Reminder from nature: Boys aren't girls

This is a column bound to be a classic when comparing genders. The Ontario school system is running an over 4-1 female to male teacher ratio in the 20-30 age cohort. This means more trouble for boys as the system further tries to feminize them.  When a part of society becomes unbalanced as do many sectors of our social and educational system bias becomes the norm.  Health, teaching, child protection is largely female. Boys are doing badly in school and its simply due to gender bias by a highly feminized society. If Patriarchy was bad Matriarchy is worse.MJM

By Roger Collier, Citizen Special      June 29, 2010 8:37 AM

Jack and I enter the arena just as the lights go out. We scramble to our seats while Bono hollers about nameless streets over the sound system. Seconds later, the canned music fades and a spotlight shines on a man standing on the arena floor.

"OTTAWA!" he bellows. "Are you ready for a monster spectacular!"

I heard about this show on the radio. Eardrum-shattering, jalopy-crushing monster truck mayhem! I'm not into trucks -- monster or non-monster. But I knew someone who was: my four-year-old son.

Jack loves trucks, motorcycles, airplanes -- anything that moves fast, makes noise and pollutes. He could make engine sounds before he could speak. He would push a toy car across the floor and, through vibrating, spit-flecked lips, make that noise all little boys make: brrr, brrr, brrr.

I once thought fathers had to teach their sons to be boys. Now I know better. Only someone without a son could think gender is primarily a social construct. Sure, Jack and his six-year-old sister, Ella, were

indistinguishable as babies, when both were fussy, thirsty, genderless perpetual poop machines. But as soon as the first inkling of Jack's personality surfaced, it was obvious that he was all boy.

It's tough to be a boy today. Boys want to run and wrestle and shout. They want to have sword fights and gun battles and mud races. The world, however, wants them to be quiet, to settle down, to stay in their seats, to take Ritalin, to keep their nice shirts clean, to be careful with toys, to be cautious on play structures, to not go so fast, to not go so high, to always be gentle. Don't point your finger and shout "bang!" No standing on the swings. Put that stick down, buster. Basically, the world wants boys to be girls.

The lights come on and the show begins. Soon, colourful trucks with giant wheels are flattening cars, motorcycles are soaring through the air, and four-wheelers are barely avoiding collision as they race in tight circles. Jack is loving it. He is eating it up, like the popcorn he is stuffing into his maw with both hands. The only way he could enjoy this more is if the vehicles turned into robots and began duking it out.

Jack likes fighting. A lot. His love of horseplay, like his love of horsepower, seems innate. He slipped from the womb with a taste for pummelling. We wrestle often, and I have as much fun as he does, though it sometimes gets out of hand. During a recent bout, after receiving my fill of headbutts and groin-stomps, I told Jack to take it easy.

"I will not take it easy," he replied, launching a new assault. "I will take it tricky."

If we aren't roughhousing, we are debating who would win in a fight between so-and-so and what's-his-cape. Could The Incredible Hulk beat up Batman? (Definitely.) Could Megatron beat up Superman? (Unlikely.) The other day Jack posed a tough one: Could a lightsabre defeat an earthquake? After much discussion, we decided that the lightsabre would win. Unless it was a really big earthquake.

At 9:30 p.m., I ask Jack if he wants to leave. "Okay," he says. Two hours of vehicular carnage is enough for any boy, I guess. As we walk out, we pass a boy waving a Monster Spectacular pennant. "I want one of those!" Jack says. We pass a boy wearing a Monster Spectacular shirt. "I want one of those!" We pass a boy holding a toy monster truck. "I want one of those!"

Teaching a boy to ask instead of demand is a challenge. Especially if he wants something with wheels. Jack's manners are improving, though. A few weeks ago, he approached Ella and me and said, "Whoever wants a butt in their face, raise your hand." There was a time when he didn't ask for volunteers.

In front of the arena's exit is a souvenir booth. It has hundreds of toy monster trucks. It might as well have a giant vacuum that sucks money out of my pocket. Thankfully, Jack opts for a small (overpriced) truck instead of a large (overpriced) truck. I buy it and we head home.

The next morning, Father's Day cards await me at breakfast. In hers, Ella says she loves Dad because he helps her with art. Sweet girl. In his, Jack says he loves Dad "because he has a watch." That's my boy.

Roger Collier's column appears every other week. E-mail: rogercollier@hotmail.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Reminder+from+nature+Boys+aren+girls/3207639/story.html#ixzz0sFvl8eBX

The secret to happiness - speak to your father

This isn't rocket science but at least social science is proving what involved dads already know from getting feedback while talking with their children.MJM

Children who regularly talk to their fathers are happier than those who do not, according to new research.

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Published: 12:01AM BST 18 Jun 2010

Young people who said they talked seriously to their dads most days gave themselves an 87 per cent score on a happiness scale Photo: PHOTOLIBRARY

Young people who said they talked seriously to their dads "most days" gave themselves an 87 per cent score on a happiness scale compared with 79 per cent for those who said they hardly ever spoke to their fathers in this way.

The findings, from an analysis of research from the British Household Panel survey into 1,200 young people in Britain aged between 11 and 15, were released by the Children's Society to coincide with Father's Day this weekend.

Nearly half of young people - 46 per cent - said they "hardly ever" spoke to their fathers about important topics compared with 28 per cent who hardly ever spoke to their mothers about the things that matter most.

Only 13 per cent confided in their father "most days", according to the analysis.

The study, commissioned by the Children's Society and undertaken by the University of York, showed that young people talk less to their fathers about important issues as they get older.

The data showed 42 per cent of 11-year-olds did so more than once a week compared with 16% of 15-year-olds.

The analysis suggested there has been little change over the years with the same proportion - 30 per cent - of young people talking to their fathers about something that mattered to them more than once a week in 2007-08 as in 2002-03.

The charity said the findings were "highly significant" as academic research has shown that a child's well-being later in life depends on their teenage relationship with their father as well as with their mother.

It launched a Fatherhood Commission with children, experts and the public invited to submit evidence about the barriers to fathers' involvement with their children.

Bob Reitemeier, chief executive of the Children's Society, said: "This research shows that young people's happiness is closely linked to how often they speak to their fathers about things that matter.

"Yet all too often these days, children are becoming alienated or live apart from their fathers.

"That is why the Children's Society is today calling on children, experts and the general public to submit evidence to our new Fatherhood Review.


"It will be investigating the extent to which fathers are involved in the everyday aspects of their children's lives and in the autumn we will publish recommendations on how the obstacles to better father-child relationships might be overcome."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7835708/The-secret-to-happiness-speak-to-your-father.html?utm_source=tmg&utm_medium=TD_speakdad&utm_campaign=family1806pm

Big Bad Dad ~ The Film

pH Films presents
A Ruth van Vierzen & Patrick Hodgson PRODUCTION



Starring DOUG EDMONDSON, LLOYD GORLING, DOUG HOPE, BARBARA KAY,
DAVE NASH, FRANK SIMONS and
DENIS VAN DECKER and his band of F4J SUPERHEROES



Questions, Comments, Ideas... Please feel free to email the producers at info@bigbaddadthemovie.com







http://www.bigbaddadthemovie.com/index.html

Divorced B.C. father kept from seeing child

In the article from the CBC below Mr. Geesing has done the right thing by taking this matter public. For many years courts have given sole physical custody to moms (90% in Canada).  Possession of children is not 9/10's of the law it is 10/10's. When mom has the kids she directly controls dad and often in a very twisted manner using the children as pawns. The courts will not enforce access. Mom's know this, as do lawyers, and use it as leverage.

The courts and the lawyers are picking the pockets of vulnerable families including the child's future financial integrity, and will not change without public knowledge and intervention.

It is a gamble because courts tend to use it against the parent who does go public. They do not believe it is in the "child's best interest". It will be if enough men go public, and we number in the tens of thousands, so men get involved and support Billl C-422 for equal shared parenting. Lawyers do not like this bill because it will reduce their business and they intimidated Rob Nicholson, the conservative member for Niagara, and Canada's Federal Justice Minister, at their annual general meeting in Ireland in 2009 so much he said he didn't support it.

Think about this for a minute. The Canadian Bar Association represent lawyers across Canada. They are a lobby group. Nicholson is a member of this group. He is also the Minister responsible for the creation and administration of Canadian Law. Bill C-422 will reduce divorce and lawyer's income. Isn't there something ethically wrong with this? 

A few Human Rights Complaints against government policies and bureaucrats down the road will help to steer the ship into more equal waters as the system, whether it be DV or Family Law to name just two, is way out of whack in favour of the feminist mythology that dads and men are just plain bad.MJM  

June 22, 2010

By CBC News
CBC News

A divorced B.C. father who hasn't seen his daughter for months blames the family court system and is joining others in a call for change.

A divorced B.C. father who hasn't seen his young daughter for several months blames the family court system and is joining others in a call for change.



"Before all this happened, my daughter had a great relationship with me," said Dieter Geesing. "I feel really helpless. This is not right."


Geesing said his ex-wife has been allowed to bar him from his daughter because a court order requiring her to co-operate is unenforceable.


"I love my child. It's not fair to her. You are cheating her of her childhood," he said tearfully. "This child has a right to interact with her father."


Geesing is a forestry specialist and his daughter is his only child. He and his wife separated in 2008, when the girl was eight years old. Since then, he said, his wife has tried to shut him out of his daughter's life completely.

No contact for 15 months

 

"When I phone, I get the message 'She doesn't want to talk to you,'" said Geesing. "On her 10th birthday, I left flowers on her doorstep - that's it."


Geesing has had no contact with his child since March 2009.


A court order in June 2009 gave the parents joint guardianship, with the child's "primary residence" at her mother's home.


The court also instructed the mother to pay for and attend counselling to help establish a "healthier" relationship between father and daughter. A letter from the counsellor to the judge shows Geesing's ex-wife has since failed to co-operate.



"For me it's quite obvious here is somebody who doesn't want this child to have any contact," said Geesing.


Records show there have been no consequences for the child's mother. Geesing has been told he has no legal recourse but to go back to court to ask the judge for help, which could take several months.

No comment from mother

 

Because she is the custodial parent, CBC News is not identifying the mother by name, to help protect the child's identity. When contacted, Geesing's ex-wife refused comment. Her lawyer did not respond to messages.


Geesing is one of several parents and family advocates calling on Ottawa to change the Divorce Act to give non-abusive divorcing parents automatic, equal roles in their children's lives.


"Why am I supposed to be the lesser parent?" asked Geesing. "The default [in the courts] should be equal, shared parenting. That should be the default."


When Geesing's divorce case got to trial, the child's mother wrongly accused him of inappropriate behaviour toward his daughter.


"It completely went out of control," said Geesing. "Nothing shook me as much as this accusation."

Ice cream photos called 'inappropriate'

 

Evidence of what Geesing's ex-wife deemed inappropriate included pictures he took of his daughter showing off her first permanent teeth and pictures of her eating an ice cream cone.


B.C. Supreme Court Justice Burnyeat concluded, "Having reviewed the photographs that the plaintiff believes were inappropriate, I cannot reach that conclusion."


The mother also said it was wrong for Geesing to playfully nibble on his daughter's ear while they were watching a DVD together.


The judge didn't buy that either, concluding, "I am satisfied that the plaintiff overreacted to what might be viewed by many as an innocent sign of affection between a father and his daughter."


A detailed psychological analysis of the family found no evidence the child had been abused, but concluded instead that the mother had alienated her from her father. It also recommended that if the mother didn't change her behaviour, the child should live with her father.


"[The mother] has been using control as a coping mechanism of ...perverse anxiety," wrote the psychologist. "There has clearly been a campaign of parental alienation."


"All of this court, this fighting, for nothing," said Geesing.

Access denial 'common'

 

"I know fathers who have been to court 50 times - in front of a judge - only to be told that they will get access but they do not," said Jerry Arthur-Wong, the executive director at Vancouver's only men's resource centre.


"It's like the court appearance had no impact on the other parent."


He said the extreme problems he sees are with the minority of protracted, acrimonious divorces, where the parents go all the way to trial to fight it out.


A 2009 study by Edward Kruk at the University of B.C.'s school of social work took a detailed look at the parental roles of 82 Vancouver-area fathers, from all walks of life, post-divorce.


Of the 82, 56 reported "lack of access" as their No. 1 problem. Thirty of the 82 fathers reported being completely disengaged from their children's lives.


Arthur-Wong also wants the Divorce Act amended to make equal, shared parenting the norm, except in cases where one parent is deemed unfit.


Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott is sponsoring a private member's bill that would make shared parenting the starting position in all cases that go to court. The bill passed first reading, but won't be debated in Ottawa for several months, if at all.

Government undecided on bill

 

A spokesperson for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said he wasn't available for comment and the government has not decided whether to support the initiative.


"Our government is committed to promoting positive outcomes for the entire family during separation or divorce," wrote Nicholson's press secretary, Pamela Stephens. "Since parents usually understand their children better than anyone else, our government strongly encourages parents co-operate to make parenting arrangements in their children's best interests."


Arthur-Wong said the government has delayed taking definitive action for far too long.


"Denial of access is pretty common," he said. "That is child abuse and that is not acceptable in this society."
He thinks provinces should set up registries of parents who ignore court-ordered access, similar to the maintenance enforcement agencies that penalize parents who default on child-support payments.


"Those who say that it would be impossible to keep a registry of access denial, I say let's try it with the more extreme cases," he said.


Geesing doesn't expect to get another court date until the fall.


"I don't even know what I will do the first time, if I ever see her," said Geesing. "Should I shake her hand? Give her my business card or something like this? What do I do? I feel afraid to do anything."


Even if he doesn't see his daughter until she grows up, Geesing said he hopes by seeing him tell his story publicly, she will know one day that he tried to be a good father.


"I think I owe it to her to let her know that this is wrong."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/21/bc-accessdenied.html#socialcomments

Family Law creates a form of Gender Denigration and Gender Apartheid

The whole idea of dead beat dads, discussed in the National Post story below, is a work of fiction created through feminist advocacy and in North America the collection of child support is a multibillion dollar industry. In the USA it is centered around a highly gender biased act called the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and Joe Biden is its patriarch. Bill Clinton passed it back in the 90’s to pay back his feminist voters,. It is control central for the unconstitutional discrimination of males within the sphere of family law. The federal government pays the States incentives for collecting child support. If they collect, more money flows downward. Thus States have every incentive to be as draconian as possible.

Most men, upwards of 70%, cannot pay because they are poor. They are deprived of passports and license to drive. That can impact, as Mr. Gurney has described, his ability to earn income. They are then sent to debtor’s prison, where they cannot work to pay it off. After getting out, sometimes after 6 months, but in at least one case involving alimony, over 10 years, they are further behind because the arrears clock never stops. Men have an 8 times higher suicide rate over women after divorce. Often it is because they see no way out. They lost their children, their savings on lawyers, their dignity, their freedom and then their life. In addition, we say we don’t have capital punishment in Canada. Eight men a day die by their own hand. What a disgrace, but we get hyperactive if the flu hits and a few die a week. Both are tragic but men are expendable. Some Provinces and States use public forums to humiliate them by posting pictures and descriptions. This is the modern equivalent of putting people in stocks for public viewing and throwing things at them.

Lawyers and courts tout the unknowable “Best interests of Children” in their pompous and often kangaroo courts. Sure, they do - and I have a time share on Mars with running water. The above actions to dads are not in the best interest of any child, or any one else, but it keeps Judges, lawyers and their apparatchiks employed in a lucrative business.

You will hear of very few women being thrown in jail for child support arrears even though proportionately they are less likely to pay than men are. Further, you will seldom ever see them put in jail for denying access or alienating a child from dad. Moms get physical custody 90% of the time so there are many dads acting as ATM's for the divorce industry. Mom gets to control her ex in a myriad of fashions during and after the divorce process, aided and abetted by the machinery of the government, NGO’s (DV shelters), lawyers and most definitely judges who are the CEO’s of gender apartheid in this country. Politicians don’t have a clue what they have created and even if they piped up some feminist group funded by Status of Women Canada will chew them up in a maelstrom of shrieking rhetoric suggesting the government is abandoning women for male privilege aided by the likes of Jack Layton (Canada's Chief Socialist and feminist sycophant) and Iggenstein, (Michael Iggnatief - Canada's hapless  Liberal leader). Heck, you even have Tasha Kheiriddin an op-ed writer, and lawyer doing it at the NP against a bill for equal parenting, C-422, just before Father’s Day. She claims to be conservative but that clearly is a misprint. She is, if anything, a maternal supremacist, and if not liberal a Red-Tory who are Liberals who think they are conservative but don't know any better.MJM

Matt Gurney: Man jailed by courts after courts bankrupt him

Matt Gurney  June 21, 2010 – 2:12 pm

 

Jeff Dolan spent Father’s Day in jail, locked away for failure to pay child support. Deadbeat dads don’t garner a lot of sympathy. But you don’t need to study Jeff’s case for long before you realize that he’s anything but a deadbeat. Instead, he’s a man hopelessly ensnared in a crushing bureaucratic machine: He’s in jail because he couldn’t pay child support, but he couldn’t pay child support because he was unemployed … and he was unemployed because the court took his driver’s license for failure to pay child support … after he went bankrupt paying his court costs.

There is no good news in this story, but there is some dark irony. Jeff, who despite a learning disability graduated high school and held down several construction jobs in his home state of Minnesota, was also a volunteer at a local sexual violence crisis centre. One of his jobs there, on top of fielding telephone calls from sexual assault survivors, was to talk to high school classes. One thing he taught was “male privilege” — the notion that society favours men in many varied, sometimes subtle ways, thus enabling sexual violence.
Jeff is living proof that if there is such a thing as male privilege, it is doled out unevenly.

Jeff’s saga began five years ago, when a slowdown in Minnesota’s economy saw his employment opportunities dry up. After travelling to Texas to work in the oil industry, Jeff returned to his wife and two sons only to be served with a restraining order. His wife was claiming that Jeff was himself an abuser. Jeff’s lawyer urged him to immediately file for divorce, warning him that such orders are used by women as a “silver bullet” to ensure swift, favourable divorce proceedings. Jeff’s lawyer proved prescient, and he spent the next several years both seeking to prove that he was not an abuser and to get equal custody of his sons. It would be hard enough to argue for custody when facing abuse allegations at the best of time; Jeff actually had to do so before the same judge. Though the abuse allegations were ultimately set aside (two psychiatric profiles showed that he was not abusive), the damage was done — Jeff had lost equal custody, had gone deep into debt fighting two legal battles at once and had a nervous breakdown. By the time he was well enough to work, the world’s economy was in chaos, and there were no jobs.

But Jeff didn’t quit. He found new work, and could make good money billing by the hour. All he had to do was drive to the appointments, and he’d be able to pay down debt and meet his child support obligations. Enter the courts — since he had fallen behind on his obligations, the court stripped him of his driver’s license. That caused him to be unable to work. He fell further behind in his payments, and now he’s in jail. He can’t get his license back until he’s employed and making payments again, but he can’t find work because he does not have a valid license and now, must declare on job applications that he’s served jail time.

It’s a complete Catch-22, an utterly Kafka-esque nightmare from which there is no escape. The courts have left only one avenue open to Jeff to regain his freedom, financial independence and his children, while simultaneously making it impossible for him to do those very things. If anyone ever needed a heaping helping of male privilege, certainly, it must be Jeff Dolan.

Jeff is just one man, but speaks to a broader problem. Courts, in their earnest efforts to do right by families, are destroying them, instead. Men, who want only the chance to be good fathers, are crushed under the weight of gender-biased default rulings and the inertia of unfeeling bureaucracies. Whether in far-off Minnesota or, as Post columnist Barbara Kay has shown time and again, right here in Canada, men fighting custody battles are outgunned from the start. Jeff’s story, of being forced into bankruptcy by family court proceedings and then being jailed by those same courts for not being able to pay their court-mandated payments, is no surprise to any number of Canadian dads.

Bill Levy, a Canadian with bitter personal experience in such matters said it best: “Canada has reopened debtor prisons, only for parents. Only alienated parents go to jail for poverty. No Mastercard or mortgage debtors. The Constitution does not permit this, we can’t be forced into servitude. And yet no one will stand up in court and make these arguments. Men, and some women, too, can’t fight back against the court’s preference for expediency.” That mirrors what Jeff’s brother Jon told me in a phone interview: “Jeff isn’t in jail because he’s an abuser or a bad father. He’s in jail because he’s poor in a bad economy where there are no jobs.”

You can take any number of harsh lessons from Jeff’s tale, or those that Ms. Kay has chronicled in the Post time and again, but the overriding one must be how helpless parents — usually fathers — are in the face of an inflexible family court system that gives no leeway or understanding to those trapped in its clutches.
National Post

You can read more about Jeff, and his family’s efforts to help him, at their blog.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/21/matt-gurney-man-jailed-by-courts-after-courts-bankrupt-him/#ixzz0rduZiPZ6

No bias in this study ~ Lesbian Mothers Think Their Children are All Above Average

The National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) study quoted in the story below has an agenda and we have had some Female Chauvinist Pigs, like Pamela Paul, doing articles in magazines like Atlantic describing the maternal superiority of Lesbians over - get this - heterosexual couples.  So they are not only better  than normal moms, who are also women but the underlying theme is dads are not necessary. If they said that about a racial minority they would be castigated by the media rather than the useful idiots of the MSM parroting the studies results as though it was factual. Studies show that as many as a third or more of lesbians have been victims of sexual assault, including rape,  or coercion at the hands of another woman.  Others show the rate of abusiveness between same sex females cohabiting is higher than heterosexual DV.  Additionally, single moms are the most likely to kill or abuse their children and Lesbians see more frequent breakups and they are less stable which is mentioned in the study. Paul, the maternal supremacist, fails to mention this.

This study conducted in Bejing isn't directly relevant but it is instructive in what is happening in Communist China, "The survey, funded by the Anti-Domestic Violence Network of the China Law Society (ADVN), an NGO founded in 2000 to protect women's rights, found 75 percent of lesbian and bisexual women in Beijing were victims of domestic violence." 

In this report a psychology professor Carolyn West "found estimates of lesbian domestic abuse ranging anywhere from 8.5 to 73 percent but says that in most studies 30 to 40 percent of lesbians reported they'd been in a violent relationship. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, a gay and lesbian advocacy group, estimates based on the sparse research available that domestic violence occurs in 25 to 33 percent of same-sex couples."

Needless  to say the NLLFS study is not to be taken seriously and those authors who are touting it have a clear agenda. Female superiority in the care of children and dads are unnecessary.  What does that say about their cousins Gay men raising children. Are they twice as unnecessary.  These supremacists do no favours to their very small same sex, relative to normal couples, community.

A very in depth study goes into great detail about homosexual marriages 

Some snippets:

Gay and lesbian vs. other opposite-sex intimate partner relationships
Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice confirm that homosexual and lesbian relationships had a far greater incidence of domestic partner violence than opposite-sex relationships including cohabitation or marriage.

·  The National Violence against Women Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."[50]

Source: "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs, 30.

The study further charts specic rates of DV compared to married men/women compared to homosexuals.

Homosexual and Lesbian Couples vs. Married Couples

When homosexual and lesbian relationships are directly compared with married couples, the difference in the domestic partner violence is pronounced:

Sources: "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs: 30; "Intimate Partner Violence," Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report:11.

And they posit the following:

A POLITICAL AGENDA: REDEFINING MARRIAGE

By their own admission, gay activists are not simply interested in making it possible for homosexuals and lesbians to partake of conventional married life. Rather, they aim to change the essential character of marriage, removing precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home.MJM

Janice Shaw Crouse

Saturday, June 19, 2010

The National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) just published in the online edition of the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and funded by the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay Lesbian Medical Association, claims that children of lesbian mothers do better than children from a married-mom-and-dad family. The AAP is no stranger to controversy; they are the pediatrics group that recently capitulated to political-correctness to advocate a “less extreme” form of female genital mutilation and then, when under pressure, reversed their recommendation.  The NLLFS study professes to be a highly respected, peer-reviewed “longitudinal” type of study.  Longitudinal studies, however, are conducted by researchers who objectively track subjects over a long period of time. In this study, the children were evaluated by their lesbian birth mothers — hardly disinterested, dispassionate researchers.

The hype for the study was remarkable, with over 116 newspaper headlines blaring the news: “Children of lesbian couples do well.”  Few of the articles questioned the fact that the children’s mothers were reporting on their “little darling’s” well-being, social functioning, behavior, and achievements; nor did publications usually note the lack of cross-checking with objective outcomes.  Not mentioned, as well, is that over half of the original lesbian-couple participants in the study were separated by the time their children were age six (mean age), though such family upheaval is typically quite difficult for children.  Nor did the laudatory reports question the fact that the 78 children in the study contributed their own assessments about their lives and well-being.  Without comparing these personal observations with objective outcomes (teacher/counselor evaluations, school report cards, etc.) the study is highly unreliable.

The study is neither objective nor comprehensive.  There are three major problems with the “study”:

1)      The “research” consists of the mothers’ opinions about their children;

2)      Only 77 lesbian couples participated in the “study,” and they were not typical parents in other regards. An earlier NLLFS report described the sample population as Caucasian (93 percent), predominantly college educated (67 percent), mostly middle and upper class (82 percent), professional or managers (85 percent) and a median household income of $85,000; and,

3)      the study did not consist of a random sample — all the participants were volunteers — recruited via posted announcements in women’s bookstores, at lesbian events, and in lesbian newspapers in three major metropolitan areas (Boston, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco)

The personal relationships and professional affiliations of the authors engender even more questions about the study’s reliability.  Dr. Nanette Gartrell of the University of California, San Francisco, is “married” to Dee Moshbacker, Ph.D., a psychiatrist and lesbian activist/filmmaker.  She lamented that “there are so many places in the United States where same-sex couples are not allowed to adopt or foster children in need.”

Yet, she claims, “There is not a single study that has shown there are any problems in terms of psychological adjustment” [of the children in lesbian couple households].  The other author, Dr. Henny M.W. Bos, is an assistant professor in Amsterdam whose research focuses on “child rearing and child development in non traditional families, such as planned lesbian families, gay father families and patchwork families.”

The two authors send a message that children of lesbians fare better than the children of a married mom and dad.  They state at the outset, “Despite more than three decades of cross-sectional research demonstrating that the psychological adjustment of children is unrelated to their parents’ sexual orientation, the legitimacy of lesbian and gay biological, foster, and adoptive parenting is still under scrutiny.”  A close reading of the Pediatrics article reveals a broader agenda promoting donor insemination, praising female parenting in contrast to having a father present, and, typically, condemning straight society as homophobic — a disproportionate amount of attention is given to descriptions of the children’s negative experiences related to their parents’ sexual preference (but the harassment didn’t affect their well-being, you understand).

 Some critics are concerned that the Gartrell/Bos study will be used, not to praise lesbian couples, but to question the fitness of fathers.  Indeed, Gartrell/Bos note, “Lesbian mothers use less corporal punishment and less power assertion than heterosexual fathers.”  The authors assert the benefits of a feminine environment, “Growing up in households with less power assertion and more parental involvement has been shown to be associated with healthier psychological adjustment.”

Still other critics pointed out the weaknesses in the control group — the 93 children who were used for comparison.  They described the control group as “very different in race composition, socio-economic status of participants, and region of the country.”  They also noted that there are many more minorities and Southern children in the control group than in the NLLFS study group.  These critics questioned the editorial board and peer reviewers “who did not pay attention to such an obvious deficiency in the study.”

Others questioned the “enormous political incentive” for lesbian mothers to volunteer their participation.  There can be no doubt as to the “political incentive” of the “research.”  The authors make their purpose plain by concluding, “This study has implications for the clinical care of lesbian families, for the expert testimony provided by pediatricians on lesbian mother custody, and for public policies concerning same-sex parenting.”

In spite of the weaknesses in the methodology, the authors conclude with a vast generalization, “The NLLFS adolescents are well-adjusted, demonstrating more competencies and fewer behavioral problems than their peers in the normative American population.”

 

Clearly, these lesbian mothers are from Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.

Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2010/06/19/lesbian_mothers_think_their_children_are_all_above_average?page=full&comments=true

In Kentucky ~ Court says pregnant women can’t be charged for taking drugs

It shows the hypocrisy of the law and the inroads feminism has made on the cojones of male legislators.

If any adult addicted a child to a controlled substance they would be charged and jailed and the wrath of public opinion would descend upon them.

Pregnant women, in this case, who have no common sense, deliberately harm their child through self aware activities and we say don’t prosecute her, the child is just collateral damage. In other words mom to be is but a child and may not seek help if the threat of jail is in play. How utterly simplistic and dangerous is such an attitude.

Single moms are the largest predators of children born in the USA through murder and abuse. The state is condoning these unborn children to future threats. If she doesn’t give a crap before the child is born she sure isn’t going to improve after.MJM

Posted By Beth Musgrave On June 17, 2010 @ 12:43 pm In KY Courts, KY General Assembly, State Government |

By Beth Musgrave - bmusgrave@herald-leader.com

FRANKFORT — Women can not be criminally charged for abusing alcohol or drugs during pregnancy, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case that has generated national attention.

In a 5-2 decision, the court ruled that the state’s Maternal Health Act of 1992 expressly precludes women from being charged with crimes if they ingest drugs or alcohol during pregnancy.

At issue is whether police and prosecutors were correct in charging Ina Cochran with first-degree wanton endangerment after she gave birth to a child who tested positive for cocaine in 2005.

Cochran’s lawyer moved to have the charges dismissed and a Casey Circuit Court judge agreed. Prosecutors appealed to the state Court of Appeals, which ruled that the charges should be allowed under Kentucky law.

Lawyers for Cochran had argued that the General Assembly also made it clear in 2004 that women should not be prosecuted for harming their unborn children. 

That year, lawmakers passed a fetal homicide statute, which allowed prosecution of a third party for killing an unborn child. In the bill, lawmakers said a pregnant woman could not be charged with harming her unborn child.

The court, in its opinion, wrote that it was clear that the legislature never intended pregnant women to be charged. “It is the legislature, not the judiciary, that has the power to designate what is a crime,” the opinion said.

The Maternal Health Act of 1992 states that “punitive actions taken against pregnant alcohol or substance abusers would create additional problems, including discouraging these individuals from seeking the essential prenatal care.”

But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Daniel Venters said the General Assembly never intended to create a blanket immunity for pregnant women. Venters also noted that Cochran was not charged while she was pregnant.

“Because the indictment came after her baby was born, it in no way discouraged her from seeking prenatal care and it in no way deterred her from treatment she might need to deliver a healthy baby,” Venters said.

Chief Justice John D. Minton was the other dissenting justice.

The case has garnered national attention from women’s rights groups and national medical associations, who say criminalizing drug abuse of a pregnant mother will only damage the child.

Women who think they might be prosecuted for drug addiction will not seek prenatal care, might abort their children for fear of being prosecuted or will not deliver their children in a hospital, they argue.

But many police officers, prosecutors and even family members of addicted mothers have argued that more should be done to deter pregnant women from causing lasting and sometimes debilitating damage to their children.

Larry Cleveland, the Commonwealth Attorney for Franklin County, has two cases pending against women who ingested alcohol or drugs during their pregnancy. Cleveland said Thursday that he had not seen the court’s opinion but would follow the court’s opinion and likely drop those charges.
“We will follow the decision,” Cleveland said. “Even if it means that the state will have to pay for care for these children for the rest of their lives.”

Rep. Richard Henderson, D-Jeffersonville, filed a bill in this year’s legislative session that would have allowed women to be charged with substance endangerment of a child — a felony — if the child is born with alcohol or unprescribed controlled substances in his or her system.

Henderson’s bill was given a hearing after he amended the measure to change the charge to a misdemeanor but the proposal was never called for a vote.

Henderson said he will likely file the proposal again next year.

“The bill will resurface in some form,” Henderson said. “I am a firm believer that we need to get treatment for these woman … but there is a place for the criminal justice system.

“This is not Roe vs. Wade. This is about protecting lives that are already beyond those choices,” Henderson said. “My intent is not to penalize the woman but to protect the child.”

---

Article printed from Bluegrass Politics: http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com

URL to article: http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2010/06/17/pregnant-women-can-not-be-charged-for-taking-drugs/

Fathers 4 Justice UK ~ ANTHEM FOR JUSTICE "SEND A MESSAGE OF LOVE"

Fathers 4 Justice UK

ANTHEM FOR JUSTICE "SEND A MESSAGE OF LOVE" AVAILABLE NOW TO BUY - F4J UK are delighted to announce that the Anthem For Justice "Send A Message Of Love" is available now to buy and download for 99p through PayPal  or through the F4J UK  website. Thank you so much to everyone who made this record happen - and it is especially for your children.

This is a nice anthem for dads on Fathers Day

Testosterone Does Not Induce Aggression

This will get the Feminists and pro-Feminists panties in a knot.MJM

Main Category: Endocrinology
Also Included In: Psychology / Psychiatry
Article Date: 10 Dec 2009 - 1:00 PST

New scientific evidence refutes the preconception that testosterone causes aggressive, egocentric, and risky behavior. A study at the Universities of Zurich and Royal Holloway London with more than 120 experimental subjects has shown that the sexual hormone with the poor reputation can encourage fair behaviors if this serves to ensure one's own status.

Popular scientific literature, art, and the media have been attributing the roll of aggression to the arguably best known sexual hormone for decades. Research appeared to confirm this - the castration of male rodents evidently led to a reduction in combativeness among the animals. The prejudice thus grew over decades that testosterone causes aggressive, risky, and egocentric behavior. The inference from these experiments with animals that testosterone produces the same effects in humans has proven to be false, however, as a combined study by neuroscientist Christoph Eisenegger and economist Ernst Fehr, both of the University of Zurich, and economist Michael Naef of Royal Holloway in London demonstrates. "We wanted to verify how the hormone affects social behavior," Dr. Christoph Eisenegger explains, adding, "we were interested in the question: what is truth, and what is myth?"

For the study, published in the renowned journal Nature, some 120 test subjects took part in a behavioral experiment where the distribution of a real amount of money was decided. The rules allowed both fair and unfair offers. The negotiating partner could subsequently accept or decline the offer. The fairer the offer, the less probable a refusal by the negotiating partner. If no agreement was reached, neither party earned anything.

Before the game the test subjects were administered either a dose of 0.5 mg testosterone or a corresponding placebo. "If one were to believe the common opinion, we would expect subjects who received testosterone to adopt aggressive, egocentric, and risky strategies - regardless of the possibly negative consequences on the negotiation process," Eisenegger elucidates.

Fairer with testosterone

The study's results, however, contradict this view sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. "The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted," sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. For animal species with relatively simple social systems, an increased awareness for status may express itself in aggressiveness. "In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression," surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. "The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior".

Moreover the study shows that the popular wisdom that the hormone causes aggression is apparently deeply entrenched: those test subjects who believed they had received the testosterone compound and not the placebo stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers. It is possible that these persons exploited the popular wisdom to legitimate their unfair actions. Economist Michael Naef states: "It appears that it is not testosterone itself that induces aggressiveness, but rather the myth surrounding the hormone. In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes and thereby partly legitimated, this should make us sit up and take notice." The study clearly demonstrates the influence of both social as well as biological factors on human behavior.

Source: Christoph Eisenegger
University of Zurich 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/173475.php

Happy Father's Day ~ Dads and Coaching

Joseph C. Phillips
Monday, June 14, 2010

I am an assistant coach on my middle son’s youth football team. Football practice begins in August and I have spent the last two weeks reading up on defensive alignments, surfing coaching websites, and sending e-mail to some of the high school coaches in the area begging for coaching tips. If I watch one more video of conditioning exercises for defensive linemen my head is going to explode. I have begun dreaming in “X’s” and “O’s.”

Of course, that is what I say today. Tomorrow, I will get up and begin the routine all over again. Why? Well, I guess it’s because I have grown to love coaching. Unless one loves it, there is really no other reason to be a youth coach.

A person certainly won’t get rich coaching youth sports. In fact, often a youth coach will lose money over the course of a season. Every coach I know spends his own money to pay for extra equipment and materials. Most of the coaches I know spend additional money on books and clinics in order to expand their knowledge. More than one coach I know has paid the registration fee for a boy whose parents were having financial difficulties. These coaches didn’t open their wallets because the boy was a superstar, (although I have also witnessed performance purchasing). Rather, the coach paid the fee because the boy wanted to play.
The truth is that coaching can often seem like one big headache after another. A coach must contend with equipment shortages, limited practice time, and bizarre and negative interactions with parents. Buy a youth coach a beer and let him regale you with tales of parents gone wild. Every coach has at least one such story.

And success doesn’t guarantee that parents will behave as if they have some sense. In some instances winning actually makes them behave worse. I had two parents threaten me with violence because during a game I told their son to hustle. Our team was undefeated!

According to The Center for Kids First, each year 40-50 million children participate in youth sports. The vast majority of those children--85%--are coached by a father of one of the children on the team. Youth coaches spend an average of 11 hours per week with their young charges. That’s a lot of children, and a lot of fathers who volunteer a lot of time.

Put another way, millions of parents place the physical and emotional well-being of their children into the hands of a small number of men, most of whom are married and have children of their own.
And much is expected from these mostly untrained volunteers. Youth coaches are asked to be teachers, strategists, babysitters, nurses, and social workers.

Parents enroll their children in youth sports in hope that their children will learn physical skills that will allow them to stay active throughout their lives, that they will develop a sense of belonging, and that it will promote their moral development. In other words: Sports build character. But this vaunted character that comes from participation in organized sports does not happen by magic; picking up a ball does not automatically strengthen a child’s moral fiber. Character must be taught. And to whom does the duty fall? The youth coach.
And when there is dysfunction in a child’s home the problems tend to follow the players onto the field. When the parents are experiencing marital difficulties, when there is alcoholism or abuse, or when the family dog dies, these volunteers are still expected to persevere. With no professional training--and even less warning--youth coaches must navigate the emotional waters, continue to teach, and win on Saturday!

But, I do love it. I love seeing the eagerness in the boys’ eyes; I love hearing their young laughter; I enjoy watching the passion with which they play. I love witnessing their growth and maturation over the course of a season. And I love knowing that in some small way the work I do may contribute to their life-long love of the game of football.

So, I am going to put down my study for today. However, tomorrow I will begin watching a series of DVDs on how to teach the 44-Stack defense to 11-year old boys.

It may be selfish, but this Father’s Day I am also going to lift a glass of whatever-I-happen-to-be-drinking and salute the dads that volunteer, the fathers that take the time to learn a sport they have never played, or to re-educate themselves in a sport they have not played in years. We parents put our sons and daughters into their hands and ask that they teach our precious ones the value of hard work, the necessity of discipline, and most important, the joy of competitive sports.

God bless them, and cheers!



Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

In Australia as in Canada ~ No Support for Male Victims of Domestic Violence

Posted By Deborah Robinson On 06/12/2010 @ 21:22 In FEATURED | 6 Comments

According to those who work in the area of men’s health, the current approach to domestic violence ignores the one in three victims of family violence who are male. While not wanting to undermine the decades of effort that have gone into establishing services for female victims of domestic violence, they want the government to do more to raise awareness about the plight of male victims, many of whom find they have nowhere to turn when a female partner becomes violent or abusive.


Gary’s ex-wife had punched him in the face with a closed fist on several occasions. But it wasn’t until she punched the couple’s 16 month old daughter while he was holding her, that the father of two decided enough was enough. “She walked over and punched my baby daughter in the middle of the back, sending us both flying.

November 12-14, Canadian Equal Parenting Council National Conference & AGM

This conference looks promising and will be the first of its kind in Canadian history.

In New Hampshire ~ No bail for woman convicted of framing ex-husband by texting

Reader comments

By JAMES A. KIMBLE
Union Leader Correspondent
Friday, May. 7, 2010


BRENTWOOD – Kristin Ruggiero was ordered held without bail after a jury convicted her of trying to set up her ex-husband and have him jailed by falsely reporting to police that he sent her a dozen threatening text messages in May 2008.

Judge Kenneth McHugh said it was necessary to keep Ruggiero in jail after the jury found that the 34-year-old mother used the criminal justice system as a means to falsely imprison her ex-husband, Jeffrey, and ruin his career.

RUGGIERO

►Judge Kenneth McHugh lectures Ruggiero - 1.3mb .mp3
►Jury to begin deliberating in Ruggiero trial (14)
►Prosecutors: Ex-wife falsified texts to have husband jailed (3)
►Police chief says Ruggiero targeted him (5)

"The jury's verdict has confirmed my belief after hearing 8 days of this case that the defendant is a pathological liar," McHugh said. "She will do and say anything in order to distort facts so as to avoid responsibility for her actions."

McHugh remarked that Ruggiero's case was not a normal one for Rockingham County.
It came exactly two years after Kristin Ruggiero had played a key witness in the prosecution of her ex-husband, who was later exonerated by prosecutors when an East Kingston police investigation concluded that Jeffrey Ruggiero was convicted of crimes he did not commit.

Ruggiero, a U.S. Coast Guard chief petty officer, nearly lost his career and was jailed for three and a half weeks following an April 30, 2008, criminal threatening case based on Kristin Ruggiero's complaints.
As Jeffrey Ruggiero awaited sentencing in that case, his ex-wife complained to police about the text messages - sent on a disposable cell phone.

The investigation into that second case - undertook by East Kingston police Chief Richard Simpson - found the signals on the disposable phone coincided with Kristin Ruggiero's whereabouts in California and Tennessee.

Exeter District Court Judge Laurence Cullen, who convicted Jeffrey Ruggiero in the criminal threatening case two years ago, came to hear the verdict in the Ruggiero verdict, quietly taking a seat - out of his robe - in the rear of the courtroom.

Kristin Ruggiero used other technology such as computer viruses and anonymous text messaging to hack into her ex-husband's computer and e-mail as a way to continually stalk and harass her ex-husband, according to prosecutors.

McHugh said he believed her adept knowledge with computers and technology made her a flight risk.
"She has shown the ability to fly around the country. She is computer savvy and there's no doubt in my mind if she were allowed to leave this building today, she would find some way to avoid appearance on July 1," McHugh said.

Ruggiero showed no emotion as she was led out of the courtroom and taken into custody.
At her sentencing on July 1, Ruggiero faces a potential 3 1/2 to 7 year state prison sentence on each of the 12 counts of falsifying physical evidence. She was also found guilty of a misdemeanor charge of false report to law enforcement.

Following the verdict, Assistant County Attorney Jerome Blanchard said the conviction marked a victory for more than the criminal justice system.

"It's a good day for the men and women who are real victims of domestic violence," Blanchard said.
He prosecuted the 8-day trial with Assistant County Attorney Geoffrey Ward, a member of the domestic violence unit.

Simpson, the police chief whose investigation found Ruggiero was using the criminal justice system as a tool of revenge, said he will be happy to move on from the case, but hopes it serves as a warning.

"Maybe it will send a message to other people who would think of doing such a thing," he said.

Deputy County Attorney Tom Reid said despite the conviction, prosecutors will continue to investigate some of the evidence and documents submitted by Ruggiero as part of her defense.

Reid declined to say whether Ruggiero or others could face charges if evidence suggested other crimes were committed.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=No+bail+for+woman+convicted+of+framing+ex-husband+by+texting&articleId=b0ca7b34-27a1-4771-a683-cb7ecdb65692

In Massachusetts an affirmative nod for Shared Parenting

Editorial Worcester, MA News Telegram

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Fairness for fathers

Bill makes sense for most divorces

Divorce is tough on all involved, especially the children. By smoothing the way toward sound custody agreements, House Bill 1400 offers help in the vast majority of cases: those involving two fit parents.

Advocates point out that the current practice in Massachusetts, in which the mother is the presumed custodial parent, encourages conflict. The Shared Parenting bill would require that courts handling separation and divorce agreements work from the presumption that both parents should share physical and legal custody.

That, says the advocacy group Fathers & Families, encourages cooperation and keeps the focus on what is best for children. Instead of a father having to fight for time with the children he loves, the legal system would assume that he merits equal time, and spend its time working out the details and practicalities of a given case. Shared parenting needn’t be a rigid 50-50 split; the mere assumption that both parents deserve ample time eases tensions, and the eventual agreement arrived at depends on a host of factors.

There was a time when it was generally reasonable for the mother to be awarded custody of the children almost automatically. That time is gone. Family dynamics and gender roles have changed. Just as women have proved themselves in the workplace, men have come into their own as nurturers at home, often very closely involved in their children’s upbringing.

The bill, it must be emphasized, is for families in which both parents are fit and no other problem gets in the way, such as parents living far apart. Judges would depart from the shared-parenting starting point whenever the best interests of the child so dictated, giving written reasons.

This simple bill, currently before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, offers an enormous and welcome change in how families would navigate marriage dissolution. Once this sad, private decision had been made, the system would help the parents find the way forward that puts the children on the best possible footing. Afterward, other benefits would accrue: children doing better in school, paternal grandparents enjoying access, less fighting, better child support compliance.

In short, this bill offers respect and assistance to both partners who are parting ways, freeing up time and attention for the young ones affected — who want, and who need, both parents.

150 comments | Add a comment
http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100513/NEWS/5130725/

Feminism has led to more female violence in their quest to be more like men

 

 

 

 

Feminism blamed for rising female violence

By Louisa Rebgetz

Posted Tue Jun 1, 2010 6:24am AEST

Social factors such as the rise of feminism could be behind the rise in violence amongst women, researcher says. (www.sxc.hu: Dominik Gwarek)

A Northern Territory researcher says studies show women can be just as violent as men and social changes are behind a reported rise in violence among young women.

A senior lecturer in psychology at Charles Darwin University, Dr Peter Forster, says there is no truth to the argument that testosterone levels make men more aggressive.

He says social factors such as the rise of feminism in the last few decades could be behind the rise in violence amongst women.

"We've now taken away the expectation that women will behave differently to men," he said.

"It used to be that one of the biggest differences was that women were more peaceful, they were peacemakers.

"[But] that kind of inhibition to be violent has gradually diminished to the point where it no longer inhibits women at all."

Tags: community-and-society, women, australia, nt

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/01/2914561.htm 

F & F Helps Defeat Radical Bill from Opponents of Recognizing Parental Alienation

Fathers & Families have again been instrumental in defeating another anti Parental Alienation Bill in the California Legislature, brought by a malleable Democrat named Jim Beal. Beal, if nothing else, is willing to get thwarted again by his colleagues and one has to wonder what makes him tick. Given he has been "whacked" on the head twice for the same thing one can surmise he is just stupid or an ideologue.  He was defeated last year with Bil AB612 which had the identical intent.

It is very good news and if you click on the link below you can read the committee hearings discussing the pros and cons. I've included below the Title and the Support/Opposition portion of the assembly ruminations. The opposition to this version mirrors those of last years version.  The Centre for Judicial Excellence, an oxymoronic name, is a militant group consisting, in part, of a very angry, and potentially unstable, group of women who have lost custody of their children through abuse or neglect. In the USA 85% of physical custody of children (Canada 90%, UK 92%) goes to mom so those who lose custody suffer a great deal of cognitive dissonance. They are able to get radical feminist Lawyers who receive ample remuneration for their efforts and have no problem in going on shows like Dr. Phil to mythologize incidents that did not occur. False allegations, lying, cheating are all part of the repertoire of contrivances used to justify their end game.MJM

Date of Hearing: May 4, 2010

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mike Feuer, Chair

AB 2475 (Beall) - As Amended: April 28, 2010

 REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support  
          Center for Judicial Excellence (sponsor)
          JusticeCalifornia



           Opposition 
          Association of Certified Family Law Specialists
          Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, California
          California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
          California Dispute Resolution Council
          California Judges Association
          California Psychological Association
          Civil Justice Association of California
          Family Law Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association
          Family Law Section of the State Bar
          Judicial Council
          Two individuals


           Analysis Prepared by  :  Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334