THE DAILY TELEGRAPH - December 13, 2011
Support for male abuse victims
A NEW fund to support male victims of sexual and domestic violence is to be launched this week.
Lynne Featherstone, the equalities minister, told MPs £225,000 would be provided over two years to assist services "focusing explicitly" on men.
She said: "The Government recognises that men can be victims of domestic violence and takes this issue very seriously. "[The new fund] is in addition to the Home Office funding provided each year to the men's advice line, which provides support and signposting services for male victims, and Broken Rainbow, which provides support to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) victims."
Ms Featherstone's comments came as Karl McCartney, the Conservative MP for Lincoln, sought reassurances that all domestic violence awareness campaigns run by the Government would be "clearly aimed" at male both female and male victims.
Ms Featherstone said that was "indeed the case'' and used the example of a recent campaign aimed at both male and female teenagers being abused by their peers.
Mr McCartney said he welcomed the announcement of the new fund, which he said would bring much-needed support for the "victims of this deplorable crime''.
Last year, a report by the campaign group Parity claimed that 40 per cent of all domestic violence victims in the UK were men.
Mens Aid NI
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
Monday, 12 December 2011
SOCIAL WORKERS 'SEX UP ABUSE CLAIMS TO SNATCH CHILDREN FOR ADOPTION'
Rffj say: The Sunday Express today prints the latest in a shocking series of media indictments against the so-called Child Protection Services in the UK. We would like to thank the Sunday Express, the reporter Ted Jeory and not least the social worker whistleblower for bringing this to the public's eye. We feel, however, that money rules the adoption game, with at least one adoption agency having been targeted for purchase by a major financial institution. The adoption industry now satisfies both ends of the political spectrum in that ultra left wing and feminist forces can engage in their penchant for destroying families whilst capitalists can rake in millions from desperate adoptive parents and, no doubt, generous bonuses from local authorities. Millions of pounds that could be spent supporting families is being pocketed by social workers, fat cats and legal firms intent on destroying them with fraudulent lies. Judges simply rubber-stamp transparently false allegations in kangaroo-court style 'Fact-Finding Hearings' rather than removing them to be dealt with in criminal courts. In one case we know of, no less than 25 false allegations were made with the children maintained in care whilst the parents were forced through months of proving their innocence.
The question that should be asked is.....who is behind this industry and agencies, who buys the shares, and is anybody doing any insider trading?
The whistleblower said authorities’ worries of another Baby P had created a climate of fear
Sunday December 11,2011
By Ted Jeory Express
SOCIAL workers regularly “sex up” dossiers on problem parents to take children into care and even to put them up for adoption, a whistleblower reveals today.
The experienced social worker told a Sunday Express investigation that council managers frequently put pressure on him and colleagues to rewrite reports considered “too positive”.
They demand “more dirt” on mothers and fathers to increase the chances of securing court orders that place their children into care and which boost councils’ Ofsted ratings.
The whistleblower said authorities’ worries of another Baby P had created a climate of fear destroying innocent families.
The findings were last night called a “national scandal” by Lib Dem MP John Hemming who is demanding a full Parliamentary inquiry into Britain’s child protection system.
The source said social workers’ behaviour dramatically and needlessly changed after full details of the 2007 death of Baby Peter Connelly in Haringey, north London, emerged three years ago.
We’re being pressured to go against what we think is right for families
The whistleblower, a father who works for a large authority in the south of England, said: “We’re being pressured to go against what we think is right for families.
“Personally, I’ve written reports and been told ‘You are too positive with this family. We’ll never get it to court unless you make it more negative’.
“Although it goes against what you feel is right, you feel under an obligation.”
He went on: “In order to get a child through to a child protection conference, we’re told to make the situation look bad, and worse than it actually is.
“We don’t necessarily make things up but we can change the emphasis.”
He said these reports were used to take children out of a family home and in many cases placed for adoption. “It destroys families, but the newer, younger social workers see this as the norm, they just want to toe the line with their bosses and that’s worrying.”
He also raised serious concerns about council-appointed psychologists biased in favour of their paymasters and what he considered nebulous concepts of emotional abuse and “attachment theories”.
He added: “These psychologists create such a high standard of parenting that most of us would fail.”
Mr Hemming said: “I congratulate the Sunday Express in unearthing this national scandal. A number of whistleblowers have come to me to explain how expert evidence is at times sexed up and at other times plainly wrong in the Family Courts.
“Taking the wrong children into care on the basis of sexed-up dossiers and meaningless psychobabble results in other children being left to die such as Baby P.
“Parliament must act to sort out the child protection system.”
The question that should be asked is.....who is behind this industry and agencies, who buys the shares, and is anybody doing any insider trading?
The whistleblower said authorities’ worries of another Baby P had created a climate of fear
Sunday December 11,2011
By Ted Jeory Express
SOCIAL workers regularly “sex up” dossiers on problem parents to take children into care and even to put them up for adoption, a whistleblower reveals today.
The experienced social worker told a Sunday Express investigation that council managers frequently put pressure on him and colleagues to rewrite reports considered “too positive”.
They demand “more dirt” on mothers and fathers to increase the chances of securing court orders that place their children into care and which boost councils’ Ofsted ratings.
The whistleblower said authorities’ worries of another Baby P had created a climate of fear destroying innocent families.
The findings were last night called a “national scandal” by Lib Dem MP John Hemming who is demanding a full Parliamentary inquiry into Britain’s child protection system.
The source said social workers’ behaviour dramatically and needlessly changed after full details of the 2007 death of Baby Peter Connelly in Haringey, north London, emerged three years ago.
We’re being pressured to go against what we think is right for families
The whistleblower, a father who works for a large authority in the south of England, said: “We’re being pressured to go against what we think is right for families.
“Personally, I’ve written reports and been told ‘You are too positive with this family. We’ll never get it to court unless you make it more negative’.
“Although it goes against what you feel is right, you feel under an obligation.”
He went on: “In order to get a child through to a child protection conference, we’re told to make the situation look bad, and worse than it actually is.
“We don’t necessarily make things up but we can change the emphasis.”
He said these reports were used to take children out of a family home and in many cases placed for adoption. “It destroys families, but the newer, younger social workers see this as the norm, they just want to toe the line with their bosses and that’s worrying.”
He also raised serious concerns about council-appointed psychologists biased in favour of their paymasters and what he considered nebulous concepts of emotional abuse and “attachment theories”.
He added: “These psychologists create such a high standard of parenting that most of us would fail.”
Mr Hemming said: “I congratulate the Sunday Express in unearthing this national scandal. A number of whistleblowers have come to me to explain how expert evidence is at times sexed up and at other times plainly wrong in the Family Courts.
“Taking the wrong children into care on the basis of sexed-up dossiers and meaningless psychobabble results in other children being left to die such as Baby P.
“Parliament must act to sort out the child protection system.”
11 December 2011: NORGROVE PANEL SPUN A PACK OF LIES TO GOVERNMENT
From the horse's mouth, report from Australia shows how Norgrove chose to deceive the UK Government, manufacturing false figures from Australia to back up his ideologically driven and pathological lies intended to undermine shared parenting. One can only presume his integrity was affected later in life by the family law professionals whose close company he preferred during the wasteful days of the Family Justice Review. Let's hope, during his career as an accountant, that he did not similarly produce reports to order.
An article by:
Jim Carter
Shared Parenting Council of Australia
Canberra
3 December 2011
Norgrove Committee’s failure to recommend in favour of “meaningful relationships with both parents”
is based on a fundamental misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
Norgrove Committee’s misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
An article in The Guardian of 3 November 2011 by Owen Boycott on the report of the (UK) “Norgrove” Family Justice Review states that:
“according to (the) long-awaited report on family law… Fathers who have gone through divorce or separation will not be granted a legal right to guarantee that their child has ‘a meaningful relationship with both parents’,
“The Family Justice Review draws back from one of its key interim recommendations that had raised the hopes of groups such as Fathers 4 Justice, which campaigns for improved paternal access rights …
“… it is the review's decision on whether there should be a legal right for the child to continue having a ‘meaningful relationship with both parents’ that appears to have been most problematic.........
“In its introduction, it states: ‘We are aware that some will be disappointed by our decision to recommend against a legal presumption around shared parenting and to step back even from the recommendations we made in this respect in our interim report.
"The evidence we received showed the acute distress experienced by parents who are unable to see their children after separation. This is an issue we know countries around the world try to tackle, and fail.
"Our conclusion was reached reluctantly but clearly. The law cannot state a presumption of any kind without incurring unacceptable risk of damage to children.
“Many fathers and grandfathers who had submitted evidence to review had supported it as an ‘important step’, the report notes, ‘reflecting how society has changed and give hope to the thousands of fathers who wish to have an active and appropriate engagement in their child's upbringing’.
“But countries such as Australia, where a similar right was established in 2006, the report explained, had seen an increase in litigation, creating even more legal confrontations. ‘As a result we withdraw the
recommendation that a statement of 'meaningful relationship' be inserted in the legislation.’"
The Facts
The above claim in the Norgrove report that Australia “had seen an increase in litigation, creating even more legal confrontations” after the 2006 reforms to family law is completely wrong.
In fact, there was a sharp decline in litigation in the Australian family law system over the period. The total number of applications filed in the family court system in Australia between 2003-04 and 2008-09, as published in court annual reports, were as follows.
The number of applications for final orders in children’s matters declined by 22% - from 18,752 in 2005-06 to 14,549 in 2008-09 (Australian Institute of Family Studies, December 2009).
The AIFS report of December 2009 noted that “There is evidence of fewer postseparation disputes being responded to primarily via the use of legal services and more being responded to primarily via the use of family relationship services. This suggests a cultural shift whereby a greater proportion of post-separation disputes over children are being seen and responded to primarily in relationship terms.”
