Canadian Supreme Court Rules Child Welfare System Can Take, Keep Kids Without Any Finding of Abuse or Unfitness
July 29th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesThe Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the child welfare system can take and keep children without a finding of abuse or unfitness. This is very dangerous thinking, because it essentially abrogates a parent's right to raise their own children. Only if there has been a finding of abuse, neglect or unfitness should a child welfare agency have the power to permanently remove children from a home. In this case there was no such finding, and evidence was lacking.
The story said that "the teenager, with her consent, was kept in state custody until she turned 18 in 1998," but I wonder what exactly that means. Does it mean she talked it over with her parents and wanted to be there? Or does it mean she was sequestered away, not allowed real contact with her parents, and fed negative information about them?
To learn more about this scary ruling, see the CanWest News Service article below. This is also a problem in the United States--to learn more, my co-authored column Choosing Foster Parents over Fathers (San Diego Union-Tribune, 7/11/07).
Top court sides with child welfare system over families
By Richard Foot
CanWest News Service, 7/27/07
The Supreme Court of Canada threw its support behind the country's child welfare system Friday, saying child protection agencies and their workers have no general legal responsibility to families whose children have been taken away by the state.
The Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday, upholding an appeal by the Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre in Oakville, Ont. and one of its workers, who were being sued by a family that lost its 14-year-old daughter in 1995.
The girl was apprehended by the Children's Aid Society after writing a story in school that said her parents had physically and sexually abused her.
Although an investigation turned up no evidence of any abuse --- and no charges were ever laid --- the teenager, with her consent, was kept in state custody until she turned 18 in 1998.
The following year her family sued the Syl Apps Centre and one of its social workers, accusing them of negligence, for treating their daughter as if she was an abuse victim, and thereby denying any hope of a future relationship between the girl and her family.
The centre and the Ontario government said the lawsuit had no merit, but the Ontario Court of Appeal decided there were legal grounds for a claim.
The Supreme Court has now disagreed, saying there is no general basis in Canadian law under which a family can claim that a "duty of care" is owed to them by child welfare agencies or their employees.
Introducing such a duty of care to families, the court said, would conflict with the child welfare system's primary duty to the children in its care.
"Such a duty (to families) has never before been recognized," the Court said in its judgment Friday.
The overall emphasis of Ontario's Child and Family Services Act, it said, is the "protection and promotion of the child's best interests, not those of the family."
"));
19 queries. 0.432 seconds.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I am curious as to why you continue to champion the side of abusers in general. I have noticed that you locate isolated incidents of men claiming to be victims and attempt to use that to justify an unrealistic attitude that women perpetrate on an equal basis. I have worked with several hundred perpetrators of domestic violence over the past few years and only one could be considered a true female perpetrator. What I have noticed is that almost without exception, men who have been violent towards women will try and minimise their violence, will try and deny their violence and without exception - will blame their violence on anything and anyone except themselves.
Is a woman perpetrating against a man the same as a man perpetrating against a woman? The answer can only be no. I have yet to encounter a man who says that he was in fear of his life. Thats the difference!!
you only need to look at the stats on homicides and serious injury to know who the real perpetrators generally are, and who the real victims are.
Evan King-Macskasy
July 29th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Evan, you should read this:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Also, check out some of Glenn's articles about men actually REPORTING DV to the police, and how the police react. In most countries this is institutionalised.
The incidents of homicides are slightly more female victims to male ones. This is obvious as it is much easier for a male abuser to 'accidentally' kill his wife via strangulation or some other assult. No doubt these acts are murder and should be treated as such, but they explain the difference.
DV injuries sustained are shown to be roughly a third belonging to men. This is considering that men rarely report these incidents unless completely necessary. Probably due to people with attitudes such as yours.
Half of all violent relationships are MUTUAL. In these cases, only the man is usually punished. A quarter are male to female and another quarter are female to male.
The only victims you have worked with are those who have reported it. Men cannot report domestic violence at all! Normally they are arrested for their wife's crimes.
http://www.glennsacks.com/4_feminists_myths.htm
Check these out if you have the time.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=777
A DV councillor pointing out how most issues are based on GENDER rather than abuse.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=676
Excuses for abusive women, I have found these are made almsot universally for female abusers.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=637
Pets protected from DV, not men.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=235
One male victim, punsihed rather than helped, kids left with abusive mum.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=229
Points out the institutional bias against men in DV cases.
There are many more on this sight.
P.S. NEVER has Glenn ever made excuses for a single case of domestic violence. And has frequently condemned both male and female violence. Where exactly has he 'championed abusers' as you say?
July 29th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Evan, my mother once picked up a carving knife and tried to gut me with it. I was a man in fear for his life from a female abuser. Congratulations, now you've heard from one. My father can tell similar stories, no small number of which I directly witnessed as a child myself as well.
People like you, who deny the experiences of people like me, do so because you have psychological problems with gender bias, intellectual honesty, and a host of other subjective irrational responses to objective empirical facts, and need therapy. You are the one deeply in denial of the massively proven reality of these issues, not us.
Therefore, you, and those like you, are among the last kinds of person who should be 'working' with domestic violence victims. If there's any 'work' you should be doing, it is first and foremost the remedial 'work' which is so desperately needed to cure your own cognitive deletions and distortions. You are most likely causing far more harm to those you 'work' on -- and not with -- than benefit. You should stop immediately, get professional help, and not return to such effort unless and until you have been cured of your personal derangement on these matters.
Get help, Evan. Get help now. If not for your own sake, then for the sake of those around you whom you are almost certainly harming.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Regarding the Supreme Court ruling... I think the real culprit to seal this case was the YOF.
