1. Take Action 2. Get Involved 3. Give a Gift
About | Contact | Home

Fathers and Families® improves the lives of children and strengthens society by protecting the child’s right to the love and care of both parents after separation or divorce. We seek better lives for children through family court reform that establishes equal rights and responsibilities for fathers and mothers.

Two More Tragic Cases of Parental Kidnapping Go Unresolved

September 2nd, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Massachusetts resident Colin Bower lost his two sons thirteen months ago. At this point, he doesn’t know if he’ll ever get them back. That’s because his ex-wife, Mirvat el Nady, kidnapped the boys to her native Egypt, and, since that country has never ratified the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, his remedies appear to be mostly diplomatic. Read about it here (MSNBC, 9/1/10).

Bower and Nady were divorced in Massachusetts in 2008, with sole custody being granted to Bower. But last August, he took them to visit their mother. Two days later, she was in Egypt, having used forged passports for the boys.

Bower has gone to Egypt six times and been granted visitation rights there, but Nady has never allowed him to actually see the children. If she refuses one more time, apparently she’ll be in violation of Egyptian criminal law, but of course I would have thought that forging an Egyptian passport would have done that in the first place.

But whatever the case, she’s also a fugitive from international justice. She’s charged in the United States with kidnapping and Interpol has issued a warrant for her arrest. All of that puts her in hot water, but brings his children not one step closer to Colin Bower. Egyptian officials apparently know where Nady and the boys are, but so far no one is telling.

Stateside, Bower has involved the likes of Secretary of State Clinton and Bay State Senior Senator John Kerry in his quest to have his children returned, but so far there’s been no movement in that direction.

Compared to the dad in this story, Bower should count himself lucky (Southtown Star, 8/26/10). Frankfort, Kentucky dad Gerardo Serrano’s ex-wife kidnapped their son to her native Poland 10 years ago. A judge in Illinois issued an order that he have custody, but a Polish court issued a competing order in favor of the mother, including that he pay child support. When that order was sent to the Illinois Division of Child Support Services, it was treated like any other order of child support. That meant that, since Serrano wasn’t paying the woman who’d kidnapped his child, the DCSS garnished his bank account.

Serrano said the state acted hastily in trying to enforce a foreign court’s order, which was in conflict with the Cook County judge’s ruling, without knowing the details of his case and that his child was kidnapped.

“They (state) just didn’t care,” he said. “They weren’t interested in my story. It’s just about getting the highest amount of money and saying, ‘Look what we collected.’

Say, where have we heard that before?

The latest news is that an administrative law judge has ordered Serrano’s bank account unfrozen and all amounts garnished returned to him. Amazingly enough though, Serrano still may not be off the hook. The Illinois DCSS could still decide at any time to go after him and his money for a child who was kidnapped a decade ago.

Strangely enough, Poland is a signatory to the Hague Convention. For reasons I can’t fathom, that seems to have helped Gerardo Serrano not a whit.

Thanks to John for the heads-up on the Serrano case.

Parental Alienation Syndrome: One Father’s Story

September 2nd, 2010 by Terry Kee

Imagine a nightmare scenario where your children hate you. They tell you repeatedly that they hate you; and worse, their actions leave no doubt that they hate you. Moreover, their hatred doesn’t stop with you; it extends to everyone close to you – including your parents – their grandparents – and even to your pets. Imagine that your children do not refer to you with terms of endearment such as “mom” or “dad” - but with your first name or with horrible vulgarities. Imagine being locked out of your house, having the woodwork in your house gouged, the walls defaced, and having your heirlooms destroyed, all the while your child laughs at you, a taunting maniacal laugh, as the dirty deeds are done. Imagine finding snack foods or cereal strewn about the house, or juice in puddles on the floor. Imagine being kicked in the head as you drive. Imagine, if you can, that your child hates you so much that he or she laces your toothbrush with excrement.

Imagine not being able to have dinner with your children because they refuse to eat anything you cook for them. Imagine not being able to go to a restaurant with your children, because they will move to another table rather than sit with you. Imagine not being able to talk to your children at all. In the house, they will turn away or shut themselves in their room. In the car, they will respond to you with vulgarity and contempt. If they ever do attempt to communicate, they will tell you how much they hate you and how perfect the other parent is in their eyes - while you are your children’s number one enemy, your ex-spouse is considered infallible and beyond reproach.

Imagine that these children who hate you are not teenagers, but just 10 years old. Now stop imagining. Welcome to the hellish world of an alienated parent whose children are affected by Parental Alienation Syndrome.

As a father who has been targeted by a vindictive and malicious ex, to the point where my children refuse to see me or their grandparents, I am oftentimes annoyed to hear psychologists and psychiatrists who don’t really understand the difference between Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome. Consider this recent excerpt from a US News and World Report article, “I really get concerned about spreading the definition of mental illness too wide,” says Elissa Benedek, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Ann Arbor, Mich., and a past president of the APA. There’s no question in her mind that kids become alienated from a loving parent in many divorces with little or no justification, and she’s seen plenty of kids kick and scream all the way to the car when visitation is enforced. But, she says, “this is not a mentally ill child.” (US News and World Report, Parental Alienation:  A Mental Diagnosis? Some experts say the extreme hatred some kids feel toward a parent in a divorce is a mental illness. By Lindsay Lyon, October 29, 2009)

With all due respect to Dr. Benedek, her example scenario provides too little in the way of information to determine if the child in question is in fact merely alienated or is emotionally incapacitated as a direct result of undue and unjust external influences (PAS).

