New Column: Lesbian Child Custody Battles and Heterosexual Divorce
August 6th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
At the National Organization for Women's recent national conference, NOW declared that there is a "crisis for women and their children in the family law courts."
According to NOW, fathers often "aggressively litigate against mothers" and "use family court to stalk, harass, punish and impoverish their former partners and children."
But what happens in divorce and child custody matters when there's no man around to create problems?
It can be ugly. Very ugly.
My new co-authored column, Lesbian Child Custody Battles and Heterosexual Divorce (World Net Daily, 8/5/08), examines lesbian child custody battles and finds that biological mothers often seek to exclude their former partners from their children's lives, just as heterosexual mothers sometimes do to their ex-husbands.
To write a Letter to the Editor of World Net Daily, one of the largest content websites in the world, click on letters@worldnetdaily.com.
The column, co-authored with Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Executive Director of Fathers & Families, is below.
Lesbian Child Custody Battles and Heterosexual Divorce
By Dr. Ned Holstein and Glenn Sacks
At the National Organization for Women's recent national conference, NOW declared that there is a "crisis for women and their children in the family law courts." According to NOW, fathers often "aggressively litigate against mothers" and "use family court to stalk, harass, punish and impoverish their former partners and children." But what happens in divorce and child custody matters when there's no man around to create problems?
It can be ugly. Very ugly.
There are now many publicized cases of lesbian custody disputes. While NOW blames fathers for contentious litigation, lesbian custody cases are strikingly similar to heterosexual ones. When a lesbian mother breaks up with her partner, she often tries to drive her partner out of their children's lives – just as some heterosexual mothers do.
Moreover, lesbian mothers often employ the same tactics. These include: denying visitation or access to the children; making dubious abuse claims; moving the children far away; and denigrating the breadwinning parent's bond with the children.
For example, in a recent Canadian case, English lesbian mom Connie Springfield employed the tactic of permanently moving the children to another country under the guise of taking them there to visit. According to the Canadian National Post:
"Ontario Superior Court Justice Jennifer Mackinnon ordered Springfield to return to England with her two daughters, Kita, 8, and Freda, 6, whom she adopted with her long-time partner Sarah Courtney six years ago. Ms. Springfield had spirited the two children to Canada late last year in what the judge called a 'long thought out, deceptive method of her removal of the children.'"
In another current Canadian case, two former lesbian partners, L.K. and C.L., are fighting over custody of a 5-year-old identified only as "J." In 2002, the co-habiting couple agreed that C.L. would be artificially inseminated via an anonymous sperm donor.
The couple split up when the child was only 9 months old. Afterwards, C.L. employed allegations of abuse against L.K. to successfully scuttle the joint application for adoption that the couple had signed when they were still together.
In A.H. v. M.P., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against A.H., a lesbian social mother who had been the primary breadwinner for her partner, M.P., and their young son. After separation, M.P. sought to minimize A.H.'s role in the boy's life, arguing that since A.H. was not the child's primary caregiver, she should not receive joint custody of the boy. A.H. had been actively involved in their child's life, but the demands of her breadwinning role left her less time with the child than M.P.
Fathers & Families penned an amicus brief in defense of A.H., fearing that the case could set a precedent that would marginalize parents to whom children are deeply attached simply because they are breadwinners.
Some lesbian mothers are so determined to purge their former partners from their children's lives that they will employ laws against gay marriage or gay adoption in order to do it. In one Ohio case, Denise Fairchild (the birth mother) and Therese Leach agreed that they would share custody of their son, who they both parented since his birth in 1996. In order to protect Leach's relationship with the boy, in 2001 the two women signed a joint custody agreement of the type approved by the Ohio Supreme Court.
When the relationship soured in 2005, however, Fairchild decided to exclude Leach from the boy's life, arguing that Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage is grounds for denying Leach shared custody.
