Monday, May 16, 2005

Domestic Violence is a Red Herring...the Real Problem is Inherent Unfairness to Women in Feminism Supporting Gender Neutral Custody

"PREGNANT MA LANDS IN JAIL FOR FIGHTING TO GET KIDS

By BRAD HAMILTON
May 15, 2005

A "mother of the year" is in jail because she peppered a divorce judge with harsh questions and objections in court.

Seven-months pregnant Genia Shockome's out-of-work and allegedly abusive husband Timothy then moved to Texas, taking the couple's son Alexander, 10, and daughter Victoria, 8.

The ruling on May 5 by Poughkeepsie Family Court judge Damian Amodeo sent Russian-born Shockome, a 33-year-old IBM software engineer, to prison over Mother's Day...

"I was objecting," Shockome said in a teary jailhouse interview with The Post after she and Amodeo went toe-to-toe in a wild clash straight from Al Pacino's "And Justice For All."

"He was saying, this is what the mother did, this is what was said. It wasn't true.

So I said, 'That's a lie.' "

Shockome at first asked to know what the proceeding was about and for time to get a court-appointed lawyer, which the judge denied, saying she had not filled out the right form.

But she set off fireworks when she accused him of misrepresenting the record.

"If you open your mouth once more, you are going to jail," the judge warned.

"Already heard that before," she snapped back.

He warned her several more times, she continued to object, and he sent her to prison for 30 days without bail.

His decision outraged women's-rights groups.

"The judge always sided with the father's lawyer," said Jennifer Shagan, who heads the Dutchess County chapter of NOW, the National Organization for Women, and has followed the case for three years.

"Why would he take this woman's children away — and give them to a man who is abusive and has no money? It makes no sense."

Shockome is well liked in Poughkeepsie, where she was named mother of the year by two victim-advocacy groups in 2003 after battling in court with her husband, a native Texan she met in Moscow and married there in 1996.

Genia Shockome, an IBM employee earning $65,000 a year, also won three gold medals in the pentathlon at last year's Empire State Games and is expecting a child with her current boyfriend, a track coach.

During the interview, Shockome said the judge had threatened to jail her dozens of times in the past — and said the case turned against her after she fired Michael Kranis, a politically connected lawyer and friend of the judge.

She said she grew fed up with Kranis after paying him $17,000 and watching her divorce case drag on for years without resolution. She's now suing Kranis and the judge in federal court.

Neither Kranis nor Amodeo returned calls seeking comment.

Amodeo at first gave her the kids, but awarded full custody to the father in 2003, limiting her to strictly supervised visits.

His ruling was based on his belief that she lied about her husband's abuse — although another judge issued an order of protection against Timothy Shockome for harassing her and the husband spent two days in jail for violating the order in 2001.

Amodeo also said she repeatedly bad-mouthed the father to the kids, an act that allows judges to take away custody under the state's "parental alienation" provision.

But he also said she "provided them with good, wholesome and beneficial care," and noted contradictions in the father's statements and an outburst of anger in which he pounded on her door and shouted expletives.

Court spokesman David Bookstaver said Amodeo acted properly, was "extremely patient," and used jail "only as a last resort."

"She threw herself into jail," he said. "If you make a mockery of the system, the system falls apart."

Information courtesy of New York Post.



After receiving numerous emails and news clips regarding this women’s pitiful story from people requesting for me to sign a petition, I decided NOT to sign it since there wasn’t a bit of evidence that domestic abuse was involved in this case; and to be honest, I probably would not have signed it even if I thought there was.

For the bottom line is that NO MOTHER deserves this kind of treatment, NONE…a mother’s right to her children should NOT be a special privilege reserved for her victimhood status as defined by a bunch of gender neutralized feminists, many who never had any children of their own and whose best friend is probably their cat. I don’t WANT these feminists pretending to speak for mothers. It’s that simple. Or allowing them any special status to decide which mothers amongst us are worthy of keeping our own kids. Who decided these feminists had the right to speak for ALL MOTHERS anyway…

I sure never did.

