From soc.men Fri May 8 15:54:50 1992 Xref: news-server.csri.toronto.edu alt.child-support:2736 soc.men:47313 soc.women:51287 Path: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnewsm!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women Subject: Have any of you ever had feelings like these? (Was Re: man shoots wife and attorney) Message-ID: <1992May7.045622.525@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Date: 7 May 92 04:56:22 GMT References: <92126.215543JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992May6.044418.10856@nevada.edu> <1992May6.195411.22368@infonode.ingr.com> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 250 In article <1992May6.195411.22368@infonode.ingr.com> morgana@infonode.ingr.com (Angela Morgan) writes: >>> a man walked into a courtroom just before his divorce proceeding was to >>> start and shot his wife and her attorney. she died. > >> I don't know which is sader, the tragedy of the death or the fact >> that we can fairly confidently say that the deal he was getting is what >> drove him to it. > >[I'm a female NCP, in case you've forgotten.] > >In the midst of my divorce, I got dangerously close to "blowing away" my >husband. The whole process up to that point had pretty well trashed me > >Well, anyway, to make a long story short, I completely "lost it." I was >so distraught at these accusations and at the entire process that I almost >went nuts. I wanted to kill him! But I didn't (thank goodness). However, >I completely debased myself by getting down on my knees (literally) and >begging him to believe me that none of it ever happened.... It's taken >a very long time for my self-esteem to recover from the whole experience. > >Have any of you ever had feelings like these? God. Angela, like you I've been through an emotional wringer. My ex2b had charges of child endangerment filed against me for spanking my sons on September 22, 1991. Then she would not allow me to see my children for three months - the court scheduled our next hearing over two months after she filed the charges against me. It was a ploy by her and her slime-bag attorney to keep me away from the children, cut me out of their lives, make her seem like the primary caretaker, make me out to be a criminal. She filed contempt charges against me for sending my sons two letters and a birthday card. She has lied over and over to anyone who will listen. She accused me of abusing her and my children repeatedly, of raping her, of being a terrible tyrant of a husband and father. I did not get to see my children for three months - at all. When I finally did get to see them, I had to pay $85 for the first hour with them. When they first saw me, they went completely spastic - they ran up to me and hugged my legs - I was holding Christmas presents for them. I took them in the other room and hugged them and hugged them and hugged them. As I was hugging them, an incredible wave of emotions washed over me. I was hugging my oldest son (who turned 4 during the time I didn't get to see them) and I started crying, saying, "Oh Alex and Adam, I've missed you sooo much." But I fought back the tears and the crying jag - this was my first hour with them in 3 months, I wanted it to be a happy time. I fought very hard to make it a happy time. Then for the next 3.5 months, I had supervised visitation. I had to pay $25 per hour to see my children. In seven months I saw my two sons for a total of 14 hours. She repeatedly cancelled my visitations and would not allow me to see them during the week, because it interferred with "her" schedule. She was able to get away with all this because she filed charges against me. (The charges will probably be dismissed on May 14th - the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is filing an Amicus Brief on the unconstitutionality of the law under which I was charged. We've made one of the strongest motions for dismissal of a misdemeanor in the history of Ohio law - probably over 100 pages of documentation related just to the dismissal.) The domestic relations court was not willing to give in one iota until the criminal case is resolved. I am guilty until proven innocent. Of course, she gets to be the primary caretaker all this time too. What is her motivation for trying to destroy my life? Is it the children? Does she want to save the children from the big, bad, mad rapist father? Let me let her answer this. In a deposition on February 4th, 1992, she stated that she had no problem with me seeing my children 5 days a week. She wanted me to be able to take them to dinner on weeknights. She did not seem concerned at all about me being with them. But there was the criminal case - the prosecution had told her that there was to be minimal interaction with me until the case was resolved. But she said she wanted me to have a relationship with them. She also stated over and over that she did not want me to have shared parenting because it would lower her child support payments. What I interpret from her statements is this: She is not willing to accept shared parenting because there is a possiblity that the court would lower the amount of money I have to pay her if we end up with "shared parenting". I pay her $1034.22 per month plus poundage, plus extraordinary expenses (medical, dental, etc.). Does she want the children? Most definitely - if she gets the money to raise them too. Does she want as much of my money as she can possibly get? When she filed she asked for alimony and sole custody and subsequently lied about her income and the hours she worked. Does the money matter to me? At first I said, "No." But I have to be honest. I can't afford the current arrangements - she has all assets, I have all debts, she makes almost twice as much as I make per month in net income - after she gets my child support. I'm broke. I can't even afford to pay my bills. I make almost $50k per year gross - she makes less than $20k gross. Freud stated that one of the strange things about the way we communicate is that you can often take the negation of an affirmation and it can be true, too. Strange, I know. For example, "the money does not matter." Well, guess what? It matters. At that deposition on February 4th, we put into place an agreement wherein I would start seeing the children 5 days per week with overnights unsupervised to start by a hearing date that was scheduled at the end of February. We were both to get psychological evaluations - each to pay for our own. (It was my second one.) Two days after she agreed to these things on record, she fired her attorney and backed out of the deal completely. She called me and told me that if I wanted to see my children, I had to pay. We filed for contempt against her. When we finally went to court, we got bumped - a custody trial from two days earlier was still going on - and our referee was hearing the trial. It was the end of March before I was allowed to see my children unsupervised - only for 8 hours at a time - no overnights. Our contempt charge - the court never said one word about it. She's the mother (temporary custodial parent), they can't throw her in jail. Things have improved a little in the last six weeks - I get my first overnight visitation this Saturday. The one thing that I have left out in the telling of these events that is conspicuous is this: This has been the most emotionally trying, devastating experience in my life. It is in some ways worse than the death of a loved one - it lingers, it goes on, there are new injustices every few weeks. It seems she can literally get away with murder - the court does not give one fat rat's ass about my feelings or the damage that they are doing to the relationship that I had with my sons. And the very last thing on anyone's mind is the cost - emotional and financial. She's being bankrolled by her parents and my child support payments - she's got enough, so everything is fine. On December 1st, three days after Thanksgiving and three days after I turned 29, I wrote a letter to my ex2b. It reads just like a suicide note. In it I state things like: I have never hurt like this before. It is a terrible, knife-like pain that envelopes my whole being. I am dying. "The only difference between alimony and child support is that alimony is tax deductible." -- a man who killed himself after his wife filed charges against him for spanking his children The quote is real. It is a statement made in one of these forums by a man named Allen Wells. His wife destroyed him as part of their divorce. He had to pay $1356 per month child support and was not allowed to see his children. He took his life. How much do his children get now? I've had terrible dreams and terrible thoughts. I had a dream in which I wired a shotgun to her head and terrorized her for hours - then ended it all. I woke up crying - crying like a baby. I cried for probably 30 minutes. The things the subconscious mind will do while we sleep.... These images - conscious images - pop into my head. Terrible images. I suppress them and try to think clearer thoughts immediately. It works. I can change the subject in my mind. I don't often have these kinds of thoughts - they usually creep up in reaction to some new bit of injustice that I have been dealt. But they happen. I've thought, independently, most of the thoughts that I've seen expressed here: about blowing my brains out on the floor of the legislature, of throwing down a rug in front of the courthouse and starving myself until something is done to change the mess. Then I thought how it wouldn't work. They would just get my ex and two psychologists to say, "He's nuts (anyone sitting on a blanket in front of a courthouse must be deranged)" and out would come the straight jacket and I would probably never get to see my kids. Gandhi didn't have to deal with modern American psychology. The pain is unreal. It hurts very deeply - deeper than I could have imagined. My ex2b told me at a mediation meeting last Friday that I was so emotional. It is that evident. She said that in reaction to watching me during the mediation. I wasn't watching her - I seated myself so I couldn't see her - just in front of her. She got to watch the tears form in my eyes as the guardian talked about how, if we couldn't find a way to be good parents to our two sons, how if they had to witness two people fighting all the time in front of them, our kids were going to turn out to be two of the shittiest people that ever walked the earth. Our parents weren't so hot at their roles, but they didn't put us through the garbage that we are putting them through. My eyes filled with tears again when the guardian talked of how we had both expressed to him separately how deeply we had been in love at first, how we were soul mates, how we had spent every waking and sleeping hour together for almost two years, how we had loved probably more in that time than most people do in a lifetime, how the hottest flames burn out the quickest. My ex2b can at least tell that I have been wounded. But she will never know how badly. Saturday, I went to see an old friend. He is unique among my friends. He didn't even graduate from high school. Most of my friends have advanced degrees. This man lives a couple of blocks away from my mother's old house - the house I grew up in. It was boring Saturday night, there was nothing to do, I knew this man would be home (his wife works Saturday nights and he watches the kids). It was late when I went to his house - almost 11:00pm. I helped him wire two speaker banks to his stereo TV and run the audio of his VCR through his stereo (this guy owns six huge speakers). He and his wife together make less than half what I make, yet I was always amazed at how they always seemed to have more stuff than my ex2b and I. I couldn't understand it, motorcycles, cars, two kids, a house, stereo, VCRs, stereo TV, six huge speakers, Nintendo, toys everywhere, camping equipment. They are not even close to well-off, yet they worked together to save money and buy the things they wanted. They worked off-setting hours so they wouldn't have to pay for babysitters. They are both equal parents and bread-winners. Anyway, I helped him do some things around the house. Then I remembered that I had one of my books out in the car. It is the *System Administration Guide* for the operating system that manages AT&T's long-distance network. It is almost 1000 pages long. I wrote it and phototypeset it - first in troff, then converted it to FrameMaker and in the process helped to create and define AT&T's Multiweight Design (look and feel) template for FrameMaker and helped create a filter to convert troff mm documents to this template design in FrameMaker. It was one of the first two books in AT&T to be converted this way. The book is amazing - even to me. It describes how to fine-tune one of the most complicated software systems ever written. It describes how to keep the hardware up and running - millions and millions of dollars worth of hardware. The project is an AT&T showpiece. There was a PBS special on last week that described it in some detail. And I (with the help of 69 developers, 15 system engineers, system administrators and operators) wrote the book that tells how to keep it up and running - running at peak performance levels - running all the time. It is one of several books that I am working on - but to me, its "The" book. It's my crowning achievement. I asked him if I had ever showed it to him before. He said, "No." I asked if he wanted to see it - I've known him 13 years, maybe he would be interested in what I have been doing for the last two. He said, "Sure." I went out and got it. He looked through it for about 20 minutes - asking me if I had drawn the pictures, trying to get a feel for what it was describing, some high-level overview. I gave him the highest-level overview - the one I just gave you. All he could say was, "Incredible." He finally handed it back to me. I leafed through it and sat there thinking for a minute. Finally I said as my voice cracked and the tears started running down my face, "I can write this, I can write one of the most comprehensive books ever written, but I'm not a good enough person to have a relationship with my children. I read books written by the most intelligent authors that I can find. I've read probably 15 Nobel Prize winners and as many Pulitzer Prize winning books. I know how things work - complicated things and things that seem simple but most people don't know - like why the sky is blue. I know! I know high-level philosophy. I know calculus, I know chemistry. I know psychology. I can teach my children so many things about the world, I could help to insure that they would be very positive and contributing members of society, but my wife has convinced everyone that I'm some terrible monster - a monster who doesn't deserve to have a relationship with his two sons. All she has to do is say it, the court buys it and I'm screwed. She's a mother looking out for her children, and I'm just another fucking deadbeat dad - an abusive deadbeat dad!" I closed the book and got up and left - going back to my mother's house. I didn't want him to see me crying any longer. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Tue May 19 20:20:52 1992 Xref: news-server.csri.toronto.edu soc.men:47696 soc.women:51780 misc.kids:47967 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids Path: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Skeptical of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations made during Divorces? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 06:45:19 GMT Message-ID: <1992May19.064519.3866@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 259 When I was 17 I worked on a huge corporate farm in rural Indiana. The farm cultivated over 10,000 acres - mostly seed corn and soybeans. Every summer they had a "baling crew" - a group of young, strong men who baled hay and straw almost exclusively. There were usually about 20 young men in the crew. When I was 17, I got picked (the farm employed over 1,000 people during the summer - detasseling and rogueing corn, baling hay, planting, working in their factory). The baling job was probably the hardest but there was minimal supervision (as opposed to all the other jobs they had) and every once in a while, free dinner and paid overtime. One day I was working in a barn with 6 other guys - unloading straw from hay wagons and putting it in the loft. I was on the wagon, throwing bales up into the loft where it was stacked. I was on top of a fully loaded wagon. It was towards the end of the day, I was dehydrated and exhausted. Evidently, I was not thinking very clearly. There is a standard procedure for unloading such a wagon. You start taking off the bales on top at either end, working your way to the middle of the wagon, then start on the next level. There is a reason for this - it is the only logical way to unload the wagon, the bales on the end have only one bale beside them - holding them in place, and you are about 15 feet up in the air standing on stuff that is just not very stable. In my dehydrated state, I stood on the end bale and reached down and grabbed the second bale in from the end by the baling twine (it was being held in palce by the end bale and the 3rd bale). I pulled straight up on it - pretty hard. It was stuck. I pulled again, very hard this time. The twine broke and the momentum (potential energy) of my motion caused me to just go flying backwards. I landed on the tongue of the wagon which was still attached to the tractor. I hit it squarely and solidly - right in the middle of my ribs on my side. I was very fortunate. I landed on the part of my body that most resembles a balloon. Needless to say, the balloon deflated. As I lay there, it was immediately apparent that I had no air. I tried to make a sound, but there was nothing to make a sound with. I fought furiously for air. It probably took almost 30 seconds before I could relax my diaphram enough to take the first breath. By that time, my face was ashen, my lips were blue, and the other guys in the barn were thinking I was seriously hurt. After several breaths, they witnessed a remarkable recovery. I was back to work (in the loft this time) after we all took a break of about 5 minutes (refueling, rehydration). Last Saturday I had a scheduled appointment with my Guardian Ad Litem and my ex-wife2b. We were to put in place a new visitation schedule for me and discuss shared parenting as a final resolution for our custody dispute. I was there at 9:45 am. The meeting was to start at 10:00 am. At about 10 after 10, the lawyer's secretary tried to get in touch with him to see where he was. She tried for over an hour with no luck. My ex2b did not show. At 11:15 the guardian shows up, sees me in his waiting room and makes some statement like, "Didn't anyone tell you this was cancelled?" Then he told me that he wanted to talk to me for a few minutes. I went into his office. He told me that my ex2b had called him last Monday and again on Wednesday and had alleged that I had sexually molested my two sons. I said, "Oh, God!" and the air just left my lungs. It wasn't exactly like falling off the wagon, but, in retrospect, I am glad I was sitting down. Now, those of you who have followed my divorce know that it has been crazy and stupid and that I have had to deal with a long series of allegations on her part. Everyone involved in this case from the third-party perspective has been telling me that this allegation would be next. Her personality profile is such that she will just continue to escalate the allegations as long as the court tolerates them and as long as they keep me on the defensive and away from my children. Two psychologists involved in this case, my attorney, many folks in these groups, men in the local father's rights group, people at work, and my family have all told me that this would be next. That's why I have been concerned with and have addressed the topic of false allegations of abuse against children made during divorce custody disputes. It was something that I anticipated. And now it is here. The guardian went on to tell me that he thinks that my ex2b is a terrible liar. He has wanted me to have joint physical and legal custody since the first time I met and talked with him. He had clearly expressed that at the mediation session the previous week to both my ex2b and me. My ex2b was starting to believe that I was going to get shared parenting and decided to go back on the offensive. The guardian told me that there were only two possibilities about these latest allegations - either I was a sick fuck who was purposely doing everything to destroy myself, or that she was a liar who would stoop to anything to win this custody dispute. He told me that he tended very strongly to believe that latter. But he also told me that he had told my ex2b to take the children to Children's Hospital to have them interviewed and interogated by the doctors there. He stated that he was going to reserve judgement until he got their report, but if they were as skeptical as he was, he was going to go to the court and insist that I get sole custody of my children. But I have this looming doubt - why didn't anyone contact me and tell me what was going on - even just informing me that the mediation session had been cancelled. Why wasn't I informed of these latest allegations until Saturday - when she made them kind of on Monday, then emphatically on Wednesday? Why wasn't my attorney informed? I told him that my attorney was going to go apeshit when she heard this. I told her later that day. In fact, this is how I told her. I asked her, "What hasn't Andrea alleged against me in this case, yet?" She said, "Being a drunk?" "No." "Being a druggie?" I said, "No, she is alleging that I sexually molested the boys." She asked, "Are you willing to take a lie-detector test (although, being a defense attorney, you can imagine what my opinion of them is)?" I said, "Yes, anytime." Then she said, "You know, don't you, that making false sexual abuse allegations is a prosecutable offense?" I talked to her last night and this morning again. She told me that she has talked to the doctors that conducted the interviews and investigation of my ex2b's allegations. The doctors got NO CONFIRMATION of any of my ex2b's allegations from the children. They have no reason to believe that any of her statements are true, and given the circumstances, think that my ex2b is lying. Tomorrow my attorney and I are filing for an emergency hearing for an immediate change of custody. I am also seriously debating filing charges against her for making false allegations. Her behavior was predicted - predicted as a determining factor for which one of us was lying - they knew if she escalated the allegations as it became apparent to everyone involved that I was going to get shared parenting - that probably all her unproveable allegations were false and that she would say and maybe even do anything to obtain sole custody. There are so many allegations of sexual abuse of children made by mothers against fathers during divorces that the courts and psychologists have a standard name for this tactic - the "Atom Bomb" strategy. Typically it takes a father up to a year and thousands and thousands of dollars to prove that the allegations are false and all during that time the mother is the primary (sole) caretaker. Because it is almost impossible to prove that the allegations are totally false, the father can, at best, maybe get visitation rights to see his children restored. Hardly ever does a father get custody after such allegations are made. Many fathers just give up and leave. They don't have the money or the wherewithall to fight the allegations. Many can't stand the embarrassment and social condemnation of just being accused of sexually abusing their children. Amazingly, if the children are daughters, society tends to believe the allegations are true until proven otherwise - despite lack of evidence (see information on the Greg and Kathy Swan case in Washington state - they have been in prison for 7 years - and they were railroaded and setup by the child social welfare system and the courts). It is a very powerful tactic. It probably accomplishes the desired goal - of completely alienating and socially ostrasizing the father of the children - the vast majority of times that these mothers go nuclear. Hardly ever does the bomb blow up in their faces. But the courts have seen so many of these things that they have started looking for signs of cases in which these allegations might crop up. My divorce was typical of the pattern - abuse allegations that could not be proven at the beginning of the divorce, child abuse allegations (physical) with charges even filed for spanking my children five months into the divorce, a period of no access to the children (a temporary victory for her) during which I have had to fight the abuse charges and fight for rights to see my children and to try and resolve the custody dispute. Finally, it looked to everyone like, despite her allegations, I was going to get shared parenting and at least, standard visitation. Everyone involved stated that her next set of allegations would be sexual in nature. The court had been instructed by my attorney to anticipate sexual abuse allegations in this case. And sure enough, she made the allegations. I have the option of filing a tort against her for damages. I think I am going to let the attorneys and psychologists point me in the right direction on what we should do next. I'll probably put a tort off until after the next custoday trial is completed. I might not ever file for damages - it is rare that it is even worth the effort. This has been a long, terrible, and painful affair. Now it looks to me like she has shot herself in the foot. I was worried at first - primarily because I don't trust the social services industry and those poorly paid, overworked employees that are predisposed to find guilt when there is none. Luckily, the guardian insisted that she take the children to the experts - the doctors and not the social workers. I assume that the guardian will follow through with his statements and recommend that I get sole custody, but he might come back with something like, "just because the allegations were completely unsubstantiated, and just because everyone involved understood that if she was lying from the get-go that she would make these allegations next, that doesn't mean that you didn't do what she alleges." Just because her behavior was predicted, that doesn't mean that we can prove conclusively that she was lying - the kids are too young - 3 and 4. And there is still that "tender years" bias in place. Who knows what the guardian will finally decide to do? Then, who knows what the court will do? I have virtually no faith in the system - they have done so little to foster any amount of faith in the last year that I am still on "E". This system sucks and there is no question of that in my mind. However, I am still in the system and I have to try my hardest to get a fair decision. Well, I wonder if anyone out there knows what other options I have available to me? What do I need to do at this point? I know I have a good attorney and I am sure that all the professionals involved in this divorce are now on my side, but getting the court to make a radical decision such as completely giving me sole custody will still be difficult. They hate making decisions down there in domestic relations court - in spite of her predicted behavior, the lack of evidence of her allegations - all of them - and strong recommendations made by professionals. Besides, my ex2b will probably just radically escalate the allegations and fight very hard in court to prove that I am unfit. We are definitely looking at a trial. You don't really think that she is going to throw in the towel at this point, do you? So, any advice out there in netland? Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM P.S. The personality profile for mothers making these false allegations of abuse during divorces is pretty well laid out and understood by psychologists. 1) boderline personality, 2) hard time keeping jobs (liars get fired a lot), 3) abuse as a child likely, 4) product of dysfunctional home, 5) allegations of domestic violence against spouse and portrayal of self as victim of male oppressor, 6) violent and quick temper (the guardian has now seen her temper), 7) allegations of abuse against the children by male oppressor, 8) portrayal of herself as "caring, nurturer" who is only concerned about the welfare of the children - presents self as saintly co-dependent who finally broke free from co-dependency and abusive spouse, 9) allegations of terrible character of male oppressor, 10) allegations of sexual molestation of sexual abuse of children. What is next in the predictable behavior pattern? If I get sole custody, the personality profile predicts that she will try to interfere with custody and make many more allegations of abuse - pretty much every time she gets to see the kids. It is also predicted that I will have Children's Protective Services at my house many times - until they get tired of her crying, "Wolf!" And, if she has to pay child support, the personality profile predicts that she will either: 1) leave to avoid payments and have nothing to do with kids, then will show up again maybe a year later with a whole new game plan or just never come back, or 2) that she will attempt to kidnap the children and take them out of the country, or she will go underground with them. This could be what I have to look forward to - it is the predictable behavior based on everything she has done so far. Folks, I need to know everything .... What all should I be doing? I would greatly appreciate your input. From soc.men Fri May 22 10:37:01 1992 Xref: news-server.csri.toronto.edu soc.men:47824 soc.women:51922 misc.kids:48230 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids Path: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Re: Skeptical of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations made during Divorces? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Distribution: na Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 00:52:57 GMT Message-ID: <1992May22.005257.24693@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> References: <1992May19.064519.3866@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <1992May21.170904.24357@cbfsb.cb.att.com> Lines: 194 In article <1992May21.170904.24357@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mark@cbfsa.att.com (Mark Horton) writes: >In article <1992May19.064519.3866@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes: > >Aaron - you sound much better than you did when you called Saturday. Yes, last Saturday I was pretty shocked. I was calling everybody - "somebody, please answer the phone." I'm really glad you were home. >Glad things are looking better for you! >>I talked to her last night and this morning again. She told me that >>she has talked to the doctors that conducted the interviews and >>investigation of my ex2b's allegations. The doctors got NO >>CONFIRMATION of any of my ex2b's allegations from the children. They >>have no reason to believe that any of her statements are true, and >>given the circumstances, think that my ex2b is lying. > >Wonderful news! Glad to hear the GAL is in your court! > Yes, she even contacted the police. When I told the Guardian, he told me that he was going to call her and tell her that he was very upset with her actions and that he was going to recommend that I get sole custody. That's what he told me. Is that just giving her fair warning so she can skip with the kids? Why would he want to call her and tell her in advance that he was going to recommend that I get sole custody? >>Tomorrow my attorney and I are filing for an emergency hearing for an >>immediate change of custody. I am also seriously debating filing >>charges against her for making false allegations. Her behavior was >>predicted - predicted as a determining factor for which one of us was >>lying - they knew if she escalated the allegations as it became apparent >>to everyone involved that I was going to get shared parenting - that >>probably all her unproveable allegations were false and that she would >>say and maybe even do anything to obtain sole custody. > >I'd ask how it went, but I don't really expect our courts to grant an >emergency hearing for anything. They wouldn't grant one to save Ohio >$6 million to avoid an extra primary election, they wouldn't grant one >to the World Wildlife Federation to prevent Pandas from coming to the >Columbus Zoo, they wouldn't grant one to me to get permission to accept >a wonderful job offer while the offer was available. (My own case has >been continued for at least 2 months and psychologicals and a GAL and >a CPS investigation ordered - my ex has filed for custody as a stalling >tactic. Also predicted and expected, but the referee is still making me >stay here and not take the job.) I imagine it will be months before any >court will consider changing custody in your case. > I don't know how, or why, but I got an *emergency* hearing scheduled for June 3rd. Of course when my attorney contacted her attorney and told him the date, he had a conflict. But my attorney was too shrewd for that. She called first as a prospective client who could only meet with her attorney on June 3rd. His secretary told my attorney that he had an adoption at 10:00 am, but that would be over by noon - he was free all afternoon. Then my attorney called back and told him the court date was June 3rd. When he balked, she told him that she had just set up an appointment with him on the afternoon of June 3rd - that his secretary had told her that he was free all afternoon. So she told him that we will see them on the afternoon of June 3rd and hung up. >>Besides, my ex2b will probably just radically escalate the allegations >>and fight very hard in court to prove that I am unfit. We are >>definitely looking at a trial. You don't really think that she is going >>to throw in the towel at this point, do you? >> >>So, any advice out there in netland? > >Hmm. If you want a quick change of custody, you might consider: > >(1) Get CPS to change custody. They are the only ones who can do it >quickly. If the GAL pushes for this they might do it. > This might be a good option, I'll tell my attorney about it. >(2) If that fails, get a Temporary Restraining Order requiring her to >remain in the area or something. If she does skip you might have >grounds for an immediate custody change. That doesn't keep your kids >where they can see you, but it does give you grounds to go after her, >and stops the drain of huge amounts of child support. > Need that too. >>P.S. The personality profile for mothers making these false >>allegations of abuse during divorces is pretty well laid out and >>understood by psychologists. > >Do you have references on this list? Seems like a strange list to me. I'll try to get a copy of the complete list. Actually, there were 20 items on the list. My psychologist read the list to me in his office and told me to make note of how much my ex2b fit the profile. Except for the sexual abuse allegations, kidnapping the kids and making threats of serious violence - well, she was 17 for 20. Now she is 18 for 20. > >1) boderline personality, > >What does this mean? It is pretty generic. It basically means "messed up," but capable of living a normal life if the person really wants to, or if the person gets help, medical or psychological - whatever applies. I'm not sure of the origin of the "term." The way the Minnesota MultiPhasic Inventory (I can't recall if I have that right - MMPI1 and MMPI2) is scored, and the way many psychological batteries are scored, there is a cutoff line that means "the end of the range that is considered normal." If you have a lot of scores that are near or around the "end of normal" line, then you are borderline. >>2) hard time keeping jobs (liars get fired a lot), >Sounds like my ex. > >>3) abuse as a child likely, >OK > >4) product of dysfunctional home, >OK >>5) allegations of domestic violence against spouse and portrayal of self > as victim of male oppressor, > >This is standard for any woman in a divorce - her lawyer claims this. For a lot of women who like the "victim" role. Playing the victim can be quite successful. Little girls can learn this at a very young age. When they become women, they still have it to fall back on. A lot of them resort to it. Of course, that doesn't mean that women are not victims, many are. But many like thinking of themselves as victims. They get things for being victims - sympathy and support among others. >6) violent and quick temper (the guardian has now seen her temper), >OK Aggressive posturing - rolling-pin stuff. They feel they can get away with it because they are victims. The man deserved it. He had it coming. >>7) allegations of abuse against the children by male oppressor, >Standard during divorce > >>8) portrayal of herself as "caring, nurturer" who is only concerned about >> the welfare of the children - presents self as saintly co-dependent who >> finally broke free from co-dependency and abusive spouse, >Standard during divorce >>9) allegations of terrible character of male oppressor, > >Standard during divorce >>10) allegations of sexual molestation of sexual abuse of children. > >This tells me my ex is part way there. She makes lots of allegations, >but they are all mickey mouse and meaningless. I think my ex actually >believes most of her allegations - if she were going to go Atom Bomb >she would have already done it. I wish I could remember all 20 items on the list. Alcoholism or excessive drinking was on the list - either by the person in question or by some immediate family member. Drug use was on the list. I can see now that this list will be very valuable in court. >>What is next in the predictable behavior pattern? If I get sole >>custody, the personality profile predicts that she will try to >>interfere with custody and make many more allegations of abuse - pretty >>much every time she gets to see the kids. It is also predicted that I >>will have Children's Protective Services at my house many times - until >>they get tired of her crying, "Wolf!" > >Get CPS to change custody if they see the pattern. > >>And, if she has to pay child >>support, the personality profile predicts that she will either: 1) >>leave to avoid payments and have nothing to do with kids, then will >>show up again maybe a year later with a whole new game plan or just >>never come back, > >There are more subtle forms of this, such as quitting her job (she's a >liar, right? Unstable employment) and taking a lower paying job long >enough to get the payment reduced. > >>or 2) that she will attempt to kidnap the children >>and take them out of the country, or she will go underground with them. > >Let's hope she doesn't go this far. > > Mark Let's hope. The Guardian has given her plenty of warning though. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Fri May 29 11:32:57 1992 Xref: news-server.csri.toronto.edu soc.men:48292 soc.women:52232 misc.kids:48617 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids Path: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsm!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Presumed Guilty Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 06:44:35 GMT Message-ID: <1992May28.064435.10932@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 692 PRESUMED GUILTY The charge of sexual abuse of children is the dirtiest, deadliest trick in divorce court.... by Harry Stein More than three years ago in what he describes as an "unimaginable ordeal," Tom Anson (some names and places have been changed to protect people involved in this story) decided to go public. Against the advice of his lawyer and almost everyone else who wished him well, he began writing letters. He wrote the heads of network news divisions, as well as producers and correspondents on individual shows. He wrote the ACLU and other organizations concerned with civil liberties. He wrote the student-body presidents of more than 100 colleges. He wrote local politicians and state officials, along with Congressmen and Senators in Washington, D.C. In reply, there was mainly silence. The sole word of encouragement was a handwritten note from a woman who had received a copy of the open letter Anson handed out at shopping malls. She urged him to have faith, noting that her husband had gone through the same thing and had eventually been vindicated. The few other replies were perfunctory and dismissive. Not that Anson, a soft-spoken administrator, was surprised. "I had learned by then," he says, "that not too many people want to be associated with a guy accused of sexually molesting his kids." * * * Dr. Richard Gardner, clinical professor of child psychiatry at Columbia University and one of the country's leading experts in the field of child sexual abuse, has never heard of Anson or his case, but he is familiar with how people react to such charges. He is so aware, in fact, that he prefaces his own views on the subject with a careful disclaimer: "Anyone who knows me at all," he says, "knows I've verified many bona fide cases of child sex abuse. It is a heinous crime and I've always tried to make sure that those who commit it get everything they deserve." Dr. Gardner pauses. "I also want to make it clear - and this is apparent in the way my daughters were raised - that my sympathy for women's rights is complete and deep." He stops again, glancing briefly about the busy restaurant where our talk is taking place. "Here's the problem: We've reached the point in this issue where an accusation is tantamount to a conviction. Thousands of lives are being ruined in this country by baseless charges. What we're seeing now is a repeat of the Salem witch trials." The Salem analogy is not haphazardly chosen. Gardner not only uses it in the subtitle of his recent book on the subject, _Sex Abuse Hysteria_, but it turns up with surprising frequency in conversations with mental-health workers, defense lawyers and even journalists identified with the "wrong" side of this volatile issue. Indeed, many of these professionals say that, having been drawn into what they initially believed would be a neutral process aimed at discovering truth, they now view it as one where the accused is routinely denied the most basic protections of law. Those who dare point out that fact are themselves subject to vilification. One lawyer in Kentucky, working his first sex-abuse case, remembers the repeated challenges hurled at him: "People ask me, `How can you justify defending a guy like that?' Only usually they don't put it that politely." "The attitude," notes Kim Hart of Ohio-based National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center, which works on behalf of those it believes to have been falsely accused, "Is that God and right and the Star-Spangled Banner are always with those who make the accusations - they are defending children. Those who ask the hard questions are pro-molestation monsters." There are two basic assumptions about child abuse in America: that in recent years it has taken on epidemic proportions and that, overburdened as they are, the welfare and judicial systems are society's last, best defense against such abuse. These ideas are so routinely affirmed in the popular press that most of us accept them as facts. According to the _Magazine Article Summaries_ index, 317 articles on the subject appeared in the 12-month period beginning September 1990. Many bear scare headlines, but only a few deal with the rights of the accused. For an example of the typical press coverage, look at the treatment given to Roseanne Arnold when she announced childhood memories of being abused by her parents. Even those publications that were once critical of the comic now saw fit to embrace her new charges, which were vehemently denied by her parents. Nevertheless, they used her accusation as a high-profile spin on what has become a familiar syndrome. _Newsweek's_ piece, headlined *The Pain of the Last Taboo*, opined, "In 1986, all of the nation's child protection agencies recorded 83,000 complaints against people responsible for the child's welfare. By 1990, the number had leapt to 375,000." _Time's_ coverage, entitled *Incest Comes Out of the Dark*, noted that "during the past decade, the definition of incest has been broadened to include fondling, rubbing one's genitals against a child, and excessive or suggestive washing of a youngster's pubic area, among other sexual behaviors," and included a first-person sidebar by one of the magazine's reporters recounting precisely such abuse at the hands of her mother. As I began researching this piece, my own presumption was the usual one: that, with accusations of this kind, smoke almost always means fire. It seems inconceivable, after all, that such heinous charges might be leveled without strong supporting evidence, or that those investigating and prosecuting those charged would ever be less than doggedly scrupulous. Virtually every researcher and mental health professional now uncomfortable with the existing system started out believing the same thing. Psychologists Karol Ross and Gordon Blush recall being confused in the mid-Eighties by the sudden increase in sex-abuse charges they were asked to evaluate by a court-connected clinic. In June 1987, they produced a scholarly paper, based on the study of 24 cases, designed to address the reasons for that increase. Entitled _Sexual Allegations in Divorce_, it presented profiles of situations where such charges are most likely to arise - and offered methods of evaluating the likelihood of their being valid. "Our approach was rigorously neutral," Ross says. "All we were saying is, `Let's be rational about this, let's not get hysterical and assume every charge is automatically valid.' I can't tell you how stunned we were when we'd do seminars and people would boo and walk out." More than anything else, the hostile reactions were prompted by Ross and Blush's conclusion that in such situations the word of the children is not necessarily to be taken at face value. "People said, `Children DON'T lie about these things,'" says Ross. "But in a messy divorce situation, with competing family politics and two- and three-year-olds who are being reinforced by an angry parent, we found that what the child had to say was often the least reliable thing." Although they are quick to caution that it is hard to deal in certainties, Ross and Blush say that many of the charges they are called upon to evaluate are false. Interestingly, their claim is supported by official figures. As Douglas J. Besharov, a former prosecutor and founding director of the U.S. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, points out, a recent four-year period saw the number of abuse reports in New York rise by more than 22,000, but the "absolute number of substantiated reports actually fell by about 100." One reason for the dramatic rise in reports of child maltreatment is the passage of the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, which financially rewards those states that broaden their laws on the reporting of child abuse. What is seldom noted is the the number of provably unfounded reports of child abuse has also risen at essentially the same rate as bona fide reports. Moreover, the closer one looks at these cases, the more one begins to see vital distinctions. One major group of abuse cases comes from apparently functional families. Typically, it is a case in which the father or another close relative abuses a daughter, often with the acquiescence of the mother, who acts out of some misguided sense of family preservation, or because she, too, is in the thrall of the abuser. There is no reason to doubt that this sad scenario is played out any less frequently today than in the past. The most readily documentable cases of child sexual abuse, based on physical evidence and credible testimony, remain those involving intrafamily situations where the union is being preserved, rather than in families broken by divorce of desertion. By contrast, according to some experts in the field, two categories of accusation should be approached with skepticism: those involving day-care centers and those that arise in the midst of angry custody battles. The sensational day-care cases - McMartin in California, for instance, and the one involving the Little Rascals facility in Edenton, North Carolina (so vividly documented on the PBS show _Frontline_) - are cases in point. "You have to start with the matter of probability," says Gardner. "What every one of these cases has in common is that no adult observer has actually seen a molestation in progress. Supposedly, these abuses are going on continually over a period of months. Almost always, they supposedly involve a number of adults and many children, with outsiders constantly walking in and out of these centers. Yet, we have NO corroborating eyewitnesses. None." He pauses. "Throughout it all, these children somehow always come home in the right shoes and socks and underpants. Do you have kids? Do you realize how hard it is to dress two kids in a hurry without some kind of a mix-up, let alone ten or twelve or twenty kids?" Gardner vigorously argues that the methods used by social welfare agencies and prosecutors to investigate such charges are often so flawed - and so contaminated by the predisposition to find wrongdoing - as to be utterly worthless. Those same methods are routinely brought to bear in allegations of abuse that arise during child-custody battles, an area where any accusations aimed by one of the feuding parties ought to be seriously questioned. Again, there are many such charges that prove valid - harrowingly so. The problem is, in many cases, that the accused men (it is almost always men who are accused) tend to find themselves presumed guilty from the moment the charges are leveled. "Simply in legal terms," says Dr. Melvin Guyer, a University of Michigan psychology professor who is also a practicing lawyer, "an accusation of child abuse is close to an ultimate weapon. It ends the custody battle. Even if the guy is eventually exonerated, by the time the social workers and courts have sorted it out, the custody question is moot." There are a number of reasons for that. Government agencies are concerned, above all, with protecting themselves. In the current atmosphere, those charged with defending children are inclined to be overly cautious. Nor does the current wisdom in such circles, with its blind faith in the word of accusers and in small children, tend to engender concern for the rights of the accused. "I don't think there's much active malice," says Lee Coleman, a child psychiatrist who has studied tapes of over 900 hours of interviews with small children conducted by case workers and psychologists involved in abuse cases. "Most of them honestly believe - that if you care about children, it is your job to reach a finding that the child has been abused." Then, too, some social welfare agencies hardly bring an objective world-view to the task. "This is a field that tends to attract people with a strong feminist bias," says Hart. "So what you basically find is women who don't like or trust men in a position of absolute power over men." "For a lot of these people," adds a lawyer who has handled two dozen such cases for both accusers and accused, "`Believe the children' is just code. What they really mean in an angry divorce is `Believe the woman, no questions asked.'" "The irony," says Guyer, "is that the guys who get hit the hardest are those who have been most involved as caretakers. They're the ones who are interested in the custody of their children in the first place. Suddenly, that nurturing behavior is misrepresented and turned against them." * * * Tom Anson vividly recalls his lawyer's words over the phone: "You're not going to believe what she's done now." True enough, the separation had been messy business, and the divorce negotiations were even messier. The issue was money, but, of course, the bitterness had deep roots. In reflecting on the marriage now, Anson continually returns to his ex-wife's drinking and what he sees as her uncanny capacity for denial. He says she suffered such violent d.t.'s that she had to be hospitalized. Shortly after they were married, she went through a rehab program and stopped drinking for a while. In the following two years, 1981 and 1982, their daughter and son were born. But when he became convinced she was drinking again and urged her to seek treatment, she was outraged. "She accused me of imagining it," he says. "She accused me of having some kind of vague, malicious motives." He pauses. "After you've been through something like that once, you know you're not imagining it. Finally I gave up. I signed up for a program designed to help spouses of alcoholics." The tension over the issue escalated until Anson moved out and initiated divorce proceedings. It is easy to imagine his wife's feelings when she learned that he would be seeking custody of their children, then three and four. (Anson claims he was aware that fathers are virtually never awarded custody. He was merely going through the motions so he could later demonstrate to the children that he had at least tried.) At this point, says Anson, he imagined that he and his estranged wife had the kid's interest at heart. His weekend visitation arrangement seemed to be going smoothly. Which is why, he says, he gave her his permission to send them to her mother's house in California for a visit to Disneyland. He says he would never had conceived that the children would return three weeks later, having never visited Disneyland, supposedly claiming that their father liked to play "dirty licking games" with them. Charged with sexual assault, Anson wouldn't see his children again for more than four years. Anson recalled a couple of past episodes that suddenly loomed as meaningful. He remembered his ex-wife's story, told with great emotion, of the night when her father sat on her bed and explained to her that he was leaving home. But she should stop crying, he consoled her, he would never stop being there for her. She didn't hear from him again for more than a decade. Anson also remembered the day when his wife was desperately ill in the hospital and he picked up his mother-in-law at the airport. "All she'd talk about the whole way to the hospital was how everything bad that had happened was the fault of my wife's father. Twenty years and several husbands later, and my mother-in-law was so bitter you'd think they'd been divorced yesterday." * * * It is striking how uncannily similar most of these cases tend to be. The accusation invariably arises at a pivotal moment in the custody battle. Almost always, the system responds to it in the same way: by clamping down first and asking questions later, if at all. Moreover, the accusers also tend to have a great deal in common. Researchers Ross and Blush have come up with a personality profile of the characteristic "presenting female" in such cases: * Typically, she has an unresolved relationship with her father. It is even possible that she was herself abused as a child (or imagines she was) and thus tends to project that abuse onto the current situation. * She is prone to exaggerating and distorting reality. * When her version of events is credibly challenged, she will often seek to alter the terms of the argument. In some cases arising from custody battles, for example, she will move out of state. "I've had cases," adds the University of Michigan's Guyer, "where I've examined the children and found no sign of abuse, and instead of being relieved, the mother is furious. It's like telling someone with headaches that they are not caused by a tumor. She refuses to accept it as good news." Dr. Ralph Underwager of the Institute for Psychological Therapies in Northfield, Minnesota, has been researching child sex abuse since the early Fifties. He puts the case in even starker terms. In 1990, Dr. Underwager presented a paper to the American Psychological Association in which he reported in a sample of close to 100 custody battles where accusations arose. Underwager found that 75 percent of accusers had a "severe personality character disorder." In a control group involving participants in equally bitter custody battles where no sex-abuse allegations were made, "the numbers were exactly reversed," he says. "Only twenty-five percent of the women displayed any psychological disorders. What we have is a system that's a dream for someone with a character disorder. An angry woman can completely ruin someone's life. Not only is she unchallenged, she's considered a heroine." Dr. Daniel Schuman, a Massachusetts based psychiatrist with long experience in evaluating child-abuse cases, is far more measured in his language, but he offers a similar assessment of the means used to judge the accuracy of abuse claims. "In a clinical sense," says Dr. Schuman, "the procedures I've seen employed are by and large completely useless. These are very complex situations, but the emphasis is very much on simple answers. What happens is that people will use tools that appear to be clinical in an effort to reach what are, in fact, predetermined conclusions." Indeed, the title often used by those who evaluate sex-abuse charges - validators - itself suggests the level of objectivity likely to be brought to the task. While these people are usually credible in manner, with a full command of the psychological terminology, they quite often have little training beyond having attended a weekend seminar. Since most states have no formal standards in this area, and every court creates its own definition of an expert witness, virtually anyone can be declared a validator. Validators usually work in close conjunction with the accuser. In the absence of compelling medical evidence of abuse, their investigation tends to be limited to enumerating the mother's charges and observing alleged victims. Here, too, critics question the methodology. "It should be obvious," says Schuman, "that the only way to properly conduct such an evaluation is to look closely at all principals - mother, father and children, and if it's germane, the extended family and social circle." More distressing is the manner in which information is elicited from small children by validators. Even when there is the appearance of honest inquiry, in innumerable ways - both overt and subtle - the search is always for information that will confirm the charges. It can come through leading questions or subjective interpretations of drawings, dreams or modes of play. Validation sometimes comes by choosing to ignore some of the child's comments while stressing others, or by stimulating reaction through the use of grotesque anatomically correct dolls. Cleveland attorney Jay Milano, who has been involved in more than 30 child-abuse cases, refers to it as "voodoo science." "What you have," says Elizabeth Loftus, a University of Washington psychologist who specializes in the study of memory, "is people who are looking for sex abuse bringing up many things, quite literally injecting these ideas into the kids' heads, so that they often find what they are looking for." "Almost always you find the kids are three or four years old," notes Gardner. "The two-year-olds are no good because they can't speak well enough and are totally unreliable in what they do say. The five- and six-year-olds are already old enough to say, `He didn't do that, lady, and nothing you say is going to convince me of it.' But threes and fours are perfect. After they've been worked over by a parent or zealous validator, they can be counted on because they believe it and will testify accordingly." * * * When Tom Anson was summoned to his county office of child protective services, he was ushered into the office of the social worker who had filed the report in response to his ex-wife's complaint. Exactly what was said at the meeting remains at issue. The social worker later testified that Anson tacitly acknowledged the accuracy of the charges. He told her "that he was doing a lot of thinking about it," she said, "wondering if perhaps he did these things and was blocking it out or not realizing it. And he was trying to face the truth, even to himself." According to the court transcript, Anson responded to the social worker's testimony by shouting, "That's a damn lie." "What really happened," he says now, "is that she leveled her charges at me and I adamantly denied them. I told her, `It's not even in my being to do something like that,' She didn't want to hear it. She tossed a piece of paper across the desk - an admission of the charges - and said, "Look, just sign this and we'll arrange for you to start seeing a psychiatrist. After a while you'll be able to see your kids again." If such an exchange seems implausible, there are lawyers experienced in defending such cases who insist it is anything but. "Quite often," as one puts it, "the real object of these charges is to guarantee the woman custody. Her lawyer knows it, even if the woman doesn't. And as soon as she gets custody, the record is expunged and the charges fade away." Anson says he wasn't buying. "How would I ever be able to explain that to my children?" he asks. "I told the social worker, `You can go to hell, lady, I'm not going to admit to something I didn't do. I'll see you in court.'" Thus began a process that would be far more tortuous than Anson ever imagined. "I really thought they would at least make some attempt at getting both sides of the story," he says. "That's how naive I was." Already, the children had been examined by a female psychologist who had been hired by Anson's ex-wife on a private basis and who had ties to the social worker at child protective services. Her evaluation of the case left no room for ambiguity. Her findings indicated far greater abuse then was cited in the original agency report, which alleged that the "perpetrator licks [his daughter's] cheeks, shoulders, chest and puts his tongue in [her] mouth and ears." She had found reason to believe, among other things, that he had molested his three-year-old son "in the anal area, with probable digital penetration," had masturbated on his four-year-old daughter and had her "dress in women's black panties." Later, on the stand, the psychologist explained how she had reached such conclusions. At one point, she noted, the little girl told her that she had a dream about a bee. "She was afraid that he was going to try to take her to the bee house and put honey all over her." Her hypothesis? "It was possible that the sexual activity involved ejaculation." The psychologist also observed that, when asked to draw on an outline of the human body, the child at first moved the pencil in the air "around the genital area," and then colored another part of the picture "as far away from the genital area as you can get." Her hypothesis? "What it suggested . . . was that she had been touched in that part of her body and that she felt anxious about it and she was considering saying it, but chose not to, and she touched these other areas instead." Among the most poignant aspects of the psychologist's testimony came with her belated acknowledgment that early on in the process, the little girl had sought to abandon her story. "She would say no, her father didn't do those things. He loves her in the right way. But in saying those things, she would get very confused. Her denial was with a lot of confusion." Through it all, the psychologist never felt it necessary to talk to Anson, the alleged abuser. Nor was the report from the head of a respected local clinic that confirmed the accuser's likely abuse of alcohol at the time of the allegations deemed admissible as evidence. The children were never examined by independent mental-health professionals. "You're guilty until proved guilty," says Anson now, "and if you're not, you're guilty anyway." Several months after the charges were lodged, Anson was becoming increasingly aware of how long and expensive the struggle was likely to be. He took a second job. "It wasn't hard to figure out," he says, "that part of their strategy was to drag it out in hopes of breaking me." He was fortunate in that his employers fully backed him. Obviously, with sex-abuse charges that is not always the case. He was blessed, too, with a lawyer who was nearly as outraged by the allegations as he was. But, above all, it was Anson's own mettle that was put to the test. After two years away from his children, and after innumerable legal delays and court postponements, Anson finally got a hearing in late 1987 on his claim that the child welfare agency had mishandled his case. Though the result would not be legally binding, he knew he had to win. If the charges were deemed valid, he might face a criminal indictment as well. To judge from the transcript, Anson's attorney relished the opportunity to force the psychologist and social worker to justify their handling of the proceeding. In a devastating commentary on the social worker's attention to detail, he quickly got her to admit that on the official forms, Anson had actually been charged with the wrong offense: incest, instead of sexual assault, the far lesser crime of which he was in fact accused. Then, after quietly cautioning Anson to keep a straight face, the attorney began probing the social worker's relationship with the ex-wife. Then he piped up with the following question: "Did you ever have any oral sex with her while she was in your office?" "The whole place went into an uproar," recalls Anson, grinning. "Of course, the other side immediately objected and we moved on. But, and this was the lawyer's point, for just that instant, they knew how it felt to have a filthy, groundless accusation thrown at them." In the end, the hearing officer's report repudiated all charges of abuse. "The allegations," it concluded, "were contrived to deprive Tom Anson of his parental rights to custody and visitation." But this proved to be a limited victory. The hearing officer's findings carried little weight in the family court still charged with deciding the custody issue. And, in any case, before the report was formally released, Anson's ex-wife had relocated with the children to her mother's home in California. An even greater effort was thus demanded for Anson's battle in family court, which was going on at the same time. He still faced the possibility of criminal action. He knew he had to overcome the court's sympathy for a mother's right to seek the comfort and support of her extended family - his ex-wife's avowed reason for moving to California. So, when a court date was set and his ex-wife was recalled from California, Anson and his attorney produced their big gun, Dr. Lawrence Spiegel. It was likely that no other authority anywhere knew as much about false allegations of child abuse. Dr. Spiegel's recent history had been as disturbing and complex as Anson's. Four years before, the respected clinical psychologist and college instructor had been similarly charged in the midst of a bitter divorce. Arrested and led off in handcuffs, deserted by old friends, finding his career short-circuited and his freedom in jeopardy, Spiegel fought for more than two years before finally being vindicated in a highly publicized jury trial. In the wake of that experience, Spiegel, who had previously given little thought to the child-abuse issue - or, more precisely, had tended toward an uncritical acceptance of the prevailing view - became a specialist in false allegations of child abuse. Spiegel prides himself on an approach that is rigorously neutral and has no hesitation reporting findings of actual abuse. "My own experience notwithstanding, I am a clinician," he says. "It is my role to do clinical evaluations based on the protocols developed to assess these situations. It is not, thank God, my role to judge guilt or innocence." Nonetheless, Spiegel came to regard the experience of Anson as a perfect example of what is wrong with the existing system. Over the course of more than a day of testimony, Spiegel reviewed the case in detail. He paid particular attention to the emotional climate on which the charges were made and closely reviewed the children's videotaped interviews with the validators. He cited studies on the extremely low reliability of dolls, which had been used in the sessions with the Anson children, as tools in validating sexual abuse. Spiegel note that there is a strong tendency "for a child with a doll or a puppet in his hand to assume that this is pretend, because that's what children do with dolls." He described the various "red flag indicators" apt to signal a valid accusation or, just as frequently, a false one. Anson's children evidenced only one of the 13 indicators of abuse, and 12 that pointed to false accusation. The notion that children don't lie about abuse is "pretty much the truth," Spiegel noted, "except that it's the wrong question. Children don't premeditatively lie about sexual abuse unless they are encouraged to make up pretend stories, or if they go through the repetition and reinforcement process where they begin to believe. It's very clear in the literature that a four-year-old cannot distinguish between his internal reality and other people's reality." By the end of Spiegel's bravura performance, it seemed clear that the case was at last close to resolution. (The youth services organization that supported the charges tried to expunge from the record the testimony of the psychologist who had done Anson such harm.) The judge suggested to the lawyers for both parties that a way be found to begin reintegrating the father into his children's lives, and preliminary contacts were made with a local mental-health professional to initiate such a process. That is when Anson's ex-wife succeeded in having jurisdiction transferred to California. * * * Today, things seem at last to be going Anson's way. In early 1990, a judge, after reviewing the case, ordered that he be granted immediate supervised visitation with his children. In August 1991, he left his job and resettled in California, just a few miles from where his daughter and son, now ten and nine, live with their mother. He is able to see them every other weekend. But any sense of resolution is illusory. His condominium is only minimally furnished, the home of a man ripped from the life he has always known. He concedes that he is lonely. He has no friends here. He can see his children only in the daytime and, even then, his visits are closely monitored. "No matter what happens now," he muses, "I can never get back what's been lost." He pauses and looks away. "My dad took ill last year. He was delirious, pleading to see his grandchildren. He kept on for twelve hours, begging me to have his bed put on a plane." He stops. "I couldn't take it. I even had my lawyer offer that I'd go to jail if she'd fly them in to see their grandfather. But he died. It was too late." Through it all, Anson insists that his primary concern has been his children's welfare. It eventually becomes clear that what is hardest for him to accept is his loss of a relationship with his kids. "The first time I saw them," he says, "from a distance they looked so big. My first thought was that it was another trick, that they had been switched on me." After a bit of standoffishness, his little boy has warmed up, some days seeming to cling to him for dear life. But his daughter has remained distant, awkward and guarded, and he hasn't been able to pierce the armor, "It hurts a lot," he says. "Who knows what she's hearing about me? What has it done to them, being around people who may have been abusing them for five years?" Children caught up in such situations, says Underwager, "are taught to be psychotic. They learn to believe that reality has no meaning, that things that didn't happen happened and that the world is full of monstrous people who do unspeakable things." Even a man of Spiegel's experience and training found the process of reestablishing a bond with his child difficult. "What finally saved my daughter," he says, "was coming to understand that there was a safe harbor. She couldn't talk to her mother, but over the years she began to unburden herself to me. It just takes a lot of time. Spiegel will even venture that the ordeal has brought them closer than they otherwise might have been. "She's become the focus of my life," he says. But for Anson, such consolation has been impossible to accept. He has repeatedly been admonished by the caseworkers chaperoning his visits with the children, elderly women with whom he otherwise gets along famously, not to keep bringing up the abuse charges, not to keep making a point to his kids of his innocence. "How can I do that?" he asks plaintively. "What kind of man with any integrity could settle for that?" He stops, shaking his head. In almost any other context, what he says next would ring melodramatic, but its hard to imagine the words being more heartfelt. "I wake up every morning and I wonder, `Is this real? Is this what America has become?'" LOS ENDOS * * * GETTING HELP If you or someone you know has been wrongfully accused of sexually abusing children, we encourage you or the accused to contact one of the agencies listed below. Consult with an agency and an attorney as soon as a charge is leveled. It may spare a great deal of legal, economic and emotional distress later. Kim Hart (who once had my ex-wife2b's attorney for her attorney) National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center P.O. Box 638 Holland, OH 43528 (419) 865-0513 Ken Pangborn Men International 5814 Riddle Road Holiday, FL 34690 (813) 938-7911 National Congress for Men and Children 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 277 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 328-4377 Dr. Lawrence Spiegel 40 Baldwin Road Parsippany, NJ 07054 (201) 334-2420 SOURCE: Cynlobl Zntnmvar, Whar 1992 Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Wed Jun 17 13:43:40 1992 Xref: news-server.csri.toronto.edu alt.dads-rights:27 alt.child-support:3148 soc.women:53056 soc.men:49152 misc.kids:49786 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.women,soc.men,misc.kids Path: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsm!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Still Presumed Guilty: An Update Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 06:41:16 GMT Message-ID: <1992Jun13.064116.16733@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 656 This afternoon, I went to my bank and on the way back to work, decided to grab a sandwich at Rax. I went through the drive-thru. When I got to the speaker, the guy taking the orders came on and said, "Welcome to Rax. What can we get for you on this lovely afternoon?" My reaction was to give him my order, but while doing so, think to myself, "Oh, great, some phony friendliness. That's all I need right now." When I pulled up to get my stuff and pay the man, he was just as cordial. I forget what he said to me, but it was way beyond the customary, "Have a Nice Day!" bullshit. In fact, as I pulled off, he said, "I hope you have a wonderful afternoon" looking me right in the eyes and smiling. I was overcome. I looked back, smiled, and said, "I hope you have one too." His smile just beamed even wider. Why would he do that? Why would he try to spread "good will and kindness?" How can he possibly benefit from going out of his way to be nice to others? Could it be because he gets it back? Of course. He feels good making others feel good. And frankly, I needed it. * * * Almost a month ago, I informed everyone in usenet in about 5 different newsgroups that my ex2b had come up with allegations that I sexually molested my oldest son, Alex (who is four-years-old). She made the allegations four days before we were to have a meeting with a guardian ad litem in which he was going to put together a new schedule and rules that both of us would have to abide by. It would have been the first time in over 8 months that she would have been answerable to anything, and it would have given me standard visitation rights to see my sons. If I did OK with that (and there is no reason to think that I wouldn't), in two months he would have given me more time with the kids, and recommend to the court that I get joint custody. He truly believed that my wife was lying to him, exaggerating about everything, and he felt that I was very honest - in his mind, almost "too" honest. He thought that - because I admitted my feelings to him and because I told him the truth about mistakes I had made. He was also starting to agree with my sentiments that my ex2b was playing Meryl Streep (sp?). In fact, in the mediation session we had with him about 5 weeks ago, she lost her temper, threatened me (yelling at me about the child endangerment charges that she had had filed against me for spanking my sons, that the trial would take place, that I would be found guilty, and that I would go to jail), cried and lied about "everything" possible. She even told the guardian who I had gone out with in February, and what time I had gone home the night before. (Only a fool would assume that she has been having me followed. NOT!) So, she probably left that mediation session thinking that it didn't go well for her. Then, several days later she came up with the allegations that I sexually molested my oldest son.... * * * About 10 days ago we had an emergency hearing for a change of custody, due to her making false allegations of sexual abuse, her persistence in trying to destroy my relationship with my sons, her final bid for sole custody. None of the "experts" investigating this case had completed their investigations nor filed any reports. We were in limbo. My ex had not taken the children to any mental health professionals, even though she had been told to do so as soon as she came forth with the allegations. She had been to Children's Services with my oldest son - twice. We had no reports from anyone. During the process of trying to gather as much information as possible on false allegations of child sexual abuse that arise during custody/visitation disputes, I got in touch with the executive director of the National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center, Kim Hart. In talking to Kim, I found out that her old attorney was my ex2b's present attorney. She said he is an extremely ethical man, but that he would continue to represent his client. More about him later, because he is very interesting.... At that hearing about 10 days ago, we found out that my ex had scheduled an examination/evaluation with Dr. Charles Johnson at Children's Hospital. All three attorneys in this case virtually freaked. The man's reputation is that he is a narcissistic asshole who substantiates everything - I mean everything. He has gone to a few seminars on child sexual abuse, so he considers himself the self-appointed expert of Franklin County. And, of course, Children's Services loves to refer people to him, because he substantiates - and that is exactly what they want. Doctors that don't substantiate, don't get any more referrals from Children's Services. Pretty cut and dry. My attorney made a motion with the court that my ex2b not be allowed to take my son to this doctor, because of his terrible reputation. Instead, the three attorneys in this case would choose one that was more objective - a real expert. The referee in my case, Don Martin, said that he did not have the authority to tell my ex2b what doctor she could take the children to - he had no power in this regard. My attorney corrected him, but to no avail. So, she filed a motion for another emergency hearing to take place this last Monday, to get a court order to have the examination/evaluation videotaped, and to hear testimony on contamination and coaching, and how three- and four-year-olds were especially susceptible to their mother's influences of getting them to lie. Also, at that hearing, because none of the "reports" were in, we asked for visitation - supervised. My ex2b would not agree on the times, so the referee had to "decide/contemplate/think about it for a while." He said he would try to get his decision out as soon as possible. It has been almost 10 days, and I have still not been notified of his "decision." My attorney hadn't either - as of yesterday. I have not seen my children for over a month. Finally, at this first hearing, while in conference with the referee in chambers, my attorney, the guardian ad litem, and even my ex2b's attorney all expressed that they were extremely skeptical of these allegations. That and a quarter would buy a cup of coffee with Referee Don Martin. He wanted to know what my lie-detector results were. My attorney told him that I hadn't taken one. She also told me that she told him something like, "Now, Don, you surely don't mean to suggest that lie-detector test results mean anything, do you?" His response was something like, "Well, when I was an attorney, I would send my clients to have them done and they would confess." (He hasn't practiced as an attorney for 9 years - and only practiced for 5 or 6 before he became a referee.) My attorney told him that I would NEVER confess to something I didn't do. Move forward to the second hearing..... At this second hearing, the referee still had not finished his ruling on my visitation - apparently he was too busy (except his docket was empty everyday - he had no cases scheduled). But he did enter a ruling on our motion to have the examination/evaluation at Children's Hospital videotaped - he made the ruling - they had to videotape. That was Monday. On Tuesday, my attorney contacted Dr. Charles Johnson and told him that she had a court order for him to videotape the interview/examination/evaluation of Alex Hoffmeyer. Dr. Charles Johnson told my attorney that he refused to comply with the court orders. He didn't want to be second guessed, having to justify why he was moving forward when he asked one question and moving backwards when he asked another. In fact, he said he had hard scientific recommendations that such proceedings should not be videotaped - said it was damaging to the kids. Well, this conversation between my attorney and Dr. Charles Johnson virtually turned into a shouting match. Dr. Charles Johnson was right, nobody could tell him what to do, and that was that. He even "produced" his expert documentation that videotape should not be used in such interviews. It was written by an assistant prosecuting attorney in California - a wee youngster. When my attorney told him that Dr. Richard Gardner, Dr. Ralph Underwager, Karol Ross, Kim Hart, Dr. Lawrence Spiegel, Dr. Hollida Wakefield, Dr. Elissa Benedek, Dr. Gordon Blush, Dr. Alayne Yates, Dr. LeRoy Schultz, Dr. Lee Coleman, Dr. Timothy Campbell, Dr. Margretta Dwyer, Dr. Domeena Renshaw, Dr. Arthur Green, Dr. Diane Schetky, Dr. Lawrence Spiegel, Dr. Daniel Schuman, and Dr. William McIver - all nationally recognized experts on false allegations of child sexual abuse that arise during custody and divorce disputes - all agree that such interviews should be videotaped - well, that and a quarter would buy a cup of coffee with Dr. Charles Johnson. He was right, everyone else was wrong. Dr. Charles Johnson did tell my attorney that, had he known from the outset that these allegations came up during a custody/visitation dispute, he would not have taken this case. But now, since he was already in it, and because he saw what this poor woman (my ex2b) was up against (my attorney), he had no choice but to go through with it. My attorney called me and told me to prepare for a substantiation - Dr. Charles Johnson is one of the truly low people on this planet - an insecure asshole. Wednesday - D-day. I got the report yesterday from my attorney. This all came from my ex2b's attorney.... Apparently Andrea (my ex2b) showed up with "both" of my sons at Children's Hospital - everyone there thought it strange, but she told them that they both were now saying that their daddy had sexually abused them. Rewind. The police detective, a Detective Kramer with the Columbus Police, who has been investigating these kinds of cases for 15 years, talked to my attorney several days ago. He has been extremely skeptical from the word "go" on this case - and for good reason - everyone - including my ex2b's attorney, has told him to be skeptical. His experience tells him to be "very" skeptical. He told my attorney that the children have been examined twice so far in this case - by Children's Services. My attorney wanted to know - why twice? At the first visit, Alex was taken away from Andrea and asked all "those" questions by Children's Services - a social worker named Angela Rodebaugh (why do they always have names like Angie, Dodi, Marty?). Alex would NOT substantiate anything. When Ms. Rodebaugh told my ex2b, she was pissed. She said he must have been too nervous. Several days later, she contacted Ms. Rodebaugh again and told her that Alex was still telling everyone that it happened - neighbors, daycare workers, etc. etc. Could he have another shot at it? Sure. Bring him in. Well, isolate Alex from mom again and he once again says it didn't happen. They go out and tell Andrea. She says, he must be nervous. Let her in there with them and he might do "better." So, they're curious (and skeptical) - why not? So mom goes in with Alex. Once again he says, "No." But now, mom corrects Alex. "Now, Alex, that's not what you've been telling everyone one else. Tell the truth. Did Daddy do that to you?" Alex agrees with mom shaking her head up and down. That's how Detective Kramer told it to my attorney - Angie told it that way to him. Detective Kramer also talked to my ex2b on Monday. He had scheduled an interview with Alex for Tuesday of this week - but after finding out that Alex had already been interviewed twice on this case, and that he was going to Children's Hospital on Wednesday, he called to tell Andrea that he would just be at Children's Hospital on Wednesday, and there was no reason to interview him another time. Well, my ex told him that he had only been interviewed once so far, that it hadn't been traumatic for him at all, and offered, "What can I offer you to get you to come out and interview Alex?" Detective Kramer was flabbergasted at that statement. He refused to do an additional interview. Fast Forward. Wednesday. Andrea shows up at Children's Hospital with "both" boys. It seems that Adam is now saying he was abused by his dad too (although that was not the case when she talked to Detective Kramer a few days earlier). They take Alex first. "Isolate" him from his mom. In reality, Andrea gets to observe from an ante-room with the door open, behind a one-way mirror (I think - that is how they typically do it). Once again, he says, "No." Then they talked to Adam, who is three-years-old. Adam says, "Yes." Fast forward. Andrea calls her attorney later that day. "Alex didn't do well," she says of the interview. But Adam pulled through. "Adam?" queried her attorney. "Yes, Adam is now claiming that Aaron abused him too." She said that Adam told Dr. Johnson enough that he was going to substantiate the abuse. Detective Kramer, who was present, told Andrea that he was NOT going to file charges against me. According to Andrea, he said there was not enough evidence. So, that brings us almost to the present. We really don't know what Dr. Johnson "believes." We got the word from Andrea. I didn't talk to my attorney today. I don't know if Detective Kramer taped the examination. We asked him to. * * * Almost six weeks ago, after we had our first mediation session with the guardian ad litem, I called up Andrea's sister, told her that the library books and toys I had checked out for the boys were due on that day. Could she please call Andrea and tell her to leave them on the porch? I went over to my old apartment, but one of the books and one of the toys were missing. I knocked on the door. She opened it. I asked about the missing book and toy. She said she couldn't find them. Rather than look, she got a $20 from her purse and gave it to me (the toy was $38 and the book $13). I thanked her. Then I asked her how she felt about this mediation stuff. She said, "Well, we'll just have to see how it goes." Then I made my mistake - I asked her if she had been informed of the progress in the child endangerment case. She said, "Not for a few weeks." (She has always claimed that she was not the one pushing for me to be prosecuted - that it was Children's Services and the police detective involved. The prosecutor doesn't quite agree with her statement though. He basically says that she wants it prosecuted.) I told her that the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers had filed a friend of the court brief on my behalf that the charges be dismissed. I told her that the judge didn't want to hear my case - she has expressed this. I told her that the prosecutor really doesn't want the case, and the assistant prosecutor thinks the case is a joke. With that I could see the anger on her face. Just then, my sons, who were standing on the porch with us, took off around the corner. She chased after them. But as she was running away, she grimaced back at me and shouted, "You just fucked up Mr. You're going to get it now!" My ex2b is slow, so it took her about a minute to catch my sons. When she got back, she was cruel in her language, but not as angry. "You just messed up. That's all I'm going to say." A week later she threatened me in the guardian's office - that I would go to jail for spanking my sons. Four days later, she accused me of sexually molesting them.... * * * A few tidbits: My ex2b's attorney is an ethical man. He hates this case and has expressed to my attorney that he doesn't like representing his client. But he also believes that if he stays on the case, I will have a better time of it. If she gets some unethical, scumbag attorney, I could end up crucified. He used to live across the street from my ex2b's parents. He sort of knew my ex2b. He has defended many people from false allegations of sexual abuse, even during divorce custody and/or visitation disputes. But he has never been on the side of the person making the false allegations. So, because of his ethics, he is doing some things.... He is deposing Dr. Charles Johnson and he and my attorney will rake him over the coals. He has told my attorney that he has a defense trial for a man who was falsely accused of sexual abuse later this month. He wants my attorney to go watch some of the tactics he uses. He is also helping my attorney find some local experts, because he knows that I don't have the money to bring in the big guns. I know who they are, but at $2500 per day, I can't get them until it looks like they are my last hope. Then I'll probably have to convince one of my step-parents to get a second mortgage - neither of my parents owns a house anymore - they divorced about 18 months ago - right before my divorce started. Kim Hart has agreed to testify in my case at no charge. She knows I'm innocent, and she likes me. She thinks I might do more to correct this problem than just about anyone has to date. She really wants my case to become the anti-Morgan_vs._Foretich case. We need to let people know this is a problem. * So what about the future? We have to find a "real" expert who will do a real investigation - one that turns over more stones than `did the three-year-old tell the good Dr. what his mommy told him to?' That will cost. I owe my attorney $6000 and it (the bill) will grow by leaps and bounds this summer. Even if I am completely vindicated, and I prove that she did all this maliciously, the final determination of custody of my children rests with the domestic relations court. Don Martin. Referee Lie-Detector. * It was agreed in court last week that my ex2b pay half of the cost of my supervised visitation. I contacted the supervising agency that supervised my visitation earlier in this case - well, I tried - they are no longer in business. So when my attorney told my ex2b`s attorney, my ex2b offered to supervise my visitations. My response: "I don't want to be up on rape charges too." * My attorney found another supervising agency. She contacted my ex2b's attorney. According to my ex2b, the boys now have chicken pox. The supervisor has not had chicken pox. According to my ex2b, the boys will not be out of "quarantine" until June 24th - the date of my next hearing. So I can't see the boys for two more weeks. My attorney told me that if my ex2b does not have a written doctor's note saying that the boys definitely do have chicken pox, and that they will be contagious until the 24th, we will file contempt charges. But, if you are familiar with contempt charges, they are only valid when filed by a woman. * My attorney has really got it out for this Dr. Charles Johnson. She wants to prove that he is incompetent, to get, at the very least, the court to rule that he can NEVER, EVER do one of these evaluations again. He is an incompetent. She is considering filing a malpractice suit or tort against him. * Has any man ever successfully defended himself in a case like this? All I've ever heard of is Dr. Lawrence Spiegel, who had all the resources and all the money, and they didn't do anything to his ex-wife in his case, although he did prove that the allegations were malicious. All I keep hearing is that about the best any man has done is get back to square one - after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. * My attorney mentioned the lottery to me on the phone yesterday. I told her that I bought several tickets on Wednesday (the jackpot was $24 million). She bought some too. I told her that if I had won, I would devote a major portion of the winnings towards helping people who are in my shoes, righting the injustices of the judicial system, getting a documentary done on this subject. She told me that if she had won, she would quit her practice and devote all of her time to helping people like me - people that are dealing with these false allegations. We both feel that there can be nothing more unethical or heinous in all of domestic relations law. The worst part - maybe as many as 80% of these allegations are blatantly false - but the court presumes guilt until the accused can prove that they are innocent beyond a shadow of doubt, that the accuser made the allegations maliciously, and even then, you are still guilty. Hardly ever does the accused get sole custody because of the allegations, hardly ever is a normal relationship with his children restored. * How do I feel about all this? It sickens me. But I can't quit, I can't give up, I can't get depressed and not take care of myself. Often, unless a man has an attorney who is willing to go to any length to defend his/her client against such allegations, they lose. Many are in jail right now. I talked with Christine Cook earlier this evening (a local VOCAL representative that has stirred up a lot of dust over false sexual abuse allegations). She told me that a man had contacted her last night. His ex has accused him of sexually molesting his children. He retained an attorney for $5000. His attorney made him go take a lie detector test. He failed. The attorney advised him to plead. He did, on his attorney's advice. But he called Christine and said, "I didn't do it. I didn't know what to do. I've already pleaded to a lesser charge. What can I do?" Christine asked me what he could do. I said, "He pleaded. That's an admission of some kind of guilt. Even if it was crappy advice from a scum-bag attorney and he didn't do it, he's fried. He has no recourse. He can try, but he won't get anywhere. The best he can hope for is to get pseudo-normal visitation restored at some point with his children. To get that, he has to go through the social system's obstacle course. He will never get custody. He will never get his name cleared. He will never be able to resume a normal relationship with his children." The most compelling example I heard recently came from a Mr. David Pohlschneider. He attended a local fathers' rights group meeting several months ago. The guest speaker was one of the judges from the Franklin County Domestic Relations Court. He asked the judge what he could do about his ex-wife making allegations that he sexually molested his children. The judge told him he needed to get a good attorney and tried to end it with that. But David had driven 150 miles to our meeting. He had sent out letters to every fathers' rights group that he could get information about east of the Mississippi - over 50 groups. We were the only group that answered. He was not about to be put off that quickly. He told the judge that he made minimum wage at a part-time job and had no money for a lawyer. He said his ex-wife had not made the allegations formally, just told everyone and had threatened him that if he tried to see the children, she would go to the county agencies and make the charges formally. She is refusing to allow him to see his children. One of his daughters is three, the other is five. If he files to get his visitation restored, his ex has threatened to go ballistic, and then he would have to come up with thousands and thousands of dollars that he doesn't have to fight her. The judge told him that he had to utilize the system, file for his visitation, then fight her allegations of abuse. A practical member of the audience told him to find some way of bribing her to see his children. It would be less expensive, he would at least have a chance, and maybe, eventually, she would lighten up. Fighting in court would be disastrous - he had no chance. It's a sad commentary on the system when the practical advice, the real, "good" advice, is to take your lumps and stay out of the system - the system will bleed you dry and you'll lose EVERYTHING. Well, if you're a man. And that, my friends, is what America HAS become. * * * My attorney has told me that it is time to tell the world. This is a serious problem - false allegations of child sexual abuse that arise during divorce and custody disputes. It is getting worse. Because she wants me to tell everyone about it - including posting here - I have contacted a local TV station, the local city paper, and Inside Edition. Next week, I hope to contact 60 Minutes, 48 Hours and 20/20. The local TV station wants