New York State NOW Says Family Courts Are 'Awarding Custody to Abusers'
May 24th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: Around Mother's Day the National Organization for Women, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, and a dozen other women’s groups signed on to a complaint filed against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights. The complaint claims that American courts victimize abused mothers by “frequently awarding child custody to abusers.”
The New York State Chapter of the National Organization for Women recently announced its support for the Mother's Day legal complaint. Marcia A. Pappas, President of NOW-NYS, says New York family courts are "awarding custody to abusers" and that the problem is widespread. NOW-NYS says for the past two years it has "co-hosted a national Battered Mothers Custody Conference, attended by over 400 people, the majority of whom are protective mothers."
I've looked into the three most highly-publicized cases featured by the BMCC and NOW-NYS--the Genia Shockome case, the Sadia Loeliger case, and the Bridget Marks case. In each case, we were told that a fit, loving, protective mother was stripped of custody by an abusive father.
When I first started looking into these cases, I figured there probably were some where the mothers really were mistreated. I still think those cases are out there, but I haven't found them yet. Neither the Shockome case, the Loeliger case, nor the Marks case fit the NOW/BMCC "protective mother losing custody to abusive father" model. None even came close.
In the Loeliger case, it was the mother who had been found culpable of child abuse by a California juvenile court. The father got custody not due to family court machinations, as the mother's supporters claimed, but because the juvenile court removed the little girl from the mother's care because of the physical abuse.
In the Marks case, all five judges who heard the case, male and female, concluded that she had coached her little girls into asserting that they had been molested by their father.
In the Shockome case, the mother's absolute refusal to co-parent with her ex-husband led the courts--eventually, after giving her many chances--to transfer custody of the kids from Genia to her ex-husband.
I explained all of these cases in more detail in my co-authored column Shockome Syndrome. Sadia Loeliger was featured in the PBS film Breaking the Silence, and the producers of the film were forced to apologize to Sadia's ex-husband for their misportrayal of the case in the film.To read NOW-NYS's new statement, click here. To learn more about these cases, click here.
"));
19 queries. 0.365 seconds.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:52 am
I know of one case where the court did award custody to a male abuser: It's an old case, from the late 1980's.
I know of many many cases where the courts awarded custody to female abusers. Such cases are myriad. What disgusts me most of all is that these women blame and shame men, blame the courts and do nothing at all about the female abusers. Had NOW taken a stand against courts awarding custody to abusers without mention of the abuser's sex, I would be supporting them. They did not do that.
Instead, NOW and their cronies go after male abusers gaining custody, something which likely happens in rare cases while totally ignoring the very common case of abusive women gaining custody.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:03 am
JW,
Excellent point. A "successful" abuser is someone to whom deceipt of, and gaining control over, others are core skills if not also burning needs. Control can be exerted through manipulation, threat, "playing the victim", wielding the all-powerful "family" court system over the other (usually male) parent, and alienation, among other techniques. It would seem that our "family" courts have a long record of rewarding the female version of this definition of abuser. America's family courts behave as if they were "made for a woman" who is an abuser to extract the ultimate price from a man. The "family" court conditions are ideal to the needs and nature of a deceiptful, manipulative, hurtful, and abusive person, and downright confusing and frustrating to any normal, caring and concerned person.
Does it surprise anyone that something which is also called "the adversarial system", would be a place where abusive (and primarily female) personalities would thrive and feel completely at home, while non-abusive (and primarily male) persons would feel completely lost?
It shouldn't.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:18 am
I've actually spoken, albiet briefly, with Tim Shockome and a pretty fair amount with his lawyer.
After learning both sides of the story, I arrive at one clear conclusion: In the Shockome case, the BMCC, Marcia Pappas, Mo Hannah and Barry Goldstein were not only wrong, but they made the situation MUCH worse for the children and enabled Genia's delusions to the point that they pretty much ruined any chance for HER to maintain meaningful custody of her children.
Also, it's important to note that Genia has actually REFUSED to see the children on several occasions, describing this refusal as a "legal strategy." Tim has brought the kids back to NY from Texas on more than one occasion, asked her to meet with them and she wouldn't. Justice Sandra Miller emphatically emplored her to exercise her visitation for the children's sake at her last appeal.
In a way, I'm pretty happy that Pappas has filed this suit, since every single time they do something like this, they're ultimately discredited by people like Glenn.
They're so bad, that during the fight over the shared parenting bill A330 a couple of years ago, the local paper, Albany Times Union, actually came out AGAINST the National Organization of Women! And that's a paper with at least a slight liberal stance.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:59 am
To the National Organization of Women, noncustodial mothers are collateral damage.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
NOW is without a doubt the most sexist organisation attowed to exist today.
