Family Court Injustices to Men

Townhall.com

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Phyllis Schlafly :: Townhall.com Columnist
Family Court Injustices to Men
by Phyllis Schlafly



Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled "child support," that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?

Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"?

Did you know that when corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly) or serving in our Armed Forces overseas, can't afford a lawyer, or never owed the money in the first place?

Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who the father of her child is, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father?

Did you know that alleged "child support" has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the "support" money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy?

These are among the injustices that the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men. The sponsor was former Democratic Senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley.

His name is affixed to the Bradley Amendment, a 1986 federal law that prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged "child support" even in any of the circumstances listed above. The Bradley law denies bankruptcy protections, overrides all statutes of limitation and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay.

Most Bradley-law victims never come to national attention because, as "Bias" author Bernard Goldberg said, mainstream media toe the feminist propaganda line, among which is the epithet "deadbeat dads." But one egregious case did make the news this summer.

Frank Hatley was in a Georgia jail for more than a year for failure to pay alleged "child support" even though a DNA test nine years ago plus a second one this year proved that he is not the father. The Aug. 21, 2001, court order, signed by Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledged that Hatley is not the father but nevertheless ordered him to continue paying and never told him he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one.

Hatley subsequently paid the government (not the mom or child) thousands of dollars in "child support," and after he was laid off from his job unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers and reduced to living in his car, he continued making payments out of his unemployment benefits.

But he didn't pay enough to satisfy the avaricious child-support bureaucrats, so Perkins ruled Hatley in contempt and sent him to jail without any jury trial. With the help of a Legal Services lawyer, he has now been relieved from future assessments and released from jail, but (because of the Bradley Amendment) the government is demanding that Hatley continue paying at the rate of $250 a month until he pays off the $16,398 debt the government claims he accumulated earlier (even though the court then knew he was not the father).

This system is morally and constitutionally wrong, yet all the authorities say the court orders were lawful.

Another type of feminist indignity is the use in divorce cases of false allegations of child sexual abuse in order to gain child custody and the financial windfall that goes with it. Former Vancouver, Wa., police officer Ray Spencer has spent nearly 20 years in prison after being convicted of molesting his two children who are now adults and say it never happened.

The son, who was 9 years old at the time, was questioned, alone, for months until he said he had been abused in order to get the detective to leave him alone. The daughter, who was then age 5, said she talked to the detective after he gave her ice cream.

There were many other violations of due process in Spencer's trial, such as prosecutors withholding medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse and his court-appointed lawyer failing to prepare a defense, but the judge nevertheless sentenced Spencer to two life terms in prison plus 14 years. Spencer was five times denied parole because he refused to admit guilt, a customary parole practice that is maliciously designed to save face for prosecutors who prosecute innocent men.


http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2009/07/21/family_court_injustices_to_men

When will we have hated men enough?

I left this comment on site in response to a man hater, see below, spouting the most infamous of the Victim Feminist Stats.

Not a Hater: You destroy your credibility by pulling out all these Victim Feminist factoids that aren't supported by peer reviewed studies. Most of them originated in the Liz Library the propaganda warehouse of victomology's specious arguments. Given single parent females are by far the largest predatory killers of their children and perpetrators of child abuse one could then turn your argument around and state those who would abuse and kill children will also do so to their intimate partners. That argument is as fallacious as yours. The current DV industry is a self feeding female centric operation that requires a steady supply of reported victims to keep getting its funding. If the problem was finding a solution think of all the unemployment and loss of income for its parasitic apologists and hangers on. Its a human problem involving both genders and will not get resolved without changing paradigms. I use sugar free cool aid - keeps me from getting hyper. :)MJM

July 20, 10:22 AM · Trudy Schuett - Domestic Violence Examiner

These are very strange times we live in. On one hand, we have the murder of a high-profile sports figure virtually ignored by mainstream media, since the apparent perpetrator was a woman; on the other, we have somebody like Cathy Young speaking out in the Boston Globe on behalf of the large – and growing – number of domestic violence victims who are male.

While a nominee for the Supreme Court gets away with expressing an obvious bigotry against white males, in San Diego County efforts are being made to correct the damage done to its citizens by that same kind of bigotry.

