Women's movement that stopped a civil war in Liberia
February 13, 2011
On Sunday February 13, twenty to thirty mothers and children participated in a vigil and demonstration in front of the White House for two hours. They held one big banner, three large double-sided signs on poles, and several other large signs.
The purpose was to express grave concerns about five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000.00) designed to encourage fathers to pay child support and provide abusers with supervised visits.
Instead, this gender-biased project provides legal services to batterers, molester, felons and drug addicts who avoid paying child support by getting custody. Safe mothers are put on supervised visitation. Children's continued outcries of abuse are ignored.
We want the President to know our tax dollars are destroying children's lives, not improving them.
A press conference and speak out were held on Monday, February 14 at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to inform them how their fatherhood programs impact children.
Advocates joined the speak out. A television reported came by, but security staff forced him to leave. Fortunately, he had a zoom lens, so could film the event from afar. We don't know if he was able to air the story on Channels 4, 5 or 9.
About half way through the speak out, several Homeland Security vehicles arrived. A small squadron of large uniformed federal agents announced that the group was on Federal property and told us to leave or be arrested.
After a lively discussion from citizens whose taxes provide HHS with money for the property, the mothers, children and advocates (including 2 attorneys) marched off, finishing the speak out while moving along peacefully.
The march continued up Independence Ave., past the three House of Representative buildings, turned left on First Street and ended at the Senate buildings.
Many of the mothers stood with the signs and banners during the next several hours in front of the Senate buildings, while others met with Senate aides and distributed packets of information.
A courageous kid told Senate aides how she was forced to reunite with her sex offender father.
A mother explained how she was turned away from federally-funded HHS legal services because she is a mother, not a father.
Two attorneys, two counselors, and several mothers discussed how the HHS fatherhood program backfires, leading to destructive outcomes for children.
The next day, one stalwart mother continued to distribute the rest of the packets and flyers to the remaining Senators. She found that Senators and their aides recognized her white t-shirt with Mothers of Lost Children in black letters on the front. Our emblematic uniform is being noticed - an excellent sign.
Our next events will be on Sunday May 8, Mothers Day and Monday, May 9, 2011. We hope to have Mothers of Lost Children t-shirts for sale in advance. Those who are not able to come to Washington DC can organize a speak out at your local courthouse on Monday May 9 and wear the t-shirt 'uniform'. If needed, wear a white scarf over your face to prevent recognition and retribution by the court. White pants or skirts complete the ensemble.
Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) The last time I did court watch for protective mother CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, I called my subsequent posting on the experience "Showdown in Shawnee County." See the post here:
I can't even call the hearing held on October 19, 2010 a showdown. It was just a sham.
Let's do a little review. Claudine is a battered mother who lost custody of her only daughter in an ex parte hearing in 2004. (Ex parte means the mother wasn't even represented at the hearing.) Since then, she has had very little visitation. The hearing in January 2010 (see post above) was supposed to fix that. And finally, Claudine was awarded two hours of unsupervised visitation on Sunday and telephone contact twice a week. We figured it was a start.
Well, this was not to be. And not because of anything Claudine did.
As Claudine testified, visitation went well. She taught her now teenage daughter to drive. They shopped. They went to Barnes and Noble. They talked about girl stuff. Boy stuff. Just like any other mother and daughter. In fact, Claudine was able to enjoy her first mother's day with her daughter in ten years. There were no negative interactions. In fact, it looked like some serious healing was going on.
And in that lays the problem. You see, abusers and their enablers don't like healing. They find that supremely threatening to their power and control. So of course, the process must be stopped lest their domination of the child and the overall "situation" be compromised.
So in May 2010, all visitation stopped at Dad HAL RICHARDSON's personal discretion--which he admitted during his own testimony. He made the unilateral decision that he would no longer take his daughter to the law enforcement center for visitation (presumably at her "request"--but more on that later.) He made sure that during the times of designated phone contact, the phone was never answered as it was set on fax. (Dad admitted under oath that the phone does go to fax mode when not answered--though he denied "inhibiting" phone access, which is not surprising. But then, how did Mom know to testify that the phone was set on fax when she called? Oh those little details....) But of course, Dad didn't exactly encourage or welcome contact either--that much was evident. In fact, it was pretty clear to me that he was extremely negative about Claudine, and doing his best to crush any contact between her and her daughter.
But like many abusers, he projected his own motives onto the child, now a teenager. SHE was the one who was "uncomfortable." She was the one who was "afraid." Afraid of what? Physical abuse, sexual violence? No, there was no evidence of that beyond vague innuendos about "fighting" that allegedly occurred in the distant past (These innuendos weren't even brought up in January. Must be a new game plan.)
Apparently we are supposed to believe that this teenage girl is "afraid" because Mom allegedly doesn't "follow the rules." What rules? Apparently the court's rules regarding discussion of this case.
All this was echoed by Guardian ad Litem JILL DYKES. And once again, just as in January, Ms. Dykes didn't even feign professional neutrality in this case, as she literally sat at Daddy's elbow the whole time.
Are you kidding me? The typical teenager would blow off a parent's attempt to discuss court matters--ASSUMING any such discussion took place, which Claudine denies. They certainly wouldn't be "afraid" of such a discussion. Annoyed perhaps. But not "afraid" or traumatized. This is just classic projection. That this teenager is such a hothouse flower that she is somehow irreparably injured by any possible or potential references to her parents' legal issues, which I'm sure she already knows all about anyway. Nonsense.
I would humbly suggest that it is Hall Richardson and his enablers who are "afraid" of any possible open or frank discussion of this case. Or any contact between this mother and daughter. And their little "feelings" shouldn't play any part of this.
