In response to Polish Knight's comment about St. Valentine I have re-published the following post. St. Valentine was from what was called the Eastern empire (Constantinople). He lived in a period long after what we know of as Rome had already collapsed (about 300 or so years later). Yet, even in ancient Rome soldiers, on active duty, were not permitted to marry BUT after serving were expected to do so. That's probably why one of the punishments Augustus Caesar proposed was that former soldiers would be sent to the far provinces in Germany to serve if they refused marriage.
Additionally, I also wanted to head off the usual 'marriage strike' posts which I predict someone will begin shortly.
I have said this many times but it bears repeating: there is no marriage strike being organized by men, as men have never wanted to marry in any time, in any place. Thus men not wishing to marry is historically very normal behavior for them. Rather it is women whose behavior is changing if the marriage rates are actually falling in our society.
As hard as it is for men to believe, women are actually the ones making these changes if we are to believe this statistic.
*************************************************************************************
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.
13 Comments:
Pseudo-Adrienne said...
Women have always wanted to be married, they still do.Not me. But yeah, a very significant portion of women still want to marry. Then again, why bother with the selection of guys that a lot women have?
The "marriage strike" declaration made by the MRAs is beyond stupid, because *they* act like *they* just recently invented such a thing.
And as someone who took two years of Latin and has a "fetish" for Greco-Roman History, yes, I know all about how Roman men turned six shades of pissed off when Augustus passed all of his "morality laws", especially in regards to fidelity. Men have historically avoided marriage (even though most men could get away with infidelity), so this "marriage strike" is nothing new.
So the MRAs need to get over themselves and STOP acting like they invented the "marriage strike".
And that's why MRAs should praise feminists because feminism eliminated the "societal requirement" to get married among both sexes, thus helped anti-marriage men even more. Feminism practically gave anti-marriage men a candy store. And do they thank feminism for that?...NO!...whatever.
Once again the MRAs owe another one of the fundamentals of their "sacraments" to feminism. What a bunch of infants. But a lot of those "sacraments" that men have cherished, have been around even long before Augustus.
And as for Augustus; nothing screams moral values like burying your daughter alive for breaking her chastity vows as a Vestal Virgin. What a tight-a$$
10:47 PM
NYMOM said...
"Women have always wanted to be married, they still do. Not me. But yeah, a very significant portion of women still want to marry."
Exactly...We have to accept that MOST women DO wish to be married.
"And that's why MRAs should praise feminists because feminism eliminated the "societal requirement" to get married among both sexes, thus helped anti-marriage men even more. Feminism practically gave anti-marriage men a candy store. And do they thank feminism for that?...NO!...whatever.
Exactly...Men all wanted to be like Hugh Hefner or those crazy Roman Knights, no responsibility, sex on demand with whatever willing women was available...and NOW they got it and they're STILL b*tching...
They keep acting like feminism killed marriage...no MEN killed marriage, feminism just helped women survive the transition period between depending upon marriage for their way of life and having to depend upon ourselves...
I mean I know most women STILL want to be married, but in the same token, we can NOW live successfully alone...that's probably what they're really mad at feminist for because so many women just up and went and made lives for themselves ANYWAY...since one of the things the article points out about Scotland (which is probably true in all western societies today but at a differing pace for all of them) is that at the rate single mothers are having children they will overtake married couples having children in about 3 years...
That's WHY they are changing the law in Scotland, I think, to allow never-marrried men MORE rights. Not because they are concerned about the children or the rights of cohabitating "couples" as they claim, but because they saw the writing on the wall for men...and they were rapidly heading into becoming a non-entity in Scottish society, at the rate they were going...like they are becoming in every western society if they don't change their ways...
I mean my feeling is that Scotland should have changed the law to make it clear to men that they obtain legal rights to children within a lawful marriage if they wished to protect male involvement with children... which is what many women want anyway...a legal marriage; not some jerkoff who does nothing to show commitment, good will, interest, or anything now, having the same rights as a child's mother under this new law...
Plus married men got shafted AGAIN with this change of law...I mean why the heck should men, who many don't want to be married ANYWAY, turn around and marry, IF never-married fathers can get the exact same legal rights as a married father FOR DOING NOTHIING...
I mean changing the law to give MEN more rights for LESS effort is certainly not going to do women and children any good...the only people that law helps is MEN...and enabler paternal grandparents...
It helps another generation of male chowder heads get the idea in their heads again that they can STILL have it all for little or no effort. AGAIN...
So this continued encouragement of men to NEVER grow up, to either be hanging out in the pub, the sports bar, the corner or yes, even in internet chat groups proclaiming their rights are being violated will continue...and get worse...at least in Scotland.
4:20 AM
Anonymous said...
"...I mean why the heck should men, who many don't want to be married ANYWAY, turn around and marry, IF never-married fathers can get the exact same legal rights as a married father FOR DOING NOTHIING..."
But NYMOM, for men who actually WANT to have children and parent them, there is still a great deal of incentive to marry. The visitation/child support/court wrangling rigamarole is hardly an attractive alternative. I don't know of anyone who would actually prefer to do it this way, assuming they want kids in the first place. I remember an unmarried friend of mine who found himself in an unexpected pregnancy situation once. Another lawyer friend of his, upon hearing the news, asked him: "Any chance that you can work it out with her? Believe me, it would be a lot cheaper and a lot less trouble to just marry her." And I think he was right.
