Another Dad Falls Victim to State’s Putative Father Registry
September 30, 2009
Here's another piece about putative father registries.  Putative father registries are clever little devices designed by state legislatures to avoid notifying single fathers when their children are about to be adopted. That way adoptions proceed more smoothly without the inconvenience of a father asserting his parental rights. Basically, a single man must file a form with the state claiming paternity of any child he believes may be his. He has to do so within a certain time frame, usually withing 30 days of the child's birth. Failure to do so waives his right to notice of an adoption or the right to contest same.
Back in 1998, I did an informal and highly unscientific survey of my own. I printed up 100 cards with one question on it, "Have you ever heard of the Texas Paternity Registry?" Under the question there was a blank for "Yes" and a blank for "No."
I went to the University of Houston and passed out 50 of them to young men there. Then I went to downtown Houston and passed the other half out to men coming out of office buildings. The vote was unanimous. Not a single one of them had ever heard of the Texas Paternity Registry.
I wondered why that might be. So I called the Bureau of Vital Statistics which administers the Registry and ask them how much money is budgeted each year to publicize the Registry. The answer? None. So why would men know about the Registry if the state doesn't tell anyone about it? The answer seems to be "they don't."
The previous year, there had been about 115,000 children born out of wedlock in Texas. Therefore, there were about that many fathers at risk for losing their parental rights if they failed to file the correct form with the Texas Paternity Registry. A total of 94 men actually registered that year, perhaps not surprisingly given that the Registry is such a closely guarded secret.
From this article, I'd guess the Alabama Putative Father Registry is too (WAFF, 9/24/09). It's been around since 1997, but Andrew Scott had never heard of it. So when he learned that a young woman he'd had sex with once had turned up pregnant, he knew he wanted to have custody. He requested and got a DNA test which showed he was the father and learned...that it was too late. Thirty days had passed since the child was born and that means Andrew Scott is out of luck. The mother decided to place his son for adoption, and that's all there is to it.
Scott is shocked. His father says he's so upset about losing his child that he's lost weight and is now just "skin and bones."
Once again a state has achieved that most desired goal - keeping a father from his child. States have a lot of ways of doing that, and putative father registries are among the cleverest. And as so often happens, and as I so often say, by forcing adoption on a child who didn't need it, the State of Alabama has deprived a child who does need to be adopted of qualified parents who want to adopt. Andrew Scott's son has a father who wants him. Countless children around the state and around the world need parents. Alabama's Putative Father Registry denied Andrew Scott his son, and at the same time denied one of those other children the parents they so desperately need. That's two outrages for the price of one.
But there's a bright side to all this. GlennSacks.com gets to award a prize. Here it is: This month's George Orwell prize goes to Alabama attorney Bryant Whitmire, who said of the state's Putative Father Registry, "It protects the father."
That's right up there with "War is Peace," don't you think?
|
Fatherlessness & Educational Problems
September 30, 2009
From cartoonist Signe Wilkinson. To her credit, she does prominently include "Dadless" as one of the major problems. Going strictly by the research, "Dadless" would have taken up the whole front row of seats. The "No Discipline" seat in the second row is also a direct consequence of fatherlessness.
|
Fathers & Families Hosts Debate Between 2 Leading Domestic Violence Authorities (Round I, Part II)
September 30, 2009
Domestic violence and the DV policies of family courts and law enforcement is a multi-faceted issue that has an enormous impact on American families. Fathers & Families is hosting a debate between two of North America's leading domestic violence authorities, feminist DV expert Professor Evan Stark, Ph.D, MSW, and dissident DV expert Dr. Donald G. Dutton.
Evan Stark, Ph.D, MSW (pictured, right) is a forensic social worker who has served as an expert in more than 100 criminal and civil cases, consulted with numerous federal and state agencies, including the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control, and won a number prestigious awards for his work. 
Dr. Donald G. Dutton, Ph.D. (pictured, middle right) has published over one hundred papers and ten books, including Rethinking Domestic Violence, The Abusive Personality, Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives, and The Batterer: A psychological profile.
The debate will run in several segments and will be posted on both www.fathersandfamilies.org and www.glennsacks.com. Readers are asked to keep comments respectful and on topic. Our rules of moderation can be seen here.
Professor Stark began our debate on Monday here. Below is Dr. Dutton's response.
Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director, Fathers & Families
Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Founder, Chairman of the Board, Fathers & Families
Fathers & Families' Question #1: The Obama administration recently appointed Lynn Rosenthal as the first-ever White House Advisor on Violence Against Women. Vice President Biden, who wrote the Violence Against Women Act, said that creating the post will help the White House focus on stopping domestic violence. The mainstream domestic violence establishment arguably now has the most sympathetic administration ever. What should the administration do to improve how the United States deals with the problem of domestic violence?
Dutton's Response:
If I were to give President Obama one piece of advice on domestic violence it would be this: stick to the principles of engaging in social policy that has empirical support. Well-intended domestic violence legislation has run off the rails.
Larry Sherman’s research shows that mandatory arrest discriminates against African-American women (citation 1, 2) because men with little “stake in conformity†( i.e. undereducated and under employed) have a higher likelihood of recidivism when arrested. Research on criminal justice policy consistently shows iatrogenic effects when “zero tolerance†policies are enacted (3). So called “psychoeducational policies required by VAWA as the only intervention†permissible through court process, is shown repeatedly to have a minimal or zero effect on recidivism (4-6). Evidenced based policy says “get rid of them." Replace them with couples therapy or real psychological treatment.
"Gender policy advocates [teach] that helpless female victims often tell no one about their victimization, so it's not unusual for them to “remember†past assaults on the brink of a custody dispute."
It is time that criminal justice personnel, including police and judges, were given discretion back. It is also crucial that they stop being “educated†by gender policy advocates who pretend to have some mystical truth about domestic violence; it is only committed by males (at least the only serious kind--coercive violence), that it is motivated by male power needs, is a political act against women, and that helpless female victims often tell no one about their victimization (so it's not unusual for them to “remember†past assaults on the brink of a custody dispute).