In the comments section here, I’ve seen readers (both male and female) express a surprising degree of hatred against men I haven’t personally witnessed in years. One man even expressed a notion I’d thought had long ago been debunked – that anyone showing any sympathy for male victims of DV must secretly be supporting the patriarchy in their efforts to systematically beat women down. Talk about old-hat conspiracy theories! I figure the guy has an org to support and needs the attention.

Another commenter (a girl this time) suggested I only need to read some feminist blog to see the evidence of the evil men do. Sorry, dear, but 57 years of living with and around actual men, (three of those years spent around Marines) tells a quite different story. Many different stories, in fact; when the feminist blog has only one, repeated time after time, often with facts altered to suit the running narrative.

At some point the idea of causing as much damage as possible to half the members of society on ideological grounds must be recognized as damaging for society as a whole. The troubles in Ireland, Protestants vs Catholics, were certainly not progressive or healing, neither were the clashes between Serbs and Croats in eastern Europe. While the current war against men has not resulted in open conflict, with bombs and active combat, there are still casualties, with deaths, physical injuries and unlawful imprisonment among them.

Dragging people with serious troubles in their relationships into a war not of their making, forcing them to become supporters of a political cause, is not only dishonest but immoral.

If you believe that the current DV industry has any kind of mandate to provide realistic help for battered women or anyone else, you need to read and comprehend this statement made by Barbara Hart, professional victim and divorce lawyer, whose lucrative legal practice was for many years run on referrals from the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, until somebody noticed that might be inappropriate.

She says:

As long as we as a culture accept the principle and privilege of male dominance, men will continue to be abusive. As long as we as a culture accept and tolerate violence against women, men will continue to be abusive.

All men benefit from the violence of batterers. There is no man who has not enjoyed the male privilege resulting from male domination reinforced by the use of physical violence . . . All women suffer as a consequence of men's violence. Battering by individual men keeps all women in line. While not every woman has experienced violence, there is no woman in this society who has not feared it, restricting her activities and her freedom to avoid it. Women are always watchful knowing that they may be the arbitrary victims of male violence.

This outrageous and entirely unsupportable statement was featured on many state coalition’s websites, including that of my home state of Arizona for some time. Almost any woman can negate or disprove this statement from her own experience, yet this is the basis on which most of today’s DV programs were founded, and continue to operate, using your tax dollars to do so. It is little more than a conspiracy theory, with more than a dash of hate in the mix.

Try this alternate statement:

As long as we as a culture accept the principle and privilege of female dominance, women will continue to be abusive. As long as we as a culture accept and tolerate violence against men, women will continue to be abusive.

All women benefit from the violence of batterers. There is no woman who has not enjoyed the female privilege resulting from female domination reinforced by the use of physical violence . . . All men suffer as a consequence of women's violence. Battering by individual women keeps all men in line. While not every man has experienced violence, there is no man in this society who has not feared it, restricting his activities and his freedom to avoid it. Men are always watchful knowing that they may be the arbitrary victims of female violence.

In 2009, the second statement makes somewhat more sense, as in a way it depicts the direction things are headed, but it is still divisive and does not actually address the issue as experienced by the vast majority of today’s couples.

Those currently running the DV industry benefit directly from keeping the status quo. Many whose jobs are in the industry only have degrees in women’s studies, which are virtually useless in the job market, and therefore would not have jobs otherwise. Others have spent years building careers on the feminist philosophy of DV and would not last long in an industry based on DV as a human, non-gender-related, apolitical issue. Still others have simply become addicted to the power and control their positions give them over women and their families.

Consequently, they will continue to misrepresent the issue, even when that misrepresentation directly violates concepts such as gender equality and peace they claim to support.

It is true that partner abuse is an uncomfortable, complicated, subject. However, to continue to allow those claiming expertise, while only operating out of self-interest and bigotry, to manipulate and control the fates of thousands of families every year is something we cannot allow to continue. It is up to those of us who do not directly benefit from the industry-implemented war against men to point out the many weaknesses in the industry, among them the fact of little or no return on investment, or the fact that no appreciable change or progress has been made in this industry in decades, while nearly all other human services have evolved and advanced.

We owe it to ourselves and our neighbors: we need to stop hating men, as it will never be enough for those who live on our hatred, and benefit from the misery it causes. We need to realize only those with an agenda say we should hate and despise half our world, while ignoring the needs of the other half.

Copyright 2009 Examiner.com. All rights reserved.

Author

Trudy Schuett is an Examiner from the National Edition. You can see Trudy's articles at: "http://www.Examiner.com/x-12866-Domestic-Violence-Examiner"

http://www.examiner.com/x-12866-Domestic-Violence-Examiner~y2009m7d20-When-will-we-have-hated-men-enough

Mike Murphy says:

Not a Hater: You destroy your credibility by pulling out all these Victim Feminist factoids that aren't supported by peer reviewed studies. Most of them originated in the Liz Library the propaganda warehouse of victomology's specious arguments. Given single parent females are by far the largest predatory killers of their children and perpetrators of child abuse one could then turn your argument around and state those who would abuse and kill children will also do so to their intimate partners. That argument is as fallacious as yours. The current DV industry is a self feeding female centric operation that requires an steady supply of reported victims to keep getting its funding. If the problem was finding a solution think of all the unemployment and loss of income for its parasitic apologists and hangers on. Its a human problem involving both genders and will not get resolved without changing paradigms. I use sugar free cool aid - keeps me from getting hyper. :) July 21, 11:16 AM

Pierce Harlan says:

"I don't know a single woman who has never adjusted her behavior, in major or minor ways, to protect herself from sexual violence."

And men walk around covered in armor, right? I know this goes against their rape-culture metanarrative, and I am sorry to muddy up a perfectly good victim fetish, but anyone not intoxicated on Women's Studies courses knows that innocent men are victims of violence far more often than women. There is no dispute about that whatsoever. You can even consult sources that feminists would consider unimpeachable: "Yes Means Yes: Visons of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape," by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Vallenti (2008) at page 23: "Men are 150 percent more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than women. . . . Men are more likely to be victimized by a stranger . . . ." July 21, 10:59 AM

LanceSmith says:

Sorry, that should have been:

Tell me: which is the more egalitarian approach, yours or ours?

(odd, I was still within the 1000 character limit, yet it cut off the end) July 21, 9:23 AM

LanceSmith says:

not a hater: "The violence against women movement is about ending violence against women. "

So why not have a violence against women AND MEN movement instead? What people like you don't understand is that intimate partner violence - regardless of the gender of the victim - is wrong. What you likewise don't understand is that women can be just as likely (by some research MORE likely) to be violent has men. Here's a fact to drink with YOUR coolaide:

"In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases." (see www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941 for more).

For more egalitarian-minded research, see:

www.mediaradar.org/research.php

What you - and people like you - don't understand is that we are in favor of is equality treatment for ALL victims of DV (whether the victim is male or female). If women should be treated as equals in every other sphere, why not this one?

Tell me: which is the more egalitarian approach, yours July 21, 9:21 AM

Chris Heard says:

To "Not a hater"

Can you give us the source of your stats? They sound like feminist factoids. You seem to reflect the standard attitude of many in the DV industry, which is: ignore or minimize the seriousness of female perpetrated domestic violence against men and children, and treat DV as a gender problem rather than as a human problem. I suspect that you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Incidentally, great opinion piece, Trudy. Thanks for being a voice of reason and sanity. July 21, 9:09 AM

Not a hater says:

In 70-80% of intimate partner homicides, no matter which partner was killed, the man physically abused the woman before the murder. Nearly 7.8 million women have been raped by an intimate partner at some point in their lives. Sexual assault or forced sex occurs in approximately 40-45% of battering relationships. 1 in 12 women and 1 in 45 men have been stalked in their lifetime. 81% of women stalked by a current or former intimate partner are also physically assaulted by that partner; 31% are also sexually assaulted by that partner. So what you've worked with Marine's! You are part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Maybe you should be part of the solution. Educate yourself and work to end the violence instead of being a voice of nonsense. July 21, 8:55 AM

Not a hater says:

Trudy I'm not sure what kool-aide you've been drinking but you should lay off it. The violence against women movement isn't about hating men. There are more men involved in the movement now than ever. The violence against women movement is about ending violence against women. Domestic violence does not discrimnate by race, status, education, or sexual orientation. One in every four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime. An estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner each year. 85% of domestic violence victims are women. 30% to 60% of perpetrators of intimate partner violenc also abuse children in the household. Most cases of domestic violence are never reported to the police. Almost one-third of female homicide victims that are reported in police records are killed by an intimate partner. July 21, 8:52 AM

Ben says:

Please see my blog as well.

rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com July 21, 4:14 AM

Ben says:

Google these:

Clinical & Research News
Men Shouldn't Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence

By Joan Arehart-Treichel

Psychiatric News August 3, 2007
Volume 42, Number 15, page 31
© 2007 American Psychiatric Association

Women commit 50.3 percent of domestic violence.

DISABUSING THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC ABUSE: HOW WOMEN BATTER MEN AND THE ROLE OF THE FEMINIST STATE Florida State University Law Review: domestic violence is equally the province of women by LINDA KELLY:
Florida State University Law Review


REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:
This bibliography examines 249 scholarly investigations: 194 empirical studies and 55 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 241,700. July 21, 4:12 AM

Lupe says:

Questioning... my word you are behind the times. The research on exual and dating violence among young people is conclusive that young men should be getting the very speeches directed to them about violent girls and women, and it is the entrenched unwillingness of the feminist paradigm which Daphne demonstrates with neanderthal like rationalization which is petrified of creating a program that treats the problem as reflected by the research. Sadly, because accepting the research would undermine the entire paradigm of the mythical construct which ideological feminists have placed all of their eggs is the misandry basket: the fragile egos and "threatened by equality" feminists have rejected the responsibility of equality and refused to join modernity.

Lupe
23, Garden Grove July 21, 1:54 AM

LanceSmith says:

Questioning: "The standard "going off to college" ... speech is very different for women than it is for men, and includes things like using the buddy system at parties, never leaving a drink unattended, and don't go home with someone you just met."

Funny, that's exactly the speech I was given as a man. Men are far more likely to be the victims of violence (from both men and women). So of course I was told to be careful. I was also told to take responsibility for my own choices.

It is a well regarded feminist belief that men are told to go out in the world, but every man I know was told - in some form or another - to avoid the dark ally, the nutjob woman, or the crazy friend with the drug habit. Bad things happen to good people regardless of gender. It is time to realize that women don't have a monopoly on victimhood. July 20, 10:53 PM

LanceSmith says:

Questioning: "What, exactly, in Daphne's post portrayed misandry?"

Excellent question. Her misandry was exposed when she stated:

Daphne: "I am very representative of those of us who work toward ending violence against women, and I won't apologize to you or any of your readers for caring about a problem that affects way too many people, men included. "

So she is against violence against women, but then she adds men as an after thought. I can read that one of two ways. Either men can be included as victims or as perpetrators. Which does she mean? DV affects men because men are perpetrators? Or DV affects men because men are victims? If she means as victims they why not say: "...those of us who work toward ending violence against women and men...."? Answer: she doesn't really care about male victims & she only added them here to make herself feel better. That is a example of misandry. If I were to say I was more concerned with male victims, I'm sure she would say I am a misogynis July 20, 10:47 PM

LanceSmith says:

Daphne, your industry will have my respect when it stops pandering to "women and children" as you yourself did when you said that you work "toward ending violence against women". You then go on to add men as an afterthought. That my dear is the problem with your industry. Men shouldn't be an afterthought. We should be treated with the same dignity and respect as women can expect to be treated.

Once you finally treat men as equals, you will certainly have my respect. Until then you are nothing but a Lifeboat Feminist: women and children first (and let the men come along if there are enough open seats...but don't count on it).

Why should my tax dollars be going to support such hatred of my gender? July 20, 10:39 PM

Questioning says:

Almost any woman can negate or disprove this statement from her own experience>>

I don't know a single woman who has never adjusted her behavior, in major or minor ways, to protect herself from sexual violence. The standard "going off to college" (or, more recently, the "going off to a high school party") speech is very different for women than it is for men, and includes things like using the buddy system at parties, never leaving a drink unattended, and don't go home with someone you just met. The reason? People view that as rape prevention. They don't give that speech to men.

@windu: What, exactly, in Daphne's post portrayed misandry? She offered a perspective that challenged the notion that all dv providers hate men, which the title of this post clearly implies. Taken in context, I would assume that she listed her education to challenge the statement that many dv service providers have degrees in women's studies and would be unemployable outside the "industry." July 20, 10:35 PM

Ric says:

I ran a youth refuge in sydney in the 70s. The kids who came to us were running away from abusive or neglectful homes. I saw nothing in all those real life stories that said one gender was worse than the other in their abuse and neglect.

While more of the physical scars were from Mum's boyfriend, the story was always the same - mum egged him on, mum looked the other way, mum got drunk and beat me up.

We forget that domestic violence towards a partner will be repeated against the child and with the same incidence. By portraying only men as violent the female DV industry is selling out our kids. Bigtime. We need to protect kids from all violence by acknowledging the truth in DV - that both genders commit violence equally. July 20, 10:27 PM

Tom Smith says:

Good article Trudy. I liked the part where you switched the feminist ideological rant about Domestic Violence into a kind of masculist rant. It demonstrates the power and one sidedness, as opposed to truth and fairness, that now dominates our sex relations thanks to feminist dominance. Forty years of the public being brainwashed by what is effectively a hate ideology has taken it's toll on all of us...women and children included. July 20, 7:56 PM

windu der says:

daphne, i think the point of the article was that it is people in your field who are replete with the us versus them misandry that this article was addressing. address the shortcomings in your own industry- you closing statement was indicative of how you are mired in your own myopic view-- the issue is not violence against women, the issue is violence period... what you and your ilk are so incapable of grasping. oh and as for the education pedigree you felt important to share, most of us women who actually love and appreciate men recognize education has become nothing more than an institution to perpetuate your shortsighted views. and lastly, anytime a woman defends her misandry with, "i married a man", or "i have many male friends" i am reminded of the statement "i am not racist, i have a lot of black friends"... read the article for its content and then respond to its points, don't invent your own... your bigotry is disappointing.. July 20, 6:49 PM

Daphne says:

I've been serving victims of domestic violence since 1992 (or in the "industry" as you say), and to my knowledge, only a handful have had women's studies degrees. And they offered a great perspective. I myself have a degree in journalism, a masters in counseling and a law degree. All legal work has been pro bono. I also happen to be very happily married, have many male friends, and love my father and brother. And you know what? I'm just like every colleague I've worked with for the past 17 years. I am very representative of those of us who work toward ending violence against women, and I won't apologize to you or any of your readers for caring about a problem that affects way too many people, men included. Your "us versus them" mentality is the pot calling the kettle black. July 20, 5:34 PM

arianna says:

Trudy you hit a home run with this piece...outta the park grand slam... July 20, 4:09 PM

Steven Christopher DeLuca says:

Trudy,

I was brought up in a violent home in a violent neighborhood. In adulthood I worked teen girls in a treatment facility in Hawaii and lived and worked with teens in a group home in Colorado for 25 months with their families.

I spent years in police and prison work and I have taught self-defense to women and men. I spent two years working with seniors and their families. Because I had a twin sister and studied gender issues for decades - and was the primary caretakers of my son and daughter from infancy to early teens I have more background related to gender issues than 99.9% of feminist women. I thought of all the families I have known where there is abuse and all the families where there is love as I read your column today - I KNOW that you are on the right track. The feminists who attack you for speaking the truth about "gender violence" are no different than the KKK and the Nazis in their hearts. Those who hate any group will protest those who won't join them. SD July 20, 1:48 PM

Father 4 Justice stage 'Guatanamo-style' protest

July 21, 2009

By David Baker

CIVIL rights campaigners Fathers 4 Justice descended on Harrow Crown Court last week posing as Guantanamo Bay prisoners - dressed in orange boiler suits with sacks over their heads.

The protesters, who champion the rights of dads in family courts, held up a sign saying 'separated dad or terrorist – both treated the same'.

They were at the court based in Hailsham Drive on Thursday last week to support a former member of the group who was handed a six month prison sentence.

Geoffrey Hibbert, 49, from Hampshire, was ordered in front of a jury after he clambered to the top of an overhead sign and unravelled banners on the M25, forcing police to close off 12 lanes on the busy motorway.

The desperate dad spent more than eight hours dangling from the sign at junction 14, near neighbouring borough Hillingdon, causing tailbacks of up to 55 miles long.

Despite claiming his actions were not dangerous and were part of a legitimate right to protest, the estranged parent was convicted of one count of causing a public nuisance and a second of endangering motorists, following a trial.

The court was told that more than £14,000 pounds of taxpayers' cash was spent on emergency services during the protest and an estimated £580,000 pounds was lost to businesses effected by the closure of the motorway.

However, spokesman Richard West, from New Fathers for Justice, said: "This trial has been a complete sham from start to finish.

"The sole motivation is political. Mr Hibbert has been made a scapegoat and in the own judge's words, sentenced to deter others."

However friends and family of the defendant criticised the activists for encouraging him to stage the protest and then "leaving him to rot."

Nephew Paul Morrison, 35, said: "Fathers for Justice was a bad influence and took advantage of him. They gave him bad advice and once he had given them publicity they left him to rot."

A tight security presence had been laid on at the hearing with members of the public issued passes to get into the court and a number of policeman sat in and outside the courtroom to deter further protests.

However, once police had left the scene around nine campaigners changed into the boiler suits before waving banners outside the court.

http://www.harrowobserver.co.uk/west-london-news/local-harrow-news/2009/07/21/father-4-justice-stage-guatanamo-style-protest-116451-24203975/

I'm as mad as Hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

The following is recommended viewing by most Fathers Rights Advocates. As a Fathers Rights Advocate and Activist myself I'm Mad as Hell and I stopped taking it anymore years ago. We concur with the newscasters advice. If you remember this came from the 1976 movie Network. Peter Finch won the Academy Award largely for this scene. Sidney Lumet Directed and it was written by Paddy Chayefsky. It was one of those watershed movies a classic of its time but still relevant today. For trivia buffs parts of it were filmed at CFTO in Agincourt (Toronto, ON)MJM

In Western OZ ~ More reports of WA mothers mistreating children

Comments that were left on site.

The data are consistent with those published by the USA government for a great number of years. The victim oriented feminist, Angela Hartwig, being quoted here is trying to deflect the fact the child abuse in almost all cases occurs in single parent female environments and also can be exacerbated with the live in boyfriend. The DV excuse is just that. In most countries including Canada and the USA intimate partner abuse is pretty much equal. In one peer reviewed study by the Center for Disease Control in the USA 71% if the initiators of violence were females. The safest place for children is in a two parent biological family, in a shared/equal parenting environment of the bio mom and dad or with dad. Its high time the propaganda elicited by people like Hartwig was debunked.

I made a followup on July 21, 2009 in response to a myth often entertained by victim feminists.

Ashakara has trotted out the old canard used in North America that more contact = more abuse. Fathers are mostly kept out of the lives of their children by gatekeeping mothers and family courts whose judges are the largest group of social engineers on children in most western style democracies. To deduce more contact = more abuse requires peer reviewed studies and I suggest you are trying to produce another myth out of thin air. The fact that children do more poorly on a wide variety of social parameters, not just abuse, in single family female homes is statistically significant but does not apply to all of that cohort. Many children thrive and do well in single parent homes for a variety of reasons. Here are a few of the other negative social outcomes in single parent female households validated by peer reviewed studies. These are from North America: 63% of all youth suicides, 70% of all teen pregnancies, 71% of all adolescent chemical/substance abusers, 80% of all prison inmates, 60% of all rapists, 72% of juvenile murderers, 90% of welfare recipients are single mothers. and 90% of all homeless and runaway children came from single mother homes. This is just a small portion of the problem. Shared and equal parenting, 50-50 where appropriate, including residency has to be the standard.MJM

Nick Taylor

July 18, 2009 06:00pm

THE number of WA mothers reported for abusing their children has leapt in the past two years.

