State Audit Questions Qualifications of Family Court Personnel

Law & Order

State Audit Questions Qualifications of Family Court Personnel

By Peter Jamison, Thu., Jan. 20 2011 @ 5:13PM


​The California State Auditor released a report today questioning the qualifications of experts who make child-custody recommendations for the family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties.

The report, which you can read in full here, found that neither county's family court system could produce adequate documentation of the competence of the psychologists and social workers who make critical recommendations to judges in disputed custody cases.

The audit noted, among other findings, that seven of the Sacramento family court's 20 mediators "appeared not to possess the minimum qualifications and training requirements" for their jobs and and that the Marin family court "did not verify that the mediators had met the initial training requirements" when hiring them.

The audit also found that neither court was keeping track of complaints from families.

"We finally have credible government data to back up the many years of horrific complaints we've received from parents and children whose lives are being destroyed by a family court system run amok," Kathleen Russell of the Marin County-based Center for Judicial Excellence, which has pushed for reform of family courts across the country, said in response to the audit.

Policy matters regarding the state's family courts are emotionally charged, given the nature of the cases and and their life-altering outcomes. Activists have criticized the system for poor custody decisions and a lack of transparency.

Follow us on Twitter at @SFWeekly and @TheSnitchSF


California State Auditor, family court, Marin County, Sacramento

Joan Dawson: Parental alienation and domestic violence

Joan Dawson

Joan Dawson

Posted: January 20, 2011 02:36 PM

Parental alienation and domestic violence

"I hope there's more cases just like this, where people don't want to let their spouses see their kids...I hope it happens more and more, until the law finally says you know what? There needs to be something done so these parents can be with their kids."

These were the words fired by Randall Todd Moore as he denied having "not one ounce of remorse" for kidnapping, sexually assaulting and killing his ex-wife.

But was his ex-wife 'alienating' the kids, as Moore alleged, or trying to protect them from danger?

This case is clear, but as those working in domestic violence and child abuse realize, all too often clarity comes at a price.

Parental alienation (PA, or PAS for Parental Alienation Syndrome), a topic pro-PA psychologist Richard Warshak recently covered on Huffington Post, alleges a parent poisons the mind of a child to fear or hate the other parent. The defamation results in a damaged relationship or estrangement.

Those opposing parental alienation admit parents can bad-mouth the other parent either deliberately or inadvertently; however, factors such as poor parenting skills or personality on the part of the mother or father and stages of normal development or reactions to divorce on the part of the child can also cause alienating behaviors.

Dr. Paul Fink, President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, and a former President of the American Psychiatric Association states, "Science tells us that the most likely reason that a child becomes estranged from a parent is that parent's own behavior. Labels, such as PAS, serve to deflect attention away from those behaviors."

More dangerously, parental alienation can mask domestic violence, child abuse and child sexual abuse. What is the difference between fearful or uncooperative battered women and alienating," vindictive" mothers? If parents try to withhold access to children, are they alienators or protectors? If they try to provide evidence of abuse - interviews with psychologists, medical examinations or discussions with the child - are they gathering proof or further alienating the ex? What is the difference between alienated children and abused children?

The behaviors can be indistinguishable.

Indeed, it's not just domestic violence survivors' advocates who witness the problem with PA. The American Bar Association, American Prosecutors Research Institute, National District Attorneys Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges all denounce the use of parental alienation in the courtroom. The National District Attorneys Association says on their Web site, "PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children."

That hasn't stopped courts from using PAS, resulting in accusations against individuals, mostly women, of maliciously denying access to children.

Katie Tagle, for instance, sought a restraining order on Jan. 21, 2010 against her ex-boyfriend Stephen Garcia to stop him from having unsupervised visitation with their nine-month-old child.

She told the judge Garcia threatened to kill the infant. The court transcript records Judge Robert Lemkau as saying, "One of you is lying," and later, "Mr. Garcia claims its total fabrication on your part." Garcia also referred to it as "little stunts and games" that she used to deny him access to his son.

Even when she tries to produce evidence of the threats, he says, "Well, ma'am, there's a real dispute about whether that's even true or not." And finally, "My suspicion is that you're lying" (said twice). He denied her the order (as did two other judges). Garcia took their son that day and drove off into the mountains. Ten days later, they were both found dead.
The transcript is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26434649/tagle-garcia-court-transcript-dent-protection-to-baby-now-bay-is-DEAD

This case clearly demonstrates another issue women have in courts: credibility. It's easier to believe a woman is lying than to believe a man can abuse or kill a woman or child. In reality, in family court, denying abuse is more common than fabricating tales of abuse. Most allegations are made in good faith (see the American Bar Association's 10 Custody Myths and How to Counter Them). And most denials are made by perpetrators, perpetrators skillful at manipulation - even of professionals.

Indeed, we must not forget family court is the place for couples with high conflict and abuse. The overwhelming majority (up to 90%) of couples create their own parenting plans. Those that cannot, go to family court.

Judges, though, have been known to downplay even well-documented cases of abuse and to give more weight to parental alienation than to abuse allegations. In the case of Jennifer Collins, for example, the judge told her mother to "get over" the abuse as at least two years had passed, according to Collins' Web site. The judge reversed the custody decision because her mom's fear was "interfering in his relationship with us." Jennifer's mother Holly took her two children and fled to the Netherlands, where they were granted asylum. (See also the Courageous Kids Network of children who were court-ordered into relationships with abusive parents.)

58,000 children a year go into sole or joint custody arrangements or unsupervised visitation with physically or sexually abusive parents, according to an estimate by the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence. That's over 1,000 children a week the courts place in harm's way.

Giving custody to the supposedly alienated parent is one way to "solve" the problem of parental alienation. Jailing the mother is another.

Tiffany Barney and Joyce Murphy are two women who've been jailed; their cases were covered in the media. Both alleged child sexual abuse and neither were believed. Barney fought for five years, at times losing custody or having limited supervised visitation. Murphy was called "toxic" to her daughter and deemed the cause of the child fearing her father. She fled with her daughter. When found, she was jailed for felony abduction and later granted limited visitation. It wasn't until three more girls came forward with molestation charges that her ex was finally the one jailed.

A few other cases making headlines include: Court Punishes Woman in Alienation Case; WI: Judge Jails Mother over Daughter's Refusal to Visit Father and Judge Dismisses Abuse Allegations.

To sum it up, any behavior that does not promote access to children can be classified as parental alienation and punished with jail time or limits on/loss of custody. With this threat, parents are less likely to report abuse and more likely to share custody with an abuser.

It should also be noted that when violent partners make good on their threats to take the kids away, it's referred to as domestic violence by proxy -a continuation of domestic violence - rather than PA or PAS. Some battered women who've lost custody use PA or PAS to describe their particular situation. This both minimizes the nature and scope of abuse women face and promotes the use of a dangerous weapon (PA/PAS) that can be used against them in court.

I wouldn't hand an angry man a agun, nor would I readily hand over a legal strategy to potential pedophiles, abusers or killers. Yet that is exactly what PA/PAS is doing.

For more information, visit:

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence

Stop Family Violence

Center for Judicial Excellence


Courtesy RightsForMothers

Ha!  Both of these courts are busted!  It didn’t work trying to shed documents as fast as they could and stall allowing the auditors into their files!  Thank you to all the California activists that worked hard to get this audit started and completed.

To download the report “Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts” by the California State Auditor, please click here.  Here is the synopsis of the report:

Date: January 20, 2011
Report: 2009-109

The California State Auditor released the following report today:
Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts
Both Courts Need to Ensure That Family Court Appointees Have Necessary Qualifications, Improve Administrative Policies and Procedures, and Comply With Laws and Rules

BACKGROUND Every superior court in each of California’s 58 counties has jurisdiction over family law matters typically within their family courts. Judges assigned to the family courts decide various family law matters, such as the dissolution of marriages, and where child custody or a determination of the legal relationship between natural or adoptive parents and a child is at issue, the family court may issue an order for child custody and visitation. At the Sacramento family court, where more than 92,500 family law cases were filed during the four-year period we reviewed, its staff conducted mediations and certain evaluations that the family court ordered and the court appointed private mediators, evaluators, and minor’s counsel. In contrast, the Marin family court, which opened 2,352 cases that involved child custody and visitation during the same four-year period, had staff who performed only child custody and visitation mediations and it appoints private evaluators and minor’s counsel to contested child custody and visitation cases. The Family Code requires family courts to design all child custody and visitation orders to reflect what is in the best interest of the child.

