One of the principal ways he managed that was by withholding evidence of the defendants' innocence from them and their lawyers.  Prosecutors are generally required to turn over to defense attorneys all exculpatory evidence, and Mike Nifong failed to do that repeatedly.

Now it's Santa Clara, California Deputy District Attorney Ben Field's turn.  Read about it here (California Bar Journal, March, 2010).  He's had his license to practice law suspended for four years for doing the same thing.  In fact, the state bar originally charged him with 25 counts of professional wrongdoing in four separate cases.  He was convicted by a judge of several of those counts and now an appelate court has upheld his suspension.  Apparently the most important charge against Field came in a sexual assault case against two men.  They were convicted, but filed a motion for habeas corpus.  As the state's bar journal describes it, Field

intentionally withheld a witness’ statement that was favorable to the defense in a 2003 habeas corpus proceeding involving a sexual assault. The judge found that he committed a discovery violation. 

In that matter, the review panel found that Field’s misconduct escalated over time and constituted “a calculated scheme to hide evidence favorable to the defense.”

Two men who were convicted of sexual assault had filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus and provided a declaration by a witness who claimed the 15-year-old victim had made false accusations because she missed curfew.

Field’s investigator found and interviewed the witness but did not notify the defense. In addition, he instructed his investigator to prepare a misleading declaration and filed it with the court, filed a statement with the court implying he did not know the witness’ whereabouts, and then waited five months before disclosing the interview, only after opposing counsel learned of the interview and had filed a motion alleging prosecutorial misconduct.

(I'll only note in passing that even the State Bar of California doesn't seem to understand that a person - in this case a 15-year-old girl - who falsely accuses another person of a crime, is not a "victim."  In fact, it is the men she accused who are her victims.  We might excuse a journalist who makes that mistake, but you'd think attorneys would know better.)

But what's described certainly echoes the Duke case and Mike Nifong's outrageous behavior.  Here as there, a false allegation of sexual assault was made to cover the accuser's own behavior.  Here as there, the prosecutor engaged in patently unethical, illegal and deceptive practices in order to get a conviction of men he had good reason to know to be innocent.  He then resisted, again by unethical and illegal means, the last realistic means they had of getting out of prison and clearing their names.  Sound familiar?

Well, it may be about to become more familiar still.  This article says that, for the first time, the State Bar is taking a hard look at allegations of prosecutorial misconduct (San Jose Mercury News, 10/17/08).  The Bar is starting to use its grievance procedures to scrutinize prosecutors' conduct, to which I can only say, "it's about time." 

For many years now, we've had a "jail 'em and throw away the key" attitude toward criminal defendants in this country.  Every imaginable act seems to be a crime these days, and the prevailing sentiment has given prosecutors a virtual carte blanche.  They seem to routinely overcharge defendants and go for the maximum sentence whether it's warranted or not.  There was a time when prosecutors had the sense to know which defendants were truly bad actors who needed to be in prison and those who weren't.  Now there seems to be no such concept among Assistant DAs.  So it's no surprise that the U.S. has more people behind bars than any country in the world and has many different organizations like the Innocence Project devoted to proving the innocence of people states have put away.

Certainly prosecutors like Mike Nifong and Ben Field aren't the only ones to blame for our out of control system of criminal justice, but, as the judges who upheld Field's suspension said,

“Although our system of administering justice is adversarial in nature and prosecutors must be zealous advocates in prosecuting their cases, it cannot be at the cost of justice,” wrote Judge Catherine Purcell, who was joined in the decision by Judges JoAnn Remke and Judith Epstein.

“Field lost sight of this goal,” Purcell continued, “ … and in doing so, he disregarded the foundation from which any prosecutor’s authority flows — ‘The first, best and most effective shield against injustice for an individual accused … must be found … in the integrity of the prosecutor.’”

Frail as that reed may be, it's an important one.  With luck, state bar associations across the country will take heed and start to hold prosecutors to their legal and ethical obligations.

Thanks to Scott for the heads-up.
 

