|
MPs push for families tribunal
By Dennis Atkins - 22Mar04
THE Federal Government could today decide to establish a new tribunal which would reduce the Family Court's power.
Cabinet is due to finalise its response to the parliamentary committee report on child custody which recommended a new families tribunal at the end of last year.
Despite initial opposition to a new body from senior ministers including Treasurer Peter Costello, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock is making a last-minute bid for the tribunal.
A senior government source said the issue "hung in the balance" but support for a tribunal had increased since Cabinet first considered the issue at the beginning of the month.
"Some ministers do not want another layer of bureaucracy but the A-G is very strongly behind the proposal," the source said.
The tribunal proposal has strong backing from many backbench Coalition MPs as well as from ministers who are suspicious of Family Court chief judge Alistair Nicholson -- a frequent critic of the Government.
One Liberal MP said Justice Nicholson's constant criticism of the Government over funding and legal aid had left him "without any real support" among Coalition politicians.
Justice Nicholson last year questioned the "constitutional validity" of the proposed tribunal and suggested that it might not be capable of handling the large number of cases it would attract.
The joint standing committee on family and community affairs recommended a tribunal, with the power to issue enforceable parenting orders, to handle most cases now heard by the Family Court.
The court would be left to deal with only the more difficult cases involving family violence, substance use and child abuse, as well as situations where there was a prolonged history of violence.
Lawyers would be excluded from the tribunal which would focus on conciliation and mediation.
Before attending the tribunal, parents would be encouraged to seek advice from a "one-stop shopfront" advisory service.
When the committee reported in late December, Children and Youth Affairs Minister Larry Anthony said he doubted the Government would want to set up "multiple layers of bureaucracy".
But it is now understood that Mr Anthony supports the concept of a tribunal.
Cabinet is expected to give its approval to new funding for increased mediation and counselling and a new community education program.
The involvement of grandparents in handling custody arrangements would also be promoted -- as would increased contact with non-resident parents (in most instances, fathers).
Other reforms likely to be approved include reducing the cap for high-income earners and allowing parents to take a second job or do overtime without having to increase child-support payments, as well as an increase in the minimum child-support payment from $5 to $10 a week.
The committee's report was criticised because it stopped short of recommending automatic 50-50 shared custody -- one of the demands which led to the establishment of the inquiry.
This report appears on NEWS.com.au.
==================================================
END
From http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2851629a6220,00.html
THE DOMINION POST
O P I N I O N S T O R Y
Privacy and the Family Court
22 March 2004
These angry men are well known to MPs, to Family Court judges and to newspaper editors. They are the wreckages of broken marriages, the fathers of children whose custody has not been determined in their favour by the New Zealand court system, writes the Dominion Post in an editorial.
They feel bruised by what they see as a secretive system that favours mothers, a system that, for some, is merely an extension of the feminist movement.
Their case is forcefully and publicly advanced by ACT NZ list MP Muriel Newman. Her arguments to those willing to listen are quite persuasive.
It is unlikely, however, that she will welcome a Law Commission report, released last week, that hints at more openness for proceedings in the Family Court but binds the idea with hefty constraints.
Among the 160 recommendations in the report on the broad justice system, Justice for All, are 15 relating to open justice in family, youth, criminal and civil proceedings.
In reinforcing the importance of conducting justice in an open court, the commission recommends that, for the first time, journalists be allowed to report family proceedings as of right. At the same time, it recommends that family proceedings that are currently closed to the public should remain closed and that judges retain the discretion to decide what, if anything, should be open to public scrutiny.
That won't satisfy Dr Newman or the irate fathers who have hitched themselves to her wagon. It already irritates National's families spokeswoman, Judith Collins, who argues that the prohibitions still in place will mean little amelioration of secrecy and accountability concerns. A lawyer, Ms Collins says that the recommendation to slacken the reins will limit reporting to proceedings that relate to property, wills and the incapacitated. She predicts, too, that the prohibitions on identifying witnesses or others connected with a case without court approval means there is unlikely to be reporting of Child, Youth and Family competence, parental bad behaviour or incompetence masquerading as cultural sensitivity.
At least as controversial as its Family Court recommendations is the commission's suggestion that no one charged with a criminal offence be identified ??? that is, named or described ??? till the substance of the case has gone to court. This idea is not new; a version of it was introduced briefly 30 years ago by the Kirk Labour government's attorney-general, Martyn Finlay. Such suppression is the complete reverse of what happens now, which is why, of course, some lawyers and policy wonks in the Justice Ministry like the idea. The disinfectant of sunlight is not universally popular.
The Clark government has undertaken to consider the proposals as well as community reaction, and then respond. The legal profession, the judiciary, fathers, groups and the news media will clearly want their tuppence worth.
Their opinions, as well as those of the court system's other users ??? crims, young people, too many Maori, business and separated families ??? should be actively sought, not passively awaited. After all, the Brash speech on race relations proved Labour was moving ahead of the public. Who knows? Justice Minister Phil Goff might just decide to heed the thrust of its views more closely than Cabinet did opinion on the Privy Council and prostitution law reform.
END
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1045964,00.html
The Sunday Times (Britain)
21 March 2004
Men want to wed ... women want to roam
By John Elliott
The battle of the sexes has turned full circle. Single men are for the
first time more likely than women to want to settle down and marry,
according to a new study.
While men are becoming bewildered creatures yearning for a loving wife,
women are relishing their freedom and savouring life on their own.
Experts say the report, Singletons, by the research company Mintel,
confirms observations that a shift has occurred in relations between
the
sexes.
Women have become ever more adventurous and socially confident over the
past 20 years, while men have become more insecure and anxious.
Nicola Stuber, author of the report, found that unattached males set a
higher store by relationships than women in the same position. "They
are
more likely to prioritise being in a steady relationship and getting
married or cohabiting," she said.
"Unattached women seem more adventurous in some ways than unattached
men -
they are more inclined to take time out to travel and see the world,
and
are also more enthusiastic about self-improvement. Women are becoming
more
independent, but men like to have a steady relationship, so there's
someone
to rely on."
Researchers found, after interviewing 366 singles, that 39% of single
men
believe being in a steady relationship is one of the most important
things
in life, compared with 26% of single women. Men are also more likely to
have marriage on their mind, with 21% considering it a priority
compared
with 15% of women.
Women are more interested in improving themselves than men - 38% rate
"learning new skills" as a priority, compared with 17% of men - and 43%
rate "having good holidays" as important, compared with 38% of men.
The trend for women to travel the world is epitomised by the new breed
of
British round-the-world yachtswomen.Emma Richards, 29, who competed in
the
2002-03 Around Alone solo round-the-world yacht race, said: "It is
difficult for relationships, but I don't regret any of it."
Richards has now found the ideal way to combine her love of the ocean
with
a relationship. In 2005 she plans to co-skipper a yacht in the Volvo
round-the-world race with her boyfriend.