KEY FINDINGS Our audit of the Sacramento and Marin County Superior Courts’ processes for identifying, assessing, and evaluating court appointees in child custody disputes during the four-year period—from April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2010—revealed the following:

• The Sacramento County Superior Court could not demonstrate that its staff performing mediations and evaluations and the private mediators, evaluators, and minor’s counsel it appoints are qualified or trained.

•The Marin County Superior Court could not demonstrate that the mediators always met the minimum qualifications or training requirements and that its private evaluators were qualified and met certain training requirements. Further, the family court did not ensure that minor’s counsel were qualified before making appointments.

• Although both family courts have a process for reviewing and resolving complaints about their mediators or evaluators, neither court kept logs of complaints received. In addition, both family courts did not consistently follow processes for dealing with complaints about their mediators.

• Even though courts may pay for minor’s counsel when it determines that the parties cannot pay, both courts need to improve their processes. The Sacramento family court did not always make the legally required determination about the parties’ ability to pay and the Marin Superior Court did not have a policy outlining the costs it reimburses.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS We make numerous recommendations to the Sacramento and Marin County Superior and Family Courts to ensure that the individuals who provide mediation and evaluation services and who act as minor’s counsel in cases before these family courts are qualified and trained. Further, we recommend that both the Sacramento and Marin family courts track all complaints properly and review them promptly and keep a log of complaints they receive. Moreover, both family courts need to improve their policies and rules for receiving, reviewing, and resolving complaints. We also recommend that the Sacramento Superior Court improve billing procedures and for determining and reviewing parties’ ability to pay appointing minor’s counsel costs.

And what was the court’s response to this report?  Read here:

Agency Comments

The Sacramento Superior Court stated that it was largely in agreement with the report’s recommendations and has already begun the process of implementing the great majority of them. The court also stated that it is taking other recommendations under consideration, but some of them will likely prove difficult to implement due to a lack of resources.

The Marin Superior Court stated that it believed many of the findings and recommendations were focused primarily on ministerial tasks. Further, the court expressed an opinion that eight of the 13 recommendations are suggested changes to existing practices that are not governed by laws, rules of court, or any other directives. The court stated that, although it intends to implement the recommended changes and has either already implemented a new process or is engaged in developing a new rule or protocol, it questions whether some of the recommendations actually enhance internal controls and accountability.

Here’s hoping that anyone with cases in these two courts can use this report to correct horrible actions that have happened to them.

Join us Tonight 1-20-2011 @5pm CST American Mothers Political Party BTRShow Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977


Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

Upcoming Show: 1/20/2011 5:00 PM  CST 6 PM EST 

Host Name:
American Mothers Political Party



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!


Interviews from the 2011 Battered Mothers Custody Conference

Robin Yeamans is one of three California attorneys certified as a specialist in both family and appellate law.   Her website at www.divorcecal.com features videos that help people without attorneys.  In this video, she answers Anne Grant’s questions about due process, equal protection, and taking custody scams to the federal courts.




Some very good advice, from the Liz Library:

(1) Taking their children to therapists.  We have yet to see ONE case in which the mother is having continuing litigation mess that cannot be traced back to her choice or agreement at some point to her taking the child in for therapy. For whatever reason. Undoubtedly there are cases in which this is done and nothing bad happens (although we seriously doubt there ever is much benefit). However, in every single seriously fucked-up case we have seen, belief in psychology and bringing the child in for one reason or another is the first mistake, the domino that sets everything else in motion.

(2) Rocking the boat. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Women screw up by rocking the boat when it’s reasonably stable, usually by filing a petition for child support in a new paternity action, or for an increase in child support in a post-divorce action, and less often by filing a petition for modification for purposes of relocation or just because.

(3) Agreeing to joint custody or too much father custody (usually in mediation) at the time of the initial custody determination.

(4) Talking in conclusory language, rather than the language of the senses (what was actually seen and heard), e.g. “he’s abusive”, “the child was afraid”, and language of exaggeration (adjectives) and psycholingo, e.g. “very”, “disclosed”.

(5) Not looking at the big long-term picture. The immediate psychic reward of taking a negative action or saying something obnoxious isn’t worth it.

(6) Having discussions in writing with the ex. Writing should be avoided except to memorialize and confirm “what we agreed to” by telephone, and to send one- or two-sentence pleasant trivialities. “Hi Joe — Junior said he liked the movie you guys saw this weekend. Here’s a copy of the picture he drew of it…”

(7) Relying too much on the lawyer. Except in extraordinary circumstances, litigants should strive to never let the lawyer go to court for anything without being there. Litigants should insist that a court reporter be brought to all hearings and anything at which evidence otherwise is developed for a case. Litigants should never allow themselves to be pressured into making any agreement without time to sleep on it (if it’s really an agreement, it will still be agreeable tomorrow). Litigants should never give lawyers precious originals of any document. Litigants should inform their lawyers that -no- agreements whatsoever may be made which affect substantive claims in the case (as opposed to clerical and procedural issues) without their prior approval.


Well, it’s that time of the year again.  Legislators are running amuck,  introducing crazy bills they are trying to get enacted into law.  One of the most important things you can do as a voting citizen is to be aware of the bills that are being introduced into your state house.  After all, change in the courts will need to come from these lawmakers.  Knowing what they are doing is very helpful, especially when they are trying to keep social workers and psychologists employed by trying to pass bills like the one below.  Google “legislative bills for 2011 in (insert your state here).”

If a woman (or man) is trying to escape a bad situation, the worst thing they can do is force the couple into counseling.  The situation can become dangerous…it did in my situation.  It is not in the best interest of the children to have them abused after the abusive parent leaves a forced counseling session frustrated.  The bill below, LB 408, is in Nebraska.  If you are from Nebraska, and think this is a dangerous bill (hint: IT IS), watch for any committee hearings on this bill.  Speak out about it.  It may be your own life you are saving.  Those in other states…please look into what your elected officials are doing, and see if they are doing their job for all the people they represent.

Divorce counseling bill introduced

By John Schreier

Published Thursday January 13, 2011

LINCOLN — The road to divorce for couples with children might become a lot longer under a bill introduced Thursday in the Legislature.

State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln introduced Legislative Bill 408, which would give judges the option of sending married couples with minor children to marriage counseling before being granted a divorce.

It’s one of three judicial options that Fulton proposes in LB 408. The others are continuing divorce proceedings for no longer than six months, in hopes of reconciliation, or taking other actions deemed in the best interests of the parents and children.

Fulton’s desire to address divorce stems from his view that family stability is important to society.

“A strong marriage is healthy for the children who are brought up in that marriage, certainly,” he said. “A strong marriage is also healthy for those two who are in the marriage.”

However, Stephanie Payne, a Lincoln lawyer specializing in family and divorce law, says most couples ­she deals with — especially those with children — have already taken steps to save their marriages.

“I believe Nebraskans should freely enter marriage and have the good sense to know when to end it,” she said. “I don’t think people end marriage lightly, especially those with children.”

In 2009, 6,084 couples divorced in Nebraska, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, and 51.5 percent of divorcing couples had children younger than 19 years old.

Dr. Dave Robinson, a family therapist at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, said he was intrigued by the bill’s potential.

“The idea behind it sounds interesting, sounds helpful,” said Robinson, the president of Nebraska’s chapter of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. “But we need two people really willing to work for it.”

The bill also would give courts the authority to require marriage counseling in divorce actions where no minor children are involved, if one spouse believes the marriage can be saved.

While Fulton expects opponents of his bill to cite the costs of therapy, which can run as high as $120 per hour, he points to increased violence in Omaha as a societal toll of broken families.

“Certainly one of the factors has to do with a stable family environment,” Fulton said. “I hope folks in Omaha see there is some wisdom in having strong marriages and healthy marriages.”

