Tuesday, November 29, 2011

DELLY v DELLY Recent Ohio Custody Relocation Case - Mother Loses Custody


DELLY v. DELLY
2011 Ohio 6004
Daniel J. Delly, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Deborah M. Delly, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 2011-L-018.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake County.
November 21, 2011.

Laura A. DePledge, 7408 Center Street, Mentor, OH 44060 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
James W. Reardon, Carrabine & Reardon Co., L.P.A., 7445 Center Street, Mentor, OH 44060 (For Defendant-Appellant).

OPINION
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.
{1} Appellant, Deborah M. Delly, now known as Deborah M. Larson, appeals the Judgment Entry of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, granting Daniel Delly legal custody of Larson and Delly's minor child, A.D. The issues to be determined by this court are whether a change in custody is in a child's best interest when the custodial parent has moved to another state, and whether a court must make an express finding of harm under R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii). For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

{2} On April 22, 2009, Daniel and Deborah were granted a divorce on the grounds of incompatibility. At the time of the divorce, they had one child together, A.D., born July 14, 2004. Pursuant to a Parenting Plan attached to the Judgment Entry of Divorce, Deborah was designated A.D.'s legal custodian and residential parent. Daniel was to receive parenting time as designated in the plan. The Parenting Plan also included a provision stating that "neither parent shall remove the child from Lake County or an immediately adjacent county" without either obtaining written permission from the other parent or filing a notice of intent to relocate and receiving permission of the court.

{3} On August 17, 2009, Daniel filed a Motion for Emergency Temporary Custody, requesting ex parte relief, and asserting that Deborah advised him she was planning to move to Idaho with A.D. On August 19, 2009, the trial court ordered that neither parent remove A.D. from Lake County until further order of the court.

{4} On August 31, 2009, Deborah filed a Motion for Permission to Relocate.

{5} On October 2, 2009, the trial court awarded emergency temporary custody of A.D. to Daniel and again ordered that A.D. not be removed from Lake County.

{6} A hearing was held on this matter on June 9 and 10, 2010. The following testimony was presented at the hearing.

{7} Michelle Walker, the principal at A.D.'s school, testified that A.D. had completed kindergarten and, according to his progress reports, is a "hard working, personable boy." She also noted that both his academics and behavior were "great." She testified that he interacts well with other children. She stated that she had good communication with both parents regarding A.D.'s schooling, that she had observed Daniel picking up A.D., and the interaction between the A.D. and Daniel has been "positive."

{8} Pamela Delly, Daniel's stepmother, testified that Daniel is very patient with A.D. She stated that A.D. gets along well with Daniel's family.

{9} Bonnie Bischof, Daniel's mother, testified that A.D. and Daniel reside in her home and stay in the same bedroom together, although she has an extra bedroom in her home. She described Daniel and A.D.'s relationship as "very close." She explained that A.D. has established relationships with his paternal family members, including his aunts and uncles, although while Deborah was living in Ohio, A.D. had rarely been able to visit with these relatives. She explained that if A.D. were to live with Deborah, she believed it would interfere with these relationships.

{10} Deborah Larson testified that she lived in Idaho for most of her life and that her parents and other family members still live there, and she had only lived in Ohio for a few years. She moved back to Idaho from Ohio in September of 2009 with her daughter, Kierra, who is 14 years old. Deborah explained that she interviewed for a job as a probation officer in June of 2009 while on vacation in Idaho because she believed that her employer in Ohio would be laying off employees. She stated that in July of 2009, she met with Daniel and "asked him if he would allow her to take A.D. to Idaho if [she] were to move there." According to Deborah, Daniel responded "absolutely not."

{11} Deborah testified that her son Anthony, who is currently 17 years old, moved to Idaho in August of 2007 because he did not want to continue living in Ohio. She testified that A.D. has a good relationship with both Anthony and Kierra, his half-siblings. Deborah also expressed a concern that A.D. had gained 20 to 30 pounds since she moved to Idaho.

{12} Daniel Delly testified that generally, he and Deborah would "adjust to each other's schedules" regarding visitation, and on one occasion, he allowed A.D. to stay in Idaho a few more days than planned because Deborah's grandfather was sick. Likewise, Deborah allowed Daniel to keep A.D. for an extra night on a few occasions. In June of 2009, Daniel was laid off from his job and asked Deborah if he could take A.D. out of day care to spend more time with him, but Deborah would not allow him to do so. Daniel testified that he is still unemployed and receives unemployment.

{13} Daniel testified that in July of 2009, he met with Deborah, who told him she was taking a job in Idaho and would be taking A.D. with her.

{14} Daniel admitted that he had previously watched pornography on the internet, but explained that he has parental controls on his computer so that A.D. cannot access any websites without a password.

{15} Dr. Michael Leach, a clinical forensic psychologist, was appointed by the court to render an opinion regarding parental rights and had previously evaluated the parties, prior to the divorce. He recommended that A.D. should reside with his mother and have visitation with his father. Based on tests given to the two parents, Dr. Leach concluded that Daniel's responses regarding parenting skills were "inadequate." He also expressed a concern that Daniel views pornography, although he stated that he would not be concerned about A.D. as long as Daniel had adequate password protection on his computer. Dr. Leach believed that A.D. had a strong relationship with his half-siblings, Kierra and A.D., which he regarded as an important factor in his decision. He also stated that he was concerned about the lack of furniture and books in Daniel's home.

{16} Dr. Leach admitted that he was in Idaho for two days observing A.D., Deborah, and Deborah's family members. He spent approximately five or six hours at Deborah's home. He also spent a few hours at Deborah's mother's home on Easter Sunday. He stated that he did not spend any holidays with Daniel's family or his relatives. He spent one or two hours at Daniel's home, and one hour with Daniel at his office. Dr. Leach did not visit Daniel's mother's home, where Daniel is currently living with A.D.