Figures from the Department for Child Protection, obtained by The Sunday Times, show the number of mothers believed responsible for "substantiated maltreatment'' has risen from 312 to 427. In the same period - 2005-06 to 2007-08 - the number of fathers reported for child abuse dropped from 165 to 155.

A breakdown of all family-based child abuse shows and increase from 960 to 1505 last year.
Michael Woods, of the University of Western Sydney, said the data ``debunked a common misconception about fathers and violence''.

Dr Woods, who is also a co-director of the university-based Men's Information and Resource Centre said: ``The figures undermine the myth that fathers are the major risk for their children's well being.

``The data is not surprising. It is in line with the international findings regarding perpetrators of child abuse.''

He said previous practices of lumping together de factos, live-in boyfriends and overnight male guests with fathers as male carers had ``skewed beliefs'' about who abused children.

Angela Hartwig, executive officer of the Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services WA, said the increases were a concern, but child abuse, neglect and domestic and family violence could be reported in several ways.

``Because the woman is so often the primary care-giver she is held as being responsible for the neglect,'' she said.

``This could also explain why there is such a high number of neglect cases against women, as the data only shows the first person believed responsible.

``The statistics do not show the strong correlation that where there is child abuse there is often domestic and family violence and the women may be the victim of the abuse.

``If she is a victim of domestic and family violence, a woman has very little power to change the situation.

``It is difficult for a woman to provide for children when living with an abusive partner who has total control of all decisions made, which includes controlling the finances.''

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25802810-2761,00.html

In Western OZ ~ Dads not the Demons

Author: Micheal Woods

20 July 2009

Recent data from the Department of Child Protection in Western Australia (WA) has debunked a common misconception about fathers and violence. The data shows that natural mothers are far more likely to abuse children than their natural fathers, other than in sexual abuse, where mothers were responsible for only 13% of cases.

The past practice of lumping together de factos, live-in boyfriends and overnight male guests together with fathers as "male carers" has led to skewed beliefs about who abuses children. In releasing these recent figures that identify natural fathers separately, the DCP has provided a clearer picture of who is likely to abuse children.

The figures - obtained under Freedom of Information provisions - provide a clearer picture of who is likely to abuse children in families. The data show that there were 1505 substantiations of child abuse in WA during 2007-8.

Natural parents were responsible for 37% of total cases. Of these, mothers are identified as the perpetrator of neglect or abuse in 73% of cases, including over 50% of cases of physical abuse. The accompanying graph shows the breakdown of parents responsible for each form of abuse.


Chart: Child Abuse - Proportion of Mothers or Fathers as Perpetrators by Type of Abuse

Micheal Woods, an academic from the University of Western Sydney, said:

"The data is not surprising - it is in line with international findings regarding perpetrators of child abuse. And the figures do undermine the myth that fathers are the major risk for their children's well-being".

The release of this data is timely, and shows the need for solid evidence in developing legislation and policies affecting families. Recently, some radical groups have attacked the Family Court for its role in encouraging shared parenting after separation, claiming that this placed children at risk from violent fathers. Selected instances where fathers have harmed children were used to suggest that this is a common occurrence, and that shared parenting legislation placed children at increased risk.

However, this newly available information demonstrates that while there are some abusive fathers, there are in fact a larger proportion of violent and abusive mothers. This should not mean that children are automatically placed into the care of fathers to reduce risks of abuse, but rather that unrepresentative anecdotes of violent fathers should not influence legislation and policies designed to protect children.

The difficult task faced by the Family Court in trying to ensure the best interests of children should not be compounded by irrational fear mongering, but rather by a considered examination of the evidence. Shared parenting may be inconvenient for one parent, or even unwanted, but with changing social roles many more men after separation want to be actively involved in their children's lives. And in the vast majority of cases, their children will be very safe in their care.

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/news/pg/news/view/700/index.php&filter=

Related Article: 'More reports of WA mothers mistreating children'

Please also read the related article published on the weekend in PerthNow:

More reports of WA mothers mistreating children, by Nick Taylor