Beginning
this coming Thursday, PBS stations
around the country are planning to
air a film entitled "Breaking
the Silence, Children's Stories".
This film denigrates divorcing fathers
with it's bald-faced assertion that
in "75% of cases in which fathers
contest custody, fathers have history
of being batterers".
The flaws in this
film are as numerous as they are flagrant:
-
The film paints
a false picture of a world in
which the only abusive parents
are fathers, ignoring the fact
that far more children are abused
and killed by their mothers than
by their fathers (U.S. Dept. of
Health and Human Services
http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/acfrightnow.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=70&p_created=1001611491
and
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm03/figure4_2.htm)
-
The film misleads
the viewer by failing to explain
that psychiatrists who've called
Parental Alienation Syndrome "junk
science" don't mean that parental
alienation doesn't happen, but rather
that it's not an officially recognized
mental illness. (http://www.mediaradar.org/mr_breaking_the_science.php#pas)
-
The program makes
a number of very serious accusations
against fathers without allowing
the accused to defend themselves.
A detailed analysis
of the flawed logic and biased "research"
this PBS program is based on can be
found at
http://www.mediaradar.org/mr_breaking_the_science.php.
Public Broadcasting
Service and the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting are funded out of your
tax dollars, and have a responsibility
not to disseminate bias. The CPB's
own Code of Ethics (http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/cpbethicsguide.pdf)
requires employees to "avoid
any conduct that might result in the
loss of public confidence in CPB’s
programs and activities ... or might
reasonably give the appearance of
... the compromise or loss of complete
impartiality of judgment and action."
This week, we're
asking you to contact the officials
at PBS and CPB listed below to cancel
the show as currently edited, and
revise it so it reflects commonly-accepted
journalistic standards of fairness,
accuracy, and balance.
The revised program
should interview adult children of
abusive mothers, as well as fathers
who've been forced to stand helplessly
by, unable to protect their children,
due to decisions by biased court officials.
The most important
point of contact is your local PBS
station:
-
Go to the website
of your local PBS station. To
find that website, go to
http://www.pbs.org/stationfinder/index.html
and enter your zip code.
-
Each PBS station's
website is laid out differently,
but somewhere on the website will
be a link labeled something like
"Contact Us". If this
takes you to a webform, enter
your comments. If it shows a list
of contact names, identify the
station manager. If there's no
email address listed, call the
station and ask to speak with
the station manager.
As always, remember
to courteous and respectful in your
communications with them.
If you’re still bothered
about PBS’ unfair depiction of fathers,
there are a number of other people
you can contact. If you don't have
time to contact all of them, contact
as many or as few as you have time
for.
CPB
national headquarters:
Mr.
Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, Chairman of
the Board
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
401 Ninth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2129
Ombudsmen:
Webform
at
http://www.cpb.org/ombudsmen
or
U.S.
mail to:
Ombudsmen
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
401 Ninth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
PBS
national headquarters:
U.S.
Mail:
Pat
Mitchell, President & Chief Executive
Officer
Public Broadcasting Service
1320 Braddock Place
Alexandria, VA 22314
Michael
Getler, Ombudsman
Public Broadcasting Service
1320 Braddock Place
Alexandria, VA 22314
Connecticut
Public Broadcasting (co-producer of
the film):
U.S.
Mail:
Connecticut
Public Broadcasting Inc.
1049 Asylum Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105-2411
Phone:
860/278-5310
Jerry
Franklin, President and Chief Executive
Officer
Email:
<jfranklin@cptv.org>
Larry
Rifkin, Head of National Programming
Email:
<lrifkin@cptv.org>
Lee
Newton, CPTV "Breaking the Silence"
contact person
Email:
<lnewton@cptv.org>
Phone: 860-275-7285
Date of RADAR Release: October
17, 2005
Respecting
Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting
(RADAR) is a coalition of men and
women working to assure balance in
the domestic violence issue:
http://www.mediaradar.org.
------------------
LETTER FROM CONCERN PBS MEMBER ---------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:27:06 -0700
(PDT)
From: Cindy Gerace
Subject: Protest to airing of "Breaking
the Silence"
To: Feedback@wgbh.org
As a long-term supporter of WGBH,
I'm appalled that the station would
broadcast such a biased program as
"Breaking the Silence".
The
producers of this program have twisted
the facts to their advantage.
Parental alienation does exist. I
have personally observed mothers
use alienation tactics to ruin the
relationship between their
children and their ex-husbands. The
mothers concoct lies telling the
children their father abandoned them,
their father yells at them,
their father won't support them. In
the meanwhile, the fathers are
wasting tens of thousands of dollars
in court fighting an unfair
system in an attempt to maintain a
presence in their children's
lives. The result of all this turmoil
is children who become
emotional wrecks. They lose their
capacity to trust, they don't
understand what a normal relationship
is, they become troubled teens
and struggling adults. I have a relative
whose mother was an
alienator and his is now struggling
to make his third marriage work.
He did learn the truth about his childhood
and eventually had a good
relationship with his father. He has
not spoken to his mother in
years. Sad isn't it?
