I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Saturday, August 1, 2009

More Mom abuse ~ Missing Idaho Boy's Disappearance 'Suspicious,' Police Say

This is a very common story. What is uncommon is the MSM reporting on it unless it gets to the point of a child's death or, in this case disappearance. This woman has apparently got a few gender discounts prior to now for child abuse. The fact she has 3 children with 3 men is a tad telling of her stability and ability to manage her reproductive urges. No doubt the victim feminists will line up to provide the usual propaganda about how she is actually a coerced victim and not responsible for her own behaviour, yadda, yadda, yadda. So much putty in the hands of the patriarchy. It is really very, very sad and there are some in the legal field/social work field who are not overly sharp knives who will buy it.MJM
FOXNews.com

Missing Idaho Boy's Disappearance 'Suspicious,' Police Say

Friday , July 31, 2009

FC1

Police investigating the disappearance of an Idaho boy missing for a week said Friday they are afraid the child may have been the victim of a tragedy.

Boise authorities told reporters that there are "suspicious circumstances" surrounding 8-year-old Robert Manwill's disappearance.

"Robert may be injured or be the victim of a tragic event," said Boise Police Chief Jim Kerns at a brief Friday press conference. "But he is still missing."

Earlier this week, news emerged that Robert's mother is on probation for fracturing the skull of the missing boy's infant half brother, who was removed from her custody by the state.

Robert was last seen near the Boise apartment of his mother, Melissa Scott Jenkins. Police detectives, FBI agents and more than 100 volunteers have searched extensively, but haven't found him.

Boise police have previously said there is no evidence of foul play in the disappearance of Robert, and that the family is cooperating fully.

The missing boy's father, Charles Manwill, has had custody of him since 2008. Jenkins has visitation rights, and the boy was visiting her the night he disappeared.

Court records show a history of family tragedies involving children.

Jenkins pleaded guilty in March to a misdemeanor charge of injury to a child following an October 2008 incident that fractured her infant son's skull, according to The Idaho Statesman.

Court records say Jenkins "did willfully inflict" the injury to her other son "by striking the child's head on a surface, causing a fracture to the child's skull," on Oct. 19, 2008. She was sentenced to 29 days of work release, fined $75.50 and put on probation for two years.

The child is the son of Jenkins' boyfriend, Daniel Edward Ehrlick, and was in the care of the state Department of Health and Welfare through at least February, according to court documents. The agency on Wednesday would not release his whereabouts, citing policy.

Jenkins has a third child, a 2 1/2-year-old daughter, fathered by a third man, who has custody of her. Jenkins has visitation rights. Ehrlick, who has been convicted of burglary, battery and possession of drug paraphernalia, is banned from being alone with the girl, but court documents don't say why.

In another case, Charles Manwill's wife, Silke Fatma Manwill, stabbed their 4-year-old son, Michael, in the chest in 1993, killing him. She was sentenced to federal prison after pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter, and was released in 2002.

Meanwhile, Jenkins has declined to comment on her son Robert's disappearance.

"We are a joined family at this time in this crisis," said Trisha Burrill, Robert Manwill's aunt. "We are acting as one, with one goal in mind. To bring Robert back."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535914,00.html?test=latestnews

Jenkins Case Shows Custody System Doesn't Protect Kids from Abusive Moms

August 1st, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

"Jenkins' willful fracturing of a toddler's skull was apparently insufficient to convince a court to restrict her contact with her other children to only supervised visitation, or less."

In this case, we have a woman, Melissa Scott Jenkins, who is the mother of three children, each with a different father (FoxNews, 7/31/09). In 2008, she pleaded guilty to willfully fracturing the skull of her infant son by striking it on "a surface." For that she was sentenced to 29 days of work release and fined $75.50. Prior to that incident, the boy was either in state custody or that of his father, and Jenkins had visitation rights.

Now a second of Jenkins's sons, eight-year-old Robert Manwill, is missing. Boise, Idaho police fear he may be injured and Jenkins isn't talking. Robert's father had custody of him and Jenkins had visitation rights. He disappeared during one of Jenkins' visitation periods.

Jenkins' third child is a two-year-old daughter, also in the custody of her father. Mercifully, she seems to remain alive and uninjured.

Feminist organizations like NOW oppose equally shared parenting on the spurious basis that, if fathers are allowed equal rights in family courts, children will be thrust into the hands of violent abusers. The reasons why that is a nonsensical argument are too numerous to mention in this posting, but the case of Melissa Scott Jenkins amply illustrates a few.

