Senator Biden Wants to Give Your Ex-Wife a Free Attorney...
May 26th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"When it comes to domestic violence legislation, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and Senator Joe Biden (D-Del) owns an asphalt company.
"Biden’s latest domestic violence bill is the National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act, which amends Biden’s Violence Against Women Act to create an extensive network of volunteer attorneys to help abused women. The attorneys would provide free legal help in forging divorce or separation agreements and in winning child custody...
"S.1515 will do some good in aiding abused low-income women. The problem is that the bill will also greatly exacerbate the already widespread problem of false domestic violence claims being used to strip decent, loving fathers of custody of their children. There is no mechanism within the bill to distinguish between false accusations and legitimate ones."
Rush Limbaugh discussed S1515 on his show last week after a men's activist called in and told him about it. The bill will enlist 100,000 volunteer attorneys to help purportedly abused women win custody of their children from their alleged abusers. I criticized the bill in my co-authored column Biden’s Misguided S1515 Will Exacerbate Domestic Violence System’s Problems (Philadelphia Daily News, 12/7/07).
The National Organization for Women has a campaign in support of the bill, and the bill is also supported by the American Bar Association and the Family Violence Prevention Fund. The bill can be seen here. Biden's pitch for the bill from his defunct presidential campaign can be seen here.
Shared parenting advocate Ron Grignol (pictured), who in 2005 ran for the Virginia state legislature and made shared parenting one of the key issues of his campaign, recently sent out an update on the bill. Grignol writes:
"The bill S1515 has a price tag of 55.5 million over 5 years. I checked the language of the bill and calculated 55.5 million.
"I was talking to a Senate Judiciary Committee staffer yesterday about VAWA and she told me that Senator Coburn (R-OK) raised objections on the price tag. She said even Biden didn't believe it was 55.5 million until he was shown that this was in fact the case.
"Coburn started a debate but the bill passed out of committee. It looks like the bill passed with a voice vote which is what committee members do when they don't want their vote to be recorded. However, the bill still has a long way to go to become law."
"));
19 queries. 0.475 seconds.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
One veterans sentiments this memorial day:
Currently in California, a male veteran can come home from Iraq or Afghanistan with his legs blown off, get hit in the head with a frying pan, or rolling pin by his wife, call a domestic violence shelter, and be denied services, or have to drive hundreds of miles to find services.
http://tinyurl.com/4v5358
That finger is pointing at you Joe Biden.
May 26th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Many lawyers can't find full time employment. Biden probably just wants to create jobs for his lawyer buddies.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
If I-VAWA passes, the code word for US imperialism will no longer be Uncle Sam, it will be Uncle Joe.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Do they offer free attorneys to male victims of DV? Or do they not exist?
If so, I can easily see a small scale conflict between a married couple ending up with them both getting free lawyers to sue the otehr for DV. That would be interesting.
May 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
The American Revolution was caused in part by " Taxation and No Representation."
With legislators like Joe Biden no representation looks damn good!
ummm, Dear Queen Elizabeth, we realize our mistake, we'll take George the 3rd back as our sovereign now please!
What do we call the current state of affairs " Taxation and throw away the keys" ?
Don't these %&^*^(*&^(* take an oath to uphold the Constitution? Due process, cruel and unusual punishment, check and balances.
million man march
May 26th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
The legislation will give the ABA $10 million over 4 years to create a database of volunteer attorneys.
From Glenn's site a national network of father and family friendly lawyers can already be reached, individual advertisers plus Fathers and Families has a Massachusetts database and DadsDivorce.com has a national referral network. Nucleus is there.
Private enterprise certainly trumped our government , Big Sister, on this one.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I must have read the article too quickly before I made my first comment. I did not see the word volunteer.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Biden is incredible... it is hard to find a bigger pandering ignorant dangerous person.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Biden is a liberal democrat...this is an example of why i have voted republican...
May 26th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
One more reason to never get married.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Isn't free legal assistance available to women through the DV networks?
May 26th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
U.S. Senator Joe R. Biden D-Delaware is up for re-election this year for a 7th term, his latest of four attempts for the Presidential nomination having crashed and burned in Iowa.
http://biden.senate.gov/
To those who call themselves Republican, how about supporting a businessman, Ray Clatworthy, who won the Republican nomination for the Senate and will face Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the November election?
Mr. Clatworthy, 52, owns partnerships in restaurants, real estate and a radio station, as well as interest in a credit card company that helps provide food for poor children. He defeated Vance Phillips, a farmer, and Wilfred Plomis, a businessman, with about 81 percent of the vote in the primary.
Jo Biden has totally run amuck. How about running him out of the Senate?
DanH
May 26th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I am convinced that there are some women who feel that they deserve everything and that men deserve nothing. There is a selfishness or narcissism that allows for women to sacrafice for their children or themselves but not for men. It is as if it is not in them.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Is this discrimination? How can they pass a law to help only women? If they fund 55 million for them, souldn't they have to fund 55 million for men? Who was MLK, and what happened to all that stuff in the sixtys?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:46 am
So who does this legislation help? Women? Are we sure?
Seems to me that most of the time, it's the men who are paying for their women's divorce lawyers, along with all the other expenses created by the DV and divorce system.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:40 am
I'm relatively new to this blog, and this is my first post. As indicated by my name, I'm a concerned father. I have experienced and seen numerous cracks or holes in the family law foundation in California, working against the court's carrying out of its mission to identify and help my children's best interests, and have read of similar problems elsewhere in the USA and the world.
Regarding this blog's topic, I have a set of observations (#1, below), and two additional topics of concern (numbered items 2 and 3). My comments include possible topics for action. In addition, I'd appreciate being pointed to how to format comments so as to be able to indent quoted text and the like. I read the rules of moderation but didn't notice a FAQ for how to do formatting. Thanks!
1) The set of observations is that both the NOW and the ABA texts in part speak of women as being the only domestic violence victims (or at least, the only ones to which this bill is targeted). I'll quote the texts, below (after sections #2 and #3).
