TIGblogs TIG | TIGblogs GROUP TIGBLOGS LOGIN SIGNUP
The American Court Ordered Silencing Of The American Abused Children
The American Court Ordered Silencing Of The American Abused Children


American Novelist Talia Carner: "The Scandal In Our Own Backyard"
Related to country: United States
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

The Scandal in Our Own Backyard

http://www.vibrantnation.com/interviews/ 2008/08/26/ the-scandal-in-our-own-backyard/

The scandal in our own backyard by Talia Carner
Talia Carner, a novelist and an advocate for child victims of the legal system, is the author of Puppet Child, a legal drama about a mother trying to save her daughter from the legal system’s justice. Learn more by visiting her website, www.TaliaCarner. com.

“There is something bad happening to our children in family courts today that is causing them more harm than drugs, more harm than crime and even more harm than child molestation,” said Judge Watson L. White from Cobb County, Georgia, Superior Court.

In researching for my book, Puppet Child, I discovered that “something bad” to be the judges, especially when it comes to adjudicating allegations of child sexual abuse.

In Clarke v. Cowles in California, eight-year-old Loren (not her real name) told her caseworker and later her psychological evaluator in graphic detail how her father had sexually molested her. The first report was suppressed by the judge, the latter was never presented at the trial. The father was awarded full custody while the mother received supervised visitations on the unproven assumption that she had brainwashed her daughter. Years later, after the girl wrote repeatedly to her caseworker about molestation, a judge refused to hear the evidence because the question of sexual abuse had been decided five years before.

Loren is only one child out of thousands being handed to their abusers. According to The American Judges Foundation, in 70 percent of cases in which abusive men ask for custody, they succeed in gaining full or joint custody. This national scandal is made possible by the secrecy within the Family Court System and by public disbelief in the scope of the problem. The very system designed to safeguard helpless children has become a national disgrace as injustice has reached epidemic proportions.

Whatever you have ever known about democracy becomes irrelevant at the gate to family court. There, one person is judge, jury and executioner. Paradoxically, a family court judge is the one professional in the courtroom who is not required to be trained in domestic violence and child abuse. As a result, wrapped in their own mix of prejudices, religious beliefs, or misguided assumptions, all too many judges are ignorant about the dynamics of family abuse, ignorant about the nature of child molestation, and ignorant about the ways in which an abuser manipulates the courtroom as the arena where he can hand a woman the final blow by taking her children away.

Although studies such as the one by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Research in Denver—an organization which mothers’ groups claim is biased against women—shows that at least two thirds of sexual abuse allegations made by a child were proven to be substantiated (the one third unsubstantiated are not necessarily false.) Yet a study by the California Protective Parents Association found that 91 percent of fathers identified by their children as sexual predators received full or partial unsupervised custody—while in 54 percent of these same cases the non-abusing mother was placed on supervised visitations.

How is that possible? Here are some of the more glaring errors the courts perpetuate:

* Viewing children as property. When the crime of sexual abuse is committed upon a child who lives next door, the perpetrator is subject to harsh jail punishment. The same abuse committed upon one's own child is likely to result in a father getting sole custody. Behind this unfair ruling is the lingering feudal tradition that regards children as the property of their fathers.

* Mistaking controlling men for loving fathers. Used to getting their way and given to expressions of anger, controlling men fight hard in the court they regard as a boxing ring. Having seen too many men walk away from their children, judges often mistake for love a father’s unwillingness to let go of the child who has become both a sexual object and a weapon against a mother trying to get away from her husband’s control.

* Favoring the Parental Alienation Syndrome theory. PAS maintains that a child has been brainwashed to give false testimony. Not listed in the American Psychiatric Association manual, PAS is refuted and considered bogus theory by nationally recognized academic and clinical institutions— and by a 1999 Congressional act (VAWA). In fact, the lone advocate who coined the term, Richard Gardner, has also written that “pedophilia is natural.” Nevertheless, increasingly, legions of children are removed from their mothers’ care under the PAS theory.

* Tolerance of child sexual abuse. A Tennessee judge granted visitation rights to Ralph Gonnella two weeks after he had been arrested for taking sexually explicit photographs of his seven-year-old son. In California, Manuel Saavedra, a convicted sex offender who had pleaded guilty to lewd conduct with a child was awarded custody of his two daughters. All across America, convicted pedophiles—a crime known for its high rate of recidivism —are given access to their children.

* Refusing to stigmatize a man as a pedophile. A 1996 report by The American Psychological Association states, “women seldom make false reports of child abuse or battering.” Yet in case after case, when a father is found to be sexually abusive, judges suppress evidence. While many judges, many of whom are fathers, do not truly believe that sexual abuse exists, they also do not wish to venture into the criminal arena of pedophilia due to overlapping jurisdiction between civil and criminal courts.

* Not following the law. In demanding burden of proof of sexual molestation that supercedes the required “preponderance of evidence” and instead seeking the criminal definition of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” judges often demand dates, times or witnesses that are impossible for a child to provide. Interestingly, the same judges demand no proof when speculating that at the roots of the sexual abuse complaint is the mother’s coaching the child.

* Misogyny. In Virginia, Kathy Wade was told by the judge handing Kathy’s two-year-old daughter to the sexually abusive father, “This is what you get when you don’t have a lawyer.” In Florida, Judge Paul Marko told Marianne Price: "The singles' bars are full of guys… you go and find one.” In Michigan, Judge Gregory Pittman ordered a couple shackled together after the woman complained that her former husband had violated the order of protection. Routinely, American women are denied the right to due process, are subject to ex parte hearings, and are victims of perjury or illegal out-of-state jurisdictions.

Through it all, children are at a disadvantage because they are dependent upon mothers with no or poor legal representation and who are short on financial resources to wage protracted legal battles and appeals. (Professionals in the field report increasing support for men from well-financed fathers’ groups.) Moreover, men, poised and collected and surrounded by a legal team, “look good” in court when compared with frightened, distraught mothers, whom judges often view as hysterical, paranoid and vindictive. Yet all across the nation, behind every case in which a woman’s constitutional rights are being ignored in family court there are children needing protection. Instead, they receive a life sentence without parole.

Public disbelief guards the system from exposure. There are child services, therapists, and legal guardians who commit atrocious mistakes. But ultimately, the untrained judges are the ones responsible for saving the children. While I met compassionate family court judges, the shocking overall picture of injustice indicates that they are in the minority. Until the public grasps the scope of the scandal in our own backyard and holds judges accountable for the grand scale in which children are being removed from the custody of good mothers to be placed with pedophiles, we are facing a national shame of catastrophic proportions.

Talia Carner, an advocate for child victims of the legal system, is the author of Puppet Child, a legal drama about a mother trying to save her daughter from the legal system’s justice. Visit Talia's site,www.TaliaCarne r.com.
Learn more about child abuse issues on Talia's website
Tags: abuse, abuses, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, rights, violence

October 20, 2008 | 5:58 PM Comments  0 comments


The American Advocate Boardmember Martin Luther King Jr’s Daughter In Law: Pushed To The Alter
Related to country: United States
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

Executive Summary Re: Bush Administration: Pushed To The Alter

Pushed to the Altar: by Dr. Jean V. Hardisty
Administration marriage promotion initiatives (August 2007)

Executive Summary

January, 2008

This report is the result of a two-year investigation by political
scientist Jean Hardisty into the George W. Bush Administration' s
marriage promotion and fatherhood initiatives. Dr. Hardisty locates
these initiatives within the context of the Right's family values
ideology and investigates their scope, scale, intellectual and
operational origins, merits, and outcomes. Pushed to the Altar: The
Right Wing Roots of Marriage Promotion is the most comprehensive
examination to date of the ideological roots of these programs.*
Order Online Now!
In 2001 the newly installed Administration of George W. Bush
appointed Wade Horn as Assistant Secretary for Children and Families
at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The appointment
presaged a substantial shift in federal social welfare policy. Horn
had served as the titular head of the rightist fatherhood movement
during the 1990s. At HHS, he was to use the Administration' s
redefined and expanded faith-based initiatives (among other means) to
support organizations that encourage women - especially welfare
recipients - to marry their way out of poverty.

