Anonymoms (we are everywhere): 2010-09-12

16.9.10

A Cancer Spreading in the Custody Court System

By Barry Goldstein

The concept of Custody-Visitation Scandal Cases was developed because of the frequency of extreme results in custody cases in which children are endangered, safe, protective mothers are denied any meaningful relationship with their children and the results appear to be the opposite of what the evidence and the well being of the children would require. The Battered Mothers Custody Conference was started in response to what we believed were too many of these tragic cases to be viewed as exceptions.

When we look at an individual case, it is hard to be sure the decision is wrong without a careful review of the record. In most cases mothers are pathologized or demonized in order to create the appearance of a justification for the extreme actions taken. When the bad decisions backfire in a way that demonstrates even to the courts that the wrong decision was made, the defenders of the courts like to believe these cases constitute the exceptions to the usual good job done by courts. There is now a large body of research about these cases that show there are too many cases with extreme results and flawed practices to be conveniently dismissed as exceptions. To illustrate the problem, I want to look at four of these extreme cases not because they are exceptions, but because they represent the kinds of mistakes the court system routinely makes and will continue to make until it changes practices that were developed at a time when no research was available and have proven to be detrimental to the children the courts are supposed to protect.

In one New Jersey case I have consulted on, the father has a long history of domestic violence and after the separation, the children disclosed sexual abuse. In this as in all the cases I will be discussing, the mother was unquestionably the primary attachment figure for the children. DYFS, the New Jersey child protective agency, investigated the allegations, but failed to confirm them. As a result, the father was given custody and as the protective mother continued to believe the father was dangerous, and challenge the professionals who failed to protect her children, she has been limited to supervised visitation.

In a well known Kansas case that I have discussed with the protective mother, the father has numerous convictions for domestic violence and other crimes and a poor relationship with the daughter. Despite this, the court gave custody to the father and imposed ever greater restrictions on the mother's access to the daughter. The mother has been active in exposing the broken court system and the court has wasted large amounts of time and money seeking to remove information from the Internet and silence the mother's concerns. The court has retaliated against the mother with reductions in visitation and a variety of sanctions.

In a California case, the mother left the father because of his abusiveness to the mother. Initially, the mother agreed to give the father unsupervised visitation, but as he continued his abuse and threatened to kill the baby, she sought to restrict him to supervised visitation. The judge decided she was a liar, awarded the father unsupervised visitation and threatened further action against the mother if the judge's belief she was lying was confirmed.

In a Maryland case the protective mother also sought to leave her abuser and when he made threats to hurt the children sought a protective order. Shortly before the mother appeared in court, she had sex with her husband. The judge, not understanding that it would not have been safe for the mother to refuse, assumed this meant the father could not possibly be dangerous and granted unsupervised visitation for the father.

One of the problems we have seen repeatedly is that when a court makes a mistake and fails to recognize or respond to danger caused by domestic violence, they will rarely admit to these mistakes. Instead we see the kind of retaliation and punitive measures harmful to children that was used in the New Jersey and Kansas cases. Nevertheless, the courts in California and Maryland would now admit they made the wrong decision. The case in California involved Katie Tagle as the protective mother. The father used the access given him by the judge to kill Baby Wyatt and then himself. Similarly, in Maryland, the mother was Dr. Amy Castillo and the father used the access provided by the judge to kill their three children and then himself.

The judges in California and Maryland are deeply disturbed by the outcome and genuinely sorry for their mistake. At the same time, they have defended their decisions saying they couldn't have known of the father's danger based upon the evidence in front of them. In one sense they are correct. The judges in these four cases all used the same outdated and discredited practices including the popular myth that women often make false allegations in order to gain an advantage in litigation. This contributes to the widespread inability of custody courts to recognize domestic violence and in turn led to the mistakes in these four cases and other cases endangering over 58,000 children every year.

If all or even a larger portion of the bad decisions led to an immediate and recognizable tragedy like the cases in California and Maryland, the needed reforms would have been adopted long ago and children controlled by custody courts would be protected. Most of the time, however, the cases are more like New Jersey and Kansas where the harm is better hidden and not as dramatic for the public. The children grow up without their primary attachment figure, often suffer private but horrible abuse and many become involved in a wide range of harmful behaviors in response to the direct and indirect abuse inflicted by their abusers. Most will never reach their potential as a result of the mistakes made in the custody courts.

Many communities have developed a practice in which child protective agencies team with the local domestic violence shelter. They cross-train staff and when a possible domestic violence case develops, child protective caseworkers consult with domestic violence advocates. This has resulted in child protective agencies being able to better recognize domestic violence and respond in ways that benefit the children. This should be considered best practices. DYFS recently adopted these best practices, but the New Jersey case was first investigated under the old flawed methods. The protective mother has asked DYFS and the court to take a fresh look at the original findings based upon better practices and the new research, but they adamantly refuse to consider the possibility that they made a mistake while using the old discredited practices. The judge has refused to consider any new evidence based on the up-to-date research and insists on proceeding with the case based on the unlikely conclusion that the mother's allegations are false.

As with many mistaken decisions, the mother has been pathologized by the unqualified professionals involved in the case. DYFS regularly uses the same mental health professionals who intuitively understand they are more likely to continue to be used by DYFS if they reach conclusions that support DYFS' findings. There is substantial evidence of confirmation bias in the work of the "neutral" professionals relied on by DYFS and the court. Since they "know" the mother's allegations are false and she continues to believe them, she must be "delusional" and therefore unfit for anything but supervised visitation. If she were delusional, it would stand to reason that this would present a problem in the rest of her life. These professionals have never stopped to consider how she can be successful professionally, academically and in all other phases of her life. Perhaps the DSM should include a new condition "delusional in the custody courts."

At this point, the concern is that because she continues to believe the father abused the children (based on substantial evidence) and so if she had unsupervised visitation would say negative things to the children. This is the beginning and the end of the discussion by the unqualified professionals relied on by the courts. The mother is the primary attachment figure to her children, so separating her from the children creates a higher risk of depression, low-self-esteem and suicide. Where is the research that establishes what harm would be caused to the children if she made these statements and they were false? There is no such research, it is just assumed by professionals unused to looking for research to justify their beliefs and recommendations. How can we know if the alleged harm of the mother making statements about the father is greater than the established harm of taking children away from their primary attachment figure?

The Kansas case is similar in that they have long since ignored or minimized the very real danger the abusive father poses to the child and instead concentrate all their attention on the supposed harm the mother can cause by continuing to believe the father is unsafe and posting information on the Internet that helps to expose a broken court system. Judges are ethically required to avoid actions that create the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest. Although they phrase the demand to remove material as if it benefitted the child, in reality the real purpose is to hide the history of abuse of the father and the failure of the court to act in the child's best interests. Given the clear conflict of interest (they are seeking to remove materials that criticize the court), at the very least they would need convincing evidence that the mother's beliefs would create a long-term harm to the child. Similarly, the removal of the mother from the child's life, although she is the primary attachment figure creates a serious risk of harm to the child that the court has failed to address. Until the court can cite evidence or research to support its assumptions, the extreme actions present at least an appearance of impropriety. Ironically in both cases the courts put a high priority on placing the children with the parent it viewed as most likely to promote a relationship with the other parent, but when the abusive fathers sought to deny the children a meaningful relationship with the parent the children most need (the primary attachment figure), the same priority of keeping both parents in the children's lives was no longer paramount. This is a common mistake in the custody courts and is one example of the widespread gender bias faced by mothers. In fairness, court professionals are often oblivious to the gender biased approaches they use, but tend to get angry and retaliatory when it is pointed out to them.

