Subject: The Greatest Tactic Ever Used

From: [email-masked] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 08:41:24 GMT

Woe.  I talked with Karol Ross this afternoon.  Karol is a co-author of
"Sexual Allegations in Divorce:  The SAID Syndrome" with Dr. Gordon
Blush.  She is also a co-author with Dr. Blush of several other
noteworthy papers on the topic.  She told me that divorce
custody/visitation disputes in which the mother makes allegations of
sexual abuse against the father are so ugly that none of the national
experts really wants to get involved anymore - at a time when the
allegations are rampant.  Why?  Well, because they spend exorbitant
amounts of time and emotional involvement in these cases and they never
see justice.  Never.

So I asked, "Have you ever heard of a father getting custody of his
children after a mother has alleged that he sexually molested the
children, no matter how apparently bogus the allegations?"  Her reply
was sickening....

"One," she said.  "Reid Kimbrough in Preston, Connecticut."

"I know Reid.  I've talked to him and I bought $80 worth of
documentation from him.  He never told me that he got custody."

"Well, he is the only one that I've heard of and I've been personally
involved in thousands of these."

Well, Bob Kirkpatrick also told me of a case in Idaho, in which he was
the Guardian Ad Litem, and primarily because of his testimony in court,
the father got sole custody because of false and malicious allegations
of child sexual abuse.

So that makes two.

Now, how many times do mothers make such allegations?  According to a
study by Dr. Nancy Theonnes, there are only about 1600 divorces in the
US every year in which these allegations come up.  She based that
calculation on the number of such cases in 11 courts that she studied
in a one year period.  There were 169 cases in those courts (I guess
she thinks there are only 100 courts in the US).   Every other national
expert on this phenomenon says that there are many more such cases.
The referee in my case told my attorney he sees four of these a week.
He is one of six referees in Franklin County, Ohio.  If he means four
per week in the entire county court system, that would be over 200 per
year.  But if he means he sees four per week out of the cases he
handles, then the rate could be six times that for the entire court
system or about 1200 per year in one county.  I don't know, but going
with the lower figure, and knowing that there are 1,000,000 people in
Franklin County - give or take 50,000, then there are 200 allegations
per million per year in divorces.  There are approximately 250 million
folks in the US.  That would represent a total of 50,000 allegations of
child sexual abuse in divorcee custody/visitation cases in the US every
year.  And Karol Ross knows of one man who got sole because of false
allegations.  And I know of one.  And that is over about a 10 year
period.

So, let me see if I've got this straight:  In over 10 years, at least 2
men have been awarded sole custody after it was alleged that they
sexually molested their children in a divorce custody/visitation dispute
- out of as many as 500,000 allegations (50k per year for 10 years).

Well, that has to be the most successful tactic ever imagined.  It works
in keeping the man from getting sole custody 99.9996% of the time.  You
could make a moon shot with those numbers....

I'm sure the numbers aren't quite that bad, but maybe they are just 99%.

Oh, and using Dr. Theonnes's numbers, the rate is not nearly as bad,
(100% - (2 men who got custody * 1600 cases per year * 10 years *
100%)) a mere 99.9875% success rate for mothers making such
allegations.

So, what can I say?  If you are a spiteful, immoral, contentious bitch
who is going through a divorce and you want to keep your
soon-to-be-ex-husband from getting sole custody of his children, and
your children are young, then allege that he sexually molested them.
It is quite simple, pretty much pain-free for you (not so for your
kids - can you say colpascope?), it will cost him a fortune to fight
the allegations, and even if he does, you will win.

Oh, and don't worry about the court doing anything back to you.  Karol
hadn't heard of any woman who had been punished for making such false
allegations.  Neither have I.

All that in spite of the fact that most nationally recognized experts
place the rate of allegations of child sexual abuse being false at
around 75% to 80% (and most believe it is even higher than that, they
just can't support their beliefs with evidence - but they are sure that
many innocent men go to jail for false allegations).

If Napolean had known of such a successful tactic - well, parlez vous
francais?

Justice in the American Domestic Relations court system:  it has nothing
to do with justice and everything to do with `how do we insure that mom
gets the kids?'

Just something to think about.

No, we don't need to do anything about this - it's not YOUR problem.
However, consider yourself warned.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 00:29:37 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Susan Bunyan) writes:
>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>Well Aaron I hope this isn't the type of logic you use in court.  You
>make up a bunch of numbers based on how many people live in the US and
>then throw in a statistic based on you and one other person and decide
>that you have a good figure.  I'm sorry but I don't think you and your
>friend could know of every man who got custody after such allegations
>were made. 
>

No, I didn't claim that my figure was "good."  In fact, my figure is not
valid at all.  But, if you saw Theonnes's work, you would be dismayed
that she concluded there were only 1600 divorce custody cases in which
child sexual abuse allegations arose per year by utilizing the same kind of
skewed number crunching and speculation.  She was able to come up with
her number like this:  Every year in the US there are 500,000 divorces.
Only 55% of these divorces involve minor children and custody issues.
Judges report that only 20% of these divorces litigate, most are settled
out of court.  Only about 3% of those divorces involve allegations of
child sexual abuse (based on her own comprehensive study of 169 cases).
So, 500,000 * 55% * 20% * 3% = 1650.  I'm so sure.