Contact the writer:


In keeping with the spirit the BADASS Bloggers (Bloggers AgainstDeprivation, Alienation Science, and junk Syndromes) had during their presentations at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, I want to help any mom learn how to blog if she has something to say.  As Randi Jamessaid in her presentation, you can blog about what is going on…take any asshole in the news (i.e. Alec Baldwin, Mel Gibson, etc.) and compare to your case or another protective mom.  Write to your children.  You can blog anywhere, anytime.  You don’t have to say anything that would endanger your case…leave it very generic, don’t use last names or images of your children.  At the very least, it would be a record for them someday of what you have been going through, and how much you love them.  Best case is that they could read it and have a real connection with you.  I have seen children lifted by knowing their mother cares for them and loves them very much, and mostly that they know mom is still out there.

So let’s get to work and help you start a blog!  Start by getting yourself a GMail e-mail account.  Go to their website and set up an e-mail account.  By having a GMail account, this will make setting up a blog a lot easier.  We are going to start with BLOGGER, which is a Google partner.  I prefer BLOGGER because once you learn how to blog, it will be easier to do different things with it.

Next, send your e-mail address to rightsformothers@gmail.com, with “BLOG Conference” in the subject line (doesn’t have to be the new GMail address).  Send only your e-mail address please.  You will receive an invitation back giving you the telephone number to dial in on, and the pin number.  You will also receive some preliminary “homework” to do also, involving selecting a template for your blog.  This is the code giving the blog your own special look.

I will hold two conference calls.  The first will be Saturday, January 22nd at 2:00 p.m. EST.  The second will be Thursday, January 27th, at 9:00 p.m. EST.  We will work together at our computers to set up your blog.  There are 96 callers allowed on a call, so when the spots fill up, any other requests will returned with an invitation to register at a later date.  If there are additional requests, I will schedule further conference calls.

The conference calls will be recorded and will be available to those who registered for the time slot to review anything that needs to be listened to again.

This will be my first time holding a conference call, so hopefully it will go off well.   I think this is great therapy for moms out there that are hurting…I know it has been for me and other bloggers that I am friends with.  I hope you will be able to make it, and be able to grab your part of the internet for yourself!


Media Distortions by Fathers' Rights Advocates

Media Distortions by Fathers' Rights Advocates parallel parenting shared custody parenting plans
(originally published at http://nnflp.blogspot.com/)</FONT-SIZE=-1>

Glenn Sacks has complained about recent responses to his and other fathers' rights advocates' comments about joint custody. In one of his columns of August 1, 2006, " Feminist Columnist Slams Glenn, ACFC Over North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative," he attacks Trish Wilson's recent commentary with distortions and misrepresentations.

Justice's PosterousOne has to wonder: if the facts have to be distorted to make your case, isn't that a clue that perhaps your conclusions are incorrect?

The joint custody advocates' primary claim is that men are not being treated equally as parents by the courts. But let's look at what that word "equality" actually means in the law, and not the propaganda and rhetoric.

"Equality before the law" means that persons who are in similar positions will be treated similarly. Thus, for example, if a father is a child's primary caregiver, that fact will be given the same weight as it would if a mother is a child's primary caregiver. And, for example, if a husband is a dependent homemaker spouse, he would be as entitled to alimony as a wife in the same position.

However, a contrived equality of outcome when persons come before the law in dissimilar positions would be tantamount to disparate treatment. It would require taking persons who were not equally situated and treating them differently in order to effect "equality." That's not what "equality under the law" means; in fact it's the anti-thesis of it.

Leaning on his erroneous premise of "equality," Sacks criticizes Wilson's point that "ninety percent of parents settle without the need for court intervention in deciding what form of custody is best for them and for their children." Sacks claims that her "statement is misleading because it implies genuine agreement between parents." Sacks writes that "such accords aren't made in a vacuum -- they're bargained in the shadow of the law. What happens in most cases is that fathers must agree to having a very limited role in their children's lives because they don't have the tens of thousands of dollars (or more) necessary to fight for shared parenting in family law proceedings which are heavily stacked against them."

But Sacks's position is specious. Not only are the fathers coming into court without a marital track record of having been equal carers of the children and household, but when it comes to litigation, it is the men who generally have greater access to funds to litigate, more time to litigate, and more sophistication and ability to network, hire lawyers, and make a case. And be this as it may, the reality is that most men simply don't want joint custody. They don't want it for the very same reasons they were not doing half or more of the housework and childcare when they were married. Their careers and habits don't suddenly alter merely because they are getting divorced. And that's why the vast majority leave "custody" where it de facto was during the marriage, changing as little as possible in their and their children's lives.

Sacks also criticizes Wilson's statement that "when dads make an issue of custody, they get some form of it more than half the time." This was the finding of every single state gender bias commission who looked at the issue (there were 40 of them.) Sacks pretends that Wilson's statement is based on one small study of 60 women, and purports to debunk that as nonrepresentative. But it wasn't. The reality simply is not debatable. Sacks also claims that the Massachusetts gender bias task force findings by lawyers and scholars have been discredited, based on speculations made by libertarian men's rights journalist Cathy Young in an opinion piece. But she did not get her facts right or conclusions correct then. Repeatedly citing to secondary opinion sources that were wrong to begin with is not tantamount to documentation. It doesn't matter how many times a claim is made, such distortions just do not gain veracity with repetition, any more than the children's game of telephone.

The reasons mothers more often end up with custody after divorce encompass all of the same reasons that mothers end up being the majority of child caregivers and homemakers while marriages are intact. To the extent the factors moving this include bias, it's bias that's occurred long before anything that ever happens in connection with a divorce. In fact, that more men post divorce end up with far more custody time than they ever spent caregiving, homemaking, or with their children during their marriages attests to a divorce court bias that far and away favors fathers.


The following factors are the only ones that consistently have been related to positive child adjustment post divorce and are consistent with the findings of all relevant research:

1. Positive "custodial parent" adjustment (i.e. maternal adjustment -- most "custodial parents" in the research were not androgynous parent units but mothers), which is associated with effective parenting;

2. A positive relationship between the "custodial parent" (i.e. mother) and child; and

3. A low level of conflict between parents (more likely when post-divorce parenting arrangements mirror the patterns set in the family prior to the divorce.)

See Marion Gindes, The Psychological Effects of Relocation for Children of Divorce, AAML Journal, Vol. 15 (1998), pp. 144-145

The following factors are the only ones that consistently have been related to positive effects of father involvement, and are consistent with the findings of all relevant research:

1. How the child perceives the father to feel about the child (which is not related to how much time he spends with the child, and not necessarily related to how the child feels about him, a factor that is comparatively insignificant vis a vis the child's well-being); and

2. A father who emotionally cares for, financially supports, respects, is involved with, takes some of the work load off of, and generally makes life easier, happier and less stressful for... his children's mother.

Referees, Umpires, or any other paid professionals


 Referees, Umpires, or any other paid professionals, should go to the Association that is promoting the terms “high-conflict” to describe assault and battery, and “mental health” to characterize unruly (not submissive enough) mothers, as has happened probably since time began.  All such truly committed court professionals should (and many will) go to an “AFCC” conference.  That would be in Florida, June, 2011.  At this  conference, now that fatherhood-based grants are entrenched in the CFCCs around the country, the topic will be — in a cruel twist of a Title by Tina Turner, who got OUT of that, and became the true star she always was with no more IKE– “what’s Gender Got to DO with it?”

Look up AFCC What’s Gender Got to Do with it?


The rest of you should all, please, go to work, because I assure you, your income-withholdings are helping support some of these,

through any number of federal funding streams, monitored by the gatekeepers, to make sure none particularly gets all the way through (except maybe a slow trickle, in a few places, that leaked through) to the actual people named on the face of the grant program.  Even the Arizona massacre that happened duing the first conference, of a U.S. Rep, Federal Judge, 9 year old girl, others — is not likely to even slow down this processes, or change these procedures.  Oh yeah– Arizona is a nice place for the AFCC, I believe there’s a chatper there, to help spread some love around and train court professionals.  Not to brag, but I found an OHIO based task force (fatherhood commission stuff) flying out to Phoenix to attend classes by some AFCC participants and presenters to learn how to fix families, right (submit comment if you want me to look up the link.  It dates back to early 2000s).

Families are getting massacred regularly, and as shocked as I am about a judge and a U.S. Rep, and outraged, I am also outraged that it provokes more outrage, on nationwide press, than the regular,relentless deaths that come from families run through this gauntlet and farmed out in the family law gulag.