Under Kansas law, visitation isn't shut off because somebody is "uncomfortable" for vague and specious reasons. If that were the case, then controlling and manipulative parents would be cutting off access for whatever reason they dreamed up that day.
Unfortunately, given the dynamics of domestic violence, children who are in the control of abusers often find it necessary to parrot what the abusers want for their own survival. Which makes if very difficult for this child to speak up and articulate what she wants--except in private to her own mother.
And frankly, this ordeal shows a complete double standard. Were this a custodial mother blocking visitation for such vague and specious reasons, she would no doubt be labeled as an "alienator" with "parental alienation syndrome" (PAS). And the situation would be addressed immediately--either visitation would be enforced by the courts or the mother would lose custody all together. But I digress.
So no visitation from May to the present. But this actually was a minor issue as far as the court was concerned.
No, once again our major concern was Claudine's political activity. The players in Shawnee County are very upset with how well known this case has become (my last blog posting on this case had readers as far away as Australia.) And they are blaming Claudine for all of it, even though when pushed, Judge DAVID DEBENHEIM fiercely denied that he was trying to "stomp" on Claudine's first amendment rights. (Huh. Could have fooled me.)
But even in cases where OTHER bloggers like Nancy Carroll at Rights for Mothers had discussed this case (http://rightsformothers.com/), Claudine was blamed. In fact, the opposing attorney submitted into evidence printouts from NANCY's blog to show that Claudine was out of compliance with their gag order. Message to the Hoffmans: Nancy is not Claudine. I'm not Claudine either, for that matter. And you can't shut us up.
And honestly, did the Hoffmans really have to embarass their employee like that? They trotted out a young and painfully ignorant employee of theirs to "testify" about Claudine's "alleged" facebook and twitter activities. This fresh-faced young woman--no more than a high school graduate with a few "computer" classes--earnestly told us that every posting and link on somebody's facebook page had to personally "approved" and/or "posted" by that person. Yes, dear friends. She did say that. And meant it too, so far as I can tell. I won't give her name, though it's in my notes. I refuse to further humilate her. But honestly, your great aunt Rose probably knows more about facebook than this girl.
So the significance of this was what? There are supposedly "references" to her case on Claudine's facebook page! Oh the horror! And you know what? This blog may very well end up with a link on Claudine's facebook page, too--through an automatic feed mechanism. It will go straight to facebook--even when Claudine is sleeping or brushing her teeth. Or sitting in court. Because you know what? Claudine is a well networked activist with probably hundreds of facebook friends working on issues related to child abuse, domestic violence, human rights, and family court reform. Many of us have discussed this case before. Just as we have discussed many other cases like this one, where the courts have backed up the abuser and shut out or ignored the protective mother. And for your information, you'll find articles and links about those cases as well.
And all this policing of Claudine's personal and political activities on the internet is particularly hypocritical when you consider the following: Attorney JASON B. HOFFMAN and GAL JILL DYKES had no qualms about violating professional ethical boundaries and becoming facebook "friends" with this child! (I saw the screen shots.) Mom can't even post a photo of her daughter per court order, but these folks feel free to do as they like. Not that the judge was interested in this matter at all. Big surprise there.
And this is the crux of the matter. What the court in Shawnee County REALLY doesn't like is that--as they put it--this lady "has a cause." Or she has "become a cause." They don't like the "venom" (i.e. the truth) that has come out about this case, and the attention it has received nationally and even internationally. They don't even like Claudine's facial expressions! (Yes, the judge made a point of addressing this. "You are your own worst enemy!" he thundered at Claudine--apparently over some grimace or frown that I didn't see.)
So make sure you never show anything but a happy face in front of Judge Debenham, even when you are possibly losing all contact with your only child!
Claudine is supposed to hear later this afternoon what the court's decision is--after her daughter will presumably be allowed to speak her mind with the judge. But of course, she can't really speak her mind--not as long as she's a minor and dependent on her father.
We are not optimistic as to the outcome.
But you know what? In a little over two years, this girl ages out of the system's control over her life. Perhaps then, real change will come about. Abusers and their enablers often win the battles. But they seldom win the war. That puts off any real healing in this case for another two years.
By MIKE SULLIVAN, ALEX WEST, GARY O’SHEA and CAROLINE GRANT
Published: 15 Feb 2011
A JILTED father allegedly knifed his two children to death then rang his estranged wife to say: "I've killed the kids."
Horrified police are said to have found Jean-Francis Say, 61, sitting in a chair in his flat a few feet from the bodies of son Rolls, ten, and daughter Regina, eight.
It is thought the children died of multiple stab wounds.
A source said: "The scene inside the house was harrowing. It's hard to imagine how terrified these poor children must have been.
"Why ring up your ex-wife afterwards and tell her what you've done? She is devastated with grief. She thinks her life is at an end."
Neighbours said Say was heartbroken when wife Antoinette left him for another man two years ago and took the children with her.
He told them he only realised something was wrong with his marriage when he got home and found Antoinette had gone. He went straight to the children's school to pick them up - and learned Antoinette had taken them with her.
Sylvia Murphy, 39, who lives in the same apartment block in Southwark, South London, said of Say: "He was very friendly and approachable, always dressed in a suit and looking smart and presentable I always thought he was a really nice man.
"When I found out what happened I was in complete shock, I couldn't sleep. I can't believe anyone could do that to children. The kids were both lovely. Rolls was an adorable little boy."
Sylvia said Say fought a custody battle for the children but was only allowed to see them on weekends.
She added: "The dad seemed like the busier parent. He always took them to school and picked them up.
"He always said he was the one who did everything for the kids and all his wife did was sleep and go to work."
Crime scene ... Say's apartment
DAN CHARITY
French-speaking Say, believed to be from West Africa's Ivory Coast, recently confided his troubles to Sylvia and begged her to help him in his ongoing struggle for more access to the children.
