Don't create a national child abuse registry

So says an editorial in Iowa's biggest newspaper:

Washington lawmakers give life to some well-intentioned but dangerous ideas. Among the worst in recent history: a national child abuse registry.

In 2006, they required the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to establish a national database of abusers. Most states maintain such registries, but Congress wanted a central database so states could more easily share information about those who may be a threat to children.

That may sound like a good step, but it's not. And we know that because the same Congress also ordered a feasibility study for the registry, which has yet to actually be created. That study identified numerous problems - problems that never occurred to lawmakers when they were writing the law.

Child abuse databases are a mess at the state level and would be an even bigger mess at the national level. The entire idea should be abandoned, and states should be questioning the value and constitutionality of their own lists of abusers.

The Register's editorial board has expressed many concerns about Iowa's child abuse registry over the past year. People lack due process rights ...

State-based registries are riddled with troubles. The last thing anyone needs is a bigger, national list.

Well said. These lists should be abolished, or limited to those who have actually been convicted. As it is, it is just a govt-sponsored list for malicious rumors.

Domestic Violence Fairytales

Carey Roberts writes:

Like everything in the law, the problem begins with definitions. The Violence Against Women Act, passed during the first term of the Clinton administration, includes a definition of domestic violence that is so wide you could drive a Mack truck through it.

States picked up on the loophole, and now most states include within their definitions of abuse, actions like making your partner “annoyed” or “distressed.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) likewise followed suit. The CDC’s Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements declares that partner violence includes “getting annoyed if the victim disagrees,” “withholding information from the victim,” and even “disregarding what the victim wants.”

Remember this, the next time you hear a domestic violence allegation.

There are dozens of comments, and some of them are amazing.

Hold experts accountable

One of the problems of the family court is the use of experts who are not accountable for their bad opinions. As the WSJ reports, such thinking contributed to the 2008 financial crisis:

The government's anointed judges of credit risk -— S&P, Moody's and Fitch -— had handed out triple-A ratings to thousands of bundles of home loans that increasingly were going unpaid. ...

To avoid legal liability, the Big Three have consistently emphasized that their ratings are merely opinions, akin to the ones on this page, and not "expert" judgments like those rendered by accountants or attorneys. In practice, this meant that while mortgage fraud skyrocketed during the housing boom, the credit-raters weren't checking any individual mortgages in the pools they were rating. Mr. Kroll sums up their business model: "Pay me a lot of money for an opinion, but don't hold me accountable if I'm wrong."

The article is about a tough-guy private detective who is taking on those rating agencies. Apparently nothing scares him except the family court:

'I want to go where there's a mess," says Jules Kroll, founder of the corporate detective agency that bears his name. The man who became famous tracking down the ill-gotten wealth of deposed dictators has embarked on a new mission ...

Mr. Kroll reports today that every one of his adversaries from the Queens Democratic machine of that era wound up in prison, with one exception. Donald Manes, the Queens borough president, was facing a kickback scandal in 1986 when he killed himself with a kitchen knife to the heart.

In all the years managing his investigations firm (he sold it in 2004 and left in 2008), Mr. Kroll reports that he was only personally threatened twice, by people who were "mentally disturbed." He believes the incidents had nothing to do with his line of work. He says that there are "far more dangerous" ways to earn a living, such as "in all seriousness ... family law practices. They're brutal. It's the life of a family. It's the break-up of a marriage, the custody of a child."

Family court is so brutal because we have laws that encourage conflict, and so-called experts who are not accountable. Most of the problems could be eliminated by just getting rid of those experts and those conflict-creating laws.

Local boy causes international diplomacy crisis

The local newspaper report:

SANTA CRUZ -- A judge signed a $50,000 arrest warrant Tuesday for a Greek mother who disobeyed a federal court order in June when she failed to return her son to his father, a Watsonville native, the Santa Cruz County District Attorney's Office reported.

Despina Asvesta is wanted for kidnapping Andoni Petroutsas, 5, according to Assistant District Attorney Bill Atkinson.

George Petroutsas, the boy's father and Asvesta's ex-husband, has been locked in a legal battle with Asvesta over custody of the boy since he was a few months old. In April, a judge awarded full custody to the father, but granted Asvesta a final six-week stint with her son at her home in Greece, according to court documents.

I commented on this case before, as one of Judge Kelsay's many screw-ups.

If these judges were trying to cause as much chaos as possible, then I don't know how they could do more damage. The textbooks should call this the Kelsay method -- give sole custody to one parent, and then let the other parent take the kid out of the country. Wait for the parents to do the obvious. Then let the federal judges, prosecutors, ambassadors, and state department officials on two continents try to figure out why the family court did what it did.

Divorce mediation in Santa Cruz

A lawyer asked Judge Morse on Monday about alternative dispute resolution possibilities, and she said that there was a new service at the Conflict Resolution Center of Santa Cruz. She said that they have a sliding fee schedule that goes as low as $60 per hour for an initial consultation. She also mentioned Commissioner Joseph and Chip Rose, altho it was not clear to me whether they were connected to this Center.

It is very unlikely that the judge has any idea about the value of a service like this. I doubt that it has much value, but I post it here in case it is useful to someone in Santa Cruz California.

Judge Kelsay screws up another case

I thought that Judge Kelsay retired years ago, but the bad effects of his child custody decisions are still being felt.

In one case on Monday, the mom's lawyer asked for an evaluation from Bret Johnson, a local gay psychologist who does child custody evaluations on the side. Both parents were represented by lawyers who claimed that their clients had no money to pay for the evaluation or the therapists. I think the kid was getting some sort of psychotherapy as well as the parents.

Judge Morse did not understand the case. At one point she asked a question, and the mom's lawyer explained that she had custody until Judge Kelsay abruptly put them on a 5-2-2-5 50-50 schedule from an ex parte motion. The mom was not present and did not have notice, and that is what screwed up the case. The dad's lawyer objected to this description, and said that two different judges agreed on the joint custody. The dad's lawyer countered that the second judge was Commissioner Joseph, and he explicity said in his order that he did not understand Judge Kelsay's order but was going to go along with it anyway.

The mom's lawyer was like the TV character Eddie Haskell, for those who are old enough to remember him. He was such a transparent suck-up that it was uncomfortable. The judge seemed to be eating it up, and was friendly to him. I wonder whether it is really effective to have a lawyer like that.

Meanwhile the dad had dreadlocks down to his waist. The mom and dad looked so strikingly dissimilar that I never would have guessed that they would have anything to do with each other. There has to be a story. If I were doing the evaluation, that would be my first question. In another era, the woman's family would have forbidden her to date a man with dreadlocks. Today, he will be at the mercy of a gay psychologist who has a completely different set of prejudices.

Judge avoids us

I appeared in Judge Heather Morse's court again this morning. I think that she already hates our case.

The last time my ex-wife were there for an 8:30 motion, she repeatedly skipped over us again and again. She even called cases two or three times, while ignoring us. Finally, when there was no one left in the courtroom but us, she said that she was adjourning for lunch. We had to come back at 1:30.

It was the same story this morning. Except that when she got to us at noon, she did not want to see us after lunch. She told us to come back on Nov. 1. Obviously this is not coincidence. Either the judge does not like us, or does not like our case, or is afraid of our case, or does not want others to see our case, or something. Not sure what.

She will have to face our issues at the Nov. trial.

I had to sit thru a lot of other cases. The judge patiently listened to a lot of silly arguments. I found one thing striking -- all of the bad custody cases involved mixed marriages and/or foreigners. I am not sure what to conclude from this. I did not see a scientific sample, so I do not want to generalize. But the pattern was the same as the last several times that I have been in court. Has anyone done a study on just who is clogging up our family courts? I get the impression that this subject is too sensitive for most people. Yes, this is one of the few societies in history that condones marriage outside one's culture. But maybe people would benefit from spending a day in family court before they make the leap.

In support of father custody

The Thinking Housewife writes:

Today, in an age when mothers are overwhelmingly favored for legal custody of children, this seems unimaginable. But given the vast system of abuses perpetrated by family courts, the epidemic of female abandonment of husbands, the arrests and restraining orders against fathers, and the general decline of marriage, the old way more and more makes urgent sense. Children, when in dispute, should automatically go with their fathers, not their mothers, as is commonly assumed. A father, as head of the household, should have the right to award custody to a mother. But no court should usurp his powers and authority over his own children.

Some of the greatest injustices in the modern world are committed against fathers. Their basic rights must be restored. State-imposed destruction of the institution of fatherhood is nothing less than tyrannical and benefits women not at all.

Not all women are infected by feminism.

She adds More on Paternal Custody:

WESTERN SOCIETY is steadily reverting to matriarchy and witnessing the progressive erosion of democracy. The two go hand-in-hand because it is impossible to maintain democracy with large numbers of female-headed households. Formal recognition of paternal authority is necessary to reverse this trend. Men should have primary custody of their biological children, as was commonplace in Western democracies two hundred years ago. This is one of the most basic means of checking the expansion of socialist government and the decline of the family.

Ten million is enough

AP reports:

LOS ANGELES – A jury on Thursday rejected a claim by billionaire real estate mogul Donald Bren's two adult children for $134 million in retroactive child support.

The unusual case was a high-stakes contest between one of the nation's richest men and the children he fathered during a 13-year affair with Jennifer McKay Gold, who brought the lawsuit on behalf of her children when they were minors.

Christie Bren, 22, and her brother, David Bren, 18, pursued the case when they became adults.

Jurors deliberated two hours before siding with the 78-year-old Irvine Co. chairman, whose attorney argued that no family court would have given the children more than the millions he already paid. ...

Four contracts were created involving child support each time Gold became pregnant and after the children were born. The accords, beginning in 1988, rose from $3,500 a month to $18,000 a month between 1992 and 2002. ...

His lawyers have claimed he paid $10 million in support over the years, including the educations.

For some women, no amount of money is ever enough. No matter how much they get, they act as if they are entitled to more.

There is still no word on much money Mrs. Tiger Woods got in the divorce. She seems like a real gold-digger. As far as I know, she never even bothered to show up at his golf tournaments. I never saw her on TV, anyway. And now she is taking her money, whining to People magazine, and running. She now denies the rumors that she hit Tiger in the mouth with a golf club, after refusing to comment earlier.

Bad research on happy marriages

Steve Landsburg writes:

Robin Hanson reports that success in marriage is quite uncorrelated with the match between your personality traits and your partner’s. Your traits matter (it pays to be happy, for example) and so do your partner’s, but the combination makes no difference. ...

NO!!!! That’s not the right conclusion at all, and it’s worth understanding why not. Suppose we lived in a world where personality matches had a huge effect on the success of marriages. In that world, why would two people with clashing personalities ever choose to marry? Presumably because there’s some special value in the match — like, say, an extraordinary mutual attraction — that overrides the personality clash. ...

The point is that correlation does not imply causation. A lot of social science research mixes up cause and effect, and draws faulty conclusions.

For example, taking aspirin is correlated with having headaches. But that fact alone does not tell you whether the headaches are causing the aspirin, or the aspirin is causing the headaches.

A reader adds:

An example from Dr Phil where he explains to a couple that open marriages don’t work because in a professional setting he often sees couples in an open marriage with marriage troubles. I rolled my eyes when I heard that.

I mention this because psychologists and family court employees often have bizarre ideas about child rearing and parental disputes. They have years of experiences noticing certain types of complaints in their practice and in court papers, but they are very confused about what is causing the problems, and what is curing them. And they don't see cases where both parents are doing well, so they have no idea what works and what doesn't.

For example, a court psychologist might say that parents should never talk to their kids about money. If you ask why, he might say that in his many years of experience, he has seen many complaints from bitter ex-spouses about money discussions. So he infers that talking about money is bad.

Can you see the flaw in this logic? Yes, if you do not talk about money then there should be no complaint about how you talk about money. That is true in the same sense that if you do not go to the beach, then you will not complain about sand in your toes. If you don't take the bus, then you won't complain about the bus. It is the same reasoning. No sensible person would take advice from anyone who reasons that way. You should not rear your kids on advice from court personnel any more than you should choose a mate based on the above sloppy research on happy marriages.