This appeared to be one of those increasingly common situation where a distraught mother trying to keep from losing her children tried to do an end round around the usual suspects in our family court system: mens/fathers rights advocates and their gender neutralized brain-addled feminist supporters.

Actually it’s Bridget Marks all over again, with the same cast of characters from the spiteful Judge, to the biased evaluators, GALS, other assorted court leeches and the usual media whores looking for any attention they can generate from this mother’s nightmare.

Clearly even the move-away ruling allowing this father to relocate as far as Texas, (like if he moved any further away he would have fallen off the continent) was NOT in the best interest of the 10 and 8 year old children involved here, who now might never see their mother again; but it’s just another example of how our family court system is becoming ever further removed from what they claim is their primary reason for existence, aiding children. This, instead, was a spite-driven ruling, very common today in our family court system.

The basic problem appears to be that feminists after getting courts to accept their gender-neutralized view of the world have apparently realized that MOST mothers are not willing to go quietly into that good night.

Abductions have skyrocketed as more and more fit mothers are being forced to hand over their kids for no other good reasons usually, then some jackoff doesn’t feel like paying child support. The FBI has actually constructed its own website now dedicated to locating parents who abduct their own children, most of them mothers. Even the Amber Alert System was altered from its’ original intent and focus to include parental abductions within it’s aegis and I predict in a few years time MOST of the people the Amber Alert System will be tracking will be mothers whose crime will be ‘abducting’ their own children.

Additionally, every day sees more and more mothers dragged into money-draining custody fights as everybody and his grandmother (many grandparents really functioning as a front to get custody for a father who’s either a criminal, an addict or unfit in some other way) is allowed to challenge her in court for the care, custody and control of her children.

Anyway, since MOST women will eventually become mothers, feminists were faced with their support of gender neutral custody eventually alienating most of the women they claim as their power base. Thus, they have been faced with a dilemma since the outlines of the problem became clear to them. Either feminists have to backtrack from their original support of gender neutral custody by addressing the inherent unfairness of this custody to mothers, who obviously invest more in children overall, and, of course, unless unfit, should be the primary custodian of children. Or somehow secretly undermine it, while pretending to support it at the same time.

Sadly instead of addressing the problem openly and honestly, feminists chose door #2.

This is how we’ve arrived at our current state of affairs with the domestic violence industry ‘explosion’ along with rapid rise in accusations of sex abuse. As in most of these situations you only need follow the money to connect the dots.

Basically feminists have managed, through their excessive focus on issues of domestic violence, to continue their support on a superficial level of gender neutral custody, not alienate their power base, and also get a lock hold on millions of dollars in resources to allocate to this base.

BTW, I’m not just talking about shelters here, but in some states, even free LEGAL ASSISTANCE for mothers who convince the courts they’re been abused…The average women walking in these places can’t get through the courthouse door without an attorney; but convince someone you’re been abused and you’ve got a free one…Additionally many states have laws that give the victim of domestic violence an advantage in a custody fight over and above the other parent…

So, of course, some desperate woman, running out of money, about to lose her children, God only knows if and when she’ll see them again is going to look to claim abuse. She’s be a god-damn fool if she didn’t…

Instead of feminists focusing on the real source of the problem here which is the inherent unfairness to women and children of gender neutral custody, they’ve decided to keep paying lip service to this abomination, while busily working on the sidelines to ensure as many women as possible still manage to keep custody of their children anyway by enabling them to claim abuse.

Oh what a tangled web we weave…

The bottom line is that Bridget Marks, Genia Shockome and the hundreds of thousands of other nameless mothers like them are and should be, through law both natural and man-made, entitled to the custody of their children. PERIOD It makes no difference whether or not these women were victims of abuse or not, as it’s a moot issue.

