Monday, August 18, 2008

Child Custody Determinations in Cases Involving Intimate Partner Violence: a Human Rights Analysis

 

Child Custody Determinations in Cases Involving Intimate Partner Violence: a Human Rights Analysis

Jay G. Silverman, PhD, Cynthia M. Mesh, PhD, Carrie V. Cuthbert, JD, Kim Slote, JD, and Lundy Bancroft, BA

Jay G. Silverman and Cynthia M. Mesh are with the Department of Society Human Development and Health, Division of Public Health Practice, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass. Carrie V. Cuthbert and Kim Slote are with the Women’s Rights Network, Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. Lundy Bancroft trains professionals and authors books in Northampton, Mass.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Jay G. Silverman, PhD, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115 (e-mail: jsilverm@hsph.harvard.edu ).

Accepted June 23, 2003.

Abstract

Intimate partner violence and child abuse are recognized both as public health concerns and as violations of human rights, but related government actions and inactions are rarely documented as human rights violations in the United States.

Men who abuse female partners are also highly likely to abuse the children of these women. However, family courts are reported to often ignore risks posed by abusive men in awarding child custody and visitation. Battered women involved in child custody litigation in Massachusetts (n = 39) were interviewed. A recurring pattern of potential human rights violations by the state was documented, corresponding to rights guaranteed in multiple internationally accepted human rights covenants and treaties.

The human rights framework is a power

Child Custody Determinations in Cases Involving Intimate Partner Violence: a Human Rights Analysis

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Men take pledge against rising domestic violence in Hawaii «

 

Men take pledge against rising domestic violence in Hawaii «

 

battered women, domestic violence, sexual assault | Tags: men against violence |

A rally at Our Lady of Peace Cathedral brings religious and political leaders together
By Bali Fergusson

Dozens of men rallied yesterday against Hawaii’s tide of domestic violence, which has already claimed the lives of eight women in the past 12 months.

The men, wearing the white ribbon of men against men’s violence toward women, and bearing placards with anti-domestic violence slogans, recited a pledge:

“I pledge to seek equality and respect in all my relationships with women. I commit to lead by example and be a role model to other men and a mentor to our young generation in ways that create a future free of violence for women and children.”

The rally included more than 20 community leaders, including legislators, clergy and prosecutors, at Our Lady of Peace Cathedral downtown.

“In the last 12 months, nine people have died (in domestic violence); eight were women,” said Joe Bloom, of Catholic Charities Hawaii.

“Women have been doing the work for too long; now it’s time for men to say, ‘I don’t believe in violence either,’” said rally participant the Rev. Al Miles, of Pacific Health Ministries. “We need everyone to join together.” Source

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

The Custody Scam

Most scams, such as sub-prime mortgages and email scams, victimize adults. But custody scams victimize children. When government fails to protect children it throws open the doors to private contractors—lawyers and clinicians—who enrich themselves at the expense of children.

 

On February 21, 1992, Rhode Island Family Court's Chief Judge Jeremiah Jeremiah gave this two-year-old to the sole custody and possession of her father despite his history of domestic violence and failure to pay child support. The father, a police officer, brought false charges against his ex-wife, first saying she was a drug addict. (Nineteen random tests proved she was not.) Then he had her arrested for bank fraud, then for sexual abuse, then for kidnapping. None of his charges stuck. 

Despite all these false accusations against the mother, she never accused the father of sexually abusing their child, for there was no such evidence. Good parents do not subject their children to the ordeal of an investigation unless the children themselves show signs they are being sexually abused.
The child remained with her father and stepmother until 2003, when she was 14 years old. Having realized during a visit that her mother was not a drug addict, the teenager persuaded another judge to let her live with her mother. There she began working on the painful issues of lifelong coercion and emotional abuse. Most painful has been her father’s continuing refusal to let her visit two dearly loved half-sisters, whom she has not seen since 2003.
She is one of countless children in Rhode Island subjected to severe emotional and physical trauma by Family Court. After she turned 18 in 2007, she gave the Parenting Project permission to publish her picture on behalf of all children who have been held hostage by Rhode Island custody scams.

 

Thursday, May 15, 2008

The History of The Custody Scam Blog


In August 2007, Family Court and DCYF separated two sisters from each other more than five hundred days after taking them from an excellent home. They placed the sisters first in foster care, then in a state shelter. Finally they gave the younger one to the very person she had identified as sexually abusing her--their father. State officials sent the older sister to yet another foster home.
For a while the sisters saw each other and their mother for two hours a week in an office of the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). For the past three Mother's Days, the State has forbidden them to see the mother that both girls adore.
In July 2007, we had mounted the Custody Scam blog to alert and inform Rhode Island legislators about this case. We documented the ways in which the supposedly unbiased guardian ad litem was working with the father's defense attorneys, clinicians and DCYF lawyers. Together, they succeeded in removing these girls on April 7th, 2006, from an outstanding mother and the only home they had ever known. They were 5 and 9 years old. (Ironically, the judge's name means "Mother" in German, and the judge has forbidden the girls to speak Swiss-German for fear their mother will use it to "alienate" them against their father. Meanwhile, the father has insisted that his younger daughter learn French and go to France with him.)
DCYF lawyers also worked through Judge John Mutter at the Rhode Island Family Court to suppress this blog even though that court has no authority over the Parenting Project. More about that history is reported here:

