From soc.men Tue Sep 29 17:44:17 1992 Xref: utcsri soc.men:54764 alt.dads-rights:1266 Path: utcsri!rutgers!sun-barr!olivea!charnel!rat!polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu!dgross From: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights Subject: Men's Issues Newsbriefs #52 Message-ID: <1992Sep28.203347.21863@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> Date: 28 Sep 92 20:33:47 GMT Reply-To: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) Organization: Mousebat, Follicle, Goosecreature, Ampersand, Spong, Wapcaplet, Looseliver, Vendetta & Pang Lines: 158 Nntp-Posting-Host: polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu ~Subject: Men's Issues Newsbriefs #52 * California Governor Pete Wilson signs several draconian child support bills into law. * Even where it is offered, paternity leaves are rarely taken. Why does this happen? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Source: Sam Francisco Chronicle (9/23/92) Original article by Greg Lucas WILSON SIGNS DRACONIAN CHILD SUPPORT LEGISLATION ------------------------------------------------ Governor Wilson signed six bills changing the state's child support laws, including measures to make it easier for state and local authorities to track down delinquent parents. "Overdue child support costs taxpayers $350 million per year for the 400,000 cases in which child support hasbeen ordered but not paid," said Wilson in a statement announcing his signature of the bills. The package of bills closes some holes in California's system of collecting child support. The system involves a hodgepodge of entities, including courts, district attorneys, and state and local agencies. "Custodial parents -- and the district attorney when necessary -- will now be better able to make sure the parent who pays the child support actually pays," said Assemblywoman Jackie Speier, D-South San Francisco, the co-author of one of the measures. The key changes in child support laws, most of which take effect January 1, include: * Eliminating the need to renew child support court orders. Currently the orders must be renewed every 10 years. * Allowing child support payments to be made by credit card. This change in law takes effect immediately. * Requiring banks, savings and loans and credit unions to answer questions from district attorneys about the assets of a noncustodial parent. This also takes effect immediately. * Forcing businesses to report newly hired or rehired employees to the state within 30 days so the names can be matched to lists of persons who either owe or are subject to paying child support. * Creating a $50 bounty as an incentive for each case in which a district attorney can get health coverage for the child from the parent who pays the support. * Continuing child support until age 19 for full-time students who are not self-sufficient and for children in foster homes. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Source: San Francisco Examiner (9/20/92) Original article by Armin A. Brott FATHERS RELUCTANT TO TAKE PATERNITY LEAVE ----------------------------------------- In 1987, when a male associate at one of San Francisco's largest -- and supposedly most progressive -- law firms decided to reduce his work hours so he could spend more time with his newborn child, he thought he was just taking advantage of one of his firm's benefits. "But it was clear from the start that it was a benefit no one wanted me to use," the associate said. He took it anyway -- and five years later, he's still the only man at the firm to have done so. Five years ago Campbell Soup Co. began offering all employees a three-month unpaid leave for family care, with full medical benefits. Since then, company spokesman John DeEleuterio says, 95 percent of eligible women have taken the leave -- while not a single man has. Despite all the talk about men's increased interest in family issues -- one survey by the Du Pont chemical company in April found that 57 percent of its male employees wanted schedules that would let them spend more time with their families -- there is a huge gap between what men say they want and what they actually do. Some companies have long allowed employees, including men, to take time off for child care. IBM, for example, has had a leave policy for 30 years that workers may use to care for newborn or newly adopted children. Twenty-eight states require large employers to provide unpaid, gender-neutral family leaves. But only 1.3 percent of eligible men actually use leaves, according to a 1990 survey by Robert Half International, one of the world's largest placement firms. A similar report comes from Levi Strauss of San Francisco, where nearly all eligible women have taken family leave while only a few men have, a spokeswoman said. Even when men do take leaves, they rarely, if ever, take all the time to which they are entitled. PG&E, for example, found that women generally take four to six months off while the few men who take the leave are gone "less than a week," a spokeswoman said. Trudi Saveriano, a spokeswoman for AT&T, suggests that the vast majority of men don't use her company's leave plan because it isn't paid. "If we got paid while we were on leave," said one male AT&T operator who recently took a two- month leave, "I think a lot more men would jump at the chance to be with their kids." Since the average woman still makes less than the average men, many families conclude that they can survive the loss of the woman's salary more easily. But financial pressures aren't the only reason why men don't take family leave. Even the handful of companies that offer paid paternity leave find that men don't participate. "There's a social and cultural stigma associated with men who take care of children," said Amy Segal, senior associate at Catalyst, a not-for-profit research and advisory group in New York. Also, many men believe their careers will suffer if they take time off work to care for their newborn children. "And most working fathers are afraid to take that chance," said Max Messmer, chairman of Robert Half International. In fact, the specter of career derailment is so compelling that most of the men interviewed for this article did not want their names used. One young San Francisco attorney who elected not to take advantage of his firm's paid family-leave plan said, "I'd heard about one guy who had taken the leave; suddenly, he was off the partnership track. All the male associates knew it would be career suicide." The AT&T operator said his supervisor had told him that taking the leave might affect his chances for a raise. Many companies send their male employees mixed messages by offering liberal paternity benefits while subtly, or even openly, discouraging their use. When Catalyst asked human resources directors and CEOs of companies that offer leave to fathers how much time would be reasonable for a paternity leave, 41 percent said no amount was reasonable. Dr. Joseph Pleck, project director at the Center for Research on Women at Wellesley College, said that "because employers don't understand or accept the idea of child-care leave for anyone, they find the concept of paternity leave incomprehensible or simply frivolous." Elle Hoffnagel, a human resources director in San Francisco, says some administrators respond to requests for paternity leave "with a combination of surprise and annoyance." They feel that "since men aren't physically disabled, they shouldn't take the time off," she said. Catalyst's Amy Segal says that simply offering family leave to men is not enough. "Any hope for change is up to the employees themselves," she said. "The more men avail themselves of family-leave options, the sooner it will become an accepted practice." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Source: Los Angeles Times, 7/30/92 ALLEGED DEADBEAT DAD KILLS SELF AS OFFICERS CLOSE IN ---------------------------------------------------- BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- A man wanted since 1986 for allegedly not paying child support killed himself as federal agents moved in to arrest him, authorities said. Howard Spencer Wright, 58, shot himself moments after FBI agents arrived at his apartment Tuesday, agent Allen Whitaker said. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "Women don't kill men unless they've been pushed to a point of desperation." -- Dr. Lenore Walker, executive director of the Domestic Violence Institute From soc.men Tue Sep 29 17:44:17 1992 Xref: utcsri soc.men:54767 alt.dads-rights:1267 Path: utcsri!rutgers!sun-barr!olivea!charnel!rat!polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu!dgross From: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights Subject: Men's Issues Newsbriefs #53 Message-ID: <1992Sep28.205624.22344@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> Date: 28 Sep 92 20:56:24 GMT Reply-To: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) Organization: Mousebat, Follicle, Goosecreature, Ampersand, Spong, Wapcaplet, Looseliver, Vendetta & Pang Lines: 190 Nntp-Posting-Host: polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu ~Subject: Men's Issues Newsbriefs #53 * A proposed ballot initiative would outlaw infant circumcision in Washington state. * Kentucky may make denial of visitation rights by the custodial parent a misdemeanor. * Divorced fathers who don't live with their kids struggle to be fathers. Source: Olympia Washington Olympian, 27 May 1992 Original Article by Mike Oakland PROPOSED INITIATIVE WOULD OUTLAW CIRCUMCISION ------------------------------------------------ A Freeland, Washington man has filed an initiative with the state to outlaw circumcision of infants and children, calling the operation "surgical, genital mutilation without consent." "When it comes to initiatives, I thought I had seen it all, until today," confessed Secretary of State Ralph Munro after Ted Pong filed his proposal to make circumcision of infants a felony and to allow circumcised children to collect damages later in life. Pong said medical ethics dictate that patients give their consent to "unnecessary elective surgery." Newborn children are not able to give that consent when it comes to circumcision, he said. He argues that a person should be able to make a decision about circumcision as an adult. Pong said the medical procedure is extremely painful and that it has "many extremely harmful short- and long-term physical and psychologcal effects." He said many adults who were circumcised at a young age "have endured extreme emotional pain and hardship as a direct result." In Washington state, residents have the right to write new laws on any subject through the initiative process. Once a ballot title is drafted by the state attorney general's office for the initiative, the measure can be circulated for signatures. If Pong collects the signatures of 150,001 registered voters, the initiative would be put to a vote in the Nov. 3 general election. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Source: Lexington Kentucky Herald-Leader, 10 March 1992 Original article by Bob Geiger DENYING VISITATION MAY BE A CRIME IN KENTUCKY -------------------------------------------------------- Men would be able to swear out criminal complaints againts their ex-wives if they think they have been denied proper child visitation, under a bill the Senate passed yesterday. The bill woul make it a misdemeanor for a parent who has custody of a child to intentionally violate a court-approved agreement on child visitation. Women would be more likely to face charges because most children of divorce are in the custody of their mothers. The debate on the Senate floor prompted passionate speeches on both sides of the issue. Republican Sen. Tim Philpot said, "this body, by passing this bill, is abusing children, and I'm not stating that too strong." Philpot said he has handled dvorce cases for 15 years and has seen the type of situations where the bill would do more harm than good. He said the bill "has the potential to give abusing husbands another weapon ... to abuse their ex-spouse, another weapon to drag their children into the turmoil." Philpot said many divorce cases simply require "reasonable" visitation. He said judges can find spouses in contempt of court if they disobey visitation orders. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Dan Seum, D-Louisville. Senate President Pro Tem John A. "Eck" Rose, D-Winchester, in a rare floor speech, said Seum's situation has often been repeated because judges have not properly used their powers. "We need to send a message to judges across the state that violation of visitation rights is a serious offense." Another member of the Senate leadership, majority caucus chairman David Karem of Louisville, also spoke in favor of the bill. "One of the worst things that occurs in child custody cases is the constant use of children as a football between the parents." The bill passed 25-13. All eleven Republicans and two of the Senate's 27 Democrats voted against the bill. One of the two Democrats who broke ranks was Sen. Susan Johns of Louisville, the only woman in the Senate. She said later that the bill could become just a way "for people who do not have custody to get back at the people who do have custody." Johns said she could imagine situations where an ex-husband comes to the door drunk, looking to visit his children and the ex-wife turns him away. She said it would be difficult to prove he was drunk. But even if the woman won in court, the bill would still make her go through a lot of grief by hiring an attorney and going to court, Johns said. Sen. Walter Baker, R-Glasgow, said the bill would overwhelm district courts with cases that they were not experienced in handling. The Kentucky Council of Churches and the Attorney General's Task Force on Domestic Violence opposed the legislation. The bill now goes to the House. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Source: Austin Texas American-Statesman, 8 March 1992 Original article by Julie Bonnin DIVORCED FATHERS FIND OBSTACLES ----------------------------------------------------- One man says he feels like an inconvenience, a visitor to his own children. Another describes himself as a father stripped of his identity. And for many of the other participants in a University of Texasat Austin study of divorced men who do not have primary custody of their children, a near constant anger roils beneath the surface of their lives. "I can't even look at a little girl at about the same age as my little girl without thinking about her and feeling the stress," said one. "It's almost an anger that you have to supress. It is a constant. Not a day goes by that you don't, two or three times during the day, go in and suppress those feelings, which can't be healthy for you." The UT sociologists behind the study, Debra Umberson and Christine Williams, came up with much the same conclusion after interviewing 45 Austin men and analyzing a national sample of nearly 1,000 non-custodial fathers: Divorced fathers who don't live with their kids exhibit high levels of poor mental health, which may be linked to their tendency to withdraw from and repress feelings about their children. The revelation is worth noting, and not simply because of the number of men whose lives are affected (roughlyone-half of all fathers in the United States become non-custodial parents), the researchers say. If some non- custodial fathers work hard to avoid thoughts and emotions concerning their children, the behavior eventually may lead them to not pay child support or visit their children. "Repressing their feelings doesn't help the men, but it also doesn't help women or children," Umberson says. "The more a father remains in contact, the greater he's likely to pay child support." And, the researchers say, a host of barriers works to prevent even the best- intentioned of non-custodial fathers from having positive and sustained involvement with their kids: time, distance and financial constraints, bias in the legal system, a lack of support networks and the demands of new relationships. The two researchers (who are both divorced, but not parents), say they were drawn to the project because no one else was. Sociologists looking at the issue of divorce have traditionally focused on womn and children, but until now researchers have failed to examine how divorced fathers are affected, say Williams and Umberson, who hope to publish a book based on their study. The little that is known provides a damning profile of "deadbeat dads" who dodge child-support payments and shun their sons and daughters. More than half of all men who are court-ordered to pay child-support fail to pay the full amount; 43% of divorced fathers rarely or never visit their children, according to a 1987 study. "The stereotype is that men aren't involved in a parenting role, especially after divorce," Williams says. "A lot of people assume that parenting doesn't matter to men after divorce." In interview after interview, the UT researchers found that to be untrue. Again and again, the researchers found men repressing the emotions that arose in the wake of divorce. Frequently, the most vivid feeling was one of trying to keep things from spinning out of control. "There were so many men who would say 'I almost just didn't come (to the interview), because I knew all these feelings would resurface,'" Williams says. "We teach young boys not to cry, not to feel when they're distressed. So what's the solution? To run away, to make yourself scarce." Another way to avoid the pain is to remarry; other studies have shown that 83% of divorced men remarry -- most within three years after a breakup. Divorced men have been shown to be more prone to suicide, accidental death and to substance abuse. athers who live apart from their children are more likely to engage in risky behavior than those living with kids. Exacerbating the problems of non-custodial fathers are negative characterizations they say plague them. "The system assumes that the woman is a fair-minded, relatively sane individual I think," said one man. "They assume about me that I'm a drunken, pickup-driving, beer-can-littering, child-abusing wife-beater." "The point," says Bob Curry of Texas Fathers for Equal Rights, "is not that the situation is totally backward because there are men like that. But you read the newspapers and women are always the victims and men are the perpetrators." "You don't have anything to say about where your children go to school, what doctors they see, what sports they play, but you have to have a smile on your face, pretend to everyone at home, at work and at church that everything's OK. Because if you don't meet your responsibilities, you're just another uncaring, unfeeling father." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 73% of the college students classified as rape victims by new standards did not think they had been raped. More than 40% of these women reported having sex again with the men who had supposedly raped them. From soc.men Tue Sep 29 17:44:17 1992 Xref: utcsri soc.men:54770 alt.dads-rights:1268 Path: utcsri!rutgers!gatech!destroyer!uunet!gossip.pyramid.com!olivea!charnel!rat!polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu!dgross From: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights Subject: Men's Issues Newsbriefs #54 Message-ID: <1992Sep28.220932.23398@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> Date: 28 Sep 92 22:09:32 GMT Reply-To: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) Organization: Mousebat, Follicle, Goosecreature, Ampersand, Spong, Wapcaplet, Looseliver, Vendetta & Pang Lines: 189 Nntp-Posting-Host: polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu ~Subject: Men's Issues Newsbriefs #54 * Researchers discover that the alleged bias against women in AIDS treatment is fictional. * A custodial parent may move away, even if such a move would interfere with visitation, according to a court ruling. * Some reasons why few dads are able to take paternity leave. * Some men are striking back against male bashing in the media and elsewhere. * A mother who interferes with visitation then sues for sole custody, the courts are biased in her favor. =============================================================================== Source: Los Angeles Times, 21 July 1992 Original article by Marlene Cimons NO GENDER BIAS FOUND IN AIDS TREATMENT --------------------------------------- In a surprising finding, U.S. researchers reported that there appear to be no differences between men and women in how quickly they become sick or die from AIDS, nor are there gaps in the rates at which each receives AIDS-related therapies. In recent years, some activists and researchers have insisted that women grow sick faster than men and have less access to treatments. In part, the reason for this may be that early in the epidemic, the disease was often diagnosed in women later than men because clinicians were not looking for the signs of AIDS in women. During that time, the disease was primarily striking gay men. "These investigations are important, particularly because this is the first large, prospective study to show that men and women share similar consequences of their HIV disease," said Lawrence R. Deyton, assistant director for community research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. The results were presented at the eighth International Conference on AIDS, considered the most important forum for the exchange of information about the deadly disease. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Source: Los Angeles Times, 2 July 1992 Original article by Larry Speer MOM'S MOVE FOILS DAD'S VISITATION, COURT SAYS OK ------------------------------------------------ A California appeals court has overturned another court's ruling that a divorced woman would lose custody of her son if she took a job in another city that would have prevented her 4-year-old son from visiting his father. The ruling outraged local women's rights activists. To comply with the custody agreement, the mother plans to accompany the boy on a weekly shuttle flight so he can visit his father, according to her lawyer. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Source: Washington Post, 7 July 1992 Original article by Shari Rudavsky DADS FIND OBSTACLES TO PATERNITY LEAVE -------------------------------------- Even when it is offered, fathers rarely take paternity leave. A 1990 survey of the nation's largest 1,000 companies found that while 31 percent offered some form of paternity leaves, only slightly more than 1 percent of eligible employees took advantage of them. For Larry D. Minichello, "it was the economics of it." Minichello had lost a job two years earlier and "the fear of losing this job sent chills up my spine, even though the company I worked for explained that this would not jeopardize my position," he said. Many fathers still see their primary role in the family as the breadwinner, said Joseph H. Pleck, a research associate at Wellesley College's Center for Research on Women. "The attitude is actually out there -- yes, fathers should be involved. But there is also the attitude out there that fathers should not reuce their commitment to the job, never forget that their primary responsibility is to earn an income," he said. Even men who take paternity leaves said they worried that their decision would eventually endanger their career. Many men who decide against leaves assume that taking a leave would send them down a "Daddy Track" as potentially harmful as the more familiar "Mommy Track" syndrome, which often prevents working mothers from advancing to top positions. The few men who take forma leaves may belie the time fathers actually take off work when their children are born, Plevk said. In 1988 he found that of 142 men he interviewed, 87 percent took time off after the birth of a child, although 82 percent of those said they did not think of that time as paternity leave. "The fact that an overwhelming majority of fathers are taking informal leaves says something very significant about fathers' desires to be involved with their kids and the constrainst that fathers have to work with. Fathers have figured out that if they want to make adjustments in their jobs they can do so that their co-workers and employers do not see them as being less concerned about their job," Pleck said. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Source: Washington Times, 18 June 1992 Original article by Elisabeth Hickey STRIKING BACK AGAINST MALE-BASHING -------------------------------------- "Take Father's Day and shove it," says Robert Commerce, 74, new member of the National Coalition of Free Men. "We don't want a necktie and a pat on the head if we are going to be trashed and berated the other 364 days of the year." Feminists, says Commerce, "stole our holiday" by using Father's Day as an opportunity to berate men for date rape and delinquent child support. "They have twisted it into Delinquent Daddy Day," he says. Other examples of male bashing: On the nation's comics pages, Andy Capp, that loveable cockney drunkard, is chased and threatened by his long- suffering wife. "It's nothing for her to toss him down the stairs, and she weighs twice as much as him," says Austin, Texas, lawyer Hugh Nations. "She uses weapons. She hits him with a rolling pin... we would not tolerate that if Andy wa a woman." Robert Sides, an NCFM spokesman, says "the feminists always want us to be so conscious of violence to women on screen, then you see a Kentucky Fried Chicken commercial where the girl kicks the man in the [groin], and a woman laughs ysterically." Stuart Tobin won't buy Peter Pan or Jif peanut butters when he shops for his family. "Choosy Moms choose Jif" and Peter Pan says "Because kids believe in Moms." "How do I perceive these commercials? That I'm inadequate and inept at taking care of kids," Tobin said. "Not only are they offensive, but they're dumb. They aren't talking to me, when they should be." Why is Mother's Day the single biggest day for phone calls? Why do people always yell "Hi, Mom" when they get on TV? Why are almost 50 million more Mother's Day cards exchanged than Father's Day cards? Men's movement activists are trying to change this. On the agenda, Warren Farrell says, is pushing for flexible work options so men can spend more time with their children. These men also want to reform a court system in which mothers win 90 percent of contested custody cases. Most of all, they want to fulfill their critical role. "All of the studies show that fathers are extremely important i the development of their children," Mr. Macchietto says. "Yet we have a court system that pushes men out of families. If you look at the number of juvenile delinquents, they are almost always from female-dominated households." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original article by Daniel Tepfer COUPLE BATTLING 7 YEARS LATER --------------------------------- In 1985 Pat D'Angelo and his ex-wife were granted joint custody of their two oung children. Then his ex-wife took the chilren. Five years lated, D'Angelo located his children with their mother in Tacoma, Wash. But not only was his ex- not prosecuted, she is now challenging him for custody. "If I had been the one who skipped with the kids I would probably be in jail now, but not only have no charges been filed against her, she has been given a free Legal Aid lwayer," he said. D'Angelo, a Manchester resident, said he now has full custody of his children, but is not getting a cent in cild support from his ex-wife. He said he is out of work and is having trouble finding a job that will allow him time to take care of his children. Meanwhile, he said his ex-wife has moved back to Manchester and has a job but makes sure she gets a minimal wage so she does not have to pay support. "I don't know why a judge hasn't told her to go out and get a real job so she can pay some support and some of the medical," he said. Bob Adams, president of the Divorced Men's Association of Connecticu, has an explanation. He said judges are just not fair to men in divorce cases. "Judges will put men in jail at the drop of a hat, but you will never see a woman go to jail for failing to pay support," he said. Adams, a divorced father, said he faithfully paid his child support but knows of many men who could not afford to do it. "Some of the support orders are just not reasonable," he said. "In some cases they are asking men to try to live on $110 a week after they pay support. It's just ridiculous." Adams admitted there are some cases where fathers can afford to pay support but refuse to do so because of animosity they have toward their ex-wives. "In most cases in which men are paying child support, they are getting to see their children. But there are cases where they are refused access to the children so they decide not to pay support. And frankly, I don't blame them," he said. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "I still think it is not a good idea for me to have to order women into combat. Combat is about killing people." -- U.S. Air Force chief of staff, General Merrill A. McPeak From soc.men Tue Sep 29 17:44:18 1992 Xref: utcsri soc.men:54772 alt.dads-rights:1269 Path: utcsri!rutgers!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!olivea!charnel!rat!polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu!dgross From: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights Subject: Men's Issues Newsbriefs #55 Message-ID: <1992Sep28.221747.23600@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> Date: 28 Sep 92 22:17:47 GMT Reply-To: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) Organization: Mousebat, Follicle, Goosecreature, Ampersand, Spong, Wapcaplet, Looseliver, Vendetta & Pang Lines: 933 Nntp-Posting-Host: polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu ~Subject: Men's Issues Newsbriefs #55 * The complete San Diego County Grand Jury report on child sexual abuse, assault, and molest issues. =============================================================================== CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, ASSAULT, AND MOLEST ISSUES (A Report by the 1991-92 San Diego County Grand Jury) INTRODUCTION TO SEXUAL ABUSE ISSUES Through expert testimony and case studies, the Jury obtained a wide range of information in the area of child sexual abuse. This controviersial and highly complex subject has suffered from excessive, sometimes bordering on hysterical, media attention, reporting of inaccurate or questionable statistics, and the failure to define and identify child sexual abuse accurately. Within the limits of the expert testimony received by the Jury, and a study of cases brought to the Jury's attention, this report will provide an overview of some child sexual abuse issues existing with the dependency process. ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL MOLEST Allegations of in-home molest/abuse seem to cause the most severe conflict with the system. There are many reasons for this. Child molest is a societal taboo. It causes extreme emotional upheavals in the family, internally, and for family members in relation to society at large. Allegations of molest provoke bias in everyone with the system. Molest can rarely be proven. Molest leaves no physical evidence. Because it can rarely be proven, the system seems determined to err on the side of assuming guilt - that which cannot be proven to be false must be true. This is an aberration in our system of justice. (Appendix A defines sexual abuse; sexual assault; sexual exploitation within the Criminal and Dependency Systems.) Child sexual molest is real, it happens, and it is terrible. Whether or not it is as prevalent and widespread as the media would have us believe is subject to considerable debate. The current trend in therapeutic treatment is to accept reports of molest as true, notwithstanding that they may be inherently incredible, made for motives of harm or gain, or the product of months or years of "therapy". The justice system, particularly the dependency process, has "bought into" this therapeutic model. The legal system's traditional truth-finding tools - witness confrontation, cross-examination, restrictions on hearsay and "expert" testimony - have been abandoned in a rush "to protect". However, when truth suffers, as it has, the system fails to protect and ultimately harms the innocent child as well as parent. In many cases, those who deny molest are guilty. However, in many other cases, those who deny are, in fact, innocent. Ironically, "denial" is taken as evidence of guilt unlike any other area of our judicial system, in Juvenile Court the alleged perpetrator of in-house molest does not have to be proven guilty in order to achieve a true finding. The dependency process focuses on the child as an object of molest or abuse. Precise issues relating to the alleged abuser and the abusive incident lose their focus and become nearly irrelevant. The Jury has witnessed the court take jurisdiction on the basis of a true finding that "the child believes she has been molested." Once the system musters sufficient cause to suspect molest, the child becomes a ward of the system and the family is forced to comply to its dictates or suffer the loss of the child. If the court believes a molest occurred and the family member could have been responsible a "true finding" is made and wardship declared. If a father denies molest and a true finding is made, he suffers the ultimate Catch 22 - he can either admit and take a chance that the department will allow him to begin reunification with his family or he can deny and no reunification will occur. But the irony does not end there. If the spouse supports her husband's denial, she is "accommodating his denial". If she accommodates this denial, she cannot be trusted to protect the child and she too will not be allowed to reunify with the child. Even when the mother believes the molest occurred and wants to protect the child, a current assertion is that the mother must have known all along and failed to protect. That then becomes a protective issue and reason to remove the child from the mother. Still worse, if the child denies the molest, this can be seen as part of a "child abuse accommodation syndrome"(1) and an additional reason why the child should have no contact with the parents. The child may be diagnosed as "multi- phasic" dissociative, or "in-denial" and thus unable to remember the experience. (while this does happen on occasion, the Jury has been convinced by numerous experts in this field that this is infrequent and should not be treated as the norm.) Thus, all members of the family can deny a false molest allegation and, in each instance, the system uses the denial as evidence of guilt(2) In the case of Alicia W., the father persisted in denying allegations of molest, but the mother was repeatedly told by her attorney and the social worker that her only chance to reunite with Alicia was to say that she believed her husband did it. The child, who persistently described a stranger perpetrator, was not believed. In order to allow her "the freedom" to "remember" without trauma, visits with her parents were terminated until she could come up with "a more believable story." This child was kept in court ordered therapy for two and a half years, twice a week, "dealing with the molest". The Jury has heard reliable expert testimony that it is a mistake to force a child to relive and keep talking about an alleged traumatic event. Further, there is little evidence that a child will repress a traumatic event. There is good evidence that a traumatic event tends to etch itself indelibly on the mind. After a true finding of molest, and the establishment of wardship, a reunification plan may be put in place. The reunification plan will inevitably require that the offending spouse complete Parents United. Parents United is a self-help group for in-home perpetrators of sexual abuse. The only way to complete Parents United is to admit the molest. If Parents United is not completed, there is failure to comply with the reunification plan. Not complying with the reunification plan is grounds for termination of services to the family and termination of parental rights. Parents united has not always required admission of guilt to complete the program. In fact, it is still not required in some Parents United chapters. All psychologists testifying before the Jury were unalterably oppose to this requirement. Testimony was also received indicating that the recidivism rate for heterosexual child molest is 7-14%, irrespective of the treatment received. A consensus of experts found that: parents and children need to learn to establish boundaries; children need to learn to protect themselves; an admission of guilt should not be required for reunification; the present system does not distinguish between degrees of molest; and removal of the father is not always in the best interest of the family or the. The Jury has heard testimony from parents who have "admitted" molest only in order to reunify with their children. A permanent bitterness and distrust of the system results. One of the most profoundly disturbing discoveries by the Jury was an extensively used test which is highly touted by many professionals for its ability to predict "age-inappropriate" sexual response. This test is called penile plethysmography. An attachment is made to the male penis, various sexually arousing slides are displayed, and the subject is asked fantasize. The penile erection reaction is measured. Experts hotly debate the validity of this controversial test. In San Diego County almost every man accused of sexual perversion of any kind will take this test. Due to the inherent difficulty in determining the truth in sexual molest cases, the Grand Jury recommends that the standard for a "true finding" be changed from "preponderance" to "clear and convincing" evidence. The effect of such a finding is so profound, on the offender, the child, and the family unit, that this heightened standard of proof is truly justified. When an allegation of sexual molest is made, the offending parent's contact with the child is usually terminated. The majority of the psychologists who testified before the Jury maintained strongly that this was not healthy for the child and that the child should at the least have conjoint therapeutic visits with the offending parent. The Jury concurs with that recommendation. FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL MOLEST DURING CUSTODY DISPUTES There is no dispute within the Juvenile Dependency System that false allegations of sexual molest during custody disputes occur and that the system fails to deal with them properly. There is, however, considerable dispute about how to handle these cases. The Jury has found that a parent making a false allegation of abuse or molest during a custody dispute is very likely to achieve the desired result. These accusations are made primarily to avoid visitation and joint custody provisions and the accuser frequently succeeds. Particularly with allegations of molest, visitation will almost certainly be at least temporarily terminated. The longer the accused parent goes without visitation, the more difficult resolution of the case becomes. The Jury has studied numerous cases of allegations of molest in custody disputes which have never been at Juvenile Court and where the father has had no further visitations. Parents who knowingly make false allegations generally seek to contaminate the child's relationship with the other parent. The children are subjected to a range of contamination starting with simple personal deprecation and escalating in the worst cases to brainwashing. Parents who do this are not stable, not protective, and doing permanent harm to the child. The Jury has studied many of these cases. Not one of them has been resolved despite years of conflict. Because all of these cases involve mothers who made allegations against fathers, we will speak in those terms. It does happen the other way around, and is, of course, equally damaging to the child. Family Court Services has recognized the seriousness of this problem and has instituted the Family Court Case Study Team to try to help resolve some of these long term cases and to reestablish fathers' visitations wherever possible. Unfortunately, by the time a case gets to that point the child is usually so contaminated that (s)he fears the father and psychologists are loathe to force the child to see a feared parent. Furthermore, only a fraction of such cases stay in domestic court where they reach the attention of this team. Most of the cases end up in Juvenile Court where there are no resources to redress the problem. This situation is best illustrated by a brief overview of three cases with which the Jury is most familiar. (The Jury received a large number of similar complaint.) The summaries of these cases were written in January, 1992. The updates, as of June 1992, are in the footnotes. Case 1: Michael P. (6) and Calle P.(8) A young military couple with two children were divorced in 1986. There was no custody dispute though there was bitterness as the genesis of the divorce was the wife's affair with a neighbor. The wife ultimately married this man and had several more children over the course of years. The father was almost immediately transferred East. During the next 18 months he visited the children several times on very short trips to San Diego solely for this purpose. On a Christmas visit in 1988, he called the mother because Calle was complaining of pain in her vaginal area. He applied hot compresses and returned the child home. Three months later after a phone visitation with the children he told the mother that he was arranging for the children to have an extended summer visit with him and with his extended family. The father reported that the mother said no and that if he proceeds with his plans, she will find a way to stop him, including making allegations of molest. Such allegations were made. CPS became involved. Calle was interviewed and reported her daddy touched her. A medical evidentiary was done which showed extensive ongoing molest inconsistent with the child's statement of just touching. The father was contacted in the East. He came to California, hired a lawyer, and began a battle which continues to the present. He subjected himself to polygraphs, penile plethysmographies, psychological profiles, etc. Upon his lawyer's advice he cooperated completely with everyone. The mother was, by all accounts, uncooperative with everyone and had a hard time following through on anything. It was discovered that there were other CPS reports on the mother and her new husband. These included reports of neglect of the children and reports of battery. Because the father had no contact with the children, there was no Juvenile Court jurisdiction and the case stayed in Family court. Family Court Services provide years of counseling, mediation, and the father still has no visitation. The father was concerned that Calle might have been subject to ongoing molest as evidenced the medical finding of molest. Michael, by that time, reported satanic abuse. Each child was sent an individual therapist. The stories esculated dramatically. They have not seen their father for years. They saw him a couple of times this year in supervised therapy for the purpose of psychological evaluation. The child who reported satanic abuse was less than two when he last had an unsupervised visit with his father. Interestingly, while he expressed fear at the thought of seeing his father, he immediately relaxed and enjoyed these visits. All therapists and evaluators seem certain that the mother has contaminated the children but still are unwilling to assist in putting the children back into a relationship with their father. The father requested temporary placement of these children in a neutral foster home to allow them to recover from the alienation and to see whether it would be possible for him to reestablish a relationship. Never reevaluated in this case was the original physical finding of sexual molest. The Jury has information that this doctor's findings are no longer being accepted as the basis of petitions filed with Juvenile Court. This case is now with the Family Court Case Study Team.(3) Case 2: Melissa F. (4) and Kimberly F. (7) Melissa and Kimberly's parents were living an apparently normal life in North Carolina. They had lived there several years and were well established in the community with many friends. The mother left abruptly in December, 1990 without warning to the father. She was eventually located, with the children, living with the maternal grandmother in San Diego. In April, 1991, the father left North Carolina and relocated to San Diego in the hope of maintaining regular visitation with his children. He had several visits with the children in San Diego always in the company of the mother and the maternal grandmother. The children had begun seeing a therapist who was just starting his internship. The father asked to meet with the therapist. The therapist refused. Five weeks after the father's arrival in San Diego, a molest report was made. The record show that this was not the first attempt to file a complaint of molest in this case. Five weeks later a petition was filed in Juvenile Court alleging sexual molest by the father. Ultimately the children testified to a wide range of abuse. This abuse was described in fantastic detail during the jurisdictional hearing. Kimberly provided graphic descriptions of oral, vaginal, and anal intercourse. All of the physical evidence was inconsistent with this testimony. The referee in the case found that the stories were "incredible, potentially exaggerated, and maybe even sometimes fantasized." He found the physical findings inconclusive. Nonetheless he concluded that the children had exhibited "acting out" sexual behaviors and that these behaviors were learned. The petitions were sustained. The father took a polygraph administered by a respected polygrapher who said he would trust the father to babysit his grandchildren. The father went through many psychological tests. He passed them all. He had a psychological evaluation done by a court-appointed psychological evaluator. It is differed dramatically from every other evaluation done. Notably, it said nothing good about the father and quoted the mother extensively. Social worker notes in this case are exhaustive. The maternal grandmother and mother moved the children to several different schools and have now changed the children's first and last names Social workers have investigated reported inappropriate discussions of the molest by the mother and grandmother in front of the children, and concerns expressed by teachers, etc. Nonetheless, the social workers have continued to support the mother. The original minor's counsel did no independent investigation and supported the Department in all motions. In January, 1992, there was a substitution of minor's counsel. The request for an independent psychological evaluation of the children was finally granted. A change in therapist for the children was also ordered. These psychologists now are convinced that the children have been heavily coached. However, because the children now fear their father these psychologists are opposed to forcing the children to visit with him. If indeed the children have been so heavily coached that they can no longer tell truth from fantasy then the Department of Social Services and Juvenile Court have played a pivotal role in this tragedy. These children should not be left in the custody of a parent so severely disturbed that she would do this to her children. She needs help and the children need time to recover.(4) Case 3: Shannon S. (8) Shannon's mother was hospitalized for severe manic depression. Initially, she had other emotional problems which led to a The parents lived close to one another. The child attended a private school a block from her father's and a couple of blocks from the mother's. She spent approximately half the time in each home. It seemed to be going as well as these things ever go in a divorce. The child was in weekly therapy for over a year to help her adjust to the parent's separation. The therapist reported that she was happy and well-adjusted despite the divorce and mother's illness. Shannon also had the added benefit of a large, extended, paternal family. She had always been very close to her paternal grandparents and they continued to play a major role in her caretaking. The mother decided to move to the San Francisco area to be closer to her family. The father agreed but wanted extensive visitation. The mother and father began a protracted custody dispute which eventually cost everything both parents had. It led, immediately after Shannon started with a new therapist in the bay area, to an allegation of sexual molest. Minor's counsel was appointed in Family Court and determined after an extensive investigation and psychological profiles that a molest had not occurred. An order was entered for a new therapist for the child. At the continued instigation of someone, most likely the San Francisco therapist, CPS became involved and a petition was filed. When the petition was heard in Juvenile Court, the appointed minor's Counsel from Family Court appeared to explain the findings in Family Court. He was told by the judge that he had no standing in Juvenile Court and he was dismissed. A panel minor's counsel was appointed. He examined the existing records and also recommended that the case be returned to the jurisdiction of Family Court. The Judge dismissed him too. A third minor's counsel was appointed. The third minor's counsel agreed to the judge's jurisdiction and stayed on the case. There was a five-month trial in Juvenile Court with little resolution. (Mid-trial, the parties agreed to stipulate to a "true finding" which stated that the "child was saying she had been molested.") The child continued with the same therapist who is convinced of the father's guilt. There is very probable contamination of the child by the therapist. The Jury spoke with the professionals involved in the case who are convinced that the child has been manipulated and contaminated. It is not likely that this child will ever have a normal relationship with her father. Her therapist is adamantly opposed to a resumed relationship. The first time she saw her father in over a year she gave him a huge hug and immediately sat on his lap. The savings to provide for Shannon's college education are gone. The mother was receiving a large property settlement and substantial alimony and child support. That is gone too. Everyone lost because no one within the system seemed willing to challenge the therapist's allegations and what was likely a child's distorted story.(5) In all three of these cases the children have been deprived of their fathers for extended periods of time. Their relationships with their fathers are probably irreconcilable. The professionals have backed away from the hard decision that contamination occurred, that contamination a protective issue requiring at least temporary removal from the contaminating parent, and giving custody to the accused parent or neutral family member until the accusing parent can receive help. Included in the Jury recommendations is the establishment of a protocol which recognizes that without prompt attention in these cases they will continue to be the source of many of the most serious, ongoing problems in the dependency process. This protocol could include the establishment of a multi- disciplinary court team, like the Family Court Case Study Team, with a highly trained counselor appointed to coordinate these teams and to facilitate cooperation between the Domestic and Juvenile Courts. It is also recommended that visitation not be stopped when an allegation of sexual molest is made, but that visitation be continued under therapist supervision. Where a false allegation is suspected, the complaining party should be warned that contamination of the child's relationship with a parent is sufficient grounds for a change of physical custody, and visitation should not be altered while an investigation is occurring. SEXUAL MOLEST CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Guilt or innocence is not determined in Juvenile Court. That is a standard of criminal court. Perpetrators of in-house molest are sometimes charged in criminal court and tried by a jury. A verdict of not guilty in a criminal court will not effect the "true finding" in Juvenile Court because that finding is based on a different and lower evidentiary standard. The jury finds that the criteria for criminal prosecution is also less than objective and consistent. Law enforcement submits cases to the District Attorney for prosecution. The District Attorney has a special Child Abuse Unit. The official criteria for filing a criminal case is whether the evidence will support a determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in the case of Alicia_W., the case was ranked as very weak by the District Attorney and prosecuted anyway. Other prosecuted child abuse cases were also very weak and seemed to have more of a personal flavor to them than an objective decision to take the worst cases and prosecute.(6) In sexual abuse cases there appears to be a prosecutorial reliance on the likelihood that a charge will produce a plea to a lesser offense. The penalties for conviction are very high, and the cost of a defense prohibitive. Further, a criminal proceeding against a father keeps the reunification process from proceeding. Pleas are often structured to salvage a "minor" guilt admission for the prosecution. Numerous defense attorneys testified that they allow and even encourage their clients to plea to a minor charge even when they are certain of the client's innocence in order to facilitate the reunification of the family and to avoid a trial. Defense attorneys feel it is in the client's best interest to avoid a trial because of public sentiment about allegations of molest. In one case investigated by the jury, the father was accused of 13 felonies. After 18 months in Juvenile Court and personally bankrupt, he decided, upon the advice of counsel, to plea to a single misdemeanor. After reunification with his family, he asked to have his case reexamined. He contacted a ranking detective in the Child Abuse Unit and asked how he could do this. It was suggested that he take a polygraph exam. He did. He followed other procedures recommended to him. The detective began to believe that this man was innocent. He talked to the Deputy District Attorney on the case who treated the exonerating evidence as irrelevant and refused any action. In the case of Alicia W., the first DNA results returned indicated that the father was not the perpetrator and that the identified and previously convicted serial attacker was within the 5% of males who could be the perpetrator. A repeat test to confirm these results was pending. The Department of Social Services had responded rapidly to a Grand Jury request to look at the new evidence and stop the pending proceedings in Juvenile Court. In response to a motion from DSS, the court ordered the hearing for the termination of parental rights vacated, ordered unsupervised visitation with the mother and supervised therapeutic visitation for the father. The District Attorney refused to lift the "no Contact" order. There was apparent proof that the father had not raped his child. Moreover, there was very strong evidence pointing to the person who had. Instead of "letting go", even the District Attorney's office looked for unsubstantiated scenarios in which the father could be involved. The most specious statement was made by the head Deputy District Attorney of the District Attorney's Child Abuse Unit. "We have a believable child saying her Dad did it." This child gave a very credible description of another man for over a year. A detailed description was given to law enforcement on the day of the rape. That description was even used by a another Deputy District Attorney to obtain physical evidence to aid in the prosecution of another sexual assault perpetrated by the man described by this child. During the intervening year Alicia was in twice a week therapy with a therapist who believed the father was the perpetrator. She was isolated from anyone who would believe her other story. The therapist and the social worker blocked defense efforts for her to see the judge on the the case, have an independent psychological evaluation, and be placed with relatives. This same head Deputy District Attorney had provided the Jury early in its investigation with a copy of the Child Victim Witness Protocol which she had helped develop. This protocol clearly states that the earlier uncontaminated statements are the most reliable. It cautions against employing multiple interrogations. Why was the child not believed when she told her early story but believed implicitly more than year later when she told a story implicating her father? The Jury believes that personnel within the District Attorney's Child Abuse Unit subscribe to many myths about the dynamics of sexual molest which were described in this report under Allegations of Molest. The District Attorney's Child Abuse Unit needs to maintain strict objectivity in its decisions to prosecute and to maintain a protocol of cooperation, but a distinct separation from the Child Protection system. SEXUAL ASSAULT VERSUS SEXUAL MOLEST Alicia W. was treated as a case of alleged sexual molest. This was a violent sexual assault. While incestuous sexual molest is relatively common, particularly with step children and within extended families, it is extremely rare to have a sexual assault on a natural child. It is even more rare for that sexual assault to be a first time sex act. If there was one major flaw in the way Alicia W. was handled, it was this initial assumption by the system. Alicia W. was a sexual assault and should have gone to the sexual assault team instead of to social workers conditioned to assume that it was sexual molest. One of the tragic ironies of this is that Alicia's detailed description of the perpetrator was actually used to obtain the physical evidence necessary in another case to convict Alicia's own rapist. The case of Nicole S. was handled by the sexual assault team which is the team which should have handled Alicia's case. The Jury heard evidence that the sexual abuse team was called in on Alicia W. because it happened to be available. This employment of the sexual abuse team had a long term and serious prejudicial effect on the case. It is the Jury's recommendation that all sexual assault cases be handled by the sexual assault unit. The social worker, the investigators at the Center for Child Protection, the physician, and the therapist all agreed to the sexual molest theory and all evidence to the contrary was ignored as unessential, unreliable, or irrelevant. Even the detective to whom Alicia gave a detailed description later decided it was not believable. Evidence of this bias is found in written reports of the initial evidentiary interview of Alicia done at the Center for Child Protection. When asked what Alicia would tell her brother to keep him safe, Alicia responded, "tell him to keep his window locked." That statement was omitted from the narrative report because it didn't fit with what the interviewer wanted to hear. Far more damming, Alicia was asked with whom she would feel safe. She clearly stated, as attested by the Grand Jury's Viewing of this tape, "my mom, dad, and brother." This is reported in the narrative of this interview as, "my mom and brother." It was later cited by the evidentiary interviewer in her narrative, the social worker in her social study, and the Director of the Center for Child Protection in his letter to the court. This statement was used to show Alicia's exclusion of the father as a person with whom she felt safe. The best that can be said is that these people heard what they wanted to hear. The worst is that they committed perjury. The Jury has heard expert testimony that rape or sexual assault on a natural child is unlikely. In fact, any harmful act against a natural child is 100 times less likely than is such an act against a non-blood relative. There was no evidence in the father's family of any previous history of abuse much less molest. The professionals involved in this case considered no such evidence or research, and made decisions based on their own biases. These biases were activated by "red-flag markers". The "red flags" present in this case were freely revealed by the parents in initial interviews. The mother said she had been molested as a child. The father had recently completed an obesity program with the Navy and had decided to stop drinking at that time. He volunteered that he had occasionally, when away from home, consumed sufficient alcohol to black-out. The son was hyperactive. The mother didn't drive. The father was an enlisted man in the Navy. Both parents were over-weight. They didn't know many people in the community. Jurors have heard testimony and seen evidence that these "red flags" are used regularly as diagnostic, risk-assessment indicators. This is appropriate. However, there has also been testimony and evidence has been seen that such "indicator" information is actually employed as evidence. Such information is set out in social study reports without any balancing information and proffered and accepted as evidence of abuse. For example, the social study in Alicia W. detailed all of the above indicators in detail. It did not mention that the father's drinking was not a source of a problem in his family. It did not mention the father's superb rating and a history of excellent performance reports and rewards in the Navy. It did not mention a family with extended paternal relatives. It did not mention that the mother managed all of the household finances and was very independent with a day care business in her home. It did not mention that there were no reports of any problems with her day care service. There was no interview of the parents of these children. It did not mention that Alicia was an "A" student who had just won Student of the Month. No one at her school was interviewed. It did not mention an active participation in church and community activities despite a relatively recent transfer to San Diego. DO CHILDREN LIE ABOUT ABUSE AND SEXUAL TRAUMA? Psychological experts testified that children lie about these issues. Recent literature reflecting studies conducted by the American Psychological Association not surprisingly concluded that some children lie and others don't. Studies also indicate that young children can be very easily contaminated to believe that things happened which, in fact, did not occur. Witnesses from DSS and the District Attorney's Child Abuse Unit told the Jury that children rarely lie about abuse and sexual trauma. It was disturbing to the Jury that these same witnesses often concluded that a child was in denial or being protective if they denied abuse by a parent but were never lying when they accused. The Jury examined cases where children made allegations of abuse and then later wanted to retract them. The children said they had lied and were sorry. The same social workers, therapists, prosecutors, and judicial officers who believed the stories of abuse, refused to believe the children when they admitted to a lie. Jurors observed a teenage girl testify to molest by her step-father. She reported to a school counselor that he had touched her once on the breasts and genital area while she was clothed. She denied any previous occurrence. Evidence presented at trial included love letters she had written to an older maternal uncle with whom she was romantically involved. In these letters she wrote graphically about her sexual attraction to this uncle. She also wrote that she was trying to get her mother to strike her so that she could report the abuse to CPS and live with the grandmother. (Not coincidentally, the uncle also lived with the grandmother and the mother was trying to limit contact.) Prior to the introduction of the letters the teenager had testified to a good relationship with her mother and no conflicts. The letters clearl indicated that this was not true. Despite contradictory testimony from three adults who were awake and present within 15 feet, and a sibling who was awake in the next bed, at the time of the alleged abuse, a true finding was made. At no time was the teenager cautioned about telling the truth. Everyone in the courtroom was solicitous of this child to the point of ignoring contradictions in the girl's testimony. The Jury investigated a case brought by citizen complaint. The natural 18- year old son of a foster mother was accused by a 10-year onld foster child of sexual molest. The child was immediately removed, the foster care license pulled, and the 18-year-old prosecuted for felony-sexual assault. The only evidence in the case was the child's allegation. The 18-year-old adamantly denied the charge. The 18-year old pled "nolo" to a misdemeanor charge with the understanding that this would be removed from his record in one year. The foster mother had not been informed prior to the placement of this child that the child had a history of sexual molest, multiple placements, and false allegations against various parties. While in this home the child made allegations against his social worker and classroom teacher. The DSS file includes a long history of psychological problems and psychological evaluations which reported that the child was a pathological liar. The District Attorney and DSS had this information, the defense did not. There was no physical evidence and the decision to prosecute was based solely on the child's allegation. Defense costs bankrupted this family. The Department lost a foster care provider. A professional family adopted an abused, very petite, four year old. She did well in this home until puberty. She began to act out, lie, not come home, etc. She told a counselor at school that she was being abused at home. She told the counselor that she wasn't being fed and that was the reason she was so small. The family investigated. The family cooperated and agreed to services in the hopes that the child and family could be helped. The child wasn't pulled but social worker contact continued. The child made allegations to her social worker of sexual molest by her brother. The parents became alarmed and agreed to her placement in foster care in order to protect their son. Each person who believed the stories told by this child ultimately regretted it. The social services record show a trail of gullible adults. Even a Deputy District Attorney tried to adopt this child. She returned the child after several serious problems. This deeply troubled child now has an extensive record as a delinquent and no family to turn to. The adoptive family no longer feels capable of coping with her problems. There are dozens of these stories. Some children lie. Failure to recognize this as fact is ultimately not in the child's best interest. Each one of the children in the stories above has suffered as a result of the system's gullibility. SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE In October, 1991, a Grand Juror was present at a meeting of the San Diego Commission on Children and Youth when a report on ritual abuse was adopted. This report, entitled Ritual Abuse Treatment, Intervention and Safety Guidelines, was the result of a a task force effort and made numerous recommendations for handling ritual, and, of particular concern to the Jury, satanic abuse. The following definition of "satanic" appears in this report. Satanic - Satanists may infiltrate other types of cults, or remain separate. Satanic cults may range from an extra-familial collection of methamphetamine abuses who torture for excitement, to decades old, multi-national sects, with established political systems, revenue mechanisms, etc., which indulge in the deification of Satan. Numerous cults exist which have sophisticated suppliers of sacrificial persons, from kidnapers through "breeders" (women who bear children intended for sexual abuse and sacrifice).(7) Within the week Jurors were present at a dependency proceeding where a referee was presented a detention petition involving allegations of satanic abuse. The referee followed the recommendations in the social study which were almost verbatim from the recommendations made for handling these cases in the Commission on Children and Youth report. The children name in the petition were placed in confidential placement with no family contact whatsoever. They were also placed with a therapist "well-versed" in ritual abuse. Citizen complaints of social workers pursuing satanic ritual abuse cases began to come to the Jury. Four families were from the same church congregation; the other complaints were unrelated. In one case the County Counsel filed a petition actually alleging that the child would be sacrificed on his birthday. All of the cases tested rational credulity. Each involved the same set of social workers, therapists, and detectives. At this time, all cases with which the Jury is familiar have been terminated. The emotional cost to the children and families cannot be calculated. In at least two cases, lawsuits against the County have followed. Jurors contacted expert witnesses across the country. The ritual abuse report was sent to various experts for evaluation. Police detectives involved in these investigations, members of the task force who wrote the report and an involved therapist were interviewed. Jurors attended a conference workshop by another therapist who served on the task force which prepared the report and was being used as a recommended ritual abuse therapist. Witnesses were asked to provide a factual information or evidence they had available which would substantiate the existence of satanic ritual abuse in San Diego County or elsewhere. No such information or evidence was provided. The Jury found that there is no physical evidence of satanic ritual child abuse in San Diego County. There is evidence and considerable professional testimony that the existence of satanic ritual abuse is a contemporary myth perpetuated by a small number of social workers, therapists, and law enforcement members who have effected an influence which far belies their numbers. These "believers" cannot be dissuaded by a lack of physical evidence. The Jury had extensive contact with Ken Lanning, head of the FBI Behavioral Sciences Investigation Unit. Mr. Lanning has spent ten years in nationwide search for reliable evidence of satanic ritual abuse. He has found none. It is his position that if satanic ritual abuse were occurring his unit would have found some concrete evidence during their exhaustive search. Mr. Lanning advised jurors that epidemic allegations of satanic abuse frequently follow conferences where social workers and therapists are exposed to a "survivor" or speaker on the subject. Jurors attended one of these sessions at a national conference on child abuse held locally and coordinated by the Center for Child Protection. "Survivors" told about their abuse in detail. One "survivor" had memories of sexual abuse on the day she was born. This same survivor reported memories of her mother's attempts to abort her. Another "survivor" told a detailed story of satanic ritual abuse which included a large number of prominent citizens from her hometown. Mr. Lanning also stated that the blurring of the diagnosis of dissociative disorder and a resulting logically false conclusion is at least partially responsible. This opinion was confirmed by other expert witnesses. The DSM-III defines Multiple Personality Disorder under Dissociative Disorders. Multiple Personality Disorder is an unusual condition with childhood abuse (often sexual) as a predisposing factor. Therapists who have expanded the parameters of the dissociative disorder diagnosis to include any form of dissociation have fallen prey to the logical fallacy followed that all of these patients also suffered severe childhood trauma. Proponents of this theory believe that with a sympathetic therapist, if any dissociative disorder is found, memories of childhood abuse will follow. According to professional testimony, there is some evidence that many patients who receive therapy from a therapist who ascribes to this theory, will eventually "testify" to such memories. In fact, the "memories" may be the product of the therapist. The therapy itself may be the abuse. John Money, Ph.D. of Johns Hopkins University has labeled this abuse in therapy as nosocomial abuse.(8) Grand Jurors viewed a Calvacade video circulated by a County official. This video shows "therapy" being given to very young "victims". Professionals advised that the type of therapy used in this video could be defined as nosocomaial abuse. The alleged satanic abuse cases which have surfaced nationwide during the past ten years share many common elements. No matter how incredible the allegations, the "believers" believe them. No physical evidence is found. The "believers" have complex theories to explain the absence of physical findings and evidence. The "evidence" presented is the testimony of children. The children testify to fantastic tales which can not be confirmed. The children have spent a considerable time with therapists. Most often, religious fundamentalism is an element. Frequently, a "survivor" or someone who has "memories" of having been ritually abused as a child is involved either as the therapist, the social worker, the prosecutor, or the reporting party. Criminal trial juries find it hard to believe that children can tell such incredible stories if nothing has happened to them. They find themselves faced with either believing the children are lying or the perpetrator is guilty. In some cases they have chosen to believe the children. Another option is to choose to believe that the child"s narrative memory has been contaminated by the therapy. Of particular interest is the information the Jury received about the Little Rascals pre-school case in North Carolina. Eighty-five percent of the percent of the children received therapy with three therapists in the town; all of these children eventually reported satanic abuse. Fifteen percent of the children were treated by different therapists in a neighboring city; none of the children reported abuse of any kind after the same period of time in therapy. Experts have told the Jury that the first story a young child tells is most likely the true one. Testimony given by very young children after a year in therapy should be treated with great caution. Testimony given by children after a year in therapy with therapists who are "believers" should be treated with deep skepticism. The Grand Jury is aware that the Department of Social Services has reevaluated the investigative protocols on ritual and satanic abuse. The social worker who investigated in this area has been reassigned and the Ritual Abuse report is no longer being distributed by the Commission on Children and Youth. This is as it should be. SB 1771 (Russell) is currently before the state legislator. If passed, it will create a state-wide task force on ritualistic child abuse. By statute, this task force will be made up of fourteen members chosen by two groups, one of which is the Los Angeles County Commission for Women Task Force on Ritual Abuse. Much of San Diego County's Report on Ritualistic Abuse was borrowed from materials compiled by this group. The purpose of this state task force is ostensibly to determine the extent of the problem of ritualistic abuse. It would appear that the selection process makes this task force less than objective. The Jury strongly urges the Board of Supervisors and San Diego's Department of Social Services to oppose this legislation. CONCLUSIONS Child sexual abuse issues are complex. These issues bring out the strongest bias in the dependency system. There is little attempt to view or treat sexual abuse on a spectrum of severity. All molest issues are treated in much the same way. The system has made little distinction between molest and assault. At the time"Families in Crisis" was issued, procedures still dictated pulling children whenever sexual molest was alleged. Frequently, children were re-victimized by being pulled from their homes even when there was a protective parent, and removal of the perpetrator was an option. The Grand Jury recognizes the need for careful investigation in these complicated cases due to the risk to the child if left in a dangerous situation. It is necessary that investigation be done by highly trained, objective professionals. Bias in the system frequently prevents an objective observation of the case, particularly cases which have originated as custody disputes in Family Court. Children "in denial" who are placed in therapy for sexual abuse should be with highly-qualified therapists who will not contaminate the child. The Department of Social Services has recently instituted a task force on Sexual Abuse issues. The Grand Jury recommends that this task force be expanded to include formerly impacted parents and psychologists who specialize in Family Court evaluations. This task force should be asked to provide recommendations to the Department of Social Services, the Juvenile Court, and Family Court Services. FOOTNOTES 1. Child Abuse Accommodation Syndrome has been used excessively to explain "denial", "recantation", "disclosure" by children after they have spent months in therapy. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Com vs. Dunkle 604 A.2d 30 1992 reversed the lower court and found that admission of expert testimony on this syndrome was reversible error. The Court noted that the expert did not relate any of her testimony to the child in question. Finding that "abused children react in myriad ways and that abused and non-abused children often exhibit similar behavior problems, the court found that "(T)he existence of a child abuse syndrome as either a generally accepted diagnostic tool or as relevant evidence is not supportable" and therefore inadmissible. The court also determined that the expert's testimony failed to meet the threshold determination of relevance and probability. Finally the Court found that the expert's testimony concerning the reasons abused children delay reporting an incident of abuse to family members, why children omit details of the abuse and why a sexually abused child may be unable to recall dates and times of abuse were "not beyond the realm of the average layman" and, thus, were inappropriate subject of expert testimony. 2. The system has responded with therapeutic "deniers groups" designed to induce admissions. However, as one father quipped, there is no denier group for those who are truly innocent. 3. This case has been with the Family Court Case Study Team (FCCST) during the entire tenure of this Jury. There were numerous delays in the evaluation process. These delays were all attributed to the mother's failure to follow through and to her intentional obstruction of the process. The evaluation has been complete for three months but the mother now has refused to pay her half of the $3,000.00 owed to the psychological evaluator. The evaluator refuses to release the report until he received payment. Michael and Calle had several joint sessions with their father during the evaluation process. Michael was at ease with his father. Calle was angry at first but relaxed during the visits. A psychologist on the FCCST strongly recommended that these children be sent to live with their father for a three month summer vacation He felt that this would allow the children to readjust to their father without contamination. There was team consensus with this recommendation but given the current deadlock over the release of the evaluation it is doubtful that anything will occur anytime soon. The father has had no visits with the children since the evaluation process was completed. 4. An independent psychological evaluation of the whole family was requested by father's counsel and then ordered by the court after the new therapists for the minors reported contamination. The court-appointed psychiatrist prepared this evaluation to be ready for the contested disposition in February. This evaluation was favorable to the father and confirmed the therapists in their concern about contamination by the material family. The mother's attorney informed her of the conclusions of this evaluation several days before the trial. The mother did not appear at disposition. It has subsequently been learned that the entire family has disappeared and is probably relocated in Chile. A bench warrant was issued for the mother's arrest. Since Chile is not a signatory to the Hague Convention guidelines, there are no remedies available to this father. The father has been granted a rehearing before a judge. The father has also appealed the jurisdictional decision of the lower court on numerous grounds. Interestingly, minor's appellate counsel has agreed with the elements of the father's appeal. Note: 6/11//92 In the rehearing the trial judge determined that there was new evidence, that the referee had erred in not allowing evidence exculpatory to the father, and hence reversed the true finding against the father. 5. There has been little change in this case. The father now has only supervised visitation once a month with his daughter. 6. The following studied cases are offered as examples. *A school teacher was tried for child abuse after pushing a child. A jury found her not guilty. It was acknowledged by the supervising Deputy D.A. that this was a weak case, prosecuted "to teach a lesson, test the parameters of the law, educate the public." *A teenager was prosecuted for felony child molest upon an allegation by a foster child in his mother's home. There was no physical evidence. The D.A.'s office prosecuted despite its awareness that this child's DSS file contained references to previous unfounded allegations as well as psychological evaluations of the child as a pathological liar. *A step-grandfather was prosecuted for the felony child molest of his 11 year old granddaughter. He and the family adamantly denied the allegations. Again, DSS files available to the D.A. contained contradictory information and evaluations of the child as a pathological liar. There was also a child molest report involving the natural father and the child. None of this information was revealed to the defense. The child testified at the preliminary hearing but was not cross-examined. At the time of trial, the D.A. stated that the child could not be located. The preliminary hearing testimony of the child was entered. The step-grandfather was convicted. Between conviction and sentencing the defense became aware that the child's whereabouts was known, and had been known, by the D.A. The defense asked for a re-trial; it has been granted. 7. Ritual Abuse p.5 8. The False Memory Syndrome Foundation, located in Philadelphia, was established in February, 1992. The Advisory Board of FMS Foundation includes twenty Professors of Psychology and Psychiatry from the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, UCLA, Stanford, John Hopkins, UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon University. The Foundation is deeply concerned about the growing phenomenon of false accusations coming out of therapy. The Foundation is concerned that this dangerous phenomenon will ultimately impact the profession's credibility. Already they attribute inappropriate therapy with destroying families and creating abuse in the minds of children and adults. APPENDIX A NOTE: The original report had attached the following which are only noted herein. California Child Abuse Reporting Law; Penal Code, Article 2.5.; Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. Sections: 11164, 11165, 11165.1, 11165.2, 11165.3. Sexual Assault; Penal Code; Sections 261, 264.1, 285, 286, 289, 288, 288a, 647.6. Sexual Exploitation; Penal Code Section 311.2. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "Academic feminists have silenced men and dissenting women. Our best women students are being forcefed an appalling diet of cant, drivel and malarkey." -- Camille Paglia From soc.men Tue Sep 29 17:44:18 1992 Xref: utcsri soc.women:58359 alt.abortion.inequity:1975 talk.abortion:92410 soc.men:54811 Path: utcsri!rutgers!sun-barr!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!raul.nas.nasa.gov!dking From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men Subject: Re: Guilty of ... THOUGHTCRIME! (Semi-Long) Message-ID: <1992Sep29.173239.10666@nas.nasa.gov> Date: 29 Sep 92 17:32:39 GMT References: <1992Sep26.010732.2804@zooid.guild.org> Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov (News Administrator) Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA Lines: 126 I made followups to this post alt.abortion.inequity and talk.abortion. I'm not sure if there is much interest in this in the soc groups. But since I have no idea where Will originated this post from, I figured I should leave the Newsgroups alone. ws>In article <1992Sep26.010732.2804@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves writes: DK>king@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes... ws>Note: Quoted Out of Context ... AGAIN I have on numerous occasions when quoting you, posted your entire article in question. I don't know if I did or didn't in this case because you leave no reference to my article. I have no plans to try and re-locate my previous article when you go and make it as difficult as possible to do so. If it really was posted out of context like you claim, I will go ahead and repost your entire post. I believe your post alone is enough to convince people of the dangerousness of your position. So if you want me to re-post your original post in its entirety, I'll be more than happy to. DK> It would be tough to come up with a more convincing argument for spousal DK> notification than this one here. I'll be archiving this post just so I DK> can remember this argument um... was that FOR spousal notification. ws>Yes, Dan, it *was*, but my comments were *only* meant to be taken within a ws>*very* hypothetical context. And unless you have *really* misunderstood me, ws>you will realise that I believe that *all* violence is wrong, and is *never* ws>justified! But if you believe that it can't happen, or that it cannot ws>be done by "normal" people, then I would say that you are incorrect. Indeed, ws>even "normal" people, when pushed beyond the breaking point, (as shameful as ws>it is to admit, we *all* have one), are just as capable of it as anyone. I refuse to force a woman into the position of being required to inform you of something that you have said could drive you to violence. I have made no claim regarding if I do or don't believe you could be this violence. I don't believe I know enough to make this judgement. But I will not force a woman that does have more information about your violent tendencys into that position. ws>Can you honestly tell me that you have *never* thought "I'm going to beat up/ ws>smash in/kill/etc that stupid idiot" if you were in a situation where you ws>have been insulted, or betrayed, etc. ; you did not, of course, commit actual ws>violence, but letting out your anger through your *thoughts* is a powerful ws>healing mechanism which often helps to prevent actual violence from happening. ws>Crossing the line is another matter entirely, but most of us have never ws>committed violence, but only the true saint has never ever had violent ws>*thoughts*, and even *they* have probably done so as well. You have missed the point of my reply. There is a chance you would act violently like you said you might, and there is a chance you will not. I am not capable to make that determination from where I am. I am not going to force a woman, against her judgement into a position where she will need to find out your violent tendencys. I have seen no justification for putting any woman in that kind of risk from you or anyone that might tend to get violent. It ain't worth it. ws>I was referring to the fact that I just *knew* that people were going to ws>accuse my *thoughts* of being *actual violence*, as you seem to have done. ws>This is what I mean, when I say that you have made yourself my judge, jury, ws>and executioner on the charge of Thoughtcrime. It is not up to me to be judge, jury or executioner. I would much rather leave it to the partys involved if they want to be put into circumstances that could send you into a violent rage. I would want women to have as much information as they desire before making a decision regarding if they should inform you of an abortion. I want law to stay out of the business of forcing a woman into this position. And I have seen no justification for trading the potential risk to the woman for some un-workable spousal notification legislation. ws>I was speaking QUITE figuratively, Dan. *She* herself often said "There are ws>times when I thought of killing you," which I thought were quite extreme, ws>but I knew that she was only speaking from anger, *not* from any intention ws>of committing violence. When I spoke similarly, I meant the exact same ws>thing. And I oppose legislation that would force you to tell others about her abortion. See I am just as willing to protect you from her as I am willing to protect her from you. However, since I see no one pushing for legislation to put you in that position, I guess I don't push for it as hard as I do my opposition to spousal notification. ws>Sure, but I'll bet the back forty that you at least *thought* of it. My ws>only crime was talking about it in public, *just* to make the point that this ws>sort of situation can be *very* stressful. I was *not* attempting to show ws>any sort of "control," over anyone, as you seem to have. Indeed, the only ws>place where "control" comes into play is the fact that one loses control ws>over *ONESELF*. Oftentimes, people who have lost self-control, or control ws>over their situation, will attempt to control someone whom they view as ws>causing the situation. This *is* wrong, and while it did *not* happen to me ws>(although you have misinterpreted what I said to mean that I did attempt to ws>do so), it *can* happen, and something MUST be done about it. I never claimed you committed a crime. I think you posted something extremely stupid and despicable as an argument for spousal notification. I saw your argument as a valid argument against spousal notification. My impression was that you were looking to control the woman. What is your point in pushing spousal notification if you are not out to control the woman? Using force of law to make a woman do something she doesn't want to do is control. DK> for reminding us what kind of Neanderthal still exist out there. Just ws>Look, I came out, honestly and openly with the fact that I *dared* to have ws>violent *emotions*. You and about five others, slammed me and called me ws>"Neanderthal," "sexist," "anti-women," "walking time bomb," and a thousand ws>other names. I still have your original post. What you said, was that if your SO did not show you the proper respect, and not inform you in what you believed was a timely manner, you would be tempted to kill her. I have no problem believing that a man that would be drawn to violence when a woman does not show him the respect he believes he deserves is a sexist. ws>Yet I am going to respond to you all in a cool, calm, rational, and ws>non-warlike manner, in spite of the fact that I probably *ought* to flame ws>you all to Kingdom Come for being so insulting. ws>No offense meant, but now tell me who the Neanderthal is? Oh thats an easy question. Why it is you Will Steeves. ws>Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org "Neil Hull is GOiD" Dan King From alt.feminism Tue Sep 29 17:45:34 1992 Xref: utcsri alt.feminism:1740 soc.men:54784 soc.women:58340 Path: utcsri!rutgers!ub!dsinc!pitt.edu!vms.cis.pitt.edu!tjw From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women Subject: Re: Victims of False "Memories" Form Organization Message-ID: <6443@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> Date: 29 Sep 92 04:37:59 GMT References: Sender: news+@pitt.edu Followup-To: alt.feminism Organization: University of Pittsburgh Lines: 16 In article , sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes: > IF YOU'RE INTERESTED > For more information about the > False Memory Syndrome Foundation, call (800) 568-8882. Check out the October 1992 issue of Playboy. There's an article on this subject by Debbie Nathan called "Cry Incest". Debbie goes "undercover" at a retreat for suvivors of abuse. It's certainly intersting reading. Terry -- INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS "Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!" - Lord "John" Warfin "There can be only one!" - The Highlander "There should have been only one. I want my money back!" - Terry From soc.men Wed Sep 30 09:39:37 1992 Xref: utcsri soc.women:58397 alt.child-support:4725 soc.men:54848 soc.couples:11464 Path: utcsri!rutgers!att-out!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.couples Subject: Re: What a Problem!!! Message-ID: <1992Sep30.043039.26375@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Date: 30 Sep 92 04:30:39 GMT References: <1992Sep24.091652.14363@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <73740054@hpsad.sad.hp.com> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 100 In article <73740054@hpsad.sad.hp.com> sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes: >In soc.women, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes: > > ...the interesting part is that they don't think there is > anything wrong with the young man's father being forced to pay for his > college tuition because of a divorce decree.... > >If the man's father said he would pay the college tuition at the time of >the divorce, then I really do not see anything wrong with him fulfilling >that promise and paying! Where do you get "forced to pay" from? My ex >agreed to pay the childrens' college expenses so that I would agree to >alimony that was much smaller than normal. He got the concessions and >agreed to the consequences. The children had less money when they were >in grade school. They should not feel guilty of what you consider a >"free ride" any more than a child who gets a "free meal" at the age of 2. >Their parents wanted them to have this priviledge and they have it, period. Hey, if a father has the money to pay his children's college expenses, and he wants to pay, then who in the world would question his right to do so? No one. All intact families are given the choice of paying for their children's college educations, and many don't have the money - some have the money, but don't pay. The point is that in some states the law forces non-custodial parents (85% of whom are fathers) to pay for the college expenses of their children. They are not given any choice. In fact, Indiana is one such state and my parents divorced in Indiana several years ago. My mother can take my father to court and force my father to pay college expenses for my 16-year-old brother when he graduates from high school. My parents paid less than $1500 towards my college education - and none of it was forced. Obviously Vicky, you did not understand the situation I was talking about. There is no law that can force a financial obligation of paying for children's college expenses for parents of intact families. In fact, if there ever was such a law, it would surely be overturned as unconstitutional. However, in some states, non-custodial parents are not given the same rights as parents of intact families in this regard - and they are forced to continue paying child support for children that are even over age 21 - until those children graduate from college. I don't know which states have such a law or how many states have this law - but there is at least one - Indiana - and I have heard there are more. When my ex2b graduated high school, her parents sat her down and told her they were not going to help her with college expenses. They claimed that, because she had three younger brothers, and because her brothers would have to support wives and families, they would only pay for their male offsprings' educations. In fact, they recommended to my ex2b that, if she wanted to go to college, get a job as a waitress in a nice restaurant, meet a doctor or lawyer, marry him and get him to pay for her education. Now, that kind of attitude is as sexist as it gets, but they had the right to do just what they said they were going to do - and they did it! But for non-custodial parents in some states, even if there are 12 children of the marriage, the non-custodial parent is forced, by law, to pay college expenses for every child of the marriage that decides to go to college - all of them - as long as they go to college and choose to remain dependents. The message posted by the young fiance appeared to be a situation where a non-custodial father was forced by law to pay for a dependent child over age 18 to go to college. The woman and her fiance were hedging on getting married because her fiance would lose his dependent status as a result of the marriage and would lose the forced college expense assistance of his non-custodial father. Because of the threat or risk of losing this "free," forced money (which denies equal protection under the law and should be unconstitutional) this woman's fiance wanted to put off the marriage. And you think these folks have the moral high ground? If the non-custodial parent "wanted" to pay for his son's college expenses and had the money, there is nothing to stop him. However, in this case, it appeared the non-custodial father was forced by law and was given no choice. The woman also expressed that her fiance and his father weren't very close. I wonder if his being forced to pay for his son's college expenses had anything to do with it? Vicky, is there any law which "forces" you to pay for your children's college expenses? Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM P.S. Personally, I believe this young man and woman should get married and not use an unconstitutional law that forces non-custodial parents to pay for their children's college expenses. They should take responsiblity for their own lives and not force someone else to do it for them - after all, they aren't children anymore. Besides, I wonder how many of these states send the "college assistance" money to the "custodial" mother of the "children" and still give her the absolute authority to spend it in any way she chooses - and not send the money to the college. What if a child decides to get a degree on the seven-year plan? What if this child fails most of his/her classes because it's not his/her money she/he is throwing down the toilet? P.P.S. BTW, my ex2b paid her own way through college - none of her brothers did. From alt.feminism Thu Oct 15 17:32:33 1992 Xref: utcsri soc.men:55347 alt.feminism:2420 soc.women:58794 Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.women Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Re: Men's Issues Newsbri (2) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:37:19 GMT Message-ID: <1992Oct10.223719.17531@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> References: <1992Oct10.020651.15229@zooid.guild.org> Lines: 29 In article <1992Oct10.020651.15229@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves writes: >Dave Gross writes... >DG> "Women don't kill men unless they've been pushed to a point of desperation." >DG> -- Dr. Lenore Walker, executive director of the >DG> Domestic Violence Institute > >Hmmph! But apparently when men kill women, it is *always* "for control," >rather than desperation, right? > >Gee, does it sound like she's trying to justify violence? Except when it's >by an individual who is double-X-chromosonally-challenged, it would seem, >though... Definitely. Lenore Walker "loves" to testify on behalf of women who have murdered their husbands. She loves to paint pictures in court of these terrible men that were so abusive to their wives that the *only* recourse this specific woman had was to convince her husband to take out a large insurance policy, then contract two hit-men to bump him off - with shotguns. You see, because of her double-X chromosome problem, she had no other choice. As a society, we should be glad that this woman was able to rid huwomanity of this potential abuser. We should not condemn her, we should praise her for the service she has done to womankind. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From alt.feminism Tue Nov 10 13:53:54 1992 Xref: utcsri soc.women:60040 alt.abortion.inequity:2710 talk.abortion:99940 alt.feminism:3749 soc.men:56409 Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification... Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Distribution: na Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:19:34 GMT Message-ID: <1992Nov5.071934.13004@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> References: <1992Nov3.132252.29571@cbnews.cb.att.com> <1992Nov3.161440.9538@netcom.com> <1d810bINN74m@gap.caltech.edu> Lines: 68 In article <1d810bINN74m@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes: >payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes: >>The two issues that come >>up are infidelity (grounds for divorce still, I believe) and the fact >>that the husband is automatically assumed to be father of the child, and >>assumes full responsibility. > >These are real problems, and deserve solutions. >(1) make "irreconcileable differences" the *only* cause for divorce in > in the eyes of the law What, and deny the "abuse, alcoholism, adultery etc. (there are 12 valid grounds for divorce in Ohio) screw the other guy" approach to divorce? What would we do with all these judges? >(2) get rid of the assumption of the husband's paternity This one is a classic. Michal has argued at length that notifying the spouse of a woman getting an abortion is a violation of the sanctimonious right of a woman to destroy anything that becomes entangled between her legs. Now, she presents an interesting resolution to the argument. Think about this for a moment. If we get rid of the assumption of a husband's paternity, then wouldn't we have to test every child of every divorce in the US to determine paternity? After all, we wouldn't want any fathers paying child support for a child over which he has no rights, now would we? Every child, of every divorce, and, of course, every father, would have to be tested to see if they are even remotely related. Ah, a grand solution. Given that some blood test study (in think it was in the UK during the 70s) determined that 1 out of 3 children tested under such sweeping conditions is not the biological offspring of a father, who thought he was indeed the father, you've just dumped 33% of the children of divorces off the child support roles. Oh, and given fathers a great weapon in divorce court.... As the judge might say, "Well, it is obvious from the blood and DNA tests that John Doe here is not the father of little Michey, even though he thought he was, and that you, Jane Doe, are surely guilty, unequivocably, of adultery. Therefore, I find against the plaintiff and for the defendent in this divorce suit." Oh, I guess I understand why you'd want (1) & (2) above--inseperable. Even so, who would pay the child support--all these non-dads? No can of worms, no Pandora's box--this one. Michal, do I detect that you are all for women, mothers etc. etc., but frankly can't see that men have any intellectual rights in this regard? Does that mean that women are the sole human procreators? That seems to be your attitude and approach. Well, fine. Have all the children you want, by yourself, and support them--by yourself. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM P.S. My understanding of the part of the PA law that was not upheld by the Supreme Beings is that the mother did not have to notify her husband if she believed, and did not have to present any evidence to that effect, that she would be harmed in any way, shape or form as a result of notifying her husband. Basically, any woman that wanted to NOT notify her husband of her abortion could claim possible future victim status and the husband would not be notified. That makes this one of the weakest statutes I've ever heard--forced notification of the father--uh, unless the mother doesn't want to. And for this, we've been at one another for months. Next Topic: From soc.men Tue Nov 17 13:26:12 1992 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:1487 soc.men:57076 misc.legal:50220 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,misc.legal Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: John Schulte Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 23:34:26 GMT Message-ID: <1992Nov14.233426.14222@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 163 The following two articles have appeared in northern Ohio papers. These are just two of many articles and UPI-Radio and the AP wire have also broadcast at least one story each. Until the most recent article, all articles took the approach that John had been charged for abusing two girls, omitting that they are his daughters and that his ex-wife has actively tried to have him indicted for two years, although two courts (Juvenile and Domestic) have already ruled that there was no indication of abuse, no evidence, and that the court has ordered his ex-wife to allow regular visitation, which she has refused. The court has failed to enforce his visitation rights despite 15 contempts he has filed. He has not seen his daughters for two years, although he goes with witnesses for every scheduled visit as the court order specifies. These are the articles.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Former state candidate charged with sex abuse BOWLING GREEN (AP) -- A former candidate for state office has been charged with sexually abusing two girls. John Schulte of the Toledo suburb of Oregon has been indicted on one count of sexual penetration and two counts of gross sexual imposition. The charges carry specifications that could result in a life sentence. Authorities say Schulte had sexual contact with the girls between January 1987 and April 1990. The girls are now six- and eight-years-old. He will be arraigned Nov. 16 in Wood County Common Pleas Court. Schulte, a stockbroker who owns Great Lakes Equities, ran as a Republican for the state senate in 1988 and state representative in 1990. He lost Tuesday in bid to capture a seat on the state Board of Education. The charges resulted from a five-month investigation by special prosecutor Elaine Knutson of Tiffin. Schulte's former wife, Sonia Schulte, asked the Wood County Common Pleas Court to appoint a special prosecutor. She said a special prosecutor was needed because Wood County prosecutor Alan Mayberry had not acted on her complaints which were filed two years ago. She said the prosecutor's office had been reluctant to investigate her allegations because her former husband is prominent in the local Republican Party. Mayberry also is s Republican. Assistant prosecutor Gary Bishop had said there wasn't enough evidence to pursue criminal charges against Schulte. Schulte's lawyer, Jim Hitchcock, has declined comment. But he said Hitchcock will enter an innocent plea to the charges. Source: Sandusky Register, Sunday, November 8, 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Schulte Says He'll Plead Not Guilty In Arraignment By Press Staff Writer OREGON -- Local businessman and political candidate John Schulte said he will enter a plea of not guilty during his arraignment on sexual abuse charges. Mr. Schulte, of Baywood Dr., was recently indicted by a Wood County grand jury on one count of sexual penetration and two counts of gross sexual imposition. His arraignment is before Judge Donald DeCessna today. Mr. Schulte, through his attorney, Jay Milano of Cleveland, issued a brief statement last week: "Allegations of child abuse that arise out of divorce are notoriously unreliable. One recent book described them as the `Salem Witch Hunts Revisited.' "The Woods County Domestic Relations Court rejected the accusations of abuse. The Wood County prosecutor's office investigated fully and did not seek indictment. "Mr. Schulte will be vindicated at trial. The strain will be enormous on him and his family. The only consolation will come when this ends, once and for all." The charges were filed after an investigation by a special prosecutor. Mr. Schulte's ex-wife, Sonia, asked for a special prosecutor because her husband and Alan Mayberry, county prosecutor, are both members of the Wood County Republican party, creating what she believed to be a conflict of interest. The charges allege that Mr. Schulte had sexual contact with his daughters during a three-year period prior to the Schulte's divorce in 1991. Mr. Schulte, the owner of Great Lakes Equities, has claimed the the allegations are unfounded and the by-product of a bitter divorce that included battle over client accounts at the stock brokerage where his wife also once worked. Mr. Schulte has been an unsuccessful candidate for state representative, Oregon clerk-auditor, and just this month, Ohio board of education. Source: The Press, November 16, 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Questions for the legal eagles: 1. What charges can John Schulte get filed against his ex- for this unending harassment, malicious prosecution, libel, slander, defamation of character, creation of a public nuisance, filing false charges, alienation of affection, interference with custody and visitation? 2. What tort remedies could he use to compensate him for the emotional cruelty to himself and his family (especially his daughters) and financial losses to his business as a result of the unending harassment, denial of visitation, false allegations etc. 3. Can the special prosecutor, the judge and/or the grand jury members be sued for malice and/or malpractice? Why or why not? What charges, if any can be filed against any of these people? 4. Who can be sued? Why? 5. Who can't be sued? Why not? 6. How can the legal system start addressing these kinds of cases in ways that will effectively deal with them, and minimize the damage to all innocent parties, yet cut-off the falsely accusing in such a way to disempower them from continuing the battle and punish them for the damage they cause? If the falsely accusing start being held accountable for their acts, maybe these false allegations will stop. If possible, please cite cases, case law or rulings establishing precedence. Some generic info: According to various sources, the crime most falsely reported in the US is rape. According to these sources, anywhere from 8 to 12% of all rape claims are false. Ah, but that is wrong. By far, the most falsely reported crime is child abuse of any kind. In only 1 out of 3 reported cases of abuse is there even substantiation by Children's Services and in only a small percentage of cases are charges even filed. However, in divorce custody/visitation disputes, the rate for false claims ranges from 50% as reported by Children's Services, to 80% as determined by national experts on the phenomenon of child sexual abuse allegations that arise during such disputes. There have been over 130 books written on this topic and thousands upon thousands of articles, yet no one seems to know anything about this "Atom Bomb Strategy" used maliciously during divorce custody/visitation disputes. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Wed Nov 18 12:36:20 1992 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:1494 alt.child-support:5038 soc.men:57137 misc.kids:61482 misc.legal:50258 Path: utcsri!rutgers!att-out!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,misc.kids,misc.legal Subject: November FACE Newsletter Message-ID: <1992Nov16.063702.7302@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Date: 16 Nov 92 06:37:02 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 1373 Central Ohio Fathers and Children for Equality (FACE) November Newsletter [Hey folks, any of you can contribute articles to this Newsletter for first rights publication in these forums and for hardcopy publication (where you will be listed as the author)(the hardcopy distribution is approximately 500 copies that go to judges, referees, lawyers, psychologists, doctors, 60 Minutes, 20/20, other advocacy groups, and men and women) or you can annotate articles you've found and would like to see included. I also send this Newsletter on floppy to other advocacy groups. This month's issue has more local stuff then I wanted, and I'm not even publishing half of the local stuff I have this month. Send me the articles via email, or whatever (snail mail address at bottom), if you don't want to type them in. I have a lackey who does such things for me.... ;-) This father's rights advocacy group is a non-profit organization, the foundation is a registered charity.] "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." -Frederick Nietzsche "Divorce dates from just about the same time as marriage. I think that marriage is a few weeks the more ancient." -Voltaire ======================================================================== Contents Tired of Clogged Courts? Just Say, "No" to Divorce - a Mike Royko piece Congress Passes Legislation to Thwart Child Support Scofflaws - non-payment of child support, then skipping state is a federal crime Dear Ann Landers:.... - Ann at her finest--a truly understanding, cognizant and empathetic person (Not!) Woman Surrenders after Two-Hour Siege at Glenwood Court - Yes, Virginia, women can take guns into the courtroom too. Lawyer's Conspiracy Intolerable - is it possible? An unethical attorney? Son Says Jail is Place for "Deadbeat" Mom (local event) - Yes, Virginia, there are "deadbeat moms too. A Divorce Attorney's Guide to a Happy Marriage - some "how-to" advice from someone who sees a lot of "how-not-to" Court's Double Standard Penalizes Loving Fathers (local editorial) - a letter to the editor--one of the few forums in the media where fathers' voices can still be heard Terminating Spousal and/or Child Support Orders (local rules) - the procedure in one county in one state. Your mileage will vary, but still, a good overview of typical procedures. Removal of a Child from the State - this is important! Many of you can use this. State Looking to Boost Child Support Payments (state) - Ohio's goals to boost child support collections Father, 12 Mothers Sue for Back Support (local event) - private agencies can file charges on behalf of custodial parents to facilitate the collection of child support. Justice Department Makes Two Child Protection Grants - some comprehensive studies on the children's services system are underway. It would be great if all sides can be heard on this one. Human Services Director Reacts to Critical Report (state) - a scathing review of the Department of Human Services in Ohio was released toward the end of October. This is an excerpt of an article wherein the director defends his record. Head of State Welfare Agency Quits (state) - a forced resignation, maybe.... Human Services Deputy Director Fired (state) - there was a big shakeup in the Department of Human Services in Ohio. These people were definitely crooks, creating a good ol' boy network, giving high-paying jobs to their friends, traveling around the country going to convention after convention while they cut aid to welfare recipients and tried to blame all the problems on deadbeat dads. Fortunately, the Governor cleaned house. FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DESK - a message from Andy Cvercko, Ohio president of CAPRA (Children And Parents' Rights Association), a subsidiary group of the Children's Rights Council (CRC), on family values. Another Expert Pinpoints the Problem - a short pro-father piece, from the words of the person who started the Head-Start program in the US. ======================================================================== DISCLAIMER First, the advice given during meetings, by members directly and in telephone conversations, should not be taken as legal advice. It is the opinion of the person answering the questions at the time, and the answers are based upon legal advice that attorneys on our board have given in similar situations. Consult your attorney before taking any action in your case. Second, the articles in the Newsletter are culled from a variety of sources, cover many topics and reflect differing opinions. Every article is the expressed opinion of only the author of that article. These articles do not necessarily represent the collective opinion of FACE nor of the FACE directors. Even articles written as editorials by members of this group are not the opinion of the group itself or of leadership. The Newsletter attempts to present both sides on issues, so that readers can form their own opinions and make informed decisions. This group is for equality in the justice system. We are NOT against women. Women who become non-custodial parents face the same kinds of problems non-custodial fathers face. We don't think that child sup- port guidelines are fair. But we do advocate that parents pay their child support. We are NOT advocates of child abuse. However, we want the courts and social systems to recognize that many contentious ex-spouses make bogus allegations of abuse during custody battles. We are not in favor of the exclusive use of the adversarial court system for resolving custody disputes. We think that mediation of these disputes is a more effective and less expensive solution and wish the courts would utilize this resource more often. We are not advocates for fathers in spite of mothers. We are advocates for fathers and children, because fathers are disproportionately torn away from their children in divorces. We don't think that is right or fair. We believe that many fathers, when given the opportunity to be good parents, can do the job quite effectively and that both parents and the children benefit. We believe in equal legal rights and equal physical access to children of divorce for both parents. Hence the name - Fathers And Children for Equality. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ An anagram of "Tuesday, November Third" is "Many voted, Bush retired." ======================================================================== Tired of Clogged Courts? Just Say, "No" to Divorce By Mike Royko Sometimes it isn't easy to follow the logic of this political cam- paign. Especially when it comes tumbling out of Dan Quayle. Quayle is a lawyer, although he's never really made a living at it. Since he had to use family clout just to get into a law school, it's doubtful that he would have been a modern-day Clarence Darrow. His wife is a lawyer, too. But he doesn't seem to like lawyers. Or maybe he secretly does, but he knows that they are an easy political target. So he regularly flails them for filing too many lawsuits, and asking for too much money and somehow messing up our legal system. Now, it is true that we have a lot of litigation in America, far more than in most developed nations. But what Quayle fails to talk about is why we have so many lawsuits. There are corporations that sue each other. And the corporations can clutter up a courtroom for years on end. But you don't hear Quayle ranting about the corporations and their lawyers. Not if he wants to be invited to a golf outing at some private club, he doesn't. Besides, the corporations aren't the cause of our crowded court dockets, our great glut of lawsuits. No, the single biggest flood of lawsuits, day in and day out, week after week, year after year, are suits filed by men and women who don't want to be married to each other anymore. Divorce. That's the single biggest source of litigation in America. What, you thought it was patent infringement? If you are an adult, just look around at all of your friends, rela- tives and co-workers. Ask yourself how many of them have ever been in court, and if so, what brought them there. There might be a personal-injury case. Or maybe a traffic rap. But if you are a typical, middle-class American with typical, middle class, American friends, relatives and acquaintances, you know at least one, two and probably more who have been divorced. My guess is that at least one out of every four adults who has read this far has been divorced. And maybe more than once. We have a high divorce rate in this country. And it would be even higher except that in recent decades young people took to living with each other before getting married. So when they split it didn't require a judge. She took the stereo, he took the TV, they flipped for the cat and adios, forever. Now, whose fault is it that we have so may divorces? The lawyers? Of course not. Divorce lawyers don't rap on doors of strangers and say, "Hi do you have domestic strife? If so, would you be interested in going to Splitsville? Here's my card. Call night or day." No, what happens is, a phone rings and a voice says, "Betty, this is Janette (sob). That philandering bastard did it again, and I caught him. What's the name of the guy you hired?" Or, "Charlie, I think the magic is gone. We haven't talked in two months and I sleep on the sofa in the basement, and she makes a puking sound whenever I'm in the room. Is your cousin the lawyer still handling divorces?" It's also the nastiest form of litigation because it can have ele- ments of shattered hopes, faded dreams, battles over property and the worst part, the custody of children, visitation rights and the use of kids as pawns and revenge weapons. And in no other court proceeding-murder included-is the truth more elusive. She says it's all his fault, they both believe it, and in many court systems the only way the judges avoid going nuts listening to so many lies is to send both screechers to a court-appointed shrink to sift through the woolly caterpillars between their ears. You don't see corporate adversaries walking into courtrooms, whipping out guns and blazing away. It's almost always some distraught crazy who thought he got the shaft in a divorce. So why doesn't Quayle say that, instead of taking cheap shots at lawyers? Why didn't he stand up at the Republican convention and say, "Now, let me talk about our legal system. Do you know what the real problem is? It is the millions of you, watching on TV, who have hired lawyers to file the millions of divorce suits. And who have gone back to court time after time to demand more money. Or to fight over visitation rights. Or make false charges of child abuse to punish the former spouse you now hate. It is you who are to blame." "Yes, and you, the TV actor with the crew cut who just gave such a glowing introduction to my wife. You have been divorced three times. Shame, shame on you. And shame on us for letting you take part in this family-value convention." Sure, Quayle could have said that. Then he could have gone back to his hometown in Indiana and lost a close race for constable. And, if he had said those things, he would have been unfair because he is in no position to judge why marriages end. People make mistakes, including marriages. Most divorces are preferable to two people making each other miserable and their kids neurotic. There's not much family value in households where hate is the prevailing emotion. I mean, come on, a three time loser introducing his wife? And they make jokes about Woody Allen. Tsk, Tsk. Source: Many papers around the world, esp. the Chicago Tribune, October 1992 ======================================================================== Congress Passes Legislation to Thwart Child Support Scofflaws Included in the crush of legislation adopted in the final hours of Congress was a bill making it a federal crime to move to another state to avoid paying child support. The legislation, which also makes financial abandonment of children for a year a federal crime, is designed to help 16 million children gain some of the $18 billion due them. "Non-support" of children is a very cruel form of child abuse; it robs children of their childhood and forces many into poverty," said Geraldine Jensen of Toledo, national president of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Child Support. "Children are going to bed hungry every night because parents are using state lines to hide behind," she said. Source: Columbus Dispatch, October 11, 1992 ======================================================================== Dear Ann Landers:.... I believe the child support laws need to be rewritten to give fathers a better break. I've been Johnny-on-the-Spot every month since 1984-never missed a payment. My ex-wife makes $26,000. She has remarried and her husband makes over $40,000. My annual income is $36,000. In my opinion, the $365 a month I'm paying in child support is excessive, especially since I also pay all the boy's medical bills, including drugs, dental, and eye care. Shouldn't a father who pays child support be allowed to claim that child as a dependent on his income tax? No way-my ex-wife claims our son on HER tax return, which is another break for her. My ex-wife was the one who broke our marriage vows. It doesn't seem fair that I should have to keep her comfortable with extra cash. She filed for a no-fault divorce by mail, packed my bags, changed the locks and had all her bills sent to my mother's address. Then she had the nerve to charge $1,200 worth of clothes on my account. After that, she sold our home with everything in it, including my tools. I never saw one cent of the money. It's about time we put some pressure on our congressmen and senators to pass legislation that gives divorced fathers a break. Will you help? -Jim in Washington, PA. Dear Jim: I respect you for living up to your responsibility as a father, but the way I see it, $365 a month is not excessive for a man in your income bracket. The poorest segment of society is the divorced woman with children. Far too many divorced fathers fail to pay child support. The government spends a fortune chasing divorced dads who run from state to state in an effort to avoid paying. Thanks to computers, it is becoming easier to track the runaway bums, but even so, too many single mothers are having a rough time because their husbands took a powder. Source: Many papers around the world, October 1992 [Comment: Hey Ann, the question was, "Will you help?" A simple, "No" would have sufficed. Unless, of course, you're pushing some agenda....] ======================================================================== Woman Surrenders after Two-Hour Siege at Glenwood Court By the Associated Press GLENWOOD SPRINGS - An armed woman who was distraught about her divorce held authorities at bay for more than two hours Thursday morning at the Garfield County Courthouse before she surrendered. The Garfield County Sheriff's department said Roberta M. Greybar, 33, of Newcastle, was in custody at the Garfield County Jail. Greybar allegedly brandished the weapon during a hearing over a temporary restraining order regarding her divorce case. Officials said she took her husband hostage and reportedly threatened suicide during the standoff. People in the courtroom escaped and no one was injured in the incident, said Glenwood Springs police Chief Don Williams. Greybar's husband, Charles, walked out of the courtroom about 40 minutes after the incident began, although she allegedly continued to threaten him with the gun. Law enforcement officials, including Sheriff Verne Soucie and Judy Davis of the Garfield County sheriff's office, negotiated with the woman. Greybar was sitting in the courtroom alone, crying and sometimes pointing the gun at herself as well as gesturing with the gun, witnesses said. Greybar, along with a 9mm automatic gun, was taken into custody at 12:17 p.m. She was escorted out the east end of the courthouse directly into the Garfield County Jail, crying in the arms of her husband. Courthouse employees and media were evacuated. A judge involved in the incident said there is no formal security check for guns in the Garfield County courtrooms, but said the courts do have a security policy when such situations occur. Source: Fort Collins Coloradoan, October 23, 1992 ======================================================================== Lawyer's Conspiracy Intolerable By Jan Warner Question: Quite unexpectedly, my wife announced she was tired of being married, rented an apartment and moved out a couple of months ago. Because I had done nothing wrong, my lawyer told me not to support her. Her lawyer wrote several threatening letters, demanding support. I sent no money. After a month, my wife reappeared, said she had made a mistake and asked me to go to counseling. Against my lawyer's advice, I took her at her word and agreed to reconcile. Not two weeks passed before she started up again, trying to make me mad and telling me to hit her if I didn't like it. Then I found a letter from her lawyer under the front seat of her car. It suggested that my wife come back to me long enough to gather financial evidence and to see if she could goad me into hitting her so she would have grounds to leave me and get support. I copied the letter and gave it to my lawyer, who sued not only my wife but her lawyer. I don't know what would have happened if I hadn't found the letter. I should have listened to my lawyer and I hope you print this letter to let your readers know that in these types of situations, you shouldn't trust too quickly. Answer: A broken marriage is fragile enough without this conduct, which is certainly unexpected from an officer of the court. Although you should have the right to rely on a reconciliation effort as being in good faith, your lawyer was right to be concerned under the circumstances you describe. But it is intolerable for your spouse's lawyer to conspire with her to make a fraudulent attempt to gain an unfair advantage over you. This type of conduct not only interferes with the marital relationship, but perverts the judicial process. Source: News Journal, Mansfield, Ohio, August 4, 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The following peculiarity appeared among the wedding announcements of the Sunday Times (South Africa's main Sunday newspaper) of October 25, 1992: TSUKKERPUPIK/ZUNDELFARTZ The public must not be confused by the forthcoming marriage of my ex-husband Solinka, to my erstwhile cousin, Andrea, which wedding will take place on November 19, 1992 at the Sandton Sun Hotel at 7 p.m. Solinka's original wedding to me was a travesty of justice. It was never consummated, he never ever supported me, nor wrote to me, nor phoned me, not even sent a fax (and that Chaleria Andrea did everything to take him away from me). I have of course attempted to remarry, but without success, as all the prospective gentlemen I have approached are unfortunately not interested. Nevermind, I am an optimist and will keep trying to find the right man. Incidentally, if you know anyone who is obviously desperate, please call me (Erica Tsukkerpupik, care of the Stadchen at 011-337 4150). (But keep it confidential, who knows Andrea might take him away too!) Come to say Hullo to me at the wedding of those two traitors (I'll be sitting at the Ellerine table). ======================================================================== Son Says Jail is Place for "Deadbeat" Mom By Catherine Candisky George Yates II says his mom should go to jail. "She should go because she's not doing the things she supposed to," the 11-year-old said yesterday outside a Franklin County Common Pleas courtroom. Judge Richard Sheward promised to make good on that request. Moments earlier, he told George's mother, Caroline Walker, to expect the maximum 18-month prison term and $2,500 fine when she returns for sentencing Dec 7. Walker pleaded guilty yesterday to one count of non-support for failing to pay nearly $6,000 in child support to George Yates, who has custody of the couple's son. I have no patience for these cases at all, Sheward told Walker. He ordered her to pay the support she owes before sentencing. Assistant County Prosecutor Doug Stead said Walker, 27, of 4667 Refugee Rd., No. 10, has failed to make most of the $20 a week support payments she was ordered to pay in 1985 when Yates won custody of their son. Walker and her attorney declined to comment until sentencing. "Finally justice is being served," Yates said. "It's taken years to get this. I started filing contempt actions in 1986." Walker filed a paternity action against Yates in 1981, shortly after her son was born. A year later, Yates acknowledged he was the father and was ordered to pay child support. That changed in 1985 when Yates won custody and Walker was ordered to pay support. But she rarely did, and in July, Walker was indicted along with 32 men accused of failing to pay more than $500,000 owed in support to 59 children. The indictments represented the largest number of criminal non-support charges ever filed by a Franklin County Grand Jury and followed a joint investigation by the Franklin County Prosecutor and the Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency. Yates, 34, of Madison Township, said he has been on disability from his mechanic's job for three years because of a back injury. He said he used those benefits and his wife's income to support his sixth grade son. "I really think there are just as many deadbeat moms out there as there are deadbeat dads," he said. "But I don't expect to see any of that money. I just wanted to see justice served." Source: Columbus Dispatch, October, 1992 ======================================================================== A Divorce Attorney's Guide to a Happy Marriage By Bob Bracco Mae West used to say, "Don't marry for money, it's cheaper to borrow." That's even more true today with seven percent money readily available! All kidding aside, however, handling hundreds of divorce cases over the last ten years has given me a unique perspective into some of the causes for the breakup of a marriage. As I see it, the top ten factors in the disintegration of marriages are: 1. Financial disagreements 2. Unrealistic expectations about marriage 3. Few common interests or friends 4. Infidelity 5. Sexual incompatibility 6. Breakdown in commitment to each other and the marriage 7. Alcohol or drug addiction 8. Abuse and/or domestic violence 9. Conflict in basic values and beliefs 10. Chronic unemployment With three out of every five marriages ending in divorce today, even the prospect of marriage can be quite a gamble for almost every man and woman. The reality is that not everyone is meant to be married. While it is obvious that some of these situations, such as addiction, abuse or chronic unemployment, would constitute sufficient reason for not continuing a marriage, it is beyond my comprehension why anyone would enter into a marital relationship if these traits were known beforehand. When I asked my female clients why they got married in the first place, the most frequent replies were: * I wanted financial security * He made me happy * We dated for a long time * I wanted to have children * I was tired (or afraid) of being alone Unfortunately, these reasons for getting married seem to lay the groundwork for divorce. My impression has been that none of these reasons are sufficient for getting married. Why? Mainly because they are self serving needs rather than joint goals of the parties to the marriage. Also, you will note that "love" was never mentioned (although defining love is a tricky business in itself). Most of these clients were in love with the concept of marriage but lacked a realistic understanding of what marriage is or what to expect of their partner once they entered into it. Perhaps they had their parent's marriages as their prime examples of what they wanted their marriages to be or not to be like, but today's world presents a number of different circumstances their parents never had to deal with (for example, whether or not women should work outside of the home, whether or not to have children and how many, sharing household chores, dual incomes and spending decisions, etc.) Needless to say, a marriage can provide security, children and a certain amount of happiness, but the marriage vows alone can assure nothing. In my extensive contacts with divorcing parties, one of the most amazing observations I have come across is how little discussion they have on how the fundamental elements of their marriage. For example, a wife may have very little knowledge of the family's finances. Prior to the marriage, money matters may have come up only superficially and passed over, thinking these things would take care of themselves. Once a couple gets down to day-to-day living, such issues as budgeting, debts, spending priorities, income sources, tax liabilities, etc. merit in-depth communication. So what is a divorce attorney's guide to a happy marriage? Simply put, the big "C" word. No, not commitment, but communication, communication, communication. I have found in actual practice, if the parties communicate their expectations about the marriage prior to the marriage (that is, children, finances, career goals, values, religious beliefs, etc.) they will have laid the foundation for a better chance of a happy and successful marriage. However, this communication should not stop on the wedding day. It's even more crucial to continue to discuss expectations, concerns and problems as you face new situations and changes throughout the marriage. If your present or future spouse avoids discussing these issues with you, then you have a serious problem that isn't going to be solved by getting married. In fact, if there are communication problems before the marriage, it is unlikely they will improve after the marriage. Another element of a happy marriage is shared activities, common interests and friends. An all-to-frequent divorce scenario seen today involves a couple who have been married more than 20 years. They married young and had children right away, with the wife staying home and the husband working. In this situation, the only shared concern was the children, with the wife focusing on child raising and her separate activities and the husband on his career. Then, one day, the children are off to college, jobs and life of their own, and the wife is at home with a husband who is either deeply involved in his career or recently retired. But, the focus of their attention is gone, leaving two strangers in the same house without another common bond to keep them together. Having failed to communicate over the years, the parties have drifted apart, giving them no reason to be patient, caring or understanding of the other's needs or desires. The caveat here is, don't just live through your children. In addition to developing your own interests and activities, make sure to find some mutually interesting activity that you can share with your spouse. Finally, this divorce attorney would like to advise you to keep your marriage alive by setting aside time to be alone with your spouse without the children or other friends at least once a week. This will help relieve the stress imposed by the outside world and problems confronting you that interfere with the quality time and intimacy with your spouse which led you to marry originally. A marriage for life takes planning, patience and open communication to be successful. Without any one of these elements, there is a good chance you will be seeing me or one of my fellow attorneys sometime in the future. Source: Women's News, October 1992 ======================================================================== Court's Double Standard Penalizes Loving Fathers One of the most neglected issues in this year of family values hype is the inequity in divorce laws as it applies to visitation rights, of non-custodial fathers. In Most states, Ohio included, father's rights are not enforced or protected under the law. We hear a lot about non-support and see legislation for enforcement on state, local and federal levels. I don't see stories about fathers who pay support and are blocked from seeing their children by ex-wives who refuse to allow scheduled court-directed visits on a regular basis. The fact is there is no recourse. Instead of enforcing dissolution or divorce decrees, the Domestic Relations Court avoids applying penalties for non-visitation compliance. Instead it encourages excuses for interference with visitation by citing age, school activity and other extracurricular involvement as a valid excuse for withholding rightful visitation. Over 50 percent of non-custodial parents see their children less than once a month when their court-approved visitation rights are mostly set for every other weekend. Ex-spouses who deny visitation should go to jail the same as delinquent child support violators should. Sadly, the legal system does not put the same value on the father's time spent with his children as it does the almighty dollar. A father's love is much more valuable. It is priceless. There is a double standard in the Domestic Relations Court as far as child visitation and support is concerned and right now I see no effort being made for equity. In this regard, the legal system is a sham and is totally unfair. Source: Letter to the Editor, Columbus Dispatch, October 8, 1992 ======================================================================== Terminating Spousal and/or Child Support Orders By Paul Bokrus and Jack Quinn This article features information provided from the second seminar sponsored by the Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency (FCCSEA) held in Columbus. Introduction The current Administrative Process became effective in April, 1992. The average time to stop support orders has dropped from a minimum of two to three months with a Court appearance to three to four weeks without necessarily appearing in Court. Termination of Spousal Support and/or Child Support may be completed by the Administrative Review and Hearings (ARH) section of the Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency (FCCSEA). Termination of support may also be accomplished via the parties filing their own motions with the Court, usually with the help of an attorney. Parties receiving support (obligees) are placed under the obligation to inform the FCCSEA if there are any reasons for which support should terminate. Parties paying support (obligors) may notify the FCCSEA of any reasons for which support should terminate, but are under no legal obligation to do so. The services of the FCCSEA to terminate support are available to either party. The FCCSEA cannot take any action in the case until the events leading to the termination have actually occurred. For example, if the order is to be terminated on the date of graduation, the FCCSEA cannot act until after graduation has occurred. Terminating Spousal Support Orders Reasons for Terminating Spousal Support XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Reason Documentation Necessary xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Time Limits of Only a phone call to the Agency. For Decree are com- example, if a spousal order states it pletely satisfied is to be effective for three years and three years has passed, a wage with- holding order may be filed to correct or cancel the support order without any further investigation. Re-marriage of the Copy of marriage certificate ex-spouse receiv- ing support. Death of the ex- Copy of death certificate or any spouse other proof of death xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx These are the most common reasons for terminating support, but the list may not be all-inclusive. If you believe your spousal support order should be terminated for any other reason, please feel free to contact the FCCSEA. Terminating Child Support Orders Reasons for Terminating Child Support XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Reason Documentation Necessary xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Child obtaining the Proof of child's age, such as birth age of 18 and no certificate longer attending an Proof of child's graduation or with- accredited high drawal from high school such as a school full time copy of a diploma or a letter from the school Physical change of Letter from each parent regarding custody the change of custody Legal change of Copy of final court order custody or adoption Marriage of child Copy of marriage certificate Entrance of child Copy of the papers of induction into into the Armed the military Forces Death of a child Copy of the death certificate or any other proof of death xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx These are the most common reasons for terminating support, but the list may not be all-inclusive. If you believe your child support order should be terminated for any other reason, please feel free to contact FCCSEA. Reasons for Not Terminating Support Order XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Reason Explanation xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Engross Order An engross order is an order which specifies a flat amount of child sup- port. For example, an order which establishes "$750 per month for the support of the minor children." If there are three children, it is not con- sidered to $250 per month per child. The FCCSEA cannot start the termi- nation procedure in these cases until the youngest child is eligible for legal emancipation. A possible rem- edy to adjust the amount would be modifying the support order. The FCCSEA may help with this if cer- tain criteria are met, or you may consult with a private attorney. Age of Majority 21 Any order which were made prior to Years January 1, 1974, have an age of majority of 21 years instead of 18. In these cases, the support would not be terminated until age 21 and out of high school unless some other rea- son for termination exists. Child is Handi- In some cases, child support would capped continue until the child is able to become self-supporting. Specific Language The best example of this may be an in Original Order obligation to continue to pay child which extends Sup- support as long as the child is port attending an accredited college. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Processing of Terminations The process consists of two steps. The first step is to notify the parties and the Court of the results of the FCCSEA's investigation into the termination request. The second step is the actual termination of the order by the Court. The paperwork filed includes the notification of results of the Investigator (FCCSEA-ARH 391, an arrearage calculation FCCSEA-ARH 301, and a Notice of Objection to the CSEA investigation). After the investigation is completed and the documents filed, the parties have ten days in which to object to the Agency's findings. The objection is mailed directly to the Court Impound Officer at the address listed at the bottom of the Objection form. If no objection is filed, the Court issues an entry reflecting the findings of the investigation. Source: Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency's seminar on Spousal Support, October 1992 ======================================================================== Removal of a Child from the State Some state laws prohibit removal without consent of the non-custodial parent unless the court, upon cause shown, otherwise orders. Other states authorize a court to grant leave to remove a child whenever such a move is in the best interest of the child, while others empower the court to restrain a removal which would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child. Once an action relating to the child's removal has been filed, state laws across the country vary as to which parent has the burden of proof, and what that parent is required to show in order to be permitted to move or to prevent a move. The law in some states creates a presumption that permission to move should be granted unless the non-custodial parent establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that removal would not be in the best interest of the child. Other courts focus on the best interest of the child in determining whether to permit the move. Many courts have adopted a test from a New Jersey decision in D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio, 144 N.J. Super. 200365, A.2d, affirmed, 144 N.J. Super. 352365 A.2d 716 (1976). New Jersey now has a statute which limits the right to move a child from the jurisdiction. The test states that the court should: "Consider the prospective advantages of the move in terms of its likely capacity for improving the general quality of life for both the custodial parent and the children. It must evaluate the integrity of the motives of the custodial parent in seeking the move in order to determine whether the removal is inspired primarily by the desire to defeat or frustrate visitation by the non-custodial parent and whether the custodial parent is likely to comply with the substitute visitation orders when she is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state. It must likewise take into account the integrity of the non-custodial parent's motives in resisting the removal and consider the extent to which, if at all, the opposition is intended to secure a financial advantage in respect of continuing support obligations. Finally, the court must be satisfied that there will be a realistic opportunity for visitation in lieu of the weekly pattern which can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the parental relationship with the non-custodial parent if removal is allowed." In a recent decision, The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (Zwerneman vs. Kenny, Superior Ct. of N.J. Docket No. A-111-88t3f) upheld the decision of a judge who said he would take custody from a parent who planned to permanently remove the child from the state, and give custody to the parent who planned to remain in the state. In so doing, the court upheld a New Jersey statue that permits judges to make such custody changes. The trial court refused to allow a parent to take the minor child to Florida because of the effect such a move would have on the minor child's relationship with the other parent. The appellate court determined that although the relocation would be economically beneficial for the moving parent to relocate to Florida, the monetary compensation is not nearly as important as the relationship between the minor child and the non-custodial parent. To quote part of the legal argument offered: "The determination of the parent-child relationship with all the attendant consequences for his life, is unquestionably the most fundamental right the child possesses in our system of jurisprudence. The child's right to consortium with each of his parents demands the full constitutional protection." In a report to the State Child Support Commission by the ABA (July 1985) the following was written: "It is clear that there are a number of competing concerns and a number of competing viewpoints on this issue. The commission recommends that the state legislation be adopted requiring the custodial parent to notify the non-custodial parent of a planned move sufficiently in advance to allow modifications of the visitation order, to pursue change of custody or seek modifications to deal with increased cost of visitation." Interstate enforcement and modification of court ordered, decreed custody and visitation rights are governed by UCCJA and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKA), a federal law enacted in 1980. If there is no removal provision it should be included in the custody decree, to insure enforcement by another state. ======================================================================== State Looking to Boost Child Support Payments COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) - Still facing massive fines for failing to meet federal child support collection standards, the state hopes to increase collections by using employment records to find deadbeat parents. Department of Human Services officials say the state also hopes to collect nearly $33 million in back child support payments by intercepting 1993 tax refunds. Since April, the department has been matching computer lists of people owing child support with the Bureau of Employment Services' computer records. Counties have been providing such lists to the state when they cannot find child support offenders. Out of 60,015 names provided, 35,422 people were found through employment records as of late August, Human Services officials say. Keith Moon, a deputy department director and head of the child support division, said he did not know how many of the 35,422 people located are paying support. He said it is difficult to determine until a statewide computerized child support tracking system is up and running. Moon said the project will be phased in around the state in 1994. The lack of such a statewide computer system is one of the reasons Ohio has been assessed about $17 million in fines by the federal government for not meeting child support collection standards. Gov. George Voinovich said recently Ohio, including what it already has been fined, could see fines mount to $85 million. Human Services has received permission from the federal government to target about 149,000 federal tax returns and about 2,700 state tax returns, filed by people owing a total of more than $1 billion in child support payments. This year, more than 40,000 people wound up losing their refunds and more than $26.5 million in back child support was collected. The state estimates it will wind up successfully intercepting and collecting nearly $33 million in back payments from more than 49,000 refunds in 1993. A person must be at least three months behind in child support payments before tax refunds can be intercepted. Source: UPI-Radio, November 1, 1992 ======================================================================== Father, 12 Mothers Sue for Back Support Thirteen frustrated central Ohio parents-one father and 12 mothers-tired of not receiving child support, took matters into their own hands yesterday by bringing criminal non-support charges against their ex-spouses in Franklin County Municipal Court. The charges, which allege a total of $336,121 in unpaid support, were filed by or on behalf of clients of Children's Support Services of Ohio, a private child support collections agency founded by Charlene Dunbar. The accused parents will be summoned to appear at a preliminary hearing at 9 a.m. Nov. 5. Dunbar made news last year when the Franklin County prosecutor's office indicted her ex-husband on charges of non-support after she hired a private detective to track him down in Texas. Dunbar's ex-husband eventually paid $40,000 in back support. She started her agency to help find deadbeat parents for clients here. Her clients pay a $25 application fee and agree to pay her 20 percent of any back child support the private agency collects. Yesterday's criminal charges were her first such action. Private filing of non-support charges is unusual, Assistant County Prosecutor Bill Owen said. He said the prosecutor's office probably will work with the Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency to investigate the cases and determine whether to seek indictments. The 12 men and one woman charged all were given the chance to cooperate with their spouses, Dunbar said. "We've gone back to each and every one and told them we were going to do this," she said. She criticized the county support agency for not tracking down the non-paying parents sooner. "Franklin County has these cases a lot longer than I had," she said. Dunbar and her staff of four search for absent parents, using information from credit reports and anything else they can get their hands on. Publicity about her efforts on a television talk show has led to other tips-the National Enquirer tabloid newspaper, which is interested in her story, set her on the trail of a deadbeat parent who owns a yacht in Florida, she said. The local marina police provided the suspect's address. Joseph J. Pilat, director of the county agency, said he sympathized with parents who have waited a long time for support, but he defended his agency's work to increase collections and find on-the-lam parents. We've been really aggressive over the past year," Pilat said. "Whether we've been able to respond to everybody that needs the service is another question. This problem didn't happen overnight. We've got 70,000 backlogged cases to try to deal with." He said that his agency is responsible for collecting every payment due from every parent, but added, "the reality of it is that there are a lot of men and women who don't do what they're supposed to do." The county agency assisted in bringing 33 criminal non-support indictments in July. Those cases are moving through the court system now. Pilat also said another 19 indictments have come down recently, but the court has ordered the defendant's names kept secret until deputy sheriffs have a chance to track them down. In the past parents accused of non-support have fled after learning they were indicted. Source: Columbus Dispatch, October 1992 ======================================================================== Justice Department Makes Two Child Protection Grants WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 - The Department of Justice today announced the awarding of two grants to study the effectiveness of child protection services in the justice system. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the department's criminal justice research agency in the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), in a joint project with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), another OJP component, awarded $499,988 to the American Bar Association's (ABA) Fund for Justice and Education and $186,536 to the Education Develop- ment Center in Newton, Mass. The ABA project will track family civil and criminal cases of child abuse through the justice system. It will accomplish four major tasks: - Conduct on-site reviews of policy, procedures and practice in three jurisdictions, including interviews with justice system professionals. - Track 450 children in each site from the time they are reported as allegedly abused or neglected until the justice system disposes of their cases. - Track 125 cases already before the court back to their origi- nal reports to establish their intake point and disposition. - Examine a single site that routinely prosecutes child mal- treatment cases. NIJ will publish a comprehensive report on the project's results and policy implications that will include specific recommendations for improving the justice system processing of child abuse cases. The Education Development Center's project, which will be conducted with the ABA's Center on Children and the Law, will conduct a national assessment of the problems involved in coordinating criminal and juvenile court actions in child maltreatment matters. The 18-month study will include: - A nationally representative telephone survey of court officials. - An in-depth exploration of the legal issues. - Identifying and describing promising approaches that appear to be effective in four jurisdictions. - Documenting the research findings and improvement recommendations. "By identifying strategies that work to coordinate justice system actions in a number of jurisdictions these two grants will help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of justice system decision-making and court practices while balancing the community's interest in protecting children, preserving families and upholding the constitutional rights of defendants," commented OJP Acting Administrator Steven D. Dillingham. "While these projects are directed toward improvements in the justice system's handling of child maltreatment cases, the ultimate benefit of this work will be improvements in the protection of children." Additional information about the Office of Justice Programs agencies, that is, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Justice Programs, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime, and their publications may be obtained from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Box 6000, Rockville, Maryland 20850. The telephone number is 1-301-251-5500. The toll-free number is 1-800-732-3277. Source: UPI-Radio, November 3, 1992 ======================================================================== Human Services Director Reacts to Critical Report COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) - Terry Wallace, director of the Ohio Department of Human Services, says critics of his agency are focusing too much on the negative and ignoring the department's accomplishments. "I think we need to look at what the department has gotten done in 18 months," Wallace said Tuesday after the state's inspector general released a report saying the department is "out of control." The report from Inspector General David Sturtz's office said investigators found mismanagement and wrongdoing in the department. It detailed favoritism in the hiring process, excessive pay raises and examples of mismanagement. John Meyer, communications director for Gov. George Voinovich, said the report revealed little new. Meyer said Wallace continues to have Voinovich's full support. Source: UPI-Radio, October 28, 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Head of State Welfare Agency Quits COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) - The director of the Ohio Department of Human Services who has been under fire for charges of mismanaging the agency has announced his resignation. Gov. George Voinovich was expected Monday to name an interim director to replace Terry Wallace. Wallace plans to leave the state welfare agency on Nov. 27. In the meantime a transition team will handle most of his duties. His resignation from the $85,010 a year job was announced Friday by the governor in a news release. Wallace and Voinovich met earlier in the day and apparently reached an agreement on Wallace's departure. Earlier in the week a report by Ohio Inspector General David Sturtz said the department had a pattern of improperly hiring people who may have been referred through the governor's office, Wallace's office and by state legislators. Three deputy directors were forced to resign earlier in the month and Wallace had to defend spending $10,000 in out-of-state trips by department officials at a time when the state has cut 73,000 people from General Assistance because of budget problems. Sturtz had recommended a critical review of salary increases for department executive personnel and cited raises given to 17 people since Wallace as appointed director on March 17, 1991. Wallace was the governor's third choice for the post. Voinovich issued a reprimand to Wallace in 1991 after Wallace had his brother, who is a police chief, conduct unauthorized background checks on the governor's cabinet members. Source: UPI-Radio, October 31, 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Human Services Deputy Director Fired COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) - Ted Fry, senior deputy director of the Ohio Department of Human Services, has been fired by acting director James Conrad. Fry was second-in-command under Terry Wallace who has resigned as director and was replaced by Conrad, former director of the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services. Fry, who was paid $65,500 a year, was unavailable for comment. He was named in Sturtz's report as one of several officials who took early retirement in 1991 from the Department of Mental Retardation which cost that department $143,722 and then went to work for the Department of Human Services. Source: UPI-Radio, November 4, 1992 [Comment: Recent reports indicate that most of the deputy directors were fired. There was a complete shake-up of the corrupt management of this agency responsible for overseeing Children's Services, AFDC and the collection of child support in the state.] ======================================================================== FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DESK Family Values and National Politics By Andy Cvercko, president of CAPRA The rhetoric of this campaign season has me worried. Dan Quayle verbally beats up on Murphy Brown and Hollywood unites in her defense. Aside from boosting the show's ratings, the real apparent benefit is to coin a campaign buzzword, "FAMILY VALUES." Family values is one of those terms that no one in his right polit- ical mind would take issue with. It sounds like mom, apple pie and baseball all wrapped up in one phrase. The problem is that no one has truly defined what is meant by family values. It can be all things to all people. To the intact family it may be the glue that holds them together. Mom and Dad and the kids trundling off to the small town church on a spring morning, followed by a trip to grandma's house. To the government, family values translate to the dollars that it takes to raise a family. When Uncle Sam passes laws to set levels and collect child support, he is saying that he wants parents to provide economic support, not him. We have yet to see the government promote family values in the arena of emotional support (visitation). To the divorced residential or non-residential parent, family values are more elusive. They are something lost, strayed or stolen. What is the politician saying to us? Have we broken traditional values? Are we second rate citizens? Is there life after divorce? Are remarriaged families allowed to have family values? Perhaps the emphasis on family values is the pendulum beginning to swing away from the no-fault divorce system. It may be the opening salvo of a battle to keep families from splitting up as readily as they now can and do. If family values means that there is value in the family unit staying together, then there may be some benefit to the movement. If it means that the federal government is trying to get involved in our family lives, please count me out. Both political parties are beating the family drum. Human Services Director Sullivan writes of fathers missing from the lives of kids. Even Geraldine Jensen of ACES admitted that kids deserve emotional support. Whatever the outcome, it is certain the 90s will be the decade when family values are defined. ======================================================================== Another Expert Pinpoints the Problem Urie Bronfenbrenner, the Cornell professor recognized as the architect of Head Start, says children in fatherless households "are at greater risk for experiencing a variety of behavioral and educational problems, including extremes of hyperactivity or withdrawal, lack of attentiveness in the classroom, difficulty in deferring gratification, impaired academic achievement, school misbehavior...., suicide, vandalism, violence and criminal acts." The reason, he says, is not the poverty associated with single-parent families but the "impaired parent-child interaction." The July 22, 1991 issue of Newsweek carries an article on promiscuous young girls, flatly blaming the problem on fatherlessness. Source: The Liberator, August 1991 ======================================================================== [All that follows is local information, credits, an attorney referral list, you know, that kind of thing. If you're not interested, this is a good place to stop....] Meeting: November 16th, 1992 Our guest speaker for November is the Honorable Referee Rexann Hosafros. Referee Hosafros has been a referee in Franklin County since December of 1991. She is the only woman referee in the Domestic Relations Court. After pumping gas as a young woman at her father's gas station (Rex's) and working there as she went to college, Rexann obtained her degree and worked as a high school English teacher. Later, she attended Capital Law School at night (while working in the Juvenile/Domestic Relations court system) and graduated with her Juris Doctoris in 1985. She previously worked for five years in the Legal Aid Society and one year for the Attorney's General office. ======================================================================== ATTORNEY REFERRAL LIST (listed alphabetically) Pamela Bertram Andrew Fishman 502 South 3rd Street 765 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Columbus, Ohio 43206 (614) 221-0725 (614) 444-3606 Bradley Frick Patricia Grimm 50 West Broad Street, Suite 3300 4937 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Columbus, Ohio 43228 (614) 228-0505 (614) 878-1092 Ralph A. Kerns Barry Wolinetz 743 South Front Street Luper, Wolinetz, Sheriff & Neidenthal Columbus, Ohio 43206 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1200 (614) 444-1100 Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 221-7663 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The FACE Newsletter Staff Jack Quinn Research, Contributing Editor Aaron Hoffmeyer Research, Typesetting, Contributing Editor Paul Bokros Research, Contributing Editor, Mailing List The FACE Officers Mike Driscoll President Tom Tavener Vice-President John McKinley Treasurer Bob Fowler Secretary The Fathers and Children for Equality Foundation is supported by the Ohio United Way. (c) 1992. All copyrights are implied and applicable. F.A.C.E. P.O. Box 18022 Columbus, Ohio 43218 (614) 275-6767 Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM P.S. The usual stuff down here. Postscript if you want it (even in color, if you got it), etc. etc. From memory.... To make a prairie, it takes a clover and a bee-- One clover, one bee and revery. And if bees are few, revery alone will do. -E. Dickinson I told this joke (which I made up) to my ex-wife and she didn't get it.... There was a blond girl who was so stupid her safeword was, "Yes." "Ouch!" "Oh." Take your pick. From soc.men Wed Nov 18 12:42:10 1992 Xref: utcsri soc.men:57275 alt.dads-rights:1516 soc.women:61053 misc.legal:50375 misc.kids:61652 Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,soc.women,misc.legal,misc.kids Path: utcsri!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Injured Parties Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:18:21 GMT Message-ID: <1992Nov18.081821.22421@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 285 By Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje George Paouris was accused of molesting his child. A civil court disagreed, but damage had been done--to all involved. Of all the destinies George Paouris might have imagined for himself during the long trip from Greece to Texas a little more than two years ago, none included sitting in a San Antonio courtroom, trying to convince a judge that he did not kiss his young daughter's genitals. "I have no way to protect myself, except to be saying the truth and to stick with it," says the 32-year-old former Greek navy officer, a tall, dark-haired man who now works as a mechanic in a grocery warehouse. "If I am found guilty, it will affect my life forever. If I am found innocent, the person who accuses me will just walk away--no punishment." Paouris draws deeply on a cigarette and looks on, as Raquel, his daughter, climbs on a jungle gym a few feet away. She is a beautiful child, with black hair in a thick braid and enormous pale green eyes. We sit on a bench in San Antonio's MacArthur Park on a hot Saturday summer morning, watching her. Normally easygoing, Paouris become agitated when he speaks of the ordeal that has consumed his life for fourteen months. His voice grows loud, his mannerisms jerky. His anger subsides, though, the moment his daughter races over, tweaks his jutting nose, and clambers onto his lap. This is the child--according to the criminal indictment--upon whom Paouris committed a litany of sexual atrocities. The person doing the accusing is his ex-wife, Dolores Lopez Markee. Paouris maintains that he is innocent. He and his present wife, Terri, say that Markee has fabricated these charges to eject her former husband from her life. She is an unstable woman, say the Paourises, who repeatedly has moved from place to place. They fear she is poisoning Raquel's mind. In response to the sexual abuse charges, last November Paouris and 37-year-old Terri filed a motion in civil courts to gain custody of Raquel. Paouris' tale is a dismal but by no means an isolated one. Talk to family attorneys, and they will tell you that since the mid-eighties, more and more frequently women have been using charges of of child sex abuse as weapons in divorce, custody, and visitation battles. And they are using them effectively: "All you have to do is mention child sex abuse," says 225th District Court judge John Specia, "and you never get the smell out of the jury box." How big is this wave? No one knows for sure. The only large empirical study done to date, published in 1990, found that child sex abuse allegations came up in only about 2 percent of contested custody and visitation cases. But whatever its size, the phenomenon is getting national attention. A cadre of psychologists has devoted reams of paper to the subject,a nd two researchers have even coined a term, SAID, or sexual allegations in divorce syndrome. [Note: This reporter didn't do much work on this statistic. The study she doesn't even quote was probably conducted by Nancy Theonnes and is based on limited data collected from 11 courts. However, many studies put the numbers at around 10 to 15% of all divorces. USA Today recently stated that such allegations now come up in 25% of all divorces, and the Denver Post stated the number was 30%. What we can be sure of is that a lot of different numbers are being bandied about, although the most comprehensive studies have concluded about 15% of all divorces now involve such allegations. However, the percentage grows every year.... Locally, according to Children's Hospital in Columbus, they investigated and evaluated 6000 claims of child sexual abuse last year, over 1500 of which were made during divorces. There were about 6000 divorces filed in this county last year.] - Aaron L. Hoffmeyer The issue at the heart of the matter is whether the wave is real or not--and additionally whether the accusations are sincere or motivated by revenge. Patricia Toth, the director of the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, is convinced that most accusations are well founded and that the notion of an epidemic of false charges is ludicrous. "These types of cases take up much more time and involve many more people than those where sex abuse charges don't come up," she says. "That's why people may be perceiving it as an epidemic, not because of sheer numbers. They just aren't there." Dan Price, family attorney in Austin who says he has seen an exponential rise in revenge-accusations cases in the past ten years, begs to differ. "I'm so god-damned sick and tired of `err on the side of the child' business," he says. "An allegation may start out being accidental or negligent, but once it's made, these women hold on to it. You should see them sitting in court. It's all they can do to bite their lips to keep from grinning." What has happened to George Paouris could serve as a textbook case of the phenomenon. First there's the timing. In almost all such incidents, the charges arise *after* the separation or divorce, usually in the midst of an unpleasant custody or visitation dispute. Almost always the child--usually under six years old--has spoken only to the mother about the abuse. Once the child speaks up, the mother takes the youngster to a doctor, where a thorough physical exam is performed and records are made. The mother is told to contact the child protective services division of the Texas Department of Human Services (now the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services), where the child is then interviewed by social workers, sometimes repeatedly. The case may end up in civil or--less often--criminal court. During the investigation, the father is not allowed to be alone with the child; if necessary, a paid supervisor is hired from one of the companies that have sprung up like mushrooms around the country in recent years. In San Antonio one such company, called, strangely enough, Fit for a King, charges $40 to $50 for a four-hour supervision. Today Paouris' Fit for a King supervisor is Marge, a plump, pleasant-looking woman, who like almost everyone else who has spent time with Paouris, says she is convinced that he did not sexually abuse Raquel. "My own daughter was molested by a relative, so if anyone would be suspicious, it would be me," says Marge, watching Paouris as he stands in front of Raquel while she swings. With each upward arc of her Little Mermaid tennis shoes, he pretends to bite her toes, and she dissolves into giggles. George Paouris and Dolores Lopez married in 1984. They moved to Greece and began a tumultuous relationship in which Dolores periodically left her husband to return to the United States, according to George. He eventually managed a discharge from the Navy and returned to America to try to patch things up, but Dolores would have none of it. From that point on, George found it harder and harder to see his daughter. In 1991, the Paourises began divorce proceedings, the same year the alleged abuse occurred. In May and October of that year, according to her sworn affidavit, Dolores said Raquel had told her that George had kissed her "koo-koo-pops"--a Lopez-family term for genitalia--during two visits with him and had also engaged in various other sex acts. After both instances, Dolores took Raquel to the hospital for pelvic exams. In the first, the report came back normal; in the second, the doctor wrote that Raquel's vulva was slightly irritated. Subsequently Dolores contacted the DHS. Twice the agency conducted videotaped interviews with Raquel; both times its finding was "unable to determine" if abuse had occurred. In the meantime, Dolores lobbied the Bexar County district attorney's office, demanding action. That finally got results. The DA's office presented the videotapes to a grand jury, which returned a criminal indictment. On May 12, 1992, George was arrested. He was released the next morning to await court proceedings in the fall. The civil case was scheduled for July 16. Of all tricky areas of dealing with child sexual abuse, perhaps the trickiest is gathering evidence from the alleged victim. This is a task that falls to the caseworkers, and it is one that critics say the workers are unqualified to perform. To be a caseworker at the Department of Protective and Regulatory Service, all a person needs is a college degree. It can be in anything--music, botany, social work. After nine to twelve weeks of training, workers are making decisions that can change people's lives. David Reilly, the director or regional operations, says that while caseworkers are not specifically instructed in how to detect false allegations, they are taught how to ascertain a child's credibility. Austin family attorney Price, however, minces no words in his criticism of the agency's procedures. Their goal, he says, is not to determine if abuse occurred; it is to determine that it did. "You ask a DHS caseworker how to detect if an allegation is false, and their eyes glaze over," says Price. One particular problem is that young children are susceptible to suggestion. They also aim to please--especially their parents. If a child senses that the mother suspects something happened, the child may agree that it did. Couple this tendency with caseworkers who may feel it necessary to ask very young children leading questions--"Who touched your pee-pee?" "Did Daddy touch your pee-pee?"--and the waters become irrevocably muddied. They get even muddier with the use of anatomically correct dolls, essentially Raggedy Anns and Andys with pubic hair, breasts, and penises. The problem with the dolls is that both abused and nonabused children play with them in the same way, as a spate of studies has shown. "You give me anybody's three- to six-year-old child and some anatomically correct dolls, and I'll have them accusing somebody of sex abuse by midnight," says Price. On a muggy morning in late July, the cast of players in the psychodrama that had become Raquel Paouris' life assembled around wooden tables in the 150th District Court of Judge Carleton B. Spears, 34, who would listen to and decide on the testimony in the civil custody case. At one table sat 30-year-old Dolores Markee, wearing a conservative dress, a gold crucifix, and glasses, her full lips and exotic features framed by thick hair pulled back in a clasp. Next to her sat her fourth husband, Richard, a construction manager with Sitterle homebuilders. Denise Martinez--Markee's third and most recent attorney--sat next to him. At the next table were Paouris, his attorney--Shirley Ehrlich and Alma Lopez--and Terri. A pale woman with blond hair, Terri has championed her husband's case almost since the day she met him in May 1991, after the sex abuse charges had already been made. Over the next six days, a string of witnesses flowed through the courtroom. Terri testified that during the October visit, the only time Paouris and Raquel were out of her sight was the few minutes when he took her to use the bathroom. Markee's ex-husband Ralph Serrano testified that Markee had an unstable lifestyle and that they had battled over visitation for their son, Ralph Junior. At one point, the trial was halted so that the attorneys and the judge could view two DHS tapes of interviews with Raquel. In the first tape, a caseworker John Garcia helped Raquel remove the male doll's pants. In the second tape, Raquel lifted a doll's crotch to her mouth after being prompted ceaselessly by another caseworker as to where, exactly, her father had kissed her. That scene was, apparently, the nail that sealed the criminal indictment against Paouris. After the first tape, Garcia testified that he thought Raquel had been telling the truth about being abused, even though the DHS report had said that nothing could be substantiated. Garcia also said that after viewing the tape, Markee had jumped up to give him a hug and a kiss on the cheek. Most parents are not overjoyed if they believe their child has been abused, he testified; they are upset. Denise Martinez, Markee's attorney, sought to bolster the mother's case. She called Dr. Maria Cruz, a clinical psychologist who said that Raquel was a victim of post-traumatic stress disorder--a diagnosis often given to sexually abused children. She based her diagnosis mainly on statements given to her by Markee about Raquel's behavior, as well as some brightly colored pictures Raquel had drawn, which the psychologist said showed Raquel was afraid of her father. The court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Joann Murphey, offered quite a different opinion. From her investigation--which included a review of tapes, DHS reports, and medical records, as well as interviews and psychological testing on Paouris and Markee--she found nothing significant to substantiate the sex abuse charge. To the contrary, she suspected the charge was false, largely because of inconsistencies in Markee's information. For example, Markee denied having romantic involvements with other men, yet she would show up at Murphey's office accompanied by various men. Also, according to DHS records, Markee had said that doctors found evidence that Raquel's vagina had been penetrated, when, in fact, there were no such records. The psychological evaluations were also worrisome, said Murphey. Markee's Rorschach test revealed her to have "repressed hostility" and a "high potential for distortions in thinking." On a test for empathy--the ability to feel for others and to form human bonds--she made a low score. On the other hand, Paouris scored well on all the tests, especially the one for empathy. Murphey's analysis was echoed by two Fit for a King supervisors, each of whom testified that Raquel tended to be timid and withdrawn at her mother's house but that she would "open up like a flower" in the company of her father. Martinez finally called Dolores Markee to the stand. She wept when describing her daughter's behavior on the nights of the alleged abuse. She said Paouris once threatened to kill her and to take Raquel out of the country. She said he cursed in front of the children. During cross-examination, Paouris' attorney, Shirley Ehrlich was visibly irate. She picked at the inconsistencies--large and small--that seemed to trail Markee. Why did she tell a worker from a child abuse advocacy group that Paouris had been confined to a mental institution in Greece, when he had not? Couldn't the redness of Raquel's vulva be explained by the fact that she had been wearing urine-soaked panties on the day her father came to visit on October 12, according to the testimony of one of her aunts? And, most telling, why did she claim in her affidavit that she talked to Paouris on the two nights he dropped off his crying daughter at the house--after having allegedly abused her--when Markee had not been at the house? Couldn't Markee's fears for Raquel, in fact, be connected to her own sexual abuse as a child--a fact that had come out in the testimony of Dr. Cruz? On July 28, fourteen months after he was accused of sexually molesting her, George Paouris was awarded sole custody of Raquel. In a letter to the two attorneys in the case, Judge Spears wrote: "It is the finding of this court that the sexual abuse did not take place as alleged.... In comparing the mother and father ... the Court looks to the actions of each parent. The father offers a much more stable life than the mother ... [though] There is no doubt that the mother loves the child.... In conclusion, the judge granted visitation rights to Markee. Both parents and child were ordered into counseling. Source: Texas Monthly magazine, November 1992 Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Tue Jan 12 10:15:33 1993 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:2168 alt.child-support:5707 soc.men:60297 soc.women:63718 misc.kids:65059 misc.legal:52606 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,misc.legal Path: utcsri!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: January FACE Newsletter Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:50:03 GMT Message-ID: <1993Jan11.105003.8870@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 1501 The January Central-Ohio Fathers and Children for Equality (FACE) Newsletter [Distribute this to whomever you wish. Upload it to BBSs. Just don't charge for it.] Constance and Peter O'Shaughnessy, who divorced in 1982 but have fought for 10 years over custody of their son, Ryan, refused to give it a rest even after Ryan was killed, at age 15, in an auto accident in July. Peter accused Constance of making the unilateral decision that Ryan would be cremated, which upset him. She denied it. But Ryan's ashes were then divided between them. The two are still battling over whether the ashes will be combined in the O'Shaughnessy family plot, whether Constance will have the right to visit, and what message will be on his grave marker. - from the _Austin Chronicle_ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Martha Fineman, Professor of Law and Director of the Family Policy Program of the Institute for Legal Studies at the University of Wisconsin, argues that court imposed joint custody is unfair to mothers in that it has been advocated by fathers' rights groups as a solution to the historic failure of non-custodial parents-usually fathers-to pay child support: "Joint custody ... empowers fathers as a group without requiring any demonstration of responsibility ... in no other area does the law reward those who have failed in their duties as an incentive for them to change their behavior." - Fineman, "Dominant Discourse, Professional Language, and Legal Change in Child Custody Decision-making," _Harvard Law Review_ 727, 759. (1988) ======================================================================== Contents From the Desk of the Editor - tidbits Congress Authorizes Study of Access (Visitation) and Other Issues - the Shelby/Hyde bill, besides creating draconian child support enforcement measures, especially making "perceived" flight out-of-state "to avoid child support" a felony, did state that a commission, similar to the one which recommended the changes for child support, be created to address the issue of visitation. Let's watch the new legislature and make sure this commission is funded and gets quickly underway. Equal Time for Dads - Texas has drafted a visitation enforcement bill--which, if passed, would make it one of the few states to do so. Moving from a One-Home Family to a Two-Home Family - some good advice from _Mom's House, Dad's House_ by Isolina Ricci--still one of the best books on the topic. Assault on the Family - much rebuttable, "end-of-the-world" propaganda from _US News & World Report_. It was Christmas. They just couldn't let it pass without some "Bah, humbugs." Divorce Disrupts More Than Alcohol or Drugs - divorce affects about 50% of the workforce at least once. Often, it can cause years of problems for employees. Maybe businesses should start looking at how much this issue affects them, and start helping their employees--if not for anything than to minimize their loss of productivity. So, What's on TV? - a piece from the world of television. Nah, men are not routinely discriminated against.... It never happens. How to Handle Child Abuse Allegations - from a psychologist for other psychologists. Not a bad article. It should illustrate that the profession is getting wiser to the false allegations hysteria. However, it is still the profession that inspires them too. False Allegations of Abuse: Why, Why Not, And What? - a good summary piece from Anne Mitchell, JD. It describes the current situation quite accurately and offers lots of good advice. How to Deal with False Child Molestation Charges - some more good advice from a man who successfully defended himself from such allegations. Is It Time for the Pendulum to Fall? - grandparents visitation rights--a summary from Illinois. Ohio's Domestic Relations Law [local law] - another in our series describing the law in this state. Child Support Modifications [local procedures] - another (and I think, last) in our series on child support law in this state. Good Reason Needed to Deviate on Support, Court Says [local ruling] - can't deviate from the child support guidelines. On the surface it looks like a rhetorical victory for fathers--until you recognize that the state can still set your income at anything they want if they think you are voluntarily underemployed. What this ruling states is they can calculate your income based on what they think you can make, but then they must follow the guidelines in calculating support from their "theoretical" amount. Amazing. Court Reverses Order to Wear `Need Job' Sign - No, it's a great system. See, Judge Roy Bean was overruled. The Children's Rights Council's 7th National Conference - ATTEND THIS!!!! More Elderly Divorcing, Lawyers Say - while the divorce rate for youngsters and yuppies has started to wane, the elderly are trying their best to keep the numbers up there. Of course, the population as a whole is getting older, so.... ======================================================================== From the Desk of the Editor [Several items deleted because they are only pertinent to local members of the group.] Now that the holidays are over (we hope they were good to you and that you got to see your children), it's time to get back to business. 1993 is going to be an interesting year. There are a lot of issues we will be addressing. Senator Schafrath's visitation bill will be seriously considered by the current legislature-the prospects look good. A national bill has been introduced in Congress and will be considered by the Senate and House. The state Child Support Commission hearings are almost over-one more month, a few more hearings, reports due in the spring-and again, the prospects look quite good. And, we've made some interesting cooperatives in the last year and we should start seeing fruits from those joint ventures. Several of the articles in month's Newsletter focus on false alle- gations of child abuse made as part of the divorcing process to ensure an award of sole custody. This is an important issue. It is also a topical issue. Watch _48 Hours_, Wednesday, January 13th @ 10 p.m. One of the stories is on fathers fighting to maintain their parental relationships with their children. For those of you who don't know, this Newsletter is not only distributed to our members, judges, referees, attorneys and psy- chologists in central-Ohio, it is also distributed electronically via several different international newsgroups. We have a voice. We can change things. ======================================================================== Congress Authorizes Study of Access (Visitation) and Other Issues Congress has authorized the creation of a national Commission of Child and Family Welfare, which would have a special empha- sis on child access (visitation). The commission is part of the Hyde/Shelby bill passed unanimously by Congress, which would make it a federal crime to flee across state lines to "willfully" avoid payment of financial child support. The bill, S. 1002, received final Congressional approval on October 6, 1992, and was signed by the President. Under Congress's two-step process, the authorization for the commission must now await Congressional funding. Senator Herbert Kohl (D-WI), the major sponsor of the interstate commission, tried to get Congress to fund $2 million for the commission, but the rush to Congressional adjournment in early October made the funding bid impossible. $2 million is the same cost as the Child Support Commission previously authorized by Congress. At this point, funding cannot occur until early in 1993, when the new Congress convenes. Members of the commission would not be appointed until after funding is approved, which means that the commission members probably would not be appointed until mid-1993 at the earliest. "All supporters of active parenting of children after separation or divorce thank Senator Kohl for proposing this commission and fighting for its passage," said CRC President David Levy. "The commission will provide a national forum that we have needed for a long time." Source: from a publication of the Children's Rights Council ======================================================================== Equal Time for Dads Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo (Texas), is considering introducing a bill that would guarantee the rights of divorced fathers to visit their children. The man who put the bug in Cuellar's ear is Gus Pineda Pena of Laredo, who has conducted vigils outside the Webb County Justice Center with signs proclaiming "Fathers Can Nurture Too" and "We Need Visitation Enforcement." Pineda is divorced and has had difficulty visiting his children. "Fatherhood is a serious business," he said. "It's not just about sending payment every month." Source: _Austin American Statesman_, November 17, 1992 ======================================================================== Moving from a One-Home Family to a Two-Home Family By Judith Thomas, Ph.D. [Note: The following information is based on material in the book _Mom's House, Dad's House_ by Isolina Ricci (New York: Macmillan, 1980.)] Much of our popular conception of divorce is based on the idea that the end of a marriage marks the end of a family. While that may be true for families without children, it is false where children are involved. When a couple with children decides to end their marriage, they are faced with the task of reorganizing their family. Most recent research on divorce suggests that the reorganized family that best meets children's needs has two homes--mom's house and dad's house--where children are equally welcome and at home. If you were a child whose parents were getting a divorce, what would your parents have to say and do to help you feel that you now have two homes instead of one? Most children say that they want their parents to assure them they are still loved and will be taken care of by both parents. They also want their parents to handle any conflicts between them in a positive manner so that they, the children, aren't caught in the middle. In terms of practical arrangements, children need a block of unbroken time with each parent, including time spent overnight. The length of time may vary, depending on the ages of the children and individual variation. Ideally it will include both weekend and weekday periods. They also need to have their own things in both homed and to have a special, permanent place for them, even if they spend more time in one home than the other. The following guidelines summarize these principles: 1. Give children their own space in each house. Arrange for their own place to sleep, whether it be in their own room or a sleeping bag kept rolled in a closet and taken out for use each night. In addition, set aside some space to call their own. This space can be as large as a separate room or as small a one drawer in a parent's dresser, but it should be big enough for their own toilet articles, two or three changes of clothes, sleepwear, and a few toys or other personal effects. Whenever possible, let the children choose which things-- clothing, toys--they will keep at each house. If they wish to carry a favorite toy or article back and forth, let them. Avoid having them carry a suitcase as if they were visiting foreign territory, but make it easy for them to take along objects they are attached to. A backpack may be useful for this. 2. Make sure the children feel at home in their neighborhood. If your home is new to them, first walk the children around the various rooms, then take a walk in the neighborhood. Help them become familiar with landmarks, meet neighbors and potential playmates, not the busy streets. Establish the boundaries for them to roam without an adult. 3. Establish household routines. It is easy for routines to fall by the wayside during the stress of divorce, and you may want to set up new routines for your post-divorce household. As soon as possible, establish regular mealtime and bedtimes when you children are with you. Bath time and story time can be opportunities for sharing with younger children. 4. Establish your own parenting style. You may have compromised your ideas of parenting while you were married. Having your own household gives you an opportunity to try out new house rules that reflect your needs as well as those of your children. Avoid being too permissive, especially during the first year after the divorce. Children tend to see limits as a reflection of their parent's stability and caring, and they especially need these during this time. 5. Give children some responsibilities for chores. Taking responsibility for household chores is good preparation for adult independence. Because their parents are often under more time pressure, children in divorced families have an opportunity to become more realistic about what it takes to run a household. Participating together in housecleaning, food shopping, meal preparation, and other household chores builds solidarity between parents and their children. Even when children are in one home for periods as brief as every other weekend, having some responsibilities helps them feel more like residents and less like guests. 6. Pay attention to safety rules. Keep a list of emergency num- bers--doctor, friends, neighbors, your workplace. Show your children escape routes in case of fire, meeting places in case of separation. For very young children, help them memorize their own last name, your first name, address, and telephone number. 7. Keep in touch. If you use child care or baby-sitting during work hours or at other times, let your children know where you are and when you expect to be home. If possible, telephone them to check on how they are doing. Call your children at convenient times when they are at their other parent's home and allow that parent the same courtesy at your home. Being able to talk with the parent of the "other" home reassures children of their ongoing connection. Child care schedules: what works best? The answer to that question depends on your children's ages and needs and on your own. Shared parenting can be interpreted as a strict schedule of equal time at each home or a participation in child-rearing based on quality rather the quantity of time. Equal time can be divided in many ways--split weeks, alternating one or two week periods, alternating months. This type of arrangement works best when the two homes are close together, children are pre-teens or older, and parents are careful to maintain regular schedules. One-third/two-thirds division can work well for school age children. They might spend an overnight during one week and a long weekend, from Thursday evening until the beginning of school the following Monday, the next week. Pickups and drop-offs at school can help reduce the sense of separation some children feel when left by one parent at the other's house. One-quarter/three-quarters is a variation of the previous arrangement and can be one evening each week plus alternating weekends beginning Friday evening and ending Sunday evening. This schedule, often used as "standard visitation" by courts, allows some unbroken time with the second-home parent but does not have the advantage of the Monday morning school ritual. Freedom of movement between two homes, arranged by the children, can work with teenaged children if parents are willing to make independent plans. Infants and toddlers of best with more frequent, shorter visits with the second-home parent. Source: a publication of Professional Mediation Associates ======================================================================== Assault on the Family "Family Preservation" groups are now working in 30 states to keep families together, not by prohibiting divorces, but by battling destructive forces that often lead to dissolution: poverty, alcoholism and physical and emotional abuse. Never before, social workers warn, has the American family been in so much trouble. Signs of the crisis: * The number of child abuse reports more than doubled between 1980 and 1990--from 1.1 million to 2.5 million--and experts say it has risen another 5 to 8 percent in the past two years. [Note: "reports" Convictions and substantiations have kept pace with population increases and that is it.] * Fifteen percent of all new babies have been exposed to illegal drugs in the womb. * A report released this week by the Child Welfare League of America shows increases in the number of families seeking help for alcohol and substance abuse and in the number of preschool children who now show behavioral and developmental problems after having been exposed to drugs and alcohol before birth. [Note: Alcohol sales have decreased. Alcohol related deaths are also on the wane. More people seeking help should be looked upon as a positive development.] * In 1980, child welfare caseloads averaged 12 per worker. Today, a worker often handles 50 to 70 cases. [Note: Another purposely misleading fact. The rate of valid substantiations of child abuse has decreased. More caseworkers are handling more and more bogus cases. Also, to save money, many agencies have cut back on workers while increasing the caseloads of those who are still working. And who is to say that with 12 cases per worker that they weren't all sitting around doing nothing all day?] * Family preservation caseworkers strive to reach families before they fall apart, but the line of families needing help is now so long that workers find themselves turning families away, or, worse, investigation children's abuse-related deaths when help has come too late. Several state have been sued for failing to protect kids from troubled homes, but the Supreme Court ruled that such cases could not be brought to federal court. Two bills now pending in Congress would infuse more federal dollars into family and child welfare agencies. Even if the legislation passes, family service agencies are bracing for a rocky future, as crack babies grow up and start school, HIV infections spread and new plagues threaten the family at every turn. Source: _US News & World Report_, December, 1992 [Note: Obviously this was a "Pro" Department of Human Services propaganda piece--resolving that more money and social workers are needed to solve these problems. Yeah, right.] ======================================================================== Divorce Disrupts More Than Alcohol or Drugs Divorce and other martial problems-not alcohol or drug abuse-are the biggest workplace burdens on productivity, according to a survey of Ohio small businesses conducted by the Ohio Psychological Association (OPA). Additionally, OPA released recommendations to help businesses deal with personal or emotional problems in the workplace. "The survey shows that small businesses in Ohio realize that personal problems threaten productivity in the workplace," says Dr. Terry Imar from Columbus. The survey of 55 small businesses reported that 22 executives (40%) say that divorce and other marital problems have a "very negative" impact on workplace productivity, whereas only 33% report a loss of productivity because of substance abuse. OPA made three recommendations for helping small businesses: 1. Establish an employee assistance program (EAP). 