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.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Baby P and the Child Abuse Industry

There are those who live off the avails of poverty and I call them Poverty Pimps. Should those who should be protecting children whether it be social workers or others inside the industry who take actions that cause children to be put in greater danger be called Child Abuse Pimps. What should judges who routinely make these decisions be called aside from enablers of child abuse. Read on and you be the judge.MJM The Salisbury Review
Baby P and the Child Abuse Industry Print
Written by Stephen Baskerville, March 14th 2009

The Baby P killing reveals the child abuse industry at its most cynical. The Soviet-style ineptitude revealed daily is the product not of poor training or underfunding but of the logic inherent in bureaucratic politics.

We have long known what causes child abuse and why children like Baby P die. The vast preponderance of child abuse and child deaths occurs in single-parent homes. Very little abuse takes place in married, twoparent families. London’s Family Education Trust long ago demonstrated that children are up to 33 times more likely to suffer serious abuse and 73 times more likely to suffer fatal abuse in the home of a mother with a live-in boyfriend or stepfather than in an intact family.

Figures from the US Justice Department show that single mothers accounted for 55 per cent of child murders. Shorn of politically correct euphemism, what this means is that the principal impediment to child abuse is a father. ‘Fathers have often played the protector role inside families,’ writes Adrienne Burgess of Fathers Direct. A study in the journal Adolescent and Family Health found that ‘The presence of the father … placed the child at lesser risk for child sexual abuse.’

Yet instead of allowing fathers to protect their children, fathers are forcibly and systematically removed from their homes and children by family courts with the active support of social work bureaucracies. Ironically, this is often effected using trumped-up charges of child abuse against fathers, though statistically biological fathers are responsible for very little abuse. Judges claim they remove fathers, even without evidence of abuse, to ‘err on the side of caution’. In fact they are erring on the side of danger, and it is difficult to believe they do not realize it. Thus the child abuse apparatchiks remove the children’s natural protector, whereupon the real abusers — the single mother and her boyfriends — are free to abuse his children with impunity. Groups like Fathers4Justice and protesters like Jolly Stanesby are vilified for calling attention to the confiscation and abuse of their children, when they are merely responding as any parent can be expected to do when someone interferes with his child.

The sanctimonious hand-wringing now on display in Britain is endemic throughout the industrialized world.‘We cannot tolerate the abuse of even one child,’ says the US Department of Health and Human Services. But HHS funds an army of officials and programmes that remove children from their fathers’ care and then claim to protect them from subsequent abuse. The logic is marvellously self-justifying and self-perpetuating, since by eliminating the father, officials can then present themselves as the solution to the problem they themselves create. The more child abuse, the more the proffered solution is to further expand the cadres of what amount to plainclothes police. Clich├ęs about social workers being ‘overworked and underfunded’ and in need of more ‘resources’ provide a fairly clear indication of a thriving bureaucratic enterprise expanding its turf.

Refusing to face these truths also means an increasingly repressive state machinery and authoritarian habits of mind that are unhealthy in a free society. Urging citizens to watch and report on their neighbours should they detect ‘signs’ of abuse, and requiring professionals to do so, can only foster a society of busybodies and snoops and will certainly mean more harassment of innocent parents and removal of their children, as is already happening.

Child abuse is entirely preventable. The current epidemic grew up with the welfare state and the divorce revolution, with the resulting proliferation of fatherless homes. It continues because of entrenched interests employed pretending to combat it. It is a textbook example of bureaucratic government creating a problem for itself to solve. As Dickens observed ‘the one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself’. Appalling as it sounds, the conclusion seems inescapable that we have created a massive governmental machine staffed by officials with a vested professional interest in abused children.

Britain deserves credit for the huge public discussion prompted by this case — a discussion that has not been held in the United States or elsewhere. But until we have the courage to tell the truth about who is abusing children and the state’s role in permitting and even encouraging them to do it, then all our professed concern for children is mere posturing.

Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College in Virginia, USA, and author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family (Cumberland House, 2007).

Mother loses kids for anti-dad stance

This story is interesting in that the term Parental Alienation isn't used even once but it is a classic case of same.MJM Mother loses kids for anti-dad stance

Caroline Overington | March 31, 2009

Article from: The Australian

TWO children who have been in the care of their mother since their parents separated in 2005 have been sent from Hobart to live with their father in Melbourne after the Family Court heard the mother encouraged them to have "negative" feelings about their dad.

The two children - a girl, aged nine, and a boy, aged seven - had been struggling with "change overs" between parents, saying things such as "I don't want to go" and "I don't have to go" when their father arrived in Tasmania from Melbourne to collect them for access visits.

The court found the mother did not discourage them from saying these things, and did not encourage a positive relationship between the children and their father.

The children told counsellors they were angry their father had left their mother, and lived with his new girlfriend in Melbourne .

Family Court judge Robert Benjamin said the children "clearly wanted" to stay with their mother, who had been their primary carer since birth, and acknowledged the "disruption to the children's family unit and their stability if they were to move to Melbourne to live with their father".

But Justice Benjamin said the "mother could see what was happening at change overs and did little abut it".

"I have concerns that this will continue in the future," he said.

"Sadly, this is a case where the children may be at unacceptable risk of psychological harm if they remain with the mother."

Justice Benjamin said the girl, B, was becoming "emotionally estranged from her father" and was at risk of "psychological damage, if not psychiatric damage" if she was not allowed to have a relationship with her father.

The decision was made under new laws, introduced by the Howard government, that require the Family Court to adopt the presumption of "shared parenting" when dealing with children of divorce.

The Australian last week reported on new data that showed fathers had a much better chance of getting access to their children by going through the Family Court than they did by negotiating directly with their ex-wives.

A review of recent cases found fathers were given majority custody in 17 per cent of litigated cases, compared with just 8 per cent of cases settled directly with their ex-partners.

The Australian has also reported the case of NSW deputy fire chief Ken Thompson's wife, who fled Australia with their

son Andrew, saying the Family Court had become biased towards fathers.

In the case of the brother and sister sent from Hobart to Melbourne , Justice Benjamin ordered the children be removed from their mother's care, and to see her for school holidays and Mother's Day. She is also entitled to a phone call "each Sunday between 6.30pm and 7.30pm".

The court took evidence from a psychologist who helped facilitate a change over between the parents on June 27 last year.

When the time came for the children to get into the car with their father, the girl "started what can only be described as a mantra, or a chant".

"She kept repeating: 'I don't want to go' and 'I don't have to go'," the psychologist told the court. "When her father greeted her, she (said), 'I hate you'.

"The father showed me photographs of the last visit he had with the children, where they were cuddling, laughing and clearly having a very happy time."

The father put the children in the car, but B "was trying to climb out the window" while her brother was "distressed and was hitting and kicking".

B gave the psychologist a list that said: "I don't want to go with my father because he tells lies, he hurts me, he left our family and he has got a girlfriend and I don't like her."

"These children are slowly indoctrinated into believing that their father is cruel

A Survey on Shared Equal Parenting- Facts and Fiction

Research Brochure by

DR. LINDA NIELSEN

Professor of Women’s Studies

Wake Forest University

ACFC President 2008

Nielsen@wfu.edu

American Coalition for Fathers & Children

www.acfc.org

Michael McCormick, Director

1-800-978-3237

Mccormick@acfc.org

Almost half of the children in the U.S. are deprived of the lifelong benefits of two parents who share the parenting throughout the first 18 years of their children’s lives.

Who are children living with? 42

55% mother & father - 4% unmarried

21% single mother - half divorced & half never married

14% mom & stepdad

5% neither parent

2% mom & her boyfriend

2% single dad

1% dad & stepmom

.5% dad & his girlfriend

Only 15%- 20% of parents share parenting after divorce.6,9,15 Existing legal pro-cedures & attitudes of people who influence the decisions about children’s living arrangements often make shared parenting harder to achieve.25, 26,33,43-47

FACT and FICTION related to Shared Equal Parenting

Fiction: Most children are satisfied with the amount of time they spend (or spent) with their fathers after their parents divorce.