First, existing child custody laws don't do a great job of preventing injuries to children by their parents. In the Jenkins case, her willful fracturing of a toddler's skull was apparently insufficient to convince a court to restrict her contact with her other children to only supervised visitation, or less. Why? We don't know, but whatever the reason, the fact remains that under the current child custody scheme, parents injure children. If shared parenting were adopted, they still would. Shared parenting won't change human nature. To demand that it do so is to set the bar well too high.

Second, shared parenting essentially is aimed at dispensing with the concept of primary custody and visitation in favor of equal custody by both parents. (That is most importantly because children benefit from active parenting by both mother and father. Secondarily, it's to give fathers access to their children - access the current system all too readily denies.) Why that would increase the likelihood of child abuse, feminist apologists for the current system never make clear. As the Jenkins case shows, parents with only visitation rights can injure as surely as anyone else.

Third, mothers injure children as often as fathers do - maybe more so. Department of Justice figures indicate that, in cases in which a child is injured by one parent only, that parent is twice as likely to be its mother as its father. Now that's not to say that women are more dangerous to children than are men. Likely the DoJ figures reflect the fact that women spend more time caring for children than do men. But the feminist assumption that fathers are inherently dangerous to children, and therefore any law that seeks to connect children to their fathers is dangerous to them, is, to say the least, at odds with the facts.

Under any child custody system, Melissa Scott Jenkins apparently should at most have some sort of supervised visitation. That's because she's proven herself to be a serious danger to children in her care. Equally shared parenting isn't about protecting the rights of women or men like her. Under equally shared parenting, courts will still have to decide on whether a parent presents a danger to a child. If she/he does, then appropriate measures can be taken to protect the child. If not, then 50/50 custody is the rule.

The next time a feminist organization like NOW argues in favor of the current, radically unequal system, remember Melissa Scott Jenkins.

22 Responses to “Jenkins Case Shows Custody System Doesn't Protect Kids from Abusive Moms”

Note: The views expressed by readers in the reader comments do NOT necessarily reflect those of Glenn Sacks. The fact that the comment is posted on this blog does NOT signify that Glenn Sacks agrees with it. Posters' views are those of the posters alone--Glenn's views can ONLY be found in the blog post itself, not the comments.

While blog commenters are given great freedom on this blog, there are some rules of moderation. To read those, click here.

  1. Sharon Says:

    It would seem female supremacists are really only interested in keeping women happy and safe from ‘abusive’ men. Apparently, keeping women from harming children is way less important to them. Sharon

  2. donnii w Says:

    Sharon Says: August 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm "Apparently, keeping women from harming children is way less important to them." right you are. the paramount agenda appears to be personal security for women, and children as a conduit to that end. it's obvious as a matter of fact, to those who are looking.

  3. Mike Murphy Says:

    I see the victim feminists offering the canard that the women has more access therefore more injury. I'm sorry to see it here as it is completely unscientific and unproven. There is no excuse for injury to a child by anyone no matter how much contact.

    I was a stay-at-home dad for 10 years and never once even applied corporal punishment. My ex saw them in the evenings and on weekends but still managed to strike and injure them more than once. Guess who has custody? According to your logic I should have injured my children more often.

    Those who harm their children have a greater likelihood of personality disorder. That;'s as scientific as saying more contact = more injury and does a disservice to those of us fighting for more involvement through legislative changes.

    All you do is supply ammunition to opponents. The OZ victim feminists fighting their shared parenting laws will love you and likely quote you but use it against men.

  4. Robert Franklin, Esq. Says:

    Mike Murphy - What gives ammunition to the "opponents" is to play fast and loose with facts and to draw illogical conclusions. The facts are that women do more child injury than do men, and that women do more childcare than do men. It is entirely possible that the fact that they spend more time with children accounts for the fact that they do more injury to them. I'm not aware of any definitive study that shows that not to be the case. Are you? If you are, I'll be glad to read it. I'll also be glad to post a piece on it.

  5. Mike Murphy Says:

    You miss my point. You are making an assumption based on no evidence. That is exactly what the feminists do.

    Cause and effect are not evident and there is absolutely no correlation to suggest otherwise.

    i have been arguing against this supposition with the feminists for years and you are supplying them with ammo that has no gunpowder, but then they never needed the power source - that being the truth, only willing dullards like some law makers. Jim Beall up in Sacramento is one of them.

