New Column: Choosing Foster Parents over Fathers
July 30th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
My new co-authored column, Choosing Foster Parents over Fathers (San Diego Union-Tribune, 7/11/07), discusses perhaps the worst verified child custody/family law injustice against a father and a daughter which I have ever seen--the outrageous Melinda Smith foster care case.
The column appears below.
Choosing Foster Parents over Fathers
By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks
San Diego Union-Tribune, 7/11/07
In the heartbreaking Melinda Smith case, a father and daughter were needlessly separated by the foster care system for over a decade. Last week, Los Angeles County settled a lawsuit over the case for an undisclosed sum. Yet a recent Urban Institute study found that the Smith case typifies the way the foster care system harms children by disregarding the loving bonds they share with their fathers.
Smith was born to an unwed couple in 1988. Her father, Thomas Marion Smith, a former Marine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, saw Melinda often and paid child support. When the girl was four, her mother abruptly moved without leaving a forwarding address. Two years later, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services found that Melinda’s mother was abusing her. Though the social worker for the case noted in the file that Thomas was the father, he was never contacted, and his then 6-year-old daughter was placed in the foster care system.
Thomas--whose fitness as a father was never impugned nor legally questioned--continued to receive and pay his child support bills. Authorities refused to disclose his daughter’s whereabouts, and didn’t even inform him that his daughter had been taken by the County. Smith employed private investigators and attorneys to try to find Melinda and secure visitation rights, but he eventually ran out of money.
Rather than allowing Smith to raise his own daughter, the system shuttled Melinda through seven different foster care placements. An understandably angry child, her outbursts led authorities to house her in a residential treatment center alongside older children convicted of criminal activity—when she was only seven years old.
Melinda says that during this period she was told that her father was a “deadbeat dad” who had abandoned her. When Melinda was 16, she told an investigating social worker that the “most important thing” for her was to find her dad. Moved by her story, the social worker began searching for Melinda’s father--and found him in one day. In 2005, Thomas and Melinda were finally reunited.
Unfortunately, the Smith case is no aberration. When a mother and father are divorced or separated, and a child welfare agency removes the children from the mother’s home for abuse or neglect, an offer of placement to the father, barring unfitness, should be automatic. Yet in the report What About the Dads? Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate, and Involve Nonresident Fathers, the Urban Institute presents a shocking finding: when fathers inform child welfare officials that they would like their children to live with them, the agencies seek to place the children with their fathers only 15% of the time.
Fathers can offer their children a sense of permanence, security and emotional support that a foster family (or a succession of foster care placements) cannot provide. Many foster children are pushed out of their homes and into a tenuous existence when they turn 18 and the foster parents no longer receive state subsidies. Fathers could be a valuable source of long-term resources and sponsorship for these young adults.
Child welfare agencies often operate on the assumption that the fathers of the children they’ve taken away from their mothers are, like the mothers, unfit or uninterested in parenting. Yet many of these men are loving fathers who have been forced out of their children’s lives by mothers who denied visitation, moved away and/or hid the children, or employed spurious abuse charges.
What About the Dads? makes it clear that many child welfare workers treat fathers as an afterthought. The report found that even when a caseworker had been in contact with a child’s father, the caseworker was still five times less likely to know basic information about the father than about the mother. Just as with Thomas Smith, 20% of the fathers whose identity and location were known by the child welfare agencies from the opening of the case were never even contacted.
These policies are harmful and misguided. One shudders to think how many little Melinda Smiths are lost in the foster care system right now—being raised by strangers, and denied their father’s love.
This column first appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune (7/11/07).
"));
19 queries. 0.531 seconds.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
It's because child welfare workers have never had child welfare on their minds. It is an abominable system, one that should be abolished, in my opinion, and replaced with new blood with different incentives. My husband has been investigated 8 separate times in the last 7 years, on false allegations of abuse, and yet, the mother of his children has withheld medical treatment, failed to provide required medication, and has a filthy house where the youngest (7 years old) reports that he can't find a clean shirt to wear because the family dog "poops wherever she wants" and he has no clothes that aren't covered in dog poop. Social Services reaction to that was to tell us that they would "give her a call to check it out." If it's my husband someone calls about, they show up on the doorstep, invade our household, interview everyone possible. When it's the sainted mother, they blow us off and let the children live in squalor. They are an abomination... a male-bashing abomination.
July 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
My guess is if the father would take custody then the system would miss out on their monthly check, right? Therefore, they do not have any incentive to notify the father nor give custody to the father (no, the system has nothing to do with what is best to the child - it has everything to do with what is best for the system).
I hate to say this, but the only way to fix this problem is to give the system the incentive: this guy (and any person in this type of predicament) should sue the system for all it is worth. Stop being "chivalrous" or "good" and start fighting for your rights. I am never in favor of frivolous lawsuits and we all know there are plenty of these out there, but when are we as men going to realize that we need to start pushing back by hitting the system where it hurts: in the pocketbook. The system is broken and it has no incentive to fix itself. Therefore, we are duty bound to provide that incentive.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
The previous posters correctly homed in on "incentives". What incentives do the child welfare system have to keep the child from their dad? Possible answers:
1. The (almost certainly) female social workers are from the same culture that allows moms to say "dad is babysitting my child", i.e. he's not a "real" parent. Remember the Womens Studies textbook that calls fathers a "foreign male element in the mother-daughter relationship"? A possible solution to this is more male social workers.
2. More likely, the reason which I heard a social worker tell my son's mother outside the courtroom: "There's no way I'm going to allow one of my cases ending up with the mom paying child support!". Thankfully, I got my way (custody), but the social worker also got hers (mom hasn't paid a dime in years!).
3. Also to do with $$$, I believe that the Adoption & Safe Familes Act gives federal money ($thousands per child) to agencies that adopt out kids "in need of services", but nothing, zip, nada if they merely remove the child and place them with the "fit" parent. That, plus they can stil go after dad (but not mom, for some reason) for child support to the state. Result = profit.
Remove the incentives and tragedies like this will magically stop happening.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
I am sickened and angered by this story.
Government is a disease in this country
July 30th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
A lifetime movie should be made based on this story. California should be sued. The Marines should be called.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:54 am
The system treats all Dad's as deadbeats-no matter how good a job you have and no matter how much you love your kids. When divorced in Hawaii-I was not even given an opportunity to raise my kids-the system immediately put the label deadbeat Dad on me and said Mom would raise the kids though I asked to raise my daughters and son. Mom to date has been less than a stellar example but Hawaii still insists only she can raise them.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:41 am
This system is an abomination. How much longer are we going to allow it to coninue? In Texas, we have just lost another battle without even realizing that it was happening until it was too late. I informed Glenn, and he is looking into it. I basically see the whole system as Political Correctness run amok!
http://ken454.statesmanblogs.com
July 31st, 2007 at 9:14 am
This example is only one of many that are out there, I'm sure. The only good news is that there was finally a happy ending with the father being reunited with his daughter. How many more children would never find their fathers again?
The placement issue is a very big one, but so is the way that child welfare views a non-custodial father's responsibilities in terms of the child's well-being too. My husband and I received a call one morning at about 6am from his son, who was 6 at the time. He had woken up and his mom wasn't home. He didn't know were his mom was, and she'd left the cell phone at home so he couldn't call her. He was terrified. He had just moved (and a judge had told us that we didn't have a legal right to know his new address, so we didn't know where to find him) and didn't know his new address yet, so we couldn't even go to him to make sure he was OK. We stayed on the phone with him for over an hour, and then his mom waltzed in and got angry at him for calling his dad. It was the last we heard from him for weeks. We called the authorities because we were concerned about his safety, and were told that it would be in our best interest not to file an official complaint because if we did, we would also be legally responsible for his abandonment and could also face child abuse charges. It was explained to us that in Alberta, Canada, the non-custodial parent is as legally responsible for any child abuse that happens to a child as the custodial parent is, even if they have no knowledge of the abuse.
The child welfare system, like so many other systems, is set up to yet again punish non-custodial parents for things that are entirely out of their control.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:01 am
Our story mirrors this one except for what could have happened to this young girl finally reunited with her father. This year in February, my step-daughter came to live with her dad after years of being denied visitation nor knowledge of his daughters whereabouts until a social worker had the heart to track him down and contact him. We welcomed his 15yr old pregnant daughter who was abused by her mother and two men, one a registered sex offender her mother was repeatedly warned to keep away from her daughter. It seems the state does not want to have to pay for that if she stayed in foster care. Her mother and the sex offender are awaiting trial but in the small town they live in, conviction is not likely. We on the other hand are left with a ton of questions, a lot of anger and a stipulation in my husband's custody order that if the mother is not convicted they have the right to reverse the custody order to allow for visitation. Go figure. The good news? He and his daughter are like peas and carrots, we welcomed her baby girl into our lives who knows nothing of the crazy world that brought her here and teaches us love every day, and they abated his child support order for the time lost in the amount of 18k. I guess the state figures we're even now. We are broke after attorney's fees or we might have mustered the strength to pursue it. There is no justice in the world when children are made to suffer the consequences of a bad parents actions and the other parent is made to watch it all in horror and have to fight for the right to take care of their own child.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
The story presented in this article clearly describes the situation that I am presently experiencing. My 14 year old daughter has been shuttled from one foster care home to another in the past 7 years. When mother was first found to be abusing my daughter, I was contacted and only told of what had happended. But, the social worker took my daughter into protective custody instead of giving her to me. When we showed up to childrens court in Monterey Park California, the first thing I asked was for custody of my daughter, then 7. The judge, being a female, decided to give back my daughter to her abusive mother, inspite of the fact that mother had served 45 days at the county jail for abuse! This whole situation really made me upset. There was NO reason under the sun for my daughter to be given back to mother. I in turn am a working professional with an MBA and NO crimminal record ever! In fact, I don't even drink, or smoke and I'm married with wonderful children. How then could the court system rule in favor of an abusive mother? It came to pass, that as time went by, there were more altercations between my daughter and her mother. Each time, more serious. I continued to pay child support all along, with NO visitation rights. Since the first incident occured, my daughter has been placed in foster care 10 times. NEVER once have they offered to place her with me.
In fact, this article posted by Glen Sacks comes at the perfect time: YESTERDAY, I received a phone call from Orange County Social Services Department. The mans name was Rick. He informed me that my daughter was AGAIN in foster care as a result of a fight between her and mother. My daughter in now 14 and she can defend herself agains attacks by mom. So, he proceeded to say that placement of my daughter would be with a country institution instead of foster care due to my daughters age. In addition, they were going to attempt to RE-ESTABLISH the relationship between her and mother once again after the court hearing! I only had on thing to ask, "WHY?"