Michigan Divorce Lawyer: Michigan Family Law Attorney Michigan Family Law Attorney serving Oakland, Wayne, and Macomb Counties. Specializing in divorce, child custody, child support, spousal support, property division, annulments, paternity matters, and prenuptial agreements. We offer a FREE Consultation and payment plans including credit card options to help with your budget. Call today with any questions. www.theMichiganLawyer.com

The piece is all about homicides that have children as their victims.  It quotes a spokesperson for the Maine Department of Public Safety, Stephen McCausland, as saying that about two children per year are victims of homicide in Maine and that usually they're under the age of three when they die and that most of the perpetrators are parents.

Without knowing the Maine statistics in detail, none of that is surprising, because the same is true nationwide.  According to the Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, about 80% of homicides with children as the victim are perpetrated by parents.  There are about 1,300 of those nationwide.

McCausland goes on to say that,

The vast majority are children who died at the hands of a young man, usually the father or the mother’s boyfriend.

That's a defensible statement.  The facts are these:

• From 2005-2009, 11 children under the age of 18 were the victims of a homicide in Maine;
• Three were killed by fathers, three were killed by mother's boyfriend; two were killed by mothers; two were killed by other children and one was killed by a step-father;
• One of the boyfriends was mentally incapable of criminal wrongdoing and was committed to a psychiatric institution.

So in Maine, over the years McCausland referred to, seven of the 11 children were killed by a father or boyfriend.  This is a very small sample size, easily subject to fluctuation, but it is 63%, and if that constitutes a "vast majority," so be it.

But where the article really goes wrong is with its next expert, Dr. Lawrence Ricci who tries to bootstrap the Maine statistics to the national level by saying,

That’s certainly the case in Maine, and it’s certainly the case nationally.

Actually, that's certainly not the case nationally.  The ACF tracks child maltreatment including homicide yearly.  And every year since at least 1997, women have killed significantly more children than have men, regardless of their relationship.

For example, in the ACF's report of state data for 2007, some 56.5% of child homicide was committed by women while 42% was committed by men, with the sex of the remainder of perpetrators being unknown.  Ten years before, the figures were about 63%/37%.

But Ricci doesn't stop there.  He goes on to claim that nationally,

the perpetrators of serious physical child abuse or homicide are most likely fathers, next are nonbiological father figures such as stepfathers or mothers’ boyfriends, and then sitters, Ricci said.

Mothers are the fourth-most-likely perpetrators and “well down on the list,” he said.

Again, that's just flat-out false.  The most likely perpetrator of child injury or death is the child's mother.  Referring to all injury to children, the 2007 ACF states,

Victim data were analyzed by relationship to their perpetrators. Nearly 39 percent (38.7%) of victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone (figure 3–6). Nearly 18 percent (17.9%) of victims were maltreated by their father acting alone. Nearly 17 percent (16.8%) were maltreated by both parents.

The same report found that 27.1% of child homicides nationwide were committed by a mother acting alone while 16.3% were committed by a father acting alone.

The figures for all child maltreatment over the years are these:

• 2006: Mother acting alone - 39.9%; Father acting alone - 17.6%
• 2005: MAA - 40.4%; FAA - 18.3%
• 2004: MAA - 38.8%; FAA - 18.3%
• 2003: MAA - 40.8%; FAA - 18.8%
• 2002: MAA - 40.3%; FAA - 19.1%
• 2001: MAA - 40.5%; FAA - 19.3%
• 2000; MAA - 40.0%; FAA - 16.6%

In other words, for none of those years was child abuse by a mother less than twice that of a father.

Prior to 2000, the AFC didn't break down abuse into categories like "mother only" or "father only," so here are the figures for male and female child abuse for the three years before 2000:

• 1999: Female - 61.8%; Male - 38.2%
• 1998: Female - 60.4%; Male - 39.6%
• 1997: Female - 62.3%; Male - 37.7%

I've emailed Ricci to find out his response to these data, but he hasn't responded.  How he figures that fathers commit more child abuse than do mothers is anyone's guess.

If you want to email the Bangor Daily News, the editor-in-chief is Michael J. Dowd and his email address is mdowd@bangordailynews.net.  If you want to email the article's author, Dawn Gagnon, go to the article and click on her name.

Thanks to Tatyana and Jeremy for the heads-up.

Passage of the bill plunged the upper house into what the article variously calls "chaos" and "pandemonium."  Factions opposed to the bill threatened to desert the ruling party, leaving it with a razor-thin majority.

Amazingly, the article makes no mention of the fact that such a provision is facially anti-democratic.  The very concept of democracy means that the people choose who governs them.  A law "reserving" 30% of parliament's seats to a certain group solely based on their sex plainly disenfranchises voters.  What if they don't want Ms. X to hold office?  Tough, she holds it anyway, not because she was voted in, but because of a pre-established quota.

Now, "reserving" seats may make sense if those who benefit are a minority.  The argument would be that they can never achieve what they need by voting because there aren't enough of them.  The same cannot be said of women who, not being a small minority, can vote themselves into office if they choose.

As in the United States, although women in India are roughly half the population, they make up nothing like half the elected MPs.  But the appropriate response to that is not to fix the game - or even 30% of it - in their favor.  The appropriate response is for women to work harder as candidates so they can appeal to more voters.

The other appropriate response is for Indian women to be perceived as the equals of men.  That is, they must be legally equal and must also be thought of that way.  That's a cultural change that must take place in order for true equality to reign.  Just to state the obvious, goading Indians to view women as the equals of men is ill served by granting them more and more special rights and privileges. 

I've often thought that, in the United States, one of the keys to greater female representation in local, state and federal offices is military service.  If women were required to register with the Selective Service System and serve in combat units, the perception of male/female equality would be much enhanced.  Like it or not, military service can provide a candidate for office a leg up on his/her opponent.  But beyond military service, I think there's a broad public perception, on the part of both men and women, that women are still a privileged class, shielded from many of the rigors of life that males have to deal with.  And until that perception no longer exists, women will remain a minority in elected offices.

Back to India, one of the comments to the article linked to pegs the legislation as a stalking horse for Brahmin caste elites edging lower caste MPs out of office.  One of the comments about the piece makes enough sense that I quote it in full.  It's by a gentleman named Ghulam Muhammed.

"Caste based" political parties in fact are protecting the majority of lower caste people of India, which are cleverly sidelined by the Brahmin caste comprising of mere 3% of the population together with the other upper castes of Kashtriya and Vaish, and have been ruling India in the name of a fake majority. The stranglehold of these highhanded upper castes is directly linked and strengthened by the new much publicized women's reservation bill.

The Bill in practice will make it that much impossible for lower caste political groupings to get even a proportion of their proportion of voting strength in Parliament and State Assemblies. So the propaganda of women's rights should not fool anybody.

The line up of 3 major political parties --- Congress, BJP and Communists --- to pass the bill is proof enough that all these Brahmin led political parties have ganged up to drive out the lower caste parties like Samajwadi Paty, RJD and BSP from the political arena. This is an open coup d’etat camouflaged as ‘Women’s Reservation Bill’.

The high-caste commentator with The Times of India, Dileep Padgaonkar translated his triumphalist comment to herald the 'last gasps of Mandalisation' --- Mandal reservations gave the lower caste the chance to enter the political arena.

It is shameful of Congress, the opposition Hindutva extremist BJP and the so-called secular Communist parties, to defraud the people as well as the world at large, by moving this retrograde anti-democratic legislation in the name of women. Only the high-caste women will end up further strengthening the upper caste stranglehold in India's power politics. The deprived cannot hope for any remedy from India’s skewed democracy and may resort to violent protests.
 

In other words, the 30% women's reserve is just a political ploy.  That many women are going along with it says a lot.  It says that they're having the wool pulled over their eyes; it says they value political expediency over democracy; it says that they don't see the obvious damage such a provision could do to their own cause; it says they're willing to kick their lower caste "sisters" to the curb (reminiscent of white suffragists doing the same to black suffragists in the early 20th century in the U.S.); it says that class makes more difference than sex, and it says that they still have some idea that privilege and equality can coexist.

