Sacks, Allred Debate New CA. Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

In relation to the post below, Glenn Sacks debated attorney Gloria Allred last Friday about this case and move away cases in general. What follows are verbatim excerpts from an email. You can visit GlennSacks.com or His Side with Glenn Sacks for more information or to sign up for email updates.

Excerpts:

California Supreme Court Rules Against Dad in New Move-Away Decision

From 1996 to 2004 move-away determinations were based on the Burgess decision, in which a custodial mother was allowed to move her two children 40 miles away from their father. Burgess was disastrous for children because it was interpreted by California courts to permit moves of hundreds or thousands of miles. In some cases, courts have even allowed children to be moved out of the country, as far away as Australia, New Zealand, and Zaire.

In 2004 the California Supreme Court decided the LaMusga case in favor of the father, Gary LaMusga, who sought to prevent his ex-wife from moving his two young boys from California to Ohio. LaMusga, who is unable to follow his children because he operates a small business and is tied down by weighty child support obligations, had fought the move for eight years. In siding with the father the court explained that "the likely impact of the proposed move on the noncustodial parent's relationship with the children is a relevant factor in determining whether the move would cause detriment to the children."

Soon afterwards a handful of extreme feminists prevailed upon former California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) to introduce SB 730, which would have abrogated LaMusga and given custodial parents almost unlimited move-away privileges. We organized to fight the bill, and generated thousands of calls and letters in opposition, as well as a lot of media attention. To everybody's surprise, Burton withdrew SB 730, and LaMusga was preserved.

Fortunately the new decision in Brown vs. Yana will not have the impact of Burgess or LaMusga--it is more technical and limited in scope, and the father's underwhelming legal effort and behavior hurt him. To learn more about the new ruling, see Court Rules Parents With Custody Can Move (Los Angeles Times, 2/2/06).

To learn more about California move-aways and the LaMusga case, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and read my LaMusga radio commentary here. To read a feminist view of the move-away issue, see Allred's column "Moving Matters in Custody" (Los Angeles Daily Journal, 10/3/02).

I discussed how this issue would be viewed if we switched the genders in my column California NOW Takes Stand Against Working Mothers (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/23/04), and argued in favor of a current Wisconsin move-away bill in my co-authored piece AB 400 Will Help Wisconsin's Children of Divorce (Wisconsin State Journal, 12/3/05). I clashed with feminist law professor Carol Bruch, who authored the mother's brief in LaMusga, on PBS's Los Angeles affiliate KCET last year--to watch, click here.

Sacks, Allred Debate New California Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

For example, Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways unfairly restrict custodial moms from moving, while not restricting noncustodial fathers. I answer that in these cases both parents are free to move wherever they want--it is the children who may not be moved if a court determines that it is against their best interests.

Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways keep custodial parents "held hostage" in their neighborhoods, and that they should be able to "move on with their lives." I respond that both parents retain responsibilities to their children after divorce which are sometimes inconvenient or limiting, and ask "Would we argue that noncustodial parents' responsibility to pay child support holds them 'hostage?' Do we condone the behavior of divorced parents who decide to drop out of their children's lives or stop paying child support because they've decided to 'move on with their lives?'"

Another Bizarre Father Screwing

According to the article Not guilty, but not off the hook (2/6/06):

"A man who spent 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murder faces a debt of more than $38,000 in child-support payments that started accumulating while he was locked up...

"A federal judge released Souter last April 1.

"In 1987, before his conviction, [Larry] Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995.

"Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25.

"Federal law prohibits judges from retroactively wiping out such debts...

"David Sarnacki, an attorney for Souter's ex-wife, wrote in a court filing that his client 'has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support.'"

I love the quote from his ex-wife's attorney. Yes, he didn't pay child support because he was in prison framed on a murder charge. I guess we should be grateful the lawyer didn't refer to Souter as a "deadbeat dad." That'll probably be next. One would also think that after seeing her ex-husband rot in jail for 13 years for a crime he didn't commit, she would feel so damn sorry for the poor guy that she would back off. I guess not.

In the article Wrongly convicted man tries to move on after prison (Flint Journal, 1/7/06), Souter had discussed putting his life back together and his plans. Now he may be headed back on the road to jail.

I wrote about California legislation designed to deal with the problem of ex-offenders and child support in my co-authored column Schwarzenegger Should Sign Bill to Reduce Prisoner Recidivism (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 9/21/05). The Bradley Amendment, under which child support arrearages cannot be retroactively forgiven, is the cause of countless bizarre injustices, and often hurts deployed military personnel. In my co-authored column Laws must protect the rights of military dads (Army Times, Marine Corps Times, 3/28/05) family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"[Child] support orders are based on civilian pay, which is generally higher than active duty pay. When reservists are called up to active duty they sometimes pay an impossibly high percentage of their income in child support.

