Illinois Parents and Children

Earth to Mark Kirk: Federal Anti-Gang Task Force is Not the Answer

2009-10-05T16:35:00.013-05:00

October 3, 2009

Congressman Mark Kirk
Mark Kirk for Senate
PO Box 8
Winnetka, Illinois 60093

Dear Congressman Kirk,

In response to the announcement of your proposal concerning a federal anti-gang task force, I would like to offer the following suggestions for you to consider as part of future policy proposals.

Specifically, that the problem of gang involvement evolves from the government's long-term assault on parents. No amount of expansion of authoritarian law enforcement posturing will ever help to substantively deal with these issues, or the decline of parental involvement and autonomy, until we adopt a new national policy toward parents, and create disincentives to divorce and out-of-wedlock child births, which often marginalize their standing in the community.

Specific points that are ripe for policy revision:

1). A public policy toward parents - Support of HJR 42, the Parental Rights Amendment, by Pete Hoekstra, would be a good place to start for all concerned pro-family lawmakers.

2). Child Support - Economically irrational child support models, based on a percentage of net income of the non-residential parent, has played a central role in driving many poor fathers away from their children, and a growth in the social welfare state.

This problem could be easily remedied with a national child support policy that is based on a cost-based child support model that would remove the primary incentive to out-of-wedlock child births, reducing or eliminating the financial windfall associated with such policies.

3). School Choice - Incentivize the growth of private and charter schools with matching federal funds in order to create a viable form of competition for public schools.

4). Domestic Violence - The ever-expanding definitions of "domestic violence" that have been promoted by then-Senator Joe Biden and the "Violence Against Women Act" (VAWA) have become another tool to destroy parent-child bonds, pushing more parents to make knowingly false allegations of abuse and tying up more taxpayer dollars in our courts and law enforcement, while distracting from the state's ability to investigate actual cases of abuse. This issue alone should speak for itself.

We need responsible legislation that will revise VAWA to be gender-neutral, and take funding away from politically-driven feminist groups that are masquerading as social service agencies, and modify it to deal with issues that concern abuse where free will has been marginalized.

We need to end the scenario that breeds lack of empathy for (and in) children, by specifically targeting the perceived advantage for single women from using them as pawns in order to support a morally twisted lifestyle preference, or using VAWA inspired laws to quickly terminate a relationship or marriage absent a finding of harm.

In short: "Lack of empathy breeds lack of empathy," and that is exactly what we're dealing with concerning Chicago gangs, and other issues concerning juvenile delinquency. Law enforcement will never fix that. We have to fix it by reframing the issue to center on the state's role in supporting parents, not supplanting or marginalizing their role.

If you agree as I do that it is time to effectively deal with these root-cause issues, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you in person or by phone to discuss them in more detail.

If you have questions or would like to arrange a meeting, reply to me here or contact me directly at xxx.xxx.xxxx.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Michael Burns
President/Co-founder
Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children
PO Box 10236
Chicago, Illinois 60610

Boxer Pushes U.N. Treaty to Supplant Parental Autonomy

2009-02-09T14:17:00.005-06:00

"Best Interests" Evidentiary Standard Now Applied in Divorce and Child Custody Determinations would be broadened to all American parents.

(CHICAGO) -- California Senator Barbara Boxer wants Big Brother to be the father of your children. Or so it would seem, given her remarks at a recent Senate confirmation hearing for UN Ambassador-designate Susan Rice held on January 15, 2009.

Boxer alleged that passage of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), would protect "the most vulnerable people of society," under the context of the "Best Interests of the Child" evidentiary standard, which is now utilized only in Juvenile and Domestic Relations cases.

Parental rights advocates say it is the kiss of death for American parents.

"Application of the Best Interests standard is part of what has proven to be so egregiously harmful to parent-child bonds within the context of divorce and child custody determinations, and is the primary catalyst for enabling the courts to over-step their bounds when it comes to making harmful and long-lasting determinations, even when the state lacks a compelling interest to do so," says Michael Burns, President and Co-founder of the Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children, a non-partisan public interest group located in Chicago.

"Support for UNCRC demonstrates a long-standing desire of social service agencies and the feminist movement to marginalize parental involvement and autonomy in the name of protecting their best interests, which flies in the face of more than 60 years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent," says Burns, who has advocated against use of the Best Interests standard for cases that do not contain actual findings of harm or neglect.

Opponents such as Burns say passage of UNCRC could destroy parental autonomy and state sovereignty by imposing Marxist doctrine into American law within the first 6 months of the Obama Presidency.

"Ratified UN treaties preempt state law under the Supremacy Clause. With most of our existing statutes concerning parental rights held under state law, this new initiative would neutralize nearly all existing American family law. Moreover, it would grant the government even more latitude to override parental autonomy and decision-making by applying an unsound standard now used against those convicted of parental neglect or child abuse,” says Burns.

Boxer says she wants a 60-day time-frame for the State Department to complete its review in order to allow the Senate to move toward ratification of the UNCRC, and will ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for U.S. support.

“This is a sordid ambition of Boxer and anyone else that supports it to virtually re-classify good parents as potential criminals, and would enable public schools and state agencies such as DCFS to intervene in parent-child relationships under the pre-text of protecting their "best interests." In other words, the sky’s the limit on what the state can do with your kids if this treaty is ratified by Congress, even if the parents have done nothing wrong,” says Burns, who promises a legal challenge to the measure if it is ratified.

Referring to it as a "complicated treaty," Rice expressed her commitment to the objectives of UNCRC, but stated that she could not meet the Senator's strict timeframe. Rice promised to review the treaty, but noted "challenges of domestic implementation," in her confirmation hearing. She also resisted a strict timeframe: "I don't have a sense of how long it will take us, in light of the many different things on our plate," she said.

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

Michael Burns is the President and Co-founder of the Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children, located in Chicago, Illinois. He can be reached at info(at)illinoisparentsandchildren(dot)org

Advocacy group says attempts to revise divorce and child custody statutes by trial lawyers are misguided and ill-conceived

2009-02-03T15:19:00.004-06:00

Patronage, partisan interests, bar associations and feminist groups to blame for agenda-driven policies, outdated statutes that drive couples into bankruptcy and harm parent-child bonds

(PRWEB via PRWebDirect) February 3, 2009 - Illinois’ principle advocacy organization tasked with promoting broad-based legal reforms to existing divorce and child custody statutes calls the newly formed Family Law Study Committee a sham.

The Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children, a non-partisan public interest group located in Chicago issued a blistering letter last week to House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and House Judiciary Chair John Fritchey (D-Chicago) that laid-out plans for a federal civil rights challenge against the state for its long-standing support of discriminatory divorce and child custody statutes, and criticized the committee’s performance at public hearings for lack of transparency and public input.

In a statement made to local media outlets, IAPC President Michael Burns cited widespread support to revise Illinois’ divorce and child custody statutes to keep pace with the changing needs of society, but cited the dominant participation of divorce attorneys as the reason why the latest round of reform efforts will likely fail.

“The fact that this committee has not been well-publicized, is being dominated by trial lawyers, that testimony for the hearings is by invitation-only and not subject to review or open to public comment tells us that true reform of existing statutes is being stifled and manipulated, and that these efforts are not sincere,” said Burns, who has actively lobbied for changes to Juvenile and Domestic Relations statutes for more than 5 years.

“Of particular concern is the number of speakers who evolve from outside of Illinois who lack understanding of the local political landscape, versus those who are demonstrably present and concerned, and the time being given to those who constitute a who’s-who of the status quo. Furthermore, the lack of participation from those representing the legal aid, minority, forensic, medical, mental health, religious, law enforcement, veterans and extended parenting communities is also troubling.”

The Illinois Family Law Study Committee was created as a result of HR1101, a resolution sponsored by State Representative John Fritchey and House Speaker Michael Madigan to review the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act to provide recommendations for statute modification to the General Assembly.

Burns points to several key reasons for why the General Assembly and Bar associations lack the openness and honesty to pursue broad-based legal reforms. “Divorce and child custody determinations comprise one-third to one-half of all civil litigation in Illinois, creating a huge revenue stream for otherwise opportunistic attorneys who thrive on inter-personal conflict and the demise of parent-child relationships,” says Burns. “Divorce lawyers in particular represent the underbelly of trial bar, and are largely promoted and protected by Bar associations who do their bidding, regardless of the substantial harm created by their manipulation of these statutes, or how they are perceived by our society.”

“Without external intervention, Domestic Relations reform in Illinois will continue to be hampered by patronage that exists between judges and Bar associations, coupled with agenda-driven policies at the local, state and federal level that are being driven by the domestic violence lobby and misguided feminist groups, in addition to a general lack of interest by lawmakers who have sought to avoid contentious issues related to divorce, or who simply lack the moral clarity to protect intact families.”

“Policymakers who ignore the very tender nature of parent-child bonds in this context and who seek to tacitly support those who benefit from their demise are amongst our nation’s losers and bottom-feeders,” says Burns, speaking in reference to the influence of bar associations and inaction by the General Assembly to update existing statutes to reduce family conflict and enhance parental involvement, which remain substantively unchanged for more than 30 years.

In conjunction with ongoing support for responsible fatherhood programs by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama, Burns suggests that there is a broad-based concern to find new policy innovations at the local, state and federal level to keep both parents actively involved after contentious divorce proceedings in order to champion their involvement where government programs have otherwise failed to compensate for their absence, often driven by irrational policies that some critics suggest tacitly categorize them as potential criminals, contributing to higher rates of domestic violence, suicide, parental kidnapping and non-compliance with court orders.

Burns points to contemporary studies that reflect changing attitudes of biological fathers who desire to play a more active role in raising their children as among the key trends that are being shunned and ignored. Studies by Arizona State University researchers Dr. Sanford Braver and Professor William Fabricius are part of a larger body of research being performed which reflects the changing societal trends and the longing of fathers to be more actively involved with their children.

Burns has promoted several key proposals to help reduce protracted divorce and child custody determinations which have failed gain attention from lawmakers in Springfield for fear of retaliation by the trial bar and feminist groups, ranging from issues that concern presumptive joint custody to more substantive penalties for parents who attempt to alienate children or bring knowingly false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, a common practice at the onset of protracted divorce cases.

“Reforming Illinois’ divorce and child custody statutes is an issue that implicates political, systemic and societal issues that occupy a much larger paradigm, but an over-emphasis on gender issues has largely polarized legitimate reform efforts,” says Burns, referring to the presence of groups such as Fathers for Justice, which is known for outlandish public relations stunts to draw attention to themselves. But Burns is quick to point to other forces that have stifled meaningful public dialog.

“While we’ve heard rhetoric promoting responsible fatherhood in order to improve supports for children from both conservative and liberal policymakers, the feminist movement remains incredibly paranoid and combative of fathers for fear of losing political influence, and remains steadfast in portraying them as batterers, deadbeats and child molesters,” says Burns, who has followed the issue for more than 15 years. “Combined with the sordid ambitions of trial lawyers, father’s rights activists, social welfare bureaucrats, and partisan interests at the local, state and federal level, you have the perfect storm for supporting a one-sided policy debate that ultimately champions out-of-wedlock child births, single-parent households, and a promulgation of the social welfare state that seeks to supplant parental involvement. Within this context of ignorance, disenfranchised children have very little chance of enjoying substantial relationships with both of their parents until society begins to understand how these groups have shamefully and unjustly manipulated the issue for more than 30 years.”

About the Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children

The Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children is a non-partisan public interest group located in Chicago. Our primary policy objectives concern the protection and promotion of parental involvement and autonomy across all areas of society where children are impacted. IAPC promotes unique policy initiatives and programs through research, advocacy and outreach activities, and seeks to establish a substantive Family Policy that reflects the changing needs of our culture.

For more information, contact IAPC President Michael Burns at info(at)illinoisparentsandchildren(dot)org

State Plans to Enlist 1,000 More in All Kids Health Insurance Program

2008-06-21T15:06:00.007-05:00

(CHICAGO) --As part of a campaign to enlist 1,000 more children in the state-sponsored All Kids health insurance program, Governor Blagojevich helped families fill out applications Saturday at St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital on the near North Side of Chicago, one of 50 sites that accepted applications.

About 1.4 million children have enrolled in the program since the July 2006 launch. Blagojevich says that up to 200,000 other children in Illinois lack health insurance.

Blagojevich announced at a news conference that the next 1,000 families who enroll in All Kids will also get a free $50 gas card.

Quebec Girl Wins Court Case Against Father for Field Trip

2008-06-20T10:59:00.003-05:00

The National Post published an intriguing story on June 18, 2008 of a 12-year-old Quebec girl who took her father to court after he refused to allow her to attend a school field trip, providing another case that reflects the continued onslaught against parental autonomy.

The girl's lawyer defended the action as "a necessary move to ensure the child was not denied a significant rite of passage." The case was upheld by the judge last week, in a case that continues to draw international attention from parental rights advocates from around the globe.

The daughter's attorney insisted that while court was a last resort, the situation called for it. "This was not a question of going to the movies or not, or going online or not -- because obviously, I wouldn't have intervened in that," she said.

Critics of the case claim that such a ruling opens the way for equally implausible scenarios such as children taking their parents to court for such things as being denied access to television or using the Internet.

Shared Parenting: A Catalyst for Sustainability in Illinois?

2008-06-11T15:48:00.007-05:00

Advocates cite lack of reform in divorce and child custody laws as continued problem for at-risk communities

(CHICAGO) -- As another legislative session comes to a close, there is a rising tone of disapproval being levied against Illinois lawmakers by a growing number of parental rights advocates who claim that the Domestic Relations court system is out of control, and operates from outdated statutes that violate the civil rights of parents.

"Illinois' Domestic Relations courts routinely violate the civil rights of fit, law-abiding parents by failing to comport with federal law or recognize the fundamental nature of parental rights," says Michael Burns, President and Co-founder of the Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children, a non-partisan public interest group located in Chicago.

"Illinois violates the civil rights of parents by utilizing an unlawful evidentiary standard that, by default, that classifies them as potential criminals until proven worthy to care for their children under the guise of a "best interest" determination, which forces parents to prove who's the best parent--often leading to bankruptcy, and playing a role in domestic violence, parental alienation, non-compliance with court orders, and parental kidnapping," says Burns.

"Illinois lags far behind other states in embracing substantive reforms in Family Law, largely due to the resistance by trial lawyers and other special interests who seek to champion disenfranchisement through single-parenting and other forms of Nanny government," says Burns, who suggests that the only remedy may come in the form of a lawsuit against the General Assembly.

"We have petitioned to the leadership of the General Assembly in good faith for more than 4 years on this issue. Each time, we are are told that reform measures are disfavored by trial lawyers, and therefore change is not possible," says Burns, who has openly criticized pro-family lawmakers for ignoring the issue for too long.

Burns, who has played a lead role in cultivating dialog amongst Illinois lawmakers and community groups, cites the need for action in the face of continued reluctance and opposition by pro-lawyer politicians who are unwilling to recognize the fundamental liberty interest inherent in parental rights issues stemming from divorce and child custody determinations.

Shared Parenting: A More Collaborative Approach to Divorce

As recently as 2005, Illinois lawmakers sponsored a bill which aimed at establishing a presumption favoring shared legal and physical custody for divorcing or unmarried parents, also known as "shared parenting," following parental separation in cases where a family court determines that both parents are fit to care for their children.

The bill's sponsor, State Represenative Richard Myers (R-Macomb) failed to call the bill for a floor vote due to pressure brought by trial lawyers. In subsequent years, similar resistance was brought to other bills sponsored by State Representative Will Davis (D-Chicago) and State Representative Dale Risinger (R-Peroria).

Parental rights advocates such as Burns believe the approach is dynamic by seeking to refine the post-divorce parenting arrangement to approximate the parent-child relationships in the original two-parent home in order to cultivate a more collaborative environment for parents while seeking to reduce conflict.

Legal advocates such as New Jersey attorney David Heleniak cite shared parenting as a viable way for Domestic Relations courts to provide equal rights and responsibilities for active parents. "If parents are fit, willing and able to share in the costs and responsibilities of parenting their children on a substantial basis, and live close enough to one another--there's no reason why
shared parenting wouldn't work, even in high conflict cases."

"As the living arrangement that most closely resembles the pre-divorce family in cases where both parents had an active parenting role before divorce, shared parenting encompasses both shared physical caretaking (the actual day-to-day care of children) and equal authority regarding children's education, medical care, and religious upbringing," says Heleniak, who is among a growing number of legal advocates calling for reforms in Family Law to protect parental involvement with at-risk youth.

Sustainability as Key Issue in Divorce

Other experts, such as Dr. Mark Rogers, a Chicago-based Forensic Consultant, assert a broader view when examining the lack of reform in areas of divorce and child custody. "The current adversarial system is simply not sustainable for us as an expanded community, with changing needs concerning the nurture of families and children, especially those evolving from at-risk environments," says Rogers, who consults with federal agencies on issues that impact gang involvement in cities like Chicago, and national issues that influence domestic terrorism.

Rogers cites truancy, low-academic performance, gang involvement, teen pregnancy, domestic violence and violent crime as maintaining a common thread with children raised in the absence of dual-parent involvement, or where the father has been significantly removed from children's weekly schedules.

"These issues will not be resolved merely by spending more money on education, law enforcement or other expensive government programs that bear little fruit in their outcome... we need to enact substantive policy reforms that champion parental involvement and autonomy. We can't do this without them, and we certainly can't do this with a system that marginalizes their standing," according to Rogers.

"It should be clear to all concerned that we will be unable to compensate for the growing number of broken, single parent homes unless substantial changes are implemented at the policy level as a short and long-term strategy for success."

About Us

The Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children is a non-partisan public interest group located in Chicago. Our primary policy objectives concern the protection and promotion of parental involvement and autonomy across all areas of society where children are impacted. IAPC promotes unique programs and policy initiatives through research, advocacy and outreach activities--and seeks to establish a substantive Family Policy that reflects the changing needs of our culture.

For more information, visit our Web site, located at www.illinoisparentsandchildren.org

Court reverses spanking ruling, ends family's nightmare

2008-06-03T13:20:00.003-05:00

Judge: 'We are unwilling to prohibit corporal punishment'

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Friday that a father who spanked his 12-year-old son 36 times with a maple paddle did not commit physical abuse.

The unanimous ruling finalized the reversal of a lower court's decision, which did deem the punishment administered by Shawn Fraser of Bloomington, Minn., abusive.

The case passed through 3 courts – county, district and state Supreme – while lawyers and judges argued whether there was any evidence of physical or mental harm from the spankings.

The guardian ad litem, an attorney appointed to represent the children's interests, argued that while there was no evidence of injury, inflicting pain should be grounds enough for establishing abuse.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

"We are unwilling to establish a bright-line rule that the infliction of any pain constitutes either physical injury or physical abuse, because to do so would effectively prohibit all corporal punishment of children by their parents," Justice Alan Page wrote for the court.

The law allows "reasonable discipline," the ruling said, and "it is clear to us that the Legislature did not intend to ban corporal punishment."

According to court documents, the Fraser family's oldest son, Gerard, had been caught sneaking out of the house on numerous occasions and lying about his whereabouts. After attempting grounding and other punishments to curb the behavior, the Gerard's parents – devout Christians – discussed biblical verses on corporal punishment with their son and posted the verses on the family fridge.

Gerard was warned that if he snuck out again or was overtly disrespectful to his parents, he would be paddled once for each year of his age.

On the evening of June 29, 2005, Gerard again snuck out, only to be caught by a younger sibling. Gerard's father paddled him 12 times. The boy was spanked again 12 times after "throwing a temper tantrum." When Gerard then grabbed a knife and threatened self-injury, his father disarmed him and spanked him 12 times more – a total of 36 swats administered in intervals over an hour's time span.

"I wasn't trying to harm him," Fraser told the Minneapolis Star Tribune. "I was trying to teach him about the importance of self-control and respect for authority." According to reports, there were no marks or signs of injury on the boy.

Later that evening, the boy snuck out again and was apprehended by the police. Six days later, county human services filed a petition alleging that both of the Fraser boys were in need of protection, and subsequently, the boys were removed into foster care.

Jill Waite, an attorney for Shawn Fraser, told the St. Paul Pioneer Press that the family's 6-month separation was agonizing. The 11-year-old younger son "didn't believe that he would ever be back with his family again," Waite said.

With the help of attorneys, however, the boys were returned to their home, 2 days before Christmas.

As a condition of keeping the boys, Shawn Fraser agreed to discontinue spanking until the courts finalized their rulings. The family remained under the supervision of the county child protective services.

A Hennepin County court eventually ruled that, largely because of the spankings, the Fraser home was "a dangerous environment" and that Shawn Fraser's treatment of the boy constituted "physical abuse."

Shawn Fraser then appealed the case, where a district appeals court affirmed that parents enjoy "a wide latitude regarding the discipline of their children," took into account the child's size (5 feet 2 inches, 195 pounds) and ruled the measures nonabusive. Hennepin County, however, appealed the case to the state Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's Friday ruling upheld the appeals court decision and declined to return the case to lower courts for any further findings. "Almost three years have passed since the incident at issue, during most of which time the children have been living at home without apparent further incident," wrote Justice Page.

The ruling now marks the end of three long years of lawyers, allegations, investigations and protective services for the Fraser family.

"The intrusiveness of the system is amazing," said Waite.

Gerard Fraser, now 15, told the Star Tribune that he's glad the case is settled. Speaking of his parents, he said, "They didn't, like, abuse us or anything. I was a really bad kid…I understand now that my dad paddled me because he loves me, and he wants me to have success in my life. He disciplined me; he didn't abuse me. They're very different things."

Waite told the St. Paul Pioneer Press that the whole family is elated. "After three years," she said, "finally, they'll be able to get their lives back."

Court blasts state's strip-search of children

2008-06-03T13:16:00.002-05:00

Social worker enters Christian school without cause, tells kids to remove clothing

Two children who attended a private Christian school in Wisconsin were illegally strip-searched and had their constitutional rights violated by a state social worker, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Monday.

In Michael C. v. Gresbach, the court said state worker Dana Gresbach violated the children's Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable search when she entered Good Hope Christian Academy in Milwaukee, Wis., had the children pulled from the classrooms and told them to remove their clothing when she suspected the parents of spanking in February 2004.

Stephen Crampton, vice president of legal affairs and general counsel for Liberty Counsel, represented the parents of 8-year-old Ian and 9-year-old Alexis when they sued the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare and the caseworker.

"We are obviously pleased with the result, but candidly, we wish they had been more harsh on this renegade department that has ruined the lives of so many well-intentioned families already," he told WND.

Crampton said this type of overstep is common among social workers, and they often do not give it a second thought.

"The social worker performed these strip searches as a matter of routine, estimating that in perhaps one-half of the 300 or so cases she handled every year she subjected kids to a partial disrobing," he said. "In fact, she testified that she considered it so routine that she did not bother to discuss her intentions with her supervisor, even though she spoke to her on her way to the school."

The state had several social workers file affidavits saying they would have followed the same procedure. Crampton said, "That is an alarming admission, and we suspect you would find a similar pattern in social service offices all over America."

When Gresbach entered the school, she handed her business card to Principal Cheryl Reetz and told her she needed to see Ian and Alexis. Reetz asked the social worker if she could call the children's parents, but Gresbach refused to allow it, saying she would contact them at a later time. The principal then asked if she could remain in the room to observe the interview, but she was denied permission to do so.

According to court documents, state officials claimed they made efforts to speak with the parents and stepparents of the children, but the visits never occurred.

Crampton said the mindset of most social workers is that parents are the problem.

"They go to great lengths to lock parents out of the process, treating them as the enemy, and ultimately doing more harm than good by driving something of a wedge between the children and their parents," he said.

The social worker spent nearly 15 minutes alone in the room with each child. She searched Ian's wrists for bruising and asked him to pull up his shirt. He complied, and she examined his back for suspicious marks. Gresbach then privately inspected Alexis, asking her to pull down her tights and lift up her dress. The worker was unable to find any sign of injury on the children's bodies.

Gresbach's behavior is not a one-time incident uncommon among social workers. In Doe v. Carla Heck, the court addressed an eerily similar child abuse investigation where children's rights to freedom from unreasonable search were violated by the same state agency on the premises of another private educational facility.

