Showing newest 15 of 21 posts from December 2009. Show older posts
Showing newest 15 of 21 posts from December 2009. Show older posts


David Goldman's Attorney Now Playing the "Best Interest" Card

The overall theme in the Sean Goldman story is getting more and more confusing. First, it seemed to be about child custody. Then, people were saying it was about child abduction--abduction being more catchy than a child custody story. Now, it is about "best interest," as evidenced by a statement given by David Goldman's attorney in reference to Sean's Brazilian family continuing the "custody fight":
"If they are going to persist to take positions that are contrary to Sean's best interest, we would need to evaluate what impact that would have going forward on Sean," Apy told CNN.
Everyone is claiming to know what Sean's best interest is now. Best interest is seemingly determined by those with the upper hand.

Is this type of cultural transition in Sean's best interest? Is this media affair in his best interest? Is calling David Goldman dad, in his best interest? Is dad putting all his intimate business in public in his best interest? What really matters these days?

What about what Sean Goldman thinks?


Shattered Men, Fragmented Beliefs

I would like to thank "Shattered Men" for leaving a response to my post on Suicide: How Father's Rights Groups Drive Men Over the Edge though "they" made this more difficult than necessary by leaving "their" comment in the guestbook, instead of on the post.

My comments are in red

December 29th 2009
02:33:43 PM

Shattered Men

Looking at BOTH sides of domestic abuse with an emphasis on men (so what's your solution for men's violence?)

Randi's rants (LOL)

Marion Indiana

Suicide: How Father's Rights Groups Drive Men Over the Edge

Randi, why is it that most of the men who take their own life have never contracted a "father's rights group'? (can you verify this? i think a study needs to be done. even a man who didn't kill himself, but killed MANY others, was found to have contacted an FR group. he's been killed now, though not of his own accord. i am afraid to think that there are more.) Perhaps if they had, they would not have taken their own life. I know Shattered Men has helped to prevent over three dozen suicides of both men and women. (all i would like to know is, have you, not particularly meaning you personally, or "Shattered Men," but rather father's rights groups, or shall I say the vocal fringe lunatic segment, helped more than you have harmed?)

I would also like to know why this can not and does not work regarding mothers rights groups or are they perfect and never have problems. (i don't know why it doesn't, perhaps because mother's groups aren't vile, don't threaten or kill judges, nor do they spray paint courthouses. show me the suiciding, familiciding mothers and the mothers bordering on terrorism.)

In the situation you talk about in your rant, the father's rights group in question did not have a chance to do anything. They only had made first contact. (i understand that. it was very clear. but i think you agree that sometimes all you have is one time, and that FR group may have ruined this guy's life...well, he's Had this person taken time to hear the group out, we may have seen a different outcome. (he did "hear the group out." he tried to do as he was advised, but the FR advisor refused to recognized that those game tactics did not fit this young man's nature. this FR group did wrong by him AND his family.)

You rant on saying we have a "hate campaign against his current or ex-partner" While you know nothing about Shattered Men because we encourage forgiveness, not hate. (look dude, there is not part in that story in which forgiveness is encouraged. maybe you forgot to do that part with chris--or, I mean, maybe if your group handled it, it would have been different. but apparently, you must think i'm a fool to believe that hate is not a part of FR campaign. i have enough to publish a book. it is evident in many of your members' speech and actions. maybe you do not recognize this for some odd reason.) Oddly enough, most of the men have already forgiven their ex but it has been the women who come to us that have the most problem forgiving. (why do you think that is?)

Shattered Men exist because feminist groups refused to acknowledge that women can be violent. (bullshit. if anything, feminist groups recognized it first, because they recognize all forms of violence, but as it is not as grave a problem as men's international violence against women, thus, it is not at the forefront of feminist's campaign.) As a result a women who has been handicapped all of her life and who thanked GOD for the many times she was in a hospital because it got her away from her abusive mother did her own research and found women are as violent as men. (but women aren't as violent as men. they can be, as anyone has potential, but they aren't. all international human rights campaigns have statements contrary to your beliefs...and so does the evidence) It was her website that opened my eyes as I was much like you before that but now I know that unbiased research shows that women are as abusive as men.(false) I also know that unless we look at both sides, more men and women will be harmed. (but while men refuse to look at their side, men's violence against men and women will continue to harm nations)

What now?

Thanks for visiting.

Suicide: How Father's Rights Groups Drive Men Over the Edge

Psychology tells us that if you want to get a good opinion on that Toyota Camry you've been thinking about, do NOT ask someone who has just recently purchased one. Why? Because of confirmation bias.

What does this have to do with father's rights groups? Give me a minute and let me work through this ;P

Most support groups seek to validate the victim's experience and console those who are in pain. When men seek the assistance of these father's rights groups, many of them haven't a clue what they are stepping into. The men that make up the most vocal minority of these groups feel that they've been unfairly taken advantage of by their ex-wives/ex-girlfriends and shitted on by the family court system. This isn't so much of a support group as it is a terrorist organization. Their solutions include, but are not limited to, flooding, intimidating, bullying, and threatening anyone who speaks or writes against their mistaken beliefs. They hype each other up with pissing matches on whose ex was the biggest bitch. Nothing is their own fault.

What some of the men in these father's rights group fail to reveal is that they weren't really dicked by the court system or their exes--they either failed miserably in their relationships (and somehow it wasn't apparent to them) and/or, they didn't participate (perhaps even acquiescing) in any court "battle" but rather made assumptions based off of what their other male counterparts (who have also "lost") have fed them.

These father's rights groups should come with warning labels to the men who fall prey to them. Any half-decent man may seek answers to some basic questions only to be mind-fucked into a hate campaign against his current or ex-partner. He then goes into a downward spiral beginning with trying to play games with his ex instead of confronting the situation honestly and trying to figure out peaceful solutions.

Let's review this e-mail circulating through the father's rights groups right now, notice the title:

(emphasis mine)

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Swanson
To: [email protected] ca
Sent: 12/26/2009 6:16:54 PM
Subject: Read this (Another Dad dead by suicide. Another child fatherless)

Fathers' and Children's Equality (FACE)
Jeff Golden

It grieves me deeply to report this:

About two weeks ago, I received a call from Chris Wise of Hammonton NJ. He had been referred to us by an attorney-friend of ours who gave him my cell phone number. He told me he and his girlfriend had an almost two month old son. Both parents are in their early 30s, they lived together in his house throughout the pregnancy, he is disabled and not working, and his mother and brother also live in his house. The girlfriend and her mother were telling him they were going to take away the baby, never let him see the baby again, and take away from him everything he has.
(notice the connection)
There's nothing unusual about threats like that. We handle them all the time. Personally, I don't like to give too much information on a first call. What I tell about fathers' rights is probably exactly the opposite of what they have always believed and what they will be told by police, lawyers, court personnel, DYFS, etc. I prefer people to come to a meeting where a whole room-full of people will reassure them that what we say is true.
(doesn't this sound like when one of your friends starts selling Amway and they "need" you to come to the meeting to find out more...and then you get there and everyone is so friendly and excited...almost cult-like???)

I asked Chris if anyone had been to court yet for anything. They had not. I explained to Chris that at their first time in court, one of the parents will leave with less parental rights than s/he came in with, but until they go to court both parents had equal rights. I asked where the baby was right then. Chris said the mother was about to return to work from maternity leave, and she had made arrangements to move in with some strange older woman she will be working with. I suggested that won't last long because this stranger won't like a crying infant interfering with her household routine. I asked why the mother didn't go to her parents' home. She couldn't. Her parents are divorced. Her mother and step-father live in a little one bedroom apartment, they both smoke, and they have dogs. She had no contact with her real father until quite recently, and he also did not have proper accommodations for a new-born.