Fellow yachtswoman Tracey Edwards, 41, blamed the sport for the
break-up of
her marriage. She said last year: "It's impossible - sailing and
relationships never work, especially if you are single. Men are less
tolerant of being away. But that's a price you have to pay."
The change is more marked in the younger generation. Adam Grady, a
23-year-old physiotherapist from London, is due to marry his fiancee
Danielle Besant, 23, a trainee dentist, in December. Besant plans to
work
abroad and Grady is happy to move with her.
"There are a lot of aspects to Danielle - her values and attitudes -
that
are very similar to my mum. She's caring, maternal and will be
wonderful at
looking after our family," he said.
"She's keen to travel and wants to work abroad, but if she didn't want
to
go abroad then I wouldn't go as I don't want to spend time apart from
her."
Besant said: "Spending time abroad was something I've always had plans
to
do and Adam was quite happy to go."
Richard Scase, professor of sociology at Kent University and author of
the
book Britain in 2010: the Changing Business Landscape, said: "We now
have
more assertive, self-confident women, much more aspirational than men,
more
risk- taking and more enterprising."
Scase said success in the workplace meant that women no longer needed
to
rely on men financially: "The bargaining power of men in the erotic
marketplace has declined quite dramatically. Men no longer call the
shots -
it's women who pick and choose."
END
From Guardian (UK)
The Guardian (Britain)
20 March 2004
Fathers spurn plan to save parents from court battles
Government unveils scheme to encourage mediation in contact rows
By Clare Dyer, legal correspondent
Measures unveiled by the government yesterday to try to divert separated
parents from bitter court battles over their children were condemned by
fathers' groups as "doomed to failure."
Fathers4Justice, the group whose stunts have paralysed traffic around the
country, pledged to step up its campaign for a better deal for separated
fathers.
Pilot schemes to encourage warring parents to resolve contact disputes by
mediation will be launched in London, Brighton and Sunderland from next
September.
But fathers' organisations predicted that the scheme would fail and
criticised the decision not to go ahead with a pilot more closely modelled
on a successful "early intervention" scheme in Florida and other US states.
The department of constitutional affairs had been consid ering a scheme
modelled on one which has dramatically cut the number of court cases in
Florida. Judges, lawyers and other professionals had consulted for three
years and come up with a plan under which parents would be presented with
sample parenting plans, with an assumption of generous time with the
children for both mother and father.
Instead, the more ad hoc "family resolution" scheme favoured by the
Department for Education and Skills will go ahead. Parents who apply to
court for contact orders will be encouraged to go to mediation to try to
agree their own arrangements within two weeks, instead of waiting 16 weeks
for a court hearing. But mediation is voluntary and unless both parents
agree, it will not take place.
Tony Coe, president of the Equal Parenting Council, said the initiative was
"doomed to failure" and parents should have a legal presumption of contact
with their children.
He added: "It isn't going to make, as far as we can see, any practical
difference.
"We need simplicity so everybody knows the moment they go to court, the
court is going to be aiming towards a shared parenting plan unless there is
a genuine reason why that should not take place - if a parent is violent or
abusive."
"Mediation is all well and good, and we are all supportive of mediation,
but it is of no value if you don't have the authority of the court behind
it."
The minister for children, Margaret Hodge, and the family justice minister,
Lord Filkin, also announced an additional ??3.5m for child contact services,
including funding of 14 new contact centres and the introduction of new
forms to ensure judges are aware of accusations or incidents of domestic
violence at the start of cases.
Jim Parton of Families Need Fathers described the family resolution scheme
as "watered down and ineffectual."
Fathers 4 Justice, whose members dress as super-heroes to stage protests on
cranes, said the pilot was "cynical" and an "absolute sham". Matt O'Connor,
the group's founder, said: "From our point there are no good points."
He added that "to make matters worse", the Children and Family Court
Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) would be involved in administering
the scheme. Cafcass was heavily criticised by the Commons constitutional
affairs committee last year.
It found there were "serious failings" in the organisation which was unable
to cope with the demand for its services.
A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills stressed the scheme
was a pilot, which would be evaluated after a year. The initiative was
welcomed by Relate, and by the Solicitors Family Law Association, which
advocates mediation in disputes.
````````````````````````````````````
END
From http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2670588
Love-Tug Parents Offered Mediation Scheme to Resolve Child Disputes
By Jennifer Sym, PA News
Measures to encourage warring ???love-tug??? parents to attend mediation instead of sinking into lengthy and bitter courtroom battles over their children were announced by the Government today.
Three new Family Resolution Pilot schemes for families to agree practical solutions were unveiled for London, Brighton and Sunderland.
Minister for Children Margaret Hodge and Family Justice Minister Lord Filkin also announced an additional ??3.5million for child contact services, including funding of 14 new supervised contact centres and the introduction of new forms to ensure judges are aware of accusations or instances of domestic violence at the start of cases.
Mrs Hodge said: ???Battles in the courts about contact and residence following separation or divorce can be harmful to children. That???s why we want divorcing or separating parents to reach agreement between themselves about arrangements for the future of their children.???
The Family Resolution Pilots will run for a year and, if successful, could be rolled out nationally.
She added: ???By helping more parents agree practical solutions that will benefit their children, we believe that we can divert many families from lengthy, costly and damaging disputes that experience shows will leave many unhappy with the outcome.???
Fathers 4 Justice, the campaign group whose members dress as super-heroes to stage protests on gantries and cranes, said the pilot was ???cynical??? and an ???absolute sham???.
They said is was modelled on a scheme in Florida, but without the legal enforcement needed to make it work.
Matt O???Connor, founder of Fathers 4 Justice, said: ???From our point of view, there are no good points.
???It is an absolute sham of a proposal.
???In Florida it works because there is also enforcement of contact orders.
???This does nothing to address that. It does nothing to help people in the family court system and we regard it as a cynical attempt to stop parents going to court, particularly in London, because they are jammed to the gunwales.???
He said around 50% of contact orders were broken by parents, leaving many fathers ??? who are the ???vast majority??? of those who seek the order ??? without access to their children.
Among the administrators of the scheme will be charities and the Children And Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), which was condemned by the Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee last year.
It found there were ???serious failings??? in the organisation which was unable to cope with the demand for its services.
Mr O???Connor, who says the group has 7,500 members, said: ???If they don???t have enforcement, what chance is there she (the mother) will listen to a mediator if she won???t listen to a judge, or follow a piece of paper if she won???t follow a court order?
He added that, ???to make matters worse???, the Children And Family Court Advisory and Support Service would administer it, ???so what we have today potentially is a Minister with a history of failing children when she was leader of Islington Council giving a project to an organisation with a history of failing children???.
He pledged an escalating, more serious campaign for equality for parents before the courts, and called for the creation of a Minister for Family Life.
A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills stressed the scheme was a pilot, which was the product of wide consultation within the UK and internationally.
It was designed to ensure parents saw a mediator within two weeks, rather than up to 16 weeks, as is the case currently.
