An estimated 56 percent of abusers of all kinds are women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The most common form,. psychological abuse, can be as damaging as physical abuse.
Posts Tagged ‘child abuse’
Wreckless State Governments – “Suppress and Capitalize” – CNN iReport
In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Childrens Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parents rights on February 25, 2010 at 4:45 pmWreckless State Governments – “Suppress and Capitalize”
18 hours ago | Knoxville, Tennessee | Vetting explained
Posted by:
xzxeddiexzx
iReport —
The Law Perverted! Child Support and Politicians alike have taken the position of Marxist Principal in the Freeworld by dominating and exploiting the working class. Made to perform more labor than is necessary.
Alienation-denotes the estrangement of people from their humanity.
Child Support has nothing to do with justice, it is a panoply of plundered pops, and overwhelmingly now more than ever, Child Support is a regime whereby a father is forced to finance the filching of his own children.
What is most striking is that this witch hunt of zealots has come entirely from government officials. No public outcry ever preceded these measures. The public never demanded that the government take action, nor has any public discussion of this alleged problem ever been held in the national or local media.
Needless to say the voices of pursued parents are seldom heard amid the chorus of condemnation. The bipartisan certainty of their guilt is sufficient to set aside their right to trial and declare them public enemies by general acclaim. Yet there is reason to believe that this problem is an optical illusion and that what is being portrayed as irresponsible fathers is in reality a massive abuse of government power.
In recent years, a few cracks have appeared in the monolith. William Comanor writes that “child-support obligations” the only form of “obligation” or “debt” that most of the debtors have done nothing to incur- “are now treated far more harshly than any other form of debt.” Attorney Ron Henry characterizes the system “as an obvious sham” a “disaster,” and “the most onerous form of debt collection practiced in the United States.” “The overwhelming majority of so-called ‘deadbeat dads’ are judicially created,” says another attorney. “Why all this talk about so-called ‘deadbeat dads’? Because there is a lot of money to be made through that myth.”
When one begins to research the objective data and the research of independent scholars, it turns out that the problem is mostly the creation of government officials. In fact the myth of deadbeat dad has already been discredited conclusively by Sanford Braver and other scholars. We have already seen that few married or not married fathers seldom voluntarily abandon their children. Beyond this Braver has also shown that little scientific basis exists for claims that large numbers of fathers are not paying child support. Braver found that government claims of nonpayment were derived not from any compiled database or hard figures but entirely from surveys of mothers, and these alone, in setting enforcement policy against fathers, and no effort is made to balance them with surveys of non-custodial parents. Yet Braver found that fathers overwhelmingly do pay court-ordered child support when they are employed, often at enormous personal sacrifice.
STATE REVENUE VIA CHILD SUPPORT
A look at government machinery reveals that it was created not in response to claims of widespread nonpayment but before them, and that it was less a response to “deadbeat dads” than a mechanism to create them. Like new divorce laws (and shortly after their enactment), the child-support regulations and criminal enforcement machinery were created while few were paying attention.
Under pressure from bar associations and feminist groups, President Gerald Ford signed legislation creating the Office of Child Support Enforcement in 1975, warning at the time that it constituted unwarranted federal intrusion into families and the role of states. Contrary to professions of concern “for the children,” the principal purpose was never to provide for abandoned or impoverished children but to recoup welfare costs for the government. In fact, no study has ever been undertaken by the Department of Health and Human Services, Congress, or any branch of government to explain the reason for the agency’s existence.
Almost immediately the program began to expand exponentially, increasing tenfold from 1978 to 1998. The massive growth of law-enforcement machinery and reach was federally driven. In 1984, the Child Support Enforcement amendment to the Social Security Act required states to adopt child support guidelines. The legislation was promoted by the OCSE itself and by private collection companies—again less to help children than to save the government money under the theory that it would help get single-mother families off of welfare by making fathers pay more. Because most unpaid child support is due to unemployment, and because most “non-custodial parents of AFDC [welfare] children do not earn enough to pay as much child support as their children are already receiving in AFDC benefits,” according to researchers Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, higher child-support guidelines could not help these children.
Then, with no explanation or justification (or constitutional authority), guidelines and criminal enforcement machinery conceived and created to address the minority of children in poverty were extended, under pressure from OCSE and other interests, to all child-support orders, even the majority not receiving welfare, by the Family Support Act of 1988.