He answered by saying that I had not been involved in my daughters life long enough to warrant a recommendation of having her placed with me! How absurb could this be and far from the truth! It was the court system that separated my daughter from me with the help of Social Services. And now, this complete moron wants to believe that I voluntarily decided not be involved. After 7 years of dealing with this problem, I simply said, "do as you please."
As frustrating as this story sounds, there's really nothing one can do. You will loose hair, your current relationship will be stressed out, and you may even get sick by the injustices handed down every day in family court. If you believe there's a God like I do, then pray for strength and deliverance from this evil.
If you find yourself in a similar situation, and progress is not being made, then consider my suggestion for what it's worth, WALK-AWAY! Don't spend a single dime in court cost or legal fees. Instead, save that money for your kids college education.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Recently on vacation I was stopped by the Sherrif who informed me my drivers license was suspended because of DCSS. I knew it was another snafuu. The best advice I got was from a soup kitchen. Why? Because that is where all of these stories end up. Please don't hide these stories. Bring them on. They are the heavy guns and all of our children need the truth out now.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Lance is right in suggesting that everyone sue, except for one little detail, which Violated alludes to: the only ones who will profit will be the shysters! ALL of the lawyers make therir living off this abomination that they call Family Law. Those who, in their own minds, are honestly trying to help men have been beaten into submission and know the eventual outcome. They will not raise such issues as constitutional rights for fear of the wrath of the Femi-Nazi judges. To walk away is no solution to the systemic problem, but it is a better personal solution than playing THEIR game by suing them under THEIR laws in THEIR courts!
http://ken454.statesmanblogs.com
July 31st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Ken, no offense, but that's sounds an awful lot like an excuse to do nothing. There is a reason why the game became theirs: they played it better then us - plain and simple. It is time for us to accept that and it is time for us to fight for real change! Women at the beginning of the feminist movement realized that fundamentally, they were going to have to fight the system USING the system. The system was broken. Unfortunately, while we were all sitting pretty, there was no counter balance to make sure that they didn't push the system too far. Believe it or not, most of them were and are well-intentioned: they honestly believe they were and are discriminated against. In fact, when they started, they were right..
Perhaps the strategy should not be to use council from the "family law" field. I'm talking real, hardcore legal council here who understand this fundamental fact: they as attorneys work FOR YOU not THE SYSTEM. If you feel that your lawyer is not fighting for your needs over those of the system, then get another lawyer and sue the pants off of the first lawyer...get a few lawyers disbarred for working against the best interests of their clients, and there will be a lot fewer shyster-lawyers out there! And if a judge is biased, then fight for his/her removal. Again, get a few judges bounced, and the rest will come into line.
I understand and appreciate completely the reluctance of many (most?) people here to "trust the shysters". I for one hate the idea of espousing litigation since I feel that lawsuits are used far too often as it is...but that is the system and until something changes, that is going to be the system. Skip the "family law" field as much as possible and go right for the mainstream courts. Get off of your "family law" soap box, the don't paint the suit as a "custody" or other "family" problem. Discrimination has been fought at both state and federal level.
The system is broken. I want to hear stories of class action suits, gender discrimination suits...hell, sexual harassment suits! I want to hear about cases going all the way to the supreme court. Most of all, I want us to get creative and find creative ways to USE the system for our own needs. If you are being harassed by a judge or a prosecutor or a social worker due to the fact that you are male, then this is by definition sexual harassment. Let's take all of these "feminist terms" and turn them on their ear! Are we going to win every time? Hell no. But it is time for us man-up and fight for what is ours.
As I said in "Radio Ad: If Dad Gives His Little Daughter a Bath and Puts Her to Bed, Call the Cops!" - we need a concerted litigation, lobby, and PR strategy to show that (a) men and the women who love them aren't going to take it any more, (b) men and the women who love them aren't evil monsters, and (c) men and the women who love them are willing to fight for equality. Cost the system a few bucks, biased judges/attorneys, and pandering legislators...that is how we should measure success...so what if the lawyers get rich in the process.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
"He answered by saying that I had not been involved in my daughters life long enough to warrant a recommendation of having her placed with me!"
Unbelievable! They expect complete strangers to be better able to see after a child's best interest that her own biological parent???
Typical public sector wisdom and efficiency.
So much for the fundamental rights of parents. Those rights that are enshrined in Supreme Court case law and are being spit upon with impunity by little nobodies in the social services system.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:20 pm
"In the heartbreaking Melinda Smith case, a father and daughter were needlessly separated by the foster care system for over a decade. Last week, Los Angeles County settled a lawsuit over the case for an undisclosed sum."
Pardon me, but an important part of this story was left out.:
If a lawsuit was filed, and L.A. County settled it, then what was the case number, and what were the names of all the parties? We need to learn how to confront them, WITHOUT a lawyer, and help to make their lives miserable too, and perhaps earn the later everlasting admiration of the child. Proof that they were loved and thought of. Lack of money is no excuse, it wouldn't apply.
It takes energy and resolve, but it can be done. This information needs to be shared.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
There clearly are systematic problems which both perpetrate and perpetuate social problems. As our testimonies continue to be spoken and written, it should have been long obvious to the various states' Department of Social Services, and the child welfare agencies, that they are causing serious family conflicts themselves. Right now, I am continuing to question a local office of Virginia's Department of Social Services, Child Support Enforcement office regarding policies and procedures. They too have exhibited a callous approach in making financial determinations, without notification to the non-custodial parent, regarding, in my case, the custodial parent's applications for welfare. My ex-wife has also hidden information regarding the state's placement of foster children in the marital residence, which has not yet be properly sold, in accordance with the out-of-state divorce order. Both my ex-wife and the state of Virginia have effectively set barriers to my having parenting time with my children, in conjunction with the state, now another custodial parent in the house, to the foster children. I am presently reviewing these matters with administrators in Virginia. Again, all too often, the other Parent which is the non-custodial Parent (most often the father), is treated as a non-parent (visitor at best, if you're fortunate to even have face-to-face contact with your child). I am doing what I consider as appropriate in confronting child welfare authorities regarding these concerns.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Very good John Clark. A settled case creates no case law. Pro Se is necessary here. The Municipalities have law departments actually funded by Federal money such as VAWA and Social Security Act. It is case law that is perpetuating the problem. On a municipal level Fathers are outgunned. Only Federal case law can help us. A class action Federal case is needed because the municipalities are smart enough to settle and hide the real issues of civil rights abuse when there is a possibility of a light being shined on the gravy train evil they enjoy with collecting federal money. The judiciary as a lot is screwed up. Alberto Gonzales can't recall anything and Bush is president because of the Supreme 9. (or should it be Supreme 5). The Foster child thing is yet another profitable BUSINESS run by the State and municipalities funded with federal money to the detrement of Fathers and beloved children. To many people make or accept too many wrong assumptions about Fathers and there is a business reason for this. Money. If corporations can claim bill of rights status like an individual (FCC) why can't children. Somebody in LA could pull the court file on the Smith case, copy it and diseminate it on the web. I still think a TV movie would go a long way to shining the light on this corrupt sick civil rights issue. Lawyers want you to think it's too complicated to do without them. I believed Anita Hill.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:59 pm
On the Smith sadness:
Should not someone find out the responcible party or parties and divulge their names and whereabouts? Let them take the heat. Somebody get some guts!
Sick of the BS white trash garbage,
SK
July 31st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Lance no offense taken to a valid analysis. I did not say do nothing, but I did say what does not work. You'll just have to read between the lines sometimes. I have said that two approaches are political or direct action, such as those of F4J, which call public attention to the absurdity of the system. I will further note that too many men have been financially destroyed by this system, which is purely by design. Unless someone finds an almost endless supply of money, defeating this monster in court is a hopeless waste of money. I did far better pro-se than with a lawyer, and for a lot less money! BTW,the sugestion of case numbers, names, etc. is excellent. I have published names in my blog, but no one is coming forward with case numbers, yet. We have a problem having any number of men in any location come forward and expose specific judges for a multitude of reasons, including intimidation by th "legal" system, poverty, general ignorance of their rights, and justified fear.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:59 am
Ken,
I agree with you that Pro Se would have been much better for my son and self; yes, I was rung dry in every respect - will save you the story.
On a side note - FYI, I highly recommend:
Look up the election documents for the judges; they contain valuable information for any father - names and addresses (Lawyers names) that contributed to the judges campaign and much more; these documents are public information and available at their parties headquarters - just request the file. Do not confront the judge in anyway - he can and will put you in jail; everyone else though....
Steve
August 1st, 2007 at 11:09 am
In cases like mine, when you have other children to worry about that happen to live with you, then Pro Se is the only way to go. I couldn't see spending any more money and compromise the well being of the children who live with me to fight for my rights as a parent that should be there already. My suggestion is to get your case in court as often as the legal system will let you. They will see that you are serious and are not going away any time soon. It will cost you only small court costs to get your point across and can be successful eventually. The squeaky wheel gets the grease approach. Good luck to all the good Dads out there. We are far more important to the children of this country then anyone gives us credit for.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
well, you know it is more profitable to the state to keep children in foster care than to return them to either parent, the state workers get promotions for keeping children in fostercare the more they keep in the system the more they get promoted; if you keep a child in foster care, you earn more money for the agency so that the agency can survive.
all this and the statistics are coming out in my second book: theft by adoption, my first which will be published this fall is domestic violence from both sides of the fence.
August 1st, 2007 at 3:12 pm
To John:
Are you going to publish the names and addresses of the perpatraitors of the abuse to children and fathers? Please somebody have some balls and do it.
Steve
August 1st, 2007 at 7:53 pm
i have to protect the guilty but with my books atleast they will give you some amunition incase somebody needs to go to court to get their child at least you will be backed up with statistics, i am quit perterbed by it also, my son was kidnapped by the adoptive parent and the state thru coersion.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:54 pm
this is my site if anyone wants to know.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:55 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dvfb/
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 am
[...] is about a war against fathers. The daddies that want to be involved and can't be. My [Glenn Sacks] new co-authored [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I'm currently in the middle of another case like this. My ex took the kids to Colorado, filed a restraining order and cut off all contact. I eventually ran out of funds and had to quit the fight, but kept up support payments of $1,800 a month, just over 45% of my then salary (two kids, amount was increased by judge at mom's request) After nearly four years of no contact, I received a letter from Jefferson County Co. telling me she had lost the kids to foster care due to abuse. I received the notice in March, she lost the kids on December 26. CPS in Colorado had made no effort to find me, even though child support system, and Texas courts had my current address.
