Victory! CA Appellate Court Says Excluding Men from Domestic Violence Programs is Unconstitutional
October 14th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
California attorney Marc Angelucci scored a tremendous victory today as the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence services violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights.
The taxpayer lawsuit -- Woods. v. Shewry -- was initially filed in 2005 by four male victims of domestic violence.
In 2007, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly dismissed the case, ruling that men are not entitled to equal protection regarding domestic violence because they statistically are not similarly situated with women.
Today the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and held:
The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection.
The plaintiffs' attorney, Marc E. Angelucci (pictured above left), said:
We’ve been through the daisy wheel of judicial activism on this issue. Now the courts have finally addressed the injustice, but the struggle is not over. Many taxpayer-funded programs, especially in Los Angeles, still deny men services such as counseling, advocacy, shelter or hotel vouchers, which is endangering their children.
Men pay at least half of the taxes that fund these programs and they should be entitled to services regardless of sex. I have seen the damage this does to men and kids and I will never stop fighting to end it, even if it means filing more lawsuits.
Numerous experts submitted sworn declarations supporting the plaintiffs and explaining that Domestic Violence against men is a serious but hidden problem. Children are being emotionally harmed as witnesses of the violence while their fathers are unable to get help.
Experts in the Case explained that although men report it less than women, empirical survey data consistently shows women are at least as violent as men in relationships, and that men suffer one-third of injuries.
This research is listed below. The Court's Opinion can be read at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C056072.PDF.
Angelucci did fantastic work in this case--I recommend all readers send him a congratulatory email by clicking here.
The central plaintiff in the case was David Woods. The plight of David and his daughter Maegan is detailed in Marc's column Domestic Violence Lawsuit Will Help Secure Services for All Abuse Victims (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 12/28/05), which I co-authored. We wrote:
At the age of 11, Maegan tried to stop a domestic dispute between her parents. She soon found herself staring down the barrel of her father's shotgun. She watched helplessly as the trigger was pulled. She is only alive today because the gun didn't fire--the safety was on.
Maegan was abused and witnessed domestic violence in her home for most of her childhood. By age seven there had been knife attacks, punches, kicks, and more. It was hard to leave--the abuser was the one who earned the money, and the victim was unable to work because of a disability. On numerous occasions they looked for help to escape the abuse but were refused. Why?
Because in Maegan's family, the abused spouse was her father, and the battering and child abuse were perpetrated by her mother.
The California Battered Women Protection Act of 1994, codified in Health & Safety Codes Section 124250, et. seq., created funding for domestic violence shelter-based services. However, by defining domestic violence as something only experienced by women, the statutes exclude male victims from receiving state-funded domestic violence services, including shelter, hotel arrangements, counseling and legal services.
Maegan, now 21, and her father, David Woods, are the lead plaintiffs in a new lawsuit against the State of California and numerous state agencies and state-funded domestic violence service providers. Beginning in the mid-1980s, David was violently attacked on numerous occasions by his wife Ruth, who suffers from a bi-polar disorder which, in her case, creates a propensity toward violence.
On several occasions David decided that he and Maegan should get out of the house to escape Ruth's violence. However, with his disabling condition and inability to work, David had no money to provide for himself and his daughter. Numerous times he contacted a Sacramento domestic violence agency he had heard of in the media, WEAVE, but they always told him "we don't help men," and never offered him a referral to another facility. David tried churches and various programs, but all they could offer for men were homeless shelters with waiting lists. He found nothing for abused men and their children. David gave up and sank into a heavy depression.
By February 2003, Maegan began telling her father to find a place of safety from Ruth's violence. He again called WEAVE and again was told "we don't help men." Maegan, then 18, became so frustrated watching David being abused that she called WEAVE herself and insisted they help her father. According to Maegan, WEAVE said they do not help men, and that men are the perpetrators of domestic violence, not the victims.
That year Ruth finally began to seek professional help for her problems. David, loyal and a firm believer in his marriage vows, stuck by her. In January 2004, the two appeared together on the NBC's John Walsh Show and discussed Ruth's violence.
Domestic violence policies based on the woman good/man bad model kept David trapped in his violent marriage in a number of ways. The biggest reason David didn't leave Ruth was Maegan. She was frequently the target of Ruth's attacks, particularly when David wasn't around to protect her and take Ruth's blows.
Domestic violence researcher Richard Gelles, whose groundbreaking work on domestic violence in the late 1970s was instrumental in bringing the issue to public consciousness, explains that current policies often trap abused fathers like David. They can't leave their wives because this would leave their children unprotected in the hands of an abuser. If they simply take their children, they can be arrested for kidnapping. Moreover, they would probably lose custody of their children in the divorce anyway, again leaving their children in harm's way.
These cases often have tragic results. In the highly-publicized Socorro Caro murder case, Socorro often abused her husband Xavier, a prominent Northridge, California rheumatologist, and once assaulted him so badly he had to have surgery to regain his sight in one eye. Trapped and not knowing what to do or where to go, Xavier endured the abuse, once telling his wife "one day you are going to do something that cannot be undone." A short time later Socorro shot and killed three of their four children. Their baby survived only because Socorro ran out of bullets. She was later convicted and sentenced to death for the murders.
While police intervention often works for abused women, abused men understandably fear that once the police are involved, their wives will accuse them of being the abuser and it is they who will be believed. Draconian arrest policies often direct police to make an arrest, and police are often pressured to arrest the man.