He said the agreed contact plan could then be ratified by a judge.
The pilot is not compulsory, but judges may question why parents had not resorted to the scheme.
Official figures show the number of contact orders granted by the courts has increased by nearly 50% in five years, from 42,000 in 1997 to 61,000 in 2002.
Lord Filkin said: ???Fewer than one in 10 contact disputes go to court. We want to ensure even more parents splitting up are enabled to resolve parenting issues between themselves in ways that work.
???A mutually agreed plan for parenting is less painful for children and parents are more likely to stick to an agreement they???ve come to themselves, rather than an agreement imposed by a judge.
But he added: ???It is not acceptable for contact orders to be flouted. We will be looking at ways to give judges greater and more varied levers to enforce and facilitate compliance.
???This response is the first strand in our on-going work on parental relationship breakdown, but we intend to go further. We are currently looking more widely at these issues and will bring forward proposals for wider change in the summer.???
END
From http://fact.on.ca/Info/dom/under_at.htm
Under Attack: The lonely cry of battered husbands.
by Karen Woodstra, Published in The Toronto Sun, Father's Day, 1994
Waves softly caressed the white, sandy shores of Florida under a clear blue tropical sky. The breeze was gentle, the air warm, the mood romantic. For a Toronto couple, it was to be the backdrop for a tryst intended to save their troubled marriage. But after three glorious days, the dream of reconciliation turned into a nightmare. He awoke at 4 a.m. to answer a pounding at the door. His wife, drunk, had been out with another man. His eyes filled with tears: "Is this what I get for trying to make a go of things?" he sobbed.
She responded with a string of profanity. He packed his bags and, as he left, she ran out behind him, carrying a pillow which she held over her hand as she punched the front window of their beachfront room. Panicking, he forced her back into the room, where she began to punch and kick him. Then she hurled a lamp. Next she ripped the phone from the wall and threw it and pulled the drawers from the dresser and threw them, too. Finally, catching him off guard, she grabbed a beer bottle and smashed it into his face.
When two Orange County police officers arrived, she screamed: "Arrest him!" The officers, noticing his injuries, said if she insisted on having him arrested, they'd have to arrest her, too. No charges were laid.
In thousands of homes across Canada, the family is a crucible for seething violence. Women are beaten daily and innocent children are victims of brutal assaults. But there is another form of violence that has been largely ignored, even laughed at. Husband abuse, according to several studies, is becoming as prevalent as wife abuse.
"Men are going through what women did in the '60s and '70s," says Mark, the victim in that Florida motel room. "I believe men will have to suffer more - as women did - before this is a fully recognized problem."
Statistics show husband abuse is spreading, but few services exist to help the victims. One such group, possibly the only one of its kind in Metro, meets in the Beaches to provide counselling and support for abused husbands.
The men who gather there weekly abide by a strict set of rules: "Keep meeting discussions confidential. Keep an open mind. Don't bring guests to closed meetings. Don't tell others how they should and should not feel."
The serious voice pauses. "What is said here, what is heard here, when you leave here, let it stay here." The meeting commences.
A dozen men from all walks of life sit in a meagerly decorated room. Portraits of the Beach Roll of Honor line two walls. The men begin to speak. The occasional silence is filled by buzzing from the overhead fluorescent lights. Traffic noises from Main St. periodically interrupt the conversation.
The men take turns telling their stories and sharing in each other's despair and frustration. As they speak, their stories are as similar as the body language: clenched fists, hunched shoulders, tense expressions, sorrowful eyes. A sullen cloud envelopes the room.
A man saturated in emotional pain allows silent tears to stream down flushed cheeks. The room is dead quiet as we watch a man, beaten by his wife and humiliated by society, draining his anguish. He speaks of how he attempted to take his life the night before.
"I tried hopelessly to save my marriage. I was willing to forget the past and to start all over." He recounts how she not only rejected his plea as he attempted to put his arm around her, but had him charged with sexual assault. He was convicted.
The group is called Male Survivors of Relationship Violence. It was formed in March l993 and meets every Monday at Community Centre No. 55 on Main St. Its founder is a man we'll call Kevin, a man who says his wife assaulted him throughout four years of marriage.
"When my marriage ended, I searched desperately for a self-help group for abused men. What I found was society making a joke because I was abused. I actually came across people who laughed at me."
That humiliation drove Kevin to form the support group. "There are countless men out there who are faced with the same agonizing pain I experienced. Being an abused husband is bad enough the systemic abuse many of us endure afterwards is just as debilitating to our emotional well-being."
The group was funded by the federal government for the first year, but currently relies on private and corporate donations. Toronto psychiatrist Gordon Baker, whose patients include several men abused by their wives, is on the board of directors.
If husband abuse is so prevalent, why don't we hear about it? Metro Police Sgt. Sue McCoy, of the community services unit, says men are reluctant to come forward because of "fear of being labeled a wimp by society."
Abraham Kass, a marriage and family therapist in Newmarket, says: "The attitude "men are men" is a false notion. I believe husband abuse is just as prevalent as wife abuse. In my practice, the cases of wife and husband abuse are 50-50."
Scott is typical of the men who are victims of abuse. "Men think they have an image to uphold. If we admit that our wives beat us up, we'd be labeled a wussy. If you show up at work and you have a visible bruise, some people jokingly say, "What happened, wife beat you up?" Hey, I tell you, when you've had your self-esteem destroyed you don't need any salt poured into the wounds - even if it is meant as a joke."
Former Ontario Supreme Court chief justice G.T. Evans says: "So many men fear a loss of their macho image with an admission of being abused."
Christopher Murphy, a lawyer specializing in family law in Newmarket, agrees: "Men fear society's general reaction - "What a wimp, the wife beats you up" - so they rarely come forward."
The men who do come forward find they are often laughed at, or asked: "Husband abuse? Are you serious?"
Mike was brutally attacked by his wife.
"She grabbed my hair, forcing my head downwards. With incredible force, her knee smashed into my face, destroying my glasses. The flow of blood blurred my vision."
While his wounds were being stitched up in hospital, his wife admitted her guilt to police. The hospital report states "wife assaulted him." Yet the police laid no charges until Mike pressed the matter. When he told his story in family court in Toronto, Mike says the entire courtroom burst into laughter, including the judge. Mike dropped the charges.
It is common for these men to have their complaints treated lightly. They have no desire to divert attention from the seriousness of wife abuse, but merely want their plight to also be taken seriously. Instead, society tends to trample further their fragile emotional states.
"We affirm many women are faced with a serious problem," says Doug. "But not all women are lily-white. Our situation must be recognized, too."
"Mr. B" or "The Reverend Victim" recently won a $200,000 lawsuit against Durham Region's Children's Aid Society for negligence after the agency believed his wife's flimsy accusations of child abuse. She had run off with a paroled criminal the Anglican minister had, at the request of parole officials, taken into his home. She had taken their daughters and virtually cleaned out the family's bank account. After Mr. B tracked her down and won visitation rights, she accused him of molesting the girls. The agency went to court, without his knowledge, and obtained a child protection order against him. He battled back in family court and, eventually, was exonerated. He had lost his pulpit, but fought on and won custody of his daughters.