But anyway, I think restoring the special legal status and protections of marriage (including those with regard to children) might indeed do more to revitalize marriage in the long run than any programs the government can come up with today, and help to ensure that every child is a wanted child. However, it would be an extremely hard sell to the voters, considering that in the short-term it would affect fully one-third of children being born and almost totally excuse their fathers from responsibility for them.
12:39 PM
Anonymous said...
Sorry, I tend to post in a hurry and continually forget to sign my name.
Anne
2:36 PM
Pseudo-Adrienne said...
But NYMOM, for men who actually WANT to have children and parent them, there is still a great deal of incentive to marryAnd what if the people don't even like each other? What if it was a one-night-stand or an on-again-off-again relationship that had more to do with sex, than any kind of emotional bonds, least of all "love"?
I've noticed that in a lot of these pregnancy situations outside of wedlock, the man and the woman were barely even together as a "couple", and the pairing had more to do about sex, then "love", or emotional bonds.
In many cases, these people are horrible for each other. The only thing that keeps them together is the sex. And if it is just about sex and the people don't even like each other why should they marry, and bring the children into what could be a chaotic, negative, and very dysfunctional environment?
There's nothing wrong with visitation because at least the two people don't have to be around each other all the time or even more than once a week. But a full blown marriage with people who probably only knew each other for three months, not really "into each other emotionally" (certainly not in love or even an official couple), and were really "friends with benefits"(in another words f**k-buddies)? And the guy is really only marrying to avoid child support, and really, didn't even want the kids to begin with?!
(Of course, women should know better than to hop into bed with moronic guys they've known for only a few minutes, days, or even weeks, and women should always use condoms with these guys, because who knows where these guys have been.)
I seriously doubt those people could successfully feign loving and respecting each other in front of the children.
Marriage, in all of its sappy, lovey-dovey image, should be about a mutual emotional, domestic, sexual committment (and of course "love") between two people. Not a selfish attempt by some guy to avoid child support payments, to pitifully make up for the fact that he can't put on a damn condom, and sticks it wherever.
And what if the guy has other children by other women?
3:59 PM
Anonymous said...
I understand what you're saying, Psuedo-Adrienne, but I was speaking generally--I wasn't really talking about cases where babies are already in the works. It seemed to me that what NYMOM was getting at was that current laws giving unmarried dads rights are going to lead men to decide to forgo marriage altogether, figuring that they can still be dads without it, and I was just pointing out that men who really WANT to be responsible parents don't tend to see it that way--they don't want the split family scenario or a visitation schedule or anything like that because even under the best of circumstances it's a pain in the a@@. What they want is to live with their children and parent them along with a loving and supportive partner. And that's exactly why I support restoring parental rights to the context of marriage and fully protecting them within that context. That way it is clear where everyone stands. A single man who wants children would know from the outset that he will have to choose a partner and assume all the responsibilities of marriage and make a home for those children, and a single woman who wants children will know from the outset whether she will be parenting with the help of a partner or going it alone, and weigh her options accordingly. I think it's been a great mistake to take long-established laws that were originally meant to govern and protect the family and bend them to accommodate people who have not created a family and do not intend to do so.
Anne
4:40 PM
NYMOM said...
"However, it would be an extremely hard sell to the voters, considering that in the short-term it would affect fully one-third of children being born and almost totally excuse their fathers from responsibility for them."
No because men if they wished to be involved with their children as you keep claiming they do, then they'll do the right thing and get married.
For those who don't, their involvement is NOT worth the judicial and law enforcement costs, not to mention the societal chaos created by trying to force them into a role they don't want. I mean we have practically created a form of 'bastardized' marriage for these men with women don't like and children they never wanted...and it's not good for women or children to do this...
I see it as an educational campaign to enlighten voters who care, mostly women probably, because much of what is going on is hidden from view by media outlets and people like you who keep painting fathers involvement as a positive good, when it's fact this is frequently not the case...
12:08 AM
NYMOM said...
"I've noticed that in a lot of these pregnancy situations outside of wedlock, the man and the woman were barely even together as a "couple", and the pairing had more to do about sex, then "love", or emotional bonds."
Exactly...so why would we think that these two people are going to be able to get along well enough to be able to raise a child together for 18+ years. We've almost created a sort of bastardized form of marriage for them and it's been a recipe for disaster, mostly for women and children...
"In many cases, these people are horrible for each other. The only thing that keeps them together is the sex. And if it is just about sex and the people don't even like each other why should they marry, and bring the children into what could be a chaotic, negative, and very dysfunctional environment?"
Exactly...but when you look at the average parenting plan put out there in many states now, you are going to be spending as much time interacting with that guy as IF YOU WERE MARRIED w/o any of the support systems to give you any control of the situation like having a good relationship with your in-laws (you don't have any) or being able to rely upon the police in your community to enforce your custodial status if a problem should arise (mothers can NOT automatically assume that they can count on that anymore, it's on a case-by-case or county-by-county basis)...
Plus you cannot not just automatically decide to leave the state to go to law school or for another job, that's out. You have to negotiate over which school district, doctor, church, daycare, et al your child will attend. If your child can spend Christmas with you (do you know how many women I know who haven't spent a Christmas with their own kids in YEARS)...
So basically you're making my case for me...you're right people this casually connected can NOT be forced into an 18-21 year commitment, they just can't...
"There's nothing wrong with visitation because at least the two people don't have to be around each other all the time or even more than once a week."
You are right there is nothing wrong with visitation AND if that is ALL that was involved I would never mind it...