Such as diverting TANF funds to collect child support (a program in place since 1996).  If that’s what you think the OCSE is doing with some of these grants to the states, I have some land under the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.

A sample of how a man in the TEXAS ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, CHILD SUPPORT DIV, views some of these grants, paraphrased well (and I added a comment) by Randijames;com:


You got to respect a person who — when women affected aren’t supposedly listening in– comes right out and shoots straight from the hip — this is not abut collecting child support, but about a good deal more, per the blog:

Michael Hayes Wants to Build “Family-Centered” Child Support

I must continue to emphasize that the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE) is no longer about collecting child support. It is about meddling in your family business and exercising government control over families (which begins with the “birth certificate” and “marriage licenses”), with emphasis on removing control from women as childbearers and autonomous beings. This money is NOT going to raise the children–it is going into million-dollar research at the hand of psychologypseudoscience and court litigation.

Well, who is Michael Hayes?

I’m glad you asked.

(emphasis mine)

Michael Hayes is the Deputy for Family Initiatives in the Child Support Division of the Texas Office of the Attorney General. His extensive experience includes the development of policy, partnerships, and projects that support family stability, paternity establishment, father involvement, and child support program improvement. Before his current post, he helped create and was director of the Texas Fragile Families Initiative, a statewide project involving community-based, faith-based, and public agencies to support fragile families.

Fragile Families is one of the many phrases starting in “F” that seem to just roll off the tongue and bring out true eloquence (immediately before, during, and after some FR grants become available) that seem to end up with the word “mother” and especially if single, becoming an archaic usage, and women getting “F . . . . ‘ed” by the courts if they don’t get oFFed by their exes, or poverty, first.  This, CitySlickers, is how Families get redesigned and Moms become “long-distance” and “noncustodial,” often enough.  Essentially, this means, with the gradual elimination of the word “mother” and with it the FUNCTIONS of mother, including protection where necessary, they are being used as brood mares.  (Forgive, please, my poor attempts at cowboy analogies in honor of Mr. Hayes fromTexas,… but it helps my blood pressure to release some sarcasm when reading this rhetoric.  ) — but doesn’t it strike you odd that someone would go from a Fragile Families Initiative (look it up yourself, it’s a fatherhood grant) into Child Support Services, at a “Deputy”  level?  where’s the gold medalllion for this posse?

If people get this pattern, they can get a LOT.  The blog post puts the charts in, you’ve seen similar ones here, on my blog.  Just read what they wrote, then watch who they hang with, and what happens. Randijames.Com, quoting Mr. Michael Hayes

I also want to acknowledge the value that OCSE Section 1115 and SIP grants have had forthe evolution of child support, both in Texas and around the country. Through Section 1115 grants, our Family Initiatives Section in Texas has been able to pursue the projects I’ve talked about, since these grants may be used to fund certain activities not normally allowed under FFP rules. The creativity and innovation that those grant programs have fostered play a big part in child support’s continued growth and vision. We take pride in how we’ve been able to keep the work going after the grant funding expires by using careful collaboration and coordination. For example, we found we could provide additional services to parents by linking Access and Visitation partners to our child support offices. Once the parents meet with us about the support order, they are escorted to the AV staff so they can develop a parenting plan. We could not have moved as thoughtfully or as quickly without that support.

Thank you, Michael Hayes, for making this so easy for us! I don’t even have to explain it anymore.

And THAT — and not so much PAS theory, my fine-feathered, female friends — is likely how you lost custody, or have now to pay to see your kids.  Audio-Visual/ Access-Visitation, A/V, Access-Visitation.  Not TOO hard to remember, is it

GRANTS TO STATES FOR ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAMS(this is the official, government, site describing these)

SEC. 469B. [42 US.C. 669b]

a. IN GENERAL—The Administration for Children and Families shall make grants under this section toenable States to establish and administer programs** to “support and facilitate “**noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children, by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral dropoff and pickup), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements (etc.)

{{**support and facilitate– it HAS to read like that, “order” is not within the federal government’s jurisdiction to.  This is just short of — and the mediators, supervisors, etc. understand this clearly, I”m sure.., what their role is.  This role is not, of course, broadcast to custodial mothers coming before them at any stage of the game.}}

{{AND if many, or some , of those programs, judges and attorneys involved in this system, nay, even in open cases that get cases referred to these programs for “services”, just happen to have been on the Board of Directors — or, heck, have been a judge, or an attorney’s brainchild to start with (can you say Kids’ Turn? in SF Bay Area, now internationally minded, at least a few countries, and several states), and promoted heavily in (see #3, above) certain types of conferences as the model curriculum, etc.)-who are we to protest these many coincidences?}}

{{“Both voluntary and mandatory” and “support and facilitate” carry a little different tone, don’t you think? It’s MANDATORY, but these programs are only three in a “supporting and facilitating” capacity.  At public expense.  To help reduce welfare Moms and child support arrears.}}  Child support arrears ARE getting reduced, at least in many cases I’ve seen, including my own — by the means of an electronic eraser.  Their stats look better, my kids lose out on child support, which I was trying to help collect, as the same agency (national level) that was charged to help collect child support, failed to do so locally.}}

Annual Funding

· $10 million in federal funds is divided among the states annually based on a funding formula contained in the statute.

That’s since 1996, folks. Have I got your attention yet, and is it THAT much harder to remember “A/V” in connection with “DV” for “domestic violence,”which is what these grants help cover up in the custody venue?

Maybe $10M/year (for 14 years, so far) is peanuts, in the larger picture — but what is it doing to the court process? Or reduce the familywipeouts after domestic disputes, etc.?  Besides which, recruiting Dads and failing to tell moms one is doing this just ain’t honest.  Besides which, grant usages isn’t tracked fully, and there has been evidence of custody-switching scams (i.e., steering cases to certain court personneL) in many cases.  This is a PUBLIC issue, along with the huge superstructure of DV cancelling out FR grants  because it appears they are maybe splitting the proceeds, and keeping parents in the dark, except some of us who got mad enough to pursue answers (and we don’t show up in public and shoot bullets).

Who administers this?

Federal Administration

The Office of Child Support Enforcement — part of the Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services — has responsibility for administering the Access and Visitation Grant Program.

OK, so there you are.  The FEDERALIZING of what otherwise would be state-level, county-level, and district-level legal procedures played out in front of judges who have sworn to uphold the state, at least, constitution, or so one might hope.

Liz Richards of VA (D.C. area) has been collecting evidence on this since around 1993, and it’s critical to how the system works.  Needless to say, she is not invited to present at any of the above conferences.   Just because a site doesn’t have a link to YouTube of Blog Talk Radio, or Facebook, twitter, etc. — think it doesn’t have relevant information?  This is mostly WORDS (remember those?)

And some women who attempted to present some of this material at the end of BMCC were filibustered out of it, which at least left a witness, I hope, to the audience of the gamesmanship.  A mother who’d flown in from Australia was talking about on-line safety, and was not allowed to finish even her short, well-organized powerpoint, including about on-line safety for women.  She got about 7 minutes.  The previous presenter, a man, whose name was on some of the books were on the table outside, was an hour over schedule, and no one interrupted.

Meanwhile, and possibly at public expense? Mr Hayes, of Texas, is going to fly North to Minnesota to promote the same stuff, I’m sure…He’s all about fathers, and someone who is favorable to fathers is of course needed to really “tow the line” in collecting past-due child support, to help custodial mothers who need it to help raise their children in safety, and with food, and not begging for it, or working a third shift.

Here’s more from the RandiJames.com commentary on this, from the TEXAS perspective  (don’t forget to check out some charts she posts up there, too, with $$ figures on them).

Another great part about our work in the Family Initiatives Section is the way we use research to develop theoretical models for project development, and then take that theoretical model and design the intervention, track and evaluate implementation of the intervention, and then use what we learn to inform the next generation of programs and policy.

And so we conclude with how the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration of Children and Families (ACF) fuels their own research and sets propaganda in action through the creation of public policy.

That’s exactly what they are bragging about.  Too bad more MOms aren’t trained to look up this stuff.

