The PBS documentary "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" is about child victims of abuse, especially those who have been given to their abusive fathers by the courts. Fathers' and men's rights activists have predictably protested the airing of this documentary, and have demanded that it either not be aired, or that they get so-called equal time to air their side of the issue. Their side is full of unsupported nonsense about women being as abusive as men, women frequently "alienating" men from their children, and women lying frequently to get restraining orders to use as leverage in court in abuse, divorce, and custody cases. PBS is not required to present every side of an issue, especially a side that has no reputable resources to back its point of view. The fathers' rights point of view already gets media coverage. Protective mothers who are seeing their abused children being given to their abusive fathers by the court don't get much media coverage, and this documentary provides them with much needed attention. PBS has given attention to these moms and children that they desperately need.
"Breaking The Silence" is due to air in my area soon. A blogger friend of mine is taping the documentary for me, and she's going to mail it to me. That was very thoughtful. I know two of the women whose stories are covered in the documentary. I know that local fathers' rights groups have written and called PBS in protest of the airing of this documentary. I have written to PBS to urge them to air it. PBS has assured me that it will not bow down to pressure from fathers' rights groups. I know that the documentary has already aired in many states. This is an important documentary that needs attention.
Fathers rights activists have the time to write angry protest letters and make angry phone calls that the protective moms don't have to time or energy to handle. These moms are too busy trying to raise their families and fend off the control tactics of these abusive dads who fight for custody.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Teri In Cali
There you go again, Trish, spreading lies. Why?
You wrote: "Fathers rights activists have the time to write angry protest letters and make angry phone calls that the protective moms don't have to time or energy to handle. These moms are too busy trying to raise their families and fend off the control tactics of these abusive dads who fight for custody."
The TRUTH is only 5% of custody cases are high conflict. Women win custody in 90% of those cases.
In the OTHER 95% of cases, where BOTH parents are FIT, women still win custody in almost every case, often with documented proof of abuse or neglect on the mother's part.
Nationwide women win sole custody 84% of the time. There is NO WAY 84% of fathers deserve to lose custody. They deserve equal custody.
The fathers' and family rights activists, advocates, reformists, concerned parents and professionals (including mental health professionals) who sent letters in protest for equal time on PBS are NOT the "angry fathers' rights activists" you claim they are. We are normal, resonable, responsible, loving parents, grandparents and professionals who see the tragedy happening to America's children in the family court system.
Teri Stoddard
Feminist4Fathers
http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/
2 - Teri In Cali
There you go again, Trish, spreading lies. Why?
You wrote: "Fathers rights activists have the time to write angry protest letters and make angry phone calls that the protective moms don't have to time or energy to handle. These moms are too busy trying to raise their families and fend off the control tactics of these abusive dads who fight for custody."
The TRUTH is only 5% of custody cases are high conflict. Women win custody in 90% of those cases.
In the OTHER 95% of cases, where BOTH parents are FIT, women still win custody in almost every case, often with documented proof of abuse or neglect on the mother's part.
Nationwide women win sole custody 84% of the time. There is NO WAY 84% of fathers deserve to lose custody. They deserve equal custody.
The fathers' and family rights activists, advocates, reformists, concerned parents and professionals (including mental health professionals) who sent letters in protest for equal time on PBS are NOT the "angry fathers' rights activists" you claim they are. We are normal, reasonable, responsible, loving parents, grandparents and professionals who see the tragedy happening to America's children in the family court system.
Teri Stoddard
Feminist4Fathers
http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/
3 - Trish Wilson
You're playing fast and loose with the facts again, Teri. Contested custody cases account for about 10% of all custody cases. Those cases include the cases where abusive fathers gain custody of the children they have been abusing.
Mothers get custody about 85% of the time (not 90%) because most parents settle out of court, and decide on their own that mom should have custody. They don't need a judge to decide for them. They make that decision because they recognize that mom had been the primary caregiver of the children from the beginning. Most fathers don't want custody. That doesn't mean that they are bad fathers. On the contrary. It means that they know that it would be in the best interest of their children that they continue to be cared for by the parent who had been doing the bulk of the childrearing work from the beginning - and that parent is mom.