This vastly enlarged the program and transformed a welfare provision into an entitlement. Today welfare cases, consisting mostly of unmarried parents account for only 17 percent of all child-support cases, and the proportion is shrinking. The remaining 83 percent of non-welfare cases consist largely of previously married fathers who are usually divorced involuntarily and who generally can be counted on to pay. With wage withholding, “the number of dollars passing through the government collection system exploded,” mostly from non-welfare cases for which the system was never designed, which currently accounts for 92 percent of the money collected.
The 1988 law also made the guidelines presumptive and, for all practical purposes, compulsory. By one estimate the new guidelines more than doubled the size of awards. Yet that point was already known among policy makers and scholars that, with the exception of the relatively small number of poor and unemployed fathers, no serious problem on nonpayment existed. Not only was Braver presenting the results of his research, but a federal pilot study commissioned four years earlier by OCSE itself was published with similar findings. Originally the full-scale government-sponsored study was planned to follow up the pilot, but that was quashed by the OCSE when the pilots findings threatened the justification for the agencies existence by demonstrating that non-payment of child support was not a serious problem. The Congressional Research Service also concluded at about the same time that no serious problem existed.
Promoted as a program that would reduce government spending, federal child-support enforcement has incurred a continuously increasing deficit. “The overall financial impact of the child-support program on taxpayers is negative,” the House Ways and Means Committee reports. Taxpayers lost $2.7 billion in 2002.
This money does not vanish. It ends up in the pockets and coffers of state officials, for whom it constitutes a lucrative source of revenue and income. “Most states make a profit on their child-support program,” according to Ways and Means, which notes that “States are free to spend this profit in any manner the State sees fit.”
In other words, federal taxpayers (who were supposed to save money) subsidize state government operations through child-support. This also transforms family courts from impartial tribunals into revenue-generating engines for the state government.
In addition to penalties and interest, states profit through federal incentive payments based on the amount collected, as well as receiving 66 percent of operating costs and 90 percent of computer costs. (When two states collaborate, both states qualify for the incentive payment as if each state had collected 100 percent of the money.) Federal outlays of almost $3.5 billion in 2002 allowed Ohio to collect $228 million and California to collect $640 million. “There is a $200 million per year motive driving this system” in Michigan alone, attorney Michael Tindall points out. “It dances at the strings of federal money.”
To collect these funds states must channel payments through their criminal enforcement machinery, further criminalizing involuntarily divorced parents and allowing the government to claim its perennial crackdowns are increasing collections despite the program operating at an increasing loss. In January 2000, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala announced that “the federal and state child-support enforcement program broke new records in nationwide collections in fiscal year 1999, reaching $15.5 billion, nearly doubling the amount collected in 1992.” Yet these figures are not what they appear.
In simple accounting terms, the General Accounting Office, which appears at face value all the official HHS assumptions and data for what is “legally owed but unpaid,” found that as a percentage of what it claims is owed, collections actually decreased during this period. “In fiscal year 1996, collections represented 21 percent of the total amount due but dropped to 17 percent of the total amount due in fiscal year 2000,” writes GAO? “As a result the amount owed at the end of the period is greater than the amount owed at the beginning of the period.”
These facts are gathered from a book published by Cumberland House Publishing Inc. The Title is Taken Into Custody- The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family. By Stephen Baskerville For the sole purpose to stir up concern for rights of people.
((Something needs to be done.))
Below is contributed by: xzxeddiexzx CNN I-Reporter
While the states claim they have increased the collections of unpaid child support. It does not use the actually collected figures. It only relies on the documented back child support claims of over inflated arrears unconstitutionally delivered to the non-custodial parents.
So the weight of supporting the entire welfare system lands on the backs of a selected group of American citizens that are in turn refused and denied Equal Justice under the law. They are refused the fundamental right to due process and in most cases are limited in the relationship with their very own natural and biological children.
During this new economic downturn, this very method of miscalculated, mishandled Judiciary infringement of civil and constitutional law on only a select group of society is nothing short of modern day slavery and discrimination from the Governing bodies unto the citizen taxpayers in a bias approach to assault one gender over the other. Putting parents of the children involved, at war destroying the foundation the children rely on and need to become productive members of society.
