"Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" is a documentary airing on PBS that brings much-needed attention to the plight of abused mothers who are trying to protect their abused children from their abusive fathers. The American Judges Association has reported that "studies show that batterers have been able to convince authorities that the victim is unfit or undeserving of sole custody in approximately 70% of challenged cases."…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - MOM
If fathers rights activists care so much for children, why would they try and stop a PBS documentary that exposes court corruption that puts children in danger? Fathers rights groups put these children in this position when they demanded an end to the tender years doctrine and equal rights for men to get custody.
27 - The Fourteen Percenter
Tish Wilson wrote, "but most victims of domestic violence are women."
here reports that "Women also comprised a larger percentage of all (child abuse) perpetrators than men: 58 percent compared to 42 percent."
here reports that "Females were more often (child abuse) perpetrators than males (59.3% females, 40.7% males)."
I could go on. The question is, who do you want to believe, Tish Wilson or national studies into domestic violence?
28 - MOM
Tish Wilson wrote, "but most victims of domestic violence are women."
here reports that "Women also comprised a larger percentage of all (child abuse) perpetrators than men: 58 percent compared to 42 percent."
here reports that "Females were more often (child abuse) perpetrators than males (59.3% females, 40.7% males)."
There is never an excuse for abuse of children but these stats are easily explained as most mothers are the ones caring for their children as most dads think their work is done after a day at the office. Many are single moms whos children's dads walked out and left them to do it all alone. Extreme stress can make people do strange things. I would like to know more about the dynamics surrounding these statistics. The stats are still pretty high for men considering they don't usually do most of the day to day hands on parenting.
29 - strawberry note
It is so sad to see 2 women from NANCM, who both were admitted victims of domestic violence, espousing mandatory shared parenting for all other abuse victims (male or female) trying to protect their children. You both should be ashamed of yourselves. Promoting laws like that makes the bar that much higher to hurdle for victims and their children. If you really care about the safety of children, stop affiliating with father's rights activists, learn something about abuser's tactics, read a Lundy Bancroft book. Maybe then you can really adequately provide "support" for non-custodial mothers who were victims of abuse. Until then, all you are doing is fueling the FR machine to make more mothers lose their children. But I guess that will keep your support group running, as you'll then have more and more non-custodial mothers to share in all the grief and pain that you and your children have endured. Get a clue, ladies. Teri Stoddard is not your friend.
30 - MOM
AMEN!
31 - NANCM
More "blanketing". Gosh, it gets so old so quick.
If you've looked at www.nancm.com, the Mission Statement, 3 areas of focus, core beliefs, etc. you will see that NANCM supports shared parenting WHEN (AND ONLY WHEN) BOTH PARENTS ARE FIT AND LOVING.
Simply because some of the responders on here are from NANCM and they are victims of abuse does not mean that they support an abusive parent getting partial custody. That's an ABSURD assumption!
Yes, unfortunately a good portion of NCM's at NANCM are victims of abuse. But NANCM is in no way a support group for abused women.
NANCM was created for the emotional support of ANY non custodial parent who is having a hard time adjusting emotionally to their limited or non existent relationship with their children! CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?????????
Some of you... PEOPLE ... just can't seem to realize how many MILLION shades of gray there are. You want everybody to fit perfectly into your round little peg. Well guess what? Some situations have caused triangular shapes, square shapes, oval shapes, star shapes... and there is not a quick and simple answer that is going to magically fix everybody's situation.
Some murderers and rapists use the insanity plea to get away with their crime; knowing full well they aren't insane. Does that mean that insanity doesn't exist?? HELL NO!
Well, the same thing goes for PAS. Are there sick and twisted abusive parents out there (Mothers AND Fathers) who use PAS in reverse to get custody of their kids and continue their abusive ways? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!! But that DOES NOT mean that PAS does not exist.
I am a childhood victim of it myself. I was raised by my Father. My Father did an incredible job as a Father with one exception. He did not foster a healthy relationship with my Mother. He spoke badly of her and encouraged others in the family to do the same. I believed all of this until I got married and had children of my own. When my EX kidnapped our children a year after our divorce and I had my first taste of the family court system, I learned very quickly that the world is not the safe haven for Mothers I once believed it to be. It was a very big turning point in my relationship with my own Mother.
It's really so simple people. Anybody who feels the need to focus on gender is only in this for their own personal agenda and not for the CHILDREN.
Anybody who feels the need to focus on gender and point fingers at the other side is CLEARLY and BLATANTLY part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Period.
Beverly Morris
President & Founder
NANCM, Inc.
www.nancm.com
32 - Julia(member of NANCM)
strawberry note on October 24, 2005 06:05 PM:
It is so sad to see 2 women from NANCM, who both were admitted victims of domestic violence, espousing mandatory shared parenting for all other abuse victims (male or female) trying to protect their children. You both should be ashamed of yourselves. Promoting laws like that makes the bar that much higher to hurdle for victims and their children. If you really care about the safety of children, stop affiliating with father's rights activists, learn something about abuser's tactics, read a Lundy Bancroft book. Maybe then you can really adequately provide "support" for non-custodial mothers who were victims of abuse. Until then, all you are doing is fueling the FR machine to make more mothers lose their children. But I guess that will keep your support group running, as you'll then have more and more non-custodial mothers to share in all the grief and pain that you and your children have endured. Get a clue, ladies. Teri Stoddard is not your friend.
Comment 23 posted by used to be a MOM (member of NANCM) on October 24, 2005 03:22 PM:
Yes everyone, the differences of opinions go on.
Yup, Used to be a MOM, that's me. That is it thanks to my former husband who decided that I needed to be punished for leaving an abusive marriage. One more way of being able to control me is through our children. Yup,get her where it will hurt the most. Use those kids to do it and we'll call it Parental Alienation.
Whether it be the Mom or Dad who does it, it is 110% wrong. Kids do need 2 parents in their lives regardless of how we feel about our former spouses. Do I like my former husband? No. Would I ever say anything demeaning, demoralizing or hurtful about him in front of our kids? NO.
But then again, I never got the chance really. In order to avoid child support he repeatedly claimed child abuse to our local child services. They were taken away for 2 weeks with a "no contact" order. They were then released back to me with a "no danger" report.
