Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001




     NEWSLETTER #3, 1998 01 30    

The Men's Defense Association       The Purple Heart Foundation 

Family Violence - Trends, Results

This issue of the newsletter takes a look at the magnitude of family violence, how our society deals with it, and what some of its sociological consequences are.


From: DFLOR@hestia.fcs.uga.edu ("Doug Flor")

Douglas Flor called the Family Research Laboratory (University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824-3596) and received two articles that Murray Straus worked on in this last year. Both relate to SPOUSAL ASSAULTS. One compares national rates of men with those of women across the last three decades, while the other specifically addresses the issue of wives assaulting their husbands. One major finding is that over the last three decades, they reported SEVERE assaults perpetrated by husbands on wives have STEADILY DECREASED-even when age, SES [socioeconomic status], and ethnic composition are controlled. When comparing rates per 1,000 couples by who is reporting (husbands reporting on themselves AND wives reporting on their husbands) for 1975 and 1992 THIS TREND REMAINS. That IS good news.

Rates per 1,000 couples on "ordinary corporal punishment and assaults" (or MINOR ASSAULTS) by husbands on wives showed DECREASES from 1975 to 1985, regardless of who was doing the reporting.

While rates for minor husband assault on wives continued to show a decreasing trend from 1985 to 1992 when men reported on their own behavior, women reported a dramatic increase in husband minor assault on wife.

The trend from 1975 to 1985 was good news. The discrepancy between husbands and wives reports for 1992 is disconcerting.

Rates per 1,000 couples of MINOR ASSAULT perpetrated by wives on husbands from 1975 to 1992 demonstrate an INCREASING trend—regardless of who does the reporting. That is NOT good news.

Rates per 1,000 couples of SEVERE ASSAULT by wives on husbands stayed pretty much the same, or decreased slightly, depending on the perspective of who was doing the reporting from 1975 to 1985. Women reported a dramatic INCREASE in the number of severe assaults they perpetrated on their husbands in 1992, while husbands reported a continued DECREASE in the number of severe assaults they experienced from their wives. The discrepancy for 1992 is rather disconcerting.

The rates of SEVERE assaults by husbands on wives for 1992 is roughly 23 per 1,000 couples as reported by wives. The rate is roughly 17 per 1,000 couples as reported by husbands.

The rates of SEVERE assaults by wives on husbands for 1992 is roughly 58 per 1,000 couples as reported by wives. The rate is roughly 33 per 1,000 couples as reported by husbands.

Regardless of perspective, the rates of SEVERE assaults on husbands for 1992 are HIGHER than the rates of severe assaults on women. In fact, they are nearly DOUBLE.

The rates of MINOR assaults by husbands on wives for 1992 is roughly 115 per 1,000 couples as reported by wives. The rate is roughly 83 per 1,000 couples as reported by husbands.

The rates of MINOR assaults by wives on husbands for 1992 is roughly 99 per 1,000 couples as reported by wives. The rate is roughly 91 per 1,000 couples as reported by husbands.

Regardless of perspective, the rate of MINOR assaults by husbands or wives on their spouses indicates an equal propensity for violence.

The use of the term "roughly" is used as the values were pulled from figures provided by Straus, M. A., & Kantor, G. K. (1994). [Paper presented at the 13th World Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany (July 19th).]

Data sets used in analysis:

1975 National Family Violence Survey (see Straus and Gelles, 1986, 1990).
1985 National Family Violence Survey (see Gelles and Straus, 1986, 1990).
1992 National Alcohol and Family Violence Survey (Kaufman, 1994a,b). Douglas L. Flor dflor@hestia.fcs.uga.edu Project Coordinator, Program for the Study of Competence in Children and Families, Department of Child and Family Development The University of Georgia, Family Science Center II, Athens, GA 30602, (706) 542-1297 or 542-4824 Men's Issues Page, Men and Domestic Violence Index HTML by David R. Throop. <http://www.vix.com/men/battery/straus94.html/>

The following is from the newsletter Common Sense & Domestic Violence, 1998 01 30

Allegations of family violence are the weapon-of-choice in divorce strategies. Lawyers, and paralegals in women's shelters, call them "The Silver Bullet". False abuse allegations work effectively in removing men from their families. The impact that the removal of fathers has on our children is horrific. The next page shows some of the consequences of the removal of fathers from the lives of their children.