The truth is, our conceptualization of domestic violence is wrong. It is not solely male perpetrated violence to control women. Two large sample studies (7, 8) show that the most common form of domestic violence is bilateral violence, matched for level of severity, and that this constitutes 50% of all domestic violence. What happens is a called a coercion trap, with both partners becoming increasingly angry and violent.
It is unclear in this form of violence who starts it, escalates it, etc. Even the combatants frequently don’t remember. Women are injured more by this form of violence than by unilateral male violence (so-called wife battering) (8). However, this increased risk to women goes untreated because accepting two–way violence as a fact violates the gender paradigm: the belief that all domestic violence is male instigated.
"Women are injured more by [bilateral] violence than by unilateral male violence...a domestic violence policy group [asked] me to come to Chicago to do a workshop on spousal homicide. When I sent along a Powerpoint showing how risk prediction could be improved by including women’s violence in the predictive equation, they cancelled the talk immediately’; that was victim blaming."
A domestic violence policy group in Chicago persisted in asking my workshop co-ordinator, for me to come to Chicago to do a workshop on spousal homicide. When I sent along a Powerpoint showing how risk prediction could be improved by including women’s violence in the predictive equation, they cancelled the talk immediately’; that was victim blaming. Mr. President, make empirical studies the basis for legal and public policy. If bilateral violence is the most common form of domestic violence, treat it as such--use martial therapists and focus on reciprocal negative reciprocity as a cause of severe domestic violence. Do not feed stereotypes of all domestic violence as reported by shelter houses. Recognize too, that men are injured by domestic violence (9).
"[After bilateral violence], the second most frequent form of domestic violence is unilateral violence by women against non-violent males."
This becomes important when we realize that the second most frequent form of domestic violence is unilateral violence by women against non-violent males. The Center for Disease Control study by Whittaker (8) found that 70% of unilateral violence was female perpetrated, yet another finding that contradicts the “innocent female†paradigm where women only use violence in self defense.
In fact, violent women are traceable from their early years (10). Lisa Serbin’s longitudinal studies at Concordia found patterns from aggressive girls in public school through to women’s whose children suffered more physical injuries. Yes, women are the most likely perpetrators of physical child abuse (11). A huge survey by Health and Human Services found mothers involved in 64% of all physical child abuse. The plight of these children is caused by a gender paradigm that lumps “women and children†together into government bureaucracies and teaches custody assessors that the only risk to the child is from the “abusive father."
"[W]omen are the most likely perpetrators of physical child abuse...an empirically based policy...would preclude misleading paradigms being used as weapons in family court."
An empirically based policy, Mr. President would preclude misleading paradigms being used as weapons in family court, would recognize the potential danger to children from both parents, and would develop preventive policies to alter the developmental trajectories of aggressive girls and boys.
The debacle in family court is simply that judges are being brainwashed with the gender paradigm policy. A recent Wingspread Conference on Domestic Violence and Family Courts congratulated itself on opening a dialogue between scientists and practitioners. In fact, the “dialogue†was biased in the usual way.
Papers by Michael Johnson and Peter Jaffe developed models for custody assessment based on Johnson’s dichotomy: mild DV is two-way (common couple violence), serious DV is male perpetrated ( coercive violence). This model was based on asking women in transition houses about violence perpetrated by their male partner towards themselves or their children. Johnson never asked them about their own use of violence. It did not attempt to test other samples drawn with different self selection criteria. If one does either, the results change dramatically. Instead of the sole risk to children coming from the male, it now clearly stems from both mother and father.
"[A researcher] asked women in shelter houses about their own use of violence. Sixty seven percent reported using severe violence against their male partner."
Renee McDonald did the unthinkable in Texas--she asked women in shelter houses about their own use of violence. Sixty seven percent reported using severe violence against their male partner. This 67% is completely off the screen in Johnson’s work--he never asks the question.
Not asking about female violence is the norm in the gender paradigm; Ed Gondolf’s ‘multi-site†studies (12, 13) on the effects of psychoeducational intervention on male recidivist violence found that 40% of the men in treatment were partnered with women who hit them first (according to the woman). Of course, you have to look hard at the fine print of Gondolf’s method section to find this out--he is solely focused on the male (14).
Neil Jacobson went Gondolf one better- -he published a book on male batterers called “cobras†and “pitbulls†and even went on Oprah and got her to tout the book. Of course, in Jacobson’s fine print there is also a statement that 40% of his sample showed severe violence by females. Johnson, Jaffe, Gondolf and Jacobson avoid female violence because it is dismissed as infrequent, reactive and inconsequential.
"The majority of child homicides are perpetrated by women and [researcher] Renee McDonald found children were 2.5 times as likely to be exposed to violence by their mothers than their fathers."
In fact, it’s injurious both to male partners and to children. The majority of child homicides are perpetrated by women(11) and Renee McDonald found children were 2.5 times as likely to be exposed to violence by their mothers than their fathers (15) .
These data surprise professionals whether they are police, custody assessors or judges. The surprise stems from the gender paradigm-categories for conceptualizing domestic violence that views it as solely male perpetrated. The categorical expectations are so strong that experimental variations of actions are described as abusive when depicted as perpetrated by men, as non- abusive when the same action is perpetrated by women. This is true for both the general public (16) and psychologists (17).
"The categorical expectations of custody assessors and judges have been distorted."
For example, “X asks Y where they have been†is abusive if a male asks but not if a female asks. The categorical expectations of custody assessors and judges have been distorted even more. The Jaffe and Johnson “gold standard†for custody assessment is based solely on samples of women in shelter houses. The obvious self-selected bias of this sample is ignored. When other samples are used, women commit coercive violence as much as men (18, 19 20, 21).
It is for this reason that Evan Stark’s suggestion for the policing of coercion is a blueprint for totalitarianism--the state decides how families should make everyday decisions? Police and custody assessors who are already trained in the gender paradigm to be suspicious of males, would now be making determinations about coercive control? That would be the final straw in a feminist police state and something that must be avoided at all costs.