If you have never personally experienced Parental Alienation Syndrome, it is difficult to fathom how a child can become so completely and utterly transformed from a wonderful, caring, loving being to a mean, angry, hateful individual. Here is a firsthand account from one such child, now an adult, “I did everything in my power to make dad happy and destroy my mother… My main mission was to have her suffer for who I thought she was, not for who she was… I thought about her dying and having a party.” Chrissy Chrzanowski, who as a child was programmed to hate her mother. (Chrissy Chrzanowski, live speech at a Michigan rally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z7gEAnFF84)

Parental Alienation Syndrome is the result of a war having children soldiers. Parental Alienation Syndrome takes a commander-in-chief, foot soldiers and a common enemy. In this case, the commander-in-chief is the alienating parent, the children are the foot soldiers, and the common enemy is the child’s other parent and those closest to him or her. And just like adult soldiers who fight in a campaign of terror, death, and destruction and then end up suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, so too do children of PAS end up suffering from the horrors of war.

The DSM recognizes Post Traumatic Stress as a disorder, which, like PAS, is environmentally trigged. You are not born with PTSD. It is a condition that is caused by external events - a condition that could in fact, happen to the best of us given the right environment and set of circumstances. Despite the fact that PTSD is not a mental condition that one is born with, such as Down Syndrome or Tourette’s, it is rightly recognized in the DSM as a negative condition that requires treatment, even though it is possible to lessen with time and treatment.

PAS is also a condition that is inflicted by environment and circumstances, and which carries negative long term consequences. Additionally, vindictive parenting behaviors are highly likely to resurface in the next generation - as these children become parents themselves. As Amy J.L. Baker, PhD, a noted PAS expert has written, PAS is a condition that requires time to abate. And frankly, this is time that targeted parents don’t have. PAS children can remain immersed in the delusion well into adulthood and oftentimes require third party intervention – generally from his or her significant other.

Here’s where The American Psychiatric Association, as the gatekeeper of the DSM, and the American Psychology Association, as front line care providers, can do the right thing and help put an end to the emotional abuse of children that PAS presents. They can put an end to an era where children are programmed to hate. They can put an end to the emotional scarring for those children who will forever carry a burden of guilt. PAS is a great injustice and it is becoming more widespread in the absence of professional guidance and remediation. But to do what must be done, the APA must put aside the politics and emotion of the debate.

The recognition of PAS is being held hostage by special interest groups. Domestic Violence Against Women Special Interest Groups (DVAWSIGs) have long argued that PAS is nothing more than a tactic. Consider the following quote, “PAS has been used in countless cases by abusive fathers to gain custody of their children.” This quote was taken from a television documentary titled “Breaking the Silence; Children’s Stories.” It aired on PBS in October of 2005. In fact, “Breaking the Silence” ended up being discredited as a one-sided, poorly conceived infomercial. PBS received 4,000 e-mails on the subject and 3,500 of them were negative. Here’s what the PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler, had to say on the matter after he concluded his investigation, “”…there was no recognition of opposing views on the program. There was a complete absence of some of the fundamental journalistic conventions that, in fact, make a story more powerful and convincing because they, at a minimum, acknowledge that there is another side….I thought this particular program had almost no balance, and went too far, turning it, at least in my mind, into more of an advocacy, or point-of-view presentation.”

This program was then reviewed by the ombudsman for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Ken A. Bode, who further noted, “I agree with everything Getler says, to a point. He allows that PBS editorial guidelines for fairness and objectivity were ‘bumped up against and maybe breached,’ but does not assert they were clearly breached. I think it is worse than that. There was no alternative point of view presented in ‘Breaking the Silence’ and the producer admits it was intended to be that way. It might be difficult to find a clearer breach of PBS editorial standards unless one concludes there is only one side to child and spousal abuse issues in the country’s custody cases [emphasis added].” (Breaking the Silence Redux, December 19, 2005, Ken A. Bode. http://www.cpb.org/ombudsmen/display.php?id=12)

Still, DVAWSIGs, ignorantly perhaps, misguided certainly, believe that Parental Alienation Syndrome is a tactic and in conjunction, would be misdiagnosed, therefore robbing an innocent parent of custody. But Parental Alienation Syndrome is such an abomination, having unique indicators, that it is relatively easy to diagnose and, conversely, difficult to misdiagnose. A fully entrenched PAS child harbors unreasonable animosity and hatred towards the targeted parent and, due to the programming, will find it difficult to say anything negative about the non-targeted parent. It is a terrible abuse of power, that “so-called” domestic violence groups oppose recognizing the emotional abuse of children caused by a severe and prolonged campaign of alienation enacted by a malicious and vindictive ex spouse.