"For example, a California naval reservist who has three children and who takes home $4,000 a month in his civilian job would have a child support obligation of about $1,600 a month. If this father is a petty officer second class (E5) who has been in the reserves for six or seven years--a middle-ranked reservist--his active-duty pay would only be $2,205 before taxes, in addition to a housing allowance. Under current California child support guidelines, the reservist's child support obligation should be $550 a month, not $1,600."

A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the wonders of the child support system would probably think 'OK, but the courts would just straighten it out when the reservist gets back--certainly they wouldn't punish him for something that happened because he was serving.' However, the federal Bradley Amendment prohibits judges from retroactively modifying child support beyond the date which an obligor has applied for a modification. Reservists can be mobilized with as little as one day's notice. If a reservist didn't have time or didn't know he had to file for a downward modification, the arrearages stay, along with the interest and penalties charged on them.

"When the arrearage reaches $5,000--a common occurrence during long deployments--the father can become a felon who can be incarcerated or subject to a barrage of harsh civil penalties, including seizure of driver's licenses, business licenses and passports."

This is a particularly long newsletter so I am going to cut the excerpts here. However, Glenn also discusses child abduction, the campaign against PBS "documentary" Breaking the Silence, Newsweek coverage of The Trouble With Boys, domestic violence laws, Italian custody laws, and female inmates - amongst other topics. Visit his site to read the newsletter here.

Maligning fathers

This is the latest Boston Globe article by Cathy Young. You can always visit Cathy at her blog - The Y Files.

Click on the article title to read it in full.

Maligning fathers

Excerpts:

LAST NOVEMBER, I wrote about the controversy about the Public Broadcasting Service documentary, ''Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," which claimed that male batterers and child abusers frequently gain custody of their children in divorce cases after the mothers' claims of abuse are disbelieved by the courts. The film caused an outcry from fathers' rights groups. In response to these protests, PBS announced a 30-day review to determine whether the film met the editorial guidelines for fairness and accuracy.

Unfortunately, it seems that the review amounted to little more than a whitewash.

On Dec. 21, PBS issued a statement acknowledging that the film ''would have benefited from more in-depth treatment of the complex issues," but also concluded that ''the producers approached the topic with the open-mindedness and commitment to fairness that we require of our journalists" and that the program's claims were supported by ''extensive" research.

Connecticut Public Television, which co-produced ''Breaking the Silence," has supplied me with two detailed reports -- one from producer Dominique Lasseur, the other from Lasseur and George Washington University law professor Joan Meier, the film's lead expert -- on which PBS drew to support its conclusion. To call these reports shoddy and self-serving would be an understatement.

Defending the claim made in ''Breaking the Silence" that children are in greater danger of abuse from fathers than from mothers, Lasseur and Meier point to several limited studies that often lump together biological fathers with stepfathers and mothers' boyfriends (who, statistically, pose a far higher risk). Yet even these cherry-picked statistics show that a significant proportion of perpetrators of severe child abuse are mothers -- which makes the film's exclusive focus on abusive fathers difficult to defend.

Lasseur and Meier profess to be shocked that anyone could see the film as collectively maligning divorced fathers when it focuses only on abusive fathers in contested custody cases. Yet the film clearly suggests that if a divorcing father decides to fight for custody, chances are he's a batterer who's using the custody suit as an abuse tactic -- and that if he's accused of abuse, he's most probably guilty. And that's not prejudicial?

Notably, PBS ombudsman Michael Getler and especially Corporation for Public Broadcasting ombudsman Ken Bode have taken a far more negative view of the film than did the PBS review. On Jan. 4, Bode wrote, ''After close review including discussions and e-mail exchanges with those involved with the program or closely affected by it, I found the program to be so totally unbalanced as to fall outside the boundaries of PBS editorial standards on fairness and balance."

PBS Propaganda Piece

PBS Propaganda Piece
by Carey Roberts

Excerpts below. Link directly to the piece to read it in its entirety and to be able to link to Mr. Roberts source material.

I’ve never heard of a Public Broadcasting Service documentary being slammed by two ombudsmen in the space of one week. But that’s exactly what happened to PBS’ ill-fated program, Breaking the Silence.

The program, billed as an exposé of divorce courts, said that custody of abused children is often awarded to the abusing parent. Government reports reveal that mothers are more likely than dads to abuse and neglect their children and that mothers in fact are awarded child custody about 85% of the time – so the documentary producers did have a point.

But the problem with Breaking the Silence is not just flawed and unethical journalism. Bode’s greater concern was the fact that the program “has been a launching pad for a very partisan effort to drive public policy and the law.”