What would happen is that male forms of control would be criminalized and female forms of control overlooked same as with domestic violence now. The research findings that males and females use control in intimate relationships equally (21, 22) would be ignored. This should never happen.
"We need to develop preventive programs that recognize that both boys and girls can grow up to be violent, get rid of stereotyping posters depicting boys as future batterers."
Mr. President, we need to develop professional groups to triage domestic violence without the preconceived notions of the gender paradigm. We need to develop preventive programs that recognize that both boys and girls can grow up to be violent, get rid of stereotyping posters depicting boys as future batterers. We need to ask research questions of both partners in community samples and use these as the basis for generalization to custody groups. The gender paradigm did bring domestic violence to the public view but it is a very skewed perspective.
[All of the posts relating to this debate are available here. Dutton's citations are after the page jump.--GS]Â
What’s the cost of raising a child?
September 29, 2009
I'm generally suspicious of some of the figures we hear about the cost of raising children. They seem too high, often way too high. Moreover, these studies are sometimes used as a way to drum up support for driving up child support guidelines, which has driven many fathers to ruin or to be falsely labeled "deadbeat dads."
On the other hand, I don't really think this Australian professor's method of judging cost is accurate either, and I think he misses on the low side. But he does have some very accurate things to say about the joy of having kids, and the limitations on considering anything one spends on kids to be a negative.
From Cost of kids not so high after all
The cost of raising children is not nearly as high as parents have been led to believe, a study reveals. Far from a child costing $10,000 a year, as previous research indicated, the price is more like $1300.
Michael Dockery, an associate professor in the school of economics and finance at the Curtin University of Technology, says children may even enhance their parents' wealth.
"People now believe they'll be millions of dollars out of pocket if they have children," he said. "It's nonsense."
If children were a "cost", parents would end up less wealthy than comparable couples without children. But his study, based on 3168 couples, found this was not the case. When the net wealth of the parents and the child-free was compared - housing, shares, superannuation and savings - the parents were only marginally worse off, suggesting a child "cost" only $1300 a year...
Previous Australian studies have shown that a typical family will spend $537,000 on raising two children from birth to 21. Dr Dockery claims the cost is more like $55,000.
Dr Dockery disputes the logic of seeing children as a cost. The price people were prepared to pay for fertility treatments showed children were regarded as a "very large net benefit".
He also takes issue with studies that used the amount of money parents spend on children to determine their cost. "There seems little justification for considering expenditure on children to be a measure of their cost, any more than going to a restaurant can be considered a cost to the patrons." Restaurant-goers saw their night out as a benefit, not a burden.
As well, when couples chose to have children they understood they would have to switch their expenditure from dining out to nappies and child care.
"They value having the children more than the lifestyle," he said. "To argue they are worse off makes no sense"...
|
Successful Shared Parenting–A Divorced Mother’s Perspective
September 29, 2009
"We both knew we had to put our children’s needs before our own disagreements...we could never put our children in the middle of our adult situations. I continue to be unclear as to why some parents are able to put their children’s needs first and others are not but I have seen the effects of either of these paths on the many children who live through the divorce of their parents, including my own."
Reader Kimberley S. Roberts is a divorced mother of two who has a shared parenting arrangement with her ex-husband. Recently I asked her to articulate for our readers why she believes that shared parenting is good for children, and good for women. Her contribution is below.
Co-parenting works
By Kimberley S. Roberts
Becoming a mother was one of the most exciting and scary times of my life. I have heard my children’s father state the same. I believe most parents want to do what is best for their children and would never knowingly inflict or be the cause of harm or trauma. However, life often hands us challenges that put us as parents and adults in difficult, life-altering situations and emotional states that can have long term positive and or negative effects for us, our children and our loved ones.
At the ages of eight and four my two children learned one of life’s most difficult lessons, that their parents were unable to live together and that their definition of family would be forever changed. Only as these two innocent and wide eyed little boys began to ask questions, did I realize the incredible responsibility my children’s father and I were faced with regarding how we both chose to handle ourselves and our situation as to minimize the emotional harm to our children.
We both knew we had to put our children’s needs before our own disagreements, anger, shock and changing life and living situations. It was clear to both of us that we could never put our children in the middle of our adult situations. I continue to be unclear as to why some parents are able to put their children’s needs first and others are not but I have seen the effects of either of these paths on the many children who live through the divorce of their parents, including my own.
Each year divorce becomes more and more common place. Amazingly, many divorcing couples successfully maneuver through the process of divorce putting their best foot forward for the sake of all involved, especially the children. There is no “how to†book when it comes to helping your children survive the failed marriage of their parents, but I have learned through my own trials and errors and through seeing the effects of my ex-husband and my decisions, that there are some basic and common sense things that any parent can do to help alleviate the emotional trauma of divorce on their children and to make each parents home a safe haven for them. This requires a commitment by both parents to co-parent. Sadly, a large number of parents choose to use their children as tools to gain advantage and to inflict pain and emotional suffering onto the other parent.
Commonly the parent that has primary custody which is often us mothers, are the ones that use these types of negative tactics, often including alienating the non custodial parent from their children by withholding visits, not including the alienated parent in children’s life events and school events. From a divorced mom’s point of view I feel it is my responsibility to state that it is never ok to do anything that interferes with the other parent’s visits with their child(ren). I send out to a plea to all parent’s throughout the process of divorce and thereafter to always evaluate and make decisions carefully based on the lifelong effects they may have on your children, both positive and negative. In extreme cases a parent truly in fear for their child should go through the proper channels to address these issues and not take matters into their own hands.