I do agree that child abuse is a major
societal issue, but abuse is
not only physical, it comes in many
forms. Attempting to turn a
child against his/her own parent is
one of the cruelest forms of
abuse. Unless WGBH can produce a program
that presents both sides of
a story in an unbiased format, we
are better off without any
program. If programs with such obvious
prejudice continue to be
aired by WGBH, I will be forced to
withold my support for the
station.
Regards,
Cindy Gerace
Member #684560
------------------------------
LETTERS FROM PREVIOUS PBS SUPPORTERS
---------------
Dear
Producers and Senior Management
of WGBH & PBS,
I
recently supported PBS's campaign
to stop the cutting of government
funding by writing a letter to my
state representative. So I am shocked
to find that PBS is supporting what
is essentially a biased propaganda
program created by seemingly militant
feminists who have little regard
for the truth and telling a balanced
story.
Although
I have not seen this program yet,
the volume of negative comments
on the Internet about PBS attacking
fathers is already large and growing.
I
am told that this program, as is
typical of many feminist sponsored
stories, not only distorts the facts,
but is in fact filled with
blatantly inaccurate and unsubstantiated
data and statistics.
Your
responsibility to do fact checking
on any program that you air that
is "documentary" is undeniable.
Basic ethics require this, otherwise
you are a propaganda machine for
the producers and sponsors of the
program.
The
level of bias against fathers in
family courts today is beyond belief
and description. I could tell you
stories you would literally not
believe that are 100% true. After
many months of study I know the
courts are very broken and are making
criminals out of normal loving dads
who are just trying to maintain
contact with their children. Due
to the abuse of domestic violence
laws that throw fathers out on the
street and force them to continue
paying for the home, plus child
support, men are routinely forced
to live on only 10% of their income.
This is barely enough to eat, never
mind have a car to work and a roof
over their heads. If they
do not meet these impossible orders
they are labeled and jailed as "deadbeat
dads". Hundreds of fathers
are committing suicide weekly. Thousands
are fleeing the country because
of these ridiculous orders that
are bogus, and often a function
of false accusations for financial
benefit. THIS IS THE STORY THAT
NEEDS TO BE TOLD!
Recently
eighty-five percent of voters in
a Massachusetts referendum voted
for shared parenting, giving parents
equal rights in divorce. This is
news and worthy of your attention.
The courts act unconstitutionally
by denying fathers these rights
every day, literally in most
cases from what I have seen. They
totally ignore the constitution,
supreme court and state appellate
court case law and even their oath
of office to respect these above
all others. They essentially run
on traditions from the 1950s
which assume women are not capable
of earning a living. This should
be insulting to any woman, but few
people have the integrity to look
a gift horse in the mouth, even
when it is tragic for their children
and ex-husband.
I
have started posting emails and
letters about this on the web and
they will remain there until PBS
makes amends by stopping this show
or providing equal time to balance
out the outrageous claims in it.
Acting as a propaganda machine for
radical feminists with an agenda
to take all rights of fathers away,
by taking the exceptional cases
and pretending that this is an average
case, is standard operating procedure
for these near militant groups.
PBS should know better and be serving
a public trust. PBS is violating
this trust and doing permanent damage
to its integrity with this program.
I
have personally heard these people
quote statistics that are exaggerated
by a factor of over 100 times to
promote their cause and agenda.
They even quote each other (not
real independent sources) by claiming
things like "37% of emergency
room accidents are the result of
domestic violence", when the
actual statistic is 0.3%.Many of
these claims are so exaggerated
that are insulting to anyone with
common sense, yet they are aired
by credible media organizations
and as such are often believed.
Airing this program is a disservice
to the public and protests are now
forming to picket PBS and/or boycott
contributions to your station. Hundreds
of groups all over the country are
outraged at this and offended by
what they have heard. Once it is
aired it will be too late. Each
time will do further damage.
Your
senior management really needs to
take a very close look at this situation,
verify facts, and the impression
they given when they are designed
to intentionally mislead people.
Anyone
who checks the facts will immediately
find that more women than men harm
and kill their children and that
fathers win more when they contest
custody because in those cases the
mother in those situations is dangerous
or unfit. Unfortunately the opposite
also happens where bias puts the
children in the hands of an unfit
parent. Men contesting custody
are either just fighting for EQUAL
RIGHTS and/or trying to protect
their children from a potentially
dangerous parent. Some further
information on reputable sources,
including government statistics,
is pasted below.
This
program should be canceled, reviewed
for accuracy, or at a minimum delayed
to allow time for this process.
Your organization has been hoodwinked
by some very savvy and unethical
people who wish to further slant
public opinion against men. The
fact is that restraining orders
are more often used as offensive
weapons in divorce to gain control
of children and property than they
are to protect women who have been
harmed or threatened physically
in any way. The fact is that women
perform domestic violence against
their husbands in near equal percentages
of the opposite. The fact is more
mothers harm their children (by
far) than fathers. It would
take little research to verify these
claims (see below). Even the one
book by Dr. Warren Farrell, a former
member of the board of directors
of The National Organization for
Women, entitled Father and Family
Reunion could provide nearly all
the needed data and statistics you
need with complete footnoted references
to all the most recent scientific
studies. This situation is now totally
out of control and even lawyers
(who make LOTS of money on this
situation) admit the majority, and
some say as high as 95% of these
restraining orders should not be
granted. Judges are actually so
fearful of the press due to the
exceptional incident that they strip
fathers of all their constitutional
rights without even thinking twice
when no violence of any kind has
ever occurred. This is fertile
ground for a documentary that would
do a public service. Various
organizations are forming to fight
this abuse of the law, which will
ultimately harm children and endanger
the women who really need protection.