CPB Ombudsmen Report on "Breaking the Silence"

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting Ombudsmen has now weighed in on "Breaking the Silence."

CPB

Excerpts:

The experts provided by Lasseur/Tatge debunk PAS as "junk science." At one point the film states that PAS "has been thoroughly debunked by the American Psychological Association." Contacted for verification by a number of critics and viewers, the APA's communications director stated:

"The American Psychological Association does not have an official position on parental alienation syndrome--pro or con."

In this case it appears that Lasseur/Tatge plainly got it wrong. In a statement released to their website, the producers now say something quite different than they did in the film:

"We do not make the assertion that the phenomenon of alienation does not exist, simply that PAS seems to be wrongly used as scientific proof to justify taking children away from a protective parent."

My conclusion after viewing and reviewing the program and checking various web sites cited by critics is that there is no hint of balance in Breaking the Silence. The father's point of view is ignored as are new strategies for lessening the damage to children in custody battles. There is no mention of the collaborative law movement in which parents and lawyers come to terms without involving the court, nor of the new joint custody living arrangements.

The producers apparently do not subscribe to the idea that an argument can be made more convincing by giving the other side a fair presentation. To be sure, one comes away from viewing the program with the feeling that custody fights are a special hell, legally, emotionally, psychologically. But this broadcast is so slanted as to raise suspicions that either the family courts of America have gone crazy or there must be another side to the story.

One critic who reached CPB cited reports that the Mary Kay Ash Foundation is providing a stipend so that every battered women's organization in the country can put on private screenings of this film for their local judges and legislators. If so, PBS may find it has been the launching pad for a very partisan effort to drive public policy and law.

PBS says it has received around 4,000 letters, calls and e-mails about Breaking the Silence. The National Organization for Women issued an action alert calling for mail supporting the program. Glenn Sacks used his radio show to promote mailings objecting to the broadcast. Jan McNamara the director of corporate communication at PBS says the program is now under official review. That's good. Along with the motives of its sponsor (The Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation), Breaking the Silence needs to be reviewed for accuracy, fairness and balance.

UPDATE: BloggingBaby is also talking about this...

PBS's negative picture of fathers

Boston.com

Cathy Young has weighed in on the PBS "documentary" Breaking the Silence.

Cathy also has her own blog, The Y Files, and you can see her post directly related to PBS here.

PBS's negative picture of fathers
By Cathy Young

Excerpts:

The film's point is simple: Children in America are routinely ripped from their mothers and given to fathers who are batterers or molesters. The women's claims of abuse are not believed by the courts and are even held against them when mothers are suspected of manufacturing false charges as a divorce strategy.

To fathers' groups, ''Breaking the Silence" is blatant antidad propaganda. In a campaign led by the Boston-based Fathers and Families, PBS has been bombarded with thousands of calls and letters. It is now conducting a 30-day review of the research used in the film.

There is no question that our legal system fails children all too often. But the PBS documentary presents a skewed and sensationalist picture.

The website of the film's producers, Tatge/Lasseur productions, lists two sources for these claims: a study of 39 abused women involved in custody litigation in Massachusetts, and the 1990 report of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Study Committee which states that fathers who actively seek custody obtain primary or joint physical custody over 70 percent of the time.

But the 70 percent figure was not limited to domestic violence cases. It is also highly misleading, since it doesn't separate custody disputes from cases in which the father gets custody by mutual consent. In contested custody cases, mothers are two to four times more likely to prevail.

Lasseur told me that if he had encountered cases in which an abusive mother was awarded custody of the children, he would have reported on them. I asked about the claim on a battered men's advocacy site that a man named Tom Gallen had approached him with exactly such a case. Lasseur conceded that Gallen had a well-documented story but explained that, relying on his ''instinct as a producer," he felt that Gallen wouldn't be the right person to use.

The filmmakers contend that their only concern was the well-being of children. Yet, if the film contributes to a climate in which fathers who seek custody are tagged as suspected abusers, it could endanger children as well. PBS should rectify this bias by presenting programs with a different point of view.

Breaking the Science

I have added a new site under the Links heading: Breaking the Science.

The site "is about the broken "science" that's being used to create law and drive social policy" and currently includes a large section on domestic violence.

Glenn Sacks vs PBS

Glenn has posted more updates in regard to his campaign against the PBS program Breaking the Silence. You can link to the campaign page here.

PBS is now sending a letter stating that they "have initiated a review of the research behind and conclusions presented" by the film, and that their review will be completed by early December. You can view the letter here.

Sadia Loeliger, a mother featured in the program, has responded to the charges that she abused children under her care via Trish Wilson's blog. It can be viewed here. Glenn has in turn pointed out some of the discrepancies in Ms. Loeligers account of events. His response can be viewed here.