The anti-male bias of police policies was evident in the Woods case. During the 1995 shotgun incident, Ruth called the police after David wrestled the shotgun away from her. Maegan yelled to her mom, "Tell the truth!" and Ruth told the police she wanted them to come because she wanted to kill her husband.
Nevertheless, when the police arrived and David opened the door to let them in, the officers immediately grabbed him by the wrist, wrestled him to the ground, and handcuffed him. They only uncuffed him after Maegan told them that it was her mother who had the gun.
Maegan told her story in Abused Man's Daughter Speaks Out--Maegan Talks About Her Childhood.
[Late note: There have now been several stories about this case in the mainstream media. These include stories in the Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle, National Post (Canada), and the Metropolitan News-Enterprise (Los Angeles). I suggest readers visit those sites and post supportive comments. Congratulations again to Angelucci for his fantastic work in this case. --GS]
To learn more about domestic violence, Angelucci suggests the following resources:
California State Long Beach Professor Martin Fiebert's summary of over 200 of the studies in an online bibliography at www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.
Prof. Linda Kelly, 'Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse,' 30 Florida State Law Review 791 (2003) www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf.
Prof. Don Dutton, 'Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice,' Aggression and Violent Behavior, (11) 2006, 457-483 www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf
Harvard Medical School: www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d
University of New Hampshire: www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n
Canadian Government Report: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/Intimate_Partner.pdf
"));
19 queries. 0.455 seconds.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I'll bet I can count on one had the number of days that go by before there's a feminist outcry and the ruling is reversed.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
The feminist outcry may be ignored.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
[...] "…taxpayer-funded programs…deny men services such as counseling, advocacy, shelter... Share and Enjoy: [...]
October 14th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Congrats to Glenn and to others who are making some wonderful things happen. This is one step in a very important process: recognizing male victims. Half of the battle will be one as soon as we destroy the myth that the woman is always the victim, even when she's the one who broke the law.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
THE TWO THAT ARE DOING IT ALL
Marc Angelucci from the National Coalition of Free Men.
Michael Robinson from the California Alliance for Families and Children.
Marc in the courtroom and Michael in the legislature.
Together they have stood up to the excesses of feminism and won meaningful change time and time again.
When the final chapter is written, these two names will loom large.
DanH
October 14th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
"They can't leave their wives because this would leave their children unprotected in the hands of an abuser. If they simply take their children, they can be arrested for kidnapping."
Don't women leave with the children all the time and not because of any violence in the home? Has anyone ever heard of a woman being charged with kidnapping for leaving with the kids?
October 14th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
A parent taking the kids IS NOT KIDNAPPING. Calling it that is another example of the criminalization of all fathers.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I feel ManCan hits it bang on when he refers to "destroy the myth..." because that is just another way of saying men today need to completely discard Chivalry.
I have two daughters in their twenties and I would never be so foolish as to naively idealize them as innocent members of some "fairer" gender. From the time that they could walk and talk, they have never been naive, and only occasionally fair.
They are however ethical in their application ruthlessness, and do not discriminate about who gets to experience it.
These girls are samurai warriors that will use their beauty to distract you while you are being emotionally disemboweled.
So, we cannot have legal reform until we reform our cultural beliefs about women. They are completely capable of violence and intentional aggression. The age of innocent princesses and damsels in distress is long gone.
Laws don't change until people change their minds about the social beliefs behind the laws.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
BTW, I am a huge fan of Marc Angelucci .
He is doing incredible work for men's and father's rights.
I wish I had the money to subsidize him to just set him loose to do it full time.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Thank you Mark for you're fearless, and tireless efforts!!
October 14th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
What does this mean in regards to VAWA?
Violence Against Women Act, which was passed by The senator, running for vice president Ms. Joe Biden?
Wouldn't it also be unconstitutional?
October 14th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
This ia a fantastic result, I think we'll begin to see more and more court cases like this in the future. Hopefully "equal protection under the law" will ring true in those situations as well.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Tremendous and fantastic beginnings...a tip of the hat to those involved.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
A beginning. NOW and VAWA feminists are liars, sexists and swine. Some women are violent just as some men are. Exceptions are not the rule. Lies are garbage in and garbage is what comes out.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Fathertime:
Unfortunately this doesn't have an immediate impact upon VAWA. This is California issue. Assuming there isn't another appeal (to the State Supereme Court?), this would mean that any shelter that gets money from the state has to also provide services for men. It's likely that most public shelters get money from the state and from the federal government, so any California public shelters will in effect have to offer services to men also now. What's more this is a precedent that can be used to challenge the constitutionality of VAWA.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Now we have to wonder just how welcome men will be at these shelters. Or assuming the shelter workers give most of them motel/hotel vouchers, will the shelters try to claim they cannot provide such until they get an increase in funding?
October 14th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
LOL, Glenn it isn't April 1st silly!
October 14th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I think that I get it N.O.W. (thanks BigFred)
This may also have a little to do with the turning away of the older male children that were denied safe harbor in domestic violence cases, where the young men (old boys) had to go to other family, friends, or fend for themselves.
But it is Good News.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
[...] GlennSacks.com Blog Archive Victory! CA Appellate Court Says Excluding Men from Domestic Violence Pr... California attorney Marc Angelucci scored a tremendous victory today as the Third District Court [...]