2. Appoint an in-house "resource person." 3. Provide employees with information on where to get assistance for personal or emotional problems. Source: _Behavior Today_, February 19, 1990 ======================================================================== So, What's on TV? It is like so many other over-crowded county health care clinics--you see the same faces full of anxiety, need and fatigue. The people who can not pay, who don't have insurance. What makes Lee County different is the faces you don't see--men and old people. Pregnant women, mothers and dependent children are seen. All others are being turned away, unless they were patients here before the new policy became effective. Practically speaking, health care rationing is a fact in a lot of places, but in some Florida counties they made it official--all patients are not to be considered equal. Some state officials call it The Titanic Model ... women and children first. Source: _CBS News_, January 1, 1993 ======================================================================== Many women dismiss female violence in the home either as innocuous and different in nature from male violence or as self-defense, but Suzanne Steinmetz, a sociology professor at Indiana University, found that some men become targets of abuse when they attempt to protect their children from the mother's violence--the reverse of the stereotype. Other stud- ies have concluded that women typically are just as assaultive as their husbands. Although the men characteristically cause more injuries, wives strike the first blow in 48 percent of the cases, according to one study. - Lawrence Wright, _Texas Monthly_ magazine, February, 1992 ======================================================================== How to Handle Child Abuse Allegations By Richard Austin, Ph.D., Houston, Texas [Note: This article was written for psychologists.] The increase in child sexual abuse allegations is a major trauma for a child, whether conclusive or not, and a growing problem for Family Courts throughout the county. As a clinical psychologist--often court appointed to assess the parties involved in a custody dispute--sexual abuse allegations are an all too frequent issue that I must address. For the purpose of this presentation, I will use Kempe and Kempe's (1978) sexual abuse definition: "Sexual abuse is defined as involvement of dependent, developmentally immature children and adolescents in sexual activities that they do not fully comprehend, to which they are unable to give informed consent, or that violate the social taboos of family roles." Two trends--the increase in reported cases of actual child abuse, and the increase in false sexual abuse allegations--resulted in a Policy Statement from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (June 10, 1988) to spell out our evaluation standards. The statement stresses that the evaluation should be thoroughly performed under the direction of an experienced child psychiatrist or psychologist, who should be comfortable testifying in court. Certainly, awareness of sexual abuse has improved in the last ten years, and children know more about it. The National Committee for Prevention of Child abuse has published a "Spiderman" and "Power Pack" comic strip to inform children and adolescents what sexual abuse is, and how to report it to the authorities. Although increased protection for victims has been a result, an increase in "victims" by false allegations has also taken place. For example, five-year-old twin girls were taken out of their home when their preschool teacher reported that they stated that their father touched them in the "wrong places." While still out of their home, they admitted to a psychologist that the story was made up. They apparently were given extra attention for their "abuse" remarks. Many parents, camp counselors, and even mental health experts are becoming defensive about contacts with children as allegations of sexual abuse increase. In the September, 1991, _Psychotherapy Today_ journal, Albert Kastle, Ph.D., states that allegations, especially false allegations have increased dramatically. Kastle and Podler, studying 25 cases, identified several factors that make up a profile of families that make false allegations. Some of them are: 1. Families have made previous unsubstantiated accusations of sexual abuse of their children 2. Families where one or both of the parents have been victims of child sexual abuse themselves 3. Parents with an extensive history of mental illness 4. Families in the process of breaking up 5. Families involved in the occult Although most women retain custody of children after a divorce, almost 50% of the men nationwide that attempt custody through the courts win it. (This information is based on estimates from my clinical experience, Harris County, Texas and from numerous articles that I have read). [Just couldn't name them!] This may help explain the high inci- dence of false allegations of sexual abuse during court litigation for custody and/or visitation. Dr. Arthur Green in an article, "True or False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Child Custody Disputes:" (_Journal American Academy of Child Psychiatry_, 25, 1986), estimated from studies that 55% of all the allegations are false. Green's summary, which I find helpful, lists characteristics of True vs. False abuse. These include a delayed, reticent, or conflicted disclosure with true cases, while the child's disclosure is easy and spontaneous with false cases; like the "rehearsed litany" on Richard Gardner's _Sexual Abuse Legitimacy Scale_. A true disclosure by the child is usually painful, and depressing, while a false disclosure has an absence of negative emotions. The child uses age appropriate sexual terms with true cases, while adult language is often used by children in false cases. In true cases the child is often fearful in the father's presence, while with false accusations the child will often angrily confront the father in the mother's presence. Falsely accusing parents (usually the mother) often have prominent paranoid and hysterical symptoms. Research by several authors discusses valuable indications in the assessment of child sexual abuse allegations. However, caution is recommended here, as many cases include both indications that the abuse is and is not true. The following is a guideline to be used in the context of a professional assessment of the accuser, the alleged perpetrator, and the victim. Indicators of True Abuse 1. The child has trouble talking about the abuse. 2. The child changes his (her) story. 3. The child is depressed or anxious while disclosing. 4. The child has trouble confronting the accuser. 5. The child describes the sexual activity in age appropriate ways. 6. The child gives specific, appropriate details of the sexual activities. 7. The child indicates that the intensity of sexual activity grew over time. 8. The accusing parent is ambivalent about the child's involve- ment in the proceedings. 9. The accusing parent has remorse about not protecting the child. [Items 1 thru 3 could obviously be indicators of false abuse allegations. #2 is amazing that it is an indicator of true abuse--any logical person would think it an indicator of false allegations. #6 is also indicative of a coached child.] Indicators of False Abuse 1. The child's disclosure is made easily without emotions. 2. The child uses adult sexual language without giving specific details. 3. The child easily confronts the accused. 4. The child is comfortable with the accused. 5. The child appears prompted by the accusing parent. 6. The child indicates that intense sexual activity began at once. 7. The parents are in a custody dispute, or have severe martial discord. 8. The accusing parent is eager for the child to testify. 9. The accusing parent gives vague answers about the develop- ment of abuse suspicions. 10. An accusing child who is older appears to be seeking revenge against the accused parent. Evaluation Steps The following steps are useful to assess the validity of a sexual abuse claim. 1. A clinical history of the alleged sexual abuse 2. A medical examination by a specialist experienced with sexual abuse issues 3. A clinical assessment of the complaining parent and the accused parent, to include interviews, observations, personality test, and a family history which includes a relationship and sexual history 4. An examination of the child, which includes observations, interviews, projective tests or stories, drawings, and some- times, the use of dolls, both with and without anatomical sex- ual features 5. The use of relevant collateral information; such as house- keepers, other relatives, or even siblings that know the alleged victim. Of course, the age of the child is important. A very young child has limited ability to verbalize sexual abuse, while with older children, the verbalization of their feelings about any abuse actions is an important indicator. 6. _The Sexual Abuse Legitimacy Scale_ (SAL) by Richard A. Gardner, M.D., is used as another tool to tell the differences between bonafide and fabricated sexual abuse. Based on five years of research, the scale has a significant empirical base to weigh each criteria to arrive at a score for the child, the accuser, and the accused that is either more likely to be bonafide sexual abuse, or more likely to be inconclusive. I have personally found the scale to be very helpful, and an excellent way to check out the sources of assessment. Of particular interest is the accusing parent's attitude to get revenge, or any evidence of persuasion to have the child "keep the secret," is valuable as an indicator of real abuse. However, many symptoms of sexual abuse by the child, such as episodes of frequent sexual excitation, can be misinterpreted by those unfamiliar with the developmental stages in child development. The times are difficult for children, for their families, and also for the courts and society. As mental health experts work together with attorneys and the Family Courts, which they must do in sexual abuse allegations, the teamwork created by this cooperation with such a serious issue can work together for the good of the children in other areas. ======================================================================== False Allegations of Abuse: Why, Why Not, And What? By Anne P. Mitchell, J.D. "John, don't go crazy and don't say anything to Jennifer, but last week I took Jennifer to Child Protective Services and they called the police. The officer wants to see you. Here's his card." Thus one victim of a false allegation of abuse was made aware of the charges against him. False allegations of abuse of a child, very often of sexual abuse, by one parent against the other, are an increasingly common weapon in the divorce and custody arsenal. A false allegation is the perfect weapon. It is simple, fast, and guaranteed to achieve the desired result: the complete removal of the targeted parent from the child's and the accusing parent's life, along with a moral vindication or victory for the accusing parent. Many experts and family law practitioners believe that the increase in false allegations of abuse in the divorce and custody context are a direct result of the move to "no-fault" divorce. Years ago one had to prove `fault' in order to get a divorce. In other words, one spouse had to prove that the other had either cheated on them, abandoned them, or was in some other way at fault for the breakdown of the marriage. This led to some rather contrived situations, with one spouse arranging for the other spouse to "find" them in a compromising situation, so that proof of "fault" could then be offered to the court. Several states, including California, have done away with this fault-based concept of divorce. Many believed this to be an advance, that this would lead to a kinder, gentler system of divorce. Unfortunately, the advocates of no-fault divorce forgot to take one thing into account: human nature. For the most part, people need to be able to point the finger of blame. The fault-based system of divorce allowed the divorce-seeker their proverbial day in court, and an opportunity to prove to the world what a no good so-and-so their spouse was. It gave them a sense of vindication. By contrast, the no-fault type systems of divorce have no such element of good guy versus bad. In California one can get a divorce based on "irreconcilable differences." Other states have other, similarly innocuous grounds. There is no longer an opportunity for finger pointing and blame laying. No longer a path to vindication. Enter the false allegation of abuse. In one fell swoop the accusing spouse can go back to a fault-based system of divorce and achieve utter vindication. In one fell swoop they can get the targeted spouse completely out of their and the children's lives, and can ensure themselves complete custodial control. And in one fell swoop they will completely destroy the other spouse's life, and any semblance of a normal relationship between the other spouse and their children. As one victim of a false allegation of abuse explains: "It changed everything. My marriage was destroyed. I couldn't see my kids for three months until a psychological evaluation was done. Even after that I could see my kids for only one hour per week up at the court house while a probation officer remained nearby. It was totally devastating. An incredible experience." The relationship between accused parent and child is often not the only relationship which will suffer. One falsely accused father found that the false allegation occurred, not coincidentally, after he had entered into a new relationship. "It made me realize that my ex-to-be has a powerful weapon to control my future relationships. She had been very jealous of this woman because my children seemed to like her better than her own choice of partner." Not surprisingly, his new relationship fell victim to the fallout from the false allegation. Other consequences of the false allegation may, and often do, include loss of reputation, loss of one's job, and of course, financial hemorrhage. The cost to defend a false allegation of abuse may run to the tens of thousands of dollars, particularly if there is a criminal charge involved. Even for those who can financially afford to deal with a false allegation, the damage to one's reputation, both professionally and personally, can be immeasurable. How many of us will ever forget the accusations which Mia Farrow has leveled against Woody Allen? Even if he is adjudged innocent, how many of us will always wonder? And how many of us, despite all of his fame and fortune, would trade places with Mr. Allen right now? And there will be emotional scars, and psychic trauma, which may never heal. Jennifer's father, John, found the whole ordeal to be devastating. "Beyond anything else I've known or expect to know again. For three years it's been my number one thought. I lost my job, lost all interest in life ... but somehow hung on, in large part for Jennifer. I'm much better now, but the pain will follow me to death." Yes, the parent targeted with a false allegation is truly a victim in every sense of the word. But the accused parent is not the only victim of the false allegation. For all the pain and devastation which is visited upon the accused parent, there is an equal amount of pain and devastation visited upon the children involved. These children will find themselves suddenly ripped from their relationship with the accused parent as surely as if the parent had died. Only it's worse than if the parent had died. Not only are these children left with only a memory of their pre-accusation relationship with that parent, but it's a memory which everybody is bound and determined to sully. Worse yet, if the parent had died, at least the child could expect comfort and support from their remaining parent. The child whose relationship with the targeted parent is destroyed by a false accusation usually finds that the remaining parent is most unsympathetic to the child's loss. After all, it is a loss which the remaining parent themselves orchestrated. More insidious yet, the child who lives with a falsely accusing parent is often put in the position of having to pledge allegiance to the accusing parent, usually by denouncing, or even implicating, the accused parent. Some children will do this knowingly, but many are too young to even understand this game. Being trusting and malleable, as young children are, they will come to adopt the accusing parent's version of what allegedly occurred. In the child's mind, the falsely accused parent becomes as guilty as if the abuse had actually happened. Thus, not only has the false accusation created a victim of the targeted parent, but the false accusation can actually victimize the child as surely as if the alleged abuse had actually occurred. And the victimization doesn't stop there, as the child will be subjected to a barrage of interrogations, and to all manner of humiliating examinations. Paul, whose ex-wife leveled her allegation the day before Christmas Eve, describes how the false allegation affected his five-year-old daughter. "First of all, my daughter was put through hell, between doctors' evaluations, poking, prodding, psychologists' evaluations, etc.... Not to mention the conflicting emotions of trying to be loyal to her mother and yet still understand why her mother was saying such bad things about her father. To this day [approximately five years later], she cannot understand why her mother would think that I would hurt her." Another victim of false allegations explained: "My children are lacking the relationship they should have with their father. Even though no rape ever happened (as alleged), my children still exhibit the signs of sexually abused children. They are not let out of the house, no friends... Much stress is on the children, they are truly the ones in the middle." The parent victims interviewed for this article were asked what, if any, advice they would give to a parent who is contemplating bringing a false accusation. It is telling that all of them, without exception, and despite their own devastating ordeals, echoed the sentiments of one parent victim, who summed it up in five words: "Think of the children!!! Please!" Given the magnitude of devastation which can occur, both for the accused parent and the children, in a false allegation scenario, why has nothing been done about it? Why is it still so easy for countless numbers of parents to haul out this weapon of mass destruction? And what, if anything, can be done about it? In the State of California it is a punishable offense to knowingly bring a false allegation of abuse. But this law seems to be rarely, if ever, invoked. Why? Because it is hard enough to prove that an allegation is false--it is impossible to prove that the accuser knew that the allegation was false. Almost anything can be twisted to appear to be a credible basis for an accusation. One team of researchers at the University of Michigan gave a synopsis of an actual case, in which they knew the allegation to have been false, to a panel of experts. The vast majority of the experts concluded that abuse had occurred! The "evidence" upon which the mother in the case had hung the accusation? A single pubic hair allegedly found in her daughter's diaper. In a case here in California, a father, Larry, was accused and convicted of sexual abuse of his own son for the simple act of pushing his son's hand away when he caught his young son fondling himself. On this evidence alone, Larry was not only convicted of abusing his son, but he lost all contact with his other children as well. In addition to it being nearly impossible to prove that an allegation was false, let alone that the accuser knew it was false, there is a very real and understandable fear that if the allegation is true, and not acted upon, the child will be further abused. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be as much of a concern that the children who are the subjects of false allegations are no less victimized than those who may have been abused. If the legal system is not going to offer any relief, what can be done about the recent rash of false allegations? As is so often the case, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you are separated, or divorced, and particularly if you are a father (the vast majority of all false allegation cases which I have come into contact with involve allegations made against fathers), take the following precautions: * Never allow your child to sleep with you. * Never shower with your child. * Avoid being naked around your child, and their being naked around you. * Arrange your visitation such that you are never alone with your child, particularly if you are in or anticipate a custody dispute. In other words, always have a witness around. * If your child is of the opposite sex, and is of an age where they need assistance with going to the bathroom or bathing, whenever possible have a friend who is the same sex as your child assist them. The above precautions may seem extraordinarily restrictive. They are. Unfortunately, in the current climate, where false allegations abound, they are also extremely necessary. Finally, for those who, despite all precautions, find themselves facing a false allegation of abuse, Patrick, who was threatened with allegations if he didn't agree to his ex's demands, offers the following advice: "Fight early and hard. Don't give in to threats. Use every opportunity you get, in mediation and in the courtroom, and in depositions or declarations, to point out that the allegations are false, have not been substantiated, and cannot be substantiated since they are false. Avoid at nearly any costs the temptation tell the judge or mediator how crazy the other person must be to make these allegations. Avoid at nearly all costs ever saying anything that is not true. If you lose, and you probably will, you will at least be able to hold your head high and know that you did not become the thing that hurt you. That is an important battle and the one you will fight the most in the dark hours before dawn." [Ms. Mitchell, a graduate of Stanford Law School and the director of a national fathers' rights organization, has been in the fathers' rights advocacy field for seven years. She is currently with the law firm of Knapp & Viola, in San Mateo, CA.] Source: _Single Again_ magazine, January, 1993 ======================================================================== How to Deal with False Child Molestation Charges by Bruce G. Gould [The following are excerpts from an article titled originally "Sug- gestions When Falsely Accused" which appeared in _Issues in Child Abuse Accusations_. Use here is courtesy of the publishers. The author is a non-practicing lawyer who himself went through a bitter custody battle and successfully fought off child molestation charges. He is owner of Bruce Gould Publications, P.O. Box 1070, Okanogan, WA 98840.] My thoughts here deal with how to handle false sexual abuse allegations raised in the midst of a bitter divorce by a spouse who wants full custody and sees this tactic as the best means for reaching that goal. It is inconceivable to me that matrimonial lawyers and the family court system have allowed this issue of sexual abuse to advance so far that an accusation alone, often with no evidentiary hearing of any sort, immediately produces court-ordered denial of visitation of access to the parent accused. Why are there so many false allegations? The answer is quite simple. Since most falsely accused persons cannot fight the accusation, all the reinforcements are delivered as soon as accusations are made. The hated spouse is severely punished. Possession of children is secured. There is free legal advice, welfare assistance and emotional support from affirming professionals, friends, and family. This is an empire building opportunity for many people in the system who have about as much incentive for finding non-abuse as a dentist has for finding no cavities. If child abuse occurs, it should be stopped. But sentencing a person to a longer term in prison for "touching" a child than that person would get for murder is ridiculous. The result is that innocent people are being forced into plea bargaining for non-existent crimes for fear of getting 150 years in prison if they do not plea bargain. My first surprise was how easily therapists can label someone a child abuser. All that it takes is for a woman to tell a therapist that her husband has molested small children. Without interviewing the father or anyone who has seen him with the children, the therapist writes a report for the court stating almost verbatim what the mother has said. Naming the father as a child abuser, the therapist now recommends that he not receive custody. It may be recommended, further, that either there be no visitation or supervised visitation. The notes of the therapist are absolutely essential for an accused parent wanting to mount an effective defense. We obtained the notes of both therapists and the social workers. At the trial, it was these notes and our pretrial deposition which exposed the farce. My advice to anyone falsely accused of child abuse is: 1. You will probably never convince your accusers that you are innocent. Do not waste efforts trying to persuade them. 2. Don't overestimate their intelligence. Rather, look for their mistakes. Check all applicable procedural rules and regula- tions governing the various investigators and investigation processes. Check all applicable standards of care. Check the educational backgrounds, and ascertain the status of institu- tions that granted them professional degrees. 3. Take depositions of your accusers. You may turn up suspicious financial ties or perhaps abuse in their backgrounds. 4. Get their financial records. Run credit checks. What you are looking for are blemishes which may raise questions of veracity and character. Check for double-dipping on medical claims. Get copies of insurance forms, and check the diagnosis that was made in order to collect a claim. If lucky, you may find a different diagnosis from that in the report to the court. 5. Read publications authored by your accusers. Look for newspaper accounts of their speeches. Such information may help you establish that they are biased or have preconceived notions about guilt or the abilities of children. 6. Challenge any claim that "children never lie about sexual abuse." If a false accusation is the result of a deliberate fabrication, it is not the young child who is lying, but an adult. If the therapist distorts what a reluctant child has said because he or she is convinced that abuse really did take place, it is the therapist who is lying. Be very suspicious of a therapist who resists taping therapy sessions. 7. Don't wait for your lawyer to do all the work. Draw a chro- nology of all events leading up to and following the accusa- tion. Make a file on all persons involved in the situation and get all the information on everybody. Keep everything orga- nized, tabulated, cross-indexed, and readily available. 8. Immediately file a malpractice suit against an accusing ther- apist who has performed unprofessionally. 9. Don't trust guardians ad litem. Accept any persons recom- mended by the guardians to serve as therapists only after independent confirmation of their credentials. 10. Keep in mind that you are up against an industry-the child abuse industry. It is possible for your children to be taken to therapists A, B, C, and D, all of whom have professional, social and economic ties with each other. Work up a poster board connecting the therapists with each other in terms of their ties. Think of the film "Rosemary's Baby" in which Miss Farrow as the mother turned for help to husband and many friends, unaware they were all part of the same witches coven! 11. Prepare some material on false allegations to show to the court or jury. Stack up books and articles on false allegations in front of each accusing therapist and ask how much of this literature he or she has read. Most therapists read only pro- mother and pro-conviction literature. 12. Courts will trust persons with medical degrees or advanced graduate degrees over therapists or social workers having only BAs. State social workers are considered even less credible. In my case, the trial judge gave virtually no weight to the opinions of the attacking therapists and social workers because of their unconvincing testimony, operating methods, and diagnoses. The conclusions of medically educated persons which included two psychiatrists were carefully considered. If you do bring in therapists, be sure that they are without historical bias favoring mother or father. Be sure that they videotape their sessions with your children. 13. Hire a good attorney and be truthful with him from start to finish. Find him or her by asking around. In my case, my attorney was all that a client could hope for. Source: _Father's Rights Newsline_, January, 1993, published by Don Middleman in Philadelphia, PA. ======================================================================== Is It Time for the Pendulum to Fall? By Edward Burns In recent years, older Americans have become more outspoken in expressing their concerns. Approximately 75 percent of all older Americans are grandparents. An estimated one million of their grandchildren each year experience the divorce of their parents. Following the dissolution of a family, grandparents in many instances have found it difficult or impossible to visit their grandchildren. Concern regarding the issue of grandparent visitation rights by 1983, had lead to the formation of four national grandparents' rights organizations. These united grandparents have besieged their legislators with requests to pass laws giving them the right to visit with their grandchildren. The state and federal governments have complied with the requests of these grandparents, but the response has not been uniform. Therefore, there remains a need for defining the legitimate rights of grandparents and providing a means for enforcing those rights through appropriate legislation. Each of the fifty states have passed a statute granting grandparents visitation with their grandchildren over the objection of a parent in at least some circumstances. The trend among the various state legislatures has been to expand grandparents' visitation rights. A good example of this expansion movement is provided by the Illinois legislature. The first Illinois grandparent visitation statute simply provided a procedure where by grandparents could petition for visitation with a grandchild following the divorce or separation of the grandchild's parents. Since it's passage in 1982, the circumstances pursuant to which a grandparent may petition for visitation have been expanded to include the death of a parent, the adoption of a child by a stepparent and, finally, the child's parents remaining married and living together with the child in their home. Less than one year after Illinois extended the right of grandparents to petition for visitation to those instances when the parents remained alive, married, and living together with the child, however, the legislature passed a bill rescinding this right. No other state statute has given grandparents the explicit right to petition for visitation when the child remained living in an intact family, and only New York courts have permitted grandparents to file visitation petitions under such circumstances. The purpose of this article is to generally review the past and present state of the law regarding grandparent visitation rights and to explore the constitutional limits of those rights, especially in regard to visitation with a grandchild in an intact family. [Edward Burns is a partner in Gitlin & Burns Lawyers, practice concentrated in family law in Woodstock, IL.] ======================================================================== Ohio's Domestic Relations Law [Note: Over the past few issues we have been and over the next few issues we will continue reviewing parts of the new law, Senate Bill 3. The excerpts and comments are reprinted from the Ohio Lawyer with comments by William K. Weisenberg. Mr. Weisenberg is Director of Government Affairs and Bar Relations for the Ohio State Bar Association.] Access to Records Section 3109.051(H) states that: "A parent of a child who is not the residential parent of the child is entitled to access, under the same terms and conditions under which access is provided to the residential parent, to any record that is related to the child and to which the residential parent of the child legally is provided access, unless the court determines that it would not be in the best interest of the child for the parent to have access to the records under those same terms and conditions" [Comment: The Act further provides that a non-residential parent would be entitled to the same rights of access to the student activities of his or her children as the child's residential parent, unless the court issues an order limiting those rights of access. Procedures for limiting the rights of access and enforcing them are set forth in detail in this section of the Act.] Mediation Sections 3109.052 permits the court to order the parents to mediate their differences on matters pertaining to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of their children or where they cannot agree upon a specific schedule of visitation. The court is authorized to adopt mediation procedures by local court rule. The court is required to determine if either parent has been con- victed of domestic violence and follows the same procedures as set forth with regard to shared parenting and visitation in determining whether to order mediation in such a situation. For further information on the subject of mediation as it applies to domestic relations proceedings, it is suggested that you contact the Ohio Supreme Court Committee on Dispute Resolution. Visitation Section 3109.051(A) requires that the final decree in a divorce, dissolution of marriage, or legal separation action include a spe- cific schedule of visitation. This section also provides that "whenever possible, the order or decree permitting the visitation shall ensure the opportunity for both parents to have frequent and continuing contact with the child, unless frequent and continuing contact by either parent would not be in the best interest of the child. [Comment: Section 3109.051(D)(12)(13) and (14) requires the court, in determining the best interest of a child for the purposes of determining whether to grant visitation rights and establishing a visitation schedule, to consider whether either parent has been convicted of domestic violence involving a victim who is a member of the family that is the subject of the pending proceeding; whether the residential parent or one of the parents subject to a shared parenting order has continuously and willfully denied the other parent his or her right to visitation; and whether either parent has established a residence, or is planning to establish a residence, outside of Ohio. Pursuant to Section 3109.051(F)(2), each court of common pleas, on or before July 1, 1991, would have to adopt standard visitation guidelines. A court would be permitted to deviate from its standard visitation guidelines based on the factors set forth in Section 3109.051(D) for determining whether to grant companionship or visitation to a parent, grandparent, or relative.] ======================================================================== Child Support Modifications [This article was a handout obtained at a seminar sponsored by the Franklin County Child Support Agency in Columbus, Ohio. The topic was Modification Hearings.] Administrative Modification Hearing * One or both parties must submit a request for an administration modification hearing (within 33 days of the mailing of the Investigator's Recommendation). * The hearing is scheduled within 15 days of the Agency's receipt of the request. * Notice of date and time are sent to both parties. * The hearing is conducted by a licensed attorney. * The hearing officer is neutral--does not represent either party. * The hearing only addresses whether or not the child support is calculated correctly. * Each party has the opportunity to present relevant evidence and testimony to support their contention that the Agency did not calculate the child support correctly. * Each party may bring a representative to the hearing. * The Administrative Hearing Officer issues a decision within 10 days of the hearing. * The parties have 15 days to submit a written request for a Court Hearing. Request for a Court Hearing * If the agency receives a request for a Court Hearing, it immediately forwards the request to the Court. * The parties are notified of the Court Hearing date directly by the Court. * The Child Support Enforcement Agency staff do not appear at the court hearing. * Parties may represent themselves or bring an attorney. * The parties will need to provide the Court with all the documentation requested in the Court Hearing notice. ======================================================================== Good Reason Needed to Deviate on Support, Court Says By James Bradshaw Courts may not stray from child support guidelines in state law without proper documentation and good cause, the Ohio Supreme Court said in a unanimous decision. The court ruled on an appeal from a Jefferson County case in which an unemployed father's payments for support of his son were doubled based on his potential income. David E. Grimm and Teresa A. Marker were married in 1977 and had a son, Zachary. Their marriage was dissolved in 1983. Grimm agreed to pay Marker, who took back her maiden name, $150 a month to support Zachary. In July 1990, she asked the Jefferson County Common Pleas Court for an increase in the payments. The hearing on her request showed Grimm was a full-time student during the marriage and received an undergraduate degree in psychology and continued his education after the separation, receiving a master's degree but remaining unemployed or under-employed the whole time. He was seeking a $5,200-a-year university research position at the time of the hearing but conceded he could earn about $30,000 a year if fully employed. The trial court ordered Grimm to seek employment commensurate with his qualifications and increased the payment rate to $300 a month. The court noted this was a special consideration, as the rate in the state guidelines at a $30,000 income level would be $380. Grimm appealed to the Jefferson County Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court's order. The Supreme overruled both courts in an opinion written by Justice Andrew Douglas. Douglas said the trial court has a required worksheet prepared to determine the level of payment for Grimm's income and did not justify its deviation from state guidelines. The law permits taking potential income into account if a person is found to be voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, but it is specific on payment rates, Douglas said. "The terms (of state law) are mandatory in nature and must be followed literally and technically in all material respects," he wrote. Source: _Columbus Dispatch_, December, 1992 ======================================================================== Court Reverses Order to Wear `Need Job' Sign A judge was wrong to make a man carry a sign stating, "Need job to support children," an appeals court ruled, calling the punishment "a throwback to the days of stockades." The three-member Indiana Court of Appeals panel said the ruling was inappropriate and excessive and held up Clarence William Epley III to public ridicule. "It is a throwback to the days of stockades and conjures up images of Puritans who fell from grace and were forced to wear scarlet letters on their chests," Judge William I. Garrard wrote for the appellate panel. Superior Court Judge Eugene N. Chipman, Sr. forced Epley, who had fallen behind in child support payments, to walk around the court house in Plymouth wearing the sign in September 1991. Epley, 45, did so for a few days before finding a job on a street department crew. "The evidence was he just was not making an effort to get out and get a job," said Chipman, a former appellate court judge. "He was playing golf and really living the life of Riley." The judge said he issued a similar order to another man who also found a job. Chipman handed down the order after finding Epley had fallen $1475 behind in payments for his three children. Epley, who lives in Culver, came up with $1,000 after spending one week in jail for contempt of court but was still ordered to carry the sign. "I didn't think it was right," Epley said. Source: _Columbus Dispatch_, November 13, 1992 ======================================================================== The Children's Rights Council's 7th National Conference takes place April 28 through May 2, 1993, at the Holiday Inn, in Bethesda, Maryland. Some of the following will be presenters or speakers: David Brenner, Dr. Nancy Theonnes of the Center for Policy Research, Nicolas Zill (discussing US Census data), authors Dr. Geoffrey Grief and Claire Berman, Richard Warshak, author of _The Custody Revolution_, Dr. Robert Williams of Policy Studies, Inc., Dr. Richard Gardner and Hugh McIsaac. There will be a variety of workshops and symposiums on everything from false allegations to child support and visitation. Before March 15th, the cost for registration is $150. Further information on the conference is available from: Heather Campbell Conference Coordinator 220 I Street, NE, Ste 230 Washington, DC 20002-4362 (202) 547-6227 ======================================================================== More Elderly Divorcing, Lawyers Say Divorce among the elderly appears to be increasing, and the problems confronting the elderly in divorce are different from those faced by younger couples, says a survey of the country's leading matrimonial lawyers. More than 65 percent of the lawyers responding to the survey also said they believe the emotional impact of divorce is greater for older couples. Couples are living longer, spending more time with each other after retirement and then deciding they don't like each other, said Marsha B. Elser, a Miami lawyer and president of the 1,250-member American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, based in Chicago. The survey was released at the group's annual meeting. "Divorce among the elderly can be a much more traumatic experience than in younger families," Elser said. "Not only are you frequently dealing with longer-term relationships and companionship, but there is also the issue of trying to equitably divide assets that give fixed incomes and maintain health benefits for both parties." And, although bitter child custody battles are unlikely, children remain a factor when an elderly couple divorces, Elser said. "One of the issues is who is going to get what assets to leave to whom--and that's when the kids get involved," she said. The reasons for the increase, according to the lawyers surveyed, included the greater acceptability of divorce, the aging of the population and differences in sexual interests among elderly cou- ples. Elser said she encouraged the academy to set up a special committee on elderly and divorce when she realized that she was seeing an increase in such divorces in her practice in south Florida and that no one had looked at the unique problems. Source: _Chicago Tribune_, December, 1992 ======================================================================== This month's guest speaker is the Honorable Referee Jay Sanford. Referee Sanford has been a Franklin County Domestic Relations Court referee for four years. Before that, he worked in private domestic practice for 17 years. He has lived in Columbus for his entire life. He is married and has a 14-year-old child. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISCLAIMER First, the advice given during meetings, by members directly and in telephone conversations, should not be taken as legal advice. It is the opinion of the person answering the questions at the time, and the answers are based upon legal advice that attorneys on our board have given in similar situations. Consult your attorney or one of our recommended attorneys before taking any action in your case. Second, the articles in the Newsletter are culled from a variety of sources, cover many topics and reflect differing opinions. Every article is the expressed opinion of only the author of that article. These articles do not necessarily represent the collective opinion of FACE nor of the FACE directors. Even articles written as editorials by members of this group are not the opinion of the group itself or of leadership. The Newsletter attempts to present both sides on issues, so that readers can form their own opinions and make informed decisions. This group is for equality in the justice system. We are NOT against women. Women who become non-custodial parents face the same kinds of problems non-custodial fathers face. We don't think that child support guidelines are fair. But we do advocate that parents pay their child support. We are NOT advocates of child abuse. However, we want the courts and social systems to recognize that many contentious ex-spouses make bogus allegations of abuse during custody battles. We are not in favor of the exclusive use of the adversarial court system for resolving custody disputes. We think that mediation of these disputes is a more effective and less expensive solution and wish the courts would utilize this resource more often. We are not advocates for fathers in spite of mothers. We are advocates for fathers and children, because fathers are disproportionately torn away from their children in divorces. We don't think that is right or fair. We believe that many fathers, when given the opportunity to be good parents, can do the job quite effectively and that both parents and the children benefit. We believe in equal legal rights and equal physical access to children of divorce for both parents. Hence the name--Fathers And Children for Equality. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ATTORNEY REFERRAL LIST We axed two from our list of six. One had not done anything for the group for over a year. The other said that she had not received a client from us for months and wished to be taken off the list. There are several lawyers about town that I would recommend that do NOT want to be on our list because they really don't want to practice domestic relations law, even if it does pay the bills. Among these are Carol Wright, Bernard Yavitch, Doug Daugherty and Steve Daulton. (listed alphabetically) Andrew Fishman Patricia Grimm 765 South Front Street 4937 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43206 Columbus, Ohio 43228 (614) 444-3606 (614) 878-1092 Bradley Frick Ralph A. Kerns 50 West Broad Street, Suite 3300 743 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Columbus, Ohio 43206 (614) 228-0505 (614) 444-1100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The FACE Newsletter Staff Jack Quinn Research, Contributing Editor Aaron Hoffmeyer Research, Typesetting, Contributing Editor Paul Bokros Research, Contributing Editor, Mailing List The FACE Officers Mike Driscoll President Tom Tavener Vice-President John McKinley Treasurer Bob Fowler Secretary {elections this month} The Fathers and Children for Equality Foundation is supported by the Ohio United Way. (c) 1992. All copyrights are implied and applicable. F.A.C.E. P.O. Box 18022 Columbus, Ohio 43218 (614) 275-6767 Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM P.S. Got Postscript if you want it. With Bob Kirkpatrick's help, we hope to have an ftp site for archiving these newsletters in both ASCII and Postscript format. "_The Precepts of Ptahhotep_, preserved on papyrus roll of circa 2500 B.C. Ptahhotep is said to have flourished around 2650 B.C., but the _Precepts_ are reputed to be of a far earlier date, perhaps as early as 3800 B.C. Called the "World's oldest book," _The Precepts_ is a collection of shrewd and homely reflections on life, its conduct, and its meaning: it treats such problems as divorce and labor relations. Its style and tone are dignified and indicate a cultivated class of readers." - from _World Literature_, by Buckner B. Trawick From soc.men Thu Jan 14 17:59:48 1993 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:2208 alt.child-support:5772 soc.men:60414 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men Path: utcsri!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: 48 Hours: Fathers Fight Back Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 07:17:08 GMT Message-ID: <1993Jan14.071708.24137@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 121 Some of you may have noticed that Bernard Goldberg is one of the reporters on _48 Hours_. He is also a divorced, non-custodial dad. This is what he had to say in a editorial on fathers' rights almost nine years ago. He did the story on the father who was repeatedly denied visitation and no one would do anything about it. All of us who have been denied visitation felt for that man as he stood outside his ex's apartment and tried to keep from crying. ======================================================================== All Dads Aren't Deadbeats by Bernard Goldberg [The following piece, although dated, is still indicative of the current climate in the divorce custody world. When reading this article, make note that it is eight years old. How much have things changed?] The calendar measures a certain kind of time and only imprecisely. For one unhappy American minority, 1984 came a long time ago. The minority is divorced fathers with children. And for them, the American judicial system is an Orwellian nightmare intent on proving that "Mother knows best" and that being a father doesn't necessarily mean having children. The system has made fathers visitors in the children's lives: visitors who can pick their sons and daughters up for a few hours every now and then--so long as it doesn't interfere too much with Mom's new life. And it has turned divorced fathers into bankers. Absentee bankers. And now, another slap. Another piece of official abuse. A number of politicians in Washington have suddenly discovered the doctrine called "the best interest of the child" and they plan to implement it with a federal law that would garnish the wages of divorced fathers who don't pay their child support on time. Most of us who do pay on time each and every month and who love our children would applaud the legislation. No one I know defends deadbeat fathers who don't care about their kids or even if they're fed and clothed properly. But what is so infuriating is that the Washington politicians who speak so passionately about the child's best interest never seemed to care about it before. What "best interest of the child" is served when courts routinely allow mothers to pick up and move hundreds or even thousands of miles away, leaving fathers desperate, trying to figure out how to raise money and get time off from work to see their kids more than once or twice a year? Custody: What "best interest of the child" has been served by a system that, until recently, virtually always gave custody of the children to mothers? As Doris Freed, a lawyer and nationally recognized expert on divorce law and custody, has said, "You would almost have to prove that she was in bed with her lover and that the children had to serve them beer in bed. It has been sex discrimination against men in the most blatant way." Nan Shapiro of the Organization for the Enforcement of Child Support recently stated, "The reason that over 90 percent of children living in single-parent homes are living with their mothers is that most fathers do not want primary custody." That kind of thinking may make a lot of divorced mothers feel righteous and comfortable but could it be that many men see the system so stacked against them that they don't even try? Could it be that many men can't afford the financial costs of a legal battle for custody? Could it be that many men care too much for their children to put them through a custody fight? Because many divorced fathers see this as sex discrimination, one might also ask if few women went to medical, law of business school over the years because women did not want to become doctors, lawyers and businesswomen or because an institutionally biased society thought "girls don't do those things"? `Best Interest': What is so irritating about the current debate is that politicians who never said anything about how the system worked against fathers and didn't look out for "the best interest of the child," either, are now so concerned. My guess is that it isn't the child's best interest that is suddenly so important to them but their own best interest. It is 1984, after all, and that means elections. And that means "the women's vote," which in this day and age a politician ignores at his or her own peril. A lot of men, if the statistics we read are correct, do, in fact, welsh on their kids. But a lot of divorced mothers welsh, too. A lot of them, as the custodial parent, deny visitation rights, leave town for parts unknown come Father's Day, subtle things like that. It shouldn't be difficult to understand how an otherwise decent man might be overcome by pain and frustration. The system might convince him that he is, after all, a father without children and at some point he might just give up. And stop paying. If child support is a national problem deserving of a federal remedy, then let's go all the way. Let's have the proposed federal wage-garnishing law apply only in states with joint custody laws. Or let's ask Congress to muster the courage to seriously consider one law that would ensure both fair child- support payments and fair visitation rights. There is a "new father" out there and many judges and members of Congress are barely aware of it. Modern society tells the "new father" to be in the delivery room when the child is born, to diaper the child, to feed the child, to care in every way for the child. Then, when things go sour in the marriage, presto! The "new father" is expected to instantly and dutifully become the "old father" he never was. Just pay the bills. Mom will handle the rest. For too long women in our society have been discriminated against for no other reason than because they are women. Fair-minded people have to be against that kind of bigotry. How, then, can fair-minded people ignore, condone or promote discrimination against fathers--100 percent of whom are men--and make believe it isn't sex discrimination? "1984" may be here. But it doesn't have to be. [A CBS News correspondent, Goldberg lives in New York, 1300 miles away from his seven year-old son.] SOURCE: Newsweek, February 6, 1984 Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM P.S. I guess that son would be about 16 by now. From soc.men Thu Jan 21 13:32:52 1993 Xref: utcsri soc.men:60802 alt.abortion.inequity:4491 Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism.alt.dads-rights Path: utcsri!torn!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:30:32 GMT Message-ID: <1993Jan21.083032.12616@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> References: <1993Jan18.183816.22202@rotag.mi.org> <1jg739INNl6g@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Jan19.193048.24709@ll.mit.edu> Lines: 45 In article <1993Jan19.193048.24709@ll.mit.edu> x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes: >Men >are by far the losers in divorce, not women. Women, by holding the kids up >as a shield, are entitled to a post-divorce standard of living that is >equivalent to before divorce. Men are obviously not entitled to that >standard as they don't get custody (generally). I hope I'm around in say >20 years when men are getting a fair shake through the courts and wymen >are whyning about child support. > > Oh and men are in such a priveleged position WRT kids these days? >I've said it before and I'll say it again. Any rights that men have WRT >kids (married or not) are at the discretion of the woman. There are no >rights (for him WRT kids) that a sufficiently vindictive female can't >thwart with impunity. Under our current laws and court system any such >rights he believes he has are an illusion. > Let me continue... You have pointed out to me the right to demand to >participate in the childs care. I put to you that this is the right to pay >support and (as long as she desires) partcipate in the care of the child. >As such it is no different that other 'male rights'. > >Man and woman have sex. When its >over - well its ALL over, the condom has been rent asunder, sperm are going >wild, the great egg hunt is on (and its not even easter!). Lo and behold >a clump of cells is formed inside the woman. Man says 'Wow I must be a >manly sort-o-man! Uh.. BTW what do you think about an abortion?' >To which woman may reply 'Sorry I'm going to let that lump-o-cells turn >into a kid for you to support, and there is nothing you can do about it.' > >Now I'll grant you that he had his fun, and he made a lump of cells, but >he did not make the child. It was her decision to do that, she made the >child out of the (non-alive acording to pro-choice) lump of cells. Now >if she turned the non-alive lump-o-cells into a child by her own choice >and all by her lonesome then who is responsible? (No need to answer, if >you are as dogged as you have been in the past we already know your answer.) >I've said in the past that there is an inconsistancy between saying that he >has no rights as far as the z/e/f is concerned and demanding he support the >resulting child. If support is demanded, then he must have some rights >associated with the z/e/f, if he has no such rights, then support should >not be mandated. What he said. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Fri Jan 22 12:18:59 1993 Xref: utcsri soc.women:64190 soc.men:60875 Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:40:40 GMT Message-ID: <1993Jan22.034040.4202@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> References: <1993Jan16.030349.24260@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1j7v04INN3o8@transfer.stratus.com> <1jhohpINNmqg@emx.cc.utexas.edu> Lines: 94 In article <1jhohpINNmqg@emx.cc.utexas.edu> dpaxton@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Debi Paxton) writes: >If a man goes out and beats up a smaller and weaker person who >is not a family member, he will be charged with assault and hauled >off to jail. But for many, many years, in most communities, a >man's home was his castle and what he did to his wife >and kids was considered his personal business. The neighbors, >the police, the church, the schools, all looked the other way. >Not their business. Of course, it was "not nice" and one would >prefer to avoid the unfortunate victims, who must somehow be >responsible for their lot. And in many homes it was a sort of >chain of command, you know. Dad is mad at life, he beats on >Mom. Mom beats the kids, the big kids beat the little ones, >and the little ones kill cats. Most of those kids will grow up >to either be abusers or abused--it's the norm. Violence begets >violence -- but who was at the top of that heap? It wasn't a >woman, and it wasn't a child. Considering that women initiate roughly 50% of the violence within the household (according to numerous studies (see Steinmetz, Gelles, et. al.), I would proclaim your last statement to be false. My own father hit my mother once--in retaliation to her hitting him. And what did she do to get back at him for hitting her? She downed a bottle of sleeping pills--woke the entire neighborhood yelling and screaming and the neighbors called the police. The police did NOT arrest my father, but rather, called an ambulance and had my mother's stomach pumped. In my relationship, which officically ended by court decree several months ago--but in spirit ended several years ago, my ex- had no qualms about punching, kicking, slapping, pushing or throwing things at me. At first, I tried to laugh off her violent behavior. After several years of it, though, I was not so jolly. I actually started defending myself. Once, when she threw a battery of punches at me, I twisted her arm behind her back then pushed her away. She left the house and went to her mother's and they sat and contemplated how they could get back at me. My ex- has claimed that *I* have a violence, control problem, yet the only time I ever hit her was in self-defense when she threw a punch at my face. My ex- was the oldest of five children and has three brothers immediately beneath her. As she grew up, she was the controlling older sibling, calling all the shots with her brothers. She also told me that she physically fought with her brothers. Her brothers told me that she would hit them, but then run to her parents if they hit her back. She got to play the violent victim, and her parents never saw through the charade, believing it much MORE important to teach their sons that boys never hit girls, but not feeling the converse was as important. Girls have to defend themselves, after all. If a man says something that offends you, you slap that bastard in the face. This is not to say that men are not violent in their homes. Too many are. But women are not innocent, unviolent victims. Many times they are the instigators of the violence. Our societal mores have done a grave disservice to interpersonal relationships. Women are told in words, images and deeds that if a man pisses you off, slap him in the face. Men are told that they do NOT have the right to hit women. However, after they have been slapped, kicked, punched or stabbed, they often turn violent in retaliation. And, true, some men use their size and power to rule their roosts, knowing full-well society's tendency to look the other way in regards to domestic violence. But to characterize this problem has solely the realm of men is not only untruthful, it completely denies the involvement of women in such activities--making them solely victims and rendering them completely blameless. And that will NOT help to solve this problem. A man who I met almost a year ago, who now has sole custody of his children, had been attacked by his wife several weeks before I met him. She had punched him in the eye while she had her keyring wrapped around her fingers. The punch gashed his eyebrow. Soon after his wife punched him, she tried to run over him with her car. Then SHE called the police to report that her husband was beating her up. When the police arrived, they took one look at him bleeding profusely and trying to calm the crying children, and one look at her, ranting and raving that she wanted him locked up, and they asked HIM if he would like to file charges. He said, "Yes." She ran, then resisted arrest, and even hit one of the police officers several times. She was convicted. Neighbors testified against her. She now has supervised visitation with her children. >Violence begets >violence -- but who was at the top of that heap? It wasn't a >woman, and it wasn't a child. I agree with your first statement: slaps, punches and kicks beget the same or worse. However, women are just as likely to initiate the violence as men. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Wed Feb 10 17:47:06 1993 Xref: utcsri soc.women:65035 soc.men:61880 Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!decwrl!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Re: Women's "defensive" violence Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 04:25:39 GMT Message-ID: <1993Feb10.042539.17055@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> References: <1l731r$iti@transfer.stratus.com> <1993Feb9.093518.4707@leland.Stanford.EDU> Lines: 172 In article <1993Feb9.093518.4707@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes: >In article <1l731r$iti@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@redondo.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes: >>Before you can *do* anything about a problem, you've got to get people >>to admit there is one. Two of the issues you mentioned (working >>conditions and divorce custody) are ones that quite a few people on >>this (and other) newsgroups won't admit exist (or aren't serious). >>You speak as if it were self-evident that these problems exist and >>if only we'd get off our asses and address them will things change. >>Well, what makes you think Aaron (or I for that matter) *haven't* >>been doing so? Why does our trying to gain more support in this >>forum merit the typical ad hominem attacks about "whining" and >>"moaning"? > >But there's the rub, don't you see? I'm a feminist and I see the >system that Sheaffer proudly proclaims as natural (male dominance and >all) as oppressive to men because the naturally dominant male is >supposed to take care of himself. You and Hoffmeyer (if I understand >your positions) are not feminists, in fact, are against feminism. I >think until the sexism that is inherent in our culture is addressed, >of course both women and men will be victims. I don't see a similar >belief in the corruption of the system in either your posts or >Hoffmeyer's posts (what few I read since he's normally in my >killfile). Well, ljf, I won't speak for Dan, although I can imagine that our views are not dissimilar, but I am aghast at your misinterpretations of the volumes I have written in these forums. Maybe because I am an advocate for men in divorces, and because I have challenged tenets and postulates of those proclaiming themselves to be feminists, you believe that I am against feminism. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was always in favor of many of the tenets of feminism. I always believed that women should have equal opportunities, that they should be compensated equally, that gender discrimination in any way, shape or form should be illegal. What separates me from many proclaiming themselves to be feminists is that I don't believe women deserve special privileges or special protection, nor that men deserve any special punishments--simply based on their gender. I believe that women can take a bullet in the middle of the chest as well as any man. I believe that women are just as capable and just as intelligent or stupid as men. Therefore, I believe that, if men are to serve their country in combat, women should also serve. I believe that women can take exposure to lethal chemicals and radiation as well as men. I believe that they can handle falling off a skyscraper or through a burning roof as well as men. I don't believe women should be exempt from dangerous jobs. I believe that if this belief was adopted and implemented that women would suddenly have much to lose in going to war, or in working in hazardouse jobs, and might be more inclined to want to actively help fix things. I believe that women can be just as abusive, whether verbally or physically, just as mean, and just as vicious as men. I also believe that men can be just as nice, just as caring, just as compassionate and loving as women. Therefore, I do NOT believe in discriminating against either gender in any arena--including and especially in the arena of domestic relations law which empowers women and awards them custody of children in the vast majority of divorce cases, based solely on their gender--justified before and after the fact as "the best interests of children." No, I've always believed in equality and equal opportunity. I've always believed in union, in the coming together of people and ideas for the common good. I don't believe that all tenets of those declaring themselves to be feminists to be equal-minded or logical, and as such, don't buy all of them. I don't believe that women are better default parents (as many feminists believe), and therefore, should always get custody of children during divorces. I believe that children need two good parents, whether those parents are divorced or not. I don't believe that women are more valuable as people then men, and view things such as the Violence Against Women Act as implying that women are the greater victims of violence in this country, and that they are somehow more deserving of justice or compensation because of their gender. I view violence as a problem of everyone in our society. It should be addressed as such. If men are more often the perpetrators of violence, we should look at why they are violent, objectively. I'm an equalist, and I therefore believe that all men and women are equal and should be considered equal in every way. If some feminists take great exception to my views and my desires for a completely level playing field, I can't do anything about that. But, I believe I'm not only logically correct, I'm morally correct in my analysis and beliefs. Such a view discriminates against no one. If I can't be considered a feminist because I'm an equalist, in your book, well, so be it. Just because I don't hate men doesn't mean that I DO hate women. I also don't believe I have to wrap up the whole bundle of the beliefs of all feminists and buy into the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel, just because they are the beliefs of feminists. That would be very naive. I don't buy into anything like that--just because it comes with the politically correct label. I see many problems that I would like to see corrected. This country is literally a mess. We have the highest Gross National Product of any nation on earth, yet we owe the most money, both as individuals ($720 billion) and as a whole ($4 trillion). We have the highest crime rates and highest poverty rates of any civilized, industrialized nation. We have the highest percentage of citizens incarcerated of any developed country (455 per 100,000 people -- next is South Africe, land of the political prisoner and racist oppression with just over 300 prisoners per 100,000 people). These are some of the MOST pressing problems, but amount to nothing more than the tip of a vast iceberg of societal problems humans face. I would like for us to consciously and objectively work at solving all these problems, together. I don't want to sit back and point fingers and blame the he-males for everything. Even if 99.9999999% of all men are pickup truck-driving, beer-swilling, wife beaters, in a nutshell, B-A-D, and all our problems are the result of men, so what? What do we do to fix these things? But, alas, since I am in your killfile, you will never read my views and will, I assume, continue to misrepresent them to the world. Thanks, Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM P.S. By the way, I believe that both women and men are capable of taking care of themselves and are equally responsible for themselves. But neither are islands, and, to get by, we often need the assistance of others--men and women, equally, together. I am not anti-feminism. I am an equalist, a humanist, if you will. The facets of feminism that are a subset of humanistic and equalistic theory, I support whole-heartedly. The subset that is misandrist and purports action to spite and hurt men, I cannot support. So, I am in favor of the National Organization of Women when they are working towards equality for men and women. However, they are on the opposite side of the fence when the issue is ensuring that children are not torn from their fathers as part of divorces in this country. NOW and other similar groups have repeatedly used misandrist and false propaganda to short-circuit joint custody legislation throughout the US. That puts me at loggerheads with them. But that doesn't make me anti-anything ... except lies. NOBODY HOME - R. Waters I've got a little black book with my poems in I've got a bag with a toothbrush and a comb When I'm a good dog they sometimes throw me a bone I got elastic bands keeping my shoes on Got those swollen hand blues. Got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from I've got electric light And I've got second sight I've got amazing powers of observation And that is how I know When I try to get through On the telephone to you There'll be nobody home I've got the obligatory Hendrix perm And I've got the inevitable pinhole burns All down the front of my favorite satin shirt I've got nicotine stains on my fingers I've got a silver spoon on a chain I've got a grand piano to prop up my mortal remains I've got wild staring eyes I've got a strong urge to fly But I've got nowhere to fly to Ooooh Babe when I pick up the phone There's still nobody home I've got a pair of Gohills boots And I've got fading roots. From soc.men Wed Feb 10 17:53:28 1993 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:2551 alt.child-support:6293 soc.men:61882 soc.women:65038 misc.legal:54334 misc.kids:67484 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,misc.kids Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: February Central-Ohio FACE Newsletter, et. al. Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 06:32:51 GMT Message-ID: <1993Feb10.063251.19409@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 1469 The Central-Ohio Fathers And Children for Equality (FACE) February Newsletter This is my 13th Newsletter. I hope I don't break a nail or something like that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Comparatively few fathers are committed to their children in the way that most women are. When men feel guilty, it is more often as husbands who do not do enough to help their wives than as fathers who do not do enough with their children." -Penelope Leach, Psychologist ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Children have the Right to have the issue of custody truly and honestly decided without sexual prejudice or bias (permitting a continued parent-child relationship through joint custody, equal to that prior to divorce) with the best interest of the child and BOTH parents as the only consideration. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Children have the Right to know, and be able to visit with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other relatives on both sides of the family so that a heritage may be conveyed. ======================================================================== Contents Shadows of a Dad - post-divorce fathers don't feel so good.... Dad Did It - it seems the angst of many feminists is related to the relationships, er, uh, check that, *lack of* relationships they had with their fathers. I've been sayin' it for months and so have many others, when children, both boys and girls, miss out on having a relationship with their fathers, they suffer. Boys turn out hypermasculine and are much more likely to fail academically, be violent, and end up in prison. 70% of juvenile offenders are products of single-parent homes, virtually all of them raised by mothers. Girls tend to not be empathetic with men and are also more likely to end up in trouble. Children Deserve Access to Both Parents - an article from Kentucky, a state which awards primary custody, usually sole custody, to women in 98% of all divorces involving children. Refusal to Visit - a court rules that a child's refusal to visit dad does not warrant a declaration of emancipation. On a related note, the new domestic relations judge here in Franklin County Ohio verbally ordered a 17-year-old girl to go on her scheduled visits with her father or the judge would throw her in jail for contempt (probably an idle threat, but it might do the job....). In the local case the 17-year-old girl, of course, was receiving child support, but didn't want to see her dad. The judge basically said, "B***s***! You're going to see your dad." What a great country! Ex-girlfriend Wins Housekeeping Pay - In a legal precedence establishing case that could have far-reaching consequences, a jury has ordered a man to pay for housekeeping to a former girlfriend/roommate. An appellate court agreed. I think I'll sue my old college roommates because I always got stuck doing the dishes. What do you think? Statute of Limitations - child support is not covered by the statute of limitations, this Maine court ruled. Child Support Order Shocks Mom - at first when I read this, I was shocked too. How could a court order a non-custodial parent making less than $10k per year to pay $300 per month in child support to a custodial parent making $53k? But then I read on ... the $300 per month is, in effect, deducted from the alimony payments this non-custodial mother receives. What a tangled web. The net is that this custodial father is paying this non-custodial mother. Just the Facts.... - some compelling and telling facts. We're Number 1 - ditto. Children Without Support Often end up in Poverty - a report from two national groups that asserts that 75% of children entitled to child support don't receive it. Oh, based on a survey of 300 of their members. Poverty Awaits Unsupported Kids: Rebuttal - a rebuttal to the above article written by David K. Garrod, Ph.D. Income Imputed for Second Job - another ruling.... Second job income can be imputed, especially if you are a teacher or if you normally work more than one job. Paternity Cases Given a Kick in Pants with New, Speedier Process - an update on the new paternity system employed in Ohio, which is very similar to laws and procedures adopted in other states (it was all the rage at the last national governors' conference). It seems to be improving the paternity case bottleneck, but the underlying assumption is that these evil men aren't acknowledging paternity to get out of child support. It is interesting that the state is compelled to pay for what used to be the mother's expenses in securing child support from a father of children whom they did not marry, but no state that I know of has adopted legislation that would secure the visitation rights of the father to such a child. If he wants those rights, he must go to court and fight for them himself -- with his own money. Cast Asunder -- at War over Ben Schulman - the battles that arise when one divorced parent decides to move -- or not. Britain Opens First Battered Men's Refuge - finally, a nation besides Denmark has acknowledged that men can be victims of domestic violence by opening a shelter for battered men. ======================================================================== Shadows of a Dad By Julie Bonnin One man say he feels like an inconvenience, a visitor to his own children. Another describes himself as a father stripped of his identity. And for many of the other participants in a University of Texas at Austin study of divorced men who do not have primary custody of their children, a near constant anger broils beneath the surface of their lives. "I can't even look at a little girl about the same age as my little girl without thinking about her and feeling the stress," said one. "It's an anger that you have to suppress," he continued. "It's a constant. Not a day goes by that you don't, two or three times during the day, suppress those feelings, which can't be healthy for you." The UT sociologists behind the study, Debra Umberson and Christine Williams, came up with much the same conclusion after interviewing 45 Austin men and analyzing a national sample of nearly 1,000 non-custodial fathers: Divorced fathers who don't live with their kids exhibit high levels of poor mental health, which may be linked to their tendency to withdraw from and repress feelings about their children. The revelation is worth noting, and not simply because of the number of men whose lives are affected. (Roughly one-half of all the fathers in the United States will become non-custodial parents, the researchers say.) If some non-custodial fathers work hard to avoid thoughts and emotions concerning their children, the behavior eventually may lead them to not pay child support or visit their children. "Repressing their feelings doesn't help women or children," Umberson says. The more a father remains in contact, the greater he's likely to pay child support. And, the researchers say, a host of barriers work to prevent even the best-intentioned of non-custodial fathers from having positive and sustained involvement with their kids: time, distance, financial constraints, bias in the legal system, a lack of support networks and the demands of new relationships. The two researchers (who are both divorced, but not parents), say they were drawn to the project because no one else was. Sociologists looking at the issue of divorce traditionally have focused on women and children, who have been shown to take the hardest economic hit when a family splits. But until now, researchers have failed to examine how divorced fathers are affected, say Williams and Umberson, who hope to publish a book based on the study. The little that is known provides a damning profile of "deadbeat dads" who dodge child support payments and shun their sons and daughters. More than half of all men who are court-ordered to pay child support fail to do so, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics; 43 percent of divorced fathers rarely or never visit their children, according to a study done in 1987. [Comment: This statistic is probably derived from one quoted by Newsweek several months ago. This factoid lumps together fathers who have NO support orders with all fathers who have ever been behind on child support and all fathers refusing to pay ordered support. Newsweek's statistics have been misquoted at length. This is just another instance. The Newsweek information and the statement above are NOT correct--the above statement is refuted later in this article and totally debunked in another article in this issue.] In interview after interview, the UT researchers found that to be untrue. "The stereotype is that men aren't involved in a parenting role, especially after divorce," Williams says. "A lot of people assume that parenting doesn't matter to men after divorce." It took the researchers more than a year to find 45 men who would agree to sit down and talk about their relationships with their children under a condition of anonymity and a $25 payment for their time. The sociologists began their research by sifting through personal contacts. But if the sample is not scientifically representative, it does present intimate snapshots of the post-divorce reality that greeted the diverse sampling of non-custodial fathers. Participants included laborers, university professors, salesmen, an astronomer and a city administrator with income levels ranging from $5,000 to $80,000. Again and again, the researchers found men repressing the emotions that arose in the wake of divorce. Frequently, the most vivid feeling was of trying to keep things from spinning out of control. "There were so many men who would say `I almost just didn't come (to the interview), because I knew all these feelings would resurface,'" Williams says. "We teach young boys not to cry, not to feel when they're distressed. So what's the solution? To run away, to make yourself scarce?" Another way to avoid the pain is to remarry; other studies have shown that 83 percent of divorced men remarry--most within three years--after a breakup. Divorced men have been shown to be more prone to suicide, accidental death and to substance abuse. Fathers who live apart from their children are more likely to engage in risky behavior than those living with kids. Exacerbating the problems of non-custodial fathers are negative characterizations they say plaque them. "The system assumes that the woman is fair-minded, relatively the sane individual I think," said one man. "They assume that I'm the drunken, pickup-driving, beer-can-littering, child-abusing wife-beater." "The point," says Bob Curry of Texas Fathers for Equal Rights, "is not that the situation is totally backward, because there are men like that. But you read the newspapers and women are always the victims and men are the perpetrators. (As a non-custodial father) you don't have anything to say about where your children go to school, what doctors they see, what sports they play, but you have to have a smile on your face, pretend to everyone at home, at work and at church that everything's OK. Because if you don't meet your responsibilities, you're just another uncaring, unfeeling father." Curry's group disputes the veracity of U.S. Census Bureau statistics the UT sociologists cite which estimate the number of non-paying, non-custodial fathers. Primary among their complaints is that the census study questioned only women and didn't take into account the tendency for survey respondents to under-report their income. They cite a 1988 survey done by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and other studies, that have found much higher rates of compliance for child-support payments. One thing the researchers and men's groups agree on; State and federal government leaders and those in the judicial system need to address claims of bias against men when it comes to custody disputes, and the media needs to provide more positive role models and portrayals of non-custodial fathers. "These men face enormous barriers to maintaining relationships with their children--the state should not constitute an additional one," the researchers write. And, says Umberson: "If divorce rates are going to stay as high as they are, we need some kind of positive image of what it means to be a father who doesn't live with the kids." But the needs of these men range far beyond legal empowerment or efforts to stamp out negative stereotypes, the researchers say. Several fathers who were interviewed, Williams says, "didn't know how to be with their kids; they didn't know if they should discipline them or be friends with them. They're really just kind of thrown into it. For some of them, (court-ordered visitation) is the first time they were ever alone with their kids." A few respondents sounded a note of optimism about their new role--"Now it's really cool because I have the whole weekend with them," said one father. "I get them to bed, I get them up and get them dressed. We've really gotten very close since the divorce." But others told about ex-wives, girlfriends or family who pressured them to cut off ties with their children--unsuccessfully. "I was under a great deal of pressure to break and run," one man said. "There's a great deal of pressure upon me to do just that, and I'm proud of the fact that I just stuck it out, and stuck it out, and stuck it out." Source: Austin American-Statesman, December, 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln ======================================================================== Dad Did It You remember the images from men's movement gatherings: men baying at the moon, reciting tribal chants and weeping--all because they felt neglected by their fathers. The men's movement has lately received some unlikely company in the Bash Dad department. In a forthcoming book _The Father-Daughter Dance_, authors Barbara Goulter and Joan Minninger cite the absence of the father during childhood as a key source of feminist anger. Goulter and Minninger see a special significance in the personal histories of several pillars of the women's movement. Both Germaine Greer and Susan Sontag wrote seminal works in the Seventies; both grew up father deprived. More recently, Greer penned _Daddy, We hardly Knew You_, detailing her search for her father's background. Gloria Steinem and Kate Millett also produced tomes that revealed much about their early abandonment by their fathers. "Perhaps it was true that for all their theories about the oppressiveness of the male presence," write the authors, "what had always been driving Germain and Susan and Kate, and maybe a lot of other women, too, was really the oppressiveness of the male absence." Source: MANTRACK, _Playboy_ magazine, February, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "When it's steamboat time, you steam." - Mark Twain ======================================================================== Children Deserve Access to Both Parents By Tracy Wright Cox Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown. What do these "couples" have in common besides image problems? They are battling the "Unmarried with Children" dilemma that plagues our country. The _Messenger-Inquirer_ has editorially addressed some of the real problems of the family values debate. One point well-made was that seven out of ten juvenile offenders come from single-parent settings. In Kentucky, 98 percent of the custodial parents are women. Now, before the National Organization for Women sends me a nasty letter, this is not a male-female debate about who would be the better parent. This is a children's rights issue. Raising children is the most important and most difficult job in the world. Children need and deserve a balance. Children need and deserve both parents. The Deviess County court system must develop a mediation system to help unmarried and divorcing parents resolve anger so they can learn to focus on the needs of the children. A divorce should not be granted unless a mediator guides the parents to agree on what is best for the children. There is a misconception that most fathers are deadbeats who abandon their children and don't pay child support. The Children's Rights Council of Kentucky has hundreds of fathers and mothers who are desperately fighting for the right to be part of their children's lives. Unfortunately, our system focuses only on the financial needs of our children. Emotional support doesn't fit into a computer spreadsheet program. Our legislators need to design laws that help ensure children will have access to their parents and extended families. Custodial parents have all control over the children. They decide where the children attend school and if they attend church. They can elect to move out of state without permission of the non-custodial parent. They incur no penalties for denying visitation. And they do not need to be accountable for child support payments. The non-custodial parent faces jail if unable to pay support and is often forced out of the child's life entirely. The system is failing our children. Judges and attorneys need to work toward shared parenting, instead of pitting one parent against the other in a legal tug-of-war. Shared Parenting helps eliminate parental kidnappings. A child wouldn't be forced to divorce a parent. The children would have both parents. Too often, legislators do not act on anything that may be viewed as controversial because they fear losing votes. They need to develop a Bill of Rights for Kentucky's children that addresses all forms of child abuse. Judges are used to handling divorce cases by granting women custody automatically and giving fathers a mere 85 days-a-year standard visitation. Judges, attorneys and legislators often lack the education, compassion and courage needed to make changes in a system that is hurting the family. The statistics prove this. In the three years since I formed The Children's Rights Council of Kentucky, I have received hundreds of calls. Fathers, mothers, grandparents and stepparents have shared their stories and their pain. When I appeared on WHAS radio's Metz Here this past summer, the phone lines stayed lit throughout the three-hour show with callers from across the eastern half of the United States who wanted to tell their stories about being denied visitation with their children. All the experiences I've heard are horrible, but one stands out. An Owensboro father raised his two infant children for a year. The mother had left with another man. She returned a year later. The mother filed for custody and won. The children now live 3,000 miles away. The father was given only a post office box to which he was to mail child support. He has no contact with the children even though a Kentucky court had granted him standard visitation. When he does talk to his children, they are not allowed to call him "dad" and they must call their new stepfather "dad." The father cannot afford to visit his children, much less litigate from 3,000 miles away. Even if he went back to court, there is no law protecting a child's right to have two parents. The Hyde Bill now pending in Congress would make child support laws tougher without addressing the issue of a custodial parent denying a child access to a non-custodial parent. Bill Clinton said he would support tougher child support laws. I urge you to write our legislators and ask that a child access amendment be attached to this bill. [Comment: This is a dated article. The bill passed. No amendment was added, although the bill did provide for the creation of a commission to study access.] It's too bad Dan Quayle chose the sitcom character Murphy Brown as a example of the breakdown in family values. The Children's Rights Council could have shown him thousands of real people--non-custodial mothers and fathers in real pain--whose children have been forced out of their lives. Source: The Owensboro, Kentucky _Messenger-Inquirer_, September 20, 1992 ======================================================================== Refusal to Visit A 17-year-old girl's refusal to visit her non-custodial father did not justify a court's finding that she was emancipated, and its resulting termination of the father's support obligation, the Indiana Court of Appeals, Fifth District, has ruled. The father's support obligation would otherwise have continued until the girl reached age 21. In reaching its decision, the Appeals Court said there was no indication that the custodial parent had interfered with the non-custodial parent's visitation rights. Even evidence that the daughter is employed and living independently of her mother does not necessarily warrant a finding of emancipation, the Appeals Court said. Source: Speak Out For Children, Fall 1992 ======================================================================== Ex-girlfriend Wins Housekeeping Pay A man owes $6,600 to a former girlfriend who demanded payment for cleaning, cooking and pouring the beer while she lived with him for seven years, an appeals court says. Linda Walsh deserves compensation for household chores, even though her ex-boyfriend, Harlan Ray, did the yard work, maintained their cars and agreed to share expenses with her, the 4th District Court of Appeals in Madison, Wisconsin said. "This opens the door for an argument that true roommates, not even boyfriend-girlfriend, could end up with the same results," said Ray's lawyer, Daniel Berkos. Ms. Walsh and her two sons moved into Ray's home after they met in 1979. Ray's two children stayed in the home half the time. Ms. Walsh bought groceries. Ray made mortgage payments and paid utility bills. They had separate bank accounts. Two years after their 1987 breakup, Ms. Walsh sued for house-keeping pay. A jury sided with her, and the appeals court upheld that verdict. "Chores and groceries for a household of up to six people, three of them being Ray and his children, may readily amount to a considerable investment in time and money," the appeals court said. Berkos said they may appeal. Source: The Associated Press, December, 1992 ======================================================================== Statute of Limitations The six-year statute of limitations for civil actions does not preclude a claim for support arrearages which exceeds that limit, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has ruled. The claim for arrearages that occurred over the eleven year period prior to the filing of the claim was for $17,000. Despite the delay in seeking enforcement of the child support obligation, the non-custodial parent was liable for the entire arrearage, the Supreme Judicial Court decided. The court ruled that unpaid child support obligations are the equivalent of judgments, which are exempted from the statute of limitations. Similar rulings had been made in other states, the Maine court said. Source: Speak Out For Children, Fall 1992 ======================================================================== Child Support Order Shocks Mom By Julia Helgason Connie Ferguson, whose annual salary is $9,400, was shocked when Green County Domestic Relations Court ordered her to pay her ex-husband more than half her take home pay in child support. They have two children in junior high, and court records show that he earns $53,000-a-year. "It just doesn't make any sense," Ferguson said. "If my kids needed money, I'd work two jobs, I'd scrub floors. But the fact is, their financial needs are well provided for." Child support payments are calculated from guidelines and tables handed down by the Ohio Supreme Court. Judges are allowed to make exceptions under extenuating circumstances. Ferguson has appealed the decision in her case. Dayton attorney John Rion, who represents Ferguson's former husband, suggested that no one would give the situation a thought if the gender roles were reversed, and a man were paying his ex-wife more than half his take home pay. In addition, in Ferguson's case, her former husband is paying Ferguson $800-a-month alimony. But Ferguson says the child support guidelines are flawed, and a lot of people--including support paying fathers--agree. "The formula is bad, the methodology is wrong," said Andrew Cvercko, President of CAPRA, an acronym for Children and Parents Rights Association, a statewide umbrella organization for divorced parents. Cvercko said child support guidelines are especially harmful when they reduce a parent to poverty, or when they put a parent in a position where it doesn't pay him or her to work. Cverko of Youngstown sits on a task force appointed by the state to re-evaluate the child support guidelines. Jeffrey Startzman, administrator of Montgomery County's domestic relations court, sits on the same task force. Changes in the guidelines will likely be forthcoming in 18 months or so, Startzman said. He would not speculate on the nature of the changes. The current system works like this: The court adds both parents salaries together. In Ferguson's case, the total is $62,400. The guidelines say an average intact family with two children and gross annual earnings of $62,400, would spend $11,796-a-year on the children. Under the prevailing philosophy that children shouldn't be penalized when their parents divorce, $11,796-a-year should be spent on Ferguson's children. To decide who pays how much, the court pro-rates the amount based on the incomes. Since Ferguson receives the $800-a-month alimony from the children's father, the court adds that amount to her salary and deducts it from his. This done, her share of the children's support comes to $297-a-month. Ferguson says it's not fair. Most court officials say it is. Startz- man says, "Fair or not, its' reality." What the formula doesn't consider, Startzman said, is that an intact family has but one set of household expenses, while the divorced family has two rents or mortgage payments, two sets of utilities and so on. That leaves less money to spend on children. Meanwhile, $297-a-month is deducted from Connie Ferguson's pay pending the outcome of her appeal. She says it takes away her incentive to work, since after deducting the cost of gas and parking, she estimates she takes home less than $2.50-an-hour. Ferguson attends Sinclair College part time. "I could quit work, go to school full time and get through twice as fast," she said. That would increase her earning power, and be better for her children in the long run. But court officials say it probably wouldn't work. She would likely be accused of quitting her job to avoid paying child support, in which case she would have to continue child support payments even if she weren't working. If she failed to pay, she could be found in contempt of court and fined or jailed or both. Guideline Review What To correct iniquities in child support guidelines, the Ohio legislature created the Child Support Guidelines Advisory Commission. Members The commission, formed in February of last year, includes legislators, judges, lawyers, enforcement agency officials and members of various advocacy groups. Purpose The 21-member commission, which meets about once-a-month in Columbus, is charged with submitting recommendations for change by March 1993. Source: Dayton Daily News, November 30, 1992 ======================================================================== Just the Facts.... By David K. Garrod, Ph.D. This is a collection of custody and child support related statistics for the US--with their sources: Total Custodial Mothers: 11,268,000 Total Custodial Fathers: 2,907,000 Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991. While 20.5% of custodial parents are men, you should not assume that 20.5% of fathers are given custody at an initial divorce custody hearing. Many, and probably most, fathers gain custody some years after the mother had initially been given custody either when the child was allowed to have a say in the matter, or when the mother could not handle the situation, the father was given custody. Total amount of child support owed: $14,800,000,000 Amount received: $11,100,000,000 Composed of ... paid in full: $7,600,000,000 ... paid in part: $3,500,000,000 Percentage of child support paid in terms of dollars paid/dollars owed: 75% Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-23, No 173, 1989. 