Dedicated to my wonderful children

Do Corupt judges only exist in Luzerne County - surely any judge denying a parent his or her constitutional rights is equally corrupt!

2009-11-25T05:49:00.000-08:00

Mumia Abu-Jamal's Radio Broadcasts

Higher Quality Audio files available info@prisonradio.org

Copyright 2009 Mumia Abu-Jamal/Prison Radio

"More Lessons From Luzerne County"

Recorded 03-02-09

1) More Lessons From Luzerne County MP3

2) More Lessons From Luzerne County MP3

MORE LESSONS FROM LUZERN COUNTY (PA)
[col. writ. 3/2/09] (c) '09 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Recently, a piece was produced on the scandal in Pennsylvania's Luzerne County, where 2 judges pleaded guilty for playing their parts in a kickback scheme that netted them over 2 and 1/2 million bucks.

The beneficiaries of their hustle were private juvenile prison builders, owners and investors (oh -- and themselves, of course).

The losers were hundreds of Luzerne County's children, kids who were treated like cattle, as they were shuffled through so-called 'courts' -- without counsel --, where so-called 'judges' sent them away from their parents, their siblings, and their fellow students, for acts as benign as passing notes, or sending fresh emails -- to private prisons for profit!

While the judges pleaded guilty to relatively minor charges, some other officials at the court, from county clerk to deputy court administrator have followed the judges in plea agreements.

What is utterly remarkable is how easily and effortlessly these judges did their thing, in stark violation of the state's Juvenile Act, * with virtual impunity, for almost a decade!

One must wonder, where were the lawyers looking out for the interests of these kids? Or were they so cowed, so shocked, so shaken by a 'long train of abuses' that they were silenced by the ugliness of corruption, and the aura of fear?

Pennsylvania law allegedly provides protections for children, including the right to counsel (even if they couldn't afford it), and a legal presumption that all kids should remain with their families. As a general rule, a child shouldn't have been detained unless she posed a danger to others, their property, or herself. There are exceptions to this rule, and they were whether the child was charged with committing major felonies, like robbery, rape or murder.

There was apparently another exception -- whether or not President Judge Mark Ciavarella or Senior Judge Michael Conahan wanted to make some quick bucks.

They were subject to a higher law -- get money!

What the Luzerne County scandal has shown us is that what happens in many courts is both a business and a mystery. For millions of Americans, the law is a puzzle written in Latin, one unable to decode.

It also shows us that sometimes the criminal is sitting on the bench, wearing a black robe.

--(c) '09 maj

[* See various PA statutes, like Tit. 42 Pa. C. S. 6301 et seq. (Re: Purposes of "Juvenile Act": To preserve the unity of the family whenever possible or to provide another alternative permanent family when the unity of the family cannot be maintained.) ; Tit. 42 Pa. C. S 6337: (Re: 'Right to Counsel': (....{A} party is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of any proceedings under this chapter and if he is without financial resources or otherwise unable to employ counsel, to have the court provide counsel for him. If a party appears without counsel the court shall ascertain whether he knows of his right thereto and be provided with counsel by the court if applicable. Counsel must be provided for a child unless his parent, guardian, or custodian is present in court and affirmatively waive it....)]

The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia!

PLEASE CONTACT:
International Concerned Family & Friends of MAJ
P.O. Box 19709
Philadelphia, PA 19143
Phone - 215-476-8812/ Fax - 215-476-6180
E-mail - icffmaj@aol.com
AND OFFER YOUR SERVICES!

Send our brotha some LOVE and LIGHT at:
Mumia Abu-Jamal
AM 8335
SCI-Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370

WE WHO BELIEVE IN FREEDOM CAN *NOT* REST!!

Submitted by: Sis. Marpessa

Subscribe: mumiacolumns-subscribe@topica.com
Read: http://topica.com/lists/mumiacolumns/read
Subscribe ICFFMAJ email updates list by e-mailing
icffmaj@aol.com!

[Check out Mumia's latest: *WE WANT FREEDOM:
A Life in the Black Panther Party*, from South
End Press (http://www.southendpress.org); Ph.
#1-800-533-8478.]

"When a cause comes along and you know in your bones that it is
just, yet refuse to defend it--at that moment you begin to die.
And I have never seen so many corpses walking around talking about
justice." - Mumia Abu-Jamal

For additional information and to order Mumia's new book We Want Freedom,

visit: southendpress.org

Check out Mumia's NEW book:
"Faith f Our Fathers: An Examination of the Spiritual Life of African and African-American People" at www.africanworld.com

I felt compelled to respond to an email sent to me on the healthcare reform issue! Here follows my response...

2009-08-18T16:40:00.000-07:00

My fellow countryman,

I understood this message thread to be about family law reform, not a forum for spreading more ignorance or to act as a lobbying forum for defending the injustice of our Health care system. FEAR through IGNORANCE is unfortunately what is being used to challenge Pres. Obama’s Healthcare reform initiatives. Have you ever wondered who is behind this misinformation movement and why?

Do intelligent free thinking people really come out on their own free will to disrupt intelligent debate at our local town halls and fight for their right to maintain a system of healthcare in which their health care will be refused them if they have a pre-existing condition; a system where accountants routinely turn down treatment that is needed because of cost. Are intelligent people really standing in the streets and demanding their right to be bankrupted if they can’t pay a medical bill (the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US)! Are intelligent people really demanding their right to pay $2000 a month for drugs that cost $25.00 that they can’t afford so their health care CEO’s can keep making $20M a year! Do we really believe that there are WMD out there again and that Iraq was responsible for 911! How many times will people let themselves be led so the powerful can steal more from them! Are our fellow citizens really going to town hall meetings and demanding our right to have our health care industry continue to screw every breathing American until we and this country are completely bankrupt. Are people really standing in the streets passionately arguing against government run health care when they have a Medicaid / Medicare card stuffed in their wallet or purse - programs that have been serving these same people better than most private schemes serve the rest of us and for much less than any private scheme could do so!

Healthcare should not only be available to the privileged but should be a RIGHT for all American Citizens. High quality of Medical Technology could be combined with great and affordable healthcare for all in the U.S.A. like it is in for nearly ALL 1^st world nations. I frankly do not believe America can be considered a 1^st world country until it provides every American with affordable health care! Should 1^st world nations let their people die because they can’t afford a drug or an operation.

Many paid off politicians and lobbyists (dare I say, mostly Republicans) are making stupid, inaccurate and uninformed statements about what is being proposed and spreading lies about other successful healthcare systems around the planet as if some Socialist bogeyman conspiracy is being planned. When I see messages like this one below I am reminded of how so many people like to be led and whipped up in to a frenzy and told what to think by those that wish to continue stealing from them and manipulate them, as so many were blindly led to go to war based on lies as is chillingly demonstrated in the movie: ‘Why we fight: ” http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9219858826421983682 Now the same kinds of greed and self serving interests that led our people in to some of our darkest hours are at work again in this debate and it looks like many in this country would rather be told what to think than go and check out the facts for themselves from credible sources! People - please check your facts before spreading the agenda of those that wish to maintain their profits and monopoly on healthcare and continue screwing us all over!

on healthcare reform from the AARP!

Respectfully,

Paul Coppock,

Father, San Francisco, CA

www.carinaandpierce.com

Shared parenting is a moral right and a supreme right under the 14^th amendment!

PS: I fear John missed the point of what he was reacting to. In my humble opinion, the intention of the communication was to encourage lists of disinformation (not lists of the dis-informers) to be communicated so that list of topics could be created – and countered - like the AARP, CNN, NYT have all done to accurately verify or discount the disinformation being circulated at this time by the lobbying machines and paid off politicians. And on the topic of a single payer healthcare plan – that would be the lowest cost option for this country in my opinion as COOPs have demonstrated already – it’s a shame that the lobbyists will likely tank this idea from being considered because this scheme will really challenge the healthcare and drug companies.

“The more you dig the more you learn that this is a carefully orchestrated effort by special interest lobbyists and the Republican Party, who are using fringe elements on the right to protect insurance company profits and defeat health care reform,” said House Dem leadership aide Doug Thornell. “The anger at these events looks very similar to what we saw at McCain/Palin rallies in the fall.”

Excerpts from a letter sent to assembly members and senators of the CA State Senate supporting their unprecedented decision of July 1st 2009

2009-08-16T09:52:00.000-07:00

... to investigate family law courts and MEDIATION services, even if only limited to Sacramento and Marin Counties.