    It isn't a smoking gun - if it is prove the relationship otherwise it has no place in print or online.

  6. Robert Franklin Says:

    Mike Murphy - Nope, I'm not making an assumption. I'm asserting a reasonable hypothesis. I'm open to any analysis that proves or disproves the hypothesis. Can you provide any?

  7. tweesdad Says:

    Anyone have a copy of Warren Farrell's "Father and Child Reunion" at hand?

    In there it says (I think near page 76) that mothers commit more child abuse and neglect than fathers EVEN when accounting for the more time they spend with children. (Only when sexual abuse is tallied separately out of the stats do fathers appear worse).

    Other sources have debunked the "more time = more abuse" hypothesis too, but I can't recall where, sorry.

    One explanation I haven't seen examined is to do with the length of time alone with a child - spending one hour with a screaming toddler and then (e.g.) going off to work is less likely to cause a parent frustration than spending hours 11-12 alone with them.

    Another explanation may be a selective effect - for a dad to be able to spend a lot of time with their kids, they have to overcome a lot of obstacles - family court, stigma about work, and in many case, gatekeeping moms. So only the most dedicated dads end up in that position, and are less likely to abuse as the general population of moms (which includes some very bad ones).

  8. Mike Murphy Says:

    On page 77 of Warren Farrell's " Father and Child Reunion" he states in the first paragraph, "The fact that moms spend more time with the child is also not as important a contributor to abuse as is the experience of powerlessness. As we have seen, single moms are 24 times as likely to kill children as are single dads. (11) In these families, the time spent by mother versus father is about equal-and the mom and dad have equal responsibility."

    The footnote 11 refers to the "Third National Incident Study of Child Abuse and Neglect/Appendices, 1997..."

    I'm disappointed you would posit a hypothesis with no foundation or facts (which is what science uses) that feeds into the mythology of the victim feminist arsenal. No doubt your "hypothesis" will make it to the Liz Library and be used against fathers in the future.

    As a full time dad for 10 years I know full well what the daily rigours of parenting are from infancy. At no time would I have ever considered abusing a child as part of the repertoire of behaviours that could be used in their ubringing. I did this with a mentally ill abusoive ex

  9. Mike Murphy Says:

    the finish should be... ill abusive ex who got custody by using false abuse allegations that are disseminated by just about every local DV Shelter for women "chop shop" who thrive on this victim feminist nonsense.

    Please try to refrain from replenishing their invective with more myths.

  10. Dave Says:

    Robert Franklin says: "Likely the DoJ figures reflect the fact that women spend more time caring for children than do men."

    Sorry, but I think that there is a lttle more to it than that. Table 5-3 of the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3) from the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) indicates that children in mother-only households are almost 4 times more likely to be fatally abused [read: murdered] than children in father-only households.

    Table 5-4 shows that children in mother-only households are 40% more likely to be sexually abused than children in father-only households.

    Table 3-4 shows that between 1986 and 1993, as the number of single-mother households increased dramatically, fatal child abuse increased 46% and serious child abuse increased four fold.

    And yet the feminists and their judicial cronies expect us to believe that blindly and routinely awarding primary custody of children to the mother is in the "best interest" of the children???

  11. Dave Says:

    Robert Franklin says: "Likely the DoJ figures reflect the fact that women spend more time caring for children than do men."

    If this were true, then shouldn't any reasonable, responsible person make every effort to ensure that men start spending more time caring for children???

    Don't these poor overworked, overstressed mothers deserve a break???

  12. Mike Murphy Says:

    Dave: "If this were true, then shouldn't any reasonable, responsible person make every effort to ensure that men start spending more time caring for children???"

    Your logic is impeccable. The case for equal shared parenting with co-residency is clearly a viable alternative and that is the front on which I fight. It has to be fought with facts, however, not more myths.

  13. Dave Says:

    Mike Murphy,

    Thanks and I agree 100%. The government's own statistics prove what a disaster the current "family court" system is, as well as how harmful the government's own "family-oriented" policies have been. Isn't it about time that honest people call them on this?

    The current US President recetly stated that our government's policies should be based upon facts, not idealogy. Shouldn't he be given the opportunity to back up thoose pretty words with action?

