NJ NOW Claims Family Courts Routinely Give Custody to Abusers--We Asked for Her Evidence and...
May 2nd, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.The president of New Jersey NOW, Maretta Short, and 50 people staged a rally on the steps of the Wilentz Justice Complex in Newark. Read about it here (NJ.com, 4/27/09). What was all the fuss about? Family courts routinely award child custody to abusive men, that's what. In fact, it's a nationwide crisis.
And what did Short give as an example of the practice that she claims to be so prevalent? Well, she didn't get around to that. So I emailed her hoping she'd fill me in on a few of the more egregious cases. And she responded promptly with two cases.
The first is one in which a woman's boyfriend beat a child to death. So he's apparently not the father and there's no issue of custody. So this case is clearly not one in which an abusive father got custody.
The second case Short cited to me is ongoing. There has been no decision about custody. The mother has made allegations of abuse and been fined $12,000 by the judge. That's all we know.
The bottom line? Evidence for Short's nationwide crisis is in, well, short supply. I asked and she came up with zip.
The anti-dad crew makes this claim periodically. In the past they've even cited a few cases, like Genia Shockome, Sadia Loelliger, Bridget Marks, and April Griffin. The trouble with those cases is that they all proved the opposite of what anti-father advocates claimed.
In each case, the courts did extensive investigations, took reams of testimony and ruled the mother's allegations to be unfounded. Those inconvenient facts don't stop the Maretta Shorts of the world from repeating their claims, but you'd think, in a country with the number of child custody cases ours has, they could come up with one that actually supports their claims.
And that's not just me talking. It's what Superior Court Judge Patricia Costello of Essex County says too. She pointed out the obvious which Short and her coterie seem willing to overlook - that what in fact happens is that judges decide custody based on documentation and testimony. Another way of saying that is that courts deal with the facts of individual cases. If you allege something, like physical or sexual abuse, you have to produce verifiable facts to back it up.
That's not a bad idea. People like Maretta Short should try it some time.
"));
19 queries. 0.337 seconds.
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
What I always find surprising is that when articles like the one that was linked to are written, the reporters rarely seem to fact check the claims made or interview anyone with an opposing view. The same cannot be said in the reverse. When father's rights groups are interviewed some women's group is inevitably interviewed and usually claims, without any evidence, that the father's rights groups are wrong.
It would be more balanced reporting if the reporter at least pulled up some statistics rather than simply asking a judge whether he considered the rulings and the court system fair.
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 am
Or, Marietta Short should just STFU.
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:21 am
Excellent work Robert.
You often get feminists complaining about MRA protests and accusing them of being about trivial things etc and how they couldn't possibly have the time to protest about things so meaningless as women face such supposedly huge problems etc.
Yet here we've got 50 NOW members taking time out to protest against something which doesn't even exist!
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
Oh, buddy! Can we ever relate. She said he was abusive. She said he was "capable" of earning X amount. He hasn't seen his kids in years, in fact wasn’t even "allowed" by gatekeeper mom to talk to them on the phone, and pays more in CS than he should have to. All based on what She said. The court didn't even try to listen to him.
He tries to call. He was calling several times a week, different times of the day, always got the machine. Now his number is blocked, he gets a recording telling him that number will not accept calls from his number. He called one day from a pay phone, her boyfriend/husband (we are not sure what he is to Her) answered the phone, when my BF asked to speak to his daughter (the youngest and only one still with mom) he was told “she doesn’t want to talk to you” and the man hung up. Nice, huh?
He isn’t perfect, no one is, but he sure isn’t abusive. He loves his children more than life itself, but they don’t know this. He hasn’t totally given up, but it is so hard. Had the court listened to him and investigated as he asked them to his kids wouldn’t be in this position. Oh yeah, he also called CPS when he found out the oldest was being threatened that if she didn’t tell the court what mom wanted them to hear she would be put out of the house and/or beaten (the threat changed from day to day). Think CPS did anything about it? They told him they couldn’t do anything unless he had proof the child was being abused. So when people say that CPS investigates all allegations I tell them “BS”. They will investigate if mom says dad is abusing, but they can’t be bothered when it’s dad who reports mom because “why would a mother do such a thing?”
I’m with Mister-M, she needs to…………well, what he said.
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 am
Typical. I was listening to NPR recently and they had a feminist prattling on about the "crisis" of human trafficking right here in Minneapolis. When asked for an example the only thing she came up with was a couple of rich white teenage suburban girls who put an ad on craigslist for "erotic services". Thats it. AND ITS ALL MENS FAULT!!!!!!!
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:59 am
Heads up folks, NNEDV/National Task Force to end Sexual and Domestic Violence is doing a conference call next week, Monday and Tuesday, 3PM Eastern, to start the next VAWA reauthorization process.
Use the following link to register to be on that con-call
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=Qqu1oUYLQOOpk0pnV4Ylrg_3d_3d
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
The comments on the article are priceless,
"""Violence against women and children is systematically tolerated by our government."""
Violence among women and especially children, are not tolerated in our government at all. Violence against men is, because men should be able to handle it apparently.
There are other ridiculous claims. People love to spout things as "fact" when they actually have no knowledge on such a subject.
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:15 am
The confusion lies in what you take as authenticity of the accusing mother. For feminists it is 100%. The stronger the accusing woman insists her story is true - regardless of evidence to contrary - the more the feminists believe her. Now if you start thinking that way, you will see that there is an epidemic of heretics who question the veracity of women, enmass custodial assignments of kids to child molesters and abusers.