to develop my story into a series. The local city paper is assigning a reporter to my case. Inside Edition will be here next week to talk to me (and others). There is a prevalent attitude that where there is smoke, there must be fire. The presumption of the guilt of the accused is the rule - for the sake of the children. Yet, in divorce custody/visitation disputes, the system is erring totally in one direction - in favor of the allegations. The statistics on false allegation that arise during such situations range from 33% of them being blatantly false to 80% (from a paper by Dr. Hollida Wakefield and Dr. Ralph Underwager). Wakefield and Underwager feel that the false reports are probably even higher than the 80% figure. Very few of these cases are ever prosecuted - but the domestic relations courts and juvenile courts rarely back away from their initial presumption of guilt. Quoting Underwager and Wakefield: Child sexual abuse allegations have increased dramatically in the past 10 to 15 years. Some authorities claim this is caused by an increase in actual abuse of children and that we are in the middle of an epidemic of child abuse. Others suggest that there may not be an increase in abuse, but rather, an increase in reporting abuse. This is a more hopeful view, since it indicates that we are succeeding in our efforts to respond effectively to the reality of child abuse. There is considerable confusion about the relationship between incidence and prevalence estimates of child sexual abuse. The most recent incidence estimate reported is in the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect Second National Incidence Study (1988) suggesting an incidence rate for sexual abuse of children at 2.5 per 1000, depending upon the definition used. The actual prevalence rate cannot exceed a multiple (years of childhood) of the actual incidence rate, so the most likely prevalence rate is around 4% [for all children from newborn to age 18]. This is considerably less than many suggested prevalence rates, which range from 3% to 62% in different surveys and average 20 to 30%. Prevalence estimates are most often based on retrospective memory surveys of adults about their childhood experiences [wherein a disproportionate number of those responding to the surveys WERE abused]. Retrospective memory involves reconstruction rather than recall and may be inaccurate since we often make up stories about our past in order to make sense of our present (Dawes, 1988). Prevalence surveys do not attempt to relate the prevalence estimate to the incidence rate. One of the more carefully conducted surveys that did not use retrospective reports, however, reported a prevalence rate of 5.3% - which is closer to what the incidence rate suggests. (Siegel, Sorenson, Golding, Burnham, & Stein, 1987) False accusations of sexual abuse are also increasing although there is a disagreement as to the frequency and nature of false claims. However, many professionals believe that false accusations have become a serious problem in vindictive and angry divorce and custody battles. Consequently, such false accusations have received much publicity and there have been many articles about this in the literature [long list of authors and dates]. It is difficult to determine how often sexual abuse accusations occur in custody and visitation disputes. Theonnes and her colleagues (Theonnes & Pearson, 1988a & b; Theonnes & Tjaden, 1990) attempted to get information on the incidence and validity of sexual abuse allegations in divorce and custody cases. [I have those reports.] [Brief explanation of how Theonnes & Co. collected their data.] They report that the initial survey and interviews revealed a consensus that sexual abuse allegations in custody disputes occur in "a small but growing" number of cases. They estimate that the allegations of sexual abuse are found in approximately 2% of contested cases (the range across court sites was 1% to 8%). They state that there are one million divorces annually, and of these, about 55% or 550,000 involve minor children. About 15% of these result in court involvement due to custody and/or visitation disputes. Their estimate of 2% of sexual abuse accusations in 82,500 custody disputes translates into 1,650 cases of sexual abuse accusations annually with the environment of the divorce/custody dispute. We suspect this estimate is too low. [Or they could have said, "Bullpuckey!"] In addition to the 200 cases of sexual abuse allegations of divorce and/custody disputes in which we have been formally involved, we have informally consulted on many more. We receive two to three calls or letters every week. [And more about how almost everyone knows someone that this has happened to and that even their colleagues have been accused in nasty divorces.] The large number of cases being seen by us and by others who have communicated with us suggests that the actual frequency may be higher than Theonnes and Pearson's estimate. For example, many matrimonial attorneys report that they are now handling more custody cases with sexual abuse allegations (Fisk, 1989). There is no agreement as to how many of these cases turn out to be false, although most of the estimates range from one-third to four-fifths. [Theonnes & Co. reported abuse was likely in 50%, no abuse was likely in 33% and 17% were indeterminant.] However, the decision as to whether the abuse was factual was made by child protection workers, rather than by the justice system. Most professionals believe that the proportion of false allegations of child sexual abuse is highest in divorce and custody disputes. Out of approximately 500 cases in which we have provided expert consultation in the past six years involving sexual abuse allegations, 40% were divorce and custody cases. Of these divorce and custody cases that have been adjudicated, for three-fourths, there was no determination of abuse by the legal system. That is, charges were dropped, never filed, the person was acquitted in criminal court, and/or there was no finding of abuse in family court. Dwyer reports similar statistics. She states that 77% of the divorce-linked allegations of sex abuse cases coming to the Human Sexuality Program at the University of Minnesota have turned out to be "hoax" cases. In our experience, accusations of sexual abuse occur in a bitter and acrimonious divorce at all stages of the process. Benedek and Schetky (1985a) report that they were especially common in disputes about child custody that arise after a divorce has been granted and center around issues of visitation. Most of the time the accusation is not a deliberate fabrication on the part of the accusing parent. Many parents have been influenced by the publicity of sexual abuse to make false accusations based on misperceptions and false assumptions. Wallerstein and Kelly (1975, 1980) note that in a bitter divorce, not only is the child likely to undergo significant stress, but the parents are likely to be blame the child's anxiety and distress on the other parent. However, in some cases a parent can deliberately foster a false accusation as a way to get custody. Theonnes and Pearson (1988b) report that in 15% of the cases they studied, the case worker expressed doubt that the report was offered in good faith. As the system to respond to accusations of sexual abuse has developed, it rewards the making of an accusation with all manner of reinforcements. The person who is hated is punished. There is social approval for making the accusation. There may be free legal counsel, welfare payments, approbation and support from mental health professionals, therapists, friends, family, neighbors. There is no response cost for making an accusation. As Green and Schetky state: A small number of parents caught up in custody battles of visitation disputes have exploited the epidemic of sexual abuse allegations by using such allegations to promote their own interests at the expense of their child and their former spouse. Allegations have become a sure-fire way of getting a judge's attention and cutting off visitations. They have the same emotional impact that issues of adultery once had in custody battles a decade of more ago (p. 104). Gardner (1986) notes that an accusation if sexual abuse is a powerful weapon in a divorce and custody dispute. The vengeful parent may exaggerate a nonexistent or inconsequential sexual contact and build up a case for sexual abuse. The child, in order to ingratiate himself with the accusing parent, may go along with this. On the basis of such observations, he describes a "parental alienation syndrome" in which the child identifies with the vilifying parent and communicates absolute hatred toward the other parent. A false accusation of sexual abuse may develop in this situation (Gardner, 1987a). Gardner (1986) also observes that in some cases a mother who is obsessed with hatred toward the father may bring the child to the point of having paranoid delusions about the father. A "folie a deux" relationship may evolve in which the child acquires the mother's paranoid delusions. Green (1986) states that such women are usually diagnosed as histrionic or paranoid personality disorders, or paranoid schizophrenics. [They go on to state that 75% of the mothers making allegations of sexual abuse during divorce custody/visitation disputes are diagnosed as having personality disorders. Only 25% of divorcing mothers who do not make allegations of sexual abuse are borderline, or psychotic personalities. The rest of the paper is on the personality characteristics of mothers (and fathers) making false allegations of sexual abuse during divorce custody/visitation disputes. In case you're interested, my ex2b seems to be:] The "justified vindicator" is a variation of the histrionic personality. This woman initially offers an intellectually organized, assertive, and justified agenda with many facts, figures, and opinions supporting her evidence. She presents herself as justifiably outraged and concerned by the behavior of her spouse. However, when clarification is sought concerning the details, she becomes hostile, resistant, and passive-aggressive. She will argue and counter even carefully framed questions, is likely to discontinue contact with the evaluator who challenges her statements, and may threaten to sue or make ethical complaints. From "Personality Characteristics of Parents Making False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Divorce and Custody Disputes" - Symposium on False Allegations of Sexual Abuse and Custody Disputes at the 98th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, Massachusetts, August 14, 1990 by Wakefield and Underwager, Institute for Psychological Therapies, Northfield, Minnesota, (507) 645-8881. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Fri Jun 19 20:58:20 1992 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:83 soc.men:49370 soc.women:53258 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women Path: utcsri!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!att!cbnewsm!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: The Greatest Tactic Ever Used Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 08:41:24 GMT Message-ID: <1992Jun19.084124.14286@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Sender: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Lines: 101 Woe. I talked with Karol Ross this afternoon. Karol is a co-author of "Sexual Allegations in Divorce: The SAID Syndrome" with Dr. Gordon Blush. She is also a co-author with Dr. Blush of several other noteworthy papers on the topic. She told me that divorce custody/visitation disputes in which the mother makes allegations of sexual abuse against the father are so ugly that none of the national experts really wants to get involved anymore - at a time when the allegations are rampant. Why? Well, because they spend exorbitant amounts of time and emotional involvement in these cases and they never see justice. Never. So I asked, "Have you ever heard of a father getting custody of his children after a mother has alleged that he sexually molested the children, no matter how apparently bogus the allegations?" Her reply was sickening.... "One," she said. "Reid Kimbrough in Preston, Connecticut." "I know Reid. I've talked to him and I bought $80 worth of documentation from him. He never told me that he got custody." "Well, he is the only one that I've heard of and I've been personally involved in thousands of these." Well, Bob Kirkpatrick also told me of a case in Idaho, in which he was the Guardian Ad Litem, and primarily because of his testimony in court, the father got sole custody because of false and malicious allegations of child sexual abuse. So that makes two. Now, how many times do mothers make such allegations? According to a study by Dr. Nancy Theonnes, there are only about 1600 divorces in the US every year in which these allegations come up. She based that calculation on the number of such cases in 11 courts that she studied in a one year period. There were 169 cases in those courts (I guess she thinks there are only 100 courts in the US). Every other national expert on this phenomenon says that there are many more such cases. The referee in my case told my attorney he sees four of these a week. He is one of six referees in Franklin County, Ohio. If he means four per week in the entire county court system, that would be over 200 per year. But if he means he sees four per week out of the cases he handles, then the rate could be six times that for the entire court system or about 1200 per year in one county. I don't know, but going with the lower figure, and knowing that there are 1,000,000 people in Franklin County - give or take 50,000, then there are 200 allegations per million per year in divorces. There are approximately 250 million folks in the US. That would represent a total of 50,000 allegations of child sexual abuse in divorcee custody/visitation cases in the US every year. And Karol Ross knows of one man who got sole because of false allegations. And I know of one. And that is over about a 10 year period. So, let me see if I've got this straight: In over 10 years, at least 2 men have been awarded sole custody after it was alleged that they sexually molested their children in a divorce custody/visitation dispute - out of as many as 500,000 allegations (50k per year for 10 years). Well, that has to be the most successful tactic ever imagined. It works in keeping the man from getting sole custody 99.9996% of the time. You could make a moon shot with those numbers.... I'm sure the numbers aren't quite that bad, but maybe they are just 99%. Oh, and using Dr. Theonnes's numbers, the rate is not nearly as bad, (100% - (2 men who got custody * 1600 cases per year * 10 years * 100%)) a mere 99.9875% success rate for mothers making such allegations. So, what can I say? If you are a spiteful, immoral, contentious bitch who is going through a divorce and you want to keep your soon-to-be-ex-husband from getting sole custody of his children, and your children are young, then allege that he sexually molested them. It is quite simple, pretty much pain-free for you (not so for your kids - can you say colpascope?), it will cost him a fortune to fight the allegations, and even if he does, you will win. Oh, and don't worry about the court doing anything back to you. Karol hadn't heard of any woman who had been punished for making such false allegations. Neither have I. All that in spite of the fact that most nationally recognized experts place the rate of allegations of child sexual abuse being false at around 75% to 80% (and most believe it is even higher than that, they just can't support their beliefs with evidence - but they are sure that many innocent men go to jail for false allegations). If Napolean had known of such a successful tactic - well, parlez vous francais? Justice in the American Domestic Relations court system: it has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with `how do we insure that mom gets the kids?' Just something to think about. No, we don't need to do anything about this - it's not YOUR problem. However, consider yourself warned. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Fri Jun 19 21:01:51 1992 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:108 soc.men:49412 soc.women:53298 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women Path: utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsm!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Re: The Greatest Tactic Ever Used Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 00:29:37 GMT Message-ID: <1992Jun20.002937.6055@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> References: <1992Jun19.084124.14286@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <1992Jun19.142850.1523@nevada.edu> Lines: 165 In article <1992Jun19.142850.1523@nevada.edu> susanb@nevada.edu (Susan Bunyan) writes: >In article <1992Jun19.084124.14286@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes: >>Now, how many times do mothers make such allegations? According to a >>study by Dr. Nancy Theonnes, there are only about 1600 divorces in the >>US every year in which these allegations come up. She based that >>calculation on the number of such cases in 11 courts that she studied >>in a one year period. There were 169 cases in those courts (I guess >>she thinks there are only 100 courts in the US). Every other national >>expert on this phenomenon says that there are many more such cases. >> >>So, let me see if I've got this straight: In over 10 years, at least 2 >>men have been awarded sole custody after it was alleged that they >>sexually molested their children in a divorce custody/visitation dispute >>- out of as many as 500,000 allegations (50k per year for 10 years). > >Well Aaron I hope this isn't the type of logic you use in court. You >make up a bunch of numbers based on how many people live in the US and >then throw in a statistic based on you and one other person and decide >that you have a good figure. I'm sorry but I don't think you and your >friend could know of every man who got custody after such allegations >were made. > No, I didn't claim that my figure was "good." In fact, my figure is not valid at all. But, if you saw Theonnes's work, you would be dismayed that she concluded there were only 1600 divorce custody cases in which child sexual abuse allegations arose per year by utilizing the same kind of skewed number crunching and speculation. She was able to come up with her number like this: Every year in the US there are 500,000 divorces. Only 55% of these divorces involve minor children and custody issues. Judges report that only 20% of these divorces litigate, most are settled out of court. Only about 3% of those divorces involve allegations of child sexual abuse (based on her own comprehensive study of 169 cases). So, 500,000 * 55% * 20% * 3% = 1650. I'm so sure. What is interesting about my figure is that I contacted one of the most renowned psychologist in the US in regards to child sexual abuse allegations in divorce - a woman who has personally consulted on thousands of these cases (at $2500 per day plus expenses) and has been contacted for thousands of others. And the folks who contact her are the folks that have the resources to find her. Most of the poor schmucks who get accused never hear of her or contact her. She has been investigating these cases for about 8 years and has only seen the man get custody in ONE case. That is significant. >I'm not saying you're wrong that the tactic has worked and I'm not >saying you're wrong that the system needs to guard against false >accusations. However, these figures of yours aren't what convinces >me. Yours is a very sad case and I understand you are bitter. But >that doesn't make all accusations of sexual abuse false. And because >you only know of 2 men who won doesn't mean they are the only men who >won. > >Susan B. I'm sure they aren't the only men who have won. Most men suffer the indignity of these allegations in private. They assume that they would be hurting their own reputations and hurting their children by taking the whole thing public. Society doesn't like to acknowledge that men can be victims - even victims of contentious ex-spouses who try everything within their power - and some things outside of their power - to destroy their ex-spouses. It's a woman's right and perogative to do so. She has the authority and society applauds her for her efforts. Innocent men should be accused - it gives them the opportunity to be introspective and re-evaluate the relationships between men and women - to gain a clearer understanding that men are bad, women are good - sugar and spice and all that. Men can't be victims because they are victimizers. Women can't be victimizers because they are perpetual victims. Besides, no one wants to hear about these things. These cases make for the kind of reports where the viewer is warned before hand to change the channel if they don't like to deal with this kind of topic. Ever complain about how morbid the news is? Who wants to watch it? It's just death, murder, rape, theft, crime - a smorgasboard of gloom. I've encountered another strange thing with the media. They don't want to publicize my name. They are looking out for repercussions and because they can only get one side of the story, they fear the contentious, litigating, accusing person on the other side. She's done this to me - how much could she or would she do to them? They say they want to protect me. But my attitude is, "Hey, what more could possibly happen than what has happened already - I've been arrested at work, almost everyone at work knows about my predicament, all my friends, all my family? - what could be worse than this - a few people who I don't know get to find out?" Many of the folks who are involved in this case and who are on my side have asked me, "What can we do to stop her?" Not as an active query. They aren't looking for me to give them a list of things to do. It is a question whose answer is understood. The understood response, "Nothing." The question means, "We are powerless to stop your ex- from destroying your life. Hey, it sucks, but we just can't do anything." Well, Sue, you prompted a battery of nihilism. And we all know just how convincing that is.... The lyrics below express how I feel right now. But don't worry, I'll be fine. After all, it's Father's Day weekend. Tomorrow I get to see at least one of my sons for 4 hours - it will only cost me $100 - plus all expenses. THE FINAL CUT -- Roger Waters Through the fish eyed lens of tear stained eyes I can barely define the shape of this moment in time And far from flying high in clear blue skies I'm spiralling down to the hole in the ground where I hide If you negotiate the minefield in the drive And beat the dogs and cheat the cold electronic eyes And if you make it past the shotgun in the hall Dial the combination, open the priesthole And if I'm in I'll tell you what's behind the wall There's a kid who had a big hallucination Making love to girls in magazines He wonders if you're sleeping with your new found faith Could anybody love him Or is it just a crazy dream And if I show you my dark side Will you still hold me tonight And if I open my heart to you And show you my weak side What would you do Would you sell your story to Rolling Stone Would you take the children away And leave me alone And smile in reassurance As you whisper down the phone Would you send me packing Or would you take me home Thought I oughta bare my feelings Thought I oughta tear the curtain down I held the blade in trembling hands Prepared to make it but just then the phone rang I never had the nerve to make the final cut === END I get to see at least one of my sons for four hours tomorrow morning. There is a court order that says that my ex- has to pay half of the expenses for supervised visitation. Why? Probably because the court doesn't believe her - it was the best they could do. The cost is $25 per hour. Why do I get to pick up the whole tab tomorrow? Because my ex- refuses to pay her half. Quite simple. Will we file contempt charges? Sure, she's in contempt. Will the court do anything? What did they do with my first three contempt charges? "What can we do to stop her?" You see, they can (do something), they just won't. They are as afraid of her as I am. "The hottest spots in Hell are reserved for those - who, in the face of a moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." - Dante Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Mon Jun 29 17:06:09 1992 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:184 soc.men:49588 soc.women:53496 Path: utcsri!rpi!