"The problem almost always arises only in private schools," Crampton said. "Public schools, as agents of the government, routinely roll over and give social workers access to any student they wish to see, provide a room for them, and in short serve up our children on a platter, without bothering to contact parents," he said.

Gresbach claimed she was entitled to qualified immunity because her actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; however, the court disagreed.

"We do not exempt child welfare workers from adhering to basic Fourth Amendment principles under non-exigent circumstances – to do so would be imprudent," the court stated. "… we do not believe that requiring a child welfare caseworker to act in accordance with basic Fourth Amendment principles is an undue burden on the child welfare system, particularly when it is necessary to conduct an examination of a child's body, which is undoubtedly 'frightening, humiliating and intrusive' to the child."

Crampton said Christian families have the freedom to follow scriptures in administering corporal punishment and should not have their rights violated by power-hungry government officials.

"That social workers and bureaucrats don't like it is no reason to allow the trampling of the constitutional rights of parents and their children," he said. "It is the high privilege and high responsibility of parents to oversee the care, custody and education of their children, not the state."

Parental Alienation Alleged in Decision to Grant Sex Change Operation to 12 Year Old Daughter

2008-05-29T22:40:00.006-05:00

Experts cite need for reforms in Family Law in order to prevent psychological coercion of children

(CHICAGO) -- Did Parental Alienation play a role in a court-ordered decision to allow a minor to obtain a sex change operation? That is the question that family rights advocates across the globe are asking after a recent story that appeared in the UK's Evening Standard, published on May 25th, 2008.

A 12-year old girl has obtained permission from a family court judge in Melbourne Australia to begin a sex change procedure over the objections of the father, who claims the she has been psychologically brainwashed and manipulated by the mother into getting the operation, in a familiar phenomena known as Parental Alienation.

"Parental Alienation is a pervasive problem that occurs most frequently in the context of protracted divorce and child custody determinations, where the custodial parent engages in a systematic program of psychological coercion and brainwashing that unduly influences children to reject the other parent without their effective consent, creating great confusion for the child," says Dr. Mark Rogers, co-founder of the Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children, a Chicago-based parent advocacy group.

"It is by far one of the most damaging things that can happen to minor children, who frequently lack the means or stamina to resist such coercion," says Rogers, who often acts as a Forensic Consultant in contested divorce and child custody determinations.

"What we have in this case is a text book example of the psychological damage that can occur to children, who lack the critical faculties to understand what is happening to them. The fact that lawmakers in Illinois and elsewhere have resisted stronger measures to punish such coercion in order to deter it from occurring in the first place puts innocent parents and children at-risk for further psychological harm, regardless of the demonstrated need for such reforms."

Rogers is among a growing group of experts who are calling for reforms in Family Law in order to curb instances of Parental Alienation.

Family court watchers in Australia report that the daughter has already begun to have hormone treatment in the first known case involving a minor. A family cousin, who resided with the family for two and a half years, said that after a very bitter break-up, the mother had used the child in retaliation against the father, claiming that the girl has been "vindictively brainwashed" by her mother into making the decision to have the sex change.

"By the time that Parental Alienation has occurred, there is no guarantee that it can be undone," says Rogers. "Our communities can no longer afford a society that supports the disenfranchisement of parents and children. We need statutes in place that help get us ahead of the problem in order to reduce conflict, and protect the vital bonds that exist between them."

The father is now appealing to the Melbourne legal system for assistance in fighting the court order after running out of money to afford legal representation in opposing the sex change request.

Study Shows Men Are Victims of Domestic Violence, Too

2008-05-25T13:24:00.006-05:00

(CHICAGO) -- Domestic violence is common against men, though often under-reported, and may damage mental health, a new study shows.

In a survey of 420 men, 28.8% had been the victim of either physical or psychological abuse during their adult lifetime, Robert Reid, M.D, Ph.D., of the Group Health Cooperative Center for Health Studies, and colleagues reported in the June issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

"These findings tell us that the failure of personnel in judicial, law enforcement and healthcare to inquire about and acknowledge the male experience in [intimate partner violence] is failing men, fathers, second wives and children who are exposed to such abuse," says Jennifer Teschy, spokesperson for the Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children, a Chicago-based parent advocacy group.

Researchers conducted a telephone survey of 420 adult men (mean age 53.8, 86.1% white) who were insured by Group Health for at least three years, and were asked about past episodes of intimate partner violence using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey.

A total of 18.4% of the participants reported being a victim of childhood physical or sexual abuse and 14.5% had witnessed intimate partner violence. Overall, 4.6% of the participants had been abused in the past year by an intimate partner and 10.4% had been a victim of violence in the past five years. Those younger than 55 were more likely than older men to have been abused in the past five years (14.2% versus 5.3%) and to have been subjected to physical violence at any time (8.8% versus 1.1%) (P<0.01>

"Acknowledging domestic violence against men and fathers is often considered taboo in nature, due to social pressure and 'political correctness' that is promulgated by the media and special interests to find them guilty of such abuse without trial or proper due process protections," says Teschy, who often fields calls from distraught men, second wives and grandparents who have witnessed such abuse by a vindictive ex-spouse or partner.

In the study, most of the men said they had been a victim of intimate partner violence more than once -- 68.1% for those reporting physical abuse and 92.4% for those who had been abused psychologically.

Physical violence generally lasted less than a year but psychological abuse persisted longer.

Among men younger than 55, 82% said they were a victim of non-physical abuse for a year or longer. The figure for older participants was 72.5%.

Those 55 and older who had been physically abused at any time had lower mean scores out of 100 for mental health (-5.86), vitality (-3.48), and a summary of the mental component of the assessment (-4.70) compared with older men who had not been a victim of physical abuse. These changes were statistically and clinically significant, Dr. Reid said.

Participants younger than 55 who had been abused had lower scores for social functioning whether the abuse had been physical (-2.53) or psychological (-2.51).

Older participants who had been abused physically were 2.8 times more likely to have depressive symptoms (prevalence ratio 2.80, 95% CI 1.23 to 6.34) and 3.14 times more likely to be severely depressed (PR 3.14, 95%
CI 1.06 to 9.32) than those who were not abused.

Older participants who were victims of non-physical abuse were 2.61 times more likely to have depressive symptoms (PR 2.61, 95% CI 1.28 to 5.34).

Intimate partner violence did not have any significant effects on physical health, in contrast to the effects on women.

The authors said that the results may not be generalizable to uninsured or more diverse populations. They also said the study had a low response rate and the small sample size precluded the assessment of a direct connection between abuse and health outcomes.

They also pointed out that "because the men were asked to remember events that may have occurred long ago, the findings may under-represent the occurrence of events in the distant past. As such, the estimates of lifetime prevalence may be biased downward for older men compared to younger men, and may explain the lower reported lifetime prevalence found for older men."

Teschy also points out that future research is needed to determine effectiveness of various interventions, stating that the study should not downplay abuse against either sex.

"Domestic violence is an equal-opportunity phenomena that does not discriminate on the basis of gender," says Teschy. "Policymakers in Springfield and elsewhere need to be informed as to the true nature of intimate partner violence coming from both sides--not just men against women, and create policy reforms that are gender-neutral."

Study Finds Lower Health Problems for Children Participating in WIC and Food Stamps

2007-01-06T15:40:00.000-06:00

A study recently conducted by the University of Chicago with the United States Department of Agriculture found that when children use the Women Infants and Children (WIC) and Food Stamp Programs they experience a reduced risk of child abuse and neglect and child nutrition-related health problems.

To access this report go to:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/CCR27/

IOM Report Shows Progress is Slow in Reversing Childhood Obesity Trend

2006-12-27T21:58:00.000-06:00

According to a new report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), efforts to prevent childhood obesity remain fragmented and lack evaluation. The report is a follow-up to IOM's report "Preventing Childhood Obesity: Health in the Balance" released two years ago. The IOM Committee noted that since the first report was released, government, industry, communities, schools and families have developed many initiatives to respond to the growing problem of childhood obesity. However, efforts remain fragmented, most of the policies and programs are not being evaluated, and national efforts lack the necessary leadership.

Pre-publication copies of "Progress in Preventing Childhood Obesity: How Do We Measure Up?" are available from the National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu.

****
Overweight in Early Childhood Increases Chances for Obesity at Age 12: Report

This report is based on a collaborative study by NIH and several academic institutions. The results indicate that children who are overweight as toddlers or preschoolers are more likely to be overweight or obese in early adolescence. This analysis, appearing in the September Pediatrics, provides some of the strongest evidence to date that overweight in early childhood increase the chances for overweight in later life.

For more information about the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, go to http://www.nichd.nih.gov/od/secc/index.htm.

Our Culture of Drive-thru Abortions

2006-12-19T17:04:00.003-06:00

In the quest to remove delays for a female to obtain an abortion--more people are becoming aware that intimate partner abuse, child sex abuse, and decisions to abort a pregnancy may have multiple players involved. By bringing down the full force of law to make it not only constitutional to kill one's own child, and to do so as fast as possible--our social mores and social policy are allowing women and girls to be abused in the process.

First, it is well-known that abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood conceal obvious cases of abuse. One study showed that Planned Parenthood and related organizations failed to report a minimum of about 10,000 cases of child sex abuse in Illinois in the year 2000 alone. Yet the law is clear that medical providers are statutorily required to report suspected cases of abuse. When authorities try to investigate child rape, they may be thwarted by abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, who maintain a financial stake in the unaddressed problem. Legally, we call that a "conflict of interest."

Second, some women and girls are coerced into getting abortions. I know this because I'm aware of women who have dealt with this problem. By eliminating even the most sensible restrictions such as parental notification (forget parental consent), a woman can be rushed to have an abortion --no questions asked. This is a boon to those irresponsible partners who don't want to pay child support, don’t want to "lose face" for having a child out-of-wedlock, or want to cover-up for their crimes of impregnating a minor.

Coerced abortions are a problem. But to make matters worse, bills such as HB 5882 in Michigan are a profoundly bad idea. Instead of going after coerced abortions by preventing them, this proposal makes it a crime for a man to even be involved in the decision-making process in any way--except for complete deferral. In essence, it smacks of another attempt to separate men from children.

Current state law says men have no say in the decision to get an abortion. This law says they aren't even allowed to speak on the subject. Considering the current state of child support laws and custody laws, apparently the only thing men can contribute is their paycheck and all other effort is disallowed.

Sure, the law could catch those who engage in coercion. However, how such violations would ever be proven is a problem since it is entirely a "speech crime." Further, "battered woman syndrome" suggests that women most in need of protection are least likely to seek help and the redress that such a law would allow. In short, more innocent men would be prosecuted than true domestic abusers who ought to be nailed to the wall.

The problem is not that there are no laws to punish coercion, there are. The problem is the weight of the Constitution being brought down to rush women through abortion mills without question. Planned Parenthood has no incentive to think twice about killing a child--abortion is a profit-center for them.

Taking the typical image the pro-abortion crowd likes to use--imagine an abused woman (or girl) who has an abusive boyfriend or family. She discovers she is pregnant and she knows her family or boyfriend will be livid once they discover the pregnancy. She is lonely, scared and has no place to turn. In come the knights in crimson-stained armor, Planned Parenthood. They pledge to help this young woman and bring her into their clinic. They conduct the abortion and send the child on her way. The problem is they send her right back into the abusive situation she came from. The problem wasn't the child--the problem was the abusive relationships that remain unaddressed until the next time she gets pregnant and Planned Parenthood wants to make a buck.

It is the failure of social policy that leaves these women prey to abusive and coercive relationships. The solution is not more bad laws, but to rethink the culture of drive-thru abortions.

John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education.

White Families Are in Trouble, Too

2006-12-08T20:56:00.000-06:00

With More Absent Fathers and Poverty, It's Time for a New Moynihan Report

By Nicholas Eberstadt
Originally published: August 22, 2005

Forty years after the Moynihan report, the tragic saga of the modern black family is common knowledge. But the tale of family breakdown in modern America is no longer a story delimited to a single ethnic minority. Today the family is also in crisis for this country's ethnic majority: the so-called white American population.

The crisis in the white family has attracted curiously little attention from commentators and policymakers. Yet by many of the criteria of the Moynihan report, today's white American family looks to be at least as troubled as the black family of the early 1960s.

Consider trends in out-of-wedlock births. By 2002, 28.5 percent of babies of white mothers were born outside marriage in this country. Over the past generation, the white illegitimacy rate has exploded, quadrupling since 1975, when the level was 7.1 percent. The overall illegitimacy rate for whites is higher than it was for black mothers (23.6 percent) when the Moynihan report sounded its alarm.

Moreover, with 75 percent-plus of their babies born outside marriage, white teens now have much higher illegitimacy rates than the black American teens of the early and mid-1960s.
Indeed, in 2002, a white mother younger than 30 was more likely to have an illegitimate child than a black mother was in 1970.

White illegitimacy rates look somewhat lower if the non-Hispanic white population is examined apart from Hispanic Americans. Even so, in 2002, the illegitimacy rate for "white Anglos"--as Euro-Americans are sometimes called--was 23 percent--virtually identical to levels 40 years earlier for black mothers.

Today no state in the Union has an Anglo illegitimacy ratio as low as 10 percent. Even in predominantly Mormon Utah, every eighth non-Hispanic white infant is born out of wedlock.
What about family instability and fatherlessness? As of 2001, according to a U.S. Census Bureau study released earlier this month, every fifth white child under 18 was living in a single-parent home. Roughly a third of America's white children, furthermore, were living in a home without both biological parents--and 2 percent to 3 percent of white children lived with neither biological parent. Here again, white American trends have reached Moynihan report levels.

The "tangle of pathology" described in the Moynihan report is also increasingly apparent in white America. Welfare dependence, for example, is far more prevalent among white families than is commonly appreciated. Notwithstanding the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, as of 2002, roughly 29 percent of white children and nearly 24 percent of Anglo children lived in families accepting at least one form of means-tested public assistance. In other words, welfare program participation rates among white children today are close to twice as high as they were among black children at the time of the Moynihan report.

And despite a decade of dropping crime statistics, criminality is leaving a growing mark on white youth. As of 2004, 1.6 percent of all Anglo men in their 20s and 30s were behind bars--roughly twice the rate as recently as 1980.

Prescient as it was, in retrospect we can see that the Moynihan report was off the mark in one key respect. It suggested that family breakdown was a distinctive problem for African-Americans due to their unique and painful legacy of slavery and racial discrimination. The scars of American racism, however, can hardly explain the disintegration of white families in America over the past four decades--much less the growing instability of families in affluent democracies on other continents.

At this writing, for example, the illegitimacy ratio has topped 40 percent in both France and Britain, and more than 20 percent of Germany's families with children are headed by single parents. And across the Pacific, "Asian values" no longer confer blanket inoculation against family decay: In 2003, South Korea recorded 56 divorces for every 100 marriages.

Clearly, the crisis of the family is not just a "black thing." In practically all of today's rich, free societies, the family is in trouble. But what accounts for this novel worldwide social illness?

Perhaps we need a new Moynihan report to train an unflinching gaze on this profound and disturbing question.

______________________________________________________
Nicholas Eberstadt is the Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute.
______________________________________________________

Related Links:

Demographics

The Moynihan Report

Study: Moms at risk for mental problems

2006-12-05T16:54:00.000-06:00

(CHICAGO) -- New moms face increased risks for a variety of mental problems, not just postpartum depression, according to one of the largest studies of psychiatric illness after childbirth.

New dads aren't as vulnerable, probably because they don't experience the same physical and social changes associated with having a baby, the researchers and other experts said.

The study, based on medical records of 2.3 million people over a 30-year period in Denmark, found that the first three months after women have their first baby is riskiest, especially the first few weeks. That's when the tremendous responsibility of caring for a newborn hits home.

During the first 10 to 19 days, new mothers were seven times more likely to be hospitalized with some form of mental illness than women with older infants. Compared to women with no children, new mothers were four times more likely to be hospitalized with mental problems.

New mothers also were more likely than other women to get outpatient psychiatric treatment.

However, new fathers did not have a higher risk of mental problems when compared with fathers of older infants and men without children.

The prevalence of mental disorders was about 1 per 1,000 births for women and just .37 per 1,000 births for men.

Mental problems included postpartum depression, but also bipolar disorder, with altering periods of depression and mania; schizophrenia and similar disorders; and adjustment disorders, which can include debilitating anxiety.

The study underscores a need for psychiatric screening of all new mothers and treatment for those affected, according to an editorial accompanying the study in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.

"Mental health is crucial to a mother's capacity to function optimally, enjoy relationships, prepare for the infant's birth, and cope with the stresses and appreciate the joys of parenthood," the editorial says.

Two of the editorial's three authors reported financial ties to the psychiatric drug industry. The study researchers said they had no financial ties to the industry.

They examined national data on Danish residents from around 1973 to July 2005. About 1.1 million participants became parents during the study.

A total of 1,171 mothers and 658 fathers — none diagnosed with any previous mental problems — were hospitalized with a mental disorder after childbirth.

Lead author Trine Munk-Olsen, a researcher at Denmark's University of Aarhus, said similar risks for psychiatric problems likely would affect new parents in other developed nations including the United States. However, differences in screening practices and access to health care might influence whether parents elsewhere are hospitalized, she said.

Physical changes after childbirth might partly explain why women are vulnerable, including fluctuating hormone levels, Munk-Olsen said. These, alone or combined with sleep deprivation and the demands of breast-feeding could trigger mental problems, she said.

Hard data on the number of women worldwide affected by postpartum mental illness are scant, but postpartum depression alone affects about 15 percent of U.S. women.

The condition made headlines last year when actress Brooke Shields acknowledged taking antidepressants after her first child was born — and Tom Cruise publicly criticized her for it.

It also has been cited as a factor in shocking cases of mothers killing their children, including Andrea Yates' drowning of her five children in Texas in 2001.

Dr. Nada Stotland, a psychiatry professor at Rush Medical College in Chicago, said gender differences in postpartum mental illness are not surprising.

Mothers generally bear the brunt of sleep deprivation, and many new mothers are socially isolated or live far from relatives who could provide support, Stotland said.

She said the study likely will provoke mixed reactions.

"There may be people who say, 'My mother raised eight children and she never needed to have mental health care,' and others will say, 'Finally somebody has noticed just how stressful this is and what people go through,'" Stotland said.

___

On the Net:

JAMA: http://jama.ama-assn.org

HHS: http://www.womenshea;th.gov/faq/postpartum.htm

Postpartum Support International: http://www.postpartum.net

Parents Not Vigilant about Video Games, Report Card Says

2006-12-01T21:41:00.000-06:00

Do you have rules about what video games enter your home?

The annual MediaWise Video Game Report found that two-thirds of parents say they are strict when it comes to keeping sexual and violent gaming away from the family. But the kids tell a different story.

The report has good news overall for parents. It found that great strides have been made by the gaming industry and retailers to ensure kids don’t get inappropriate content.

“Now we’ve got the major retailers -- the Best Buys, the Wal-Marts, the Targets -- (who have) perfect performance in terms of our secret shoppers were not able to buy any of the violent adult games in any of those stores,” said David Walsh, president of the National Institute on Media and the Family, the group that published the annual report card.

When it came to parents and whether they monitor the ratings of the games their children are playing, however, the news is less optimistic. Walsh said there is a huge disparity between what kids report and what parents say.

"When we surveyed the parents and the kids, we got very different answers from each group, and when we asked the parents, for example, ‘Do you follow the ratings?’ 70 percent said, ‘Yes, we always follow the ratings.’ When we asked their kids, that percentage dropped to about 30 percent."

As a result, Walsh said moms and dads were awarded an "incomplete" on the report card for neglecting to utilize parental control.

"Either the parents don’t know all of the games the kids are buying, or the parents are giving the answer that they know they should give, but really aren’t always following through,” he added.

Bob Hoose, associate editor of Focus on the Family's Plugged In magazine, says parents really should play the games with their kids to check out what’s involved.

"On some of these, it doesn’t take long before you get into some of the real nitty-gritty, the heavy-duty elements of the game,” he said.

Some of those elements, he added, include violence and sexual content.

Tag-team Parenting Grows

2006-11-29T21:58:00.000-06:00

In nearly 2 out of 3 American families, both parents work but can't afford daycare. Others don't want outside help to raise the children. Now millions of parents are what sociologists call "Tag team" parents. While one parent works, the other is home with the children and vice versa.

A new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research says an increasing number of married couples have become "Tag-team" parents, working different shifts to take turn watching the kids to help ends meet.

According to a recent study, about 12 percent of Americans live below the poverty line, so a lot of struggling parents are tag-teaming. That means Dad works days, then watches the kids while Mom punches the clock on the graveyard shift, or vice-a-versa.

But experts warn while it saves money, there's concern about the lack of sleep and little quality time between parents. Studies show tag team parents are at higher risk for divorce.

According to Economist Heather Boushey, the number of Tag-teaming parents is on the rise. Their expenses have gone up faster than their paychecks, and they can't afford daycare.

Some economists say parents tag-team because they want to watch their kids themselves--not because they can't afford daycare. But Boushey says if that were true, high-income couples would also be playing tag, and they're not.

__________________________________________________________________

Related links:

CEPR Study on Tag-team Parenting:
http://www.cepr.net/documents/work_schedules_2006_08.pdf

Tag-Team Parents Avoid Pricey Child Care
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2619581&page=1

Dads & Daughters: Tag-Team Parenting
http://www.dadsanddaughters.org/for-expectant-and-new-fathers/tag-team-parenting.aspx

TagTeamParenting - A site for parents of special needs kids
http://www.tagteamparenting.com/

Keeping Connected as a Couple in the Era ofTag-Team Parenting and the Weekend Marriage
http://www.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=9431

"Dred Scott in a Petri Dish?"

2006-11-26T17:40:00.000-06:00

A wrongful death lawsuit concerning the destruction of a couple's stored embryos has reached the Illinois Appellate Court and advocacy groups on both sides are chiming in.

Tom Brechja, an attorney representing a coalition of Illinois prolife groups filed a legal brief in support of the plaintiffs, says the upcoming case is so significant, it is "the modern equivalent of Dred Scott in a petri dish."

Cook County's Judge Lawrence stated in the 2005 decision being appealed that "a pre-embryo is a 'human being' . . . whether or not it is implanted in its mother's womb" and that the parents of the destroyed embryos have the same right to seek compensation as any other parents whose child has been killed.

The court could determine whether an unimplanted embyro is "less human" than an implanted one. That would logically lead one to ask whether an embryo is "less human" than a toddler, a toddler "less human" than a teenager, a teenager "less human" than an adult?

While the Dred Scott case said the color of one's skin does not determine his or her "human-ness," will we as a society accept the premise that the stage of human development determines humanity, and therefore, society's protection?

If not, will someday a person's mental ability be a factor in determining his or her human-ness?

Link: Pro-Life Groups Support Illinois Parents' Wrongful Embryo Death Lawsuit.

Fathers no longer cost-effective?

2006-11-21T19:15:00.001-06:00

By Carey Roberts
November 20, 2006

I'm not one who is prone to get misty-eyed, but Tim Russert's latest book did it.

Two years ago Russert penned a moving tribute to his own father, Big Russ and Me, which quickly became a New York Times best-seller. Russert was inundated with so many poignant letters that he decided to compile them into a sequel, Wisdom of Our Fathers. Now that book has become a run-away top-seller, as well.

There's a message here: persons have an enormous sense of gratitude for the many things – big and small – that dad did for them. I know, that's exactly how I feel about my father.

But there is a small yet influential group in our society that views fatherhood as an anachronism and a stubborn obstacle to their utopian vision of the social welfare state. And they see divorce and award of child custody to mothers as a highly-effective ploy to achieve their goal.

When one million children experience divorce each year, and when custody is awarded to mothers in 85% of cases, you can see the scope of the problem. If you want to scale down male influence in a society, what better way than to bar fathers from seeing their own sons and daughters?

So this past spring, Mitch Sanderson of Grand Forks, North Dakota set out to make things better for kids. He canvassed voters throughout the state, collecting signatures for a measure on the November ballot to promote shared parenting. The petition stated that in the event of divorce, "each parent would be entitled to joint legal and physical custody unless first declared unfit."