I
hope you will at least delay any
further airing of this program
until you can perform the proper
due diligence that was obviously
skipped during the making of this.
Sincerely,
Robert A concerned
father whose children have been kidnapped
by the state
ParentsAgainstParentalAlienation@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
Date: 18 Oct 2005 09:45:41 -0000
From: ParentsAgainstParentalAlienation@yahoogroups.com
To: ParentsAgainstParentalAlienation@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ParentsAgainstParentalAlienation]
Digest Number 14
------------------------ Yahoo!
Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Help save the life of a child.
Support St. Jude Children's
Research Hospital.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/kHgT2A/lbOLAA/a8ILAA/GCOolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There is 1 message in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. CRITICAL MEETING! Thursday,
10.20.05,7:30 PM, Framingham
From: Jefparks@aol.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:42:57
EDT
From: Jefparks@aol.com
Subject: CRITICAL MEETING! Thursday,
10.20.05,7:30 PM, Framingham
PARENTS AGAINST PARENTAL ALIENATION
_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ParentsAgainstParentalAlienation_
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ParentsAgainstParentalAlienation)
CRITICAL MEETING! Thursday,
10.20.05,7:30 PM, Framingham
Location: 40 Speen St., Suite
205, (Lupus Foundation of New
England)
Framingham, MA 01701
Cost: $20. or what you can afford.
Facilitator: Jeffrey Parks,
LMFT. 508 877 3660 x 5, email:
_jefparks@aol.com_ (mailto:jefparks@aol.com)
A nationally televised PBS special
("Breaking the Silence),
scheduled to be
shown the week of October 20,
will be claiming that parental
alienation does
not exist! Over 100 people who
have attended PAPA meetings
in the past six
months have said that it does!
They know because they live
it! Come join
others as we discuss what we
can do to respond to the claim
that it is always the
parent's fault who suffers the
loss of his child.
Standing up to hate has been
the theme of the often painful
stories told by
the participants in the open
group. Our strategies are shared
as parents
support each other's reaching
out to their children, in contrast
to the TV
show's misstatement that "All
over America battered women
(1/3) are losing the
custody of their children."
In fact, many in our Group have
told of being
victims in abusive relationships,
and how they had to go to court
(sometimes
successfully) in protecting
their children.
Courageously voicing love despite
the stigma that many child-absent
mothers
and fathers face unites us.
The group last month encouraged
each other to do
whatever we can despite financial
hardships, being excluded by
schools,
judged by medical professionals,
and the vagaries of court rulings.
The many
adult children from alienated
families that have attended
our Group bear witness
to the tragic results of parental
alienation.
The TV show promoted the upside
down beliefs that make the need
for our
Group even more evident. The
Group validates the reality
of our members lives,
as those around us, even closest
friends, cannot understand,
or do not know
what to say. So many of us have
been told to give up, and we
understand why so
many parents do. Yet we continue
to fight for the right of our
children to
know how much they are loved.
What can you do? Speak your
truth and tell your story and
together we will
find new sources of strength.
Educating yourself and others
will lead to
individual and collective action.
This will result in creative
and powerful
healing responses to hate. Remember,
knowing the truth does set people
free, and
that we will win because:
1. Our Group focuses on healing
the wounds and mending the rifts,
and not on
keeping the wounds painfully
open, and unattended to, fixed
in the belief
people cannot change.
2. Our Group teaches us to take
responsibility and practice
forgiveness.
While we advocate establishing
a dialog, the other side closes
off
communication.
3. Our Group promotes inclusion,
not exclusion.
4. Our Group believes in people
helping themselves, and each
other, and not
on being solely reliant on professional
experts. We are the experts
of our
lives.
5. Our Group teaches us to prevent
alienation by standing up to
using kids
as battering rams or for emotional
validation like "bad-mouthing,"
changes in
schedule, barrier placement,
etc. We are committed to not
responding in kind,
but "taking the higher
road" in positive, healthy,
and loving ways.
6. Our Group reminds us that
we are not victims, despite
the outcomes and
losses that have been beyond
our control. We have learned
to not act like
"victims," while the
other side shouts about being
"victims" who require
others to
save them.
7. Our Group has cheered our
members desire to reclaim what
once was a
loving relationship. For some,
reunification has been achieved
after many years of
cut-off loss. We have found
that reaching out does work
and some discover
courage they never knew they
had.
Please join us on Thursday night
and see how you can make a difference!
----------------------------
I have heard
that a PBS special, "Breaking
the Silence: Children's Stories,"
will air on October 20. From the
press release I read, this film
presents a view of child abuse
that is the opposite of the truth.
In "Breaking
the Silence," men are portrayed
as monsters and child abusers.
Yet most studies that
I've read indicates mothers are
the perpetrators of child abuse
in more than 60 percent of the
cases.
Natural birth-fathers
are protectors of their children
- contrary to the message
in "Breaking the Silence."
