Baskerville: When abuse is alleged and judges award moms custody, are they really 'erring on the side of caution'?
July 31st, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family by Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D. examines one of the greatest and most destructive civil rights abuses in America today--our family law system.
In the Taken Into Custody excerpt below, Baskerville asks an interesting question--when judges accept divorcing mothers' claims of abuse and grant them sole custody of the couple's children, are they really "erring on the side of caution"? Or, by allowing fathers to be driven to the margins of their children's lives, are the actually "erring on the side of danger," as fathers are their children's natural protectors?
Baskerville writes:
...divorce and single-parent homes are not precipitated by child abuse, as the courts, bar associations, and feminists would have us believe, but the other way around...some maintain that judges who summarily award sole custody to mothers on the merest accusation of abuse, even when they know full well that the father has done nothing wrong, are acting on the principle to “err on the side of caution.”
Yet this explanation is more charitable than tenable, since it is clear that the judges are erring on the side of danger, and it is difficult to believe they do not realize it. Judges are well aware that the most dangerous environment for children is precisely the single-mother homes they themselves create. Yet they have no hesitation in creating them, secure in the knowledge that they will never be held accountable for any harm that comes to the children.
To learn more or to purchase Taken Into Custody, click here.
Baskerville, author of many articles on fatherhood and family issues and a frequent media commentator, is assistant professor of government at Patrick Henry College and an Earhart Fellow at the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society.
22 queries. 0.388 seconds.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I think the concept could be sold that abuse can be mitigated during a divorce proceeding if you grant shared custody.
The logic I'm thinking would be even if a particular parent was abusive, knowing that the other parent has equal time to "poison" the mind of the child will at least put them on their better behavior, or worst case scenario give the courts more time to scrutinize both parents. Usually the courts are unaware of the existence of both parents until the day they step into divorce court, so all requests will have a stunning lack of evidence.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:02 pm
I remember when I got divorced 12 years ago, and my children were 6 months old and 3 years old. When their mother would pick them up, on Sunday, (after that HUGE 2 days), I would break down in tears, and complete torture as she would drive away with the kids. I had a neighbor that would come over and help me walk back into the house. That 48 hours was just so short. I will never forget that feeling. I felt at that time that I should have the kids as much as she did. My attorney had to explain that the kids were considered "tender age" and the chances of them being with me were zero. I am glad to say that today, they are old enough to decide how much they want to be with me, and through all of that, they like being with me and they trust me. That should have been the case 12 years ago. That was the most miserable time of my life. When I start feeling bad, I just remember those days. For any man that is going through that, I hope and pray that it changes for you.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:36 pm
There has to be a father out there who fought the custody battle based on the idea that the mom was abusive, who then subsequently lost the battle ("err on the side of caution"), and then his kids were killed. While it's pretty ghoulish, fighting/lobbying for a law in the wake of this kind of thing is the most successful way to do it.
Alternatively, some case going through the system now, where the State can be held liable.
Hell, all it would really take is for some particularly "newsworthy" case like this to happen, and for the father to directly accuse (on television) the Family Court system of being responsible.
Especially if they really are.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Judges are well aware that the most dangerous environment for children is precisely the single-mother homes they themselves create. Yet they have no hesitation in creating them, secure in the knowledge that they will never be held accountable for any harm that comes to the children.
----------
Judges work for the government - need I say more.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I believe Baskerville is a very important writer and thinker for MRAs. Here's a snip from a one-page piece he wrote recently --
"Divorce sends many harmful messages to children and future citizens: that we can break vows we make to God and others; that family members may be discarded at will. But among the most destructive are about the role of government: that government is their de facto parent that may exercise unlimited power (including remove and criminalize their real parent) merely by claiming to act for their greater good. ...
No people can remain free who harbor within themselves a system of dictatorship or raise their children according to its principles."
Having expressed my admiration for his writings, I do still have a problem with all the so-called "pro-marriage/anti-divorce" spokesmen in men's rights.