I believe it is outrageous that the custody courts have not made children's safety the first priority. In the California and Maryland cases where there was evidence of a history of domestic violence and threats to kill the children, the court had time for only a brief hearing and refused to protect the children's safety resulting in their deaths at the hands of their fathers. At the same time, In the New Jersey and Kansas cases the courts seem to have unlimited time and resources to investigate the "danger" the children might hear their mothers' concern for their safety and well being.

Certainly there are mothers whose contact with the children needs to be limited. This would be in cases where there is a genuine safety risk such as a mother who is a drug addict, physically abuses the children or has a mental illness so severe as to make her unsafe to care of the children. In the absence of such safety issues it is virtually always wrong for courts to take the extreme action of barring unsupervised visitation. This is certainly true when it is done in the context of mothers trying to protect their children from fathers they believe are unsafe. The research establishes that because of the outdated and discredited practices court professionals routinely use, a large majority of findings denying the mothers' allegations are mistaken. Even when her allegations are untrue, it is unlikely the risk she will make negative comments about the father is more significant than the harm of taking a primary attachment figure out of the children's lives. In other words the harm to the children of these visitation restrictions is almost always greater than the harm the court thinks it is avoiding.

This was explained by Joan Zorza in her chapter in our book, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, chapter 14 page 26. "Otherwise as shown in many parts of this book, courts often make mistakes that place the lives and safety of protective mothers and their children in jeopardy. In this context, it is important for courts that rule against alleged victims of DV to be open to the possibility that they made a mistake. Courts should be reluctant to take punitive or retaliatory actions against mothers who continue to believe their partners abused them." The courts in Kansas and New Jersey could have saved the children a lot of harm (and still can) by following this advice based on the most up-to-date research available.

The elephant in the room is the issue of corruption. Every time courts make decisions that appear to have no relationship to the evidence presented and make orders that cannot possibly benefit the children involved, they create the appearance of corruption. When courts seek to silence protective mothers and retaliate for criticism of the court or their abuser, they are promoting the belief that only corruption could explain these extreme and harmful decisions.

There are cases decided by corruption. The Judge Garson case in Brooklyn, New York is a prime example and his early release from jail after conviction further harmed the courts' reputation. More commonly mental health professionals and some attorneys have adopted beliefs and practices that favor abusers because that is where the money is. Nevertheless, I believe the research establishes that most of these bad decisions are caused by outdated and discredited practices that are deeply ingrained after all these years. In my career, I have seen many good people who I like and respect use these practices and come to extremely harmful conclusions. It is important, however that the legal system open its eyes to this problem, review the new research and stop acting defensively to the justified criticism.

In the summer of Watergate, John Dean testified that he told Nixon about a cancer on the presidency. His assumption was that the illegal and unethical practices were committed only by Nixon's aides. It turned out that Nixon himself was the cancer on the presidency and had to be removed. Today there is a cancer on the custody court system. Some children are dying and others have their lives ruined by unjustified and extreme decisions. Rita Smith, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence wrote in her Afterward to our new book that once the book is published anyone who continues to use the old practices must be understood to be committing malpractice. The four cases discussed in this article were originally decided based upon the old discredited practices. It is too late to save the children in California and Maryland. This is what happens when inadequately trained professionals rely on the myth that women frequently make false allegations. We can still help the children in New Jersey and Kansas by taking a fresh look at the cases based on the up-to-date research now available. The court system is at a crossroads. It now has the research to reform its training and practices so that they can better protect all the children. I hope they will treat the research as a gift and not an attack and use it to remove the cancer on the court system. In doing so the court system can support my view that the mistaken decisions are not based on corruption.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY.

Still Standing American Mothers Political Party Blog Talk Radio Show Today at 5 pm CDT 6 PM EDT Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

HELL IS FOR ABUSERS!!!!

Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

or click the link below

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanmotherspoliticalparty/2010/09/16/still-standing

Upcoming Show: 9/16/2010 5:00 PM

Host Name:
American Mothers Political Party

Still Standing

Length:
1 hr

AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts.

We as mothers demand CITIZENSHIP and our Rights to our Children.

We demand that our children not be used as pawns by our abuser in a custody dispute.

We demand that Mothers and Children be equally protected against court ordered visitation with an abuser.

We demand that Mothers and Children be given the same rights, privileges and voice that the abuser gets in family courts!

We demand that our President take action now as can no longer afford to be silent and we won’t.

We demand the same "rights and freedoms" to which all humans are entitled.

Behind the closed doors of the dirty little secret of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse Mothers and Children.

Family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child.

Until Mothers and Children's voices are heard we will never shut up, give up or go away!

www.AmericanMothersPoliticalParty.org

14.9.10

Exorcising Patriarchy

http://www.ape-connections.org/exorcisingpatriarchy.htm

Exorcising Patriarchy

The Death Hold of Patriarchy. Women have made a few advances, a few inroads in the system of patriarchy but so far the system has been able to absorb these advances and often turn the women against ourselves. This is almost inevitable since women are in so few positions of power. The patriarchal system has its “tokens” and “queen bees” and it is learning how to utilize the talents of women (not just the labor) to keep other women in check.

This is not difficult to do because even though patriarchy is first of all a legal system it is more psychological than legal. Patriarchy is defined as “the organization of society on the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of the wives and children and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line.” ¹ In patriarchy the legal principles just mentioned spill over into the general society beyond the family by both law and custom and the supremacy of the father in the family is extended to the belief that the male is superior to the female. The result is the oppression of women and the over masculinization of society.

Our society is possessed the demon of patriarchy. We must exorcise this demon.

Although we are breading the back of the legal system of patriarchy, the psychological remnants of patriarchy have a dreadful hold on us. This explains why the progress of the women’s movement has been so slow and uneven. It explains why men remain in control and why they can get women to “do in” other women. The frustration of women in such a system often results in horizontal violence, as women attaching each other. It explains why some women stay in the background until other women have opened the way and then they push their “sister” aside and take an opportunity away from her. It explains why women usually do not believe in women and why women so often lack self-confidence. It explains why women continue to need male support and recognition and why women fail to take bold steps toward change.

The psychological remnants of patriarchy are like a psychosis that affects most of our thoughts and actions. Most of the women and men of our society really believe that women are inferior to men. Some even believe that women are tainted with evil. Many identify women with sex and they believe sex is evil. So we must reach deep into our psyche and rid ourselves of this demon, patriarchy. Women must be the exorcists for this exorcism.

Exorcism is not something to be taken lightly. It requires strength, knowledge, preparation and skill as well as dedication and commitment through a long, often painful process.

