The Angry Dad

I credited the Wash. state appeals court decision below for its decision in the case of In re Marriage of V.I. Balashov. It gave the parents joint responsibility to make decisions, and struck down restrictions on religion.

Nevertheless, I do object to some of the language in the decision. It claims to be deciding in the children's best interests, but it doesn't do that at all. It just uses these buzzwords to justify what is otherwise unjustified. It does not consider any particular interests of the kids, or decide what is best, or anything like that.

The decision does blame the dad for "the father's chronic role-modeling during the marriage". What does this even mean? That the father tried to be a role-model for his kids? That he tried to do what is best for his family? Why is the court considering this a bad thing? Apparently the mom did not feel properly respected, but how is this relevant now that they are divorced?

A lot of divorced men and women feel that their ex-spouses did not properly respect them. Probably most of them. The court should have ignored irrelevant claims like this.

Labels: abuse, evidence, judges, news

I commented before about the Jewish family court judge in Chicago who ordered a divorced dad to keep his daughter out of Christian church. Now the dad has his own angry dad web site at www.christianfatherdefensefund.com, and he has commented on this blog:

Joseph’s wife is Rebecca Reyes (Shapiro), and her father is Howard Shapiro, who is an Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Playboy. That’s right, the man who doesn’t want his granddaughter exposed to Christianity, makes his money from pornography!! (Does the word hypocrite come to mind?)

I don't think that is hypocritical. A rich Jewish porno lawyer might well want his granddaughter to stay away from Christianity.

The man was interviewed on TV, and here is another story. He appears to be willing to violate the court order by taking his child to church.

My guess is that he is going to get punished for it, but the judge will never admit
that he is punishing the dad for being a Christian. If the Chicago family courts are anything like the ones here in California, the judge will just keeping sending the case out for evaluations until he gets one that recommends sole custody for the mom. Then he will just declare that mom custody is in the best interest of the child (BIOTCh). Usually the corrupt evaluators are smart enough to figure out what the judge wants, and to recommend that outcome without including the unconstitutional reasoning.

A Washington state appeals court just reversed this clause in a court-ordered parenting plan:

As to the mother’s ability to make sole decisions regarding religious upbringing, the court finds that the father does not have a religion, and the mother has brought the children up in the Orthodox Christian religion without objection from the father.

No judge has any business making such decisions.

Labels: custody, free speech, judges, news, shrinks

AP reports:

NEW YORK — A massive new federal study documents an unprecedented and dramatic decrease in incidents of serious child abuse, especially sexual abuse. Experts hailed the findings as proof that crackdowns and public awareness campaigns had made headway.

An estimated 553,000 children suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse in 2005-06, down 26 percent from the estimated 743,200 abuse victims in 1993, the study found.

"It's the first time since we started collecting data about these things that we've seen substantial declines over a long period, and that's tremendously encouraging," said professor David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, a leading researcher in the field of child abuse.

Maybe there is less abuse, but I think that it is more likely that there are fewer false accusations of abuse. Or maybe it is just being reported differently.

I gave a link to this report last week, but the reporter doesn't read my blog! The article complains:

One curious aspect of the study was the manner of its release. Although HHS had launched the study in 2004 and invested several million dollars, it was posted a few days ago on the Internet with no fanfare — neither a press release nor a news conference. Finkelhor, noting that experts in the field had been impatiently awaiting the study, described this low-profile approach as "shocking."

The findings might be disconcerting to some in the child-welfare field who base their funding pitches on the specter of ever-rising abuse rates, said Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.

That explains the lack of publicity. If the report does not have scare stories to justify increases in welfare funding, then what good is it? The agencies should have their funding cut, if there is less abuse to investigate.

I am amused by these people who somehow have appropriate names. The expert on this subject has a name that combines "fink" and "whore"! Those are two words that come to mind when I think of CPS agents investigating child abuse.

Labels: abuse, money, news

I mentioned before that the San Jose prosecutors were boycotting a particular judge. The San Jose prosecutors are defending their boycott, with this letter in today's newspaper:

Boycott of judge was necessary

I recently retired after almost 29 years with the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, during which time I never once disqualified a judge.

Yet when I heard of Judge Andrea Bryan's outrageous decision in the sex exam tapes case, I immediately urged my former colleagues to blanket disqualify her.