Instead of the system finding common ground and exercising equal justice under the law. They infringe on the civil and constitutional rights of a singled out group primarily (men). But cases such as mine has the female gender in the non-custodial position. But all the literature given by the State funded agencies are bias.
Painting the male gender with a bad brush. The literature does not use the terms when talking of the noncustodial parent (He / She) or (Mother / Father) etc.
It plainly says if you are having problems collecting money from HIM. We can garnish HIS wages. Issue a offset on HIS tax returns or any state funded monies.
So you see the biasness? You see how someone in my position of a unwed father with primary residential custody would find this issue insulting and discriminatory?
When will society understand that one of the primary reasons we are having the economic crisis we as a society are having today has been because of States like Tennessee that have violated public trust in a attempt to cover up the lavish spending on private and personal items on the the taxpayers money, while using the child support systems as their own personal bailout program. This is why we have the over inflated arrearages set in child support cases against the weakest party that does not have the same rights to the judiciary process as the favored party that helps them generate the funds to run the scam on society.
This is totally unconstitutional and attacks the civil liberties of a singled out group that are suppressed by not being awarded the rights that is awarded to the side that the States have taken up interest in. Which is the custodial parents because they are working together to extort money from the federal government while hiding behind the statue in the child’s best interest. These proceedings have nothing to do with the child’s interest at all. It is only the interest of the state to take any measure to fund their practice of over spending the tax dollars.
Why should we allow as a society any group to be singled out and destroyed while the evidence is clear that they would violate your rights if they stood a chance to gain a dollar from doing so.
So today it is the child support issue and once they see that they do not meet any challenge in this matter they will focus on other subjects within our communities.
I would love to hear some input about this very important issue that effects all of us citizens that pay taxes or have children of our own.
Do we not deserve to have a fair balanced Justice system?
Do we not owe our children equal protection and both parents ?
Do you think a selected group should be singled out and violated by a government either state , local or federal?
The sums they calculate for the retroactive support orders also take into account the elderly on the welfare system. I personally think that the taxes we all pay covers the cost for them to have the coverage they need. I also think that both parents should be held to 50% of the costs involved with raising the children.
If this means that the woman that retains custody can not be a full time stay at home mom because she would also have to work and fund her fair share of the obligation then there needs to be provisions that their would be shared time with the child between each others job requirements.
It took two people to create the child and bring it into this world. If they was not prepared then they both have to work harder in order to become prepared and supportive to the obligation to the child.
There are other models and methods that would be more beneficial to the child and the family structure but the government would not want to lend a ear to the results because they would not be able to manipulate the taxpayers and profit while lying to the general public and the facts about the fairness and constitutional upholding within the organized crime ring supported by the states via federal funding while the municipalities fall out of compliance with the federal rules and regulations set forth, and continue to collect the federal dollars as if they were complying…
Embedded Corruption has the Economy in greater risk of crashing. The mishandling of the critical tax dollars that so many are reliant upon are in jeopardy if reform measures are not take swiftly in this area of government corruption to restore equality unto it’s people that it is suppose to protect and serve equally without bias agendas.
The following link leads to the Social Security Administrations investigation into this very matter. The findings are correct and accurate but have increased since the study was conducted in 2006 before the economy imploded.
- Tags:
- Posted in Assignment:
- Breaking news
iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.
// <![CDATA[// // <![CDATA[//
What is iReport?
-
Share
Tell a story, offer an opinion, say what’s important to you.
-
Discuss
Join the conversation on the day’s big issues.
-
Be heard
The best iReports get vetted and used on CNN platforms.
// <![CDATA[//
Wreckless State Governments – “Suppress and Capitalize” – CNN iReport.
The Tieton Truth Seekers: Severely Alienated Child of Parental Alienation
In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, California Parental Rights Amendment, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Disorders, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders on January 3, 2010 at 9:28 pmSaturday, January 2, 2010
Severely Alienated Child of Parental Alienation
The Honorable Judge Gomery of Canada stated, “Hatred is not an emotion that comes naturally to a child. It has to be taught. A parent who would teach a child to hate the other parent represents a grave and persistent danger to the mental and emotional health of that child.”