The Nature of Feminism. If we are going to rid society of patriarchy and its oppression of women we must have accurate and precise knowledge of both patriarchy and feminism. If we are to replace patriarchy with feminism we must have a clear understanding of feminism, what it is and what it is not. Webster defines feminism as: “the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.” ² Since men wrote the dictionary it should not be surprising that the definition is lacking an essential element and must be corrected. Feminism is also the theory of the psychological equality of the sexes.

True feminism insists on the psychological equality of the sexes. “True” is stressed because now that feminism is no longer a joke and has even become fashionable in some places many people do not want to be openly accused of being anti-woman. So some people call themselves feminists who hold that women are equal to men but different from men.

These pseudo feminists take a somewhat liberal view of the “equal but different:” theory. They usually hold that women should receive the same pay as men for the same work because the salary should be based on production. This is a switch because the argument used to be that men should receive more than women because being “different” from women, men need more money. The liberal “equal but different” view now also probably argues for the participation by women in the decision making process of society on the grounds that being “different”, women have something unique to offer the system. Of course, the argument used to be that being “different”, woman’s place was in the home, not in the pubic sphere and no one cared what she might have to offer.

No matter how liberally one wanted to try to stretch it, complete legal equality for women in the “equal but different” theory would be difficult to defend. For example, it is hard to see how anyone holding the equal but different” view could support the E.R.A. In fact, the Hayden Rider and the Ervin Amendments were created to solve this dilemma. In essence these bills said women should have the equal protection of the law of the land except when they should be treated differently, because they were “different”. After long battles and many years of struggle these bills were eventually defeated the E,R.A. has come to the states for ratification, clean, so to speak ^3.

Anyone who wants to get an idea of how people really feel about women should read the testimony given in the United States Congress on the E.R.A. Read the current Hearings ⁴ and as well as the earlier ones. Also read the Papal statements on women. ⁵ These statements show a movement from anti-woman to an attempt to deny the inferiority of women as previously held but they also show these theorists tripping over their tongues trying to justify equality on the bases of “difference”.

“Equal but different” is a theory which is misleading, to say the least. In the saying, “equal” refers to the genus and “different” refers to the species. So the saying means that two things are of the same genus, that each exhausts the genus, that one if just as much a representative of the genus as the other. So we can correctly say that an apple and an orange are both examples of fruit, that each exhausts the notion of fruit or, that an apple is just as much a fruit as an orange or vice versa. However, there is difference. Apples and oranges are said to be species of fruit. The difference is great. Apples and orange have a different specific nature. They are more different that they are alike. Their likeness are only in the remote classification of their genus, fruit. The differences are so great that one could even argue whether one or another “fruit” such as a tomato, were really not a vegetable. So the saying “equal but different” is properly said of apples and oranges. They are generically alike but specifically different.

But we do not speak that way about male and female. Not even the ancient, anti-woman Aristotle, claimed that male and female are different species. Male and female cats are of the same species, under the genus animal. A woman and a man are also of the same species, human, under the genus, animal. The human being and the cat are equally animal but they are different species. It is the rationality of the human being that makes the difference, although the canonized theologian of the Catholic Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, said that women were defective rationally. On this basis he claimed men are superior to women.

When one says a man and a woman are “equal but different” usually one is trying to say a man and a woman are equally precious as human beings; they are equally human beings. This is correct. The trouble comes when one then tries to stress differences as though the differences were essential, as though the differences caused a different nature. Only essential differences are sufficient to give title to different treatment. Since the difference between man and woman are not sufficient to cause a difference in species they are not sufficient to cause a difference in rights and responsibilities. Since man and woman are of the same species, they are very much alike, they are equally human beings, and have the exact and same title to rights and responsibilities. And since man and woman are of the same species, “equal but different” cannot properly be said of them. ⁶

There are also those who call themselves feminists who hold that men and women compliment each other psychologically. These pseudo feminists hold that some characteristics are innate or natural to the male and some characteristics are innate of natural to the female. So a man can naturally have only some of the human characteristics and the same for the female. In order to be whole the male and the female must be joined together. In other words wholeness is found in human nature; wholeness is extrinsic to the individual. Wholeness is gained by attaching oneself to a member of the “opposite” sex.

[1]

The complimentary theory is popular but makes very little logical sense. First of all, human nature is an abstract theory that has no actual independent existence. What exists is the individual man or woman who is a concrete representative of that abstract human nature. Secondly, wholeness must be an intrinsic development of the individual, not an external attachment.

Incidentally, in order to complete the analysis it should be noted that a more liberal patriarchal theory on the nature of man and woman would have something in common with the “complimentary” theory of the pseudo feminists. The liberal patriarch would hold that the so called “masculine” and “feminine” qualities compliment each other but that women are inferior to men because their sex stereotyped characteristics are innate and inferior to the characteristics of the male.

The true feminist view is that human characteristics are not sex oriented or stereotyped by sex. Rather, any human being can develop the qualities that we call human. The development is intrinsic and wholeness is a healthy balance of the various human characteristics. Of course there are differences between human persons. These are individual differences. These individual differences can be similar between men and women. They are not based on gender. They can be learned or innate.

A true feminist theory would acknowledge that socialization which has been sex stereotyped has brought about some de facto differentiation in some characteristics between some men and some women. These differences are not innate. They are learned, the result of a cultural socializing process. For example, it is probably true to say that more men are domineering than are some women and that more women are submission than are some men. As a result true feminism would work for a society that would foster the optimum development of the individual, regardless of sex.

There is another closely related item that should be brought out explicitly. True feminists want women to participate fully in every aspect of society because it is the birth right of women to do so and not just because women have something special to give to society. Because of sex role stereotyping and the socialization used to maintain it, women and men do often have a different experience of life and women do often tend to develop certain characteristics according to sex classification. For this reason at the present time when the society is so male orientated women do often have something to add to society. But nevertheless, women’s liberation is first of all and fundamentally, a question of justice. This is very important because justice if the only reason which will stand up to every challenge to the liberation of women.

The currently widespread theory about human characteristics is that some human characteristics are masculine and some are feminine. And so human wholeness is divided. Because the patriarch holds the male is superior to the female, the human characteristic assigned to the female that are called feminine are said to be inferior to those qualities assigned to the male and called masculine. For example: aggression is necessary for dominance. The male develops this characteristic, calls it masculine, and assigns it opposite, timidity, to femininity. Women are then said to be naturally fearful and lacking in courage.

The patriarchal society then promotes and extols these so-called masculine attributes. Qualities considered masculine are valued; qualities considered feminine are devalued or even held in contempt. For example, early in life we socialize our children into sex-stereotyped roles by value-laden remarks. Meant to be praise to the girl child we often say, “That’s pretty good for a girl: or “You so that like a boy”. Or to the boy child, and meant to be ridicule: “You do that like a girl”. If a boy cries we often say: “Boys don’t cry” and thereby socialize the little boy into a hardness, toughness and insensitivity. We teach the little boy how to be “masculine” and we place a high value on the qualities we consider masculine. (Remember, women as well as men, teach their sons such artificial and unnatural masculinity.) At the same time we allow the girl child some of her natural sensitive qualities. When a girl is young we more or less allow her to be active “like a boy”. We say she is a ”tom boy”. But when she reaches puberty we expect her to become “feminine”. We have very little toleration for her if she does not conform to the social notions of femininity.