August 2^nd 2009

State Joint Legislative Audit Committee,

Senators and Assembly members of the California State Senate.

California State Senate,

State Capitol Building,

SACRAMENTO,

CA 95814

Dear Senators and Assembly members.

REF: information pertaining to your impending AUDIT OF FAMILY LAW COURTS, MARIN AND SACRAMENTO COUNTY [please investigate Alameda county also!]

Your agreement to investigate California family law courts (even if only Sacramento and Marin County ) reached on July 1^st 2009 has in part restored some of my faith in the State machinery of California. My faith in California and the United States has been severely damaged by my forced dealings with Family Law Court and Criminal Law courts. To pull from a quote at the end of this letter; “it is my firm belief after more than 400 needless actions in family law court have been forced on me, that Family law court is nothing less than the last bastion of human rights violations in this country and it is an organized crime (extortion ) machine plundering ordinary families for the benefit of State (Title IVd) and big business.” Family law courts are the antithesis of our Constitution and everything this country stands for. As for the constitution - our family law judges violate it in countless actions in every single court room across this State.

I WOULD URGE ALL SENATORS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THIS AUDIT AND THE GREATER IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT THE AUDIT WILL UNDOUBTABLY REVEAL ABOUT OUR FAMILY LAW SYSTEM. I URGE SENATORS TO EXPAND THIS INVESTIGATION TO OTHER COUNTIES (ALAMEDA COUNTY) AND LOOK IN TO THE IMPACTS OF WHAT FAMILY LAW COURT S ARE DOING TO THE SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA AND OUR CHILDREN (43% fatherlessness).

Please look carefully in to the open questions that are raised by distinguished individuals that are incensed by what is going on in our courts. The media below will alert you to the main issues.

Please Talk to leading experts in their field like: Dr. Warren Farrell (probably leading expert on best interests of the child); Judge Sandy Keith, Former CHIEF Justice on MN Supreme Court – supporter shared parenting Bill; US Senator Nancy Schaefer – knowledgeable on corruption of court services ; Dr. Stephen Baskerville – leading authority on courts abuse of the family and anti-fathering; Alec Baldwin – experienced what many men experience in court ; Dr. Jayne A. Major, Ph.D. (Executive Director, Breakthrough Parenting Services, Inc. – leading authority on parent alienation); New Jersey hero Judge Schultz who has stated Protection Order law as practiced in family law court across the nation is unconstitutional – Crespo V Crespo; Carol Rhodes – former FOC enforcement officer; Leon R Kozoil – respected constitutional rights attorney and counsel for the national league of fathers.

Please be aware because of parents activism like myself, case studies on court abuse have been sent directly to the Michelle Obama at the Whitehouse over the last four months. We are informed that the Whitehouse and Michelle Obama is taking an interest in this issue at this time. We await to see what our stirring of the pot will cause.

I also urge senators to elect a body of the public to monitor the work of the committee for many of us fear that when you encounter what you will encounter you may want to gently put the lid on the vile mess that you will find going on in our court system. Having a body of the public work with you on this mission will in some ways assure the public that you did do a thorough job in investigating the courts.

I would like to advise all those involved in this task that you may well have embarked on one of your most important audit undertakings ever by your committee for the impact of what is going on in our corrupt family court system is destroying countless lives and no doubt causing many premature deaths.

As the abuse in the system is revealed to you I would like to remind you all of a constitutional quote that drives those of us who are determined to end the corruption we have been exposed to in our courts, so that our children will never have to experience the same injustices that we have been forced to deal with simply so they can go on to one day parent their own children without State interference (a constitutional right afforded us all despite what California court judges do in practice):

"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our Fathers made it inviolate. The People of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln

The following body of this document is an excerpt from a document mailed to ################################################# The text points to ####################### ##########################! My case is no different to thousands of others who have been repeatedly violated in our courts by mediators and judges. I hope this opens your eyes to what we have experienced.

As you work through your audit you should be reminded that California IS the State that introduced law that is primarily the root cause of the demise of the family, enacted on January 1^st 1970 with the election and introduction for no fault divorce legislation – an experiment that has gone badly wrong! California’s move in this direction was followed sadly by every State in the US and most countries in the western world. The problem of no fault divorce was that it provided a foundation for the basis of money hungry attorneys to develop preemptive divorce strategies. A tactic that allows a moving party to steal the house, the crown jewels and the children by preemptively striking the unknowing spouse with dissolution of marriage petition, alleging baseless false abuse charges.

While fathers did not want a place to equally parent their children forty years ago – custody challenges were not a major problem but as men have increasingly claimed their right to take equal responsibility to parent their children, disputed custody is now at epidemic numbers much to the glee of the legal profession, mediators and evaluators. False abuse accusations in themselves are normally enough to allow the moving party (85% led by mothers between ages 30 – 40) to secure custody and can often result in the father being thrown out of his own home for doing nothing wrong and not even appreciating a divorce was on its way.

The bastard child of no fault divorce (family court) is perjury. However, perjury is seldom prosecuted – if ever (never in my case) because prosecution tends to end litigation. Judges are accommodating that way, reasoning it's better to rule in a way that promotes legal services, unending court battles, not end them.

Perjury allows judges to expand the industry, such as orders for supervised visitation, evaluations, childrens counsel, more evaluations and other legal services with “””dubious professionals””” who can with out meeting children or the other parent decide on the destiny of a child and family in less than 20 minutes with out standing up from their chair or taking a breath. Children are the cog that turns the judicial wheel of fortune for attorneys and other comers in the divorce and custody industry.

If the Senate turns a blind eye to the inhumanity that is practiced in the name of this great State in our family law courts day in and day out, then I believe the people will finally rise to bring class actions suits ( being prepared as I write this) against it and these will be won and they will in time bring this state to its knees and bankrupt it for the crimes that this state has inflicted on millions of good parents and innocents children in the name of the State of California.

### HIGHLY SUGGESTED READING / LISTENING ###:

What went wrong with no fault divorce - http://www.carinaandpierce.com/2008/12/stolen-vows-httpwwwstolenvowscom.html

Forced fatherlessness – a parents view - http://www.carinaandpierce.com/search?q=divorce

Impact of fatherlessness on society – US SENATE - http://www.carinaandpierce.com/search?q=senate+facts

Dr. Stephen Baskerville war on fatherhood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBcvQG_X4h4

Why are young women leading divorce by 85% over men!!! http://www.womensinfidelity.com

What are we not discussing about our biology as a society? Why Not? http://www.carinaandpierce.com/search?q=womens+infidelity left hand column

Why are parents in divorce trying to destroy the other parent? Malicious Mother Divorce Syndrome http://www.carinaandpierce.com/search?q=Malicious+Mother+Divorce+Syndrome

Parent Alienation Syndrome - http://www.carinaandpierce.com/search?q=Parent+Alienation+Syndrome+

More on parental Alienation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEa__WQBnMo

Constitutionality of Family Law – shared parenting and the destruction of the family: http://www.carinaandpierce.com/search?q=constitution

Judge Sandy Keith, Former CHIEF Justice on MN Supreme Court on Shared Parenting Bill. What do experienced judges think of what is going on in family law courts? http://www.carinaandpierce.com/search?q=NATIONAL+LAW

Heroic speech from former US Senator Nancy Schaefer . CPS Involved In Child Trafficking Rings Explains Senator Schafer: http://www.carinaandpierce.com/search?q=Speech+from+former+US+Senator+Nancy+Schaefer

Exposing morality of Family courts (Canada perspective – identical in US) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNnr561Z3hc&feature=related

Dr. Stephen Baskerville lays out the ISSUES and Problems created by Family/ Divorce Court throughout the Nation, and its impact on Children and parents

YouTube - Criminalization of American Fathers & Mothers (Part 1)

YouTube - Criminalization of American Fathers & Mothers (Part 2)

Dr. Warren Farrell, Author Father and Child Reunion Leading world authority on best interests of the child: His DVD summarizes the conclusions from over 200 scientific research studies conducted over 25+ years. It is the result of the largest compilation of research ever done on this topic. Many thousands of children were followed for 5, 10 and even 15 years after divorce to gather data. It took Dr. Warren Farrell over thirteen years just to compile this research from many researchers for his book. http://www.bestinterestofchildren.org/ IGNORED BY COURTS<>

The STATE appointed Mediator who thankfully investigated my case at my request Is called Mrs. ################## – she has 23 years experience in Alameda County Mediation Services – Hayward mediation services (Alameda County) – I would recommend some one at the Senate talks with her as you learn more about the practices of mediators and the courts. If it were not for Mrs ##################### discrediting the efforts of Oakland county courts and mediators - on the matter of their separating me from my children FOR ABSOLUTLY NOTHING after a year long custody invetigation concluded I was a great father then I would have no relationship with my children today. Rporting a mediator for corruption and ignoring the law should not be a basis for a parent being seperated from his children and allowed 2hrs supervised visitation and every other week once he pays out $100.00

Leon Kozoil – Counsel for the National League of Fathers - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2117166934509580982 http://www.myspace.com/nlfathers

As you go forward please remember what the courts have forgotten: “There is a fundamental liberty right guaranteed to both parents by the 14th Amendment to the care, custody, and nurture of their children. According to the US Supreme Court: “Absent a Compelling State Interest of harm or potential harm to the child, the State may not intervene in the privacy of family life.”