No matter what our children’s ages or stages in life at the time of our divorces and long after our divorces, our decisions and interactions with our ex-spouses will mold our children’s personalities, outlooks on life, ability to engage in relationships, emotional stability and many other life areas. My children’s father and I decided early on that no matter what our “adult issues†were they would never be discussed in front of our children. No matter what our negative feelings were about one another, they would never be discussed in front of our children. And most importantly, we would never make a decision about our children by putting our wants and needs before those of the kids. This doesn’t sound too difficult but when you throw in money issues, child support issues, personality conflicts, a new dating partner, hurt feelings etc. it can become more of a challenge to put our children’s needs before our own. Yet to do this any other way would have most definitely caused long term emotional trauma for our children. As an adult and parent you must be able to make concessions and compromises even if you feel you are being wronged.
What does successful co-parenting look like in the long term? My children are now grown and emotionally stable young men that know they can come to both parents and spend time with both parents and our extended families without fear of punitive consequences or withholding of emotion or anger outbursts by one or the other parent. They have been able to celebrate their life milestones (graduations, birthday’s etc) with both parents present and both sets of extended family members present. They have been allowed to bond and form relationships with both of their new step-parents and not forced to make choices or hide these relationships.
Co-parenting works. The responsibility of co-parenting falls on both parents but a bulk of the responsibility falls on us moms and or primary caregivers as we are often in the driver’s seat due to the amount of extra time we have with our children. Co-parenting does not assure that our children will not suffer some of life’s traumas but they will not suffer because of intentional negative parenting choices. No one wins if our children suffer at our hands. If our children can’t trust us to do the right thing how will they ever be able to trust anyone?
It is time to advocate for the rights of both parents and to have a legal system that holds those parents unwilling or unable to put their children’s needs before their own accountable. Family law attorneys should know that by putting a paycheck before what is in the best interest of society’s children or not following their own ethical standards they are contributing to the alienation of parents and the long term negative emotional effects that alienation behaviors have on our children. Social Workers, counselors, therapists and psychologists have a responsibility to know what alienation of a parent looks like and assess and identify it early on to assist in eliminating the opportunity for the alienating parent to continue this destructive pattern of behavior.
As a parent who has successfully co-parented I would challenge all parents and advocates of children to take responsibility for their own actions, to advocate and send a message that alienating behaviors are not acceptable, and to advocate for system reform at all levels of family systems, family law and education. Our children are our the future and I am proud to say that I have contributed to our society in a positive way by being able to co-parent successfully with my children’s father, helping them to be happy, healthy and productive members of the communities in which they live.
|
Fathers & Families Hosts Debate Between 2 Leading Domestic Violence Authorities (Round I. Part I)
September 28, 2009
Domestic violence and the DV policies of family courts and law enforcement is a multi-faceted issue that has an enormous impact on American families.
During the 1970s, feminist organizations fought hard to make domestic violence a public issue, as opposed to a private one, and to gain governmental and societal support for policies aimed at protecting abused women. Current policies have largely been shaped and influenced by the DV establishment which arose from that movement.
However, today those policies are coming under increasing attack from dissident domestic violence experts, as well as civil libertarians and fathers' advocates.
Fathers & Families is hosting a debate between two of North America's leading domestic violence authorities, feminist DV expert Professor Evan Stark, Ph.D, MSW, and dissident DV expert Dr. Donald G. Dutton.
Evan Stark, Ph.D, MSW is a forensic social worker who has served as an expert in more than 100 criminal and civil cases, consulted with numerous federal and state agencies, including the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control, and won a number prestigious awards for his work. A founder of one of the first shelters for abused women in the U.S., in the 1980’s Dr. Stark (pictured, above) co-directed the Yale Trauma Studies with Dr. Anne Flitcraft, path-breaking research that was the first to document the significance of domestic violence for female injury as well as its links to child abuse and a range of other health and behavioral problems.
He trained at the National Centers for Post-Traumatic Stress at the US Veteran’s Hospital and maintained a clinical practice with men for over a decade. His recent book, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Oxford University Press, 2007) was named the best book published in sociology/social work in 2007 by the American Publishers’ Association. Dr. Stark is a Professor at the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University-Newark and Chair of the Department of Urban Health Administration at the UMDNJ School of Public Health. To learn more about Professor Stark, click here.
Dr. Donald G. Dutton, Ph.D. has published over one hundred papers and ten books, including Rethinking Domestic Violence, The Abusive Personality, Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives, and The Batterer: A psychological profile. Dutton (pictured, middle right) has served as an expert witness in criminal trials involving family violence, including his work for the prosecution in the O.J. Simpson trial. He is currently a Professor of Psychology at the University of British Columbia. To learn more about Dr. Dutton, click here.
The debate will run in several segments and will be posted on both www.fathersandfamilies.org and www.glennsacks.com. Readers are asked to keep comments respectful and on topic. Our rules of moderation can be seen here.
Professor Stark begins our debate below.
Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director, Fathers & Families
Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Founder, Chairman of the Board, Fathers & Families
Fathers & Families' Question #1: The Obama administration recently appointed Lynn Rosenthal as the first-ever White House Advisor on Violence Against Women. Vice President Biden, who wrote the Violence Against Women Act, said that creating the post will help the White House focus on stopping domestic violence. The mainstream domestic violence establishment arguably now has the most sympathetic administration ever. What should the administration do to improve how the United States deals with the problem of domestic violence?
Stark's Response: Current domestic violence policies are predicated on four widely shared assumptions, that abuse can be equated with physical and sexual assaults; that a straightforward calculus of physical injury and psychological trauma or fear can be used to assess its seriousness (and by implication to ration services); that criminal justice should be the front –line response to perpetrators and shelter for victims; and that female victims and male perpetrators should be the major targets of this response. I disagree with the first two of these beliefs and at least one of my suggestions, that a new crime of “coercive control†be added to existing domestic violence statutes, arises from this disagreement. In general, however, I think major changes in policy are unlikely in the near future. As a result, my suggestions for Lynn Rosenthal and the Obama administration are incremental and build on the current framework.
The appointment of Ms. Rosenthal represents the first time an advocate for domestic violence services has been in the White House, a major step forward. Ms. Rosenthal’s role has yet to be defined, however. The Obama administration may turn out to be “sympathetic†to our concerns as the question suggests. Thus far, however, there have no specific policies or proposals to show that this is so.