In the patriarchal society masculinity becomes the norm. Even the woman who wants to succeed in her own right must become masculinized and the women of the society value the masculine qualities and devalue the feminine qualities just as much as do the men. Thus the society becomes over masculinized, and a false masculinity takes over. Because the so-called female qualities are held in such low esteem, these qualities are almost systematically wiped out of society and its members.

Thus society becomes unbalanced. Aggression, competition and toughness mark the society. Pity, mercy, [i]sensitivity cooperation and consideration or concern for others have no place in the over masculinized society. War, waste and pollution are the natural consequences. Destruction of the universe is the ultimate result.

The Omnipotent Patriarch. One cannot think or write about patriarchy without considering patriarchal religion and the effect such religion has on the oppression of women. Religion cannot be ignored. It seems to be very deep in the human psyche and its effect is widespread in both the individual and in society. Feminists must come to face squarely the fact the men have created an “omnipotent patriarch” by making God into the male image and by divinizing maleness. Men have also put words into the mouth of God about the supposed inferiority of women. All this has caused serious harm to women for which some men in positions of power must take responsibility. For the future some of the erroneous teachings and practices of religion can be corrected and changed by acknowledging their cultural origins and by realizing that an anti-woman tradition is not consonant with authentic religious values. However to change the tradition of religion is to challenge the authoritarianism of religion. This is very difficult and will take a long time. Since justice is at stake the delay may be too long to bear at this late date.

The real problem, however, is the maleness and divinity of Jesus, the God-incarnate, of a religion like Christianity. The legitimate (male) authority of Christianity (and Christianity is an authoritarian religion) has declared many times ⁷ that woman cannot participate fully (receive and give all the sacraments) because of the maleness of the God-Christ. In this the male authority of Christianity is correct: if the essence of the incarnate deity is maleness then women cannot represent him adequately and conversely, neither can a male deity represent women adequately. On the other hand if one speculates about the possibility of a female incarnate deity, then we have the problem in reverse. So it seems by refusing any longer to accept a second-class status in Christianity women have sharpened the critique of Christianity. By challenging the maleness of Christ feminists also challenge the uniqueness and hence the divinity of Christ.

Our Last Hope. Feminism is our hope against the unbridled masculinization of patriarchy. Knowledge is the power we need to exorcise the demon of patriarchy.

Feminism can bring about a more balanced society. It can correct the over masculinization of society and end the oppression of women. But it will not do this by making women into men, or for that matter, by making men into women. The male of patriarchy is defective, not the model.

Feminism seeks a new being, a balanced personality: for the first time, a truly human being.

The justice truth and goodness of feminism will make it attractive. When we understand this we sill denounce pseudo feminism and embrace true feminism. When we see that only true feminism can liberate women and men from the restrictions of sex role stereotyping and foster the optimum human development of each individual regardless of sex, and when we become aware that feminism aims to make us free to be ourselves, we will become feminists.

When it becomes clear that feminism can humanize society we will value feminism. Finally, when we realize that feminism may be our last hope to save our species and the world from its own self-destruction we will become sisters. Then sisterhood will be powerful enough to exorcise the demon of patriarchy.

1[i]Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary

2 Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary

3 The Equal Rights Amendment was introduced in nearly every Congress since 1923. The Hayden Rider provided that the Amendment “shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon members of the female sex”. The Ervin Amendment was a substitute amendment: “Neither the United States nor any State shall make any legal distinction between the rights and responsibilities of male and female persons unless such distinction is based on physiological or functional differences between them”.

The E..R.A. finally passed the U.S. Congress in 1972. And of this time (March, 1974) it has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 States needed to become law. Equal Rights for Men and Women Report, No. 92-689, Senate, 92^nd Congress, 2^nd Session.

4 Copies of the Hearings on Equal Rights for Men and Women are available from the Congress or government printing office. In the 1938 hearings read especially the statement of Rev. John Ryan of the National Catholic Welfare Conference.

5 The Vatican Council Documents have a number of statements like this, especially the Constitution of the Church in the Modern World. For the exact statement see my “The Human Dignity of Women in the Church” available from Know, Inc Pittsburgh, PA .Dr. Mary Daly does an excellent job of analyzing papal and church statements on women in The Church and the Second Sex.

Many Papal statements can be found in The Woman in the Modern World (St. Paul edition, 1959).

6 Although one insists that the nature of man and woman is identical in the logical and metaphysical sense, it does not necessarily follow that “nature” is static. Of course there may be hormonal difference that result in accidental differences as opposed to essential differences. These accidental differences vary from individual to individual.

7 Whether these statements are “de fide” or just “official” in some way is in many ways besides the [point. The fact is that women have been excluded from full participation in the church throughout a long tradition and that the males in power in the church will not ordain women.

This is part of an unpublished paper given by Elizabeth Farians, at a “Symposium on Women” at Emory University (Atlanta), March 11, 1974.

Patriarchy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the father is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children and property.

Historically, the principle of patriarchy has been basic to the social, legal, political and economic organization in Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Indian and Chinese cultures, and has had a deep influence on most aspects of modern civilization.^[1]

In feminist theory the concept patriarchy often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduces and exerts male dominance over women.

[hide]

[edit] Etymology and related terms

[edit] History

In the 3rd Century BCE, Aristotle taught that the city-state developed out of the patriarchal family, although he thought the two were different in kind as well as in scale.^[7] He wrote that the highest form of human community is the political community. In the Politics, Aristotle attempts to illustrate the nature of the hierarchies that exist in the political community and its subordinate communities. He argues for an origin of male rule. In Chapter Thirteen he states that men and women have different kinds of virtue, “just as those who are natural subjects differ (from those who rule by nature.)” Other types of community, such as the household, are subordinate and inferior to the polis. Aristotle proposed that the household is subordinate to the political community because the aim of life in the household is the mere preservation of life, or the satisfaction of life's daily needs, whereas the aim of membership in the political community is to live well. He also proposed that the household is inferior to the political community in the character of its rule. In the household, the man rules by virtue of his age and sex, monarchically at best and tyrannically at worst, while in the polis, citizens choose their rulers on the basis of merit.^[8]

Other ancient societies contemporary with Aristotle, as well as many Athenians, did not share these views of women, family organization, or political and economic structure.^[9] Egypt left no philosophical record, but Herodotus left a record of his shock at the contrast between the roles of Egyptian women and the women of Athens. He observed that they attended market and were employed in trade. In ancient Egypt a middle-class woman might sit on a local tribunal, engage in real estate transactions, and inherit or bequeath property. Women also secured loans, and witnessed legal documents. Greek influence spread, however, with the conquests of Alexander the Great, who was educated by Aristotle.^[10] Eventually, when Alexander wanted to unite his two empires in equality, Aristotle was adamant that all non-Greeks should be enslaved.^[11]

From the time of Martin Luther, Protestantism regularly used the commandment in Exodus 20:12 to justify the duties owed to all superiors. ‘Honor thy father,’ became a euphemism for the duty to obey the king. But it was primarily as a secular doctrine that Aristotle’s appeal took on political meaning. Although many 16th and 17th Century theorists agreed with Aristotle’s views concerning the place of women in society, none of them tried to prove political obligation on the basis of the patriarchal family until sometime after 1680. The patriarchal political theory is associated primarily with Sir Robert Filmer. Sometime before 1653, Filmer completed a work entitled Patriarcha. However, it was not published until after his death. In it, he defended the divine right of kings as having title inherited from Adam, the first man of the human race, according to Judeo-Christian tradition.^[12]