I wouldn't have this blog today actually, I wouldn't have bothered...as who goes on a 'mission' over just visitation. I'd just be relaxing watching tv and happy that I raised my children well and can now just sit back contentedly and plan for my own retirement, but guess what, it's NOT just about a once a week visit...
It is about giving another person who did NOTHING to bring forth this child, NOTHING, the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS A MOTHER TO HER CHILD...and by doing this allowing that other person to use that legal status as a 'club' issued by the state to hold over every women's head who decides to have a child...
It has the potential to roll back every one of the rights you and most other women today take for granted, every single one...IF we allow it to continue...
That's what it's about.
It's not JUST visiting...it's much bigger then that...and as much as you've read on this blog, you should know that already...
All these posts I'm putting up here are news stories, I don't just make them up...about court rulings or public policies against women making it MORE likely that MORE mothers will lose their children, abductions where children are taken on a visit and never returned, about murders of children involved in these custody to evade child support schemes and even about the propaganda being used to make women THINK it's all just about men wanting to be good fathers and help us raise our children...
Visitation, actually, is the least of what I talk about here, the least...
12:52 AM
NYMOM said...
I'm actually a little miffed at the governor in my state Governor Pataki for recently talking about a proposal to forgive the child support debt of men who marry the mothers of their children...
I have no problem with a father and mother chosing on their own to marry but we shouldn't be rewarding a choice that appears to be more geared to making money off the backs of children then with a sincere committment to them...
This is a dangerous and short-sighted proposal that is probably the flip side of giving never-married fathers legal rights and almost JUST AS BAD...We should never make children "worth money" to people, never and Pataki knows this as our state does NOT even allow you to buy more then $5,000 in life insurance for children after a few well-publicized murders of children for life insurance proceeds...
This has the potential to make 'children' worth a heck of a lot more then $5,000...
Frankly children being worth money was the 'root cause' of the horrible Jerica Rhodes situation, as well as thousands of others that we don't even know about yet, where fathers took custody to avoid paying child support...
The profit in 'children' MUST be removed...
11:02 PM
Anonymous said...
"...and people like you who keep painting fathers involvement as a positive good, when it's fact this is frequently not the case..."
Hmmm...now where did I "paint" unwed fathers' involvement as a positive good? While it certainly CAN be, it's true that it's frequently not and I think it would be a greater good for children in the long run to restore the special status of marriage. That is what all of my comments in defense of fathers have been about--married fathers. Their rights and responsibilities, which they signed on for, must be scrupulously protected.
I'm sorry if your father was a disappointment, it's a tragedy when kids don't get to benefit from all a good dad can offer, but I would have suffered a great deal without my dad and so would he have without his, and many, many people feel the same. And, honestly, if you are going to try to "reeducate" the public on this issue (and you will have to convince just about the entire western world since unwed parenthood and changes in the law to accommodate it are increasing all over Europe and the UK, not just here), then it will really do no good to lie and try to "paint" fathers in general as irrelevant in their kids' lives. Too many people know this is not true, and such an attitude will hurt, not help, your cause, no matter how desirable your ultimate goal might be.
Anne
12:22 PM
NYMOM said...
"I'm sorry if your father was a disappointment, it's a tragedy when kids don't get to benefit from all a good dad can offer, but I would have suffered a great deal without my dad and so would he have without his, and many, many people feel the same. And, honestly, if you are going to try to "reeducate" the public on this issue (and you will have to convince just about the entire western world since unwed parenthood and changes in the law to accommodate it are increasing all over Europe and the UK, not just here), then it will really do no good to lie and try to "paint" fathers in general as irrelevant in their kids' lives. Too many people know this is not true, and such an attitude will hurt, not help, your cause, no matter how desirable your ultimate goal might be."
Well I'm sorry but sometimes social change cannot be stopped just because a LOT OF PEOPLE used to benefit from something that no longer exists in that form...
When the divorce rate was low and a 'family' was one legal entity where roles were clearly defined, then yes, fathers were great, they helped mothers raise children in a partnership and the whole thing worked...
Today that is simply not the case.
It won't be us deciding these things anyway, at least not me, as I already raised my children...it will be the next generation deciding these issues and from the looks of things they are picking unmarried single parenthood over and above married parenthood as the vehicle to raise their children within...and I don't think people are doing that because they had these wonderful loving fathers in their past that you keep talking about...as I think if so many people DID have that, wouldn't they be trying to recreate the same wonderful family structure they had as children...
You can close your eyes to that reality but there are a WHOLE lot of people like me out there whose fathers were nothing but a figment of Focus on the Family's imagination and YOURS...
11:35 PM
Anonymous said...
"I'm actually a little miffed at the governor in my state Governor Pataki for recently talking about a proposal to forgive the child support debt of men who marry the mothers of their children..."
Might I ask what the wisdom would be to continue to collect child support arrears from a man married to the children's mother?
The scenario: every month, the man's paycheck is garnished by CSE and a new check is cut and sent back to his house. Hmmm....
Basically, that debt would also be the mother's debt at that point.
Also, it would be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment I believe since married parents don't have to pay child support.
4:48 PM
NYMOM said...
"Might I ask what the wisdom would be to continue to collect child support arrears from a man married to the children's mother?
The scenario: every month, the man's paycheck is garnished by CSE and a new check is cut and sent back to his house. Hmmm...."
Well quite obviously it would be ridiculous...but I don't think that our governor should be encouraging men to marry women and take on the burden of fatherhood when they MIGHT not be all that interested in either the woman or the child...but more interested in wiping out a debt...