A Severely Alienated Child of Parental Alienation Syndrome
Severe
In severe PAS the child is often fanatic or obsessional in his/her hatred of the target parent. For this reason alone the PAS-inducing parent no longer needs to be active, although the PAS–inducing parent will resort to anything to prevent the child maintaining a relationship with the targeted parent. The child takes on the PAS-inducing parent’s desires, emotions and hatreds and verbalises them all as its own. The child views the history of the targeted parent and the targeted parent’s family as all negative and is unable to either remember or express any positive feelings for the target parent.
The child is very likely to refuse Contact, make false allegations of abuse, threaten to run away, threaten to commit suicide or even murder – if forced to see the targeted parent. The PAS-inducing parent will hold little or no value for the targeted parent and hatred may be completely overt. The child and the alienating parent have a pathological bond that is invariably based on shared paranoid fantasies of the targeted parent, sometimes to the point of folie a deux.
What Does a Severely Alienated Child look like?
They have a relentless hatred for towards the targeted parent.
They parrot the Obsessed Alienator.
The child does not want to visit or spend any time with the targeted parent.
Many of the child’s beliefs are enmeshed with the alienator.
The beliefs are delusional and frequently irrational.
They are not intimidated by the court.
Frequently, their reasons are not based on personal experiences with the targeted parent but reflect what they are told by the Obsessed Alienator.
They have difficulty making any differentiate between the two.
The child has no ambivalence in his feelings; it’s all hatred with no ability to see the good.
They have no capacity to feel guilty about how they behave towards the targeted parent or forgive any past indiscretions.
They share the Obsessed Alienators cause. Together, they are in lockstep to denigrate the hated parent.
The children’s obsessional hatred extends to the targeted parent’s extended family without any guilt or remorse.
They can appear like normal healthy children until asked about the targeted parent that triggers their hatred.
Children in the severe category are generally quite disturbed and are usually fanatic. They join together with their alienating parent in a folie à deux relationship in which they share her paranoid fantasies about the alienated parent. All eight of the primary symptomatic manifestations are likely to be present to a significant degree, even more prominent than in the moderate category.
Children in this category may become panic-stricken over the prospect of visiting with their alienated parent. Their blood-curdling shrieks, panicked states, and rage outbursts may be so severe that visitation is impossible.
If placed in the alienated parent’s home they may run away, become paralyzed with morbid fear, or may become so continuously provocative and so destructive that removal becomes necessary. Unlike children in the moderate and mild categories, their panic and hostility may not be reduced in the alienated parent’s home, even when separated from their alienating parents for significant periods. Whereas in the mild and moderate categories the children’s primary motive is to strengthen the stronger, healthy psychological bond with the alienating parent, in the severe category the psychological bond with the alienating parent is pathological (often paranoid) and the symptoms serve to strengthen this pathological bond.
The Tieton Truth Seekers: Severely Alienated Child of Parental Alienation.
A Kidnapped Mind: A Mother’s Heartbreaking Memoir of Parental Alienation
In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, Child Custody, Child Custody for fathers, Child Custody for Mothers, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Protective Parents, Restraining Orders, Single Parenting on September 17, 2009 at 11:00 pmParental Alienators are both mothers and fathers. Children suffer the effects of hateful moms and dads who keep children away from the other parent. Parental Alienators FAIL the MMPI-II at it is time for us to codify this mental illness in the DSM-IV. – Parental Rights
Presented as the story of an “indefatigable mother’s fierce love,” Pamela Richardson’s A Kidnapped Mind: A Mother’s Heartbreaking Story of Parental Alienation Syndrome (Dundurn 2006) is a memoir of losing her son, Dash, during an eight-year custody battle, then ultimately to death. With an introduction by a “divorce and custody consultant” named Dr. Reena Sommer, this harrowing tale of domestic strife attributes the estrangement of Richardson’s son to “Parental Alienation Syndrome” as triggered by the cruel and insidious “brainwashing” of her son by her ex-husband. Published in the wake of Richardson’s ex-husband’s death, A Kidnapped Mind could have educational value for anyone who cannot imagine the prolonged treachery of an ex-spouse. The Vancouver author formerly worked as a minor television personality before marrying her second husband.
