Men and Domestic Violence

By Heidi Hiatt

2010 has been the year of betrayals, breakups, and divorces. I continue to be shocked at the number of relationships falling down around me.

While there are two sides to every story, it seems to me that it is becoming increasingly common for one party in a relationship to carry the majority of the blame. It’s like the world is dividing into two camps in anticipation of some great shift, narcissists and those who try to follow the Golden Rule.

This week I had the opportunity to catch up with several longtime friends and discuss their situations. It hit me that in nearly every breakup I’ve seen this year, it is the stable, hard-working, faithful, committed partner that does not abuse drugs or alcohol getting dumped like garbage.

Every one of these people openly admits their quirks and the things they need to work on, but none of those issues are divorce-worthy. Many are normal human shortcomings and residual trauma that can be worked through. I see these people as attractive, intelligent, fun, and successful, but their partners have decided that the grass is greener with more risky people.

Risky is the correct word. I’ve witnessed children being put on back burners to accommodate their parent’s games and used as weapons. I’ve seen how one parent’s hatred of the other conditions the children to become abusive, hate-filled people themselves. It is heartbreaking to see children form bonds and then be forced to break bonds with the people who are cycled through their parents’ lives.

Unfaithful partners are using their unwitting faithful counterparts as child care and their families as a resource to facilitate their liaisons. In one case, a friend’s in-laws had actually been encouraging the other woman’s presence and involvement while their son was still married. Other people find themselves used financially, or being pushed away when things aren’t adding up.

It is not unusual for families to enable a relative’s pathology even when that risks hurting their children. Enabling an unhealthy or dishonest relationship is sanctioning poor parental choices and setting the kids up for their own lifetime of instability. Children are often the last people who matter in the midst of these games.

One person told me how painful it is to watch another woman—the “friend” who decided to “help” her husband and kids at a critical time—end up with her house, her former vehicle, and many of her belongings. Another told me how their spouse demanded the divorce, but tries to control who they see and to keep them on hold in case they want them back in the future. It seems that a significant number of people are practicing this “Plan B” narcissism—if their affairs don’t work out, they want the option of going back.

The lengths that people go to in an effort to legitimize these unhealthy new relationships seem to be part of some sick rush they get by having affairs. One of the most common tactics seems to be blame-shifting, an attempt to make everything that’s wrong look like it’s caused by the faithful partner. Another is flat-out character assassination, slandering or falsely accusing that partner to relieve themselves of taking responsibility for their actions.

Yet a third is embarking on a public relations mission to build their new partner up at the expense of the old. If a person has to consciously try to win support for what they’re doing at the expense of another, there’s a good reason to question what they’re doing. When I see this happening, it reminds me of playground bullies that only feel good about themselves by putting someone else down.

The mental shift that unfaithful people undergo is frightening. They seem to have no genuine concern for any aspect of their partner’s well-being, physical, psychological, emotional, or spiritual. They recklessly put their partners’ health at risk and play head games with them either to avoid getting caught or punish them for not letting them have their cake and eat it too.

This has me wondering if deceptive, dangerous, or dysfunctional is the new “sexy”. Pop culture certainly seems to glamorize those “d” words—collectively, a darkness that destroys committed relationships. I understand the attraction that bad boys can have for women and bad girls can have to men. In those conditions we are able to indulge our own unresolved character issues and desire to rescue others.

But you can have a healthy kind of crazy, “bad”, or adventurous within a committed relationship too. To me, developing that sounds way more fun than risking my partner and family’s well-being to break a vow or a covenant. I would much rather spend time working on the tough issues in a committed relationship, reaping hard-earned rewards, than flitting around in dishonest, secretive hookups that won’t last.

This may seem like a long lead-in to the subject of men and domestic violence, but the point of mentioning all of these behaviors is that they go both ways. Women are abused, especially physically, more than men, but after hearing friends talk about female-on-male physical violence, control issues, stalking, and cheating, it’s clear that domestic violence is not a gender issue. Abuse is equally wrong whether a man or woman is committing it.

Statistics about domestic violence against men are probably skewed since it is very likely to be underreported. Not only is it awkward and embarrassing for men to publicly admit that they have been hurt by a woman, but many authorities won’t take them seriously or file reports when they do. The “you’re a man, deal with it” attitude, and many stereotypes about domestic violence, run rampant in this country. Men may think that reporting abuse or seeking help for it is a sign of weakness.

Reality is that men can be victims of psychological battering, physical violence, stalking (in growing numbers), manipulation, financial control, sexual abuse, and everything that a woman can. Somehow our society doesn’t want to believe these crimes and behaviors are as serious if they happen to a man.

Our culture has normalized aberrant behaviors in women, such as striking a man in the face, putting them down publicly, controlling them through sex, and allowing certain entitlement mentalities (seehttp://wildninja.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/sitcom-wives/). Much of this may be seen as valid payback for thousands of years of mistreatment of women, but it is still WRONG.

Man or woman, being attacked by someone else on any level damages your health and your self-worth. It can forever alter your existence and the way you look at life. The denial men engage in to cope with or rationalize woman-perpetrated abuse can lead to entrapment in unhealthy relationships. Men may endure many cycles, even years and decades, of abuse because they don’t want to be abandoned, see winning the abuser back as proof of their manhood, or mistakenly believe that they can love a pathological woman into healthiness.

The most common type of abuse I see when a woman abuses a man is not physical abuse. Most of the material you will find about female-on-male domestic violence is about that. But it is psychological abuse that seems to be the most prevalent form of abuse utilized by women. This may be because psychological abuse is the more subtle form of beating someone into submission. You also can’t get arrested for it unless you threaten their life.

In the 1993 Tina Turner biopic What’s Love Got To Do With It, moviegoers saw Ike Turner viciously beat and belittle his partner, then turn around and buy her expensive gifts to “make up for it.” A male friend of mine pointed out that women rarely do that; instead, they rip into men’s psyches and then use sex and seduction as the “make up gifts” to worm their way back into their lives.

That is an extremely abusive cycle because a man endures great personal harm, then is lulled back into a false sense of stability for awhile until it happens again. Over and over some men are verbally abused, taken advantage of, subjected to psychological terrorism, and cheated on, then reeled back in by the “gifts” of what is essentially sexual abuse. These cycles are all about power and control, not love. I call it “Reverse Ike Turner Syndrome” (with apologies to a man who hopefully got his rage under control).

Because of the lack of resources and shelters out there for male victims of domestic violence, a man’s best defense may be to educate himself on the subject. Both sexes need to know how to attract and retain healthy people with the ability to grow in mutually beneficial relationships. Instead, we often enter adult life without a proper sense of boundaries, tend to be attracted to the same type of controlling or abusive person that our opposite sex parent was, and can’t accurately define domestic violence.

Everyone needs to be educated about pathological behaviors, psychopathy, and other selfish, evil states of being that can damage us. Because men are expected to be the tough ones who take care of themselves, they may not recognize or acknowledge such issues when they encounter them. It is important to know what you might be dealing with to save your children, your current partner, and yourself from harm. My advice: read, read, read, get into counseling, and find Bible-based support through church.

One issue that continues to jump out at me when I research domestic violence is how personality disorders may dictate a person’s conduct in a relationship. Think of a personality disorder as a way of thinking that inaccurately colors the way a person looks at life. Of all the personality disorders that seem to affect women’s treatment of men, it is borderline personality disorder that seems to lead the pack. One of the first books written on this subject was called I Hate You, Don’t Leave Me.

Movies like Fatal Attraction and Single White Female are the Hollywood versions of this disorder. From my own experiences, I don’t think Single White Female was too far off. I’ve ended friendships and had other unsettling experiences because of that type of behavior. It wasn’t behavior I could “learn to deal with”; it’s unpredictable, backstabbing, and like being in a constant competition for a Miss Popularity award that I have no interest in vying for.

