core ideology of political conservatism stresses resistance to change andjustification of inequality, modifiedby needs that vary across situations and disposition to manage uncertainty and threat.

Christopher Ellison and colleagues found domestic violence reports lower for the more religiously observant couples sampled.

Several studies of domestic violence have suggested that males and females in relationships have an equal likelihood of acting out physical aggression, although differing in tactics and potential for causing injury (e.g., women assailants will more likely throw something, slap, kick, bite, or punch their partner, or hit them with an object, while males will more likely beat up their partners, and choke or strangle them).

In addition, data show that that intimate partner violence rates among heterosexual and gay and lesbian teens do not differ significantly. Such findings can serve to spur on further research in a given area.

Suffice it to say: Psychological science cannot be held to a standard of political correctness by social liberals or conservatives, and thus any attempt to use isolated behavioral science findings to frame answers to broad social policy questions will require a level of explanatory detail and nuance that defies the sound bite mentality of many news outlets and political messages.

Ideally, policy-makers need to draw on the body of psychological research in a given area to inform their decisions.

Abortion Advocates Sue to Provide Plan B Access for Other People's Kids?

2006-10-16T21:11:00.000-04:00

Just when you thought you'd heard enough about fringe groups wanting to gain access to children for sordid political motivations, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) recently stuck their foot in their mouth by telling the public [in so many words] that other people's children shouldn't have to seek parental consent to get an abortion by using the morning after pill, known as Plan B.

That is the impression they've recently provided America's parents in their new lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), hoping to make the morning-after-pill available to girls under 18. The move flies in the face of an agreement the FDA made with Barr Laboratories, which prohibits younger girls from getting the drug without a prescription.

But it hardly comes as a surprise to those in the pro-life and parental rights movements, many of whom suspected that abortion advocates would bring such a case.

"This type of effort does nothing but undermine parents' involvement in kids' lives and undermine the role of parents in trying to hold families together, which is part of our social fabric," said Daniel McConchie, vice president and chief of staff at Americans United for Life.

The morning-after pill, also known as Plan B, delivers a high dose of the same hormones used in birth-control pills, and can sometimes cause an early abortion.

Sandy Rios, president of Culture Campaign, said if the legal challenge to the FDA's decision to make Plan B available over-the-counter to children is successful, it will be "open season on our kids."

"When you make this kind of a pill available to adolescents, it's going to increase the amount of adult-on-teen sex."

And while the Center for Reproductive Rights probably won't profit from the lawsuit, groups like Planned Parenthood have a little more at stake.

"Planned Parenthood stands to gain," McConchie explained, "because they own part of the Plan B patent and they stand to profit financially if more people are taking or purchasing this drug."

CRR attorneys are also asking for access to presidential records to see if the Bush administration improperly lobbied the FDA to keep Plan B out of the hands of children without a prescription.

A judge is reviewing documents to see if there is enough evidence to allow the suit.

Study Reports Unmarried Households Become Slim Majority in U.S.

2006-10-16T20:44:00.000-04:00

For the first time in U.S. history, a new report shows that marriage may no longer be the predominant living arrangement in a majority of American households.

The change, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau in its 2005 American Community Survey, could signal a change in many important facets of American life--from Family Law to national politics and its current emphasis on family values.

The findings were released in August but largely escaped public attention until now because of the large volume of data, indicating that marriage did not figure in nearly 55.8 million American family households, or 50.2 percent.

The study indicated that more than 14 million households are headed by single women, with another five million headed by single men, and 36.7 million belonged to a category described as "non-family households," a term that experts said referred primarily to couples co-habiting out of formal wedlock.

In addition, there were more than 30 million unmarried men and women living alone who are not categorized as families, the report indicated.

By comparison, the number of traditional households with married couples at their core stood at slightly more than 55.2 million, or 49.8 percent of the total.

Unmarried couples gravitated toward big cities such as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, while the farm states in the Great Plains and rural communities of the Midwest and West remained bastions of traditionalism, according to the survey.

The trend represented a dramatic change from just six years ago, when married couples made up 52 percent of 105.5 million American households.

It indicated that efforts by President Bush and his allies, who over the past five years have made a concerted effort to shore-up traditional marriage and families through tax breaks, special legislation and church-sponsored campaigns is bearing less fruit.

The shift, experts said, also raises the question about the future effectiveness of so-called "family value" politics currently played by both Republicans and Democrats.

Douglas Besharov, a sociologist with the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based Think-tank, said it is difficult for the traditional family to emerge unscathed after three and a half decades of divorce rates reaching 50 percent and five decades out-of-wedlock births.

"Change is in the air," Besharov said in a recent interview with the State Department journal called U.S. Society and Values. "The only question is whether it is catastrophic or just evolutionary." He predicted that co-habitation and temporary relationships between people were likely to dominated America's social landscape for years to come.

"Overall, what I see is a situation in which people--especially children--will be much more isolated, because not only will their parents both be working, but they'll have fewer siblings, fewer cousins, fewer aunts and uncles," the scholar argued. "So over time, we're moving towards a much more individualistic society."

In the opinion of Stephanie Coontz, who heads the Council on Contemporary Families, growing life expectancy as well as women's earning potential are impacting the traditional marriage in unexpected ways.

If before World War II, the typical American marriage ended with the death of one partner within a few years after the last child had left home, she pointed out in the journal, that today couples can look forward to spending more than two decades together in an empty nest.

"The growing length of time partners spend with only each other for company, in some instances, has made individuals less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while women's economic independence makes it less essential for them to do so," Coontz wrote.

Violence Against Women Act: The Fast Food of Law

2006-10-11T15:25:00.000-04:00

By Terri Lynn Tersak

As I reflect on my own experiences with domestic violence and the pretense of help our abuse system claims to offer, I find myself feeling most sorry for today’s victims. As the years pass, our domestic violence systems under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) offer less and less help to the most severely battered, but ever increasing rewards for those who operate the systems.

I encounter a frightening number of victims of severe battery with the same story to tell; they went through the courts and things got worse for them, almost immediately. I have experienced this myself, personally. An expansive annotated list of government and academic studies supporting these concerns is in the article “Domestic Violence Awareness Month” by Richard L. Davis.

For the past twelve years, the American taxpayers have supported VAWA and other domestic violence programs, which have grown to $1 billion a year. Why do we not only keep such a failure operating, but also expand its influences and funding year after year?

I believe it follows the same logic as our society’s affinity for fast food -- instant gratification. It is quick, easy to get and satisfies an immediate personal desire. However, that satisfaction is hollow and short lived, and often creates unintended, unexpected problems for the consumer.

Meanwhile the sellers make a fortune selling their ineffective and often harmful product. In order to keep the money rolling in, they must actively promote it to keep people accepting it, wanting it, and believing it is a good thing for everyone, regardless of the facts.

To these ends, each year we dedicate a month to promote everything the Violence Against Women Act pretends to bring us, under the guise of protecting women from abuse and providing service to those that have suffered it.

Prior to the July 19, 2005 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for the reauthorization of VAWA, many people, including myself, tried to tell our side about the failures of VAWA. Several scientists with decades of experience studying the dynamics of intimate partner violence also requested to testify at this hearing. However, even after running full-page ads in the Washington D.C. based newspapers expressing our concerns, we were all denied time to speak at the hearing.

Who did testify? A retired NBA basketball legend, a movie star, and a vice president of a cosmetics company. If these are qualifications the U.S. Senate considers appropriate for someone to testify as an expert on the subject of VAWA, whom would they invite to testify about violence on prime time TV? A few Tibetan monks perhaps?

So what went wrong?

Any system polluted with ideological propaganda, whose operation is rife with fraud and real victims are nothing more than marketing tools is destined to failure. Unless, what it perceived as a failure was the intended, designed result.

If misery does love company, then maybe the one success of VAWA has been to make sure victims of extreme domestic brutalities have plenty of company.

The women of True Equality Network, most of who are themselves victims of severe domestic violence, have spent almost five years in courthouses interviewing over 15,000 plaintiffs in domestic violence cases just before they entered the courtroom. The overwhelming number of those interviewed did not attempt to mask the real reasons they filed a domestic violence claim: control, money, and revenge -- for everything you could possibly imagine -- everything except acts of domestic violence.

Subsequently, True Equality Network asked prominent members of the counties in which the plaintiff surveys were conducted to interview the judges who heard these cases. Every single one of the judges interviewed corroborated the study’s findings of pervasive levels of false claims of domestic violence in their court.

These judges also state they know that the attorneys in these cases -- including Legal Services Corporation Grantees -- are suborning perjury by scripting the statements of the women in these cases. Moreover, they expressed concern that their District Attorneys were not prosecuting these acts of fraud.

Renowned professors and scientists who have reviewed this study series have said that the study was conducted using proper scientific methods and has produced “…significant findings that need to be widely published and cited.” Among those supporting this study is Dr. Don Dutton of the University of British Columbia, who is planning to duplicate this study in the Canadian court system.

Along with Dr. Dutton, numerous civil rights organizations requested True Equality Network to produce a training manual for conducting this study. With this tool, interviews of domestic violence plaintiffs are now being conducted in all 50 US states and starting soon in Canada.

Our abuse shelter investigation has discovered some disturbing activities. This includes shelters operating prostitution services, drug dealing, sheriff’s deputies working as "pimps," and shelter staffers arranging to have the shelter clients provide sexual favors to law enforcement officers in exchange for the officers’ false testimony in court.

The existing system must be solving some concern or no one would support it. Then whom does it help and in what ways?

It is well known and reported that false allegations of domestic violence have long been the tactical weapon of choice to gain advantage in contested custody cases. This provides financial rewards not just to the women, but also to the states through a vast array of federal funding sources. Many of these sources have nothing to do with domestic violence, such as increased incentives from federal child support collection funding, TANF, HUD, and many others, giving the states as much incentive to perpetuate the fraud as those that are actually perpetrating it.

Two special reports from RADAR - Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting, are worthwhile reading: “Perverse Incentives, False Allegations, and Forgotten Children” outlines the monetary motivators for filing false allegations of domestic violence and “An Epidemic of Civil Rights Abuses: Ranking of States’ Domestic Violence Laws” covers which states provide the greatest incentives for perpetrating these acts of fraud.

The bottom line is: our abuse support system seems to be supporting everyone, except the severely abused. We are nothing more than media fodder used to foster sufficient public guilt to keep the fraud funded. By parading photos of our battered bodies before the public and Congress the domestic violence coalitions can keep the pork barrel full.

It doesn’t take a scholar to realize that if the beatings decrease so may the funding. This makes us acceptable and maybe even necessary losses.

Terri Lynn Tersak is a professional commercial photographer, the President and CEO of True Equality Network, and a member of the Steering and Legislative Committee of the Maryland based think-tank, RADAR – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting.

Part One of Series: VAWA Fails to Protect the Women Who Need Protection the Most.

Domestic Violence Awareness Meets Marriage Protection

2006-10-09T21:31:00.000-04:00

by Dr. Stephen Baskerville

If it's October, it must be "Domestic Violence Awareness Month." This federally driven observance has generated a steady stream of dishonest claims about how domestic violence is a gender crime perpetrated entirely by men against women. This non-existent crisis will be used to set aside more constitutional protections in order to railroad innocent men into jail.

Men's groups are beginning to fight back, pointing out decades of unchallenged research establishing that domestic violence is perpetrated as much by women as men. But more needs to be said. Most of the domestic violence hysteria is generated for one purpose: to gain advantage in custody battles. In other words, trumped-up domestic violence accusations break up marriages and separate children from their fathers.

It is ironic but perhaps also fitting that just a few years ago at this time President Bush proclaimed a Marriage Protection Week. Though this was a response to the flap over gay marriage, it might be even more constructively used to raise awareness of how the domestic violence industry is destroying marriage and creating fatherless children.

Now domestic violence hysteria is becoming so extreme that it is creating a quasi-totalitarian gulag, where fathers are evicted from their homes without any evidence of wrongdoing, interrogated, and forced to confess to crimes they never committed. That's right. American citizens are routinely forced, on pain of incarceration, to sign confessions. Forced confessions are familiar from the Stalinist regimes of Eastern Europe. Prisoners were required to denounce themselves for their "crimes" against socialism. Arthur Koestler described this vividly in his novel, Darkness at Noon.

In Warren County, Pa., fathers like Robert Pessia are told they will be jailed unless they sign documents confessing to acts of violence. The confessions require the father to admit, "I have physically and emotionally battered my partner. I have committed the following acts of violence against her."

He must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. The documents require him to state, "I am responsible for the violence I used. My behavior was not provoked." As Pessia says, "This means I have lied and admit to something that I did not do."

Other men testify, "It will be useless to try to defend myself because it will just make it worse." The "violence" in question need not even be, in fact, violent. It may be anything the "victim" (who may only be "emotionally battered") says it is. "Depriving her of clothes" and "harassing her over bills" are among the definitions of "violence" promoted by some domestic violence authorities. Words like violence are debased into meaningless Newspeak, so that no defense is possible and no due process of law is applicable.

The line between law enforcement and psychotherapy becomes dangerously blurred, since the required confessions usually begin as involuntary therapy. Politicized psychotherapy echoes Soviet practice, where psychiatric prisons were used to confine and drug dissidents like V.I. Fainberg and V. E. Borisov, whose political views and ethical principles were taken as indications of mental illness. These officials are not joking.

In Massachusetts, minister Harry Stewart was jailed for six months for refusing to confess.
In Britain too, the Labour government is employing Gestapo methods and destroying centuries-old Common Law protections for individual rights in the name of domestic violence.

Home Secretary David Blunkett recently announced police raids to round-up and arrest men. The operation was carried out by something called the "Diversity Directorate" of the London police. Blunkett's Conservative Party counterpart, Oliver Letwin, calls his methods authoritarian.

Something extreme is taking place when a right-wing law-and-order spokesman can criticize the police methods of a left-wing government as heavy-handed. It is clear that the purpose here is not to arrest individual lawbreakers but to instill fear in a target population.

Gloria Steinem isn't joking when she says, "Feminism is a revolution." If so, the domestic violence machinery is executing its Reign of Terror.

Too many conservatives turn a blind eye to these abuses because they assume it is a matter of law-and-order. It is not. It is the perversion of criminal justice to serve an ideological agenda, bringing the law into contempt and leaving the weak at the mercy of truly dangerous criminals.

Perhaps this year we might celebrate Domestic Violence Awareness Month and Marriage Protection Week together, by becoming aware of how the domestic violence hoax is being used to destroy marriage and erect a police state.

Also see: www.mediaradar.org,

Newsweek Bashes Dads; CBS Covers Shared Parenting, PAS

In Defense of David Harris

2006-10-06T20:04:00.000-04:00

"What has he done to wear so many scars? Has he changed the course of rivers? Has he polluted the moon and stars?"
--Bob Dylan

By Glenn Sacks

A murder trial recently concluded in Texas wherein a woman who killed her husband was defended by the husband's own mother, brother and father, who explained that, aside from what might be described as some unpleasantness on a bad day, the woman is really a good, law-abiding person.

The press on both the left and the right has poured derision upon the murder victim, referring to David Harris as a "creep," a "rat," a "a lying, cheating scumbag" and Clara Harris' "unfaithful dog of a husband." Feminist Susan Estrich asked "Who could blame [Clara] for getting into her Mercedes and running him over?" and seemed a little sad that the jury did. She fantasized a Cochranesque defense for her, noting:

"Every day across America, women crowd into the offices of plastic surgeons and beauticians and aestheticians, spending money we don't have on painful procedures we don't really need, trying to hang on to men who don't deserve us...with their votes, the Harris jury could have sent a shot across the bow to all those cheating men. If you cheat on your wife, she can kill you and get away with it. If he deserved to get hit, you must acquit."

Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily, penned a column entitled "Free Clara Harris!" in which he wrote "I'd give her a medal....she did the right thing. That creep deserved what he got" and urged readers to "live like her." John Kasich, guest host on The O'Reilly Factor, also expressed sympathy for Clara who, he claimed, had been "mentally tortured" by her husband.

On the radio and the Internet many observers expressed similar sentiments, such as: "If at first you don't succeed, run over him again"; "I feel much compassion for Clara but absolutely none for her husband the victim..[he’s] not worth killing"; and, of course, "You play, you pay."

Even the prosecutor, Mia Magness, apparently quibbles with the killer only over her choice of methods, expressing a preference that, instead of killing David by her own hand, she should have driven him to suicide by divorcing him and "[doing] like every other woman...get his house, car, kids -- make him wish he were dead."

In Shakespeare’s tragedy King Lear, Lear is abandoned by his family with the exception of one loyal daughter, Cordelia. In the Texas tragedy David Harris has been abandoned by his family except for his loyal daughter Lindsey, who loved her father and begged her stepmother not to kill him. The murder of her father and the betrayals of her grandmother, grandfather and uncle have exacted a high toll on her, driving her to four suicide attempts in the past six months.

What did David Harris do to deserve this cruel fate? He had an affair.

As Shakespeare’s Marc Antony said of the fallen Caesar’s "ambition," David’s infidelity was "a grievous fault--and grievously hath he answered it."

It goes without saying that were the genders reversed few would be talking about infidelity as a justification for murder. Imagine a woman trapped in a loveless marriage with a jealous, potentially violent husband whom she believes may be cheating on her. She stays in the marriage because she fears she could be separated from her children should they divorce, and finds understanding, companionship and passion in a relationship with a coworker. Her husband finds out about the affair and goes on a violent, jealous rampage, slaughtering her in front of her daughter as the daughter begs him not to kill her mother.

There would be no tears or excuses proffered for the killer, and he would be just one more murderer sitting on Texas’ death row. The public would view the woman’s affair as a sad, desperate attempt to gain some comfort in the hellish life her brute of a husband had imposed on her. The mere mention of the fact that his wife had been cheating on him as an excuse for murder would be correctly denounced by feminists, who would also express outrage at the murderer’s "blame the victim" defense.

Listening to the public and media reaction to the Harris case one would imagine that infidelity were a vice owned exclusively by the male of the human species. In reality, research estimates that for every five unfaithful husbands, there are four unfaithful wives. According to the American Association of Blood Banks, of the nearly 300,000 cases evaluated each year in the United States, roughly 30% exclude the tested individual as the biological father of the children. Even blood typing examinations taken decades ago showed that at a bare minimum 10% of the fathers who signed their babies' birth certificates were unknowingly claiming paternity of children who weren't theirs.

Unlike her husband, Clara is alive to spin her version of the events and naturally portrays herself as the loyal, devoted wife of a man who betrayed her. However, upon closer examination the evidence is overwhelming that the bad spouse in this marriage was Clara, not David.
David's daughter, Lindsey, says that her father had the affair in part because of the way Clara mistreated and neglected him. According to her testimony, David told his daughter on many occasions how lonely he felt. Lindsey also testified that her stepmother Clara made her feel unimportant and as if she were not part of the family, and that the only place where pictures of her were allowed in the home were in her father’s bathroom. By contrast, pictures of the twins (the children Clara and David had together) dominated the house. Lindsey also testified that Clara had physically assaulted David on at least one prior occasion.

According to testimony by a detective at Blue Moon Investigations, the private detective agency which Clara had hired to spy on David, when Clara first came to the agency for help she described her husband as a "good man" who had fallen into the "trap" set by his coworker Gail Bridges, a "deceitful woman." Clara told the detective that her own neglect of David was the cause of his affair.

A vice president for Blue Moon Investigators told the court in November that she had conducted an investigation of Clara and presented several audio tapes on which, according to the news department of a Houston television station, "witnesses claim that Clara Harris was also having an affair before her husband died" [emphasis added].

Clara also lies, as evidenced by her preposterous courtroom claim that she didn't know she was running over her husband, despite a video which shows her repeatedly circling and running him down with her Mercedes.

Most importantly, David Harris was married to a person capable of killing an unarmed man as the man's daughter begged her not to kill her father. While we'll never know exactly what happened between David and Clara behind closed doors, can there be any doubt that a person capable of such a heinous crime was not exactly the perfect spouse? That David probably had good reason to distrust or dislike her and seek the affections of another? That somewhere along the line it might have been Clara's um......personality that might have created the problem?
One of the main clubs used against David Harris is the conversation he had with Clara at an airport hotel bar on July 18 in which he allegedly listed the reasons he preferred Bridges over Clara.

According to Clara, these reasons included the fact that Clara made negative, pessimistic comments, was loud and dominated conversations, and that David found Bridges more physically attractive than Clara. Many have cited this as evidence of what a cad and a creep David was. Yet few husbands would have the courage to speak to their wives about their wives’ physical appearance in the way Clara claims, particularly to a jealous, violent wife like her. It is extremely likely that David broached these subjects with Clara only under direct pressure from her. I imagine the barroom conversation/interrogation went something like this:

Clara: Tell me how she is better than me. Tell me why you prefer her.
David: I don’t want to talk about it.

Clara: Tell me. That’s the least you can do.
David: I said I don’t want to talk about it. You two are two different people.

Clara: How are we different, I want to know. Tell me why she is better than me (pounds fist on table). Tell me.
David: (Sighs) Well, she is less.....vocal. She listens more. She’s not so...negative, pessimistic.

Clara: (Ignoring David’s comments) It’s her looks, isn't it? It’s got to be her looks. Tell me about her looks.
David: I don’t want to talk about it. It’s got nothing to do with her looks. I like her because she’s nice to me...

Clara: I demand to know about her looks.
David: It’s not her looks...

Clara: Tell me about her looks. I deserve to know.
David: (Sighs) Well, she is (quivers)......well, she is...(quivers again)...thinner than you, just a little bit honey, just a little bit....

Clara: And? And?
David: (Still quivering) Nothing. That’s all.

Clara: No it isn’t. What about her breasts? Is it her breasts? What are her breasts like?
David: (Head swivels, looks around in every direction for a waiter) Clara, please...

Clara: What are her breasts like?
David: (Sighs) Her breasts are... (quivers)....are.... nice
Clara: Nice! Nice! How nice? What are they like? Describe them to me....

Clara, the appearance-obsessed former beauty queen, was probably capable of seeing her and David's problems only in terms of her looks and focused on this instead of David’s real message, which was that Clara’s neglect and personality were the cause of the problem.

Many have used the conversation as an excuse to speak of David's affair as if he were carrying on with a 19 year-old cheerleader. In reality, Bridges is only a few years younger than Clara and is the mother of three children. Since she was also a coworker, odds are that David looked to her at least as much for companionship as for sex.

Why did David stay? Probably because of his young twin boys. He probably knew that in a divorce he had little chance of winning even shared custody of his children and that it is common for custodial mothers to block noncustodial fathers' access and visitation to their children. He almost certainly knew that Clara was just the type of vengeful person who would do such a thing.

Despite Clara's attempt to save herself from justice by maligning her dead husband, there is no evidence that David Harris was anything worse than a fallible human being who was caught in a difficult situation. By all estimations he was a good father, a good provider and a good husband for the vast majority of his and Clara's 10 year marriage. The fact that this flawed but decent man could be slaughtered and then vilified for his one comparatively minor transgression speaks volumes about our society’s noxious mix of anti-male feminism and anti-male male chivalry.

The product of this witches' brew is a sick cultural norm where, in any conflict between a man and a woman, the man is always wrong.

------
This column first appeared on LewRockwell.com

Are Civil Courts In Contempt of Justice?

2006-10-06T19:42:00.000-04:00

By Wendy McElroy

Corporate lawyer H. Beatty Chadwick has passed 11 years in a Pennsylvania county jail on a contempt of civil court charge relating to his divorce.

He 'refuses' to produce $2.5 million that may not exist. If he were in the federal system, the maximum penalty for contempt would be 18 months. As it is, Chadwick -- who has never been convicted of a crime or faced a jury -- is indefinitely imprisoned without possibility of parole.

Has Chadwick fallen through a crack in the legal system or is he proof that family courts are out-of-control, especially regarding 'contempt of court' power?

The 'legal crack' theory immediately confronts a problem. According to the Chicago Tribune, the case has produced a "dozen pleas to the county courts, nine to state appeals courts, nine to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, six to the nearby federal court, four to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and two to the U.S. Supreme Court." That's one massive and meticulously sustained 'crack.'

The 'out-of-control' theory immediately confronts a question: what act of contempt could possibly elicit such draconian punishment?

The answer begins in 1977 when Chadwick (then 39 years old) married the former Barbara Jean Crowther. She filed for divorce in late 1992. Depending on which account is credited, Chadwick is either the victim of a vindictive wife or he is domineering husband who vowed that his wife would never see a penny.

In 1994, Barbara Chadwick informed the court that her husband had wired $2.5 million out of the country. The judge ordered Chadwick to retrieve the funds and place them in a court-controlled account until the divorce was settled. Chadwick claimed that most of the money had been lost in a foreign business deal gone bad; however, a small fraction of the money showed up in a U.S. bank under Chadwick's name. The judge ordered his imprisonment on civil contempt until the funds were produced.

In civil proceedings, such as divorce, a charge of contempt usually occurs in two circumstances. First, a failure to attend court proceedings despite a subpoena. Second, the failure to comply with a court order. If imprisonment is ordered, the 'sentence' can last as long as the disobedience continues or until the 'contempt limitation' of the particular court system is reached; some courts have no limit. Since the prisoner is considered to 'hold the key' to his own freedom, his constitutional right to due process is not seen to apply.

Chadwick was imprisoned in April 1995.

Traditionally, contempt of court 'sentences' continue only as long as there is a reasonable expectation of coercing compliance. Otherwise, the imprisonment becomes a punishment, which is a criminal sanction beyond the authority of civil courts.

A 1974 New Jersey Supreme Court case finding (Catena v. Seidl) is often cited regarding civil contempt. "It is abhorrent to our concept of personal freedom that the process of civil contempt can be used to jail a person indefinitely, possibly for life, even though he or she refuses to comply with the courts order….[C]ontinued imprisonment may reach a point where it becomes more punitive than coercive and thereby defeats the purpose of the commitment."

In 2002, U.S. District Court Judge Norma Shapiro agreed with New Jersey and ordered Chadwick's release on the grounds that continued imprisonment would not produce the money. Judge Samuel Alito -- now of the Supreme Court but then with the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- overturned Shapiro and found instead that Chadwick's incarceration should continue as long as the courts believed he was able to pay.

His ability to do so was called into question last year. A. Leo Sereni, a former president judge in Pennsylvania, was appointed to track Chadwick's money. Eighteen months and two accounting firms later, Sereni reported no trace beyond what had been discovered a decade before. Money had been transferred to Europe and a small fraction had reappeared in U.S. accounts. Sereni concluded, "most of it...nowhere."

He recommended Chadwick's release, stating, "My God -- if he had stolen $2 million, he would have been out a couple of years ago." In February 2006, the court ruled that Sereni had "overstepped his bounds," and Chadwick's incarceration continued.

The ex-wife's attorney, to whom much of any materializing money would go, has produced recent correspondence from Chadwick to a friend about setting up a numbered bank account in the Cayman Islands. Chadwick claims such an account would merely protect assets -- e.g. his future social security checks.

At this point…does it matter?

Chadwick has been imprisoned for over a decade without trial or being found guilty of a crime. That fact alone should bring into question whether imprisoning people for contempt is an appropriate court power.

The power is rooted in British common law. Legal systems that do not share a common law background, which constitute the majority of countries in the world, do not typically grant this authority to a judge.

Indeed, the ability to summarily imprison is one of the reasons that the U.S. judiciary is so politically powerful. It allows even civil court judges to bypass the Constitution.

I believe that the power of imprisonment without due process should be stripped from judges. At minimum, any person imprisoned on contempt should -- at some well-defined point -- have the right to stand before a jury that considers two questions of fact. Is the person able to comply? Does a continuing sanction serve a legally valid purpose?

Ask yourself: what purpose does Chadwick's imprisonment serve?

---

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Did Newsweek Magazine Tell the Truth about Parental Alienation and Domestic Violence?

2006-10-02T20:34:00.000-04:00

In a recent article "Fighting Over the Kids: Battered spouses take aim at a controversial custody strategy" Newsweek Magazine attempted to sell the American public an impossible theory: alleged abusers are successful at winning sole custody of their children by claiming that the mother alienated them.

The article highlights the case of Genia Shockome, who lost custody of her children to her ex-spouse during her divorce. A recent article reported on the case revealed that the judge made the correct decision:

1. Genia had joint custody of the children 60% of the time. The father filed for change of custody due to chronic custodial interference.

2. Allegations of child and spousal abuse made by Genia against herex-husband were never substantiated by the court.

3. Abuse allegations made by Genia against her husband coincidedperfectly with every custody hearing.

4. Genia was caught on videotape at a supervised visitation centercoaching her children to make remarks against their father.

5. During the hearing resulting in her contempt charge and jailing, she was warned more than 15 times to stop interrupting the judge.

6. Despite a position with IBM paying $80,000 per year, Genia refusedto pay child support, and avoided paying support in a bankruptcy proceeding.

7. A court appointed psychologist characterized Genia as highly controlling, and said the biggest hurdle to an amicable custody arrangement was this fact.

8. Genia "failed to comply with virtually every decision, ruling, and order" of the trial court.

9. Her previous attorney had quit the case because she was too volatile and unpredictable.

10. Genia's appeal to the New York Supreme Court, over the trial court's criminal contempt decision, was denied on September 19,2006.

The Newsweek article quoted Harvard University's Jay Silverman, who claims that "54 percent of custody cases involving documented spousal abuse were decided in favor of the alleged batterers."

The study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, involved 39 women recruited as a non-representative, self-selected sample by the Battered Women's Testimony Project.
The study clearly states that the report "involved reliance on the self-report of participants." ... "It is important that these data be recognized as documentation of a set of issues based on reports of affected individuals (i.e., battered women referred to the project based on their dissatisfaction with family court outcomes or processes) rather than an attempt at definitive research into the prevalence and nature of the types of cases discussed."

The study is a classic example of how opinion is transmogrified into science by federally-subsidized radical activists. It contains no evidence indicating that mothers are being treated unfairly by the courts.

Mothers receive primary custody of children in approximately 85% of divorces. When cases involving false allegations of abuse and parental alienation do get fully heard, as happened in the Shockome case, courts sometimes bravely make the correct decision.

The Newsweek story is a carbon-copy of the discredited PBS documentary, "Breaking the Silence." In both cases, allegations of abuse made by the mother were anecdotal and unsubstantiated, and the mother was found to be the worst parent by the court after great scrutiny and lengthy litigation.

VAWA Fails to Protect Women Who Need It Most

2006-09-29T19:44:00.000-04:00

Jane Williamson (not her real name) suffered repeated blows to her head. She went to an abuse shelter and complained about ringing in her right ear and blurred vision in her eye. The shelter staff was unable to detect any visible signs of her partner’s assault. They told her the symptoms would soon clear up, then sent her off to see a psychiatrist.

