Lobbying in Sacramento today.....

[irishgrl]

speaking in front of the Judiciary Committee on behalf of California's children in support of SB 544(Battin). I've been told the CA Judicial Council is dead set against this bill because it limits Judicial discretion. I say its high time we did, especially when it comes to placing the welfare of children FIRST. Senator Battin wrote this bill because I told him about my case and he felt this was an issue that needed to be rectified.

those who are interested in the text of the bill (Jason? Heather?) can go here:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_544_bill_20050329_amended_sen.html

an update on SB 33 which was sponsored by PROTECT (http://www.PROTECT.org) SB 33(Battin) passed the Judiciary Committee on April 19th. This is a minor miracle, and I hope a sign that things are changing in CA with respect to the treatment of abusers/abused. (in a nutshell, SB 33 ensures family members who molest children get the same penalty as strangers who molest children. CA has protected these family members for far too long. NOTE: SB 33 is still on very shaky ground as there are influential forces lining up against it. See the most recent update at the PROTECT site.

finally, thanks to all of you for your support of me in this cause :xoxo:

[amber]

Who the heck would line up against that?! Maybe if I read the text I will find the answer of why....

[amber]

What is the justification (as much as you don't agree with it) for there being a difference in treatment? Is it common in America or is CA behind the rest on this issue?
I think it's because most of the legislature molests their own kids...

[irishgrl]

I think it's because most of the legislature molests their own kids...

That is what a lot of people think....also: when CA took up the issue of penalties for family abusers back in the 80's, there were some very influential father's rights groups who lobbied against "same crime same penalty". In the majority of cases where a man fights for custody, he is usually an abuser. Abusers dont like losing power over their victims. Because deep down, men all sympathize with each other (and women and children are outsiders) its highly unusual to get a judge (assuming he's male) to put the needs of the child first or the concerns of the mother. The attitude in court is: the mother is lying. the child is lying.

nevermind that the child couldnt possibly KNOW about the stuff they are reporting unless it was happening...

btw: the bill I went to support yesterday was pulled from the calendar by the Senator, apparently I missed his phone call (he called 1/2 hr after I already left) so, I get all the way down there and sit thru a boring afternoon of ADA arguments for nothing. I did stay to support a similar bill, and I did meet with several other advocates, which was good. but all in all a very disappointing day.

then I get home and I have a msg from my attorney (my court date was also that same day) and I am being forced to pay supervised visitation fees to the tune of $600/mo, which is almost as much as my mortgage, and it just looks like things are getting gloomier all the time. I cant understand why I am being punished for bringing forth evidence of abuse!! unless....its because I am a woman and the court's attitude is anti-woman. What else can it be? Ive done nothing wrong and the other side is a CONVICTED child molester and the court is bending over backwards to accomodate him. the whole thing makes me sick :distress:

[irishgrl]

I'm really sorry about all of that. One would think a conviction on their record would limit the struggle.

I'm a little confused though. You said this:

What do you mean here? I don't know what it's like over there but I've never seen an indication that it's drastically different. Over here, upon divorce or separation, the mother gets the children and the father get visitation. I do have sympathy for fathers who care about their children just as much and those who remain in unhappy marriages knowing that otherwise they will rarely see their children. How can the majority of those fighting for custody be abusers? Perhaps this is a statistic but even then there must be some reasoning behind this that is maybe conditional to some clause in the law. I hate the way fathers are usually left with nothing in terms of family after a divorce. It's one instance where I think women are given the upper hand. I'm curious as to what you mean by this, surely most fathers suffer from divorces probably more than mothers and they can't be denied their right to want to seek more visitation or equal custody. Those would not all be abusers. Maybe you're referring to something else...?

In CA, the courts operate under the presumption that its in the best interests of the child to have contact with both parents, even (apparently) when one of them is a convicted molester or domestic violence abuser. Automatic custody to the mother is a thing of the past here. There is a backlash that promotes the idea that women are liars if they report abuse and THEY come under the spotlight if they come forward. If the kids report abuse, either THEY are lying or "their mothers coached them". This is the line of Parental Alienation Syndrome" (PAS) a BOGUS syndrome concocted by a known misogynist who determined the best thing to do to children who claim abuse is take them away from their mother and place them with the actual abuser.
Dr. Gardner is now dead thank Gawd. what a crank HE was. He lobbied unsuccessfully to have his manufactured "syndrome" put into the Psychologist's (dont remember the name but it amounted to) "handbook" or professional Journal which details various psychological conditions and treatments etc.