In the 19th Century, Sarah Grimke dared to question the divine origin of the scriptures. Later, Elizabeth Cady Stanton used Grimke’s criticism of biblical sources to establish a basis for feminist thought. She published The Woman's Bible, which proposed a feminist reading of the Old and New Testament. This tendency was enlarged by Feminist theory, which denounced the patriarchal Judeo-Christian tradition.^[13]

By 1673, François Poullain de la Barre, "On the Equality of the Two Sexes", had turned feminism into a systematic Enlightenment philosophy (as opposed to the previous Renaissance feminism).^[14] However, in 1861, Johann Jakob Bachofen, a German romantic and writer of the counter-Enlightenment said that matriarchy preceded patriarchy, and is superior to patriarchy on moral grounds. Bachofen influenced Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Marxist analysis has been a basis for subsequent feminist thought.^[15] From the beginning, socialist feminists in France, for example, were challenged by the republic, which "oppressed them as workers and women; by Marxism, which ignores gender; and by the misogyny of their socialist brothers. This struggle continues within all parties of the left."^[14]

Some 19th-century scholars formulated a unilinear theory of cultural evolution.

Women and Patriarchal Religion

http://hubpages.com/hub/Women-and-Patriarchal-Religion

In discussing women’s issues and history, it is important to analyze and discuss the influence and impact of patriarchal religion. In many nations, patriarchal religion is the primary type of religion, with males leading – and often benefiting from – practices. Cultural and social beliefs pervade faiths and work to oppress female followers, and certain religious practices keep many women from fulfilling their potential or from living with privileges that other women may have. Nonetheless, women do have the capacity to meet their needs while following patriarchal religions, and in fact can use religious authority systems to create space, gain control, and combat patriarchy.

The way that patriarchal religions are structured and organized explains the resentment and enmity towards women. Patriarchal religions revolve around a male god, and “superior beings” are created through the union of “a divine male and a mortal female”. Women are associated with nature and mortality, and while older religions valued nature, patriarchal religions value things removed from life on earth, thus creating a hierarchy of gender. This almost automatically places women in a position of disrespect and helplessness.

Laura Geller experienced this hierarchy and the indignity for women while working to become a rabbi. She discussed her experience in getting her first period, and hearing her mother tell of how she was slapped when she first got hers. Many believed that menstrual blood was evil and unclean, but Geller was brave enough to believe that it wasn’t dirty, and that “a blessing would have gently taught me what it means to be a woman”. Though religion give men more “he recreated her religion for herself in a sense, and her quest to become a rabbi became a chance to create new images of humanity “in God’s image”.

Chung Hyun Kyung saw a connection between Asian women’s spirituality and a struggle against dependency on men and patriarchal religion for self-definition. She argued that women should resist such things as Christian theology, for example, as women believe in different things than men and the religions do not serve them; she implored, “Dear sisters and brothers, with the energy of the Holy Spirit let us tear apart all walls of division and the ‘culture of death’ that separate us”. She hails the wisdom and compassion of nature and its creatures while simultaneously using the name of the Holy Spirit in her bid… not to mention recalling her image of the Holy Spirit as a woman!

Domestic abuse – which some males would see as appropriate given the amount of power warranted them as males by their religion – was an issue that Abigail Abbot Bailey saw fit to overcome through her Calvinist beliefs, interestingly enough. She as well as her children suffered physical abuse under her husband for years because they “wished to be obedient… for our family had ever been in the habit of obedience”. However, when she learned of the incestuous activities between her husband and her daughter, she realized that he had broken their religious covenant of marriage, and “God has set me an important lesson upon the emptiness of the creature”. Though Bailey still sees herself below a male figure as “a feeble worm,” she still uses her faith in God to draw strength to leave her husband and even have him arrested.

The unusual story of Margery Kempe told of a woman who defied the Christian idea that women should be assenting to their husbands, thereby resisting men, the authority of the church, and social norms. While society deemed that someone of her class should offer herself to her husband, she refused to lay with him, “And he replied, ‘You are no good wife’”. In the face of his insistence, she managed to “break the custom of fasting” through a sort of negotiation with Christ and her husband, bursting through the male-female hierarchy. Therefore, Kempe was able to use theological beliefs to defy gender, sexuality, religion, and class to create her own happiness.

Additionally, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz used the seclusion of the convent to pursue something almost unthinkable for women at the time: education. As she had no desire to marry, she realized that “taking the veil” would “be the least unfitting and the most decent state I could choose.” Though she saw herself still bound by the norms of society, she envisioned a way out through religion. In the convent, she was able to avoid the “obligations that would disturb my freedom to study or the noise of a community that would interrupt the tranquil silence of my books”. Women in her culture and religion were supposed to take on the “less exalted tasks” such as housework (module), while “intellect” was “too much, some would say, in a woman; and there are even those who say that it is harmful”.

The narrative of Vibia Perpetua is one of the more powerful in the text. It was her staunch belief in Christianity that led to her gruesome death, but at the same time, her belief vindicated her from a life of emptiness and superficiality. Though she was affected by her family, and “was worn out, seeing them so worn because of me,” it did not lead her away from her beliefs. Not only does she challenge social norms that declare that she should be an obedient daughter and a doting mother, but her resistance against the patriarchy of the Roman Empire shows the strength of her resolve and the power in her actions.

In each of the referenced excerpts, there were still elements of oppression of the women within the patriarchal religions. However, these women have shown that, though they have the lower hand in the deal, they can work against their oppressors within a religious context and achieve amazing things regardless.

OUTRAGE!! Betty Jean Kling: Louisa and Denise’s attacker hires Top 100 “Super Lawyer”

What should have been a simple case—as always turns into the RIGHTS OF THE PERP!!! Our hearts and our ‘pens’ are with you Betty Jean –OUTRAGED!

Louisa and Denise’s attacker hires Top 100 “Super Lawyer” by freemenow

BettyJean Kling

George gets a Top 100 “Super Lawyer” to come to us for a pleas deal ? Not bad for a creep who never worked a day in his life- leached off his dying wife for 3 years and our family for 23 years and having stole every piece of jewelry and family heirloom he could get his paws on! But now somehow he can afford this top attorney? Or is this a freebee from the tax payer? I think we have a right to know.

I applaud defense attorneys who work their hearts out to save innocent people from the clutches of prosecutors looking to hang a charge on the first poor soul they can find but a pox on the houses of those who get creeps off who don’t deserve it and then are awarded for doing so!

George Hartwig pictured in Dec 2008 with court appointed attorney at his arraignment. Well let’s see who Bergen County tax payers have been paying as our prosecutors. Surely we deserve prosecutors up to the job for the price we pay them, if George is getting a super attorney for free. If not for free – who is paying this guy to get him back on the streets?

Typos below are the product of the Super Lawyers processors.