"It is a mistake to believe that funding or support for domestic violence services is a liberal issue...[current DV policies] have had broad bipartisan support."
It is a mistake to believe that funding or support for domestic violence services is a liberal issue. In every instance, policies based on the four assumptions above have had broad bipartisan support. Moreover, in the two areas that are of particular concern in my work, criminal justice and health, the major initiatives were taken by President Reagan. This was the encouragement of mandatory arrest by an Attorney General’s task force and the unprecedented focus on domestic violence as a public health issue by the U.S. Surgeon General Koop.
Presidents Nixon, Carter and Clinton also took important steps. Nixon was the first to provide federal support for shelters; Carter held a special White House conference on DV, opened a National Clearinghouse on Domestic Violence and supported the hearings on DV before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that led us to form the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
President Clinton had mixed motives for bringing VAWA to the forefront. These included his desire to keep women’s support—which he did—without having to openly endorse abortion and his hope to lure liberal votes for his crime bill (of which VAWA was part) that had provisions on the death penalty and sentencing which liberals opposed. Many in the advocacy community were ambivalent about VAWA, largely because the money was funneled to the states and because most of the funds were ear-marked for criminal justice rather than direct services for victims.
Senator Biden played a key role in drafting VAWA. But it only passed because of support from Newt Gingrich, Utah Senator Orin Hatch and other conservatives. The two Bushes took a more low-keyed approach, though they supported VAWA, formed various advisory panels of domestic violence experts and various reviews of research and services in the field.
"[O]pposition to mainstream [DV] beliefs, initiatives and policies has been minimal...[anti-VAWA] protests were ineffectual, the arguments transparent, and never commanded an audience in the scientific community. They were a non-factor when VAWA came up for its various reauthorizations."
It is also important to appreciate that opposition to mainstream beliefs, initiatives and policies has been minimal. While “conservative feminists†like Christina Hoff Sommers and some conservative journalists publicly railed against VAWA, these protests were ineffectual, the arguments transparent, and never commanded an audience in the scientific community. They were a non-factor when VAWA came up for its various reauthorizations.
The goal of these proposals is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of current interventions in establishing safety for victims and accountability for perpetrators.
Proposals for Change
I: A National Surveillance System
Problem:
Currently, there is no consensus in the research or service community about what constitutes a “case†of domestic violence. Current attempts to apply a definition of violence as a discrete act or assault are drawn from criminal justice and have hopelessly confounded data collection and analysis, making it impossible to distinguish incidence (“new casesâ€) from prevalence (the total burden on the community at any time.). In contrast to this definition, the research we have from surveys and service sites shows that abuse is typically ongoing or repeated and continues for somewhere between 5.5 and 7 years in a typical case. Cross sectional or survey data make no useable distinction between new and ongoing cases. Since the aim of prevention is to reduce the number of new cases (incidence) and the aim of other interventions is to reduce the total burden abuse places on the community (prevalence), we can neither design effective interventions or evaluate them without accurate information on incidence and prevalence.
Conversely, the fact that someone was abused “ever†in their adult life-time does not mean it is a current problem requiring a commitment of resources. Despite some limitations, the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) was the best designed measure of which I am aware and should provide an important model for a new surveillance system. But any surveillance system should be rooted in hospitals, courts, police departments, shelters and other facilities to which victims turn for help.
"[T]he executive branch should use its influence to develop a national surveillance system that can provide accurate and regular data on the incidence and prevalence of domestic violence."
Proposal
Working with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, the executive branch should use its influence to develop a national surveillance system that can provide accurate and regular data on the incidence and prevalence of domestic violence. This would be comparable to the current surveillance systems used for other health problems as well as for child abuse and neglect. At a minimum, the surveillance system would include stalking and sexual abuse as well as physical assault, distinguish long-standing from current abuse, incorporate questions on major control strategies (see below) as well as threats and other forms of coercion, and identify abuse by incorporating questions related to fear, injury and help-seeking. Partners in this process would include, at a minimum, CDC, Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Institute of Justice, and the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health.
"[Most abuse victims] have experienced...tactics to degrade, isolate, intimidate, exploit and control them...this pattern of abuse has been...termed...coercive control...[we need] legislation to make coercive control a federal crime akin to kidnapping or hostage-taking."
II. Criminalize Coercive Control
Problem
Recent evidence suggests that between 60% and 80% of the victims who currently seek outside assistance have experienced a pattern of abuse that includes tactics to degrade, isolate, intimidate, exploit and control them as well as to hurt them physically. This pattern of abuse has been variously termed intimate terrorism or coercive control, the term I prefer. The harms occasioned by coercive control extend to basic liberties and rights, including rights to speech, association, movement, communication, work, and to control one’s own resources. For instance, more than half of the persons arrested for domestic violence in Quincy, Mass. admit they have taken their partner’s money and ‘controlled’ them in other ways. Many of these tactics are currently offenses if committed against person in the public sphere. Current laws target physical assault and threats almost exclusively and result in little or no significant jail time for perpetrators even when an arrest occurs.
Proposal
Working with the Justice Department and the Judiciary Committees in the House and Senate, the executive branch would prepare and submit legislation to make coercive control a federal crime akin to kidnapping or hostage-taking and encourage states to adapt similar legislation defining a new class A felony. These laws would supplement rather than replace existing domestic violence laws. Current attempts to criminalize coercive control in Maine, Missouri and Florida could provide a starting point.
[This ends Part I of Stark's answer to question #1. Part II, in which Stark deals with Family Courts and custody, will follow after Dutton's response to Part I. All of the posts relating to this debate are available here
We invite you to comment below. All blog comments must conform to our rules of moderation, which can be seen here. --GS]
|
Articles Written at Time of Keech’s Conviction Back up Ex-Wife’s, Cousin’s Defense of Murdered Father
September 28, 2009
In this recent blog post we discussed Long Beach Press-Telegram columnist Tom Hennessy's recent impassioned column seeking the release of Richard Keech, an 89-year-old WWII veteran imprisoned for murdering Nick Candy, his former son-in-law. Hennessy writes:
"My father is in prison because he killed my abusive husband to protect my son, my mother, and me," his daughter Nancy said in a recent advertisement she ran in the Press-Telegram.