The Administration' s success in promoting this agenda can be seen in
Congress' allocation of $100 million annually for marriage promotion
programs over fiscal years 2006–2010 (a total of $500 million) as
part of welfare reauthorization in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act.
Such Congressional funding for marriage promotion was preceded, and
continues to be supplemented, by a variety of Executive Branch and
state government grant programs.

Wade Horn's appointment to HHS illustrates the close ties between the
Bush Administration and various right-wing opinion makers,
intellectuals, advocacy groups, and mass-based organizations. Since
2001, Horn and The Heritage Foundation have been leading strategists
of the Right's agenda for "welfare reform." For the fatherhood
movement, conservative opponents of liberal antipoverty programs, and
the Christian Right, the Bush Administration has provided a golden
opportunity to promote marriage as a cure for poverty,
and "responsible fatherhood" as a means to restore community health
as they envision it.

What follows is a summary of the findings in Pushed to the Altar: The
Right Wing Roots of Marriage Promotion.

The arguments in favor of marriage and fatherhood promotion as a cure
for poverty are ultimately ideological in nature. There is no solid
evidence from the social sciences that marriage results in a higher
income for poor women.

The George W. Bush Administration' s ideology, policies, and programs
on marriage and fatherhood show how thoroughly politicized U.S.
welfare policy has become. Conservatives who maintain that marriage
and fatherhood will cure poverty are relying on two major sources:
the analysis of sociologist George Gilder - specifically Gilder's
assertion that marriage and fatherhood channel men's aggression and
lack of work ethic toward work and maintaining the family; and the
late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 government report, in
which he concluded that female-headed households were dysfunctionaland that the African-American community was plagued
by "fatherlessness, " resulting in a culture of pathology. These are
examples of bad science: reducing the explanation for phenomena as
complex as family formation and poverty alleviation to one single
causal factor: heterosexual marriage.

The assertion that marriage will cure poverty and end fatherlessness
is simply unproven. The Administration' s agenda is to
replace "liberal" programs that are known to raise people out of
poverty with programs that advance conservatives' social and economic
goals but have no record of reducing poverty.

Government marriage promotion experiments are funded at the expense
of proven poverty relief programs.

As federal and state allocations for marriage promotion and
fatherhood programs have dramatically increased, welfare benefits
themselves have steadily fallen. While reducing welfare benefits,
implementing "disincentives" for welfare recipients to have children
(such as the "child exclusion" provision), and implementing a five-
year lifetime cutoff for welfare recipients, the Bush Administration,
Congress, and some states now lavish money on untested and unproven
fatherhood and marriage promotion experiments. This redirection of
benefits intended for lowincome families and those unable to meet
their own needs is the equivalent of taking food from the table of
the hungry. Policies known to alleviate poverty - subsidized housing,
health care, child care, and the provision of meaningful educational
and job training opportunities - are not being vigorously promoted
under the present Administration.

Government funding for marriage promotion projects exceeds $100
million annually.

Executive Branch departments, including HHS and the Justice
Department, make marriage promotion grants. State governments also
fund a number of marriage promotion programs - some paid for with
federal Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) block grants and some
funded by the states themselves. Finally, Congress has allocated
substantial resources for marriage promotion programs. The
multiplicity of funding sources and the commingling of federal faith-
based and marriage promotion initiatives makes it difficult to
establish exactly how much state and federal money goes to support
marriage promotion programs. We do know the following:

The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act allocated $100 million annually for
marriage promotion programs and $50 million for fatherhood programs
for fiscal years 2006–2010, or a total of $750 million;
The Administration' s Charitable Choice Fund, which in 2004 had a
budget of $2 billion, has made grants in furtherance of marriage
promotion;
Some of the $30 million, HHS-administered Compassion Capital Fund
underwrites marriage promotion projects;
HHS' Healthy Marriage Initiative has made grants both before and
since passage of the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act; and
State funds, as well as federal TANF funds, are directed to state
marriage programs.
Government-funded marriage promotion and fatherhood programs are
varied and numerous.

Marriage promotion programs developed by the Bush Administration,
with the assistance of The Heritage Foundation and other rightist
think tanks, are now being implemented across the country, including:
Public advertising campaigns and high school programs on the value of
marriage;Marriage education for nonmarried pregnant women and nonmarried
expectant fathers; Premarital education and marriage skills training for engaged couples
and for couples or individuals interested in marriage;
Marriage enhancement and marriage skills training programs for
married couples;Divorce reduction programs that teach relationship skills;
Marriage mentoring programs which use married couples as role models
and mentors in at-risk communities; andPrograms to reduce the disincentives to marriage in means-tested aid
programs, if offered in conjunction with any activity described
above.Government marriage promotion initiatives are intertwined with the
dramatic erosion of Church/State separation under the Bush
Administration' s faith-based initiatives.
An increase in federal funding for marriage promotion has
corresponded with the Bush Administration' s funding for faith-based
initiatives. A line item in the 2002 federal budget created the
HHSadministered $30 million "Compassion Capital Fund" to channel
federal money to faith-based groups at the local level. By 2006, the
Administration was disbursing $2.1 billion to various faith-based
organizations and programs.

Although the federal government has long funded religious charities,
it previously stipulated that they receive the money through a
secular arm and adhere to strict rules for separation of church and
state, including bans on religiously- based discrimi- nation in hiring
and worship in programs funded. The Bush Administration has resisted
these restrictions and, failing to win Congressional approval,
implemented its "Charitable Choice" initiative by administrative
fiat. The Administration is currently facing lawsuits, which charge
that some faith-based organizations supported by this Fund are
illegally introducing the Bible into government-funded programs.

The arguments for government marriage promotion programs often
reflect racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes, and the programs
themselves disproportionately target communities of color -
especially African Americans.

The Right has been able to mobilize the racial resentment of large
numbers of White voters by stereotyping welfare recipients as African-
American and demonizing them as women of loose sexual morals who are
prone to defraud government agencies. Avoiding explicit statements
about the inferiority of people of color, the Right instead developed
an analysis of virtue and achievement as "colorblind" - adhering to
individuals regardless of race. The Right refuses to acknowledge
systemic racism and gender discrimination and characterizes poverty
or exclusion as the fault of the individual.

Because many families in low-income communities of color do not
conform to the model heterosexual, nuclear family configuration,
conservative marriage and fatherhood promoters view such communities
as their most challenging project. HHS' Healthy Families Initiative
administers special initiatives for African-American, Hispanic, and
Native American communities that promote the nuclear family model and
emphasize the father as the principal determinant of the success of
both children and the family. Thus, the State is constructing
marriage as the only acceptable means of family formation.

Government marriage promotion efforts emerged from and reinforce the
work of rightist fatherhood groups and Christian Right organizations.

Central to the Right's identity is its crusade to restore the
heterosexual nuclear family as the only approved social unit worthy
of the name "family." By 2000 and the arrival of the George W. Bush
Administration, the Right was able to mount strong campaigns, carried
out by the movement's infrastructure, to bring that ideological
commitment to bear on public policy. Key examples of such campaigns
include:

The Southern Baptist Convention's Resolution on Ordination and the
Role of Women in Ministry; The Promise Keepers movement, with its massive revival rallies
emphasizing the importance of men assuming leadership within their
marriages and families; The Christian Coalition's Contract with the American Family, which
anticipated the Bush Administration' s Charitable Choice initiative;
Covenant marriage, a voluntary option that makes divorce nearly
impossible; and Opposition to same-sex marriage, as with passage of the federal
Defense of Marriage Act (1996). As of 2006, 40 states had enacted
laws denying recognition of same-sex marriage.
While the momentum for conservative marriage promotion has come from
the Right, liberals and centrists have not vigorously opposed it and
sometimes have supported it.

