Sometimes a moment of revelation can happen in the midst of a very ordinary event.
I was recently watching a very disturbing performance on C-SPAN the other day where a group of women sat transfixed before a man who spent the better part of an hour trying to convince them that mothers were not very good at raising our own children. Even though God, nature or just plain dumb evolutionary forces have designated us, women, the female of the species to bear, nurture and guide our young to maturity, this jackass thought he knew better then God, nature and evolution itself.
He brazenly stated that single fathers performed better then their female counterparts (single mothers) in 20 something different categories.* He blamed single mothers, as well as female teachers, for the fact that boys entered into gangs, claiming they were looking for the ‘male presence in the family’ they missed out on in their home life; very conveniently forgetting to mention the male presence who abandoned those families in the first place, thus making young men susceptible to the call of the wild, so to speak.
Additionally he let ‘white America’ get a free pass on this, as most of these problem homes are and will continue to be African-American, clearly impacted by the historic legacy of slavery in this society. Wherein single black women were encouraged to have one child after another, outside of the institution of marriage. Actually these women were rewarded for this behavior, as after they produced anywhere from 13 to 15 children for their white master to trade off for profit (remembering that this man was often the father of these children as well), this unfortunate mother was finally rewarded with her freedom.
This proved a true bargain with the devil and we live with this legacy today…and we MUST stop running away or trying to deny this responsibility or we will never solve the problems associated with it. By the way, anyone desiring more information on this phenomenon only need read the autobiography of Frederick Douglass...a real eye opener for those truly interested in the history of fathers in American society throughout that whole historic epoch.
Actually, historically North America was the only place in this hemisphere that micromanaged a people into being a self-reproducing slave population. Every other country, except our own, such as Brazil, the West Indies, etc., had to import slaves in order to have any, whereas the United States worked out a system that we could produce our own…and like I said, above, we live with this shameful legacy today as do the women who bear the psychic scars of this trauma and pass that along to their chilldren and their childrens' children.
There should be no minimizing of that crime and subsequent obligations we all bear because of it, none. It is our historic burden, our shame, an unpaid debt we still owe and we must bear it and deal with it, without blaming the victims who are still being crippled by that very ugly historic legacy.
We must accept this situation and it’s historic causes (us) and, most importantly, stop blaming the single black mother for this problem as young black men in gangs or in prison or doing drugs are not in trouble in this country because of their mothers.
AND I’m getting sick of listening to people trying to claim this.
Anyway, I digress…
This arrogant and foolish man then went so far as to mention that men appeared to be very willing to stay at home, while women went to work to support them, so men could raise the children, that they invested a whole two-second sperm donation in creating.
While mother who starts preparing for her children physically, psychologically and emotionally since about the age of 13 or so, (some say 7) then goes through 9 months of hell and high water (not to mention the hours of painful and bloody labor) to finally get them here in one piece, that she should be perfectly content to, well go join the marines, for instance, for a job to support her family…since there really didn’t appear to him to be much too different in being a marine or a mother…
Well at least it answers the question of why the US had to abandon most of its post-Vietnam era military ventures…and why some are beginning to question whether or not higher education, itself, is proving to be a huge waste of time and money for the US. As we appear to have raised and educated our ‘best and brightest’ to be some of the biggest jackasses in history.
Actually listening to this rant did not surprise me; as I’ve been listening to the male of our species pontificating on how much better a job they could do at raising children then mothers for the last 10 years or so now; but what did surprise me was that none of the women challenged him; they just sat their dumbly nodding in assent with faint smiles on some of their faces. There was more of an uproar at Harvard a few weeks ago, when someone dared to questions womens’ aptitude for science. Like, let’s face it, that is probably priority #853 for most women, as compared to these attempts to intellectually convince us that we aren’t good for our own children.
I almost hate to tell this jackass that mothers have been designated, since life itself first crawled out of the primal mist, as the most obvious, natural and best guardians for the young. This is the case in every species, including our own, and this designation was no accident. It’s because mother is the one who invest the most in bringing forth life, that she is the most natural guardian to see to it that that investment produces ‘fruit’. This has been the case and will remain the case long after this idiot falls into a hole somewhere and hopefully pulls it in after him; and if we are really lucky he’ll pull in the rest of these gender-neutralized social engineers who are perfectly willing to experiment with our kids in all kinds of weird family forms and strange custody arrangements.
A mothers’ children are her most precious possession, yet here we are ready to hand over, what women and women alone bring forth in pain and bloody suffering, to hand off into some sort of weird, gender-neutralized, social-engineering experiment, without a word of freakin protest.
I was disheartened and puzzled but then tonight once again, another revelation (and thank God it came just as I was ready to update my blog because otherwise, I would have been hard pressed to have an optimistic post tonight with all the death and destruction visited upon women by men this week; one bloody murder of us after another.)
Anyway, I’m watching C-SPAN again, listening to Tavis Smiley’s forum on the “State of Black America” and he introduces Thomas A. Parham, Ph.D who begins to expound on why African-Americans are in so much distress in spite of the 30 or 40 years since the civil rights movement and all the changes and assistance that is currently available for them. One of the issues he focuses on was psychic scarring. It exists, it run deep, it’s not visible. Additionally it can run so deep if you have enough traumatized generations born during the process, that you don’t even recognize it anymore. You think it’s normal and natural.
Thus you act and react to events, totally unaware that you are following a script that was written for you long before you, yourself, even existed. So no control is needed to keep you in your place, since you have already internalized the role that you’ve been assigned. It’s the matrix write large. Worse actually, as a matrix, if it existed, would be a physical ‘thing’ thus susceptible to being located and destroyed, whereas a historic psychic injury is not detectable, yet it can destroy your soul or, worse yet, cause you to destroy your soul since you don’t even recognize your essential self when it appears.
It struck me with a shock of recognition that Parham could have easily been talking about women, as what group has been living someone else’s script longer then we have.
Women, in their role as mothers, are frequently convinced by others that the mother/child bond is non-existence, so we have no more right to our children, then anyone else. Actually others should have more rights to them, as they are smarter and better then mothers, far more worthy to raise our children then we are. Additionally, we should be willing to participate in allowing men to experience being mothers, especially since they are so much better at doing everything else then us, why not this to? Or that our feeling towards are children are real, but irrational, primitive, not as significant as thing as a career in science. Definitely not as important as even a one-night stand with some jackoff who is only interested in women for how fast they can get you into the back seat of their cars, leaving you with a quick-drop sperm deposit before you are kicked to the curb again.
Actually everything in the world should be seen as more important to a mother then her children.
This fixation lately on women chasing after men for sex (as imprinted upon women via the media as in Sex in the City, Brittany Spears, every music video ever made, breast implants, etc.,) or the white wedding that must precede community-approved childbearing (that women spend much time chasing after causing tremendous soul-searing damage to ourselves in the process) keeps the focus on men, front and center in all womens’ lives.
It has caused women to expose ourselves to constant danger as in bringing dangerous men into our lives and our homes, rather then live alone.
It has caused women to allow men to disrespect us on both an individual and collective level, while we try everything possible to drag them to the altar for the traditional white wedding, that most men run from like the plague.
It has allowed women to subject ourselves to every sort of abuse from the one-night stand to posing half-naked everywhere we go, (more psychological rape of women which we enable to be done to us, we enable it). Regarding the one-night stand, let’s face it, this does nothing physically or emotionally for women. If we are being totally honest about it, women really use the one-night stand as a negotiating tool in a misguided attempt to build a deeper relationship with a man, who is actually only using women for sex in these one-night stands, nothing more.
It has allowed women to overlook the fact of abuse, both physical as well as emotional, in order to keep just about any relationship with a man no matter how destructive to us or our children.
It has caused women to use pregnancy as a negotiating tool in more desperate attempts to convince men to commit when men clearly want no part of us; thus causing our children untold hardship as they are court-ordered into relationships with men who would rather they do NOT even exist. Not to mention the worse case scenario if these ‘fathers’ decide to take custody in order to evade child support. Then our children, who should be front and center in our lives, our most precious possessions, are lost to us through the greed of men.
Sometimes lost forever as a mother losing custody might never see her child again. It the equivalent of sending a slave mothers’ child off to the deep south. It was the fear of most slave mothers as they knew it portended the end of their attempts to nurture and protect their children from outside forces…and spun their children out into the world and God only knew where they would wind up, God only knew…very similar to Bridget Marks’ twins or even Lisa Mason’s daughter…Once a mother loses custody of her children, anything can and frequently does happen to them…anything.
Thus, women must recognize this distortion of our priorities for the psychic scars that they are and work to heal ourselves.
Women must stop this trite madness of chasing men for either sex or marriages until we have healed ourselves to the point that we are able to negotiate a truly mutual relationship.
Women must focus on what should be front and center in our lives, our most precious possession, our children.
Women must stop listening to others who are either jealousy of the mother/child bond or are attempting to regain their position at the top of the hierarchy and have no problem with climbing unto the backs of our children to get there again.