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to inability to pay. Source: U.S. General Accounting Office Report, GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992. Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6% Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9% Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9% Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9% Non-custodial mothers who pay support at any level: 20.0% Non-custodial fathers who pay support at any level: 61.0% All the following are for custodial parents: Single mothers who work less than full time: 66.2% Single fathers who work less than full time: 10.2% Single mothers who work more than 44 hours per week: 7.0% Single fathers who work more than 44 hours per week: 24.5% Single mothers who receive public assistance: 46.2% Single fathers who receive public assistance: 20.8% Source: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct., 1991 Authors: Meyer and Garansky. ======================================================================== We're Number 1 Percentage of children and elderly of industrialized nations living in poverty, 1984-1987: Country Children Elderly in Poverty in Poverty United States 20.4 10.9 Canada 9.3 2.2 Australia 9.0 4.0 United Kingdom 7.4 5.2 France 4.6 4.5 Netherlands 3.8 3.4 Germany 2.8 2.8 Sweden 1.6 4.3 Source: Timothy M. Smeeding, "U.S. Poverty and Income Security Policy in a Cross National Perspective," October 1991, Luxembourg, October, 1991, Luxembourg Income Study, working paper 70. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." - Will Rogers ======================================================================== Children Without Support Often end up in Poverty A report released Monday by the National Child Support Assurance Consortium said children who do not receive the benefit of child support payments frequently end up in poverty. A survey of 300 single mothers in four states, including some in Ohio's Trumbull County, found that 75 percent of children entitled to child support were not receiving regular payments, the consortium said. The report said more than half of the mothers reported their children began missing regular health checkups, and 32 percent said their children have gone hungry because of a lack of child support. Fifty-two percent of the mothers were receiving food stamps within one year after the fathers left, the report said. Also, 41 percent received Aid to Dependent Children and Medicaid, the report said. It also said nearly one-half of the mothers had to move in with friends or families to avoid becoming homeless, and 10 percent became homeless within one year of the fathers' departure. The Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, based in Toledo, is part of the consortium. ACES interviewed mothers in Trumbull County, Atlanta and Portland, Ore. Another consortium member, the Health and Welfare Council of Nassau County, N.Y., conducted interviews on Long Island. Less than 10 percent of the mothers interviewed had annual incomes of more than $25,000, and most were working but living at or near the poverty line. Debbie Kline, regional coordinator for ACES, said the group "finally has the numbers" to show the effect a lack of child support can have on children. Gayle Channing, legislative director for the Public Children Services Association of Ohio, and other child advocates said they hope the findings result in change. "This whole thing is predicated on the fact that moms and children don't have enough money to live on," Channing said. Source: United Press International, January 25, 1993 [Comment: A different version of this article, titled `Poverty awaits unsupported kids,' appeared in the Columbus Dispatch on January 25, 1993, attributed to Jonathan Riskind, Dispatch Statehouse Reporter.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "One of the things that we know historically and biologically is that males are designed to be relatively irresponsible." - US Representative Newt Gingrich ======================================================================== Poverty Awaits Unsupported Kids: Rebuttal By David K. Garrod, Ph.D., a member of the Indiana Child Support Advisory Commission (a legislatively-appointed advisory committee) On Monday, January 25, 1993, the Dispatch printed an article, `Poverty awaits unsupported kids,' summarizing a report released by the National Child Support Assurance Consortium. This report, based on a survey of 300 selected women in four counties, asserted that children who do not receive the benefit of child support payments frequently end up in poverty. One of the statistics included in the report was that 75% of the children entitled to support of the mothers sampled did not receive regular support payments. I find the numbers quoted in the report most interesting; although for what they didn't say rather than what they did. The Association for Children for Enforcement of Support (ACES), a group often seen represented on Sally Jesse Raphael, Oprah Winfrey and similar talk shows, claims to have over 20,000 active members. ACES is now a subgroup of the National Child Support Assurance Consortium. One must therefore ask, why does their survey only cover 300 mothers? Do these represent the worst cases they could find or what? Why are their findings in direct conflict with Consumer Expenditure Surveys and Bureau of the Census statistics that use data samples over 100 times greater in size than this latest report? This report is more an indictment of the incompetence of certain mothers and of the welfare system than of child support. I am totally against non-payment of child support, however, I also recognize that government statistics have repeatedly shown that even if one only asks the recipients of the support, where the inducement is to under-report the receipt, those recipients over the years over many tens of thousands of data samples have reported receipt of about 75% of all support ordered. Government reports have also stated that about 66% of non-payment is due to inability of the father to pay. Thus one is left with the inescapable conclusion that only 10% of unpaid child support is due to deadbeat dads--those that have the money but refuse to pay. For this latest report to state that half of their sample mothers allowed their children to miss medical check-ups and about a third allowed their children to go hungry is disgraceful. There is a welfare system safety net for mothers with children. Medical check-ups are free or almost free to mothers in need; the AFDC and food stamp programs exist precisely to relieve the suffering of children. For mothers to allow their own children to go hungry in today's welfare society says little about the child support issue but much about those mothers' lack of priorities to ensure the health and well-being of their own children. It further would not surprise me if the report is so substantially flawed to be meaningless. Representatives of ACES testified at three of the seven public hearings of the Indiana Child Support Advisory Committee and when called upon to substantiate their claims by cases, surveys or statistical information they failed to do so and, in fact, ceased making further comments. We have a welfare system that is designed to provide minimum basic needs for women and children when there is no child support. Over 60% of women with children living in poverty never even have any child support order, and do not report child mistreatment numbers anything close to the appalling representations made in the report. It seems much more likely that this report, therefore, is motivated by a malicious desire of the mothers of ACES to see their ex-spouses in jail, out of motivations of revenge, rather than having anything to do with the facts of child support non-compliance consequences. Since the National Child Support Assurance Consortium asserts that the cause of mothers living in poverty is non-payment of child support, let us look at the actual numbers of support orders. Data courtesy of U.S. Census Bureau Report P-60, No. 173, Sept. 1991. Women with children under age 21 present from absent fathers for the year 1990: Living in poverty Marital Number in Percent Number in Status thousands awarded thousands Percent support Married 2,531 79.0 176 6.95 Divorced 3,056 76.8 820 26.8 Separated 1,352 47.9 612 45.3 Widowed 65 NSM 8 12.3 Never Married 2,955 23.9 1,590 53.8 TOTAL 9,955 57.7 3,206 32.2 NOTE: About half of the mothers in poverty are never-married mothers and about three quarters of these have NEVER had any child support order. The AFDC/Welfare medical benefits problem which is driving most federal and state thinking (costs having more than doubled in real dollars in less than a decade), is primarily due to never-married mothers. Yes, it would help if all child support ordered was collected, but it would not have much significant impact on the cost to the government. In fact, it is probable that the total cost of the compliance machinery that has been established in the last 6-7 years ACTUALLY EXCEEDS the amount of extra child support collected! [Comments: This was sent to the Dispatch on February 2, 1993. To date, they have not printed one word of it, nor have they printed any other rebuttals to their article.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The best way to secure liberty is to exercise it." - John Perry Barlow ======================================================================== Income Imputed for Second Job The Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that a non-custodial parent may have income imputed from a second job for purposes of computing child support. The non-custodial parent in this case is a school teacher and a second job would be particularly relevant during the summer. The Appeals Court said that the lower court was wrong to exclude imputed income in calculating child support. The Appeals Court added that as a general rule a court should not impute to a person income from more than one job. However, if there is a history of a spouse working more than one job, then income from all jobs should be considered for purposes of calculating child support. (Cochrand v. Cochrand; VA Ct. App. No. 1569-91-1, 7/7/92) The above decisions are summarized from Family Law Reporter, and appear here by permission of the publisher, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. ======================================================================== Paternity Cases Given a Kick in Pants with New, Speedier Process On Mondays, the issue of "paternity establishment" becomes very real at the Franklin County Child Enforcement Agency. Each week, more than 80 sets of parents and their children come, willingly or grudgingly, through the agency's offices to take part in a new process that can have a man legally declared to be a child's father without going to court. For some, it means having blood drawn for genetic testing. Agency Director Joseph J. Pilat, whose office is just across the hall from the room where the blood samples are taken, hears the cries of the children all Monday long. Parents and their children--waiting to have blood drawn--congregate in an area set aside in the middle of the agency's offices on the 14th floor of the Franklin County Courthouse. At least once-a-week, child support workers say, somebody's emotions boil over in shouting or, rarely, into shoving. "It's pretty hard to ignore," Pilat said. The commotion aside, agency officials are happy with results of the new administrative paternity process, made possible by a state law that took effect in July. Between late August, when the agency held its first administrative paternity hearings, and the end of November, 238 of 600 paternity cases were settled out of court. Agency officials consider that a big improvement over the old system, in which every case took six to eight months to move through the court system. The faster paternity is established, the sooner single mothers can start receiving child support payments, Pilat said. The shortcut process results in more voluntary acknowledgments by fathers, Pilat said, simply because it happens faster. "We believe time makes a difference," in paternity cases, he said. "When the old procedure sometimes took more than a year, people would become removed from the whole situation and be more likely to say, `That's not my kid.'" The law gives a man the option of acknowledging outright that he is the father or agreeing to be bound by the results of a genetic test. If the test, which compares the man's and the child's DNA, shows a 95 percent or greater chance that the man is the father, the agency can legally declare the man the father and order support payments, without going to court. Since the law went into effect, the agency has sent all paternity cases through the process. If either party refuses to participate, the case is dropped or, if either party requests, it is filed in court as a traditional paternity lawsuit. In cases where mothers are receiving welfare, the agency auto- matically sues for paternity. Hugh Greentree, the hearing officer who oversees the administrative paternity process, originally expected to spend half a day-a-week on paternity hearings and another half day on subsequent support hearings. Instead, he and several legal assistants spend all day every Monday ushering couples through paternity hearings. Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays are devoted to longer hearings, about half-a-day per couple, for determining support. "This is a far more successful program than anyone expected," Greentree said as legal assistants hurried to distribute paperwork for the day's fifth round of paternity hearings, 20 minutes behind schedule. The new system worked well for one couple, amicably separated. The father, an east side man, said he was there to acknowledge his paternity because he wants to provide for his 10-month-old son. "We were living together, but now we're not, and she's going to need some help," the man said of the child's mother. He also wanted to stake his claim to the child, he said. "That way, if she should meet somebody, there won't be any question ... no man can adopt my son or anything." The couple will have another hearing in about four weeks, at which a hearing officer will order a support amount using guidelines that take into account the parents' incomes and number of children. Pleased as they are with the efficiency of the new setup, child support officials have some concerns about enforcement. "One hang-up is the (administrative) hearings result in admin- istrative orders rather than court orders," Pilat said. While the administrative orders are a legally binding as a court order, Pilat and others in the field are unsure how easily they can be enforced if a father doesn't pay. Because the law is so new, enforcement of the orders hasn't been tested, he said. Pilat hopes lawmakers will revisit the bill. "We want to make sure these administrative orders are enforceable in court," he said. Source: The Columbus Dispatch, January 3, 1993 ======================================================================== Cast Asunder -- at War over Ben Schulman By Joann S. Lublin After Couples Divorce, Long Distance Moves are often Wrenching In today's 2-career families, a job opening can mean a nasty custody battle. The pain of divorce wears new guises in the 1990's. The simultaneous rise in dual-career couples and the divorce rate in recent years has created crises for an unprecedented number of American parents and children. More than a million youngsters watch their fathers and mothers split up every year and often find themselves spending part of their time with each parent. Joint custody or visitation rights, difficult at best, can become a major problem when one parent is transferred or takes a job far away and the other is unable or unwilling to move, too. In about half of married couples, both spouses are employed. About half of all marriages taking place in the past 20 years will end in divorce, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. So people with careers they care about are torn between staying close to their kids and working where the opportunity is. The options all have drawbacks. Children are shuttled hundreds of miles back and forth between parents. A distant parent fades from the children's lives. A parent rejects a move in order to stay near the child and rues the sacrifice of career objectives. Untenable Alternatives With good jobs scarce in a sour economy, parents' choices are limited and wrenching. "It's a heartbreak issue," says Judith S. Wallerstein, a psychologist who runs the Center for the Family in Transition in Corte Madera, Calif. Paul Insel, a scientist at the University of California at San Diego, gave up career mobility. Last year, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. offered him a research job that would probably have doubled his salary, but it entailed a move to Princeton, N.J., all the way across the country. Dr. Insel knew that his former wife, Louise, a psychiatric nurse, would neither relocate nor let him uproot their daughters, who were eight to 13. The couple share custody. A cross country transfer would have meant "ending my relationship with my children," the 46-year-old researcher says. He turned down the offer. Dose he regret staying put? "About once-a-week," he says. The relocation quandary often leads to bitter court fights. Among divorced working parents, relocation "really is the hot issue," says Helene Brezinsky, a New York matrimonial attorney who says she is "litigating this issue nonstop." ======================================================================== States Restricting Moves A major reason: Nine states--including Illinois, New York and California--now restrict relocation by a custodial parent, usually the mother. Parents with physical custody can't just up and leave the state without the other parent's blessing. Only one or two states limited these moves a decade ago, reports Jeff Atkinson, a former chairman of the American Bar Association's child custody committee. He expects a rise in costly relocation lawsuits because good jobs often necessitate moving and more courts want to preserve both parents' ties with their children. Increasing numbers of fathers with joint legal custody or visitation rights are suing to block ex-wives from taking the children along when they land new jobs far away. In an acrimonious Illinois case, an ex-husband is trying to block the move of his former wife, and economist, and their two children, aged seven and eight. The economist and her new husband, a salesman, sold their suburban Chicago home after lining up jobs and building a new house outside Phoenix, Ariz., last spring. The jobs still await them in Phoenix, but since last spring, the family has been forced to live in a friend's basement in another Chicago suburb--with sheets separating certain sleeping areas--because the court suit has dragged on since July 1991. (Final hearings are scheduled for next week.) The cramped living arrangement and parental hostilities are hurting the youngsters' school performance, the mother says. "If she can find a job in Arizona, I don't understand why she couldn't come up with one in Chicago," argues her former husband, a bank systems analyst. He says he opposes the move because seeing the children just seven weeks-a-year would be "almost like severing the ties." He says that if he loses in court, he may look for work in Arizona, too. The relocation predicament also affects employers--who occasionally are willing to help find work for the new hire's former spouse, too. Harvard University is currently wooing Terry Moe, a Stanford University political science professor. But he intends to pass up the Harvard job unless his ex-wife, Debra, an Internal Revenue Service lawyer, also can advance her career in the Boston area. "If there's no incentive to go, it wouldn't work for me," Ms. Moe explains. For the past four years, the Moes' daughter, now nine-years-old, has spent alternate weeknights and weekends with each parent. Without the child, "I would die," Prof. Moe says. "But I would never take her away from her mom." He and his former wife remain very friendly; they even used the same divorce lawyer. Harvard faculty members have explored some job leads for Ms. Moe, and a Harvard official says the university is willing to fly her East for a job-hunting trip. Through relocating two divorced working parents can create stress, the greatest anguish occurs when such parents put a great physical distance between them. In a small apartment in Fern Creek, Ky., Harry Schulman slowly opens the door to his son's darkened bedroom. Plastic blocks, stuffed animals and a fire engine are scattered about. Ninja Turtle slippers teeter on the edge of a cluttered dresser. "It has been hard to come in" and clean the room, explains Mr. Schulman, a 31-year-old medical administrator, choking back tears. "It's difficult for me to accept that he is not here." The room has been empty since summer. In late August, Mr. Schulman's five-year-old son, Benjamin, joined his mother, Cheryl, a research chemist in Hatboro, Pa., after she won a two-year custody fight. During most of the time, Benjamin commuted between Hatboro and the Louisville suburb every two weeks. His father had moved to his native Kentucky in mid-1990 following the failure of his marriage and a fruitless job search in Philadelphia. "I am ripped apart over this," says the intense Mr. Schulman. Benjamin may visit his father only during summers and certain holidays. Mr. Schulman say he is handling his own appeal of the court decision because he still owes his lawyer $52,000 of her $72,000 fee. Soon after Harry and Cheryl Schulman married in June 1986, she reluctantly quit her $23,000-a-year job as a chemist near Philadelphia to follow her husband to Texas, where he met a graduate-school fellowship obligation by becoming an Air Force hospital administrator. In Texas, she earned a master's degree and gave birth to Benjamin. After Mr. Schulman's three year stint as an Air Force officer, the couple began job-hunting in the Philadelphia area. Ms. Schulman landed another research chemist's position, paying $32,000 annually. But her husband couldn't find work as a health-care administrator. Mr. Schulman figures he sent out over 300 resumes to clinics and hospitals nearby. He wangled just five job interviews in ten months. He faults his inexperience, scant contacts and lack of a M.B.A. degree. To help support his family, he joined the National Guard. His long unemployment exacerbated the couple's long-simmering domestic conflicts. In January 1990, the Schulmans sought marriage counseling. Five months later, they separated. Benjamin and Mr. Schulman went to his parents' home in Louisville, without Ms. Schulman's permission. The move to Louisville ultimately shattered any hope of rec- onciliation and was disruptive for Benjamin. Ms. Schulman quickly won a court order requiring the boy's return to Pennsylvania. "I had no job, and she had already filed for custody," Mr. Schulman recalls. "What was I supposed to do? Go Back to Philadelphia [unemployed]?" The judge would have decided that "I couldn't support my family and deny custody," he believes. The young father says that "to have any future with Benjamin," he needed to stay where he could work and earn money for the legal fight and for his son's support. Remaining in Louisville "was probably the most difficult decision I ever made in my life," Mr. Schulman recalls. Distraught over his separation from his son and his failed marriage, he cried a lot, he says, and could barely eat. He lost 30 pounds. In August 1990, he began a $36,000-a-year job in Louisville managing an 81-bed chemical dependency facility. He tried in vain to persuade his estranged wife to seek work in Louisville. Ms. Schulman says she didn't want to leave a place and a job she liked. "There was absolutely nothing to bring me to Louisville." The slender, soft-spoken mother blames her ex-husband (their divorce became final in July) for creating the painful geographic rift by giving up his job search in Philadelphia. "He didn't think about what would be best for Ben." If you love your child, "you don't leave the state," Ms. Schulman argues. "The whole problem with divorce today is that parents put their needs ahead of their children's. This is a classic example." She continues: "He could have gotten a job here." Between July and November 1990, Mr. Schulman drove 28 hours every other weekend to visit his son. The youngster then lived half-time with each parent and commuted by plane or car. The flights seemed to aggravate Benjamin's chronic ear infections, and the strains of commuting were apparent in his frequent inattentiveness at the child-care center he attended during his weeks in Pennsylvania. The commuting ceased with Judge Samuel W. Salus II's ruling on August 24. The judge rejected the advice of a psychologist agreed upon by both sides that Mr. Schulman should get primary custody, though the psychologist felt Benjamin would be best off if he could see both parents frequently. Judge Salus said in his opinion that both parents "are loving and caring,' but that the mother appears to be better able "to sublimate her own needs to Benjamin's." Benjamin, who now resides with his mother, will get to spend Thanksgiving next week with his dad in Louisville. Mr. Schulman seems rooted in Louisville, is engaged to be married and since June 1991, has been earning more than $40,000-a-year administering a large cardiology practice. Pending his appeal of the custody decision, he has no plans to seek work in Philadelphia. "I still don't know a soul there," he says. [Comments: It appears a Domestic Relations judge has found a new reason to favor a mother. She can better sublimate her own needs. Is there anybody out there who hasn't sublimated their needs recently? Source: The Wall Street Journal, November 20, 1992 ======================================================================== Britain Opens First Battered Men's Refuge The shelter protects husbands and boyfriends who complain of ill-treatment by their female partners. Britain's first refuge for battered men opened this week in response to the growing number of husbands and boyfriends who complain of ill-treatment by their female partners. The organization behind the refuge is Families Need Fathers, which started as a pressure group fighting for access rights for fathers who had lost custody of their children after divorce. It evolved into a general campaign for men's rights. Bruce Littington, spokesman for the group, says Families Need Fathers branches receive up to 7000 calls each year from male victims of violent partners. Roger Williams, who runs the refuge, began by offering a place to stay for a male friend whose wife was constantly attacking him, and things just grew, he says. Williams believes there is a pressing need out there. "People don't think it happens," said Littington, "but, believe me, it does. There is a particular feeling of powerlessness in a man, conditioned not to hit women, who is then faced with daily physical assaults upon his person." He said men can usually contain the violence, but that the real worry is when the woman turns on a man with kitchen implements such as knives and rolling pins. Geoffrey, who does not want his last name revealed, has helped establish the refuge. He is a middle-aged man whose wife has won custody of their young son. "I wish the refuge had been available to me two years ago," he said. "I was physically assaulted by my wife and emotionally abused over a period of four years. After our son was born, my wife just exploded. Out of the blue, she would scratch my face to bits and then coolly walk away." Another resident of the refuge Matthew, 23, said his girlfriend began assaulting him when they were both in school. It culminated in her breaking four of his ribs. "I never told anyone, it was so embarrassing--imagine telling your mates down at the pub that you are battered and bruised because your girlfriend beats you," he said. Dr. Malcolm George, neurophysiologist and lecturer at Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, has studied 40 men who have been attacked by their wives. "Men get worried when the violence involves a weapon," he said. "Most of the men would tolerate being hit with fists, but they told me about assaults with baseball bats, boiling water and knives. Women resort to weapons because they do not have the strength physically to overpower men." The opening of the refuge comes hot on the heels of the establishment of a new group called Survivors, which campaigns for male victims of rape. It appears that in England it is becoming acceptable for men to admit they can be victims of women. The British feminist establishment has an ambivalent attitude towards this new trend. While welcoming a common recognition of the oppression of violent abuse, women's groups are at pains to point out that the number of battered and raped women in this country far exceeds that of battered and raped men. "Just because it appears novel, there is a danger of forgetting that men are the usual aggressors," said a spokeswoman from Women Against Rape. Sandra Horley, director of Chiswick Family Rescue, Britain's first battered women's refuge, said, "We certainly care about battered husbands, but let's get things into perspective. According to research, 76 percent of domestic violence cases reported to the police are caused by men attacking their female partners. Only 1.1 percent of cases are women attacking men. There is a danger that if men's refuges become established, vital resources will be diverted from the women's refuge movement. [Comment: The statement by Sandra Horley bears a reply. According to a study at the University of New Hampshire, studies by Dr. Susan Steinmetz and Drs. M.A. Straus and R.J. Gelles and others, domestic violence is split almost 50/50 between the genders.] Source: Scripps Howard News Service ======================================================================== DISCLAIMER First, the advice given during meetings, by members directly and in telephone conversations, should not be taken as legal advice. It is the opinion of the person answering the questions at the time, and the answers are based upon legal advice that attorneys on our board have given in similar situations. Consult your attorney or one of our recommended attorneys before taking any action in your case. Second, the articles in the Newsletter are culled from a variety of sources, cover many topics and reflect differing opinions. Every article is the expressed opinion of only the author of that article. These articles do not necessarily represent the collective opinion of FACE nor of the FACE directors. Even articles written as editorials by members of this group are not the opinion of the group itself or of leadership. The Newsletter attempts to present both sides on issues, so that readers can form their own opinions and make informed decisions. This group is for equality in the justice system. We are NOT against women. Women who become non-custodial parents face the same kinds of problems non-custodial fathers face. We don't think that child support guidelines are fair. But we do advocate that parents pay their child support. We are NOT advocates of child abuse. However, we want the courts and social systems to recognize that many contentious ex-spouses make bogus allegations of abuse during custody battles. We are not in favor of the exclusive use of the adversarial court system for resolving custody disputes. We think that mediation of these disputes is a more effective and less expensive solution and wish the courts would utilize this resource more often. We are not advocates for fathers in spite of mothers. We are advocates for fathers and children, because fathers are disproportionately torn away from their children in divorces. We don't think that is right or fair. We believe that many fathers, when given the opportunity to be good parents, can do the job quite effectively and that both parents and the children benefit. We believe in equal legal rights and equal physical access to children of divorce for both parents. Hence the name--Fathers And Children for Equality. ======================================================================== The FACE Newsletter Staff Jack Quinn Research, Contributing Editor Aaron Hoffmeyer Research, Typesetting, Contributing Editor Paul Bokros Research, Contributing Editor, Mailing List The FACE Officers Mike Driscoll President Doug Morrissey Mike Hamill Vice-Presidents John McKinley Treasurer R.W. Fowler Secretary The Fathers and Children for Equality Foundation is supported by the Ohio United Way. (c) 1993. All copyrights are implied and applicable. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ATTORNEY REFERRAL LIST (listed alphabetically) Andrew Fishman Patricia Grimm 765 South Front Street 4937 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43206 Columbus, Ohio 43228 (614) 444-3606 (614) 878-1092 Bradley Frick Ralph A. Kerns 50 West Broad Street, Suite 3300 1017 Dublin Road Columbus, Ohio 43215 Columbus, Ohio 43206 (614) 228-0505 (614) 488-8900 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ F.A.C.E. P.O. Box 18022 Columbus, Ohio 43218 (614) 257-6767 Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM P.S. Distribute at will. THE THIN ICE - R. Waters Momma loves her baby And Daddy loves you too And the sea may look warm to you Babe And the sky may look blue Ooooh Babe Ooooh Baby Blue Ooooh Babe If you should go skating On the thin ice of modern life Dragging behind you the silent reproach Of a million tear stained eyes Don't be surprised, when a crack in the ice Appears under your feet You slip out of your depth and out of your mind With your fear flowing out behind you As you claw the thin ice From soc.men Tue Feb 23 13:44:59 1993 Newsgroups: soc.men Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Re: New trial for Mike Tyson Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 23:35:51 GMT Message-ID: <1993Feb22.233551.28899@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> References: <93052.125735RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <1993Feb21.233452.1234@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <1993Feb22.125537.611@netcom.com> Lines: 74 In article <1993Feb22.125537.611@netcom.com> elvis@netcom.com ('kEvin') writes: >noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes: > >He also suggested that perhaps the victim had herself raped after >having sex with Mr. Tyson in order to produce the injuries necessary >for a successful civil suit. This is a pure mis-statement. I implied something vague. This is something specific and not the most probable of the possibilities my vague statement left open. >The problem with the extortion defense is that there's no way she can pull >it off without letting Tyson know, and if he knows, his defense attorney >can draw the information from him in the trial, which didn't happen. Yes, and it is apparent that someone in Tyson's camp approached someone in her camp to make just such a pay-off. According to Tyson's camp, they were doing as was requested of them. According to Washington's camp, there was no offer to drop the case in exchange for money. Amazingly, Ms. Washington stated on national TV that she would have dropped the whole thing if Mikey would have apologized. Monkeys, flying and the word "butt" come to mind. >My question asks why do people go to such lengths to make up possible >excuses for Tyson based on such compelling evidence? We haven't come up with anything that the defense has not put forward. I know the words "presumed innocent until proven guilty" have no meaning to you, but such is not the case for all of us. >[Ok, you've got this >guy who takes a girl up to his hotel room and fucks her, then she leaves >and very quickly ceases to be sexually aroused then gets someone she >knows to fuck her without arousing her so that she has evidence to extort >money for the guy. -postulated by Mr. Hoffmeyer] Why this level of defense? Wrong. I did not postulate what you have stated. Let me ask you a sincere question. If you were a young, attractive, manipulative woman, and a big, ugly, weird, stupid but very rich black man expressed sexual interest in you, and you knew that he would simply chew you up and spit you out (fuck you, then forget he ever knew you), and he did just that, and you were very upset at him for using you, and you were set on revenge, how might you go about it? Or consider this: Same scenario, but you knew he was going to use you and you plan to play easy to be had up to the moment, then immediately turn on the "hard-to-get," "No, I don't wanna anymore" as you lie underneath this man without any clothes on and after several hours of heavy petting, and he goes ahead, just as you really wanted him to do, for evidenciary purposes, then after the act. cry "RAPE!!" And you had even told several of your girlfriends before-hand that you were going to do just that -- and take him to the cleaners. >I can't say the last scenario didn't happen, but I can say that for people >who've only followed the case in the papers to present it as true is >ridiculously ad hoc. Again I ask, why go to these lengths in this case? > >Is there a general feeling that anyone who presses rape charges against >a public figure loses credibility? Maybe people believe Tyson was >targeted for being black? Those pesky orbital mind control lasers? >What? I'm not asking for critiques of the "justice" system, I'm >asking why I see all of these apparent gut feelings that Tyson is >innocent. There is no apparent gut feeling that Tyson is innocent, there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. There is definitely evidence that the two had sex, and that it was rough. There is also evidence that she was going to take him to the cleaners before they even went out. An objective analysis would reveal evidence of rape and evidence of planning to accuse of rape to extort. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Tue Feb 23 13:47:26 1993 Xref: utcsri soc.men:62436 soc.women:65610 alt.dads-rights:2597 misc.kids:68392 misc.legal:54788 sci.psychology:11158 Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,misc.kids,misc.legal,sci.psychology Path: utcsri!rpi!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!network.ucsd.edu!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Witch Hunts Revisited Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 00:00:34 GMT Message-ID: <1993Feb23.000034.29712@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 314 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. (c) 1993 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1993 Modern Witch Hunt -- Child Abuse Charges By Richard A. Gardner, Ph.D. Janet Reno, Bill Clinton's nominee for attorney general, has made her name largely in cases involving the defense of children. She may well continue this focus if she is confirmed in her new job. For all those in the new administration, though, a task awaits. It is the modification of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. The 1974 act -- sometimes known as the Mondale Act, after one of its sponsors -- was implemented to fight a genuine problem. Up to that year, child abuse was rarely reported and frequently covered up. It was Congress's intent to rectify this deplorable situation by providing incentives for states to set up programs for child abuse research, identification, prosecution and treatment. Federal funding was made available to match state spending, and this served as an incentive for states to create such programs. The law, however, has had results that its authors did not intend. In America today, child sex-abuse accusations are burgeoning. In many cases, it is probable that the charges are valid. But when the charges arise from vicious child custody disputes, where the vengeance element and the opportunity for exclusion of a hated spouse is operative, or in venues such as day-care centers, where the potential pedophile has little opportunity for contact with the child alone, the prevalence of child abuse is in reality quite low. Nevertheless, the number of charges in these areas escalate. The primary reason: The Mondale Act has strengthened the "child abuse establishment" -- a network of social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists and law enforcement officials -- that through its very existence frequently validates an individual's charges. In other words, this establishment, unintentionally or intentionally, encourages charges of child abuse whether they are reasonable or not. Some examples from cases in which I have personally evaluated the accused as well as other parties: On March 5, Raymond and Shirley Souza (both 61) of Lowell, Mass., will be sent to prison, possibly for the rest of their lives. They are accused of having performed a series of perverted sexual acts on three of their grandchildren. The accusations began when one of the Souzas' daughters had a dream in which she envisioned her parents and her brother sexually abusing her when she was a child. In the dream her mother had a penis. She concluded that the dream indicated that she had actually been sexually abused as a child by her parents and that the Souza grandchildren had probably been abused as well. She suggested that her siblings question the grandchildren. Thus began the wave of hysteria that ultimately resulted in the Souzas being found guilty of these alleged crimes. (Dorothy Rabinowitz writes about this on the Leisure & Arts page of this paper today.) (See related article: "Leisure & Arts -- Deception: In the Movies, on the News" -- WSJ Feb 22, 1993) [BELOW] On the basis of my examinations of the Souzas, I was convinced that there wasn't a scintilla of evidence that they committed these crimes or even exhibited pedophilic tendencies. Furthermore, I carefully reviewed many of the documents in this case, especially videotapes of the interviews with the grandchildren conducted by the prosecutor's overzealous examiners. I found the interviews to be coercive, with the use of many leading questions and the selective ignoring of comments by the children that would have led any unbiased examiner to question whether these allegations had any merit whatsoever. Another example: Kelly Michaels, a New Jersey nursery school teacher, was sentenced to 47 years for allegedly sexually abusing 20 children under her care. After examining the alleged victims, the accusing parents, and Ms. Michaels, I was convinced that she did not engage in the variety of abominable acts attributed to her. Yet the parents' hysteria was fueled by overzealous "validators" and law enforcement officials, leading to Ms. Michaels's conviction. Part of the problem is that since 1974, the Mondale Act has been expanded several times, progressively increasing the federal funds allocated to the states. Certain provisions of the original law and its successors worked to encourage people to bring child abuse charges that were frivolous, and sometimes malicious, fabrications. To qualify for federal money, states had to pass legislation that provided immunity from prosecution for all those reporting child abuse. With the advantage of the screen of immunity, many people in legitimate cases gained the confidence to come forward. However, the same immunity protected people making frivolous and even fabricated accusations. To get federal funds, states were also required to pass laws requiring specific people (such as health-care professionals, law-enforcement officials, teachers and school administrators) to report suspected child abuse to the appropriate child protection agency. Such mandated reporting, of necessity, had to be backed up by penalties (usually fines and/or prison sentences) for failure to report. In effect, this provision has made it a criminal offense for such people not to report suspected abuse. As a result, these professionals are put on the defensive -- if they don't report, they might be deemed criminals. The result has been overreporting of even the most absurd and impossible accusations. During the few years following the Mondale Act's passage, all 50 states and the District of Columbia passed legislation providing for the establishment and funding of the appropriate programs. The basic problem is that the system is biased. State and federal money is available for the treatment of children who are found to have been abused, but no funds have been specifically allocated for the protection and treatment of those who have been falsely accused. Nor has money been available for another special and growing group -- children who have suffered psychiatric disturbances because they have been used as vehicles for the promulgation of a false accusation. Evaluators who conclude there has been abuse set in motion events that bring their offices both state and federal funds. If they conclude there was no abuse, their facilities receive no funding for further evaluation of treatment. The "child abuse establishment" also furthers itself. Mental health facilities, child protection services, and investigatory agencies (including police, detectives and prosecutors) all depend on each other. It behooves them to work together, because the greater the number of referrals, the greater the justification for the requisite funding. The current system generates an endless stream of referrals for investigators and "validators." All this predictably fuels sex-abuse hysteria, hysteria in which an accused individual's constitutional due process protections are commonly ignored. Here are some changes at the federal level that could help: -- Drop the federal immunity clause. Immunity from prosecution is generally available only to specific groups essential to the functioning of the legal systeme.g., judges and prosecutors. It is incompatible with the basic philosophy of our legal system. Such immunity encourages frivolous and fabricated accusations. I would go further and recommend that states that include the immunity provision should not be entitled to federal funding. -- Drop the clause mandating the reporting of child abuse. In practice, it has resulted in the reporting of the most frivolous and absurd accusations by two- and three-year-olds, vengeful former spouses, hysterical mothers of nursery school children, and severely disturbed women against their elderly fathers. Highly skilled examiners, professionals who are extremely knowledgeable about sex abuse, examiners who know quite well that the accusation is false, are required by law to report the abuse to individuals who they often know to be overzealous, inexperienced and even incompetent. Yet they face criminal charges if they do not report these accusations. -- End federal funding to states in which suspected individuals are deprived of due process protections. Prosecutors typically use their own experts to evaluate the children but are allowed to prevent defense experts from evaluating them. The accused, then, is deprived of a fair trial, a right guaranteed to him by the U.S. Constitution. -- Provide funding for programs to assist those who are falsely accused, as well as children who have been victimized by being used as vehicles for a false accusation. Such programs could be combined with existing child abuse and child neglect programs. -- Require investigatory agencies at all levels to routinely notify and invite for voluntary interviews every individual accused of child abuse or neglect. (These suspects, of course, must first be informed of their legal rights.) The failure to routinely extend such invitations should deprive the agency of funding. -- Require legal representation for children who may be victims of embroilment in false accusations. These recommendations sound strong. But from my perspective, the U.S. appears to be witnessing its third great wave of hysteria. The first, the Salem Witch Trials, in 1692, lasted only a few months. Nineteen people were hanged before it became apparent that the accusations were suspect. In the 1950s, at the time of the McCarthy hearings, hysteria over the communist threat resulted in the destruction of many careers. Our current hysteria, which began in the early 1980s, is by far the worst with regard to the number of lives that have been destroyed and families that have disintegrated. There is no question that most efforts at rectification will prove futile unless the Mondale Act modifications described here are implemented. --- Dr. Gardner, a clinical professor of child psychiatry at Columbia University, is an expert on the sexual abuse of children. ======================================================================== THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. (c) 1993 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. -------------------------------------------------- MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1993 LEISURE & ARTS -- Television: Deception: In the Movies, on the News Now that we have all seen the latest docudrama from a network news division -- NBC's staged film of a General Motors truck crash -- deceptions perpetrated by made-for-TV movies may seem comparatively trifling. And they are. That doesn't mean their efforts to capitalize on the very latest trends in hysteria are harmless. That which is pounded home via television has, it hardly needs saying, the power to shape views and fan fears, as surely as the incendiary devices "Dateline NBC" secretly attached to the GM pickup could make it burn. What comes to mind specifically is the latest fever stage in the national delirium over child sex abuse: those "buried" memories of incest that adults in their late 20s, 30s and 40s are all now being told they can remember, if only they try hard enough. The quintessential expression of this new delirium airs Sunday in "Not in My Family" (9-11 p.m. EST, on ABC). There are two hard and fast rules to which all TV films about child sex abuse adhere. The accused is, for one, always guilty as charged. In the minds of network movie makers, there is no such thing as a false molestation charge. The second rule is that the abuser must never be less than a well-to-do pillar of the community. In the world of the TV movie, no one from the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder ever rapes and sodomizes his children. Sunday's movie adds a new and fashionable dimension -- i.e., the "repressed" incest theme. To view this picture, indeed, is to get the complete guide to the innumerable dizzying premises of the current bible for neurotics, "The Courage to Heal." Its main premise seems to be that we should look to early incestuous abuse as the reason for the difficulties that psychologically troubled people have with their lives. This theory apparently appeals to a growing number of people looking for ways to explain loveless lives, divorces, career problems, bulimia, whatnot. The beauty of the repressed incest explanation is that, to enjoy its victim benefits, and the distinction of being associated with a survivor group, it isn't even necessary to have any recollection that such abuse took place. It is one thing to see this craze played out in a TV movie -- and quite another to witness its effects on real people. A little over a week ago, Shirley and Raymond Souza, a 61-year-old couple from Lowell, Mass., were found guilty of multiple unproven charges that they had sexually molested their small grandchildren. As is usually the case with children's accusations extracted by eager therapists and prosecutors, the allegations had all the earmarks of the fantastic. One six-year-old grandchild said she was molested by a machine as big as a room. Another told of having to wear a gold crown and costume, another said she was put in a giant cage, and was made to drink a green potion. No physical evidence of sex abuse -- no cage, no costumes -- was ever produced by way of evidence. How had all this come to pass, then? The Souzas, parents of five grown children, had a 27-year-old daughter, Shirley Ann, who had read "The Courage to Heal." In 1990, Shirley Ann commenced to have a dream, in which she was sexually assaulted by her mother, who had a penis, by her brother, who presumably had one too, and by her father, who raped her with a crucifix. On awakening, Shirley Ann ran to call her married sisters and sister-in-law, to warn them to keep their children away from their grandparents. By the time the adult Souza children had finished seeing counselors and passing the book around, Ray Souza, a retired telephone company supervisor, and his wife, Shirley, a nurse, were indicted. Offered a chance to walk away, if they would plead guilty, they refused, went to trial and were convicted. At their sentencing on March 5, the Souzas, who have never spent a day apart from one another, each face a possible life sentence. ABC's movie faithfully reflects all those theories -- and the mindset -- that persuaded a judge to convict the couple on the basis of charges originating entirely in their troubled daughter's dream. In the movie, a pregnant, happily married (so she thinks) Veronica (Joanna Kerns) begins eating compulsively. (Yes. People who can't stop gorging may now consider themselves likely incest survivors.) Veronica's sister Becky has trouble with "relationships." When Veronica's baby is born, the child refuses to nurse. In due time Veronica and Becky are summoning buried memories of their molestation by their father (George Grizzard) -- a banker and pillar of the community. This dark family saga ends, movie style, on a note of triumph, with the pillar of the community disgraced. This comes only after the two sisters have exchanged endless data from their respective flashbacks and trances. We leave this happy family of yuppie siblings to go on with their newly promising lives, now possible, just as the book says, because they have uncovered their repressed memories. All is now magically well with the baby too, who, as we are shown, can now happily suckle his mother's breast. In the world of fiction all is well. Not so in the real world of Massachusetts, where the justice system is about to send two people to jail because their daughter had a dream. --- Sycophancy Unlimited Award: This citation is presented to journalists who have contributed significantly to broadcast journalism's already brimming levels of boot-licking, flattery, cant and balderdash. The distinguished winner of our award this month is the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, who appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Feb. 14 to discuss investigative journalism and NBC's rigged crash scene. Mr. Woodward let it be known that NBC had in his view emerged from this affair with its honor intact -- and, indeed, with a certain heroic stature. Not only had this first documented case of journalism-as-arson provided, as Mr. Woodward earnestly opined, a wonderful "opportunity." NBC, he went on to marvel, had "confronted its mistake rather than covering it up." Undaunted, apparently, by the fact that NBC News President Michael Gartner and a team of lawyers and assorted flunkies had done nothing but cover up and stonewall to the last hour, till they were confronted with unanswerable -- to say nothing of highly public -- proofs of their deception, Mr. Woodward pressed on with his tribute to the network's probity and forthrightness. This singular testimonial ended with Mr. Woodward's ringing assertion that "NBC is to be saluted." As are you, Bob, for a performance future contenders for this award won't find it easy to equal. * * * END OF DOCUMENT * * * From soc.men Tue Feb 23 18:49:49 1993 Xref: utcsri soc.men:62502 soc.women:65664 alt.feminism:8955 alt.dads-rights:2600 Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights Path: utcsri!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Re: Let us never forget: ALLEN WELLS Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 23:34:59 GMT Message-ID: <1993Feb23.233459.25955@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> References: <12044@sela.com> <1993Feb23.140622.3175@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> Lines: 65 In article <1993Feb23.140622.3175@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> ajm@bigcat.bellcore.com (Tony Merolla) writes: >In article <12044@sela.com>, tlfrank@sela.com (Thomas L. Frank) writes: > >|> Allen was not even allowed to call his son. > >I *never* heard of anything like this. If anything, it seems the courts >bend over backwards to grant visitation rights even when common sense >dictates that it would be against the best interests of the child. Your rhetorical response was blatant evidence that you have little, if any, experience with domestic relations matters and standard rulings and procedures throughout the domestic relations and juvenile court systems. A common order in a disputed divorce case is for a Civil Protection Order (name changes from place to place), barring, in the vast majority of cases, the father from any contact. Calls or visits or even sending letters or cards have been interpretted by judges as being violations of those orders. Courts frequently grant these restraining orders solely on the hearsay word of the Plaintiff that "she" has been beaten by the Defendent or that she is in "fear" that something might happen to her or the children -- and NO other evidence. The only way to beat such an order is to spend thousands and thousands of dollors in a trial, and prove to the court that her statements are lies. That means you will need unimpeachable evidence that she is lying. Also, in many, many custody disputed divorces today, mothers are using the "atom bomb" strategy of accusing dad of sexually molesting the children. This insures sole custody for her and the total alienation and destruction of the father by the legal system. Despite the fact that many, learned and widely respected national experts on this phenomenon have stated that 80% of these allegations are blatantly false and malicious (and others have opined that the false allegations in divorce cases outnumber the legitimate allegations 100 to 1), and that 75% of the accusing mothers are borderline schizophrenic or histrionic personalities, the courts assume that Mom's word is what happened, Dad is guilty. Unless Dad has $40,000 to $80,000 to dump into a lengthy trial, a complete and thorough objective investigation of the allegations (because the state's investigation is anything but thorough and objective), he will likely have all his contact and rights to his children terminated. However, he will still be liable for supporting children that he may never see again. You can accuse me of lying, just like you did Allen Wells, but I'm not dead, and many people in these forums have seen the volumes of credible and objective material I have posted on this topic. If you are interested in the truth, go to your library and look at the works of Dean Tong, Kim Hart, Dr. Elissa P. Benedek, Dr. Richard Gardner, Dr. Lawrence Spiegel, Dr. Gordon J. Blush, Dr. Margretta Dwyer, Dr. Authur Green, Dr. William F. McIver, Dr. Ralph C. Underwager, Dr. Leroy Schultz, Dr. Alayne Yates, Dr. Domeena Renshaw, Karol Ross, Dr. Timothy Campbell, Dr. Diane Schetky, Dr. Daniel C. Schuman, attorney Douglas J. Besharov, Dr. Lee Coleman, Kathleen M. Dillon, attorney Thomas L. Heeney, attorney Roy Howson, Robert L. Emans, etc. etc. etc. -- nationally recognized experts on this issue who have published books or scientific papers in Journals -- for most of the above, they have published a myriad of both. There are quite literally hundreds of books and thousands of articles on this very topic. Contact Reid Kimbrough, the litigation consultant and research associate for the Children's Rights Council at (203) 887-4424, 3 Parker Street, Preston, CT 06365, who has the world's largest database on divorce and abuse allegations in the world. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Mon Mar 8 14:02:32 1993 Xref: utcsri soc.men:63015 soc.women:66066 alt.dads-rights:2660 alt.child-support:6443 Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Re: Will powerful women give up their trad Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 04:29:36 GMT Message-ID: <1993Mar8.042936.1255@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 199 In article <1993Mar7.162239.11568@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes: >In article <1993Mar7.072217.26947@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes: >>[Aaron's classy prose deleted for reasons of space] >>Why does Bill Clinton believe that all you need to raise children is a >>Mom and a wallet? Is that your position too? The most glaring thing I note, off the bat, is the "casting aside" of my "classy prose." It was a long string of questions that I hoped you might at least think about. I really don't care what your position is--besides, I am able to comprehend and understand what you are saying. What I'm saying to you is that children have MORE than just rights to money. They have rights to be able to have a relationship with both of their biological parents. [Classy prose re-inserted at the end of this post.] [Some of Kenn's classy prose deleted for reasons of space] > And here are some bad reasons: > > 1) My ex is a bitch. > 2) My ex screwed me over. > 3) Family law is unfair to men. > 4) My ex won't allow me to visit the kids. > 5) She coulda had an abortion. > > Am I getting through, yet? Anyone see a pattern? > > When you boys get ready to discuss child support in terms of the ^^^^ Classy. >children's needs and the children's rights, then we can talk about >what's wrong with the current system. Until then, you lack a moral >foundation for your position. Ahem, we have a God in our midst. Really Kenn. Please, let me tell you a couple of anecdotes that should illustrate how easily one can determine what is morally correct: The first case involves a couple I met last month. This is their problem: This couple has been married for 10 years. A couple of years before they married and months before they met, this man had an affair with another woman. Then he and that other women separated. Shortly thereafter, this man noticed that this woman was pregnant. He asked if the child was his, because, if it was, he wanted to be a father to the child. He was assured that it wasn't. But he still wasn't sure. So, this mother made a written statement that said that he wasn't the father--she didn't want him around so she gave him what she thought were his walking papers. Shortly thereafter, the mother went on AFDC. AFDC wanted to know who the father was. She said she didn't know. This mother never got a job and she stayed on AFDC for 12 years. During that time she signed eight statements asserting either that she didn't know who the father was, or naming the wrong father. Finally, about three months ago, AFDC told this woman that either she name the real father of her child or AFDC would stop. She named the real father--the father to whom she'd given a written note 12 years earlier stating the child wasn't his. This man was called in for blood tests. He presented his signed statement. No matter. The blood tests say with a 90% certainty he is the father--not good enough by state law. DNA tests are ordered. The results: 99.9% certainty he is the father. So, what about this father? He has three children from his present marriage and a nice family and good home. He was always willing to support a child that was his, but he also wanted to have a relationship with that child. Why do I know that? Because this father is now trying to get custody of his child by this woman, a woman who has not worked one day in 12 years to support that child. The state, though, is very intent on recouping the AFDC money its shelled out during that time. Does this man, who doesn't even know his child, whose child doesn't even know him, have a snowball's chance in hell of getting custody? Will his subsequent children suffer from a decrease in their standard of living to make up for 12 years of unpaid support? How moral is this little tale of woe and who is REALLY at fault here? What does your morally superior mind say about cases like this? The second case involves a nationally prominent volleyball and basketball player. Her name is Natalie Williams. Natalie is an impressively gifted athlete, leading UCLA to two national championships and a runner-up in the last three years in volleyball. She is also the nation's leading rebounder and one of the top scorers in girls' college basketball. Natalie is the daughter of a white mother and black father, who met while in college in Utah. At the time of the pregnancy, the father was ordered to sign a document that stated that he could not see his daughter until she became an adult--a no-contact order. Why? Well, because he was a black man who got a white woman pregnant in Utah, that's why. Nate Williams became a professional basketball player after getting an early release from college and played in the NBA for something like six seasons. He abided by the court order and did not see his daughter. This same court order absolved him from child support responsibilities. When Natalie was 12, her Mom decided she did want the child support. Nate was ordered to pay $8,000 in back child support and to make regular payments. He did. When she was 16, Natalie decided she wanted to meet her father. It was arranged. When she met him, she was frightened. Standing before her was a 6'5" black man possessing more than his fair share of muscle mass. She subsequently found out he wasn't anyone to be frightened of, but it took years. When she played hoops with him one-on-one, she said, all she saw was this big hand blocking her shots. Did Nate Williams get a raw deal? Did Natalie Williams get a raw deal? Did Natalie have the right to know her father a long time before she realized it and insisted on it when she was 16-year-old? Kenn, US Government statistics assert that 66% of all child support that is not paid is due to financial hardship. If I lost my job right now, within 90 days I would owe my ex-wife, not my children, $5000. How would I pay that off when I get a job? What if the next job doesn't pay as much as this one? What if it takes me six-months to get back on my feet? Then I would owe $10,000. But the state will not consider changing my child support payments for exactly that amount of time, six months. During that time I would jump to the top of their deadbeat dad list, too, because of my financial hardship. It would literally take years to make up that much if a difference. The entire time the state would, for propagandistic record-keeping purposes, consider me a deadbeat. Again, over 90% of joint custody obligors pay all their child support on time and in full. 44% of obligors who DO NOT GET TO SEE THEIR KIDS pay on time and in full. Every one of these financial obligors is legally accountable for every dime of the child support the state tells them they owe the obligee (legally, the children are NOT listed as the obligee). How many of these obligees are legally accountable for their state determined obligation to the children? According to the state of Ohio, my child support obligation to my children is $13,462.80 plus my share of the Guardian Ad Litem/private investigator/psychological evaluation bill. But my ex's obligation is $3797.20. I'm legally accountable for providing that $13,462.80 plus my share of the GAL bill. Is she legally accountable for her $3797.20? Is she even accountable for spending the $13,462.80 on my children? Is your moral throne really that high? Is it possible that maybe there is a another, possibly even better, solution to this problem, besides your draconian child support enforcement moral high ground approach? one that empowers children and both parents and creates new role models for post-divorce or unmarried parents of children? one that says, "Hey, this is your child, these are your parents, take care of one another and have a good life." Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM Oh, would you also please answer these questions? Do children have the right to a relaxed, secure relationship with both parents without feeling a need to manipulate one parent against the other? Do children have the right to have the issue of custody truly and honestly decided without sexual prejudice or bias (permitting a continuing parent-child relationship through joint custody, equal to that prior to a divorce) with the best interests of the child and BOTH parents as the only considerations? Do children have the right to continuing care, guidance and support from BOTH parents, and the freedom to express love for both without guilt? Do children have the right to be free from physical AND MENTAL abuse and pressure from both parents and from JUDICIAL abuse by the state? Do children have the right to know and be able to visit regularly with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other relatives on both sides of the family? Do children have the right to be free from having any social class forced upon them by the state courts which order and decree single parent custody, denying one parent an equal legal and personal relationship with the child and producing a family model which has NOT been proven to be either psychologically healthy or constitutionally sound? If you don't believe these are also the rights of children, then you have serious problems. If you do believe these are rights of children, then where is the law that guarantees these rights? Where is the law that ensures that custodial parents pay their share of CS? Where is the law that empowers both parents with joint custody after a divorce by default? Where is the law that enforces the child's right to access to BOTH parents and BOTH families? Why is your concern and the state and federal government's concern primarily with money? Have you ever stopped to think that some very rich people can be very crappy parents? that money can't solve all problems? that love and a nurturing relationship with both parents might be just as important, probably much MORE important than whether or not the child has $250 tennis shoes or a $350 mountain bike or $250 roller blades? Does it strike you that over 90% of all children of joint custody parents receive all court-ordered financial support in full and on time, yet only 44% of support from non-custodial parents who never see their children is paid? Why does Bill Clinton believe that all you need to raise children is a Mom and a wallet? From soc.men Thu Mar 11 13:24:51 1993 Xref: utcsri soc.men:63079 soc.women:66105 misc.legal:55366 Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt-dads-rights,misc.legal Path: utcsri!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Allen Wells -> George Paouris (Was Re: IMPORTANT - Write to congratulate "Current Affair") Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 13:32:04 GMT Message-ID: <1993Mar9.133204.20391@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> References: <8204@ceylon.gte.com> Lines: 278 In article <8204@ceylon.gte.com> mbr0@roger.gte.com (Mark Rosenthal) writes: >Last night, the magazine format TV show "Current Affair" had a segment >on false allegations of child sexual abuse in divorce. Ken Pangborn, >a men's rights activist and victim of such an allegation was interviewed. >They also presented the case of a man who convinced the court of his >innocence and won custody of his children. His ex-wife, enraged at having >lost custody, stalked him and gunned him down in cold blood on his front lawn! >Now that she has gotten the father out of the road, this murderer is again >suing for custody! In November, 1992, _Texas Monthly_ magazine did a feature story on a man who had been falsely accused of sexually abusing his child by a malicious ex-wife in her efforts to get sole custody. This father fought long and hard, and even though presumed guilty and treated as though he were guilty by the courts until a dramatic trial, was in the end exonerated and was awarded sole custody. The _Texas Monthly_ article was posted several times (once as an inclusion in the Newsletter I post) in these forums. Last night I received an email message that told me that this man has been subsequently murdered by his ex-wife. The person sending me the email message had seen the story on _A Current Affair Extra_. Although the person sending me the email message couldn't recall the last name, the other details provided, including first names, makes me 99.9% sure this is the case. This is the _Texas Monthly_ article.... Injured Parties By Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje George Paouris was accused of molesting his child. A civil court disagreed, but damage had been done--to all involved. Of all the destinies George Paouris might have imagined for himself during the long trip from Greece to Texas a little more than two years ago, none included sitting in a San Antonio courtroom, trying to convince a judge that he did not kiss his young daughter's genitals. "I have no way to protect myself, except to be saying the truth and to stick with it," says the 32-year-old former Greek navy officer, a tall, dark-haired man who now works as a mechanic in a grocery warehouse. "If I am found guilty, it will affect my life forever. If I am found innocent, the person who accuses me will just walk away--no punishment." The person doing the accusing is his ex-wife, Dolores Lopez Markee. Paouris maintains that he is innocent. He and his present wife, Terri, say that Markee has fabricated these charges to eject her former husband from her life. She is an unstable woman, say the Paourises, who repeatedly has moved from place to place. They fear she is poisoning Raquel's mind. In response to the sexual abuse charges, last November Paouris and 37-year-old Terri filed a motion in civil courts to gain custody of Raquel. Paouris' tale is a dismal but by no means an isolated one. Talk to family attorneys, and they will tell you that since the mid-eighties, more and more frequently women have been using charges of child sex abuse as weapons in divorce, custody, and visitation battles. And they are using them effectively: "All you have to do is mention child sex abuse," says 225th District Court judge John Specia, "and you never get the smell out of the jury box." A cadre of psychologists has devoted reams of paper to the subject, and two researchers have even coined a term, SAID, or sexual allegations in divorce syndrome. Patricia Toth, the director of the National Center for the Prose- cution of Child Abuse, is convinced that most accusations are well founded and that the notion of an epidemic of false charges is ludicrous. "These types of cases take up much more time and involve many more people than those where sex abuse charges don't come up," she says. "That's why people may be perceiving it as an epidemic, not because of sheer numbers. They just aren't there." Dan Price, family attorney in Austin who says he has seen an exponential rise in revenge-accusations cases in the past ten years, begs to differ. "I'm so god-damned sick and tired of `err on the side of the child' business," he says. "An allegation may start out being accidental or negligent, but once it's made, these women hold on to it. You should see them sitting in court. It's all they can do to bite their lips to keep from grinning." What has happened to George Paouris could serve as a textbook case of the phenomenon. First there's the timing. In almost all such incidents, the charges arise *after* the separation or divorce, usually in the midst of an unpleasant custody or visitation dispute. Almost always the child--usually under six years old--has spoken only to the mother about the abuse. Once the child speaks up, the mother takes the youngster to a doctor, where a thorough physical exam is performed and records are made. The mother is told to contact the child protective services division of the Texas Department of Human Services (now the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services), where the child is then interviewed by social workers, sometimes repeatedly. The case may end up in civil or--less often--criminal court. During the investigation, the father is not allowed to be alone with the child; if necessary, a paid supervisor is hired from one of the companies that have sprung up like mushrooms around the country in recent years. In San Antonio one such company, called, strangely enough, Fit for a King, charges $40 to $50 for a four-hour supervision. Today Paouris' Fit for a King supervisor is Marge, a plump, pleasant-looking woman, who like almost everyone else who has spent time with Paouris, says she is convinced that he did not sexually abuse Raquel. "My own daughter was molested by a relative, so if anyone would be suspicious, it would be me," says Marge, watching Paouris as he stands in front of Raquel while she swings. With each upward arc of her Little Mermaid tennis shoes, he pretends to bite her toes, and she dissolves into giggles. George Paouris and Dolores Lopez married in 1984. They moved to Greece and began a tumultuous relationship in which Dolores periodically left her husband to return to the United States, according to George. He eventually managed a discharge from the Navy and returned to America to try to patch things up, but Dolores would have none of it. From that point on, George found it harder and harder to see his daughter. In 1991, the Paourises began divorce proceedings, the same year the alleged abuse occurred. In May and October of that year, according to her sworn affidavit, Dolores said Raquel had told her that George had kissed her "koo-koo-pops"--a Lopez-family term for genitalia--during two visits with him and had also engaged in various other sex acts. After both instances, Dolores took Raquel to the hospital for pelvic exams. In the first, the report came back normal; in the second, the doctor wrote that Raquel's vulva was slightly irritated. Subsequently Dolores contacted the DHS. Twice the agency conducted videotaped interviews with Raquel; both times its finding was "unable to determine" if abuse had occurred. In the meantime, Dolores lobbied the Bexar County district attorney's office, demanding action. That finally got results. The DA's office presented the videotapes to a grand jury, which returned a criminal indictment. On May 12, 1992, George was arrested. He was released the next morning to await court proceedings in the fall. The civil case was scheduled for July 16. Of all tricky areas of dealing with child sexual abuse, perhaps the trickiest is gathering evidence from the alleged victim. This is a task that falls to the caseworkers, and it is one that critics say the workers are unqualified to perform. To be a caseworker at the Department of Protective and Regulatory Service, all a person needs is a college degree. It can be in anything--music, botany, social work. After nine to twelve weeks of training, workers are making decisions that can change people's lives. David Reilly, the director or regional operations, says that while caseworkers are not specifically instructed in how to detect false allegations, they are taught how to ascertain a child's credibility. Austin family attorney Price, however, minces no words in his criticism of the agency's procedures. Their goal, he says, is not to determine if abuse occurred; it is to determine that it did. "You ask a DHS caseworker how to detect if an allegation is false, and their eyes glaze over," says Price. One particular problem is that young children are susceptible to suggestion. They also aim to please--especially their parents. If a child senses that the mother suspects something happened, the child may agree that it did. Couple this tendency with caseworkers who may feel it necessary to ask very young children leading questions--"Who touched your pee-pee?" "Did Daddy touch your pee-pee?"--and the waters become irrevocably muddied. They get even muddier with the use of anatomically correct dolls, essentially Raggedy Anns and Andys with pubic hair, breasts, and penises. The problem with the dolls is that both abused and non-abused children play with them in the same way, as a spate of studies has shown. "You give me anybody's three- to six-year-old child and some anatomically correct dolls, and I'll have them accusing somebody of sex abuse by midnight," says Price. On a muggy morning in late July, the cast of players in the psy- chodrama that had become Raquel Paouris' life assembled around wooden tables in the 150th District Court of Judge Carleton B. Spears, 34, who would listen to and decide on the testimony in the civil custody case. At one table sat 30-year-old Dolores Markee. Next to her sat her fourth husband, Richard, a construction manager with Sitterle Home Builders. Denise Martinez--Markee's third and most recent attorney--sat next to him. At the next table were Paouris, his attorney--Shirley Ehrlich and Alma Lopez--and Terri. Terri has championed her husband's case almost since the day she met him in May 1991, after the sex abuse charges had already been made. Over the next six days, a string of witnesses flowed through the courtroom. Terri testified that during the October visit, the only time Paouris and Raquel were out of her sight was the few minutes when he took her to use the bathroom. Markee's ex-husband Ralph Serrano testified that Markee had an unstable life-style and that they had battled over visitation for their son, Ralph Junior. At one point, the trial was halted so that the attorneys and the judge could view two DHS tapes of interviews with Raquel. In the first tape, a caseworker John Garcia helped Raquel remove the male doll's pants. In the second tape, Raquel lifted a doll's crotch to her mouth after being prompted ceaselessly by another caseworker as to where, exactly, her father had kissed her. That scene was, apparently, the nail that sealed the criminal indictment against Paouris. After the first tape, Garcia testified that he thought Raquel had been telling the truth about being abused, even though the DHS report had said that nothing could be substantiated. Garcia also said that after viewing the tape, Markee had jumped up to give him a hug and a kiss on the cheek. Most parents are not overjoyed if they believe their child has been abused, he testified; they are upset. Denise Martinez, Markee's attorney, sought to bolster the mother's case. She called Dr. Maria Cruz, a clinical psychologist who said that Raquel was a victim of post-traumatic stress disorder--a diagnosis often given to sexually abused children. She based her diagnosis mainly on statements given to her by Markee about Raquel's behavior, as well as some brightly colored pictures Raquel had drawn, which the psychologist said showed Raquel was afraid of her father. The court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Joann Murphey, offered quite a different opinion. From her investigation--which included a review of tapes, DHS reports, and medical records, as well as interviews and psychological testing on Paouris and Markee--she found nothing significant to substantiate the sex abuse charge. To the contrary, she suspected the charge was false, largely because of inconsistencies in Markee's information. For example, Markee denied having romantic involvements with other men, yet she would show up at Murphey's office accompanied by various men. Also, according to DHS records, Markee had said that doctors found evidence that Raquel's vagina had been penetrated, when, in fact, there were no such records. The psychological evaluations were also worrisome, said Murphey. Markee's Rorschach test revealed her to have "repressed hostility" and a "high potential for distortions in thinking." On a test for empathy--the ability to feel for others and to form human bonds--she made a low score. On the other hand, Paouris scored well on all the tests, especially the one for empathy. Murphey's analysis was echoed by two Fit for a King supervisors, each of whom testified that Raquel tended to be timid and withdrawn at her mother's house but that she would "open up like a flower" in the company of her father. Martinez finally called Dolores Markee to the stand. She wept when describing her daughter's behavior on the nights of the alleged abuse. She said Paouris once threatened to kill her and to take Raquel out of the country. She said he cursed in front of the child. During cross-examination, Paouris' attorney, Shirley Ehrlich was visibly irate. She picked at the inconsistencies--large and small--that seemed to trail Markee. Why did she tell a worker from a child abuse advocacy group that Paouris had been confined to a mental institution in Greece, when he had not? Couldn't the redness of Raquel's vulva be explained by the fact that she had been wearing urine-soaked panties on the day her father came to visit on October 12, according to the testimony of one of her aunts? And, most telling, why did she claim in her affidavit that she talked to Paouris on the two nights he dropped off his crying daughter at the house--after having allegedly abused her--when Markee had not been at the house? Couldn't Markee's fears for Raquel, in fact, be connected to her own sexual abuse as a child--a fact that had come out in the testimony of Dr. Cruz? On July 28, fourteen months after he was accused of sexually molesting her, George Paouris was awarded sole custody of Raquel. In a letter to the two attorneys in the case, Judge Spears wrote: It is the finding of this court that the sexual abuse did not take place as alleged.... In comparing the mother and father ... the Court looks to the actions of each parent. The father offers a much more stable life than the mother ... [though] There is no doubt that the mother loves the child.... In conclusion, the judge granted visitation rights to Markee. Both parents and child were ordered into counseling. Source: _Texas Monthly_ magazine, November 1992 Rest in peace, George. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Thu Mar 11 13:29:44 1993 Xref: utcsri soc.men:63149 soc.women:66140 misc.legal:55396 Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt-dads-rights,misc.legal Path: utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Re: Allen Wells -> George Paouris (Was Re: IMPORTANT - Write to congratulate "Current Affair") Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 09:51:36 GMT Message-ID: <1993Mar10.095136.14903@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> References: <8204@ceylon.gte.com> <1993Mar9.133204.20391@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 72 In article <1993Mar9.133204.20391@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes: >In article <8204@ceylon.gte.com> mbr0@roger.gte.com (Mark Rosenthal) writes: >>Last night, the magazine format TV show "Current Affair" had a segment >>on false allegations of child sexual abuse in divorce. Ken Pangborn, >>a men's rights activist and victim of such an allegation was interviewed. >>They also presented the case of a man who convinced the court of his >>innocence and won custody of his children. His ex-wife, enraged at having >>lost custody, stalked him and gunned him down in cold blood on his front lawn! >>Now that she has gotten the father out of the road, this murderer is again >>suing for custody! > >In November, 1992, _Texas Monthly_ magazine did a feature story on a >man who had been falsely accused of sexually abusing his child by a >malicious ex-wife in her efforts to get sole custody. This father >fought long and hard, and even though presumed guilty and treated as >though he were guilty by the courts until a dramatic trial, was in the >end exonerated and was awarded sole custody. The _Texas Monthly_ >article was posted several times (once as an inclusion in the >Newsletter I post) in these forums. Last night I received an email >message that told me that this man has been subsequently murdered by >his ex-wife. The person sending me the email message had seen the >story on _A Current Affair Extra_. Although the person sending me the >email message couldn't recall the last name, the other details >provided, including first names, makes me 99.9% sure this is the case. ^^^^ Make that 100%.... HEADLINE: Man accused of sex abuse of daughter killed; ex-wife held A woman who lost a bitter child-custody battle to her ex-husband whom she had accused of sexually abusing their daughter was jailed Thursday in the man's slaying. Authorities said Delores Lopez Markee, 30, was arrested on a charge of murder and was jailed in lieu of $250,000 bond. Sheriff's department investigators said George Paouris, 32, was gunned down by at least four bullets from a 9mm pistol at 4:49 p.m. CST Wednesday in front of his home. Capt. Kenneth Bilhartz said Markee went to Paouris' home and the two were on the front porch when shots rang out. Bilharz said that Markee sat in her vehicle until police arrived and appeared "very passive," declining to give a statement. Paouris and Markee both had remarried. District Judge Carleton Spears awarded Paouris custody of the couple's 4-year-old daughter last July after six days of testimony. Statements by expert witnesses who supported Paouris were enough to convince the judge that the sexual abuse allegations involving his daughter were unfounded. Markee had visitation rights, and at the time of the slaying the daughter was with Markee's new husband at their home. Bilhartz said the child was placed in the custody of her mother's attorney after the shooting. Records indicate that Paouris was indicted in May 1992 on a charge of an indecency with a child. But Spears told the San Antonio Light Wednesday that the evidence in the case did not show that Paouris had done any of the the things Markee had alleged. Source: UPI, January 7, 1993 Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM P.S. Note that Markee's attorney has custody of the child. Note the tone of the headline ... Markee is being held because someone killed George Paouris, a man accused of sexually abusing his daughter. From soc.men Tue Mar 16 13:45:12 1993 Xref: utcsri misc.legal:55535 soc.men:63369 alt.dads-rights:2703 Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,alt.dads-rights Path: utcsri!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Hearsay, o' Hearsay Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 01:14:24 GMT Message-ID: <1993Mar14.011424.4451@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 151 Listen. I've been involved in helping a man who was falsely accused of abusing his three-year-old daughter as party of a custody disputed divorce. Charges were filed against him in Juvenile Court. The state was seeking to terminate his parental rights and limit his contact with his daughter, based on the word of the mother of the child and the substantiation of abuse by three doctors. However, about three months ago, the state and his ex-wife were all willing to grant shared parenting to this father and completely dismiss the case in juvenile court if he would agree to shared parenting with supervised visitation. He refused. This father has money to defend himself, which is very rare in these cases, because it takes such an inordinate amount of money to fight these allegations in multiple courts--juvenile, domestic and sometimes civil and criminal. A person can be tried multiple times for the same thing, each time having to pay $10,000 to $25,000. After this father refused a settlement, the state proceeded with the juvenile case against him. The trial in juvenile court started Friday, March 12th. The three doctors who substantiated abuse: well, only one of them ever saw or talked to his daughter. This doctor worked for Children's Hospital, but has subsequently been fired for what a representative of Children's Hospital deemed "problems with her work." The other two doctors substantiated based on a review of what the first doctor had written on this case, and I've seen the first doctor's records on this case, they're ridiculous. The first doctor in the case substantiated abuse based on the dimensions of the hole in the child's hymen, which she indicated was 3mm x 7mm. Her charts showed that for a three-year-old, the size of the ring of the hole in the hymen should have been 3mm x 5mm. She made this measurement, not using any tools or measuring devices, but by comparing the size of the hole to a chart on an abuse form they have at Children's Hospital. The 2mm difference, for those of you unfamiliar with metric units, is equivalent to 1/13th of an inch. That 13th of an inch difference is the only bit of physical evidence upon which this doctor substantiated. It is the only "evidence" in this case, besides the hearsay word of what several people have stated the child told them. I've seen these hearsay statements in documents filed with the court by the prosecution. The child has never made a specific statement of abuse, only made statements like, "Daddy hurt me down there." No one has questioned the child to check for coaching. No interviews have ever been recorded, whether by transcript, or audio or video recordings. The child was examined by a family doctor who was a close friend of the mother soon after she made the allegations. This doctor, at that time, found no evidence of abuse. In court on Friday, he stated that he believes the child was abused. He also stated that as part of his examination, he stuck his finger up inside the little girl. He did NOT look at her hymen. He also did not know how a hymen should be properly examined. He could not describe the proper procedure, nor name the proper instruments for performing such an examination. The next and only subsequent doctor to examine the child was recently fired from Children's Hospital. She is the one who substantiated based on a 1/13th of an inch difference in what the size of the hole in the hymen was supposed to be (on average) and her line-of-sight determination of the actual size. Well, she is not even in the state anymore, so the state cannot use her as a witness. The state is now trying to admit the entry of her boss, who has never seen this child at all, to testify on her behalf, in her absence. More about that in a minute. The two doctors who made written statements to the juvenile court backing up the substantiation of the doctor who performed the physical examination at Children's Hospital, will NOT testify, either because the state does NOT want to reveal that they never saw the child, or because these doctors will NOT backup their written statements. Whatever the case, they won't be testifying. Now, back to the Children's Hospital situation: The boss of the doctor who made the substantiation has revealed that this doctor was new, and that she was subsequently fired. He cannot testify to the validity of her substantiation. However, he defends her report, and although he has never seen the child, wants to testify for the prosecution for several reasons: 1) He wants to describe the methodology that he tells his doctors to use; and 2) to testify about the statements made by the little girl to the doctor who is no longer in his employ. In other words, the state is trying to admit the interpretation by a third party of the written word of a doctor summarizing the word of the little girl. I understand that the courts have trounced the Constitution in admitting the hearsay testimony of children who have allegedly been abused if they supposedly made statements to a professional (but only in some states), but this is hearsay of hearsay. Is there a precedence for this? What laws would specifically prohibit this? I understand the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution already. What else? The tactics utilized by the state in this trial are truly disconcerting. The juvenile court prosecutor kept running through sustained objections to her questioning. In other words, even when the judge told her she could not ask a question or phrase a question a certain way, she would do it anyway. By the end of the day, the defense counsel was asking the court to reprimand her for her behavior. Also, Mom's divorce attorney was present and was trying to help the prosection with their case. He also demanded money from the defendant for child support to be paid to him in cash, right there in front of witnesses. The accused is paying his child support through the Child Support Enforcement Agency every month and is current. The Guardian Ad Litem of the child is also helping the prosecution with their case. He refused to investigate the veracity of the allegations when they came up. He was not interested in this man's innocence or guilt, merely in creating a trust fund for the child which he would manage. When this father refused the Guardian's offer, the Guardian became incensed and is now out to terminate this father's rights to his child. The referee refused this man's request for a jury trial. He has also tried to allow the admission of the hearsay o` hearsay evidence, but the defense wants to illustrate in black and white why it is not legal to do so. He also refused to allow any of the witnesses against this man to be deposed as part of the domestic relations case. The accused man said that the three attorneys and one referee all opposing his defense counsel looked to him like a lynch mob. Sad to say, apparently this is the standard state of affairs in Juvenile Court in the US. So what sayeth thou? Hearsay o' hearsay admitted as evidence--how can it be possible? How can it be stopped? I still think this man will win this case. He is bringing in the national experts, Dr. Gordon Blush and Karol Ross, along with their medical experts, including Dr. Timothy Campbell. And, after he wins this case, well, he'll then be entertaining a lass named Sue. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM P.S. It is important to note that in this case, Mom at first alleged Dad had intercourse with his three-year-old daughter. The evidence did not support this at all. Next Mom stated that the little girl had told her that Dad stuck a toy inside her. Several months ago Mom was saying it was a crayon. That was still impossible based on the size of the hole in this girl's hymen. So, guess what Mom is saying happened now? Dad put the tip of the crayon up inside his daughter. Oh. The first doctor to testify, the family doctor, stated he believed the little girl was abused, in part, because, according to Mom, she peed her pants several times last summer. Imagine that.... a three-year-old. From soc.men Tue Mar 16 13:48:09 1993 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:2718 alt.child-support:6536 soc.men:63398 soc.women:66282 misc.legal:55561 misc.kids:70167 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,misc.kids Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: March 1993 FACE Newsletter Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 06:25:08 GMT Message-ID: <1993Mar15.062508.19263@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Lines: 1225 The Central-Ohio Fathers and Children for Equality (FACE) March, 1993 Newsletter "Why the courts don't tell a husband who has been living off his wife to get a job is beyond my comprehension." - Joan Lunden, cohost, Good Morning America ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Children have the Right to express a preference to live with either of the parents most of the time. Children have the Right to know that the parents' decision to divorce is solely their decision, and that the child need not feel any responsibility for this decision. Children have the Right to continuing care, guidance and support from both parents, and the freedom to receive and express love for both without guilt. ======================================================================== Contents False Sexual Abuse Allegations - a heartfelt "Thank You" to _48 Hours_ for the January show that illustrated some of the gross iniquities faced by fathers in domestic relations in the US. It is also a call to write to _48 Hours_ and thank them personally. Let them know we care and hope they continue to expose the travesty that is the US domestic relations court system. Modern Witch Hunt -- Child Abuse Charges - from the _Wall Street Journal_ (annotated by Rama Kant Kalra)... Dr. Richard Garner, a clinical psychologist at Columbia University in Cresskill, NJ, one of the most published and most respected child psychologists, and the world's leading authority on child sexual abuse, writes about the dire need to end the modern-day Salem With Trials--false allegations of child sexual abuse. He calls for wide-sweeping national reform and changes in federal laws. And he wants these changes NOW. Deception In the Movies, on the News - a sidebar to the previous article, also from the _Wall Street Journal_. The Effects of Divorce on Children - written by David K. Garrod, Ph.D. of Indiana several years ago. This article illustrates how poorly children of sole custody families turn out in comparison to children of intact families and divorced families with joint custody. Responsibility for Half.... - an op-ed posted to USENET, alt.child-support which illustrates the anti-"shared parenting" philosophy so prevalent among so many custodial parents. The attitude is that the other parent is not worthy of having a relationship with the children, because the custodial parent says so. This person even seems willing to forego support just to keep the non-custodial parent out of the children's lives--in the best interests of the children. NCPs are nothing but abusive wallets and the children are better off without them. Note the "gotcha" statement about shared parenting, followed by a list of "gotchas"--using the children as pawns to show to the court and others how the non-custodial parent is bad. My Story - another op-ed piece posted to USENET, alt.dads-rights which presents a different attitude than the one of the previous piece. In this article, ego has been subverted by a desire to do what is really best for the children. Why is this attitude more conducive to a post divorce custody relationship than the sentiments expressed in the previous article? Facts and Figures - these are statistics on sole custody families in Franklin County, Ohio, 1980 versus 1990, and mothers and fathers as custodial parents in 1990. Man Still Prisoner of Love - a man in Israel has been in jail for 30 years because he would not grant his wife a divorce. And she is quite glad that he has been in jail for all that time. Man Accused of Sex Abuse of Daughter Killed; Ex-wife Held - a follow-up to an article published in this Newsletter in December, 1992. Private Collectors Put Squeeze on Deadbeat Dads - an article on the entrepreneurial spirit--alive and well in the US--from LA County. In Regards to Child Abuse - an excerpt from a post to USENET by Bob Kirkpatrick, a Guardian Ad Litem in Seattle, Washington quoting child abuse statistics and personal experience with dependency actions. Boy, 17, Ordered to Pay Support - a boy who had sex with a baby-sitter when he was 13 is ordered to pay child support for the child resulting from that act. Even though the boy was too young to be able to consent to sex legally and by definition was statutorially raped, the rapist in this case has sole legal and physical custody of the child and the rape victim has to pay child support. A Generation at Risk - excerpts of an article written by Sonny Burmeister illustrating the damage being done to children by sole custody. Going to Jail - Mark Durbin was jailed for 17 months for refusing to pay child support. He had demanded joint custody with no support to the mother in his divorce case. Instead of granting joint custody, he was thrown in jail. Upon release from jail he was ordered to start making payments and also to prove that he had looked for at least one job every day. He is suing the judge in his case. The article includes a call for support. The Divorce Industry - Jack Quinn started making a list of all the folks who make at least part of their living off of the institution of divorce in the US. While this list does not include everyone, it illustrates what a giant industry this has become. If you have any more categories of profiteers to add to the list, let me know. 7th National Conference, Children's Rights Council - the Children's Rights Council's annual national conference is coming up soon. Make your reservations. New Texas Law - Texas clarifies an existing law which treats non-payment of child support and access as equal under the law--equally enforceable and equally important, that is. ======================================================================== DISCLAIMER First, the advice given during meetings, by members directly and in telephone conversations, should not be taken as legal advice. It is the opinion of the person answering the questions at the time, and the answers are based upon legal advice that attorneys on our board have given in similar situations. Consult your attorney or one of our recommended attorneys before taking any action in your case. Second, the articles in the Newsletter are culled from a variety of sources, cover many topics and reflect differing opinions. Every article is the expressed opinion of only the author of that article. These articles do not necessarily represent the collective opinion of FACE nor of the FACE directors. Even articles written as editorials by members of this group are not the opinion of the group itself or of leadership. The Newsletter attempts to present both sides on issues, so that readers can form their own opinions and make informed decisions. This group is for equality in the justice system. We are NOT against women. Women who become non-custodial parents face the same kinds of problems non-custodial fathers face. We don't think that child support guidelines are fair. But we do advocate that parents pay their child support. We are NOT advocates of child abuse. However, we want the courts and social systems to recognize that many contentious ex-spouses make bogus allegations of abuse during custody battles. We are not in favor of the exclusive use of the adversarial court system for resolving custody disputes. We think that mediation of these disputes is a more effective and less expensive solution and wish the courts would utilize this resource more often. We are not advocates for fathers in spite of mothers. We are advocates for fathers and children, because fathers are disproportionately torn away from their children in divorces. We don't think that is right or fair. We believe that many fathers, when given the opportunity to be good parents, can do the job quite effectively and that both parents and the children benefit. We believe in equal legal rights and equal physical access to children of divorce for both parents. Hence the name--Fathers And Children for Equality. ======================================================================== From the Desk of the Editor This month fate conspired against us in trying to produce this Newsletter. When you consider a hard-disk crash, two surgeries and 100 hours of overtime, well, we're fortunate to have completed the Newsletter at all. Anyway, please excuse the late arrival and any mistakes you note in this issue. ======================================================================== False Sexual Abuse Allegations Thank you CBS for the fair presentation of a very sensitive subject. The program called "Fathers Fight Back" aired on _48 Hours_, Wednesday, 1/13/93. This was by far the most objective programming about the plights fathers face in the 90s. But the one story presented on false sexual abuse allegations made during divorce custody and visitation disputes was a tiny tip of the vast iceberg of these allegations. There are over 70,000 false sexual abuse allegations made annually in the United States. Folks, let the network (CBS) know that we care. Please take a few minutes to write a letter thanking them for the program. The mailing address is: CBS Program Information ATTN: 48 Hours 51 West 52 Street New York, NY 10019 If they don't hear from people like us, they might think that this terrible problem is not severe and may not continue to address this problem in the future. ======================================================================== Modern Witch Hunt -- Child Abuse Charges By Richard A. Gardner, Ph.D. Janet Reno, Bill Clinton's nominee for attorney general, has made her name largely in cases involving the defense of children. She may well continue this focus if she is confirmed in her new job. [She was just confirmed.] For all those in the new administration, though, a task awaits. It is the modification of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. The 1974 act -- sometimes known as the Mondale Act, after one of its sponsors -- was implemented to fight a genuine problem. Up to that year, child abuse was rarely reported and frequently covered up. It was Congress's intent to rectify this deplorable situation by providing incentives for states to set up programs for child abuse research, identification, prosecution and treatment. Federal funding was made available to match state spending, and this served as an incentive for states to create such programs. The law, however, has had results that its authors did not intend. In America today, child sex-abuse accusations are burgeoning. In many cases, it is probable that the charges are valid. But when the charges arise from vicious child custody disputes, where the vengeance element and the opportunity for exclusion of a hated spouse is operative, or in venues such as daycare centers, where the potential pedophile has little opportunity for contact with the child alone, the prevalence of child abuse is in reality quite low. Nevertheless, the number of charges in these areas escalate. The primary reason: The Mondale Act has strengthened the "child abuse establishment" -- a network of social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists and law enforcement officials -- that through its very existence frequently validates an individual's charges. In other words, this establishment, unintentionally or intentionally, encourages charges of child abuse whether they are reasonable or not. Some examples from cases in which I have personally evaluated the accused as well as other parties: On March 5, Raymond and Shirley Souza (both 61) of Lowell, Mass., will be sent to prison, possibly for the rest of their lives. They are accused of having performed a series of perverted sexual acts on three of their grandchildren. The accusations began when one of the Souzas' daughters had a dream in which she envisioned her parents and her brother sexually abusing her when she was a child. In the dream her mother had a penis. She concluded that the dream indicated that she had actually been sexually abused as a child by her parents and that the Souza grandchildren had probably been abused as well. She suggested that her siblings question the grandchildren. Thus began the wave of hysteria that ultimately resulted in the Souzas being found guilty of these alleged crimes. (Dorothy Rabinowitz writes about this on the Leisure & Arts page of this paper today.) (See related article: "LEISURE & ARTS -- Television: Deception In the Movies, on the News" -- also from WSJ Feb 22, 1993) [BELOW] On the basis of my examinations of the Souzas, I was convinced that there wasn't a scintilla of evidence that they committed these crimes or even exhibited pedophilic tendencies. Furthermore, I carefully reviewed many of the documents in this case, especially videotapes of the interviews with the grandchildren conducted by the prosecutor's overzealous examiners. I found the interviews to be coercive, with the use of many leading questions and the selective ignoring of comments by the children that would have led any unbiased examiner to question whether these allegations had any merit whatsoever. Another example: Kelly Michaels, a New Jersey nursery school teacher, was sentenced to 47 years for allegedly sexually abusing 20 children under her care. After examining the alleged victims, the accusing parents, and Ms. Michaels, I was convinced that she did not engage in the variety of abominable acts attributed to her. Yet the parents' hysteria was fueled by overzealous "validators" and law enforcement officials, leading to Ms. Michaels's conviction. Part of the problem is that since 1974, the Mondale Act has been expanded several times, progressively increasing the federal funds allocated to the states. Certain provisions of the original law and its successors worked to encourage people to bring child abuse charges that were frivolous, and sometimes malicious, fabrications. To qualify for federal money, states had to pass legislation that provided immunity from prosecution for all those reporting child abuse. With the advantage of the screen of immunity, many people in legitimate cases gained the confidence to come forward. However, the same immunity protected people making frivolous and even fabricated accusations. To get federal funds, states were also required to pass laws requiring specific people (such as health-care professionals, law enforcement officials, teachers and school administrators) to report suspected child abuse to the appropriate child protection agency. Such mandated reporting, of necessity, had to be backed up by penalties (usually fines and/or prison sentences) for failure to report. In effect, this provision has made it a criminal offense for such people not to report suspected abuse. As a result, these professionals are put on the defensive -- if they don't report, they might be deemed criminals. The result has been overreporting of even the most absurd and impossible accusations. During the few years following the Mondale Act's passage, all 50 states and the District of Columbia passed legislation providing for the establishment and funding of the appropriate programs. The basic problem is that the system is biased. State and federal money is available for the treatment of children who are found to have been abused, but no funds have been specifically allocated for the protection and treatment of those who have been falsely accused. Nor has money been available for another special and growing group -- children who have suffered psychiatric disturbances because they have been used as vehicles for the promulgation of a false accusation. Evaluators who conclude there has been abuse set in motion events that bring their offices both state and federal funds. If they conclude there was no abuse, their facilities receive no funding for further evaluation or treatment. The "child abuse establishment" also furthers itself. Mental health facilities, child protection services, and investigatory agencies (including police, detectives and prosecutors) all depend on each other. It behooves them to work together, because the greater the number of referrals, the greater the justification for the requisite funding. The current system generates an endless stream of referrals for investigators and "validators." All this predictably fuels sex-abuse hysteria, hysteria in which an accused individual's constitutional due process protections are commonly ignored. Here are some changes at the federal level that could help: * Drop the federal immunity clause. Immunity from prosecution is generally available only to specific groups essential to the functioning of the legal system (for example, judges and prosecutors). It is incompatible with the basic philosophy of our legal system. Such immunity encourages frivolous and fabricated accusations. I would go further and recommend that states that include the immunity provision should not be entitled to federal funding. * Drop the clause mandating the reporting of child abuse. In practice, it has resulted in the reporting of the most frivolous and absurd accusations by two-and three-year-olds, vengeful former spouses, hysterical mothers of nursery school children, and severely disturbed women against their elderly fathers. Highly skilled examiners, professionals who are extremely knowledgeable about sex abuse, examiners who know quite well that the accusation is false, are required by law to report the abuse to individuals who they often know to be overzealous, inexperienced and even incompetent. Yet they face criminal charges if they do not report these accusations. * End federal funding to states in which suspected individuals are deprived of due process protections. Prosecutors typically use their own experts to evaluate the children but are allowed to prevent defense experts from evaluating them. The accused, then, is deprived of a fair trial, a right guaranteed to him by the U.S. Constitution. * Provide funding for programs to assist those who are falsely accused, as well as children who have been victimized by being used as vehicles for a false accusation. Such programs could be combined with existing child abuse and child neglect programs. * Require investigatory agencies at all levels to routinely notify and invite for voluntary interviews every individual accused of child abuse or neglect. (These suspects, of course, must first be informed of their legal rights.) The failure to routinely extend such invitations should deprive the agency of funding. * Require legal representation for children who may be victims of embroilment in false accusations. These recommendations sound strong. But from my perspective, the U.S. appears to be witnessing its third great wave of hysteria. The first, the Salem Witch Trials, in 1692, lasted only a few months. Nineteen people were hanged before it became apparent that the accusations were suspect. In the 1950s, at the time of the McCarthy hearings, hysteria over the communist threat resulted in the destruction of many careers. Our current hysteria, which began in the early 1980s, is by far the worst with regard to the number of lives that have been destroyed and families that have disintegrated. There is no question that most efforts at rectification will prove futile unless the Mondale Act modifications described here are implemented. * * * Dr. Gardner, a clinical professor of child psychiatry at Columbia University, is an expert on the sexual abuse of children. Source: The Wall Street Journal. " 1993 Dow Jones & Company, Inc., February 22, 1993 ======================================================================== Deception In the Movies, on the News LEISURE & ARTS -- Television: Now that we have all seen the latest docudrama from a network news division -- NBC's staged film of a General Motors truck crash -- deceptions perpetrated by made-for-TV movies may seem comparatively trifling. And they are. That doesn't mean their efforts to capitalize on the very latest trends in hysteria are harmless. That which is pounded home via television has, it hardly needs saying, the power to shape views and fan fears, as surely as the incendiary devices Dateline NBC secretly attached to the GM pickup could make it burn. What comes to mind specifically is the latest fever stage in the national delirium over child sex abuse: those "buried" memories of incest that adults in their late 20s, 30s and 40s are all now being told they can remember, if only they try hard enough. The quintessential expression of this new delirium airs Sunday in _Not in My Family_ (9-11 p.m. EST, on ABC). There are two hard and fast rules to which all TV films about child sex abuse adhere. The accused is, for one, always guilty as charged. In the minds of network movie makers, there is no such thing as a false molestation charge. The second rule is that the abuser must never be less than a well-to-do pillar of the community. In the world of the TV movie, no one from the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder ever rapes and sodomizes his children. Sunday's movie adds a new and fashionable dimension -- i.e., the "repressed" incest theme. To view this picture, indeed, is to get the complete guide to the innumerable dizzying premises of the current bible for neurotics, The Courage to Heal. Its main premise seems to be that we should look to early incestuous abuse as the reason for the difficulties that psychologically troubled people have with their lives. This theory apparently appeals to a growing number of people looking for ways to explain loveless lives, divorces, career problems, bulimia, whatnot. The beauty of the repressed incest explanation is that, to enjoy its victim benefits, and the distinction of being associated with a survivor group, it isn't even necessary to have any recollection that such abuse took place. It is one thing to see this craze played out in a TV movie -- and quite another to witness its effects on real people. A little over a week ago, Shirley and Raymond Souza, a 61-year-old couple from Lowell, Mass., were found guilty of multiple unproven charges that they had sexually molested their small grandchildren. As is usually the case with children's accusations extracted by eager therapists and prosecutors, the allegations had all the earmarks of the fantastic. One six-year-old grandchild said she was molested by a machine as big as a room. Another told of having to wear a gold crown and costume, another said she was put in a giant cage, and was made to drink a green potion. No physical evidence of sex abuse -- no cage, no costumes -- was ever produced by way of evidence. How had all this come to pass, then? The Souzas, parents of five grown children, had a 27-year-old daughter, Shirley Ann, who had read The Courage to Heal. In 1990, Shirley Ann commenced to have a dream, in which she was sexually assaulted by her mother, who had a penis, by her brother, who presumably had one too, and by her father, who raped her with a crucifix. On awakening, Shirley Ann ran to call her married sisters and sister-in-law, to warn them to keep their children away from their grandparents. By the time the adult Souza children had finished seeing counselors and passing the book around, Ray Souza, a retired telephone company supervisor, and his wife, Shirley, a nurse, were indicted. Offered a chance to walk away, if they would plead guilty, they refused, went to trial and were convicted. At their sentencing on March 5, the Souzas, who have never spent a day apart from one another, each face a possible life sentence. ABC's movie faithfully reflects all those theories -- and the mindset -- that persuaded a judge to convict the couple on the basis of charges originating entirely in their troubled daughter's dream. In the movie, a pregnant, happily married (so she thinks) Veronica (Joanna Kerns) begins eating compulsively. (Yes. People who can't stop gorging may now consider themselves likely incest survivors.) Veronica's sister Becky has trouble with "relationships." When Veronica's baby is born, the child refuses to nurse. In due time Veronica and Becky are summoning buried memories of their molestation by their father (George Grizzard) -- a banker and pillar of the community. This dark family saga ends, movie style, on a note of triumph, with the pillar of the community disgraced. This comes only after the two sisters have exchanged endless data from their respective flashbacks and trances. We leave this happy family of yuppie siblings to go on with their newly promising lives, now possible, just as the book says, because they have uncovered their repressed memories. All is now magically well with the baby too, who, as we are shown, can now happily suckle his mother's breast. In the world of fiction all is well. Not so in the real world of Massachusetts, where the justice system is about to send two people to jail because their daughter had a dream. Source: The Wall Street Journal. " 1993 Dow Jones & Company, Inc., February 22, 1993 ======================================================================== The Effects of Divorce on Children By David K. Garrod, Ph.D. Before 1965 about one child in nine experienced the divorce of his/her parents before reaching age eighteen. By 1980 this figure had increased to one in three. (1) Currently more than one million children are newly affected by this situation each year. More than 30% of white children and almost 50% of black children spend part of their formative years in single parent families. (2) In Indiana more than 90% of post divorce children live with their mothers and only about half of these children see their fathers even as often as once a year. This has significant but different effects on male and female children depending not only on their gender but also on their developmental age at the time of the divorce. Until recently researchers have considered parental divorce to have a more detrimental effect on male children. (3) The reason for this was that in more than 90% of cases the mother became the custodial parent and a fatherless family caused a boy`s loss of both masculine interests and masculine self-concept. (4) Through identification and role modeling, fathers have been shown to play a key role in the development of a boy's masculinity. Researchers believe that boys need a firm, positive identification with their fathers to develop internalized controls over their behavior. The lack of a proper father role model leads to aggressive, combative boys who resist their mothers' and teachers' authority, (4) and to boys that tend to perform less well scholastically than those having a good father role model. Most early studies found a lessor effect of divorce on female children than on boys. Most recent studies, however, have shown that this was because latent effects can hang around for years, only showing up in post-adolescent young women. (5,6) Here researchers found significant feelings of diminished self-worth, especially in regard to their femininity -- a long term consequence of their parent's divorce arising from a lack of being able to compare and contrast mother and father role models in what usually is a mother-only family. More recent studies have been able to contrast the effects on children in not only sole custody situations, but also in joint legal and joint physical custody situations. It has been found that joint physical and joint legal custody children had significantly fewer emotional behavior problems than did sole custody subjects; (7) although more important than actual custody is the physical presence of both parents in the life of their children. (8) Many researchers have shown, time and time again, that joint custody leads to fewer problems with visitation and that good visitation habits not only lead to fewer psychological problems for the children and better academic performance, but also, that mothers with joint physical custody were more satisfied with custody arrangements than sole custody mothers. (9,10) Further, fathers with joint legal custody who have been ordered to pay child support have also been shown to have the best record of child support compliance (over 95%). (11) It is the belief of the Indiana Council for Children`s Rights that, absent such constraints as child abuse indicating a necessity for sole custody, it is always in the best interests of any minor child to be in the joint custody, both legal and physical, of both parents. There is no doubt that joint custody yields two psychological parents and that the children do not suffer the profound sense of loss characteristic of so many children of divorce. (12) Joint custody has been shown to be beneficial in three major areas. First, the children receive a clear message that they are loved and wanted by both parents. Second, the children have a sense of importance in their family and the knowledge their parents are making an effort to jointly care for them, both factors of which are important to their self-esteem. Third, the children have physical access to both parents, and the psychological permission to love and be with both parents. This protects them from the crippling loyalty conflicts often seen in children who are caught in the crossfire of their parents' ongoing battles. (At the time of writing the author was executive director of the Indiana Council for Children's Rights.) (1) F. Furstenberg et al. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48, 656 (1983) (2) P. Glick. J. Social Issues, 35, 170 (1979) (3) E. Hetherington, Am. Psychol. 34, 851 (1979) (4) H. Biller, The Role of the Father in Child Development, J. Wiley (1981) (5) M. Zaslow, Am. J. Orthopsychiat. 58, 335 (1988) & 59, 118 (1989) (6) N. Kalter et al. J. Am. Acad. Child Psychiat. 24, 545 (1985) (7) J. Kelly, J. Family Psychol. 2, 119 (1988) (8) J. Pearson & N. Thoennes, Am. J. Orthopsychiat. 60, 233 (1990) (9) L. Bisnaire et al. J. Orthopsychiat. 60, 67 (1990) (10) S. Steinman, 16 U.D.C. Law Review 743 (1983) (11) J. Pearson & N. Thoennes, The Judges Journal, Winter 1986 (12) A. Arbarbanel. Am. J. Orthopsychiat. 49, 328 (1979) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "A court order for child support is largely dependent on the sex of the payer. When fathers received sole custody, the mother was not ordered to pay support 54% of the time." - Family Advocate, Winter 1993, "Factors Related to Men's Award of Custody" by Wendy Reibolt and Sharon Seiling ======================================================================== Responsibility for Half.... By Jan Lambert, University of Idaho Surely it has been my experience (and the experiences of close friends of mine) that "shared 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 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 [crap], too." We prefer 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. Source: USENET, alt.child-support, February 24, 1993 ======================================================================== My Story By Tracy Crocker I am a full supporter of dad's rights. Wasn't always so. Following my separation from my husband, I was terrified when he mentioned wanting custody of the children. In fact, it sounded to me as if he was saying, "I'm going to TAKE the children away from you." No mother in her right mind is going to sit still for that, right? I had to sort out ego issues from the REAL concerns here. Fact: My ex-husband makes FAR more money than I do. Fact: He has a stable job, has far more stability in all areas of his life at this moment than I do. He can provide for his children. But better than I can? That was the hard one to get around. As I said, ego issues dominated in this highly emotional area. I couldn't imagine being a non-custodial parent, giving my children up. Neither could I let HIM have the kids, let HIM win. I had to get over that. The children are the important part of this decision ... the children and what is truly best for them. Keeping them with me full-time, even with the assistance of a generous monthly child support check, is no substitute for the time and focus away from them. I am necessarily trying to pull my own self, my own life together these days. And my ex-husband is able to give more to the kids, more in terms of time as well as material things. We have shared custody at the moment. His work schedule has been arranged so that he can be at home with the children half the week. While he is working, the kids are with me. Sadly, the days spent with me are the most dreaded part of their week (they look on it as a prison sentence sometimes). It's nothing personal. It's not that the kids dislike me. I have to work long hours and when I finally get home at night I'm not always the most pleasant or attentive parent around. We spend a lot of our time rushing from place to place, perpetually behind in the schedule. Time spent with dad is time spent going places, doing things, or just hanging around the house. At any rate I wholeheartedly support any father who wants to do for his kids as my ex-husband has. Source: USENET, alt.dads-rights, February 27, 1993 ======================================================================== Facts and Figures These numbers apply to sole custody parents in Franklin County: * Single Fathers, 1980: 3040 * Single Mothers, 1980: 24,140 * Single Fathers, 1990: 4783 * Single Mothers, 1990: 28,219 * Children living with single fathers in 1990: 7,517 * Children living with single mothers in 1990: 48,571 * Single Fathers' average income: $25,585 * Single Mothers' average income: $13,720 * Percentage of single mothers who receive child support: 90% * Percentage of single fathers who receive child support: 44% * Single mothers' average weekly child-support income: $65.62 * Single fathers' average weekly child-support income: $36.63 The sources of these data are the US 1980 and 1990 censuses and a 1991 Ohio State University child-custody study. Source: The Columbus Dispatch, March 7, 1993 ======================================================================== Man Still Prisoner of Love A man jailed 30 years for refusing his wife a divorce is standing firm despite promises of gilt-edged freedom, an Israeli newspaper reported. Yahiya Avraham, 80, withstood pleas from seven rabbis for two hours, the Yedioth Ahronoth reported. "Can't do it, can't do it, go away," the Yedioth quoted Avraham as saying. According to Jewish law, both parties must agree to a divorce. The law provides imprisonment as a last-resort pressure tactic. Yedioth said Avraham's 30 years in jail is a record for divorce recalcitrance. Shula Meiri, a prison service spokeswoman, confirmed yesterday that Avraham remained in jail after 30 years in the divorce case. She said that because of his age he was kept in the hospital of Ayalon Prison in Tel Aviv. Ora Avraham, 54, first applied for divorce after 12 years of marriage. "His behavior was abhorrent," she said. "He treated me like chattel." The Avrahams were married in Yemen when she was 12 and he was 28. Mrs. Avraham told Yedioth she bore her husband two daughters but he berated and abused her for not bearing sons. When Mrs. Avraham left her husband at age 24, they were living in Israel, which leaves issues of marriage to the rabbinate. Her husband consistently refused a divorce, and was imprisoned in 1962. The seven rabbis promised Avraham freedom, a fancy apartment and religious blessings. One of the clergymen sang songs to try often to soften the man's heart. All to no avail. "I haven't seen his ugly puss since 1967," Mrs. Avraham told Yedioth, "and I hope to never see him again." Source: AP Wire Story, February, 1993 ======================================================================== [Comment: The December issue of this Newsletter contained a story titled, "Injured Parties" that described a custody battle in Texas involving false allegations of sexual abuse. The name of the father who was exonerated of all allegations and awarded sole custody was George Paouris. This next article is a follow-up to that story....] Man Accused of Sex Abuse of Daughter Killed; Ex-wife Held A woman who lost a bitter child-custody battle to her ex-husband whom she had accused of sexually abusing their daughter was jailed Thursday in the man's slaying. Authorities said Delores Lopez Markee, 30, was arrested on a charge of murder and was jailed in lieu of $250,000 bond. Sheriff's department investigators said George Paouris, 32, was gunned down by at least four bullets from a 9mm pistol at 4:49 p.m. CST Wednesday in front of his home. Capt. Kenneth Bilhartz said Markee went to Paouris' home and the two were on the front porch when shots rang out. Bilhartz said that Markee sat in her vehicle until police arrived and appeared "very passive," declining to give a statement. Paouris and Markee both had remarried. District Judge Carleton Spears awarded Paouris custody of the couple's 4-year-old daughter last July after six days of testimony. Statements by expert witnesses who supported Paouris were enough to convince the judge that the sexual abuse allegations involving his daughter were unfounded. Markee had visitation rights, and at the time of the slaying the daughter was with Markee's new husband at their home. Bilhartz said the child was placed in the custody of her mother's attorney after the shooting. Source: UPI, January 7, 1993 [Note the tone and title of the UPI article. Also note who the child was placed with after the murder.] ======================================================================== Private Collectors Put Squeeze on Deadbeat Dads Lori Thompson, 30, of suburban Altadena turned to a private attorney to get the child support payments owed her after losing faith in the unsuccessful efforts of the Los Angeles County district Attorney's Office. "I decided that it's either get part of it or none of it," said Thompson, who won back support and attorney's fees after going to court several times a year to collect from her ex-husband. Her's is just one of the 450,000 uncollected child support cases reported in Los Angeles County. That represents a 50 percent jump in the district attorney's office caseload in the past 18 months -- an increase officials attribute to the poor economy. With parents owing Los Angeles County children as much as $1 billion, collection agents and private attorneys increasingly are venturing into an area once served only by government agencies. "The private sector can do things faster, better, and cheaper than the government," said Michael Weinstein, owner of Find Dad, Inc., a Virginia-based firm that began marketing its services in the Los Angeles area about a month ago. Find Dad takes a 27 percent cut of collections it recovers and 37.5 percent if the case goes to court. "We have a profit motive -- unless we recover money from the parents, we won't survive," Weinstein said. "I saw a business opportunity, and it's the most socially relevant cause I could see." Los Angeles County has more unpaid child support cases than 38 states, according to Wayne Doss, director of the district attorney's Bureau of Child Support Operations. "In an average month, I'd say that no more than 20 percent of the cases make a payment," Doss said. "A lot of parents find it easier to avoid these obligations than to live up to them." Statewide, at least 60 percent of child-support orders go unpaid, and in Los Angeles County 64.3 percent of the orders go uncollected, according to Children Now, a statewide, non-profit advocacy and research group. District Attorney Gil Garcetti, who took office in December, pledged to improve the county's record at capturing unpaid child support and help keep single parents and their children out of poverty. A $16 million automated child support enforcement system, scheduled for implementation in the fall, is expected to improve and speed up searches for delinquent parents. The system will link the district attorney's office to the data bases compiled by state agencies, including the California Department of Motor Vehicles, the state Franchise Tax Board, and the state Employment Development Department, Garcetti said. In January, the Department of Motor Vehicles began collecting Social Security numbers from drivers seeking license renewals in an effort to help investigators track delinquent parents. Source: San Jose Mercury News, March 7, 1993 ======================================================================== In Regards to Child Abuse By Bob Kirkpatrick, Guardian ad Litem According to the Washington State Department and Social Health Services, The US Department of Health and Human Services, and the US Census Bureau, 85% of all child abuse is perpetrated by women, and of that 85%, 63% (approx) are single mothers. (The figures from these 3 sources was averaged to get these numbers.) In my personal experience as a Guardian ad Litem for the Washington Superior Court, every single prosecution of dependency I've been assigned to had the mother as primary perpetrator. ======================================================================== Boy, 17, Ordered to Pay Support TOPEKA, Kan. -- A 17-year-old boy was ordered to pay child support to a baby sitter he impregnated when he was 13 and she was 17, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday. The court rejected Shane Seyer's appeal that he was legally unable to consent to sex because he was younger than 16. It ordered him to pay child support to Colleen Hermesmann for her 3-year-old child, Colleen. "We conclude that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity," the court said. Source: _Eau Claire (WI) Reader-Telegram_, March 3, 1993 ======================================================================== A Generation at Risk By H.W. (Sonny) Burmeister, affiliated with CRC in Georgia [The following is a series of excerpts from an article:] Today in the United States, we have over twenty million children living in single-parent households. That equates to about 1 in every 3 children. * * * Our country is today concerned about the economic deficit in this nation. But there is a more critical deficit occurring, and that is a nurturing deficit for our children. Our children today are suffering from a deficit of love, a deficit of nurturing, a deficit of parental involvement. Our children are growing up ALONE and as the least raised generation EVER. Our children suffer from a deficit of adult involvement, and our social system promotes this craziness. What are the results? THEY ARE TRULY A GENERATION AT RISK! * 90% of all homeless and runaway children come from single parent households. * 85% of all youths incarcerated in our juvenile jails are from single parent or sole custody households. * 75% of adolescent patients at chemical abuse centers are from single parent or sole custody households. * 71% of all high school dropouts are from single parent or sole custody households. * 63% of youth suicides are single parent children. In fact, the one common denominator that the vast majority of all "at-risk" children share is the fact that they are or were raised in a single-parent household. * * * A study in Pennsylvania found that children from poor, intact, two-parent families achieved academically better than well-to-do children from single-parent families. The solution is NOT money. The solution is a systematic approach of prevention to the destruction of families and relationships. The destruction of a child's supporting network of adults with both parents and both parents' families is an AMERICAN TRAGEDY. ======================================================================== "In my experience, the usual modus operandi is to demand special protection in as loud a voice as possible. Then, when special protection is given, turn the volume up to 11 and complain that it is patronizing. It's a fun game, and it works over and over again." - Eric Pepke ======================================================================== Going to Jail Mark Durbin, 36, remained free from jail today [January 5, 1993] after a hearing before Commissioner Harry Slusher in King County Family Court in Seattle WA. Slusher jailed Durbin for 17 months over child support and then released him on November 24, 1992 on condition that he appear on this date with proof of having paid 50% of his net earnings toward support AND with written proof of having applied for at least one job per day since November 24. Durbin appeared without having fulfilled these conditions of Slusher's November 24 order and stated in court that he had not applied for even one job. Durbin has maintained the position (all along) that he would support his children directly under a shared custody arrangement and would remain in jail to make a point about how fathers are treated in divorce court. Durbin has filed an action in federal district in which Slusher is the defendant. Slusher removed himself from the case today and set a review hearing before Commissioner Katherine Hershey on March 1, 1993. If you or anyone would like to write or support Mark Durbin, you can send mail to: Fathers Rights Consulting and Research Political Prisoner Department PO Box 55443 Seattle WA, 98155-0433 Source: _The Liberator_, January 5, 1993 ======================================================================== The Divorce Industry By Jack Quinn Have you ever considered how many people may have a better standard of living due to the huge number of divorces in recent years? Let's list a few: * Divorce Attorneys * Attorneys to handle the growth of domestic violence charges, physical abuse charges, and child sexual abuse charges * Bankruptcy attorneys to represent those who went broke as a result of a divorce * Accountants to help the bankruptcy attorneys * Attorneys who are appointed Guardians ad Litem * Psychologists appointed by the court to determine who is a fit parent * Psychologists hired by parents to overcome testimony of those psychologists appointed by the court * Psychiatrists for the same purpose * Mediators to work out custodial and financial settlements * Physicians who do examinations to determine if abuse occurred * Forensic psychologists to determine if a parent is capable of committing abuse * Medical personnel and lab technicians to do tests to determine paternity * Others specialists such as educators and researchers to testify about schooling * Additional social workers to interview parents and check out living conditions * Police investigators to check into the allegations of abuse * Private investigators to get the dirt on the other parent * Additional Process Servers * Additional Police to locate deadbeat parents * Child support enforcement workers * Additional children services employees to handle all the abuse allegations * Additional legislative personnel to handle the paperwork of domestic relations bills and hearings * Additional human services employees to coordinate other department workers * Economists to work out support guidelines * Additional printers for all the additional paperwork * Copying machine salesmen * Additional court stenographers * Additional guards and security devices at court * Additional bailiffs at the court * Additional referees * Additional judges I'm sure I missed a few. My apologies to anyone I've left out. ======================================================================== 7th National Conference, Children's Rights Council April 28 -- May 2, 1993, Holiday Inn, Bethesda, Maryland Wednesday evening, April 28 Board Meeting and reception. Thursday, April 29 Capital Hill Symposium; Long distance parenting; David Brenner (Benefit performance ($25 extra)) Friday, April 30 Awards ceremony; Nancy Thoennes; Center for Policy Research; New Clinton Administration; Nicholas Zill will discuss Census Bureau data; Books and Author luncheon, including Geoffrey Grief and Claire Berman; Wine and cheese reception; Candlelight Vigil Saturday, May 1 Workshops on various family issues; Richard Warshak, author of _The Custody Revolution_; Robert Williams, Policy Studies Inc.; Richard Gardner, M.D., working on child abuse reporting changes; Hugh McIsaac, (Los Angeles) family court services; Banquet Sunday, May 2 Child Support Symposium; How to form a CRC chapter; Closing ceremony The conference room rate at Holiday Inn is $73/night. (Holiday Inn phone 1-800 638-5954) Registration Costs: non-CRC member CRC member registration fee Before 3/15 $115 $150 After 3/15 $125 $160 Further information from: Heather Campbell Conference Coordinator 220 I Street, NE, Ste 230 Washington, DC 20002-4362 (202) 547-6227 ======================================================================== New Texas Law The following is an excerpt of the new law in Texas: "When the court has ordered child support or possession of or access to a child and it is claimed that the order has been violated, the person claiming that a violation has occurred shall make this known to the court. The court may appoint a member of the bar to investigate the claim to determine whether there is reason to believe that the court order has been violated. If the attorney in good faith believes that the order has been violated, the attorney shall take the necessary action as provided under Chapter 14 of the Family Code. On a finding of a violation, the court may enforce its order as provided in Chapter 14. "Except by order of the court, no fee shall be charged by or paid to the attorney representing the claimant. If the court determines that an attorney, the fee shall be adjudged against the party who violated the court's order. The fee may be assessed as costs of court, or awarded by judgment, or both." [Comment to change: This law was rewritten from a previous law and was designed to broaden its application to cover problems dealing with possession and access to a child as well as support.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "A man never stands so tall as when he leans over to help a child." - Abraham Lincoln ======================================================================== The FACE Newsletter Staff Jack Quinn Research, Contributing Editor Aaron Hoffmeyer Research, Typesetting, Contributing Editor Paul Bokros Research, Contributing Editor, Mailing List The FACE Officers Mike Driscoll President Doug Morrissey Mike Hamill Vice-Presidents John McKinley Treasurer R.W. Fowler Secretary The Fathers and Children for Equality Foundation is supported by the Ohio United Way. (c) 1993. All copyrights are implied and applicable. F.A.C.E. P.O. Box 18022 Columbus, Ohio 43218 (614) 275-6767 Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM P.S. Distribute at will, as always. From soc.men Sat Mar 20 19:30:40 1993 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:2749 soc.men:63659 soc.women:66459 misc.legal:55883 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal Path: utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Extraordinary Case - Child Sexual Abuse Allegations Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 03:41:29 GMT Message-ID: Lines: 302 >From: Bob Hirschfeld The following is a Minute Entry Decision in an extraordinary Tucson, AZ Custody Modification case involving chronic false allegations of sexual molestation. The father was represented by Robert Hirschfeld of Phoenix; the mother by Southern Arizona Legal Aid. Jane B. left her husband, Michael F. (who continues to be a domicile of New Mexico, although now a temporary resident of Tucson, AZ), nearly six years ago, while pregnant with their son, Jesse F. (Although names of Doctors, Expert Witnesses and other details are intact, the last names of the parties and child have been omitted. The entire public proceedings including the full minute entry are in the Public Record in Pima County, AZ, Superior Court). Jane B. began her incessant campaign of false accusations of sexual molestation almost immediately; continuing through the present, they include approximately sixteen reports to Child Protective Services and other authorities, each of which except the last having been determined to be unfounded. Jane B. secured a Tucson Court order requiring 100 percent supervision of Michael F's visitation whenever he visited Jesse. She picked the child up from the fully supervised visitation of October 6, 1991 and took Jesse to a hospital emergency room, once again alleging rectal penetration. Although there was no physical evidence of penetration, the Tucson Police Crime lab did find human semen on the swab taken from Jesse's rectum. Since there was no way the semen could have come from the father because of the supervision, the litigative theory in trying to take custody away from Jane B. was that she had herself inserted a quantity of semen of unknown source, contained in what she told the child was "ointment", probably on the way to the emergency room. DNA testing of the anal swab failed to produce any results, because the swab had been improperly preserved in the Crime Lab's freezer. Throughout the protracted subsequent litigation, the child while continuing to live with the mother continued to come up with fresh, physically impossible claims of sexual molestation, even though the father's visitation continued to be 100 percent supervised. On the advice of the court appointed psychologist, Dr. McReynolds, Judge Velasco ordered the child taken from Jane B. and placed in foster care, where, without the mother's unsupervised influence, the child's false allegation statements stopped. The trial was held in 8 days, spread over three weeks, when the child had been in foster care about five months. The "rest of the story" is best told by Judge Velasco's minute entry: PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, TUCSON ARIZONA; HON. BERNARDO VELASCO M I N U T E E N T R Y UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING AFTER 8 DAYS OF TRIAL: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The parties were divorced in New Mexico on June 23, 1988. 2. Petitioner, Jane G.B. aka F., is the natural mother, and Respondent, Michael F., is the natural father of Jesse F. aka B., dob 7/2/86. 3. On October 17, 1991, Respondent filed a Motion to Modify the current custodial arrangements to grant him sole custody with supervised rights of visitation for Petitioner. 4. From the date of dissolution until August 22, 1992, Jesse F. resided with Petitioner (Jane B.) and his half-sister, Oriana B., in Tucson, Arizona. Respondent (Michael F.) continued to reside in New Mexico exercising his rights of visitation. 5. On August 22, 1992, Petitioner, pursuant to the recommendation of this Court, voluntarily placed Jesse in foster care through the Department of Economic Security/Child Protective Services. Jesse has remained in foster care until February 20, 1993. 6. From the date of dissolution until the summer of 1990 there was no evidence of denial or interference by Petitioner with Respondent's rights to visitation. 7. In July, 1990, Petitioner (through counsel), filed a Motion to Modify the New Mexico Divorce Decree in an attempt to require supervised visitation. 8. Subsequent to the court hearing in New Mexico on Petitioner's Motion for Modification, Respondent again began regularly exercising his rights to visitation until Petitioner obtained an order from the Pima County Superior Court requiring supervised visitation in September, 1991. 9. There is evidence that on occasion Petitioner interfered with Respondent's telephonic visitation rights by making derogatory statements to Respondent in the presence of the minor child. These statements were improper and had an adverse impact on the child's relationship with his father. 10. In July, 1989 Jesse F. allegedly told Petitioner that his Respondent "poked him." Jesse repeated this statement to his pediatrician, Dr. Tamsen Bassford. Subsequently, Petitioner reported the statements to the Child Protective Services and took the child to counseling at the Southern Arizona Mental Health Center. 11. Periodically, throughout the next two years, Jesse continued to make ambiguous statements concerning possible sexual abuse by Respondent to Petitioner who continued to make reports to Child Protective Services. Jesse also continued to make such ambiguous statements to independent professionals, who pursuant to statutory requirements, reported the "statements" to Child Protective Services. 12. Petitioner, Jane G. B. aka F., has repeatedly accused Respondent, Michael F., of sexually molesting Jesse F. aka B. Those accusations are unsupported by any physical evidence. 13. As a result of one of Respondent's allegations of sexual molestation, the Hon. Laurel B. Sammons on October 4, 1991, ordered that Michael F.'s visitation with Jesse F. aka B. be supervised. 14. Respondent, Michael F., exercised supervised visitation on October 4th, 5th and 6th, 1991. Respondent was never alone with Jesse F. during said visitation. 15. Following pickup of the child by Jane G.B. at St. Joseph's Hospital on October 6, 1991, Ms. B. transported Jesse to University Medical Center in Tucson, and requested that he be examined for alleged sexual penetration by his father. Ms. B. has under oath on various occasions given at least three different, conflicting versions of the transport of Jesse and her claims that Jesse "requested to be taken to the hospital." 16. The examination of Jesse at University Medical Center on October 6, 1991, produced no evidence of physical penetration of the child's rectum. However, a "rape kit" consisting of swabs from the child's ears, nose, mouth and rectum was collected and transmitted to the Tucson Police Crime Laboratory for Analysis. 17. The expert evaluator from the Tucson Police Crime Laboratory testified that he was certain that he had identified human semen on the swab from the interior of the child's rectum. Said testimony has never been controverted, and the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that semen was found on October 6, 1991 in Jesse's rectum. 18. Records of the Tucson Police Department transmitted to Dr. Rebecca McReynolds indicate that Jesse told a police interviewer contemporaneously with the Hospital evaluation, that his mother, Jane G. B., had "put ointment in his butt." Jesse later recanted that statement. 19. Further, that Jane B. is likely, if she were to retain custody or have unsupervised visitation, to persist in taking Jesse to various medical or mental health professionals in pursuit of her persistent, unfounded claims of molestation. Such further acts would seriously endanger the child's emotional or mental health. 20. The child, Jesse F., has a history of making unprovable accusations against his father, Michael F. It is extremely detrimental emotionally to have a child believing that he has to take sides to the point where he would relate to authorities a sexual abuse charge which is subsequently recanted. The Court has not determined the extent, to which the Mother may have actively caused Jesse F. to make up the stories. It is possible that Jane G.B. indirectly caused the allegations through her attitude and the pressure she placed upon Jesse. It is clear, however, that the child was subjected, in his Mother's custody, to an emotionally unhealthy situation which, if custody were unaltered, would persist. 31. The evidence suggests that Jesse F. loves both of his parents and wishes to maintain a continuing relationship with both. 32. Since July, 1988, Respondent has acted on his hostility toward Petitioner by tape recording virtually every encounter and phone conversation with her in an effort to discredit her and gain evidence to modify the New Mexico Decree. 33. Respondent has improperly interrogated Jesse about his mother and his sister and tape recorded conversations with Jesse despite the child's protestations. 34. Despite concerns expressed by the experts in this case Respondent has continued to tape record phone call conversations with Jesse and others as late as February, 1993. 35. Since Jesse's placement in foster care, Petitioner and Respondent have undergone individual counseling to deal with the emotional trauma of separation from Jesse and the underlying reasons for that separation and to more fully understand each parent's role and responsibilities in providing for Jesse's needs. Respondent has made the most progress towards resolving his personal issues, their effect upon Jesse, and has demonstrated an ability to cooperate with mental health care professionals for the sake of Jesse F. 36. Jane G. B. has denied visitation to the Father, Michael F. knowingly, intentionally and purposefully. An important factor in determining custody under ARS 25-332(A)(6) is "Which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and meaningful contact with the non-custodial parent." The Court finds that Jane G.B. has been intent on denying Michael F. visitation, and is likely to again violate or circumvent Court Orders, if permitted to retain custody, in furtherance of her apparent intent that the Father's visitation not occur. Respondent, Michael F., as sole custodian, is more likely to allow the Mother visitation and significant contact than was allowed by the Mother in the past, or would be by her in the future. Further, Respondent/Father is more likely than Petitioner to permit Jesse to have ongoing relationships with his extended family, including the Paternal Grandmother, Mrs. F. 37. The Court finds the analysis and recommendations by Dr. Rebecca McReynolds and Dr. Michael German to be persuasive and credible. 38. For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Jane B. is not a fit and proper person to have custody of Jesse F., and further, that unsupervised access between Jane B. and Jesse F. would seriously endanger the child's mental and emotional health. 39. Both parties have been diagnosed as having mental health problems. Although these problems impair their parenting abilities, they do not preclude them from exercising adequate parenting skills. 40. Each of Jesse's parents desires sole custody. 41. Jesse F. has been in counseling with Dr. Michael German. Jesse has established a good relationship with Dr. German and is comfortable in talking to him. 42. The existence of Jesse's relationship with Dr. German should make it possible for Jesse to discuss with him any abuse or manipulation by either parent. 43. The best interests of the child, Jesse F., are served by his continued presence in the State of Arizona where he has access to Dr. Michael German. IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE COURT AS FOLLOWS: 1. Michael F. is awarded custody of Jesse F. subject to the following conditions: a) Jesse F. remain in the State of Arizona for a period of not less than one year from February 19, 1993. b) Michael F. continue in personal counseling. c) Jesse F. remain in counseling with Dr. Michael German and these sessions shall occur on a once a week basis and after an overnight visitation with his mother. 2. The mother, Jane B., is awarded visitation pursuant to the Pima County Guidelines as it has been currently exercised through the voluntary placement of Jesse in the foster home. The mother's visitation shall be supervised until June 1, 1993; thereafter, it will be unsupervised and subject to Jesse F. seeing Dr. Michael German after overnight weekend visitations with his mother. a) The mother's supervised visitation may be conducted by third parties approved of by Dr. German. b) No supervision of telephone calls is ordered; nor is Respondent to monitor those calls. 3. Jesse F. remain in Hudlow Elementary School until completion of this school year. 4. Michael F., as the custodial parent, place Jesse in voluntary supervision of Child Protective Services to insure the payment of Dr. Michael German, and any other financial arrangements previously provided by Child Protective Services, and to insure that the custodial parent, Michael F., receive parental aid services through Child Protective Services. 5. Jane B. remain in personal counseling but that it be directed towards herself rather than dealing with "the problem child." 6. Michael F. may assume custody of Jesse F. on Saturday, February 20, 1993. 7. In the event that Michael F. seeks to reside somewhere other than Tucson, Arizona, custody shall transfer to Jane B. In order for Michael F. to remove the child from Tucson, Arizona, he must have prior approval of the Court. 8. Petitioner shall pay Respondent, as and for child support, the sum of $50.00 per month. HON. BERNARDO P. VELASCO PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Sat Mar 20 19:36:21 1993 Xref: utcsri alt.dads-rights:2750 soc.men:63662 soc.women:66461 misc.legal:55884 Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal Path: utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Another Extraordinary Case Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 04:55:39 GMT Message-ID: Lines: 141 In the case of James W., Columbus, Ohio. The following is a summarization (written by me) of a case involving a man living in Columbus, Ohio who came to me about seven months ago asking for help. Last June his wife, who had been trying to get him to move out of his house (a house he owned before they met), and relinquish custody of their daughter, in an amicable disolution, her mother and his daughter went on vacation without him for a week on the east coast. When they returned from their vacation, they took the daughter to the family doctor and told the doctor they felt, because of statements the child made while on vacation, that the daughter had been sexually abused by the father. The doctor originally did NOT confirm any indication of sexual abuse. The father had NO knowledge at the time of the mother taking the child to this doctor. In the next week, the mother took the child to Children's Services. Children's Services talked to the girl and after 5:00 pm, took the girl to Children's Hospital where the child was examined by another doctor who stated that the opening in the girl's hymen was 3mm x 7mm -- without measuring. Abuse was not substantiated, according to the written report--the section to fill out for substantiation was NOT FILLED OUT. The report states that the size of the opening of the hymen is large and that the doctor was concerned. The size of the opening for a three-year-old girl, according to their charts, was supposed to be 3mm x 5mm. Never mind that this girl is big for her age. The police investigated this case and found little or no evidence and did NOT pursue a criminal case. The mother made statements over a period of months that this little three-year-old girl had peed her pants several times that summer -- something she, and the social workers and doctors in this case, thought was an indication that she had been sexually abused. At first this mother made statements that she believed the father had put "his thing" inside the little girl. She later changed that to "his toy." Still later she changed her story to "a crayon." (Look at a ruler and see of a crayon will fit through an opening that is 3mm x 7mm.) Children's Services filed for a no-contact order and for termination of parental rights after the doctor performed the examination at Children's, using the report of the examination as a part of that filing. The father was thrown out of his house, and was restrained from taking his own money out of his account. No provision was made for him to see his daughter until several months later. Soon thereafter, the mother filed for divorce. The mother and Children's Services subsequently sent that report to two more doctors who wrote up reports substantiating sexual abuse based on the physical examination performed at Children's Hospital. Neither of these doctors ever saw the alleged victim. The father was eventually granted supervised visitation, one hour per week, at Children's Services, in the presence of a social worker. After months of virtually nothing happening in this case, the father asked me for help. I directed him to a good trial attorney and to national experts in this phenomenon. The attorney handed the case off to one of his associates. The father took a lie-detector test at the behest of his attorney--before he talked to me about it. The results were NOT good for him. The attorney seemed to lose faith in this man's innocence. Over a period of several months, nothing much happened in this case, despite numerous hearings in both the juvenile and domestic relations courts. Through persistent education of his attorney about false allegations of child sexual abuse made as part of divorce custody and visitation disputes, the attorney slowly started to come around. After several months, the attorney was keyed on defending this client. About that time, a second Guardian Ad Litem was appointed by the court. The first GAL had been selected by the juvenile court and wanted the father's right terminated with a permanent no-contact order. The new GAL offered a compromise solution. The gist of the compromise was that the mother would be sole custodial parent and that the father would have indefinite supervised visitation, but the juvenile action against him would be stopped. The father, who had stashed a substantial amount of money away in the bank just months before this whole thing started, refused the offer at my encouragement. The father contacted national experts of false allegations of child sexual abuse, and retained Dr. Gordon Blush and Karol Ross to examine the records , possibly examine the child, and testify in this case. He also had a gynecologist ready to testify on hymenal openings. The case was pushed to trial in Juvenile Court last week. The prosecution over a period of four days called several doctors, social workers and the mother and grandmother of the little girl to the stand. The director of the child abuse examination program at Children's Hospital told the litigants that he had fired the doctor who wrote the original report, one of two doctors who had examined this child. The family doctor, who had originally examined the child, testified that he now believed the child had been abused, and, through tough examination, admitted he knew little about how to examine a child for signs of abuse, and had "stuck his little finger" up inside her to measure the hole. His testimony also asserted that he believed, based on this examination, that the child's hymenal ring opening was "5mm." The doctors whose written verifications of what they believed was a report of substantiation by the doctor at Children's Hospital were not called. When the mother testified in court, she was "obviously" pregnant. Apparently the father of the unborn child is a married man (not the father of the first child). After four solid days of the prosecution presenting their case (at times the prosecution consisted of two attorneys for the state, the GAL and the attorney of the mother (and even the referee)), the referee in the case, who had backed the prosecution on most points during the trial, and thwarted the efforts of the defense, dismissed the case (Thursday, March 19, 1993). The prosecution had not revealed evidence that the child had been abused (after four days and piles of taxpayer money). The defendent was given no opportunity to call any witnesses to testify on his behalf. The court has yet to write up any findings of fact. The defendent spent over $12,000 on his legal counsel for this case, and retained experts paying over $7000. All legal fees for the prosecution were paid by the taxpayers, hit-men for the mother at our expense. After the dismissal, the defense approached the GAL and asked that something be set up ASAP for the defendent to start getting visitation. The GAL expressed his belief that such visitation should be in the presence of a witness, or supervisor. The juvenile court has, of yet, made no recommendations for modification of the visitation orders or custody. Obviously, this case goes on. The next hearing is scheduled in domestic relations court on April 8, 1993. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Fri Apr 2 11:06:44 1993 Newsgroups: soc.men Path: utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Re: Responsibilities and Obligations when a state interferes (was Social Security...) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 09:23:50 GMT Message-ID: References: <3616@tymix.Tymnet.COM> Lines: 73 In article barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes: >In article garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes: >>Do not give me the standard knee-jerk reaction that visitation and >>child support are not linked. I am claiming that logic should imply >>a link. Refute the logic if you wish, but give reasons for so doing. > > The refutation is trivial, David. What you suggest only looks >like equity when the conflict is viewed as parent vs. parent. Using this >limited view, denial of child support is justified revenge for denial of >visitation (or vice-versa). But as soon as you remember the children, >the apparent equity disappears. The child gets hurt twice, by both >denials, and no compensation. > > Kayembee Kenn, you wouldn't have so many detractors if you'd give the whole spiel every time -- both sides. Rather than always taking up for the children who need support, even though every once in a while, out of sense of logical objectivism, you acknowledge that visitation and access should be enforced just as readily as the financial obligation a non-custodial or non-residential parent has to their children, you should state your "entire" stand on the topic. When access is *enforced* and taken seriously, when noncustodial parents and nonresidential parents are deemed equal parents to children by the laws and the courts, then I doubt you'd find very many people, except the true deadbeats who just don't care, who'd have any problem with making sure that the financial obligations to children are met. As things are now, you always seem to be opting for the second worst of three scenarios, even though I know that is not what you believe. Giving the perception that you are opting for this Win-Lose (enforce support but not access), over a Lose-Lose (no support, no access), belies the solution, the real solution. It's called Win-Win (enforce support AND access). All most of us want is what is right, logically, morally. Then, of course, there's Jeff Relf. But I wouldn't doubt for every Jeff Relf, there's an Andrea Di Salvo, doing her damnedest to make some post-divorce dad's life a living hell. I'd even take Relf over Andrea. At least with him you're not having to live with the pain and frustration every single day, day after day, week after week, month after month. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer (Andrea's ex-) TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM P.S. Today is the fifth week anniversary of the last time I saw my children. My children are less than three miles from where I sit right now. I dutifully pay $1350 per month in Child Support. Believe it or not, I have Shared Parenting. Where's the enforcement of my children's rights to have a relationship with their father? What? It's not there? Humm.... Could that be problematic? Or is it optimal? Does Gloria Steinem care about my children's right to see their father? Does Pat Schroeder? Does Bob Dole? Henry Hyde? Al Gore? Bill Clinton? Anyone? What are they doing about it? Kenn, what have YOU done for us lately? Want to do something? Acknowledge the statistics that blatantly verify that "fathers" who have access to their children dutifully pay their child support (I've only posted them about five times in these forums). It is a virtually *FREE* method of ensuring that support is paid. Believe it or not, mothers WILL abide by visitation orders and will NOT do jail time for not complying if they know that the visitation orders will be diligently enforced. The ONLY detractors of ensuring that fathers are involved with their children after a divorce are mothers who are pissed off at their former husbands and want to hurt them. Aren't they also hurting the children? Aren't they wrong? Shouldn't we fix this problem -- completely, not just bake up some half-assed solution? {Don't tread on me with some ol' "sexist" label, y'all just interchange father/mother in the above. It's true both ways.} From soc.men Fri Apr 2 11:10:25 1993 Xref: utcsri soc.men:64397 soc.women:66960 alt.dads-rights:2856 Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights Path: utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: Steinem weighs in on Woody/Mia trial Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 06:30:15 GMT Message-ID: Summary: Behind the Scenes withe famous and the fascinating Lines: 33 People By Keith Greenberg New York -- Feminist *Gloria Steinem* showed up outside the courtroom at the *Woody Allen/Mia Farrow* custody trial Tuesday. "I'm showing concern about child sexual abuse, of which this is kind of typical," she said. Although she wouldn't say which side she supported, she compared the trial to cases in which a father demands custody to blur the abuse allegations against him. "This is a sexual abuse case," Steinem said. She said a city caseworker who investigated charges Allen molested his daughter *Dylan*, 7, had important information and should be heard. Paul Williams was suspended for allegedly leaking information to the press. Allen's lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz, countered that he would "love" to see Williams testify -- "the guy is lying through his teeth." But Steinem said it is common to discount women who allege child sex abuse: "The mother is often turned into the jealous or vindictive woman and is often disbelieved." On the stand Tuesday, therapist Susan Coates said Dylan seemed shy and sad, but she saw no evidence of abuse. Source: USA Today, March 31, 1993 Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM P.S. Yes, but what was Gloria wearing? From soc.men Fri Apr 2 11:11:21 1993 Xref: utcsri soc.men:64408 soc.women:66968 alt.dads-rights:2858 sci.psychology:11596 misc.kids:72137 misc.legal:56521 Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,sci.psychology,misc.kids,misc.legal Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Subject: On False Sexual Abuse Allegations Made During Divorce Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 08:22:14 GMT Message-ID: Lines: 248 From "Personality Characteristics of Parents Making False Accusations of Sexual Abuse In Divorce & Custody Disputes" Symposium on False Accusations of Sexual Abuse in Divorce and Custody Disputes at the 98th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, Massachusetts August 14, 1990 By Drs. Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager page 7. Table 3 Diagnoses of Falsely Accusing Parents, Falsely Accused Parents and Custody Only (Control group) Parents [Based on a study of 181 divorce cases involving allegations of abuse, and in some cases the doctors, HW and RU, had access to one person or one person's information, and comparing that data to a control group of divorcing parents battling for custody who did NOT make allegations of abuse....] Diagnosis Group No Diagnosis Personality Other Warranted Disorder Diagnoses -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accusing 17 (24%) 53 (74%) 2 (3%) N = 72 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accused 72 (70%) 27 (26%) 4 (4%) N = 103 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Custody 44 (66%) 17 (25%) 6 (9%) N = 67 Three-fourths of the accusing parents were given diagnoses of personality disorder while only one-fourth were seen as normal. In comparison, only one-fourth of the individuals in the accused group and the custody control group had personality disorders and most (70% and 66%) were seen as normal. The most frequent personality disorder diagnosis for all three groups was mixed or unspecified. This is a dagnosis given when a person does not meet the criteria for one specific personality disorder. For the accusing parents, 24 of the 53 with personality disorders were given this diagnosis. Within the unspecified personality disorder category, 11 of the 24 persons had histrionic personality features. The other personality disorders for the accusing parents were histrionic (7), dependent (6), borderline (5), passive-aggressive (5), paranoid (5), and explosive (1). For the custody only (control) parents, 8 of the 17 with personality disorders were daignosed as unspecified. The remaining 9 were distributed fairly evenly among other personality disorders. For the falsely accused parents, 11 of the 27 with personality disorders were daignosed as unspecified. The others were passive-dependent (7), passive-aggressive (4), anti-social (2), schizoid (1), compulsive (1), and narcissistic (1). ... page 12 Discussion Falsely accusing parents were much more likely to have a personality disorder, such as histrionic, borderline, passive-aggressive, paranoid or unspecified. Only one-fourth were seen as have no psychopathology. In comparison, most of the individuals in the custody control group and the accused group were assessed as normal. Of the personality disorders in the falsely accusing parents. roughly one-third were histrionic personality of unspecified personality disorder with histrionic features. [They go on and discuss how the MMPI is NOT a good tool for detecting personality disorders in these cases, because the accusing parents' scores reflect such a high degree of defensiveness as to invalidate the scores. Many psychologists use the MMPIs to detect who is lying and who has the problems in these cases, but the unsually high degree of defensive responses "may well reflect something more than a defensive response set. The personality patterns if many of these people include poor insight, rigidity, and a tendendy to deny shortcomings."] ... page 13 Could the stress of becoming convinced that one's child was being sexually abused in the face of disbelief by the justice system have caused the accusing parents to develop a personality disorder? This is unlikely for several reasons. First, in about one-fourth of the cases, the psychological information was collected before the abuse allegations were made. There were no differences in the proportion of psycholpathology in these cases compared to the ones where the information was obtained afterwards. Second, in almost all the cases, at the point at which the information was gathered the allegations were believed and supported. The accused parent's visitation was terminated or greatly restricted and he was often facing criminal charges. Third, whatever stresses are created by believing one's child is being sexually abused are matched by the stress of being *falsely* accused of child sexual abuse (Schultz, 1989; Underwager, Clauss, & Wakefield, 1990). The information we have from the accused parents is that they often suffered tremendous anxiety and depression as a result of being falsely accused. Fourth, the personality disorder diagnosis indicates a stable, long-lasting and pervasive personality pattern which is unlikely to develop as a result of a stressful situation. Although personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, they are not created by a stressful incident. ... Several of the falsely accusing persons' level of dysfunction was extremely serious, sometimes to the point of losing contact with reality. Some believed they had rare spiritual powers and/or delusions concerning religion. One woman planned on traveling to Rome to marry the Pope; the records of another stated that she had gone to Switzerland to marry Christ. One woman, a psychotherapist, believed that she had exceptional empathic powers that allowed her to sense who among her adult clients had been sexually abused as children. Several were described as being highly unstable and unpredictable, displaying hysterical and bizarre behaviors, and sometimes failing to distinguish between fact and fantasy. The women with histrionic personality diagnoses were described as displaying manipulative, flamboyant, coquettish, or exhibitionistic behavior and being preoccupied with appearance and attractiveness, along with having a tendency to distort events. ... page 14 The falsely accusing parents were sometimes so obsessed with anger towards their stranged spouse that this became a major focus in their lives. Such persons were often described by the evaluators as being oppositional, hostile, negative, and resistant in the evaluation and concern was expressed that the anger towards the former spouse supersedes the needs of the child. One woman made frequent calls to her husband's job, alleging that he was a pervert and a thief and should be fired. She also tried to run down her husband's attorney with her car. Another called our office to tell us that her husband was a deadbeat and would not pay his bill with us. She also accused him of being involved in the Scott County sex ring, an accusation that was simply impossible as the man was out of the country at the time. ... Several women remained obsessed with the suspicion that their former spouse was sexually abusing the child, even after the case was dismissed or judged to be false. Some took their young child for multiple physical and psychological examinations and made repeated accusations of abuse to child protection agencies. A few regularly examined the genitals of the child following visits. Some had been questioning the children about possible sexual abuse for years. A few, when the case was not substantiated, moved to another county and started the accusations all over, continuing this pattern until a child protection worker was found who substantiated the accusation. One woman arranged for a television station to interview her so she could publicly accuse her husband of sexually abusing their child. This included a videotape of the child. Two disappeared with their children after the court ruled that there was no abuse and ordered visitation with the father to be resumed. [They go on and describe the four men in their sample group making false allegations. All four had personality disorders. One had gone through seven attorneys. One had accused the teenage son of his former wife's roommate of sexual abuse and his present wife of abusing their new baby.] ... But the parent making the accusations does not have to be histrionic, paranoid or vindictive. Even normal individuals, in the midst of an angry dispute over custody, may be ready to believe their spouses has sexually abused their children. Some parents may be influenced by the campaigns about child abuse to make false accusations based on misperceptions and false assumptions. They may then take their child to a mental health professional who interviews the child with anatomical dolls and assures them that the abuse is real. They may be told that a physical examination "proves" sexual abuse. A social worker may threaten to place their child in foster care if they don't believe that the abuse really happened. And once an accusation is made, it becomes extremely difficult to retract, even when new evidence is presented. ... What about the men (and women) who were falsely accused of sexually abusing their children? These falsely accused parents appear to be relatively normal persons. Ross and Blush (1990) describe the men they have seen as unremarkable. They may be nurturing and passive and unlikely to be socially aggressive or competitive. Those with personality disorders are likely to be diagnosed as passive-dependent or passive-aggressive. [Their test scores reflected passivity and a lack of insight into their personal relationships.] Some of these men, by virtue of the sensitivity and caring, may be vulnerable to involvement with needy women. Once involved, they may behave somewhat apssively as they continue to hope that all will work out. ... page 17 Conclusions The increasing frequency of accusations of sexual abuse in contested divorce and custody cases means that professionals must be very cautious. It is necessary to remain open and objective, fuard against a presumption of guilt, and resist aligning oneself with the reporting parent's agenda. Unfortunately, some professionals are ready to come to the premature closure with minimal information and leap to the conviction that a child has been abused. Klajner-Diamond, Wehrspann and Steinhauer (1987) say one of the four factors of adult influence suggesting a false accusation is a professional committed prematurely to the truth of the allegation. Blush and Ross (1990) observe that false cases are characterized by a loss of control early on when professionals decide that abuse is real before doing careful investigation. If a mistake is made and a false accusation is judged to be true, two people are hurt -- the child and the accused. The nonabused child has been subjected to a process of interrogation and often to sex abuse therapy that is confusing and potentially iatrogenic. The falsely accused adult is likely to suffer emotional and physical breakdown, family breakdown and financial hardship (Schultz, 1989). His relationship with his child may be irretrievably damaged. ... The personality characteristics of the parties involved when accusations of sexual abuse surface in a bitter divorce and custody battle should be considered in evaluating the allegations. In the absence of corroborating evidence, when the parent making the accusation is disturbed and the accused is psychologically normal, a false accusation should be considered. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Sun Aug 22 15:31:31 1993 Xref: utcsri alt.sex:115522 alt.sex.wizards:6841 alt.feminism:18991 soc.men:73261 Path: utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!att-out!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!testsun2!tr From: tr@testsun2.att.com (Aaron Hoffmeyer) Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.sex.wizards,alt.feminism,soc.men Subject: Re: Asking for rape ?y Message-ID: Date: 18 Aug 93 02:56:03 GMT References: <1993Aug14.021815.3622@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1993Aug16.222547.3471@sco.com> <24pvkc$1t2@jadzia.CSOS.ORST.EDU> Sender: news@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (NetNews Administrator) Distribution: na Organization: AT&T Lines: 25 Nntp-Posting-Host: testsun2.cb.att.com In article <24pvkc$1t2@jadzia.CSOS.ORST.EDU> petersm@CSOS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) writes: >In article <1993Aug16.222547.3471@sco.com>, >Dirty White Boy wrote: >> >>For the rest of you, I am not against women being treated as good as >>any man. That doesn't mean that women have the right to be so sensitive >>that their very actions and reactions create more friction than they >>do solve problems. Furthermore, if the worst thing that ever happens >>to you is that you are referred to as a girl, you lead a charmed life. > >It might be a simple slight to you, *boy*. But it certainly is not >to me! Call me girl and I might just rap you up side the head! > >>Vinnie Jordan vinniej@sco.COM > >Marg Of course, the necessary charges would then be filed. -- Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM Ratio of girls hitting, kicking, slapping boys on grade school playgrounds to boys doing the same to girls: 20:1. From soc.men Sun Aug 22 15:33:36 1993 Xref: utcsri alt.feminism:19014 soc.men:73273 soc.women:74208 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!att-out!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!testsun2!tr From: tr@testsun2.att.com (Aaron Hoffmeyer) Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women Subject: Re: Men vs Women - WORK Message-ID: Date: 18 Aug 93 03:35:17 GMT References: <24qenl$4lb@omp2.mch.sni.de> <24qlc8$m0u@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> Sender: news@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (NetNews Administrator) Organization: AT&T Lines: 63 Nntp-Posting-Host: testsun2.cb.att.com In article forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric J. Forbis) writes: >Looking at only housework is putting a nicely sexist/feminist one-uppersonship >spin on this issue. To get at a fair perspective, try looking at the total >work done by both sexes: > > Inside Outside > Home Home Total >-------------------------------------------------------- >Men 8 48 56 >Women 35 26 61 > >(From Table 7.3 _Patterns in Time Use in Time, Goods, and >Well-Being_, Martha Hill, quoted in _The Myth of Male Power_, Warren Farrell.) Actually, Eric, you screwed this up .... Quoting directly from the book and citing the specific references..... In 1991, the _Journal of Economic Literature_ reported that while women still do seventeen more hours of work *inside* the home per week, men do twenty-two more hours of work *outside* the home per week, including commuting time.(1) What happens when we compare the hours of the average woman to the hours of the average man *both* inside and outside the home? Hers amount to fifty-six hours. His amount to sixty-one hours. By the same measure. Why? The average woman works twenty-six hours per week outside the home, the average man forty-eight hours.(2) [The table above should be like this: Inside Outside Home Home Total -------------------------------------------------------- Men 13 48 61 Women 30 26 56 ] Studies of working wives that say that wives do two jobs while their husbands do just one and slough off on the second tell but half the truth. They are so misleading as to be a form of lying: they are women-as-victim studies. More importantly, they make women angry and increase the divorce rate, which deepens the anger, which.... Women's anger was intensified by the sense that women were changing and men were not. It was assumed this was because of male complacency. It was not.... ------------------------- 1. F. Thomas Juster and Frank P. Stafford, "The Allocation of Time: Emperical Findings, Behavioral Models and Problems Measurement," _Journal of Economic Literature_, vol 29, no. 2, June 1991, p. 477. 2. Ibid. Source: _The Myth of Male Power_, Warren Farrell, Ph.D. The Martha Hill information was for overtime worked -- and did NOT state what you stated above. According to this study, men work five more hours per week than women -- not exactly what we have been hearing around these parts. -- Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM From soc.men Sun Aug 22 15:35:17 1993 Xref: utcsri alt.feminism:18970 soc.men:73245 Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men Path: utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!quads!mec6 From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) Subject: Re: Men vs Women - WORK Message-ID: <1993Aug18.043406.4000@midway.uchicago.edu> Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System) Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: University of Chicago References: <24qlc8$m0u@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <1993Aug18.032750.1331@midway.uchicago.edu> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 04:34:06 GMT Lines: 43 forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric J. Forbis) writes: >Looking at only housework is putting a nicely sexist/feminist one-uppersonship >spin on this issue. To get at a fair perspective, try looking at the total >work done by both sexes: > > Inside Outside > Home Home Total >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Men 8 48 56 >Women 35 26 61 Wait a minute -- last time this stat was cited (earlier this week), men came up as the "harder workers"... which is it? I'm confused. Well, I know that Farrell says it is the other way in TMofMP, so I give him the benefit of the doubt... ? Anyway, it's important to keep in mind that this stat suffers from basically the same "flaws" as the infamous "women only earn $.60 to every $1.00 dollar that men earn" stat. When you look at the $.60 stat, people say "gee whiz, $.60 for the same work??" Of course, that's not true. Similarly, I think our first reaction when looking at the Farrell stat (not quite the same as the one above) is to say, "Gee, women who work *and* do most of the housework still put in less hours than men!" Of course, that's not true either. At the heart of the Farrell statistic is that housewives work fewer hours than employed men. And if you really want to careful on your comparisons, you might also want to consider that there are more women of retirement age than men, or, more broadly, that there are more single women than single men in general. The results are very different, of course, if you base your figures on married couples where both partners are employed. And I may be wrong about this, but I don't think that there has been much if any feminist outcry that *housewives* have to work "the second shift". rini From soc.men Sun Aug 22 15:36:58 1993 Xref: utcsri soc.men:73218 soc.women:74180 talk.rape:8768 talk.politics.misc:186460 alt.feminism:18931 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!rutgers!flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!wsrcc.com!wetware!drieux From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.rape,talk.politics.misc,alt.feminism Subject: On Reading Skills and Firearms Message-ID: Date: 17 Aug 93 23:01:38 GMT References: <1993Aug16.204643.15450@cs.wm.edu> Sender: news@wetware.com (Usenet News Account) Reply-To: drieux@wetware.com Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper Lines: 82 Originator: drieux@vladimir.wetware.com Nntp-Posting-Host: vladimir.wetware.com In article 15450@cs.wm.edu, vomaya@kn.cs.wm.edu (Victor O. Mayaki) writes: > >In article <1993Aug16.105639.15538@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, burkel@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Laura) writes: >|> >|> I for one am very accurate within 25 feet. Past that, I might need >|> more than one shot to hit a vital organ. But past that, I would have >|> lots more time to aim better. laura, minor technical point, but I was pleased to hear from other vets that we all have a hard time with various Bay Area Ranges where they have safety rules that require us to space our shots two seconds apart as our training has been to use a 'two or three' shot firing sequence. "One in the Groin, One in the Chest One in the Head and they are Dead." this improves your probabilities of defeating body armour. The pelvic girdle makes a good target area as well as a great bullet trap as one has improved probabilities that the bullet will traverse the internal sections more than once and re_adjust various main arteries and viens, as well as decreasing the probabilities of pass through collateral damage. just a technical frump. >Oh, and just *HOW* will you be able to discern rapist intentions at 25 feet? News Flash: confused child does not understand what practicing at the range is all about. Why Not Argue the More Interesting Point Victor: "but Laura what if You are Attacked by a vampire, and your hand gun will not save you as you really would need a wooden stake and therefore should not carry a gun." >Listen, Laura, the stats say that most rapists are actually acquaintances of >the victim. [..] As has been pointed out, being able to clear the weapon and being able to HIT ONE's Target in the first 25m on the first round improves the probability that One Will NOT get Raped, assaulted, murdered or otherwise SociallyDisComfitted. One of the many things that one acquires on the way to 'weapons proficiency' is a little bit of understanding about what is a valid shoot. Most Sane Folks learn this, Others decide to go shooting Up Restaurants to show President Clinton what they think about his policy on Gays in the Military. >Only comic book heroes and people who want to die sooner carry guns lady. >(Law enforcement agents are a different story...but only slightly) general proposition refuted by following line is not good as an arguing tactic victor. ciao drieux -- Modern Problems: The Difference between a Coincidence and a Konspiraki is the Quality of the Kover Story that is Maintained. -quote From soc.men Sat Aug 13 12:32:47 1994 Xref: utcsri soc.men:106012 soc.motss:235671 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!news.miami.edu!umiami!bjones From: bjones@umiami.ir.miami.edu Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.motss Subject: MAKE.PENIS.FAST ( :-) ) Message-ID: <1994Aug11.094856.18217@umiami.ir.miami.edu> Date: 11 Aug 94 09:48:56 EDT Amended: 25 Jan 2007 Organization: Univ of Miami IR Lines: 207 If you don't believe this can work... Read the letters after the intructions! MAKE PENIS FAST!!! INSTRUCTIONS Follow these instructions EXACTLY, and in 20 to 60 days you will have received well over 50,000 inches of penis, all yours. This program has remained successful because of the inadequacy and vanity of the participants. Please continue its success by carefully adhering to the instructions. Welcome to the world of Mail Order Penis Enlargement! This little business is a little different than most cosmetic surgery. Your product is not solid (sic) and tangible, but rather a service. You are in the business of extending penii. Many small of endowment are happy to pay big bucks for this service. (The money made from the penis enlargement is secondary to the income which is made from people like yourself requesting that they be included in that list.) 1) Immediately cut off your penis at the base. 2) Cut off the head of your penis, and pack it in ice. 3) Take the remaining midsection of your penis, and cut it into 5 pieces of equal length. 4) Immediately mail each piece to the first 5 names listed below starting at number 1 through number 5. Send penis only please (total investment your penis). Enclose a note with each piece stating: "Please add my name to your mailing list." (This is a legitimate service that you are requesting and you are paying your penis for this service). 2) Remove the name that appears number 1 on the list. Move the other 9 names up one position. (Number 2 will become number 1 and number 3 will become number 2, etc.) Place your name, address and zip code in the number 10 position. 3) Post the new letter with your name in the number 10 position into 10 (Ten) separate bulletin boards in the message base or to the file section, call the file, MAKE.PENIS.FAST. 4) Within 60 days you will receive over 50,000 inches of PENIS. Keep a copy of this file for yourself so that you can use it again and again whenever you need penis enlargement. As soon as you mail out these letters you are automatically in the mail order business and people are sending you their penis to be placed on your mailing list. This list can then be rented to a reconstructive cosmetic surgeon that can be found in the Yellow Pages for additional income on a regular basis. The list will become more valuable as it grows in size. This is a service. This is perfectly legal. If you have any doubts, refer to Title 18, Sec. 1302 & 1341 of the postal lottery laws. NOTE: Make sure you retain EVERY Name and Address sent to you, either on computer or hard copy, but do not discard the names and notes they send you. This is PROOF that you are truly providing a service and should the AMA, FDA, or some other Government Agency question you, you can provide them with this proof! Remember as each post is downloaded and the instructions carefully followed, five members will be reimbursed for their participation as a Penis Enlarger with one inch of penis each. Your name will move up the list geometrically so that when your name reaches the number five position you will be receiving thousands of inches in penis. 