Within a few days Jane became deaf in that ear and blind in one eye. She will never recover her senses. Her attacker never saw a single minute in jail, nor did he pay a cent toward her medical bills.

Sadly, cases like this are common. Indeed, the majority of the 10,000 women who work with the True Equality Network have been in Jane Williamson’s shoes themselves – beaten and forgotten. These women recount an eerily similar story. When they try to work through the courts, things actually get worse for them. Many of these women believe you are better off leaving town and changing your name, than dialing 911.

American taxpayers support the Violence Against Women Act and other domestic violence programs to the tune of $1 billion a year. So what’s gone wrong?

First, abuse shelters, operating under the guise of protecting victim confidentiality and thus unaccountable to the American taxpayer, have become more concerned about generating revenue than serving true victims. Shelters are constantly looking for ways to increase their caseload. So if they have open beds, they often will admit a woman who simply claims to be “battered” – no questions asked.

In recent months, True Equality Network has been conducting an investigation of abuse shelters in 21 states. This investigation involves the woman going to a shelter saying she needs help. In most states, policies permit women to stay in a shelter for 72 hours without filing a formal complaint of abuse.

Our investigation has uncovered a broad range of illegal operations, including shelters involved in drug dealing and call-girl services. In one state, our investigator made an anonymous tip to the local law enforcement agency, resulting in the arrest of two Sheriff Deputies working as "pimps" for a prostitution service.

In another case, shelter staffers were observed arranging for shelter clients to provide sexual favors to law enforcement officers in exchange for their false testimony in court.

Second, our domestic violence system has become flooded with trivial and false claims of abuse. Remember David Letterman who was hit with a restraining order last year because he allegedly sent mental telepathic messages to a woman in New Mexico he had never heard of? Those claims are making it impossible for the voices of true victims to be heard.

The Maryland based think-tank,RADAR: Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting -- has recently released two reports that illuminate the problem. First, most statutory definitions of abuse are so broad that almost any action now qualifies as “violence.” (http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Vanishing-Rule-of-Law.pdf) Second, states have created a broad range of monetary and other perverse incentives for unscrupulous women who wish to play the abuse card. (http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Perverse-Incentives.pdf)

Over the past 5 years, True Equality Network members interviewed over 15,000 women in 17 states at courthouses who were seeking domestic restraining orders. In the great majority of cases, these women were not suffering from true violence.

The judges who heard these cases were interviewed and corroborated that these women’s claims were false. These judges stated they knew that the attorneys were actually scripting the women’s statements, an offense legally known as suborning perjury.

And why would the ladies make false allegations?

Fake allegations of violence are known to be the tactical weapon of choice to gain advantage in contested custody cases. Divorce attorneys call them silver bullets, slam-dunks, or just “divorce planning,” thus entitling the woman to many years of tax-free child support money.

Persons who claim to be abuse victims are also entitled to a vast range of social services, including low-cost housing courtesy of HUD and welfare payments from TANF. These programs are subsidized by the federal government, so the states have as much incentive to continue the fraud as the women who are initiating it.

Persons who file false or trivial claims of domestic violence are accorded equal standing by the abuse shelters and courts as the most seriously battered women. In a system rife with fraudulent claims, it is easy to understand why the Jane Williamsons of the world are being silenced.

As I reflect on my own experiences as a survivor of domestic violence and the deceptive pretense of help our abuse system offers, it has become clear that the abuse shelters, law enforcement personnel, and social welfare programs are profiting handsomely.

And what about the severely abused? They have been abandoned.

The ASPIRE Act: A Plan to Help Parents Save for Their Kids, or More "Government as Parent?"

2006-09-28T21:30:00.000-04:00

Some members of Congress recently decided to aspire to new heights by sponsoring a new bill to help parents save money from their children. Known as the ASPIRE Act, the bill calls for the federal government to invest $500.00 in a savings account for every child born in the United States.

The idea behind the bill is to create an account that would grow tax-free until the child is 18. Parents would be allowed to supplement the account to as much as $20,000, which could be used for education, a first home, or retirement. And, depending on income level, the government could also toss more into the pot.

"It's a vehicle for investing in every child and providing parents a platform to save on behalf of their children," says Reid Cramer, research director of the Asset Building Program at New America Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based Think tank that is taking a lead role in promoting the legislation.

ASPIRE, which stands for America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement and Education, is similar to the Child Trust Fund created in 2005 in the United Kingdom. That program covers every British child born on or after Sept. 1, 2002.

Support for the legislation has cut across the political and ideological spectrum. Sponsors of the ASPIRE Act range from conservatives like Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) to liberal Democrats like Charles Schumer (D-NY). Sponsors of the House version of the bill include Reps. Harold Ford (D-TN), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), and Phil English (R-PA.).

The idea of helping parents save for their children is amassing support, according to the New America Foundation.

Capitol Hill is also percolating with other child-centered savings measures including:

● The "Savings Competitiveness Act of 2006," sponsored by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) last January, who proposed expanding the Roth Individual Retirement Accounts to children.
Roth IRAs allow penalty-free withdrawals before retirement age for post-secondary education and first-time home purchases. Under today's rules, Roths can only be opened by people who have earned income.

● The "401Kids Family Savings Act of 2006," sponsored by Florida Republican lawmaker E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-Fla.) introduced last May, would allow parents to establish savings accounts for their children at birth. These accounts would grow tax-free and be used for college, first-time home purchases, or rolled over into a retirement account.

The proposals all share two common goals: to encourage families to start saving early for their children, and to teach families sound financial habits.

For low income families, these bills help give children more equal footing as young adults. The ASPIRE Act allows families to supplement the accounts. The government would match contributions for the lowest-income households.

For middle-income families, the program would make savings for kids a clear priority. "The savings rate in our country is so poor that people don't have savings for themselves, much less any kind of savings for their kids," says Veena Kutler of Mosaic Wealth Management, a financial advisory firm in Bethesda, Md. "Although $500 doesn't seem like much, the compounding of returns over time results in an amazing growth in money."

Kutler says that a single deposit of $500 invested over the last 25 years in an index portfolio would have grown to just under $10,000 today.

A pilot project for kids' savings programs known as the SEED initiative (Saving for Education, Entrepreneurship, and Downpayment), has been operating since 2003 in 12 sites around the country. the program has set up tax-free accounts of $200 to $1,000 for approximately 1,300 disadvantaged young children. Financial education and incentives is a key feature, with children getting additional contributions if, for example, they join their parents in a financial literacy class or get straight A's in school. SEED administrators notice that many participating families are saving more and changing spending behavior.

To learn more about the SEED program visit www.cfed.org.

Among the challenges to implementing a full-scale public savings plan are the
logistics and expense of providing $500 to each of four million American newborns a year at the taxpayers' expense.

The ASPIRE Act would require accountholders to return the initial $500 donation once they reach the age of 30, raising further questions about how the repayment plan would be administered and enforced. Other issues include how to provide adequate financial education--a key piece of the proposed legislation--to so many children.

Proponents say the returns would be worth the effort. Commentary from other conservative and liberal groups should be forthcoming by January.

DCFS Reform Advocates Buzzing about Ruling Barring Hearsay

2006-09-27T23:05:00.000-04:00

DCFS reform advocates made quite a buzz on the Internet today by disseminating what appears to be an important ruling in A.G.G. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky.

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky vacated and remanded a decision by a lower court which terminated parental rights because of sexual abuse. The court found that a child's statements to a counselor during therapy and a physician during a physical examination were hearsay and inadmissible at trial under the U.S. Supreme Court case, citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), because the child did not testify at trial and there was no opportunity for cross-examination of the child.

Because the child's statements were inadmissible, the child welfare agency failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the child had been sexually abused. Cite: NO. 2004-CA-001979-ME and NO. 2004-CA-002032-ME, 2005 Ky. App. LEXIS 163 (Ky. Ct. App 2005)

Advocates also noted a District of Columbia case, in re TY.B & In re TI.B, where the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's order terminating a father's parental rights to his children, based on that court's finding of neglect; the appeals court holding that the erroneous termination order was based on inadmissible hearsay testimony.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the father adequately preserved his objection to admission of the testimony, and consequently reversed the termination order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Cite: No. 01-FS-1307; No. 01-FS-1320; 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 390 (D.C. July 21, 2005)

Some view this as an interesting scenario when domestic violence charges are levelled and a police arrest is made--and they don't testify as to what they saw, or if they testify that they weren't there to see the incident occur, it is considered hearsay and inadmissable.

Some advocates argue that this scenario would mean throwing the case out based on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington, and creating a potential legal liability for law enforcement and the accuser for false swearing and making false statements to law enforcement officials; malicious prosecution and malicious abuse/use/misuse of process, harassment, and assault, false arrest and false imprisonment.

Lawsuit Sparks Debate from Parental Rights Groups on Circumcision

2006-09-25T19:22:00.000-04:00

The Chicago Tribune reports that a Chicago-area lawsuit may cut apart the medical community and parental rights' groups.

In July, an undisclosed father of an 8 year-old boy is suing his ex-wife in an attempt to prevent his son's circumcision. The parents were divorced in 2003 and awarded joint custody, giving them equal input on medical decisions.

The boy's father believes the circumcision is unneeded and describes the operation as mutilation. The mother claims that the operation is medically necessary as the boy has suffered at least 4 genital infections in the last year.

Doctors for both sides have testified, with one side arguing there is no medical reason to remove the boy's foreskin, and the other side offering expert advice on circumcision as a way to prevent further problems.

Tracy Rizzo, the mother's lawyer, says that the father is opposed to procedure because he resents his former wife's remarriage to a Jewish man.

"The father has made this more of a political issue and nothing to do with medicine," she said.

Pennsylvania School Sticks to Zero Tolerance Policy on... Chewing Gum?

2006-09-25T19:01:00.000-04:00

As reported by the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, a Pennsylvania middle school student recently received a 3-day suspension for sharing "contraband" with a classmate. Reportedly, the unnamed student shared a piece of Jolt chewing gum, which contains caffeine. The gum is "a stimulant that has no other redeeming quality," said Superintendent Amy Palermo.

The school policy precludes students from possessing a stimulant on school grounds. The school has soda machines, but they are not turned on during school hours and drinks containing caffeine are not sold in the lunchroom. School officials confirmed that there are no negative consequences for a student who brings a soft drink to school in a packed lunch, noting that the school cannot control what parents put in their children's lunches.

Superintendent Palermo noted that the student got in trouble when she shared the gum with a classmate. "What if the gum had been given to a student with a heart condition?" The Superintendent added, defending her decision. "As a parent, would you want your child to be able to get that type of product?"

Court Rules Medicaid Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Dispute Citizenship Proofs

2006-09-23T16:45:00.000-04:00

A US District Court judge in Chicago has held that plaintiffs in a class action suit lack standing to challenge a new federal law requiring Medicaid recipients to present passports, birth certificates or other proof of citizenship at the risk of losing benefits. Plaintiffs have announced that they will appeal the preliminary ruling by Judge Ronald Guzman of the Northern District of Illinois.

The law, which is part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, would allegedly hurt nursing home residents, the disabled, and victims of natural disasters.

A July ruling by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has nonetheless already exempted most previous applicants who are elderly or disabled from having to show proof of citizenship. Guzman indicated in his ruling earlier this week that the issue of whether adopted and foster children have standing to challenge the law will be resolved later.

Filed in June, the lawsuit contends the the law violates plaintiffs' 5th Amendment due process rights. It was filed by the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and Families USA, who claim that millions of citizens could lose their Medicaid coverage under the measure. Reuters has more.

Domestic Violence Policies Beating-up on Men and Fathers??

2006-09-13T19:01:00.000-04:00

Tawny Kitaen had a short-lived acting career that was marked by provocative poses, drug abuse, and run-ins with the police. On April 1, 2002 she was arrested for attacking husband Chuck Finley, pitcher for the Cleveland Indians.

Finley then filed for divorce and was awarded custody of their two children. But hoping to reverse the custody decision, Kitaen accused Finley of domestic violence, even though he had no history of violence or abuse.

When parents make false allegations of domestic abuse, children are harmed the most. And in many cases, a variety of perverse incentives are at work behind those allegations that harm children, according to a report issued today.

“Perverse Incentives, False Allegations, and Forgotten Children” analyzes state domestic violence laws and the incentives they provide to make false claims.

Each year, over 2-3 million restraining orders are issued – in half those, there is not even an allegation of violence. In most cases, the woman is a mutual participant or even instigator of the abuse. Despite that, domestic violence laws in 22 states are often used to deprive children of access to the father.

As a result of being separated from the father, children are placed at higher risk of child abuse, academic difficulties, conduct problems, and involvement with the criminal justice system.

“The rewards are so great and the penalties so minor, is it any wonder false abuse allegations have become a favored tactic in custody disputes?” asks Michael McCormick, director of the Washington DC-based American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

In addition, judges in most states can award a broad range of financial and property benefits to persons who merely claim to be abused. These serve as further incentives to file false or trivial claims. Critically, these allegations also make it harder for true victims of domestic violence to get needed services.

The report was issued by RADAR – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – a non-profit organization devoted to assuring fairness and accuracy in domestic abuse.

“Perverse Incentives, False Allegations, and Forgotten Children” can be viewed at
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Perverse-Incentives.pdf

Erring on the Side of Hidden Harm: The Granting of Domestic Violence Restraining Orders

2006-09-08T16:45:00.000-04:00

By David Heleniak

On September 19, 2005, Yvette Cade went before Judge Richard A. Palumbo seeking an extension of a domestic violence restraining order against her husband, Roger Hargrave. Palumbo, whether from confusion, clerical error, or a genuine belief that the extension was unwarranted, dismissed the restraining order. One month later, Hargrave walked into the cell phone store where Cade worked, doused her with gasoline, and set her on fire. Two weeks after the attack, Palumbo was removed from all domestic violence cases and placed on administrative duty.

On July 20, 2006, Cade was interviewed by Nancy Grace on CNN’s Headline Prime. Grace, emblematic of the media reaction, introduced the interview with:

Tonight, a primetime exclusive. She went before a trial judge and begged for help, begged for protection. He refused to hear her pleas for help. And then her nightmare came true. Her estranged husband came to her office and set her on fire. But against all odds, she lived, and tonight she wants justice. And PS, to the judge that sentenced her to being burned alive, Maryland judge Richard Palumbo, you are in contempt!

Adding to this, one of Grace’s other guests, Congressman Ted Poe, commented: “Well, Nancy, you know I believe that judges need to be accountable for their actions just like we make criminals accountable. And this judge, whether it’s a mistake or incompetence on his part, he needs to leave the bench.” A judicial misconduct hearing scheduled for the end of August was cancelled when Palumbo announced he planned to retire on August 4th because of health problems.

Whether or not the horrific criminal act committed by Hargrave would have been prevented had Palumbo extended the restraining order, the Yvette Cade tragedy and the ensuing backlash against Palumbo is likely to have just one result. As if things weren’t bad enough already in the family courts, judges are going to be even more likely to grant restraining orders, regardless of the facts, rather than risk being held responsible for a similar tragedy.

Economists have long realized that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials, in deciding whether to approve a drug, face the possibility of making two errors--they can approve a drug that turns out to be unsafe and/or ineffective, type I, or they can disapprove an effective drug that is, in fact, safe, type II--and have an incentive to make one type of error over the other.