An overlooked element of the punitive 1996 welfare reform legislation
signed by President Bill Clinton was its emphasis on marriage as a
means to lift recipients out of poverty. The bill opened the door to
the use of TANF money to promote "healthy marriage."

As liberals and centrists became a minority voice in 2000, and their
support for existing welfare programs weakened, the public
increasingly supported a stereotype of welfare recipients as people
undeserving of help and incapable of benefiting from it. A strong
antipoverty Democratic platform and a wellfunded and highly active
welfare rights movement will be required to reverse the damage done
by "welfare reform."

Marriage and fatherhood promotion also have liberal, and even
progressive, variants and proponents.
Progressive fatherhood and marriage organizations of color are less
attached to the traditional nuclear family model than are
conservative fatherhood organizations. Such organizations encourage
fathers, whether married or not, to become more involved in their
children's lives, both emotionally and financially, and to develop a
better relationship with a child's mother.

A small movement of profeminist fatherhood organizations works on
issues such as: the problems that male supremacy causes within the
family; how the politics of masculinity often appears to condone
violence in U.S. culture; and their own privilege as men.

Conclusions

The measure of a social movement's lasting success is the extent to
which its ideology and policy proposals become dominant in the
country, and eventually become law. When George W. Bush assumed the
Presidency in 2000, the contemporary Political Right for the first
time had control of both the Executive Branch and Congress, creating
an opportunity for it, as a movement, to reap the full benefits of
success and power. Primary among these benefits has been
implementation of the programs and policies that reflect the
movement's ideology.

Marriage is a boon to some people and a nightmare for others. Rather
than acknowledging the complexity of ever-accelerating modernity and
the changes for better and worse that it brings, the Right would have
government revive television's "Ozzie and Harriet" version of the
1950s heterosexual nuclear family. Although government could play a
constructive role in providing support services for low-income women
and men, it will not do so if the programs are driven by hidden
ideological and/or religious agendas rather than a commitment to
safety, self-empowerment, and financial security.

It is up to the public and policy makers to take a stand against
ideologically- driven programs and to demand implementation of proven
methods of addressing poverty, remembering that the social and
economic harm of the Right's programs are visited on the most
vulnerable women and their families.

Policy Recommendations:
1. A return to policies known to alleviate poverty - subsidized
housing, health care, child care, and the provision of educational
and job training opportunities, provided without resentment, in a
supportive environment, and with federal money;

2. Federal support for: groups fighting poverty; groups advocating
for the rights of welfare recipients; and groups providing services
to low-income people without racial, religious, sexual preference, or
gender discrimination;

3. Protecting women from violence (now acknowledged in current
marriage promotion policies) should be at the center of all
government and private antipoverty programs;

4. The elimination of the five-years-in- a-lifetime limit on welfare
benefits;

5. The elimination of the "child exclusion provision" or "family
cap," and the "illegitimacy bonus," changes that would defend the
right of low-income women to bear and raise children;

6. Comprehensive federally-funded jobs, housing, and health care
programs that address the needs of those low-income families that
fall "between the cracks" of the current, punitive Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)
guidelines;

7. The reversal of exclusionary provisions that deny social services
to documented and undocumented immigrants;

8. Objective social science research to examine the social and
economic consequences of the expenditure of federal money to promote
marriage among low-income women and men; and

9. A federally-funded public education effort to counteract the last
twenty-five years of ideologically driven demonization of low-income
people, especially welfare recipients, with special emphasis on
institutional and systemic causes of poverty.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
----------
* The second half of this Marriage Promotion Report Series is the
forthcoming: Marriage as a Cure for Poverty? Social Science Through
a "Family Values" Lens (Somerville, MA and Oakland, CA: Political
Research Associates and Women of Color Resource Center: 2008). It
will examine conservative marriage promoters' questionable attempts
to find support for their policy recommendations in social science
literature.

here is the link to the article
http://www.publicey e.org/pushedtoth ealtar/index. html
Tags: rights, abuse, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, violence

October 14, 2008 | 2:14 PM Comments  0 comments


The American U.S. Justice Department files 40 page brief Against American Murdered Abused Small Children Of American Battered Mother In International Human Rights Court...
Related to country: United States
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

Human Rights Court Say US Didn’t help Battered Mother & Murdered Abused
..> IACHR-update; Jessica Gonzales v. U.S. - Favorable Admissibility Decision


Below is an email from Carrie Bettinger-Lopez, our co-counsel on Jessica Gonzales' case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, with an update about recent developments.

Sandra Park, Staff Attorney
Women's Rights Project | American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004
T: 212.519.7871 | F: 212.549.2580 | spark@aclu.org

________________________________



For those of you who have been following the case of Jessica Gonzales v. ..:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />United States, before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, I am pleased to inform you that we received a favorable decision on Friday, October 5 declaring Jessica Lenahan's (formerly Gonzales) case admissible. This is the best decision we could have hoped for.

The decision says that Ms. Lenahan (Gonzales) exhausted all domestic remedies (i.e. that she pursued every potential legal avenue available to her but had those doors closed to her). The decision also indicates that countries in the Americas, including the U.S., are responsible under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man for protecting victims of domestic violence from private acts of violence. This is the first time that the Commission has ever made such a pronouncement. This admissibility decision is the first phase of a two-step process before the Commission. The next step is the merits phase, where the Commission will decide whether the US and the Castle Rock Police Department/Colorado violated Ms. Lenahan (Gonzales') and her children's human rights. (Specifically, the rights to life, non-discrimination, family life/unity, due process, petition the government, and the rights of domestic violence victims and their children to special protections ).

For more information on the Gonzales case, and to view the Commission's admissibility decision, go to http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2007eng/USA1490.05eng.htm (Spanish version forthcoming). The decision is also available at https://www.law.columbia.edu/focusareas/clinics/humanrights97614 or http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/32105lgl20071005.html .

To view Ms. Gonzales' testimony before the Inter-American Commission in March 2007, see http://www.oas.org/OASpage/videosondemand/home_eng/videos_query.asp?sCodigo=07-0041or http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/gonzalesvusa.html.

Below is an article that came out today in the National Law Journal about the decision. Also, here is a link to a Channel 4 newscast from last night featuring Jessica. http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_281095916.html

Several amicus briefs are currently being drafted on the following topics: the children's rights dimension of the case; the protections and limitations of VAWA and obstacles that DV survivors still face in obtaining government assistance and support; framing domestic violence as a form of torture.


Please contact me and Araceli Martínez-Olguín (amartinez-olguin@aclu.org) if you or your organization are interested in signing on to those briefs.

Further information on the case is below. Thanks for all your support. Apologies for cross-postings.

All best,

Carrie (on behalf of Jessica's legal team)

Caroline Bettinger-López | Human Rights Fellow & Attorney
Columbia Law School | Human Rights Institute & Human Rights Clinic
435 W. 116th Street, Box C-16 | New York, NY 10027
Phone: (212) 854-8364 | Fax: (212) 854-3554 | Email: c.lopez@law.columbia.edu


Further information on the case is below.



Rights panel to hear U.S. domestic violence case

Marcia Coyle / Staff reporter
October 15, 2007
..

Jessica Gonzales poses with a portrait of her three daughters, from left, Katheryn, Rebecca and Leslie.
Image: Craig F. Walker / The Denver Post



WASHINGTON - The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has agreed to decide whether the United States violated the rights of a domestic violence victim whose three children were killed when local police failed to enforce a restraining order against her former husband.

The complaint by Jessica Lenahan (formerly Jessica Gonzales) is the first brought by a domestic violence victim against the United States for international human rights violations.

On Oct. 4, the commission ruled her complaint "admissible," which is akin to finding jurisdiction, after rejecting arguments by the U.S. Department of State, including that Lenahan had not exhausted available remedies, and, significantly, that the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man imposes no affirmative duty on states to actually prevent the crimes committed by Lenahan's former husband.