Yup, after those 2 weeks when they were released, they were not the same kids...and never have been. We are coming up on the 3 yr mark...and yup, he still has me where it hurts. Yup, sad for me, but sadder for our kids. They have been denied the love of their mom and the rest of my family....but guess what?
Moms do it also. I have seen it done and it is so wrong....Moms and Dads are both guilty of it and it needs to stop.
I know some great custodial dads and great custodial moms......can't we all just do what's best for our children?
JULIA(member of NANCM)LET ME CLARIFY:
I do not personally recall saying that there should be mandatory shared parenting. Nor do I state that the situation I have with my formerly abusive spouse can work for everyone. Nor did I say was befriending Teri Stoddard. That is an assumption on the part of the poster. I don't even know who Teri Stoddard is. I was only replying as I felt led to. It is only recently that my ex and I have come to the agreement. My children are not yet with me, and I am still at this point on paper an NCM....... because of the games that were played.
My ex was only abusive to me.........AND I DID STATE..........HE's GOTTEN COUNSELING...I didn't think I would need to put...........he is no longer abusive in any way towards me, and has never been abusive towards the children. Some people are mature enough to get past their own hurts and recognize that while I may not like the person my ex is or was during our marriage, does not change the fact that he is still the father of my children. Did he wrong me greatly from one human being to the next? Has he sought forgiveness, yes? Have I been able to put aside my own selfishness? yes!. Do I love my children enough to allow myself to be mature and look out for their own best interest? YES. Sometimes, the abuser is only abusive towards the spouse and not towards the children. That is the situation in my case. Help was sought, we both healed and learned from it. We have overcome our own personal obstacles to do what is best for our children. My post only asked that people stop being selfish and do what is best FOR THE CHILDREN.
33 - FrustratedMommy
It is so sad to see 2 women from NANCM, who both were admitted victims of domestic violence, espousing mandatory shared parenting for all other abuse victims (male or female) trying to protect their children. You both should be ashamed of yourselves. Promoting laws like that makes the bar that much higher to hurdle for victims and their children. If you really care about the safety of children, stop affiliating with father's rights activists, learn something about abuser's tactics, read a Lundy Bancroft book. Maybe then you can really adequately provide "support" for non-custodial mothers who were victims of abuse. Until then, all you are doing is fueling the FR machine to make more mothers lose their children. But I guess that will keep your support group running, as you'll then have more and more non-custodial mothers to share in all the grief and pain that you and your children have endured. Get a clue, ladies. Teri Stoddard is not your friend.
I am not a writer, I do not claim to be so forgive me if my post just rambles.
First off, I dont believe that anyone representing NANCM was promoting any laws. Second of all, alot of us see, and deal with PAS on a regular basis.
Our children ALL of them deserve better. My ex was/is abusive, and a control freak, to me. Never while I was with him, to our daughter. Now I know I am probably going to get flamed here, but should I have shut him out of her life completely?? NO. I would NEVER do what he has done to me. He still has custody. As a stay at home mom through out the marriage I couldnt afford the "fancy attorney" ect. So I lost.
Face it, as long as the courts feel that someone has to be the "custodial" the one with the more money, power and prestige is going to win in the court. Male or Female.
Stop the dang gender wars, people are bad no matter the sex, age, creed, ect.
If we promoted more co-parenting in cases where it COULD happen, I think we would all have happier, more rounded children.
As a child I was a victim of PAS. My dad tried to insist my mother was the worst person in the world. He had me in such a rage I remember hitting her and calling her a b***h, out of anger.
Now years later, practically walking in her shoes, I WISH I had the chance to say I am sorry...."I love you mom." I pray everyday that, God gives her the message.
34 - strawberry note
JULIA(member of NANCM)LET ME CLARIFY:
"I do not personally recall saying that there should be mandatory shared parenting. Nor do I state that the situation I have with my formerly abusive spouse can work for everyone. Nor did I say was befriending Teri Stoddard."
Julia--Here is the article that links NANCM to the father's rights movement link
Thank you for the acknowledgement that co-parenting with an abusive former partner is possible for everyone.
35 - strawberry note
Another thought. It feels good to talk here about knowing "good custodial dads" and "good custodial moms" and exploring all the feel good, fuzzy notions of cooperative, 50/50 parenting after divorce. That can happen in rare instances where there was no partner abuse, substance abuse, child abuse/neglect, relatively equal involvement in child rearing during the relationship, where the children can handle and want 50/50 custody. The subject of the film under discussion, however, is not that ideal situation. We are really going off on a tangent. The issue in the documentary is domestic violence, its effects on children and how the courts are failing those children. Let's keep on focus folks.
36 - Anzv
Ouch! Got quoted! Yup, I was the one who posted that Children's Crusade bit on soc.men. Too bad you didn't share any representative quotes from the person I was responding to. I encourage everyone to become familiar with writings by the soc.men poster known as Hyerdahl1, and to evaluate my words against the average level of misandry and bigotry she exhibits.
I do stand by my claim, which you have correctly distilled from my original wording, that children are routinely manipulated to make false allegations of child abuse. Your figure of only 2-8% of *all* CA allegations being false is of little relevance here. What is relevant is the percentage of CA allegations *in divorce and CC cases* that turn out to be false. If your "numerous researchers" have found *that* to be the case, please name them!
37 - The Countess (Trish Wilson)
Anzv, soc.men posters tend to be obnoxious and nasty, but the men's/father's rights posters over there are especially obnoxious.
Children are not routinely manipulated to make false allegations of child abuse. Everson and Boat found that 17% of the false sexual abuse allegations arose during a custody dispute leading to an age-averaged false allegation rate in custody disputes of 0.8%. Also, An American Bar Association and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts study concluded that of 9,000 custody-visitation disputes, that fewer than 2% involved allegations of sexual abuse. Moreover, they found that allegations arising in post-divorce cases were even more likely to be valid.
Still more: In its Report of the Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, the APA confirms that, "false reporting of Family violence occurs infrequently... reports of child sexual abuse do not increase during divorce and actually occur in only about 2 percent to 3 Percent of the cases... even during custody disputes, fewer than 10 percent of cases involve reports of child sexual abuse (APA Report, 12).
