"Time's Up!"

Murdering Susann Smith

2013-05-12T05:47:00.000-04:00

by Heidi Hiatt

On February 12th of this year, Bothell, Washington resident Susann Smith didn’t show up for work. She was found bludgeoned to death with an ax–and stabbed– in the bathtub of her home. This murder set the community on edge and to date a suspect has not been arrested.

Smith had primary custody of her three and six year-old children. Her estranged husband, Allan Smith, saw them on evenings and weekends. They were getting a divorce and Susann had allegedly threatened to take the children back to her native Germany.

Allan has been named as a person of interest and the media has reported that he’d done an online search about countries without extradition treaties. The police are also investigating purchases he made including a bicycle that might have been used in the murder. To put it bluntly, all signs are pointing to the estranged ex-husband, who lived just two miles away.

The ferocity of the attack that was clearly designed to make sure Susann Smith was dead reeks of domestic violence. I could imagine it being committed by someone who desperately wanted her to know that he had power over her life and was in control of her final moments. This is someone who could walk away from a brutal homicide and go back to work without batting an eyelash because he felt it was justifiable.

A couple of weeks ago the local media reported an intensely disturbing development in this case– Allan Smith was moving Susann’s belongings out of the house and doing some repairs so he could move in. He has since moved back into the house where she was killed and is going to pursue custody of their children, who are currently under the care of Child Protective Services.

The house was a crime scene and the police served a search warrant there at the end of February, so I’m assuming they felt confident enough in their evidence gathering for Allan to remove Susann’s vehicle, have her blood scrubbed up, and remove sheetrock, which is what the Bothell Reporter said they did.

Allan Smith has not been officially named as a suspect and the Bothell Police might be trying to create an airtight case before arresting him. But many people are concerned about his being allowed to continue on with his life as if nothing happened, including some neighbors.

When a suspect is still on the loose, it’s logical for community members to wonder if this is an isolated incident, if there is a serial killer on the loose, to wonder if themselves and their own family in danger, and simply have a lot of questions in general. Sometimes the police could do a better job of rumor control and PR while a case is under investigation.

Initially the police asked for the public to share information and are still welcoming that, but inviting input without much output can make people reluctant to respond. I realize there may be excellent reasons for not sharing more about the case, but they have been fairly open about what evidence has been found so far, so I’m as curious about this as Smith’s neighbors are.

Hearing that the person of interest was moving back into a homicide victim’s house reminded me that some killers feel a great sense of power and satisfaction when they return to the scene of a crime. This is common in serial arsonists, who like to return to their crime scenes to feel the rush they get from viewing their own work.

This also reminds me that killers sometimes like to have trophies and mementos from their victims so that they can relive the crime and relish the sick satisfaction they got from taking a life. It’s like a man conquering a mountain and then standing there proudly next to the flag he just planted at the summit.

In a domestic violence case, it’s likely that a suspect moving back into a residence he used to share with the victim could be his way of gaining back something he thought was taken from him unfairly. It sounds like Allan Smith felt like he was having to work too hard to pay for too many of his estranged ex-wife’s bills and for child support.

Seattle-area news reporters have already asked the obvious question– will this be a repeat of the Powell case? Josh Powell was suspected of murdering his ex-wife but gained visitation with their two boys, who he brutally murdered seconds before he burned the house down with them in it. See http://wildninja.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/3084/.

It has always boggled my mind that men suspected of murdering their children’s mothers are allowed to have visitation or even custody of those children while they’re being investigated. Seattle attorney Anne Bremner and others told the world that Josh Powell would murder his two sons before it happened, but those two innocent little boys were slaughtered anyway. Susan Powell is still missing and Josh Powell’s creep of a father, who’s currently in prison, won’t talk.

I don’t know the details of how or if Allan Smith could get custody of his and Susann’s children. I’d imagine that if an arrest is not made soon or if he’s not arrested at all it could happen. Even if he’s completely innocent, those children should not be living in the home were the traumatic event of their mother’s murder happened. They shouldn’t have to use the same bathroom or even bathe in the same bathtub she was hacked to death in.

That Allan Smith would even consider bringing the children back to that home shows a shocking lack of sensitivity for the children’s well-being. That is typical of many domestic violence cases– the perpetrator’s actions are not about what’s in the best interest of the children, but about power and control. Allan attended Susann’s memorial service, and while he’s innocent until proven guilty, that is another classic move of spouse killers. Also, what parent is going to let their own children go over to that house to play with the Smith children?

At least one of Allan Smith’s family members has said that Susann was contentious and verbally abusive. If she was, does that justify any abuse or murder? Does her behavior– if that’s true– absolve her estranged ex-husband of any criminal actions? If she had any mental issues, were they a result of chronic stress and abuse? From personal experience I know that outsiders are so quick to judge when they lack empathy for what a victim might be going through. They attribute stress and emotion to the victim rather than what might be happening to the victim.

There are other questions. Could Susann have been threatening to go back to Germany to protect her children? Could Allan, who had accused Susann of sexually abusing their son, have killed her under the pretense that he was protecting their son? If arrested, how will the defense spin that? Is the defense going to claim that Allan Smith was already convicted in the public eye? It will be interesting to see how this plays out. This homicide was obviously premeditated and organized. It appears that the suspect was out for revenge and to regain a sense of control.

In conclusion, I’m very disappointed that this case has not gotten more news coverage. The Bothell Reporter has stayed on the case and reports updates as they get them, but where is the outcry and outrage over a local woman being murdered and the liberties the person of interest has taken? Are we so desensitized to murder because of video games and TV that we simply turn away and move on? Has Seattle-area society become the fabled priest and Levite in the tale of the Good Samaritan?

A woman is dead. Her possible killer might take legal action to force their children to live in the crime scene were she was murdered. Other people we know will be murdered in the same manner and by their partners and spouses because we turn a blind eye to domestic violence so often. This case should be a reminder that this can happen in every strata of society and it will only end when a majority decides not to tolerate the abuse and killings of their fellow human beings anymore.

See:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Medical-examiner-Bothell-mom-was-killed-by-injuries-to-the-head-191452901.html

http://www.bothell-reporter.com/news/204131081.html

http://www.bothell-reporter.com/news/206347541.html

Conviction is worthless until it converts itself into conduct. –Thomas Carlyle

Heidi Hiatt, MA recently graduated as a Forensic Psychologist. You can read more of her posts at her personal blog, Truth, Justice, and All-American Allergen-Free Apple Pie Straight Talk in a Crooked World

With God Everything is Possible?

2013-05-08T18:12:00.000-04:00

by Jillian Maas Backman

People are obsessed with answers. People are obsessed with serial killers. Some people even have an obsession with Spirituality. Link one unto the other and you have an eccentric smorgasbord of unanswered questions.

For some questions finite answers will come only after one departs from this planet. Questions like can people really be absolved from despicable human sins and still go to heaven if they go through a radical spiritual transformation? Is this even possible or are some people to evil to bounce back and repent?

Most of us are Ok living with the fact we probably will never receive a concrete answer to this question. Yet, for others who need closure for every question in the universe this is not an option. In their way of thinking all questions lead to circular logic and conclusive answers, including the mystery of human salvation.

On my radio program last week, Change Already, I introduced the May series; Serial Killer and Spirituality with my first guest, Criminology Professor and Author, Dr. Scott Bonn. We chatted about the seemly dark fascination many have towards this morbid subject. People want the inside scoop on what makes another human being lose touch with the outside world and justify with precision their warped narcissist rationale for killing another.

Dr. Bonn will be joining me on air again this week, Thursday, to discuss one case in particular, Son of Sam serial killer from the 70's now serving a life sentence without parole. Several weeks ago Dr. Bonn had the rare opportunity to sit face- to- face with this deviant and have a frank discussion about his past transgressions and his thoughts for the future. (See Scott Bonn's article on CBS Crimesider) He describes in detail a spiritual incident that happened during his incarceration in the late 80’s that changed his perception of purpose forever. He believed he underwent a spontaneous religious awakening from the heavens that released his past, humbled his soul and accepted Jesus as his savior. In the Christian faith this is called being saved. From that day forward he banished his old label, Son of Sam and adapted a new one, Son of Hope.

Dr. Bonn's latest book scheduled to be released sometime next year; Monster Dearest: Our Macabre Fascination with Serial Killers, will detail the entire conversation with this well- known criminal, including this supposed spiritual soul revival. Controversy has already started and the back talk among those who have heard and read excerpts from this forthcoming book have mixed feelings about his reported transformation. People are having a hard time buying into the fact that a man of such evil proportions could be eligible to receive such a sought after human prize, let alone deserve it. Apparently, from all accounts, he believes in his own spiritual rebirth and is ready to serve the rest of his life sharing God’s word and purpose.

Herein lies one of those unanswerable questions that simply defy rationality. How could someone of such low vibrational caliber be able receive such a highly regarded societal religious honor in the wake of all the pain he has caused others from his past? If one puts some thought into the question there might be a way this really could happen!

We have all heard of personal accounts of people having near death experiences or suffering tragic events such as auto accidents and come back a completely different person. As if one personality walked out during the crisis and another walked in. Like magic, soul transference, one soul going back home and another waiting in the wings to takes its place. Happens right under our noses without notice as in the case of “Son of Sam” as he recants the story to Dr Bonn. He simply had enough of his sick ways and dropped to his knees one day in his jail cell, asked spirit for human forgiveness and the grace of unconditional redemption. From all accounts, he acted like a new and improved faithful man spreading the word of hope to all who would listen. One could label this transference a spiritual death rather than a physical death. The body remains the same but the soul is renewed.

Dr. Bonn will be joining me on air to tell us his professional and analytical thoughts on the matter. Does he believe he is telling his truth of being re-born and does he believe in redemption for all?

I personally have no intentions of casting expersions one way or the other on this case of soul swapping for “Son of Hope.” The only hope I can add to this bizarre turn of events is that he makes good on his promise to help others who seek spirituality light rather than choose the dark path of evil.

Again, another unanswered mystery we will never completely know until we have made our own transition to the other side. Until then these controversial spiritual transformations will continue to happen and we as normal human beings will continue to probe through our critical thinking and ask how and why. Hopefully, make peace with the fact there is no need to understand but trust that our hearts will show us the difference.

Jillian Maas Backman, Author, Beyond The Pews, Breaking With Traditions and Letting Go Religious Lockdown and host of Change Already! broadcasting each Thursday at noon CT. www.jillianmaasbackman.com

To read previous articles by Jillian Maas Backman CLICK HERE

What is Justice?

2013-05-02T06:59:00.000-04:00

by Todd Blumhorst

What is justice? When we are faced with the murder of our loved one, we are overcome with a plethora of emotions and we begin a search for justice. We as survivors spend so much time seeking that justice that our own grief is often put on a back burner to be dealt with later because the desire for justice for our loved one is stronger than our personal heartache. They were robbed of so much more than we were and our love for them drives that need for justice.

When we think of justice for the crime of murder we generally envision the defendant going to trial, being found guilty, then serving life in prison or execution. We see the evidence in the court procedures and know our loved ones life was cut entirely too short at the hands of the defendant. We want to see them go away for a very long time or be executed and then justice is served.

Is justice an eye for an eye? Is justice found in the prison sentence? Is justice found at the end of the executioner’s needle? What happens if this sequence of events doesn’t happen like that and justice is denied? Worse yet, what if the defendant is never caught or is freed on a technicality? What if they are found to be un-restorable in their mental capacity and are set free? What if a plea is offered and they see much less time than had they been convicted? How does our murdered loved one get justice?

I struggled for years over this last question. How do I get justice for my sister Veronica and her disappearance and probable murder? We have no body, no murder weapon, or no verification of death. The only thing we have is a police report where a person very close to her stated they could have very well killed her but couldn’t quite recall due to a prior brain injury that caused memory loss at times. He went on to tell the police that if he did kill her then he was much smarter than them and her body wasn’t going to be found. For over 22 years, he has been correct, thus far.

My heart breaks when I am working with a family and they do not feel the sentence or outcome was justice. I often have to remind them that we have a court of law and not a court of justice. The laws can, at times, seem unjust for the survivors of homicide because the defendants appear to have all of the rights afforded to them. It is never easy to hear that the person who killed your loved one got off light or never even face a criminal trial because the case is unresolved.

How do we give our loved on justice in these cases? I have struggled with this question for over 22 years now and I get more pieces to the puzzle as the years progress. When I was fresh with grief, anger, hatred, and rage in 1990, I saw justice as taking him out to a field and killing him in the most brutal of fashions. As the years progressed and I saw that the likelihood of the case being resolved grew ever slimmer, I continued to seek resolution. I didn’t care that the investigator on her case appeared to be sitting on her case and not working it. We often went years without even a phone call to say he was thinking of us and he still wanted to find out what happened to Veronica. We go silent, another injustice.

As the 20 year anniversary of her disappearance approached I decided to make sure her memory wasn’t forgotten. I started a Facebook page for her because I was running into people there who would always ask me about her case. Instead of repeating myself constantly, I set up a place where her family and friends could remember her. I figured maybe a handful of friends would join; we had over 100 people in the first week. Currently, there are 1200 members on her page. They remember her, discuss the incompetence of the case management by police, they speculate on who killed her. They keep her memory and case alive.

The members soon began to discuss a memorial service for Veronica since a funeral was never held for her. The groundwork was being laid for a memorial service on the 20 year anniversary. I thought about this for a long time and felt something was missing from this event. I soon came up with the concept of the Veronica Blumhorst Memorial Expo for a Safer Commmunity which was going to be a safety fair of local service agencies to expose the community with the resources that are available to them in Northern Illinois River Valley. Even if it saved one person, there was some justice and Veronica saved a life.

I got a huge sense of relief after the expo and memorial. I felt that she did indeed get a modicum of justice, the scales weren’t even but they moved in her favor some. I returned to Arizona and began to look at the next step. What do I do next to get her more justice? The months went by and fate intervened. I lost two jobs within three months and was desperately seeking a job when I got a message from Gail Leland, the founder of Homicide Survivors. She told me to go there to see if they had anything for me. I went down and was told that they could employ me for two months. I jumped at the opportunity. I feel Veronica interceded from beyond because the permanent person they had hired didn’t work out and I was soon offered a full time position. I knew this was Veornica putting me in a place to work on that justice thing again. This time it was to help others on their journey of grief and by doing that then her death was not in vain and justice is added to her side of the scales.

After a year at Homicide Survivors, I was blessed to help many families during their tragedies. I still had my own tragedy to deal with and the fact that we never found her bothered me immensely. I sought out a human cadaver search team who agreed to assist our family. I went back to Illinois in September of 2012 on another justice mission. We were possibly successful in locating the area her remains are buried but now need to wait until this spring after the thaw and weather stabilizes out more. Hopefully we will bring her home soon for a proper burial. That would be justice to me today, just having her back.

Over time my concept of justice has changed. I started out with an eye for an eye idea of justice and it has evolved to an attitude of “give me back what was mine”. We just want to have that confirmation that she is dead and this state of limbo that has haunted us for 22+ years can be lifted. I would like survivors to know that even if you don’t get justice in court, you can still get justice for your loved one. I went to the extreme and you can too if you choose. You can also do the small things that bring them justice like start a neighborhood watch, volunteer at a womens shelter, or volunteer for something your loved one was passionate about. There are many small ways you can add justice to their side of the scale. Will they balance in the end? Probably not, but you can definitely make a difference and bring some good out of all the bad.

Todd J. Blumhorst, Advocate,
Assistant Volunteer Coordinator

Homicide Survivors Inc.
32 N. Stone Ave. #1408
Tucson, Az. 85701

520.740.5729
azhomicidesurvivors.org

Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit (EAA) Timeless Tool For Escaping Abusive Relationships

2013-04-25T10:57:00.000-04:00

Carrying the torch of Susan Murphy Milano’s work through Document The Abuse, many advocates are bringing awareness to audiences and organizations across the country of the benefits of the Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit and teaching how it can be incorporated into existing protocols.

The Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit (EAA) was first introduced in Susan Murphy Milano's book, Time's Up: A Guide on How to Safely Leave an Abusive and Stalking Relationship and is still one of the most significant contributions to the complicated issue of keeping victims of abuse from becoming murder victims. The importance of the EAA to first responders, law enforcement, court personnel, hospital personnel and domestic violence advocates was Murphy Milano's mission before her untimely death from cancer on October 28, 2012.

Time's Up contains all the information needed to create and complete a personal safety and escape plan, enhancing standard safety plans and personalizing the victim's own requirements. The book has been offered as training to several advocates and organizations around the country and is often used as a textbook.

What is the Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit (EAA)? From Document The Abuse:

The E.A.A. is a detailed, yet simple to perform process that walks the victim step-by-step through creating a legal document that will stand the test of many of the legal hurdles that are thrown at intimate partner violence and stalking cases.

The process helps the victim to prepare her history of abuse and stalking, utilize the included documents, gather other needed evidence, and distribute the documentation to specified people.

“The Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit contains information that is critical to help victims’ in documenting their experiences and creating a record to insure that instances of abuse are memorialized should they be needed for future use in the legal system” (Donna Pendergast is the First Assistant Attorney General Office of Special Investigations in Lansing Michigan.)

It is as immediate as buying the Times Up! e-book, downloading it, and following the instructions to prepare the document. For those who are worried about storing an e-book on a shared computer, the Times Up! book also conveniently comes in a print book format with easy to Xerox document pages. Used as a self-help procedure, any victim can easily complete this confidential process and be assured that their experiences are legally documented.

“The Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit is another tool to save lives. It’s practical, inspirational and USEABLE. The insights are precise and pragmatic.” (Hon. Nancy Sidote-Salyers, Former Prosecutor, Retired Circuit Court Judge)

The victims will also produce a short video telling in their own words, what abuse and stalking they have experienced. Included in the video is identifying information of the perpetrators identity, a photo, his social security number, place of employment, and patterns of abuse conduct.

Lethality factors are also discussed: weapons, assaults on others, drug use, mental health history and any other detailed information that helps the court understand his dangerousness.

Items of DNA evidence are suggested for collection, legal documents are filled out, a notarization process is followed, and distribution to safe and legal persons makes sure the E.A.A. is available should the victim be seriously harmed, goes missing, or is killed.

iEAA the App from Apple

The iEAA App brings safety planning into the age of technology. Developed by Allen Corporation in conjunction with Susan Murphy Milano and Chet Hosmer, the iEAA App was unveiled on July 4, 2012 (Independence Day) allowing the information to be downloaded and used on any Apple product.

This is the first phase of the App and further improvements and developments are currently in the works to bring the app into the Android market and capability of cloud storage.

Who Needs an EAA and Why?

Until now, the standard response for intimate partner violence and stalking from law enforcement has been:

* Victims are told to report (but action is only taken if you can show evidence of the abuse)
* Victims are told to go to a shelter
* Victims are told to get a restraining order (but usually only granted if there is evidence of the abuse)
* Victims are told to move away (but leaving behind careers, family, and assets)
* Victims are told to stay with someone else
* Victims are told stalking is hard to prove and stalking laws are often weak and poorly defined

This response does not help the victim ‘document’ the situations and specifics of her abuse and her abuser. Outside of a police report or restraining order, documentation has still not occurred. In a case of future serious injury, the victim goes missing, or is killed, nothing exists to link her to her story.

The E.A.A. has the propensity to document the historical aspects of the abuse and record it to challenge 'hearsay' arguments in a case. By simply following the steps of creating an E.A.A. a victim can provide 'before the event' information that presents the history of her case prior to serious injury, disappearance or death. Click here to read more about how the E.A.A. benefits a victim's case.

Information such as details of how the perpetrator has said he would carry out harming, abducting or killing her can be detailed. Admissions or comments made to her about other victims the perpetrator has harmed can be listed. Likely hiding places for weapons or evidence can be revealed. Possible alibis that he would make up for his defense (including identification of people who could be the perp’s co-defendants in her harm, abduction or murder). If the victim has existing scars or active wounds, they can be documented at the time of the E.A.A. creation.

The E.A.A. has the same informational capabilities of providing unknown and unrecognized abuser and stalking risk factors known by the victim.

For detailed information on how the EAA supports cases of abuse: CLICK HERE

For information on education, awareness and training on the EAA or personal assistance in creating your safety plan: CLICK HERE

If you are thinking about leaving an abusive relationship, BEFORE you announce your plans in a fit of anger or unclear thinking, think again and do what it takes to save your own life and keep your children safe. Create your Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit to maximize your chances of getting out alive!

If you are out of the relationship and need extra support, you can contact The Institute for Relational Harm Reduction for expert information on how to heal.

Time’s Up: A Guide on How to Leave an Abusive and Stalking Relationship can be ordered through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books A Million, and all online digital and local book retailers.

For quantity case orders and discounts, please contact ImaginePublicity, Tel: 843-808-0859, Email: contact@imaginepublicity.com

For detailed information about Susan Murphy Milano in her true crime memoir, Holding My Hand Through Hell, her last book, is available through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books A Million, and all online digital and local book retailers, or directly from the publisher, Ice Cube Press.

Based on a true story, told with the flow of a novel, spiced with frank wisdom and wit, Holding My Hand Through Hell encourages the reader to immerse themselves into this family’s life and is an inspiration to become an advocate for change in this world we all share. This book will incite discussion, debate, and heightened awareness about hope, survival, abuse, murder, and its impact on our society. In the end, it will leave readers both applauding this woman as well as wondering how she escaped, sometimes at the eleventh hour. Twenty years later, she has realized that God must have been holding her hand through hell, delivering her from the evils of her life in order to save others.

New Book: Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor

2013-04-16T14:40:00.000-04:00

by Barry Goldstein

Training Lawyers to Litigate Domestic Violence Cases Properly

The most common question I receive from protective mothers is about how they can find a good attorney. Most law students complete law school without receiving any training about domestic violence. Many lawyers receive some domestic violence training but it is often provided by attorneys or judges who are experts in the law, or mental health professionals who are experts in psychology, but usually not by domestic violence experts such as advocates. This is why the Saunders’ study recently released by the U. S. Department of Justice found that the standard and required training for judges and lawyers (and evaluators) does not provide the information necessary to respond to domestic violence cases. In many ways this kind of training is the worst of all worlds because it creates a false sense of competence in domestic violence and many attorneys who receive this limited training are not open to considering real domestic violence expertise.

The Saunders’ study found that there is now a substantial body of specialized research that would help inform courts about best practices in domestic violence custody cases. Unfortunately this research was not available when domestic violence first became a public issue and courts never got into the practice of obtaining this information in order to make better decisions for children. The problem is exacerbated by the widespread use of mental health professionals, who are often inadequately trained in domestic violence, but are relied on by the courts for expertise in domestic violence cases. This causes attorneys and judges to hear misinformation that is treated as if it were accurate because it is coming from “expert” witnesses.

Even worse is the cottage industry of lawyers and mental health professionals that has developed to support abusive fathers. Domestic violence is about control and economic control is an important part of domestic violence. A large majority of contested custody cases involve abusive fathers seeking custody as a way to regain control over a partner who decided to leave or to punish her for complaints about his abuse. In most of these cases the abusive father controls most of the family’s financial resources. Many court professionals understand that the best way to make a large income is to support theories and practices favorable to abusive fathers because that is where the money is. In many cases these biased professionals are permitted to serve as GALs and evaluators and treated as if they were neutral.

All of these unhelpful circumstances tend to reinforce misinformation and discourage the adoption of the best practices that would be supported by current scientific research. As a result, attorneys who are acting in good faith often do not have the familiarity with current research or an understanding of domestic violence dynamics that are needed to present the strongest possible case for protective mothers. Attorneys who are part of the cottage industry are often happy to take large retainers from protective mothers, but refuse to present the evidence of abuse because they do not believe her or that the information is important.

The result is that protective mothers often complain that their attorneys demanded a large retainer, promised to protect them but proceeded to undermine their case. Many of the mothers lose their attorneys prior to trial and are forced to precede pro se because they are out of money or with an attorney unfamiliar with her case. We often see mothers criticized for having several attorneys with the critics not realizing this is a function of the inadequate training of the lawyers rather than a reflection on the mothers. The protective mothers also repeatedly complain that their attorneys refuse to present evidence of abuse and are unwilling to work with a domestic violence expert.

A Solution for Creating Qualified Attorneys

Elizabeth Liu and I have written a comprehensive book containing 26 chapters and over 500 pages of information to help attorneys present strong cases on behalf of victims of domestic violence and to counter the common abuser legal tactics. The book is Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor: Critical Legal Issues; Effective Safety Strategies. It is based on our belief that attorneys should make full use of current scientific research to support their client’s cases and challenge practices that have been shown to work poorly for children. It is also based on using a multi-disciplinary approach and understanding that judges and lawyers are the experts in the law, mental health professionals are the experts in psychology and domestic violence advocates are the experts in domestic violence. This is important because courts routinely treat judges, lawyers and evaluators as if they were experts in domestic violence. The Saunders’ study confirmed our belief that domestic violence advocates are among the professionals with the most knowledge about domestic violence and that evaluators, lawyers and judges frequently do not have the specific training needed to effectively respond to domestic violence cases. We believe collaboration among professionals with complementary knowledge and training would improve the courts’ response to domestic violence and the assistance of domestic violence experts is critical to recognizing the best interests of children in domestic violence cases.

We believe that three of the best sources of current research about domestic violence are the Saunders’ study, The Batterer as Parent and Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody. We were familiar with much of the research in the Saunders’ study from the presentation by Dr. Saunders and his colleagues at the 2010 NCADV conference and discussions we had with him. After we submitted our manuscript, the U. S. Department of Justice released the Saunders’ study and an updated version of The Batterer as Parent was released. We rewrote some parts of the book and especially the citations in order to include the new material from these valuable sources. We hope to encourage attorneys to use this research to support their clients’ cases. The fact that Dan Saunders prepared his report for the U. S. Department of Justice gives it an aura of reliability and neutrality that should make it harder for judges to dismiss.

Our book focuses on child custody cases, but we also have two chapters about criminal cases and another about civil protection orders. Many of the chapters in the book contain information that will apply to any case that involves domestic violence issues. We believe many parts of our book can be cited by attorneys to support various points they want to make in their cases.

Preliminary Work with their Clients

The first chapter discusses the fact that domestic violence cases are very different than other cases. Many aspects of domestic violence are counterintuitive so that it is easy to misunderstand a party’s behavior unless the professional is considering the domestic violence context and understands the dynamics of domestic violence. The custody courts have developed a lot of practices designed to encourage the parties to cooperate. This may be useful in other kinds of cases, but often places domestic violence survivors at risk and undermines their cases and the safety of themselves and their children. We frequently see mothers blamed for the difficulty they have in cooperating with their abusers instead of courts blaming the abuser for actions that made such cooperation problematic.

In domestic violence cases the safety of victims and their children needs to be the paramount consideration. There is no other type of case including crimes involving gang members that is more likely to lead to murder or serious injury of parties, witnesses or court personnel. Courts make serious errors when they fail to recognize the dangers or minimize the risks. As an example, we often see courts assume that the risk of violence is reduced when the parties have separated. In reality the research demonstrates that the most dangerous time for women is after they have left. Similarly the frequency of court assisted child murders confirms the danger involved in these cases. Accordingly it is important for lawyers to clearly and directly inform courts at the start of a case that it is a domestic violence case and the court needs to give safety considerations the highest priority. This approach helps to protect the safety of the client and her children and also avoids approaches that undermine her case.

The chapter on interviewing clients helps attorneys understand the concerns survivors have and how to make them feel comfortable sharing what are often painful and embarrassing experiences. We emphasize the importance of attorneys making it clear they work for the client and will follow any proper request. Dara Carlin provided some wonderful insights about the need for male attorneys to consider how their behavior and body language could affect their clients.

The paramount importance of safety is emphasized in the chapter about safety planning. The client is the expert about the risks her ex-partner poses and lawyers must take these concerns seriously. A safety plan should be created, often with the assistance of a domestic violence advocate. Attorneys need to avoid actions that could place the client in jeopardy and strongly advocate for relief that is necessary for the safety of the client and her children.

The first chapter we wrote was about effectively putting together the comprehensive pattern of abuse. One of the biggest problems with the custody courts’ response to domestic violence is the frequent failure to recognize true complaints of abuse. Judges are often criticized for this mistake, but in fairness the widespread failure of attorneys to present important evidence and particularly to put together the pattern of the father’s abuse makes it harder for judges to believe the mothers’ allegations. Providing this information would also increase the chances of GALs and evaluators acting in good faith to support the mothers’ complaints.