BOOKS:
A Kidnapped Mind: A Mother’s Heartbreaking Story of Parental Alienation Syndrome (Dundurn 2006). $24.99 1-55002-624-0
[BCBW 2006] “Advice”
“Agents now tell their fiction-writing clients to write narrative non-fiction, compelling stories of autism, alcoholism, abuse and Alzheimer’s (and we’re not even through the A’s).” — Martin Levin, books editor, the Globe & Mail
A Kidnapped Mind (Dundurn $24.99) by Pamela Richardson with Jane Broweleit and Walking After Midnight (Raincoast $32.95) by Katy Hutchison both fall into the category allegedly recommended by literary agents [see quote above]. They are compelling non-fiction narratives that revolve around turbulent teenagers.
Pamela Richardson’s story begins when her former husband gains custody of their four-year-old son. As a criminal lawyer, his legal knowledge and his influential friends enabled him to sway the presiding judge. Although this is a highly subjective first person account, written after the former husband and son have died, it seems clear that Richardson’s depiction of the arrogance and blindness of the judicial system has some foundation.
Judges persisted in favouring the father, in spite of evidence of his alcoholism and neglect. Their rulings were bolstered by reports by court-appointed psychologists who recommended that the child remain with his father even while they acknowledged the
father had “a drinking problem” and suffered from Adult Attention Deficit Disorder. From the beginning, he used the child as a means of tormenting his former wife, obstructed her legal access, and poisoned her relationship with her son.
Some brave friends testified to the father’s misdeeds while many others (including one of the mother’s lawyers) backed off, allegedly intimidated by his threats of violence. When the courts belatedly recognized the damage facilitated by earlier decisions, it was too late.
Court decisions can be reversed but not the years of damage they have caused. Richardson brought in experts on Parental Alienation Syndrome and used her considerable wealth in a last desperate attempt to force him into rehab programs. She never gave up the battle for her son, but she was helpless to prevent his downward spiral. At the age of sixteen he jumped to his death from the Granville Street bridge. The book-jacket description of this story as “heart-breaking” is no hyperbole.
Because Lying in the Family Court is Child Abuse | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory
In Activism, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fathers rights, Feminism, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, kidnapped children, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Protective Parents, Restraining Orders, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Single Parenting, Sociopath on September 16, 2009 at 11:35 pmBecause Lying in the Family Court is Child Abuse
The Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, Diana Bryant, has recently launched an extraordinary attack on Australia’s internationally regarded 2006 Family Law amendments, by writing to the Attorney-General and asking him to urgently repeal important provisions within the amendments.
According to Ash Patil, President of shared parenting group Fathers4Equality, “These provisions in the family law act were specifically implemented to reduce the epidemic of false allegations and parental alienation that permeate every corridor of the Family Law Courts, to the clear detriment of the innocent children caught in the cross-fire.
But Bryant wants them removed, and fails to explain how the innocent victims of maliciously false allegations would be protected without them.
James Adams adds, “What is more astonishing it seems is that unlike the parliamentary committee that recommended these laws in the first place, the Chief Justice has not consulted widely before making such an extraordinary intervention (in fact she has not consulted with any fathers’ groups at all).
Rightly or wrongly, Bryant will now be perceived to have compromised views on this issue, denying her the opportunity to have played a unifying force in the process of family law reform in this country, much like the wasted opportunities of her predecessor.”
The two provisions Bryant wants specifically removed include:
*the order of costs, at the Judge’s discretion, against a parent who has been proven to have “knowingly” made false allegation in Court,
and
*unspecified actions, at the Judges’s discretion, against a parent who has purposely alienated or deliberately maligned the children against the other parent.
The importance of these provisions Patil explains. ”These provisions have been specifically implemented to reduce the disturbingly common practices by some separated parents in making contrived and sinister allegations in Court against the other parent, and to otherwise engage in concerted efforts to destroy the relationship between the child and the other parent. This is done knowing full well the children will be irrevocably harmed in the process, both psychologically and emotionally.
Yet it goes on and will continue to go on given human nature, unless we have laws to help it stop.
“So these are ‘good’, modest provisions designed to stop misguided parents from misusing the system and abusing innocent children” were introduced only after extensive community consultation.
According to Adams “These provisions were agreed to by a bi-partisan parliamentary committee (both Labor and Libs/Nats) that went around Australia canvassing the views of all Australians for over two years.
Finally this committee was so appalled at the extent of institutional abuse in the Family Court that it recommended measures to protect innocent children and parents who were victims of contrived allegations and parental alienation by spiteful ex-partners.
” But Bryant wants to override the will of the Australian people and the will of Parliament, and to completely remove all disincentives against lying in the Family Court.