October 14th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
This is excellent news for mens rights advocates and equality seekers everywhere - feminsts, who lie by pretending they seek equality (while fighting equality for men) will no doubt hate this!
October 14th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Wow! Congrats to all involved. It's a shame that you have to have an absolutely blatant case like this before a court will even consider the inherent unequal treatment. David and Maegan are both lucky to be alive, and lucky to have each other watching the other's back.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Hopefully the remedy that the court will prescribe will include some concrete action that needs to be taken by all shelters, such as spending a certain amount of money on male victims.
Without specific remedies, the foot dragging will continue in earnest to continue to deny men services.
In any case, I want to congratulate all who worked so hard to achieve this victory. It gives hope to those of us in Minnesota who continue the fight against discrimination against men. Please join and fund the National Coalition of Free Men.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
It's a hollow victory. You all seem to forget that the same women running those shelters (that have been turning men away as a matter of course) yesterday, will be running them tomorrow.
You can't tell me that because some judge says they have to BE FAIR about who they help does not mean that they will. mark my words, men will not receive the same level of customer service that women do.
The shelter in my county has kitchens, laundry machines, group therapy, feeling of community and support within the shelter. They also have a strict no men in the shelter policy. They will help men by giving them motel vouchers but no access the the above perks.
"Hears a motel voucher now go and sit their by yourself, eat out of the microwave and wash your clothing in the sink.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
The feminist-ruled domestic violence industry will yield little by way of this court decision. However, it is indeed an important first step.
The next step will be when the money-trail is revealed. That's the trail of money from federal policy to local initiatives and how the flow of money is directly tied to the creation of female victims. More "victims" in the treatment machine means more money for local initiatives. The Duluth model of domestic violence is great way to create more female victims.
I wonder how the cupcakes over at Feministing.com will spin this one?
October 14th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Weave's website say's...........
"Services are available to anyone who needs them, regardless of gender, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, or income level."
Interesting change of tune, I wonder how deep it goes.
www.weaveinc.org/services.
"WEAVE operates an emergency shelter program where female survivors of domestic violence and their children can escape unsafe homes. Male survivors of domestic violence are placed at a different location.
WEAVE’s Safehouse Program provides a secure refuge for survivors of violence to receive:
* Temporary Emergency Housing
* Emergency transportation, food and clothing
* Transitional housing advocacy, assistance and referrals
* Crisis intervention, counseling, advocacy and case management
* Child abuse identification and intervention
* School advocacy for school age children
* Medical advocacy and mental health referrals
* Mother’s support groups
* Evening support groups
* Children’s program with assessment and structured play group
* Legal information and referrals
* Other important resources and community referrals"
http://www.weaveinc.org/services/safehouse
October 14th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Thank you Glenn and everyone who sent thank you emails. I can't respond to them all but I appreciate them.
Maybe it's a "hollow victory" relatively speaking but actually it's a major step in the right direction. The decision actually says that state funded programs that don't help male victims are "unlawful." That's going to turn the tide, even if it takes a long battle to get where we want to be. We can now use that to sue the state-funded shelters who refuse to help men, and we'll have the credibility and force of this decision to back it up. This will be a long fight. And we all need to be active in order to change it. I thank all those who are.
WEAVE changed their website to be neutral, and to include a page on male victims, after we settled them out of the case. They also invited our expert to go re-train their staff on DV statistics. But that doesn't mean everything is fixed. We still see some of their representatives using gender-biased language in the media, or at least being quoted by the media that way. And the state-funded shelters in L.A. County are the worst of all. it may take more lawsuits to clean it up. Now we're in a much stronger position to do that.
I agree that alot of the shelters will only "budge" a bit and not do much, if anything at all. I agree that will still be a big problem. No way do I think this will fix everything. It's just one more stepping stone of progress. This is a long fight that will take incremental changes. it simply won't change overnight. We have to take the blows and keep fighting. Victories like this are milestones along the way. it won't be the walls of Jericho crumbling down. This will not stop until we all join in the war and FIGHT, at least in our own localities.
I do want to thank the California Alliance for Families and Children for providing the main plaintiff, the National Coalition of Free Men for their financial and other support, the plaintiffs themselves for all they did, and all others who have helped.
This fight is not over in any sense of the word.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
YEAH!!!!!!!
October 14th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I already contribute to CAFC and would like to do so for NCFM(L.A.), but when I went to their web page earlier tonight I got a message from my security softwared saying spyware was attempting to be placed on my computer! (I had to clean it then restart the computer). Does anyone have a similar problem? I'm scared to go back and try again..
October 15th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Great point and catchy too ... Men pay 50% of the taxes - We demand 50% of the services !
October 15th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Hey Marc,
I didn't mean to rain on your parade. I personally want to thank you for fighting the good fight. You are right this is a step in the right direction.
My point is that these women have been running things for so long that they wont think twice about treating every man that walks through their doors like s**t. They know that 99% of those men that they treat like garbage aren't going to a thing about it. Law suites take time and money. Time and money are things that people who are in need of a shelter don't have. Even if they had free representation, the amount of time they would be required to spent in court might not be something they would be willing to part with.
