The Angry Dad

AP reports:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A Pennsylvania lawyer was released from prison on Friday after serving what was believed to be the longest imprisonment on a civil contempt charge in United States history.

The lawyer, H. Beatty Chadwick, was released from a county prison in suburban Philadelphia more than 14 years after he was jailed for refusing to turn over millions of dollars in a bitter divorce battle. The case prompted dozens of appeals to county, state and federal courts, twice reaching the Supreme Court.

Mr. Chadwick, 73, was jailed in April 1995, accused of hiding $2.5 million from his ex-wife during divorce proceedings. Mr. Chadwick maintained that he lost the money in bad investments.

I don't know whether he owed the money, or hid the money, or lost the money, or whatever. What happened here was wrong regardless.

I believe that a man should be innocent until proven guilty. Chadwick was never charged with a crime. He never had a jury trial.

I also do not believe in debtors prison. He should not be jailed for owing a debt. If they could prove that he has the money, then they could just seize it. If he does not have the money, then he has no power to comply. Either way, jail is not appropriate.

Millions of people have debts that they cannot pay. Either they have a bad mortgage, or they have too much credit card debt. The penalties are foreclosure, bankruptcy, and bad credit scores. Not jail. No man should be jailed for a bad debt.

Labels: court, money, news

The Seattle Wash. Times reports:

VANCOUVER, Wash. — The two adult children of former Vancouver police officer Clyde Ray Spencer, who spent nearly 20 years in prison after being convicted of molesting them, testified in court Friday the abuse never happened.

A 33-year-old son recalled how, at age 9, he was repeatedly questioned, alone, by now-retired Detective Sharon Krause of the Clark County Sheriff's Office. He said after months of questioning, he said he was abused to get Krause to leave him alone.

A 30-year-old daughter said she doesn't remember what she told Krause at age 5, but recalled Krause bought her ice cream.

Both children, who live in Sacramento, Calif., said that while growing up in California they were told by their mother, who divorced Spencer before Spencer was charged, that they were blocking out the memory of the abuse.

They said they realized as adults the abuse never happened, and they came forward because it was the right thing to do.

As a commenter says, the ex-wife should have to do 20 years. It is easy to pressure a 5-year-old girl to lie, if you buy her ice cream.

In another case, a UK newspaper reports:

This week, after 74 separate court hearings over two harrowing years, the family finally lost their fight to have Jenny returned to them.

The Court of Appeal in London ruled that their daughter must be given up for adoption. If and when she is, they may never see her again.

Jenny was five when she was taken away, and seven now. Before we examine the peculiarly troubling details of this case, it is worth considering the comments of the family's MP, Charles Hendry.

He says: 'This case has concerned me more than any other in my 13 years as a member of Parliament.' And, he went on to describe Jenny's mother and father as 'devoted parents'. ...

But over the past few weeks, our reporters have come to know the family. And one thing seems undeniable - their love for their daughter, and her love for them. ...

Her husband Richard, 32, runs a dog breeding business from their home. They have been married for 13 years.

They were just a normal, happy family, it seems, until the RSPCA, backed up by 18 police officers, arrived at their house early one April morning in 2007, following a tip-off that dogs were being mistreated, and that there might be guns in the house.

No guns were ever found. No criminal charges were brought, nor does Richard have a criminal record.

He was later, however, convicted of docking the tails of his puppies. But the raid was to have far more catastrophic consequences.

Both Richard and Susan were arrested for failing to cooperate with officers. By the time they were released from custody later that day, Jenny was the subject of an emergency protection order.

I cannot figure out why the authorities were out to get this couple, but I do know that it does not take 74 court hearings to prove their case. Obviously they have no proof of harm to the girl.

The couple and their friends were not even allowed to protest:

They are not lone voices: more than 200 local people, including neighbours, friends and members of the couple's church, planned to take part in a march through their village shortly after the family's ordeal began in April 2007.