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/therapeutic-jurisprudence-in-Rhode-Island.pdf

 

Since then, a new blog appears under the name Rhode Island's Little Hostages:

http://littlehostages.blogspot.com/

 

Posted by Parenting Project at Thursday, May 15, 2008

Labels: Anne Grant, Custody Scam, DCYF, Judge Mutter, Little Hostages, Rhode Island Family Court, thelizlibrary.org

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blog Archive

 

About the Author and the Cause

Parenting Project is a volunteer community service provided since 1996 by Mathewson Street United Methodist Church, Providence, RI, to focus on the needs of children at risk in Family Court custody cases. The coordinator, Rev. Anne Grant, a retired minister and former executive director of Rhode Island's largest shelter for battered women and their children, researches and writes about official actions that endanger children and parents trying to protect them. The goal is to create an effective child protective system. Comments and corrections may be sent in an email with no attachments to parentingproject@cox.net

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

News Releases: Domestic Violence Expert Warns: Supreme Court Ruling in ‘Giles v. California’ May Deter Domestic Violence Victims from Seeking Police Help, Make Prosecutions More Difficult

 

News Releases: Domestic Violence Expert Warns:
Supreme Court Ruling in
‘Giles v. California’ May Deter Domestic Violence Victims from Seeking Police Help, Make Prosecutions More Difficult

 

Statement of Esta Soler, President
Family Violence Prevention Fund

 

- “We have real concern that today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Giles v. California will make it less likely that victims of domestic violence will seek help from police, and more difficult for them to get justice from the courts.

We recognize the need to protect the rights of the accused, but there is also an urgent imperative to make it possible for prosecutions to succeed when victims have been murdered and thus cannot testify – and be cross-examined – in court.

There seems to be strong evidence that Dwayne Giles murdered Brenda Avie, shooting her six times even as she tried to get away. We hope that the evidence that will be admissible at re-trial will be enough to convict him once again – and that today’s Supreme Court ruling will not have a chilling effect on efforts to stop domestic violence and protect victims.”

# # # #

The Family Violence Prevention Fund works to end violence against women and children around the world, because every person has the right to live free of violence. More information is available at www.endabuse.org.

Newsflash: High Court Rules in Cases Affecting Victims of Violence

Newsflash: High Court Rules in Cases Affecting Victims of Violence

High Court Rules in Cases Affecting Victims of Violence
June 26, 2008

On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases affecting victims of domestic and sexual violence. In Giles v. California, the Court ordered a new trial for Dwayne Giles, who had been convicted of the brutal murder of Brenda Avie after a lower court allowed a police officer to testify about the domestic violence charges Avie had filed against Giles a few weeks before she was killed. In Patrick Kennedy v. State of Louisiana, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot use the death penalty to punish child rapists.


One day later, the Court overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun possession in a ruling that some experts worry may put more guns in the hands of batterers.


Giles v. California
This case is based on an appeal brought by Dwayne Giles, a Californian who was convicted of shooting and killing his former girlfriend, Brenda Avie. Several weeks before the murder, Avie told police that Giles was threatening to kill her.


The California Supreme Court had upheld a lower court decision to allow a police officer to testify about Avie’s report of Giles’ threats, even though Avie was not under oath when she spoke to the officer. Her unsworn allegation, delivered second-hand, would not be admissible if she was alive, because Giles has the right to face Avie in court to challenge her claims. But California’s Supreme Court ruled that the fact that she was murdered justified an exception to the defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine her in court.


The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. In the six to three ruling, the Justices said that Avie’s second-hand testimony was not admissible because the Sixth Amendment’s “Confrontation Clause” gave Giles the right to challenge Avie’s accusations. While calling domestic violence “an intolerable offense,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority that “the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” He wrote that her death does not justify “abridging the rights of criminal defendants.”


In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Court should have ruled that defendants forfeit their constitutional right to confront witnesses when they are responsible for the witness’ absence from trial. The ruling, Breyer wrote, “grants the defendant not fair treatment, but a windfall.”


“We have real concern that today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Giles v. California will make it less likely that victims of domestic violence will seek help from police, and more difficult for them to get justice from the courts,” said Family Violence Prevention Fund President Esta Soler. “We recognize the need to protect the rights of the accused, but there is also an urgent imperative to make it possible for prosecutions to succeed when victims have been murdered and thus cannot testify – and be cross-examined – in court. There seems to be strong evidence that Dwayne Giles murdered Brenda Avie, shooting her six times even as she tried to get away. We hope that the evidence that will be admissible at re-trial will be enough to convict him once again – and that today’s Supreme Court ruling will not have a chilling effect on efforts to stop domestic violence and protect victims.”
To read the ruling, visit www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-6053.pdf.


Patrick Kennedy v. State of Louisiana


In 1998, Patrick Kennedy was convicted of the brutal rape of his then-eight-year-old stepdaughter. Louisiana is one of five states that adopted laws allowing executions of people who rape children, and in 2004 Kennedy was sentenced to death.


In the five to four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a person who rapes a child cannot be sentenced to death. Ruling for the majority, Justices Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer continued the court’s trend of narrowing the number of criminals who are eligible for the death penalty. In recent years, juveniles, people with mental retardation and adult rapists have been removed from death rows.