I have often heard judges and other court professionals lament the difficulty in responding to what they see as a “he-said-she-said” case. In many cases the abuser has “only” engaged in physical abuse a few times. His purpose is not to cause as much pain as possible, but rather to coerce his partner to do what he wants. Once she knows what he is capable of these tactics have been successful and he only needs to remind her what could happen if she doesn’t obey. Court professionals who do not understand domestic violence dynamics tend to focus only on physical abuse and try to figure out who is telling the truth about a couple of disputed incidents.

In reality most domestic violence tactics do not involve physical abuse. More common are tactics that include emotional, verbal, psychological and economic abuse, monitoring and isolating behaviors. Courts can also look at past parenting practices. They rarely consider why a father who had limited involvement with the children during the relationship is suddenly demanding custody. Litigation abuse is a common tactic both to harass the mother and in an attempt to bankrupt her. We recommend that attorneys and their clients put together this pattern of coercive and controlling behaviors which can help demonstrate the father’s motivation for seeking custody. Often many of these other tactics are more easily proven or even admitted by abusers who see nothing wrong with them. In the context of her complaints and his denials of physical abuse, this pattern of other controlling and coercive behaviors should be very convincing. It is also helpful to show how his abusive tactics are continuing because many inadequately trained professionals believe the end of the relationship suggests he is now safe even if he acted improperly while they were together. Knowing that his abusive tactics will be used against him may discourage some of the more harmful tactics and this can only benefit the children.

Effective Preparation and Presentation of Domestic Violence Cases

Throughout the book we provide examples of how to use current scientific research to bolster domestic violence cases. We have one chapter which is all about the value of using this research and how to include it in the case. We discuss ways to make it easier for judges to be open to this research. A later chapter discusses the best ways to approach judges in an effort to educate them about domestic violence in ways they can hear.

Domestic violence advocates are the experts about domestic violence so it was important to include a chapter about working with domestic violence agencies. We encourage attorneys to work with the client’s advocate and learn from her. Advocates are particularly important in helping to create a safety plan and recognizing dangers. Potentially, advocates can be the expert witnesses needed to inform the court about domestic violence issues. This is especially important because many mothers would have no other opportunity to access an expert witness. We believe if advocates regularly served as experts it would educate court professionals so as to improve the court response to other domestic violence cases.

We have a chapter about how to work with Guardians ad litem or other attorneys representing the children. When possible we encourage attorneys to provide the research and information about domestic violence to the GAL and try to convince them to support the mother’s position. When the GAL is a “fathers’ rights” supporter or otherwise biased for the father we discuss ways to challenge the GAL. At the end of the chapter are a group of best practices for GALs in domestic violence cases. We hope that protective mothers and their attorneys will share these pages with their GAL so they can see the basis for practices that would benefit their clients.

The chapter about working with child protective agencies recognizes that caseworkers, like judges, lawyers and evaluators usually do not have the domestic violence training they need, but the training they receive often gives them a false sense of competence. Accordingly it is useful to provide them with current research and help them see the pattern of abuse. Best practices require caseworkers to consult with domestic violence advocates regarding domestic violence cases and some agencies have this arrangement. If your community has not adopted these successful strategies we encourage those supporting protective mothers to lobby for these best practices. Knowing the frequent flaws in the child protective response to domestic violence cases can be used to inform courts about the real meaning of child protective outcomes.

The reliance by courts on inadequately trained evaluators and other “experts” has contributed to the failure of courts to protect children from abusers. We have included chapters in the book about challenging the use of unhelpful professionals, cross-examining evaluators and obtaining genuine experts to support the cases of protective mothers.

We believe it is important for attorneys to raise concerns about the appointment of an evaluator before the appointment is made. Once the evaluator submits an unfavorable report any complaints will be seen as a reaction to the unfavorable information. In a domestic violence case, courts need expertise about domestic violence. They may or may not need the help of a mental health professional depending on whether there is credible information that one of the parties or the children has a serious mental illness. Credible information would have to be more than the alleged abuser saying she is crazy. If there are no significant mental health issues in the case, there is no reason for an evaluation and attorneys should object to any appointment of an evaluator. As things stand today few psychologists or other potential evaluators have the necessary expertise in domestic violence to respond appropriately to domestic violence allegations. In many cases they fail to recognize domestic violence because of their ignorance and limitations and then label the mother paranoid or delusional because the evaluator missed the father’s history of abuse.

If there are legitimate mental health issues it is important to understand these are separate from the domestic violence issues. Treating an abuser’s mental illness is a good thing, but does nothing to alleviate his belief system that supports his abuse of the mother and often the children. Accordingly the attorney should ask that any evaluator who is appointed also be an expert in domestic violence or be requested to consult with such an expert about the domestic violence issues. Evaluators often claim to have expertise in domestic violence based on limited training they have received. The Saunders’ study establishes that this standard training is usually insufficient. There is strong support by Saunders, The Batterer as Parent, ethical rules for psychologists and psychiatrists and the Greenbook Initiative for evaluators to consult with domestic violence advocates in domestic violence cases. Any failure to do this or refusal to accept their expertise can be used to challenge any unfavorable report.

One of the most common reasons for the failure of evaluators to recognize true allegations of abuse is the widespread belief in the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse. This is especially prevalent among evaluators who are part of the cottage industry supporting abusers, but is also common for evaluators acting in good faith but without the necessary expertise. The research demonstrates that mothers rarely make deliberately false complaints of abuse and fathers involved in contested custody are 16 times more likely to make deliberately false allegations. It is important that courts be made aware of this information. This research is particularly helpful for cross-examining unqualified evaluators. They can be asked how frequent they believe deliberately false allegations are. They will likely overestimate mothers’ false allegations and underestimate lies by fathers. Evaluators can also be asked how often they support mothers and fathers in their reports. Their estimates are usually not reliable and they may tend to claim it is close to 50-50 because they think this shows neutrality. When you consider that most allegations by mothers are true and most contested cases involve abusive fathers this would mean they are sending a lot of children to live with abusers.

We recommend asking evaluators if they have read the leading research such as the Saunders’ study. Their failure to be familiar with this research should undermine their credibility. Particularly helpful is a finding that inadequately trained evaluators tend to focus on the myth that women frequently make false allegations, unscientific alienation theories and beliefs that attempts by mothers to protect children from abusive fathers are harmful to the children. This is perfect for challenging evaluators who focused on these issues. Saunders found that evaluators with this focus tend to make recommendations that are harmful to children.

Particularly interesting in the Saunders’ study is a finding that social workers make better recommendations in domestic violence cases than psychologists and psychiatrists. This seems surprising because we would expect professionals with more education to be more qualified. One reason for this discrepancy is that social workers are more likely to take a holistic approach. This is important because context is critical to understand domestic violence cases and court professionals often look at each issue and incident separately and so miss patterns and context. The other major reason is the reliance on psychological tests that were not developed for the populations seen in family court. This often results in focusing on minor personality differences that are used to pathologize protective mothers. The findings in the Robin Yeamans’ chapter of my book with Mo Therese Hannah further support our concern about the reliance on psychological tests. Under the best of circumstances they are accurate only 55-65% of the time and when there is domestic violence or a contentious custody case these odds are further reduced.

The Saunders’ research is particularly helpful in responding to the worst recommendations that involve custody to the alleged abuser and supervised or no visitation to the safe, protective mother who always provided good care for the children and is their primary attachment figure. Saunders refers to these as harmful outcomes because they are always harmful to the children. The risk of separating children from their primary attachment figure, a risk that includes higher rates of depression, low self-esteem and suicide when older, is greater than any benefit the evaluator believed he was providing. It will be hard to justify this risk on cross-examination because in truth the evaluator never considered it. The extreme outcomes are a strong indication of deeply flawed practices so that most of the time the opposite result would work better for the children.

The Saunders’ study found that court professionals need not just general domestic violence training, but training in specific topics that include screening for domestic violence, risk assessment, impact of domestic violence on children and post-separation violence. Saunders found that the people most likely to have this necessary expertise are domestic violence advocates. This makes sense because it is what they focus on full time as part of their jobs, but too often courts are more focused on mental health degrees or treat advocates as biased because the support the purpose of domestic violence laws. We hope the Saunders’ study and our book will be used to encourage the use of domestic violence experts in court. We hope to work with the NCADV and others to make training available to advocates and encourage those of us who are familiar with this research to serve as expert witnesses. This will be a way to bring this research in front of the court and start providing accurate information about domestic violence.

Responding to Specific Issues

In a court system that often fails to protect victims of abuse, their most catastrophic failure involves sexual abuse allegations. Although mothers rarely make deliberately false allegations, 85% of custody cases with sexual abuse allegations result in custody to the alleged abuser. This is a statistic we would like court professionals to hear frequently because it means present practices are forcing an awful lot of kids to live with their rapists.

The frequent failure of custody courts to respond appropriately to sexual abuse cases means mothers are often faced with a heartrending decision. If they seek to protect their children from unspeakable violations by raising the issue of abuse, they are likely to lose custody and probably be limited to supervised visitation. This gives them no opportunity to help their children. If they do not raise the father’s sexual abuse they will be sending their children to be raped. An attorney can explain the risks and chances for success, but only the mother can make this decision. We believe it is important for the attorney to make clear to their client that she will represent her as zealously as possible no matter what the mother decides.

If the mother decides to raise the sexual abuse issue, we believe it is important for the attorney to make the court aware that many of the common practices by courts in response to sexual abuse work poorly for children. The attorney should promise to present information based on current research and ask the court to be open to the likelihood the allegations are true no matter how painful that realization would be. The attorney should also attempt to avoid investigation strategies that tend to silence the child.

The child should be protected from access by the father that can be used to pressure the child to recant and to prevent his friends and family from also seeking to influence the child. Some courts think it would be neutral to also separate the child from the protective mother so she cannot influence the child. The problem is the child will view this as a punishment and this will encourage her to recant in order to be reunited with her protective parent. Sexual abuse is a painful and embarrassing experience for children just as it is for adults. We often see caseworkers; GALs, judges or other professionals expect children to reveal their most private experiences after only a brief time for creating a trusting relationship. Unsurprisingly children often refuse to talk about the abuse and inadequately trained professionals treat this refusal as proof the allegations are false. The attorney should advocate for arrangements that give the child a chance to develop a trusting relationship with the professional assigned to interview the child before expecting the child to speak about their experiences. The use of play therapy, especially for younger children is a particularly good idea.

We often see evaluators and other mental health professionals assigned to sexual abuse cases despite a lack of expertise. A psychology degree and regular work as an evaluator does not guarantee expertise in child sexual abuse. We also recommend when possible to call a genuine expert who can help the court understand the issues in the case and avoid common mistakes. The expert can speak about the difficulty in proving child sexual abuse and that despite expectations there often is no physical evidence either because of the nature of the abuse or the delay before the child reports it. Children who are repeatedly interviewed may discuss emotional details in a bland manner that is often mistaken as proof the allegations are false. The expert can also explain that in most cases the abuser does not assault the child in front of witnesses for obvious reasons. Accordingly the mother has no personal knowledge but is reacting to something the child said or their behavior. Accordingly there are several possible explanations for the allegations. The most likely is that the father abused the child. Other common situations are that there was a boundary violation, but no abuse, the evidence is equivocal or a good faith allegation was wrong. The least likely cause is a deliberate false report, but courts often create a high standard of proof and tremendous skepticism about abuse allegations and assume if it is not adequately proven it must be an attempt at alienation.

Abusers often threaten to bankrupt mothers if they dare to leave them, but many court professionals fail to consider the use of economic abuse as an important part of domestic violence tactics. The book discusses how many common abuser tactics can be used against them to show their motivation. In one case the abuser refused benefits from his job for the children which would cost him nothing and spent thousands of dollars in legal fees to challenge a school expense for his daughter of a few hundred dollars. This clearly demonstrates his motive if only court professionals would start to use this information. When abusers see these tactics are used against them it might discourage these harmful actions and that can only benefit the children. We also discuss the gender bias in the way child support is enforced more aggressively against mothers.

The chapter about civil protection orders discusses the importance of safety which is a major theme in our book. It is supported by the Saunders’ study finding about the need for risk assessment. We also address the importance of preventing mutual restraining orders and the common abuser tactic of seeking their own protective orders. We emphasize the need for a finding of abuse in the protective order case so that the finding can be used in the custody case.

There is some older research that suggests shared parenting can benefit children under the most favorable circumstances that include parents who can cooperate, want to voluntarily share parenting and live nearby. More recent research demonstrates that shared parenting works poorly for children even under the best of circumstances because it disrupts their lives, two homes are really no homes and items they need are often at the wrong home. It is not necessary to resolve this conflict because all research confirms that shared parenting is never appropriate in the domestic violence cases the book is considering. Even if the allegations were untrue, just the allegations demonstrate the most favorable circumstances for shared parenting do not exist. We encourage attorneys to make courts aware of this research and eliminate the possibility of shared parenting as soon as possible.

Many of the cases in which parental alienation syndrome (PAS) was used, particularly early in its history were allowed because the attorneys for protective mothers failed to object, or did so ineffectively. PAS was concocted by Richard Gardner not based on any research but from his personal experience, beliefs and biases. This included many public statements to the effect that sex between adults and children can be acceptable. Few attorneys knew this or raised it in court. We recommend that this be mentioned early because we believe judges will not want to be associated with a theory that supports incest.

We also believe it is significant that supporters of PAS put tremendous pressure on the American Psychological Association to include it in the DSM-V but it was rejected because there is no valid scientific basis for it. If scientists confirm there is no scientific basis how can courts possibly consider it? Furthermore, PAS is based on the assumption that virtually all allegations of abuse made by mothers are false but the actual research found that less than two percent is deliberately false. The Saunders study is the latest to confirm that false allegations by mothers are rare and PAS is invalid.

Many supporters of PAS are now calling it something else such as alienation or parental alienation because PAS itself has become so notorious. It is important for attorneys to make clear that it is often used by another name but if alienation is assumed to be the mother’s fault, and is solely based on the poor relationship between father and child and the proponents seek extreme remedies that we earlier discussed are always harmful to children, this is PAS. We also believe it is important not just to challenge PAS, but to argue that any professional supporting PAS by any name proves they are unqualified and any party attempting to use it demonstrates the likelihood they are abusive since it is the favorite tactic of abusers.

The next chapter is about friendly parent approaches which come from the same people who have caused so much harm with PAS. Friendly parent approaches are often used in a gender biased manner so that only behaviors more likely to be done by the custodial mother are treated as unfriendly and somehow abusive tactics that more often are committed by non-custodial fathers are not considered. It is no accident that states that support friendly parent approaches are less likely to recognize and respond effectively to domestic violence. This is exactly what those who promote these approaches are trying to accomplish.

We have two chapters about criminal cases. In cases where abusers are the defendants, we believe it is important that the outcome include a finding or admission about his domestic violence crimes so that he cannot deny it later. The mother’s attorney can work with the prosecutor to support the case. The research demonstrates that the only actions shown to change abusers’ behavior are accountability and monitoring. Accordingly, if the mother supports this the attorney can share this research with the prosecutor. We also strongly support strict enforcement of protective orders and want prosecutors to enforce witness tampering laws because that is extremely common in domestic violence cases.

Increasingly, abusers are using false criminal complaints as a tactic to regain control. They often make the complaint at the start of a custody case to gain initial control of the children. Accordingly it is important for attorneys to make prosecutors aware of the research that fathers involved in contested custody are 16 times more likely to make false allegations. Therefore they should be extremely skeptical of such complaints and investigate thoroughly before bringing charges. This is especially important because once they bring charges based on the father’s complaint they will be reluctant to charge him with his crimes because it would undermine the earlier case. Attorney need to consider that a plea deal that might be beneficial in the criminal case can undermine the custody case which was exactly the reason the false charge was made.

Our chapter about supervised visitation deals with both the problem of using supervised visitation for protective mothers who pose no safety risk and failing to use it effectively for abusive fathers who pose a serious risk. The Saunders’ study found that courts are not using supervised visitation enough for alleged abusers. Part of this is a lack of availability. These are cases where the children’s safety is at risk so it ought to be a priority. Accordingly it is a particularly poor practice to waste these resources on Supervising safe, protective mothers usually based on unscientific alienation theories or pathologizing their normal response to their partner’s abuse. We also see professionals without an understanding of domestic violence dynamics assume that an abuser’s ability to behave appropriately while supervised demonstrates it is safe for the children to interact with him without supervision.

We included a chapter about vicarious trauma because this is an important issue that is rarely discussed. Lawyers and other professionals must hear incredibly painful stories and this often creates a harmful emotional impact that can negatively impact their effectiveness as attorneys. It is important for attorneys to take care of themselves, seek support and professional help if needed. We hope our book will bring more awareness to this problem.

Responding to Cases with Harmful Outcomes

Our chapter about appeals is particularly important in the context of the frequency with which courts mishandle domestic violence cases. This provides the best way to overcome bad decisions by hostile or biased trial judges. We emphasize that it is critical to make a strong record during the trial. If an issue is not raised during trial, the appellate court is likely to refuse to consider the issue. Sociological studies have long been used in appellate briefs so the research we discuss throughout the book can be used to buttress survivors’ appeals. They can also be used in amicus briefs that we also encourage. Including this information not only improves the chances for a successful appeal, but educates judges and lawyers so that the information can benefit mothers and children in other cases.

While an appeal is an avenue to overturn a bad trial court decision that addressed previous facts and legal challenges, a modification petition may be used to change custody after the custody arrangement has been shown to work poorly. This requires proof of a change of circumstance. We encourage attorneys to view custody decisions as a prediction about what arrangement will work best for children. We constantly see cases in which the abusive father is given custody based on the assumption that he is more likely to promote the relationship between mother and children. This common assumption fails to consider that he sought custody to regain control over his victim. Accordingly it is completely predictable that he uses the control the court gave him to undermine the mother’s relationship. We believe this and various violations of the court order that interfere with visitation rights can be used as a change of circumstance. We also believe the new research that demonstrates the assumptions made by the trial court turned out to be wrong is also a change of circumstance. Combining subsequent events that challenge the court’s prediction with new research that explains why the arrangement works poorly for children makes a particularly strong argument for modification. Testimony by an expert witness who can place this research into evidence, and put the father’s actions since the custody order into context make a particularly strong argument for modification.

We have included a chapter about seeking publicity because it is a subject that often comes up in response to bad decisions and a judge who is not open to information that demonstrates the existing arrangements are harming the children. We urge protective mothers to be able to articulate to what end they seek publicity. How is it going to change the bad arrangement? There is a very real danger the court and the abuser will retaliate and that must be considered. Ultimately this is a decision for the mother to make and the attorney should help her as long as it does not violate any court order or ethical consideration. The attorney should also make the mother aware of the potential negative consequences the court may impose. Mothers also need to be realistic about their ability to obtain coverage. The media has been reluctant to cover this issue and most of the time mothers have been disappointed by their inability to attract press coverage.

I started this article discussing the difficulty protective mothers are having in finding effective representation. The court system has responded to criticism about their flawed response to domestic violence with extreme defensiveness. They have retaliated against protective mothers and professionals who support them. In the process the courts have ignored First Amendment protections and misused disciplinary procedures. At the same time they have ignored widespread ethical violations. In the final chapter of the book, we discuss the ethical obligation to zealously represent the client. The retaliation by too many courts has made it dangerous for lawyers to advocate zealously. We also see many attorneys reluctant to present domestic violence evidence or challenge a court’s mistakes because they are afraid it will undermine their relationship with the judge and thus harm the position of other clients. This is a fundamental conflict of interest because attorneys cannot undermine the position of one client to benefit another one. The widespread failure of attorneys to obtain the necessary training in domestic violence, as confirmed in the Saunders’ report also has ethical ramifications. By seeking to silence criticism and refusing to enforce ethical obligations the court system makes it difficult for survivors to obtain good representation. They also undermine the public’s confidence in the fairness of our judicial system.

The Difference the Book Could Make

For Lawyers: The book provides exactly the information and ideas competent attorneys need to present strong domestic violence cases. It helps them with specific issues they will face and provides the citations they will need. This will allow attorneys who want to represent domestic violence survivors to do so effectively and to be prepared for the common abuser tactics they will face.

We hope this will be a big part of the answer about where to find a good attorney. We hope to create a system where we can keep a list of attorneys who have read the book and so are qualified to handle these cases. This will help mothers find good attorneys and allow attorneys who want to be on the right side of this issue to develop practices that support protective moms. We hope the book will encourage attorneys to work closely with domestic violence advocates which can only strengthen their cases and provide access to valuable information. When mothers can bring in experts to testify about the research available and consult with the attorneys, this information will benefit the attorney in future cases as well. In effect the attorney is getting expert personalized training at no cost. I have seen some attorneys request to be paid for reading the information in Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody and I think it is wrong. If they do not have the needed training they should not expect the client to pay for their time to learn. Instead it should be viewed by attorneys as an advantage to learn from one case and then use the learning for other cases.

For Courts: There are many factors that have caused courts to mishandle so many domestic violence custody cases. I believe a big part of the problem is that they developed practices at a time when no research was available and decided to rely on mental health professionals as if their expertise included domestic violence. This led to lawyers and judges hearing a lot of misinformation that has become deeply ingrained. Even when the right information is presented, it is so different from what they are used to that it sounds off.

We believe this book could help reverse this process if lawyers learn from the book and start presenting strong cases based on current research. As more attorneys provide courts with the pattern of abuse court professionals should start looking for evidence that they now ignore. As the attorneys provide genuine expert witnesses who can explain current research and domestic violence dynamics the courts will start to expect more than just a personal opinion. We hope this will lead to better training practices based on current research. We particularly hope that findings in the Saunders’ report, which should be seen as a neutral source will convince judges that they need to take a fresh look at outdated practices that work poorly for children. As good judges start making better decisions, the extreme decisions by bad judges will stick out more and hopefully lead to reversals and even discipline.

For Domestic Violence Survivors: We hope and expect that this book will make it easier for domestic violence survivors to find capable attorneys. The suggestions in the book will also make it easier for protective moms forced to represent themselves. We hope over time it will make the courts more open to hearing the necessary information. The book should encourage survivors to work with domestic violence advocates and this is especially helpful in custody cases. The book should make it easier to obtain qualified expert witnesses both by encouraging the courts to look at domestic violence expertise instead of just advanced degrees that are unrelated to domestic violence and child abuse. The book also provides a lot of resources for protective moms with bad outcomes to seek a modification based on the new research.

The book was written based on the reality that the present response to domestic violence cases is not working well for children. So often we see mothers forced to focus on pretend issues and pretend reality because the court professionals do not know how to recognize valid allegations of abuse. We deeply admire protective mothers who work so hard to safeguard their children and hope our book will make their job a little easier.

I would like to thank Elizabeth Liu for her assistance in writing this article about our new book. I have had the pleasure of getting to know her better and the advantage of her wisdom and knowledge in preparing this book. For more information about the book, including access to the first approximately 50 pages or to purchase the book go to the publisher’s web site at http://civicresearchinstitute.com/rdv.html

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor, co authored with Elizabeth Liu is designed to train attorneys to present domestic violence cases and was be released in April of 2013. Barry can be reached by email from their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

10 Reasons to Run From a Serial Texter!

2013-04-09T08:47:00.000-04:00

by Heidi Hiatt

Young ladies (including those in my life), listen up. It’s time for some straight talk about guys who consider texting a primary form of communication or an appropriate way to get to know you.

As evidenced in previous blog posts on grammar and communication skills, I feel that texting is the devolution of the English language. Yes, I text; it can be a quick way to check in with a loved one or tell a friend about something funny when they can’t talk on the phone. But I decided a while back that I am done trying to have lengthy conversations by text because they are a convenient excuse not to actually TALK to someone.

Guys often like to communicate in short bullet points, so texting can be a comfortable way to achieve a quick back and forth on terms more amenable to them. Not all men are like this, but men who work in professions in which they are accustomed to flinging brief sound bites over the Nextel or radio might be. Tough beans, those guys. It ain’t all about you and sometimes you need to accommodate women’s style of communication as well.

Here are some points to remember when a guy says, “let’s text!”

1. Guys who text do not call. Even though they’re sitting there gleefully poking buttons on the same phone they could just as easily call you on, they’d rather stick to shallow sound bites rather than engage in meaningful conversation. (Who among us has ever had a deep conversation about Aristotelianism and astrophysics by text?)

2. Guys who text do not spend time with you. If you’re texting with a guy who will spend hours ping-ponging cute little symbols and chat acronyms between your cellular communication devices, you’re McDonald’s to him. You’re a convenience that will give him attention on his terms and he doesn’t have to show you proper respect or actually take you on a date.

3. Guys who text only are emotionally unavailable. Ever read Sandra L. Brown’s How to Spot a Dangerous Man Before You Get Involved(http://www.amazon.com/How-Spot-Dangerous-Before-Involved/dp/0897934474)? Does this guy sound familiar? “He is married, separated or dating someone else but usually will tell you he is ‘almost out’ of the relationship but ironically, never does really get out. He is interested in hyper tolerant women who will wait and wait on his eventual ‘availability’ for their relationship. Also likes to target women with poor boundaries.”

If a guy’s chronically texting with you, you can bet you’re not the only one he’s texting with. I know of cases in which “text guys” had whole harems out there to bolster their egos and provide them with playtime. Yeah, supposedly committed and married guys. It’s cheap and easy fun for them. They don’t care if you’re one of ten. They’d rather have ten than one.

4. Guys who text avoid emotional intimacy. Actual conversation could lead to authentic sharing which, gulp, could involve real emotions. When you’re just looking for cyber companionship, a poor substitute for the real thing, you don’t want to feel emotional except for the high you get by someone flirting with you at your whim.

5. Guys who text will sext. When you’re giving freely of yourself and your time to someone who is not pursuing your attentions in an honorable way, they will push your boundaries and expect your text messages to become increasingly exciting.

Texting is one of their drugs, a way to get attention and flirting for almost nothing. Their desire for their drug often grows into requests or demands for nude pictures of yourself.

Don’t assume that those photos will be a little guilty pleasure he keeps to himself. There are all kinds of psychos out there who can use those to blackmail others, destroy reputations, and do all sorts of damage with. Who knows who else those have been shared with.

6. Guys who text want sex. Chronic texters who never (or rarely) call, hang out, or take you on a date want to see what else they can get for free besides your affection and time. Why not sex? Sociopaths in particular love it when they can get something for nothing, and if they can tease a woman into submission by text and take advantage of that, why wouldn’t they? Virtual foreplay, then arranging a booty call, is cheaper than a hooker and something they can do while bored in their 2 P.M. accounting meeting.

7. Guys who judge you by text aren’t worth it. If someone thinks that you are unworthy of actually spending time with according to short, emotionally constrained blips on a screen, he’s not worth giving a chance to. With a huge nod to the bestselling book He’s Just Not That Into You, if a guy is truly interested in you he will make time to get to know you. He will treat you like a lady. He will earn your trust and respect if he deserves it at all, not demand it on his terms.

8. Guys who text need to grow up. There, I said it. Someone who only wants to text you is like a little boy passing notes in fourth grade except that it’s not fourth grade anymore and he wants more than a playground smooch. Chronic texting is a sign of emotional immaturity and a man with a low emotional IQ is a dangerous one indeed. They throw the same wild tantrums that toddlers do except they’re a lot bigger and can hurt or kill you and your loved ones.

9. Guys who text don’t have to show you who they really are. I had an argument with a young person the other day about how their online interactions were not well regulated. I told them that you don’t really know who you’re talking to online and the most successful predators masquerade as people they’re not.

The same is true of texting. Dark souls can be cutesy and seem sexy and be “vulnerable” in virtual reality when real life might be something entirely different. Do a background check on people like this. You’ll be surprised at what you can find. Besides known players, you might also find criminals.

10. Guys who text will use you and move onto the next one. If a guy can’t graduate to phone calls and making time for you in person, he doesn’t want that. You’re not special to him. You’re not much different than the bag of Fritos he picks up at the 7-Eleven on his way to the ball game. It’s only a matter of time before he’s tired of you and moves onto his next batch of cyber girlfriends. He has others already, remember?

Ultimately, ladies, don’t forget that you are a daughter of the King. God is your Father and he wants the very best for you, not guys who will play with your emotions and make you think more is coming when it’s not. You deserve a man who will take the time to get to know you in loving and caring ways, not Textmaster Flash with all of his sycophantic soothsayings.

If all he wants to do is text, trust me– run away.

I’ve been texting for a year with a couple of guys without ever going on a date with them. -Chloe Sevigny

How A Town Heals….

2013-03-30T15:58:00.000-04:00

by Donna R. Gore, M.A.