The State family law systems are designed to benefit the professions that feed on them. To afford this they have come up with reasons why 'legal professionals' can ignore supreme law of the US constitution, a fact that I was reminded again in my case. Rulings have nothing to do with justice or protecting the rights of innocent children or former spouses falsely accused by malicious parents.

The system is nothing more than the last bastion of Human Rights Abuse in this country. The system must be dismantled so America does not turn in to a fatherless wasteland of ever increasing societal problems. It is already half way there with fatherless now exceeding 43% nationally thanks to a large measure by evil mediators and liars (atnys) and unconstitutional judges that are destroying the American family all for profit.

CA lawmakers helped create the problem raised in this document on January 1^st 1970 – now - I am hopeful - they have made the first step to undo the evil that has plagued our society ever since and destroyed millions of lives for absolutely nothing other than the profit of courts and their foot soldiers - the legal profession!

########################

THE ABOVE IS AN EXCERPT ONLY - THE REMAINING BODY OF THIS DOCUMENT IS ATTACHED IN THE ACCOMPANYING WORD FILE.

Thank you for taking this unprecedented step to look in to the rampant corruption prevalent in our family law system. I commend the Assembly and Senators for tackling this evil empire.

On behalf of my children and I, I pass on my heart felt thanks to all of you for taking on this most important task on behalf of those that have already been violated by our courts (or worse), and for those who may be saved if the Senate does it job properly and orders the leveling of our family court system as it stands today so it can be constitutionally rebuilt.

I wish to make it clear that in my battle - I have experienced outright gender bias in the courts, however, I am equally aware that great mothers are being removed from their children because the father may have been the moving party and made false accusations against the mother/or was an attorney or had friends in the system and therefore won favor with the court which in Alameda seem to cater to the moving party over the defendant regardless if the moving party had illegally removed the children from our of the state as was the case in my circumstance!

Sincerely,

Paul Coppock,

Alameda, CA; Father, Equal parent to Pierce and Carina under the constitution but not under California Family Court practice.

http://www.carinaandpierce.com

paulcoppock@comcast.net

Heroic speech from former US Senator Nancy Schaefer

2009-05-28T09:56:00.000-07:00

Speech from former US Senator Nancy Schaefer -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmdYIJQLdCs

CPS Involved In Child Trafficking Rings Explains Senator Schafer
Alex Jones TV

Washington Senator Pam Roach and Former Senator Nancy Schaefer: “CPS is Corrupt”

We were joined by two very special guests to discuss Child Protective Services and Parental Rights. Although these two notable figures live great distances apart, their noble goals are remarkably similar. Nancy Schaefer and Pam Roach made special appearances on Get Your Justice Live Wednesday April 29, 2009. A common theme that both leaders agreed on is that “CPS is Corrupt.”

EPISODE211 - Senator Pam Roach and Former Senator Nancy Schaefer Live [1:13:38m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup

Nancy Schaefer is president of Eagle Forum of Georgia. She served in the Georgia State Senate for four years. She has been a staunch defender of parents’ rights and will also assume the position of Eagle Forum’s National Chairman of Parents’ Rights. She is president of Family Concerns, Inc. and represented Eagle Forum at the Untied Nations conferences in Beijing, Istanbul, Rome and New York. Nancy Schaefer is well-known for a scathing report titled “The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services” that was originally released on November 16, 2007 and later updated on September 25, 2008. (Download Available)

State Senator Pam Roach continues to serve in the Washington State Senate for 19 years. In the year 2000, Senator Roach and her son Representative Dan Roach became the first mother/son duo to represent the same district at the same time. Throughout her years of service she has represented the U.S. in East Timor for the International Republican Institute; hosted a radio talk show on KIRO in Seattle; and is founder of an NGO in Honduras among other accomplishments. As Judiciary chair she authored landmark bills on juvenile justice and DUI. Senator Roach chaired the Children and Family Services Committee and continues to advocate for children and parental rights. This year Senator Roach chaired a special legislative committee to shine light on the lack of accountability and trampling of parental rights by the Child Protective Services. She continues to demand accountability within Child Protective Services today.

——————————————-

You can learn more about Eagle Forum by visiting their website at http://www.eagleforum.org and also find additional resources pertaining to the Pam Roach Report at http://pamroachreport.blogspot.com. By referring your own legislators to these resources, organizations, and interviews you can supplement your own voice and positions about the “Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services” and establish a higher burden of proof on the various state programs before they are able to burgeon your family.

No matter which way you look at it, former Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer as well as Washington State Senator Pam Roach believe that “Parental Rights Should Be Respected and Protected By All” and the great need for Child Protective Services to come under greater scrutiny of the general public.Please take a listen and spread the word.

Investigative News Report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8h4SOwWXdc

2009-05-19T23:04:00.000-07:00

Stephen Baskerville Speaks out about Family Court

Dr. Stephen Baskerville speaks out about the fear the Family courts put in all law biding parents......... Needlessly.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-7559060823804547798&hl=en&fs=true

2009-03-20T02:49:00.000-07:00

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

2009-03-19T23:21:00.000-07:00

Excellent Video, Excellent Bill, for the sake of CHILDREN ALL OVER ( not only in MN but all through the USA ), We Hope that the law will be made IN THE BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN and that this law becomes a NATIONAL LAW.

Parents have enough trouble picking up their lives with out being forced to FIGHT against each other to gain access to their own children, THE LAW SHOULD PRESUME Each parent is an equally good parent and award 50/50 Joint Legal Physical custody automatically! The courts have no right to interfere in forcing any other outcome with out REAL evidence of wrong doing by the other parent (false abuse accusations)! Real evidence does not equal bogus, fact less false charges picked out of an attorneys book of dirty tricks (known as "Silver Bullets" tricks to steal kids from a father that courts automatically fall for).

My experience of Family Courts suggests mediators, judges (in my case at least) is that they should rot in hell for crimes against humanity for persecuting children and innocent parents. These "professionals" have the power to abduct our children on a whim and based on no evidence of wrong doing, powers that violate every tenant of our constitution.

Most "professionals" that I have interacted with in this corrupt system (4 year case, 8 judges....!) are ignorant, self consumed in their own importance, prejudiced, gender biased and are incapable of following the laws that are supposed to guide them. According to our constitution they do not have the power to do what they do and yet they force parents to fight for access to their own children.

The morons that pretend to act for the benefits of our children should be tried and imprisoned for crimes against humanity and failing to uphold our Constitution! They torture thousands of children every year and destroy parents for wanting to exercise their constitutional rights to parent their own children!

In my forty plus years I have never dealt with such an incompetent organization (Family court, Child custody mediation services) or dealt with people that care so little for the children they pretend to be working for.

These organizations and the people that helped traumatize and abduct my children are the antithesis of everything that the US and the US Constitution stands for... I look forward to seeing these organizations dismantled and these professional liars and cheats personally dragged through the courts for years (like they have done to us) and personally fined, ruined and imprisoned for child cruelty and inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on parents and children.