These women who run these shelters know that from dealing with their own gender. Their are a fue u-tube vid about this. search shelter abuse. lots of stories about women taken advantage of by women shelter workers. I watched these vid's and the running theme through all of them was "If they don't like you they wont help you"
Besides, how do you think it going to play out in the media when you start suing shelters? You better be careful you might end up being more hated then Glen Sacks
October 15th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Independent oversight of this corrupt shelter system, now that would be a big victory
October 15th, 2008 at 1:10 am
These shelters are the temples of the cult of victimhood. Allow outsiders into the cult and you wreck the religion. Feminists broke up patriarchal social structures by forcing men's clubs to admit women, and now the reverse is happening. Serves them right.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:01 am
It's not nearly enough. In reading this decision the 'justices" make it perfectly clear that men are still very much 2nd class citizens in Gender Jim Crow California.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:18 am
It looks like the State of California is going to be working extra hard now to make sure men are statistically only 5% of d.v. crime victims. That way California can continure to provide very disproportionate domestic violence services to women, as they say they plan on doing in this decision. California domestic violence law is still nothing more than a hate movement against men. This decision is tailored to make sure the domestic violence hate crimes California has been committing under color of law will continue.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:12 am
DO WE GET EQUAL VAWA MONEY NOW!!??
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER HALF OF WHAT WAS ALREADY SPENT?? IS THERE NOW GOING TO BE 16 BILLION MATCHING FUNDS FOR MEN's ISSUES?
wow. It is nice to have some good news.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:13 am
Where can we ask for the matching funds?
October 15th, 2008 at 3:32 am
The truly sad thing about this is, it should be a no brainer... But for some reason this actually had to go to court. Domestic Violence is an equal opportunity destroyer of lives.
October 15th, 2008 at 5:35 am
This is how wars are won- battle by battle. Kudos to all those involved.
"Men pay 50% of the taxes - We demand 50% of the services !"
Ironically we pay a lot more than 50% and regardless of the area we get less than 50% of the services.
October 15th, 2008 at 5:55 am
I had no idea that men were EVER excluded from these programs in the first place. I'm sorry, but whoever implemented that idea is a disgrace.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Wow! Equal protection under the law? What a concept!
October 15th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Hmmmm, not a single mainstream news outlet has yet to print a story containing the words "Woods v Shewry".
I searched Yahoo News and Google News and only found one hit at Men's News Daily, and he got the story from Glenn's site.
I wounder if Big Sister is huddling in backroom meetings on how best to stop this advance. ;-)
October 15th, 2008 at 7:00 am
{But for some reason this actually had to go to court. Domestic Violence is an equal opportunity destroyer of lives.}
It's not equal. It's infinitely worse for men, because they have no recoarse. If they try to report it the cops won't do anything and instead he'll be the one branded as an abuser.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:22 am
LorMarie Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 5:55 am
"I had no idea that men were EVER excluded from these programs in the first place."
i 100% believe you. ask yourself if you got your monies worth at your collage or univeristy.
do you wonder if there are other areas of mens rights or gender issues that you need to seperate fiction from fact, fantasy from reality? i do.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Men are offered all sorts of services through Wade Horn's Fatherhood initiatives programs and women are denied those servcies. I guess we need to sue for equal access to those services. Might want to watch out what you wish for.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:19 am
"New Friend Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Men are offered all sorts of services through Wade Horn's Fatherhood initiatives programs and women are denied those servcies. I guess we need to sue for equal access to those services. Might want to watch out what you wish for."
If women were disadvantaged by society you would have an argument.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:41 am
New Friend said:
Men are offered all sorts of services through Wade Horn's Fatherhood initiatives programs and women are denied those servcies. I guess we need to sue for equal access to those services. Might want to watch out what you wish for.
-------------
If you need help keeping a father in your children's life, then I don't see how they could refuse (as per their state funding IN VIRGINIA [not California] and their mission statements).
October 15th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Well Done Marc!!
as they say A journey of 1000 miles begins with a first step. This is a HUGE first step. While some may think it's a hollow victory it is anything but.
I know it's a state issue and hence has not bearing on VAWA and the federal incentives for the DV industry but it's a start. I wonder could this case bolster an argument in federal court to overturn VAWA as it stands and ensure that ALL victims get help across the country?
October 15th, 2008 at 9:06 am
This is fantastic news!
I just want to see what Obama and McCain say about it.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:09 am
"Men are offered all sorts of services through Wade Horn's Fatherhood initiatives programs and women are denied those servcies. I guess we need to sue for equal access to those services. Might want to watch out what you wish for."
That's exactly what almost happened with the equal rights amendment. Feminists tried to push forward complete and total gender legal equality via the amendment. MRAs such as Glenn supported it because it would mean an end to the thousands of women-only benefits, clubs, institutions and laws. When the feminists realised it would give men and women equality, they changed it to the 'Women's equality amendment'.
We have been careful what we wish for, complete and utter equality. It was the feminist lobbies who should have done the same.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I suppose that would depend on whether those programs are funded with taxpayer money wouldn't it?
October 15th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Sorry I’m late getting here but –
CONGRATULATIONS Marc – to say that this is absolutely fantastic doesn’t do it justice. Your hero status, while always high from my perspective, has risen even higher in my books! VERY impressive result!