In the aftermath of the mass homicides of Newtown, CT, Ladyjustice wondered how a town collectively heals after such events. We have innumerable examples from which to draw for purposes of discussion. What follows is not an exhaustive account, but a sampling of how each tragedy blossomed into positive remembrances.

The primary element… the motivation in each of these true life occurrences was that the focus was on the humanity and goodness of the victim(s) lost versus the event itself.

The Aftermath of July 23, 2007: The Petit Family Murders:

Following a rampage that included stalking, kidnapping, bank robbery, physical restraint, sexual assault/rape, torture ,murder and arson of Dr. William Petit, Jr and the three Petit women/girls, the State of Connecticut was shaken to its core. Cries for the death penalty for both offenders and an outpouring of collective grief and support were initiated by people around the globe. That one man could survive and ultimately carry on with life is a major miracle. How did the sleepy town of Cheshire begin and continue on the path of recovery?

1) Within the Cheshire playground, Bartlem Park, lined with inscribed bricks, there is one that reads, “In Memory of the Petits;”

2) Cheshire Academy: Employer of Wife/Mother Jennifer Hawk-Petit. (a former nurse), created memorial garden in her name;

3) Creation of the Petit Family Foundation whose multiple missions include the sponsoring of scholarships in the areas of women pursuing careers in science, families of violent crime and Multiple Sclerosis. (Jennifer Hawk- Petit suffered from MS); Also: A 5K Road Race: http://www.petitfamilyfoundation.org/ways_to_support/participate_in_events/road_race/;

A Golf Tournament: http://www.petitfamilyfoundation.org/ways_to_support/participate_in_events/golf_tournament/

A “Motorcycle Ride for Justice” http://www.petitfamilyfoundation.org/ways_to_support/participate_in_events/ride_for_justice/

An Evening Honoring Women in Science: http://www.petitfamilyfoundation.org/ways_to_support/participate_in_events/wis_home/

A Running Team:

http://www.petitfamilyfoundation.org/ways_to_support/participate_in_events/pff_running_team/

Michaela, youngest daughter of the family, began a community service project, symbolically represented and continued by the harvesting of flower seeds originally salvaged from their home garden;

http://donnagore.com/tag/michaelas-garden-project

A concert:

http://pffpetit.posterous.com/elegy-world-premiere-july-19-2012/

The United Methodist Church remembers the Petit family throughout the year with special services, and floral arrangements;

A well known memorial garden is located at the site of the former Petit homer on Sorghum Mill Drive... The house was razed after being destroyed by arson set by the murderers. The garden is maintained by friends and neighbors and open to the public. http://donnagore.com/2011/06/19/the-legacy-of-the-petit-family-foundation/

The Aftermath of Columbine High School:

April 20, 1999 A rampage by two crazed, depressed male students who were outcasts with a death wish with grandiose ideas to make an unforgettable impact on the world before they went down. The bomb failed….but the bullets seemingly never stopped until 12 students, and one teacher was shot dead, 21 others were injured.

The Greater Littletown Youth Initiative: After 13 years, this group comprised of school personnel. Mental health professionals, law enforcement and citizens continue to meet every Friday to discuss their children, issues and preventative measures to forestall future attacks: A strong emphasis is placed specifically on “Blueprint” programs. http://glyi.org/

A powerful “Lie-down protest” with dozens of participants by the steps of the State Capital the day after the shootings to plead for tougher gun laws.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705298653/Lie-down-recalls-13-Columbine-shootings-Participants-seek-stricter-gun-laws.html

Rachael’s Challenge: An outgrowth of kindness and compassion begun at the muddle school level- Anti-bullying;

http://www.rachelschallenge.org/big-picture/about-rachels-challenge/

Columbine CD Producer Announces New CD Project Honoring Life of Columbine Victim:

A new CD project has been launched by Columbine CD producer honoring the life and legacy of Rachel Joy Scott, the student who gained much notoriety from her death in the tragedy at Columbine High School. http://www.racheljoyscott.com/default.htm

Honoring Daniel
Welcome to the Daniel Mauser website. This site is dedicated to the memory of Daniel Conner Mauser. Daniel was taken from us in the tragic massacre at Columbine High School on April 20th, 1999.

http://www.danielmauser.com/index.html;

http://www.wfaa.com/community/rachels-challenge/Garland-grads-honor-the-victims-of-Columbine-156933925.html;

The !0th Anniversary of The Columbine Massacre: About 1,000 people gathered for a sunset memorial service at Clement Park, next to the school, where survivors, relatives and current students reflected on the massacre. A dove was released for each of the 13 victims as principal Frank DeAngelis read their names.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705298660/Victims-of-Columbine-High-massacre-honored-at-service-on-10th-anniversary.html?pg=al

The Aftermath of the Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University Rampage Shootings:

On April 16, 2007, 32 students and faculty were killed on campus and 17 others injured in two separate attacks by a deranged student. The massacre prompted the state of Virginia to close legal loopholes that had previously allowed Cho, an individual adjudicated as mentally unsound, to purchase handguns without detection by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The incident prompted schools nationwide to install state-of-the-art notification systems that would broadcast warnings to cellphones, electronic bulletin boards, e-mail accounts and social media. Virginia Tech, especially, began responding to any campus threat

Day of Remembrance: We Remember: Organized runs, candlelight vigils, picnics poetry, music and other events have been part of the remembrance every year…

The Annual Day of Remembrance & Website: 32 students and faculty members who were tragically taken from their loved ones and our community on April 16, 2007. They ranged in age from 18 to 76 and represented a variety of academic areas, faith and ethnic groups

http://www.remembrance.vt.edu/2007/

http://www.weremember.vt.edu/index.html

VT Engage: The Community Learning Initiative: Includes a variety of service projects and grants to inspire VT students to become part of the larger community. http://www.engage.vt.edu/student-programs/;

The Office of Support & Recovery was initiated after the massacre to facilitate support, commemoration activities, student alerts and provide counseling;

http://www.recovery.vt.edu/index.html/

The Aftermath of the rampage shootings on January 8, 2011 and attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson Arizona.

S x fatalities and 13 additional injured persons were targeted at a supermarket.

Americans for Responsible Citizens – Gabby Giffords and husband Mark Kelly’s effort to advocate for responsible gun policies and decrease the power of gun lobbies. http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/about/;

As of February 2012, the U.S, Navy honored Gabby Giffords by naming a ship in her honor for supporting the military and veterans, advocating for renewable energy and championing border security,”

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/02/navy-next-lcs-named-for-congresswoman-giffords-021012/

The Aftermath of Newtown, CT /Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre- December 14. 2012.

A work still in progress…. with gifts, donations, honors and remembrances of every variety imaginable….. However a few words of caution from experts testifying before the Connecticut Legislature on “Recovering from National Tragedies: How Schools and Communities Recover” February 22, 2012:

Experts Dr. Thomas DeMaria of Long Island NY and the 911- Mass Homicides and Dr. Marlene Wong of Los Angeles spoke on this topic:

http://sowkweb.usc.edu/faculty/marleen-wong

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Thomas-De%20Maria/60249540/

A couple of the many interesting points to keep in mind when formulating recommendations, and implementing policies regarding the outpouring of support and the physical environment of the event…..

1) Dealing with the outpouring of gifts – It is well intentioned, but can be a real problem and barrier to healing as schools have to rent warehouses to store the goods and figure out how to distribute equitably is a real problem as well as the increased expenses incurred. More importantly, the access to celebrities and, numerous material goods is not normal in the everyday scheme of life and should be done with care and caution.

2) It is vitally important to change the entire environment in which the event occurred (if it is not razed) such that children feel safe. Historically, they will not enter an environment where they witnessed violence. Therefore, changing the physical structure, layout, painting, making it bright and welcoming is very important for their healing.

3) If it is not changed, the scene tends to attract local voyeurs and curiosity seekers, going to the site, wanting to have their photo taken on site etc.

A sign of hope…. Both psychologists felt that there is a multitude of support in Newtown and Connecticut… and that they are better suited than many small towns to deal with the aftermath…. Link: http://ct-n.com/ondemand.asp?ID=8728

Conclusion: “How a town heals is a measure of the goodness of its people.”

To read more of Donna Gore's posts, and learn more about "LadyJustice," refer to her website: www.donnagore.com Donna is also a Featured Columnist for Here Women Talk and the host of SHATTERED LIVES each Saturday at 5ET.

Stop Growing Boys into Monsters

2013-03-25T14:28:00.000-04:00

by Anita Sullivan

A case in Ohio has recently shaken a town to its core, after the guilty verdicts of two high school football players for rape and for spreading nude photos of the underage victim.

But it obviously hasn’t been shaken enough.

Throughout the trial and evidence presented, it was very clear that these boys were not taught right from wrong at the most basic human level. Up until their arrests they truly believed that they were untouchable, and they came very close to being right. The school, town, and even their parents, allowed and encouraged behaviors that could have no positive outcomes. Until the end, those involved seem to believe that the mistake was in being caught, not in the terrible acts themselves.

Sadly, that alone doesn’t shock me.

What does surprise and sadden me is the arrest of two girls for making public threats to the victim, after the verdict.

After everything that came to light, there is still not as much outrage at the rapists as there is at the victim, in that town anyway. There is still the “she deserved it” or “she’s ruining their lives” mentality. And not just by their parents who love them, or their coaches who “need” them as athletes, but by girls who could very well be the victims.

One of the most enlightening testimonies to the way of thinking in the town was by a friend of the convicted, who wouldn’t allow him to drive drunk. He had been taught to protect his friend from that danger, and did. But when he later saw that friend violating a girl, he did nothing. He didn’t see that it could also ruin lives. Somewhere along the line, his parents and community leaders failed.

The investigation isn’t over, and there are potentially more arrests to come, of those who knew about and covered up the acts. I pray that the town is shaken so profoundly, that they don’t just clean up their act over the possibility of prosecution, but because of human decency and an understanding that our girls are worth so much more. And so are our boys. Our boys deserve to be raised with higher standards and guidelines that prepare them for a life lived well. These boys ultimately made the decisions that deeply impacted a girl and a community, but this community now has a chance to stop growing boys into monsters. I pray they accept the challenge.

Articles:

Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/steubenville-rape-case-twitter-threats_n_2904463.html)

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/17/us-usa-crime-ohio-idUSBRE92E0ZS20130317)

Anita Sullivan is the sister of a missing person, and long time advocate of victims, even before having a personal connection to the world of lost. During college,Anita found a passion for helping others and was involved in a variety of ministries. She then started a career in non-profit, first working with victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. She went on to work with at risk families through a supervised visitation program before spending several years in fundraising and advocacy. She now tries to reach people with a message of Hope through writing and speaking, while honoring her brother, Michael "Austin" Davis, who has been missing since 2007. To learn more about Anita, visit her at losingaustin.blogspot.com.

NY Judges Bring Shame to their Court: Refuse to Correct Mistakes that Lead to Homicides and Ruined Lives

2013-03-19T13:38:00.000-04:00

by Barry Goldstein

The most common question those of us who work to protect battered women and their children is about how they can find a good attorney. Many of the moms complain that their attorneys refuse to present the evidence of domestic violence or child abuse because they want to avoid offending the judge. They are concerned that if they do their job by zealously representing their client it might negatively impact other cases they have with the same judge. The legal ethics in these situations are clear. Lawyers have an ethical obligation to zealously represent their clients and to avoid taking cases that may result in a conflict of interest. Many attorneys assume that they will never be in the position of presenting evidence of abuse because they expect the case to settle. Indeed over 96% of custody cases result in a settlement. The problem is that virtually all of the cases that cannot be settled are domestic violence cases in which the father uses the common abuser legal tactic of seeking custody to regain control over his victim. Inadequately trained court professionals rarely examine the father’s motivation for seeking custody despite limited involvement in caring for the children during the relationship. They just assume he is acting out of love for his children. In these extreme cases, however he is willing to hurt the children in order to pressure the mother to return or punish her for leaving. The abusers understand the best way to hurt the mother is to hurt her children. So the attorney takes a substantial retainer, but cannot settle the case because the father will only agree to arrangements that place the safety of the mother and children at risk. The mother expects her attorney to put the evidence together and present the strong case she has to protect her children. The attorney is concerned that aggressively presenting the evidence of the father’s history of abuse will undermine their relationship with the judge. Some attorneys in this situation recognize the conflict and seek to withdraw from the case. They are not interested in returning their legal fees, much of which was wasted by their refusal to do their job. This often results in mothers being forced to go to trial pro se or with a new attorney less familiar with the case. Other attorneys continue to be the attorney of record but undermine their client’s case.

Most attorneys, like judges and evaluators, have had some training in domestic violence. The Saunders’ study recently released by the US Dept. of Justice, however found that the standard and required training they receive does not give them the necessary information to handle domestic violence cases. This is the worst possible situation in that they do not have the needed expertise but think they do.

This is a serious problem that places women and children in danger. The court system tends to underestimate this problem because of the widespread practice of blaming the victim. It would be useful to consider some of the remedies the court system might adopt to ameliorate this problem. They could encourage or require consultation with domestic violence advocates and better training that would be based on current scientific research and a multi-disciplinary approach. This would be a response supported by the findings in the Saunders’ study. They could encourage judges to be more open to domestic violence evidence and avoid retaliation against mothers making abuse allegations. They could enforce ethical rules about zealous representation and conflicts of interest. All of these responses would improve the courts’ response to domestic violence cases and the reputation of the courts. Most importantly it would make it easier for courts to protect children.

The New York Court System had another idea. Refuse to enforce ethical rules regarding zealous representation and conflict of interest. Protect abusive judges from any criticism of their biased decisions that place children in jeopardy. Use lawyer disciplinary procedures to attack the rare lawyer who understands domestic violence and zealously represents protective moms as ethically required. I know this because I am that attorney and the New York Appellate Division just gave up their last chance to correct their errors or even discuss the merits of the cases for the first time. I cannot ever practice law again because I would have to promise to act unethically. I will continue to speak out against these practices because the safety of children is being compromised. It is tempting to speak about the individual judges and lawyers who mistreated me and so many others, but this is not about individuals. This is a systemic problem and we need a systemic solution.

The Notorious Shockome Case

In many ways the Shockome case was a typical kind of custody case in a broken system that is described in the Saunders’ report as cases with harmful outcomes. The judge, law guardian and evaluator did not have the necessary training to recognize the father’s abuse, but had a false sense of confidence in their abilities and substantial bias against the mother. This led to the all too common outcome of custody to an abuser and supervised visitation for a safe, protective mother.

The Shockome case also had some major differences which is why it is so often used to illustrate improper court practices so common in domestic violence cases. The mother’s parenting ability was unusually excellent so that even the judge and law guardian who were hostile to the mother acknowledged it. She received the mother of the year award in Dutchess County because so many other parents said they learned to improve their parenting from watching Ms. Shockome interact with the children. There was an unusually strong and clear record that made it easy for an objective observer to recognize the mistakes and made it impossible for the appellate court to discuss the merits without reversing the decision. Newsweek Magazine selected the Shockome case to illustrate the problem of abusers using PAS to obtain custody because the record was so strong. The reporter reviewed thousands of pages of documents and interviewed parties and attorneys on both sides. The trial judge had an unusual level of sense of entitlement and intolerance for any criticism.

This should have been an easy case to resolve with the mother being an outstanding parent and the father having limited involvement and a long history of abuse. The father used a series of abuser tactics to manipulate the court. One of his common practices was to tape phone calls with the mother and children. He would often make a series of harassing calls and then tape a call in which he acts appropriately while the mother was upset from his previous calls. His calls to the children gave him an opportunity to interact with them, but he spent most of the time asking about their mother and demanding she speak with him. He often called at different times than were scheduled and if he was not able to speak with the children treated it as the mother interfering with the relationship. The mother was later diagnosed with PTSD and suffered panic attacks triggered by his abusive phone calls. Nevertheless the judge continued to act as if her response to the phone calls proved she was interfering with his relationship.

The trial judge would later comment that one of the other custody judges in Poughkeepsie was a member of the “fathers’ rights” group but he was more “neutral” and spoke with both “fathers’ rights’ and domestic violence groups. This was an unusually clear example of a judge creating a false equivalency with domestic violence organizations supporting laws and policies designed to promote practices to end domestic violence and the abuser groups seeking to undermine laws that required payment of child support and penalizing domestic violence. The judge strongly supported abuser rights approaches to treat both parents equally (regardless of past parenting) and encourage joint custody.

The judge probably thought he was benefitting the parties and children by pressuring the parties to accept joint custody. There is good research that shared parenting works poorly for children under the best of circumstances. There is some outdated research that would support shared parenting under the best of circumstances which would include parents able to cooperate, both wanting to parent together and living nearby. In this case the parents were clearly hostile to each other and the mother was afraid of the father. These were exactly the circumstances that the law and research say are totally inappropriate for joint custody. Nevertheless the judge pressured the parties to accept joint custody and the mother’s attorney joined in this pressure despite clear safety issues. The mother agreed under tremendous pressure and the transcript showed that she complained about the pressure on the record and still the court demanded joint custody. She agreed on the record under threat of losing all custody. This is exactly the common practices that ought to discourage legislatures from permitting shared parenting because it is so often abused even with exceptions in the law that shared parenting should not be considered in domestic violence cases or when the parents cannot cooperate. The judge threatened the parties that if the arrangement did not work he would take all custody away from the parent that caused it to fail.

The Second Incarnation of the Shockome Case

Many courts and legislatures promote shared parenting because they think it saves court time and resources. Research, however demonstrates that it leads to much more post custody litigation. This is particularly true in domestic violence cases where the abuser would be unlikely to gain custody initially because the mother has provided most of the child care. Once the abuser received shared parenting he has equal rights to the children so can then cause incidents and problems as an excuse to seek sole custody. In the Shockome case the father continued to harass the mother with phone calls and otherwise and she eventually sought a protective order.

The father would later admit that he would call the mother 15-20 times in a day and as late as 1 AM when he knew the mother and children would be sleeping. In New York this constitutes the crime of harassment and would entitle the victim to an order of protection. The mother did not have an attorney at the time so prepared her own petition which included past incidents as well as his more recent abuse. Another judge heard the initial petition and granted the mother and children protective orders and limited the father to visitation the mother would agree upon. In practice, although she had complete control she allowed him daytime visits with the children.

The gender bias committee in New York had found that one of the common examples of gender bias involved courts blaming victims for the actions of their abusers which is exactly what the trial judge did. He was upset that the protective order interfered with the joint custody arrangement and blamed the mother for seeking protection for her and the children instead of blaming the father for his illegal actions that necessitated the protections. The judge quickly moved up the hearing on the protective order so that the mother could not obtain representation.

When the mother first described to me the judge’s behavior at the hearing, I thought she was exaggerating even though she had always been reliable. When we obtained the transcript of this hearing it confirmed everything the mother said and demonstrated her honesty. The father retaliated in response to the family offense petition by seeking sole custody. The judge started the hearing by allowing the father’s attorney to give their version of events. The mother was never permitted to give her side of the story. In all my years as an attorney I had never seen even the most biased judges listen only to one side of the case. When the mother asked when it would be her turn to respond she was threatened with contempt and jail. Every time she tried to speak she was talked over, yelled at or threatened. By the end of the hearing, without ever hearing what the mother had to say, the judge had lost any semblance of objectivity and said he was inclined to give the father custody. From at least this point on the judge was never open to anything anyone on the mother’s side had to say. We referred to the transcript as the “smoking gun” because it demonstrated the extreme bias of the judge and violated the mother’s due process and equal protection rights. The judge immediately modified the order to take away the protections that had been given to the mother in response to the father’s abuse and actually made it a mutual order. This was illegal as judges were not permitted to create mutual orders of protection when only one party had filed a family offense petition.

The mother retained another attorney who undermined her case. He agreed to a new evaluation where the judge said he would only rely on the report if it was unfavorable to the mother. The report included a statement that the mother was a strong and articulate woman so could not possibly need a domestic violence advocate. This ignorant statement demonstrated the evaluator was unqualified to work on domestic violence cases, but the judge who prided himself on being a domestic violence expert treated the report as if it were credible. The evaluator recommended that the father be given custody and the judge took it a step further and limited the mother to supervised visitation although this was not recommended by the evaluator.

Under New York law, it was illegal for a judge to change custody under these circumstances without an evidentiary hearing. I repeatedly pointed out that this decision was illegal and it later became one of the grounds in the retaliatory complaint against me by the judge. The decision was upheld by the appellate division. Presumably that would mean that my position was so frivolous and unreasonable that it merited disciplinary action. The judge claimed that because he had heard some testimony in the earlier action so my claim he took action without an evidentiary hearing on the new issues was somehow unethical. The New York Court of Appeals later made a ruling that confirmed my interpretation of the law was correct. Presumably based on the decision in Goldstein the entire Court of Appeals acted unethically. This would be one of the many grounds in my motion asking the appellate division to correct their errors and reverse their decision. Even the Court of Appeals was not persuasive to them and they denied my motion without any discussion.

My Entry into the Shockome Case

Ms. Shockome deliberately sought an attorney from outside the Dutchess County area because she was concerned that the local attorneys were unwilling to present a strong case that would challenge the trial judge who seemed to have already made up his mind. This was important because any issue that was not raised could not be used for an appeal and it seemed likely only the appellate division could save her children.

The local domestic violence movement was deeply concerned that the courts were routinely supporting abusive fathers and punishing safe protective mothers. The abuser rights groups seemed to have tremendous influence in the county and many of the judges, lawyers and evaluators supported their positions. Ms. Shockome was viewed as a good mother with a strong case and the local advocates provided strong support sending at least a dozen observers for each court appearance. Their extraordinary involvement and stories they shared made it clear to me that the county suffered from a strong bias against battered mothers.

My initial appearance for a preliminary conference confirmed the extreme bias and hostility the mother was facing. The law guardian was a strong “fathers’ rights” supporter who strongly supported the father throughout the case. The only time he communicated with our side was to criticize or threaten the mother. When I asked him the basis for giving the father custody and mother supervised visitation he told me it was based on parental alienation syndrome.

When we entered the court room the judge immediately ordered a conference with just attorneys. The first thing he told us was that he would not be intimidated by the women in the back of the court meaning the domestic violence advocates. He was obviously very defensive about their presence. Later in the case he yelled at them and threatened them with jail after one of the advocates signed an affidavit in support of the mother.

I introduced myself to the judge as we had never met before and told him a little about my extensive domestic violence background. He couldn’t wait to tell me about his domestic violence credentials and he considered himself an expert on the subject. I discussed the research that demonstrated the arrangement he created of limiting the mother to supervised visitation was harmful to the children and that I would make a motion to modify it immediately in the best interests of the children. He indicated he would not change the order at that time but hoped to do so in the future. I pointed out that case law in New York did not permit the use of PAS because there was no scientific basis for it. He claimed that he did not use parental alienation syndrome but just parental alienation. I pointed out that the extreme remedy he created and lack of any evidence that the mother’s actions caused the children to dislike the father confirmed that PAS was used no matter what it was called. The judge also said that the mother’s prior attorneys indicated that she is not credible. If they said that it would have been unethical and it appeared they would have been saying what they thought the judge wanted to hear.

My client had told me that the judge regularly called these conferences and they always resulted in decisions against her. When we returned to the court room I immediately made a record of what had been discussed and my motion to at least restore normal visitation. The judge rarely called for a private conference thereafter.

It was obvious that the judge was hostile towards my client and was personally invested in justifying the extreme actions he had taken without an evidentiary hearing. This was the kind of harmful outcome the Saunders’ study would later find to always be against the best interests of children. We decided we needed to make a motion to recuse the biased judge, but were also concerned that the other judges in Dutchess County were similarly hostile to protective mothers and were likely to try to support the actions of their colleague. Accordingly, the motion also sought to move the case out of Dutchess County so that the mother could obtain fair consideration of the case. In the course of my affirmation in support of the motion I provided substantial research and information that demonstrated the problems in the approach of the trial judge and many cases in Dutchess. I offered to help train court professionals about domestic violence so that these harmful practices could be avoided in the future.

The judge denied our motion, but promised to consider our concerns and make sure the mother received a fair trial. It was only later I learned how angry he was about the motion when he included it in his retaliatory complaint against me. In responding, I pointed out many valid reasons for the motion including the extreme action taken by the court, unfair treatment of the mother when she was not permitted to give her side, potential need for the judge to testify in the mother’s dispute with her prior attorney (the judge’s statement that her attorney agreed she was not credible), the illegal use of PAS, his hostility to the advocates in the court and the long history of hostile decisions in Dutchess against protective mothers. Clearly any of these would justify my agreement to make this motion and it would certainly never be a justification for disciplinary action. As part of my testimony I also mentioned that when it became known I would be representing Ms. Shockome, a few other women told me about their mistreatment by the Dutchess courts and asked me to take their cases. The grievance committee claimed that I should not use this information without reviewing the entire record of their cases even though I did not plan to represent them and this became the “justification” for the later charges against me.

Here is the charge against me that was supported by the Appellate Division. “The respondent submitted to the court an Order to Show Cause dated February 10, 2003, seeking, inter alia, to have the court recuse itself, in which he stated: “Clearly something is wrong with the system in Dutchess. Already I have seen both the court and the evaluators relied upon by the court, to provide decisions based on popular misconceptions of domestic violence instead of the expertise that is needed ․ That there is no reason that Dutchess County has to remain on the side of the abusers.” The respondent offered to help fix the system “so we don't put other victims of domestic violence at such a disadvantage.”

In the course of the proceedings in my case, I warned the court that penalizing me for my zealous representation of a protective mother and raising concerns about the failure of the court to respond properly to domestic violence complaints would place the lives of battered women in danger. My reasoning was that the retaliation would have a chilling effect on the ability of battered women to obtain strong representation which was already a problem. This would result in battered women staying with their abusers and some would not survive this decision. I would have presented other experts to confirm this risk, but was not permitted to submit this evidence. They obviously thought I was exaggerating or did not know what I was talking about, but unfortunately my concerns proved all too real.

In a period of less than one year the small county of Dutchess with a population of 300,000 suffered a series of domestic violence homicides that resulted in nine deaths including five battered women and a brave police officer who was shot by an abusive father after rescuing a young child whose mother had been murdered by the father. As a result of these tragedies, the Dutchess County Legislature asked its Citizen’s Advisory Committee on Domestic Violence which consists of professionals in the community from law enforcement, domestic violence and others responding to domestic violence to investigate the county’s response to domestic violence and for recommendations to reform the system. I am sure the court would like to believe the series of murders were the exception or in some way unrelated to their response to domestic violence cases, but the committee findings show otherwise. The committee released an extensive report that considered a large range of issues and their findings regarding the courts confirmed everything I was punished for saying.

The committee report included the following, “Some victims do not ever enter the court system or choose, after experiences with the court system, not to use it. Some have found that they do not trust the system and feel that rather than protecting them from their batterer the system will actually cause retaliation and greater harm by their batterer. In other cases, victims have felt further victimized by the system due to the lack of understanding of domestic violence. Other victims feel lost or confused by the system and in cases such as with family court, they do not feel safe having to appear several times before a judge with their batterer in the same room.”

Later in their report they continued:

“There is a growing concern expressed that batterers have become more manipulative about using the court system to further abuse their partners. They seek and sometimes are awarded custody over a non-offending parent by using debunked theories such as Parental Alienation Syndrome.”

It is hard to imagine a more clear and compelling finding that the grievance committee and appellate division were tragically wrong in their findings against me. This would become a major part of my motion asking them to correct their errors based on new events and research. They never addressed these issues because the only way to do so would be to admit their mistakes.

At the first court appearance I was shocked to hear the judge repeatedly say that he did not know this was a domestic violence case. The father had been arrested for domestic violence, the mother sought protective orders and there was substantial evidence about the father’s abuse. Clearly he was minimizing the father’s abuse so I started referring to the father as an abuser in order to emphasize that it was a domestic violence case. Although that is a proper word in the English language to describe the coercive and controlling tactics by the father, the judge ordered me to stop using this term until it could be proven. This seemed like a violation of free speech but I complied with the judge’s order. After we presented substantial evidence of the father’s abuse, I resumed using this term in compliance with the judge’s order. He again objected to the term and so in compliance I started referring to the “alleged” abuser. He never complained about this term which obviously does not prejudge the outcome and is often used in court before findings are made. Only years later when he made his retaliatory complaint against me did he inform me he objected to the common term alleged. The appellate division supported him without discussing his failure to tell me there was an objection to this formulation. Interestingly when the law guardian and father’s attorney continually made personal attacks against the mother such as calling her a liar and an ugly woman the judge never objected. It is this kind of discrepancy that demonstrates the different standard used against women by professionals engaged in gender bias.

The Custody Trial

I have rarely if ever seen a contested trial in which the evidence so overwhelmingly favored one side. The only witness for the father was the father and he made many admissions that would have been devastating with a neutral judge. He admitted that he regularly called the mother 15-20 times a day as late as 1 AM when he knew she and the children were sleeping. He unwittingly explained his motivation for seeking custody by saying he brought the mother here from Russia so she had no right to leave. He also said she would never get away from him. Throughout the trial the main basis for alienation claims against the mother was that she told the children to eat healthy food, dress appropriately for the weather and avoid adult oriented television shows. This is the kind of advice any good parent would give their children but it was treated as if it was alienation because she complained the father did these things. The father denied this throughout the trial and the evaluator testified she thought it was false or exaggerated. During his rebuttal testimony the father admitted the children often ran around outside in cold weather without jackets. He admitted this after learning a witness had seen his children running around a parking lot by a convenience store without jackets on the coldest day of the year.

In contrast, the mother had 11 witnesses including five expert witnesses. The witnesses included three neutral professionals. This was the son’s therapist, the couple’s counselor and the school nurse. The nurse described the impact of the judge’s decision on the parties’ daughter. When she was living with the mother she would skip around school, holding hands with another girl, laughing and giggling. When she was taken from her mother and forced to live with her father she wondered school alone, head down and depressed. She often went to the nurse complaining of stomach or other illnesses or injuries until her father forbid her to see the nurse.

The nurse had testified during the earlier trial and was problematic for the court because she was a neutral professional and her testimony undermined the judge’s decision to remove the children from their primary attachment figure. During her testimony the judge asked her if she testified the first time that the mother had done the same thing she accused the father of doing. This referenced behavior that two neutral experts believed constituted sexual abuse and at the very least involved a boundary violation. The nurse said she did not remember making such a statement. Nevertheless, in his decision the judge made a major point of claiming the nurse said the mother admitted doing the same thing as the father. When we finally obtained the transcript from her earlier testimony it confirmed the nurse never said that. This false claim by the judge might suggest he was lying, but I believe he so wanted to believe the father’s side that he convinced himself she had said this based on confirmation bias.

As the trial continued, the judge appeared to grow more concerned that all of the expert testimony confirmed the father abused the mother and children and the court’s change of custody was harming the children. Accordingly he called one of the now rare conferences to discuss whether we needed a new evaluation in the middle of the trial. I was happy to have the monopoly on expert testimony and aware that few evaluators have the domestic violence expertise necessary to understand these cases. This was later confirmed in the Saunders’ report. My position was that we would only agree to an evaluation if the evaluator had expertise in domestic violence. The judge said he wanted someone who knew a little bit about domestic violence and child abuse, but not too much because such experts always find abuse. He later repeated this statement on the record but it somehow did not appear in the final transcripts. I did reference his statement in several letters and motions and no one ever denied he said this. The judge then appointed an evaluator over my objections.

The resume of the evaluator who was appointed gave us some hope because it said she had worked with the Women’s Justice Center at Pace Law School. This is a well respected organization with a strong record on domestic violence. When the evaluator demonstrated a lack of expertise I contacted the Women’s Justice Center and learned her involvement with them was actually very limited. They wrote to the judge to make sure their reputation was not harmed by the misrepresentation and to avoid having the court be misled. The judge was furious, not with the evaluator for the misrepresentation but with me for making the Center aware of the case. I was able to confirm their concerns in my cross-examination of the evaluator, but the judge did not want her discredited.

The court asked for the evaluator’s assistance on two key issues, the mother’s complaints about domestic violence and father’s claims of alienation. In her report the evaluator said that she could not determine the extent of the father’s abuse to a CERTAINTY and then said the mother PROBABLY made more negative statements than the father. She repeated her use of the certainty standard for the mother and probability for the father several times during cross-examination and seemed not to understand the fundamental unfairness of using different standards. In fact the NY court-sponsored Committee on Women in the Courts had specifically mentioned the use of higher standards against women as a common example of gender bias. This is usually recognized by seeing courts treat the parties differently under similar circumstances. We saw this for instance when the judge objected to me referring to the father as an abuser but accepted the mother being called a liar and ugly woman. It is exceedingly rare for the different standards to be stated explicitly in an evaluation report and the transcript of the evaluator’s testimony.

The trial judge used the evaluator’s recommendation despite the fact it was based on the use of the certainty standard against the mother and normal probability standard for the father. This is a clear violation of equal protection and due process that any first year law student would recognize. The only possible basis to refuse to reverse a decision based on this violation would be if the mistake did not affect the outcome. During my cross-examination, however, the evaluator admitted the father probably abused the mother physically, verbally and emotionally throughout the marriage, the children probably witnessed his abuse and the mother’s PTSD was probably caused by the father’s abuse. The evaluator also testified that there was no alienation and the mother always provided good care of the children.

Significantly none of this critical information was included in the evaluator’s report. The evaluator was inexperienced having only performed a few evaluations previously. She was trying to develop an evaluation practice. She testified that she was influenced by her belief that the judge and law guardian wanted the father to have custody. Nevertheless, the evaluator was treated as if she was neutral.

The use of different standards of proof was central to the appeal in the custody case and my defense in the retaliation against me. One of the complaints was that I called the judge biased and surely his acceptance of the different standards even without all his other biased behavior was enough to justify my statement. In the course of the many motions and appeals in Shockome and Goldstein at least 15-20 different judges reviewed the case. Not one of them even discussed the violation of using a certainty standard against the mother. Every judge and every lawyer involved in the case knows that such a fundamental violation requires a reversal. This creates the appearance that some kind of fix was in. I believe it is more likely that this was another example of confirmation bias. The involvement of a colleague and mistakes by the appellate division made the judges reluctant to correct these errors. These judges would never make such an obvious mistake in any other kind of case and could only occur in a broken system in which they have gotten used to questionable practices in domestic violence custody cases and extreme deference to trial judges. The findings in the Saunders’ report demonstrate that these practices are extremely harmful to children. The failure of any of the judges to correct the obvious errors demonstrates why an outside investigation is needed.

The court’s decision to obtain an evaluation in the middle of the trial meant that our expert witnesses had testified by the time we had the report. The judge announced that he would only permit a psychologist to rebut the psychologist’s evaluation. This was unfair to begin with and this was further demonstrated by the Saunders’ report finding that social workers provide recommendations that work better for children than those provided by psychologists and psychiatrists. The finding might seem to go against popular beliefs but is explained because social workers are more likely to take a holistic approach which is particularly important in domestic violence cases while psychologists and psychiatrists are more likely to rely on psychological tests that were not made for the populations seen in family court and provide little information regarding domestic violence or parenting. We had the opportunity to benefit from expert testimony from the executive director of the NY State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. It is hard to imagine a better source of expertise about the domestic violence issues but the judge refused to consider her because she was “only” a social worker. The judge immediately agreed that we could recall Dr. Mo Therese Hannah who is one of the leading national experts regarding domestic violence and had already testified as an expert in the case. Despite repeated promises, the judge suddenly refused to allow her testimony so that we had no opportunity to rebut her report. Clearly the judge did not want a record that included the testimony exposing the numerous mistakes of the inexperienced evaluator.

Early in the evaluator’s testimony, I asked if she had read any books or articles in preparation for the evaluation. I learned I had struck gold when she said she read The Batterer as Parent which was the leading authority about domestic violence and custody. Unfortunately she had read it only after she had written her report. Based on her testimony and recommendations it was clear she did not understand the book because following its research and information would have led to the opposite result.

I started by asking the evaluator if she read the book because the book and the authors are considered authoritative. She agreed to this because otherwise it would not have made sense for her to choose to read the book. This provided the foundation to discuss the wonderful content in the book. She later tried to backtrack and say they thought they were authorities. The judge and law guardian tried to use this to prevent my discussion of the book, but she had already admitted it was authoritative so they could not prevent these questions.

I continually discussed passages in the book that made recommendations that were the opposite of the approach by the evaluator and judge in the Shockome case. In some cases she would say she agreed with these experts, but had no answer for why she did not apply it to the case. In other cases she disagreed with their findings which meant an inexperienced evaluator was disagreeing with the leading experts.

I continued to force the evaluator to make numerous admissions that undermined her recommendations and the result favored by the judge. He continually interrupted my cross-examination about the book to say he did not find the information useful. Under ordinary circumstances this might have caused me to move to other topics. Even if the material was important it would not benefit the case if the judge did not want to hear it. In this case there was almost no chance this judge could be persuaded to act in the best interests of the children so I continued to ask questions based on the research in the book in order to make a record for appeal. As I made more progress the judge decided to limit the amount of time I could cross-examine the evaluator. Even with limited time remaining he continually interrupted my questions to harass me about using the research in this book. Just as I was trying to make a record to support an appeal, the judge wanted the record to support the decision he had already decided to make. The value of The Batterer as Parent was again confirmed by the frequency it was cited in the Saunder’s study and in our book, Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody. In other words the leading experts all recognized its immense value but the judge viewed the information as not useful. Even worse, he was not open to information and research that undermined his existing beliefs.

A year after the mother sought a protective order, we found ourselves in the middle of a trial with no end in sight. The judge would give us a few dates for trial and then when we needed more wait months for more dates. This was a huge disadvantage because while the case was pending the father had control of the children and the mother was without needed protections. When you consider that family offense petitions are emergency issues that overwhelmingly impact women, the ability to create an unreasonable delay created a fundamental equal protection and due process violation. We decided to make a motion to demand a resolution of the family offense so that the mother could either be protected or appeal to another court. We included an affidavit in our motion from one of the advocates who attended the court sessions to support Ms. Shockome.

The judge thought this somehow violated his gag order (discussed below) that said the case could not be discussed outside the court. When he saw the affidavit, the judge yelled and screamed at the advocates and threatened them with contempt and jail. He kept saying he ordered that they were not to speak with anyone and would slam the bench hard when he said anyone.

It happened that our next witness was the mother’s domestic violence advocate. I took advantage of the opportunity to make a record of the role of an advocate. She explained that being in court with an abusive partner is an emotional situation and victims often do not hear all that is said. Accordingly it is vital that the advocate be able to discuss what happened in the court with the client. After her testimony the judge said he did not mean to say that the advocates could not speak with the client (which is exactly what he had said). His diatribe against the advocates was missing from the transcript when it became available. It demonstrated the hostility he had towards domestic violence advocates.

Illegal Gag Order

The judge’s objection to publicity about the case was based on a fundamental misconception. He believed that judges needed to make the best decision possible based on the evidence and should not be influenced by popular beliefs of the public. This much was correct. He failed to consider that judges not only need to avoid unethical behavior such as conflicts of interest and bias, but also the Appearance of such unethical behavior. This is significant because parties, lawyers or the public usually cannot know what is in a judge’s heart but can recognize how their actions appear. In other words publicity can be valuable in holding up a mirror for the judge to see what his actions look like. This is especially important regarding an issue like gender bias where it is so easy to engage in biased practices without realizing you are doing so.

The judge seemed oblivious to the suffering he had caused the children by denying them any meaningful relationship with the mother and forcing them to live with their abusive father. The mother, of course, was extremely pained by the suffering of her children. We decided to seek publicity in hopes it would demonstrate the improper appearance the existing court approaches were causing. One day we met on the court house steps with the producer of a radio show. He took our picture and made arrangements for us to appear on his show. The judge passed by while he was taking our picture. When we started court that morning the judge announced a temporary gag order and refused to listen to any arguments concerning the propriety of this First Amendment Violation. The parties were forbidden from using the last name of the parties or allowing pictures of the parties or children. We complied with the gag order by referring to my client as Genia “Victim.” The father’s attorney was interviewed for the same program and used the name Shockome in violation of the judge’s order.

The next time we were in court the judge and other attorneys were yelling and screaming at me claiming I had violated the order because the web-site for the program contained the picture the producer had taken of us before the gag order. Somehow they thought it was my web-site. They calmed down a little when I pointed out it belonged to the program and I had no control over it. When I mentioned that the father’s attorney had used the Shockome name, he did not care and did not even tell him to be more careful. In other words, the judge was only concerned with enforcing the gag order against the party that would be critical of his actions.

We always complied with the gag order despite its questionable legality. When we appeared on a television program, the mother appeared in the shadows and we again did not use her last name. The order expired when the final decision was made. This decision did not provide for a gag order but rather said the parties should avoid anything that would be against the best interests of the children. Publicity was in the children’s best interests. If they learned of the publicity they would know their mother was still trying to protect them and the information might cause legislative reform or other changes that could protect them. Although the only person who violated the gag order was the father’s attorney, the judge claimed I violated the gag order by using the Shockome name after the gag order had expired. Ironically, the judge had released a transcript of the case to try to justify his actions so if he interpreted his final decision as restoring the gag order, he had violated it.

Custody Decision

The custody decision was completely predictable from a judge who had decided what he wanted to do during the appearance that that produced the smoking gun transcript. He continued the extreme result of custody with the alleged abuser and supervised visitation for the protective mother who is the primary attachment figure for the children. This is the result the Saunders’ study would later confirm is always harmful to the children. The judge, who later filed charges against me for criticizing him, included personal attacks against the mother and myself. With one bizarre exception he never addressed any of the legal and factual issues raised in the case or compared the benefits he thought he was creating with the unquestionable harms he was imposing.

The only issue that he attempted to respond to was the overwhelming evidence that the father’s abuse had caused the mother to suffer PTSD. The mother’s medical doctor and therapist had diagnosed her with PTSD and this was supported by testimony from the mother’s therapist and our other experts. They explained that there was no other possible cause for her PTSD. Even the judge’s own evaluator confirmed the father’s abuse probably caused her PTSD.

This was a critical issue because even the judge said that if the father was shown to have abused the mother he would have to give her custody. The mother experienced panic attacks that were triggered by her abuser’s phone calls. The mother suffered a panic attack when she unexpectedly saw her abuser as she went into a restaurant with her children after an evaluation appointment. The evaluator had carelessly scheduled the father’s appointment right after the mother’s. The supervisor, who strongly supported the court’s position and was hostile to the mother, confirmed the panic attack triggered by unexpectedly seeing her abuser.

All of the expert witnesses confirmed the difference between panic attacks and PTSD. It was possible to suffer panic attacks from benign causes such as stage fright and a victim could be more or less susceptible. PTSD, however could only be caused by an extreme traumatic event (i. e. terrorist attack, rape, kidnapping, hurricane, earthquake etc) or a series of traumatic events such as occurs in domestic violence cases. The mother was diagnosed with the latter form of PTSD. This was important because the father and the court sought to minimize the seriousness of his abuse, but PTSD could only be caused from severe domestic violence.

The judge felt compelled to respond to this issue and concocted an explanation unsupported by any of the experts in the case that would have been physically and scientifically impossible. It appears that he misunderstood the difference between causes of panic attacks and PTSD. The experts were clear about this so I do not know whether his mistake was intentional or not. He claimed that the mother badly wanted custody and when he (the judge) warned her that she could lose custody if she did not stop complaining about the father, this caused her PTSD.

If he was saying that his benign statements caused her PTSD, this was impossible because only severe traumatic events could cause PTSD. Accordingly, for the judge’s actions to cause the mother’s PTSD, the judge would have had to severely abuse and mistreat the mother. I discussed this in some of my court papers saying that the judge was claiming that he caused the mother’s PTSD. At the next court appearance the judge disagreed with my interpretation. I checked with Dr. Hannah who confirmed my interpretation was the only one possible. I also always said that in fact the judge did not cause the mother’s PTSD although he certainly retraumatized her. As all the experts agreed it was the father’s abuse that caused the mother’s PTSD.

The judge would later treat my accurate interpretation of his theory as if it were a lie. He did this despite the fact that only my explanation is supported by the facts and science on this issue. The grievance committee and appellate court supported the judge without any explanation and refused to permit evidence by experts that would confirm everything I was saying.

Leaving the Case for Medical Reasons

The remainder of the divorce case had been put on hold to resolve the custody issue so once that decision was made, the court proceeded to the divorce issues. I received a call to go to Poughkeepsie on short notice on a non-emergency issue. It was the same day I needed to be in court in the Bronx in the afternoon. After the call I found that I had an unusual rapid heartbeat and did not feel well. I had suffered a heart attack several years earlier. I requested an adjournment based on my heart issue, but the judge refused. I suffered similar symptoms when going to court and made an oral motion to withdraw from the case based on my health. The judge demanded affidavits from my doctor and therapist. At my last appearance in front of the trial judge he looked at me and said I looked ok so could not have a legitimate health issue. He was surprised when he received affidavits from my medical doctor and therapist saying it was unsafe and unhealthy for me to continue in the case because the judge repeatedly mistreated and harassed me and my client and refused to accommodate my health needs. The judge did not want to deal with findings from medical professionals that his improper behavior had contributed to my health problems. He waited a few months during which I did not participate and eventually permitted my withdrawal on other grounds. Shortly thereafter I suffered a heart attack that forced me to postpone oral arguments on the custody appeal. The affidavits of my doctor and therapist became part of the record in the case against me, but the appellate court never dealt with this inconvenient evidence of the mistreatment by the trial judge.

The Shockome Case Continues

Although the law required the court to give a party time to find a new attorney when the prior attorney withdraws, the trial judge continued the case without giving her this opportunity. The court acted in a punitive manner to try to bankrupt her so that she would not have funds to challenge the mistreatment she was receiving. The father made a motion for permission to move with the children to Texas where they were likely never to see their mother again. Ms. Shockome was forced to respond without representation and went to court without any advocates to observe the proceedings.

As the court continued to make statements she disagreed with she would say “objection.” She did this to preserve her right to appeal as only the appellate court held any promise of protecting her children. When I was representing her, I would say objection and eventually the judge would say I had my exception and then I could be quiet as he continued. This was even more important for the judge to do for a pro se litigant. Instead he repeatedly yelled at her and told her to stop interfering with the proceedings. He threatened to hold her in contempt and send her to jail. She continued to say “objection” because she was afraid she would lose her ability to appeal. He responded by holding her in contempt and sending her to jail for almost a month even though she was seven months pregnant.

I believe this is an example where the practice of deferring to judges and protecting them from the consequences of their improper behavior made it harder for him to realize how wrong this was. An online petition drew over a thousand signatures demanding the mother be released. Interestingly many other women victimized by this same judge came forward after hearing about his mistreatment of Ms. Shockome. One family court judge in New Jersey said a mother would have to pull a knife on him to convince him to take such an extreme decision. The judge had lost all sense of objectivity and had such hatred towards the mother that he failed to realize the harm he was doing not only to his own reputation, but also the court system’s. He seemed to believe the problem was in people criticizing him rather than the wrongful actions he had taken.

I wrote an article on the internet that described the judge’s mistreatment of the mother and asking the state legislature to pass what I called “Genia’s Law” to make sure other mothers would not be similarly victimized. I expressed my strong opinions and provided facts and research to support them. This is at the heart of the purpose of the First Amendment, but it became the chief basis of a retaliatory complaint against me by the abusive judge and uncritically supported by the grievance committee and then his colleagues on the Appellate Division.

Ms Shockome asked me to make a motion to get her released and I pursued this on a pro bono basis. I filed an Order to Show Cause requesting her immediate release. The judge hearing the case initially indicated he was inclined to grant the relief. This would be the normal response because if they granted relief and later decided that was a mistake they could always send her back to jail, but if they kept her in jail and it turned out that was a mistake they would cause irreparable harm. The hearing was then delayed so that then Attorney General Eliot Spitzer could intervene. He was under no legal obligation to intervene but decided to support the abusive and sexist judge. His involvement led the judge to deny our motion and keep the mother in jail. It was only much later we learned of Spitzer’s sexist beliefs when he was involved with hiring prostituted women. It is likely that Spitzer was personally aware of the circumstances because national media programs were considering a story about Ms. Shockome and contacted Spitzer’s office.

Custody Appeal

The appeal in the custody case included several important issues including the use of the certainty standard, use of PAS despite case law that said it is invalid, refusal to permit a rebuttal witness to the evaluator, the erasure of a substantial part of the transcript that included most of the mother’s testimony, the overwhelming evidence in support of the mother’s position and the extreme nature of the result that was clearly harmful to the children.

The appellate court never discussed these or any other issues raised by the briefs. Instead they issued a one paragraph decision deferring to the trial judge and including only one factual statement. The statement said that the trial court was correct in minimizing the testimony of the mother’s expert witnesses because none of them had spoken to the children or the father. This statement was a repetition of something said by the trial judge in his opinion and was unquestionably wrong. One of our experts was the son’s therapist who obviously spoke with the children. The father submitted a transcript of his phone conversations with the therapist as part of his evidence. Another was the couple’s counselor who obviously met with both parents and they both discussed their meetings with her during their testimony. I do not know what caused them to get their information so completely wrong, but it is hard to imagine how they could make this obvious mistake if they had read the briefs and transcripts. It appears that in their zeal to support a colleague they never gave the mother fair consideration.

Complaints to the Grievance Committee

My first contact with the Grievance Committee involved a totally unrelated case. I did a lot of work on behalf of poor tenants for a couple of community organizations, particular CLUSTER. I represented a group of tenants that had been denied fundamental services over an extended period of time. We succeeded in winning one of the biggest settlements ever for the tenants in the Yonkers Landlord-Tenant Court. The landlord was angry at being held accountable and retaliated by making a complaint against me with the Grievance Committee.

The attorney for the committee spent enormous time and resources to obtain all of the records and required several days of depositions in order to understand the situation. There was never any claim that I took any money not belonging to me, comingled money, was missing any money, there was any delay in tenants or landlords receiving money once a stipulation or order was entered, had a check bounce or any other issue that would indicate a problem. At the end of the extensive investigation when the committee had every document and fully understood the case their attorney told me that they knew I had done nothing dishonest.

The arrangement we had was that tenants would deposit money with the Cluster office. When I came to the office I would sign a receipt and pick up the money orders. The next time I would get to the bank I would deposit it in the Cluster account that held the tenant’s money. When I knew I would be writing checks I would then transfer funds from the Cluster account to the master account or sometimes deposit directly to the master account. After the Shockome judge complained about me, the grievance committee put together a group of charges in order to support the judge and prejudice my hearing with claims I acted dishonestly. All of the charges against me in Shockome and the escrow issues were based on taking things out of context. So at any given time parts of the tenant money could be in the Cluster office, my office, the Cluster account or the master account. The grievance committee looked at each account separately at a given time to create the illusion that money was missing. In any other case they would have been asked how they could admit I did nothing dishonest and then claim otherwise despite no additional information. I was never allowed to investigate what kind of pressure was applied to change what they said but clearly it had to do with the involvement of a powerful judge. Neither the grievance committee nor the court ever discussed the evidence or explained their admission except that the lawyer said it was a private statement. It may have been a private statement but it was also a true statement without the bias caused by the judge’s involvement.

One of the common practices of abusers is to complain about their victims by taking their actions out of context. I was reminded of this when I saw the judge’s complaint against me. Most of what he did was to take various letters, affirmations and articles I had written that contained substantial research and information and pick out statements critical of him. As he admitted during his testimony, I never cursed him, threatened him or anything inappropriate like that. He just seemed to believe that judges or at least he were not subject to criticism. One of the oddest charges was that while in court as I thought about the harm he was doing to the children my voice cracked and there were tears in my eyes. Somehow he thought this violated some disciplinary rule. This would be the only charge the grievance committee did not support.

The Grievance Hearing

A referee was appointed to get the case ready for trial and then conduct the hearing. The referee acknowledged that he had no expertise about domestic violence. In many ways this was good in that he didn’t have a false sense of confidence in his understanding of domestic violence. The other side was that he did not always understand the relevance of domestic violence information and limited my ability to present this evidence. He did, however try to be fair and act in good faith.

The position of the grievance committee was that I should have had a separate escrow account for each of the dozens of tenants I represented instead of the Cluster account for all tenants. There was little support for this claim and the referee ruled against them. They also intended to use the decision in the Shockome case to establish the facts of the case. This would be the equivalent of res judicata but the problem was that I was not a party in Shockome and had an obligation to follow the decisions of my client as long as they were legal. Accordingly the referee ruled they could not rely on Shockome and we entered into a stipulation to that effect. This should have resulted in the dismissal of many of the charges as the committee made no attempt to provide any evidence for many of the charges other than I made certain statements. There position was that the facts and opinions I expressed were false but there was never any evidence offered to support this proposition. The referee recognized this in his decision, but the appellate division later ignored the stipulation and made rulings against me unsupported by any evidence. This was particularly problematical because it created the appearance of bias or worse.

I could have called dozens of witnesses, particularly on the Shockome issues but the referee severely limited me to just a few witnesses and I had to provide a witness list in advance. My therapist was a domestic violence expert and familiar with the abuse I suffered from the trial judge. She was an approved witness but got sick at the last minute and I could not replace her. Dr. Mo Therese Hannah is a psychologist who had testified as an expert witness in Shockome and is one of the leading experts about domestic violence. On the day she was scheduled to testify there was a severe snowstorm in Albany that prevented her from testifying. I requested to allow her to testify by phone or give me an extension but the referee refused to do so after the grievance committee objected. The only thing I was allowed was a limited stipulation that she agreed with my interpretation of the trial court’s decision about the cause of the mother’s PTSD.

Judge Mary Ann Scattaretico-Naber testified for me under subpoena. She provided an interesting contrast with the trial judge. She had worked closely with me as the court attorney in Yonkers City Court. She observed my involvement in hundreds of cases and had no personal interest in the case. In contrast the trial judge knew me from only one case and had a deep personal interest in the outcome. She testified that I was always cooperative with judges and other attorneys and had a good reputation. She also confirmed there was never any problem regarding my escrow account.

My wife, Dr. Sharon Goldstein had come to court one day to observe the case and testified at the hearing. She said that she noticed the trial judge treated men and women in the court room very differently. When speaking to men he would look them in the eye but did not do so for women. He also questioned women closely but for men the questioning was pro forma.

Phyllis B. Frank, the director of the batterer program where I have taught for many years also testified. Much of the information and perspective I have and shared in my communications with the trial judge, I learned from Phyllis. She testified that we frequently talk about the idea that to tell someone that what they are saying or doing is sexist, as an example is a gift because otherwise they would continue to do it. Sexism like other oppressions is often done without realizing we are doing so. In other words the trial judge was offended by information that we consider beneficial. Unfortunately he was not open to hearing different ideas that challenged his assumptions. Her testimony further demonstrated my good faith.

Genia Shockome was deeply upset that I was facing retaliation for my efforts to protect her children. On many of the issues in the case, she was the only person with personal knowledge. I expressed to her my reluctance for her to testify because her case was ongoing and the judge had a history of retaliating. She insisted on trying to help me and so I placed her on the witness list. The trial judge continued to hear her case and at the last minute she decided it was too dangerous for her to testify. While I could have subpoenaed her, I would not put her at risk. This meant, however that my limited number of witnesses were further reduced. Under any other circumstances if an interested party took actions that frightened a witness to refuse to testify this would have been considered witness tampering. While I appreciate there are differences when it is a judge doing this, I believe it is unethical to bring charges and then continue maintaining power over a key witness so that I was deprived of important evidence. At the very least due process and fundamental fairness should have required all of the Shockome issues be dismissed because the complaining witness intimidated a key witness from testifying. This certainly created an appearance of impropriety. The appellate division never took action to protect my rights. It seems like they had different rules for judges.

At the end of the hearing the referee complemented me on the grace with which I had conducted myself under difficult circumstances. I think it was hard for the referee to imagine how badly broken the court system is in domestic violence cases. He found that I acted sincerely in the case. Some of the charges were properly dismissed, but he was not able to understand that they were all bogus.

Appellate Court Decision

The referee’s decision was sent to the Appellate Division for a final determination. In my final argument I discussed the fact that the judges had a conflict of interest in that they had a personal and professional interest in defending a colleague, themselves for the Shockome opinion that was clearly wrong and the broken system they work in. I also expressed understanding that there was no one else who could decide the case so they would ultimately need to make a decision. Under the circumstances it was important that they explain whatever they decided to do. The referee had expressed concerns about the serious First Amendment issues involved in the case. If they believed I was somehow too zealous it was important to discuss the boundary line between zealous representation that is ethically required and whatever excess they thought was involved in the case. I also said that no decision could be seen as legitimate unless they explained how a court could possibly justify the use of the certainty standard against the mother. They also needed to consider the risk that the decision could have a chilling effect on the ability of battered women to obtain representation. The kind of decision they ultimately made would inevitably cause attorneys to keep far away from whatever the boundary line is. That means judges would not receive a lot of valuable evidence that they would have wanted as attorneys protect themselves with self-censorship at the expense of their clients.