I reminded Chris of the adage "possession is nine tenths of the law," and told him that whoever had possession of the baby on that day they first go to court will have a very good chance of keeping him. "But," said Chris, "I don't want to take the baby away from his mother." Of course not ... you WANT her to have liberal visitation. But remember, she already told you that if she gets custody she doesn't want you to ever see the child again. Are you capable of taking care of the baby and doing everything that child needs? "Yes." Who do you want to have custody?
(notice the initial resistance from Chris)
I asked Chris if he thought it would be possible for him to get possession of the baby without breaching the peace. He very confidently answered "Sure!" I asked how he could be so sure of that, and where and how would he do it? He said the mother was bringing the baby back to his house that evening, and they were all going to sleep in his house that night! Under these circumstances I couldn't make Chris wait for our next meeting; he needed help NOW!
(notice the urgency...kinda like a snake oil salesman)

I told Chris there were two things he needed to know: First we discussed the domestic violence law. I emailed him a copy of the statute, listing all the acts that are considered to be domestic violence in New Jersey. I pointed out that whoever gets a domestic violence restraining order against the other can also automatically get custody, and that "domestic violence" does not necessarily have to have anything to do with violence. I told him if he is holding the baby and won't release him to her, and she commits an act of domestic violence to get him away from you, especially with your mother and brother as witnesses or if she leaves marks on you, you can get a restraining order against her and get custody of the child.
(a lot of premeditation)
Second, what happens if there is no domestic violence, but she calls the police and says "He won't give me my baby?" When the police arrive, the first thing they will do is ask to see the custody order. When they find there is no order, both of you will have equal rights. Still, to smooth things out, the police might say to you something like "Why don't you just be a nice guy and give her the baby? You can go down to family court and straighten it all out." JUST SAY NO! Remember, possession is nine tenths of the law, and when you go into family court that first time YOU want to have possession.

Chris called me the next morning. It was a very cold day -- low 20s. The mother was getting ready to take the baby out. She wasn't going to her co-worker's house. She was going to some other friend's house where she and the baby would sleep on air-mattresses on the floor until she could get into her friend's house. She wouldn't identify the friend or where she would be. I reminded Chris to get possession of the baby without breaching the peace, and what to say if and when the police arrived.

Chris DID get possession without breaching the peace. Mom was lying on the bed with the baby. Chris said "Let me just kiss him goodbye," took the baby from her and would not let go of him. Mom called the police. Chris called the police too. "The mother wants to take the baby out somewhere in the cold where they're going to sleep on an air mattress." Two police officers arrived, one male and one female. The male officer spoke with the mother in the bedroom and the female officer spoke with Chris. They asked about a custody order and found there was none. The officers told both parents they could not force the father to give the baby to the mother! The mother said she would leave, but she wanted to come back for her personal property. The female officer recommended to Chris that he not allow the mother back into his house. Instead he should pack up all of her stuff and leave it on the porch for her.

Chris called me later to let me know what happened. GREAT, I said, now YOU have possession of the baby! "No," he said, "something else happened too. Before she left, while the police were here, she asked to have a private conversation with me. We went into the bedroom together. She said she wanted to take the baby to her father's house, and I said OK. She and the baby are gone." Well, I said, we'll either have to get possession again, or it will just be a little more difficult for you on that first day in family court.

We had a FACE meeting on Monday evening. I sent Chris a meeting schedule, asked him to come to this meeting, and gave him directions. I called him again Monday to remind him, and left a phone message. He didn't show up.

That's it, I thought. I scared another one away. I've said it before, but now I'm really NEVER again going to give a lot of advice on the phone. Regardless of urgency, they've got to come to a meeting first.

Chris's mother left a message on my phone this morning. "Mr. Golden, I don't quite know how to say this, but I didn't want to leave you hanging. Christopher took his own life." I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I had to replay it a few times, then I called her.

On Monday, Chris left the house to go to a doctor appointment and then go to family court. He called his mother later and told her he was in Atlantic City, about 15 minutes away from both. That was the last she heard from him. On Wednesday she got a call from the Port Authority police. Chris' truck was found at the Ben Franklin bridge. They had video of him entering a parking area at the base of the bridge. They don't know how long he was there. He left his wallet, cell phone and keys in his truck, along with a note, and then he apparently went up on the bridge. They also had video of someone going over the side of the bridge.

Why did this happen? Chris' custody situation wasn't too bad ... yet. He had let defeat get snatched from the jaws of victory in his first skirmish, but, I told him, that would just make things a little more difficult. I never met him face-to-face, but Chris was a very soft-spoken guy. At times during our conversations, I thought he was hyperventilating. His child's mother was herself an adult child of Parental Alienation Syndrome who was not allowed a parent-child relationship with her own father, and was now being coached by her PAS-inflicting mother. Maybe he just didn't want to face the conflict that he knew was coming. Now fatherlessness will go one generation further in that family.
(how could he diagnose the child's mother and grandmother? he must be friends with Warshak, Rand, or Bone)
There is one thing I regret never having had an opportunity to discuss with Chris. He wasn't far enough into the process yet to understand it. As one FACE member was known to say: "If things ever get so bad that you consider taking your own life, don't let it be a total waste. Take a judge or a lawyer with you."

Jeff Golden
Fathers' and Children's Equality (FACE)
Cinnaminson NJ

I cannot find any record of this suicide on the www. The more that I think about it, doesn't it sound like one of those serious, emotionally compelling e-mail forwards you get from your associates? Well, I happen to do my part and look up those forwards and I have found that 90% of them are on as untrue. Whether or not this is true isn't even important.

What is important is how the father's righters try to shift the blame for this. Chris committed suicide. If it were to be anyone else's fault (other than his own), it would lie with the person who gave him all this "advice." In fact, if I were the mother of Chris, I would sue the hell out of Jeff Golden. Chris didn't know how his situation would turn out, and neither did Jeff Golden. Chris could have done well by using common sense and talking to, or appealing to his wife; but instead, Jeff Golden wanted him to engage in a powerplay with a war mentality.

Check out this further commentary on the e-mail:

(emphasis mine)

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Shatteredmen
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 27 December, 2009 5:38:25 PM
Subject: [Shatteredmen] FW: Read this (Another Dad dead by suicide. Another child fatherless)

I received this in an e-mail today. I do have to say that I totally disagree with the last statement... "If things ever get so bad that you consider taking your own life, don't let it be a total waste. Take a judge or a lawyer with you." It contend it would be far better to become....A Formidable Enemy

http://shatterdmen. com/Enemy. htm

I also believe that many of the "murder/suicides" we see may often be a result of situations like this but instead of taking a lawyer or judge with them, they take the one that they believe caused the problem.

This is all a waste...a waste of precious human lives due to a radical agenda that is well hell bent on destroying families.

http://shatterdmen. com/Bitter. htm

When our society finally (if ever) realizes that children need BOTH parents, maybe then we will not have to see reports such as this. Meanwhile according to most of society, children are "her children" until it comes time to get the support check. When the right of either parent to have an active and equal part in their children's lives is as important as that child support check, then and only then will we see an improvement not only in a major reduction of these suicides, but we will see a major reduction in all the results of fatherless or motherless homes

http://shatterdmen. com/Fathers% 20who%20needs% 20them.htm


Blame it on everything, minus the ones doing the killing. Chris was disabled and stressed (unemployed, living with several people in the household) and on top of that suicidal...a very difficult combination for parenting. But somehow, father's righters seem to think that the answer to all of fathers' problems, is 50/50 child custody. Part of the Australian father's rights groups platform is the supposed correlation between men "suiciding" and those who are divorcing and have "lost custody."