Thanks for all your efforts.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Great news. A problem, still, of course, is that too few people understand that domestic violence is an issue for men. Domestic violence against men is too often taken as a joke, even by men. I wrote a column about a woman who threw an ashtray at a man's head -- the guy could have been killed or brain-damaged, although she luckily missed -- and I was just shocked at women (and even some men) who made light of what it. I think the prevailing attitudes have a lot to do with why people like Mary Winkler get away with killing their husbands and then get their children back. It would never happen in the reverse.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:26 am
[...] for fathers rights from Los Angeles, California, featured the story in his October 15 newsletter Victory! CA Appellate Court Says Excluding Men From Domestic Violence Programs is Unconstitutional.. The taxpayer lawsuit was brought on behalf of four men, all of whom were victims of domestic [...]
October 15th, 2008 at 10:37 am
I'm thrilled and equally confused at the same time. I can see this spreading across the U.S. but with the primary aggressor laws still in place I hope this doesn't become a mere paper victory.
I guess what I'm trying to say is how are men going to be able to get help if they are in jail for domestic violence? I don't mean to sound pessimistic and a win is a win and a step in the right direction but I'm not sure if we're safe yet. One step at a time I suppose.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I'm simply going to echo the sentiments of others. This is amazing. A court recognizing that men are equal to women and that domestic violence is wrong, regardless of whom it is against. Hopefully, this will go unchallenged. If it doesn't, I sincerely hope that Marc can win out the day and have the CA Supreme Court declare in clear language that men and women are equal when it comes to domestic violence (a risk that I'm sure the opposition will take into consideration when deciding upon their strategy).
If I may, I would like to strongly suggest that everyone here send an email with the link to Glenn's piece to Tom Leykis (tom@blowmeuptom.com). Tom has an audience of millions. I would further suggest that if you do decide to email Tom Leykis that you request that he have Marc on his show to discuss this.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Over and above Marc's thorough understandinging of the meaning of this, I think this decision makes a powerful statement in clearly and loudly showing that this pattern of feminist inspired legislation if sexist and unconstitutional.
In some way, this can be used to imply that some, if not most, feminist agendas are sexist and unconstitutional.
Very Powerful if played correctly.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:18 am
"Men are offered all sorts of services through Wade Horn's Fatherhood initiatives programs and women are denied those servcies. I guess we need to sue for equal access to those services. Might want to watch out what you wish for."
What a completely ignorant and foolish thing to say. We all know the above argument is load of crap, because if those services were taxpayer funded in any way lawsuits would already have been filed by the vile gender feminists who scream equality, but really want supremacy for women. Private organizations that do not take taxpayer's money are free to do as they wish in their programs and services, but when they take taxpayers money, we see lawsuits like the one Mr. Angelucci won. By all means, everyone should keep suing the evil, gender feminist bigots who deny men equality under law, but take taxpayers money. :-)
October 15th, 2008 at 11:26 am
A day later and I have yet to hear a word in the media but thank for standing up and getting the win!!!
October 15th, 2008 at 11:56 am
From the decision:
"...we do not require that such programs offer identical services to men and women. Given the noted disparity in the number of women needing services and the greater severity of their injuries, it may be appropriate to provide more and different services to battered women and their children."
The only reason those fools in black robes think there are more women needing services is because of the bigoted and hateful domestic violence law that has purposefully excluded and discriminated against men for so long. Nah, those fools in black robes don't want to admit the truth so they openly state an outright lie (above in quotes) and thereby prove their vile corruption (just like always) for all the world to see.
http://tinyurl.com/52lvk6
October 15th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Amy Alkon -- "A problem, still, of course, is that too few people understand that domestic violence is an issue for men."
I have a theory that the reason so few people care about domestic violence issues at all is because DV is very rare. I think I read a study that said only 2% of Americans ever get involved in a criminal DV event.
The feminists like to trot out their statistic that "1-in-4" women will suffer DV, but there has been no credible evidence of that. If it were true, people would be sitting in pubs and churches talking about the domestic violence crisis. (The fems like to say that most DV goes "unreported." That is a cute logical tactic. I guess you can't refute a crisis that cannot be observed!)
The best data suggests that approximately "1-in-3" men will be abused by a female, if you define DV as initiating rather trivial physical contact like a "playful" slap, and that data about men is even further off the radar screen.
So it is plausible that the entire domestic violence narrative is a political scam by feminists to fund VAWA and manufacture cultural misandry. Perhaps it is about criminalizing human behaviors that are typically worked through without the intervention of the feminist state? Maybe it is about erasing the possibility of privacy?
Why is there a need for the term "domestic" to be attached to violence? We already have sufficient laws against violence and last time I checked they do not differentiate between genders.
If you assault someone, you deserve to be arrested.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Congratulations. You must have put out so much evidence that the judiciary could not possibly ignore the 14th amendment equal protection under the law constitutional amendment.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Great news!
Congratulations and thank you to Marc, Glenn and everyone involved in this effort!
October 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Congratulations folks. This is nice victory. Hope all governments across the world will do the same. In India also, the Domestic Violence can be complained by women only. Using 498a (Dowry law -- 498a in google lots of information how it is being misused) and DV act many many women just harassing many innocent husbands, his parents and siblings. Men here also started fighting against these laws, but still lot of work has to do. --Praveen
October 15th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Congratulations, Marc! I think it's ground-breaking and absolutely fabulous.