By declaring the age of a child criminal to be 12 years+, it not only obsfucated the "age of reason" beyond what it was,
but it also made it mandatory that every child be criminalized, in order to claim those rights. And so it is,
a 12 yr. old can live wherever she wants with whomever she wants (or thinks she does). No parent can break her will,
or else they have committed a crime.
The breaking of children's wills is the purview of the Protection Agiencies. Although there may be some different
window dressing now, their mandates are variations of 200 year old royal charters, made with the same ideas in mind
as the Argentinian Death Squads - ridding the streets of waifs and beggars. Protecting "us" from those disparate familys
and their dirty children.
The articles, themselves, are unclear whether it was a volontary placement by their wording. Was she taken on suspicion
of abuse and then converted to volontary care after the results were inconclusive? Or, did the Protection Agiency petition
the courts for their protection, anyway? (nb. usually all that is needed is the statement of a service worker)
Moot, really, because even without the service worker's perjury, a 12 yr. old can live where she wants - even though she
can't legally sign her welfare checks. Perhaps the pursuing family missed the boat. They probably could've sued the
foster care family, because they have no protection at all.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Evan,
May I suggest www.kingtv.com (Seattle) where you will read of a 32 year old lady that "lost it" and knifed a man to death less than 24 hours before your post?
If you are indeed in such an isolated situation where the female-on-male violence is next to unheard of, man you are living well out on the end of the bell curve.
The situation is very complex but a quick boil-down is she will "just lose it" and use a weapon on him. He, on the other hand, responded to a specific, identifiable provocation and used his hands. At the extreme, she ended up in the hospital, he ended up dead.
Spend an evening doing research on the internet and you’ll get a much better picture what is going on in the totality of the real world.
DanH
July 30th, 2007 at 12:53 am
It is an interesting exercise to google "Evan King-Macskasy", a sufficiently unusual name to identify him quite easily. He is a counselor in Western Australia apparently specializing in domestic violence. He is clearly one of those who stands to gain by perpetuating the myths he wants us to believe. He quite probably has his heart in the right place, but the usual blind spot that men are perpetrators and the distorted reasoning that their denial confirms it. If he has "worked with several hundred" perps, only one of which was female, then it is possible, even probable that the source of his clients is at least as biased as he is and helping confirm his misapprehensions.
Evan, what would you think of someone who walked into a women's shelter and started calling everyone there a fraud? Well, that's pretty much the equivalent of what you've done here. Think about it. G'day mate.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:18 am
The Canadian Judicial System is sadly misled to think they could assume the role of a surrogate parent with a politicized best interest standard but either way, I feel inclined to give them some new parenting advice in their new role. Don't let the kids play one parent against the other!
July 30th, 2007 at 4:03 am
The heart of this case as I understand it is "Can a CAS/FACS be sues for bad behavior or incompetence?" The court said NO. That is the heart statement of the matter. I think it is a wrong view of the thing as it allows for state incompetence to grow and flourish.
-----------------
evan king-macskasy: Your particular brand of abusive evil is nauseating. The fact that there are men afraid of women is beside the point: When talking abuse and victims we're talking about misandry and discrimination, not fear. The particular brand of vomitous evil you espouse kills innocent men and destroys children.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Yes, I would appear that Evan King-Macskasy's livelihood depends upon the monetization of the only-women-are-victims, only-men-are-perpetrators model. One could speculate if male reporting of DV is low in the U.S., it is only lower-to-nonexistent in the land of Crocodile Dundee.
This court decision is ominous. Imagine as funding grows in such agencies, and their marketing footprint grows. Could this type of campaign ever happen:
- "Are your parents mistreating you"? (As if every teen and pre-teen doesn't)
-"Are you ever 'afraid' of what might happen next at home"? (Lets get that ever-powerfu, subjective term "fear" in the mix.)
-"Child services is here to help YOU."
-"As a minor in Canada, YOU have rights too."
-"And our obligation is to YOU and only YOU."
-"And yes, we can get you out of even the worst situations."
-"If you are trapped in an unhappy home life, give us a call."
-"And no, your call to us is confidential -- we won't tell your parents that we are helping YOU."
Yep. I say hand the babies off to big government right from the nursery, and short circuit this whole process.
How else are we going to create infinitely more government jobs for incompetent dunces?
I mean, we can't go starting more wars to employ these idiots. That's way too expensive, and besides, the sorts of idiots who get employed in these agencies wouldn't survive one day -- if they even made it through basic training.
Nope, in government agencies, we can employ large numbers of our stupid cousins, as well as the untrainable hoardes of mediocre human dross coming out of our state "colleges", and any other can't-do, and can't-even-teach nitwits.
Heck, and what better pretense for all of this than keeping our country's children "happy"?
Isn't government great!
July 30th, 2007 at 10:51 am
You are all being too polite.
Evan is a bigot.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:15 am
From the "Before He Cheats" column a few weeks ago:
Comment from evan king-macskasy
Date: July 10, 2007, 5:08 pm
Whilst not condoning the behaviour of the woman trashing a car in the song above - I would like to point out a major difference between her damaging his car and when the male engages in the same behaviour.
Generally, when a male engages in such behaviour - it is with the intent of using Power and Control tactics on her. He is attempting to control her by making her afraid of him.
In the song you cited above, it appears that she is acting from frustration and anger. Her behaviour is still inappropriate and would be viewed as such in any court of law - however it is NOT domestic violence.
I would submit that a more appropriate course of action might be to consider all your options. Personally, I would be packing my bags and moving on.
Evan, it is domestic violence whether committed by a man or a woman.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:33 am
I am in despair, you are frustrated, but he (or she) is angry.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Is anyone surprised that a society that so easily dismisses a father's rights will dispose of a mother's as well if it suits their purposes?
This is where the "best interests of the child" notion logically leads when it is divorced from the model of the intact family. Great job, feminists!
