This 28 minute Documentary explains how Abusers use the Court System to continue to abuse the mother for leaving, by taking her children.

Guardian ad Litems, Mental Health Professionals, Supervised Visits, Fathers Rights --

All make money by keeping the battered mother away from her children and by giving the children to the documented batterer.

These are crimes and in Family Court they are dismissed and turned into profit for the above so called ‘experts’.

Child trafficking is legal in Family Courts.

Run Mommy, Run, Their is no justice--- ‘JUST US’ perps-—batterers, GALs, MHPs, Custody Evaluators, High Conflict experts, Supervised Visitation, mediation… the list goes on and on.

Keep em coming Peter Jamison! Each and EVERY State in the Nation needs to take your lead!

http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-23/news/family-court-jerilyn-borack-mark-leno-peter-jamison/

Family Courts Need Reform, Say Judges, Legislators

By Peter Jamison Wednesday, Mar 23 2011

Our March 2 cover story, "Illegal Guardians," detailed problems in the state family courts' procedures for investigating allegations of child abuse and spousal battery in divorce proceedings — and four cases in which custody decisions led to children being placed with physically or sexually abusive parents. In one, a 9-month-old boy was murdered by his father after a judge refused the mother's request for a protective order.

Fred Noland

Since then, SF Weekly has spoken with two state officials who have been at the forefront of family court reform. They agreed that the problems need to be addressed, but had different ideas about where to start.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jerilyn Borack served on the state's Elkins Family Law Task Force, which issued a 2010 report on how to improve litigants' experience of the family courts. She says the key to improving court assessments of potential child abuse is devoting more resources in the form of money or personnel to the system. That could allow more time to look into abuse accusations when they arise, just as significant time is spent appraising the value of property divided in a divorce settlement. "I don't know why there is any more reticence to deal with an allegation of sexual abuse as to deal with, 'The house is worth $2 million; no, it's worth $200,000,'" she says.

State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) thinks the courts need more than just additional resources. He says they need strict monitoring to ensure that officials properly review abuse accusations. "There needs to be some response if courts are not abiding by the law," he says.

Leno was the driving force behind a recently completed audit of the family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties, which found that mediators in both courts appeared to lack adequate qualifications to do their jobs. Following the completion of that audit, he says the courts have until January 2012 to "clean up their act."

At that point, he says, he will weigh whether additional legislation is necessary to push the judiciary toward reform. He says it can be politically sensitive to challenge the authority of state judges and their advisers, but that in light of the "horrific and frightening" cases described by SF Weekly, lawmakers might have no choice. "Part of the delicacy here is that we're talking about a separate but equal branch of government," he says. "But when you see the kind of abuses that you reported on, and that we uncovered through our audit, I think the legislative branch may need to step in."

Courtesy AngelGroup

SR84 & HR189 - Family Court Audit

Angels!  Here is little piece of heaven for you.  PLEASE support these Resolutions at every turn.  This is the fruit of your bravery and labor:)

Read SR84

Read HR189 (check out all the the signatures!!)

READ HCR218

REQUESTING AN AUDIT OF CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE COMMISSION OF FAMILY VIOLENCE BY A PARENT, TO ASSESS THE APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION 571-46, HAWAII REVISED STATUTES.

WHEREAS, domestic violence is recognized as a pattern of behaviors used by one person to coercively control another person in a relationship; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence may take the form of psychological, physical, or sexual abuse and may happen once or periodically to victims of any age, gender, race, culture, religion, education level, employment status, or marital status; and
WHEREAS, the primary, most damaging, and long-term form of domestic violence is psychological abuse, which rarely leaves any physical traces of its occurrence; and
WHEREAS, victims of abuse are encouraged to terminate relationships with abusive partners for their own safety and the safety of their children and to avert further and future harm; and
WHEREAS, the termination of an abusive relationship may increase a perpetrator's lethality because the perpetrator loses control over the victim and may increase abusive behavior in order to regain control; and
WHEREAS, child custody and visitation frequently become disputed issues after a victim successfully escapes an abusive relationship; and
WHEREAS, the litigation of child custody and visitation disputes often provides perpetrators of domestic abuse and family violence with an ongoing venue for the continued use of coercive control against their former partners under the guise of child custody and visitation concerns; and

WHEREAS, domestic violence is a serious crime in addition to being a serious personal or family problem; and

WHEREAS, section 571-46 (a) (9) - (14) , Hawaii Revised Statutes, establishes specific criteria for the Family Court to consider in custody or visitation disputes when family violence has occurred; and