I, too, am dismayed that there has not yet been more media coverage.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Congratulations, Marc! Keep up the good work.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
All charges where dropped against Paul Fisher and Donald Tenn from fathers4justice also. This has been a nice couple of weeks.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Justin: "If it doesn't, I sincerely hope that Marc can win out the day and have the CA Supreme Court declare in clear language that men and women are equal when it comes to domestic violence." Actually, it may need to go to the CA Supreme Court. I hope Marc A can comment, but if it works the way I think it works, the current decision only sets a precedent for the circuit or district where the ruling was issued. In order to make it applicable to the whole state, the CA Supreme Court has to agree to hear it and then rule in the plaintiff's favor.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
And Ray, it occurs to me that the judges' statement about "different services" might actually be an opportunity. As several others have pointed out, many abused men can't get access to shelters because they are in jail on false DV/rape charges. This would be the perfect opportunity to start tapping federal DV funds to get competent legal defense for these men.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
"In order to make it applicable to the whole state, the CA Supreme Court has to agree to hear it and then rule in the plaintiff's favor."
Actually it is applicable to the whole state even right now, it's just not "controlling" on other appellate courts of the same level ("sister courts"). The "sister courts" almost always follow each other's rulings though. In the rare case that another appllate court were to contract this one, then the CA Supreme Court would almost certainly take the case to resolve the conflict. If the CA Supreme Court decides this, then that becomes binding on all courts. But even if it doesn't go to the CA Supreme Court, this decision is applicable tot he entire state until another appellate court says otherwise, and then it would be a conflict between the districts (again, very unlikely).
October 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Amazing. . .great news!!!
One small step for men, one giant leap for kind men!
congragulations, and thank you
October 15th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Congratulations to everyone who contributed to this important effort. As Marc indicates, we should consider this just one early milestone in what will be a long and likely bitter struggle. As we celebrate this victory, it is important to note that few (if any) public officials or state agencies advocated for, or supported this effort. Ultimately, changing discriminatory public policies will require the leadership and support of elected officials. Educating the public and building awarness of such practices (and publicizing developments such as this case) are critical to gaining the support of our elected officials.
Unfortunately, as of this posting it appears that none of the major media outlets have elected to report this story to the public. One wonders if such collective and deafening silence would be the response had the story been regarding the outlawing of discriminatory policies against women.
Regardless, one thing we can all to to assist future efforts is to contact the major media outlets and ask that they report this story. If they refuse to run the story, inquire why. Let them know their audiences have an interest in this area and want to be kept informed. When enough people do this, the media will begin to take an interest. As the media begins to report more in this area, it will ultimately gain the attention of public officials.
Again, fantastic work everyone and let's make sure the world knows about it.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Praveen: I've read about the dowry laws. Liars can have a man's entire family locked up, right? Makes US DV laws look sane in comparison.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Has this story appeared in any of the mainstream media?
October 15th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Another part of the lawsuit (unsuccessfully) dealt with this (below). In the words of the "injustices":
"We further find, however, that plaintiffs have failed to show men are similarly situated to women for purposes of the prison programs for inmate mothers. We find no merit in plaintiffs’ remaining contentions."
In another forum a reader asked, "What other contentions? What are we still on the hook for?"
Good question. I was going to write something about this, since no one has addressed it yet. That statement from the "injustices" refers to a part of the suit that was seeking to make fathers eligible for a prison program that "mothers only" now get. The law for mothers in prison was deceptively created by California State Senator Shelia Kuhel, using very dishonest math. She said that a greater percentage of mothers than fathers had meaningful contact with their children before incarceration so incarcerated mothers are more greatly affected, more in need of the program, and should be involved in her program to keep their children in the mothers' lives. She was very disingenuous, some would say fraudulent.
Men are 93% of the prison population, and women are 7%, so even if mothers were 75% of that 7% number, their actual numbers would still be far less than the actual numbers of fathers in prison, who had meaningful contact. Twenty five percent of the 93% male prisoners is a greater number of fathers affected. The reason this part of the suit failed, apparently, was because the person suing was just suing as a taxpayer, over an unconstitutional law denying men (fathers) in prison equal protection. He was not suing as an actual imprisoned father, who had been denied equal protection to have a meaningful relationship with his children under the prison program just for mothers.
October 15th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I still like where this is going, though. A program has been created for mothers in prison, so now MRAs can argue in favor of the same for fathers in prison. I hope that more programs are aimed at women, so that we can co-opt 'em!
October 15th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
"Unconstitutional"
Last year when I put this truck sign on the road, a certain attorney whose name I won't mention, commented (paraphrasing) that he didn't think people would understand, that the word was too long, or something like that. Okay, I can chuckle a little now at the irony. :-)
http://tinyurl.com/3pw4f6
October 15th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
"Unconstitutional"
"Last year when I put this truck sign on the road, a certain attorney (whose name I won't mention), commented (paraphrasing) that he didn't think people would understand, that the word was too long, or something like that. Okay, I can chuckle a little now at the irony." :-)
Sixteen - 8" letters is the longest string of letters comprising a word I ever put on a truck sign, and as it turns out, the most prophetic - to date, thanks primarily to Mr Angelucci.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Here's a link to a little background on this lawsuit, with a few photos.
http://tinyurl.com/4h6com
"Into the Highlands of the Mind Let Me Go"
October 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
The "similarly situated" argument has created a lot of imbalance in the law, because it is entirely subjective and can be interpreted in multiple ways.
You could simply say, since a man cannot excrete a baby, he is not going to ever be "similarly situated" with a woman.
