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  

Parental Alienator gets Jail Time and its about time

This is an egregious case of Parental Alienation but is instructive in terms of what the alienating parent will do to the target parent to get the children to hate, in this case, the dad. My ex tried many of the same tactics. What is new in this case is the parent, whose mental health is in question, as are most alienators, got jail time. A precedent has finally been set and hopefully more of this will occur. The children are emotionally impacted, often for life, by this kind of narcissistic behavior but more to the point the parent who would do this to the child is not firing on all cylinders. Serious counseling is in order for this woman. Notably the most vocal and obsessive opponents of Parental Alienation are parents who have lost custody for abusing their children in this manner. It is rather sad to see them use this child punishment as a further weapon to berate other alienated parents as abusers. I believe it more clearly shows the underlying afflictions they may suffer.MJM

 

Updated: Tue., Jun. 8, 2010, 10:59 AM

An 'ex' to grind

By KIERAN CROWLEY and LEONARD GREENE

Last Updated: 10:59 AM, June 8, 2010

Posted: 2:38 AM, June 8, 2010

She's the ex-wife from hell!

An outraged judge slapped a Long Island woman with a jail sentence for trying to drive a wedge between her ex-husband and their daughters, keeping them apart for weeks at a time and even claiming he groped one of them.

Lauren Lippe is a vengeful roadblock, the barbed wire standing in the way of her two daughters and their desperate dad, Judge Robert Ross said.


Lippe often went nuclear, launching foul-mouthed tirades at Ted Rubin in front of the girls -- calling him a "deadbeat," "loser," "scumbag" and "f - - - ing asshole."


Ross said Lippe, 47, was a scheming manipulator who deliberately planned last-minute trips and events when her ex was scheduled to visit the girls.

"He was compelled to consent or risk disappointing the girls," Ross wrote in his ruling, which found Lippe in contempt for violating the couple's joint custody agreement.

If Rubin protested, Lippe berated him mercilessly.

"We all hope you die from cancer," she once blared at him, the court papers said, with both daughters in her arms.

Lippe even had the nerve to smirk in court when an emotional Rubin described the agony of missing out on Hanukkah with his children. Ross said Rubin was relegated to visit at the end of his ex's driveway, where he lit a menorah with his daughters in his truck and watched them open presents from their grandparents.
But the worst, Ross wrote, was "the crescendo of the plaintiff's conduct" involving false accusations of sexual abuse.

Lippe charged in 2008 that Rubin had fondled the breasts of one of his daughters. Lippe later conceded that she knew nothing sexual had occurred.

"The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties' Stipulation of Settlement," Ross wrote in a decision handed down last week.
The judge was also annoyed that Lippe had punished the children for wanting to spend quality time with their dad.

On Thursday, Ross sentenced Lippe to six weekends in jail to be served on the first and third weekends of June, July and August. Lippe, who has since remarried, was scheduled to begin her jail time Friday, but her sentence was stayed pending an appeal. Rubin is expected to take care of the children while Lippe is on lockdown.

Ironically, it was Lippe who asked the court to modify the custody agreement.

Lippe declined to comment outside her Lloyd Harbor home, but her lawyer, Kieth Rieger criticized the decision.

"It's extremely unusual, and in this case, it's inappropriate," Rieger said. "He chose to believe the husband and not her. Of course, she's upset, but she's also worried about her children. She's worried that if she goes to jail how it will affect the children."

Rubin, 52, a marketing executive, declined to comment, but has sounded off about his dilemma on his Internet blog.

"Spending time with my girls is something I put before all else," Rubin wrote last year. "They are teenagers now and being a divorced dad, it can be challenging to continue to reach out, put them first, and maintain this in the face of their occasional lack of interest and the roadblocks so easily put in place by their mom."
Additional reporting by Jeane MacIntosh and Selim Algar
 
kieran.crowley@nypost.com
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/an_ex_to_grind_xg3281rUxt068tCFzX1skL#ixzz0qJmpiOoa 

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.
nypost.com , nypostonline.com , and newyorkpost.com are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright 2010 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy | Terms of Use

There is another article here: http://www.examiner.com/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner~y2010m6d7-Nassau-County-judge-jails-mother-who-falsely-accused-ex-of-sex-abuse-and-alienated-him-from-kids?cid=examiner-email  

Ex-Wife Gets Jail For Alienating Kids From Dad

Reporting
Hazel Sanchez

MINEOLA, N.Y. (CBS) ― A judge has sentenced a woman to six summer weekends in jail because she purposely alienated her ex-husband to the couples' daughters.

CBS A local woman is headed to jail, thanks to some real divorce drama.

In a startling development, a Long Island mother has been found in contempt during a custody fight with her ex-husband.

It's a decision that could have her spending summer weekends in the slammer.

Ted Rubin and Lauren Lippe were divorced seven years ago, and over the years Rubin said his ex-wife has been vengefully programming his children to hate him.

It's a case of parental alienation that isn't being taken lightly. Now Lippe is going to jail.

Rubin said his once-loving relationship with his children is now sadly described very simply.

"It's torturous," he said.

Rubin said after he divorced Lippe in 2003, he believes his ex-wife brainwashed their daughters.

"It's drilled into their head day in and day out, you're not allowed to love daddy. You're not allowed to have a good time with daddy," Rubin said.

Lippe would not answer the door to her Lloyd Harbor home Tuesday.

Court papers detail a trail of parental alienation by Lippe, who falsely accused Rubin of groping one daughter, and often berating Rubin in front of their children, once yelling "We all hope you die from cancer."

"I was forced to do Hanukkah in the back of my truck," Rubin said. "It was freezing cold out. They wouldn't even get into my truck to open their gifts from me and their grandparents because they were told I would drive away with them."

Though Rubin and Lippe share custody of their daughters, a judge found Lippe intentionally alienated the children from their father and interfered with his visitation rights. As punishment the judge ordered Lippe to spend six weeks of this summer in jail.

Child psychologist Dr. Susan Bartell said the sentence will send a strong message to parents, but the Rubin's children, now 13 and 15 years old, will struggle.

"I think that healing from parental alienation syndrome can take forever, actually, and may never fully occur and will impact on all their other relationships that they have going through the rest of their lives," Dr. Bartell said.

"I'm assured by people who know about these things that my daughters will come back to me one day. But I'll never make up for all this missed time. It's never going to come back," Rubin said.

Lippe's jail sentence is supposed to begin this Friday, but she is seeking an appeal.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/lauren.libbe.ted.2.1740554.html 


A copy of the judgment follows:

Lauren R. v. Ted R.

06-07-2010 

Justice Robert A. Ross

Decided: May 25; 203699-02

The continuing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to modify or annul its custody and visitation judgments and orders, is set forth in Domestic Relations Law §240. Such authority is similarly provided to the Family Court pursuant to Family Court Act §467. In post judgment proceedings regarding a modification of custody and visitation, the standard is the "best interest of the child," when all of the applicable factors are considered. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89.

Parental access, commonly referred to as "visitation," is an important right of the non-custodial parent and the child. See, Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170. In a scenario where one parent is demonstrated to have interfered with the custodial rights of a parent, a number of mechanisms exist [see, Scheinkman, New York Law of Domestic Relations, Second Edition, §23.14] to aid in the enforcement of custody orders and judgments, including:

1. Criminal Sanctions, pursuant to Penal Law §135.45 and 135.50;

2. Suspension of alimony or maintenance, pursuant to Judiciary Law 750,753;

3. Tort action for custodial interference;

4. Orders of Protection, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §240.

While the most factually apparent ground to change existing custody arrangements involves physical danger, the act of alienating a child against a parent presents a nefarious form of conduct that must be met with careful consideration and immediate, comprehensive remediation by a Court (see, Zafran v. Zafran, 306 AD2d 468; Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893). A change in custody should not be permitted solely as a means for punishing a recalcitrant parent (see, Lew v. Sobel, supra), but always requires due consideration of all of the other custodial factors. See, Robert T.F. v. Rosemary F., 148 AD2d 449.

While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), inasmuch as a Court's finding of willful interference "per se raises a strong probability that the custodial parent is unfit" (see, Young v. Young, supra; Glenn v. Glenn, supra), when a pattern of alienation by the custodial parent is proven in any prior proceeding, that alienating conduct must [emphasis added] be considered and addressed by the Court in any subsequent proceeding involving custody/parental access. See, Audobon v. Audobon, 138 AD2d 658; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305. Also, see CPLR §4213[b]; Robert T.F. v. Rosemarie F., 148 AD2d 449.

The doctrine of res judicata bars the issue of whether alienation occurred in the subsequent change of custody hearing ordered herein. See, O' bdoherty@chat.nyc.amlaw.corp Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; Matter of Waldman v. Waldman, 47 AD3d 638; Braunstein v. Braunstein, 114 AD2d 46, 53; Town of New Windsor v. New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403. Considering that parental alienation of a child from the other parent has been determined to be "an act inconsistent with the best interest of the child (Bobinson v. Bobinson, 9 AD3d 441; Stern v. Stern, 304 AD2d 649; Zafran v. Zafran, 28 AD3d 753; Zeis v. Slater, 57 AD3d 793), and that it has been proven in this contempt proceeding - - the "strong likelihood of unfitness" becomes a "factor" that must be considered in the change of custody hearing ordered herein.

Protraction or delay in parental alienation cases often serve to reinforce the offending conduct and potentially undermine any remediation that a court could fashion with appropriate therapy, parent coordination, and/or, a change in custody. See, Steinberger, Father? What Father? Parental Alienation And Its Effect on Children, NYSBA Family Law Review, Spring 2006; Johnston, J.R., Children of Divorce Who Reject a Parent And Refuse Visitation: Recent Research & Social Policy Implications for the Alienated Child, 38 Fam. L.Q. 757, 768-769. Under the circumstances of this case, this Court's finding of a willful violation of an existing order of custody in the form of parental alienation requires a prompt evidentiary hearing to determine whether the children's best interests, under the totality of the circumstances, warrant modification of the previously entered custody order. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Corigliano v. Corigliano, 297 AD2d 328; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305; Carlin v. Carlin, 52 AD3d 559.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

By Order to Show Cause dated December 14, 2007, defendant sought an order to have the plaintiff held in contempt for her willful and deliberate failure to comply with the Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 30, 2003, in that she allegedly interfered with his right to frequent and regular visitation with and telephone access to the parties' children, D. and N.; and by alienating the children from the defendant through numerous acts of disparaging the defendant to the children. The Court granted defendant's motion by its Amended Decision and Order dated September 9, 2008, to the extent that a hearing was ordered. This contempt hearing was held before me on May 15, 21, July 13, 15, 16, August 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, September 17, 2009, January 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, February 3, and 22, 2010.

The parties' Stipulation of Settlement was incorporated but not merged into the parties' Judgment of Divorce (Stack, J.). Pursuant to the unequivocal terms of the Stipulation, she was prohibited from "alienating the children from the defendant, plac[ing] any obstacle in the way of the maintenance, love and affection of the children for the defendant," or to "hinder, impair or prevent the growth of a close relationship between the children and their parents, respectively, or cause others to do so." Moreover, in sharing joint legal custody of the children, she was specifically required to consult with the defendant regarding decisions affecting the children's education, health and religion. That Stipulation also clearly provided that each of the parties was to "exert every effort to maintain free access and unhampered contact," "to foster a feeling of affection," and not to "do anything which may estrange the children from [the defendant] or injure the children's opinion as to the Father which may hamper the free and natural development of the children's love and affection for the [Defendant]."

To sustain the defendant's application regarding contempt, he must demonstrate that the plaintiff has violated a clear and unequivocal court order which actually defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced the other party's rights (see, Great Neck v. Central, 65 AD2d 616) or were calculated to affect those rights (Stempler v. Stempler, 200 AD2d 733). The movant must meet this burden by clear and convincing evidence (Bulow v. Bulow, 121 AD2d 423). The Court may not hold a party in contempt where payment may be enforced by other enforcement procedures (Wiggins v. Wiggins, 121 Ad2d 534), unless such remedies would be an exercise in futility or ineffectual (Farkas v. Farkas, 209 AD2d 316). Upon a finding of contempt, the Court may impose a period of commitment to jail (Powers v. Powers, 86 NY2d 63) or fine, or both.

In this instance, a lawful court order, in the form of a Judgment of Divorce incorporating the parties' stipulation of settlement, was in effect. The plaintiff was shown to have actual knowledge of its terms. Ottomanelli v. Ottomanelli, 17 AD3d 647; Freihofner v. Freihofner, 39 AD3d 465; Kawar v. Kawar, 231 AD2d 681, 682. This order of parental access was not only in effect before and during the hearing, but unsuccessful efforts were made during the course of the hearing to utilize counseling and parenting coordination to remediate the alienating conduct of the plaintiff. See, Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893. See, also, Judiciary Law §753; Massimi v. Massimi, 56 AD3d 624.

CONTEMPT

The Court's findings here were based, in part, upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their character, temperament and sincerity. Matter of Carl J.B. v. Dorothy T., 186 AD2d 736; see, also, Klat v. Klat, 176 AD2d 922; Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499. I have also considered the extensive post-hearing submissions of each of the parties and the attorney for the children.

Here, the defendant's burden of proof in this matter was met so overwhelmingly, as to exceed the burden of proof required (see, Bulow, supra). Instead, it was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" [cf., Rubackin v. Rubackin, 62 AD3d 11]. The acts perpetrated by the plaintiff were not only in willful violation of the Stipulation of Settlement, as incorporated into the Judgment of Divorce, but such as to demonstrate a continuing and calculated effort to violate the parental access of the defendant to the infant issue. The movant here demonstrated that the plaintiff violated a clear and unequivocal Court order, thereby prejudicing his rights. See, Judiciary Law §753[A][3]; Vujovic v. Vujovic, 16 AD3d 490. The specific findings of fact are detailed herein, and considering the extent, nature, and continuing pattern of alienation perpetrated by the plaintiff, it is clear that plaintiff's conduct was calculated to and did, in fact, impair, impede or prejudice the rights and remedies of the defendant herein. See, Silverman v. Silverman, N.Y.L.J., 11-22-95, p. 26, col. 1; McCain v. Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216; Hoglund v. Hoglund, 234 AD2d 794.

FACTUAL FINDINGS ANDINSTANCES OF ALIENATION

Plaintiff intentionally scheduled their child's (N.'s) birthday party on a Sunday afternoon during defendant's weekend visitation, and then refused to permit defendant to attend. She demanded that N. be returned home early, in order to "prepare" for her party, but D., the other child, was enjoying the time with her father and wished to remain with him until the party began. Plaintiff castigated N. for "daring" to invite her father to take a picture of her outside her party. According to the plaintiff, "this doesn't work for me!" Plaintiff threatened to cancel N.'s party, and warned her that her sister, too, would be punished "big time" for wanting to spend time with her father. Plaintiff's taped temper tantrum, offered into evidence, vividly detailed one instance of how D. and N. have been made to understand that enjoying time with their father will be met with their mother's wrath and threat of punishment.

Plaintiff conceded that when she completed N.'s registration card for XXX., she wrote that defendant is "not authorized to take them. I have custody. Please call me." At trial, she claimed to fear that defendant would retrieve the girls directly from school. However, she later admitted that defendant had never even attempted to pick them up at school. Her testimony at trial sharply contradicted her sworn affidavit dated January 23, 2008, in which she stated that "the defendant consistently attempts to pick up the girls unannounced from their schools and activities, which disrupts not only the girls, but those in charge of the aforementioned." In her sworn affidavit, plaintiff claimed that she completed the registration card because defendant sought to attend the end of D.'s art class and then had the audacity to drive his daughter home. The art class "incident" occurred well after the registration card was completed by the plaintiff. Moreover, nothing in the parties' agreement prohibits the defendant from visiting the children at extra-curricular events or from driving them to or from such events. In point of fact, there was no dispute that D.'s Friday art class in Huntington ended as defendant's alternate weekend visitation commenced.

Plaintiff wrote to Dr. L.¹ (then the XXX. principal) and Ms. T. (N.'s fifth grade teacher), demanding that they restrict their conversations with the defendant to N.'s academics, as plaintiff is "solely responsible for her academic progress and emotional well being. Notwithstanding the nature of their joint legal custody plaintiff insisted before me that, "I have custody, he has visitation."

The plaintiff made/completed an application for admission to XXX on behalf of N. in October, 2007. On the application, she checked the box "Mother has custody," rather than the box directly below which says "Joint custody." She identified her new husband, R. L., as N.'s "parent/guardian," and she failed to mention the defendant. During cross examination, plaintiff insisted that she only omitted reference to the defendant for fear that his financial circumstances would adversely impact N.'s chances for acceptance. However, no financial information was requested anywhere on the application. Moreover, plaintiff acknowledged that none was required until after an applicant was invited to attend.

By applying to XXX without defendant's knowledge - - but with N. completely involved in the process, plaintiff orchestrated the decision to be made, as well as alienating the child. Had the defendant not consented to N.'s attendance at XXX, after the fact, N. would be angry with him for purportedly interfering with the enrollment, even if defendant's objections to a private school placement were sound. In no event was he consulted as to this educational decision.

When asked how she might handle things differently now, plaintiff did not indicate that she would first discuss the possibility of a private school with the defendant, as she is obligated to do pursuant to the Stipulation.

In a similar pattern of being advised "after the fact," defendant testified that there were countless times when plaintiff deliberately scheduled theater tickets, family events and social activities for the girls during his visitation, and he was compelled to consent or risk disappointing the girls. These occurrences continued even during the time span of proceedings before me.

Plaintiff was forced to concede at trial that the defendant was prevented from enjoying his visitation rights after he returned with the girls from his niece's Bat Mitzvah until this Court granted defendant's emergency application to compel the plaintiff to allow the defendant to take D. and N. for the ski trip he had scheduled for his half of the Christmas recess. Plaintiff insisted that it was D. and N. who refused to see their father, because they were angry with the 'choices" he had made on their behalf, including his objection to N. attending XXX. Defendant was made aware of the children's position because they parroted their mother's demands on several occasions. D. even read from a script during the brief dinners he was permitted. As plaintiff wrote in one e-mail when she was describing her role with respect to the children: "I am in charge here, not them. What I [sic] say goes. They may bring their shoes. You are responsible for the rest. End of story."

In vivid testimony, the defendant recalled how the plaintiff willfully prevented him from exercising his rights to visitation with the children from November 4, 2007 through December 21, 2007. I observed the plaintiff smirk in the courtroom as defendant emotionally related how he was deprived of spending Hanukkah with his children, and was relegated to lighting a menorah and watching his daughters open their grandparents' presents in the back of his truck at the base of plaintiff's driveway on a December evening.

The fact that the children were as angry as they were with the defendant in November and December, 2007, demonstrates, in my view, that efforts to alienate the children and their father were seemingly effective. The children demanded that defendant meet "their" demands before they would permit him to visit with them again. They demanded that defendant permit N. to attend F. A., that he withdraw his objection to their participation in therapy with their mother's therapist, and that he pay for 75% of D.'s Bat Mitzvah but limit his invitations to a handful of guests and have no role in the planning of the event. Plaintiff's contention that she had no involvement in these children's "demands" was belied by the very fact that the children had intimate knowledge of their mother's position on all of these issues. The children, in effect, were evolved into plaintiff's sub-agents and negotiators, having specific details of the financial demands of the plaintiff, and information as to the marital agreement.

The mother alluded to the ambivalence of the children in seeing the defendant. But such abrogation to the children's wishes, under these circumstances, was in violation of the agreement. It was wholly improper for the mother to adhere to the children's wishes to forego visitation with their father (see, Matter of Hughes v. Wiegman, 150 AD2d 449).

Plaintiff half-heartedly testified that she wants the children to have a relationship with the defendant. Her view of the defendant's role was a numbing, desired nominality, evident by her actions that were without any semblance of involvement by the defendant - - notwithstanding the clear joint custodial provisions. At critical points in the cross-examination, plaintiff was noticeably off balance - - hesitating and defensive - - with answers that dovetailed to either narcissism, or, a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct. The plaintiff was dispassionate, sullen, and passively resistant to the alienating efforts of the plaintiff. The continued litany of instances of alienating conduct, turned repression of the defendant's joint custodial arrangement into farce. The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein, was as daunting as it was indefensible.

Plaintiff relegated the defendant to waiting endlessly at the bottom of her long driveway. When defendant drove up her driveway on October 26, 2007, so that the children would not have to walk down with their heavy bags in a torrential rain, plaintiff ran down the driveway where she had left her car, drove up the driveway and blocked defendant's vehicle. The children watched as the police listened to their mother angrily demand that their father be arrested and, when the police refused, heard their mother scream that she is a taxpayer and the police work for her. She frequently disparaged the defendant in the presence of the children, calling him a "deadbeat," "loser," "scumbag," and "f——-g asshole." On one particular occasion, while holding N. and D. in her arms, plaintiff said to the defendant, "We all hope you die from cancer." Just this past summer, when defendant insisted that D. retrieve her clothes from plaintiff's home in preparation for their visit to N. on her camp visiting day, plaintiff urged to defendant that "Judge Ross will not be around forever, d___." Before the beginning of each of defendant's vacations with the children, the plaintiff staged prolonged and tearful farewells at the base of the driveway, during which plaintiff assured the children that they will return to "their family soon," and if "things get too bad, they can always tell Daddy to bring them home."

The crescendo of the plaintiff's conduct involved accusations of sexual abuse. Plaintiff falsely accused defendant of sexual misconduct in June, 2008, shortly after defendant moved to Huntington and the children's friends were enjoying play dates at defendant's home. Plaintiff testified that D. shared that she was uncomfortable when the defendant tickles her, and conceded that she knew there was nothing "sexual" involved. Undaunted by the lack of any genuine concern for D.'s safety, plaintiff pursued a campaign to report the defendant to Child Protective Services. To facilitate this, she spoke with W. M, the psychologist at the school D. attended. Plaintiff also "encouraged" D. to advise Dr. C. (the chidren's pediatrician) that defendant inappropriately touched her - - but he saw no signs of abuse. Plaintiff also advised Dr. A., Ms. M., Dr. R. (the children's prior psychologist) and family friends of the allegations and, ultimately, the Suffolk County Department of Social Services opened a file on June 3, 2008, and began an investigation.

According to the Case Narrative contained in the New York State Case Registry, a complaint was made that "On a regular basis, father inappropriately fondles 13 year old D.'s breasts. This makes D. feel very uncomfortable. Last Sunday, Father hit D. on the breast for unknown reason… " When the caseworker and Suffolk County detectives interviewed D. on June 3, 2008, she reported only that her father tickles her on her neck and under her arms, and she categorically denied her father ever fondled her breasts. She admitted that her father was not attempting to make her uncomfortable, but that he still regards her to be a tomboy. The detectives closed their investigation.

Thereafter, and significantly, when the CPS caseworker met with plaintiff on August 19, 2008, plaintiff was quick to state that her ex-husband "did it again." Plaintiff claimed that the defendant hugged D. too hard. According to the caseworker's notes, the caseworker repeatedly cautioned the plaintiff not to bring the children into her disputes with the defendant. This warning was contained in CPS records.

Although unfounded child abuse reports are required to be sealed (see, Social Services Law §422[5]), such reports may be introduced into evidence,"by the subject of the report where such subject… is a plaintiff or petitioner in a civil action or proceeding alleging the false reporting of child abuse or maltreatment" (Social Services Law §422[5][b][1]). Allegations that defendant had injured the child were found to be baseless and, by making such allegations, plaintiff needlessly subjected the child to an investigation by Child Protective Services, placing her own interests above those of the child. This report was not made in "good faith" - - rather, the investigating agency warned the mother not to re-utilize the allegations and her children in her custodial litigation with the defendant.

The concern of a pending contempt proceeding did not affect the plaintiff's conduct. For example, knowing that defendant had parenting access with D. on July 3, 2009, plaintiff invited D.'s close friend, C. C., to a country club for a fireworks display and advised D. of this invitation. She then instructed D. to tell her father she was invited to a friend's party on that date. Another example occurred on June 13, 2009, when plaintiff quietly escorted D. from Alice Tulley Hall during the intermission, ignoring the instructions from the G. Y. Orchestra staff that everyone remain until the conclusion of the entire program. Plaintiff purported she was unaware that defendant attended this special program in Lincoln Center. Defendant, who was in attendance at the concert, was left waiting at the stage door with flowers for D. Plaintiff ignored his text messages questioning where his daughter was. The plaintiff, when confronted with the notion that she may have precipitously ushered her daughter away before her father was able to give her flowers, retorted to the Court that "it was not her responsibility to make plans for T."

The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties' Stipulation of Settlement, incorporated but not merged into their Judgment of Divorce. The extensive record is replete with instances of attempts to undermine the relationship between the children and their father and replace him with her new husband, manipulation of defendant's parenting access, utter and unfettered vilification of the defendant to the children, false reporting of sexual misconduct without any semblance of "good faith," and her imposition upon the children to fear her tirades and punishment if they embrace the relationship they want to have with their father. The unfortunate history here also reflects the plaintiff's hiring and firing of three different counsel, expressed disdain towards the children's attorney, and utter disregard for the authority of the Court.

CHANGE OF CUSTODYPROCEEDING TO BE HELD

There was no request in the moving papers for a change of custody. During the course of the extensive hearing held before me, application was made by the defendant for an immediate change of custody. It is improper for a trial court to take action and grant relief without appropriate notice to one of the parties affected. Such notice during the course of the proceeding for undemanded relief does not constitute adequate notice, and could serve to prejudice the plaintiff. Siegel Practice Commentary, McKinney's Consol. Law of New York, Book 7B, CPLR 3017.6. The Court did not grant the relief for a change in custody in the course of the hearing for contempt. However, Domestic Relations Law §240 provides that upon an application, the Court may modify a previous direction with respect to the right of visitation "after such notice to the other party… .and given in such manner as the Court shall direct." See, Domestic Relations Law §240. The request for a change in custody during the course of the contempt hearing clearly has provided adequate notice by which to schedule a hearing. The request during the hearing to amend the motion to conform to the evidence presented at this hearing, is now granted, to the extent of ordering a prompt hearing on a modification of custody. Heintz v. Heintz, 28 AD3d 1154; cf. Sipos v. Kelly, 66 AD2d 1022. See, also, Fisk v. Fisk, 274 AD2d 691.

The parties are to appear before me on June 4, 2010 to be heard on selection of a forensic examiner and to be heard on allocation of fees. See, Uniform Rules §202.7; also see, Ragone v. Ragone, 62 AD3d 772; Domestic Relations Law §237(d)(4). The scheduling of the modification of custody hearing will be facilitated at that time.

THE COURT'S ROLE IN ADDRESSING ALIENATION

Differing "alienation" theories promoted by many public advocacy groups, as well as psychological and legal communities, have differing scientific and empirical foundations. However, interference with the non-custodial parent's relationship with a child has always been considered in the context of a "parent's ability to encourage the relationship between the non-custodial parent and a child," a factor to be considered by the Court in custody and visitation/parental access determinations. See, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra. Our Appellate Courts recognize such factor, as they have determined that the "interference with the non-custodial parent and child's relationship is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of a child, as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent." See, Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499; Finn v. Finn, 176 AD2d 1132, 1133, quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-385, appeal dismissed 44 NY2d 851; Matter of Krebsbach v. Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 366; Gago v. Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565; Matter of Turner v. Turner, 260 AD2d 953, 954; Zeiz v. Slater, 57 AD2d 793.

Where, as in the instant case, there is a finding of a willful violation of a court order demonstrated by a deliberate interference with a non-custodial parent's right to visitation/parental access, the IAS Court, as a general rule, must schedule an evidentiary hearing before making any modification of custody. See, Glenn v. Glenn, 262 AD2d 885. See, also, Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380; Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114; Matter of LeBlanc v. Morrison, 288 AD2d 768, 770, quoting Matter of Markey v. Bederian, 274 AD2d 816; Matter of David WW v. Lauren QQ, 42 AD3d 685; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 08995 [Dec. 1, 2009].

SENTENCE

An imposition of sentence upon a finding of contempt should contain a language permitting the contemnor an opportunity to purge. See, Heyn v. Burr, 19 AD3d 896; Stempler v. Stempler, 200 AD2d 733; Cooper v. Cooper, 21 AD3d 869. Under the circumstances here, where determination is made of a past violation of an order of parental access/joint custody, there can be no purge since it is no longer within the plaintiff's power to perform the act. See, Kruszczynski v. Charlap, 124 AD2d 1073; Young v. Young, 129 AD2d 794. Moreover, the use of remedial intervention - - parenting coordination/counseling - - during the course of the trial was unsuccessful, and even if re-utilized here, the Court cannot condition release from imprisonment upon future compliance. See, Martinez v. D.S.S., 44 AD3d 945.

Accordingly, and after careful consideration of the circumstances of the nature and extent of the multiple instances of violation of the court order, the plaintiff is sentenced to a period of incarceration for six weekends, to be served on the first and third weekends of each month for the months of June, July and August, 2010. Prior to these weekends of the plaintiff's incarceration, she shall transport the children to the defendant's home to assure their continued care and well being. See, Marallo v. Marallo, 128 AD2d 710; Gordon v. Janover, 238 AD2d 545; Munz v. Munz, 242 AD2d 789; Kruszczynski v. Charlap, supra; Barcham-Reichman v. Reichman, 250 AD2d 609.

COUNSEL FEES

Given the finding of a willful violation of the Judgment of this Court (Stack, J.) Dated March 26, 2004 [erroneously dated as 2003], and given the fees requested ($134,352.92 for defendant's counsel, $11,287.50 for Attorney for the Children's fees, and $19,833.32 for Parenting Coordinator fees, shall be the object of a hearing to be held before me on June 4, 2010. While the parties consented to such determination on submission, the issues presented lend themselves to the Court's assessment of the parties' finances. To facilitate a complete record, a hearing is ordered herewith. See, Judiciary Law §773; Gordon v. Janover, supra.

On the Court's own motion, this decision and order will be stayed until June 4, 2010 to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to seek Appellate Review, if so advised, and it is

ORDERED, that the plaintiff, L. R., is adjudged to be in civil contempt of the Judgment of Divorce dated March 26, 2004; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties and their counsel shall appear before me for sentencing on June 4, 2010 at 9:30 a.m., which date may not be adjourned without written order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED, that the plaintiff, L. R., is sentenced to a period of six weekends imprisonment in the Nassau County Correctional Facility, pursuant to the schedule set forth herein; and it is further

ORDERED, that this order and execution of this sentence shall be stayed until June 4, 2010; and it is further

ORDERED, that this decision shall be deemed an order and/or warrant of commitment pursuant to and in accordance with Judiciary Law §772; and it is further

ORDERED, that a copy of this Decision and Order shall be served upon the Sheriff of Nassau County and/or the Warden of the Nassau County Correctional Facility to facilitate the schedule of weekend incarceration, to be imposed as follows:

Friday, June 11, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.;

Friday, June 25, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, June 27, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.;

Friday, July 9, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, July 11, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.;

Friday, July 23, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, July 25, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.;

Friday, August 6, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, August 8, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.;

Friday, August 20, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 6:00 p.m;

and it is further

ORDERED, that this Court finds that the conduct of the plaintiff was calculated to, or actually did, defeat, impair or prejudice the defendant's rights or remedies.

This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

1. This witness retired from his position, and returned to New York to testify at this hearing.

Decision of the Day

Family Law

Lauren R. v. Ted R.

203699-02

Supreme Court, Nassau County

Justice Robert A. Ross

Decided: May 25