Thanks to Mike for the heads-up.

Help for Colorado Dads As someone who has personally experienced the heartbreak of divorce and family breakup, Brett W. Martin, Esq. works to advance the interests and concerns of fathers in domestic and family law litigation. Personal attention is given to clients to help them through a very difficult time in their lives. www.brettwmartin.com

When New York State Senator Hiram Monserrate was charged with assaulting his girlfriend, Pappas immediately proclaimed that he was unfit to hold the office to which he'd been elected.  That was long before anyone knew the facts of the case and longer still before Monserrate had been charged with or convicted of anything.  For Pappas, mere allegations were sufficient for her to flick aside the desires of the voters of his district and the concept that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Well, she's back.  (Did she ever leave?)  This time she's demanding New York Governor David Paterson's immediate resignation (Legislative Gazette, 3/8/10).  This is an elected official who has announced his intention to not seek another term and so has only a few more months yet in office.  More importantly, this is an elected official who's been neither charged with nor convicted of any form of wrongdoing.  As the matter stands, an aide to Paterson may or may not have assaulted a woman last year.  Regarding whether the man did or did not do what the woman claims, there've been no charges filed and, obviously no adjudication of those allegations.  In fact, that's exactly what they are - allegations.

What's all that got to do with Paterson?  Well, it now seems that he may have intervened, through staff members, to get the woman to not pursue charges.  Apparently one staffer talked to the woman and another attempted to contact her but failed.  Clearly, if Paterson did intervene in an onging criminal investigation, he's violated his oath of office and very likely violated criminal laws on witness tampering.

Governor Paterson denies any wrongdoing.

So if there was a DV incident and if Paterson pressured the woman to refuse to testify or assist police, then he should face the appropriate consequences.  But right now, all we and Marcia Pappas have are those big ifs.  As in the past, allegations are all she needs to demand punishment.  For her to claim now that Paterson should resign, before a single finding has been made by anyone about any aspect of the case, in the face of his categorical denials, is outrageous.

It shows once again her arrogant disdain for due process of law and for the will of the people.  It's not the first time, and I'm confident that it won't be the last.

As a brief aside, the article linked to is a rather astonishing piece of agitprop masquerading as journalism.  It is in fact, nothing but a forum for Marcia Pappas.  Did the reporter bother to contact the office of the people's executive in Albany?  Did she ask anyone anything about the facts of the case?  Did she ask Marcia Pappas about the propriety of demanding that an official of state government resign his office based on nothing but allegations?  Did she wonder rhetorically about the impact on democracy of such a thing? 

All those look like pertinent questions to me, but none of them were asked.  In violation of Rule 1 of journalism - get the other side of the story - the Legislative Gazette chose to do nothing but channel Marcia Pappas and her invariable disdain for democracy and due process of law.

Help for Florida Dads Neil Leavitt, PA helps Florida dads defend their relationships with their children during divorce or separation. Leavitt specializes in family law and has practiced law for nearly three decades. The Law Office of Neil Leavitt can be contacted by phone at (954) 989-5858.

As this article says, Campbell was being driven through Manhattan by her hired driver when she struck him from behind violently enough that his head hit the steering wheel causing bruising under his right eye (Associated Press, 3/2/10).  He pulled over and talked to a traffic agent who called the police.  By the time they arrived, Campbell had left the scene, leaving underlings to explain things.

Apparently the driver isn't interested in pursuing a criminal complaint.  Strangely enough, neither are the police.  The article linked to makes reference to the fact that, because the police didn't witness the incident, they can't arrest Campbell or charge her with anything.  That, of course, is the purest bunk.  How many DV assaults do police witness?  Very few, but they have no problem arresting people in those cases.  For that matter how often do the police actually witness any of the crimes they charge?  Seldom, but they charge people with offenses anyway.  The simple fact is that they have a witness who says he was assaulted and who has the injury to prove it.  That's probable cause to arrest, charge and prosecute.