Fact: The vast majority of children say they want–or wanted-more time with their fathers after their parents stopped living together. Kids want more shared parenting 1-16

Fiction: As long as the mother has enough money, children don’t pay a price for having too little or no contact with their father.

Fact: Kids with too little fathering are more likely to have problems throughout their lives related to father absence than kids whose fathers remained actively involved after the parents stop living together. 1-17

Fiction: Most divorced or never married parents are too hostile to share parenting or to benefit from programs on co-parenting.

Fact: Parents generally cooperate more after attending shared parenting programs. Only 10-15% are in high conflict. 18-22

Fiction: Shared parenting is bad for infants or young children because they should not be separated overnight from their mother.

Fact: Very young children should not be away from either parent for more than a few days & are able to spend nights in each parent’s home.23-26

Fiction: When parents share parenting, children are worse off financially because their dad pays much less child support.

Fact: Fathers who share parenting are the most likely to pay child support, spend additional money on their kids, & contribute to college educations. 27, 28, 33, 9

Fiction: Shared parenting is less important than good mothering because fathers know so much less about raising kids than moms do.

Fact: Fathers contribute as much as mothers to children’s well-being, even if their ways of parenting are different. 12, 17, 29-31

Fiction: Most divorced fathers are not interested in sharing more of the parenting.

Fact: The overwhelmingly majority of divorced fathers want more time with their children & more shared parenting. 32- 39

Fiction: Children dislike shared parenting if they actually have to live part time in both parents’ homes, moving back & forth.

Fact: Kids who live part time with each parent after divorce prefer this to living only with one parent.2, 10, 40, 41

===========================================================================================================================================================

1 Ahrons, C. We’re Still Family: What grownup children say about divorce, 2004.

2 Fabricus W. Listening to children of divorce. Family Relations, 2003.

3 Emery, R. The truth about children & divorce. 2004.

4 Finley & Schwartz Father involvement & young adult outcomes. Family Court Review, 2007

5 Harvey & Fine Children of Divorce: Stories of Loss and Growth. 2004.

6 Kelly, J. Children's living arrangements following divorce. Family Process, 2006.

7 Marquard. Between two worlds: Children of divorce. 2005.

8 Sobolewski. Nonresident Fathers' Ties to Children. Marriage & Family, 2005.

9 Wallerstein & Blakeslee What about the kids? 2004.

10 Warshak, R. Listening to children. Family Relations 2003.

11 Scott, Booth & King Post divorce father-adolescent closeness. Journal of Marriage and Family, 2007.

12 Nielsen, L. Fathers & daughters In Teaching about Families, 2005.

13 Nielsen, L. Between Fathers & Daughters: Enriching & Rebuilding Your Adult Relationship, Fall, 2008.

14 Smith, A. Children’s involvement in decision making. Family Law, 2003.

15 Hetherington, M. & Kelly, J. For better or worse: Divorce reconsidered. 2002

16 Bauserman, R. Child adjustment in joint vs. sole custody. Family Psychology, 2002.

17 Lamb, M. The Fathers Role in Child Development, 2004

18 Blaisure & Geasler Educational interventions for divorcing parents In Fine & Harvey’s Handbook of Divorce, 2006.

19 Braver. Prevention programs for div-orced fathers. Family Court Review,2008

20 Pruett et al. Collaborative divorce project. Family Court Review, 2005.

21 Brandon, D. Can four hours make a difference? Divorce & Remarriage, 2006

22 Stone, G. Education programs for div-orced parents.Divorce & Remarriage, 2006

23Assoc. of Family & Conciliation Courts, Planning for shared parenting, 2006.

