Another DADDY KILLER with multiple PROTECTIVE ORDERS- charged with Shooting & KILLING his 3 children while On VISITATION-- Mother is in BATTERED Women's Shelter) Child Custody Battle

OUTRAGED end to battle over 3 kids

Father charged with killing his children as they slept, fearing loss of visitation rights

Another DADDY KILLER with multiple protective orders --  one in 2006 was dissolved. Another temp RO was granted in Feb 2010. Of course this great guy got his visitation—see court docket below the article. This one is laced right down to the contributing reporters—I’ll let the readers figure this out--

GAL—Guardian Ad Litem (for the kids) Ifzar

Contributing reporter- Shauk

DADDY - Muhammed Goher

Court docket follows the article—History of Domestic violence and the Guardian Ad Litem allowed these kids to be murdered.

123

Harris Co. Sheriff's Office

Mohammad Gohar is being treated at Ben Taub General Hospital.

A 47-year-old father worried that he would never see his three children again was charged in their deaths on Sunday, accused of fatally shooting his son and two daughters as they slept in his north Harris County apartment.

Mohammad Goher then turned the gun on himself, firing into his mouth. Authorities found him unconscious and transported him in stable condition to Ben Taub General Hospital.

He was charged with capital murder Sunday afternoon.

Goher had threatened to kill or hurt himself if he lost visitation, said Houston attorney Syed Izfar, who was appointed by a court to represent Goher's three children in a Sept. 24 divorce mediation.

"By all appearances, this was a man who loved his children. What a nightmare," said Izfar, who planned to recommend standard visitation in the case. "He had it in his mind that the children would be taken away from him forever."

While there was a history of violence against the mother — including a 2006 conviction against Goher for beating her — Izfar said he was unaware of the father ever harming 14-year-old Saeedah, 12-year-old Saeed or 7-year-old Aisha.

The family had lived together in a tiny apartment adjacent to a worn-down convenience store where Goher worked in the 13000 block of Homestead until divorce proceedings began last year.

Weekend visits

Since then, the children typically visited Goher on weekends and lived with their mother at a north Harris County shelter for battered women, said Harris County Homicide Sgt. Ben Beall.

The night before the killings, Goher called co-worker Muhommad Riaz distraught that he would lose all custody rights at the coming mediation and never see his children.

"He was very stressed," said Riaz, who was stunned to learn of the killings when he reported to work Sunday afternoon.

"We talked for an hour. He said, 'Everybody is lying and saying I'm a bad guy,' " Riaz said.

Around 9 a.m. Sunday, while the children and an older family friend visiting from Pakistan were sleeping, Goher got out a handgun, authorities said. Beall said he shot one of his girls sleeping in a bedroom and shot his other daughter and son sleeping in a king-size bed in a front room.

He then crawled onto the bed and shot himself, Beall said.

Neighbor called 911

The gunfire woke the family friend, who speaks little English. She saw the bloodied bodies and ran outside for help.

Neighbor Julio Rodriguez was cutting his grass across the street when another neighbor whistled at him loudly, alerting him to the scene.

He looked over at the store and saw a woman in the store parking lot, frantically waving her arms in the air and screaming loudly.

"She was hysterical," Rodriguez said. "I heard her screaming, 'Gun! Gun! Shoot! Shoot!' I got scared because I knew there were kids in there."

Rodriguez then called 911, and patrolmen arrived moments later to find the children dead.

Detectives' grim duty

Harris County homicide detectives went to the shelter Sunday afternoon to tell the mother her three children had been killed.

She was inconsolable, Beall said.

Neighbors who frequented the store knew little about the family, saying the children were extremely quiet and spent most time indoors.

"We would never see them outside or playing like normal kids," said 14-year-old Mercedes Sanchez, who attended middle school with one of the girls.

Attorney Ifzar recalled the children as normal and happy but struggling with the divorce.

"They wanted their parents to stay together," he said.

Staff writers Zain Shauk, Sarah Raslan and Brian Rogers contributed to this report.

paige.hewitt@chron.com

 

HCDistrictclerk.com	GOHER, NORMA vs. GOHER, MOHAMMAD	9/19/2010
	Cause: 201007759	CDI: 7	Court: 312

APPEALS

No Appeals found.

COST STATMENTS

No Cost Statments found.

TRANSFERS

No Transfers found.