When I got to Colorado I discovered that my eleven year old daughter was in a wheelchair, with a feeding tube due to her mother's abuse. Colorado has declined to file criminal charges, and is still advocating the return of the children to her. After all, she's tested clean for nearly a month.
Seven trips to Colorado, hiring an attorney, dealing with GAL, CASA, and every other acronym I can think of, and it looks like maybe, I might get to keep one of the kids.
Why wasn't this a slam dunk case? Abusive mother, willing joint custodial father, case closed, move on.
I'm only just now starting to believe that I may get to keep Steph with me. Therapists tell me she may be able to walk someday, with a leg brace.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Many sites on the Web post good info on prevailing in such horrible situations. Read and study them carefully.
I cannot state forcefully enough that Family Law (and bankruptcy law), even in the largest firms in the United States, is the dumping ground for underskilled, underperforming attorneys. You need to really embrace this fact as it sets you up for the interviewing process you absolutely must go through.
My issue went across three states, took three years, and I spent $21,500. Here is where I tell you that I interviewed 95 attorneys and law firms. Yes, ninety five. 95. I have full records and notes, so I know this is an accurate number.
Some did not want it, some were too busy, some wanted it but were not at the skill level I was looking for, some probably were Ok but I didn’t think much of the game plan. In the end, I had 3-4 in each area to pick from. That’s one in ten. Still, minutes before a very critical deposition, I had to bounce one that was a blue-ribbon choice.
You can’t blame everything that fails on your attorney, but unless you have a damn good one, you are starting out in failure mode. To avoid that, you need to interview, interview, and interview some more.
DanH
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
To Hunter Yarbrough, with the daughter in Colorado in a wheelchair
Contact 8 law firms in the Colorado. Here is your speech:
“I am trying to locate a law firm to initiate an action against the Colorado Child Services for negligence. They continue to place my child in an abusive environment where she is in extreme danger of further injury that she already will need years and years of expensive physical therapy to recover from. I’d like a law firm and attorney with proven trial experience against the CCS.
I’d like custody of my child, money for her physical therapy and lifelong disability, and 10 million dollars in punitive damages.”
Best Wishes,
DanH
August 4th, 2007 at 11:54 am
There ARE decent attorneys in this country. True, they will get rich from their efforts, but don't decent scientists, salespersons, managers, etc.?
My man's attornies make a hefty little sum from him (both the criminal attorney and the civil suit attorney) but they were decent men who worked hard for him and believed him - and in him. They are not to be blamed for ethically pursuing their chosen careers. The blame lies with the false accusers and the child welfare workers, not with ALL attorneys.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:58 am
John - are you the person to whom I sent T's story? The "PA innocense cases" link?
August 5th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I posted several messages on Glenns Sacks other board, wanting these domestic violence centers shut down. After my posts, I did see several posts saying that this domestic violence was not gender related or gender targeted. Actually I can prove that this domestic violence crap they were accusing my live in boyfriend of was targeted at me-and the domestic violence is not what is really bothering them.
One of the people giving us the worse kind of harassment is domestic violence psychiatrists in Beaumont TX. She weighs about 500 pounds, and told me it was alright to want to kill someone as long as you do not actually kill someone. I would not be surprised if it comes out she killed her husband, and got into this profession as her legal defense. It is not okay to want to kill somebody-that type of thinking is crazy.
Anyhow, my boyfriend and I cannot go out anywhere, or to anystores in Lafayette area. We get harassed to no end-people doing stupid things, anything hoping to get a reaction out of us. Some of the things they think will irritate us is ridiculous. A couple of days ago, I put this together. First of all, to prove domestic violence, I think there has to be a combination of police going to the house, and hospital reports. They actually tried to stop me from getting dental treatment because it was discredit any domestic violence claims. That may be one of the reasons.
All this time, it appears like the "sophisticated" neighbors in the River Ranch area, including the people we are renting from have been making domestic violence complaints, or complaints in general. The harassment we would go through at the stores was to get on our nerves, and they were hoping we would fight-and call the police out here.
So then they would have proof.
I asked the police department for a list of all the complaints the neighbors in this area called on us since we have been living here, over two years-they told me they do not keep those files.
Someone does keep those files. I do not believe that the PD's do not keep complaints on file-I DON'T BELIEVE IT.
ANY ONE WHO BELIEVES THIS IS AN IDIOT!
August 5th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
"The cops don't need you and they expect the same."--Bob Dylan
August 5th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Did you know that all accross America every day fathers are being eliminated without cause from their childrens lives by family court judges? Every day in family court fathers are seperated from their children simply because mom and dad are no longer together.
Judges often allow the "custodial" parent (usually the mother) to relocate the children to another state, leaving the "noncustodial" parent alienated from the children with little of no meaningful parental contact. Parenting time (visitation) orders can be ignored by the custodial parent without penalty, leaving the noncustodial parent with no contact with his children and no legal recourse. Since parenting time orders are ignored by the police and the court, fathers often go months, or even years, without any contact with their children.
Despite what you may read in the newspaper about the courts fairness to both parents, the court and the politicians are only concerned with enforcing "child support", a euphemistic word for extortion of inordinate sums of money. Child support is the only thing enforceable in all family court orders. Once this is established, parenting time in YOUR PROBLEM. "The best interest of the child" really means "in the best interest of the state."
If this happened anywhere else in the world, most people would call it "oppression", "intimidation" and "racketeering."
If you are a concerned father who loves his children (as most are), and you fight "the system", family court will try to completely eliminate you. When you fight for your children-not the judges children; not the politicians children; YOUR children- you will be labeled a trouble maker, a problem, or a pain in the a*s. In family court, the judges will try to silence you by increasing your child support. They call this "imputing income". Once this happens, and a father can't pay this imputed child support, he is labeled a "deadbeat" and is now a criminal. Despite the father being ready, willing and able to take on all the parental obligations and responsibilities in his childs life, such as providing love and affection, nurturing the child, caring for the child while the other parent work, etc., these issues are not addressed. The court is only interested in "how can we steal daddys money."
There is an incentive for this racketerring. For every dollar of support collected by the state, the Federal government kicks in sixty-six cents of taxpayers money to subsidize the child support collection bureaucracy. There is no accountability for how the state spends this windfall.
Then, of course, lets not forget the ultimate outrage to "put daddy in his place"- false allegations of physical abuse and sexual abuse. Nothing works better to get rid of daddy than these false allegations. Once they being, fathers can say goodbye to Jack and Jill. These fathers must have "supervised" time with their own children because they are now "a threat". He is not required to be supervised with any of the other children he comes in contact with, only his own. Anybody except dad is allowed to be a part of your childs life.
After the allegations, expect the "investigation". It will last anywhere from eighteen months to three years, causing fathers to further lose out on seeing their children. The investigation will be managed by the Division of Family Services. Your case worker will have a case load of 300 families. If you are luckey, the case worker won't have too thick of an accent, so you will be able to understand what the heck he is talking about-that is if he will talk to you at all. To him, your problems aren't his problem.
Neither DFS nor the court will believe anything dad says about mom because, after all, he's a deadbeat. (When I showed the judge photographs of my childrens mothers home, his reply was "Sir, surely you don't expect me to believe that this women actually lives in all this filth.")
Family court places the father in an impossible situation when it comes to parenting time. Superived at the police station or in the courthouse (where the supervision is paid by "good old dad"), no overnights, no holidays. Fathers must drive long distances to have time with their children. No phone calls. Fathers are not allowed to know the whereabouts of their children. No day care information. No school information. No vacation information. Some fathers don't even know where their children live.
The courts objective is to discourage the father, causing him to give up on his children. Once that happens, he is no longer a problem for the system to deal with. The only problem is that they have scarred the children, and this is unconscionable.
People like you and I must change the publics perception of fathers. We must not allow fathers to be seen as just "paychecks"
and sperm donors without parental feelings. All children have a God given right to have their fathers involved in their lives. No court, no judge, no feminist organization, no political trend has any moral right to interfere with a fathers God given right.
Judges and politicians just want fathers to "pay-up and shut up". The more you fight for your children, the more the system will block you. Your crime, you may ask, "Being a Father."
August 6th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Rosemarie - Yes, there are decent attorneys, but they do NOT practice family law! To say that there are decent family law attorneys is to say that there were decent guards in the Nazi death camps! I am not attacking you, as you are a decent, open-minded, and reasonable person from what I have seen. I am merely trying to educate you as to how most of us see the family law system in this country and ALL of the criminals who implement it! As part of a criminal enterprise, they are themselves criminals.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:59 am
[...] To listen to the commentary, click here. To learn more about the story, click here. [...]
August 14th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I'm confused... the state took the kid from the mom but the dad was still paying child support? Who, exactly, was that child support going to? If it was the mom can't she be charged with theft by deception (earning child support for a child no longer in her care)?
August 16th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Every time I hear about something like this is makes me sick.
I can't wait for the day that father's are treated equal when it comes to divorce/custody. Until I was involved in this myself I never realized how biased and unfair the system really is and needs to be changed.
I just won "Sole legal custodian and residential parent" status of my 22 month old daughter after 20 months of a long and expensive trip through family court (upwards of $30,000.00). For a marriage that lasted 18 months. Fellow Dad's in the middle of a contested custody case, don't give up, it is worth it in the end and you can win and your kids will be much better off for it. If your ex isn't sane, it is your responsibilty and you owe it to your kids to allow them to grow up in a normal home. If she is normal then don't accept anything less than shared parenting and joint custody. The deck is stacked against you and it seems hopeless, but never give up, file those contempt charges every time you can and take the police with you when you try to get your kids for visitation and get a police report every single time she doesn't let you have them (ask the police if they can charge her criminally with interference with custody and get her in front of the prosecutor, the thought of possible jail time might make her act like a human being). Make a point to always talk to your kids doctors and teachers and get to know them (even better, go to the appointments and let her make an idiot out of herself because she's pissed off that you are there). Get a job where you can work from home and bring in a resonable income. Be sure to be cool and collected and intelligent when in front of the judges, parenting investigators, psychologists, mediators, etc. because they can help you a lot and also work on being relaxed and calm even though a courtroom may scare the hell out of you. It is more time consuming than a full time job being in a contested custody case, you have to work at it to be successful, don't give up.
What was unbelievable about the entire thing I went through is how many chances they gave her over and over to act like a normal person. Also I will never understand in a day and age where the system is supposed to be equal why fathers start out having to prove themselves a much better parent and also the mother as a horrible person just to get to somewhat equal ground. Why doesn't the system start out equal? Joint custody until one of the parents proves that they are not fit for this. Why are women automatically given temporary custody????
Don't get me started on child support, I had to pay it from the day I filed for divorce until the day of my decree (even after multiple contempt hearings and I was finally given custody I still paid for months afterward, always on time). The worksheet with the decree showed she would have to pay me hundreds in support a month but it was immediately waived as well as giving her half the tax deduction as well as most other financial matters (we make the same amount of money by the way) that use to be up to me but they waived for her after she lost custody. Still not fair, but at least I have custody of my daughter, that is the important thing and I am rid of her holding my daughter over me every chance she gets and refusing to follow the custody order without being able to do anything but get police reports and filing contempt charges and waiting months to get in front of a judge. Don't think about the money that is flying out of your bank account, just keep fighting, you can always make more money. We need 50% of fathers getting full custody and the other 50% getting shared parenting and joint custody. Good luck!
August 17th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Scott, can't you appeal the support issue on the basis of gender discrimination? Or can you bring a gender discrimination suit against the family court? If she does make the same money as you, she should have to pay the same as you (and it sounds like you have a history to provide evidentiary support for this double standard).
In addition to needing 50% of fathers getting full custody and the other 50% getting shared parenting and joint custody, we need to change the court system to be gender neutral and unfortunately lawsuits (though I hate them) are one of the only tools we have to accomplish this.
In any case, whether you want to put the fight behind you or not, congrats man!
August 17th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Thanks for the congrats, I feel as though I not only won for myself and my daughter, but it's one more little piece of the pie chart toward men having equal rights in family court.
To be honest with you I had planned to sink every dime I could get my hands on into fighting and appealing if the decision on custody didn't go the way it should have in this case (I had an excellent lawyer, he wasn't as aggressive at times as I would have hoped, but man, when he got my ex on the stand it was like watching a craftsman at work, I started actually looking forward to court simply for the entertainment value that I was paying $250/hr for). While it would have been sweet justice to have her pay me child support, I don't need her money and was planning to put it into an investment account for my daughter for when she got older anyway. I would fear that if I were to bring such a suit onto the court system in my jurisdiction that there would be retaliation on their part (maybe not, but I would worry about this and I can't gamble with my daughters life) down the road because I know I will be back in court with my ex at some point over some issue. After going through all of this I would be happy to help out anyone else going through this type of situation and offer any advice I could. I would love to be an active part of an organized men's coalition for equal family rights as well because the system needs to be reformed for both fathers and their children.
While I was going through this one of the things that I found so disturbing was that court forms and information from their website, etc. are gender specific when it comes to traditional roles in a custody dispute, ie: non-custodial parent would refer to he or him and custodial parent would say she or her, there were times on some of the forms we were given such as the contempt charge forms where they would have to scratch out the gender specific pronouns and write in She where it was written Him, etc. One of the first lawyers I consulted with was a big time downtown divorce lawyer that wouldn't let me talk, kept cutting me off. He said "I can guarentee you full custody, but it's going to cost in the neighborhood of $100,000 to get there because we have to prove how horrible she really is".
My girlfriend and I were in the bookstore the other day looking for a book that she wanted to get on being a good stepmother and I was laughing at all the books that just assume the father is the non custodial parent, there was this one book on getting along with your ex while raising you children, I can't remember the title but one side of the book is for the father and you flip the book over and the other side is for the mother, I actually had it in my hand to buy because it looked interesting until I noticed that in really small writing it said on the father side "Non-Residential Parent" and on the Mother side it said "Residential Parent".
My girlfriend (who is completely sane, and a litigation defense lawyer, can you belive it?) made the mistake the other night of saying "I kind of feel sorry for her for losing her child, you know, as a woman". That ended in a 2 hour debate with both of us being tired the entire next day due to lack of sleep. I guess I am a little over sensitive when it comes to how the deck is stacked against us men in custody situations because of how unfair it is and what I went through. I was very naive before all of this about the courts, police, current domestic and family laws, etc. It was a real eye opener to me and if it gets much worse I can't see why any man would risk getting married and having children, it just wouldn't be worth it. Maybe we all need a pre-nup agreement that says "if you end up going crazy and I have to divorce you, you promise that you won't try to steal my kids from me, you will stay away from the womens advocates that will demand that you file false domestic violence charges against me to try to position yourself better in a custody fight, etc."
Thanks.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Not true ...in our world everything ends up in Legal precedence in court. As far as a mother having more attenuaded to a child...well, that's true...if your an ape...I think it is a slip to involve the handicap ...and personally I'm discusted by that slight...but true, men are handicapped in society regressive "siamese fighting fish" mentality between these two...a father is just as capable and because of her phantasmagorical reactionary destructive mentality when she doesn't get her own way in the relationship ...whether it is husband and wife boss to employee...etc. etc. we all could stand to learn the ground rules in relationships...and then maybe it wouldn't end up in court and they could get some spine and stand up to child welfare authorities and get rid of the 1950's behaviorist mentality's of well intentioned unskilled at diagnostics in dynamics of the situation...we could get a healthier wholistic approach to meeting needs and adequately get real results...
August 19th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
[...] My latest His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentary for KLAA AM 830 in Los Angeles concerns the recent domestic violence arrest of TV broadcaster and former NFL lineman Chad Eaton. To listen to the commentary, click here. To learn more about the story, click here. [...]
August 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I'm a Child Welfare Supervisor. Stories like this one do not make me proud of my profession, and I don't mean to sound defensive of a system that in this (and apparently many others) has run amok. If the system is to be changed for the better, the critique of the system needs to be rooted in fact.
Father's are not kept from their children so the system can profit from their child support payments. In the vast majority of cases in the Child Welfare System, the biological fathers are loooong gone. It is so prevalent that overworked Child Welfare Workers overlook the whole paternal side of the family.
The difficulty is that kids have bio- dads who don't seem to give a fig about them for 10 years. The kid doesn't know them, and there's no assurance that he has a clue about how to raise a child. Legally, if there are no findings against this bio-dad, he gets the kid, no questions asked. So in this scenario, you take the child from his or her custodial parent, the only parent s/he has ever known, and place with a person who is essentially a stranger. Mom may have gotten mixed up with drugs, but is within the reach of rehabilitation, but if there's a bio-dad out there (and he may have, for those 10 years, been on crack, and not paid a dime of child support--if Mom can't prove he's unfit, he gets the kid).
So from a Child Welfare point of view, if this scenario plays out, you've got a kid who wants to be with her mother and a dad who has discovered that he can now collect dough for having this kid, and doesn't know (or care) how to raise her. So the shift of the work is from getting mom in shape to care for her daughter to making the case that it would be detrimental for the child to be with the father, which can be a lot of work. From a Child Welfare point of view, the kid is the big loser in this scenario.
Uninvolved fathers are unfortunately very prevalent in Child Welfare. It is so common that the assumption is that fathers aren't and don't want to be involved with their kids. That's a mistake and it's being remedied in the legislature as well as the Courts (AB 636 is a promising example in CA). No custodial parent should have their reunification services ended without there being a real search for the other parent. And it's inconceivable that there's a father paying child support on a child that is in residential treatment with no other viable parent--that is a crime, and LA should pay big bucks for that.
But no one in the system is maliciously trying to ruin kids' lives. They're poor schmucks who got into a profession typically because they wanted to help people. They're buried in difficult situations with kids who have loads of unmet needs, and they can't hope to meet a fraction of them. They make mistakes. They spend their energy helping one kid who may have a glimmer of hope of getting to college, and end up ignoring the one who may need another absent parent search to reach her father (and reunite the child with a parent who is anxioius to care for her). CWW's all too often assess the odds of their being a competent, loving father waiting to care for his absent child as too long, and the needs of the other kids on the caseload too desperate, to devote enough energy to the pursuit.
So the answer is not tear down the system and rebuild it. Frankly, there are a lot of abused kids out there who really do need a champion. They need well-trained and not overburdened adults to see to it that they have a decent childhood. While it's satisfying to demonize the Child Welfare System, it does little to solve the problem of kids with inadequate parents. Fathers need to be involved and stay involved with their children, and they need to take the children if the other parent is unable. Child Welfare should not be in the middle of that transaction.
The shift in fathers taking an active role in their kids' lives is terrific, and fairly recent. I hope that this is presages a shift in child custody cases and in child welfare. On behalf of Child Welfare Workers everywhere, I apolgize to the fathers who have been passed over and otherwise ignored by the system. Father's need to stay involved in their kids' lives, difficult as divorce sometimes makes it, and not roll over--not to former spouses, not to Child Welfare.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
"Father's are not kept from their children so the system can profit from their child support payments. "
You may not think so.
In Michigan, where the budget and jobs of the Friends of the Court were directly linked to the Title IV-D federal matching funds for child support paid to the state, more child support is paid to the state than in California, by a lot.
Do you think that the Massachusetts DSS workers were influenced by the Title IV-E federal matching funds for adoptions which provides the Massachusett's DSS with extra funding for children with disabilities, when they took Heidi Howard's disabled, infant child?
"That's a mistake and it's being remedied in the legislature as well as the Courts (AB 636 is a promising example in CA). "
A rebuttable presumption for shared parenting has been opposed. Only 6 of 50 states have a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting, and we've been waiting for decades.
August 20th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
While I understand people working in the "system" are probably frustrated and overworked, they are dealing with peoples lives and need to treat it that way. What if an ER doctor in a major metropolitan hospital on a friday night said "I think I will just devote my attention to this one person that I know I can save and let all these other people just die". There are a lot of professions where people are overworked and frustrated, if someone finds themselves in such a job that peoples lives depend on them, they should find suitable jobs elseware that are less stressful.
How hard could it be to look through a file or call child support enforcement and track down a biological father and then have a thourough background check performed?
August 21st, 2007 at 12:01 am
Dan Phillips
I appreciate your being open to change. In my state Child Welfare Supervisor might be a position in either the DCSS (monetary support charges) or DCFS (abuse charges), charges which are rarely tried and often false. Real child welfare is performed by parents. When you say "biological fathers are loooong gone", I read long abused as the Princeton "Fragile Families" study shows for unmarried couples. From that study and the Urban Institute study and personal experience I need to emphasize that it didn't take so long for that abuse to begin. I realize there are many strategies that people take to deal with hard edge bureaucracies. Some Dads may want you to think they don't care in order to get the bureaucracy to stop hurting them. I urge you to look at some of the papers coming out of the Fragile Family study to see how the process begins. Factually you will find support for the idea that parents, male and female, care about their kids, a fact known by parents for hundreds of generations and known to be their biggest investment of time, love and fortune.