Neary Named Top 100 “Super Lawyer” for Fifth Straight Year
April 2009 … Brian J. Neary has once again been named as a New Jersey Super Lawyer by the media group Law and Public Policy. For the fifth straight year, Brian J. Neary has been included in the “Top 100″ lawyers for all categories in New Jersey. Each year, these results are reported in the April issue of New Jersey Monthly.

The Top 100 includes only seven lawyers who are primarily criminal defense lawyers. The list numbers only nine lawyers in total from Bergen County. Hudson County has even less – only Brian and his good friend, Ralph Lamparello. He is the only “Top 100″ lawyer in Bergen and Hudson who is solely in criminal defense. Brian is designated as a “Super Lawyer” in the area of criminal defense.

This newest honor as “Top 100 Super Lawyer” is in addition to his 2009 selection in Best Lawyers in America in white collar criminal defense, non-white collar criminal defense and DWI defense. Brian has been included in Best Lawyers since 1991.

Neary Named to American College of Trial Lawyers
Brian J. Neary has become a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, one of the premier legal associations in America. Mr. Neary became a Fellow at an induction ceremony before an audience of approximately 700 persons during the recent 2008 Spring Meeting of the College in Tucson AZ.

Founded in 1950, the College is composed of the best of the trial bar from the United States and Canada. Fellowship in the College is extended by invitation only and only after careful investigation, to those experienced trial lawyers who have mastered the art of advocacy and whose professional careers have been marked by the highest standards of ethical conduct, professionalism, civility and collegiality. Lawyers must have a minimum of fifteen years trial experience before they can be considered for the Fellowship.

Of the 5,675 members, Mr. Neary is one of only 103 lawyers who hail from New Jersey.

Neary Teaching at Rutgers Law School
For spring semester 2009, Brian J. Neary of the Law Offices of Brian J. Neary of Hackensack and Hoboken, NJ, is teaching a course entitled “Criminal Trial Advocacy” at Rutgers Law School in Newark. An adjunct professor for more than 25 years, Neary has been teaching this class to second- and third-year law students since 1987.

Every spring for the last 15 years, Mr. Neary teaches a drunk driving course for new municipal court judges. The course is conducted by the Administrative Office of the Courts.

Mr. Neary has been a member of the the adjunct faculty at St. Peter’s College in Jersey City where he taught a course in criminal justice.

Brian J. Neary Sworn In as Vice President of the Hudson County Bar Association
Brian J. Neary has been elected vice president of the Hudson County Bar Association. Mr. Neary, along with officers and other trustees, was sworn in by the Honorable Maurice Gallipoli, Hudson County assignment judge at the Association’s annual dinner held at the Liberty House, Jersey City on January 15, 2009.

The Hudson County Bar Association, one of the State’s oldest bar associations, includes many members who are regarded as leaders statewide in their respective specialties. Brian’s experience and reputation as a criminal defense lawyer continues that leadership tradition.

Mr. Neary has a career long commitment to bar associations. He is the former president of the statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey, as well as a trustee and officer of ACDL-NJ (his swearing in ceremony and dinner in 1997 also took place in Jersey City, at the historic Jersey Central Railroad station – less than 200 yards from the Liberty House).

Mr. Neary is a life member of several bar associations dedicated to criminal defense, including ACDL-NJ, the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. He is also a twenty Year member of the Bergen County Bar Association.

Brian J. Neary Earns Double Certification
Brian J. Neary has been certified as a Criminal Trial Attorney by both the New Jersey Supreme Court and the National Board of Trial Advocacy.

S. Emile Lisboa, IV, Earns Cetification
The Law Offices of Brian J. Neary proudly annouce that S. Emile Lisboa, IV, has now been certified by the State of New Jersey as a Certified Crminal Trial Atorney

13.9.10

Melinda Stratton: Another Mother 'Hunted' Down

Daddy ‘Ken Thompson’ is an alleged ABUSER who ‘hunts’ his victims down.

American Mothers Political Party

Join with Australian Mothers Political Party

in support of Melinda Stratton and HER son Andrew

Their is much going on around the www aboutMelinda STRATTONand HER son Andrew (notMelinda Thomas -her Male oppressors’ Name and slave master) as AngieMedia a Fathers Rights site (with a woman’s name)–again wrongly reports.

“End the patriarchy! No mother is a criminal for raising her own child. Alienation is a bogus label to falsely stigmatize women and children who want to be free of a MALE guardian very similar to the false mental disorder of Drapetomania given to slaves who wanted to be free from their masters. Anyone who tries to take a child from their mother is a MONSTER. Nature made mothers the natural guardian, patriarchy enslaves the women and treats the children as property.”

Here is a great article from the Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate

The Truth About Runaway Mothers

The news articles are flying in supporting a potential sexual abuser and claiming that Melinda Stratton is mentally ill. Mental illness is the only pathetic explanation as to why a business women would run away from everything that is familiar to her and Andrew. If there was a criminal background, it would be featured, but no Melinda Stratton has nothing but the opinion of a court ordered psych.

Ken Thompson has certainly been around pushing his views to all that challenge until most people just give in and say, “Oh…Um…yes, shes crazy and your not an abuser”.

Note the word most. The exclusion is the community of REAL mothers and children who have been through this and know what Melinda has gone through. Lets face it, experts get paid for their opinion at the end of the day and I am sure some are willing to alter some to get a nice big payout at the end of the day. I place my bets on experience.

In Australia, we now have grown up children who have been forced by court order to stay with an abusive parent. No law is going to stop them from speaking out in the end as Australian jurisdiction only reaches so far.

How to break the silence… MORE HERE

Melinda Stratton and other Mothers on the Run

I fully support the following from Anonymums:

Press Release

RE: Melinda Stratton and other Mothers on the Run

As a spokesperson for Anonymums, we understand that the Family Court does not investigate child protection matters and during the proceedings if there is no history of child protection involvement, there are no investigations that are likely to ensure the protection of children involved in proceedings. The matters of Arthur Freeman, Robert Farquharson and Jayson Dalton are just a handful of reported cases that reveals the amounting negligence that the Family Court has in regards to children’s rights.

The laws particularly the Shared parenting bill based on United States joint custody laws, prioritize parent’s rights above children’s rights. Children don’t have a say and are often punished by the court if they speak out against child abuse often portrayed as “alienated children”. We are aware that these measures are in violation of human rights and until the court adequately provides protection for child abuse victims and domestic violence victims, we fully support the plights of protective mothers who are often alone in gathering the evidence and ignored by the court.

We believe Melinda Stratton based on her extraordinary lengths, the statements that support Melinda’s mothering concerns towards her child that despite the law that is against a higher law(human rights), she is doing the best she can for the child.

We believe that the system is incorrect and abusive towards both the mother and the child by barring her from vital services to provide for the child(Article 14) and hunting her down like an animal. It is the system itself that is at fault for failing to protect children and women in the first place regardless of the institution or reason.

There are more protections for murderers and pedophiles than there are for these children. We recommend that instead of Melinda coming forward to be jailed and barred from seeing her child that the system endeavors to investigate further into these allegations instead of laying the sole burden upon the mother. We recommend that the order that seeks her out be withdrawn until the system can adequately provide proper protections for Children. Until this takes place, we support the mother in obtaining alternative safety measures.

also see:

Here Come Da Psychologists & Mediators. To help return Mr. Thompson’s “wife” (property) to her right mind, Bring her to her knees under threat– Melinda Stratton’s Plight for safety

Melinda Stratton: Another Holly Ann Collins?