It is simply that they refuse to properly address the fact that there are no advantages for men to be married in our society today.
Unless wage slavery and domestic servitude is what you seek.
Joint shared custody is a worthy cause, but it really solves nothing fundamental about the economic and legal inequalities in marriage/divorce law.
And, I've not been able to understand why they see big government and the nanny state as the source of family destruction only in America. If that were the case, then Chinese families living on $5.00 a day would be disintegrating. But they are not.
I think there needs to be more attention paid to the effects of market consumerism on human relationships.
I really in my entire life have never met an American woman who does not consider men to be merely appliances to be accepted or discarded according to her needs.
It's the flip side of the "objectification of women" feminist rant.
We need better theories about modern gender economics in the declining years of American empire.
See Baskerville's entire brief article at --
http://www.newswithviews.com/Baskerville/stephen11.htm
July 31st, 2008 at 8:40 pm
They err on the side of "the child is the woman's property."
July 31st, 2008 at 9:20 pm
The crux of the problem as I see it here is summed up in the last sentance of the excerpt provided. It essentially explains that if a judge in such a situation follows what they believe is best and awards joint custody... and their intuition is wrong and something happens to the child... the judge will be held personally accountable and dragged through the mud. If however they go against their better instinct and awards sole custody to the mother and something happens to the child... no one would even so much as wag a finger at them.
What has happened is society has placed the judges self preservation instincts in direct opposition to their duty to do what they think is best regardless of any other factors. While this is not an excuse because it is their job to uphold the law and strive to make the best decisions possible with regard to the people involved in the case... it does offer an explaination for some of what we see.
Unfortunately we've seen what happens to judges who stand up for what they believe when it goes against a particular set of societal expectations... they lose their career and are villified by the media.
It takes a strong person to stand up against something like that... what we need are more judges of strong character and an effort to mitigate the forces which act to compel them to act in their own self interest as opposed to the best interests of the parents and child.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:16 pm
All a woman has to do is verbally indicate that she has a reason to be fearful. No hard evidence. I can not think of anything else that does not require probable cause to violate one's fundamental right of being innocent until proven guilty. False allegations of abuse/sexual abuse both fall into this catagory. This is nothing more than mental arraignment. Due process does not exist. As discussed here ad nausuem, the mindset of the majority of family courts is that they can sacrifice a man's rights to secure a woman's victory. The argument that this is to protect women is worn out. It has been fully exhausted by the judicial system as well as society in general.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
In a totally shocking development, the State of Washington Supreme Court just ruled in favor of withholding the names of accused teachers if the claim is unsubstantiated and zero punishment was dealt out. Imagine that!
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/07/31/breaking_news/doc4891e6340df25096845171.txt
Of course the dissenters wrote a scathing rebuttal that if the falsely accused are not treated as guilty, guilty, guilty, all our kids are in grave danger.
The forces of evil never rest.
The falsely accused, who have spent 6 years of education and training for their career, now have some semblance of a barrier of protection against a corrupt liar.
DanH
August 1st, 2008 at 1:19 am
I was watching Fox News this evening and the story of the latest crap with Denise Richards and Charlie Sheen. Okay, apparently, they have both been misbehaving, Denise filed false allegations of sexual abuse against Charlie, but the news reported that Charlie was just as bad as evidenced by Emails that were leaked in which he insulted her and spoke ill of her mother.
Yep, you heard it, she FILED FALSE SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS, but it's okay, cause he called her a few NAMES.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:47 am
Jason,
We change the judges self preservation instincts.
It is judges and those who revolve around them, who keep the current momentum of the single mommy family myth as "best interest of children." What I am discussing is retention of Judges, this is where every 4 or 6 years you vote to keep individual judges on their bench. If they do not get at least 50% vote to retain their bench then they are gone. Now, here are some facts as I know them.
1. The normal answer to a yes or no question that does not involve taxes is 75% yes. This means that on a normal retention vote most have not run into any given judge so sure let's retain him. This is what you would have to surmount to get him not retained.
