Page | 1
Domestic Abuse, Child Abuse, And the Opposition to Shared Parenting Derek Gunby, TFRM Contributor Those within the Family Law Reform community are fully aware of the arguments against Shared Parenting, Fathers’ Rights, and the legislative efforts to implement presumptions of parental equality state-by-state. The opposition is a motivated lot; desperately clinging to a system status quo that they feel is being diminished by the growing awareness of the anti-dad nature of the majority of Family Law courts in the U.S. With the #MeToo campaign’s spotlight in the national media spotlight, a lot of the national dialogue has centered on the topics of sexual violence and domestic violence. Largely, it has been a one-sided conversation – the words “abuse” and “abuser” is recklessly thrown around. It has been used as a gendered term, as if the term “abuser” itself has a masculine connotation. Every male is a potential rapist, batterer, and/or child abuser. The grievous assaults on the concepts of Due Process and Presumption of Innocence are relentless, and the double standards with which the anti-male lobby would have those standards applied is appalling in the 21st century. It would require another article to delve into all of that. In the context of Fathers’ Rights and presumptions of Shared Parenting, the opposition consistently attempts to paint a picture of male abusers gaining power over defenseless women and children.
abuse they endured, both in the home and post-separation? What about the men who are powerless to stop their children from being manipulated, weaponized against them, and used for financial gain? What about the men and fathers who are abused through the legal system? What about the children who are in abusive sole-custody situations because the courts don’t scrutinize male and female parents by the same standards? Apparently, according to the one-sided narrative we are force-fed, those don’t really count. They aren’t as deserving of discussion in the national spotlight. The rampancy of false allegations and their devastating effects is minimized, ignored, or outright denied as a phenomenon altogether. The feminist opposition to shared parenting presumptions can be summed up as follows: If men are presumed equal in courtrooms, it’s bad for women and children – an attack on women’s rights setting them back decades. In reality, in addition to being blatantly false, taking that position is picking and choosing where you want to be equal, and where you want to enjoy privileged class status. It’s certainly not equality, and it’s not in the best interests of children, women, men, or society. It’s called supremacism, and it must be challenged wherever it rears its ugly face, for our children’s sake. In order for such a narrative to be spun, it requires the convenient ignoring of the majority of child abuse occurring in single mother homes, either by the mother herself or her acquaintances. Statistically,
What of the millions of fathers fighting to be an equal parent to their children? What about the
Page | 2
A child’s biological father is the safest parent. If we are going to have a conversation about reducing the instances of child abuse, discussing policies which strengthen the rights of fathers is the actual conversation needed and deserving of attention. In the minds of the opposition, the only abuse of children that counts is that which occurs at the hands of fathers. To them, it’s not about protecting children, but holding on to the favored status of the mother in the Family Law system. If reducing violence and child abuse was the true concern, acknowledging the maternal primary custody model as the number one dynamic where said abuse overwhelmingly takes place would serve to actually identify where we should focus our energies. First of all, domestic abuse and child abuse issues constitute a relatively small percentage of divorce and separations. While any abuse is unacceptable, and one child is too many, the picture painted by the anti-father lobby is that virtually every separation involves abuse, and that abuse is almost always perpetrated by the father. The statistics tell us otherwise. The law already covers abuse. If abuse can be proven – not merely alleged -- no one is advocating that person be given custody of children, whether male or female. A presumption that parents are equal unless proven otherwise does not change that. A presumption that a child deserves equal access to their parents does not negate the protections already in place. Actually, it reduces the number of cases of child abuse by mothers and their partners by putting more protective fathers in their lives. The overall cases of abuse would clearly decrease because, in those cases where one parent may actually be an abuser, that parent doesn’t have the monopoly of time to abuse behind closed doors. The other Page | 3
Parent serves as a protector and is in more of a position to be able to stop it. The courts would be in a better position to remove custody from an offending parent. Under the current system where one parent – usually the mother – receives sole or primary custody by default, children are already being abused. The opposition to shared parenting refuses to acknowledge this and therefore it rings hollow when they fear-monger that children will be abused by fathers if fathers are treated equally under the law.