I mean New York doesn't allow you to buy a life insurance policy on a child worth over $5,000 because we had a murder a few years back (or an attempted one) of a child by its parent to get life insurance...so WHY would our governor encourage marriage to wipe out a child support debt that could be worth a LOT more then $5,000...
The bottom line is that our society has to figure out a way to make our children NOT WORTH ANY MONEY...since too many people appear to be making money on the backs of children and no good can ever come from it...
That was my point...not the logics of how to do it...but the vision to know that it needs to be done...
As this is a site to encourage discussion amongst 'like-minded' people to come up with strategies to amend the current situation...or did you miss the first page of my blog...
7:07 PM
Post a Comment
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Times Could be a Changing
Well if this statistic demonstrating a slow decline of marriage in this country turns out to be true (and who knows if it is as statistics are often 'played with' by various individuals and groups to make a point) I would say it demonstrates that WOMEN, who are the persons historically more invested in marriage, are finally fed up and moving onto new patterns of living...and frankly, I think this is a good thing.
Women used to have to get married in order to get any resources from men (who controlled every single resource on the planet and in many places still do). Their choices were either marriage or to live with their father and mother or some other married relative forever and this was not always desirable or practical. Not to mention they could never have any children of their own w/o marriage (and I believe most women do want children as politically incorrect as it might be to say it). Thus the evolution of the character known as the 'maiden aunt' of history who was always doting on other women's children, not being allowed to have any of her own or risk stoning, or burning at the stake, or having her baby murdered or some other horrible punishment (devised by men) for unmarried pregnancy...Anyway men used this desperate need of women to be married as a club against us (much as they now use custody of her children against mothers) to enforce their social control of women.
So any decrease in marriage I see as a sign that women have finally realized this and are seeking ways to end it w/o starting a war as men would do (ie., as in the custody wars men have incited) or some other such activity. Just quiet changes in our behavior having the desired impact like the wind or water slowly wearing down the mountain.
Last point: this probably also could explain the rising statistic of older women leading the way in choosing to become single mothers. All to the good! The fact that younger women, teenagers, used to be the main group of single women having children gave an opening to the usual suspects to frame their opposition to single motherhood as justified since they could claim single motherhood was a burden on society. I guarantee you that their panties are still in a bunch now, even if the women having children out of wedlock could afford to raise them w/o government assistance.
Why?
Because it's not about money, it's about men losing their last chance to control women, that's what it is...by holding our children hostage through the manipulation of the legal system.
The final thing that puzzles me is why a fairly well-educated man like Marc Rudov continues harping upon alimony as a 'benefit' women receive from marriage and subsequent divorce. The census shows that ONLY 15% of divorcees (either women or men, as yes Virginia men do get alimony) ever get awarded any alimony and of that 15% only one-half manage to actually collect it. So this continued fixation is a puzzlement. Most men probably have a better chance of getting struck by lightning then they do of paying alimony to a former wife.
Anyway that's by take on the whole situation.
http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com/2006/10/31/riding-the-estrogen-express/
Riding the Estrogen Express
by Marc H. RudovOctober 31st, 2006
Contrary to its intent, the United States is methodically recasting itself as a singles-oriented nation. Notwithstanding the impassioned soapbox orations from politicians about marriage as the bedrock of society, their anti-male policies and laws are, in fact, killing the family and marriage.
In my article “Will Women Halt the Death of Marriage?” I wrote that, for men, marriage is a sucker’s deal. Before you fume at me, ladies, count the number of times you’ve seen a divorced mother writing child-support and alimony checks to her mansion-dwelling ex-husband from the card-table desk of her one-bedroom apartment. Enough said.
The American Community Survey, released in October 2006 by the US Census Bureau, found that, for the first time in US history, only 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nation’s 111.1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples — with and without children — just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent in 2000.
Yes, folks, instead of solidifying marriage and simplifying our lives, the vote whores on Capitol Hill and in state assemblies across our great country have been catalyzing a pandemic of out-of-wedlock births and spawning costly, socialistic infrastructures to deal with them. As usual, they’ve created another fine mess where one didn’t exist. In this case, the root cause is fear of women (translation: fear of not getting the female vote).
When installing new software, the subscriber must click “I agree” on the 10-page, eye-glazing user agreement, if he expects it to function. How many times does one actually read these documents? I almost never do, because, if so, I’d still be installing Windows 95. Interestingly, when installing new women into their lives, men have a history of exhibiting similar, reflexive behavior — blindly, deferentially, and sycophantically agreeing to known and unknown caveats, provisos, clauses, and conditions. Why? Habit, conditioning, resignation, socialization, and belief that no other options exist.
The typical man, traditionally, has been so deferential to — and fearful of — women that he automatically will allow one to commandeer the dating, engagement, wedding, marriage, and divorce phases of his life. Then, he will kick himself afterwards and cry into the beer of anyone sympathetic enough to listen. Surrendering these phases to her is akin to riding a runaway train — The Estrogen Express — to Disasterville. The only question is, Will he disembark in time to avert the inevitable?
When you think about it, the traditional way of dealing with a woman is to permit her to control your life. Men mistakenly believe they will have more peace that way. This moronic behavior, based on the false assumption that men must crawl through broken glass to get laid, leads to devastating consequences. It’s quite scary to realize how much control over their lives men have conceded to women, with lots of help from misandrist feminists and politicians.
But, it seems that the tide is now turning. Men are increasingly saying no to marriage and relationships, and the Census Bureau statistics prove it. Alas, the out-of-wedlock birthrate (see my article “Playing Abortion Chess”) also proves it. Men are finally realizing that they don’t have to get married and don’t want to get married. They are tired of playing a losing game against the house. To modern men, matrimony equals alimony — not safety, comfort, and love.