  14. tweesdad Says:

    If you're in need of more facts and sources, you may have to look no further than this very website, which has a "Sources" page:

    http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1000

    ...incomplete and a little out of date, but Glenn compiled a very useful list of myth-busting sources for combating the frequent rubbish printed and disseminated about men.

    Mike, thanks for quoting the Farrell reference, debunking the "more time = more abuse" hypothesis. But Robert had every reason to suggest such a hypothesis on this site (even an incorrect one as it turned out).

    My own "cumulative effect" and "selection effect" hypotheses are similarly unfounded but I threw them out there to see if anyone could come up with a test for them. I'm betting on "selection effect", which Dr. Farrell also uses to explain why children of single dads do so much better than those of non-abusive single moms. Can I prove this translates to abuse cases? No.

    I'm sure the disagreement between you is more about semantics and could be resolved easily over a beer...

  15. Mike Murphy Says:

    Tweesdad: As long as its Guiness and very very cold. :)

  16. Robert Franklin, Esq. Says:

    All - Mea culpa. You got me. Yes, the data do show that mothers not only abuse more children, but they're more likely to abuse them than are dads. I'd read Farrell's book, but it was years ago and I'd forgotten the information on that topic. Thanks for the heads-up.

  17. Mike Murphy Says:

    You are welcome.

    Did you also see the Harriot Harmon article in today's issue of the Times Online which was her typical sexist drivel over the role of men in her party. "Harriet Harman: you can’t trust men in power" I made a few comments on two of those articles. I also saw the one you wrote up about in the same issue on the 95% of moms who get custody and are still whining that the pendulum is swinging the other way. There is no end to the feminist shrieking.

    Your work is appreciated Mr. Franklin. Thank you.

  18. tweesdad Says:

    Hey Robert, no mea culpa needed, nobody "got" you because you made a reasonable guess, and we got to some good info on this thread. I also appreciate all the work you do.

    I remember hearing somewhere that in France, presumptive 50/50 custody is the norm, and as a result parents and lawyers have no vested interest in a drawn-out custody war. Anyone got a good source for that? I

  19. Mike Murphy Says:

    I don't believe France has true 50-50 custody. I updated my world wide analysis and research of shared parenting and you can view it here. http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/2009/05/custody-situations-in-various-countries.html It is current as of Jan/09.

    There are many permutations but Belgium may have the most solid version. It came into force in 2006 the same time as in OZ but Australia's is pretty watered down and currently under review because 1:) They have a newer socialist government with feminist government political leaders in crucial departments 2:) The feminists are shrieking abuse - abuse abuse by us dads.

  20. Armageddon Says:

    The facts are that women do more child injury than do men, and that women do more childcare than do men. It is entirely possible that the fact that they spend more time with children accounts for the fact that they do more injury to them. I'm not aware of any definitive study that shows that not to be the case.

    Robert-

    Not attempting to "pile on" but you make a common mistake: You confuse abuse with injury. Now, is it reasonable that as a child spends more time with me, there is more opportunity for an injury to occur while in my care? Of course. An injury is pretty much a fact of life and happens on a random basis. Abuse, on the other hand, is a deliberate action by the caretaker and therefore is not related to the time of care. If a caretaker won't abuse, then no amount of increased time will make abuse more likely (nor reduced time make abuse less likely).

    So yes, my kids spending more time with me increases the chance that I might drop something on them or that they may fall from some height, but it does not increase the chances that I am going to abuse them, neglect them, or murder them.

    Now, if you want some current(?) statistics, the NIS-3 was published in 1996 (NIS-4 is still underway). The NIS-3 did a number of comparisons, one of which was abuse rates by type of household. I don't remember the percentages, but I remember the ratios, and they are shocking. Dual-biological-parent households had an abuse rate of X. Single-mother households had an abuse rate of 3X. Three times as much abuse in a single-mother household. And the total shocker? Single-father households had an abuse rate BELOW dual-parent households! It was approximately .95X

  21. Armageddon Says:

    I realized that I misphrased that horribly:

    So yes, my kids spending more time with me increases the chance that something might drop on them or that they may fall from some height while in my care, but it does not increase the chances that I am going to abuse them, neglect them, or murder them.

  22. dave aldridge Says:

    This story is no surprise to me.Only a year or so ago in my state of south australia, a mother appeared in court charged with murdering one of her children. The judge said that he would let her keep custody of her other children as she might become DEPRESSED if she lost them. Best interests of the child obviously didn't even enter into the equation.

No comments: