In Ireland more gender Apartheid ~ This pious and fatuous law is a charter for blackmailers

There is moral, perceptual and willful blindness by lawmakers who are unable to fathom the lack of logic in Victim Feminist lobbying efforts. The laws in Ireland are clearly designed to demonize boys and sanctify girls, the latter as innocent victims of the rapacious sexual appetites of boys in a frenzy of testosterone driven hunting for "jail bait". That the sex is consensual and perhaps initiated by the girl matters not. That might make most Irish lads, who may well be some of these same lawmakers criminals. Lucky for those who passed the law it is not retroactive.

By Kevin Myers

Friday June 26 2009

THE mob-leaders who led the hysteria accompanying the passage of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 must now be delighted with themselves.

Several teenage boys are awaiting trial on charges of having had sex with similarly under-age girls -- or as the Act, with a winsome political correctness, puts it: "a female child under the age of 17". If God is good, and the sisters have their way, these boys might well be sent to jail for up to five years. And maybe put on the sex offenders' register. Who knows, they might even have their lives ruined. What spiffing japes!

The scary emotionalising that passed for Dail debate just three years ago was the prelude to our beloved members of the Oireachtas concocting a truly appalling law.

And the hysteria on the issue of teenagers and sex -- whipped up by RTE, as always -- probably fuelled the sinister details of that law.

So the notion that a teenage boy and girl having consensual sex results in the boy alone facing criminal charges, is not some unexpected by-product of that law.

No, indeed, for this was both specifically intended and clearly foreseen. Section Five of the introduction of the Bill roundly declared: "Female child under 17 years not guilty of offence." And then, after laying out the punitive consequences for anyone who has consensual sex with a teenager between the ages of 15 and 17, the Bill declared in a single exculpatory paragraph: "A female child under the age of 17 shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse."

Not equal? Of course it's not equal. It wasn't intended to be equal.

Over to the DPP, James Hamilton, who wrote in his submission to the Oireachtas on this matter: "But equality under the Constitution does not require that all situations be treated alike -- indeed that would be inequality." Is that clear? Good. Now allow me to pause here, take a couple of Panadol, and to lie-down in a darkened, padded room. I may be some time.

Yet some people clearly saw what was coming down the track. The Fine Gael TD Damien English predicted: "There is a situation now where if two 16-year-olds have sex, and she becomes pregnant, the father could be in prison when she's having the baby. That's madness. . ."

Madness it certainly is. For the Oireachtas of 2006 deliberately devised special gender-apartheid laws in which only males could be culprits. So here's the picture. Take the foregoing couple of 16-year-olds having sex. What indeed if their consensual act resulted in a pregnancy?

Option One. Could the State be seen to be imprisoning an unmarried mum for performing the deed which made her an unmarried mum? Of course, not.

Option Two. Could it devise a legal code in which the girl was guilty only if the sexual deed did not result in a pregnancy? Too messy: suddenly mens rea and menses become inextricably intertwined.

Option Three. Just throw the boy to the wolves, and declare as a matter of law that under-age girls are always innocent. This, apparently, not merely achieves Orwellian dimensions of equality; it also has the added advantage of not alienating any of the simmering feminist army of lobby groups and quangos. There are, of course, no such bodies to protect that unloved species, teenage boys.

Yet this stinking law, probably in some mysterious way, genuinely reflects the will of the Dail; well, at least, over those hysterical few days anyway.

The minister, Michael McDowell, had in fact initially tried to introduce a balanced law which would at least have recognised reality and would, for example, have lowered the legal age of consent from 17 to 16. But he was overwhelmed by the usual media and political hysteria, and the outcome was yet again an Irish solution for an Irish problem.

In sheer fatuity and pious humbug, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 is a match for most of the many preposterous forays into personal morality by the Irish state

Moreover, it is a blackmailer's charter. Any sexually-experienced 16-year-old girl who seduces an under-17 male -- not a difficult task, surely -- is always innocent under this law whereas he is always guilty.

If she chooses to, she can simply ruin his life. (So how much is it worth to him and his family for her not to complain?). And, of course, such a girl can move through the ranks of permanently tumescent 15-year-old lads -- doing this repeatedly if she so chooses. This is not 1950s Ireland. At least 40pc of youngsters under-17 have lost their virginity. Every boy who has had sex with a girl aged under 16 since 2006 is thus a criminal -- unless he was under 14 at the time in which case the girl, if over 14, might somehow or other be guilty. God knows. I certainly don't.

