Subject: Re: Let us never forget: ALLEN WELLS

From: [email-masked] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 23:34:59 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Tony Merolla) writes:
>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (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
[email-masked]