I'm unsure if VAWA legislation says that only women are to receive assistance. I'm sorry if that seems dense; I realize that the W in VAWA stands for Women, but except that the bill discussed by this blog mentions immigrant women, and except that it refers for definitions to VAWA, which I'm unfamiliar with, the bill seems to be gender neutral--referring to (alleged) "victims," not to "women".
Would someone please suggest how best to obtain 'proof' of what the NOW page's current text is and what the ABA page's current text is, in case one or both of the sites' text changes to be gender-neutral at a later point? After that evidence is captured, I'd be happy to contact each organization myself.
Though it might be of some interest that NOW's page is non-gender-neutral, my sense is that the ABA's text is particularly troublesome, not only because I'd have expected the ABA to position itself as gender-neutral on this topic (unless VAWA is women-specific, as the W for Women portion of the VAWA title would support), but also because the ABA page lists numerous organizations that, per the page, served as an "excellent roundtable of groups" that "reviewed and contributed to this legislation". Some of those organizations have women-specific titles, but others, such as the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, presumably are supposed to be gender-neutral.
The other two topics of concern:
2) Make it "alleged victims" instead of "victims".
Regardless of any merits or demerits, the bill and any other bills or laws should use the term "alleged victim" rather than "victim" for circumstances in which guilt has not been established. The term 'alleged' might need to stay even if a restraining order is issued. That is, issuance of a domestic violence restraining order probably isn't considered a legal finding that the restrained party is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of having committed domestic violence; as such, even the issuance of a restraining order wouldn't necessary mean that the alleged victim is to legally to be considered a victim. (Note--I'm not an attorney, and this isn't legal advice.)
That restraining orders can be issued in family court--and thus rights to fulfill one's obligations to look out for one's children's best interests can be removed in family court--arguably overlaps a larger issue/question, as to whether criminal-type findings are being made in family court without the benefit of such rights as a right to counsel, right to confront one's accuser, etc. I'm relatively new to this site and thus am unaware if that issue has been covered. (Links would be welcomed!)
However, as regards legislation and laws such as this proposed law, I wonder if an achievable starting point would be to require/insist that the wording be changed to "alleged victims".
3) Track gender, and track determination-of-claim-accuracy.
The bill as drafted, per the link provided in the blog, calls for tracking various information. I didn't see, however, that it called for tracking gender of the alleged victim nor of the alleged perpetrator (please see above for my concern to add "alleged" to victim), and I didn't see anything as regards tracking instances in which a court makes a finding that the alleged victim's charges are false.
3A Tracking gender
I think that the very act of tracking recipient gender could help call the professionals' attention to the issue of whether VAWA funds are being spent only on women. (I apologize; as noted above, I'm unsure if VAWA legislation says that only women are to receive assistance. The bill mentions immigrant women, but except that it refers for definitions to VAWA, which I'm unfamiliar with, the bill seems not to be gender specific.)
3B Tracking determination-of-claim-accuracy
Consistent with my comments above, I'm unclear as to what all of the classifications might best be--there probably would be quite a few cases in which a restraining order would be issued even if a criminal conviction is never obtained or even sought.
Detail for Item #1
OK, here's the text re item #1, the equating of "victim" (which really should be "alleged victim"), and "women"
Both NOW and the ABA equate women and victim in at least part of their texts.
The NOW page is linked to by the Blog post text "has a campaign in support of the bill".
In the NOW page, "survivors of domestic violence" = "women":
"Studies estimate that fewer than one in five low-income survivors of domestic violence ever even see a lawyer. Yet legal advice is key for these women as they seek help from the police or court system."
The ABA page is linked to by the blog post text "supported by the American Bar Association."
In the ABA page's section #5, which is regarding requiring the General Accounting Office to study existing legal services, "victims of domestic violence" equal "battered women"
The title of section #5 uses the phrase "battered women".
The body of section #5 uses this phrase :
(The title section's text is "(5) Require the Government Accounting Office to study existing legal services available to battered women and report back to Congress within a year. "
The body section's text is "This study will assess the types of legal assistance being provided to victims of domestic violence, .... .")
As promised in section 1 of this comment, here's the ABA page's list of organizations who, per the ABA page, reviewed and contributed to the legislation.
National Network to End Domestic Violence
the Legal Resource Center for Violence Against Women
the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
the American Bar Association
WomensLaw.org
the National Domestic Violence Hotline
the Legal Services Corporation
the American Prosecutors Research Institute
National Legal Aid and Defenders Association
National Center for State Courts
National Association for Attorneys General
Battered Women’s Justice Project
National Association of Women Judges
National Association of Women Lawyers
National Crime Victim Bar Association
National Center for the Victims of Crime.
OK, that's a lot of analysis. I suggest that the 'proof' of the web sites' content be nailed down, and then that NOW and the ABA be contacted. As to having the bill's text changed, perhaps that will seem like a diversion or conflict to simply having the bill eliminated. A couple of thoughts: might it be possible to require that domestic violence charges be made through criminal court, such that due process rights (including the ones noted above) would kick in even at the point of a restraining order's being considered? Further: there are low income men who are domestic violence alleged victims; wouldn't one benefit of this bill, if passed, be that they could be more readily linked up with attorneys?
And even before reading this blog, I was a ....
--
Concerned Dad
May 27th, 2008 at 5:33 am
John Boy said...
Men love women, women love children and children love hamsters. This is the great tragedy of life.
- Bettina Arndt
Dittohd said...
Shhhhhh.......
Means that women who pay their taxes will now subsidise those who don't to take even more of that taxpaying woman's money. Smart policy(/sarc) but at least we all get to pay for it. Ah democracy!
Just don't tell NOW.
Or maybe DO tell them. Try explaining logic while you're about it.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:23 am
"Is this discrimination? How can they pass a law to help only women?"
You bring up an interesting question. Does any legal-y person know why Title IX doesn't apply to VAWA?
May 27th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Here in Florida, they have the Florida Legal Services which does provide free legal services to women for Domestic Violence. A couple of years ago I went to court and my ex-wife had free legal service, and I had to pay big money for an attorney to represent me in a restraining order hearing. As it turned out, I was granted the restraining order against her as she was the abuser. I went to many agencies to try to get financial help, and nothing. She actually got free legal help throughout the divorce proceeding as well. Not me. And she makes more money than I do.