What is interesting about my figure is that I contacted one of the most
renowned psychologist in the US in regards to child sexual abuse
allegations in divorce - a woman who has personally consulted on
thousands of these cases (at $2500 per day plus expenses) and has been
contacted for thousands of others.  And the folks who contact her are
the folks that have the resources to find her.  Most of the poor
schmucks who get accused never hear of her or contact her.  She has been
investigating these cases for about 8 years and has only seen the man get
custody in ONE case.  That is significant.

>I'm not saying you're wrong that the tactic has worked and I'm not
>saying you're wrong that the system needs to guard against false
>accusations.  However, these figures of yours aren't what convinces
>me.  Yours is a very sad case and I understand you are bitter.  But
>that doesn't make all accusations of sexual abuse false.  And because
>you only know of 2 men who won doesn't mean they are the only men who
>won.
>
>Susan B.

I'm sure they aren't the only men who have won.  Most men suffer the
indignity of these allegations in private.  They assume that they would
be hurting their own reputations and hurting their children by taking
the whole thing public.  

Society doesn't like to acknowledge that men can be victims - even
victims of contentious ex-spouses who try everything within their
power - and some things outside of their power - to destroy their
ex-spouses.  It's a woman's right and perogative to do so.  She has the
authority and society applauds her for her efforts.  Innocent men
should be accused - it gives them the opportunity to be introspective
and re-evaluate the relationships between men and women - to gain a
clearer understanding that men are bad, women are good - sugar and
spice and all that.  Men can't be victims because they are
victimizers.  Women can't be victimizers because they are perpetual
victims.

Besides, no one wants to hear about these things.  These cases make for
the kind of reports where the viewer is warned before hand to change
the channel if they don't like to deal with this kind of topic.  Ever
complain about how morbid the news is?  Who wants to watch it?  It's
just death, murder, rape, theft, crime - a smorgasboard of gloom.

I've encountered another strange thing with the media.  They don't want
to publicize my name.  They are looking out for repercussions and
because they can only get one side of the story, they fear the
contentious, litigating, accusing person on the other side.  She's done
this to me - how much could she or would she do to them?  They say they
want to protect me.  But my attitude is, "Hey, what more could possibly
happen than what has happened already - I've been arrested at work,
almost everyone at work knows about my predicament, all my friends, all
my family? - what could be worse than this - a few people who I don't
know get to find out?"

Many of the folks who are involved in this case and who are on my side
have asked me, "What can we do to stop her?"  Not as an active query.
They aren't looking for me to give them a list of things to do.  It is
a question whose answer is understood.  The understood response,
"Nothing."  The question means, "We are powerless to stop your ex- from
destroying your life.  Hey, it sucks, but we just can't do anything."

Well, Sue, you prompted a battery of nihilism.  And we all know just how
convincing that is....

The lyrics below express how I feel right now.  But don't worry, I'll
be fine.  After all, it's Father's Day weekend.  Tomorrow I get to see
at least one of my sons for 4 hours - it will only cost me $100 - plus
all expenses.

THE FINAL CUT 
	-- Roger Waters
 
Through the fish eyed lens of tear stained eyes 
I can barely define the shape of this moment in time 
And far from flying high in clear blue skies 
I'm spiralling down to the hole in the ground where I hide

If you negotiate the minefield in the drive 
And beat the dogs and cheat the cold electronic eyes 
And if you make it past the shotgun in the hall 
Dial the combination, open the priesthole 
And if I'm in I'll tell you what's behind the wall 
 
There's a kid who had a big hallucination 
Making love to girls in magazines 
He wonders if you're sleeping with your new found faith
Could anybody love him 
Or is it just a crazy dream 
 
And if I show you my dark side 
Will you still hold me tonight 
And if I open my heart to you 
And show you my weak side 
What would you do 
Would you sell your story to Rolling Stone 
Would you take the children away 
And leave me alone 
And smile in reassurance 
As you whisper down the phone 
Would you send me packing 
Or would you take me home 
 
Thought I oughta bare my feelings 
Thought I oughta tear the curtain down 
I held the blade in trembling hands 
Prepared to make it but just then the phone rang 
I never had the nerve to make the final cut
===
END

I get to see at least one of my sons for four hours tomorrow morning.
There is a court order that says that my ex- has to pay half of the
expenses for supervised visitation.  Why?  Probably because the court
doesn't believe her - it was the best they could do.  The cost is $25
per hour.  Why do I get to pick up the whole tab tomorrow?  Because my
ex- refuses to pay her half.  Quite simple.  Will we file contempt
charges?  Sure, she's in contempt.  Will the court do anything?  What
did they do with my first three contempt charges?  

"What can we do to stop her?"

You see, they can (do something), they just won't.  They are as afraid
of her as I am.

"The hottest spots in Hell are reserved for those - who, in the face of
a moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
	- Dante

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
[email-masked]