July 30th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Mjaybee
Difference in intent and impact on the victim needs to be taken into account. I suggest have a chat to a female you know who has been in an abusive relationship. I too believed that it didnt matter if the perpetrator was male or female when I first started working with DV.
the big difference?
When he comes home angry, she 'walks on eggshells", tries to placate him. She and the kids are in fear. he is generally bigger and stronger.
If she comes home angry - he can shrug it off. I have asked many men who claim to have been assaulted by their partner how they felt at the time. Not one has ever stated that they were afraid. most of them laughed it off.
I know I am generalising and many readers of this column will now race off and find a selected instance which contradicts what I have just written - one can always find a selected instance to support any stance.
Talk to some female victims and listen to them.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
No-one, least of all Glenn, is denying that in unarmed combat men have generally have a far greater capacity to inflict physical harm on a woman than vice versa, although the use of weapons and the element of surprise can largely compensate for that. What Glenn, and others, are objecting to is the assumption that men should be treated as guilty, simply on the strength of an allegation. If there is proof, or even credible evidence, yes, that is grounds for action to be taken against the man, but men are, in effect, being asked not only to prove that they have never been abusive, but also that they never will be. This is a quite impossible standard of proof, since, firstly, it is always possible to maintain that victims of past abuse are sufficiently traumatised that they haven't come forward and, secondly, no-one can 100% guarantee the future.
Evan, if you want to sound off about MRAs being extremist headcases, there are plenty of these out there in blogland, but I think you've chosen the wrong target here. Glenn gives about the most reasonable and balanced view on this subject that I have come across on the internet.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Evan, you refuse to get the point. Talk to some male victims and listen to them.
Maybe she will just threaten to call the police knowing you have done nothing wrong. Threaten to leave with the kids knowing she is favoured by the system, that you share this awareness and it is your fear. Assault you to provoke a response. If you don't fall for this calculated trickery there are plenty more tricks. For example, smile and call 911 anyway. By the way, some of us men simply just don't hit back. Or is that a myth Mom's and Dad's teach. How do you like them 'eggshells'? I know, all this is impossible. Women don't even know how to strike, scratch and lie in the land of make-believe.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Lane
why would you want to be in a relationship where your partner/wife/loved one "threatens to call the police knowing you have done nothing wrong", "threatens to leave with the kids knowing she is favoured by the system", "assaults you to provoke a response" etc..
are you serious? "calculated trickery??????"
I am missing something here. why would anyone want to be in a relationship like that? amd before you start talking bout "its the only way I get to see the kids" - please consider that children are better off in a happy one parent family than in a high conflict unhappy two parent relatiopnship. I dont know what the laws are like in the US, but here in Australia, we can go to the Family Court and get rulings to have access/shared custody. Also, this behaviour you described didnt just appear overnight, behaviours tend to escalate over time. why wait so long?
The bottom line is.. if she is treating you as you have described? why did you stay in that relationship once she began to behave like that. Most of the men I work with come from a "victim mentality" and recount tales similar to yours. my job is to help them take responsibility for their situation, make better choices - accept the consequences of those choices and work towards a better life for all concerned. or they can stay where they are and keep complaining about how unfair life is. your choice!!
July 30th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Evan--
Going back to your first post, "I am curious as to why you continue to champion the side of abusers." Perhaps you feel that way in general, but that interpretation is very poorly placed as a response to this particular article. Even if this case had real abuse (which we don't know), the fact that the court does not require verified abuse to take children away from their parents is pretty horrifying to any parent. Do you justify removing a child from their parents without abuse?
On a point that goes through your other postings--- that fear should affect things like arrests and restraining orders, I disagree. I can be afraid of being assaulted, but should that lead to an arrest? Of course not! When actual assualt occurs, that is when the law comes into force. Although people suffer because of fear, their suffering is their own. Causing fear is no more a crime than being afraid. And here you can see a community of many that have been victimized by the misplaced fears of others. A person's fear is their right, but that right should not be used to restrict the freedom of others just to alleviate their own. As a social worker, you must be aware that a person given rein to cultivate and nurture their fear and victimhood will only have a temporary reprieve, until, like an addiction, they seek another justification for more. When someone is beaten, that can be a crime. But causing fear? You can cause fear in others, not due to your actions, but because of their sensibilities! Society cannot and should not be held hostage to those who are most afraid; it leads to a tyranny of the prudes.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
The Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2006 released it's second "Personal Safety Survey". It was first undertaken in the early nineties and was designed largely to measure domestic violence. The results were trumpeted by feminists and DV advocates leading to billions of dollars being spent on refuges, services and government advertising.
Strangely the second survey was received differently. It was decried by many of the same folk who used the first survey to such great effect - many of whom owed their careers to it. Nevertheless governments and assorted quangos have continued operating in exactly the same manner since it's release.
Why were these people so disdainful and dismissive of the second survey? The overall methodology was utterly unchanged. The participants were a broader cross section of our country than the first and were greater in number. It was conducted in exactly the same manner. The singular difference was the inclusion of men. It did find that men are about a third of the victims of DV. Far be it from me to suggest that this is the reason for the former purveyors of this dataset suddenly dismissing their own golden egg.
The disdainers and dismissers should rest easy however. They already have the governments' and beneficiaries ears(some might suggest other bodily parts). Courtesy of the largesse available to them since the first survey they have long established themselves as the advisors, consultants and other diverse "experts".
Thus we continue to have our media saturated by anti DV advertising which exclusively casts men in the abuser role. Go ahead, ask any Australian. Only men do it.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Evan
1- It's called an example - you want to examine the possibilities don't you ?
2- It's interesting that you don't think assault victims can feel trapped in an abusive relationship.
3- Who said anyone would want to stay ?
4- It is calculated, however, not difficult to see through.