These Boots Were Made For Divorcing

The Citizen Renegade blog writes:

As it is, our society is at a fork in the road. We can go one of two ways if an end to the divorce industrial complex is your goal:

1. Rescind feminism.

Basically, turn back the clock on the so-called “improvements” in divorce litigation. Put divorce lawyers out of business. Custody of children would be split evenly, half the time with mom and half the time with dad, unless solid evidence of extenuating fault could be found, such as pedophilia or physical abuse. End all affirmative action and favoritism, explicit or implicit, for women. This means no more maternal leave or sexual harassment workshops. Return shame to its rightful place as a molder of human behavior.

2. Follow feminism to its logical conclusion.

Completely gut the traditional notion of marriage by legally establishing polygamy and assorted polyamorous relationships as equally valid unions. (Should be easier now that there is legal justification for gay marriage.) Make divorce as easy as buying a gallon of milk. Reform marriage so that it better reflects the evolutionary disposition of people to fall out of love after seven years (or approximately the time the kids are old enough to function without constant parental supervision.) If we are biologically designed by evolution to weary of our partners after seven to ten years, then why is marriage not arranged in such a way that acknowledges this reality? After all, we don’t force gay men against their biological disposition to marry or screw women.

He favors the second option, because of the greater availability of beautiful women for the alpha males to seduce and discard.

He is right. It is odd that there is so little discussion of these long-term trends, as they have the potential to remake our society.

Georgia judges being dismissed

The Atlanta newspaper reports:

One sent a message over Facebook to a criminal defendant, saying he’d give her behind-the-scenes advice on her case. Another was caught having sex in a parked car with the public defender assigned to his courtroom. Another inappropriately touched a prosecutor and investigator after they sat in his lap posing for a photo.

These were not defendants. All three were chief judges in their circuits with decades on the bench.

Since 2008, at least 16 judges across the state have resigned under duress, most recently two veteran chief judges from Cobb and Fulton counties. Some stepped down under a cloud of suspicion. Others left amid scandal or even outright criminality.

Allegations include sexual improprieties, harassment, voter fraud, giving state computers to family members and gross intemperance on the bench.

I doubt that there is really a rash of bad behavior among Georgia judges. It is more likely that the state just started taking complaints seriously.

Here is another Georgia judge in the news:

AUGUSTA, Ga. -- A Superior Court judge shot and killed a masked burglar inside his Augusta home early Friday after being awakened by the sound of someone smashing through a door.

Richmond County Sheriff Ronald Strength said investigators were still searching for a second burglary suspect Friday after the break-in at the home of Judge J. Carlisle Overstreet.

Overstreet, 65, was awakened at about 4 a.m. Friday when burglars used a large rock to break glass panes in a French door at the judge's home, the sheriff said.
He said the judge grabbed his gun after hearing voices and left his bedroom to investigate.

"The suspect, wearing a bandanna over his face and socks covering both hands, was coming down the stairs toward Overstreet," Strength told reporters Friday. "Overstreet fired one time at the suspect, hitting him in the chest."

Sell a child and get her back

The Monterey California newspaper reports:

For a 10-month-old girl known as "Stormie," those parents are Samantha Tomasini, 20, and Patrick Fousek, 38.

The Salinas couple are accused of trying to sell their daughter to strangers for $25 on June 22. They were found with the baby later that night in their squalid apartment, allegedly high on methamphetamine.

News that county officials had initiated "reunification services" for the parents recently sparked a local television report that Fousek and Tomasini might get back their baby. ...

The highly controlled process is required under state law, which mandates the preferred placement for a child, if possible, is with its parent or a relative. The process is overseen by a judge who sets benchmarks and a case plan for the parents, Robinson said.

A team of professionals that includes social workers and psychologists works with the parents to meet their goals. The process is managed through a nationally acclaimed program at Door to Hope called MCSTART, Monterey County Screening Team for Assessment, Referral and Treatment.

Parents are allowed visitation, but have limited time to show they are making progress. If they fail, reunification will be denied and the child will placed in a legal guardianship or adoption.

In the case of an infant, Robinson said, parents have six months, possibly 12, to show they are worthy.

So the law says that they can get their kid back if they get off the drugs, and satisfy the social workers that they are making progress over the next 6 months.