It just so happens that many of the murder-suicides that continue to happen, involve families with joint custody. So, how can joint custody be the solution? Furthermore, do we want our children around suicidal people? I don't think so.

If Chris is real I sympathize with his loved ones. Sometimes I wonder if it would be best if men solicited the advice of a good woman, instead of selling their souls to the devil. Chris was driven over the edge by a father's rights group member who gave him an unfair, limited vantage point. I wonder how many other men they have killed.


The Hague Convention: You Got the Kid? We Got the Money

How did David Goldman get his son back?

According to the Associated Press (and I wouldn't be surprised if this article were deleted in the near future):

(emphasis mine)

When the boy's handover was blocked last week, the U.S. Senate put a hold on a trade deal worth about $2.75 billion a year to Brazil. President Barack Obama also discussed the matter with his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

What kind of people have access to this type of justice?

Can ordinary folk utilize the Hague?

Is this child exploitation?

Or exploitation of poor nations?

What is the deal?

ANYONE Can Diagnose Parental Alienation Syndrome

Professional expert Richard Warshak can diagnose parental alienation syndrome without ever interviewing the child, and so can Dr. Randy Rand! John Michael Bone can diagnose parental alienation syndrome without interview necessary witnesses to the child's behavior. And even random folk on message boards can diagnose it!

It's so easy, you can try it, too!

Attention Stepmothers:

  • Do your teenage stepchildren act like totally ungrateful assholes, especially over the holidays?
  • Do you have to convince the little shitz to come over to spend time with their father, in order to get their gifts?
  • Do you feel that they are acting just like their bitch mother, just to spite you?

Then your stepchildren are suffering from parental alienation syndrome!

No other signs and symptoms are required! No questions asked!

But don't fret, get them the professional help that they need to bring your family back together:
Dr Jack Ferrell, Robert Hoch, and Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, on behalf of the Rachel Foundation, acted together in the propagation of the Rachel foundation’s "reunification" program.

Dr Jack Ferrell, Robert Hoch, and Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, on behalf of the Rachel Foundation, had a meeting of the minds on the methodologies to be used in the propagation of the Rachel Foundation’s "reunification" program. These methodologies involved mental and emotional abuse as well as threats and intimidation.

During their stay at the Rachel Foundation, the Children were mentally and emotionally abused by Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, Robert Hoch and Dr. Jack Ferrell.

The Children were also threatened on more than one occasion. (See Exhibits D-F). Specifically, the Children were told that they would not be able to leave Texas nor would they be able to see their mother unless they cooperated with the Rachel Foundation’s "reunification" program.
You can get those kids to love you and their father more, with just a little effort and assistance!

Depositing a Seed Into a Cup Is Not Parenting, So What About Depositing One into a Vagina?


Previously, I have talked about gay families and how they break the mold of society's "requirement" of a mother and a father. To say that a biological mother and father are the only real families, or that they are what all kids need to succeed (lest they be pregnant teens, jailbirds, and druggies), is to deny gay families and the wonderful children that are raised within. Gay families are a threat to fathers' rights and "parents" rights movements. How many times have you heard of the father's movement being gay supportive?

And so now we have sperm owners demanding their rights as sperm donors? What is wrong with this picture?

I thought a donation meant you were to get nothing in return (except they do get compensated, as do blood donors, as do charity donors via taxes). I thought sperm donors were giving away be specific, their sperm and their "rights." Otherwise, why are they going through a sperm bank anyway? Why not just insert dick in vagina, ejaculate, hope for ripe egg...and BAM!!! I mean, if you really cared about being half of someone's DNA, or a possible medical reference, then do it the old school way, right?

Is sperm donation the new hook up method?

In Ireland, a Supreme Court Justice wrote that:
"There is benefit to a child, in general, to have the society of his father.
If this isn't the most patriarchal BS...

What is this benefit, in general? And is this benefit guaranteed? Furthermore, if there is no benefit, then what?

And on the other hand, in another sperm donor's rights case, we have a United States judge who wrote:
"a declaration of paternity would be a statement that her family is other than what she knows it to be and needs it to be."
Here we have an understanding that mother plus father does not equal the necessary ingredients for a family. Is that so hard to understand? It is not the biological being that automatically grows a successful Dr. King might say, is the content of their character.
So can this apply to a who man inserts dick in vagina, ejaculates and fertilizes ripe egg? In this scenario, man doesn't assist in the pregnancy, man may not be present when the baby is born, man may not have even signed birth certificate, man may be haphazardly involved in buying the kid a pair of Nikes at age 6 is virtually unavailable for most of the "tender years"...Oh shit, mother applies for financial assistance...government seeks out sperm donor...and BAM...sperm donor wants court ordered visitation, or joint, or FULL custody of the child.

The child doesn't "know" this man as "daddy"...the child's world consists of its mother and a host of other relatives and friends.

See Lisa's Story, We're All Just Trying to Trap Them

What do you think?

Keep in mind that, at least in Florida, for 31 years, gay families had been prohibited from adopting. I still don't think non-married persons can.

Check this out (from the article linked above):

Several organizations -- including the National Adoption Center, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics -- have said that having gay and lesbian parents does not negatively affect children.

Could this mean that not having a father does NOT negatively affect children??? Hmmm. This would blow a lot of drivel out of the water


In the Best Interest of Sean Goldman?: United States Righteousness and the Two Minute Hate Against His Brazilian Family

I cannot know whether the following comments are made my U.S. citizens or Brazilians. I do know that most comments were in support of David Goldman. However, the hatred that I have seen against the Brazilian family and against Brazil are terrifying.

Nine year olds can read. They surf the net, get on youtube, etc. It is a wonderful age of exploration. It is shameful that people are engaging in a hate campaign against the only life Sean Goldman may know. Only last year, this boy lost his mother. He leaves behind a baby sister and people who have cared for him for 5 years.

It is not true that kids are resilient. This is a feelgood statement that adults use to continue to manipulate children in their own self interest. If kids are so resilient, why are there increasing millions of adults of in counseling and on psychotropic medications?