SO, TO SUMMARIZE REGARDING THE 1, 2, 3 conferences:

Someone has to wave a red flag around to make sure the bull keeps charging the flag, and is not distracted and actually reaches a matador or an on-looker in the crowd.  That red flag in this case has any number of paychological terminologies, or pet phrases on it, to distract, as we say, the bulls, and appease the crowds, who come in for the spectacle.  If you’re living in the US and paying taxes, you are part of the spectators.

Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference badgers Mothers to Buy Books and Join! Organizations promoting these books.

Maybe not badgered, just relentlessly marketed to.  …  The name of the conference should be adjusted to reflect “Good Cop/Bad Cop Press Releases.”  The Good cops had control of the microphone, pointed to the bad judges, custody decisions, evaluators, etc.  (from whom they derive their livelihood) as the Bad Cops, cough up your stories (women were, literally, asked to send theirs in to help Mr. Bancroft with the next literary masterpiece based on something that had inspired him), and dollars (what’s left of them) and (if I may switch from gangster movies to The Wizard of Oz) “pay no attention to that man — and the word applies, overall — behind the curtain.”

Another mother who attended the first conference, commenting obliquely upon it, I”m sure, and a book being sold for $100 to mothers, which it is declared will fix our broken dreams, and change the scope of family law practice, because it “explains” why judges “don’t understand” domestic violence.  And $ 100 was a discount.

VENI, VIDI, Vomiti.   (It was shameless; I was there…)

I would write a more stringent post, but am overburdened, like many of us, and sickened at the whole scene, particularly the marketing of other Moms’ stories.  Reminds me of The Amazing Cells of Henrietta Lack.  I think Moms are starting to catch out that their ongoing troubles (caused by court professionals in many cases) are a new target market — because Fatherhood and Domestic Violence niches are taken.

How gullible do these people with Esq.,Ph.D., and M.S.W behind their names think we are? ???

I recommend, NEXT year, attend the conference that’s NOT in your designated area of concern, and find out what’s being said.

The Minnestoa Fatherhood site has a new phraseology you should learn: “Women in the Fatherhood Movement.”  This is abbreviated WIFI, which I think is catchy and current — don’t you?

They, too, got a grant from HHS to blog about how great everyone is, and the real way to stop DV is to get families re-united (with Dads in there).  The word ‘mother” rarely appears in the handout, even though some of these specially-selected women of color and highly-placed (in the fatherhood movement) are indeed Mothers (at least one, I read), their lives and lifestyles have LITTLE in common with the hellish things happening, across the board to women in the court systems. and in high-profile cases many times involving very wealthy, white males — such as I blogged on in Nassau County, NY, recently.  These women are Executive Directors, leaders, professionals, and one is even married to a pioneer in the fatherhood movement.

And YOUR tax dollars (or, at least a single HHS contract identified so far), like Bush paying Maggie Gallagher $20K to push his marriage movement long ago– are helping pay for the glitz.  I hope I caught THIS one out the gate — the organization (nonprofit) is so new, dating to 2008, it hasn’t even got its data up on Guidestar.org yet.




In December 2005, the Annie E. Casey Foundation convened a meeting of men and women working in responsible fatherhood to assess the influence women were having in the field. After extensive consultations with experts in the field, the group found a high level of need for a collective effort of women*** to provide a unique and necessary voice for:

· Effective advocacy and support of Responsible Fatherhood in program and policy;

· Fatherhood awareness, education, legislation, & policy initiatives, which benefit from the input of mothers and other women;

· Effective programs designed to involve fathers–the perspective of mothers and their advocates is essential to their success.

This led to the formation of Women In Fatherhood—A diverse* group of women dedicated to advancing the responsible fatherhood field through public awareness and education, policy advocacy, research, and collaboration.

* there is a token white woman, or three? but look at the bios and I don’t see one family court scapegoat noncustodial mother.  I don’t see one person who has identified experiencinug domestic violence, or dealing with child molestation in the family, or a broke person, or a mother whose wages are being garnished to pay her ex-abuers (for example, see “rightsformothers.com” blog, which represents that voice).  There is one who identified as having experienced divorce (at what level, not shown).  Are there atheists on the group?  Jews? Are there feminists?

Well, then how diverse is it?  The photo is refreshingly different, but photos are photos, and show faces, and smiles.  Look at the backgrounds.

“collective” — they chose and assembled certain kinds of experts, and excluded others.  Hence “collective.”  Kind of like national Fatherhood Initiative started with “a few prominent thinkers,” and the website actually did say that, last I checked.  A FEW prominent “thinkers.”

Well, what about some obscure, underground” thinkers? for a change?

** No doubt because the heavy-handed male dominance of the father’s rights groups, plus some blogger dads like Glenn Sacks who took their free (Stay-at home?) time to go after, say young adult survivors of domestic violence and fleeing to escape it, such as Jennifer Collins.  Or others.  They needed some articulate, poised, and not about to cause a ruckus in the movement FEMALES to front the MALE agenda, which the fatherhood movement is.  In other words, they correctly realized, the image was tarnished and needed a facelift.

Annie E. Casey foundation convened.  Well, two (that I noticed) of hte Boards of Directors — and that’s a well-rounded one, plenty on the Board — had connections already with Annie E. Casey, who funds lots  of fatherhood stuff.  I’m really puzzled why the need more.  Look yourself, although I don’t have the timing of it yet

Responsible Fatherhood”: What Do Women Have to Do with It?

(found on a blog titled:  soros.org, surely identifying with the downtrodden, and labeled “OPEN SOCIETIES — building Vibrant and Tolerant Democracies.  How many people do you know whose mission is “building” a democracy?  How about some live and let live?)

October 12, 2010 | by Stacey Bouchet and Julia Hayman Hamilton

There are many national and local efforts focused around the issue of fatherhood in the United States. They are necessary and encouraging, but we are convinced that women’s voices are also essential to their success and sustainability. That’s why our organization, Women In Fatherhood, Inc.(WIFI), recently joined with the Open Society Campaign for Black Male Achievement in its work to strengthen low-income families and communities through the support of positive father involvement.

We are launching a media campaign, “In the Words of Women,” to raise awareness about the importance of fathers.

What — FATHERHOOD.gov, Fatherhood.HHS.gov, Fathers.com, and Fatherhood COmmissions around the country, National fatherhood initiative, state-level “fatherhood initiatives” and all the CFDA 93086 on “Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood”  millions — and it indeed Was then, Is Now, and I gather “Ever Shall Be” million$$ — to promote these things — again with PUBLIC $$ and faith-based collaboratives at times — isn’t that enough?

It takes more than absence of  Y chromosome to qualify to be a VOICE of a WOMAN that needs to be heard nationwide .  This is more paid-for static paid for by the majority white male, still, Congress.  And I never used to talk like this before.  I’ll try to post the brochure which states this clearly — but my laptop battery is about to die.

Here’s just one of this august board of directors (probably great women in their own rights — but they are on a cause that is hurting others, so I feel very free to speak out about the farce.  First white dudes (Wade Horn et al), go after inner-city  urban churches (i.e., the black vote) to make like fatherhood agenda is NOT racist.  That under the belt, they then go get some women (including, in case below, a wife of a fatherhood pioneer) and front them to say “we speak for women.”

Frances Ballard

Petrice Sams-AbiodunFrances Ballard is the Executive Director for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). In her role she is responsible for the strategic direction and leadership for activities regarding the NRFC, including the coordination of the media campaign, clearinghouse and Web site, Training and Technical Assistance (T & TA) to responsible fatherhood demonstration sites, and building relationships and partnerships for NRFC.She has over 20 years experience working with fathers, families and healthcare. Her previous positions include 12 years serving as the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization; Consultant to The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Making Connections Program; ***

Director of Corporate Development and Clinical Manager-Ambulatory Care, Grace Hospital; and Nurse Consultant/Program Developer, The Institute For Responsible Fatherhood and Family Development. She holds a Masters of Science Degree in Nursing Administration, a B.A. in Social Work, an A.S. in Nursing, and numerous executive management certifications.She is married to Dr. Charles A. Ballard, “pioneer” of the Fatherhood Movement and the mother of their three children, Jonathan, Lydia and Christopher.