And it's not exactly like she's "learned her lesson."  Previous criminal convictions have resulted in minor sentences like 100 hours of community service.  So, far from taking a more lenient approach, you might think the police would take an ever-harder line against a woman who so far hasn't gotten the message that assaulting other people is criminal.  But you'd be wrong.  Maybe the next victim will get the attention of police and prosecutors.  Maybe they'll actually put her in jail. 

One interesting aspect of the article linked to is its semi-reverential description of Campbell's "feisty temper."  Ooooh, she's a tiger, that Naomi.  Can anyone imagine the same term being used to describe a male celebrity with a lengthy history of beating up his employees?  Can anyone imagine the feminist outcry in such a case?  After all, that's a movement that routinely calls for the ouster of politicians and even football coaches for the merest allegation of violence.  Can anyone hear the faintest peep from feminists about serial abuser, Naomi Campbell?

Help for Los Angeles/Ventura County Dads Peter M. Walzer, Certified Family Law Specialist www.California-Divorce.com

Indiana's HB 1165 is moving rapidly through the Indiana legislature and is expected to be signed by Governor Mitch Daniels within the next few weeks. The force behind the bill is activist Lisa Wilken, who modeled her legislation on California SB 285.

Help for Bay Area Dads What happens in family court and child custody can be the most important even and struggle of your lifetime. The Warren Law Group PC can provide you the representation you need and tailor its services to be affordable for your circumstances. Contact them at (415) 479-4200 or info@warrenlawgroup.com. www.WarrenLawGroup.com

To watch P & G's "To Their Moms, They'll Always Be Kids" Olympic-themed TV commercial (pictured above), click here.

Thanks to Mark, a Fathers & Families supporter, for sending it.

Stephen Baskerville's Taken Into Custody Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family by Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D. examines one of the greatest and most destructive civil rights abuses in America today--our family law system. Baskerville has authored many articles on fatherhood and family issues and is a frequent media commentator. To learn more or to purchase Taken Into Custody, click here.

Fathers & Families wants to ensure that the DSM-5 Task Force is aware of the scope and severity of Parental Alienation. To this end, in December we asked our supporters to write the Task Force to urge them to consider including Parental Alienation Disorder in DSM-5. As usual, the response was overwhelming. It also helped lead to progress--while as expected the newly-released draft version does not specifically include Parental Alienation Disorder, the DSM-5 Task Force has now listed Parental Alienation Disorder among the "Conditions Proposed by Outside Sources...that are still under consideration by the work groups."

Gaining inclusion isn’t easy–David J. Kupfer, M.D., the chair of the DSM-V Task Force, recently told the media that with any disorder proposed for inclusion, ”The door to get in [the manual] is pretty hard.”

The DSM must consider whether Parental Alienation Disorder fits their scientific criteria for inclusion. Experts will say that they do not want this process politicized, and we agree. We are not seeking to influence the Task Force's view of the scientific aspects of PAD, nor are we asking the Task Force to include Parental Alienation Disorder due to pressure politics or our campaign. Our purpose is simply to ensure that the DSM Task Force is aware that Parental Alienation is a common problem in divorce/child custody, and to take a serious look at whether PAD meets their scientific criteria. Our campaign page is here, those who would like to participate in our efforts can do so by clicking here.

The National Organization for Women has learned about our efforts and is concerned about them. They have now sent out an Action Alert to counter our campaign. According to NOW's Tracy Simmons:

I am writing you, the leaders of various groups that represent battered women, for your help in one of the most important matters we will address this year. The American Psychiatric Association is considering adding Parental Alienation to the Diagnosticians book, which would legitimize this legal tactic into a real disorder.

Parental Alienation Syndrome has now morphed into Parental Alienation Disorder thanks to the fathers' rights organizations who are wildly pushing this through, and why wouldn't they? It benefits the abuser and discriminates against the victims of abuse, which are overwhelmingly women.