Louisiana officials had argued – unsuccessfully – that the “evolving standards of decency” that tightened restrictions for sentencing a person to death also dictate harsher punishment for criminals who violate children.


A coalition of violence prevention experts, service providers and social workers has asked the Court to rule the way it did, disallowing the use of the death penalty in cases of child rape. They argued that allowing executions of child rapists would compound the harm to the victim. The National Association of Social Workers and its Louisiana Chapter, Louisiana Foundation Against Sexual Assault, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and Texas Association Against Sexual Assault had filed an amicus brief in support of Kennedy. In the end, a narrow majority on the Supreme Court agreed with them.


The Texas Association Against Sexual Assault (TAASA) supported the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. In a statement, TAASA said, “Victim advocates have long been concerned that the death penalty for child sexual assault cases could backfire and result in fewer convictions of sex offenders. The issue of child sexual abuse is complex. Most child sexual abuse victims are abused by a family member or close family friend. The reality is that child victims and their families don’t want to be responsible for sending a grandparent, cousin or long time family friend to death row.”


To read the ruling, visit www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-343.pdf.


District of Columbia v. Heller


On June 26, in a much-anticipated ruling, the Court overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun possession by a vote of five to four. This was the first time the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep a loaded gun at home for purposes of self-defense. Earlier rulings had tied the right to own a gun to militia service. The decision is expected to result in further litigation to determine which kinds of restrictive gun laws will be upheld under the new standard.


District of Columbia Police Chief Cathy Lanier responded on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition on July 1, “The number one question I get: Is crime going to go through the roof or is crime going to go down? I don’t have a crystal ball, but I don’t think either one of those things [is going to happen]. We’re not going to see a dramatic increase or decrease in crime… The other thing that I worry the most about, that really does have a direct impact on crime, is domestic violence, in a home where a handgun is now present and it wasn’t before – the possibility of domestic violence with a firearm. I worry about that a lot.”


“The decision’s most serious effect is the increase in handguns in the home, where guns typically do the greatest damage,” Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) said. “Today’s decision is likely to encourage law abiding people to buy guns, with the likelihood that the ruling will produce an increase in accidents and gun violence among family members and even neighbors, as some in the rush of anger fetch the guns to escalate or settle a dispute

Why Parents Who Batter Win Custody | Newsweek Health | Newsweek.com

Fighting Over the Kids

Battered spouses take aim at a controversial custody strategy.

By Sarah Childress | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Sponsored by

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Your Name Your Email Address Recipient's Email Address

Separate multiple addresses with commas

Message (optional):

It took six years for Genia Shockome to gather the courage to leave her husband, Tim. He pushed her, kicked her and insulted her almost from the moment they married in 1994, she says. She tried to start over with their children when the family moved from Texas to Poughkeepsie, N.Y. It didn't last long. Tim called her constantly at work and, after they split up, pounded on her door and screamed obscenities, she alleged in a complaint filed in 2001. Tim was charged with harassment. As part of a plea deal, Tim agreed to a stay-away order—but denies ever abusing her or the children. In custody hearings over the past six years, Tim has insisted that he's been a good father, and argued that Genia's allegations poisoned their children against him. The judge sided with Tim. This summer he was granted full custody of the kids, now 11 and 9. Genia was barred from contacting them.

Genia is one of many parents nationwide who have lost custody due to a controversial concept known as parental alienation. Under the theory, children fear or reject one parent because they have been corrupted or coached to lie by the other. Parental alienation is now the leading defense for parents accused of abuse in custody cases, according to domestic-violence advocates. And it's working. The few current studies done on the subject consider only small samples. But according to one 2004 survey in Massachusetts by Harvard's Jay Silverman, 54 percent of custody cases involving documented spousal abuse were decided in favor of the alleged batterers. Parental alienation was used as an argument in nearly every case.

This year the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges denounced the theory as "junk science," and at least four states have passed legislation to curtail its use in custody cases involving allegations of domestic violence. "It's really been a cancer in the family courts," says Richard Ducote, an attorney in Pittsburgh who has represented abuse victims in custody cases for 22 years. "It's made it really difficult for parents to protect their kids. If you ask for protection, you're deemed a vindictive, alienating parent."

It may seem hard to fathom how a judge could award custody to a parent accused of abuse. But battered spouses often don't file criminal charges—so no judicial finding is made against their mates—and family-court judges typically aren't trained to referee the complexities of abusive relationships. (Although men are sometimes battered by their wives, women are the victims in the majority of abuse cases.) Judges often throw out documented evidence of spousal abuse, arguing that it is irrelevant in a custody case. And experts say that family-court judges often look favorably on the alleged abuser because he seems more willing to share custody than the accuser—who is hellbent on keeping the father away from the child. According to a survey by Geraldine Stahly, a psychology professor at California State University at San Bernardino, attorneys will caution battered spouses against reporting abuse in court so they don't lose their children. (Stahly and other academics say the parental-alienation argument has more legitimacy in custody disputes that don't involve charges of abuse.)

Parental-alienation syndrome was first introduced by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner in the 1980s. Fathers-rights groups picked up on the idea and began trying it out in court. These groups condemn abusers. But Dan Hogan, executive director of Fathers & Families, a nonprofit group that advocates for joint custody, argues that all too often the accusers lie in order to win custody of their kids.