The court decision should be seen as a response to their decision in Shockome which had been very short and factually inaccurate. This time they wrote a lengthy decision that consisted almost entirely of repeating the charges from the grievance committee. No attempt was made to discuss the evidence or any of the important issues raised. Someone reading the decision would not know about the evidence that contradicted the charges or the stipulation that required evidence which was ignored. Shortly after the decision, Judge Sonia Sotomayor was nominated for the Supreme Court and testified at her confirmation hearing. She talked about the importance for judges to answer the arguments of the losing party. Obviously, she was not the first judge to say this, but these proper practices were never followed in Shockome or Goldstein.

Instead they seemed to follow the Supreme Court approach in Bush v. Gore in which they said the decision applies only to the one case and should not be considered precedent. The decision in Goldstein appears to be result oriented and the issues are deliberately obscured so as not to apply to other cases. No one reading the case would know what the issues were. It seems the only purpose was to support a colleague and silence a critic.

Aftermath

We first learned of the decision from posts on abuser rights web-sites that gleefully celebrated action against a male attorney who spoke out in support of protective mothers. They try to create the illusion that this is a dispute between men and women or mothers and fathers. Accordingly a prominent male attorney advocating for battered mothers undermines their perspective. In reality the dispute is between good men and women who seek to protect children from abuse and a small group of the worst abusers.

A law professor’s blog had extensive discussion of the decision. These were mainly law professionals who were concerned about how the decision impacted the practice of law. They had no understanding or concern about the failures of the courts in responding to domestic violence issues. They were critical of the decision based on the fundamental First Amendment violations and the utter failure to explain the basis for the decision.

The decision was condemned by leading domestic violence, women’s, protective mother and child advocacy groups. These included the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, NY NOW, Battered Mothers Custody Conference (BMCC), Stop Family Violence, Justice for Children and National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS). These are the organizations that best understand the underlying domestic violence issues so their position is a strong indication the court got it wrong. The BMCC gave me their Believers Award and NOMAS presented me with their Brother Peace Award in response to the court’s retaliation.

At the time of the retaliation decision, Dr. Mo Therese Hannah and I had submitted our manuscript for the book Domestic Violence Abuse and Child Custody.

The publisher held up the process in response to the decision in order to get the response of the contributors. These were over 25 of the leading experts in domestic violence including three former judges. Dr. Hannah sent out a notice about the decision in order to learn their reaction. Every one of the experts supported me and was outraged at how I had been mistreated. None of these experts withdrew their participation. The book went on to be such a big success that the publisher decided on a second printing and asked me for two more books.

The court system really has an insular atmosphere so they have been unable to create reforms as new research demonstrated the problems with their standard practices. For the court I am a suspended attorney, but for the rest of the world I am treated as a leading domestic violence expert. The Canadian Institute of Health hired me to review research grants regarding gender, violence and health. The U.S. Department of Justice included me in a small group of experts to present at a roundtable discussion attended by staffers from the Justice Department, other cabinet agencies, representatives from the ABA and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and representatives of President Obama and Vice President Biden. Mo Hannah and I were asked to train the advocates for the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Recently I was among a small group of experts asked to meet with the Washington Post Editorial Board.

In April of 2012 the US Department of Justice released a groundbreaking study by Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan concerning the training of evaluators, judges and lawyers. It demonstrated why the custody courts are so routinely getting domestic violence cases wrong and often spectacularly wrong. The Saunders’ study cited our book repeatedly that confirmed the value of our work and accuracy of the information I have been presenting.

I decided to make a motion to the Appellate Court to correct their decision in my case based on new events and research that are incompatible with their findings. It is unprecedented to have a report from a county legislative committee in the county where the case occurred and a study coming from the US Justice Department that demonstrate the findings in a particular case are unquestionably wrong. As mentioned before, the New York Court of Appeals issued a decision confirming my opinion that it was illegal to take custody from the mother without an evidentiary hearing. My opinion was the basis for one of the complaints against me that was confirmed by the appellate division.

My motion gave the appellate division the opportunity after emotions calmed down to correct their errors by themselves which would salvage some of their reputation. They waited about four months to make a decision. This suggested that they understood there are some significant issues and planned to have a substantive response. The question was always whether they had the courage and ethics to confront their obvious mistakes. Evidently they realized that to address the evidence and the research they would have to not only acknowledge their mistakes, but the widespread failure of the court system’s response to domestic violence. They were not willing to do this so they issued a one paragraph decision with not one word about the substance of the case.

So friends I will never practice law again. My case is over and I will happily continue my career as a domestic violence author, speaker and advocate. Their decision, however demonstrates that the court is unable to create the necessary reforms to protect children. Accordingly we need an outside investigation or legislation that forces them to confront the deeply flawed practices they continue to use and are so defensive about. Evidently they are too defensive to look at the findings in Dutchess County and the Saunders’ report that demonstrate the harm the courts are causing.

I have therefore written a letter to the New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman asking him to launch an investigation of the systemic failures in the court system and their inability to protect children. I would ask those of you who agree with the need for reform to contact Mr. Schneiderman and ask him to investigate. This is not about me. He cannot be involved in my case and I have no intention of ever practicing law again. I deeply appreciate the overwhelming outpouring of support I received including a letter to the appellate division that was attached to my affidavit from many of the leading organizations working to protect children. You see we all know this case is not about me and was never about me. It is about protecting our children and we still have a lot of work to do to make our courts safe for children.

I am writing a letter to Eric Schneiderman who is the NY Attorney General asking him to investigate the systemic failure of the custody courts to protect children involved in domestic violence cases. I have used the outrageous mishandling of the Shockome and Goldstein cases to illustrate the problem. I would like to encourage everyone who wishes to protect children to contact Mr. Schneiderman in support of my request that they investigate the broken custody court system.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. His next book, Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor, co authored with Elizabeth Liu is designed to train attorneys to present domestic violence cases and will be published in the spring of 2013. Barry can be reached by email from their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

Tyson, Rape Isn't Funny Anymore

2013-03-10T19:06:00.001-04:00

by Michelle Simonsen

Imagine you decide to go to the theatre to see an alleged, “One Man Act”. Imagine how you might feel after you find out that this "performer" is a convicted rapist? How would you feel when you found out that this person has to register as a sex offender in every state he works in?

After learning this information, I am going to assume that the majority of law abiding citizens would be up in arms over this performance in their cities. You think to yourself, "Why would anyone pay to see a sex offender ramble on about their poor, hard life?" Wouldn’t you question the theatre owners and promoters and demand an explanation for why they are giving this rapist a platform and getting paid for it?

Well guess what. This really happened. People did see this convicted rapist, and they paid up to $250 ticket to listen to this longstanding criminal and sex offender justify himself. All on your dime, he's getting some sick pleasure out of exploiting his criminal acts and assassinating the character of his victims. Did you know this monstrosity started on Broadway? The infamous and controversial director, Spike Lee is producing it. Thanks to the Hollywood machine, this rapist will be touring 36 cities, banking the bucks and getting crazy, wild publicity out of it.

Who is this performing rapist? His name is Mike Tyson.

It is of my opinion that entertainment executives, investors and the entire Hollywood machine have ignored that Mike Tyson is a SEX OFFENDER. He is a rapist. He is a self-admitted violent man. The movie “The Hangover” became less funny when I saw that ugly tattooed mug appear on the screen ruining a perfectly good Phil Collins song. Why do the powers that be in Hollywood think it's a great idea to idolize and capitalize off a monster? What part of rapist do they not understand? He’s not an “alleged” rapist. He IS a rapist.

Every sexual assault survivor got a big slap in the face last month with a ugly wrapped package of the NBC network, and its television show, Law & Order: SVU (Special Victims Unit.) The sick irony? Tyson played the victim of a prison rape.

Did I miss something? Was this supposed to be funny? Were these people serious? Tyson playing a rape victim?!

In the video below, Marcie Kaveney, a sexual assault advocate, called for a Petition on Change.org asking NBC recast Tyson's character. When asked why would NBC do something like that (casting Tyson as a rape victim on a very sensitive show), Kaveney stated, "I can't even say because they haven't even come out to say anything. They never responded to the petition, they haven't responded to any interviews...all I can think is ratings. Maybe they thought with it being controversial that it would get ratings and new viewers."

HuffPost Live interview discussing Tyson starring in Law & Order: SVU

"Inappropriate and insensitive" discussing NBC, Marcie Kaveney, Change.org

Petition to Recast Mike Tyson--Change.org

Why is man who is a criminal, a rapist, a violent animal, and a loose cannon being celebrated on screen and on stage? I would surmise that NBC doesn't care about the viewers who were deeply offended by their choice of casting. However, the bottom line is always ratings and money.

FORGOTTEN VICTIM, DESIREE WASHINGTON

In July 1991, Tyson was one of the judges for Miss Black America. Desiree Washington, Miss Black Rhode Island, was introduced to Tyson and later offered to take her for a ride in his limo to see Indianapolis. Desiree testified that Tyson made sexual advances towards her in the limo where she rebuffed him and he stated to her, "Oh, you're not like the city girls. You're a Christian girl." Tyson told the limo driver he needed to stop at his hotel room and insisted that Desiree come with him.

She testified that upon arriving at his hotel room, she excused herself to use the bathroom, and when she emerged she stated to the jury, "I glanced over and saw the defendant in his underwear...on the bed. He was just sitting there.... I was terrified." Tyson pinned her down on his bed and raped her despite her pleas to stop. "It felt like someone was ripping me apart," she said. After the rape, she ran out of the room and asked Tyson's chauffeur to drive her back to her hotel. Tyson's chauffeur, Virginia Foster, confirmed Desiree Washington's state of shock. Dr. Thomas Richardson, the emergency room physician who examined Washington confirmed that Washington's physical condition was consistent with rape. (Source)

Tyson was convicted on the rape charge on February 10, 1992 after the jury deliberated for nearly 10 hours. Tyson was sentenced to six years, but only served three, and was released in 1995.

AN ANIMAL OUT OF ITS CAGE

After being released, in an interview with Fox News Anchor Greta Van Susteren, Tyson was asked if he raped Desiree Washington. His answer? “No, I didn't rape that slimy bitch...just a lying, reptilian, monstrous, young lady. I just hate her guts. She put me in that state where, I don't know, I really wish I did now. Now I really do want to rape her and her (expletive) mama." Source

He’s so full of hatred for being accused of this crime and “that woman” ruining his life. He’s no rapist! Right? Yet, in 2002 he was quoted as saying “[He] called me a ‘rapist’ and a ‘recluse.’ I’m not a recluse.” Freudian "rape" slip? Source

TYSON’S “RAPE LIST”

Tyson happily brags in the same Van Susteren interview that he wishes he’d raped every single human being he’s ever seen, met, or had even minimal contact with, ever, in his entire lifetime.

"Yeah, um, that lady, what's her name? Who walked my dog that day one time? I wish I raped that bitch good…and that Hilton bitch, what’s her name, Paris or Rome, I wanted to rape her one time but didn’t, I forget why, I think I was tired or something. And my cousin Veronica, she woulda' been good to rape. And my old mailman, Hank, back in Green Point [Brooklyn], I wish I’d raped him, too. That woulda' been funny, raping the mailman. His little mailman helmet woulda' fallen off and maybe I’d pick it up and wear it while raping him. Yeah, that woulda' been funny."

Tyson also threatened Van Susteren, "After this interview I’ll probably look back and say, 'Damn, why didn’t I rape that Greta Van Whatever bitch, too…That woulda' been funny, raping that Greta lady while she tried to ask me those stupid questions. I mean, yeah, um, raping everyone from my life is all I think about."

Others on Tyson’s “rape list” included his “bitch fourth grade teacher Ms. Hoffman, bitch choreographer Debbie Allen, Robin Givens’ greedy bitch mother, that fat Mexican bitch in that burrito place near the gym, that bitch Celine Dion, that Trista bitch from The Bachelorette, and former UN Secretary General Burtos Butros Gali.” Source

NOT ENOUGH OUTRAGE

So with all the above in mind, why haven’t we seen more outrage about Tyson cashing in on his infamy? Why are Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public giving their hard earned dollars to watch this so-called “entertainment” by a convicted rapist?

If you think Tyson is “reformed”, think about this. He once stated in an interview, "I wish that you guys had children so I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you could feel my pain because that's the pain I have waking up every day."

So, Why is Mike Tyson relevant?

We, the entertainment consumers keep him relevant. Do your part, don’t take part in watching SVU, do not see his “one man show”, write an email or tweet to Spike Lee @SpikeLee, or go to his website directly at: http://www.40acres.com. Voice your opinion to him!

Write the executives at NBC and tell them how disgusting they were to think it was ok to put a sex offender on their show and portray him as a victim.

Do they all think we’re stupid? I know we aren't. Stand up and have a voice. What’s going on here is NOT ok. Not everyone has succumbed to society’s decay of moral values. Let’s show those people pulling the strings behind the magical curtain what is acceptable and what isn’t! We bear responsibility too, because this is everyone’s problem. Whether you think it affects you or not, it does.

NBC Executive producers, Law & Order: SVU

Dick Wolf

Peter Jankowski

Warren Leight

Bob Wright,Vice Chairman and Executive Officer

GEChairman and Chief Executive Officer

NBC Universal Headquarters

30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112

E-mail: robert.wright@nbcuni.com

Phone: (212) 664-4444

Fax: (201) 583-5453

Spike Lee's Twitter @SpikeLee

Michelle Simonsen is an outspoken activist and true crime blogger well known for the grass-roots campaign,"Boycott Aruba," surrounding the time of the Natalee Holloway disappearance.

"What makes these guys become mobsters?" Part II

2013-03-05T07:03:00.000-05:00

by Dennis Griffin

I write books about organized crime. Invariably, when I give a talk one of the questions from the audience is, "What makes these guys become mobsters?" I don't have a "one size fits all" answer. But there is a rather common scenario I've come across over the years that may explain why at least some young men turn to a life of crime. And I think the case of Andrew DiDonato is a good example.

Andrew was influenced by his environment and neighborhood wiseguys as a young boy, and took to thievery before reaching his teens. In 1980 the teenager became an associate of the Gambino crime family and lived "the life" until he flipped and became a government witness in 1997.

In 2010, I agreed to write Andrew's biography titled Surviving The Mob. I believe by sharing some of Andrew's story here, readers may come away with a better understanding of the circumstances that contribute to the making of a criminal. To read Part I click here

Making Connections

Andrew was an ambitious young man and had made a commitment to advance his criminal career. He even dropped out of school to allow himself more time on the streets. However, before he was able to fully implement his bold plans, an event took place that had unintended consequences. Although it resulted in his first arrest, it also brought him to the attention of Gambino family crew boss Nicky Corozzo, and catapulted him from an unaffiliated street tough into the world of organized crime.

It started in November 1982 when Andrew and a friend learned that a couple of neighborhood boys working in a bagel shop at East 81st Street and Flatlands Avenue were stealing money from the place on a regular basis. They saw this as an opportunity to make some easy cash.

“My buddy Tommy and I hung out in a park across the street from the bagel shop. Tommy found out these two guys that usually worked the night shift there were taking between a thousand and fifteen hundred a week out of the joint. A couple of brothers in their late twenties owned the place. They had very poor habits when it came to supervising their employees. They weren’t around that much, especially at night. These guys they had working the night shift made the bagels, served customers and ran the place pretty much on their own. That included handling the cash register. They took advantage of the situation by pocketing a lot of the money for themselves. Both of these guys were in their late teens. And the word was that they had serious gambling problems and needed the money to pay off their gambling debts.

“Tommy and I figured we might as well cut ourselves in on the action. We told them we wanted four or five hundred a week or else. They said okay and didn’t resist at all. They started making their payments right away with no problem.

“But the first sign of trouble came quick. This neighborhood guy named Mike Yannotti had a talk with Tommy and me. Mike…who was known on the streets as Mikey Y … was a couple years older than us and was already connected with Nicky Corozzo’s crew. He had a reputation as a tough guy and he was. In fact, I met a lot of dangerous guys over the years, and in my opinion Mikey Y was the most dangerous of them all.

“Anyway, Mikey said that the bagel shop guys we were shaking down owed Nicky Corozzo a lot of money from gambling. If we continued making them pay us they couldn’t pay him too. We had to back off.

“After that conversation Tommy and I had to make a decision. We were a little pissed off that we were being told to stop the shakedown without being offered some other way to replace that income. We said to hell with Nicky Corozzo, we weren’t going to back down. That decision would probably have led to another less friendly visit from Mikey. But something else happened first.

“A couple of weeks later one of our victims got caught by the owners of the bagel shop with his hand in the register. He told his boss that Tommy and I had forced him into stealing the money and giving it to us. The owners called the cops and then headed across the street to the park to confront Tommy and me.

“At that time we carried brass knuckles. When the brothers grabbed us the knuckles came out and the fight was on. We beat one of them up pretty good. I think he ended up needing about a hundred stitches in his head. During the heat of things somebody grabbed me from behind and spun me around. It was a cop. Tommy and I threw the brass knuckles, but the cops found one set of them. We were arrested, taken to the station and charged with assault. We were never charged or even questioned about the extortion scheme.

“I hired a lawyer. He told me that still being a minor would work in my favor. And he could argue that the owners initiated the fight by coming to the park looking for Tommy and me to give us a beating. We could press assault charges against them and probably end up getting a draw, with all charges being dropped. And that’s exactly what happened. Everybody walked away clean.

“After that I started spending more time with Mikey Y and some other guys in Corozzo’s crew. Even though I wasn’t really part of them yet, we did a lot of stealing and some other things. Everything we did made money and some of it went to Nicky.

“A couple of months later…in early 1983…I got to meet Nicky in person. Back then Nicky hadn’t been made an official capo yet. He was an acting capo. Nicky and his friend Leonard DiMaria ran the crew together, kind of like co-captains. I already knew Lenny quite well. I had taken his daughter to the high school prom and I hung around with his nephew. But I’d never met Nicky before.

“They used to hold meetings at a private social club every Tuesday and Saturday. The meetings started around eleven in the morning and went until four or five in the afternoon. The crew members and others they did business with would be there. Food and drinks were available.

“On this one Saturday morning I was riding in a car with some of the crew. I knew they had to go to the meeting so I told them to drop me off and I’d see 'em later. One of the guys said he wanted me to go with them. Another said that Nicky had mentioned just the previous night that they should bring me along. So I went.

“When we got to the club I was introduced around. Everybody socialized while Nicky conducted business in another room. He did that by calling in the people he needed to talk with one at a time. In private he’d tell them what he wanted done and they’d have a chance to let him know if they needed something from him. If he had a job that involved more than one guy or the entire crew, he’d call them all in at once.

“On this particular day Nicky approached me around mid-afternoon and took me into the other room. He said he’d heard a lot about me and knew I was acquainted with his nephews. I was doing some good things. ‘You’ve got a friend here,’ he said.

“And then he told me that if I ever needed anything to come to him. If I needed stolen merchandise disposed of, come to him. If somebody was giving me trouble, come to him. Whatever I needed, come to him.

“After that he told me about the Tuesday and Saturday meetings. I’ll never forget what he said. ‘These meetings are important. You’ll meet a lot of people and make a lot of friends. Some of them may need your help sometime. Think of it as going to school. You’ll learn valuable lessons here so don’t miss. If you miss you’re not being a good friend.’

“When I left the social club that day I was officially part of Nicky’s crew. I was an associate of the Gambino organized crime family.”

Dennis Griffin is a True Crime Author, Co-Host of Crime Wire and We Know a Guy on the Inside Lenz Network. He has written several books concentrating on the history of the mob presence in Las Vegas. www.dennisngriffin.com

"From a Former Prosecutor to a UNC Student Prosecutor: An Open Letter"

2013-02-27T08:08:00.000-05:00

by Roger Canaff

Editor's note:

The student-run Honor Court at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill informed Landen Gambill last week that it’s charging her with violation of the Honor Code under a statute prohibiting “Disruptive or intimidating behavior that willfully abuses, disparages, or otherwise interferes with another…. so as to adversely affect their academic pursuits, opportunities for university employment, participation in university-sponsored extracurricular activities, or opportunities to benefit from other aspects of University Life.”

Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/26/unc-charged-student-honor-code-violation-discussing-her-rape-allegation#ixzz2M2XFjhbF
Inside Higher Ed

Ms. Elizabeth Ireland
Student Attorney General, Graduate and Professional Schools
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Dear Ms. Ireland:

First, I commend you on the tough work you do in order to help maintain an atmosphere of integrity, civility and safety at UNC Chapel Hill, my own alma mater in terms of the law degree that has graciously shaped my professional life. Your job is not an easy one, and I’d guess it seems even less so in light of your apparent (now publicized) decision to bring charges against Landen Gambill for a violation of UNC Honor Code IIC, 1.c.

Second, I have no intention of questioning your decision based on the evidence you have before you, simply because I do not have it before me. No prosecutor should be taken to task by an outsider who lacks the same access to information that she has.

I do, however, have your Code before me, the one I presume you are sworn to uphold and from which you form specific charges addressing clearly proscribed conduct. You have charged Ms. Gambill with:

“Disruptive or intimidating behavior that willfully abuses, disparages, or otherwise interferes with another” regarding that person’s opportunities broadly as a member of the UNC community.

Again, without making assumptions about what you know, this appears to be in response to Ms. Gambill’s public reflections on the abuse she reported against an intimate partner last year; presumably you suspect that Ms. Gambill's actions amount to violative behavior toward another student. Yet a close friend of Ms. Gambill’s claims confidently (I’ve seen nothing to contradict her) that 1) Gambill has never publicly named the man she alleges assaulted her, and 2) the bulk of her protestations involve not what he did but how she was treated by the Honor Court process itself.

I can only assume you either know something I don’t, or that you believe with the appropriate level of certainty that Landen Gambill is yet responsible for the Honor Code violation you’ve drawn up. In any event, I’d ask you to consider two things:

First, prosecutorial decisions shouldn’t be made in a vacuum. Even if you believe Gambill has somehow “abused, disparaged or otherwise interfered” with her former partner to an extent that somehow violates your Code, is she really an appropriate person to target? Admittedly, I have a bias: I believe Gambill told the truth to the Honor Court last year and that she was seriously if unintentionally mishandled. But even if I was less convinced on either issue, I fail to see how your resources and goodwill are well spent with this prosecution. Understanding that you are rightfully independent of the administration in terms of your charging decisions, this one seems only to be drawing more negative attention to a university that, by all appearances, would be well advised to focus less on students struggling to heal and more on those who are harming them.

Second, just as I’d ask you to consider your case against Gambill in the context of other factors, I’d ask you to carefully consider the entire section under which you’ve charged her. The governing language of IIC 1.c is found in IIC:

“It shall be the responsibility of every student...to refrain from conduct that impairs or may impair the right of all members of the University community to learn and thrive in a safe and respectful environment; or the capacity of University and associated personnel to perform their duties, manage resources, protect the safety and welfare of members of the University community, and maintain the integrity of the University.”

Landen Gambill is a credible victim of both devastating abuse and a flawed system of adjudication now rightfully removed from consideration of her type of complaint. The abuse she alleges on your campus is exactly the kind of behavior that impairs rights, threatens safety, mocks respect, and curtails profoundly the capacity of everyone at UNC to learn and grow to her highest potential. By her efforts to seek redress, both personal and in terms of the University response, it is Gambill who is seeking to uphold integrity here, Ms. Ireland. Punishing her on dubious or hyper-technical grounds renders your process absurd, cruel, and feckless."

Roger Canaff

Legal Expert, Child Protection and Special Victims Advocate. Author, Public Speaker.www.rogercanaff.com

UNDERSTANDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DYNAMICS: A PREREQUISITE FOR COURT PROFESSIONALS TO WORK ON DV CUSTODY CASES

2013-02-26T15:21:00.000-05:00

by Barry Goldstein

The frequency with which judges, lawyers, evaluators, child protective caseworkers and other professionals fail to recognize true complaints of domestic violence made by mothers in child custody cases has led to extensive discussions among domestic violence experts about the need for training. In many of these cases the professionals denied valid complaints despite receiving domestic violence training. Too often they believe their training makes them qualified to decide domestic violence issues and so refuse to consider information or testimony from domestic violence experts.

Obviously good training provided by knowledgeable experts given to professionals who are open to hearing and embracing new information can be and often is helpful. I remember trying one case in which the judge found that the father had committed domestic violence against the mother. The judge told us that he had recently gone for domestic violence training and would have made the opposite decision if not for the training.

Unfortunately not all trainings are good and many are conducted by judges or mental health professionals without the needed expertise. Too often judges are only willing to listen to other judges, lawyers to lawyers and psychologists to psychologists. This is an unfortunate practice because a multi-disciplinary approach works best and as demonstrated by the recent Saunders’ study released by the US Department of Justice, domestic violence advocates have the most expertise on the specific domestic violence topics court professionals need in order to protect children. Of particular concern are trainings in which misinformation is provided. We have seen court sponsored trainings that include unscientific theories like parental alienation syndrome, fail to recognize the gendered nature of domestic violence and create a false equivalency concerning assaults by men and women. Many court professionals have been taught to treat contested custody as “high conflict” cases in which both parents are acting out in ways that are harmful to the children. The actual research establishes that a large majority of contested custody, probably as much as 90% are domestic violence cases in which the abusers are seeking custody as a tactic in order to maintain control over their victims. High conflict approaches often result in harmful practices where courts pressure victims to cooperate with their abusers instead of pressuring the abusers to stop their abuse. This often results in punishing mothers (and children) because she did not “get over it.”

Many genuine experts have expressed concerns after participating in good trainings that the professionals failed to pay attention because they wrongly believed they already understood domestic violence. In one Queens, New York case, I had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Paul Marcus about a training he attended in order to qualify as a parent coordinator. He had received some excellent research articles at the training that would have informed his investigation. When pressed by my questions he claimed to only have skimmed the articles, but in reality he had no knowledge of the information and repeatedly made the mistakes the articles could have helped him avoid. He eventually characterized his experience at the training as “not life-changing.” Unfortunately the children put at risk by his unqualified approaches badly needed him to have a life altering experience.

The history of the court system’s response to domestic violence custody cases contributes to problems around training. When domestic violence first became a public issue in the mid to late 1970s there was little research available. Many popular assumptions such as the belief that domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse or the actions of the victim influenced the court response to domestic violence but turned out to be wrong. These mistaken assumptions led courts to rely on mental health professionals as if they were the experts despite having no expertise in domestic violence. Over the years many lawyers and judges learned misinformation from psychologists and other mental health professionals that has become deeply ingrained. This has contributed to a significant problem that many courts refuse to listen to domestic violence experts or devalue their important contributions. I believe it is important that the Saunders’ study specifically found that the standard and required training in domestic violence received by judges, lawyers and evaluators does not provide them with the necessary expertise to understand domestic violence cases. This is an important explanation for why custody courts so frequently get domestic violence cases wrong. This prestigious study coming out of the US Justice Department ought to be a wake-up call for court administrators to reconsider training and practices concerning domestic violence. I have not seen this yet, but the report is less than a year old and I still hope the courts will have enough concern about the well-being of children to take this research seriously. The biggest obstacles to creating the needed reforms are the defensiveness and misplaced confidence of court officials and the financial incentive of a cottage industry of lawyers and mental health professionals who have made good livings promoting bogus approaches that support abusers.

The Importance of Understanding Domestic Violence Dynamics

It is well known that boys who witness domestic violence are far more likely to abuse future partners than boys never exposed to domestic violence. At the same time the fact that many boys who witness their fathers’ abuse of their mothers seek to avoid any mistreatment of women. Some, like former Yankee manager Joe Torre and Detective Mark Wynn have used their negative childhood experiences to become leaders in the work to end men’s violence against women.

In their new version of The Batterer as Parent, Lundy Bancroft and his colleagues consider the important question of why boys react so differently to witnessing domestic violence. Their finding is that boys who continue the pattern of abuse towards their intimate partners have a much greater sense of entitlement than boys who avoid committing these crimes. This does not explain why some boys have a greater sense of entitlement, but is important in understanding the gendered nature of domestic violence.

One of the first things we learn as instructors in the NY Model Batterer Program where I teach is that domestic violence is rooted in history. There is a long history of husbands abusing their wives and societal messages that this is acceptable. There is a history of women being considered the property first of their fathers and then of their husbands. This is demonstrated in a common part of many weddings in which the father gives the bridge to the husband. There is no equivalent history of wives controlling husbands with state support. Researchers and professionals who seek to create a false equivalency between how men and women treat each other make the mistake of ignoring this history in addition to the size and strength differential that is common between men and women.

Domestic violence involves tactics that men use to coerce and control their intimate partners and pressure them to allow him to make the major decisions in the relationship. Most of these abusive tactics do not involve physical assaults. The Pattern and the Purpose of these tactics are critical to understanding the nature of domestic violence. Abusers typically seek to obfuscate what they are doing by discussing each incident out of context. They often seek to start the discussion at the point his partner reacts to his abuse. Inadequately trained professionals often fall for this manipulation because they fail to understand the importance of context and often seek to create a false sense of equivalency in a misguided attempt to be fair to both parties.

Accordingly it is critical for court professionals and others trying to understand the relationship between an abuser and his victim to be fully aware and knowledgeable about domestic violence dynamics. Many acts that seem the same on the surface are very different when context and purpose are considered. One of the most common mistakes courts make in domestic violence cases is to consider each incident and each issue separately. This makes it extremely difficult for judges to understand the context in which the events occurred. We see many cases in which a court initially tries a case involving one of the abuser’s domestic violence tactics. The court may deny the allegation either because of inadequate evidence or because it fails to properly understand the evidence. Once the decision denying the allegation is made, many courts assume this establishes that the allegations of abuse are false. This results in a refusal to ever again consider the father’s abusive behavior or limiting any consideration to new incidents without considering the context of his previous abuse. This is not a practice that is neutral, but rather one that favors abusers and contributes to the frequency that courts fail to protect children from abusers.

What Happens When Court Professionals Do Not Understand DV Dynamics?

Many professionals who have received training in domestic violence have learned that victims are usually afraid of their abuser. Indeed the abuser engages in frightening tactics to make her afraid to challenge him. This is useful knowledge, but can be misapplied by someone who does not understand domestic violence dynamics. In many cases the mother is afraid of the father but summons the courage to challenge her abuser and even the court because she is trying to protect her children. Her actions are often misunderstood as proof she could not possibly have been abused.

In one notorious case, an evaluator, in her report wrote that the mother is a strong and articulate woman so could not possibly need a domestic violence advocate. All of the domestic violence experts who testified in the case were outraged at this statement and recognized her statement proved she was not qualified to handle domestic violence cases. The judge who was extremely confident of his domestic violence knowledge failed to see the problem with this statement and gave custody to the abusive father and supervised visitation to the protective mother without an evidentiary hearing.

An even more tragic example of this common mistake occurred in the Castillo case from Maryland. The mother sought a protective order to prevent unsupervised visitation between the abusive father and the children. Immediately before going to court the mother had sexual relations with her husband. The judge believed the father could not be too dangerous if the mother was still having sex with him and denied the mother’s request. Being ignorant of domestic violence dynamics, the judge never considered that the mother might have had sex with the father because she was afraid of what he might have done if she refused. The father used the access granted him by the judge to kill their three children. At a subsequent legislative hearing, a “fathers’ rights” legislator sought to use the sexual relations to embarrass the mother in order to justify his opposition to reforms that would make it easier for victims to obtain restraining orders. In other words he did not understand why the mother would have sexual relations even after he knew the outcome.

Many aspects of domestic violence are counterintuitive. The knowledge of domestic violence dynamics helps professionals and others avoid mistakes based on circumstances that otherwise do not seem logical. Judge Mike Brigner wrote a chapter in our book Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody in which he described the most common question he receives when he provides domestic violence training to judges and other court professionals. The question is what to do about women who are lying. When he asks what they mean they cite examples of women who return to their abusers, fail to follow-through on petitions for protective orders or do not have police or medical records to document the father’s abuse. All of these examples are common responses to domestic violence for safety and other good reasons.

Another very common example is that a court professional will observe an allegedly abusive father interact with his children. The children show no fear so they assume the father could not be abusive. The children understand their father would never hurt them in front of a witness so are comfortable interacting with him. Indeed they may miss his presence. Court professionals without an understanding of domestic violence dynamics often treat these non-probative facts as if they prove the abuse allegations are false. This leads to the denial of a lot of true allegations.

Similarly, we sometimes see cases in which an abusive father is initially limited to supervised visitation. The court often wants a report from the supervisor about how the father interacted with the children. In most cases the father acted appropriately and the court believes his ability to behave while supervised means it is safe for him to have unsupervised visitation or even custody. Someone who understood domestic violence dynamics would know that with rare exceptions the father’s abuse is not caused by his inability to control his behavior. In fact he often controls his behavior when there are witnesses present or other reasons why he would suffer consequences if he engaged in abusive tactics. His good behavior while being supervised tells us nothing about how he will behave when he is alone with the children.

Another common error caused by a failure to understand domestic violence dynamics is the assumption that the end of the relationship or the lack of a recent physical attack means the abuser is no longer dangerous. This is based on the common fallacy that domestic violence only has to do with physical abuse and the failure to understand the purpose of domestic violence tactics. When a batterer assaults his partner once or twice that is often sufficient to maintain control because she knows what he is capable of. The threat of further violence or even just the same tone of voice, body language or demeanor is sufficient to coerce the victim to do what he wants because she is afraid of being hit again. His other non-violent domestic violence tactics further reinforce his danger. Many of the gender bias committees found that blaming women for the actions of her abuser is a common example of gender bias. A common example of this is when a mother is punished for continuing to express fear of her abuser based on earlier incidents.

The Saunders’ study specifically recommends that court professionals have training in post-separation violence. This is because of the frequency that unqualified court professionals, anxious to keep fathers in children’s lives assume the end of the relationship makes the father safe. This is based on the false belief that his violence was caused by disputes between the parties that would be avoided when they no longer live together. The actual research demonstrates that the most dangerous time for a woman is after she has left her abuser. Three-quarters of women murdered by their intimate partners are killed after they ended the relationship. Most of the contested custody cases are based on the abuser tactic of seeking custody to regain control over the mother. He has often told her that if she leaves he will take away the children and bankrupt her. Court professionals without an understanding of domestic violence dynamics rarely recognize his litigation tactics and willingness to harm the children in order to maintain control as a continuation of his domestic violence tactics.

In one Oklahoma case, the abusive father spent thousands of dollars and demanded depositions of administrators in a school his daughter attended over disputed fees that were far less than he spent on legal fees. He refused health and child care benefits from his employer that would have cost him nothing. When it became obvious he could not gain custody, he asked the court to put his children in foster care despite the fact the mother always provided good care of the children. The court never saw these harmful actions as a continuation of his abuse.

In many custody disputes the father has a new wife or girl friend and he uses her to testify that he is a good father and treats her respectfully. He is trying to show that it is only the “crazy” mother who has a problem with him. Many court professionals allow themselves to be manipulated by this tactic. The new partner is usually telling the truth so can be very sincere. He treats her respectfully as long as he needs her testimony to help his custody case. This is completely understandable because domestic violence dynamics explains that abusive men are able to act respectfully. They usually do this at the start of relationships or else there would be no relationship as well as when witnesses are present. Similarly the abuser may provide several friends and family members as witnesses that they never saw him act abusively. This tells us nothing about how he acts to his wife in the privacy of their home, but many court professionals treat this as valuable evidence.

The Saunders’ study also found that evaluators and other court professionals often placed too much emphasis on the mother’s anger or emotion. This is all out of proportion to any impact on children. It is normal for battered women to be angry and emotional at the mistreatment they suffered by their partner and too often by the court. In many cases the abuser deliberately takes actions to upset the victim immediately before a court appearance.

The Saunders’ study found that evaluators and other court professionals without the necessary training in specific topics like risk assessment, screening for domestic violence, post-separation violence and the impact of domestic violence on children tended to focus on harmful beliefs like the myth women frequently make false allegations, unscientific alienation theories and beliefs that attempts to protect children from abusers are harmful to the children. Significantly these mistaken notions are also more common in professionals who do not understand domestic violence dynamics. Saunders found that these beliefs are associated with recommendations and decisions that are harmful to children.

This demonstrates how the interaction of misinformation and ignorance magnify the harm done to children. Michelle Jeker is one of the many victims of the court system’s failure to respond appropriately to domestic violence. At the start of the case I had the opportunity to review statements from many different potential witnesses as I was planning to be an expert witness. I was most impressed that the one witness with training in domestic violence confirmed the mother’s allegations. The court professionals instead relied on statements of friends and family of the father who had no knowledge of his treatment of the mother. She had made some false statements under pressure from her abuser while they were living together and this was used to discredit her. The professionals seemed to never consider the father’s role. When it came time for me to testify, the judge refused to even let me take the stand. He said that he had been a family court judge for 17 years and so did not need the assistance of a domestic violence expert. This is the danger of providing training and particularly partial training because it gave the judge a false sense of confidence despite a lack of understanding of domestic violence dynamics.

The judge’s complete lack of understanding of domestic violence issues is demonstrated by his decision to create the kind of extreme outcome that the Saunders’ study found to always be against the best interests of children. These are cases in which the alleged abuser receives custody and a mother who is the primary attachment figure and always provided good care of the children is limited to supervised or no visitation. We know this is always against the best interests of the children because the harm of separating children from their primary attachment figure, a harm that includes increased risk of depression, low self-esteem and suicide when older is greater than any conceivable benefit the court thinks it is providing.

In fairness to the judge, he did not have the benefit of the Saunders’ study to help avoid his tragic mistake. Unfortunately, subsequent judges have treated the initial mistaken decision as the final word on domestic violence issues so they have been unwilling to hear testimony based on new events and new research that would help the court understand how the existing order is harmful to the children. I do not know what is in the judges’ hearts, but their refusal to consider new information that could undermine the earlier mistakes creates the appearance that they are more interested in protecting themselves and their colleagues instead of the children. Recently, the son hired his own attorney and sought to obtain normal visitation with his mother. The court created an extended delay before it would hear the child’s application. By the time the child met with the judge, the father had sufficient time to silence him so that he was afraid to tell the judge what he wanted.

In similar situations where the father is limited to supervised visitation because of genuine safety issues, courts seem to feel enormous pressure to resume normal visitation with the father. The Jeker case is another example of a pattern that when courts restrict mothers from normal visitation because of alienation or other non-safety issues they are willing to keep these harmful arrangements for many years.

At one point the mother was watching her son’s little league game and the father punched her in the face in front of witnesses. Two other mothers signed affidavits confirming the father’s assault. It turned out that one of the mothers had a child whose law guardian was the attorney for Jeker’s ex-husband. Despite the obvious conflict of interest, the attorney was permitted to continue in the case and unsurprisingly, the witness recanted her allegations. Despite the questionable circumstances, the prosecutor brought charges against the mother. She agreed to a plea based on poor legal representation, but with the promise that would end the matter. Instead it appears she is about to be jailed for the third time because she continues to truthfully say her ex assaulted her. Although research demonstrates that fathers involved in contested custody are 16 times more likely to make false allegations, it seems that it is only abused mothers who are ever subjected to prosecution. This is part of the strategy to silence mothers who complain about the court system as they try to protect their children.

These are the kinds of mistakes that would never be made by professionals who understand domestic violence dynamics or are open to the research that proves courts are making frequent mistakes in domestic violence cases. The court in the Jeker case would be well advised to consider something Joan Zorza, one of the leading experts in domestic violence has written, “Until judges and other professionals receive the specific training they need to recognize these patterns (and as noted previously, many have such strong preconceived notions that they will not learn anything from even the best training), they must consult with genuine DV experts, particularly DV advocates. Otherwise, as shown in many parts of this book, courts often make mistakes that place the lives and safety of protective mothers and their children in jeopardy. In this context, it is important for courts that rule against alleged victims of DV to be open to the possibility that they made a mistake. Courts should be reluctant to take punitive or retaliatory actions against mothers who continue to believe their partners abused them.” The courts in the Jeker case have repeatedly ignored this good advice and in fact have refused to consider the new research upon which it is based.

Abusers tend to be very good at manipulation. We often see them admit a small part of their abuse in order to seem sincere. This is what Nixon referred to as a limited hang-out during the Watergate investigation. They will also cry to seek sympathy and create the illusion of sensitivity. Many court professionals decide that he may have committed some abuse in the past but is now safe. It is not that this would be impossible, but it is far rarer than court outcomes would suggest. Courts are also far less skeptical of father’s allegations even though the research demonstrates their false charges are far more frequent than complaints by mothers.

Abusive fathers with the help of “fathers’ rights organizations and the cottage industry of lawyers and psychologists who make a living helping abusers have developed a host of deceptive tactics for custody cases. These tactics have been shockingly successful in placing children at risk. Genuine domestic violence experts would rarely fall for these tactics, but few court professionals have the needed expertise including a good understanding of domestic violence dynamics. This makes cases that should be easy to recognize difficult for courts to recognize and protect the children.

Solutions

A wide variety of experts agree on the obvious solution to the missing expertise about domestic violence dynamics in the custody courts. The Batterer as Parent which is one of the leading authorities on domestic violence and custody recommends that if an evaluator does not work with a domestic violence shelter they should consult with someone who does. The American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association recommend that if a professional is working on a case that requires expertise in an area they do not have they should consult with an expert who has the necessary knowledge. The Greenbook Initiative created by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges recommended that child protective agencies work with domestic violence agencies when responding to possible domestic violence cases. It seems so obvious and necessary for court professionals to consult with domestic violence advocates or other experts who understand domestic violence dynamics before making decisions that could place children (and mothers) in jeopardy. Nevertheless, the courts rarely seek the needed expertise and in many cases have actually refused to listen to experts who have the required knowledge.

In a two year period between 2009 and 2011 we found news stories about 175 children murdered by abusive fathers involved in contested custody cases. In many of the cases the courts provided the killers with access to the children that enabled them to murder the children. In one of the cases, involving Baby Wyatt the judge gave the father access saying that he believed the mother was lying. This was not based on the evidence, but more likely on the mistake cited by Saunders that inadequately trained professionals believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations. After the murder, Judge Lemkau was genuinely sorry about the harm his decision had caused, but said there was nothing he could have done based on the information he had. In one sense he is correct; that as long as judges and other court professionals attempt to make these life and death decisions using the present flawed practices without an understanding of domestic violence dynamics, they are unable to make an informed and safe decision in all too many cases.

For the next volume of Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody, Dianne Bartlow and her students interviewed judges and other court officials in communities where the 175 children were murdered by abusive fathers. They wanted to find out if the courts reformed their practices in response to the tragedies in their communities and the new research that would help them make better decisions. It was interesting to see that the judges and other court professionals who agreed to be interviewed are probably the best judges. That is why they were willing to take the time to discuss domestic violence issues. They were open to looking at the research and considering reforms, but with rare exceptions even the murder of a young child did not result in the courts adopting the needed reforms.

Training in domestic violence and particularly the specific topics recommended by the Saunders’ report would give court professionals a better understanding of the issues they face in domestic violence cases. The training however does not provide a feel for how domestic violence dynamics works. Professionals can learn about the importance of context or the fear of the victim. They can learn that domestic violence includes so much more than physical abuse, but these and other factors can be easily misapplied without a feel for domestic violence dynamics that is more than just words on a page.

Dr. Paul Marcus, the evaluator who was described earlier as describing a good training as “not life changing,” decided that the complaints of the mother could not be “real” domestic violence because her injuries were not severe enough. He was expecting someone who was beaten bloody or had broken bones. He acknowledged that domestic violence includes more than physical abuse but failed to apply this in any meaningful way. Marcus is a strong advocate of shared parenting and sought to pressure the mother to accept shared parenting with her abuser. There is strong research that shared parenting is harmful to children even under the best of circumstances as it is disruptive to their lives, two homes is really no home and they often have what they need in the other home. It is possible to make an argument to use shared parenting under the best of circumstances. This would mean the parents are able to cooperate, can speak openly, live nearby and want to share parenting responsibilities.

In the Queens case handled by Marcus, the parents could not cooperate, leveled serious charges against each other, the mother was afraid of the father because he abused her and the mother strongly opposed shared parenting. In addition the parents did not live close to each other and the father often worked 80-100 hours per week. Most states that allow or encourage shared parenting make exceptions for domestic violence and when the parties cannot cooperate. In their zeal to promote shared parenting, however, courts often fail to limit it to cases with the most favorable circumstances that give it a chance to succeed. Instead, we often see courts pressure the victim to accept shared parenting and use therapy, counseling and other approaches to force a shared parenting relationship under unfavorable circumstances. The frequency that courts fail to recognize domestic violence or minimize its importance means that the prohibition form using shared parenting in domestic violence cases is ineffective. Courts often do not realize that this creates more litigation because the arrangement works poorly for children and creates more disputes that the court must resolve later.

It would be comforting to dismiss Dr. Marcus as an unusually bad evaluator with an agenda and a bias, but the problem is more systemic. Although Marcus demonstrated a lack of familiarity with current scientific research and failed to read the material provided in his training, engaged in many biased practices favorable to the father, acted in a sexist and unprofessional manner by referring to the mother as “hon” short for honey and did not know how to recognize domestic violence tactics, this did not cause the law guardian or the judge to discredit his report and testimony or be open to other witnesses who had more knowledge about domestic violence.

No genuine domestic violence expert or advocate would ever make the kind of mistakes made by Marcus and so many other court professionals. Their approach is inconsistent with an understanding of domestic violence dynamics. That is why custody courts must have input from someone with this vital knowledge in order to make informed decisions that protect children.

Children who witness domestic violence suffer greater illness and injury as children and adults, require more medical treatment and have a shorter life expectancy. Their developmental progress is impeded. When they grow up they are more likely to engage in a wide variety of harmful behaviors that can ruin their lives. Fathers who abuse one partner are likely to abuse future partners and if he receives custody or unsupervised visitation the children are likely to witness further domestic violence. This multiplies the risk to children. In other words the danger of destroying children’s lives is far too great to permit courts to continue to make decisions without considering domestic violence dynamics and with extremely rare exceptions, the professionals now relied on do not have this necessary expertise.

Domestic violence involves a specialized body of knowledge. Professionals do not receive this expertise in the course of their academic work to obtain degrees in law, psychology, medicine or social work. It is possible for professionals in these and other professions to become expert in domestic violence but it takes a substantial commitment to understand these issues and more than a little humility. I can learn from reading the research by Nicolas Bala and others that women rarely make false allegations of abuse, but I know this to be true because of the thousands of women I have spoken with and worked with on domestic violence issues only a very few have made deliberately false allegations. Much more common is women denying or minimizing true allegations of abuse. It is incredibly painful and embarrassing for women to speak about being abused by a man they chose to trust. Professionals who just read the research do not have the feel for how it works. Those professionals do much better than the professionals who have little training or like Marcus won’t allow the research to interfere with their preconceived misconceptions. In the short term, the only way custody courts can protect children is to listen to experts in domestic violence who understand domestic violence dynamics. More and better training can help and as more professionals are exposed to the right information, and the flawed practices are abandoned, the courts will gradually become better able to protect children. We should encourage more training, because it can help, but by itself it will not solve the problem of courts sending children to live with abusers.

When I speak about the importance of using current scientific research to inform court decisions, some of my colleagues express concern because there is plenty of biased and inaccurate research. We have seen many members of the media report on bad research studies that found women assault men almost as often as men assault women. It is news because it is so different from what we usually hear, but is it also inaccurate. Much of this bad science is based on the use of conflict tactic scales in which they count the hits without considering the severity or purpose. In the case of women the hits are usually less severe and often based on self defense or to make him stop his abuse. The studies often fail to consider rape which is overwhelmingly a crime committed by men against women. The bogus “research” about alienation is based on the assumption that virtually all abuse allegations made by women are false. In reality in the context of contested custody less than two percent is false. Researchers, like court professionals frequently make these mistakes because they do not have the necessary domestic violence training or an understanding of domestic violence. Many are manipulated by abusers. In one study reported at an IVAT conference, the researchers sought volunteers for their study at a “fathers’ rights” web site. The men claimed they were assaulted by their partners but the police did not bring charges because they don’t take abuse of men seriously. The researchers blindly accepted the men’s claims and never considered the police more likely refused to bring charges because of a lack of evidence.

Many judges have expressed reluctance to listen to domestic violence experts because they consider them biased. Ironically these same judges often treat lawyers and evaluators who routinely advertise for “fathers’ rights” business and use approaches that favor abusers because it is a good source of revenue, as if they were neutral. The failure to rely on domestic violence experts is really based on a lack of critical thinking. These experts would not support false allegations because battered mothers have been severely harmed by the rare cases in which mothers have made false allegations. This has unfairly undermined the credibility of all women. Domestic violence advocates seek to reduce domestic violence and protect children from danger. Coincidentally this is the same purpose of every legislature and the laws they have passed seeking to prevent domestic violence. These are the experts who understand domestic violence dynamics and could help courts keep children safe.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. His next book, Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor, co authored with Elizabeth Liu is designed to train attorneys to present domestic violence cases and should be published late winter or early spring of 2013. Barry can be reached by email from their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

Moving past isolation and finding peace

2013-02-25T06:34:00.000-05:00

by Susan Jacobi

Isolation is one of the biggest feelings to overcome on my healing journey. It has taken me years to accept that I am not alone with my feelings, thoughts and actions as an adult survivor of child abuse.

It is hard to have conversations with anyone who doesn't understand the history of childhood trauma. It is hard to communicate the loneliness, the sadness, the desperation in trying to stay alive every day. Couple all those (normal) feelings with the shame of the abuse, the abuser’s consistent remarks of how no one would believe you and comments that belittle you on a daily bases and the isolation is sealed into a tidy package.

People don’t like to talk about suicide. I have had days, years where I felt suicidal every minute of the day. I think for many people, it’s not that they want to leave the earth, their friends or their life; I think it is because the pain, the loneliness, and the isolation are so gripping they don’t see another way out. I think that people who are feeling suicidal have conditioned themselves as that being the only option to escape their pain.

Here’s the kicker, it is not.

Each day brings us a choice to move forward. As an adult survivor of child abuse, the mental abuse inflicted on you now is what you do to yourself. You have the choice to listen to the lies your abusers fed you or to recognize those ‘voices’ in your head for what they are; lies from a liar and child abuser. It is a choice to remove the lies and isolation in your life. Sometimes it is not an easy choice. It takes focus and doing something you don't want to do and it is possible.

Consider all the years the abuser(s) had to brainwash their victim into believing they are alone, believing no one wants them or no one would believe them. If we spent the same number of years conditioning ourselves that people did want us, did believe us, I wonder what the outcome would be. I wonder if I would feel the same loneliness and isolation and shame that I feel now. I don’t think so.

Just for the fun, it is an interesting experiment and one worth exploring. We might surprise ourselves to find out people do want us, love us. As a special gift, we might even begin to move on from the trauma we experienced as victims of child abuse. Maybe, unexpectedly, we would begin to release ourselves and forgive ourselves and our abusers. It is worth a try.

Susan Jacobi is a radio show host, author, speaker and coach. Visit http://amzn.to/TJzgl2 to purchase her book, How to Love Yourself: The Hope after Child Abuse. Receive ‘100 Tools for Happiness’ when you sign up to receive her weekly ezine at www.conversationsthatheal.com.

Conquering the Narcissist

2013-02-10T09:33:00.001-05:00

photo by Gabe Walker

by Michelle Simonsen

You know there is a problem. It’s not you. But you’ve been told it’s you. Just smile and nod your head. ‘Thank you.’ ‘You are totally right.’ ‘I don’t know what I would do without you.’ Blah, blah, blah.

The narcissist. We’ve seen them in the public eye. Donald Trump. Bernie Madoff. Lance Armstrong. Charlie Sheen. Guess what? Most narcissists are not on television. They walk among us. They are your husbands, your bosses, clergy, and even your children. They can easily ruin lives. They wreak havoc in the boardroom, the courtroom, and the family room.

Don’t fool yourself. A well-developed narcissist cannot be cured. Narcissists are resistant to change, making it almost impossible for them to recognize their own behaviors in order to save their relationships or careers. If you insist on having a relationship with a narcissist despite the bleak prognosis you’ve been given, you’ll need to arm yourself for psychological warfare. Learn to conquer the narcissist--before they conquer you.

When dealing with a narcissist, ignorance is not bliss, and knowledge is power. Educate yourself. You must be able to recognize a narcissist before you can correctly handle them and the situation. Caution: Handle with care!

WHAT IS A NARCISSIST?

Narcissism is an excessive fixation on oneself. The personality disorder was named after a mythological Greek youth named Narcissus who became obsessed after falling in love with his own reflection in a lake.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines narcissistic personality disorder as:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance. He or she will exaggerate achievements and talents and expects to be recognized as superior.

2. Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

3. Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people.

4. Requires excessive admiration.

5. Has a sense of entitlement and unreasonable expectations of others.

6. Is exploitative. He or she will take advantage of others to achieve their own ends.

7. Lacks empathy. Narcissists are unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

8. Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her.

9. Shows arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes. 1

Other pervasive traits include constant interruption and domination of conversations, whether it be one-on-one, or in a group. A narcissist believes that if you are not special and superior like them, you are worthless. They will criticize not only you, but also everyone around them that doesn’t agree with them. Beware: If the narcissist is criticized or “attacked”, they will react with anger and inner humiliation. This will trigger rifts, arguments, and ultimately, alienation of friends, colleagues or family. A narcissist is incapable of successful long term, healthy relationships.

CAUSES OF NARCISSISM?

The etiology of narcissism is unknown, but researchers and experts believe that several factors occurring in early childhood may lead to narcissistic behavior. Some of these circumstances include excessive praise and admiration of a child by a parent that is never balanced with realistic feedback. Overindulgence by parents, family, and friends is also thought to be linked with narcissism. On the other hand, narcissistic personality disorder can also originate from severe emotional abuse or trauma during early childhood, including unpredictable or unreliable caregiving from parents. 2

A FOOL IN LOVE

Lynn was married to a pathological narcissist for over 20 years. She didn’t see the signs at age 18, when she met him in high school. He was good looking and irresistible with an abundance of superficial charm and charisma. He fooled everyone around him because he was a master at first impressions and false bravado. He was a compulsive and pathological liar. He had countless affairs, made up educational pursuits and degrees, and exaggerated stories about people he knew and where he’d been.

It took her many years to learn that she had been duped.

Throughout their marriage, Lynn’s husband was constantly fired from jobs. It was never “his fault”, instead blaming others for the discord. He burned bridges right and left. Like an abusive relationship, he kept Lynn controlled and isolated from family and had few friends. He expected undying loyalty and respect from everyone, but would turn on you

in a second if crossed or his logic was questioned. He found humor in making people upset or cry, and never apologized for his offending behavior. Why would he? In his eyes, it didn’t affect him, so it wasn’t his problem.

STUCK WITH A NARCISSIST? TIPS AND COPING SKILLS

• Lower your expectations. One shouldn’t have to lower their expectations in a relationship, but when dealing with a narcissist, there aren’t many choices. Please realize that your relationship will be completely one-sided because they are not capable of filling your emotional needs. Expect that they will exploit you by monopolizing your attention and demand that their needs and desires are attended to at all times. Remember, the narcissist lacks empathy and will never know (or care) that you are unhappy or have feelings.

• Don’t rock the boat. Choose your battles wisely. Never question the narcissist’s knowledge or point out his/her lack of knowledge. They must be “right” at all times. Be prepared to listen, but don’t plan on speaking. Don’t forget--you must forego your own opinions and ideas. Incorporating praise and admiration throughout any interaction with the narcissist is a must.

• Learn to keep yourself at an emotional distance. The narcissist will try to make you dependent upon them. If you keep your independence the narcissist is more likely to respect you.

• Master the ability to foresee bad behavior and reiterate to the narcissist the consequences for the specific behavior. Make sure you both know what your non-negotiables are, because this is where you MUST draw the line.

• Learn how to manipulate. Example: Your boyfriend never wants to see your family during the holidays. Turn it around and make it about him, “We should go to my parents for the holidays. They think you are so funny, they just love your stories!”

• Take back control. If you are able, limit your interaction with the narcissist. Keep your boss at arms length and avoid idle chatter. If your father is an unbearable, self-centered egomaniac, put a time limit on your conversation.

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF

Assess the reason why you are in this relationship. What are you getting out of it? Are your needs being met? Weigh the pros and cons of why you remain in this toxic liaison. If you are not getting what you want, walk away. Never love anything that can’t love you back.