Not to mention that they are quite content to continue inflicting even more psychic injury on women, as they continue this struggle to deprive us of our children.
I've posted some statistics below to dispute the 20 something talking points put forth by these gender-neutralized idiots in their quest to convince women that joining the marines would be more significant to mothers, then mothering our own children...
*Shaken Baby Syndrome Statistics
One shaken baby in four dies.
Some studies estimate that 15% of children's deaths are due to battering or shaking, and an additional 15% are possible cases of shaking.
Of the 37 children that died in Florida in 1995-96 13 died from a combination of Shaken Baby Syndrome/ Head Trauma.
Of the thousands that survive death, serious injury usually occurs.
"SBS" victims range in age from a few days to a few months old; the average is six months.
More than 60% of the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome are male.
Almost 80% of the perpetrators of Shaken Baby Syndrome are male
Information courtesy of: http://www.aboutshakenbaby.com/shaken_baby_statistics.htm
By the way these statistics hold true for New York as well.
I guess they forgot to include the 21st item on the list.
Here we have some other info overturning more lies put out about mothers.
Additionally the information indicates child abuse is increasing, probably as more men get custody of more children in their ongoing attempts to avoid paying child support, we will continue to see an increase.
This is why I frequently tell women never be afraid of honest statistics. As I am confident enough that thousands of years of evolution is not going to lie about the choice of women as the most obvious, natural and best guardian of the young in every species, including our own...
Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities: Statistics and Interventions
Author(s): National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information
Year Published: 2004
Introduction
Despite the efforts of the child protection system, child fatalities remain a serious problem.1 Although the untimely deaths of children due to illness and accidents have been closely monitored, deaths that result from physical assault or severe neglect can be more difficult to track. Intervention strategies targeted at resolving this problem face complex challenges.
Unless otherwise noted, statistics in this fact sheet are taken from Child Maltreatment 2002 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004).
How Many Children Die Each Year From Child Abuse and Neglect?
The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) reported an estimated 1,400 child fatalities in 2002. This translates to a rate of 1.98 children per 100,000 children in the general population. NCANDS defines "child fatality" as the death of a child caused by an injury resulting from abuse or neglect, or where abuse or neglect were contributing factors.
Many researchers and practitioners believe child fatalities due to abuse and neglect are underreported. States' definitions of key terms such as "child homicide," "abuse," and "neglect" vary (therefore, so do the numbers and types of child fatalities they report). In addition, some deaths officially labeled as accidents, child homicides, and/or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) might be attributed to child abuse or neglect if more comprehensive investigations were conducted or if there was more consensus in the coding of abuse on death certificates.
Recent studies in Colorado and North Carolina have estimated as many as 50 to 60 percent of deaths resulting from abuse or neglect are not recorded (Crume, DiGuiseppi, Byers, Sirotnak, Garrett, 2002; Herman-Giddens, Brown, Verbiest, Carlson, Hooten, et al., 1999). These studies indicate that neglect is the most underrecorded form of fatal maltreatment.
Are Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities Increasing?
The rate of child abuse and neglect fatalities reported by NCANDS has increased slightly over the last several years from 1.84 per 100,000 children in 2000 to 1.96 in 2001 and 1.98 in 2002. However, experts do not agree whether this represents an actual increase in child abuse and neglect fatalities, or whether it may be attributed to improvements in reporting procedures. For example, statistics on approximately 20 percent of fatalities were from health departments and fatality review boards for 2002, compared to 11.4 percent for 2001, an indication of greater coordination of data collection among agencies.
A number of issues affecting the accuracy and consistency.
Who Are the Perpetrators?
No matter how the fatal abuse occurs, one fact of great concern is that the perpetrators are, by definition, individuals responsible for the care and supervision of their victims. In 2002, one or both parents were involved in 79 percent of child abuse or neglect fatalities. Of the other 21 percent of fatalities, 16 percent were the result of maltreatment by nonparent caretakers, and 5 percent were unknown or missing. These percentages are consistent with findings from previous years.
There is no single profile of a perpetrator of fatal child abuse, although certain characteristics reappear in many studies. Frequently the perpetrator is a young adult in his or her mid-20s without a high school diploma, living at or below the poverty level, depressed, and who may have difficulty coping with stressful situations. In many instances, the perpetrator has experienced violence first-hand. Most fatalities from physical abuse are caused by fathers and other male caretakers. Mothers are most often held responsible for deaths resulting from child neglect. However, in some cases this may be because women are most often responsible (or assumed to be responsible) for children's care (U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).
Information Courtesy of: http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm)
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Rapists and their Exercise of Parental Rights
Recently due to the impending marriage of Mary Kay LeTourneau, the elementary school teacher in Washington State and her former student Vili Fualaau, we are faced with the specter of a woman, convicted as a statutory rapist, eventually being allowed to exercise parental rights. Generally this is a secondary situation faced by women after a rape, as we are the usual victims of this sort of ‘emotional blackmail’; but as more and more women are charged with these sorts of crimes, the issues are going to become much more complicated.
Frankly, I can see nothing good ensuing from having a parent with the label of ‘rapist’ being involved in the everyday life of the children involved here or from allowing LeTourneau, herself, to enter into a relationship where she is automatically at a disadvantage in her role as wife and mother due to her criminal conviction for rape of the father here.
This is just wrong.
Hopefully whatever happens, her daughters will be allowed to remain with the Fualaau grandmother as they appear to be doing well there; while their mother and father proceed full-steam ahead with this god-awful idea of marrying.
Like I have said many time before and it still holds true, there is NO law against behaving like a jackass and this clearly is one aspect of human nature that is surely gender neutral…
Anyway, whether or not rapists can exercise parental rights, is still an issue that is handled on a state-by-state basis, each one having a different law addressing the issue, many appearing to be acting at cross purposes with their neighboring states. So, as usual, women in their role as mothers must be prepared for the worse, as we are the usual victims of rapists (statutory or otherwise) in spite of the high profile given stories lately where women commit this crime.
Rep. Sam Ellis was listening to the "Dr. Laura" show when he first heard the awful tale:
A young female caller was telling Dr. Laura that she'd been raped by a man and had gotten pregnant as a result.
She had decided not to abort but to put the baby up for adoption.
That's when the rapist took control of her life again.
To complete the adoption, she needed the birth father to terminate his parental rights.
The rapist, in custody awaiting trial, told her that he'd sign the papers -- if she agreed not to testify against him in the rape. As a result, the rapist would certainly be released.
What do I do? the young woman asked. Protect society or protect the adoption?
Dr. Laura advised that the young woman do what was right for the child. She wished her luck and moved on to the next call.
A rapist has rights over his victim's baby??? Not any more in North Carolina, thank goodness.
But Ellis, a Republican who represents Raleigh and Cary, was appalled; he couldn't let it go, in part because he thought the woman's Southern accent sounded familiar.
He called the show to see whether the woman could be tracked down. Dr. Laura was no help. But Ellis decided that, "even if the woman wasn't from North Carolina, the circumstances that created her situation were."
Ellis contacted the legislative staff and had a bill drawn up to prevent rapists from using parental rights as a way to intimidate witnesses.
Finally, during the final days of the recent session, the bill was wrapped up in another and expanded, so that the parental rights of convicted first- and second-degree rapists are automatically terminated. Convicted rapists must now petition the court to regain their parental rights.
"Basically, it reverses things," Ellis said. "Previously, it was the woman who had to spend the money and try to get the paperwork signed. Now the onus is off the victim."
Information provided courtesy of http://roguepundit.typepad.com
Let us be clear with this; however, it doesn’t address the problem of most women in this situation, which is the problem of statutory rapists. North Caroline’s law ONLY addresses rapists convicted of First or Second Degree rape, this leave a LOT of rapists out there convicted of lesser charges still able to hold a club over the head of any mother who has a child in this situation.
Neither she nor her family (remember some of these mothers are as young as 12 or 13, so their parents would STILL be very involved in the decision making process here) yet they would still NOT even be allowed to put child for adoption with another family, if her or her family decided that was in her child’s best interest.
She could still be facing a custody fight and eventually even forced to pay child support to the perpetrator here. Even facing a custodial or visitation challenge from the paternal grandparent eventually, that could NOT be ruled out.
So North Caroline has NOT solved the problem, not by a long shot.
Overall, as we can see each state addresses statutory rapists differently and maybe this IS a large part of the problem, as we can see from the case below with the father being a statutory rapist of the 13 year old mother. New Mexico allowed the termination of his parental rights to proceed; however, New York would only have permitted this termination IF father was CONVICTED of rape in the FIRST DEGREE.
“…New York law recognizes certain parental rights for individuals guilty of statutory rape, as opposed to forcible rape, whereas New Mexico does not. In In re Craig "V" v. Mia "W", 500 N.Y.S.2d 568, 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986), relied upon by Respondent, the court held that an individual who has fathered a child by virtue of sexual intercourse which was consensual, albeit perpetrated under circumstances constituting statutory rape, is not precluded under New York law from bringing a paternity proceeding.
The New York court based its ruling primarily on the fact that "the legislative proscription against the right to notice in a proceeding affecting an out-of-wedlock child is limited to a father convicted of the crime of rape in the first degree, which involves forcible compulsion." Id. (citations omitted). The court observed that the New York Legislature "specifically declined to extend this limitation to the father of a child who may have been conceived as the result of any lesser degree of rape or sexual misconduct."
Information courtesy of FindLaw for Legal Professionals Case No. 95-2053
Thus we see that in New Mexico a mother/father victim would be safe from claims by a mother/father perpetrator of statutory rape. Whereas in New York it would be dependent upon the individual Judge hearing the case; so the mother/father victim is open to being victimized twice; once by the rapist and then again by the legal system.
Here below is another example in the state of Kansas where not only does the perpetrator mother retain her parental rights but the victim father is forced to pay child support to her, thus, as I said above being victimized twice; once by the perpetrator, then again by the legal system of Kansas.
The facts, as best we can determine them from an inadequate record, do not appear to be seriously in dispute.
Colleen Hermesmann routinely provided care for Shane Seyer as a baby sitter or day care provider during 1987 and 1988. The two began a sexual relationship at a time when Colleen was 16 years old and Shane was only 12. The relationship continued over a period of several months and the parties engaged in sexual intercourse on an average of a couple of times a week. As a result, a daughter, Melanie, was born to Colleen on May 30, 1989.
At the time of the conception of the child, Shane was 13 years old and Colleen was 17. Colleen applied for and received financial assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (ADC) from SRS.
On January 15, 1991, the district attorney's office of Shawnee County filed a petition requesting that Colleen Hermesmann be adjudicated as a juvenile offender for engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16, Shanandoah (Shane) Seyer, to whom she was not married, in violation of K.S.A.1992 Supp. 21-3503. Thereafter, Colleen Hermesmann entered into a plea agreement with the district attorney's office, wherein she agreed to stipulate to the lesser offense of contributing to a child's misconduct, K.S.A.1992 Supp. 21-3612. On September 11, 1991, the juvenile court accepted the stipulation, and adjudicated Colleen Hermesmann to be a juvenile offender.
On March 8, 1991, SRS filed a petition on behalf of Colleen Hermesmann, alleging that Shane Seyer was the father of Colleen's minor daughter, Melanie. The petition also alleged that SRS had provided benefits through the ADC program to Colleen on behalf of the child and that Colleen had assigned support rights due herself and her child to SRS. The petition requested that the court determine paternity and order Shane to reimburse SRS for all assistance expended by SRS on Melanie's behalf. On December 17, 1991, an administrative hearing officer found Shane was Melanie's biological father. The hearing officer further determined that Shane was not required to pay the birth expenses or any of the child support expenses up to the date of the hearing on December 17, 1991, but that Shane had a duty to support the child from the date of the hearing forward.
Shane requested judicial review of the decision of the hearing officer, contending that the hearing officer "should have found a failure of consent would terminate rights." SRS sought review, asserting that the hearing officer correctly ruled that the issue of consent was irrelevant, but erred in allowing Shane to present evidence pertaining to the defense of consent. SRS also alleged that the hearing officer's denial of reimbursement to the State for funds already paid was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the mandates of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 39-718b.
The district judge, upon judicial review of the hearing officer's order, determined that Shane was the father of Melanie Hermesmann and owed a duty to support his child.
The court found that the issue of Shane's consent was irrelevant and ordered Shane to pay child support of $50 per month. The court also granted SRS a joint and several judgment against Shane and Colleen in the amount of $7,068, for assistance provided by the ADC program on behalf of Melanie through February 1992. The judgment included medical and other birthing expenses as well as assistance paid after Melanie's birth. Shane appeals the judgment rendered and the order for continuing support but does not contest the trial court's paternity finding. SRS has not cross-appealed from any of the orders or judgment of the district court.
Information Courtesy of: http://www.nas.com/c4m/rape_case.html
Let’s keep in mind however that Colleen Hermesmann herself was a minor; so the decision might have been different if she was a legal adult when this occurred…
Again, just as with parental rights, custody and child support, there appears to be no standardization of anything regarding statutory rapists, with each state handling sentencing differently, as we can see from the list below:
On May 5, 1997, Stacey A.M., an adult, gave birth to Quianna M.M. The father was subsequently determined to be Quisto P., whose date of birth is August 13, 1984. On January 20, 1998, Stacey A.M. was convicted of engaging in repeated acts of sexual assault of Quisto P., contrary to Wis. Stat. §948.025(1), and sentenced to twenty-two years in prison. Stacy A.M. was also convicted of sexual assault of a child pursuant to Wis. Stat. §948.02(2) and sentenced to twenty years of probation consecutive to her twenty-two-year prison term.
A 21-year-old Columbus man who pleaded guilty to two counts of child molestation involving his 14-year-old sister was sentenced Monday to five years in prison. With his grandmother and sister standing near the prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Don Kelly told Muscogee Superior Court Chief Judge Kenneth Followill that although complaints to police by the sister and grandmother launched the investigation that led to the man's arrest and indictment on incest, rape and child molestation charges, both now do not wish to prosecute. But Kelly said the state would not abandon the prosecution, instead agreeing to dismiss the incest and rape charges and issue a minimal recommendation of five years in prison and 10 years on probation for child molestation. The offender is not named here to avoid identifying the victim of the offenses.
A former Aloha Little League coach and umpire was sentenced Tuesday to 10 years in prison on sex-related charges. Authorities who arrested Michael Robert Harrison, 54, for abusing a child originally thought there might be victims who had contact with him through girls softball teams or boys baseball teams in Wolf Creek Little League. Investigators said no one else came forward to accuse Harrison after his arrest was made public. Harrison pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count of first-degree rape and two counts of second-degree sodomy involving a family member. The abuse happened several times between June 2003 and January, starting when the girl was 13.
A 47-year-old Pebble Beach man will serve four months in Santa Clara County jail and three years on formal probation for sexually molesting a 15-year-old Gilroy boy. Randy Domras saw his felony charge reduced to a misdemeanor at his sentencing Friday, nearly four months after he pleaded no contest to committing a lewd act with someone under 16. Domras’ private attorney, Mark Blair, argued that the boy claimed to be 18, the legal age of consent for sexual activity, but Superior Court Judge Kenneth Shapero said this is not an acceptable defense for such a charge - although it can be grounds for a reduced sentence.
A former volunteer fire chief was sentenced to 40 years in prison for having sex with a 12year-old girl. Timothy McGarry, 42, was sentenced Friday. He was convicted by a jury in June of three counts of lewd and lascivious battery against a minor. McGarry was chief of the Thomas Drive Volunteer Fire Department at Panama City Beach when he had sex with the girl, now 14, two years ago. Consent is not a defense if the victim is a minor.
A former Orlando sex-crimes detective who pleaded guilty to having a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl was sentenced to 26 years in prison. Edwin Mann, 42, was re-sentenced Tuesday on three counts of lewd or lascivious battery and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation.
She was 34, he was 12. They called it a love affair, but a judge deemed it a crime. Mary Kay LeTourneau, the elementary school teacher whose affair with her former student Vili Fualaau produced two daughters, will be set free on Wednesday after spending almost seven years in jail for second-degree rape. But according to sources close to Fualaau, now 21, and LeTourneau, 42, the pair hopes to renew their relationship, despite a court order banning them from contact for life.
Information provided courtesy of : http://www.WisBar.org
Information provided courtesy of : http://www.aboms.com
Overall we can see that there is no logic, no consistency, and most of all no sanity as to how the laws are applied vis-à-vis statutory rapists or their victims regarding either sentencing (all over the place with one person getting four months-another forty years), parental rights (or even custody of said child) born of these relationships or child support. Again victim could EASILY wind up (in a state like New York which is always looking to cut public benefits very ready to hand child over to whoever) but victim could wind up paying child support to perpetrator, even PARENTS of victim could wind up paying child support of minor victim to perpetrator, if perp should get custody of child.
Still, these situations are more common for women to wind up as the victims of, then men. Thus women in their role as mothers must be careful, not just for ourselves, but for our daughters as well. We must always be alert that they do NOT become victimized twice by older men who seek them out for sexual gratification and then turn around and use any children involved as a vicarious ATM, generating monies from you or your family along with other benefits from the state.
Frankly, I can see nothing good ensuing from having a parent with the label of ‘rapist’ being involved in the everyday life of the children involved here or from allowing LeTourneau, herself, to enter into a relationship where she is automatically at a disadvantage in her role as wife and mother due to her criminal conviction for rape of the father here.
This is just wrong.
Hopefully whatever happens, her daughters will be allowed to remain with the Fualaau grandmother as they appear to be doing well there; while their mother and father proceed full-steam ahead with this god-awful idea of marrying.