Randi James: Melinda Stratton and other Mothers on the Run

Melinda Stratton « Anonymums’s Blog

Melinda Stratton-- RUN MOMMY RUN!!! HELP ME MOMMY HELP ME!!! DADDY HURTS ME!!!

RUN MOMMY RUN!!!! Daddy ‘Ken Thompson’ is a PEDOPHILE who ‘hunts’ his victims down. HELP ME MOMMY HELP ME!!!

American Mothers Political Party

Join with Australian Mothers Political Party

in support of Melinda Stratton and HER son Andrew

Their is much going on around the www about Melinda STRATTON and HER son Andrew (not Melinda Thomas -her Male oppressors' Name and slave master) as AngieMedia a Fathers Rights site (with a woman's name)--again wrongly reports.

Our reply which they refused to post:

Here is a great article from the Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate

The Truth About Runaway Mothers

[vodpod id=Video.3976759&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

Ken Thompson has certainly been around pushing his views to all that challenge until most people just give in and say, "Oh...Um...yes, shes crazy and your not an abuser".

How to break the silence... MORE HERE

Melinda Stratton and other Mothers on the Run

I fully support the following from Anonymums:

Press Release

RE: Melinda Stratton and other Mothers on the Run

also see:

Here Come Da Psychologists & Mediators. To help return Mr. Thompson’s “wife” (property) to her right mind, Bring her to her knees under threat– Melinda Stratton’s Plight for safety

Melinda Stratton: Another Holly Ann Collins?

Randi James: Melinda Stratton and other Mothers on the Run

Melinda Stratton « Anonymums's Blog

Couple in Sandy Springs murder-suicide was divorcing

http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/cops-couple-in-sandy-611739.html

By Alexis Stevens and Angel K. Brooks

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A Fayetteville husband and wife are dead following a murder-suicide Saturday night in a Sandy Springs parking lot, police said.

Detectives were told that the couple was in the process of a divorce, Lt. Keith Zgonc with the Sandy Springs police told the AJC on Sunday.

Lillian Shaw, 44, died of multiple gunshot wounds inflicted by her husband, Edward Shaw, 45, who then shot himself in the head, Lt. Steve Rose said.

Edward Shaw died at North Fulton Hospital shortly after midnight, Rose said.

The Shaws were attending a family function at the Legacy Key Apartments in the 1900 block of Summit Springs Drive when an argument ensued, authorities said. After the disagreement extended to the parking lot, Edward Shaw shot his wife and then himself, Rose said.

Officers responded to a 10:30 p.m. call, Rose told the AJC.

Return to ajc.com for updates.

12.9.10

What About Melinda Stratton's side of the Story?

Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate

The news articles are flying in supporting a potential sexual abuser and claiming that Melinda Stratton is mentally ill. Mental illness is the onlypathetic explanation as to why a business women would run away from everything that is familiar to her and Andrew. If there was a criminal background, it would be featured, but no Melinda Stratton has nothing but the opinion of a court ordered psych.

Ken Thompson has certainly been around pushing his views to all that challenge until most people just give in and say, "Oh...Um...yes, shes crazy and your not an abuser".

How to break the silence...

We now have wikileaks, where you can submit your evidence anonymously and there is nothing that the family court can do. They would have to prove you submitted it, to warrant any court cases. Julian Assange might have been through his own battles as a father, but it doesn't make him a misogynist. he was on the run himself as a child from a psychopathic dad which neutralizes his view to warranting the need for protecting children.

Lets face it, the press is restricted to speaking for the court, not the children and sooner or later - its all going to come out. If you are considering submitting your evidence of abuse or murder in relation to the Family Court, read the instructions on how to submit anonymously and watch this video: MORE HERE

Here Come Da Psychologists & Mediators. To help return Mr. Thompson’s “wife” (property) to her right mind, Bring her to her knees under threat-- Melinda Stratton’s Plight for safety

From Family Court Matters

How many psychologists can you count in this case? Or was it Psychiatrists?

And when are the rest of you on the sidelines going to get angry about this “insane” practice?

Where is the “leading Australian psychiatrist’s report” [apparently court-ordered diagnosis??] that gave this poor, distraught Dad rights and public sympathy, and a high profile that no MOTHER got who’s had her kids legally kidnapped through the courts, or illegally by the father(s). I instead of the nation(s) hunting THEM down with psychiatry, Internet, and Interpol, they simply let it slide.

When did the press become lackeys of this system and why aren’t they REPEATEDLY (like me) pointing out that something’s wrong when a woman has been judged publically, but indicted privately.

(see my last post).

Where’s his first wife? Did they have kids? If you are there, please say something!

In this report, as well as in the photo of the foursome I posted yesterday, Mr. Thompson refers to her as his “wife.” Yet indicators are — first of all, dude, she doesn’t want to live with you! Second, we read “wife” and “former wife.” The word only means “ownership.” In the current global culture, this word has become meaningless, and was most certainly exploited.

Kidnap mother may escape jail in new deal

Paola Totaro, Amsterdam

September 12, 2010

The mother of abducted boy Andrew Thompson – under arrest in Amsterdam and facing a prison term in Australia – could be offered a “get out of jail free” card, under a new system to resolve international custody battles.

A new form of cross-border mediation, tested in the Netherlands, will provide Melinda Stratton witha last-ditch chance to avoid criminal charges – and help parent her little boy – if she can co-operate and come to a binding, workable agreement is accepted by his father, Ken Thompson.

[sentence grammar off, but its intent is clear -- to bring her to her knees under threat. This same practice is used in the United States towards (a) domestic violence offenders and (b) child support deadbeat Dads, to downgrade the meaning of criminal activity, typically towards women. Mediation works when there is actually a balance of power, genuine acceptable options, and TWO willing participants willing to work it out. This is nothing of the sort. It's "threat therapy."]

This system, thrashed out over two days under intense specialist mediation with a team of counsellors and lawyers, must be agreed to by both parents – and becomes a legally binding order in both the Netherlands and Australia.

Mr Thompson, met a team of psychologists in Amsterdam yesterday and drove to The Hague to meet the legal expert on the Hague conventions who is to manage the complex legal processes needed to return the six-year-old to his father.

It is now likely that he will need to remain in the Netherlands for at least three months as custodial orders from Australia are translated into Dutch and given effect in the local courts. These will allow the legal handover of Andrew while extradition proceedings against his mother unfold. Ms Stratton faces criminal charges and up to 13 years in prison in Australia if she refuses to participate in cross-border mediation system.

This could even result in the boy remaining in the Netherlands with his father as the legal processes unfold there while his mother is extradited to Australia to face charges.

Mr Thompson said yesterday he understood an agreement could be enforced very quickly – perhaps within a fortnight – if there was co-operation between the two parents to come to a resolution in the interests of the child.