When dads contest custody, they get some form of it more than half the time, even if they were abusive, absent, control freaks, ne'er do wells, addicts, or merely not the primary caregiver of their children. Most of the time they get joint legal custody. In the case of batterers, those men use malicious litigation that they can fund until they get their way. They use bogus "syndromes" like Parental Alienation Syndrome, other forms of "alienation", and Friendly Parent theory to harass their ex's until either their ex's give in out of emotional and financial exhaustion, or the court, fooled by these abusive men, gives them what they want.
Oh, those fathers' rights activists are definitely the angry fathers' rights activists I have been talking about. I've seen what they've had to say about the documentary on their mailing lists. Here's one example:
"If the Men's Rights Movement had 10 Marc Lepines who walked into US Colleges with Suicide Bomber Belts and detonated them I guarantee you every US Policy Maker would crap their pants. Men have not reached critical Mass except the Marriage Strike. When Men take up arms and start shooting Law makers, Newspaper Editors, FemNag Activists or sawing off their heads change will come by force of arms. Since the money interests, Media, Politicians, Courts, Lawyers are too corrupt to make any change. And Decent Women are no where to be found. Women refuse to do a thing to stop the war against us. We have no Female allies only enemies.
Will major corporations, Law firms, Media companies give up their revenue streams for Men? Hell no. We don't even have a voice. Our views are not even heard. Glenn Sacks is the only Mens Rights activist even heard in syndication. We are not even on the Radar Screen anywhere. The Conservatives have proved to be cowards and our enemies. They unanimously supported the VAWA. Time for War. TATP is the future of the Men's Movement. Wish that wasn't the case. But sadly it is."
Here is another, Teri:
It seems like the Men's/Fathers' Movement can never catch its breath to accomplish the positive things that we must. We always seem to be reacting to the latest feminist outrage coming down the road. Their well-funded organizations can toss 1/2 million dollars into abominations like this, and we are forced to respond just to keep from being overwhelmed.
THIS PROGRAM IS THE FATHERS' RIGHTS EQUIVALENT OF VAWA. WE HAVE TO CONFRONT THIS EARLY AND OFTEN. WE CANNOT LET THIS STAND.
---
And another. You believe these men aren't angry that they couldn't prevent the documentary from airing? You're fooling yourself.
"Yes, once again tax subsidized, liberal, public television is using our own money to destroy us. Gender feminism is not only a hate movement, it is a disease destroying the fabric of our society through the vilification of the male population. I doubt we will see the truth about all the family abuse and violence that is committed by women against men and children."
And yet another:
"Trust mothers to be mothers, but don't trust fathers --if a father wants to be a father he is "abusive?"
A father wants his children just to avoid child support yet a mother does not want the children to get child support?
Some stories were found of abusive fathers so generalize to all fathers who want custody of their children. Are they suggesting there are not abusive mothers out there? Of course, they are, but that is not true.
It is systematic abuse and vilification of men. The fact is that the pro mother bias that this articile evidences puts children in homes with bad mothers. Mothers get custody near all the time even bad ones.
The women's movement started to oppose discrimination and stereotypes against women yet now they are in power they promote more discrimination and stereotypes against men than ever they suffered.
Women couldn't vote. They might be discouraged from entering various professions, but they were never vilified by men as women now vilify men. Women the kinder sex. Nonsense. Absolute meanness."
Still more:
"***SIGH***
To be a child abuser, you must have a penis.
It's impossible for a human being with a vagina to be an abuser.
***clears throat***, please excuse me, I feel I need to say something here:-
I'M FUCKING SICK OF THIS BULLSHIT SEXIST LIES
Feminists don't care about children who are abused, because they ignore the majority of abusers, and launch campaigns against the minority of child abusers."
Is that angry enough for you, Teri? Those were fathers' rights activists, in their own words. I more than adequately proved how hostile fathers' rights activists are. You can't get away with fathers' rights propaganda when I'm around. I'll shoot it down every time.