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!pacbell.com!att!cbnewsm!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women Subject: Re: Case Dismissed Message-ID: <1992Jun24.215014.24131@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Date: 24 Jun 92 21:50:14 GMT References: <1992Jun23.233006.27538@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <1992Jun24.175104.5101@adobe.com> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 100 In article <1992Jun24.175104.5101@adobe.com> brunner@adobe.com (Eric Brunner) writes: >In article <1992Jun23.233006.27538@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes: >>The charge that my ex2b had filed against me for spanking my children >>over 9 months ago was dismissed today. The judge ruled that the law >>under which I was charged was unconstitutional. > >Three million cheers! Now, what is the custody/visitation situation? >Do you have any? Yes. >Is it supervised? For three months after she had the charges filed against me for child endangerment for spanking my children, I had no visitation. I did not see my children for one minute, or even one second. How did she get away with this? Well, she did. Then, the court ordered that I have supervised visitation - with anyone as a supervisor and if my ex2b would not accept anyone I offered, she had to accept a supervising agency. With the supervising agency, I paid $410 to see my children for 14 hours over the next 4 months. She would refuse to schedule any visitation time longer than an hour and cancelled several visits claiming the children were sick. She would not allow me to see them anytme except early Saturday mornings - claimed that it was too disruptive for me to have visitation during the week. The court backed her up on this and supported her in all her efforts to deny me visitation. I filed three contempts during this time, they addressed none of them, although they let me file all three. I filed three and the rest of Frnaklin County filed less than 50 contempts during this period. Finally, we got a hearing to take place in March. I had 9 witnesses present to testify that my ex2b was scum, to describe what she had done to thwart my visitation, I had two psychologists on call to testify that I should have overnight visitations - unsupervised - starting immediately. The referee ended the supervised visitation, but would not grant me overnights, nor weeknight visits. At a hearing in April, we requested a Guardian Ad Litem for the children. One was appointed. In May, he took charge of the case and set up mediation over custody. He wanted me to have standard visitation and shared parenting starting immediately. My ex was able to slow him down with that and agreed that it could start up three weeks after our initial session. 4 days before we were to get together and set up a standard visitation schedule and rules that we would both have to abide by, she alleged that I sexually molested my sons on one of my unsupervised visits. I filed for a change of custody based on her false allegations. She stopped all visitation until we could get back into court. The referee set up supervised visitation again - this time naming a supervising agency outright because she would not agree to any of my people at the court (I have several people who have volunteered to supervise visitation - a woman wth a MA in English with two sons a little younger than my sons who lives in a $250,000 house, a man who has an MS in CompSci who has two sons - one older and one younger than my sons - his wife has multiple Masters degrees - Industrial Engineering and CompSci, and several single men - all of whom have Masters degrees). The referee, of course, denied the change of custody request, basically stating that we had to proved that the allegations were false beyond a shadow of doubt AND that they were malicious. The referee made not of her refusal to allow someone who wasn't a "professional" to supervise, and ordered her to split the cost of visitation. Several days before my first supervised visitation after this last set of allegations, she contacted the woman who would supervise (an LISW) and informed her that she refused to pay her half. I had to pay 100% of the first visit. She also told this woman that this first visit would be my last. The Guardian has filed charges against my ex. >How many and what ages are your children? I have two sons. Their names are Alex (age 4) and Adam (age 3). They are "Irish twins" - meaning that they are only 10.5 months apart - they get to be the same age every year for 6 weeks. They're great kids, very photogenic, very outgoing, and intelligent. They love their dad a great deal, and I, of course, love them a great deal. >How far away does their mother live from you? An incredibly vast three miles. >Also, in what court (criminal, juvenile) was the spanking complaint heard? The child endangerment charge (a misdemeanor) was in criminal court. The judge had repeatedly stated that she didn't want a stupid misdemeanor trial in her courtroom. She thought this case sucked canal water. After six months of deliberation, she finally dismissed it, without hearing any testimony or hearing anything from either side except motions to dismiss and motions to not dismiss. She dismissed on the ground that the law under which I was charged was blatantly unconstitutional. >-- >#include >Eric Brunner, consulting at and not speaking for Adobe >uucp: uunet!practic!brunner or uunet!adobe!brunner >trying to understand multiprocessing is like having bees live inside your head. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Fri Jul 31 18:59:46 1992 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:536 soc.men:51636 soc.women:55548 misc.kids:52965 misc.legal:45400 Path: utcsri!rutgers!att!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,misc.legal Subject: A Model Attempt at a Solution Message-ID: <1992Jul30.140139.1628@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Date: 30 Jul 92 14:01:39 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 313 A Quick History: I've been involved in a divorce that has been going on for 16 months - a very ugly, nasty divorce. I have two sons, ages 4 and 3. This was to be an amicable divorce and for several months, it looked like it would be. There was one major problem, though. Custody. She wanted sole physical and legal custody. I wanted shared parenting with a 50/50 split. About 10 months ago, I spanked my sons with a plastic spatula. It was a mistake. One son had visible red marks on his bottom the next day. My ex-to-be took my sons to the hospital 24 hours after the spanking and after meeting with her attorney for several hours. The hospital got Children's Services involved. Children's Services induced the police to file charges of child endangerment against me - a first-class misdemeanor. Thus began my fight for justice and to preserve my relationship with my children. For 3 months my ex-to-be did not allow me to see my children - at all. She also threatened my family that neither they nor I would ever see my children again. We finally got back into court and I was granted supervised visitation - depending on the outcome of the child endangerment charge. I pleaded not guilty, had the case moved to a different court, etc. The battle for the child endangerment charge lasted 10 months. The Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers worked on my defense and the ACLU and VOCAL were also involved. In the end, the charge was dismissed based on the fact that I was charged under an unconstitutional law. But, I'm getting ahead of myself. During the first 7 months after the charges were filed against me, my ex-to-be only allowed me to see my sons for 14 hours. Eventually the court, rather than find her in contempt for refusing scheduled visitation, recognized the problem, and granted me unsupervised visitation. That was in March. A Guardian Ad Litem, an attorney to represent my children, was assigned to the case, got involved, found that the child endangerment case was very marginal, recognized that this was a typical case of one party utilizing the system against the other party to obtain sole custody for NO good reason, saw that I was a good person, etc. and decided that I should have shared parenting - and maybe even the 50/50 split - all before the child endangerment case had been completed. Well, my ex-to-be got really weird. She had been painting a picture of me to anyone who would listen that I was some terrible monster. But then it looked like I was going to get shared parenting, and she would look like a liar (which she was). So, 9 days after she made a vague threat to me when I informed her that the child endangerment case would be dismissed and 5 days before the Guardian was to put into place a plan that would grant me extended visits with my children, and two weeks before the child endangerment case WAS dismissed, she alleged that I sexually molested my two sons. I informed everyone in several newsgroups of these events as they transpired. Many of you are aware of what I've been through. As a result of her latest allegations, a full-blown investigation of everyone and everything was started. This investigation was only partially conducted by the state. Children's Services, Children's Hospital, and a police detective conducted limited investigations. Children's Services indicated sexual abuse, but did not substantiate. They also determined that coaching of my sons was indicated and the investigators personally believed the allegations were false and malicious. They based this on several interviews where they even witnessed my ex-to-be coaching the children. My ex-to-be could only get my oldest son to say what she wanted him to say when she was holding him on her lap and prompting him. They indicated that it was all very "fishy." They never talked to me or my attorney. Children's Hospital substantiated sexual abuse based on an interview with my sons. I was not present. Children's Hospital refused a court order to videotape the proceedings. The interviewer, a Dr. Charles Johnson, asked many leading questions and stuck completely to a line of questioning that would get the children to say they were abused. No history was obtained from any third parties that had been involved in this case. No critical questions such as "Did someone tell you to say this?" were ever asked. The police detective, based on information from Children's Services and from watching the interview at Children's Hospital, refused to file charges and made a determination that he believed my children had been coached and that the allegations were false and probably malicious. All three - the Children's Services workers, Children's Hospital and the police felt that it was possible that I abused my children, but not likely. All three - without obtaining any history from me - also concluded that it was possible that my children were coached. The likelihood was something they did not state on the record, but off the record all three groups have affirmed that they believe my children were coached. Well, if you know your law, you know that there is no such thing as "off the record" - especially when you are talking to a private investigator who is recording the conversation or when there are 6 witnesses present. That was what the state came up with. The Guardian Ad Litem had a more thorough investigation conducted by a private investigator. This investigation found out much more information and was much more conclusive. Basically, this investigation determined that many, many people believed that these allegations were false and malicious, that my ex-to-be had been planning this for months before she went forward with it, that her neighbors, whom she thought would be witnesses in her favor, turned out to be very much against her, that all the professionals involved in this case - including the professionals working for the state, believed the allegations were perjorative. The daycare workers were very strong against my ex. They stated that she had started making these allegations to them in March (and because they have to report these things), Children's Services was called out then (without telling my ex) and they found NO SUBSTANTIATION. It had become almost a joke at the daycare center - because every time they would talk to my ex, she would make more allegations against me. And every time, they would talk to the kids and would determine that it wasn't true. This went on for months. And my ex gave these people as witnesses in her favor to the Guardian. When, in fact, they couldn't have slammed her any worse than they did. In total, there were over 30 witnesses ready to testify against my ex-to-be and even the doctor at Children's Hospital was so waffly that he stated that, given all the other facts, and the numerous lies that had been documented by the private investigator, that these allegations were probably false, malicious and that the father (me) should have sole custody of the children if others felt that way. My ex-to-be only had a couple of witnesses in her favor, and parents don't make strong witnesses. So, yesterday a trial was scheduled to take place for custody. However, the Guardian Ad Litem working with my attorney had prepared a model attempt at a solution that would endeavor to avoid a costly trial that might not solve anything. My ex-to-be's attorney had been presented a preliminary report of what the private investigator had discovered the day before the trial and realized that this would be along, nasty trial and that his client would lose custody if I so desired. So, he was willing to entertain the model approach to a solution when my attorney and the Guardian presented it to him. No one involved in this case believed that my ex would settle, but when I arrived at court, my attorney explained that my ex's attorney was going to try and sell her on it. It took several hours, but by the end of the day, she agreed, albeit reluctantly, to avoid the trial and entertain the model plan. This plan is a novel approach to solving the problem of false and malicious allegations of sexual abuse that arise during divorce custody/visitation disputes. It is the first time and only time that I've heard of anything like it. None of the attorneys had seen anything like it before either. It's an interesting approach and I want to know what you think of it. This is the plan: 1. Guilt is not presumed on either part. Basically, to avoid a $30,000 trial and to try and "fix" the current problems, everyone gets a clean slate (kind of). In effect, we are letting my ex off the hook - for the time being. Everything is still there if we do end up back in court. 2. My ex retains temporary residential parent status. 3. We go into a 6-month to one year period of further assessment, evaluation, therapy, forensic testing, etc. 4. My visits with the children will be supervised for my protection - so that she cannot make any further allegations. This may be phased out when some level of trust is restored. 5. My ex will no longer receive any child support. In fact, she will be billed over $200 per month. All my child support ($1038.22 per month) and her $200 per month will go into a trust fund to be maintained by the Guardian. 6. The trust fund will pay for daycare, therapy for everyone in the family, further investigations by the private investigator and any other professional involvement (including a "supervisor" or witness for my parenting time with my children). Whatever remains will also be applied to the GAL/private investigator bill. 7. I will get standard rules visitation - every other weekend, one night a week, holidays. If we can get a supervisor for overnights, and when the professionals feel it's OK, I will get overnights. It might make a while though. 8. Therapy for everyone and parenting time for me will start as soon as the plan can be drafted, the specifics worked out and it can be filed with the court. So, what does this all mean - and why are we doing it this way? Well, it means that they have taken $1200 net per month away from my ex (and they've eliminated a $460 per month expense). She does not control that money during this "trial" period. It means that everyone goes into therapy - primarily, in the name of being objective, to determine just what the problem is and who is causing it. The professional involved at this level will be doing several things: 1) Determine what really did happen (was my ex lying (as the evidence strongly illustrates) or did I sexually molest my sons) and who was the culprit. This is not a punitive decision. The bottom line is to determine what the problem was or is and fix it, if it can be fixed. 2) To try and get this divorcing family back on track towards a more normal post-divorce life. Why are we doing this? Well, we could have gone through the nasty trial. I probably would have won sole custody. It would have cost over $30,000. It would have been very, very ugly. My ex would have been virtually destroyed by the testimony. Her neighbors and people she used to consider friends would have been raking her over the coals. Now, does she deserve this for what she has put me through? Well, yes, she does. But there is one major problem with that whole approach. What about my children? This kind of resolution would do nothing to help her, to wake her up and snap her back to reality. It could drive her over the brink. As a result of such a trial and losing custody, she could end up trying to kill me or my sons, kidnapping them or end up in a rubber-room. Do my children deserve or want to see that happen to either of their parents? No, they don't. Why would I agree to such a plan? Well, for this reason: we have my ex nailed. She painted herself into a corner and couldn't get out. My attorney, the GAL and I had two choices: 1) move in for the kill and finish her off in court at great financial and personal expense, or 2) stand back and let her get out of the corner. If we had chosen option 1 (finishing her off and getting sole custody for me), I would still have to deal with her - and her children would have to deal with a parent that had been destroyed in court during a divorce. How easy would she be to deal with after such a trial? How good would she be for the kids? How good would she be for herself? By choosing option 2 and standing back and giving her an out, it might be possible to stop the lies, stop the hate, stop the lack of trust, put this in the past and sweep it under a rug and enable my children to have a somewhat normal, maybe even a good relationship with BOTH parents. By choosing option 2, she gets help without being destroyed first. Now, how do I feel about this plan? Well, the supervised visitation part, I HATE. Even though it is for my protection, to keep her from making any more bogus, false and malicious allegations, it looks to others as though I have not been exonerated. It minimizes the time I get to be with my children, even if it is only for another six months. I've missed enough parenting time. I hate missing more. But it protects me while a psychologist puts together a complete, comprehensive analysis of who is who and what is what and how we get from where we are to where we want to be. If, at the end of this evaluation/therapy period, my ex is not making progress, the psychologist has not made any headway, then we can go back into a trial for sole custody - and this time with a comprehensive picture from a professional of exactly what the problem is. In effect, we could end up going through the custody trial anyway. Or maybe my ex would simply concede, but I seriously doubt it. So, with this plan no one is a winner or a loser at this point. But where we want to be in the end is in a situation where my sons have two good parents who are moreover concerned with their welfare and not really interested in or concerned with the affairs of the other person. Because of the battles of the last year, we are in a deep pit. You can't get out of such a mess overnight. By taking $1200 away from my ex every month and making her face the prospect that if the trial would have taken place, she would have lost custody (the private investigator's report pretty much floored her, her parents and her attorney), we hope to finally get her under control - snap her back into reality. The attorneys in this case are quite pleased with this approach at solving this family's problems. It is an unusual resolution to a divorce custody dispute case in which false and malicious allegations arise. It gives my ex a second chance - for the children's sake. It protects me (and, if you believe that I could possibly ever abuse my children then you are aware that it protects my children from the possibility of further abuse - I'm only stating that because I'm an objective realist - I did NOT abuse my sons) and it lets a professional psychologist get into our heads and find out what is wrong and attempt to fix it. From their perspective, it covers all the bases. The attorneys have discussed publishing this model attempt at a solution in legal journals and the psychologist might consider publishing this approach to a solution in psychology journals. Objectively, I think it is probably the best way out of this mess. So, what do you think? I know many of you think that a person who makes false and malicious allegations of sexual abuse during a divorce custody/visitation dispute should be punished. It is a criminal act and should be treated as one. It could be the anti-thesis case to Morgan vs. Foretich. We could make an example of her and literally destroy her for making such false and malicious allegations solely to thwart my attempts to maintain a relationship with my children. We could send out a message to mothers going through divorces that if you create and or manufacture such malicious and false allegations during a divorce custody/visitation dispute, you will be found out and you will lose custody of your children. You might even do jail time. But this criminal act is also the act of a sick mind. Does the penal system have in place a method for fixing a sick mind? What about my children? Do they deserve an ex-con for a mother or do they deserve the best mother that they could possibly have? How would I deal with my ex after she had been through some of what she tried to put me through? She's not as resilient as I am. I don't know if she could have ever bounced back from such a devastating blow. Amazingly, as Nietzsche said, "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger" is true for me. I'm stronger, more aware and more concerned with life since all this happened. I'm active. I've gained a perspective of life that few people ever get to experience. Despite the pain, agony, frustration, humiliation, degradation, embarrassment, expense, I've dealt with all that, I did all the things necessary at the time to keep me sane and to keep me going. I had to get beyond the emotions after I dealt with them and heal myself. I had to keep looking for solutions. You folks in USENET land just don't know how much you've helped me. For that, I'm grateful. You're not the only ones. I'm especially grateful to my co-workers, my family, the myriad of professionals involved in this thing and my friends. It was hard and it will continue to be hard. But, I think the worst is over. Maybe not, but I have to hope for the best, but expect the worst. I was instructed by my attorney to hold off on involving the press in this case. That might have been wise. But, if this attempt at a solution works, I want people to know about it. Well, I've got work to do.... Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Thu Sep 3 17:44:03 1992 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:1042 alt.child-support:4372 soc.men:53516 soc.women:57218 misc.kids:55180 misc.legal:46990 Path: utcsri!rutgers!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsm!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.family-law,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,misc.legal Subject: Grandparents' Rights/48 Hours Message-ID: <1992Sep1.033729.2531@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Date: 1 Sep 92 03:37:29 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 240 Last night I was talking to a co-worker. He and his wife have been married for something like 24 years. He has several children and one daughter who is about 15. Anyway, this daughter has many friends, but almost all her friends are products of broken marriages. In fact, of all her close friends, she is the only one from an intact home. It's a glaring statement on marriage as an institution. Of the people I know who have good marriages, they concede it has been very difficult to stay married. It takes a great deal of compromise and an understanding that things will not always be good - sometimes it just sucks. But the reason for this post is not to discuss the institution of marriage. It is more to discuss how the prevalence of divorce has created an entire class of victims. Besides the non-custodial parent becoming the victim of divorces, the non-custodial parent's extended family often suffers the same pain, frustration, humiliation and degradation in regards to spending time with the children of the marriage. I was at a meeting last month and a woman and her son were also in the audience. They told of a one-year struggle to be able to see her grandchildren, his niece and nephew. I was touched by their struggle, because it hits home with me, but I want you to understand what they have had to deal with for the last year. Over a year ago her daughter/his sister was killed. They did not describe the circumstances of her death, but you could tell that they were very suspicious of the entire event. The deceased woman's husband did not have a funeral, had his wife cremated, buried the urn with ashes in a cemetery and the grave site is unmarked. Their pain that they did not get to "bury" their relative was evident. That they can't even find the spot where she was buried makes it even harder for them. But things got worse after the death. The husband, by law, became sole custodian of the children of the marriage. He was not fully able to take care of the children and support himself and them, so the children now live primarily with his mother. He visits the children all the time. However, both he and his mother have conspired to thwart any attempts by his deceased-wife's family of having any contact with the children. The deceased mother's family members have pleaded and begged for a year to see these kids - to no avail. They finally obtained a lawyer and are filing for grandparents' visitation rights as defined by Ohio law. That this woman openly wept as she described this struggle was indicative of the pain, suffering and frustration she has had to deal with - just to see her grandchildren. Why does this hit home with me? My mother and step-father, my grandmother and one of my brothers were able to see my two sons for the first time in one year - almost to the day - this weekend. And to top it off - my ex2b was present the whole time - it was the only way she would allow my family to see my children. She claims that they weren't interested in seeing my sons. I know the truth. Last September, my ex2b, in a phone call with one of my brothers, stated, "I will see to it that neither Aaron, nor any of his family members will ever see my children again." And she tried to do just that. She refused to allow me to see my children for 90 days, then I got a court order providing for supervised visitation, at my expense. I was able to see my children for 14 hours over a 7 month period. She canceled visits routinely, and would call me at work and tell me that if I want to see my children, I had to pay. The entire time this went on, I was paying $1038.22 per month in child support. This subjugation of my parental rights was a result of my ex2b having charges filed against me for child endangerment for spanking my sons. It took 10 months and almost $5000 to overcome that charge, but the court treated me like I was a common criminal the entire time. Still, the court did grant unsupervised visits starting in March. However, I could not take my children anywhere, nor did I get them overnight. Because both of my parents were working strange hours and were scheduled to work on weekends, neither was able to travel the 2.5 to 5 hours to see my children for a few hours. Then after almost 6 weeks of unsupervised visits, my ex2b, less than two weeks before the charges she had filed against me were dismissed, alleged that I sexually molested my children. For the next 8 weeks, I was able to see my sons for about 16 hours at an additional cost of approximately $400. My ex2b's parents had told my mother about 8 months ago that if she wanted to see my children, she could come to Columbus and see them at their house for a few hours. She could not take the children anywhere, nor could I be present. She also was not to bring any of my brothers or anyone else with her. My mother would not agree to see my sons under such circumstances. My ex2b's family was trying to treat her like a criminal. My mother and one of my brothers attended one of my hearing dates in March. At the end of a long day of my ex2b's attorney trying to thwart many attempts of me getting visitation with my children, my ex2b came up to my mother and told her that if she wanted to see my sons, she could. In fact, she could see them that very night. This was about 4:00 pm and my ex2b told my mother that she could stop by her house at 7:30 or 8:00. But my mother could not bring my brother and I could not be present. My mother had to work the next day and still had to drive three hours to get home, and my mother would, once again, have to see my children completely under my ex2b's circumstances and completely in accordance with her rules. My mother was especially leery of my ex2b making allegations against her - everyone involved in this case is afraid of my ex2b making allegations to get what she wants - after all, she was doing it for over a year and getting away with it every time. My mother talked to my attorney about it, who was just as repulsed by my ex2b's attitude as anyone. My ex2b just has to make the whole experience as degrading and humiliating as possible. It is also important to note that my ex2b's attorney told the referee in court that day that I should not be allowed to take my children to see their extended family on my side. He told the referee that my family has a history of alcoholism and child abuse. He told the referee that my brother kept loaded guns laying around the house. He expressed that my parent's house was not very nice and that there were not adequate facilities to take care of my children there. The home he was describing is not either of my parent's homes. He was describing a house in Milan, Indiana. My mom lives in Seymour, Indiana and my dad lives in Hamilton, Ohio. Both of my parents' homes are nicer than my ex2b's and her parents' house. The home in Milan, Indiana is where two of my brothers live. And it is nicer than my ex2b's house. One of my brothers hunts and he has several guns. The guns are always locked up and are never, ever loaded. None of my family members is abusive or violent. None has ever been charged with anything besides traffic violations. None of my family members has a drinking problem and only a few drink anything at all. Both of my parents are remarried to intelligent, responsible people - good, kind people. I like and respect both of my step-parents. So, who are my family members and what are they really like? Well, my father is a long-haul truck driver. He has been one of the highest rated drivers in the US for years now, both for his safety record and his performance on tests and at national contests. My mother works in a mental institution taking care of mentally retarded patients. My dad's wife is a legal secretary who types 110 WPM. My mom's husband works in a factory that makes ironing boards and bed-frames. He also reads voraciously - consuming a book a week for over 30 years. That he knows more than many history professors is understood. I have four brothers. One turned 31 today - the 31st. He is a plumber. He graduated 7th in his class, but did not go to college at the insistence of my maternal grandfather who wanted him to take over his plumbing business. Another brother is 28. He is a journeyman electrician and works in a factory. He is very active in politics. Another brother is 22. He is a student of nursing at Miami University. My youngest brother is 16. He is very active in sports and is and has been enrolled in an honors program for years. When he graduates high school, he will be a sophomore in college. His high school co-oped with Indiana University-Purdue University Incorporated (IUPUI) to establish such a program. Both of my grandmothers are alive and well. One was the oldest of 11 children and had four children herself. She was a homemaker and mother until my grandfather died. Then she worked in a clothing store until she retired. My deceased grandfather worked all his life in a steel mill. He was one of the nicest men you could ever meet. My other grandmother was the second youngest of 13 children. She was a "Rosy the Riveter" in WWII, worked in factories, worked in a children's clothing store - lots of things. Her husband, my maternal grandfather, was a plumber, boy-scout leader, electrician, general contractor, served in WWII as a medic and saw some really terrible things. He completes the crossword puzzle everyday in the Cincinnati Enquirer. He attended college and broke both of his ankles playing football at Indiana University. He and my grandmother were active in groups like the Masons and Order of Eastern Star. I spent a great deal of time in my youth running around Masonic temples while people paraded around in ball gowns and suits. There is only one PhD in the immediate family - that is my dad's brother. I might be the second, if my youngest brother doesn't beat me to it. And who am I? Well, I was an outgoing, out-spoken young child. I had long hair until I was 20. I graduated 3rd in my class and my SAT score was 1270. I was president of student council and judge in a school court program that I created. I wrote the constitution for my high school. I helped establish the honors program that my younger brother is taking part in. I studied Electrical Engineering and Electronics Engineering Technology in college. My minors were in English and Computer Science. I worked as a DJ for a college radio station for two years. I had a landlord who worked for CBS records and he and one of my roommates produced an album. Henry Lee Summer and Susan Clark were two of the artists on that album. I taught Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare for a military school for almost 9 months. I went into technical writing in 1987 and have been doing it for 5 years. I write the system administration documentation for the operating system that manages AT&T's long-distance network around the world. All-in-all, it is simply a pretty middle-class family. Hard-working, honest, sincere people. That their rights can be minimized by the actions of a contentious spouse and that the courts do virtually nothing to recognize their rights in regards to my children, well, that's what I'm writing about. What was interesting about what my ex2b's attorney told the referee that day back in March was that my attorney laughed out loud about it after we left the courtroom. She stated something like, "Geesh, the things some attorneys have to say in court for their clients." But then, when the referee wrote up his RULING, it was like he had taken it all to heart - had believed every word of it. He ruled I could not take my children to see any of their family members and stated, "If the defendant's mother wants to see the children, she can drive to Columbus and see them." But what about the other 18 family members? What about my grandfather, who has been in and out of the hospital for the last few weeks, who can't travel, who is 75 years old and is not doing very well? He has two great-grandsons - and they are both my sons. What about my brothers? What about my father? None of them were even worthy of mentioning. My parents and extended family members are entitled, by law, to regular visits with my children. At a hearing later this month, I will work to insure that the court abides by the law and grants them scheduled time with my children. Otherwise, the court will just try to write them out of the picture with the stroke of a pen - act like they don't care, act like they don't even exist, act like their rights are not important, act like their pain is not real. So, why did I write all this? Well, as many of you know, I produce a Newsletter here in central Ohio on fathers' rights. Both the Newsletter and the local fathers' right group have captured a great deal of attention lately. 48 Hours is coming to Columbus on September 14th and will be here for a week to do a story on us. And I want to tell them about Grandparents' Rights and how grandparents can be victims too in this terrible world known commonly as the land of domestic relations law. I would appreciate it if you see a local news story on Grandparents' Rights that you annotate it and post it. I want personal stories, I want to give the folks at 48 Hours something real, something sincere and something important to think about. I'm not the only person out there who has been through this, I know that. And I want the people throughout this country to be aware of what is happening and how it desperately needs to be changed. Thanks in advance for your help, Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Thu Sep 3 17:47:12 1992 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:1044 alt.child-support:4374 soc.men:53520 misc.legal:46997 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,misc.legal Path: utcsri!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsm!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: How a Judge is Born in America Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:32:18 GMT Message-ID: <1992Sep1.053218.4660@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 159 Original article was published by the Divorced Men's Association of Connecticut, Inc. in a publication called "Court Watcher," August/September, 1990. I took the liberty of re-writing it, because I didn't like the original all that much. ### Begin How a Judge is Born in America To become a judge in any state in the United States, a person first must become an attorney. After practicing law for a few years, an attorney can then decide whether he or she would like to become a judge. There are two primary ways to obtain that goal. In some states judges are elected, so potential candidates for judgeships must become involved in politics to be nominated by their party to run for election. Some states have a system wherein candidates' names are submitted to a committee which makes recommendations to the Governor regarding who they feel should be nominated and presented to a judiciary committee for further review. If the candidates make it this far, a hearing is convened and the committee reviews the nomination. All candidates passing the judicial committee's muster are presented to the legislature for a vote on their nominations. Whoever they approve can be a judge. Some states utilize a combination of the two methods. Regardless of the method, anyone who wants to be a judge must be involved in a political party. To get recognition within that political party, they must attend political meetings all the time. They have little time for a family, because they will be practicing law all during the day and some nights and they will have to attend many political events. The majority of the time such candidates for judgeships can spend with their children (if they even have any) is on the weekends, and maybe a few nights a week. Usually, the big day will be Sunday, church in the morning, and maybe off to the park or the beach in the afternoon for a few hours. When folks who have lives like this become judges, some interesting things are understood. To illustrate this, consider the following scenario: A father named Joe and a mother named Mary come before the judge seeking to dissolve their marriage - both seeking custody of the two boys of the marriage. Joe and Mary did not have a "traditional" family - one in which dad works during the day and mom stays at home with the children. No, Joe and Mary had the more common family, the kind in which both parents work at paying jobs. Joe stayed home nights while Mary worked the second shift at the factory. Joe worked the first shift. Mary and Joe both had to work because they just could not live on the income that either of them could make individually. While Mary was off at work during the evenings, Joe took care of his sons and all their needs. He started doing this soon after they were born - as soon as Mary could go back to work. Joe has witnesses testify that as a father, he's all right. They say he's a nurturing man who not only pushed strollers, gave the children their bottles, wiped their bottoms and bathed them, but he also took care of their emotional and intellectual needs. He taught them and hugged them, and played with them. He was not only a father, he was a friend. He performed all the acts that "traditionally" were performed by mothers. And now Joe is before a judge seeking custody of his sons. Mary has witnesses testify that she is a good mother and takes care of the children's needs. She claims she didn't need much help from Joe in raising the two boys, and frankly, he didn't offer much help. She complains that he was too harsh with them, and rough-housed with them too much. In her opinion, Joe was not a nurturing father. But she did admit to the judge that Joe had stayed up with one son when the son had the measles and administered medication. And she couldn't deny their work schedules and how much time Joe had been with the boys. Well, the judge is supposed to be listening to this, but he keeps sitting there thinking about his family. His wife took care of the children. His wife didn't have to work, because as an attorney, he grossed $100,000 annually, and as a judge, his salary was $85,000. He knew that he didn't know the first thing about caring for children. His wife and the nanny took care of all the little details. His projection of his own sense of self onto Joe made him disregard Joe's statements and those statements of his witnesses. Joe makes $22,500 annually and his wife makes $20,000 - for a total of $42,500. This family lived in a different world than the world the judge lived in. Well, the judge ends up giving sole custody of the children to Mary and Joe is granted the privilege of visiting his children on a couple of weekends a month and for an hour one night a week. You know, the usual. And the judge ordered Joe to pay Mary $125 per week out of his $300 per week disposable income. This left Joe with $175 per week to support himself. When he asked the judge how he was supposed to live on $175 per week, the judge told him, "These children have to be supported and you can find a second job for extra income." So what's the moral of this little tale? Well, if you know how a "traditional" judge is born, then you might be able to understand how such a judge thinks about families and money. Knowing how a traditional judge thinks might inspire you to get a good attorney, the best possible, to study family law, to study your state constitutional laws as you file pro-se with your attorney and assist your attorney in your custody case. And here are a few pointers that will help you to: 1) determine if your judge is a "traditional" judge, and 2) do something about it. 1. Go to court before your case comes up and obtain transcripts of cases your judge has heard. Read through these and read the decisions and comments made by the judge in the cases. If you find that the judge is biased, then you know you should avoid this judge. Or, contact a local activist group, such as a children's rights group and see what they think of your judge. If they have had bad experiences with this judge, then you are doubly sure that you want to avoid this person. 2. At this point, you might try to get your case transferred to another judge or another court. 3. If you can't get the case transferred, check out when the judge's term ends. If there is an election soon, or if the judge is transferring to another court soon, file for an extension. 4. If the judge is up for reappointment, testify at the hearing about what biased statements you saw in the judge's transcripts and decisions. If the judge is reappointed, you could ask that this judge dismiss him/herself from your case due to personal biases resulting from you testify against this person. Writing newspaper editorials or campaigning against this person could accomplish the same thing. You can also write letters to the state and judicial officials that oversee this judge. 5. If you still can't get a biased judge removed from your case, subpoena the judge as a witness. Make the judge present evidence that he or she is not biased against men in domestic relations court. A judge cannot sit on a case in which he or she is a witness. 6. If nothing works, try to build a strong case and prepare to appeal any biased and unfair decisions. Try to present a comprehensive and thorough case that illustrates that you are very sincere about your relationship with your children, prove to the judge that you want to maintain that relationship. 7. Or, bypass the judge completely and negotiate a reasonable settlement with your ex2b. Sometimes this is impossible, but try to get the courts to assign a mediator to your case to help with the negotiations. Get a Guardian Ad Litem assigned to represent the children. This objective voice carries a lot of weight with the court. Unfortunately, domestic relations court is an adversarial battleground. If you try to stay off the battleground, you can avoid allowing a biased judge to destroy your relationship with your children. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Tue Mar 2 18:17:59 1993 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:2616 alt.child-support:6399 soc.men:62731 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men Path: utcsri!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: A Letter to My Attorney and GAL Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 00:52:56 GMT Message-ID: <1993Mar1.005256.1344@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 483 I just faxed this.... February 27, 1993 Carol A. Wright, Esq. 7100 North High Street, Suite 209 Worthington, Ohio 43085 Bus #: 848-4140 FAX #: 885-1783 Steve Daulton, Esq. Bus #: 224-1222 FAX #: 224-1236 Carol and Steve, Well I had my companionship time, or parenting time with my sons today -- via Cathy Wayne's agency and a witness named Debbie Walsh or Welch, I forget. However, the agency could not come up with anyone for Sunday, and I asked Andrea about my Sunday time with my sons and she refused to discuss it, after flatly stating, "No, the visit will not take place." I missed six regularly scheduled visits with them in the last six weeks -- mostly the weekday visits -- all allegedly due to illnesses. Two of those were made up. Then Andrea pulls the "pay to see your children" rabbit out of her hat, again. And all y'all can say, is "Hey, you agreed to it." Well fine. I also agreed that all scheduled time with my children that is missed due to Andrea or an illness of the children should be made up. What about that? Will they be? Is Andrea perfectly in the right when she denies me the visit on Sunday because the agency cannot do it, and because I couldn't come up with anyone brave enough to be roped into this deal after being given 48 hours notice? I'm finally burned out on this whole deal. I got screwed to the gills by one of the most manipulative, dishonest women to ever get a divorce. Why? Well, to put it simply, gender discrimination. I can't afford to keep running up tabs that I have to pay completely. Until the next child support order is changed, my child support is and has been, for over a year, $1038 per month. But, because I got paid for some overtime last year and because I worked a whole year at $22.90 per hour, I made more money. And the daycare raised its prices. Add it all up and I get the child support amount deducted from my pay changed to $1144 -- an increase of $106 per month. Then, we add in the $200 per month deduction for the GAL/PI/evaluation/witness and my new deduction amount is $1344 -- net. According to the latest order, an additional $100 is taken from Andrea. Yeah, right. My base CS goes up $106 per month, but you take $100 away from her. No, the court took nothing away from her. The court increased her CS, what she receives, by $6 per month. Mine went up $306. And then you tell me, "Hey, she has to pay her share." Right. And all bears in the woods are constipated. I have been living on $760 every two weeks ($1646 per month) take home pay for over a year. This will now be reduced the difference of $1344 and $1038 (306). So now, I have to live on $618 every two weeks ($1340 per month). Because the bill to be paid by the deductions is currently at approximately $4500 (including the PI bill), and estimating a low, low, low -- extremely conservative evaluation bill at $1500, the total bill to be paid would be approximately $6000, with NO payments for a witness for me to see my children. That means that I am looking at 2 years of these deductions. The total time I am scheduled to see my sons is 50 hours per month (roughly 7% of the month (somehow it was argued to me that this was "more" than Rule 25's 21% of the year -- and that is why I had to give up one weeknight visit every other week at the last court date)). At the $8.90 per hour rate of this latest agency, the GAL/PI/eval/witness bill would increase by $445 per month. Over a year, that would add an additional $5340 to the bill, and, therefore, another two years to the deductions from my pay. So, I cannot afford to pay anyone to see my sons. And, after today, I will not pay anyone to see my sons. I don't care if it is minimum wage. The bills have to start decreasing and I have to get out from under this cloud of debt. Does this mean that I don't want to see my sons? You know, in your hearts, the answer to that one. My sons are more dear to me than anything. I will have to try alternative avenues of approach. For one, I am requesting, for the umpteenth time, and I will not be dissuaded from this again, that my parents both file for grandparents' visitation rights. The Supreme Court of the US has affirmed that their visitation rights should be granted. I know Andrea will try to make them out to be evil villains. That's her ploy. Who cares? They're not, and everyone who knows them knows they are NOT. (Hell, everyone who knows me knows that I'm not the person she tries to make me out to be.) The US Supreme Court has affirmed that grandparents' access rights should be granted. I guess I'll get to see them when my parents do, at the very least. Maybe I'll be able to find some brave sole who will go with me when I see my children. I will look, ask, beg, plead. I've found this is not easy. Everyone and their sibling fears Andrea. They see what she has been able to do to me. These innocent people don't want to lose: 1) their visitation rights to their children, 2) their children, 3) their good reputations, 4) their livelihoods, 5) a great deal of money defending themselves, or 6) their current life-style. 