With the family trying for a compassionate discharge that would give their patriarch a brief stay at home, the ad sought letters of support from readers...
Says Nancy, "My dad is not a danger. He is an outstanding man with a long history of compassion, integrity and good works."
In the comments section a woman who is apparently Nick Candy's first wife, writes:
I was married to Nick for 19 years and think that I am more qualified than most of the people to speak about how he was. During all our married life he was never abusive towards me...Martin, his son, has lost his father who adored him. I feel that the real killer has not been punished...
Again in the comments section, a man claiming to be Nick Candy's cousin writes:
This alleged abuse was never proven in court...Nick Candy went to pick up his son for court appointed visitation. When he rang the doorbell, Richard Keech opened fire and shot him. Nick ran down the street calling for help and in pain, fell in a neighbors front yard. Richard Keech followed him and shot him several times in the back, in cold blood, in front of witnesses. Richard Keech announced for all the neighbors to hear "he won't bother anybody else," then he walked back home. the gun was found on the kitchen counter, void of finger prints. we never found out why they were wiped off...
Do you all know what premeditated means? For God's sake they were discussing on the phone (taped by the Keech family to trap my cousin Nick into saying something wrong, and [then they] forgot about the taping) with a friend, that Keech is planning to kill Nick! I was at the trial every day...he had 3 of the best lawyers...i suggest you read the court documents.
I looked up the articles written at the time of Keech's conviction in 1997. They back up what candy's ex-wife and cousin say in their comments. In one 1997 Long Beach Press-Telegram article, staff writer Helen Guthrie Smith wrote:
Richard Keech , a 78-year-old East Long Beach resident, was found guilty Tuesday of premeditated, first-degree murder by a jury that rejected his claims that he killed his son-in-law in self-defense and during a flashback to his experience in Japanese POW camps in World War II.
After the verdict was read, Long Beach Superior Court Judge William T. Garner revoked Keech's bail and sent him to county jail to await sentencing on Jan. 20.
He faces 25 years to life in prison, plus up to 10 additional years for use of a firearm...
Keech killed Nicholas Candy, 47, on May 21, 1996. Candy had come to Keech's Carfax Avenue home to pick up his baby son, Martin, for a visit.
Keech shot Candy once at the curb. He said he fired because he thought Candy was about to beat him. Keech then followed the wounded man down the street to where Candy collapsed and then fired four shots into his head and back as a neighbor bent over Candy to see if she could help.
Candy and Keech's daughter Nancy had been involved in a bitter divorce and custody battle since she left him nine months earlier and moved with Martin into her parents' home...The defense painted Candy as a psychological abuser likely to resort to physical violence.
Keech's prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Amy Broersma [said] "I never thought the jury would go along with the (POW) defense. When I first heard the defense, I thought, `That's ridiculous.'
"In 50-plus years, he never sought any psychological care" before or after the killing, she said...
Keech and Nancy Candy, she said, "got caught up in a series of lies, and the sympathy factor was with the victim -- as it should be -- and not with the defense."
She said Nancy Candy lied when she testified that she never said she hoped her husband would be dead within a year, or that her father would have killed him last winter if he had come for Martin as expected.
In a tape recording played in court, Nancy Candy is heard making such statements in a phone conversation with a friend. The Keech family made it a practice to tape calls from Candy, and had apparently not realized that call was on a tape turned over to the prosecution...
She said Candy was not the brute the defense portrayed. Witnesses who worked with him, or attended college with him, described him as a good friend and loving father who was frustrated in his attempts to see his son and to talk with his estranged wife. Keech stood in for her when Candy came for the boy.
"Nick Candy was good-natured and good-hearted," said Anita Jones, his supervisor at Universal Studios, where he was a contract administrator. Another victim, she said, is Martin...
Jocelyn Bunyan, Candy's sister [said] "...He's locked up. Justice is done," she said. "If it wasn't for (Nancy Candy's) unwarranted fears and lies, (Keech) may not have done it."
Broersma said Keech must serve 85 percent of any prison term before he's eligible for parole. Probation is not an option in a first-degree murder conviction.
"Nick Candy," said homicide Detective John Boston, who investigated the case with Detective Roy Hamand, "has to serve 100 percent of his."
In a 1997 Long Beach Press-Telegram column, Peter J. Moore wrote:
Incredible as that may seem, the 76-year-old Keech had admitted to shooting Candy.
Open and shut case, right? Wrong!..
Keech said he had purchased a gun and hollow-point bullets five months earlier for his own protection and carried it on his person every time Candy was scheduled to come to his home. On the day in question, Keech admitted that he drew a gun from his belt and shot Nick Candy once, but says he can't recall pursuing his gravely wounded victim down the street, where he executed the unarmed and completely defenseless Candy, who had collapsed on a front lawn, with three more shots to the back and one to the back of the head.
One can only feel a sense of anger and disgust at a judicial system which allowed a murderer out on bail and then waited more than one year and three months before bringing him to trial on a first-degree murder charge...
On the witness stand, Keech seemed arrogant and contemptuous of the charge leveled against him, yet before court and during recesses appeared jocular with his relatives and friends, giving high-fives and pats on the back for what he thought to be positive testimony. The same could be said of the victim's widow, who tried playing mind games with the prosecutor under cross-examination...
Friends and relatives of Nicholas Candy were flown in from Florida and London, England...yet most of the time had to sit out in the hallway while their loved one was being trashed in the courtroom by Keech and his attorneys, Ed George and Albert Ramsey.
There was a baby-sitter who looked after Candy's young son, Martin, who said that she was terrified of the victim, even though they had never met and had only spoken briefly twice on the telephone...