Glenn Sacks PBS Campaign

Glenn Sacks PBS Campaign has entered stage three. You can get more information by clicking here.

Breaking the Science: Ostrich Syndrome

More on the travesty that was Breaking the Silence...

Breaking the Science: Ostrich Syndrome
by Mark Rosenthal

Excerpts:

The film's inflammatory statement that, "To win custody of the kids over and against the mother's will is the ultimate victory, short of killing the kids," ignores the fact that mothers are perpetrators in 59.1% of child fatalities, whereas the number for fathers is 39.5%. And when you factor out the 20.4% of fatalities involving both parents, twice as many children die at the hands of their mothers as their fathers.

The film also states that Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) "has been thoroughly debunked by the American Psychological Assn." The APA, however, begs to differ. Rhea K. Farberman, APA Communications Director states, "The American Psychological Association does not have an official position on parental alienation syndrome -- pro or con. The Connecticut Public Television press release is incorrect."

But the real bombshell happened Wednesday, when Glenn Sacks' website published a report stating that one of the mothers in the film had been found by a court to have committed eight counts of child abuse, and that the filmmakers were informed of that fact, yet chose to portray her as the victim anyway.

If it's true that "women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner," then men constitute around 13.9% of all victims (halfway between the one man for every five to eight women that they claim). If they had featured the stories of one man and five women, they'd give the impression that 16.7% of victims are men. Overstating the number by 2.8% is what they call "grossly overstating" the problems of men? Apparently even they figured out how nonsensical their claim is, because when they posted the statement on their website, they removed the word "grossly."

But even the claim that "women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner" is highly questionable. This number comes from analysis of reported crimes, and for a whole constellation of reasons, men are far more reluctant to report being victimized by their spouses than women are. The National Violence Against Women Survey documents that victimized women (26.7%) were twice as likely as victimized men (13.5%) to report their victimization to the police. Surveying representative population samples is a far more reliable way to estimate who's doing what to whom than trying to draw conclusions from the non-representative subgroup that files police reports. Those who want to minimize the significance of female perpetrated abuse prefer the distorted picture reflected by crime statistics.

Campaign Update: PBS BOMBSHELL - Glenn Sacks

This is directly from an email:

PBS Portrays Known Child Abuser as Hero:Juvenile Court, CPS, Family Court Records Detail Mother's Physical Abuse

Sadia Loeliger, one of the central characters in Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories, is portrayed by the filmmakers as a heroic mom. The filmmakers spotlight and applaud her fight to gain custody of her daughter Fatima, who is also featured.

After the film's debut I was contacted by Dr. Scott Loeliger, Sadia's ex-husband, and we are now revealing, for the first time publicly, Sadia's long, documented history of child abuse--a history which the film's producers chose to ignore despite repeated warnings.

We are launching Round 2 of our campaign against Breaking the Silence today--read the shocking Loeliger revelations here and then return to this E-newsletter for instructions on how you can participate.

Round 2 of the Campaign Begins

To date, we have generated over 4,000 calls and letters to PBS protesting Breaking the Silence. Round 2 begins now--I want all of you to join our campaign by clicking here.

There have been many indications, some of which I am not at liberty to discuss, that our protests have concerned PBS. The film, which aired on some PBS affiliates on October 20 and will air on many others in the coming weeks, is a direct assault on fatherhood. The film portrays fathers as batterers and child molesters who steal children from their mothers. We want PBS to allow both sides of this issue to be heard.

Again, I want all of you to join our campaign by clicking here.

Our Side Gets Chance to Speak on Houston PBS

To its credit, Houston PBS followed through on its commitment to allow our side to air its view of Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories and Parental Alienation Syndrome on its round-table discussion show The Connection on Friday, October 28 at 8 PM CST and again on Sunday, October 30 at 5 PM CST.

The show featured Dr. Reena Sommer, an expert on Parental Alienation Syndrome, as well as Andy Sperling, director of Fathers for Equal Rights in Houston. The opposition was represented by Thomas H. Burton III, General Counsel for the nonprofit organization Justice for Children.

Burton labeled Parental Alienation Syndrome "junk science" and his group's website calls claims of PAS an "unethical, immoral" tactic.

According to Barbara Sweet of Help Stop PAS Inc, our side's points came across loud and clear.

Thanks to Sweet, who has done a lot of good work on this issue, as well as to Sommer and Sperling.

Also, I suggest you commend Ken Lawrence, the Director of Programming for PBS of Houston, for his evenhandedness--to write him, click here.

To read a more detailed description of the Houston broadcast, click here.