A classic example of type I error, given by former FDA official Henry I. Miller, M.D., is the FDA’s approval in 1976 of the swine flu vaccine.

Although the vaccine was effective at preventing influenza,… it had a major side effect that was unknown at the time of approval: temporary paralysis from Guilain-Barré Syndrome in a small number of patients. This kind of mistake is highly visible and has immediate consequences--the media pounces, the public denounces, and Congress pronounces. Both the developers of the product and the regulators who allowed it to be marketed are excoriated and punished in modern-day pillories: congressional hearings, television news magazines, and newspaper editorials.

A classic example of Type II error, given by economist Walter E. Williams, is the FDA’s failure to approve the use of beta-blockers, available in Europe since 1967, until 1976.

In 1979, Dr. William Wardell, a professor of pharmacology, toxicology and medicine at the University of Rochester, estimated that a single beta-blocker, alprenolol, which had already been sold for three years in Europe, but not approved for use in the U.S., could have saved more than 10,000 lives a year…. Grieving survivors of those 10,000 people who unnecessarily died each year don’t know why their loved one died, and surely they don’t connect the death to FDA over-caution. For FDA officials, these are the best kind of victims--invisible ones.

Economist Thomas W. Hazlett sums it up this way: “Type I deaths result in headlines reading, ‘FDA-Approved Drug Kills Pregnant Mother, Congressional Hearings Slated.’ Type II deaths don’t generate headlines, or even little blurbs. There are no visible victims to lay on the regulator's doorstep when potential beneficiaries are only statistical probabilities.”

As Miller confides, “Because a regulatory official's career might be damaged irreparably by his good faith but mistaken approval of a high-profile product, decisions are often made defensively--in other words, to avoid type 1 errors at any cost.”

Although it is not politically correct to say so, women can and do use false allegations of domestic violence to gain sole custody and to get their children to hate and fear their fathers. Even when a restraining order doesn’t snowball into complete parental alienation, a judge’s declaration that a father is an abuser can permanently tarnish his image in his child’s eyes. The damage to father/child relationships and to children’s mental health caused by the overzealous entering of restraining orders, however, is seldom if ever reported, while the harm caused by overtly violent acts following the failure to enter restraining orders most certainly is.

Just like FDA officials worrying about the headlines, judges deciding whether to enter domestic violence restraining orders have their careers to think about in addition to the merits of the particular cases before them. When in doubt, they err on the side of hidden harm.

Facts should be determined by several fresh, open minds, not one with a career on the line. Jurors, relatively anonymous one-time actors in the judicial system, are far less concerned with extraneous matters than are judges. In the wake of the Yvette Cade tragedy, it is more critical than ever that juries, not judges, be used to decide when domestic violence restraining orders are warranted.

●●●

David Heleniak is an attorney in Morristown, NJ, and the author of “The New Star Chamber: The New Jersey Family Court and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.”

RADAR: Almost Anything Now Counts as "Domestic Violence"

2006-09-07T21:08:00.000-04:00

RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) has just issued another stunning report, “Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence, Vanishing Rule of Law” which analyzes the civil domestic violence laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The report concludes that statutory definitions have been widened over the past decade to the point that in most states--almost any action can be viewed as “violent.”

“Domestic violence has become whatever the man does that the woman doesn’t like,” notes RADAR member Lisa Scott of Washington State. “Finding out she is having an affair and demanding she stop is seen as ‘abuse.’ This often triggers the woman to file for a restraining order, where no real evidence is required. In my 18 years of family law practice, I have seen this pattern occur over and over.”

As many recall, TV talk show host David Letterman found himself named in a restraining order last December. The order was granted at the request of Colleen Nestler of Santa Fe, New Mexico. Nestler alleged that for the past 11 years Mr. Letterman had been sending her “thoughts of love” in the form of mental telepathic messages and televised facial gestures.

Letterman’s actions indeed represent domestic “violence,” at least according to the laws of New Mexico. In that state, domestic violence is defined as “Any incident by a household member against another household member resulting in ... severe emotional distress ... [or] harassment.” The law states “cohabitation is not necessary to be deemed a household member.”

Any “person with whom the petitioner has had a continuing personal relationship” is a “household member.” So Nestler’s decade-long telepathic relationship with Letterman made him a member of her household, even though he had never heard of her.

Each year 2-3 million restraining orders are issued in the United States. Half of all restraining orders are issued without even an allegation of physical abuse. In 85% of cases, it is the husband or boyfriend who the target of the order.

Most orders are issued on an ex parte basis, which precludes the defendant from being present to give his side of the story. Restraining orders require the defendant to vacate the house and restrict contact with his children.

“Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence, Vanishing Rule of Law” can be viewed at http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-Restraining-Orders.pdf

Judge Says Teen with Cancer Can Forgo Chemo

2006-08-16T16:58:00.000-04:00

(ACCOMAC, VA.) -- According to a report by the Associated Press, a 16-year-old cancer patient 's legal fight ended in victory today when his family's attorneys and social services officials reached an agreement that would allow him to forgo chemotherapy.

At the start of what was scheduled to be a two-day hearing, Accomack County Circuit Judge Glen A. Tyler announced that both sides had reached a consent decree, which Tyler approved.

Under the decree, Starchild Abraham Cherrix, who is battling Hodgkin's disease, will be treated by an oncologist of his choice who is board-certified in radiation therapy and interested in alternative treatments. The family must provide the court updates on Abraham's treatment and condition every three months until he's cured or turns 18.

Tyler emphasized that the decree states that the parents weren't medically neglectful.

Abraham saw the doctor last week, and defense attorneys told the judge that the doctor has indicated that he thinks that Abraham can be cured.

After the short hearing, the judge looked at Abraham and said, "God bless you, Mr. Cherrix."

Last summer, the teen was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system considered very treatable in its early stages. He was so debilitated by three months of chemotherapy that he declined a second, more intensive round that doctors recommended early this year.

He since has been using an alternative herbal treatment called the Hoxsey method, the sale of which was banned in the United States in 1960.

After Abraham chose to go on the sugar-free, organic diet and take liquid herbal supplements under the supervision of a Mexican clinic, a social worker asked a juvenile court judge to intervene to protect the teen's health. Last month, the judge found Abraham's parents neglectful and ordered Abraham to report to a hospital for treatment as doctors deem necessary.

Lawyers for the family appealed, and an Accomack County Circuit Court judge suspended that order and scheduled a new trial to settle the dispute. The judge scheduled the trial for two days but has indicated he would like to finish in one, said John Stepanovich, a lawyer for the parents.

Abraham is still on the Hoxsey method, but Stepanovich stressed that the family hasn't ruled out other possible treatments, such as immunotherapy or radiation treatment in small doses.

According to the American Cancer Society, there is no scientific evidence that Hoxsey is effective in treating cancer in people. The herbal treatment is illegal in the United States but can be obtained through clinics in Mexico, and some U.S. naturopathic practitioners use adapted versions of the formula.

Court Says Foster Kids Do Fine in Same-Sex Homes

2006-08-15T13:50:00.000-04:00

The Arkansas State Supreme Court ruled on June 30th that homosexuals cannot be barred from becoming foster parents because such placement has not been shown to harm children, the Associated Press reported.

In 1999 the Child Welfare Agency Review Board determined that foster kids would be more likely to thrive if placed in a traditional home with a husband and wife.

All seven justices declared that the board's decision to exclude gays from the foster-parenting program inappropriately imposed a moral view. The court also declared that the state Legislature should determine eligibility, not the board.

Associate Justice Donald Corbin said the board showed bias against homosexuals.

"There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children," he said, "and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual."

Judges and the Development of Parental Alienation Syndrome

2006-08-02T20:18:00.000-04:00

By David Heleniak

As I defined it in “False Domestic Violence Accusations Can Lead To Parental Alienation Syndrome,”

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a pattern of thoughts and behavior that can develop in a child of separated parents where the custodial parent causes the child, through manipulation and access blocking, to unjustifiably fear and/or hate the other parent. PAS is more than brainwashing, in that the child comes to actively participate in the degradation of the target parent, coming up with original (often ludicrous) reasons to fear/hate him or her.

Dr. Richard A. Gardner (1931-2003), who coined the term “Parental Alienation Syndrome” in 1985, believed that judges, rather than impede the development of PAS, often facilitated it. In two important articles written near the end of his life, “Should Courts Order PAS Children to Visit/Reside with the Alienated Parent?: A Follow-up Study” (2001) and “The Judiciary’s Role in the Etiology, Symptom Development, and Treatment of the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)” (2002), Gardner drew on his many years of experience with custody litigation to point out, by my count, five problems with the current system.

According to Gardner, one way judges facilitate the development of PAS is through their undue delay in resolving custody disputes.

I have not once seen a speedy trial in the context of a child-custody dispute. I have seen speedy issuance of restraining orders, often without proper collection of evidence.... But I have never seen a speedy decision made in a child-custody dispute. The usual duration of such cases that have come to my attention has been two to three years between the time of the initiation of the dispute and the time of the court’s decision. By that time, the children are significantly older and the decision is made on the basis of data that may no longer be relevant. All this works for the alienator, because the more time the alienator has access to the children, the more deeply entrenched will become the PAS campaign of denigration. By the time the children do come to the attention of the court, they will protest vigorously any kind of a court-imposed program that might lead to reconciliation with the alienated parent.

Gardner observed a second way judges facilitate the development of PAS, through their reluctance to change the status quo.

Another problem with the courts is the failure to make decisions that involve significant change in the lives of the children. The orientation is to maintain the status quo. On the one hand, such reluctance may serve well many children because custodial transfer often involves a change in domicile, a change in neighborhood, school, and network of friends. On the other hand, such considerations must be weighed against the special needs of PAS children. If there is to be any hope of their reestablishing a relationship with the targeted parent, PAS children must spend significant time with him (her). They must have living experiences that will demonstrate that the PAS parent is not noxious and/or dangerous. My experience has been that most judges do not appreciate that the arguments in favor of transfer for PAS children generally outweigh the arguments for maintaining the status quo.

A third way, in Gardner eyes, that judges facilitate the development of PAS is through their unwillingness to impose sanctions on the alienating parent.

Courts will, on occasion, change custody when it recognizes relentless PAS programming. My experience has been, however, that such transfer is uncommon and nothing else is done (other than empty warnings and threats) to discourage or restrict further the relentless programming.... I generally recommend a hierarchy of warnings to the alienating parent, from posting a bond to short-term incarceration. My experience has been that courts are extremely reluctant to even warn alienating parents about such sanctions--let alone implement them. Unfortunately, my experience has also been that even when judges do warn alienating parents that violating court orders places them in contempt of court, and they run the risk of the implementation of one or more of the aforementioned sanctions, nothing happens. Typically, the courts do not follow through with such threats (in the rare cases in which they are made). The alienators know this. In fact, they know this well, and they know that they can violate such court orders with impunity. Accordingly, they ignore the court orders and ignore the warnings of sanctions. I am not saying that courts never impose such sanctions; I am only saying that they rarely do so in my experience and the experiences of colleagues of mine in the field.

Unafraid of consequences, alienating parents know well how to “work the system.” They violate court-ordered visitation schedules, and they know that they can most often do so with impunity. They recognize that the courts are slow, and that time is on their side. The longer they have access to the children, the more deeply entrenched will become their PAS symptoms.

A fourth way judges facilitate the development of PAS, per Gardner, is through their over-reliance on and overconfidence in psychological therapy.

With regard to judge’s ordering therapy, there is generally no problem getting judges to follow the recommendation of a mental health professional that an individual be in treatment. This is the in-vogue thing to do, and judges that do not profess a respect for therapy may be considered out of touch with the latest trends. Furthermore, courts are often happy to order therapy, because it shifts somewhat the responsibility for doing something constructive and useful into the hands of another person. Accordingly, ordering therapy can justifiably be viewed as a judicial “cop-out” in many cases. It is a far easier, and even safer course than ordering custodial transfer, and/or various restrictions and even sanctions for the alienating parent. Courts, in their eagerness to order treatment, often make little if any discrimination among therapists. Courts traditionally will order “therapy” without giving any consideration to who the therapist is and whether or not that therapist has any knowledge or experience working with PAS children. The assumption is often made that any therapist will do and that most therapists know what to do with any patient who is sent their way. PAS children need therapy with a therapist who is knowledgeable about the special techniques necessary for the treatment of PAS children. Because, at this point, there are so few therapists who have this special knowledge, the likelihood of the children receiving proper treatment is very small.

As Gardner further observed,

There is no question that therapy has been oversold to the public and is far less efficient and effective than it is purported to be by most mental health professionals. Judges have often bought into this. I suspect that most judges do not have the respect for therapy that they profess in the courtroom, but it can serve as an ostensible solution to the case. By ordering everyone into therapy, they can make a quick decision and then move on to the next case. Most PAS indoctrinators are not candidates for therapy. To be a proper candidate for meaningful therapy two provisos must be satisfied: 1) the individual has insight into the fact that he (she) has psychiatric problems and 2) the individual is motivated to alleviate these problems. PAS indoctrinators do not generally consider their brainwashing of their children to be a manifestation of a psychiatric problem. They do not recognize that what they are perpetrating is a form of emotional abuse, because poisoning a child against a loving parent is very much a form of emotional abuse. Accordingly, they do not satisfy the first proviso. Furthermore, without insight into the fact that they have a psychiatric problem, they do not have the motivation to change anything--especially in the realm of the PAS indoctrinational process. Accordingly, the second proviso is not satisfied either. Judges do not seem to appreciate that they cannot really order someone into meaningful treatment. They might be able to order somebody to spend some time in a room with a therapist who is naïve enough to take on such a patient, but they cannot order the person to be motivated to change. Furthermore, most people do not follow through with the order anyway, from the recognition that the judge is not going to follow up on it in the immediate future. What happens then is that the PAS indoctrinator continues to program the children, and the PAS becomes more deeply entrenched.

Finally, a fifth way noted by Gardner that judges facilitate the development of PAS is through their refusal to punish perjury.

I have seen alienators consciously and deliberately fabricate on the witness stand and do so year after year. (As mentioned, some litigated custody disputes last for years.) And I am sure that in many such cases the court was aware of the fact that the alienating parent was being deceitful. Yet, I have never seen a case in which a court has in any way punished such a parent for perjuring themselves on the witness stand. I have seen courts punish such perjurers in other ways, such as transferring custody; but I have never seen a court impose a punishment for perjury per se. Accordingly, PAS indoctrinators know well that they can lie on the witness stand with impunity, and they try to get away with as much as they can. They are ever “pushing the limits,” ever testing to see how far they can go with their violations of the court orders. Accordingly, they continue to perjure themselves--often with the full knowledge and support of their attorneys.

In Gardner’s experience, cases involving PAS usually end the same way, badly, and judges usually share in the blame for the outcome.