Stolen Vows: http://www.stolenvows.com/

2008-12-08T14:01:00.000-08:00

The story of Stolen Vows
Designed by those who would benefit most, no-fault divorce laws were rolled out across the country over thirty years ago. Wedding day promises lost all meaning when the newly-coined standard — Irretrievable Breakdown — replaced former ‘grounds’ for divorce. Within fifteen years each state had its own unique ‘no-fault’ language but the results were virtually the same when couples got to court. The judge was empowered to 'force' a divorce on an unwitting spouse and then divide up the family belongings — including the children. Lawyers used unscrupulous tactics to crush any lingering affection in order to deliver the final product — divorce. Capitalizing on the nation's growing misery, a profitable Divorce Industry arose and wiped away any lingering hope that was embodied in the original cornerstone of the divorce reform movement — the ‘Marriage Hospital’ that could attend to the Family Court 'casualties' and enhance opportunities for reconciliation. Learn how scoundrels got hold of this original high-minded ideal and turned it into a sinister scheme. Those whose role was to ‘protect’ the institution that is the foundation of family and society ravaged it instead. But a new wind is blowing in the land. Once the spell is broken and the veil of illusion is lifted, we can finally roll up our sleeves and begin the job of building the ‘Marriage Hospital’.

LEARN MORE about the 'inside' story of No-Fault Divorce: the UMDA
The blueprint that would influence legislators nationwide was designed by a handful of 'insiders' and then endorsed by the ABA. Deception was used to sell the product which was 'camouflaged' in order to avoid facing the truth of what was being proposed: to undermine the Rule of Law.

Presumed Guity - reported on KQED Radio

2008-11-21T11:03:00.000-08:00

Thu, Nov 20, 2008 -- 7:37 AM

Presumed Guilty
Attorney Brian Dinday says too often local prosecutors won't drop domestic violence cases -- even when they know the accusations are false.

Break through against the failings of VWA!

2008-10-31T20:57:00.000-07:00

Crespo v. Crespo

Crespo v. Crespo is a decision by a trial court in New Jersey establishing that proof of domestic violence requires clear and convincing evidence by virtue of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.^[1]

The court applied Mathews v. Eldridge to reject the "preponderance of the evidence" standard previously applied to allegations of domestic violence.

References

↑ http://www.falseallegations.com/crespo-v-crespo-nj-schultz-decision-61908.htm

Alan Karmin of RADAR: Domestic Violence Awareness Month and the Facts

2008-10-31T20:55:00.001-07:00

The Complete Alec Baldwin

2008-10-28T13:24:00.001-07:00

Here, thanks to our video partners over at Fora.tv, the C-SPAN of the internet, is a full recording of the appearance at The Commonwealth Club this past Monday by actor/author Alec Baldwin. Posted by John Z. at 8:35 AM

Get the facts!!

2008-10-05T11:33:00.000-07:00

GTF

We are fighting for equal parenting for two FIT parents. The opposition to that simple concept includes those who profit from big custody battles (lawyers, judges, magistrates), social workers and psychologists who's jobs depend on children in turmoil, and the radical man haters that argue that any man who wants to spend time with his child rather than cozying up to ESPN Sports Center must be a pedophile child abuser.

Let's not forget the ever so powerful men (either politically or financially) who rip children away from their mothers because they view them as just another conquest. These are the despicable men who pay off, sleep with, or otherwise influence Judges, magistrates, social workers and psychologists to rule in their favor, only to leave children alone most of the time while they tend to their other conquests

Gender isn't the issue - equal parenting is. Children need both parents.

Let's take a look at the facts:

According to US Census bureau data, 84.4% of non-custodial parents are men. Approximately 9% of these men did not want to be fathers when their children were born. A smaller percentage were abusers either of the children or the mothers, as abusers they should be convicted and imprisoned for their crimes.

The rest of them - NOT ABUSERS!

Clearly we can't apply a law depriving children of their fathers based on the exception rather than the rule.

Numerous studies also show that children from fatherless homes are more likely to be poor, become involved in drug and alcohol abuse, drop out of school, and suffer from health and emotional problems. Boys are more likely to become involved in crime, and girls are more likely to become pregnant as teens.

Here are some more interesting facts straight from the floor of the US Senate:
Source - Senate Concurrent Resolution 121

(1) in approximately 84 percent of the cases where a parent is absent, that parent is the father;

(2) if current trends continue, half of all children born today will live apart from one of their parents, usually their father, at some point before they turn 18 years old;

(3) where families (whether intact or with a parent absent) are living in poverty, a significant factor is the father's lack of job skills;

(4) committed and responsible fathering during infancy and early childhood contributes to the development of emotional security, curiosity, and math and verbal skills;

(5) an estimated 19,400,000 children (27 percent) live apart from their biological fathers; and

(6) 40 percent of the children under age 18 not living with their biological fathers had not seen their fathers even once in the past 12 months, according to national survey data;

90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census.

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.

60% of repeat rapists grew up without fathers. Raymond A. Knight and Robert A. Prentky, "The Developmental Antecednts of Adult Adaptations of Rapist Sub-Types," Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol 14, Dec., 1987, p 403-426.

71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father. US Dept. of Health & Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999.

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census.

85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. Center for Disease Control.

90% of adolescent repeat arsonists live with only their mother. Wray Herbert, "Dousing the Kindlers," Psychology Today, January, 1985, p.28.

71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.

75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse canters come from fatherless homes. Rainbows for all God`s Children.

70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. US Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988.

85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992.

75% of prisoners grew up without a father. Daniel Amneus, The Garbage Generation, Alhambra, CA: Primrose Press, 1990.

Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. US D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999.

43% of US children live without their father. US Department of Census.

Two years after divorce, 51% of children in sole mother custody homes only see their father once or twice a year, or never. Guidubaldi, 1989; Guidubaldi, 1988; Guidubaldi, Perry, & Nastasi, 1987.

42% of fathers fail to see their children at all after divorce. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. and Christine Winguist Nord, "Parenting Apart," Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 47, no. 4, November, 1985.

90% of father disengagement is caused by obstruction of access by a custodial parent anxious to break the father-child ties. Kruk, 1992, cited by Prof. John Guidubaldi in his Minority Report and Policy Recommendations of the US Commission on Child & Family Welfare, US Code Citation: 42 USC 12301, 1996. Same cause identified by Braver, Wolchik, & Sandler, 1985, without incidence values.

PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS TO BE TREATED AS AN EQUAL PARENT!

Fathers Rights in the US!

2008-09-20T23:57:00.000-07:00

Title IV-D and Equal Parenting You Tube Videos

2008-09-20T18:47:00.001-07:00

Title IV-D and Equal Parenting You Tube Videos

RESOURCES ON TITLE IV-D

Nationwide Blueprint for Title IV-D Reform

Support The Movie-Trailer One-Corruption

Support The Movie - Trailer Two - War is Hell Child Support Doesn't Have to Be

Support The Movie - Trailer Three - Divorce is Ugly Business

Support The Movie - Trailer Four - It's About The Kids!!!

Title IV-D Updates

Minister Ronald Smith. Why do states/courts promote divorce and rip children apart from their parents?

Runtime: 3:35
7933 views
10 Comments:

Dads and Moms of Michigan's Rob McKenzie

Runtime: 1:50
887 views
3 Comments:

Equal Parenting Bike Trek

Runtime: 8:13
2279 views
10 Comments:

Michigan Rep Fulton Sheen Supports Equal Parenting

Runtime: 3:47
631 views
3 Comments:

Michigan Rep. Rick Jones Supports Equal Parenting

Runtime: 3:16
320 views
4 Comments:

HB5267

Runtime: 0:39
151 views
0 Comments:

Father Reunited With Daughter!

Runtime: 1:03
9331 views
10 Comments:

Dr. Baskerville: Crooked Courts Are Nothing New"

Runtime: 0:26
735 views
1 Comments:

Michigan Rep. Glen Steil Supports Equal Parenting

Runtime: 3:01
223 views
2 Comments:

Carol Rhodes Former FOC Enforcement Officer

2008-09-20T01:24:00.000-07:00

2008-09-20T00:41:00.000-07:00

Geldolf on Fathers!

2008-09-20T00:25:00.001-07:00

Founder of F4J interviewed!

2008-09-19T23:48:00.000-07:00

For the father of the Nation!

2008-09-19T23:35:00.000-07:00

Fathers Under Siege

2008-09-14T22:27:00.000-07:00

No Restraint on Restraining Orders

BY STEPHEN BASKERVILLE

The increased use of restraining orders in alleged domestic violence cases is being advocated in states across America. In Maryland, one proposal would allow court commissioners rather than judges to issue protective orders.