POST TRIAL WRITS

No Post Trial Writs found.

ABSTRACTS

No Abstracts found.

DOCUMENTS
Proper credentials required. Please login or contact Harris County District Clerk's Office at (713) 755-7300.
SUMMARY
CASE DETAILS File Date 2/5/2010 Case (Cause) Location 312th District Court Case (Cause) Status Active - Civil Case (Cause) Type DIVORCE WITH CHILDREN Next/Last Setting Date 9/27/2010	COURT DETAILS Court 312th Address 1115 Congress (Floor: 2) Houston , TX 77002 Phone:7137556941 JudgeName A. ROBERT HINOJOSA Court Type Family

PARTIES
Name	Type	Post Jdgm	Attorney
GOHER, NORMA	PLAINTIFF - CIVIL		PEAKE, SANDRA J
GOHER, MOHAMMAD	DEFENDANT - CIVIL		TABANGAY, FELYCELESTIO E
IZFAR, SYED NAIYER	GUARDIAN AD LITEM		IZFAR, SYED NAIYER
DOMESTIC RELATIONS OFFICE, HARRIS COUNTY	MEDIATOR

JUDGMENT/EVENTS
Date	Description	Order Signed	Post Jdgm	Pgs	Attorney
9/8/2010	ANSWER GUARDIAN AD LITEM			0	IZFAR, SYED NAIYER
7/6/2010	ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION SIGNED	7/6/2010		1
7/6/2010	ORDER SIGNED GRANTING REFERRAL TO MEDIATION	7/6/2010		1
3/19/2010	ORDER APPOINTING CONSERVATOR SIGNED	3/19/2010		18
3/19/2010	ORDER GRANTING VISITATION SIGNED	3/19/2010		18
3/10/2010	MASTER'S REPORT SIGNED	3/10/2010		1
3/9/2010	RULING MADE - HEARING COMPLETE			0
3/9/2010	BENCH HEARING ASSIGNED			0
3/9/2010	EVIDENCE PRESENTED (BENCH HEARING)			0
3/9/2010	ANSWER ORIGINAL PETITION			0	TABANGAY, FELYCELESTIO E
3/9/2010	ORDER APPOINTING AMICUS ATTORNEY GUARDIAN AD LITEM	3/9/2010		1
2/15/2010	ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO ANOTHER DISTRICT COURT SIGNED	2/15/2010		1
2/5/2010	TRANSFERRED TO HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT			0
2/5/2010	TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT			0
2/5/2010	ORDER SIGNED SETTING HEARING	2/5/2010		6
2/5/2010	ORIGINAL PETITION			0	PEAKE, SANDRA J
2/5/2010	ORDER SIGNED GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER	2/5/2010		6

SETTINGS
Date	Court	Post Jdgm	Docket Type	Reason	Results	Comments	Defendant
3/09/2010 09:00 AM	312		Show Cause Docket (Family)	TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER	Tried
3/12/2010 09:00 AM	312		Show Cause Docket (Family)	ENTRY OF TEMPORARY ORDERS	Re-Set
3/19/2010 09:00 AM	312		Show Cause Docket (Family)	ENTRY OF TEMPORARY ORDERS	Granted
5/26/2010 09:00 AM	312		Show Cause Docket (Family)	SHOW CAUSE MOTION FOR	Re-Set
7/06/2010 09:00 AM	312		Show Cause Docket (Family)	SHOW CAUSE MOTION FOR	Passed	DRO
8/18/2010 09:00 AM	312		Show Cause Docket (Family)	WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD	Passed - No Appearance
9/27/2010 09:00 AM	312		Family Trial Docket	Trial on Merits

SERVICE
Type	Status	Instrument	Person	Requested	Issued	Served	Returned	Received	Tracking	Deliver To
CITATION	SERVICE RETURN / EXECUTED	ORIGINAL PETITION	GOHER, MOHAMMAD	2/5/2010	2/10/2010	2/10/2010	2/17/2010	2/18/2010	81990963	CIV AGCY-CIVILIAN SERVICE AGENCY
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER	SERVICE RETURN / EXECUTED	ORIGINAL PETITION	GOHER, MOHAMMAD	2/5/2010	2/10/2010	2/10/2010	2/17/2010	2/18/2010	81990964	CIV AGCY-CIVILIAN SERVICE AGENCY

HCDistrictclerk.com	GOHER, MOHAMMAD SAJJAD vs. GOHER, NORMA MARTINEZ	9/19/2010
	Cause: 200924900	CDI: 7	Court: 312

APPEALS

No Appeals found.