This gender specific, abuse excuse, junk science can not be allowed to enter into the scientific community as there is nothing scientific about a syndrome/disorder whose only symptoms are a uterus, divorce papers, and bruises. I ask that you all to take action against legitimizing this outrageous theory by e-mailing the APA and asking your groups to do the same.

While Simmons' claims aren't credible, there are legitimate questions to be asked about Parental Alienation Disorder, as there are with all mental health issues. We address many of these in Frequently Asked Questions about Parental Alienation and also summarize the scientific perspective in the Case for Including Parental Alienation Disorder in DSM V.

To participate in our campaign, click here.

Opponents of recognizing Parental Alienation in California have introduced AB 612 which would ban Parental Alienation from being mentioned in any way, shape or form in a California family court. Should such efforts succeed, they could easily spread to pother states. Last year Fathers & Families' legislative representative Michael Robinson was instrumental in blocking the bill's passage but it will be heard in the Senate this spring. Robinson and I detailed the problems with AB 612 in our recent column Preventing courts from considering parental alienation will harm kids
(Capitol Weekly, 2/25/10).

Fathers & Families' crucial work on Parental Alienation costs money--to make a tax-deductible contribution to support this effort, click here.

Sincerely,

Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director, Fathers & Families

Legal Help for Fathers in New Jersey If you're a New Jersey father facing a divorce or separation, the law firm of Pitman, Pitman, Mindas, Grossman & Lee can help. PitmanLaw.com

Cincinnati City Beat's

Liming was originally intended to be simply a sperm donor. However, after the girl's birth, to his credit, he fell for the little girl and decided he wanted to have an active role in the child's life. The girl spends every Monday with Liming. Hobbs hasn't been allowed to see the girl since Christmas.

As we've explained, while Fathers & Families takes no position on gay marriage, we do defend the right of all fit parents to play a meaningful role in their children's lives, and Hobbs clearly has a parent-child relationship with Lucy.

Fathers & Families views these cases as analogous to cases of married heterosexual couples where the man is infertile and the couple uses a sperm donor. Such children are considered the children of the marriage, and are raised by both the mother and father.

If the couple divorces, the woman can't decide that because she's the only biological parent, she can drive her ex out of their child's life. She agreed to have children with her then-husband, and the former husband has a parent-child relationship with their child. The husband is the child's father and the child's right to a relationship with him must be protected, regardless of the mother's recalcitrance.

The lesbian custody cases Fathers & Families has gotten involved in are no different--the couple agreed to have a child together, had one via a sperm donor, and raised the child together. The loving bond the non-biological/social mother has with the child doesn't dissolve upon breakup, nor can it be tossed aside because the biological mom no longer finds it convenient--the bond must be protected.

To learn more about the case, click here or listen to my interview on the Bill Cunningham Show on 700 WLW in Cincinnati by clicking here.

From Cincinnati City Beat's Losing Lucy (3/3/10):

[F]or [Michele] Hobbs, the situation is tragically simple: Somewhere in Cincinnati is a four-year old girl named Lucy, who she helped raise for two years and loves as her daughter. Because she is not biologically related to Lucy, the courts have ruled that Hobbs has no legal right to see her. But love isn’t so easily thwarted...

Sandwiched between court documents in one of her binders is a photo taken five years ago, in another era in Hobbs’ life. It is an ultrasound of Lucy, when she was a fivemonth-old fetus in the womb of Hobbs’ former partner, Kelly Mullen. The couple had used in vitro fertilization to impregnate Mullen — the younger of the two by eight years. Mullen and Hobbs were so excited to see their daughter that a month later they paid for another photo. The amniotic peace of the pictures is a stark contrast to the bitter tug of war that would begin two years later...

Hobbs and Mullen met at a business expo at the convention center in spring 2000. They started dating, and three years into their relationship they built a house in Prospect Hill together, for which Hobbs was the general contractor. At the same time, the couple started talking about having a child by way of in vitro fertilization, a $12,000 procedure that they paid for by securing a second mortgage on their home.