The concept is inherently flawed.
Equality under the law and similarly situated under the law are very different ideas.
If I hold a gun to the heads of two very different people, they become similarly situated immediately.
My point being, the law needs to be more discerning, objective, and logical.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
New Friend says,,
"Men are offered all sorts of services through Wade Horn's Fatherhood initiatives programs and women are denied those servcies. I guess we need to sue for equal access to those services. Might want to watch out what you wish for"
Why don't you stop whining over every little perceived slight, and instead take the time to go back and look what shelter founder Erin Pizzey has said about lack of services for, and wrong-head attitude toward, male victimes of DV.
This reminds me of something I saw a few months ago on antother board, about how NOW was ready to sue to cancel some goverment entity's proposed fatherhood program. Their reasoning? Equivalent "motherhood program" was not offered.
Some of you people are just plain disgusting.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Ray Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
"Shelia Kuhel, said that a greater percentage of mothers than fathers had meaningful contact with their children before incarceration so incarcerated mothers are more greatly affected, more in need of the program, and should be involved in her program to keep their children in the mothers' lives. She was very disingenuous, some would say fraudulent."
______________________________________________
Men are 93% of the prison population, and women are 7%, so even if mothers were 75% of that 7% number, their actual numbers would still be far less than the actual numbers of fathers in prison, who had meaningful contact. Twenty five percent of the 93% male prisoners is a greater number of fathers affected
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray, I can't argue with your numbers and I see your approach but I don't believe that in itself is sufficient argument. The numbers mean nothing as numbers alone because of how the argument is framed. I'm sure they are more than aware that a greater number of fathers are in prison. The problem is the presumption that their contact isn't "meaningful". In other words it is claimed that they rarely see their child or are absent. I don't believe they have proven that this is in fact true and I don't believe that they have "written in stone" what defines meaningful. Never the less, this is how the numbers can be ignored. When it is demonstrated that the contact is in fact meaningful or challenged to make them prove that the contact isn't meaningful then the numbers that you have given will not only prove that this program is necessary for men but undeniably more necessary for men.
-------(1. With men making 97% of the prison population perhaps there's a cost factor at play. Money is more important than men by some peoples standards.
-------2. I don't believe that even when there appears to be a greater need of a particular group (gender) that people of the the 'opposite' group should do without simply because some within that (opposite)group don't meet the criteria. After All, some of them will. )
October 15th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
It's about time. In fact, it is long over due. It may not be perfect but at least they're headed in the right direction for a change.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Right, it shouldn't matter which incarcerated parent, mother or father, is the highest percentage, both should be meaningfully involved in their kids lives, and have access to programs that meaningfully involve them, but the fact that Kuhel gave false info with the intent to further her gender feminist agenda is highly despicable.
And the fact that it is incarcerated fathers who are the vast majority of parents who have been meaningfully involved in their kids lives, makes this law and this courts decision extremely unscrupulous. But then we all are aware that when it comes to the rights of the male gender, California government is nothing more than a hate movement that is being run by gender feminists.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
"It's about time. In fact, it is long over due. It may not be perfect but at least they're headed in the right direction for a change."
The devil is in the details of how they will be held accountable to this decision. So far, the scrutiny and accountability of the mainstream domestic violence industry has been pitifully lacking. Gender feminists in the d.v. industry are quick to scream that their actions must be kept highly secret, lest batterers find them. So far, they have had no accountability for the damn lies and statistics they foist to get more money to falsely arrest more men, to get more money to falsely arrest more men, to get more money... ad naseum, ad infinitum.
October 16th, 2008 at 8:54 am
I see that the SF Chronicle actually published an article on the case. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/15/BA3S13HOLS.DTL
And there is an opportunity to comment on the article.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:26 am
There have now been several stories about this case in the mainstream media. These include stories in the Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle, National Post (Canada), and the Metropolitan News-Enterprise (Los Angeles).
I linked to them in a "Late note" in the blog post, and I suggest readers visit those sites and post supportive comments.--GS
October 16th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Men are offered all sorts of services through Wade Horn's Fatherhood initiatives programs and women are denied those servcies. I guess we need to sue for equal access to those services. Might want to watch out what you wish for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My rebuttal:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (gaping breathing) HAHAHA ROTFLMFAO HAHAHAHA HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE, GIGGLE SNORT GULP (gasping breathing) HAHAHAHA LOL LOL LOL ROTFL ROTFL ROTFLMFAO
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
October 16th, 2008 at 11:42 am
[...] California attorney Marc Angelucci scored a tremendous victory today as the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence [victim support programs] violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights….(Full Story) [...]
October 17th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
You'd be surprised what women are advocating. it's not enough to control their reproductive rights aka infanticide. They're pro-euthanasia - killing anyone they see fit.
They also wanted to eradicate every single male.
surprised, I'm not.
Feminism is a destructive way of life for women. It's a foolish ideology.
If they have no one left to hate they would turn on each other.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I would like to say as a Grandmother of 2 children from a divorce, my ex Daughter in law is a very negletful Mother, she also has violated the State of Indiana Parental laws, along with the visitation agreement by the courts of Indiana...She presently has 50 cases of content of court charges against. In the meantime My Son has filed for full custody. I feel that they lawyers, so called clergy, parent counselors are only stringing him along to get all the money they can and are doing nothing ....In the meantime my Grandchildren are in a terrible invironment with her...no one cares it seems...I wish something could be done..