Yet men are often hindered in
protecting their children because
the media like to portray them
as evil - and they are pushed
away from the families they love.
"Breaking
the Silence" will contribute
towards the problem of violence
toward children, of fatherlessness,
of judicial abuse; not the solution.
Please take
a minute to read the poem below.
"Monster Mommies," by Kristiana
Colegrove, addresses the tragedy
of the true perpetrators of child
abuse.
I ask that you
please not air "Breaking
the Silence." If you feel
you must air this program,
please include a period of time
at the end to broadcast opposing
viewpoints such as mine.
DO NOT BROADCAST "Breaking
the Silence: Children's Stories"
It does not represent the truth of
what is going on in the courts.
Neither does it represent the truth
of what is going on in life.
The DV laws are being horribly abused.
Incredible injustices are occuring.
Parental alienation
is real, very real.
In my practice, I see the syndrome
all the time.
In some cases, I have seen the kids
before and after.
I've deposed the mothers.
I've deposed the so-called guardians
ad litem.
I've read the reports which say
that Child A does not want to see
dad.
I've questioned the GAL who has
admitted that Child A told her that
Mom told me to say that.
I've seen the process notes of the
GAL in which Child A said, "I
miss my Dad. I love my Dad."
Then I've cross-examined the GAL
who has no answer for why she did
not include what Child A told her.
Sometimes the GAL is biased in favor
of Moms in general.
Sometimes the GAL is paid for the
result.
Sometimes the GAL is not paid her
fees and will change her report
accordingly.
Child A is typical for Children
B through ZZZZZ.
This is not a one-time occurence.
This is typical.
I can supply copies of documentary
evidence.
I can supply taped evidence.
I can supply audiovideographed evidence.
I can supply copies of cancelled
checks, accountings from the payors
and from the payees, and they do
not agree when they should.
By broadcasting Breaking the Silence,
you are perpetuating what has already
become the Holocaust of the American
Family.
You are naively helping multibillion
dollar corrupt industry, the DV
industry.
Take some responsibility.
At least do not broadcase the show
until you understand what it is
you are doing.
I suspect you have no clue as to
what you are doing.
Do not broadcast the show.
Do not broadcast the show.
Do not broadcast the show.
Barbara Johnson
-------- Original
Message --------
Dear PBS Org:
That Dominique Lasseur and Catherine
Tatge spent "countless
hours" doing "extensive
research and interviews" is only
Pablum. The problem, I suspect,
is that they used a limited database
suggested by those on the women's
side of the Gender War, which is polarizing
our society.
.
I would like Lasseur and Tatge to
reveal diverse details regarding that
research. Without a control
mechanism, their study is invalid.
Having worked for many years in the
"divorce industry," my extensive
research and interviews show the opposite
to be true, to wit, that women regularly
alienate their children from their
fathers. Money and control are
the motivators. Pro-women organizations
use false statistics to promote their
interests and get annual bonuses and
grants from the federal government.
As a result, children are parentectomized
-- the parent being cut out is the
father. By so doing, the children
lose their self-confidence and identity,
particularly if they have been led
to believe they "are like their
father." In the extreme,
we see self-mutiliation, drugs, criminality,
runaways, teenage pregnancy.
Cited below are current statistics
from the Departments of Justice, Health
and Human Services, the Centers for
Disease Control, the National
Institutes of Health, the Census Bureau
and private studies, which clearly
reflect the level of damage that is
occurring as a result of Anti-Family
Law in America:
Children that grow-up
without a father's influence:
-
are 33 times
more likely to be seriously abused
(so that they will require
medical attention)
-
account for 71%
of teenage pregnancies (Costing
the US Taxpayers $40B per year)
-
are 73 times more
likely to be killed as a result
of abuse
-
daughters are 2.1
times more likely to have children
during there teenage years than
are children from intact families
-
are 4.6 times more
likely to commit suicide
-
are 6.6 times to
become teenaged mothers
-
are 24.3 times
more likely to run away
-
are 15.3 times
more likely to have behavioral disorders
-
are 6.3 times more
likely to be in a state-operated
institution
-
are 10.8 times
more likely to commit rape
-
are 6.6 times more
likely to drop out of school
-
are 15.3 times
more likely to end up in prison
while a teenager
-
account for 90%
of all homeless and runaway children
-
account for 70%
of juveniles in state-operated institutions
-
account for 75%
of all adolescent patients in chemical
abuse centers
-
account for 85%
of prison youths
-
account for 63%
of youth suicides
-
account for 85%
of all children the exhibit behavioral
disorders
-
account for 80%
of rapists motivated by displaced
anger disorder
-
70% of confirmed
cases of child abuse are committed
by mothers <><>
-
65% of parental
murders of children are committed
by mothers. Police investigators
and academics believe that 15% of
the roughly 7,000 Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome (SIDS) cases reported
each year in the United States are
really cases of suffocation, primarily
committed by the mother. This alone
accounts for at least 1,000 homicides
a year.
Criminologists point
out that many, if not most, cases
of SIDS are not reported. (Autopsies
are rarely able to distinguish between
suffocation and SIDS). Therefore,
the actual number of murdered infants
is probably much higher.