4 - tom porter
Trish,
Are you really that blind or stupid. Do you really think you can raise a child so much better than a man that you and your raving, hormone imbalanced hoarde have to attack everything that has a penis. You need your levels adjusted sweetheart. You are offensive and if you have'nt heard of me till now....your loss....but you're about to.
As I've told many before you ....don't bring a knife to a gun fight. You and your rabid pack of man hating dogs are destroying the very fabric this country was built on. The ability to raise good kids depends on your humanity not your bra size you twit. You give really good women a horrible name .....oh and by the way ....who'd want to have any sort of physical contact with you anyway....not to speak of allowing you to breed....aaacccckkkkk
lovingly....Tom
5 - The Countess (Trish Wilson)
Teri, I have a question for you. Why would hundreds of fathers' rights activists waste so much time, money, and energy trying to prevent PBS from showing a much-needed documentary about abusive fathers gaining custody of their children when they could have used all that time, money, and energy helping men who are victims of abuse? I would hope that fathers' rights activists would stand behind those protective mothers because they hopefully don't approve of domestic violence and child abuse, but that has not been the case. Fathers' rights activists claim that abused men get no attention, yet they would rather spend all their resources battling against a documentary rather than actually doing the legwork to help abused men. What fathers' rights activists have done to try to prevent "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" from airing shows me that they are more concerned with preventing abused women from getting the help they need than they are with doing anything to help abused men.
6 - The Countess (Trish Wilson)
"Are you really that blind or stupid. Do you really think you can raise a child so much better than a man that you and your raving, hormone imbalanced hoarde have to attack everything that has a penis. You need your levels adjusted sweetheart. You are offensive and if you have'nt heard of me till now....your loss....but you're about to.
As I've told many before you ....don't bring a knife to a gun fight. You and your rabid pack of man hating dogs are destroying the very fabric this country was built on. The ability to raise good kids depends on your humanity not your bra size you twit. You give really good women a horrible name .....oh and by the way ....who'd want to have any sort of physical contact with you anyway....not to speak of allowing you to breed....aaacccckkkkk"
Speaking of angry, offensive comments from fathers' rights activists... thanks for providing more proof of my point, Tom. ;)
7 - George Rolph
Dont fight this bigoted half wit alone...come and join the Band Of Brothers and help us fight her and all like her together.
mensnewsdaily.com/blog/mentalk/2005/09/band-of-brothers
www.mensnewsdaily.com/forum
8 - The Countess (Trish Wilson)
"Dont fight this bigoted half wit alone...come and join the Band Of Brothers and help us fight her and all like her together."
Gee, more proof that fathers' rights activists are angry and hostile...
Face it, folks. You were unable to get that documentary pulled. That makes a lot of you angry because, finally, the voices of abused women and abused children have a platform. Parental Alienation Syndrome has been shown up for the sham it is. "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" is being shown to legislators in Michigan. Hopefully, other states will follow suit. Legislators and the courts need to be educated about how abused women and abused children have been harmed by bogus garbage like PAS. It looks like that is about to happen.
9 - silverside
Great comments, Countess. It is indeed unfortunate that the raving attack dogs are out. Unfortunately, I never see these guys get constructive about much of anything. Deal with the problems of abused men? Why, when you can attack a little documentary about abused women and try to keep it off the air? Just like their attacks on battered women shelters. First they claim they want them integrated. Then they want to build their own (but only if feminists write the grants and do the fundraising and logistics). Then they admit (sometimes) that they just want to shut down yours. And if you point out that dv is a documented major cause of homelessness for women, and doesn't even register on the radar for men in any homelessness research at all, they don't want to hear that either. And they don't want to deal with the documented causes of why most men are homeless, which is basically our crummy low-wage economy combined, in many cases, with alcohol and/or drug abuse and/or mental illness. Because you see, that would be no fun. It would require real work and what's the fun of that, when you can attack women instead? In fact, there is zero interest in the major issues. If you were really interested in violence against men, you'd address wars and male-against-male violence in all forms, because that's how most men get hurt. Instead, they blow up minimal to non-existent problems and work themselves into a hissy fit over it. Very few men are murdered by intimate partners, compared to murder by strangers. Feminists work on dv because that's how the majority of women get killed. Tomorrow, if another cause took over, that would command my attention. But I wouldn't start screaming that women getting killed by green martians is something we must address now, when any sane person knows that this is just crazy stuff. And frankly, that's the level of discourse with these guys. They ignore the major issues plaguing men or plain working people in general, and obsess about fantasies and made-up stuff.
