Anonymoms (we are everywhere)

21.3.10

A man fatally shot his 20-year-old stepson before killing himself

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6923186.html

Officers: Murder-suicide leaves man, stepson dead

By ANITA HASSAN

March 21, 2010, 7:31AM

A man fatally shot his 20-year-old stepson before killing himself after an argument at an east Harris County home late Saturday afternoon, authorities said.

Sheriff's deputies found two men dead when they responded around 5:30 p.m. to a call at a home in the 13900 block of Brownsville, Harris County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Deputy Janie Alvarez-Wagner said.

The two men started arguing over the stepson taking three siblings to the store, officers said.

During the argument, the 20-year-old stated that he had consent to take the children to the store from his mother, who was not at the home during the incident, authorities said. The man's stepfather then asked him to go outside the home, where he then allegedly shot him, Alvarez-Wagner said.

The three siblings, one who is 18 and the other two under the age of 10, went outside the home and attempted to help the 20-year-old .

One of the children noticed the stepfather fiddling with a gun, officers said. Shortly afterward, the children heard multiple gunshots and found the stepfather on the ground, Alvarez-Wagner said. Paramedics pronounced both men dead at the scene.

The case is under investigation by the Harris County Sheriff's Homicide Division.

anita.hassan@chron.com

Technorati Tags: Murder,ANITA,HASSAN,Houston,Chronicle,March,argument,Harris,afternoon,authorities,Sheriff,Brownsville,Office,spokeswoman,Janie,Alvarez,Wagner,children,incident,Paramedics,investigation,Homicide,Division,Officers,stepson,himself,chron,three,siblings,stepfather

Custody war: Saudi men hold children for ransom

Don't have to be in Saudi-

They hold our children Hostage here in the United States- Land of the free- (my ass) It’s time for Global Revolution!

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article32573.ece

Custody war: Saudi men hold children for ransom

By LAURA BASHRAHEEL | ARAB NEWS

Published: Mar 20, 2010 23:43 Updated: Mar 20, 2010 23:43

JEDDAH: Saudi women are increasingly speaking out about the excessive financial demands made by their ex-husbands after divorce.

Typically, in Islamic law, a mother, even if she is not a Muslim, can keep custody of her male children until the age of nine and of her female children until the age of seven after which custody goes to the father.

At nine, sons have the right to choose who they wish to stay with, while daughters normally go with their father.

A divorced mother can continue to have custody of her daughter beyond the age of seven depending on the father and what sort of relationship they have.

Nadia Nasr, a 32-year-old mother of one, said her ex-husband threatens to take her son if she marries and does not pay him money.

“I asked for divorce after I learned he was a drug addict and alcoholic,” she said.

“Once he took my son to Morocco and disappeared. I phoned his mother everyday and she was never helpful. She supported her drunkard son,” she added.

Nasr finally got a divorce and the judge presiding over her case ruled she should have custody of their son. She, however, continues to fear losing him as her ex-husband asks her for cash in return for allowing her to keep their child.

“I raised my child all alone while his father was out with his friends,” she said.

Nasr’s ex-husband calls her every so often and asks for a few thousand riyals, demands she finds difficult to refuse.

“He is crazy. He could take my son after school and no one would question him ... Who will make sure nothing happens to my son? Why do I have to live under this threat to get my basic rights?” she added.

The case of Nathalie Morin, a Canadian married to a Saudi, is another example of how some men abuse the system. Reports have been surfacing in the media that Morin’s Saudi husband is holding her captive along with their children.

According to a Canadian Foreign Ministry representative, Morin’s Saudi husband, Saeed Al-Shahrani, told Canadian consular officials in Dammam on Sept. 22 last year that he was willing to divorce her and allow her and their three children to return to Canada for $300,000.

Child custody battles in Saudi society are more than parents confronting each other in court. In many cases money plays an important role.

Ehsan Abdullah is a 45-year-old mother of four. Following her divorce over 15 years ago, Abdullah’s ex-husband took her children and prevented her from seeing them.

“He was punishing me ... He took the children, traveled somewhere and married another woman,” she said.

Abdullah said she saw her children for the first time 10 years later.

“I used to call his family on a daily basis to inquire about my children. I saw my kids 10 years later; they had all grown up not knowing me well,” she said, remembering the pain she has been through.

“I tried convincing him by offering him money. At one point, he said yes but ignored my calls later,” she added.