Posters were printed, which read 'Social Services Have Kidnapped Our Daughter. Please Help The Fight To Get Her Back Where She Belongs.' Above the words was a picture of Jenny.

Of course, you won't have read about the protest, because it never took place. The march was just about to begin when the police, acting on the advice of social services, stepped in.

They warned Jenny's parents they risked being jailed, as they had broken the law by identifying their daughter on the placards.

I have heard of China suppressing political protests, but I did not know that England could suppress parents protesting the taking of their own daughter.

Labels: abuse, court, cps, news

Judith Warner, the whining Jewish mom of the NY Times, writes:

Two years ago in June, Bridget Kevane, a professor of Latin American and Latino literature at Montana State University, drove her three kids and two of their friends — two 12-year-old girls, and three younger kids, age 8, 7 and 3 — to a mall near their home in Bozeman. She put the 12-year-olds in charge, and told them not to leave the younger kids alone. She ordered that the 3-year-old remain in her stroller. She told them to call her on their cell phone if they needed her.

And then she drove home for some rest.

About an hour later, she was summoned back to the mall by the police, who charged her with endangering the welfare of her children. ...

The children were fine — “smiling, eating candy” — or were, at least, until the police decided to make an example of their mom. ...

(Paradox of paradoxes, as part of her deferred prosecution agreement, she was sentenced to even more education: in the form of a parenting class.)

The hatred of women — in all its archaic, phantasmagoric forms — is still alive and well in our society, and when directed at well-educated women, it’s socially acceptable, too.

Our society has a socially acceptable hatred of well-educated women? Is she nuts?

No, it is usually the lower class women who are the targets of these do-gooders. Just look at the story below about the mom who was arrested in her own home for being drunk.

And dads get it much worse than women. If you don't believe it, then drop in on your local parenting class. You won't find the educated and affluent women that Warner claims are being targeted. You'll find men who are trying to satisfy a never-ending list of requirements for them to see their own kids.

Update: Robert Franklin writes a broader attack:

I have to wonder what Warner thinks happens to the 95% of people who don't occupy her socio-economic level. Does she honestly believe that if, instead of Kevane, the woman who left her kids at the mall had been poor, and black or hispanic, she'd have been treated better? What about a poor, white male? I can see arrests and the children placed in foster care while the parents fight, with money they don't have, to get them back. By any stretch of the imagination, Kevane got off lucky.

He particularly objects to Warner saying:

...our country’s resentment, and even hatred, of well-educated, apparently affluent women is spiraling out of control.

Something is spiraling out of control. She got that much right.

Labels: abuse, news, school

The Wikipedia article on CPS has this example of a CPS action:

Another notable recent case is the family of Gary and Melissa Gates in Texas. According to a report by the local CBS Channel 42 Investigates special; the local school where their children had been attending had discovered one of the children had pinned a bag of food wrappers inside the shirt of one of the children caught stealing. The Gates had included a two page explanation as well as a list of phone numbers of who to call if the school wanted to ask more questions regarding any specific matter. Instead, the school called the local CPS and requested the Child Protective Services forcibly remove all thirteen of the Gates children and take them to foster homes. It was done without a court order under what is called Emergency Removal. The law allows it only when there is clear evidence of danger to the physical health & safety of the child and the need for protection is necessary. However, later on in the case in court, the local CPS gave the explanation that they felt, quote, "Mr. Gates was uncooperative and his uncooperativeness with us put the children at risk."

You would think that once a CPS agent got caught saying something so ridiculous, the CPS agent would be fired.

Labels: cps, news

The San Jose Calif newspaper reports:

A Stanford University physicist and his wife, whose kids have been held in a Nebraska foster home for more than a month after an ugly family altercation, will appear this morning in a courtroom outside Omaha, hoping to persuade a judge to let their children come back home.