To them, all men are child abusers (even in reality most are women), that's why they argue agaisnt shared parenting with the 'custody to abusers' argument, as if the courts would really give custody to an abusive man (although they do to women)
The problem is, shared parenting is something that would benefit men, as they would get to see their kids. It also benefits the children as they get to see both their parents, but NOW ignores this as it is giving something to men, which, regardless if it is deserved, is against their feminist dogma.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
"The problem is, shared parenting is something that would benefit men, as they would get to see their kids. It also benefits the children as they get to see both their parents, but NOW ignores this as it is giving something to men, which, regardless if it is deserved, is against their feminist dogma."
There's more to it than just that. I think the real bottom line on NOW and their opposition to shared parenting is that they're afraid that it will lead to less child support flowing to women and they're against anything that will reduce women's access to the bad old oppressors' wallets.
There are many, many women who would agree to joint custody if they didn't think they'd get a better financial deal by demanding sole.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I think money is a part of it yes, for most of NOW's run of the mill supporters.
But in my investigation of the Shockome case, I came to the conclusion that people like Pappas and Mo Hannah truly believe in what they're doing and ultimately I believe their motivation is a nearly pathological belief that men's roles in the family must be totally gated by the mother who lives at the heart and center of the family.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I agree with you, Tim.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“jw Says: Had NOW taken a stand against courts awarding custody to [all] abusers without mention of the abuser's sex, I would be supporting them. They did not do that.”
This is another smoking gun for those who have stated today’s NOW, under the hood, is indistinguishable from the old Ku Klux Klan. The fact that the press release is over the top with completely false and totally discredited “information” just damns them even further.
“Michael H Says: To the National Organization of Women, non-custodial mothers are collateral damage.”
Exactly opposite Michael: non-custodial mothers are indistinguishable from Mary Magdalene, the Virgin Mary in Christianity. Men, husbands, fathers, and children are disposed of as collateral damage.
DanH
May 24th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
The problem PAS (PA, alienation, or whatever else you want to call itetc.) being used to shift blame to women (specifically when the father is the abuive parent) is not only recognized by "feminist" groups. In 2003 (the same year that Richard Gardner committed suicide), the American Proseuctors Research Institute identified use of PAS as the means to obstruct prosecution of child abuse cases:
http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_6_2003.html
http://www.ndaa-apri.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_7_2003.html
" PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children. Prosecutors should educate themselves about PAS and be prepared to argue against its admission in court. In cases where PAS testimony is admitted, it is a prosecutor’s responsibility to educate the judge and jury about the shortfalls of this theory. As more criminal courts refuse to admit PAS evidence, more protection will be afforded to victims of sexual abuse in our court system."
May 25th, 2007 at 4:30 am
Cindy Ross: You entirely miss the point!
There are myriad cases of abusive women gaining custody. There are likely a a few cases of abusive men gaining custody. NOW takes NO STAND AT ALL against the female abusers and puts all of its effort of the small minority of male abusers. That is support for child abuse! it is nothing more and nothing less than supporting child abuse.
As for PAS, regardless of what anyone says, there are clear and well proven cases of parents alienating the children against the other parent. The current campaign seeks to put children in the custody of mothers who are proven abusers by stating that a woman's belief of abuse is more important than a man's proof of abuse: That is evil.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:26 am
@jw
In fact NOW goes further and provides active support for abusers, murderers and rapists - providing they come equipped with the right genitalia of course.
@Cindy Ross
Regardless of whether or not PAS is a clinical condition it cannot be argued that some parents do engage in alienation and that the majority of those are women.
If you are serious in your concern over "the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children" maybe your efforts could be put to better use combatting the frequent false allegations made against fathers and the proven higher rate of child abuse committed by women. Here's your chance to prove you are genuine and not just another feminist gender bigot.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Cindy Ross-
Whether parental alienation exists as a syndrome or not is well beside the point, since regardless, parental alienation occurs. That is, though it may not be a distinguishable psychological indication, it is fact that in most of these cases one parent is interfering unreasonably in the relationship between the child and the other parent.
Now, look at the custody determination guidelines for most states and you'll see listed there (for example NY): http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_york/nyart27
"A Parent's Willingness to Foster the Child's Relationship with the Other Parent
The court will place a significant weight in each parent's willingness and ability to foster a relationship between the child and the other parent. A parent's continual willful interference between the child and the other parent can result in custody being awarded to the other parent. In fact, a custodial parent's interference alone can in many cases, be a sufficient basis to consider changing an existing custody order. "
In most cases where custody is changed on the basis of this part of the guideline, the term "syndrome" is not even used, nor is it needed.