By contrast, armed cops seized my kids at our home in 2007. No one ever worked with me to meet my goals or measure my progress. No one has ever even been able to identify anything that I have done wrong. No one ever recommended counseling, as no one has ever even said that it is possible to do better than I have done.

And yet I have lost legal and physical custody of my kids.

The couple is this story seems to have plenty of problems:

Fousek was arrested again Aug. 6 after neighbors reported a domestic dispute at the East Romie Lane apartment he shares with Tomasini. Police have intervened in similar disturbances at the apartment many times.

According to Salinas police, Fousek did not respond to officers' repeated knocking and when they tried to use a manager's key to enter, he continued to relock the door. Police eventually broke down the door and found Fousek alone. They said Tomasini fled during the delay.

Fousek was arrested on suspicion of resisting or delaying a peace officer. He was arraigned Aug. 13 and pleaded not guilty.

Outside the courthouse after the hearing, a deputy had to intervene in another loud argument between the pair. Fousek, who told the deputy he "broke up" with Tomasini, was angrily demanding the keys to his car. The distraught Tomasini was refusing, saying she was "miserable." The pair eventually left together.

And yet they will get a better chance to get their kid back than I ever got.

Jailed for friending ex-wife

FoxNews reports:

It's not a crime to make friends on Facebook, but one Florida man found that the rules are a bit different when the person you're trying to "friend" has a protective order against you.

The man, 54-year-old Harry Bruder, was arrested for allegedly sending his soon to be ex-wife requests to "friend" him on Facebook, which police said violated the protective order, MyFoxOrlando.com reported.

A police report posted on thesmokinggun.com shows Bruder admitting he contacted his wife twice last month on the popular social networking site ...

I get spammers from around the world sending me email for making Facebook friend requests. Facebook makes it very easy to block someone that you want to avoid.

No court order should ever forbid a Facebook friend request, when it is so trivial for any user to restrict to whomever she likes. And no one should be jailed for anything so completely harmless.

This is another example of how the courts create problems, instead of solve them. Most of these restraining orders serve no useful function except to satisfy some bitter woman's craving to punish her ex.

Stewardess seizes toddler on flight

AP reports:

Police say a Southwest Airlines flight attendant took a baby from her parents on a flight from Dallas to Albuquerque after the mother slapped the crying child.

The flight attendant told Albuquerque International Sunport aviation police she removed the 13-month-old after she saw the mother slap the girl and passengers complained.

Airport spokesman Daniel Jiron says paramedics checked the baby when the flight landed Monday.

Aviation police returned the child to her parents after speaking to the couple, the flight attendant and other witnesses. The parents were not cited.

The airline is way out of line. It should not be seizing kids on a flight, just because someone disapproves of a disciplinary method.

Update: This story is getting a lot of publicity. It is amazing how many people think that they ought to be interjecting themselves into how others rear their kids. We have a society of busybodies. And the ones with the worst child-rearing opinions are usually the worst busybodies.

Bristol and Levi agreement

The marriage is off, but they made this deal:

Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston have committed to one thing: Not talking bad about one another.

That's one of the provisions of a new custody agreement proposed by the off-again, on-again couple. Their son, Tripp, is former Gov. Sarah Palin's first grandchild. He turns 2 in December.

"The parties agree that the child shall receive positive reinforcement about each party and that the child has the right to be free of negative comments by one parent about the other. The parties agree that neither party will speak badly about the other parent in front of the child," the agreement says. "Furthermore, neither parent will, to the best of their abilities, allow anyone else to speak badly about the other parent or members of their family in front of the child."

At the beginning of my divorce case, I decided to unilaterally avoid badmouthing my ex-wife. I do not write about her parenting practices or personal life here. The one exception is when she publicly makes false and unfounded accusations against, as when she accused me of emotional abuse. I defend myself.

The truth revealed by feminism

A blogger discovered this pearl of wisdom:

I have often said that nothing good has come out of feminism--nothing. Laura Wood, who agrees with the general point, has found an exception, sort of:

If any good has come from feminism it is a dawning appreciation of female sexual desire and its potential to destroy. The monogamous instincts of women have been vastly exaggerated in the popular imagination, even by Darwinian realists who pride themselves on their clear-eyed appraisals of human nature. Sexual liberation has revealed the full extent of feminine waywardness and disloyalty.