In the Wheeler case in Georgia, Sara Wheeler, a one-time gay rights activist and advocate, argues that it's her "right" to drive her former partner out of their son's life. According to the Associated Press:
"Wheeler, 36, and her partner, Missy, decided to start a family together and share the Wheeler last name. In 2000, Sara Wheeler gave birth to a son, Gavin, through artificial insemination. Two years later, they decided Missy Wheeler should adopt the child and legally become his second parent. …
"Sara and Missy Wheeler had split by July 2004, and Missy was fighting for joint custody of the boy. … [Sara Wheeler is] now doing something she once would have considered unthinkable – arguing that gays don't have the legal right to adopt children."
Similarly, in Jones v. Barlow in Utah, Cheryl Pike Barlow and Keri Lynne Jones agreed to have a child together, raised the girl together as a couple and gave the child both of their surnames. After they split up, Barlow, the birth mother, refused to allow Jones to have contact with their now 6-year-old girl and moved the girl from Utah to Texas.
Having renounced her former sexual orientation, Barlow argued that Jones should not be allowed contact with their child because she is gay. The Utah Supreme Court ruled in her favor last year.
When mothers drive fathers out of their children's lives after divorce or separation, people often assume that the ex-husband must have harmed her or done her wrong, so "no wonder she's angry." These lesbian cases contradict this, and instead buttress the fatherhood movement's claim that mothers sometimes try to drive decent, loving fathers out of their children's lives.
Kelly Jordan, a Toronto lawyer who is the former chair of the family law section of the Ontario Bar Association, says cases like the Springfield/Courtney dispute and others are "all very new."
Actually, for dads, there's nothing new about them.
This column first appeared on World Net Daily (8/5/08).
Dr. Ned Holstein is the executive director of Fathers & Families, a shared-parenting organization. Their website is www.FathersandFamilies.org.
Glenn Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. He invites readers to visit his website at www.GlennSacks.com.
"));
19 queries. 0.668 seconds.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Well, this one can't be blamed on the men (outside of government, anyways). I think that's the REAL crisis feminists see in this.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Said before and I'll say it again... they can still blame a man... by simply contending that one of the partners (likely the one being driven from the child's life) represents the "man" in the relationship and therefore, the mythological "evil patriarchy" will exist even in the lesbian relationships.
Problem solved (for feminists).
August 6th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Actually, Mr. M, it's not a "problem solved," because I was referring to what you've basically described as the crisis.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:34 am
If something goes wrong in the forest, and there's no man to blame it on...
August 6th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Now blames fathers for contentious litigation! Ha!
In their world Men are supposed to just lay down and submit to every womans' demand.
And if women are so great and non-contentious- it apparently does not bear out in the case of lesbian relationships.
It would be interesting to get a high-ranking memeber of NOW to explain a contentious lesbian family court situation.
In the divoces I know of, most of the guys didn't want the divorce, but since the wife insisted, they wanted to see their children and get a fair financial arrangement. How dare those bastards!
August 6th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Rubic... it was sarcasm... in other words, they'll blame one of the women for being a man = blaming a man = "problem solved" (they found a way to blame a male - even if figuratively).
August 6th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Unfortunately there is a signifigant number of women who are never satisfied.
If a man tries to be involved with his children a woman will try to drive him out of his children's lives and then the same woman will turn around and complain that the man doesn't care about his children and is never around.
A woman scorned is really a woman acting like a child. And unfortunately, are castrated judges don't have the balls to follow the constitution.
A person who is driving another person out of their children's lives rarely has a legitamate reason to do so. When the reasons are unfounded, the judges should order an immediate psychological evaluation of the person attempting to drive out the other person.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:35 am
"If a man tries to be involved with his children a woman will try to drive him out of his children's lives and then the same woman will turn around and complain that the man doesn't care about his children and is never around."
This bears highlighting. It's the classic example of the "win-win" for the women that is all too common. Both sides of that coin also use the consummate-victim position to maximize their ability to complain and ask for hand-outs, too.
Mine did that. Other than keeping the vacuum on my wallet, it's the one issue that I often wondered WHY it took so long for the court to recognize (and they ultimately did). She would regularly argue that she wanted the children to have their father in their lives and had always been willing to go with 50/50 throughout many hearings that were being done while at the same time she was suing for primary/sole custody.
That had to be the single most exasperating part of my entire ordeal.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Of course NOW feels that men are too litigious. NOWs position for the last 35 years has been that women should automatically have sole custody and that anything that interferes with that status quo is automatically the man's fault.