{17} On July 16, 2010, a Magistrate's Decision was issued, finding that it was in A.D.'s best interest that Daniel be designated residential parent and legal custodian. In the decision, the magistrate found that a change of circumstances had occurred and considered each of the best interest factors. The magistrate found that it could not be predicted how A.D. would respond to the move to Idaho, that A.D. is well cared for in Ohio, he has done well in school in Ohio, and he has developed a relationship with his paternal relatives and his environment in Lake County. The magistrate granted Deborah parenting time for six weeks during the summer, as well as during other holidays and breaks. Extra parenting time was also permitted during the school year, provided Deborah travels to Ohio.

{18} Deborah filed Objections to the Magistrate's Decision on July 23, 2010, and supplemented the Objections on September 10, 2010.

{19} On January 13, 2011, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry overruling Deborah's Objections, adopting the Magistrate's Decision in its entirety, and requesting that Daniel's attorney prepare a Judgment Entry consistent with the Magistrate's Decision. On March 10, 2011, the trial court issued a second Judgment Entry, repeating certain findings from the January 13 Judgment Entry, including that there was a change in circumstances and that it is in the best interest of A.D. for Daniel to be designated the residential parent and legal custodian. The Entry also detailed Deborah's parenting time and explained the parties' obligations regarding child support and health care.

{20} Deborah timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error:

{21} "The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant by designating father as the residential parent of the parties' minor child and denying mother's Motion to Relocate."

{22} On appeal, appellate courts only review legal custody determinations for abuse of discretion. Cireddu v. Clough, 11th Dist. No. 2010-L-008, 2010-Ohio-5401, at ¶19. "The highly deferential abuse of discretion standard is particularly appropriate in child custody cases, since the trial judge is in the best position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and there `may be much that is evident in the parties' demeanor and attitude that does not translate well to the record.'" Salisbury v. Salisbury, 11th Dist. Nos. 2005-P-0010 and 2005-P-0084, 2006-Ohio-3543, at ¶89 (citation omitted).

{23} "The court shall not modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children unless it finds, based on facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child, the child's residential parent, or either of the parents subject to a shared parenting decree, and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. In applying these standards, the court shall retain the residential parent designated by the prior decree or the prior shared parenting decree, unless a modification is in the best interest of the child and *** [t]he harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child." R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii); In re James, 113 Ohio St.3d 420, 2007-Ohio-2335, at paragraph one of the syllabus; In re B.J., 11th Dist. No. 2009-G-2933, 2010-Ohio-2284, at ¶33 (citations omitted).

{24} A change in custody analysis normally creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of the custodial parent retaining custody unless the change is one which would have a "material and adverse effect upon the child." Rohrbaugh v. Rohrbaugh (2000), 136 Ohio App.3d 599, 604-605 (citation omitted). "Therefore, it necessarily follows that the burden is on the party seeking a change in custody to demonstrate sufficient indicia of these three factors to rebut this presumption and justify a modification." Salisbury, 2006-Ohio-3543, at ¶91.

{25} "However, the analysis changes when the divorce decree expressly or impliedly prohibits the custodial parent's ability to remove the child from the jurisdiction. In such cases, the burden then shifts to the custodial parent to demonstrate that the decree should be modified to permit the child's removal." Id. at ¶93 (citations omitted).

{26} In such situations, the court has the option of enjoining a parent from removing the child, pursuant to the decree's terms, changing custody to that of the parent residing in the jurisdiction, or modifying the decree to permit removal of the children. Hauck v. Hauck, 8th Dist. No. 44908, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 14490, at *4. "Where the decree contains an express or implied provision restricting the custodial parent's ability to move from the area, the child can only be moved from the state upon a finding that the relocation would be in the best interests of the child." Salisbury, 2006-Ohio-3543, at ¶93 (citation omitted).

{27} We note that in this case, the Parenting Plan, made part of the Judgment Entry of Divorce, stated that A.D. could not be moved from Lake County. Therefore, the burden is on Deborah to demonstrate that relocating A.D. was in his best interest and that custody should not have been granted to Daniel.
{28} Deborah does not argue that the trial court erred in finding that a change in circumstances occurred. Instead, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion by determining that a change of custody was in A.D.'s best interest, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

{29} In determining "whether the trial court's determination that the best interests of the children would be served by a modification of custody was against the manifest weight of the evidence," a reviewing court "does not undertake to weigh the evidence and pass upon its sufficiency but will ascertain from the record whether there is some competent evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court." Ross v. Ross (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 203, 204.

{30} Deborah asserts that the evidence presented supported a finding that she should retain custody of A.D. She first argues that when considering A.D.'s relationship with his parents, siblings, and others who affect his best interest, the trial court discounted A.D.'s relationship with his siblings in Idaho. Regarding this factor, there was some evidence presented that A.D. was close to his half-siblings and was happy to see them in Idaho. However, the court expressed concerns about a significant age difference between the siblings, which may impact their relationship. In addition, the evidence shows that A.D. also has a strong relationship with his father, his paternal relatives, and other individuals within his community in Ohio. The evidence in the record reveals that A.D. has strong relationships in both Ohio and Idaho, and, therefore, this factor alone does not support a finding that Deborah should retain custody.

{31} Regarding A.D.'s adjustment to his home and community, Deborah asserts that because Daniel had recently had his house foreclosed upon and moved in with his mother, A.D. was living in a "state of transition." However, the testimony of Daniel, his mother, and A.D.'s principal established that A.D. was doing well in school, both socially and intellectually, interacted well with other children, and had a strong home environment. Although A.D. moved into Daniel's mother's home a few months before the hearing, there was no evidence indicating that A.D. was not well adjusted to his living situation or that the move had resulted in negative changes to A.D's life or relationships. Even if the move to A.D.'s grandmother's home resulted in such a "state of transition," a move to Idaho would create yet another change in A.D.'s life.

{32} Deborah also asserts that Daniel has a problem with internet pornography. While the evidence indicates that Daniel has viewed pornography and seen a therapist regarding this issue in the past, the evidence presented at the trial established that Daniel's use of the internet did not negatively impact A.D. Dr. Leach's report notes that the computer use was not a "major issue," as long as it was done in private and not around A.D. Dr. Leach also believed that it would not be a concern as long as Daniel's internet was password protected, which Daniel testified was the case. Although Deborah asserts that Daniel told Dr. Leach that he "possibly" had child pornography on his computer, Daniel denies this assertion and there is no evidence that Daniel possesses such material. There is no evidence in the record that Daniel's internet use has had any impact whatsoever on A.D. or his best interest.

{33} In addition, in determining the best interest of a child, the court should, and did, consider relocation of the mother. Deborah moved to Idaho and requested an order allowing her to relocate A.D. The record indicates that A.D. has always lived in Ohio, has paternal relatives in Ohio, has established relationships with these relatives, and has succeeded within his school and community. Moving to Idaho would constitute a major change in A.D.'s life, which is properly weighed in the best interest analysis.

{34} When viewing all of the evidence presented at the hearing, this court cannot conclude that the trial court's decision to grant custody of A.D. to Daniel was not supported by competent, credible evidence or that the court abused its discretion in determining that granting custody to Daniel was in A.D.'s best interest.

{35} Deborah also argues that the trial court erred in failing to make a finding, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii), that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child and mentioned the statute "only in passing."

{36} Although the trial court is required to consider the statutory factors, including R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii), "it is not necessary for the trial court to set forth its analysis as to each factor in its judgment entry so long as it is supported by some competent, credible evidence." Schneider v. Schneider, 11th Dist. No. 2010-T-0012, 2011-Ohio-252, at ¶47. See Sayre v. Hoelzle-Sayre (1994), 100 Ohio App.3d 203, 212 (the trial court complied with the statute, even though it did not include language expressly applying balancing test of harm versus advantages). "However, this court must review the record to determine whether a substantial amount of credible and competent evidence supports the trial court's finding." Schneider, 2011-Ohio-252, at ¶47, citing Alessio v. Alessio, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-988, 2006-Ohio-2447, at ¶27 (citation omitted).

{37} The Magistrate's Order and the trial court's Judgment Entries did not include express findings regarding R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii). However, the record establishes that the trial court was aware of the statutory procedure and considered the appropriate factors, including R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii). In the Magistrate's Decision, adopted by the trial court, the magistrate stated that the statute required a finding of whether the harm caused by a modification is outweighed by the advantages of the change and noted that in this case, A.D. had already been in Daniel's care from approximately nine months and, therefore, the facts showed what would occur if such a modification in custody did occur. In its best interest findings, the court made findings that A.D. had fared well while in Daniel's care.

{38} The record supports a finding that there is competent and credible evidence that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child. A.D. had been living with Daniel for nine months prior to the hearing, while Deborah had been living in Idaho. The testimony demonstrated that A.D. was doing very well in school, had formed relationships with his paternal relatives, and had also formed relationships with children in his community. In addition, although A.D. has relationships with his half-siblings, there is no evidence as to how he would succeed in Idaho or that moving him to a new state would be beneficial. No harm had been suffered by A.D. in the time while he was in his father's custody, while there are questions as to the benefits of moving to Idaho. These factors were all discussed and considered by the court in its best interest analysis. Based on the evidence in the record, there is competent and credible evidence to support a finding that, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)(iii), the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child.

{39} Deborah finally argues that the trial court "ignored" the expert testimony given by Dr. Leach and failed to adopt his recommendation that Deborah retain permanent custody of A.D.

{40} We note that "[a] trial court is not required to adopt the recommendations of a psychologist, in full or in part." Eitutis v. Eitutis, 11th Dist. No 2009-L-121, 2011-Ohio-2838, at ¶85; Dunkle v. Dunkle, 2nd Dist. No. 10743, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 2186, at *1 (the court must only consider the results and recommendations of a psychological evaluation because "it is merely a recommendation," and the trial court must make the ultimate decision in a custody case).

{41} Moreover, as noted previously, there was competent credible evidence supporting a grant of custody to Daniel, even though such a determination was contrary to Dr. Leach's recommendation. A considerable amount of evidence was presented at the hearings, through the testimony of Daniel, his mother, and Dr. Leach himself, that Dr. Leach spent significantly more time with Deborah and her family than with Daniel and his family. There was also testimony presented that Daniel was not able to adequately represent his living situation, as Dr. Leach came to Daniel's prior home, from which he was moving, and did not view the home with furnishings or other items. Dr. Leach also did not see A.D. interact with any members of Daniel's family, while Dr. Leach was able to observe A.D. with Deborah's relatives at an Easter dinner. Dr. Leach himself testified that he did not request A.D.'s school records and was unaware that A.D. was doing very well in his school at Ohio. All of these considerations negatively impact the weight to be given to Dr. Leach's opinion. Therefore, we cannot find that the trial court erred by failing to follow Dr. Leach's recommendation regarding custody.

{42} The sole assignment of error is without merit.

{43} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, granting Daniel legal custody of A.D., is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant.
Timothy P. Cannon, P.J. and Thomas R. Wright, J., concur.

Deborah filed her appeal from the January 13, 2011 Judgment Entry on February 11, 2011. On March 10, 2011, the trial court's second Judgment Entry was issued. This court found that Deborah's Notice of Appeal was considered premature, and the appeal was taken from the March 10 Judgment Entry, which was the final appealable order in this case.

Nah way really??!!