(emphasis mine)

...This so called beloved mother, abducted him, took him away from his father and country. His grandmother assisted her daughter in breaking the law. Now you want the father to play as if none of things happened. YOU MUST BE JOKING!…. I hope they NEVER get to lay eyes on him again. Real loving mothers don’t take their children away from good fathers. Women like you make me sick!--Posted by: johnnywho | Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 10:09 PM

...As for Sean’s selfish relatives from Brazil — shame on you!!! The grandmother had the NERVE to say it was a “heinous crime” to take Sean on Christmas Day. They also said it was “inhumane” to not resolve their visitation rights before David and Sean left Brazil. Are you kidding me!!! After everything they did to destroy David’s relationship with Sean by blocking phone calls and denying visits. These people have some nerve. I hope they are suffering horribly.--Posted by: Kathy | Friday, December 25, 2009 at 10:34 AM

I hope Sean’s grandmother will suffer a heart attack!She is a demon in disguise!and let her soul be barbequed in satan’s fire!!!!!!!--Posted by: michelle | Friday, December 25, 2009 at 1:39 PM

I mean Sean’s maternal grandmother--Posted by: michelle | Friday, December 25, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Ahrean i couldn’t have said it better. You articulated my thoughts–Gabie, you have poor insight and judgement- The child was kidnapped or he wouldn’t be a stranger to his dad!!!!
Ted, I see a happy ending b/c there is so much love for this child by his REAL FAMILY. I think his step father should be shot and his grandmother horse whipped–They are both ignorant and w/o a heart. They don’t deserve to ever see this child again–However, if it will help with adjustments let her visit BUT she would have to have boundaries and if she crossed them–OUT!!!!--Posted by: hopeful for justice | Friday, December 25, 2009 at 5:26 PM

I will pray for the death of that horrible grandmother. When she is dead only then will Sean and David be finally free!--Posted by: Maria | Saturday, December 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM

The grandmother Bianchi is now getting a life sentence for pain and suffering for a 5 yr crime. As for Sean missing his 1 yr old sister. He hasnt really develop a relationships with a baby and will not have a long term effect on him mentally. In 5 years, he will be a happy go lucky American kid with lots of friends and family that love him. By then, David, may let the GrandB*tch come and see Sean.--Posted by: Quin | Saturday, December 26, 2009 at 2:36 PM


10:36:45 PM
Dec 26, 2009

I believe in KARMA so I think that Sean's mother died for a reason. God took her so David can have a chance with his son. I'm not sure if she's in hell right now for her crime on earth, but I'm positive that she's not in heaven for what she did to David Goldman and her son. Best of luck to David and his son.


11:41 PM
Dec 25, 2009

I am so glad to see the Goldmans reunited, this is the way it should have been 5 years ago. The Brazilian family are a bunch of thugs. Every Brazilian that I have been acquainted with including those that I employed have a strong knack for lying and stealing. It seems to be a cultural trait, and they tell lies with such a straight face. I am sure that is what the Brazilian wife did to Mr. Goldman and probably right under his nose because he does not understand or speak Portuguese. She probably worked out all the details of the abduction well ahead of time with her parents and then just played out a role until they landed in Brazil with the boy and then made to call that would change David Goldman's life forever. Disgusting, glad she is dead. What goes around eventually comes around. I guess God realized she had created enough trouble on earth and called her back pronto and sent her straight to hell where she belongs.

Bubba Langley

7:08 AM
Dec 26, 2009

The **** who took this child away from his father to marry some scumbag lawyer got just what she deserved. I think the Brazilian government is run by a bunch of fools who dragged this thing out for years. I would like to remind everyone to boycott the Olympics in Brazil as a justified payback. Three cheers to Hillary Clinton for sending a message to this woeful Third World country. The threat of sanctions is a good tool to use on these people and Hillary got the message across to them.

There are too many missing parts to this story and yet every claims to know every piece. This is a tragedy in that the one person we need to hear from is dead and yet this is the reason that this story is so opportunistic. People can create whatever fantasy they like. They can demonize Brazil, they can paint happy endings. None of this matters rights now. In the end Sean Goldman will tell his own story.

I will close with some voices of dissent, maybe, reason (from the Orlando Sentinel article):

What are you all idiots? You have no idea if Goldman is a good father or a bad one; a good person or a bad one. Just because he is good looking does not guarantee either. In fact, many good looking men are jerks. As for his ex wife, what she did was not cool but we don’t know the circumstances that led to such a violent split….and we don’t know what kind of father or husband he was. After all, neither David Goldman nor his father give off the warm fuzzies. Finally, the most important aspect of this transaction is the boy, Sean. His mother uprooted him violently 5 years ago and moved him to Brazil. Now his father is doing the same……given very little consideration to the boy’s psychological well being. Goldman couldn’t wait until after XMAS so the boy could open his presents and give his chief providers of 5 years some time to deal with the impending separation? Of course not….it has become an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth…….none of which benefits the boy. Frankly, I don’t see a happy ending to this mess even htough Sean is back with his father. Sorry.--Posted by: ted | Friday, December 25, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Have you thought about how much this kid is gonna suffer in the USA living with an unknown men / father that he doesn’t even know well?
Seriously!!!! David Goldman is a coward to take this boy away from his real family!!!--Posted by: Gabie | Friday, December 25, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Gender Bias in Florida's Court System: Judicial Attitudes

1. Most of Florida's circuit court judges dislike dealing with family law matters. This attitude can affect the outcome of cases.

2. Many judges in Florida presume that a woman will enter the job market after divorce regardless of the length or conditions of the marriage and notwithstanding her age, lack of training or justifiable expectations.

3. Many Florida judges fail to appreciate or recognize the difficulties for women in starting a career at an age when many men are close to retirement.

--1990 Florida Supreme Court Gender Bias Report

And so Florida fixed this by enacting "time sharing" law?

1. If a judge dislikes dealing with family law matters, why the fuck is he/she placed on the family law bench? Offuckingcourse a bad attitude will affect the outcome of cases.

The answer I always hear is that there is a shortage of judges on the bench for family law. The next answer excuse I hear is that judges in family law are forced to work really long hours.

Does this mean that they are excused to ruin people's lives?

Let me show you their solution:

Throughout Florida courts, judges are cycled in and out of family court--meaning, they are rotated. I think the rotation is about every two years.

If this is truly to benefit the courts system and the litigants, how on earth can the same judge stay on a case when he/she has been cycled out of family court cases? Yes, you read that right. The judge has been transferred to another "department," per court regulations, and yet this same judge rules on the case (and promises to continue to do so). WTF? In fact, there is actually another judge on record, but motions from the other party are still going through the same old judge, and the same old judge is still ruling.

2 & 3. Many judges also presume that a woman is a gold-digging bitch so they give the man all the exemptions when calculating support awards in order to even things out a bit when no equality exists in a situation like this. If a woman has support her spouse in the household in their intact household, then that man should be required to support the woman (with children) until she gains financial comparable financial footing.


Christmas "Feel Good" Story, International Scandal, Unanswered Questions


Did not this Sean Goldman case happen at the right time? During this dearly celebrated, holy Christmas season, an American father was reunited with his abducted child. But for some reason, the information put forth in this story smells odd...and I do say "put forth" because we can never know the truth, particularly in a situation like this--where the American media and government have so much power.

Let's start with the abduction/kidnapping.
Abduct: to carry off or lead away (a person) illegally and in secret or by force, esp. to kidnap.

Kidnap: to steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud, esp. for use as a hostage or to extract ransom.
So, most media outlets continue to report that the mother, Bruna Bianchi, kidnapped her son from his father, David Goldman. Except most kidnappings don't looks like this, instead, they look more like this:

One could consider that Bruna Bianchi was indeed taking her child to Brazil in secret, or fraudulently because they say she told David Goldman that she was only visiting Brazil. Most kidnappers though do not report their intentions as far as destination is concerned. As far as has been reported, Mr. Goldman has known the location of his son from day one. The mother returned to her country of origin. The child has not been missing.

Why did David Goldman not go retrieve his son?

Why did David Goldman not relocate to Brazil to be with his son?

Why did Bruna Bianchi leave this great man, David Goldman, behind, in the dark, with no opportunity to redeem himself or the situation?

What was the situation?

All we have is a bunch of speculation and hyped up commentary intertwined with political soundbites.

We will never know the answer to most questions because Bruna Bianchi is dead. Her story will remain untold and she will never be heard, unless she left a diary. This is a particularly exploitable situation.