Some of these women will do anything to “prove” they’re the most “desirable” or to “win”, even if it means seducing or stealing someone else’s man. They get a thrill out of disrupting or slaughtering other people’s committed relationships, much the same as the rush some serial killers get when they take a life.

Alcoholism and substance abuse is common among borderlines, and in their private lives, many are emotionally immature, never progressing beyond a junior high emotional intelligence level.

These women have an empty spot inside of them that is never filled, and their behavior may become more dangerous and erratic with time. It may also become less obvious with time because they’re well-practiced.

If you try to leave them, though, you may soon find yourself looking down the barrel of the “if I can’t have you, no one can” mindset. They’re also the ones who will leave you of their own accord, but come back as soon as they see you having a serious relationship with someone else.

Some of these women might be fine with an open marriage or open relationship concept in which you are the emotional support, the “rock”, or even a sort of parent that they always come back to. But they want the freedom of seeing other people as well, whether they do that behind your back or coerce you into it.

Women like this will use anyone and anything to keep their targets at their beck and call regardless of the cost to others. Some borderline behavior overlaps with sociopathic behavior to the extent that experts have coined a new term for such people, borderpaths. Life is all about them, and they want men who will kowtow to that. They often purposefully latch onto nice and generous men believing that they will be easy to manipulate. That’s not love, that’s slavery. That’s sick.

If any of this sounds familiar, the diagnostic criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder, and more information, is athttp://www.borderlinepersonalitytoday.com/main/dsmiv.htm. I’d also recommend the book Sometimes I Act Crazy, below. While I do not advocate breaking up a marriage just because someone has mental issues (don’t we all), men need to be able to draw the line when they and their family’s safety is at risk. Unrepentant, chronic abuse and adultery can be valid grounds for divorce, sad as divorce is.

Men, although you may think that you have to tolerate certain behaviors because of your sex, please remember that abuse is not biblical. It’s not God’s way. This is not what He wants for you. You were created to, as I said in another post, live adventurously, love passionately, and accomplish feats that no one before you or after you can.

Abuse molds you into who someone else wants you to be, not who God wants you to be. It robs you of your strength and dignity, and it prevents your family from experiencing your authentic self. Your children especially need a consistent, healthy role model that will set the standard for their relationships.

Children are little sponges who thirstily absorb your example, and the legacy you create for them is important. It’s been said that children are messages you send to a time you will not see. Your current circumstances may be setting the stage for your great-great-grandchildren’s lives.

That’s a sobering thought. But a quick look at our own family’s histories might show that to be true already. We are the people who have to stop the dysfunction with this generation and raise the bar.

In a world of James 1:8s—double-minded people who are unstable in all of their ways—kids really need their parents to model loving, committed behavior if they are to have a chance at true love without violence.

This means that both men and women need to know their enemy—domestic violence– and get whatever help they need to deal with it. That may mean severing relationships, because you can’t solve someone else’s pathology for them, no matter how traumatic the pathology’s origins.

Lastly, I know that there are those that downplay domestic violence towards men believing that it detracts from domestic violence against women. Some experts don’t like to discuss male abuse because fewer men experience it than women, and even fewer men report it.

No one has to convince me how serious of a problem this is for women—I have been through several deceptive, damaging relationships and have experienced persistent sexism in the workplace. You’re preaching to the choir.

Here’s the bottom line, and I’m turning on the caps lock to shout it out on behalf of the men who have been hurt by it:

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A GENDER NEUTRAL ISSUE. NO VICTIM DESERVES TO HAVE THEIR EXPERIENCES DOWNPLAYED BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX. WHETHER A MAN OR WOMAN COMMITS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, IT IS WRONG, AND IT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH.

Videos

When Women Abuse Men, ABC News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hn-wL6hPq8

Men Suffer Domestic Violence Too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGDTDawB4wE&feature=related

Male domestic violence victim speaks out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPTOXG6Ha48&feature=related

Websites

The “Duluth Model” Power and Control Wheel, a version for female perpetrators
http://www.dvservices.org/id41.html

A Men’s Guide to the Signs of a Bad Dating Choice
http://www.datebetterwomennow.com/docsfordating/TheSignsofaBadDatingChoiceInWomenE-book.pdf

Abused Men: Domestic Violence Works Both Ways
http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/malevictims.shtml

Male Abuse
http://www.wadv.org/maleabuse.htm

Stalking & Domestic Violence Statistics
http://new.abanet.org/domesticviolence/Pages/Statistics.aspx

Books

How to Avoid Dating Damaged & Destructive Women (E-Book), Sandra L. Brown
http://saferelationshipsmagazine.com/how-to-avoid-dating-damaged-destructive-women

Sometimes I Act Crazy: Living with Borderline Personality Disorder, Jerold Kreisman and Hal Strauss
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471792144/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0380713055&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1AM6MSQR08YS2266KGKB

Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence, Philip Cook
http://www.amazon.com/Abused-Men-Hidden-Domestic-Violence/dp/0275958620/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283035856&sr=1-1

Women Who Love Psychopaths, 2nd Edition, Sandra L. Brown
I recommend this book for men? Yes. Men can absolutely be victims of female psychopaths. The material presented in this book can go either way despite the title.
http://www.amazon.com/Women-Who-Love-Psychopaths-2nd/dp/0984172807/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282971995&sr=1-1

Safe People: How to Find Relationships That Are Good for You and Avoid Those That Aren’t, Henry Cloud and John Townsend
http://www.amazon.com/Safe-People-Relationships-Avoid-Those/dp/0310210844/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283036191&sr=1-1

Too Nice for Your Own Good: How to Stop Making 9 Self-Sabotaging Mistakes, Duke Robinson
http://www.amazon.com/Too-Nice-Your-Good-Self-Sabotaging/dp/0446673862/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283036300&sr=1-1

Hold on to Your NUTs: The Relationship Manual for Men, Wayne Levine
(NUTs = Non-Negotiable Unalterable Terms)
http://www.amazon.com/Hold-Your-NUTs-Relationship-Manual/dp/0979054400/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283036347&sr=1-1#_

Boundaries: When to Say YES When to Say NO To Take Control of Your Life, Henry Cloud and John Townsend
http://www.amazon.com/Boundaries-When-Take-Control-Your/dp/B001AN8BAC/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283036547&sr=1-4

The Sociopath Next Door, Martha Stout
http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282972138&sr=1-6

Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You, Susan Forward and Donna Frazier
http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Blackmail-People-Obligation-Manipulate/dp/0060928972/ref=sr_1_39?s=STORE&ie=UTF8&qid=1282972238&sr=1-39

In Sheep’s Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People, George K. Simon
http://www.amazon.com/Sheeps-Clothing-Understanding-Dealing-Manipulative/dp/1935166301/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282972328&sr=1-1

Venus: The Dark Side, Roy Sheppard and Mary T. Cleary (I have not read this, but it sounds like someone has finally come out with a book about female sociopaths. Hopefully it’s respectful.)
http://www.amazon.com/Venus-Dark-Side-Roy-Sheppard/dp/190153412X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282972488&sr=1-1

Love Must Be Tough, James Dobson
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Must-Tough-James-Dobson/dp/0849913411

The Gift of Fear and Other Survival Signals that Protect Us From Violence, Gavin de Becker
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0440508835/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0440226198&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1J6A0DZRFVEW6MFE5KKP

Please note that most of these books are secular, but I include them because I have yet to find equivalents in the faith-based realm. Obviously if any content runs counter to your Christian beliefs, disregard it, and keep only what’s worth keeping.

**********************************************************************************

Whatever I do for my spouse, I do it to Christ as well. –Emerson Eggerichs

Moving past isolation and finding peace

by Susan Jacobi

Isolation is one of the biggest feelings to overcome on my healing journey. It has taken me years to accept that I am not alone with my feelings, thoughts and actions as an adult survivor of child abuse.

It is hard to have conversations with anyone who doesn't understand the history of childhood trauma. It is hard to communicate the loneliness, the sadness, the desperation in trying to stay alive every day. Couple all those (normal) feelings with the shame of the abuse, the abuser’s consistent remarks of how no one would believe you and comments that belittle you on a daily bases and the isolation is sealed into a tidy package.

People don’t like to talk about suicide. I have had days, years where I felt suicidal every minute of the day. I think for many people, it’s not that they want to leave the earth, their friends or their life; I think it is because the pain, the loneliness, and the isolation are so gripping they don’t see another way out. I think that people who are feeling suicidal have conditioned themselves as that being the only option to escape their pain.

Here’s the kicker, it is not.

Each day brings us a choice to move forward. As an adult survivor of child abuse, the mental abuse inflicted on you now is what you do to yourself. You have the choice to listen to the lies your abusers fed you or to recognize those ‘voices’ in your head for what they are; lies from a liar and child abuser. It is a choice to remove the lies and isolation in your life. Sometimes it is not an easy choice. It takes focus and doing something you don't want to do and it is possible.

Consider all the years the abuser(s) had to brainwash their victim into believing they are alone, believing no one wants them or no one would believe them. If we spent the same number of years conditioning ourselves that people did want us, did believe us, I wonder what the outcome would be. I wonder if I would feel the same loneliness and isolation and shame that I feel now. I don’t think so.

Just for the fun, it is an interesting experiment and one worth exploring. We might surprise ourselves to find out people do want us, love us. As a special gift, we might even begin to move on from the trauma we experienced as victims of child abuse. Maybe, unexpectedly, we would begin to release ourselves and forgive ourselves and our abusers. It is worth a try.

Susan Jacobi is a radio show host, author, speaker and coach. Visit http://amzn.to/TJzgl2 to purchase her book, How to Love Yourself: The Hope after Child Abuse. Receive ‘100 Tools for Happiness’ when you sign up to receive her weekly ezine at www.conversationsthatheal.com.

You’ve Come a Long Way, Babies

by Charles Moncrief

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
“MEDITATION XVII” (Jon Donne, 1572-1631)

Following the recent shooting death of one large, muscular seventeen-year-old, activists have exploited the event to feed their own selfish ambitions.

These opportunists have made themselves both judge and prosecution in the court of public opinion, and they have lied through their teeth to convict their defendant with false evidence which they present to us, the jury. The deceased, a sizable and strong adversary in the altercation that led to his death, is presented by the prosecution as a sweet and gentle twelve-year-old. While none of the accusers are saying that the deceased was a pre-teen, this is the conclusion that the jury (you and I) are expected to draw. In the five years since this picture was taken, many other photos have also been generated which show the deceased in much less favorable settings and poses. The pictures showing unfavorable poses and settings have been reserved for use against the other party in this drama. With relish the prosecution shows a lopsided view of the two parties, counting on the jury (you and me) to draw the conclusions which have been predetermined.

It is unfortunate that in the court of public opinion the accuser is exempt from perjury. I'll not take issue here with the ends that these activists are seeking. Rather, I object to the methods and tactics they are using. In its raw form it is blatant child abuse.

Exploiting children, using them as pawns to play on emotions of the vulnerable, is not a new tactic.

· The politician who says “If you don’t vote for me (or for my bill), children will not get milk with their school lunches.”

· CBS News’ featuring of some worthwhile project that does wonderful things for children, with the obligatory comment that government funding cuts may diminish the benefit -- to the children, of course.

· News coverage of tragedies or natural disasters get more audience attention when the reporters can insert images of suffering children. (A dog reunited with its owner is not quite as effective, but it still plays a tune on the viewers’ heart strings.)

· When Texas campaigned for the state lottery, they presented verbal and visual images of schools and -- get this -- of children. The imagery was that lottery proceeds would go directly to school funding. Technically, since all fine print and presentations were accompanied by some sort of disclaimer that the receipts would go to the general fund (or some similar deception), Texas didn’t lie. But there were not enough thousand-word offsets to their pictures.

While it’s not bad in itself to support a cause by appealing to emotion, it’s a relatively new strategy to drag in the kids when the cause cannot stand on its own merits. And it’s incredibly effective, an adaptation of the truism “People don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.” And who doesn’t care about children?

Let me be clear. There is a difference between campaigning for children, and pimping children to advance your cause. Children’s advocacy groups are a thousand times more honest than those who abuse children by making posters out of them. This is indefensible, and it speaks to the new lows to which propagandists are sinking. Moreover, this child trafficking damages the uses of poster children for worthy causes. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, for example, is at risk when this cheap and dishonest tactic is used for political and social opportunism.

The movers and shakers who head these unconscionable misuses of children have yet to demonstrate that they even care about our younger humans. Many years ago in a conversation with a socialite, I was appalled to hear her say “My parents didn’t even want to see us in the morning until after they’d finished their second cup of coffee!” What added to my dismay was when I checked this out with another socialite, who fully agreed. To make matters worse, this is the course both of them were on if and when they married or had children. But this class of elitists will attend society balls, banquets, and fundraising events to get others to support their causes. And they’ll take plenty of hand-wipes to the sickening photo-ops so they can be seen “caring about” the little hellions.

Meanwhile, they’ll make sure the real child endangerments -- misuse of behavior-altering drugs, violent video games and movies, television programs that promote self-destructive lifestyles -- remain alive and even flourish. In her book White Ghetto Star Parker was quite explicit in the intentional mischaracterization of victim groups, including the trafficking of children for purposes that destroy the moral fabric of our society. She even named an ivy-league professor who suggested the killing of unviable infants any time during the first year of the little creatures’ lives! And it would seem that the administration of the university agrees with the professor, or lacks the spine to stand up to him.

Young or old, human life is precious. When a child dies, whether of a childhood disease or a gunshot wound in an altercation, that child’s death diminishes you and me. And when an adult dies of a disease or a gunshot wound in an altercation, that adult’s death diminishes you and me. But please do not allow our society to be further diminished by the blatant and unabashed lying about the facts of any of these tragedies. As a people we have enough to worry about, without sacrificing the truth on the altar of personal ambition.

Grace and Peace,
Charles+


Anglican Priest, Charles Moncrief, serves up the issues of the day on a platter mixed with scripture, seriousness, and a sense of humor to create a ministry founded in love for his fellow man.

“I’m an Anglican Priest, disguised as a geek during the week. It’s REALLY tough to change my costume, since phone booths are getting hard to find!” 

Related articles

• Even If It Does Quack. (timesupblog.blogspot.com)
• "It Died in Committee!" Re-Victimization of Crime Victims (donnagore.com)
• The Courage to Prosecute (seamusoriley.blogspot.com)

Prenatal Child Abuse

by Gaetane Borders

As a child advocate, I normally write and talk about child abuse that happens postnatally. However, today’s blog post is a bit different because it will focus on prenatal abuse. The idea came to me after running across two different recent research studies about pregnancy and the affects of drug and alcohol use during gestation.

We all know that pregnancy can be really stressful with all the changes your body goes through, and with the constant worrying that the baby will be healthy. So why not take some of the edge off with a few glasses of wine. Heck…it could help dull the back pain you get in the latter months. Sounds crazy you say! Not according to a group of researchers.

In a recent study, they found that "Light drinking is fine, but heavy and binge drinking should be avoided." (Note to self….avoid binge drinking when pregnant. Oh yeah...and any other time!!!) Reports indicate that “pregnant women who drank one or two units of alcohol a week didn't harm their children. The scientific proof is that by age 5, children who were part of the study were still doing well -- able to walk straight lines and touch their noses with the tips of their fingers.” I can’t make this stuff up if I tried (sigh). Listen up people (said in my best School Psychologist voice), I encourage you to set the bar higher for your children. Sure, the kids in the research study were able to touch their noses and walk a straight line…but could they read and comprehend….recite the alphabet…..hmmmmm or ……speak coherently? I’m just saying...

Another research study about the post-natal effects of Methamphetamine (a.k.a Crystal Meth) has been discussed recently. Crystal Meth is a stimulant drug that wreaks havoc on the nervous system, causing brain changes that could cause anxiety, mood problems, and violent behavior. Researchers found that pregnant moms who use meth can also pass some of these behavioral problems onto their kids. Here’s my question….Did anyone ever doubt that there would be repercussions from using meth whether pregnant or not?

I consider the use of drugs and alcohol during pregnancy to be a form of child abuse because it harms children physically and intellectually. In fact, it can limit their potential even before they enter the world. Low birth weight, premature delivery, birth defects, learning difficulties, and infant withdrawal symptoms are just some of the problems that can happen.

So ladies, please put down the wine glass. The nine months will fly by before you know it. Though you may crave a nice glass of Châteauneuf du Pape, resist that temptation until after the baby is born. Moreover, any illicit drug use is undoubtedly going to affect your unborn child. Trust me…I work everyday with kids whose moms did not heed this counsel, and for those kids being able to touch their noses would, indeed, be a milestone. You might hear contradictory arguments about this issue. Some will swear that a glass here and there is nothing to get worked up about. But would you really want to chance it? Not this mom!

However, there is help out there if you are someone who struggles with drug and/or alcohol dependence. Please consult any of the resources below, or contact your healthcare provider for guidance.

American Pregnancy Helpline (866) 942-6466

National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (800) 622-2255

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility Locator (800) 662-4357 

Gaétane F. Borders is President of Peas In Their Pods, an organization that helps to spread awareness about missing children of color. She has dedicated her life to helping families and children, and is a noted child advocate. Gaétane often lends her expertise to various media outlets such as CBS, CNN, and FOX. In addition, she frequently contributes to magazines and newspapers.

Related articles

• 'Meth babies' at risk for behaviour problems: study (ctv.ca)
• Meth use in pregnancy linked to kids' behaviour problems (cbc.ca)
• Mom's meth use during pregnancy causes kids' behavioral problems (cbsnews.com)
• Study finds 'meth babies' have behavior problems - msnbc.com (today.msnbc.msn.com)

Love Does Not Cause You To Bleed

 By Gaetane Borders

Is it possible that parents no longer know how to discipline their children? Maybe something happened within my lifetime that caused a major disconnect such that I simply cannot relate to anything I see, hear, or read lately.

Here’s the source of my current rant:

A month or so ago, a news report surfaced because there was an online video showing what appeared to be a young father who was so upset by his son’s misbehavior at school that he shaved the boy’s hair and eyebrows, spanked him with a belt, and forced him to do exhausting exercises. He filmed the entire 7 minute and 44 second clip and posted it on social media sites. The sad irony is that this parent did this as a means of showing other parents how to properly discipline their own children. I was disturbed by what I heard. The video is difficult to watch.  However, despite the disturbing contents of the video…I have to say that it’s the nation’s reaction that shocked me most. (I’ll get to that a tad later)

The man in the video is identified as Devery Broox. He is not the boy’s father, but has been described as being his "mentor." Orlando, FL officers arrested him after learning about the video via a tip originally received by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. While the 7-year-old boy initially claimed that marks and scars on his legs were caused by a bicycle accident, he later “disclosed that Devery ‘whips’ him ‘all the time.’” The child told the police that “Devery made him tell the story about the bicycle because ‘he don’t wanna’ go to jail.’”

I am sharing the video below for you to view, but I do want to caution you that it is not safe for work or for children. It contains extremely foul language and violence.

Now....Here’s my rant:

Of the two people in the video, who do you think people are defending? The 7-year-old you say? Well, that would make too much sense. In fact, it is Broox who people are passionately defending online and at the water cooler. “A parent can’t beat their kids [expletive] anymore without the government getting involved!” an angry listener said when she called into a radio show. Again I ask, what happened in the world that causes confusion between discipline and abuse. Those arguing in Broox’s defense say that the incarceration rate of Black men is the reason why such “discipline” is important. They go on to say that this will help young black men because it will make them successful and productive citizens. I vehemently disagree!

Violence begets violence…ALWAYS. Fear and intimidation does not set a healthy framework for relationships! A child is supposed to feel safest at home. A child is supposed to feel comforted by a parent’s touch. Appropriate discipline cannot occur when a parent is enraged. Leaving scars on children means that you caused them to bleed! How does that show love? Condoning “Beating a Child’s [expletive]” is wrong….simply put. 

So where do you stand on this issue. Did this mentor offer appropriate discipline, and should his self-help parenting video be viewed as good training material for parents? The comments below are just some that were posted in the abuser’s defense. Do you agree with them?

Gaétane F. Borders is President of Peas In Their Pods, an organization that helps to spread awareness about missing children of color.  She has dedicated her life to helping families and children, and is a noted child advocate.  Gaétane often lends her expertise to various media outlets such as CBS, CNN, and FOX.  In addition, she frequently contributes to magazines and newspapers.

• When did disciplining a kid become a crime? He may have went a little overboard with the eyebrow shaving but come on, he just teaching the kid to act right or get faced with consequences...Soft world we live in.

• I support the Mentor. Was it extreme? Yes. Will it leave an impression on the young boy to get his act together? Yes. All this is showing is that parents lose their rights to raise their children.

• I know this guy PERSONALLY! Devery is a very nice man he is a mentor and helps boys in the community along with a group of guys I went to college with. He isn't cruel person nor evil and ten years is to the EXTREME. I am going to make sure I go to the courtroom and support Devery because he is somebody who cares about our youth and in the black community we all know that this form of discipline is 100% normal and most of us were raised this way. We are not dead and are parents are not in prison. Those whoopings we got saved many of our lives. I don't get it that you cant whoop your kid with a belt but cops can break your bones with night sticks, tazer you or shoot and kill you. What sense does that make?

• If this child grows up to be a prison bird or terrorize society they will look at him as another black child gone wrong. Now someone is trying to right his wrongs early on and its a crime. I hope next time it isn't made public but when this same black boy goes astray because he does not have a mentor you all who are against the punishment will be looking to point fingers again.  He was retarded for posting it.... That's all!

• Mentor, father, caretaker...young black boys especially need someone to discipline them. This is evident by how many are winding up in juvenile facilities and the penal system in general. While I believe that whipping with a leather belt is extreme, cutting the boys' hair and maybe his eyebrows is not that extreme. Hair grows back but you can't erase a felony conviction. Making him run sprints and doing the duck walk and push ups my impress upon the boy to get his act together and straighten up in school. Parents and guardians need the support of the systems to reinforce discipline and even suggest non corporal, effective ways to turn kids around in their behaviors before it becomes too late.