Officials at the State Department were unavailable to comment because of the Oct. 8 federal holiday.
Lenahan's legal odyssey began in 1999 when she filed a lawsuit against the Castle Rock, Colo., police department seeking to hold it liable for failing to respond to her repeated calls and appearances for help after her husband abducted her children. Her daughters were found dead in their father's pickup truck after he was killed in a shootout with police at police headquarters hours after their mother sought police assistance.

A landmark case

Her lawsuit attracted national and international attention when it was reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held in June 2005 that she had no constitutional right to police enforcement of her restraining order. That December, Lenahan filed her petition with the Inter-American Commission, charging that police inaction and the Supreme Court decision violated her human rights.

"This case is not just about Jessica Gonzales, although it clearly is very important for her," said Caroline Bettinger-Lopez of Columbia Law School's Human Rights Clinic, who, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, represents Lenahan.

It is important for victims of domestic violence and intimate-partner violence in the United States and throughout the world, she said, adding, "We've gotten calls from the United Nations and organizations around world who see this case as a landmark one on the duty of states to protect victims of domestic violence."

The admissibility decision itself has "immediate importance," according to Bettinger-Lopez, because it is the first time the commission has recognized that the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man imposes affirmative obligations by countries in the Americas to protect individuals from private acts of violence.

The commission was created in 1959 and is expressly authorized to investigate allegations of human rights violations by members of the Organization of American States (OAS), which includes the United States.

'Compulsory jurisdiction'

The commission has jurisdiction to receive complaints against any OAS member state where it is upholding the rights set forth in the 1948 American declaration, said international law scholar Robert Goldman of American University Washington College of Law.

"The commission is the only organization in the world that has compulsory jurisdiction over the United States," he said. "The only way to escape jurisdiction is to denounce the OAS charter."

Having survived the "admissibility" phase, Lenahan's case moves into the merits phase, in which there will be additional briefing and possibly another hearing. The commission may attempt a "friendly settlement," noted Goldman, a former commission member.

The United States does not have a good record of compliance with commission recommendations, said Goldman. But if Lenahan prevails, he added, it will not be a Pyrrhic victory.

"The commission articulates standards with respect to very important rights," Goldman said. "What you'll find is a state that can't comply for a variety of reasons now might comply in the future."

It also puts the United States, he added, in a very uncomfortable position. Congress mandates an annual human rights report that often points the finger at other countries' practices.

"To the extent an authoritative body finds violations by the United States and it does not comply, it resonates," Goldman said.

But for now, Bettinger-Lopez said, a "new legal avenue" has been established. "It opens a door for domestic violence victims in search of vindication, whose legal options have recently been limited by harsh court rulings in the United States."

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1191834195781



CASE SUMMARY

In June 1999, Jessica Gonzales' estranged husband abducted her three daughters, in violation of a domestic violence restraining order. Ms. Gonzales called and met with the police repeatedly to report the abduction and restraining order violation. Unfortunately, her calls went unheeded. Ten hours after her first call to the police, Ms. Gonzales' estranged husband arrived at the police station and opened fire. The police immediately shot and killed Mr. Gonzales, and then discovered the bodies of the Gonzales children - Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 8, and Rebecca, 10 - in the back of his pickup truck. Ms. Gonzales filed a lawsuit against the police, but in June 2005, the Supreme Court found that she had no constitutional right to police enforcement of her restraining order. In December 2005, Ms. Gonzales filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, alleging that the police's actions and the Supreme Court's decision violated her human rights. This was the first individual complaint brought by a victim of domestic violence against the United States for human rights violations.

On March 2, 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights heard the case of Jessica Gonzales v. United States . Jessica Lenahan (formerly Gonzales) provided testimony. This was the first time that she was afforded an opportunity to tell her story to a tribunal. Ms. Lenahan is represented by the Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The Commission is expected to issue a decision before the year's end.

To view or listen to the hearing, download the video or audio webcast at: http://www.oas.org/OASpage/videosondemand/home_eng/videos_query.asp?sCodigo=07-0041 (video) or http://www.cidh.org/Audiencias/Audioshearings127PS.htm (audio, 4th entry under March 2).

Jessica Lenahan's statement (which she read at the hearing) can be found at:
http://www.law.columbia.edu/null/Jessica+Statement+-+IACHR+hrg?exclusive=filemgr.download&file_id=1391&showthumb=0 or http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/29338res20070302.html.

More information on the Gonzales case (including the Petition submitted to the Inter-American Commission and additional briefing and exhibits) can be found at:

http://www.law.columbia.edu/focusareas/clinics/humanrights97614 or http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/gonzalesvusa.html..:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />
Tags: abuse, abuses, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, rights, violence

October 14, 2008 | 2:08 PM Comments  0 comments


The American Agency: National Organization OF Women "Disorder In The Courts I"
Related to country: United States
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

F m i l y L a w : D is o r d e r i n t h e C o u r t s

Introduction
By Helen Grieco, Rachel Allen and Jennifer Friedlin

The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the country's largest and longest running women's rights organization. NOW is committed to fighting discrimination against women and girls, and ensuring their equality in every aspect of society. NOW is structured in chapters, and California NOW (CA NOW) is the largest chapter in the country, with 100,000 members and donors. Imagine this: A mother endures years ofabuse at the hands of her husband. One day, her husband strikes the children or gets caught in the act of sexually abusing one of the kids, and she decides she has got to break free. She files for custody, assuming she's got an open and shut custody case. But the family court judge fails to look at all the evidence and the professionals who are supposed to evaluate the family ignore all the signposts of abuse. Eventually, the mother loses custody. In order to see her children, the mother may have to pay for supervised visits or she may lose all rights to her kids. No, you say, this can't be. Well, think again. In the 1990s, CA NOW started getting call after call that fit this pattern. In fact, as then president of CA NOW, Helen Grieco received so many calls from desperate mothers that sheformed a statewide task force to strategize how to best address the startling trend. Under Grieco's leadership, CA NOW proposed legislation, lobbiedfor statewide reform, called for investigations of court funding and worked to get public attention on the injustices women faced in family courts. In an effort for CA NOW to ascertain how widespread the problems were, Grieco createdand posted a questionnaire on the CA NOW website to collect information on individual cases. Rachel Allen joined CA NOW as public relations director in 2001, and had worked on the family law issue as president of the Marin County NOW chapter for several years. In 2002, Allen and Grieco (along with Sue DiPaolo and Elena Perez) analyzed the findings of the hundreds of questionnaires submitted, and tried to answer the question of how and why so many women were being victimized by the courts. The end product was the "CA NOW Family Court Report, 2002,"which presented findings from analysis of over 300 mothers' cases. The report showed that perfectly fit mothers were regularly losing custody of their children to less-than-fit fathers, and put forth an explanation for why it was happening. Analysis of the data rendered stunning statistics. We found that 76 percent of respondents' cases involved allegations of some kind of abuse by the father and that in 69 percent of those cases the offender was given unsupervised contact or custody. Although conservative commentators and right-wing fathers' rights groups tried to discredit the research by saying that the sample was not representative of a larger problem, we knewthat the 300 cases we studied and their staggering similarities exposed trends that were impossible to ignore. This study and the calls we have continued to receive over the years from flabbergasted mothers have revealed that the courts are regularly ignoring evidence of child abuse and domestic violence when deciding contested custody cases. In addition, we have documented a common pattern of gender bias, denial of due process, corruption, fraud and reliance on unscientific labels to pathologize normal mothers. These women speak of judges who beratethem in court and dismiss crucial evidence; attorneys who bail on them midway through their case or who side with the father instead of representing the interests of the children; andevaluators who decide they are unfit parents for a whole slew of often contradictory reasons. Evaluators have been known to support denying awoman custody because she: is "too close" to her children; breastfed her children for too long; did not cooperate in giving unsupervised access to an abusive father; works outside the home; doesn't work outside the home. We hear from motherswho walked into the court as the primary caregiver and protector of their children and walked out unable to even send the kids a birthday cardor talk to them on the phone. These mothers often lose custody to men who have criminal records, histories of domestic violence and/or child abuse and substance abuse problems. Some of the men have never even met their children. How can this happen? One of the roots of the problem, we believe, stems from the activities and advocacy efforts of so-called Fathers' Rights groups. Connected to a larger right-wing ideology, the movement for "fathers' rights" rests on a belief in unquestioned patriarchy – some have even called for the overturning of the 19th amendment! They seek to abolish child support and to instate automatic joint custody. Although fathers' rights advocates refer to "equality," "equal access" and "shared parenting," they are not fighting for joint childcare responsibilities inside of marriage. Instead, the call from fathers' rights groups for equal parenting turns up only after divorce, a transparentploy to use rhetoric to reduce men's financial obligations to their children and their ex-wives and tomaintain control over their families, even after the marriage is legally dissolved.These groups have helped propagate bunk psychological syndromes like Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), which is based on the unfounded"theory" that mothers regularly brainwash their children to say that they have been abused by their fathers. PAS is then used as a legal strategy tojustify taking children from their mothers, while subverting evidence of abuse by fathers. Fathers' Rights groups claim that fathers are discriminated against in family courts, receiving custody of children only a small percentage of the time. The truth is, however, that when fathers fight for custody, they get it 50 to 70 percent of the time. Sadly, all too often they get custody even when it is not inthe best interest of the child. Meanwhile, the fathers' rights movement has been gaining strength and legitimacy. Fatherhood groups are well funded, well organized and publicly supported through conservative mouthpieces in the media. In addition, the Bush Administration supports the so-called "responsible fatherhood" agenda. Some organizations, such as the National Fatherhood Initiative receive millions of dollars from the federal government, much of which is not accounted for in direct programming. Some people suspect that a portion of the money may even be used to litigate custody cases on behalf of fathers. (For more about the history and activity of the fathers' rights movement, see the CA NOW Family Court Report at http://canow.org/famlaw_report/famlawreport.php.)