When I see a million women marching on the Mall in Washington, DC, demanding that our elected officials restore dignity to men and fathers and the family unit, I will become convinced that they truly believe in matrimony — not just alimony and child support. Until then, I’m not holding my breath.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 30+ articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
Women used to have to get married in order to get any resources from men (who controlled every single resource on the planet and in many places still do). Their choices were either marriage or to live with their father and mother or some other married relative forever and this was not always desirable or practical. Not to mention they could never have any children of their own w/o marriage (and I believe most women do want children as politically incorrect as it might be to say it). Thus the evolution of the character known as the 'maiden aunt' of history who was always doting on other women's children, not being allowed to have any of her own or risk stoning, or burning at the stake, or having her baby murdered or some other horrible punishment (devised by men) for unmarried pregnancy...Anyway men used this desperate need of women to be married as a club against us (much as they now use custody of her children against mothers) to enforce their social control of women.
So any decrease in marriage I see as a sign that women have finally realized this and are seeking ways to end it w/o starting a war as men would do (ie., as in the custody wars men have incited) or some other such activity. Just quiet changes in our behavior having the desired impact like the wind or water slowly wearing down the mountain.
Last point: this probably also could explain the rising statistic of older women leading the way in choosing to become single mothers. All to the good! The fact that younger women, teenagers, used to be the main group of single women having children gave an opening to the usual suspects to frame their opposition to single motherhood as justified since they could claim single motherhood was a burden on society. I guarantee you that their panties are still in a bunch now, even if the women having children out of wedlock could afford to raise them w/o government assistance.
Why?
Because it's not about money, it's about men losing their last chance to control women, that's what it is...by holding our children hostage through the manipulation of the legal system.
The final thing that puzzles me is why a fairly well-educated man like Marc Rudov continues harping upon alimony as a 'benefit' women receive from marriage and subsequent divorce. The census shows that ONLY 15% of divorcees (either women or men, as yes Virginia men do get alimony) ever get awarded any alimony and of that 15% only one-half manage to actually collect it. So this continued fixation is a puzzlement. Most men probably have a better chance of getting struck by lightning then they do of paying alimony to a former wife.
Anyway that's by take on the whole situation.
http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com/2006/10/31/riding-the-estrogen-express/
Riding the Estrogen Express
by Marc H. RudovOctober 31st, 2006
Contrary to its intent, the United States is methodically recasting itself as a singles-oriented nation. Notwithstanding the impassioned soapbox orations from politicians about marriage as the bedrock of society, their anti-male policies and laws are, in fact, killing the family and marriage.
In my article “Will Women Halt the Death of Marriage?” I wrote that, for men, marriage is a sucker’s deal. Before you fume at me, ladies, count the number of times you’ve seen a divorced mother writing child-support and alimony checks to her mansion-dwelling ex-husband from the card-table desk of her one-bedroom apartment. Enough said.
The American Community Survey, released in October 2006 by the US Census Bureau, found that, for the first time in US history, only 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nation’s 111.1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples — with and without children — just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent in 2000.
Yes, folks, instead of solidifying marriage and simplifying our lives, the vote whores on Capitol Hill and in state assemblies across our great country have been catalyzing a pandemic of out-of-wedlock births and spawning costly, socialistic infrastructures to deal with them. As usual, they’ve created another fine mess where one didn’t exist. In this case, the root cause is fear of women (translation: fear of not getting the female vote).
When installing new software, the subscriber must click “I agree” on the 10-page, eye-glazing user agreement, if he expects it to function. How many times does one actually read these documents? I almost never do, because, if so, I’d still be installing Windows 95. Interestingly, when installing new women into their lives, men have a history of exhibiting similar, reflexive behavior — blindly, deferentially, and sycophantically agreeing to known and unknown caveats, provisos, clauses, and conditions. Why? Habit, conditioning, resignation, socialization, and belief that no other options exist.
The typical man, traditionally, has been so deferential to — and fearful of — women that he automatically will allow one to commandeer the dating, engagement, wedding, marriage, and divorce phases of his life. Then, he will kick himself afterwards and cry into the beer of anyone sympathetic enough to listen. Surrendering these phases to her is akin to riding a runaway train — The Estrogen Express — to Disasterville. The only question is, Will he disembark in time to avert the inevitable?
When you think about it, the traditional way of dealing with a woman is to permit her to control your life. Men mistakenly believe they will have more peace that way. This moronic behavior, based on the false assumption that men must crawl through broken glass to get laid, leads to devastating consequences. It’s quite scary to realize how much control over their lives men have conceded to women, with lots of help from misandrist feminists and politicians.
But, it seems that the tide is now turning. Men are increasingly saying no to marriage and relationships, and the Census Bureau statistics prove it. Alas, the out-of-wedlock birthrate (see my article “Playing Abortion Chess”) also proves it. Men are finally realizing that they don’t have to get married and don’t want to get married. They are tired of playing a losing game against the house. To modern men, matrimony equals alimony — not safety, comfort, and love.
When I see a million women marching on the Mall in Washington, DC, demanding that our elected officials restore dignity to men and fathers and the family unit, I will become convinced that they truly believe in matrimony — not just alimony and child support. Until then, I’m not holding my breath.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 30+ articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Another interesting abduction case...
I found this story interesting especially since it highlights how child abduction is such a fast growing crime.