Courts operate on the presentation of evidence, not diagnoses. The lawyers step in and say on this day this happened,and in these cases establish a pattern on parental interference. Simple as that.
It's kind of like with you, Cindy. I don't need any sort of psychological diagnosis of you to predict that you'll be bitter and hateful in the future since the consistency of past behavior allows me to make a reasonable assumption of future hateful bitterness.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:53 am
As Michael Bone has pointed out, parental alienation is widely recognized by psychological professionals. It may be added as a syndrome to the American Psychological Association's manual (DSM-V).
The Guardian Ad Litems may still be using Rorschach tests, however.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
OK, Cindy, you are hearing from me again (see other blog). I just wish I had not been so busy this week and had gotten to this sooner.
PAS is VERY real. During my own divorce my ex attempted to turn our daughter against me. He almost succeeded. The only reasons he didn't is #1) I am a woman so the courts are on my "side", #2) he is military and has spent most of the time since our divorce living elsewhere, about half the almost 6 years overseas, and #3) she and I have always been very close and she knows I would never, ever lie to her.
Some things he told our daughter:
1. I never wanted her, he had to talk me into getting PG in the first place. Total lie.
2. After she was born I didn't want anything to do with her, that he did "everything" for her. Total lie. Truth is, I had a C-section and he did do more than I ever expected. I would have been lost without him and to this day I give him credit for that. To do otherwise would be a lie. But to say I didn't, wouldn't, have anything to do with her is the most outrageous lie I have ever heard.
3. Still during the divorce, when she was with him, he told her that I am a bitch and a whore and that I didn't love her. All lies. What is worse, she was only 10 years old, had no clue what a whore was, until he explained it to her.
Who says things like that to a 10 year old?!!!!!!!!!!! Someone who is sick in the head, that’s who. In most cases it is the mother who does these horrible things. Being a woman I have spent plenty of time listening to them and their blatant garbage.
You can not ever tell someone who has been the victim of PAS that it is not real, because it is. Obviously you have no first hand experience with this.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Michael H,
Good points. By the way here are a few facts about Rorschach, the Rorschach test and the medical field in the U.S.
- Rorschach "invented" this test in 1921
- Rorschach died in 1922 at age 37 (meaning he had about a year to work with his test "clinically")
- Rorschach's father was -- can you guess? -- a PAINTING INSTRUCTOR
- In the early 1900s some medical doctors in the U.S. were still "bleeding" patients who were ill in order to get rid of "bad humors" (just to give you a sense of the state of "medical" science during the time of Mr. Rorschach's life)
So, do you get the feeling that the "Rorschach" inkblot might possibly have been invented when the 36 year-old Mr. Rorschach walked through his father's painting studio, stepped on a piece of paper on the floor, picked it up and opened it and said
"Aha! This is just what America will need 80 years from now to make appropriate child custody decisions!!!"
Right.
May 26th, 2007 at 3:51 am
Cyndy,
Do you care that 93% of primary custody decisions go to mothers? If fathers are really that bad why do we let them have anything to do with children at all?
If you don't have a problem with men do you have a problem with Joint Physical Care with neither parent having superior custody if they both live in the same community and the children remain in their same school?
May 30th, 2007 at 8:00 am
New York State NOW Says Family Courts Are 'Awarding Custody to Abusers'
Duh....
It's a well known fact that women are the primary abusers of children. All states have been awarding custody to abusers for years. They just ignore us fathers who are trying to point out the abuse.
It seems that they (NOW) are doing their cause a disservice. By pointing that out and all. They should really learn to pick their battles.
I had all of my supportive links copied into this post ... and then my browser crashed my computer. The evidence is out there. I was reading one of the studies that highlighted mental or psychological matters being the justification for a woman's abuse of their child(ren).
It just goes to show, when their is abuse by a woman...there HAS to be a reason that it's the guy's fault...example: "maybe it was her father mental abuse that caused her to abuse her children physically."
or maybe it was her mother...
When it's time to play the blame game...
it's fathertime
May 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
NOW NYS and all the other NOWs who make this claim are RIGHT: the courts are frequently awarding custody to the abusers. But the abusers aren't men; they're women. The facts prove it, but don't expect that to slow the steady blizzard of pro-female, gender biased lawsuits, proclamations and pronouncements. As anyone who has ever been in a "family law" court room knows -- and believe me, NOW's lawyers know it, too -- "truth" has nothing to do with these proceedings. THIS SITUATION WILL NOT CHANGE UNTIL JUDGES ARE FORCED TO GET THEIR EDUCATION ON ABUSE AND ABUSERS OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM, BY ATTENDING CONFERENCES AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS SPONSORED BY UNBIASED, PROFESSIONAL GROUPS. Currently, judges seem to think its appropriate to get their "facts" from high-paid legal "mouthpieces," with absolutely NO REGARD for the truth. Consequently, the present pathetic situation continues....