This is the most common sequence, a sequence I have repeatedly seen: The alienator successfully alienates the children. The target parent goes to court (the time gap between the onset of the alienation and the court hearing is often a year). The trial drags on over a few weeks or a few months. The court orders an evaluation (often the evaluator is someone who may know little, if anything, about the PAS). The evaluation takes four-to-five months. Five-to-six months later there is another court hearing, at which point the judge orders therapy for everyone. (And the therapists may know nothing about PAS either.) The alienator does not go, nor does the alienator bring the children. The alienator recognizes that he (she) can do so with impunity. The alienated parent, in desperation, decides to bring the case back to court. By this time another six-to-nine months may have elapsed. Another hearing is scheduled six months to a year later. By this point, in typical cases, the PAS has become even more deeply entrenched in the children’s brain circuitry, and the children, by this time, have been alienated for three years or more. Back in court, the judge decides that the original evaluation is too old and orders a new evaluation. Sometimes this may be an update of the earlier one, and sometimes a new evaluator is brought in. In either case, the judge takes the position that any evaluator will do and is not concerned with whether the evaluator has any knowledge at all of the PAS. This takes another six months to a year. The new evaluator recommends more therapy. After the third or fourth round, the children are in their teens, and the judge (by this time the fourth or fifth one) throws up his (her) hands, claiming that there is nothing that can be done with teenagers. At that point, the children have become permanently alienated, and the judiciary has basically joined forces with the alienating parent in bringing about this all too common tragic result.

Gardner hoped that his articles would “play a role in mobilizing courts to do what is necessary for PAS children, and do it quickly.” Hopefully other government officials--including legislators, prosecutors, police officers, child protective services agents, and appellate judges--will also be motivated to help family court judges and each other combat PAS.

●●●

David Heleniak is an attorney in Morristown, NJ, and the author of “The New Star Chamber: The New Jersey Family Court and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.”

Lawyer argues divorce case should be transferred to Church tribunal

2006-08-02T20:08:00.000-04:00

(Cleveland) - An Ohio woman’s fight to save her Catholic marriage from civil no-fault divorce took another important turn when Ave Maria School of Law professor Stephen Safranek submitted an argument to the state court.

His memorandum, submitted on behalf of the defendant, Marie Bai Macfarlane, argues that the divorce case must be transferred to a Catholic Ecclesiastic Tribunal for arbitration.

Safranek argues that Ohio law “favors arbitration agreements and seeks to uphold them.” He cited legal precedents in favor of arbitration, including cases where religious tribunals were the arbitrators.

“A failure of the courts to recognize the arbitration rights of the Catholic Church in this case not only violates the understanding Marie had when she entered upon this marriage, it necessarily entangles this court in issues relating to Catholic law, teaching, faith and belief,” wrote Safranek.

After nearly 14 years of marriage, Macfarlane’s husband, William “Bud” Macfarlane, filed for divorce. The former engineer and stay-at-home mother lost custody of her four children to her husband when she insisted on continuing to home-school them.

Her husband’s attorney, Tom Lafond, has argued that the Church should not be allowed to arbitrate the case.

“My husband and I didn’t agree to the minimal government marriage; we agreed to be under the authority of a third party, the ecclesiastic authority of the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law,” says Macfarlane.

“If either of us wants to separate, we are still obligated to follow the Church’s separation procedures, not the state’s minimum procedures,” she continued. “Ohio law ORC 3101.08 recognizes church's right to marry people 'in conformity with the rules of its church'.”

According to the Catholic Code of Canon law, a person can only seek a divorce from the state after the person has first obtained a separation decree from the Church court as well as their bishop’s authorization. The Church court makes determinations regarding financial support and children.

“I believe in the sanctity of marriage and I want my children home with me,” Macfarlane said.

The Cleveland Tribunal and the Archdiocese of Cincinnati rejected her petition to determine whether her husband has “a lawful reason to leave” the marriage. Her case is now before the highest court at the Vatican, the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota.

-----

For Safranek’s memorandum of law, go to: http://www.marysadvocates.org/safranek.html

A petition urging the U.S. bishops to protect families from no-fault divorce is available at www.defendusfromdivorce.com.

Report Reveals Society is Becoming Less About Children

2006-07-17T16:20:00.000-04:00

As reported in the July 12, 2006 edition of USA Today, the U.S. is becoming a much more adult-focused society after being child-centered for decades, a recent report suggests.

Longer life expectancy, delayed marriage and childbearing, and increased childlessness add up to a longer life without kids, says the analysis, released today by the non-partisan National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.

Child-rearing occupies a smaller share of a person's adult life because there are longer periods before and after raising children compared with previous generations, says Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, the project's co-director and author of the study. It is based on U.S. Census data as well as cultural and social research.

"It's almost as if raising children, which used to become the common lot of most adults, now has become more of a niche in your life rather than one of the main features of adult life," she says.

In 1970, for example, 73.6% of women ages 25-29 had at least one minor child at home; 30 years later, 48.7% did.

In 1990, the most common household type was married couples with children. Now, single, childless households are the most prevalent.

And today, more women in their 40s are childless, the report says. One in 10 were childless in 1976; in 2004, it was about one of five.

Although Whitehead says Americans aren't "anti-child," she suggests that a society indifferent to parenting will further aggravate current attitudes and account for what Whitehead calls "the cultural devaluation of child-rearing."

"People who are rearing children and have children in the household no longer represent the dominant force in society or politics," she says.

The shift also is evident on TV, says William Douglas, a professor of communication at the University of Houston and author of Television Families: Is Something Wrong in Suburbia? "The plot more often than previously focuses around parents. Children simply no longer hold this elevated status where the plot is necessarily around them."

Workplace policies also reflect the greater attention to adults, says Thomas Coleman of Unmarried America, a Glendale, Calif., group, formerly the American Association of Single People.

"The so-called family-friendly programs that emerged in the '80s and '90s are being replaced with work-life programs," he says. "The terminology is changing to be more generic."

Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution's Center on Children and Families is not ready to sound any alarms yet about what this adult focus suggests for child well-being.

Fewer children "may make for a more adult-oriented society," she says, "but it's not necessarily going to have bad consequences for children. Everything depends on how much we're investing in those smaller numbers of children."

California Bill Mandates Pro-Gay Teaching in Public Ed.

2006-06-23T19:40:00.000-04:00

The California Legislature is considering a bill that would require public schools to teach homosexuality or lose their funding.

If passed, Assembly Bill 606 could cost schools that don't comply as much as two-thirds of their budgets. The legislation has been approved by the state Assembly, and is set for two more Senate committee hearings before a floor fight.

"Practically it means the posters on the wall must be in every grade, K-12, about gay rights and sexual orientation," said Barbara McPherson, program manager for legislative affairs at the California Family Council. "We will have to have trainings on anti-harassment for faculty, school boards and very possibly to students."

The bill goes as far as to give sole power to the California superintendent of public instruction to oversee school cooperation.

"There's no due process—you can see that it could be used for retribution and retaliation," McPherson explained. "It's very, very dangerous."

Family advocates say the legislation is a tool to indoctrinate children about homosexuality—and that it must be opposed.

Single-Gender Public Schools Proliferating?

2006-06-20T23:31:00.000-04:00

Experts say separating boys and girls allows schools to play to their differences.

According to a recent study, a single-gender public school could increase your child's learning potential and self-esteem, while decreasing distractions — but that doesn’t impress feminist groups calling it a return to "segregation."

Eight years ago there were only four public schools following the single-gender model. Today there are more than 220. Dr. Leonard Sax, founder of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, said studies show that when boys and girls are separated, they perform better.

"Girls and boys learn differently," he said. "They learn differently because they hear and see differently. Those differences are present at birth."

While the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Association of University Women have called it a return to the Dark Ages, neither would comment for this story.

Sax said such fears are unfounded.

"Some of the most prominent leading feminists, most notably Hillary Clinton, are strongly in favor of this," he said, "because the reality is that this is a format that benefits girls."

Dan Lips, an education analyst with The Heritage Foundation, said girls simply do better in math and science when boys are absent from the classroom.

"Today, in American education, girls are really thriving. They’re far surpassing boys in academic achievement," he said. "I think that if this becomes a successful model, it should be and will be implemented around the country."

Shared Parenting Best for Children

2006-06-20T23:25:00.000-04:00

Every year the Legislature rightly spends millions of dollars on children's health care, foster care and social services. At the same time, we perennially overlook an opportunity to improve their lives without spending a penny -- by allowing children healthy access to two loving parents.

Although about 40 percent of children in America grow up without the active involvement of a father, our state statutes discourage shared parenting. Even if judges believe equal time is in a child's best interest, our statute limits their discretion. People have been known to "shop" the states to find the most restrictive parenting schedules -- and move to our state.

Washington's de facto "every other weekend" visitation schedule compares badly with 28 states that encourage "frequent and continuing contact" with both parents. Study after study indicates children fare far better in joint custodial arrangements than in single custody -- emotionally, educationally and financially. Not a single study advocates for the routine use of the restrictive schedule handed out in Washington.

Why, then, does Washington disregard the research and strides made by other states?

Every year for the past 10 years, I have introduced a shared-parenting bill, and every year that bill has died. Most of the resistance comes from special interest groups opposed to even a modest increase of in non-custodial parents' time with their children from about 21 percent to 33 percent annually.

This is in no one's best interest. As Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women, said: "I urge a presumption of joint custody of the children. Shared parenting is not only fair to men and children, it is the best option for women. ... Most of us have acknowledged that women can do everything that men can do. It is time now for us to acknowledge that men can do everything women can do." Sad to say, however, the current NOW leadership opposes shared-parenting legislation, relegating to second-class status a generation of men who, ironically, were brought up to recognize the equality of the sexes.

My bill would create a standard allowing qualified parents at least one-third residential time with their children. Although this adds merely 12 percent more time than the current system, studies show that it makes a world of difference. It sends the message that parents no longer have to fight expensive court battles to maintain relationships with their children, and it removes children from the winner-take-all dynamic of many divorces.

Although my bill fell short this year, I saw signs of growing support that bode well for the 2007 legislative session. If you agree, I urge you to contact my office or the offices of your state legislators.

It's time Washington joined the majority of states with progressive parenting schedules. Children in other states are enjoying more time with fathers and reaping the benefits of healthier families. So can ours.

----

Sen. Jim Kastama, D-Puyallup, is chairman of the Senate Government Operations & Elections Committee and represents the cities of Puyallup, Milton, portions of Fife and Edgewood, and the communities of Midland and Summit/South Hill.

Lawmakers Say Pledge Protection Act Needed More Than Ever?

2006-06-19T14:59:00.000-04:00

Sponsors plan to use Flag Day to unveil legislation to guard "under God" phrase.

Members of Congress told the nation recently that, if we are not careful, the right of Americans to go public with their religion is in danger of being lost to activist courts.

At a Capitol Hill news conference, Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., and Sens. John Kyl, R-Ariz., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said the country needs the Pledge Protection Act to safeguard our freedom.

"We're very concerned that the Supreme Court might possibly say that the words, 'one nation under God' would be unconstitutional," says Akin, according to a recent report by the group Focus on the Family. "I think that would be a tragedy and a travesty if it happens."

The bill would bar the federal courts from taking cases challenging the Pledge.

"If somebody complains to a federal judge that it's unconstitutional for school children to say the Pledge of Allegiance," Akin said, "then that federal judge would have to say, 'I'm sorry, I don't have jurisdiction to hear this case.' "

Akin said many people don't know that Congress has the power to limit what cases federal courts can take.

"The U.S. Constitution, in Article III, section 2 -- a part that people in law school aren't taught much about any more -- says the Congress establishes the jurisdiction of the federal courts," he said.

"That is, we can say to the federal courts, 'You can hear this kind of case, but you can't hear that kind of case.' We can't tell a judge how he or she is going to rule on something, but we can tell the courts -- 'You can't rule on it at all, period. You don't have jurisdiction to hear it.' "

Akin first introduced the bill in response to a 2003 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on a case brought by atheist activist Michael Newdow. The appeals court declared it unconstitutional for children in public schools to utter the phrase "under God" in the Pledge.

This is the second time for the bill to come before Congress. In 2005, the House passed it, 247-173, but the measure died in the Senate.

Akin said the idea that there is a God, that God grants rights to human beings and that the purpose of government is to secure those God-given rights is a foundational principle in American history.

Brownback, meanwhile, said that God and country have been inextricably linked since the founding of the republic.

"You've got 40 years of decisions by activist judges trying to remove any trace of God in the public square, and the march continues," Brownback said. "We really have to fight back against that for our own fundamental freedoms of the free expression of religion in society -- which is guaranteed in the Constitution."

Lanier Swann, director of government relations at Concerned Women for America, said the bill could come out of the House Judiciary Committee next week and a floor vote could be scheduled before the 4th of July.

"Children across the country must continue to have the right to recite our Pledge day in and day out," she added. "The words ‘under God’ make the Pledge not only a patriotic oath, but a public prayer for our country."

Judge Threatens Family with $3,500 Fine

2006-06-14T18:12:00.000-04:00

(DETROIT) -- According to a recent report by the Home School Legal Defense Association, a family in Eastpointe Michigan were charged with criminal truancy after removing their children from their school in Detroit in order to engage in homeschooling.

The situation began in December of 2005 when Renata Broughton and her husband Andre moved their family into the Detroit school district, and enrolled their child for a time in the Detroit Public Schools. In the new year they decided to homeschool, and notified the DPS of the change. Meanwhile, the mother realized that DPS had never asked to transfer the child’s school records from Eastpointe. After her request, they apparently failed to do so.

When the family returned to Eastpointe, they faced charges for the time their child was in Detroit Public Schools, and throughout their time homeschooling. Even though the information was brought before the prosecutor concerning their homeschooling, the case was not dismissed.

Accordinig to HSLDA Attorney Chris Klicka, the Court was contacted and explained the error, but the judge simply stated, “He doesn't know the law in Michigan.” This, in spite of the fact that Klicka provided the judge with extensive information concerning the history and laws in Michigan and the battle for the right to homeschool that he had been involved in for over eight years, and that he worked on the case that went before the Michigan Supreme Court.

Attorney Dave Kallman was then hired by HSLDA to represent the family at a pre-trial court conference.
Kallman began to talk to the prosecutor about the fact that the Broughtons were legally homeschooling their children. Needless to say, Kallman ended up going before the judge who was a replacement judge from the earlier hearing, and had the case dismissed.

Lesbian foster parents win Missouri case

2006-06-08T19:00:00.000-04:00

As reported by the Associated Press today, the state of Missouri plans to drop its legal challenge to a lesbian's efforts to become a foster parent because a new state law makes the appeal impossible.

A spokesman for Gov. Matt Blunt called the decision "outrageous" and said the governor wants the appeal to continue. Blunt's spokesman Spence Jackson said in Thursday editions of The Kansas City Star that if the Missouri Attorney General drops the case, "he is doing so without the consent of his client." "We don't believe placing a child with homosexual parents will provide an appropriate environment for foster children," Jackson said.

Jackson County Circuit Judge Sandra Midkiff ruled in February that Missouri could not deny Lisa Johnston a foster parent license and ordered the agency to resume training for her and her partner.

The State Department of Social Services decided to appeal, and the foster parent application was put on hold while each side prepared briefs for the Missouri Supreme Court. Department spokeswoman Deborah Scott said the policy to deny foster-parent licenses to same-sex couples remains in effect.

Women's Groups Seek to Create New U.N. Women's Agency

2006-06-06T23:19:00.000-04:00

According to the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, a coalition of U.S.-based women's groups sent a letter to the United Nations last week to demand that the world body "more powerfully represent women's empowerment and gender issues" and specifically to ask for a new UN agency dedicated to feminist issues.

In an open letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan on International Women's Day last month, the coalition of international women's groups wrote, "We are disappointed and frankly outraged that gender equality and strengthening the women's machineries within the U.N. system are barely noted, and are not addressed as a central part of the U.N. reform agenda."