More: studies examining this comparison do not find significantly higher rates of any abuse allegations raised during divorce or custody proceedings. (Cheri Wood, "The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Dangerous Aura of Reliability", 27 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1367-8, n. 7 1994)
As it turns out, fathers are more likely to make false allegations of abuse than mothers. In the largest study of its kind in Canada, Nicholas Bala and John Schuman, two Queen's University law professors, looked at 196 custody hearings across the country. The research showed 71% of sexual abuse allegations were brought by mothers, whereas fathers initiated only 17% of the accusations. The rest were the result of concerned grandparents, siblings or partners who, as well as the parents, often sought aid from a child protection agency. Of female-initiated allegations, just 1.3% were deemed intentionally false by civil courts, compared with 21% when the man in the failed relationship brought similar allegations. Fathers' rights activists assume that only mothers make false allegations of abuse, This study clearly shows that it is mostly fathers who do that.
All of this is beside the point. I won't participate anymore in the he said/she said/who is more abusive discussion that is taking place here. I did want to counter your point that children are not routinely manipulated to make false allegations of child abuse, though. It simply is not true.
What is really important is that when children are being abused that they be believed. Too often, as is the case in the cases covered in "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories", people who are in a position to help these children are allowing their abuse to continue. That has to stop.
38 - NANCM
Posted by Strawberry Rote:
And I've said this before... NANCM is NOT a support group for "women who were victims of abuse"!!!! We are a support group for ALL non custodial parents who are having difficulty dealing with a minimized or non existent relationship with their children!
"If you really care about the safety of children, stop affiliating with father's rights activists"
So you're against working together on this?? You're denying that there are ANY Mothers who abuse their children?
Quote:
"learn something about abuser's tactics"
Again, you're asking us to simply learn about how MEN abuse children? Not women?
Quote:
"Read a Lundy Bancroft book. Maybe then you can really adequately provide "support" for non-custodial mothers who were victims of abuse."
Yeah, because God knows that Lundy Bancroft (while the books may be very good) is the ONLY person in the world that knows about abuse and how to fix the problem, right?
Yes, it's called NANCM (The National Association of Non Custodial Moms) because there IS a need for a group that is "primarily" focused for Moms. Only because a VERY high percentage of Non Custodial Parents are Fathers and there are hundreds, if not thousands of websites dedicated to Fathers and custody issues.
Quote:
"Until then, all you are doing is fueling the FR machine to make more mothers lose their children."
Do you TRULY believe this drivel???? How can you not CLEARLY see that it's gender biased, narrow minded, CHAUVENISTIC people like yourself that are fueling the CORRUPT COURT SYSTEM machine and making things worse???? And YES, there are males AND females who are equally guilty of this!
GET IT TOGETHER PEOPLE!! These problems are NOT going to go away and NOTHING is going to get better if you continue to make this a gender war.
Quote:
"But I guess that will keep your support group running, as you'll then have more and more non-custodial mothers to share in all the grief and pain that you and your children have endured."
It's people like YOURSELF that will keep my support group running, because as long as gender biased documentaries and "Mothers Rights" and "Fathers Rights" organizations continue to work against each other instead of WITH each other, the problem is only going to continually get worse.
Quote:
"Get a clue, ladies. Teri Stoddard is not your friend."
On the contrary, Teri Stoddard has shown in her writings and through our conversations that she is PRO CHILDREN.
I truly believe that what SO many "Females" can't get past is that a VERY VERY large percentage of Non Custodial Parents are Fathers. So it's obvious to RATIONAL and INTELLIGENT people why the majority of people fighting for more custodial rights in today's world are MEN. Are some of those men gender-biased themselves? YES!
So someone tell me, how do we round up all the non gender-biased men and women who want SHARED CUSTODY for FIT AND LOVING PARENTS and do something to make a difference and GET IT DONE??
And then (staying on topic as you requested) how do we get laws in place that protect children from abusive PARENTS.
Why does there have to be one "side" fighting against abusive Fathers and another "side" fighting against abusive Mothers?? There should be ONE "side", period.
The problem lies in the false allegations of abuse, in an attempt to gain custody. One parent trying to make the other parent look bad. The problem also lies in how is abuse proven?
Why can't we focus on THOSE problems?
So many people involved in this are like people on the titanic trying to arrange deck chairs, all the while not seeing that the ship is sinking AND CHILDREN ARE DIEING!!
Open your eyes. Deal with some issues that can make a DIFFERENCE.
THAT, my friend, is about as focused as you can get.
Beverly Morris
President & Founder
NANCM, Inc.
www.nancm.com
39 - The Countess (Trish Wilson)
Trish: "I did want to counter your point that children are not routinely manipulated to make false allegations of child abuse, though. It simply is not true."
Mistype! It is true that children are NOT routinely manipulated to make false allegations of child abuse. Bona fide false allegations of abuse are rare.
40 - Julia(member of NANCM)
BEV: AMEN. AS usual, you are straight to the point and right on target.
41 - NANCM
Glad you caught that mistype. I was about to ask you about it. :)
42 - strawberry note
Bev--
While you are certainly loud in your arguments by using lots of caps and exclamation points, you aren't making any real points. You are also very mistaken. I think you will be hard pressed to find much about "mother's rights" groups, because there aren't any. Most people who are working on the issue of truly protecting children from harmful custodial arrangements are interested in the rights of the children to stability, safety, health and mental well-being. It is only father's rights groups and those women duped into helping them with shared parenting groups that spout off about parent's rights, constititional rights to parenting, etc. Chidren are not CD collections to be divided down the middle.
43 - NANCM
Strawberry Note,
So you're telling me that as a fit and loving Mother who divorces a fit and loving Father, that if the custody decision came down to the Father having full custody (because it happens a lot in today's world) that you would simply walk away and be happy with that decision.
You would not fight for your right to have a relationship with your child? You would not, as the woman who gave birth to the children, feel you have a right to half of the time with them?
CD Collection???? You can't compare children to inanimate objects. (Wow, it was hard not to use an exclamation point there!!!) But the fact remains that if a man and a woman have children together then the child is half their Mother and half their Father. What, you want to try to change science now to say one of the parents isn't TRULY a biological parent??
Get real.
And if I haven't made any "real points" to you yet, it's proof that you my friend are the one who is "duped".
As I explained before, it's women such as yourself who just don't get that there is a REASON there aren't many "Mothers Rights" groups. It's because in most cases women get custody, and in most cases Fathers are shut out of their children's lives by a controlling and manipulative custodial Mother.