There's a small but growing movement to ban parental alienation in custody cases, sparked by embattled parents bonding online. They've linked with lawyers and advocates for battered spouses across the country. At least four states, including California, have laws protecting parents who make good-faith abuse allegations. Others may soon follow their lead. Greg Jacob, an attorney who takes cases for abused parents pro bono, is drafting legislation to shop to Virginia and Maryland next month. Meanwhile, parents like Genia keep fighting. "It's so hard, having my children lost," she says, her voice breaking. "This was my life—my children."

© 2007

Discuss
Comments: Enter Your Comment
Member Comments
  • Posted By: US_Citizen @ 08/12/2008 3:43:49 PM

    Comment: Regarding "Parental Alienation Syndrome" (PAS), a phrase coined by Richard Gardner -- a man, not a practicing or board certified psychiatrist -- a man not affiliated with any legitimate peer-reviewed research, any university, or any professional psychological association. Gardner was a man who has published his opinions in favor of pedophilia and incest. PAS is not a syndrome; it's a legal defense strategy used almost exclusively by men who a) have abused their children, b) have been accused of abusing their children, c) have abused their wife and seek to punish her and control her, and/or d) seek to avoid paying child support.
    The PAS legal strategy was effectively employed to discredit child victims and adult witnesses of child abuse (namely mothers who seek to protect their children through divorce). PAS is never alleged within a marriage ??? it only occurs as a legal strategy AFTER a woman attempts to leave an abusive man, or AFTER a child alleges that child abuse or child sexual abuse (CSA) occurred.
    Gardner???s theories are quoted here: http://leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/RAG.html
    Here???s a good article debunking PAS theory: http://leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/cust_myths.html
    Now, none of this is intended to take away from the concept that it is inappropriate for one parent to attempt to poison the mind of a child toward the other parent. Bad mouthing to gain a child???s favor is just bad parenting. Telling lies in court is perjury.
    PAS, as it is used as a legal strategy is both bad parenting and perjury. Further, it is child abuse in and of itself.

  • Posted By: US_Citizen @ 08/12/2008 3:12:56 PM

    Comment: New Jersey is not alone. Florida, California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois and many other states are involved in this morass. The courts have illegally and unconstitutionally delegated judicial power, authority, and IMMUNITY to third parties who are not qualified to make decisions involving the "best interests" of our children. That is the crux of the problem. We have a network of individuals who get themselves appointed to select lists and receive LUCRATIVE court appointments as ???child custody evaluators??? that come with an obligation of the parties to pay these evaluators at a billing rate that far exceeds their normal rate of pay -- it's a very lucrative cottage industry for the court appointed insiders. They then give referrals to their buddies in the mental health field to provide counseling to all the unfortunate parties in the case. The counseling is court ordered and anything you say in the ???safe chamber??? of the therapeutic relationship can and will be used against you in a court of law. A select group of buddies makes a bunch of money on these referrals ??? they all refer back to each other in the group. But, if the family doesn't have the $ means, there are no court appointed evaluators or psychologists or counseling or psych testing. The judge is forced to look at who provided the most care, the comparative income of the parties, criminal history, and make a decision. I???ll leave the psycho babble of ???parental alienation??? to another post.

  • Posted By: US_Citizen @ 08/12/2008 2:56:55 PM

    Comment: The PBS documentary was not "pulled off the air" for any reason. It was aired. After It was criticized and PBS was attacked by a small fringe group of fatherhood "supremacists" and defend themselves and other men who abuse mothers and children in the abuser's quest for custody and control. It is inaccurate to claim that the documentary "was found to be sexist and full of lies" as the documentary was never on trial. The documentary was based on cases that were a matter of public record. And when the child victims of abuse at the hands of their fathers came of age and gave testimony to their experience, their was no evidence that the mothers coached the children to lie. The Mary Kay Foundation has no agenda; leave them out of it.

View All Comments »

Sponsored by

Top Headlines from MSNBC.com

featured advertiser links

Why Parents Who Batter Win Custody | Newsweek Health | Newsweek.com

Monday, August 11, 2008

Children's artwork tells story of Collins case -

 Reporter's Notebook: Children's artwork tells story of Collins case - City Pages - The Blotter

 

Reporter's Notebook: Children's artwork tells story of Collins case

Filed under: Women's Issues

Also see:
The feature article
Interview with Jennifer Collins
Photo slideshow with more artwork Jennifer and Zachary drew as children

When Zachary Collins was 8 years old,he would bang his head on the floor after getting off the phone with his father, mother Holly Collins says. Holly sought the help of outpatient family therapist Fred Emilianowicz in Salem, Massachusetts.

Zachary had told the therapist that he would run away before going back to Minnesota. He told of having recurring nightmares of his father chasing him and said he believed that if his father caught him, he would be killed. During therapy, the child drew an 8-page depiction of his life. On paper he penciled his father slamming his mother into a wall while he and Jennifer hid in a nearby closet. The story, "The Tale of Mark," ends when the children are rescued and taken to safety in New England and Mark is decapitated by a guillotine at a nearby castle. “If I could get rid of Mark this is where I would do it,” the child wrote at the bottom of the page.

Zachary wrote and drew two complete stories which were supplied to City Pages by Jennifer Collins. They are reproduced in full after the jump. Click on each image for a larger version.