So a moral and legal slum -- and one that is probably constitutionally unsustainable -- has once again resulted merely because, YET again, the mob was allowed to call the shots. Do we never learn? No, of course we don't.

kmyers@independent.ie

- Kevin Myers

Geoff Hibbert - M25 Batman UK Letter from Jail

	1-888-F4J Canada
Press release
Contact: Kris Titus Phone: 1-888-345-2262 ext.703 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 27, 2009
For Immediate Release June 27, 2009 Geoff Hibbert - M25 Batman UK Letter from Jail The Global Battle for equal rights. F4J Fathers 4 Justice activists fighting for the rights of children to both parents face prison in the UK, Canada and the U.S.A. Geoff Hibbert, aka M25 Batman, isn't the first and likely won't be the last superhero who has spent time in jail for this worthy and noble goal, but his may be the harshest sentence to date after being convicted by a Jury after police halted traffic on the M25 highway for many hours, he faces the possibility of a 7 year sentence. "This unjustice at its best. You're kidding yourselves if you think F4J activists will crumble under these ever harsher punishments," says Kris Titus, National Coordinator for the Canadian arm of the International group, "if anything we dig in our heels any further. This is a human rights issue and it's about time it was addressed as one. We stand behind our members in the UK and in the US as well as our own activists facing imprisonment." Hibbert has begun a hunger strike as he awaits sentencing and his lawyers attempt an appeal. The news of his conviction has sent tidal waves throughout England and the International Fathers 4 Justice movement Got your letter today 23/6/09 Thank you very much Glad to see you and others are doing what you can for me The court and judge & jury was totally wrong to send me or any father to prison Because we fight for the right to see our children Its mothers that should be put in prison not the fathers, Please make sure that the support is there for me and other fathers I am ok. And are going for bail this week I hope I get it will have to wait and see. My new girlfriend is very upset over all this you can call her *********** She will also let you know what is going on with the case And the injustice that has been done to me and f4j The judge said a lot of things about f4j and fathers The jury of which some did not speak English at all, one of which could not even read the oath out in court, Ron Reid is a very long and good friend and will talk to you and anyone we know all of my case and so does Marie my girlfriend Have heard about the newspapers but have been unable to get my hands on any yet Have not eaten anything from Thursday when I went down to cells but I am drinking tea that’s something This shows that there is no justice for fathers By the way the judge acted in this case, They will not show me the you tube website, but they are trying to help me as much as they can and giving me there support What happened with the tower protest in oxford the day I was sent down I will keep my head up high for our children and for fathers of the injustice that the courts are doing to our children and for the fathers who care Thanks for everything and everyone for there help and there support Speak to you soon my friend Geoff Hibbert ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTACT: National Coordinator, Kris Titus 1-888-345-2262 ext. 703 National Website for more information about F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada Canada: www.f4jcanada.ca National Action website: www.f4jcanada.com
-End

In Pennsylvania ~ Proposal gives divorced dads reason for hope

This is good news for Pennsylvania dads if it goes through. The objections are typical. The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence sees an increase in abuse. Of course they would but given DV is pretty much equal and its mothers who are the main killers and abusers of children their argument is like sand dunes in a strong wind and collapses under its own weight. In fact we will likely see a reduction in child abuse if dads are equals in their children's lives. The judge can still listen to evidence and make an informed decision. The only caveat is we may see an increase in false allegations in a desperate move to maintain the current biased status quo.