At the bottom is a link to her husband, and his “faith.”  Makes me wonder about the separation of church and state, and where it went…***

** kind of reminds me of Wade Horn and the HHS Connection.  Maybe that’s the “CONNECTIONS” they are really dealing with ..

Well, has your local church (wear the shoe if it fits) stopped seeking tithes and offerings yet? Has hell (fatherlessness, I guess) froze over yet.  Is the Vatican scaling back?  Then the answer, evidently, is NO.

Again, I repeat:  ”How gullible

do they think we (mothers) are?”

Look — if readers can put up with  my (lack of proper) formatting and failing to spellcheck on this post, the URLs on it are great lead-ins to what the courts are about.  I have the links, it’s up to you to THINK, and continue to see if the puzzle pieces are starting to assemble into the larger picture.  More later, I hope, and this is my contribution to the Major Holiday that today represents. What depths we have sunk to on high, sacrificing civil rights and  consitutional rights for someone (else’s, not Martin luther King, Jr.’s) “I HAVE A DREAM” about Fathers & Families (no “mothers”) and a totally organized, uniform controlled workforce run by foundations, and executed through the family law and etc. court systems, all a seamless, no-conflict whole, run from the top.  Sounds like what some World Wars were fought over, last century, only we’re on the wrong side, on this one — in trying Designer Family USA.

I’ll try & include the ilnk to the brochure stating, clearly, that the HHS paid to have certain dialogues put forth, and that NCADV was a recommended conference to attend in the Fatherhood matters.  Also telling in that brochure is that (unlike the Bible, which seems to be so foundational to many of these agenda) the phrasing was fathers & families, or Fathers & children, community, etc.  The word ‘mother”?  I don’t think it was even on the two -page glitz blitz promo page.

It’s in the Ten Commandments.  But, these family folk can’t seem to consistently choke out the word in their rhetoric.

Remember — Please THINK about the LINK — and the word “Please” has a “PLEA” in it — from me, at the start of 2011, and over four years since my profession was destroyed by the presence of these programs in and around the courtrooms.

Fathers, supposedly — should go to a FATHERHOOD summit (conference) . Minnesota, a Monday-Tuesday combo, January 24th-25th.



  • Possibly because Family Law professional attendees, can get professional CLE credit for attending on a weekday, while some people, attending, might lose a job for absenteeism.  Pay close attention to the repetitive use of the word “father” throughout this conference, because in the 3rd one, some of the same characters are likely to be found at, or helping present at, or sponsor, etc.  a conference claiming Gender has nothing to do with all this. (See #3, below)

    • Look up Minnesota Fathers or Minnesota Fatherhood {& family services} Summit.

      Presenter Michael Hayes figures in this post.  I could’ve picked on anyone, just happened to land on him because another mother already did some groundwork blogging on the issues, she found him spilling the beans in Texas.  As seen on the brochure, he was one of three trophy, I mean, keynote, speakers:

    Michael Hayes, Deputy for Family Initiatives in the Child Support Division of the Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG). Mr. Hayes has extensive experience in the development of policy, partnerships, and projects that support family stability, paternity establishment, father involvement, and child support program improvement, including directing the Texas Fragile Families Initiative. He has been instrumental in the development of the p.a.p.a. (Parenting and Paternity Awareness) curriculum in Texas, now mandated to be used in every Texas high school health class, and in reformulating the Access and Visitation grant program in Texas.

    To this day, from officialdom in the Domestic Violence, and/or Protective Mothers movement (as opposed to in, obviously the Fatherhood movement, who this grant system helps, as it was intended to) almost no one lets on to distressed mothers, that it exists!  I’ve seen it in some webinar conferences among professionals in the DV field — but Moms participation is NOT solicited for these conferences.  I can see why not — we’d blog it!   So, while women seeking DV orders are not even informed that this program EXISTS, a man in texas is smoothly reformulating it.  Every remains so sure that the real cause of domestic violence, and troubles for children growing up is that they just don’t have a man — and not just any man, but their DNA-Dad — in their lives.  How do you think a stepfather might feel about that?

    To learn more, please visit: http://www.mnfathers.org/summit.html

    Suicide: How Father's Rights Groups Drive Men Over the Edge

    Suicide: How Father's Rights Groups Drive Men Over the Edge

    Psychology tells us that if you want to get a good opinion on that Toyota Camry you've been thinking about, do NOT ask someone who has just recently purchased one. Why? Because of confirmation bias.

    What does this have to do with father's rights groups? Give me a minute and let me work through this ;P

    Most support groups seek to validate the victim's experience and console those who are in pain. When men seek the assistance of these father's rights groups, many of them haven't a clue what they are stepping into. The men that make up the most vocal minority of these groups feel that they've been unfairly taken advantage of by their ex-wives/ex-girlfriends and shitted on by the family court system. This isn't so much of a support group as it is a terrorist organization. Their solutions include, but are not limited to, flooding, intimidating, bullying, and threatening anyone who speaks or writes against their mistaken beliefs. They hype each other up with pissing matches on whose ex was the biggest bitch. Nothing is their own fault.

    What some of the men in these father's rights group fail to reveal is that they weren't really dicked by the court system or their exes--they either failed miserably in their relationships (and somehow it wasn't apparent to them) and/or, they didn't participate (perhaps even acquiescing) in any court "battle" but rather made assumptions based off of what their other male counterparts (who have also "lost") have fed them.

    These father's rights groups should come with warning labels to the men who fall prey to them. Any half-decent man may seek answers to some basic questions only to be mind-fucked into a hate campaign against his current or ex-partner. He then goes into a downward spiral beginning with trying to play games with his ex instead of confronting the situation honestly and trying to figure out peaceful solutions.

    Let's review this e-mail circulating through the father's rights groups right now, notice the title:

    (emphasis mine)

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Jeremy Swanson

    To: swanson@storm. ca

    Sent: 12/26/2009 6:16:54 PM

    Subject: Read this (Another Dad dead by suicide. Another child fatherless)

    Fathers' and Children's Equality (FACE)

    Jeff Golden

    It grieves me deeply to report this:

    About two weeks ago, I received a call from Chris Wise of Hammonton NJ. He had been referred to us by an attorney-friend of ours who gave him my cell phone number. He told me he and his girlfriend had an almost two month old son. Both parents are in their early 30s, they lived together in his house throughout the pregnancy, he is disabled and not working, and his mother and brother also live in his house. The girlfriend and her mother were telling him they were going to take away the baby, never let him see the baby again, and take away from him everything he has.

    (notice the connection)

    There's nothing unusual about threats like that. We handle them all the time. Personally, I don't like to give too much information on a first call. What I tell about fathers' rights is probably exactly the opposite of what they have always believed and what they will be told by police, lawyers, court personnel, DYFS, etc. I prefer people to come to a meeting where a whole room-full of people will reassure them that what we say is true.

    (doesn't this sound like when one of your friends starts selling Amway and they "need" you to come to the meeting to find out more...and then you get there and everyone is so friendly and excited...almost cult-like???)

    I asked Chris if anyone had been to court yet for anything. They had not. I explained to Chris that at their first time in court, one of the parents will leave with less parental rights than s/he came in with, but until they go to court both parents had equal rights. I asked where the baby was right then. Chris said the mother was about to return to work from maternity leave, and she had made arrangements to move in with some strange older woman she will be working with. I suggested that won't last long because this stranger won't like a crying infant interfering with her household routine. I asked why the mother didn't go to her parents' home. She couldn't. Her parents are divorced. Her mother and step-father live in a little one bedroom apartment, they both smoke, and they have dogs. She had no contact with her real father until quite recently, and he also did not have proper accommodations for a new-born.

    I reminded Chris of the adage "possession is nine tenths of the law," and told him that whoever had possession of the baby on that day they first go to court will have a very good chance of keeping him. "But," said Chris, "I don't want to take the baby away from his mother." Of course not ... you WANT her to have liberal visitation. But remember, she already told you that if she gets custody she doesn't want you to ever see the child again. Are you capable of taking care of the baby and doing everything that child needs? "Yes." Who do you want to have custody?

    (notice the initial resistance from Chris)

    I asked Chris if he thought it would be possible for him to get possession of the baby without breaching the peace. He very confidently answered "Sure!" I asked how he could be so sure of that, and where and how would he do it? He said the mother was bringing the baby back to his house that evening, and they were all going to sleep in his house that night! Under these circumstances I couldn't make Chris wait for our next meeting; he needed help NOW!