I'm disappointed and a little surprised at the position Justice for Children is taking on PAS. I had one of their leaders, Donnalee Sarda, on His Side with Glenn Sacks earlier this year, and while Donna and I certainly don't see eye to eye on everything, she seems much more reasonable than what is posted on their website.

I receive a steady stream of letters from target parents of PAS, and I told some of the stories I was able to investigate in the first part of my co-authored column PBS Declares War on Dads (World Net Daily, 10/20/05). To deny that alienation exists, or that children can buy into the alienation and align themselves with the alienating parent against the target parent, seems to me to be an intellectually untenable position.

However, this is certainly not to say that claims of PAS are not misused--in my co-authored column PBS' Breaking the Silence: Family Law in the Funhouse Mirror (Albany Times Union, 10/20/05, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 10/24/05) I noted:

"To be fair, it is true that there are fathers who have alienated their own children through their abuse or personality defects, and who unfairly blame their children's mothers by claiming PAS. Yet parental alienation is a common, well-documented phenomenon. For example, a longitudinal study published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 'high conflict' divorce cases over a 12 year period, and found that elements of PAS were present in the vast majority of them."

To hear Sommer and Judy Jones of Help Stop PAS Inc on His Side, see The Lohstroh Case: Alienating Mother Pushes 10 Year-Old Boy to Kill Father (10/31/04).

Mental Health Professionals Condemn PBS's Breaking the Silence, Endorse Campaign

Last E-newsletter we announced that the American Psychological Association Says Breaking the Silence Misrepresents Its Position on PAS. Over two dozen mental health professionals have now endorsed our campaign. To read their statement, click here.

Breaking the Silence: More Credibility Problems
American Psychological Association Says Breaking the Silence Misrepresents Its Position on PAS

A spokeswoman for the American Psychological Association says that PBS's new documentary Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories distorts the APA's position on Parental Alienation Syndrome. The film criticizes PAS, which arises when one parent tries to turn his or her children against the other parent during a divorce or separation.

In the documentary Joan Meier, a professor of clinical law at George Washington University and one of the film's chief spokespersons, states that PAS "has been thoroughly debunked by the American Psychological Association." Connecticut Public Television, one of the film's producers, put out a press release promoting the film which stated that PAS had been "discredited by the American Psychological Association."

However, according to Rhea K. Farberman, Executive Director of Public and Member Communications of the American Psychological Association, these claims are "incorrect" and "inaccurate." Farberman says that the APA "does not have an official position on parental alienation syndrome--pro or con." She adds:

"The Connecticut Public Television press release is incorrect. I have notified both Connecticut Public Television and their PR firm of the inaccuracy in their press release."

To learn more, click here.

Leader of Domestic Violence Shelter Which Helped Fund Breaking the Silence Criticizes Film

Calling Breaking the Silence imbalanced and focused on extreme cases, Pam Kallsen, executive director of the Marjaree Mason Center, a domestic violence shelter in Fresno, California, contacted her local PBS affiliate and told them she was distressed that her shelter's name and logo were associated with the program.

Kallsen had been a staunch supporter of the film project, even helping to secure funding for it, but says she changed her mind after seeing the film.

To learn more, click here.

PBS Internal Memo Tells Affiliates to Stonewall Protesters

A source at PBS sent us this confidential internal memo on Friday. The memo is an instruction sheet that PBS's national office has dispensed to their affiliates to instruct them as to how to deal with the thousands of people who have called or written them to protest Breaking the Silence. As you'll notice, the common theme of this memo is to stonewall protesters.

Manipulating Children into Making or Corroborating False Charges

An important element of Parental Alienation Syndrome is the way children can be manipulated into making or corroborating false charges. Ironically, the Los Angeles Times just published this article--McMartin Pre-Schooler: 'I Lied': A long-delayed apology from one of the accusers in the notorious McMartin Pre-School molestation case--which could serve as a textbook for the method. Kyle Zirpolo, now 30 years-old, writes:

"[As a child] I remember them asking extremely uncomfortable questions about whether Ray touched me and about all the teachers and what they did--and I remember telling them nothing happened to me. I remember them almost giggling and laughing, saying, 'Oh, we know these things happened to you. Why don't you just go ahead and tell us? Use these dolls if you're scared.'

Male Domestic Violence Victim Sues over Being Denied Access to Services

My friend Marc Angelucci, Esq. is at it again, bringing a California lawsuit on behalf of a gentleman who was badly abused by his wife and repeatedly refused services by domestic violence treatment providers. The case has several interesting twists--see Men's Rights Group: Victim Support Only For Women or watch the video here. To write to CBS13 and commend them for their coverage of this important issue, click here.

Similar suits have been brought against California shelters in the past--to learn more, see my column Plaintiff in Suit Against LA DV Shelters is Right to Demand Services for Abused Men (Los Angeles Daily News, 6/12/03).