The bar associations stance is typical as well. They will lose revenue if they cannot continue to foster an adversarial system pitting parent against parent. Why someone with such a vested pecuniary interest in outcomes should be taken seriously is beyond me. It's like asking the makers of heavy duty winter clothing if global warming will affect their income. Duh! They tout the best interest of the child will be compromised. It shows how little they know and understand the studies that conclude more positive outcomes for children when two parents stay in their lives.MJM

By JOHN LATIMER Staff Writer Lebanon Daily News Updated: 06/20/2009 11:39:49 PM EDT Dan Giffin, father, speaks to the county commissioners. Like many fathers, Dan Giffin has been looking forward to enjoying a relaxing Father’s Day today — in his case, spending it at his Palmyra home playing with his 4-year-old son, Alex.To Giffin’s delight, the pair are spending a lot more time together now that he has a joint-custody arrangement with the boy’s mother, who lives in Lancaster County. She refused to comment for this article and asked that her name not be included. The custody agreement gives Alex to each of his parents on an every-other-week basis. It took three years of court hearings and cost both of them tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills to achieve the arrangement, said Giffin, a 32-year-old telecommunications technician. Before the equal split, Giffin explained, he saw his son about 10 days a month. That was an improvement from the start of their separation in 2006, he said, when he was limited by a court order to seeing him three weekends a month. Giffin said he is hoping the state Legislature will pass a new custody law that will spare other sparring parents from going through the same stressful and expensive experience. House Bill 463 House Bill 463, the Presumptive Joint-Custody law, would, at the outset of a couple’s separation or divorce, automatically give each parent equal custody of their children. It would require parents to submit a parenting plan and give the judge the authority to order counseling for them, but it would still leave the door open for appeals by both parents for a different custody arrangement. Presumptive joint custody is a change from the current statute, which requires that custody decisions be made on a case-by-case basis by judges who are to rule “in the best interest of the child,” after hearing testimony from both parents. The proposed law is supported by father’s right’s groups, like Fathers4Justice, a national organization with chapters in Pennsylvania. Its members feel that the current custody system is unfair and biased in favor of the mother. They criticize family-law professionals, claiming attorneys want to maintain the status quo because it lines their pockets with legal fees. “Not everybody is a deadbeat dad,” said Mark Carrol, spokesman for the central Pennsylvania chapter of Fathers4Justice. “I work with a lot of fathers who just want to help raise their children. ... The bottom line is, children need both parents but, for whatever reasons, the courts are biased. Eighty-five percent of the time when dad goes into court asking for more time with his kids, the judge says no.” Opponents Not everyone, however, is in favor of changing the best-interest standard to one requiring presumptive joint custody. The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence has released a position paper stating that automatic joint custody could increase a child’s exposure to an abusive parent and destabilize children’s lives by ignoring the pre-divorce living arrangement. Many family-law attorneys also oppose the presumptive joint-custody provision because it puts the interest of the parents above that of the children and will do nothing to minimize custody disputes. That’s the sentiment of Mary Burchik, an attorney for Buzgon Davis Law Offices and chairwoman of the Lebanon County Bar Association’s Family Law Committee. “I don’t disagree that both parents need to get involved in the child’s life, but if those two parents don’t get along that does not bode well for a (50/50) shared-custody arrangement,” she said. “My concern is any type of presumption of joint custody will decimate the best interest of the child standard. I believe starting from that presumption takes away all the discretion of the court and the judge, who is the fact finder and who hears from both sides what is going on and makes the final determination of what is in best interest of the child.” The amended law was written by Rep. Robert E. Belfanti Jr. (D-Montour) who has sponsored similar legislation twice before that did not pass into law. It was introduced in February and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it currently awaits review by the Subcommittee on Family Law, chaired by Rep. Kathy Manderino (D-Philadelphia). Belfanti is recovering from health problems and was unavailable for comment. Finding support Giffin is a member of the Pennsylvania Families Association, a Lancaster-based support group for parents involved in custody battles. The association, which has both men and women as members, meets regularly and has a Web site,http://www.pfa.me. It has been working hard to change custody laws and supports passage of Belfanti’s bill. Twice in recent weeks, Giffin and other members of the PFA have lobbied the Lebanon County commissioners, urging them to join their counterparts in Lancaster, York and a handful of other counties by writing a letter to Manderino calling for her to convene hearings on the joint-custody bill. “There’s no good reason why my son had to be deprived of spending equal time with me while the courts took nearly three years and $25,000 in lawyer fees to come to an equal-custody arrangement,” Giffin told the commissioners. “A parent shouldn’t be made to feel that spending time with and raising their child is a privilege. In a higher sense, and in a blessed sense, I feel privileged to watch my son learn, grow and laugh. But when my son’s future is left in the hands of one mortal man (the judge), I just can’t understand that.” The commissioners decided to stay out of the political fray and did not write a letter to Manderino calling for hearings on HB 463. “I don’t think any of us felt we should get involved at this time,” Commissioner Larry Stohler said. Other options The matter of joint-custody will be taken up in the fall, according to Manderino’s legal counsel. But Belfanti’s bill will not be the only one under consideration. “We are looking to address this (joint custody) in the fall,” said Mary McDaniels, Manderino’s counsel. “House Bill 463 is just one idea. But we are hoping to take a broader look at the custody issue and maybe give it a total rewrite. Representative Manderino has introduced a bill to do that.” That more comprehensive bill is HB 1639, similar to Senate Bill 74 submitted by Sen. Stewart Greanleaf (R-Montgomery) in 2007, which died without a vote before the session expired. Manderino’s bill addresses the joint-custody issue but does not change the “best interest of the child” standard. It does, however, make provisions for jail punishment and fines for parents who violate terms of a court-ordered custody arrangement and spells out the rights of grandparents. Many of HB 1639’s amendments are based on recommendations included in a report produced by a Joint State Government Commission’s Advisory Committee on Domestic Relations Law that has been reviewing the state’s custody law for more than a decade, said Camp Hill attorney Maria Cognetti, a member of the committee. Cognetti, who chairs the commission’s subcommittee on custody law, opposes Belfanti’s presumptive joint-custody bill, calling it poorly written and extremely dangerous because it does not protect the child’s best interest. Manderino’s bill is more promising, she said, and picks up where Greanleaf’s bill left off. “House Bill 1639 goes farther than old Senate Bill 74 in that it re-emphasizes the goal of really making sure that both parents get as much time as possible with their children without it being a presumption,” she said. Rep. Mauree Gingrich of Palmyra is one of more than 50 co-sponsors of Belfanti’s presumptive joint-custody bill. But she said she has an open mind regarding changes to custody law and will keep close watch as the issue moves through the legislative process. “This is a sensitive and complex issue,” she wrote in an e-mail response to a request for comment. “The only way to determine if the current process should be re-defined, is to bring the issue forward for comprehensive debate, understanding that decisions regarding custody have a profound impact upon both parents and most of all upon the children who are subject to the order.” Stressing the positive With his fight behind him, Giffin said he will continue to work to change the state’s custody law, but most of all he will enjoy parenting his son, who will enter kindergarten in the fall. To make the shared raising of their son easier, he is planning moving closer to his ex-wife. “I know she loves our son. And she knows I love him, too. I think the system made us adversarial,” Giffin said. “At this point, since we’ve had equal custody, our conversation has been more civil, and our stress levels have all gone down — even Alex’s.” JohnLatimer@LDNews.com http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_12657098?nclick_check=1