Hobbs had a gay friend in Atlanta named Scott Liming who she thought would be the perfect sperm donor. Hobbs first met Liming in 1996 and thought he was “gorgeous.” She joked about having his kids one day. At Hobbs’ request, Liming visited Cincinnati to meet Mullen, who agreed to use him as the father. When the timing was right, Liming Fed-Ex’ed his sample to Cincinnati, and with the help of the Center for Reproductive Health, Mullen was impregnated.

In court testimony, Mullen claims that she always wanted to be a mother, and that Hobbs was merely playing the role of “supportive girlfriend.”

But Hobbs says Mullen fully intended for her to be a co-parent. As evidence, she points to the in vitro fertilization consent forms, on which Hobbs’ name appears as “partner” and “female participant.” Before Lucy’s birth, Mullen also signed a will and two powers of attorney, all of which included the sentence: “I consider Michele Hobbs to be Lucy’s co-parent in every way.” (Mullen later revoked these documents when she separated with Hobbs.) Hobbs attended doctor appointments and Lamaze classes with Mullen, cooked for her — Hobbs’ homemade chicken wings were one of Mullen’s favorite dishes — and drove her to the hospital when her water broke.

Mullen gave birth to a 7-pound, 10-ounce Lucy Kathleen Mullen at Christ Hospital on July 27, 2005. Hobbs was in the delivery room and cut the umbilical cord. The names of both Mullen and Hobbs appear on Christ Hospital’s ceremonial birth certificate, above Lucy’s ink footprints. Hobbs has a black and white photo of the three of them together in the delivery room. Hobbs has Lucy in her arms, and she and Mullen are glowing.

According to friends testifying at the trial — including Cincinnati City Councilwoman Leslie Ghiz — as Lucy grew, Hobbs and Mullen behaved as a family and shared responsibilities for raising her. Hobbs says she taught Lucy how to brush her teeth, potty trained her, cooked for her and drove her to and from daycare. According to Hobbs and others, Lucy called Mullen “Mommy” and Hobbs “Mama.” They attended Christ Church Cathedral on Sundays.

In July 2007, when Lucy was two years old, Mullen and Hobbs decided to split. Hobbs says the relationship had begun to unravel, and after going through counseling they decided to end it. The pair lived in separate rooms of their house for three months, still sharing in Lucy’s care, before Mullen left with Lucy and refused Hobbs’ requests to see her. Hobbs filed a complaint for joint custody in December 2007.

The case went to trial in July 2008 before Hamilton County Juvenile Court Magistrate David Kelley. The trial lasted for two days. Christopher Clark, a senior attorney with the national gay-rights group Lambda Legal, represented Hobbs pro bono and argued on her behalf at the trial.

“It was proven conclusively,” Clark says, “that Michele Hobbs is a mother to her daughter and that was the agreement that she and her partner had all along.”

The evidence was overwhelming that Hobbs and Mullen wanted to have a child together, Clark adds. “They told their family, their community, their friends, their daughter and each other that they were both mothers,” he says.

In December 2008 Kelley ruled in Hobbs’ favor, granting her shared custody of Lucy. “The evidence and testimony presented at trial shows that the women had an agreement to have and raise a child together,” Kelley writes in his decision. “Ms. Hobbs’ testimony on this issue was very credible.” Kelley adds that Mullen’s testimony to the contrary “is not supported by (her) actions during the period leading up to and immediately following Lucy’s birth.”

Mullen appealed the decision, and appeared on Channel 5’s newscast the following month with Liming, Lucy’s biological father, who had moved to Cincinnati to be a part of Lucy’s life.

“Right now every Saturday, my daughter goes and spends six hours of unsupervised time with someone that I don’t even want her to be with,” Mullen said...

Oddly, Mullen’s argument has been repeated by conservative groups such as Virginia-based Liberty Counsel, affiliated with Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. The group has also fought against same-sex marriage and adoptions by gay people.

Lambda Legal’s Clark points out that Hobbs went to fertility treatments with Mullen, injected her with hormones, attended a birthing class, was in the delivery room with Mullen, and cut Lucy’s umbilical cord.