COST STATMENTS

No Cost Statments found.

TRANSFERS

No Transfers found.

POST TRIAL WRITS

No Post Trial Writs found.

ABSTRACTS

No Abstracts found.

DOCUMENTS
Proper credentials required. Please login or contact Harris County District Clerk's Office at (713) 755-7300.
SUMMARY
CASE DETAILS File Date 4/23/2009 Case (Cause) Location Records Center Floor 6 Case (Cause) Status Disposed (Final) Case (Cause) Type DIVORCE WITH CHILDREN Next/Last Setting Date N/A Judgment For ORDER OF NON-SUIT SIGNED Judgment Date 1/19/2010	COURT DETAILS Court 312th Address 1115 Congress (Floor: 2) Houston , TX 77002 Phone:7137556941 JudgeName A. ROBERT HINOJOSA Court Type Family

PARTIES
Name	Type	Post Jdgm	Attorney
GOHER, MOHAMMAD SAJJAD	PLAINTIFF - CIVIL		THIELE, LISA JEAN
GOHER, NORMA MARTINEZ	DEFENDANT - CIVIL

JUDGMENT/EVENTS
Date	Description	Order Signed	Post Jdgm	Pgs	Attorney
1/19/2010	ORDER OF NON-SUIT SIGNED	1/19/2010		1
1/19/2010	PLAINTIFF COSTS			0
6/22/2009	ANSWER ORIGINAL PETITION			0
4/30/2009	TRANSFERRED TO HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT			0
4/30/2009	ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO ANOTHER DISTRICT COURT SIGNED	4/30/2009		1
4/30/2009	TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT			0
4/23/2009	ORIGINAL PETITION			0	THIELE, LISA JEAN

SETTINGS
Date	Court	Post Jdgm	Docket Type	Reason	Results	Comments	Defendant
2/01/2010 09:00 AM	312		Family Trial Docket	Trial on Merits	Passed	NON SUIT

SERVICE
Type	Status	Instrument	Person	Requested	Issued	Served	Returned	Received	Tracking	Deliver To
CITATION(NON-RESIDENT)	SERVICE RETURN / EXECUTED	ORIGINAL PETITION	GOHER, NORMA MARTINEZ

HCDistrictclerk.com	GOHER, NORMA vs. GOHER, MOHAMMAD	9/19/2010
	Cause: 200629425	CDI: 7	Court: 312

APPEALS

No Appeals found.

COST STATMENTS

No Cost Statments found.

TRANSFERS

No Transfers found.

POST TRIAL WRITS

No Post Trial Writs found.

ABSTRACTS

No Abstracts found.

DOCUMENTS
Proper credentials required. Please login or contact Harris County District Clerk's Office at (713) 755-7300.
SUMMARY
CASE DETAILS File Date 5/12/2006 Case (Cause) Location Records Center Floor 6 Case (Cause) Status Disposed (Final) Case (Cause) Type PROTECTIVE ORDER Next/Last Setting Date N/A Judgment For DEFAULT JUDGMENT SIGNED Judgment Date 5/24/2006	COURT DETAILS Court 312th Address 1115 Congress (Floor: 2) Houston , TX 77002 Phone:7137556941 JudgeName A. ROBERT HINOJOSA Court Type Family

PARTIES
Name	Type	Post Jdgm	Attorney
GOHER, NORMA	PLAINTIFF - CIVIL		DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, NON-SUPPORT
GOHER, MOHAMMAD	DEFENDANT - CIVIL

JUDGMENT/EVENTS
Date	Description	Order Signed	Post Jdgm	Pgs	Attorney
7/13/2006	C/C PROTECTIVE ORDER MAILED			0
7/12/2006	ORDER SIGNED DISSOLVING PROTECTIVE ORDER	7/12/2006		1
7/12/2006	MASTER'S REPORT SIGNED	7/12/2006		1
5/24/2006	DEFENDANT COSTS			0
5/24/2006	STENO FEE ASSESSED			0
5/24/2006	C/C PROTECTIVE ORDER MAILED			0
5/24/2006	DEFAULT JUDGMENT SIGNED	5/24/2006		4
5/16/2006	ORDER SIGNED GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDER	5/16/2006		4
5/16/2006	C/C PROTECTIVE ORDER MAILED			0
5/16/2006	ORDER SIGNED SETTING PROTECTIVE HEARING	5/16/2006		4
5/12/2006	ORIGINAL PETITION			0	BARRON, ELIZABETH DIANNE