Usher’s ex-wife Tameka Raymond has filed suit against the singer in a bid to receive full custody of their two kids and recoup $34,000 in child support.
The singer filed for divorce from Tameka in June, 2009, and together they share joint physical custody of their two boys, Usher Raymond V, 4, and Naviyd Eli, 3.
However, Tameka has now filed court papers against the star in Georgia, claiming Usher allegedly failed to complete a number of legal obligations laid out in their agreement.
According to documents, obtained by TMZ.com, she has accused him of neglecting to ask her permission before travelling with the kids outside the state and before hiring help.
The entertainer also allegedly failed to let Tameka have the children for a two-week period over the summer or during the tots’ Christmas vacation last year.
Additionally, Tameka is requesting that a judge reconsider her allocated $5,000-a-month child support payment as there has been a “substantial” increase in Usher’s income.
A hearing on the matter is set for Wednesday.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

The holidays always present a difficult and emotional time...

It's difficult being a single parent. Put on top of that being a single parent with a huge amount of drama going on which at times can become unbearable. For most this time of the year brings joy and happiness to the mind, but for others it's only a reminder of how complicated our lives have become. Moreover how empty our hearts are knowing that we struggle to keep hold of our own children. That we are in a fight that seems never ending and that we can't seem to find the end of our struggle. Add to all this the fact that I have a broken home. The holidays are a constant reminder to me that I do not have a husband and my family is no longer complete. I feel incomplete... I know no other way to describe it. Certainly I do not miss him one bit but it seems odd to be without a companion... seems so unnatural.

It's easy to get emotional during the holidays. Emotions run through me like a wild river beating at the banks of my heart. Missing the children terribly wondering if they have eaten enough, if they have had good wholesome company, and if they remember the memories of home. We know they do but we worry. That's what a parent does... we worry for our children. A mothers bond with her children is different. Her bond is one that can't be written in words nor can it be explained. It's a complex feeling and runs deep in her veins.


It hasn't gotten easier, no it hasn't. Year after year it just seems to be as unbearable as it was before. Asking myself how did this all happen?... when did this all get so out of hand?... how can I find peace with this situation? Someone said to me recently I have to put away the anger and treat their father with kindness. Though this seems so ideal how can you do this when the other person does not return the same respect to you? One must wonder do you ever get over the anger? Can you move on to a new relationship still hanging on to this anger that festers in you?

It has taken months of prayer and meditation for me to get to a place where I feel somewhat content with leaving things in Gods hands. However I continue to have anger about what is happening to the children. I am angry that their father does not see the damage he is doing to the children in his desire to get back at me. How does one get over the anger when there is still anger festering from the other who at one time both had love for each other?

It's complicated.


Tuesday, November 22, 2011

It's sad to think that this story is one of hundreds if not thousands...

Danielle Malmquist went through a bitter divorce with a FedEx pilot last year. In the end, he got the divorce and custody of their two boys. She's only seen her boys for 36 hours over the past year. She says the monthly cost for visiting her children is more than $2,000 she makes a month


Sunday, November 20, 2011

Tradition vs Coercive Control - Really, is there any difference?

It has been a while since I have personally written something on my blog. Maybe it's because I fear sharing the most intimate thoughts that run through my mind in a constant flow. Or maybe it's because I'll upset some who frequent here to fuel their own agenda's thinking I'm this man hating feminazi. If you knew me well you'd know I am not any of those things. I really don't know exactly why, but I know deep down I want to share every part of my experience because there are so many women who fear doing that exact same thing. I'm empowering myself by speaking out.

Since my divorce I have met a few men. I can say each has given me a little bit of a different perspective on my own situation by my lending an ear and listening to their stories. As well, they have each shown me what I would and would not want in my next relationship. When you speak to men who have been divorced you get a perspective that's a bit scary and crazy all together. You see a rage they have towards their ex-wives that makes one feel uneasy and a bit scared to even venture into another relationship. You wonder what if he views me that way after a few years of marriage? I am determined to take my time and if it's in my cards be with a man my wish is he be worthy in Gods eyes to spend eternity with me. If not, well I'll be very sad, but I'll accept it's as Gods will. No one, man or woman, should ever just settle simple to avoid being alone.


I was brought up in what some would call a traditional household. Man aka Patriarch aka head of household worked to provide for the family. Mother was managing the inner workings of the home tending to the home, children and husbands needs. The mother always represented the nurturer of the family. Not much can be debated that most mothers are the cement that holds the foundation (husband). We support our husbands in all that they do and in the decisions that they make in the best interest of the family. With that said my own mother was a very independent and strong woman. She wouldn't put up with crap that's for sure. I came out to be in the middle. I'm very tolerant yet independent. Hit the wrong button with me... then watch out! All kidding aside I am a very strong believer in the following biblical verse shown below.


"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1 Corinthians 2-3


Why you ask? After everything I've been through with my past marriage why would I even tolerate such a ridiculous verse. It's because I have faith that if we each obey our Heavenly Father that we will have eternal happiness. Sure I fulfilled the obedient wife from the outside. I tended to my husbands and children's every need, cooked, cleaned, did homework, threw parties, and everything else that fell under the role of a wife. Inside though I was boiling... angry... frustrated... confused... did I say angry. For years I felt that everything I did went unappreciated. First affection/intimacy faded and for someone who is extremely affectionate and intimate it was complete torture. Never was there a thank you for all that I did to sacrifice for my family. My ex-husband never thought out of the box like planning a surprise getaway to show his appreciation. Actually that was always me planning those things. He never acted as the Patriarch of the family nor did he lead our family spiritually. Years into the marriage I was like a hypnotized robot just going through the motions in my life. Lacking love and intimacy was taking it's tool, but I figured this is what God intended for me then so be in for better or for worse I will make this work.