Ex-Secretary of State for Children, Schools, and Families misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
In a BBC panel discussion on 3 November 2011, Mr Ed Balls, Children’s Secretary in the previous Labour Government, claimed, in relation to the Australian experience, that:
Youtube link to Question Time (Ed balls from 2m 40s)
“I did commission the (Norgrove) report, precisely because I was worried about
these issues around fathers’ access and grandparents’ access too, and in the
interim report as I understand it Mr Norgrove did say he wanted to look at the
issue of having a legal right of fathers. He then went and studied some of the
international experiences and in particular the Australian experience where this
was done for five or six years and the result was that after establishing the legal
right there was a huge increase in the number of child custody cases which moved
from mediation to long protracted court battles, and, as I understand it, made it
more likely that you would end up with a legal battle that would be very
damaging to children rather than being sorted out through mediation.”
This repeats the seriously incorrect statements made in the Norgrove report.
The actual situation is that:
The 2006 Australian reforms (1) incorporated a rebuttable assumption of equal parental responsibility and (2) required courts in appropriate cases (i.e., where safe and reasonably practicable) to consider whether shared parenting time should be ordered;
The percentage of separating couples who (either by consent or court order) adopted equal shared parenting or some closely similar arrangement in Australia increased over the first five years after the 2006 reform from 7% to 16%;
Not only was there a very large reduction in family law litigation following the 2006 Australian reforms, a much higher percentage of the litigation is now handled by the Federal Magistrates Courts, which deal with the less complex cases;
Far from the Australian 2006 reforms being a failure, the AIFS in its 2009 evaluation of the reforms concluded that:
“The philosophy of shared parental responsibility is overwhelmingly supported by parents, legal system professionals and service professionals”,
and that a large majority of parents believe that shared parenting is working well.
Numerous opinion polls in Australia have confirmed those assessments.
The views of the UK Government
In contrast to the remarks of the ex-Children’s Secretary UK, the comments by the current Home Secretary during the BBC discussion about shared parenting were accurate, perceptive, and positive.
It is important that the UK government understands the misleading nature of the anti-shared parenting propaganda to which it is being subjected by radical feminists from Australia and elsewhere.
Applying the Norgrove Committee’s arguments to correct information about trends in litigation in Australia would reasonably lead to the conclusion that (1) a presumption of shared parental responsibility, together with (2) encouragement for “meaningful relationships with both parents” should be an essential part of family law reform in the UK (as elsewhere).
Without that as part of its recommendations, the Norgrove review will almost certainly fail to meet its purported objectives.
As remarked by Amanda Platell in “Mail Online” on 2 December 2011:
“David Norgrove’s Family Justice Review is a misguided piece of outdated, sexist nonsense which enshrines in law a mother’s unassailable right to raise her children -alone.
“Mr Norgrove decrees that fathers should have no legal right to enjoy time with their children when a relationship ends ... He claims his review is all based on what’s ‘best for the child’. Yet he ignores decades of research that shows children from broken homes benefit from maintaining a stable, constant
relationship with their mothers and their fathers, as well as with their extended family.
“Guilty till proved innocent is the dictum for dads in the Family Law Courts.
“David Cameron has long promised his will be the most family-friendly government in history. He can prove it by condemning Mr Norgrove’s unjust Anti-Family Review andenshrining in law the
right of every decent father to a fair share in the raising of his children.”
In view of the significance of the above issues for UK Government policy, it would be useful for the above information about the Australian experience to be passed on to other interested persons and groups.
Regards
Jim Carter
Shared Parenting Council of Australia
An article by:
Jim Carter
Shared Parenting Council of Australia
Canberra
3 December 2011
Norgrove Committee’s failure to recommend in favour of “meaningful relationships with both parents”
is based on a fundamental misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
Norgrove Committee’s misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
An article in The Guardian of 3 November 2011 by Owen Boycott on the report of the (UK) “Norgrove” Family Justice Review states that:
“according to (the) long-awaited report on family law… Fathers who have gone through divorce or separation will not be granted a legal right to guarantee that their child has ‘a meaningful relationship with both parents’,
“The Family Justice Review draws back from one of its key interim recommendations that had raised the hopes of groups such as Fathers 4 Justice, which campaigns for improved paternal access rights …
“… it is the review's decision on whether there should be a legal right for the child to continue having a ‘meaningful relationship with both parents’ that appears to have been most problematic.........
“In its introduction, it states: ‘We are aware that some will be disappointed by our decision to recommend against a legal presumption around shared parenting and to step back even from the recommendations we made in this respect in our interim report.
"The evidence we received showed the acute distress experienced by parents who are unable to see their children after separation. This is an issue we know countries around the world try to tackle, and fail.
"Our conclusion was reached reluctantly but clearly. The law cannot state a presumption of any kind without incurring unacceptable risk of damage to children.
“Many fathers and grandfathers who had submitted evidence to review had supported it as an ‘important step’, the report notes, ‘reflecting how society has changed and give hope to the thousands of fathers who wish to have an active and appropriate engagement in their child's upbringing’.
“But countries such as Australia, where a similar right was established in 2006, the report explained, had seen an increase in litigation, creating even more legal confrontations. ‘As a result we withdraw the
recommendation that a statement of 'meaningful relationship' be inserted in the legislation.’"
The Facts
The above claim in the Norgrove report that Australia “had seen an increase in litigation, creating even more legal confrontations” after the 2006 reforms to family law is completely wrong.
In fact, there was a sharp decline in litigation in the Australian family law system over the period. The total number of applications filed in the family court system in Australia between 2003-04 and 2008-09, as published in court annual reports, were as follows.
The number of applications for final orders in children’s matters declined by 22% - from 18,752 in 2005-06 to 14,549 in 2008-09 (Australian Institute of Family Studies, December 2009).
The AIFS report of December 2009 noted that “There is evidence of fewer postseparation disputes being responded to primarily via the use of legal services and more being responded to primarily via the use of family relationship services. This suggests a cultural shift whereby a greater proportion of post-separation disputes over children are being seen and responded to primarily in relationship terms.”
Ex-Secretary of State for Children, Schools, and Families misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
In a BBC panel discussion on 3 November 2011, Mr Ed Balls, Children’s Secretary in the previous Labour Government, claimed, in relation to the Australian experience, that:
Youtube link to Question Time (Ed balls from 2m 40s)
“I did commission the (Norgrove) report, precisely because I was worried about
these issues around fathers’ access and grandparents’ access too, and in the
interim report as I understand it Mr Norgrove did say he wanted to look at the
issue of having a legal right of fathers. He then went and studied some of the
international experiences and in particular the Australian experience where this
was done for five or six years and the result was that after establishing the legal
right there was a huge increase in the number of child custody cases which moved
from mediation to long protracted court battles, and, as I understand it, made it
more likely that you would end up with a legal battle that would be very
damaging to children rather than being sorted out through mediation.”
This repeats the seriously incorrect statements made in the Norgrove report.
The actual situation is that:
The 2006 Australian reforms (1) incorporated a rebuttable assumption of equal parental responsibility and (2) required courts in appropriate cases (i.e., where safe and reasonably practicable) to consider whether shared parenting time should be ordered;
The percentage of separating couples who (either by consent or court order) adopted equal shared parenting or some closely similar arrangement in Australia increased over the first five years after the 2006 reform from 7% to 16%;
Not only was there a very large reduction in family law litigation following the 2006 Australian reforms, a much higher percentage of the litigation is now handled by the Federal Magistrates Courts, which deal with the less complex cases;
Far from the Australian 2006 reforms being a failure, the AIFS in its 2009 evaluation of the reforms concluded that:
“The philosophy of shared parental responsibility is overwhelmingly supported by parents, legal system professionals and service professionals”,
and that a large majority of parents believe that shared parenting is working well.
Numerous opinion polls in Australia have confirmed those assessments.
The views of the UK Government
In contrast to the remarks of the ex-Children’s Secretary UK, the comments by the current Home Secretary during the BBC discussion about shared parenting were accurate, perceptive, and positive.
It is important that the UK government understands the misleading nature of the anti-shared parenting propaganda to which it is being subjected by radical feminists from Australia and elsewhere.
Applying the Norgrove Committee’s arguments to correct information about trends in litigation in Australia would reasonably lead to the conclusion that (1) a presumption of shared parental responsibility, together with (2) encouragement for “meaningful relationships with both parents” should be an essential part of family law reform in the UK (as elsewhere).
Without that as part of its recommendations, the Norgrove review will almost certainly fail to meet its purported objectives.
As remarked by Amanda Platell in “Mail Online” on 2 December 2011:
“David Norgrove’s Family Justice Review is a misguided piece of outdated, sexist nonsense which enshrines in law a mother’s unassailable right to raise her children -alone.
“Mr Norgrove decrees that fathers should have no legal right to enjoy time with their children when a relationship ends ... He claims his review is all based on what’s ‘best for the child’. Yet he ignores decades of research that shows children from broken homes benefit from maintaining a stable, constant
relationship with their mothers and their fathers, as well as with their extended family.
“Guilty till proved innocent is the dictum for dads in the Family Law Courts.
“David Cameron has long promised his will be the most family-friendly government in history. He can prove it by condemning Mr Norgrove’s unjust Anti-Family Review andenshrining in law the
right of every decent father to a fair share in the raising of his children.”
In view of the significance of the above issues for UK Government policy, it would be useful for the above information about the Australian experience to be passed on to other interested persons and groups.