Like I have said many time before and it still holds true, there is NO law against behaving like a jackass and this clearly is one aspect of human nature that is surely gender neutral…
Anyway, whether or not rapists can exercise parental rights, is still an issue that is handled on a state-by-state basis, each one having a different law addressing the issue, many appearing to be acting at cross purposes with their neighboring states. So, as usual, women in their role as mothers must be prepared for the worse, as we are the usual victims of rapists (statutory or otherwise) in spite of the high profile given stories lately where women commit this crime.
Rep. Sam Ellis was listening to the "Dr. Laura" show when he first heard the awful tale:
A young female caller was telling Dr. Laura that she'd been raped by a man and had gotten pregnant as a result.
She had decided not to abort but to put the baby up for adoption.
That's when the rapist took control of her life again.
To complete the adoption, she needed the birth father to terminate his parental rights.
The rapist, in custody awaiting trial, told her that he'd sign the papers -- if she agreed not to testify against him in the rape. As a result, the rapist would certainly be released.
What do I do? the young woman asked. Protect society or protect the adoption?
Dr. Laura advised that the young woman do what was right for the child. She wished her luck and moved on to the next call.
A rapist has rights over his victim's baby??? Not any more in North Carolina, thank goodness.
But Ellis, a Republican who represents Raleigh and Cary, was appalled; he couldn't let it go, in part because he thought the woman's Southern accent sounded familiar.
He called the show to see whether the woman could be tracked down. Dr. Laura was no help. But Ellis decided that, "even if the woman wasn't from North Carolina, the circumstances that created her situation were."
Ellis contacted the legislative staff and had a bill drawn up to prevent rapists from using parental rights as a way to intimidate witnesses.
Finally, during the final days of the recent session, the bill was wrapped up in another and expanded, so that the parental rights of convicted first- and second-degree rapists are automatically terminated. Convicted rapists must now petition the court to regain their parental rights.
"Basically, it reverses things," Ellis said. "Previously, it was the woman who had to spend the money and try to get the paperwork signed. Now the onus is off the victim."
Information provided courtesy of http://roguepundit.typepad.com
Let us be clear with this; however, it doesn’t address the problem of most women in this situation, which is the problem of statutory rapists. North Caroline’s law ONLY addresses rapists convicted of First or Second Degree rape, this leave a LOT of rapists out there convicted of lesser charges still able to hold a club over the head of any mother who has a child in this situation.
Neither she nor her family (remember some of these mothers are as young as 12 or 13, so their parents would STILL be very involved in the decision making process here) yet they would still NOT even be allowed to put child for adoption with another family, if her or her family decided that was in her child’s best interest.
She could still be facing a custody fight and eventually even forced to pay child support to the perpetrator here. Even facing a custodial or visitation challenge from the paternal grandparent eventually, that could NOT be ruled out.
So North Caroline has NOT solved the problem, not by a long shot.
Overall, as we can see each state addresses statutory rapists differently and maybe this IS a large part of the problem, as we can see from the case below with the father being a statutory rapist of the 13 year old mother. New Mexico allowed the termination of his parental rights to proceed; however, New York would only have permitted this termination IF father was CONVICTED of rape in the FIRST DEGREE.
“…New York law recognizes certain parental rights for individuals guilty of statutory rape, as opposed to forcible rape, whereas New Mexico does not. In In re Craig "V" v. Mia "W", 500 N.Y.S.2d 568, 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986), relied upon by Respondent, the court held that an individual who has fathered a child by virtue of sexual intercourse which was consensual, albeit perpetrated under circumstances constituting statutory rape, is not precluded under New York law from bringing a paternity proceeding.
The New York court based its ruling primarily on the fact that "the legislative proscription against the right to notice in a proceeding affecting an out-of-wedlock child is limited to a father convicted of the crime of rape in the first degree, which involves forcible compulsion." Id. (citations omitted). The court observed that the New York Legislature "specifically declined to extend this limitation to the father of a child who may have been conceived as the result of any lesser degree of rape or sexual misconduct."
Information courtesy of FindLaw for Legal Professionals Case No. 95-2053
Thus we see that in New Mexico a mother/father victim would be safe from claims by a mother/father perpetrator of statutory rape. Whereas in New York it would be dependent upon the individual Judge hearing the case; so the mother/father victim is open to being victimized twice; once by the rapist and then again by the legal system.
Here below is another example in the state of Kansas where not only does the perpetrator mother retain her parental rights but the victim father is forced to pay child support to her, thus, as I said above being victimized twice; once by the perpetrator, then again by the legal system of Kansas.
The facts, as best we can determine them from an inadequate record, do not appear to be seriously in dispute.
Colleen Hermesmann routinely provided care for Shane Seyer as a baby sitter or day care provider during 1987 and 1988. The two began a sexual relationship at a time when Colleen was 16 years old and Shane was only 12. The relationship continued over a period of several months and the parties engaged in sexual intercourse on an average of a couple of times a week. As a result, a daughter, Melanie, was born to Colleen on May 30, 1989.
At the time of the conception of the child, Shane was 13 years old and Colleen was 17. Colleen applied for and received financial assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (ADC) from SRS.
On January 15, 1991, the district attorney's office of Shawnee County filed a petition requesting that Colleen Hermesmann be adjudicated as a juvenile offender for engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16, Shanandoah (Shane) Seyer, to whom she was not married, in violation of K.S.A.1992 Supp. 21-3503. Thereafter, Colleen Hermesmann entered into a plea agreement with the district attorney's office, wherein she agreed to stipulate to the lesser offense of contributing to a child's misconduct, K.S.A.1992 Supp. 21-3612. On September 11, 1991, the juvenile court accepted the stipulation, and adjudicated Colleen Hermesmann to be a juvenile offender.
On March 8, 1991, SRS filed a petition on behalf of Colleen Hermesmann, alleging that Shane Seyer was the father of Colleen's minor daughter, Melanie. The petition also alleged that SRS had provided benefits through the ADC program to Colleen on behalf of the child and that Colleen had assigned support rights due herself and her child to SRS. The petition requested that the court determine paternity and order Shane to reimburse SRS for all assistance expended by SRS on Melanie's behalf. On December 17, 1991, an administrative hearing officer found Shane was Melanie's biological father. The hearing officer further determined that Shane was not required to pay the birth expenses or any of the child support expenses up to the date of the hearing on December 17, 1991, but that Shane had a duty to support the child from the date of the hearing forward.
Shane requested judicial review of the decision of the hearing officer, contending that the hearing officer "should have found a failure of consent would terminate rights." SRS sought review, asserting that the hearing officer correctly ruled that the issue of consent was irrelevant, but erred in allowing Shane to present evidence pertaining to the defense of consent. SRS also alleged that the hearing officer's denial of reimbursement to the State for funds already paid was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the mandates of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 39-718b.
The district judge, upon judicial review of the hearing officer's order, determined that Shane was the father of Melanie Hermesmann and owed a duty to support his child.
The court found that the issue of Shane's consent was irrelevant and ordered Shane to pay child support of $50 per month. The court also granted SRS a joint and several judgment against Shane and Colleen in the amount of $7,068, for assistance provided by the ADC program on behalf of Melanie through February 1992. The judgment included medical and other birthing expenses as well as assistance paid after Melanie's birth. Shane appeals the judgment rendered and the order for continuing support but does not contest the trial court's paternity finding. SRS has not cross-appealed from any of the orders or judgment of the district court.
Information Courtesy of: http://www.nas.com/c4m/rape_case.html
Let’s keep in mind however that Colleen Hermesmann herself was a minor; so the decision might have been different if she was a legal adult when this occurred…
Again, just as with parental rights, custody and child support, there appears to be no standardization of anything regarding statutory rapists, with each state handling sentencing differently, as we can see from the list below:
On May 5, 1997, Stacey A.M., an adult, gave birth to Quianna M.M. The father was subsequently determined to be Quisto P., whose date of birth is August 13, 1984. On January 20, 1998, Stacey A.M. was convicted of engaging in repeated acts of sexual assault of Quisto P., contrary to Wis. Stat. §948.025(1), and sentenced to twenty-two years in prison. Stacy A.M. was also convicted of sexual assault of a child pursuant to Wis. Stat. §948.02(2) and sentenced to twenty years of probation consecutive to her twenty-two-year prison term.
A 21-year-old Columbus man who pleaded guilty to two counts of child molestation involving his 14-year-old sister was sentenced Monday to five years in prison. With his grandmother and sister standing near the prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Don Kelly told Muscogee Superior Court Chief Judge Kenneth Followill that although complaints to police by the sister and grandmother launched the investigation that led to the man's arrest and indictment on incest, rape and child molestation charges, both now do not wish to prosecute. But Kelly said the state would not abandon the prosecution, instead agreeing to dismiss the incest and rape charges and issue a minimal recommendation of five years in prison and 10 years on probation for child molestation. The offender is not named here to avoid identifying the victim of the offenses.