After being divorce for a short period of time I became more and more aware of how my marriage evolved from being married to someone who I loved and sacrificed for to thinking I was nothing more then a workhouse pulling the load day after day. I quickly could see that in the grand scope of things he succeed in getting into my inner most self and manipulated the dickens out of me. He made me feel worthless and unloved. Marriage takes two and when you go through a rough patch your spouse should be able (and with love) carry your load till that time passes. Marriage = partnership.

“She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her.” Proverbs 3:15

I LOVE the verse above! When you look at your wife in this way you will see her for her worth, and through her actions you will see a wife that is worthy in Gods eyes. Your wife is the most precious human relationship you are going to have in your lifetime and beyond. She is the mother of your children (yes even when you're divorced).


“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” Ephesians 5:20

Gee do you see manipulate the dickens out of your wife in that line?? No! Go figure yet so many men have stooped to this level. Now lets be fair women are amazing manipulators because we've got it down to a science. We have ways of using even our assets to get what we want from our man. Come on ladies you know when you wanted that new diamond pendant you gave him a little something "extra" so you could secure getting it. But the majority of us are doing it out of love. We whisper sweet nothings in our hubby's ears, or we put on that dress we know drives him wild just so we can put him in that vulnerable position to bend and flex a bit more to our needs. Nothing wrong with that it's simply innocent and out of true love for our man. A happy wife is a happy home... trust me when I say this! 


Having come from a traditional background where the husband is clearly the Patriarch of the family I can say that yes there is a distinct difference between traditional households and coercive controlling situations.

  1. Traditional households the husband respects his wife and included her in all decision making. However when his wife says that she trust him to make the right decision and she is unclear on what to decide he is man enough to make a decision based on what is best for the entire family. The wife therefore shows her support in his decision as she left it to him to decide.
  2. In a coercive control situation the husband uses manipulation in a cunning way to get what he wants out of his wife even if this resorts to verbal or physical abuse. Typically it will start out early in the years with little things and as the wife becomes more use to this behavior from her husband he amps it up more with each passing year.
  3. Traditional households though in a Patriarchal set up the husband and wife are equal in the relationship and have equal respect for each others views and ideas. They have open discussion and even debate leaving the table fulfilled that it was constructive and they each were respected for their views. They will go to each other to seek opinion and guidance on a subject. There is respect. 
  4. In a coercive control situation the husband has no respect for his wife's opinion or views and in a very narcissistic way seeing his view as the only viable option manipulates, degrades, and uses her weaknesses to further his agenda. My view is he is so self absorbed he really has no true love for his wife - instead he degrades her to prop himself and his ideas as the only viable options. She naturally caves as she has learned from past experience it's a losing battle.
Let's throw kids in the mix and this get's entirely more complex. Suddenly the children become the tool of manipulation in the Coercive control situation. In the end the man who is in the coercive control situation is weak. He has no leg to stand on and is threatened by the woman he is with because she is far more capable. He knows this and this gets under his skin because each time she succeeds it's another reminder of how weak he is. So what he does is degrade, humiliate, devalue, abuse (verbally, physically), and starts to isolate her from her family and friends. This in the end makes him feel empowered.

In conclusion I would like to say that even though I was in a very toxic relationship for years I learned so much from the experience. I've learned from those around me as well who I listen to (women and men) telling me their stories. I want to walk my life with my eyes open and not be blind to the reality of what is, and that is men and women view their situations completely differently. Though it's hard I think we each need to put ourselves in the others shoes and see it from their perspective. Clearly some are truly blinded as they are convinced (such as my ex) they had a harmonious marriage and there was no toxicity/dysfunction to the relationship at all. Take off your blinders and have accountability for your actions.


Friday, November 18, 2011

Coercive Control... well what about that doozy!