1. Daniel J. Karnes 6394-B Tawney Bloom Mogi Donuts, MD 21045 2. Emil T. Chuck 6394-A Tawney Bloom Mogi Donuts, MD 21045 3. Definitely Not The Real Charles Whealton 7690 Karnesville Road And Also Not Any Eigler, Not Even Eric Eigler Phobic, MI 48348 4. William Davenant 8295 Hiding Closet Rd Clarkston, MI 48348 5. Peter Ruckman 14805 Rivercrest Sterling Hts., MI 48312 6. Steven Crisp 3718 Kings Point Troy, MI 48083 7. Mark Gengler 5748 Patterson Troy, MI 48098 8. Pat Robertson 666 God's Little Homophobe Road Anti-Christ Hills, VA 48307 9. Fred Phelps 14-U Our Saviour of the Closet Lane Orchard Lake, MI 48323 10. Jesse Helms 20840 Tobacco Mercenary Street Lung Cancer Hacks., VA 48038 Dear Friend, My name is Daniel J. Karnes. In September 1988 my life was repressed and the bible thumpers were hounding me like you wouldn't believe. I was never laid and my mental disability checks had run out. The only escape I had from the pressure of failure was my Apple computer and my bible. I longed to turn my fixation into my vocation. This January 1989 my family and I went on a ten day cruise to the tropics. I bought a Double-Wide Trailer with CASH in Feburary 1989. I am currently building a Self-Worship Temple on the West Coast of Florida, with a private S/M Dungeon with room for all of my closeted friends, and a beautiful view of the bay from my women's shoes closet and wardrobe. I will never be underendowed again. Today I am equipped! I have over 400,000 inches of penis (33,333 feet and 4 inches! ) to date and will become a million-incher within 4 or 5 months. Anyone can do the same. This penis enlargement making program works perfectly every time, 100% of the time. I have NEVER failed to earn 50,000 inches or more whenever I wanted. Best of all you never have to leave home except to go to your mailbox or reconstructive surgeon. In October 1988, I received a letter in the mail telling me how I could earn 50,000 inches of penis or more whenever I wanted. I was naturally very skeptical and threw the letter on the desk next to my computer. It's funny though, when you are desparately underendowed, backed into a corner, your mind does crazy things. I spent a frustating day looking through the want ads for a wife who didn't need sexual fulfillment. The pickings were sparse at best. That night I tried to unwind by booting up my Apple computer and calling several gay bulletin boards. I read several of the message posts and then glanced at the letter next to the computer. All at once it came to me, I now had the key to my dreams. I realized that with the power of the computer I could expand and enhance this penis making formula into the most unbelievable penis enlargement generator that has ever been created. I substituted the computer bulletion boards in place of the post office and electronically did by computer what others were doing 100% by mail. Now only a few letters are mailed manually. Most of the hard work is speedily downloaded to other bulletin boards throughout the world. If you believe that someday you deserve that lucky break that you have waited for all your life, simply follow the easy instructions below. Your dreams will come true. Sincerely yours, Daniel J. Karnes -- Why doesn't Wenchell's -- Serve Mogi Donuts? About six months ago I received the enclosed post in letter form. I ignored it. I received about five more of the same letter withn the next two weeks. I ignored them also. Of course, I was tempted to follow through and dreamed of making thousands of inches, but I was convinced it was just another gimmick and could not possibly work. I was wrong! About three weeks later I saw this same letter posted on a local bulletion board in Montreal. I liked the idea of giving it a try with my computer. I didn't expect much because I figured, if other people were as skeptical as I, they wouldn't be too quick to part with their penis. But, I buy lottery tickets weekly in my province and have nothing to show for it but ticket stubs. This week I decided to look at this as my weekly lottery purchase. I addressed the envelopes and mailed out one piece of my penis in each as directed. Two weeks went by and I didn't recieve anything in the mail. The fourth week rolled around and I couldn't believe what happened! I can't say I received 50,000 inches, but it was definitely well over 35,000! For the first time in all my years, I was adequately endowed. It was great. Of course, it didn't take me long to feel inadequate again so I am using this excellent penis enlargement opportunity once again. Follow the instructions and get ready to enjoy. Please send a copy of this letter along with the enclosed letter so together we can convince people who are skeptical that it really works! Good Luck, Charles R. Whealton But Not The Real One St Agathe Que. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about penis enlargement, contact DJKarnes@netcom.com. This document is an attempt at humor. Anyone who flames me will be ignored as a humorless twit, who's indignation is without meaning. From alt.mens-rights Sat Aug 13 12:37:18 1994 Xref: utcsri alt.mens-rights:100 Path: utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!gpu!dhohenst From: dhohenst@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Doug Hohenstein) Newsgroups: alt.mens-rights Subject: Re: Sharper Image offers men substitute for $119.95 Date: 9 Aug 1994 21:36:56 GMT Organization: University of Alberta Lines: 47 Message-ID: <328sto$9t5@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca> References: <3241f4$qfn@insosf1.infonet.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: gpu.srv.ualberta.ca X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] dhughson@ins.infonet.net wrote: : Sharper Image Approach to Men : : Just got the new Sharper Image catalog and on page 102 it has the following : new product for sale: : : "Safe-T-Main's 24-hour mission: your protection : : Muscular and intimidating, Safe-T-Man is a protective presence in your car, : home, or office. Day and nite, he shows the world that you're not alone, : that you're not an easy target. He lookos like a rugged 180 lb. man, but : weighs less than a month-old baby (9 lbs). : : Safe-T-Man is based on the principle that the best defense against crime is : a strong deterrence. It's a fact that criminals prefer to target victims : who are alone and appear defenseless. Buckle him into the passenger seat : when you drive, and now you have a protective companion for travel on city : streets, highways, and interstates. Parked, he stays visible in your car : while you shop or run errands. Place him near a window, and now your home, : cottage, boat, or business apeears occupied while you're away. : : Safe-T-Man is an effective and inexpensive guardian for business people, : night workers, the elderly, single women, college students,etc. Made in USA : of lifelike latex, with soft body and poseable arms. Resembles a : six-footer, but measures just 36"L for ease in carrying and storage. Can be : dressed in men's clothing (not included) to suit any occasion. Six-month : waarranty. The next best thing to a 24-hour personal bodyguard., Safe-T-Man : improves your peace of mjind as he deters would-be attackers. Make him part : of your self-defense program now. Just $119.95 plus $9 shipping and : handling. : : (dean's comment: Also guaranteed not to fight you for custody of your : children or anything you say to him. Warranty includes he will never get : you pregnant, nor will he ever talk back when told what is wrong with him. : This, my friends, is truly what the feminists want the man of the 90's to : be like----he lacks many things but he still appears strong to those on the : outside when needed................now we know what has been planned for : some of us.......Dean, who wishes he could give his ex one of these so she : would kick it around instead of him.) : note the doll has no legs, no balls, and no guts......looks tough : but isn't-----the new man of the 90's........sheez What you mean is that he looks good, but there's nothing else there, right? Sounds what a number of ex-girlfriends of mine were looking for: someone good for the eyes, in bed, but without thoughts, dreams, plans, ideas, desires of there own. Doug From alt.mens-rights Sat Aug 13 12:41:00 1994 Xref: utcsri alt.child-support:14786 alt.mens-rights:120 Path: utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!decwrl!vixie!vixie!not-for-mail From: ASFINGER@delphi.com Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights Subject: Protest the 8/21 NCSEAP Child Support 'Convention' Date: 9 Aug 1994 21:02:47 -0700 Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation Lines: 166 Sender: daemon@vix.com Message-ID: <329h0k$1qg@news.delphi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.home.vix.com X-Inappropriate-For: alt.dads-rights Mark Charambolous passed this on to me for posting... Information about the protest follows the announcement. I urge everyone who can get here to do so. We've _got_ to show these people that NCPs are more than just a check in an envelope. See you there... Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A N N O U N C E M E N T The National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEAP presents Revolutionizing Child Support It's Got MASS Appeal 43rd Annual Training Conference & Exposition August 21-25, 1994 Boston, Massachusetts Some of the sessions: "The Legislative Agenda: What's Hot in Child Support" Child support has the attention of Congress and state legislators as never before. What are the prospects for new hire reporting, license revocation, and national child support guidelines? What proposals are getting attention? Learn how to mobilize public support to improve your state's child support laws. Target Audience: Lawyers, Administrators, Policy Makers "Who's My Daddy? A crash course in Paternity Caselaw" This session deals with the most difficult issues in paternity establishment. Biological versus presumed fathers: how and when to sort out the conflicting rights of mother, father (*they" have rights too?), husband and child? Defacto adoption and paternity by estoppel -- What are the laws? Retroactive support in paternity cases -- when is it appropriate and how to obtain it? Target Audience: Lawyers, Judges, Hearing Officers "The End of Welfare as We Know It: Roundtable Discussion on Welfare Reform" An opportunity for an in depth (sic) discussion of the issues raised during the earlier sessions on welfare reform. How does child support affect children in poverty? What reforms in the AFDC program will facilitate child support enforcement efforts? Where does child support assurance fit in? ***Can child support enforcement fund welfare reform?*** Target Audience: Policy Makers, Administrators, Caseworkers "Rest Assured: How Can We Protect Our Customers and Staff?" Security is of increasing concern throughout our society as well as within our own child support offices. How can we detect and deflect potentially violent *customers*? What type of security -- both training and facilities -- is reasonable and appropriate? How can child support professionals best serve victims of domestic violence? This session provides current information for dealing more effectively with increased violence in our environment. Target Audience: Administrators, Supervisors, Caseworkers "Opening the Door: The Noncustodial Parent as a Customer. (Part 1)" The noncustodial parent is an important customer, (*!!!*) and often raises custody and visitation as a defense to nonpayment of child support. Without making visitation and child support interdependent (*God forbid! We couldn't do that!*) can support order compliance be fostered through more attention to visitation (*What a radical concept!*)? ..... Target Audience: Lawyers, Judges, Hearing Officers, Policy Makers "Military And Civilian Enforcement: Uncle Sam Wants You! (Part 1)" What can be done when the noncustodial parent is on duty in the Armed Services of Uncle Sam? Can you establish an order? Can you enforce one? In this two-part session, our experts will tell you exactly what you need to know to reach out and touch someone in uniform (*aren't these people cute?*). Target Audience: Lawyers, Judges, Hearing Officers, Caseworkers "Location Through Technology: Still No Escape! (Part II)" Successful location requires the right balance between automated and manual location techniques. Which data bases work best and how do you access them? What's the data base hierarchy? How do we ensure that interstate caseworkers can get their hands on the same information as in-state cases? How can we protect confidential information? Can regional partnerships help? Target Audience: Administrators, Caseworkers, Private Sector "Contempt: Making Intelligent Choices." For some cases, contempt is still the most efective enforcement remedy. What is necessary to prove the case? What are the best trial strategies for cases requiring attribution of income? How effective are "seek work" orders against the unemployed or underemployed? Come see a mock trial demonstrating the best techniques. Target Audience: Lawyers, Judges, Hearing Officers "Military Enforcement: Over Hill, Over Dale. (Part II)" A continuation of part I, this session also focuses on support enforcement directed against members of the Armed Services, employees of the federal government and recipients of other federal income or benefits. Target Audience: Lawyers, Judges, Hearing Officers, Caseworkers "Special Enforcement Tools: Thay Can Run - But They Can't Hide (Their Cash)! Find out where small business owners, the self-employed and those with investment real estate stash their cash. Learn how to use credit reports, 1099 information and income tax returns to collect on hard-to-enforce cases. Learn also how some noncustodial parents use tax laws to minimize their apparent income, and how to analyze a tax return to determine a parent's true ability to pay support. Target Audience: Lawyers, Caseworkers And on, and on, ... Heard enough? No editorializing is necessary (however, for the morbidly curious, my comments are enclosed in *...*. I know, it's hard to tell my satire from the real text...) Are you ready to stand up and be counted on August 21; to give these good folks the reception they deserve? If you aren't, you have no business complaining about your cs burden! In case you want to attend :-), it's $450 for full registration, or $175 per day. Their address: NCSEA, Dept. 3009, Washington, DC 20061-3009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is the protest schedule/information: ~Date: Sunday, August 21 2:00 pm: Arrive at Conference center (not NCSEA conference) at 294 Washington Street (Next to Old South Meeting House/Downtown Crossing, accessible by the "T".) 2:30: Briefing on child support facts and statistics 3:30: Depart and walk to Park Plaza Hotel protest site. 4:00: Begin picketing and organized protest of participants as they check-in at conference. 6:15: End picketing and organized protest and return to 294 Washington St. NOTES: Media is aranged by protest organizers. Participants in the protest are instructed not to contact media or make statements about the protest to any party. Organizers will provide information hand-outs, media briefings, and picketing signs. DRESS CODE: Shirt and tie for men. Pants or skirt/dresses for women. QUESTIONS/MORE INFORMATION: Ken @617-646-5325 Internet email: Mark -- mchar@jyacc.com Please feel free to copy this notice and distribute it! Disclaimers: All typos are mine. The views expressed here are solely the opinions of the author, and are not associated with FREE. Rainbow V 1.02 for Delphi From tor.general Tue Oct 18 20:57:13 1994 Xref: utcsri can.general:35662 can.politics:55034 ott.general:9137 tor.general:14515 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!news From: CAS.Scandal@tvk.tsoft.net (A Concerned Citizen) Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,kingston.general,ott.general,tor.general Subject: C.A.S. Scandal - Please Read! Followup-To: alt.dads-rights Date: 18 Oct 1994 17:11:47 GMT Organization: Children's Alternative Support Line Lines: 42 Expires: 30 Dec 1994 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <380vkj$r1f@knot.queensu.ca> Reply-To: CAS.Scandal@tvk.tsoft.net NNTP-Posting-Host: telnet1.queensu.ca "Society" Covers Up Abuses C.A.S. Scandal Workers' Crimes & Abuses of Authority Part 0 of 4 You are about to read an article documenting true stories involving the C.A.S. (Children's Aid Society) in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. You are seeing these accounts posted here for one reason only -- to help the children involved. Please, read the article carefully - IT COULD BE YOUR CHILDREN NEXT! You may respond to this article as follows: Internet E-Mail: CAS.Scandal@tvk.tsoft.net Fidonet Netmail: CAS Scandal on 1:249/128 Quintenet Netmail: CAS Scandal on 20:613/102 Compuserve: >INTERNET:CAS.Scandal@tvk.tsoft.net Voice Telephone: +1-613-546-5114 Usenet: Please direct follow-ups to alt.dads-rights, and carbon-copy E-Mail Many other parents and children have endured abuses of authority and of individual's rights by the Children's Aid Society for the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac. The author has had direct contact by telephone or mail with a number of these victims. Many of these, including some who have had their children returned and have no current allegations against them, have gone underground so the C.A.S. will not be able to find them. These parents are terrified of the Kingston Children's Aid Society and its Gestapo tactics. Your voice, raised in protest and joined by a thousand others, can force the public investigation the politicians have been too cowardly to begin on their own. Your voice--the voice of the people--can ensure that our children receive justice and protection. Call Raymond J. Muldoon at the C.A.S.--(613) 542-7351--and call as many politicians and news-media as you can. If there are other ways you can help, call the publisher--the father of the Kingston three--anytime at (613) 546-5114. Please help protect these children from a few C.A.S. workers and supervisors betraying their mandate, abusing their authority, and hiding behind the law. From tor.general Tue Oct 18 20:57:21 1994 Xref: utcsri can.general:35663 can.politics:55035 ott.general:9138 tor.general:14516 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!news From: CAS.Scandal@tvk.tsoft.net (A Concerned Citizen) Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,kingston.general,ott.general,tor.general Subject: C.A.S. Scandal - Please Read! Followup-To: alt.dads-rights Date: 18 Oct 1994 17:19:14 GMT Organization: Children's Alternative Support Line Lines: 157 Expires: 30 Dec 1994 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <38102i$reo@knot.queensu.ca> Reply-To: CAS.Scandal@tvk.tsoft.net NNTP-Posting-Host: telnet1.queensu.ca "Society" Covers Up Abuses C.A.S. Scandal Workers' Crimes & Abuses of Authority Part 1 of 4 This is published by (Name Censored). No other person bears any responsibility for the content, publication or distribution of this material. The publisher's name is left off not from cowardice but because the law prohibits its publication. Facts presented in this document can be confirmed by documentation and by eyewitness accounts. Reader concerns regarding the Children's Aid Society may be addressed by telephone calls and letters to the media, your political representatives, or Raymond J. Muldoon, C.A.S. Executive Director. For further information or to see documentation, the publisher may be contacted anytime at (613) 546-5114. Some Background: Three children--ages 6, 7, and 11, (names censored)--are being placed at severe risk of serious emotional and physical abuse through malicious, irresponsible and often criminal actions of several workers and supervisors employed at the Children's Aid Society for the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac. More criminal than this abuse of authority by individuals is the determined effort by Children's Aid Society management to cover up these abuses of authority by their employees rather than to intervene and protect the children involved and the scandalous resistance of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Attorney General to intervene to protect this and other families. From (eldest boy's name censored)'s birth he was verbally, emotionally and physically abused by his mother, (name censored), while his father was not at home. Because the mother was careful to leave no marks and because both (eldest boy's name censored) and his mother kept the abuse their own secret, (eldest boy's name censored)'s father, (name censored), did not discover the abuse until (eldest boy's name censored) was almost five years old. At that time, (father's name censored) returned home from work to learn (mother's name censored) had thrown (eldest boy's name censored) across the room into a wall. Believing (mother's name censored)'s claim this was the first and only incident, (father's name censored) did not report it. Only days later, (father's name censored) returned home to learn (mother's name censored) had twisted (eldest boy's name censored)'s arm to near-breaking and had tried to stuff his head down a toilet. (Father's name censored) called the Windsor Children's Aid Society and reported (mother's name censored). Over the next four years, in his compulsion to somehow repair (mother's name censored) and to protect his three children from her violent rages, (father's name censored) became the classic "abused spouse" with nowhere to escape with his children. (Mother's name censored), who has both Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (Repressed Memory) and Bi-Polar Affective Disorder (Manic-Depressive) became increasingly abusive and violent. She continued to be verbally and emotionally abusive, especially to (eldest boy's name censored) and his father. On three separate occasions, (mother's name censored) attempted to murder (father's name censored) with a large carving knife. All this abuse was committed in the presence of (girl's name censored) and (youngest boy's name censored), (mother's name censored) and (father's name censored)'s other two children. To add to (eldest boy's name censored)'s difficulties, from kindergarten through grade two, it is believed he was sexually abused by a school teacher, Anthony Piccinato, who has since been arrested and convicted of sexually abusing other children. In 1991, (father's name censored) rescued his three children from their abusive home and moved to Kingston. He arrived armed with a detailed assessment of his family situation, prepared by Dr. Ralph Billingsley, a psychologist at the Regional Children's Centre in Windsor. In it, Dr. Billingsley strongly urged that both (father's name censored) and (boy's name censored) receive every possible support and help from the Kingston Children's Aid Society. Although the Kingston Children's Aid Society had more than one copy of Dr. Billingsley's report and had received several telephone calls from (father's name censored), they absolutely refused him and his children any help or support at all. In April of 1992, (mother's name censored) moved to Kingston. Between late April and June of 1992, (eldest boy's name censored) began to have i ncreasingly violent tantrums replicating his mother's former behaviour. Still the Children's Aid Society refused this family any help or support. In June of 1992, (father's name censored) learned that (eldest boy's name censored) had been sexually abusing (youngest boy's name censored) and attempting to involve (girl's name censored) in this activity. Even with his information, the Children's Aid Society mostly refused to become involved. (Father's name censored) complained indignantly to Dan Devlin, a supervisor at the Children's Aid Society, regarding the behaviour and attitudes of several workers and blamed the Children's Aid Society that the situation had gotten so severe. Dan Devlin took this personally and took the first opportunity to orchestrate a malicious campaign of libel and slander against (father's name censored) and his children. In this abuse of his authority, Dan Devlin both broke the law and counselled others to break the law. Over the past two years, (father's name censored)'s children have been wrongfully taken and all of his family re-victimized. This appears to be the standard Children's Aid Society response to questions or criticism by a client or member of the public. Rather than deal responsibly with the issues, workers and management become defensive, secretive, and punitive. A Father Seeks Help For His Kids In June 1992, because of the risk to (eldest boy's name censored)'s siblings, (father's name censored) placed his eldest son in residence at Sunnyside Children's Centre with counselling and other services for all three children to be provided by Beechgrove Children's Centre. Worker Prompts False Allegation In October, 1992, angry at (father's name censored) following a disciplinary hearing on her handling of (eldest boy's name censored)'s case, Michelle Sangster, a worker at Sunnyside, prompted a false allegation of sexual abuse from (eldest boy's name censored) against his father. C.A.S. Conflict of Interest To investigate the matter, Dan Devlin of the C.A.S. sent Andrew Jackson, a worker who knew (father's name censored) had asked that he be fired. Evidence shows that, interviewing (eldest boy's name censored), Andrew Jackson prompted him in order to evoke and reinforce the allegation previously promoted by Michelle Sangster. Dan Devlin assigned Mike Byrne, another worker who knew (father's name censored) had asked that he be fired, to head the investigation. Parent's Rights Violated Beginning October 10, 1992, Dan Devlin denied the parents access to their son. On October 16, 1992, Dan Devlin and Crystal Phinney, a close friend of Michelle Sangster and a supervisor at Sunnyside, by physical threat denied the parents access either to their son or to Sunnyside. No court order or other legal mechanism was in place to allow this extreme action. In effect and in fact, these workers had kidnapped (eldest boy's name censored). "Everyone who, not being the parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of a person under the age of fourteen years, unlawfully takes, entices away, conceals, detains, receives, or harbours that person with intent to deprive a parent or guardian or any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person of the possession of that person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years." - Criminal Code of Canada Under pressure from the parents and their lawyer, Dan Devlin to cover up his illegal actions ordered (eldest boy's name censored) apprehended on October 22, 1992. 9 Year Old Held Incommunicado For six months, Dan Devlin did not allow (eldest boy's name censored) any contact with any member of his family, on either his mother's or his father's side. During this time, although she had a vested interest in maintaining the false allegations she had prompted from him, Michelle Sangster was allowed unrestricted access to (eldest boy's name censored). The boy has not been allowed to see or speak to his father now for more than two years. (Girl's name censored) and (youngest boy's name censored) remained living with their father as a single parent. Kids Considered Safe By C.A.S. Although the C.A.S. claimed that (father's name censored) had very seriously sexually abused (eldest boy's name censored), they left these four and five year old children in his care for more than four months without ever checking on them, and another four months with minimal supervision. It seems clear that the false allegation was not taken seriously by the C.A.S. or they would never have left these young children with their father. As soon as they learned the C.A.S. was involved, Beechgrove without notice cut off all services to (father's name censored) and his children, effectively abandoning this family at a time of great need. From tor.general Tue Oct 18 20:58:43 1994 Xref: utcsri can.general:35664 can.politics:55036 ott.general:9139 tor.general:14517 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!news From: CAS.Scandal@tvk.tsoft.net (A Concerned Citizen) Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,kingston.general,ott.general,tor.general Subject: C.A.S. Scandal - Please Read! Followup-To: alt.dads-rights Date: 18 Oct 1994 17:23:38 GMT Organization: Children's Alternative Support Line Lines: 151 Expires: 30 Dec 1994 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <3810aq$reo@knot.queensu.ca> Reply-To: CAS.Scandal@tvk.tsoft.net NNTP-Posting-Host: telnet1.queensu.ca "Society" Covers Up Abuses C.A.S. Scandal Workers' Crimes & Abuses of Authority Part 2 of 4 This is published by (Name Censored). No other person bears any responsibility for the content, publication or distribution of this material. The publisher's name is left off not from cowardice but because the law prohibits its publication. Facts presented in this document can be confirmed by documentation and by eyewitness accounts. Reader concerns regarding the Children's Aid Society may be addressed by telephone calls and letters to the media, your political representatives, or Raymond J. Muldoon, C.A.S. Executive Director. For further information or to see documentation, the publisher may be contacted anytime at (613) 546-5114. Early in 1993, Dan Devlin assigned Joan Stacey to the case. As part of her assignment, she was to conduct a Psycho-Social assessment of the family. Unqualified Case Worker Joan Stacey has no academic qualifications either as a social worker or as an assessor and was, until recently, a secretary at the C.A.S. "It sometimes feels as if children do not exist at all and it is only adults striving to see who is the most powerful to win their case. The clients become victims of the process, the system and sometimes of the professional." - Lillian Alexis, Going Onward Early in the process, it became clear that Joan Stacey holds an abiding anger toward men and that she focussed this anger on (father's name censored). Joan Stacey refused ever to observe the children in the context of their home. Further, she has repeatedly perjured herself in affidavits and on the stand in court. Most of the evidence in this matter consists of Joan Stacey's unsubstantiated and perjured accusations against (father's name censored). Her primary assignment was clearly to take (girl's name censored) and (youngest boy's name censored) from their father even though he was not the abuser of his children. By manipulating an assessment process, Dan Devlin's crew managed on June 23, 1993, to take the two younger children. Abuses By Court Psychiatrist On June 23, 1993, Dr. Wendy Cole, administrator of the Family Court Clinic in Ottawa, orchestrated a plan to take (girl's name censored) and (youngest boy's name censored). She created a situation where both parents would become upset. For example, she reported that (eldest boy's name censored) had disclosed the abuse by a teacher in Windsor but that, although the law requires her to do so, she would not report this to the C.A.S. or police. (When police later asked her about this, she denied there had ever been a disclosure. She later again made this denial under oath in court.) "(The boy said) ...there was a teacher--in Windsor. I thought he was nice. But he made kids do bad things, stick fingers in their bums...he's gone now. He's in jail." - hand-written note, Dr. Wendy Cole False Charges Laid By Shrink Dr. Cole filed false charges of a very serious nature with the Ottawa Police and had (father's name censored) arrested. These charges included that the father had a gun, was holding hostages in her office, and had threatened to kill her. None of this was true. In fact, the father was cowering in her office, terrified by Dr. Cole's awesome authority to destroy his life. The mother was cowering in another office in similar fear for the safety and integrity of herself and her family. Dr. Cole also called Dan Devlin in Kingston and reported that, in a fit of violence, (father's name censored) had destroyed her office, smashing furniture, ripping a telephone from the wall, and putting his fist through a glass partition. In fact, none of this ever happened. Once (father's name censored) was out of the way, Dr. Wendy Cole apprehended his children. Once she had taken the children, the false charges she had placed were quickly dropped. In Family Court sometime later, Dr. Cole repeatedly perjured herself, making several very serious but false accusations against (father's name censored). As an example, knowing (father's name censored) is a school teacher seeking employment, Dr. Cole told the court that the father is under investigation by Kingston Police for sexually abusing a young female student in his classroom. No such incident ever happened and there is not and never has been such an investigation. As he had with (eldest boy's name censored), Dan Devlin again had the children picked up by Andrew Jackson, who had a clear conflict of interest. (Girl's name censored) and (youngest boy's name censored) were placed in a foster home on a farm near Verona. In the spring of 1993, Dan Devlin assigned Rosemary Robinson, a woman with an even greater distaste for men, to be the family worker. Rosemary Robinson too has consistently perjured herself in this matter. Chris Wheal was assigned as the Children's Services worker. He has on many occasions been verbally abusive and physically threatening to (father's name censored). All these workers have refused to address (father's name censored)'s very real concerns for his children's well being and safety. Systemic Cover-Up By C.A.S. In fact, Chris Wheal and Rosemary Robinson have both been active in covering up abuses in this matter. During the first family visit after (girl's name censored) and (youngest boy's name censored) were taken, (youngest boy's name censored) had several sets of bruises that were clearly made by an adult hand grasping his upper thigh. Chris Wheal was very reluctant to investigate this but finally agreed to let a doctor see (youngest boy's name censored) and give (father's name censored) a written report. Chris Wheal and others at the C.A.S. then refused to allow (father's name censored) or his lawyer see the doctor's report and tried to keep it secret. The doctor confirmed that there was at least physical abuse of these children in the foster home. "...these bruises are present in a suspicious area (i.e. buttock and thigh) and are multiple...could be conceivably accidental but could just as well be non-accidental. The child's explanation of a single fall (or maybe 2) does not account for a total of 6 bruises." - Jack Raleigh, M.D. At the same meeting, Chris Wheal was present and observing when (youngest boy's name censored) gave his father a very graphic demonstration of how the foster father had sexually abused him. Since then, covering up for the foster home, Chris Wheal has consistently denied he was even in the room. "...cynically decided to lie under oath and hide behind the words 'in my opinion...'" - Gary Trudeau, Doonesbury Both children, especially (youngest boy's name censored), come to many visits with serious and often--both in location and severity--unusual bruises. They report that a 16 year old boy, Norman, pushes, beats and threatens them. Asked by (father's name censored) to investigate this abuse, Chris Wheal refuses to investigate at all, saying, "that's not abuse, it's just rough play". In fact, a 16 year old beating up a 5 year old is not rough play. It is child abuse. C.A.S. Supervisor Fired In December of 1993, Dan Devlin was fired. Martha Downey Smith, the C.A.S. lawyer, told (father's name censored) Dan Devlin had been fired because of his improper actions in his and "several other cases". Several other workers associated with this case either have been demoted or have left the employ of the C.A.S. However, the C.A.S. has not formally admitted any wrongdoing in this matter and continues to aggressively pursue the program of punitive persecution of (father's name censored) and his children begun and orchestrated by Dan Devlin. This seems, at this point, to be a face-saving venture. From tor.general Tue Oct 18 20:58:46 1994 Xref: utcsri can.general:35665 can.politics:55037 ott.general:9140 tor.general:14518 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!news From: CAS.Scandal@tvk.tsoft.net (A Concerned Citizen) Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,kingston.general,ott.general,tor.general Subject: C.A.S. Scandal - Please Read! Followup-To: alt.dads-rights Date: 18 Oct 1994 17:27:03 GMT Organization: Children's Alternative Support Line Lines: 152 Expires: 30 Dec 1994 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <3810h7$reo@knot.queensu.ca> Reply-To: CAS.Scandal@tvk.tsoft.net NNTP-Posting-Host: telnet1.queensu.ca "Society" Covers Up Abuses C.A.S. Scandal Workers' Crimes & Abuses of Authority Part 3 of 4 This is published by (Name Censored). No other person bears any responsibility for the content, publication or distribution of this material. The publisher's name is left off not from cowardice but because the law prohibits its publication. Facts presented in this document can be confirmed by documentation and by eyewitness accounts. Reader concerns regarding the Children's Aid Society may be addressed by telephone calls and letters to the media, your political representatives, or Raymond J. Muldoon, C.A.S. Executive Director. For further information or to see documentation, the publisher may be contacted anytime at (613) 546-5114. Dad Proved Not Abuser In December of 1992, the C.A.S. investigation was concluded, having failed to prove any part of the false allegations against (father's name censored) true. In the spring of 1993, psychological and physiological testing conducted by Dr. Wendy Cole's team proved that (father's name censored) is not a paedophile and has no possible sexual interest in children of either gender. "...husband-beating is almost as common as wife-beating." - John Chamberlin, consultant Mom Documented Abuser Meanwhile, it is well documented that (mother's name censored), the children's mother was for many years a severe and unpredictable abuser of both her children and her spouse. "(It was reported)(mother's name censored) had hit (eldest boy's name censored) on his face...scratched his face and his back, held him by his arm and thrown him against the wall. "I examined (eldest boy's name censored); he had teeth marks on his right temple, a scratch mark on his left temple and three scratch marks on his upper back...his mother attacked him--she hit him and she scratched him. "(Mother's name censored) is selective in providing her counsellors with information about herself and tends to minimize her problems. (She) has always resisted any in depth treatment. "(Father's name censored) gave the impression of the stronger and the emotionally more stable parent who is concerned about his children's safety and is prepared to ensure it. "(Mother's name censored) openly admits to her inability to control her aggressive behaviour..." - B. Pinto., Windsor C.A.S. Teacher Suspected Abuser It is also clearly evident that Anthony Piccinato had sexually abused (eldest boy's name censored) for about three years. "A jury found Mr. Piccinato guilty of sexually assaulting a...pupil...on the floor of the school library. He was sentenced to 34 years in prison..." - The Whig Standard Dad Rescued Children It is also well documented that (father's name censored) finally rescued his children from these terribly abusive situations and that he parented successfully as a single father for more than two years. "...somebody else would have kicked my ass out the door and changed the locks as soon as he found out. - (mother's name censored) In the face of all this evidence, the C.A.S. refuses to halt its onslaught against this family. No Protection For Father Early on and continuing to date, (father's name censored) has been in contact with Gary Wilson, M.P.P.; representatives of the Office of Child and Family Service Advocacy; Dr. Ernie Nelson, the local manager for the Ministry of Community and Social Services; Marion Boyd and then Tony Silipo, Ministers of Community and Social Services; and Marion Boyd in her present position as Attorney General. All have chosen to wash their hands of the entire matter. C.A.S. Unresponsive To Facts Susan Abell, then Executive Director of the C.A.S. and the Board of Directors of the C.A.S. have also refused to seriously consider (father's name censored)'s concerns or to look into this matter. Letitia Steele, who has been appointed by the Official Guardian to represent all three children, has tended rather to represent the point of view of the C.A.S. (Youngest boy's name censored) reports that Letitia Steele regularly prompts him and attempts to coerce him as to what he should say on subjects such as where he wants to live. For example, if she asks where he wants to live and he says with Daddy, Letitia Steele keeps repeating the question and prompting him until he says with Mommy. (Youngest boy's name censored) has reported this improper behaviour by Letitia Steele on several occasions. "...if the lawyer repeatedly asks the same question the child may think he or she has given the wrong answer. So they will eventually change their reply to please the adult." - W. Gifford Jones, M.D., "The Doctor Game" Kids Not Allowed Home During the year that (girl's name censored) and (youngest boy's name censored) have been in the custody of the C.A.S., workers have absolutely refused to allow these children to visit their family home, even for family visits with their father. At the same time, workers are allowing unsupervised visits in the home of their mother, who is the documented abuser of these children. "...the mother...had episodes wherein she perceived her husband to be her father, and then would (attack) him, sometimes using weapons such as knives. "...a very elevated safety threat to this child and to his father. "The (Windsor C.A.S.) worker agreed with this examiner's impressions of a real and immanent safety risk to this child (and) would support limiting the mother's contact with the children and having her in a non-custodial role with the children." - Dr. Ralph Billingsley, C. Psych. Judge Biased For C.A.S. On July 29, 1994, although the trial in this matter is less than half-way over, Family Court Judge K. E. Pedlar indicated both by his actions and in so many words clearly that he had already made his decision. On that date, Judge Pedlar turned down applications by both parents to have (girl's name censored) and (youngest boy's name censored) stay at home for the duration of the trial as being improper and inappropriate. He then told (mother's name censored) and the C.A.S. to submit a new application which he committed, as a matter of course, to approve. His intent that the children live with their abusive mother was quite clear. On that same date, Judge Pedlar stated that although he had only heard C.A.S. evidence, "to be fair" he would listen to (father's name censored)'s evidence, then would place the children with their mother. He gave no indication that (father's name censored)'s evidence could at all change his mind. "(Mother's name censored) had a very violent outburst...attacked (father's name censored) with a long bladed kitchen knife." - Yonne Liddle, Windsor C.A.S. The C.A.S. has now presented to the court its intention to place (girl's name censored) and (youngest boy's name censored) with their mother for six weeks without supervision. Meanwhile, for the five weeks beginning October 7, the C.A.S. has all but eliminated (father's name censored)'s access while greatly increasing (mother's name censored)'s. For that five weeks, the C.A.S. proposes giving (father's name censored) three hours supervised time with only two of his children. (Mother's name censored) is to receive 156.5 hours, including all three children and mostly unsupervised, although this presents a clear risk to the well being of the children. From tor.general Tue Oct 18 20:59:13 1994 Xref: utcsri can.general:35670 can.politics:55042 ott.general:9143 tor.general:14519 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!news From: CAS.Scandal@tvk.tsoft.net (A Concerned Citizen) Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,kingston.general,ott.general,tor.general Subject: C.A.S. Scandal - Please Read! Followup-To: alt.dads-rights Date: 18 Oct 1994 17:30:52 GMT Organization: Children's Alternative Support Line Lines: 161 Expires: 30 Dec 1994 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <3810oc$reo@knot.queensu.ca> Reply-To: CAS.Scandal@tvk.tsoft.net NNTP-Posting-Host: telnet1.queensu.ca "Society" Covers Up Abuses C.A.S. Scandal Workers' Crimes & Abuses of Authority Part 4 of 4 This is published by (Name Censored). No other person bears any responsibility for the content, publication or distribution of this material. The publisher's name is left off not from cowardice but because the law prohibits its publication. Facts presented in this document can be confirmed by documentation and by eyewitness accounts. Reader concerns regarding the Children's Aid Society may be addressed by telephone calls and letters to the media, your political representatives, or Raymond J. Muldoon, C.A.S. Executive Director. For further information or to see documentation, the publisher may be contacted anytime at (613) 546-5114. Many other parents and children have endured abuses of authority and of individual's rights by the Children's Aid Society for the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac. The author has had direct contact by telephone or mail with a number of these victims. Many of these, including some who have had their children returned and have no current allegations against them, have gone underground so the C.A.S. will not be able to find them. These parents are terrified of the Kingston Children's Aid Society and its Gestapo tactics. The source for the following information is articles written by Gillian Sadinsky and Julia Sarwer published in The Kingston Whig Standard on May 9, 1992. "Watch out for your children" - Julia Sarwer Julia had been an international chess celebrity for several years, after winning the world chess championship for girls 10 and under in 1986. Home-schooled by her father...she led an unorthodox, nomadic life, playing, competing and studying all over North America. It was a highly satisfying and happy existence, she says, until the Frontenac County CAS ruined it all. Her family was based in Kingston when the CAS siezed her, citing allegations of physical and emotional abuse. Their action came just after publication of an article in the international magazine Vanity Fair. It contended that she had been brain-washed and abused by her father, a charge she has consistently denied. Usually vivacious and cheerfully opinionated, she becomes very angry when discussing these allegations. Not only are they not true, they are insulting because they make irrelevant, she says, everything she has accomplished. About six weeks after the CAS took her, Julia escaped and went underground. And she couldn't tell her story. The press and media are forbidden by law to identify youngsters under the age of 16 who are involved in a child protection proceeding.... Julia became free to speak out...when she turned 16. In her story...she describes how: * The CAS tore her away from her father, refusing to tell her why; * The CAS kept her imprisoned in an Ottawa hotel apartment for over a month, driving back and forth sometimes under dangerous conditions between Ottawa and Kingston's family court where the CAS had to justify her apprehension; * The CAS prevented her from contacting a lawyer for five hours after she arrived in Ottawa; * The CAS officials initially refused to tell her father and extended family where they'd taken her, and they spent almost two days frantically trying to find her; * The CAS promised her a speedy resolution to the proceedings, but asked the judge if they could keep her for six months; * And, she contends, the CAS charged into its court case determined to win no matter what kind of tactics it had to resort to or at what cost to her. "In a small town like Kingston, you're not supposed to rock the boat." - Julia Sarwer (Before the CAS took Julia) "...my father began volunteer work helping fathers who were denied their rights as parents.... He was in the process of writing an article about a mother whom he felt had had her children unfairly removed by the Kingston Children's Aid Society and permanently adopted by strangers. He was also on the tracks of one worker, whom he felt particularly was causing unnecessary problems for innocent families. This made my father very unpopular in the eyes of the Kingston CAS. I guess in a small town like Kingston, you're not supposed to rock the boat." "We (attended) Kingston Family Court Clinic to clear up some personal matters left over from our custody battle with my little sister, and to speak on behalf of a man who had had his 10 month old grandson ripped away from him, even though the boy seemed to have been receiving the best of care." "(The law gives workers) the enormous power to remove children from their parents. This power is meant to be reserved for helping abused children...the child must be in immediate danger of (physical, emotional, or sexual abuse) before the worker is allowed to 'protect' a child by removing him or her to a place of safety. A worker is certainly not allowed to snatch a child because he has a grudge, any more than a policeman is allowed to use his gun to shoot someone he takes a personal dislike to. A policeman understands that if he fires his gun there'll be a lot of questions...and the possibility of a serious investigation.... There is much less public scrutiny for child apprehension workers and no specific disciplinary process." "Nobody, from the director of services down, would tell us on what grounds I was being apprehended. It was like Kafka's story The Trial." "I was put in a hotel apartment, with two CAS guards. They had notepads, and I think they even recorded when I went to the bathroom. A phone call to my lawyer was refused for five hours, and the phone was yanked out of my hand when I tried anyway...I spent a night and a day imprisoned with absolutely no contact from outside with any friends, family, or people who mattered to me." "(At court) missing was the (positive) psychiatric report from the head psychiatrist of the Children's Hospital. Instead, the CAS had somehow managed to find a psychiatrist who was willing to submit a lengthy report on us, even though he had never even seen myself, my father, or anybody else in my family." "...CAS lawyer's game of never getting to the point, and tactic of delaying as much as possible, so that nobody could see that there was no point to be gotten to. Illusion by confusion, litigation by inundation.... If the facts support you, you argue facts; if the law supports you, you argue law; and if neither support you, confuse the issue!" "Throughout this whole case, from beginning to end, the CAS has consistently refused to talk with our family--an incredible betrayal of their mandate--and to this very day they have still refused to hear any of our information that might set their files straight." "I have travelled all over the world, and seen repressed countries.... But in 1989, as the Berlin Wall came down, I was held political prisoner in my own province." Three children--ages 6, 7, and 11--are now being held by the Kingston C.A.S., not for legitimate reasons but because a supervisor, since fired, acted in bad faith and with malice against these children. Now management and staff at the C.A.S. feel compelled to continue this malicious persecution of an already battered family in order to protect their own posteriors (C.Y.A. Syndrome) and will not admit to the abuses of authority, criminal acts, and terrible wrongs which have been committed under the umbrella protection of Ontario's Child and Family Services Act. Your children may be next. It is common practice of the Kingston C.A.S. to go after the children of anyone who dares question them or their practices. These children are indeed, as Julia Sarwer says, "political prisoners" held to silence their parents. Your voice, raised in protest and joined by a thousand others, can force the public investigation the politicians have been too cowardly to begin on their own. Your voice--the voice of the people--can ensure that our children receive justice and protection. Call Raymond J. Muldoon at the C.A.S.--(613) 542-7351--and call as many politicians and news-media as you can. If there are other ways you can help, call the publisher--the father of the Kingston three--anytime at (613) 546-5114. Please help protect these children from a few C.A.S. workers and supervisors betraying their mandate, abusing their authority, and hiding behind the law. From can.politics Tue Dec 6 10:40:01 1994 Xref: utcsri can.politics:59685 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qed!auld From: auld@qed.uucp (Chris Auld) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: December 6 Date: 6 Dec 1994 03:36:05 GMT Organization: Department of Economics Lines: 52 Message-ID: <3c0m75$ila@knot.queensu.ca> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: qed.econ.queensu.ca ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Baglow) writes: >Suppose someone wanted to memorialize victims of lynchings in the southern >US. According to Chris Auld, would this be racist? Lynchings _are_ a racial issue. Violence is _not_ a gender issue. To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with people remembering Lepine's victims. Nor do I have any problem with people discussing forms of violence that are gender issues, specifically rape, as such. But I have a major problem with people turning one man's insanity into a representative case of violence. Judging Marc Lepine differently because he happened to have a penis is sexist. Discussing violence against women as if it were the only major form of violence in our society is sexist (it perpetuates stereotypes of both men and women; the former as uncontrollable animals and the latter is helpless victims), simply wrong, and dangerous -- the plight of other victims, most notably children, is _de facto_ trivialized. And I obviously have a major problem with fools who gibber that Marc Lepine didn't slaughter those women, ``society's misogyny'' did. The reasons that have been brought forward for concentrating on women as victims of male violence are extremely weak. It is true that the average man is stronger than the average woman, but the average woman more than compensate for that by being three times more likely to use weapons. One third of spousal murder victims in Canada are men. Domestic violence is approximately evenly split between men and women (see, for instance, Steinmetz, S. and J. Lucca, ``Husband Battering,'' in _Handbook of Family Violence_, Hasselt et al (eds.) Plenum 1988). The fact that the impression one gets from the media is always men as perpetrators and women as victims reflects sexist stereotypes more than reality. But all this misses the point dramatically. Even if it were true that men are far more violent than women, it is still indefensible to reduce all violence to that of men against women. `Men' simply refers to the male half of the human race, the only characteristic these human beings share is their gender. Just like it is reprehensible to judge someone based on the colour of their skin, it is reprehensible to judge somone on their gender; making the inference from `the average man is more likely to commit violence than the average woman' that _each_ man is more likely to commit violence than each women is both a logical fallacy and terribly sexist. I wish to emphasize that I absolutely do not mean to downplay the horror that some women have experienced at the hands of some men. But I ask that others do not downplay all the other forms of violence that _people_ suffer. There is no reason to make violence a gender issue; as I've argued, doing so is itself a result of sexist characterizations. -- Chris Auld Department of Economics Internet: auld@qed.econ.queensu.ca Queen's University Office: (613)545-2269 Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 From can.politics Thu Dec 8 09:30:13 1994 Xref: utcsri can.politics:60013 Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!alberta!tribune.usask.ca!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!hookup!news.Direct.CA!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!mindlink.bc.ca!a12508 From: Graham_Hayes@mindlink.bc.ca (Graham Hayes) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: The Vancouver Women's Monument Date: Thu, 08 Dec 94 01:23:10 -0800 Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada Lines: 711 Distribution: world Message-ID: <60541-786878590@mindlink.bc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: mindlink.bc.ca Official Competition Proposal for the Vancouver Women's Monument follows my comments - (note.competition now closed - monument to be erected shortly). Just to round off white ribbon week, and the general discussions on this topic, many of you may have heard of the Women's Monument to be erected in Vancouver? The part about it being dedicated to the 14 Women killed by Marc Lepine, I have no problem with. What I find offensive is the wording on the end of the message "... and all women MURDERED BY MEN". Think of all the war memorials you have seen, dedicated to the fallen, nowhere do they say "... and all soldiers MURDERED by Germans or Japanese" never do these monuments seek to maintain hatred against the race or group to which the perpetrators belonged. Look carefully at the proposal, they mention - 1.That they believe that lunatic Lepine's actions was an 'allegedly random act' . 'Allegedly' like this happens every day?! 2.That the monument is not just to memorialize the 14 women, it is to provide a focal point for 'diverse strategies of resistance' and 'struggle'. Is this Canada they are talking about? or Iran? 3.That they EXPECT graffiti on the monument. I would say that if someone paints on it 'dedicated to all men driven to suicide by vindictive divorce settlements' it will be erased with acid forthwith, but should someone write 'I hate women' it will be left there forever, in fact, I think that if the right type of graffiti does not appear, someone connected with the monument will make it appear there. The whole intention of the monument is provocation, not promotion of harmony and understanding. Anyhow read it for yourself -> Graham Hayes. +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | This file has been brought to you by the friendly folks at | | - Canadian Infomaticon BBS, Richmond, British Columbia -- | | (604) 275-9579, 23hrs/day at 14.4kbps FidoNet 1:153/965 | | ------------------------------------------------------- | | Featuring public discussions of current political topics | | Home of CANPOL, Canadian Politics Echo [Zone 1 Backbone] | | Also available "B.C. Politics" and "Ethics in Politics" | | -------- Government / Public Document Files ----------- | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ================================================================ This electronic version is being presented for information only. Care has been taken to transcribe this document accurately. However, in case of differences, the official printed version shall prevail. ================================================================ Capilano College Women's Centre 2055 Purcell Way, North Vancouver, B.C. V7J 3H5 The Women's Monument Design Competition Guidelines Monuments have traditionally been built to publicly remember figures and events in history that men have considered important. How would a Women's Monument be different The Women's Monument Project has, over the past three years, worked to establish a permanent piece of public art in Vancouver to address the issue of violence against women. The Project is made up of a committee of volunteers and Project staff members, is sponsored by the Capilano College Women's Centre, and is supported by government, corporate, and individual donations. The Monument will be located in Thornton Park, at Main Street and Terminal Avenue, a transportation hub of Vancouver and a site surrounded by many diverse neighborhoods and communities. Thornton Park was approved as the site for the Women's Monument by the Vancouver Park Board, and this elected body will have final approval of the Monument design. Historically, few women have had the opportunity to create permanent public art. The design of the Monument will be chosen through a national design competition open only to women and juried by an independent group of Canadian women who have achieved recognition in the fields of art, architecture, art history, and feminist activism. When fund raising is complete, the successful artist will receive the commission to build the monument with a construction budget of $115,000. Table of Contents 1. Project Concept Social and Cultural Context Envisioned Uses Background of the Project The Site The Dedication Plans for Maintenance 2. The Competition Eligibility Criteria Application Process Competition Schedule Competition: Stage One Competition: Stage Two Jury Selection Procedure Artists Guidelines Technical Site Criteria Environmental Considerations Appendix Stage One Identification Form Site Map 1. PROJECT CONCEPT SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT In 1991, 225 women were murdered in Canada. Of these, 208 were killed by a family member or acquaintance. The number of women killed has increased dramatically over the past decade. Canadian society is beginning to recognize that the violence that occurs behind closed doors is systemically connected to the acts of rape and murder that take place on the street. These, in turn, are connected to supposedly random acts such as the murder of fourteen women at the University de Montreal on December 6,1989. This mass shooting, occurring in public space, focussed attention on the issue of violence against women in all social spaces. The Women's Monument is conceived as a national, permanent work of art to be located in Thornton Park in Vancouver, B.C., dedicated to all women who have been murdered by men, and naming the fourteen women killed in Montreal on December 6, 1989. it will provide a focus for healing, a tangible symbol of remembrance, and a site for many forms of women's resistance to male violence. The Women's Monument will: * provide a place for large gatherings and also allow for quiet, individual contemplation * in some way allow visitors to interact with the artwork, * promote dignity and respect for the lives of women, * strengthen public resolve to end violence against women. ENVISIONED USES ** One-half of all Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of violence since the age of 16. ** One-in-six currently married women reported violence by their spouses: one-half of women with previous marriages reported violence by a previous spouse. ** 42% of women with disabilities have been or are in abusive situations. ** 98% of women murdered in Ontario between 1974 and 1990 were killed by men, usually by an intimate partner. This artwork will be situated on a public urban site. How will this dedicated site be used by women individually and collectively? 1. December 6: A National Day of Remembrance and Action. Since 1989, groups of people numbering from 50 to 1,000 have gathered for commemoration ceremonies at college and university campuses, the downtown Art Gallery steps, and other sites throughout the Lower Mainland. The Monument will provide a site specifically dedicated to the memory of this tragic day in Canadian history. 2. March 8: International Women's Day. The site will provide a starting or finishing point for the annual public rally and march that marks this day instituted by the United Nations to recognize the struggle for economic and social equality for women worldwide. 3. Spontaneous gatherings in response to the murders of women locally. 4. Individuals will be able to visit the Women's Monument to remember friends or family they or to seek healing for the effects of their own experiences of violence. 5. Educational visits planned for students by a number of Vancouver educators as part of their curriculum. 6. Chance encounters provided by the proximity of the site to the train, bus, and rapid transit stations and, in future, by the corridor of green space and bicycle paths planned for the area. BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT In the winter of 1990-91, the Capilano College Women's Centre Steering Committee voted in favor of a student's proposal to build a monument in memory of the women murdered at the University de Montreal in 1989 and, symbolically, of all women affected by male violence. The founding Women's Monument Committee quickly expanded to induce interested women from the various communities of Vancouver. As the project developed, and as comments were offered by supporters and critics, the committee clarified the purpose of the project: to face the most frightening and difficult extreme of violence against women by focussing exclusively on murdered women - the fourteen in Montreal and all women murdered by men. Since that time, a group of feminists working in education, the media, cultural organizations, political advocacy, visual art, and architecture have volunteered their time to develop this project, secure a site, raise funds, and devise the design competition. Fund raising for the capital costs of the Women's Monument is ongoing. THE SITE Thornton Park, Vancouver, British Columbia. Thornton Park is located in east Vancouver at Main Street and Terminal Avenue. History of the Site. Is a Women's Monument in itself a challenge to the conventional method of public remembrance through traditional monuments? Feminists of many political positions recognize that diverse strategies are necessary to address the effects of male violence on all women's lives. This project is just one of many strategies aimed at ending violence against women. The role that the Women's Monument ran play in this struggle is to make a permanent and public statement of the value of all women's lives by honoring those murdered by men and by providing a site in a public space that women can use individually and collectively for their diverse strategies of resistance. Thornton Park was built during the Edwardian period (1901-1911) in an Edwardian style. This style is characterized by a formal and balanced geometry, with walkways that intersect the site creating square components and circular features. Often used in "railway parks", the Edwardian style of park design has been used in several Canadian cities. Over time some walkways in Thornton Park have been replaced or installed in such a way that the original geometry has been compromised. The Park Board would like to reestablish the original symmetry of the design, so any walkways planned as part of the monument should bear this goal in mind. The monument design should take into consideration the original design philosophy of the park. Thornton Park The Neighbourhood. Thornton Park is situated in the midst of a rapidly changing neighborhood. Historically, the area has been one of mixed use: train yards, warehouses, light and heavy industry, and residential hotels. The surrounding neighborhoods are: Strathcona, Mount Pleasant, Downtown Eastside, and Chinatown. These neighborhoods are characterized by ethnic diversity and a concentration of poverty in some areas. Nearby are False Creek, Yaletown, and Grandview Woodlands. Recently, a cement plant situated across the street from the park was torn down and replaced with condominiums. More condos will be built on the nearby Expo lands. Thornton Park is situated at an important transportation hub. The Park is at the corner of the intersection of two major commuter and truck routes - Main Street and Terminal Avenue. The Vancouver bus depot and the CN passenger train station are directly east of the park. The park is adjacent to the Skytrain rapid transit system and serviced by several city bus routes. The park is also dose to two important bike routes which will be expanded in the future. Within a half mile radius of Thornton Park are the following: Science World and its park, major condominium and townhouse developments, False Creek, gas stations, hotels, artists' studios, the CN passenger train station, the Vancouver bus depot, Skytrain rapid transit, major roadways, train yards, warehouses, retail stores, theatres, bars, fast food outlets, houses, and apartments. Why Thornton Park? Many places in Vancouver were considered for the site of the Women's Monument. Over time, Thornton Park emerged as an ideal location, able to meet the particular needs of this project. The park's ambience, accessibility, and relative safety make it particularly suitable. Access. Thornton Park is in a central urban location and highly accessible to people who drive, walk, bicycle, or use public transportation. It is physically accessible to seniors and visitors who are disabled and is open 24 hours a day. Safety. The park itself has sufficient lighting and is not heavily landscaped. It is visible from the street and residences nearby. The entrances and exits can accommodate groups of visitors. Phone booths, cross-walks, and traffic lights are close to the site. Ambience. Thornton Park is surrounded by diverse neighborhoods. There is light, steady pedestrian traffic through the area. The park is open and flat, yet offers potential for a sense of privacy. Acoustics are somewhat hampered by the noise of nearby traffic at the edge of the park: however, the sound level is not overwhelming. Washrooms and conveniences such as restaurants and gas stations are close by. THE DEDICATION In order to: - recognize the historical importance of the mass shooting at the University de Montreal in escalating the struggle for an end violence against women in Canada, z - place this loss in the context of the many women lost, and z - honor and commemorate each life, the following dedication will be located at the site. The means and specific placement of the dedication will be determined by the artist. Genevieve Bergeron Helene Colgan Nathalie Croteau Barbara Daigneault Anne-Marie Edward Maud Haviernick Barbara Maria Klueznick Maryse Laganiere Maryse Leclair Anne-Marie Lemay Sonia Pelletier Michelle Richard Annie St-Arneault Annie Turcotte murdered December 6, 1989, Universite de Montreal We, their sisters and brothers, remember, and work for a better world. In memory and in grief for all the women murdered by men, for women of all countries, all classes, all ages, all colors. The dedication will be translated into a number of languages and Braille. PLANS FOR MAINTENANCE The chosen design will be made of strong materials resistant to graffiti and other forms of vandalism. The structure should not change the existing maintenance demands on the Park Board. As with any public structure, the Monument will be susceptible to vandalism. We intend to allow a certain amount of graffiti and damage to just stand. We would prefer that the Women's Monument be defaced rather than have that expression of anger turned on a woman or women. The chosen design will not include landscape art or architecture with plantings because of the endless upkeep needed to care for them. The use of water will be considered, within limits. Fountains or ponds requiring recirculation pumps cannot be considered because of the associated maintenance demands. 2. THE COMPETITION ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Historically, very few women have had the privilege of creating permanent public art in Canada, despite the belief that within a democracy public space belongs to everyone. Women have rarely participated in creating the many permanent objects that make up our built environment. At this point in history, and particularly on the topic of violence against women, it is most appropriate that women reclaim a part of public space in which to speak. This public art competition is open to individual women or groups of women who are Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. Women students at post-secondary schools are especially encouraged to apply. APPLICATION PROCESS Prospective applicants can contact the Prospective applicants can contact the Women's Monument Project office by fax, telephone, or in writing to obtain this package (The Women's Monument Design Competition Guidelines). Packages will be mailed out beginning January 4,1994. COMPETITION SCHEDULE January 4, 1994: Stage One Competition package mailed to applicants January 15, 1994: Stage One begins April 15, 1994: Deadline for receipt of Stage One submissions June 15, 1994: Applicants notified of Stage One decisions June 16, 1994: Stage Two begins August 15, 1994: Deadline for receipt of Stage Two submissions September 15, 1994: Final design chosen by jury COMPETITION: STAGE ONE Starts: January 15, 1994 Deadline for submission: April 15, 1994 Format: Anonymous. The jury will not know the names of applicants at this stage. For more information on the membership of the jury, please see Jury Selection Procedure on page 13. Materials to submit: 1. Stage One Identification Form (see appendix) 2. Six copies of: - a Site Plan of Thornton Park with your work's placement clearly indicated, - a brief, clear Artist's Statement regarding the work you propose, and - up to six drawings, photographs or photocopies, limited to 11 x 17 inches, labeled with the prospective measurements, materials and compass point. 3. One self-addressed, stamped business size envelope. Send submissions to: The Women's Monument Design Competition Capilano College Women's Centre 2055 Purcell Way North Vancouver, B.C. V7J 3H5 Communications Policy: Women's Monument Project staff and committee members are able to answer questions on: z how to get a package, z who is eligible, z how to contact the Professional Advisor. Any other questions are to be directed in writing to the Professional Advisor by February 15,1994. Phone: (604) 986-1911 local 2078 Fax: (604) 984-4985 Judging: Your proposal will be evaluated by the jury. Up to five finalists will be chosen. The jury will evaluate your proposal according to the concerns outlined on page 5 and the Artists Guidelines on page 14. COMPETITION: STAGE TWO The finalists chosen in Stage One will be invited to submit a Detailed Proposal, and each will be paid a fee of 52,500 to complete this work. Stage Two starts: June 16, 1994 Deadline for submission: August 15, 1994 Format: Open submissions: At this stage of the competition, the jury will have access to the names of the applicants. Materials to submit: The Detailed Proposal must include 1. Schedule for Completion 2. Site Plan 3. Written indication of your background in whatever way you wish to represent yourself. This could be a C.V., resume, or other relevant document. 4. Visual representations--one or more of the following: - drawings, any media - photographs of scale model - scale model 5. Electronic rendering 6. Future maintenance requirements 7. Detailed Budget: At Stage Two, you must provide a cost breakdown based on 5115,000. Please include: - design development: co-ordination work with project team - material costs - fabrication costs and labour (assistants, contracts) - installation costs - insurance costs (up to and including installation) - living and travel expenses associated with production and installation - technical consultants (We have already allotted and raised $11,500 for the technical support team. This must be reflected in submitted budgets.) - artist's fee - studio expenses (if applicable) - 10% of overall construction budget for maintenance fee required by City of Vancouver - contingency fund (including legal fees, etc., if applicable) - taxes 8. Expanded Artist's Statement that includes your expectations of the working process between yourself, the Project, and others concerned with the completion of the artwork Send submissions to: The Women's Monument Design Competition Capilano College Women's Centre 2055 Purcell Way North Vancouver, B.C. V7J 3H5 Communications Policy: All questions from applicants should be mailed or faxed to the Professional Advisor by June 1, 1994 (see page 10). The Professional Advisor will send you a written answer by mail or fax. Judging: Detailed Proposals will be reviewed by jury members in a group process, facilitated by the Professional Advisor. The jury will make the final selection. The selected finalist will receive $5,000 to further develop the chosen design and present a final budget. A final artist's fee to reflect the time spent in completing the construction should be included as part of the Detailed Proposal budget. EXHIBITION OF DESIGNS If funding and appropriate venues become available, the Women's Monument Project intends to invite the finalists selected to develop Stage Two Detailed Proposals to exhibit their designs in temporary exhibitions locally and nationally. These exhibitions are intended to promote the development of similar projects in other cities, to raise awareness of the issue of violence against women, and to recognize the contribution of the finalists to the Women's Monument Project. JURY SELECTION PROCEDURE We consider it important to recognize that it has primarily been women from the feminist community who have brought the issues of domestic violence and other forms of violence against women into public discourse. As part of this recognition, the five members of the jury for the Women's Monument Project will be selected from the feminist community, including women who have made significant contributions in the fields of visual art, architecture, and art history. The jury process will be facilitated by the Professional Advisor. This jury will be as representative as possible of Canadian cultural and regional diversity and will reflect the variety of races, ethnic groups, and sexual orientations among Canadian women. The decision of the jury will be final. The jury's responsibilities end with this decision. Any public inquiries regarding the chosen design will be administered by the members of the Women's Monument Committee. Jury Process 1. The names of the jury members shall be released when the final selection has been made. 2. Jury members should declare any conflict of interest regarding a specific application and withdraw from the adjudication of that individuals or group's work. 3. Jury members will be paid an honorarium and a per diem. Their transportation costs will also be covered. The Professional Advisor The Professional Advisor will facilitate the jury process, but will not have voting privileges. This woman will contact jurors, ensure that all the applications are considered fairly, and record the selection process. She will report to the Women's Monument Competition Subcommittee and will also be in charge of returning materials to applicants. She will take care of all jury and applicant correspondence according to Communications policy, as well as distribute honoraria to jury members and those invited to complete Detailed Proposals. The Professional Advisor will notify the successful applicant and correspond with those whose work is not chosen. This position will be a temporary contract which will begin before the Competition launch and continue until the Competition is complete. Her final report will be made to the Women's Monument Committee as a whole. ARTISTS GUIDELINES Given the opportunity to permanently mark our grief and outrage over the murder of women, how do you envision a monument dedicated to their memory 1. Social Change: a) The Women's Monument should involve the viewer bearing in mind the potential of public art to initiate social change. b) The potential for an individual contemplative experience as well as a public gathering place exists within the site and should be considered by the artist. The site will be accessible 24 hours a day, and the design should respond to this challenge. 2. The Women's Monument should be permanent and not subject to deterioration due to weather pollution, or vandalism (see Plans for Maintenance). 3. Dedication: The Women's Monument itself, or the monument site, must include the dedication as follows: Genevieve Bergeron Helene Colgan Nathalie Croteau Barbara Daigneault Anne-Marie Edward Maud Haviernick Barbara Maria Klueznick Maryse Laganiere Maryse Leclair Anne-Marie Lennay Sonia Pelletier Michele Richard Annie St-Arneault Annie Turcotte murdered December 6, 1989, Universite de Montreal We, their sisters and brothers, remember, and work for a better world. In memory and in grief for all the women murdered by men, for women of all countries, all classes, all ages, all colors. The dedication will be translated into a number of languages and Braille. 4. Depending on the nature of the artwork, the artist may be required to be present and active, working collaboratively with the group of trades women, engineers, and project staff on the installation of the artwork. This part of the artist's time and labour should be reflected as the artist's fee in the Detailed Proposal budget. 5. The work should recognize contextual issues of the site such as climate, view, the surrounding trees, buildings, and neighborhoods, some of which have a Heritage designation. The original park design should be considered in the Monument design. 6. The Women's Monument should be accessible to persons with disabilities. 7. Safety: a) There should be no sharp or jagged edges in accessible locations that might cause injury. b) Issues of safety for visitors, such as lighting and visibility, should be considered. 8. Naming contributors: The Women's Monument itself, or the monument site, must include the names of the contributors to the project. We expect to include the full names of approximately 5,000 individuals and organizations whose names represent a commitment to the goals of the project and not just an indication of financial contribution. TECHNICAL SITE CRITERIA Lighting: Any additional lighting for the artwork will be coupled to the existing photo-electric street lighting as indicated on the Site Map. The artist is responsible for obtaining cost estimates for additional lighting. Excavation: Any plans for excavation work must be made in consideration of the enclosed underground services diagram. Contingencies for unmapped pipes and wires must be factored into your budget. Landfill is a consideration from Main Street and further west. Plantings: Existing trees cannot be removed. Structures, generally speaking, must avoid the drip-line of existing trees as indicated on the Site Map. Additional landscaping and plantings cannot be considered due to the associated maintenance costs. Water: The use of water (not including recirculation pumps) will be considered within limits. The artist is responsible for obtaining cost estimates for any water hookups planned. Park Design: It is crucial to consider the formal geometry of the heritage park design in plans for the placement of the monument (see The Site). Contingencies: The final design should be flexible enough to accommodate unforeseen technical constraints. Precipitation: The rain in Vancouver is slightly acid, which is caused by water coming directly from the ocean. It has a pH range of 5. Acid rain is not an issue in Vancouver because there are no sources of contamination as there are in eastern Canada. Total precipitation ranges from an average monthly low of 36 mm to a high of 179 mm per year. Pollution: The Air Quality Index in Vancouver generally falls between good and fair. Vehicular traffic is heavy along two sides of the park throughout the year. Temperature: The lowest temperature is approximately -17.9xC and the highest is 33.4xC. The average monthly temperatures range from a low of .1xC to a high of 21.7xC. Sunshine: The average monthly total sunshine hours range from 54 to 196. Wind: Generally, Vancouver is not a windy city, however, winds have reached maximum sustained wind of 89 km per hour maximum gust of 129 km per hour. Sources for Statistics Woman Killing: Intimate Femicide in Ontario 1974-1990 Report prepared for The Women We Honour Action Committee, by Maria Crawford and Rosemary Gartner. Disabled Women's Network (D.A.W.N.) Canada 1989. "Beating the Odds: Violence Against Women with Disabilities", Position Paper #2, Toronto, Ontario. Statistics Canada, "The Daily" in November, 18,1993 Cat. No. 11-001E APPENDIX The Women's Monument Design Competition Stage One Identification Form (Please complete) Name:______________________________________________ Address____________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ Phone: residence ( ) - work ( ) - __________________________________________________________________ Seal this form in the envelope provided and include it with your submission. Applicants must ensure that there is no identifying information on their submissions. Applicants who include identifying information on their support materials will be disqualified. [end of file] From can.politics Thu Dec 8 12:43:23 1994 Xref: utcsri can.politics:60038 soc.culture.canada:54974 soc.culture.quebec:3872 Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.quebec Path: utcsri!rutgers!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!info!brea9430 From: brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca (Ken-bear) Subject: Re: My take on December 6 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6] References: <3c6c7l$sql@knot.queensu.ca> Message-ID: Nntp-Posting-Host: mach1.wlu.ca Sender: news@info.uucp (news management) Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 14:36:22 GMT Lines: 29 Dead Cow (3tem4@qlink.queensu.ca) wrote: : If every survivor of abuse went out and killed, perhaps the UN would : not ahve to worry about overpopulation. The help is and was available to : him, yet he chose women as his scapegoats and killed them. Don't _ever_ : suggest that because he was from a broken home and suffered abuse that he : is as much to be pitied as those victims of violence who are strong : enough to seek help and control any violent urges they may have. Reading this, I find myself thinking of the public reaction to the sordid tale of Lorena and John Bobbitt. Males everywhere cringed at the very thought that someone would--ouch--slice off a penis. Many women I know, however, laughed at it. Do you hear that? They LAUGHED. "Why do they call it a cunt? Because that's the noise it makes when you kick it." Not funny, huh? Of course not. It's sick, perverted and disgusting. Just like Bobbitt jokes. I heard a lot of support for what Lorena Bobbitt did...BECAUSE SHE HAD BEEN ABUSED IN THE PAST. Hey, come on, after x number of brutal rapes and God knows how many assaults, John deserved it, didn't he? -- Ken Breadner (Kenbear)| Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo Ontario CANADA brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca | Discreamer: AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!! --------------------- | Seriously, WLU does not share my thoughts, nor do I share theirs. In fact, neither of us believes the other thinks at all... From can.politics Fri Dec 9 17:09:48 1994 Xref: utcsri can.politics:60111 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qed!auld From: auld@qed.uucp (Chris Auld) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Gender and violence (was: December 6) Date: 8 Dec 1994 23:48:23 GMT Organization: Department of Economics Lines: 144 Message-ID: <3c8607$bc9@knot.queensu.ca> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: qed.econ.queensu.ca ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Baglow) writes: >In a previous posting, Chris Auld (auld@qed.uucp) writes: >> The >> question is why we should single out any of these as more worthy of our >> attention than others. >Who on earth is doing that? No one I know. Then you should really get out more often, perhaps you could pick up a newspaper or listen to almost any commentator on domestic violence. The _fact_ is that the attention drawn to male violence against women is far disproportionate to its relative frequency. According to popular conception, male violence against women _is_ more worthy of our attention than vice versa, by the simple fact that it actually receives orders of magnitude more attention. When was the last time we had a memorial, or even a passing mention, of the male victims of female violence? >Violence against women is one of those problems. What >is wrong with trying to solve it specifically? Nothing, as long as the attempt to ``solve'' the problem neither exacerbates it nor trivializes other forms of violence. The inordinate attention drawn to this one type of violence does both. If the problem is domestic violence, why not treat the family as the unit to be helped? Relentlessly analysing only one type of violence can do nothing but perpetuate stereotypes. >Look, Chris, you're busy and I'm busy, so I have some sympathy for you >here, but it does seem to me that the onus is on the person who makes the >claim to prove it, not on me to disprove it. Here's a few facts for your digestion (thesis by damned): o The severe assault rate is 46/1000 for assaults by wives and 50/1000 for assaults by husbands (Straus, ``Physical Assaults by Wives: A Major Social Problem'' in _Current Controversies in Family Violence_ Sage 1993). o In the States, the number of husbands killed by their wives is approximately equal to wives killed by husbands. In 1984, 43% of spousal victims were husbands (_Uniform Crime Reports_ 1984, quoted in Steinmetz S. and J. Lucca, ``Husband Battering,'' cited previously). o With the exception of rape, men are much more likely to be the victims of violence than women. Victims of violent crimes (per 100,000) males females Murder 9.3 2.5 Forcible rape 3.9 84.6 Robbery 438.0 252.0 Aggravated assault 1614.8 897.1 (_ibid_) ``Men constitute about 80% of the homicide victims; nearly 70% of the robbery victims and about 70% of the victims of aggravated assault.'' (_ibid_) If we are going to concentrate on only one gender as victims, we should clearly be concentrating on men. But that runs counter to accepted stereotypes, so we don't. o ``The data from a nationally representative study of family violence reported that although the total violence scores for spouse abuse were very similar, wives tended to be slightly higher in almost all categories except pushing and shoving.'' (_ibid_) o 3.8% of husbands are victimized by their wives, 4.6% of wives are victimized by their husbands, where victimization is defined by repeated acts of violence placing on the Conflict Tactics Scale N-R. (Straus 1993). The literature clearly paints a far different picture than the media and popular conception. Men are always depicted as perpetrators and women as victims in popular discourse; this is the direct result of sexist stereo- types. In reality, men are not always. or even usually, the one to init- iate violence, nor are they significantly more likely to escalate the violence to murder. But one would never dream this is true from the impression one gets from the media, indeed, the shock John Baglow and others have expressed over the facts clearly demonstrates my point. If John is correct that drawing attention to violence against women is not trivializing other forms of violence, he should not have been surprised at all by the _fact_ that women in domestic relations are approximately as violent as their partners. I would be interested in hearing his explanation for this, along with an exposition of his implicit premise that popular conceptions of violence are not misinformed by sexist stereotypes. It seems that amongst the PC crowd sexism is just fine as long as the negative stereotype is being applied to men instead of women. ``To most people women's violence against men ... smacks of a grotesque joke. The idea of a physically smaller woman, rolling pin in hand, intimidating or battering her mate is fit for burlesque skits. It conjures up images of amazons bullying passive, wimpish men. In fact, because of our Western patriarchical tradition, there is something that seems so absurd about women abusing men that until recently the entire subject has been ignored.'' -- Shupe, A., _Violent Men, Violent Couples_ [ quoting out of order: ] > There is no >hierarchy of violence, making one form more or less acceptable than >another. [...] >With respect, I think my example stands up better than yours. The only way >they could be considered equivalent is if you believe that Blacks in the >South and whites are somehow on equal footing in terms of power, control >and status. Otherwise it makes no sense. So, in other words, there _is_ a hierarchy of violence. If human being A commits a violent act against human being B, we must know whether A belongs to a gender or racial group that statistically has greater ``power, control and status'' than person B's group before we can judge how heinous the act is. What a remarkable and frightening comment. In any case, you ``neatly evaded my point'' -- is that quote acceptable or not? Or is it only unacceptable because blacks have less ``power, status, and control'' than whites, and if so, how exactly does that follow? If Farrakan (sp?) made the same remark with black and white reversed, would it then be perfectly acceptable? >Moreover, you have neatly evaded >my point, so let's have an answer out of you: would you oppose a memorial >observance in the deep South dedicated to the victims of lynchings? I'm not opposed to remembering Marc Lepine's victims, as I've already said. I am opposed to the interpretation of his action as representative of all violent acts committed by men against women and the almost exclusive attention drawn to one amongst many types of violence. If the lynching ``memorial'' was a thinly disguised front to perpetuate a notion of racial warfare in the U.S. and of whites as innately more violent than blacks, I would indeed be opposed to it. -- Chris Auld Department of Economics Internet: auld@qed.econ.queensu.ca Queen's University Office: (613)545-2269 Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 From tor.general Tue Dec 13 17:41:59 1994 Xref: utcsri can.general:39867 can.politics:60723 mtl.general:8061 tor.general:16981 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qed!auld From: auld@qed.uucp (Chris Auld) Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,tor.general,mtl.general Subject: Re: poor Matthew Vaudreil, killed by a woman. Date: 13 Dec 1994 16:28:40 GMT Organization: Department of Economics Lines: 43 Distribution: na Message-ID: <3cki3o$euq@knot.queensu.ca> References: <12DEC199403132251@pavo.concordia.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: qed.econ.queensu.ca supermo@nyongwa.montreal.qc.ca (Muhanned Al-nuaimy) writes: Some *remarkably* sexist stuff. He starts out by making factually incorrect statements (``the reverse is occasionally true...'') based, no doubt, on the sexist stereotypes I've commented on at length. He then proceeds, amazingly enough, to assert that female violence is basically just fine, since women have ``little sense of empowerment'' when striking a man (recall 43% of spousal homicide victims are male -- those women certainly struck with a hell of a sense of empowerment). In short, Mr. Al-nuaimy has encapsulated the very core of sexist stereotypes: strong men frequently beating weak women, with the converse occurring rarely and to little effect. Again, I don't mean to assert that this is conscious sexism. It is clear that Mr. Al-nuaimy believes he is actually being commendably egalitarian. However, the fact remains that the notion that one gender is overwhelmingly more violent than the other in physical relationships is empirically false, contrary to his, and popular, conceptions. Moreover, it is *not* acceptable for woman to strike a man, particularly when the average woman makes up for her lower strength by being much more likely to use a weapon. Perpetuating sexist stereotypes cannot lead to a lower level of violence in our society. >Both men and women have been using phycological abuse for eons, and in that >respect we are matched opponents; but men have an extra weapon in our >armory. We are stronger than women (in general). Often, when an arguement >between a man and a woman gets out of control the man end it with violence; >because he _can_. The reverse in occasionally true, but not nearly as often. >When a woman strikes a man, it is often a (conciously) futile expression of >anger and frustration - there is little sense of empowerment. When a man >strikes a woman, he is very empowered. He knows that he is stronger >(physically) than the woman and can therefore end the arguement by force. A >man generally hits someone to establish their dominance over them. The >winner makes the rules. The man that has just struck his wife/lover/etc is >laying down the law - winning the arguement by refusing to argue right or >wrong, refusing to dignify the woman's opinion by debating it, and asserting >his physical superiority over her. -- Chris Auld Department of Economics Internet: auld@qed.econ.queensu.ca Queen's University Office: (613)545-2269 Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 From can.politics Fri Dec 16 16:03:00 1994 Xref: utcsri can.politics:61123 Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!hookup!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qed!auld From: auld@qed.uucp (Chris Auld) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Gender and violence (repost) Date: 16 Dec 1994 10:38:54 GMT Organization: Department of Economics Lines: 152 Message-ID: <3crqnu$mjq@knot.queensu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: qed.econ.queensu.ca Several people have asked for references to the spousal homicide figure, and several points have been raised which I have already dealt with in the post below. Upon rereading it, I must wonder aloud why John "Chris Auld, that dishonest asshole who's losing this argument badly" Baglow hasn't replied to what I consider the main and most powerful point: that popular conceptions of violence are based more upon sexist stereotypes than reality. -------------------------- ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Baglow) writes: >In a previous posting, Chris Auld (auld@qed.uucp) writes: >> The >> question is why we should single out any of these as more worthy of our >> attention than others. >Who on earth is doing that? No one I know. Then you should really get out more often, perhaps you could pick up a newspaper or listen to almost any commentator on domestic violence. The _fact_ is that the attention drawn to male violence against women is far disproportionate to its relative frequency. According to popular conception, male violence against women _is_ more worthy of our attention than vice versa, by the simple fact that it actually receives orders of magnitude more attention. When was the last time we had a memorial, or even a passing mention, of the male victims of female violence? >Violence against women is one of those problems. What >is wrong with trying to solve it specifically? Nothing, as long as the attempt to ``solve'' the problem neither exacerbates it nor trivializes other forms of violence. The inordinate attention drawn to this one type of violence does both. If the problem is domestic violence, why not treat the family as the unit to be helped? Relentlessly analysing only one type of violence can do nothing but perpetuate stereotypes. >Look, Chris, you're busy and I'm busy, so I have some sympathy for you >here, but it does seem to me that the onus is on the person who makes the >claim to prove it, not on me to disprove it. Here's a few facts for your digestion (thesis by damned): o The severe assault rate is 46/1000 for assaults by wives and 50/1000 for assaults by husbands (Straus, ``Physical Assaults by Wives: A Major Social Problem'' in _Current Controversies in Family Violence_ Sage 1993). o In the States, the number of husbands killed by their wives is approximately equal to wives killed by husbands. In 1984, 43% of spousal victims were husbands (_Uniform Crime Reports_ 1984, quoted in Steinmetz S. and J. Lucca, ``Husband Battering,'' cited previously). o With the exception of rape, men are much more likely to be the victims of violence than women. Victims of violent crimes (per 100,000) males females Murder 9.3 2.5 Forcible rape 3.9 84.6 Robbery 438.0 252.0 Aggravated assault 1614.8 897.1 (_ibid_) ``Men constitute about 80% of the homicide victims; nearly 70% of the robbery victims and about 70% of the victims of aggravated assault.'' (_ibid_) If we are going to concentrate on only one gender as victims, we should clearly be concentrating on men. But that runs counter to accepted stereotypes, so we don't. o ``The data from a nationally representative study of family violence reported that although the total violence scores for spouse abuse were very similar, wives tended to be slightly higher in almost all categories except pushing and shoving.'' (_ibid_) o 3.8% of husbands are victimized by their wives, 4.6% of wives are victimized by their husbands, where victimization is defined by repeated acts of violence placing on the Conflict Tactics Scale N-R. (Straus 1993). The literature clearly paints a far different picture than the media and popular conception. Men are always depicted as perpetrators and women as victims in popular discourse; this is the direct result of sexist stereo- types. In reality, men are not always. or even usually, the one to init- iate violence, nor are they significantly more likely to escalate the violence to murder. But one would never dream this is true from the impression one gets from the media, indeed, the shock John Baglow and others have expressed over the facts clearly demonstrates my point. If John is correct that drawing attention to violence against women is not trivializing other forms of violence, he should not have been surprised at all by the _fact_ that women in domestic relations are approximately as violent as their partners. I would be interested in hearing his explanation for this, along with an exposition of his implicit premise that popular conceptions of violence are not misinformed by sexist stereotypes. It seems that amongst the PC crowd sexism is just fine as long as the negative stereotype is being applied to men instead of women. ``To most people women's violence against men ... smacks of a grotesque joke. The idea of a physically smaller woman, rolling pin in hand, intimidating or battering her mate is fit for burlesque skits. It conjures up images of amazons bullying passive, wimpish men. In fact, because of our Western patriarchical tradition, there is something that seems so absurd about women abusing men that until recently the entire subject has been ignored.'' -- Shupe, A., _Violent Men, Violent Couples_ [ quoting out of order: ] > There is no >hierarchy of violence, making one form more or less acceptable than >another. [...] >With respect, I think my example stands up better than yours. The only way >they could be considered equivalent is if you believe that Blacks in the >South and whites are somehow on equal footing in terms of power, control >and status. Otherwise it makes no sense. So, in other words, there _is_ a hierarchy of violence. If human being A commits a violent act against human being B, we must know whether A belongs to a gender or racial group that statistically has greater ``power, control and status'' than person B's group before we can judge how heinous the act is. What a remarkable and frightening comment. In any case, you ``neatly evaded my point'' -- is that quote acceptable or not? Or is it only unacceptable because blacks have less ``power, status, and control'' than whites, and if so, how exactly does that follow? If Farrakan (sp?) made the same remark with black and white reversed, would it then be perfectly acceptable? >Moreover, you have neatly evaded >my point, so let's have an answer out of you: would you oppose a memorial >observance in the deep South dedicated to the victims of lynchings? I'm not opposed to remembering Marc Lepine's victims, as I've already said. I am opposed to the interpretation of his action as representative of all violent acts committed by men against women and the almost exclusive attention drawn to one amongst many types of violence. If the lynching ``memorial'' was a thinly disguised front to perpetuate a notion of racial warfare in the U.S. and of whites as innately more violent than blacks, I would indeed be opposed to it. -- Chris Auld Department of Economics Internet: auld@qed.econ.queensu.ca Queen's University Office: (613)545-2269 Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 From can.politics Tue Dec 20 10:36:06 1994 Xref: utcsri can.politics:61611 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qed!auld From: auld@qed.uucp (Chris Auld) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Gender and violence (repo Date: 20 Dec 1994 06:42:39 GMT Organization: Department of Economics Lines: 34 Message-ID: <3d5ucv$2on@knot.queensu.ca> References: <89FC27E.0E2F000519.uuout@freddy.supernet.ab.ca> <89FD30E.0E2F000531.uuout@freddy.supernet.ab.