Custody cases used to be reviewed by several judges with each looking at the case from a particular angle.

For example, one judge would handle the visiting hours and another would look at the child support aspect.

In 2009, the Ministry of Justice made amendments, which, according to Makkah-based lawyer Ibraheem Al-Zamzami, means that only one judge will handle the entire case from beginning to end.

“The idea of custody is being misunderstood by many people. It does not mean that when a child becomes seven, the boy or girl has an option to choose or the father can take the child,” said Al-Zamzami.

“The more responsible parent and the one who is more capable of providing the child with a healthy atmosphere should be the one to be awarded custody,” he added.

He said mothers are given custody before children reach seven, adding that most custody cases are filed by mothers and not fathers.

Some abusive men take advantage of women and exploit their love for their children to extort money. “This is unethical,” he added.

“If a man is blackmailing his ex-wife by threatening to take their children from her in return for money, then he has forgotten that he is the one who is supposed to provide his children with financial support from birth until adulthood,” he added.

Technorati Tags: Custody,Saudi,children,Hostage,Land,Global,Revolution,LAURA,BASHRAHEEL,ARAB,NEWS,JEDDAH,demands,Islamic,Muslim,male,father,daughter,relationship,Nadia,Nasr,husband,money,drug,addict,Once,Morocco,cash,friends,threat,rights,Nathalie,Morin,Canadian,example,system,Reports,Foreign,Ministry,Shahrani,Dammam,Sept,Canada,Child,cases,plays,role,Ehsan,Abdullah,woman,basis,kids,pain,judges,aspect,Justice,Makkah,lawyer,Ibraheem,Zamzami,girl,option,parent,atmosphere,Some,advantage,wife,amendments,fathers,women,nine,seven

UK Inflicts Human Rights Violation on 12 Year Old

from the http://parentingnewsnetwork.com/?p=533

UK Inflicts Human Rights Violation on 12 Year Old

Mar 19, 2010

On March 17^th, 2010, Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Mrs. Justice Baron and Lady Justice Smith at the Court of Appeal ruled that a 12 year old known as Child C would be removed from his mother and should stay in foster care in the West Midlands area for a maximum of 21 days. He would then be transferred to the custody of his father whom the boy calls a “monster.” This will force the young man to move 100 miles away to London. At an earlier hearing, Judge Clifford Bellamy engaged in mother blaming saying he was “not wholly convinced” that the mother, who had “significant influence and power” over the boy, wanted contact with the father to work.

This forced removal of a child from the life he has always lived is NOT because there is anything wrong with the child’s home or mother. It is because the father has inflicted this human rights violation of Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, right to liberty, upon the child via family court. This has been perpetrated on the mother and child using the hypothetical theory of “alienation” which is well known for its use in taking children away from mothers by falsely accusing the mother of this fictitious disorder.

“Parental Alienation Syndrome” theory was originally made up by a pedophile sympathizing doctor named Richard Gardner to cover up claims of sexual abuse. The accusation of alienation is now used in case after case simply to attack a custodial parent forcing them to defend raising their own child. Accusing a custodial parent of alienation is a well known tactic of abusers to take the child away from a home where the child is happy and stable. The act of making the accusation of alienation is in itself an abusive act, because the sole purpose is to vilify the custodial parent in order to take the child away from them.

In the United States, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has issued the following warning about parental alienation in their 2009 publication, “A Judicial Guideto Child Safety in Custody Cases”

C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation

Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding

parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38

The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. 12

It appears that the justices in the United Kingdom are following Old English property laws, rather than treating the young man like a human being. A senior family judge attempted to justify this barbaric treatment by making the preposterous statement, that the child would suffer “emotional harm” if his “alienation” from his father continued.

Parenting News Network™ would like to make sure that the people responsible for this inhumane treatment know that they themselves are inflicting “emotional harm” on the boy by separating him from his mother with whom he has lived with his entire life. This is an example of a complete lack of understanding of attachment, and some education is in order: Attachment 101 should be required reading for the judicial community.

The dehumanized Child C has stated that he will go on a hunger strike and has threatened to jump from his father’s car if forced to live with his father. The father and all those aiding him are inflicting harm on the young man causing him to make these distressed statements. He is clearly indicating that he does NOT want to live anywhere other than where he has been his entire life.

The ruling quoted in the Telegraph states, “Every opportunity must be taken to allow the restoration or some restoration of the relationship between child and father during the last week of the school term.”