from Mike Murphy sender time Sent at 23:03 (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 23:23. ✆ to JohnLatimer@ldnews.com cc GlennSacks@nospamfathersandfamilies.org, jeremy swanson <nospamswanson@storm.ca>, Kris Titus nospamgmail.com> date 27 June 2009 23:03 subject Your column "Proposal gives divorced dads reason for hope" June 20/09 mailed-by shaw.ca John: http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_12657098?nclick_check=1 Thanks for your coverage of the shared parenting bill. Although I do not live in PA, indeed I don’t even live in your country, the goal to get presumptive 50-50 shared parenting is one that is ongoing in many countries including mine. I’ve made the following observations in my blogs. This is good news for Pennsylvania dads if it goes through. The objections are typical. The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence sees an increase in abuse. Of course they would but given DV is pretty much equal and its mothers who are the main killers and abusers of children their argument is like sand dunes in a strong wind and collapses under its own weight. In fact we will likely see a reduction in child abuse if dads are equals in their children's lives. The judge can still listen to evidence and make an informed decision. The only caveat is we may see an increase in false allegations in a desperate move to maintain the current biased status quo. The bar associations stance is typical as well. They will lose revenue if they cannot continue to foster an adversarial system pitting parent against parent. Why someone with such a vested pecuniary interest in outcomes should be taken seriously is beyond me. It's like asking the makers of heavy duty winter clothing if global warming will affect their income. Duh! They tout the best interest of the child will be compromised. It shows how little they know and understand the studies that conclude more positive outcomes for children when two parents stay in their lives. Thank you. Michael Murphy

Proposal gives divorced dads reason for hope

This is good news for Pennsylvania dads if it goes through. The objections are typical. The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence sees an increase in abuse. Of course they would but given DV is pretty much equal and its mothers who are the main killers and abusers of children their argument is like sand dunes in a strong wind and collapses under its own weight. In fact we will likely see a reduction in child abuse if dads are equals in their children's lives. The judge can still listen to evidence and make an informed decision.