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: qed.econ.queensu.ca david.maclean@freddy.supernet.ab.ca (david maclean) writes: >On 12-16-94, CHRIS AULD said: >CA>o The severe assault rate is 46/1000 for assaults by wives and 50/1000 >CA> for assaults by husbands (Straus, ``Physical Assaults by Wives: A >CA> Major Social Problem'' in _Current Controversies in Family Violence_ >CA> Sage 1993). >CA> >If I might be allowed to add, the 4/1000 differential may well be explained >by the prevalent macho attitude. It would appear to me (being male) that it >would generally be more difficult for a man, given current mores, to admit >that he was beat up by his wife, than it would be for a woman to admit that >she was beat up by her husband. Actually, the discrepancy is not even close to being statistically significant -- these figures are based on aa survey of some 2,500 families; sampling error is far greater than 0.4%. Also, the figure is, in fact, accurate, although David's insight is also correct. This is because these figures were compiled using only the women's responses (ie, 'how many times did you hit your husband,') rather than the men's (ie, 'how many times did your wife hit you?') This was done precisely for the reason David suggests: men do not report being the victims of female violence nearly as much as vice versa, there is a huge discrepancy between the answers to the questions in parentheses above. Disclaimer: I'm happily out on the West coast at the moment, so I can't verify the above from the paper. -- Chris Auld Department of Economics Internet: auld@qed.econ.queensu.ca Queen's University Office: (613)545-2269 Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 From can.politics Thu Dec 22 23:05:43 1994 Xref: utcsri can.politics:61804 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qed!auld From: auld@qed.uucp (Chris Auld) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Gender participation Date: 21 Dec 1994 17:57:02 GMT Organization: Department of Economics Lines: 27 Message-ID: <3d9q9e$hem@knot.queensu.ca> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: qed.econ.queensu.ca aw403@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Terry McDermott) writes: >Is it just me (as a newcomer to this interesting group) or is this >whole thing very male dominated? It's curious that most elements >of the computer culture are used more often by males. Clearly, this _must_ be the result of blatant discrimination. It is a horrific example of the most heinous sexism that there aren't more womyn on the net -- men, driven by misogyny and fueled by the overwhelming power they enjoy under patriarchy, are conspiring to withhold net access from womyn. Why? Because they know that under the gentle and wise tutelage of womyn that the net would become a kinder, gentler place, devoid of the innate violence burning in the hearts of men. Obviously, the only way to rectify this situation is to prevent men from accessing the net until enough womyn have signed on that we have achieved gender equity. Access providers who have not achieved equal numbers of men and womyn within a reasonable time span will be subject to legal action. That is, Internet Affirmative Action (IAA) is the clear choice of policy intruments here. As a stopgap measure, all newsgroups should become moderated and posts by men in excess of those by womyn rejected. Sure, this isn't fair, but that's a small price to pay for equity. -- Chris Auld Department of Economics Internet: auld@qed.econ.queensu.ca Queen's University Office: (613)545-2269 Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 From ont.general Mon Feb 6 13:10:03 1995 Xref: utcsri ont.general:24213 soc.men:124530 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!uunet.ca!uunet.ca!io.org!bonk.io.org!dlover From: dlover@bonk.io.org (David Loveridge) Newsgroups: soc.men,ont.general Subject: Acceptable language according to Feminizts Date: 6 Feb 1995 06:20:04 GMT Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Lines: 756 Message-ID: <3h4f2k$4c1@ionews.io.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: bonk.io.org X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] The following is a listing of words and phrases that must be eliminated from the English language according the an Ontario government document. The Ontario Women's Directorate spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in consultations with feminist groups, in writing and publishing this document. You better know it; it's from the government! WORDS THAT COUNT WOMEN IN ONTARIO WOMEN'S DIECTORATE 1st Edition Ontario Women's Directorate 12th Floor 2 Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2M9 Telephone: (416) 314-0292 Fax : (416) 314-0254 THE LANGUAGE BARRIER An introduction to the "why" of inclusive language "O Canada, our home and native land True patriot love in all thy sons command . . ." Picture two children singing these lyrics -- a girl and a boy. Think of the images formed in their minds. The boy sees countless males like himself, all standing on guard for their country. He feels fully part of the patriotic fervor, a true son of Canada. The girl is not so lucky. Since our national anthem says nothing about daughters, she can't help wondering whether it applies to her. Can only men be patriots? "O Canada," the symbol of our democratic spirit, excludes more than half the population. The single word "sons" tells women they do not belong. You cound argue that other words express the anthem's point -- words like "glowing hearts" or "true north strong and free." You could even argue that "sons" is just a synonym for "people"-- and Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, published by Merriam-Webster Inc., 1991 would back you up. One meaning it cites is "a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (as a nation, school or race)." But words create images more powerful than any definition. If you don't choose your words with care, they may send a message you never intended: in this case, that it's a man's world. This song helps perpetuate inequality for all women. Words most of us use daily do exactly that. "Weatherman" suggests that all weather reporters are male. "Frenchman" implies that the French are all male. "Mankind" portrays maleness as the norm for our species and that women are not included. You'd think every species was male, the way the lion at the zoo, the dinosaur in the museum and the friendly mutt in the local park are all referred to as "he". IT'S A MATTER OF CLARITY Reasons for, arguments against, inclusive language All speakers and writers share the same goal: clear communication. Male-biased words don't meet the challenge. They hark back to a world that no longer exists, a world with no place for women's aspirations. They cause needless doubts and needless offense. Unless you learn to spot them and change them, they'll distract attention from your point. It's easier than it sounds. Take "O Canada." If "all thy sons" were changed to "all our hearts," the lyrics would still trip off the tongue -- but they would speak to everyone, not just boys. That's the guiding principle of bias-free language: it includes the whole audience. It's not just the fair way to communicate. Now that women make space flights and hold cabinet posts, it's the only way that works for everyone. This common sense idea has met fierce resistance, and no wonder. Today's inclusive language breaks rules we've all followed since grade school. It also touches the insecurities of all men. But the case against change doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Take a close look at the following arguments: "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" Study after study shows that biased language is fuzzy language. When they read the words "man" or "he," people of all ages tend to picture males. Biased language distorts perceptions. In a classic 1974 study, junior high school students were asked to draw the activities of prehistoric people. One group received instructions about "early man." The other followed gender-neutral instruction. Both groups drew more males than females. But when instructions referred to "people" and "humans," the number of female figures increased. Biased language can dampen young women's aspirations. A 1983 study found women less likely to consider a career in psychology when the career description used the male pronoun. As if all this weren't reason enough to watch our language, getting rid of bias clearly motivates women. In a 1984 study, female students recalled information better when the researchers used sex-neutral terms. "YOU CAN'T REWRITE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE." No one is rewriting the language. Rather, the language is evolving to keep pace with the times, as it has done since the days of the troubadours. The Simpsons don't speak like the Capulets and the Montagues. And just look at the new words that have flooded dictionaries since the '60s: preppy, tofu, quark, hacker, sunblocker, flextime . . . the list goes on. These words exist because they meet a need. Similarly, other words have gone the way of spats and corsets. You hardly ever hear the term "authoress" these days, and "doctoress" is all but forgotten. Yet as recently as the '20s, famed lexicographer H.W. Fowler defended "singeress" and "teacheress." Fowler worried that without specialized terms to distinguish them, upstart professional women might be confuse with the real experts -- their male counterparts. This use of language to keep women from equality has existed since the times of the paternalistic Catholic Church of medieval times. "THOSE NEW WORDS ARE RIDICULOUS." Sceptics heap scorn on "chair," a frontrunner to replace the biased "chairman." A chair, they insist, is a piece of furniture, not a person. In fact, the Oxford English Dictionary dates 1659 as the first use of "chair" in its contested sense. "Chairman" entered the language just four years earlier. Granted, "manhole cover" may sound more natural to many of us than the non-biased alternative, "sewer cover." But that's just because the term is new. To our children's generation, "manhole cover" will likely seem downright quaint. It is our duty to ensure that children learn this inclusive language and see that when it is not used we will take legal action to stop this subversive form of sexual harassment. Wags have dreamed up some undeniably ridiculous words in an effort to lampoon inclusive language. By replacing "man" with "person" wherever it appears, they've devised such clunkers as "personipulate" and "Personitoba." In fact, "manipulate" and "manacle" are here to stay because their root is not "man" but the Latin for hand, manus. "WHAT YOU CALL BIASED, I CALL COLORFUL." No question, some sterotypes exude color. Take "trollop," "shrew" and "biddy." These words appeal for the images they spark -- images that put women down. Sometimes, as with "oaf" and "gigolo," it's men who are belittled in the name of lively writing. Either way, the result is the same -- negative stereotyping. There's another way to make your prose leap off the page. Why not describe the action rather than the person? Nouns label people; verbs pack as much pictorial clout as nouns, with less potential for put-downs. "Tussle," "plod," "lurch," "slither" . . . verbs like these can set scenes for your reader. Countless others are as close as your thesaurus. STICKY WICKETS, AND HOW TO AVOID THEM Some advice on the "rules" of inclusive language Changing lifelong habits calls for patience at first, but don't be suprized if your writing improves. Many biased expressions are cliches. Without them, you'll stretch your creativity. You must be always vigilant to remove these biased expressions from everbodies' language. Not that you need to be a literary whiz. Once you figure out where the danger zones are, dodging them will become second nature. A few simple ground rules will get you started. The Pronoun Puzzle Until recently, most people didn't see anything wrong with using the geneeric "he" ("everyone should bring his lunch") to refer to both men and women. Women's growing disagreement has inspired some pretty cumbesome proposals for a third person singular pronoun of indeterminate sex. "S/he" makes most readers wince; "tey" never caught on at all. "He or she" will do in a pinch, but grates with constant repetition. What's a frustrated writer to do? Try on of three tricks: - Make the sentence plural. In the following sentence, all you'll lose is one word -- and that's a gain for your reader. The leaner your prose, the sharper your point. For example change: "Becoming a doctor can be a lonely experience, one that takes a toll not only on the young doctor, but also on his patients." to "Becoming a doctor can be a lonely experience, one that takes a toll not only on young doctors but also on patients." - Change "his" to "the." It's a simple way to fix this verbal gaffe: "The member will promptly disclose to his [the] client any interest in a business which may affect the client." Better yet, ask yourself if you can shorten the sentence. In the above example, it's understood that the member is disclosing to the client. Why not amend the sentence to read: "The member will promptly disclose any interest in a business which may affect the client." - Use "they" as a singular pronoun. We know, we know -- "Everyone for themselves" would make your English teacher cringe. You're wise to avoid it in a speech to teachers or your company's annual report, but when you want an informal, colloquial style, the singular "they" could be your best bet. This usage was considered correct until the mid-nineteenth century. As the closest thing we have to an indeterminate singular pronoun, "they" could be poised for a comeback. If it was good enough for Jane Austen and William Shakespeare, it should be good enough for the Rotary Club. - Alternate between "she" and "he." Whether you're referring to university students, employees or kids at summer camp, this tactic beats constant repetition of "he or she." Just watch out for sex-typed examples. The employee dashing to the daycare centre is not necessarily "she." The youngster in tears over a classmate's teasing might be "he." - In a pinch . . . Change "he" to "one" or "the individual," or use the passive voice. But both techniques, while often recommended, tend to make for stilted writing. Once you get the hand of the others, you shouldn't need them. ONE SEX FITS ALL? "Some entomologists consider insects to be man's chief competitor, mainly because insects and man both utilize the same things." - "Entomology in Canada: Career Opportunities" Synonyms for "man" abound (see "Words to the Wise"), so this verbal gaffe is easily fixed. Consider just one possible revision: "Some entomologists consider insects to be humans' chief competitor, mainly because insects utilize the same things we do." You may wonder why "humans" should be preferable to "man." Similar as the two words appear, they come from different roots -- "humans" from the Latin "homo" and "man" from the Old English "mann." Both roots originally meant "human being," but "man" developed its gender-specific connotation as long ago as the 10th century. "Man" also turns up as a verb. Here's an example from the front page of The Globe and Mail: "We have . . . found . . . a declining confidence in our system of parliamentary democracy, and in the politicians who man the system." -- pollster Michael Adams Is it just male politicians who have fallen out of favor? If not, then why not change "man" to "run"? TYPE-CASTING No matter what a woman achieves outside the home, her domestic talents attract constant scrutiny. When astronaut Dr. Roberta Bondar made her 1992 space flight, The Toronto Star ran this front-page headline: "Canadian in space does 'housework'" "Bondar spends hour tidying up shuttle" A highly skilled physician and scientist, Dr. Bondar was spending no more time on "housework" than her male colleagues on the shuttle. Her efforts really focused on scientific experiments -- and had she been male, the male headline writer undoubtedly have said so. The Star had trivialized a Canadian hero, and readers were outraged. Within a day, more than 150 calls had bombarded the paper. Not for years had it faced such fury. We don't hear much about Eric Lindros' cooking, or how much time Brian Mulroney spends with his kids. But let a woman step into the spotlight, and reporters suddenly wonder about her cooking schedule and her childcare arrangements. They exclaim over her skill at balancing work and family, as if to say, "Don't worry, guys, she's still a normal woman at heart." When her children grow up, she's still not home free. People magazine recently described a female biographer as "a spunky mother of four and grandmother of six." If you've ever introduced a female speaker, you may have made the same blunder. We suggest this guideline: don't mention a woman's domestic life unless you would make the same comment of a man in her position. One more word of advice: don't assume that only women run homes. That's the message implied in this sentence from a Globe and Mail article on marketing: "The dinner plates that the German hausfrau and the English housewife deemed acceptable, caused French women to laugh in disbelief." Who says that only women were laughing? A woman would never have exhibited such sexism. A few simple changes make the sentence more accurate -- and concise: "The dinner plates that the Germans and the English deemed acceptable caused the French to laugh in disbelief.: THE BEAUTY FACTOR "She's so fresh-faced, so blue-eyed, so ruby-lipped, so 12-car-pile-up gorgeous, 5'5" and 114 pounds of peacekeeping missile." -- Sports Illustrated on figure skater Katerina Witt Women's looks, like their homemaking, garner needless attention. A poet is praised for her "charm," and athlete for "moving like a model." Even the dignified London Sunday Times referred to the "overt, flaunting sexuality" of Canada's Kim Campbell, just because of one semi-nude portrait of her. Is this how we generally talk about male politicians? A Canadian magazine once published an article by a woman on the Toronto Blue Jays -- more specifically, on watching their bottoms under those tight uniforms. She speculated at length on which Blue Jay cut the cutest figure while at bat. In short, she wrote about men the way men always write about women. Angry letters accused the magazine of trivializing baseball. Two themes stand out in irrelevant descriptions of women. One is sexuality, the other fragility. Here's an example of woman-as-rosebud prose: "She is a young, elegant woman with the pert appeal of a gamine. But her fragile good looks contradict the power she wields in the fiercely competitive fashion world." -- Flare on Fairweather president Lynn Posluns "Pert" and "gamine," words only applied to women, shrink the executive's stature. "See how tiny she is," the passage seems to say. "She's not one of those power-hungry women. She wouldn't hurt a fly." Equally belittling -- to all women, not just Posluns -- is the presumed opposition between power and good looks. Why shouldn't female presidents look good? Does power turn women into drab, grim-faced martinets? In describing a man, one would describe their competence, never their appearance. As with childcare arrangements, so with looks: if you wouldn't comment on a man's, then don't comment on a woman's. BACKHANDED COMPLIMENTS At a high school commencement ceremony, a teacher hands a male graduate his award. "This fine young man is an inspiration to his classmates," she declares. Then the teacher honors his female classmate. She is called "a spunky little lady, a joy to us all." Which prizewinner sounds more impressive? The male graduate -- no contest. "Inspiration" connotes action and leadership, while "joy to us all" connotes the supposedly feminine virtues of kindness and good humor. As for "little lady," you don't hear males described as "little men." Next time you write a job reference for a woman, watch the words you choose. Are they the ones you's select for a man with the same skills? Or are they words used only of women -- like "irrepressible" instead of "dauntless," "perky" instead of "energetic," "spunky" instead of "determined"? Perhaps the most backhanded compliment of all is comparing a woman to men -- as in "She thinks like a man." Intellectual rigor is not a male trait -- and neither is guts. THE PARALLELISM PRINCIPLE "Lyn Goes After Rae" -- The Toronto Sun What's wrong with this headline? It denies a woman, Ontario Liberal leader Lyn McLeod, the same respect it gives a man, Premier Bob Rae. Most news media identify adults by their last names. This practice should apply to men and women alike. To eliminate the bias, just make the headline parallel: either "Lyn Goes After Bobbie" or "McLeod Goes After Rae." Fair's fair. The same principle applies in daily life. If you are addressing men as "Dr." or "Professor," be just as formal with the women in the group. Those who have no titles deserve the courtesy of "Ms." And never call a woman by her first name unless you expect her to use yours. Parallelism also means that men shouldn't always go first. Vary your style with phrases like "she and he," hers and his," "women and men." WOMEN WRITERS, MALE NURSES: DOES IT MATTER? Have you ever read an article that identifies an expert as a "woman doctor"? Or heard that someone was treated by a "male nurse"? Many references to gender serve no useful purpose, because they put the emphasis on personal characteristics rather than occupational knowledge and skills. Sometimes both sexes bear the damage. For instance, the term "male secretary" implies that secretarial work is always done by women. More often, though, it's only women who are belittled, because of inequities leading to editors being mostly male. No one ever calls Mordecai Richler "one of our greaters male writers." But Alice Munro can be labelled "one of our greatest woman writers," as if her work couldn't stand comparison with men's. Don't mention gender unless it is key to understanding the message, as in this headline from the Globe and Mail: "Male secretary ruled sexism victim" LADIES' DAY IS OVER "Ladies' dresses," "ladies' night," "ladies and escorts," "the lady next door." The word "lady" may have fallen out of favor, but it still turns up in a multitude of contexts. Only two meet the standards of the '90s. When men are "gentlemen" or "lords," then women can be "ladies." Many people wonder what's wrong with calling women "ladies." To them, the word "lady" implies perfect manners, elegance and refinement -- all positive traits. The catch is that they are used by males as a confining female stereotype. Our society does not expect theses qualities of men, but demands them of women. "Lady" harks back to the rules that evry daughter used to learn from her mother: "A lady always wears gloves," "A lady never wears white after Labor Day." Besides, "lady," unlike gentleman, also has some downright negative meanings. A "lady of the evening" is a prostitue. "Little old lady" conjures images of childish helplessness. To address an adult as "young lady" or "little lady" is to condescend to her. And that's no way to treat a woman. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? Your speech may be a model of gender-neutrality, but if your pictures show women in sterotyped roles, they'll undermine your message. Make sure the images your choose pass the following tests: - THEY INCLUDE WOMEN IN POWER ROLES. Your company's technicians may well be a mostly male group. It's likely to stay that way unless you photograph the woman on the team. - THEY GIVE WOMEN AND MEN EQUAL PROMINENCE. If you feature men in full-page color shots, don't tuck small, black-and-whites of women in the corner. If captions identify men by name, women deserve equal treatment. - THEY DON'T TURN WOMEN INTO SEX OBJECTS. In a Maclean's photographic feature on outstanding Canadians, athlete Silken Laumann appeared in a slinky cocktail dress with a pair of oars at her side. The phallic connotation of the oars was obvious. The men in the story wore their normal working garb. LETTER PERFECT If your letter addressed "Dear Sir" ends up on the desk of a vice- president who's a woman, you've committed a major business blunder. In fact, almost every letter that leaves your desk makes a statement about gender. Here's how to keep in step with the times: - Don't be too quick to assume that you're writing to a man. "R. L. Jones" could be a woman who detests being addressed as "Mr." The gender-neutral salutation is "Dear R. L. Jones." - How to avoid the "Dear Sir" dilemma? "Dear Madam or Sir" is a time-honoured formal solution. Address by title or role such as "Dear Managing Director," "Dear Customer," has become increasingly acceptable. Better still, do some research with the telephone or a directory, and find out the name of the person you want to reach. - Use Ms. salutations instead of Mrs. or Miss. "Mrs." and "Miss" are terms to designate whether or not women are yet chattel for men, are denigrating, and therefore should never be used. (Please note -- although "Ms." isn't an abbreviation, it's now customary to punctuate the term.) Always use a woman's professional title (Judge, Professor,) in situations where you would use one for a man. - The same rule applies when writing to a man and woman couple: avoid "Mr. and Mrs." salutations unless the couple have indicated a preference for this address. If a woman has kept her birth name, the correct form might be "Dear Margaret Attwood and David Hodges." - If the woman has a professional title, you might write "Dear Dr. Kahn and Mr. De Marco." In any case, today's wives are not extensions of their male spouses. "Dear Nancy and Tom Cohen" is preferable to "Dear Mr. and Mrs. Tom Cohen." - Keep your closing simple. Don't sign yourself "Ms." or "Mr." unless you use your initials or have a gender-neutral first name, such as Terry or Chris. ***** GLOSSARY ***** WORDS TO THE WISE The Work World Inclusive job titles welcome both women and men to a variety of occupatons, and help organizatons maximize their "people power." Unless there's a specific reason otherwise (like an article profiling women in traditionally male occupations) keep the emphasis on the job, not the gender. Some terms are in transition -- "actress" to "actor," "ballerina" to "ballet dancer" -- while others, like "police offier," are already well-established. NON-INCLUSIVE INCLUSIVE actess actor ad man, advertising man advertising representative airman, aviatrix pilot, aviator, flyer alderman municipal councillor anchorman anchor, newscaster, announcer assemblyman (manufacturing) assembler assemblyman (politics) assembly member, legislator ballerina ballet dancer barmaid bartender businessman business person, business executive, professional, entrepreneur call girl prostitute career girl, career woman executive, manager, professional cameraman, cameramen camera operator, camera crew cleaning lady cleaner clergyman cleric, member of the clergy comedienne comedian, comic craftsman artisan draftsman draftsperson, drafting technician engineman engine operator fireman fire fighter fisherman, fishermen fisher, fishing crew ferryman ferry operator foreman foreperson, supervisor frogman diver, underwater technician gasman gas fitter, gas pipe installer girl Friday person Friday harbor master harbor chief, harbor person insurance man insurance agent journeyman trade worker landlady landperson, householder, building manager lineman lineperson, lineworker, line installer longshoreman dockhand, shorehand, longshoreperson mailman letter carrier meter maid (traffic) parking constable meter man (utilities) meter reader newsman journalist, reporter papergirl,paperboy paper carrier platrolman patrol officer policeamn, policewoman police officer poetess poet quarryman quarrier, quarry worker repairman repairer, technician saleslady, salesman sales representative, sales agent seamstress tailor, dressmaker, alterationist serviceman sevice representative, technician sideman side-player, backup musician steward, stewardess flight attendant taxman tax collector union man unionist, union member union organizer waitress waiter, server watchman guard, security guard weatherman weather reporter, meteorologist workman worker The World of Play Interestingly, many sports and recreation terms are already gender-inclusive (batter, goalie, hiker, gymnast, swimmer, to name just a few). New words are evolving (and old onew are being revived) to reflect women's participation in a range of leisure activities. Non-inclusive Inclusive boatsman boater defenseman defense fisherman fisher, angler gamesman gamester, games buff handyman do-it-yourselfer horseman, horsewoman rider linksman golfer outdoorsman naturalist, nature lover rifleman, marksman sharpshooter sportsman athlete, sports enthusiast sportsmanlike sporting, fair, team spirited sportsmanship fair play yachtsman yachter, yacht owner, sailor Roles People Play Roles and relationships are in transition, and so is the language used to describe them. Therms used informally may not be appropriate in a public setting. We might have a relationship with a "boyfriend" or "girlfirend" (or go out for the evening with "the girls" or "the boys") but terms like "partner" (or "friends") are more appropriate in a media, business, or professional context. Non-inclusive Inclusive bachelor (degree) baccalaureate, undergraduate degree benefactress benefactor boyfriend, girlfriend partner boys in blue police force chairman chair, chairperson, co-ordinator coed student corporate wife corporate spouse faculty wife faculty spouse freshman first-year student front man figurehead heiress heir heroine hero, protagonist hostess host housewife, househusband homemaker layman layperson, amateur middleman intermediar, mediator man and wife wife and husband, couple ombudsman advocate, ombudsperson self-made man self-made person, entrepreneur spokesman spokesperson, representative The Human Family Generic use of the word "man" will backfire, and have the reverse effect on your audience. Ironically, a politican calling for the "unity of mankind" will be excluding more than half the populace! Non-inclusive Inclusive brotherhood comradeship, community common man average person, person in the street countryman compatriot early man early people, prehistoric people fair sex, weaker sex AVOID as it is sexual harassment fatherland country of origin, homeland fellowship camaraderie, friendship forefathers ancestors fraternal warm, intimate fraternal organization club, society Frenchman the French man, mankind humankind, humanity, humans modern man modern society rise of man rise of civilization sons of God children of God thinking man thinking person, thinker working woman, working man wage earner, taxpayer Stereotypes Women aren't necessarily nurturing or intuitive, but some stereotypes are slow to fade. Many compliments given to women are in fact meant to put a woman in "her" place. Non-inclusive Inclusive balls (eg. "She's got balls") guts, moxie bridesmaid bridal attendant father time time kingdom country, land, realm kingdom come the next world, paradise kingpin cornerstone lady killer seducer ladylike cultured maiden name birth name maiden voyage first voyage man (verb) staff, run, operate man enough strong enough manhood, womanhood adulthood manly strong man-made artificial, synthetic, machine-made man of letters scholar, intellectual man of the world sophisticate man-hours staff-hours, person-hours manpower staff, personnel man-sized heavy, large, cumbersome man-to-man talk heart-to-heart talk matronly mature, dignified one-upmanship competitiveness sexpot, sex kitten AVOID as this is sexual harassment statesman diplomat, politician workmanship artisanship, quality construction Turns of Phrase Quotations and turns of phrase provide some special challenges for the gender-inclusive writer. You can't go back and rewrite quotations or titles of books, songs and plays, even if you wish you could. While accuracy in using correct titles and quotations is a must, you can be aware that quotations relying on stereotypes may no longer prove the point you want to make. There are many turns of phrase and expressions that have developed over time which are flexible, and can keep their color when reworked. Here are a few: Non-inclusive Inclusive All men are created equal All people are created equal be his own man be one's own person best man for the job best person for the job every man for himself everyone for themselves every man has his price everyone had their price John Q. Public the average citizen gentleman's agreement informal agreement Man does not live by bread alone People don't live by bread alone A man's home is his castle Your home is your castle man of few words person of few words, silent type no-man's-land dead zone Putdowns Everyone knows that terms like "bimbo" or "vamp" are more than stereotype -- they're insults. But unintended insults can also creep into day-to-day language through terms we take for granted, putting down women. You must correct everybodies' language, any time you hear sexist language. Only by doing this can we end the sexism in language perpetrated by years of paternalism in society. Non-inclusive Inclusive bag lady street person, homeless person cute AVOID as this is sexual harassment girl AVOID as this is sexual harassment henpecked AVOID honey AVOID mama's boy AVOID manhandle abuse, mistreat old maid AVOID as this is sexual harassment old wives' tale myth, folktale plain Jane AVOID prodigal son prodigal child sissy AVOID spinster single woman sweet AVOID {end} From ont.general Sat Feb 18 00:45:36 1995 Xref: utcsri can.general:45331 can.politics:68177 ont.general:24640 soc.culture.canada:62173 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!uunet.ca!uunet.ca!io.org!r-node.io.org!gmoore From: gmoore@r-node.io.org (Glen Moore) Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada Subject: Re: Ontario's Employment Equity Act Date: 16 Feb 1995 23:29:35 GMT Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Lines: 382 Message-ID: <3i0n4v$3n8@ionews.io.org> References: <3hgiqm$4vt@ionews.io.org> <3hukqr$25o@ionews.io.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: r-node.io.org X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] The following article sums up the reality of Employment Equity. As for your ideas, they are the cries of an opportunist! RACE, SEX BIAS ************** Rights Commission offers glimpse of chilling future for white males in its hiring policy . . . THE FACE OF ONTARIO'S FUTURE IS NON-WHITE AND FEMALE AND A PLACE WHERE RIGHTS ARE . . . WRONG by Christie Blatchford Toronto Sun, Fri. August 26, 1994, page 5 The Ontario Human Rights Commission - often touted as a model of employment equity - has been systematically and deliberately discriminating against white English speaking men, statistics in a recent report show. And what's more, even though oly abut 9% of its workforce are white men - who form 40% of Ontario's population - other documents prove the commission is hellbent on hiring even more racial minorities and aboriginals and on making employment equity a crucial part of a major restructuring now under way. Less than a week before Bob Rae's controversial Employment Equity Act comes into force for the public service, the results of the organizations's recently completed "employment systems review" put the lie to the notion that employment equity is always about fairness. Employment equity, which becomes mandatory for large private- sector firms next March, is SUPPOSED to see to it that the five so-called "designated groups" - women, the disabled, aboriginal people, Francophones and racial minorities - are fairly represented. White English-speaking men are referred to as the "non-designated group." Usually, equity advocates use census results to argue, for example, that because the disabled make up about 7% of the general population, they should also compose 7% of every work force. The assumption has always been that once barriers have been "removed" for the designated groups and fairness achieved, mandatory equity programs would cease. But at the commission, there's no equity for white men - and none planned for the future, either. The statistics which form the "workforce profile" released last March are revealing enough. They show, among other things, that women and racial minorities are wildly over-represented among the commission staff. Women make up 50% of Ontario's population, but they form 67% of the commission's workforce, while minorities, who form about 9%, are represented at more than four times that rate - about 38% - at the commission. Aboriginal people, who form 1.7% of the population, have more than twice that representation - 3.9% - at the commission. But the Sun has also learned other shocking facts. Among them: * White men are totally absent fromt he commission's "senior management group"; * In some commission offices outside Metro, particularly in the Northern Region, there are NO white men on staff; * There are NO white men working in the influential jobs on the executive directors' or the commissioner's staff; * There are no white men employed in the policy branch of the commission; * There have been virtually no white men promoted in recent years, and of the few hired, virtually all had so much seniority in government they couldn't be denied the jobs. * The over-representation by racial minorities and women was first revealed in a 1989 "I count" survey, which showed the two groups had, respectively, 40% and 68% of commission jobs. But while the number of Francophones has almost doubled since then, the plight of the ordinary white male who ISN'T French has only worsened. The commission is also in the midst of a sweeping restructuring and according to a 26-page report just released to staff a week ago, employment equity remains "an organizational priority". The restructuring may see some jobs eliminated, the report says and if any competitionsa re held as a result, equity will be a PRIME consideration. Staff who are deemed "job-threatened" or "surplus" will be allowed to compete for their redefined positon or a new one, but equity will be a factor in whether or not they get it. Management has also recently approved much of a sweeping set of recommendations from the commission's active anti-racism committee; two of its goals are to see "and increase in aboriginal" and "racial minority staff." It's quite clear that if the commission is a glimpse of the future for Ontario under employment equity, the fact of the future is female and non-white. [End of Article] Kamala-Jean Gopie (kjgopie@r-node.io.org) wrote: : You are only criticizing Employment Equity out of your own : inadequacies and fears. : Immigration has been the lifeblood of Canadian and American : economies. As old cultures grow stagnant, the new cultures : bring a new vitality and without them this country would : have fallen apart. Those from the old ways who are the : reason for this stagnation are afraid of the success of the : immigrants and out of their fear and racism will do anything : to forbid the newcomers an equal chance. It is because of : this that Employment Equity becomes a necessity. : Unfortunately, Employment Equity is not enough. Those in : positions of power will use other means to block the success : of newer citizens. One method is by educational restrictions. : Therefore to have a truly equitable system other inequities : must be addressed, predominately education. Education is : effectively limited to the new citizens by: financial : restrictions and by culturally biased marking. To eliminate : the first problem, post seconday education must become more : accessable to historically discriminated groups ideally by : making their education free, but if that is not politically : possibly, then by a program of scholarships and grants to : members of those groups. Secondly, since testing is : culturally biased, it must be normalized to account for the : cultural biases in tests that give certain groups lower : marks unfairly. : Another area Employment can't address but that must be : addressed are cultural images that portray certain groups : in certain roles. Women seem to only be portrayed in : sexual or homemaker roles in our media; Blacks as athletes. : The media must start portraying historically discriminated : groups in different roles, likes women as leaders and Blacks : as scholars. The media won't do this without government : intervention. : Bob Levitt (blevitt@io.org) wrote: : : As I have had several requests after one posting I made about Ontario's : : Employment Equity Act, I will be typing it up plus the regulations that : : go with it in its entirity. For now I will just be posting the : : "Preamble" in the Act. : : I believe that no matter what your beliefs on Employment Equity are, : : after reading the Act you will believe that this particular law is a bad : : one because it does not define all the requirements and leaves most of : : the decisions, not to the law, but to the bureaucrats of the Employment : : Equity Commission, an invitation to individual interpretation (that will : : vary from bureaucrat to bureaucrat and their personal political beliefs) : : and is an open invitation to abuse and even graft. : : As for my personal beliefs on this law, I believe it adds to the : : overburdening of both the public and business with more and more : : bureaucracy, it makes it desirable to hire those that are covered under : : this law (the "designated groups" only, and I am one of those : : "designated groups") and not on the basis of merit, it punishes some for : : the previous misdeeds of others in the past in the same "non-designated : : group," it rewards others for the misdeeds done in the past to those in : : the same "designated groups" and it may be one of the causes for the : : "economy" not recovering in the province of Ontario. : : I understand there is a similar federal (Canadian) law, but I don't have : : a copy of it. : : Anyways, for those who are interested in it, here is the beginning of my : : work, typing the Act and regulations that go with it. : : ************************************************************************ : : BILL 79 : : (Chapter 35 Statutes of Ontario, 1993) : : And Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aborininal People, : : People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women : : The Hon. E. Ziemba : : Minister of Citizenship : : 3rd Session, 35th Legislature, Ontario, 42 Elizabeth II, 1993 : : 1st Reading June 25, 1992 : : 2nd Reading July 19, 1993 : : 3rd Reading December 9, 1993 : : Royal Assent December 14, 1993 : : Printed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario : : Contents : : Part I - Employment Equity : : 1. Entitlement : : 2. Employment equity principles : : Part II - General : : Interpretation : : 3. Definitions : : 4. Designated groups : : 5. Legitimate requirements, handicaps, special employment : : 6. Plan to prevail : : Application : : 7. Application of Parts III, IV and VI : : 8. Crown bound : : Part III - Obligations : : Obligations : : 9. Implementation and maintenance of employment equity : : 10. Collection of workforce information : : 11. Review of employment policies : : 12. Employment equity plan : : 13. Standard re contents of plan : : 14. Implementation of plan : : 15. Review and revision of plan : : 16. Joint responsibilities, employer and bargaining agent : : 17. Consultation with unrepresented employees : : 18. Duty to post information : : 19. Employment equity records : : 20. Reports to the Commission : : Application to the Commission : : 21. Access to Information : : Exemptions : : 22. Regulations re Aboriginal workplaces : : Implementation : : 23. Time to comply, existing employees : : 24. If exemption ceases to apply, broader public sector : : Part IV - Enforcement : : Audit and Enforcement by the Commission : : 25. Commission audit : : 26. Settlement with Commission : : 27. Commission order to comply : : Applications to the Tribunal : : 28. Application by Commission : : 29. Application for failure to implement plan or settlement : : 30. Applications re joint responsibilities : : 31. Application by employee re joint responsibilities : : 32. Application re employers : : 33. Application re intimidation, etc. : : 34. Notice to Commission : : 35. Mediation : : 36. Parties : : 37. Power to made orders : : 38. Exclusive jurisdiction : : Offences : : 39. Confidentiality of information : : 40. Obstruction : : 41. Providing false information : : 42. Intimidation : : 43. Offences and penalty : : 44. Consent to prosecution : : Part V - Administration : : Employment Equity Commission : : 45. Commission established : : 46. Functions of the Commission : : 47. Policy directives : : 48. Commission rules : : 49. Annual report : : 50. Advisory councils : : Employment Equity Tribunal : : 51. Tribunal established : : 52. Panels of the Tribunal : : 53. Tribunal rules : : Part VI - Miscellaneous and Regulations : : 54. Employment equity; government contracts : : 55. Regulations : : Part VII - Consequential Amendments, Review, Commencement : : and Short Title : : 56. Amendments to Human Rights Code : : 57. Review of the Act : : 58. Commencement : : 59. Short title : : Addendum added by the typist of this electronic version : : Regulations as published in The Ontario Gazette - O. Reg. 386/94 : : Aboriginal Workplaces : : Construction Industry : : Agricultural Industry : : Definitions : : General : : - Non-application Sections 1 : : - Interpretation Sections 2-5 : : - Workforce Survey Sections 6-13 : : - Review of Policies and Practices Sections 14,15 : : - Employment Equity Plans Sections 16-21 : : - Rview and Revision of a Plan Sections 22,23 : : - Certificates Section 24 : : - Joint Responsibilities of Employers : : and Bargaining Agents Sections 25-30 : : - Consultation with Unrepresented Employees Sections 31-33 : : - Information for Employees Sections 34-36 : : - Employment Equity Records Sections 37,38 : : - Employment Equity Reports Sections 39-41 : : - Commencement Section 42 : : - Workforce Survey Questionnaire Schedule 1 : : --------------------------------------------------------------- : : Preamble : : The people of Ontario recognize that Aboriginal people, people : : with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women : : experience higher rates of unemployment than other people in : : Ontario. The people of Ontario also recognize that people in : : these groups experience more discrimination than other people : : in finding employment, in retaining employment and in being : : promoted. As a result, they are underrepresented in most : : areas of employment, especially in senior and management : : positions, and they are overrepresented in those areas of : : employment that provide low pay and little chance for : : advancement. The burden imposed on th people in these groups : : and on the communities in which they live is unacceptable. : : The people of Ontario recognize that this lack of employment : : equity exists in both the public and private sectors of : : Ontario. It is caused in part by systemic and intentional : : discrimination in employment. People of merit are too often : : overlooked or denied opportunities because of this : : discrimination. The people of Ontario recognize that when : : objective standards govern remployment opportunities, Ontario : : will have a workforce that is tryly representative of its : : society. : : The people of Onatio have recognized in the Human Rights Code : : the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all : : members of the human family and have recognized those rights : : in respect of employment in such statutes as the Employment : : Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act. This Act extends teh : : principles of those Acts and has as its object the : : amelioration of conditions in employment for Aboriginal people, : : peole with disabilities, members of racial minorities and : : women in all workplaces in Ontario and the provision of the : : opportunity for people to these groups to fulfil their : : potential in employment. : : The people of Ontario recognize that eliminating discrimination : : in employment and increasing the opportunity of individuals to : : contribute in the workplace will benefit all people in Ontario. : : Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of : : the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as : : follows. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------- : : Part I : : Employment Equity : : Entitlement : :  From soc.culture.canada Wed Mar 8 10:00:18 1995 Xref: utcsri can.general:46595 soc.culture.canada:63695 tor.general:20953 Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!uunet!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!uunet.ca!uunet.ca!io.org!nobody From: val@io.org (Val Dodge) Newsgroups: tor.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada Subject: Re: International Women's Day - March 8 Date: 5 Mar 1995 05:04:30 -0500 Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Lines: 74 Message-ID: References: <3jbem9$svi@ionews.io.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: grin.io.org In article <3jbem9$svi@ionews.io.org>, kjgopie@io.org (Kamala-Jean Gopie) wrote: > The main subjects to be highlighted are the inherit Misogyny > of the Canadian budget announced last week, and male violence > against Women. "Inherit Misogyny"? Are you saying it's *genetic*? Let me guess what your ideal budget would be: tax all white men 100%, put them all in jail for lookin' at you funny, and fire them from their jobs; give all the money and jobs to non-white women, and then start whining about the "inherit" racism of the air. Yup, I'm sure that Paul Martin (a man! he must be racist *and* sexist if he has a white dick!) cut billions and billions of dollars out of the budget simply by lowering funding for women. And I heard that all of the 40000+ people that the government is going to lay off are going to be women! Sexist pig. He's no Finance Minsiter, he's the Misogynistic Bastard Minister. And UI cutbacks only affect *women*. Do you believe the gall? And what about his proposal that only women drivers pay the increased gas tax? Or that only women be affected by health care cuts because "they already live too long." But it doesn't stop with Paul Martin. No, it's the entire Cretien (another white-dicked man!) government. If you look at the fine print in Allan Rock's gun control bill, only women have to register their firearms. And the changes to the Young Offender Act? That's right, longer prison sentences for *girls*. Sergio Marchi? Did you hear that he denied refugee status to a woman last week? Can you imagine the nerve of that...that...*man*? Where will it stop? The only solution is armed rebellion. Unfortunately Cretien, the wily bastard that he is, knows that; that's why he's secretly planning to take away all women's guns. Stand up for your rights now before you lose them. It may be your last chance. Even the Queen herself is slated to be replaced by a man soon. The end is near, my friends... > National Action Committee on the Status of Women, > Congress of Black Women, > Women Working With Immigrant Women, > African Women's Resource Centre, > Coalition of Visible Minority Women, > Middle East Immigrant Women's Centre, > South Asian Women's Centre, > Women's Education Centre > Immigrant Women's Centre, > Native Women's Resource Centre, > Ontario Immigrant and Visible Minority Women's Organization, > and the Council of Women. You see, this is why women have such little power today; you've fragmented your voice. If you were like men, you'd put all of your faith and power in one institution and let them do all the lobbying for you -- much like men have with Labatt's. Through Labatt's, men control probably the two most powerful and influential people in the nation right now: Paul Beeston and Serge Savard. Who do women have? I dunno, a bunch of talking heads in Winnipeg. Coincidence? I think not. You know guys, I think we've found a perfect counterpart to Allisat in Ms Gopie. I mean, they both have this thing for spewing completely illogical, unfounded opinions into the bitsream and never bothering to defend them...could they be eyedentical twins, perhaps? I surely can't be the only one who's noticed the resemblance. If we could only get them to post about the same thing, they could probably ignore each other into oblivion. It almost sounds like a match made in heaven; for the rest of us, anyway. So here's the deal: someone get Bob to post about how immigrant women are killing the environment, and we'll be well on our way... -- Val Dodge | Tell me no lies, and I'll ask you no Toronto, Ontario | questions. From blevitt@io.org Wed Mar 8 21:42:55 EST 1995 Article: 25246 of ont.general Xref: utcsri alt.discrimination:31241 alt.politics.correct:38970 can.legal:6849 can.politics:70089 misc.entrepreneurs:36035 ont.general:25246 soc.culture.canada:63963 Path: utcsri!rutgers!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!fonorola!infoshare!whome!gts!reptiles.org!io.org!nobody From: blevitt@io.org (Bob Levitt) Newsgroups: ont.general,can.legal,can.politics,soc.culture.canada,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,misc.entrepreneurs Subject: Affirmative Action in Ontario Date: 7 Mar 1995 20:57:20 -0500 Organization: Internex Online (Data: 363-3783/Telnet: io.org) Lines: 2745 Message-ID: <3jj2u0$2f2@ionews.io.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: bonk.io.org BILL 79 (Chapter 35 Statutes of Ontario, 1993) An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aborininal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women The Hon. E. Ziemba Minister of Citizenship 3rd Session, 35th Legislature, Ontario, 42 Elizabeth II, 1993 1st Reading June 25, 1992 2nd Reading July 19, 1993 3rd Reading December 9, 1993 Royal Assent December 14, 1993 Printed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Contents Part I - Employment Equity 1. Entitlement 2. Employment equity principles Part II - General Interpretation 3. Definitions 4. Designated groups 5. Legitimate requirements, handicaps, special employment 6. Plan to prevail Application 7. Application of Parts III, IV and VI 8. Crown bound Part III - Obligations Obligations 9. Implementation and maintenance of employment equity 10. Collection of workforce information 11. Review of employment policies 12. Employment equity plan 13. Standard re contents of plan 14. Implementation of plan 15. Review and revision of plan 16. Joint responsibilities, employer and bargaining agent 17. Consultation with unrepresented employees 18. Duty to post information 19. Employment equity records 20. Reports to the Commission Application to the Commission 21. Access to Information Exemptions 22. Regulations re Aboriginal workplaces Implementation 23. Time to comply, existing employees 24. If exemption ceases to apply, broader public sector Part IV - Enforcement Audit and Enforcement by the Commission 25. Commission audit 26. Settlement with Commission 27. Commission order to comply Applications to the Tribunal 28. Application by Commission 29. Application for failure to implement plan or settlement 30. Applications re joint responsibilities 31. Application by employee re joint responsibilities 32. Application re employers 33. Application re intimidation, etc. 34. Notice to Commission 35. Mediation 36. Parties 37. Power to made orders 38. Exclusive jurisdiction Offences 39. Confidentiality of information 40. Obstruction 41. Providing false information 42. Intimidation 43. Offences and penalty 44. Consent to prosecution Part V - Administration Employment Equity Commission 45. Commission established 46. Functions of the Commission 47. Policy directives 48. Commission rules 49. Annual report 50. Advisory councils Employment Equity Tribunal 51. Tribunal established 52. Panels of the Tribunal 53. Tribunal rules Part VI - Miscellaneous and Regulations 54. Employment equity; government contracts 55. Regulations Part VII - Consequential Amendments, Review, Commencement and Short Title 56. Amendments to Human Rights Code 57. Review of the Act 58. Commencement 59. Short title Addendum added by the typist of this electronic version Regulations as published in The Ontario Gazette - O. Reg. 386/94 Aboriginal Workplaces Construction Industry Agricultural Industry Definitions General - Non-application Sections 1 - Interpretation Sections 2-5 - Workforce Survey Sections 6-13 - Review of Policies and Practices Sections 14,15 - Employment Equity Plans Sections 16-21 - Rview and Revision of a Plan Sections 22,23 - Certificates Section 24 - Joint Responsibilities of Employers and Bargaining Agents Sections 25-30 - Consultation with Unrepresented Employees Sections 31-33 - Information for Employees Sections 34-36 - Employment Equity Records Sections 37,38 - Employment Equity Reports Sections 39-41 - Commencement Section 42 - Workforce Survey Questionnaire Schedule 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- Preamble The people of Ontario recognize that Aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women experience higher rates of unemployment than other people in Ontario. The people of Ontario also recognize that people in these groups experience more discrimination than other people in finding employment, in retaining employment and in being promoted. As a result, they are underrepresented in most areas of employment, especially in senior and management positions, and they are overrepresented in those areas of employment that provide low pay and little chance for advancement. The burden imposed on th people in these groups and on the communities in which they live is unacceptable. The people of Ontario recognize that this lack of employment equity exists in both the public and private sectors of Ontario. It is caused in part by systemic and intentional discrimination in employment. People of merit are too often overlooked or denied opportunities because of this discrimination. The people of Ontario recognize that when objective standards govern remployment opportunities, Ontario will have a workforce that is tryly representative of its society. The people of Ontario have recognized in the Human Rights Code the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family and have recognized those rights in respect of employment in such statutes as the Employment Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act. This Act extends the principles of those Acts and has as its object the amelioration of conditions in employment for Aboriginal people, peole with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women in all workplaces in Ontario and the provision of the opportunity for people to these groups to fulfil their potential in employment. The people of Ontario recognize that eliminating discrimination in employment and increasing the opportunity of individuals to contribute in the workplace will benefit all people in Ontario. Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part I Employment Equity Entitlement 1.-(1) All people are entitled to equal treatment in employment in accordance with the Human Rights Code. Aboriginal (2) Aboriginal people are entitled to be considered for people employment, hired, retained, treated and promoted in accordance with employment equity principles. People with (3) Peole with disabilities, members of racial minorities and disabilities, women are entitled to be considered for employment, hired, racial retained, treated and promoted in accordance with minorities employment equity principles. and women Employment 2. The following principles of employment equity apply equity throughout Ontario: principles 1. Every Aboriginal person, every person with a disability, every member of a racial minority and every woman is entitled to be considered for employment, hired, retained, treated and promoted free of barriers, including systemic and deliberate practices and policies, that discriminate against them as an Aboriginal person, as a person with a disability, as a member of a racial minority or as a woman. 2. Every employer's workforce, in all occupational categories and at all levels or employment, shall reflect the representation of Aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women in the community. 3. Every employer shall ensure that its employment policies and practices, including its policies and practices, including its policies and practices with respect to recruitment, hiring, retention, treatment and promotion, are free of barriers, both systemic and deliberate, that discriminate against Aboriginals people, people with disabilities, membres of racial minorities and women. 4. Every employer shall implement positive measures with respect to the recruitment, hiring, retention, treatment and promotion of Aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women. 5. Every employer shall implement supportive measures with respect to the recruitment, hiring, retention, treatment and promotion of Aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women which also benefit the employer's workforce as a whole. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART II General Interpretation Definitions 3.-(1) In this Act, "bargaining agent" means a trade union or other organization that, under any Act, has bargaining rights in respect of any unit of employees; ("agent n‚gociateur") "broader public sector" means the employers named in the Schedule to the Pay Equity Act and such other employers as may be named or described in the regulations but does not include the Ontario Public Service or such employers as may be named or described in the regulations; (secteur parapublic") "collective agreement" means an agreement in writing between an employer and a bargaining agent covering terms and conditions of employment; ("convention collective") "effective date" means the date on which section 12 (employment equity plan) comes into force; ("date d'entr‚e en vigueur") "employee" means a permanent employee, a seasonal employee and a term employee, and within those categories, includes an individual who is primarily working for an employer on a commission basis, a dependent contractor and such others as are designated in teh regulations; ("employ‚") "employer" includes any entity, whether or not incorporated, that employs one or more employees, a trustee, a receiver and a person who regularly engages the services of others on such other basis as may be prescribed by the regulations; ("employeur") "person" includes any entity, whether or not incorporated; ("personne") "private sector employer" means an employer other than the Crown in right of Ontario or an employer in the broader private sector; ("employeur du secteur priv‚") "regulations" means the regulations made under this Act; ("rŠglements") "seasonal employee" means an employee who is employed in a position that is filled for a specific period of time on a regular basis each year; ("employ‚ saisonnier") "term employee" means an employee, other than a permanent employee or a seasonal employee, who has been or is expected to be employed by the employer for three consecutive months or more. ("employ‚ embauch‚ pur une p‚riode d‚termin‚e") Ontario Public (2) For the purposes of this Act, the Crown in right of Service Ontario is considered to be the employer of the Ontario Public Service which, for the purposes of this Act, consists of the people employed in the ministries of the Crown and in those agencies, boards and commissions of the Crown which employ public servants appointed under the Public Service Act. Exception, (3) All other agencies, boards and commission of the Crown other Crown are deemed to be separate employers and the people working agencies for them are deemed to be thier employees for the purposes of this Act. Deemed (4) Subject to subsection (3), two or more employers are employers deemed to constitute a single employer for the purposes of this Act if, (a) the employers are declared by the Employment Equity Tribunal under section 32 to constitute a single employer; or (b) the employers are declared by the Ontario Labour Relations Board under subsection 1 (4) of the Labour Relations Act to constitute a single employer for the purposes of that Act, regardless of whether the Board's declaration was made in respect of all or part of the employers' workforces. Existing (5) For the purposes of Parts III and IV, the number of employers, employees that an employer has on the effective date is number of deemed to be the greater of, employees (a) the actual number of employees that the employer has on that date; and (b) the greatest number of employees that the employer had at any time during the twelve-month period ending on that date. Designated 4. Aboriginal people, people with disablities, members of groups racial vinorities and women constitute teh designated groups for the purposes of this Act. Legitimate 5. It is not a breach of this Act to give preference in requirements, hiring or to deny employment to someone if the preference or handicaps, denial is one that is permitted under the Human Rights Code special by section 11 (constructive discrimination), section 17 employment (handicap) or clause 24 (1) (a) or (b) (special employment). Plan to 6. An employment equity plan that is prepared, established or prevail amended under this Act prevails over all relevant collective agreements in the event of any inconsistency and to the extent of that inconsistency. APPLICATION Application 7.-(1) Except as provided in this section, Parts III, IV and of Parts III, VI apply with respect to every employer in Ontario, including IV and VI the Crown in right of Ontario. Exception, (2) Parts III, IV and VI do not apply with respect to an small employers employer in the broader public sector that has fewer than ten (broader employees unless, at any time after the effective date, the public sector) employer has ten employees or more. Exception, (3) Parts III, IV and VI do not apply with respect to a small employers private sector employer that has fewer than fifty employees, (private unless, at any time after the effective date, the employer sector) has fifty employees or more. Exception (4) Parts III, IV and VI do not apply with respect to the police forces Ontario Provincial Police or any other police force to which section 48 of the Police Services Act applies. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART III OBLIGATIONS Obligations Implementation 9.-(1) Every employer shall implement and maintain employment and equity by recruiting, hiring, retaining, treating and maintenance promoting employees according to employment equity principles of employment and in accordance with the employment equity plan that applies equity in respect of those employees. Role of (2) Every employer shall ensure that the employer's staff who supervisors, have responsibility for recruiting, hiring, supervising, etc. evaluating or promoting employees are aware of, and observe, the requirements of this Act, the regulations and the employment equity plan that applies in respect of those employees. Same (3) Every member of staff who has responsibility for recruiting, hiring, supervising, evaluating or promoting employees shall work in accordance with this Act, the regulations and the employment equity plan that applies in respect of those employees. Collection 10.-(1) Every employer shall, in accordance with the of workforce regulations, conduct employment equity workforce surveys and information collect other information to determine the extent to which members of the designated groups are employed in the employer's workforce. Voluntary (2) An employee has the right to decide whether to answer giving of questions asked by an employer under subsection (1). information Review of 11.-(1) Every employer shall review the employer's employment employment policies and practices in accordance with the policies regulations. Purpose (2) The purpose of the review is to identify and enable the of review employer to remove barriers to the recruitment, hiring, retention, treatment and promotion of members of the designated groups, including terms and conditions of employment and adversely affect members of the designated groups. Seniority (3) For the purpose of this Act, employee seniority rights rights with respect to a layoff or recall to employment after a layoff that are acquired through a collective agreement or an established practice of an employer are deemed not to be barriers to the recruitment, hiring, retention, treatment or promotion of members of the designated groups. Same (4) For the purpose of this Act, employee seniority rights, other that those referred to in subsection (3), that are acquired through a collect agreement or an established practice of an employer are deemed not to be barriers to the recruitment, hiring, retention, treatment or promotion of members of the designated groups unless a board of inquiry under the Human Rights Code finds that the seniority rights discriminate against members of a designated groups in a manner that is contrary to the Human Rights Code Employment 12.-(1) Every employer shall prepare an employment equity equity plan equity plan in accordance with the regulations. It must provide for, (a) the elimination of barriers identified under section 11; (b) the implementation of positive measures with respect to the recruitment, hiring, retention, treatment and promotion of members of the designated groups; (c) the implementation of supportive measures with respect to the recruitment, hiring, retention, treatment and promotion of members of the designated groups which also benefit the employer's workforce as a whole; (d) the implementation of measures to accommodate members of the designated groups in the employer's workforce; (e) specific goals and timetables for the matters referred to in clauses (a) to (d); (f) specific goals and timetables with respect to the composition of the employer's workforce; and (g) such other matters as may be prescribed by the regulations. More than (2) An employer may prepare more than one plan, in one plan accordance with the regulations, for the purpose of meeting the employer's obligations under subsection (1), so long as each plan meets the requirements set out in subsection (1), and so long as, together, the plans cover all of the employer's employees and all of the employer's workplaces. Plan (3) After preparing a plan, the employer shall prepare a Certificate certificate respecting the plan in accordance with the regulations. Additional (4) The certificate of every employer other than an employer requirements in the broader public sector that has fewer fifty employees and a private sector employer that has fewer than 100 employees shall, in accordance witht he regulations, include information with respect to the provisions of the plan for the elimination of barriers and for the implementation of positive measures, supportive measures and measures to accommodate members of the designated groups. Filing of (5) The employer shall file the certificate with the certificate Employment Equity Commission in a form approved by the Commission and in accordance with the regulations. Copy of Plan (6) The Commission may require the employer to file a copy of the plan. Filing of (7) Despite subsection (6), after preparing a plan, the copy of plan Crown in right of Ontario shall file a copy of the plan with the Commission. Standard re 13. Every employer shall ensure that the matter referred to contents of in subsection 12(1) that are contained in an employment equity plan would, if implemented, constitute reasonable progress toward achieving compliance with the principles of employment equity that are set out in section 2. Implementation 14. Every employer ahall make all reasonable efforts to of plan implement each of the employer's employment equity plans and to achieve the goals set out in each plan in accordance with the timetables set out in the plan. Review and 15.-(1) Every employer shall review and revise each of the revision employer's employment equity plans in accordance with the of plan regulations. Plan (2) After revising a plan, the employer shall prepare a certificate certificate respecting the revised plan in accordance with the regulations.. Additional (3) The certificate of every employer other than an employer requirements in the broader public sector that has fewer than fifty employees and a private sector employer that has fewer than 100 employees shall, in accordance with the regulations, include, (a) information with respect to the efforts made to implement the previous plan and the results achieved; and (b) information with respect to the provisons of the of the revised plan for the elimination of barriers and for the implementation of positive measures, supportative measures and measures to accommodate members of the designated groups. Filing of (4) The employer shall file the certificate with the certificate Employment Equity Commission in a form approved by the Commission and in accordance with the regulations. Copy of Plan (5) The Commission may require the employer to file a copy of the revised plan. Filing of (6) Despite subsection (5), after revising a plan, the Crown copy of Plan in right of Ontario shall file a copy of the revised plan with the Commission. Joint respon- 16.-(1) This section applies if any of an employer's sibilities, employees are represented by a bargaining agent. employer and bargaining agent same (2) The employer and the bargaining agent shall jointly carry out the responsibilities described in sections 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 in respect of the part of the employer's workforce in which employees are represented by the bargaining agent. More than one (3) If the employees of the employer are represented by more bargaining than one bargaining agent, the employer and the bargaining agent agents shall establish a committee to coordingate the carrying out of their joint responsibilities. Composition (4) The committee shall be composed of representatives of the of committee bargaining agents and up to an equal number of representatives of the employer, in accordance with the regulations. Good faith, (5) The joint responsibilities shall be carried out in good etc. faith, separately from the normal collective bargaining process and in the manner prescribed by the regulations. Right to (6) The employer shall provide the bargaining agent will all information information in the employer's possession or control in respect of the part of the employer's workforce in which employees are represented by the bargaining agent that is necessary for the bargaining agent to participate effectively in carrying out their joint responsibilities, including the information prescribed by the regulations. Exception (7) Subsection (6) does not require the employer to provide the bargaining agent with information of a scientific, technical, commercial, financial, person or other nature if, (a) the disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the employer's competitive position; or (b) the disclosure of the information meets the criteria prescribed by the regulations. Consultation 17. Every employer shall, in accordance with the regulations, with consult witht he employer's employees who are not unrepresented represented by a bargaining agent concerning the conduct employees of the employer's employment equity workforce survey, the review of the employer's employment policies and practices, and the development, implementation, review and revision of the employment equity plan that applies in respect of those employees. Duty to post 18.-(1) Every employer shall post in each of the employer's workplaces, (a) a copy of each certificate that the employer has filed with the Employment Equity Commission in respect of each employment equity plan that applies in respect of the employees in the workplace; and (b) such other information in respect of this Act and employment equity as may be prescribed by the regulations. Same (2) The information described in clauses (1) (a) and (b) shall be posted in prominent places in the workplace that are accessible to all employees to whom the information applies. Duty to make (3) Every employer shall provide or make available to the information employer's employees information in respect of this Act and available employment equity, in accordance with the regulations. Duty to make (4) Every employer shall make available in each of the copy of plan employer's workplaces a copy of each plan that applies in available respect of the employees in the workplace. Same (5) A plan shall be made available in the workplace in such a manner that it is accessible to all employees to whom it applies. Employment 19.-(1) Every employr shall establish and maintain employment equity records in respect of the employer's workforce. Self- (2) The employer shall keep in the employer's records identification concerning employees' membership in designated groups only the information, if any, that is provided by each employee about himself or herself. Reports to the 20. Every employer shall submit reports and other information to the Employment Equity Commission in accordance with the regulations concerning the composition of the employer's workforce and the development, implementaion, review and revision of the employer's employment equity plans. APPLICATIONS TO THE COMMISSION Access to 21. Any person may apply to the Employment Equity information Commission for access to a copy of any information provided to the Commission under this Act and in the possession of the Commission. EXEMPTIONS Regulations 22.-(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by in Aboriginal regulation, vary the application of any of the provisions workplaces of this Part and the regulations as they apply to Aborininal workplaces. The regulation may define what constitutes an Aboriginal workplace. Broader public (2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by sector regulation, employers (a) exempt employers in the broader public sector that have fewer than fifty employees from any provision of this Part and the regulations; (b) vary the application of any provision of this Part and the regulations to impose less stringent requirements on those employers. Regulation (3) A regulation made under subsection (2) ceases to apply ceases to to an employer who employs fifty or more employees at any time after the effective date. Private sector (4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation employers (a) exempt private sector employers that have fewer than 100 employees from any provision of this Part and the regulations; (b) vary the application of any provision of this Part and the regulations to impose less stringent requirements on those employers. Regulations (5) A regulation made under subsection (4) ceases to apply to ceases to an employer who employs 100 or more employees at any time apply after the effective date. IMPLEMENTATION Time to comply 23.-(1) An employer that has employees on the effective date existing shall comply with section 10 (collection of workforce employers information), 11 (review of employment policies) and 12 (employment equity plan) within the perios that ends on the following day: 1. For the Crown in right of Ontario, on the day that is twelve months after th effective date. 2. For an employer in the broader public sector with ten or more employees on the effective date, on the day that is eighteen months after the effective date. 3. For a private sector employer with 500 or more employees on the effective date, on the day that is eighteen months after the effective date. 4. For a private sector employer with 100 or more but fewer than 500 employees on the effective dat, on the day tha tis twenty-four nonths after the effective date. 5. For a private sector employer with fifty or more but fewer than 100 employees on the effective date, on the day that is thirty-six months after the effective date. New employers, (2) If an employer in the broader public sector does not broader public exist or employs fewer than ten employees on the effective sector date but employs ten or more employees at any time after that, the employer shall comply with sections 10, 11 and 12 within the period that ends on the later of the following days: 1. The day that is twelve months after the employer first employs ten employees. 2. The day that is eighteen months after the effective date. New private (3) If a private sector employer does not exist or employs emloyers fewer than fifty employees on the effective date but employs fifty or more employees at any time after that, the employer shall comply with sections 10, 11 and 12 within the period that ends on the later of the following days: 1. The day that is twelve months after the employer first employs fifty employees. 2. The day that is thirty-six months after the effective date. If exemption 24.-(1) If an exemption under subsection 22 (2) ceases to ceases to apply to an employer in the broader public section, the apply, employer shall comply with sections 10, 11 and 12 within the broader period that ends on the later of the following days: public sector 1. The day that is twelve months after the exemption ceases to apply to the employer. 2. The day that is eighteen months after the effective date. Same, (2) If an exemption under subsection 22 (4) ceases to apply private sector to a private sector employer, the employer shall comply with employer sectons 10, 11 and 12 within the period that ends on the later of the following days: 1. The day that is twelve months after the exemption ceases to apply to the employer. 2. The day that is twenty-four months after the effective date. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART IV ENFORCEMENT Audit and Enforcment by the Commission Commission 25.-(1) The Employment Equity Commission may conduct an audit audit of an employer to determine whether the employer is complying with Part III. Audit powers (2) In teh xourse of an audit, an employee of the Commission, (a) may enter any place at any reasonable time; (b) may request the production for inspections of documents or things that may be relevant to the audit; (c) upon giveing a receipt therefor, may remove from a place documents or things produced under clause (b) for the purpose of making copies or extracts and shall promptly return them to the person who produced them; and (d) may question a person on matters that are or may be relevant to the audit subject to the person's right to have counsel or some other representative present during the examination. Identification (3) When exercising a power of entry, the employee shall produce identification and evidence of his or her employment with the Commission if requested to do so by the owner or occupier. Restriction (4) The employee shall not enter a place that is being used on power of as a dwelling without the consent of the occupier except entry; under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (6). dwellings Warrant for (5) If a justice of the peace is satisfied on evidence upon search oath that there are in place documents or things that there is resonable ground to believe will afford evidence relevant to the carrying out of an audit, the justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorizing an employee of the Commission named in the warrant to search the place for any such documents or things and to remove them for the purposes of making copies or extracts and they shall be returned promptly to the place from which they were removed. Warrant for (6) If a justice of the peace is satisfied on evidence upon entry oath that there is reasonable ground to believe it is necessary that a place being used as a dwelling or to which entry has been denied be entered so that an employee of the Commission may carry out his or her duties under this Act, the justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorizing such entry by the employee named in the warrant. Execution (7) A warrant issued under this section, and expiry (a) shall specify the hours and days during which it may be executed; and (b) shall name a date on which it expires, which date shall not be later than fifteen days after its issue. Admissibility (8) Copies of, or extracts from, documents and things removed of copies from premises in the course of an audit and certified as being true copies or, or extracts from, the originals by the person who made them are admissible in evidence to the same extent as, and have the same evidentiary value as, the documents or things of which they ar copies or extracts. Settlement 26.-(1) If the Commission is of the opinion that an employer with may not be complying with Part III, the Commission may Commission endeavour to effect a settlement with the employer that will ensure compliance. Written (2) The Commission and the employer shal embody the terms of agreement any settlement in a written agreement. Commission 27.-(1) The Commission may, without a hearing, order an order to employer to take the specified steps to achieve compliance comply with Part III if it considers that any of the following circumstances exist: 1. The employer has not conducted a workforce survey or collected other information in accordance with section 10. 2. The employer has not completed a review of the employer's employment policies and practices in accordance with section 11. 3. An employment equity plan does not comply with section 12 or 13. 4. The employer has not filed a certificate or a copy of an employment equity plan with the Commission in accordance with section 12 or 15, as the case may be. 5. The employer has not consulted, in accordance with section 17, with the employer's employees who are not represented by a bargaining agent. 6. The employer has not posted information in a workplace or made information or a copy of an employment equity plan available in a workplace in accordance with secton 18. 7. The employer has not established or maintained employment equity records in accordance with section 19. 8. The employer has not submitted a report or other information to the Commission in accordance with section 20. Copy of order (2) The Commission shall mail a copy of the order to the employer. The order is deemed to have been received on the fifth day after the date of mailing. Appeal to (3) The employer may appeal the order to the Employment Tribunal Equity Tribunal within thirty-five days after the Commission mails it. Powers of (4) The Tribunal may, by order, rescind, vary or confirm the Tribunal order of the Commission. Effect of (5) If the employer does not appeal an order in accordance appeal with subsection (3), theorder is deemed to be an order of the Tribunal. APPLICATIONS TO THE TRIBUNAL Application 28.-(1) The Employment Equity Commission may apply to the by Commission Employment Equity Tribunal for a determination of whether an employer has complied with Part III. Deemed (2) In an application by the Commission, the employer is non-compliance deemed not to have complied with Part III if the employer has failed to take steps required by an employment equity plan or failed to achieve the goals set out in a plan in accordance with the timetables set out in the plan unless the employer proves that, (a) the employer's employment equity plan complies with Part III; and (b) the employer made all reasonable effeorts to implement the plan and to achieve the goals set out in the plan in accordance witht he timetables set out in the plan. Application 29.-(1) Any person other than the Commission may apply to for failure the Tribunal on any of the following grounds: to implement plan or 1. An employer has failed to take steps required by an settlement employment equity plan. 2. An employer has failed to achieve the goals set out in an employment equity plan in accordance with the timetables set out in the plan. 3. An employer has failed to implement a settlement referred to in subsection 26 (2) or 35 (2). Defence (2) If the application alleges a failure to achieve the goals set out in an employment equity plan in accordance with the timetables in the plan, the Tribunal shall not make an order if the employer proves that, (a) the employer's employment equity plan complies with Part III; and (b) the employer made all reasonable efforts to implement the plan and to achieve the goals set out in the plan in accordance with the timetables set out in the plan. Application 30.-(1) The employer and the bargaining agent have not re joint resolved any matter that is their joint responsibility, responsibities either of them may apply tothe Tribunal at any time to determine the matter. Mandatory (2) The employer shall promptly apply to the Tribunal if the application employer and the bargaining agent have not carried out their joint responsibilities within the time required under Part III. Entitlement (3) Failure fo the employer to comply with subsection (2) continues does not prevent the bargaining agent from making an application under subsection (1) Order (4) The Tribunal may make any order it considers just in respect of the part of the employer's workforce in which employees are represented by the bargaining agent. Application 31.-(1) An employee of an employer may apply to the Tribunal by employee on either of the following grounds: re joint responsibilities 1. The employer and a bargaining agent are not carrying out their joint responsibilities in good faith. 2. The employer has not applied to the Tribunal when required to do so under subsection 30 (2). Order (2) The Tribuanl may mae any order it considers just, including an order removing or modifying a term in an employment equity plan that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, was not included in good faith. Application 32.-(1) An employer, an employee of the employer or a re employers bargaining agent that represents any of the employer's employees may apply to the Tribunal for a declaration that the employer and one or more other employers constitute a single employer for the purposes of this Act. Evidence (2) The employers that are parties tot the application shall adduce all facts within their knowledge that are material to the application. Order (3) The Tribunal may make an order that the employers constitue a single employer for the purposes of this Act if the Tribunal finds that, (a) the employers carry on associated or related activities or businesses under common control or direction; (b) the employers carry out employment policies and practices under common control or direction; and (c) the order is necessary to give full effect to the requirements of this Act and the refulations. Application 33.-(1) A person may apply to the Tribunal on the grounds re that another person has intimidated, coerced, penalized or inimidation, discriminated against the applicanat contrary to etc. section 42 (intimidation). Burden of (2) If an application is made under subsection (1), a person proof who is alleged to have intimidated, coerced, penalized or discriminated against another person contrary to section 42 has the burden of proving that the person did not contravene the section. Orders (3) The Tribunal may make any order it considers just, including any of the followign orders: 1. An order requiring the person who contravened section 42 to pay an amount specified in the order to the applicant as compensation. 2. An order requiringthe person who contravened that section to take steps specified in the order to remedy the effects of the contravention, including: i. rehiring the applicant, if he or she was dismissed from employment, or ii. rescinding any penalty imposed on the applicant. 3. An order requiring the person who contravened that section to take steps specified in the order to prevent further contraventions. Notice to 34.-(1) The Tribunal shall notify the Employment Equity Commission Commission of any application under this Part, other than an application under section 28 (application by Commission), 32 (application re employers) or 33 (application re intimidation, etc.). Commission (2) The Commission shall advise the Tribunal if it is audit conducting an audit of an employer that is a party to the application. Effect on (3) If the Commission advises the Tribunal that it is Tribunal auditing an employer, the Tribunal shall not take any proceeding further step in the application, other than a step authorized by the regulations, until at least thirty days after it notified the Commission of the application. Report on (4) The Commission may submit a report to the Tribunal on audit the audit and , if it does, the report shall be filed in evidence at any hearing held by the Tribunal in the application. Mediation 25.-(1) The Employment Equity Tribunal shall refer every application under thsi Part to one of its employees who may endeavour to effect a settlement between teh parties to the application. Settlement (2) If the parites agree on a settlemetn, it shall be embodied in a written agreement or, with their consent, may be embodied in an order fo the Tribunal made withour a hearing. Hearing (3) If the employee considers that mediation or furhter efforts at mediation are not a practical means of resolving the application, the Tribunal shall hold a hearing and determind the application unless the regulations provide otherwise. Decision to (4) Despite subsection (3), the Tribunal may, without a not deal with hearing, decide not to deal with an application if it appears application to the Tribunal that, (a) the subject-matter of an application is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith; or (b) the application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Parties 36.-(1) The parties to an application under this Part are the applicant, the respondent, the interested employer, the interested bargaining agent, if any, and such other persons as the Tribunal my specify. Commission (2) The Commission is entitled, at its request, to be a party to any application. Power to 37.-(1) In any application under this Part, the Tribunal may make orders make such orders as it considers just, including any of the following: 1. An order establishing an employment equity plan. 2. An order amending and employment equity plan. 3. An order requiring an employer to create an employment equity fund to be used for the purposes and in the manner specified in the order. 4. An order appointign an administrator who, at the expense of teh employer, is responsible for developing, implementing, reviewing adn revising an employment equity plan. Conditions (2) An order may be made subject to such conditions as the Tribunal considers just. Reconsider- (3) The Tribunal may, if it considers it advisable to do so, ations reconsider any decision or order and vary or revoke it. Orders re (4) Despite any provision of this Act, the Tribunal may make collective an order amending a collective agreement only if the Tribunal agreements considers that other orders are not sufficient, in the circumstances, to ensure compliance with this Act. Exclusive 38.-(1) The tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and jurisdiction determine any proceeding befoe it and to determine all questions of law or fact that arise in a proceeding. Decision, (2) A decision or an order of the Tribunal is final and etc., final conclusive for all purposes. OFFENCES Confident- 39. A person in possession of information collected from iality of employees under Part III shall keep the information information confidential and shall not disclose or use it except for the purpose of complying with Part III or IV. Obstruction 40.-(1) No person shall hinder, obstruct or interfere with an employee of the Employment Equity Commission in the execution of a warrant or otherwise impede an employee in the course of an audit. Exception (2) Subsection (1) is not contravened if a person refuses to produce documents or things unless a warrant has been issued under subsection 25 (5). Providing 41. No person shall knowingly provide false information on a false certificate that is filed with the Employment Equity Commission under subsection 12 (5) or 15 (5). Intimidation 42. No person shall intimidate, coerce, penalize or discriminate against another person because that person, (a) is exercising or may exercise a right under this Act; (b) is participating or may participate in a proceeding under this Act; (c) has made or may made a disclosure required in a proceeding under this Act; (d) has acted or may act in compliance with this Act or an order made under it or has sought or may seek the enforcement of this Act or an order. Offences and 43. Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with penalty section 39,40, 41 or 42 or an order of the Employment Equity Tribunal is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000. Consent to 44. No prosecution for an offence under section 43 shall be prosecution instituted except with the consent in writing of the Tribunal. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART V ADMINISTRATION Employment Equity Commission Commission 45.-(1) A commission is established to be known in English established as the Employment Equity Commission and in French as Commission de l'‚quit‚ en matiŠre d'emploi. Compositon (2) The Commission is composed of one or more members to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council Employment (3) One member shall be designated by the Lieutenant Equity Governor in Council as the Employment Equity Commissioner Commissioner Employees (4) Such employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the Commission's work may be appointed under the Public Service Act. Delegation (5) The Commission may delegte any powers or duties to its employees. Functions 46.-(1) The Employment Equity Commission has the following of the functions: Commission 1. To further the principles of employment equity. 2. To monitor the implementation of employment equity and the effectiveness of this Act. 3. To conduct research and develop policy in relation to employment equity. 4. To assist employers, employees and bargaining agents in complying with Part III. 5. To eductate the public about employment equity. 6. To carry out any function assigned to the Commission under this or any other Act. Public (2) The Commission may engage in public consultations which consultations may include public hearings. Policy 47.