10 - Teri In Cali
Trish,
What fathers really want is an equal opportunity. That film did tell some truths. I don't think any of us have disputed that. But it left out a very important part of many stories. For instance, in 80% of domestic violence reports drug use is involved. People who work in rehab facilities will tell you most cases involve mutual battery.
You ask why we don't have our own film done yet. Well, it might have something to do with the fact our opposition, the domestic violence professionals and feminist organizations, have this little thing called VAWA which gave them another 4 billion dollars to provide services for any battered person...oops...I mean anyone except men and boys over 12. They fought really hard to get equal treatment, this is America after all, but no one wanted to listen.
You see, Trish, fathers just don't have the same benefits and privledges that you and yours do. Fathers don't have the government backing to tell their stories. That doesn't seem very fair, now does it, Trish?
Teri
Feminist4Fathers
http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/
11 - Ian Wilson
Most men and women do not support
or condone violence against men, women
or children. And most men and women
will not be silenced by gender feminists who claim that ONLY violence
against women matters.
History will look back on this time and be disguusted by the level of anti-male bigotry that permeates Western culture.
The open and blatant vilification of men and fathers in the PBS documetary "Breaking the Silence" will
be remebered as turning point where men, and the women who love them, will finally stand up and demand to be heard.
This documentary is based on the premise that children are women's property and that the matriachy must
be maintained at all costs. People who support such beliefs are no different from those who supported slavery.
The concept that most children need the love of both their mother and their father is extremely threatening
to those who believe that women should have the sole right to own and control chidren. Shared or joint physical
custody is anathema to them and so
that make up defenses like "fathers don't want custody anyway" to justify their message of hate.
These people will be exposed for what they are - misandrists (man haters)
and they will be consigned to the dustbin of history like all others
who chose to build there lives around
a message of hate.
Men and women are no longer frightened
to speak out against gender feminismm, because they know that any philosphy that proudly ignores the suffering of half of humanity is innately evil.
Ian Wilson
12 - Dave Nalle
"Their side is full of unsupported nonsense about women being as abusive as men, women frequently "alienating" men from their children, and women lying frequently to get restraining orders to use as leverage in court in abuse, divorce, and custody cases."
Let's see some evidence to show that this is nonsense. I've seen an awful lot of cases of women murdering their children in recent years, and there's certainly plenty of evidence of women using any means they can to make sure men don't get custody of kids out of pure vengeance. Why slam men like this when you clearly have nothing but an opinion to back your statements up?
Dave
13 - Tom Lamb
In 81% of the cases, at least one parent was the person responsible for child maltreatment. 58% of perpetrators were female, and among this group, 43% were under the age of 30.
Of the cases in which parents were the primary perpetrators, 58% involved neglect only, 11% involved physical abuse only, and 3% involved sexual abuse only. Sexual abuse was far more likely when the perpetrator was an unmarried partner. Of the cases in which an unmarried partner was the perpetrator, 11% of the cases involved sexual abuse. Sources: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). Child Maltreatment 2002.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002). National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System.
If you want to truly break the silence than do it with the truth.
Go read the Duffus case in the Alaska Supreme Court where a known convicted child molester was the boyfriend of the mother and he was watching the children unattended. That will give you an idea on who the mothers are in these cases.
Do they care more about having a "man" around or protecting their children.
Just recently in Alaska, a mother got drunk and had sex with a man while her seven year old was in the same bed.
Want to know what happened to the seven year old?
Next a mother who filed false allegations in a restraining orders against the dad got joint custody. Later the mother kills herself and the children.Pile of Evidence Pointed To Murder Anchorage Daily News January 16, 2005
Then we hear about the mother in San Fran who kills her three children.