But what about this 9 year old child, Sean Goldman? He has lost his mother and has been uprooted from his known location and family in the name of father's rights. This is about father's rights because it clearly has nothing to do with the best interest of the child or children's rights.


Because it seems that no one asked the child anything. He is only 9. Does a 9 year old have any say so about his life?

People are making judgments based on an American value system. How do they handle things in Brazil? Upon the death of a biological parent, does the other parent biological parent automatically assume legal and physical care of their child?

The Hague Convention, among other things, allows the United States to bully other countries. I use the word bullying because it places the U.S. in a position of power against any other country, and the American value system is the one that is enforced as the standard. We are right, therefore they must be wrong. But bullying is not even a strong enough word because actual sanctions can be put in place against countries who do not abide by the agreement. Which is why in the "kidnapping" case involving the mother, Noriko Savoie, who fled to Japan (her native country) with her children, the Japanese didn't seem to give a damn because they are not signatory to the Convention...which also allows the Japanese to preserve their own value system while simultaneously allowing American's to continue to vilify the Japanese with a Two Minutes Hate campaign.

This entire Sean Goldman story has been a feel good case for people who believe that good things always happen to good people. It has become a fiasco of some sorts--evidence of American sensationalism and the power and control inherent in a nation with vast economic resources. A Two Minute Hate campaign has been in full effect against Brazil which allows American's comfort in knowing that they are indeed superior to all other nations. Brazilians, at least the ones who matter to Sean Goldman, have been silenced.

Where does the future lie for Sean Goldman? For now, something like a reality show: Insane media coverage and a $90,000 plane ride with exclusive rights to a certain t.v. network. Maybe a series will become of it....nah, doubtful because shall anything negative occur with this young boy we will surely never hear of it. I mean, look at the smile plastered on his face...with those shades covering his eyes. The eyes never lie....

And David Goldman gets to be a father now, under some very challenging circumstances. He will have some more battles in the future, although they won't pertain to child custody. If he holds to his claim of parental alienation (that his son has been parentally alienated by his Brazilian family), it will make Sean Goldman's transition less merry. The remedy for parental alienation, according to those who purport it, is complete isolation of the child, from the "alienators." And after the father-bonding has be re-established, the relationship with the alienators will be moderated, presumably by the therapist and the father, if reinstated at all.

And don't forget about the video included in this post: It is of a currently missing boy, Jean Paul, who was kidnapped in October by his father. The media put forth coverage just recently in December.

Why is it that when there is a perceived injustice to a father, there is international coverage and outrage? And mothers get international coverage only when they are intentionally made out to be the malicious beings (answer: MSM) We have mothers that have had to file a petition with the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights because of the injustices that they have continued to face right here in the U.S. They haven't had any Senator endorsements or Hillary Clinton step in and take charge. All women get is a public service announcement and ineffective councils created. We have had a couple of women come to the United States for asylum to be protected from domestic abuse, but when our own women flee from the U.S., they are hunted and the countries that protect them are ridiculed and threatened.

Anyway, good luck to Sean.


Gender Bias in Florida's Court System: Access to Justice

1. Women who lack means are routinely denied their statutory right to retain competent legal representation. Without competent counsel, women are critically disadvantaged in enforcing their right to alimony, equitable distribution of marital assets and child support.

2. Many lawyers will not represent women in divorce cases because women generally have fewer economic resources and therefore cannot afford the fees.

3. Florida's public legal aid system is not a realistic alternative to private representation. There are not enough legal aid attorneys, nor are there any plans to increase the number to meet the need.

4. Current statutes require a judge to order the more financially secure spouse to pay the other spouse's ongoing legal fees and support if the request is well founded. However, these laws generally are not observed or are observed in a manner biased against women.

5. Many judges fail to require the more financially secure spouse to pay the other
spouse's fees and costs because of a false perception that attorneys can or are willing to "finance" divorce actions for their clients.

6. An award of attorney's fees, if it occurs at all, usually comes at the close of the case. Often, the award is reduced by the judge, especially if a woman attorney represented a woman litigant.

--1990 Florida Supreme Court Gender Bias Report

And so Florida fixed these problems by enacting "timesharing" law???

1. I was not aware of any "statutory right to retain competent counsel." How does anyone know that they've retained competent counsel until actions have already taken place on the case?

I remember calling dozens of lawyers when I was in the pre-lawyer questioning-but-really-trying-to-get-some-free-legal-advice stage. I ran into some very generous attorneys who did not require that I come in nor pay a consult fee. I called mostly male attorneys because there were very few female attorneys. I also was initially calling attorneys in my area--which wasn't going to help me in the long run because my divorce case was not local. I asked them if a history of family violence would offer me any protection in the court. The answer: not exactly. I think one attorney told me to not even bother mentioning it.

How could I not bother to mention it when it was the SOLE reason that I behaved in the "unfriendly" manner that I did? How was I supposed to act? I had already spent enough years in totally denial.

For the divorce (the child visitation and custody came later) neither of us had attorneys. He got me to agree to a paralegal who would give us the paperwork and we'd come to an agreement, basically, because all we wanted was a divorce. Actually, all HE wanted was a divorce (and there was a VERY good reason for this that I could have never known)--we had been separated for some time and as far as I was concerned, that WAS a divorce...fuck all the paperwork shit...that cost money. He paid this paralegal that I never saw or heard from some $200. I swear she did nothing short of printing forms off of the internet.

I didn't seek alimony because I really didn't know much about it--only that White women get it a lot and as I figured my ex was too poor to be supporting me, what was the use. I never stopped to think what an awful position I was in--no job, no secure housing, relocated, in the middle of trying to finish college--I just wanted ties completely cut from our abuser.

2. Once I did attorney shop, lo and behold, no one really wanted to take my case. One attorney told me it was the worst thing he'd ever heard. Another [female] attorney told me I needed to take it to the appellate level (more on that later) and therefore she could not help me. And those were the ones who would talk to me for free. Otherwise, and attorney consult ran from $200-$400. WTF? I was only giving them an outline to see if they would be able to help me. Who had $200 to throw away?

As I was also a military spouse, there was legal available to me (and him) via that system...HOWEVER, they didn't get involved in any aspect of family law.

3. I didn't qualify for legal aid because I had a full-time job at this point. However, if I remember correctly, legal aid didn't handle this aspect of family law (they only dealt the child support stuff).

When I utilized the local domestic violence agency, I was told that legal aid could help me and that as a survivor, there would be no income restriction. I was so relieved. However, after meeting with the attorney and explaining the situation, 2 things happened:
  • A. The attorney told me best case scenario was since I knew this was about money, to offer my abuser less child support in exchange for total custody and control of my kid. WHAT? I was supposed to do this? What type of justice is this? I already had total custody and control of my kid for the kid's lifetime thus far--how could it be on the table? (In hindsight, I would do this in a heartbeat and would rather live in a homeless shelter than go through what I have.)
  • B. The attorney couldn't represent me anyway, because the case was in another county and my county didn't have the authority, nor funds, to do such a thing. WOW!

4-6. I have not once been awarded legal fees. In fact, I believe my attorney was afraid to ask for fees at one point because he said it would piss the judge off and we needed to wait until we were in the offense. Every time it was asked though, the judge "reserved judgement." Go figure. Not that my abuser could afford to pay my legal fees...and when he ended up getting himself a lawyer, I DAMN sure knew he couldn't pay both of our fees. However, had I ever gotten an award, perhaps I would have been able to keep my attorney...although I'm not sure how that works because you have to pay your lawyer as you go--fees are awarded at the end...and cases like this are never-ending.