NOWs tactic reminds me of a baseball or soccer coach that constantly complains and shouts to the ref hoping that they might get a sympathy call. They are also banging the drum that women are the ones who are always the victim. Of course any one who has been through the divorce courts knows that often or usually the complete opposite is occuring. It is the men who are treated like ATM machines as well as the work mules.
NOWs fight against shared custody has put them in a position where they have to defend an imoral position. It can't be sustained. Like Paternity Fraud, men should shove this down their throats (metaphorically speaking). If we were smart, organized, and well funded we could be running ad campaigns with full page adds in the NY Times and 30 second television spots that would simply point this out. It would be a PR nightmare for them.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
A person who is driving another person out of their children's lives rarely has a legitamate reason to do so. When the reasons are unfounded, the judges should order an immediate psychological evaluation of the person attempting to drive out the other person.
David M - Great point. This is why many vested interests were against gay marriage. Now that the veneer of woman-good/man-bad no longer applies, certain abhorrent court practices will be exposed for what they are. The emperor has no clothes, and it's taking same-sex divorces to show it.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
John Boy - This newspaper/tv ads you mention, I wonder if there is any way we can pool our resources under the leadership of one of the MRA organization which produces such an Ad. It doesn't even have to be a grim or serious Ad. How about something humorous like those "Get Rick Quick" schemes, but a mock version of them. You know like that nerdy guy with wearing a suit with lots of question marks on it, that shows you how to get Federal grants. You know that Ad I am talking about? Only, ours would be titled something like a "Get Married, Get Rick Quick!
We can have slogans like: "The less you put in, the more you get out of it come cha-ching time! Isn't it great! Our 12 Step System shows you how!" etc. You know something that can perhaps get cult-hit status, despite being shown at the low-cost weekend/evening timeslots along with all those horrible girls gone wild ads. :-)
August 6th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
To David:
I'm very tempted to quote Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail, but succinctly put, I like this idea.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
David,
In the 1970s Greenpeace did their mind bomb adds showing baby seals being clubbed. That one add campaign ruined the fur industry permanently. When visual immages of cute little big eyed mammals where shown being slaughtered they did not need to say anything more. It spoke for it's self.
No, I don't know the add you are talking about. My vision would simply to get a few basic facts out into the public domain. Keep is simple and to the point. Also, keep them on the moral defensive. Force now to defend Paternity Fraud, Sole Custody, that women are filing 75% of the divorces. It would be a media tar baby for them. NOW can do and say what every they want because nobody is calling them on it. They are lucky they do not have to defend their position. Because anything related to MRA is blackballed a direct add campaign would also force the media to cover this issue, once again to NOWs chagrin.
I would also say that it is absolutly critical that there is a well funded organization to counter the "backlash" that would surely follow. If there web addresses on the adds telling men and women where they could donate and a speakers Bureau to refute the onslaught of sludge that is sure to follow we would be in a much better position. Also, a well funded media campaign could run a series of adds thereby keeping the issue in the public eye and NOW on the defensive.
As I have said, $20 a month from a million men would rock the world.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Ok here is the Ad I am talking about. The get-rich-quick guy's name is Matthew Lesko.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyNeKLQqhlU
We don't need a million dollar budget to produce something like his ads. Our message is funny/outragous enough as it is, since it is the Aweful Truth. We just the budget to air it and be ready for the backlash. Once it catches fire, with a donation URL like John Boy said, it can be self-perpetuating awareness raising vehicle for years to come.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
According to NOW, fathers often "aggressively litigate against mothers" and "use family court to stalk, harass, punish and impoverish their former partners and children."
They cant stand it that men are actually using the same tactics against the "Sainted" woman to protect themselves from financial servitude.
I love the hypocrisy in that statement. Its ok for women to do it but once men start its now a "crisis".
I hope more men in the future "aggressively litigate against mothers". Maybe then the courts will take notice that we are not going to walking wallets and discretionary income any longer.