One of Sanderson's most vocal supporters was grandmother Myrna Meidinger, who explained, "If you don't have shared parenting like I went through, it's hard to see your grandkids." Before long over 17,000 signatures were gathered, proving that the shared parenting idea enjoyed support throughout the state.

But what happened next is comprehensible only if you remember the old saying, "Follow the money." Under federal regulations, states stand to gain millions in federal incentives and reimbursements by increasing their child support rolls. If kids spend equal time with dad and mom, child support payments are reduced accordingly.

So in July, Thomas Sullivan of the federal Administration for Children and Families (the gargantuan federal agency that runs our child support apparatus) sent a letter to state senator Tom Fisher. Since the measure would reduce federal largesse by $70 million, citizens should vote against the pro-child ballot initiative, Sullivan argued.

Since when are green-visor bureaucrats allowed to lobby state legislators?

As columnist Stephen Baskerville lamented, "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."

Then North Dakota Human Services director Carol Olson weighed in with the same Chicken-Little message, raising the specter of federal cutbacks. How could anyone so brazenly ignore the well-being of children?

This catapulted Mitch Sanderson's sleeper initiative into the most-debated topic throughout the state. Soon former governor Ed Schaeffer announced his support for the shared parenting measure.

Schaeffer also chastised the lawyer-dominated state legislature for dragging its feet on the issue. Remember, when divorcing couples litigate high-priced child custody disputes, it's the lawyers who make out like bandits.

Proving Mr. Schaeffer's point to be true, the North Dakota bar association soon jumped into the fray. The attorneys hastily assembled a front organization known as the North Dakota Concerned Citizens for Children's Rights. Soon the group was resorting to scare tactics such as the claim that shared parenting would "dismantle the current child support system."

Huh?

Two years ago a similar ballot measure was presented to the voters of Massachusetts, where 85% of the electorate approved the idea.

But this time, the lawyers, social workers, and others who profit from family break-up succeeded in sowing enough confusion to tip the balance. Earlier this month, the shared parenting measure was defeated by a 56% to 44% margin, thus dashing the hopes of Mitch Sanderson, Myrna Meidinger, and the many kids who, like the persons who wrote loving tributes in Tim Russert's book, long to see their daddies.

Brock Chisolm, former head of the World Health Organization, once admitted, "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas." Men are often the staunchest defenders of those democratic ideals, so it only makes sense to marginalize males by any means possible.

Usually the Lefties work their mischief behind closed doors. But this time around, the rats came scurrying out of the woodwork.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carey Roberts is a Staff Writer for The New Media Alliance. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

illinois il divorce attorney chicago cook dupage will kane mchenry waukegan lawyer family law marriage annulment separation uncontested mediation child custody support fees costs discovery case trial non marital non-marital visitation abduction removal Illinois IL Chicago Cook DuPage Will Kane McHenry Waukegan Chicago gangs

Gay Penguin Book Shakes Up Illinois School

2006-11-17T17:37:00.000-06:00

The illustrated children's book based on a true story of two male penguins in New York City's Central Park Zoo who adopted a fertilized egg and raised the chick as their own is getting a chilly reception among some parents in Shiloh, Ill., who worry about the book's availability to elementary students and the reluctance of administrators to restrict access to it.

A picture book about two male penguins raising a baby penguin is getting a chilly reception among some parents who worry about the book's availability to children _ and the reluctance of school administrators to restrict access to it.

The concerns are the latest involving "And Tango Makes Three," the illustrated children's book based on a true story of two male penguins in New York City's Central Park Zoo that adopted a fertilized egg and raised the chick as their own.

Complaining about the book's homosexual undertones, some parents of Shiloh Elementary School students believe the book _ available to be checked out of the school's library in this 11,000-resident town 20 miles east of St. Louis _ tackles topics their children aren't ready to handle.

Their request: Move the book to the library's regular shelves and restrict it to a section for mature issues, perhaps even requiring parental permission before a child can check it out.
For now, "And Tango Makes Three" will stay put, said school district Superintendent Jennifer Filyaw, though a panel she appointed suggested the book be moved and require parental permission to be checked out. The district's attorney said moving it might be construed as censorship.

Filyaw considers the book "adorable" and age appropriate, written for children ages 4 to 8.
"My feeling is that a library is to serve an entire population," she said. "It means you represent different families in a society _ different religions, different beliefs."

Lilly Del Pinto thought the book looked charming when her 5-year-old daughter brought it home in September. Del Pinto said she was halfway through reading it to her daughter "when the zookeeper said the two penguins must be in love."

"That's when I ended the story," she said.

Del Pinto said her daughter's teacher told her she was unfamiliar with the book, and the school's librarian directed the mother to Filyaw.

"I wasn't armed with pitchforks or anything. I innocently was seeking answers," Del Pinto said, agreeing with Filyaw's belief that pulling the book from the shelves could constitute censorship.
The book has created similar flaps elsewhere. Earlier this year, two parents voiced concerns about the book with librarians at the Rolling Hills' Consolidated Library's branch in the northwest Missouri town of Savannah.

Barbara Read, Rolling Hills' director, has said she consulted with staff members at the Omaha, Neb., and Kansas City zoos and the University of Oklahoma's zoology department, who told her adoptions aren't unusual in the world of penguins.

She said the book was then moved to the nonfiction section because it was based on actual events. In that section, she said, there was less of a chance that the book would "blindside" someone.

Traditional Books Provide More Positive Parent-Child Interaction

2006-11-09T16:57:00.000-06:00

Parents and pre-school children have a more positive interaction when sharing a reading experience with a traditional book as opposed to an electronic book or e-book, according researchers at Temple University’s Infant Laboratory and Erikson Institute in Chicago. This shared positive experience from traditional books characteristically promotes early literacy skills.

The researchers presented the findings of their study, "Electronic books: Boon or Bust for Interactive Reading?" on Nov. 3 as part of the Boston University Conference on Language Development.

The first-of-its-kind study was conducted by Julia Parish-Morris, a graduate student in developmental psychology at Temple University, and Molly F. Collins, assistant professor at Erikson Institute. Parish-Morris and Collins collaborated with Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, the Lefkowitz Professor of Psychology and director of the Temple Infant Lab.

“It is very obvious from the media, and from toy stores and bookstores, that electronic learning products are becoming very, very popular," said Parish-Morris. "Parents are really buying into the idea that electronic media is essential to their children's development."

Parish-Morris recruited 19 children ages 3-5, along with their parents, at Philadelphia's Please Touch Museum; Collins recruited 14 at the Chicago Children's Museum.

Parish-Morris said the researchers were looking at four different questions: Do children prefer electronic or traditional books in the context of parent-child interaction; does the content of parental utterances differ between the types of books; is the context of what parents are saying content- or behavior-oriented; and do parents’ comments go beyond the book's story?

In a quiet room, the parents and children sat in front of a table displaying 10 books (five electronic and five traditional) matched on length and similarity of characters/plot structure.
They were instructed to do whatever they would normally do with books.

"Roughly one-third of the children chose e-books over traditional books, which surprised us a little bit," said Parish-Morris. "But part of that might stem from the fact that, in general, parents and children don't tend to read electronic books together."

She said that the raw number of total utterances made by parents was roughly equal between the two types of books, but that the researchers saw a significant difference in the proportion of content- and behavior-oriented comments.

"I was struck by the stark difference between the content-related utterances in reading traditional versus e-books; I didn't realize there would be a two-fold difference," said Collins. "I think this happens because we're more comfortable with traditional books and so we play a more active role in the reading process; but with e-books, we let the books lead."

"It turned out that reading electronic books became a behaviorally oriented, slightly coercive parent-child interaction as opposed to talking about the story, relating it to the their child's life, or even talking about the book's pictures or text," Parish-Morris said. "Parents were under the impression that when you are sitting down with a book, you are supposed to read it," she added.

"But what was happening with the e-books is that reading was not even part of the process, probably because these books literally read the story to the child. So parents are not needed. The book makes commands and tells the child what to do; it encourages them to play games and reads to the child, so parents are essentially replaced by this battery-operated machine."

In contrast, Parish-Morris noted that parents who read traditional books made more comments that related pictures or themes in the book to their children’s real lives in a way that might spur the children’s imagination, or their short- or long-term memory.

This is significant because children are more successful in school when they spend their pre-school years reading with their parents. "The parent-child interaction around books and shared book reading is incredibly important to emergent literacy skills," she said. "In the later school years, kids enjoy school more, they enjoy learning more, and there are a whole host of outcomes that are related to this shared reading experience in the pre-school years.

"So parents who are talking about the content with their child while reading traditional books are encouraging early literacy, whereas parents and children reading electronic books together are having a severely truncated experience."

"This research does suggest that parents should be aware of some of the limitations of e-book reading," added Collins. "We shouldn't use e-books to replace traditional books, and we shouldn't expect them to do something that they don't. They're not substitutes for a human being."

The researchers are using this study, which received some material support from Fisher-Price, as the basis for a larger study at the Temple University Infant Lab. The follow-up study features an expanded sample of children in a randomized design. Preliminary data confirm the findings of the current study.

ACFC Interview with Dr. Warren Farrell on the Importance of Dual Parent Involvement After Divorce

2006-11-04T17:42:00.000-06:00

ACFC Executive Director Michael McCormick interviews author Dr. Warren Farrell on the importance of dual parent involvement through Shared Parenting during and after divorce.

Click here to view.

WGN Radio Interview with Dr. Stephen Baskerville on Government's Role in Divorce

2006-10-29T01:46:00.000-06:00

(CHICAGO) -- Shared Parenting advocate Dr. Stephen Baskerville appeared recently on WGN Radio with Milt Rosenberg on how our Domestic Relations court system is working against the maintenance of the core family structure, the similiarities it presents to Eastern Bloc systems, and how it can be changed.

The interview is archived on the WGN Radio Web site, located here.
(Requires RealAudio player.)

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Shared Parenting, But Were Too Afraid to Ask

2006-10-27T23:54:00.002-05:00

Q: What Is Shared Parenting?
A: Shared Parenting refers to a family-oriented environment that promotes dual parent involvement during and after contested divorce and child custody determinations where the care of children is equal or more substantially shared between the natural parents.

Such arrangements encourage children to know both parents are involved and share responsibility in their upbringing, while promoting teamwork, flexibility, and accountability between parents. This is generally considered to be the most desirable plan for the nurture and development of children when parents live separately, absent a finding of abuse or neglect.

Shared Parenting is becoming more common when parents want to avoid situations where judges and family law practitioners become involved, due in part to the adversarial nature of the courts and the prolonged conflicts which are often caused by divorce attorneys.

Q: Why do we need a greater emphasis on parental involvement through Shared Parenting?
A: With a divorce rate at or close to 50% for first marriages, a divorce rate of 60% for second marriages, and close to 40% of America's children being raised in single parent environments, recent studies indicate that the absence of one or more parents can have a serious psychological impact on children.

Children without involved parents exhibit greater tendencies toward violent behavior, low academic performance, truancy, drug use, teen pregnancy, and other issues which impact communities.

Q: How does Shared Parenting impact the legal system?
A: Divorce in Illinois is big business. Because close to half of all civil litigation involves contentious divorce and child custody-related issues, most would be hard-pressed to find divorce practioners or Bar Associations who would favor such reforms.

Shared Parenting would be beneficial to the community at-large by reducing court dockets, discouraging Jerry Springer-like scenes of "he said-she said" that provoke re-litigation at the cost of taxpayers.

If parents see that there's no advantage to proceeding adversarily in court, they will be more likely to resolve conflicts on their own--and to the betterment of their children and the community.

Q: Who opposes Shared Parenting?
A: Divorce lawyers and feminists.

Q: What benefit does Shared Parenting have for children?
A: The benefits of Shared Parenting for children include a lack of pressure in being forced to choose between their biological parents, and will feel less abandoned, less resentful or victimized when one parent is removed from their lives.

Recent studies have shown that significant parent involvement during and after divorce helps children create a sense of identity and self-esteem that they would be otherwise challenged to acquire under typical divorce scenarios when they are marginalized from one of their parents.Studies reveal that it is essential for children to be raised and nurtured by both biological parents regardless of family stresses so they are better equipped to confront challenges and less likely to develop psychological issues that can thwart their development.

Q: What benefit does Shared Parenting have for single parents?
A: As many are aware, parenting is the toughest job that anyone could elect to undertake. Dual parent involvement through Shared Parenting reduces stresses associated with single parenting, allowing primary caretakers to become more viable on a number of fronts.

Shared Parenting empowers the single parent from being the sole caregiver--thereby enhancing social, academic, and economic opportunities that they might be challenged to obtain otherwise--in some cases feeling less trapped to their ex-spouse due to an over-dependence on things like child support or costly child care.

Q: What happens if parents can't get along or refuse to agree on significant parenting issues during divorce or child custody proceedings?
A: As many judges and lawyers are aware, custody determinations are often made in the shadow of existing law and court practices. The purpose of Shared Parenting is to cast a different shadow which signals to parents that there is no advantage for them to proceed adversarially into a drawn-out custody battle.

While 98% of all divorce and child custody cases resolve themselves amicably, there are a small number of cases which become contested. It is for this reason that we feel it is essential to create a default presumption of 50/50 time sharing in order to lessen the impact on children and maximize parental involvement during this difficult time.

Mandating such in the absence of agreement--even in highly stressful or conflicted cases, absent a finding of substantial harm--gives both parties an incentive to come to the table to negotiate.

Q: Do you support Shared Parenting for all families?
A: No. Shared Parenting works best when both parents are fit and willing to care for their children, and live within close proximity to one another, usually within the same school district. While most parents are fit and able to share the custodial designation, most would agree that unfit or abusive parents should not be allowed to play such a role until a court deems otherwise.

Q: Is Shared Parenting designed purely as a benefit for non-custodial parents?
A: No. Shared Parenting is most desirable for the emotional and psychological adjustment and well-being of children. According to timely research performed by Dr. Sanford Braver, Dr. Warren Farrell and others, a scenario that most closely simulates the full involvement of the biological mother and biological father with an equal balance in time is best for children.

Mandating a default 50/50 time sharing arrangement for contested cases works as a tool to bring both parties to the table to negotiate, ultimately to resolve conflict and strengthen parent-child bonds. Cases where a 50/50 time split would not be feasible are when one parent lives more than 20 minutes away, or if there has been a finding of demonstrable harm or unfitness. Recent books on this subject include "Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths" by Dr. Sanford Braver, and "Father and Child Reunion" by Dr. Warren Farrell.

A recent interview with Dr. Farrell supporting such involvement can be reviewed by clicking here.

Q: Does Shared Parenting mean that children will be "shuttled" back and forth between Mom and Dad's house on an alternating daily schedule?
A: Not exactly. The purpose of Shared Parenting is to restore parenting time and responsibility and on a more equitable basis, maintaining continuity for the children while ensuring maximum parental involvement and supervision. Parents will be more empowered and decide issues as the process of constructing their post-divorce parenting plan. Even highly conflicted parents recognize the complications of moving children back and forth, unless the child has reached emotional maturity and desires such an arrangement to enjoy a more substantial relationship with both parents.

Children often enjoy the time they spend with their parents during events that many adults would otherwise consider boring or mundane. This includes trips to park, a long walk through the neighborhood, a bike ride together, visits to the library or bookstore, or shopping together.
The most significant factor is the children's ability to know both sides of who they are as children, so they may grow-up with a strong sense of identity, confidence, and purpose in life.

In many cases, Shared Parenting would result in a parenting schedule that is closer to 60/40, 70/30, or 80/20 split, depending on where the parents reside, and seeks to promote flexibility, communication, cooperation, and accountability. As long as parents remain in close proximity, within 15-20 minutes of each other, children should be able to conduct their lives while allowing them the continuity of relationships with both biological parents, while not sacrificing extra-curricular or friend-related activities if parents live nearby.

From a more definitive legal standpoint, children should enjoy significant parenting time with both parents absent a finding of substantial harm. To the extent that such an arrangement would create a significant physical or psychological harm to children, Shared Parenting would not be in the best interests of children.

Q: Why do we need Shared Parenting arrangements when we have step-parents and child care to do the job of non-custodial parents?
A: Society places equal value on each parent's contributions to the well-being of their child and supports the premise that substantial involvement of both parents is essential.

Recent studies indicate the greatest harm to children comes when they are marginalized from one of their biological parents, usually the father. This includes child abuse and child sex abuse that is most often perpetrated by single parents with sole custody, and step-fathers. These studies also indicate that children who spend a majority of their day in daycare exhibit stronger tendencies toward violent or aggressive behavior.

Q: How does Shared Parenting impact child support arrangements?
A: As many parents are aware, there is more than one way to support a child. Illinois has struggled with improving child support compliance for more than 20 years, and has yet to address the issue of providing more parenting time, with less incentive for conflict.

Studies indicate that parents who spend substantial amounts of time with children are more willing to make greater support contributions, including support for college tuition. Conversely, when parents spend substantially less time with their children on an every other weekend basis as commonly dictated by our courts, their sense of ownership and participation may fall. Not surprisingly, this type of scenario also impacts identity and disenfranchisement as well as child support contributions for those who were at one time loving, involved parents.

Shared Parenting may also help minimize drawn-out battles that are derived from "who pays support" by providing a scenario that can distribute childrearing and financial responsibilities between the parents on a more equitable basis, creating greater accountability for both sides.

As demonstrated by the State of Arizona, adoption of a more equitable child support arrangement in conjunction with Shared Parenting does not have a negative impact on the state's ability to collect federal financial incentive and reimbursement payments.

Q: What about Family Violence?
A: Studies by the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and others indicate the safest environment for children is an intact, two-parent home. These reports tell us that the risk of abuse for children increases substantially when one parent is removed from their lives.

Shared parenting helps minimize the scenario for such abuse by keeping both parents actively engaged with their children absent a finding of substantial harm.

Q: How does Shared Parenting impact move-away situations?
A: Recent studies by Arizona State University researcher Dr. Sanford Braver have shown that children suffer from a variety of social, psychological, and emotional issues when they are moved more than 45 minutes away from their biological father. It is for this reason that we do not recommend removal of children, especially during or after contested custody disputes.

A copy of the final report can be downloaded here.

Washington State Lawmaker Says Shared Parenting Works Best for Children

2006-10-27T23:28:00.000-05:00

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.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Can Read, But Don’t: Why Teens Resist Reading

2006-10-24T15:17:00.000-05:00

Too many teens abandon reading at a time when it really matters to their ongoing skill development. Schools need to focus on more choices and better connections between in-school reading and out-of-school literacies to end marginalization.

(CHICAGO) — Contrary to the commonly held belief that poorly developed skills are the reason adolescents abandon reading, Kimberly Lenters notes in “Resistance, struggle, and the adolescent reader” (The Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Vol. 50, No. 2) there is more to the story. Lenters draws from student voices and reading research to conclude that reading resistance arises from interest, identity, and agency.

Adolescents require “interesting stuff” and authentic purposes for reading and textbooks don’t seem to be working. Teens describe themselves as scanning class-assigned reading only to find answers to questions. Even avid readers suggest that textbook reading has the tendency to diminish reading pleasure.

Instead, students value reading done outside school more highly than class-connected reading. “Schools directly contribute to this phenomenon by devaluing adolescents’ out-of-school reading and by not stocking the kinds of texts students want to read,” Lenters observes. She notes this becomes particularly problematic because it limits student options to reading outside their interests, getting interesting material on their own, or not reading at all.

Out-of-school reading reflects pragmatic interests, including text supporting personal identity construction. In contrast, “the secondary school reading curriculum is saturated with literature written by adults for adults, and leaves little space for adolescents’ interests that are often connected to the psychological work of becoming an adult,” according to some reading researchers.

Unfortunately for teens, middle and high school mark a period when reading choices are highly controlled, learning becomes highly individualized, and favored literacy practices, like teacher read-alouds, fall out of practice. “Just as students are entering a time of life when increased autonomy is their desire, they simultaneously enter an instructional space where they have little or no choice in their school-based reading. The burgeoning of resistance to in-school reading may not be coincidental,” Lenters suggests.

Lenters urges schools to provide more choice and bridge out-of-school literacy interests with in-school requirements to improve reading development for both resistant and struggling readers. She clarifies that she is not asking schools to abandon the literary canon, but rather to expand the vision for literacy. Pointing out that teens are frequently unable to connect their marginalized literacies with school-based reading, Lenters hears “a summons we cannot fail to heed when examining the issue of adolescent resistance to reading. Resistance to in-school reading is dangerous for adolescents because it may create literacy difficulties at a time in their lives when they need to be continuing to develop their reading skills.”

Report Says Depression Symptoms Less Likely in Kids with Accurate Self-Perceptions

2006-10-24T15:10:00.000-05:00

Children who can accurately assess how their classmates feel about them — even if those feelings are negative — are less likely to show symptoms of depression, according to Florida State University researchers.

Psychology Professor Janet Kistner found that children in third through fifth grades who had the wrong idea about their level of social acceptance were more likely to develop symptoms of depression over time.

The study, “Bias and Accuracy of Children’s Perceptions of Peer Acceptance: Prospective Associations with Depressive Symptoms,” was published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. Graduate students Corinne David-Ferdon and Karla Repper and psychology Professor Thomas Joiner were co-authors.

“There’s a long-running debate in the field of psychology about whether realistic perceptions are a hallmark of positive adjustment or they are associated with risk for depression,” Kistner said. “Our results support the perspective that realistic perceptions are a hallmark of mental health.”

The findings are significant because they show that accuracy is the key — not whether children thought that other kids liked them or not. That’s important because some psychologists have theorized that people who have a positive bias — meaning they think others like them more than they actually do — are protected against developing symptoms of depression, while those who have a negative bias are prone to maladjustment and depression. The researchers found neither to be true.

Instead, they found that those who had symptoms of depression at the start of the study over time became less accurate and more negatively biased about how well they were liked, indicating that negative bias is more of a consequence than a cause of depressive symptoms. The researchers are the first to look at both bias and accuracy, and the findings underscore the importance of studying both facets of perceptual errors, Kistner said.

“Little attention has been given to the role that inaccurate self-perceptions may play in children’s risk for depression,” she said. “Our results suggest a possible self-perpetuating cycle in which inaccurate perceptions lead to elevated depressive symptoms and depressive symptoms lead to decreased accuracy of perceived peer acceptance.”

The findings are consistent with psychological theories that attempt to explain social competence and general adjustment, according to Kistner. Self-verification theory suggests that people are motivated to maintain their self-perceptions, even if they are negative. Even positive feedback can cause distress if it threatens their view of themselves. Social competence theories center on the idea that children who accurately perceive how others feel about them are better able to modulate their behaviors in ways that maximize acceptance. Greater social acceptance, in turn, is expected to be associated with fewer symptoms of depression.

In Kistner’s study, 667 children were given class rosters at the beginning of the school year and asked how much they liked their classmates on a scale of one to five and to predict the acceptance ratings they would receive from each of their classmates. Their predicted ratings were compared to the actual ratings they received to measure perceptual accuracy. The children also were asked to complete a questionnaire about whether they had experienced symptoms of depression, including feeling sad, trouble concentrating and sleeping problems. The experiment was repeated six months later.

The average age of the children at the start of the study was 9.4 years old. Prior to about age 8, children’s self-perceptions tend to be glowingly positive and unrealistic, according to Kistner. As children’s cognitive abilities develop and they begin to rely on social comparisons to evaluate themselves, their exuberance gives way to more realistic — and sometimes negative — self-perceptions.

“This is an important age group to study because there is growing evidence of increased prevalence of depression in adolescence as well as a decrease in the age of first onset of depression,” Kistner said. “We need to identify children in the late elementary school grades who are at risk for depression and to increase our understanding of the factors that contribute to the development of depression.”

Robertson Unhappy With Responsibilities of Parenting?

2006-10-21T00:49:00.000-05:00

Will County Circuit Court Judge Ludwig Kuhar ruled this week that Tyna Robertson must share driving duties with Chicago Bears Linebacker Brian Urlacher--when their son is due to spend time with his father at his Lake Forest home.

"It's horrible," Robertson said after the ruling. "It's a slap in the face. We're definitely going to [appeal] it."

Which parent would drive the toddler to visit back and forth between households once a week, and every other weekend during the off-season was the final issue to be resolved in the paternity suit filed by Urlacher in June 2005.