Also little warning to mothers of infants: if a mother doesn’t have legal custody of her children, one of these so-called parental abductions can result in a custody switch as the police do not always follow up if the abductor is a father, even a recreational sperm donor w/o his name on the child’s birth certificate. If he manages to get his name on the certificate in this interim period, he can race down to the courthouse with it and get himself named as the custodial parent.
One of the stats the FBI had released was that mothers keep their kids longer when they are abducted and I think the reason this happens is that men manipulate the system better and wind up becoming the custodial parent...so it's wiped off the record as an abduction...
Also once again we find some woman helping this jerk, his mother. Thank god she got jail time. Often these idiots get away with it…Imagine what kind of a life these girls would have had as they entered puberty living in a trailor in a place like Nicaragua. It remains me of these terrible people who are always abducting young girls to countries in the middle east. PS a horror!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/30/delaware.family.abductions/index.html
The untold tale of family abductions: 3 girls missing, an international hunt
By Stephanie Chen, CNN
December 9, 2009
Christine Belford was reunited with her three daughters, who were kidnapped by their father for 19 months.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• More than 200,000 incidents of family abductions occur in the U.S. each year
• Christine Belford's three daughters were kidnapped by their father in 2007
• Authorities launched a search that spanned at least four countries and several states
• The children were found in Nicaragua, living in a trailer with their father and grandmother
RELATED TOPICS
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Missing Children
• National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
• Delaware
(CNN) -- Christine Belford agreed to let her ex-husband take their three daughters to Disney World for a two-week vacation. In August 2007, the Delaware mother kissed her little blond girls goodbye.
Those two weeks were unsettling for Belford, then 34. The couple went through a bitter divorce in 2006 which resulted in joint custody of the children. Belford said when the girls were with their dad, they were always difficult to reach.
Two days into the trip, Belford connected by cell phone with her oldest daughter, Laura, then 5. Already homesick, chubby-faced Laura cried as her father checked them into a hotel room.
"I want to come home," Laura pleaded with her mother.
But Laura and her sisters wouldn't return to their Delaware home for 19 months.
Their father, David Matusiewicz, pleaded guilty to international parental kidnapping and bank fraud charges in September. He faces up to 30 years in prison and is scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday. CNN attempted to reach Matusiewichz in jail through his attorney, Heriberto "Eddie" Medrano, in Houston, Texas, but Medrano did not return the calls.
Kidnapping victims like Laura and her sisters -- Leigh, then 4, and Karen, then 2 -- often don't make national headlines the way victims of alleged abductions by strangers do, such as Jaycee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart. But each year, most child abductions are perpetrated by someone the victim knows.
The U.S. Department of Justice reports more than 200,000 children are victims of family abductions in the United States each year. Of that figure, about 56,500 cases are reported to local law enforcement authorities and require investigation, studies show. In comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reports an average of 115 stranger abductions a year.
Family abductions commonly involve children under 6, too young to comprehend that a crime is occurring, studies show.
Over the last few decades, high divorce rates have led to custody disputes and to kidnappings, experts say. Yet the public still perceives family abductions as a less serious crime because the victims are with a family member who is less likely to hurt them.
"The view is that this is not really a criminal problem," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. "[The view is] this is a civil problem and lawyers need to work it out."
There are 1,600 unsolved family abduction cases involving children who have been missing for more than six months, he said.
A puzzling escape
In 15 years on the police force, Cpl. Jeff Shriner of the New Castle, Delaware, Police Department said he found Matusiewicz's abduction of his children to be the most bizarre missing person case he'd encountered.
Normally, the perpetrator in a family abduction is located within hours or days. Sometimes, abductions occur because the parent is angry, Shriner said, but they usually change their minds within a few days.
But Matusiewicz "was a needle in a haystack and that needle was buried very deep," said Shriner, who was assigned as the lead detective on the case.
Shriner quickly determined the Disney World vacation never happened.
Sales records showed Matusiewicz's mother, Lenore, had purchased a 33-foot Winnebago mobile home weeks before the disappearance, according to court records. She also was missing.
That month, Matusiewicz had sold his optometry business to a partner, police said. He had also committed mortgage fraud by forging his wife's signature on a $249,000 loan from a bank in Delaware, police said.
The couple had met in 1993 when Belford worked as a receptionist at an eye doctor's office in Delaware. Matusiewicz worked as an optometrist there. They were married in October 2001.
The couple's union became problematic in 2003 when his parents moved in, Belford said. Matusiewicz was a loving father to his girls, but during the breakup, she said, the couple had problems.
Some parents say they take their children away to protect them from an abusive or unfit parent, said Liss Hart-Haviv, founding executive director of Take Root, a national organization that works with victims of family abduction. In other instances, Hart-Haviv said, parents may take children out of spite.
"The critical thing to remember," she said, "is there's not one face to family abduction. It's a multifaceted issue."
Abduction goes abroad
In most family abduction cases, studies show victims often remain within the country. But circumstances are changing. Easier access to foreign countries and a growing number of intercontinental marriages have made international hideouts more common, missing children experts said.
In October, Japanese authorities released an American man, Christopher Savoie, who was jailed for allegedly trying to take back his children from his estranged wife. His wife, Noriko Savoie, had fled with the children to Japan in August, authorities say. Japanese officials said the couple's U.S.-recognized divorce did not apply in Japan. Christopher Savoie, who was not charged, returned to the U.S. The children remained with their mother in Japan.