-(1) The Commission may issue policy directives on directives matters related to employment equity. When (2) A policy directive takes effect on the day it is effective published in The Ontario Gazette. Effect of (3) The Employment Equity Tribunal shall consider the directive the Commission's policy directives in making decisions. Commission 48. The Commission may make rules for the conduct and management management of its affairs and for the paractice and procedure to be observed in relation to matters it deals with. Annual 49.-(1) Each year the Employment Equity Commissioner shall report make an annual report to the Minister of Citizenship on the activities and affairs of the Commission. Same (2) The report shall include data and information in respect of the progress made toward achieving employment equity in Ontario. Tabling (3) The Minister shall table the report before the Assembly of report if it is in session or, if not, at the next session. When due (4) Each annual report is due on or befoe the 31st day of March. First annual (5) The first annual report is not due until the second report anniversary of the 31st day of March followign the coming into force of this section. Advisory 50.-(1) The Minister of Citizenship may appoint one or more councils advisory councils to advise the Commission. Provincial (2) An advisory council may be appointed for the province or regional as a whole or for a region of the province. Minimum (3) An advisory council must include a representative of representation employers, a representative of labour and a representative of the designated groups. Tribunal 51.-(1) A trubunal is established to be known in English as established the Employment Eqyity tirbunal and in French as Tribunal de l'‚quit‚ en matiŠre d'emploi. Composition (2) The Tribunal is composed of such members as are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Chair (3) One member shall be designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as the chair. Vice-chairs (4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate one or more members as vice-chair. Employees (5) Such employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the Tribunal's work may be appointed under the Public Service Act. Panels of 52.-(1) The chair may appoint panels composed of one or more the Tribunal members of the Tribunal to conduct hearings. Presiding (2) The chair shall designate one member of each panel to officer preside over hearings of the panel. Decision (3) A decision of a panel is a decision of the Tribunal. Same (4) If a panel has more than one member, the panel's decision is the decision of the majority of the members or, if there is no majority decision,the decision of the person designated to preside. Tribunal rules 53. The Tribunal may make rules for the conduct and management of its affairs and for the practice and procedure to be observed in proceedings before it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART VI MISCELLANEOUS AND REGULATIONS Employment 54.-(1) It is a condition of every contract entered into equity: by or on behalf of the Crown or an agency of the Crown government that every other party to the contract shall comply with contracts Part III to the extent that the party has obligations under that Part. Subcontracts (2) Subsection (1) also applies with respect to subcontracts entered into in the performance of a contract described in subsection (1). Employment (3) It is a condition of every grant, contribution, loan or equity; guarantee made by or on behalf of the crown or an agency of government the Crown that the person to whom the grant, contribution, grants, etc. loan or guarantee is made comply with Part III to the extent that the party has obligatons under that Part. Proof of (4) A finding by the Employment Equity Tribunal that Part III breach has been breached is conclusinve proof of a breach of the condition. Effect of (5) The breach is sufficient grounds for the cancellation breach of of the contract, subcontract, grant, contribution, loan or guarantee and for the refusal to enter into any further grant, contribution, loan or guarantee to the same person. Regulation 55.-(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations, 1. defining any word or expression used in this Act that is not already defined in this Act; 2. governing what constitutes membership in a designated group; 3. designating subgroups within a designated group; 4. naming or describing employers in addition to those named in the Schedule to the Pay Equity Act as employers in the broader public sector; 5. excluding employers by name or description from the broader public sector; 6. prescribing additional bases upon which a person may regularly engage the services of others as an employer for the purpose of this Act; 7. designating persons as employees for the purpose of this Act; 8. setting out and governing circumstances in which any of an employer's obligations under Part III change or cease to apply due to a change in the number of employees in the employer's workforce; 9. governing the application of this Act and adapting the requirements of this Act to an employer and a bargaining agent, if any, in the case of the purchase, sale, merger or other change in the cirumstance of an employeer's business; 10. governing the application of this Act and adapting the requirements of this Act, i. as it applies to the constrution industry, ii. as it applies in situations where people are hired through union hiring halls, iii. as it applies to employers that employ seasonal or term employees, iv. as it applies to particular industries or sectors of the economy which in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council cannot be properly accommodated through the provisions of this Act because of unique situation in the industry or sector; 11. governing employment equity workforce surveys and the collection of other information to determine the extent to which members of the designated groups are employed in an employer's workforce; 12. requiring employers that have 500 or more employees to collect additional informaiton to determine the extent to which members of subgroups within a designated group are employed in the employer's workforce; 13. designating classes of employers in the broader public sector and requiring the Crown in right of Ontario and every employer in the broader public sector or in a class of employers in the broader public sector to collect additional information to determine the extent to which members of subgroups within a designated group are employed in the Crown's workforce or the employer's workforce, as the case may be; 14. governing reviews of an employer's employment policies and practices; 15. governing the content of employment equity plans in situations where an employer prepares only one plan and in situations where an employer prepares more than one plan; 16. governing the development, implementation, review and revision of employment equity plans; 17. governing certificates to be prepared and filed with the Employment Equity Commission on the development, implementation, review or revision of the employer's employment equity plans; 18. designating classes of employers in the braoder public sector and requiring employers or classes of employers in the broader public sector to file copies of employment equity plans with the Commission; 19. governing the manner in which an employer and a bargaining agent shall jointly carry out responsibilities under Part III and governing payment to employees who are selected by a bargaining agent to carry out joint responsibilities; 20. governing the composition fo the coordinating committee and respecting the powers of the committee in carrying out joint responsibilties. 21. prescribing information that an employer must provide to a bargaining agent and prescribing criteria for the purpose of subsection 16 (7); 22. governing consultation by employers with employees in accordance with section 17 and governing payment to employees for time spent for the purpose of consultation 23. governing certificates and other information in respect of this Act and employment equity that must be posted in the workplace; 24. governing information in respect of this Act and employment equity that an employer must provide or make available to the employer's employees; 25. governing the establishment and maintenance of employment equity records in respect of an employer's employees; 26. governing reports and other information to be submitted to the Commission on the composition of an employer's workforce or the development, implementaion, review or revision of the employer's employent equity plans; 27. requiring employers that have 500 or more employees to prepare reports containingg information on the extent to which members of subgroups within a designated group are employed in the employer's workforce; 28. designating classes of employers in the broader public sector and requiring the Crown in right of Ontario and every employer in the broader public sector or in a class or employers in the broader public sector to prepare reports containing information on the extent to whch members of subgroups within a designated group are employed in the Crown's workforce or the employer's workforce, as the case may be; 29. requiring employers that have 500 or more employees to prepare reports containing information on the extent to which members of the designated groups are employed in each salary group in the employer's workforce; 30. designating classes of employers in the broader public sector and imposing more stringent requirement on the Crown in right of Ontario and employers or classes of employers in the broader public sector with respect to reports or other information to be submitted to the Commission; 31. prescribing steps that may be taken by the Employment Equity Tribunal under subsection 34 (3); 32. prescribing, for the purpose of subsection 35 (3), circumstances in which the Tribunal is not required to hold a hearing and determine an application, and governing the procedure for determining whether the circumstances exist. Numerical (2) A regulation governing the content of employment equity goals in plans may require plans to contain numerical goals determined plans in a manner prescribed by the regulation. It may provide that the goals shall be determined with reference to percentages approved by the Commission that, in the opinion of the Commission, fairly reflect the representation of the designated groups in the population of a geographical area or in any other groups of people. General or (3) Regulations may be general or specific in nature. specific Conditions (4) A regulation may be made subject to such conditions as are set out inthe regulations. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART VII CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, REVIEW, COMMENCEMENT AND SHORT TITLE 56. The Human Rights Code is ammeded by adding the following sections: Components of 14.1-(1) A right under Part 1 is not infringed because employment positive measures or numerical goals that are contained in an equity plans Employment Equity Act, 1993 are restricted to members of the designated gropus identified under section 4 of that Act. Definitions (2) in this section, "numerical goal" means a goal with repect to the composition of an employer's workforce that is determined in accordance with the Employment Equity Act, 1993; ("objectif quantitatif") "positive measure" means a positive measusr established under the Employment Equity Act, 1993 ("mesure corrective") . . . . . Undue hardship 24.1-(1) If a compaint is made against an employer that has where an employment equity plan under the Employment Equity Act, employment 1993, th Commission, a board of inquiry or a court may equity plan consider the cost of implementing the employment equity plan exists in any assessment of undue hardship that it makes under subsection 11 (2), 17 (2) or 24 (2) with respect to the complaint. Same (2) Despite subsection (1), the Commission, a board of inquiry, or a court shall consider the cost of implementing an employment equity plan in any assessment of undue hardship that it makes under subsection 11 (2), 17 (2) or 24 (2) with respect to the complaint if, on or befoe the day that the complaint is filed with the Commission, (a) the Employment Equity Tribunal has determined that the plan complies with Part III of the Employment Equity Act, 1993; or (b) the Employment Equity Commission has determined that the plan complies with Part III of that Act. . . . . . Order re 41.1(1) Despite any provision of this Act, the Commission or employment a board of inquiry shall not, by order, amend an employment equity plans equity plan under the Employment Equity Act, 1993. Orders where (2) If a board of inquiry finds that a right of a complainant plan exists under Part I has been infringed by an employer that has an employment equity plan under the Employment Equity Act, 1993, the board may make an order that has the effect of imposing requirements on the employer that are in addition to those contained in the employment equity plan. Order not (3) An order under subsection (2) shall not be interpreted part of plan as forming part of the employment equity plan. Review of 57. A standing or select committee of the Legislative the Act Assembly shall, on or before the day that is five years after the day this section comes into force, undertake a comprehensive review of this Act and the regulations and shall, within one year after beginning that review, make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly regarding amendments to this Act and the regulations. Commencement 58. This Act comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor. Short title 59. The short title of this Act is the Employment Equity Act, 1993. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2184 THE ONTARIO GAZETTE / LA GAZETTE DE L'ONTARIO O. Reg. 386/94 ONTARIO REGULATION 386/94 made under the EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 Made: June 23, 1994 Filed: June 23, 1994 ABORIGINAL WORKPLACES 1. (1) For employer operating an Aboriginal workplace, sections 23 and 24 of the Act are varied as provided in this Regulation. (2) The variation applies only with respect to employees at the Aboriginal workplace. O. Reg. 386/94, s. 1. 2. (1) Subsection 23 (1) of the Act is varied as follows: 1. The day referred to in paragraph 1 is 24 months after the effective date. 2. The day referred to in paragrahps 2 and 3 is 30 months after the effective date. 3. The day referred to in paragraph 4 is 36 months after the effective date. 4. The day referred to in paragraph 5 is 48 months after the effective date. (2) The day referred to in paragraph 2 of subsection 23 (2) of the Act is 30 months after the effective date. (3) The day referred to in paragraph 2 of subsection 23 (2) of the Act is 48 months after the effective date. O. Reg. 386/94, s. 2. 3. (1) The day referred to in paragraph 2 of subsection 24 (1) of the Act is 30 months after the effective date. (2) The day referred to in paragraph 2 of subsection 24 (2) of the Act is 26 months after the effective date. O. Reg. 386/94, s. 3. 4. This Regulation comes into force on the day on which subsection 22 (1) of Act comes into force. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY 1. (1) For employers with employees in the construction industry, sections 23 and 24 of the Act are adapted as provided in this Regulation. (2) The adaptation applies only with respect ot employees in the construction industry. O. Reg. 387/94, s. 1. 2. (1) Subsection 23 (1) of the Act is adapted as follows: 1. The day referred to in paragraph 1 is 24 months after the effective date. 2. The day referred to in paragrahps 2 and 3 is 30 months after the effective date. 3. The day referred to in paragraph 4 is 36 months after the effective date. 4. The day referred to in paragraph 5 is 48 months after the effective date. (2) The day referred to in paragraph 2 of subsection 23 (2) of the Act is 30 months after the effective date. (3) The day referred to in paragraph 2 of subsection 23 (3) of the Act is 48 months after the effective date. 3. (1) The day referred to in paragraph 2 of subsection 24 (1) of the Act is 30 months after the effective date. (2) The day referred to in paragraph 2 of subsection 24 (2) of the Act is 36 months after the effective date. O. Reg. 387/94, s. 3. 4. This Regulation comes into force on the day on which subsection 55 (1) of the Act comes into force. AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY 1. (1) Seasonal employees in the agricultrual industry shall be deemed not to be employees for the purposes of subsections 3 (5), 7 (2) and 7 (3) of the Act. (2) Seasonal employees in the agricultural industry include employees employed under the Commonwealth Caribbean Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program or the Mexican Seasonal Agricultural Workser Program administered by Human Resources Developemtn Canada. O. Reg. 388/94, s. 1. 2. Parts III, IV, V and VI of the Act do not apply with respect to seasonal employees in the agricultural industry. O. Reg. 388/94, s. 2. 3. This regulation comes into force on the day on which subsection 55 (1) of the Act comes into force ---------------------------------------------------------- DEFINITIONS Designated Groups 1. For the purposes of the Act, an Aborigianl person is a person who is a member of the Indian, Inuit or Mˆtis peoples of Canada. O.Reg. 389/94.s.1. 2. For the purposes of the Act, a person with a disability is a person who has a persistent physical, mental, psychiatric, sensory or learning impairment and who, (a) considers themself to be disadvantaged in employment by reason of that impairment; or (b) believes that an employer or portential employer is likely to consider the person to be disadvantaged in employment by reasone of that impairment. O. Reg. 389/94, s. 2. 3. (1) For the purposes of the Act, a member of a racial minority is a person who, because of the person's race or colour, is in a visible minority in Ontario. (2) An Aboriginal person is not a member of a racial minority solely because he or she is an Aboriginal person. O. Reg. 389/94. s. 3. 4. A person may be a member of more than one designated group. O. Reg. 389/94. s. 4. Barrier 5. (1) For the purposes of the Act, an employment policy or practice is a barrier if it directly or indirectly adversely affects persons who are members of a designated group more that it affects others. (2) A policy or practice is not a barrier if the policy or practice is permitted under section 5 of the Act. O. Reg. 389/94, s. 5. Aboriginal Workplace 6. For the purposes of subsection 22 (1) of the Act, an Aboriginal workplace is a workplace operated by. (a) a band as defined in the Indian Act (Canada); (b) an authority, board, commission or corporation without share capital, (i) the majority of whose members are Aboriginal Persons, and (ii) that provides services principally to Aboriginal persons: or (c) a corporation with share capital or an organization or persons, (i) the majority of the directors of which or the majority of members of the governing body of which are Aboriginal persons, adn (ii) that provides services principally to Aboriginal persons. O. Reg. 289/94, s. 6. Construction Industry 7. For the purposes of the Act , "constrution" includes erection, alteration, repair, dismantling, demolition, structural maintenance, painting, land clearing, earch moving, grading, excavating, trenching, digging, boring, drilling, blasting, or concreting, the installation of any machinery or plant, and any work or undertaking in connection with a construction project but does nto include any owrk or undertaking in a mine. O. Reg. 389/94. s. 7. 8. this Regulation comes into force on the day on which subsection 55 (1) comess into force. ---------------------------------------------------------- ONTARIO REGULATION 390/94 made under the EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 Made: June 23, 1994 Filed: June 23, 1994 GENERAL CONTENTS Sections Non-application 1 Interpretation 2-5 Workforce Survey 6-13 Review of Policies and Practices 14-15 Employment Equity Plan 16-21 Review and Revsion of a Plan 22,23 Certificates 24 Joint Responsibilities of Employers and Bargaining Agents 25-30 Consultation with Unrepresented Employees 31-33 Information for Employees 34-36 Employment Equity Records 37,38 Employment Equity Reports 39-41 Commencement 42 Non-Application 1. This Regulation does not apply with respect to those wmployees who are employed at an Aboriginal workplace or in the construction industry. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 1. Interpretation 2. (1) In this Regulation, "initial plan" means, in relation to all or part of an employer's employees, the first employment equity plan prepared under the Act that applies to the employees. ("programme initial") "small employer" means, (a) an employer in the braoder public sector that has fewer than 50 employees, excluding seasonal employees, or (b) a private sector employer that has fewer than 100 employees, excluding seasonal employees; ("petit employeur") "workforce survey questionnaire" means a workforce survey questionnaire described in section 7. (questionnaire d'analyse de effectifs") (2) For the purposes of this Regulation, the following are the designated employers in the broader public sector. 1. Every city, town, township, village, improvement district and regional municipality, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, The District Municipality of Muskoka adn the County of Oxford. 2. Every board as defined in the Education Act and every college and university in Ontario the majority of the capital or annual operating funds of which are received from the Crown. 3. Every hospital listed in the Schedule to the Classification of Hospitals Regulation made under the Public Hosptials Act. 4. Every private hospital operated under the authority of a licence issued under the Private Hospitals Act. 5. Every hospital approved as a community psychiatric hospital under the Community Psychiatric Hospitals act. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 2. 3. (1) For the purposes of this Regulation, the geographic area in which all or part of an employer's workforce is located is, (a) the census metropolitan area for Ontario defined in Reference Maps, Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations, dated September 1992, publishes by Statistics Canada in which all or part of the workforce is located, or (b) if it is not located within a census metropolitan area, the Canada Employment Centre Management Area as set out in CEC Management Area Mapas Ontario Region, dated August 31, 1993, published by Employment and Immigration Canada in which all or part of the workforce is located. (2) An employer may combine two or more geographic areas if the employer has fewer than 50 employees in each. The combined geographic area shall be deemed to be one geographic area for the purposes of this Regulation. O. Reg. 390/94,s.3. 4. The occupational group for a job is determined as follows: 1. Determine the unit group of the jb in accordance with National Occupational Classification-Occupational Descriptions and with National Occupational Classification - Index of Titles, both dated 1993, published by Employment and Immigration Canada/Canada Communication Group. 2. Determine the occupational group of the unit group in accordance with Structure of the Employment Equity Occupational Groups under NOC, dated November 1993, published by the Government of Canada. O. Reg. 390/94,s.4. 5. (1) A salary group in an employer's workforce is established as follows: 1. Identify the full-time annualized base pay for the highest-paid and the lowest-paid employee in each occupational group. 2. Divide the differnce between the highest and the lowest salary into four groups of equal dollar amounts. 3. Each of the four groups is a salary group. (2) The salary group for an employee is determined using the employer's full-time annualized base pay. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 5. Workforce Survey 6. (1) Each employee must be given the workforce survey questionnaire. (2) Before preparing an initial plan, it is not necessary to give the questionnaire to employees that the employer has already surveyed to determine whether they identify themselves as belonging to any of the designated groups, so long as, (a) the results of the previous survey are up to date; (b) the previous survey used questions and was carreid out in a manner that achieved results that are likely to be as accurate as what would have been achieved using the workforce survey questionnaire; and (c) the previous survey gave the employees the choice of indicating whether they are members of the designated groups. (3) Despite clause (2) (c), the previous survey need not have obtained information as to an employee's gender if the employee has otherwise provided the information to the employer. (4) The employer and the bargaining agent shall jointly perform the duties described in this section and in subsection 10 (1) of the Act with respect to the employees represented by the bargaining agent. (5) If the employer and the bargaining agent do not agree upon whether subsection (2) applies with respect to employees represented by the bargaining agent, either of them may request the opinion of the Employment Equity Commission about the matter. (6) Subsection (5) does not prevent either party from making an application to the Tribunal under subsection 30 (1) of the Act. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 6. 7. (1) The workforce survey questionnaire must set out the questions listed in Schedule I. (2) The questionnaire must state the following: 1. Each employee has the right to decide whether to answer questions in the questionnaire. 2. Each employee must return the questionnaire to the employer whether or not the questions are answered. 3. The information collected in the questionaire will be kept confidential. 4. The information collected will nt be used or disclosed except to comply with Part II or IV of the Employment Equity Act, 1993 (3) The questionnaire must state that a person my be a member of more than one designated group. (4) The employer shall ensure that the employer is able from the questionnaire to identify by name or otherwise the employee who returns it. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 7. 8. (1) The workforce survey questionnaire may include additonal questions relating to employment equity. (2) The additional questions must be set out separately from those listed in Schedule I. (3) Only questions asking for further information about membership in a designated group or asking about the accommodation of persons with disabilities may be interspersed with questions listed in Schedule I. (4) The questionnaire must indicate that the additional questions are not required under the Act and taht each employee has the right to decide whether to answer the additional questions. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 8. 9. (1) The employer shall make reasonable efforts to assist each employee who needs help to understand or complete the workforce survey questionnaire. (2) The bargaining agent shall also make reasonable efforts to assist each employee represented by the bargaining agent. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 9. 10. Each employee shall return the the workforce survey questionnaire to his or her employer. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 10. 11. (1) A small employer shall determine the following: 1. The number of persons in the employer's workforce who are Aboriginal persons, and the number among them who are men and who are women. 2. The number of persons in the employer's workforce who are person with disabilities, adn teh number among them who are men and who are women. 3. The number of persons in teh employer's workforce who are members of racial minorities, and the number among them who are men and who are women. 4. The number of women in the employer's workforce. (2) An employer other tan a small employer shall determin the following for each occupational group in the employer's workforce in each geographical area in which the employr's workforce is located: 1. The number of persons who are Aboriginal persons, and the number among them who are men and who are women. 2. The number of persons who are persons with disabilities, and the number among them who are men and who are women. 3. The number of persons who are members of racial minorities, and the number among them who are men and who are women. 4. The number of women. (3) These determinations are to be based upon the information gathered under section 6. (4) The employer and the bargaining agent shall jointly perform the duties described in this section with respect to the employees represented by the bargaining agent. (5) For the purpose of performing its duties under this section, the bargaining agent shall have access to information compiled by the employer from the workforce survey questionnaire but not to the complete questionnaires. (6) The employer shall notify the Employment Equity Commission if the employer is using information from a previous survey referred to in subsection 6 (2) to make determinations concerning employees who are not represented by a bargaining agent. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 11. 12. (1) The employer shall ensure that the determinations made under section 11 are kept up to date. (2) The employer shall give an employee a workforce survey questionnaire to complete, (a) when he or she becomes an employee; or (b) when the employer indicates that he or she would like to change any information previously submitted on a questionnaire. (3) The employer and the bargaining agent shall jointly perform the duties described in this section with respect to the employees represented by the bargaining agent. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 12. 13. (1) The employer shall conduct a new workforce survey nine years after the date of the employer's most recent workforce survey. (2) If a previous survey referred to in subsection 6 (2) is used when making the determinations required by section 11, the new workforce survey must be conducted nine years after the date of the previous survey instead of the date required by subsection (1). (3) The employer and the bargaining agent shall jointly perform the duties described in this section with respect to the employers represented by the bargaining agent. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 13. Review of Policies and Practices 14. (1) An employer shall review the employer's policies and practices with respect to the recruitment, hiring, retention, treatement and promotion of employees. (2) An employer other than a small employer shall ensure that the review includes the following matters: 1. Recruiting, selecting adn hiring employees. 2. Promoting employees and moving them between occupational groups in the employer's entire workforce. 3. Training and developing employees. 4. Evaluating employee's perrformance. 5. Terminating the employemtn of employees, including their dismissal, resignation or retirement. 6. Determining salaries and benefits. 7. Accommodating special needs or members of the designated groups. 8. Any treatment of employees or conditions of employment that are not otherwise addressed. (3) Before preparing an initial plan, it is not necessary to review the employer's policies and practices with respect to part or all of the employer's workforce if the employer has already conducted a review and, (a) the results of the previous review are upt to date; and (b) the results fo the previous review are likely to be the same as what would have been achieved had the employer done the review described in subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be. (4) The employer and the bargaining agent shall jointly perform the duties described in this section with respect to the employees represented by the bargaining agent. (5) If the employer and the bargaining agent do not agree upon whether subsection (3) applies with respect to employees represented by the bargaining agent, either of them may request the opinion of the Employment Equity Commission about the matter. (6) Subsection (5) does not prevent either party from making an application to the Tribunal under subsection 30 (1) of the Act. (7) The employer shall notify the Employment Equity Commission if the employer is relying on the exception described in subsection (3) with respect to employees who are not represented by a bargaining agent. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 14. 15. (1) Based on the review of policies and practices, the employer shall determine whether any of the employer's policies or pracices is a barrier to recruitment, hiring, retention, treatment or promotion of members of a designated group. (2) The employer and the bargaining agent shall jointly perform the duties described in this section with respect to the employees represented by the bargaining agent. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 15. Employment Equity Plan 16. The employer and the bargaining agent shall jointly prepare an employment equity plan or plans under subsection 12 (1) of the Act with respect to the employees represented by the bargaining agent. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 16. 17. (1) An employment equity plan must contain the following information: 1. A list of the policies and practices identified as barriers that will be eliminated during the term or the plan. 2. A list of the policies and practices identified as barriers that will be eliminated during the term or subsequent plans. 3. A description of the measures that will be implemented during the term of the plan. 4. A list of the numerical goals described in section 18 tht will be achieved during the term of the plan and a descripton of how the goals were set. 5. A description of the timetable for implementing the measures and achieving the numerical goals. 6. A description of how the implementation of the measures and the achievement of hte numerical goals will be monitored. 7. A description of the measures that have already been implemented. 8. a description of the procedure that a person may use to request accomodation in his or her employment or prospective employment and the procedure to be used by the employer in responding to a request. 9. A description of the consultations with employees under section 17 of the Act concerning th review of employment policies and practices and concerning the preparation of the plan, a summary of the employees' comments during the consultations and a description of how the employer has addressed concerns that were raised. (2) The measures must include measures to eliminate barriers, measures referred to in clauses 12 (1) (b), (c) and (d) of the Act and measures to eliminate discrimination and harassment. (3) The measures to accommodate members of the designated groups who request accommodation in their employment or prospective employment must be developed and implemented in accordance witht he Human Rights Code. (4) A small employer's plan is not required to include numerical goals. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 17. 18. (1) For each designated group, the employment equity plan must state a numerical goal for each occupational group in the workforce covered by the plan. (2) Separate numerical goals must be stated for each geographical area covered by the plan. (3) A numerical goal is the proportion of job openings in the occupational group that will be filled by members of the designated group. (4) Seasonal employees and seasonal job openings are not to be considered when setting numerical goals. (5) In this section, "job opening" means, (a) an opportunity for a person to be hired as an employee of the employer into the job; (b) an opportunity for an employee of the eomployer to be promoted within the occupational group; (c) an opportunity for an employee to be promoted or transferred into another occupational group. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 18. 19. (1) The following factors must be taken into account when setting a numerical goal for a designated group in an occupational group and geographical area: 1. Any underrepresentation (in the employer's workforce covered by the plan) of the designated group in the occupational group in the geographical area in comparison with the representation of the group in the working age population in the geographical area. 2. The number of designated group members int he employer's entire workforce who have the necessary skills for entry into positions in the occupational group or who the employer could reasonably be expected to train to have those skills. 3. The level of representation of the designated group in the population groups described in subsection (2), to the extent that each population group has the skills for job openings in the occupational group. (2) The following are the population groups that must be considered under paragraph 3 of subsection (1) 1. The working age population in the geographical area. 2. Persons in the geographical area who are in the occupational group. 3. Persons in the geopgraphical area who have the necessary skills for employment within the occupational group. 4. Persons graduating in Ontario from educational and training programs that give them the necessary skills for employment within the occupational group. 5. Any other group for which the Employment Equity Commission provides date to the employer. (3) Information about the population groups described in subsection (2) must be statistically valid and statistically reliable. (4) If persons are ususally recruited into the occupational group from a larger geographic area than the specified geographic area, the population group for the larger geographic area may be used for the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 of subsection (2). (5) In this section, "working age population" has the same meaning as in the Statistics Canada publication "The 1991 Census Dictionary", dated Janyary 1992. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 19. 20. (1) The term of an employment equity plan is three years. (2) An initial plan comes into force not later than the date specified under section 23 of the Act. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 20. 21. When more than one employment equity plan is prepared, the plans individually and together must not defeat the principles of the Act. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 21. Review and Revision of a Plan 22. (1) A revised employment equity plan must be prepared before the preceding plan expires. (2) The revised plan must describe the steps taken to review the previous plan and revise it and ti must be prepared using information that is up to date. (3) It must meet the requirements for an employment equity plan under the Act. (4) It comes into force when the preceding plan expires. (5) The employer and the bargaining agent shall jointly perform the duties described in this section and in subsection 15 (1) of the Act with respect to the employees represented by the bargaining agent. O. Reb. 390/94, s. 22. 23. (1) Each employment equity plan prepared after the initial plan must indicate which numerical goals, if any, in the preceding plan were not achieved. (2) If a numerical goal was not achieved, the subsequent plan must describe the measures to be developed and implemented to address the matter. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 23. Certificates 24. (1) The certificate required by subsection 12 (3) of the Act for an initial plan must state that, (a) the employer has provided the information and carried out the consultation required under the Act, and (b) the employer has conducted the workforce survey, completed the review of the employer's employment policies and practices and prepared an employment equity plan. (2) The certificate required by subsection 15 (2) of the Act for a plan prepared after the initial plan must state that the employer and, if applicable, the bargaining agent have reviewed the preceding plan and revised it. (3) Each certificate by a small employer must state the number of employees in the employer's workforce and the number of members of each designated group at the beginning of the term of the plan and at the beginning ofthe term of the preceing paln, if any. (4) Each certificate by an employer other than a small employer must do the following: 1. State the number of employees in each occupational group in the employer's workforce and the number of members of each designated group among them at the beginning of the term of the preceding plan, if any. 2. State the number of job openings in each occupational group that were filled during the term of the preceding plan, if any. 3. State the number of job openings in each occupational groups that were filled by members of each designated group during the term of the preceding plan, if any. 4. State the number of employees in each occupational group in the employer's workforce and the number of members of each designated group smong them at the beginning of the term of the current plan. 5. Describe the measures that were implemented during the term of the preceding plan, if any, and those to be implemented during the term of the current plan. (5) Each certificate must state tht the employr has prepared the report required under section 39 or 40, as the case may be respecting the plan and must indicate where the Employment Equity Commission can obtain a copy of the report. (6) The certificate must be signed by the chief executive officer or the equivalent of the employer. (7) The certificate must be filed not later than six months after the plan comes into force. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 24. Joint Responsibilities of Employers and Bargaining Agents 25. (1) If an employer's employees are represented by only one bargaining agent, the employer and the bargaining agent sahll being to establish a process for carrying out thier joint responsibilities under the Act at least twelve months befoe the date by which they are require to have completed the employment equity plan. (2) If the employer's employees are represented by more than one bargaining agent, the committee to co-ordinate the carrying out of their joint responsibilities under the Act shall begin to establish a process for carrying out those responsibiliteis at least twelve months before the date by which they are required to have completed the employment equity plan. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 25. 26. (1) On the co-ordinating committee, each bargaining agent is entitled to have one representative for each bargaining unit that is represented by the agent. (2) A bargaining agent may choose to have one representative for two or more bargaining units, and two or more bargaining agents may choose to be jointly represented. (3) The employer and each bargaining agent shall select their respective representatives on the co-ordinating committee. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 26. 27. The co-ordinating committee may determine the following matters with respect to those employees who are represented by a bargaining agent: 1. Whether to prepare more than one employment equity plan and how many to prepare. 2. Whether to subdivide the workforce within each plan and how to do so. 3. What steps will be taken with respect to each portion of the workforce 4. Who will take each of those steps: the employer and the individual bargaining agents, the co-ordinating committe or another entity. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 27. 28. (1) For the purpose of carrying out its joint responsibilities under the the Act, the bargaining agent shall consult with employees it represents who are members of the designated groups. (2) If none of the employeees it represents are members of a particular designated group, the bargaining agent shall request information from the Employment Equity Commission on how to address the concerns of that designated group. (3) If no employees who are members of a particular designated group participate in the consultation, the bargaining agent shall request information from the Employment Equity Commission on how to address the concerns of that group. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 28. 29. (1) The employer shall provide the following information under subsection 16 (6) of the Act to the bargaining agent: 1. any reports prepared under section 39 or 40 relating to the employment equity plan that applies in respect of employees represented by the bargaining agent. 2. Any order of the Employment Equity Tribunal or the Employment Equity Commission that applies with respect to those employees. (2) In information to be provided to the bargaining agent, a reference to "one", "two", "three" or "four" members of a designated group must be amended to read "less than five" members before the information is provided. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 29. 30. (1) An employee who is representing a bargaining agent is entitled to spend whatever tiemduring the regular work day away form his or her regular work that the employer and the bargaining agent agree is necessary. (a) to attend meetings between the employer and the bargaining agent concerning their joint responsibilites; (b) to prepare for any of those meetings, and (c) to carry out duties arising form any of those meetings. (2) Time that an employee of the employer spends on these activities is deemed to be work time for which the employee shall be paid at the regular or premium rate, as is appropriate. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 30. Consultation with Unrepresented Employees 31. (1) For the purposed of section 17 of the Act, the employer shall establish a process for consulting with employees concerning the workforce survey, the review of employment policies and practices and the employment equity plan that applies to them. (2) The consultation process must include consulting with employees who are members of the designated groups, if any. (3) If none of the employees being consulted are members of a particular designated group, the employer shall request information from the Employment Equity Commission on how to address the concerns of that group. (4) The consultation process must provide an effective means for employees to identify any bariers in the employer's employment policies and practices and to comment on the employer's proposals for the plan. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 31. 32. (1) For the purpose of those consultations, the employer shall make the following information readily accessible to employees at their workplace: 1. A description of the consultation process. 2. The results of the workforce survey. 3. A summary of the results of the review of employment policies and practices. 4. A description of the measures proposed to eliminate barriers. (2) An employer is not required to make information accessible to an employee if the information does not apply to his or her workplace or if it does not concern teh employment equity plan applicable in respect of the employee. (3) The employer may make the information readily accessible by posting it in the workplace or by positn a notice telling employees where in the workplace they may see it. (4) In information to be made accessible to employees, a reference to "one", "two", "three" or "four" members of a designated group must be amended to read "less than five" members before the information is made accessible. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 32. 33. (1) An employee who is consulted under section 17 of the Act is entitled to spend whatever time that the employer considers is necessary, (a) to attend meetings with the employer or participate in the consultations, and (b) to carry out duties arising from any of those meeting or consultations. (2) Time that the employee spends on these activities is deemed to be work time for which the employee shall be paid at the regular or premium rate, as is appropriate. O. Reg. 390/94, s 33. Information for Employers 34. (1) The employees of an employer must be informed about the principles of employment equity befoe any steps are taken under the Act. (2) The employees must be told the purpose of the workforce survey before the survey is begun. (3) The employees must be told the purpose of the review of employment policies and practices before the review is begun. (4) The employees must be informed about the development and implementation of the employemtn equity plan that applies to them before the plan is prepared. (5) The employees must be told how each stage in the process of preparing and implementing an employment equity plan is to be accomplished. (6) The employer and the bargaining agent shall jointly preform the duties described in this section with respect to the employees represented by the bargaining agent. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 34. 35. The following information must be posted under clause 18 (1) (b) of the Act: 1. The summary of the Act and regulations made under it given to the employr by the Employment Equity Commission. 2. A summary of the consultation process for each employment equity paln that applies in respect of the employees in the workplace. 3. A description of how the implementation of the measures, timetables and numerical goals set out in each plan that applies in respect of those employees will be monitored. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 35. 36. (1) The following information must be posted under clause 18 (1) (b) of the Act or provided or made available under subsection 18 (3) of the Act to an employee: 1. The employment equity plan that applies to the employee. 2. Any reports prepared under section 39 or 40 relating to the employment equity plan that applies to the employee. 3. Any order of the Employment Equity Tribunal or the Employment Equity commission that applies with respect to that plan. (2) In information to be provided to an employee, a reference to "one", "two", "three" or "four" members of a designate group must be amended to read "less than five" members before the information is provided. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 36. Employment Equity Records 37. (1) An employer shall establish and maintain records concerning the designated group membership, if any, and the employment history of all employees. (2) An employer that is not a small employer shall also establish and maintain records on the occupational group classification of all employees. (3) The employer shall keep these records up to date. (4) The employer shall ensure that only those persons who are responsible for carrying out the employer's obligations undr the Act have access to the records described in this section. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 37. 38. (1) An employer shall keep each employment equity plan and the information used tp prepare it for three year afterh the plan expires. (2) An employer shall keep workplace survey questionnaires and any other information used to prepare a workplace survey until the subsequent workplace survey is completed. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 38. Employment Equity Reports 39. (1) An employer shall prepare an initial report about each initial plan within six months after the plan comes into force. (2) The following employers shall submit the initial report: 1. The Crown in right of Ontario. 2. The designated employers in the broader public sector with 50 or more employees. (3) The initial report of a small employer msut set out the following information: 1. The number of employees to whom the plan applies and the number of members of each designated group when the plan came into force. 2. The number of employees who returned a workforce survey questionnaire to the employer before the plan came into force and the number of those questionnaires in which the questions set out in Schedule 1 were completed. 3. A description of the measures to be implemented during the term of the plan. (4) The initial report of an employer that is not a small employer must set out the following information for each geopgraphical area in which the pan applies: 1. The number of employees in each occupational groups and the number of members of each designated group among them when the plan came into force. 2. The number of permanent full-time employees, permanent part-time employees, term employees and seasonal employees and the number or members of each designated groups among them when the plan came into force. 3. The number of employees who returned a workforce survey questionnaire to the employer before the plan came into force and the number of those questionnaires in which the questions set out in Schedule I were completed. 4. A description of the measure to be implemented during the term of the plan. (5) The initial report of an employer that has 500 or more employees must also set out the number of employees in each salary group for each occupational group and the number of members of each designated group among them when the plan came into force. (6) In reporting the number of employees in each salary group, the employer is not required to indicate teh actual salaries in the salary range of each salary group. (7) An employer may include in the report other information that the employr considers relevant. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 39. 40. (1) An employer shall prepare a report anout each employment equity plan within six months after the plan expires. (2) The following employers shall subnit the report: 1. The Crown in right of Ontario. 2. The designated employers in the broader public sector with 50 or more employees. (3) The report of a small employer msut set out the following information: 1. The number of employees to whom the plan applies and the number of members of each designated group at the beginning and at the end of the term of the plan. 2. The number of employees who returned a workforce survey questionnaire to the employer before the plan came into force and the number of those questionnaires in which the questions set out in Schedule I were completed. (4) The report of an employer that is not a small employer must set out the following information for each geopgraphica area in which the plan applies: 1. The goals set out in the plan concerning the composition of the employer's workforce. 2. The number of employees in each occupational group and the number of members of each designated groups among them at the beginning and at the end of the term of the plan. 3. The number of permanent full-time employees, permantent part-time employees, term employees and seasonal employees and the number of members of each designated group among them at the beginning and at the end of the term of the plan. 4. The number of employees who returned a workforce survey questionnaire to the employer before the plan came into force and the number of those questionnaires in which the questions set out in Schedule I were completed. 5. The number of job openings during the term of the plan within each occupational group and the number of those opening that were filled by members of each designated group. 6. The number of persons who ceased to be employed within each occupational group and the number of members of each designated group among those persons. 7. A description of the measures implemented before the plan expired. (5) The report of an employer that has 500 or more employees must also set out the number of employees in each salary group for each occupational group and the number of members of each designated group among then at the beginning and at the end of the term of the plan. (6) In reporting the number of employees in each salary group, an employer is not required to indicate the actual salaries in the salary range of each salary group. (7) An employer may include in the report other information that the employer considers relevant. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 40. 41. (1) Information about Aboriginal peole, people with disabilities and members of racial minorities in a report, other than information concerning numerical goals, must indicate the number of men and women that are members of each of those designated groups. (2) The determination of which employees are permanent full-time employees and which are permanent part-time employees is to be made in accordance with the employer's ordinary business practice. O. Reg. 390/94, s. 41. Commencement 42. This Regulation comes into force on the day on which subsection 55 (1) of the Act comes into Force ------------------------------------------------------------ Schedule I WORKFORCE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 1. For the purposes of employment equity, women are designated group. Are you Male___ Female___ 2. For the purposes of employment equity, a person is an Aboriginal person if he or she is a member of the Indian, Inuit or Mˆtis people of Canada. Based on this description, do you consider yourself to be an Aboriginal person? Yes___ No___ 3. For the purposes of employment equity, a person is a person with a disability if the person has a persistent physical, mental, psychiatric, sensory or learning impairment and, i. the person considers himself or herself to be disadvantaged in employment by reason of that impairment, or ii. the person believes that an employr or potential employer is likely to consider the person to be disadvantaged in employment by reason of that impairment. Based on ths description, do you consider yourself to be a person with a disability? Yes___ No___ 4. For the purposes of employment equity, a person is a member of a racial minority if the person is, because of his or her race or colour, in a visible minority in Ontario. The fact that a person is an Aboriginal person does not make him or her a member of a racial minority. Based on this description, do you consider yourself to be a member of a racial minority? Yes___ No___ O. Reg. 390/94, Sched. I.  From blevitt@bonk.io.org Wed Mar 8 15:51:02 EST 1995 Article: 25238 of ont.general Xref: utcsri alt.discrimination:31232 alt.politics.correct:38955 can.legal:6846 can.politics:70071 misc.entrepreneurs:36026 ont.general:25238 soc.culture.canada:63944 Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.mcgill.ca!hookup!news.mathworks.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!fonorola!infoshare!whome!gts!reptiles.org!io.org!bonk.io.org!blevitt From: blevitt@bonk.io.org (Bob Levitt) Newsgroups: ont.general,can.legal,can.politics,soc.culture.canada,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,misc.entrepreneurs Subject: Re: Affirmative Action in Ontario Followup-To: ont.general,can.legal,can.politics,soc.culture.canada,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,misc.entrepreneurs Date: 8 Mar 1995 02:05:30 GMT Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Lines: 324 Message-ID: <3jj3da$5vs@ionews.io.org> References: <3jj2u0$2f2@ionews.io.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: bonk.io.org X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] These are my criticisms of the (Ontario) Employment Equity Act, 1993 by: Bob Levitt The Preamble The preamble says certain groups experience higher levels of discrimination in employment and promotion, especially in senior and management positions; this law is to stop this. This law is exclusionary as it doesn't cover everybody, thereby granting more "rights" to some than to others by the arbitrary categories this Act slots people into. "It is caused in part by systemic and intentional discrimination in employment." That sentence seems to assume employers' both public sector and private are inherently guilty. Yet, this law does not cover all people in our society. Therefore it protects some and doesn't protect others. This law might be seen by some employers as encouragement to discriminate against some people by their very exclusion from this Act. PART I "Every employer shall implement positive measures with respect to the recruitment, hiring, retention, treatment and promotion of Aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women." This seems to imply that these "designated groups" shall be considered before others, (ie. the "non-designated group",) and this Act nor its Regulations never make any references to qualifications nor merit in making these considerations. PART II 3 (5) "For the purposes of Parts III and IV, the number of employees that an employer has on the effective date is deemed to be the greater of, (a) the actual number of employees that the employer has on that date; and (b) the greatest number of employees that the employer had at any time during the twelve-month period ending on that date." The effects of this clause is that, should there be a decrease in the number of employees during this period, the proportions of different "designated groups" to be employed is based upon the highest rate of employment, giving them a disproportionately high number. To accomplish this, in times of layoffs, there must be disproportionately high numbers of the "non-designated groups" fired to abide by the law. This has the effect of providing "minority" layoff protection. Is this fair? I don't think it is. 7 (3) If an employer has fifty or more employees at any time after the effective date, the Act applies to them. If the number drops below 50 they now still have to abide by it as if they had over 50. This will probably lead to employers with under 50 employees not wanting to expand out of the fear it may be just temporary. PART III - OBLIGATIONS 15 (3) (b) "information with respect to the provisons of the revised plan for the elimination of barriers and for the implementation of positive measures, supportive measures and measures to accommodate members of the designated groups." This assumes that employers are automatically guilty and financially responsible for "accomodations" to the designated groups. They never actually define most of the terms they use but they appear to mean special training and management programs not available to all employees. Isn't that discriminatory? 18 (5) "A plan shall be made available in the workplace in such a manner that it is accessible to all employees to whom it applies." Does this mean that the "non-designated group" have no right to see the employment equity plan though it is likely to have an effects on their jobs? 19 (2) "The employer shall keep in the employer's records . . . only the information, if any, that is provided by each employee about himself or herself." Since there is no obligation for the employee to fill out the survey questionnaire, nor any apparent penalties if they fill it out incorrectly, it is possible that "non-designated group" employees could neutralize any effect of this law by falsely declaring on the questionniare that they were a member of one or more of the "designated" groups, without any fear of retribution. PART IV - ENFORCEMENT 33 (2) If you are alleged to have intimidated, coerced, penalized or discriminated against an employee, the employer must prove their innocence. (They are guilty until they prove their innocence!) This appears to be contrary to the principles of British Common Law on which we have based our whole justice system. All it would take is one disgruntled employee to make a false accusation to cost the employer substantial time and money in trying to prove their innocence. Nowhere in this Act does it state that the accuser must have any proof of their allegations. 33 (1) (3) "An order requiring an employer to create an employment equity fund to be used for the purposes and in the manner specified in the order." The Employment Equity Tribunal can issue such an order, but nowhere in this Act does it say when the Tribunal can issue such an order or for what purpose? What is supposed to be the purpose of such a fund? 37 (4) This clause appears to say the Employment Equity Tribunal can override a collective agreement if it so wishes. Should any government body have this power? 38 (2) "A decision or an order of the Tribunal is final and conclusive for all purposes." There is no recourse if you disagree with the Tribunals orders! But what is this Tribunal? Do the members have any judicial experience or are they merely political appointees? Are the hearings open to the public or is it a closed (private) court? Can we trust a court of last recourse that is not open to public scrutiny? 43 The Tribunal can levy fines of up to $50,000. Going back to subsection 33 (2), if someone accuses you of intimidation you have to prove your innocence or face a fine, possibly as high as $50,000. Is that just? 46.-(1) "The Employment Equity Commission has the following functions:" "3. To conduct research and develop policy in relation to employment equity." Shouldn't policy be set by the elected Legislature and not by bureaucrats? Isn't it the duty of the bureaucracy to carry out policy and enforcement; not to define it? It seems like the Employment Equity Commission is being empowered to run itself as it wishes. PART VI - MISCELLANEOUS AND REGULATIONS 54.-(1) "It is a condition of evey contract entered into by or on behalf of the Crown or an agency of the Crown that every other party to the contract shall comply with Part III to the extent that the party has obligations under that Part." (2) "Subsection (1) also applies with respect to subcontracts entered into in the performance of a contract described in subsection (1)." (3) "It is a condition of every grant, contribution, loan or guarantee made by or on behalf of the Crown or an agency of the Crown that the person to whom the grant, contribution, loan or guarantee is made comply with Part III to the extent that the party has obligations under that Part." This seems like a draconian law to anybody who receives any money from the government; obey the demands of the Employment Equity Commission and Tribunal or you will be financially punished. But wait it gets even worse. (4) "A finding by the Employment Equity Tirubnal that Part III has been breached is conclusive proof of a breach of the condition." ie. If the closed session private court says you are guilty you must be guilty and you have no recourse. (I though this was supposed to be a free country!) And finally: (5) "The breach is sufficeint grouds for the cancellation of the contract, subcontract, grant, contribution, loan or guarnatee and for the refusal to enter into any further contract with or make any further grant, contribution, loan or guarantee to the same person." So if the Employment Equity Tribunal says you are guilty you not only lose your contract (grant or loan) but you might never get another one from the provincial governemtn ever again. 55 (1) (22) "governing consultation by employers with employes in accordance with section 17 and governing payment to employees for time spent for the purpose of consultation." So you have to spend time and money in following the government's regulations, but you also have to pay your employees for the time they spend on it too. This Act only seems to dramatically increase the complexity of running a business, and to increase its costs too. Will this Act drive businesses into bankruptcy? Will it drive businesses out of Ontario? 55 (2) " A regulation governing the content of employment equity plans may require plans to contain numerical goals determined in a manner prescribed by the regulation. It may provide that the goals shall be determined with reference to percentages approved by the Commission that, in the opinion of the Commission, fairly reflect the representation of the designated groups in the population of a geographical area or in any other group of people." Using percentages of the "designated groups" as the basis of employment goals sure sounds like quotas to me! And they never mention exceptions if you can't find qualified people to meet their quotas. PART VII 56. "The Human Rights Code is amended by adding the following sections:" 14.1-(1) "A right under Part I (of the Human Rights Code) is not infringed because positive measures or numerical goals that are contained in an employment equity plan under the Employment Equity Act, 1993 are restricted to members of the designated groups identified under Section 4 of that Act." So it now appears to be legal thanks to changes in Ontario's Human Rights Act to discriminate against the non-designated group (ie. non-visible minority, non-Aboriginal, not disabled and not female). This is undeniably discrimination. 41.1 (2) & (3) This subsection seems to be one permitting punitive measures to be imposed on the employer, but these are not allowed to be considered part of the employment equity plan. REGULATIONS ONTARIO GAZETTE - DEFINITIONS 3. (1) "For the purposes of the act, a member of a racial minority is a person who, because of the person's race or colour, is in a visible minority in Ontario." This clause still does not adequately explain what is a visible minority? Does that mean that there are invisible minorities, but this law does not apply to them and is therefore inherently discriminatory? ONTARIO GAZETTE - GENERAL Section 3 discusses the geographic bases census data that is used to set the employment equity plan goals (quotas). The goals are solely based on community proportions of the designated groups without any consideration made to the occupational skills of the people available. 17. (1) "5. A description of the timetable for implementing the measures and achieving the numerical goals." 18. (1) "For each designated group, the employment equity plan must state a numerical goal for each occupational group in the workforce covered by the plan." (3) "A numerical goal is th proportion of job openings in the occupational group that will be filled by members of the designated group." (5) "In this section, 'job opening' means, (a) an opportunity for a person to be hired as an employee or the employer into the job; (b) an opportunity for an employee of the employer to be promoted within the occupational group; (c) an opportunity for an employee to be promoted or transferred into another occupational group;" These seem sure seems to be quotas as to how many Aboriginals, people with disabilities, women and racial minorities must be hired and promoted. 19. (1) 2. "The number of designated group members in the employer's entire workforce who have the necessary skills for entry into positions in the occupational group or who the employer could reasonably be expected to train to have those skill." This appears to say that the employer is obliged under this law to train only people in the designated groups for promotions, but have no similar responsibility to the "non-designated" group. As to what the "employer could reasonably be expected to train" is never defined in the law and is up to the Employment Equity Commission and Employment Equity Tribunal to decide. Schedule 1 - Workforce Survey Questionnaire This questionnaire on which everything is based asks the employee to volunarily categorize themselves. The two biggest questions about this questionnaire are in regards to questions 3 and 4. Based upon the definition given in question 3, a person who has always had a bit of a long-term problem with occasionally sore backs but who considers this to be a disadvantage in employment can consider themselves to be a person with a disability. Question 4 gives the definition of being a racial minority, as being a "visible minority". Does that mean that if two people are siblings, but one is not visibly a minority they are not a racial minority under this law, yet their sibling who is visibly a minority is a racial minority? Maybe anybody could consider themselves a minority under this definition? CONCLUSION This law certainly seems to be discriminatory against the "non-designated group". I feel that a law should apply to everybody or it shouldn't apply to anybody. The law is unnecessarily complex and appears to add substantially to the workload, paperwork and expenses of the company, with no government restitution provided for these expenses. This complexity of course means a large and complex bureaucracy to manage and enforce this Act; at a very large expense to the public. There seems to be few checks and balances in this system. The bureaucrats in the Employment Equity Commission and Tribunal appear to have relatively unrestricted power under their mandate. This together with the fact that the actual policies of what are acceptable plans and what aren't are mainly set within the department and are not spelt out clearly in the Act (for employers,) makes this system very open to abuse; it even seems to encourage it. Bob Levitt blevitt@io.org From ont.general Thu Mar 9 11:37:37 1995 Xref: utcsri can.general:46806 can.politics:70218 ont.general:25272 soc.culture.canada:64086 Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!hookup!torn!news.unb.ca!UNBSJ.CA!irving From: irving@UNBSJ.CA (GREGORY IRVING) Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada Subject: Re: Ontario's Employment Equity Act Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:48:52 Organization: UNB Saint John Campus Lines: 97 Message-ID: References: <3hgiqm$4vt@ionews.io.org> <3i8m3t$1b1@ionews.io.org> <3jgmou$41p@ionews.io.org> <3jjf6a$rsc@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.119.20.75 In article <3jjf6a$rsc@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> khareesh@bnr.ca (Hareesh Kesavan) writes: >From: khareesh@bnr.ca (Hareesh Kesavan) >Subject: Re: Ontario's Employment Equity Act >Date: 8 Mar 1995 05:26:34 GMT [regarding Bob Levitt's analysis of the act...] >I think some of the points you have raised are very interesting, >such as the ones that seem to give absolute power to an appointed >political body (that is, the Employment Equity Tribunal). It is >worrisome that there seems to be no recourse to the rulings of this >tribunal. This is *very* worrisome. >However, I must say that a law doesn't necessarily mean what it >says it does! It's important to consider the spirit of the law, >not just the words. I don't think a court of law would interpret >these clauses in such an extreme fashion. I'd love to hear a >legal opinion on this one... Ask Karen Selick. She practises law in Belleville, Ont. and, based on her statements made on W5 last night, I think she would be only too happy to give you a legal opinion. >>CONCLUSION >> >> >>This law certainly seems to be discriminatory against the "non-designated >>group". I feel that a law should apply to everybody or it shouldn't apply >>to anybody. >This is where we part company! The law may be "discriminatory" >against the "non-designated" group, but the alternative is much worse. >This is one case of a law which I believe should apply to some >people and not others; in order to create a just society, individual >rights must sometimes be sacrificed, if only for a while. How can you create a just society when certain groups have more rights than others? There are so many fundamental problems with this law as to make it completely untenable. >This law promotes the hiring of a relatively small group who are >particularly likely to have trouble getting jobs due to traditional >prejudice on the part of (some) employers. This promotion may >indeed cause some of the "non-designated" group to not be hired, but >it's better than allowing the qualified members of the "designated" >group to never be hired! Please explain to us how that is "better". Personally, I don't think it is acceptable to refuse employment to individuals based on race. PERIOD!! >I believe one of the main purpose of Employment Equity legislation >is to provide examples of people in jobs to which they are not >normally associated. Remember, it was not that long ago that >we took for granted that all doctors were men. Similarly, you'll >find even today that some guidance counsellors will never counsel >girls to try their hand at engineering. Promoting certain careers >among "designated" groups is easier if there are examples of >people from that group who have succeeded at that career. Employment equity does not accomplish this goal. We must change attitudes through education. We have to change the way we educate people. Employment equity simply polarizes people based on race, creates resentment, and raises questions in the minds of the so-called beneficiaries about why they got their jobs. >Of course, I don't believe that such legislation should or will >be a permanent part of Ontario law. When sufficient numbers >of the "designated" groups get into positions of power in the >employing companies, hopefully the stereotypes will have been >broken for good, and such "discriminatory" laws will not be >necessary. What makes you think the "designated" groups will be so magnanimous once they are in power, unless of course, you believe that only white males are capable of making racist decisions? As a footnote, it might be of interest to note that the state of California will be holding a referendum to abolish affirmative action (and for those who say that EE is different.....calling it something different does not make it so). It is widely expected that the referendum vote will result in the abolition of AA. In its place will be a bill forbidding the use of race as a criterion for any hiring decision (which is as it should be). What precipitated this movement was a bill passed in the California legislature stating that both admissions and *graduation* levels of the state universities had to reflect the demographics of the state. The governor refused to sign the bill and it died there. But the fact that it could pass in the legislature at all is evidence that we are going beyond the bounds of reason. On last night's episode of W5, there was a piece on EE in which various individuals were fighting to have Ontario's Bill 79 repealed (or at least were advocating that action). Included among those interviewed were Metro Toronto councillor Gordon (?) Chong and Belleville lawyer Karen Selick. Did anyone else see that piece? From ont.general Thu Mar 9 11:43:19 1995 Xref: utcsri can.general:46805 can.politics:70217 ont.general:25271 Newsgroups: can.politics,ont.general,can.general Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!hookup!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!an321 From: an321@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) Subject: Re: Ontario's Employment Equity Act Message-ID: Sender: an321@freenet3.carleton.ca (John Angus) Reply-To: an321@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet References: <3jjf6a$rsc@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <3hgiqm$4vt@ionews.io.org> <3i8m3t$1b1@ionews.io.org> <3jgmou$41p@ionews.io.org> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 19:01:15 GMT Lines: 88 In a previous posting, Hareesh Kesavan (khareesh@bnr.ca) writes: > In article <3jgmou$41p@ionews.io.org>, Bob Levitt wrote: >> These are my criticisms of the >> (Ontario) Employment Equity Act, 1993 >> >>by: Bob Levitt > > [interesting analysis deleted to save bandwidth] > > Furthermore, it would be useful to know whether anyone has been > foolish enough to invoke this act in the way that you suggest. > It doesn't just take a hole in the law, but someone to abuse it! And you don't think this will happen? It's already happening federally with less stringent legislation. Marcel Masse has already openly acknowledged that, even though it is clearly illegal to do so, federal workers will not be laid off based on merit but on skin colour and sex. He danced around openly supporting this, but clearly, in a nudge-nudge, wink-wink fashion he is agreeable to flouting the law in order to achieve all important racial and sex ratios the feds have targeted. >>CONCLUSION >>This law certainly seems to be discriminatory against the "non-designated >>group". I feel that a law should apply to everybody or it shouldn't apply >>to anybody. > > This is where we part company! The law may be "discriminatory" > against the "non-designated" group, but the alternative is much worse. > This is one case of a law which I believe should apply to some > people and not others; in order to create a just society, individual > rights must sometimes be sacrificed, if only for a while. A while? This practice has been ongoing in the US for a generation now, and has miserably failed to achieve any lessening of racism. In fact, it could be argued that quotas increase racism by increasing resentment of the majority for minorities. > This law promotes the hiring of a relatively small group who are > particularly likely to have trouble getting jobs due to traditional > prejudice on the part of (some) employers. This promotion may > indeed cause some of the "non-designated" group to not be hired, but > it's better than allowing the qualified members of the "designated" > group to never be hired! If people are unable to secure employment > because the "system" rejects them, who do you think pays for it?? Please explain to me why it is better for Ontario, or better morally, to hire a black person over a more qualified white person because of his skin colour, rather than hiring a white person over a more qualified black person due to his skin colour. Please explain to me why you think the more qualified candidate in either case would not be angry, bitter and resentful. > I believe one of the main purpose of Employment Equity legislation > is to provide examples of people in jobs to which they are not > normally associated. Remember, it was not that long ago that > we took for granted that all doctors were men. Similarly, you'll > find even today that some guidance counsellors will never counsel > girls to try their hand at engineering. Promoting certain careers > among "designated" groups is easier if there are examples of > people from that group who have succeeded at that career. But what you are saying is that social engineering is acceptable because members of certain ethnic groups aren't interested in jobs which we feel they must have, that if women aren't interested in being police, for example, we must undertake propoganda campaigns to convince them otherwise. Why? I would like to know how this province or country is damaged if few blacks wish to be firefighters, few asians which to be police, and few women want to be construction workers or soldiers. > Of course, I don't believe that such legislation should or will > be a permanent part of Ontario law. When sufficient numbers > of the "designated" groups get into positions of power in the > employing companies, hopefully the stereotypes will have been > broken for good, and such "discriminatory" laws will not be > necessary. Hasn't happened anywhere else. There are human rights commisions, for example, which are 90% ethnic or female, yet they still retain racial hiring preferences. I believe the Ontario human rights commision has something like 5% white males on its staff. JA -- "Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness" es799@cleveland.freenet.edu _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ "Peace, Order, & Good Government" an321@freenet.carleton.ca From ont.general Fri Mar 10 01:19:11 1995 Xref: utcsri can.general:46864 can.politics:70359 ont.general:25304 soc.culture.canada:64171 Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.mcgill.ca!hookup!newshost.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!hal.COM!decwrl!tribune.usask.ca!oisin.usask.ca!user From: wardp@herald.usask.ca (Pearse Ward) Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada Subject: Re: Ontario's Employment Equity Act Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 04:08:59 -0400 Organization: Society for Bioalchemy and Other Related Perversions Lines: 108 Message-ID: References: <3hgiqm$4vt@ionews.io.org> <3jgmou$41p@ionews.io.org> <3jjf6a$rsc@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> <3jmbvm$4u5@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: oisin.usask.ca X-Newsreader: Value-Added NewsWatcher 2.0b22.0+ In article <3jmbvm$4u5@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>, khareesh@bnr.ca (Hareesh Kesavan) wrote: > I don't agree... in any society, including ours, some people have > more rights than others based on the group to which they belong. > In other words, in order to allow some people to have rights that > were historically denied to them, other peoples' rights must be > curtailed to some degree. It's nice to believe in the ideal > that everyone has the same rights, but it isn't always realistic. > I certainly hope that you don't honestly believe what you just wrote. "It's nice to believe that everyone has the same rights but it isn't always realistic." You just made the day of every racist on the *net. That is the line they have been using for years. For example; "blacks are stupid so it isn't realistic to expect us to give them the same rights as whites" or "women aren't as capable as men so it isn't realistic to pay them the same as men." George Orwell was criticising totalitarianism when he wrote "Animal Farm" but his parable applies equally well to the politically correct. Reading the preamble of the Ontario legislation caused me to remember the famous line; "ALL ANIMALS ARE CREATED EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS". Maybe I'll send Bob Rae a copy. Either you belive in equal rights or you don't. If you believe in equal rights for every human being then you cannot agree with policies that treat people unequally based on their gender, race, religion etc... Anything other than that position is sophistry of the worst kind; a feeble attempt to rationalize what you know to be wrong. Feminists, persons of colour, and anyone else who purports to be in favour of equality and equity and then supports discrimination against another identifiable group, simply because that discrimination favours them, are hypocrites. Any law that requires specific exemption from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to escape being overturned by the courts is a priori in violation of that Charter, and by extension, unjust. The Ontario legislation is bad legislation. It cheapens the struggle for equality waged by thousands of men, women and members of minorities in the past because it is an admission of defeat. If the illusion of equality and parity of esteem can only be achieved by perpetrating an injustice then the battle has been lost by default. > But how do you get to a situation where (say) 40% of employees in > a given field are (say) women where there were previously only 10%? > Quite likely, the female applicants do not represent 40% of the > total number of applicants. Why is that? Because girls are not > interested in entering that field. So why is that? > What about a case were 90% of the workers in a field are women. do you advocate affirmative action in these areas to boost the representation of males to 48% (their representation in the general population). Take nursing for example, 98% of all nurses are women. I assume that in Ontario, that now means that no more female nurses will be hired until men make up 50% of the workforce. Given that there fewer than 5% of all nursing school students are male, that will take until well into the next century. Women make up 52% of the student body at this university. The majority of graduates in the faculties of; Pharmacy, Law, Commerce, Veterinary Medicine, Education, Nursing, Nutrition, Physical and Occupational Therapy, and Arts and Sciences are female. The numbers are about equal in Medicine and Dentistry. Men are in the majority in Engineering, Physical Education, and Graduate Studies. given that the pool of graduating professionals is greater than 50%, if a level playing field exists (and existing legislation is sufficient to enforce fair hiring policies under the federal and provincial charters), then greater than 50% of all new hirings will be women. In less than a generation, women will be equally represented in all the professions. The only group in Canada that is still under-represented in all areas of professional life is aboriginal people, and that is slowly changing. The problem is that those who favour discriminatory legislation aren't willing to wait. They want to unfairly discriminate against one group to accelerate the progress of another. > A more troublesome argument might be: if there are tendencies > to *not* hire "designated" groups at a company, then the > people from "designated" groups who have some power at that > company can help to balance this (exclusionist) tendency. I > prefer not to take this line of argument because it would come > down to two different groups competing to bring their own kind > into the company, which is nobody's idea of a just society. > > Hareesh. Your idea of a "just society" apparently allows for denying some people the right to be considered for a job, even if well qualified, because they aren't they are the "wrong" sex, the "wrong" colour, or were born of the "wrong" parents. It's quite simple. You cannot claim to support equity and justice and allow for discrimination. If you want to claim that to address past injustices, it is necessary and desirable to perpetrate new injustices, then make your case on those grounds but don't try to sugar coat it by calling it "equity". It is a perversion of the word and an insult to those who have fought against inequity and injustice. Pearse --------------------------------------------------------------------- "To someone with a hammer, many things look like nails that need banging in" Pearse Ward wardp@herald.usask.ca --------------------------------------------------------------------- From can.politics Sat Mar 11 19:25:18 1995 Xref: utcsri bc.general:15952 can.general:47017 can.legal:6899 can.politics:70749 Newsgroups: bc.general,can.general,can.politics,can.legal Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!uunet!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news!server.uwindsor.ca!fromm From: Fromm Richard W Subject: Re: Employment Equity & 'women minority'... In-Reply-To: X-Nntp-Posting-Host: server.uwindsor.ca Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Sender: news@news.uwindsor.ca (Usenet) Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 03:35:42 GMT Lines: 110 On Fri, 10 Mar 1995, Karen Gordon wrote: > Date: Fri, 10 MAR 1995 18:11:27 GMT > From: Karen Gordon > Newgroups: bc.general, can.general, can.politics, can.legal > Subject: Employment Equity & 'women minority'... > > I wonder how many Canadians, in accepting the 'employment equity' legislation > for their province, realized that it would be putting them out of work - and > this includes WOMEN that the legislation is supposed to help. > > Employment equity is being adopted first and foremost by GOVERNMENTS - both > federal and provincial. > This means that GOVERNMENT jobs, which have traditionally been viewed as > well-paying and secure, are now going to be alloted to those groups listed > under 'employment equity' laws....i.e. visible minorities, people with > disabilities, aboriginal peoples and women. > > Because many government positions and departments are already held > DISPROPORTIONATELY by women - government clerical and service positions - > the government is seeing their representation in these jobs as 'OVER- > represented'. > Here is a direct quote from a government document which talks about the > representation of women within a particular provincial ministry: > WOMEN > "Although women comprise only 50.3 per cent of the population of > the province, 78.2 per cent of the peope who work in our ministry > are women. So it could be said that women are over-represented > in this ministry, in comparison to the general population." > > VISIBLE MINORITIES > > "According to the 1991 Census, 14.2 per cent of the province are > of a visible minority. 8.6 per cent of ministry employees > reported being of a visible minority on their questionnaire. > * We still have a long way to go in this area, however, in meeting > the ultimate GOAL of employment equity - to refelect the population > of the province at every level." > > And their hiring practices are showing their methods of 'achieving employ- > ment equity'.....white Canadian women with higher qualifications and a > good command of the English language are being passed over in favour of > newly-arrived immigrants to Canada that hold only 'permanent residence' > status, not even Canadian citizenship. > > This is 'employment equity' for women? > Not by a long shot. Women are being displaced in government departments by > OTHER WOMEN of 'visible minority'. This will be happening in any government > department where women are currently the majority of workers. > > With the up-coming severance of 45,000 federal government employees, this > inequitable piece of legislation will really show its ugly head....those > that are let go will be replaced in time with visible minorities, people > with disablities, and aboriginal people.....none of whom will have to 'match' > the qualifications of the non-designated groups. > > The government doesn't like the work 'quotas', but that is exactly what they > are. > Again a quote from the government document on this subject: > "We will be comparing our ministry's workforce profile to that of > this province. This will help us identify areas where SPECIAL > INITIATIVES may be appropriate in order to achieve the ULTIMATE GOAL > of employment equity - a public service which is representative, at > all levels, of the population it serves." > > Women are not a minority group. > We haven't been a minority group for a very long time. > We have more than our share of numbers represented in some very comfortable > government departments. > We stand to LOSE, not gain, under this 'employment equity' legislation. > > As one of the province's MLAs (a female) just recently said, "I am frustrated > that women are still lumped in with the disabled and visible minorities. > 52% of the province's population is not an interest group." > > So if any women out there are feeling 'secure' in their 'over-represented' > government departments, you may want to re-think this piece of legislation > being called 'employment equity'.... > You may well find yourself in U.I. lineups thinking about it. > _______________________ > -- > > 7 > > > As a white, university educated male, i know I have found myself in the unemployment line thinking the same thing. Until we start treating all people as equals, discrimination will never end. As a white male, get very frustrated when continually told that I am responsible for all of the inequities within the workplace and within society. Excuse Me! Im 27 years old, the son of an autoworker, and just trying to make something out of myself. I'm not responsible for past prejudices, so please don't hold me responsible for them. all i want is an equal chance within the job market that's all. IF your a woman, or a minority, and are more qualified than I am, more power to you. I wish u all the success in the world. But please, don't overlook me because I am a white male!!! Hmmm....sounds like institutionalized discrimination..:-) Xref: utcsri alt.discrimination:34530 alt.politics.correct:49311 bc.general:18878 can.politics:77794 misc.immigration.canada:4020 ont.general:27419 soc.culture.canada:71796 tor.general:24238 Path: utcsri!info.physics.utoronto.ca!utzoo!utdoe!io.org!bonk.io.org!davewil From: davewil@bonk.io.org (Dave Williams) Newsgroups: ont.general,can.politics,bc.general,soc.culture.canada,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination,tor.general,misc.immigration.canada Subject: Re: The Employment Equity Dictionary Followup-To: ont.general,can.politics,bc.general,soc.culture.canada,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination,tor.general,misc.immigration.canada Date: 29 Apr 1995 20:04:17 GMT Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Lines: 119 Message-ID: <3nu641$nhs@ionews.io.org> References: <3nhsfi$nmo@ionews.io.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: bonk.io.org X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] You must work for the Employment Equity Commission. I have never before seen such an accurate account of the jargon these people use. Glen Moore (moore@io.org) wrote: : THE OFFICIAL ONTARIO EMPLOYMENT EQUITY DICTIONARY : This dictionary is to help you decipher all the code words and phrases : used in reference to employment equity. Words and phrases in quotation : marks are those used commonly in the Act, regulation and/or literature. : Affirmative Action - Extra privledges granted by government decree, to : "designated groups," based upon perceived and/or : claimed past or present discrimation, without any need for the burden : to prove such perceptions or claims. : "Barrier" - Anything perceived or claimed by employment equity : bureaucracies, consultants or lobbyists, or by individuals : claiming membership to or lobby groups claiming to represent the : "designated groups," to limit the hiring or promotion of these : "designated groups," to force, in short order, proportional representation, : regardless of any relevant factors. : Deadline - Oppressive sounding term to be substituted with the : politically correct term: "Timetable". see "Timetable. : "Designated Group" - Arbitrary group granted special privledges, : designated by the ruling government under pressure : from vocal government funded lobby groups; deemed victims of the system : by virtue of their gender, race or disability. see "Non-designated group". : "Employment Equity" - see Affirmative Action : "Employment Equity Act, 1993" - Ontario legislation, setting out the : basis of "employment equity principles". : see "Employment Equity Priciples". Also setting out some of the : proceedures, bureaucratic structure and regulations, for Employment : Equity, which are further defined by employment equity regulations. : see "Employment Equity Regulations". : "Employment Equity Commission" - Bureaucracy, ruled by a labyrinth of : regulations, meetings and forms to : strangle businesses into submission. Any conflicts between the Commission : and a business are to be decided by the irrevocable order of the : Employment Equity Tribunal. see "Employment Equity Tribunal". : "Employment Equity Principles" - Ill conceived, poorly defined, set of : ideas created by self-proclaimed : intellectuals, who want to social-engineer the workplace and all of : society in the image they envision, which they know to be the only : correct path, to the exclusion of input from the majority of the : ignorant masses they rule over. : "Employment Equity Regulations" - Badly defined rules to confuse and : govern medium to large employers, as : well as any employers who do business with the government, or whom : receive any government grants or loan guarantees, to fill : in any gaps left by the "Employment Equity Act, but to be interpreted : by the "Employment Equity Tribunal". see "Employment Equity Act, 1993." : see "Employment Equity Tribunal." : "Employment Equity Tribunal" - Board of Inquisition, composed of : political appointees who are already : educated in "employment equity principles". See "Employment Equity : Principles." : "Non-designated Group" - White males; oppressors by virtue of their : birth, those who are acknowledged to be part : of the conspiracy controlling the "systemic discrimination" in : employment, everywhere. see "systemic discrimination". see "designated : group". : "Numerical Goals" - Quotas. see "Quotas". : Offenses - That deemed by the "Employment Equity Tribunal" to be in : breach of the "Numerical Goals," "Timetables" or any of the : sections of the "Employment Equity Act" or "Employment Equity : Regulations," as set out under "Employment Equity Principles". : see "Employment Equity Tribunal". see "Numerical Goals". : see "Timetables". see "Employment Equity Act, 1993". : see "Employment Equity Regulations". see "Employment Equity Principles". : Orders of the Tribunal - Commandment by the Employment Equity Tribunal : that can not be appealed and enforced by fines : and/or by the Courts; decree by divine right under "employment equity : principles," and under the legal authority of the Employment Equity Act, : and Employment Equity regulations. see "Employment Equity Principles,". : see "Employment Equity Act, 1993". see "Employment Equity Regulations". : "Positive Measures" - Proactive reverse discrimination programs, : exclusionary to the "non-designated group". : see "non-designated group". : Quotas - Politically incorrect term never to be used. "Numerical : goals" is the substitute for this term. see "Numerical Goals". : "Removal of Barriers" - "Positive Measures" programs to end "Systemic : Discrimination". see "Postive Measures". : see "Systemic Discrimination". : "Systemic Discrimination" - Discrimination through apparently neutral : policies or practices, which are reinforced : by institutional structures and power and which result in the : inequitable treatment of only members of the designated groups. : All employers are by nature guilty of at least "Systemic : Discrimination" if not also guilty of intentional discrimination, as : proven by the apparent underrepresentation of these designated groups : in all occupations, managerial positions and distributions of salaries, : in the Province of Ontario. : "Timetable" - see Deadline. : White Males - Oppressors; the enemy of an equitable society. : I hope this help you all to understand the myriad of jargon used in : the discussion of Employment Equity in the Province of Ontario, as : well as anywhere else in Canada. :