Coercive Control: Review by Diane Post
Despite its great achievements, the domestic violence revolution is stalled, Evan Stark argues, a provocative conclusion he documents by showing that interventions have failed to improve womens long-term safety in relationships or to hold perpetrators accountable.
Stark traces this failure to a startling paradox, that the singular focus on violence against women masks an even more devastating reality. In millions of abusive relationships, men use a largely unidentified form of subjugation that more closely resembles kidnapping or indentured servitude than assault. He calls this pattern coercive control. Drawing on sources that range from FBI statistics and film to dozens of actual cases from his thirty years of experience as an award-winning researcher, advocate, and forensic expert, Stark shows in terrifying detail how men can use coercive control to extend their dominance over time and through social space in ways that subvert womens autonomy, isolate them, and infiltrate the most intimate corners of their lives.
Against this backdrop, Stark analyzes the cases of three women tried for crimes committed in the context of abuse, showing that their reactions are only intelligible when they are reframed as victims of coercive control rather than as battered wives. The story of physical and sexual violence against women has been told often.
But this is the first book to show that most abused women who seek help do so because their rights and liberties have been jeopardized, not because they have been injured. The coercive control model Stark develops resolves three of the most perplexing challenges posed by abuse: why these relationships endure, why abused women develop a profile of problems seen among no other group of assault victims, and why the legal system has failed to win them justice.  
Elevating coercive control from a second-class misdemeanor to a human rights violation, Stark explains why law, policy, and advocacy must shift its focus to emphasize how coercive control jeopardizes womens freedom in everyday life. Fiercely argued and eminently readable, Starks work is certain to breathe new life into the domestic violence revolution.
Coercive control is a model of abuse that attempts to encompass the range of strategies employed to dominate individual women in personal life. Alternately referred to as coerced persuasion; conjugal, patriarchal or intimate terrorism; emotional or psychological abuse; indirect abuse; or emotional torture, it describes an ongoing pattern of sexual mastery by which abusive partners, almost exclusively males, interweave repeated physical abuse with three equally important tactics: intimidation, isolation, and control.
The easiest way to understand coercive control is to contrast it to the widespread equation of partner abuse with “domestic violence.” Domestic violence laws and most research in the field take an incident-specific focus and weigh the severity of abuse by the level of force used or injury inflicted what I call a “calculus of harms.” In marked contrast, the coercive control model relies on evidence that most battered women who seek help experience coercion as “ongoing” rather than as merely “repeated” and that the main marker of these assaults is their frequency or even their “routine” nature rather than their severity, a fact that gives abuse a “cumulative” effect found in no other assault crime. Physical harm and psychological trauma remain important in the coercive control model. But its theory of harms replaces the violation of physical integrity with an emphasis on violations of “liberty” that entail the deprivation of rights and resources essential to personhood and citizenship. In this view, the psychological language of victimization and dependence is replaced by the political language of domination, resistance, and subordination. . In the coercive control model, what men do to women is less important than what they prevent women from doing for themselves.
In the forensic context where I work, women’s right to use whatever means are available to liberate themselves from coercive control derives from the right afforded to all persons to free themselves from tyranny not from the proximate physical or psychological means used to do this
The domestic violence model emphasizes the familial, cultural, interpersonal and psychological roots of abusive behavior. The coercive control model views the dynamics in abusive relationships from the vantage of the historical struggle for women’s liberation and men’s efforts to preserve their traditional privileges in personal life in the face of this struggle. The incredible strides women have made towards full equality, particularly since the l960’s, have been widely documented. These gains make it increasingly difficult for men to ensure women’s obedience and dependence through violence alone. In the face of this reality, millions of men have expanded their oppressive repertoire to include a range of constraints on women’s autonomy formerly imposed by law, religion, and women’s exclusion from the economic, cultural and political mainstream, in essence trying to construct a “patriarchy in miniature” in each individual relationship, the course of malevolent conduct known as coercive control. Although the aim of this conspicuous form of subjugation is to quash, offset or coopt women’s social gains (taking the money they earn, for instance), this strategy relies for success on the persistent inequalities based on sex that remain, including the huge gap in job opportunities and earnings that continues to advantage men.
Coercive control shares general elements with other capture or course-of-conduct crimes such as kidnapping, stalking, and harassment, including the facts that it is ongoing and its perpetrators use various means to hurt, humiliate, intimidate, exploit, isolate, and dominate their victims. Like hostages, victims of coercive control are frequently deprived of money, food, access to communication or transportation, and other survival resources even as they are cut off from family, friends, and other supports through the process of “isolation.” But unlike other capture crimes, coercive control is personalized, extends through social space as well as over time, and is gendered in that it relies for its impact on women’s vulnerability as women due to sexual inequality. Another difference is its aim. Men deploy coercive control to secure privileges that involve the use of time, control over material resources, access to sex, and personal service. A main means men use to establish control is the microregulation of everyday behaviors associated with stereotypic female roles, such as how women dress, cook, clean, socialize, care for their children, or perform sexually. These dynamics give coercive control a role in sexual politics that distinguishes it from all other crimes.
The coercive control framework does not downplay women’s own use of violence either in fights or to hurt or control men or same-sex partners. Numerous studies in the United States indicate that women of all ages assault male and female partners in large numbers and for many of the same reasons and with much the same consequences as men. However, there is no counterpart in men’s lives to women’s entrapment by men in personal life due to coercive control.
The Origins of the Coercive Control Model
The coercive control model reflects two concurrent realities, that the domestic violence is stalled and that our current predicament can be traced to the gap that separates how abuse is understood and the actual experiences of battered women with abusive men.
Nothing in the coercive control model is meant to discount the enormous gains achieved by the domestic violence revolution since we opened the first battered women’s shelters in the l970’s. Nor, as some critics of our movement have argued, do I want to turn back the clock by retreating from the important protections we have won for women in the legal, criminal justice, health or mental health arenas. Hundreds of thousands of women and children owe the fact that they are alive to the availability of shelters and to criminal justice and legal reforms. What is less clear is whether women as a group are safer today or are less likely to be beaten, controlled, or killed by their partners than they were before the domestic violence revolution began.
Partner violence against women is no longer just life. But anyone with reasonable sympathies and a passing acquaintance with interventions to stem men’s abuse of woman will sense the failure of a range of systems to mount an adequate response, the justice system included. Among the most dramatic facts are these:
• Partner homicides have dropped precipitously. But this change has benefited men far more than women. The number of men killed by female partners has dropped dramatically since we opened the first shelters, particularly among blacks. But the number of women killed by male partners has changed very little. While severe violence by men against women has dropped, the so-called “minor” violence that makes up the infrastructure of coercive control has increased sharply. Women as a group are not appreciably safer today than when the domestic violence revolution began.
• Though domestic violence is an ongoing crime and is almost always complemented by acts of intimidation, humiliation, isolation and control, in most communities abuse is treated as a second-class misdemeanor. While victims repeatedly insist that “violence isn’t the worst part” and mounting evidence points to structural constraints on independence and personhood as the most devastating aspects of abuse, these dimensions remain officially invisible. Millions of men may be arrested each year for domestic violence. But the chance that a perpetrator will go to jail in any given incident is just slightly better than the chance of winning a lottery.
• Batterer intervention programs (BIPs) are widely offered as an alternative to incarceration. But these programs are little more effective than doing nothing at all. Regardless of intervention, the vast majority of perpetrators continue their abuse.
• Shelters are the core response to abused women and so they should remain. But in hundreds of communities, shelters today are indistinguishable from the traditional, paternalistic service system they arose to challenge.
. Perhaps the key fact is that the domestic violence revolution appears to have had little or no effect on coercive control, the pattern evidence shows characterizes between 60-80% of the relationships for which women seek outside assistance. Refocusing on coercive control would be a giant step toward changing this situation. The domestic violence movement began with a vision, to provide women worldwide with a safety net that protected them against harm in personal life. Such a net is in place in most countries. But long-term protection still eludes us.
The limits of current interventions can be directly traced to a failure of vision, not of nerve. Conservatives attack the advocacy movement for exaggerating the nature and extent of abuse. In fact, because of its singular emphasis on physical violence, the prevailing model minimizes both the extent of women’s entrapment by male partners in personal life and its consequences.