Have You Been the Victim of a Child Support Error?

If you feel you have been billed for child support payments that you believe you do not owe, or if you believe you have experienced a questionable practice by a child support agency, Jane Spies and the National Family Justice Association are conducting a study on this issue and want to hear from you. Click here for more information.

Best Wishes,

Glenn Sacks

GlennSacks.com HisSide.com

Breaking the Science: Misleading Stories

The American Daily

We simply couldn't go an entire day without mentioning the mess at PBS...

Breaking the Science: Misleading Stories
By Mark Rosenthal

Excerpts:

This film seems to be the first step in a pattern that's been played out many times in the past few decades:

1. Determine what conclusions a study would need to reach in order to stampede legislators into passing the laws you want passed.

2. Conduct studies that are carefully designed ignore any inconvenient facts. Popular techniques in this step include: 1) using self-selected rather than randomized population samples, 2) taking care not to ask any questions that might elicit undesired answers, and 3) neglecting to report any results at all from any questions whose answers contradict your thesis.

3. Publicize these studies as if they were impartial research, by planting newspaper stories, publishing in journals whose referees are as biased as the studies' authors, getting corporations to fund advertising that masquerades as a "documentary", etc.

4. Use yellow journalism to scare the public into demanding that legislators pass a law to fix the nonexistent problem.

"Breaking the Silence" seems to be the publicity and hype phase of an even more insidious campaign. The goal this time appears to be stampeding legislators into passing laws that will have the effect of preventing courts from granting any form of custody (legal or physical, shared or sole) to any father over any mother's objection.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services data on child abuse shows that over twice as many children are battered by their mothers (40.8%) as by their fathers (18.8%), excluding cases in which both parents are abusive (16.9%). Source

Likewise the number of children killed by their mothers without the father's involvement is double the number killed by their fathers without the mother's involvement. Yet the filmmakers mislead viewers by interviewing only children victimized by fathers and denying children victimized by their mothers the opportunity to tell their stories.

Breaking the Silence: Did the CPB partially fund this disaster? - MND Blogwonks

BLOGWONKS

Excerpts:

As I viewed the film, the reasons for withdrawing government funding for PBS were affirmed to me for the first time. There hasn't been a program as biased as this since Germany's propaganda machine attacked the Jews. I sat with notebook in hand as the film began, but the lies came too fast for me to write them all down.

Ducote claims that 75% of custody cases involve domestic violence, but did not make clear whether he meant real violence, or merely accusations. I suspect the latter, knowing through personal experience and witness as a court observer that accusations of domestic violence and child abuse are commonly used by attorneys for the women in divorce as a means of gaining an advantage in the proceedings. Moreover, groups such as that sponsoring the program last night, urge women seeking any form of public assistance to file charges whether violence has occurred or not as a prerequisite for receiving services.

The courts were taken to task for allowing PAS to be used by the father to reverse custody decisions. It was claimed that courts "forbid" mothers to protect their children, as children are "most often in danger from the father. At this point, the courts were accused of granting custody to abusive fathers in two thirds of all cases", an increase of one third over the previously used statistic. Atty. Ducote reinforced his false claim by stating that the well known bias favoring mothers in court was a myth. That lie flies in the face of government statistics that show mothers being awarded sole custody in 90(+)% of all contested custody cases.

The most glaring omission in this film was the fact, derived from government and university studies, that mothers are more likely than fathers to abuse their children. Yet all the cases presented in this film centered around the father as abuser. Furthermore, not one paragraph of the film involved the prevention of violence against children.

The entire focus of this film was to prevent PAS from being used to deprive mothers of custody. At the end of the film, it was noted that one father who had been invited to respond, declined to do so. The other fathers were never mentioned, never interviewed on camera, and never offered a chance to rebut the accusations against them. A discerning viewer will be left to wonder, if the other fathers were interviewed, were their answers too damaging to the film's obvious agenda to allow them to be aired?

PBS Response To The "Breaking the Silence" Outcry

I have yet to receive a response to my letter, but I was emailed a copy of one received by someone else. If you have yet to pen your letter (considering it airs today you are kind of running out of time) you could use this to anticipate their BS reply to our concerns.

I am copying the response verbatim here:

Dear Mr. :

Thank you for taking the time to write to PBS about your concerns regarding BREAKING THE SILENCE: CHILDREN'S STORIES. Comments from our viewers - both positive and negative - are the best guides we have to make future programming decisions.

We have forwarded your observations to the filmmakers - producer Dominique Lasseur and director Catherine Tatge - who have asked us to share their thoughts about the documentary with you.