Biden is a moron. This is just typical politics, and it is not a Republican/Democrat issue. I have heard just as many idiot Republicans on the issues of DV. They need to trash the Deluth model wheel, and start over.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Concerned Dad
Great post!
As for proof of the ABA and NOW sites. How about screen captures that get printed and signed by two witnesses?
I think the correct terminology should be "accuser" not "alleged victim." Victim is a loaded word. During the Mike Nifong trial Mike continued to use the word "victim" for the false accuser after that state's AG declared the accused innocent. It pissed Nifong's judges and showed the arrogance of the prosecutor.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Hari,
Laws need to go both ways. Martin Kuther King wrote eloquently about it in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. The statue of Lady Justice wears a blindfold doesn't she? Thanks for bringing that up.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Luther - sorry
May 27th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
A feminist politician acquiring tax dollars for a feminist causes. The government is now partnering with the American Bar Association (Yes. The same organization that gave us Family court and family court legislation about 50- years ago).
- With $2 million of new federal funding each year for two years and then $3 million for each of the following three years, the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence will create a national network of attorneys
- The bill will authorize $500,000 of new federal spending to the National Domestic Violence Hotline
- The bill designs a pilot program to implement the volunteer attorney network in five diverse states, with grants totaling $750,000 each year for two years to fund statewide legal coordinators.
More feminist infrastructure to help wives separate husbands from their kids, 18 years of income and property.
Application: Domestic violence charge is battery. During the divorce your wives attorney says points this battery out to the judge. The judge then orders you out of your home and orders you to pay the monthly mortgage.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Justin Says: May 26th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
"One more reason to never get married."
You got that right brother. If a friend feels the need to get married, then invite him first to family court in the local county building. Visit M-W 9AM to 11AM. It's free, and inviations are not required.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Hey Joe Biden, why don't you just amend the constitution to get rid of that whole pesky 14th admendment thing? I mean equal protection is over rated anyway. Boys if your smart you'll put a change of address form in at the post office and start keeping your laundry at your parents house. No cohibitation, no domestic violence charge.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Who keeps voting this "misplaced protector" into office?? These men of the baby boomer generation were the first generation of "misguided protectors", to in effect stop protecting their sons in the name of super protecting the girls .
May 28th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Joe Biden Jr. D-Delaware has run totally amuck. His anti-male, anti-family positions have gone on long enough (since 1972 to be exact—35 years!). He’s up for re-election this year; How about running him out of the U.S. Senate?
In the last Delaware election, 232,152 votes were cast in the Senate race. 40,454 votes separated Senator Biden from the challenger. So, if only 20,227 voters would have switched from Good Ole Joe to the contender we would have been free of all the damage he as done to men, husbands, fathers, and children this past 6 years.
You would think that missing 32% of the Senate votes would minimize the damage he’s accomplished, but he managed to fit it in.
Delaware is 100 miles long and (at its widest point) 30 miles wide. Exactly how hard would it be to canvas that whole state with the message that “Good Old Joe has got to go!”?
Here is some info on Joe’s opponent:
http://www.christineodonnell08.com/
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Christine_O%60Donnell.htm
If someone can prod the GOP to get some real wood behind the arrowhead, Destructive Joe would get the Heave Ho.
DanH
May 28th, 2008 at 12:30 am
This may actually benefit men for two reasons. First, it may relieve men of paying for their wives divorce attorneys. Second, government welfare lawyers will probably not be very good attorneys or provide good representation (like public defenders).
May 28th, 2008 at 12:31 am
“It looks like the bill passed with a voice vote which is what committee members do when they don't want their vote to be recorded. However, the bill still has a long way to go to become law."
EXCUSE ME?!?
That bill is flying at ground level well below radar, powered by jet engines on full afterburner. Unless there is some very powerful opposition in some very key committees in very short order to block it, it is very much a done deal. When bills are rocketed out of committee like this one was, it is too well greased to stop.
DanH
May 28th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Apparently, there was not enough condom use in his parents' days...
May 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
What about men who cannot afford an attorney and 9 out of 10 lose the custody of their children based on fault accusations. What about innocent men wrongly accused of domestic violence? We need help too!!! Study after study show that women are as violent as men and abusive. In a society where we claim to be treating our citizen equally, why is the attention on one gender only? A man loses cutody of his children, more than half of his assets, and ordred to pay child support and sometimes alimony. He has no rights to see his children more than every other weekend and one night a week, and yet he is supposed to be a father to his children. How is this possible?
May 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Women's Shelters
Avoidance of Domestic Violence Against Women Organizations
WIC-Women Infants and Children
NOW-National Organization for Women
LOWV-League of Women Voters
Section 8 Housing
Child Support
Spousal Support
Family Court
Women's Resource Center
Women's Legal Network
Feminist Majority Foundation
National Women's Health Week
National Council of Women’s Organizations (NCWO)
There are too many others to list. Women's this and Women's that. Look fellas. While you guys were out there working 65-hour weeks and going off to war to protect this Country, your wives were running off with the pizza delivery guy and taking your four children and your life savings with her. While you were working and protecting and doing all that Manly stuff, women were forming organizations and making plans for total domination.
Call it Topping from the bottom if you wish, but there is no question who is in charge. Women are. They decide if they WILL have children and if they WON'T. They decide IF you will be in those children's lives and they decide WHEN you will pay and how MUCH.
Guys, I beseech you. Get a vasectomy and don't tell your little missus. If you aren't married, don't get married. I am telling you guys, women have taken what should be a joy and a coming together (marriage, children) and they've turned it into a mine field where men's (and children's for that matter) rights are steamrollered in the name of feminism.
Ladies, congratulations. You won, but what exactly did you win? You want to work 65 hour weeks and go to war and give your lives for this Country? Go ahead. You want to get your sperm at a sperm bank and have as many children as you can afford ON YOUR OWN? Go ahead. You want to be alone and so exhausted in your golden years that you fall into a deep dark depression? Go ahead.