"For me, the greatest abuse was the insidious set of lies my wife told," said Mr. B. "She took nine years of my life away. That hurt more than any physical action."
Mark, whose stormy marriage ended on that Florida vacation, acknowledges hundreds of women are routinely abused by their husbands. He just wishes people could believe the opposite is also true.
"I can't speak for everyone but, in my situation, my wife had no problem uttering death threats or slicing my arm with a knife. I feel women are more apt to use a weapon to counteract the man's physical strength. Look at John Bobbitt (whose wife lopped off his penis). I don't feel he's an angel, but he certainly didn't deserve that!" Crimes committed by women are on the rise.
Metro Police statistics show 13,454 women were charged with Criminal Code offences in 1992, a 31% increase since 1990. Men still commit far more crimes, but the number of women being charged is climbing at a faster rate than men.
"I believe women became more violent at the same time of the alleged equality between the sexes," says former justice Evans. "They became assertive."
Peter (not his real name) says his wife constantly tried to provoke him during their 14-year marriage.
"I could never figure her out. One time she threatened me with a knife. I was terrified. She had malice in her eyes. I only forgot to take the garbage out!"
Peter locked himself in his room and called police. When they arrived, they found a calm woman sitting in a rocking chair, bottle-feeding her baby. No charges were laid.
He recalls: "She would throw objects - flower pots, plates, anything in an attempt to injure me. What hurts most is that no one believed me."
Peter finally wrote to Premier Bob Rae, and Rae replied: "I have read your letter and agree society must recognize that men are also victims of domestic violence. You raise a number of important issues about victims and abuse. Our government feels that all such violence is completely unacceptable."
Manitoba recently enacted a zero tolerance policy on domestic violence in which the government decided to deal harshly with all domestic assault cases, whether by a male or a female. The legislation was opposed by women's rights groups, which argued women are usually acting in self-defence. In Saskatchewan, the recently passed Victims of Domestic Violence Assistance Act allows for the removal of the abuser from the home. Newfoundland is drafting similar legislation, says a government minister.
Attitudes are slowly changing.
In July 1993, a man was given a conditional discharge for assaulting his wife after telling Cobourg provincial court she persistently provoked him. Judge John Bark stirred up a ruckus when he said from the bench that he was reminded of a not-well-publicized statistic that far more men are assaulted by their wives than the other way around. James (not his real name) would agree with the judge. He endured repeated verbal and physical assaults after his wedding in l988. If something was in need of repair around the home, and he was unable to fix it, his wife would slap his face and call him
useless.
James was reluctant to speak about his experience. He is a short, thin man, almost frail. He says his wife outweighed him by 45 kilograms (100 pounds). Toward the end of his marriage earlier this year, James lost his job.
He blamed his home life. After three weeks of job hunting, she threw boiling water at him, demanding he get work immediately. Shortly after the incident, James says his wife forced him at gunpoint to perform oral sex. Later that night, as she slept, he escaped with only the clothes on his back.
How much is really known about relationship violence against men?
A study done by University of Alberta psychiatry professor Roger Bland found 22.6% of women admitted hitting or throwing things at their husband, while 14.6% of men admitted hitting or throwing things at their wives.
Scott doesn't know about statistics, he just knows how he was belittled and hurt by his wife.
"When she was worked up about something, her voice was as loud as a clap of thunder. We were evicted from an apartment because of it." A shadow crosses his face. "I put up with so much verbal and physical abuse. There were times I was terrified. At the end of the relationship, she threw a metal address file at me, leaving a deep gouge in my hand. She went wild and destroyed countless possessions in our home. Thankfully, my daughter slept through it all. When the police arrived, she told them I did the damage."
Scott says the police interviewed his wife, then arrested him. He was convicted of assault and jailed for 60 days. "She told the police I pushed her into a glass table. No scars on her - she was the one who destroyed it - I get time for it. To make matters worse, she got custody of my daughter from my first marriage."
In a 1993 federally funded study conducted by Reena Sommer and others at the University of Manitoba, almost 40% of women polled said they had threatened or physically abused their husband, considerably more than the percentage of men who admitted abusing their wife. A 1985 survey, conducted by family violence researchers Murray Straus and Richard Gelles at the University of New Hampshire, revealed nearly twice as many wives threw things at their husbands than vice
versa.
Denis says his wife threw dishes, lamps, candleholders, even a rocking chair at me. I never knew when to expect her violent outbursts, so I lived almost in constant fear for two years. One time, she had cut herself and in her blood wrote: "I hate you."
"People ask why I put up with it. I felt that being a man meant you absorb it all." Eugen Lupri, a sociology professor at the University of Calgary, specializes in family and gender relations. Lupri conducted a national survey of some six million couples in 1986 and found the overall violence index was 17.8% for men and 23.3% for women. The severe violence index was 10.1% for men and 12.9% for women.
Why do abused men remain in abusive relationships?
As with abused wives, abused husbands are likely to remain with their wives if they experienced or witnessed abuse in their childhood or have limited economic resources.
Mr. B says one reason is "many men honor their vows `for better or for worse.' It's something they hold tight to." People tend to settle into routines and patterns, which we are reluctant to sever. Toronto psychiatrist Gordon Baker says we accept these routines for two reasons: "security and sanity."
In many cases, abused men are the type who were reared to never strike a woman, even in self-defence.
"It was understood ever since I could remember, I was never to hit a girl," says Denis. "I believe many men raised in the '50s and '60s had that drilled into them."
Many men also remain in an abusive situation to be near their children, and to protect them. Some husbands become the target of abuse when they try to protect their kids.
Alan (not his real name) fears for the safety of his son. "She has serious problems, yet won't acknowledge them. With her short fuse, I worry about our son. Her temper is a time bomb."
Mildred D. Pagelow, a research professor of sociology at California State University, says men and women stay in relationships after the initial experience of violence for many of the same reasons: They love their spouse, the spouse is genuinely apologetic, disclosure of violence would cause embarrassment, or the behavior is excused by circumstance (alcohol, drugs or stress).
Debbie De Gale, a social worker with The Elizabeth Fry Society in Winnipeg, has established a program called Women For Change. It provides counselling for women who abuse their partners.
"Violence is a learned behavior. Women, as well as men, have witnessed or experienced violence in their childhood."
De Gale notes many women are in reverse roles now. They are the family breadwinners and facing more stress than ever before.
What will it take for society to recognize men are also victims of spousal abuse? Former chief justice Evans says: "Men must talk about their situation."
Sgt. McCoy says: "Education will help men get recognition that they, too, are victims of spousal abuse. Everyone has the right to be safe and comfortable."
For men who are suffering, Mr. B, has a few words of inspiration:
"Truth is always strong, no matter how weak it appears. It just doesn't come out as quickly as we would like it to."