Are the women's groups going to break the silence on these abuses or are they going to play the victim?
Anne Mitchell has torn apart your 70% nonsense.
Trish, I have a case in the Alaska Supereme Court that is unconstested and it tears down arguments like yours.
It is a federal question of law.
14 - strawberry note
Quoting Dr. Robert Geffner, President of the Family Violence & Sexual Assault Institute: "The idea is absurd that social workers, pediatricians, and others can be easily persuaded to find abuse." "It's incredible when you look at these parental-alienation cases that anyone could have the ability not only to program their child but also to be able to convince all these outside people of abuse," Geffner says. "There is no research to show that a parent can program a child to make detailed sexual-abuse allegations against somebody who is in a close, loving relationship with them."
To paraphrase comments from many mothers living the reality of parenting rather than just professing to be parenting, "I can't brainwash my children to clean their rooms, but somehow I'm supposed to be fully able of brainwashing them to hate their father and make up abuse allegations. The CIA should be gathering us moms up to learn from our expertise."
The parent who has not undertaken the day to day parent during the marriage is in no way "marginalized" by getting visitation orders that reflect their actual contributions to child raising. There is not a relationship between the quantity of time fathers spend post divorce and their importance in the children's lives. There is a relationship in the quality of the time they spend with their kids. Perhaps the whiners should be improving their relationships rather than demanding their minute-for-minute equal time.
15 - strawberry note
Tom--
While the AK Duffus case is interesting, you will note that the trial court gave significant time considering the new paramour, his probation history & in fact, the Supreme Court remanded the case so that the female children would be informed of the paramours past and restrictions. It was not ignored.
The case of the AK child who was sexually abused by a mother's paramour...the perp was arrested & the case is still working its way through the system. It is not a custody case, so you are mixing apples & oranges here. No one denies that some women have made bad choices in men in the whole scheme of history. The mom did report & seek protection for her child, and hopefully will receive services to make better choices for her child in the future.
As for the case where a mother killed herself & her children last winter by carbon monoxide poisoning, that is an absolute tragedy. What you don't know, is that the mother had been forcibly sodomized by the father & had received a protective order. Dad immediately files for divorce & custody. She was given bad advice to drop the PO by her "Christian" attorney. The custody evaluator on her case has a community reputation of siding for dads. The mother had concerns the father was sexually molesting the daughter and there was a marital history of unusual sexual behavior on the part of the father. She feared the judge was about to give the father full custody & she would be unable to protect the kids. In her fear, traumatized state brought on by the rape & the lack of support from the legal system & in despondency, she cracked.
No one is refuting that both sexes can abuse & neglect children. This is subverting the issue of custody litigation with abusive parents--the motives--the outcomes.
The documentary that is the topic of this dicussion raises important issues. So what if it focuses on female victims? Good men would jump behind the main issue, which overarchingly is the protection fo children. If courtroom outcomes are improved for victims who are predominantly women & children, those same positive outcomes will positively effect the statistically fewer protective male parents.
So instead of jumping in outrage with "but women do it too", why not get on board for the cause of kids.
16 - Tom Lamb
Strawberry note...
The Duffus case..... The man was a convicted child molester and by law was prohibited from being with children alone. The mother was breaking the law by ignoring the law.
The legislature had to quickly enact legislation to make it illegal. I see you are trying to diminish the effect.
Read Rabinowitz dissent in the case (a liberal).
BTW, there are a few cases in court where the mothers broke that law knowingly too. But the mother isn't held accountable for her iresponsibl;e actions.
Next, are you trying to make the mother a victim who killed her kids in San Fran? The Aunt tried to get partial custody from the State. No go, but you create the victim again.
What does custody have to do with Trish's article? Abuse. That is what it is all about.
The other mother that killed her self and the kids. What happened with the restraining order against the father?
Judge Christen (woman judge) gave the mother what? And you say the mother feared losing custody?
Granted family law is a battle ground and creates fear. Tell me, if a man did this would you say the same thing?