NANCM happens to be the very small minority of Mothers who this has happened to and we can see clearer than ANYBODY the wrongs that are being done to Fathers all over the world.
I challenge you to walk one day in my shoes; reading e-mails from Mothers who have been alienated from their children. I challenge you to walk one day in my shoes, wondering what my kids had for breakfast, did they finish their homework, did they catch the schoolbus on time, what are they going to eat for lunch, what did they wear to school, what new friends will they make today, will they get home safely?
Did they even think about me today??
Just one day in my shoes. And let's see if it makes you use a capital letter or two, or an explamation point or two... when you get involved in a conversation with people who don't have a CLUE what they are talking about.
44 - Fourteen Percenter
"Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories" presents a view of child abuse that is the opposite of the truth.
In "Breaking the Silence," men are portrayed as monsters and child abusers. Yet most studies that I've read indicates mothers are the perpetrators of child abuse in more than 60 percent of the cases.
Natural birth-fathers are protectors of their children - contrary to the message in "Breaking the Silence." Yet men are often hindered in protecting their children because the media like to portray them as evil - and they are pushed away from the families they love.
"Breaking the Silence" will contribute towards the problem of violence toward children, of fatherlessness, of judicial abuse; not the solution.
Please take a minute to read the poem below. "Monster Mommies," by Kristiana Colegrove, addresses the tragedy of the true perpetrators of child abuse.
Perhaps the producer's next film can address a real problem and offer real solutions.
**************************
Monster Mommies
The last thing these children
saw
before they were
killed
was the first face
they saw
when they were
born.
It’s a treason on life.
It’s omission of the agreement
sworn in for creation.
When the baby breathes first breath
you are obligated
to be the soft
be the welcome
be the guide
into this journey, this world.
The Universe granted
precious gifts.
Children.
Our society is shocked into
watching
shocked into acceptance.
Court TV
produces and profits.
Can’t believe the Monster Mommies
get to live.
Benefits, cable, 3 meals a day.
The blood from their babies
is not dry.
To claim their God “demanded” it.
That they were “depressed”
to get off
to get life.
SERIOUSLY WRONG.
How the tears keep coming
long wails of grief.
Wishing to wrap those kids in safety
so they’d never
know such fear
such horror.
To see our boys
play in the sunshine
and feel the force of joy.
It is incomprehensible
how distorted that could be.
To turn playtime into homicide.
How many more Monster Mommies are there?
I want to crush
drown
suffocate
and starve
all the Monster Mommies.
Search them out while
tucking into beds
closing closets
kissing goodnight
hiding behind Band-Aids.
Search them out
so they will all be gone.
(KRISTIANA COLEGROVE)
45 - strawberry note
Bev, I have walked in your shoes. I never willingly let a violent man have 50/50 custody as you did, blinding myself with fanciful ideas of cooperative co-parenting. You were set up. Set up in fact by the work of the very FR groups and policies you align yourselves with. Don't you know that FRs advise the men to go for 50/50 as a stepping stone for full custody? You are now shut out of your children's life? Well, guess what. That is also part and parcel of what abusive fathers do--isolate, manipulate, refuse visitation/telephone contact. Yes, I think about you and all the moms out there that never should have lost their primary caretaking role in the first place. And if you would educate yourself on family law policies, you might just learn you are now helping make more non-custodial mothers. Your support service is wonderful and very much needed, but your politics are devastating to the very population you seek to serve--and their kids.
46 - NANCM
MY EX HUSBAND NEVER ABUSED OUR CHILDREN!!! Please stop accusing him of such. My EX is a wonderful Father and loves our children very much.
Was he a good husband? NO! Was he verbally and emotionally abusive toward me? YES! But he never physcially abused me OR my children! God forbid my kids find this blog and read your ignorant (as in uninformed) post saying their Father is an abusive man.
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU SPEAK.
Does this help clear up why I am in favor of 50/50 shared custody FOR FIT AND LOVING PARENTS?? Why can't you seem to absorb that when I've said it over and over and over and over again.
I DO NOT SUPPORT SHARED PARENTING IF THERE IS ABUSE INVOLVED.
I mean, Holy Shit. It's no wonder I have to spell with capital letters and exclamation points. You can't get very simple concepts into your thick skull.
I am not "aligned" with Fathers Rights groups. Nor am I aligned with Mothers rights Groups. I have my opinions, based on my own personal circumstances; which happen to be that a Father was able to move children 1,200 miles away from a fit and loving Mother based solely on the fact that he felt he could do an okay job on his own - with no regard to how it would hurt me and the children emotionally.
If you listen to nothing else, please believe me when I say that if you don't stop covering everyone with the same blanket and stereotyping genders, you are doing 100 times more harm than good.
47 - The Countess (Trish Wilson)
NANCM: "CD Collection???? You can't compare children to inanimate objects. (Wow, it was hard not to use an exclamation point there!!!)"
She was likely referring to Lord Falconer's statement about his opposition to 50/50 joint custody. Falconer is the UK constitutional affairs secretary. Fathers' rights activists in the UK have been lobbying heavily for presumptive 50/50 joint custody for many years, and the UK has already rejected it twice. Falconer said: "There cannot and will not be an automatic presumption of 50-50 contact. Children cannot be divided like the furniture or the CD collection."
48 - Cal Law
you've got to be kidding!
I saw the PBS show last night. Outright propaganda. No balance, no counter-views, pure agenda. Afterward, I remembered watching PBS as a kid. I remembered watching shows on the great Alaskan wilderness, and wondering why a big corporation like Exxon was sponsoring the show. So now when I see a show like "Breaking the silence", I think, this is just the same old story: an entity with an agenda and money purchasing PBS time.
The show was particularly painful when they talked about the girl getting put to bed. I tuck in my daughter, but when I do it, I make sure the sheet wraps under her feet, that she has extra blankets if it is going to be a cold night, and that the blankets are square on her and not pushed to one side. Then I give her a kiss good night on the forehead, she gives me a kiss on the cheek, and I remind her to go right to sleep so that she is not tired in the morning. It's terrible to think that I might be associated with the monster portrayed on the PBS show, just because I am an active father in my daughter's life. I would expect people to complain that she is too assertive or tomboyish from being around her dad too much, but not this garbage.