"Violence should not be a gender issue - it is a human issue."
END
From http://fact.on.ca/news/news0211/dt021102.htm
The Daily Telegraph
The mother of all feminist deceits
THIS week someone released the results of a survey which showed ??? shock! horror! ??? that most full-time mothers are happy, indeed they are among the happiest members of the community.
MICHAEL DUFFY writes.
MICHAEL DUFFY
02nov02
Daily Telegraph (Sydney)
I was struck by this because I cannot remember ever seeing this reported in the media.
As for academia, Ruth Weston of the Australian Institute of Family Studies says she cannot think of any previous research showing this.
While most of us know plenty of happy full-time mums, many academics, feminist commentators and journalists would rather picture them as an oppressed and miserable form of life.
Not long ago, for instance, we went through a major public debate about paid maternity leave in which the interests of full-time mothers were largely ignored.
The assumption was that working outside the home was the "natural" occupation for women, while having babies was an abnormal activity that would occur only if subsidised by government.
There was also the assumption that women want to get the kids off their hands as soon as possible by handing them over to childcare and returning posthaste to the paid workforce.
But as a number of mothers said to me at the time, most paid work is not as much fun as some feminist commentators seem to think ??? and looking after a child can be the most rewarding activity in the world.
I know these comments will attract criticism from miserable mums and there is no doubt that motherhood can be a nightmare.
What matters here, though, is what it is like for most mums and how it compares with what they would be doing if they were not looking after their babies.
Would they prefer to be childless? Or ??? the alternative for many ??? to be growing old in some boring job while some other women had the pleasure of looking after their beautiful child?
I also know that some women with children are forced to work to help support their families and would much rather not.
These women are, understandably, among the most unhappy in the community.
According to Professor Bob Cummins of Deakin University, one of the authors of the just-released Australian Unity Wellbeing Index, working mothers with young children can often be under "tremendous strain".
However, we have to be careful with our sympathy here.
Many mothers in paid work with their kids in childcare have chosen this way of life in order to buy a big house in an up-market suburb.
Sure, they are under stress, but it is a choice they have made. Plenty of people make a different choice and go for time with their children rather than material goods ??? and this survey suggests most are happier for it.
So where did the myth of miserable mothers come from? It began with feminists such as Germaine Greer back in the 1960s and 1970s, out to destroy male dominance of society. They had a lot to complain about ??? there were plenty of frustrated women everywhere ??? and they did a great job in liberating women so that today a woman can achieve just about anything she wants to.
But why did the myth persist even when this victory had been won?
It was because of the guilt and self-interest of some feminists. Many are well-educated and successful career women who do not want to be full-time mums for more than a few years or, in some cases, a few months.
According to Dr Peter Saunders, sociologist and scholar at the Centre for Independent Studies: "In general, over the past 30 years many academic and other feminists have assumed that work in the home is inferior to outside paid work. Their object has been not to provide women with choices, but to get them out of the home."
This attempt by high-level feminists to bully politicians can be seen elsewhere, most notoriously in the Labor Party's recent decision to preselect a guaranteed minimum number of women.
This assumes that women in general are just as enthusiastic (and competent) as men to participate in politics.
There is absolutely no evidence of this and there are good reasons for arguing otherwise. Yet a small number of ambitious Labor feminists have successfully manipulated male guilt to achieve a very good result for themselves and their friends.
duffy tele@hotmail.com
?? Mirror Australian Telegraph Publications
END
From http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/l/l-misc/larukirkland052103.htm
We've Gone The Wrong Way, Baby
May 21, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Resa LaRu Kirkland
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I???m ashamed to be a woman. I feel less for it???like I don???t quite measure up. Now understand, men have never made me feel less. No, this inferiority complex began about 35 years ago with a little thing called Feminism. Feminism has made me ashamed of my sex-as a group and individually.
There was a time when women deserved respect-because we are mothers, because of our natural softness and tender feelings, because we have been the ones who raised up righteous leaders of good nations for centuries now. We dropped the ball on that most vital role, not men. Consequently, we don???t deserve the respect that men-yes men!--have bestowed upon us any longer. It is the day care facility-institutions-that raises our children now, and the result has been the most horrific social experiment history has ever seen.
In the sixties, women began taking the easy way out. Why? Because Motherhood is a damned hard thing to do. It is 24/7/365. There is no pay, no immediate gratification, little recognition, and more often than not, no appreciation until you yourself become a mother. When you go to work, you get to dress nicely. You have a schedule that you actually keep. People do what you tell them to do. You get to speak to and with adults, have conversations that have meaning. You get regular breaks, and no one is peeing or spitting up on you, throwing tantrums, breaking your things, or calling Grandma to get his way. And while there is truth to the fact that society has both revered and ridiculed that which comes naturally to women-tenderness-it is women-not men--who have inflicted the most damage. Let me explain why.
Men have always been in awe of the female form-not just physically, but spiritually and emotionally as well. While they may burst with pride over their strength and snicker at the physical "weakness" of women when compared to men, they hold in that realm of mystical and reverent those attributes of femininity that are not as comfortable within themselves, and they marvel about them in private moments. They reveal this wondering in ways that are at times misunderstood, but nevertheless bespeak of the awe they feel toward the female sex.
My all time favorite saying about the power women possess was revealed by author Samuel Johnson in the 18th century: Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little. Now before feminists start ripping tendons and ligaments with their typical knee-jerk reaction to this example, look again. This is a statement and recognition of the power and strength men recognize within women-power they envy, strength they admire, and tenderness they crave. This is a statement of respect and recognition for women, not belittlement.
Jump forward to the 20th century, and the advent of militant feminism that took hold of our culture. Now understand, there isn???t a person-male or female-that I know who doesn???t believe that women were mistreated in the past, or that they deserve rights of voting, work, etc. So let???s just toss that ridiculous argument from the get-go. No, this is about the fact that these Stalinistic Types who decided that women deserved better-not just equal-treatment than men have overtaken, destroyed, and even in the face of logic and reason-and their own case studies and evaluations--turned to typical female histrionics to bludgeon society into doing what they say.
This was driven home with a resounding wham! when Bernard Goldberg-a man, no less--talked about the final straw that made him decide he could no longer play his part in the Liberal Lineup that has overtaken the media. In his best-selling book Bias, Goldberg states that there had been little things for years that had gnawed at his conscience, but it was when he saw what was happening to children-at the behest of women, no less-that he knew he could pretend no more.
Goldberg only gave voice to what we???ve all seen for decades now, but have become too Politically Castrated to say. It is the horrifying trend in our children's feelings, lives, and behavior. You see, when we began giving into the bullying tactics of the feminist movement that used guilt and "Second Class Status" brainwashing to get women to leave the home, it resulted in our children going en masse to day cares or coming home alone. Suicide rates, sexual diseases, poor academics, increased violence and drug use, not to mention less formal criminal behavior such as arguing a great deal, deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, too much talking, too much fighting have all been the result of the selfishness of the "Woman-Good-Man-Bad" mentality of those who pay lip service only to it being "for the children" when what they really intend to say is "Mine! Mine! Mine! Now! Now! Now!"