WHEREAS, the Legislature is concerned that Family Court judges may not be correctly applying or enforcing section 571-46 (a) (9) - (14) , Hawaii Revised Statutes, to the detriment of domestic violence survivors and their children and ultimately punishing survivors and their children for successfully escaping abusive homes; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Twenty-sixth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2011, that the Office of the Auditor is requested to conduct an audit of a sampling of contested child custody proceedings in which family violence has been alleged to have been committed by a parent and that were heard by the Family Courts during the period from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2010, to assess the application and enforcement of section 571-46(a) ( 9 ) - (14), Hawaii Revised Statutes, by the Family Court; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Judiciary is requested to redact the names of all parties, witnesses, attorneys, judges, and other interested persons from all selected custody proceedings to maintain privacy and confidentiality; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Office of the Auditor is requested to submit a report of any findings and recommendations to the Legislature no later than twenty days prior to the convening of the Regular Session of 2012; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this be transmitted to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Senior Judge of the Family Court, the Administrative of the Courts, the Chief and the State Auditor.

by Charles Pragnell

 

n the twenty years I have been advising parents, children, and their legal advisers in several hundred cases in Family Law matters, I have often been asked, “Why is it that children are so often ordered to have contact with, and even into the custody of, parents who have abused them and have perpetrated violence against their partners.”

The answer to this question is not simple and involves an examination of the requirements of Family Laws which stress the importance of children having both parents in their lives after parental separation, the dynamics of legal processes, and the often very clear gender biases of the principals involved in judicial processes.

But one of the most outstanding and consistent features of proceedings involving the care of children post-separation are the conduct and behaviours which can be identified as clearly fitting the definitions of psychopathy/sociopathy.

The major personality traits of the psychopath are supremacy and narcissism. The afflicted individual must be in complete control of their environment and all persons who are a part of that environment or can serve the psychopath’s purposes in maintaining control.

The psychopath is capable of using both aggressive anger and passive anger with cunning and guile, to achieve their goals of exerting control. Examples of such contrary behaviours are the aggressive violence against intimate partners, with the frequent inherent abuse of children, designed to groom friends, relatives, and professionals into believing they are harmless and indeed very stable and friendly. If thwarted in attaining these goals, however, the passive can quickly turn into the aggressive.

In furtherance of these traits, the major tactics and ploys of the psychopath are:

1. denial of wrongdoings in the face of clear evidence;
2. refusal to take responsibility for behaviours and actions;
3. minimisation of the incident and consequences;
4. blame being placed on others;
5. misrepresentation, fabrication, embellishment and distortion of information and evidence;
6. minimisation of all information and evidence regarding wrongdoing;
7. claims of victim status, alleging the victim was the aggressor;
8. projection of their own actions and behaviour onto the victim; e.g. she abuses/neglects the children/ she is an alcoholic or drug abuser. This is based on the belief by the psychopath that attack is the best form of defence.

The grooming of friends, relatives, and professionals is very clear in many cases, and in particular some psychiatrists, psychologists and family evaluators/reporters have been hoodwinked by such tactics and ploys by the psychopathic individual. Their reports, of course favouring the psychopath, have very considerable influence on the Courts and their determinations. Very often clear evidence of intimate partner violence such as convictions, Domestic Violence Orders, Apprehended Violence Orders and Restraining Orders against the psychopathic aggressor and medical evidence of injuries suffered by the adult and child victims are ignored or dismissed as irrelevant by such professionals.

Such professionals now refer to such cases as `high conflict’ cases, when it is clear that they are situations of a violent aggressor/tormentor/persecutor and their victims. It is easy to see how the cases in Austria and America where young girls were imprisoned for many years by controlling individuals and regularly abused in several ways were undetected, when the aggressors/persecutors/tormentors were able to convince their family members, relatives and associates that they were reasonable, normal people. The same often occurs in other cases of violence and murder where neighbours report that the accused murderer is a nice and friendly neighbour. They do not recognise the Jekyll and Hyde aspects of the psychopath’s ploys and tactics and of those they have effectively groomed in their beliefs.

The high conflict which usually occurs in such cases is most commonly engendered by the respective lawyers, conditioned by operating in an adversarial process and arena, whose own major goal is to ‘win’, whatever may be the justness and fairness of the result.

It is not difficult to see, therefore, how the psychopath is able to readily gain the sympathy and support of some of the professionals engaged in the Family Law system and for them to abandon and forfeit their professional objectivity and impartiality in such circumstances. In blaming others the psychopath will allege the former partner is mentally ill and in some cases the former partner may be suffering a Complex Post Traumatic Disorder after suffering years of physical, mental, and sexual abuse and violence. This is often misinterpreted and misdiagnosed as a Borderline Personality Disorder or similar psychiatric term. In effect it is a classic ‘blame the victim’ scenario.

The groomed professionals then enable the psychopath to achieve their primary objective, which is to maintain power and control over their victims, their former partner and children. It is an act of vengeance and spite but mostly it is to maintain the power and control and feelings of supremacism and narcissism. “I am faultless and flawless and in control of my whole environment” are the unvoiced cravings of the psychopath, and “I can continue to inflict my tortures on my victims with impunity” are the psychopath’s continuing behaviours.

The Family Law and their shared parenting provisions and its administration by the Family Courts have become ready enablers for the psychopath.

Charles Pragnell is an Independent Advocate for Children and Families.

American Mothers Political Party Proudly Endorses

“Hearts Across America” -- Million Mom March Mother's Day 2011, at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, D.C.

The Mothers Movement is a persistent, insistent civil and human rights campaign. We will never give up until this horrible nightmare for children and nurturing safe mothers ends.

This page will be updated as events and information are disseminated through Mothers Day 2011
If you have an event going on anywhere on Mother’s Day Please go to the contact and send to us.  We will promptly add to this page!

For up to minute information: Please Visit the Facebook page – Million Mom March

Travel and Lodging links: (if you Google search cheap air or cheap lodging and others you will be able to find more). We placed the following links below as a start and idea’s only. We do not endorse any of the following. * Special Offers - Southwest Airlines * Washington DC Hostel’s * Cheap Flights and Lodging *Amtrak *Greyhound * Expedia *Washington DC Hotels/Motels

Mr. President,

Mothers across the Nation are losing custody of their children to pedophiles and batterers through your Fatherhood Initiatives’ Program’s are speaking out. Fatherhood Funding receives in excess of $500.000.000.00 to fix bad dad, these funds are diverted and used to take mothers children and give them to the abusive father under the pretense of ‘involving fathers’ in their children’s lives.

Mothers across the Nation call for a Congressional investigation into the failure of family courts to protect children and potential fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars. Obama (and Congress) you are killing children with the tax payer’s money. STOP FATHERHOOD FUNDING NOW! Here is a sample letter that all can write to their congressman.

For mothers throughout the United States - corresponding events planned on Mother’s Day 2011.

EVENTS:

• California who would love to be there but can't please join us here in California! EVERYONE COME MARCH AGAINST JUDICIAL CORRUPTION WITH US

• MOTHERS DAY IN WASHINGTON DC AND CALIFORNIA
Mother's of Lost Children and other organizations are marching in Washington D.C on Mother's Day, Sunday May 8 and Monday May 9, 2011.
For those who cannot go to Washington, a march will be held at the CA State Capitol in Sacramento CA on Monday May 9th at 10:00 am to 7:00 pm.

• We will bring attention to the issue of how our broken family and juvenile court systems are harming children
• Speaker Pro Tempore Fiona Ma has graciously agreed to speak at our event.
• We are assembling a panel of experts: attorneys, investigators, child abuse experts, judges, domestic violence experts, psychologists, authors, etc.. to speak.
• We would also like to have a survivor's panel comprised of those who have survived or are currently surviving (somehow) abuse by a perpetrator of DV or child abuse AND abuse by the family or juvenile court system.
• If you have contacts who may be willing to participate in our panels, please send their contact info to Sue at 209-217-4948 skyleramelia@yahoo.com

During the past two decades, mothers have been losing custody of their children (even nursing infants) in increasing numbers to fathers who are convicted or identified batterers, child molesters, drug addicts, gang-bangers and felons. Family courts force children into the custody of abusive fathers at alarming rates, allowing these men to continue controlling and abusing their victims. Research shows that 70% of batterers who ask for custody get it. Safe mothers who left the abusers in order to protect their children are frequently labeled "unfriendly" and are inappropriately ordered to supervised visitation or denied all contact with their children.

The National Fatherhood Initiative website states in 15 years it has "ensured that two million more children are living with their fathers". The Leadership Council research indicates 58,000 children are placed with abusers every year. These statistics may be connected. Read more here:

Mother bringing abuse case to Supreme Court (Daytona Beach, Florida)

If your organization is able to supply an amicus brief in support of this mother, please do. Although I've read about many outrageous miscarriages of justice when it comes to custody/visitation issues, Linda Marie Sacks' case is clearly one of the more outrageous.