I was at a local chapter COPS meeting several days ago. COPS is a statewide shared parenting organization in California, which is often categorized as one of those fathers groups. The topic of discussion was the involvement of women in the organization. Several members insisted on clarifying that the organization is for parents not just fathers. In fact, there was one father there who had sole custody of his daughter who made it clear that he only had sole custody because the mom was a drug addict and had threatened to kill him. The point I'm making is that, from what I've seen, "father's groups" generally have the perspective that a child should have access to both parents (with the obvious exception of the few extreme cases), and would welcome non-custodial mother's who just want to share in raising their children, and would reject custodial fathers who use custody to alienate the child's mother.
49 - fathers4justicepa
Trish...
[edited]
It's about the children [edited]. Current family laws allow for decisions based upon accusations and not facts. Children should have equal rights to both parents, unless a parent is PROVEN unfit.
Most male abusers of childrenare significant others "NOT" the biological fathers. IE boyfriends and second husbands.
Not so of the female counterpart..
PAS is a reality that many of us can attest to.
That woman in NY and her girls for the TV camera's was a perfect example. Those poor girls didn't know what was wrong. Women like that should be taught that their actions hurt their children.
Everyday I hear of mothers bashing their children's heads in with rocks,
Drowning them in the bathtub,
or throwing them into SF bay. Rolling them into a lake ect ect ect. Yet I don't see ANYTHING in the news or programs about what is wrong with mothers......
It's women having sex with 12-14 yr old boys AND THEY ARE TEACHERS!
Oprah and other femanazis
make it sound like it's not sexual abuse it was LOVE...
If it were a man having sex with girls he would be drawn and quartered by other men... yet women say nothing!
Recent laws dictate that a person who kills a pregnant mother can be charged with both murders....
What about Mother's who abort their children? Is that not murder?
You can't have it both ways....
Women have complete and total control of their own reproductive systems and the choices whether or not to have children. Men on the other hand have no choices. If a man has sex and the woman gets pregnant, its her choice whether or not to bring the child into the world... the man has NO say... but he will Pay...
Don't worry though things will change that is guarenteed. However you stand
on the subject Gay marriage will change the family court system, when it passes, and it eventually will,from that day forward courts will need to be gender neutral.
50 - strawberry note
Bev writes: "Was he verbally and emotionally abusive toward me? YES"
Domestic violence is not just physical abuse. The children were witnesses of what you describe above either directly or indirectly. Abusing the mother of one's children is not good fathering. In many states it falls under the child protection statutes of mental and emotional cruelty to children. I am sorry you are defensive, but that defensiveness comes from the discomfort of hearing the truth. And, if you look at the link I sent to Julie of your group, you will see that whether you want to be or not, you are identified as part of the father's rights movement. Time to examine some of your positions.
51 - Eric from FIRM
Give me a break, trishy pooh...
I have read your site and your "supposed" quotes from studies. I researched them. You blatantly lie and twist things to smithereens. You only quote what you want told and leave out the truth just like the PBS show will do as evidenced by those that have seen the screening.
You should be ashamed. Your misandry is showing...
Eric
Fathers' Integrity & Rights Movement (FIRM)
misandry (mis'-an'-dre') n. hatred of men. (1) the attribution of negative qualities to the entire male gender. (2) the claim that masculinity is the source of human vices such as domination, violence, oppression, and racism. (3) a sexist assumption that (a) male genes, hormones and physiology, or (b) male cultural nurturing produce war, rape, and physical abuse. (4) the assignment of blame solely to men for humanity's historic evils without including women's responsibility or giving men credit for civilization's achievements. (5) the assumption that any male person is probably domineering, oppressive, violent, sexually abusive, and spiritually immature.
Patrick M. Arnold, Society of Jesuits
from link
[Editor's note: Please don't paste large excerpts from other sources in the comments. Thank you.]
52 - Julia(member of NANCM)
Strawberry Rote:
as you asked us to do: STAY ON FOCUS. IT IS NOT ABOUT MEN, IT IS NOT ABOUT WOMEN!!! THIS IS ABOUT CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE ABOUT CHILDREN!!! Or do you wish to start separating them into boys and girls; "oh, we,should only focus on protecting girls because they are more or less going to be abused when they get older by men because boys grow up to be abusive men when they are abused as children". NOT ALL ABUSED CHILDREN END UP AS ABUSERS. SOME TAKE WHAT THEY WENT THRU TO BETTER THEMSELVES AND TO HELP OTHERS. LET's ALL GET REAL PEOPLE.
GROW UP!!!, STOP PLAYING WORD GAMES AND COME TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT: THE CHILDREN.
53 - Teri
MOM said
"To Teri In Cali:
I read your story about "Is He Loser or Is He Dad." In it you said you divorced three of you children's dads, they left and were not there for their kids? Given your personal experience with your own children's fathers, what makes you think all dads want to be involved in their children's lives? Why did you divorce three of your childrens dads? Were they abusive to you?
MOM"
MY reply:
Yes, I've been divorced 3 times. I wish I had been wise enough to realize I wasn't mature enough to marry. I had low self-esteem. No, none of them ever abused me or our children. The MAJORITY of divorces do NOT involve abuse of any form.
Two of the men were around for awhile, one not at all. I can look back and see things I did that made the situation worse. I'm not taking full responsibility, no way, but I see how things could have been so much better for the children if we had worked together, and we could have. MOST people can put the kids' needs first.
I never said all men want to be great dads. I would never say that, just like I would never say that all women want to be great moms. I know too many custodial mothers whose kids never hear from their fathers and too many custodial fathers whose kids never hear from their mothers.
This WAR we fight is for GOOD parents. I understand that many of you are victims of abuse. I get it. I affects your perception. Let me assure you, MOST people don't abuse. MOST parents are GREAT parents. This fight is for them.
You only represent 5-10% of divorcing women, yet you want to control what happens to 100% of couples in family court. I just can't accept that.
Please read this article too:
link
Teri
http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/
54 - strawberry note
Teri says" "You only represent 5-10% of divorcing women, yet you want to control what happens to 100% of couples in family court. I just can't accept that."