Lest anyone reading this should draw the conclusion that we are simply interested in bashing men, we are not. We are well aware that thereare many loving, caring fathers who are deeply concerned about doing right by their children. We are also aware that these men rarely demand sole custody and the removal of the mother from the child's life. We have heard from many decentmen who are just as disturbed by the family court's treatment of women and children as we are. And, as you will see on the pages of this book, some of these men have become our allies in the fight for justice in the legal system. Theproblem we have been struggling with does not have to do with these men; it has to do with the abusive men who use the court system to continue terrorizing their families. After all, what better way to further abuse a mother than by taking her children from her? As CA NOW took up this issue, we found allies around the country who were just as concerned as we were. Although many media outlets shied away from this complicated topic, media stars like Dr. Phil were brave enough to speak out against what he called "America's silent epidemic."Feminist icons like Gloria Steinem have weighed in, too, calling the crisis in the family law courts an issue that "the women's movement,which provided leadership in past reforms and crucial struggles to make law more gender free, supportive of children and families, and economically just, must lead on." One of the most amazing outcomes of this horrific situation is the steely determination of the women who have been through the system to change it. After losing their children, women from Delaware to Alaska have fought back in an effort to change the system and to prevent the same thing from happening to other women. These women have written legislation, formed organizations,started court watch programs, built websites, held conferences, organized demonstrations and protests and worked to get media exposure. A couple of years ago, after researching an article about moms who turned their personal tragedies into political crusades, freelance journalist Jennifer Friedlin suggested a project that would highlight the work being done across the countryto change the way custody decisions involving allegations of abuse are made. This book is borne of our mutual desire to underscore and applaudthe achievements of the mothers and the various professionals who are working for justice. In this collection of essays, you will hear from experts – from psychologists and legal experts to journalists and moms – who have been fighting on the frontlines for mothers' rights. Karen Andersonturned her own personal struggle to protect her children from sexual abuse into a crusade onbehalf of all mothers. Dr. Lundy Bancroft has been a fierce supporter of battered moms and now calls on these women to spearhead a mothers' rightsmovement. Sharon Bass shares her insights on the issue of court appointed evaluators and their far reaching influence. Dr. Robert Geffner lends his expertise on child sexual abuse and the ways it is treated in the family law arena. Retired judge Sol Gothard gives his perspective on the family courts based on nearly fifty years of experience. Professor Mo Hannah explains her motivation for organizing the country's leading conference on the issue of battered women and custody. Karen Hartley-Nagle tells the story of her family law case andhow it inspired her to run for office on a family law platform. Paige Hodson turned her experience in the courtroom into a battle for protective legislation– and won! The legal team of Kristen, Diane and Charles Hofheimer offer advice to motherson how to present their cases in court. Filmmaker Dominique Lasseur explains his motivation for making the groundbreaking film, "Breaking theSilence." Professor Garland Waller advises people on ways to get media attention, and journalist Kristen Lombardi explains the difficulties of reporting onthese issues. Professor Geraldine Stahly allowed us to print her research on domestic violence and custody, and blogger Trish Wilson makes a powerful argument against assumed joint custody.This book will help explain how the courts work and give any mother going through thefamily court system some of the tools she will need to protect herself and her children. And,for mothers who may have lost their children, we hope these essays will provide you links toresources that may assist you in your effort to regain custody of your kids. This book will not replace good counsel and a strong support system,but we hope it will provide you a greater understanding the issues, and that is may inspire you to help join the movement for change. We have found that lawyers and domestic violence agencies are always looking for more information that can help them serve their clients,and we trust that this book will meet this need. We believe that this book will also inspire other women's rights organizations to take up this issue, and that it will give them the tools and information they need to get started. Mostly, we hope that this book will generate greater activism among people interested in righting the numerous wrongs of the family court system.We know that this book is just one step in the battle to reform the family court system. But CA NOW is committed to fighting for change until we win. Whether you are a parent, a psychologist, a lawyer, a judge, a journalist, an activist or a concerned citizen, we encourage you to get involved and to fight along side us aswe work to ensure that our family court system never again strips a fit parent of her parental rights in favor of an abuser.
Tags: abuse, abuses, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, rights, violence

October 14, 2008 | 2:03 PM Comments  0 comments


The American Virus:For Sale: American Murdered, Abused Small Children OF Battered Mothers In America
Related to country: United States
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

International Human Rights Court Affirms A Failure To Protect

Mother’s File International Complaint Against United States, violation human rights of abused