50 hours per month would be a major burden for anyone, and if I spread the load around, which I will endeavor to do, I risk alienation for demands put upon many people. You cannot imagine what it is like to have to beg people to give up many of their own personal hours to help me to simply have a relationship with my children. And, when I cannot promise them that it will be short term, that makes it even harder. After all, when we were in court in August and September, I accepted the "deal" because I assumed that everything was going in place then, immediately. I assumed that the psychological evaluation and "determination of this family's dysfunction" would quickly put an end to this travesty. Now, here it is, six months later, and neither of us has met with Dr. David Tannenbaum, whom I did not want to do this evaluation (a forensic psychologist specializing in sexual deviants, a person to whom Children's Services sends their "substantiated" cases for "treatment" and collection of further evidence seems like a real objective person to do an evaluation, eh?) Even when I reveal, "Hey, one of my friends, a man with a Ph.D., is going to sue Dr. Tannenbaum for incompetence," it's still him. Well, at least he has the same background as Dr. Elissa Benedek, president of the American Psychological Association, so maybe he will be a good choice. I don't know. Steve, you tell me that, if I didn't do what Andrea alleged, then, yeah, I've been royally screwed in this divorce. Well, for the umpteenth time, I didn't do it. So, yes, I have been royally screwed. Drs. Richard Gardner, Timothy Campbell, Gordon Blush, Elissa Benedek, Lee Coleman, Lawrence Spiegel, Arthur Green, William McIver, Margretta Dwyer, Alayne Yates, Diane Schetky, Domeena Renshaw, Graham Jeambey, Leroy Schultz, Ralph Underwager, Hollida Wakefield and lay and professional experts Kim Hart, Karol Ross, Sunny Burmeister, Doug Besharov, Jay Milano, Peter Firpo, Dean Tong, David Levy and many, many other well-respected objectivists have asserted that the vast majority of these allegations that arise in custody/visitation disputed divorce cases are not only false, they are malicious (80% quoted by Under- wager and Wakefield). They also have discovered that 75% of the mothers making these allegations are also borderline psychotic personalities. It is interesting that the number of substantiated cases of child sexual abuse, based on police files, is around 50,000 in the entire US per year. Yet, according to Franklin County Children's Services, we have 8,000 to 10,000 substantiations a year in this county. Hmmmm.... National magazines and newspapers have reported in the last year that sexual abuse allegations against the father now come up in 20-33% of all custody dispute divorces. What's wrong with this picture? The state, in sitting on its hands and thinking that it is protecting children in divorce cases such as this, is rewarding psychotic, malicious and pathological behavior on the part of the accusers. The state, the courts, the psychology profession and the officers of the court, entrusted to sort out the mess and do the right thing for everyone, not to WIN for clients or maintain the misandrist status quo, when they reward such behavior, are doing what is in the worst interests of children. That is very much the case in this divorce, with its allegations. Andrea threatened me a week before she made these allegations when I told her the child endangerment charges were going to be dismissed (one of the signs of a person making false allegations is numerous other allegations) -- one week before standard parenting time and rules were to be enacted by the GAL, you, Steve. (A big thing to consider with these allegations is timing. The allegations, made against men with no history of sexual deviancy, very often come up at significant times. The thing that the accuser is asking you to buy into is this: the accused person, with no history of abuse, all of a sudden, in the midst of very public scrutiny (the divorce and custody dispute), while having the accused's (the vast majority of which are men) parenting skills called into question for months (the accuser has to build this history that didn't exist previously), in the quest for sole custody, which numerous comprehensive and objective studies have asserted is not in the best interests of children unless one parent is TRULY abusive, this accused person, while being so challenged, prodded and scruti- nized, takes up child molestation as a hobby. That doesn't strike you as odd?) At the encouragement of a psychology profession run amuck, a children's services system that cares little about children, but cares everything about future funding, and because of the ignorance of the officers of the courts that are supposed to be conscientious and informed on such matters, but are, unfortunately, elected or appointed and therefore only have to meet minimal requirements for the job (qualified), these cases serve to destroy innocent people, and reward criminal behavior on the part of the person making the allegations. The accuser (usually Mom) gets everything, the accused (Dad) gets destroyed -- and there is little that can be done about it. But, what tragedy is this? Well, if you are a misandrist, a person, such a Referee Don Martin, who believes that mothers should be the sole custodial parent unless Mom wants Dad to be involved in the children's lives, or unless the mother is unequivocally unqualified to be a parent, it is NO tragedy. It is merely a means to an end. After stating that, I'd like to reveal some things .... First of all, the following is a verbatim quote, intact, of a post a woman made to USENET not long ago. >Newsgroups: alt.child-support >Path: cbnewsk!att!linac!uwm.edu!wupost!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!serval!crow.csrv.uidaho.edu!janl >From: janl@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Jan Lambert) >Subject: Responsibility for half... >Message-ID: <1993Feb24.154050.6064@serval.net.wsu.edu> >Keywords: shared custody >Sender: news@serval.net.wsu.edu (USENET News System) >Organization: Washington State University >X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8] >Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 15:40:50 GMT >Lines: 40 > >surely it has been my experience (and the experiences of xxfoxx >close friends of mine) that "s hared custody" is not in the best >interests of the child. Such "shared" children are treated as >property, things, prizes in the game of "gotcha" between two >people who cannot, for one reason or another, tolerate the >sight of each other in the first place. "Shared" children I >have had experience with are subjected to abuses such as >administration of foods the child is allergic to (causing >the child to be severely ill while in the custody of the >other parent), arbitrary changing of bedtimes, denial of >activities the other parent has given active support to the >child's participation in, and refusal to return the child >to the other parent when the time arrives to do so. The child >is forced to go to the other parent whether he/she wants to or >not, and proof xxfxx of child abuse by a medical doctor has >been ignored by the courts on the grounds that the child >cannot "tell" what is happening to him or her. > >I am strongly against shared custody for the above-stated >reasons, and have more reasons if anyone cares to ask. > >As for the mother (usually the CP) having to bear half the >cost of child raising, it has also been my experience (both in >the case of raising my own son, and the cases of my single-mother >friends who are raising children) that a greater percentage of >OUR income goes into raising the child than does the father's. >However, we have preferred this inequity to having to hassle >with said fathers' presence in our lives. In an oft-quoted >truism of the '70's "if you take their money, you have to take >their shit, too." We preferred to be left alone in peace to >raise our children rather than try to rectify the financial >inequity and see our children suffer abuse, and to having to >take more abuse ourselves. > >-- >Email to: janl@crow.csrv.uidaho > if that doesn't work, try janl@uidaho.edu > My computer bytes back...but only in little bits. > (JANL@UIDAHO.EDU..) It's the politically correct rhetoric of the 90s. Men are bad. You know, I can't recall when I've seen someone express Andrea's beliefs so succinctly. This is just the kind of attitude of empowered and controlling mothers who believe they are the default sole custodial parent after a divorce, how having a different bedtime for the children is a sign of the other parent's evil disregard for the child, how her hysteria in making abuse allegations against the father has been challenged by professionals who wouldn't go along with her version of things (this mother must have run up against someone who had been around the block a couple of times) (e.g., "proof xxfxx of child abuse by a medical doctor has been ignored by the courts on the grounds that the child cannot `tell' what is happening to him or her"), how the other child got "severely ill" in the other parent's presence, solely because of the other parent's stupidity, etc. Most of these mothers, the ones who demand control and insist that everything be done their way, and that they get everything, will stoop to making such allegations when pressed. And just why not? The allegations work in their favor in the vast majority of cases, and very, very rarely, if ever, has it cost them one iota. The only men who can defend themselves against these heinous allegations are those that either: a) have a lot of resources, knowledge and money, or b) those who benefit from court or professional people in positions of authority to do the right thing, for the children. You cannot understand how vile Andrea's actions have been in regards to my and children and to me -- long before this divorce started, how much they and I have had to tolerate, and how viciously she has attacked me at every opportunity -- using them as pawns in her quest to hurt me. This from a woman who idolizes Dr. Elizabeth Morgan. Yes, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, a woman who photographed her daughter with crayons and spoons stuck inside her vagina to illustrate to the court, "see, this is what my ex-husband did," a woman who wrote a book, _Custody_, before she made allegations against her ex-husband in which she stated (from memory), "Men are all well and good, but they are not for raising little children," a woman who hired a publicity agent within a month of the time that she made her allegations. Andrea told me, "Doctor Morgan is a national hero." With heroes like this, this country is doomed. Why have my children and I had to tolerate Andrea's misandry? Jack Tarpey, the first doctor who evaluated us for the courts, reported that Andrea was "generally rigid in her pattern of adjustment, unreliable as an informer, and unwilling to seek help from others." In the vernacular, an uncompromising liar who won't do what is in her best interests. He also stated that she seemed to him to be "an angry, manipulative individual who, while outwardly conforming, may tend to express her anger indirectly." For instance, forcing me to pay to see my children, screwing me in every possible way legally in this divorce. He went on to say, that on April 28th, 1992, several weeks before Andrea alleged that I molested my sons, that she stated that "at one point Mr. Scott Dagenfield had asked her if her husband ever `fondled' the boys since he (Aaron Hoffmeyer) was sexually immature." On May 14, 1992, after Andrea had made her allegations formally, Dr. Tarpey called Scott Dagenfield. He writes, "In the conversation with Mr. Dagenfield, he indicated that he never discussed any fear that Aaron Hoffmeyer may have fondled or been sexually inappropriate with his sons with Ms. DiSalvo-Hoffmeyer." Later he states, "one must question the possibility of [the allegations] being a manifestation of the passive/ aggressive tendencies noted through her personality testing. ... one must consider her ongoing behaviors as they may relate to those observed tendencies within her personality." He wraps up his surmisal with this: "A particularly problematic observation stemming from this evaluation was the statement by Ms. DiSalvo-Hoffmeyer approximately one month before raising sexual abuse allegations against her husband. That statement (previously noted) was about concerns of Mr. Scott Dagenfield that her husband might behave inappropriately. That Mr. Scott Dagenfield categorically denied ever making such a statement to Ms. DiSalvo-Hoffmeyer raises serious questions not only about her ability to reliably represent situations in which she is involved, but also perhaps about a new scenario she was envisioning in this ongoing family drama. If the ongoing placement of these young boys in this drama and the active alienation of these boys from their father is found to be true, one would have to question very seriously Ms. DiSalvo-Hoffmeyer's desire to act in a way that is in the best interests of her children. If, in fact, any of this ongoing situation has been at all orchestrated to further her own control or position of dominance within this situation, it would also raise serious questions about her belief that her children's best interests would be satisfied by having a healthy, ongoing relationship with their father." This is the opinion of a man who saw and talked to Andrea, what, a couple of hours? So why is this still going on? Do you think Andrea wants me to have a relationship with my sons -- or do you believe she accepts that she has to, to keep the child support reservoir on F? Do you think she takes delight in being able to use the system to screw me at every turn? Dr. Tarpey's report was written June 29, 1992 -- fully eight months ago. What has happened since then? Well, Andrea was given every opportunity to coach my children for an evaluation by Children's Hospital last summer. She did just that. My son's statements, excluding non-prompted, inappropriate statements, described, at worst, their father helping them after going to the bathroom--wiping my son's butt. Still, due to inappropriate responses, Dr. Charles Johnson, after refusing a court order to videotape his interview with my sons and performing the interview with only people that were hostile to me present, fills out the forms stating that abuse was substantiated. The children were never asked any questions related to coaching. No, "Did someone tell you to say that?" or "Did your mommy tell you to say that?" The interview was not a search for the truth, it was a hanging court. Then, in deposi- tions, Dr. Johnson wilts when told that a private investigator has revealed that the mother had told numerous lies about this very allegation. He stated that he NEVER tries to see if the children were coached, he doesn't know how that can be done. He stated that his investigation was not to determine if the children had been coached, his only expertise was in detecting physical signs of abuse. Therefore, he and his legal team decided they would not ask any questions, the answers to which, might reveal coaching. Yet, in his original report, he substantiated with NO signs of abuse. But, after hearing from you, Steve, about the reliability of this mother, he stated that he kinda grades these things on a scale from 1 to 10, where 5 is "don't know," 10 is "obviously guilty" (evidence, confession, witnesses), and 1 is "obviously false" (evidence, confession, witnesses), and that this case was, at first, without hearing anything at all from my side, a 6. But, after talking to you, Steve, and after being professionally grilled by you, Carol, he stated that now it looked like a 4. He went on to say that being the case, we should be looking at sole custody for the father. However, the documents weren't changed, although the case was not pursued any further by anyone. Then we find out from one of the witnesses present at that evaluation that even Dr. Johnson had misrepresented what happened at the interview. The good doctor is not so good. He bends the truth in his pursuit of all these evil child molesters. Next, we find out that the Brascott's, Andrea's neighbors, think Andrea, not only a lousy mother, but a psychopath. They fear for their lives and their livelihoods living next to her. She vandalizes their cars and tries to blame it on me. She literally begs Susie Brascott, in a crying fit, not to testify against her. The Brascotts move away from Andrea at the first opportunity. The PI's investigation reveals lots of sordid facts and opinions, inconsistencies everywhere in Andrea's statements to others, a history of trying to make numerous allegations against me, signs of planning this whole thing, starting at the time that I finally got the court to give me back unsupervised parenting time with my children. Now, Steve, you have asserted that you have to remain neutral in this case, because you are the children's legal counsel. Well, yes, that is definitely true at the inception of a case. But, after doing a very costly evaluation and investigation, and, after witnessing the behavior of everyone involved in this case for almost a year, your job is not to remain neutral. The GAL's responsibility is to the children. If one parent is obviously acting in the children's worst interests, you are supposed to work to penalize that parent. You can choose sides, if the need is there, in the children's best interests. I've heard, through second-hand accounts, that you have stated that you just don't know in this case, for sure. In other words, there was NO smoking gun totally exonerating me and totally destroying Andrea. But you've stated to me that you have a strong feeling about what has happened here. Unfortunately, this is a feeling that you've not acted upon. Jurisprudence is carried out every working day in this country, based, rarely on clear and convincing evidence, but moreover, a preponderance of the evidence. Informed, educated and objective judges in cases similar to this one have looked at the preponderance of the evidence and have made cut and dry decisions. What does the preponderance of the evidence dictate in this case? The current status quo? If yes, would your answer be the same if I had $25,000 to push a trial in this case -- one with expert witnesses, such as Dr. Richard Gardner and Dr. Timothy Campbell? Steve, there are two things that I note in my interactions with you that I find very revealing. The first was patting me on the head while stating, "Ohio's not a community property state." That statement reveals this: The laws in this country and in this state are screwed in respect to divorce, they are very inequitable in favor of whoever gets primary custody of children, 90%+ of the time, Mom. Rarely, if ever, does one see such inequitable settlements as mine in a divorce in which there are no children. You logically know that. Because she gets the kids, as awarded by the court, she gets a disproportionate share of the assets and he gets a disproportionate share of the debts. Does that sound familiar? The second is numerous implications to me about how bad you got screwed in your own divorce, but packaged with the attitude, "Hey, what can you do?" This powerlessness in fighting injustice is the prevailing attitude I perceive from men, in general. The fight is so hard, the slope so steep, the injustices so obtuse, our fate is sealed. Now, there are only a few things you can do when facing such a prospect ... one is run, another is to just put it in your bag of experiences and simply go on with your life and make the most of everything left that isn't screwed, and another is to stand and fight. Some people do all these things, in turn. But, I've determined there is only one morally correct act -- Right The Injustice. I was hoping that I would be able to adopt the "get on with your life" approach long, long, long ago -- before the inevitable divorce started, in fact. However, this crock is too rancid to tolerate. Do we have a moral obligation to the rest of humanity to expose this travesty for what it is? Or do we forget it and let our children try to clean it up, along with our huge federal deficit? How many innocent victims of malicious, uninformed, sexist and controlling parents does it take before we say, "enough?" Respectfully submitted, (signature) Aaron L. Hoffmeyer Father of Alex (age 5) and Adam (age 4) Andrea is taking our children to the Children's Hospital program for sexually abused children. She used Dr. Johnson's report to get them admitted to this program. Is the children's legal Guardian aware of this? It is a twelve-week program, wherein, for an hour a week the folks at Children's talk to each of my sons about sexual abuse -- abuse that never happened to them. Is this what children who have not been abused need to go through? Or is this Andrea trying to further her cause? Andrea has also tried to pawn 50% of the costs of the evaluation of my sons at Children's Hospital last summer on me. I assume she will try to make me pay 50% of the bill to Children's for their latest involvement with my children. Andrea's calumniations, perjury, vile contempts, and malicious legal manipulations and their effectiveness as a representative sample of so many cases like this wherein the same kinds of allegations arise (20-33% of all custody dispute cases now involve these allegations) reveal a great deal about the sad state of affairs in US domestic relations law and the preconceived notions of the officers of the courts. First of all, the political rhetoric against men in the last three decades has worked. Secondly, the effects of the Salem Witchcraft Trials were small potatoes in comparison to the "atom bomb" strategy of divorce. Thirdly, few people empowered by dominion to handle these cases do what is right. Which one is saddest? "I've done much better than most women who had to give in to shared parenting...." - Andrea DiSalvo, December 20, 1992 Adam: "My daddy can't come over to my house because he touched my privates." Dad: "Adam, who said that to you?" Adam: "My mom." - December 20, 1992