There is nothing to prevent divorcing couples in which there was no marital history of domestic violence or child abuse from agreeing to 50/50 shared physical custody. Surely you know that. You, Teri are trying to force this policy on those that are least able to protect themselves and their children. This is not about good fathers (and mothers) sitting down for tea and crumpets, holding hands and singing Kumbayah together. This is about parents who can not co-parent for safety or conflict reasons. Conflict of any kind is the number 1 reason children do not heal from divorce. Not every child can handle shuttling back and forth from home to home like a ping-pong ball. Have you ever talked to a teacher about how these kids fare? I for one have watched a little kindergartner sitting on a suitcase at the end of the day, crying because he had no idea where he was supposed to go at the end of the school day and who was to pick him up. Some kids can handle it, some can't. Some parent's can handle it, most can't. Custody decisions are supposed to be about what is best for the children--taking each case and child individually--not about the parent's rights or wants.
55 - MOM
This WAR we fight is for GOOD parents.
How do you know which parents are good and which are bad? You want equality to be the presumption to begin with. That will include good and bad parents? How can you tell which is which? How many parents/fathers in this movement do you actually know personally? Have you ever spoken to any of their ex spouses? How do you know the parents you are defending are "good parents" you made bad choices in the past because as you say you have low self esteem? Maybe by supporting these fathers you are again making bad choices? Work on your self esteem!
I understand that many of you are victims of abuse. I get it. I affects your perception.
It doesn't affect my perception. I am not a victim of abuse I am a survivor of abuse. BIG difference! I can now smell an abuser at 20 paces!
Let me assure you, MOST people don't abuse.
No just about every woman I know has been in a abusive marriage/relationship. LOL maybe their perception is off? Maybe they just imagined it all?
MOST parents are GREAT parents.
Are they? Do you know most parents on the planet? You make very broad statements.
This fight is for them.
If they are great parents they are probably parenting and not wasting time in courts and on yahoo websites.
You only represent 5-10% of divorcing women, yet you want to control what happens to 100% of couples in family court.
We want to protect our children from abuse!
I just can't accept that.
No one is asking you to accept anything. You know nothing about abuse because as you said you were never abused nor were your children. How dare you come here and lecture women about how wonderful dads are? The dads of our children weren't wonderful. Thats what we are talking about! Our children's fathers abused the mother and the children! Can't you accept that? Seems you can but you are not going to shove it down our throats. If you had any education about abuse you would never be here making such insensitive comments. Our issue and yours is not the same so go seek recruits elsewhere!
56 - MOM
Teri go rent the shining or the burning bed. In those movies you will see a pretty accurate picture (or was it just my skewed perception) of what my ex husband was like. Maybe my perception is a bit off because of the number of times I was beat around the head. Maybe some of my brains were pulled out along with my hair? [edited]
57 - NANCM
Strawberry Note said:
"There is nothing to prevent divorcing couples in which there was no marital history of domestic violence or child abuse from agreeing to 50/50 shared physical custody."
Are you kidding me??? You're really THAT ignorant about what's going on in the family court system today? There are corrupt judges, lawyers, mediators, evaluators and hundreds of others that are keeping EXACTLY that from happening.
You can tell yourself you know about my situation all you want. But I'll say it again; there was NO abuse in my relationship beyond my EX having an affair, talking down to me and treating me like his "property" (we'd been together since I was 15). It was NOTHING that I would categorize as abuse. It was typical BAD human behavior. Period.
Yet that didn't keep the courts from allowing a "loophole" to be open for him (a Notary's Jurat that was not signed properly) which gave him the opportunity to "legally" kidnap our children over state lines. My EX knew and his attorney knew that the techinicality was there and they used it as leverage when the Judge ruled in my favor.
HAD THERE BEEN A LAW IN PLACE STATING THAT CHILDREN ARE TO HAVE ACCESS TO BOTH FIT AND LOVING PARENTS MY EX WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TAKE MY CHILDREN OVER STATE LINES.
Instead of helping me to get my babies back and continue a 50/50 arrangement, the courts - YES, THE COURTS - told me that I would have to prove him as an abuser - as an unfit Father - to get my children back.
It's no wonder so many men and women lie about their EX spouses. It's what the lawyers and the court itself TELLS us to do!!
Excuse me while I go vomit now.
58 - NANCM
Mom,
Your comments take me back to my statement that we need to pull together and focus on the REAL problems, instead of constant gender bashing and making it a war of male against female.
No matter who is doing the abusing, the Mother OR the Father, the children need protected!!
1. Abused children need protecting
2. Fit and Loving Parents need protected from having their children taken away from them.
3. There are good Mothers and bad Mothers.
4. There are good Fathers and Bad Fathers.
How do we constructively put all of those statements together and subsequently work together to get some real issues SOLVED!?!?
59 - MOM
NANCM sounds like you are in what we call denial.
Your ex verbally and psycologically abused you and if he did it to you I am sure he does it to the children too! When he cheated on you he cheated on his children too! Why didn't you and your ex have 50/50? HMMMMMM? Maybe because he wouldn't agree to it? He had his attorney put that loophole there to deceive you darling. Your ex abused you and he abuses his new wife and he abuses his kids! Once an abuser always an abuser! Stop defending him. Get some backbone woman! Wake up!
60 - MOM
I am NOT going to pull together to give presumptive 50/50 shared parenting to men and women across the board. NO WAY JOSE! Everyone has a right to be heard. We all have a right to protect our children. NANCM, if your ex was soooo great a dad as you say why did he take them away from their mother? BASTARD! 50/50 parenting won't do anything to protect the childrten from a parent like that! They want to be vindictive they will still be vindictive. The only way to protect the children is to get such parents out of their lives altogether!
61 - Lary Holland
To Diana Hartman, she states:
those who assert that mothers are the majority child abusers define domestic violence without the inclusion of child sex abuse...
My above post actually includes both sides of the equation, and further Teri in Cali posts the majority sexual abusers is indeed "mommy's new boyfriend." The post I included earlier lists the link to the entire study that supports Teri's stance and my stance and debunks Diana Hartman's stance.
She refers to "twisting of facts" when the numbers are broken down merely because they do not support her stance.
62 - DAD
I am a father who gets to see his children solely because the state in which I reside passed a legislative presumption toward shared parenting.