But if you want loving, supportive husbands and healthy, well adjusted children with fathers, you better get your pretty little heads straight and stop all the blackmail and manipulation. All the child support money in the world raining down on your bleached blonde little heads should not be worth the complete destruction of the American Family. And that is just what you have accomplished.
Amy Mordan
May 28th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
This is ridiculous - one more lawmaker who either has no clue or is pandering to special interst groups, without regard for the public good. my wife accused me of dv, even though she was the one guilty of it and i had witnesses; i had called the police, and the police report shows she told the police I didn't do anything to her and she was trying to get them to go away. However, her lawyer had her file an action against me to help her get custody. The court refused to consider the police report, refused to listen to friends and co-workers who saw her hit me, and when i later proved she had lied to the court, and she eventually filed an affidavit contradicting her prior remarks, the court said "who cares?" In the meantime, my son has been hospitalized 4 times in the past 5 months because she waits until after my visits to take him to the doctor when he's sick, claiming he only gets sick after visitng with me. No one cares. She refuses to comply with most court orders, even told the Guardian ad Litem she wouldn't do what the GAL asked - no one cares, GAL still recommends she have custody. I guess the moral of the story is, men don't count and kids best interests mean nothing
May 28th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I am appauled at this bill S.1515! I am a victim of "self inflicted" domestic violence. I had the experience of the calls to the police department, that were unfounded. In a conversation with the Child Custody Investigator's office pertaining to my current case, I told them that the male population of our great nation is sick and tired of the "1950's" attitude toward fathers. The laws were written a very long time ago, and they need to be revamped. Without going into detail here, I'll just say I am a caring and loving father that's being kept from my son, all on hearsay evidence that my ex had produced. My divorce attorney informed me early on in this divorce case that "Your wife is very well educated in this and well coached". She knows the system is on her side, and she gets away with whatever the hell she wants. I think it's a travesty to call it "justice", There is no justice in divorce court, when you show up with testicles. Just because your a man, it's presumed that you don't love your children, you are a wife beating drunkard, and skirt chaser. Well, I can honestly say, it all happened in my marriage, but the gender role was reversed. She was the whore, drunkard, liar, and got away with it. Now she's living with a guy that's physically, emotionally and verbally abusing my son, and there's nothing I can do about it. I've taken every avenue available and got nothing but stonewalled throughout the whole process. I agree with the comment "noone cares about the moral or emotional state of the children, as long as they're not showing marks on their bodies, and men don't count when it comes to their children. If it makes anyone feel any better, we're not alone in this. Too many of us fathers that really care are being shunned, because it doesn't make for good drama. Mike R. Are you sure we didn't marry the same woman? or is there a book that noone knows about they read before they decide to get married?
May 28th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I don't quite see how domestic violence and custody meet in a way that would warrant giving anyone a free attorney, much less only women. When you single out a single group for preferential treatment, or detrimental treatment, you also violate equal protection.
The terrible thing is, laws like this have a better than average chance of getting passed. I have to admit that when I hear a woman crying about how she's been abused, my first instinct is to believe her, and start sympathizing with her. I don't know how much comes just because I'm a man and feel it necessary to protect women, but it is a fast and strong reaction. It's kind of how everyone finds small puppies cute enough to put up with their horrible breath. It's a reaction that isn't learned, it's instinct. Law makers and lobbyists play to our instincts and fears in order to further whatever agenda they have, and unfortunately it works.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
The fathers groups should unite in a class action suit against current custody laws as discriminating against fathers.
It also seems to me that a law of this kind is discrimination and might be of interest to the ACLU.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Unfortunately, the bias is real and persistent. I am an attorney and have successfully represented men in DV cases and am a DV victim myself. When my wife was arrested, she was released immediately and the DA never bothered contacting me. When I called the cops on prior occasions, they either laughed, told me "what do you want us to do?" or simply ignored my complaint. Before she was arrested, they never took a police report even though I insisted.
What did my ex do after she was released? She stole my car that same night (to try to keep me in the house while she went to the courthouse) and filed for a restraining order falsely alleging DV against me. I had to call family to come pick me and my son up. Then I went to the courthouse to file a restraining order. We received mutual restraining orders but I was the one out of the house. On the day we were to have the hearing whether to make the orders permanent, she called to ask if we could drop the issue. I'm certain she was concerned she would lose custody. I had the foresight to document her abuses - pictures of me after her violence, emails to friends regarding the issues, pictures of the house after she went on a rampage throwing things at me, etc. Without these things, I am certain she would have simply moved forward with her lies.
We now share custody equally. I ultimately agreed to this because, despite her utter lack of evidence and the abundance of evidence of my own victimization, I was concerned about the bias inherent in the system. That was my first taste of the justice in the family law court. Because of my experience I learned a great deal about the truth about domestic abuse and that has motivated me to pursue father advocacy. I have since successfully defended men against DV both criminally and in family law. My first criminal DV case was an eye opener - the first deputy DA I worked opposite was trying to prosecute my client despite the lack of any evidence (contrary to my case, where the DA's office didn't even bother contacting me). The DA had a "no-drop" policy regarding DV cases (despite the fact that the role of the prosecutor is to seek unbiased justice). When I expressed the fact that my client's ex was trying to use this as a wedge issue to obtain child custody the DDA simply stated "Good. Well make sure she get's the child too." Unfortunately there is no real accountability for "public servants" who have a God complex.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
On one hand, something to keep opposing counsel from motions to collect fees from Dads would be a good side of this. But even more simply, for all that has been said, indigent services made accessible is a good idea, but this bill places incentives incorrectly. You can't solve gender relation issues by playing a gender card favoring one over the other. Have we not learned anything in any movements suffrage?
May 28th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Biden knows that his bills violate Due Process but he doesn care. Biden is an apparatchik for the Stalinist Left and his goals are to enable State Surpemacy. He is a traitor who hates the Constitution, has flagrantly violated his oathe of office and endeavors to deconstruct our civil rights protections altogether. I suspect he takes his orders from Peking.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Oh! Ok! Let's try as many female votes as we can! It is a no-brainer!
I agree that we guys need to unite! And pronto!
Time to create a few lobbysts to go to all the capitals, make a Males for Equality Organisation.