TheOtherMikeD
August 6th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
The Other Mike D,
Some Men are fighting very hard. Any one who goes through the family court system by definition is fighting very hard. The problem is that we are fighting alone. Or to quote a phrase, "we need to drain the swamp not just fight the aligators".
Many of the outragous legal stunts women try to pull can only be done in a legal and social environment where they have an advantage. If the public was truly aware of how unfair the family court system is towards men the statement about men being overly litgious would not pass the laugh test.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
It may be important to reflect upon the fact that in the majority of these Family Court matters where men are victimized, as well as in the passage of laws like VAWA that fuel the harvesting of men --
it is MEN who do women's dirty ideological work and ensure that the cultural violence of feminism continues.
Sen. Joe Biden is the poster boy for this kind of complicity with a misandrist hate movement. Our prospective next Vice President.
You could see Kim Gandy @ NOW appointed to a cabinet level post -- . Secretary of the C-word Department and Commissar for Diversity.
This country is becoming like an unreleased secret edition of the old Twilight Zone television show.
Where nothing is what is seems....
August 6th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Since there are quite a few Lesbians in NOW, I wonder how this will effect NOW in the long run.?
If by chance joint physical custody were awarded in a lesbian break-up, it would open itself up to being used as case law, where judges dare not go. That would open up a whole can of worms.
Will NOW speak out against judges in these lesbian cases or will they remain quiet now that they have created this very situation???
August 6th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Re: NOW's position on custody. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that initially NOW was in favor of joint custody - something to do with freeing women from the gender-based role of a housewife.
But then they suddenly switched back to demanding sole custody for women (under the guise of "primary caregiver", and of course bringing up the old Domestic Violence canard).
Anyone have a source for this?
August 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Fact of the matter is that the system is just plain jacked up for everybody. And the more people that see how jacked up it is the more motivation we can get to fix the system.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Can you use the phrase "jacked up" today and not be threatened with prosecution for domestic abuse?
When I was a kid, if you jacked up anybody, you were a criminal.
So maybe there is hope!
When a chick says to you, please jack me up, maybe she just needs the tire on her car changed? Or a recommendation for a really good novel by Jack Kerouac?
Or is it a subtle marriage proposal?
If you tell your buddy, "that girl jacked me up!" what will he think?
(I find these ordinary language memes interesting. Glenn's site needs to attract a few more feminist cunning linguists of whatever socially constructed gender to spice up the discourse!)
August 6th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
The girls are gone....
Why?
They had voices. Their voices were interesting. And evolving.
I suspect a conspiracy. (The giris that post on Glenn's site had a pajama party. They charged everything on their husband's credir card.)
And all it needs to end is ONE HONEST FEMALE ---
August 6th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
"use family court to stalk, harass, punish and impoverish their former partners and children."
Isn't that a nice way of saying a man being deprived of his rights seeks recourse in exercising those rights lawfully through the court (and we don't like it.)
August 6th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
David and John Boy,
We can start by posting an ad on YouTube, if you think we could compete there. It's mostly hit - or miss.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:18 am
CW - it's very hard to compete on You Tube. There are so many gems on You Tube, but then when you look at the hit count it's like 3,756. I mean if the video was funny/witty enough, it could turn into a forward-phenom via email viral marketing. But to create the kind of Mind Bomb that JB is talking about, we would need to push out the message the old fashioned, $$$$-backed, can't help but see it during the ad-break, in your living-room, via TV/Radio method.
IDEA 2) Another idea is to put angry, full of fire messaging on giant Clear Channel road signs on heavy commuter roads in major cities. Succint ones that talk about the things that NOW can't defend. Paternity Fraud, Lack of Shared Parenting, No-Fault-Alimony, and so on. For example:
Bullet 1: 75% of divorces are initiated by one party.
Bullet 2: 96% of alimony is received by the same party.
Bullet 3: The same party breaking the contract, receives the damages. What kind of contract law is this?
Bullet 4: Contact your state representative [put his/her name here] about Family Law Reform Now!
The goal is to 1) Spread Outrage 2) Strengthen the Marriage Strike.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Those girls are playing with men's emotions.
They are watching and waiting.
I am really interested to see which female will jump out first and speak up.
That girl...
That one.