The “tactic” argument is ancillary to the question of whether PAS should be recognized as a disorder. False claims of abuse by women against men do not invalidate legitimate cases of abuse; neither should false claims of PAS invalidate legitimate cases of PAS. There are, after all, vindictive and malicious parents who poison their children’s mind against good and loving parents – should these individuals not be held accountable?

The DSM V committee must not be misguided by special interest groups purporting to have a greater cause. There is no greater cause. Society has a duty to its most vulnerable members – its children. PAS children are psychologically damaged. This is a preventable tragedy and children who exhibit Parental Alienation Syndrome require specialized intervention.

To the DSM V committee, I say to you, the time is now.

Canadian Researcher: ‘We must abandon the claim that the (family) court has been acting in children’s best interests’

September 2nd, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

How many times have you heard or read the phrase “the best interests of the child?” If you read much about family law and family courts, the probable answer is “more times than I can count.” Indeed, establish a Google Alert for the phrase and you’ll get links to several articles, court cases, op-eds, etc. a day, every day of the week. In Canada the “best interests of the child” has been raised by the Supreme Court to a level of importance that trumps even constitutional considerations.

So, with the phrase in such common usage and so vital to custody decisions, you might think that it (a) means something and (b) those using it know what it means.

But to an astonishing degree, you’d be wrong on both counts. In fact, the phrase is more intuitive, a shoot-from-the-hip type of locution. It’s like a Rohrschach inkblot test; the interpretation given to it by the user reveals more about the user than about the phrase itself. That’s the point attorney Chris Gottlieb was making in the New York Times recently when she referred to determinations of the “best interests of the child” as being made “subjectively, inconsistently and often erroneously.”

Gottlieb’s quick and dirty description agrees nicely with what academic researchers have been saying for years. As I mentioned in a piece not long ago, psychologists O’Donohue and Bradley wrote in 1999 that “[t]here is no useful operational definition of what the best interests of the child actually are.” They went on to say that both state statutes and psychologists themselves disagree on such basic things as what should be considered relevant to determining a child’s best interests. And since the necessary variables aren’t agreed upon, appropriate tests haven’t been developed with which to measure the best interests of a child.

And yet, day after day, week after week, year after year, family courts continue opining sagely about the best interests of the child. Undeterred by a lack of much on which to base their opinions, courts continue issuing their orders. It seems that, when wandering in the wilderness, the important thing is to avoid appearing lost.

But now Canadian academic Paul Millar has published a book entitled “The Best Interests of Children: An Evidence-Based Approach.” As the name indicates, Millar wants to do what should have been done decades ago - bring science to bear on the question of what benefits children when it comes to decisions about custody post-divorce or separation. That is, he takes the novel approach of examining children’s outcomes and attempting to correlate them with things like family structure, gender, parental behaviors, divorce, etc.

His data come from a variety of sources including the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, but most importantly from the Central Divorce Registry of the Canadian Department of Justice. Apparently, that’s not public information because Millar had to obtain it in its raw form via a freedom of information request. His analysis of the data is “the first… analysis of custody data published to date, and the first attempt at predicting legal case outcomes using multivariate modelling techniques.”

I’ll write more about Millar’s book in the future, but for now I want to focus on one aspect of his work - gender. As I said, Canada enshrines the “best interests of the child” as the most important factor in child custody decisions, or at least that’s what the courts repeatedly say. But what the courts repeatedly do is give primary custody to mothers; in fact, about 90% of primary custody in Canada goes to mothers. As Millar says, the custody data from the Department of Justice “illustrate a pronounced reliance on stereotypical notions of gender roles: parental gender is by far the most important predictor of custody outcomes.” So you’d think that the best interests of children must be highly correlated with gender, specifically the female gender.

But that’s not true. In fact, “psychologists performing custody evaluations regard the gender of the parent among the least relevant considerations in custody decisions.” What Millar calls “simple, bivariate analyses” support the conclusion that using parental gender to make custody decisions is in fact contrary to children’s interests.

But maybe those psychologists are wrong; maybe other factors tend to congrue with maternal custody and result in better outcomes for children. Millar studies those other factors via a multivariate approach and determines that “parental gender is…in fact not a predictor at all of any of the child outcomes examined here; that is behavioural, educational or health outcomes.”

Therefore, “there appears to be a disconnect between the theoretical criterion of custody determinations - best interests - and what actually plays out in the context of the justice system.” And given the fact that family courts and family law say one thing - that children’s best interests are paramount - and do another - award primary custody on the basis of a factor (gender) that fails to promote children’s best interests - “we must abandon the claim that the court has been acting in children’s best interests.”

Those opposed to fathers’ parental rights will make the argument that, if gender isn’t related to children’s outcomes, what difference can it make that 90% of primary custodians are women? Or, as Millar asks “if either side of [a] coin is equally good, why then should it matter which side it falls on?” His answer is nothing more than the obvious - that a judicial bias against fathers rules out half the population of potential caregivers, many of whom would be better than their female counterparts. That necessarily means that many “children aren’t getting the best available parent,” which of course thwarts the ‘best interests’ goal.