The Washington Post calls it an "unlikely subject for controversy" and validates this assessment by ignoring voices of opposition. Indeed, no national debate has ever taken place on restraining orders. Yet it is time the public understands the danger they pose to constitutional rights.

The Post claims that the potential for abuse is "minimal." In fact, the potential for abuse is already being realized. A judge quoted in the New Jersey Law Journal in 1995 calls the restraining order law "probably the most abused piece of legislation that comes to my mind."

Parents issued with restraining orders based on uncorroborated allegations are summarily evicted from their homes and jailed for contacting their children and spouses. "Stories of violations for minor infractions are legion," the Boston Globe reported in 1998. "In one case, a father was arrested for violating an order when he put a note in his son’s suitcase telling the mother the boy had been sick over a weekend visit. In another, a father was arrested for sending his son a birthday card."

"The restraining order law is one of the most unconstitutional acts ever passed," says Massachusetts attorney Gregory Hession, who has filed a federal suit on constitutional grounds. "A court can issue an order that boots you out of your house, never lets you see your children again, and takes your money, all without you even knowing that a hearing took place."

As if to validate Hession’s charge, New Jersey municipal judge Richard Russell actually urged his colleagues to violate basic constitutional protections: "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order," he told a judges’ training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around. . . . We don’t have to worry about the rights."

The real purpose of restraining orders is not so much to prevent violence as to eliminate one parent during divorce proceedings. This is now common knowledge in legal circles.

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, writes that "allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage" in divorce courts and that restraining orders are doled out "like candy." "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply," and "the facts have become irrelevant," she reports. "In virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had." Yet a government analysis found that fewer than half of all restraining orders involved even an allegation of physical violence.

Restraining orders are an indispensable tool to keep the regime of unilateral (or "no-fault") divorce in business, because they prevent involuntarily divorced parents from running into their children in public places. Anyone can attend a child’s first communion or little league game, after all – anyone but their forcibly divorced father, who will be arrested if he shows up.

How restraining orders can prevent violence is unclear. Violent assault is already criminally punishable. A father whose wife obtained a protective order against him was, according to the St. Petersburg Times, "enjoined and restrained from committing any domestic violence upon her." But is he not thus enjoined and restrained to begin with, along with the rest of us? The conclusion seems inescapable that the purpose is not to protect anyone from violent fathers but to protect the power of divorce practitioners from peaceful ones.

In fact, restraining orders very likely create violence, since forcing a parent to stay away from his or her children can provoke precisely the violence it ostensibly intends to prevent. "Few lives, if any, have been saved, but much harm, and possibly loss of lives, has come from the issuance of restraining orders," Dudley District Court Justice Milton Raphaelson wrote last year in the Western Massachusetts Law Tribune (only upon his retirement).

A report just released by the Heritage Foundation confirms that the safest arrangement for mothers and children is a married, intact family. "Marriage dramatically reduces the risk that mothers will suffer from domestic abuse," concludes the report.

By providing a tool to tear families apart, restraining orders are creating the very problem their promoters claim to be solving.

Dr. Baskerville teaches political science at Howard University.

Correct The “Violence Against Women Act”

2008-09-14T22:24:00.000-07:00

September 11th, 2008 · No Comments

Please support this man.

Massachusetts GOP candidate Bob Parks has just published an article on “Correct the ‘Violence Against Women Act.’” Mr. Parks is the first of many politicians, Democrat and Republican, who we expect will take public positions in support of VAWA reform.

As many of you know, I’m a candidate for public office in Massachusetts. The campaign is dedicated to real reform: making our district financially independent, exposing government waste, and making arrogant politicians accountable to the citizens they’re supposed to represent.

However, most citizens have no idea how much of their tax money goes to domestic violence programs, how ineffective they are, or how much harm they cause to families, especially already government-weakened black families. Let me explain.

First, the money: Each year the federal government spends over $1 billion dollars for various programs designed to stop domestic violence. That money goes to law enforcement departments, prosecutors, and abuse shelters. Then add the money from state and local government, as well as private contributions, and we’re looking at a $4 billion industry.

If that $4 billion was actually stopping domestic violence, I think we’d all agree it was money well spent.

But the truth is that domestic violence programs have not worked. This is what industry insiders are saying:

* “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women,” according to Angela Moore Parmley, PhD at the U.S. Department of Justice.
* “At worst, the criminal justice system increases violence against women. At best, it has little or no effect,” notes Linda Mills, PhD, New York University vice provost and author of Violent Partners

A cynic might say, “Another ineffective government program – so what else is new?” The problem with domestic violence programs in Massachusetts is that they are actually harmful. Here’s why….

State laws have long made it easy for persons to get a restraining order. These orders essentially order a partner out of the house for a few days for a cooling-off period. Problem, restraining orders are too easy to obtain.

One study by the Massachusetts Trial Court reviewed the domestic restraining orders issued in the Commonwealth. The study found that less than half of the orders involved even an allegation of violence. In other words, the order was issued solely on the basis of alleged fear or emotional distress, not because of actual or imminent violence.

The problem is compounded when a restraining order is then used in a divorce hearing to “prove” one’s spouse is abusive, effectively removing that person’s parental rights.

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, spoke candidly about the problem: “Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply… In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage.”

Once the “temporary” order is in place, it can be a nightmare to remove.

The following is a court transcript from a Bay State hearing in which the respondent’s attorney requested the court to vacate (i.e., discontinue) the order:

Mr. Hession: “Can you please state your name and your address for the record?” [The Court argues with counsel as to whether Mr. L can testify.]

The Court: “I don’t believe I need to hear any evidence from your client. I’m going to deny your request to vacate the restraining order.”

Let me repeat the judge’s words: “I don’t believe I need to hear any evidence from your client.” Imagine being on the receiving end of that.

Somehow we’ve lost sight of fundamental concepts of due process and innocent until proven guilty.

Much of the problem can be traced to the Commonwealth’s legal definition of “abuse,” which includes “placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm.” Now, almost anything counts as partner “violence” – raising your voice, an honest airing of differences, and even “possessiveness” all invite legal intervention.

As a result, scarce resources end up going to cases that are minor and/or frivolous. As a result, real victims of violence can’t get the help they desperately need.

In short, we have created an abuse-reduction system that is ineffective, unaccountable, and even harmful. These problems are documented in a series of reports by RADAR—Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting.

So how do we go about fixing a costly system that has gone astray? An effective approach to curbing domestic violence needs to incorporate policies that:

1. Respect fundamental Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal treatment under the law.
2. Are based on the best available research and are able to withstand scientific scrutiny.
3. Assure that interventions are based on an individualized assessment, respect victims’ wishes, acknowledge cultural differences, and do not impose a one-size-fits-all approach.
4. Emphasize counseling and treatment for minor/one-time cases, rather than law enforcement and criminal justice intervention.
5. Discourage the making of false accusations.
6. Do not engage in discrimination.
7. Assure accountability at all levels.

Now most of you who’ve read my columns know how little sympathy I have for those who make false accusations. Many people have been unjustly incarcerated, while the person who may recant can do so without so much as saying “sorry” while lives are ruined and reputations are destroyed.

Stopping false allegations and helping real victims while using taxpayer money more wisely is an agenda that everyone can support.

http://www.black-and-right.com/2008/09/11/correct-%E2%80%9Cthe-violence-against-women-act%E2%80%9D/

Tags: DV Industry

2008-08-30T10:01:00.000-07:00

LAW

Are Divorce Courts Anti-Dad?
Despite a shift toward shared custody over the last 20 years, up to half of fathers lose contact with their kids after a divorce. “In 85% of divorces, fathers get just two weekends a month and a couple of hours during the week,” says Mike McCormick of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

A new legal trend might change that. With “proportional time,” explains Jennifer Rosato of Philadelphia’s Drexel University School of Law, “the custody decision is based on the time dads spent with their children before the divorce, rather than presuming that dads have, and want, limited involvement with their kids.” But McCormick says dads still could get shortchanged: “What happened in the past with a family doesn’t represent what will happen in the future.” He says that supporting your kids is about more than money, “but courts want a check first and a relationship second.”