- 37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation
rights
40% of mothers
reported that they had interfered
with the non-custodial father's
visitation on at least one occasion,
to punish the ex-spouse
-
50% of
mothers see no value in the father`s
continued contact with his children
-
11% of mothers
value their husband's input when
it comes to handling problems
with their kids. Teachers &
doctors rated 45%, and close friends
& relatives rated 16%
-
The former spouse
(mother) was the greatest obstacle
to having more frequent contact
with the children
-
70% of fathers
felt that they had too little time
with their children
-
Very few children
are satisfied with the amount of
contact with their fathers after
divorce
Mothers prevent visits
to retaliate against fathers for problems
in their marital or post-marital relationship:
Non-compliance with
court-ordered visitation is three
times the problem of non-compliance
with court-ordered child support and
impacts the children of divorce even
more:
-
only 10% of all
non-custodial fathers fit the
"deadbeat dad" category
and 99% of those are "dead
broke"
-
90% of the fathers
with joint custody paid the support
due
-
Fathers with visitation
rights pay 79.1%
-
44.5% of those
with NO visitation rights still
financially support their children
-
79.6% of custodial
mothers receive child-support award
-
29.9% of custodial
fathers receive a support award
-
46.9% of Non-custodial
mothers totally default on child
support
-
26.9% of Non-custodial
fathers totally default on child
support
The ONLY viable solution
to this societal crisis is an immediate
end to the "Failed Social Experiment"
and the enforcement of
the fundamental liberty right to parent
one's children absolutely free from
unnecessary governmental interference
-- unless/until it is
clearly established that a parent
is unfit to parent. Divorce does not
make a parent a bad parent, and this
must not be allowed to
continue to be the sole-basis upon
which governmental entities forcibly
remove Fathers from the lives of their
children.
Barbara C. Johnson
Catalog Name : Barbara C. Johnson,
Attorney at Law
Catalog Street Address : 6 Appletree
Lane
Catalog City : Andover,
Catalog State : MA
Catalog Zip Code : 01810-4102
Albany
Times Union - Albany,NY,USA
Film gives distorted view
of family law
By JEFFERY M. LEVING and GLENN SACKS
First
published: Thursday, October 20,
2005
The controversial documentary ''Breaking
the Silence: Children's Stories"
airs tonight on WMHT, Channel 17
in the Capital Region and on Public
Broadcasting Service stations across
the country. In the film, co-producers
Catherine Tatge and Dominique Lasseur
sound the alarm over an alleged
crisis of fit mothers losing custody
of their children to abusive husbands.
The documentary centers around Karen,
who lost custody of her three children
to her husband after a court-appointed
evaluator found that she had falsely
accused him of sexually abusing
them. As the film notes, mothers
like Karen are increasingly vocal
and visible. Their cause celebre
is Manhattan ex-model Bridget Marks,
who appeared on Dr. Phil, Larry
King Live, and The O'Reilly Factor
after she briefly lost custody of
her twin 4-year-old girls under
similar circumstances last year.
Despite the film's claims, such
custody transfers are very rare,
and usually happen for a good reason.
In Marks' case, for example, the
trial court judge who heard the
case concluded that Marks had coached
her girls to believe they had been
sexually molested by their father.
An appeals court panel accepted
that finding, but awarded the mother
custody anyway.
"Breaking the Silence"
ignores a far more common phenomenon
-- divorcing mothers' tactical use
of false allegations of sexual abuse.
When a father who has daughters
seeks joint custody over the objections
of a recalcitrant mother, it is
standard legal practice to advise
the father that a charge of sexual
abuse may be coming. According to
a study published in Social Science
and Modern Society, the vast majority
of accusations of child sexual abuse
made during custody battles are
false, unfounded or unsubstantiated.
False domestic violence allegations
are an even greater problem. The
filmmakers portray abused women
as the victims of sexist judges
who refuse to believe them, and
who punish them for claiming abuse.
In reality, courts are often very
tolerant toward false allegations
of domestic violence, and divorcing
mothers frequently use domestic
violence restraining orders as tactical
weapons to secure custody.
Many courts grant restraining orders
to practically any woman who applies,
and research shows these orders
often do not even involve an allegation
of violence. Once the order is issued,
the father is booted out of his
marital home and can even be jailed
if he tries to contact his children.
By the time the court decides custody,
a firm precedent has already been
set that mom is the primary caretaker,
and she will likely get sole (or
de facto sole) custody.
The father is pushed to the margins
of his own children's lives even
though he has never been found guilty
of any wrongdoing or criminal offense.
Nevertheless, the filmmakers advocate
that domestic violence policies
be made even more draconian. This
amounts to a doctrine of "moms
never lie," giving mothers
veto power over fathers' fatherhood.
The filmmakers also contend that
abusive fathers use claims of Parental
Alienation Syndrome -- the phenomenon
of a custodial parent turning his
or her children against the non-custodial
parent after divorce or separation
-- to get courts to secure them
sole custody of their children.
To be fair, there are fathers who
have alienated their own children
through their abuse or personality
defects, and who unfairly blame
their children's mothers by claiming
parental alienation. Yet, parental
alienation syndrome is a common,
well-documented phenomenon. For
example, a longitudinal study published
by the American Bar Association
in 2003 followed 700 "high
conflict" divorce cases over
a 12-year period, and found that
elements of PAS were present in
the vast majority of them.