She said: "He seemed absolutely devastated and poured his heart out to me about the kids.
"He said 'I gave them everything at Christmas, a Nintendo Wii and a Nintendo DS.'
"He asked me to write a good character reference for him to give to his solicitor as he was trying to get the children back.
"He wanted a shoulder to cry on, I don't think he had anyone to turn to. He thought I would be able to help him get the children back."
Antoinette, who is thought to have dialled 999 after Say allegedly phoned her on Sunday, was yesterday too upset to speak at her new home in Holloway, North London.
A friend said: "She's crying and can't speak to anyone. It's such a difficult time and she's so shocked."
Horror find ... flats where Say lives
A neighbour of Antoinette's said Rolls, who was autistic, and Regina were polite children who had clearly been well brought up.
She added: "They were always with their mum and were so well behaved. I never saw them out on their own. Most of the kids round here are terrible. But these two were the kind who opened doors for you. They seemed intelligent." Police were yesterday searching a communal garden outside the housing association flats in Empire Square where the children were found dead.
Polite
Others who live in the flats described Say as quiet but cheerful and polite. A caretaker said: "He was a nice man and was always smiling. I think he worked as a security guard and occasionally did stewarding at football matches."
Plumber Scott McEwan said: "We knew something had gone badly wrong because there were lots of police around on Sunday.
"Then we saw officers in paper suits going in and out of the flat. I just couldn't believe it when I heard that two kids had died." Police sources said Say, who is accused of murder, has not yet spoken to officers attempting to interview him. He appeared briefly at Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court yesterday.
Balding and powerfully-built, he confirmed his name, address and other personal details through a French interpreter. He was remanded in custody. Say was last night said to be on suicide watch after allegedly threatening to harm himself.
English Martyrs School in Southwark, which Rolls attended before he moved away with his mum, declined to comment.
Johnson City police are wrapping up their investigation into a weekend shooting that is now classified as a murder/suicide.
The argument between Frankie Hughes, 31, and Rebecca Pugh Markland, 33, that led to the Saturday morning shooting was apparently over custody of the couple’s 10-month-old son, according to JCPD Sgt. Billy Church.
Church said Hughes had recently been released from prison after serving a sentence for a forgery conviction, and also had a 2002 conviction for obtaining narcotics by fraud.
The shooting occurred at 901 Long St. a little before 10:30 a.m. Church said that Markland went there to ask Hughes for some money.
While she was there, the two began to argue, Church said. That’s when Hughes shot Markland and then himself.
Angela Wilcox, a friend of Markland’s who rode to the house with her, was apparently outside when the shooting occurred.
She told police she heard what sounded like “firecrackers,” so she drove a few blocks down the street — with Markland’s son — and called 911.
The man who lives at that house, Eddie Yakley, was home when the shooting happened but told police he was in his bedroom when he heard the shots.
Yakley told police that he saw Hughes put the gun to Markland’s face, but didn’t see her get shot. Yakley also told police that he didn’t see Hughes shoot himself.
According to Church, police found a note on Hughes indicating that he intended to kill himself.
It was the second suicide note police found in connection to the case in as many days.
On Friday, Markland flagged down a police officer near Johnson City Medical Center.
She told the officer that Hughes had held a gun to her and threatened to shoot her while she was holding their child.
Markland and her son got away unharmed. She gave police a handgun case for a 9mm pistol. She told officers it was the case for the gun Hughes used to threaten her.
Police escorted Markland to that hotel room so she could get her belongings. Hughes was gone, but officers found a note indicating he intended to kill Markland and then himself.
Markland also told police that Hughes had stolen her prescription for clonazepam. Police found the empty prescription bottle in the room, according to the report on the incident.
Hughes died a short time after the shooting and Markland died Saturday night from her injuries.
The Department of Children’s Services was called to find an appropriate custodian for the couple’s son.
Men who abuse women physically and emotionally may also sabotage their partners’ birth control, pressuring them to become pregnant against their will, new reports suggest.
Several small studies have described this kind of coercion among low-income teenagers and young adults with a history of violence by intimate partners. Now, a report being released Tuesday by the federally financed National Domestic Violence Hotline says 1 in 4 women who agreed to answer questions after calling the hot line said a partner had pressured them to become pregnant, told them not to use contraceptives, or forced them to have unprotected sex.
The report was based on answers from more than 3,000 women, but it was not a research study, those involved said.
“It was very eye-opening,” said Lisa James, director of health at the Family Violence Prevention Fund in San Francisco, which worked with the hot line on the report. “There were stories about men refusing to wear a condom, forcing sex without a condom, poking holes in condoms, flushing birth control pills down the toilet.
“There were lots of stories about hiding the birth control pills — that she kept ‘losing’ her birth control pills, until she realized that he was hiding them,” Ms. James added.
One respondent described having to hide in the bathroom to take her pill. Another said that when she got her period recently, her partner was “furious.”
The hot line’s report did not include a comparison group and did not gather information about the participants, who were questioned anonymously; nor was it published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was based on answers to four questions posed to 3,169 women around the country who contacted the domestic violence hot line between Aug. 16 and Sept. 26, 2010, who were not in immediate danger and who agreed to participate. About 6,800 callers refused to answer the questions.
Of those who did respond, about a quarter said yes to one or more of these three questions: “Has your partner or ex ever told you not to use any birth control?” “Has your partner or ex-partner ever tried to force or pressure you to become pregnant?” “Has your partner or ex ever made you have sex without a condom so that you would get pregnant?”
One in six answered yes to the question “Has your partner or ex-partner ever taken off the condom during sex so that you would get pregnant?”
The questions were devised by Dr. Elizabeth Miller, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the School of Medicine at the University of California, Davis, whose earlier papers on reproductive coercion prompted interest in the subject.
