KUDOS TO THIS JUDGE FOR UNDERSTANDING PARENTAL ALIENATION AND ITS HARMFUL EFFECTS AND INTERVENING ACTIVELY TO MITIGATE THE DELETERIOUS EFFECTS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION. I WISH MORE JUDGES ALL OVER THE WORLD INCLUDING INDIA WOULD SEE THROUGH WHAT ALIENATING PARENTS DO
A 13-year-old Ontario boy whose domineering father systematically brainwashed him into hating his mother can be flown against his will to a U.S. facility that deprograms children who suffer from parental alienation, an Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled.
Mr. Justice James Turnbull ordered the boy – identified only as LS – into the custody of his mother. He said that the boy urgently needs professional intervention to reverse the father’s attempt to poison his mind toward his mother and, in all probability, to women in general.
READ THE ENTIRE STORY HERE
Categories: PAS · child abuse · child custody · legal articles
Tagged: brainwashing, DEPROGRAM CHILDREN, JAMES TURNBULL, ONTARIO, parental alienation, PROFESSIONAL INTERVENTION
Categories: activist movements · child abuse · child custody · divorce · fatherless society · fathers · male suicide · state and family
Tagged: angelo lobo, child custody, family court corruption, parental suicide, shocking, support the movie, war
Parental kidnapping is a crime in the US. However the way the US code is written (see below), if the kidnapper has made allegations of domestic violence/child abuse, the kidnapper can try to take shelter under these as “affirmative defense”.
No surprise then that so few moms who kidnap their children and take them abroad escape federal warrants and criminal prosecution. Because if there is anyone who knows how to make false allegations of abuse, it is MOM. Dads, even if they were to make allegations will probably be laughed off.
§ 1204. International parental kidnapping
(a) Whoever removes a child from the United States, or attempts to do so, or retains a child (who has been in the United States) outside the United States with intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
(b) As used in this section—
(1) the term “child” means a person who has not attained the age of 16 years; and
(2) the term “parental rights”, with respect to a child, means the right to physical custody of the child—
(A) whether joint or sole (and includes visiting rights); and
(B) whether arising by operation of law, court order, or legally binding agreement of the parties.
(c) It shall be an affirmative defense under this section that—
(1) the defendant acted within the provisions of a valid court order granting the defendant legal custody or visitation rights and that order was obtained pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and was in effect at the time of the offense;
(2) the defendant was fleeing an incidence or pattern of domestic violence; or
(3) the defendant had physical custody of the child pursuant to a court order granting legal custody or visitation rights and failed to return the child as a result of circumstances beyond the defendant’s control, and the defendant notified or made reasonable attempts to notify the other parent or lawful custodian of the child of such circumstances within 24 hours after the visitation period had expired and returned the child as soon as possible.
(d) This section does not detract from The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Parental Child Abduction, done at The Hague on October 25, 1980.
Categories: IPKCA · judgements · parental child abduction
Tagged: affirmative defense, international parental kidnapping, IPKCA, sec 1204, title 18, US code
Some women do real horrible things that are beyond belief. Take this example
- Husband goes to war in Iraq
- Wife cleans him out without his knowledge (forges his signature, takes out his money, buys a new house, sells the old house etc.)
- files for divorce and takes custody of the chidren
- husband comes back to devastation, homelessness, and penniless
- courts do not convict wife, gets stayed sentence for check forgery
- husband will likely lose custody of the children and husband will be asked to pay support
read the story here
Many women do this, stabbing husbands in the back and walking away w/ their kids for no apparent reason. Mostly women initiate this and husbands are the ones who hold out in hopes of reconciliation. WHY? Maybe the answer lies in utility theory, which postulates that people make choices in life that maximize their utility
- The utility from marriage for women is in childbirth, raising the children, being loved by someone, and the money that the husband earns which helps run the family
- Over time the utility of marriage decreases because children are born, they reach a certain age where they need not be cared for intensely, and love dwindles over time in most marriages unless BOTH husband and wife work hard to maintain it. The only utility that remains is from the money that husbands earn
- The utility of the alternative (splitting up and taking the children and living with old parents or independently) increases over time especially if women can access the money (they steal some and the rest is granted to them by courts as child/spousal support
- So why do husband’s hold out in the hope of reconciliation? Because most husbands go to work everyday and earn money for their family, so they can keep their wives happy and raise the kids to be honorable citizens. That is how they derive utility from the marriage and it does not decrease over time, in fact it increases over time as kids grow older, demands for money increase (kids have to go to college etc) and husbands work even harder to hold the family together
- Now when the wife initiates divorce husbands find themselves stuck doing the job to pay child/spousal support, hardly get to see their kids, and have of course lost their wife, have suffered at the hands of the skeptical society that thinks they must have done some wrong etc. So the utility of the situation they are in is really really low and they are unable to find an alternative with higher utility. This is what also leads to SUICIDES
Hence it is imperative to keep the flame of love going since the utility of love for the woman has to be kept high–that is the only hope for men. The courts cannot provide love and love cannot be bought. OR men have to find an alternative with higher utility which is made extremely hard by the family court system and is especially hard when kids are involved.