Its been shown statistically that when there is no abuse going on, there is usually no contentious custody fight, the parents are able (generally) to work things out. Abusers are far more likely to FIGHT for custody. and 70% of the time, they win custody. In fact, if a mother brings forth evidence of abuse, the court is likely to punish HER by taking custody away from her and making HER have to endure supervised visits. I can get you statistics, but it will have to be later, as I have to get to work. As always, it is dangerous to generalize, but I have researched into this pretty extensively. Women in general are treated very poorly by Family Courts across the nation. the stories are heartbreaking.

[amber]

I noticed when I went to the website you put a link for, that, strangely, a lady senator from SF opposed the protection bill. :confused:

[irishgrl]

I noticed when I went to the website you put a link for, that, strangely, a lady senator from SF opposed the protection bill. :confused:
yes, Migden is opposed. her partner defends sexual abusers and apparently is an influence on her decision to oppose. Perata could save SB 33 (sponsored by PROTECT) but is not likely to. there's more than just politics going on here, from what I hear its a bit too closeknit a political arena, too many people with too close of ties to be unbiased.

just an FYI: MY bill, the one I went to lobby for was SB 544. different bill, same author.

[irishgrl]

I wasn't aware of what you're talking about because of all the divorced parents I know, the father is allowed the children every second weekend. As these are caring parents I know that is a huge struggle for them and probably something they would seek a change in if it weren't such an up-hill battle for them.

This is only indirectly related but how are mothers who do not report abuse treated? Is it a slap on the hand or can they be convicted also? Would the child ever be sent back into her custody? This is assuming it's quite serious and quite obvious.

CA law makes it a crime to NOT report. a parent has a duty to protect their child and if abuse is occurring and one parent doesnt report against the other abusing parent, the child(ren) are taken out of the home until the abuser is out of the home. it is a sad situation all around.

as for divorced fathers who only get alternate weekends, that is a pretty common custody arrangement, and generally, courts tend to preserve the status quo as much as possible...in other words, whatever the timeshare arrangement was before the divorce (typically stay at home mom, working dad) the kids stay in the family home to preserve as much stability as possible. In the custody arrangements you speak of, did the parents arrive at a custody arrangement together? or did a Court have to impose one on them? Understand, I am not saying that every father who wants shared custody is an abuser, what I am saying is, abusers are usually control freaks who see a custody/visitation situation as a power struggle that they MUST win at all costs. no matter who gets hurt along the way. its sick.

[irishgrl]

So the children can be removed until the abuser is removed but are they placed back in the care of the parent who didn't report it? Can that happen?

For atleast two of the cases I'm thinking of in regards to custody, it was imposed by the court. For one of them, the mother is a tad nuts and the child has expressed that he wishes he could live with his father. For another it's a matter of the father's wishes basically being ignored.

Lux, try not to judge the non reporting mother too harshly, many times she is a victim of abuse too. its not unusual for the abuser to make threats such as "you'll never see your kids again if you say anything" or they become even more violent if the mother attempts to leave or get the children out. The kind of abusers I am talking about are bullies and control freaks. they like the power they get by keeping their victims in a constant state of fear, and they need to keep their victims close at hand so they can reinforce the fear factor on a regular or semi regular basis. There is mental abuse as well as physical abuse that can go on, and even financial entrapment. many of these mothers are poorly educated and know they cannot support themselves or their children and are unfortunately dependant on the abuser's income. Welfare does NOT pay enough to live on.

re: the two cases you mention, I cant comment because I dont know the other side....but the one boy who wants to live with his father, how old is he? is he old enough for his wishes to be considered? if so, maybe the father can have a modification of the current arrangement.

[irishgrl]

What if there is no abuse elsewhere, none in her past and none from the husband? What if she's just so uptight that she looks down upon those with a divorce next to their name and so anything like this next to her name is out of the question? And she's even outraged at those who attempt to report abuse. The abuser is a complete control freak, constantly reinforcing that but they happened to get lucky in terms of a partner who would be too embarassed for her own sake to do anything? And she's not poorly educated at all, she has her own income and comes from a well-off family. In that case, and considering if the signs were really obvious, would the kid ever be put back with her?
Im not sure I follow that first part but the second part seems straightforward enuff....so, you are saying there is no financial entrapment, she could get a job, and she is not the one being abused, and the only thing preventing her from leaving a bad situation is her disapproval of divorce? All I can say to that is that human beings are complex and there may be other dynamics going on that could explain the co-dependency....I am not excusing her, if the children are being abused and she isnt reporting it and it is very obvious to other people, I am a bit surprised that NO ONE has come forward with this info to the authorities. If the children are older (say, 10yrs or more) I would think THEY might be encouraged to report. Obviously the mother has issues and should receive some sort of therapy. If she is an unfit mother, the children should be placed with another family member who will properly take care of them. I dont know all the details and I am not a Counselor (yet!) but that is what I as a layperson would suggest....