Under the joint-parenting agreement, Urlacher will pay about 2% of his multi-million dollar salary to support their son, according to Robertson. Urlacher signed a nine-year, $56 million deal in 2003, but $16 million of that already has been paid as a signing bonus.

Robertson testified Wednesday that she cares for her son six days a week while trying to work as a real-estate broker from her home. Having to drive him to a tollway oasis halfway between her home and Urlacher's makes it hard for her to schedule work appointments or find time for herself, she said. She also said she could be cited for contempt if she fails to drive the boy to meet Urlacher, while Urlacher can cancel visitation with no repercussions.

"Why should I be in jeopardy to be of convenience to Brian because he plays football?" she asked.

Urlacher testified: "We're both parents of our son," saying that it was 62 miles between his home and Robertson's. "We should both share responsibility."

In the end, Kuhar ruled that it was in his best interest for the parents to share driving duties. For holidays, Urlacher will have to pick up the boy at Robertson's home, Kuhar ruled.

"If you're inconvenienced, I'm sorry," Kuhar told them. "That's part of being a parent."

While Schiller made arguments in the case, Robertson at times snickered. As Urlacher, who kept a business-like demeanor through the proceedings, departed, Robertson asked him if he wanted to visit with his son Wednesday. She received no response.

Robertson, who said Urlacher could visit his son "anytime," alleged after the hearing that Urlacher has cancelled 55 visitations since he filed the paternity suit in June.

Robertson took issue with Schiller, who was arguing against Urlacher doing all the driving and said, "We're not asking her to be a slave, like she is characterizing it."

Outside court, Robertson, who is African-American, said, "It's unbelievable that you would be referred to as a slave these days."

Marriage No Longer the Predominant Living Arrangement?

2006-10-16T20:00:00.000-05:00

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.

The big question: what do you think the primary factors are for pushing people away from marriage, but are instead opting for co-habiting?

Vaccinations Linked to "Shaken Baby" Cases

2006-10-14T18:42:00.000-05:00

Recent articles suggest that some infant injuries attributed to violent shaking may instead have resulted from vaccinations. Pediatrician F. Edward Yazbak reviewed the findings September 28th at a conference of the National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center.

Many physicians believe that violently shaking an infant can produce a subdural hematoma (a mass of blood inside the skull) and retinal hemorrhages (tiny points of bleeding in the retinas), resulting in brain damage or death, without leaving any bruising on the skin or any skeletal injury.

This theory, sometimes called "shaken baby syndrome," is controversial. Some physicians and biomechanics experts believe that the shaking force required to produce brain injury without impact on any surface would have to damage the infant's neck_yet no neck injuries were found in many cases said to have resulted from shaking.

The new literature has discovered that many infants with subdural hematomas, retinal hemorrhages, and no other notable injuries had recently received vaccinations.

In many cases, they had recently received combination vaccines_as many as five vaccines delivered in a single inoculation. At the NCADRC conference, Dr. Yazbak presented several case histories.

In an article in the Spring 2006 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, hematologist Michael D. Innis theorized that vaccination could lower the Vitamin C level in the blood, predisposing to bleeding injuries an infant whose Vitamin C level was already below normal.

Experts Say Parents are Key to School Safety

2006-10-11T19:42:00.000-05:00

The White House sponsored a summit on Tuesday involving the Department of Education, U.S. Justice Department, and several private sector groups to discuss how to respond to recent school violence.

Holly Kuzmich, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, said the summit featured 3 panels concerning how to secure the nation's schools.

"The first two panels were about prevention and preparedness," she said, "and making sure that our schools think about putting together emergency crisis plans and talk to folks in their community."

The third panel dealt with recovery and coping with school violence. Kuzmich said the takeaway message was that kids need positive adult role models. "There's no method to the madness; It's just being involved."

One effort taking that admonition to heart is WatchD.O.G.S. (which stands for Dads of Great Students), which is sponsored by the National Center for Fathering.

More than 400 schools in 35 states participate. Peter Spokes, president of WatchD.O.G.S., said one key is getting fathers to visit classrooms, patrol the halls and the grounds.

"They're not charged with discipline or with taking on any challenging situations," he said, "but rather to report them."

Tom Howell is a father who has volunteered. "It amazed me how my kids liked to see me at school, " he said. "The kids are our best recruiters. They'll see a dad at school and they'll go home and say, 'Dad, when are you going to be a watchdog?' "

To learn more about WatchD.O.G.S., click here.

IFI: No Compelling State Interest to Bypass Parental Rights on Teen Abortion Issue

2006-10-11T16:51:00.000-05:00

The Illinois Family Institute put out a press release today, joining the growing number of groups who have expressed criticism for legislation introduced by State Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago) regarding parents’ right to be notified if their minor child seeks to have an abortion.

IFI says HB 5840 is a blatant attempt to stop the Parental Notification Act of 1995 from going into effect.

"There's no compelling state interest to modify the existing law,” said David E. Smith, Executive Director of Illinois Family Institute. “This bill serves the interests of the radical abortion industry in Illinois—not girls or the parents who love them.”

IFI says the so-called "Adolescent Health Care Safety Act" allows a minor girl who is seeking an abortion to circumvent her parent's God-given authority by simply notifying any siblings, step-siblings, grandparent, aunts and uncles who are 18 years old or older. It would also bestow parental authority to clergy members, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and physicians—i.e., adults with whom the girl’s parents have no relationship.

"HB 5840 should be called the Parents' Rights Circumvention Act," said Smith. "This bill gives unwarranted authority to strangers, thus blocking parental involvement in this critically important decision in a girl's life. Politicians have no business intruding on the parent-child relationship."

"Rep. Fritchey’s bill would allow a young girl raised in a traditional Christian home to get counseling from a clergy member of the Kabbalah or the liberal, ‘pro-choice’ United Church of Christ, and this clergy member could then authorize the child to get an abortion without her parents knowledge or consent," Smith said.

In 1995, the Illinois General Assembly approved a bill that requires minor children to notify a parent before receiving an abortion. In the absence of judicial rules for a minor to seek a waiver for the requirements, a federal court enjoined enforcement of the law. Three weeks ago, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a set of rules to support the legislation, allowing it go into effect.

Citing the 2000 case of Troxel vs. Granville, which says that "fit parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children," Smith said, "Bypassing parental authority should be allowed only when a parent has been found to be unfit or there has been an actual finding of abuse."

Domestic Violence Awareness Meets Marriage Protection Week

2006-10-09T20:40:00.000-05:00

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

Assessing the Ethics of LonelyGirl15

2006-10-08T18:10:00.000-05:00

Posing as a teenager making an amateur video while confined to her room by overly-protective parents, Jessica Rose Lee burst out of YouTube's daily flow of consumer-generated fluff to become a cult-like national celebrity known as LonelyGirl15.

The YouTube videos were designed to appear as if a gently rebellious and quite precocious young girl was secretly talking to the entire world through her computer, while just a door away, her strict parents sat smugly in the belief that their daughter had been firmly grounded.

It seemed a dramatic and compelling real-life story that ultimately drew a large viral audience of teenagers. But professionals soon noted that--despite its "filmed-in-my-bedroom" look... LonelyGirl15's video was as slick as it was consistent in its pacing and editing. And the young teen herself was able to create a thematically coherent storyline through each of her appearances.

A few weeks ago, the whole thing was revealed as a scripted hoax. Ms. Rose is actually an actress who has studied at the New York Film Academy and was hired to do the viral videos as part of an advance guerilla promotion for an unnamed movie.

The incident is the latest in which Madison Avenue professionals have invested significant amounts of their time, skills and money to create fictional events that have been presented to the online world as if they were factual.

Some critics say that the practice is helping establish the online media space as a place where readers and viewers can't really trust what they see or hear, no matter how authentic it looks. Others argue that in the new upside-down world of consumer-controlled world of media and advertising, anything goes so long as it works.

Do you think the YouTube LonelyGirl15 stunt was ethical marketing by Madison Avenue or an irresponsible deception?

When Women Do It, It's Not Domestic Violence...

2006-10-06T18:35:00.000-05:00

By Glenn Sacks

When a man destroys or attempts to destroy the property of his wife, girlfriend, or ex, we call it "domestic violence." I have mixed emotions about this--on one hand such acts are abusive, on the other, I don't like to apply the label "violence" to anything but violence.

Regardless, our society takes a very different approach to such acts when a woman commits them. Witness the lighthearted story "When trying to get revenge, details are important" (Chicago Sun-Times, 9/20/06): "Two Aurora residents might have learned that lesson the hard way when one woman apparently tried to get back at her allegedly unfaithful husband this past weekend."

According to the Kane County state's attorney's office, "Tamieka Ayanech, 31, called co-worker Johnnie Logan, 45, to ask for help in punishing Ayanech's husband for supposedly cheating on her. "Ayanech wanted to damage her husband's silver truck, so both women went looking for the vehicle on River Street, according to charging documents.

About 8 p.m. Saturday, Ayanech was seen slashing the tires of a silver truck parked in front of the Aurora police station in the 300 block of North River Street, prosecutors said. Ayanech had stuffed a candy bar into the gas tank, and, with Logan, was attempting to remove the truck's spare tire when an officer approached, prosecutors said.

One problem: the women apparently didn't check the license plate. The truck Ayanech and Logan are charged with vandalizing was the personal vehicle of an Aurora police officer -- not Ayanech's husband. The truck sustained $569 damage, and both women were charged with felony criminal damage to property, prosecutors said.

Notice that no domestic violence-related charges will be made.

I've discussed this double standard on numerous occasions. For example, listen to the His Side radio commentary Road Rage or Domestic Violence?

Lawsuit Alleges HMO Discriminated Against Pregnant Moms

2006-10-05T17:42:00.000-05:00

According to a front page article in today's Chicago Sun-Times, an insurance company and major state contractor that has reaped nearly $250 million of taxpayer money allegedly denied pregnant women health care so it could pocket higher profits.

The article reports that public money flowed to Chicago-based Amerigroup Illinois as the government gave it the job of signing-up anyone in need of insurance who could not afford it--barring them from picking and choosing who it enrolled.

But the report alleges that the insurer cherry-picked "healthies," and systematically avoided women in their 3rd trimester of pregnancy because they cost more to insure. That way, Amerigroup, which the state and federal government paid based on the number of people it enrolled, could make more money, the government said.

"If they enrolled someone who was pregnant or sick, the HMO knew it would have to spend more money to care for them," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Sam Cole. "It's about discrimination. It's about profit. It's about greed."

The allegations come as a whistleblower lawsuit against Amerigroup Illinois and Amerigroup Corporation went to trial in Chicago's federal courthouse Wednesday.

Cleveland Tyson of Buffalo Grove blew the whistle on the company in 2002 after working as its vice president of government relations. The federal and state government then joined his lawsuit seeking unspecified damages.

Company representatives sent e-mails saying it made "bottomline sense" to walk away from women in their third trimester of pregnancy, and even kept "third trimester reports" to track how many women with late-term pregnancies were enrolled and which employees enrolled them. Amerigroup sent out marketing employees to the street, health fairs and community events to enroll people.

Abortion Advocates Plan Bill to Abort Parental Rights

2006-10-04T19:40:00.000-05:00

Just one week after the state Supreme Court issued rules for enforcement of a parental notification measure the state legislature approved in 1995, abortion advocates have said they intend to propose legislation to water it down.

Several pro-abortion legislators said recently they would put forward a bill to replace the notification law with a new one. The current notification law allows teenagers seeking an abortion who come from home situations with abuse present to obtain a 'judicial bypass' allowing them to have the abortion.

State Rep. John Fritchey (D), the sponsor of the bill, says navigating the judicial system is a difficult process for a young girl.

The bill would make more exceptions to the notification law--including medical emergencies, and would allow teenagers to avoid giving notification to a parent or guardian, and give it to a clergy member instead, which some critics now argue may violate the separation of church and state.

It would also allow teens to get counseling from a licensed medical professional who would certify the abortion without telling her parents, creating a potential legal fiasco for those who knowingly circumvent parental authority.

Michael Burns, co-founder of the Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children, a newly formed public advocacy group dedicated to improving conditions for parents was recently quoted as saying "at a time when we need to strengthen parent-child communications, this bill could create problems for teenage girls who think that keeping important matters from their parents is an acceptable norm."

Burns, who is known for taking a very straight-forward approach to supporting parental rights, has been active on child custody issues in Springfield for the past four years, and has recent begun lobbying members of Congress on broader measures to amend federal civil rights statutes to protect parental status in areas of health, welfare, education, employment, and child custody. Supporters say a new bill will be introduced in January.

Burns says the Illinois bill to bypass parental notification degrades parent-child relationships for the benefit of others.

With polls showing public support for parental consent laws exceeding 80%, and with a large majority in the U.S. Senate voting in favor of such laws--it's hard to convince a majority of Americans that most of our parents are abusive and/or have engaged in incestuous relations with their children. The reality is that the very small minority of girls who become pregnant do so by other minors or adult predators, and that most parents want the best for their children. And that includes a trusting relationship.

Unfortunately, it seems the very existence of a few abusive parents is enough for some to favor an abortion of parental rights.

Pit Bull Attack on Girl Renews Dog Insurance Proposal

2006-10-04T19:31:00.000-05:00

As reported by Dan Gibbard in today's edition of the Chicago Tribune, a Waukegan alderman is pushing for a new ordinance requiring dog owners to carry insurance in case of an attack.

Ald. Sam Cunningham says that under his proposal, if a police or animal control officer receives a call about a dog that is off the leash or behaving in a threatening way, the officers could demand to see proof of the owner's homeowners or renters insurance policy would cover liabilities if the dog hurts someone. If the owner could not show proof, the dog could then be seized. The rule would apply to all breeds of dogs, not just pit bulls.

"This is all about responsibility," Cunningham said. "The goal is to spur people" to get insurance.

Cunningham, who said he first proposed the ordinance in the Spring, said it should be quickly passed in light of Sunday's mauling of an 8-year-old girl playing on a slide in Roosevelt Park.

The two dogs, which were running free, attacked the girl when she began to scream and cry, a police spokesman said. A witness said they were playing tug-of-war with the little girl. A bystander rescued the girl and the dogs ran away, Stevenson said.

When police got to the park, they saw the dogs in a ravine and tracked them to the back yard of the owner. The dogs charged the officers, who shot and killed one of them, Stevenson said.

The owner had been investigated for possible neglect of the dogs, and was charged with misdemeanor reckless conduct and several ordinance violations, the police commander said.

The girl received 50 stitches to fix bites on her head and face, and also had wounds on her arm and back. She has been released from the hospital but may need plastic surgery, Stevenson said.

The surviving dog was taken to the Lake County Health Department's Animal Control Center in Mundelein. It likely will be destroyed after a 10-day evaluation period, Stevenson said.

New Case Ruling Says Hearsay Statements by DCFS Are Inadmissable

2006-09-27T21:54:00.002-05:00

DCFS reform advocates made quite a buzz 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.

Local Lawsuit Sparks Debate on Parental Rights and Circumcision

2006-09-25T18:24:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press reported in this past summer that a Chicago-area lawsuit may tear 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.

The child's mother wants him circumcised to prevent recurring, painful inflammation she says he's experienced during the past year. But the father says the boy is healthy, and circumcision, which removes the foreskin of the penis, is an unnecessary medical procedure that could cause him long-term physical and psychological harm.

"The child is absolutely healthy," the father said during a break in a court hearing on the matter Wednesday. "I do not want any doctor to butcher my son."

The couple's 2003 divorce decree gave the father the right to offer input on medical decisions. Earlier this year, he sued to block the surgery and Cook County Judge Jordan Kaplan ordered the mother not to have the boy circumcised until he could hear from both parents and the opinions of doctors who've examined the boy.

AP is not naming the parents to protect the child's privacy. The case reflects a national debate over the medical necessity of circumcision. In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics reversed its support for routine infant circumcision, citing questionable benefits and medical and anecdotal evidence that circumcised men have less penile sensitivity.

David Llewellyn, an Atlanta attorney who specializes in circumcision cases, is helping the father's attorneys without a fee. He called the surgery "a bizarre American custom."

Most U.S. newborn boys are circumcised before they leave the hospital. But a growing number of parents are opting against the surgery. The percentage of male babies circumcised has fallen from an estimated 90 percent in 1970 to about 60 percent today.

Roger Saquet, director of the Non-Circumcision Information Center in Belmont, Mass., said he heard about the case from others who promote leaving boys' foreskins intact.

"I can't imagine an 8-year-old boy to be forced to go to a hospital and have his genitals mutilated," he said.

Tracy Rizzo, the mother's attorney, said religion, not medicine, is the father's concern. The mother lives with her new husband, her son and her husband's son from a previous relationship in Northbrook. The father, an Arlington Heights resident, denies he's concerned about the religion of his ex-wife's husband.

The mother testified that she wanted the boy circumcised when he was a newborn, but her then-husband refused. She quoted him as saying at the time: "There is no way my son is going to be circumcised. He is not a Jew."

But the judge would not allow Alan Toback, an attorney for the father, to ask the new husband, who also testified Wednesday, if he is circumcised.

"We're not going there," the judge said.

Commission to Investigate Local Domestic Relations Courts

2006-09-25T17:32:00.000-05:00

As verified by this writer two weeks ago, the Chicago Crime Commission has just announced their intent to investigate the Domestic Relations courts of Cook, Lake, DuPage, and McHenry for possible abuse and corruption.

While some have been unphased at this news--it comes as a welcomed surprise to many fit parents who have had to deal with these courts for years.

If you or someone you know has been adversely impacted by these local jurisdictions, be sure to write to CCC and inform them of your experience.

Stay tuned for more news as details unfold.

Illinois High Court Establishes Rules for Parental-Notification Law

2006-09-22T15:59:00.000-05:00

As reported by the Chicago Tribune this week, the Illinois Supreme Court established rules that will make it possible to pursue enforcement of a parental notification law that has languished for 10 years.

The Parental Notice of Abortion Act, passed by the Illinois Legislature in 1995, makes it illegal for a girl under 18 to obtain an abortion without notifying a parent at least 48 hours in advance. Soon after it was signed into law, a federal court ruled the act was unenforceable until rules were established allowing judges to waive enforcement in emergency circumstances were established. But the state high court failed to take action setting those rules.

Now, after a decade of inaction, justices on the Illinois Supreme Court—most of whom were not on the court in 1995—have unanimously approved new rules similar to those that have passed legal muster in other states.

Establishing rules does not mean the law automatically goes into effect--but could clear the way for Attorney General Lisa Madigan to move to overturn the federal court order that prohibits enforcement.

"We are reviewing the rules and the law to determine the next step in litigation, " said Cara Smith, spokeswoman for Madigan.

Pro-family groups, including the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), hail the move as a step in the right direction.

Peter LaBarbera, an IFI spokesman, said girls from surrounding states travel to Illinois to avoid parental-involvement laws in their own states, making Illinois "the abortion capital of the Midwest."

Judge Dismisses Protect Marriage Lawsuit

2006-09-22T15:24:00.000-05:00

For those of you who are dialed into the "Gay marriage" debate, we recently learned that the statewide petition that was initiated by Protect Marriage in Illinois was recently defeated before it could appear before voters in the November election.

In addition to pressure applied to keep the referrendum from appearing for a vote, the State Board of Election made an administrative decision to disqualify the referendum (surprise!) due to discrepancies between the signatures provided, and how they compared to those registered to vote in the state.

PMI Director David Smith then filed a legal brief which challenged the constitutionality of the State's referendum law before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago--but was dismissed shortly thereafter.

Judge Elaine Bucklo handed down the decision, which affirmed the lower court decision dismissing the initial complaint--which some claim is setting a low standard for the State in upholding citizens' rights to petition their government.

Smith, a well-known activist who has been advocating for such reforms for several years, is now being represented on appeal by the Alliance Defense Fund.

Although the referendum will not appear on the November ballot, PMI reports that they intend to continue their campaign.

"Preserving marriage as between one man and one woman in Illinois is extremely important to the families of this state. The Protect Marriage Illinois project will continue to work toward the goal of a constitutional amendment," says Smith.

Rumor has it that PMI and ADF are evaluating legal options, and will be announcing their next course of action in the coming week.

HSLDA: Schools Have No Legal Right Over Homeschoolers

2006-09-11T13:43:00.000-05:00

As reported by Homeschool Legal Defense Association Senior Counsel Christopher Klicka, a homeschooling family recently received a visit from officials in the Franklin/Williamson School District. They reported that they were visiting all of the homeschoolers in the area, requesting that each homeschool family fill out a form to register their homeschoolwith the state. The parents refused, and sent the officials away.

Apparently, however, the school officials were not satisfied with that response to their visit, and returned after having consulted with the school's attorney on the matter. But this time, they returned with a truant officer. The officer stated that after consulting with the school's attorney, although they cannot require the registration forms to befilled-out, they could demand to see their homeschooling curriculum.

The parent again told the truant officer this was not required, and would not let the truant officer see her curriculum. The truant officer and school official eventually left, at which time the parents contacted HSLDA, which immediately drafted a letter on their behalf and sent it to the truant officer. The letter explained that the schoolhad no right to demand to see the curriculum and that the family was following Illinois homeschool laws.

In a related development last Tuesday, Williamson County State's Attorney Charles Garnati held a press conference, reminding parents of the strict truancy laws governing Williamson County. According to the Southern Illinoisan (Carbondale) on September 6, 2006, Garnati said homeschooling parents aren't exempt from truancy policies governing Williamson County students.

"The law does give ROE authority to go in and check out the curriculum to make sure it's been done in a correct way," Garnati said.

Parents convicted of allowing their child to remain truant could face up to a $1,500 fine and up to 30 days in the county jail, Garnati alleged.

HSLDA advises that if parents receive a visit from school officials demanding to see their curriculum or ask them to fill out a form, that they should not let them into their home or let them see your curriculum--and that parents should not fill out any forms--as the school district does not have a legal right to require this.

What God Hath Joined Together...

2006-09-09T16:40:00.000-05:00

The advent of "no-fault" divorce has given rise to a system that strips fathers of their children, accelerates the breakdown of families, and makes a mockery of the marital contract.

By Dr. Stephen Baskerville

For the moment, while the Federal Marriage Amendment is moved to a back burner, it's a good time to heighten our awareness of a broader menace. Same-sex marriage is a symptomatic threat to families, compared to the more fundamental effect of "no fault" divorce.

“Commentators miss the point when they oppose homosexual marriage on the grounds that it would undermine traditional understandings of marriage," writes Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University. "It is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it." Michael McManus of Marriage Savers writes that "divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by gays."

The Bush administration and Congress have allocated $150 million annually to promote "healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood." The effectiveness of these efforts turns on how well they mesh gears with the underlying realities of the family crisis. In order to face the bitter truths about why families are dissolving at such an alarming rate, we must move from the precincts of moral exhortation, to take an analytical look at the mechanics of the family court system and related legal agendas.

It is a grievous misconception that an increase in marital "break downs" warranted new laws to simplify the divorce process, as if to minimize a futile expense for an unavoidable outcome. Under "no-fault" divorce laws, 80% of divorces are unilateral. In other words, most "no-fault" divorces are unilateral, over the objection of one spouse, who is often committed to keeping the family together. Further, it is more often the spouse who is opposed to the divorce that will be burdened with on-going legal fees and court actions. Evidence suggests that those who influenced the new laws had an ulterior motive which has developed a system that exploits the opportunity for professional involvement in a growing divorce industry. Since "no fault" divorce opened the court room doors wider, the market of professional family services has grown exponentially.

In contradiction to another myth, that husbands take advantage of the simpler divorce method, the mother of minor children is overwhelmingly most often the divorcing parent. In "Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths," Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver has shown that at least two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women. Moreover, these divorces rarely involve abandonment, adultery, or violence. The most common reasons are "growing apart" or "not feeling loved or appreciated."

Divorces initiated by women climbed to more than 70% when no-fault divorce was introduced, according to Margaret Brinig of the University of Iowa and Douglas Allen of Simon Fraser University. Mothers "are more likely to instigate separation, despite…evidence that many divorces harm children." The bottom line is indeed the children. After analyzing 21 variables, Brinig and Allen concluded that "who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce."