These women are being played by all kinds of groups from marketers to media directors to lawyers and politicians. This has to stop!
May 29th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I've already left a short and polite message on his web site "http://biden.senate.gov/services/contact/"
Perhaps what this clueless senator needs is a divorce (his own) to open his eyes.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Jo Quixote after spending BILLIONS tilting at the windmill imagines lawyers working for free????
This is a piece of fluff to bolster a bankrupt policy to appease the DV queens
May 29th, 2008 at 3:10 am
WHAT ABOUT FEDERAL FUNDS BEING SPENT FOR ONLY ONE GENDER?
This is crazy. First of all, the VAWA reads that one of its intents is to "protect women and children". But, 60% of child abusers are women. How can it be designed to protect children but the funds are allocated to predominantly women-only programs like shelters, educational programs designed to show how abusive men are, etc.
Federal funds are going to ONLY ONE GENDER. That has to be uncostituional, or discriminatory.
Joseph Biden is an extortionist by the way. He's used and abused funds in his own state, pocketed some for himself and obviously is in bed (probably literally) with members of groups like NOW.
What a testicle-less coward, catering to the politically correct radical feminist position on domestic violence. What a limp-wristed softy who just pics something that would be easily accepted and appeased in the media, or just go unnoticed by the rest of the world. What a sell out to his own gender. If there is an equivalent to an Uncle Tom in the application of gender he is it.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:06 am
This is political grandstanding, pure and simple! Anyone with a brain larger than a pencil eraser knows that men are as likely to be battered as women are. No more benefits for battered women until there are at least as many battered men's shelters as there are battered women's shelters.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Just another tool that will allow bad mothers (I make that distinction because there are many good moms out there) to blackmail loving fathers. Like someone said before "just another reason not to get married." These days’ marriage and divorce have been reduced to nothing but a multi-billion dollar industry and a boondoggle for the politicians to pander to the radical women's movement.
I for one don't appreciate having struggled and sacrificed all my life just so when I finally start making a good living my ex-wife could find a boyfriend, falsely allege abuse against me, and with the assistance of the system stacked against me, take everything I every worked and sacrificed for away from me (especially our son). Now Mr. Biden wants to give even more resources to those that seem to have unlimited resources and a legal advantage in the first place (just as a comparison the court costs drove me to bankruptcy, but my "poor victim" ex-wife has been living like she won the lottery since I was removed from my house - fully paid off the house, bought seven cars in seven years for both her and her boyfriend, two of them being luxury cars; and bought a second house in Florida).
After eight years of abuse at the hands of my ex-wife and her alcoholic, violent convict boyfriend (whom the courts felt was better suited to live with my son than me) my son is finally turning 18 in July and each day tells me how he can't wait for his birthday so he can sign custody over to me and finally start living his life again (apply for a driver license, and attend college - things that my ex-wife won't have her do because she "needs the support money to support herself").
I suggest Senator Biden read the Fourteenth Amendment and understand that "Equal Protection under the Law" means EQUAL, regardless of gender. But, of course, he knows that and is pushing this bill anyway because the Constitution and protection of individual rights mean nothing in today's America.
To echo the sentiments of a prior poster... Million Man March - when are we going to let our voiced be heard and when will we stop allowing our politicians to blatantly violate our Constitutional protections.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Women already have pro bono attorney services in every domestic violence service across the country. That's one of the reasons so many women LIE about being abused. They walk in and claim to be a victim, they get a pro bono attorney, cash and anything else they need. The attorney tells them what lies to tell the judge in order to get a protective order served, and everything they want from the judge.
The one that destroyed my life (and my child) got a pro bono attorney, cash, all expenses paid to move my child across the country, and then all expenses paid to return for our divorce/custody hearings (which I had previously filed in my state). She even admitted later under oath, that she had lied to get the protective order that kept me from my child, and she suffered no consequences at all. The judge continued to allow her pro bono attorney to use the admittedly false accusations at (motions of contempt of my visitation) hearings, to keep me from my child for most of 5 years.
She continues to keep my child from me and the judge refuses to do anything at all to uphold my court ordered visitation- the orders are totally worthless!
The judges are in the back pockets of these domestic violence services and their pro-feminist attorneys and won't dare go against anything they want in the custody/divorce proceedings. Not "politically correct" to do so you know.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Ok there’s a lot going in here and some great information.
Susan Gibbons- You are spot on to talk about the ACLU getting involved. Nothing short of a class action will stop the gender bias and abuse of the family court system.
Robert D. Hughes- Your story is cookie cutter to many, many that I have seen go through the courts. The challenge is that any law that has the appearance of protecting women or children is quickly passed by emotional agreement without looking at the gender bias or legal aspects in regard to civil liberties or due process violations.
Ask anyone who has gone up against Child Protective Services. You are immediately labeled as being anti-child. Again with any discussion on gender equal services for victims of Domestic Violence, you are labeled as anti-woman.
Fact- The MAJORITY of child abuse reports are against women. It follows on the skirt tails of the majority of custody is given to women. It makes sense that if 97.5 % of children of divorced or unmarried parents reside with their mothers (no small thanks to CWS/CPS, DCSS and Family Court) then the majority of abuse is at the hands of the mother as the father isn’t even allowed visits.
Fact- The statistics of mental illness in the U.S. is 1 in 10. Therefore the same or actually a higher percentage (if you consider the other factors involved with women who end up at Women’s Shelters) of mental illness is the reason a women ends up at a shelter claiming DV when She is actually the perpetrator of DV and has untreated or undiagnosed mental illness (BiPolar, Schizoaffective Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder- to name a few).
I have spent hours and hours on the phone and via email with directors of local women’s shelters and with organizations who raise money for these same shelters. I have had women laugh in my face at the suggestion that men can be victims of DV. I had one father explain his personal experience with DV and law enforcement as follows:
His wife and mother of his two minor children was BiPolar and in the middle of a BiPolar rage. She took a plate full of mashed potatoes and put them in the microwave for 25 minutes then grabbed pot holders and took the plate out of the microwave and threw it at the husband, giving him 3rd degree burns. She then took a wrought iron lamp and hit him over the head with it and then turned to their 4 year old child to hit him. The father called 911 for help and held her by her wrists to prevent her from hitting the child.