Ms. Stratton/Thompson could not have said MORE plainly, and by her actions demonstrated, that there are serious allegations against Mr. Thompson. The public and press are NOT told what these are, but a person of reasonable intelligence might deduce that this woman does not appear to be hard up for another partner, should she wish one, or for supporting herself independently. Perhaps her psychological “problem” is called Mother Able to Decide — meaning per se “M.A.D.” IF allegations are true, best interest of child is no contact or only supervised contact with the father. IF they are false, best interest of child might then be co-parenting.

He has yet to see his child but insists that he bears no malice towards his wife and, while deeply anguished by the events of the past 2ÌÌ [???] years, simply wants to “be a dad to Andrew, to be in his life to love him and to give him back the human rights that were taken away from him“.

Wait a minute. His wife? [My ex went through this also, repeatedly calling me his wife, while living with someone else and arguing with authorities for his right to disobey standing court orders.]

Please. Everyone consider the current U.S. President (among others) who was raised by his mother. Also, Fatherhood Expert Ronald Mincy, Ph.D., apparently ditto. Did you notice the “Ph.D.”??? Perhaps mothers can do all right, if the word were still acceptable to use in public apart from the words “paranoid” and “facing criminal charges.”

Mr Thompson, visibly relieved after his day with lawyers and psychologists, said he believed Andrew’s was the first case worldwide in which the internet had been used successfully to track down an abducted child.

It’s time for our society to start considering their collective responsibility for allowing the courts to become psychology-normative, and administering threat-therapy instead of justice. If this continues, someday it might be YOUR turn for reasoned civil disobedience (which this case sounds like, to me, and the “wife” states it was). And then who will speak up for you?

Europeans are sometimes just too obedient, as if this solves problems. You know what other population was characterized that way? Rwandans.

“We did it on a shoestring and so many fantastic people have helped me. I lived on less than 50 euro a day for the past four months – and I found my son.

He lived on 50 euros a day for 4 months, and got a lot of public support, empathy, publicity, and eventually, they did the work for him, turning in this mother. A conference of mayors of major U.S. cities has concluded that domestic violence is a major source of homelessness. I know women whose wages are being garnished below survival level, whose disability benefits — the disability being related to serious injury by the father — are being garnished (below living level) and from this position, they advocate for contact with their children, and no charges any more serious than disobeying (without kidnapping) a court order probably as arbitrary as the mysterious one surrounding this case. Welcome to OUR world, Mr. Thompson — poverty in pursuit of justice, and our children. The difference being, when was the last time an abducting father was called “paranoid” and hunted down like an animal? Or jailed, when caught

“OK, my legal fees are horrendous … overdraft on overdraft on overdraft, and I don’t even want to think about my mobile telephone bill. But I could not give up. Ever. A young guy with the fire services built the FindAndrew website for me – and he had never done this before. I had the most amazing people helping me if I was in trouble with electronic banking or a lost card. I had emails, thousands of them, in support. I’ve got people around the world who saw my plight and felt something. I can’t thank them all enough.

He should thank the U.S. IRS, whose progressive income tax policy made it possible to accumulate astounding amounts of $$ for use by the likes of Wade Horn, “National Fatherhood Initiative,” Fathering Courts, Fatherhood.gov, and a complex web of federal grants promoting marriage — at any cost — throughout the land. This makes possible — when combined with astounding wealth from tax-exempt foundations — to restructure society. He should thank Presidents (in approximate order) Bush, Clinton and Obama for making sure this never stops, and also the Conciliation Law / AFCC folks in Southern California who learned early on how to defraud even the IRS with a judges’ slush fund and developed organization-morphing techniques to avoid accountability and cover up collaboration and conflicts of interests, from which we eventually got a worldwide ogranization to promote the viewpoints of pedophile and incest-friendly gentlemen as Richard Gardner and Warren Farrell (quite the psychologist these days).

He should thank his lucky stars, or if he subscribes to one of the three Abrahamic religions, he should thank whoever put the book of Esther into the canon, where a Gentile Queen told the king “No!” when asked to come forth and strut her stuff halfway through what was likely a drunken banquet. Some accounts say, she’d have had to disrobe. She indeed DID say “No!” (as the story goes) and so was replaced. The search went throughout the land for more submissive, nubile young women, who knew their place in life, lest ALL men might need to experience the horror of a wife saying “no!” and changing society.

What grateful Mr. Thompson with his team of psychologists and psychiatrists doesn’t seem to empathize with, or appreciate, is the position he put his “wife” (or former wife) and THEIR son in when he called in a court psychiatrist to counter the serious allegations that we aren’t allowed to know about. If he wanted a more docile wife, he shouldn’t have picked a tri-lingual MBA.

I hope, I really hope that my wife will co-operate and that we can find a way for Andrew. I will stay here for as long as it takes and until Andrew is ready to move on. I have an EU passport and no visa issues … It will take time to reintroduce the relationship. It has to be carefully managed.”

It is understood that the little boy now both speaks Dutch and has lived under a different surname.

Psychologists have made clear that the reintroduction must be slow and carefully supervised as it is not known what the little boy has been told during the years of avoiding authorities.

Mr Thompson, a former NSW deputy fire chief, cycled 6500 kilometres across Europe to raise awareness of international child abductions and to distribute bumper stickers with Andrew’s face and promote his website to try and find his boy.

An alert Dutch woman checked her suspicions about the little boy and his mother on the internet and Googled “missing children” and “Australia” and discovering he had been kidnapped. It was her decision to contact Dutch police that traced him and led to the arrest of his mother.

The Bitch. Does she know anything at all about this field? Did she forget about Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Does she know what happens when women lose their children in similar situations? It’s rare we get them back. Did she forget the Holocaust, and the label “Juden”??

(If I were able to put my case details on this blog, you might understand the sentiment.)

Take Heed — the press is owned, for the most part. I found only ONE press (as opposed to blogs, which are many) stating that this mother might have had a legitimate reason for fleeing. The Internet WAS developed originally as part of a military technology; now we see some of its real purposes — nowhere to hide. Citizens (GLOBAL citizens) must be trained how to think, act, and report on each other, and call in the authorities — lawyers, psychologists, and of course police. Remember the Gulag. You’re in it.

IF laws were enforced equally, with similar amount of effort as Mr. Thompson put in, I wouldn’t be so “vociferous” (mouthy) for the other possible interpretation of this case.

EVERY United States citizen ought to examine some of the fatherhood sites, and the federal grants system, and start demanding accountability. Sleep less. You can do it! Get religion out of government; and part of government is education. Learn to barter, and minimize taxes all round. I seriously considered (as to education) a requirement that all parents, without exception, should educate their OWN offspring up to a certain level (far above what the government currently requires them to) and the public schools should be shut down, so that adults and children can develop normal relationships with each other. If the neighborhoods retained some vitality, then, perhaps — just perhaps — people might KNOW each other well enough to stick up for an abused wife, or child — and stop dreaming that someone else they pay, funded from a distant centralized government, might be doing the job without indoctrination about what is the “appropriate” psychological norm.

Which brings me to this page by Charles Pragnell, whom I quoted yesterday, on this same case:read more here:http://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/here-come-da-psychologists-mediators-to-help-return-mr-thompsons-wife-to-her-right-mind-or-she-could-do-the-jail-thing-instead/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter