Misandry is alive and well in Oz at the Herald Sun

I left the following comments on the Herald Sun site and also in a letter to the editor but they never seem to publish my stuff. I'm too anti victim feminist I guess.

There is no hiding the misandry in this article. The author has relied on unscientific anecdotal reports and events that have nothing to do with the shared parenting law. It is a shame because most studies clearly show the benefits to children having both parents in their lives. My 11 year old thrives on having the ability to love and be with both parents as she needs to. In this era of unilateral divorce - 75% initiated by mom in Canada - Oz was looking a little more progressive. With this kind of biased , untrue and clearly misandric reporting dads in OZ have an uphill battle.

They did publish the above comment and I did a followup:

Annabelle Jones & Coral Hall : You obviously have no experience with real shared parenting where children are allowed to love and be with their mom and dad. Further Ms. Jones you cannot use drive by smears to enforce an illogical argument. I've seen your posts before and they typically involve denigration and false accusations with no substance behind them. You are a member of anonymums, the OZ misandrist group calling themselves maternalists. The corollary of your argument with respect to money and control is of course the moms want their financial entitlements to continue and exercise control of their ex's through the children. This is how most girls are socialized when growing up. Boys wrestle and play sports to channel their aggression girls use various forms of "meanness". Did you ever see the movie "Mean Girls." My 11 year old thrives on being able to have an ongoing loving relationship with both her parents. She loves the change of scenery while maintaining the continuity with school. To use the term ping-pong is to negatively denote something which is clearly not the case. Its all about control of the dads through entitlements and children just as girls were socialized as tweens and teens. Now they are grown up and do it through their children. The upshot of it is these particular women never do grow up. There are some men who do the same thing but fewer in number but both try to alienate the children. Some of these poor kids appear to be posting here. What a shame. It would seem some posters believe females are more equal than dads and would use false allegations and drive by smears to further their agenda. What kind of moms do you think they are?MJM

'Ping-pong' kids of divorce in hell

Article from:

Jill Singer -----> (ed note: A Victim Feminist sympathizer beyond the pale)

July 16, 2009 12:00am

HOW many more disastrous decisions does the Family Court have to make before the Rudd Government's promised review of the Family Law Act is completed and acted on?

Several recent cases highlight the disaster the Howard government's patriarchal ideology foisted upon Australian families by introducing shared parenting laws in 1996.

The idea behind shared parenting is based on the notion that children benefit by having frequent contact with both parents, preferably 50/50.

It works for some separated couples.

But as Prof John Wade, chairman of the Family Law Council sees it, the law is flawed and has led to some horrible decisions.

One Melbourne mother is defying a Family Court order to hand over her 19-month-old daughter to the baby's father, who lives in Darwin.

The baby has always been in the primary care of Ms A but is to be ripped from her and sent back to the father in Darwin.

Ms A incurred the wrath of the court because she left Darwin without the father's permission.

Originally from Melbourne, she met him in 2006 after taking up a teaching job.

They split in May this year, whereupon Ms A decided to come back to Melbourne with their baby.

She is now working two days a week and studying, while living with her mother, who helps with child care.

The court decreed Ms A did the wrong thing by not staying in Darwin and striving to share parenting equally.

Never mind that she's from Melbourne and has done the lion's share of parenting, that the father won't move from Darwin to spend time with his child, or that the baby has extended family here.

Shared parenting laws effectively shackle women to the fathers of their children.

A woman from Bendigo, for example, could get pregnant after a quick fling on a visit to Kalgoorlie -- and be forced to stay there to share parenting.

Mrs B is another Melbourne mother hit by the changes.

Part of a large Italian family, she moved to Sydney in 2001 with her husband and their two children, now six and eight.

In 2005 the marriage fell apart and Mr B set up home with his personal assistant, whom he's now planning to have more children with.

Mrs B also wants to move on by returning to Melbourne with her children, but the court won't permit it.

If Mrs B wants to see her children regularly, she must suffer living near her happy ex-husband and his new girlfriend as they make a brand new family.

Then there's Mr and Mrs R, who lived together in Sydney for many years before their daughter was born in 2002.

In early 2007 he got a job in northwest Queensland and his wife and daughter moved with him.

The marriage broke up soon after and Mrs R returned to Sydney with their daughter.

Even though he could find suitable work in Sydney, Mr R doesn't want to move back home to share parenting, because, as he told the court, he just loves his job in outback Queensland -- it's important to him and interesting.

Meanwhile, Mrs R claims to have felt emotionally and physically isolated living up north.

The legal upshot is that the daughter, aged seven, must go and live in northwest Queensland with her busy father.

Unless Mrs R returns there, she will rarely get to see her daughter.

There will always be bad mothers and good fathers, but this is not the point.

The good parent has their child's best interests at heart, and the same applies to good family laws.

I'm reminded of the biblical judgment of Solomon in which two women come before Solomon claiming to be the mother of the same baby.

How to decide the real mother?

Solomon suggests a 50/50 split between the women, to be achieved by slicing the baby in half with a sword.

Rather than see her baby die, the real mother immediately reveals herself by offering to relinquish her child to the lying woman.

Solomon, of course, gives custody to the genuine mother.

Before the law was changed, it was generally seen as being in the child's best interests to have a primary home with one or other parent.

The shift towards a 50/50 split between separated parents is seeing too many children's lives dangerously disrupted.

We're now seeing children under the age of two being shared week about and often forced to travel long distances, colloquially known as ping-pong kids - shuttled back and forth between homes.

Children this young are highly dependent little creatures who thrive on stability and routine - some are still breast-fed, but being denied primary care by their mothers.

The old rules might well have seen some fathers hard done by, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

Any father who could deny his baby a loving mother because of the location of his job or his new girlfriend is as bad as Solomon's lying mother - prepared to destroy a child's life for her own selfish needs.

And any law that condones it is even worse

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25787452-5000117,00.html

The following is an excellent observation by Eric Tarkington which may not get published but is worthy of reproducing to give logic and reason to the parable of Solomon as quoted by Singer.MJM

I love it when feminists trot out the (patriarchal!) judgment of Solomon story as a reason to block the child's right to both parents, as Singer does in her article. In the story, two women claim to be mother to one child. Solomon suggests cutting the child in half, and one woman gives up the child to prevent that, so Solomon gives the intact child to
the self-sacrificing woman. The point here is that the woman who puts her child's interest ahead of her own is the legitimate parent. How, then, should a woman behave, when, to suit herself, she wants to move away with the child, or otherwise block the father's access? ...Yes, you're right, the story tells us that she should put the child's
interest, ready access to both parents, ahead of her own. Obviously, this rule applies to both fathers and mothers, but feminists want the father to give up the child, so that the mother can take possession, even though she puts herself first. And the modern version of cutting a child in half? Answer: force the child to side with one parent over the
other, or to lose a parent. Divorce is going to do that, but parents have a duty to minimize it by cooperating brilliantly.

The McNair affair: Don't call it 'domestic violence'

July 14, 2009

By Carey Roberts

Am I the only one who is disturbed by the double-standard that permeates the media coverage of Steve McNair's shooting death?

On July 4 the former NFL star was killed by girlfriend Sahel Kazemi. McNair was shot as he lay asleep on his couch, first in the left temple, twice in the chest, and finally in his right temple.

So why are the news media stubbornly refusing to put the words "Steve McNair" and "domestic violence" in the same sentence? And where are all the hand-wringers who reflexively shriek we need to break the shroud of silence that surrounds partner abuse?

On July 2 a distraught Kazemi met an acquaintance in the parking lot of the restaurant where she worked. For $100, the 20-year-old woman found herself the new owner of a fully-loaded 9mm semiautomatic pistol.

The following day Kazemi told a co-worker, "my life is a ball of ****, and I should just end it." Leaving the restaurant, the Iranian-American went home, then drove over to McNair's downtown apartment in the Cadillac Escalade the former NFL quarterback had given her. McNair was not home, so she awaited his arrival.

McNair returned to his apartment between 1:30 and 2am. We do not know what words the two exchanged, or what time he eventually fell asleep. When the police arrived at the scene of the crime, there was no evidence that McNair had raised his hands to ward off the shots, confirming the theory that he was asleep at the time.

So what did the media do with the story?

A July 6 article in the New York Times conjectured the incident may have been a "double homicide or part of a murder-suicide." But no mention of domestic violence.

A July 8 story from ESPN relied on artful phrasing to sidestep the dreaded "DV" words. Police "waited for further tests and the revelations about Kazemi's personal problems before concluding that she pulled the trigger," ESPN explained.

Excuse me, but what do revelations about someone's personal life have to do with figuring out whether she pulled the trigger?

By the following day, the rehabilitation of Ms. Kazemi had shifted into high gear. An article in the Washington Post was crafted to evoke the reader's sympathy, informing us she was "increasingly tormented by a rush of personal problems" and "her life was falling apart."

So while the Washington Post article took pains to highlight Kazemi's emotional turmoil, it glossed over how well Steve McNair was coping with the injuries that sidelined him during most of his previous season with the Baltimore Ravens, and how he was coming to terms with his recent retirement following 13 years in the harsh glare of the National Football League.

Domestic violence workers will insist until they're blue in the face that domestic violence is the consequence of patriarchal oppression. As such, women are constitutionally indisposed to resort to such nefarious actions, they claim.

So when women deep-six their boyfriends and husbands, their apologists turn to the thread-bare excuse that she was only acting in self-defense. But in this case the self-defense ploy doesn't fit. Kazemi had bought the gun two days before, she pursued her prey to his apartment, and he was aslumber when she squeezed the trigger.

If the self-defense argument doesn't fly, then go to Plan B — the "he had it coming" excuse. While I certainly don't condone infidelity, there are lots of women I know who have strayed from the straight and narrow. Somehow I don't remember anyone insulting their memory with a "she had it coming" comment.

McNair threw for 174 touchdowns and more than 31,000 yards. His extraordinary skill and exuberant passion for the sport inspired a generation. So let's take a collective deep breath and utter these mournful words: "Former NFL star Steve McNair was a victim of domestic violence, killed at the hand of a spiteful girlfriend."

© Carey Roberts

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/090714

Fathers 4 Justice Canada ~ Jailed for Being a Dad

	1-888-F4J Canada
Press release
Contact: Kris Titus Phone: 1-888-345-2262 ext.703 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 14, 2009
For Immediate Release July 14, 2009 Jailed for Being a Dad Alienated father tells the court, "No Kids, No Money" An F4J Fathers 4 Justice member has gone to jail for 20 days for his independent protest and refusal to pay child support arrears for children he has, by the courts own admittance, been alienated from. Richard Coulter, 47, of Cookstown, ON was yesterday sent to Central North Correctional Facility, for telling the court, "No kids, No money." Mr. Coulter has seen his children once in 5 years, despite repeated attempts to try to maintain contact. While Mr. Coulter has fallen behind in child support, moneys owed to him for the division of the matrimonial home are yet to be paid, and his access was never enforced. In his speech to Justice Mulligan today, Richard said, "Your system allowed this person, not only to dismantle the family, but you also gave her the authority and allowed her to make me homeless, fatherless, childless and jobless." In a recent order of April 6th, Justice Guy Ditomaso said, "Further, his children were alienated by _____ in that he was never able to see them and for this reason, his ability to pay child support was also impacted." Kris Titus, National Coordinator of F4J Fathers 4 Justice says, "Although we don't recommend our members to take this type of action, we know how Mr. Coulter and his new spouse feel. This is what happens when the system is just too imbalanced for both parents to survive and thrive after divorce. We hear from a lot of second families and fathers just struggling to feed themselves after support payments." The group has concerns for Mr. Coulter's welfare as the prison is otherwise known as Penetang Super Jail and houses 1500 inmates. The prison has previously been clouded by contraversy and health and safety issues including the death of a prisoner. F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada believes the best 'child support' is equal parenting. "It is important that parents are allowed to support their children in all ways, physically, spiritually, and emotionally, as well as financially," says Titus. "People are just plain fed up." Studies have shown that those who see their children regularly more frequently keep their child support obligations. -END- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTACT: Canada National Coordinator, Kris Titus 1-888-345-2262 ext. 703 National Website for more information about F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada Canada: www.f4jcanada.ca National Action website: www.f4jcanada.com
-End

Kids recant abuse claims after dad jailed 20 years

Words just fail me over stories like this. No doubt the ex in this case was a member of this so-called Protective Parents Association which supplies cover for lying and abusive spouses out to seek revenge. They have legislative representatives like Jim Beall, on the left, in their back pocket who tried to get a bill passed outlawing the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome in California courts. Beall is a schmuck and dangerous to both children and implicitly offers support to child abusers like the ex in this case. It makes me so frustrated at the waste of this man's life rotting in jail over a woman who Parentally Alienated the most precious gifts she would ever have to get revenge. I hope he sues the state and the ex.MJM



The Huffington Post

July 11, 2009 07:22 PM EST |

VANCOUVER, Wash. — Former Vancouver police officer Clyde Ray Spencer spent nearly 20 years in prison after he was convicted of sexually molesting his son and daughter. Now, the children say it never happened.

Matthew Spencer and Kathryn Tetz, who live in Sacramento, Calif., each took the stand Friday in Clark County Superior Court to clear their father's name, The Columbian newspaper reported.

Matthew, now 33, was 9 years old at the time. He told a judge he made the allegation after months of insistent questioning by now-retired Clark County sheriff's detective Sharon Krause just so she would leave him alone.

Tetz, 30, said she doesn't remember what she told Krause back in 1985, but she remembers Krause buying her ice cream. She said that when she finally read the police reports she was "absolutely sure" the abuse never happened.

"I would have remembered something that graphic, that violent," Tetz said.

Spencer's sentence was commuted by then-Gov. Gary Locke in 2004 after questions arose about his conviction. Among other problems, prosecutors withheld medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse, even though Krause claimed the abuse was repeated and violent.

Despite the commutation, Spencer remains a convicted sex offender. He is hoping to have the convictions overturned.

Krause declined an interview request from The Columbian in 2005 and could not be reached Friday, the newspaper reported.

Both children said that while growing up in California they were told by their mother, who divorced Spencer before he was charged, that they were blocking out the memory of the abuse.
They said they realized as adults the abuse never happened, and they came forward because it was the right thing to do.

Prosecutors aren't yet conceding that Spencer was wrongly convicted. Senior deputy prosecutor Kim Farr grilled the children about why they are so certain they weren't abused, and chief criminal deputy prosecutor Dennis Hunter said that if the convictions are tossed, his office might appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Matthew Spencer said his father had ruined the relationship with his mother and he had faults, "but none of them were molesting children."

Friday's hearing paved the way for the state Court of Appeals to allow Spencer to withdraw the no-contest pleas he entered in 1985 and have his convictions vacated. Both children had previously filed statements with the appeals court, but the judges required the hearing to ensure their new testimony held up under cross-examination.

Spencer, 61, hugged his son and daughter afterward while a dozen supporters cheered.

"For so many years, nothing went right," he said. "When things keep going right, I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop."

The hardest thing about his ordeal was missing his children, he said.

"They were my life, and they were taken away from me," he said. "I could serve in prison. ..."

His voice trailed off, and his son came up for one more hug.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/11/clyde-ray-spencer-impriso_n_230096.html?view=screen

Appeal bid as Fathers 4 Justice man awaits sentencing

By Clare Alexander
July 14, 2009

LAWYERS representing the Fathers 4 Justice protester who brought the M25 in Surrey to a standstill have lodged an appeal against his conviction.

Geoffrey Hibbert, from Farnborough, is due to be sentenced at Harrow Crown Court on Thursday.

He was remanded in custody last month after being found guilty of causing a public nuisance and endangering motorists.

The desperate father, of Clayton Road, spent more than eight hours dressed as Batman at junction 14 of the motorway near Stanwell, causing tailbacks stretching back for 55 miles on August 15 last year.

Fathers 4 Justice launched a petition after the 49-year-old was remanded in custody in June. It has been signed by 67 people.

Members of the campaign group, which lobbies for better child access rights for fathers, are expected to be in the public gallery at Thursday’s hearing but, at the request of Hibbert's family, have agreed not to protest.

Appeal

Hibbert was also said to have ended his hunger strike at Wormwood Scrubs on Monday. Fathers 4 Justice claimed he had only been accepting fluids at the prison.

A spokeswoman for Hibbert’s solicitors, Jung & Co, confirmed they had lodged an appeal against his conviction, which will not be heard until after he is sentenced.

If the appeal was successful, the spokeswoman said they would then appeal against the sentence.

Ron Reid, Hibbert’s best friend, said: "I can’t believe it has come to this. Geoff has been my best friend for 24 years and I have never seen him so broken. All he wants to do is see his daughter.”

http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/s/2054101_appeal_bid_as_fathers_4_justice_man_awaits_sentencing

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2054101_appeal_bid_as_fathers_4_justice_man_awaits_sentencing

After 14 Years in Jail over Alimony, Chadwick Finally Freed–Son Worked Tirelessly for Dad’s Release

Was Justice served or just the sadistic wish of an out of control judge?MJM

By Robert Franklin, Esq. | Jul 12, 2009

In 1995, a family court judge ordered corporate lawyer, H. Beatty Chadwick to deposit $2.5 million in the court's registry to pay alimony

to his ex-wife, Barbara Applegate. Chadwick said he didn't have the money, but the court believed he'd stashed it somewhere during the divorce. So, because Chadwick didn't pay, the judge jailed him for contempt of court.

As this article says, that was when Apollo 13 was box office dynamite and O.J. Simpson was being acquitted of murder (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 7/11/09). In other words, it was a long time ago.

And Chadwick's been in stir ever since. During that time, the court hired investigators to find the money. They found nothing, but Chadwick wasn't released. In his decision to free Chadwick, Judge Joseph Cronin maintained that he could have paid the money, but refused to. Why he believes that in the absence of any actual money escapes me.

Chadwick's son, William, worked tirelessly for his release. The article gives no information about Applegate.

Chadwick, who is now 73, seems remarkably equable about the whole thing, describing prison as "a very artificial society." Some people use stronger words than that.

For the immediate future, Chadwick intends to live with William, but says he needs to find a job, given that Social Security is his only income. He may try to go into teaching or get his law license reinstated.

Fourteen years is a long time for not paying alimony that he apparently didn't have the money to pay.

[In a column on this case a few years ago, Wendy McElroy wrote:

"A. Leo Sereni, a former president judge in Pennsylvania, was appointed to track Chadwick's money. Eighteen months and two accounting firms later, Sereni reported no trace beyond what had been discovered a decade before. Money had been transferred to Europe and a small fraction had reappeared in U.S. accounts. Sereni concluded, 'most of it...nowhere.'

"He recommended Chadwick's release, stating, 'My God -- if he had stolen $2 million, he would have been out a couple of years ago.'"--GS]

Judge frees Pa. inmate who served record term for delinquent alimony account

14-year contempt sentence ends

Saturday, July 11, 2009

By Mari A. Schaefer, Philadelphia Inquirer

AP Photo/Courtesy of Bobbie Chadwick

In this family photo, H. Beatty Chadwick poses overlooking Florence, Italy, during an Italian motorcycle vacation in 1992. By summer 2006, Chadwick had spent 11 years in a Delaware County, Pa., county jail where he is charged with contempt of court for failing to turn over some $2.5 million in a messy divorce dispute.

PHILADELPHIA -- H. Beatty Chadwick, imprisoned in Delaware County for the last 14 years, was in the jail library yesterday giving legal advice to female inmates when a prison official walked up and gave him the news.

He was a free man.

Minutes earlier a Delaware County Common Pleas judge issued an order granting Mr. Chadwick's petition for freedom, thus ending his incarceration for contempt of court -- a U.S. record for the charge.

"We want you out of here right away," Mr. Chadwick, 73, said the official told him.

In 1995 -- the year "Apollo 13" was a box-office hit, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder and 169 people were killed in the bombing of an Oklahoma federal building -- Mr. Chadwick was a corporate lawyer who grew up in Bryn Mawr and became embroiled in a nasty divorce. In April that year, he was arrested by two sheriff's deputies at his dentist's dowtown Philadelphia office and landed in jail.

A Delaware County judge issued an order to jail Mr. Chadwick for failing to deposit $2.5 million in a court-controlled account that would be used to pay alimony to his ex-wife, Barbara "Bobbie" Applegate.

Mr. Chadwick contended he no longer had the money, saying he lost it in a bad overseas investment. The judge believed he hid the money after divorce proceedings were started. Court-ordered investigations after he was jailed turned up no money.

The couple were married for 15 years. Mr. Chadwick called their marriage happy; she said he was stubborn and controlled her every move.

Efforts to reach Ms. Applegate's attorney, Albert Momjian, yesterday were unsuccessful.

In yesterday's ruling, Judge Joseph P. Cronin said Mr. Chadwick had the ability to comply with the 1995 court order to make the bank deposit and willfully refused to do so. But, after 14 years, Judge Cronin said, the contempt order had lost its coercive effect and instead had become punitive.

At the prison yesterday, when Mr. Chadwick's attorney, Michael J. Malloy, arrived to pick him up, about 50 people -- prison staff, correction officers and inmates -- were gathered inside and out to see him off.

"It was pretty remarkable scene," said Mr. Malloy. He added people were crying, shaking hands and hugging Mr. Chadwick. When he walked out into the brilliant, blue sky day, Mr. Malloy said everyone applauded.

The two packed 14 years of clothes, books, magazines -- including Bon Appetit -- and boxes of legal filings into the backseat and trunk of Mr. Malloy's Honda Accord, and then they drove off.

"I really missed being free and being able to have interactions with other people," said Mr. Chadwick, who was dressed in a dapper green suit and maroon tie for the occasion. "Jail is really a very artificial society."

Later in Mr. Malloy's office, Mr. Chadwick talked about his legal battles, the judicial system, his life in prison and his future.

He said he held no anger about the imprisonment or toward his ex-wife, to whom he has not spoken in more than a decade.

"The dark moments always came when I had a turndown from some court," said Mr. Chadwick, who had repeatedly sought release over the years. He said he kept his spirits up helping others with their legal issues.

For more than six years, Mr. Malloy worked pro bono on the case.

"I always thought if I could take this to a jury, he would have been home in a week," said Mr. Malloy.

When Mr. Chadwick's son, William, 41, walked into the office, the two embraced.

"It was so tough to keep up hopes at these hearings," said William Chadwick.

"We were concentrating so much on getting him out, we haven't thought what we'd do immediately afterward."

Beatty Chadwick will stay at his son's house in King of Prussia until he can set up his own apartment. He has no firm plans beyond that.

"I have to get out and make a living," said Mr. Chadwick, who has no income other than Social Security.

He is considering possibly teaching, trying to see what he can do in a corporate advisory role, and he will try to get his law license reinstated.

"I'm really thinking about what I'm going to do with the rest of my life," Mr. Chadwick said.

He would like to use his "skills and talent and time" to benefit others.

As Mr. Chadwick walked outside to transfer his belongings into his son's Prius, a man driving a car along Veteran's Square in Media honked, cheered and gave the thumbs-up sign, all while hanging out the car window.

"Good job, buddy," said the former fellow inmate, who declined to give his name. "You deserve to be out."

First published on July 11, 2009 at 12:00 am

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09192/983301-454.stm#ixzz0L9Yvj2S4&C

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Who is Barbara Chadwick?

Every divorce starts with two people. Although Beatty is the one in jail, his ex wife Barbara (Bobbie) initiated the divorce action. She played the wounded spouse card, and claimed that Beatty was a control freak. Being subject to a "control freak" must be grounds for divorce in Pennsylvania. Anyway, after the divorce and Chadwick's imprisonment Bobbie remarried and moved to Maine. This is what her good neighbors had to say about her....More background on the ex wife here.