MAKE SENSE???? PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS
Categories: child custody · divorce · male suicide
Tagged: DEPLOYED HUSBANDS CLEANED OUT, divorce, glenn sacks, IRAQ, men, UTILITY THEORY, women
Categories: PAS · child custody · fatherless society
Tagged: alec baldwin, alec baldwin voice mail, custody battle, ireland, kim basinger, parental alienation
…AND NOW THIS WOMAN RAN AWAY TO ANOTHER SCHOOL AND IS SUING THE STUDENTS
From Joseph Rago’s Dartmouth’s Hostile Environment (Wall Street Journal, 5/5/08):
“After a winter of discontent, the snapping point came while Priya Venkatesan was lecturing on ‘ecofeminism,’ which holds, in part, that scientific advancements benefit the patriarchy but leave women out. One student took issue, and reasonably so – actually, empirically so. But ‘these weren’t thoughtful statements,’ Ms. Venkatesan protests. ‘They were irrational.’ The class thought otherwise. Following what she calls the student’s ‘diatribe,’ several of his classmates applauded.
“Ms. Venkatesan informed her pupils that their behavior was ‘fascist demagoguery.’ Then, after consulting a physician about ‘intellectual distress,’ she cancelled classes for a week. Thus the pending litigation.
READ THE ARTICLE AND ANALYSIS AT GLENN’S BLOG
READ ANOTHER ARTICLE SHOWING HOW HATED SHE WAS BY STUDENTS
Categories: gender bias
Tagged: DARTMOUTH, male bashing, NORTHWESTERN, PRIYA VENKATESAN, SUING STUDENTS
The True Equality Network is a group of mostly women 40,000 strong who are a rational group unlike most radical feminists and are advocates of shared parenting who recognize the tremendous bias against dads in family courts. Recently Terri Lynn Tersak wrote a very informative detailed piece that details the economic motives behind child support, the motives behind how the state acts and why the states do not and never will collect child support arrearages.
There are several key messages and data in this piece that all of us should have at our fingertips to understand the real problem as opposed to getting carried away by what we see in the media or what is communicated based on cursory analyses.
read the full article here
The Federal incentives under the failed “Child Support Incentive and Performance Act” (CSPIA) actually pays the states more money not to collect child support arrearages than it does for collecting them and that most of the people screaming about the problems with child support are missing the most critical point; the fighting is all about the money, not about our children.
SOME KEY FACTOIDS
1) The US Census Bureau reports that 90% of fathers with joint custody, 79.1% of fathers with visitation rights, and 44.5% of father with no visitation rights pay their child support in full.
2) Parents who are wrongly denied visitation with children don’t pay child support regardless of the enforcement actions taken over 60% of the time.
3) Less than 5% of male child support obligors who legitimately qualify for federally required downward modifications in their child support orders are granted reductions.
4) The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) reports that 70% of all outstanding child support arrearages are owed by obligors’ earring less than $10,000.00 per year. Most of the arrearages from this group remain unpaid after ten years.
5) DHHS-OCSE reports that approximately 5% of all outstanding child support arrearages are owed by obligors earning over $40,000.00 per year and 100% of the arrearages owed by this group are paid within ten years.
6) US Census Bureau figures show only 57 percent of moms and 68 percent of dads required to pay child support pay all they owe.
7) The most effective and cost effect method of child support enforcement is enforcement of custody and visitation orders.
8 ) The most common method of wrongly reducing a parent’s time with their children is through false claims of abuse.
9) Since 1999, every state has cut state level funding for child support enforcement by as much as 32%.
10) False claims of abuse are so pervasive our states have started passing laws making it a criminal act to do so (The sad thing is; filing false claims of abuse is perjury and perjury has always been a crime).
One of the sources of income for the state is the “incentive payment pool”. However, a states share of the pie is much higher if the administrative costs of collecting child support is lower i.e. the states are incented based on their cost effectiveness of collecting child support payments. Hence the popularity of wage garnishment since it keeps administrative costs low, thereby increasing effectiveness, thereby increasing a state’s share of the incentive pool.
As you go down the income range of obligors, each state hits a break point where they make more money not collecting an arrearage as they would collecting. Moreover, at the bottom of the scale, they can actually loose incentive monies by collecting these accounts.
The third “class” of child support monies is called, “Collected, undistributed.” That means the states actually collected the money, but did not pay it to the parent who was expecting it. This collective amount of collected but not distributed child support payments in every state is not a trivial amount. The states will tell you they have no idea where these parents are. They tell the parents expecting the money, it wasn’t paid by obligor and it sits in interest bearing accounts and the states get to keep the interest. How do they make this work? Because fighting parents do not speak with each other and get their information from the state.
The parents who need the child support the most get the least amount of service, so our welfare reform is not replacing public assistance, it simply abandoned the neediest and their children.
Today, the American male is taught to believe that violent behavior by women is “comical” and that pusillanimous submission to violent women means you are “sensitive” and therefore worthy of being with a woman. While at the same time any type of violent behavior on the part of a man requires they receive “social retraining” and/or are incarcerated.
In order for the states to get the biggest piece of the big pie as they can, they need a lot of child support to be collected. To that end, they need a lot of child support on their books. So, they must generate the maximum amount of child support per case and being that their budgets depend on those incentives, they have to find a way to maintain those levels in as many cases as they can.
Based solely on ideology and government-funded, industry promoted propaganda, today the generally accepted perception is that only men are abusive in intimate relations and only women are abused. Only men fail to pay child support and only women suffer from the system. The long established facts clearly demonstrated by hundreds of peer-reviewed research studies show that none of this is true. Yet radical ideologues demand ever more draconian intervention with total disregard for due process and the rule of law. There is no effective oversight of what the funding is really spent on; and that the present system not only fails to serve, but abuses the abused. Yet zealots demand more of the same and ever more government funding. This is a classic approach of bureaucracies. If the current approach does not work, the obvious solutions are to throw more money at the problems and hire more bureaucrats to promote the party line.
Categories: activist movements · child custody · fatherless society · gender bias · maintenance · state and family
Tagged: accountability, arrearages, child support payments, DHHS, domestic violence, gender bias, incentive payment pool, incentives, OCSE, terri lynn tersak, true equality network
Many have seen this case in the media over the years and followed it. However we may not have looked at it in its entirety
This case fascinates me because it seems to be a classic example of the stupidity of parents (in this case it seems the stupidity was initiated by the mom) who cannot rise above the pettiness of their squibbles over the child in the best interests of the child. It is also an example where the parents started out very rationally and logically but then things went downhill from there. This case is also a classic example where the child was a football, treated as such not only by the parents but also by the courts. It also seems to be an example where as far as custody of daughter is concerned, a woman does not need to resort to false allegations, helping daughter grow up during puberty is enough. Finally i think this case clearly shows that parents should not expect the courts to sort out their family problems for them but try their best to work out solutions themselves. Unfortunately divorce destroys the mind of both parents and they cannot talk and reason rationally with each other any more. This case also shows that Indian courts and law do not give two hoots about joint custody, the LAWS NEED TO CHANGE. In this particular case an order of joint custody was challenged and overturned in a very short period of time and this violation of justice never came up in any of the SC proceedings at all.