When the police got there, they told the badly burned man, who also had blunt force trauma to his head! That he needed to control his woman, then they took HIM to jail and left the children there with the abusive, mentally ill, raging mother. HE was charged with DV and ordered to take Anger Management Classes.
This is the reality of gender bias and DV. The court system and police, who should be in charge of protecting victims are isolating children with their abusers while committing heinous human rights violations based on gender bias.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
As a father who has been wrongly accused of child abuse by my ex and CPS, I strongly urge congress vote no on s1515.
I merely yelled at my 12 year old son and grabbed him by the arm to get him to stop hitting his 9 year old brother and do his homework. Though I had my current wife and younger son as a witness, and without due process, the DOJ placed me on the "child abuser list".
Oh the INJUSTICE!
May 30th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Pennsylvania, has been providing free legal service to any woman who claims to be fearful of her husband.... This is an attorney supplied by the govt and "family" court in the case of the protection from abuse orders that are given out like candy to any woman who decides to have one, including malicious mothers out to victimize the dad. Once the pfa is gotten without any problem or question by the mother, the dad is not allowed to see the child (or the mother) (no contact) until a hearing in 10 days. This means the dad has 10 days to find a lawyer and continue working....This is impossible and puts the dad in a bad situation. The hearing is pretty much a kangaroo court where the dad is not allowed to give his side of the story....
So PA has been giving tax supported (free services to women for years now) and the dad (and child) get railroaded.
Once the mother gets temporary custody, this becomes permenant. Once it becomes permenant the malicious mother will continue to use a system that only punishes the NCP not the custodial parent. Usually, the NCP is punished by beind denied access or less access by the "family" courts to his child. The custodial parent (mother) is not subject to anywhere near the same sanctions (double standard). The malicious mother will also find every and any way to use the child to "teach the dad a lesson" or some such game. She will not cooperate and force litigation so that the dad is forced to take her to court to have her follow the orders, the judge will only slap her on the wrist and eventually do nothing. The only ones the "family" courts punish are the dads (and the children) and they contribute to, reward and facilitate fraud.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
If anyone in Oregon wants to work to do something to amend the Family Abuse Protection Act, send me a message or give me a call. I'm in the phone book in Portland.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
It's too bad more fathers’ rights advocates can't band together, and co-opt funds to pay for a campaign to reach out to the public and increase public awareness and support in opposition to this type of legislation.
I am involved in the movement on a grass roots level - but with legislation like this passing it is making it harder for men to set the standard straight at the local level.
I also work for a political public relations firm and we have a phone room dedicated to public persuasion to aid in the election of candidates or to pass or halt legislation.
I have seen my company assist in putting the breaks on key legislation while assisting in the passing of other through public persuasion and other direct contact means.
I wish men and concerned women would unite to effectuate actual changes for our children and our populace at large.
tcg@consultant.com
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
MR. CHAMBERLAIN:
People have been wishing that for a long time. And they will keep wishing it. Fathers' rights groups band together for a minute then they dissipate. Most guys are either too lazy, too big of cowards, or it's not in their nature to fight when their battle is over. Guys are naturally more drama free. They go through their custody battles and don't want anything to do with the courts. During their cases, guys say, "Can anyone help me out?" Then when they are done, they are no where to be found to help other guys out.
Meanwhile, vindictive women who hold a grudge for life, band together and execute their agenda against guys on a broad scale. Guys just will never do it.
THE #1 SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM THAT GLENN WON'T EVEN TALK ABOUT (cuz he doesn't even understand what it's like to be in family court, nor how fathers win):
Go pro se and fight like hell and don't stop. Attorneys for guys are in on the scam. They are sell outs. If you'r gonna lose, might as well do it yourself. But, when you represent yourself: (1) nobody has as much time to devote to your case as you do; (2) nobody cares about your case like you do; (3) you are available to move the court wheneve you want; (4) passive, coward, wimp, feminized attorneys won't fight hard because they don't want to anger the judge that they will see another day, but you have nothing to lose in fighting hard.
THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING: How do I know all this? Because I GOT CUSTODY of my daughter as a pro se even though I opposed a 17 year veteran attorney and prevail often against a 44-year veteran one now.
GUYS HAVE TO: fight their case on all fronts. They have to aggressively call out guardian ad litems and corrupt investigators and report them all to the proper authorities and file bar complaints against the opposing attorneys. When guys do this, most of the time everyone else backs down.
If the school bully punks you for your lunch money every day, will anything change if you keep giving it to him? No. But, if you stand up to him, he might leave you alone and run to the next wimp. Or you might even beat the crap out of him. If you get beat up, at least get some swings in and bruise and cut him. But, men are a bunch of pus*ies and are too scared. "What if they think I'm angry? What if they write a bad report about me?" THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THAT. Make them wish they never messed with you.
WE CAN ELIMINATE THE CORRUPT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SYSTEM IN MONTHS BY ONLY ONE METHOD. How? Every guy with a DV charge needs to fight it at trial. Have you ever notice that they ALL plea? The public defenders say will lose--all of them do. How do they know.
But, just like in the prohibition, the courts would get overwhelmed and have to change the laws or stop bringing charges.
There's your answer. Anyone who says anything else is an unrealistic dumbass. Men, suck it up and fight. Don't be a wimp. Don't be lazy. Don't be a coward. For crying out loud, don't spend $50,000 on an attorney who gets you less than what you can get yourself. The system is screwed. All this whining and pouting does nothing. It is what it is. You either fight or get screwed. Nothing will change unless you do something about yer case now. If you don't try, you will kick yerself in the foot. You have nothing better to do in your life than fight for your kids. I know the court system is bias, it stresses you out, you have to overprove yourself, etc. So frickin' what. You can fight now and be content later, or you can be a whoosie and regret this time for the rest of your life.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
James Christianson Says " THE #1 SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM THAT GLENN WON'T EVEN TALK ABOUT (cuz he doesn't even understand what it's like to be in family court, nor how fathers win): Go pro se and fight like hell and don't stop."