THE TALE OF MARK
zachary%20tale%20of%20mark%201.jpg

zachary%20tale%20of%20mark%202.jpg

zachary%20tale%20of%20mark%203.jpg

zachary%20tale%20of%20mark%204.jpg

zachary%20tale%20of%20mark%205.jpg

zachary%20tale%20of%20mark%206.jpg

zachary%20tale%20of%20mark%207.jpg

zachary%20tale%20of%20mark%208.jpg

Young Zachary also produced another four-page story.

THE KID HURTER

zachary%20kid%20hurter%201.jpg

zachary%20kid%20hurter%202.jpg

zachary%20kid%20hurter%203copy.jpg

zachary%20kid%20hurter%204.jpg

Posted by Beth Walton at July 29, 2008 3:29 PM

« Reporter's Notebook: Jennifer Collins speaks about her family's case

Jennifer Collins speaks about her family's case -

 

Reporter's Notebook: Jennifer Collins speaks about her family's case

Filed under: Women's Issues

Also see:
The feature article
Complete stories about abuse written and drawn by then-8-year-old Zachary
Photo slideshow with artwork Jennifer and Zachary drew as children

Jennifer Collins says that her father beat her as a child. She says that she told court officials and therapists several times during a tragic and lengthy custody trial that she did not feel safe with him. Nonetheless, Hennepin County Family Court put her and her older brother Zachary in his custody when they were just 7 and 9. It was believed that their mother was unstable and coaching the two children. Despite findings of spousal abuse, her father, Mark Collins of Crystal, Minn., was seen as the more fit parent.

Today, at 23 years old, Jennifer feels cheated. As a kid everyone told her if she told the truth everything would be OK. "But it wasn’t, was it?" She says on the phone from her mother's house in Western Holland. "I know I am an adult and it shouldn't matter so much anymore, but I want justice for us kids and for other kids who are currently being abused," she later adds in an e-mail.

Zachary%20%26%20Jennifer%20Now%20.jpg
Jennifer and brother Zachary

Jennifer says her past has shaped her future. Upon graduation from college, the psychology major plans to be an advocate for change. She hopes to move to the U.S. and work on issues of family court reform and the rights of children. Someday, she would like to start her own organization for abused children, run by adult survivors of child abuse. "I think it is about time for such a bold organization…" she wrote.

For now, Jennifer is focused on getting the word out. She has started a website with several YouTube videos detailing her version of the past. She has sent over 400 emails to every U.S. Senator, member of the Minnesota legislature and advocacy groups she could find to raise awareness. She’s even worked with StopFamilyViolence.Org to set up an online petition on behalf of her family.

While reluctant to share the intimate, tragic details of her past, Jennifer realizes the power of her family's story. They went forward to raise awareness about the system that they believe failed them. "[Family court] is the one who should be charged with 'Failure to Protect!,'" she says.

Unfortunately, experts and advocates in the area of abuse say what happened to the Collins family is a widespread problem within the American judicial system. There have been several studies done around the country that show the difficulties family courts have in protecting women from domestic violence and children from abuse, says Dr. Joyanna Silberg, clinician and Executive Vice President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence.

Every week the organization's website is flooded with people in similar situations needing help. It is astonishing the number of custody cases where domestic violence is present in which the courts award the children to the abuser, she says.

"It isn’t as if people want to harm children. Certainly nobody consciously wants to harm children, but it’s a matter of systemic errors that allow children's needs to fall through the cracks. The same systemic errors exist in many states and counties."

Abusers will often challenge custody because it is a way for them to continue to exhibit control over the woman or kids they batter, she says. "It’s almost a science of how to get custody when you are an abuser. There are websites and play books you can find on line. If you are accused of child sexual abuse, some lawyers will recommend the thing to do is to go for full custody… Chances are the court will look at you as, 'here’s a nice guy who wants to be part of the children's lives.'"

More often than not, a battered woman is not going to want let the children go to the home of the man who abused her, and she ends up looking hysterical and frantic as she pleads for their safety, at times defying ordered visitation upon the advice medical practitioners. Lawyers for the abuser will then capitalize on that behavior and make the battered parent look unstable—using labels such as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSbP) or Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a disease not substantiated by the American Psychological Association with little scholastic or empirical evidence. Here's a great Newsweek story on the subject.

Slowly some states are starting to introduce legislation to improve the system, says Silberg, who is working on federal reform to better protect children from abuse. In Tennessee, for example, a bill was passed making it illegal to use PAS as a custody reversal basis if abuse is alleged. In other places lawmakers are trying to do the same thing with MSbP.

The system changes slower than the cases cycle through. A little while ago Silberg worked with a client whose father was implicated for physical abuse and had punched his child in the face. He got full custody. Years later the mother was finally allowed weekend visitation.

"But that's not uncommon. That's a very common story," Silberg says. "If you spent a day in my shoes you would not believe you are in America. It's like the Middle Ages, a Third World County. It's truly a veil over reality. It's so sad."

Posted by Beth Walton at July 29, 2008 2:38 PM

« Breakfast of Champions 7/29: Facebook shuts down Scrabulous | Main | Reporter's Notebook: Children's artwork tells story of Collins case »

Comments

Sadly, there are many instances where the misuse of the questionable diagnosis of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is used to destroy families. Mama/MAMA is a documentary which explores this tragedy. www.munchausenmovie.com is the site for more info.