Assistant District Attorney Amy Broersma must have been ecstatic to have been presented with a case that a second-year law student could have won...
The injustice here isn't that Richard Keech is in prison--the injustice is that Nancy Candy (aka Nancy Keech) isn't.
|
Prominent Private Investigator Says Reese Hopkins is ’100% Innocent’
September 28, 2009
Reese Hopkins (pictured) is a 39-year-old former Boston radio host who was arrested in October on charges of forcible and statutory rape of a 12-year-old girl. As some of you may recall, I looked into the case and did some media on it, and pointed out that there are many problems with the prosecution's version of events. From the Boston Herald's Glenn Sacks eyes Reese Hopkins case (1/16/09):
Columnist and former syndicated talk radio host Glenn Sacks has taken a keen interest in the child rape case against ex-WRKO gabster Reese Hopkins, saying there are “a lot of tangible problems†with the New York prosecution’s case.
“I’m not dumb enough that I’m going to go out there and declare this guy innocent and white as snow,†Sacks told the Herald yesterday. “But I think there are a lot of very tangible problems with the prosecution’s case that point to possible innocence.â€
Hopkins, 39, is charged with raping a girl when she was age 11 and 12 in 2004 at the upper East Side apartment he shared with his girlfriend. The alleged victim was a pal of his girlfriend’s daughter.
The Herald reported yesterday that Hopkins said he would rather die in prison than admit to any guilt. He remains on Rikers Island on $100,000 cash bail.
Sacks said he became interested in the case after one of Hopkins’ friends wrote to him about it. He said he has spoken with Hopkins and has gone over the case with Hopkins’ attorney, Keith Cavet.
Sacks, a fatherhood advocate who lives in Los Angeles, said he [has] documentation that shows Hopkins wasn’t living in the Manhattan apartment on the dates that the alleged rapes took place.
“He had moved out in June and the rapes supposedly happened between September 1 and October 31,†said Sacks, who said nobody was living in the apartment at the time because it was uninhabitable and being painted.
Hopkins has said he was living and working in Connecticut at the time of the alleged assaults.
Sacks said that, according to Hopkins’ attorney, there’s no record of the victim receiving medical attention after the alleged rapes.
Sacks hosted the men’s rights program “His Side with Glenn Sacks,†which aired in Boston.
According to Hopkins' attorney at the time, the teen accuser also told child protective services that Hopkins had molested his stepdaughter, but the charge was found to be "unsubstantiated." I have been in touch with Hopkins' fiancée, whose daughter the accuser claims Hopkins molested. She says Hopkins is innocent and is working to help him get out of prison.
Hopkins' attorney believes that the prosecution does not have any evidence outside of the girl's word about what allegedly happened to her four years ago. He also says there is no record of the girl seeking medical attention after the alleged rapes. This is very suspicious -- Hopkins is a large adult, and it is hard to believe that a large adult male could forcibly rape a 12-year-old girl without there being substantial injury to the girl.
Now a prominent private investigator is taking on the Hopkins case. From Private eye supports accused ex-’RKO host (Boston Herald, 9/24/09):
While ex-WRKO gabber Reese Hopkins cools his heels in a New York prison, he’s getting some big time help on the outside from a Stoughton gumshoe.
A private investigation firm whose president is a consultant for the TV show “48 Hours†has taken on the child rape case against the former Hub talk radio host.
Sean Mullen, vice president of the National Investigation Bureau Inc., believes Hopkins is “100 percent innocent.â€
Mullen became interested in the case after reading about it in the newspaper.
“It didn’t seem right,†Mullen told MediaBiz this week. So he reached out to the financially strapped Hopkins and took him on pro bono...
A private eye for 14 years, Mullen has met with Hopkins twice behind bars, reviewed his case and is working closely with his defense attorney.
“He wasn’t even in that state when the alleged incident occurred,†Mullen said. “We’re putting pieces together that he wasn’t there at the time. He couldn’t have done it.â€
The trial is apparently scheduled for November 4--over a year after he was arrested and imprisoned.
Commend reporter Jessica Heslam for both of her articles on this case at jheslam@bostonherald.com
|
Did Convicted Killer Act to Protect Daughter from ‘Abusive’ Ex-Husband?
September 27, 2009
Long Beach Press-Telegram columnist Tom Hennessy recently wrote an impassioned column seeking the release of Richard Keech, an 89-year-old WWII veteran imprisoned for murdering Nick Candy, his former son-in-law. Hennessy writes:
"My father is in prison because he killed my abusive husband to protect my son, my mother, and me," his daughter Nancy said in a recent advertisement she ran in the Press-Telegram.
With the family trying for a compassionate discharge that would give their patriarch a brief stay at home, the ad sought letters of support from readers...
Says Nancy, "My dad is not a danger. He is an outstanding man with a long history of compassion, integrity and good works."
While I don't rule out the possibility that Nancy's ex-husband was abusive and that Richard was acting, or thought he was acting, to help his daughter, given the trial's outcome, I suspect that a look at the court records would find many problems with this version of events. Moreover, in the comments section a woman who is apparently Nick Candy's first wife, writes:
I was married to Nick for 19 years and think that I am more qualified than most of the people to speak about how he was. During all our married life he was never abusive towards me. He contacted me again at the time of his very acrimonious divorce with Nancy Keech and I was going to visit him to give him some support.
Unfortunately Richard Keech put a stop to this killing him on my birthday. To set the record right I was not coming to the US to get back with Nick and he had no plan to return to the UK with me and his son Martin. This is the sort of tale that his wife was feeding her father besides that of being abusive.
The saddest thing is that his murderer is convinced that he has done a good deed for his daughter and has no regrets and Martin, his son, has lost his father who adored him. I feel that the real killer has not been punished...