What a stupid thing to say. The reason why I don't recommend going pro se is because the vast majority of guys who go pro se get their heads handed to them. I know because I get desperate letters from them all day long. Are there exceptions? Sure, no question. But as a general rule I'd trust a nonlawyer to handle my divorce about as much as I'd trust a non-surgeon to handle my brain surgery. I realize it's politically easy to just blame it all on the lawyers, and it would certainly be easier for me to do that, but I prefer to tell the truth.--GS
June 4th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Using the cliche you chose is crap. It doesn't even equate anyway. Lawyers aren't in anywhere near the league surgeons are. A surgeon has to know everything about what he's doing in order to do it, and the result matters to everyone, including him. A lawyer generally doesn't care about what he's doing enough to worry about whether he wins or loses, just that he gets paid, and the result doesn't matter to anyone but the person he's representing. What is best is to have the person who has an emotional investment in the situation actually do the work, and consult with an attorney on things they can't figure out. The only way a lawyer would be good for a divorce is if they worked on a contingency basis, and that's impractical.
I am one of those pro se litigants that had my head handed to me, but I still recommend it. I spent $23,000 less in attorney fees than my ex did, and I didn't have to pay them for her. That is my biggest win, but it was a good feeling to know that she stuck herself for more in attorney fees fighting me than she got out of me for other things, mostly because of the tons of paperwork I was able to generate as a pro se litigant. If it weren't that her father paid the fees, I could have made it so expensive she would have had to settle. I had dreams of endless depositions and stacks of paperwork flying at her attorney.
It might be dangerous, and it is definitely scary, but for those that have the intelligence, drive, and time, I would never tell you that you shouldn't do it. My best advice is to still keep an attorney around that you can ask questions of about procedure and stuff.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Fathers will usually get visitation orders in their decree, but much of the time they'll never be enforced. The reason there's so many false accusations of domestic violence is because once that is brought into the mix there's usually nothing the father can do, and his rights will not be enforced.
The court had solid proof that my ex regularly neglected and had abandoned our child, and I was given temporary custody. My child did great with me and was very happy. I never denied the mother contact whenever she wanted it.
Then she falsely accused me of assaulting her and the domestic violence service got involved. She was given a pro bono attorney, cash- all kinds of things. She was given custody and has refused me visitation ever since, telling me it's to punish me for getting custody previously from her.
The judge has refused to enforce my court-ordered visitation rights- allowing her attorney to use the false accusation as fact, even though it was dismissed in court and my ex even admitted under oath that she lied and had actually assaulted me.
She even told me she wanted our child back in order to get government housing and benefits, and the child support from me. She was lazy and also a drug addict and didn't want to have to get a job to support herself. I've heard the feminists saying over and over that women won't lie and deceive the system just to get government benefits and child support- but they do quite often. Why work when they can get everything they need from their ex and the government, defrauding both.
I have to lay a lot of the blame on my own shoulders because I was one of those men who fell in love with a woman that seemed to need rescued. I liked taking care of a woman and feeling like I made a positive difference to her and her child. I loved her child like my own, and was the only father he knew since the age of one.
So I actually lost 2 children when we divorced and she decided to keep them from me.
She later was sorry we divorced, but it turned to anger and resentment when she realized I wouldn't get back with her. She talked about missing the way I had taken care of her and all the ways I'd made her feel special. It only made me realize just how self-absorbed she'd always been, how incapable she was of caring about anybody but herself, and what an idiot I'd been.
I won't be getting into another serious relationship and will never marry again. The potential devastation far outweigh the benefits to my thinking. In the years since my divorce I spent most of my time, money and energy trying to get my parental rights enforced, until I had to face the fact that it would never happen. I'll never put myself in a position to possibly lose so much again.
And yes, there are also fathers (rarely) that have custody that refuse the mother contact, but they don't have the backing in the system that the mothers have. What rights a father gets enforced depends almost solely on how merciful and caring (about the children's feelings) the mother is. In most cases the system will stand by what the mother wants 100% of the time, regardless of what the orders say, and regardless of what's best for the child.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:48 am
To fight legislators I recommend whatever father's rights organizations still have any juice in them to band together co-opt some funds and start a serious political movement using persuasion techniques the type which my company provides: CASE STUDIES INCLUDE: Grassroots Campaigns for Save Our Constitution; Grassroots Campaigns for Maryland State Teachers Association; Grassroots Campaigns for Missouri Coalition of Life Saving Cures - Contact james@theclintongroup.com.
Jim Christiansen wrote:
"Go pro se and fight like hell and don't stop. Attorneys for guys are in on the scam. They are sell outs. If you'r gonna lose, might as well do it yourself. But, when you represent yourself: (1) nobody has as much time to devote to your case as you do; (2) nobody cares about your case like you do; (3) you are available to move the court wheneve you want; (4) passive, coward, wimp, feminized attorneys won't fight hard because they don't want to anger the judge that they will see another day, but you have nothing to lose in fighting hard."
Jim - the entirety of your post falls under the heading of what I referred to when I stated that "...I am involved in the movement on a grass roots level..."
The very same advice you gave me is the advice I give to other fathers during my consultations with them (sometimes in the lobby during intermission at the Monday morning child custody hearings).
Jim - you are preaching to the choir, but you raise great points. It is scary as hell, but I had no choice. I married the daughter of a divorce attorney and I had to fight my case in court "in pro per" (pro se) because his first tactic was to break my bank and try to break my spirit.
I had to develop the same kind of guerilla court tactics as I am sure you are working with and through. And for the most part I have proven to myself that they do work.
To the defense of Mr. Sacks, it is not in spite of him, but because of him and others like him, that I was able to make it this far, however. I mean they weren't at my side in court, but their information and guidance was beyond reproach.
What I found out is that if you fight smart enough for long enough and use the court's own verbiage to your advantage you will win.
"GUYS HAVE TO: fight their case on all fronts. They have to aggressively call out guardian ad litems and corrupt investigators and report them all to the proper authorities and file bar complaints against the opposing attorneys. When guys do this, most of the time everyone else backs down."