Children. Watch the overall child abuse rates plummet. Our children deserve for our fathers to be equal under the law. That is, if we actually care about reducing child abuse.
The longtime mother-favoring system of Family Law has failed our children on an epic scale. It’s unfortunate when parents split up for whatever reason, but when we finally get around to putting fathers on an equal playing field when that does occur, watch how we protect our
Page | 4
SC FAMILY COURT JUDGE PINCUS PART 2 Last month I wrote a piece concerning a Family Court Judge named Monet Pincus, from the 5th Circuit in South Carolina, and events that happened at her confirmation hearing. Well things have taken a very sudden change in this matter. A second hearing was held on December 13th, 2018 concerning this Judge. The hearing was supposed to begin at 3:30pm, but things were delayed so it would seem. Several people showed up opposing this Judges reconfirmation, including two individuals who testified at the November hearing. Also to note approximately 15 Practicing Family Court Lawyers showed up to support this Judge, including Kathryn Free ( a Lawyer out of Elgin, South Carolina who seems to be appointed by Judge Pincus numerous times), and Brian Dumas (a lawyer out of Columbia South Carolina who is known for being used as a Mediator in several Family Court cases). Also in attendance for Judge Pincus were Cy Rush, Tripp Rush, Ken Lester, Pete Cuttence, and Ashby Jones.
which Judge Pincus was asked 3 housekeeping rules. Once of these questions was how does she associate “The Best Interest of the Child’ standard with regards at what age a child’s preference should be given weight?” The Judge answered and I will paraphrase “It is my understanding that this States Laws stipulate that at the age of 16 we must give weight to the child’s preference.” The State of South Carolina does not stipulate an age for the child’s preference. Section 63-15-240 (B) (3) the preferences of each child. Nowhere in Section 63-15 does it state an age before a child’s preference can be given. It States the Maturity of the child to understand his decision for his preference. So in other words this Judge again does not understand the State Statues/Laws concerning children’s rights.
It’s to note that Ms. Free is known for altering Court Orders when given the opportunity to do so, and is known for instructing her clients on how to fabricate evidence. Mr. Dumas, as we have been told is well liked but disregards most of the ADR Rules concerning Mediation in the State. The Merit Commission closed the doors with Judge Pincus in the room for over an hour, before opening them up and allowing the supports and the opposing public in. At Page | 5
After this the Commission chose to vote weather Judge Pincus met the PreQualifications to be re-nominated as a Family Court Judge. Matt Youngman, one of the Original Complainants in this matter against Judge Pincus stood up and asked to be heard to rebut statements given by Judge Pincus. The Commission stated they would not hear any testimony on this matter, and proceeded to vote. The vote was unanimous that Judge Pincus did meet the prequalifications for re-nomination. At the end of this the Commission ordered that the records from the previous public hearing be destroyed.
did. This Senator also chose to leave the hearing before the vote was taken. Even though this article is on One Family Court Judge, it raises questions as to the qualifications of all Family Court Judges. If we have one Judge who does not know or understand the Statues of a State and is passed to continue to remain in their position what hope do our children’s future really have? What hope do Families who could be saved have?
By Pais Agape
This raises several questions: Was this hearing merely to cover up the wrong doings of this Judge that she admitted to at the last hearing? Was the Commission forced by a group of lawyers to change their minds? I would like to also not here that an article was published the night before this hearing on FITSNEWS.COM concerning an individual who opposed this Judge but was never named. This article was very one sided and reference the case file and videos in that matter, but never once stated the individuals side or why he opposed Judge Pincus. We as reporters have an obligation to show both sides of an issue and then let the public decide. Judge Pincus must still be voted in by every member of the House of Representatives and Senate in South Carolina in order to be re-confirmed as a Family Court Judge. If you live in South Carolina and oppose this Judge I would suggest you call your Representative and Senator and demand them to vote No. It has also come to our attention that there was one Senator who chose not to pass her but was torn down by the Panel until he Page | 6
About Lawyer DirectoriesPart 1 Continued By Catherine Stuckart, Esq. There are many lawyer directories online. These guides to lawyers near you vary widely in number of lawyers listed and information provided to you. The biggest sites can give you names to research, and what attorneys have listed experience with family law, at a minimum.
When using lawyer directories, be aware that attorneys often pay to be listed in some directories, especially with expanded information on themselves. Be forewarned that, at least in one directory, lawyers can apparently have negative consumer reviews removed. There are many more lawyers’ directories online to help you get started on your search for your best choice of attorney. Just factor in how the information gets online. Good hunting!
Findlaw.com and Martindale-Avvo are two of the biggest directories. With Findlaw, you can search on “child custody” and your location, and you can then click on “Father’s Rights Attorneys.” A list will come up. I found that many of the “father’s rights attorneys” were located mostly at a distance from my area. There were one or two who were local. Lawyers self-report an interest in father’s rights. Martindale-Avvo actually consists of several lawyer directories. Martindale-Hubbell attorney profiles can give you some detailed information on listed attorneys. Traditionally, attorneys who are well regarded by other lawyers were listed. Now, it seems to be more inclusive. Another popular directory is Avvo. Avvo is owned by Internet Brands, which also owns Martindale-Hubbell and other guides. Avvo lists lawyers by area and interests. It also reports on lawyer discipline. You can filter your search by several helpful criteria such as number of years in practice. Justia also lists many attorneys, and it is easy to search fairly locally by areas of practice. Page | 7
ATTORNEY TIP OF THE MONTH by Catherine Stuckart, Esq. When you appear in family or divorce court, you must NOT show any visible signs of anger. This is fatal! Even though the mother of your children has treated you horribly, you must look calm. If you show anger, you will most likely gravely damage your chances for joint or sole custody. Mother’s lawyer will seize on the opportunity to typecast you as a rageAholic. And you will be faced with taking anger management classes or going to see a therapist. In fact, you may well wind up with mere visitation, and supervised at that. So grit your teeth, can the justified anger, and stay cool under the pressure of crossexamination. If you do, you will increase your chances of remaining in your children’s lives!
Page | 8
An inconvenient truth about child abuse The feminist narrative is at odds with the data Augusto Zimmermann (This article was first run in the The Spectator, an Australian Magazine)
In debates about child abuse and neglect, truth normally becomes the first casualty. ‘A quarter of Australian children had witnessed violence against their mother’ stated South Australia’s Victims of Crime commissioner Michael O’Connell in August 2010. This statistic actually comes from Young People and Domestic Violence, a study that reveals almost an identical proportion of young people being aware of female violence against their fathers or stepfathers. The same study found that, although 23 per cent of Australian young people were aware of violence against their mothers or stepmothers, almost as many (22 per cent) Page | 9
witnessed the same sort of violence against their fathers or stepfathers. And yet, as the excellent journalist Bettina Arndt correctly points out: Whenever statistics are mentioned publicly that reveal the true picture of women’s participation in family violence, they are dismissed with the domestic violence lobby claiming they are based on flawed methodology or are taken out of context’. However, [according to] the
68 per cent of all cases of emotional and psychological abuse committed by parents against their children. Moreover, about 53 per cent of all physical abuse of children, and more than 93 per cent of all neglect cases, were committed by mothers. University of Western Sydney academic Michael Woods informs that the statistics ‘debunk the myth that fathers posed the greatest risk to their children’. Dr Woods also reminds that ‘if similar data was available in other [Australian] states it would show similar trends’.