“It’s really important to recognize reproductive coercion as another mechanism for control in an unhealthy relationship,” Dr. Miller said. At the same time, she added, younger women and girls dating older men may be confused by the pressure to become pregnant.
“If you can put yourself in the shoes of a 15-year-old dating an 18- or 19-year-old man, which is not an unusual scenario, and he says to her, ‘We’re going to make beautiful babies together,’ that’s pretty seductive.”
But Dr. Miller said more research was needed to understand the men’s motivations.
“One of the things that comes up a lot is: What are the guys thinking?” she said, adding that her own research suggested some answers.
“Some have an intense desire for a nuclear family, and many who had experiences of a dysfunctional family home want something better,” she said. Some young men, she said, “want to leave a legacy, and say, ‘I’m not sure how long I’m going to be around.’ Gang-affiliated young men want the status that comes with having babies from multiple women.”
Dr. Miller’s paper, published last year in the journal Contraception, reported that at five family planning clinics in Northern California, one-third of 683 female patients whose partners were physically abusive said the men had also pressured them to become pregnant or had sabotaged their birth control. Of 191 women who reported birth control sabotage, 79 percent also reported physical abuse, the study found.
The associations help explain why young victims of violence by intimate partners are at an increased risk for unplanned pregnancies and for sexually transmitted diseases.
Ms. James, of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, said that despite the new attention to reproductive coercion, she doubted it was a new phenomenon.
“I just think not enough people have been asking the question,” she said.
A Des Plaines-area man whose wife was reportedly planning to leave him is accused of stabbing her to death on Valentine's Day as their 9-year-old daughter listened to her screams from the next room, authorities said.
Heriberto Ramirez, 48, was being held in lieu of a $10 million bond Tuesday, a day after authorities said they found his wife Alicia Ramirez dead on the floor of their bathroom with 35 stab wounds following a 911 call from the girl.
Heriberto Ramirez, of the 400 block of West Touhy Avenue, is charged with first-degree murder in the death of his 45-year-old wife.
According to court documents, the couple's daughter heard her father drag her mother into the bathroom and called police. Ramirez hung up the phone as his daughter called for help, but sheriff's police dispatched to the home found the woman's lifeless body. Family members told authorities that Ramirez's wife had planned to leave him, the court documents said.
The girl was taken into protective custody of the Department of Child and Family Services, police said.
Mothers across the nation are losing rights to abusive men in custody situations. Mothers that have no criminal, drug or violent history have been stalked in family courts across taking their children from them. We are going to converge on DC and make sure Obama does NOT fly over our protest as he did Mother's Day 2010.
General Information
AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts.
We as mothers demand CITIZENSHIP and our Rights to our Children. We demand that our children not be used as pawns by our abuser in a custody dispute. We demand that Mothers and Children be equally protected against court ordered visitation with an abuser. We demand that Mothers and Children be given the same rights, privileges and voice that the abuser gets in family courts! We demand that our President take action now as can no longer afford to be silent and we won’t. We demand the same "rights and freedoms" to which all humans are entitled. Behind the closed doors of the dirty little secret of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse Mothers and Children. Family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child. Until Mothers and Childrens voices are heard we will never shut up, give up or go away! (read less)
Mission
1st Annual Million Mom March! WE NEED ALL MOTHERS TO STAND UP FOR THEIR VOICE TO BE HEARD BY OUR GOVERNMENT! WE ARE MAD AS HELL AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!
Everyday we all hear about or read about divorcing couples fighting over who gets the kids. Fighting over their own children like they are some sort of property to be traded back and forth. There are many people that believe ALL mothers should always have custody with very little to no visitation for fathers; and likewise there are those out there that believe the opposite, ALL fathers should get custody and mothers should get little to no visitation.
Personally I don’t see how so many people can see this issue in such black and white terms. Not ALL mothers are good parents and not ALL fathers are good parents. For the most part the daily news will show us that most child abuse and child murders are committed by fathers, and yes, occasionally by mothers. This still doesn’t prove that ALL fathers are bad or good or that ALL mothers are bad or good.
In the last few years I have learned more about the Father’s Rights Movement, and I can say that I’m more than a little shocked at what I’ve learned. The Father’s Rights Advocates would have everyone believe that they are just concerned for fathers as a whole having shared or joint custody. They would have us believe that their number one concern is actually the children in divorces and custody cases. On the surface if one doesn’t dig too much that sounds wonderful.
However, when looked at further it is easily seen what the real agenda is for the Father’s Rights Movement. The further abuse and victimization of their ex-wives and children. Before I go any further here, I’d like to point out that I fully believe that good fathers have
sought out the assistance of the Father’s Rights Movement and one of two things happens... they either leave, frustrated and still alone in their plight OR they become enmeshed in the bitterness which abounds.
What I see out of Father’s Rights Advocates around the internet appears to be mostly just a bunch of men (and a few women that will do anything to get the attention or have a little power for themselves) who have been abusive in one way or another to the mother of their children and now feel that comfy rug of power and control being ripped from under their feet.
What better way to continue to abuse and control your victim when they walk away than to take possession of their children?
One main reason that I’ve formed the opinion that I have of the Father’s Rights Movement is because only abusers would look at the news we see of fathers murdering and abusing their kids and deny that it happens, or make excuses for it happening. The strict adherence to the ‘ALL fathers should have custody’ line that they feed everyone is the basis of my opinion that the majority of those in the movement are abusers grasping at keeping the power and control they had.
Here is an example, mind you... this is only one search, but there are many like this.
Why would someone look for this? Other than because they are contemplating attempting to gain custody through the Family Court just to get their ex-wife back under their power. This doesn’t sound like a man who loves his kids and wants the best for them, this sounds like a man who loves control and will use whatever means available to him to maintain or re-gain his power and control.
I never meant for this to be this long, so I will wrap this up by saying... not ALL men should have access to their children regardless of what the FR Advocates say. Likewise, I can admit that not ALL women that give birth are the best parent choice either. The natural equipment that we are born with which enables us to create life does NOT dictate how a person will be as a parent.
Since it is obvious that I have much more to say about this... there will be other posts on this subject.
Ok, so with that thought in mind I move on to part two of this topic, and oh yes there will be a part three... just don’t you worry.
As I was saying in part one, the people who make up the Father’s Rights Movement may not have started out where they have ended up. They originally may have been honestly good fathers and what they have morphed into is the result of many abusers jumping onboard and running away with the movement.
Along these lines the men in the FR Movement have touted and tried to throw in the face of all women (feminists, non-feminists, mothers and every one really) a quote from Gloria Steinem... attempting to ‘prove’ that even SHE sees their side of it, that fathers need to be equal in parenting... FR’s go on with that thought regardless of whether or not the father is abusive.
The quote I’m referring to is: “Women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it.”
As far as I can find Gloria Steinem actually said this sentence twice, once in an interview published in the NY Daily News and once in an article she wrote which was published in the Opinion Section of the LA Times. The LA Times article is no longer available but I found the article copied here, so that I can still reference it.
In both cases the FR Movement refuses to take the quote in the context of what she was actually saying. Taking shit out of context is one of my biggest pet peeves and in this case shows how totally twisted they have actually gotten it.
In the interview, which was for the occasion of her 75th birthday, she was speaking in a general sense of women’s equality. What she actually said was:
“We’ve demonstrated that women can do what men do, but not yet that men can do what women do. That’s why most women have two jobs — one inside the home and one outside it — which is impossible. The truth is that women can’t be equal outside the home until men are equal in it.”
In the article she wrote for the LA Times she was speaking about Sarah Palin running for VP. What she actually said was:
Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.
Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.
And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.
She wasn’t saying that men should be equal in the home, thus supporting fathers being caregivers to young children then turning around and abusing them because they are not equipped to handle it. What she is saying is that women have TWO jobs, which are impossible to juggle from a man’s point of view... but that women do it everyday.
Yes, she does state that Obama and Biden were campaigning on their belief that men should, can and want to be home for their kids. She did NOT say she supports that... she specifically used the words “their belief”.
So, Father’s Rights Activists.... I ask you this, where exactly does Gloria Steinem say you should be allowed to stay home and not work while your children’s mom does and pays you child support to abuse your kids? I must have missed that.
I still stick to my opinion that most of those in the FR Movement are abusers trying to cram their ideological patriarchal power and control down everyone else’s throats.
As many are aware, there is a silent genocide occurring against women. This is part of a major reason why women all over the world are united to end violence against women. What many do not know or connect is that a lot of women experiencing violence perpetrated against them are also mothers. Many ads on stopping violence against women portray women without children as a means to get the message across clearly; but they fail to represent the large proportion of mothers in this situation.
Experts in intimate partner violence have noted that there is a high correlation between abuse and pregnancy. Some scholars state that this is because they are envious of the relationship between the mother and the child. Using violence, coercion and control is often part of the effort to destroy these bonds. The problem then exacerbates when a mother tries to leave--often not to save herself but to save the child. Leaving is one of the most dangerous times for all women enduring intimate partner violence, and, accompanied with an inadequate system, the odds are stacked against her. With a community plagued by stereotypes on child custody cases, closed courtrooms and loopholes in laws compounded by pop-psychology, we have a situation where most mothers in this predicament are torn away from the children they tried to protect. In the 1980s, Dr Richard Gardner coined the term, “Parent Alienation Syndrome”. This term remained a term only, because most of the scientific community rejected it. His literature promoted ideas that victims of abuse were mentally ill and deliberately raised concerns about the abuse as an act of hate. Dr Richard Gardner also testified in a homicide case where a mother was shot 13 times. Gardner claimed that her “alienating behavior” drove him to kill her. Although the scientific community rejected Parent Alienation Syndrome, the legal community embraced it. Carefully removing the word "syndrome", the belief set remained. Whilst his work began in US, he traveled around the world promoting these ideas to court professionals and others who had a direct influence on child custody case outcomes. Some organizations that offer training for judges even held workshops on “maternal gate-keeping”, which trivialized the experiences of women and children leaving intimate partner violence. Whilst Dr. Gardner passed away several years ago, his doctrine lives on and others have polished up his work to continue its grave influence upon the legal community.
Mothers are often subjected to degrading treatment within the courtrooms where they are forced to deny their experiences and their need to survive and protect--or they will face jail. All legal avenues within this culture are blocked. This is why we have a battered mothers custody conference where mothers, professionals and young people unite to end violence against women and children through the system. It is why I traveled all the way from Australia to be there this year amongst others who have also traveled from other parts of the globe to attend. It is a global issue that affects many. This year, Holly Ann Collins, the first American to receive asylum in Netherlands, spoke about her ordeal. Revered by many as a brave mother who, against all odds, was able to save herself and her children. She was listed and hunted by US as an abductor even though they knew why she ran. She arrived at the airport with a suitcase of evidence which led to her being granted asylum. She was hard on herself because she did not do it sooner. Whilst leaving with the children under these circumstances should be seen as the best thing to do, there is no legal avenue to do so. Some laws and treaties appear from the surface to have some consideration of women and children experiencing violence, but the processes, culture, economics and ambiguity of the situation stifle opportunities to do so. Holly Ann Collins' outcome is a rare one. We need better laws that protect mothers and children from violence without punishment or further victimization.