5- I guess we (men) should forget about the kids.
6- You should talk to some Australian men about how the courts help them.
7- This behaviour didn't happen over night.?? So all women are abused for a significant time before they meet you? If women don't leave immediately does that mean they have a victim mentality?
8- Are these men you talk to the ones being hit (can't call them victims) or the alleged abusers ?
July 30th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Evan
> If she comes home angry - he can shrug it off. I have asked many men who claim to have been assaulted by their partner how they felt at the time. Not one has ever stated that > they were afraid. most of them laughed it off.
Sorry but I had a hard time "shrugging off" a knife attack from the mom while I was holding my baby son. Oh, and that's not just my claim - she admitted it in juvenile court, but for some reason there was never a referral to the DA's office...Oh yeah, I was "in fear of my life" even though I happened to be faster and stronger than the female who assaulted me. That's ONE reason why I didn't appear as a male homicide/injury statistic. As a professional you should also be aware of the gross under-reporting of DV injuries to men, mainly due to the stigma and futility of having to deal with people like you!
One of the reasons you've seen so few male victims is that you and the "professionals" upstream and downstream of you deny their existence. No response from the cops, no shelter accommodation for a father with a child, no free legal advice, no referrals to free counseling or victim's services.
> I have worked with several hundred perpetrators of domestic violence over the past few years and only one could be considered a true female perpetrator.
Females cannot be "considered" to be perpetrators while men "claim" to be abused - see the prejudice now? Shame on you.
OK I'm done with this guy. Next!
July 30th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Evan, I don't like to issue recommendations of litigation except when it seems there are few alternative pathways.
In your case, it is my considered view that you have a clear cause of action to file a lawsuit for "educational malpractice" against those who "educated" you with this knowledge and outlook, because someone has filled your head with pure drivel.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
The overall emphasis of Ontario's Child and Family Services Act, it said, is the "protection and promotion of the child's best interests, not those of the family."
Family Service is another euphemism (just as Family Responsibility Office.) The family is the unit meant to protect the child yet we get the sense that family and child are separate units. Perhaps it's obvious here to state that protecting the family unit promotes the best enviroment for a child and removing children without serious circumstance is a disservice. The belief that government has a rightful place to decided what is best for children, the overpowering interest is evident. This control over our children is growing. The path our children take and social concepts influenced more forecfully by government. Is the childs best interest in this case merely about what a child wants. Family interest here might be defined only to include the parents interests while a childs best interest is not a family concern. Care and control is government business.
If the Ontario court ever agreed that denying these parents a relationship with their child was wrong imagine the outcome affecting the sole custody social experiment/pecuniary spring of the 'family' court. The attitude is government as head of household.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:09 am
Evan King Macskasy wrote
" I am missing something here. why would anyone want to be in a relationship like that? amd before you start talking bout "its the only way I get to see the kids" - please consider that children are better off in a happy one parent family than in a high conflict unhappy two parent relatiopnship. I dont know what the laws are like in the US, but here in Australia, we can go to the Family Court and get rulings to have access/shared custody. Also, this behaviour you described didnt just appear overnight, behaviours tend to escalate over time. why wait so long?"
So, if mum is causing conflict, dad should leave and be happy that the children are now in a happy one-parent environment, because his ex has now stopped causing conflict? Where the father is abusive, the mother can leave the relationship WITH the kids and deny the father access. Also, if the mother is abusive towards the father she MAY also be abusive towards the kids and the father may have legitimate fears about leaving the kids alone with the mother. The statement also implies that a father's wish to see his children is in some way stupid and/or selfish. Evan's second point, why wait so long, ignores the realities of being in a relationship. It is sometimes quoted that women are hit/abused x times before they pluck up the courage to leave. The corollary of this is stated that DV against women is far more prevalent than many think and that more ought to be done. There is no criticism of women for waiting so long. Why such a casual attitude towards men in the same situation?
What Evan has done here is reduce the situation to black and white motherhood-and-apple-pie principles with which no-one can reasonable disagree. The problem is the infinite shades of grey which you find in real life.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:27 am
Evan cracks me up.
"well why don't you just leave if it's so bad?" Yeah? And go where Evan? I own the house we live in. She says I cannot kick her out without 30 days notice of eviction. Am I to leave my own home? What about my child? HOw am I to pay the bills without her second income? Should I actually leave, and leave my home behind (taking our son with me) where would I go? What would I do? Who would help me? People like you Evan? I seriously doubt that. You'd sooner laugh in my face. There is no help for me. I would run away to financial ruin. I would not beable to hire the legal help (that most women get for free) in order to plead my case to the courts.
Evan, you are a joke. She could pick up a house hold item at any time during one of her blow ups and seriously maim or injure me. Yet people like you blow the situation off and say it's my fault for not getting out. Get out and go where Evan? Should I leave my kid with this loon? You say I can "shrug it off"... should I "be a man" Evan? Should I "stop being a mama's boy and take it like a man"? Yeah, the police are going to believe that my 7 mo. pregnant wife punched me in the face and threw lamps at me and cornered me in a room and would not let me leave. I try to gently squeeze inbetween her and the door jam is she is standing in the door way and she says "You're hurting the baby!" Like I'm some sort of monster who is beating up on a pregnant lady. Yeah, you're right Evan, that type of stuff never happens.
WOmen would never do anything to harm the children... like trying to get into a fist fight while 7 mo. pregnant.. then have the audacity to say that -I- am hurting the baby... women would NEVER try to take children away from their fathers based on vindictive anger or revenge. Don't you know, men are the source of all their problems. They're angry because we hurt them. It's all our fault, so when they have something go wrong in their lives, they blame men. Then, when it comes time when they can take a couple of swipes and get some 'payback' they do it.