1 Narcissistic personality disorder – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) American Psychiatric Association (2000)

2 "Narcissistic Personality Disorder". Personality Disorders – Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Armenian Medical Network. 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-14

Michelle Simonsen is an outspoken activist and true crime blogger well known for the grass-roots campaign,"Boycott Aruba," surrounding the time of the Natalee Holloway disappearance.

Truly Caring for the Kids

2013-02-03T08:59:00.000-05:00

by Charles Moncrief

Train children in the right way, and when old, they will not stray. Proverbs 22:6 (KJV)

Whenever a political hack wants to gain power and build favor with constituents, especially following a traumatic national event, speechmakers appear on television and in news photos with children surrounding them. Why? Because it works. It’s a cheap and dirty form of child trafficking, one of the worst. Anytime a point cannot be made on its own merits, a favorite tactic is to drag the kids into the fray.

Some precedents from recent history include Chairman Mao of Red China, Kim Jong Il of communist North Korea, Chancellor Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany, and Fidel Castro of communist Cuba. I admit that my ideals are different from those on this list, but I'd be just as disgusted to see some preacher surrounding himself with children as he pleads “Please bring your children to Sunday school, so that they don’t go to hell.” The believed merits of a cause simply do not justify this form of presentation.

While I'm writing this within a few weeks following the Connecticut school shooting, I'd rather leave the debates about gun control to those who follow those tactics. Instead of walking on those hot coals, my purpose is to focus on a much better treatment of children than launching a modern-day cheap version of the Children’s Crusade in the thirteenth century.*

Rather than dwell on child trafficking and abuse at the political and media level, we might want to look at forms of abuse that can occur at the level where we have some control and influence: the home. Admittedly, observations and reflections are intuitive; I'm no expert on raising children, and I'm suspicious of anyone who claims to be. But here are some observations and considerations.

Trauma or violence.Well-balanced children tend to come from peaceful homes, where there is respect and acceptance even for differences. And the opposite is true; unbalanced children generally come from traumatic home life where disrespect abounds. Violence in the home, whether physical or verbal, has its effect even on the children who are not the direct targets of the violence.

Parental example. Parents can have far-reaching effects on the children simply by the example they set. There’s no such thing as “when the children aren’t looking”. Children may be young, but they’re not incapable of picking up clues that build a picture for them over time. While nobody’s suggesting a return to the Ozzie and Harriet days, it makes sense to consider the effects of the behavioral examples parents set for their children.

Parental absence. How familiar is the story of a father whose success in business or society became more important than his family? Often a father or mother becomes so obsessed with providing for the children, at the expense of the relationship with those children. I get the picture of a parent driving by the house and throwing a bag of cash, food, or clothing into the front yard for the children to pick up.

Parental discipline. Failure to have realistic expectations on children’s formation can breed an atmosphere of disrespect and resentment. Remembering that children are not simply adults in small packages, it’s important to set standards of behavior and to enforce them. A child who knows his or her boundaries is actually much more free than one who doesn’t. Bruno Bettelheim offered an illustration of a child playing in a fenced-in yard, who knew the boundaries. He compared the situation to that of a child in an unfenced yard, who developed a fear of straying because there were no boundaries to serve as a guide.

Parental favoritism. Even the children who “benefit” from favoritism tend to have little respect for their parents, maybe more so than those who get the less favored treatment. The failure to provide even-handed discipline can have lifelong consequences when the children turn into adults.

In principle, the responses to these might be too simplistic:

Provide a peaceful and nurturing environment for the children.
Set examples of maturity in front of the children, even when you think they aren’t looking.
Be present with the kids. They’d rather have your presence than your presents.
Set standards of discipline and behavior, with consistent enforcement.
Don’t play favorites.

I don’t like the simplistic responses, so I'll leave that to those truly skilled in the art of raising children into adults. But I would like to offer a few thoughts for the wounded veterans of relationships, since most of us live in some form of that state.

Repairing broken relationships. Consider the possibility that it is never too late to mend fences. Whether with alienated children or broken relationships with former close friends. If you can build up the strength to try (or to try YET AGAIN), this might be the time when you find gold. At least, you might find yourself liking the person you see in the mirror.

Reaching out. If you think you’re meeting a person halfway, think again. If you think you’re reaching out more than halfway, think again. Better yet, get an objective opinion from someone you trust.

Being open to honest feedback. Rather than considering the source, try considering the content. One scene comes to mind from “Last Holiday” in which a corporate president says (paraphrased) “She made a lot of accusations and we took it, because we thought she was someone important.” Sometimes the least of those around us can offer the greatest value if we will but pay attention. Remember, “The emperor has no clothes!” came from the mouth of a child.

Forgiveness kept in private. Before entering the presence of the person you’re reaching out to, silently and to yourself say the person’s name followed by “I forgive you”. Then never say it to the person’s face, at least as a lead-off line. At least, make the approach from a posture that the issue is too complicated to offer blame.

Even an attempt to repair a broken relationship can have far-reaching benefits. The grown children may not be receptive, even to the first hundred attempts, but they will on some level have to acknowledge that you’ve made the effort.

Wouldn’t it be nice if life worked this way all the time? We can all hope and pray for a perfect world, though we can at the same time hope and pray for the strength -- and even the sense of humor -- to deal with the reality that the system has its flaws. All the best in your journey through this new year.

Grace and Peace,
Charles+

* Legend, tradition, and lore have muddied the water about the events and sentiments surrounding the Children’s Crusade. Many modern historians even claim the participants were impoverished adults. Regardless, I'm using the name for what the words imply: exploitation of children to sell an idea that cannot stand on its own merits.

When You Know It’s Murder

2013-01-29T16:13:00.000-05:00

by Heidi Hiatt

I was 10 years old the first time it happened.

She was found dead at a campsite in Eastern Washington.

I remember exactly where I was standing, what the weather was like, who was talking to me. I wasn’t sure how to respond. It was not surprising that the suspect was a family member in this case, but I was shocked at the brutal way in which she’d died.

The suspect was never arrested. They knew he did it, and eventually he was found dead somewhere himself, a topic for another time. But until I learned his fate from the lead detective decades later, that cold, vacant feeling never left me.

It was murder.

In this same time frame, a car plunged into a river and the only survivor was the father who was driving. His wife and children died. I remember them telling me, “he was reaching for a cracker.” I remember what happened in his life afterwards and why I regarded him with a growing suspicion.

He was never charged either. But even as a kid, even at that moment, my instincts would not allow me to dismiss those deaths as an unfortunate accident. The way the puzzle pieces fit together, the sequence of events– it didn’t work. But how, as someone so young, do you convince the adults or authorities that their puzzle pieces might be joined in the wrong places?

It could have been murder.

Fast forward far into the future as I’m standing outside a hospital entrance before a relative goes in for surgery. They spoke of a family friend. “He killed her and they think he’s coming here.”

That feeling again. That grey, creeping silent shadow that signals a life has been erased and one still among the living is responsible for it. It crawled past me, wispy like smoke in a shuddering paroxysm of slow motion.

The suspect did come here from two states away. He was apprehended two counties north after rolling his car. He left several children without a mother and also ended the life of the child still inside of her.

Murder.

In this case he was sent to a mental hospital, a controversial decision that didn’t sit right with me. There was no question he did it. But the fact that he had killed his own wife had that same haunting feeling as the times before it that I’d learned of homicides. It’s a gaping, all-encompassing silence where there should be no silence. It is a yawing void that has no bottom.

More years went by. Like a light slowly intensifying as if on a dimmer switch, to my horror I realized that an acquaintance was in danger of death. I told others, “I know exactly how they’re going to die.” I pointed out patterns of behavior and the abhorrent Munchausen’s by proxy signs that were so obvious to me but others didn’t even seem to notice. Once the victim tried to drop hints.

I almost vomited the day I found out how they died. It was just like I said it would be. The authorities said it couldn’t be proven. The very factors and timing that made it suspicious were also the reasons that there was little physical evidence to go on and an accident was believable. All the steps a calculating criminal would take to cover their tracks existed and were to me so ridiculously logical.

That specter slunk in again, that gripping puff of sulfur that settles into an instinctive gut feeling which silently screams, “this isn’t right.” Safety experts tell us to always trust that gut feeling even when it doesn’t make sense and can’t be rationalized. In times like this we may tune into the still, small voice telling us that things aren’t what they seem.

It is a sick, frigid, empty feeling when you know it’s murder but it can’t be proven or the person responsible for extinguishing other lives isn’t arrested and punished. Can you relate? You might risk everything you have, even your life, to expose the truth, but the needed evidence for a charge or conviction just isn’t there. It’s a horrible place to be, a faint stench of decay that never wanders far from the perimeter of your senses.

Part of what motivated me to earn a degree in forensic psychology was this repeated pattern in my life of learning of a suspicious death, or abuse, or fraud, and seeing the perpetrators evade justice. My prolonged and repeated experiences with narcissists and sociopaths who know how to hurt others but appear as beacons of light pushed me to this. Many times in childhood, even, I found myself in the maddening position of having enough information to make a coherent argument in defense of a victim, but not enough to stand up in the legal system.

In time I learned how to testify as an expert witness and build a good case, but that doesn’t help the uncanny number of instances in my life it seems that justice could have been achieved already if someone had delved deeper into these questionable circumstances. Perhaps the police did everything they could each time, or technology hadn’t caught up with the courts yet. But how different life could have been for people around me if I’d found a way to articulate my suspicions earlier.

A common denominator weaves its way through the violence and crime I’ve seen in my life. The type of person who usually gets away with harming others– who even gets away with murder– is the one who maintains the self-sacrificing external image that most people would never question.

They’re the “nice guy” or the “family guy” or the “saintly caretaker.” They are self-sacrificial to excess. Those unfamiliar with sociopaths or who don’t believe one could exist in their circles are quick to believe that these dark souls are simply who they pretend to be. Sociopaths work hard at public relations, constantly cultivating a persona that seems hard-working, caring, involved in their community, giving– whatever scores them points in their professional and social orbits.

Not only do these types ingratiate themselves to those who will blindly protect their false selves later, when some truth-seeker dares question their integrity, but they will do whatever it takes to grind their accuser into a pulp. Dr. Robert Hare describes this beautifully in his Snakes in Suits book. I was floored when I read that book– it described exactly what I’d been through. The closer I got to the truth in some of these situations, the more I was attacked and discredited so that no one would believe me if I tried to convince the legal system.

Sociopaths can and do kill to protect their alter egos. They can snuff out lives to get what they want, and who they want, and to ensure that the shadowy parts of their Jekyll and Hyde lives never see daylight. They are so utterly steeped in their false self that most people around them are convinced of their infallibility and goodness– they will readily join in the destruction of the “crazy” accuser who dares question their beloved saint.

In every case of alleged criminal activity, we must ask “cui bono?”– who benefits? Who has something to gain? Who has something to lose? What is the accuser gaining or losing by coming forward and standing against an alleged criminal? Is the alleged abuser or criminal fighting excessively hard against the person trying to put the blame on them, which could be a sign that they are hiding something? Why would someone risk so much to point out the sins of someone who seems so gracious and delightful?

To prevent dark souls from hurting or killing others, we have to be willing to look at each case objectively. We cannot rush to conclusions; we cannot function on assumptions. We need to be willing to investigate all possibilities, put all of those on the table, and take the time to connect the dots. Sometimes there are no dots to be connected, other times the dots can form a detailed picture of what actually happened.

Our society is quick to dismiss crime and violence because of a person’s job title, fame, or social status. In cases where it’s easy for a suspect to get sympathy, like the death of a loved one, we often let our emotions dictate our thoughts and convince ourselves that they are incapable of that level of depravity. We must listen to any pokes at our consciences, however, and then decide to examine these cases with reason and an open mind.

I can think of a number of cases in which a person’s death was ruled as suicide or as accidental instead of a homicide, but someone close to the victim is overwhelmingly convinced that the official record is not the true record. Talented investigators might have spent years working the case to arrive at their conclusions, but loved ones insist that they’re missing some of the puzzle pieces. I understand that. It’s why closed cases should sometimes be reopened and investigators should leave no stone unturned.

How different our world would be if everyone would find the strength to speak up about the nagging feeling that a death is more than it seems to be—and the authorities would at least listen to them. One of the most frustrating problems I have ever dealt with is trying to convince those in power to listen when I didn’t have tangible evidence to back up my theories. Or as a kid, trying to capture the attention of an adult who could right the wrong or protect those being harmed. Or as a civilian law enforcement employee, being cornered in the department hallway and having the words, “you have no idea what it’s like to be a cop” yelled into my face.

Knowing deep down inside that someone probably didn’t lose their life the way the official record said they did can be a lonely and tortured place. Sharing those suspicions can have a profound impact on how others interact with you, your safety, and even your livelihood. Personally I have faith that God will bring justice in His time and that even those who don’t get caught in this life will have to answer to Him in the end. There is peace in knowing that you’ve done what you can to expose the truth and God is in control.

Accepting some of these circumstances as “solved” though—it hasn’t happened yet. Perhaps we who question the “truth” are who God intends to bring justice through. There are times when I’m thinking through some of these cases and that old familiar translucent twilight sidles up next to me. In that particular kind of silence I’m reminded that something still isn’t right, and the truth might have yet to be found. It’s like a door hasn’t closed yet, or a window latch has come undone in a forgotten room and a breeze is rustling old, worn curtains that should have been taken down 30 years ago.

Pray for justice. Hope for solutions. Trust that God sees all. And if you, like me, find yourself nagged by the unsettling feeling that there is more to the story of someone’s death than you have been told, know that there are others who understand.

It turns out that an eerie type of chaos can lurk just behind a façade of order—and yet, deep inside the chaos lurks an even eerier type of order. –Douglas Hofstadtera

Heidi Hiatt, MA is as a Forensic Psychologist. You can read more of her posts at her personal blog, Truth, Justice, and All-American Allergen-Free Apple Pie Straight Talk in a Crooked World

Calyx and Beau Schenecker: A Call to Action

2013-01-27T12:42:00.000-05:00

Beau and Calyx Shenecker

by Guest Writer, Diane Fanning

Two years ago today, Julie Schenecker used a handgun to end the lives of her children, 16-year-ol Calyx and 13-year-old Beau. To obtain that firearm, she lied. She filled out a form at the gun shop denying that she’d ever been committed to an institution for mental health reasons and she swore she was not addicted to any drugs.

Julie Schenecker is an obvious example of why it is essential to have universal background checks that include accurate input from mental health professionals as well as criminal records for every single transfer of gun ownership.

In Newtown, a young man mowed down 20 six-year-old children and five school staff members. Using a Bushmaster with a massive ammunition clip, he riddled the tiny, helpless bodies of first graders with bullets. It was his mother’s gun, legally obtained.

Why do some believe that their right to have fun firing off these lethal weapons designed for mass killing is more important than the lives of our children? Every right we have as Americans has its limitations—not to curtail our liberty—but to provide equal protection under the law for all of our citizens.

Before Australia banned these assault weapons and clips, they averaged a mass murder every year. Since then, they have had none—not one. Weapons designed to kill as many as possible in a short period of time have no place in a civil society.

This past week in Texas, gunfire erupted at Lone Star College. Three were wounded, many were terrified, the campus was locked down. A contributing factor to traumatic experience was the insistence of state leaders that faculty and students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons when they go to their schools.

The laissez-faire attitude my state and others have toward responsible, reasonable gun regulations have directly contributed to deaths of its citizens. The more guns there are in the public square, the more likely the incidence of gun violence.

I understand and accept the strong multi-generational ties to hunting. I would not advocate for abolishing those weapons. I understand the psychological need for others to possess handguns in their homes to protect their families, even though, statistically, it is far more likely that weapon will be used to take the life of someone in that house than it will ever be used to defend their personal safety. I am not suggesting that this right should be taken away.

But one of every two women killed by gunfire dies at the hand of an intimate partner. States that have adopted laws mandating that all gun ownership exchanges—even private gun sales require background checks—have seen a 40 per cent drop in this lethal form of domestic violence. Is this minor inconvenience more troublesome than the loss of these women’s lives?

I acknowledge the fear of some Americans that there is a slippery slope—that if we ban one weapon, add one caveat to purchase restrictions, soon the government will take every firearm we own. The Supreme Court, however, has taken a stand and marked this territory as sacrosanct. There is a right to the individual ownership of guns. The slippery slope exists only in the minds of the paranoid, the fanatical and those who have been misled by fear mongers.

It is time to ignore those voices whose purpose in speaking out is only to frighten our fellow Americans. It is time for all of us to speak up and make it clear that we value the lives of children more than some adult’s recreational pleasure. It is time to stand up for human life.

Diane Fanning is the author of Sleep My Darlings, the story of the Schenecker tragedy, coming April 30. It will be Diane’s twentieth published book.

Sleep My Darlings is ready for pre-order at Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

"What makes these guys become mobsters?" Part I

2013-01-26T13:19:00.001-05:00

by Dennis Griffin

I write books about organized crime. Invariably, when I give a talk one of the questions from the audience is, "What makes these guys become mobsters?" I don't have a "one size fits all" answer. But there is a rather common scenario I've come across over the years that may explain why at least some young men turn to a life of crime. And I think the case of Andrew DiDonato is a good example.

Andrew was influenced by his environment and neighborhood wiseguys as a young boy, and took to thievery before reaching his teens. In 1980 the teenager became an associate of the Gambino crime family and lived "the life" until he flipped and became a government witness in 1997.

In 2010, I agreed to write Andrew's biography titled Surviving The Mob. I believe by sharing some of Andrew's story here, readers may come away with a better understanding of the circumstances that contribute to the making of a criminal.

Learning the Trade

In 1980, Andrew DiDonato was living with his mother and step-father on East 55th Street in Brooklyn. At that time the minimum wage in the United States was $3.10 per hour. Assuming a 14 or 15-year-old boy like Andrew could get a job flipping burgers 20 hours a week after school, he’d gross $62 for his labor. Although Andrew worked when he wasn’t in school, he didn’t toil in a hamburger stand or anything similar. He did his work on the streets; and made substantially more than a minimum wage worker. In fact, his weekly income was sometimes in the neighborhood of $1,400 cash. How did a kid his age generate that kind of money? As Andrew explains, it took hard work and nerve.
“I had two main sources of making money in those days. I stole and sold parts like wheels, tires and radios, from expensive cars. And I shook down the kids selling marijuana in the neighborhood. I told them they’d either pay me a couple hundred bucks a week or I’d break their head.”

But Andrew knew that if you wanted to be respected on the sidewalks of Brooklyn you couldn’t just talk the talk. Out there actions truly spoke louder than words; and verbal threats alone weren’t enough to prove you were a person to be reckoned with. That was a lesson of the streets Andrew learned early. And he learned it well.

“My family was Mob-connected. My uncle Paddy Macchiarole was a capo in the Genovese family. I was twelve when he was murdered in a Mob hit. A few months later his son Johnny Boy was also murdered. The killings of my uncle and cousin devastated my family. It was the first taste of the reality of how brutal that life can be. Although I didn’t realize it at the time, it was a lesson that ultimately saved my life many years later.”

Andrew’s own capacity for violence became obvious as he advanced his extortion plans.

“When I started shaking down the drug dealers I began with an act of violence, like a severe beating or a few shots with a baseball bat. I let them know there was worse to come if my demands weren’t met.”

Andrew wasn’t a physically imposing figure. He stood three inches or so under six feet and weighed around 160 pounds. He was thin and athletic. Some of the dealers he wanted to move in on were bigger than he was. And some were as tough, or maybe even tougher. But that didn’t deter him. To overcome deficiencies in size or strength he used the element of surprise to get the upper hand on his victim.

“I’d sneak up behind the guy and whack him with a ball bat. When he went down I’d hit him again to make my point. They knew then I had something most of them didn’t. I had the balls to do whatever it took to impose my will. So it really didn’t matter if they were bigger than me. They knew if they fucked around with me I’d get 'em with my fists, or a bat, or a tire iron. And they’d never even know it was coming. They were afraid of me, and that’s the way I wanted it.”

Did Andrew ever feel guilty about the beatings he administered?

“You gotta remember I knew most of these dealers from school or the neighborhood. Some of them I didn’t like and enjoyed beating them up. But I wasn’t just a bully. I was liked in the neighborhood and gave respect to those who deserved it. This was business though, and I had to rough up the ones I liked too. I was making a statement that if you were in the drug game I wasn’t playing favorites.”

Andrew’s tactics worked. In addition to the dealers falling into line, word circulated that there was a new kid out there who needed to be taken seriously. In fairly short order he had most of the young drug dealers in Bergen Beach paying him a street tax.

Extorting drug dealers was primarily a one-man operation for Andrew. But when stealing car parts he often worked with other neighborhood youths.

“Some of the kids I stole with were already associated with organized crime crews. And several more of us got involved later. I made many good friends back then and I thought we’d be friends for life. But shit happens, and in some cases it didn’t work out that way. And some of those I was closest with died before their time.”

In those early days Andrew and his buddies weren’t proficient at stealing whole cars. Instead they robbed parts such as radios, tires and wheels from expensive vehicles that could be sold for good money.

“Mercedes Benz used Becker digital radios. They were a hot item. We’d smash in a window, rip out the radio and run. My next door neighbor Rocco Corozzo [nephew of Gambino capo and Andrew’s future boss Nicholas Corozzo] had a buyer for the radios. The guy would take all we could get him and pay us between a hundred fifty and two hundred a set. We didn’t have a steady buyer for the tires and wheels, so it took a little more time to move the stuff.

“We were having fun and the guys in the street crews left us alone. We were just kids and they didn’t make us kick anything in to them. Whatever we made was ours. It was all coming in and nothing had to be paid out.”

But even criminals like Andrew can experience economic tough times. In the case of him and his friends, youth, inexperience and greed were contributing factors, as well as unanticipated business interruptions.

“Sometimes when we had a lot of money in our pockets we’d get a little lazy. We’d stop stealing for a while and blow what we had buying stuff and partying. We were young and weren’t thinking about saving or retirement. When we realized we were almost out of cash we’d get off our asses and go back to work.

“I even screwed myself by taking so much from the dealers I was shaking down that I put some of them out of business. By the time they made their payment to me and bought product they weren’t making enough profit to stay in business. When one of 'em went away it might be a few weeks before someone stepped in to take his place and I could get to the new guy to explain the cost of doing business.

“And then there were supply interruptions sometimes. When the dealers didn’t have anything to sell they weren’t making any money and they weren’t paying me. Depending on the reason for the interruption it could last days or weeks. That meant I had to steal more to get through the dry times.

“But I learned a lot and knew I needed to make some changes. I had to work smarter and expand my criminal activities to make more money. Instead of shaking down the dealers for money I’d start shaking them down for product and set up my own network of dealers. And instead of just stealing parts off a car I’d take the whole thing. I wanted to get into the chop shop business and start making some real money.”

Protecting Children After Newtown

2013-01-22T12:39:00.000-05:00

by Barry Goldstein

The terrible tragedy in Newtown has created intense feelings in this country and around the world. We have suffered from all too many mass murders and other catastrophes, but many pundits have I believe correctly stated that this one is different. The difference is those twenty precious children who had their whole lives ahead of them, so much to learn and enjoy and so much to contribute. The world is incredibly poorer for the loss of those children and the six heroines who sought to save them. We all have a moral obligation to remember the victims in Newtown. There is nothing we can do to save these twenty children, but there are so many other children we can protect and there must be no excuses for failing to do so.

EVERY YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES, WE SUFFER THE EQUIVALENT OF FOUR TO FIVE NEWTOWNS IN THE LOSS OF PRECIOUS CHILDREN AT THE HANDS OF ABUSIVE FATHERS INVOLVED IN CONTESTED CHILD CUSTODY CASES. I say this based on research that found news stories about 175 children murdered in a recent two year period by abusive fathers. In many of the cases the outdated and discredited practices used by the custody courts gave these fathers the access they needed to murder their children.

Perhaps our most fundamental Constitutional right is the right to free speech, and it is well established that this right is not absolute. The lesson from Newtown must be that any rights people have to own and possess guns and any rights parents have to their children must be given less consideration that the right of children to be safe. As every protective mother and father knows, the custody courts can and must do a better job of protecting our children. The court system’s refusal to reform broken practices based on compelling new research and their defensive response to criticism for their failure to protect children must stop.

The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children

When domestic violence first became a public issue in the mid to late 1970s, there was virtually no research about domestic violence. The focus was on the harm to women partnered with abusers. When mothers came to court seeking protection for themselves and their children, they were met with some version of “Is he also assaulting the children?” If the answer was no, the court treated the father as if he was just as qualified for custody and visitation as the mother.

Later research revealed the profound impact on children of witnessing domestic violence. Studies found that children impacted by domestic violence were more likely to engage in a wide variety of harmful behaviors that include substance abuse, suicide, self-mutilation, crime, prostitution, teen pregnancy, dropping out of school and for boys to abuse future partners and girls to be abused by future partners. The children were also more likely to suffer depression. The studies found that witnessing domestic violence was as harmful to children as being directly abused. In other words the earlier distinctions did not benefit children. This research resulted in laws in every state requiring custody courts to consider domestic violence when making decisions about custody and visitation. Some states passed laws creating a presumption against granting custody to abusers, but this was often undermined by requiring a high level of proof or severity for the law to apply. The result of these limitations was that many harms to children did not result in effective protection.

Additional research found that witnessing domestic violence interfered with the ability of children to reach their developmental milestones. In each age category, children have normal developmental milestones they need to reach as they grow and mature. One milestone helps achieve later milestones so that the failure to reach one milestone undermines the entire process and puts children at risk. In very young children, witnessing domestic violence can actually impact the hardwiring of their brain which has negative consequences the rest of their lives.

More recently, we have seen more research about the effects of adverse experiences like witnessing domestic violence. The more types of adverse experiences children have the greater the harm. Significantly, children who witness domestic violence have more physical and mental health illnesses as children and as adults, need more medical care and have shorter life expectancies. Court professionals must be asked how it can possibly be in the best interests of a child to impose such profound risks on the children they are supposed to safeguard.

Significantly, the study by Dr. Daniel Saunders for the U. S. Department of Justice found that court professionals need training about the impact on children of witnessing domestic violence. Usually evaluators, judges and lawyers have had some training and know that children can be harmed by witnessing domestic violence. The problem is they may not fully understand the extent of the risk or all the circumstances when an abuser’s actions can trigger this risk.

Protecting Children in Domestic Violence Custody Cases

Every state has laws or case law that describes a series of issues that courts should consider in making decisions about custody and visitation. This can include subjects like the preferences of the child, economic issues, friendly parent and many others. Most of the issues the courts are required to consider do not involve the very life expectancy of the child as witnessing domestic violence does. Every court has the authority to make issues that impact children’s safety the highest priority. This would certainly be in the best interests of the children. Nevertheless we repeatedly see courts focus on less important issues in cases where a proper understanding of the evidence regarding domestic violence would demonstrate the children are at risk.

I believe it is critical that judges and other court professionals be advised of the devastating impact domestic violence has on children. The specific potential harms should be mentioned in the initial court appearances, discussions with GALs and evaluators, cross-examination of expert witnesses, motions for temporary relief and closing arguments. The dire consequences of exposing children to domestic violence should mean that courts do not take these risks before getting all the information they need. They should err on the side of protecting children. A parent’s “right” to have access to their child and the child’s need to have contact with their parents should not trump legitimate safety issues. Even if the child survives, the lifelong health problems caused by the court’s mistake might not be reparable.

In order for courts to protect children from these dangers, the judge and other professionals must be able to recognize when the children might be at risk. Focusing on less important issues makes it harder to know when there is a danger which is exactly why abusers routinely raise false and less important issues. The court must also stop minimizing the risks or wrongly assuming that the danger ends when the relationship is over.

Disbelieving Valid Abuse Complaints

In cases like Katie Tagle and Amy Castillo and so many others the problem was that the court did not believe the mothers’ concerns and so made decisions that directly led to the murders of children. In most domestic violence cases the courts make the same mistake of disbelieving safe and honest mothers, but the consequences do not include the murder of children. Instead they are subjected to abuse, cruelty, separation from their mothers and new incidents of domestic violence. The harm to the children is not as dramatic and often occurs over many years and indeed their lifetimes. The additional medical problems and shorter lifetimes go unconnected to the mistakes made by the courts.