• See this is what’s wrong with the world today....they gone punish a black man for actually giving a damn....he could not be there, and not even care...and then the child would be just another statistic...another want to b thug, in jail, 2 3 babies he not taking care of.. letting the cycle continue. Somewhere the cycle has to break with our youth. My granddaddy whooped my a*s, my uncles, my momma, even my grandma....not to make me tough to learn some damn discipline and some respect..for elders..and for people trying to teach you something..but I guess some of you rather have rappers be role models..i don't understand..somewhere in the last 10 to 20 years we lost it...kids have no fear..no respect...no tradition....then some of you have a nerve to complain about it....its a shame...make that boy do some push ups....sprints..cut grass all that...and then whoop his a*s.....i bet he wont go in that class room no more acting a fool...respect that man for stepping up because half of yall wouldn't even give that boy a time a day...so shut up.

• I don't have a problem with what was done. So many people come to the boys defense by saying "this poor innocent kid..." If he was so innocent, he wouldn't have been acting a fool in school. So often we as a society talk about the problems with children now a days, and so often do we forget how things were back during the times when children were better behaved. Times when most children had a basic level of respect for adults, and those that didn't were taught a lesson. There was a time in our history where teachers and other school officials were allowed to spank kids. There was a time when if a child got in trouble at school, he would get a beating from the teacher, neighbor, mailman, corner store owner and stranger before having to answer to his parents. Now a days, kids are terrorizing society with their reckless behavior.

Equal Opportunity in Adoption: Necessary, Proper and Desperately Needed

By Roger Canaff

“No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is homosexual.”

So states, in oddly plain and blunt legislative language, the law of the State of Florida. Last month, a Miami-Dade judge declared the law “unconstitutional on its face” and unrelated to the best interests of the child. She appointed custody of an infant (removed from home almost immediately) to a family member who is a lesbian in a committed relationship. Florida’s Department of Child and Family Services filed its appeal last week. The state’s argument and the spirit of the 1977 law boil down to the idea that adoptive parenting by homosexuals is so obviously harmful to children that prohibiting it is “rationally related” to a legitimate state aim. The idea is that heterosexuals are, by definition, better parents. This claim, wherever it asserts itself, is more than baseless and bigoted toward homosexuals. It is tragically shortsighted and remarkably cruel to the roughly100,000 American children (about 7% of them in Florida) waiting to be adopted out of the foster care system.

Several gay friends of mine refer to straight people as “breeders.” And indeed, breed we do. Heterosexuals, generally by definition, produce millions of children each year. And a disturbing percentage of us rip our own children apart like dogs with a chew toy. In two very different cities where I served as an ADA, I encountered fathers who sexually abused their children over years, beginning before the children were in first grade. I saw mothers who literally starved their children to death, or pimped them out for drugs, rent or just extra cash. I saw toddlers pressed against heating grates by one or both parents as if in a waffle iron. I saw fathers who shook infants to blindness and epilepsy, their ribs snapping like dry twigs in the process. In one particularly brutal shaken baby case I prosecuted in the Bronx in 2006, the mother sided with the offending father (a drug dealer) and refused to cooperate with me even while her son languished in a NICU on the edge of death. The people who did these things came from a broad diversity of racial, ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds and circumstances. In fact, there were only two things common to every one of the most brutal physical and sexual abuse cases I worked on:

1. The children involved, if they survived, needed new homes and new parents.

2. The biological parents, whether perpetrators or accomplices, were all heterosexual.

I’m not claiming that homosexual parents, adoptive or biological, can’t or don’t abuse their children. I’m just saying I’ve never seen it. Not in nearly 15 years. The point is not that homosexuals are perfect. The point is that they’re human, and when they are successful, compassionate, loving and stable adults who want to improve the life of a child without a home, they should be considered as adoptive parents.

Opponents of homosexual adoption often try to point to non-religious, “objective factors” to support their arguments. They never get far. No reputable scientific evidence supports a single claim that homosexual parents will be less successful or even that they will somehow foster a homosexual lifestyle on the part of their children. One of the last legislative pushes to prove that homosexuals are naturally disordered and dangerous as parents came from a particularly despicable Virginia legislator in 2004 (to my eternal shame, he represented my hometown of Sterling Park for seven years). The bill he finally got passed in the House of Delegates would have required social workers to investigate whether perspective adoptive parents were homosexual. The rationale, that homosexuality was related to increased levels of child molestation among other things, was based largely on junk science spewed by a single discredited and religiously biased sociologist. The bill, and the sociologist, were eventually routed in the Virginia senate, thanks in good measure to courageous Republicans who called this effort out for the rank bigotry that it was.

Although Biblical views of homosexuality (and similar non-Judeo-Christian religious tenets) are the primary force behind laws like Florida’s and efforts like Virginia’s, I won’t engage in a wholesale bashing of these religious views. There’s enough of that going on, and bigotry against religious people is as bad as bigotry toward anyone. To hold strict religious views is a private and sometimes difficult choice, and I know many decent Christians (among other religious) who struggle to reconcile the doctrines of their faith with their common experience as compassionate people. I draw the line, though, when positions based solely on religious doctrine become law in a pluralistic society. And I draw it in red when children- discarded, debased or destroyed by the supposedly “sexually healthy” people who created them, are languishing in a far too often chaotic, uncertain and flawed foster care system.

A widely known child protection and anti-violence against women advocate, legal expert, author and public speaker, Roger Canaff has devoted his legal career to the eradication of violence against women and children.

Roger Canaff: Anti-Violence Advocate, Child Protection Specialist, Legal Expert
Blog: WCSV (Women, Children, Sex, Violence: Outcry, Analysis, Discussion)
www.rogercanaff.com

The Casey Anthony Trial: Where's the Fat Lady?

 By Dennis Griffin

The long-awaited trial of Casey Anthony is finally underway. Like many others, while waiting for the court action to begin I had wondered and speculated on what the defense strategy would be. Mr. Baez seemed to put that issue to rest in his opening: Caylee Anthony drowned in the family pool on June 16, 2008 when only Casey and her father George were at home. The pair decided not to report the incident, but rather to cover it up. Although Caylee’s death was tragic, it was an accident and involved no criminal activity on the part of Casey or anyone else. How the incident was handled – or mishandled – afterward was the problem.

According to Baez, his client’s odd - and often infuriating – behavior after the fact had a reasonable explanation: Casey was in fact a victim. The Anthony family was dysfunctional. Her father George had sexually abused her starting when she was eight years old. Brother Lee even acted inappropriately with her on occasion. In that environment, young Casey was forced to become an accomplished liar in order to protect those dark family secrets. It was so bad that after performing oral sex on her father in the morning, she then had to attend school and act as though everything was normal in her life. Although Casey’s series of lies, going on the party circuit and concealing Caylee’s disappearance/death from her mother and friends may seem abnormal to most people, Baez contended that her conduct was that of a sexual abuse survivor, not a murderer.

The lawyer’s contentions took many observers aback. Even those who claimed they had seen the accident/victim defense coming said they were shocked when they heard the words actually come out of Baez’s mouth. The case was all but over, some said. The State, lacking a definitive manner of death, would not be able to convince each and every juror that Casey had acted with intent and premeditation in causing the death of her daughter, they opined. Baez had introduced reasonable doubt and Casey Anthony was well on her way to becoming a free woman.

My initial reaction was that those commentators were probably right. Surely at least one juror would want to give Casey – the alleged victim of an evil father - the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it was all over for the prosecution except for the fat lady singing.

But now, having had a few days to more closely analyze what Baez said, listen to other analysts and hear additional testimony, I’m not so sure that the defense delivered the knockout blow that some thought. I’m not on the jury. But if I were, there are some issues that bother me and that I’d want resolved before I voted not guilty. Perhaps the real jurors have some of the same concerns.

For example, I’m in no way an expert on the effects sexual abuse has on a victim. Maybe Baez’s claims about Casey’s conduct are valid, and maybe not. But I’d need to have this whole matter of Casey’s post event actions explained in more detail prior to accepting the defense argument.