It wasn't until I reported my ex-father in law to the California Bar Association for his violation of the regulations which were very well researched as well as reporting the judge in his pocket to The Judiciary Reform Committee in San Francisco that my case got transferred to another division and within 30 minutes we settled in what 3 years could not compel.
"If the school bully punks you for your lunch money every day, will anything change if you keep giving it to him? No. But, if you stand up to him, he might leave you alone and run to the next wimp. Or you might even beat the crap out of him. If you get beat up, at least get some swings in and bruise and cut him. But, men are a bunch of pus*ies and are too scared. "What if they think I'm angry? What if they write a bad report about me?" THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THAT. Make them wish they never messed with you."
Although I would prefer to cloak my verbiage in socially acceptable vernacular (that’s the pu**y in me talking) I agree with everything you say - tried and true.
"WE CAN ELIMINATE THE CORRUPT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SYSTEM IN MONTHS...You either fight or get screwed. Nothing will change unless you do something about yer case now. If you don't try, you will kick yerself in the foot. You have nothing better to do in your life than fight for your kids. I know the court system is bias, it stresses you out, you have to overprove yourself, etc. So frickin' what. You can fight now and be content later, or you can be a whoosie and regret this time for the rest of your life."
True story and I wish there were more men like us who are willing to band together. This would answer as to the way in which change starts from the ground level and rises to the top.
Now I recommend that we band together in order to continue giving back to the band of brothers for the sake of America because our country is being dismantled one family at a time and we need to put the breaks on it.
If you get in touch with The Children's Rights center - they will provide you with a report which demonstrates a remarkable reduction in divorce rate which occurs once the financial incentives for women are removed. This is connected with Joint Custody Orders.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:59 am
We know what to do on a grass-roots level to win in court - and it all falls under the heading I call Guerilla Court Tactics: We just take the papers prepared for our former spouses, for free, by the local Women's Shelter and reverse the lables. Every where it states the petitioner states so and so for "The Best Interest of The Child" - we just reverese it to read the respondant states so and so for "The Best Interest of The Child"...
Following this we must entirely re-invent ourselves - because in my experiance this is when the witch hunt begins and the former spouse, her attorney and all their attorney friends, the courts, and CPS will start watching and asking around... and your hands have to be clean 24-7 if you are going to fight city hall on your own.
I FIRST got myself $20,000.00 in the hole with unethical lawyers who sold me a bill of goods as to how they were going to works wonders for me... THEN I WENT PRO SE and did the real work myself.
As to the notion of false allegations, the best help I ever got was by going to a CPS run child visitation center and explaining to the workers that I was trying to help my kid and that I feared false allegations of abuse, etc.
I was given sound advise as to how to protect myself from the allegations which did in deed follow - and now - three years later, my former spouse is bending over backwards to play nice and my kid is happier than ever.
To fight legislators I recommend whatever father's rights organizations still have any juice in them to band together co-opt some funds and start a serious political movement using persuasion techniques the type which my company provides: CASE STUDIES INCLUDE: Grassroots Campaigns for Save Our Constitution; Grassroots Campaigns for Maryland State Teachers Association; Grassroots Campaigns for Missouri Coalition of Life Saving Cures - Contact james@theclintongroup.com.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:10 am
u know, when hillary clinton was running i was activley campaigning against her, i truly beleived that she was going to be the right hand of the "devil" so to speak with NOW, the femenists who are also aginst fathers and all men in general. well, now it seems that i might of been wrong just alittle. Obama is a level head man and if you read between the lines when he says "fathers espeiclay black men" need to step up. it looks like he "dislikes" fathers BUT the real worry and probblem is and will be JOE BIDEN, he HATES all fathers in general, he has gone as far to propose a bill that ANY divorcing woman will get FREE legal help AND a attonery who will sole purpose be to gurantee child custody and any monatery money awarded to women. And also to make it next to impossaible for fathers to see there kids. If sarah palin was a liabilty to Mcain then BIDEN will be the one to sway any attempt for fathers to be part of there kids lives if obama is not and strong enough to put his ass in his place. We need to act with a purpose to make sure the rights of fathers are protected. this is NOT about men VS women, its bout cilvil rights and there are women {not all} but alot of them the ones who are nothing more then leaches and who abuse the system and are nothing more then men hating,fridged females from disenchanted relastionships who have a axe to grind who want to harm the children and anything else that will harm there so called expected right to live off other people!
December 13th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Would such an attorney turn down a male domestic violence victim in need?
December 13th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
maybe so..thats why are rights are being violated every single time..they can get away w/it!
December 28th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Chalk it up to 'Creative Financing'. The State governments are going broke. They need more single-mother homes to stimulate the economy.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Give me a break! More men decrying a law, to combat their psychological ploys, once and for all. You men should be ashamed of yourselves.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
DS,..you must be soo stupid that intellagence is 100 light years away. and what do u call women who USE there kids to have a free pay check and sympathy iam sure u heard of the octapulet mother who is being a media whore and using the kids as part of it. women like and want to have there cake and eat it to. they cry bnout not having the fathers around BUT then use the court system to keep the fathers away but just get there mony..why dont u stick your head in a bucket of water and then tell me...slowly...whats your malfunction.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
JC #52 I totaly agree, good point..us as men and as fathers first need to fight back.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
What our you so scared for?
Our you hiding behind those walls that need to be revealed.
Giving protection to kids should be the highest priority on this earth!
They don't send DOGS back to abusers!
So any help for mothers that need help is a requirement and is about time.
Like a overdue library book.Is time to pay fines for our children.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
godess, no one is hiding ANYTHING but we all know how certain women will abuse and use any means to keep fathers away from the kids BUT still collect a check, {trying have there cake and eat it too} , thats right making sure kids are protected should be a prioity then why this so called measure is for mother/women ONLY? If it was on the other foot you types would be crying foul. Personaly i think NOW should be labeled a hate group and a danger to family parenting all around. Women who cry bout not being able to keep men/fathers away from the kids THEY helped bring into this world are the ones who realy dont have the kids best interest at heart but only their own and are self serving and selfish and dont deserve to be called women.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
one more note..they DO send kids back to dogs{abusers}, look how many times judges send kids back to the mothers who abuse them JUST cause they are so called "mothers"