2. These Judges by stealing dads away from fathers are not doing anything illegal. It is within their discretion to steal you away from your child pretty much every State gives them that right by law.
3. These Judges are not doing anything illegal when they take your property and freedom away per State Law. And the Constitutional Law that they are breaking will not be acknowledged because it won't ever be allowed to sit before the U.S. Supreme Court until the civil rights movement is more than an infant.
So, the answer in my very humble opinion is to take the self interest of the judges and make it in their self interest to tow the 50-50 line on their own. Remember, they have the discretion!
Theories,
1. Media blitz and negative ad campaigns against individual judges work and some have done the deed to get a judge NOT RETAINED. Even if he is retained at say 50-60% instead of 75% or better, what do you think his position will be on the fathers who come through his courtroom? For every father, he steals from a child the group grows stronger because it has already made its presence felt. He has 4 to 6 years to change that groups perception before he is once again up for retention - This is a lifetime job for him most will set the bench till they are no longer cognitive, if they ever were.
2. If a judge is not retained, then in Colorado at least the governor appoints another for that position, This judge has 2 years till his first retention vote. You finally become a judge or move up to chief judge and you are faced with a group that has NOT RETAINED your predecessor, what do you think his feelings and actions are going to be in his courtroom towards every dad wanting custody?
3. A Campaign on why the judges are stealing fit parents from the children will also increase awareness of the issue of custody in domestic court therefore is actually a threefold benefit - getting judges who steal fit parents away from their children thrown off their benches (all of them are guilty), even if not totally successful the judges will start moving toward the middle of this issue, whether successful immediately or not the campaign will increase awareness of the problem.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:56 am
James D,
I think you are absolutely right. That is what I found so interesting about this article, it just really placed things in a new perspective which offered some understanding of how it is possible that at least some judges are compelled to make certain decisions not necessarily because they are right, but because they feel like negative consequences will result in their own life if they don't rule a certain way.
Our legal system cannot and should not be held hostage like that. Judges need to have the freedom to make decisions they feel are right without threat of unwarrented political retribution.
It has become evident that individuals within our legal system feel significant political pressures to get certain results... but that isn't the way a fair judiciary functions.
Change the self preservation aspect to be more in line with fairness and impartiality and potentially the whole ball game changes.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:59 am
Small addendum... maybe "absolutely right" was too forceful of an agreement to the whole thing. Let me make it more clear that the part I think is "absolutely right" is:
"We change the judges self preservation instincts."
The method by which this is achieved does not necessarily have to be the one you suggest.
August 1st, 2008 at 7:43 am
A friend of mine did 2 tours in Iraq, and is home now, only to be tortured by his bi-polar girlfriend. She never stops nagging at him, and he has turned to eating painkillers and drinking in order to deal with her. The final blow that made him decide to do a 3rd tour in Iraq was, she was abusing him, he left the house, and then she filed a domestic violence accussation against him, and got him arrested.
How can the judicial system be so abusive and callous to a man who stands for his country, in harms way, only to come home to false accussations being forced on him.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:47 am
Taken Into Custody.... is an excellent book. Thank you, Stephen Baskerville.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:30 am
Another Positive Baskerville Book Review
The Government, Divorce, and the War on Fatherhood by Todd M. Aglialoro
"For whatever reason, social conservatives focus considerable political effort on abortion, gay rights, and obscenity, but pay scant attention to divorce. Perhaps they think that ship has sailed for good, whereas other battles still offer winnable stakes. Perhaps too few look at our "family courts" and see a culture war; or perhaps too many lack the conviction to fight it. And when conservatives do target divorce, rather than lobby for legal reform of the "no-fault" divorce system, or changes in the way courts award custody or child support, they have preferred to employ the tools of ministry, treating divorce primarily as a moral problem rather than a political one; its attendant social evils as a consequence of sin, not of bad policy."