Regards
Jim Carter
Shared Parenting Council of Australia
LIB DEMS THE CLOSET LAWYERS WHO LEECH OFF MEN USING DV LAWS
The Lib Dem's show their true colours today with more disgusting Domestic Violence laws aimed at fleecing men and to line the pockets of the lawyers that control the agenda of another nasty party disguised as some sort of good guys.
We are sick and tired of these crooks suggesting they are trying to protect women from all the bad men when it is a means for the higher echelons of the legal system, full of freemasons within the Liberal democrats who use their political position to further impose vile DV laws that manipulate men in divorce leaving them asset stripped, homeless and bankrupt while LAWYERS in the Lib Dem party add more stolen homes to their property portfolio's.
They , like the tory's are the utter scum and dregs of the earth with ulterior financial motives to give ever more powers to dodgy judges and lawyers who continue to misuse the law for their own financial advantage.
Some quotes from their latest legal mafia slant.
"In the profession and the party-campaigning for justice for all"
Unless you're a man with assets and property and who they can target using a dodgy DV agenda.
"Men who are 'too controlling' could face criminal charges as law on domestic violence is tightened up"
In other words 'Shout at your spouse and lose your house'.
"Bullies who use psychological abuse to control their partners could face criminal charges, it emerged today"
It is the Lib Dems and their bully boy lawyers and judges that are the biggest abusers thieving mens assets on a grand scale. We have vast experience of how Lib Dem MP's and councillors use malicious social work and doctors reports to run a legal aid racket making millions from sources they already control.
The legal aid lawyer millionaires behind the Lib Dems are as criminal as any wee ned and thieving far more than the odd video recorder or tv.
Lib Dem show their true colours as lawyers within their ranks using outrageous biased DV laws to control and financially ruin men
Lib dems the party of lawyers: The Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association
--
INTERNATIONAL MENS ORGANISATION
http://www.intmensorg.info
BACK UP WEB ADDRESS
http://www.internationalmensorganisation.info
We are sick and tired of these crooks suggesting they are trying to protect women from all the bad men when it is a means for the higher echelons of the legal system, full of freemasons within the Liberal democrats who use their political position to further impose vile DV laws that manipulate men in divorce leaving them asset stripped, homeless and bankrupt while LAWYERS in the Lib Dem party add more stolen homes to their property portfolio's.
They , like the tory's are the utter scum and dregs of the earth with ulterior financial motives to give ever more powers to dodgy judges and lawyers who continue to misuse the law for their own financial advantage.
Some quotes from their latest legal mafia slant.
"In the profession and the party-campaigning for justice for all"
Unless you're a man with assets and property and who they can target using a dodgy DV agenda.
"Men who are 'too controlling' could face criminal charges as law on domestic violence is tightened up"
In other words 'Shout at your spouse and lose your house'.
"Bullies who use psychological abuse to control their partners could face criminal charges, it emerged today"
It is the Lib Dems and their bully boy lawyers and judges that are the biggest abusers thieving mens assets on a grand scale. We have vast experience of how Lib Dem MP's and councillors use malicious social work and doctors reports to run a legal aid racket making millions from sources they already control.
The legal aid lawyer millionaires behind the Lib Dems are as criminal as any wee ned and thieving far more than the odd video recorder or tv.
Lib Dem show their true colours as lawyers within their ranks using outrageous biased DV laws to control and financially ruin men
Lib dems the party of lawyers: The Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association
--
INTERNATIONAL MENS ORGANISATION
http://www.intmensorg.info
BACK UP WEB ADDRESS
http://www.internationalmensorganisation.info
Woman deceived man into marriage
A MAN whose bride did not tell him she had AIDS has lost a battle to have his marriage declared void.
The court case is believed to be the first of its kind in Australia.
A court heard that the wife, in her 30s, was diagnosed with AIDS in 2006.
The husband, in his 50s, said that if he had known she had AIDS he never would have married her the following year.
The wife filed for divorce last year but the husband asked the court to dismiss the application and grant a decree of nullity “on the ground of fraud”.
It was revealed he wanted a decree of nullity rather than having the marriage dissolved because he believed it would mean the wife would not be able to pursue him for a property settlement.
The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia last week rejected the man’s bid.
It also said the husband was mistaken in his view there could be no property settlement if the marriage was found to be void.
The husband claimed the case was the first where a court had been asked to consider an application for nullity on the basis that one of the parties had failed to disclose they suffered from a communicable disease that could lead to the death of the other party.
It is not known if the husband contracted the AIDS virus.
Slater & Gordon family law expert Ian Shann told the Herald Sunthe moral of the case was simple: “Check out people’s stories before you marry them.”
Had the man been successful it would have opened Pandora’s Box, Mr Shann said.
“I don’t think there’s much difference between lying about your health or lying about your financial circumstances or lying about your financial intentions,” he said.
A lower court dismissed the husband’s application for a decree of nullity last year and he lodged his appeal in the Full Court of the Family Court.
The Marriage Act says a marriage is void in the event that “the consent of either of the parties is not a real consent because … it was obtained by … fraud”.
The Full Court said the wife’s failure to inform the husband of her condition “did not vitiate the husband’s consent to marriage”.
In the earlier judgment, a judge said there was no question the husband married the woman he thought he was marrying and the parties went through what they knew to be a valid marriage ceremony.
Mr Shann said grounds for getting a decree of nullity included bigamy, being too young to be married, being in a phony marriage, being pressured into a marriage and a case of fraud, such as mistaken identity.
“This particular case did not fall within any of those circumstances, although the wife clearly lied and although the husband was clearly placed in a precarious position because of the lie,” Mr Shann said.
The wife did not participate in the hearing.
Shelley Hadfield | hadfields@heraldsun.com.au
The court case is believed to be the first of its kind in Australia.
A court heard that the wife, in her 30s, was diagnosed with AIDS in 2006.
The husband, in his 50s, said that if he had known she had AIDS he never would have married her the following year.
The wife filed for divorce last year but the husband asked the court to dismiss the application and grant a decree of nullity “on the ground of fraud”.
It was revealed he wanted a decree of nullity rather than having the marriage dissolved because he believed it would mean the wife would not be able to pursue him for a property settlement.
The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia last week rejected the man’s bid.
It also said the husband was mistaken in his view there could be no property settlement if the marriage was found to be void.
The husband claimed the case was the first where a court had been asked to consider an application for nullity on the basis that one of the parties had failed to disclose they suffered from a communicable disease that could lead to the death of the other party.
It is not known if the husband contracted the AIDS virus.
Slater & Gordon family law expert Ian Shann told the Herald Sunthe moral of the case was simple: “Check out people’s stories before you marry them.”
Had the man been successful it would have opened Pandora’s Box, Mr Shann said.
“I don’t think there’s much difference between lying about your health or lying about your financial circumstances or lying about your financial intentions,” he said.
A lower court dismissed the husband’s application for a decree of nullity last year and he lodged his appeal in the Full Court of the Family Court.
The Marriage Act says a marriage is void in the event that “the consent of either of the parties is not a real consent because … it was obtained by … fraud”.
The Full Court said the wife’s failure to inform the husband of her condition “did not vitiate the husband’s consent to marriage”.
In the earlier judgment, a judge said there was no question the husband married the woman he thought he was marrying and the parties went through what they knew to be a valid marriage ceremony.
Mr Shann said grounds for getting a decree of nullity included bigamy, being too young to be married, being in a phony marriage, being pressured into a marriage and a case of fraud, such as mistaken identity.
“This particular case did not fall within any of those circumstances, although the wife clearly lied and although the husband was clearly placed in a precarious position because of the lie,” Mr Shann said.
The wife did not participate in the hearing.
Shelley Hadfield | hadfields@heraldsun.com.au
Monday, 29 August 2011
Absent fathers have rights too
In the aftermath of last week’s riots, there has been a torrent of evidence and opinion about the detrimental affect of absent fathers, followed by outraged indignation at anything that might constitute criticism of single mothers.
It is a fact that one in three children whose parents split up loses contact with their fathers but in many cases, that is because of a family justice system that still favours the mother as the “better” parent. Mum gets to stay in the family home while Dad is forced to move out, maybe staying with friends or renting but invariably unable to afford to create a second home for the children, because he’s having to pay their mother maintenance.
Mum gets a new boyfriend who moves in to the family home, he doesn’t like the contact with the ex and gradually the visits become more difficult and a bargaining tool where the children are the currency. Hardly surprising then that for many men, the gradual disintegration before their eyes of what they once loved becomes too much to bear and they walk away. Yes, of course that is simplistic and many people manage to make sensible shared parenting arrangements that work just as there are many women and children abandoned men. And yes, there have been some long overdue reforms to the Family Justice system but there are still far too many men who are “Mac Dads” , with nowhere else to go on the odd Saturdays they are allowed to see their children apart from a burger bar – hardly conducive to maintaining and nurturing a relationship. Grandparents and other family members have been excluded post separation through an adversarial system that forces families to take sides and children are goods for barter and all reinforced by the lazy journalism in which women “ struggle “ to bring up children and men rarely get any credit.
I am absolutely committed to equality between men and women in every field, be it employment rights, pay, healthcare and access to opportunity but the feminist agenda has inflicted some terrible and pernicious damage on society – and men in particular. Women of my generation campaigned for equality and naively believed we could have it all. We now know that not to be true and have, to a certain extent, allowed what Shaun Bailey called the “nationalisation of child care” to happen right under our noses because it was more acceptable than facing the consequences which in our hearts we know to be true; if your kids are being cared for by someone else for 12 hours a day – who has the most influence on them? And so the compensation of gifts and toys and rubbish food and late nights and no discipline seep in to our homes.