A former Aloha Little League coach and umpire was sentenced Tuesday to 10 years in prison on sex-related charges. Authorities who arrested Michael Robert Harrison, 54, for abusing a child originally thought there might be victims who had contact with him through girls softball teams or boys baseball teams in Wolf Creek Little League. Investigators said no one else came forward to accuse Harrison after his arrest was made public. Harrison pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count of first-degree rape and two counts of second-degree sodomy involving a family member. The abuse happened several times between June 2003 and January, starting when the girl was 13.
A 47-year-old Pebble Beach man will serve four months in Santa Clara County jail and three years on formal probation for sexually molesting a 15-year-old Gilroy boy. Randy Domras saw his felony charge reduced to a misdemeanor at his sentencing Friday, nearly four months after he pleaded no contest to committing a lewd act with someone under 16. Domras’ private attorney, Mark Blair, argued that the boy claimed to be 18, the legal age of consent for sexual activity, but Superior Court Judge Kenneth Shapero said this is not an acceptable defense for such a charge - although it can be grounds for a reduced sentence.
A former volunteer fire chief was sentenced to 40 years in prison for having sex with a 12year-old girl. Timothy McGarry, 42, was sentenced Friday. He was convicted by a jury in June of three counts of lewd and lascivious battery against a minor. McGarry was chief of the Thomas Drive Volunteer Fire Department at Panama City Beach when he had sex with the girl, now 14, two years ago. Consent is not a defense if the victim is a minor.
A former Orlando sex-crimes detective who pleaded guilty to having a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl was sentenced to 26 years in prison. Edwin Mann, 42, was re-sentenced Tuesday on three counts of lewd or lascivious battery and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation.
She was 34, he was 12. They called it a love affair, but a judge deemed it a crime. Mary Kay LeTourneau, the elementary school teacher whose affair with her former student Vili Fualaau produced two daughters, will be set free on Wednesday after spending almost seven years in jail for second-degree rape. But according to sources close to Fualaau, now 21, and LeTourneau, 42, the pair hopes to renew their relationship, despite a court order banning them from contact for life.
Information provided courtesy of : http://www.WisBar.org
Information provided courtesy of : http://www.aboms.com
Overall we can see that there is no logic, no consistency, and most of all no sanity as to how the laws are applied vis-à-vis statutory rapists or their victims regarding either sentencing (all over the place with one person getting four months-another forty years), parental rights (or even custody of said child) born of these relationships or child support. Again victim could EASILY wind up (in a state like New York which is always looking to cut public benefits very ready to hand child over to whoever) but victim could wind up paying child support to perpetrator, even PARENTS of victim could wind up paying child support of minor victim to perpetrator, if perp should get custody of child.
Still, these situations are more common for women to wind up as the victims of, then men. Thus women in their role as mothers must be careful, not just for ourselves, but for our daughters as well. We must always be alert that they do NOT become victimized twice by older men who seek them out for sexual gratification and then turn around and use any children involved as a vicarious ATM, generating monies from you or your family along with other benefits from the state.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
The History of Marriage Strikes in Early Western Civilization and it's Very Bizarre Cousin in the 21st Century...
There has been certain accusations bandied about lately concerning exactly who and what is responsible for the demise of marriage. We have heard blame being affixed to Marxists, feminists, Marxist-feminist, single mothers, mothers, alimony, paternity fraud, welfare, Maggie Gallagher and numerous other culprits all attempting to fix the finger of blame on some persons, other then the ones actually responsible.
This is an important point, as many would like to blame single mothers, in particular, as another excuse to continue their campaign against mothers and their children.
Thus, let us rewind the videotape and view the historic evidence BEFORE we continue.
News Release. Date 58 BC
Information courtesy of: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-augustus-rolfe.html
For those who don’t know this is 58 years before the birth of Christ.
Repeat 58 years BEFORE the birth of Christ.
He [Augustus Caesar] revised existing laws and enacted some new ones, for example, on extravagance, on adultery and chastity, on bribery, and on the encouragement of marriage among the various classes of citizens. Having made somewhat more stringent changes in the last of these than in the others, he was unable to carry it out because of an open revolt against its provisions, (Translation: Men were in open revolt attempting to have Emperor repeal the new laws which were passed to force them to begat their children within lawful marriages. Previously men spent all their time on slave girls begetting illegitimate children, which, of course, said children promptly became a burden on Rome. This was 58 years before Christ was born.) until he had abolished or mitigated a part of the penalties, besides increasing the rewards and allowing a three years' exemption from the obligation to marry after the death of a husband or wife. When the knights even then persistently called for its repeal at a public show, (Translation: Men started a riot actually in an attempt to force Augustus to repeal the taxes, fines and other threats he used against them to force them into procreating within lawful marriages) he sent for the children of Germanicus and exhibited them, some in his own lap and some in their father's, intimating by his gestures and expression that they should not refuse to follow that young man's example. (Translation: Augustus attempted to use Roman war hero and his children to encourage other young men to enter into lawful marriages and begat children within them; as opposed to their practice of having children all over the place and dumping them off on the Roman state to care for. We have no evidence that it worked.) And on finding that the spirit of the law was being evaded by betrothal with immature girls and by frequent changes of wives, he shortened the duration of betrothals and set a limit on divorce. (Translation: Men began doing everything possible to subvert the intent of the law, thus Augustus finally had to set even stricter limits on their behavior in his continuing attempts to force them into building their families within lawful marriages. Again we have no evidence that it worked)
Fast Forward to today: February 12, 2005
2063 years LATER…
We now see that ONE MAN has finally appeared who claims to be able to decisively fix the blame for the ongoing “Marriage Strike” that men have been on for the last 2063 years.
It’s Maggie Gallagher’s fault.
See below for details.
Maggie Gallagher is in hot water over her $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services, money received while her editorials were singing the praises of the Bush Administration’s marriage initiative. Sounding slightly clueless, Gallagher explained, “Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don’t know. You tell me.”
But Gallagher’s problems go beyond this ethical faux pas. While I support traditional marriage, there’s a fundamental problem with Maggie Gallagher’s approach.
Here’s Maggie’s rendition of “How Do I Love Thee?”: “Let me count the ways. I love thee while scrubbing your dishes and washing your floors… and while you claim your freedom, your leisure, your paycheck, and my paycheck as your own.”
Do I detect something other than dewy-eyed glances in that Valentine’s Day rant?
Gallagher has now toned down her rhetoric, but her fundamental worldview remains the same: Blame the man first -- and let the woman off easy.
There is no more important challenge in modern America than the strengthening of marriage, and I wish Mrs. Gallagher’s group well. But as long as their concerns are ignored and belittled, Gallagher’s approach is bound to further alienate the millions of disaffected men who feel they have no other choice than to remain on a Marriage Strike.
Information Courtesy of: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/excerpts from article: Misandrist Marriage Movement, Author C. Roberts.
I hate to tell you this, but MEN are the ones responsible for the current plight western society finds itself in. Men, nobody else. Women have always wanted to be married, they still do. Actually getting pregnant out of wedlock has been the traditional negotiating tool that many women used in the past to force men into marriage.
Of course that is a useless tool now because never-married men (or recreational sperm donors which would be a more apt description of them) are now given, in practically every western country, the exact same rights to children as married men, whether or not they get married.
So what’s the incentive for marriage then?
Thus MEN in western society got exactly what they have always wanted, 2063 years after the fact, but then tell me, what else is new?
SCOTLAND will become the first part of the UK to allow men to marry their mothers-in-law, the Scottish Executive announced yesterday.
The amendment was included in the Executive’s Family Law Bill which will reduce the time needed to conclude a divorce, give unmarried fathers new rights over their children and give unmarried couples some of the same rights as married couples.
Other major changes will enshrine legal parental rights for unmarried fathers and introduce safeguards for cohabiting couples.
Also, the number of children born to unmarried couples is on course to overtake the number of children born to married parents in about three years.
Mr. Henry stressed: "Reform of family law to safeguard cohabiting couples is not intended to devalue the importance of marriage. But the changing shape of society is a reality and unfortunately relationships break down.
"Family law must be updated to ensure that it reflects the needs of all our people."
The legislation, which could be in force within a year if passed by the Scottish Parliament, aimed to improve the "safety net" of family law, he said.
And he added: "We believe these are sensitive safeguards to prevent children being used as pawns when family relationships break down."
Some of the Executive’s plans - like the formal change to divorce law - need legislation in the form of the Family Law Bill, but other proposals - like the preparation of a draft charter for grandparents to have a more formal role in bringing up children - do not. These will be introduced alongside the bill which is expected to pass through parliament by the end of the year.
Alan Finlayson, a former children’s reporter and sheriff, will draw up a "parenting agreement for Scotland" to help estranged couples resolve issues such as contact arrangements.
The Executive’s proposals received a mixed response from opposition politicians.
Kenny MacAskill, for the SNP, welcomed the bill. "Scottish society has changed and evolved and Scots law must reflect that. Parental rights for fathers need to be addressed, as does the role of grandparents," he said.