Such an action is extremely rare and only egregious conduct justifies it. Judge Bryan's record as a judge was so poor in the past that this latest decision put her in that category.

I personally had only two preliminary hearings in her department, and she made decisions in each of them that can only be described as horrible. Other prosecutors report similar experiences.

I am sure the office did not come to its decision to blanket disqualify Judge Bryan easily.

However, it is clear that the decision was not an act of peevishness over a single decision, no matter how bad that decision was. Rather, it protects the criminal process from biased judgment.

Stan Voyles
Los Gatos

Here is the story that caused the dispute:

Judge orders man freed over prosecutor's conduct
The Associated Press
Posted: 01/06/2010 07:14:17 PM PST

SAN JOSE, Calif.—A man serving time in a child molestation case will be freed after a judge ruled there was prosecutorial misconduct in the case.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Andrea Bryan on Wednesday ordered that Augustin Uribe be released from prison because of what the judge termed "numerous acts of misconduct" by Deputy District Attorney Troy Benson.

Uribe was serving a sentence of 38 years to life after being convicted in 2006 of child molestation.

The ruling comes after an appellate court finding in 2008 that determined the District Attorney's Office had improperly withheld a videotape of the purported victim's physical exam.

The District Attorney's Office termed Wednesday's ruling as "factually and legally flawed." The office is considering an appeal.

The newspaper said this: Editorial: DA Carr's pattern of arrogance goes unchecked.

To recapitulate, the prosecutors convicted a man while refusing to give him the videotape that would have proved his innocence. The judge and the appellate court ruled that the man is entitled to a new trial with the videotape. Whether he is innocent or guilty, he is entitled to a fair trial.

If I worked in that prosecutors' office, I would want to reexamine the evidence to see whether a new trial is justified, and if so, quietly try him again. Instead the prosecutors have chosen to generate a lot of publicity out of this, and to try to scapegoat the judge.

Prosecutors are the sort of people who never admit that they make mistakes. Furthermore, the bigger the mistake, the more stubbornly they dig in their heels. If they send an innocent man away to prison for 38 years, then they will lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever they have to do in order to keep that man in prison. And they have a high degree of confidence that they can get away with it, or else they would not be pursuing this arrogant boycott.

Labels: evidence, judges, news

The US Dept of HHS has just published its 4th annual study of child abuse and neglect. Here is the pdf. It defines:

Emotional abuse. In the NIS definitions, this category includes close confinement, verbal or emotional assaults, threats of sexual abuse (without contact) and threats of other maltreatment, terrorizing, administering unprescribed substances, and other or nonspecific abuse. Close confinement refers to tying, binding, and other inappropriate confinement or physical restriction. Verbal or emotional assault involves systematic patterns of belittling, denigrating, scapegoating, or other nonphysical forms of overtly rejecting treatment. Emotional abuse also includes all varieties of abusive, exploitative, or overtly punitive behaviors where actual physical contact did not occur (such as intentional withholding of food, shelter, sleep, or other necessities, or excessive responsibilities or excessive demands for income-producing work by a child). For the more extreme forms of tying and binding, Harm Standard guidelines permit “inferred harm.” That is, they permit assuming that serious emotional injury occurred in the absence of explicit symptoms, which allows the child to qualify as emotionally abused under the Harm Standard. However, for all other forms of emotional maltreatment, the Harm Standard requires direct or circumstantial evidence of moderate injury or impairment.

My ex-wife accused me of emotional abuse. Neither she nor any witness ever even alleged any of the harms in the above paragraph. Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph refused to accept any definition of emotional abuse, or that any specific evidence of abuse needs to be demonstrated. But he sent the cops to seize my kids on an ex-parte motion anyway.

Now I am getting a court-ordered evaluation by a psychologist. I am hoping that he follows the generally accepted information in the field. That is what expert witnesses are supposed to do.

Here is how harms are rated:

Serious harm. As noted above, NIS defines an injury or impairment as serious when it involves a life-threatening condition, represents a long-term impairment of physical, mental, or emotional capacities, or requires professional treatment aimed at preventing such long-term impairment. Examples of serious injuries/impairments include: loss of consciousness, stopping breathing, broken bones, schooling loss that required special education services, chronic and debilitating drug/alcohol abuse, diagnosed cases of failure to thrive, third-degree burns or extensive second-degree burns, and so forth.30 Serious harm from Harm Standard maltreatment occurred to 6.6 children per 1,000 in 2005–2006, representing 487,900 children, or over one-third (39%) of all children who were countable under the Harm Standard.