Yes, Dad, You Really Can be Awarded Custody of Your Kids, But It Doesn't Have a Damn Thing to do with Being a Primary Caretaker

This is in response to a post that I feel is a little misleading...however, part of the information was acquired was from this article in the Times.

From the first:
So many separating fathers have the preconceived notion that it is impossible for them to have majority timesharing with (or physical custody of) their children.
This notion is bitched down from circles of fathers who spread their "stories" about how the ex got everything. They often fail to mention that they didn't engage in a custody pursuit either. Evidenced by:
More and more separated and divorced dads want, and can and do get to have their children with them most of the time.
But this increase in father custody comes at a cost [to children]. According to The Role of Fathers in Risk for Physical Child Abuse and Neglect:Possible Pathways and Unanswered Questions by Guterman and Lee:

(emphasis mine)
"In one of the first studies directly examining fathers’ involvement and child neglect risk, Dubowitz et al. (2000) reported that fathers’ greater direct involvement with child care was positively linked with higher child neglect risk...

fathers, as well as father figures, are highly overrepresented as perpetrators of physical child abuse, particularly in its most severe forms ...

Given that fathers provide, on the whole, substantially less direct child care than mothers (Margolin, 1992; Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, & Hofferth, 2001), these proportions of fathers and possible father surrogates as perpetrators of severe child abuse appear as rather startling.
And so (back to the blogger's article):
According to a recent article, fully fifty (50%) percent of fathers who seek equal or majority timesharing with (physical custody of) their children receive it.
Actually, this isn't so "recent," according to the 1990 Florida Supreme Court Gender Bias Commission:
Contrary to public perception, men are quite successful in obtaining residential custody of their children when they actually seek it.
We also know that batterers are 70% likely to win custody of their children.

We also know this increase may be coinciding with Florida's new "timesharing" law that was slipped into the books last year.
Due to a combination of the recession and social change, the American family has changed … and family courts have adapted to it.

More and more mothers are the primary breadwinners in their families and more and more fathers are the primary caregivers for their children prior to separation.
The courts haven't adapted. They are still led by the same patriarchal ideas that have been in place since forever. The American family has changed, as far as employment issues are concerned, however, the father's roles are questionable, at best. According to and article entitled Fatherhood and Fatherlessness by Michael Flood:

(all emphasis mine)
Perceptions of fathering have shifted, and the image of the nurturant and involved father now exerts a powerful influence on popular perceptions. However, the culture of fatherhood has changed much faster than the conduct. Fathers share physical care of children equally in only 1-2 per cent of families, and are highly involved in day-to-day care in only 5-10 per cent of families.
So, who, exactly, is doing the caretaking in the father's household? This should come as little surprise:
Myth -- Single custodial fathers who have remarried are the primary caregiver of their children in the household.

Fact: Stepmothers are. "The general picture that emerged is that stepmothers and mothers had been the lead actors in the monitoring and directing of activities and the nurturing and disciplining of these children. This finding about stepmothers was somewhat surprising, given that the children's longer term primary ties were to their biological fathers and that most participants only visited their stepmothers and fathers part time when they were minors. One might imagine that in a visitation or coresidential situation with biological fathers and stepmothers, fathers would take the lead over stepmothers in the guiding and care of their children...Yet, gender imbalances in father-stepmother guidance and daily care of children tended to dominate in these interview findings despite biological fathers' longer term relationships and biological ties with their children that their current wives did not have... fathers' work obligations sometimes created situations in which children were left for long periods under the sole care of the stepmother."

--Maria Schmeeckle (2007) Gender Dynamics in Stepfamilies: Adult Stepchildren's Views Journal of Marriage and Family 69 (1), 174?189.
And the blogger concludes with this:
As a result, more than two million mothers do not have majority timesharing with (physical custody of) their children.
Maybe, we should query these 2 million moms, especially ones like this:



v. Case No. 5D07-1682
Opinion filed August 15, 2008
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Volusia County,
Shawn L. Briese, Judge.
Clifton H. Gorenflo and Christine R. Stenger,
of Gray & Gorenflo, P.A., Sanford,
for Appellant.

James L. Rose, of Rice & Rose, P.A., and
Leonard Ross, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

L.S ["Wife"] appeals the Final Judgment of Dissolution of her marriage to D.S ["Husband"]. This has been a long and contentious dissolution and many errors are asserted on appeal. We conclude, however, that the trial court reversibly erred in one respect only.

Wife filed a Motion for Continuance shortly before the final hearing because the social evaluation of clinical psychologist, Dr. Deborah Day, previously ordered by the court, had not been completed, and her report had not yet been made available to the parties. The trial court denied the motion.

Dr. Day’s preliminary report, issued in November 2004, had recognized Wife’s prior and continuing role as primary caretaker of the parties’ two minor daughters, acknowledged her fitness, and recommended that she remain the parent with primary residential responsibility. In her revised and updated report, which first appears of record on March 7, 2007, two days before commencement of trial on March 9, 2007, Dr. Day catalogued a range of facts and circumstances causing her to change her previous opinion and to recommend that Husband be given primary residential responsibility for the girls.

On appeal, Wife draws the court’s attention to many Florida cases in which it has been held that social evaluations, carried out by experts appointed by the court, are of such importance to decisions of child custody that due process requires that the parties receive the report within a reasonable period of time prior to trial so that each can properly evaluate the report, undertake discovery, where appropriate, and have an adequate opportunity for preparation of rebuttal evidence. See Schmitz v. Schmitz, 890 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Robinson v. Robinson, 713 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Miller v. Miller, 671 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Crifaci v. Crifaci, 626 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Fredericks v. Fredericks, 575 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Clayman v. Clayman, 536 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kern v. Kern, 333 So. 2d 17 1 Wife also referenced a psycho-sexual evaluation of Husband that had been ordered by Dr. Day to be performed by Dr. Alan Grieco, but no report had been received by the parties. In her updated report, Dr. Day says that she received a report from Dr. Grieco and that the “findings were within normal limits.”3 (Fla. 1976). See also Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.363(b) (”The written report shall be prepared and provided no later than 30 days before trial . . . .”).

Husband does not address the legal authorities cited by Wife. Rather, Husband urges that Wife failed to object to the admission of the report at trial on the specific ground that she had not had an opportunity to adequately review it. The error, however, lay in denying the Wife’s Motion for Continuance, not in admission of the report. The trial was set to commence on March 9. Wife filed her pro se motion for continuance based on the lack of receipt of reports on February 28, 2007. The trial court ordered Husband to file a response no later than noon on March 8. The updated report of Dr. Day first appears in the record as an attachment to Husband’s written
opposition to the motion, filed on March 7. Ironically, Husband’s opposition to the
motion for continuance was based on Dr. Day’s updated report. Husband argued that Dr. Day’s new opinion that Wife’s behavior was detrimental to the children was the reason why the change in custody should not be delayed by a continuance. Under the case law, due process required that Wife have a reasonable opportunity to assess and prepare a response to the social evaluation report. Wife is entitled to a new hearing on the custody issue.

SAWAYA and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Wife was unrepresented at trial, and her only position at trial was that she was unable to represent herself and needed funds to hire counsel. The updated report is undated but bears a fax transmission time/date stamp of March 5, 2007 at 2:05 p.m.


What is a primary caretaking dad, anyway? Does society's image match with the reality? The blogger who monitors the news at Dastardly Dads reports:
Based on what I see in the articles I collect for Dastardly, "primary caretaker" (when it comes to dads) is defined as the following: chronically unemployed or unemployable parent, often with drug/alcohol problem, who tends to spend his day doing video games, sleeping, eating, or driving around in his truck (so he can find more video games, food, drugs, and/or booze). Tends to leave the children at home while he does these "errands,", or leaves them in the truck while he frequents, bars, strip clubs and casinos. The "best" of these "primary caretakers" utterly ignore the babies, and "forgets" to feed them, cuddle them, change their diapers, talk to them, etc. The worst get "frustrated" or "snap" when the baby cries (thus interrupting Daddy's drug-hazed video game), so the baby gets violently shaked or squeezed till his ribs crack, or her legs get broken during the diaper change. We progress from there to "dropping" the baby or throwing the baby into the wall because poor daddy "just can't take it." I mean how can you do Super Mario Brothers 3 with all that racket? Of course, the house is a filthy disaster, because when you are a daddy "primary caretaker," doing dishes, sweeping, vacuuming, and all that is beneath you. Mommy can do that after she finishes her shift. And that if she's lucky and the 911 guys aren't there when she gets home.

Gender Bias in the Florida Court Sytem: Economics of Divorce

1. Men customarily retain more than half of the assets of the marriage and leave with an enhanced earning capacity. The remaining family members are left with less than half of the marital assets and a severely diminished and declining earning capacity.

2. A homemaker's contributions of time and energy, as well as the opportunities she has foregone, often are minimized by Florida's courts. Many judges are especially reluctant to acknowledge that these contributions are a genuine resource of a marriage.

3. Post-divorce families headed by women are the fastest growing segment of those
living in poverty.

4. Older women whose marriages end in divorce are most likely either to have abandoned their own aspirations or to have devoted their lives to furthering their husbands' careers. They are not adequately compensated by application of the present system of alimony and equitable distribution of marital assets.


And so, Florida fixed this by enacting "joint custody" law?

In the marriage, I was a student and homemaker. This was agreed upon because we knew we'd never "get rich" off of a military salary (especially with child support going OUT of the house). I did work seasonally so that there would be some money for the holidays. When I divorced, we had no assets--only a shitload of debt. In the divorce paperwork, neither of us bothered to sort it out: debt was debt, he had debt in his name solely, I had it in my name solely, and we had it our names together. Interestingly, a lot of my debt was student loans, which I did use to support the FAMILY while we were married. One day, I'll be paying those off. The rest of the debts? Well, you know how that goes....

My credit was shot to hell for many years, although this began before the marriage even, because we had lived together. Somehow though, he was able to get one new car, and then another when he got re-married (wife unemployed). I had a vehicle given to me so graciously by my mother...and it nickeled and dimed the hell out of me with her footing at least half of the bills.

I lost that good ol military health insurance (Tricare) and dental immediately, although I swear there was supposed to be a grace period or something. Good thing I was healthy.

He got that good ol military housing with bills paid. I, on the other hand, had to initially beg him to co-sign on an apartment (remember, my credit..also I couldn't qualify on my income) so that I wouldn't be homeless while I tried to find a job and finish college. I can promise you that for nearly 2 years of my life, there was a yellow notice on the door each month, plus late fees, sometimes, because I could NEVER pay the rent on time.

Trying to navigate the government housing system was a mess. Public housing and/or section 8 was always full. And they would advertise in the paper when they would start "accepting" applications (but you have to have a newspaper, right?)--that window was always brief. Some wait 10 years. In 10 years I figured public housing should be the LAST thing on my mind.

There was also another income-based housing which required an infinite amount of documents and multiple checklists--which I always feared because they wanted to know your rental history...and well, I was "evicted" once when I left my abuser, and the apartment, many years ago. Also a wait list. (I do have to report to you that after 3 years, my name was in the top 60!!!)

Other bills? Let's just say I still remain in the habit of checking my mail once every week and a half!!!!

I learned how to survive on assistance from here and there: Foodstamps and Medicaid: Staple items for any poor family. I could not get TANF because I did get [voluntary] child support. Free lunch. WIC: When we aged out of WIC, it was a sad day. Food Pantry: allowed you to last another week when your foodstamps ran out. Also GREAT for when they have Thanksgiving and Christmas "specials." Community assistance: Great little here and there money when your lights or electric got cut off. Daycare assistance and headstart: Lifelines when you work or go to school.

Surviving on gubment assistance is no cake walk either. It requires patience, effort AND time...which is very difficult when you have to juggle family matters and employment issues. Social workers have major attitudes, wait times for APPOINTMENTS are long, and for NON-appointments, sometimes you have to get up at the crack of dawn. It is also very violating and you feel that you have no autonomy. And watching everyone in poverty is depressing, especially when your own condition is situational, not generational.


Recantation in Child Sexual Abuse Allegations

I cannot imagine anything worse than a child having the courage to come forward about sexual abuse, only to be disbelieved and placed into further contact or "reunification therapy" with the offending person (see The Parental Alienation Tactic: Punishing Parents, Punishing Children) .

Why do we teach children about good touch and bad touch?

Why are teachers and others mandatory reporters?

I'm starting to believe the goal is to make ADULTS feel better--to give children the false assurance that the world is a just place.

(emphasis mine)

Some people believe that recantations are a sure sign that a child lied about the abuse. However, a recent study found that pressure from family members play a significant role in recantations. Mallory et al. (2007) examined the prevalence and predictors of recantation among 2- to 17-year-old child sexual abuse victims. Case files (n = 257) were randomly selected from all substantiated cases resulting in a dependency court filing in a large urban county between 1999 and 2000. Recantation (i.e., denial of abuse postdisclosure) was scored across formal and informal interviews. Cases were also coded for characteristics of the child, family, and abuse. The researchers found a 23.1% recantation rate. The study looked for but did not find evidence that these recantations resulted from potential inclusion of cases involving false allegations. Instead, multivariate analyses supported a filial dependency model of recantation, whereby abuse victims who were more vulnerable to familial adult influences (i.e., younger children, those abused by a parent figure and who lacked support from the nonoffending caregiver) were more likely to recant.

Malloy, L.C. , Lyon, T.D. , & Quas, J.A. (2007). Filial dependency and recantation of child sexual abuse allegations. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 162-70.

You can read more here.

Summary: Children are more likely to recant if they are placed with their abuser and are NOT protected by their non-abusive caretaker.



Warshak Can Diagnose Parental Alienation without even Interviewing the Child

And Warshack isn't the only one who does this.

But as parental alienation is a magical syndrome/disorder, anything is accepted. Just tell your paid parental alienation professional that your child has been "turned against you," or "brainwashed, "and that is all the evidence he or she needs; however, there must be a divorce or visitation/custody proceeding underway (even though I have also read that parental alienation occurs in intact families, and many other situations)

For which other scientific diagnoses will this work? Let's be the professional and see if we also have magical skills. Let's try this:

Does your child have a fever, cough, runny or stuff nose, body aches, chills, fatigue, diarrhea or vomiting?
If you answered yes, then your child has H1N1.

Does your child have a fever, headache, sore throat, swollen lymph glands and/or a rash?
If you answered yes, then your child has AIDS.

Does your child display delusions (false beliefs strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence), disorganized behavior and speech, or affective flattening (seems to stare, doesn't maintain eye contact with you) around you?
If you answered yes, then your child has parental alien, no, actually schizophrenia.

What? I'm wrong? That's not what my research has told me!!