How many man fear losing their kids and go off and kill their kids.
Would you still make the man a victim?
I am looking at a case from the same judge that is being appealed where the father was acused of hitting his child with a two by four.
Guess who made the allegation.
Unfounded.
And the Judge Christen said in her findings and I quote
Mr. ****** did not dispute Ms. ****** testimony that he used a 2x4 to strike his older son"
The father is putting his excerpts together to show the judge was lying.
You do like to create the victim.
And the mother who got drunk and had sex with the man? A victim perhaps? Oh yes you do make that point. She is getting help.
Who were the victims in this case?
The children.
Please spare me the excuses. Excuses don't save children.
If Trish wants to make it fair than make it fair, but she doesn't nor do you.
17 - strawberry note
Tom, I'd like to give you a response, but your post is incoherent. I didn't mention at all the seriously mentally ill woman in SF. Again, this has nothing to do with protective parents in custody litigation. I have not excused anyone from actions that harmed their children. So what exactly is your point?
18 - carmine
Ah Trish,
Such misery; such shrill, angry, tragic misery. I almost feel sympathy were it not for the thousands of damaged children you and yours have left in your father hating wake. As NOW writhes in it's final days of lunatic feminism, now that the VAST majority of young women no longer accept these sorts of statistical falsehoods, we can always count on a few angry grey hairs to beat the distant drum, somewhere. Third wave feminist ululations.
The fourth wave however is already here. Check out Christina Hoff Summers. This PBS show was simply a bald attempt to justify VAWA. It was only politics, and most reasonable judges will not be fooled by the bizarre social pseudo-science beloved by the NOWists. Face it, the conservatives are getting the big rewards, and you simply get to keep on pounding your chests and screech woe woe woe see how bad it is for victim women see? Patience and reason always trump hysteria.
19 - Paul
Parental Alienation is the worst form of emotional abuse. That is not my statement, but that of professional psychologists (of BOTH genders) who have studied Parental Alienation. Trish is not interested in the well-being of children, she simply using them as her pawns in her attempts to convince the naive of the propaganda rubbish she constantly sends out. Obviously she has a hatred for all men!
20 - strawberry note
Surely you must be joking, Paul. Simply because someone supports discussion of issues involved with the protection of women and children, does not mean one hates men. Neither the film, nor Trish has ever said that all father's are bad. In fact the film makes several statements about the need for continuing contact with good, non-abusive, non-substance-abusing fathers. If you really believe that speaking ill of someone (if it is in fact occuring)is far more harmful than any other type of emotional abuse, I would venture to say you haven't spent much time advocating for or working with populations of abused women and children.
21 - audiomind
Although protecting helpless victims from brutal abusers is a noble undertaking, distorting the facts to libel an entire class of people is not.
The Strategy For Passing Unjust Laws This film seems to be the first step in a pattern that's been played out many times in the past few decades:
Determine what conclusions a study would need to reach in order to stampede legislators into passing the laws you want passed. Conduct studies that are carefully designed ignore any inconvenient facts. Popular techniques in this step include: 1) using self-selected rather than randomized population samples, 2) taking care not to ask any questions that might elicit undesired answers, and 3) neglecting to report any results at all from any questions whose answers contradict your thesis. Publicize these studies as if they were impartial research, by planting newspaper stories, publishing in journals whose referees are as biased as the studies' authors, getting corporations to fund advertising that masquerades as a "documentary", etc. Use yellow journalism to scare the public into demanding that legislators pass a law to fix the nonexistent problem.
In the early 1990s, the American Association of University Women had great success using such strategies. They began by issuing a report entitled "How Schools Shortchange Girls". Diane Ravitch, former Director of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement, calls the AAUW report "bizarre" for reporting that girls' educational achievement was lagging behind boys at exactly the time that girls had just overtaken boys in almost every area.