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4196&Itemid=48
August 1st, 2008 at 11:09 am
"How can the judicial system be so abusive and callous to a man who stands for his country, in harms way, only to come home to false accussations being forced on him."
simple cause theres money to be made in them there hills. Who cares if this guy got screwed - think of all the money the lawyers, judges, women's groups, victim advocate groups and oh yeah those unnamed child support collectors get from all this.
Don't think for one single second every single one of those groups doesn't know what's really going on. everyone of them is laughing all the way to the bank and until we as a group get our S**T together and start making serious waves (and i don't mean threating to bring down the gov't etc like some asses do).
One billboard just ONE depicting a politican or judge as anti-father, anti family etc would have more effect than anything else we've done. But when you ask for support (i/e money) to do just that - you get met with either silence or the "i have no money to give" spiel - Really there are 24 MILLION NCP father's in this country if everyone gave one just ONE DOLLAR we'd have billboards across the country
How the hell do you think the feminists did it? We either put up or shut up - PERIOD!
August 1st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
mens:
And also with the accusations and resulting RO she takes away his escape to a war zone by getting him kicked out of the military. Many who have been stop loss have been having their girlfriends do this so they don't have to go back.
Jason: Freedom of the judiciary is much toted as making them free to make the hard decisions and dispense real justice. It doesn't seem to be doing that. They are not free to do so even with the current retention systems that pretty much guarantees that even with the government over site recommendation to NOT RETAIN a certain judge, they can only get them debenched less than 50% of the time. That means they have no control. The over site will only take on judges with illegal conduct perpetrated by a judge! The only possible way to rein judges in is to apply enough pressure from the other side of the issue. Billboards like acfc.org put up in IL are part of the answer. Make it about children's rights to both fit parents and our opponents have a big problem combating us. We put a judge's name (the chief judge most likely) on the billboard to add pressure.
"Judge Cydfurhur thinks that only letting children see daddy 4 days a month is a good thing!"
As much as we like the idea of justice working in a vacuum combating the extremes of our society, it is an ideal that does not meet reality and never will.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
another fun thing about judges - i know of one judge who personally lobbied the NYS legislature in opposition to Shared parenting and had a significant amount of influence in killing the bill. This FC judge Dennis Dugan among other things said he opposed it because it tied his hands when making a decision.
This same judge also sees know problem with his hands being tied by the legislature when it comes to child support matters. The percentages are dictated by law and a judge must spell out a reason for deviating from them.
The fact that the exact same methodology was in the Shared Parenting bill seemed to be lost on this judge. Actually he knew exactly what he was doing which is preserving his brand new court house which cost 2 million dollars and paritally paid for by you guessed it federal incentives to collect child support.
God I love our country!
August 1st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
They err on the "side of income."
August 1st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
There is a huge problem with courts transparency, and especially the so-called Family Courts.
Try to get documentation of cases and the judges rulings. (Unless you can spend hours hunting down county court records on paper in a damp basement somewhere...)
What is strange is that every court deliberation is transcribed while everyone is speaking(usually by a woman who can type 90 words-per-minute) -- but then, where do these records go?
Why the Star Chamber secrecy?
August 4th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Colorado has sealed the cases to the outside. Only parties to the divorce can access the judgments or any facts about the case. This, of course, is to protect the parties because it is a private matter? I am sure that all States will move that way. Remember, they like secret hearings when they trample on citizens' constitutional rights.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Roy -
The recording by the court reporter is not actually transcribed unless one party or the court needs it for ongoing trial or appeal. If a transcript is ordered and purchased the court reporter must be paid for her services. There is nothing "strange" about the procedure. The reporter is paid to be present and record, then paid to transcribe the recording if and when it is needed. The reporter is not simply a "woman who can type.....", but rather a person trained to use the stenographic equipment, trained in legal terminology, court procedure, etc.