best available quantitative data – ABS
Between 1989 and 2012 women accounted
surveys, AIC (Australian Institute of
for more than half (52 per cent) of all child
Criminology) and homicide statistics, police
homicides. Not only are mothers more
crime data show that a third of victims of
likely to kill their biological children than
violence are males. These data sources are
fathers, but they also make up for more
cited by the main domestic violence
than half of the substantial maltreatment
organizations, [but] they deliberately
perpetrators, a fact confirmed by the
minimize any data relating to male victims. Despite the feminist rhetoric about male domestic violence, mothers are actually more likely than fathers to neglect and emotionally and physically abuse their children. For instance, figures from the West Australian Department for Child Protection show that of the 582 substantiated cases of child abuse by their own biological parents in 2007-08, mothers were responsible for 73 per cent, while fathers committed only 27 per cent. In Western Australia, mothers are 17 times more likely than fathers to neglect their children. Also, mothers carried out almost
Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC). In May 2015, AIC released Domestic/Family Homicide in Australia, a research paper which states: ‘Where females were involved in a homicide, they were more likely to be the offender in a domestic/family homicide’. Although the majority of Australian victims of domestic homicides overall are female (60 to 40 per cent), women are the sole offenders in more than half (52 to 48 per cent) of all the killings of Page | 10
children by their biological parents, and
One of the greatest risk factors in child
offenders in 23 per cent of intimate partner
abuse and neglect, found by virtually every
homicides. In addition, Australian men are
investigation that has ever been conducted,
far more likely than their female
writes US sociologist David Popenoe, is
counterparts to become the victims of
children living in a ‘female-headed single-
filicide (murder of a child) (56 to 44 per
parent household’. Dr Popenoe notes also
cent), parricide (murder of a parent) (54 to
that child abuse overwhelmingly occurs at
46 per cent), and homicides involving other
households from which the biological father
domestic relationships (70 to 30 per cent).
is either voluntarily absent or involuntary
The figures in other Western countries are
removed (sometimes as a result of
remarkably similar. In the US, statistics
involuntary divorce). Indeed, mothers who
reveal that mothers are almost twice as
kill their children are usually single mothers.
likely as fathers to abuse their biological
According to the US Department of Health
children. As stated by the Department of
and Human Services: On average, fathers
Justice, mothers account for no less than 55
who live in a married household with their
per cent of all child murders in that country.
children are better able to create a family
In a well-known empirical research using a
environment that is more conducive to the
significant sample of 718,948 reported
safety and necessary care of their children.
cases of child abuse, the US Administration
Consequently, children who live with their
for Children and Families discovered that
biological father in a married household are
mothers are 1.3 times more likely to abuse
significantly less likely to be physically
their children than biological fathers. They
abused, sexually abused, or neglected than
comprise 58 per cent of the child abuse
children who do not live with their married
perpetrators. When acting alone, mothers
biological parents.
in that country were twice as likely to abuse
The mainstream media and government
their children, with mothers also being the
frame child abuse and violence under an
major perpetrators of infanticide, or child
utterly false and misleading assumption
homicide.
that fathers are always the aggressor. And Page | 11
yet, biological mothers can be as abusive
important factors. For it is important to
towards their children as biological fathers,
realize that child abuse and neglect is not a
oftentimes more so. Contrary to common
gender issue, and that mothers are also
perception, and the wild claims of the
sometimes part of the problem.
powerful feminist lobby, the best research available indicates that the most likely abuser of a child is actually the biological mother, and not the biological father. In addition, the present data on child abuse reveals beyond any doubt that the rates of serious abuse are lowest in family units where the biological father is present in the family unit, in particular where both of the biological parents are married and live together. Despite the abundance of research available, the media and our governments continue to frame domestic violence merely as ‘violence against women’. This generates an utterly false and misleading assumption that males are always the aggressor. Yet in Australia mothers are more likely to emotionally and physically abuse their children than their biological fathers. Of course, if our politicians were really concerned about breaking the cycle of child abuse and neglect, at least they would more seriously acknowledge these Page | 12
STATES WITH SHARED PARENTING IN THE U.S. #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Alaska Arizona Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Kentucky Maine Massachusetts Minnesota Missouri
50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
#1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1
Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico North Dakota Vermont Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin
50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
More States are considering going to a default of 50/50 Custody in 2019 as the reality of a Father’s need in a child’s life becomes more prevalent. The Myth of the “Tender Years Doctrine” is being washed away as more parents (Father’s and Mother’s) are choosing to keep both equally in their children’s life.
Page | 13
2019 TFRM ELECTIONS BALLOT PRESIDENT THOMAS FIDLER AND MELISSA ISSAK
TREASURER BENJAMIN BEVERAGE AND MARK PEREZ
VICE PRESIDIENT OF OPERATIONS JOE JENSEN (UNOPPOSED)
LEGAL DIRECTOR MELISSA ISAAK (UNOPPOSED)
DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH TRAVIS GEE (UNOPPOSED)
SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SAMANTHA DICKERSON AND CHRISTINA LANGE MEYER
Page | 14
Page | 15