A multilateral treaty known as the Hague Convention was ratified in 1980. It provides member countries with rules on returning abducted children under the age of 16. Today, more than 80 countries have signed the treaty. But with countries that haven't, like Japan, determining what happens to the children is murky.
In Belford's case, local and federal agencies initially launched a search for the girls. They began in New Jersey, where Matusiewicz was raised. Then they combed through dozens of leads in Virginia and West Virginia. A tip led them to become suspicious the girls might be in Texas or Mexico.
By November 2007, authorities shifted their attention to Central America. They hunted for Matusiewicz in Panama and Costa Rica over the next year. Locating him was tricky, authorities say, because he relied on cash transactions and limited phone calls with his family in the United States.
"He was very smart and did a lot of things before leaving and during the time he was gone to cover his tracks," said Rick Long, chief deputy U.S. Marshal in Delaware, who helped with the search efforts.
It wasn't until March 2009 that a lead, on which authorities declined to elaborate, brought law enforcement officers to a town about 40 miles outside of the Managua, Nicaragua.
There, at the end of a 19-month search, authorities discovered the girls inside a messy Winnebago trailer, overfilled with items from their Delaware home, said a U.S. Marshal who arrived on the scene. Matusiewicz had less than $100.
Reunited at last
Christine Belford took the first flight she could to Nicaragua. Her girls were healthy, though disheveled. The eldest, Laura, now 7, told her mother about sleeping on the beach in Costa Rica. The once-plump girl had become thin. Her autistic daughter, Leigh, now 6, hadn't received treatment. When Leigh smiled, Belford noticed her teeth had rotted.
The most changed child was Karen, who left at age 2. She had transformed from a baby into a 4-year-old who could speak and run alongside her sisters.
Family abductions are less likely to result in death or sexual abuse than stranger abductions, but psychologists warn that the experience can still greatly impact a child's development. In three decades counseling family abduction victims, clinical psychologist Linda Gunsberg has seen children with trust, identity and attachment issues. The deceit and the abrupt changes in living conditions can cause a child to be confused, anxious and depressed.
"The younger girls say they miss Daddy," said Belford, now 37. "I tell them he's in time out right now." Laura, the oldest, is doing well in the second grade, but she continues to experience nightmares. During the time she was abducted, she was told her mother was dead, Belford said.
"She's in her angry phase," Belford said. "I tell her it's OK to love them and miss them because they are still your dad and grandma."
In September, the grandmother, Lenore Matusiewicz, 64, was sentenced to 1½ years in prison for her role in the abduction. She is being held in Baylor Women's Correctional Institution in Delaware.
"She is very sorry for her choice," said her attorney, Demetrio Duarte Jr., based at a Texas firm. "In life, it's not all black and all white. To be severed from mom wasn't the right thing to do. To be severed from grandma isn't the right thing to do. It's just tragic.
Also little warning to mothers of infants: if a mother doesn’t have legal custody of her children, one of these so-called parental abductions can result in a custody switch as the police do not always follow up if the abductor is a father, even a recreational sperm donor w/o his name on the child’s birth certificate. If he manages to get his name on the certificate in this interim period, he can race down to the courthouse with it and get himself named as the custodial parent.
One of the stats the FBI had released was that mothers keep their kids longer when they are abducted and I think the reason this happens is that men manipulate the system better and wind up becoming the custodial parent...so it's wiped off the record as an abduction...
Also once again we find some woman helping this jerk, his mother. Thank god she got jail time. Often these idiots get away with it…Imagine what kind of a life these girls would have had as they entered puberty living in a trailor in a place like Nicaragua. It remains me of these terrible people who are always abducting young girls to countries in the middle east. PS a horror!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/30/delaware.family.abductions/index.html
The untold tale of family abductions: 3 girls missing, an international hunt
By Stephanie Chen, CNN
December 9, 2009
Christine Belford was reunited with her three daughters, who were kidnapped by their father for 19 months.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• More than 200,000 incidents of family abductions occur in the U.S. each year
• Christine Belford's three daughters were kidnapped by their father in 2007
• Authorities launched a search that spanned at least four countries and several states
• The children were found in Nicaragua, living in a trailer with their father and grandmother
RELATED TOPICS
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Missing Children
• National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
• Delaware
(CNN) -- Christine Belford agreed to let her ex-husband take their three daughters to Disney World for a two-week vacation. In August 2007, the Delaware mother kissed her little blond girls goodbye.
Those two weeks were unsettling for Belford, then 34. The couple went through a bitter divorce in 2006 which resulted in joint custody of the children. Belford said when the girls were with their dad, they were always difficult to reach.
Two days into the trip, Belford connected by cell phone with her oldest daughter, Laura, then 5. Already homesick, chubby-faced Laura cried as her father checked them into a hotel room.
"I want to come home," Laura pleaded with her mother.
But Laura and her sisters wouldn't return to their Delaware home for 19 months.
Their father, David Matusiewicz, pleaded guilty to international parental kidnapping and bank fraud charges in September. He faces up to 30 years in prison and is scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday. CNN attempted to reach Matusiewichz in jail through his attorney, Heriberto "Eddie" Medrano, in Houston, Texas, but Medrano did not return the calls.
Kidnapping victims like Laura and her sisters -- Leigh, then 4, and Karen, then 2 -- often don't make national headlines the way victims of alleged abductions by strangers do, such as Jaycee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart. But each year, most child abductions are perpetrated by someone the victim knows.
The U.S. Department of Justice reports more than 200,000 children are victims of family abductions in the United States each year. Of that figure, about 56,500 cases are reported to local law enforcement authorities and require investigation, studies show. In comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reports an average of 115 stranger abductions a year.