Posted by: Amy at July 29, 2008 5:28 PM

EXTREMELY powerful article. However, family court lets all parents down in so many other ways. For example parent is pitted against parent when they should both start off presumed equal. Courts should be used to enforce positive behavior of both parents while punishing those parents mutually for constant fighting in relation to children. Parents do not have to get along to do their job of raising children well, just like in the regular workplace.

Family Preservation Festival in Washington DC for the protection of all parents' rights unless by clear and convincing evidentiary standards it would be harmful to the children.

Lary Holland
800-883-9619

Posted by: Lary Holland at July 29, 2008 11:05 PM

Thank you to Jennifer Collins for sharing her story, and for becoming a voice for abused children. I know you will be able to help others who are not fortunate enough to have a mom like yours, who was willing to break the law to protect you. Godspeed in your work to start your organization, and hopefully you'll be able to advocate for those children and change the way the court operates.

Whenever a parent abuses ANYONE in the household, it is mental and emotional abuse on all the others. Viewing/hearing one parent beat another is mentally and emotionally ABUSIVE to the children. A child feels every ounce of that punch, and it stays with them forever. We need to write this into the law: If you are a convicted abuser of your spouse, you can NEVER get full custody of your children. You have shown that you can't handle yourself and are incapable of providing a healthy environment. So get your sick self into treatment and stay away from your spouse and children until you have become a real human.

Posted by: M. Rice at July 31, 2008 1:46 AM

The same thing happened to my children and I in Ireland.

My son was called liar repeatedly- and the court agents would not believe him.

In fact they traumatised him so much- it still bothers him

They threatened to lock him up at 8 yrs old, never see his mother again and give Electric Shock therapy to normalise him.

Now he is 23 and sister 18- they are free and safe- no thanks to the court though, which is supposed to protect children and parents from violence.

Posted by: Catherine Mills at July 31, 2008 2:00 PM

Many readers will ask- what on Earth is this person on about??

Of course the Government wants to stop violence!!!!!!!!

Does it really??

No, that is propaganda.

Violent men and women are rewarded by the system in secret courts not open to the public.

Secret courts are supposed to keep the childs identity secret.!!

That is not what is being kept secret at all.

Rather- it is the corruption of the state agents, lawyers, judges etc that is kept hidden.
Domestic Violence Why Is It Still Allowed.???

I have been asking myself this same question for more than 12 years now, due to my own experience of it.

Having done my thesis on the subject I honestly believed I knew it all.

How could any woman allow this?? I used to ask myself.

No, it will never happen to me.!!! But it did.

All the words in those books were useless in the real world.

All the advise was futile because those who wrote on this subject had never been inside a secret Gestapo family court in their lives.

If they had, they were gagged from speaking out anyway.

I have remained quiet for those 12 years until my children were 18 and free from gagging orders etc.

Now, it is time to speak out the truth as to :

Why it happens, ??

Why it is even rewarded in the court system,??

Why is it allowed to continue??

Why it will never end with the law as it is now,??

Domestic violence goes back thousands of year when women were first enslaved by the Changos about 5,000 years ago.

The institution of marriage was later created to make sure the women were financially dependent on men.

Women and children became possessions of men.

Men were considered the more powerful and bit by bit women were demonised by the church as it gathered power over all people.

Violent men are really weak in themselves and only know how to get their own way through violence.

Men have been conditioned for thousands of years to take and take from women at will.

Women were equally conditioned to give and give without question, always putting themselves last in the family.

Today, we are at a stage in evolution where both are realizing that there is a new way to wards equality.

Not the equality used in the propaganda machine either, where women are being taught that they have equal opportunity so why are they still complaining??

This new equality recognizes women as the nurturers and men as equal helpers who feed their partners on all levels and encourage them to fulfill their full potential.

Inside each man and each woman is a God and a Goddess.We are now balancing both inside each of us and in society too.

Women should come first as a strong woman is then able to look after all the family.

Putting children first is not the answer in my thinking.

The mother must be strong in herself before giving birth and must be well looked after following the birth.

There are now men who suffer violence in relationships too. No wonder.!!!

Women see that to get to the top violence is often used.

Also, violent men are rewarded by our system so some women feel, well if he can do it so can I.

When I say violent men are rewarded I mean that when an abused woman comes forward for help from the system, many agencies become involved and she is led into a false sense of security.

Whatever self esteem she had when she left her abuser is soon knocked out of her by those who claim to protect her and the children.

The latest word from court experts is that Womens Aid is a feminist group led by Germaine Greer and ALL women there, put women up to making these accusations.

That is a big generalization to make and a dangerous one.

Social workers use a woman's vulnerability against her.

Suddenly she finds herself more abused by their use of reverse psychology and mental torture that Hitler would be proud of.

For me it was different as I recognized the game plan and abuse quickly but for others with no qualifications, what chance do they stand.

As it is all done in secret and we are not allowed by law to utter a word under threat of prison and our children being returned to the abuser or put into care for someone else to abuse them more, we stay quiet. This suits the system perfectly.

For myself I certainly did not make it all up or follow instructions from woman's aid or anyone else either.