The only caveat is we may see an increase in false allegations in a desperate move to maintain the current biased status quo. The bar associations stance is typical as well. They will lose revenue if they cannot continue to foster an adversarial system pitting parent against parent. Why someone with such a vested pecuniary interest in outcomes should be taken seriously is beyond me. It's like asking the makers of heavy duty winter clothing if global warming will affect their income. Duh! They tout the best interest of the child will be compromised. It shows how little they know and understand the studies that conclude more positive outcomes for children when two parents stay in their lives.MJM

By JOHN LATIMER Staff Writer Lebanon Daily News Updated: 06/20/2009 11:39:49 PM EDT Dan Giffin, father, speaks to the county commissioners. Like many fathers, Dan Giffin has been looking forward to enjoying a relaxing Father’s Day today — in his case, spending it at his Palmyra home playing with his 4-year-old son, Alex. To Giffin’s delight, the pair are spending a lot more time together now that he has a joint-custody arrangement with the boy’s mother, who lives in Lancaster County. She refused to comment for this article and asked that her name not be included. The custody agreement gives Alex to each of his parents on an every-other-week basis. It took three years of court hearings and cost both of them tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills to achieve the arrangement, said Giffin, a 32-year-old telecommunications technician. Before the equal split, Giffin explained, he saw his son about 10 days a month. That was an improvement from the start of their separation in 2006, he said, when he was limited by a court order to seeing him three weekends a month. Giffin said he is hoping the state Legislature will pass a new custody law that will spare other sparring parents from going through the same stressful and expensive experience. House Bill 463 House Bill 463, the Presumptive Joint-Custody law, would, at the outset of a couple’s separation or divorce, automatically give each parent equal custody of their children. It would require parents to submit a parenting plan and give the judge the authority to order counseling for them, but it would still leave the door open for appeals by both parents for a different custody arrangement. Presumptive joint custody is a change from the current statute, which requires that custody decisions be made on a case-by-case basis by judges who are to rule “in the best interest of the child,” after hearing testimony from both parents. The proposed law is supported by father’s right’s groups, like Fathers4Justice, a national organization with chapters in Pennsylvania. Its members feel that the current custody system is unfair and biased in favor of the mother. They criticize family-law professionals, claiming attorneys want to maintain the status quo because it lines their pockets with legal fees. “Not everybody is a deadbeat dad,” said Mark Carrol, spokesman for the central Pennsylvania chapter of Fathers4Justice. “I work with a lot of fathers who just want to help raise their children. ... The bottom line is, children need both parents but, for whatever reasons, the courts are biased. Eighty-five percent of the time when dad goes into court asking for more time with his kids, the judge says no.” Opponents Not everyone, however, is in favor of changing the best-interest standard to one requiring presumptive joint custody. The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence has released a position paper stating that automatic joint custody could increase a child’s exposure to an abusive parent and destabilize children’s lives by ignoring the pre-divorce living arrangement. Many family-law attorneys also oppose the presumptive joint-custody provision because it puts the interest of the parents above that of the children and will do nothing to minimize custody disputes. That’s the sentiment of Mary Burchik, an attorney for Buzgon Davis Law Offices and chairwoman of the Lebanon County Bar Association’s Family Law Committee. “I don’t disagree that both parents need to get involved in the child’s life, but if those two parents don’t get along that does not bode well for a (50/50) shared-custody arrangement,” she said. “My concern is any type of presumption of joint custody will decimate the best interest of the child standard. I believe starting from that presumption takes away all the discretion of the court and the judge, who is the fact finder and who hears from both sides what is going on and makes the final determination of what is in best interest of the child.” The amended law was written by Rep. Robert E. Belfanti Jr. (D-Montour) who has sponsored similar legislation twice before that did not pass into law. It was introduced in February and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it currently awaits review by the Subcommittee on Family Law, chaired by Rep. Kathy Manderino (D-Philadelphia). Belfanti is recovering from health problems and was unavailable for comment. Finding