Family abductions commonly involve children under 6, too young to comprehend that a crime is occurring, studies show.
Over the last few decades, high divorce rates have led to custody disputes and to kidnappings, experts say. Yet the public still perceives family abductions as a less serious crime because the victims are with a family member who is less likely to hurt them.
"The view is that this is not really a criminal problem," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. "[The view is] this is a civil problem and lawyers need to work it out."
There are 1,600 unsolved family abduction cases involving children who have been missing for more than six months, he said.
A puzzling escape
In 15 years on the police force, Cpl. Jeff Shriner of the New Castle, Delaware, Police Department said he found Matusiewicz's abduction of his children to be the most bizarre missing person case he'd encountered.
Normally, the perpetrator in a family abduction is located within hours or days. Sometimes, abductions occur because the parent is angry, Shriner said, but they usually change their minds within a few days.
But Matusiewicz "was a needle in a haystack and that needle was buried very deep," said Shriner, who was assigned as the lead detective on the case.
Shriner quickly determined the Disney World vacation never happened.
Sales records showed Matusiewicz's mother, Lenore, had purchased a 33-foot Winnebago mobile home weeks before the disappearance, according to court records. She also was missing.
That month, Matusiewicz had sold his optometry business to a partner, police said. He had also committed mortgage fraud by forging his wife's signature on a $249,000 loan from a bank in Delaware, police said.
The couple had met in 1993 when Belford worked as a receptionist at an eye doctor's office in Delaware. Matusiewicz worked as an optometrist there. They were married in October 2001.
The couple's union became problematic in 2003 when his parents moved in, Belford said. Matusiewicz was a loving father to his girls, but during the breakup, she said, the couple had problems.
Some parents say they take their children away to protect them from an abusive or unfit parent, said Liss Hart-Haviv, founding executive director of Take Root, a national organization that works with victims of family abduction. In other instances, Hart-Haviv said, parents may take children out of spite.
"The critical thing to remember," she said, "is there's not one face to family abduction. It's a multifaceted issue."
Abduction goes abroad
In most family abduction cases, studies show victims often remain within the country. But circumstances are changing. Easier access to foreign countries and a growing number of intercontinental marriages have made international hideouts more common, missing children experts said.
In October, Japanese authorities released an American man, Christopher Savoie, who was jailed for allegedly trying to take back his children from his estranged wife. His wife, Noriko Savoie, had fled with the children to Japan in August, authorities say. Japanese officials said the couple's U.S.-recognized divorce did not apply in Japan. Christopher Savoie, who was not charged, returned to the U.S. The children remained with their mother in Japan.
A multilateral treaty known as the Hague Convention was ratified in 1980. It provides member countries with rules on returning abducted children under the age of 16. Today, more than 80 countries have signed the treaty. But with countries that haven't, like Japan, determining what happens to the children is murky.
In Belford's case, local and federal agencies initially launched a search for the girls. They began in New Jersey, where Matusiewicz was raised. Then they combed through dozens of leads in Virginia and West Virginia. A tip led them to become suspicious the girls might be in Texas or Mexico.
By November 2007, authorities shifted their attention to Central America. They hunted for Matusiewicz in Panama and Costa Rica over the next year. Locating him was tricky, authorities say, because he relied on cash transactions and limited phone calls with his family in the United States.
"He was very smart and did a lot of things before leaving and during the time he was gone to cover his tracks," said Rick Long, chief deputy U.S. Marshal in Delaware, who helped with the search efforts.
It wasn't until March 2009 that a lead, on which authorities declined to elaborate, brought law enforcement officers to a town about 40 miles outside of the Managua, Nicaragua.
There, at the end of a 19-month search, authorities discovered the girls inside a messy Winnebago trailer, overfilled with items from their Delaware home, said a U.S. Marshal who arrived on the scene. Matusiewicz had less than $100.
Reunited at last
Christine Belford took the first flight she could to Nicaragua. Her girls were healthy, though disheveled. The eldest, Laura, now 7, told her mother about sleeping on the beach in Costa Rica. The once-plump girl had become thin. Her autistic daughter, Leigh, now 6, hadn't received treatment. When Leigh smiled, Belford noticed her teeth had rotted.
The most changed child was Karen, who left at age 2. She had transformed from a baby into a 4-year-old who could speak and run alongside her sisters.
Family abductions are less likely to result in death or sexual abuse than stranger abductions, but psychologists warn that the experience can still greatly impact a child's development. In three decades counseling family abduction victims, clinical psychologist Linda Gunsberg has seen children with trust, identity and attachment issues. The deceit and the abrupt changes in living conditions can cause a child to be confused, anxious and depressed.
"The younger girls say they miss Daddy," said Belford, now 37. "I tell them he's in time out right now." Laura, the oldest, is doing well in the second grade, but she continues to experience nightmares. During the time she was abducted, she was told her mother was dead, Belford said.
"She's in her angry phase," Belford said. "I tell her it's OK to love them and miss them because they are still your dad and grandma."
In September, the grandmother, Lenore Matusiewicz, 64, was sentenced to 1½ years in prison for her role in the abduction. She is being held in Baylor Women's Correctional Institution in Delaware.
"She is very sorry for her choice," said her attorney, Demetrio Duarte Jr., based at a Texas firm. "In life, it's not all black and all white. To be severed from mom wasn't the right thing to do. To be severed from grandma isn't the right thing to do. It's just tragic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)