Information Courtesy of: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/excerpts from article: Marriage to In-Laws Will no Longer be Outlawed, Author H. MacDonell.
Although championed as safeguarding cohabiting couples, in fact, this law gives more rights to irresponsible men and their enablers, paternal grandparents. It gives no rights to women that they don’t already have and, in fact, will take away rights from women in their role as mothers, since it will ensure that a man who invests NOTHING, absolutely nothing, in bringing a child into the world (unless he feels like it, as there is no law requiring him to do ANYTHING until after the birth of the child) will now be designated as a father with the exact same rights to custody as the child’s mother.
So this is a threat to mothers, NOT a safeguard for mothers, but an attack on them just as it has turned out to be in every other country where these sorts of laws have been passed. It has lead to child abductions by men, even of infants, in attempts to get custody, many to avoid child support and in the U.S. 30% of the pool of custodial fathers is composed of these recreational sperm donors, so it is no small threat either.
This half-a@@ed father can now, 1 second after the birth of said child, roll out of bed, throw on his pants and show up at hospital door with ALL the rights of a married father. All of them, no difference even though he has not done a single thing to get that child to that point leaving that burden to mother, her family and friends or everyone else in society. They are even talking about extending the maternity leave of women to include men, which will now mean that every time a woman has a baby, there will be a fight over who gets to use the leave to stay home and recover from the whole pregnancy and child-birth ordeal, while also bonding with your baby.
AND guess who will be winning that fight…
Men have been trying to wiggle out of marriage since marriage was first invented. Our records only go back as far as Rome to demonstrate this but if we had better records from older civilizations, I’m sure we would see the same thing. Giving men incentive to NOT marry such as allowing them the same legal rights to children as married men undercuts women and society in our attempts to get them to marry.
If society doesn’t feel up to forcing these irresponsible male chowder heads to be good citizens, fine, but that’s no excuse to keep putting the rights of mothers and children in second place to appease these irresponsible men as they continue their 2063 year Marriage Strike.
Thus I have to say: Scotland just say no.
This is an important point, as many would like to blame single mothers, in particular, as another excuse to continue their campaign against mothers and their children.
Thus, let us rewind the videotape and view the historic evidence BEFORE we continue.
News Release. Date 58 BC
Information courtesy of: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-augustus-rolfe.html
For those who don’t know this is 58 years before the birth of Christ.
Repeat 58 years BEFORE the birth of Christ.
He [Augustus Caesar] revised existing laws and enacted some new ones, for example, on extravagance, on adultery and chastity, on bribery, and on the encouragement of marriage among the various classes of citizens. Having made somewhat more stringent changes in the last of these than in the others, he was unable to carry it out because of an open revolt against its provisions, (Translation: Men were in open revolt attempting to have Emperor repeal the new laws which were passed to force them to begat their children within lawful marriages. Previously men spent all their time on slave girls begetting illegitimate children, which, of course, said children promptly became a burden on Rome. This was 58 years before Christ was born.) until he had abolished or mitigated a part of the penalties, besides increasing the rewards and allowing a three years' exemption from the obligation to marry after the death of a husband or wife. When the knights even then persistently called for its repeal at a public show, (Translation: Men started a riot actually in an attempt to force Augustus to repeal the taxes, fines and other threats he used against them to force them into procreating within lawful marriages) he sent for the children of Germanicus and exhibited them, some in his own lap and some in their father's, intimating by his gestures and expression that they should not refuse to follow that young man's example. (Translation: Augustus attempted to use Roman war hero and his children to encourage other young men to enter into lawful marriages and begat children within them; as opposed to their practice of having children all over the place and dumping them off on the Roman state to care for. We have no evidence that it worked.) And on finding that the spirit of the law was being evaded by betrothal with immature girls and by frequent changes of wives, he shortened the duration of betrothals and set a limit on divorce. (Translation: Men began doing everything possible to subvert the intent of the law, thus Augustus finally had to set even stricter limits on their behavior in his continuing attempts to force them into building their families within lawful marriages. Again we have no evidence that it worked)
Fast Forward to today: February 12, 2005
2063 years LATER…
We now see that ONE MAN has finally appeared who claims to be able to decisively fix the blame for the ongoing “Marriage Strike” that men have been on for the last 2063 years.
It’s Maggie Gallagher’s fault.
See below for details.
Maggie Gallagher is in hot water over her $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services, money received while her editorials were singing the praises of the Bush Administration’s marriage initiative. Sounding slightly clueless, Gallagher explained, “Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don’t know. You tell me.”
But Gallagher’s problems go beyond this ethical faux pas. While I support traditional marriage, there’s a fundamental problem with Maggie Gallagher’s approach.
Here’s Maggie’s rendition of “How Do I Love Thee?”: “Let me count the ways. I love thee while scrubbing your dishes and washing your floors… and while you claim your freedom, your leisure, your paycheck, and my paycheck as your own.”
Do I detect something other than dewy-eyed glances in that Valentine’s Day rant?
Gallagher has now toned down her rhetoric, but her fundamental worldview remains the same: Blame the man first -- and let the woman off easy.
There is no more important challenge in modern America than the strengthening of marriage, and I wish Mrs. Gallagher’s group well. But as long as their concerns are ignored and belittled, Gallagher’s approach is bound to further alienate the millions of disaffected men who feel they have no other choice than to remain on a Marriage Strike.
Information Courtesy of: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/excerpts from article: Misandrist Marriage Movement, Author C. Roberts.
I hate to tell you this, but MEN are the ones responsible for the current plight western society finds itself in. Men, nobody else. Women have always wanted to be married, they still do. Actually getting pregnant out of wedlock has been the traditional negotiating tool that many women used in the past to force men into marriage.
Of course that is a useless tool now because never-married men (or recreational sperm donors which would be a more apt description of them) are now given, in practically every western country, the exact same rights to children as married men, whether or not they get married.
So what’s the incentive for marriage then?
Thus MEN in western society got exactly what they have always wanted, 2063 years after the fact, but then tell me, what else is new?
SCOTLAND will become the first part of the UK to allow men to marry their mothers-in-law, the Scottish Executive announced yesterday.
The amendment was included in the Executive’s Family Law Bill which will reduce the time needed to conclude a divorce, give unmarried fathers new rights over their children and give unmarried couples some of the same rights as married couples.
Other major changes will enshrine legal parental rights for unmarried fathers and introduce safeguards for cohabiting couples.
Also, the number of children born to unmarried couples is on course to overtake the number of children born to married parents in about three years.
Mr. Henry stressed: "Reform of family law to safeguard cohabiting couples is not intended to devalue the importance of marriage. But the changing shape of society is a reality and unfortunately relationships break down.
"Family law must be updated to ensure that it reflects the needs of all our people."
The legislation, which could be in force within a year if passed by the Scottish Parliament, aimed to improve the "safety net" of family law, he said.
And he added: "We believe these are sensitive safeguards to prevent children being used as pawns when family relationships break down."
Some of the Executive’s plans - like the formal change to divorce law - need legislation in the form of the Family Law Bill, but other proposals - like the preparation of a draft charter for grandparents to have a more formal role in bringing up children - do not. These will be introduced alongside the bill which is expected to pass through parliament by the end of the year.
Alan Finlayson, a former children’s reporter and sheriff, will draw up a "parenting agreement for Scotland" to help estranged couples resolve issues such as contact arrangements.
The Executive’s proposals received a mixed response from opposition politicians.
Kenny MacAskill, for the SNP, welcomed the bill. "Scottish society has changed and evolved and Scots law must reflect that. Parental rights for fathers need to be addressed, as does the role of grandparents," he said.
Information Courtesy of: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/excerpts from article: Marriage to In-Laws Will no Longer be Outlawed, Author H. MacDonell.
Although championed as safeguarding cohabiting couples, in fact, this law gives more rights to irresponsible men and their enablers, paternal grandparents. It gives no rights to women that they don’t already have and, in fact, will take away rights from women in their role as mothers, since it will ensure that a man who invests NOTHING, absolutely nothing, in bringing a child into the world (unless he feels like it, as there is no law requiring him to do ANYTHING until after the birth of the child) will now be designated as a father with the exact same rights to custody as the child’s mother.
So this is a threat to mothers, NOT a safeguard for mothers, but an attack on them just as it has turned out to be in every other country where these sorts of laws have been passed. It has lead to child abductions by men, even of infants, in attempts to get custody, many to avoid child support and in the U.S. 30% of the pool of custodial fathers is composed of these recreational sperm donors, so it is no small threat either.
This half-a@@ed father can now, 1 second after the birth of said child, roll out of bed, throw on his pants and show up at hospital door with ALL the rights of a married father. All of them, no difference even though he has not done a single thing to get that child to that point leaving that burden to mother, her family and friends or everyone else in society. They are even talking about extending the maternity leave of women to include men, which will now mean that every time a woman has a baby, there will be a fight over who gets to use the leave to stay home and recover from the whole pregnancy and child-birth ordeal, while also bonding with your baby.