The cruelty PAS visits upon children
and the fathers they love and need
would be hard to overstate. One
prominent example is the LaMusga
case decided by the California Supreme
Court last year. (The issue of alienation
was relevant, but not central to
the court's ruling in favor of the
father.) In that case, Gary LaMusga's
son's kindergarten teacher testified
that LaMusga's ex-wife asked her
to keep track of the time Gary spent
volunteering in his son's kindergarten
classroom, so it could be deducted
from his visitation time.
According to the teacher, the kindergarten
boy told her "my dad lies in
court," and said that his mom
had told him this. The teacher testified:
"I finally sat down with him
and told him that it was OK for
him to love his daddy. I basically
gave him permission to love his
father. And he seemed brightened
by that -- I'm not sure that he
was aware that he could do that."
While one can always find an unusual
case or ruling, as Tatge and Lasseur
have, fit mothers rarely lose custody
of their children. The view of family
law propounded in "Breaking
the Silence" is not accurate,
but is instead reflective of the
grave distortions put forth by misguided
women's advocates. It is family
law in the fun house mirror.
Jeffery M. Leving of Chicago is
a family law attorney and author
of "Fathers' Rights: Hard-hitting
and Fair Advice for Every Father
Involved in a Custody Dispute."
His Web site is http://www.dadsrights.com.
Glenn Sacks writes from Los Angeles
about men's and fathers' issues.
His Web site is http://www.GlennSacks.com.
------
CPF/The
Fatherhood Coalition
www.fatherhoodcoalition.org
“Breaking
the Silence”– A grotesque misrepresentation
of domestic violence and child custody
cases
Re:
PBS documentary “Breaking the Silence:
Children’s voices”:
October
24, 2005
To
whom it may concern:
Whether
it is science education in programs
like NOVA or serving the public interest
by informing them on vital matters
of state such as in the excellent
recent Frontline episode, “The Torture
Question,” PBS should be viewed as
a national treasure.
But
its sycophantic allegiance to left
wing identity politics on matters
of social interest has put it squarely
on the dark side of the Culture Wars,
and in increasing numbers responsible
Americans have no choice but to join
the chorus calling for the end of
all government support for PBS.
I
have been active in the Fathers Rights
movement for over a decade. I am one
of the founders, and the Spokesman
for,
CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition.
Like most advocates and activists
in the movement, my involvement in
the issue arose from my own family
breakdown that began in 1991.
As
you know, the Fathers Rights community
is up in arms over this documentary.
Over the past several days hundreds
of correspondences from the FR community
to PBS, as well as your responses,
have been widely circulated over the
internet. I am not going to
repeat the various arguments that
you have now doubtless been made aware
of concerning the statistics and reality
of domestic violence and abuse allegations
as they impact child custody adjudications.
Suffice it to say, there exists one
overarching truth regarding divorce,
domestic violence, and child custody:
Divorce
has become a process of criminalization
for fathers fighting to maintain their
relationships with their children.
Not just the family
courts, but our entire culture, has
been waging a War on Fatherhood for
30 years and counting. Good,
loving, law-abiding fathers are routinely
criminalized by the divorce process,
losing not only their children, but
their wealth, their careers and reputations,
their health, their sanity, their
freedom, and in some cases their very
lives. It is an undisputed fact
that divorcing mothers can and do
destroy their ex-husbands—not vice-versa—with
the aid and abetment of a legal system
that has been poisoned by victim-feminist
ideology. It is no surprise
that we now hear of women throwing
parties to celebrate their divorces.
Undoubtedly, a feature of such celebrations
is the gloating over how much punishment,
legal, financial and emotional, the
woman has inflicted on her ex-husband.
There are no divorced fathers throwing
parties.
The
notion that it is mothers who are
discriminated against by an uninformed,
under-educated, and sexist judicial
system that actually rewards fathers
who beat their children by giving
custody of the children to them is
simply grotesque. I hesitate to make
a comparison that may appear to trivialize
the enormity of the Holocaust, but
this twisted perspective is like claiming
that Nazis in Germany
were victimized by Jews.
Allow
me to point you to an article that
describes in detail some of the ways
invidious male hatred is promoted
in the public sphere and inculcated
into college students. In the standard
college textbook used in introductory
sociology courses in many if not most
colleges (Essentials of Sociology,
James Henslin), students are instructed
in the very first section of the book,
where it describes the do’s and don’ts
of doing research, that researchers
should not bother to investigate the
gender breakdown of battery in marriages
because it is already known that the
problem of domestic violence is overwhelmingly
one of men battering women.
Amazingly,
this instruction comes on the very
next page following a call-out box
that warns students about making assumptions
based on common sense by listing several
coincidentally politically incorrect
notions that are deemed to be false.
For more information on the corruption
of the behavioral sciences vis-ŕ-vis
feminist indoctrinated male hatred,
please refer to my article, “Junk
science proliferates in domestic violence
research,” For The Record, Feb. 2003,
which can be found online at:
www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/Newsletter/Record0302.pdf
.