Parents Rights Action in motion across the US

2008-08-29T14:27:00.001-07:00

Class Action Lawsuit Filed

We've often discussed the corrosive effects of federal incentive and reimbursement payment on the integrity of family law systems...here's one more example...

A North Carolina law firm filed suit Monday, August 25 against the state's Department of Health and Human Services, the state Child Suppport Enforcement Agency and various private companies and attorneys representing these agencies. The suit alleges the state incorrectly collected child support from individuals whose parental rights had been terminated. The case was filed as a class action. If you have a child support order from North Carolina and your parental rights were terminated, but the collection order remained in effect, let us know and we'll pass your information along.

North Carolina Organizational Meeting

Next Wednesday evening you are invited to attend an organizational meeting of the newly forming North Carolina Family Law Reform group in Charlotte. The meeting will take place from 7:00 - 8:45 pm at the South County Regional Library, 5801 Rea Rd., NC 28277. This purpose of the meeting is to bring together individuals who are interested in approaching family law reform by working the political process. Drop us an email and let us know if you can make it. If you can't make the meeting but want to be involved let us know and will keep you informed of future activity.

Bill Limiting Incarceration for Non-Payment of Support Introduced

Recently Ohio State Rep. Ted Celeste introduced a bill, supported by Ohio's Director of Corrections requiring judges to limit use of incarceration for parents in arrears on child support. Click here to read about this development. The Spring edition of "The Liberator" carried several stories on 'debtors prisons' after Sean Levert's death in an Ohio prison earlier this year. Levert was sentenced to 22 months in prison and died one week after beginning his sentence. He left behind six children. While this is a small step in the right direction, the solution remains implementation of Shared Parenting statutes providing both parents the opportunity to remain fully engaged with their children.

The Liberator is your 16 page quarterly mailed to ACFC members and over 8,000 elected officials at the state and federal level. Your ACFC membership includes a one year subscription to The Liberator. We know the paper is being read, we are being contacted by legislators from around the nation interested in family law reform. Please support this effort by clicking here to become a member of ACFC.

New Mexico Judges to Receive 'The Liberator'

Thanks to member anonymous, this fall New Mexico family court judges will begin receiving 'The Liberator.' This increases to five the number of states where judges receive the paper. Email ACFC for more information on getting the paper to your state court judges.

West Virginia

Men and Women Against Discrimination (http://www.mawadwv.org/) are at it again. They have filed suit in state court seeking injunctive relief with respect to the lack of service provision for men and boys seeking to escape domestic violence.

MAWAD has also sponsored a new radio ad in which a family court judge testifies before a state legislative committee that he follows the law ZERO percent of the time in custody cases. Click here to listen.

New IRS Revenue Procedure Beneficial to Non Custodial/Residential Parents

The IRS has issued a new revenue procedure ruling allowing non-custodial and non-primary (aren't these terms offensive, I'm not a non anything to my kids) residential parents to count children not living with them as dependents for purposes of providing benefits through HSA and MSA accounts. Click for article.

DIVORCE RELATED MALICIOUS MOTHER SYNDROME

2008-08-27T22:53:00.000-07:00

JOURNAL OF FAMILY VIOLENCE, VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3, p 253-264, 1995

DIVORCE RELATED MALICIOUS MOTHER SYNDROME
Ira Daniel Turkat, Ph.D.

With the increasing commonality of divorce involving children, a pattern of abnormal behaviour has emerged that has received little attention. The present paper defines the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. Specific nosologic criteria are provided with abundant clinical examples. Given the lack of scientific data available on the disorder, issues of classification, etiology, treatment, and prevention appear ripe for investigation.

INTRODUCTION

A divorced man gains custody of his children and his ex-wife burns down his home. A woman in a custody battle buys a cat for her offspring because her divorcing husband is highly allergic to cats. A mother forces her children to sleep in a car to "prove" their father has bankrupted them. These actions illustrate a pattern of abnormal behavior that has emerged as the divorce rate involving children has grown.

Today, half of all marriages will end in divorce (Beal and Hochman, 1991). The number of children involved in divorce has grown dramatically (e.g., Hetherington and Arastah, 1988) as well. While the majority of such cases are "settled" from a legal perspective, outside the courtroom the battle continues.

The media has spent considerable effort raising public awareness about the problem posed by divorced fathers who do not provide court ordered child support payments. Hedges (1991) has noted that less than 20% of divorced fathers provide child support payments three years after their divorce. Research on the decline of women's economic status following divorce (e.g., Hernandez, 1988; Laosa, 1988) has contributed to recent legislation to address the "Deadbeat Dad" problem.

While the media correctly portrays the difficulties imposed upon women and children by the "Deadbeat Dad" phenomenon, the cameras have yet to capture the warfare waged by a select group of mothers against child support paying, law abiding fathers. Every day, attorneys and therapists are exposed to horror stories in which vicious behaviors are lodged against innocent fathers and children. Unfortunately, there are no scientific data on the subject. Similarly, the clinical literature has relatively ignored the problem.

A notable exception can be found in the clinical writings of Gardner (1987, 1989) who has provided excellent descriptions of the Parental Alienation Syndrome. Here, a custodial parent successfully engages in a variety of maneuvers to alienate the child from the non-residential parent. Once successfully manipulated, the child becomes "...preoccupied with deprecation and criticism of a parent-denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated" (Gardner, 1989 p. 226). In the typical case of Parental Alienation Syndrome, both mother and child engage in an array of abnormal actions against the rather. Gardner views "brainwashing" as a concept "too narrow" (Gardner, 1989) to capture the psychological manipulation involved in turning a child against his/her non-residential parent.

While Gardner's pioneering descriptions of the Parental Alienation Syndrome provide an important contribution to our understanding of divorce related child involved hostilities, the present paper is concerned with a more global abnormality. As noted in the examples provided in the beginning of this manuscript, serious attacks on divorcing husbands take place which are beyond merely manipulating the children. Further, these actions include a willingness by some mothers to violate societal law. Finally, there are mothers who persistently engage in malicious behaviors designed to alienate their offspring from the father, despite being unable to successfully cause alienation. In sum, these cases do not meet the criteria for Parental Alienation Syndrome. Nevertheless, they portray a serious abnormality.

The purpose of the present paper is to define and illustrate this more global abnormality with the hope of generating increased scientific and clinical investigation of this problem.

DEFINITION

The present section provides a beginning definition of the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, which has been derived from clinical and legal cases. As in all initial proposals, it is anticipated that future research will lead to greater refinement in the taxonomic criteria. The proposed definition encompasses four major criteria, as follows:

1.

A mother who unjustifiably punishes her divorcing or divorced husband by:
1. Attempting to alienate their mutual child(ren) from the father
2. Involving others in malicious actions against the father
3. Engaging in excessive litigation

2.

The mother specifically attempts to deny her child(ren):
1. Regular uninterrupted visitation with the father
2. Uninhibited telephone access to the father
3. paternal participation in the child(ren)'s school life and extra-curricular activities

3.

Tile pattern is pervasive and includes malicious acts towards the husband including:
1. Lying to the children
2. Lying to others
3. Violations of law

4.

The disorder is not specifically due to another mental disorder although a separate mental disorder may co-exist.

CLINICAL ILLUSTRATIONS

In this section, I will provide clinical illustrations for each criterion using the reference numbers provided above. As criteria 1-3 are behavior specific to the Malicious Mother Syndrome, I will provide a series of clinical examples. The fourth criterion which addresses the relationship of the proposed syndrome to other mental disorders, will be discussed more generally.

Criterion 1A: Alienating the Children

The range of actions taken by a mother to attempt to alienate her children from their father is impressive. For example:

One mother lied to her children that she could no longer buy food because their father had spent all of their money on women at topless bars.

A doctor's wife forced her 10 year old son to apply for federally funded free school lunches to delude the boy that his "daddy has made us poor."

A woman who for years was very close to the children in a custody battle, was asked by their mother to give up neutrality and join her campaign against the father to "dance on his grave." When the friend refused to give up her neutrality, the mother falsely informed her children that their father was having an affair with this woman.

These behaviors, if successful, could lead a child to not only hate the father but perhaps go years without seeing him. As Cartwright (1993) has noted: "The goal of the alienator is crystalline: to deprive the lost parent, not only of the child's time, but of the time of childhood" (p. 210).