AND guess who will be winning that fight…
Men have been trying to wiggle out of marriage since marriage was first invented. Our records only go back as far as Rome to demonstrate this but if we had better records from older civilizations, I’m sure we would see the same thing. Giving men incentive to NOT marry such as allowing them the same legal rights to children as married men undercuts women and society in our attempts to get them to marry.
If society doesn’t feel up to forcing these irresponsible male chowder heads to be good citizens, fine, but that’s no excuse to keep putting the rights of mothers and children in second place to appease these irresponsible men as they continue their 2063 year Marriage Strike.
Thus I have to say: Scotland just say no.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Trading in the Custody of Children for Financial Gain
Last week, as some small group of people might remember (due to the limited coverage of this story) there occurred a horrible murder of a 7 year old girl, Jerica Rhodes, alleged by her father, Christopher Rhodes, in Highland Falls, New York. It passed quietly; however, as it was NOT given the front page coverage or the thorough analysis it deserved.
Instead the propaganda machine commonly known as Fathers Rights and its many supporters immediately went into protectively spin-mode trying to spin this story as quickly as possible into something entirely different, then what it actually was.
What I read in this story was another judicially-sanctioned abduction of a child from its mother, this one ending in murder. My assessment of the motive for this abduction, based upon all the evidence, is that it appeared to be another attempt to trade in the custody of children for financial gain. Clearly Christopher Rhodes had no interest in parenting his daughter, since he dumped her off on his parents before the ink was dry on the papers giving him custody, so why in the world he would seek custody to begin with is a mystery only explainable by the possibility of financial gain. In this case, as in many other similar ones, it appears to have probably been an attempt to avoid paying child support.
This monster, Rhodes, after his successful abduction, then went back to his everyday routine, which, by the way included beating up other women of which he was charged previously by Jerica's mother.
Here is the version of events given by the murdered child's mother:
Lisa Mason is getting ready for a trip to see her daughter for the first time in five years.
She is crying because when she sees little Jerica Rhodes after the three-hour drive from her home in Syracuse, she'll be looking at her daughter in a coffin.
Thursday morning, 7-year-old Jerica was found stabbed to death in the boys' bathroom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus School in Highland Falls, where she was a first-grader.
Thursday night, Jerica's father, 27-year-old Christopher Rhodes, was charged with second-degree murder.
When they lived in the City of Newburgh in the mid-to late 1990s, Mason said, Chris Rhodes would frequently choke and hit her. The abuse started even before she became pregnant with Jerica, Mason says.
The couple's on-again, off-again relationship continued, with Mason eventually moving into an apartment with Rhodes in Highland Falls. Mason claims Rhodes continued his violence against her until Highland Falls police arrived one final time at their home.
Mason says police did not arrest Rhodes. Instead, she says, they took Jerica. Police Chief Pete Miller did not return a detailed phone call seeking comment on Mason's claims.
Linwood Rhodes Jr., Chris Rhodes' father, angrily dismissed Mason's charges. At a news conference, he said it was Mason who cut off contact, not the family.
Mason says she surrendered custody of Jerica voluntarily, thinking that it would be only temporary.
Now although I don't think Christopher Rhodes SHOULD be allowed to spin his web of deceit any longer, nevertheless in seeking balanced coverage, let's listen to this monster spin his tale now:
Highland Falls. In 1998, when his daughter was living among crack smokers in a squalid apartment in Bridgeport, Conn., Christopher Rhodes decided he had to do better for her.
The 20-year-old former schoolboy basketball star brought 2-month-old Jerica Rhodes to the relative stability of Highland Falls, where his father was the retired police chief and where his extended family has deep roots.
Today, a grand jury will hear evidence alleging that Christopher Rhodes stabbed 7-year-old Jerica to death in a bathroom at Highland Falls' Sacred Heart of Jesus School.
In the intervening years, court records and police reports show that despite Rhodes' brushes with the law, he and his parents were considered the best option for young Jerica.
In 2001, an Orange County Family Court judge gave custody of Jerica to Christopher Rhodes, who was 22 at the time. Jerica's biological mother, Lisa Mason, consented to the judge's decision, according to Family Court records.
Those court records also describe the conditions in the Connecticut apartment where Jerica lived for the first two months of her life.
The events leading up to the judge's custody decision are in dispute.
Mason says Rhodes threw her out of their home in 1998. Rhodes says Mason left on her own, abandoning Jerica while she was still breast-feeding her baby.
"Jerica wouldn't know (Mason) if she saw her," Rhodes' lawyer wrote in court papers during the custody fight.
In an interview yesterday, a tearful Mason said: "Nobody believes me, I tried to fight for her."
Mason filed custody petitions in 1998 and 1999, but she never showed up for court. In her papers, she claimed that Rhodes "has a history of domestic violence and is also emotionally unstable."
Still, Judge Andrew P. Bivona awarded custody to Rhodes in January 2001.
Well excuse me folks, but after reading this media-spun bullcrap, I'm actually thinking we should be recommending the father here for sainthood. Let's remember that we are talking about here, a monster, who even before he was accused of stabbing this little girl was guilty of another very serious crime, trading in the custody of a child for financial gain. Separating said child, while as a nursing infant from her mother, for same reason, financial gain, greed, selfishness. Christopher Rhodes apparently beat Jerica's mother up fairly regularly and then when she complained about it to the police, not only did she NOT get the assistance from said officers that she was expecting and entitled to, but instead she was separated from her infant daughter and NEVER allowed to see her again...Let me repeat that: mother and child NEVER allowed to see each other again.
This was all before the alleged murder.
So let just say that RHODES should not have the right to 'frame the story' anymore. That's over.
Okay.
Rhodes version of events is tainted, just like the story of ALL of the people who aided and abetted him in this situation, thus none of them are worthy of listening to, no matter what they say.
Okay.
Let's do something different for a change, let's give Lisa Mason the benefit of the doubt and listen to HER side of the story, instead of an unprincipled monster and other assorted enablers who assisted him in this monsterous endeavour...and this was surely a monsterous endeavour. Let's remember we fought a civil war in this country, not all that long ago, to ensure that no black children were ever separated from their mothers again, ever, without good cause...AND good cause does not fall under the category of stingy fathers and conniving politicians, working hand in glove, to balance their personal or public budgets on the backs of mothers and children...
Now back to Rhodes. It appears that there are MANY others who should be sitting in a jail cell now, right next to his and just to be certain nobody is missed, I'm going to make a list of the other possible suspects here who aided and abetted Rhodes and allowed this to happen.
Two responding police officers:
Were they following the law, since I never heard that when a mother called the police that she was being abused, that they were supposed to take her baby, leave the perp free and then he be allowed to just toss complaining mother out of the house. So this needs to be investigated as to whether or not the officers in the field followed the rules.
The Judge:
Did he follow the law when he awarded custody to this abusive man Rhodes? Why weren't the mother and child placed in a temporary shelter so they could both be together and protected; as what idiot would think it's okay to separate a nursing baby and its mother? Was Judge ruling based on GALs report or Evaluation or on just what he felt like doing that day? Was he under any pressure from county oficials to keep public benefits levels low or from Fathers' Rights advocates to favor fathers in custody rulings. After his ruling, was any follow-up done to ensure that the temporary custody was reviewed at some point to see if child should have been returned to its mother; as was the original premise behind mother agreeing to this temporary custody in the first place. Is it possible that a review would have shown that there was something wrong with the entire Rhodes' clan and this poor child should not have been left there. Maybe, just maybe little Jerica would be alive today if this Judge had done his job properly.
Father's Lawyer:
Was he aware of anything 'shady' going on here. I'm curious due to his comment that baby Jerica wouldn't even recognize her own mother. I mean my response would be to him, well how come she would not know her own mother? How did that happen? It appears that this attorney was aware, very early on then, that Jerica's mother was being kept away from her...and this is pretty common with these judically-sanctioned abductions by the way. So the question becomes what did this lawyer know and when did he know it and did he report it to anyone so steps could be taken to investigate the situation?
Grandparents:
What role did these two enablers place in this little girl's life as well as her death? Did they lie to the Judge to enable Christopher Rhodes to get custody? Did they help him keep mother away from child to continue this custody? Did they know that their son was a menace and if they did; how come they kept letting him alone around that little girl?
The bottom line is that a thorough investigation needs to be done regarding why this mother and infant were separated to begin with. Inquiring minds want to know if this is a regular event up there and, if so, why so. As we didn't fight a whole freakin Civil War in this country to keep black children from being sold for financial gain, only to have a group of stingy fathers trying to avoid paying child support and their Republican allies trying to cut back on public benefits in their county, sneak the whole concept right in through the back door again.
Trading the custody of children for financial gain NEEDS to be stopped immediately and the people involved with it put in JAIL like yesterday and that includes stingy fathers, conniving politicians, sleazy lawyers, lazy judges, careless evaluators or guardians, enabler grandparents, step-persons and anyone else who might be involved. We need to ensure that any others who were involved in this horrible situation, who aided and abetted Christopher Rhodes in anyway OR who might be involved in similar situations that we don't even know about YET, we need to ensure that they are held accountable as well, since Christopher Rhodes did NOT commit all of his crimes alone. He had plenty of help before he ended up where he is today and we want all of the people who helped him to be properly investigated and punished acordingly.