For the father that abandons his partner and children, there will also be mothers who breed from serially dysfunctional relationships with different men but while we may tut in private, rarely does anyone raise the question whether the children would be better with their birth father and he given the social and financial support to make a home for them. We talk about parenting skills but little about how to manage parenting when a relationship breaks down.
The disaster that was the Child Support Agency and cock-up of CAFCASS were ill thought out and extremely damaging, based on a notion of threat and retribution against men – who were in the main those who most affected.
Not all men are potential rapists, nor are they potential paedophiles, abusers or violently inclined towards women. But it is hardly surprising that few want to become primary school teachers or social workers when they are treated as pariahs by the women around them. The insidious notion that men are to blame (bankers, politicians, greedy capitalists – mainly men ) more than women for the breakdown in law and order we saw last week is completely wrong and if we have achieved anything out of the past decades of feminism, then we should have the confidence to believe in our own sons, and have the balls to stop demonising men just because we can get away with it in the name of equality.
Article sourced from Iaindale.com …. original article can be found here
Misandry in the Media: RADAR Expands its Focus
Misandry, simply defined, is the pathological hatred of men and boys. It is the analog to misogyny, but with the bigotry and rage targeted at males.
Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, two scholars in the field of religious studies at McGill University in Montreal, popularized the word "misandry" in a series of books on the topic: Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (2001); Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men (2006); Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man (2010).
Nathanson and Young describe misandry as "a form of prejudice and discrimination that has become institutionalized in North American society, 'a collectively shared and culturally propagated worldview, not a personal emotion such as dislike or anger'"1.
As one would expect from the Nathanson and Young definition, misandry is propagated by the media. A vivid example of this occurred late last year on CNN, the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader in News." Interviewing the former Lorena Bobbitt (now using the name Lorena Gallo), who in in 1993 cut off her husband John's penis with a kitchen knife, CNN national correspondent Alina Cho displayed both a shocking disregard for John Bobbitt's ordeal and an appalling camaraderie with a woman who justified sexually mutilating her husband by telling the police, "He always have orgasm [sic], and he doesn't wait for me to have orgasm. He's selfish."2
ALINA CHO, national correspondent, CNN:
Her name is Lorena Gallo, but back then on news programs and the subject of late-night comedians, she was Lorena Bobbitt. She's remembered as the wife who employed a – shall we say, dramatic – response to an abusive relationship with her then husband John Wayne-Bobbitt. But in the nearly two decades since then she started a new life. She's been in a long-term relationship, thirteen years strong. She has a five year-old daughter. And while she works as a part-time hairdresser and real estate agent, she says her true passion is counseling domestic violence victims through her organization.
(...)
CHO:
I have to ask you this. As you well know, there was a time when joking about the Bobbitts was a national pastime. I wonder after all of these years – are you finally able to laugh about it?
LORENA BOBBITT (nee GALLO):
I finally am. And it took a lot of time, it took a lot of years, and definitely a lot of – I went to psychologists, and thanks to the doctors, the therapies I'm here, and I'll be able to now basically start all over again and start a new relationship and have a family and basically I can laugh now3.
More recently, early this year, Brad Womack, returning to the reality show The Bachelor for a second season, was slapped by contestant Chantal O'Brian on the season premiere show. Before slapping him, she told him: "I watched your season and I have something for you. It's not from me; it's from every woman in America"4. Remarkably, Mr. Womack later stated that while the slap was "very real and very hard," he "deserved it," presumably for his behavior in the previous season. He explained the slap this way: "I think Chantal was trying to make a statement about my past behavior, and make a strong first impression, which she did."5
In the grand scheme of things, a slap to the face, even a hard one, is fairly trivial, but that the The Bachelor producers, Ms. O'Brian, and even Mr. Womack (male guilt?) believe it is acceptable behavior for a reality show contestant speaks volumes about the pervasive disregard for men's rights that currently exists in modern America.
During Super Bowl XLV, Pepsi Max ran an ad in which a black woman repeatedly abuses her black husband. This is supposed to be funny. In the final scene, the woman throws a can of Pepsi Max at his head but misses, hitting a white woman instead. Amazingly, Eric Deggans, media critic for the St. Petersburg Times, blogged that the ad was a "toxic package" of "sexism, weird racial overtones and violence against women"6 (emphasis added). No mention is made of the ad's depiction of intentional violence against men.
On June 13, 2011, in a segment entitled "Girls Rule, Boys Drool," New York City's popular NPR host Brian Lehrer interviewed Dan Abrams, legal analyst for Good Morning America and ABC News, to discuss his new book, Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Women Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else7. Only on the KKK News Network could one imagine the reverse thesis being advanced, that men, on the whole, are better than women.
Saving the most appalling example for last, we turn to CBS's The Talk, the poor woman's version of ABC's The View. The Talk features a panel of women who discuss current events, including Sharon Osbourne, wife of ageless rockstar Ozzy Osbourne. In his younger, more intoxicated years, he was known for biting the head off a bat and peeing on a monument at the Alamo. But the offensiveness of his antics pales in comparison to Sharon Osbourne's behavior during a recent episode of The Talk.
Last month, on July 11, 2011, a 48-year old Californian woman, Catherine Kieu Becker, cut off her husband's penis, and, unlike Lorena Bobbitt, who threw her husband's penis into a field, threw it the garbage disposal unit and turned the unit on. Osbourne, and most of her co-hosts, found the story hilarious. Osbourne mimicked with her finger what she envisioned the penis looked like as it went down the garbage disposal, and called Becker's act "quite fabulous," adding: "Just imagine that thing whizzing around the disposal, it's like, hysterical." She also made sure everyone knew that she lights candles by Lorena Bobbitt's picture.
To her credit, co-host Sara Gilbert, the executive producer of The Talk, pointed out the obvious double standard: "Not to be a total buzz kill, but it is a little bit sexist. If somebody cut a woman's breast off, nobody would be sitting laughing." Ms. Obourne's disagreed, however. "It's different," she explained, because one is floppy and the other sticks up. Well, there you have it. Severed penises are comedy gold.
RADAR has had some modest success in reforming America's approach to the problem of domestic violence. In fact, the perceived growing power of RADAR was a partial motivating factor for the 2009 hit piece published in Slate.com's Double X entitled: "Men's Rights Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective". In the article, the author, Kathryn Joyce, incorrectly labels RADAR as a men's rights group and laments the effectiveness RADAR and other groups have had in advancing their views.
Truth be told, however, RADAR and other groups with similar concerns have, with a few exceptions here and there, actually been quite ineffective in stemming the tide of unjust and harmful domestic violence policies. In reflecting on our efforts to reform the nation's approach to solving domestic violence, RADAR has concluded that one major reason judges, prosecutors, and legislators have been unreceptive to our message is the pervasive effect that misandry in the media has on shaping their fundamental biases.
In support of her view that RADAR is frightening, Joyce simply states, incredulously, that RADAR believes "that false allegations are rampant, that a feminist-run court system fraudulently separates innocent fathers from children, that battered women's shelters are running a racket that funnels federal dollars to feminists, that domestic-violence laws give cover to cagey mail-order brides seeking Green Cards, and finally, that men are victims of an unrecognized epidemic of violence at the hands of abusive wives." Joyce finds it so obvious that no right-thinking person could believe such things that she doesn't even bother to try to refute any of them.
Joyce's faith in the justice of the current system takes on a religious quality. It is this kind of blind faith that RADAR must shatter before any meaningful reform will happen.
Going forward, RADAR will focus less on particular laws and more on the nation's anti-male culture. RADAR plans to focus on the prevalence of misandry and the impact of misandry on the nation's approach to domestic violence. RADAR will highlight the media's role in spreading misandry, with media broadly defined to include not just the print, radio, film and television industries but also the messages disseminated by the nations churches and education, including judicial training that often amounts to nothing more than misandristic indoctrination.
Thank you for your continued support. With your help, we can change the culture. Let's do it.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathanson_and_Young
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt#Arrest_and_trial
3 http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2010/12/29/cnn-reporter-gushes-lorena-bobbitt-are-you-finally-able-laugh-about-it#ixzz1Bv6duFBd
4 http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/114581/bachelor_slap_condoned_by_gloria
5 http://www.examiner.com/tv-in-cincinnati/bachelor-brad-womack-says-slap-was-not-criminal-battery
6 http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media/content/super-bowl-fail-halftime-show-and-ads-misfire-big-night-video
7 http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2011/jun/13/girls-rule-boys-drool/
Date of RADAR Release: August 28, 2011
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://mediaradar.org
Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Labor Greens -Shared Parenting Rollback- creating a fatherless society
August 24, 2011 | Category: Family Law changes, Family Law Event, Family Law Reform, Insitutional Discrimination against Fathers, Political Parties
Tags: anti-family legislation, Dads4Kids, Fatherhood Foundation, Rachel Siewert, Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee, Warwick Marsh
Media Release: Labor Greens ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ creating a fatherless society
Monday 22 August 2011 at 6.30 pm, the Labor Green’s controlled Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee released their report on the ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ Bill 2011 www.aph.gov.au/senate . The Green’s member, Rachel Siewert said, “ The Greens have consistently opposed the equal shared parenting responsibility legislation ” brought into law in 2006.
Warwick Marsh, Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation, said, “ The Senate report and the Green’s comments show what is driving this shocking new anti-child and anti-father legislation. Never before have major changes to Family Law been enacted on any other than bipartisan agreement between the major parties. This proposed legislation is opposed by the Opposition, and rightly so, because it removes the very wise friendly-parent provision, redefines family violence to mean anything anybody wants it to be, and removes any possible penalties for perjury and false accusation in the Family Law Court.
This new legislation, even with new amendments proposed by the Senate Committee, is nothing more than radical feminist ideologically-based anti-family legislation that will ensure the destruction of more families, the suicide of more separated fathers and an increase in the heartbreak of more fatherless children.