Viewing woman abuse through the prism of the incident-specific and injury-based definition of violence has concealed its major components, dynamics, and effects, including the fact that it is neither “domestic” nor primarily about “violence.” Failure to appreciate the multidimensionality of oppression in personal life has been disastrous for abuse victims. Regardless of its chronic nature, courts treat each abuse incident they see as a first offense. Because well over 95% of these incidents are minor, in that the physical assault involved is not injurious, almost no one goes to jail. In custody or divorce cases, because abuse is framed as incident specific or as only involving injurious violence, when women or children present with claims based on the ongoing, multidimensional and cumulative nature of abuse, these are often treated as fabricated. Worse, a protective mother may be blamed when her expressed level of concern or fear is at odds with evidence of assault: in the dependency court, her children may be placed in foster care; in family court, she is alleged to be engaged in alienating her children from the “good enough father.” As calls to the police or visits to the emergency room are repeated over time, the helping response becomes more perfunctory and may actually contribute to making abuse routine, a process called normalization.
Coercive Control
The coercive control model is built on earlier work that has remained marginal to mainstream intervention, a mountain of data that contradicts every major tenet of the domestic violence model; and a growing body of literature documenting the prevalence of tactics to isolate, intimidate and control women in abusive relationships. But its major source is the real-life experiences of perpetrators and victims of abuse
As I’ve suggested, the most important anomalous evidence indicates that violence in abusive relationships is ongoing rather than episodic, that its effects are cumulative rather than incident-specific, and that the harms it causes are more readily explained by these factors than by its severity. Among these harms, the dominant approach identifies two for which it fails to adequately account, the entrapment of victims in relationships where ongoing abuse is virtually inevitable, and the development of a problem profile that distinguishes abused women from every other class of assault victim. The prevailing view is that women stay and develop a range of mental health and behavioral problems because exposure to severe violence induces trauma-related syndromes, such as PTSD or BWS that can disable a woman’s capacity to cope or escape. In fact, however, only a small proportion of abuse victims evidence these syndromes. Most victims of abuse do not develop significant psychological or behavioral problems. Abused women exhibit a range of problems that are unrelated to trauma, the vast majority of assault incidents are too minor to induce trauma, and abuse victims can be entrapped even in the absence of assault. The duration of abusive relationships is made even more problematic when we appreciate that abuse victims are aggressive help seekers and are as likely to be assaulted and even entrapped when they are physically separated as when married or living together. Thus, whatever harms are involved can cross social space as well as extend over time and appear to persist regardless of how women respond. If violence doesn’t account for the entrapment of millions of women in personal life, what does?
The answer is coercive control, a strategy that remains officially invisible despite the fact that it has been in plain sight at least since the earliest shelter residents told us in no uncertain terms that “violence wasn’t the worst part.” Cognitive psychologists in the late 1970s and 1980s tried to capture what these women were experiencing by comparing it to “coercive persuasion,” brainwashing, and other tactics used with hostages, prisoners of war, kidnap victims, and by pimps with prostitutes. Largely ignored by researchers, the understanding of abuse as coercive control was developed in popular literature and incorporated at least implicitly into how various practitioners approached the problem. Working on men’s control skills has provided one template for batterers programs since the founding of Emerge in Boston. Prosecutors are increasingly charging batterers with stalking, or harassment as well as domestic violence, crimes that typically involve a course of intimidating and controlling conduct as well of violence. Scotland and Canada are examples of countries that now define violence against women or abuse from a human rights perspective that includes a range of coercive and controlling behaviors in addition to assault. The most widely used graphic representation of abuse is the Power and Control Wheel introduced by the Domestic Violence Intervention Project (DAIP) in Duluth, Minnesota. Although violence is the hub of the original wheel, its spokes depict isolation, economic control, emotional and sexual abuse, and other facets of coercive control. This attention is merited. The several dozen studies that attempt to measure control and psychological abuse suggest that victims have been subjected to multiple control tactics, among which the denial of money, the monitoring of time, and restricted mobility and communication are prominent.
Despite these inroads, coercive control remains marginal to mainstream thinking. It is rarely acknowledged in policy circles, has had almost no impact on domestic violence policing or criminal law, and commands no special funding. Although providers and advocates may ask about elements of coercive control, I know of no programs or interventions that address it. Everyone acknowledges that domestic violence is about power and control. But we have yet to incorporate this truism into our understanding of abuse or our response.
The major source for the model of coercive control are the victims and perpetrators of abuse with whom I and others have worked. The women in my practice have repeatedly made clear that the most serious harms they have suffered involve how their partners have kept them from fulfilling their life projects by appropriating their resources; undermining their social support; subverting their rights to privacy, self-respect, and autonomy; and depriving them of substantive equality. This is the evidence on which I base my claim that coercive control is a liberty crime. Preventing a substantial group of women from freely applying their agency in economic and political life obstructs overall social development .
The new model is rooted in the same tenets that gave birth to the battered women’s movement—that the abuse of women in personal life is inextricably bound up with their standing in the larger society and therefore that women’s entrapment in their personal lives can be significantly reduced only if sexual discrimination is addressed simultaneously. In the early shelters, the interrelatedness of these tenets was grounded in the practice of empowerment, whereby the suffering of individual victims was mollified by mobilizing their collective power to help one another and change the institutional structures that caused and perpetuated women’s second-class status, an example of women doing for themselves. Our challenge is to resurrect this collective practice and broaden its political focus to the sources of coercive control.
Control: Invisible in Plain Sight
The victims and perpetrators of coercive control are easily identified. Many of the rights violated in battering are so fundamental to the conduct of everyday life that is hard to conceive of meaningful human existence without them. How is it possible then that it has attracted so little attention?
I have already pointed to the prominence of the domestic violence model. Another explanation is the compelling nature of violence. Once injury became the major medium for presenting abuse, its sights and sounds were so dramatic that other experiences seemed muted by comparison. The radical feminists who led the fight against rape and pornography also inadvertently contributed to the invisibility of coercive control. Placing so much political currency on violence against women as the ultimate weapon in men’s arsenal made it a surrogate for male domination rather than merely one of its means. It was a short step to replacing the political discussions of women’s liberation with the talks of “victims” and “perpetrators.” Another explanation for why coercive control has had such little impact is that no one knows what to do about it.
The entrapment of women in personal life is also hard to discern because many of the rights it violates are so basic—so much a part of the taken-for-granted fabric of the everyday lives we lead as adults, and so embedded in female behaviors that are constrained by their normative consignment to women—that their abridgement passes largely without notice. Among my clients are women who had to answer the phone by the third ring, record every penny they spent, vacuum “till you can see the lines,” and dress, walk, cook, talk, and make love in specific ways and not in others, always with the “or else” proviso hanging over their heads. What status should we accord to a woman’s right to have toilet paper in the downstairs bathroom or to the right of a woman I will call Laura who had to beep in periodically so her boyfriend would know her whereabouts or who could not go to the gym without being beeped home? Given the prominence of physical bruising, how can we take these little indignities seriously or appreciate that they comprise the heart of a hostage-like syndrome against which the slap, punch, or kick pale in significance? Most people take it for granted that normal, healthy adults determine their own sleep patterns or how they drive or laugh or make love. The first women who used our home as her safe house described her partner a tyrant. We thought she was speaking metaphorically.
Violence is easy to understand. But the deprivations that come packaged in coercive control are no more a part of my personal life than they are of most men’s. This is true both literally, because many of the regulations involved in coercive control target behaviors that are identified with the female role, and figuratively, because it is hard for me to conceive of a situation outside of prison, a mental hospital, or a POW camp where another adult would control or even care to control my everyday routines.
What is taken from the women whose stories I hear almost daily—and what some victims use violence to restore—is the capacity for independent decision making in the areas by which we distinguish adults from children and free citizens from indentured servants. Coercive control entails a malevolent course of conduct that subordinates women to an alien will by violating their physical integrity (domestic violence), denying them respect and autonomy (intimidation), depriving them of social connectedness (isolation), and appropriating or denying them access to the resources required for personhood and citizenship (control). Nothing men experience in the normal course of their everyday lives resembles this conspicuous form of subjugation.
Some of the rights batterers deny to women are already protected in the public sphere, such as the rights to physical integrity and property. In these instances, law is challenged to extend protections to personal life. But most of the harms involved in coercive control are gender-specific infringements of adult autonomy that have no counterpart in public life and are currently invisible to the law. The combination of these big and little indignities best explains why women suffer and respond as they do in abusive relationships, including why so many women become entrapped, why some battered women kill their partners, why they themselves may be killed, or why they are prone to develop a range of psychosocial problems and exhibit behaviors or commit a range of acts that are contrary to their nature or to basic common sense or decency.
In the late 1970s, we reached into the shadows to retrieve physical abuse from the canon of “just life.” Now it appears, we did not reach nearly far enough.
Evan Stark