The importance of this finding cannot be overestimated. Political leaders who call for repeated crackdowns on allegedly dissolute fathers clearly promote the assumption that fathers are to blame with regard to the welfare of children of divorce. "I believe children should not have to suffer twice for the decisions of their parents to divorce," Senator Mike DeWine stated on the Senate floor in June 1998; "once when they decide to divorce, and again when one of the parents evades the financial responsibility to care for them." But most fathers make no such decision. They are expelled by a divorce to which they become obligated without consent.

Family law now allows mothers to walk away from marriages at any time and take the children with them. Not only is this permitted, it is encouraged and rewarded with financial incentives. Even more disturbing, in some cases, mothers are actually pressured by social service agencies into filing for a divorce that they don’t want. The Massachusetts News reported how Heidi Howard was ordered by the state’s Department of Social Services to divorce her husband Neil or lose her children, though DSS acknowledged he had not been violent. When she refused the social workers seized her children, including a newborn and attempted to terminate the Howards’ parental rights. News reporter Nev Moore says she has seen hundreds such cases.

The problem runs much deeper than the existing bias against fathers in custody decisions. "Washing their hands of judgments about conduct...the courts assume that all children should normally live with their mothers, regardless of how the women have behaved," observes Sunday Times columnist Melanie Phillips. "Yet if a mother has gone off to live with another man, does that not indicate a measure of irresponsibility or instability, not least because by breaking up the family…she is acting against their best interests?"

Mothers who separate children from their fathers are routinely given immediate custody. Although considered temporary, once a mother has custody, it cannot be changed without a lengthy court battle. The sooner she can establish herself as the sole caretaker, the more difficult and costly it is for the father to regain custody. Further, it is the tendency of a mother who cuts off the father to use his absence to embitter the child with false charges against him, while she delays custody proceedings, and obstructs the father's efforts to see his children. The most common end result is that she retains sole custody.

As for the father, he is most likely to discover too late that any restraint in his effort to regain custody will cost him dearly. Often only reciprocal belligerence and aggressive litigation on his part carries any hope of reward. Astoundingly, the latest wisdom counsels nervous fathers that the game is so rigged that their best chance is not to wait for their day in court, but to snatch first, then conceal, obstruct, delay, and so forth. "If you do not take action," writes Robert Seidenberg in "The Father’s Emergency Guide to Divorce-Custody Battle," "your wife will." Thus we have the nightmare scenario of a "race to the trigger" and the pre-emptive strike reminiscent of nuclear deterrence strategy. Whoever snatches the children first wins.

Far from merely exploiting family breakdown, domestic relations law has turned the family into what political scientists call the game of "prisoners’ dilemma," in which only the most trusting marriage can survive and the emergence of the slightest marital discord renders not absconding with the children perilous and even irrational. Willingly or not, all parents are now prisoners in this game.

How did all this come about?

Under the assumption that only mutual consent would precipitate the dissolution of a marriage, "no fault" laws provided for the removal of grounds for divorce. Subsequently divorces, commonly blamed for causing hardship to wives and children, has increasingly left husbands vulnerable to desertion and the confiscation of their children. "No-fault" divorce is a misnomer for the creation of what Maggie Gallagher calls in her book "The Abolition of Marriage," "unilateral" divorce, allowing either spouse to end the marriage, without any agreement or fault by the other.

What's more alarming is that these laws were passed while no one was looking; no clamor to dispense with divorce restrictions preceded their passage; no public debate was held in the national media. "The divorce laws…were reformed by unrepresentative groups with very particular agendas of their own and which were not in step with public opinion," writes Phillips in her book The Sex-Change Society. "All the evidence suggests that public attitudes were gradually dragged along behind laws that were generally understood at the time to mean something very different than what they subsequently came to represent."

Attorney Ed Truncellito agrees. In August 2000, he filed suit with the Texas Supreme Court against the state bar. Truncellito contends the legislative history of no-fault divorce law in Texas makes clear that the law was meant for "uncontested-only" cases. He insists that "the state bar knew all along that the no-fault law was being misapplied, but they covered it up for financial gain." Truncellito claims that, effectively, "no one is married" because the laws created "unilateral divorce on demand."

Dickens’ observation "the one great principle of the...law is to make business for itself" couldn't be more starkly validated. Nothing in the law requires a judge to grant the divorcing parent’s initial request to strip the other parent of his children. A judge could simply rule that, prima facie, neither the father nor the children has committed any infraction that justifies being forcibly separated and that neither the mother nor the court has any grounds to separate them. Yet such rulings are virtually unheard of. One need not be cynical to recognize that judges who refused to grant the request would be denying earnings to an entourage of lawyers, custody evaluators, psychologists and psychiatrists, guardians ad litem, mediators, counselors, child-support enforcement agents, social workers, and others – all of whom profit from the ensuing custody battle and have a strong say in the promotion of judges.

With all the concern shown for family breakdown and judicial power, it is surprising that family advocates and judicial critics have paid so little attention to family courts. Without a doubt they are the arm of the state that reaches farthest into the private lives of individuals and families. Though lowest in the judicial hierarchy, they are the most powerful. "The family court is the most powerful branch of the judiciary," according to Robert Page, Presiding Judge of the Family Part of the Superior Court of New Jersey. According to Judge Page, "the power of family court judges is almost unlimited." Others have commented on their vast power rather less respectfully. Former Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas once characterized them with the term "kangaroo court." Contrary to basic principles of open government, they generally operate behind closed doors, often excluding even family members and leaving no record of their proceedings.

These bureaucratic courts emerged in the 1960s and 1970s along with the divorce revolution. Their existence and virtually every problem they address – divorce, custody, child abuse, child support enforcement, even juvenile crime – depend upon one overriding principle: the removal of the father as head of the family.

When parental authority functions properly, family courts have little reason to exist, since these problems seldom appear among intact families. While both fathers and mothers may fall afoul of family court judges, it is fathers against whom their enmity is largely directed, because fathers are their principal rivals.

The judges’ contempt for both fathers and constitutional rights was openly expressed by New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell: "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating," he told his colleagues at a judges’ training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around…. We don’t have to worry about the rights."

While all courts complain of being "overburdened," judicial powers and salaries, like any other service, are determined by demand. Family court judges are generally appointed and promoted by commissions dominated by bar associations and other professional groups who have an interest in maximizing the volume of litigation.

Political scientist Herbert Jacob describes how "the judge occupies a vital position not only because of his role in the judicial process but also because of his control over lucrative patronage positions." Jacob cites probate courts, where positions as estate appraisers "are generally passed out to the judge’s political cronies or to persons who can help his private practice." The principles are similar, only in family courts what is passed out is control over children.

Once the parent "loses custody," in the jargon of the court, he can be arrested for trying to see them outside of authorized times and places. He can be arrested for running into his children in a public place such as the zoo, sporting events, or church. Additionally, parents are routinely summoned to court for questioning about their private lives, which attorney Jed Abraham has characterized as an "interrogation." Their personal documents and homes must be surrendered to government officials without warrants. Their children are alienated with the backing of government officials and then are required to inform on them.

Despite the constitutional prohibition on incarceration for debt, a parent can be jailed without trial for failure to pay not only child support but the fees of lawyers and psychotherapists he has not hired. In these cases, the judge is summoning legally unimpeachable citizens and ordering them to write a check or go to jail. And the weapon he is using to do it is children. If this systematic bullying by courts and enforcement agents begins to sound like a reign of terror, that is precisely how many now see it.

Aside from countless absurd and bizarre injustices, the family court system has been cited as a cause for a growing percentage of fathers being driven to suicide. In March 2000, Darin White was denied all contact with his three children, evicted from his home, and ordered to pay more than twice his income as child and spousal support, plus court costs for a divorce he never agreed to. White hanged himself from a tree. No evidence of any wrongdoing was presented against him. White’s fate is increasingly common.

"There is nothing unusual about this judgment," the Vancouver Sun quotes former British Columbia Supreme Court Judge Lloyd McKenzie, who pointed out that the judge in White’s case applied the same guidelines used in the U.S. and other western countries. Augustine Kposowa of the University of California Riverside writing in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health attributes a dramatic increase in the suicide rate of divorced fathers directly to family court judgments.

Family law denies rights as basic as free speech and freedom of the press. In American jurisdictions it is a crime to criticize family court judges. Earlier this year, Kevin Thompson received an order from Massachusetts Judge Mary Manzi prohibiting distribution of his book, "Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts."

Following his congressional testimony critical of the family courts, Jim Wagner of the Georgia Council for Children’s Rights was stripped of custody of his two children and jailed. "We believe…the court is attempting to punish Wagner for exposing the court’s misconduct to a congressional committee," said Sonny Burmeister, president of the Council.

The divorce industry has, in affect, rendered marriage a fraudulent contract. While the dissolution of families affects the health of the entire society, parents and especially fathers must demand that marriage be made an enforceable contract. "No fault" divorces granted by family courts also confront church leadership, not only along lines of morality, but as it touches on the validity of their ministry. If marital bonds can be dissolved by government officials with no grounds or agreement between the marriage partners, the sanctity of a wedding ceremony is subject to disregard. Unless marriage is an enforceable contract, there is little point in preaching trust in it. It is not surprising that ever fewer are willing to marry while the marriage contract offers no protection of family, children, homes, or privacy, even to the extent of life-threatening impositions.

It is one thing to tolerate divorce. It is another to allow government to impose it on unwilling spouses. When courts stop dispensing justice, they must start dispensing injustice. There is no middle ground.

---

EDITOR’S NOTE: Stephen Baskerville, PhD is president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

For more information, including how to join those who are working to restore the family, marriage, and fatherhood against the ravages of the divorce industry, contact these links:

http://www.acfc.org
http://www.divorcereform.org
http://www.marysadvocates.org

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

2006-09-07T16:51:00.000-05:00

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.”

Lake County Mom Accused of PAS Slapped with Gag Order

2006-09-05T12:49:00.000-05:00

As reported by Art Peterson in the August 31st, 2006 edition of the Lake County News-Sun Gazette, a Lake County judge has entered a gag order against family court reform advocate Annette Zender.

The article indicates that Ms. Zender believes that the order unlawfully infringes on her right of free speech. Among other comments, Zender claims the court is systematically biased. The order, entered by Associate Judge Joseph Waldeck, also requires silence from the attorneys and the father, Thomas Boettcher of Minnesota.

Peter Storm, a Geneva-based attorney and an expert on First Amendment and constitutional law, says in the article that the court "may be over-reaching with the gag order."

Zender asserted in the article that the order is threatened retribution to keep her from criticizing the courts' handling of her case. She is also barred from saying the name of her child in public.

The report claims that Mother and Father have been embroiled in furious proceedings in family courts for more than 10 years. The motion for the ban had been pushed by Boettcher's attorney, Norman Kurtz, and guardian ad litem, Gary Schlesinger of Libertyville.

The report says that Zender has not seen or spoken to her daughter in five years.

Federal Rules and Regulations Supercede State Laws Concerning Child Support

2006-08-18T18:34:00.000-05:00

August 18, 2006

Pamela Compton
Administrator, Division of Child Support Enforcement
Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services
509 S. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62701

Ms. Compton:

As an additional note for Director Maram and members of the 2006 Child Support Advisory Committee--you should also note that federal rules and regulations supercede state laws when the state engages in federal child support reimbursement grant fund programs.

The federal statutes below defines what and how much can be withheld.
Also see: Jackson vs. Rapps and Smith v. Smith.

There can be no support order for more than the Federally-mandated maximum that can be taken for child support each week--otherwise there can be a federal claim for violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and claimants would be entitled to a minimum of $1000 in damages under the Act for each violation.

See below.

Regards-

Michael Burns
Executive Director
Dialogue on Sustainable Community
Chicago

Ps: ln the absence of public hearings on this issue--a copy of these letters can also be viewed for public comment on http://www.illinoisparentsandchildren.blogspot.com/

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

Search Cornell Law School home

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 1673 Prev | Next

§ 1673. Restriction on garnishment

(a) Maximum allowable garnishment
Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and in section 1675 of this title, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed
(1) 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week, or
(2) the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 206 (a)(1) of title 29 in effect at the time the earnings are payable,
whichever is less. In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, the Secretary of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the Federal minimum hourly wage equivalent in effect to that set forth in paragraph (2).
(b) Exceptions
(1) The restrictions of subsection (a) of this section do not apply in the case of
(A) any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or in accordance with an administrative procedure, which is established by State law, which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review.
(B) any order of any court of the United States having jurisdiction over cases under chapter 13 of title 11 .
(C) any debt due for any State or Federal tax.
(2) The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment to enforce any order for the support of any person shall not exceed

(A) where such individual is supporting his spouse or dependent child (other than a spouse or child with respect to whose support such order is used), 50 per centum of such individual’s disposable earnings for that week; and

(B) where such individual is not supporting such a spouse or dependent child described in clause (A), 60 per centum of such individual’s disposable earnings for that week; except that, with respect to the disposable earnings of any individual for any workweek, the 50 per centum specified in clause (A) shall be deemed to be 55 per centum and the 60 per centum specified in clause (B) shall be deemed to be 65 per centum, if and to the extent that such earnings are subject to garnishment to enforce a support order with respect to a period which is prior to the twelve-week period which ends with the beginning of such workweek.

(c) Execution or enforcement of garnishment order or process prohibited
No court of the United States or any State, and no State (or officer or agency thereof), may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section.

Urlacher freed from $30,000 in custody fees

2006-08-16T15:18:00.000-05:00

According to a report in today's Chicago Sun-Times--a Will County judge ruled on Tuesday that Chicago Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher does not have to pay an additional $30,000 to cover child care and legal expenses while his custody battle continues against the mother of his 1 1/2 year-old son.

"So how is my son supposed to eat?" Tyna Robertson of Joliet cried out in court as Judge Ludwig Kuhar left the bench. "I only have $6 in my name to support my son," a tearful Robertson later told the Sun-Times outside the courtroom. "I have to have someone watch my child so I can go to court. Does he [Kuhar] care about that?"

Robertson, 34, currently receives $2,000 a month in child support payments from the football star. But the amount is insufficient for the Realtor to adequately take care of the boy, her lawyer Steve Lake argued.

Lake had asked Kuhar to order Urlacher to pay him $15,000 so he could prepare for an Oct. 16 child custody trial and another $15,000 for Robertson to help her through the next few months.

"I need some soup money here for costs, not fees. . . . The reality is my client is indigent and I have no money to loan her," Lake said.

$25,000 paid to ex-lawyer

Kuhar, rejecting the motion for emergency relief, told Lake he presides over many cases where parents receive no child support and suggested the attorney recoup some of the $25,000 Urlacher was ordered to pay Robertson's former attorney Enrico Mirabelli in April.

"I'm trying to be as fair as I can," Kuhar said during the heated hearing.

"No, you're not," Lake replied.

Urlacher, 28, was not in court. His attorney, Donald Schiller, said Robertson and Lake deliberately sought court hearings on dates when Urlacher would be busy in training camp and unable to come to court to defend himself.

"It's a sneak attack on their behalf. . . . This is a woman who's attempted to exploit people before," said Schiller, who was allowed to receive all the child's medical records from Robertson. "It's easy to say my client has the money, so give me money."

Lake jumped to his client's defense, describing her as "religious" and adding, "She's leading a wholesome life."

Robertson is the same woman who filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against former "Riverdance" dancer Michael Flatley for allegedly raping her in a Las Vegas hotel in 2002. Her suit in that case was dismissed and Flatley is now suing her for defamation and extortion.

She currently lives with her mother and takes the baby to real estate showings because of high day-care costs, Lake said, stressing the need to even the legal "playing field" with the millionaire Urlacher.

"I'm concerned about justice in the courtroom," Lake said following the hearing.

Kuhar will rule on whether Urlacher needs to increase his monthly child support to Robertson at October's hearing.

The Top Ten Myths of Divorce

2006-08-15T13:04:00.000-05:00

Discussion of the Most Common Misinformation about Divorce
by David Popenoe

1. Because people learn from their bad experiences, second marriages tend to be more successful than first marriages.

Although many people who divorce have successful subsequent marriages, the divorce rate of remarriages is in fact higher than that of first marriages.1

2 . Living together before marriage is a good way to reduce the chances of eventually divorcing.

Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have a considerably higher chance of eventually divorcing. The reasons for this are not well understood. In part, the type of people who are willing to cohabit may also be those who are more willing to divorce. There is some evidence that the act of cohabitation itself generates attitudes in people that are more conducive to divorce, for example the attitude that relationships are temporary and easily can be ended. 2

3. Divorce may cause problems for many of the children who are affected by it, but by and large these problems are not long lasting and the children recover relatively quickly.

Divorce increases the risk of interpersonal problems in children. There is evidence, both from small qualitative studies and from large-scale, long-term empirical studies, that many of these problems are long lasting. In fact, they may even become worse in adulthood. 3

4. Having a child together will help a couple to improve their marital satisfaction and prevent a divorce.

Many studies have shown that the most stressful time in a marriage is after the first child is born. Couples who have a child together have a slightly decreased risk of divorce compared to couples without children, but the decreased risk is far less than it used to be when parents with marital problems were more likely to stay together “for the sake of the children.” 4

5. Following divorce, the woman’s standard of living plummets by seventy three percent while that of the man’s improves by forty two percent.

This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman’s loss was twenty seven percent while the man’s gain was ten percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades. 5

6 . When parents don’t get along, children are better off if their parents divorce than if they stay together.

A recent large-scale, long-term study suggests otherwise. While it found that parents’ marital unhappiness and discord have a broad negative impact on virtually every dimension of their children’s well-being, so does the fact of going through a divorce. In examining the negative impacts on children more closely, the study discovered that it was only the children in very high conflict homes who benefited from the conflict removal that divorce may bring. In lower-conflict marriages that end in divorce—and the study found that perhaps as many as two thirds of the divorces were of this type—the situation of the children was made much worse following a divorce. Based on the findings of this study, therefore, except in the minority of high-conflict marriages it is better for the children if their parents stay together and work out their problems than if they divorce. 6

7. Because they are more cautious in entering marital relationships and also have a strong determination to avoid the possibility of divorce, children who grow up in a home broken by divorce tend to have as much success in their own marriages as those from intact homes.

Marriages of the children of divorce actually have a much higher rate of divorce than the marriages of children from intact families. A major reason for this, according to a recent study, is that children learn about marital commitment or permanence by observing their parents. In the children of divorce, the sense of commitment to a lifelong marriage has been undermined.7

8. Following divorce, the children involved are better off in stepfamilies than in single-parent families.

The evidence suggests that stepfamilies are no improvement over single-parent families, even though typically income levels are higher and there is a father figure in the home. Stepfamilies tend to have their own set of problems, including interpersonal conflicts with new parent figures and a very high risk of family breakup.8

9. Being very unhappy at certain points in a marriage is a good sign that the marriage will eventually end in divorce.

All marriages have their ups and downs. Recent research using a large national sample found that eighty six percent of people who were unhappily married in the late 1980s, and stayed with the marriage, indicated when interviewed five years later that they were happier. Indeed, three fifths of the formerly unhappily married couples rated their marriages as either “very happy” or “quite happy.”9

10. It is usually men who initiate divorce proceedings

Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower.10 Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be "badly behaved." Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.

Sources
------------

1 Joshua R. Goldstein, “The Leveling of Divorce in the United States” Demography 36 (1999): 409-414; Andrew Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992)

2 Alfred DeMaris and K. Vaninadha Rao, “Premartial Cohabitation and Marital Instability in the United States: A Reassessment” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54 (1992): 178-190; Pamela J. Smock, “Cohabitation in the United States” Annual Review of Sociology 26 (2000)

3 Judith Wallerstein, Julia M. Lewis and Sandra Blakeslee, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (New York: Hyperion, 2000); Andrew J. Cherlin, P. Lindsay Chase-Landsdale, and Christine McRae, “Effects of Parental Divorce on Mental Health Throughout the Life Course” American Sociological Review 63 (1998): 239-249; Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at Risk (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997)

4 Tim B. Heaton, “Marital Stability Throughout the Child-rearing Years” Demography 27 (1990): 55-63; Linda Waite and Lee A. Lillard, “Children and Marital Disruption” American Journal of Sociology 96 (1991): 930-953; Carolyn Pape Cowan and Philip A. Cowan, When Partners Become Parents: The Big Life Change for Couples (New York: Basic Books, 1992)

5 Leonore J. Weitzman, “The Economics of Divorce: Social and Economic Consequences of Property, Alimony, and Child Support Awards” UCLA Law Review 28 (August, 1981): 1251; Richard R. Peterson, “A Re-Evaluation of the Economic Consequences of Divorce” American Sociological Review 61 (June, 1996): 528-536; Pamela J. Smock, “The Economic Costs of Marital Disruption for Young Women over the Past Two Decades” Demography 30 (August, 1993): 353-371

6 Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at Risk (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997)

7 Paul R. Amato, “What Children Learn From Divorce” Population Today, (Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau, January 2001); Nicholas H. Wolfinger, “Beyond the Intergenerational Transmission of Divorce” Journal of Family Issues 21-8 (2000): 1061-1086

8 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994); Alan Booth and Judy Dunn (eds.), Stepfamilies: Who Benefits? Who Does Not? (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994)

9 Unpublished research by Linda J. Waite, cited in Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (New York: Doubleday, 2000): 148

10 Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas A. Allen, “’These Boots Are Made For Walking”: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women” American Law and Economics Review 2-1 (2000): 126-169.

Judges and the Development of Parental Alienation Syndrome

2006-08-05T14:44:00.000-05:00

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.”

Does Illinois' Child Support Enforcement System Defraud the Public Trust?

2006-08-03T11:13:00.000-05:00


	To: Pamela Compton Administrator, Division of Child Support Enforcement Healthcare and Family Services 509 S. Sixth St. Springfield, IL 62701

Child Support Enforcement a Fraud
By Bruce Eden

After reading the article “NYS Child Support Collections Top $1.5 Billion” (Feb. 25, 2006), the words that come to mind are “fraud”, “scam”, “extortion”, “racketeering” and “government oppression”.

The state talks a good story about how all the increased child support enforcement and collections benefits the children. This is pure fantasy. The monies that the state awards, enforces and collects is directly proportional to how much it receives from the federal government as incentive reimbursement funding.

And that amount is in the several hundreds of millions of dollars. The monies that the state receives for child support enforcement has no strings attached. The state uses this funding to bolster their state employee and judicial pension plans--resulting in a massive conflict of interest and what some might characterize as nothing short of a criminal conspiracy. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Tumey v. Ohio, Ward v. Monroeville and Gibson v. Berryhill that judges cannot sit on cases where they have a pecuniary interest in them because it would be a demonstration of actual bias.

Yet, judges, or state employed judicial hearing officers in the domestic relations courts sit on these cases every day. This has created a tyranny by having the state criminalize a civil matter. As stated in the article, it says that the district attorneys are getting into the act in prosecuting people for child support arrearages. This again results in a blatant due process and equal protection violation. When were the payor parents told, at the inception of the child support matter, that the matter would be converted from a civil case into a criminal case? When were they read their Miranda rights, such as right to remain silent about their financial situation, or given their right to trial by jury or right to appointed, competent effective counsel to defend them properly.

As can be seen by this lack of substantive due process--the entire child support enforcement mechanism is a fraud and a scam that smacks of racketeering. If any debt collection agency did this for any other debt, they be facing massive fines and criminal charges. They would be put out of business immediately.

New York State claims it is going after so-called “deadbeats” by criminalizing child support delinquencies and jailing those with large arrearages. Sounds good. However, if one were to investigate the situation they would find that most of the state’s largest delinquent child support obligors are unemployed, underemployed, undereducated, disabled, minorities, or deceased. That’s right–deceased! The state needs to keep those numbers on its books in order to maximize the federal funding it receives.

According to a 7-year longitudinal academic study done by Arizona State University Professor Dr. Sanford Braver that became the book, “Divorced Dads–Shattering the Myths”, it was uncovered that less than 5% of all delinquent child support payors are true “deadbeats”–those with the expensive sports cars and trophy wives half their age. So, where is the child support “deadbeat” hysteria? There is none. It is being contrived by the federal and state governments in order to control families, steal children, and eliminate fathers from families so that the state can become the “super-parent”. It is another tyrannical government program to extract money from taxpayers to support the government’s own largesse.