You're part of the problem Evan, not part of the solution.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Hey thanks for your email.
The guys who write to glenn sacks are no different than the guys I have worked with in Men’s Perpetrator groups.
Its never their fault.
Its always the fault of the woman/courts/parents/neighbours/ads on tv promoting women’s safety/rights/etc…..
They are always the poor misunderstood victim – and the courts are conspiring with the women to deprive them of any rights
Oh.. and most importantly – the men’s welfare comes way ahead of that of their children.
As you saw, I ignored the bulk of the responses I got as being nothing more than ignorant attacks on me/ deliberate presentation of fictional statistics/ selected instances that bolster their arguments (and in all likelihood exaggerated and distorted out of all recognition). There were a couple of reasonable responses and I chose to respond in kind.
I would say that the vast majority of the men who completed (high drop out rate) our 6 month program showed gains. Most of the men I have worked with actually didn’t want to keep hurting their wives and children. They had been brought up in abusive environments and had learnt how to react when things weren’t going well. Once their awareness was raised and alternative options were presented to them (I know I am making it sound easy – its not.. but that’s the net result), then they inevitably went for the choices that promised a better life for them and their families. These men did not want their children to grow up the way they did. They did not want to see the hurt and fear in their partner’s eyes. They didn’t want to see their children shy away from them.
I write to the Sacks column not because I am expecting a wholesale conversion of the men who write there. Most of them sound very entrenched in their views and methinks that short of a sustained psychoeducational/therapeutic program, they will not be shifted easily from their self destructive ways.
I feel sad for these men. Yes, I know that they have inflicted much harm on defenceless children (directly or indirectly) as well as the harm and trauma they inflicted on their partners/extended family/friends. But, think how sad, lonely, insecure and loveless their lives are. Whilst they remain in their victim mode, they will not be able to do what they need to have a happy full life like most people do. A few of these men are beyond help – personality disorders which make them so rigid that programs wont help them - but the bulk of them would respond to a balanced program and every major city would have such programs.
Many of these programs are self referred. Guys – you have nothing to lose but your unhappiness – give it a go.
I continually bump into men on the streets who have been through my groups in the past. I have never yet been abused. In every instance, they have come up to me, shaken my hand – told me how much their lives/relationships had improved and thanked me.
That’s my reward – and that’s why the responses I have been getting on here don’t bother me. If even one reader of this post is motivated to access a program in their area – leading to a happier safer life for the whole family, then this post will be worthwhile.
Cheers and keep up the good work in the USA – and we will continue down here. The results are worthwhile.
I’m also going to put this post on Sacks. There will be some readers who will take something from it, and maybe access one of these programs. The rest – well.. nothing will change for them – lots of little battles – some “wins” – many losses.. and the years go by. What a life!
Cheers
Evan
July 31st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
What a load of complete b******t!
July 31st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
In the words of Dr Phil.. I ask you one question Malcolm.
so how is it working for you?
July 31st, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Hmmm. Well, your contribution to the debate is appreciated for what it is worth, but I still see a presumption of "guilty as charged" by you. You work with abusers, and I hope you help those you work with. And those who truly abuse need help.
However, there is a large and growing number of men who have been accused falsely. And not just accused, but have also suffered along with the guilty. As a therapist, tell me which comes first: the righteous indignation of the falsely accused, or the self-denial of those who are rightly named? And doesn't the self-denial assume the mantle of righteous indignation? The symptoms of one are the purported symptoms of the other. The fact that you work with the latter, constantly trying to re-assert their position, may predispose you to deny the existence of the former.
Look again at the ruling highlighted by this article, perhaps taking off your lens of abused/abuser. Again, this particular article was written to highlight a law that children can be taken by the state without regard to a finding of abuse. How can that power possibly be beneficial? Or is Huxley's "A Brave New World" your idea of a pleasant future?
Even if this is an isolated incident, it is still a clear injustice, and a damning precedent. And if you choose to highlight its singularity, an isolated incident, you have chosen a poor example of uniqueness: a ruling by the highest national court, built on the shared jurisprudence of the commonwealth is hardly an isolated act; rather, it is eminently sensible to assume the injustice will be repeated many times.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:39 pm
The Canadian Supreme Court decision is just one more - but very obvious - result of the Protestant cult of the individual. As opposed to the bedrock of civilization, the family. These justices do not see the insanity in their "reasoning" that the state has no obligation to the best interests of the family, only that of the child. How blind must one be to not see that the family is - in all but the most extreme cases - the best possible place for any child? No bureaucrat or institutional employee gives half a damn as much for the welfare of a child than does its natural parents, with the exception of a tiny few criminally dysfunctional parents. There are not enough such parents to justify the huge bureaucracies designed for the single purpose of interferring internally with the welfare of families - a place government has never had a mandate to go.
Institutionalized children are dollar signs and/or daily problems in the minds of their keepers. Take it from one who grew up that way. Unsocial "social workers" will automatically destroy a family because it is not perfect (none are) but pretend that their non-caring "care" is the perfect setting for their stolen children. These places are play pens for the Skinnerian and all the other wacko shrinks with insane dreams of their "new world order" of perfection - as THEY consider perfection. They have, in reality, the "perfection" of a prison system. Death to the soul of most any child caught up in it. This applies as well to fostering or adoption in the majority of cases. "Do gooders" have no idea of how different human genes can be until they adopt someone else's child. More often than not they get a rude awakening as the child's way are unnatural to them.
If you are the child, you either fight like hell to retain your self worth every waking instant or become robotized in those places. Either way, when you get out you have to rebuild yourself into a whole human being or society will criminalize you sooner or later for your warped actions, the results of a warped childhood.