As many are aware, there is a silent genocide occurring against women. This is part of a major reason why women all over the world are united to end violence against women. What many do not know or connect is that a lot of women experiencing violence perpetrated against them are also mothers. Many ads on stopping violence against women portray women without children as a means to get the message across clearly; but they fail to represent the large proportion of mothers in this situation.
Experts in intimate partner violence have noted that there is a high correlation between abuse and pregnancy. Some scholars state that this is because they are envious of the relationship between the mother and the child. Using violence, coercion and control is often part of the effort to destroy these bonds. The problem then exacerbates when a mother tries to leave--often not to save herself but to save the child. Leaving is one of the most dangerous times for all women enduring intimate partner violence, and, accompanied with an inadequate system, the odds are stacked against her. With a community plagued by stereotypes on child custody cases, closed courtrooms and loopholes in laws compounded by pop-psychology, we have a situation where most mothers in this predicament are torn away from the children they tried to protect. In the 1980s, Dr Richard Gardner coined the term, “Parent Alienation Syndrome”. This term remained a term only, because most of the scientific community rejected it. His literature promoted ideas that victims of abuse were mentally ill and deliberately raised concerns about the abuse as an act of hate. Dr Richard Gardner also testified in a homicide case where a mother was shot 13 times. Gardner claimed that her “alienating behavior” drove him to kill her. Although the scientific community rejected Parent Alienation Syndrome, the legal community embraced it. Carefully removing the word "syndrome", the belief set remained. Whilst his work began in US, he traveled around the world promoting these ideas to court professionals and others who had a direct influence on child custody case outcomes. Some organizations that offer training for judges even held workshops on “maternal gate-keeping”, which trivialized the experiences of women and children leaving intimate partner violence. Whilst Dr. Gardner passed away several years ago, his doctrine lives on and others have polished up his work to continue its grave influence upon the legal community.
Mothers are often subjected to degrading treatment within the courtrooms where they are forced to deny their experiences and their need to survive and protect--or they will face jail. All legal avenues within this culture are blocked. This is why we have a battered mothers custody conference where mothers, professionals and young people unite to end violence against women and children through the system. It is why I traveled all the way from Australia to be there this year amongst others who have also traveled from other parts of the globe to attend. It is a global issue that affects many. This year, Holly Ann Collins, the first American to receive asylum in Netherlands, spoke about her ordeal. Revered by many as a brave mother who, against all odds, was able to save herself and her children. She was listed and hunted by US as an abductor even though they knew why she ran. She arrived at the airport with a suitcase of evidence which led to her being granted asylum. She was hard on herself because she did not do it sooner. Whilst leaving with the children under these circumstances should be seen as the best thing to do, there is no legal avenue to do so. Some laws and treaties appear from the surface to have some consideration of women and children experiencing violence, but the processes, culture, economics and ambiguity of the situation stifle opportunities to do so. Holly Ann Collins' outcome is a rare one. We need better laws that protect mothers and children from violence without punishment or further victimization.
A report out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on the Women’s Health website details the effects of violence on women. Here is an excerpt of the report…an excerpt I found particularly interesting because it discusses women that abuse children. This is enlightening to discover this:
Impact on children
Violence against women can also impact children. About 50 percent of men who assault their wives also physically abuse their children. Also, women who are abused are more likely to abuse their children. And children can be injured during violence between their parents. Studies show children who witness or experience violence at home may have long-term physical, emotional, and social problems. They are also more likely to experience or commit violence in the future. Protect your children by getting help for yourself.
Common physical injuries and health problems from violence include: • Increased risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV, which can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease and a higher risk of cervical cancer • Unwanted pregnancies, or rapid, repeat pregnancies • Miscarriages and other reproductive problems • Vaginal bleeding or pelvic pain • Injuries such as bruises, cuts, broken bones, or internal damage • Back or neck pain • Chronic pain syndrome • Trouble sleeping and nightmares • High blood pressure or chest pain • Arthritis • High stress and lowered immune system • Central nervous system problems, such as headaches, seizures, or nerve damage • Respiratory problems, such as asthma and shortness of breath • Digestive problems, such as stomach ulcers and nausea
To download a copy of the report, which discusses a wide range of overall health effects for being a victim of domestic violence, please click here.
State Rep Bill Otto: “No crime? You haven’t been guilty of anything? This is a court order that says you can’t go to any school functions?”
“I was under court order till 2004 to not even call the police after I was being beaten because … I was not ‘co-parenting’”
Dombrowski: “These friends of the court make recommendations to the judge. The parents … don’t have a right to see these documents. They do this behind closed doors.”
Otto: (To Secretary Jordan): “You have no rights as a parent …?”
Secretary Don Jordan: “This would be something extreme … I’m not familiar with the situation.”
Otto: “Can a judge do that? … Is that legal… ?”
Jordan: “Under the right circumstances … I hesitate to speculate.”
Sen. Roger Reitz: “This is something that only … the judicial system can really answer … It would be helpful … to have someone … representing the judicial system … to give us some ideas how this could happen.”
Dombrowski: “When you are a victim of domestic violence, and suddenly there’s a child involved, the typical …. power of control is that ‘I’ll take your children from you’. They will and they can the way the laws are setup.” …
“I was told that I’m not to talk to my daughter about the violence. That’s why I don’t see her. That’s why I see her supervised. He was criminally convicted. “
“When women try to get away from people who hurt them … I heard somebody say it’s really hard to believe you won’t call the police … I tell people not to contact the police, because as soon as you walk into court with a DV (domestic violence) and children, you’re already cutting your throat. You will lose your children. That’s the way it is right now.”
“… on the 16th of this month I’ll probably go to jail for breaking the gag order and talking about [being the victim of] violence as it relates to my case.”
Reitz: “… someone ought to be able to deal with this in a way that would address her problem. It doesn’t seem like we’ve done the right thing with regards to this little niche of the law.”