Criterion 1B: Involving Others in Malicious Actions

The second component of the first major criterion where the mother attempts to punish the husband, involves manipulating other individuals to engage in malicious acts against the father. Examples of this kind are as follows:

During a custody battle, a mother lied to a therapist about the father's behaviour. The therapist, having never spoken with the father, appeared as an "expert" witness to inform the Judge that the mother should be the primary residential parent and that the father needed to be in therapy.

One angry mother manipulated teenagers to leave anonymous threatening notes at the ex-husband's home.

A mother who had lost legal custody of her child, manipulated a secretary at the child's school to assist in kidnapping the child.

In the above examples, it is important to note that the person manipulated by the angry mother has, in a way, been "alienated" against the divorcing husband. Typically, the individual "duped" takes on a righteous indignation, contributing to a rewarding climate for the mother initiating malicious actions.

Criterion 1C: Excessive Litigation

There is little question that either party in a divorce or custody proceeding is entitled to appropriate legal representation and action. Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, however, attempt to punish the divorcing husband by engaging in excessive litigation.

A belligerent and unreasonable mother verbally attacked her ex-husband whenever she saw him. Over time, his response was to ignore her. She then took him to court, asking the judge to require the ex-husband to talk with her.

One mother told a judge that her daughter was not really her divorcing husband's child.

One woman refused to stop attacking her ex-husband through the courts despite numerous attorneys being fired or voluntarily leaving the case. Over a three year period, seven different attorneys were utilized.

Data exist which can help in determining the range of excessive litigation. For example, Keel et al. (1988) report on the frequency of post-divorce litigation in a sample of 700 families. Their data indicate that only 12.7% of families file one post-divorce petition to the court, whereas less than 5% file two or more petitions (Keel at al. 1988); less than 1% file four or more petitions.

Criterion 2A: Denying Regular Visitation

Experts are in relative agreement that regular and uninterrupted visitation with the non-residential parent is desirable and beneficial for children, except in extreme circumstances (Hedges, 1991). In fact, some states, such as Florida, have laws written to reflect this view (Keane, 1990). Unfortunately, even when the father and children have legal rights to visitation, individuals with Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome continue to interfere with it.

A mother who previously attacked her ex-husband physically during visitation transfers of the children, refused to provide the children when the ex-husband had the police attend to monitor exchanges.

When one divorced father arrived to pick up his children for visitation, the mother arranged for her and the children to be elsewhere so that the father could not visit with the children.

One mother had her physically intimidating boyfriend assault her ex-husband when he came to pick up his children for visitation.

The President of The Council for Children's Rights (Washington, D.C.) notes that such alienation is considered a form of child abuse (Levy, 1992). Unfortunately, the police typically avoid involving themselves in such situations. Furthermore, unless a victimized father is financially capable of returning to court on an ongoing basis, there is little that can be done to prevent such mothers' behavior. Finally, even when such cases are brought to trial, the courts are often inadequate in supporting fathers' visitation rights (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992).

Criterion 2B: Denying Uninhibited Telephone Access

Given the physical absence of one parent, the telephone plays an important role in maintaining the bond between child and non-residential parent. Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome engage in an array of actions designed to circumvent telephone access.

A father called to speak to his children and was told that they were not at home when in bet he could hear their voices in the background.

When one father called to speak with his children, the mother put him on "hold," informed no one, and then left him there.

Knowing that the children's father was away on vacation, one mother encouraged them to leave several messages on his answering machine to call back immediately only if he would like some additional visitation time with his children.

Some fathers find the alienation attempts so painful and fruitless that they eventually are extinguished from calling their children; they simply "give up." Placed in a no-win scenario, the father's "abandonment" (Hedges, 1991) unfortunately achieves the precise result aimed for by the individual suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.

Criterion 2C: Denying Participation in Extra-Curricular Activities

An integral part of the process of maintaining one's bond with one's child is to participate in activities that one did before the parents separated. School plays, team sports, and religious events are just some of the types of activities of importance. Malicious Mothers frequently engage in maneuvers designed to prevent participation in these activities.

One father was deliberately given the wrong date and time for an important event for the child. The child was asked by the mother, "I wonder why your father didn't want to come to see you today"?

One mother refused to provide the father with any information about any extra-curricular activities in which the children were engaged.

Prior to a child's soccer game, one mother told many of the team parents disparaging falsehoods about the visiting lather. When he came to watch his son's soccer game, many of these parents looked at him with angry eyes, refused to talk with him, and walked away when he moved toward them.

Malicious Mothers who engage in such behaviors rarely have to face penalties for such actions. Judges, attorneys, and policemen cannot involve themselves in every instance of blocked paternal access. Furthermore, most fathers cannot afford the financial requirements involved. As such, the cycle of access interference perpetuates itself.

Criterion 3A: Malicious Lying to the Children

Given their developmental status, children in a disputed divorce situation are quite vulnerable. When one parent decides to attack the other by lying to the children, examples of this type of malicious behavior may include some of the following.

One divorcing mother told her very young daughter that her father was "not really" her father even though he was.

An eight year old girl was forced by her mother to hand unpaid bills to her lather when he visited because the mother had falsely told the daughter that the father had not provided any economic means of support to the family.

One mother falsely told her children that their father had repeatedly beat her up in the past.

These examples of malicious lying can be contrasted with the more subtle maneuvers typically seen in Parental Alienation Syndrome, such as "virtual allegations" (Cartwright, 1993). Here, the mother setting up a Parental Alienation Syndrome may hint that abuse may have occurred, whereas the individual suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome falsely claims that abuse has actually occurred.

Criterion 3B: Malicious Lying to Others

Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome may engage a wide range of other individuals in their attacks upon the ex-husband. However, with this particular criterion, the individual with Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome specifically lies to other individuals in the belligerency against the father. Some examples include the following.

One furious mother called the president of the (1500 employee) workplace of her divorcing husband, claiming falsely that he was using business property for personal gain and was abusing their mutual children at his work locale.

One woman falsely told slate officials that her ex-husband was sexually abusing their daughter. The child was immediately taken away from him and his access to her was denied.

During the course of a custody dispute, one mother falsely informed the guardian, who was investigating the parenting skills of each parent, that the father had physically abused her.

Snyder (1986) has reported on the difficulty imposed upon legal authorities when confronted with someone who is an excellent liar. Consistent with research on the inability of "specialists" to detect lying (Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991), a skilled fabricator can be a compelling witness in the courtroom (Snyder, 1986). While sometimes seen in borderline personalities, Snyder (1986) notes that pathological lying (Pseudologia Fantastica) is not restricted to that particular character disorder.

Criterion 3C: Violating Law to Attack the Husband

Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome have few if any boundaries in their campaign against the divorcing husband. Violations of law are common in many cases, although the laws broken may be relatively minor. However, in some cases, the violations of law may be quite serious.

One woman deliberately drove her automobile into the house of her ex-husband where their mutual children resided.

In the midst of a custody battle, one woman broke into the residence of her divorcing husband and stole important business papers.

An angry divorcing mother called a Christian evangelical television station and pledged $1000, giving the name, address, and phone number of her divorcing Jewish husband as the pledgee.

The above descriptions may remind the reader of certain personality disorders (e.g., antisocial, borderline, sadistic) but these behaviors may be demonstrated by individuals with Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome who do not appear to meet official diagnostic criteria for an Axis II disorder. Further, in each of the four examples provided above, none of the Malicious Mothers involved was sentenced for such behavior by a Judge.

Criterion 4: Not Due to Another Disorder

In assessing the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, it is important to note that many of the above clinical examples seem to have occurred in individuals who had no prior mental disorder diagnosis or treatment. In fact, one mother who engaged in extreme maliciousness toward her divorcing husband had several mental health professionals testify that she was not suffering from any type of mental disorder. Clearly, it would seem that individuals who have Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome may or may not have a concomitant mental disorder.

In the author's experience, for each mental disorder that might come to mind to account for some of this behavior, an exceptional case presents. For example, in some cases an Adjustment Disorder might seem an appropriate diagnosis, yet one woman still denied her ex-husband visitation 10 years after the divorce. Other cases might suggest a possibility of a personality disorder diagnosis, yet one woman who repeatedly violated the law in attacking her ex-husband, received no personality disorder diagnosis despite being evaluated by masters level and doctoral level examiners. In some instances, Intermittent Explosive Disorder might be considered, yet the anger for many of the mothers does not appear to be intermittent.