Really soft penalty for a very serious crime.
Patil, who claims that many F4E members are subjected to false allegations, states that “Proving that someone has ‘knowingly’ made false allegations rather than ‘mistakenly’ or ‘recklessly’ is quite a tall order. The standard of proof in these matters is a very tough hurdle to pass, and as a result ‘knowingly false’ allegations have only been proven in a relatively few cases in recent years.
If they are proved, they may result in a costs order, although this has been rarely applied in children’s matters by the judiciary. “Now given that perjury in any other Australian court may result in 10 years or more jail time, one must be mindful of the fact that this is a really soft penalty for a very serious crime.
It is a provision however that can work as a disincentive, albeit a modest one, in dissuading many parents from lying in the Family Court in the first place.” So these are “good”, modest provisions designed as a disincentive to those misguided parents who may in a moment of weakness be tempted to make contrived allegations in Court.
Measured responses to issues of concern Patil and Adams are frustrated by the logic used by the Chief Justice, and Patil adds that “Bryant justifies the need for these changes by suggesting that some people have misunderstood these provisions.
Even if this is true, her suggested fix is a remarkable over-reaction to an issue that could be addressed through a number of simple measures.” “Given that most parents in family law proceedings are either represented by lawyers, have visited a family relationship centre or have sought government funded legal services, a simple review could identify the cause of this misinformation from within these service providers, and provide an opportunity for corrective measures to be implemented.”
Adams wonders why the Chief Justice needs to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and opines that “a request to the Attorney General to implement an educational campaign to educate parents about these provisions would go a long way in addressing any existing misconceptions, and would be a more measured and effective approach to the issue at hand.”
Adams continues “Given the unprecedented nature of these family law amendments, what is required are sensible, well-measured & ultimately timely approaches to these issues, in order to allow for proper outcomes based research to develop. Anything less than this would put at risk the very wellbeing of those we are trying to protect.”
Broader consultations as a first step Fathers4Equality would like to encourage the Chief Justice to put some thought into what checks and measures she would alternatively suggest be implemented, if the current provisions are removed, to protect children from the devastating damage resulting from alienation and perjury in Court.
Given that lying in the Family Court and parental alienation are forms of child abuse, we stress the importance of carefully considering the implications to the welfare of children if these safeguards are removed.
Secondly and in reference to a recent campaign that has promoted a less than accurate reflection of these new laws, we would ask the Chief Justice to consider making a public statement to the effect, as is the case, that no evidence exists of any escalation of child abuse as a result of the new amendments.
This would be an important statement from the Chief Justice in the interests of an informed community discussion on this matter, and would help ensure that the debate is discussed in terms of facts, not innuendo.
Finally, we would like to draw attention to the increasingly under-resourced and overworked child protection authorities in this country, and the fact that too many cases of genuine abuse are not thoroughly investigated, in part because of the level of false allegations emanating from the Family Court.
It must be recognised that for every hour that a child protection officer is investigating a false allegation, it is one hour less protection that can be given to a child in genuine need, and this is a cost that the children of Australia simply cannot afford. Fathers4Equality would be open to discussing these important issues further with the Chief Justice, if she is willing to accept our invitation.
Because Lying in the Family Court is Child Abuse | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory.
Danville, IL, mother arrested for attempted murder, child abuse – Wandtv.com, NewsCenter17, StormCenter17, Central Illinois News
In Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, Child Custody, Child Custody for fathers, Children and Domestic Violence, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence on September 4, 2009 at 1:00 amDanville mother arrested for attempted murder, child abuse
Posted: // Sep 3, 2009 08:13 AM
Police arrest a Danville mother after finding her daughter riding a bike naked several blocks from her home.
44-year-old Deanna Wharwood is facing preliminary charges of attempted murder, domestic aggravated battery, and child abuse. Police got a call Monday at 7:45 in the evening that a ten-year-old girl was naked on a bike on North Vermilion Street.
The child told police she and her mother had an argument. The girl was taken to the hospital, but was not seriously hurt. She’s now in the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services.
Formal charges are expected Thursday.
Mothers Who Kill Their Children << Daddyblogger.com
In Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, Child Custody for fathers, Divorce, Feminism, Parental Kidnapping, Single Moms, Single Parenting, Sociopath on September 3, 2009 at 6:00 amMarch 09, 2009
Mothers Who Kill Their Children
Why Mothers Kill – A Forensic Psychologist’s Casebook
61% of all child abuse is committed by biological mothers.
