“Fathers who batter the mother are twice as likely to seek sole custody of their children as are non-violent fathers”…..by any means possible
~American Psychological Association~(1996). Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family , Washington, D.C.: Author.http://www.
When the presumptive rules of shared parenting overshadows the Best Interest of the child by violating Domestic Violence Protective orders and legislation, we must look under the covers to understand that this movement to share custody is the stepping stone to full custody for the abuser and a legal system that rewards the bully and benefits financially. Such pecuniary interest can not be denied. A system created by Entitled White Men works best to preserve their ‘Best Interest’ and will protect this interest almost every time. This issue begs to ask, how the court can expect the victim to share custody with a Terrorist? What good will come of this? Since there is overwhelming evidence that this experiment has dire outcome, and education has been attempted, one can only surmise that the court does not care to provide peace and safety.
Many abusers use custody battles as away to seek control
“When you think about it, it’s all about them. They’re doing this to hurt her. They’re hurting the children, and they don’t care.”
Domestic violence advocates say batterers sometimes use child custody proceedings as a way to continue to exert control.
“They can control so much of what happens to the children,” said Jackie Johnson, the children’s services supervisor for Harmony House. “They can make sure that when the children are with them there won’t be any boundaries. When you think about it, it’s all about them. They’re doing this to hurt her. They’re hurting the children, and they don’t care.”
Missouri is what’s considered a “friendly parent” state, meaning that state law tells judges to presume that joint custody is in the best interest of the child. Parents are supposed to share custody so that the child has “frequent, continuing and meaningful contact” with both parents.
But Kendall Seal, an attorney with Legal Services of Southern Missouri, said this language can lead to problems when there’s domestic violence.
“How can it be meaningful if the child is watching his mother being abused?” Seal asked. “There’s not a lot of discussion about what that means in terms of domestic violence.”
If the abusive parent successfully manipulates the court system…
“Victims of domestic violence can be made to appear less healthy and less stable in court, especially without legal counsel, which is a result of the abuse they have suffered,” Seal said. “Abusers capitalize on this appearance and present a cognitive frame to the court that they are the ‘responsible parent,’ and the victim is in fact mentally unstable and financially unwise. Far too often this results in abusers being given too much control over children and the non-abusive parent.”
Are “Good Enough” Parents Losing Custody to Abusive Ex-Partners?
Forcibly taking a mother’s children, and then controlling her emotionally by withholding contact must be publicly recognized as one of the greatest forms of ‘mis-use’ of the American justice system and one of the greatest hidden vehicles for wide-spread socially approved physical and emotional abuse and control. – Coral Anika Theill, Bonshea Making Light of the Dark
In this Report – FLAWED FACTOR FOR CHILD CUSTODY by Margaret K. Dore
Margaret Dore addresses the so-called “friendly parent” concept presents what seems to be a reasonable idea for the resolution of child custody disputes. Children are thought to do better when allowed or encouraged to maintain a close relationship with both parents. Therefore, custody should be awarded to the parent most likely to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent, i.e., the “friendly parent.”
The friendly parent concept is sometimes referred to as the friendly parent doctrine. It is codified in child custody statutes requiring a court to consider as a factor for custody, which parent is more likely to allow “frequent and continuing contact” with the child and the other parent, or which parent is more likely to promote the child’s contact or relationship
with the other parent.
What is most flawed in the system for Children of Domestic Violence Divorces are the cross purpose philosophies and indoctrination of Judges who put aside the rules of law to follow these doctrines that put children in danger. With restraining orders Judges across the nation will disregard the protection of mother and child who are fleeing abuse to not only reestablish connections for the rights of the parent or the flawed belief that the connection between parent and child should take president over safety.
With so many judges giving shared custody to the batterer or identified molester, how do you now share custody with the rapist…How do you friendly parent when your child begs you not to send them?
When Mothers strive to protect their children through the family court process they are commonly removed partially or completely from their children’s lives when reporting abuse. Some 58,000 Child victims a year are taken from safe mothers and placed with known perpetrators. http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/PR3.html
With so many conflicting doctrines and syndromes that supplant case law, Judges choose their favorite doctrine, or syndrome even when it may violate due process, Domestic Violence and Child Safety. This failure to protect by Judicial officers puts the non-offending mother in a no win position. They are often dared to do the impossible, when child protective services and court professionals ignore evidence of abuse and disclosures. What’s a Mother to do? Follow the orders that put the child in danger? Risk Jail? Run baby Run? The very fact that the child is disclosing and refusing to go with the perpetrator gives reason for Judges to ignore common sense and rules of court 85% of the time by placing children in the home of the batterer. Is it ignorance, arrogance or something much more sinister? Do Judges still rely on recommendations from specialist and unscrupulous lawyers over Law and Current Trauma informed Training’s?
Exerting Masculinity – The fathers rights movement is dangerous to custody issues that involve Domestic Violence.
The Fathers’ Rights Movement Undermines Victims of Domestic Violence
A social movement that promotes equal rights for men who want to parent their children is essentially feminist. But the current fathers’ rights movement is not.
I could simply point to the fathers’ rights fringe groups, with their misogynist rants and close ties to the men’s rights movement, to make the case that the movement is not only anti-feminist but anti-women.
The utilization of equality and civil rights language does not change the underlying call for the reinstatement of patriarchy in the fathers’ rights movement. Harkening back to a time when men had near absolute control over children as property, activists advocate for male property rights that trump both the best interests of children and the safety of battered mothers.
Court rules in favor of father who abused ex-wife in custody case
In 1994 Holly Collins became an international fugitive when she grabbed her three children and went on the run. It all happened because a family court had ignored Holly’s charges, the children’s pleas, Holly’s broken nose, Zackary’s fractured skull, and other medical evidence of domestic violence. The family court in Minnesota gave full custody of Zackary and Jennifer to Holly’s ex-husband. It was at that point that Holly came to believe she and the children had No Way Out But One.
In what has become an incredible saga, Holly eventually fled the United States. For awhile, she lived beneath the radar, hiding on Indian Reservations, in Mexico and Guatemala. With three children and no passports,incredibly, she made it to Amsterdam where she blurted out a plea for asylum. The fact that she was fleeing domestic violence and would not be protected if she were returned to the US seemed ridiculous at first. But Holly had come armed with documents – legal and medical. At first, she and her children were treated as refugees, living in a refugee center with other poor souls fleeing violence torn hell-holes from around the world. Living shoulder to shoulder with people learning to use indoor plumbing for the first time in their lives, Holly and her kids made the best of it. At least they were safe.
Holly became the first U. S. citizen to be granted asylum by the government of Netherlands. She lived a quiet, low profile life for the next 14 years, until the FBI agents came calling. Hoping to return Holly to the United States to face kidnapping charges, they interviewed her now grown children. Jennifer and Zackary told the agents that far from being their kidnapper, their mother was their savior and their hero.
Eventually, all charges against Holly were dropped, save one: contempt of court. Holly readily acknowledged that after all she and the children had been through, she did indeed harbor “contempt of court.”
Welcome to the “Shared Parenting” Showroom!
Brought to you by the Fathers’ Rights Propaganda Rebranding Council
On the Ballot November 4 2014-
VOTE AGAINST MEASURE 6
The North Dakota Parental Rights Initiative, Measure 6 is on the November 4, 2014 ballot in North Dakota as an initiated state statute. The measure, upon voter approval, would create a legal presumption that each parent in a child custody case is fit to parent, unless “clear and convincing evidence” demonstrates otherwise. Furthermore, the measure would give each parent in a custody case, unless one parent is proven unfit, equal parental rights and responsibilities, parenting time, primary residential responsibility and decision making responsibility of a child. Measure 6 has also been referred to as the Fathers’ Rights Initiative.