The state defrauds the taxpayers by claiming they are doing it “for the children”. The government never does something for its citizens without a quid pro quo. In the U.S. Supreme Court case DeShaney v. Winnebago County Board of Social Services, the high Court ruled that the state owes no duty to protect its citizens. So, the question begs: “Why is the state discriminating against one-half of the population to enforce child support?” It is obvious. It is not about the children or getting people off of welfare. It is about how much money the states can rake-in so they can appropriate more money from the feds to balance their own budgets.

Federal child support enforcement laws were designed solely for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and for welfare families--not for the “never-welfared” middle class. However, child support bureaucrats and other hangers-on testified before Congress that they needed to bring the middle-class into the fray in order to receive maximum benefits from the federal government in order to bolster state budgets. Interestingly, not one child support payor, or any advocacy group for child support payors was allowed to testify before Congress and the New York State legislature (or for any other state for that matter) in devising child support enforcement legislation. Again, we see a pattern of racketeering conspiracy and government tyranny at the expense of innocent taxpayers.

There is a large hue and cry across the country to curtail divorces because it threatens the very fabric of our society. The reason is because one parent is allowed to divorce the other without any grounds. One parent can divorce and abuse the legal system to win the divorce, all of the money and assets of the marriage, and win custody of the children (with all the attendant financial benefits that come with this). It’s all because of child support. Child support enforcement has created the “divorce state”. Not only does child support increase the amount of divorces because of the financial windfall to the custody-winning parent, it threatens society. Child support enforcement laws are in reality a threat to national security.

The time has come for lawmakers to take a second look at the draconian child support enforcement laws in this country because these laws are not constitutional. To stop this threat, lawmakers either need to eliminate or seriously curtail child support enforcement against innocent taxpayers, or they must tax child support the way alimony is taxed. This would immediately slow down divorces in this country. This is because the custodial parent, (in over 80% of all cases it is the mother--further gender discrimination against males), would think twice about divorcing on grounds that their marriage is not satisfactory, before having to pay the additional large income tax burden.

---
Bruce Eden is the director of DADS (Dads Against Discrimination),
New Jersey and New York chapters.

NOW at 40: Group’s Opposition to Shared Parenting Contradicts Its Goal of Gender Equality

2006-08-02T18:52:00.001-05:00

By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

The National Organization for Women turned 40 this summer, and formally celebrated its anniversary at its national conference in July. NOW President Kim Gandy has proudly recounted her organization's successes in opening up opportunities for women, and says they are “never giving up the dream of full equality for all.”

Unfortunately, on some issues – particularly in family law and child custody – NOW's policies and actions contradict its ideals of “full equality for all.” This is most evident in the group's dogged opposition to joint custody and shared parenting.

The logic behind shared parenting is hard to dispute. Kids love, want and need both their parents. When divorcing parents cannot agree on custody arrangements, as long as both parents are fit, they should both be allowed to share in parenting their children. Not surprisingly, research shows that children of divorce fare better under joint custody – where they spend significant amounts of time with each parent – than under sole custody.

NOW and its co-thinkers, to their credit, once encouraged fathers, fathering and shared parenting. In 1971 Gloria Steinem wrote that children suffer from having “too little father” in their lives, and that a more equal balance of parenting was needed. Karen DeCrow, president of NOW from 1974 to 1977, says “it was clear from the feminist writings and ideas of the '60s and '70s that joint custody was what we supported after a divorce.”

Fathers have embraced the call for more father involvement. Despite an ever-expanding work week, children today benefit from receiving more hands-on fathering than ever before. The Families and Work Institute found that fathers now provide three-fourths as much child care as mothers do – 50 percent more than 30 years ago.

Paradoxically, while fathers are more directly involved in their children's lives than ever, their bonds with their children are also more fragile. In the late 1970s NOW reversed itself and began promoting sole custody in divorce cases. In most divorces mothers are awarded sole (or de facto sole) custody of the children, and most post-divorce parenting time schedules offer fathers and children less than 20 percent physical time together.

Men who don't provide for their families are not respected, yet family courts treat fathers who have worked hard to support their families like absent parents whose bonds with their children merit limited consideration. DeCrow rightly denounces this practice as “sexist” and “inhuman.”

Along with divorce attorneys, NOW is the largest organized group fighting shared parenting legislation. It has issued numerous warnings, including one that says fathers' groups seeking joint custody laws are “using the abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers.” In their statements the words “husband” and “father” are generally preceded by the word “abusive.”

Using these scare tactics, NOW has blocked shared parenting bills in several states this year, including New York and Michigan. Yet as even feminist firebrand Martha Burk notes, “With close to half of all marriages ending in divorce, it's impossible to believe that the majority of divorcing fathers are violent, and it would be wrong to base public policy on the notion that they are.”

Over the past four decades America has come a long way in redressing the grievances of disadvantaged groups, including women, African-Americans, Latinos and gays. The most glaring civil rights violations in America today are those suffered by divorced dads, many of whom have been pushed out of their children's lives without justification. It's time for NOW to re-examine its misguided stand against shared parenting, and to bring its policies into line with its stated ideals.

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

This op-ed article originally appeared in the New York Daily News (7/27/06), the San Diego Union-Tribune (7/7/06) and others.

Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, the world’s largest shared parenting organization. Their website is www.acfc.org.

Glenn Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

Can We Fix Illinois' Child Support Mess Without the Status Quo?

2006-08-02T16:54:00.000-05:00

June 30, 2006

Pamela Compton
Administrator, Division of Child Support Enforcement
Healthcare and Family Services
509 S. Sixth St.
Springfield, IL 62701

Ms. Compton,

Thank you for furnishing a list of participants for the upcoming quadrennial review concerning Illinois' compliance with the federal child support grant program.

A few concerns that I would like to bring to your attention that I think is worth noting in your records on this next review period concerning Illinois' support guidelines.

First, I'm aware that the State has to show that it is applying sound economic formulae in the determination of it's child support guidelines to be in compliance with federal grant fund rules and regulations--but as I review your list, there doesn't seem to be anyone on your list with a background in Economics to produce such a formula.

Second, I think there is something to be said for the lack of representation of a person or persons who well-represent the needs and concerns of non-custodial parents, and the community at-large.

Given that the state continues to rank at or near the bottom of the list regarding child support compliance and enforcement, I think these concerns are worthy of further consideration.

My position is not that we abandon mothers and children, but rather to look at how the current support model fails to meet the rational basis test, and has the ability to push low-income obligors below the poverty line, creating an incentive for people to engage in underground activity, or simply walk away from their children. In essence, creating "instant deadbeats" in which taxpayers will ultimately have to flip the bill for.

While there are other legal and societal concerns I have which I will provide to you in more detail, I think these issues need and deserve to be promptly addressed by your committee if we are going to set a positive example for our children.

If you have any questions or would like to schedule a time to talk via phone, please reply here or contact me directly at 312.xxx.xxxx.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Burns
Executive Director
Dialogue on Sustainable Community
Chicago, Illinois

EXTREME MAKEOVER: Bottomfeeder Edition

2006-08-02T14:20:00.000-05:00

Lawyers try to Change Their Public Image... But Can They?

In an astounding admission of the unpopularity of trial lawyers in America, the membership of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) this week votetd overwhelmingly to change the organization's name to the "American Association of Justice." The name change is, according to ATLA President Ken Suggs, part of a “campaign to improve the image of trial lawyers."

In a letter to ATLA membership, Suggs wrote, "Our research shows that if our message is about helping lawyers, we lose..."

The sad fact is that trial lawyers have no one to blame but themselves for their low esteem. Decades of abuse of the civil justice system by some of their members have created a sue-happy litigation climate that results in lost jobs, higher consumer prices, and ultimately, little justice for anyone--even the victims that they represent.

Name Change "Cosmetic Surgery"

As Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), wrote this week, "Obscuring who they are by removing the words 'trial' and 'lawyer' from their name is only cosmetic surgery unless it is followed by abandoning the high-dollar business model of industry-targeted lawsuits, followed by a real commitment to comprehensive reform of our civil justice system."

In response to the trial lawyer effort, ILR launched a full page ad in USA Today highlighting ATLA's transparent attempt to revamp its image. You can view the ad by clicking here now.

Help Expose their "Extreme Makeover"

Help expose the trial lawyers' attempt to cloak themselves in the moniker of "justice" while wreaking havoc on America's employers and working families. Please forward an e-mail to a friend to help expose this nonsense.

Without Judicial Accountability, are Term Limits Needed for Illinois Judges?

2006-07-29T21:57:00.000-05:00

As reported by Bert Brandenburg in the Friday, July 28, 2006, edition of Slate.com, one of the most overlooked stories of the year concerns a handful of ballot initiatives that some say are designed to hobble the courts--pointing toward a political intimidation racket benefiting special interests that want the courts to deliver results--not justice.

In Colorado, a recent campaign is promoting retroactive term limits for appellate judges. The measure would handout pink slips for as many as a dozen judges in the near term and clear-off most of the Supreme Court in just a couple of years.

In Montana, where every judge must run for office, Constitutional Initiative 98 would create a new layer of recall elections to oust judges over specific decisions.

An Oregon measure seeks to toss judges from Portland by creating geographical districts for the Supreme Court. And in South Dakota, a "J.A.I.L. 4 Judges" initiative would amend the state constitution to create a fourth branch of government: a special grand jury to sue judges and others for making bad decisions.

The mantra? It's time to stop hoping that dignified silence will win the day.

Study Says Society Changing Focus Away From Children

2006-07-17T15:05:00.000-05:00

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."

Fathers contribute nothing when they become disenfranchised

2006-07-17T14:27:00.000-05:00

Note: ln reply to a recent artcle by Wendy McElroy--here's an example of what some fathers will do when they have had their ownership stake all but removed and they are being treated as nothing more than walking wallets.

lf state lawmakers are sincere about keeping fathers actively involved in the lives of their children--then they should do whatever they can to ensure that the courts won't turn them into "instant deadbeats" by marginalizing them from their children.

Some people are starting to call this "disenfranchsed father syndrome."

---

Fathers contribute nothing when they become disenfranchised

At one point during my post-divorce litigation,
when I was over $25,000 behind in child support,
I received letters from the county sheriff's
department to "surrender" myself at their
office. I fired back a letter demanding to know
when war was declared against We the People, or
even me, that I had to "surrender", since
surrender is a term of war. I never got another
letter from the sheriff's department.

They came a-looking for me at 5 different addresses that I
gave them, but I was never at the address that
they came looking. I had an address that was a
doghouse. Several other addresses were various
P.O. Boxes in different towns. I never gave them
any information or correct information. They
tried to find me through my driver's license. I
had a P.O. Box for the mailing address on it, and
it was for an address of a friend of mine 4
counties away.

This was the "fathers' rights underground railway" way of doing things. I had to improvise to avoid being captured by the enemy (family court and sheriffs) and it worked like charm.

I also received "notice" letters from various
judges to appear before them regarding my child
support and visitation matters and they would
give me "my day in court". I nastily replied
back that I was born at night, but not the night
before and that if they thought I was as stupid
as them, then they were fools to think I would
just show up to be arrested. I never received
any further letters from judges. I filed
judicial complaints against these judges for
harassment and threats through the U.S. mails
(including extortion and racketeering). The
complaints usually never went anywhere, but it
took them many months and sometimes over a year
to dismiss the complaints. In the meantime, the
judges were removed from my case.

The idea folks is as the article below
states: Do not cooperate with them. Make it as
tough as possible when they are trying to screw
you out of house, family, your salary and your
children. Answer every question on the financial
case information statement with 5th Amendment or
write that you "respectively choose not to answer
this question because this civil matter can be
converted into a criminal matter at a later time
if your ex-wife removes the children out of state
or you move out of state, creating a federal
issue between 2 states". Tell them on your case
information statements that you cannot properly
answer the question because you haven't received
competent, effective legal advice to protect your
5th Amendment right to remain silent as a
protection (and right to protest under the 1st
Amendment) or with regard to your rights under
the 4th Amendment (the giving of your information
is an illegal seizure of your financial records,
books and other documentation and you don't have
to give it under the 5th Amendment right to
remain silent, and 1st Amendment right to
protest). If they try and impute income to you
for that, you tell them that you will pay what
you believe is appropriate to raise your children
and what the state pays for welfare to a family
of 3 (mother & 2 children; usually around $450-$550 per month).

You inform them that you will not pay any alimony
because your lifestyle will be greatly impacted
and you won't be allowed to enjoy the lifestyle
you acquired during the marriage, plus the
ex-wife is not entitled to alimony since she
didn't bring it into the marriage and under Equal
Protection of the Law, you're entitled to alimony
as much as she is. If the wife makes
substantially less or was a "stay at home mom"
(even after the kids went to school full time)
you state that if she is too incompetent and
needs to receive alimony, then she's too
incompetent to raise the children and you should
either be granted full custody or at least equal custody 50/50.

As Wendy McElroy states below: You need to fight
everything. You are at war. This is no time to
be a pussy and give in to the wife thinking
she'll come back to you or give you favorable
treatment to see your kids more often. You are
at war. If slapped with a restraining order,
demand a Trial by Jury and scream loud and long
for it and don't give in to a hearing or trial
before just the judge. Same goes for child
support enforcement. Demand appointment of a
competent, effective attorney at all times, and
for one who is knowledgeable in criminal law, civil law and family law.

Don't think the lawyers are going to help you if
you just dump your case in their laps and go
about your own business. You have to manage your
case like a general directing a massive assault
against an enemy. You're the general. The
lawyer is the mercenary. He's only as good as
the ammunition and weapons you give him. Without
being on your divorce, child support, visitation
or custody case 24 hrs per day, 7 days per week,
52 weeks per year, then you lose. War is
hell. It must also be prosecuted on a full time basis.

Ex-father
New Jersey

re- http://www.wendymcelroy.com/ifeminists/2002/0528.html

Illinois' Child Support Mess - Paid For By You

2006-07-11T17:18:00.000-05:00

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Pamela Compton
Administrator, Division of Child Support Enforcement
Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services
509 S. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62701

Ms. Compton:

After reviewing your list of participants for this year's Child Support Advisory Committee, I'm writing with some additional concerns involving the participation of Judge Drella Savage

First and foremost, Director Maram needs to be reminded that it is a violation of the Separation of Powers Act to have a member of the Judiciary be involved in a policy decision that will be enforced by our courts and law enforcement in the collection of private debts for child support, if the state is acting as a party in such collections.

Unless Judge Savage plans to retire or transfer from her position as the Presiding Judge of the "Child Support Division" within the Cook County Circuit Court, she would be obligated to recuse herself from all future child support cases that are assigned to her, as the appearance of bias and/or impropriety, lack of impartiality, and issues as to her integrity and competence would come into question.

If any judge remains on this committee, it would violate their oath of office, resulting in official misconduct for violating the Separation of Powers Act. I'm also under the assumption that Director Maram took a similar oath as well as a public servant, and would be subjected to the same issue.

Second, it is also important to note that all future child support cases that are decided on within the State of Illinois might have a substantial problem in that the likelihood that non-custodial parents would be treated unequally and unfairly under such circumstances because a member of the Judiciary was illegally involved in such a policy-making decision. Thus, a possible defense for a non-paying obligor could be that they are not obligated to follow the law or pay support because it was established by someone who is ineligible to participate in such a policy-making decision in the first place.

Third, there is a concern that has evolved from transcripts obtained showing how this particular Judge has violated the rule of law pertaining to very basic issues such as Miranda rights, appointment of counsel, and affording defendants lawful due process on very significant issues involving child support, custody, and visitation rights. Short of these parties asking for impeachment proceedings, I'd like to offer that these concerns are rightfully brought, and would be found to be of very substantial concern to members of both the Judiciary and the General Assembly, not to mention the local media, should she continue to participate on this committee.

The mere fact that there is a separate, "secret" court for unmarried parents from that of divorcing parents, and to rename it the "Child Support Division" should be enough to tell anyone that there is something very wrong with this picture.

Given the significance of these concerns and the fact that they involve a fundamental liberty interest for thousands of lllinois parents and children, the fact that Illinois ranks last in the area of child support collection and enforcement, and our long history and tradition of corruption that is still quite apparent on the evening news--I would like to offer the suggestion for Director Maram and his counterparts to take these issues as a highly significant legal concern that could hold substantial legal consequences should these issues be ignored.

Later this week I will be forwarding to your office a FOIA request pertaining to prior participants and compliance with federal regulations concerning the Child Support Reimbursement Incentive Grant Program, and records of how these federal monies are disbursed within the child support program.

If you have any questions, please reply to me here or contact me at 312.xxx.xxxx.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Burns
Executive Director
Dialogue on Sustainable Community
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chicago, Illinois xxxxx

Three Years Later--Illinois Council Says Family Law Needs Reform (Surprise!)

2006-06-20T17:34:00.000-05:00

An Op-ed feature ran in the June 18, 2006 edition of the Chicago Sun-Times by Glenn Sacks and Chicago's very own "Father's Rights" attorney Jeffery Leving, detailing some amazing findings in an upcoming report from the "Governor's Council on Responsible Fatherhood" that most of us have known about for years--Illinois' Domestic Relations Courts are still engaged in anti-father gender bias and fail to do enough to facilitate responsible father involvement.

The report, which is due out next month, will give incredible examples... such as how visitation interference [which is suppose to be illegal in Illinois], is often enforced indifferently by the Courts. Surprise! After divorce or separation, few fathers are granted custody of their children, and most are not given substantial physical time with them. Amazing! The council also revealed something that no one has ever realized before: the scarcity of affordable and pro-bono legal services for low-income fathers.

And all this took 3 years to figure out?

But wait, there's more: Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data show that low wage earners comprise the overwhelming majority of child support debtors. That's right... those tales of "Deadbeat Dads" who lead lavish lifestyles but who ignore their children are nowhere to be found. This should be bigger than the Elian Gonzales case. Who woulda thought?

"When obligors lose their jobs, are unable to work because of injury or illness, or suffer wage cuts, it is difficult for them to get downward modifications on their support. The penalties for falling behind on support and Illinois’ 9% interest on past due support often saddle these dads with large paper arrearages. These arrearages sometimes drive them underground or land them in jail."

"Many Illinois fathers who can play an important and positive role in their children’s lives face needless obstacles. Policies based on blaming and punishing dads may make good political sound bites, but they are counterproductive for society, and hurtful to children and the fathers they love and need. The Council believes it's time for policymakers to take a fresh look at dads."

Truly breath-taking news that none of us would have known about without having this info given to us.

Baskerville Blasts NY Times Article on Domestic Violence

2006-06-17T17:44:00.000-05:00

Each time I read the work of Steve Baskerville, I'm perplexed and amazed at the level of detail he provides when exploring sensitive issues such as domestic violence. And while I know Steve, and know that he is a sensitive person and cares a great deal about the welfare of children, I'm in awe of him for going to such great lengths to shed light on this issue against such inhospitable forces.

Recently, he wrote an incredibly insightful article which appeared on LewRockwell.com, in reponse to a New York Times piece on domestic violence by what appears to be two divorce operatives. The site has an enormous readership, some 20+ million each month.

In his latest article, "Innocence is No Excuse" he writes:

"When Words Bear Witness" is a more appropriate headline than Michael Rips and Amy Lester may realize, since their own words reveal the brave new world the feminists and bar associations are creating around the trumped-up issue of "domestic violence." "Domestic violence accounts for up to 34% of all reported violent crimes," they state. Given that government authorities define domestic "violence" as "name-calling and constant criticizing, insulting, and belittling," it would appear that many "reported violent crimes" are not very violent. "Reported" crimes are also not proven crimes, and strong incentives exist to report violence where none has taken place. Fabricating abuse accusations ensures custody of children and marital property during divorce. The custody battles are lucrative for lawyers, whose bar associations control judicial appointments and promotions, which is why patently false accusations are treated as fact.

I've been known for having a sharp tongue every now and then, and have also been known to be opinionated on various social issues. But I'll readily admit, I can't compare to the constant flow of content that Steve generates on this stuff, although I'm extremely grateful for the contributions that he's made to this cause so far.

The Health of Fatherhood

2006-06-14T17:30:00.000-05:00

June 11, 2006

By Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

As we look forward to the quantity and quality of our lives in the 21st century we face an unprecedented challenge. As a nation, it is critical for all men, women, and children to cease denying the silent epidemic of the demise of fathers from the lives of our children and acknowledge the consequences for both children and fathers. Here are the horns of the dilemma we are facing.

On the one hand, we have a vast empirical research literature showing that both children and fathers benefit on almost all conceivable outcome indices when they are involved in each others lives as the children are growing up and being guided by their fathers into adulthood and beyond.

On the other hand, we have the following widely accepted contemporary demographics: one third of children are born to women who are not married at the time of delivery (and presumably do not have a father involved in the child's life on a continual basis); 50% of first marriages end in divorce and another 17% end in permanent separation yielding an effective two thirds marital dissolution rate for first marriages; the divorce rate for second and subsequent marriages is about 10% higher; and the cookie-cutter formula used by most states grants physical custody to mothers about 85% of the time with the father being awarded infrequent visitation along with child support and alimony obligations.

Along with these demographics, we also have a vast empirical research literature showing that the outcomes for both the children and fathers of divorce along with never-married fathers unquestionably are negative as compared to the children and fathers of intact marriages. The negative outcomes for fathers of divorce specifically include deep depression, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, joblessness, and a sharp rise in suicide rates.

Focusing more narrowly on Men's Health Week beginning June 12 and ending on Fathers Day June 18, 2006, we are left with the question: What can be done to improve the lives of children and fathers in 2006?

While there likely are as many proffered solutions as there are authors, I wish to focus on three.

First, by any public health standard, the one third non-married birth rate represents an epidemic worthy of intervention. As a point of comparison, the rate was 4% in the 1950's. What this comparison illustrates is that the non-married birth rate is a social behavior which is subject to change by changing social conditions and political activism” such as the sexual revolution, the women's movement, and welfare incentives all of which began in the 1960's. By the same token, the rate can be reduced by changing social attitudes and financial incentives.

Second, a minimum of two out of three divorces are initiated by wives. In my view, this is because mothers get all of the marbles in divorce. Specifically, and with some state to state variability, mothers not only get the children (about 85% of the time) but they also get half of the marital assets (sometimes mostly the father's assets) plus the father's income to support her and the children often in the former marital home along with the tax benefits associated with the children.

By contrast, the father gets to pay for and furnish an apartment and, if lucky, is awarded alternate weekends with his children, perhaps an evening in between, and perhaps half a summer and other holidays. Critically, when the children are with the father he must feed, shelter, clothe, and entertain them with whatever he has left over after he continues to pay child-support and alimony to his ex-wife.

Clearly, all the current legislative incentives to divorce belong to the mother and none to the father. The solution to increasing father-child relationships post-divorce” and as a critical fringe benefit to reduce the divorce rate as the incentives to divorce disappear” is to change existing state family law on three fronts: (a) Establish a presumption of equal shared parenting; and (b) establish equal financial responsibility for both mothers and fathers along with legally mandated financial accountability for both; and (c) change the child support models from income sharing models to child cost sharing models.

Third, the greatest threat to intact families in America today is the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and particularly the unfettered granting of groundless ex-parte restraining orders against fathers which removes the father from his home, his children, and requires him to immediately begin making child support payments or face debtor's prison. VAWA is for women an exquisitely and intricately well-crafted man eliminating machine the full scope of which is beyond this brief piece but the details of which may be found in a series of Special Reports and Op-Eds at (www.mediaradar.org). The simple antidote to VAWA is to neuter the Act by making it victim service oriented rather than gender destruction oriented so that it serves victims rather than targeting boys and men.

In closing, the bad news is that the health of fatherhood in 2006 is grim. The good news is that we got where we are today not through natural disasters but through "woman-made disasters" which can be reversed. Thus, we have the opportunity this Fathers Day, as we have every Fathers Day, to enhance the quality of life of America's children and fathers through new political initiatives and public policy. However, we must act quickly, lest Fathers become yet another member of an exponentially expanding Endangered Species List.

-----

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University.

"Landmark Education Funding Proposal? Where??"