as for the information I mentioned earlier, I found some links with numbers,facts and figures:

Statistics (http://www.rustytullius.com/cm/statistics.htm)

Abuse facts (http://www.goodtouchbadtouch.com/abousefacts.php)

[irishgrl]

Thanks for the link by the way. I was just asking for someone I know.
I dont know HOW the situation would be perceived, a lot depends upon the amount of evidence that can be gathered. Pictures, videotape, audiotape, doctor's visits, teachers observations, all can go a long way toward creating credibility.

any time a child is abused it is a sad situation, and the PARENT has a duty to protect. anyone who KNOWS of abuse or even suspects it should make a phone call, even if it is anonymous, so that the kids are spared futher harm. Their mother needs to get over herself and put her kids' welfare first rather than her personal belief regarding "divorce" its too bad this is happening, and maybe someone will intervene. Good luck. :angel:

[irishgrl]

Thanks, sorry for all that.
No need to apologize, glad to help (I hope I helped!) and I hope things change for the child(ren).

[SuzeQuze]

...

then I get home and I have a msg from my attorney (my court date was also that same day) and I am being forced to pay supervised visitation fees to the tune of $600/mo, which is almost as much as my mortgage, and it just looks like things are getting gloomier all the time. I cant understand why I am being punished for bringing forth evidence of abuse!! unless....its because I am a woman and the court's attitude is anti-woman. What else can it be? Ive done nothing wrong and the other side is a CONVICTED child molester and the court is bending over backwards to accomodate him. the whole thing makes me sick :distress:

I'm really confused. What is a "supervised visitation fee"? I have never heard of such a thing!

BTW, do you watch Judging Amy? I just started watching, and of course it's over, but I love her. :nod: Stevie does too!

[irishgrl]

I'm really confused. What is a "supervised visitation fee"? I have never heard of such a thing!

BTW, do you watch Judging Amy? I just started watching, and of course it's over, but I love her. :nod: Stevie does too!

visitation can be supervised by professionals, or by private parties(usually family members). Professionals follow established judicial guidelines with respect to sexual abuse and dont allow lap sitting, picture taking, hair combing, private conversations, no accompanying the child to the bathroom or changing their clothes etc.....they charge a fee for this service. The agency that WAS doing the service had a sliding scale fee based on our combined incomes (puts us in the $60/hr bracket), which is then divided in half....... but since the ex makes $1000-$1500 more per month than I do, it is unfairly weighted against me. MY half (at $30/hr) comes to $600 month (total of 20 hours divided by 4 days The Judge ordered me to pay this fee (normally the custodial parent doesnt have to pay) when I brought forth evidence of abuse.

That Judge needs to be defrocked and I wish I knew how...Im considering writing a complaint to the Grand Jury but my mom is afraid it might work against me if I do that before my case is over....

[irishgrl]

Sorry for being misleading, it's not in the present, it's from the past. I was just wondering how they're supposed to deal with it now, not necessarily from a specifically legal point of view (otherwise I'd just look up the exact laws) but an informed opinion. There is no evidence left and it's all done with now, but for obtaining some kind of peace of mind. Thanks.

Im sure there are websites relating to adult survivors of abuse, and I would advise them to search out support groups. here is a link for Survivors support groups (http://dmoz.org/Society/Support_Groups/Sexual_Abuse/Survivors/)
another link (http://www.ascasupport.org/)
online forum for survivors (http://www.12stepforums.net/healingroom/)
good source of info (http://www.coolnurse.com/sexual_abuse_adult.htm)

btw: everyone develops their own coping mechanisms and who is to say whether a person hasnt in fact made peace with the past? If not, I hope those links will help...at least, they will provide a starting point. :angel:

[SuzeQuze]

visitation can be supervised by professionals, or by private parties(usually family members). Professionals follow established judicial guidelines with respect to sexual abuse and dont allow lap sitting, picture taking, hair combing, private conversations, no accompanying the child to the bathroom or changing their clothes etc.....they charge a fee for this service. The agency that WAS doing the service had a sliding scale fee based on our combined incomes (puts us in the $60/hr bracket), which is then divided in half....... but since the ex makes $1000-$1500 more per month than I do, it is unfairly weighted against me. MY half (at $30/hr) comes to $600 month (total of 20 hours divided by 4 days The Judge ordered me to pay this fee (normally the custodial parent doesnt have to pay) when I brought forth evidence of abuse.