Dysfuncitional families are a thousand times better for children than the best government solution away from their families. Under proper law, children have no rights. Their rights are vested in their parents until they reach the age of accountability. This had been understood from the beginning of time until the last century. The results of the foolhardy social experiments of our times show up daily in all sorts of garish and horrible episodes. The "age of reason" has turned out to be anything but reasonable.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
What do these thankful perpetrators have to do with anyone here? Speak of being entrenched in thier views. The idea of it always being a man's fault is exactly what he advocates. Who's really projecting here! Suggesting you have proven something with you're highly skilled profiling of perpatrators. Funny guy - he could have posted his last message first since the conclusion was clearly decided prior to any discussion and without regard to discussion since conflicting views are apparently a sign of guilt. If we don't agree with the ideology or take blame for the actions of others than it's denial and we must be perpetrators. Congratulations, you're a sort of witch-hunter revivalist. You just skipped the trial and hanged us all. No witness required. We don't even need to be acussed. Suggesting a woman hits means you hit women. Automatic conviction. Thanks for the proof and enlightenment, you're a service to the cause.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:57 pm
evan king-macskasy's position is quite astonishing. If a male abuses a female he is at fault. I agree. It seems, however, that evan believes that if a woman abuses a man it is likewise the man's fault - or that man is simply a liar.
We shouldn't be surprised. Are Men Evil by Stephen Fisher. Fisher is the director of welfare studies at Chisholm Institute of TAFE in Victoria. He teaches people who are likely to end up working in the welfare field that men who advocate on behalf of abused men are liars or, indeed, abusers themselves. This attitude saturates the entire DV establishment in Australia notwithstanding the government statistics I mentioned earlier. evan is no exception.
See him and his ilk for what they are. It's a signal that awareness of the duality of DV perpetration is growing and established idealogues are resorting to shooting the messenger. They have nothing better to offer.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:57 am
Evan, you are, as I previously said, flat-out delusional. All your recent comments accomplish is to further demonstrate that. Your characterization of the extensive Fiebert bibliography on domestic violence as "deliberate presentation of fictional statistics" is proof positive of your own deeply-seated denialism.
I feel incredibly sorry for all those who have had to suffer through your groups, and for their families as well. It's clear from your behavior that you are desperately insecure about your beliefs and are struggling hard to maintain your bigoted biases in the face of objective reality. If people improve after contact with you in a therapeutic environment, it's by blessed accident, because your behavior here has shown you to be among the worst kind of ill-trained, ill-informed, and ill-willed incomptents in the field of counseling.
August 1st, 2007 at 4:15 am
People: A rational person does not debate when dealing with evil and we are talking about evil as set out in M. Scott Peck's "People of the lie" when talking about evan's attitude. His attitude is guilty, not even guilty until proven innocent, just guilty.
I've dealt with such for decades. It is the normal attitude for people seeing any male who is hurt by a female, sad to say. This is great evil we are dealing with and the basic rules of dealing with it are quite simple, 'State: Do not debate.'
August 1st, 2007 at 11:41 am
This is very reminiscent of the 1960s scoop up. The only difference really is that non-First Nations children are being affected now.
"...
'One of the things we're recognizing is that we're into third generation child welfare so we want to bring awareness to that," said Iahtail. "It's become a symptom that we've become so institutionalized and we can't take care of our children, so this gathering is a continuation of healing.'
...
According to Iahtail, Canada's 60's scoop refers to the era when apprehensions of First Nation and Metis children reached an unprecedented scale. Children were literally scooped from their families and communities without their caretaker's knowledge or consent.
...
According to Statistics from the Department of Indian Affairs, a total of 11,132 status Indian children were adopted (read: stolen) between the years of 1960 and 1990. Of those adopted, 70 per cent were adopted into non-Native homes.
...
'It was a system to break-up the families,...'
"
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 am
About 48 hours ago I posted this:
"May I suggest www.kingtv.com (Seattle) where you will read of a 32 year old lady that "lost it" and knifed a man to death less than 24 hours before your post?"
Since that time, there have been three more cases where women have killed the kids, two of which also killed the husband. Isn't that female-on-male domestic violence?
DanH
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:36 am
DanH
I have never said that women cannot also be perpetrators of domestic violence. what I am saying is that for every case of female perpetrated domestic violence, you will find between 95-98 male perpetrated domestic violence.
Thats a huge difference in terms of numbers.
And that every male perpetrator I have worked with - has started by attempting to blame his partner (or alcohol/drugs/mental illness/provocation) for his violence. Yet, by the time they are halfway or two thirds of the way through the program, they realise that they and only they are responsible for their actions.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:51 am
@evan king-macskasy said...
I have never said that women cannot also be perpetrators of domestic violence. what I am saying is that for every case of female perpetrated domestic violence, you will find between 95-98 male perpetrated domestic violence.
Presumably you are able to back this up with something more than anecdotal evidence? The ABS has produced statistics which differ markedly from your position.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:55 am
These statistics about domestic violence were compiled by the American Bar Association:
http://www.abanet.org/domviol/statistics.html
When properly interpreted, they show that far more women are victims in intimate partner relationships than men, and far more men are perpetrators than women. (It is important to consider, for example, that there are more male victims in gay relationships than in heterosexual relationships.) But I don't understand how this thread became a debate about who perpetrates more violence. Wasn't the article about a girl who consented to being in the custody of the child welfare system because she believed that both of her parents had abused her??
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Does "properly interpreted" take into account police policy. From the Police Hand Book ---
The policy is bent on calling males the aggressor.
Dual Arrests
"Police are being asked to investigate which party, if either, is the dominant aggressor, and avoid arresting both parties where one is clearly more dangerous."
"If it can not be determined immediately who the dominant aggressor is, remove the biggest threat in that instance." (If it can't be determined who is dominant how do you decide who the BIGGEST threat is ?)