There are already several U.N. bodies which focus on issues affecting women, including the U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues (OSAGI) and the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women
(INSTRAW).

The women's groups complain that none of them, with the exception of UNFPA, is a principal agency that could equate to the fully-resourced agencies such as UNICEF, the U.N. Development Program or the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

Stephen Lewis, U.N. special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa and a former top official of UNICEF, has vociferously called for the creation of a new agency for women. Last month Lewis stressed that an international women's agency, within the United Nations, was needed to advocate for women the way UNICEF does for children. Many may recall that it was during Mr. Lewis'
stint UNICEF that the Vatican decided to withdraw its annual symbolic donation because of mounting evidence that the agency was promoting abortion.

In a March press release, Mr. Lewis stated, "What we now have in place--whether it's UNFPA or UNIFEM or the Division for the Advancement of Women--cannot do the job that needs to be done. This is not to disparage their good work; this is only to say that it has to be combined and then enhanced a hundred-fold."

Not all women's groups are supportive of the new initiative.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, which is the largest women's public policy group in the United States said, "A UN women's agency--particularly one created in response to radical feminists - would not advocate for women but for certain ideologies espoused by those in charge.

They will claim to represent 'all women of the world' as they work for the abolishment of respect for motherhood, the killing of unborn babies, prostitution as a women's right to economic empowerment, and sex-based quotas that disadvantage women who rely on their husband's income."

More Debate on Government Involvement in Marriage

2006-06-06T22:06:00.000-04:00

Opponents say marriage amendment is a waste of time; supporters say American people demand it

June 6, 2006

Debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) continued today, as it winds its way to an expected vote on Wednesday.

As reported by Focus on the Family Action, supporters of the amendment led by Sens. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., laid out several different nuts-and-bolts arguments as to why we need the MPA.

"The senators spoke on the effects on children from living in homes without a mom or a dad — and why the courts have made this issue absolutely vital," Banks said. But opponents — namely Democrats like Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. — seemed to be reading from the same set of talking points, Banks said.

"Why are we doing this?" Reid again asked his colleagues today, complaining that the Senate should be considering other issues. "There's no chance that this is going to pass." Kennedy, meanwhile, accused the amendment's supporters of wanting to "write bigotry into the U.S. Constitution." He argued that his home state had every right to approve of same-sex marriage — and was no "threat" to anyone.

"I'm proud that Massachusetts continues to be a leader on marriage equality," Kennedy said. "Being part of a family is a basic right, and I look forward to the day when every state accepts this basic principle of fairness."

But that assessment is challenged by none other than the governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, who sent a letter to Kennedy and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to support the MPA. Allard cited the letter in today's debate.

"Americans are tolerant, generous and kind people," Romney wrote. "We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage. Romney wrote that homosexual marriage was hampering his state.

"Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights," he wrote. "In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who served for several years as chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, said he's tired of hearing Democrats — and a handful of Republicans — charge there's no crisis to warrant a constitutional amendment.

"Judges are good at deciding cases," he said. "They are good at applying law. But when it comes to moral reasoning, there is nothing in their legal training or in our laws that gives a few activist judges the right to make wholesale social change at the expense of the traditions of the American people."

Freshman Sen. David Vitter, R-La., meanwhile, told his colleagues who oppose the amendment that they "didn't get it" when it came to the marriage issue.

"But I can tell you that real people do," Vitter said. "The people of Louisiana get it. They passed a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage... folks don't want marriage redefined."
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., leveled his own broadside aimed at those who argue that this is not an issue that the American people care about.

"I beg to differ," Thune said. "Nineteen different states in this country have adopted constitutional amendments by public vote defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That very initiative, that very vote, will be on the ballot this fall in South Dakota. In fact, I predict we will get a very comfortable margin in favor of that . . .

"The American people have a different way of deciding what they care about and what's important than do sometimes the politicians here in Washington."

The Senate is expect to vote Wednesday on cloture — a procedural move to bring the amendment up for an up-or-down vote. Banks said no one will be surprised if the effort ends with that procedural vote. Constitutional amendments, she said, historically have taken many years to pass.

"The Founders set the threshold high for passage of an amendment — a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate. This should not be a surprise to anyone," she said. "But the rhetoric about this being 'meaningless' because it's unlikely to pass is really a hollow argument."

Indeed, Gary Cass, executive director of the Center for Reclaiming America, considers the vote an exercise in education. He's on Capitol Hill taking the case for marriage to as many senators as he can.

"We got 48 votes last time," Cass said. "We expect the five new senators who campaigned on marriage to vote the right way, so we should pick up some votes, but we can't really predict the outcome, yet."

Cass also called on constituents to continue to fax, telephone and e-mail their senators, asking them to support the amendment. No matter what, he said, we're in this for the long run.

"This isn't about one election cycle. It isn't about any particular senator," he said. "It's about the institution of marriage, and we need to get people who understand that in places of power."

Homeschool Advocates Propose Strategy to Reform Child Welfare System

2006-05-31T23:55:00.000-04:00

Home School Legal Defense Association offers strategy to reform the Child Welfare System.

In recent years it has become frighteningly common for homeschoolers to be wrongfully accused of abuse and neglect on hotlines to state child welfare departments. Individuals who do not like home schoolers can simply make an anonymous phone call and fabricate abuse stories about their neighbors. Social workers then have a legal obligation to investigate.

Some statistics show that up to 60 percent of children removed from their homes by social workers were taken away from their parents without probable cause of abuse. Over 70 percent of investigations are not substantiated.¹ Under this system, which ignores due process of law, many innocent families are subjected to harassment.

Each state has different policies regarding social workers. However, social workers usually want to enter the family's home and interrogate the children separately. To allow either exposes the family to great risk. Every week, Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) attorneys counsel member families and intervene to protect them from social worker "fishing expeditions."

Unfortunately, the child welfare system sometimes ends up abusing the very families it is supposed to help.
To address this problem, HSLDA is working to reform state child welfare laws. We support legislation which would protect families by forcing social workers to abide by the same laws regular law enforcement officials must obey.

The five areas most in need of reform are:

Anonymous Tips: Child welfare laws should be amended to require all reporters of child abuse to give their names, addresses and phone numbers. This will curtail false reporting and end harassment stemming from anonymous tips.

False Reporting: Child welfare laws should be amended to make false reporting at least a class C misdemeanor.

Probable Cause/Warrant: Social workers must be held accountable to the same Fourth Amendment standards as the police. A warrant must be obtained before a social worker can enter the home without consent of the parents.

Access to Records: Many times home schoolers who are investigated by social workers are denied access to the records of their investigation. Child welfare laws should be amended to allow victims of the system to inspect their records in order to seek recourse.

Prohibition of the Violation of Parent's Constitutional Rights: The recognition of parental rights is important to create an even playing field during child welfare investigations.

Source: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000058.asp

When an Ex Moves, Do the Kids Go, Too?

2006-05-31T16:06:00.000-04:00

A Vexing Call for Judges

NPR recently reported on a Massachusetts case that challenges a parent's ability to moveaway from the other parent after divorce when children have close bonds with Mom and Dad.

The case, Mason v. Coleman, is now before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, where experts say it could yield one of the nation's first high-court decisions on what has become a vexing problem for family court judges: when and whether to allow a divorced parent to move out of town with the kids, when the other parent objects.

Judges say it is now one of the hardest decisions they have to make. Just a decade ago, most divorces ended with one parent -- usually the mother -- getting sole custody. Courts would almost always allow the mother to move, as long as she could prove she wasn't motivated by spite. Judges generally believed that if the mother was the primary caretaker, keeping her happy would ultimately benefit the kids as well.

But with a growing number of parents today sharing custody, and with new research showing the importance of children staying connected to both parents, many courts are now raising the bar.

New Jersey Mom Gets Alimony After Kicking Her Son to Death?

2006-05-31T03:19:00.000-04:00

HACKENSACK, NJ -- The Associated Press Reported on May 11th, 2006 that Linda Calbi admitted she kicked her 14-year-old son, causing injuries that led to his death. But a judge says she’s still entitled to alimony payments from her ex-husband.

According to an article on CBS Channel 3 in Philadelphia, Christopher Calbi had sought to end the payments, claiming his ex-wife violated her moral obligation to provide a safe home for their two children after the couple divorced.

Superior Court Judge Eugene Austin refused, suspending the $3,183 monthly payments while the mother spends 30 months in jail.

However, the judge said that when she gets out, she can apply to have them resumed.

Supreme Court Avoids Gay Parental Rights

2006-05-30T15:40:00.000-04:00

Without comment, the U.S. Supreme Court has once again avoided the contentious issue of parental rights--this time for gay and lesbian couples.

On Monday, the justices refused to get involved in a long-standing dispute between a former couple over custody of one of their two children.

At issue: whether an independent adoption in which the birth mother does not give up her parental rights is legislatively and constitutionally permissible.

The justices also declined to intervene in a Washington state dispute between a lesbian couple concerning ties to a child the two helped raise together last week.

Report on Maternal Homicide Crisis: Myth-Making and Manbashing

2006-05-29T11:58:00.000-04:00

By Glenn Sacks

"Pregnant women murdered at an alarming rate." "Killings of new, expectant mothers mount." "Many new or expectant mothers die violent deaths." "Violence trails expectant mothers." "Pregnant mothers often die of murder."

These headlines top a highly-publicized new series of articles by Donna St. George of the Washington Post. The series, which appeared in many major newspapers and media outlets this week, details an alleged epidemic of maternal homicide by male intimates.

The series powerfully depicts the tragedies of murdered expectant or new mothers. The mother-to-be killed the day her mother ordered the cake for her baby shower. The pregnant 14 year-old murdered by her 14 year-old ex-boyfriend. The bank manager killed because she wouldn’t convert to her husband’s religion before their twins were born. However, despite the emotion, alarm bells and blaring headlines, the series fails to build the case that maternal homicide is an epidemic, is on the rise, or is even a significant social problem.

According to the Post’s numbers, there are about 100 documented murders of pregnant women in the United States each year. Yet according to the Centers for Disease Control, nearly four million women give birth each year. One out of 40,000 is not an epidemic. The Post speculates that the true number could be significantly higher but also notes that 30% of these killings are not related to childbearing, but instead involve drug dealing, robberies, errant gunfire, or other causes. And some pregnant women are killed by other women, as in the recent Missouri murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett by a woman who cut her live baby from her womb.

St. George and others point to a Journal of the American Medical Association article which states that in Maryland a “pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other cause." This sounds alarming until one considers that there are an average of eight murders of pregnant women each year in Maryland--alongside 75,000 live births.

St. George also cites a study by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health which allegedly showed murder to be the biggest cause of death for pregnant women and new mothers. When this study was released the Boston Globe summarized its findings as follows:

“Murder is the leading cause of death for Massachusetts mothers in the 21-month period from when they become pregnant until their babies reach their first birthday, according to a state review that shows domestic violence today is more dangerous than medical complications from childbirth.”

However, when public health specialist Ned Holstein of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine examined the report, he found that murder was well down the list of alleged causes of maternal death. According to the study's own data, the leading causes of death of pregnant or recently-pregnant women over a 10-year period were Medical conditions (152), Motor vehicle accidents (21), Domestic violence homicides (20), other homicides (10), and Miscellaneous (29). The epidemic of domestic violence-related homicides sweeping Massachusetts consists of an average of two deaths per year.

“The risk of murder by an intimate is extremely small, not an epidemic,“ says Holstein, a physician who also heads Fathers and Families of Massachusetts. “Although every death is tragic, murder of pregnant women simply does not rank as a significant public health problem.”

St. George’s article series expresses commendable concern about battery of pregnant women but errs in claiming a link between domestic violence and pregnancy. According to longtime domestic violence researcher Richard J. Gelles, co-author of Behind Closed Doors, “to be pregnant alone doesn't put a woman at risk.”

“Women between the ages of 20 and 34 suffer the highest rate of domestic violence, and that is also the most likely age to be pregnant,” he says. “Age is driving the risk, not pregnancy.”

Unfortunately, alarmist claims of pregnant women being victimized by male partners are not new. For example, in 1993 Time magazine and many major newspapers reported that, according to the March of Dimes, domestic violence was the leading cause of birth defects. This claim was later found to be completely fictional, and was retracted by Time and others.

Similarly, the claim that “22 to 35 percent of women who visit medical emergency rooms are there for injuries related to domestic violence” has been echoed countless times by major media outlets and in politicians’ sound bytes. However, according to Emergency Room data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and the Justice Department, only about 1% of women's injuries are inflicted by male intimates.

St. George uses anecdote and emotion in place of facts and research in order to find a mythical crisis of maternal homicide. It is another example of how legitimate concern for battered women often devolves into an alarmist and anti-male view of domestic violence and gender relations.

--------------------------

Glenn Sacks is a men's and fathers' issues columnist and a nationally-syndicated radio talk show host. His columns have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. He can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

Fathers Group Issues Report on Domestic Violence; Policies Exacerbate Child Abuse

2006-05-26T16:25:00.000-04:00

“Misinformation” Campaign Cited in Domestic Violence Policies.

According to a new report by the by the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Government policies and campaigns to combat domestic violence and child abuse are based on faulty information.

The report, authored by ACFC President Stephen Baskerville, PhD., also claims that current government policies worsen child abuse.

The report, Family Violence in America: The Truth about Domestic Violence and Child Abuse, highlights the more contentious and conflicting scenarios, such as:

· Child custody disputes are probably the main engine driving both fabricated accusations of domestic violence and actual incidents.

· The main cause of child abuse is family dissolution, and family violence programs are likely contributing to the child abuse problem.

Domestic violence programs have become the subject of sharp criticism in recent months.

Studies from the Independent Women’s Forum and RADAR: Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting have challenged the accuracy of information behind current policies.

A Rutgers Law Review article by David Heleniak recently called domestic violence “an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice” and a “due process fiasco,” identifying six major denials of due process in one statute.

The ACFC report goes further in suggesting that domestic violence allegations are driven primarily by child custody disputes and by suggesting that child abuse is made worse, rather than diminished, by current policies.

The Report comes as Congress is considering appropriations for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the principal Federal legislation that funds domestic violence programs nationwide. The Report is highly critical of VAWA.

Its findings also contrast somewhat with those of two recently published studies on family violence: “Child Maltreatment 2004,” issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, and Renee McDonald, et al., “Estimating the Number of Children Living in Partner-Violent Families,” Journal of Family Psychology, March 2006.

Public School Boards say Yes to Free Speech Concerning Sexual Preference--but No to Religious Messages?

2006-05-23T21:40:00.000-04:00

According to the California-based Pacific Justice Institute, students and their parents packed a recent school board meeting at the Roseville Joint Unified School District in response to the suspensions received for peacefully expressing their first Amendment rights.

Numerous students of Slavic descent passed-out Christian literature and wore t-shirts that read, “Homosexuality is sin. Jesus can set you free.”

In addition to asking for their rights to speech and the free exercise of religion, these students and their parents asked the board to fulfill its obligations to protect students from threats, violence and other forms of harassment.

Viktor Lavor, a junior, told the board that Slavic Christian students, while leafleting, were threatened by hostile peers that they would get “beat up” after school.

Another pupil described how they went into the cafeteria wearing their shirts.
“While sitting in the cafeteria at breakfast, we had things like bottles, pieces of food and other objects thrown at us,” said Lyana Tagintsev. “I felt unprotected,” she said.

Taginstev told the board that “the school is suppose to protect us like any other students, but I didn’t see them try to do anything.”