Mothers commit more in bringing forth life, invest more of themselves in their children, simply risk more. Men and women don’t stand before the court with equal contribution in this area, nor should they, as men invest little in the process, yet expect the same legal and moral rights after the fact. This is wrong and takes away from the more important claimant here, the mother, and could eventually even cause women not to want to take the leap of faith in even having any more children. Then what. Male jealousy of womans’ life-giving force and the mother/child bond will wind up destroying our civilization, if it continues.

These false accusations, if they are that, come about because mothers have been put in this position by feminism and mens/fathers rights advocates. These mothers were so desperate that the only thing left for them to do was to make these false accusations. As every mother is and should be entitled to her children, this should not be a gift they receive as a politically correct award for claiming abuse, but the natural right that exists for any mother to her children.

This is why even though I support Genia Shockome 1000% in her righteous cause as a mother to get her children returned to her, I still refuse to sign the petition.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I do applaud you on your level-headedness and refusal to blindly jump on the deranged feminist bandwagon in this case.

I do disagree with you that "mothers have a natural and man-made right to custody". I see no law, either natural or man-made, saying that an unfit mother has a priority right over a fit father. This woman has clearly proven to be unfit and the fact that the father won such an uphill battle clearly proves this.

There are many other issues you should alwo be aware of, such as the following.

All those ignoramuses out there blogging away with absolutely no first-hand knowledge Genia Shockome or her ex-husband are willfully participating in this man’s character assassination! These things stick. . . forever. By posting the baseless, absolutely unsubstantiated accusations of violence and sexual abuse against his children, you are assisting in a modern lynching, nothing less. Have you no shame? No sense of decency?

And by falsely treating this woman as a “victim”, you commit an unfathomable offense to those who have actually been abused!

There was ZERO evidence that she or the children were abused. Zero. See court transcripts if you’re not too lazy. Nothing is more disgusting than this woman falsely and cynically accusing a good father of abuse and sexual perversions just to up her chances for custody. Disgusting!

She threw away her attorneys because she thought she was smarter. She was given REPEATED offers for a court-appointed lawyer, but she refused to submit financial documents showing her $80k salary. Then has the balls to act poor and undefended. And you suckers fall for it.

Despite this salary, she was a deadbeat mom who repeatedly refused to pay child support until the court had to garnish her wages directly from her employer IBM (proven fact in transcript)!!! Yep, she just loves them children, eh?

She speaks excellent English after 9 years in America and working for IBM.

It’s sad that a pregnant woman (or any person, for that matter) is sent to jail, but since when is pregnancy an excuse to break the law? She was repeatedly warned by the judge (10 times in the court transcript!!!), but she continued to be a smart-ass Perry Mason.

The fact that an exasperated judge had to resort to this extreme measure illustrates both the character of the woman, as well her contempt itself: a gross, over-the-top disrespect for basic laws, rules and procedures. Clearly the makings of a good mother.

From the transcripts, it’s clear she is an obnoxious, cocky person, ready to pounce when she thinks she has the advantage (conspiracy charges, filing federal civil rights cases against the judge, making up truly absurd sexual perversion stories), and ready to play the victim when needed (“I kint speeek Ingleesh”, I’m pregnant, I’ve been abused even though there is no evidence).

And this is Mother of the Year????

Do you realize how screwed up a mother making $80k must PROVE herself to be to lose her children to a father making much less $ in America’s mother-biased custody courts??? Get real! We all know that if there was even the slightest SHRED of evidence of violence or sexual abuse against either the woman or children this guy, would have NEVER got custody. It is nearly impossible for ANY father in New York to get custody. So, hello, any alarm bells going off here????

Unlike you, I have a major advantage in judging the merits of this case: I’ve known both of them for over 10 years. She’s a psychotic person from an abused childhood in Russia who unfortunately thinks she’s smarter than everyone else and is clearly willing to let her children suffer to get her way.

She’s delusional, as proven by her outrageous belief that the judge and courts have a conspiracy to get her, and destructive, as proven by her constant actions of contempt OVER FOUR YEARS!

She will lie, connive, deceive, cheat, and mislead to get her way. That’s unfortunately the survival skills she learned during her Russian childhood.

Thank God the court saw this; too bad you don’t. How can you support such a person? Just because she is a women? What a disservice to all the other women. Shame!

PS. I bet you didn’t know that when Genia and her ex-husband first met she was a dropout working in Moscow’s most notorious prostitute bar (Night Flight)? Go ahead, ask her.

Gee, but that might ruin your nice little “victim” story, right? It can easily be proven, you know.

Now she’s been cleaned up, been given an American passport, property, college education paid for by her husband and a $80k job, all thanks to her “abusive” husband.

Just a pity she’s so emotionally unstable and self-absorbed to recognize all she’s been given. And now, thanks to you all, he’s been wrongly labeled, and labels stick, making his efforts to provide his children a decent new life all the harder.

So a question for you: are you going to continue to perpetuate your gross lies or have the decency to look at the FACTS and tell the truth?

Just don’t cry when the self-righteous lynch mob comes for you next.

NYMOM said...

"PS. I bet you didn’t know that when "Genia and her ex-husband first met she was a dropout working in Moscow’s most notorious prostitute bar (Night Flight)? Go ahead, ask her."

AND I guess the moral of this story is that men should NOT pick up prostitutes that they meet in bars to bring home and marry. Hopefully you're one of those wise persons who learns from the mistakes of others...

Enough said....

The Biscuit Queen said...

That is the excuse for her behavior? That he was an idiot for picking her?

You must have meant something else.

NYMOM said...

No, not an excuse...although I'm not exactly sure what bad behavior you're referring to here...What exactly did she do that was so terrible...speak out in court because a Judge was giving her ex permission to move half way across the continent and she might NEVER see her kids again...

I don't consider that a crime worthy of 30 days in jail AT ALL...actually I think the Judge should have been put in jail for 30 days for even allowing the move as it was clearly a spite-motivated request...her kids were 8 and 10, her ex had lived in New York for years but SUDDENLY after getting custody he HAS to move...

Please...

Let's reverse the situation and it had been her requesting a move thousands of miles away...Would you have been so supportive of it then? Let's be consistent here at least...if you wouldn't support a father losing contact with his kids due to a moveaway, why would you support it happening to a mother...and no, in spite of what this poster said this mother was NOT found to be unfit...Actually she was found to take very good care of her children, a very loving mother...

BUT back to the original issue which was hanging around in bars and marrying the loose women you pick up in these places...Yes, men need to use their common sense a little more in these situations...Many bad things that happen to men begin with the line: "I met a girl in a bar..."

Anonymous said...

So if moms have a natural right to their children, what do you do with moms who beat their children to a bloody pulp regularly, starve them, and lock them in a closet for months at a time, wallowing in their own feces? Do they have a "right" to their children too, not to be violated no matter what happens to the child? Even when they end up killing said child?

NYMOM said...

AND as you well know I do NOT support mothers who abuse their children...so let's not start with that red herring...it's the same thing with men who complain when EVERY law on family relations is filtered through the lens of domestic violence...as if all men are abusive to their wives and children...

People NEED to STOP doing this as otherwise no public policies can ever be looked at objectively as those like you will always bring up a red herring and distort the issue...

I'm talking about normal fit parents here and in these cases yes, then mothers should ALWAYS get custody...Actually if a mother is NOT unfit a custody challenge should NOT even be allowed into the courtroom...that should be the START of every custody case...

Anonymous said...

NYMOM-

I'm very familiar with your views on women's rightst to their children from other blogs and sites I've seen you post on.

But I'm curious in all seriousness:
I read much of what you write regarding what rights men should NOT have with regard to their children. What I'd like to know from you is what rights do you think men should have when it comes to their children and also with how that relates to what responsibilities they should have.