Focused on psychology and child wellbeing as he is, Millar omits the other important answer to the anti-dad crowd - parental rights. If children’s outcomes are paramount, as they should be, and the gender of the parent is not an issue in child wellbeing, then the issue of parental rights takes on additional importance. Since children aren’t affected one way or the other, it is both morally and legally wrong to exclude one sex in favor of the other in making custody determinations.

Millar’s book deals with much more than just gender and children’s outcomes, but on that issue alone, it should result in major policy changes in the way custody decisions are made. If courts and policy makers truly place the value they claim to on the best interests of the child, they will radically change the way in which custody is decided in Canada.

But, as Millar points out, we’ve seen something like this before. In 1986, Canada passed its second Divorce Act which clearly articulated a gender-neutral approach, going so far as to remove all gendered terms such as ‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘husband’ and ‘wife.’ That came against a backdrop of the establishment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, which itself emphasized gender neutrality. But,

[p]aradoxically, the introduction of this legislation with its gender-neutrality coincided with a proportionally larger share of sole custody to the mother… The introduction of modern ideas of gender neutrality has made little discernible impact on this apparent reliance (on gender) despite a manifest policy of the gender-neutral standard that is the ‘best interests of the child.’

That paradox is explained by the fact that, coincident with the the new divorce statute, came a squall of bad research purporting to show that, in some way it was mothers - not fathers - who lost out in custody decisions. Judges were duly “educated” by same and the concept of gender neutrality, so revered in some contexts, went by the boards in that of child custody and remains there.

The point being that, however clear the case may be for equalizing maternal and paternal custody, there will always be those for whom the concept is anathema and who won’t hesitate to use bogus arguments and bogus statistics to back up their biases.

The book is “The Best Interests of Children: An Evidence-Based Approach,” University of Toronto Press, 2009. Buy one and send it to your friendly MP or Congressperson, perhaps with some key passages underlined.

Audit: Los Angeles Dept. of Children and Family Services Covering Up Child Fatalities

September 2nd, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The sins of child protective agencies are many, and many have detailed them at length. I’ve tossed my hat in that ring on occasion. Mostly, CPS agencies tend to over-interfere in families. I recently ran a piece based on a blog in the New York Times written by attorney Chris Gottlieb. She’s an attorney whose largely thankless job it is to try to defend parents targeted by CPS. Most of her clients are poor, and they find themselves criticized for infractions as bizarre as feeding the child Chinese take-out and allowing it to play in a sprinkler.

What Gottlieb didn’t mention was the fact that CPS agencies across the country have the habit of pretending that fathers don’t exist. When they take a child from maternal care, it often goes straight into foster care, Do Not Pass GO, Do Not Contact the Dad. The Urban Institute did a study in 2006 and learned that, in some 80% of cases in which a child was taken from a mother, CPS knew the identity of the father, but failed to make any effort to ascertain his fitness as a placement for the child in over half of those cases.

Both of those examples - the intrusiveness into legitimate parental decision-making and the preference for foster care over father care - are indemic in CPS agencies nationwide. Indeed, in Texas at least, it’s gotten so bad that a judge recently issued a restraining order against the agency in one particularly egregious case.

But this article is a new one to me (Los Angeles Times, 8/31/10). It seems that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services has been covering up child deaths that are known or suspected to have resulted from abuse or neglect. That’s the conclusion of a recent audit of the agency completed by the county’s Office of Independent Review on August 30th.

Beginning on January 1, 2008, the State of California required child protective agencies to make public the circumstances of children’s deaths from abuse or neglect, the better to understand and, if necessary, alter the behavior of CPS agencies and caseworkers. Of course the new law only requires publishing information about deaths from abuse or neglect, not about other fatalities to children. That distinction opened the door to the DCFS to “interpret” certain fatalities as not resulting from abuse or neglect in one context and as resulting from abuse or neglect in another.

The audit is clear that the statute seeks to “promote public scrutiny” of abuse or neglect resulting in death, and therefore of the actions of the DCFS. That in turn “might cause criticism of the child protective agency to occur. Accordingly, there may be… incentives for child protective service officials to adopt a narrow… view” of whether a fatality resulted from abuse or neglect.

That’s bureaucratese for “if the public finds out how DCFS screwed up, it’ll be critical, so DCFS hides the information.” As County Superviser Zev Yaroslavsky put it,

“The board has been misled, but more importantly the public has been misled and that is really inexcusable,” Yaroslavsky said. “There is only one possible motivation here, other than the right hand not doing what the left hand is doing, and that is an intent to withhold information from the public.”

Meanwhile, the police seem to like public scrutiny even less than does the DCFS. In the first year in which the new law was in effect, law enforcement agencies provided full information in almost every one of the cases, but since then, “the stream of information about SB 39 child deaths… has been largely shut down.”

CPS agencies are given a difficult job to perform. Caseworkers are often overworked and underpaid, but are tasked with deciding which children are at risk of injury or neglect and which are not. They invariably tread a fine line between over-intrusion into private family lives and too little intrusion that can result in child abuse or neglect. Into the bargain, many of the families they deal with are poor and so caseworkers are required to figure out if particular parenting behavior stems from neglect or simply a lack of resources. The correct call in those cases is not always clear, I’m sure. Finally, the CPS system has a built-in bias that encourages caseworkers to over-interfere. Taking a child from a parent generates few headlines; a child injured or killed generates many.

