So you think the "Fathers Movement" is not funded by the federal government... think again!!

Check out this site!


http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chapternine.cfm

Check out National Organization for Women

A great website that has some really informative information.

http://www.now.org/issues/family/index.html

Who's it fair to anyway? Family court bureaucracy... a story that must be told.

At the beginning when the thought of leaving my spouse came to mind I felt a sense of peace. I knew that he wouldn't make a mess out of things and I knew that custody was a non-issue. Or so I thought. I would be inconveniently shocked out of my routine life to see that my ex was not the man I married. No, actually I think he was the man that I married it's just that I had blinders on for over a decade. I didn't want to see it so I choose to ignore the obvious. My strong feeling is that most women do this because they are far more critical of themselves then they are of their spouse.

I ponder in my mind what might have been if I had left years ago before the children, or if I had never married him at all. Better yet that I left him that heart breaking night when he made the critical error of insulting my family and making me look like a fool. Should I have listened to the pleas from close friends who felt he was all wrong for me. Unfortunately we all have the what if's in our lives. How would one know that a relationship would soon turn 2 people who at one time or another loved each other, had children with each other, went through the good and bad together would end up at each others throat. For what? The house? The cars? The dog/cat? No, the children.

Believe me I've sat in court rooms where it was in fact 2 hours spent bickering over a BMW or a Benz. Silly to me really, but it was obvious that for them this is something really worth fighting in court about. I wonder if I was a judge I would feel the same about people fighting over materialistic things. Sure a car is a necessity but when you net worth is in the millions does fighting over one car really mean you need that car? Or are you in fact just trying to annoy the dickens out of your ex just for the fun of it? For many (like me) having nothing left in life but ones children makes fighting over anything else absolutely ridiculous. Then again this is me with my own story and their story can be drastically different so who am I to judge the importance.

I never in a million years thought that I would be where I am now fighting to get my children back. This is not a game. There is no winner or loser. No, there are children caught in the middle of 2 parents who obviously love them very much yet have 2 very different agendas. What do I mean?

In my own situation as well as others the father was never actual after custody of the children. Usually men are very content with the kids living with mom and having visitation. It's a tough job and the majority of mothers have the natural instinct of being a nurturing mother. Men with their head on straight know this and are cooperative. The underlying issue for the ex-husband is always about her... the ex-wife. At times it's revenge, angry, payback, mental instability, controlling/manipulative characteristics, but whatever it is it all comes down to the ex-wife. Especially when she has left him. How dare you leave him as he is the perfect man with zero flaws. Yes they at some point no matter what wrong they did in their marriage believe they are the best thing out there and you are an absolute fool for leaving him.

With that said there are some really great men out there obviously. I am talking about a group of men who make foolish decisions based on the wrong reasons. Their own anger guides them not their best judgement.

I have a theory about why men go coocoo when custody becomes an issue. The can't see straight and they see you as the ex-wife NOT the mother of their children. Their reactions are filled with anger and they become obsessed with teaching you a lesson. It could also be that men get comfortable and dislike any change. No longer is their wife there to run everything smoothly each day while he goes to work.

Finally we know that any ex-husband who knows in his heart how great a mother she is and how much she loves the children will use it to his advantage to manipulate her life. The children are used as a tool which is so unfortunate. Again, it has nothing in the end to do with the children... it's all about you.

So if you are in the midst of a custody issue what do you believe is his true reason for his actions in trying to take the kids?

Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly

This fascinating investigation into what makes abusive men tick is alarming, but its candid handling of a difficult subject makes it a valuable resource for professionals and victims alike. Bancroft, the former codirector of Emerge, the nation's first program for abusive men, has specialized in domestic violence for 15 years, and his understanding of his subject and audience is apparent on every page. "One of the prevalent features of life with an angry or controlling partner is that he frequently tells you what you should think and tries to get you to doubt or devalue your own perceptions and beliefs," he writes. "I would not like to see your experience with this book re-create that unhealthy dynamic. So the top point to bear in mind as you read [this book] is to listen carefully to what I am saying, but always to think for yourself." He maintains this level of sensitivity and even empathy throughout discussions on the nature of abusive thinking, how abusive men manipulate their families and the legal system and whether or not they can ever be cured. Jargon-free analysis is frequently broken up by interesting first-person accounts and boxes that distill in-depth information into simple checklists. Bancroft's book promises to be a beacon of calm and sanity for many storm-tossed families.

Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal

Bancroft, a former codirector of Emerge, the first U.S. program for abusive men, and a 15-year veteran of work with abusive men, reminds readers that each year in this country, two to four million women are assaulted by their partners and that at least one out of three American women will be a victim of violence by a husband or boyfriend at some point in her life. His valuable resource covers early warning signs, ten abusive personality types, the abusive mentality, problems with getting help from the legal system, and the long, complex process of change. After dispelling 17 myths about abusive personalities, he sheds light on the origin of the abuser's values and beliefs, which he finds to be a better explanation of abusive behavior than reference to psychological problems. Bancroft extends his approach to problematic gay and lesbian relationships as well, making the book that much more useful and empowering. This is essential reading for those in the helping professions and highly recommended for all libraries, especially those in communities with emergency shelter programs. Dale Farris, Groves, TX

Click Here to see the book.

Custody Issue Central In Dad-Daughter Deaths

Mourad "lvloni" Samaan and Madeline Samaan-Fay More
Family: Custody Issue Central In Dad-Daughter Deaths

Mother Feared For Her Child's Safety

POSTED: 12:07 pm PDT August 15, 2011

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The family of a father sought during an Amber Alert says a fight over custody is what led to the deaths of Mourad Samaan and his 2-year-old daughter.

In a letter handed to KCRA3, Mourad Samaan's father outlines a custody dispute between his son and Marcia Fay, the mother of 2-year-old Madeline.

Investigators still have not confirmed the identities, nor cause of death, for two people found dead in an SUV over the weekend. An autopsy will be performed on Tuesday, said El Dorado County Sheriff's spokesman Bryan Golmitz.

However, Dr. Makram Samaan, Mourad Samaan's father, offered the first clear explanation for why his granddaughter is now dead.

He explained that a custody dispute between the mother and father dated to a divorce filing in 2008.

"After the separation while pregnant, You refused to SHARE with the 'Father to be' your pregnancy medical condition." Samaan wrote in the letter.

Court records, reviewed by KCRA, also reveal that the mother had grave concerns about her daughter when she was not returned from a court appointed visit with her father. Those records also confirm that a judge had previously ordered the father to undergo anger management counseling.

"I believe (Mourad Samaan) is out of control and our daughter is in imminent danger in his custody," read a court document filed August 8, 2011.

The mother also asked a judge to deny Mourad Samaan further visitation rights until a hearing on August 30, court records show.

Marcia Fay's attorney said the mother is declining to comment on this information at this time.

Reported by: Mike TeSelle

Mothers Losing Custody to Abusers: Sexist Bias & Power in Family Court

Mothers Losing Custody to Abusers: Sexist Bias & Power in Family Court


Contrary to myths promoted by Fathers’ Rights Groups, it is mothers who who face an uphill battle in custody fights with fathers.

Men who fight for custody will win it 75% of the time; they can afford better lawyers and they can play on a host of sexist prejudices against women that are rife in Family Court (and all of society) and which include:

women are widely assumed to make false allegations, women are assumed to be trying to alienate children from their fathers,
women are assumed to be emotionally unstable and to suffer from a range of psychiatric conditions.
While "Father’s Rights" groups promote the line that mothers engaged in custody battles are vindictive liars, the truth is–as studies show–that only 1-2% of DV allegations are false–about the same as in any other crime situation.
It is estimated the in up to 90% of such custody battles there has been a situation of domestic violence. Yet–if a woman as much as mentions the abuse that she or her children have experienced at the hands of the father, she is very likely to lose her her custody rights because she will immediately be under suspicion of demonstrating "Parental Alienation", i.e., "attemtping to alienate the children from their father". She may also be called an "unfriendly parent".

One mother–who will testify on the program–had it held against her that, when giving birth to her child, she didn’t want the father–who had hit her during her pregnancy–in the room. She lost custody.

Estimates are the 58,000 children a year wind up in the custody of abusers. And 100 children a year are murdered as a result of these Court decisions.


Court appointed Custody Evaluators have little or no training. They often unquestioningly follow the popular assumption that "children do best when they have two parents." But what should be the second clause of that sentence is left out: that "this is only the case when neither parent is an abuser."

Father’s Rights Groups have gotten terrible legislation passed and alot of judges and lawyers are sympathetic to them or are members of these groups themselves. They know that it is the fathers who have the money, so they want to represent THEM. The women have a harder time paying for good lawyers.

These are just a few of the reasons why Family Court is a disaster for mothers. We are proud to be opening up this issue on Joy of Resistance and showing the situation from the mothers’ point of view. The show will include a Feminist News Wrap-up & listener call-ins at (212) 209-2900 in the last part of the show.


So please tune in to 99.5 FM this Wednesday, March 16, between 9 and 10 PM–or stream us live on your computer at www.wbai.org.


Joy of Resistance covers the ongoing worldwide struggle of women to for full equality and human rights. It broadcasts on the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of the month, between 9 and 10 PM. You can contact Joy of Resistance at joyofresistance@wbai.org or leave a phone message at (212) 209-2987.

WBAI is listener supported, non commercial radio broadcasting to New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. It is part of the Pacifica Radio Network. WBAI is in a financial crisis and badly needs your financial support to continue broadcasting an alternative to the corporate media.

Please consider going to www.wbai.org and contributing whatever amount you can to help keep alternative radio alive. Thank you.


Fran Luck,

Executive Producer,

Joy of Resistance: Multicultural Feminist Radio @ WBAI,

99.5 FM, NYC, 1st and 3rd Wednesdays, 9-10 pm

(broadcasting to New York, New Jersey, Connecticut

& worldwide on the web)

Losing Custody Because She Has Cancer

MAY 12, 2011, 2:21 PM
Losing Custody Because She Has Cancer

By LISA BELKIN

King Solomon’s choice was easy compared with the one faced by the North Carolina judge Nancy E. Gordon. The custody dispute before her recently was between Alaina Giordano and her ex-husband, Kane Snyder, and the fight was over whether their children — 11-year-old Sofia and 5-year-old Bud — should live with their mother, in Durham, or their father, in Chicago.

Ms. Giordano, a freelance writer and editor, has been fighting Stage 4 breast cancer for four and a half years now, and while it has metastasized to her bones, court records show that her monthly treatments have kept her condition “stable and not progressing.” Mr. Snyder, who was divorced from Ms. Giordano after her diagnosis, recently moved away from his family to take a job as an executive at Sears Holding, Inc. He asked the court to grant him sole custody, arguing that he was the parent with a paycheck, and that his ex was too sick — and her future too uncertain — for the children to stay with her. She accused him of being abusive and unfaithful during their marriage, and says that sending the children to Chicago would deprive her of her kids when she most needs them, would separate her children from her at a time when they most need her, and would discriminate against her because she has cancer.

Two weeks ago, Judge Gordon ruled in favor of Mr. Snyder. Since then the case has been building to a full social media boil. Ms. Giordano has started a blog. There is a Facebook page, “Alaina Giordano Should Not Lose Her Kids Because She Has Breast Cancer”, with over 12,000 members. Ms. Giordano’s sister has created an online petition, “Do Not Allow NC Judge to Take Alaina Giordano’s Children Just Because She Has Cancer,” that has more than 10,000 signatures. A newer petition, “Throw North Carolina Judge Nancy Gordon Off the Bench,” had nearly 500 last I checked.

The breast cancer and women-blogger communities have rallied behind Ms. Giordano, arguing that if the case stands, and the children are sent to live with their father on June 17, it will set a precedent that a breast cancer diagnosis can be grounds for losing custody. Legal scholars have stepped in, noting that the physical and emotional health of a parent has always been a factor used by courts in making these decisions.

Couldn’t Mr. Snyder simply move back to North Carolina so the children could remain with their mother but have him be more of a consistent presence in their lives, fostering familiarity that will be comforting should Ms. Giordano’s health decline?

He says no. Not given the unemployment rate in the current economy.

Could Ms. Giordano move to Chicago? That is what the judge suggested in her ruling, but anyone who proposes this option has never been treated for cancer, argues Emily Cousins, in an essay on yesterday’s Huffington Post:

Theoretically, Ms. Giordano could also relocate to Chicago, but in her interview with Matt Lauer, she explained that her Stage IV disease is being held in check thanks to the incredible medical team she has found at Duke University.

Think of the inconvenience you might have felt when your insurance company made you switch dentists or therapists. Now imagine you had to leave the group of doctors who are literally keeping you alive. Cancer patients develop deep bonds with the people who guide us through the minefield of treatment options, side effects, and recurrences. I referred to my team of oncologists and surgeons as “the mothership,” and I refused to move away from them for five years after my diagnosis. I only felt safe leaving them then because my disease had not spread like Giordano’s has.

So he won’t/can’t move here, she won’t/can’t move there, and the children face the possibility of living with their ill mother until, heaven forbid, she passes away, when they will be sent to their father who they no longer really know, OR being yanked from their mother now, which will probably feel like abandoning her, so they can worry about her health from hundreds of miles away.

Not even “cutting the baby in half” would solve this one.

What is a judge to do?

The Truth of the Family Court System with Regards to Custody Issues

The Custody Wars by Mary Ann Mason

For many years I had a recurring nightmare. My ex-husband has kept our five-year-old son beyond his weekend visit and is now in court asking for permanent custody I have not seen my son for several weeks. The nightmare takes different turns. Sometimes I am searching for my son in his school playground, or on the streets; he is never there. In another version I am in court. The judge is questioning me about my work habits as a lawyer and asks how I can be a good mother when I work such long hours. Sometimes he questions my ex-husband as well, impressed that his university job gives him a flexible schedule. The judge disapproves of me. I know I am going to lose my son.

Whichever direction the dream takes, when I wake up I am always greatly relieved. The real-life incident on which the nightmare is based did not end that badly. My ex-husband, in the wake of a bitter argument in which threats were exchanged, kept our son for several days but then relented and returned him to me. My son smiled at me as I picked him up at his dad's house, unaware of my inner terror.

The recurrence of this nightmare long after my son was a toddler attests to the heavy burden of guilt and anxiety I carried as a working single parent. I deeply feared that I would lose what was most important, yet I was uncertain that I was properly fulfilling my role as a mother.

Motherhood is the central dilemma in feminist thinking. Some feminists argue that the family contributes as much to women 's subordination in society as discrimination in the workplace. The stereotype of women as "natural" mothers, they claim, has shackled women to the family and prevented their rise in the outside world. Other feminists, however, point out that mothers still perform the great bulk of child-raising duties both within marriage and increasingly outside of it, and they need support in that effort. To deny their motherhood, these feminists believe, is to disadvantage them and their children.1

Nowhere is this dilemma more evident than in cases involving child custody As a result of the rejection of maternal preference in family law, mothers have lost the special protection the law afforded them in their "natural" role as custodians of young children. Many feminists are reluctant to challenge this new direction in the law; they fear that fighting such a trend would encourage the stereotyping of women as "natural mothers," which could be used against them by men in the home and the workplace.

The only arena in which feminists have joined forces and intervened is in working mother cases, where the courts appear to punish mothers who take an active role in the workplace. Working mother cases where mothers' rights are pitted directly against fathers' rights are at the very core of the gender wars; they reveal the skein of competing parental rights that characterize modern custody disputes. Above all, they illustrate the failure of our system to put children first.

A well-publicized dispute in Michigan appears at first glance to support claims that working mothers who leave the home are losing custody unfairly. The facts of the case also raise the volatile issues of unwed teen motherhood, domestic violence, and child support blackmail. Yet these critical issues are ignored by the court and the press, who focus only on the day care issue.

Jennifer Ireland gave birth to Maranda when she was a sixteen-year-old high school student. The father, Steven Smith, was also a sixteen-year-old student at the time. They never married. According to Jennifer, Steven at first wanted her to have an abortion. Later, when the baby was born, he encouraged adoption. Jennifer was undecided. She put the baby in foster care for three weeks, contemplating adoption, but could not go through with it. She brought Maranda home and continued high school while her mother took over a large share of the childcare.

Steven did not see Maranda very much that first year. He claimed later that "Jenny's parents told me to stay away from Maranda, because Jenny was deciding on adoption."2 He did begin to see Maranda regularly as she grew older, and she had a room in his parents' house for her weekend visits.

When Mananda was two years old Jennifer graduated from high school with honors and won a scholarship to the University of Michigan. She moved from Detroit to Ann Arbor and enrolled Maranda in a home cane facility operated by a mother with two children who looked after other children. For the first time Jennifer asked Steven for child support. He objected to the amount requested, and the hostility between the two young parents intensified. Jennifer filed a complaint against Steven for assault. At around the same time Steven filed a petition for custody. He claimed that he was better able to care for Maranda since his mother was a full-time homemaker and would cane for her at home. Steven would be living with his parents and attending the local community college.

On June 27, following Jennifer's first year at the University of Michigan, Judge Cashen of Macomb County Circuit Court ordered her to give up Maranda to her father. In his order Judge Cashen held that both parents were competent. However, he went on to say, while living with her mother Maranda would be "in essence raised and supervised a great part of the time by strangers." While living with her father, the judge said, Maranda would be "raised and supervised by blood relatives."3

The story immediately was labeled the Day Care Case and picked up by the wire services as a hot women's rights issue. Jacquie Steingold, a board member of the National Organization for Women, said, "It illustrates an attitude toward women about where they should be-the bedroom, kitchen and those kind of places, not at college."4 Many saw the judge's ruling as a punishment for modern women who dare to work, or become educated to work, outside the home. Jennifer's own remark was repeated by many commentators: "It's just unfair. It's a decision based on the 1950s."5

Jennifer was wrong, however. This ruling could not have occurred in the 1950s. In all the fuss about day care no one noted the recent revolution in legal rules that made such a decision possible. In the 1950s, and in many states well into the 1980s, mothers like Jennifer were protected in custody disputes by two separate but well-established rules: the tender years doctrine, which favored mothers, and the complete lack of legal standing of unwed fathers to sue for custody In the 1 950s Steven could not have brought his claim for custody before the court.

The tender years doctrine (or maternal presumption, as it was often called) was well established by the 1 920s. By the 1 950s in Michigan and all other states it was the law The rule of maternal presumption reflected a universally held belief in the early part of this century that mothers by nature were the more nurturing parent for very young children. In their drive for equal rights in the seventies, many feminists spurned this very assumption, believing it fixed women as second-class citizens in a patriarchal structure.

Feminists have not always been so ambivalent about motherhood. The pioneering feminists of the nineteenth century fought hard to establish custody rights for mothers in the face of a common law tradition that gave fathers paramount rights of custody and control. At the very first women's rights gathering in 1848, the newly drafted Declaration of Rights and Sentiments presented custodial rights for mothers as one of the primary demands:

He [the legislative and judicial patriarchy has so framed the laws of divorce as to what shall be the proper causes, and in the case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women -- the law in all cases going upon the false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.

Early feminists struggled to turn the law away from seeing children as the property of their fathers and more toward considering the needs of children. The traditional view of children as helping hands in a labor scarce economy slowly gave way to a romantic, emotional view of children; they were no longer legally akin to property under the complete control of their fathers, but were finally acknowledged to have interests of their own. Their interests increasingly became identified with the nurturing mother. Feminists strongly applauded the handful of earlv-nineteenth century judges who boldly overthrew fathers' property rights in favor of mother nurture. In 1842 a New York judge defied established common law tradition and awarded custody of a three-year-old sickly daughter to her mother, explaining that the law of nature has given to her an attachment for her infant offspring which no other relative will be likely to possess in an equal degree, and where no sufficient reasons exist for depriving her of the care and nurture of her child, it would not be a proper exercise of discretion in any court to violate the law of nature in this respect.

By the beginning of the twentieth century most judges concurred with this radical new view of the importance of maternal nurture for children of tender years. The condition of children was greatly advanced as their right to nurture was placed above their fathers' right to their labor.

Ironically, the second wave of feminism-the modern women's rights drive toward equality before the law-helped to abolish this hard-won gain. The modern push for equality has focused mostly on the workplace, but equal rights in the family are of prime concern to second-wave feminists as well. The founding statement of the National Organization of Women (NOW) in 1967 decried "half equality" in the marriage relationship and called for a reexamination of laws governing marriage. "We reject . . . that home and family are primarily woman's world and responsibility-hens, to dominate-his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children."9

Judges and state legislators have taken seriously the current feminist message that mothers and fathers should be treated equally under the law. Maternal presumption has been largely eliminated from the law and language of child custody. A New York court expressed the new thinking: "The simple fact of being a mother does not, by itself, indicate a capacity or willingness to render a quality of care different from that which the father can provide."

With this simple statement this judge challenged nearly a century of judicial presumption in favor of mothers. To support his thinking the judge invoked the authority of the social scientist Margaret Mead. He quoted her as damning the maternal preference as "a mere and subtle form of anti-feminism in which men -- under the guise of exalting the importance of maternity -- are tying women more tightly to their children than has been thought necessary since the invention of bottle feeding and baby carriages."

Not all courts are as outspoken in reducing the importance of mothers or in suggesting that maternal presumption is a male conspiracy. Nevertheless, the rule that the interests of a child of tender years are best served in the custody of the mother has been legally abolished or demoted to a "factor to be considered" in nearly all states.

Not only feminists calling for equal treatment under the law, however, have persuaded legislators and judges to abandon the maternal presumption; their arguments are combined with the reality that great numbers of women have abandoned full-time housekeeping for the workplace-most of whom are mothers. In 1970 only 27 percent of women with children under age three were in the workforce; by 1985 this figure was more than 50 percent and has remained so. Though many (if not most) of these women are driven to work by economic necessity in a downward-drifting wage structure, legislators and judges are confused by the new roles mothers are playing. An Illinois court declared, "the 'tender years' doctrine has no application if the mother is working and not in the home full time."

To my knowledge not one of the dozens of commentators and talk-show hosts in the course of the Ireland-Smith dispute mentioned that until recently Judge Cashen would have been obliged to apply the tender years doctrine. He would not have been required to treat Steven and Jennifer as equally appropriate parents of a three-year-old. Instead he would have had to presume that mothers are better suited than fathers to nurture small children. The concept of maternal presumption, which reigned for more than 100 years, appears to have completely disappeared from public discourse.

Also absent from the discussion was any notice that Steven was not married to the mother. As will be discussed in chapter 4, it has been little more than twenty years since the U.S. Supreme Court, in Stanley v. Illinois, recognized any custodial rights for unwed fathers, much less those equal to the mothers'. This case seems to have given Steven-who never lived with Jennifer and Maranda-the same rights as a recently divorced father who had always lived with them, or, for that matter, the same rights as Jennifer. And no one found this worthy of comment.

Judge Cashen's so-called day care decision was possible because the law and social attitudes have swung dramatically away from favoring either mothers or marriage. Biological parenthood, not marriage or nurture, defines parental rights. The law must treat biological mothers and fathers as equals. Moreover, it gives no special consideration to the needs of infants and toddlers. The rules that Judge Cashen is required to follow in Michigan are the same as in most states: he must consider the biological parents first, and then make a decision in the "best interests of the child." In the vacuum created by the retreat of a maternal presumption, state legislatures have drafted statutes to direct judges left with the task of applying the elusive "best interests" standard. Most states provide only a laundry list of suggestions for the judge to consider. These may include affective factors such as emotional ties, which often favor the mother, but they also usually mention economic stability, more likely to give advantage to the father.' In any event they are only suggestions, and by no means determinative. In fact hundreds of family court judges are forced every day to make difficult decisions in the best interests of very young children with no clear rules to guide them. When a mother and father both fight to gain physical custody, judges are frequently at a loss.

A "best interests" rule sounds enlightened and child centered. It appears to have moved beyond gendered stereotypes, to focus only on what is good for a particular child. As well intentioned as it may seem, it is not child centered. It provides no guidance about what we as a society believe is in the child's interest; it offers no recognition of the developmental needs of a child; it leaves no room for the wishes and feelings of the child; and, perhaps most damningly, its vagueness opens the door to almost complete judicial discretion. This allows a judge who doesn't believe in day care to award a child to the other parent. In addition, such a rule encourages parents to fight over custody, because the outcome is unpredictable. Fathers, knowing there is a real opportunity to win, may play the "custody card" to bargain for financial advantage in a divorce settlement. Thereby the door is open for a full-scale battle that pits fathers against mothers and in no way enhances the interests of the child.

In the Ireland-Smith dispute, we don't know for certain why Steven pursued custody. He claimed he did not like the way Maranda was being raised; Jennifer claimed he did not want to pay child support. We do know that demands for child support are a common trigger of custody disputes.

Once the court battle began the hostility between the two escalated rapidly Although trial proceedings were closed, later interviews with some of the parties on national talk shows and in the press revealed several nasty details of the confrontation. Jennifer raised the incident of assault in October 1992, when she complained to police that Steven struck her. (Smith was arraigned on that charge the day after Cashen's decision, but the charges were dropped for unexplained reasons.) Jennifer's lawyer claimed that Smith's parents stalked her, driving by her house every day to see whose cars were outside.' Domestic violence, common to many custody disputes, appears to have occurred between these two young people as well.

Steven Smith responded to Jennifer's domestic violence allegations with allegations of his own. At a press conference Smith said he had seen Maranda "being pushed by Jennie, pulled by Jennie, slapped on the counter by Jennie and just being rude and yelling." He also claimed that Jennifer handed Maranda off to her friends or her mother and never took care of her. He continued, "Maranda's care is my main concern. I can be a better parent because I am a better person."

In his order Judge Cashen did not rule on these issues of alleged domestic violence and child abuse. He ruled that both the parents were equally competent. His only comment regarding the outstanding assault warrant against Smith was, "The parties in their youthful way apparently crashed or mauled one another. It is superfluous and can have no bearing on the issue of custody." Judge Cashen, like most judges, did not want to enter the dark waters of domestic violence. (End of Preview)

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/3158.htm

Welcome to SMACARR!! Are you ready to make a change??

I would like to first welcome you to the SMACARR blog. I hope that you continue to visit and become a follower of the blog so that you can be a part of the changes ahead. No matter what you think your story does make a difference to each woman who is going through a divorce and/or custody battle. I know you are thinking that your story won't make a difference, but trust me it does.

A battle? Yes that's what I called it. I've never been in battle with anyone in my life until this point. Believe me I don't want to be in a battle but hey here I am. A little about me and why I am so determined to make everyone in the United States of America aware of the insanity taking place in the family court system.

I was married for many years and had children. As many of you did as well, I sacrificed everything for my husband and children. Then after years of putting on my blinders my eyes were opened. I went through a fairly stressful divorce but nothing was as bad as the custody issue on the table. Then let's add more complication a relocation (me) with my children. I'll save my story for another time but that will give you an idea of what I have and am still going through today.

With all this I was sadden to see far greater father custody rights support groups and not much when it came to mothers. Because of this I decided that I would make the leap and start yelling from the mountain top the injustice in our court systems. It's complicated people! As you read each of the post you will see a deeply disturbing pattern our judge are coiled in and you will quickly see how very insignificant you are as a mother.

If you are in the midst of a custody and/or relocation case I feel for you I truly do. If you are seeing such an event in your near future let me warn you, no matter how much you think you won't have issues don't be surprised to see the depths your ego crushed husband will go to make your life a living hell. Don't fool yourself in thinking it will be easy... it's won't. And if you haven't or don't see it in your future, well you will never understand... and for that I am happy. I do not wish this upon my greatest enemy.

With that said I would like each of you to seriously think about sharing your story with me. Email me at SMACARR@gmail.com and I will work with you to get your story out (well for now on this blog). Don't worry we'll change names and keep your name out of it. Your one story can change the lives of many. Everyone needs to hear... the government needs to hear! We can make a change.

Thank you & remember never to give up!
SMACARR Moderator