I do appreciate that you are open to change and I have met some in DCSS and DFCS who are waiting for change. You called for factual conversation, yet several phrases you use do not reflect a factual understanding of the situation, in fact, they portend a corporate culture which may have for too long been dependent on the misandrist wing of second wave feminism: "if Mom can't prove he's unfit" "he can now collect dough" "[he] doesn't know (or care) how to raise her" "dads who don't seem to give a fig about them for 10 years." I hope you were kidding about AB 636 which has to do with acupuncture and itself a light hearted poke at rationality. In fact the Federal 2003 Child Maltreatment survey suggests that abuse and neglect are far more likely to be perpetrated by females than males and Fathers come off better than just any male in the house and better than Mom. The phrase "The shift in fathers taking an active role in their kids' lives" is particularly annoying. If you will only look at all of the progress which has occurred in the last few hundred thousand generations as being directly attributable to Dads making it easier for their kids. Most of the female single head of householders you deal with are not willing to put in the effort to even make average salary. Kids in male single householder are much better off economically, educationally and happier. Your re-training efforts would be far better spent with Dad. That corporate culture is not paying off for kids. It is not child welfare. It is not factual. It is just corporate misandry. I know it will be difficult, but I hope these few references will help you to find the truth.
I think of my own experience as factual but still anecdotal. I saw the DCSS and DCFS , both as willing tools of my ex-wife and her lawyers attempts to destroy me without thought about the damage to my children. Both were immoral acts by the ex-wife, the lawyers, the DCSS and the DCFS. Your mission, should you accept, is to see through the dark femmy glasses. Our mission as parents is to get our kids and grandkids out of this mess. Without doing so there is no family, no kids, no society, no culture and no bureaucracy.
August 21st, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Dan Philips
I need to apologize to you for misunderstanding which AB 636 you were referring. It was pointed out to me that rather than the current AB 636 you meant the reform bill from two years ago. With that mistake it looks like I was making fun of you. That was not my intent and I really do appreciate your struggle with the culture.
I am not familiar with the reform bill. Could you tell us more about how it will help Fathers, what remains to be done and how we can help.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 am
Michael H-- I'm not at all familiar with Michigan or Massachusetts. The case of Heidi Howard is horrifying--in some ways because what happened is all too believable. The difficult piece of this is that--and this speaks to what Scott says--is that Human Services DOES take the safety of children very seriously. Perhaps too seriously, insofar as if there seems to be domestic violence, the mother's assurances that everything is OK is simply a part of the denial that is part of the "Honeymoon" phase after a violent incident. So it is very hard to know when a mother is "Failing to Protect" and when, quite simply, nothing is happening.
So stretched thin, unsure of what IS going on, and unwilling to risk a child's well-being on the suspicion that nothing is going on, it's simply easier to have the possible batterer leave the home. From the point of view of Child Welfare, the kid is taken care of, the threat is gone, and everyone can get on with their lives. Unrealistic? Sure. Simple- headed? You bet. But not malicious.
I don't do Family Law, but California, I believe, has a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting. This is often a real bone of contention among domestic violence shelters, who too often see a battered woman, homeless because she left an awful situation, lose her kids to a very smooth, sociopath of an ex-spouse (because the battered spouse didn't file police reports, or keep adequate documentation of the abuse).
My point is not that men are all rotten, but the issue is that the System has hard time figuring out who is rotten and who is maligned. It's clear that this forum is for men who have been maligned, and I feel for fathers who have had their rights to parent trampled upon. But this is done typically for an overabundance of caution over what MIGHT happen to a child, rather than any quest for Title IV-E dollars. Most Child Welfare Workers would be pleased to not need to have to do the job we do.
To Scott--When is the last time you went to the ER in a major metropolitan hospital?? If your complaint is not absolutely dire, count on waiting until you heal yourself. It's not all that difficult to find someone if they want to be found and they stay in one place, but that's not often the case with the fathers in DHS cases.
Occupant....
I haven't read the Fragile Family study, but I would like to. I don't have time to get through the newspaper, but I'll give it a shot if I can get my hands on a copy. Your second paragraph reflects a great deal of your anger at the system, and I'll give you the benefit of any doubt and say it's justified (this is base on your willingness to look for the CA Assembly Bill that grew out of the 2003 Federal maltreatment study). I don't know that I've been co-opted by the "misandrist wing of second wave feminism." I work with a lot of abused kids and I see a lot of rotten parents, both mothers and fathers. I have more contact with mothers, typically, and you have a point, they can be truly awful. But because fathers are absent, doesn't mean that they're any better than the mothers, although I'll grant you, typically better than stepfathers.
I'm not ignoring the contributions made by thousands of generations of fathers--I'm certainly the beneficiary of their sacrifices on behalf of their progeny. But I wouldn't make the leap that woman's inability to make "an average salary" was a consequece of their lack of effort. If you're a single parent and your kid is sick, and you've got a big project due at work, what loses out? If you're a decent parent, the project. Typically fathers have not had to make that choice--it's simply the historic division of labor. Blame it on breasts. But men make more money, and that, in some measure, makes life in the household easier. And there are great fathers out there. Fathers whose ability to connect and nurture their children far outshine their spouses. And if they divorce their spouses, they'll probably have to struggle to get custody of their kids in a way that a mother would probably never have to.
And can that same mother make false abuse accusations against that wonderful father and make it all the more difficult for him to get custody of the kids? Absolutely. It happens all the time. Getting drawn into custody disputes is one of the real joys of child welfare. The worker gets to interview young children about which one of their parents is lying. And what if the mother ISN't lying?? What then? How's it going to look on the front page?
It's a tough job. Very tough decisions. Sometimes very wrong. Read AB 636--"Child Welfare Services Outcome and Accountability System referred to as the California-Child and Family Services Review ." One of the changes is for "Structured Decision Making" which is a standardized risk assessment tool based on research. This will reduce the number of removals of children from family based on "A gut instinct." Through the Casey Family Foundation there is the "Family to Family" initiative that requires that when a child is removed, or when a foster child is moved from one home to another, that the child's family, the WHOLE family, gets together and has a discussion about what everyone feels is in the best interests of the child.
These moves are a start. It does, perhaps tangentially, support fathers. It's always tricky when Family law gets smooshed in with Child Welfare, and it's a mess Child Welfare would love to never have to deal with. But sometimes we get sucked in despite our best efforts. For the most part, no one is crazy about our decisions, and no one probably ever will be. Child abuse is an ugly thing and the resolution to it after it has happened is draconian and occasionally as damaging as the abuse it is trying to avoid. I'm not entirely sure what the answer is.
But what I am sure about is that the answer must be rooted in an understanding of the complexities of the situation, and not in the paranoid vitriol of fathers who feel have been wronged by the system. I'm not saying that the vitriol is not justified, but I truly don't believe that it's The System's intent to screw fathers.
I'd write more, but I'm exhausted. good night....
August 24th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Dan - Glad to see that you are beginning to see the light. As you will recall, if you have familiarized yourself with the Stockholme Syndrome, once you are broken down and your defenses are gone, in your case by horrendous incidents of both child abuse and injustice, you then become malleable and open to manipulation. You are about at a point where you will have to choose. You allude to that when you state, "My point is not that men are all rotten, but the issue is that the System has hard time figuring out who is rotten and who is maligned." The problem is that bureaucrats are basically deciding on criminal penalties for fathers and children! Let's put theses decisions where the constitution says that they belong: juries and criminal law! After all, the Sgt. Schultz's at Auschwitz worked hard and did their best to maintain their humor and treat everyone equally and with humor. But even Sgt. Schultz had to answer to his maker for Hitler's sins!
August 24th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Ken,
I don't know that I'm "broken down and [my] defenses are gone"--it was never my contention, personally or professionally, that it is a "rebuttable presumption" that fathers are rotten. There are millions of absolutely amazing fathers out there. They go to work, they coach their kids' teams, they empty the dishwasher, and they raise happy and productive adults. It happens all the time. Unfortunately, there are awful parents out there also. A minority. A small minority. But awful beyond all belief. And there is a much larger minority of simply marginal parents.
The Dependency System is subject to judicial review. Child Welfare Workers don't just snatch kids without judicial oversight. If you take a hot iron to your child's skin and sear it off (and I've had a case like that), and I take your child, we both go before a judge within three days, and I have to make a case for why that child needs protection from you, and you make the case of why the kid is fine with you. Now hopefully you are also arrested and face criminal charges for child abuse. The standards are different in the two courts: reasonable suspicion for Dependency; beyond a reasonable doubt for Criminal. There's a reason for that.
Take a sex abuse case of a seven-year-old. Let's assume that the kid was absolutely abused. The father presents well: articulate, powerful. The seven year-old is scared, ambivalent and has just shattered her parents' life, and her life, with these allegations. If there is no physical evidence, and no one saw him committing the act, the chances of the perpetrator being convicted when he's facing 8-12 years in prison are very slim.
But the child still needs protection. Everyone who hears her story is convinced that something awful happened, even though the 7-year-olds recollections about time is a little fuzzy. Let's make this a little more awful. The mother, who doesn't have a job, is absolutely devastated by this disclosure--emotionally and financially. There were signs that something was going on, but she was in denial. So she's facing that she was married to someone who could molest a child, that she failed to protect her child, and that now she doesn't know where the mortgage payment is going to come from, or.... Maybe, just maybe, the kid is upset for some other reason, saw a TV program, or was coached by someone, and she made up this story to get back at the father. Heck, that could happen to anyone... I'm a protective Mom, I'm married to a decent guy and a TV program influenced the kid.
The child, who had known that something was dreadfully wrong with all this, had no idea of what would happen when she disclosed. Mom talks to her about the possibility of whether she was lying and the 7-year-old told the social worker what Mom said. So rather than having the child under that pressure, the social worker places the child in foster care, with a stranger, away from her home, her friends, her dog, and everything that gives her comfort. The child feels that she has lost everything. Dad's little visits into the room weren't THIS bad. So the child recants. Mom's overjoyed. Dad's overjoyed.
So what does the social worker do? This scenario, by the way, gets played out with astonishing frequency. The Social Worker's gut says it happened--how can she, in all conscience, return this beautiful child to a situation where she knows she's going to continue to be abused? It's an awful situation, compounded by the shadow of a doubt that is hopefully always present in the social worker's mind that her gut may not be right. Sometimes this causes social workers to become even more vehement to overcome their own internal doubts.
So say the social worker continues to want the child out of the home for the child's protection. No one is happy with this, but it is keeping the child safe from being sexually abused, at tremendous cost to the child and everyone else in the family. But in this case, this decision is not being made solely by the Child Welfare Worker--it can go to trial, and everyone can present their evidence. But frankly, given the nature of abuse, particularly sexual abuse, the Court generally listens to the social worker, and the kid continues out-of-home.