The Impact on our Children

Inter-spousal violence perpetrated by men is only a small aspect of family violence. False abuse allegations are only a small tile in the mosaic of vilifying the men in our society. They serve well in successful attempts to remove fathers from the lives of our children. Here are some statistics resulting from that which show more of the whole picture.  

  • 79.6% of custodial mothers receive a support award
  • 29.9% of custodial fathers receive a support award.
  • 46.9% of non-custodial mothers totally default on support.
  • 26.9% of non-custodial fathers totally default on support.
  • 20.0% of non-custodial mothers pay support at some level
  • 61.0% of non-custodial fathers pay support at some level
  • 66.2% of single custodial mothers work less than full time.
  • 10.2% of single custodial fathers work less than full time.
  •   7.0% of single custodial mothers work more than 44 hours weekly.
  • 24.5% of single custodial fathers work more that 44 hours weekly.
  • 46.2% of single custodial mothers receive public assistance.
  • 20.8% of single custodial fathers receive public assistance.

[Technical Analysis Paper No. 42 - U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services - Office of Income Security Policy]

  • 40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the fathers visitation to punish their ex-spouse.

["Frequency of Visitation" by Sanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry]

  • 50% of mothers see no value in the fathers continued contact with his children.

["Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly]

  • 90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
  • 79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
  • 44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
  • 37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
  • 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.

[1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series" P-60, No. 173 p.6-7, and "U.S. General Accounting Office Report" GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992]

[U. S. D.H.H.S. Bureau of the Census]

  • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
  • 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.

[Center for Disease Control]

  • 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.

[Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26]

  • 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.

[National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]

  • 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes

[U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept., 1988]

  • 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.

[Fulton County Georgia Jail Populations and Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992]

  • Nearly 2 of every 5 children in America do not live with their fathers.

[US News and World Report, February 27, 1995, p.39]

There are:

  • 11,268,000 total custodial mothers
  • 2,907,000 total custodial fathers

[Current Populations Reports, US Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991]

What does this mean?  Children from fatherless homes are:

  • 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide,

  • 6.6 times to become teenaged mothers (if they are girls, of course),
  • 24.3 times more likely to run away,
  • 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders,
  • 6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions,
  • 10.8 times more likely to commit rape,
  • 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school,
  • 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenager.

(The calculation of the relative risks shown in the preceding list is based on 27% of children being in the care of single mothers.)

and — compared to children who are in the care of two biological, married parents — children who are in the care of single mothers are:

  • 33 times more likely to be seriously abused (so that they will require medical attention), and
  • 73 times more likely to be killed.

["Marriage: The Safest Place for Women and Children", by Patrick F. Fagan and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. Backgrounder #1535.]

Government – A better Parent?

Surely, if "all men batter" their wives, and mothers are not capable to provide good care for their children all by themselves, the Government can do a better job of providing loving care for our children-well, think again!

However, when children wind up in the care of the government, nothing much in the way of a good outcome can be expected.

  • Foster children were 10 times more likely to be abused than children in the general public.

[1986 and 1990 survey conducted by the National Foster Care Education Project]

  • Children in the "care" of the government are more than 150 times more likely to become incarcerated than other children.

[Based on information provided by By Timothy W. Maier in an article HORRORS OF THE NON-HOME, Insight Magazine (date and page not known) posted on the Internet 1997 12 06, and on U.S. population statistics from the Bureau of the Census.
[Update 1998 10 18: The U.K. Secretary of Health, Frank Dobson, reports similar calamities in Britain]
[Update 2001 09 01: The 2000 - 2001 Annual Report by the Alberta Children's Advocate  (PDF file, 913 kB), by Bob Rechner, MSW, RSW, is a scathing condemnation of the Alberta foster care system.]

Government interference in the lives of our families has reached epidemic proportions. Women's shelter advocates, virtually always successful if they attempt to remove fathers from their families, have enormous influence with government officials and bureaucrats who are diligently devising a never-ending stream of anti-family and anti-male legislation, everything from the encouragement of women to "escape" the "oppression" by men, to income tax regulations that penalize married parents, to the "apprehension" of children who are said to be at danger of being abused, unless, of course, that danger is posed by the natural mothers of the children.