There are many flawed practices that contribute to the widespread failure of courts to believe valid allegations of abuse, but a large part is the assumption that protective mothers are lying about the father’s abuse. The court-sponsored gender bias committees from at least forty states and many judicial districts have all found widespread bias against women litigants and one of the most common examples is giving women less credibility than men. The recent U.S. Department of Justice study by Dr. Daniel Saunders specifically found that evaluators, judges and lawyers who do not have the specific necessary training to respond to domestic violence cases are more likely to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations. Saunders specifically found that this and other errors lead the courts to make decisions that harm children. The research establishes that mothers involved in contested custody make deliberately false allegations less than two percent of the time and fathers in these cases make false allegations sixteen times more often than mothers. In other words we have a large number of catastrophic outcomes and solid research that explains the bad practices that place children in jeopardy, but none of this has led the courts to take a look at this pattern of errors that are ruining children’s lives.

There are other factors that lead courts to disbelieve and minimize abuse complaints by protective mothers. Significantly, most of these errors are explained in the Saunders’ report. Court professionals need training in screening for domestic violence so the many unqualified professionals fail to recognize valid complaints about domestic violence. They need training in risk assessment so these professionals minimize the significance of the fathers’ abuse and place children at risk. They need training in post-separation violence so unqualified professionals assume the danger ends when the parties separate. They do not understand that after the woman leaves is the most dangerous time. They also fail to consider that the abuser assaults and coerces his partner not because of anything she did or his lack of impulse control but based on his belief that men are entitled to control their intimate partners and make the major decisions in the relationship. This means that when abusive fathers are given custody or unsupervised visitation, they are likely to abuse future partners which will compound the harm they have already done to the children. As we discussed earlier, these professionals need training in the impact of domestic violence on children. Although they generally know witnessing domestic violence is harmful, they do not realize the full extent of the harm and so minimize the significance of the father’s abuse. This leads to mistakes where they focus on less important issues and are often more concerned with phony alienation claims than issues that pose genuine safety risks.

One common example of this is that when courts limit abusive fathers to supervised visitation because they pose a safety risk, there is often strong pressure to resume unsupervised visitation as quickly as possible. When courts punish mothers by withholding normal visitation for continuing to believe the father is abusive, courts often are willing to continue these restrictions for many months or years. Two recent cases in the Washington, D.C. area demonstrate the harm of this approach.

In the Rams case, the father had a long history of abuse and presented serious danger to the child. The court quickly reestablished unsupervised visitation with the father over the mother’s objections. The little boy, Prince McLeod Rams died during one of these visits.

The second case, involving a protective mother, Natalie Khawam was in the news because her sister’s complaint about harassment led to the revelation of the affair involving General Petraeus. The media covered the fact that General Petraeus and General Allen had written letters to the judge describing Ms. Khawam as a wonderful mother. The letters were cast in a negative light because the judge had accused the mother of lying about her abuse allegations and repeated deeply flawed findings by the evaluator pathologizing the mother.

In this case the mother always provided good care for the child and is the primary attachment figure. The court has restricted the child’s access to his mother for many months and is in no hurry to stop this harm of the child. It is well established that denying a child normal access to his primary attachment figure significantly increases the risk of depression, low-self-esteem and suicide when older. There are no safety issues about the mother’s care for the child and a review of the court procedure demonstrates serious flaws that suggest the findings are wrong. Rita Smith, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and I submitted an op-ed about these two cases to the Washington Post. The cases perfectly illustrate the favoritism towards fathers and frequent disconnect between the courts’ focus and the safety of children. Nevertheless the Post decided not to print the article.

Dr. Saunders found that evaluators, judges and lawyers without the needed training tend to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations, support unscientific alienation theories and assume children are harmed when mothers seek to protect them from men they have seen to be dangerous. The reliance on these false assumptions repeatedly leads to cases in which courts force children to live with dangerous abusers to guard against false and unimportant concerns instead of focusing on the children’s safety. These were among the mistakes found in the Khawam case.

The failure of courts to protect children is magnified by the widespread use of professionals who are part of the cottage industry supporting abusers. These are mental health professionals and attorneys who support abusive fathers because this is financially beneficial for the professionals. A large majority of contested custody involve abusive fathers seeking custody as a tactic to reestablish control over their victims. Domestic violence is about control and financial control is a common part of their domestic violence tactics. This means in contested custody the abusers most often control the family resources so the best way to earn a large income is to support approaches that help abusers. The Saunders’ study supports a finding that this cottage industry creates a significant problem in the custody courts. They combine a bias against protective mothers with inadequate training and yet courts often treat them as if they were neutral professionals.

The problem caused by these unqualified and biased evaluators and other mental health professionals is further magnified because judges and lawyers hear the misinformation they provide and often use it in future cases. It is easy to see how these common mistakes lead to outcomes that place children at risk. What is hard to understand is the failure to reconsider their standard practices based on the many catastrophic outcomes and the research that is now available. Dr. Saunders specifically found that there is a specialized body of research that the courts need to use to help understand and respond to domestic violence cases. The present standard and required training does not provide judges, lawyers, or evaluators with the expertise they need to respond effectively to domestic violence cases. Unfortunately the inadequate training that sometimes includes serious misinformation gives judges and other professionals a false sense of competency so that they are not open to new research or complaints based on harmful outcomes.

Media Coverage of the Homicides of Children

Television stations all over the country suspended their regular programming to cover the tragedy in Newtown. This was one of the most important stories of the last several years and it was properly treated as such. Fortunately, we do not expect to see twenty children gunned down at their school. The media quickly spent time examining how such tragedies can be prevented in the future. Reporters immediately placed Newtown in the context of several other recent mass murders and particularly ones at schools.

I want to be clear that I want the media to devote the level of coverage they did to the tragedy in Newtown. I want to know about the individual children and the brave women who gave everything to protect them. For many of us, tears were quick to come for many days. I profoundly hope the pain of this experience will motivate our country to finally adopt the reforms needed to make children safe. I want the media to continue to focus on this story and the governmental response until we make schools, theatres, malls and other places children frequent safe.

Reporters are not experts about guns, mental health, psychology, law enforcement, educational practices and so many other issues that should be explored in covering the murders in Newtown and discussing solutions. Accordingly, the media sought the assistance of a variety of experts who could help illuminate the issues and potential remedies. This is part of good journalism. It also provides a big contrast with their coverage of the hundreds of murders of children by abusive fathers involved in contested custody cases.

Failure to Expose the Child Custody Scandal

In the last few years there have been hundreds of cases of abusive fathers involved in contested custody disputes killing their children. These tragedies have resulted in significant local coverage and occasional national coverage. The media, however, rarely interviews domestic violence experts or seeks to put these murders in the context of a failed custody court system. I have not seen one major media story that places these murders in the context of the 175 murders committed by abusive fathers in a two year period from 2009-2011.

This failure is significant because it encourages the false assumption that these tragedies represent a rare exception to what normally happens. Professor Dianne Bartlow led a research study that asked judges and other court administrators in communities that experienced these tragedies about the reforms they have created in response to the murders and the research that demonstrates courts are placing children in jeopardy. Interestingly, the judges who responded tended to be the best and most caring ones. That is why they took the time to discuss domestic violence issues. They appeared to have a sincere concern about protecting children. Nevertheless, Professor Barlow uncovered few attempts to create the needed reforms. Instead most of the judges seemed to believe that the murders were a rare exception. In other words the failure of the media to place these tragedies in context makes it harder for reformers to recognize the pattern of mistakes that place children in jeopardy.

On New Years’ Eve, 1994, Anne Scripps Douglas was brutally murdered by her husband in her Bronxville, New York home. Ms. Douglas had obtained a protective order and sought to expand it to keep him out of her house. The court refused to provide this protection. The local newspaper provided substantial coverage to this case and severely criticized the judge for her inaction.

A few days later, I was in family court seeking a protective order for my client. During a conference with the judge’s law secretary the abuser’s attorney sought to avoid the protective order. The law secretary advised us that the judges had met after the murder and agreed to make it easier for abused women to obtain protection. Accordingly there was no way to avoid a protective order and the case was quickly settled. In other words, the judges had sought to learn from the mistakes that led to this murder and create the reforms necessary to protect potential victims. They might have done the same thing without the press coverage, but I believe it is likely the strong criticism and public outrage encouraged the needed reforms. We will never know how many lives were saved by improving the court practices.

The outrage and concern over the twenty children murdered in Newtown has created strong pressure for action to make children safer. The limited coverage for the 175 children murdered by abusive fathers between 2009 and 2011 and failure to place these murders in context gave the courts and the legislature a pass to do nothing. And so these murders continue.

Overcoming Extremist Messages

The impact from Newtown was so strong that a majority of NRA members were moved to support reasonable gun restrictions that might prevent this kind of tragedy. It provided an opportunity for the NRA to participate in a constructive discussion. Instead they responded in a way several commentators described as tone deaf. In doing so they demonstrated that the NRA is not an advocacy group for gun owners but a shill for the gun merchants. Several prominent long time NRA members and supporters spoke out against the NRA response and promised to be open to reforms that could help keep children safe.

The abuser rights lobby which likes to refer to themselves as “fathers’ rights” has played a similar poisonous role in promoting practices in the custody courts that place children in jeopardy. They like to create the illusion that they speak for all men or at least all fathers, but in reality they do not even represent most of the men who abuse women. Most custody cases, including those involving abusive fathers are settled more or less amicably. These abusers are willing to seek custody in order to obtain an advantageous financial settlement, but they love their children and will not seek to hurt their children by separating them from their mothers. The extreme abusers who are part of the abuser groups believe their partners have no right to leave them so that they are entitled to use any and all tactics to pressure them to return or punish them for leaving. Unfortunately the court professionals often assume these fathers are acting out of love for their children and fail to inquire about their motives.

The NRA and the abuser groups have been able to bully their victims and the community because too many good people have been afraid to stand up to them. It is particularly heartening that NRA members are speaking out in support of sensible reforms that would not interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to keep guns, but would make our communities and our children safer. It is also critical for men, fathers and responsible organizations representing men to speak out in support of protective mothers so that legislators and the media understand the abuser groups speak only for a small group of dangerous extremists. The National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) is an example of a men’s organization that takes a strong stand in support of protective mothers and their children.

The True Meaning of Patriotism

A dear friend of mine is a protective mother whose children were harmed by the court’s acceptance of PAS. The three children were forced to live with the abusive father after he had sexually abused the two daughters. The mother won appeals decisions forcing a new trial and reconsideration, but the trial court ignored the law and the safety of the children to run out the clock so the girls aged out of the system before they could receive help for the harm caused by the father and the court.

My friend’s father was a World War II veteran and genuine American hero. He described seeing his buddies injured and killed and the horror that is war. He gladly did this for our country and his family. But when he saw what our courts did to his grandchildren she said he was sorry he ever fought. We failed this heroic soldier and we failed his grandchildren.

Patriotism can take many forms. It can include waving the flag on the 4th of July and other holidays. It must also include standing up to bullies from extremist groups, in the legislatures and the courts who are willing to place our children at risk. You see if patriotism stands for anything it must include the right to make sure our children are safe in their homes and schools.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. His next book, Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor, co authored with Elizabeth Liu is designed to train attorneys to present domestic violence cases and should be published early next year. Barry can be reached by email from their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

Joy -VS- Happiness, Part I

2013-01-17T07:16:00.000-05:00

by Sandra L. Brown, MA

You were out looking for a little happiness when you stumbled upon Dr. Jekyll as he was appearing wonderful and considerate. Strangely, before you knew it, evil Mr. Hyde was instead dismantling anything that resembled happiness and leaving in it’s wake, destruction and despair.

Despair is a long way from the happiness you were initially seeking. How did you get from mere happiness-seeking to a totally despairing life? How can you embrace the happiness that you set out to find?

It might not even be ‘happiness’ per se that you were initially seeking. You might have been looking for someone who was introspective, spiritual and existential. But you tell me…

Happiness is external. It’s based on situations, events, people, places, things, and thoughts. Happiness is connected to your hope for a relationship or your hope for a future with someone. Happiness is linked to that ‘some day when I meet the right guy’ or ‘when he starts changing and acting right’ or ‘when he goes to counseling.’

Happiness is future oriented and it puts all its eggs in someone elses basket. It is dependent on outside situations, people, or events to align with your expectations so that the end result is your happiness. These expectations can be seen especially during the holidays when whether or not you have a ‘merry christmas’ or a ‘happy holiday’ depends on whether or not he is with you, shows up, isn’t drunk, isn’t cheating,
or a list of other behaviors you expect for a ‘happy holiday’ experience. Unfortunately, pathology rarely obliges in that way. So when the relationship falls thru, or he isn’t wonderful at Christmas, or you kick him out, or he cheats again, or he runs off with your money, or he was a con artist…then your holidays were not ‘happy’ and your happiness
was crushed.

Unhappiness is the result. It’s a typical and inevitable result in pathological love relationships. Afterall, it’s the only way it CAN turn out. There are no happy endings to pathological relationships. After Christmas and New Years, he will still be pathological and you will still have the same problems you had in November. You notice that The Institute has not written a book called ‘How to Have a Happy Relationship With a Pathological.’

Chronic unhappiness leads to despair and depression. Remember the emotional roller coaster you rode with him? You were happy when he was good, and miserable when he was bad? You were hypnotically lulled into happy-land when you were with him and in intrusive thought-hell when you weren’t? Your happiness was hitched to his rear end. When he was around (and behaving) you were happy. When he wasn’t, your happiness followed his rear end right out the door and you were obsessing, wondering, and pacing.

Happiness is what you feel when he says the ‘right romantic’ stuff, buys you a ring or moves in. But happiness is not joy because joy is not external, it can’t be bought and it is not conditional on someone else’s behavior. In fact, joy is not contingent on anything in order to exist. You don’t have to have ‘him’ for the holidays to have joy. Likewise, you don’t have to get revenge, snoop out his short comings, tell the new girlfriend the truth or any thing else in order to have joy. You can lose in court with him, already have lost your life savings to him, watch him out with a new woman, or live out of the back of your car and still have joy.

You’re probably thinking,’Sure you can have joy in those circumstances if you are Mother Teresa!’ Joy is almost a mystery, isn’t it? It’s a spiritual quality that is internal. My mother had a lot of joy and I learned from watching her joy. Her pathological man ran off with her life savings forcing her to work well past retirement. It forced her to live simply so moved to a one room beach shack and drove a motorcycle. For cheap entertainment, she walked the beach and painted nudes. She drank cheap grocery store wine that came in a box, bought her clothes from thrift shops, and made beach totes from crocheting plastic grocery bags together. She recycled long before it was hip to do it. But what she recycled most and best was pain….into joy.

Instead of looking externally for yet another relationship to remove the sting of the last one, or to conquer the boredom she might feel at being alone…she cultivated internal and deep abiding joy. It was both an enigma and a privlege to watch this magnificent life emerge from the ashes of great betrayal.

I use her a lot as an example of someone who went ahead and got a great life and turned this rotten deal into an exquistie piece of art called her life. Anyone who spoke of my mother spoke MOST of her radiant joy. She had the ‘IT’ factor long before it was even called ‘IT.’ Women flocked to her to ask ‘How did you do it? How did you shed the despair and bitterness of what he did and grow into this? THIS bright shining joyful person? What is your secret?’

Somewhere along that rocky path of broken relationships with pathological men, she learned that happiness is fleeting if it’s tied to a man’s shirt tails. She watched too many of the shirt tails walk out the door with her happiness tied to his butt. In order to find the peacefulness that resides inside, she had to learn what was happiness and what was joy.

The transitory things of life are happiness-based. She had a big house and lost a big house when she divorced my father. She had a big career and lost a big career when she got ‘too old’ according to our culture to have the kind of job she had. She had diamonds and lost diamonds.

So she entered into voluntary simplicity where the fire of purging away ‘stuff’ left a clearer picture and path to the internal life. When stuff, people, and the problems they bring fall away there is a stillness. Only in that stillness can we ever find the joy that resides inside of us, dependent on nothing external in order to exist. During this holiday season, this is a great concept to contemplate.

Her joy came from deeply held spiritual beliefs but it also came from a place even beyond that. Joy comes when you make peace with who you are, where you are, why you are, and who you are not with. When you need nothing more than your truth and the love of a good God to bring peace, then you have settled into the abiding joy that is not rocked by relationships. It’s not rocked by anything.

It wasn’t rocked as she layed dying four years ago in the most peaceful arms of grace–a blissful state of quiet surrender and anticipation. Those who were witness to her death still tell me that her death brought new understanding to them about the issue of real joy. Joy in all things….death of a dream, death of relationship, death of a body. Joy from within, stripped down, naked and beautiful.

Untie your happiness from the ends of his shirt tales…

(Watch for Part II next month!)

Sandra L. Brown, M.A. is the Founder and CEO of The Institute for Relational Harm Reduction and Public Pathology Education. She is the author of several best selling books, including How to Spot a Dangerous Man and Why Women Love Psychopaths. www.saferelationshipsmagazine.com

On Faith, Risk, And Couchsurfing

2013-01-12T09:21:00.000-05:00

by Roger A. Canaff

Joseph and Mary: The original "couchsurfers."

That's neither a joke nor necessarily Biblically incorrect. Joseph desperately needed shelter when he and his intensely pregnant wife arrived in a chilly and overcrowded desert town for a Roman census call. An inn-keeper had an idea.

As a rabbi, Jesus became a couchsurfer as well, treading through ancient Palestine with his crew, finding comfort, wine, and conversation, bearing witness to sinners and holy people alike. So given the blessings of adequate space, how could a modern Christian's home be anything other than a glowing respite for weary fellow travelers?

Enter Couchsurfing.org, (CS) active in 97,000 cities worldwide. Members create a detailed profile with photos describing themselves and their living space, then offer hospitality to other members passing through. It's at heart a wonderful idea; one that a cynical and aging former prosecutor shouldn't douse with cold water. But after a patient review of their safety tips and policies, I didn't come away with confidence in CS's ability to reasonably predict a safe outcome in any offline meeting.

CS does prominently address safety, and importantly emphasizes risk-minimization and informed choices rather than meaningless and impossible "assurances." Life is risk and there are no guarantees. I'm sure the vast majority of CS made connections are positive. But they simultaneously claim a "close-knit" community where "vouching" helps allay concerns, and roughly 5 million members.

Their safety video focuses on the joyful leap of discovery and innate good in people rather than the serious and still highly fallible business of self-protection when agreeing to lose consciousness in a stranger's home a half a world away. Instead, members discuss how they can communicate with their presumed hosts both online and in person before finally committing to unrolling a sleeping bag. It's stressed that personal interaction can often lead to the comforting conclusion that the host is "nice." You talk to them, and you can tell.

Except you can't. I imagine CS boasts a very short list of reported crimes- either to them or to authorities in whatever part of the globe- against hosts or travelers as evidence of a sound safety record. But a lack of reporting, even to them, hardly means a lack of occurrences, some frightening or worse.

Now enter faith because of how I became familiar with CS. A dear friend is a PhD and Christian missionary. He shared an article by a woman whose family opens their home to couchsurfers and others as "reverse missionaries." They provide warm hospitality and, to willing ears, Jesus' message. Again, it's a wonderful idea.

But I am frightened for her family, sadly, by statements like this: "It really is God who is our booking agent. We know He is guiding the right people to us." This is all she offers for how she measures risk and makes decisions. She relates that early in their experience as hosts, a young Slovenian couple arrived with their toddler and it was then they "knew they had nothing to fear." Much is made of the participation their young children have in the interaction with guests as well. I assume these children appear in her CS profile, probably also in photographs.

I'd love dearly to believe that God is actively protecting them on this gracious adventure. Perhaps He is, or perhaps they are content with His stewardship come what may. But I have seen, tragically, how people of faith and Christians in particular are targeted by predators who are remarkably adept at appearing to be of a similar mind. A belief in providence and forgiveness are great gifts. They are also beacons of opportunity for human things empty of anything but blunt and vicious self-satisfaction.

It's been said that religion provides the right to martyr oneself, but not one's children. I mean no disrespect to this apparently loving and decent couple, and admittedly the article was not intended as a practical "how to" for anyone. But it is solely the choices she and her husband make that seal the fates of their children, one of whom is eight.

That fact haunts me. That, and the dark reality I can't shake of whom the dead-eyed often hunt: Those whose eyes sparkle with faith, hope, and trust.

A widely known child protection and anti-violence against women advocate, legal expert, author and public speaker, Roger Canaff has devoted his legal career to the eradication of violence against women and children.

Roger Canaff: Anti-Violence Advocate, Child Protection Specialist, Legal Expert
Blog: WCSV (Women, Children, Sex, Violence: Outcry, Analysis, Discussion)
www.rogercanaff.com

I Admit I Lost My Child....For 90 Seconds

2013-01-10T14:56:00.000-05:00

by Gaetane Borders

It was the longest minute and a half of my life! I was distracted by a short phone call on my cell, and averted my eyes for what seemed like a millisecond. Yet when I looked up he was gone! I called out his name countless times across the playground. However, I did not hear the sound of his adorable voice responding back "Yes, Mommy!" I frantically searched for his striped blue and white shirt in the crowd of children. Luckily, I ultimately found him playing with a four-year-old "friend" by the slides, but only after I aged two decades and grew a few grey hairs.

Although my torment lasted only a few seconds, I know that for many parents the ending is not as happy. Can you imagine for just one second how you would feel if your child was missing, and there was nothing that you could do to protect them from harm? No parent should ever have to experience this. Yet an alarming number of children are abducted each day. Statistics indicate that every 40 seconds a child goes missing. With such startling evidence of an epidemic, I believe it is important to help parents by sharing several tips about how they can prevent such a tragedy from happening to their family. The following are some things to keep in mind:

· Don't let your child wear clothing with his or her name on it. Children are less likely to fear someone who knows their name. The reality is that although we typically tell our children not to talk to strangers, children do not have a true grasp of who can or cannot be trusted. In fact, young children often believe that anyone who knows their name is a “friend.”
· Never leave your child alone in a public place, even in a locked car. Accompany a young child to the bathroom in a public place even if they insist that they can go by themselves. Moreover, instruct them to never play in or around public restrooms, as pedophiles often linger in these areas.
· Accompany your child on door-to-door activities like Halloween and school fundraising campaigns.
· Keep track of your children's Internet activity. Share email accounts and passwords. Make sure you know what sites they visit, and if they meet anyone suspicious while online. If possible, only allow computers to be in common areas such as a den or kitchen. This will make it easier to monitor internet usage.
· Avoid having service people come to the home if your children are there alone. Remember, these individuals are considered strangers!
· Establish a "code word" or phrase with your children. For example, tell them that they are only allowed to go with a person who knows this secret word or phrase if they were to pick them up from school. This will allow your child to know that this is a trusted person.
· Establish safe houses where your child can go if in trouble. A safe house can be the home of a trusted friend or some other trusted individual in the neighborhood who agrees to let children make emergency calls.
· Teach them that the police are their friends and that they can rely on them if they are in trouble. Make sure they know to dial 911 or 0 if they need assistance.

These are just a few simple ways that parents can help to protect their children. The key is to make sure that as parents, we vigilantly supervise our children because it only takes a second for misfortune to happen. If you have not already done so, make sure to visit http://www.familywatchdog.us/ to see what pedophiles are living in your community. Make sure to look at the site frequently because it is updated regularly. You definitely need to know who in your community preys on your children!

Gaétane F. Borders is President of Peas In Their Pods, an organization that helps to spread awareness about missing children of color. She has dedicated her life to helping families and children, and is a noted child advocate. Gaétane often lends her expertise to various media outlets such as CBS, CNN, and FOX. In addition, she frequently contributes to magazines and newspapers.

Previous articles by Gaetane Borders on Time's Up! CLICK HERE

Mourning With Newtown

2013-01-05T10:36:00.000-05:00

by Neil Schori

Evil came and slaughtered the innocents. Today, we pause to remember Daniel Barden, Olivia Engel,
Josephine Gay, Ana Marquez-Greene, Dylan Hockley, Madeline Hsu, Catherine Hubbard, Chase Kowalski, Jesse Lewis, James Mattiolo, Grace McDonnell, Emilie Parker, Jack Pinto, Noah Pozner, Caroline Previdi, Jessica Rekos, Avielle Richman, Benjamin Wheeler, Allison Wyatt, Mary Sherlach, Victoria Soto, Anne Marie Murphy, Lauren Rousseau, Dawn Hochsprung, & Rachel Davino.

Almost immediately after Adam Lanza blasted his way through Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the pundits started to politicize this horrible tragedy. They started predictable arguments that guns are the problem. Others, attempting to defend gun ownership, said that if the teachers at Sandy Hook had been armed, that this tragedy could have been avoided, or at least minimized.

I don't have all the answers to these age-old questions. I don't know why God allowed this to happen, when I wouldn't have allowed it if it had been up to me. Are we more moral than God? Not too likely. Is it because we banned prayer from public schools? I doubt it. Is it because of liberal marijuana laws or the legalization of gay marriage? I'd believe that about as much as I'd believe that Hurricane Katrina came because of the wickedness of New Orleans. I mean...the French Quarter is ﬁlled with the darkest activities in the city, and Katrina avoided damaging it at all. Doesn't sound like the work of God to me at all.

Here's what I do know: We live in a sin-ﬁlled and fallen world. And really bad things happen here. But there is an answer...and it isn't gun control. Guns can kill. That's true. But even if we conﬁscated and banned the use of guns everywhere, we'd still kill. Why? Because evil hides deeply in the hearts of men.

What is the answer to this evil? The answer came just over 2000 years ago in the form of a tiny baby. The Gospel of Luke 2: 8-12 says~

"And there were shepherds living out in the ﬁelds nearby, keeping watch over their ﬂocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terriﬁed. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will ﬁnd a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger." Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests."

Dear Newtown: nothing can take away your pain. And we have nothing to say that will make it better. We wouldn't dare open our mouths and offer the sacriﬁce of fools. What happened to you is horrible and tragic. And it shouldn't have happened. And God didn't want it to happen. Our prayer for you is that you would encounter the God that came near and that we could just sit with you and mourn beside you.

With Love,

Neil

Neil Schori serves as lead pastor of Naperville Christian Church, and is a remarkable advocate for those in abusive relationships. He is a founding partner with Document the Abuse.

Restoration

2013-01-03T17:07:00.000-05:00

by Charles Moncrief

And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten.

Joel 2:25 (KJV)

The farmer in the Ancient Near East understood what was at stake every year at planting time. Whenever the harvest was lost to disease, weather, or pests, for the farmer the year was lost. And it was lost forever. There was no going back for a do-over. There was no making up for those losses in the next year. There was grieving for a loss that can never be regained, never recovered, never restored.

We know something of that mindset. In sports the quarterback wishes he hadn’t thrown the interception that killed the game-winning drive in the final minute. The coach tells the team some variation of “Put that loss behind you, we have to get ready for next week’s game”, but the players still have their period of grief.

In a marketing campaign the advertising executive wishes she’d given her mock-up to a colorblind man to review the packaging, rather than lose millions of dollars on a message that a sizable portion of the demographics can’t see.

At one time or another we’ve all wished we could take back or do over something that we really botched: that job interview, that gaff in the public speech, that letter to the editor. Actually, in less than a minute I’m able to think of several do-overs I’d like to have!

It’s fun -- unless you’re the quarterback or the ad executive -- to reminisce about those lost moments. But it quickly gets serious and ugly when the words and actions inflict harm. The losses become monumental when in the heat of the moment a spouse degrades a partner to whom was made a pledge of “for better for worse”. [In our marriage rite it’s not “for better or for worse” and not even “for better, for worse”; it’s ironclad.] How big is the loss? The well-known lament “I gave you the best years of my life” should provide a clue about the magnitude. The years lost to the devouring locust may suddenly echo in our hearts. It’s not only lost things; it’s lost years. And the only effective way of dealing with it is to move forward.

Putting the past behind us is never easy.

Recovering what we’ve lost in the past is even harder; and the more we try, the more it robs us of present joy. The more we obsess with vengeance, even in its mildest forms of guarding against future hurts, the more it robs us of our effectiveness at moving forward with our lives.

Returning to the agricultural imagery of the Ancient Near East, the farmer knows that lost years can never be restored. “Restore the years”? That’s impossible!

Here’s where I see amazing power in the prophecy of Joel, for the ancient farmer and for us today.

GOD SPECIALIZES IN THE IMPOSSIBLE.

Lost years are restored. Lost lives are rebuilt. Lost souls are regained.

With man, it is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Matthew 19:26 (KJV)

Grace and Peace,

Charles+

Anglican Priest, Charles Moncrief, serves up the issues of the day on a platter mixed with scripture, seriousness, and a sense of humor to create a ministry founded in love for his fellow man.

“I’m an Anglican Priest, disguised as a geek during the week. It’s REALLY tough to change my costume, since phone booths are getting hard to find!”