Rather
than setting out a point-by-point
rebuttal of claims made by the makers
of the documentary, I wish here going
to make you aware of some facts concerning
Mr. Lundy Bancroft, who from several
accounts appears to be the motivating
force behind this documentary. Being
a Massachusetts-based organization,
we are familiar with Bancroft, who
is a Massachusetts
resident.
Bancroft
has been active in vilifying fathers
and males in general for many years.
The thesis of this documentary—that
fathers (i.e., “batterers”) are being
rewarded by the Massachusetts
family court system with custody of
their children because of the ignorance
or gullibility of sexist judges—is
his latest campaign. Prior to
this, among other like endeavors,
he has sold himself as an expert on
“dating violence,” gaining him access
to impressionable teenagers. A few
years ago he collaborated with some
Wellesley
academics and one from the Harvard
School of Health with a couple of
“studies” to prove the same thesis
on “battered mothers.”
The
science behind these “studies” is
non-existent. Fatherhood Coalition
research director Steve Basile’s attempt
to gain access to the study data were
eventually squelched by a threatening
letter from the legal counsel of Harvard’s
President Larry Summers. For a blow-by-blow
rundown on his attempt to gain access
to the study, read “Harvard researcher
hides study data behind university
lawyers,” For The Record, July 2004,
found online at
www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/Newsletter/Record0407.pdf
.
Basile’s
own groundbreaking research study
on the adjudication of domestic violence
restraining orders in a Massachusetts
court (Gardner District Court) has
been published in two separate articles
in the Journal of Family Violence.
Please go to
www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/Gardner_209A_study_index.htm
to find links to the study and all
articles we have compiled that pertain
to it.
Getting
back to Lundy Bancroft, he is a known
quantity to us on a more direct and
personal level. I personally had the
misfortune of having him assigned
as a GAL in my case. At the
time I had no idea who he was. This
was before he was “canned” by the
Hampshire County Probate & Family
Court because he was, by his own admission
at a seminar he conducted on this
same subject in June, 2003 in Northampton,
MA., so “far out of bounds” (as related
by a Fatherhood Coalition member who
attended the event).
In
my case, two interviews were conducted,
and so I had the opportunity to interact
with Bancroft directly over several
hours. I am not going to discuss
the issues of my case here, though
I will be happy to do so privately
with anyone who is interested. Nor
am I going to give voice to my opinions
and impressions of him as a person
from these two meetings. Lundy’s own
work speaks for him well enough.
Suffice
it to say, I was flabbergasted with
his report, though I fully understand
that my experience with him as a GAL
was not in any way unusual. In Massachusetts,
the job of the GAL is to provide the
path of least resistance for the judge
to make the standard, predetermined,
custody judgment: physical custody
of the children to the mother, with
the new “family” financed wholly by
the “throwaway dad.”
The
Fatherhood Coalition hear on a daily
basis from dozens of divorced dads,
mostly via our public email list-server
(electronic bulletin board).
This is a very active board, and much
information is shared. Not surprisingly,
several fathers and second wives have
shared their experiences with having
Bancroft for their GAL. Again not
surprisingly, he is universally detested.
But after all, according to Bancroft,
these men are all batterers, and so
their antipathy towards him would
be expected…
But
besides these accounts, I am privy
to information about Bancroft of a
much more personal nature. I know
someone for whom Lundy Bancroft was
not an appointed GAL, but a party
to a child custody/divorce action.
This person will remain nameless here
because there are children involved,
but they are willing to speak to interested
parties about Bancroft. This party
has also told me that they would consider
going “on the record” depending on
the situation. If you wish to speak
with this person, please let me know
and I will arrange the interview.
In
this case of which Bancroft was a
party, the four principals involved
were all ordered to undergo psychiatric
evaluations. This divorce docket is
in Dedham Probate & Family Court,
and dates from the late nineties.
The records, including Bancroft’s
psychiatric evaluation, are sealed.
The
evaluation was done by a licensed
PhD psychologist affiliated with the
Mass. General Hospital Children and
the Law program. Following is a paraphrasing
of what is in the evaluation, as this
document was available to the principals
in the action as it formed part of
the case, and was read by them. They
do not have a printed copy of the
exact report.
According
to my source, the evaluation states:
It is no surprise that Mr. Bancroft
is in the field he is in because it
empowers and enables him to exert
an enormous amount of control and
feed his hunger for controlling behavior.
Furthermore,
in the evaluator’s opinion, he has
borderline rage and significant issues
with rage control. His belief
in his own expertise and professional
standing is described as being “based
more in fantasy than reality.”
My
source claims that Bancroft used his
intimate knowledge of the domestic
violence and child abuse regimes to
engineer the termination of a father’s
relationship with his daughter. Bancroft
is married to the mother of this child.
He employed the services of kindred
spirit and witch-hunter Dr. Eli Newberger,
the highly criticized former head
of the child sexual abuse unit at
Boston Children’s Hospital. It is
widely known—and even reported in
the pages of the Boston Globe—that
Newberger’s unit always found for
sexual abuse when investigating allegations.
Regardless
of what credence is given to Bancroft’s
psychological evaluation, his life’s
work betrays a person obsessed with
hatred of men. He is what we
in the Fathers Rights community refer
to as a classic “victim-feminist.”
His life’s work revolves around the
demonization of men.