(Abuse = not getting along with woman, doing as she says etc. i.e. has nothing to do with the kids)
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 am
all women have to do is make a scene....doesn't matter what.....it just adds to their proclaimed victimhood...gets attention...makes headlines...and they get what they want
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:40 am
its something how women have a NOW president of each state...what an army of man haters
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
"So I emailed her hoping she'd fill me..."
Robert Franklin, you rock.
Since having you onboard at Sacks & Co., I have gained hope that there may be equality in the feminist's divorce process. NOW is a formidable enemy, a Goliath, and you maybe David.
Thanks again for slowing it down and unpacking the propaganda. Light is the best disinfectant.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
N.O.W. and any other organization for women like them use appeals to emotion. And that's the only leg they have propping them up. So, the more desperate the emotional pleas, the more of the chance for the public to eat it all up and ask for seconds.
Emotion, when used in such a way, is no different from other propagandic methods to co-erce the public into routing for a questionable side. Like George Orwell's 1984, only instead appeals to emotion are the motto of "Big Sister".
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I have read that the most dangerous place for children in America is with mom and her new boyfriend.
May 2nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Family courts routinely award child custody to abusive men, that's what. In fact, it's a nationwide crisis.
I guess the good news is that they could only find 50 women who weren't too embarrassed by this absurd claim (even by feminist standars for god sake) to show up and publicly support it.
May 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Like criminal judges during murder trials against women, family law legislators must be staring at these girls’ yam yams during protests and testimonials, as their decisions makes sense.
Though legislators and judge are highly educated, they refuse to not press for specific with a few follow up questions. There is a scary blind obedience going on here - like a worshiping women thing.
Where did the fifty female supporters come from? I do not believe I could not get fifty guys together for a father's meeting at a court house if I offered free beer.
May 2nd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
chris says
"Where did the fifty female supporters come from? I do not believe I could not get fifty guys together for a father's meeting at a court house if I offered free beer."
MCA says..have you tried it, i'm not a father, but may show up anyway.
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
well said terri........i agree...............NOW is a huge organization....it strikes me as a huge power hungry, money making , organization ....part of which is almost funny...their titles...they have president of each state....even at the lowest level...on tv theres a local college student political debate...republicans on one side the other side is the democrat with a feminist...and her title under her name had 4 words...i mena come on shes a college student with a 4 word title...something like feminist majority and 2 other words...
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
"NOW is a formidable enemy, a Goliath"
Perhaps it used to be. I think it's more like the California condor- a relic from another era on the edge of extinction, marginalizing itself into oblivion. Robert and the rest of us are giving it a push over the cliff. Keep getting the word out! They have a lot to lose, and we have a lot to gain- a wonderful opportunity for asymmetrical conflict. Fight smart. (oh yeah- to further the analogy, the condor is a scavenger that lives off dead flesh. The California condor used to eat the paleolithic mega-fauna, but they went extinct (except for the bison).)
May 2nd, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Feminist diminishing men's issues to keep them away from discussion: "you mean, like guys who complain that men get more parking tickets than women?" - true life example.
"Wah, what about the menz". Yes, what about 95% workplace deaths... 7 year life expectancy gap... preponderance of suicides and homelessness... 1 million+ in prison... male war expendability... preponderance of female child abusers... male boogeyman propaganda... false accusers... crooked courts... oh, surely, parking tickets is the only problem men can talk about.
May 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Nothing new here.Feminists have been saying that the court system awards custody to abusive men for years.Its not true of course.Most men dont even get custody.Just more lies to stir women up.This is how NoW has operated for decades.By using alarmism without evidence or lies,to agitate the female public.
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Given that two thirds of the survivors of child abuse were abused by women and that courts DO routinely award custody to women I would suggest that that Short is partly correct. Abusive parents ARE routinely given custody.
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I knew that if someone asked the feminists just to come up with a few cases where they claim abusive fathers get custody under PAS syndrome, they'd fall short. It simply cannot happen. The courts put the father through the wringer and only if they pass with flying colors do they get custody.
Sadly, the feminists can sieze on a misleading statistic that shows that when fathers get custody they often have significant problems with the children, but this is usually after years or neglect, abuse, or emotional destruction in the house they were taken out of so the men inherit someone else's mess. (It would be like judging a foster parent's home based upon the performance of the crack children they adopt compared to normal kids.)
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:30 am
Well done Robert. Great work!
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
"Sadly, the feminists can sieze on a misleading statistic that shows that when fathers get custody they often have significant problems with the children, but this is usually after years or neglect, abuse, or emotional destruction in the house they were taken out of so the men inherit someone else's mess."
It is quite amusing that after decades of feminists continually excusing and blame-shifting the problems and dysfunction endemic in single mother households, they now seek to condemn single fathers for not producing perfect results.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
NOW just wants to give women the best of everything
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:42 pm
American women owe their freedom to men, not to feminism.
Women of the middle-east do not have the same rights.
Now, equalty has been achieved a long time ago, but feminists need to remain in power, so they create fictional problems, and they are addressed as real problems.
There is no pay gap
There is no rape crisis.
There is no domestic abuse crisis.
Please read this book
http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Dilemma-When-Success-Enough/dp/0844741299
May 4th, 2009 at 8:14 am
I'm suprised down in the US someone can go around with spreading lies like this person over and over again and yet still feel safe. So many men end up murder suiciding or just suiciding, it's a miracle someone hasn't stopped her lies before ending their own life.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
How can the National Organized Women claim that courts routinely give custody of children to abusers?????
That is just patently untrue. Are men so broken, that the truth is no longer worth the effort to protect??Are we the only men that are strong enough to protect our children by challenging the encroaching matriarchy??
May 5th, 2009 at 8:30 am
@MCA...
See my comment #21.