The bizarre chain of events began when the couple — Suwen Wang, a visiting scholar at Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, and his wife, paralegal Charlotte Fu — traveled to Nebraska last month so their 12-year-old daughter, Alice, could be honored in an international art competition. On June 6, a witness told police the parents had hit their son, 13, while their car was parked on a road outside Omaha. ...

Nelson suggested that the parents' ethnicity may be playing a role in the case. "The parents and children are all U.S. citizens," said their attorney. But the court-appointed guardian for the children is trying to take away their passports.

Yes, they are American citizens, but they probably came to the USA because it was the Land of the Free. Now they are learning the sad truth -- that a billion people in China have the freedom to rear their kids according to their own best judgment, and without being constantly second-guess by strangers and meddlesome govt agents. Those kids would be better off in China than in a Nebraska foster home.

Labels: cps, news

A reader sends this divorce comic. Click to enlarge.

Labels: fathers

I also defend moms who face unfounded abuse charges, and here is today's example:

BISMARCK, N.D. - Police responding to a domestic disturbance arrived at Stacey Anvarinia's home to find the mother breast-feeding her 6-week-old baby in front of them. And she was drunk, they said.

Officers arrested the woman, who later pleaded guilty to child neglect and faces up to five years in prison.

I am all in favor of sobriety, but it appears that no one really knows whether drunken breastfeeding is harmful or not:

The breast-feeding advocacy group La Leche League International advises women to nurse their children only when "completely sober."

In published advice to mothers, the group says: "Drinking to the point of intoxication, or binge drinking, by breast-feeding mothers has not been adequately studied. Since all of the risks are not understood, drinking to the point of intoxication is not advised."

If alcohol intoxication were really the issue, the obvious thing to do would have been to measure the alcohol level and compare it to what the experts say is medically safe. But no chance of that:

It's unclear how much Anavarina had to drink. Police never conducted a blood-alcohol test. Investigators believed she was drunk, and her arrest on a charge of child abuse and neglect did not require a test.

"The majority of our problems are caused by alcohol," said Grand Forks Police Capt. Kerwin Kjelstrom. "Our officers handle it so much that it is pretty much a general knowledge thing to know when someone is intoxicated. It's pretty obvious." ...

"This case is more than just the breast-feeding. It was the totality of the circumstances," said Grand Forks Police Lt. Rahn Farder. "It is quite unusual for a mother to be breast-feeding her child as we are conducting an investigation, whether she was intoxicated or not."

In other words, if these cops see something out of the ordinary, they just handcuff someone and blame it on drunkenness. Nobody seems to care much whether some actual crime was committed.

This case has also been criticized by an obstetrician on the Skeptical OB's blog:

Ms. Anvarinia was charged with felony child neglect solely because she was breastfeeding. Since there is no scientific evidence that breastfeeding while intoxicated is harmful to an infant, the officers and prosecutors simply made up the "crime." In that, I suspect, they were influenced by the current American hysteria over what children eat. Not a day passes when Americans aren't bombarded with messages about the "dangers" of childhood obesity, the "dangers" of sugar, the "dangers" of salt, etc.

Moreover, Americans seem chronically unable to understand the concept of risk. They routinely obsess about trivial or even non-existent risks, and they wrongly ascribe far more risk to "dangers" they perceive as uncontrollable (alcohol inadvertently given to a baby through breastmilk) than those over which they think they have control (rolling over and suffocating a baby sleeping in the same bed). Couple that with lack of familiarity with breastfeeding, and suddenly it is a "crime" to breastfeed while intoxicated.

This incident is deeply troubling for another reason. It is an attempt to criminalize mothering if it does not meet entirely arbitrary standards.

Fatherhood has already been criminalized.

Labels: abuse, evidence, news

A reader directed me to familylawcourts.com, a San Diego Calif site dedicated to abolishing the family courts. It has stories like this recent one about a child custody evaluator for the San Diego court who had faked his credentials. He also did lousy evaluations, but it appears that courts will accept lousy evaluations, no matter how bad they are.