support Giffin is a member of the Pennsylvania Families Association, a Lancaster-based support group for parents involved in custody battles. The association, which has both men and women as members, meets regularly and has a Web site,http://www.pfa.me. It has been working hard to change custody laws and supports passage of Belfanti’s bill. Twice in recent weeks, Giffin and other members of the PFA have lobbied the Lebanon County commissioners, urging them to join their counterparts in Lancaster, York and a handful of other counties by writing a letter to Manderino calling for her to convene hearings on the joint-custody bill. “There’s no good reason why my son had to be deprived of spending equal time with me while the courts took nearly three years and $25,000 in lawyer fees to come to an equal-custody arrangement,” Giffin told the commissioners. “A parent shouldn’t be made to feel that spending time with and raising their child is a privilege. In a higher sense, and in a blessed sense, I feel privileged to watch my son learn, grow and laugh. But when my son’s future is left in the hands of one mortal man (the judge), I just can’t understand that.” The commissioners decided to stay out of the political fray and did not write a letter to Manderino calling for hearings on HB 463. “I don’t think any of us felt we should get involved at this time,” Commissioner Larry Stohler said. Other options The matter of joint-custody will be taken up in the fall, according to Manderino’s legal counsel. But Belfanti’s bill will not be the only one under consideration. “We are looking to address this (joint custody) in the fall,” said Mary McDaniels, Manderino’s counsel. “House Bill 463 is just one idea. But we are hoping to take a broader look at the custody issue and maybe give it a total rewrite. Representative Manderino has introduced a bill to do that.” That more comprehensive bill is HB 1639, similar to Senate Bill 74 submitted by Sen. Stewart Greanleaf (R-Montgomery) in 2007, which died without a vote before the session expired. Manderino’s bill addresses the joint-custody issue but does not change the “best interest of the child” standard. It does, however, make provisions for jail punishment and fines for parents who violate terms of a court-ordered custody arrangement and spells out the rights of grandparents. Many of HB 1639’s amendments are based on recommendations included in a report produced by a Joint State Government Commission’s Advisory Committee on Domestic Relations Law that has been reviewing the state’s custody law for more than a decade, said Camp Hill attorney Maria Cognetti, a member of the committee. Cognetti, who chairs the commission’s subcommittee on custody law, opposes Belfanti’s presumptive joint-custody bill, calling it poorly written and extremely dangerous because it does not protect the child’s best interest. Manderino’s bill is more promising, she said, and picks up where Greanleaf’s bill left off. “House Bill 1639 goes farther than old Senate Bill 74 in that it re-emphasizes the goal of really making sure that both parents get as much time as possible with their children without it being a presumption,” she said. Rep. Mauree Gingrich of Palmyra is one of more than 50 co-sponsors of Belfanti’s presumptive joint-custody bill. But she said she has an open mind regarding changes to custody law and will keep close watch as the issue moves through the legislative process. “This is a sensitive and complex issue,” she wrote in an e-mail response to a request for comment. “The only way to determine if the current process should be re-defined, is to bring the issue forward for comprehensive debate, understanding that decisions regarding custody have a profound impact upon both parents and most of all upon the children who are subject to the order.” Stressing the positive With his fight behind him, Giffin said he will continue to work to change the state’s custody law, but most of all he will enjoy parenting his son, who will enter kindergarten in the fall. To make the shared raising of their son easier, he is planning moving closer to his ex-wife. “I know she loves our son. And she knows I love him, too. I think the system made us adversarial,” Giffin said. “At this point, since we’ve had equal custody, our conversation has been more civil, and our stress levels have all gone down — even Alex’s.” JohnLatimer@LDNews.com http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_12657098?nclick_check=1

When kids get caught in the middle

from Mike Murphy sender time Sent at 13:15 (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 13:16. ✆ to mthompson@edmontonexaminer.com cc AB PAAO , jeremy swanson , info@nospampaawareness.org date 27 June 2009 13:15 subject Column on Parental Alienation "When kids get caught in the middle" mailed-by shaw.ca

Melanie:

http://www.edmontonexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1627762

The behaviours you have outlined are only too typical when it comes to this abuse of children by a parent who hates the ex more than they love the children and who may have a personality disorder.