There is no secrecy involved, just simply a record of the proceedings which is available when and if needed. Even if you could read the transcript of all family court proceedings exactly what do you think you would have? Usually when a magistrate, commisioner, judge, etc., makes a recommendation the reasons for that recommendation are spelled out clearly. The transcripts would show only the testimony put forth, not the underlying individual situation, the off the record negotiations or communicatiosn between the two individuals or their attorneys, or any of the other factors which go into a decision.
So you search for the "worst case scenario" cases and do exactly what with the information? Do you then scrutinize the files for the agreed entries, mediated arrangements, standard rule by choice, modifications, etc? You would then have to interview each individual party to determine how and how the final entry was entered. You still wouldn't have a valid statistical picture. Nor would you have a picture of the negotiations which took place during the process in each individual case or any of the reasoning which went into the final entry. Do you then ignore those parents who voluntarily opted for a standard visitation? Do you only look at those cases that went to battle? Are you capable of analyzing the "battle" and then do you decide you are a better "judge" of the proceeding and that your judgement is in the best interest of all the parties?
I can tell you that wading through a complete file of a contested custody issue or divorce is tedious and usually gives no true insight into the individual case before the bench. Each case is before the court because two people chose to divorce or part ways, there is a child involved and the parties cannot cooperate in even the simplest decisions related to their own child. There seems to be a not so subtle inference that it is all the judge's fault that these two people chose to air their linen in court rather than try to cooperate and negotiate an agreement which fits their individual needs and the best interest of their own child.
What is consistently ignored is the simple fact that many dads, in fact a majority of dads, want nothing more than scheduled time with their children, that it not be interfered with, that they have the ability to have regular contact with their children outside the physical parenting time (phone, email, etc.) unhampered by any interference by the other parent. In the "real world" many dads head back to court not to modify the parenting time but rather to enforce it when the mom is interfering with or denying the visitation. Do you ignore these dads when you prepare your "statistics" gleaned from reading closed files? Do you base your "statistic" only on those highly contested cases you hear about or pull out of those dusty archived files?
Do you then compile "lists" based on why each individual opted for a specific custody schedule? Or do you make your own judgement call on what you personally THINK the judge should have done or the parents asked for? (Of course you would have to assume that everyone of course wants the same thing you do.) Do you further define the "lists" based on the economic feasibilty, childcare availability, work schedules, lifestyles, living arrangements, distance between parents, needs of the individual child involved....all the myriad factors involved in each individual situation?
Judges do not "create" divorces. They simply hear the facts when the two litigants bring them forward and ask the court to make a ruling based on the individual case.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:48 am
James D: The move towards not making custody records available to the public is to protect the child and the privacy of the child. There is also the fact that most people find it difficult enough to have their dirty linen aired in a courtroom and don't really want to have their issues aired in a public forum. A custody proceeding can contain psychological reports, abuse allegations (founded and unfounded), allegations regarding sexual behavior of the parents.........all of us have heard it all and most of it needs taken with a grain of salt. However, it shouldn't be available for public consumption unless someone offers it up. We live in an electronic age where information never disappears but is always there for you, your children and your grandchildren to read. You call it "secret".......how about calling it personal, private business not done for public consumption? How about calling it "proceedings which you wouldn't want your child to know about"? How about calling it "an attempt to keep your children from losing respect for their parents"?
If a parent whose case is in Colorado, NY....or any jurisdiction which has limited access to custody proceedings....chooses to make his files available to the public or a researcher it is an individual decision. (Note: many jurisdictions hear paternity issues in juvenile courts where the records are automatically unavailable.) All parents aren't celebrities who choose to air their battle in the limelight or to have some stranger delve into their business.
The celebrity battles are even skewed, offering sound bytes and bits of titillating information pulled from files and aired simply for ratings by low-brow celebrity TV and tabloids. No one involved....celebrity parents, TV or print media or "network analysts"....have any interest whatsoever in the children, their emotional well being, privacy or humiliation. It is all for the "public" and it is really no one's business. It is and should be a private matter between the members of one individual family.