At least two-thirds of divorces in this country are initiated by women. Women are more eager than men to get married; once married they are more eager to get out of marriage. In many of these divorces, women act as if their husbands have disappointed or offended them when the truth is these women desire another man or the possibility of new romance. Economic power for women and divorce laws that guarantee maternal custody or joint custody have unmasked the truth about female sex drives: Women are not innately faithful nor do all women naturally put the interests of their children above their own.

Jane S. writes:

Exactly. There's a reason why the serpent had Eve pegged as the one more likely to willingly disobey God and bring sin into the world. It isn't just that he bumped into her first.

A lot of people mistakenly think that if women are the ones who are more likely to want to get married, then men would be the ones more likely to want a divorce. That is a gross misunderstanding of human nature. Even when the man files for the divorce, it is usually in response to his wife being dissatisfied with the marriage. Polls of both men and women give the same results.

Shrink demands more money

I just got this letter from the court-appointed evaluator:

August 10, 2010
Dear AngryMom and AngryDad,

This letter responds to AngryMom's letter of August 6 asking for information for my appearance at trial on November 30.

First you would need to ask me to hold the day. Once you do that I hold it with no fees due until November 1. On November 1 I would need to receive full payment for all the fees due for that appearance as follows:
-round trip travel: 3 hours (on mapquest it is about 1.25 hours each way to the Watsonville courthouse)
-the full day (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.): 8 hours
-case file and review: 4 hours (it will take this long to review the report and file given that over seven months will have passed since I did any work on your matter)

Total time: 15 hours at $300/hr: $4500

In the event of a change or cancellation I must receive notice by November 23. Please note that the week before November 30 is a holiday week and I will need that much notice in order to avoid a charge. Also I expect to do the review during the week of November 15 and will charge for that time if you don't proceed with the trial.

I will not appear if the fees are not paid in advance.

It is up to you to if you wish to issue a subpoena. I will cooperate in the receipt of any subpoena.

Please let me know if you have other questions.
As you know my office will be closed August 16 to September 7.

Sincerely,
Kenneth B. Perlmutter, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

The greediness of this quack continues to surprise. He is legally obligated to obey a subpoena, and he is in no position to make all these demands.

Rating the courts

Amy Bach writes in the NY Times

A “justice index” would allow communities to better assess which local courts are working and which ones need reform. ...

This lack of data has a corrosive effect: without public awareness of a court system’s strengths and weaknesses, inefficiencies and civil liberties violations are never remedied.

That’s why America needs a “justice index” to show how the essential aspects of our local courts are working. The index, compiled according to national standards, would function roughly like college rankings, ...

The information would be analyzed by a nonprofit organization, then posted to a Web site in a ranked order and in terms clear enough for the public to understand.

If applied to family courts, many communities might decide that their courts need reform.

The family court does a lot of things that it really does not have to do, such as order psychological evaluations, intervene in child custody issues and issue restraining orders. If these things are really beneficial, then there ought to be some way to measure the benefits.

My guess is that there is no measurable benefit to these court actions, and that the court actions make everyone worse off, on average.

Politician has joint custody

The Wall Street Journal writes about a leading New York politician having joint custody of his 3 kids:

Mariah, Cara and Michaela: Andrew Cuomo's daughters are the female fixtures on his campaign trail, ...

Not having a wife by his side during such events, Mr. Cuomo has taken to using his daughters as substitute stumpers, softening his brazen image as well as polishing it with a measure of Kennedy clout. The children—Cara, her twin sister Mariah and 12-year-old Michaela—are the product of Mr. Cuomo's marriage to Kerry Kennedy, a daughter of Robert F. Kennedy. That union ended in a messy divorce in 2003 amid allegations that Ms. Kennedy had an extramarital affair. ...

In a joint custody arrangement, Mr. Cuomo and Ms. Kennedy split weekdays and trade weekends with the girls. Mr. Cuomo lives with Ms. Lee in a home that is less than five miles from Ms. Kennedy's Mount Kisco residence.

This type of arrangement is increasingly common among divorced parents.