2006-06-06T12:10:00.000-05:00

As reported in an Op-Ed article in the Daily Chronicle on June 3rd, reporters Matt Adrian and Kurt Erickson attempted to get more details of the education funding proposal from Gov. Blagojevich's Budget office.

At first, they were told the information was "too sensitive" to be released.
Then, after more discussion between the reporters and the Governor’s office, a spokesperson said something else.

According to their conversation with Becky Carroll at the Governor's budget office: “to release such proprietary information would place the state at a disadvantage in the market, giving bidders access to information that would essentially make it easier for them to bid less. “You could also look at it this way - Lovie Smith wouldn't give his playbook to the Packers and Bruce Weber wouldn't give his playbook to Michigan State. That would put their teams at a disadvantage.”

Landmark legislation, eh? Sounds very curious to me.

“If we released information that placed the state at such a disadvantage, that would take away hundreds of millions of dollars from schools. That's bad policy and bad economics. We're happy to talk about the plan, but handing out a roadmap showing exactly how much we think each part of the lottery is worth and helping bidders ensure they don't have to pay a penny more than that is shortsighted.”

They then asked her in an e-mail response if she could describe the document; could she tell how many pages it includes? Apparently, she didn't like the tone of the e-mail and complained. They reminded her "that someone who makes $95,000-plus should be spending her time counting the pages, rather than whining about the “tone” of e-mails."

After more wrangling, she responded: “There is no formal report.”

Whistleblower Magazine Publishes Major Article on Fathers

2006-06-02T10:28:00.000-05:00

In honor of Fathers Day, the June edition of Whistleblower magazine is a mega-eye-opener exploring one of the most crucial but little-reported phenomena of modern America what WND calls "THE WAR ON FATHERS."

SCHOOL: In public school classrooms across America, in every category and every demographic group, boys are falling behind. Girls excel and move on to college, where three out of five students are female, while young boys who don't naturally thrive when forced to sit still at a desk for six hours a day are diagnosed by the millions with new diseases that didn't exist a generation ago. To make their behavior more acceptable, they are compelled to take hazardous psycho-stimulant drugs like Ritalin.

Boys are more than 50 percent more likely to repeat elementary school grades than girls, a third more likely to drop out of high school and twice as likely to have a "learning disability." And the suicide rate among teen boys is far higher than that of girls.

"What we have done," explains Thomas Mortenson, senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, "is we have a K-12 school system that seems to work relatively well for girls and does not work for a very large share of boys."

HOME: It's well known that roughly half of America's marriages end in divorce, but not nearly as well known that two out of three of those divorces are initiated by the wives. Moreover, America's family court system is scandalously biased in favor of the mother in child custody disputes. Fathers get custody of children in uncontested cases only 10 percent of the time and 15 percent of the time in contested cases. Meanwhile, mothers get sole custody 66 percent of the time in uncontested cases and 75 percent of the time in contested cases.

"Where you have minor children, there's really no such thing as no-fault divorce for fathers," says Detroit attorney Philip Holman, vice president of the National Congress for Fathers and Children. "On the practical level, fathers realize that divorce means they lose their kids."

Unfortunately, this loss by children of their fathers' influence is directly responsible far more than any other cause for the modern national scourges of gang life, crime and much more.

CULTURE: Fifty years ago, "Father knows best" was a hit TV show, in which insurance agent Jim Anderson (actor Robert Young) would come home from work each evening, trade his sport jacket for a nice, comfortable sweater, and then deal with the everyday growing-up problems of his family. He could always be counted on to resolve that week's crisis with a combination of kindness, fatherly strength and common sense.

Today, television virtually always portrays husbands as bumbling losers or contemptible, self-absorbed egomaniacs. Whether in dramas, comedies or commercials, the patriarchy is dead, at least on TV where men are fools unless of course they're gay. On "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," the "fab five" are supremely knowledgeable on all things hip, their life's highest purpose being to help those less fortunate than themselves � that is, straight men � to become cool.

As this issue of Whistleblower shows, experts like Ph.D. scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, author of "The War Against Boys," agree: "It's a bad time to be a boy in America." Sommers provides example after example of what can only be called an all-out anti-male campaign:

"The carnage committed by two boys in Littleton, Colorado," declares the Congressional Quarterly Researcher, "has forced the nation to reexamine the nature of boyhood in America." William Pollack, director of the Center for Men at McLean Hospital and author of the best-selling "Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood," tells audiences around the country, "The boys in Littleton are the tip of the iceberg. And the iceberg is all boys."

In fact, Sommers reveals, it has become fashionable in elitist circles to conspire to change boys' very identity:

There are now conferences, workshops, and institutes dedicated to transforming boys. Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at Harvard Graduate School of Education, writes of the problem of "boys' masculinity in a patriarchal social order." Barney Brawer, director of the Boys' Project at Tufts University, told Education Week: "We've deconstructed the old version of manhood, but we've not [yet] constructed a new version." In the spring of 2000, the Boys' Project at Tufts offered five workshops on "reinventing Boyhood." The planners promised emotionally exciting sessions: "We'll laugh and cry, argue and agree, reclaim and sustain the best parts of the culture of boys and men, while figuring out how to change the terrible parts."

"Terrible" As this edition of Whistleblower shows, there is nothing wrong and a very great deal right with boys and masculinity. As maverick feminist Camille Paglia courageously reminds her men-hating colleagues, masculinity is "the most creative cultural force in history."

"The problem," said David Kupelian, managing editor of WND and Whistleblower, "is that misguided feminists, intent on advancing a radically different worldview than the one on which this nation was founded, have succeeded in fomenting a revolution. And that revolution amounts to a powerful and pervasive campaign against masculinity, maleness, boys, men and patriarchy."

Issue highlights include:

"Banning 'mom' and 'dad,'" by Joseph Farah, who exposes the latest in bizarre and dangerous legislation by the California legislature.

"The fathers' war" by Stephen Baskerville, a troubling look at how increasing numbers of America's military men risk all to serve their nation in wartime, only to be divorced by their wives and lose their children.

"What's really behind the 'feminization' of America," by David Kupelian, an in-depth exploration of the war on men and boys.

"Has the bias pendulum swung against men?" Fewer college-bound, higher suicide rates, shorter life spans suggest males getting shaft.

"Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.," showing how 30 percent of men assessed for court-ordered child support are not actually the fathers of the children receiving the support.

"'Shared parenting' seen as custody solution," a look at bills in New York that would require courts to treat mom and dad equally.

"Resolving the boy crisis in schools" by Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks, showing how today's public schools are profoundly unsuited for the genuine needs of boys.

"Child support gold-diggers" by Carey Roberts, who shows how frequent fraud results in fathers being victimized by the justice system.

"Hating our fathers, hating ourselves" by Bob Just, a penetrating look at the high cost of resenting the fathers and husbands in our lives.

And much more.

"This is one of the most soulful, important and insightful issues of Whistleblower we've produced in a long time," said Kupelian. "I urge people to read it; it's much more than eye-opening. It could be life-changing. Really."

9th Circuit Panel Edits Parental-Rights Decision

2006-06-01T21:02:00.000-05:00

Judges soften harsh statement against the right of parents to control their children's education.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has taken the unusual step of editing one of its rulings in a parental-rights case.

According to Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, the panel, led by ultraliberal jurist Steven Reinhardt, decided to review its ruling in Fields v. Palmdale School District -- a 2005 decision in which the judges told parents in Palmdale, Calif., they had no constitutional right to object to any sex-ed curriculum offered in public schools.

The parents originally filed suit complaining that their elementary-school-age children were wrongly subjected to a sex survey.

Staver, who represents the parents in an appeal of the case, said even though the judges didn't change the outcome, they did modify their ruling.

"They took out one of the egregious sentences, which said, '(Parental) rights (do not) extend beyond the threshold of the school door,' " according to a recent interview in CitizenLink. "I think they took that sentence out so as not to offend the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, who may ultimately hear this case."

It is unusual for an appeals-court panel of judges, Staver added, to reconsider its own decision.

"If asked to do so, they will usually deny the request outright," he said. "Or they actually rehear and reconsider the case, and write a new opinion. This was an unusual step."

But Staver said the different wording doesn't really change things -- the thrust of this case is still the same, and is in dire need of reversal.

"They clearly said that parents have no constitutional rights to object to any kind of sex-education curriculum that is presented to their children by the public schools -- period," he explained. "The school is free to do anything it wants to, no matter how outrageous, and the parents cannot object."

Staver said he's still waiting to see if the full panel of judges in the 9th Circuit will come together to hear the case, which is known as an en banc hearing.

"If they don't hear it en banc," he said, "we'll ask the Supreme Court to get involved."

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the 9th Circuit judges have come under tremendous fire since the decision was published -- not just from the public, but also from other appeals courts.

"The 3rd Circuit, which Justice Samuel Alito formerly served on, examined this 9th Circuit decision while considering their own case," he noted. "They concluded, 'We don’t agree with his extreme position.' "

Interestingly, Hausknecht said the 9th Circuit panel still maintains that the only proper place for parental input is during school board elections.

More Pregnant Women Report Discrimination in the Workplace

2006-05-31T23:01:00.000-05:00

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

Advocacy Group Issues Report on Domestic Violence; Policies Exacerbate Child Abuse

2006-05-30T17:51:00.000-05:00

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.

Supreme Court Avoids Gay Parental Rights

2006-05-30T14:46:00.000-05:00

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.

Time To Address Domestic Violence Abuses

2006-05-26T15:17:00.000-05:00

by Phyllis Schlafly
May 18, 2006

The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was signed by President Bush in January without any public debate, but evidence is now surfacing which Congress should have examined before the law was passed.

VAWA is a nearly-billion-dollar-a-year extension of one of the major ways that Bill Clinton bought the support of the radical feminists.

Why Republicans passed this bill is a mystery. It's unlikely that the feminists who will spend all that money will ever vote Republican.

Passage of VAWA was a major priority of the American Bar Association (ABA) for whose members it is a cash cow. More than 300 courts have implemented specialized docket processes to address VAWA-type cases, more than a million women have obtained protection orders from the courts, and more than 660 new state laws pertaining to domestic violence have been passed, all of which produce profitable work for lawyers.

A recently issued ABA document called "Tool for Attorneys" provides lawyers with a list of suggestive questions to encourage their clients to make domestic-violence charges. Knowing that a woman can get a restraining order against the father of her children in an ex parte proceeding without any evidence, and that she will never be punished for lying, domestic-violence accusations have become a major tactic for securing sole child custody.

Voluminous documentation to dispel the feminist myths that created and have perpetuated VAWA are spelled out in seven reports just issued by an organization called RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), and in an 80-page report called "Family Violence in America" published by the American Coalition for Fathers & Children.

For example, it is a shocker to discover that acts don't have to be violent to be punished under the definition of domestic violence. Name-calling, put-downs, shouting, negative looks or gestures, ignoring opinions, or constant criticizing can all be legally labeled domestic violence.

The ABA report states flatly: "Domestic violence does not necessarily involve physical violence."

The feminists' mantra is, "You don't have to be beaten to be abused." VAWA advocates assert that domestic violence is a crime, yet family courts often adjudicate domestic violence as a civil (not a criminal) matter.

---
Phyllis Schlafly is the President and Founder of the Eagle Forum, located in Alton, Illinois.

ATRA Tags Three Illinois Counties "Judicial Hellholes"

2006-05-25T13:29:00.000-05:00

According to a recent study, 3 Illinois Counties have been labelled "Judicial Hellholes" for their lack of fairness in civil courtrooms, as reported by the American Tort Reform Association.

While the overwhelming majority of State courts dispense justice in a fair and impartial manner, Judicial Hellholes are a few, but powerful courts that have a disproportionately harmful impact on civil litigation.

Litigation tourists, who neither lived nor were injured in these jurisdictions, are guided by their personal injury lawyers who seek out these places because they know they will produce a positive outcome, an excessive verdict or settlement, a favorable precedent, or both.

This is venue shopping run wild.

"It is possible to quench the fires in Judicial Hellholes with the help of judges, legislators, the electorate and the media," said Sherman Joyce, President of the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA). "By shining the spotlight on the abuses in these jurisdictions, Judicial Hellholes can become fair courts.”

“Judicial Hellholes can be quenched by public light. The result is an impartial court that subscribes to a fundamental value of our legal system: Equal Justice Under Law,” said ATRA General Counsel Victor Schwartz.

2005 Judicial Hellholes include:

1. Rio Grande Valley and Gulf Coast, Texas
2. Cook County, Illinois
3. West Virginia
4. Madison County, Illinois
5. St. Clair County, Illinois
6. South Florida.

This year's only "Dishonorable Mention" goes to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for 4 bad decisions in four months.

Wisconsin has long been known as a good state for business and healthcare. These decisions by the high court will place the state at risk, creating a potential access to healthcare crisis and making businesses think twice about investment in that state.

Other report Highlights New this year is the "Watch List," a list of areas that have been cited in previous Judicial Hellhole reports, or new areas that are being closely monitored due to growing concerns or negative developments in the litigation environment.

The 2005 Watch List includes:
California; Eastern Kentucky; Eastern Alabama; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New Mexico; Delaware; Oklahoma; Orleans Parish, Louisiana; and Washington, D.C.

In addition to identifying Judicial Hellholes – places where "Equal Justice Under Law" does not exist – the report also showcases “Points of Light,” areas where judges, legislators, the electorate, and the media intervened to stem abusive judicial practices.

Some Points of Light include: the enactment of the federal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005; the Illinois Supreme Court ruling that a state trial judge should not have granted nationwide class action treatment in Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 5-99-0830; and four states enacting asbestos and silica litigation reform.

Illinois Social Worker: "What Are You Trying To Hide?"

2006-05-24T13:54:00.000-05:00

May 15, 2006

According to a report by the Home School Legal Defense Association, the Romo family of Aurora Illinois were homeschooling their seven children--following all the requirements of Illinois law.
Both parents had disabilities, and were finding it difficult to make ends meet. In February, a social worker from the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) visited them, accusing the father of "abusing the children."

The family retained attorney Chris Klicka of HSLDA who wrote a letter to the DCFS explaining that the family was innocent, and that the allegations from an anonymous tipster were bogus.
Nonetheless, the DCFS continued to contact the family, insisting on interviewing all the children separately.

A local attorney who dealt frequently with the DCFS for the last 10 years advised the family to let the children be interviewed in order to make the accusations "all go away."

Klicka talked with this attorney to find out why she was giving this advice. She explained, "You don't want to have this father taken away from his children and the children removed, so you better cooperate." When Klicka asked her if she ever advises families not to cooperate, she explained, "Yes, if they are guilty."

Klicka reportedly discussed the situation with the family, explaining that since they were innocent, the only way social workers could force their way into the house and interview the children is if the officials had probable cause. Neither the family nor Klicka could possibly think how social workers could have probable cause. The Romos decided to refuse the demand for entering their home and interviewing their children.

When Klicka contacted DCFS the social worker said, "Why won't they cooperate with us? What are they trying to hide?" This is a common statement from social workers trying to get the families to "cooperate their way."

The family did provide statements from many other families in their church who vouched for them being good parents, and also an interview between their pastor and their children, indicating no abuse. The family stood on their 4th Amendment rights and the recent law that HSLDA helped pass in Illinois requiring social workers to be trained in their duty to protect these very same constitutional rights.

The family later received a letter from the DCFS stating that the case was unsubstantiated and was closed, in spite of their insistence that the "law" required them to interview the children personally.

As ruled by the Federal courts, it has been affirmed that speaking to a child by DCF without probable cause or consent from the parent is considered a seizure requiring a warrant supported by imminent "physical" danger and probable cause. DCF has no statutory right under the law to interview any child unless imminent "physical" danger is present with probable cause; not the risk of harm or possibility of harm.

The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and Child Protective Services (“CPS”) investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conducted.

The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the practice of a “no prior consent” interview of a child will ordinarily constitute a “clear violation” of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

According to the Court, the investigative interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when conducted on private property without “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances,” such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly the owner of the private property.

The mere possibility or risk of harm does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)

A due-process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978).

Libertyville School District Takes Aim at Teens' Web Posts

2006-05-18T21:21:00.000-05:00

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, 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, or of other people's children when school is not in session.

Source: Chicagotribune.com

No Tort Reform in Springfield for 2006. (Surprise!)

2006-05-18T15:35:00.000-05:00

Trial Lawyers Big Winners in Springfield

G-Rod and the State legislature produced some pretty clear winners and losers during this spring's legislative session.

And as it comes to an end, trial lawyers are once again at the top of the winners list. Their allies in the State legislature successfully blocked every piece of lawsuit reform legislation that came their way this session.

Surprised? Hardly.

These reforms, among other things, would have ended the practice of allowing drawn-out custody disputes amongst fit parents, and curtail the practice of venue shopping by tightening current rules on where a lawsuit can be filed for class-action torts against corporations, so that the case can only be heard in the county where the defendant lives, a company is located, or where an injury occurred.

Let's face it: When those who profit from the pain and misery of others win--the rest of us lose. The only way to defeat the excesses of trial lawyers is to grow our grassroots coalition of supporters around Illinois.

Watch for more info from the newly formed Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children coming soon.

More Batterers Getting Custody in Lake County, or... More Moms Acting Up?

2006-05-17T14:37:00.000-05:00

"My Crime? Divorcing a violent husband and father--He Got Full Custody" read the sign.

Sounds too good to be true. More than likely, it probably is.

Apparently, a Lake County Mom was arrested recently on the order Judge Jorge Ortiz after she refused to take her son to receive a Psych evaluation at a local counseling agency.

Approximately 20 supporters, many of them Mothers (not Fathers) who were fighting their own legal battles involving their kids were on hand, according to the report by Judy Masterson in the NewsSun Online.

The prevailing theme?
"A growing number of women embroiled in custody disputes argue that court-ordered psychological evaluation of women and children is used as a tool to flip custody to fathers, including some who have histories of domestic violence."

Interesting to note:
Attorney General Lisa Madigan is looking into more than 225 victim impact statements collected by Annette Zender, founder of the Illinois Coalition for Family Court Reform, who has been battling the issue of Parental Alienation Syndrome in her own case.

Is this starting to have a familiar ring?

Diddy Made Me Do it

2006-05-10T16:55:00.000-05:00

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)

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

2006-05-08T19:23:00.000-05:00

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 more
dramatic 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.”4

Braver’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.

Kentucky Court Applies Crawford to Reverse Termination of Parental Rights

2006-05-07T11:05:00.000-05:00

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has 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 decision may be viewed here.

Kentucky's child protection agency removed a couple's six-year-old son and 21-month-old daughter from their care. In a foster home, they displayed behavior that seemed sexual. The boy was interviewed by police but provided no "coherent disclosures" of sex abuse. He was then given a "sexual abuse assessment" by a therapist, during which he reported molestation by his parents and two uncles. The therapist elicited more details about this in her later sessions with the boy. At the termination hearing, the therapist was permitted to testify to the boy's allegations to her.

A pediatrician gave both children sexual abuse exams. He found "no specific abnormalities." He was permitted to testify that he also interviewed the boy, and that the boy told him that his uncle had molested him.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of the couple, partly because of the sexual abuse the boy had reported.

The court of appeals noted that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to confront adverse witnesses in all criminal prosecutions. The court then extrapolated a confrontation right in parental termination trials:

The United States Supreme Court has held that, as a termination of parental rights proceeding seeks not only to infringe upon, but terminate, a fundamental liberty interest (that of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child), a parent must be provided with fundamentally fair procedures. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). In termination of parental rights proceedings, fundamental fairness includes the right to confrontation. G.E.Y. v. Cabinet for Human Resources, 701 S.W.2d 713 (Ky.App. 1985). Both "[a] child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship." Santosky, 455 U.S. at 760.

In the Crawford case, the U.S. Supreme Court construed the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause to exclude testimonial hearsay unless the declarant testifies at trial or the defendant had an adequate prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. The A.G.G. decision reviewed the reasoning in the Crawford decision, then found the boy's statements to the therapist and the pediatrician testimonial. Since the boy did not testify and had not been available earlier for cross-examination, admitting those statements required reversal.

Sensenbrenner, Grassley Introduce Legislation Establishing an Inspector General for the Judicial Branch

2006-05-02T14:39:00.000-05:00

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."

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=64750

Weak women, bad men and the Bill of Rights

2006-05-01T09:37:00.000-05:00

By Phyllis Schlafly
Apr 3, 2006

The most controversial case for the U.S. Supreme Court this term does not concern abortion, gay rights, the death penalty, or even the detention of enemy combatants. No, the hottest legal issue is based on an argument between Hershel Hammon and his wife about their daughter going to a boyfriend's house.

For this, the administration of President George W. Bush filed a special friend-of-the-court brief, and even insisted on participating in oral argument before the Supreme Court despite the complete lack of any federal issue at stake.

The decisions in Hammon v. Indiana and in a very similar case heard the same day, Davis v. Washington, will reveal whether the justices believe that Americans are entitled to all the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights, or believe the Supreme Court can push the delete button on one of those rights.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Schlafly is the President and Founder of the Eagle Forum.

Self-Regulation of Judicial Misconduct Could be Mis-Regulation

2006-04-29T00:46:00.000-05:00

89 Michigan Law Review 609
(1990)

Anthony D'Amato

Judge Harry T. Edwards has written a lucid and seemingly logical plea for the judiciary to be granted exclusive self-regulation over all matters of judicial misconduct that fall short of crimes or impeachable offenses. [FN1] His essay demonstrates the seriousness with which he regards misconduct that would bring shame to the federal judiciary. He believes that the judiciary as a whole is the best institution to ascertain and take measures against individual aberrant judges who are guilty of various forms of misconduct, and I have no doubt of the sincerity of his belief. Yet when we look at claims for selfregulation in other professions--in medicine and in the police force, for example--we find historically that progress only takes place when outside lay persons are included on or even dominate ethics and misconduct boards. Otherwise the general operating rule is "cover it up." No matter what the profession, any charge that a fellow professional is guilty of malpractice is a prima facie invitation to other professionals to retreat to a guild mentality, denying that the infraction took place.

The impetus to cover up is not primarily due to friendship toward the accused but rather to a general perception that disclosure would lead to public disrespect of the profession as a whole.

The guild mentality is self-protective at the group level, and results in trumping honest disclosure in all but the most egregious cases that would leak to the public anyway. With respect to guild mentality, I know of no compelling distinction for judges from doctors or police officers.

Given the low salaries society gives to judges, public esteem is correspondingly an extremely important job benefit. [FN2] We perhaps demand too much of human nature if we expect judges to be unconcerned with the loss of public prestige that results from admitting that cases of serious judicial misconduct are not extraordinarrly rare. But placing these general misgivings to one side, my particular quarrel with Judge Edwards' essay has three aspects: first, that his perception of the problem may be distorted due to the legal culture in which he is perhaps unselfconsciously immersed; second, that he places an untenably narrow positivistic interpretation on the "good behavior" language of the Constitution; and third, that his failure even to mention what may be one of the most significant areas of judicial misconduct, namely, lack of candor in judicial opinions, proves a certain institutional blindness to misconduct that undercuts his entire plea.

I conclude this essay by suggesting that lack of candor is just an example, although perhaps the most important one, of the danger of entrusting solely to the judiciary the policing of its own members.

http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/A90n.pdf

Parental Rights & Due Process

2006-04-29T00:05:00.000-05:00

Journal of Law & Family Studies

Donald C. Hubin
Department of Philosophy
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210

ABSTRACT

The U.S. Supreme Court regards parental rights as fundamental. Such a status should subject any legal procedure that directly and substantively interferes with the exercise of parental rights to strict scrutiny. On the contrary, though, despite their status as fundamental constitutional rights, parental rights are routinely suspended or revoked as a result of procedures that fail to meet even minimal standards of procedural and substantive due process. This routine and cavalier deprivation of parental rights takes place in the context of divorce where, during the pendency of litigation, one parent is routinely deprived of significant parental rights without any demonstration that a state interest exists—much less that there is a compelling state interest that cannot be achieved in any less restrictive way. In marked contrast to our current practice, treating parental rights as fundamental rights requires a presumption of joint legal and physical custody upon divorce and during the pendency of divorce litigation.