Several
years ago I found an article written
by Bancroft in 1992 that displays
a disturbing worldview. The link to
this article was:
http://garnet.berkeley.edu:3333/.cco/.infusion/.wris/.pack5/lundy.html.
I don’t know if it can still be found
on the internet.
“Male
Violence and Imperialism,” appeared
in a university journal, the War Research
Info Service, described as a “quarterly
newsletter for campus peace activists
(since renamed Study War No More).”
The theme of the issue was “Masculinity
and War/ Feminism and Non-Violence.”
In the article, Bancroft posits a
link between American imperialism
and violence against women. Here are
some excerpts from the ~2500-word
article:
“Male
battering and U.S.
intervention are often viewed, even
by political conscious people, as
irrational or as aberations (sic)
from the norm. … In order to stop
battering and war, we must recognize
their true causes. State violence
and domestic violence occur because
they serve a purpose in creating and
enforcing abusive relationships, either
between two countries or between a
man and a woman. Battering and
war play a critical role in keeping
sexism and imperialism alive.
“Sexism
is about exploitation. It is
about male domination and control
very specifically over women, and
for specific purposes. … And it's
about exploitation of women's giving
of nurturing: requiring women
to give love, support and understanding
to men and children, while men give
only minimal emotional nurturing in
return.
“Imperialism
is also about exploitation.
It is about domination and control
by large and powerful militarized
countries over much less powerful,
less militarized countries. … It's
about exploitation of a country's
labor by forcing people to work at
slave wages, to the benefit of those
in the dominant country. … So like
sexism (male domination of women),
imperialism is about setting up systems
of unequal exchange, where the dominant
force is able to dictate the terms
of exchange.
“Systems
of exploitation, of unequal exchange,
require violence. They can't stay
in place without it because people
resist oppression, courageously and
creatively, all the time... To keep
sexism operating, there must be violence
against women. … Similarly, imperialism
requires war. It requires bombing,
defoliation, economic blockades, and
other violent ways of keeping countries
from developing such as by blocking
their access to technology and capital
through the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund.
“First
of all there is the myth that both
battering and imperialism are irrational.
There is the notion that men batter
women because they don't know what
they are doing. Because they
are tortured inside, and in tremendous
pain, they lash out against those
they love the most. They lose
control of themselves. What
we have learned in working with men
who batter is that they know precisely
what they are doing. They choose
the amount of violence they use. They
set limits for themselves that they
don't cross, and use violence in particular
ways in order to get the control they
want in that relationship. What
batterers have in common is the expectation
that they will be able to enforce
their will.
“There's
a similar mythology around imperialism,
that the US
doesn't know what it's doing abroad,
that in misguided attempts to help
out in other parts of the world, it
stumbles into doing a lot of damage.
Many liberal opponents of the Vietnam
War made this argument, and we lived
with it in the 1980s around Nicaragua.”
What
is evident from this article is that
Bancroft is not just the typical zealot
who views male-female relations through
the victim-feminist prism of men’s
control of and violence toward women,
but has gone further and sees this
as the answer to... life, the universe,
and everything. Like Karl Marx,
Bancroft believes he has found the
animating force behind all of human
history. For him, imperialism and
war is just a macrocosmic reflection
of men’s violence against women.
To
hold such a distorted worldview, he
must have deep-rooted personal ‘issues.’
His fixation on domestic violence
and his attitudes about men (the entire
article must be read to fully appreciate
this) can only be described as an
obsession.
Bancroft
has also been involved in various
and sundry pop psychology trends,
such as “co-counseling” and “re-evaluative”
therapy. He authored a book dealing
with these treatment methods, Humanity
Unbound. According to a review of
the book, he had been involved in
these therapies, but “due to abuses
of both authority and sexual exploitation
at the highest levels of the RC organization,
and after failed attempts to bring
needed reforms to the movement, he
departed.”
In
closing, please do not mistake this
message as a personal vendetta by
an embittered man who lost his children
through divorce. Quite the contrary.
Despite the best efforts of Lundy
Bancroft and the judges whom I faced,
I now enjoy a fulfilling, fruitful
and loving relationship with my children,
who now live with me. I am one of
the lucky ones who survived Massachusetts
family court.
Lundy
Bancroft is not the source of this
problem; he is but a particularly
virulent symptom of it. Every
day, new Lundy Bancrofts are being
created in our colleges, universities,
and even primary and secondary schools
that have been poisoned by male-hating,
feminist infiltration to one degree
or another of practically all school
curricula, with the possible exception
of math, engineering and the natural
sciences.
The
fact of the matter is that Bancroft,
Eli Newberger, and people like them
have caused an incalculable amount
of harm in many, many people’s lives—not
just fathers, but also their children
and other family members. We in the
Fathers Rights community are facing
a propaganda and disinformation juggernaut
from these zealots and all those,
like you, that have been misled by
them. PBS still has time to correct
this gross miscalculation by imposing
a moratorium on future showings and
by actively pursuing the real issue
from a responsible viewpoint in future
programming.
Please
give us reason to not now lobby for
the termination of government subsidies
for public television.
Mark
Charalambous,
Spokesman,
CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition
32
Pearl St.
Leominster,
MA 01453 |