The site got quoted in this San Diego news video about a family court custody dispute. The mom got put on supervised visitation for kidnapping her kids, and she accuses the dad of abuse. I don't know what to make of these charges. The social worker's complained that the dad bathed his young daughter in a bathing suit. It sounds to me that the dad was anticipating false abuse accusations from the mom.

The site also accuses S.Carolina governor Mark Sanford of abuse because:

Holding a press conference to announce your soul mate is not your wife, but you'd give it the old college try, to try and fall back in love with her is abusive to both your wife and children.

Gov. Sanford's press conference was weird and embarrassing, but why would anyone object to him trying to reconcile with his wife? I think that the web site is abusing the word "abuse". Not everything is abuse.

The site does have some good news story links, and advice like this:

However, if your divorce is not friendly, please read on to learn what your attorney might have failed to mention, such as:

1. Family Court is known as the "Perjury Palace" for a reason. Unfortunately, most don't realize a family court judge is the most invasive form of government most countries have. Family Court judges are quite willing to micro-manage your life, including when, and where you can live, work and parent, for decades.

2. Parental alienation is in epidemic form. ...

Labels: court, news

A reader asks about Dorothy Rabinowitz's 2004 book, No Crueler Tyrannies : Accusation, False Witness, and Other Terrors of Our Times. From the reviews:

Wall Street Journal editorialist Rabinowitz has collected her stories on false accusations of sex crimes into one harrowing account of failed justice. ...
But she presents her cases expertly -- so well that her stories helped reverse the convictions of five people, which in turn helped her win the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for commentary. ... The book is full of stories like this about ludicrous allegations that were taken seriously by people who should have known better. The last two decades were the heyday of the sexual-abuse witch-hunts, and this book provides a valuable record of that dark, bizarre time. ... Pseudo educated psychologists were able to present junk science theories to juries that should have never been allowed into the courtroom. Heck, in most cases, the initial suspicions concerning the suspects should have been dismissed by the police after no more than a few hours investigative work.

The witch hunts are not over. Someone will write a book about how Santa Cruz and other counties are taking away kids from good parents based on unfounded allegations of emotional abuse. It will eventually be recognized that we still live in a dark bizarre time where pseudo educated psychologists were able to present junk science theories.

Just as in Rabinowitz's book, the evidence is on the public record and the truth is plain to see for anyone with a modicum of common sense. Those who stood up for truth and justice will be recognized as heroes, and others will be disgraced.

Labels: abuse, news, shrinks

A reader sends this story as advice about what not to do before a child custody evaluation:

FORT SMITH, Ark. - A mother who drank 13 beers before a psychological evaluation failed to recover custody of her three young children despite claiming she wasn't drunk because she "can drink like a fish." The woman wanted to get the children back from her husband's stepmother.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals rejected her Wednesday, citing addictions, frequent absences and criminal activity to support her habits. It said the woman made no meaningful efforts to restructure her life.

The article gives no explanation for the husband not having the kids.

Labels: cps, custody, news, pschologist

I am still looking for a psychologist to do a court-ordered evaluation. My ex-wife and I talked to one this morning. She suggested that he look at this blog.

On this blog, I express my personal views and opinions on the family court system, as explained here. Sometimes I comment on cases in the news around the world, and sometimes I comment on my own case.

This case is very personal to me, of course, but I try not to post private info. If my ex-wife and I have some private dispute, I don't say anything about it unless she decides to make it public by making a public complaint to the family court. Once she publicly badmouths me in open court, I feel that it is appropriate to defend myself publicly. I do not launch counterattacks on her, but I do criticize the court for pandering to her petty gripes.

So I am not going to report on our telephone conversation, except as it pertains to our public court case. My ex-wife did drop one legal bombshell in the conversation. She said that she was refusing to proceed with our court-ordered evaluation until after our July 30 court hearing, because she expects to get an order at that time restricting what documents the evaluator can review. A couple of the documents are extremely prejudicial, she said.