Mr Marsh continued, “ The Labor Greens government has embarked on an outright war against fatherhood and marriage. This Bill will soon be law and on Wednesday 24 August 2011, this same Labor Green’s alliance will be promoting homosexual marriage in the House of Reps: which a notable member of parliament pointed out this week is an oxymoron. Marriage is what it is – the union of a man and a woman. To accept anything less, in law, is to rob children of their biological birthright, exactly what the new ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ Family Law Amendment Bill 2011 will do for many more Australian children.
A 2009 Galaxy Poll revealed that 86% of Australians, including those in Labor Party heartland, believe that children should be reared by their biological mum and dad wherever possible.”
Dads4Kids calls on all Australian to make a stand and reject the Labor Green’s attack on fatherhood, marriage and children.
We ask Australians everywhere to write to their local Member of Parliament and request them to reject the Family Law Amendment Bill 2011.
For further information:
Warwick Marsh
0418 225 212
Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation
PO Box 542
Unanderra NSW 2526
www.fatherhood.org.au
Tags: anti-family legislation, Dads4Kids, Fatherhood Foundation, Rachel Siewert, Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee, Warwick Marsh
Media Release: Labor Greens ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ creating a fatherless society
Monday 22 August 2011 at 6.30 pm, the Labor Green’s controlled Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee released their report on the ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ Bill 2011 www.aph.gov.au/senate . The Green’s member, Rachel Siewert said, “ The Greens have consistently opposed the equal shared parenting responsibility legislation ” brought into law in 2006.
Warwick Marsh, Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation, said, “ The Senate report and the Green’s comments show what is driving this shocking new anti-child and anti-father legislation. Never before have major changes to Family Law been enacted on any other than bipartisan agreement between the major parties. This proposed legislation is opposed by the Opposition, and rightly so, because it removes the very wise friendly-parent provision, redefines family violence to mean anything anybody wants it to be, and removes any possible penalties for perjury and false accusation in the Family Law Court.
This new legislation, even with new amendments proposed by the Senate Committee, is nothing more than radical feminist ideologically-based anti-family legislation that will ensure the destruction of more families, the suicide of more separated fathers and an increase in the heartbreak of more fatherless children.
Mr Marsh continued, “ The Labor Greens government has embarked on an outright war against fatherhood and marriage. This Bill will soon be law and on Wednesday 24 August 2011, this same Labor Green’s alliance will be promoting homosexual marriage in the House of Reps: which a notable member of parliament pointed out this week is an oxymoron. Marriage is what it is – the union of a man and a woman. To accept anything less, in law, is to rob children of their biological birthright, exactly what the new ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ Family Law Amendment Bill 2011 will do for many more Australian children.
A 2009 Galaxy Poll revealed that 86% of Australians, including those in Labor Party heartland, believe that children should be reared by their biological mum and dad wherever possible.”
Dads4Kids calls on all Australian to make a stand and reject the Labor Green’s attack on fatherhood, marriage and children.
We ask Australians everywhere to write to their local Member of Parliament and request them to reject the Family Law Amendment Bill 2011.
For further information:
Warwick Marsh
0418 225 212
Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation
PO Box 542
Unanderra NSW 2526
www.fatherhood.org.au
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Solicitor speaks freely
I would like to help in any way I can. I have something of a reputation as a 'lone wolf' when it comes to representing men in difficult matrimonial cases. I cannot claim to have had great success in many of these cases because as you know the legal system in common with the bulk of the rest of our society is handicapped by prejudice. The stereotypes of the bad man and the angelic woman pervade.
I have to say that I was beginning to give up any hope of things changing during my lifetime. In the legal cases when I have had 'success' the human cost has been enormous. What appears to be required for men to succeed in matrimonial cases involving children, is a form of ruthlessness that very few men possess. In one of my cases the woman has taken her own life. In many, the children no longer have any contact with the mother. The only women capable of being challenged by men in these cases are the women who are openly 'deviant' in a way which is recognised by society as being really bad for the children. A man faced with this needs to immediately attack using social services, police and any other means he can summon, before securing court orders etc. He needs to act without pity and without any thought of ever going back. He needs to close his mind to any possibility that he might be premature or that there might be a recovery. Very few men dare to fight in this arena. Most of us are softer, more rounded, mature individuals, who cannot believe that the system can be so unfair to us and that to win we are being asked to transform into something approaching an 'angel of death'. In cases involving women who are not openly deviant in the required manner, men have no chance of success and are probably better to try to arrange some accomodation with the children's mother, rather than fight a fight they will lose. Many would be well advised to try to 'stay in there' for the time being.
All of this of course needs to change. But how do we go about it?
Do you have meetings, members etc?
Today I spent an hour with a senior police officer trying to argue that the way the PSNI are enforcing the harassment legislation is allowing the harasser to have "two free goes" at their victim before there is a prosecution. Sadly the conversation ended with the officer stating that she felt that if I was correct, a change in the law was necessary. I have asked a councillor on Ards Council to raise the issue at a Policing Board meeting, but I am not sure if he will.
Thursday, 17 March 2011
Fwd: [E4F_International nr.11796] Saving the men who live in fear of domestic violence (UK)
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Greg Andresen <mens.issues@gmail.com>
Date: 18 March 2011 00:01:14 GMT
To: Greg Andresen <mens.issues@gmail.com>
Subject: [E4F_International nr.11796] Saving the men who live in fear of domestic violence (UK)
Reply-To: equality-4-fathers-international@googlegroups.com
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/03/17/saving-the-men-who-live-in-fear-115875-22994518/Saving the men who live in fear of domestic violence (UK)--by Louise Baty, Daily Mirror 17/03/2011We're all familiar with the terrifying ordeals of battered wives, beaten, abused and humiliated in their own homes. But what happens when the situation is turned on its head?More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, yet they often struggle to find support and feel ashamed to look for help. But there is hope, thanks to the UK's growing number of refuges exclusive to men.Safe house Kendal Lodge, a terraced house in Powys, Mid Wales, which was the first to open in 2006, has provided a home for more than 50 battered men over the years and children, too.Men are housed in one of three bedrooms – named Faith, Hope and Charity – and given bedding, clothes and toiletries, while children get toys to help them settle in.Each resident has his own room while bathrooms, kitchen and living room are shared.Workers at Montgomery Family Crisis Centre, which has run women's refuges for decades, realised there was a need for men-only centres 10 years ago when a man with head injuries turned up at their office."He'd had his teeth knocked out by his wife that morning and didn't know where else to go," recalls operations manager, Jane Stephenson. "There was a child involved but there was nothing that we could do for him at the women's refuge."One of the volunteers offered him her spare room until he got back on his feet. But the incident prompted senior workers to take action."If a woman and her children needed a place of safety they would be found one. If a man and his kids were in need of a place they would have to go through the homeless system. If a person needs a place of safety, they should have one, regardless of gender," says Jane.Geoff, 22, has been staying at the refuge since last November. His ex-girlfriend became violent after suffering from depression."She'd swear and throw plates at me in front of our young son," he says. "If I argued back, she'd push me and punch me. She was never violent towards our son but it used to terrify him when she attacked me. He'd run into his bedroom to hide."Geoff struggled to accept the situation."I'd grown up seeing my mum in a violent relationship so I knew that what was happening to me was wrong," he says."But I felt too embarrassed to tell any of my friends or relatives. I didn't know where to go for advice. "The violence continued for three years, until Geoff's mum noticed a bruise on his cheek. "At first, I pretended I'd been in a fight with another bloke because I didn't want to admit that my partner had done it. But eventually, I broke down and told my mum everything," he says. With his mum's support, Geoff contacted Montgomery Family Crisis Centre after finding information about Kendal Lodge online. It turned out that some of the workers remembered him as a child when his mum had been helped by the organisation years earlier.Now Geoff is having counselling at the refuge to help him come to terms with his ordeal. He never brought criminal charges against his ex and has no contact with his son. He says more needs to be done to help men in violent situations."It can be a struggle to be taken seriously because so many still believe that women can't abuse men," he says.Montgomery Family Crisis Centre's managing director Shirley Powell agrees that people find it difficult to accept men as victims. "It's almost as though the men have to prove that they are abuse victims, in a way that we never expect women to have to do," she says.Steve, 37, from Essex, is another who suffered in silence for four years at the hands of his controlling girlfriend."She encouraged me to cut my friends and family out of my life and would moan if I went out," he says."She'd disappear off to the pub and come back drunk. That's when she'd cause trouble, calling me names and telling me that I was useless. Then she started hitting me. Once I woke up in bed and she was leaning over me, punching me in the face."Steve was ready to leave his girlfriend but when she announced she was pregnant, he gave her another chance."During her pregnancy, she didn't touch a drop of alcohol," he says. "She was gentle and loving and I believed that we had a future." But within weeks of giving birth, she was drinking again."She'd come home and punch and head butt me," he says. "She even threatened me with kitchen knives. I was terrified of her but, by now, she'd spent all my savings and I was living in her house, so I had nowhere to go. I felt totally alone."Steve never retaliated. "It's not in my nature. Before meeting her, I hadn't had a relationship for seven years. I was vulnerable and lonely and she used it."Eventually, Steve tried to leave with his baby daughter, but when he went to social services to ask for help he hit a brick wall."The social worker looked at me as though I was making it up," he says. "If a woman had walked in there with a black eye, she would have been helped immediately. But they took one look at me – 6ft 4in and 16st – and thought that I was lying. I walked out of those offices feeling like the world was against me."Steve was forced to return home, but his partner was finally arrested for assault and he seized his chance.This time, social services referred him to Montgomery Family Crisis Centre, which gave him refuge at Kendal Lodge. They stayed for six months."We were sharing the house with a man who had two kids," recalls Steve. "We'd chat in the kitchen once they'd gone to bed. It was reassuring to speak to someone who understood."Steve received counselling, help finding accommodation and support when it came to fighting for full custody of his daughter."I was so grateful to them for being there to fight my corner," he says.Steve's partner was found guilty of assault and he is now happily settled with his daughter in another area.But Steve was one of the lucky ones. While there are more than 7,000 refuge places for women in Britain, there are only around 20 for men with children.Even then, many male victims choose not to take them up as it would mean moving a long way from their families. Mark Brooks of charity Mankind says the situation for many is still dire."There is gradual improvement in services for male victims but progress is far too slow," he says."We regularly receive calls from men who are forced to sleep in their cars or suffer in silence at home because they have nowhere to go and they fear no one will believe them."