Mother bringing case to US Supreme Court/ Constitutional Violations/ Rights of Mothers/Linda Marie Sacks

Human Rights Violations Rampant in the Family Courts of America

Questions Presented are of National Importance to America’s Children

March 3, 2011

Amicus Brief Requests

On May 6, 2011 the Friday before Mother's Day, Linda Marie Sacks will file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. After years of legal hearings, this mother's only legal option is to ask our highest court to hear why she is concerned about her daughters' safety and should not be on court-ordered supervised visitation seeing her children for only two hours each month, for the last 4 years.

Family court judges should not end or severely restrict parent-child relationships because a parent fears their child is being abused. In Linda Marie's case, she was not the only adult concerned that her daughter was sexually acting out. The court had written documents from a Sunday School volunteer who overheard the then 8-year-old say she sucks her father's penis and reports of suspected child abuse from a therapist who watched as the girl drew the family picture below depicting her father as an erect penis with legs.

Justice for Children, a national organization that advocates for children when “official avenues” have failed to protect them, wrote a letter to the investigating agencies outlining concerns that the allegations of sexual child abuse were not properly investigated.

In the U.S. Supreme Court, few petitions are granted certiorari but the chances increase when multiple Amicus Briefs are filed with the petition. If your organization can help with gathering Amicus Briefs for this case that would be greatly appreciated. The questions to be presented are:

1. If a parent makes a good faith allegation of abuse, with documented evidence,

in an effort to protect her children, should that parent be deprived of physical

custody of her children, or have their contact supervised, indefinitely without a

case plan, or reunification plan provided by the trial court?

2. Does a state court violate the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments when it

deprives a parent of physical custody, and limits that parents contact to Supervised

Visitation with her children, for taking the reasonable action based upon a belief,

supported by facts that her children need protection from abuse?

3. Does a state court’s custody decision that deprives a parent of access to her

children indefinitely, unless supervised, without a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, which effectively terminates a party’s parental rights,

violate the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments?

It is difficult to get a case to this point in our legal system. All other avenues must be exhausted which requires years of hearings and a substantial financial burden. This is a chance to tell our highest court that parents should not be punished for trying to protect their children.

Below is a legal summary of the case concerning the constitutional issues being appealed.

1) A finding that the mother's due process rights were violated and the custody was reversed

In May 2007, Mother, Linda Marie Sacks, appealed the decision of Judge Shawn L. Briese. The Fifth District Court of Appeals on 8/08 (Case 5D07-1682) in Daytona Beach, Florida issued a written opinion and REVERSED AND REMANDED the decision of custody of R.S. and S.S, back to the lower court. In the opinion it noted that Mothers due process rights were violated, and the hearing to determine custody should never have taken place, and when it did it violated Mothers constitutional rights. 2007 Sacks v. Sacks 991 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)

2) The Fifth District denied a request to prohibit Judge Briese from again being the presiding judge

Immediately after the 8/ 08 REVERSAL AND REMAND in 1st appeal, a Writ of Prohibition,(Case 5D08-3668) was filed in the Fifth District Court of Appeals. The writ requested that Judge Shawn L. Briese be prohibited from being allowed to be the presiding judge on this case any further. The writ showed documented evidence of judicial misconduct, violations of judicial canon #3, violations of Fl Ad Code 2.330 and ex parte communications by the judge and the 2 attorneys of record for the former Husband. On 11/13/08 it was denied, without a written opinion or citation……just DENIED and thus it sent this Mother right back to Judge Shawn L. Briese for the retrial., the same Judge who violated her due process rights, as he refused to be disqualified, and he demanded to have her case back on his docket.

3) Judge Briese again violated the mother's due process rights

In the Retrial of Custody in April 2009, Father's two attorney firms did not present a case but simply rested when their turn to present arrived. Judge Briese issued his oral ruling in June 2009 and gave Father, Sole physical custody and continued to place Mother on Supervised visitation because she did a TV interview with Chan 9 News in Albany New York, at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, and didn’t buy greeting card for the father while on Supervised visitation...so refused to allow Mother any contact with her children UNLESS supervised at the local visitation center. Judge Briese, once again, ignored, suppressed and dismissed documented evidence of abuse to the minor children by the father…..and kept Mother on Supervised Visitation.

