Subject: March 1993 FACE Newsletter

From: [email-masked] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 06:25:08 GMT

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
[email-masked] 

P.S. Distribute at will, as always.