In specific, Baez stated that when Casey saw her father carrying Caylee’s body from the pool area on June 16, “she cried, and cried, and cried.” I consider that to be a demonstration of emotion. Yet within a matter of hours after going through this trauma – and for the next 31 days - Casey’s friends and acquaintances have testified that she exhibited absolutely no signs of grief, distress, anger or depression. And the courtroom cameras have caught Casey crying and showing emotion in her facial expressions and gestures – such as shaking her head as she listens to testimony.

I see contradictions between Baez’s portrayal of Casey as the highly upset mother of a daughter who has just been found dead, and the happy-go-lucky party girl described by others. Can they both be true?

Baez admits that his client is a liar. In my opinion she is also a manipulator and shows or hides her emotions as fits her needs. It will take more than Baez’s words to convince me that I need to look at Casey as a victim rather than the master manipulator I believe her to be.

I also find the sexual abuse allegations troubling in this regard. It’s one thing for incidents of sexual abuse to not be reported to authorities. Unfortunately, that often happens. But if the victim – in this case Casey – has a daughter she truly loves, would she leave her alone with the abuser?

And in my opinion, the jail video recording I’ve seen of a visit between Casey and her parents doesn’t serve to support the sex abuse allegations. In that video Casey compliments George for being an excellent father, and both George and Cindy for being great grandparents to Caylee.

I need to see credible evidence indicating sexual abuse before I accept the allegations as true. Baez’s statements simply aren’t sufficient.

Opening statements are not evidence. Mr. Baez put the allegations out there. That’s fine. Creating reasonable doubt falls under his job description. If as the trial moves forward he can produce credible supporting evidence I’m willing to listen. But his claims, or any unsupported allegations made by Casey, fall far short of proof for me.

This trial has a long way to go. There will no doubt be twists and turns, conflicting statements and testimony, and experts will offer differing interpretations of the same set of facts. I make no prediction as to what the verdict will be. But I don’t think either side is in a position to put the champagne on ice just yet. The fat lady is far from ready to sing. In fact, I doubt that she’s even made her way to Orlando yet.                       

Healing Through "Art From My Heart"

By Rae Luskin

April is Child Abuse Awareness Month.1-4 girls and 1-6 boys will be abused by the time they are 18. Many abuse victims suffer the violation in silence, either blaming themselves or being afraid no one will believe them. The survivors of childhood sexual abuse experience a high rate of physical problems, mental health issues and social problems. They suffer from guilt, shame and low self esteem. The emotional and physical consequences can last for a lifetime.

The majority of childhood sexual abuse cases go unreported. It is estimated that there are 39 million survivors in the United States. It is estimated that 30% of survivors never tell anyone. We have to ask ourselves why children don’t tell.

1. Children are not sure who to tell. What if one of the parents is the abuser, what if mom is sick or one of the parents is dead.

2. No chance to be alone to tell

3. Caregivers do not listen

4. Parents discourage conversations about sex

5. Oftentimes children do not know what to say: they are too young or they have no words to describe it.

6. Abuser tells them; no one will believe you, you will be taken away from your family; you will never see your parents, friends or siblings again. No one will love you or marry you.

7. Abusers threaten to kill their family, their pet or themselves.

8. Children worry that if they really knew me their friends and family will reject them. They will think “I am disgusting, broken or dirty”.

9. Children worry that their parents will feel guilty if they could not protect them; other people will blame their parents.

10. Fear the abuser will be put in prison; will get hurt or killed.

11. Children may think what is the point, nothing will change or it will only make it worse. For instance, Laurie was about 12 when she told her mother that her brother was molesting her and her mother said “it is your problem handle it.” So Laurie lived with a chair under her door until she could leave home.

12. At first a child may be confused. They may ask themselves: Is it really happening? Is it wrong? They may think this is normal. They may believe they are only one experiencing this. They believe they deserved it, it was their fault they did something that caused this or they are being punished for something they did. Finally, they are ashamed to admit they enjoyed the sexual stimulation or they loved the affection, warmth and attention.

So now the question becomes what we can do as an individual, a friend or family member to encourage children and adult survivors to come forward and share their secret.

Educate your children about appropriate sexual behavior and what constitutes unwanted or uncomfortable physical contact. Tell them that it is always safe for them to come to you. You will believe them. Help children practice responses to potentially dangerous situations. Tell them they have a right to decide how and when anyone can touch them.

You can help the adult in your life. Do not say it is in the past get over it. Do not scold or shame them. Do not suggest it was their fault. Instead listen with compassion, validate their pain and remember they need to work at their own pace. It could take a year or it could take 40 years. You need to create a climate that is safe for them to take the journey.

Finally, Challenge the media or advertising when they sexualize children! Support legislation that mandates we teach safe touch in schools! Ask what policies and protocols are in place at school, work or your religious institution! If you suspect abuse you must report it! Tell the doctor, the police, call your local protection agency or 1 800 25 ABUSE, the National Child Abuse Hotline.

If you want to share your story/secret I encourage you to join my challenge. Transform Abuse One Story at a Time. In the next year I want 100,000 courageous men and women to share their truth through creative expression; it can be a poem, a story, a piece of art, music or dance. By sharing your story you can take back your power. Break free of guilt and shame. Release the negative voices in your head. Connect with others in an authentic way.

If you are looking for a loving and supportive mentor who has walked this dark and scary path herself as a guide; apply for a free discovery session. You do not need to be an artist. No creative experience is necessary, only a willingness to play, explore and experiment. Apply at www.thehealedheart.com. 

The Essence of Who I Am 

You hurt my soul, you broke my heart 

I curled up into myself and became small and insignificant 

I was sure I was unlovable, defective and unworthy 

Afraid of my secret shame, 

My cry for help a mere whisper 

Till I found my voice 

SCRIBBLE THE PAIN, DRAW OUT THE HURT, COLLAGE THE FEAR, DANCE THE ANGER, JOURNAL THE SADNESS, TELL MY STORY 

Transformation, a healed heart 

I am enough, I am loveable, I am whole and complete 

I am strong and courageous 

I take a stand and boldly declare 

I am a magnificent living work of art 

A creation song of love, joy and possibility 

Rae Luskin is an artist, teacher, author and community activist and a sexual abuse survivor. She is available for speaking and workshops. Find out more at www.raeluskin.net. Special price for ART FOR MY HEART now $16 plus shipping.

PAS as a Religion

By Barry Goldstein

Perhaps we have been unfair to those who support Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). We keep citing research and information that discredits PAS, but they ignore scientific research and continue in their beliefs. And that is what we have missed. Their position is not based on facts or information, but because they are believers in PAS. What Gardner concocted has become a religion, sort of a PASology. If I remember correctly from Hebrew School, there is a letter that can sound like an "s" or like a "t." So more accurately their religion should be known as Pathology.

Perhaps PAS as a religion should have been understood earlier because the worshipers get so angry at any challenge to their beliefs and seem to find offensive any information that undermines the legitimacy of PAS. I came to realize the religious fervor of their beliefs after they published an article containing vicious personal attacks on many of the wonderful people, including professionals who spoke at the recent Battered Mothers Custody Conference. The professionals have chosen to accept a reduced income in order to continue to work on the side of abused women and their children. This contrasts with many court professionals like Gardner who realized they could make a substantial income by supporting abusers. Clearly the professionals at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference committed a serious sin by failing to worship at the altar of the almighty dollar.

I believe one reason it took so long to recognize the pathologists as a religion is that every other religion places a value on the truth. The adherents of PAS have taken a very different approach. We have seen them repeat the same lies over and over again so that over time it becomes their truth. Their God permits them to dismiss any inconvenient facts as if they never existed.