The end result for a child is emotional pain and confusion which may last a lifetime. Broader awareness of this is essential in trying to identify it and indeed prevent it.

Thank you for publishing this article.

Michael Murphy

Children of divorce are often forced to choose between mom and dad

Her mother rewrote her history. Our daughter thinks I came into her life in Grade 2.

Posted By Melanie Thompson, EXAMINER STAFF

Updated 2 days ago

(EDITOR’S NOTE: The names in this story have been changed in order to protect “Jenny.”)

Ben no longer sees his daughter. He has lost all contact. A separation from his spouse forced their daughter to choose one parent over the other.

Jenny chose her mother.

Ben always had a normal father-daughter relationship with Jenny. After the separation, Jenny remained with her mother but Ben maintained a regular bi-weekly visitation schedule as agreed to by himself and his ex-spouse.

Things were going well. But soon he began to notice changes in Jenny.

HASN’T GIVEN UP HOPE

Now, seven years after the separation, she doesn’t want him near. She doesn’t want to go to his home for visits. She doesn’t want his birthday gifts.

Ben has almost given up all hope for a relationship with his daughter.

Jenny is caught in the middle of a case of parental alienation, which commonly occurs among divorced families.

This condition is described by the Parental Alienation Awareness Organization (PAAO) as a group of verbal and non-verbal behaviours by one or both parents that are damaging to children’s mental and emotional well being. Children are manipulated or brainwashed into choosing one parent over the other.

Often, one or both parents will badmouth the other, refuse visitation, and lie, among other aggressive behaviours, which alienates the children and forces them into an unhealthy position of having to choose.

Ben says that is exactly what happened between himself, his ex-spouse and child.

“Her mother re-wrote her history,” Ben says. “Our daughter thinks that I just came into her life in Grade 2, although I’ve been in her life since the day she was born.”

The separation occurred when Jenny was eight years old. Ben and his daughter were closer than ever. But Ben says the bi-weekly visitations began to fall apart when his ex-spouse began to alienate Jenny from him by refusing to allow his visitations.

Lawyers and the court system became involved. A custody battle ensued.

A child psychiatrist was hired to assess Jenny when claims were made by his ex-spouse that Jenny was traumatized and afraid of Ben.

Ben remembered a suggestion his lawyer had made to take videos and photos of his time spent with his daughter to prove they do indeed have a normal relationship.

“I put a video camera up on a shelf at my mother’s…,” Ben says. “It was directed at the couch, and on the video camera it shows Jenny (and I). We come in the door, and she’s laughing and giggling and chasing me with a water pistol. It shows us watching a movie.”

Ben provided this video as evidence. The judge ruled in his favour and ordered that his ex-spouse receive counselling.

Ben says she did not follow the court order, and things have gotten worse since his case was passed on to a new judge.

“I thought, with court orders, people are going to be held accountable for their actions,” says a clearly-frustrated Ben. “But when it came to that, (the judge) just said to her lawyer, ‘Your client simply refused to go.'’ He didn't do anything.”

“I thought all judges were trained in this. That doesn’t appear to be the case.”

ANOTHER CHANCE

Ben hasn’t seen his daughter for almost a year and is awaiting another chance in court to fight for his right to see her.

“They say wait, your child will figure it out when they grow up. But what about all the time in between? All that time is lost.”

Most people aren’t aware of parental alienation until they experience it first-hand. But Ben hopes that by telling his story, more people will recognize parental alienation as a form of child abuse, and maybe other parents won’t have to fight so hard to simply be with their children.

For more information about parental alienation, visit http://www.paawareness.org.

mthompson@edmontonexaminer.com

New York Times ~ Keeping Divorced Dads at a Distance

Op-Ed Contributor

By STEPHEN PERRINE

Published: June 18, 2006

EVERY other weekend for the past four and a half years, I've spent three precious days with my two adolescent daughters. We play tennis in summer, ski in winter, travel when the school schedule allows. But no matter where we are, we're all keenly aware of the thin membrane of secrecy that keeps us from being as close as we were before their mom and I divorced.