www.StopFamilyViolence.org

MOTHERS FILE INTERNATIONAL COMPLAINT AGAINST UNITED STATES Mother's day complaint claims United States courts violate human rights of abused women and children. NEW YORK, On May 11, just before Mother's Day weekend, ten mothers, one victimized child, now an adult, leading national and state organizations filed a complaint against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights. The case claims that U.S. courts, by frequently awarding child custody to abusers and child molesters, has failed to protect the life, liberties, security and other human rights of abused mothers and their children. "For more than 30 years U.S. judges have given custody or unsupervised visitation of children to abusers and molesters putting the children directly at risk," says Dianne Post, an international attorney who authored the petition. "These horrendous human rights violations have been brought to the attention of family court systems, and state and federal governments, to no avail. We turn now to international courts to protect the rights and safety of US children." The complaint details several cases with ..ed medical evidence of child sexual abuse, yet in each instance the abusing father was given full custody of the children he abused. Several of the mothers were jailed by the courts because of their persistent efforts to protect their children from abuse, several were ordered not to speak of the abuse and not to report abuse to authorities. Every mother was denied contact with her child for some period of time though none was ever proven to have harmed them. "My life was completely shattered apart on that day and my childhood was destroyed," said Jeff Hoverson, the adult child petitioner, about the day a family court judge ordered sheriff deputies to deliver him into the custody of his abuser. "It was as if I was just kidnapped. I was torn from everything I knew....I was made into a possession rather than a child." Hoverson endured years of trauma and fear living in his father's home before escaping and returning to his mother at age 17. He is haunted by years of feeling helpless to prevent his father's night-time visits to his sisters' bedrooms. "The cases in this petition represent the proverbial tip of the iceberg," says Irene Weiser, executive director of the online organization Stop Family Violence. "We are contacted by an average of three protective mothers each week who have lost custody to child abusing fathers. This is a nationwide crisis of enormous proportion." "The lives of thousands of children and mothers have been irreparably harmed by family courts across our nation," says Joyanna Silberg, Ph.D., executive vice-president of The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, another national organizations supporting the petition. "The years of trauma and psychological abuse because of the courts' failings result in lasting emotional damage to the children they are supposed to protect." Studies of gender bias in the courts, conducted in the 1980's and 90's, found disturbing trends of courts minimizing or excusing men's violence against women, and favoring the abusers. In 1990 the United States Congress passed a resolution recommending the prohibition of giving joint or sole custody to abusers. Seventeen years later, the practice continues unabated. Ten years ago today, leading national organizations were joined by members of Congress in a protest in Washington D.C. to again raise awareness about the problems in family courts. Today, petitioners say, the problem is systemic and widespread in family law courts across the nation. The petition seeks a finding from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the U.S. has violated the Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Man and the Charter of the Organization of American States and a statement of the steps that the U.S. must take to comply with its human rights obligations in regards to battered women and children in child custody cases. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was created in 1959 and is expressly authorized to examine allegations of human rights violations by members of the Organization of American States, which include the United States. It also carries out on-site visits to observe the general human rights situations in all 35 member states of the Organization of American States and to investigate specific allegations of violations of Inter-American human rights treaties. Its charge is to promote the observance and the defense of human rights in the Americas. Dianne Post, a 1980 graduate of the University of Wisconsin law school, has worked on issues of gender based violence since 1976. In addition to private practice and legal aid, she has taught legal classes and been a consultant working or living in Russia, Cambodia, Hungary and some dozen other countries. She is currently in Vladivostok, Russia. In addition to The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, other national organizations supporting the international lawsuit include: National Organization for Women and the NOW Foundation, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Justice For Children, National Family Court Watch Project, Legal Momentum, Family Violence Prevention Fund, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Domestic Violence Report, Sidran Traumatic Stress Institute, and the National Center on Sexual and Domestic Violence. The petition is supported by many state organizations as well. In December 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights for their failure to protect Jessica Gonzales' three children from their abusive father, who murdered them. Their petition, the first of its kind, asserted that domestic violence victims have the right to be protected by the state from the violent acts of their abusers.

For additional information, contact: Irene Weiser, Stop Family Violence iw@stopfamilyviolence.org 607-539-6856 The petition and supporting ..action is available on the Stop Family Violence website on: www.StopFamilyViolence.org

View the petition at: http://www.StopFamilyViolence.org/468
Tags: abuse, abuses, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, rights, violence

October 14, 2008 | 2:03 PM Comments  0 comments


The American College: California State University, The Book "Disorder In The Courts II",A Study of Judicial Abuse
Related to country: United States
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

California State University, The Book "Disorder In The Courts II",A Study of Judicial AbusePosted by Teardrops*for*katelynn on October 11, 2008 at 12:05pm
View Teardrops*for*katelynn's blog
Disoder In the Courts II

Protective Mothers in Child Custody
Disputes: A Study of Judicial Abuse

By Geraldine Butts Stahly, PH.D., Linda Krajewski, Bianca Loya, Linda Krajewski, Bianca

Loya, Kyra Dotter, Kimberly Evans, Wesley Farris, Felicia Frias, Grace German, Nancy Stuebner,

Kiranjeet Uppal, And Jenna Valentine

California State University, San Bernardino

Abstract

This project is a pilot study of a national survey undertaken to examine the experiences of protective mothers. One hundred fifty-seven self-identified protective mothers, completed a 101-item questionnaire describing aspects oftheir custody dispute. The pilot data includes demographic factors, economic impact, and a full variety of protection issues, including the range of allegations, the role of psychological expert examinations, diagnosis and testimony, family court response and outcomes for children. Findings to date suggest that protective mothers are likely to be mothers who have been victims of domesticviolence, and are likely to be labeled "alienators." Mothers were also likely to be advised by their attorneys and other professionals not to report abuse of their child during custody proceedings. Mothers who support their children's allegations of physical or sexual abuse were overwhelmingly denied custody and sometimes denied visitation with their children. Introduction Empirical studies have established an increase in child abuse in families in which there is domestic violence, and an increase in custody challenges by fathers who have a history of battering (Stahly,1999). There is evidence of an increase in the negative labeling of mothers who report child abuse or domestic violence during custody disputes. Several high profile cases have led to increased public attention, and fractious public debates have erupted between groups supporting the alleged perpetrators of abuse as victims of malicious accusation on the one hand, and groups supporting the reporting parent as the victim of malicious psychiatric labeling on the other (Dallam, 1998). For example, in spite of thelack of empirical support and peer review, Richard Gardner's (1985) theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) continues to influence judges,court appointed evaluators and mediators and other court personnel with adverse consequences for the protection of children in custody disputes. There have been no studies to date on the extent of the overall phenomenon of protective mothers, the psychiatric labeling of protective behavior or the extent to which protective behavior appears to be justified by the circumstances and evidence in custody cases. The current study was undertaken to study the experiences of protective mothers. Methods The study utilized a 101-item self-report questionnaire which was distributed to a sample of convenience that included individuals who self-identified as protective mothers contacting the California Protective Parents Association and California NOW, as well as individuals visiting the California NOW website. Questionnaires were available for completion through the website and were also distributed at conferencesregarding child abuse and domestic violence held in California. Data collected from the questionnaires included demographics, legal history of thecustody case, allegations of abuse, criminal conduct, substance abuse and results of psychological Mother Father Child

*92% of the Protective Mothers made allegations of child abuse.

*56% of the allegations were supported by medical/physical evidence.

80% had some other corroborating evidence.

*75% reported fathers as the perpetrator.

ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE

TYPES OF ABUSE REPORTED evaluations, including the role of the allegation ofparental alienation in custody case outcomes. One hundred fifty-seven completed surveys from protective mothers were collected and enteredinto SPSS. Descriptive statistics were run on the data from this initial sample. A majority of the respondents were from California (89). Atotal of 271 children were involved in the study (157 girls and 114 boys); 65 percent of the childrenwere age five or under.
Tags: abuse, abuses, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, rights, violence

October 14, 2008 | 2:00 PM Comments  0 comments


In America Rates At Which Batterers Get Custody (75%)
Related to country: United States
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

Rates At Which Batterers Receive Custody
by Joan Meier, Esq.

One statement in Breaking the Silence: Children's Voices that has provoked controversy was my statement that "the studies are showing" that up to 2/3 of accused or adjudicated batterers receive joint or sole custody in court. While no empirical study can definitively determine a universal statistical rate, the key point is that the research consistently shows that accused and adjudicated batterers receive joint or sole custody disturbingly often. This confirms the anecdotal experience of domestic violence attorneys and victims around the country. The following research supports this perspective.

I. A History of Domestic Violence is Common among Contested Custody Cases.

The remarkably consistent research on this issue is compiled in my previously-issued statement , Research Indicating that the majority of cases that go to court as 'high conflict' contested custody cases have a history of domestic violence (Nov. 9, 2005).

One good example is a study cited by Janet Johnston, a leading researcher of parental alienation, which found that, among custody litigants referred to mediation, "[p]hysical aggression had occurred between 75% and 70% of the parents . . . even though the couples had been separated. . . [for an average of 30-42 months]". Furthermore, [i]n 35% of the first sample and 48% of the second, [the violence] was denoted as severe and involved battering and threatening to use or using a weapon."
- Janet R. Johnston, "High-Conflict Divorce," The Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1994, 165-182) citing Depner et al., "Building a uniform statistical reporting system: A snapshot of California Family Court Services," Family and ConciliationCourts Review (1992) 30: 185-206


II. Domestic Violence Perpetrators are More Likely to Contest Custody than Non- Abusers.

The American Psychological Association's Presidential Task Force on Violence in the Family, the leading review of the research as of 1996, found that men who abuse their partners contest custody at least twice as often as non-abusing fathers. They are even more likely to contest custody if the children are boys.
- American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence in the Family (1996) at p. 40.