Moderate harm. Moderate injuries or impairments are those that persisted in observable form (including pain or impairment) for at least 48 hours (e.g., bruises, depression or emotional distress not serious enough to require professional treatment). Moderate harm occurred to 9.4 children per 1,000 (or 694,700 children) in 2005–2006, and these accounted for over one-half (55%) of all children countable under the Harm Standard.

In California, emotional harm has to be serious in order to be actionable.

The study has a lot of statistics, but most of them are too coarse to be useful. It finds, for example, that CPS findings of emotional neglect of toddlers has gone way up among low socioeconomic groups. It is harder to tell whether there is any good justification for this increase. It is possible that this is just the easiest way for meddlesome social workers to intervene when they don't approve of some child-rearing practice.

Labels: abuse, cps, news, pschologist

This UK story sounds like a joke from The Onion. It is not. The cigarette is not lit. It is just a picture that some 18-year-old mom thought would be cute.

A photograph of a baby with a cigarette in his mouth was posted online, prompting a police investigation, it has been revealed.

A concerned internet user contacted the authorities after they saw a picture of a baby boy with an unlit cigarette in his mouth on the social networking site Facebook, an Essex Police spokesman said.

Officers visited the child's home in Westcliff, near Southend in Essex, but found there were "no immediate concerns" for the baby's welfare.

The spokesman said: "Police received the information in the early hours of Saturday about a picture of a baby with a cigarette in its mouth on Facebook.

The Fox News O'Reilly Factor legal experts were of the opinion that if this happened in the USA, CPS should take action against the parents. Unfortunately, they said that our laws are not strong enough for a criminal prosecution of the mom, because there is no evidence of any harm or danger to the child. But they said that CPS could interrogate and harass them with home visits for as long as is necessary to make the point that the mom's action was intolerable.

This is idiotic. Do I need to explain why? If you told me that there were cops monitoring Facebook for inappropriate symbolism, then I would say that you were paranoid. I doubt that even Communist China does that. You would think that public officials have better things to do than to chase down goofy pictures on Facebook.

Here is the Fox News dialog, from yesterday evening:

O'Reilly: Let's deal with what we have. Unlit cigarette in the mouth of an infant. In the United States, this warrants what?

Lis Wiehl: No criminal charges. It would warrant followup by social services. Absolutely. Once social services has been contacted and you are on the sheet with them, then they should, they have a duty to come by unfettered, any time.

O'Reilly: ... For an extended period, a year, or what?

Lis Wiehl: As long as they want.

This is all for a Facebook picture. This is crazy. I am amazed that anyone would be willing to go on TV justifying such a silly overreaction.

Labels: cps, free speech, news

I am trying to comply with my court-ordered psychological evaluation. The court said:

13. Neither party will transmit any written materials to the selected Professional without being requested to do so by the Professional.

After getting the go ahead, I sent about 100 pages of court documents. My ex-wife sent 45 pounds of documents!

It appears to be the complete court file, more or less. What a waste. It mostly consists of false accusations from my ex-wife, and useless legal maneuvering. The court sometimes seems unable to make a decision, and sometimes rushing into bad decisions. I estimate that about 99% of it was completely unnecessary, but for incompetence of the court.

Labels: court, evidence, pschologist

The San Jose Mercury News has been covering efforts by local prosecutors to cover up videotapes that exonerate defendants in child sexual abuse cases. Now it reports:

In an extremely rare rebuke of a sitting judge, Santa Clara County District Attorney Dolores Carr instructed her staff Friday to stop bringing all criminal cases before Superior Court Judge Andrea Bryan, who recently angered prosecutors by finding that a trial prosecutor committed numerous acts of misconduct, including giving false testimony.

Carr took the unprecedented step of publicly confirming her "blanket challenge," or boycott of Bryan, in a news release, saying her decision was based on a "number" of unspecified rulings over the past several years, not any single embarrassing ruling. ...

Earlier this month, Bryan ordered the release of Augustin Uribe, who had been sentenced to 38 years to life on child molestation charges after finding Deputy District Attorney Troy Benson had woven what she called "a tangled web of deceit," including testifying falsely.