    (notice the urgency...kinda like a snake oil salesman)

    I told Chris there were two things he needed to know: First we discussed the domestic violence law. I emailed him a copy of the statute, listing all the acts that are considered to be domestic violence in New Jersey. I pointed out that whoever gets a domestic violence restraining order against the other can also automatically get custody, and that "domestic violence" does not necessarily have to have anything to do with violence. I told him if he is holding the baby and won't release him to her, and she commits an act of domestic violence to get him away from you, especially with your mother and brother as witnesses or if she leaves marks on you, you can get a restraining order against her and get custody of the child.

    (a lot of premeditation)

    Second, what happens if there is no domestic violence, but she calls the police and says "He won't give me my baby?" When the police arrive, the first thing they will do is ask to see the custody order. When they find there is no order, both of you will have equal rights. Still, to smooth things out, the police might say to you something like "Why don't you just be a nice guy and give her the baby? You can go down to family court and straighten it all out." JUST SAY NO! Remember, possession is nine tenths of the law, and when you go into family court that first time YOU want to have possession.

    Chris called me the next morning. It was a very cold day -- low 20s. The mother was getting ready to take the baby out. She wasn't going to her co-worker's house. She was going to some other friend's house where she and the baby would sleep on air-mattresses on the floor until she could get into her friend's house. She wouldn't identify the friend or where she would be. I reminded Chris to get possession of the baby without breaching the peace, and what to say if and when the police arrived.

    Chris DID get possession without breaching the peace. Mom was lying on the bed with the baby. Chris said "Let me just kiss him goodbye," took the baby from her and would not let go of him. Mom called the police. Chris called the police too. "The mother wants to take the baby out somewhere in the cold where they're going to sleep on an air mattress." Two police officers arrived, one male and one female. The male officer spoke with the mother in the bedroom and the female officer spoke with Chris. They asked about a custody order and found there was none. The officers told both parents they could not force the father to give the baby to the mother! The mother said she would leave, but she wanted to come back for her personal property.The female officer recommended to Chris that he not allow the mother back into his house. Instead he should pack up all of her stuff and leave it on the porch for her.

    Chris called me later to let me know what happened. GREAT, I said, now YOU have possession of the baby! "No," he said, "something else happened too. Before she left, while the police were here, she asked to have a private conversation with me. We went into the bedroom together. She said she wanted to take the baby to her father's house,and I said OK. She and the baby are gone." Well, I said, we'll either have to get possession again, or it will just be a little more difficult for you on that first day in family court.

    We had a FACE meeting on Monday evening. I sent Chris a meeting schedule, asked him to come to this meeting, and gave him directions. I called him again Monday to remind him, and left a phone message. He didn't show up.

    That's it, I thought. I scared another one away. I've said it before, but now I'm really NEVER again going to give a lot of advice on the phone. Regardless of urgency, they've got to come to a meeting first.

    Chris's mother left a message on my phone this morning. "Mr. Golden, I don't quite know how to say this, but I didn't want to leave you hanging. Christopher took his own life." I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I had to replay it a few times, then I called her.

    On Monday, Chris left the house to go to a doctor appointment and then go to family court. He called his mother later and told her he was in Atlantic City, about 15 minutes away from both. That was the last she heard from him. On Wednesday she got a call from the Port Authority police. Chris' truck was found at the Ben Franklin bridge. They had video of him entering a parking area at the base of the bridge. They don't know how long he was there. He left his wallet, cell phone and keys in his truck, along with a note, and then he apparently went up on the bridge. They also had video of someone going over the side of the bridge.

    Why did this happen? Chris' custody situation wasn't too bad ... yet. He had let defeat get snatched from the jaws of victory in his first skirmish, but, I told him, that would just make things a little more difficult. I never met him face-to-face, but Chris was a very soft-spoken guy. At times during our conversations, I thought he was hyperventilating. His child's mother was herself an adult child of Parental Alienation Syndrome who was not allowed a parent-child relationship with her own father, and was now being coached by her PAS-inflicting mother.Maybe he just didn't want to face the conflict that he knew was coming. Now fatherlessness will go one generation further in that family.

    (how could he diagnose the child's mother and grandmother? he must be friends with Warshak, Rand, or Bone)

    There is one thing I regret never having had an opportunity to discuss with Chris. He wasn't far enough into the process yet to understand it. As one FACE member was known to say: "If things ever get so bad that you consider taking your own life, don't let it be a total waste. Take a judge or a lawyer with you."

    Jeff Golden

    Fathers' and Children's Equality (FACE)

    Cinnaminson NJ

    I cannot find any record of this suicide on the www. The more that I think about it, doesn't it sound like one of those serious, emotionally compelling e-mail forwards you get from your associates? Well, I happen to do my part and look up those forwards and I have found that 90% of them are on Snopes.com as untrue. Whether or not this is true isn't even important.

    What is important is how the father's righters try to shift the blame for this. Chris committed suicide. If it were to be anyone else's fault (other than his own), it would lie with the person who gave him all this "advice." In fact, if I were the mother of Chris, I would sue the hell out of Jeff Golden. Chris didn't know how his situation would turn out, and neither did Jeff Golden. Chris could have done well by using common sense and talking to, or appealing to his wife; but instead, Jeff Golden wanted him to engage in a powerplay with a war mentality.

    Check out this further commentary on the e-mail:

    (emphasis mine)

    ----- Forwarded Message ----

    From: Shatteredmen

    To: Shatteredmen@yahoogroups.com; MensIssuesOnline@yahoogroups.com; female-male@yahoogroups.com; Fathers_are_Parents_too@yahoogroups.com; abusedguys@yahoogroups.com

    Sent: Sun, 27 December, 2009 5:38:25 PM

    Subject: [Shatteredmen] FW: Read this (Another Dad dead by suicide. Another child fatherless)

    I received this in an e-mail today. I do have to say that I totally disagree with the last statement... "If things ever get so bad that you consider taking your own life, don't let it be a total waste. Take a judge or a lawyer with you." It contend it would be far better to become....A Formidable Enemy

    http://shatterdmen. com/Enemy. htm

    I also believe that many of the "murder/suicides" we see may often be a result of situations like this but instead of taking a lawyer or judge with them, they take the one that they believe caused the problem.

    This is all a waste...a waste of precious human lives due to a radical agenda that is well hell bent on destroying families.

    http://shatterdmen. com/Bitter. htm

    When our society finally (if ever) realizes that children need BOTH parents, maybe then we will not have to see reports such as this. Meanwhile according to most of society, children are "her children" until it comes time to get the support check. When the right of either parent to have an active and equal part in their children's lives is as important as that child support check, then and only then will we see an improvement not only in a major reduction of these suicides, but we will see a major reduction in all the results of fatherless or motherless homes

    http://shatterdmen. com/Fathers% 20who%20needs% 20them.htm


    </KEN4THELAMB@YAHOO.COM>Blame it on everything, minus the ones doing the killing. Chris was disabled and stressed (unemployed, living with several people in the household) and on top of that suicidal...a very difficult combination for parenting. But somehow, father's righters seem to think that the answer to all of fathers' problems, is 50/50 child custody. Part of the Australian father's rights groups platform is the supposed correlation between men "suiciding" and those who are divorcing and have "lost custody."

    It just so happens that many of the murder-suicides that continue to happen, involve families with joint custody. So, how can joint custody be the solution? Furthermore, do we want our children around suicidal people? I don't think so.

    If Chris is real I sympathize with his loved ones. Sometimes I wonder if it would be best if men solicited the advice of a good woman, instead of selling their souls to the devil. Chris was driven over the edge by a father's rights group member who gave him an unfair, limited vantage point. I wonder how many other men they have killed.

    Fathers have Rights, Children’s Rights, Fathers kill custody battle fathers abuse and kill families, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) Stuart Showalter Neo Nazi-Fathers Rights Advocate-Abusers Rights Advocate Glenn Sacks-Abusers Advocate,Right Wing Terrorist- Fathers Rights. Warren Farrell, Mike J Murphy, Jeremy Swanson, Mark K Godbey, Donald Tenn, Stan Rains, Richard A. Gardner coined the term, Parental Alienation Syndrome

    Understand Parental Alienation. Read Between the Lines. There Are HUGE Spaces...