Mindful of that, SB 39 seeks to shine a light on the doings of LA County’s DCFS. As in most bureaucracies, that’s ruffled some feathers, but that’s a good thing. The people of Los Angeles have a right to know what their employees are up to, especially when mistakes are made. And that’s never more true than when children are the victims of those mistakes.

Action Alert: Holstein Debates Leading MA. Senator on F & F’s Shared Parenting Bill

September 1st, 2010 by Glenn Sacks, MA, Executive Director

MA. Senator Cynthia Creem, co-chair of the Joint Committee on The Judiciary

Fathers and Families Board Chairman Ned Holstein, MD, MS debated Massachusetts Senator Cynthia Creem, co-chair of the Joint Committee on The Judiciary, on the subject of family court reform and HB 1400, Fathers and Families’ shared parenting bill. We want you to join in the debate–please post a comment to Creem’s article by clicking here.

Creem is currently in the middle of a hotly contested electoral battle to save her state Senate seat. The Creem-Holstein debate began last week with Dr. Holstein’s column Senator Creem and Mr. Rudnick, Help our children (Newton Tab, 8/24/10). Yesterday Senator Creem fired back at Holstein with her column Acting in the best interests of children of divorce (Newton Tab, 8/31/10). Creem wrote:

Sharing custody equally can be hard, especially when parents live a great distance apart, or where limited incomes make it difficult for both parents to maintain a home for the child. Some find that consistency and stability for the child is more important than a rigid 50-50 split of parenting time. Often, even parents who reach an agreement voluntarily don’t opt for shared physical custody.

In those situations where parents can barely speak to one another, simply applying a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all solution — one that depends for its success on mutual respect and cooperation — is a recipe for more problems and more conflict, not the harmony that children need. Numerous psychological studies have shown that when relations between parents are contentious, shared parenting offers children no benefit.

Holstein responded that it isn’t our shared parenting bill that is the “cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all solution.” He explains:

Actually, what we have now is a one-size-fits-all solution — courts order sole physical custody to one parent over 90% of the time — and the Fathers & Families bill would bring far more variety to the outcomes, tailoring the parenting schedule to the needs of each individual child.

holstein-headshot

Fathers & Families' Board Chairman Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.

Creem’s belief that shared parenting should be voided when the parents “can barely speak to one another” amounts to an acceptance of what’s known as the Hostile Parent Veto. In a state like Massachusetts, which overwhelmingly awards child custody to mothers over fathers, when a custodial mother doesn’t want to shared custody, all she has to do is manufacture “conflict” and the courts often throw up their hands and say “we can’t have shared parenting if there’s conflict.”

To Creem’s credit, she does express a willingness to work with Fathers and Families on certain aspects of family court reform, and she did call Dr. Holstein in June to open a dialogue with F & F about HB 1400. In her new piece, she writes:

I filed legislation last year to make a simple yet powerful change to the law on custody and visitation. Under my bill, emotionally charged words like “custody” and “visitation” could be replaced with terms such as “decision-making responsibility” and “residential responsibility” and “parental rights and responsibilities.”

In such conflict-laden circumstances, little things can make a big difference, and I truly believe that this bill would go a long way toward de-escalating custody battles, allowing more parents to reach agreements…Ned Holstein shares my view on this, and I hope that we can work together to see it become law.

Similarly, I share his view that children are generally better off when they have continuing, positive relationships with both parents — something that can happen with or without a presumption for shared parenting. Where I disagree is only in how best to achieve that, because I do not believe that any court — now or under the shared-parenting approach — has the power to give children what they need most: two parents who can set aside their personal differences to act responsibly in the best interests of their children.

Dr. Holstein’s response to Creem’s column is below. Again, we want you to join in the debate by posting a comment to Creem’s article by clicking here.

It is refreshing that Senator Creem has now engaged on the issue of family court reform. Mr. Rudnick should now do the same, given the intense interest in this issue among voters.

The Senator and I do have a few areas of agreement, such as a change in terminology that would do away with such words as visitation. After all, a parent is a parent, not a visitor. Sadly, this bill was not voted out of the Judiciary Committee, of which she is co-chair.

Unfortunately, Senator Creem does not address the one issue that constituents care most about — that as a practicing divorce attorney, she has a strong appearance of a conflict of interest when she blocks reform of archaic traditions of the family courts that breed high conflict divorces.

It is also dismaying that she has not reported Fathers & Families shared parenting bill accurately. I cannot help but wonder whether she took the time as Co-chair of the Judiciary Committee to actually read the bill. Readers can see our bill for themselves at http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht01pdf/ht01400.pdf

Here are some of the non-issues that Senator Creem unfortunately raises:

1) That reformers want to change the best interests of the child standard. Not true. Fathers & Families shared parenting bill would retain this standard. Shared parenting would not be ordered if sole custody were in the child’s best interests.