That Judge needs to be defrocked and I wish I knew how...Im considering writing a complaint to the Grand Jury but my mom is afraid it might work against me if I do that before my case is over....

Jesus. Reading this is bending my brain, I do NOT understand. :distress: :mad: I can't believe you are being put through this sh*t.

What happens if you refuse to pay?

[irishgrl]

Jesus. Reading this is bending my brain, I do NOT understand. :distress: :mad: I can't believe you are being put through this sh*t.

What happens if you refuse to pay?

Ive heard stories of mothers losing their homes, hocking everything they have and going bankrupt trying to pay attorneys, or other unfair costs (such as my having to pay supervised visitation fees)...no one CARES if the caretaker parent is put in a financial bind. In fact, thats the whole point. Many times, the opposition does their best to postpone and postpone in an effort to run up the mother's attorney's fees, and this happens far too often and no one seems to think about the fact that the ONE person putting a roof over the child's head is destroyed merely because she had the NERVE to report abuse.

(remember, I am not talking about cases where the parents are able to come to an agreement on their own. and it DOES happen, But I'd bet $$$ that there arent any abusers in THOSE cases. Or else, there is an absent parent who just doesnt care, and really, after what I've been thru, I'd consider an absent parent a BLESSING)

[SuzeQuze]

Ive heard stories of mothers losing their homes, hocking everything they have and going bankrupt trying to pay attorneys, or other unfair costs (such as my having to pay supervised visitation fees)...no one CARES if the caretaker parent is put in a financial bind. In fact, thats the whole point. Many times, the opposition does their best to postpone and postpone in an effort to run up the mother's attorney's fees, and this happens far too often and no one seems to think about the fact that the ONE person putting a roof over the child's head is destroyed merely because she had the NERVE to report abuse.

(remember, I am not talking about cases where the parents are able to come to an agreement on their own. and it DOES happen, But I'd bet $$$ that there arent any abusers in THOSE cases. Or else, there is an absent parent who just doesnt care, and really, after what I've been thru, I'd consider an absent parent a BLESSING)

This is really sad, and evil. You are a strong lady.

[irishgrl]

So unless you pay half for the professional supervisor it would have to be a private supervisor? Would you yourself get to pick who it be? It's seems more risky in the sense that it's not as threatening to them, like can they really reinforce those rules upon another adult unless they're in a professional position to? Perhaps, depending on the person I guess. Obviously you've thought all this through many times for your own case.

to tell the truth, I dont know what would happen if I didnt pay...Im sure I would be sent to collections which would impact my credit score at the very least. As for the merits of professional vs private, Professional Supervisors are REQUIRED to follow the Judicial guidelines for visits, which is FAR safer for the child and keeps an eye on the visiting parent to make sure nothing shady occurs. Unfortunately, I cant afford the fees so I dont know what will happen. I dont have family I can call on to help me really, my oldest daughter is working two jobs and cant help, and the other one's life is too much of a mess tho she loves her brother and would do her best, she isnt savvy enuff about what the father is or is NOT allowed to do during visits.

Awhile back, the father's parents did the supervising (over my objections) and they allowed the father to give my son a shower, he wasnt even in "line of sight" which is a bare minimum requirement for supervision, so you can see the problems with having non professionals do the duty. I actually had to go to the DA's office to get an order preventing any further visits and then I had to go to court to have the Judge order these folks to do a better job. To make matters worse, the father's parents are in denial about their son, they refuse to accept that he is a molester therefore they werent vigilant enuff.