The presumption may be overcome, but only by clear and convincing evidence that such an arrangement is harmful to the children.

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/hubin1/Research/PRDP.PDF

How the Government Creates Child Abuse

2006-04-28T23:55:00.000-05:00

by Stephen Baskerville
Apr 13, 2006

Just in time for "Child Abuse Prevention Month," the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) publishes its annual contribution to obfuscating the causes of child abuse.
Operatives of the child abuse industry often wax righteous about the "scandal" of child abuse.
"We cannot tolerate the abuse of even one child," says an HHS press release. But the real scandal is the armies of officials who have been allowed to acquire -- using taxpayers' dollars -- a vested interest in abused children. Devising child abuse programs makes us all feel good, but there is no evidence they make the slightest difference. In fact, they probably make the problem worse.

Child abuse is largely a product of the feminist-dominated family law and social work industries. It is a textbook example of the government creating a problem for itself to solve. Child abuse is entirely preventable. A few decades ago, there was no child abuse epidemic; it grew up with the welfare system and the divorce revolution. It continues because of entrenched interests who are employed pretending to combat it. A few undisputed facts will establish this -- facts that are passed over and even distorted year after year by HHS and others whose budgets depend on abused children. Almost all child abuse takes places in single parent homes.

A British study found children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused when a live-in boyfriend or stepfather is present than in an intact family. HHS has its own figures demonstrating that children in single-parent households are at much higher risk for physical violence and sexual molestation than those living in two-parent homes. Yet this basic fact is consistently omitted from its annual report. Shorn of euphemism, what this means is that the principal impediment to child abuse is a father. "The presence of the father . placed the child at lesser risk for child sexual abuse," conclude scholars in the journal Adolescent and Family Health. "The protective effect from the father's presence in most households was sufficiently strong to offset the risk incurred by the few paternal perpetrators."

In fact, the risk of "paternal perpetrators" is miniscule. Contrary to the innuendo of child abuse "advocates," it is not married fathers but single mothers who are by far the most likely to injure and kill their children. "Contrary to public perception," write Patrick Fagan and Dorothy Hanks of the Heritage Foundation, "research shows that the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that child's mother, not a male in the household." Mothers accounted for 55% of child murders, according to a Justice Department report (1,100 out of 2,000, with fathers committing 130).

Here again, HHS itself has figures that women aged 20 to 49 are almost twice as likely as men to be perpetrators of child maltreatment: "almost two-thirds were females." Given that "male" perpetrators are not usually fathers but much more likely to be boyfriends and stepfathers, fathers emerge as by far the least likely child abusers. While men are thought more likely to commit sexual as opposed to physical abuse, sexual abuse is much less common than severe physical abuse and much more likely to be perpetrated by boyfriends and stepfathers. "Children are seven times more likely to be badly beaten by their parents than they are to be sexually abused by them," according to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

The NSPCC found that father-daughter incest is "rare, occurring in less than 4 in 1,000 children," and that three-fourths of incest perpetrators are brothers and stepbrothers rather than fathers. HHS's own figures show that reported sexual abuse is a tiny minority of reported child abuse, and of this little is committed by real fathers. The Journal of Ethnology and Sociobiology reports that a preschooler not living with both biological parents is forty times more likely to be sexually abused. Yet feminists would have us believe that father-daughter incest is rampant, and conservatives credulously swallow their propaganda.

A recent PBS documentary, "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," asserts without evidence and contrary to known scientific data that "Children are most often in danger from the father." Feminist child protection agents implement this propaganda as policy. "One scholarly study concluded that "An anti-male attitude is often found in documents, statements, and in the writings of those claiming to be experts in cases of child sexual abuse." Social service agencies systematically teach children to hate their fathers and inculcate in the children a message that the father has sexually molested them. "The professionals use techniques that teach children a negative and critical view of men in general and fathers in particular," the authors write. "
The child is repeatedly reinforced for fantasizing throwing Daddy in jail and is trained to hate and fear him."

A San Diego grand jury investigative report found that false accusations during divorce were positively encouraged by government officials. "The system appears to reward a parent who initiates such a complaint," it states. "Some of these involve allegations which are so incredible that authorities should have been deeply concerned for the protection of the child." Such behavior by officials is driven by federal financial incentives. "The social workers and therapists played pivotal roles in condoning this," charged the grand jury. "They were helped by judges and referees."

Seldom does public policy stand in such direct defiance of undisputed truths, to the point where the cause of the problem -- separating children from their fathers -- is presented as the solution, and the solution -- allowing children to grow up with their fathers -- is depicted as the problem.

If you want to encourage child abuse, remove the fathers.That is precisely what officials do -- not only social workers but also family court judges. It is difficult to believe that judges are not aware that the most dangerous environment for children is precisely the single-parent homes they themselves create when they remove fathers in custody proceedings. Yet they have no hesitation in removing them, secure in the knowledge that they will never be held accountable for any harm that comes to the children.

On the contrary, if they do not they may be punished by the bar associations, feminist groups, and social work bureaucracies whose earnings and funding depend on a constant supply of abused children. It is a commonplace of political science that bureaucracies relentlessly expand, often by creating the problem they exist to address.

Appalling as it sounds, the conclusion is inescapable that we have created a huge army of officials with a vested interest in child abuse.

---

Dr. Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

Harms to Children and Parents Inherent to Abuse Investigations

2006-04-28T23:42:00.000-05:00

National Council on Family Relations, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 2003.

Sandra Mira and Gordon E. Finley
Department of Psychology, Florida International University

Abstract

Beginning in the 1960’s, national concern arose regarding a perceived crisis of child abuse and neglect. Beginning in the 1980’s, a counter-concern also arose regarding a perceived crisis of large numbers of unfounded and false abuse allegations along with the inherently negative consequences of these investigations for children and parents. This poster briefly lists the existing practice and policy based literature on these negative impacts, calls for a research based literature focusing on the harms caused by unfounded or false abuse investigations for children and parents, and suggests policy changes based on what we currently know.

Introduction

Beginning in the 1960’s, national concern arose which regarded child abuse to be a crisis of great magnitude. Public policy was reevaluated, new laws were passed, and Child Protective Service units were formed to investigate the rising flood of abuse allegations. The implicit, and sometimes explicit, assumption was that these were “victimless” investigations and were necessary to ferret out abuse, “save” children, and punish wrongdoers - all in the name of the “best interest of the child” (Finley, 2002a). Beginning in the 1980’s, however, a counter-trend emerged which argued that such investigations were far from harmless, far from victimless, and that they had grave consequences for the children under investigation as well as their parents.
If the number of investigations closed with the designation of unfounded or false were small, the issues raised here would be of minor consequence. Unfortunately, and although the percentages vary by state, the percentage of abuse cases investigated and closed with the designation of unfounded or false usually substantially exceeds 50%. Thus, when (a) there are substantial harms and negative consequences inherent to the investigations of unfounded and false abuse allegations for children and parents and (b) the number of unfounded or false outcomes is high, we have a new crisis – a crisis of unfounded and false abuse reports and investigations (Finley, 2002b).

Most of the articles cited below argue: (a) that the abuse field long has been in denial regarding the harms and consequences of these investigations, (b) that it is long past time to balance the crisis to save children and the crisis to protect the due process rights of the accused, and (c) that the well-being of both children and parents is not being well served by the present system (Finley, 2002a, 2002b). There also is the implicit argument that this denial may be in the service of political agendas as well as the substantial financial profits for those who toil in the domestic violence, divorce, and forensic mental health industries.

Indeed, the suppression of the literature reporting the harms and consequences of abuse investigations has been so effective that an exhaustive computerized literature search yielded only about two dozen professional articles directly on the topic. By contrast, the writings and workshops focused on “saving” children from abuse and neglect number in the tens of thousands. Those motivated to “save” children (Finley, 2002a), should consider first the harms and consequences of abuse investigations for children. The major harms cited in the literature and the authors citing them are cryptically grouped and listed below.

Harms and Consequences for Children

1. The most potent consequence is the marginalization or severing of the parent-child relationship. A previously healthy parent child relationship may be disrupted, become defensive or distant, or even terminated (Besharov, 1985; Dillon, 1987; Finley, 2003; Green & Schetky, 1988; Patterson, 1991; Robin, 1992; Wakefield & Underwager, 1991).

2. There may be a separation from a parent (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Fincham, et. al., 1994; Finley, 2002b; Green, 1991; Hickman & Reynolds, 1994; Rutter, 1971; Wong, 1989).

3. There may be foster care with sometimes tragic consequences including: abuse, neglect, disappearance, and death (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Duquette, 1982; Fincham, et. al., 1994; Finley, 2002b; Robin, 1992).

4. Investigative interviews with officials are inherently stressful, repetitive, unsettling, and sometimes entail threats, harassment, coercive techniques and often a large number of individuals (Fincham, et. al., 1994; Hickman & Reynolds, 1994; Lipovsky, 1994; Parker, 1982; Wakefield and Underwager, 1991; and Weiss & Berg, 1982).

5. The child who testifies in court may experience severe psychological stress (Lipovsky, 1994; Parker, 1982; Weiss & Berg, 1982). Genital examinations are highly stressful often producing anxiety, fear, or anger (Berson, et al, 1993; Fincham, et .al., 1994; Robin, 1992).

6. Children sometimes are placed in coercive psychotherapy to overcome “denial” and required to remain in “treatment” until molestation is described (Green, 1991; Wakefield & Underwager, 1991). Likewise, the accusing parent can induce trauma in the child, which leads to a confused sense of reality (Green, 1991).

7. A variety of negative psychosocial outcomes may occur including PTSD, depression, loss of appetite, listlessness, loss of enjoyment of play, sleep disturbances, school failure, disturbances in psychosexual development, and developing a victim mentality (Hickman & Reynolds, 1994). Children also can suffer a sense of notoriety for having a parent who was accused of being a sex offender (Dillon 1987).

Harms and Consequences for the Accused Parent

1. The presumption of guilt becomes a taken-for-granted reality often based on nothing more than an anonymous report and before an investigative decision is rendered. There also is an absence of due process for the accused (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Green, 1991; Green & Schetky, 1988; Robin, 1992).

2. In divorce and custody conflicts, the mother often obtains sole custody, terminates visitation, terminates paternal rights, and harasses the noncustodial parent (Benedek & Schetky, 1985; Besharov, 1985, 1988; Finley, 2003; Patterson, 1991; Wong, 1989). Contact between father and child can be abruptly terminated (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Brooks & Milchman, 1991; Finley, 2002b, 2003; Green, 1991; Patterson, 1991) or the father can be placed under long-term court supervision (Besharov, 1985, 1988). These events can induce stress, loss of self-confidence, mistrust, fear of losing one’s children, and anger at those who are perceived as responsible for the report (Robin, 1992) as well as the marginalization or severing of the parent child relationship (Finley, 2003).

3. The parent is stigmatized and their reputation put into question even if they later are found innocent (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Brooks & Milchman, 1991; Dillon, 1987; Green, 1991; Green & Schetky, 1988; Patterson, 1991; Robin, 1992; Wong, 1989).

4. A great deal of time and money is spent on legal defense (Besharov, 1985; Dillon, 1987; Green, 1991; Patterson, 1991; Robin, 1992; Wong, 1989).

5. Employment may be terminated and a professional reputation destroyed (Fincham, et. al., 1994; Green, 1991; Green & Schetky, 1988; Robin, 1992; Wong, 1989).

6. The parent may be abandoned by friends and suffer social isolation, court stresses, or wrongful incarceration (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Duquette, 1982; Green & Schetky, 1988; Robin, 1992). The falsely accused also may experience the same type of symptoms as the truly abused including feelings of: trauma, betrayal, powerlessness, stigmatization, and additional symptoms such as anxiety, fear, difficulty in resuming normal activities, obsessive thoughts about the event, eating and sleeping difficulties, and depression (Robin, 1992). At the end of the road, there may be suicide (Fincham et. al., 1994).

7. Finally, Farrell (2001) summarizes many of these points when he argues that a charge of child abuse creates twelve guarantees of child abuse independent of the truth or falseness of the charge: Image of parent transformed from trusted-loved-one to possibly-untrustworthy-criminal-and-abuser; loss of innocence; suspicion and mistrust for all men (or women); repeated interrogations by police, psychologists, and welfare agencies; attacked as being in “denial” if the child denies abuse; parents are seen as each other’s enemies; played off by one parent against the other; feeling personally responsible for driving the family apart; father spends approximately $75,000 for lawyers, psychological testing, and expert witnesses leading to money conflicts or poverty and often dad is fired; child feels powerless to prevent his own stability from being undermined; the child is deprived of touching by the charged parent; child feels that neighbors and schoolmates think of the accused parent as a criminal; and the child is empowered to get the parent into legal trouble any time the parent does something the child does not like (Farrell, 2001, 204-205).

Implications for Research

Unfortunately, due to the absence of empirical research, it is necessary to re-issue the now decade old call to: “compare abused children to children reported to CPS but whose cases turned out to be unfounded. This comparison is critical in separating the possible impact of abuse from the potential impact of professionals’ response to the abuse” (Fincham et .al., 1994, 250).

Implications for Practice and Policy

The four most critical implications for practice and policy stemming from the literature reviewed above are that: (a) we must seek to balance an overzealous search for abuse and neglect with the rights of due process for the accused by replacing the family court standard of the “best interest of the child” (Finley, 2002a) with the criminal court standards of due process; (b) we must carefully re-examine our “presumptions” regarding guilt, innocence, and truthfulness; (c) we must forgo denial and recognize not only that more than half of the abuse and neglect allegations are unfounded or false but also that these investigations inherently cause harms to children and parents; and (d) most critically, we must recognize that, even if the investigations turn out to be unfounded or false, the harms inherent to these investigations remain with - and influence the lives of - children, fathers, and mothers for the balance of their lives.

References
Benedek, E.P., & Schetky, D.H. (1985). Allegations of sexual abuse in child custody and visitation
disputes. In D.H. Schetky & E.B. Benedek (Eds.), Emerging issues in child psychiatry and the law. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Berson, N.L., Herman-Giddens, M.E., & Frothingham, T.E. (1993). Children’s perceptions of genital
examinations during sexual abuse evaluations. Child Welfare League of America,72, 41-49.
Besharov, D.J. (1985). “Doing Something” About Child Abuse: The Need to Narrow the Grounds for
State Intervention. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 8, 539-589.
Besharov, D. (1988). The central dilemma: Protecting abused children while protecting innocent parents.
In H. Wakefield & R. Underwager (Eds.), Accusations of child sexual abuse (pp.3-15). Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
Brooks, C.M. & Milchman, M.S. (1991). Child Sexual Abuse Allegations during Custody Litigation: Conflicts between Mental Health Expert Witnesses and the Law. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 21-32.
Dillon, K.M. (1987). False sexual abuse allegations: Causes and concerns. Social Work, 32(6), 540-541.
Duquette, D. (1982). Protecting individual liberties in the context of screening for child abuse. In Starr,
R.H., Child abuse prediction: Policy implications (pp.191-204). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Fincham, F.D., Beach, S.R.H., Moore, T., and Diener, C. (1994). The professional response to child
sexual abuse: Whose interests are served? Family Relations, 43, 244-254.
Fincham, F.D., Beach, S.R.H., Moore, T., and Diener, C. (1994). Child sexual abuse: Finding common
ground. Family Relations, 43, 264- 266.
Farrell, W. (2001). Father and child reunion. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.
Finley, G.E. (2002a). The best interest of the child and the eye of the beholder. [Review of C. Panter-
Brick & M.T. Smith (Eds.) Abandoned Children.] ContemporaryPsychology APA REVIEW OF BOOKS, 47 (5), 629-631.
Finley, G.E. (2002b). Family and state in the context of abuse and neglect: An input-output analysis.
Adoption Quarterly, 5 (4), 1-6.
Finley, G.E. (2003). Father-child relationships following divorce. In J.R. Miller, R. M. Lerner, L.B.
Schiamberg, & P.M. Anderson (Eds.) Human ecology, Volume 1: A – H. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, pp. 291-293.
Green, A.H. (1991). Factors contributing to false allegations of child sexual abuse in custody disputes.
Child & Youth Services, 15(2), 177- 189.
Green, A.H. & Schetky, D.H. (1988). True and false allegations of child sexual abuse. In D.H. Schetky &
A.H. Green, Child sexual abuse (pp.104-124). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Hickman, J.A. & Reynolds, C.R. (1994). Effects of false allegations of sexual abuse on children and families. In B. Threatt (Ed.), Evaluating children’s allegations of sexual assault. Austin: Texas Legal Resource Center for Children and Travis County Bar Association.
Lipovsky, J.A. (1994). The Impact of Court on Children: Research Finding and Practical
Recommendations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 238-257.
Parker, J.Y. (1982). The Rights of Child Witnesses: Is the Court a Protector or Perpetrator? New England Law Review, 17, 643-717.
Patterson, D.H. (1991). The other victim: The falsely accused parent in a sexual abuse custody case.
Journal of family law, 30(4), 919-941.
Robin, M. (1992). The trauma of false allegations of sexual abuse. In E.C. Viano (Ed.), Critical issues in victimology: International perspectives (pp. 140-152), New York: Springer.
Rutter, M. (1971). Parent-child separation: Psychological effects on the Children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (12), 233-260.
Wakefield, M.A. & Underwager, R. (1991). Sexual abuse allegations in divorce and custody disputes.
Behavioral sciences and the law, 9, 451-468.
Weiss, E.H. and Berg, R.F. (1982). Child Psychiatry and Law: Child Victims of Sexual Assault: Impact of Court Procedures. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21, 513-518.
Wong, D. (1989). False allegations of child abuse: The other side of the tragedy. Pediatric nursing¸ 13(5),
329-333.

Also published as:
Mira, S., & Finley, G. E. (2004). Harms to children and parents inherent to abuse investigations. Children of divorced, separated, and never-married families, 19 (1), 22-23.

Bella Lugosi Meets... Batman?

2006-04-28T01:41:00.000-05:00

Not long ago, a group of irrate fathers took to the streets in Great Britain to protest their unjust treatment at the hands of the Family Courts, which by and large continue to limit access to their children as they do here in the U.S. to approximately a few days per month, depending on the circumstances of each case.

Apparently upset by what appears to be a routine practice, one father dressed-up as Batman and scaled the walls of Buckingham Palace in an attempt to draw attention to the issue, which created a colorful media spectacle that was seen in most parts of the world.

While such antics have yet to reach the shores of the U.S., a pro-father campaign in downstate Champaign-Urbana continues to create a knee-jerk reaction from both divorce attorneys and domestic violence advocates.

In response, on April 2nd, 2006, the East Central Illinois Women Attorneys’ Association (ECIWAA) published an Op-Ed column in the Champaign News-Gazette denouncing the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC), which is seeking reforms by, among other things, promoting assertive messages on local billboards concerning dual parental involvement.

Shudder to think: Forget Katrina, 9/11 and Iraq; the world must be going to hell in a hand-basket if we’re going to let both fathers and mothers be equally responsible for raising their own children.

Though this is clearly not the antics of Batman, my next best inclination would be... Bella Lugosi, putting us under his spell all over again. Only this time, he’s sucking real blood, and money too.

Bizarre as it may seem, the look that ol’ Bella is famous for with his cape and beatie eyes bears a strange resemblance to the manipulative power and influence that is being espoused by gender-feminists and Bar Associations to get everyone to remain content with the current system of marginalizing parents and children for profit during and after divorce.

As a sustainability advocate and principal lobbyist for Shared Parental involvement in Springfield for the last 4 years, most of the people I have met find that it’s very reasonable to advocate on behalf of equal responsibility--though I will readily admit that its hard to grasp the beatie-eyed position that groups like ECIWAA espouse, albeit any actual ownership stake--outside of the financial opportunity to be had when parents are manipulated into a slug-fest against each other to prove who makes the better parent. And if you think there’s nothing wrong with that--you’re obviously ready to have your blood drawn and your life manipulated by bloodsuckers.

So here's a little sunshine for them to enjoy:

Dual parent involvement after divorce, often referred to as “Shared Parenting” offers a workable solution that champions the notion of teamwork, flexibility, and accountability--by refining the post-divorce parenting arrangement to approximate parent-child relationships as they were intended to be as a family.

With Shared Parenting, both Mom and Dad have a 50/50 responsibility for their children’s welfare and upbringing--but also have an active role to play in the timely care, development, and routines of their children, where each can remain salient attachment figures and are not alienated as visitors.

The great fallacy about Shared Parenting is the notion of mandating a 50/50 time split for all cases. What's more, there are no credible studies to reflect that dual parent involvement is harmful to children, but actually quite the opposite.

As the living arrangement that most closely resembles the pre-divorce family in cases where both parents had an active parenting role before divorce--Shared Parenting encompasses both shared physical caretaking and an equal authority regarding children's education, medical care, and religious upbringing. As with current case law, the burden of proof lies on the State to prove there is an immediate harm to be prevented, not the parents. But our friends in many of the local Bar associations would like you to believe otherwise.

As key stakeholders, fit parents need to be held mutually accountable if they are unwilling to make their relationships work. This has been proven to be the most prudent and beneficial approach by both mental health professionals and forward-thinking parents alike, and is the most cost-effective remedy to taxpayers who are otherwise forced to flip the bill when Mom and Dad start acting like children.

With a divorce rate at or close to 50 percent, and over 30 percent of America's children being raised in what amounts to single-parent childrearing, Shared Parenting provides a remedy which is long overdue: Both parents know well in advance that there's little room for drawn-out custody battles, thereby creating an incentive to work things out. In turn, it provides less conflict, more equitable contributions to child support and college tuition, less legal expense and return visits to Court.

The result: More time and money to be put toward the things that matter most--their kids.
The non-custodial parent, usually the father, will be able to enjoy more quality time, and providing Mom a scenario for enhanced economic and social opportunities that otherwise would be challenged in solo-parent or low-income situations.

Where in many cases, the father is all but marginalized to seeing his children approximately four days per month with little if any ownership stake; the system also provides a scenario of dependence and disempowerment to the extent that Mom’s survival is riding on Dad’s continued compliance with support payments alone. If he is unemployed, underemployed, becomes disabled, or is called into active military duty, or if his ownership stake has been all but removed, that premise of continued support will be on shaky ground from the get-go, and create an additional burden for children, parents, and the community at-large if he decides not to play along. Illinois' ranking in this category is also worth considering--standing at or near the bottom of the list.

Most economists , academics, policy makers, and even parents would agree that there's more than one way to support a child. But if you allow only divorce attorneys and feminist sympathizers to do the Math, what you'll find is a Soviet-styled legal system that champions one class of parents over another, regardless of what may or may not be best for the kids.

States that provide such a presumption in favor of joint care have enjoyed increased numbers of family court actions settled by stipulation, higher rates of child support compliance, and fewer returns to court.

Essentially, Shared Parenting picks-up where Joint Legal Custody and single parent child-rearing fall short: to inspire greater cooperation rather than conflict in contested divorce and custody matters, and keep parents involved. After more than 20 years with little if any substantive changes in our child custody statutes, Shared Parenting would provide the most equitable solution for parents and children who are othewise marginalized from one another, and at less cost to the community.

Despite 15 years of research illustrating better outcomes for children with Shared Parenting, 50/50 parental responsibility would be far from an experiment--especially when compared to the positive teamwork that results from successful intact families, and from parents who have separated amicably and wish to maintain peace and continuity for the sake of their children.

What’s bad about Shared Parenting? Bella Lugosi will starve, and Dad’s exile on Main Street will all but come to an end.

As if to expose Dracula to the light of day, the response from the groups like ECIWAA and other Bar Associations should come of little surprise to anyone. No one should buy into this hocus-pocus and believe their way is the only way--and it’s time that Illinois parents and policymakers snap out of it.

At last count, there are more than 12 states considering substantive reforms in this area. Whether State or Federal lawmakers will effectively resolve the issue of marginalized parents and children in the next year still remains a mystery. But one thing is for certain: neither the antics of Batman or Bella Logosi are going to bring us any closer to realizing where we need to be on this issue: kids need both parents.

http://michael-burns.blogspot.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burns is a Creative Strategist to the Advertising world and is Executive Director of Dialogue on Sustainable Community, a non-partisan, public-interest Think-tank located in Chicago.