It is obvious to many that forcefully taking a child from a mother is a human rights violation that does not serve to “restore” a relationship, but to DESTROY the mother and child relationship at the command of the father. This does not build a relationship, it builds resentment.

The Justices involved in this inhumanity should be removed from their positions and not allowed to inflict harm on any more children.

Technorati Tags: Human,Rights,Violation,March,Lord,Justice,Thorpe,Baron,Lady,Smith,Court,Appeal,Child,West,Midlands,area,custody,father,London,Judge,Clifford,Bellamy,removal,life,Article,theory,alienation,children,disorder,Parental,Syndrome,doctor,Richard,Gardner,accusation,parent,tactic,purpose,National,Council,Juvenile,Judges,publication,Judicial,Guideto,Cases,Word,Caution,Under,testimony,existence,Kumho,Tire,Carmichael,Supreme,Daubert,factor,error,acceptance,evaluation,Frye,diagnosis,allegation,attention,Kingdom,English,treatment,statement,News,Network,example,attachment,education,Telegraph,restoration,relationship,DESTROY,resentment,Justices,attitudes,responses,statements,whom,custodial,behaviors

20.3.10

Ms Magazine: Maryland Slaps Domestic Victims in Face

Maryland Slaps Domestic Victims in Face

March 9, 2010 by Elizabeth Black · 14 Comments

Please comment and Forward on!

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/03/09/maryland-slaps-domestic-victims-in-face

A bill that would have made it easier for domestic violence victims to obtain protective orders against their abusers has failed in the Maryland House Judiciary Committee. According to The Washington Post , “H.B. 700 would have brought Maryland into conformance with the practices of every other state in the country.”

The bill would have replaced the current Maryland standard that victims must offer “clear and convincing evidence” in order to gain a protective order, rather than a “preponderance of the evidence.” Maryland, the Post pointed out, is the only state using this higher standard.

The failure of the Maryland House to lower the standard–and thus better protect the abused, who are generally women–is a slap in the face to all who have suffered at the hands of partners and can’t get the help they need.

Protective orders can be lifesavers; the lack of them can be deadly. Take the case of Mark Anthony Castillo. The Montgomery County, Maryland, man drowned his three children in a hotel bathroom after his wife was not given a protective order despite his threats against the children.

Want to let Maryland legislators know how you feel about their decision? Here’s a list of those who voted againstand for this important and necessary bill:

Against making it easier to obtain a protective order:

Curtis S. Anderson (D-Baltimore), Benjamin S. Barnes (D-Prince George’s), Jill P. Carter (D-Baltimore), Frank M. Conaway Jr. (D-Baltimore), Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel), William J. Frank (R-Baltimore County), J.B. Jennings (R-Baltimore County), Kevin Kelly (D-Allegany), Gerron S. Levi (D-Prince George’s), Tony McConkey (R-Anne Arundel), Victor R. Ramirez (D-Prince George’s), Samuel I. Rosenberg (D-Baltimore), Todd L. Schuler (D-Baltimore County), Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-Montgomery) and Michael D. Smigiel Sr. (R-Cecil)

For:

Kathleen M. Dumais (D-Montgomery), Benjamin F. Kramer (D-Montgomery), Susan C. Lee (D-Montgomery), Susan McComas (R-Harford), Kriselda Valderrama (D-Prince George’s) and Jeffrey D. Waldstreicher (D-Montgomery)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/meggganhope/ / CC BY 2.0

Technorati Tags: Magazine,Maryland,Domestic,Victims,Face,March,Elizabeth,Black,Comments,violence,orders,House,Judiciary,Committee,Washington,Post,preponderance,failure,partners,Protective,Take,Mark,Anthony,Castillo,Montgomery,children,hotel,bathroom,wife,threats,Want,decision,Here,Against,Curtis,Anderson,Benjamin,Barnes,Prince,George,Jill,Carter,Frank,Conaway,Donald,Dwyer,Anne,Arundel,William,Jennings,Kevin,Allegany,Gerron,Levi,Tony,McConkey,Victor,Ramirez,Samuel,Rosenberg,Todd,Schuler,Luiz,Simmons,Michael,Smigiel,Cecil,Dumais,Kramer,Susan,McComas,Harford,Kriselda,Valderrama,Jeffrey,Waldstreicher,photos,blog,easier

KARMA: WHILE SANDRA BULLOCK TRIES TO LAY CLAIM TO HUSBAND’S CHILDREN, HE’S MESSING WITH ANOTHER WOMAN

http://rightsformothers.com/2010/03/18/karma-while-sandra-bullock-tries-to-lay-claim-to-husbands-children-hes-messing-with-another-woman/

Rights for Mothers

It would be great to see little Sunny go back to her mommy. HER MOMMY, HER REAL Mommy.