25% of all child abuse is committed by biological fathers.
(Statistical Source: Current DHHS report on nationwide Child Abuse)
Mother Kills Newborn by Microwaving
Mother Attempts to Flush Newborn Down the Tiolet
Mother Stabs, Posions and Drowns Her Three Children
Mother drinks St. Ides beers and watches television – as her son slowly bled to death in the lesbian couple’s bed
Police Find Remains of Three Newborns – Mother Set Free
Mother Kills Three Children by Dousing With Gasoline and Sets on Fire
Mother Kills 7 Week Old Son in 1999 and Later Kills 9 Week Old Son in 2002
Mother Burns and Dismembers Newborn Son
Mother States Trouble Breast-Feeding and Places Twins Underwater
Mother Leaves Newborn in Trunk of Car to Suffocate
Mother Chokes Newborn to Death
Mother Kills Daughter Over Homework
Mother Kills Two Children and Places in Freezer
Mother Kills Newborn with Heroin and Methadone Tainted Breast Milk
Mother Suffocates Newborn to “Save Her Marriage”
Newborn’s Death Was Third Murdered in Three Years by Mother
Mother Drowns Newborn to Hide Pregnancy From Husband
Mother Kills One Month Old Daughter
Police Say Mother Killed Newborn – Grandmother urged mother to dump newborn in trash
Mother Drowns 4 Month Old in Bathtub
Mother Kills Newborn and Only Receives Six Years Prison
Mother Kills Newborn with Plastic Garbage Bag
Mother Kills Newborn in Bathroom Stall – Only has to serve three years prison time
Mother Kills Newborn and Places in Trash
Mother Gives Birth in Woods and Leaves on Trail to Die
Mother Crushed Two Sons Skulls With Rocks on Mother’s Day Weekend
Mother Charged with First-Degree Murder of 12 Year Old Daughter
Mother Kills Newborn by Leaving in a Box Near Trash Dumpster
Mother Kills Newborn With Her Thong Underwear
Mother Kills 4 Year Old Autistic Daughter
Hit Squad Hired to Kill 6 Month Old Son
Mother Tosses Son From Highway Overpass
Mother Drowned Her Newborn to Hide Pregnancy From Husband
Mother Planned and Killed Her Two Children
Mother Charged With Killing Son and Attempting to Kill His Twin
Mother Left Son in Car Trunk to Suffocate
Mother Strangles Son to Death – Serves Only Three Years
Mother Places Son at Bottom of Quarry
Mother Kills Daughter and Places in Local Landfill
Mother Runs 11 Year Old Son Over With SUV
Mother Slits Neck of Her Six Year Old Son
Mother Systematically Kills Her Five Children
Mother Shoots and Kills Her Three Sons
Bookmark/Share • Stumble It! (2 Reviews) • Digg This! (6 Diggs) • Submit to Reddit • Share on Facebook • Add to del.icio.us • Twit This! • Subscribe to this feed • Add to Blogroll • Add to Mixx!
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451bc5669e201053580acbe970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mothers Who Kill Their Children:
Who Hurt the Baby? 55% of CONVICTED child murderers are the biological MOTHERS
In Best Interest of the Child, Children and Domestic Violence, Childrens Rights, Family Rights on September 1, 2009 at 11:23 pmNow, almost ten years after the report had been manufactured, it still hasn’t motivated any “peers” to review it. It is doubtful that any reputable researcher will ever come forth and be willing to support the extremely propagandistic views presented in the report.
What are we to think of the credibility of The National Center on Child Fatality Review — Once a liar, always a liar?
Based on the report by Dawson, J., & Langan, P. (1994, “Murder in Families, Bureau of Justice Special Report. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, NCJ-143498,” 55% of convicted child murderers are the biological mothers of the victims. That percentage has crept up to 61 percent since then, because violence by mothers against their children is inexorably increasing year after year.
Would anyone expect prospective criminals to restrain themselves if they are permitted to commit their crimes with impunity and if the crimes that they commit are literally invisible?