24 Kelly & Ward. Social science research and ALI’s approximation rule. Family Court Review, 2002

25 Pruett, M. Parenting plans for young children. Family Court Review, 2004.

26 Warshak, R. Overnight contact between parents & young children. Family Court Review, 2000.

27 Fabricus & Braver. Divorced parents financial support of college expenses, Family Court Review, 2003

28 Custodial mothers, fathers & child support: 2005. Population Characteristics.

Department of Commerce. Census Bureau

29Flouri, E. Fathering & Child Outcomes 2005

30Farrell,W. Father- Child Reunion, 2004

31 Tarnis & Cabrera. Handbook of Father Involvement, 2002

32 Nielsen, L. Demeaning, demoralizing & disenfranchising divorced dads. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 1999.

33 Braver, S. Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, 1998

34 Bokker, Farley & Denny. Well being among recently divorced fathers. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 2005

35 Fagan & Hawkins. Educational Interventions with Fathers, 2003.

36 Hallman & Deinhart. Fathers’ experiences after divorce. Fathering, 2007.

37 Stone, G. Divorced fathers well being. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 2007.

38 Frieman, R. Understanding noncustodial parents. Divorce & Remarriage, 2007.

39 Warshak, R. Divorce Poison, 2002.

40 Buchanan & Maccoby. Adolescents after divorce. 1996.

41 Laumann & Emery. Adults from divorced families Family Psychology, 2000.

42 Children’s Living Arrangements:2003. Census Bureau.

43 Kelly,J. Ethical problems with custody. Family Court Review, 2005.

44 Stamps, L. Judges maternal preferences in custody Family Court Review, 2002

45 Williams, G. Judicial response to cus-tody. Law & Society Conference, 2007

46 Kruk, E. Shared parental responsibility law reform. Divorce & Remarriage, 2005.

47Dotterweich & McKinney Gender bias in custody cases Family Court Review,2000.

Mischief and Domestic Violence with tragic Consequences

The following letter was published in The Sault Star on April 2/09 and can be viewed here: http://www.saultstar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1506965 Murphy [mailto:mike.murphy@nospam.ca] Sent: March 26, 2009 8:35 AM To: 'ssmstar@saultstar.com' Subject: Janet Laforge Sentencing Sault Star, March 25, 09

The Editor, The Sault Star

I read with interest yesterday two stories about the sentencing of females, one in your paper, the other in a sister paper, the Edmonton Sun. Kudos to the police in the Sault for charging Janet Laforge with mischief for making false allegations and getting a conviction registered. This seldom occurs when a female makes false allegations against a partner in Canada.

It is very common and in Family Court under Family Law (FLAW) it is unhealthily widespread and works against the father in custody disputes. Judges and the acolytes in the DV Industry, welfare, mental health and child protection all line up behind the false accuser. The woman in this case was troubled with mental health issues which more often than not go unnoticed or are ignored as the judge will say “ no proof.” Not until serious damage is done and becomes a criminal matter will they act in most cases in FLAW. The woman in this case got a discounted sentence given her over all behaviour so those of us who have been falsely accused but are victims of DV and abuse hope the rehabilitation approach works for her.

The other story involves a Domestic Violence case in Edmonton, http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/03/25/8874596-sun.html, where Julie Starr got 6.5 months already served in pre-trial custody (no doubt in a 2-1 format) for the killing of her partner who she punched several times, knocked him down and broke his nose after he accused her of cheating on him. While on the ground she continued to punch him. He was hospitalized and died 5 days later. Conveniently no cause of death was reported. This won’t show up as a DV incident, therefore Stats Can will not include it as such which happens all too often with female on male violence. Intimate Partner Violence is pretty much equal between genders but those reported to the police show female victims as far greater due to men only reporting about 10% of the time. DV is a serious issue but keep in mind it is almost equal between the sexes and both genders require support not just one.