Included in the inconvenient facts is the current scientific research contained in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. This includes over 700 pages and thousands of citations demonstrating exactly what the pathologists disbelieve. Even more impressive than the quantify of the material is the quality. The book contains chapters from the leading experts in the U.S. and Canada including judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists and domestic violence advocates. The research establishes not only that the courts are getting a high percentage of cases wrong and favoring abusive fathers, but their standard practices are flawed and inevitably lead to results that harm children and support abusers. Of course none of this information appears in the Pathologist's holy books.

PAS is used to support the worst of the worst abusers and its supporters appear unconcerned with the harm they do to children. For the true believer, undermining the belief in PAS is far more serious than hurting a child. For many of us, Holly Collins is a hero who risked her personal comfort and safety in order to rescue her children from unspeakable abuse. The court did not deny the father abused the children. Indeed it would be hard to deny it after the father beat his son so badly as to fracture his skull. Instead the judge said the mother's reluctance to encourage the relationship with the abusive father was more serious than the father's physical abuse. The evidence is so overwhelming that Holly Collins became the first American to receive asylum from another country. It should be embarrassing to this country that it was unwilling or unable to protect its own children so that another nation had to step in to protect these children. Nevertheless the pathological supporters of PAS continue to support the abusive father and even attack the children whom he abused. At least one prominent Pathologist encouraged supporters to stalk the family and said the brave mother should be gang raped. No wonder it has taken so long to understand these extremists as part of a religion.

Garland Waller, who was herself personally attacked by the pathologists wrote an important chapter in our book about the failure of the media to expose the scandal in the custody court system. One of the exceptions was a Newsweek article written by Sarah Childress that appeared in the September 25, 2006 issue entitled Fighting Over the Kids: Battered Spouses Take Aim at a Controversial Custody Strategy. The reporter used the Shockome case to illustrate the growing problem of courts taking children from safe, protective mothers and placing them with dangerous abusers because of the use of a sexist theory that has no scientific basis. Ms. Childress took months to research the story speaking to both parties and attorneys on Shockome as well as leading national experts and representatives of "fathers' rights" groups. She also reviewed thousands of pages of evidence so that she could determine the validity of what each side was saying. In other words she did exactly what a reporter is supposed to do and what many media outlets are unwilling to use their resources for. I believe it is significant that Ms. Childress looked at actual evidence which is missing from the decisions in Shockome and Goldstein and in the repeated attacks on Shockome by the Pathologists.

Interestingly, shortly after the decision in the retaliation case against me, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor testified at her confirmation hearings. She said it is especially important for judges to describe and answer the arguments made by the side the court is ruling against. She certainly was not describing a new theory, but rather best practices for judges that has been the standard for hundreds if not thousands of years. Significantly, there is nothing in the trial judge's lengthy decision in Shockome or the Appellate Division decisions in Shockome or Goldstein that makes any attempt to discuss or answer the overwhelming evidence and legal arguments on the losing side. Accordingly, the Pathologists who claimed to have investigated the Shockome case claimed there is no evidence of the father's abuse. Unlike, Ms. Childress, they limited their investigation to what the abuser in Shockome told them and the court decisions that failed to respond to the evidence. So now after repeatedly claiming there is no evidence of abuse in Shockome, it is part of the sacred papers of Pathology and must be accepted by true believers of PAS.

One of the most important reasons custody courts keep making dangerous mistakes in domestic violence cases is that court professionals don't understand how to recognize domestic violence. Judge Mike Brigner in his chapter for our book gave several examples of normal behavior by battered women that courts routinely use to discredit allegations of domestic violence, but are not probative. This includes actions like returning to her abuser, failing to follow-up on a request for a protective order and not having police or medical reports. Of course if courts routinely discount allegations of abuse for reasons that are not probative, they will get a lot of cases wrong which is exactly what is happening.

Lois Schwaeber wrote an important chapter in the book about how to recognize domestic violence. Abusers engage in a variety of tactics designed to coerce, intimidate and control their partners. Most tactics are not physical or illegal, but too often inadequately trained court professionals look only for physical abuse. Genuine experts know to look for a pattern of controlling behaviors and to look for evidence of the alleged abuser's motivation. Most contested custody cases involve fathers who had little involvement with caring for the children during the relationship, but suddenly seek custody when his victim tries to leave him. They believe she had no right to leave and so they are entitled to use any tactic, including hurting the children in order to pressure her to return or punish her for leaving. Unqualified court professionals usually assume the father seeks custody out of love for the children and never look at evidence of his motivation. In most cases much of the evidence is subtle and you need to understand the motivation from context and comparison. For instance we often see a mother asking the court to limit the father's contact for safety reasons and the court treats this as if the mother is seeking to harm the relationship between the children and father and gives custody and control to the father. Once he has control he often unilaterally interferes with the mother's contact, asks the court to prevent contact and tells the children negative things about the mother, but the court does nothing to make sure the children have a relationship with their mother. The frustrating thing about the Shockome case was that the evidence of the father's abuse was very open and clear and could be seen by anyone who took a fair look. That is why the Newsweek reporter and various academics have used Shockome to illustrate the problem in the courts as the evidence is so easy to understand.

The evidence presented in the Shockome case is about as one-sided as possible. The protective mother presented eleven witnesses including five experts and neutral professionals including the school nurse, child's therapist and couple's counselor. The alleged abuser was the only witness for the father and the evaluator also testified. The evidence is even more one-sided than the number of witnesses as the father made numerous damaging admissions and the "neutral" evaluator testified she was influenced by her belief the judge and law guardian wanted the father to have custody. She also testified that she would violate her neutrality to find the father abused the mother as long as he continued to deny it. No wonder the abuser groups like her so much.

In his testimony, the alleged abuser admitted that he would call his victim as many as twenty times a day including as late as 1 AM when he knew the mother and children were sleeping. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS.

During his testimony he also admitted saying that he brought the mother here from Russia so she has no right to leave. He also acknowledged telling her she will never get away from him. While this is the typical motivation of abusers going after custody we don't often hear them admit this. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS.

Throughout the trial, the mother was accused of alienation because she told the children they should eat healthy foods, dress appropriately for the weather and avoid adult oriented programs. Now I understand this is what any good parent would tell their children, but it was considered alienation because the father did all these things although he denied them throughout the trial. Then during his rebuttal testimony when he learned there was a witness who observed his children, in as close to a Perry Mason type moment likely to be seen in real life, he admitted that he could not prevent the children from running around outside without their winter clothing. This was after they were observed running around a parking lot on the coldest day of the year without jackets. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS.

In the context of the father's motivation for seeking custody, although he claimed greater involvement with the children than was accurate, he never challenged the fact that the mother provided most of the child care and is the primary attachment figure. He also did not dispute the evidence that he said he could not change his daughter's diaper because he might get excited. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS.

Abusive fathers often seek custody as a tactic to gain access to his victim. This can be in order to seek to reestablish the relationship and/or to continue his harassment. The phone calls between the father and children was a contentious matter in which the father repeatedly sought to punish the mother by claiming she was preventing him from speaking with the children. The father submitted transcripts of his calls with the children. Revealingly, most of the conversation involved the father asking to speak with the mother or learning what the mother was doing. He certainly did not use the phone calls to bond with the children or work on their relationship. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS.

During my cross-examination of the evaluator, she testified the father probably abused the mother physically, verbally and emotionally throughout the marriage. She testified the children probably witnessed his abuse. She testified the father probably caused the mother's PTSD. That sounds like pretty strong evidence of the father's abuse especially coming from a witness biased in favor of the father and who recommended the father for custody. Incredibly she said she couldn't base her findings or recommendations on these probable conclusions because she could not determine the extent of the father's abuse TO A CERTAINTY. The correct legal standard is preponderance of the evidence which roughly means probability which is the standard she used for the father's claims. For anyone wondering the basis for my statements that she used the certainty standard for the mother and probability for the father, it is contained in black and white in her report and when I questioned her about it repeatedly during cross-examination she repeatedly acknowledged using certainty against the mother and probability for the father and seemed not to understand what the problem was. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS.