Carr's decision to boycott Bryan means that any time a criminal case is assigned to Bryan's courtroom, prosecutors will invoke their right to issue a peremptory challenge and get the case assigned to another judge.

Wow. I did not know prosecutors could do that. They withhold exculpatory evidence, put innocent
men in prison on bogus sex abuse charges, and testify falsely. So what happens when a judge holds them accountable for what they have done? They just boycott the judge!

I draw a couple of conclusions from this. First, the prosecutors never admit that they made a mistake. Even when a videotape is discovered that proves that a man was wrongly convicted, they fight hard to keep the guy in prison.

Second, the big majority of the judges are gutless stooges who are unwilling to stand up to the prosecutors. A boycott of one particular judge would not do any good if other judges were willing to crack down on falsified evidence.

Third, the DA does not seem to be all worried about adverse publicity in prosecuting innocent men charged with child sex abuse. The Santa Clara DA must have anticipated that this decision would generate in front page story in the newspaper, and did it anyway. My guess is that the DA decided that the publicity would cause some people to blame the judge for being soft on child abusers. She may figure that the average person will see it as just some technical legal or personality dispute.

The issue isn't that complicated. The DA office had a longstanding policy of seizing the kids, doing videotaped interviews of the kids, charging an adult with a crime, and not letting the adult see the videotape, even when it was evidence of his innocence.

Labels: abuse, judges, news

AP reports from Alaska:

Sarah Palin's oldest daughter, Bristol, is seeking child support from the young man who fathered her 1-year-old son.

Documents filed Thursday in Superior Court in Palmer show Bristol Palin is seeking $1,750 a month from 19-year-old Levi Johnston, her former fiance. Their son, Tripp, was born in December 2008.

Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein said Alaska law makes clear that a parent of a child is obligated to provide support.

"It is unfortunate Bristol has to seek court intervention in this regard," Van Flein said.

The details regarding child support come at the same time Bristol is seeking full custody of the baby. She filed a petition for sole custody in early November.

Johnston at the very least wants joint custody, said Rex Butler, Johnston's lawyer.

It is outrageous that Palin is asking for child support. This is just a form of welfare fraud, in my opinion. She is driving a $60k car and living with her wealthy parents, and does not need the money. What she needs is a father for her son. And that she is
refusing.

Levi is seeking joint custody, and Bristol refuses. There is no reason to think that he is unfit. No more than she is unfit, anyway.

Many of the worst ills in our society are caused by single moms like Bristol Palin who do not let fathers even visit their children.

TMZ has his story:

Levi Johnston is baffled at Bristol Palin's demand for child support, because he's offered her money in the past but she hasn't taken it -- this, according to Levi's lawyer.

Attorney Rex Butler tells TMZ, Levi has told Bristol on several occasions he wanted her to come to his house to pick up checks for Tripp's support. Butler says Levi also told her "it would be nice" if she brought Tripp along when she picked up the checks, because Levi wanted to spend time with his son. Butler says on each occasion Bristol was a no-show.

Butler says Bristol is partly to blame for the fact that she hasn't gotten the support she wants. Butler tells TMZ on one occasion Levi was prepared to hand over $3,000 ... but Bristol never showed.

I hate to say this, but the law favors Bristol in this situation. The more she mistreats her son by depriving him of a father, the more she is entitled to welfare and child support. Levi has to pay regardless of how much Bristol violates court orders and punishes her child for her own selfish profit. That is how the system works.

I am surprised that Sarah Palin is going along with this. She made millions from her book deal, and has a political image to worry about. I thought that she was in favor of policies that support self-sufficiency and parental rights. And yet she supports Bristol in her effort to cut a boy off from her father just in order to dishonestly collect a few thousand dollars in undeserved benefits.

Labels: news, support, visitation

I got a message from an angry dad in Italy, with his web site.

I usually assume that people in other countries could not be so stupid as to give family courts so much power to separate fathers from their children. But I have no idea. Perhaps there are meddling judges doing harm everywhere.

Labels: fathers, news

A reader and fellow angry dad writes:

The custody evaluator in my case recommended that I seek cognitive behavioral therapy as it relates to parenting. The evaluation made no mention of parental deficits. I still haven't been able to find anyone who can figure out what "cognitive behavioral therapy as it relates to parenting" is.