The real kicker to this is that the Gloria Steinems of the world don???t even realize what they were saying by getting women to leave the home for the "man???s world." It was the women of the world-not the men-who force fed women the notion that what comes naturally to men-to conquer the outside world-was more important, better, more deserving than what comes naturally to women. They were actually demeaning femininity by their own words, and were too foolish to even realize it. The shame of my sex is that we bought into it. The shame of the male sex is that they did too.
Society has paid a dear price for women choosing to listen to these wretched individuals. Women are now in a far worse position than they were 100 years ago; back then, they didn???t have many other choices than to be a wife and mother. Today, if they want to be a wife and mother, they can???t unless they marry a very rich man. Feminism has enslaved us into the "SuperWoman" role-an impossible place to live. But I have a sick feeling that that is exactly their goal. You see, being pro-abortion isn???t enough. They want motherhood and wife-dom to be so difficult, so back-breaking, so agonizing in modern living that women will choose not to marry and have children. For those who still don???t grasp it, let me say it in plain speech: Feminism is the party of the "anti-child."
"Female Empowerment" was the shameful fantasy. Now for the harsh reality. Sisters, your babies are killing each other. They are having babies at younger ages and in record numbers in a desperate search for that unconditional love they couldn???t find in the myriad of minimum wage babysitters and daycares they had growing up. They are turning to gangs and drugs to ease the pain of loneliness and the longing for Mommy-a longing which is innate, necessary, and good-and it is our fault. Our children are suffering; their tender feelings have waxed cold and all signs of humanity are dying off in agonizing death throes, and we women are the cause. Women. The givers of life have turned against their own offspring in a vain quest for self-fulfillment. It is madness.
Society became this way because we women allowed ourselves to feel ashamed for having children and raising them right, and that was wrong. It???s time for the New Feminist Revolution. No longer can our children-or society-abide the general female answer and shrug: "Well, it???s the day we live in???whatcha gonna do?"
Here???s what you???re gonna do. Women, go home. Get rid of the huge mortgage and move into a trailer. It???s not the neighborhood-or village, idiot!-that raises a good child. Have two cars? Get rid of one and deal with the annoyance of having to drive more. It???s not the car that makes the family. Fancy clothes and vacations? Trivial and silly???those won???t be what your child remembers. Be the one who drops him off and picks him up from school. Those precious moments laughing and talking will always be remembered, I guarantee it. Be in the kitchen, filling a warm home with delicious smells, sounds, and memories, and bring the whole family in to make dinner again, cleaning up together afterwards and bonding over pot roast. It is simple, it is time tested, it is true. The hand that rocks the cradle did-at one time-rule the world. The cradle is silent because the hand is at work and the baby at an institution. Sisters, go home-too much is at stake. Your babies are dying and killing, and the only one who can stop this infanticide is you. The power is-and always has been-yours. Take it back now???it???s almost too late.
Keep the faith, bros-and sis-and in all things courage.
Resa LaRu Kirkland
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resa LaRu Kirkland is an avid military historian, with her main focus the Korean War and its forgotten warriors. She has been given many names by her beloved Korean War Vets, her favorites being "The Pitbull," "Rambo Brockovich," "Hellraiser," "Tiger" and "D-Day." Visit her website at: Forgotten War Project
END
Dads Want Their Day
------------------------------------------------------------
By William C. Smith
American Bar Association Journal
February 2003
Fathers Charge Legal Bias Toward Moms Hamstrings Them as Full-Time ParentsIn 1973, New York???s highest court discarded the Victorian-era presumption that mothers are the best custodial parents for young children. ???The simple fact of being a mother does not, by itself, indicate a willingness or capacity to render a quality of care different than that which a father can provide,??? the court said. State ex rel. Watts v. Watts, 350 N.Y.S. 2d 285.
Thirty years later, many divorced fathers believe that the family courts have still not heard this simple message. They are fighting what they perceive as an anti-father bias in custody rulings and child support awards, in the disparate treatment of ???deadbeat dads??? and visitation-blocking moms, in the refusal to vacate child support orders in the face of DNA evidence of nonpaternity.
Anger at the family court system has helped fuel a growing fathers??? rights movement made up of concerned fathers, Internet-based mad dad groups, media-savvy divorce lawyers, volunteer activists and professional lobbyists.
In recent years, this loosely organized movement has demonstrated its political clout in state legislatures and family courts nationwide. Fathers??? rights advocates have lobbied several states to adopt a legal preference for joint custody, pressed for stricter enforcement of noncustodial fathers??? visitation rights, and pushed for DNA paternity tests in child support proceedings.
As the fathers??? rights movement challenges the fundamentals of family law, practitioners of this once-staid discipline are striving to keep up with revised statutes, shifting case law and more father-friendly approaches in child custody and support cases.
Fathers??? rights advocates claim family courts too often discourage divorced or unwed fathers from playing a positive role in their children???s lives, thus contributing to a nationwide ???crisis of fatherlessness.??? They cite census data showing that nearly 25 million American children do not live with their fathers, vs. fewer than 10 million fatherless kids in 1960.
Children raised by single mothers fare poorly compared to kids raised by both parents or by single fathers, claims Warren Farrell, a doctor of political science who has become a fathers??? rights luminary. In his 2001 book, Father and Child Reunion, Farrell compiles social science data showing that children who grow up without fathers have lower I.Q. scores, more psychiatric and medical problems, a higher incidence of suicide, and a greater likelihood to use drugs and alcohol. According to Farrell, the research shows that children of divorce do best with joint custody. If that???s not possible, though, kids are generally better off with dad than mom, he says.
A child without a father is more likely to grow up into a dangerous criminal, adds Jeffrey M. Leving. The Chicago lawyer and fathers??? rights advocate cites even scarier statistics on the fate of fatherless children, who reportedly make up 72 percent of teenage murderers and 60 percent of rapists, and are 11 times more likely to exhibit violent behavior than children from two-parent homes.
Some feminists and scholars dispute this data, as well as the broad claim that fathers are essential to good child-rearing. In a 1999 article on ???Deconstructing the Essential Father,??? Yeshiva University psychologists Louise B. Silverstein and Carl F. Auerbach said studies of a broad range of family structures showed that children need at least one, and preferably two, responsible adult caretakers. However, they conclude that neither the caretakers??? sex nor their biological relationship to the child was as significant as ???the stability of the emotional connection and the predictability of the caretaking relationship.???
???WINNING??? THE KIDS
Through most of Anglo-American legal history, there was little custody litigation because there was nothing to fight over. Dad always got the kids. Under English and early American common law, children were regarded as paternal property.