The trouble with this is that she does not have any such motion for July 30. This evaluation was ordered a year and a half ago, and she has had plenty of time to make a motion to restrict the scope of the evaluation, if that is what she wanted. Perhaps she suddenly decided that the papers make her look bad somehow, but why would she think that the Commissioner would somehow rescue her on July 30?

The order pretty plainly says that the "evaluator shall have access to any and all reports". I think that it is pretty unlikely that the Commissioner would reverse himself on this point, unless my ex-wife somehow knows something that I don't know. But regardless, it appears that she will not do the court-ordered evaluation until at least August.

Labels: court, evidence, pschologist

This cartoon is in the newspaper today.

Update: The cartoonist apologized for running this on Fathers Day. He says it was an accident.

Labels: fathers

There are rumors again that Jon and Kate Gosselin are getting a divorce. This is right after Kate got caught spanking one of their 8 kids. The anti-spanking zealots are outraged. Supposedly they will be sent to a psychologist for a child custody evaluation, and he will scrutinize the spanking pictures. Kate issued this statement:

Whether the paparazzi are there or not, I am a mother first. I love my children and when they misbehave, I discipline them as I deem appropriate for the situation.

If none of this makes any sense to you, it is some sort of TV reality show on the TLC channel. I've never seen it, but if they are going to show some silly psychologist trying to figure out what to do with those 8 kids, I might have to watch.

Labels: abuse, custody, news, pschologist

Pres. Barack Obama is publishing this father's day message:

In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its absence—both in my life and in the lives of others. I came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill. We can do everything possible to provide good jobs and good schools and safe streets for our kids, but it will never be enough to fully make up the difference.

That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.

ABC News adds this comment:

In a provocative speech last year in Chicago, Obama delivered some tough love to the African-American community on how absent fathers have contributed to the breakdown of the black family.

"Too many fathers are MIA," he said. "Too many fathers are AWOL. Missing from too many lives and too many homes. They've abandoned their responsibilities. They're acting like boys instead of men. You and I know this is true everywhere, but nowhere is it more true than in the African-American community."

It is nice to hear the President speak up for fathers, but there is a long list of govt policies and incentives that prevent fathers from stepping up. I am a father, and my ex-wife is being paid $3000 per month to not let me see my kids. Now that Obama is the President, he is in a position to do something about fatherlessness in the USA.

Labels: fathers, news

I just got a court transcript that I ordered last year! It was so long ago that I had forgotten about it. I had paid hundreds of dollars for it in advance -- last year.

The system is ridiculous. The courts depend on everyone having timely and accurate access to court transcripts. Everyone needs to know exactly what was argued and decided. There is no excuse for a system that is so slow and expensive.

I don't know whether transcripts are this slow for everyone, or just me. It is hard to believe that everyone is waiting eight months for a transcript. It is also hard to believe that the judge or some other court official specifically impeded me getting transcripts. Either way, it is an outrage.

The problem has such an easy solution. The court already makes audio recordings of court proceedings. There are services that will transcribe recordings. The ones in India are dirt cheap, and give results overnight. The court could have a text transcript on its web site the next day, and it would be cheaper and easier for everyone. Except the court reporter, who might be out of a job.

Any court reporter who takes eight months to produce a transcript ought to be fired anyway. And that is not even the slowest I've encountered. I tried to get a transcript for a 2004 hearing, and I was never able to get it. The court reporter took my money and did about 10% of it, and never did the rest.

Labels: court, evidence

I just got a notice that my hearing before Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph has been postponed to July 30.

At issue are some financial claims that my ex-wife started making about a year ago. Cmr. Joseph finally issued a decision on Feb. 17. I quickly filed a motion for reconsideration, because he made a number of factual errors in the decision.

He is also going to hear my motion to see my kids, and my ex-wife's motion to seal the reports that she put on the public record.