I got a similar recommendation from one of my evaluations. The judge just blindly ordered it. I objected, and the judge could not explain it.

In my opinion, a recommendation for counseling is usually an admission of incompetence. You see it in letters to Dear Abby and other advice columnists. When she knows how to answer a question, she answers it. Or she gives bad advice based on her own prejudices. But when she does not know what to say, she recommends counseling.

If you press these people, they might say that counseling is good for everyone. But that is plainly not true, or we would have laws requiring everyone to get counseling. We don't. The psychology textbooks say that counseling is not good for everyone.

Whoever gave the above recommendation is just an incompetent bozo who knows a few buzzwords. The judges who listen to these bozos are even worse.

Labels: judges, parenting, shrinks

An economist has posted a defensen of the medieval practice of trial by ordeal:

“For 400 years the most sophisticated persons in Europe decided difficult criminal cases by asking the defendant to thrust his arm into a cauldron of boiling water and fish out a ring. If his arm was unharmed, he was exonerated. If not, he was convicted.”

According to Leeson, this is less crazy than it sounds: As long as defendants believe (superstitiously) that ordeals yield accurate verdicts, guilty defendants always confess to avoid the ordeal. At the same time innocent defendants always opt for the ordeal—and are always acquitted, provided the priests cheat by (for example) substituting tepid for boiling water, or “sprinkling” a few gallons of cold holy water over the cauldron, or liberally redefining what counts as “unharmed”.

If the family court used this procedure to determine child custody, would we have a better system or a worse system?

I am going to have to think about that. Maybe that what's we already have -- the modern equivalent of trial by ordeal.

Labels: court, evidence

The San Diego California newspaper reports:

SAN DIEGO — Students were evacuated from Millennial Tech Magnet Middle School in the Chollas View neighborhood Friday afternoon after an 11-year-old student brought a personal science project that he had been making at home to school, authorities said.

Maurice Luque, spokesman for the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, said the student had been making the device in his home garage. A vice principal saw the student showing it to other students at school about 11:40 a.m. Friday and was concerned that it might be harmful, and San Diego police were notified.

The school, which has about 440 students in grades 6 to 8 and emphasizes technology skills, was initially put on lockdown while authorities responded.

Luque said the project was made of an empty half-liter Gatorade bottle with some wires and other electrical components attached. There was no substance inside.

When police and the Metro Arson Strike Team responded, they also found electrical components in the student's backpack, Luque said. After talking to the student, it was decided about 1 p.m. to evacuate the school as a precaution while the item was examined. Students were escorted to a nearby playing field, and parents were called and told they could come pick up their children.

A MAST robot took pictures of the device and X-rays were evaluated. About 3 p.m., the device was determined to be harmless, Luque said.

Luque said the project was intended to be a type of motion-detector device.

Both the student and his parents were "very cooperative" with authorities, Luque said. He said fire officials also went to the student's home and checked the garage to make sure items there were neither harmful nor explosive.

"There was nothing hazardous at the house," Luque said.

The student will not be prosecuted, but authorities were recommending that he and his parents get counseling, the spokesman said. ...

Luque said both the student and his parents were extremely upset.

Recommending counseling?! The kid did a very innocent and ordinary science project. Lunatic school authorities went beserk. The kid and his family gets upset. So do the authorities apologize? No, they recommend counseling!

When I hear "authorities recommended counseling", I just assume that the authorities made a disasterous sequence of mistakes, and they are trying to make someone else the scapegoat.

The authorities probably told the parents that if they get the counseling, then there will be no criminal prosecution, no kid kicked out of school, no bill for emergency services, no CPS investigation, and no one put on the TSA no-fly list. The parents will probably play it safe and get the counseling. Because the bigger the govt screwup, the more the bureaucrats will cover their tracks.

Labels: California, news, shrinks

Dorothy Rabinowitz writes in the WSJ:

The accusations against the Amiraults might well rank as the most astounding ever to be credited in an American courtroom, but for the fact that roughly the same charges were brought by eager prosecutors chasing a similar headline—making cases all across the country in the 1980s. Those which the Amiraults' prosecutors brought had nevertheless, unforgettable features: so much testimony, so madly preposterous, and so solemnly put forth by the state. The testimony had been extracted from children, cajoled and led by tireless interrogators.