    Understand Parental Alienation. Read Between the Lines. There Are HUGE Spaces...

    Let me borrow from a post I just did on this matter:

    A father was convicted of child pornography offenses a couple of years ago.

    His wife left him.

    Subsequently, the father has been trying to get access to his children.

    The court previously found that he had behaved inappropriately in bed with one of the children.

    But JUDGE ROBERT BENJAMIN ordered that the two children, who are girls aged 8 and 10, spend weekends with their father.

    Eldest daughter is afraid.

    To facilitate the father's rights, JUDGE ROBERT BENJAMIN orders that:

    1. the girls sleep in the same bedroom (to "support" each other), and

    2. the father place a lock on the bedroom door for the girls

    3. the father have an adult friend stay overnight when the girls are present

    Additionally, some UNNAMED Family Court counselor has stated that the girls don't pose a risk to the father, at their current ages, when they are awake, clothed, and together.

    Wait a minute!"Awake, clothed and together"? Isn't that the spiel they give us women-folk for rape-prevention measures? Never mind that this notion of security is false in stranger rapes and so should be presumed to be false for non-stranger rape as well.

    Guess who supports JUDGE ROBERT BENJAMIN's order?

    John Abbott from the fathers' rights group Blackshirts says the court has taken all precautions to protect the children.

    "What we have here is a situation where there's no real allegation that the court has found against the father molesting his own children," he said.

    "And we have to keep in mind that alienating children from parents is a very serious matter."

    Alienation. Parental alienation. We keep telling you. We keep trying to show you what this is about. Parental alienation is a claim made by fathers, to benefit fathers, that masks child sexual abuse--just as false memory syndrome has done to adult survivors.

    This case doesn't have a gawddamn thing to do with alienation. The father is convicted of child pornography. The daughter doesn't want to visit overnight. The court is overruling the child's desires and best interest in the name of the father.

    In the words of Dr. Richard Gardner, father of parental alienation syndrome:

    “There is no question that abuse cases are ‘turn ons’ for the wide variety of individuals involved in them, the accuser(s), the prosecutors, the lawyers, the judges, the evaluators, the psychologists, the reporters, the readers of the newspapers, and everyone else involved— except for the falsely accused and the innocent victim . . . Everyone is getting their ‘jollies,’ except the two central figures, who are not only getting little if any sexual pleasure out of the whole thing but whose lives are being destroyed in the process.”


    “Judges are not free from the psychopathological mechanisms. . . They too may have repressed pedophilic impulses over which there is suppression, repression, and guilt. Inquiry into the details of the case provides voyeuristic and vicarious gratifications. . . Incarcerating the alleged perpetrator may serve psychologically to obliterate the judge’s own projected pedophilic impulses.”


    Special care should be taken not alienate the child from the molesting parent. The removal of a pedophilic parent from the home "should only be seriously considered after all attempts at treatment of the pedophilia and rapprochement with the family have proven futile."

    Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 537)

    The child should be told that there is no such thing as a perfect parent. "The sexual exploitation has to be put on the negative list, but positives as well must be appreciated"

    Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 572)

    Older children may be helped to appreciate that sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. The child might be helped to appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare's Hamlet, who said, "Nothing's either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

    Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 59)

    "In such discussions the child has to be helped to appreciate that we have in our society an exaggeratedly punitive and moralistic attitude about adult-child sexual encounters"

    Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 572).

    "He must learn to control himself if he is to protect himself from the Draconian punishments meted out to those in our society who act out their pedophilic impulses."

    Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill , NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (pp. 585-592)

    And there is another case (like I said before, one of many): Yet ANOTHER family court outrage: 6-year-old girl ordered to live with dad despite child porn fears (Sydney, Australia)

    God bless the children.

    Fathers have Rights, Children’s Rights, Fathers kill custody battle fathers abuse and kill families, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) Stuart Showalter Neo Nazi-Fathers Rights Advocate-Abusers Rights Advocate Glenn Sacks-Abusers Advocate,Right Wing Terrorist- Fathers Rights. Warren Farrell, Mike J Murphy, Jeremy Swanson, Mark K Godbey, Donald Tenn, Stan Rains, Richard A. Gardner coined the term, Parental Alienation Syndrome

    Shattered Men, Fragmented Beliefs, Fathers Rights

    Shattered Men, Fragmented Beliefs

    I would like to thank "Shattered Men" for leaving a response to my post on Suicide: How Father's Rights Groups Drive Men Over the Edge though "they" made this more difficult than necessary by leaving "their" comment in the guestbook, instead of on the post.

    Randi’s comments in bold

    December 29th 2009

    02:33:43 PM

    Shattered Men

    Looking at BOTH sides of domestic abuse with an emphasis on men (so what's your solution for men's violence?)

    Randi's rants (LOL)

    Marion Indiana

    Suicide: How Father's Rights Groups Drive Men Over the Edge

    Randi, why is it that most of the men who take their own life have never contracted a "father's rights group'? (can you verify this? i think a study needs to be done. even a man who didn't kill himself, but killed MANY others, was found to have contacted an FR group. he's been killed now, though not of his own accord. i am afraid to think that there are more.)Perhaps if they had, they would not have taken their own life. I know Shattered Men has helped to prevent over three dozen suicides of both men and women. (all i would like to know is, have you, not particularly meaning you personally, or "Shattered Men," but rather father's rights groups, or shall I say the vocal fringe lunatic segment, helped more than you have harmed?)

    I would also like to know why this can not and does not work regarding mothers rights groups or are they perfect and never have problems. (i don't know why it doesn't, perhaps because mother's groups aren't vile, don't threaten or kill judges, nor do they spray paint courthouses. show me the suiciding, familiciding mothers and the mothers bordering on terrorism.)

    In the situation you talk about in your rant, the father's rights group in question did not have a chance to do anything. They only had made first contact. (i understand that. it was very clear. but i think you agree that sometimes all you have is one time, and that FR group may have ruined this guy's life...well, he's dead...so...) Had this person taken time to hear the group out, we may have seen a different outcome. (he did "hear the group out." he tried to do as he was advised, but the FR advisor refused to recognized that those game tactics did not fit this young man's nature. this FR group did wrong by him AND his family.)

    You rant on saying we have a "hate campaign against his current or ex-partner" While you know nothing about Shattered Men because we encourage forgiveness, not hate. (look dude, there is not part in that story in which forgiveness is encouraged. maybe you forgot to do that part with chris--or, I mean, maybe if your group handled it, it would have been different. but apparently, you must think i'm a fool to believe that hate is not a part of FR campaign. i have enough to publish a book. it is evident in many of your members' speech and actions. maybe you do not recognize this for some odd reason.) Oddly enough, most of the men have already forgiven their ex but it has been the women who come to us that have the most problem forgiving. (why do you think that is?)

    Shattered Men exist because feminist groups refused to acknowledge that women can be violent. (bullshit. if anything, feminist groups recognized it first, because they recognize all forms of violence, but as it is not as grave a problem as men's international violence against women, thus, it is not at the forefront of feminist's campaign.) As a result a women who has been handicapped all of her life and who thanked GOD for the many times she was in a hospital because it got her away from her abusive mother did her own research and found women are as violent as men. (but women aren't as violent as men. they can be, as anyone has potential, but they aren't. all international human rights campaigns have statements contrary to your beliefs...and so does the evidence) It was her website that opened my eyes as I was much like you before that but now I know that unbiased research shows that women are as abusive as men.(false) I also know that unless we look at both sides, more men and women will be harmed. (but while men refuse to look at their side, men's violence against men and women will continue to harm nations)

    What now?

    Thanks for visiting.

    Fathers have Rights, Children’s Rights, Fathers kill custody battle fathers abuse and kill families, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) Stuart Showalter Neo Nazi-Fathers Rights Advocate-Abusers Rights Advocate Glenn Sacks-Abusers Advocate,Right Wing Terrorist- Fathers Rights. Warren Farrell, Mike J Murphy, Jeremy Swanson, Mark K Godbey, Donald Tenn, Stan Rains, Richard A. Gardner coined the term, Parental Alienation Syndrome