Just to give you an idea of how bad this is, ordinarily, the custodial parent doesnt have to pay any fees, but in MY case, the Judge who had allowed UNSUPERVISED visits, blew his STACK (I kid you not, my daughter heard the Judge cussing and yelling all the way in the courtroom and he was in his CHAMBERS!) and because I showed him what a mistake he made, he punished me. Judges HATE HATE HATE to be shown they are wrong. you cant argue with them you cant sue them, they have ALL the power. and MY Judge used his power to punish me. As the parent, I am duty bound to protect, I HAD to call attention to the abuse. So, I pay the price.
So, yes, I do my best to advocate for law change, I wish there was a way to make Judges more accountable....I see the ABA has created a newer, more flexible Judicial evaluation system which may more effectively hold Judges' feet to the fire.... I sure hope so anyway :o

[irishgrl]

This is really sad, and evil. You are a strong lady.
Thank you for that...I just put one foot in front of the other and kiss my boy's head bunches and bunches and let him know every minute just how precious he is to me. He is my Angel boy :angel: There are lots and lots of children and moms crying out there, its a National tragedy, a disgrace. I hope the young people of today can turn things around and make better laws and decisions. People like YOU guys, who give a sh*t, who are aware and sensitive, and active. YOU are the hope of the world :xoxo:

[irishgrl]

I just don't understand how the treatment for family members can be so lenient. Most of this occurs between someone known to the child and that site you linked to quoted 50% of it occurs in the home. Not to imply it's any better coming from a stranger but atleast that would be a random event, not as likely to be repeated by the offender on the child. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that within a home, it's not likely to be a one-off event, which you'd think would steer towards stricter treatment. If it were really severe, worthy of a considerable prison sentence (worthy of it atleast), would this visitation still apply once they were released? Paedophiles who have a history of attacking within the community, upon release are specifically barred from contact with schools etc. and the community is notified of their location. If a paedophile who attacked within the family is released, would they be allowed this visitation with the victim?

Lux, the reason the penalties are less severe at present is because father's rights groups have powerful lobbyists. Men will stop at nothing to keep the power they have. Women are a threat to that power and one of the easiest ways to bring a woman low is thru her children. I have an article I want you all to read, it is a real eye opener:

Biased Family Court System Hurts Mothers
Run Date: 09/05/01
By Garland Waller
WEnews contributor

Behind closed doors of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse mothers and children. The writer says family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child.

Editor's Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women's Enews or NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Commentator Garland Waller

(WOMENSENEWS)--Studies show that in approximately 70 percent of challenged cases, battering parents have been able to convince authorities during custody battles that their victim is unfit or undeserving of sole custody, according to a recent report published by the American Judges Foundation.

That statement would have once shocked me, but no more. Nor am I surprised when I read that a family court judge has awarded custody of a 3-year-old girl to the father who has violently beaten her mother. I do not even lift an eyebrow when a 2-year-old boy, who comes home from unsupervised visitation with his dad, has a diaper filled with his own rectal blood and that same child is later turned over to his father on a full-time basis. And when a mother is thrown into jail, denied the right to ever see her children again, because she brought up the issue of child abuse in a family court, I'm sickened, but not shocked.

These injustices are commonplace today in the closed-door family court system. These courts often claim to operate in a manner consistent with the "best interests of the child." In practice this often means that a judge, often a male judge, biased and imperious, defines that phrase. These judges decide, time and time again, when a woman raises the allegation of sexual abuse in a custody dispute, that it is she who will lose her children forever.

I used to think that the family court system was basically fair. That was before my childhood friend, Diane Hofheimer, asked me to consider doing a documentary on the family courts. She had taught herself the law so that she could work with her attorney husband, Charlie Hofheimer, in their Virginia law practice.
Thousands of Mothers Lose Their Children to Abusive Fathers

Representing only women in divorce and custody cases, Diane and Charlie began my education with one grisly case. I thought it was a fluke, but I agreed to look at some of the legal documents. And so began my journey into the dark world of family courts.

What I learned was that thousands of women are losing custody of their children to men with histories of violence and sexual abuse. Sure, these cases are complicated, but it doesn't take a legal genius to figure out that it's not good for kids to watch daddy break mommy's jaw. Research shows a high correlation between domestic violence and child sexual abuse.

Garland Waller Says: We need a real overhaul, but let's start with some basics:

* Open the courtrooms to the public and make judges accountable for their rulings.




* Get rid of the "best interests of the child" as the standard for custody and replace it with a new concept called the "approximation standard." That means that the judge should try to approximate the same setup for the children that existed before the divorce. If mom was with the kids 70 percent of the time before the divorce, she would be with them 70 percent of the time after the divorce. In non-contested custody cases, the mother and father generally agree to this on their own.




* Most significantly, the allegation of child abuse in a custody battle must be considered a rebuttable presumption, that is, that the sworn testimony of a parent or child claiming abuse is presumed to be true unless and until the accused sufficiently challenges its veracity.