May 30th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
PAS is not just a theory. It is a logical human fact that some parents are control freaks and exercise their problem on little kids. They feel control and power not only over their little kids but also over the non custodial parent in life, in court and in their ego. Sometimes they achieve a success by brainwashing the kid in their custody. Sometimes they fail to gain compliance from the little kid and grow frustrated and angry. Either way it is child abuse. It is usually a victom oriented female who heaps this abuse on the kids. Probably somebody like Cindy. I would like to see a 'to catch a predator' type hidden camera sting reality show nail Cindy, remove her abused kids to safety and put her in prison. Of course the kids would be allowed to see their mom in prison every two weeks as long as the child support was up to date. Maybe with enough Rorschach testing she could be cured of NOW sickness. On the last day of Mark Greens political carreer he was shaking hands in Park Slope outside the subway so I asked him about the Marks case in which he was a courtroom observer. Marks was a personal friend he told me and then he said she got her kids in the end as if that was proper justice. I said I didn't think it was justice considering the 5 judges who found her abusing the twins. Mark was busy making clear to me that Marks was not represented by him and agreed with me that things were afoul in Family Law land and Domestic violence law land. Mark Green was a great leader and I respect him immensely. It is going to take a real leader to counter the child abusing selfish adgenda of NOW supporters. We Americans beat the Nazis and there is no reason these other evildoers can't be beaten as well. Let's do it for the kids! Let's do it for Cindy. Lets do it for America!
May 30th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
When it comes to human rights being violated, nobody has a better case than divorced dads. Lets talk being arrested and imprisoned on false allegations of abuse with no evidence what so ever. Lets talk about having the mother's orders of protection strictly enforced and the fathers ignored (this is a Constitutional violation also as the fourteenth amendment is supposed to guarantee equal protection under the law). Lets talk about mothers blatantly violating court orders by keeping children from their fathers but if a father misses just one child support payment he could be imprisoned that very night. Lets talk about being thrown out of your own home because you happen to be a man and not a woman. Lets talk about loosing your livelihood because you were removed from your house, in which you ran your home-based business (and still being required to pay child support). Lets talk about fathers being kept from their children until custody can be determined at the divorce trial, and then dragging the trial date out by years so by the time you finally go to trial the judge has a president for the mother to keep custody. While we're at it, lets talk about these judges delaying a custody trial for four or more years and the father being nickeled and dime'd by having to file endless orders to show cause every time the mother chooses to keep the child from him; so eventually the father can't afford the custody trial when it finally rolls around.
Not long ago my new bother in-law and I had a heated discussion when I told him what my son and I went through during my divorce. He callously responded that no woman would be so hateful unless I did something to deserve it and that he would have kept fighting for his son even after he lost a lifetime of money and assets and filed bankruptcy. It's ignorance like this that hurts our cause, because most men who haven't been through it just don't believe it. In my brother in-law's case he recently told his wife, who is an alcoholic, that he is serving her with divorce papers and she immediately threatened that she would say he hit her, have him thrown out of the house, and that he will never see his five-year old son again. Obviously, he has some crow to eat, but honestly, I wouldn't wish what he's about to go through on my worst enemy... We need to educate those that think that the American Custodial system is fair and get them backing us; until we do we will always be seen as the controlling ex-husbands that just couldn't stand to loose (all of us except you Glenn, you're one of the enlightened few).
May 30th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
NOW should be ashamed of itself. If these are the cases it bases its actions on, heaven help the childern of New York and the rest of the United States. To be a woman and put a political agenda before the health, safety and well-being of a child is inexcusable!
I saw Ms. Marks on national TV. She's nuts! I read the court case about Loeliger! She's the abuser.
Being a women does not mean never having to take responsibility for yourself or your actions. That NOW promotes the reasoning that everything a women does, she does because of a man, is an insult to all of woman kind!
May 31st, 2007 at 12:11 pm
To Mike A: "Amen! You said it all. (I've been there, too.) And to BusyBee: It's great that you "get it." Now, what's desperately needed is for women like you to spread the word to your peers, to speak out when others attempt to pander this garbage as a legitimate issue or when
those who have benefited personally from using these tactics in their own divorces seek confirmation -- and solace -- from their friends and associates. Standing up and challenging them, even delicately, will make a difference. Gradually, people will begin to notice a change in what's "perceived" as real, for remember, this is all about perceptions and nothing about reality.