Labels: court, free speech, money

I am hunting for a child custody evaluator again, and I found one about 50 miles away who was interested and available. The first thing she asked was for the names of the lawyers in the case. When I told her that my ex-wife and I are not represented by lawyers, I got this response:

Unfortunately, I do not do custody evaluations on clients that are not represented. I can give you some referrals of other evaluators if you would like.

Best of luck to you both.

The odd thing about this is that the lawyers are not permitted to have any contact with the evaluators. The evaluators are supposed to be basing their opinions on psychological evaluations of the parents and kids, and not on legalistic arguments from lawyers.

She is not the only one who likes lawyers. There are other forensic child custody evaluators who also insist on the parents using lawyers. As I understand it, these folks are always worried about being sued, or about getting their professional licenses challenged. They operate on the boundaries of what is legal and ethical. When lawyers are handling the paperwork for an evaluation, the evaluator feels that she is more sheltered from liability problems. That is my understanding, anyway.

Labels: custody, evidence, shrinks

Glenn Sacks complains about a Dear Abby column:

Dear Abby: My sister has five children, all younger than 18. She has full custody and receives child support every month from her ex-husband. The problem is, she has been spending that money on her boyfriends instead of her children. ...

Dear Alarmed Auntie: Your sister's behavior is not only irresponsible, ...

So we have an identifiable father (who also pays child support every month), yet while Abby does recommend "contacting" him "if possible," she seems to hold out foster care placement as an apparently better (or equally viable) option.

Sacks suggests sending a complaint to Dear Abby (daughter of the original Dear Abby).

A little-known fact is that there is nothing illegal about the mom spending all the child support money on her boyfriends. There is nothing the dad, the court, or CPS can do about that. It is a flaw in the child support law.

CPS can do something about child neglect. It would be better to address the underlying problem, which is usually the fact that the dad has been cut out of the picture. If they shared joint custody, then the mom would be a whole lot less likely to get away with being so irresponsible.

Labels: cps, custody, news, support

Judges seem happier when the parties have lawyers. This seems odd, at first, because it appears that the lawyers make extra work for the judges. In court on Monday, the lawyers wasted a lot of time making silly arguments. The judge even ridiculed the wasteful legal bills that they were causing. It appeared that the cases would get resolved more easily without the lawyers

But at one point a lawyer was convenient to the judge. The wife's lawyer was demanding a chunk of the husband's $691k loan. Judge Salazar implied that he had enough testimony to make a decision, but he scheduled a trial in September.

The problem was that the judge thought that the wife should be protected against the possibility that the husband might acquire a gambling habit and waste all the money before the trial. That is where the lawyer was useful to the judge. The husband's lawyer agreed to put 40% of the money in a trust fund until the trial. That is a very easy thing for the lawyer to do.

I don't know what the judge would have done if there were no lawyers on the case. Without lawyers, it would not be so easy to order the money put in a trust account, because the court would not want to be bothered to check whether or not the money was really put there, and whether the account access was set up properly. As it was, the judge could act as if he was being very fair and just, and he doesn't have to actually decide or do anything.

Of course the trust fund was not really necessary, so maybe this is not such a good example. But it does illustrate how a judge can be happier when lawyers are involved.

Labels: judges, lawyers

reports:

June 9, 2009 (CHICAGO) -- An Arizona man has been sentenced to two years in federal prison for failing to pay more than $65,000 in child support.

Maurice Bell of Avondale, Ariz., was sentenced Monday by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly.

Bell used to live in Chicago. He was convicted by a jury in January following a three-day trial at which prosecutors said there was no evidence he had ever made a child-support payment.

Prosecutors say they believe it's the first time a criminal child support case had gone to trial in Chicago's federal court. But they say a number of defendants charged with failing to pay had pleaded guilty to the charge.

If he had failed to pay his income taxes, IRS would not put him in jail. IRS would just look to see if he has any money anywhere, and take it. I wonder whether the jury understood that.

Labels: court, news, support