The same evaluator also testified the mother is a safe parent, was the primary parent and there was no alienation. Again it is hard to understand the rationale for taking the mother out of the children's lives and sending them to live with the probable abuser. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS.

The child sexual abuse allegations described particular actions engaged in by the father with the children. The behaviors would best be described as boundary violations rather than molestation, but according to the expert witnesses making the children more vulnerable to future abuse. The father admitted to the acts alleged by the mother and described by the children. Two neutral experts, the child's therapist and the couple's counselor testified these actions constituted child sexual abuse. When the couple's counselor told the father the harm these behaviors were causing, he promised to stop. CPS and the evaluator decided that because there was no molestation the behavior did not constitute sexual abuse and the judge decided that even though the factual allegations were accurate and the neutral professionals had advised the mother the behavior was harmful to the children and constituted sexual abuse, she must have made the allegations in order to harm the father's relationship with the children. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS.

I should note that the Pathologists claim the sexual abuse claim was bogus because the mother said she did the same thing to the children as the father was accused of. This is one of the ways we know that they never looked at the record, but relied on the biased judge's statement. In the decision he said the school nurse testified the mother did the same thing and relied strongly on this claim. In the actual transcript, however, the judge asked her if she remembered saying the mother did the same thing and she answered no. When we later obtained the transcript from the earlier testimony she never made the statement the judge claimed to have heard. I understand the transcript makes it look like the judge deliberately invented and used false evidence, but I believe he was so convinced that the mother was trying to interfere with the father's relationship that he honestly believed he heard the nurse agree even though the transcript shows she didn't. It is part of the bias against the mother he showed throughout the case.

The amazing thing about the actual evidence is that the Pathologists are claiming there was no evidence of the father's abuse and yet there actually was overwhelming evidence just in the testimony of witnesses hostile to the mother. The admissions by the abuser and the biased evaluator made the testimony of the mother's witnesses even stronger because it supported what they were saying.

One witness who testified at the earlier trial was a neighbor who was not a friend of either parent. She described an incident in which the father was banging on the mother's apartment door and yelling curses so loudly that the neighbor heard it all the way across the compound. This occurred on a day when the father was not scheduled to have visitation. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS.

Another neighbor described how the father drove through the parking area of the mother's complex, near the children at a frightening rate of speed. Other neighbors spoke about how rarely they saw the father interact with the children when they visited or in public play areas and how he made the daughter wait out in the rain. A family friend described how the daughter would inappropriately undress in the apartment in front of others and the school nurse testified about sexualized behaviors the son engaged in at school. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS. 

The mother provided compelling testimony of the father's physical and other abuse. She described how he refused to provide basic necessities when they were living in Texas before she received her degree and could earn a living. She described his abuse while she was pregnant and refusal to help with the children. She testified he threatened to ruin her financially and take away the children if she dared to leave which was confirmed by his admissions and aggressive legal tactics. When she described her husband's sexual abuse of her, the pain and embarrassment she felt were unmistakable and could not possibly have been faked. She provided many other details of the father's abuse, but this was the one part of the evidence I could not support with a transcript because the court erased the tape of her testimony (the court said it was by mistake and provided a statement from a technician attempting to explain how it happened). Accordingly the appellate court attempted to review the case without a transcript of almost all of the mother's testimony. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS.

The school nurse testified about the sexualized and aggressive behavior of the son after visiting the father. She testified that only the mother was active in working with the school. The children were dressed appropriately when coming from the mother's home, but not the father's. Significantly, the children deteriorated significantly after they lost their mother and were placed with the abusive father. While living with the mother, the daughter was described as skipping around school, holding hands with another girl, laughing and giggling, but after she lost her mother she would walk around the school alone, head down and deeply depressed. She often came to the nurse complaining of stomach aches or other similar ailments. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS.

The mother called five expert witnesses including the couple's counselor and the child's therapist who were neutral professionals. Both experts found that the father's actions violated the children's boundaries and constituted sexual abuse. The child's therapist said the father tried to silence the son and undermine his therapy. She also mentioned calls from him that were threatening and intimidating. This was confirmed when the father submitted tapes of the calls. The couple's counselor, whose job was to work with both parents told the father his actions constituted sexual abuse and was causing harm to the children. He promised to stop these harmful behaviors, but nevertheless sought to use the mother's concerns as if they were motivated to harm his relationship with the children instead of protect the children. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS.

The mother's therapist testified that she and the mother's doctor had diagnosed the mother as having PTSD, the kind caused by a long history of traumatic events. Significantly, there was nothing else in the mother's life other than the father's abuse that could have caused the mother's PTSD. Another expert witness was Dr. Mo Therese Hannah who is one of the leading national experts on domestic violence and custody who confirmed there was nothing else in the mother's history that could have caused her PTSD. but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE FATHER'S ABUSE. PRAISE PAS.

When I wrote my appeal brief, I submitted the transcript date and page for every one of these facts that supported our points. The law guardian who is a PAS supporter, the father's attorney and the judges all had a chance to respond. No one challenged the facts I have just laid out because they were completely documented. Similarly in the retaliation against me, the grievance committee had my brief and all the citations. If any of my factual claims could have been challenged surely they would have done so. The evidence supported everything I said so they responded by ignoring the inconvenient information. It was not that there was no evidence, but those in power were making their determinations despite the evidence.

Clearly the pathologists rely on irrational beliefs and constant repetition of lies as their claims are dispelled when confronted with the actual evidence. This is not surprising as PAS is based on the assumption that virtually all allegations of abuse made by women are false when the actual research demonstrates false allegations are extremely rare, being false only one or two percent of the time. The new Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders says that unqualified evaluators and other court professionals who believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations are responsible for recommendations that work poorly for children. In other words, those who support PAS will be wrong about 98% of the time which is pretty much what we have seen from the pathological statements and personal attacks by supporters of pathology.

Now we have had a lot of fun laughing at the absurdity of the pathologist's attacks. I took a college course in the philosophy of religion. I remember they said that religions tell stories and use rituals as a means to help its members act morally and as long as the religion encourages moral behavior it is good for humanity. Although PAS is based solely on beliefs and not facts it cannot really be considered a religion because it encourages its members to act in the most immoral manner and hurt battered women, children and so many others. In reality the pathologists are a small group of abusive men with a strong sense of entitlement, together with those they can manipulate and professionals who seek to profit from the unspeakable torture of children.

They take advantage of the rare exceptions when women make false allegations or children have a bad relationship with their father because of what the mother said or did. Children tend to love their parents even when they are seriously flawed. Most times if a parent bad mouths the other parent in ways that are false the result will be to undermine the relationship with the parent making the false charges. More commonly children dislike a parent because of child abuse, neglect or domestic violence. Relationships are often strained for normal child development reasons as anyone with a teen would know. It is easy for an abusive parent like Alec Baldwin to blame others for the results of his abusive behavior. It takes honesty and maturity for someone to accept responsibility for the harm they have caused. Obviously it is far easier to blame others and concoct a magic theory to support their lack of responsibility.

Mental health professionals who have sought to profit from PAS are instead starting to lose their licenses because they are in affect diagnosing something that does not exist and is not part of the DSM. I hope professional associations will work to improve their reputations by disciplining unqualified members who profit by using unscientific theories. The last thing these professions need are members who are pathological.


Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com