But it doesn't seem bizarre at all if you assume that AAUW's goal was not to conduct honest research, but rather to drive public policy, sure in the knowledge that journalists wouldn't have the expertise to challenge their conclusions, and that they could get laws enacted to address their fabricated problem quicker than honest researchers could analyze how they'd manipulated their research to come to such a "bizarre" conclusion. And that's exactly what happened. Laws enacted as a result of the AAUW hype resulted in inequitable allocation of resources to programs for girls only. By pitting our daughters against our sons in this way, they denied a generation of boys the opportunity to overcome their deficits.
"Breaking the Silence" seems to be the publicity and hype phase of an even more insidious campaign. The goal this time appears to be stampeding legislators into passing laws that will have the effect of preventing courts from granting any form of custody (legal or physical, shared or sole) to any father over any mother's objection.
The Program's Claims The hour-long program makes some astonishing claims. George Washington University Law Professor Joan Meier says that in "75% of cases in which fathers contest custody, fathers have a history of being batterers". In her worldview, if a father seeks a relationship with his children in family court, that in itself is tantamount to proof that he's a batterer.
A copy of the "Guest Editor's Introduction" to the August, 2005 issue of the journal "Violence Against Women" was distributed at the prescreening. The film's press release repeats that article's allegation that Parental Alienation Syndrome has been "discredited by the American Psychological Association," and Meier echoes that in the film, asserting that scientists have declared PAS "junk science". The film also claims that in family court cases where mothers allege battery, fathers are given custody two-thirds of the time.
What the Filmmakers Don't Want You to Notice Analysis of the claims made in the "Violence Against Women" journal indicates that this research, on which much of the content of this film is based, fails to distinguish between allegations and actual abuse, and instead blindly assumes all allegations to be true. See this
A documentary filmmaker has a responsibility to present an issue in an accurate and balanced fashion. In this case, filmmakers Catherine Tatge and Domenique Lasseur provided a soapbox for a number of very angry women and their children to make some very serious accusations. The closing frame of the film says that only one accused father declined to be interviewed. So where were all the other accused fathers who didn't decline?
Michael McCormick, director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, reports that filmmaker Domenic Lasseur called him last spring to arrange to interview an ACFC spokesperson so the documentary would have some balance. But Lasseur later cancelled the interview. That, plus the absence of any other spokesperson to provide balance, suggests that he or someone above him decided that fairness and balance were unnecessary.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services data on child abuse shows that over twice as many children are battered by their mothers (40.8%) as by their fathers (18.8%), excluding cases in which both parents are abusive (16.9%) See this.
Likewise the number of children killed by their mothers without the father's involvement is double the number killed by their fathers without the mother's involvement (See this). Yet the filmmakers mislead viewers by interviewing only children victimized by fathers and denying children victimized by their mothers the opportunity to tell their stories.
Even the title "Breaking the Silence" is disingenuous. A Google search for "domestic violence" turns up 36.8 MILLION documents. This is "silence" like "War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength".
Filmmakers Tatge and Lasseur use a small handful of cases to create the illusion of a pervasive problem of family court discrimination against women and children domestic violence victims. With a U.S. population of 297 million, it's possible to cherrypick a small non-representative sample to prove nearly anything.
Misleading the Public About Scientists Opinions on Parental Alienation Syndrome The film's central thesis, that Parental Alienation Syndrome is "junk science" that has been discredited by the American Psychological Association, is itself misleading. Although it's true that Temple University psychiatry professor Paul Fink called PAS "junk science" in a July 1, 2003 Newsday interview he explained, "There are lots of people who alienate their partners during a divorce. But it is not a syndrome, a disease or a disorder." So the claim that PAS is "junk science" doesn't mean it never happens; it just means it's not a recognized mental illness. Without Fink's full explanation, most people would assume that calling PAS "junk science" means the phenomenon doesn't happen. Dispelling that misimpression would undermine the filmmakers' point, so the fact that they don't provide the full explanation is worth noting.
The claim that PAS has been discredited by the APA is based on a single sentence from the APA's 1996 report on violence and the family, which simply says there are no data to support PAS.
The Association of Women Psychiatrists (a professional group unaffiliated with the APA) takes PAS seriously enough that their Fall 2003 newsletter printed an article asserting "The Denial and/or Discrediting of the Parental Alienation Syndrome Harms Women".