III. Accused and Adjudicated Batterers Receive Joint or Sole Custody Surprisingly Often.

The research on this has only emerged in the past few years and most studies have been small and local. Nonetheless, they document disturbing trends, which surprised even me when I first discovered them.

A. Multiple studies have documented gender bias against women in custody litigation.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom that women are favored in custody litigation, both the experiences of battered women and the empirical research are showing that women who allege abuse are deeply disfavored in custody courts.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Task Force was one of the first states to document the gender bias against women in family courts. This court-initiated study expressly found that "our research contradicted [the] perception" that "there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions." Moreover, it found that "in determining custody and visitation, many judges and family service officers do not consider violence toward women relevant." The Court's study further found that "the courts are demanding more of mothers than fathers in custody disputes" and that "many courts put the needs of noncustodial fathers above those of custodial mothers and children."
- Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts, 24 New Eng.L.Rev. 745, 747, 825, 846 (1990)

More recently, and since the evolution and widespread adoption of "parental alienation syndrome," a multi-year, four-phase study using qualitative and quantitative social science research methodologies by the Wellesley Centers for Women found "a consistent pattern of human rights abuses" by family courts, including failure to protect battered women and children from abuse, discriminating against and inflicting degrading treatment on battered women, and denying battered women due process. Histories of abuse of mother and children were routinely ignored or discounted.
- Wellesley Centers for Women Battered Mothers' Testimony Project, Battered Mothers Speak Out: A Human Rights Report on Domestic Violence and Child Custody in the Massachusetts Family Courts (Nov. 2002)(hereafter "BMTP"), Executive Summary at 2.

A comparable study by the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence found that most of the women surveyed felt the history of abuse was not taken seriously and that they were ignored, disrespected and discriminated against by court personnel.
- Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Battered Mothers' Testimony Project: A Human Rights Approach to Child Custody and Domestic Violence (June 2003), pp. 47, 49, 6.

A study of the Domestic Relations Division of Philadelphia Family Court conducted by the Philadephia Women's Law Project in cooperation with the court, found that litigants are often denied due process, and that applicable legal standards are "not always observed, particularly in the consideration of abuse in custody proceedings, leaving families at risk."
- Tracy, Fromson & Miller, Justice in the Domestic Relations Division of Philadelphia Family Court: A Report to the Community, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT, Vol. 8, No. 6 (Aug/Sept. 2003), p. 94.


B. Studies show Accused and Adjudicated Batterers Receiving Sole or Joint Custody Surprisingly Often.

My own survey of the case law in 2001 identified 38 appellate state court decisions concerning custody and domestic violence. To my astonishment, 36 of the 38 trial courts had awarded joint or sole custody to alleged and adjudicated batterers. Two-thirds of these decisions were reversed on appeal.
- Meier, Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and Child Protection: Understanding Judicial Resistance and Imagining the Solutions, A.U. J. Gender, Soc. Pol. & the Law, 11:2 (2003), 657-731, p. 662, n. 19, and Appendix.

These cases included a case in which the perpetrator had been repeatedly convicted of domestic assault; in which a father was given sole custody of a16-month old despite his undisputed choking of the mother resulting in her hospitalization and his arrest; in which the father had broken the mother's collarbone; had committed "occasional incidents of violence"; and had committed two admitted assaults. More such instances can be found in Meier, supra.

The American Judges Association has found that approximately 70% of batterers succeed in convincing authorities that the victim is unfit for or undeserving of sole custody. Another way of saying this is that 70% of batterers obtain sole or joint custody.
- American Judges Association, "Domestic Violence and the Courtroom: Understanding the Problem . . . Knowing the Victim" http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/domviol/page5.html (at "Forms of Emotional Battering. . . Threats to Harm or Take Away Children")


A survey of battered women by the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence found that courts awarded joint or sole custody to the alleged batterers 56-74% of the time (depending on the county). Many of these cases involved documented child abuse or adult abuse.
- Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Battered Mothers' Testimony Project: A Human Rights Approach to Child Custody and Domestic Violence (June 2003), pp. 33-34, 47-49


A study of 300 cases over a 10-year period in which the mother sought to protect the child from sexual abuse, found that 70% resulted in unsupervised visitation or shared custody; in 20% of the cases the mothers completely lost custody, and many of these lost all visitation rights.
- Neustein & Goetting (1999), "Judicial Responses to the Protective Parent's Complaint of Child Sexual Abuse," Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 8 (4): 103-122.


The Wellesley Battered Mothers' Testimony Project found that 15 out of 40 cases resulted in sole or joint physical custody to the fathers, all of whom had abused both the mother and the children.
- BMTP, supra at Appendix A.


The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Task Force found that 94% of fathers who actively sought custody received sole or joint custody, regardless of whether there was a history of abuse. While fathers received primary physical custody 29% of the time, mothers received primary physical custody in only 7% of the contested cases. The Study also cited other research which similarly found that fathers who sought custody received primary physical custody 2/3 of the time, with mothers receiving it less than ¼ of the time; and another study which found that fathers seeking custody received joint or sole custody 79% of the time, with mothers receiving sole custody in only 15% of those cases (compared to fathers' sole custody in 41% of the cases).
- Gender Bias Study at 831-832 and citing Middlesex Divorce Research Group relitigation study and Phear et al., 1983.

While the Massachusetts study and those it cited were not able to identify what proportion of the contesting fathers were batterers, the studies cited in my other Statement indicate consistently that 75% of cases have a history of domestic violence, with a substantial proportion of severe violence. Hence, it is likely that a substantial proportion of the fathers receiving joint or primary physical custody in this study had committed domestic violence.
- Meier Statement, Research Indicating that the Majority of Cases that go to Court as 'High Conflict' Contested Custody Cases have a History of Domestic Violence (Nov.)
Tags: abuse, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, rights, violations, violence

October 14, 2008 | 1:59 PM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


The American Documentary "Small Justice"
Related to country: United States
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

The Documentary "Small Justice"Posted by Teardrops*for*katelynn on October 11, 2008 at 12:02pm
View Teardrops*for*katelynn's blog
The Making of the Documentary Small Justice
By Garland Waller

Diane Hofheimer, a paralegal and child advocate, handed me the VHS tape with a warning: The video would chill me to the bone. She told me itshowed a three-year-old girl clinging to a banister, begging not to be sent to live with her father.As Diane explained, a family court judge had awarded custody of this little girl to her dad despite evidence that he had sexually abused her. The thought of this made my skin crawl and part of me refused to believe that our court system would do this to a child. So I did what many people in my situation would do: I put the tape on top of my "to do"file. And there it sat, staring me in the face, for six months. About once a week, Diane would call tocheck in and see if I had watched the tape and each time I had to tell her, "No, not yet." She was patient. A little background. Diane is a childhoodfriend. She and I grew up in the same Quaker meeting in Virginia. She and her husband, Charlie Hofheimer, had created a law office in Virginia Beach, Va., that represented women in custody and divorce cases. Together they had learned that the courts often ignored evidence of sexual abuse and awarded custody to the abusive parent, typically the father. Diane was alarmed that no one in the media was telling this story. And that was why she had turned to me. She was hoping that I would use my skills as a TV producer to get the word out about this issue.Eventually, I mustered up the courage and put the tape in the VCR. As promised, the videotape showed a towheaded girl, clinging to a banister,screaming, in a aunting, horrifying cry, "Please, Mommy, please don't make me go to my daddy's house." It was a singular moment in space and time for me; it was the moment that changed my life. If, as Diane said, this child was not a loneexception but part of a trend that extended across America then this amounted to a national scandal that needed to be exposed. I began to research custody and divorce cases in which violence or abuse was a component. Ihad always expected that parents going through a divorce would put the needs of their kids first. But, as the research unfolded I began to see that violent men tended to be the ones who demanded custody. And when they did, they had a good shot at receiving it. During the course of my research, I read things like:"Fathers who battered the mother are twice as likely to seek sole custodyof their children as non-violent fathers."– American Psychological Association's Presidential Task Force, Violence and the Family. (2000) and:"Abusers/batterers who are crimi nally liable for their violence nonethelessare getting sole or joint custody in approximately 70 percent of challenged child custody cases." – The American Judges Foundation, Domestic Violence in the Courtroom: Understanding the Problem,Knowing the Victim. (1996) "Between 50-75 percent of themen who batter their wives or female partners also abuse their children. "– Lenore E. Walker et al, "Beyond the Juror's Ken: Battered Women." 7 Vermont Law Review 1, (1982) I was growing increasingly convinced about the extent of this scandal and its potential as the subject of a documentary. But despite my background producing well-funded syndicated documentaries on such topics as the fear of nuclear war, rape, child abuse and drug addiction, I had a feeling no network would back me on this project until I could show them the finished goods. So, I decided to make my first independent, low budget documentary using $20,000 of my own money and one of my graduate students at Boston University who generously agreed to work for free. In 1998, I began shooting "Small Justice:

Little Justice in America's Family Courts." I spent months gathering information, and fully immersing myself in this issue. Given the complexity of the family court system and the intricacies of abusive relationships, I was lucky that I had DianeHofheimer to guide me. Diane explained legal theories and the intricacies of the family court system and she gave me boxes of legal research. She also introduced me to mothers who had lost custody of their kids to abusers. To document the abuse of justice being perpetrated by the family courts, I decided to follow Diane and Charlie Hofheimer as they worked with three mothers who were losing or had lost custody of their kids in family courts. I never doubted these women or their stories because they were so open, so desperate for help, so determined to protect their children. But I could see how they could lose in court, not because there wasn't evidence, but because they presented themselves poorly. They were overwrought and angry, and their emotions often affected their composure.I can't imagine any loving mother, frankly any loving father, acting differently. Sometimes, after a day of shooting, I would lie in bed at night, unable to sleep because of what I had seen. I wondered what I would do if the court ignored me and my efforts to protect my child. Would I run away with my child? How would I live? Where on the planet could I go without being caught? I saw the underbelly of American justice and I wondered what options these protective mothers had. In addition to the mothers, my crew and I also interviewed leading experts like attorney Richard Ducote, Dr. Carolyn Newberger of Children's Hospital in Boston and Karen Winner, author of "Divorced from Justice," one of the few books on this issue. These interviews further convinced me that the system was deeply flawed. Unfortunately, all of the dads involved in the cases I featured refused to speak with me, as did their lawyers. But I did manage to get an interview with Dr. Richard Gardner, the man who devised Parental Alienation Syndrome, the debunked theory behind many of the most egregious decisions handed down by family court judges. According to Dr. Gardner, alienating parents, typically the mothers, use accusations of abuse in order to alienate their children from their fathers. During my interview with Dr. Gardner, one of the last he gave before he committed suicide in 2003, I asked him what a mother should do if her child revealed that his or her father had abused them sexually. Gardner said she would respond by saying, "I don't believe you. I am going to beat you for saying that. Don't ever talk that way about you father.'" Although Gardner's theory has been widely discredited by the psychological establishment, the fact is that many members of the judicial system have bought into PAS. Now, when a mother brings allegations of sexual abuse before the court she is often accused of PAS. Unfortunately, many judges find PAS more credible than a hospital record of vaginal tearing or unexplained blood in the anus of a child. As I wrapped up production of "Small Justice"in 2001, I thought I would have no problemselling the show. After all, I had uncovered a national scandal and I had extensive testimony from three protective mothers and a litany of experts from across the spectrum. I was wrong. I took the show to all the news magazines at CBS, ABC and NBC, but no one wanted it. HBO and CNN also said no. I heard these responses over and over again: "What's wrong with the mother?""Give me something that is more clear cut.""It's her word against his." "He looks pretty normal to me." "Guys don't do this to their kids." "I thought all mothers got custody unless they were, like, nuts." "We can't air that. We could get sued." "It looks like 'He said-She said" to me." "This is way too complicated to explain to folks."

It is probably hard for anyone involved in this awful situation to understand why the media will not touch this issue. After all, these stories are filled with injustice and human drama. Unfortunately, television stations fear lawsuits and that fear hinders their willingness to uncover important stories and stand up for what is right. Although the large broadcasters rejected "Small Justice", the good news is that the documentary received some acclaim. It garnered the award for "Best Social Documentary" at the NY International 2001 and was honored with theAward for Media Excellence from the 8th International Conference on Family Violence, which was presented in California at the International Conference on Family and Domestic Violence. I showed clips of "Small Justice" and spoke at two conferences hosted by the National Organization for Women. "Small Justice" was also shown at The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and the Key West Indie Film Fest gave it an award. I like to believe that "Small Justice" contributed to the growing interest in this area. Over the past couple of years, conferences like the Battered Mothers Custody Conference have been dedi cated to the issue, books have been written and recently Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories aired on PBS. These are big accomplishments and eachone helps to call attention to the heartbreaking injustices in the system. There are still nights when I cannot sleep because I hear Suzi begging not to be sent to her father's house. Every day, I get at least one letter from a terrified mother or worried grandfather, someone trying to protect a child from a family court system that is at best woefully misguided and, at worst, dangerous. And so, I believe that those of us who are able to fight the system, must continue the uphill battle to get the courts and the media to listen to a disturbing truth.
Tags: abuse, abuses, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, rights, violence

October 14, 2008 | 1:53 PM Comments  0 comments


RE: The American PBS Documentary "Breaking The Silence The Childrens Stories"
Related to country: United States
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

What Breaking the Silence Means
By Dominique Lasseur

Documentary film producer Dominique Lasseur set out to explore the failures of the family court system in "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories." But when public television broadcast the program in the fall of 2005, the father's rightsmovement was quick to react with scathing criticism and a deluge of viewer complaints. What compelled you to take on this issue? We didn't set out to produce a piece about custody issues. We had planned to make a documentaryabout the impact of domestic violence on children. We really wanted to show stories of what was being done to help children who wereraised in domestic violence environments. What we found was one story after another of protective mothers having their children taken away from them and given in sole or partial custody to the very man who terrorized the mother and the children. It was so outrageous, that when we heard the first stories we thought they were aberrations, but then we found that this was in fact happening often and everywhere. We knew at that point that this was the story to concentrate on. When did you become convinced that there was a systemic problem within the family court system? I met a woman in New Jersey and I spent an afternoon listening to her story. She had been divorced for two to three years and had lost custody of her kids. Her ex-husband was making her life a total prison by dragging her into court every month. She was a professional, intelligent woman, and I thought this can't be happening. This is clearly a horrible story, but it has to be one case in a million. But looking further we found the same story everywhere, in Florida, New Orleans, Ohio,California, etc.I spoke with dozens of women who were very candid about what they had endured. After listening to one story after another, there was no way to ignore the extent of the problem. We chose to feature the stories where there were extensive court proceedings so that we could verify that what the women was telling us was what she had testified in court as well. So there was a clear history of allegations of domestic violence and/or child physical or psychological abuse. All the women we interviewed went to court believing the system was fair, not thinking for a moment their kids could be taken from them. It seems that we are now on this issue where we were 20-25 years ago on domestic violence. I would assume that it was as difficult at that time to talk about domestic violence, as it is to talk about this particular issue now. People don't want to believe it. They don't want to know about it. To tell you the truth, many in my interviews I said to the woman I was interviewing, "It would be easier to believe that you were fabricating all this because what you're telling me is so horrendous. It feels like you're telling me a story about some remote country where there is no notion of justice." And the fact that it's happening here in America was unbelievable, is unbelievable. In your opinion what is the underlying problem? In my view, the problem is that while criminal courts have made tremendous progress in dealingwith domestic violence, family courts are not as informed about the dynamics of family violence. Why hasn't the family court system progressed in the same way as the criminal court system? On the record family court judges say to women, "You're an intelligent, professional woman, so I don't believe you've been abused." You would not hear a judge in