Like most divorced fathers, I'm caught in exactly the kind of nightmarish situation that experts on stress say to avoid — a great deal of responsibility, but very little power. I'm the major source of support for my children; my financial obligations are set by the state, and my wages automatically garnished. (If I lost my job tomorrow, and couldn't keep up with my payments, a warrant for my arrest would be issued within two months.) But my influence over how my daughters are being raised is limited, sometimes by decisions their mother makes that I have no input into, and sometimes by their allegiance to her when she and I are at odds.

In fact, there are times when these two girls, whom I've loved for a decade and a half, seem like little strangers to me. They'll forget to tell me some detail of their lives — or downright lie if they have to — so I won't feel sad that I've missed something they shared with their mom, or raise issue over some decision she's made with which I might not agree. As a result, I sometimes come away from visits or phone calls feeling shaken, saddened and angry.

My ex and I have been to court over support issues, and we've been to court over custody issues, and the legal battles inevitably trap our children in the middle and force them to choose sides. Sadly, this is exactly what not to do if you want to foster a loving parent-child bond. In a study by a child psychologist, Robert E. Emery, divorcing parents were assigned — by flip of the coin — either to mediate or litigate their custody disputes. Twelve years later, he found, that in families that went through mediation, the noncustodial parent was several times more likely to have weekly phone contact with his or her children.

Unfortunately, the system that our government has set up essentially forces divorced parents into litigation. We need to bring children and their divorced parents, especially fathers, closer together by revisiting our reckless support and custody laws, and the haphazard approach we have toward enforcing them.

Since 1998, the federal government has provided matching funds based on a percentage of money the states collect in child support — a powerful financial incentive for states to mandate and maximize support payments. As a result, parents are discouraged from negotiating a settlement: only 17 percent of current support agreements deviate from state-imposed guidelines, even though studies show that when couples set their own support figure, it's more likely to be paid (and tends to be higher than the state's figure).

And the court's involvement doesn't stop there. If Dad gets a raise, Mom takes him back to court to get more money; when Dad suffers a financial setback, he sues Mom to get his support decreased. Each time, the acrimony — and the legal fees — grow.

But while courts will jail men who can't meet their support payments, mothers who interfere with a father's custodial rights rarely face similar penalties. Often, the only recourse for a dad who wants to see his children more often is to sue, and sue and sue again.

Some fatherhood advocates argue that when mothers fail to carry through on a custody ruling, they should face fines and imprisonment, just like fathers do. That's started to happen: last fall, an Arkansas court sentenced a woman named Jennifer Linder to six months in prison for "willfully and wantonly" refusing to obey visiting orders and awarded custody to her former husband. But sending more mothers to prison can only result in more anger, and more confusion and alienation for the children in question. What is needed is less court involvement, not more.

The first step toward fostering a father and child reunion is to make private mediation of the parenting provisions (physical custody, legal custody and visiting) the standard procedure. Allowing parents the chance to negotiate their support — and possibly give fathers more of a say in how their support is spent — will decrease the vitriol, and let fathers feel more like parents, not just paychecks.

Second, we need to enact and enforce sensible penalties for interfering with visits. Jailing a mother is no way to solve the dispute; neither are financial penalties that hurt her ability to care for the child. But mediation — perhaps compelled by the threat of financial penalty — might be the solution. It's estimated that one in five children of divorce has not seen his or her father in the past year. Without substantial rethinking of our current support and custody law, children will continue to be alienated from their fathers, and lawyers will remain on hand to soak up the resulting legal fees.

Just this month, I received a summons to attend a custody conference at the Allentown, Pa., courthouse, and another letter informing me that an accounting error has left me short on support payments, and that my passport may be suspended. I want to shield my daughters from these harsh truths. So these are the secrets I'll be trying to keep from them as we gather together for Father's Day.

What secrets will they be keeping from me?

Stephen Perrine, the editor in chief of Best Life magazine, is the author of the forthcoming "Desperate Husbands." He appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" about this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/opinion/18perrine.html?_r=2&ei=5070&en=a18337e5be22629b&ex=1151380800&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1245967691-AawyapSgpLG2F9dBwT0VoQ