"When we began this project over a year ago, our goal was to produce a documentary about domestic violence and children. We had no preconceived notions about the issue... no specific agenda to prove or disprove. The finished documentary is simply a result of where countless hours of extensive research and interviews took us. These are the real stories of real women who lost custody of their children when Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) was used as scientific proof in their family court cases. These were the stories we found over and over again.

There have been a number of concerns raised regarding Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and how it is addressed in the piece. We do not make the assertion that the phenomenon of alienation does not exist, simply that PAS is wrongly used as scientific proof to justify taking children away from a protective parent. We as filmmakers are in no position to determine the scientific validity of PAS. However, the fact remains that the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) have not recognized PAS as legitimate science.

Some individuals have expressed concern that the documentary only features the stories of women as the victims of domestic violence. Research shows that while women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner. (U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998). If we had featured the stories of one man and five women who had been victims of domestic abuse, statistically we would have grossly overstated the problems of men in this area. Nevertheless, we recognize that men are also victims and men are also sometimes victimized by family courts, but it is overwhelmingly women who are victims. In all cases, the children are the victims.

These are difficult and controversial issues that stir human emotions. Nothing can galvanize one's passion like the welfare of a child. We understand certain individuals will never be completely satisfied with the information presented in the documentary. All we can do is offer, in the most open and transparent manner, the reasoning and research that went into this program."

We appreciate your interest in PBS programming and hope that you will continue to enjoy and support your local PBS member station.

Sincerely,
Madison
PBS Viewer Services

UPDATE

My email is out of control today but I just received the following in regard to the PBS response and I think it needs to be printed.

In reference to the claim that women are "five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner:"

This is not precisely true. Here are the REAL numbers from the REAL report:

LETHAL:"* In 1996 just over 1,800 murders were attributable to intimates; nearly 3 out of 4 of these had a female victim.

"That means that over 1 out of 4 had a male victim. Females, according to the report, therefore, had an intimate murder rate a little over 2 times that of men.

NON-LETHAL:"* ... In 1996 women experienced an estimated 840,000 rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault victimizations at the hands of an intimate ...""

* Intimate violence against men did not vary significantly from 1992 to 1996. In 1996 men were victims of about 150,000 violent crimes committed by an intimate."

That were REPORTED!

The ratio is 5.6:1 female to male non-lethal violent crimes -- NOT 8:1.

In reference to "If we had featured the stories of one man and five women who had been victims of domestic abuse, statistically we would have grossly overstated the problems of men in this area:"

How is it "grossly overstating" the problem when the ratio is FIVE TO ONE???

From the same report used by filmakers to support their positions you can also find:

"For female victims of violence, strangers and friends or acquaintances rather than intimates were responsible for the highest rates of crime."

Intimates for the NCVS include current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

"So-called "intimate" violence against women represented only 21% of all violence against women in 1996. That means that that 5.6:1 ratio may have just become ONE TO ONE, when adjusted for, ahem, reality.

Film gives distorted view of family law

TimesUnion.com

More on the PBS Special by Glenn Sacks and Jeffery Leving

Excerpts:

"Breaking the Silence" ignores a far more common phenomenon -- divorcing mothers' tactical use of false allegations of sexual abuse. When a father who has daughters seeks joint custody over the objections of a recalcitrant mother, it is standard legal practice to advise the father that a charge of sexual abuse may be coming. According to a study published in Social Science and Modern Society, the vast majority of accusations of child sexual abuse made during custody battles are false, unfounded or unsubstantiated.

False domestic violence allegations are an even greater problem. The filmmakers portray abused women as the victims of sexist judges who refuse to believe them, and who punish them for claiming abuse. In reality, courts are often very tolerant toward false allegations of domestic violence, and divorcing mothers frequently use domestic violence restraining orders as tactical weapons to secure custody.

Many courts grant restraining orders to practically any woman who applies, and research shows these orders often do not even involve an allegation of violence. Once the order is issued, the father is booted out of his marital home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his children.

By the time the court decides custody, a firm precedent has already been set that mom is the primary caretaker, and she will likely get sole (or de facto sole) custody.

ACFC CAMPAIGNS

The following come directly from an email from the ACFC (America's Shared Parenting Organization):

ACFC BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

On another front, ACFC IS TAKING THE FAMILY COURT REFORM BATTLE DIRECTLY TO THE STREETS. Today, the first of two billboards blasting the family court was erected in Champaign, Illinois. The billboard calls directly on the local family court judge, Arnold Blockman, to reform the family court. Late tomorrow another billboard will go up and beginning next week radio spots will run for a month encouraging family court reform.

A group of concerned parents came forward and asked ACFC to assist them with this task. Those parents were afraid of retaliation if they acted on their own, so we are doing this together. They want change and are willing to band together with their time and money to make it happen. We'll keep you informed as the campaign progresses. Acting together we can get things done.