My ex-wife tried EVERYTHING in the book to deny me visitation. She accused me of molestation. This accusation was deemed by the Court to have been of high likelihood having been made with false or malicious intent. After the CPS records were turned over to us by a judge's order, we discovered that the ex had also accused me of being the DC Sniper. The State's Attorney actually laughed about this. What consequences befell the ex for this? None.
There is no depth of absurdity to which women are discouraged to sink in their path of vindictiveness. Women are not sugar and spice and everything nice. They use the family court system to exert their own form of aggression. They look at their children as their property, an entitlement like all the rest. Women virtually monopolize victimhood. The divorce is usually about THEIR attempts to maximize financial gain and exact retribution for whatever wrongs are supposed.
Certainly, men engage in this type of detrimental behavior as well. But, you CANNOT have it both ways. Are WOMEN the victims in divorce? Or do they TYPICALLY stand to have the most to gain by using the children as weapons to exact a more favorable financial settlement? We hear talk ad infinitum about work inequity, marriage financial inequity, about how moms enjoy a lower standard of living post-divorce due to these things. So, why does it stand to reason that men are the ones initiating a course of action most likely to be to their marked detriment? Women, according to the dogma propagated on sites such as this, are the ones in the weaker position. They have the most to win by using the Courts. Simple deductive analysis should make it obvious to anyone who is most likely to pursue this course of action.
If our focus is the "children," then we should be trying to strengthen families instead of developing marriage "law" which solely defines its own dissolution. There is no fault anymore in divorce, no penalties for misbehavior. What price did my wife pay for telling the ATF and FBI that I was the DC Sniper? NONE. Nothing. Zero. The system and lack of consequences encourage this type of behavior, of her disappearing with the children. Her own attorney chided her in open court about this. But, there were never any consequences. And, who suffered? Did I? No. Did she? Certainly not, despite being the instigator of everything. The kids DID. And, that damage cannot be repaired.
It is WHOLLY unrealistic to expect women who have grown up in a consequenceless society, where they can hit men and have it laughed off, where they can lie, steal, and cheat and have it be excused, to exercise restraint in a divorce proceeding where there are even FEWER consequences. Why should they exercise restraint? There is no benefit to it to themselves. This society is "me first" and everyone else second. Without real TEETH in a marriage, without FAULT in divorce, without CONSEQUENCES to actions, how can we expect people to do right by precious little humans who are viewed as no more than CHATTEL by their parents and courts alike?
If we want to solve this, we have to encourage people to stop fighting over things. Give them no arena, no reason, nothing to fight ABOUT, and they will stop fighting. If women know that there is no POINT to making baseless accusations, they will stop making them. If they know there are consequences to malice, they will stop. REAL penalties on PARENTS stop this nonsense. Equitable divisions of property, blackletter law, presumptive child support formulas, and sane assumptions about coparenting mitigate disputes.
I empathize with those who desire to move across country to have a better career or higher average surface temperature. But, sh!t, who is this about, YOU? When you have children with somebody, you GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT to do things for yourself and only yourself, just like that MAN, who pays support in the VAST majority of cases, gives up his right to a certain slice of his check when he fathers children. Encumbrances are a two-way street and children are not an entitlement nor property.
63 - Loving Grandmother
To MOM,
"Your ex verbally and psycologically abused you and if he did it to you I am sure he does it to the children too! When he cheated on you he cheated on his children too!"
What about the Mother doing the cheating? Statistics show women cheat on men just as often, thereby, destroying the family.
From what I read in Nancy's posts, she puts the children first. Bravo!
64 - MOM
Dad I hope your ex never endangers your child and you cannot protect them because everyone will think you are reporting false abuse. Worse yet maybe one day your child will be abused but not believed because we all know children just make these things up don't they? Its a two edged sword but I would always rather err on the side of the child to ensure that they are protected from an abuser! Maybe as an adult that means I have to suffer but better me than ever a child!
65 - zingzing
just because some men beat there kids doesn't mean men shouldn't have the same rights as women in court. if a man is beating his kid, then he shouldn't have custody of that kid. duh. but the post seems to advocate that the law view all men as suspect. which is totally wrong. obviously.
the original post is a sickening example of blatant sexism. it's really disgusting and stupid. it's like saying that if a man and a woman got into a car accident, it's automatically the woman's fault. go away.
66 - Teri
MOM,
Thank you for proving that bitter women can be just as offensive on the internet as angry dads.
I'm sorry all of your friends are abuse victims. I've read that people who are victims tend to attract perpetrators. I guess you could attract other victims too.
None of my close friends have ever been abused. I'm not prejudiced, towards either gender. I'd say between you and I, I have a little clearer perspective on child custody, wouldn't you?
If you would stop being afraid long enough to listen you would learn that all of the shared parenting bills include protection for children from abusers, of BOTH genders.
I know fathers whose children are being abused or neglected by the mothers, yet the men have not been able to get shared or sole custody. Why? Because people like you keep telling everyone that only men abuse. I know men who have been battered by their ex-wives, yet were not able to get any help. Why? Guess.
Teri
Feminist4Fathers (and mothers)
http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/
67 - Teri
MOM said: "Dad I hope your ex never endangers your child and you cannot protect them because everyone will think you are reporting false abuse."
That's right. They usually DON'T believe fathers. They usually DO believe mothers. Look at the statistics.
I'm sorry in your case they didn't listen. Now you know why the dads are fighting so hard. That is exactly what happened to some of them.
Our fight is for the CHILDREN.
Teri
F4F
68 - Julia(member of NANCM)
One thing I wonder is that while everyone continues to point fingers at everyone else,do they realize that they have three pointing back at them? When did this become about which gender is worse about abuse?
I thought this was about the CHILDREN!!!! Let's get our focus back to the CHILDREN!!!! Not every abusive situation stays the same; some abusers do get help; victims get help to overcome and are no longer in a place of being "the victim" and some abusers/victims are able to overcome those obstacles to put the needs of THE CHILDREN first. Some people abuse simply because their relationship was not making them happy and they took out their frustrations in a very unhealthy manner.