"Separation from their mother may hieghten children's sense of insecurity and worry following the violent incident." ( Suggestive comments like this scattered through out.)
"Children's Services should be contacted to assist the woman in making plans for children's care."
"When the facts of the case initially suggest dual charges, police should apply a "dominant aggressor" sreening modal. "
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Additionally from the Police Habnd Book (Dual Arrests)
"Abused women refrain from seeking police protection for fear they may be arrested and separated from their children." -- This is better understood as a male victim concern
"Charges against the most violent and dangerous abusers are routinely dropped because victims are also accussed." (Dropped? The police have control over charges once a call is made.)
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Evan -
"Yet, by the time they are halfway or two thirds of the way through the program, they realise that they and only they are responsible for their actions"
The reality is more like:
"Yet, by the time they are halfway or two thirds of the way through the program, they realise that the only way they'll ever get a 'pass' from me and be allowed their liberty is to suck it up and admit that they and only they are responsible for their actions, regardless of the facts in their particular case."
Even the strongest person has a limit on how long they can keep beating their head against a brick wall. It doesn't take long at all for the averagely intelligent man to realise that if he doesn't parrot the right phrases and 'admit' his 'guilt' then he'll be back in front of a judge quicker than he could say "false accusation."
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Evan,
I speak from the 'benefit' of experiencing a relationship with a violent woman (usually only on the occasions when she was drunk, the frequency of which grew and grew over 6 months to become almost nightly). I experienced the softly-softly approach of the Police, when confronted with unmistakeable evidence of female-perpertrated DV, first hand.
I won't bother to go into the details of all the things she did but one incident, the final straw for me, is worth detailing.
One night, after steadily escalating her verbal abuse of me, my then girlfriend attacked me with her nails, leaving me scratched (and scarred in two places) all over my face (which later nearly cost me my job). After eventually removing myself from the flat to let her calm down, I went back in later and shut myself in the second bedroom. She forced the door open when I was asleep and attempted to force me to have sex with her. When I refused and pushed her off she became abusive and tried to hit and scratch me again. I managed to get her out of the room and shut and blocked the door. About 5 minutes later she started hammering and throwing herself at the door again, got it cracked open enough, and started to try and thrust at me with a knife she'd picked up from the kitchen.
Luckily for me, our neighbours had got tired of all the shouting and other noises and called the cops. As soon as they started banging on the front door, the ex ran off and jumped into her own bed, pretending to be asleep. The police, of course, initially treated me like the suspect but the wounds on my face and the fact she was faking sleeping (the knife on her bedroom floor helped too) persuaded them that I was telling them the truth. They decided to talk to the ex (she was still faking sleep at this stage), but as soon as they tried to 'wake' her she started to get abusive towards them. The lead cop was doing his best to talk to her rationally and avoid arresting her (you think they'd have taken that approach for a man?) but was forced to nick her when she started pushing past him (knocking him and his partner flat in the process) to get at me again. It eventually took 5 (FIVE) cops to restrain and arrest her. They had another six or so in the hallway trying to assist.
Even after all that, after they managed to carry her (kicking and screaming her head off) to the van the lead cop said to me "I'm sure you don't want to press charges do you? We'll take her to the station so she can sleep it off".
The end result? Her Dad picked her up from the Police station the next morning. She wasn't charged, or cautioned or even talked to (she boasted of that later over the phone). She didn't appear on any statistics, and I wasn't contacted to talk about options open to me. I had to seek an injunction (at my own cost) when she started to harrass me, and I had to move several hundred miles away before she eventually stopped.
I notice, from your earlier comments, that you like to pour scorn on men who don't 'walk away' from these situations, but my ex didn't start like this. 21/2 of the 3 years we were together were great, and the drinking to excess started as a result of the death of someone close to her. I always thought I could get her to stop drinking and sort herself out. Perhaps I should have been the callous wanker that you so obviously are, Evan, and just dumped her as soon as things got rough? I'd certainly have got short shrift, I've no doubt at all, had I ever turned to someone like you for help just as I got f##k all help from the police, the courts or victim support.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:55 am
for those of you who want to start collection evidince that women are abusive i have found a nice sit that allows you to save videos you may be asking what does that have to do with anything well if you go to youtube and type in any terms like female vilonce and suck you can save video evdince that woman are abusive hears the site http://keepvid.com/?url=about%3Ablank just enter the url and bam down load i have over 50GB of information from child abuse and how women abuse there children and so forth i hope that helps some one. by the way to all reading this sorry for my grammer its horrable infact i would like to tell you the reason it is like this when i was younger in the foster care system i was going to live with a woman i called miss heller she got into a habit of abusing me deside that every time i did some thing she didnt like that my punishment would be to have to write sentencs as punishment it started out as only a hundred but went up and up till at one point all i was doing all day long was writing and writing you get the picture she messed up my writing to the point that i dont even like to write that much because it reminds me of her and all of the other forms of abuse this woman put me threw i could go on for hours decussing this woman and what she did to me but i dont want to rember the pain she caused me ill leave with saying this some time ill post my life story and as for evan your dillusianl thoughts on DV and such are shameful i am not sure weather your a man or woman but eather way your logic is damaged i think that in the best intrest om man kind you need to be re-edcated
and if you feel the urge to make remarks about me feel free after all i am a real man !!!!!! i can take anything you throw my way
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:08 am
infact here is some proof of a woman trying to kill her husband caught on tape but you know what there just going to say that he beat her and that in her despration she snapted so since she snaped she then can clame tempray insanity what bull&%it you heres the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqo62-59wP0 and rembember start a libray of evidence
http://keepvid.com/?url=about%3Ablank
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
The story said that "the teenager, with her consent, was kept in state custody until she turned 18 in 1998,"
I too want to know how exactly they got consent from a child. From what I remember, children are not capable of consent, now it seems unless of course they're male or the party demanding consent is the government.