I may launch a human rights complaint with respect to the treatment of men as no facilities or tax supported services are available for battered men in this community and indeed in most every city in Canada. In one case locally a man was told he would not be able to get a bed and would have to turn his children over to the CAS and go to a hostel. What parent should have to give up his children to the state to protect them and get shelter. It is blatant gender discrimination. There are over 550 tax supported DV shelters for females across the country. Calgary may have a couple of shelters, privately funded, for battered men but no others exist to my knowledge.

Michael Murphy

Sault woman who stabbed herself released from jail

COURT: Makes false allegation against father of her daughter

Posted 6 days ago

There will be no more time behind bars for a local woman who stabbed herself in an effort to have her daughter's father charged.

Janet Laforge was able to convince both the Crown and the judge Monday that she deserves a chance to turn her life around.

The 38-year-old woman pleaded guilty in February to attempting to commit public mischief by causing police to begin an investigation into the false allegation.

She also was convicted of three other offences, including assault and two counts of breach of a recognizance, stemming from the Jan. 11 incident.

As well, Laforge pleaded guilty to possession of stolen property and three counts of possession of stolen credit cards.

These charges were in connection with a Dec. 11 shopping spree where she made purchases with credit cards stolen from another woman's purse.

On Monday, Laforge told Ontario Court Justice Kristine Bignell mental health issues and a drug addiction have been the root of her legal problems.

"I've been abusing cocaine on and off for the past 10 years,'' she said. "It is my main problem. I've come to realize I need treatment for drugs.''

The addiction developed after she was prescribed pain killers after a back injury, she said.

"The last 72 days I've had a chance to step back and look at things,'' said a weeping Laforge, who has been in custody since the Jan. 11 incident.

Prosecutor David Kirk indicated that the Crown had been looking at a further month in custody, but would be satisfied with a sentence of one-day time served.

"If she's serious we should put some things in place for her,'' he said.

Bignell agreed and opted for no further jail time, but did place Laforge on probation for two years with numerous conditions to assist the woman to deal with her problems.

"This is your chance, but if you breach you will be back in jail,'' Bignell told her. "You've said you recognize you need help and you're going to get it.''

Copyright © 2009 The Sault Star

March 25, 2009
Woman guilty of beating husband
By TONY BLAIS, COURT BUREAU

EDMONTON -- A city woman admitted yesterday she punched her common-law husband several times, knocked him down and broke his nose after he accused her of cheating on him.

But, she never killed him.

Julie Starr, 40, was handed a six-and-a-half-month jail sentence, which has already been served by time spent in pretrial custody, after pleading guilty to a reduced charge of assault causing bodily harm.

Starr had initially been charged with aggravated assault after a battered Andrew Rademacher, 50, was found lying in a pool of blood on the side of the road near an abandoned home at 95 Street and 107A Avenue on June 29.

He died in hospital five days later.

After getting test results from the medical examiner relating to cause of death, city police announced last month that Starr would not be facing homicide charges.

However, the cause of death was not released.

Yesterday, provincial court Judge Harry Bridges accepted a joint submission on sentencing and ordered Starr to provide a DNA sample for the national DNA databank and banned her from possessing weapons for 10 years.

Court heard Rademacher accused Starr of cheating on him and she took offence and a heated argument began.

Starr punched Rademacher in the face a couple of times, he fell down and she punched him a few more times while he was on the ground, court heard.

He suffered a broken nose and redness and bruising on his face and died five days later in hospital, court heard.

Rademacher's family said the couple had lived on the streets together for the past three to four years and had a stormy, booze-fuelled on-and-off relationship.

At the time of the incident, Rademacher's niece told Sun Media that Starr had contacted Rademacher's brother Robert to tell him that Andy was in the hospital after he slipped and hit his head on some concrete.

When she saw the extent of his injuries, she became suspicious and relatives began searching Rademacher's inner-city haunts for any witnesses and on June 30 found a woman who claimed to have seen what happened.

The woman alleged she saw a female throw Rademacher to the ground and beat him after he struck his head.

TONY.BLAIS@SUNMEDIA.CA