Dombrowski: “The criminal convictions are completely tossed aside and they don’t have any bearing on the family court … The eight criminal convictions that my ex had before getting custody of my daughter were completely dropped [in family court]“
Chair Kiegerl: “I cannot believe that abuse is totally ignored. I cannot believe you can prohibit a person from speaking about their own case.”
“The one thing [where] … I disagree with you is abuse should always be reported.”
State Rep Peggy Mast (R-Emporia): “Domestic violence is a control issue. Sexual abuse is a control issue. Is there any correlation between domestic violence and sexual abuse? Why is that not something that is considered when we take someone to [family] court that has a history of domestic violence?”
Dombrowski: “Yes. That is something I’ve asked myself for 16 years. … It comes back to the family court that has a veil of immunity. … They don’t fully understand the impact of the violence. What battered women have … if they report the abuse, then they’re failing to protect their child … if they don’t report the abuse, they’re still failing to protect their child. So, both ways, they’re going to lose their children …”
For anybody who abuses their wife … [from] a 1996 presidential task force … there is a 70% increase that those children will be abused and/or sexually abused after there’s been battery with the mother.
Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudea: “In 2004 …. I talked with the homicide department in Sedgwick County…. During that time there had been 21 homicides in Sedgwick County and 18 were due to domestic violence …”
“A lot of women do make those phone calls and unfortunately, sometimes it ends in their death.” …
“I want to apologize to you for being treated like a pedophile … not being able to go to a music concert.”
“I commend you for what you’re doing.”
Dombrowski: “I have not talked to my daughter in 10 years [except] for the confines of supervised visits. I’m not allowed to talk to her about anything. All she knows is what her dad has told her.”
MANHATTAN, KS - To some this could be considered beautiful. Solid mahogany is beautiful when given a high finish and it does have a high finish. It is about four to four and a half feet long, a foot and a half high; with shinny brass handles at the foot and head. A child's coffin, in this home has been turned into a coffee table.
To Claudine Dombrowski it is not beautiful, that is her daughter, six-year-old Rikki on the couch behind the threatening coffee table. If a coffin coffee table is not enough, a hunting rifle hangs on the wall above the couch.
Claudine, a Manhattan resident, was divorced from Hal Richardson in Shawnee County District Count in 1997. She had been a repeat victim of Domestic Violence and a repeat victim of the State Court System.
What does the Court System think of the coffin coffee table? In a letter to Shawnee County District Court Division Two Judge Richard D. Anderson, Harry Moore, with the Court Services stated: "When I was at the house, I did not recognize anything which in my experience resembled a child's coffin. After looking at the picture and speaking with Mr. Richardson, I have come to find out that it is indeed a coffin and that it was an antique which he purchased in Mexico several years ago and uses as a coffee or end table of sorts."
What about the rifle? Mr. Moore said, "There is also a secured hunting weapon hanging on Mr. Richardson's wall. The thing which is striking about this specific issue is that it contains a remarkable leap of logic. For instance, I am the owner of a 7.9 mm Mauser rifle which was the standard issue firearm for the German soldier in World War II. This weapon was procured by my father who served in Europe during the war. This weapon also hangs on the wall in my rec room. Does my ownership and display of this firearm lead one to the conclusion that I am a Nazi?"
The question Mr. Moore failed to answer is: "Is it a leap of logic for an abused woman to see the child's coffin and the rifle as more than furniture? Is there a message to the mother? The Shawnee District Court has missed many messages when it comes to the violence in this case.
When reading Court documents it is clear that attorneys have intentionally muddied the waters. It was a nasty divorce, those things happen. Eight or more attorneys, three different Judges and several Court Service workers have filed motion after motion. In the end a Judge wants to compel a dysfunctional family to be normal. It can't be done.
Halleck (Hal) Richardson and Claudine Dombrowski lived together for several months before they were married on November 22, 1995. Divorce papers were filed four month later. By this time records show Hal Richardson had abused Claudine and he had Domestic Battery and Criminal Damage to property convictions.
Hal had seven other convictions before 1995. The convictions were for Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and an Open Container conviction.
Most of the Probation Conditions were never followed up on by court officials. After the Domestic Battery conviction, Hal was ordered to attend an "Alternatives to Battering Program" put on by the Battered Women Task Force in Topeka. A few of the comments made on Hal's report were: "Client rude and disrespectful to female co-facilitator as evidenced by his combative stance, his repeated interruptions, his sexist language and his refusal to accept any responsibility."
Another report stated: "Client very disruptive during group, this was evidenced by the fact that he interrupted the facilitator repeatedly by making rude comments, laughing and telling inappropriate sexist jokes."
And finally: "Called PO (probation officer) and client to tell them that he had graduated as far as I was concerned. He only has 17 sessions, but is causing too much trouble with his mouth. Terminated, with cause. Will not be accepted back."
The divorce proceedings were extended for eighteen months. Throughout the proceedings Claudine's attorneys filed numerous reports claiming violations of the restraining order and requesting an order to sever contact between Hal, Claudine and daughter Rikki.
The first involved an incident that both parties agreed in court happened, they just could not agree what happened. Claudine said she was hit in the head with a crow bar and Hal said it was a piece of wood. What ever he hit her with it took 24 stitches to close the head wounds.
At a hearing on June 17, 1996 Shawnee County District Court Judge Jan W. Leuenberger signed order giving custody of Rikki to Claudine and authorizing her to move to the Great Bend area so that "Ms. Dombrowski could avoid the history of physical and verbal abuse she had suffered from Mr. Richardson."
Hal was given supervised visitation.