Not all situations are exactly alike. Instead of trying to put everyone into a square peg or round peg, how about we realize we are all human beings with our own flaws and fallacies, and just accept that fact. How about we simply stop stereo typing everyone. The gender war does not help BOY CHILDREN or GIRL CHILDREN(REGARDLESS OF GENDER......THEY ARE ALL STILL CHILDREN)
Every situation is different.Not all cases is it in the CHILD's best interest to have access to both parents. In some cases, it is essential for the CHILDREN to have access to develop/maintain relationships with both parents, grandparents, aunts,uncles, and sometimes even new sibling relationships out of subsequent marriages for the parents. Do what is BEST FOR THE CHILDREN. So let's stop pointing fingers, put our heads together, and pull resources together to allow CHILDREN the best of what they deserve.
69 - Teri In Cali
You're right Julia. Please don't think I only support fathers. I just get defensive on their behalf. I support ncp moms too!
Teri
F4F
70 - strawberry note
Julia writes: "Not every abusive situation stays the same; some abusers do get help; victims get help to overcome and are no longer in a place of being "the victim" and some abusers/victims are able to overcome those obstacles to put the needs of THE CHILDREN first. Some people abuse simply because their relationship was not making them happy and they took out their frustrations in a very unhealthy manner."
Agreed in part. Yes, some batterers get help. "...according to countless battered women whose partners have participated in batterer programs, many batterers who are attending or have attended a batterer intervention program continue to be violent and/or controlling."(Source: NY State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence).
Yes, victims (adult & child) heal when they are removed from their abuser.
Victims who ask for protections for themselves & the children through the court ARE putting the children's needs first. Again, presumptions for shared parenting aren't necessary for parents who agree, and are a harmful to children in DV cases, and questionable in others absent abuse.
Continuing to push for those presumptions is short-sighted, shows a distinct lack of knowledge about family law, and would not likely have helped your individual cases.
People do not perpetrate domestic violence because they are unhappy in the relationship or because they are "frustrated". We all have had experiences of being unhappy and frustrated. That is not a license or excuse to harm another person.
71 - Mona Lena
> MONEY <
LONG,Long time ago [edited]
Mona Lena ( smiling )
72 - Cal Law
you've got to be kidding!
this blog is WAY too long? If anybody actually gets to the end (or at least this far), I'd like to add a few tidbits of information.
It seems that anecdotal stories carry more weight, and maybe rightly so, with this group than statistics based on empirical studies. Therefore, I submit, that if moms are, by nature, the nurturers that we all wish each one was, then dads are likewise, by nature, the protectors and providers that we all wish each one was.
I still haven't read any consensus as to what the definition of DV actually is and if the definition, whatever it may be, should be applied to men and women equally. For example, it my case, I technically qualify as a DV victim, which I suppose makes my ex both a perpetrator of domestic violence and a threat to our daughter. Unfortunately, I just don't see it that way. In both instances of my ex's DV, I was acting stupid and, to a degree had something coming. I learned what ticks her off and I made sure not to do it anymore. End of story. I'm sure if I continued, she would continue responding in a similar fashion. Notwithstanding, my ex has never struck our daughter, and despite any personal feelings I might have toward her, I still think she a pretty great mom, and an asset to our daughter. So what's the deal with the definitions? Who gets to decide what the definitions are? And what if someone disagrees with those definitions?
Several posts talk about what's best for kids, how we need to do it for the children. The main reason I am writing is that I was one of those kids. And yes, Parental Alienation is very real. In my opinion it is one of the worst things a parent could do to a kid. Again, definitions play an important role here as well. Do you know the difference between PAS and PA? The psychological community has not yet adopted PAS (parental alienation syndrome) as an official disorder, however, it (and the courts) widely accept Parental Alienation and a very real act.
That's what the whole PBS show was about. Apparently, the courts and psychologists have accepted PA (not PAS, yet) so widely, that someone with money to burn put together a showcase of several exceptional cases where there was an awful man who hurt both his ex and his kid. Once they got the viewer's heart and attention (including mine), they used it to push an agenda that the court's growing recognition of parental alienation (not necessarily PAS as the PBS show suggests) is the cause of abuse to children. Again, it helps to be talking about the same definition. Is it Parental Alienation or Parental Alienation Syndrome? Is there a difference?
Getting back to the kids. I'd like to recommend an excellent read if one were really interested in the kids view. See link . Dr. Ahrons' book 'We're Still Family: What Grown Children Have to Say About Their Parents' Divorce' is very accurate, in my opinion. It provides a balanced report, and comprehends that this is not a simple issue (i.e., 'all dad's are batterers' or 'every case should be 50/50 always'). I do not agree with many of the author's conclusions on the institution of marriage. She seems to imply that marriage is not that important. I, believe it or not, still think that marriage is very important. Aside from Dr. Ahrons' conclusions, her research is very valuable to any single-parent or other concerned person who sincerely wants to know what going on with the kids, especially if one wants to get a heads-up on the long-term effects of today's actions. That's my plug for Dr. Ahrons.
Finally, this may be of interest. In working with parents in the family court, I've a few non-scientific observations. White American men tended to believe that, by law, they were not equally entitled to custody of their children, as a result though it a waste of time to ask. White American women tended to consider attaining sole or primary custody as paramount to their womanhood. Foreign women were very different in this respect, and were far more likely to start out asking for 50/50 custody. They tended to believe that kids needed both parents and that 50/50 seemed to be inherently fair. Hispanic men were far more likely to ask for sole custody of the children at the outset, and had no shyness about it. Let's see, oh yes, and finally (and this was very difficult for me), in talking to parents on a one-to-one basis it seemed that VERY OFTEN what one really wanted was not that far from what the other wanted. However, out of fear of what the other might do, each would fight to get the most custody, thus feeding the fears of the other. So often I thought that if each parent was somehow guaranteed that their relationship with their child would not be put in jeopardy, they would have a better outcome. And I'm not kidding!
later alligator
73 - Temple Stark
Can we take the bitchfest* back to where it came from and remove it from this site.
*bitch, as in interminable whine.
74 - RogerMDillion
If it takes that much to say so little, no wonder you people don't listen to each other.
75 - Arizonadad
I believe I have found the chinc in the family courts armor. I am starting an open discussion on this subject, in my personal live real time chat room. stating at 6pm 10/27/2005. Anyone interested in joining this discusion may join in at
NCPParentTalkandLegalReformatgroups.msn.com
I suggest you get in on the ground floor and be there tomorrow night on time, sign in early so you can keep up with the progress of the discussion. This is the only invitation you will get. We will start moving forward tomorrow night after 6pm PST.