Why would I leave the home I paid for and go homeless for 12 years to stay safe and keep children safe.

Hardly something one does for fun???

So , the court orders assessments etc, and almost all men guilty of violence are rewarded with contact to children.

Now, I ask you?? What message is that to send out to the abused mother and children??

To the abuser it says...wow....I still have control here.!!!!

The Judge is allowing me to get away with this and I can persecute her and the children every time at contact.

I give you an example from my own case. My ex did not want contact but his lawyer advised him to ask for it as he would look better in the eyes of the Judge for the case of violence.

So on contact, his words were."SEE I TOLD YOU, YOU CAN NEVER ESCAPE, THE LAW IS ALWAYS ON MY SIDE"

So, there it is, it is not actual quality time with children they seek but permanent control and the system gives it to them as a present for their wrong doing.

So little Johnny is dragged by the hair if so ordered by the Judge to have contact with a violent father.

This child learns to quickly identify that this violence is rewarded and is thus confused.

He remembers his Mum promised to keep them all safe and suddenly he is being handed over to an abuser.

Then the blackmail begins.

If Johnny says" I do not want to go with violent parent,"then his mum will be locked up in prison for not forcing him into violence.

If he still refuses, chances are he will be put into care where Social Services will make sure he has contact with violent father.

"Mum can walk the streets"as my Judge said to me.

The law must be obeyed.

Now, here is the confusing part.

If a mother stays in a violent relationship the Social Services will say she is allowing her children to be emotionally abused and take the children into care unless she leaves the abuser.

Then she decides to leave and the Social Services still take the children claiming she is unable to protect them herself as the ex might come to her new home and abuse them.

This is a no win situation. There is no escape as the law now stands.

So every week or so Johnny goes into the energy field of violence and carries it home like an unseen plague, where he begins to abuse his Mum and siblings first and then society.

Little by little the next generation of violence begins all over again and the woman asks herself- why did I bother going for help???.

She then tells other women not to come forward to be completely crucified by a system that proclaims to protect her and others.

I know of pedophiles and child abusers who still get contact.

Supervised at first, but then money comes into play and as in my case I ended up having to supervise contact myself.

So, the message is clear. NO ESCAPE.!!!!!!!

Thus it is clear that violence full stop is just propaganda.!!

Putting safe rooms in homes creates a prison within a prison.

Abused people should be allowed a new life in a new place.

Plus plenty of support and help to empower themselves so it does not happen again.

Mothers must empower their children to be strong inside on all levels.

Girls must see that they are not second class.

This is difficult as the legal profession is still extremely "old boys club"and full of pomp and many men are deluded into thinking they are above the rest of us.

Why is it allowed to continue then you ask??

One of the main reasons is the secrecy of the courts and the truth remaining hidden.

Also, violence creates vast wealth for the system.Peace does not.

Those who come forward are strong people and the system dislikes this trait and does everything to break that spirit.

For myself, I was told I was too powerful for a woman. So, what does that tell you.??

Men and women are used against each other in the system which makes billions from their misery.

Lawyers drag the cases out for all it is worth.

Rarely do they advise properly and treat many of us like dirt.

Psychologists and psychiatrists make huge sums of money for writing a pile of rubbish, or worse still, as in my case, a report was written up based on 5 minutes with psychiatrist, because he had all the information from my ex.

I know,!! the mind boggles.

I sat there in court not knowing who they were talking about.

I was labeled an alcoholic, a witch, a cult member etc.I mean, I pinched myself to see if it was all real and it was.

When I began making notes in order to correct these discrepancies I was ordered to put my pen down and stay quiet or go to jail for 3 months.

No, my lawyer did not speak up for me either.

He was only interested in the money he had received and was quite happy to hang me out to dry.

Also, in line for wealth are care homes and foster parents receiving £400 per week per child.

Many of the care homes are owned by ex social workers in fact.

As long as violence is rewarded because it creates vast wealth for the old patriarchal system then nothing will change.

Why would they want to change.????

There are some very gentle and peace loving men in society now and they should be honored and respected accordingly, as they feed and support women on all levels and help them nurture the next generation into peace.

These are the real strong men not macho fools.!!!!

Abusers should have to earn their right to contact.

Children should not be forced into it or bribed by social workers either, because then children feel they have been tricked into a situation where their own natural instinct said danger.

As long as we allow the people we gave power to with our votes, to continue to use OUR money in the manner above, then domestic violence will continue to increase like it is at the moment and women will become just as violent too.

Simply because that is the real agenda of our government.!!!!

The only thing that matters to the old system is power and money and control.

The only people that are listened to are dead people!!! Too late then.!!!

I hope that by shedding a new light on this situation, we, as a society will see how we are paying our Government with our tax money to actually condone violence because it is more profitable.

Catherine Mills BA, HdipEd, CTG,TTG

Posted by: Catherine Mills at July 31, 2008 2:04 PM

Thanks to heavily funded and well connected misogynistic father's rights groups obsessed with stripping women of all rights,this is now massively happening everywhere,UK,France,Ireland,Spain,Russia,Australia,Canada,Austria,Germany,Italy,Serbia...fathers only need to apply for custody,regardless of what kind of fathers they have been,and they will win. And what kind of a human being has the heart to part a baby ,a toddler or an older child begging to live with the mother from his/her mother? That is not a man of an average mind hence most custody fathers have very abusive,sadistic past.In the UK,women are totally unaware that they are mearly incubators for their parents and completely at their mercy.The media REFUSE to report on dozens of thousands of good mothers who have lost their babies to abusers and who belong to organized campaigned backed up by academics,lawyers,many male.Is it because the media is also male controlled?