A special federal investigator should be appointed to investigate this situation immediately, as it's not the first time I've heard of this going on in upstate New York and like many other people, I might add, I'm getting sick of it.
Instead the propaganda machine commonly known as Fathers Rights and its many supporters immediately went into protectively spin-mode trying to spin this story as quickly as possible into something entirely different, then what it actually was.
What I read in this story was another judicially-sanctioned abduction of a child from its mother, this one ending in murder. My assessment of the motive for this abduction, based upon all the evidence, is that it appeared to be another attempt to trade in the custody of children for financial gain. Clearly Christopher Rhodes had no interest in parenting his daughter, since he dumped her off on his parents before the ink was dry on the papers giving him custody, so why in the world he would seek custody to begin with is a mystery only explainable by the possibility of financial gain. In this case, as in many other similar ones, it appears to have probably been an attempt to avoid paying child support.
This monster, Rhodes, after his successful abduction, then went back to his everyday routine, which, by the way included beating up other women of which he was charged previously by Jerica's mother.
Here is the version of events given by the murdered child's mother:
Lisa Mason is getting ready for a trip to see her daughter for the first time in five years.
She is crying because when she sees little Jerica Rhodes after the three-hour drive from her home in Syracuse, she'll be looking at her daughter in a coffin.
Thursday morning, 7-year-old Jerica was found stabbed to death in the boys' bathroom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus School in Highland Falls, where she was a first-grader.
Thursday night, Jerica's father, 27-year-old Christopher Rhodes, was charged with second-degree murder.
When they lived in the City of Newburgh in the mid-to late 1990s, Mason said, Chris Rhodes would frequently choke and hit her. The abuse started even before she became pregnant with Jerica, Mason says.
The couple's on-again, off-again relationship continued, with Mason eventually moving into an apartment with Rhodes in Highland Falls. Mason claims Rhodes continued his violence against her until Highland Falls police arrived one final time at their home.
Mason says police did not arrest Rhodes. Instead, she says, they took Jerica. Police Chief Pete Miller did not return a detailed phone call seeking comment on Mason's claims.
Linwood Rhodes Jr., Chris Rhodes' father, angrily dismissed Mason's charges. At a news conference, he said it was Mason who cut off contact, not the family.
Mason says she surrendered custody of Jerica voluntarily, thinking that it would be only temporary.
Now although I don't think Christopher Rhodes SHOULD be allowed to spin his web of deceit any longer, nevertheless in seeking balanced coverage, let's listen to this monster spin his tale now:
Highland Falls. In 1998, when his daughter was living among crack smokers in a squalid apartment in Bridgeport, Conn., Christopher Rhodes decided he had to do better for her.
The 20-year-old former schoolboy basketball star brought 2-month-old Jerica Rhodes to the relative stability of Highland Falls, where his father was the retired police chief and where his extended family has deep roots.
Today, a grand jury will hear evidence alleging that Christopher Rhodes stabbed 7-year-old Jerica to death in a bathroom at Highland Falls' Sacred Heart of Jesus School.
In the intervening years, court records and police reports show that despite Rhodes' brushes with the law, he and his parents were considered the best option for young Jerica.
In 2001, an Orange County Family Court judge gave custody of Jerica to Christopher Rhodes, who was 22 at the time. Jerica's biological mother, Lisa Mason, consented to the judge's decision, according to Family Court records.
Those court records also describe the conditions in the Connecticut apartment where Jerica lived for the first two months of her life.
The events leading up to the judge's custody decision are in dispute.
Mason says Rhodes threw her out of their home in 1998. Rhodes says Mason left on her own, abandoning Jerica while she was still breast-feeding her baby.
"Jerica wouldn't know (Mason) if she saw her," Rhodes' lawyer wrote in court papers during the custody fight.
In an interview yesterday, a tearful Mason said: "Nobody believes me, I tried to fight for her."
Mason filed custody petitions in 1998 and 1999, but she never showed up for court. In her papers, she claimed that Rhodes "has a history of domestic violence and is also emotionally unstable."
Still, Judge Andrew P. Bivona awarded custody to Rhodes in January 2001.
Well excuse me folks, but after reading this media-spun bullcrap, I'm actually thinking we should be recommending the father here for sainthood. Let's remember that we are talking about here, a monster, who even before he was accused of stabbing this little girl was guilty of another very serious crime, trading in the custody of a child for financial gain. Separating said child, while as a nursing infant from her mother, for same reason, financial gain, greed, selfishness. Christopher Rhodes apparently beat Jerica's mother up fairly regularly and then when she complained about it to the police, not only did she NOT get the assistance from said officers that she was expecting and entitled to, but instead she was separated from her infant daughter and NEVER allowed to see her again...Let me repeat that: mother and child NEVER allowed to see each other again.
This was all before the alleged murder.
So let just say that RHODES should not have the right to 'frame the story' anymore. That's over.
Okay.
Rhodes version of events is tainted, just like the story of ALL of the people who aided and abetted him in this situation, thus none of them are worthy of listening to, no matter what they say.
Okay.
Let's do something different for a change, let's give Lisa Mason the benefit of the doubt and listen to HER side of the story, instead of an unprincipled monster and other assorted enablers who assisted him in this monsterous endeavour...and this was surely a monsterous endeavour. Let's remember we fought a civil war in this country, not all that long ago, to ensure that no black children were ever separated from their mothers again, ever, without good cause...AND good cause does not fall under the category of stingy fathers and conniving politicians, working hand in glove, to balance their personal or public budgets on the backs of mothers and children...
Now back to Rhodes. It appears that there are MANY others who should be sitting in a jail cell now, right next to his and just to be certain nobody is missed, I'm going to make a list of the other possible suspects here who aided and abetted Rhodes and allowed this to happen.
Two responding police officers:
Were they following the law, since I never heard that when a mother called the police that she was being abused, that they were supposed to take her baby, leave the perp free and then he be allowed to just toss complaining mother out of the house. So this needs to be investigated as to whether or not the officers in the field followed the rules.
The Judge:
Did he follow the law when he awarded custody to this abusive man Rhodes? Why weren't the mother and child placed in a temporary shelter so they could both be together and protected; as what idiot would think it's okay to separate a nursing baby and its mother? Was Judge ruling based on GALs report or Evaluation or on just what he felt like doing that day? Was he under any pressure from county oficials to keep public benefits levels low or from Fathers' Rights advocates to favor fathers in custody rulings. After his ruling, was any follow-up done to ensure that the temporary custody was reviewed at some point to see if child should have been returned to its mother; as was the original premise behind mother agreeing to this temporary custody in the first place. Is it possible that a review would have shown that there was something wrong with the entire Rhodes' clan and this poor child should not have been left there. Maybe, just maybe little Jerica would be alive today if this Judge had done his job properly.
Father's Lawyer:
Was he aware of anything 'shady' going on here. I'm curious due to his comment that baby Jerica wouldn't even recognize her own mother. I mean my response would be to him, well how come she would not know her own mother? How did that happen? It appears that this attorney was aware, very early on then, that Jerica's mother was being kept away from her...and this is pretty common with these judically-sanctioned abductions by the way. So the question becomes what did this lawyer know and when did he know it and did he report it to anyone so steps could be taken to investigate the situation?
Grandparents:
What role did these two enablers place in this little girl's life as well as her death? Did they lie to the Judge to enable Christopher Rhodes to get custody? Did they help him keep mother away from child to continue this custody? Did they know that their son was a menace and if they did; how come they kept letting him alone around that little girl?
The bottom line is that a thorough investigation needs to be done regarding why this mother and infant were separated to begin with. Inquiring minds want to know if this is a regular event up there and, if so, why so. As we didn't fight a whole freakin Civil War in this country to keep black children from being sold for financial gain, only to have a group of stingy fathers trying to avoid paying child support and their Republican allies trying to cut back on public benefits in their county, sneak the whole concept right in through the back door again.
Trading the custody of children for financial gain NEEDS to be stopped immediately and the people involved with it put in JAIL like yesterday and that includes stingy fathers, conniving politicians, sleazy lawyers, lazy judges, careless evaluators or guardians, enabler grandparents, step-persons and anyone else who might be involved. We need to ensure that any others who were involved in this horrible situation, who aided and abetted Christopher Rhodes in anyway OR who might be involved in similar situations that we don't even know about YET, we need to ensure that they are held accountable as well, since Christopher Rhodes did NOT commit all of his crimes alone. He had plenty of help before he ended up where he is today and we want all of the people who helped him to be properly investigated and punished acordingly.
A special federal investigator should be appointed to investigate this situation immediately, as it's not the first time I've heard of this going on in upstate New York and like many other people, I might add, I'm getting sick of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)