She exposed these bogus prosecutions more than anyone, and wrote a 2003 book about them.

You would think that the careers of the malicious prosecutors in the day care sex abuse hysteria would have been ruined, but they were not. One of the prosecutors was Martha Coakley, and this Tuesday she is on the ballot in Mass. to replace Ted Kennedy in the US Senate. It is a tight race, and Pres. Barack Obama is campaigning for her.

If you are thinking that the Junk Justice judges, commissioners, and enablers will get their comeuppance some day, forget it. The more lives they ruin, the more praise they will get.

Update: Another blog calls Coakley a particularly loathsome creature.

Update: Coakley was heavily favored a month ago, but she has now lost. I realize that the main campaign issues were health care and other issues. Coakley is still the state attorney general.

Labels: abuse, news

I previously blogged about a weird case in the local court that I watched while waiting for my case to come up. I could not figure out why two lesbians were getting a trial to resolve a paternity dispute. Now the case has gotten a newspaper story, and the mom has an angry mom site. The story says:

In a case that could have far-reaching implications for gay rights, a Santa Cruz woman is seeking to maintain joint custody of 10-month-old twins that she and her former partner, the biological mother of the children, had agreed to raise.

As court battles over the rights of non-biological gay parents garner national attention, the Santa Cruz case contains a complicated wrinkle: The biological mother is now involved in a romantic relationship with the sperm donor, who has joined her in seeking full custody of the boys.

"It's the first case I'm aware of where a lesbian couple in a committed relationship has brought a child into the world, then after breaking up, the biological mother has tried to sub in the biological father," said Deborah Wald, a family law attorney who, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, represents the non-biological mother.

"If they won, we would consider it a very dangerous precedent for lesbian couples having children with the assistance of known sperm donors," Wald said.

The biological parents, Maggie Quale and Shawn Wallace, who now live together, say they should be allowed to fully parent their twins, Max and Levi, without a court order allowing even partial custody to Quale's former partner, Kim T. Smith. They say the civil lawsuit filed by Smith, who declined to comment, has put them in the painful position of asserting their rights while still appearing to support the growing effort to protect the rights of gay parents.

"The last thing we want is more stress and conflict," said Quale, a 33-year-old public relations specialist, who is bisexual. "We know there are a lot of people who aren't going to understand. Shouldn't this only be about what best for these babies?"

I am afraid that Quale is about to get a painful education about how the court determines what is "best".

No, a lesbian couple did not bring this child into the world.

I still don't see how Smith got her name on the birth certificate, when he is not biologically related to the twins, was not married to the mom, was not a domestic partner to the mom, and did not adopt the twins. It must be a consequence of some liberal change to the law that I never heard about.

The family court is not equipped to deal with disputes like this. It is just crazy to expect some judge to decide what is in the best interest of the kids. There is a reason why we have marriage and adoption laws. There used to be, anyway.

Labels: court, custody, news, paternity

Oklahoma news:

An 11-year-old boy is being praised by Lawton police after he called 911 to report his mom and her boyfriend were dealing drugs from their home. ...

"911, what's your emergency?" said a 911 emergency dispatch operator.

"I live here with my mom and her boyfriend, and her boyfriend sells marijuana," the 11-year-old told the 911 operator.

Lawton police called the boy's actions courageous. The call led police to the house where they found the boy with his 1-year-old brother along with a quarter pound of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia.

Police said the drugs all belonged to the boy's mother, 33-year-old Jennifer Lynn Patterson, and her boyfriend, 25-year-old Michael Dewayne French. ...

Patterson and French were both charged with felony counts of drug possession with intent to distribute.

Courageous? To call 911 to betray his own mom? Where is the dad?

My guess here is that mom has already used false accusations and restraining orders to cut the dad out of the boy's life, and to get more child support/welfare. The boy learned to betray his family at a very early age. Then he got sent to public school, where he was taught that 911 operators and other govt agents are greater authorities than parents. Then the mom shacked up with a no-good drug-dealer, and no one objected to that. The dad was driven out, and anyone else would have been accused of being discriminatory.

I live in a county full of dope smokers, so I don't think that the cops would bother with a couple having only a quarter pound of marijuana. But the schools, cops, and others would encourage kids to betray their parents.

This is the decline of the USA, in my opinion. In another generation, no one will think that there is even anything wrong with this story.