2) That shared parenting would be imposed in every case. Our bill is very clear: the judge could still order sole custody to one parent in any case in which that would be best for the child. The only thing the judge would have to do to depart from shared parenting would be to write down the reasons why.

3) That the bill would mandate a rigid 50-50 split of parenting time. On the contrary, the bill instructs the court simply to endeavor to maximize the exposure of the child to each of the parents so far as the same is practicable. I’d say that’s pretty flexible.

4) That shared parenting is a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all solution. Actually, what we have now is a one-size-fits-all solution — courts order sole physical custody to one parent over 90% of the time — and the Fathers & Families bill would bring far more variety to the outcomes, tailoring the parenting schedule to the needs of each individual child.

5) That shared parenting would be imposed in cases in which parents can barely speak to one another, or live a great distance apart. Not so. See 2 and 3 above.

6) That we are fathers rights activists. The Senator knows that we do not seek any special rights for fathers. Readers can look at our website and see that the wellbeing of children is our primary concern and that Gender Equality is a core principle: http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?page_id=1204

And while Senator Creem quotes the Boston Globe about shared parenting correctly, she leaves out other parts, such as the Globe’s belief that F & F’s goal of shared parenting is “a goal with great merit.”

I would feel better about Senator Creem’s claim that she supports divorce law reform if there had been evidence of this during her years in the Senate. Or if she had devoted this column to the joy children feel when they do not have to lose a parent in a divorce, rather than using most of the column to attack an imaginary bill that no one has filed.

But to her credit, at least she is engaging with the voters on an issue they care about. This requires courage when one feels unfairly attacked. But Mr. Rudnick remains silent. Mr. Rudnick, where are you?

If you’re interested in getting involved in Massachusetts family court reform activism, please fill out our volunteer form here.

Champion Speed Skater Embroiled in Custody Dispute Found Dead in Burning Car

August 31st, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Stephen Moore was a world-class speed skater in his time. But according to this article, Moore was savagely beaten to death and stuffed into the trunk of his mother’s car (Star-Ledger, 8/26/10). The car was then driven around for a couple of days before being torched. As of now, Moore’s ex-wife Kathleen Dorsett and her father Thomas Dorsett, are charged with his murder. An employee of Thomas Dorsett, Anthony Morris, is charged with setting fire to the car.

Of course these are nothing but allegations at this point. No one has been convicted of anything. Still, the case appears to have followed a distressingly familiar pattern. Moore and Dorsett had been married since 2007 and had a daughter who is 20 months old. Dorsett had custody, but Moore was seeking to expand his visitation rights. The legal case grew bitter and the next thing anyone knew, Stephen Moore had disappeared, only to turn up dead, his body partly burned, on August 18th.

This article tells us that Moore was truly a gentle, friendly guy (Orange County Register, 8/28/10).

“Stephen never had a mean bone in his body,” said Donn Calvano, who was Moore’s skating coach after he moved to New Jersey about seven years ago. “His life revolved around his daughter and his mother who needed his help. Skating was his passion…”

Missy Queen, his former roommate and skating buddy for more than 20 years, says Moore was the best roommate she has ever had.

“Stephen was loved by many, many people here in Orange County,” said Queen, sobbing. “He did not deserve to die like this.”

Apparently Dorsett had acted normally prior to the birth of their child. But then, according to Cam Graham, a longtime friend of Moore, everything changed. Moore complained to him that, after the birth of their daughter, Dorsett completely withdrew from him.

“Stephen told me that she just didn’t want him around any more,” Graham said. “There was no intimacy, no communication…nothing.”

In short, it looks like another case in which maternal gatekeeping takes its most extreme form. In the Mazoltuv Borukhova case, a mother hired someone to once and for all remove their daughter’s father from her life. Here it looks like Kathleen’s father did the job with her acquiescence, and then got his employee to cover up the crime. That’s certainly the theory prosecutors are pursuing and any different scenario looks unlikely at this point, but, as I said, we don’t yet know for certain.

Time and the judicial process will tell. But part of that process will involve Anthony Morris who finds himself charged with serious criminal wrongdoing in a murder case in which the victim is a man against whom Morris had no animus whatsoever. In short, Morris never had a dog in the Moore-Dorsett fight and that means he’ll be powerfully motivated to tell prosecutors everything he knows in exchange for leniency.

We’ll see how it all shakes out. If, as appears likely now, the murder went down as prosecutors think, will those who pretend that domestic violence, even including murder, is only done by men to women finally admit the truth? The truth is that, in the U.S. about 1,200 women are killed each year by an intimate partner and about 400 men are.

But what’s also true is that women are far more inclined than men to hire the job done or, if no money changes hands, get a friend or relative to do it. Those cases are coded by police as “multiple offender” killings and therefore aren’t reflected in the figures on homicide by an intimate partner. How many women kill their husbands/partners, or have the job done by someone else? We don’t know. That looks like what happened to Stephen Moore, but whatever we eventually learn to be the case, it’s high time the domestic violence industry admits the truth.

Attorney: Best Interests of the Child Determination ‘Subjective, Inconsistent, Often Erroneous’

August 30th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

With this piece in Lisa Belkin’s Motherlode blog at the New York Times, I couldn’t agree more (New York Times, 8/26/10).