Isn't this ridiculous?

The thing about it is, for hard science (some would call it real science), a method is followed from which, conclusions are derived after it has been tried and tested. With psychology (some would NOT call it a science) it is different. No machines are used...there are no lab is based upon subjective evidence which is then interpreted by another party (the professional) who fills in the gaps with his/her own "objective" information. This objective information is based on the professional's own experience and research, subject to his/her biases and that of his/her peers that he/she surrounds him/herself with. No double-blinds studies, no valid replication. It is whatever he/she says it is.

In a typical situation, this case with Richard Warshak went like this as reported in this article in the Law Times:

(emphasis mine)
In S.G.B. v. S.J.L., the court set aside part of an award concluding that the workshop was in the best interest of the boys because the arbitrator relied too heavily on an assessment of them prepared by Richard Warshak, who admitted he hadn’t met them personally.
How in the world can a conclusion be made without directly involving the subject (child[ren]) in question?
Yet the arbitrator ordered that the remedy was “necessary for the children in this case and completely consonant with their best interests.”
And so how did the arbitrator derive at this conclusion? Did he ask the children about their own best interests (one of the children was 17 or 18 yrs old, one had a disability)? How does one prove that a certain relationship is in someone's best interest--especially if that person (the subject/child) is NOT interested?
Another issue arose prior to the hearing when the father asked the arbitrator to order an assessment to determine the appropriateness of the workshop for the children.

The arbitrator declined to do so, instead relying on his own experience as a custody and access assessor.
Herein lies another problem and seeming conflict of interest (therapeutic jurisprudence): arbitrators with "experience" in multiple in the U.S. attorneys serving as Guardians Ad Litem, and attorneys with dual degrees (J.D. and LCSW or PsyD).
In addition, Herman said the arbitrator failed to consider the psychological impact the workshop would have on the younger boy. He suffered from Klinefelter syndrome, a genetic disorder that, among other things, caused a language delay.
Did the arbitrator really "fail to consider" it? No. It just wasn't important, period. Nothing else is important when one is making a parental alienation claim.
...based on Warshak’s report that the children were suffering irrational alienation towards their mother, the arbitrator awarded sole custody of both children to her and ordered that they participate in the workshop to help to restore their ties with her.
How is an "irrantional alienation" decided? What happens if children do not want relationships "restored"? Should they be forced into psychological treatment?
Logistically, this meant no contact with their father for the three months that the boys were in the program. Once the workshop concluded, communications could resume as long as those in charge authorized them.
Treatment for parental alienation: alienation from the primary caretaking parent, and then, a third party dictating that relationship in the future. What kind of shit is that? Who is autonomous at this point? Who has any rights?
The order also allowed the mother to use transporting agents to take her children to the workshop in Texas if they were unwilling to go on their own volition.
I tell ya, THIS will REALLY make your children love you!!!!
The work of Dr. Warshak has been submitted for peer review so it’s not as controversial as the media hype may lead some to believe,” says Jaret Moldaver, counsel for the mother. “Dr. Warshak has successfully worked with children who have been alienated, and in cases where conventional approaches don’t work, it’s the only viable option to save the child from abuse.”
Honest question here: Has it been submitted for peer review, or has it been peer reviewed (tried, tested and approved)? What constitutes "successfully worked"?--the word of the parent, or the child? And where are those long-term studies? What "abuse" has the child been saved from?
A larger issue, however, is that often these cases come down to a battle of costly expert evidence, says the father’s counsel, Jan Weir.

“My concern is that in most of these cases, it appears that one parent has the financial means to retain high-end counsel and experts like Dr. Warshak, but the other parent seems to have modest means and never retains an expert, meaning that they can’t lead evidence against the findings or methodology of Dr. Warshak.
And this is what it comes down to: Parental alienation professionals aren't providing evidence, they are providing opinion. And if the other party doesn't have the money to have a difference of opinion to testify, only this one opinion stands on the case. Justice bought.
A week at the workshop costs about US$40,000.
According to Warshak, parental alienation syndrome is “a child’s unjustified campaign of denigration against, or rejection of, one parent, due to the influence of the other parent combined with the child’s own contributions.”
$40K???? Understand the push for the inclusion in the new DSM. How is the campaign "unjustified"? Who decides what constitutes "unjustified"? How does one know if the parent is influencing the child? How can you know anything if you don't interview the child?
It is recognized as a form of emotional abuse that happens when parents get so caught up in their own problems that they lose sight of their children’s needs.
But who decides that the child has been neglected in the emotional department? What if, in spite of the "evidence," the child is faring well emotionally, physically, etc? Is "treatment" necessary? If the child is doing just fine how does someone step in an disrupt that child's equilibrium? What right do they have?
In an interview in 2008 with Maclean’s magazine, Warshak said the workshop “teaches children how to stay out of the middle of adult conflicts and how to maintain a compassionate view toward each parent” and that it helps the child “recapture a major part of his identity.

When the child no longer feels the need to pledge allegiance to one parent by rejecting the other, that’s enormously liberating.”

Parents teach children how to stay out of adult conflict. However, when that "adult conflict" involves the child (protecting the child, believing the child, validating the child), how can the child stay out of it? Why should children "maintain a compassionate view toward each parent"? Because it is their parent? Are there situations in which this is unjustified.

What this reminds me of is the sexual abuse accommodation that Dr. Richard Gardner (father of parental alienation syndrome) spoke of/wrote about/testified for, and it makes me sick to my stomach:

(emphasis mine)
“The child should be able to pity the father for the curse (in our society) of having pedophilic tendencies. In other times and other places, he would be considered normal.”

Special care should be taken not alienate the child from the molesting parent. The removal of a pedophilic parent from the home “should only be seriously considered after all attempts at treatment of the pedophilia and rapprochement with the family have proven futile.”

--Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 537)
The child should be told that there is no such thing as a perfect parent. “The sexual exploitation has to be put on the negative list, but positives as well must be appreciated

--Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 572)
Older children may be helped to appreciate that sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. The child might be helped to appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who said, “Nothing’s either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

--Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 59)
Furthermore, how is a child's identity "recaptured" if the child is not a voluntary party to the treatment/therapy?...and also if the child's opinions are being reformulated based on some outsider's point of view? Seems like the child's identity could be getting compromised, invalidated, inundated.

Now we must question, who is really doing the abusing?

I'm Really Shitting in My Pants Right Now

There is such a frenzy going on right now in the blogosphere, I almost feel like I've been thrown back into high school--'cept in high school, I didn't give a fuck, and in my tender age of right now, I still don't give a fuck.

Father's rights persons are telling such lies about us d.v. bloggers, outright lies. Not distortions anymore. They are absolutely making shit up! I point this out only to prove that this is exactly how they do their "research" and "statistics"--by making the shit up. And after they do that, they repeat it to the umpteenth degree: because saying is believing--and as NOBODY in their camps question anything (no critical thinking allowed), the nonsense is spread like wildfire...

They like to incite rage and beef each other up...kinda like the whole Two Minutes Hate in George Orwell's 1984. It's called shifting the focus and they are REALLY good at it.

Doesn't this sound like some throwback shit from...middle school even? White men have a lot of time on their hands. Must be like that when you stand in privilege. Instead of using that privilege for good, they'd rather spark up drama and target the women that aren't trying to suck their dicks or give them virtual hand jobs. I will say this one million times: I swear this turns them on and this is the way they release their sexual tension. Oh well. They can keep lying if this means that Viagra sales will decrease.