Posted by: Maya at August 6, 2008 7:23 AM

The secret family court tried to force me to send my son to visit the man who raped me - my son was born as a result of rape. I am one of the Pindown children's home survivors. My whole life has been abuse, abuse and more abuse. The man who raped me was my father's work mate. It's a miracle that I survived all of this - I can only put it down to the fact that I became a Christian and begged and pleaded for God to help me and my family. They were all at my throat like a pack of rabid wolves and there was no-one to help me except God.

The ridiculous case went on for 7 years. They tried to label me with MSBP and PAS, but I pointed out that PAS was invented by a pedophile, so that put a halt on that idea! The rapist was forced to apologise to me in court, but they STILL tried to force my son to visit him, knowing full well how my son had been concieved! They actually tried to make me forgive and forget!!!!!And there was a threat implied if I didn't. I have been treated in an absolutly disgraceful and inhuman way by the secret family courts. People are supposed to be kind to victims of child abuse and rape. Not one of them offered me a single crumb of kindness but the rapist has been treated like the Prodigal son!!! But God took care of me anyway.

Everything about the secret family courts is corrupt. They ought to be scrapped. The only reason they are secret is because if ever the general public really realised what was going on behind those closed courtroom doors there would be so much anger there would probably be rioting in the streets. The secrecy has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with protecting the wicked powerful men who are making a great deal of money from the whole dispicable system.

Posted by: Barbara at August 7, 2008 4:18 AM

Barbara:

While I sympathize with what you've gone through, I think that your depiction of PAS as being invented by a pedophile is wrong. PAS does exist, and those couples going through a divorce not involving spousal or child abuse who have allowed things to degenerate to the point that PAS is present need to be mad aware of it and work things out properly, so that there's no further emotional pain and hurt. Of course, that does not mean that pedophiles should be able to claim this diagnosis in their defense, but still, there isn't anything wrong with PAS.

As for the subject at hand: This man who did what he did to this woman is an asshole and should be the one under arrest, not this poor woman. And the U.S. government should be hanging its collective head in shame for allowing this to happen, as well as the big moron from Texas who came up with the stupid 'No Child Left Behind'-hey George, you've left a lot of them behind!

Posted by: Neville Ross at August 8, 2008 3:04 AM

I strongly believe that the 'Best Interest of the Child' standard needs to be replaced with THE APPROXIMATION RULE. The new standard should be THE APPROXIMATION RULE if we want to stop abusers from gaining custody. (Abusers are rarely involved fathers.) The American Law Institute (ALI), Dr. Robert Emery (of UVA Center for Children, Families, and the Law), and even 'Mo' (Dr. Maureen Hannah of the BMCC IV 2007 Truth Commission) advocate the repeal of BIOC (the 'Best Interest of the Child' standard) with THE APPROXIMATION RULE taking its place as the new standard. (The Approximation Rule incorporates Tennessee's 'Protective Parent Reform Act.') Let's begin to urge our elected public servants to KEEP PARENTS WHO CARE IN THE LIVES OF THEIR CHILDREN by REPEALING B-I-O-C and ENACTING THE APPROXIMATION RULE.

Veronique Wyvell, RN
McLean, Virginia
the MOMMY GO BYE-BYE blog
http://mommygobyebye-virginia.blogspot.com

Posted by: Veronique Wyvell at August 8, 2008 10:00 AM

Brava for this great expose and to the courageous individuals, such as Dr. Joy Silberg, who are speaking out about this systematic horror show in our family court system. Everything claimed by these young people, who were "raised by the courts," is 100% accurate. I personally receive calls, e-mails, and letters from protective mothers all over this country, as well as overseas, begging for help with their cases. The overriding theme is that their abusive ex--partner already has won or is about to "win" custody of their children.
Ladies, think this could never happen to YOU? All you need to do is have a biological child with someone who is psychopathic, narcissistic, abusive, or otherwise sick enough to be willing--in his efforts to harm you--to cause massive harm to your child, as well. His task is simple enough; all he has to do is lie and manipulate the court system, making wild claims that you are a "fabricator," "crazy," "addicted," or an "alienator." He can then pay off all the court agents who are willing to do his bidding and take everything he says as the gospel truth, in exchange for his right to exercise power, control, and abuse over you and your kids until they reach majority age.
The family court system, as it seems to currently operate, amounts to little more than a black market that gives children and babies to the highest bidder. The ONLY thing keeping this Potemkin village-like fiasco going in our family courts is the secrecy that cloaks the misdeeds. We need a deeply serious and impartial investigation of the family court systems of all 50 states, conducted by authorities with the will and the power to massively reform this corrupt machine.
See www.batteredmotherscustodyconference.org for additional documentation about the family court fiascco.
Dr. Mo Hannah
Chair, Battered Mothers Custody Conference

Posted by: Dr Mo Hannah at August 11, 2008 9:00 AM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

Reporter's Notebook: Jennifer Collins speaks about her family's case - City Pages - The Blotter