As in many divorce cases the Judge on November 5, 1996 appointed Mr. Scott McKenzie, Attorney at Law, to serve as Guardian ad Litem to appear on behalf of Rikki. Mr. McKenzie was very experienced in juvenile court proceedings with more than 1,000 cases but this was only his sixth Guardian ad Litem. Under Mr. McKenzie direction visitation terms were worked out to where Claudine would keep Rikki for three weeks and then Hal would have her for a week.
Before the Divorce Trial started a new Judge took over. Judge James P. Buchele replaced Judge Leuenberger.
It is about this time the Court and Court appointed case workers attitude changed. Judge Buchele saw that fifty people were being called as witnesses for the trial. He placed a limit of five for each side. This can be done but it can cause problems. Court documents state: "These limits made it difficult or impossible for Ms. Dombrowski to bring in all of the witnesses to corroborate here clams." During the trial the Judge would not allow hearsay evidence but the proper witness was not there to testify.
At trial Mr. McKenzie indicated, "after reading the police reports of the violence, and the doctor's reports, he was not able to validate any of the truth of any of the accusations of violence made by Ms. Dombrowski."
When asked about Mr. Richardson's criminal history Mr. McKenzie recalled only a single offense for driving under the influence of alcohol, and was unaware of the misdemeanor convictions including the domestic violence battery against Claudine. He was unaware of a misdemeanor battery for a bar fight and the battery of a law enforcement officer.
Records of the Battered Women's Task Force had never been reviewed by Mr. McKenzie. Even thou Claudine had received support from the facility. In a report to the court Mr. McKenzie had recommended anger management therapy for Claudine but not for Hal.
In Judge Buchele's Orders after the trial he made it clear that he wanted more from this couple than what was possible. Here is what he wrote: "Mutual parental involvement with this child has been made worse by Ms. Dombrowski's unilateral decision to move to Larned, Kansas in May of 1996. The distance between Topeka and Larned makes it virtually impossible for an individual treater to work with the family; for Mr. Richardson to have regular and frequent contact with this child; to establish any reasonable dialogue between the parents toward resolving their conflicts. The move from Topeka to Larned, due to the proximity of the parties, has lessened the physical violence. It has, however, done violence to the relationship of Rikki and her father. If long distance visitation is continued, in the Court's view, will take its toll not only on Rikki but each of the parties. The Court specifically finds that separation of the child from either parent for long periods of time is harmful for a child of about three years of age."
He then went on to require Claudine to move back to the Topeka area.
And then Judge Buchele made a judgment that some Manhattan attorneys say is not legal. Judge Buchele ordered: "Further, respondent (Claudine) is directed to not call law enforcement authorities to investigate the petitioner (Hal) without first consulting with the case manager."
On December 14, 2000 after returning her daughter to her fathers home Claudine alleges that she was battered and raped by Hal. Under order not to call law enforcement authorities and with bleeding that would not stop, she drove to St. Marys, Kansas to get treatment. Claudine knew that if she had gone to a Topeka Hospital they would have called the police.
In St. Marys hospital officials did contact the Pottawatomie Sheriff and a report was made. She was advised that because the alleged event occurred in Shawnee County she would have to file there. Claudine said that because of the battery and rape she picked up Rikki the next day and did not return her. The Shawnee County Sheriff's Department was called and took Rikki back to Topeka. The court gave Hal custody and orders for her to attend Topeka schools.
As it stands now, Rikki is with her father in Topeka. Claudine gets two one-hour visits per week. The child will go to school in Topeka unless a new motion, which will be filed this week, is granted. The motion will request that Claudine be given custody and Rikki be allowed to attend school in Manhattan.
This case has received national attention by the National Organization for Women; the Judicial Initiative Commission Hearing by the Citizens for Good Judges and it was told to the Kansas Justice Commission in 1997.
A new Judge will be hearing the motion. Judge Richard D. Anderson took over the case on the retirement of Judge Buchele. But, unless Claudine receiveds help from Kansas citizens, the abuse will continue. In July of 2000 Judge Anderson reaffirmed all of Judge Buchele's previous orders. Evan the order to not call law enforcement authorities
Webmaster Note: You can contact Judge Richard D. Anderson at (785) 233-8200 ext. 4350
Hal Richardson, the father of her baby and ex-husband. Now Hal Richardson isn't exactly going to win any father awards this year for this, and his criminal record keeps growing (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and violation of Open Container law.)
Shawnee County Judge James P. Buchele refused to permit testimony in this case because his docket was full. If that wasn't bad enough, Claudine was ordered by this Judge to move back to Shawnee County so Hal Richardson could be closer to her daughter and ordered her not to call the police when dealing with her husband, all calls had to go through her case manager first. Allegations of death threats, rape and the killing of her daughter were what the Judge was not letting get into testimony. Outrage, to say the least, read the harrowing account of a lawyers outrage in this matter here.
Okay, enough already, that last story is just wretched.
First off, ask yourself this question, do judges make bad decisions? Of course they do, just like anyone who makes a choice does. To be fair, judges make all kinds of decisions everyday that can effect you and I detrimentally as the reason your seeing the Judge. The problem isn't the Judges, it really lies with the criminal justice system in itself. Is it a perfect system, of course not, not everyone is going to agree on the outcome. However, the Judges need to police each other. Now we know, there is a state agency for that, but seriously, how many District Judges have been removed in Kansas from the Bench? One, and it was so long ago Kansas records can't even remember what he was removed for. Now if a Judge does make a bad decision as clearly stated in the cases above, should he/she be able to correct that decision, or are they to high and mighty to correct their injustice after they have had some time to reflect? Some would say that's what the court of appeals are for, but why, come on, why does it have to even go to something like that?
Common sense says if you rape a little girl or beat the hell out of your wife you shall get punished for that in a severe matter. However, the law states otherwise, and the list of outrage goes on.
Posted in 