Later that day, Lavor and Taginstev, along with 10 other students were summoned to the office by school officials. “We were given two options: either to take off the shirts and go back to class or keep the shirts on and face two days suspension. After praying, our group chose to keep the shirts on and stand up for what we knew was the truth. If we would take off our shirts we would be cowards,” Lavor said.

Nadia Militan, who did not wear the shirt that day saw the other students in the school office who were suspended.

Originally from the Ukraine, she told the board that “this kind of speech suppression makes me wonder if American schools follow the US Constitution.”

“Later I asked one of my friends if they had any more shirts. They did and I put it on in front of the office administration. They suspended me as well,” Militan told an attentive board.

In nearby San Juan Unified School District, parents and students plan to address that school board about similar hostility and suppression of speech targeting Slavic Christians. Students leafleted and wore the same t-shirts as their friends in Roseville.

“My review of the evidence so far indicates that the threats and actual violence against the students at San Juan is as bad if not worse than what is happening at Roseville,” said Kevin Snider who is an attorney representing the students from both districts.

“These students are pleading with the school boards to respect the rights of speech and to provide safe schools,” stated Brad Dacus, PJI president. “We are hopeful that the elected officials for these two districts will send a clear message on the rights of students to peacefully express themselves without fear of violence.”

As PJI and other parental rights groups noted recently, a number of public school districts in California and elsewhere also participated in a national day of silence to express the importance of understanding homosexuality.

Source: http://www.pacificjustice.org

Kids on Antipsychotic Drugs up 73%

2006-05-22T18:17:00.000-04:00

Report raises concerns that mind-altering pills are being overprescribed

NEW YORK - The number of children taking antipsychotic medicines soared 73 percent in the four years ending in 2005, far outpacing the increase in adults, according to a Medco Health Solutions Inc. report released Tuesday.

Use of the new class of drugs known as atypical antipsychotics by people 19 and younger skyrocketed 80 percent in the same time period, according to the pharmacy benefit manager.

Source: MSNBC

More Pregnant Women Report Discrimination in the Workplace

2006-05-22T12:51:00.000-04:00

The number of women claiming they've been discriminated against on the job because they're pregnant is soaring even as the birth rate declines.

Pregnancy discrimination complaints filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) jumped 39% from fiscal year 1992 to 2003, according to a recent analysis of government data by the Washington-based National Partnership for Women & Families.

During that same time, the nation's birthrate dropped 9%.

The surge in pregnancy complaints makes it one of the fastest-growing types of employment discrimination charges filed with the EEOC — outpacing the rise in sexual harassment and sex discrimination claims.

Also see: Pregnancy Discrimination at Work: A Qualitative Study

Link: http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-02-16-pregnancy-bias-usat_x.htm

Study: Sex is Essential... But Kids Are Not?

2006-05-21T11:41:00.000-04:00

THE GERMAN PUBLIC was recently shocked to learn that 30% of "their" women are childless — the highest proportion of any country in the world. And this is not a result of infertility; it's intentional childlessness. Demographers are intrigued. German nationalists, aghast. Religious fundamentalists, distressed at the indication that large numbers of women are using birth control.

Source: LA Times

Litigation Explodes Over Paternity Fraud

2006-05-19T12:48:00.000-04:00

According to a recent article, Paternity fraud is rampant in the United States, triggering legislation and legal challenges in more than a dozen states, according to family law attorneys and fathers' rights activists.

At issue: Men claim women are getting away with trickery -- DNA evidence may show a man is not the father, but the courts are still forcing him to pay child support anyway.

"This is the new underdog," said Michigan family law attorney Michele Kelly, who represents mostly men tangled in paternity disputes. "I was a staunch feminist. I marched with Gloria Steinem. But the new victims in America are working men. All they are is a mule train."

Most recently, Kelly secured a victory for a Michigan man who had paid an estimated $80,000 in child support over 15 years to his ex-wife, despite DNA evidence that proved he wasn't the father of their first son.

On March 23rd, after a bitter court battle, the case settled with the ex-wife agreeing to have all child support canceled. Richardson v. Luria, No. 91-7019-DM (Bay Co., Mich., Cir. Ct.).
The woman's lawyer, Robert Dunn, a solo practitioner based in Bay City, Mich., was unavailable for comment. Meanwhile, Kelly, of Kelly & Kelly in Northville, Mich., said this case is just the tip of the iceberg.

"One case is just more outrageous than the next," she said. According to a recent study in New Hampshire, as many as 30 percent of those paying child support are not the biological fathers of the children being supported. California is also expected to release results from a similar study later this year.

"Paternity fraud is a growing concern for men and children everywhere," the New Hampshire report concluded. "It can spawn considerable grief for the men who may or may not be emotionally attached to a child they later discover was fathered by another; and possibly unsettling for children who may discover the false nature of their paternity."

CWA Issues Critical Remarks Concerning Slow Moving Parental Notification Legislation

2006-05-19T11:39:00.000-04:00

Senate Fails to Enact Child Custody Protection Act Eight Years and Counting
5/17/2006
By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel

Custody of a child ought to matter as much as custody of a car.

In 1995, Rosa Hartford took a 13-year-old girl she barely knew, who her adult son had raped when the girl was 12, from Pennsylvania into New York.

There, Hartford posed as the girl’s stepmother and facilitated the girl’s abortion without her mother’s knowledge or consent and absent any legal justification. She then abandoned the girl 30 miles from her home with serious medical complications from an incomplete abortion, where she would have died but for her mother’s frantic and successful efforts to find her and obtain medical care.

Anyone, including a total stranger, who takes your minor daughter for an abortion across a state line without your consent, in order to avoid a state parental notice or consent law, faces no liability under federal law. The Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA) would support state parental notice and consent laws such as Pennsylvania’s, which Rosa Hartford crossed a state line to avoid.

Although 70 percent of Americans favor parental notice or consent before a minor can obtain an abortion, Congress has failed to enact a federal law that prohibits a person to take a minor across state lines in circumvention of state laws. Despite the testimony of Joyce Farley, the mother of Hartford’s victim, and others before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1998, Congress has failed to act. Although the U.S. House of Representatives has passed the CCPA four times, the U.S. Senate, and the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) in particular, have done nothing.

The Senate needs to explain its refusal to pass the CCPA in light of the following federal laws:

The Freedom of Access to Clinics Act, which makes it a federal offense to interfere with someone seeking access to an abortion clinic, specifically exempts a parent or legal guardian from legal liability for activities specifically related to their minor child. The only reasonable explanation for this exception for parents is that Congress respects a parent’s right to be involved in a minor daughter’s decision about abortion.

Any parent whose parental rights have been terminated by a final court order, who kidnaps his or her child and transports the child in interstate or foreign commerce, faces life in prison. This law reinforces state parental-custody orders even against a parent who’s lost legal custody.
Anyone who lives in one state and willfully fails for a year or longer to pay a support obligation for a child who resides in another state can be fined $5,000. This law reinforces state child-support orders against an out-of-state obligee.

The Mann Act prohibits transporting any individual in interstate or foreign commerce for purposes of prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. Violators face up to 10 years in prison. The Supreme Court held that if anyone “employs interstate transportation as a facility of their wrongs, it may be forbidden to them.”
A person who travels in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to engage in conduct that violates the portion of a protection order that prohibits or provides protection against contact or communication with, or physical proximity to, another person, and subsequently engages in such conduct, faces five years in federal prison. This law reinforces state restraining orders against those who would otherwise escape punishment for violating the order by traveling out-of-the state and engaging in the prohibited conduct.

Anyone who knowingly transports a stolen car in interstate or foreign commerce faces 10 years in federal prison. This law reinforces state auto-theft laws.

Anyone who knowingly transports stolen property worth $5,000 or more in interstate or foreign commerce faces up to 10 years in federal prison. This law reinforces state property-theft laws.

In 1998, the House of Representatives passed the CCPA as H.R. 3682. It was referred to the SJC where it died. The Senate version S. 1645, made it to the Senate floor but died due to a failure to invoke cloture and cut off debate. In 1999, the House passed the Act as H.R. 1218. It was placed on the Senate legislative calendar where it died.

The Senate version, S. 661, also died in the SJC in 1999. In 2002, the House passed the Act as H.R. 476. It was referred to the SJC where it died. In 2003, the Act, as House bill H.R. 1755 and Senate bill S. 851, failed to make it out of either the House or Senate Judiciary Committee. In 2005, the Act, as S. 403, never made it to a committee, and S. 8 and S. 396 both died in the SJC.

The House passed the CCPA under a new title, “The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act,” as H.R. 748. It was placed on the Senate legislative calendar where it remains in limbo.

Do we see a pattern here?

Contrary to the abortion lobby’s claims, state legislatures that have enacted parental involvement laws have done so because they rightly recognize that loving families are a pregnant girl’s best resource and protection. Any industry desperate enough to argue that a pregnant minor girl is safer having an unfettered right to a dangerous medical procedure than she is in seeking the guidance of parents who love her ought to be ignored by the U.S. Senate.

Dr. Bruce Lucero, a self-described pro-choice physician, agrees. A New York Times article that quoted Lucero was placed in the record of the 1998 SJC hearing on the CCPA. According to Lucero:

In these kinds of cases, the best help adults close to the teen-age girls, be they relatives or others, can give is not to go along with the teenager’s desire for concealment by bringing her across state lines, but rather to encourage her to talk to her parents. … Parents are usually the ones who can best help their teen-ager consider her options. And whatever the girl’s decision, parents can provide the necessary emotional support and financial assistance.

Even in a conservative state like Alabama, I found that parents were almost always supportive. If a teen-ager seeks an abortion out of state, however, things become infinitely more complicated. Instead of telling her parents, she may delay her abortion and try to scrape together enough money – usually $150 to $300 – herself. As a result, she often waits too long and then has to turn to her parents for help to pay for a more expensive and riskier second-trimester abortion.

Also, patients who receive abortions at out-of-state clinics frequently do not return for follow-up care, which can lead to dangerous complications. And a teenager who has an abortion across state lines without her parents’ knowledge is even less likely to tell them she is having complications. Hearing on S. 1645, the Child Custody Protection Act, before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (May 20, 1998).

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws that require notification or consent of a parent before a minor daughter may obtain an abortion, if the law provides for a judicial bypass rather than parental notice or consent, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth.

Every version of the CCPA exempts a parent, legal guardian, custodian of a minor and the minor from prosecution, as well as any abortion that is necessary to save the life of the minor. There is a defense if the defendant reasonably believes that the parental notification/consent/judicial process has occurred.

On May 15, 2006, the Senate passed by unanimous consent S. 479, which designated May 1, 2006, as “National Child Care Worthy Wage Day,” and calls on the people of the United States to observe the day by “honoring early childhood care and education staff and programs in their communities.” The Senate passed this moot and trivial resolution instead of the CCPA.

The Senate needs to hear from those who think a parent’s custody of a minor daughter deserves at least as much federal protection as custody of the family car.

Illinois School District takes aim at teens' Web posts

2006-05-18T23:04:00.000-04:00

Schools say 'MySpace' is their space too?

Another parental rights issue has popped-up in Illinois. According to a news feature by Andrew Wang in today's Chicago Tribune, a the Libertyville/Vernon Hills school district could become one of the first in the state to adopt rules holding students accountable for what they post on blogs or social-networking Web sites like MySpace.com.

The school board of Community High School District 128 is expected to vote Monday on a change to student conduct codes that would make evidence of "illegal or inappropriate behavior" posted on the sites grounds for disciplinary action.

Hmmm. Illegal is one thing.

Beyond that, shouldn't it be up to the parents to determine what is considered "inappropriate" for something that occurs off school property? Seems like another example of a group of bureaucrats taking an isolated incident and blowing it way out of proportion.

Last I checked, District 128 had no ownership stake in MySpace.com

Source: Chicagotribune.com

Homeschooling Parents Told State Assessment Tests a Must

2006-05-17T16:45:00.000-04:00

Earlier this school year, homeschoolers within the Hale Kula Elementary School "attendance zone" received a troublesome letter. The letter began, "[d]uring the months of March and April 2006, your child will be taking the Hawaii State Assessment."

After explaining details of the State assessments, the letter stated that parents could request to have their children exempted from the assessment.

According to the school principal, in order for a request for exemption to be granted a letter would have to be submitted to the school where it would be forwarded to the State Test Development for review and approval.

The Home School Legal Defense Association intervened with a letter to Hale Kula Elementary School and pointed out that while Hawaii law requires homeschool parents to have their children tested in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10, they are not required to take the Hawaii State Assessments.

In reality, a parent can chose normed referenced achievement tests comparable to the state assessment. While parents can request to have their children take the Hawaii State Assessments in a testing year, it is optional.

Hawaii State Assessments are content-based tests that are geared to curriculum taught in the public school. A homeschool child who is taught at home will likely not be familiar with the content on these assessments.

HSLDA reported that Hale Kula Elementary School has since dropped all of their demands.

Judge Strikes Down Georgia Ban on Gay Marriage

2006-05-16T19:41:00.000-04:00

ATLANTA - A judge has struck down Georgia's ban on same-sex marriages, saying a measure overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004 violated a provision of the state constitution that limits ballot questions to a single subject.

The ruling by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell had been eagerly awaited by gay-rights supporters who filed the court challenge in November 2004, soon after the constitutional ban was approved.

Russell said "procedural safeguards such as the single-subject rule rarely enjoy public support."
"But ultimately it is those safeguards that preserve our liberties, because they ensure that the actions of government are constrained by the rule of law," the judge wrote.

Robbing Birth Parents to Pay for Foster Care

2006-05-15T21:43:00.000-04:00

By Richard Wexler

It should be among the bigger scandals in child welfare--though perfectly legal. But so far only one newspaper, The Hartford Courant, has reported on it.

Here’s how it works:

An impoverished single mother, desperate to keep her low-wage job leaves her children home alone because she can’t find day care she can afford. She can’t get day care because federal aid that might provide such day care has been transferred elsewhere. The children are taken away on a “lack of supervision” charge. They are placed in foster care. The foster parents and the bureaucracy supporting them, and the child abuse investigator are paid in part using the money diverted from low-income day care.

It happens because of a side effect of welfare “reform” – the misuse of surplus funds in the federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program that replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

When Congress passed welfare “reform,” supporters promised that states could use TANF surplus funds to help welfare recipients become self-sufficient, by providing job training and childcare. But it turns out states are free to use TANF money for many other things as well. And in many states, TANF has become a slush fund for the foster care system, with hundreds of millions of dollars diverted to fund foster homes and even child abuse investigations.

In Connecticut alone, $129 million in TANF money has been diverted from basic, concrete help to keep families together into the foster care system that tears them apart. The Courant story, which ran on March 25, is available in the paper’s paid archive. It’s well worth the $3.95.

False Domestic Violence Accusations Can Lead To Parental Alienation Syndrome

2006-05-12T21:08:00.000-04:00

April 19, 2006
by David Heleniak

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a pattern of thoughts and behavior that can develop in a child of separated parents where the custodial parent causes the child, through manipulation and access blocking, to unjustifiably fear and/or hate the other parent.

PAS is more than brainwashing, in that the child comes to actively participate in the degradation of the target parent, coming up with original (often ludicrous) reasons to fear/hate him or her.
Domestic violence (DV) restraining orders are a perfect weapon for an alienating parent.