Finally, the reader should appreciate that while diagnostic accuracy for certain psychiatric difficulties is not as good as one would like (e.g., the personality disorders, see Turkat, 1990), the problem is compounded in family law where incompetent mental health examiners sometimes become involved in the judicial process (Turkat, 195)3). Clearly, the relationship between Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome and other mental disorders is a complex one which requires significant investigation.

DISCUSSION

The above description of the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome raises a variety of important clinical, legal, and scientific issues.

From a clinical perspective, families that involve a Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome are subject to serious episodes of stress and distress. Yet, there is no scientific evidence on how to treat this phenomenon. It is particularly compromised by the fact that many of these cases that appear to meet the proposed diagnostic criteria deny that there is anything wrong with them.

An additional difficulty is that many therapists are unaware of this pattern of malicious behavior (Heinz and Heinz, 1993). As such, there are therapists who are "fooled" by such cases and, as noted earlier, will come to court testifying that there is nothing wrong with the mother involved.

From a legal perspective, there are some attorneys who may unintentionally encourage this type of behavior (Gardner, 1989). On the other hand, there are some attorneys who deliberately encourage such behavior, as the financial rewards for them are time dependent. In other words, the more involved the litigation process, the greater the profits for the attorney (Grotman and Thomas, 1990). However, even for the subset of attorneys for whom this may be true, there is a point of diminishing returns. Furthermore, independent of economic considerations, many who become involved with family law courtrooms find that these types of cases are not handled well (Greif, 1985; Levy, 1992).

The woman who is not disturbed "enough" to lose custody of her children in the courtroom will not have money denied to her because she engages in this behavior; nor will she go to jail. Thus, many clients report significant frustration when they and their children are exposed to this type of behavior, and the courts seem to do little if anything about.

In a review of pertinent law literature on bias against men in family law proceedings, Tillitski (1992) concluded that there is widespread discrimination. This is well illustrated by one family law Judge's statement that, "I ain't never seen the calves follow the bulls, they always follow the cow; therefore, I always give custody to the mamas" (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992 p. 742). Similarly, it is noted that visitation rights of fathers are not enforced as rigidly as are child support orders (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992). Such bias against men in family law proceedings results in a unique group of fathers who unintentionally become relatively helpless victims of the system (Tillitski, 1992). This situation would seem to reinforce much of the vicious behavior displayed by women suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.

The issue of sex distribution of the disorder certainly needs to be addressed. The overwhelming majority of custodial parents are female (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992). Gardner (1989) has noted that Parental Alienation Syndrome appears most commonly in females, although it is possible for a male who has custody of the children to engage in the same type of alienating behaviors. The author's experience with Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome is similar to Gardner's. However, the present writer has yet to see a case of a father engaging in all of the criteria listed. This does not mean that it is not possible for there to be a "Malicious Father" Syndrome. In fact, Shepard (1992) reports that there is significant abuse of some custodial mothers by non-residential fathers. On the other hand, it should be noted that there are females who are required to pay chiltl support, but we have yet to heara about "Deadbeat Moms." Given at the present time that a case in which the father met all of the criteria for Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syntlrome has yet to be documented, it appears advisable to await scientific evidence to guide issues of nosologic labeling.

How prevalent is the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome? The answer is unknown. Gardner (1989) reports that approximately 90% of all custody battles involve some aspects of parental alienation. Further, Kressel (1985) reviewed data indicating that up to 40% of maternal custodians denied visitation to the ex-husband in order to punish him. Relatedly, Arditti (1992) reported that 50% of a sample of divorced fathers (N = 125) indicated that visitation was interfered with by the mother. While aspects of parental alienation may be common, it is highly unlikely that such a percentage of maternal custodians would meet all of the criteria for Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.

In regard to incidence, it would appear through the title of this syndrome that the malicious behavior is precipitated by the divorce process.

However, this is clearly an empirical question. While the malicious actions may first be noted during a divorce process, it is possible that maliciousness may have been present earlier but undetected. Research on pre-divorce parental conflict (Enos and Handal, 1986) supports this speculation. Relatedly, it may also be that there are some cases of pre-existing mental disorder that have not been discovered until the stress of the divorce itself unfolds.

Finally, it should be noted that research on the nature of post-divorce family functioning is beginning to emerge. Some data exist on the role of parental conflict in children's postdivorce functioning (e.g., Frost and Pakiz, 1990; Furstenberg et al., 1987; Healy, Malley and Stewart, 1990; Kudek, 1988), but studies have yet to appear on the more extreme cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.

The Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome represents an important societal phenomenon. The disorder affects children, parents, attorneys, judges, guardians, mental health professionals, and others. Until this phenomenon is explored more thoroughly in the scientific and clinical literature, the problems imposed by individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome will continue to plague us. Hopefully, the present manuscript will stimulate research so that clinical and legal management guidelines can be developed.

REFERENCES

Artlitli, J. A. (1992). Factors related to custody, visitation, and child support for divorced fathers: An exploratory analysis. J. Div. Remarr. 17: 23-42.

Beal, E. W., and Hockman, D. (1991). Adult Children of Divorce, Delacorte Press, New York.

Cartwright, D. F. (1993), Expanding the parameters of parental alienation syndrome. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 21: 205-215.

Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System. (1992). Gender and justice in the courts: A report to the supreme court of Georgia. Georgia State Univ. Law Rev. 8: 539-807.

Ekman, P., and O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46: 913-920.

Enos, D. M., and Handal, P. J. (1986). The relation of parental marital status and perceived family conflict to adjustment in white adolescents. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 54: 820-824.

Frost, A. K., and Pakiz, U. (1990). The effects of marital disruption on adolescence: Time as a dynamic. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60: 544-555.

Furstenberg, F. F., Morgan, S. P., and Allison, P. D. (1987). Paternal participation and children's well being after marital dissolution. Am. Sociological Rev. 52: 695-701.

Gardner, R. A. (1987). The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the Differentiation Between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sex Abuse, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, NJ.

Gardner, R. A. (1989). Family Evaluation in Child Custody Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, NJ.

Greif, G. L. (1985). Single Fathers, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Grutman, R., and Thomas, B. (1990). Lawyers and Thieves. Simon & Schuster, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Healy, J. M., Malley, J. E., and Stewart, A. J. (1900). Children and their fathers after parental separation. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60: 531-543.

Hetherington, E. N., and Arasteh, J. D. (eds.). (1988). Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Heinz, H. R., and Heinz, S. A. (1993). Emotional incest: The tragedy of divorcing families. Am. J. Fam. Law 7: 169-174.

Hernandez, D. J. (1988). The demographics of divorce and remarriage. In Hetherington, E. M., and Arasteh, J. D. (eds.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3-22.

Hodges, W. E (1991). Interventions for Children of Divorce, (second edition), Wiley, New York.

Keane, G. (1990). Florida Divorce Handbook, Pineapple Press, Sarasota, FL.

Koel, A., Clark, S. C., Phear, W. P., and Hauser, B. B. (1988). A comparison of joint and sole legal custody agreements. In Hetherington, E. M., and Arasteh, J. D. (eds.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 73-90.

Kressel, K. (1985). The Process of Divorce, Basic Books, New York.

Kurdek, L. (1988). Custodial mothers' perceptions of visitation and payment of child support by non-custodial fathers in families with low and high levels of pre-separation interparental conflict. J. Appl. Devel. Psychol. 9: 315-328.

Laosa, L. N. (1988). Ethnicity and single parenting in the United Stales. In Hetherington, E. M., and Arasteh, J. D. (eds.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 23-49.

Shepard, N. (1992). Child-visiting and domestic abuse. Child Welfare 71: 357-367.

Snyder, S. (1986). Pseudologia Fantastica in the borderline patient. Am. J. Psychiatry 143: 1287-1289.

Tillitski C. J. (1992). Fathers and child custody: Issues, trends, and implications for counseling. J. Ment. Health Counsel. 14: 351-361.

Turkat I. D. (1990). The Personality Disorders: A Psychological Approach to Clinical Management, Pergamon, New York.

Turkal, I. D. (1993). Questioning the mental health expert's custody report. Am. J. Fam. Law 7: 175-179.

Ira Daniel Turkat, Florida Institute of Psychology and University of Florida College of Medicine,
1225 Avenida Del Circo, Venice, Florida 34285.