In the mid-1800s, the Industrial Revolution swept fathers out of jobs at or near home and into factories and businesses, prompting the courts to reverse course on custody. Under the ???tender years??? doctrine, eventually adopted in every state, the mother was presumed to be the proper custodian, especially for young children.
In the 1970s, this doctrine was replaced by the ostensibly gender-neutral ???best interest of the child??? standard. Today, only five states???Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee???have some form of maternal preference in custody statutes or case law, says Jeffrey Atkinson, author of Modern Child Custody Practice, 2d ed., and professor at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on maternal preferences, Atkinson believes these holdout states are on shaky constitutional ground. ???A presumption that women are inherently better able to care for children than men is not a legitimate, accurate method for determining custody,??? he says.
Old stereotypes die hard, though, and fathers??? rights advocates say neutral statutory language has done little to change the courts??? pro-mother leanings. Moms are granted custody in 85 percent of all cases, notes Dianna Thompson, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based American Coalition for Fathers and Children. She says the expense of litigation and likelihood of losing discourages many dads from even fighting for custody.
However, statistics on custody awards can be deceiving, since most custody orders are uncontested or negotiated by the parties. A 1992 study of California cases showed that fathers were awarded primary or joint custody in about half of contested custody matters.
Some lawyers believe the gender gap in custody awards reflects a preference for the status quo, rather than bias against fathers. ???Family law is a case-by-case, judge-by-judge affair,??? says Joel Bigatel, a family lawyer in Narberth, Pa. ???If there???s a bias in awarding custody, it???s in favor of primary caretakers. If dad is the working parent, and mom is the stay-at-home, she generally has a leg up.???
Working fathers have the best shot at being named primary caretakers if they have flexible schedules, or if the mother is also working and the children are already in day care or school, says Bigatel.
Bigatel tells clients that if their children were doing well before the separation, judges are more apt to award custody to the primary caretaker. If the other parent (typically the father) wants to buck this trend, he should urge the court to base the custody decision on the present circumstances of a dual household and two working parents, rather than the bygone days of a single home with a stay-at-home mom, he says.
Sharon L. Corbitt of Tulsa, Okla., a former chair of the ABA???s Family Law Section, says the courts recognize that a parent who has not spent much time with the kids during the marriage is often unwilling or unable to become more deeply involved after the divorce. ???History is the best indicator of the future.???
A focus on child-care history, rather than the vague ???best interest of the child??? standard, is the custody approach recommended in Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution (2002), the American Law Institute???s sweeping treatise on matrimonial law. If parents can???t agree on a custody arrangement, ALI proposes that the court apply an ???approximation rule,??? divvying up custodial responsibilities to reflect each parent???s role in child-rearing before the separation.
In contested custody cases, says Corbitt, nonprimary-caretaker parents must prove their commitment to spend more than just ???quality time??? with the kids. She counsels clients to keep daily logs and calendars documenting their child care duties, and keeping track of the other parent???s out-of-town trips and missed opportunities to spend time with the kids. A parent???s involvement can also be shown by signatures on report cards, notes of doctor???s visits, and nonfamily witnesses such as teachers and coaches, Corbitt says.
Fathers??? advocates argue that a judicial preference for primary caretakers is hardly an improvement on the tender years doctrine. Frustrated by what they perceive as the courts??? unfair preference for mothers in custody cases, fathers??? rights groups have convinced 11 states and the District of Columbia to declare a general presumption in favor of joint custody, with 12 other states adopting a preference for joint custody if agreed to by both parents.
Leving, who co-authored the Illinois joint custody law, says a presumption favoring parental cooperation in child-rearing discourages custody litigation by putting both parents on an equal footing.
Bigatel begs to differ. ???You can???t decide custody by presumption,??? he asserts. ???Custody presumptions don???t contribute anything to a case-specific decision based on parenting abilities. ... A custody case should be presented on its merits, and decided according to the best interests of the child.???
COOPERATION REQUIRED
In Bigatel???s experience, the most enduring joint custody arrangements are the product of the negotiation between the parents, rather than pressure from the court.
Joint custody works best when both parties ???agree [about] the benefit of significant and regular contact with both parents, agree to respect the other parent???s equal role in their children???s lives, agree that they will place the interests of the children as the primary consideration, and agree that the children will not be put in the middle of the dispute [and] coerced to choose sides,??? says Bigatel.
???Consequently, the cases in which it works best are those which never see the inside of a courtroom, the key word being ???agree,??? ??? Bigatel adds.
Joint custody does not necessarily mean an equal division of the child???s time between both parents, and such a ???split the baby??? approach is hardly Solomonic, cautions Boston lawyer Gerald L. Nissenbaum, past president of both the International and American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. ???When parties come to court and ask for a 50/50 sharing of time, my experience shows that over time, every one of them will come back to change it. The kids grow to hate bouncing back and forth from house to house,??? he says.
Nissenbaum has found that cooperation, not clockwatching, is key to successful shared-parenting arrangements. For example, parents must have a workable schedule to transport their kids to school, after-school activities, athletic events, friends??? houses and the mall. Also, ???The rules in each home need to be essentially the same??? to avoid disputes on homework, curfews, bedtimes, computer use and other matters, says Nissenbaum.
Thompson dismisses the criticism that joint custody often puts children between bickering parents. To the contrary, says Thompson, the traditional system that picks one parent, usually the mother, as the sole or primary custodian fuels continuing bitterness and litigation.
???Fathers love their children as much as mothers. It???s offensive that a loving, caring father is labeled a ???noncustodial parent,??? ??? says Thompson, ???And it???s outrageous to assume that you can???t ask parents to get along??? for their children???s sake, she says.
Noncustodial parents are often stuck with so-called ???vanilla visitation.??? This boilerplate court order allows them to see their own children one weeknight, alternating weekends and holidays, and a few weeks in the summer???perhaps 50 days a year. Many fathers complain that this schedule is barely enough to remain a familiar face to their children, let alone an effective and involved parent.
???Time ... is an essential component of child-rearing,??? observes Leving. ???Parents and children who don???t spend a great deal of time together never become at ease with each other. Building trust and establishing effective communication become virtually impossible.???
TRADING ???DOLLARS FOR DAYS???
Bigatel agrees that vanilla visitation does not give nearly enough time for involved fathers, but dads who have been largely absent from their kids??? day-to-day lives during the marriage have a tough time convincing judges to give them more time after the divorce. In a custody battle, a distant dad who promises to begin spending quality time with his kids has to overcome the mother???s inevitable accusation that this new-found attentiveness is just a ploy to reduce child support payments.
That???s not always a baseless charge, says Laura Morgan of Charlottesville, Va., co-chair of the Family Law Section???s Child Support Committee. Under most states??? child support guidelines, a child support award may be reduced if the noncustodial parent cares for the child for a substantial portion of the month. The prospect of lower payments prompts some fathers to seek a heftier visitation schedule than they are willing or able to maintain, she says, leaving moms with fewer dollars for more days.