I have attached the relevant judgements here but here is a summary that proves my above points
1. Marriage dissolved by mutual consent in 1999
2. Both parents agree to be joint guardians and custodians with child shifting alternate weeks between both parents — STARTED OUT REALLY WELL, NO FALSE ALLEGATIONS
3. Mommy soon after marries Anil Kumble and starts filing in family court for permanent custody and for taking child abroad, possibly for cricket matches — WHAT HAPPENED, AGREES IN APRIL 1999 FOR JOINT AND IN A FEW MONTHS FILES FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY??
4. Family court agrees for child being taken abroad with certain conditions but does not change custody decree
5. Mom challenges family court order in HC who gives custody for one year to mom and visitation to Dad Jahgirdar–THIS IS WHEN THINGS START GOING DOWNHILL…..DID THE HC REALIZE THE IMPLICATIONS OF MODIFYING THE CUSTODY ORDER ON DAD?
6. Jahgirdar and mom each file for sole custody in family court and appeals HC order in Supreme court
7. In April 2001, SC decides not to overturn HC judgement, orders family court to decide expeditiously in 4 months and orders family court to not be influenced by the HC order which SC was not convinced was in the best interests of the child–IF SO WHY DID SC NOT OVERTURN IT, DOES IT EXPECT THE FAMILY COURT TO OVERTURN THE JUDGEMENT OF A HIGHER COURT?? DOES NOT MAKE SENSE
8. Family court in April 2002 gives custody to dad and visitation rights to mommy
9. In dec 2002 HC on appeal by mom gave custody to mom and visitation rights to dad
10. Dad appealed in SC again, In Jan 2004, SC did not overrule HC and felt that since child was near puberty being with mom was best. It however said that when mommy traveled abroad, child should stay with father.
11. Since then father has been fighting for custody in family courts.
12. In 2007 something happened during a visitation which led to the daughter filing a police complaint against the dad Jahgirdar (dad claims it is a false complaint) apprehending a threat to her life. read the news article here
13. Further the wife got a stay from the HC against permanent custody proceedings initiated by father in family court on the grounds of this being a mischevious application designed to disturb custody of the child. read the news article here
SO WHERE WILL THIS END UP? WHO KNOWS? BUT SOON THE DAUGHTER WILL BE 18 WHEN SHE CAN DECIDE HOW HER LIFE SHOULD PROCEED. AFTER ALL SHE HAS BEEN EMBROILED IN THIS BULLSHIT BETWEEN HER PARENTS SINCE SHE WAS 6 YRS. OLD AND PERSONALLY I WOULD NOT BLAME HER IF SHE DECIDES TO KICK BOTH HER PARENTS TO THE CURB AND HEAD OFF ON HER OWN.
READ THE 2001 SC JUDGEMENT HERE
READ THE 2004 SC JUDGEMENT HERE
Categories: child custody · child rights · divorce · fatherless society · fathers · gender bias · indian child custody · judgements
Tagged: ANIL KUMBLE, BANGALORE, CHETANA KUMBLE, CHILD CUSTODY FOOTBALL, CRICKET, KUMAR JAHGIRDAR
BREAKING NEWS: After the outrage, judge saves face and DAD is released
A judge ordered the father to stay on top of his daughter’s education months ago and when that order wasn’t followed, Brian Gegner was sentenced to 180-days in the Butler County jail.
The daughter, Brittany Gegner, says her father shouldn’t be punished for her problems. Especially, she says because she’s now 18, an adult. “It’s ridiculously wrong,” said Brittany Gegner.
“Of all the punishments they could have given him, to make him go to jail?,” she asked. “I mean, probation – until I get my GED – would be reasonable, but to send him to jail? That’s overboard.”
read entire article here
Categories: child custody · fathers · state and family
Tagged: brian gegner, brittany gegner, child custody, child's education, dad, fairfield, GED, jail
Paediatrician mommy kidnaps children but child tells judge she wants to stay with father. Lower courts grant custody to dad, mommy fights all the way to the Supreme court, tries to use all kinds of arguments (e.g. woman needed during puberty stage of child, parental alienation has made child say that she does not want to stay w/ mommy etc) but to no avail. Two key points in this case
1. child stated wish to stay w/ father
2. mom had not made any damaging allegations against father of child abuse
read judgement here
Categories: PAS · child custody · child rights · fathers · indian child custody · judgements · parental alienation
Tagged: child custody, father, father gets child custody, high court, india, sugasree, supreme court