The male-bashing that is contained in the above quoted excerpt from the article could be excused if the authors of the report weren’t aware of that DoJ report. However, they included it in the references to chapter one of their report. Biological, married fathers of children account for about 6% of convicted murderers of children. (see also “Single-Mother Households — Accomplishments” and “Women were over half of the defendants (55%) in only one category of family murder: parents killing their offspring”)
There is a problem with violence statistics that are based on convictions. Although the dead body of a child can seldom be successfully hidden, our society is only too ready to look for all kinds of excuses when the obvious perpetrator is a woman. We are surprised, for example, when investigations show that specific women killed all or a number of their children in years gone by. A number of such cases have recently surfaced.
There is no telling how many more of such cases go undetected and unsuspected. That is where the hiding of the truth starts. The myth of the innocence of women is so all-powerful that we are virtually incapable of even suspecting that a woman is truly capable of murdering “her” child. But even if a woman is suspected, it often happens that the powers involved in prosecuting her do all they can to disprove that she could have done the deed.
If no avenue of escape is open, and if a conviction is inevitable, then it happens that the murder of a child is downgraded to manslaughter or even to infanticide (a category of crime of which only women can avail themselves), or it is ruled accidental, if at all possible.
The true number of children murdered by their mothers is for those reasons in reality far higher than statistics based on convictions indicate. It doesn’t make any difference to the murdered children. They are dead one way or another, and nothing will call them back to life.
However, isn’t it in the best interest of our surviving children to recognize that their lives are most at risk when they are with their mothers without the protection by their fathers, especially if a given mother murdered one of her children already?
Standing In My Father’s Shoes : National Public Radio
In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, children legal status, children's behaviour, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parents rights on July 1, 2009 at 1:14 amParental Alienation is a fact of life for many children after divorce.
Either the other custodial spouse, or grandparents and extended family attempt to destroy and denigrate the NCP parent, usually the father. The patterns of behavior are predictable and scientifically quantifiable in psychological testing prior to the divorce, but seldom given the serious consideration they are due until the child is isolated totally from the other beloved parent.
Youth Radio’s Jordan Monroe remembers, ” I remember asking myself all these questions: Where is he? Why doesn’t he come pick me up? Doesn’t he know where we are? My grandmother made her opinions clear. She didn’t like my father. “Your daddy ain’t never done nothing for you,” she would say whenever I mentioned his name.”
—————————————————-
Standing In My Father’s Shoes
Listen Now [2 min 57 sec] add to playlist | download
All Things Considered, June 19, 2009 · My dad and mom separated when I was 3 years old. I can still remember the day my mom left him standing in the driveway of The French Quarter, a Creole restaurant he and my mother built and ran in Alameda, Calif. He was wearing a light-colored shirt and stood watching as I waved back at him through the car window. It was as if it were a normal goodbye.
But after that day, my mother and grandmother didn’t make it easy for my dad to see me. I remember asking myself all these questions: Where is he? Why doesn’t he come pick me up? Doesn’t he know where we are?
My grandmother made her opinions clear. She didn’t like my father. “Your daddy ain’t never done nothing for you,” she would say whenever I mentioned his name. Well, he didn’t give me anything for my birthday, I thought. Maybe she was right.
What I didn’t know then is that I would come to understand my father when I became a dad. My longtime girlfriend and I had a baby when we were young: I was 21 years old. A few years later, we separated. I went from kissing my daughter goodnight and being woken by her jumping on me in the morning, to dropping her off at her mom’s house and giving her goodnight kisses over the phone
My daughter’s mother seems to resent me the same way my grandmother resented my father. When I started noticing my daughter developing a bad attitude toward me, I heard my grandmother’s voice in my ear: “Your daddy ain’t never done nothing for you.”
Standing in my father’s shoes, I was able to see things more clearly. My grandmother’s opinion about my dad was just that — her opinion. And it was shaped by her own dysfunctional relationship with her father.
I’m determined to redefine fatherhood in my family. My daughter adores me, and her love isn’t based on what she thinks a father should be, it’s based on what her father has been — there for her.
When we spend a weekend together, she often says, “I love you.” But it’s the look she gives me that eternally confesses her feelings. I look at my father the same way now that I know he was thinking about me all those years we were apart. I no longer see a man who did nothing for me my whole life, but a man who has always loved me.
After all, he’s my father; just as I am hers.
Read the full story here: Standing In My Father’s Shoes : NPR.
Comments (11)