When sifting through a court file, two things must be kept in mind: What is NOT there and, as Paul Harvey says, ".....the rest of the story!". There is a thread of belief floating around that EVERY dad would opt for 50/50 or primary custody if he thought it was a simple option. You'd do better to select a hundred or so dads with standard visitation and interview them. You would no doubt be stunned at the result and it certainly wouldn't help your cause.
When I become involved in a case one of the first questions I ask is "What do you want?" The answer I get most of the time is "Uninterrupted time with my children, time without interference that I can schedule and depend on and that can be enforced if necessary." I also always ask "Are you seeking primary custody?" The answer is usually "No.", unless it is a case of egregious interference or concealment. Then of course, there is no alternative but to seek primary or sole custody.
Reading files is of no use. Understanding each individual case and its unique set of circumstances and applying the rules and the law to that individual case is the only useful endeavor. No one likes to hear "the best interest of the children". However the best interest of the children, in each case, is the only thing that SHOULD matter. Somehow the needs of the parents tend to overshadow the needs of the children. A child's need is simple: Having two parents who love them, want to spend quality time with them and who don't put them in the middle of the ego battle between their parents.
If you want a "statistic", then consider this: Very often children in a custody arrangement get more QUALITY time with the absent parent, and indeed often with the custodial parent, than they ever got in their intact family. QUANTITY
August 5th, 2008 at 11:09 am
....sorry....wrong key. To finish, QUANTITY time, especially with a school age child, is limited in any situation, given school schedules, work schedules, activities, etc. and it is the QUALITY time which has the most impact on the child's emotional well-being and needs. A dad recently told me that his alternate weekend time with his son in effect forced him to slow down and spend the time focusing on his relationship with him. He said that before the divorce, while he may have occasionally "tossed a ball" or gone fishing, etc., for the most part his weekends were otherwise occupied with "adult" activities and chores and his own sports interests, while now he and his son shop together, cook together, share chores, play games, TALK a lot. He said he feels that he has gotten to know more about his son the past year than he did the first 10 years of being a parent.
This is sad, but it is sadly reflective of the "family" in 2008. However you won't find the facts in a file.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Brentnall Says:
August 6th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
These following comments would likely, I'm guessing, be appreciated by very few except the frequent blogger "menscollegeactivist." I'd like to reproduce the most succinct point I'm about to make in every blog category but afraid that this point will be lost.
Much of the blogging generated by the stories Glenn Sacks writes about here in this web-site is very good in not only that no such concentrated discussion existed before Glenn's site but also in that many who write in are informed to the moment. Prior to this web-site I'm aware of a few civil gender and men's issue sites. Attention to the sickening plight of the legacy of feminism was limited somewhat to men's group associations and those of us lucky enough to find those of kindred intellect and observation - random chance.
But here is my main point - much of the stories that we read and comment on are reactions to what passes for the ordinary in our culture today. What passes as the ordinary today has had its genesis from mainly "women's" studies programming. That so much propaganda has gone on for so long without as much as any type of rigorous examination is truly astounding. Huge amounts of publicly generated money has been sunk into a belief system where most of its central tenents has never been verified as factual and falls apart in a MRA web-site from comments by ordinary people.
Then bring in the chivalrous and mostly male politicians who believe that they are serving all of womankind and the rest of society by promoting into policy and law claims made by a minority group whose belief system is virtually built on a house of cards and not even subject to scrutiny.
How can a feminist advocasy movement claim to demand equality for women to men when these advocates know so little about the state and condition of men? The findings of all of this advocasy has not yet been properly verified nor produced equality between the sexes. And we go along with it as though what gets spoken about in numerous and sheltered women studies environments were true. This unexamined advocasy has resulted in a blind faith (non)reality where the common man is shouldering a demise that he never asked for. Challenge the findings of and cut off the funding to the base of this hydra. This is part of the root of the problems being written about here.
The good news is that many a contributor to these blog discussions are providing the challenge.