I'd also like to hear your opinions with regard to different situations -- ie where a father has been involved and positive for the children in a marriage, where the parents were never married, where the conception was an accident, etc.

Thank you.

NYMOM said...

"I have created this website in an attempt to post articles regarding this issue and discuss with like-minded people some strategies to amend the current situation."

If you read my introductory statement on the first page of this blog you would know that this is what my blog is all about...to post articles and discuss with 'like-minded' people some strategies to amend the current situation...

So if I had all the answers I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of creating this website and attempting to contact other 'like-minded' people...

But in brief I will say that historically men got rights vis-a-vis children within the framework of MARRIAGE and this is the way it has been in every society including our own until fairly recently...

So my feeling is that we probably need to look back at that model again to frame fathers rights within marriage...as it's my opinion that single men who procreate outside of marriage should have NO right OR responsibilites...as they never had until fairly recently in our society and men NEVER complained about that...actually they seem to prefer it...

Married men is a different story of course...they have to have legal rights and obligations otherwise why bother getting married if men are all treated exactly the same, married or single...

It wouldn't be fair...

So that's my answer, it's open to discussion...

Anonymous said...

Hm, well that's good. It seems like there may be some common ground on which to talk about this.

I guess the way I see it -- and I'm going to stick to a marriage relationship since that seems to be the common ground for us -- is that family rights for both men and women should be protected and enforced constitutionally the way they were intended.

So by that I mean, if a marriage with children breaks up, things like custody determination and child support would not be automatically regulated by gov't. It would have to be as a result of due process.

For example, both parents would have a legal expectation and responsibility to look after and pay for their children. So if one parent basically stops showing up regularly to parent the kids, or one parent stops supporting them financially for no good reason, that person would be charged with child neglect or abandonment, tried in a court of law and if found guilty THEN a custody change and child support determination would take place.

Conversely, if one of the parents was interfering with the other parents' relationship with the children either through denying access or poisoning the children emotionally, that parent would be charged with violating the civil rights of both the children and the other parent. The same due process would follow from that situation.

Many people ague against things like this and point out the acrimony between many divorcing couples. To my mind, much of what the children are put through during the fighting would go away since by doing so the party causing the trouble would truly stand to lose.

Indeed, I see the main problem as the fact that the gov't steps in automatically to determine a winner and a loser in most of these cases and most parents will do whatever it takes to not be the loser since there's just so much to lose.

Now on the part regarding unmarried parents: I'll have to think on that some more.

NYMOM said...

Well MOST people DO NOT litigate custody...most negotiate and decide on the arrangement themselves...so all this due process you are talking about would ONLY impact the 10% of so of families who are probably the most troubled and probably litigate everything ANYWAY...

I'm not sure however if this sort of legalistic approach would solve all the issues I was thinking about whe I started this blog...I mean frankly, my thinking is to discourage people from going to court, not give them more constitutional rights and reasons to fight about now...

NYMOM said...

"For example, both parents would have a legal expectation and responsibility to look after and pay for their children. So if one parent basically stops showing up regularly to parent the kids, or one parent stops supporting them financially for no good reason, that person would be charged with child neglect or abandonment, tried in a court of law and if found guilty THEN a custody change and child support determination would take place."


The only problem I have with this is how would you allocate the house, for instance...as I could see the more aggressive parent (generally men) forcing the other parent out and keeping the house and all the furnishings and other items within it for themselves...Thus making the 'weaker' parent (generally women) have to go out and starting from scratch repurchase everything ALL OVER AGAIN BEFORE being able to even take up their custodial reponsibilities...

UNLESS you wanted to do that 'nesting' idea...which is the children stay in the marital house and the parents rotate in and out according to a parenting schedule...

That of course would mean THREE residences...the original house for the kids...and each parent with another place...

Anonymous said...

Grandma, your intentions are honorable.
If woman have the final say to have children (by refusing abortion) and women should never have their children taken from them, then women can pay for them.

End of story.
good night.