SETTINGS
Date	Court	Post Jdgm	Docket Type	Reason	Results	Comments	Defendant
5/24/2006 08:30 AM	312		Show Cause Docket (Family)	PROTECTIVE ORDER (FAMILY CASES)	Granted	DEF
7/05/2006 09:00 AM	312		Show Cause Docket (Family)	MOTION FOR ORAL HEARING	Granted

SERVICE
Type	Status	Instrument	Person	Requested	Issued	Served	Returned	Received	Tracking	Deliver To
TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER	SERVICE RETURN / EXECUTED	TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER	GOHER, MOHAMMAD	5/12/2006	5/17/2006	5/18/2006	5/18/2006	5/23/2006	81601832	CONSTABLE PCT 1

201007759 - 7 Active - Civil	GOHER, NORMA  vs. GOHER, MOHAMMAD	2/5/2010	312	Family	DIVORCE W / CHILDREN
200924900 - 7 Disposed (Final)	GOHER, MOHAMMAD SAJJAD vs. GOHER, NORMA MARTINEZ	4/23/2009	312	Family	DIVORCE W / CHILDREN
200629425 - 7 Disposed (Final)	GOHER, NORMA  vs. GOHER, MOHAMMAD	5/12/2006	312	Family	PROTECTIVE ORDER

A Cancer Spreading in the Custody Court System

Courtesy Times Up

By Barry Goldstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

HELL IS FOR ABUSERS!!!!

Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

or click the link below

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

Upcoming Show: 9/16/2010 5:00 PM   

 

Host Name:
American Mothers Political Party

Still Standing

Length:
1 hr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.AmericanMothersPoliticalParty.org

 

Exorcising Patriarchy

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

Exorcising Patriarchy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

1[i]Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary

2 Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patriarchy

 

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

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

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

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

Contents

[hide]

• 1 Etymology and related terms
• 2 History
• 3 Sociobiology versus Sociology
• 4 Patriarchy in anthropology, archaeology and mythology
• 5 See also
• 6 Notes and references
• 7 Additional reading
• 8 External links

[edit] Etymology and related terms

See also: Patriarch

The term patriarch means the father or chief of a clan. It is also used in Christianity as an official title, and derives from the Greek patriárchēs (πατριάρχης) via the Latin patriarcha. ^[2]

“Names of Christian dignitaries were in early days taken sometimes from civil life (episkopos, diakonos), sometimes borrowed from the Jews (presbyteros). The name patriarch is one of the latter class. Bishops of special dignity were called patriarchs just as deacons were called levites, because their place corresponded by analogy to those in the Old Law. All such titles became official titles, only gradually. At first they were used loosely as names of honour without any strict connotation; but in all such cases the reality existed before any special name was used.”^[2]

A patriarch is one of the scriptural fathers of the Hebrew people, a man who is father or founder, or a man who is head of a patriarchy. The official title of Patriarch refers to any of the ancient or Eastern Orthodox Sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, or of the ancient and Western Sees of Rome with authority over other bishops. It also refers to the head of any of various eastern churches or a Roman Catholic bishop. Finally, it could refer to a Mormon of the Melchizedek priesthood.^[3]

A patriarchate is the jurisdiction of a patriarch.^[4]

Within feminist theory, patriarchy refers to the structure of modern cultural and political systems, which are ruled by men. Such systems are said to be detrimental to the rights of women. However, it has been noted that patriarchal systems of government do not benefit all men of all classes.^[5]

While the term patriarchy generally refers to institutions, the term is sometimes used less effectively in describing societal attitudes. It has been argued, "institutions are very persistent and may last, with little change, into a period in which attitudes have altered considerably since the institutions were devised." Gordon Rattray Taylor used the words "patrist" and "matrist" to describe attitudes (as opposed to institutions), and noted that the outlook of the dominant social group seems to swing between the two extremes. However, the patrist assertion that the patriarchal system of authority was the original and universal system of social organization, invariably leads to the establishment of corresponding institutions.^[6]

[edit] History

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

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

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

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

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

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