"We have created a system that purports to be a gatekeeper--keeping victims from victimizers--but the system is really the welcome mat for victimizers to have access to the victims," says Richard Ducote, a nationally recognized child advocate and attorney. He adds that there has been virtually no change in the process during the past two decades.

In fact, a pilot study in the early 1990s by the California Protective Parent Association and Mothers of Lost Children found that 91 percent of fathers who were identified by their children as perpetrators of sexual abuse received full or partial unsupervised custody of the children and that in 54 percent of cases the non-abusing mother was placed on supervised visitation.

One primary reason for what many consider a disastrous outcome, Ducote and other experts say, is the popularity of the theories of Dr. Richard Gardner, whose ideas are apparently more persuasive to judges than the testimony of battered women and victimized children.

Gardner's brainchild is Parental Alienation Syndrome. This is the name given for the practice of one parent saying disparaging things about the other parent in an attempt to alienate the child from the ex-spouse. This so-called syndrome is based on anecdotal evidence. Gardner's books on the subject are self-published, something that should give judges and experts pause, even though he does look good on paper.

He's a professor at Columbia Medical School and has been publishing papers for two decades. Fathers' rights groups love him.

Not addressed by Dr. Gardner and his adherents are what a mother should say to a child raped by her father. They merely discount all such allegations as examples of parental alienation syndrome, or some variation of it under a different name such as SAID (Sexual Allegations in Divorce) Syndrome, Malicious Mother Syndrome or some other fabricated condition.

These experts are certainly free to believe whatever they wish to, but much to the harm of thousands of children and their caring, protective parents, these ideas have been accepted by personnel in most of the family courts in the country: the judges, court-appointed lawyers charged with protecting the child's interests, and custody evaluators such as psychologists and social workers.

In essentially every case in which courts place children with abusers, despite substantial evidence of sexual abuse or domestic violence and no evidence of fabrication on the protecting parent's part, it is the parental alienation syndrome that is used by the judge, the evaluator or the child's lawyer to ignore and discount the abuse evidence and to wrongfully construe all of the child's symptoms as evidence of alienation.
Parental Alienation Syndrome Used to Wrongly Blame Mothers

My colleague Hofheimer is convinced that the so-called syndrome is to psychology what voodoo is to surgery.

"What would a good mother do," I asked Dr. Gardner two years ago when interviewing him for the documentary, "if her child told her of sexual abuse by his or her father."

His answer: "What would she say? Don't you say that about your father. If you do, I'll beat you."

That's on tape and I have a signed release.

In researching my documentary, I have met many honest, caring and courageous mothers who, for speaking the truth, have been publicly called crazy, hysterical and delusional, and labeled with all kinds of pseudo-disorders for being strong and for fighting for the safety of their children.

Yet some of them have been nearly broken by the family court system, and the damage to their children is immeasurable. We must act now to begin reforming our family courts.

Garland Waller is an assistant professor in the Television Department at Boston University's College of Communication. She has produced more than 10 award-winning documentaries.
For more information:

Diane Hofheimer and Charlie Hofheimer:
http://www.virginiadivorceattorney.com/

Divorced From Justice:
http://divorcedfromjustice.com/home.html

California Protective Parents Association:
http://www.protectiveparents.com/

Family Law Courts.com:
http://www.familylawcourts.com/statenewyork.html

Stop Family Violence:
http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/

"Domestic Violence and the Courtroom: Understanding the Problem ... Knowing the Victim," American Judges Association and American Judges Foundation:
http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/domviol/booklet.html

"Small Justice: Little Justice in America's Family Courts," award-winning documentary by Garland Waller:
http://www.smalljustice.com/


Copyright 2003 Women's eNews Inc.


(note: I am proud to say I am affiliated with California Protective Parents Association, Justice for Children, and PROTECT)

[irishgrl]

I just don't understand how the treatment for family members can be so lenient. Most of this occurs between someone known to the child and that site you linked to quoted 50% of it occurs in the home. Not to imply it's any better coming from a stranger but atleast that would be a random event, not as likely to be repeated by the offender on the child. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that within a home, it's not likely to be a one-off event, which you'd think would steer towards stricter treatment. If it were really severe, worthy of a considerable prison sentence (worthy of it atleast), would this visitation still apply once they were released? Paedophiles who have a history of attacking within the community, upon release are specifically barred from contact with schools etc. and the community is notified of their location. If a paedophile who attacked within the family is released, would they be allowed this visitation with the victim?

the short answer is: yes
sick isnt it?