PBS DOCUMENTARY ON ABUSE; ABUSES FATHERS

Tomorrow night PBS stations around the country will air Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories. October is national domestic violence awareness month. This documentary presents a one-sided view of domestic abuse designed specifically to prejudice the courts and public against fathers by portraying us primarily as child abusers.

WE NEED TO RESPOND TO THIS ATTACK ON FATHERS, THEIR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

The group RADAR has been actively working for change in the area of domestic abuse reporting. RADAR monitors the media and responds to inaccurate and misleading reporting with the FACTS. RADAR has issued an alert regarding this program and asks you to take specific action. Read and respond here.

ACFC is also supporting Glenn Sacks and joining with several of our affiliates and other organizations calling on PBS to provide the opportunity to respond to this misguided, prejudicial programming. Our goal is to let PBS know this type of biased reporting posing as responsible journalism should not be tolerated. Click here to read more and TAKE ACTION.

As an interesting side note, the film's producer's called ACFC in April indicating they wanted an interview in an effort to provide balance to the piece. Subsequently they backed out of the scheduled interview indicating they had enough footage and would 'get back to us' if they needed anything further. I can only assume that 'balance' was sacrificed to the political agenda of the sponsors on this one. Let us know what you think.

NEW CAMPAIGN: PBS Assaults Fathers! - Glenn Sacks

(This is copied verbatim from an email)

I want all of you to join me in our new campaign protesting PBS' national broadcast of the anti-father film Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories. The film, which airs on PBS affiliates throughout the country on Thursday, October 20, portrays fathers as batterers and child molesters who steal children from their mothers.

The film is a one-sided assault on fatherhood which presents a harmful and inaccurate view of divorce and child custody cases. We want PBS to give fatherhood and shared parenting advocates a meaningful opportunity to respond on the air.

I am launching this campaign in order to provide popular support for efforts by Fathers and Families, Help Stop PAS Inc., the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY) to help PBS resolve the problem.

I want all of you to act. Our supporters--dubbed "The Sackson Horde" by one critic--have conducted numerous successful campaigns in the past. We drove "Boys are Stupid" products out of 3,500 stores worldwide--95% of their total distribution--last winter, and we made newspapers around the world doing it.

Last summer over 2,000 of our supporters bombarded Sacramento with calls and letters and helped kill SB 730, a bill which would have given custodial mothers the unlimited right to move our children whenever and wherever they want to. All the Sacramento experts said we would lose that campaign, and all the experts were wrong.

In October we helped fatherhood activists defeat an anti-father billboard campaign in Michigan.

In November, over 2,000 of our supporters called or wrote Verizon to protest its father-mocking "Homework" commercial. Our efforts made newspapers all over North America and the Verizon ad stopped running shortly afterwards.

This Spring we helped provide support for SB 1082, a bill to protect military parents, as well as AB 1307, the California Shared Parenting bill.

To join our campaign, go to our campaign page here.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com
HisSide.com

PBS' "Breaking the Silence" not ready for prime time

I should have suspected, Carey Roberts was all over this two days ago...

PBS' "Breaking the Silence" not ready for prime time

Excerpts:

Propaganda pieces normally contain an indisputable kernel of truth, which is then artfully embellished with innuendo, distortions, and half-truths. By that standard, the upcoming PBS program, Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories, doesn't even qualify as good fiction.

Breaking the Silence leads off with this whopper: "One-third of mothers lose custody to abusive husbands." That outrageous statement contains two falsehoods.

First, divorced fathers win custody of their children only 15% of the time, so the one-third figure is obviously suspect.

Second, women are known to be just as abusive as men. As a recent report from the Independent Women's Forum notes, "approximately half of all couple violence is mutual...when only one partner is abusive, it is as likely to be the woman as the man." Source

Continuing its mean-spirited dissing of dads, Breaking the Silence goes on to claim that children are "most often in danger from the father." Apparently the producers never bothered to read the recent report from the US Department of Health and Human Services which reveals that the majority of perpetrators of child abuse and neglect are female. Source

So why would PBS engage in this wanton abuse of truth? The answer lies in the broader feminist crusade to overturn the Patriarchy. Get dad out of the picture, they say, and the children will grow up to be more enlightened human beings. But research proves the opposite is true. Countless studies show that kids with absent dads do far worse on a broad range of academic, social, and psychological indicators. Source

PBS Smears Fathers Who Contest Child Custody

Mensactivism.org has a wonderful synopsis of the faults in the upcoming PBS special "Breaking the Silence, Children's Stories".

Click here to link directly to the post. It includes contact information so you can let PBS know exactly how you feel about this "special."