Sandra Bullock Marriage Trouble: Custody Of Jesse James’ Children

by Yuliya Talmazan | March 18, 2010 at 09:29 am

As the story about Jesse James’ cheating allegations is spun with more and more vigor in the media, fans are starting to wonder what would happen if the couple ended up in a divorce and whether Bullock would retain any custody rights for her three step-children in case of divorce.

Sandra Bullock Marriage Trouble: What Happens If She Divorces?

Jesse James and Michelle McGee Twitter: Sandra Bullock Moves Out

Sandra Bullock Husband: Jesse James Cheating with Michelle McGee

Jesse James has three children from previous marriages – daughter Chandler and son Jesse Jr. with first wife Karla James and daughter Sunny with second wife Janine Lindemulder. Although Bullock did not officially adopt any of James’ children, she has said that she treats the children as her own.

“My love and my want for their future and their happiness, for their homework to be done and for them to know how smart and beautiful they are is no less than if I’d had a child on my own.”

Source: people.com

James has also said previously that his children “love and adore” Bullock.

In October of 2009, James’ second wife Janine Lindemulder was jailed for six months over tax evasion charges. Lindemulder sought to regain custody of her daughter Sunny. She failed, with James winning full custody rights. Bullock was reportedly very involved in the process.

Now, that Bullock’s marriage is in trouble, it is not clear how the family will go about their children. People Magazine reports that James was seen escorting his children to school on Thursday morning while still wearing his wedding ring. There was no Sandra Bullock in sight. The actress has reportedly left family home in Los Angeles in the wake of cheating allegations.

Technorati Tags: KARMA,SANDRA,BULLOCK,CLAIM,HUSBAND,CHILDREN,ANOTHER,WOMAN,Rights,Sunny,Marriage,Trouble,Custody,Jesse,James,Yuliya,Talmazan,March,vigor,Michelle,McGee,Twitter,daughter,Chandler,wife,Karla,Janine,Lindemulder,Although,homework,Source,October,evasion,People,Magazine,reports,Angeles,allegations,marriages,mommy,three

Dr. Phil & Action Alert! Kathleen Russel with Katie Tagle The Crisis in Family Courts

Lets hope dr fool dont f^&* this one up-

BREAKING NEWS

CJE's own Kathleen Russell has been invited to appear on the Dr. Phil Show!
She will be speaking about the growing crisis in our family courts, and will appear alongside Katie Tagle and others. Tagle's 9-month-old child was killed by his father after three judges denied the boy protection, even after the dad threatened in writing to kill their son.
This is a great opportunity to make sure Dr. Phil takes the crisis in our family courts seriously!
We encourage anyone who can make it to LA this Wednesday to COME TO THE DR. PHIL SHOW TAPING & SHOW YOUR SUPPORT!
To RSVP and claim your FREE admission, call either: Elaine at 323-956-3334 or Jason at 323-956-8497 this Monday between 10AM - 4PM. Be sure to tell them that you heard about the taping from CJE!
DATE OF TAPING: Wednesday, March 24
LOCATION: Provided Upon RSVP (Hollywood)
TIME: Arrive at the studio no later than 8:00AM -- taping will begin at 9:30AM and you will be free to leave by around 11:00AM.
Check the

CJE website for more information - we'll keep you updated as we firm up the details.

RECENT PRESS

Nearly 100 people gather to protest Judge Lemkau
- Victorville Daily Press 3/8/10
Rebellion in the California Court System
- ABC7 News 2/25/10
For more information, contact CJE at 415-256-9606, or at info@centerforjudicialexcellence.org

IMPACT OPPORTUNITY

Please plan to join us in Sacramento to support Whistleblower Protection in the California Courts.
Hearing Date TBD - likely early April
Assembly Judiciary Committee Hearing - AB 1749 (Whistleblower Protection)
Since 2001, court employees in the state of California have been exempt from Whistleblower Protection -- meaning they could lose their jobs if they report wrongdoing. AB 1749 -- authored by Assemblymembers Bonnie Lowenthal and Audra Strickland -- proposes to expand Whistleblower Protection to judicial employees.