Again in the comments section, a man claiming to be Nick Candy's cousin writes:
This alleged abuse was never proven in court...Nick Candy went to pick up his son for court appointed visitation. When he rang the doorbell, Richard Keech opened fire and shot him. Nick ran down the street calling for help and in pain, fell in a neighbors front yard. Richard Keech followed him and shot him several times in the back, in cold blood, in front of witnesses. Richard Keech announced for all the neighbors to hear "he won't bother anybody else," then he walked back home. the gun was found on the kitchen counter, void of finger prints. we never found out why they were wiped off...
Do you all know what premeditated means? For God's sake they were discussing on the phone (taped by the Keech family to trap my cousin Nick into saying something wrong, and [then they] forgot about the taping) with a friend, that Keech is planning to kill Nick! I was at the trial every day...he had 3 of the best lawyers...i suggest you read the court documents.
I understand the case for compassionate release of sick or elderly prisoners, and I'm generally not an advocate of "lock 'em up and throw away the key"-type policies. If Tom Hennessy wants to suggest that Keech be released because he's old and sick, that's perhaps a legitimate argument. If he wants to argue that Keech should be released because he acted to help his daughter against this allegedly abusive her-husband, that's a completely different matter.
Hennessey can be reached at scribe17@mac.com. Thanks to Kelly, a reader, for the story.
|
‘Jepsen turned to his father, Randy, if only in heart and mind — Randy Jepsen died nearly six years ago’
September 27, 2009
My 81-year-old father is a big Angels baseball fan, so that means I'm one, too. At the beginning of the year we were wondering what Jepsen was doing in the majors, but he's come on very strong. Turns out his turnaround had something to do with his father.
From Struggles have made Angels' Kevin Jepsen stronger (Los Angeles Times, 9/25/09):
Kevin Jepsen could feel his season, if not his career, slipping away.
Four poor appearances out of the Angels' bullpen had earned him a demotion to triple-A Salt Lake, where he was hit even harder. His coaches and teammates were running out of words of encouragement. So was his fiancée.
So Jepsen turned to the one guy who had always been there for him -- the one who had taught him the game, bandaged his bruises and fanned his competitive fire so many times.
Jepsen turned to his father, Randy, if only in heart and mind -- Randy Jepsen died nearly six years ago.
"Sometimes I'll sit there when I'm alone and thoughts will pop in. And I'll sit there and I'll talk to him," Jepsen says.
Jepsen didn't share what his father told him, but whatever it was worked. Since July 1, a newly confident Jepsen has pitched himself into the setup role in the Angels' bullpen, holding opponents scoreless in 29 of his last 36 appearances.
That has bolstered what was a glaring weakness for the soon-to-be-crowned American League West champions.
"He's not intimidated by any situation," Manager Mike Scioscia says. "He's acclimated himself to what his talent can do and he's very comfortable with it."
And nobody, Jepsen says, would have enjoyed seeing that more than his father.
"When I first got drafted by the Angels, he was probably just as excited, if not more, than I was," the pitcher says...
[After Kevin was drafted] Randy Jepsen came to Tempe to see his boy pitch in the Arizona Summer League. The next spring, when Jepsen was promoted to Class-A Cedar Rapids, Randy Jepsen drove his son's truck to Iowa and stayed for a week.
He didn't get a chance to see his son's third season. That winter Randy and daughter Rochelle, then 14, were riding an all-terrain vehicle through the Nevada desert when the vehicle began to flip over. Randy wrestled with the ATV long enough for Rochelle to scamper out of the way, but he couldn't keep it from landing on top of him, breaking a vertebra and severing his spinal cord, leaving him paralyzed.
Five weeks later, Randy Jepsen died at a Reno hospital. He was 44.
"It was huge. One of the toughest things I've ever had to deal with," Kevin Jepsen says now. "Still, I look back and it doesn't feel like it was that long ago."
The following off-season Jepsen underwent shoulder surgery and the two blows, only a year apart, robbed him of his love for the game, he says.
"His dad was everything for him," says Jepsen's mother, Kim. "I was worried about him. It seemed like he was giving up. He wasn't into it as much.
"I told him, 'Hang in there. That's what your dad would have wanted.' "
He did, and by 2008 things were moving quickly.
Jepsen, who had reinvented himself as a hard-throwing reliever, started in double A but ended the summer in Beijing as a member of the bronze-medal-winning U.S. Olympic team. That earned him a September trial with the Angels and a spot on their postseason squad. By this spring, he was on the opening-day roster.
Then three days into the new season, just when things seemed to be falling into place, teammate Nick Adenhart was killed, along with two others, when the car in which they were riding was struck by an alleged drunk driver.
For Jepsen, Adenhart's death opened old wounds.
"Any time you lose somebody that's close to you, you share memories with and hung out [with], it's like he's your brother," Jepsen says. "It's tough losing somebody like that."
Things would soon get tough on the field. Less than two weeks after his teammate's death, Jepsen went on the disabled list because of a strained back. And when he returned, he was optioned to the minors.
"I just kept telling myself, 'This is just for the time being . . . you'll be back,' " he says. "If I [said] 'I'm going to be down here for the rest of the year, we'll get them next year,' I would have already cashed in my season. You can't hope for anything else, because mentally I've already given up. I didn't want to do that."
The struggles were making him stronger, he was convinced. How could they not? Before he turned 25, Jepsen had dealt with the death of his father and a close friend and twice nearly had his career ended.
"I feel like, without going through that, I wouldn't be having the success I had over the last few months," he says.
And although Jepsen salutes his father's memory with every pitch he throws, his teammates have given him a more tangible way to remember Adenhart. Before each game Jepsen takes a jersey from Adenhart's locker, carries it up the hallway to the dugout and hangs it in a corner behind Scioscia.
"It is an honor," Jepsen says. "There are some times when I walk in, I almost forget that he's gone. You kind of expect him to still be here. And he's not. It's one of those things, you walk in here and every once in a while you glance over and look at the locker and just kind of take it all in again.
"He's still here with us even though he's not here with us."
There are times he feels the same about his father...
|
-
Free E-Course
Look Familiar?
Let us show you, for free, Ways to Reduce the Pain of IBS.