It’s written by an attorney named Chris Gottlieb who defends parents in cases in which the child protection agency accuses them of abuse or neglect and wants to take their kids and put them in foster care. In short, Gottlieb works in the trenches of one of the most emotionally difficult areas of law, and, having done so, she’s got some things to say about CPS and the courts that adjudicate those matters.

And what she says is much like what I and so many others have been saying for years. Judges and caseworkers are supposed to figure out which parents truly are a danger to their children or are unable to care for them. No one pretends that that is always an easy job; it isn’t. But that job has morphed into second-guessing legitimate parental decision making. As Gottlieb says,

One judge wants more discipline; another wants less. I have heard caseworkers criticize mothers for everything from giving their children Chinese takeout food or Kool-Aid (the mother told me orange juice was too expensive for her) to having beer in the house to letting a child get wet under a sprinkler. A judge ordered one of my clients to take her child to the park every day. Every day!

As Gottlieb points out, there is nothing in the law that permits that type of micromanagement of parents by government officials be they judges or caseworkers. The Constitution doesn’t permit it, but it happens every day, thousands of times a day. The camel’s nose is under the tent and it’s not going away. At the rate we’re going, the beast will be sitting down to dinner with us any day now.

And what gave the camel its opening? “The best interests of the child,” that’s what. As Gottlieb points out,

[O]nce government intervention in family life is authorized, the legal standard often becomes “best interests of the child.” How do courts and caseworkers determine what is in a child’s best interests? The same way the rest of us do: subjectively, inconsistently, and often erroneously.

She said a mouthful there. As it happens, I’m currently reading a book by Canadian academic Paul Millar in which he quotes clinical psychologists W. O’Donahue and A. R. Bradley on the subject of “the best interests of the child,” thus:

There is no useful operational definition of what the best interests of the child actually are. There is inconsistency across states of legal criteria for assessing the best interest of the child. There is a lack of consensus within the field of psychology as to what the relevant variables should be… The validity and reliability of standardized tests for use in custody assessments are largely unknown.

That’s the state of psychology on “the best interests of the child,” and yet how often do judges, who know far less about the matter than do psychologists, intone the mantra as if there were some certainty about the matter?

As Gottlieb makes clear, the vast majority of CPS cases don’t involve any form of abuse; rather, they’re about neglect, some of which of course is serious, but much of which is of the “Horrors, you gave the child Chinese take-out!” variety.

Governments tend to arrogate power to themselves when they can, and the breakdown of the traditional two-parent family has given states a golden (literally) opportunity to do just that. They’ve seized on family breakdown, not just to intervene in families in which children are truly at risk, but to substitute their own decisions about childcare for those of parents. “Kool-Aid? No, I think orange juice is better.”

There’s a reason that strangers on the train criticize Gottlieb for holding her baby too close to a newspaper or not dressing him to suit them. The loss of the two-parent family has absolutely terrified us, and with good reason. Children overwhelmingly do better in intact, two-parent families than anywhere else. And when that family system broke down, as it did years ago, governments, primarily in the form of CPS agencies and courts, stepped in.

That may be understandable, but it’s not right. What’s right is for governments to educate people about the importance to children of parents staying together if at all possible. And when it’s not possible, governments must do all they can to promote equal parenting after the split-up. Those two things will do far more and be far cheaper than all the micromanagement of parents done by all the caseworkers and judges in the world.

Canadian Greens Endorse Presumption of Equally Shared Parenting

August 30th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Canadian Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott has announced that the Green Party of Canada has officially endorsed making the presumption of equally shared parenting following separation or divorce the law of Canada. Here’s his press release which includes this:

Over the weekend, the Green Party passed a policy motion declaring that “the Green Party of Canada will make the necessary changes to the Canada Divorce Act so that in the event of a marital breakdown, the Divorce Act will mandate a default of equal parenting – defined as equal time and responsibility unless there is consent from both parents, or there are specific criminal convictions related to the children that preclude equal parenting.

The Green Party of Canada is a small party. It has so far failed to elect a single person to parliament. But recently, popular discontent with the major parties has redounded to the Greens’ benefit. The party has steadily increased its share of the popular vote in both national and local elections. In 2004 it garnered over 4.3% of the vote which is important because it qualified the party for federal funding of its electoral efforts. With that funding, its vote tallies have steadily risen.

The politics of the Green Party are of course well left of center. That makes their endorsement of equally shared parenting that’s also contained in Vellacott’s bill C-422 significant because it shows that left and right can come together over the issues of stable families and parent-child relationships. Indeed, I and others have long argued that equally-shared parenting should appeal to both left and right. Family stability should appeal to the right while gender equality between parents should appeal to the left, and both are advanced by equally-shared parenting.

It’s always been hypocritical for those on the left to oppose fathers’ rights. For decades, many leftists have paid lip service to gender equality, but when they’re given the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, they always seem to hide behind bad logic and bad data. For example, show me a feminist organization in the U.S. that supports equally shared parenting. I’ve never seen one and that’s in spite of the fact that equally shared parenting would promote greater involvement of women in the workplace which in turn would result in more promotions for women, increased earnings and greater savings. Feminists say they support all those things, but when it comes to promoting one of the surest ways to achieve all of them - equally shared parenting - they refuse.