Typically, in addition to removing an accused abuser from the marital home, a DV restraining order also "temporarily" bars the accused abuser from seeing his or her children, and "temporarily" gives the accusing parent exclusive physical custody. And temporary, in the Family Court, has a funny way of becoming permanent.

Obtaining a restraining order based on a false allegation of domestic violence gets the target parent out of the house and out of the picture. A father who can't see his kids, for example, is unable to rebut the lie "Daddy doesn't love you anymore. That's why he left you." Nor can he rebut the alternate lie, "Daddy is dangerous. The wise judge said so. That's why he can't see you."

The Next Conservatism #40: Why Sex is Better than Gender

2006-05-12T20:04:00.000-04:00

By Stephen Baskerville
May 11, 2006

A problematic question for the next conservatism is the politics of "gender" (formerly known as sex). It is also urgent.

A critical change in the Left over the last few decades has been the shift from the economic to the social and increasingly the sexual. What was once a semi-socialistic attack on property and enterprise has become a social and sexual attack on the family, marriage and masculinity.

The consequences are incalculable. No ideology in human history has been potentially so invasive of the private sphere of life as Feminism. Communists had little respect for privacy. Feminists have made it their main target.

Report: Moms on WIC Breast-Feed Less

2006-05-12T16:37:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON --Breast-feeding is less common among mothers who get federal help from the Women, Infants and Children program, known as WIC, congressional investigators said Wednesday.

The Government Accountability Office didn't criticize WIC, which distributes free formula but also heavily promotes breast-feeding. Even outside the WIC program, breast-feeding in the United States fell short of federal goals, the report said. Instead, investigators said limits are needed on advertising by infant formula companies. Companies have used the WIC name and logo to market formula despite federal restrictions on their use, according to the report.

Growing concerns raised over State policies which impact parental rights

2006-05-12T16:28:00.000-04:00

LOUISVILLE - While the state Office of Inspector General investigates whether children are appropriately being removed from their families, more women are speaking out about losing their parental rights.

A recent conference in Louisville Kentucky highlighted the difficulties parents face when losing their children to foster care and adoption.

Several reform advocates, mostly women, spoke-out at The Truth Commission, a conference sponsored by Women in Transition, an organization of welfare recipients and low-income women that advocates for better social welfare policies and more opportunities for families.

Parents and child advocates met as the state Office of Inspector General investigates whether domestic-violence victims and other parents are losing parental rights in order to increase state foster-care adoptions and federal financial bonuses.

The federal government is pressuring states to get children into adoptive homes quickly instead of leaving them in foster care.

Laws require that if a child was in foster care 15 of the previous 22 months, officials should start terminating the parents' rights.

Gov. Ernie Fletcher and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services are looking at the issue after it was revealed that the state removed the children of about 50 women served by the regional Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program in the past year.

States Help Schools Hide Minority Scores

2006-05-11T22:09:00.000-04:00

States are helping public schools escape potential penalties by skirting the No Child Left Behind law's requirement that students of all races must show annual academic progress.

With the federal government's permission, schools aren't counting the test scores of nearly 2 million students when they report progress by racial groups, an Associated Press computer analysis found.

Source: ABC News

Rocket Fuel Found in Breast Milk of Women in 18 States

2006-05-11T22:06:00.000-04:00

A toxic component of rocket fuel has been found in breast milk of women in 18 states and store-bought milk from various locations around the country.

The chemical, perchlorate, can impede adult metabolism and cause retardation in fetuses, among other things. It leaches into groundwater from various military facilities.

Previous studies have found perchlorate in drinking water, on lettuce, and in cows milk. The new research, announced this week, suggests perchlorate is a bigger problem than thought, scientists said.

Source: LiveScience .com

Welfare reform meets the law of unintended consequences

2006-05-11T22:01:00.000-04:00

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, known as Welfare Reform, has been cheered as a stunning achievement of the Republican Congress and its Contract With America.

The law helped to move millions of welfare recipients out of dependency and into productive jobs, but its unintended consequences brought many thousands of "never welfare" families into the welfare bureaucracy.

Financial incentives are often built into tax credits, reductions or bonuses to influence human behavior in home ownership, energy, water, transportation, and waste management. But sometimes the law contains incentives that were not planned, expected or desirable.

The Great Society welfare system was recognized by the 1990s as a social disaster that created fatherless children, illegitimacy and women's dependency on government. Channeling taxpayer handouts to mothers provided a powerful financial incentive for fathers to depart; they were not needed anymore.

Unfortunately, policy changes in the 1988 and 1996 welfare laws created similar financial incentives for state governments to exclude middle-class fathers from the home. The law incentivized the states to manufacture "noncustodial" (i.e., absent) fathers and to order money transfers (usually through wage garnishment) to mothers, thereby putting a large segment of the middle class under the welfare bureaucrats.

The major goal of the 1996 Welfare Reform was to reduce the budget deficit by, among other things, recovering welfare costs from absentee fathers. Without justification or public debate, the rules to accomplish this were then applied to middle-class "never welfare" families. Formerly, to receive welfare benefits, recipients had to demonstrate eligibility by "need" (i.e., a test measured by income level), but the new policy omitted income eligibility requirements. Without a means test, a high-income mother with custody can use the power of the state to collect from a low-income father.

The federal government annually provides $4.2 billion in block grants to states to serve as collection agencies. States are reimbursed for 66 percent of their costs of child support enforcement activities, 80 percent of their costs for technology, and 66 percent of their costs of DNA testing for paternity.

The more cases the states can create and the more operational expenses they incur, the more federal funding states receive to expand their welfare bureaucracy. No performance standards are required to get this money and, in addition, the feds provide a bonus fund ($458 million in Fiscal 2006) for which the states compete.

In the welfare class, most absentee fathers are unemployed or working for wages so low that little or no money can be squeezed out of them. State bureaucrats discovered they could cash in on the pot of federal money by exploiting middle-class divorce and creating a whole new class of absent fathers who have good jobs and are willingly making payments to their ex-wives.

When a married couple with children is divorced, the family court typically renames the husband and wife as noncustodial and custodial parents. The more time with the children that is awarded to the custodial parent, the more money the noncustodial parent is ordered to pay and then can be reported by the state as collections that merit federal bonuses.

Federal funding thus provides powerful monetary incentives for states to maximize the number of single-parent households with high transfer payments, and to minimize equal child custody which would lessen transfer payments. Depriving or reducing children's access to one parent is thus a source of revenue for states.

These incentives drive family court discretion and skew the opinions of the vast army of lawyers, psychologists, custody evaluators, and parenting counselors who are used to rationalize the process. They hide their predetermined custody rulings under the subjective slogan "the best interest of the child." Put another way, forcibly depriving children of access to one parent, usually the father because he usually has a higher income than the mother, is a big source of revenue to states.

Source: Townhall .com

______________________________________________________

Phyllis Schlafly is the President and Founder of the Eagle Forum

Putin Seeks Financial Incentives to Boost Russia's Birthrate

2006-05-11T19:52:00.000-04:00

Experts say population could tumble below 100 million by 2050, endangering nation

Moscow -- President Vladimir Putin directed parliament on Wednesday to adopt a 10-year program to stop the sharp decline in Russia's population, principally by offering financial incentives and subsidies to encourage women to have children.

Putin's instructions, issued to a compliant parliament that follows his orders almost without fail, formed the center of his annual address and signaled a new Kremlin determination to confront a problem that demographers have warned endangers the future of the Russian state.

Adoption Subsidies Law Struck Down in Missouri

2006-05-11T19:32:00.000-04:00

Just when you thought it was safe to adopt abused or neglected children, a Federal judge in Missouri has struck down a law that would restrict monthly aid payments for some families who adopt foster children, saying that the legislation would cost more than it would save.

The law, passed in 2005, was the subject of a class-action lawsuit filed in August in U.S. District Court in Kansas City that accused Gov. Matt Blunt and Gary Sherman, director of the Missouri Department of Social Services, of failing to protect the interests of abused and neglected children.

Source: Findlaw.com

Big Brother Will See You Now

2006-05-11T12:14:00.000-04:00

New York City government has begun "legally requiring laboratories that do medical testing to report to the Health Department the results of blood-sugar tests for city residents with diabetes -- along with the names, ages, and contact information on those patients.

City officials are not only analyzing these data to assess patterns and changes in diabetes prevalence in the city, but are planning 'interventions.' ... If you wish to keep your medical data confidential, you cannot.

Coercive public-health techniques originally seen as needed to combat communicable and infectious disease will now be deployed in hopes of correcting less-than-healthy individual behavior.

Where's HIPAA, the manically overbroad federal patient-privacy law, now that it might actually do some good? (Elizabeth Whelan, "Big Brother Will See You Now", National Review Online, Apr. 25).

Source: Overlawyered.com

Diddy Made Me Do it

2006-05-10T17:30:00.000-04:00

ALBANY, N.Y. -- The Associated Press reported yesterday that P. Diddy has to cough-up a big chunk of change to support his 12 year old son.

How much change?
Take a guess.

Was it:
A) $200.00 per month
B) $2,000 per month
C) $20,000 per month

On Tuesday, New York state's highest court refused to hear Diddy's appeal of the lower court order for him to pay a nearly $20,000 per month in "child support."

What's wrong with this picture?
Last I checked, it costs much less than $20k per month to raise a kid.

In fact, even by conservative estimates, it comes nowhere close to the second option of $2,000 per month. On top of that, Diddy and Mom were never married, so the prospect for de facto alimony should be nowhere in the mix.

The order issued last year by the state's Appellate Division came after Diddy's appeal of a Court ruling that he pay $35,000 a month. Apparently, his ex- had sued for higher monthly payments and nearly $400k in back support, but the Court found that was obviously a bit excessive. Go figure. Of course, she'll more than double that amount within a year or so.

What, praytel, will she do with all of that money? Support their son?? Shudder to think that the State would use him as a pawn for political or economic gain.

I can't imagine how much they'll make on him each year in Federal Child Support Reimbursement Incentive Grant Funds. (66 cents x 20k/month). No conflict of interest there.

Granted, Diddy has the dough. But does that make it fair or even just?

Most people with half a brain will disagree that any parent should pay that much money in "support" regardless of how much Dad brings home.

The broader question that should get more of our policymakers to think about this issue is: if it can't be right to tax Diddy at 20% of his take-home pay, (and can't be declared as a tax write-off) how can it be right to do the same for someone in a much lower income bracket?

And they wonder why we have a problem in some communities with collecting child support and keeping fathers actively involved in their children's lives.

The Myth of Deadbeat Dads

2006-05-09T11:49:00.000-04:00

TV host Bill O’Reilly recently declared that “There is an epidemic of child abandonment in America, mainly by fathers.” Sen. Evan Bayh has attacked “irresponsible” fathers in several speeches. Campaigning for president, Al Gore promised harsher measures against “deadbeat dads,” including sending more to jail. The Clinton administration implemented numerous child-support “crackdowns,” including the ominously named Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act; the Directory of New Hires, which contains the name of every newly hired individual in the country so that any deadbeat among them can be tracked down; and the Federal Case Registry, a massive system of government surveillance that aims to monitor 16–19 million citizens.1

In an ironic role reversal, Republicans have responded to the Democrats’ law-and-order campaign with social programs. President Bush recently announced a $320 million program to “promote responsible fatherhood,” and Congress is considering a bill to “reconnect fathers with their families.” Yet the underlying message is similar. The administration promises to increase collections with a “five-year plan.” “We want to send the strongest possible message that parents cannot walk away from their children.”2 In fact, no evidence exists that large numbers of fathers voluntarily abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the question directly have concluded otherwise.

In the largest federally funded study ever conducted on the subject, psychologist Sanford Braver demonstrated that very few married fathers abandon their children. Overwhelmingly it is mothers, not fathers, who are walking away from marriages and thus separating children from their fathers. Other studies have reached similar or moredramatic conclusions.3

Braver also found that when they are employed, virtually all divorced fathers pay the child support they owe and that the number of arrearages “estimated” by the government is derived not from any actual statistics but from surveys. The Census Bureau simply asked mothers whether they were receiving payments. No data exists to corroborate the mothers’ claims.

As Braver found, “there is no actively maintained national database of child support payments.”4Braver’s research undermines most justifications for the multi-billion-dollar criminal enforcement machinery, as well as the proliferation of government programs to “promote responsible fatherhood.”5

If Braver is to be believed — and no official or scholar has challenged his research — the government is engaged in a massive witch hunt against innocent citizens.

http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/5910/Baskerville/Deadbeats1.pdf

The Trouble with Boys

2006-05-08T23:23:00.000-04:00

They're kinetic, maddening and failing at school. Now educators are trying new ways to help them succeed.

Jan. 30, 2006 -- Spend a few minutes on the phone with Danny Frankhuizen and you come away thinking, "What a nice boy." He's thoughtful, articulate, bright. He has a good relationship with his mom, goes to church every Sunday, loves the rock band Phish and spends hours each day practicing his guitar. But once he's inside his large public Salt Lake City high school, everything seems to go wrong. He's 16, but he can't stay organized. He finishes his homework and then can't find it in his backpack. He loses focus in class, and his teachers, with 40 kids to wrangle, aren't much help.

"If I miss a concept, they tell me, 'Figure it out yourself'," says Danny.

Last year Danny's grades dropped from B's to D's and F's. The sophomore, who once dreamed of Stanford, is pulling his grades up but worries that "I won't even get accepted at community college."

His mother, Susie Malcom, a math teacher who is divorced, says it's been wrenching to watch Danny stumble. "I tell myself he's going to make something good out of himself," she says. "But it's hard to see doors close and opportunities fall away."

What's wrong with Danny?

By almost every benchmark, boys across the nation and in every demographic group are falling behind. In elementary school, boys are two times more likely than girls to be diagnosed with learning disabilities and twice as likely to be placed in special-education classes. High-school boys are losing ground to girls on standardized writing tests.

The number of boys who said they didn't like school rose 71 percent between 1980 and 2001, according to a University of Michigan study. Nowhere is the shift more evident than on college campuses. Thirty years ago men represented 58 percent of the undergraduate student body. Now they're a minority at 44 percent. This widening achievement gap, says Margaret Spellings, U.S. secretary of Education, "has profound implications for the economy, society, families and democracy."

Is there a Government Connection to Autism?

2006-05-08T22:09:00.000-04:00

Rise in autism cases may not be real

CHICAGO - A rise in autism cases is not evidence of a feared epidemic but reflects that schools are diagnosing autism more frequently, a study said Monday.

Children classified by school special education programs as mentally retarded or learning disabled have declined in tandem with the rise in autism cases between 1994 and 2003, the author of the study said, suggesting a switch of diagnoses.

Government health authorities have been trying to allay widely publicized concerns that vaccines containing the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal, which is no longer used, were behind an autism epidemic.

Crawford Applied to Reverse Parental Rights Termination

2006-05-07T12:36:00.000-04:00

The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed an order terminating parental rights because the trial court admitted hearsay that did not qualify under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). This is a novel application of the Crawford decision outside the realm of criminal law. The case is A.G.G. v. Com., Cabinet for Health & Family Services, 2005 WL 1703599 (Ky.App. 7/22/05).

The full decision may be viewed here.

Sensenbrenner, Grassley Introduce Legislation Establishing an Inspector General for the Judicial Branch

2006-05-02T15:43:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON, April 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) and Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), a Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today introduced legislation establishing an independent Inspector General for the Judicial Branch. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Chairman of House Judiciary's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property is an original co-sponsor of the House legislation, H.R. 5219 "The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2006."