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Equality 4 Fathers International" group.
To post to this group, send email to Equality-4-Fathers-International@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Equality-4-Fathers-International-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Equality-4-Fathers-International
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Fwd: [E4F_International nr.11793] The Father Factor: Data on the Consequences of Father Absence (USA)
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Greg Andresen <mens.issues@gmail.com>
Date: 15 March 2011 05:53:44 GMT
To: Greg Andresen <mens.issues@gmail.com>
Subject: [E4F_International nr.11793] The Father Factor: Data on the Consequences of Father Absence (USA)
Reply-To: equality-4-fathers-international@googlegroups.com
http://www.fatherhood.org/Page.aspx?pid=403--The Father Factor: Data on the Consequences of Father AbsenceAccording to the U.S. Census Bureau, 24 million children in America -- one out of three -- live in biological father-absent homes.Consequently, there is a "father factor" in nearly all of the social issues facing America today.Scroll down to view data on the effects of father absence on: poverty, maternal and child health, incarceration, crime, teen pregnancy, child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, education, and childhood obesity.Father Factor in PovertyChildren in father-absent homes are five times more likely to be poor. In 2002, 7.8 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 38.4 percent of children in female-householder families.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children's Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2002, P200-547, Table C8. Washington D.C.: GPO, 2003.During the year before their babies were born, 43% of unmarried mothers received welfare or food stamps, 21% received some type of housing subsidy, and 9% received another type of government transfer (unemployment insurance etc.). For women who have another child, the proportion who receive welfare or food stamps rises to 54%.Source: McLanahan, Sara. The Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study: Baseline National Report. Princeton, NJ: Center for Research on Child Well-being, 2003: 13.A child with a nonresident father is 54 percent more likely to be poorer than his or her father.Source: Sorenson, Elaine and Chava Zibman. "Getting to Know Poor Fathers Who Do Not Pay Child Support." Social Service Review 75 (September 2001): 420-434.When compared by family structure, 45.9% of poor single-parent families reported material hardship compared to 38.6% of poor two parent families. For unpoor families who did not experience material hardship, 23.3% were single-parent families compared to 41.2% of two-parent families.Source: Beverly, Sondra G., "Material hardship in the United States: Evidence from the Survey of Income and Program Participation." Social Work Research 25 (September 2001): 143-151.3Father Factor in Maternal and Infant HealthInfant mortality rates are 1.8 times higher for infants of unmarried mothers than for married mothers.Source: Matthews, T.J., Sally C. Curtin, and Marian F. MacDorman. Infant Mortality Statistics from the 1998 Period Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 12. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2000.Based on birth and death data for 217,798 children born in Georgia in 1989 and 1990, infants without a father's name on their birth certificate (17.9 percent of the total) were 2.3 times more likely to die in the first year of life compared to infants with a father's name on their birth certificate.Source: Gaudino, Jr., James A., Bill Jenkins, and Foger W. Rochat. "No Fathers' Names: A Risk Factor for Infant Mortality in the State of Georgia, USA." Social Science and Medicine 48 (1999): 253-265.Unmarried mothers are less likely to obtain prenatal care and more likely to have a low birth-weight baby. Researchers find that these negative effects persist even when they take into account factors, such as parental education, that often distinguish single-parent from two-parent families.Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. Report to Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing. Hyattsville, MD (Sept. 1995): 12.Expectant fathers can play a powerful role as advocates of breastfeeding to their wives. Three-fourths of women whose partners attended a breastfeeding promotion class initiated breastfeeding.Source: Wolfberg, Adam J., et al. "Dads as breastfeeding advocates: results from a randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention." American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 191 (September 2004): 708-712.Fathers' knowledge about breastfeeding increases the likelihood that a child will be breastfed. Children who fathers knew more had a 1.76 higher chance of being breastfed at the end of the first month and 1.91 higher chance of receiving maternal milk at the end of the third month.Source: Susin, Lurie R.O. "Does Parental Breastfeeding Knowledge Increase Breastfeeding Rates?" BIRTH 26 (September 1999): 149-155.Twenty-three percent of unmarried mothers in large U.S. cities reported cigarette use during their pregnancy. Seventy-one percent were on Medicare.Source: McLanahan, Sara. The Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study: Baseline National Report. Table 7. Princeton, NJ: Center for Research on Child Well-being, 2003: 16.A study of 2,921 mothers revealed that single mothers were twice as likely as married mothers to experience a bout of depression in the prior year. Single mothers also reported higher levels of stress, fewer contacts with family and friends, less involvement with church or social groups and less overall social support.Source: Cairney, John and Michael Boyle et al. "Stress, Social Support and Depression in Single and Married Mothers." Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 38 (August 2003): 442-449.In a longitudinal study of more than 10,000 families, researchers found that toddlers living in stepfamilies and single-parent families were more likely to suffer a burn, have a bad fall, or be scarred from an accident compared to kids living with both of their biological parents.Source: O'Connor, T., L. Davies, J. Dunn, J. Golding, ALSPAC Study Team. "Differential Distribution of Children's Accidents, Injuries and Illnesses across Family Type." Pediatrics 106 (November 2000): e68.A study of 3,400 middle schoolers indicated that not living with both biological parents quadruples the risk of having an affective disorder.Source: Cuffe, Steven P., Robert E. McKeown, Cheryl L. Addy, and Carol Z. Garrison. "Family Psychosocial Risk Factors in a Longitudinal Epidemiological Study of Adolescents." Journal of American Academic Child Adolescent Psychiatry 44 (February 2005): 121-129.Children who live apart from their fathers are more likely to be diagnosed with asthma and experience an asthma-related emergency even after taking into account demographic and socioeconomic conditions. Unmarried, cohabiting parents and unmarried parents living apart are 1.76 and 2.61 times, respectively, more likely to have their child diagnosed with asthma. Marital disruption after birth is associated with a 6-fold increase in the likelihood a children will require an emergency room visit and 5-fold increase of an asthma-related emergency.Source: Harknett, Kristin. Children's Elevated Risk of Asthma in Unmarried Families: Underlying Structural and Behavioral Mechanisms. Working Paper #2005-01-FF. Princeton, NJ: Center for Research on Child Well-being, 2005: 19-27.Father Factor in IncarcerationEven after controlling for income, youths in father-absent households still had significantly higher odds of incarceration than those in mother-father families. Youths who never had a father in the household experienced the highest odds.Source: Harper, Cynthia C. and Sara S. McLanahan. "Father Absence and Youth Incarceration." Journal of Research on Adolescence 14 (September 2004): 369-397.A 2002 Department of Justice survey of 7,000 inmates revealed that 39% of jail inmates lived in mother-only households. Approximately forty-six percent of jail inmates in 2002 had a previously incarcerated family member. One-fifth experienced a father in prison or jail.Source: James, Doris J. Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002. (NCJ 201932). Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, July 2004.Father Factor in CrimeA study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency.Source: Bush, Connee, Ronald L. Mullis, and Ann K. Mullis. "Differences in Empathy Between Offender and Nonoffender Youth." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 29 (August 2000): 467-478.Adolescents, particularly boys, in single-parent families were at higher risk of status, property and person delinquencies. Moreover, students attending schools with a high proportion of children of single parents are also at risk.Source: Anderson, Amy L. "Individual and contextual influences on delinquency: the role of the single-parent family." Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (November 2002): 575-587.A study of 13,986 women in prison showed that more than half grew up without their father. Forty-two percent grew up in a single-mother household and sixteen percent lived with neither parent. (Fathers and Daughters)Source: Snell, Tracy L and Danielle C. Morton. Women in Prison: Survey of Prison Inmates, 1991. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, 1994: 4.Even after controlling for community context, there is significantly more drug use among children who do not live with their mother and father.Source: Hoffmann, John P. "The Community Context of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use." Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (May 2002): 314-330.Youths are more at risk of first substance use without a highly involved father. Each unit increase in father involvement is associated with 1% reduction in substance use. Living in an intact family also decreases the risk of first substance use.Source: Bronte-Tinkew, Jacinta, Kristin A. Moore, Randolph C. Capps, and Jonathan Zaff. "The influence of father involvement on youth risk behaviors among adolescents: A comparison of native-born and immigrant families." Article in Press. Social Science Research December 2004.Of the 228 students studied, those from single-parent families reported higher rates of drinking and smoking as well as higher scores on delinquency and aggression tests when compared to boys from two-parent households.Source: Griffin, Kenneth W., Gilbert J. Botvin, Lawrence M. Scheier, Tracy Diaz and Nicole L. Miller. "Parenting Practices as Predictors of Substance Use, Delinquency, and Aggression Among Urban Minority Youth: Moderating Effects of Family Structure and Gender." Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 14 (June 2000): 174-184.In a study of INTERPOL crime statistics of 39 countries, it was found that single parenthood ratios were strongly correlated with violent crimes. This was not true 18 years ago.Source: Barber, Nigel. "Single Parenthood As a Predictor of Cross-National Variation in Violent Crime." Cross-Cultural Research 38 (November 2004): 343-358.Father Factor in Teen PregnancyBeing raised by a single mother raises the risk of teen pregnancy, marrying with less than a high school degree, and forming a marriage where both partners have less than a high school degree.Source: Teachman, Jay D. "The Childhood Living Arrangements of Children and the Characteristics of Their Marriages." Journal of Family Issues 25 (January 2004): 86-111.Separation or frequent changes increase a woman's risk of early menarche, sexual activity and pregnancy. Women whose parents separated between birth and six years old experienced twice the risk of early menstruation, more than four times the risk of early sexual intercourse, and two and a half times higher risk of early pregnancy when compared to women in intact families. The longer a woman lived with both parents, the lower her risk of early reproductive development. Women who experienced three or more changes in her family environment exhibited similar risks but were five times more likely to have an early pregnancy.Source: Quinlan, Robert J. "Father absence, parental care, and female reproductive development." Evolution and Human Behavior 24 (November 2003): 376-390.Researchers using a pool from both the U.S. and New Zealand found strong evidence that father absence has an effect on early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy. Teens without fathers were twice as likely to be involved in early sexual activity and seven times more likely to get pregnant as an adolescent.Source: Ellis, Bruce J., John E. Bates, Kenneth A. Dodge, David M. Ferguson, L. John Horwood, Gregory S. Pettit, and Lianne Woodward. "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy." Child Development 74 (May/June 2003): 801-821.Father Factor in Child AbuseCompared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect.Source: America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being. Table SPECIAL1. Washington, D.C.: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 1997.The overall rate of child abuse and neglect in single-parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, whereas the rate of overall maltreatment in two-parent households is 15.5 per 1,000.Source: America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being. Table SPECIAL1. Washington, D.C.: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 1997.An analysis of child abuse cases in a nationally representative sample of 42 counties found that children from single-parent families are more likely to be victims of physical and sexual abuse than children who live with both biological parents. Compared to their peers living with both parents, children in single parent homes had:a 77% greater risk of being physically abusedan 87% greater risk of being harmed by physical neglecta 165% greater risk of experiencing notable physical neglecta 74% greater risk of suffering from emotional neglectan 80% greater risk of suffering serious injury as a result of abuseoverall, a 120% greater risk of being endangered by some type of child abuse.Source: Sedlak, Andrea J. and Diane D. Broadhurst. The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect: Final Report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, D.C., September 1996.Father Factor in Drug and Alcohol AbuseResearchers at Columbia University found that children living in two-parent household with a poor relationship with their father are 68% more likely to smoke, drink, or use drugs compared to all teens in two-parent households. Teens in single mother households are at a 30% higher risk than those in two-parent households.Source: "Survey Links Teen Drug Use, Relationship With Father." Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly 6 September 1999: 5.Even after controlling for community context, there is significantly more drug use among children who do not live with their mother and father.Source: Hoffmann, John P. "The Community Context of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use." Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (May 2002): 314-330.In a study of 6,500 children from the ADDHEALTH database, father closeness was negatively correlated with the number of a child's friends who smoke, drink, and smoke marijuana. Closeness was also correlated with a child's use of alcohol, cigarettes, and hard drugs and was connected to family structure. Intact families ranked higher on father closeness than single-parent families.Source: National Fatherhood Initiative. "Family Structure, Father Closeness, & Drug Abuse." Gaithersburg, MD: National Fatherhood Initiative, 2004: 20-22.Of the 228 students studied, those from single-parent families reported higher rates of drinking and smoking as well as higher scores on delinquency and aggression tests when compared to boys from two-parent households.Source: Griffin, Kenneth W., Gilbert J. Botvin, Lawrence M. Scheier, Tracy Diaz and Nicole L. Miller. "Parenting Practices as Predictors of Substance Use, Delinquency, and Aggression Among Urban Minority Youth: Moderating Effects of Family Structure and Gender." Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 14 (June 2000): 174-184.Father Factor in Childhood ObesityThe National Longitudinal Survey of Youth found that obese children are more likely to live in father-absent homes than are non-obese children.Source: National Longitudinal Survey of YouthStudy that looked at family lifestyle and parent's Body Mass Index (BMI) over a nine year period found:Father's Body Mass Index (BMI) predicts son's and daughter's BMI independent of offspring's alcohol intake, smoking, physical fitness, and father's educationFurthermore, BMI in sons and daughters consistently higher when fathers were overweight or obesePhysical fitness of daughters negatively related to their father's obesityObesity of fathers associated with a four-fold increase in the risk of obesity of sons and daughters at age 18Source: Burke V, Beilin LJ, Dunbar D. "Family lifestyle and parental body mass index as predictors of body mass index in Australian children: a longitudinal study." Department of Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, University of Western Australia, and the Western Australian Heart Research Institute; Perth, Australia.A fathers' body mass index (a measurement of the relative composition of fat and muscle mass in the human body) is directly related to a child's activity level. In a study of 259 toddlers, more active children were more likely to have a father with a lower BMI than less active children.Source: Finn, Kevin, Neil Johannsen, and Bonny Specker. "Factors associated with physical activity in preschool children." The Journal of Pediatrics 140 (January 2002): 81-85.A study that looked at dietary intake and physical activity of parents and their daughters over a two year period found:Daughter's BMI predicted by father's diets and father's enjoyment of physical activityAs father's BMI rose, so did their daughter's BMISource: Davison KK, Birch LL. "Child and parent characteristics as predictors of change in girls' body mass index." Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA.Study that looked at the relationship between parent's total and percentage body fat and daughter's total body fat over a two and one-half year period found:Father's, not mother's, total and percentage body fat the best predictor of changes in daughter's total and percentage body fat.Source: Figueroa-Colon R, Arani RB, Goran MI, Weinsier RL. "Paternal body fat is a longitudinal predictor of changes in body fat in premenarcheal girls." Department of Pediatrics, General Clinical Research Center, Medical Statistics Unit, Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA.Two studies that have looked at the determinants of physical activity in obese and non-obese children found:Obese children less likely to report that their father's were physically active than were the children of non-obese children. This determinant not found for mothers.Father's inactivity strong predictor of children's inactivity.Source: Trost SG, Kerr LM, Ward DS, Pate RR. "Physical activity and determinants of physical activity in obese and non-obese children. School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia.Source: Fogelholm M, Nuutinen O, Pasanen M, Myohanen E, Saatela T. "Parent-child relationship of physical activity patterns and obesity." University of Helsinki, Lahti Research and Training Centre, Finland.Children who lived with single mothers were significantly more likely to become obese by a 6-year follow-up, as were black children, children with nonworking parents, children with nonprofessional parents, and children whose mothers did not complete high school.Source: Strauss RS, Knight J. "Influence of the home environment on the development of obesity in children." Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903, USA.Father Factor in EducationFatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1993.Father involvement in schools is associated with the higher likelihood of a student getting mostly A's. This was true for fathers in biological parent families, for stepfathers, and for fathers heading single-parent families.Source: Nord, Christine Winquist, and Jerry West. Fathers' and Mothers' Involvement in Their Children's Schools by Family Type and Resident Status. (NCES 2001-032). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2001.Students living in father-absent homes are twice as likely to repeat a grade in school; 10 percent of children living with both parents have ever repeated a grade, compared to 20 percent of children in stepfather families and 18 percent in mother-only families.Source: Nord, Christine Winquist, and Jerry West. Fathers' and Mothers' Involvement in Their Children's Schools by Family Type and Resident Status. (NCES 2001-032). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2001.Students in single-parent families or stepfamilies are significantly less likely than students living in intact families to have parents involved in their schools. About half of students living in single-parent families or stepfamilies have parents who are highly involved, while 62 percent of students living with both their parents have parents who are highly involved in their schools.Source: Nord, Christine Winquist, and Jerry West. Fathers' and Mothers' Involvement in Their Children's Schools by Family Type and Resident Status. (NCES 2001-032). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2001.In 2001, 61 percent of 3- to 5-year olds living with two parents were read aloud to everyday by a family member, compared to 48% of children living in single- or no-parent families.Source: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2002. Table ED1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003.Kindergarteners who live with single-parents are over-represented in those lagging in health, social and emotional, and cognitive outcomes. Thirty-three percent of children who were behind in all three areas were living with single parents while only 22% were not lagging behind.Source: Wertheimer, Richard and Tara Croan, et al. Attending Kindergarten and Already Behind: A Statistical Portrait of Vulnerable Young Children. Child Trends Research Brief. Publication #2003-20. Washington, DC: Child Trends, 2003.In two-parent families, children under the age of 13 spend an average of 1.77 hours engaged in activities with their fathers and 2.35 hours doing so with their mothers on a daily basis in 1997. Children in single parent families spent on .42 hours with their fathers and 1.26 hours with their mothers on daily basis.Source: Lippman, Laura, et al. Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2004.A study of 1330 children from the PSID showed that fathers who are involved on a personal level with their child schooling increases the likelihood of their child's achievement. When fathers assume a positive role in their child's education, students feel a positive impact.Source: McBride, Brent A., Sarah K. Schoppe-Sullivan, and Moon-Ho Ho. "The mediating role of fathers' school involvement on student achievement." Applied Developmental Psychology 26 (2005): 201-216.Half of all children with highly involved fathers in two-parent families reported getting mostly A's through 12th grade, compared to 35.2% of children of nonresident father families.Source: National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education. NCES 1999022. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, 1999: 76.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Equality 4 Fathers International" group.