Thursday, November 10, 2011

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/fatal_court_flub_OufPgSw5WW40VxcxjC5HKK



Fatal court µflub¶
By WILLIAM J. GORTA
Last Updated: 12:41 PM, November 7, 2011
Posted: 1:33 AM, November 7, 2011

Budget cuts in the state court system may have cost a Brooklyn woman her life.
Alla Kamenev was gunned down the day after she went to two courthouses to seek an order of protection -- only to be turned away by one because of office-hour cutbacks, and the other because officers there didn't know about the first court's new schedule, sources told The Post.

Kamenev, 65, arrived at Brooklyn Family Court at around 3:15 p.m. Oct. 19 seeking the restraining order, apparently against her ex-husband. But she was told the intake room closed at 3 p.m. that day, given the court's reduced hours because of budget cuts, the sources said.

She was then sent to Brooklyn Criminal Court a few blocks away, where the judge hearing nighttime arraignments could issue the necessary restraining order. But once there, she was instead given a handout in the lobby that told her she needed to go back to Family Court for the order of protection.

There, she was again told they were closed, the sources said. Finally, “she gave up in disgust,” said one source in the court system. The next day, Kamenev was shot several times by a man riding a pink girl's bicycle with a red basket at West Second Avenue and Sea Breeze Avenue in Coney Island.

A few days later, cops arrested Alla's ex, Dimitry Kamenev, and charged him with murder and weapons possession. Kamenev's death prompted panicked meetings in both courthouses, sources said. After those sessions and an inquiry from The Post, court officials issued new procedures stating that anyone asking for an order of protection at Brooklyn Criminal Court must be referred to the clerk's office in that building, which is open until 1 a.m.

“No court officer is to refer an individual to any agency or office other than the court clerk's office in their facility,” said the memo, which was issued Wednesday. As for Kamenev's case, a court spokeswoman insisted there was “no record” of her in Family Court.

“This is a terrible tragedy, but we have a system in place to prevent this from happening,” the spokeswoman, Arlene Hackel, told The Post before the new memo was issued. Police said there were no domestic-incident reports between the Kamenevs, nor was there any lingering animosity, according to their son, Alexey, and even Alla¶s new husband, Vlad Godin.

Dimitry Kamenev has two prior arrests: a 1998 felony assault charge and a collar in 1991 for a shooting.