Remember to check CJE's website often for updates about this hearing and other great opportunities to get involved!

www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org.

SAVE THE DATE

California Protective Parents Association
and Incest Survivors Speakers' Bureau invite you to the

16th Annual Northern California Child Sexual Abuse Awareness Conference

WHISTLEBLOWER CHILDREN:
What Happens When Children Report Sex Abuse

April 9-10, 2010

Friday, April 9th (Film Festival

Technorati Tags: Phil,Action,Alert,Russel,Katie,Tagle,Crisis,Courts,NEWS,Russell,father,judges,protection,COME,SUPPORT,RSVP,FREE,admission,Elaine,Jason,DATE,March,LOCATION,Upon,Hollywood,TIME,Arrive,studio,Check,RECENT,Judge,Lemkau,Victorville,Rebellion,California,Court,System,info,IMPACT,Sacramento,Whistleblower,April,Judiciary,Committee,employees,Assemblymembers,Bonnie,Lowenthal,Audra,Strickland,Remember,SAVE,Protective,Parents,Association,Incest,Survivors,Bureau,Annual,Northern,Child,Sexual,Abuse,Conference,CHILDREN,Report,Film,Festival,Speakers,website,centerforjudicialexcellence

19.3.10

A hasty Marriage in Domestic Violence Court makes a Mockery of the Law (MD) - of course

Another Judge who must go.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bal-ed.judge19mar19,0,6808039.story

Cupid on the bench

Our view: A hasty marriage in domestic violence court makes a mockery of the law

March 19, 2010

Judges are required to make all sorts of decisions from the bench, many of which have life-altering consequences for the parties before them. But rarely are judges tempted to play the role of Cupid in domestic disputes. That crosses a line where jurists should fear to tread.

Yet Baltimore County Judge G. Darrell Russell Jr. apparently felt no compunction about wading into matters of the heart where his court had no business. Confronted with a domestic violence case in which the alleged perpetrator sought to evade conviction by marrying his victim, the judge was only too happy to oblige. Not only did he briefly postpone the trial so the defendant could get a marriage license, he presided over the nuptials himself in chambers a few hours later.

You probably can guess what happened next. When the trial resumed, the bride - for reasons we may never know - invoked her spousal privilege and refused to testify against her husband. As a result, the charges were dropped and the groom left the courthouse a free man.

There's a good reason the law in Maryland - as well as many other states - allows prosecutors to press charges in cases of suspected domestic abuse even when the apparent victim doesn't want them to. Victims are often in no condition physically or emotionally to confront their abusers in court. They may fear retaliation, or they may continue to believe promises that the abuser will change, no matter how many times they're broken.

We have no way of knowing the emotional state of the woman in this case, but it's at least possible that she may have felt intimidated by the mere presence of her alleged abuser in court and fearful of what he might do if her testimony sent him to jail. It's likely he had already pressured her not to testify. Judge Russell's offer of a quick marriage to solve her dilemma may only have increased the pressure on her to remain silent.

How could the judge not realize such an extraordinary intervention from the bench was bound to color the victim's perception of what kind of justice she could expect from the court, or that it flew in the face of the crucial protections the law was intended to provide? Judges may see themselves as possessed of the wisdom of Solomon, but it's precisely in cases such as this that the law should act as a check on judicial overreaching.

Clearly that did not happen in this case. The defendant's request for a postponement so he could obtain a marriage license should immediately have set off alarm bells for Judge Russell. But instead, he leapt to the defense of the alleged abuser and crudely joked afterward that he had "sentenced" him to "life married to her." In fact, she may be the one serving the sentence.

County Chief Judge Ben C. Clyburn was right to immediately reassign Judge Russell to paperwork duty on civil cases after learning of the incident, but the matter cannot be allowed to end there. Judge Russell showed appallingly poor judgment and insensitivity in this case, rendering it almost impossible to imagine him ever serving as a fair arbiter of justice in cases of domestic abuse. Advocates for battered women were right to question whether he has the temperament to be a judge at all. At the very least, the public needs to know he will never be presiding over domestic violence cases again.

Readers respond

Judge Russell shouldn't have authority over any civil cases, on paper or not, after this incident.

NotableM