Maybe the Mom gets therapy, maybe the parents get divorced and the child and the mother are reunited. Or maybe the father, who feels remorse for what he has done, wants to get into treatment. His lawyer advises against it, because a disclosure he might make in therapy could be used against him in a criminal trial, and then he'd be looking at 10 years in jail as a child molester--and we all know what fun that can be. So he doesn't get treatment, even though he both needs and wants it.
OK, so you get a sense of what a social worker's job might look like. So let's look at the scenario where a couple is getting a divorce and the mother makes allegations that her ex molested the kid. Again, something that happens with astonishing frequency. If it's a trumped up allegation, or if, maybe, the mother read a book and says, "Yeah, that's just like how little Janey acts...I wonder... I bet that louse abused her...." She may even ask Janey, "Did Dad ever touch you...down there...." And Janey, wanting to please her mother, says yes.
Child Welfare HATES to get drug into the middle of custody battles, but drug they frequently are. And the allegation of sexual abuse is out there, and it needs to get investigated. And for the father, it's nearly impossible to defend against an accusation of sexual abuse. If you say no, than you're saving your butt or perhaps you're in denial. No one says, "Yes, of course I molested my daughter." So it's an absolutely awful situation. And I fully understand how powerless and angry a father in that situation would feel. But on the other had, there are ex- spouses out there who HAVE molested their children. Who do you protect?
I spend time writing all this because I think it's important that everyone understand how difficult all this. It's no picnic on the side of Child Welfare, believe me. These are impossibly difficult situations where no one is happy. To suggest that Child Welfare Workers are making their decisions to line the coffers of the Department is incendiary. Whether they decide right or wrong, the overwhelming majority of social workers are trying to protect kids the best way they can. To assume that there is some sort of bounty on every child who is placed in a foster home is the sort of paranoid rant that allows a father's point of view to be completely dismissed. Better to focus on the facts that don't support the allegations.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Dan, let me start by saying thank you for putting forth your view of the way things are. It is great to hear from all sides, and please certainly stick around.
"So what does the social worker do [if a jury finds innocence in a child molestation case]?" Simply put: nothing. If the alleged perpetrator is found innocent in a court of law then this should be end of story...the Social Worker's gut should be meaningless. Anything done to this poor guy after finding of innocence should be outlawed. I know your focus is on the children, but there are much bigger issues at stake here: innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of a free society and apparently you espouse the very false belief that an individual's gut feeling should overshadow the evidentiary support provided in court and the "gut feelings" of twelve jurors. Hitler's gut feeling was that all jews (and blacks, gypsies, etc) should be killed, but that did not make it right. The way to protect kids is to make sure these kids grow up in a free society...not a society in which one's guilt or innocence or life is dependent upon one person's gut feeling.
Yes, the occasional child molester may get through, but it is much better to let 10 guilty people get through then to persecute 1 innocent person. Your system has reversed that ideal to the detriment of the very people...the very society that you should be trying to protect as a public servant.
So as far as I can see, it isn't difficult at all. You (as in your system) are making a simple situation difficult by depending upon the feelings and emotions of one or two (potentially biased) individuals. If the criminal court found innocence, be done with it and move on. I know...you have invested a lot of your time and effort on this case and you hate to see it not go your way. It happens to police and prosecutors all the time...Move on...if 12 people didn't see your side then you need to drop it because that is the way our system must work to be free. Otherwise, we have people running around making accusations with absolutely no evidence...we have a witch hunt.
It sounds like you allow yourself to sleep at night because you believe that judicial oversight is all you need to validate the travesty of justice in which you engage day in and day out. But again, a judge is a single (potentially biased) individual...he or she should not be able to summarily dismiss the judgement of 12 jurors simply because he or she didn't like the verdict (or simply because an overzealous child welfare worker can't understand why he or she lost argument at jury trial).
As an aside, you have said numerous times that the workers in this system are overworked and underpaid and have far too many cases/issues that need addressed for the resources provided and therefore things (ie: often men) fall through the cracks. Here is a great way to handle it: know when to quit. Then perhaps you can actually serve the public...as it stands by engaging in these policies and practices you are undermining our society and destroying a lot of innocent lives (including those of children).
If anything, you have successfully convinced me that your system is broken - utterly broken. I'm not sure if that was your intention, but your last entry sealed it.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Lance--
I had an 8-year-old on my caseload orally copulated by Mom's boyfriend. It's the kid's word against the boyfriends, and I believe the kid totally. The DA wouldn't prosecute because he felt that in that situation you'd put the kid through a trial, and you wouldn't have enough evidence to convince a jury that it happened beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the standard is "Reasonable Suspicion", the boyfriend loses. And it's absolutely crucial he loses for the kid's sake. I agree that it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than let an innocent man hang, but I don't agree that it's better to allow 100 kids to be molested than to deprive one innocent father of his right to parent his child. Again, it's not simply the "Gut instinct" of the social worker, but a judge and lawyers. Yes, people whose judgement could be flawed, but I don't believe that this system railroads every father it encounters.
But given the difficulty in proving abuse, particularly sexual abuse, and the devastating consequences of being abused for the victim, I think having a less stringent standard to protect the child is appropriate for a humane society. I hope you would too. So if what you're saying is that a jury should be brought in for child abuse cases, you're talking about expanding a system it's clear you don't care for, and I'm not sure that the net effect would be an improvement for abused kids.
"The travesty of justice in which [I] engage day in and day out" does protect kids. Not all of them, but some of them. It also helps some parents. Again, not all of them. Doing the best I can in an imperfect world is what allows me to sleep at night. If I were to allow child molesters to have access to 8 year-olds...then sleep might be a little tougher.
Again, I get that you feel wronged by the system, and writing my fingertips blue will not change your view that the system is "Utterly broken". Certainly much could use fixing. I engage in this dialogue so that I can do what I can to fix the system from within, and educate people from without. It certainly may be a fool’s errand, but that's how I sleep at night.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
"Again, I get that you feel wronged by the system" - Me personally? Beyond the pervasive misandry that seems to be all too prevalent in your line of work (and society as a whole), and the assumed guilt that you seem to be fully comfortable with, not directly.. I have see men getting screwed...I don't need to be wronged directly to see that something is wrong with your system.
"And it's absolutely crucial he loses for the kid's sake." How are you so damned sure? So you have a feeling...so what? I just don't buy it. Where is your evidence? If I were in his shoes I'd try to sue your (office's) pants off for slander...if I could...but your system probably took that right as well. What about his sake? What if he were the kid's father and the mother just wanted control...What if the mother was the abuser and you missed it due to your assumption of male guilt? I get that it is difficult to prove these cases, but how can you possibly assume guilt at every turn?
Let me go at this another way: you talked about someone in your case load that you are assuming is guilty...due to some "feeling"...ok. But has a kid/wife ever told you a story against a father/(ex)husband that you didn't believe? That your gut told you that this person is lying/coached/etc? Did you drop the case, or did you continue to pursue it?
The problem with your system is that no matter what you need to assume guilt..otherwise if you are wrong, your office will be blamed...assuming guilt is the easy way out for you... How can anyone ever prove his (or her) innocence in the environment in which you seem to be comfortable?
So no, I disagree with you: a humane society would assume innocence - not guilt - regardless of how many women, children, or men are at risk. Otherwise you end up hurting more people then you help. So you (think you) help the child, what about society? What if the wife/mother just beat the husband/father to the punch and in reality she is the one abusing the kid? If you make it too easy to pass judgement ... to take children away from their parents... to instill fear and asymmetric interfamily power...then you risk destroying the very thing you should be working to protect: society as a whole.
Keep in mind that the Salem witch trials were started and perpetuated by children mad about not getting their way.....zealotry - regardless of intentions - is wrong and your pro-children-(and-women)-at-all-costs attitude verges on zealotry...And before you burn a witch (or warlock), you better be damed good and sure of what you are doing.
Ultimately, I just don't see enough checks and balances in your system. How many innocent fathers does your system railroad I wonder...1%...10%...20%...50%...We may never know unfortunately. In any case, I truly appreciate you working to educate us all..and for giving us your viewpoint. Education will be the only way we can fight for equality and for what is right.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Lance,
You make some reasonable points. I'm fallible, but in this particular case, about which I can't go into the particulars, I am 90-100% sure I'm right. The kid in this case has everything to lose and very little to gain by lying about this.
We differ on which is worse, seeing a kid divulge sexual abuse and then not get protected, verses possibly denying a falsly accused father of his rights to parent. NOT his liberty, but his right to parent.
The power dynamic between a kid and his parent is not equal. It is very tough for a kid to disclose abuse, and I really don't believe it happens that kids are lying very often. Some unquestionably are coached by an angry ex-spouse, and that's typically not so difficult to spot. When I believe a kid is being encouraged to lie, I drop the matter, or I go after the parent I think is doing the coaching, but at that point it's a Family Court matter and no longer child abuse (except for the stress this sort of thing puts on the kid).
Frankly, many kids get abused who never disclose. It's hard to know what the percentage is. Given the number of friends who talk about their experiences of abuse, and the generally accepted 1 in 5 women having some sort of unwanted sexual action against them, I'd say it's pretty high. I'd guess that 50% of the abuse that happens never gets reported. We'll never know how many times we've wrongly accused fathers, but I've certainly heard about kids who were abused, and we closed the investigation, and they come back later asking why we didn't do anything.
There may not be sufficient checks and balances, and hopefully SB 636, and the changes that come out of it will improve things in CA--and similar legislation throughout the country. It will never be perfect. And I will probably never convince you that it's better to protect a child and risk a father's rights. I don't want to be wrong ever, either for kids or fathers, but if I have to make a mistake, I'd rather it be with an adult.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Dan - I started to reply but glad I didn't. Lance has made most of my points, but I think that both of us have veen excessively hard on you as a person. Think about my Stockholme analogy, and combine it with overwork and burnout. I, too, have sat across the table from a piece of human scum who didn't think the state had any right to tell him he couldn't do as he pleased with his twin dayghters. I gained his trust, made sure he was violated, and helped send him back to the cesspool that is the Texas prison system! However, he was a criminal, convicted by a jury. I actually suppressed the urge to take care of him with my bare hands, so I have an idea of what you feel about these slime. But chew on these facts: 70% af domestic abuse charges are lies, either proven false in court or dropped, Most child abuse is not committed by the father, but either by the mother or someone she brings into her home. Far more children are murdered by their mothers than by their fathers, which is the worst form of abuse.Unfortunately, CPS works hand -in-glove with a totally corrupt family law system, and no matter how good the intention of the individuals working within it, it helps perpetuate injustice and the destruction of the family. BTW, I have recently been involved with trying to help a grandmother help her son get her grandson away from a dope smoking mother whose boyfriend beat the boy. The pictures of his swollen and bruised face ---well, CPS refuses to remove him. If he were in the father's home, he would be out and the father would be in jail!This is not an aberration, it is the way that the system normally works. I think that is part of what Lance is saying. I think that you are beginning to at least be open to the idea. Too many times, it seems that CPS doesn't give a damn about the kids, even though their employees went in with the best of intentions. You strike me as a good person with the best of intentions.I'd probably like to sit and have a drink and/or conversation with you, but you are caught in a system which is producing evil results.
http://ken454.statesmanblogs.com
August 27th, 2007 at 10:13 am
"We differ on which is worse, seeing a kid divulge sexual abuse and then not get protected, verses possibly denying a falsly accused father of his rights to parent. NOT his liberty, but his right to parent." - I think some would say (correctly) that there is no difference here. One of our liberties in a humane and free society is the right to parent. Denying a man's (or a woman's) right to parent a child is just as bad as putting them in jail. We are not in communist China after all. The decision whether or not to remove a person's rights...any rights...should be determined in a real court of law. Not a kangaroo court where you yourself said that "the Court generally listens to the social worker, and the kid continues out-of-home." If the Court (ie: the judge) almost always believes the social worker - who is lacking in evidence - and requires the individual to prove innocence - which is impossible - then this is not judicial oversight...It is a kangaroo court.