Labels: fathers, news, school

AP reports:

A Florida lawmaker has called for an investigation into who phoned a hot line with a bogus claim that Tiger Woods' children were being abused.

The anonymous accusation last month was quickly rejected by Florida officials. But Republican state Sen. Ronda Storms wants officials, if possible, to prosecute the person.

A Department of Children and Families spokesman said Monday that a false report is difficult to prove unless the person confesses, but it result in civil or criminal penalties.

If the lawmaker really wants to do something about it, then maybe she should propose a law to limit these anonymous reports.

It is likely that the report was from someone who does not even know the Woods family, but was just piling on with accusations based on rumors following news reports.

CPS should be required to ignore the call unless the caller can give some specifics, with names, dates, places, etc. If the specifics turn out to be false, then the caller could be prosecuted just like anyone who makes a false police report. It is not that complicated. Apparently no one in Florida gets prosecuted for a false CPS report.

I happened to see the Steve Wilkos Show yesterday. It is a horrible show, and I do not recommend it. Yesterday it was about a wife who used an anonymous CPS call to make a false accusation against her husband, in order to get some sort of jealous revenge. Nobody ever suggested that she get prosecuted, even tho the audience thought that she was pretty horrible. If Wilkos and the audience could figure out that she was lying with just a few questions, you would think that the authorities could also figure it out.

My ex-wife is a lawyer, and she knows that she will never be prosecuted for the false, malicious, and anonymous accusations that she made against me to CPS.

Labels: abuse, cps, lawyers, news

I finally have an appointment to start the psychological evaluation ordered by Commissioner Joseph. I assume that my ex-wife has also.

I've been getting advice from my friends on how to behave. One said that I should say that I am happy with the visitation being supervised.

Others agreed, and said that I should appear as agreeable as possible. They said that the psychologist has so much power over me that I cannot risk alienating him in any way. I should just act grateful for whatever he recommends. Anything else will be quoted and used against me in his report. He will cite it as a sign of emotional instability and a lack of the nurturing qualities needed to be a good parent. One friend, who has extensive experience with the family court, suggested that the psychologist may even invent a phony accusation of a borderline personality disorder, just to punish me for having the nerve to express opinions of my own. They all agreed that I should not say anything critical about Cmr. Joseph, as that would indicate that I have a bad attitude or that I am not sufficiently deferential to authority.

I don't know whether this is good advice or not, but it is useless to me. I have already expressed my opinions in court papers and on this blog. The psychologist will get the court papers and he knows about the blog. If my ex-wife thinks that I said something that will cause the psychologist to have a negative opinion of me, then she will point it out to him. For better or worse, the psychologist will know my true opinions, and I cannot hide them even if I wanted to.

Labels: court, pschologist

Stephen Baskerville has a new article on crime and feminism:

Aggressive feminist lobbying in the legislatures and courts since the 1970s redefined rape to make it indistinguishable from consensual sex. Over time, a woman no longer had to prove that she was forced to have non-consensual sex, but a man had to prove that sex was consensual (or prove that no sex had, in fact, happened). Non-consent was gradually eliminated as a definition, and consent became simply a mitigating factor for the defense. By 1989, the Washington State Supreme Court openly shifted the burden of proving consent to the defendant when it argued that the removal of legislative language requiring non-consent for rape “evidences legislative intent to shift the burden of proof on the issue to the defense” and approved this blatantly unconstitutional presumption of guilt. The result, write Weiss and Young, was not “to jail more violent rapists — lack of consent is easy enough for the state to prove in those cases — but to make it easier to send someone to jail for failing to get an explicit nod of consent from an apparently willing partner before engaging in sex.” ...

In the infamous Duke University lacrosse case, prosecutor Michael Nifong suppressed exculpating evidence and prosecuted men he knew to be innocent, according to Taylor and Johnson.

Most discussions of the Duke lacrosse incident blame the prosecutor, but I blame the judge much more. The boys had iron-clad proofs of innocense -- ATM receipts across town, negative DNA tests, and failure of the accuser to identify them or tell a consistent story -- and yet the judge still denied a motion to dismiss the charges.

Labels: court, domestic violence

SCORE is meeting this Saturday, after not having met for a couple of months. It is a small group of people in Santa Cruz county who are working to improve things for those who have to deal with the local family court.

Labels: California, court