Mother filed a pro se appeal and in her Amended Brief of Appellant p.48 it says:

“Due process requires that the ruling from the trial court support its conclusions by clear and convincing evidence. Trial court “abuses its discretion” with respect to a child custody determination only when a reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Would any reasonable person agree with the trial court’s ruling that the primary custody of the minor children R.S. and S.S. should be with the father and the mother should only have supervised visitation? The court is bound to by law to apply the test that if no reasonable person could differ as to the appropriateness of the trial court’s ruling then the ruling must not stand. As a reminder, this court already found the mother’s due process rights were violated when her children were taken away in April of 2007 Sacks v. Sacks 991 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). When the trial court gave the oral ruling on June 26, 2009 regarding the “Retrial of Custody of Children” it disregarded documented abuse. It is clear that this was a blatant disregard of abuse and evidence was suppressed, dismissed and ignored. This strongly suggests bias, discrimination in making the decision regarding the custody of R.S. and S.S.”

4) Constitutional Issues were also raised

Amended Brief of Appellant p. 4 states:

“The fundamental constitutional equal right of a loving, caring Mother is to be able to raise and nurture their children. The standard of review is abuse of discretion. In Bevil v. Carson 966 So. 2nd 1007, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), in reviewing a custody determination the appellate court considers whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the factual finding by the trial court and whether its in the best interests of the children. Id.

If substantial evidence does not support the factual finds then the court abused its discretion, Fuller v. Fuller 13 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). A parent has a constitutionally protected inherent right to a meaningful relationship with his or her children, and must be treated equally under all of the 4th, 9th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. (Exhibit B) There is no reason to excuse the judiciary participating in depriving the parents of the care and custody and time with their children, and sadly, in this case mother and R.S. and S.S have only had 68 hours of contact at the Supervised Visitation center.

The record is clear, Linda Sacks is a loving , caring, devoted Mother who was concerned for the safety and well being of her children and tried to protect them, and in doing so was placed on supervised visitation unjustly.”

Constitutional rights of a parent were also in other parts of the briefs as well. Abuse of Discretion issues were also raised, as well as the “best interest of children.”

Abuse of discretion was raised as it is the Standard of Review. The standard of review for the trial courts finding and determination regarding primary parental responsibility is abuse of discretion. The trial court finds regarding the best interests of the child must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Knifley v. Knifley, 944 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Also stated:

The trial court abused its discretion by not terminating the supervised visitation imposed on Linda Sacks and compounded that error by refusing to allow contact unless it was supervised, and knowing their was no detriment to the children, and no evidence to support the trial courts ruling on custody of Linda sacks, Appellant’s Minor children, R.S. and S.S

The trial court abused its discretion when substantial competent evidence does not support the erroneous findings of the trial court in the final judgment of the retrial of custody of children.

The trial on April 24 and 28, 2009 on the retrial of Custody of children and the evidence presented does not support the oral ruling or written final judgment showing clear bias and prejudice and abuse of trial discretion.

The Court compounded that error in granting primary residential responsibility and sole physical custody to the father and supervised visitation to mother once again.

In the briefs these arguments were supported by the record and case law to support the argument.

A transcript from the Retrial in April 2009, was submitted showing the father admitting on the stand to verbal abusing the mother in front of the children, to an altercation in the kitchen of the family home with R.S. at 8 years old that resulted in this child getting a split lip and blood, to wiping down the vaginas of R.S. and S.S. (school age children), to being in the bathroom again with S.S. as she was naked in the tub, with him having her stand on one leg, with her other leg in the air, after just being told by a licensed psychologist to STAY out of the bathroom, and on the way home from that very office, came in the house with S.S. and did it again…within minutes of arriving home.

All of these admissions collaborated the Dept and Children Child Abuse Hotline Calls the police reports and Mothers Domestic Violence Injunction of Protection. But Judge Briese dismissed all and said in his oral ruling on June 26, 2009, and this is included in the Appeal briefs (Reply Brief of Appellant p. 6 and 7) states:

Judge Briese states: “He testified that nothing, ever inappropriate happened, sexually or physically, and the court finds it to be the case, as it did the first time.(R. Vol. 2. T. p. 189, 1. 18-20)

This is an erroneous finding by the trial court, and in Donn v. Donn, 733 So. 2nd 581 (Fla 4th DCA, 1999) the appeals court noted that there were numerous inconsistencies between the Final Judgment and fact as presented in the Final hearing and this was reversed and remanded for a new hearing.