Another thing about your statement bothers me: it is not about child's rights vs. father's rights as that is a far too simplistic interpretation of my statements to date. It is about the decision we must all make whether to preserve/restore a free society where the presumption of innocence, individual freedoms, and the rule of law are paramount. Because of the alleged difficulties in proving child endangerment, the standards have been lowered to the point where "gut feelings" and zealotry overshadow evidentiary support and science. Is this a world in which you want this "beautiful child" to grow...a world that assumes guilt at the drop of a hat...that harasses boys/men simply because of their gender?
"1 in 5 women having some sort of unwanted sexual action against them" ... hmmm, does that include being hit on at the bar...rape...."dance floor groping"...morning guilt...mutual drug/alcohol impairment...etc...etc..? I generally believe that most of these stats are meaningless anyway. There is far too much bias in the realm of gender relations to believe much of anything in this regard. Rape is bad...no question..However, getting drunk, loosing your senses, and waking up with someone you probably wouldn't have been caught dead with sober is your own fault. It's about personal responsibility and choice...not making up excuses for women and assuming male guilt. Men and women are supposed to be equal...with equal rights AND equal responsibilities. The feminists of old fought hard for this equality. It is time for women to be held to the same standard as men instead of being treated with "kid gloves" and given excuse after excuse for bad behavior.
In any case, Ken is correct - we have been hard on you personally and that was not my intent. My anger is with the system and our sexist, anti-truefeminist, misandristic society..not with you personally because you have the decency to listen to the bigger problems - whether or not you agree with them. I do believe that we must work together to solve these problems, but we must do so in a manner that preserves mutual respect and individual freedoms and true equality at all costs. Otherwise, it will all be for naught as our potentially beautiful society will collapse under its own weight.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Lance--
I think I've reached the moment where you've handed me the copy of the Watchtower, and I agree to continue with my unenlightened agnosticism.
"...The social worker - who is lacking in evidence - and requires the individual to prove innocence - which is impossible - then this is not judicial oversight...It is a kangaroo court." Of course the social worker has evidence. Often mounds of it. But the issue here is protecting kids. The judicial process is quite grueling, and anything we can do to make that easier on kids, who are already traumatized, is a good thing. We do have a Court Process--Superior Court--An accused gets to confront witnesses. There is an appeal process. This is NOT communist China.
Most people who come out on the short end of any judicial decision are angry, be it a judge, 12 jurors, or the Supreme Court. I am presuming the innocence of children, and the likelihood if they said something, they are telling the truth. Most have very little reason to lie about Mom's boyfriend molesting them. But yes, they can be led. They can be coached. And I've not seen statistics on the number of false verses accurate, verses true but distorted, and I think it would be nearly impossible to get such a statistic.
I have been involved with groups that are entirely on the opposite end of the spectrum from your position. The contention of Domestic Violence groups is that men hold most of the cards, and that strictly through size and terror, women are denied their rights. It is their feeling that the judiciary favors men because men have always had the power, and they look more confident and together in court. I have worked with a number of kids whose mothers have been murdered by their spouses/ significant others, with astounding trauma to the children. I am not dredging up some incredible fluke, it happens.
So Dependency Court needs to weigh out a lot of competing issues, and avoiding a situation where a parent is murdered because of a lack of judicial sensitivity is one of them. Again, I'm not throwing out some lunatic non-issue to derail the conversation, but I just wanted you to be aware that if the system seems skewed against men, there are situations where it justified.
But again, I understand your point that we can only know when something happens, not when something doesn't happen. How many men are deprived of their rights to protect against a murder that would never happen? To re-address your argument, I'm not so sure that the system is "sexist, anti-truefeminist, misandristic..." as it is struggling to balance power imbalances that are very hard to tease out. In this process, some folks are going to lose ground, some are going to gain it. White folks in the South weren't all that thrilled about civil rights, either.
As far as you all being too hard on me...? I'm a big boy. And I understand your anger, and don't personalize it. I'm a father, and while I wouldn't equate not being able to parent with being locked in a 9x5 cell with Bubba, I wouild not take being deprived of my kids lying down. I think the Dependency System, having been exposed to many fathers who don't even know they have a child, or who know and find the farthest corner of the globe to flee to, assume that fathers don't mind if they don't see their kids, or don't have legal rights to them. You are absolutely correct that those fathers need to have their rights protected, not only by their Court-appointed attorney, but by the Child Welfare System. Irritated though you may be with me, you want to keep me in the game, because when I leave, the chances of my being replaced with another father are not good.
Cheers,
Dan
P.S. I agree with your take on the 1 in 5 women... I think it dilutes the seriousness and trauma of sexual assault.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Dan - " I understand your point that we can only know when something
happens, not when something doesn't happen. How many men are deprived
of their rights to protect against a murder that would never happen?
To re-address your argument, I'm not so sure that the system is
'sexist, anti-truefeminist, misandristic...' as it is struggling to balance
power imbalances that are very hard to tease out." If this point is valid, why don't we just go ahead and institute a "Minority Report" type system and just kill the sorry S.O.B.'s before they get a chance to commit a crime? And since when did men have a right to legal, court appointed , counsel? No such right exists in Family Law in my state. Wonen, however, get taxpayer paid attorneys through women's shelters. Lance is ABSOLUTELY correct in identifying these courts as Kangaroo courts! You also lump child abuse by fathers together with the mother's boyfriends. Totally different subject! Child abuse and murder by the boyfriend is by someone the mother brought into the child's home. Murder by mothers far outnumbers the murder of children by fathers, and when you include the boyfriends as being the mother's responsibility, or lack thereof, we have an exponential difference! If you care to familiarize yourself with an extreme case of child endangerment by this system, I'll put you in touch with Douglas Richardson, who was ordered to pay child support to a man the court knew had held his ex and two children, including his own and Doug's, at gunpoint and threatened to kill them! This was done so that the system could continue to collect federal Title IV-D funds!
August 27th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I was talking about Dependency Court, not Family Court (where divorces are handled). Both parents and child have a right to counsel in Dependency Court in CA
August 27th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
"Of course the social worker has evidence. Often mounds of it." - So pursue it in criminal court. End of story. How are you protecting kids by eroding the U.S. Constitution?
"I am presuming the innocence of children, and the likelihood if they said something, they are telling the truth." Sounds like you haven't met many children....
"The contention of Domestic Violence groups is that men hold most of the cards, and that strictly through size and terror, women are denied their rights." - And you don't think these groups are at all biased against men in their thought processes? DV is a particularly upsetting to me because the facts on the ground say these "groups" are just plain wrong. Women hold all the cards - the minute the police are called. Whether or not you want to believe it, that is the truth. While scientifically sound research has shown - time and again - that in intimate relationships, women are just as likely to resort to violent behavior, the vast majority of the DV market caters only to women at the exclusion of men. Take a look around these sites for more info:
http://www.dahmw.org/
http://mens-links.net/showlinks.asp?category=4
http://www.dontmakehermad.com/
http://www.ifeminists.net/
http://www.iwf.org/
It is time to take sexism out of the system and put equal treatment under the law in its place.
"...skewed against men, there are situations where it justified." - I'm sure back in the day, there were plenty of justifications for keeping women from voting, working ,etc... the system shouldn't be skewed against men or women...if it is skewed then it needs to be changed. This is the 21st century...we may soon have a female president...it is time to put the past in the past and get away from generalizations, sexism (whatever the form) and racism. Female-supremacy is just as wrong as male-supremacy...as they say, two wrongs don't make a right no matter the intentions.
"In this process, some folks are going to lose ground, some are going to gain it." - Why? You acceptance of this process sounds like a cop out. If the system is taking rights away from one to give to another, the system hasn't done its job. Instead, take gender out of the equation - plain and simple. That was the ideal of feminism before it was derailed by folks believing that women needed special treatment/protections. Women (and the men who loved them) fought for female-equality...guess what, they got it...and now female-supremacists and over-chivalrous men continue to push...this time for special treatment to make up for "weak women"...I don't believe that women are weak..I believe they are equals. Each time you fight for special treatment you erode away not just equal rights for men, but the character and strength of women as well.
The same can be said for the "empowerment movement." Empowering women is fine, but you shouldn't dis-empower men at the same time. The key is to look at the individual and disregard what is between their legs. Empower each individual to their fullest. If men loose - women loose as well.
"Irritated though you may be with me, you want to keep me in the game, because when I leave, the chances of my being replaced with another father are not good." - Couldn't agree with you more! Keep up the (hopefully) good work. Hopefully by the time you leave, folks like us will have fought hard to level the playing field a bit!
August 27th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Sorry...instead of:
That was the ideal of feminism before it was derailed by folks believing that women needed special treatment/protections.
I meant:
That was the ideal of feminism before it was hijacked by folks believing that women needed special treatment/protections.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Lance--
Like I say, I've got your copy of the Watchtower rolled up in my back pocket.
But because I simply can't let some points stand. Look at the homicide rates for women. I just pulled these off the internet (http://www.silentwitness.net/states/us_map.htm#state. Let's be clear, it's much more lethal being in a domestically violent relationship if you're a woman than if you're a man. I'm with you that women are about as likely to get whizzed off as a man (in my case, I'd say probably higher!), but stalking... assault...battery...murder--that's much more prevalent for men on women. Show me statistics that say otherwise.