To post to this group, send email to Equality-4-Fathers-International@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Equality-4-Fathers-International-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Equality-4-Fathers-International
Monday, 14 March 2011
Fwd: [E4F_International nr.11789] Model concerned parent letter on PAS in the DSM written by mother Monika Logan to Daniel Pine, chairman of the Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence Work Group of the DSM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Vaderkenniscentrum|SKO <vaderkenniscentrum@gmail.com>
Date: 14 March 2011 04:19:02 GMT
To: Familyrights 4 Europe Yahoo <fr4e@yahoogroups.com>, Equality-4-Fathers-International <Equality-4-Fathers-International@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [E4F_International nr.11789] Model concerned parent letter on PAS in the DSM written by mother Monika Logan to Daniel Pine, chairman of the Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence Work Group of the DSM
Reply-To: equality-4-fathers-international@googlegroups.com
Model letter on PAS in the DSM written by parent Monika Littau Logan to Daniel Pine, M.D., chairman of the Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence Work Group of the DSM
-------------------
Parent's Perspective : Proposal that Parental Alienation Disorder be included in the DSM-V. The Extreme End of the Continuum by Monika Logan, LBSW
To: Daniel Pine, M.D.; Chairman of the Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence Work Group, for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition;
National Institute of Mental Health
I have serious concerns regarding the lack of treatment and acknowledgement of Parental Alienation Disorder (PAD). As a parent, I sought counseling for my children after a vitriolic divorce. To my dismay, when I reported the cluster of symptoms, I discovered that counselors could not help. Later, I realized that the symptoms are Gardner's criteria for Parental Alienation Syndrome. In continuing my search, which lasted from 1995 to 2007, my children were constantly and perpetually diagnosed with adjustment disorder. I am also a helping professional and am alarmed at the lack of treatment options. PAS is clearly emotional abuse.
There are apprehensions that categorizing PAD as a mental disorder of a child pathologizes a child's reaction to a bitter divorce. Obviously, it is ideal that parents would not attempt to alienate their child from his or her other parent. The fact is some parents do and will continue to do so. It is also commonsensical that the parent participating in the alienation needs intervention. Yet, this is not practical. Intervention will remain only educational at best. Additionally, the intervention is effective if the parent that is participating realizes and cares that he or she has a problem. I am a trained facilitator for a divorce education program, titled, Children in the Middle, created by the Center for Divorce Education. Courts can continue to order parenting classes, but they cannot enforce that the parent stop badmouthing out of the court room setting. What is possible is that therapists can work with children that are aligned with one parent and work with children who unjustly and continually reject the other parent.
I agree with Bernet's (2008) suggested criteria. As a parent, the disturbance lasted more than two months post divorce. The disturbance, as in many cases, lasted not in months but for years. Some groups propose that awarding joint custody would abolish PAS. Yet, courts today frequently award joint custody. Conversely, awarding joint custody still does not eradicate PAD, "While shared parenting seems like a reasonable and laudable goal for most divorcing families, it is based on the premise that parents will cooperate in parenting their children" (Turkat, 2002). Turkat also points out that "many couples file for divorce because they have an extensive history of being unable to get along with each other—to now expect cooperation merely because they have divorced may be too optimistic." Adding PAD to the DSM is the first step for recognition and future treatment options.
Professionals are concerned regarding treatment because the etiology of PAD is debated and deemed unknown. I agree with Warshak (2002) that, "when there is no brainwashing parent there is no PAS." Nevertheless, to my understanding, not all diagnoses listed by the American Psychiatric Association include definitive statements about causes, prognosis, incidence or treatment. According to Gardner, Sauber, and Lorandos (2006), "The professional community ordinarily regards the presentation of a new diagnostic term based on clinical observations as just the beginning of work in the area" (p.556, ¶ 5).
There are educational benefits to understanding family dynamics as it relates to PAS. However, it is futile to point out that children may become alienated from their parents for reasons other than PAS, such as physical or sexual abuse. It is common knowledge that children whose parents have abused them will reject the parent that abused them, and as consequence, alienation many occur. However, in PAS, physical, verbal, and sexual abuses are absent. In in the case of PAS the child's rejection of his or her parent is not justified. The parent is hated without good cause. I acknowledge that PAS is often associated with negative connotations. Some have used it in court as so-called proof when the parent was actually abusive. Unquestionably, PAS has been exploited by the media, extremist groups, and in the court room. Consequently, PAS has been re-named and reformulated. Kelly and Johnston (2001) provide a reformulation. The continuum concept is that divorcing couples that are at the amicable end of the continuum has a child that shows equal preference for both parents. However, I suspect that most parents writing this committee do not fall into this polarized end of the continuum. Clearly, this end of the continuum is ideal but parents requesting inclusion and seeking therapeutic intervention are not working with an ex-spouse that desires cordial co-parenting. They may instead, be faced with a child that has suddenly turned against them. A child that shows equal preference for both parents does not reflect dysfunction. Kelly & Johnston (2001) pathological alienation is equivalent to Gardner's, PAS.
Obviously, children will show affinity towards one parent. They may do so at different developmental stages or other reasons, such as common interest and will prefer one parent over another. This is normal. However, out right rejection of a parent for frivolous reasons is not. I and many others that are writing the committee are referring to the polarized end, not amicable post divorce relations .Without a doubt realistic estrangement occurs, but the point is it is realistic. A child who rejects his or her parent and does so do to actual abuse has good reason for the rejection. Sure, there are multiple causes for a child to reject contact with a parent; many reasons that are logical reasons. As a caveat, there are also reasons, such as PAS when a child rejects a good loving parent that does not warrant the rejection. A child who rejects his or her parent because of abuse and neglect does belong in requests for inclusion or discussion of PAS. Currently, the DSM-IV-TR recognizes abuse and neglect, which are realistic reasons for alienation, but it does not recognize irrational alienation.
I acknowledge the misuse of PAS. Yet, without a doubt, it is similar to other DSM-IV-TR categories: it has a set of symptoms. The symptoms of PAS should no longer be ignored. I propose that terms such as alienated child are vague; PAD is specific. One study by Gordon, Stoffey and Bottinelli (2008), had results of their study showing strong support for Gardner's definition of PAS. Please help children and families by inclusion. Inclusion would allow clinician's treatment options and provide additional research. "This proposal should not be rejected simply because there is no consensus among mental health professionals as to the pathogenesis of PAD. The history of psychology and psychiatry is full of disagreement over causation" (Bernet, 2008). This is true for most disorders unless they are organic. I also work with individuals living with autism. Not all psychologists agree on the cause or if there is a cause. However, if one is diagnosed with autism, there are treatment options. Sadly, a loving parent that desires optimal mental health for his her child, post divorce will not be offered help. They will call therapist after therapist only to be told that PAS is not real, it is a hypothesis, and PAS does not exist because it is not in the DSM. "Denial of PAS has caused significant psychological suffering to many men, many women, and many children. And its denial has only added to the burden of families in which this disorder has been present" (Gardner, 2002).
References
· Bernet, W. (2008). Parental Alienation Disorder and DSM-V. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 36:349-366.
· Bottinelli, J., Gordon, R., J. & Stoffey, R. (2008). MMPI-2 Findings of Primitive Defenses in Alienating Parents. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 36:211-228.
· Gardner, R., Lorandos, D., & Sauber, R. (2006). The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations. American Series in Behavioral Science and Law. Thomas Books: United States.
· Kelly, J.B., & Johnston, J.R. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome. Family court Review, 39(3), 249-265.
· Turkat, I. (2002). Shared Parenting Dysfunction. Journal of Family Therapy, 30: 385-393.
· Warshak, R.A. (2002). Divorce Poison: Protecting the parent-child bond from a vindictive ex. New York: Regan Books.
"At the extreme end of the continuum are children who are fully alienated from a parent after separation and divorce, who express their rejection of that parent stridently, without apparent ambivalence or guilt and strongly resist or completely refuse any contact with that rejected parent. For the most part, these rejected parents fall within the broad range of marginal to good enough to sometimes better parents, who do not have a history of physical or emotional abuse of the child. Although there many be some kernel of truth to the child's complains and allegations about the rejected parent, the child's grossly negative views and feelings are significantly distorted and exaggerated reactions. Thus, this unusual development is a pathological response. It is a severe distortion on the child's parent of the previous parent-child relationship. These youngsters go far beyond an alignment in the intensity, breadth, and ferocity of their behaviors toward the parent they are rejecting." ( Johnston, 2001)----
Drs. Peter Tromp
voorzitter
Vaderkenniscentrum|SKO
Jacob Cabeliaustraat 17
3554 VH Utrecht
t. 030.2383636
e. vaderkenniscentrum@gmail.com
i. www.vaderkenniscentrum.nl
i. www.vaderdagtrofee.nl
---
Symposium Vaderschap en uitreiking Vaderdagtrofee m/v 2011:
Op vrijdag 17 juni 2011 zal op het jaarlijkse Symposium Vaderschap van Vaderkenniscentrum.nl in samenwerking met de Universiteit van Amsterdam en IkVader weer de winnaar van de Vaderdagtrofee m/v 2011 bekend worden gemaakt. In 2010 werd de trofee gezamenlijk gewonnen door Orville Breeveld en Glenn Helberg voor hun initiatieven voor Surinaamse en Antilliaanse vaders (Vitamine Vader, Voorstel Vaderschapswet). Symposium en uitreiking waren een groot succes. Zie verder ook http://www.vaderdagtrofee.nl.
Meer inlichtingen over de Vaderdagtrofee m/v en het Symposium Vaderschap bij Peter Tromp (t. 030.2383636, Email).
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Equality 4 Fathers International" group.
To post to this group, send email to Equality-4-Fathers-International@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Equality-4-Fathers-International-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Equality-4-Fathers-International
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)