Well, now the Green Party of Canada has shown NOW how to live their principles. We’ll see if they learn.

Australian Ombudsman: Child Support Agency Unfairly Targets Dads

August 30th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

In Australia, the report by the acting Commonwealth Ombudsman into the policies and practices of the Child Support Agency is complete. The full report is not publicly available, but the abridged version is here. And here is an article about the report (Sydney Morning Herald, 8/26/10).

Predictably the report is written in the blandest language imaginable, but a picture of the process and the behavior of CSA investigators comes into focus. To be polite, CSA investigators are poorly trained and primarily motivated to increase support levels.

They tend to see their job as that of increasing support levels and tend to ignore the other side of the coin - cases in which it should be lowered. That’s why the Ombudsman reports that, for example, when a father targeted by the CSA called the investigator to give information he hoped would help his case, the investigator simply didn’t return the call and went ahead and increased the amount owed as if the man had never tried to talk to him/her. People who truly want to come to the right conclusion don’t do things like that.

In other cases, the CSA investigator seems to have been, well, not very smart.

The financial investigator treated a depreciation amount as the parent’s income, without having any regard to the size of the business’s overall trading loss. This analysis was flawed as a matter of simple arithmetic—disregarding the depreciation figure still meant that the business had traded at a loss. In any case, the CSA’s policy is that an amount claimed for depreciation will only be ‘added back’ if the sum is available for the parent’s day-to-day living expenses.

So the investigator failed at “simple arithmetic.”

Worst of all, the Ombudsman found that the CSA chose to pursue cases in which more child support might be owed and ignored those in which increased income received by the payee (usually the mother) would have meant lower support levels for the payer (usually the father). He recommends that CSA change its policy about how it selects cases to pursue.

[T]he CSA should not prioritise its CTP investigations on the basis of the parent’s role (i.e. payer or payee). In other words, the CSA should also investigate cases where the payee parent appears to have additional financial resources (see recommendations 1 and 14).

That anti-father bias directly contradicts the CSA’s own public descriptions of its policies and its mission which are even-handed treatment of both payers and payees. The Ombudsman urges that the CSA do what it claims it does.

The Ombudsman also pointed out that the CSA

also created the impression that parents under CTP (Capacity to Pay) investigation are those who deliberately attempted to avoid their child support responsibilities. This was not borne out by the cases that we examined in our sample. The CSA’s CTP investigations include many where parents had perfectly legitimate business arrangements for taxation purposes, and the question of their motivation was usually irrelevant.

Once again, even those targeted by CSA turned out not to be “deadbeats,” but in the cases sampled, people claiming legitimate reductions to income.

Finally, the CSA “routinely” demands the financial information of a payer’s new partner or spouse despite the fact that that information is “usually not relevant to the CTP investigation.” It’s unduly intrusive and has nothing to do with the case, but they do it anyway.

Picture the stereotypical crooked cop. He knows he’s essentially above the law, so he can get away with whatever petty shakedown schemes he can think up. And it’s not just the money he can get from you that’s enraging, but the fact that he can walk into your home any time, track mud in, look around, kick your dog, insult your kid and generally disrupt your life, your privacy, your peace of mind. There’s not one thing you can do about it, and he knows it and you know it.

Get the picture? That’s your friendly neighborhood CSA investigator. Have a good day.

Thanks to John for the heads-up.

National Survey of Families and Households Omits Data on Household Work Done by Men

August 30th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

In my piece on Alexa Aguilar’s article in the Chicago Tribune about Marc and Amy Vachon’s book and website promoting equal parenting, the writer, Alexa Aguilar, referred to figures on time spent compiled by the National Survey of Families and Households at the University of Wisconsin. Aguilar relied on the NSFH data for the proposition that men don’t do as much household work as women do.

(Of course she, like seemingly every other writer on the subject, neglected to mention that while women are doing childcare and housework, men are doing paid work. She also failed to notice that, when paid and unpaid work are aggregated, men and women’s time spent are statistically identical.)

I went to the NSFH website and noticed an interesting thing about how they collect their data. To compile their figures on time spent doing work around the house other than childcare, the survey asks respondents about nine different types of tasks - Preparing Meals, Washing Dishes, Cleaning House, Outdoor Tasks, Shopping, Washing/Ironing, Paying Bills, Automobile Maintenance and Driving. Respondents are asked to estimate the amount of time they spend at each activity.

Anyone see anything missing? Yep, I did too. Of those nine categories, five are typically done mostly by women while only one, Automobile Maintenance, is done mostly by men. What about Home Repair and Maintenance, for example, that would include plumbing and electrical repair, painting, drywall and tile repair, appliance repair, etc.? Or what about a category called, say, Home Construction and Improvement that would include the deck he built, the room he added on, the wall he tore out and replaced? In short, whoever decided on those categories neglected whole areas of typically male-done household tasks. It’s easy to underestimate men’s contributions to the household if you exclude those areas, and that’s exactly what the NSFH does.