Sure, ask a kid if he took a cookie, 9 out of 10 times he'll say no with crumbs on his chin. But I DO know a lot of kids. Interviewed hundreds. They've got plenty to lose by bringing up the notion of being abused.
But I think we're at an impass. Good luck in making whatever ground you do.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Dan, I agree with you in cases of actual violence, but what is domestic violence? And what the hell is stalking? A Christmas card? Looking up an e-mail addres? Driving within 1000 (thousand)yards of her residence on a public highway on business? What I am saying is get these charges out of civil court and into criminal court. Otherwise, the Constitution simply does npot apply, or at least that's the way it is being applied. Recall Justice Holmes' words when he said what happens when the people perceive that the law is not serving justice. Also, I realized that you were talking about a different court system, but it is too often inseparable from family law in its anti-male bias, and men carry the burden from the family law injustices into CPS hearings after they have often been stripped of both financial resources and dignity. Your point is well taken, and it is an area that I need to study further.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Dan-
I'm not sure DV is the subject at hand, but since we have decided to pursue it, here goes:
I guess you could argue the extreme case (ie: death) is more prevalent as a crime of men against women, however what percentage of "real" DV cases are ever pushed to this extreme? It seems by only underscoring the most extreme outcome possible, you are completely missing the vast majority of DV cases that are (a) never reported, or (b) reported and dealt with, or (c) reported and disregarded (as is often the case of male-as-victim-of-female-DV). Further, if one accounts for the reality of male-as-victim-of-female-DV, then one must immediately concede that perhaps any number of these extreme outcomes could brought on through self-defense. In other words, the woman was the attacker and due to the fact that men are not offered any sort of support the man may only see one way out of an abusive situation: murder. I don't condone murder, whether the perpetrator is male or female, but I certainly only represent one person's opinion.
In terms of "stalking, assault, battery, and so on"..that is NOT much more prevalent for men on women then women on men. Here are your stats:
http://www.glennsacks.com/new_doj_domestic.htm
And please don't forget the 205 (and counting) scholarly articles noted on this list:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
In any case, here are the concerns:
(1) Male-as-victim-of-female-DV is not recognized as a problem by the DV market at anywhere close the frequency that it has been scientifically proven to occur (your own statements underscore this problem: you don't even recognize it's significance).
(2) The DV market not only discounts reports of male-as-victim-of-female-DV, but it tries every thing it can to diminish its importance or significance, and even worse, this market tries its damnedest to blame men (while at the same time condemning anyone who blames women for female-as-victim-of-male-DV).
(3) DV is not a gender issue..or it shouldn't be...it is much bigger then male or female.
(4) Society assigns entertainment value on male-as-victim-of-female-DV while at the same time condemning female-as-victim-of-male-DV...after all, how many movies today have men getting hit in the groin by women for laughs...or because the man "deserved it" (usually by simply looking at another woman or something). This double standard is particularly upsetting - both in theatre and in real life - since the assaulted male isn't even allowed to defend himself because the supposed "weaker sex" is afforded an unheard of level of protection merely because she is female.
Finally, for further information on my views on this subject (if these views interest you in the least I guess), please take a look at my comments on the following link. I go into gory (read: long winded) detail on how this DV market has successfully screwed up...I pull apart one man's Ph.D. thesis while at the same time I blow away modern feminist thought perpetuating the myth that women are somehow "weaker" and should be afforded extra protection on the one hand while expecting equal rights on the other.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=870
As I have said in previous threads: Every time the feminists "win a victory" for special treatment for women they undermine their cause because they reinforce the so-called "patriarchy" they wish to abolish. I consider myself a dictionary definition feminist (or masculinist): women must take the good with the bad to have equal rights..they must be willing to have these rights AND the responsibilities that go with them...my wife is a perfect example. She accepts both good and bad as a matter of course, and I love her for it.
In terms of the impasse, I'm fine with that. I think we can all agree that as long as we broaden each other's horizons a bit (even a little), we have been successful. I certainly appreciate your point of view, and I hope you continue to visit this site and the many others that are available.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:40 am
laser hair removal price...
Sounds good but nevertheless, I am not totally sure I agree with the idea....
September 2nd, 2007 at 1:08 am
Who first coined the term "Stalking" in connection with 'domestic violence'? It is a very creative and menacing term. Too bad alot of fathers get fucked up by it. What state did it start in. I bet it's NY?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I applaud all who think the smith case is an abomination. Taking a child from their father is the same as kidnapping.
February 16th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Since the system is always in the best interests of the child, maybe someone can help me make sense of my issue. I have a 13 year old son who lives in another state with his mother. She is married to a man who is on the run for multiple felony counts of weapons charges and abuse. She is living with another man who has been in prison for child abuse charges. She knew of this when she began dating him. First of all, I was never made aware of any of the charges against her husband, nor was I aware she was living with another man.
One morning I wake up to find a message saying that my son has been placed in protective custody. I call to find out the details only to learn that the state of Missouri (where my ex wife lives) has been investigating my wife and her "significant other" for the last three months on charges of child abuse. The worker tells me that they were both arrested and that my son was placed into protective custody with his maternal grandmother. I immediately contact my lawyer to begin transfer of custody. However, when I inform the case worker of this, she tells me that I need to "drop it" and that I am only going to cause more trauma to my child.
Now, I need to give you some facts about myself because they will instantly prove my ability to be a father to my child. I currently own my own business in CA, which allows my to provide any needed financial care to my child. I have NEVER been in arrears on my child support, and most importantly, I was, for 12 years, a supervising counselor in both juvenile residential treatment centers, and juvenile detention centers. I was, for all purposes, trained by the state in how to properly "father" children! I have, literally, raised thousands of children to become responsible members of society. In fact, I used to routinely assist the people who were now telling me that I need to "drop it!" I'll even go one step further- I have twelve years of background checks, abuse checks, and psychology tests that back up LEGALLY that I can take care of children and aid in their development. Apparently I'm good enough to raise other children FOR THE STATE, and in fact TRAIN people to raise children, but not raise my own child.
In dealing with my own child, he and I have always maintained the best possible relationship that we could, in spite of the continued and sometimes severe, interference of his mother.
So my son was placed into "foster care" with his maternal grandmother (who has never gone through foster care training, by the way). When I finally spoke to someone who decided (off the record) to speak to me as a friend, I was told that I would not ever get custody of my son because the state of Missouri had a mandate that the child was not to leave his current school district. My child, whom I am completely competent to raise, is now in foster care not because he needs it, but so he can stay in the same school district. Not only that, he has been placed in foster care with the maternal grandmother who is doing everything in her power to convince him that he doesn't want to live with me. In fact, right before a recent holiday visit (which was a nightmare to get the courts to agree to), his "foster" maternal grandmother tried to convince him that he shouldn't go because terrorist might hijack his flight. I actually reported this to the case worker who completely blew it off.
My lawyer explained another "what's best for the child" mandate to me the other day, also. He told me that IF, I was to get custody, I could only do so in the following way:
1) my son would have to be given back to his abusive mother. She, of course would require several counseling sessions first.
2) my son would have to live with his abusive mother for three months as he would still be a ward of the state for three months after she gets custody of him.
3) then, if the judge sees fit, and the child agrees, I can receive custody of him.
How is ANY of this in the best interest of the child?
February 16th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I need to clear one thing up that, when I re-read my post, I left out. The state of Missouri is mandated to keep kids in the same school district when they go into foster care. The way I wrote it, it could come off that all children are mandated to this. It's just when they are placed into foster care.
Also, an interesting point about the foster care system- Both my ex wife and I are (of course) "obligated" to pay for our son's foster care. However, I am "obligated" to pay three times the amount that she does, even though her actions were what got my son placed in foster care. Isn't there something wrong with being forced to pay for someone else's actions? I mean, I'm fine with paying my child support, but if the state if going to force my child to be in foster care, shouldn't the parent that abused him be liable for paying for that?
February 16th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Piratepug--
Don't confuse what is easiest for Child Welfare and what's legal. If there's not a compelling reason why you shouldn't have your son, and your wife is not fit to care for him at this time, you get him. That's the law, at least in CA.
But you do want to consider the trauma to your boy. Chances are, it's his friends from school who have gotten through most of the difficulties of his life so far--there's reason why Child Welfare Workers want to keep a kid in the same school. That being said, if his grandmother wasn't around and they didn't have a foster home in your son's school district, Child Welfare would have moved him to a different school. Point being, kids get moved out of their schools in child abuse cases all the time.
There should be a detention hearing, which has probably already happened. There will be a Dispostional Hearing, and if you want your kid, you should fly in for that. You should also tell the Missouri CWW that you want to be represented in Court. Don't let them make you wait to the Disp Hearing, because then it will be too late. Use local counsel, they know the judges and the social workers and can frequently work the thing out.
You've got a very strong case. Chances are the mother has bad rapped you to the CWW, but if your record is clean and your kid wants to go with you, they're hard pressed to keep him from you no matter what she says (if you have a clean record). It could be that your kid said he didn't want to go with you, and who could blame him? His life is with his friends, which is developmentally approrpiate for a 13 y/o. You may have the legal right to your kid, but be sure to factor in what are your emotional rights to the kid--remember, it's his life being turned on its ear because of your ex- wife.
Good Luck. I'm sorry for all of you, and especially your son. I hope it all works out for the best.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:16 am
You CAN get custody of your child out of state when placed in foster care. It is a long process but my husband and I have done so in the state of Missouri for my step-daughter in getting her to Illinois. Of course it may take what it took us, long months and tons of money and being told no every step of the way. The same words were spoken that it is not in the child's best interest to live with her father, she was placed with her maternal grandmother when removed from her mother.
My step-daughter was removed from her mother's care and placed in foster care with her grandmother but allowed weekly visits unsupervised with the mother. Her father? No visits. During the state allowed, unsupervised visits, her mother allegedly gave her alcohol at a party and allowed two men, one a registered sex offender, to have sex with her then 14yr old in her presence resulting in her pregnancy. (Allegedly because the case is still pending after many postponed trials). She was removed from her maternal grandmother's residence because of her grandmother's reaction to the state investigations into my step-daughter's pregnancy.
Was she finally placed with her father? No. She was then placed in a foster home of a non relative for the next four months as we fought the state, the grandmother and the mother for custody. After an investigations on us, not anyone else but else mind you, was done and a glowing report was shown to the court, the state reluctantly placed the child in her father's care.
We just celebrated our one year anniversary with my step-daughter living with us February 13th. It can be done. It is worth it. Fight for your child for who else will with the same drive and determination to see that they have a brighter and better future knowing their father loved them enough to fight for them. It's hard, deflating and frustrating, especially if your battle is in Missouri. It is worth it.