Thank you for taking the time to review this summary. Should you need copies of any documents, simply ask and they will be provided to you quickly. Linda Marie Sacks raised these issues in her court case and the appeal to preserve the issues on appeal to go to the US Supreme Court for the Cert Petition, and has preserved the trial record as she has $17,000 worth of trial transcripts.

For Information on Amicus Briefs

Please contact:

Linda Marie Sacks

386-453-3017

lindamariesacks@aol.com

For Press

Please contact:

Kathleen Russell

Executive Director

Center for Judicial Excellence

495 Miller Avenue, Suite 304

Mill Valley, CA 94941

Main 415.388.9600 Fax 415.388.4610

www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org

PLEASE POST WIDELY

On Wednesday, March 16, 9-10 pm, Joy of Resistance will present Mothers Losing Custody to Abusers: Sexist Bias & Power in Family Court on WBAI Radio @ 99.5 FM and streaming live on the web @ www.wbai.org

Joy of Resistance: Multicultural Feminist Radio @ WBAI is proud to welcome a group of courageous activists, lawyers, psychologists and embattled mothers to its airwaves.

Guests on this important show will be: Nancy Erickson, 40-year Custody Lawyer; Barry Goldstein, member: National Organization for Men Against Sexism, co-author (along w/Mo Hannah) of Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody; Mo Therese Hannah, Psychologist, founder of the Battered Mother's Custody Conference--as well as some of the mothers who are fighting for custody.

The show will include Feminist News & listener call-ins at (212) 209-2900.

Contrary to myths promoted  by Fathers' Rights Groups, it is mothers who who face an uphill battle in custody fights with fathers.

Men who fight for custody will win it 75% of the time; they can afford better lawyers and they can play on a  host of sexist prejudices against women that are rife in Family Court (and all of society) and which include:

• women are widely assumed to make false allegations, women are assumed to be trying to alienate children from their fathers,
• women are assumed to be emotionally unstable and to suffer from a range of psychiatric conditions.
• While "Father's Rights" groups promote the line that mothers engaged in custody battles are vindictive liars, the truth is--as studies show--that only 1-2% of DV allegations are false--about the same as in any other crime situation.

It is estimated the in up to 90% of such custody battles there has been a situation of domestic violence. Yet--if a woman as much as mentions the abuse that she or her children have experienced at the hands of the father, she is very likely to lose her her custody rights because she will immediately be under suspicion of demonstrating "Parental Alienation", i.e., "attemtping to alienate the children from their father". She may also be called an "unfriendly parent".

One mother--who will testify on the program--had it held against her that, when giving birth to her child, she didn't want the father--who had hit her during her pregnancy--in the room. She lost custody.

Estimates are the 58,000 children a year wind up in the custody of abusers. And 100 children a year are murdered as a result of these Court decisions.

Court appointed Custody Evaluators have little or no training. They often unquestioningly follow the popular assumption that "children do best when they have two parents." But what should be the second clause of that sentence is left out: that "this is only the case when neither parent is an abuser."

Father's Rights Groups have gotten terrible legislation passed and alot of judges and lawyers are sympathetic to them or are members of these groups themselves. They know that it is the fathers who have the money, so they want to represent THEM. The women have a harder time paying for good lawyers.

These are just a few of the reasons why Family Court is a disaster for mothers. We are proud to be opening up this issue on Joy of Resistance and showing the situation from the mothers' point of view. The show will include a Feminist News Wrap-up & listener call-ins at (212) 209-2900 in the last part of the show.

So please tune in to 99.5 FM this Wednesday, March 16, between 9 and 10 PM--or stream us live on your computer at www.wbai.org. 

Joy of Resistance covers the ongoing worldwide struggle of women to for full equality and human rights. It broadcasts on the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of the month, between 9 and 10 PM. You can contact Joy of Resistance at joyofresistance@wbai.org or leave a phone message at (212) 209-2987.

WBAI is listener supported, non commercial radio broadcasting to New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. It is part of the Pacifica Radio Network. WBAI is in a financial crisis and badly needs your financial support to continue broadcasting an alternative to the corporate media.

Please consider going to www.wbai.org and contributing whatever amount you can to help keep alternative radio alive. Thank you.

Fran Luck,

Executive Producer,

Joy of Resistance: Multicultural Feminist Radio @ WBAI,

99.5 FM, NYC, 1st and 3rd Wednesdays, 9-10 pm

(broadcasting to New York, New Jersey, Connecticut

& worldwide on the web)