On the other hand, the ???dollars for days??? formula may also discourage custodial mothers from agreeing to reasonable visitation, claims Henry James Koehler IV of Beverly Hills, Calif., a board member of the National Congress for Fathers and Children. ???Women love their children, but they also see them as a source of living money.???
A ???born-again dad??? faces an uphill battle to obtain more than vanilla visitation, and should be prepared to back up his pleadings with proof of his time commitment, says Nissenbaum. ???While the case is pending, he asks for time with the children. He is there for them. He offers to take the kids when the mother has to go somewhere. He promotes a good relationship between himself, and the mother and the children,??? he says.
Like drunk drivers and repeat offenders, deadbeat dads are a perennial target for politicians and the press, who play up the image of a shirking father living in a luxurious mansion while his children go hungry in an unheated hovel.
Fathers??? rights advocates point out that parents who default on child support obligations seldom fit the deadbeat dad stereotype. Most aren???t really deadbeats; they???re just cash-strapped debtors with too many creditors. Many aren???t even dads. Although mothers are far less likely to be ordered to pay child support, they are statistically more prone to be delinquent. Custodial mothers receive on average about 60 percent of their support payments, while custodial fathers collect less than 48 percent.
The law is clear that a noncustodial parent???s child support duties and visitation rights are distinct, separately enforceable matters, but this demarcation is hardly self-evident to many parents. Family court dockets are clogged with dueling contempt motions against delinquent dads and visitation-denying moms.
According to family law veterans, the courts are likely to throw the book at the dads???including fines, wage garnishments and jail time???while letting moms off with a warning to respect the father???s visitation rights.
Judges are naturally reluctant to fine or imprison custodial parents for fear that these punitive measures will ultimately harm the children, says Sandy Dolowitz of Salt Lake City, co-chair of the Family Law Section???s Custody Committee. Few judges relish the prospect of locking up a mom with kids at home. One judge confessed to Dolowitz that a jail term would just make a martyr out of a mother who repeatedly barred Dolowitz???s client from seeing his kids.
The court???s reluctance to deal severely with visitation violators can leave moms feeling free to block fathers??? access to their own children. But, says Bigatel, neither outcome is foreordained. Fathers who fall behind on their payments for a good reason are almost always given the chance to catch up. ???The great majority of lockups occur when there are substantial arrears without valid explanation, often combined with missed court dates.???
Also, visitation deniers don???t always get off with a slap on the wrist. Bigatel recently represented a mother who was taken from the courtroom in handcuffs after the judge found her in contempt of his visitation order. She was released within an hour but was ordered to pay her ex-husband???s legal fees related to the contempt hearing.
In the 1990s, several states enacted laws dealing specifically with visitation enforcement. Remedies include makeup visitation to compensate for lost days, bonds to be forfeited for repeat offenses, attorney fee awards, fines or imprisonment, notes Atkinson. In Michigan, those who violate visitation or child support orders may lose their driving privileges and professional licenses.
DNA AND CHILD SUPPORT
In recent years, DNA analysis has cleared criminal suspects and liberated falsely accused death row inmates. However, genetic tests could not free Carnell Smith, an engineer in Decatur, Ga., from a court order requiring him to pay support for another man???s child.
After shelling out $40,000 in child support over 10 years for the daughter of ex-girlfriend Toni Odum, Smith provided DeKalb County Superior Court with a DNA test proving nonpaternity. In a May 2001 ruling, however, the court found that Smith had not exercised ???due diligence??? in seeking a paternity test soon after the girl???s birth. The Georgia Supreme Court rejected Smith???s appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari this June. Smith v. Odum, No. 98-12744-9 (DeKalb Co. Sup. Ct., May 24, 2001), cert. denied 122 S. Ct. 2359 (2002).
Genetic evidence of nonpaternity is still relatively uncommon in child support cases. However, some family courts have rejected DNA tests on the basis of the ???presumption of paternity,??? an ancient common-law doctrine that a married man is conclusively presumed to be the father of a child conceived during the marriage.
This year, Georgia enacted a law allowing ex-husbands and boyfriends to use DNA to set aside child support orders, and similar laws are now on the books in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Ohio, Texas and Virginia.
According to some lawyers, however, tossing aside the presumption of paternity may protect a few duped dads, but punishes innocent children who stand to lose contact with the only father they have known. ???There???s some assumption of risk in marriage,??? says Atkinson. ???DNA testing doesn???t deal with emotional bonding between parent and child.???
Family law is a quintessential state court function, but the fathers??? rights efforts like Smith v. Odum have pushed fatherhood issues onto the national political agenda. In 2001, the Bush administration appointed Wade F. Horn, the former president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, as assistant secretary of family support in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
A psychologist-turned-policymaker, Horn is careful to distinguish the administration???s agenda from that of NFI or the fathers??? rights groups. However, Horn says the federal government can play a limited but positive role in encouraging unwed and divorced fathers to stay involved with their children.
Meanwhile, as politicians, professors and pundits debate policy and spar over statistics, it falls to family lawyers to help parents build a healthy home life for their kids after their marriage has fallen apart. For this important task, Sharon Corbitt of Tulsa finds little use for the rhetoric of either the fathers??? rights movement or its feminist detractors.
???The emphasis on fathers??? and mothers??? rights is troubling,??? Corbitt concludes. ???We???ve lost sight of the best interests of the child and the psychological data showing that lots of access to both parents is optimum.???
http://www.abanet.org/journal/avantgo/02fdads.html
END
Fathers key to success
October 05 2002
By Caroline Milburn
Fathers have a bigger impact than mothers on whether a child is cooperative and self-reliant in the first year of school, a study has found.
The study on how well a child makes the leap from toddlerhood to school shows that men matter.
Children whose fathers regularly looked after them during their infancy and preschool years were more self-disciplined and had better social skills than others whose fathers spent less time alone with them.
The findings from the study of 212 children in their first year of school will be released today at a conference on early childhood issues in Melbourne.
The children came from a wide range of backgrounds and included single-parent families and two-parent families. The time that fathers spent in charge of their infants and toddlers varied from two hours a week in some families to more than 30 hours in others.
The study found that mothers were an important influence on their children's ability to cooperate, especially when the child was between two and three. However, the extent of a father's involvement in caring for a child between birth to five years old was found to be more influential on a child's ability to cooperate and obey instructions when they started school.
Children whose fathers rarely looked after them were more likely to be hyperactive or have other behaviour problems in their first year of school.
The study's author, Kay Margetts, a lecturer in early childhood education at Melbourne University, said more research was needed to discover why father care was so important in helping a child adjust to school.
"There's something about a father's engagement with the day-to-day care of young children that is beneficial," Dr Margetts said.
"It seems that the more regularly a father cares for his children, even if it's when mum is doing something else in the house, the better the child does in that first school year."
She said policy debates about child care had placed too much emphasis on a mother's role in parenting at the father's expense.
"These findings show that shared care of children is important. We've got to move away from the view that mother care is the best type of care."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/04/1033538774020.html
END
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|