“To compare her situation to that of a babysitter or nanny is absurd,” Clark says. “There is nothing under the law that would allow a baby-sitter or a nanny to go into court and seek custodial rights. These are mean-spirited scare tactics of the lowest order.”

“We’re talking about a woman who is a mother and whose little girl calls her ‘Mama,’ ” Clark adds, “and no rewriting of history by Kelly Mullen is going to change that.”

In April 2009 Mullen’s appeal was considered by Juvenile Court Judge Thomas Lipps, who overturned Magistrate Kelley’s decision and terminated Hobbs’ custody of Lucy. Lipps based his ruling on Mullen’s “consistent refusal” to enter into a written custody agreement with Hobbs. According to Hobbs, a year after Lucy’s birth the couple discussed signing a written agreement — which helps cement the custodial rights of a non-biological parent, but isn’t mandatory proof of parenthood. (Hobbs’ lawyers argued, and the First District Appellate Court later confirmed, that a contract of shared custody can be implied on a non-biological third-party through words, actions or deeds, not just a written agreement.)

Hobbs says Mullen was afraid that Liming would need to be involved in the agreement, and might assert custody rights of his own. Hobbs dropped the idea, and didn’t raise it again until she had broken up with Mullen...

Hobbs appealed Lipps’ decision to the First District Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel reviewed the case. On Dec. 31, 2009, Judge Sylvia Hendon ruled in favor of Mullen again, stating, “We do not doubt that Hobbs bonded with Lucy. The record is replete with evidence that Hobbs loves this little girl. But the trial court did not err. Hobbs has no legal right to share in Lucy’s custody.”

The appellate court, which is typically deferent to the fact-finding of lower courts, relied heavily on Lipps’ conclusion that Mullen’s refusal to sign a written agreement indicated that she never intended to share Lucy’s custody.

Hobbs hasn’t seen her daughter since Christmas, and although she feels desperate at times, she remains determined...

Hobbs’ case has attracted the attention of Glenn Sacks, executive director of Fathers and Families, a national organization that advocates for fathers who have lost custody of their children. Hobbs’ situation involves some of the same family court issues that his group is fighting to reform, Sacks says.

“I see it as a parenting issue, not a gay issue,” he says. “The relationship between children and their parents needs to be protected.”

Children who are denied access to one of their parents can blame themselves, Sacks says, creating deep emotional and psychological problems. “These children are greatly harmed when they lose one of their parents, be it a father or a mother,” he adds...

Hobbs has a recording of Lucy’s voice from August 2008. Magistrate Kelley’s decision was still pending at that time, but Hobbs had interim visitation rights to see Lucy for six hours every Saturday. On this particular day, they were going to the zoo. Lucy was three years old, and was trying to explain that Mullen wanted her to call Hobbs “Michele.” It takes her little mind a full stammering minute to arrange the syntax of the sentence, but finally she gets it right, capturing her complex situation with a child’s clarity.

“Mommy says that ‘Mama’s not Mama, Mama’s Michele,’ ” Lucy says. “So I say, ‘No Mommy, she’s Mama!’ ”

Read the full article here.

Kathleen Parker's Save the Males Cultural provocateur Kathleen Parker, who was raised by her father and who mothered a pack of boys, makes a humorous case for rescuing the allegedly stronger sex from trends that portend man's cultural demise. Save the Males is a shrewd, amusing, and sure-to-be-controversial look at how men, maleness, and fatherhood have been under siege in American culture for decades. To learn more or to purchase Save the Males, click here.

Beres now informs us that the bill has made it out of the Rules Committee and is on the consent calendar, meaning it is out of committee and being fast-tracked to the Arizona House floor for a full vote. We will be following the bill as it advances through the Arizona legislature---thanks again to all of you who responded to our Action Alert and participated.

F & F is also working with advocates and legislators on similar legislation in numerous other states. The abuses being committed in family court concerning disabled parents' VA benefits remind many F & F supporters of their own experiences in family court--a lack of respect for the law, violations of due process, fathers (and sometimes mothers) being financially plundered and shook down for money they don't owe, and similar abuses.