October 17th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
[...] violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights. To learn more, see my recent blog post Victory! CA Appellate Court Says Excluding Men from Domestic Violence Programs is Unconstitutional. There have now been several stories about this case in the mainstream media, and I urge readers [...]
October 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am
I called the local DV center for help when my ex started doing drugs and became very violent and abusive to me and our child. I just wanted some advise on where to turn and was trying to have her get help. They told me they do not have any program for men except as the perpetrator. I then asked them what they do when a battered male comes in seeking help. They said "I'd tell him to turn around and leave immediately."
I never found any help or advice anywhere, yet I was ordered into their abuser program about a year later when my ex falsely accused me of DV in order to get a TRO that kept me from my child when I filed for divorce. All was dropped about 4 years later when she admitted she lied (with no consequences and during most of which time I was kept from my child).
That false accusation has been used for years now to keep me from even court-ordered visitation. Every time her pro-bono attorney (gratis of the same DV center) walks up to the bench and says "this man was charged with assaulting my client" the judge enforces absolutely nothing, and the protests of myself and my attorney that all was dropped and she admiited lying are totally ignored.
Even solid proof that she still does drugs and has been jailed for possession and dealing, and my child is neglected and abused has been ignored. Once accused, even falsely, and it's all over. I can't even get the judge to order her to give me an address or phone number, yet I have a (worthless) visitation order from the same judge.
Domestic Violence centers can interpret "aid for males" in any way they like.
The local DV here will swear up and down that they offer services to men. The only problem is they ONLY offer (or force) group sessions where they brainwash men who have been accused of DV, with chants of "all men are abusive and all women are abused victims". It doesn't matter if the battered is the male OR even the children.
There's already government regulations that these centers have to include males, but it never stipulated in what way. The only inclusions of males here in TX is as participants in court-ordered brainwashing sessions where they HAVE to admit they are violent abusers before they are considered to have completed the program, even if it's a lie and they were the ones battered.
October 20th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Norman L. Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
New Friend says,
Some of you people are just plain disgusting.
______________________________________________________
And some of the men posting on this board do exactly like my ex-husband and many of the ex husbands of the abused mothers I know. They (you men) are extremely verbally and mentally abusive. This is why shelters and programs were created for women. And by the way, I contacted nearly 50% of the shelters in my state, asking general questions about their services. And when I asked about services offered to men leaving an abusive woman, or services offered to women with teenaged male children, I was told by ALL of the shelters I spoke to that a hotel room would be reserved and paid for, for the male victim or the female victim with teenaged male children. ALL!!!!!! of the 50%+ of shelters I contacted.
But again like so many other commenters on this blog and so many other stories on this blog and those comments, we women lie all the time so please do not take what I say at face value because I am a woman and all I know how to do is rip a man off for his money, eat bonbons, watch Oprah, and get my hair and nails done.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Rubic Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 8:41 am
If you need help keeping a father in your children's life, then I don't see how they could refuse (as per their state funding IN VIRGINIA [not California] and their mission statements).
__________________________________________________________
Well there has been research done and Fatherhood groups have funding provided not just by the states but also through federal funding. They deny some of their servcies to mothers (child support help, court advocacy) instead preferring to farm any women out who come to their doors. I do hope that an attorney out there will pick up on the shelter for men issue and the denial of servcies for fatherhood services to women and run with it. If men want services at shelters and thhrough prisons cut that are female only services then all male only services need to be disbanded as well. It has been proven that some of the Fatherhood programs have done nothing but succeed in helping an abusive man remove custody from a protective mother, all through the court advocacy program which is offerred. It is also proven that this court advocacy program is much more than that, it is full blown legal services offerred to men. In my state they have done studies and determined that nearly 40% of all women in abusive situation go without legal counsel when filing for divorce and prtection.
For this reason I hope Biden suucceeds in getting 100,000 lawyers probono to help with shelter work.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
[...] Court of Appeals ruled1 that California cannot legally fund women-only shelters. ((Hat tip: Glenn Sacks, Feminist Critics.)) I didn't see anything about it in the feminist blogosphere until [...]
November 19th, 2008 at 11:12 am
[...] 19, 2008 by TS Last month Glenn Sacks posted a stunning achievement made in California: California attorney Marc Angelucci scored a tremendous victory today as the Third District Court [...]
November 25th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Thank you for bringing more attention to this issue. The Domestic Violence Resource Center (in Oregon) is one of the few shelters that does not discriminate because of gender-- and we heartily wish that more service providers who dealt with the issue of domestic violence realized that this is a problem that affects not only women, but people of all ages, gender, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, and disability.
Allowing men into our shelter has not negatively effected our rates of success in terms of empowerment building and long-term safety for our clients-- in fact-- we've found that by letting all survivors, regardless of gender, etc., be let into our shelter we create a healthier, more supportive environment for all.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:22 am
[...] children, but not to men, violate equal protection." To learn more about the lawsuit, click here. David Woods, a partially-disabled male victim of domestic violence, was the lead plaintiff in the [...]
November 7th, 2009 at 12:43 am
[...] She depreciates RADAR's efforts and bemoans the recent rulings in West Virgina and in California that found the existing domestic violence policies in those states were applied in a discriminatory [...]