August 4th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Re: Canadian Supreme Beings Rulling.
The term " In the best interest of the child " is the rubberstamp of Family Law for whatever evils they want to impose by fiat. This is the issue...nothing else. Government is not "all of us" as it is want to claim as the justificational basis for thier power. The sooner this is unerstood & corrected by whatever means neccessary...the sooner we will achieve true justice. Otherwise, outcomes like this one...will become more & more preveilent ( as is the strategy to set president for cases to follow ) Though I am not surprised in the least....Canada is a sectular progressive Liberal hell hole.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
"Evan. I have never said that women cannot also be perpetrators of domestic violence. what I am saying is that for every case of female perpetrated domestic violence, you will find between 95-98 male perpetrated domestic violence."
Where on Earth did you get those figures? You are a "big joke" . You DO NOT belong in your job. You are supposed to protect the victims of DV, does not matter if the victim is male or female. From your own posts it is apparent that when you get a man that has been the victim of DV, you make them feel victimized again. (your not a man if your afraid of your woman. Haha lets face it your weren't afraid were you?) Men ARE victims of DV and morons in a position to help them make it worse.
I suggest you do your research, then get some true training in DV, in order to do your job the way it is intended to be done. IE: protect EVERYONE that has been abused. NOT only the woman. Surprise
August 15th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Woman do :
Beat and also kill their male partners or husbands.
They KILL their children.
They RAPE children.
All of the above, they usually get off from hard jail time, by claiming "A Man" made me do it. Woman today are made to believe they can get away with anything. All they need to do is ACT like they are abused and were MADE to do these acts.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I found this post by Evan on the "HomeSweetHome web site.
"it is equally important to not continue to perpetrate abuse against survivors of domestic violence. This, in essence, means not imposing your will on people who have being subjected to power and control from their abuser for an extended period of time."
He should practice what he preaches. As I stated above. Evan WILL make a man feel victimized again. Scary
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:37 am
Linda - your comments seem to verge on personal attacking.
For what it's worth, Evan's comments are backed up in other countries, especially in New Zealand.
We have Women's Refuges filled with survivors of abuse.
On a personal level, I've know several women who have either escaped an abusive relationship, or are still in one. One girl used to come to my workplace with bruises on her face. (Like, how many times can one hit themselves in the face with a cupboard door by accident???)
Another woman I knew two years ago went on a date with a guy and nearly raped her. (He released her only when she yelled out to stop, and his flatmate was luckily at home.)
I'm not sure what the "agenda" is on this Blog. Is it to deny or minimise abuse against women (and children)? If so, this is a pretty sick site.
When Callum writes: (July 29th, 2007 at 6:28 pm)
"Evan... The incidents of homicides are slightly more female victims to male ones..."
"Slightly"???
Yeah, right.
And the Americans have a SLIGHT problem in Iraq.
And AIDS is a SLIGHT medical condition.
Violence against women or children is never a "slight" problem. It is endemic in human society and the sooner it is eliminated, the better.
I never want to see my daughter or niece bashed by some idiot husband/boyfriend who can't handle his liquor or emotions.
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 am
Bugger. My username above should read "Kiwifrank", not "Kiwifrankm".
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 am
And lastly...
I am 50 years old. In all my dealings with people, I've NEVER come across a situation of a male physically abused by his female partner. NEVER.
I'm told it happens.
Maybe it does.
I've never seen it or heard of it personally.
But in 2005, north of Auckland, New Zealand, I was one of three vehicles that stopped on a roadside when we saw a guy KICKING a young woman on the footpath.
He was about 45. She was 17. They were boy & girlfriend. (Yeah, go figure.) He was six foot plus, and SOLID. She was maybe 4 and a half feet tall and built like Kate Moss after a GOOD meal. And he was kicking the shit out of her until three guys (including myself) stopped and restrained him.
Then we called the cops.
She was scared and was about to obey her boyfriend's orders to get back in their car and drive off.
NO WAY WERE WE GOING TO LET THAT HAPPEN.
The cops arrested the bastard and took him away on assault charges.
My partner and I took the girl home. Along the way, we tried to tell her to not let herself be another statistic. We warned her; "Expect a phone call; from your boyfriend. Expect him to grovel and apologise and promise never to hit her again. And expect to be beaten senseless if she does go back to him."
So tell me, folks. Why would a normal 45 year old man have a 17 year old girlfriend??
It's not rocket science. She was easily intimidated and dominated.
That's what abuse against women is.
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
All these millions of words. This last of this N.Z. one never ever asks what the girl did to make the guy so mad. Men don't chose girl friends to beat them up. They want love. Women, especally spoiled brats not getting their way, are experts at using words to make a guy so mad he's out of his mind. From the beginning of time. Such differences between the sexes is the reason that right reason put men in charge of the world. Women today, in the western world anyway, are out of place and out of control. Any man who whines about how abused women are hasn't a clue as to what is really happening in the real world. Nor has he a clue of what the different natural roles of women and men are. Too much bull, not enough real thought.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:35 am
That's an amazing story Kiwifrank (March 23 4:50 am) It took three grown men to stop this bastard. I am shocked that this four and a half feet tall teenager didn't require medical attention, the police didn't require her to make a statement at the station and thought that sending her home with strangers to counsel the minor was the best course of action. Glad I'm not in New Zealand. Since it's clear that you only look for and view males as perpetrators, at least you know it's the "guys" that do something to stop it.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Kiwifrank says,
When Callum writes: (July 29th, 2007 at 6:28 pm)
"Evan... The incidents of homicides are slightly more female victims to male ones..."
"Slightly"???
Yeah, right.
Lane - If not comparable, then what are real the numbers ????