And apparently even the APA does not consider their 1996 report to be the final word. At the 2002 APA conference, PAS was considered important enough for them to offer a seminar worth seven Continuing Education credits, in which they explained what Parental Alienation Syndrome is and taught custody evaluators to identify when PAS does and does not occur.
If the Film's Agenda Becomes Law, Kids Will Pay the Price "Research" that fails to distinguish between accusations of abuse and actual abuse is unworthy of the name "research". Using such a trick to conclude that nearly all fathers who contest custody are batterers, amounts to libel against all fathers who love their children enough to fight for their welfare.
Those who play this ugly little game in order to stampede politicians into passing ill-considered laws that will make it virtually impossible for any father to ever be granted custody, show a callous disregard for the welfare of two-thirds of abused children - those children abused by their mothers.
Allowing a speaker to assert that trying to maintain a relationship with your children means you've probably battered your wife, and not including any speaker to point out the hatefulness of that statement, certainly gives the appearance of a complete loss impartiality.
22 - Charms
Trish, thank you so much as I read your postings, of calm, clarity, reason and logic, versus posts of others which scream in their own unresolved control issues; issues which have NOTHING to do with mothers and children or the needs of emotionally healthy men, women and children.
If those angry persons could find LOVE for themselves, a great deal of this projected anger would disappear. Wouldn't that be nice.
Thanks again Trish.
-charms-
23 - The Countess (Trish Wilson)
You're very welcome, Charms. I'm not surprised at the fathers' rights backlash against this documentary. The documentary shows up Parental Alienation Syndrome for the junk science that it is. Fathers rights advocates support PAS as a weapon in their arsenal to punish their ex-partners. PAS is not recognized as a valid syndrome by the American Psychological Association. It is not in the DSM-IV, despite massive fathers' rights lobbying that it be included. It is not a valid medical diagnosis.
This documentary will help bring to light the plight of abused children who are awarded to the custody of their abusive fathers. Ann White had pointed out in an article for the Florida Bar Journal that "abusive fathers are more likely than non-abusive parents to fight for custody, not pay child support, and kidnap their children."
By no means does this mean that all fathers are abusive, as fathers' rights advocates like to misrepresent the issue. Of course there are good fathers out there. This documentary brings attention to the abusive fathers who are given custody of their children by a court system that does not believe mothers and children when they speak out about abuse. Hopefully, the circulation of this documentary will prevent more abused children from having to live in abusive situations.
24 - MOM
Speaking of angry, offensive comments from fathers' rights activists... thanks for providing more proof of my point, Tom. ;)
[edited]
25 - strawberry note
Audiomind--
You seem to be quoting directly from another FR article--perhaps it is yours and you are posting under a pseudonym. Hopefully you're not plagiarizing. To address some of your points: Child abuse: The numbers of single mothers parenting under poverty conditions far exceed the numbers of single fathers doing so. The stats you site also include neglect. If you truly want to look at which gender is committing the largest percentage of physical and sexual abuse of children, you should really analyze it on a proportionate basis. You would find wholly different outcomes. This is another attempt to distort the issue and take the focus off the subject of the film--domestic violence and its effect on children.
Further, it is very questionable if the source from the APA is being quoted correctly, and if so, may not have all the facts of her association's prior statements. APA's 1996 report entitled "Violence and the Family," by the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on VIolence and the Family was very clear about there being no data to support PAS. The 2003 newsletter article you cite from a women's pschologist group was in fact merely a reprint of an article fro pro-pedophile and incest apologist Richard Gardner who self-published his abuser's defense missives. Looks like filler material for a hastily thrown together newsletter to me and not really evidence of anything regarding policy.
Rebuttable presumption laws passed to elevate the important of domestic violence laws are gender neutral. Let me explain that for you....in the best crafted legislation, the judge must make a determination if there was DV perpetrated and if both parties were found to be perpetrators, the judge would award custody to the one that had the greatest likelihood of safety or could give custody to a 3rd party in extreme cases. So you assertion that such legislation will harm children is patently wrong.