     A typical example of the influence of the battered women's shelter advocates was presented in the lobbying involved that resulted in the introduction of the latest draft of anti-father and anti-family legislation that made its presence known in the form of the brand-new proposal for a "Protection against Family Violence Act", supposedly a private member's bill by Jocelyn Burgener, an Alberta Progressive Conservative MLA, but by all appearances a bill that is being promoted by forces in Alberta Social Services and Alberta Justice who are aligned with battered women's shelters advocates.

     "Jocelyn Burgener's Bill", just like Alice Hanson's bill that was introduced in the previous year, has the appearance of being gender-neutral and is being announced as such, but it is obviously, just like Alice Hanson's bill before, an instrument being designed by battered women's shelter advocates. It is being justified solely based on statistics that originate from battered women's shelter advocates, flawed as these statistics are, as they include a considerable number of women who sought refuge in shelters for no other reason than to use them as hostels.

     Another concern that should make anyone hesitate in lending his influence to support "Jocelyn Burgener's Bill" is the fact that, although women and men are equally likely to initiate violence against each other and to inflict injuries, it is almost exclusively men who are being sentenced for crimes of violence against their spouses. In connection with a judicial system that is enormously biased against men and in favour of women, the attitudes motivating "Jocelyn Burgener's Bill" should give all of us great concerns. Currently, the ratio of incarceration of women versus men in Canadian penal institutions is 1 : 100, as opposed to a ratio of 1 : 18.6 in the USA. Even if one ignores the higher incarceration rates per capita in the US, it is still unlikely that Canadian women are 100 times holier or saintly than Canadian men, or more than 5 times saintlier than their American sisters. After all, we all were brought up by the same mothers in the same society.

     The plight of our children who must suffer abuse at the hands of their mothers, without any doubt by far the primary abusers of children, goes largely unnoticed. Matthew Vaudreuil in B.C. was tortured and murdered by his natural mother-in full view of a number of Social Service workers who were involved in his "welfare", if not with their full knowledge. (See speech by Senator Anne C. Cools about Child Abuse and Neglect at < http://sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/nex.htm  >, and her speech on the "Gove Inquiry into Child Protection in British Columbia" at < http://sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/gove.htm>)

     A number of such cases have since come to our attention in all Canadian provinces and territories. Surely, if "all men batter" their wives, and mothers are not capable to provide good care for their children all by themselves, the Government can do a better job of providing loving care for our children-well, think again!


From Insight Magazine
(date and page not known.
It was posted on the Internet 1997 12 06)

By Timothy W. Maier

What happens when children are taken from their homes and put into a foster-care system that just doesn't work? And how can parents be protected from abuse by administrators who take precipitous action based on false or overblown charges?

     "Mommy, Mommy, They're raping me!" Then click and a dial tone. The desperate call had come in the dead of winter 1994 at 2:30 a.m. to Alma Kidd. Her 14-year-old daughter, Norma "Hope" Robbins, was trapped in a Washington state foster-care home. Kidd immediately reported the incident to police, but no charges were filed. The rape was described as consensual lesbian sex.

     This story seems almost unbelievable, but Insight has reviewed hundreds of pages of documents, depositions, videotapes and internal Child Protective Service, or CPS, field investigations confirming this and other sadomasochistic sexual assaults.

[See also Big Sister Is Watching!

An epidemic of state-sponsored kidnapping feeds a tyrannical system hungry for revenues.  Child Protective Services and Children's Aid Societies systematically and increasingly often rob children from their parents.  Kafkaesque chicaneries that the targeted families find impossible to comply with are the tools used to keep the revenues rolling in.  Many families don't survive the ordeals that they are being subjected to by any given CPS or CAS.

     While in foster care, Hope became a heroin addict, dropped out of school and grew so despondent that three times she tried to commit suicide. Records show she ran away at least 11 times, only to be brought back to her torturers. Hope was placed in foster care in March 1993 after CPS claimed Kidd abused her. The mother never had the hearing that Washington state law requires within 48 hours.

     Evidence shows mother and daughter had a strained relationship. Kidd objected to her daughter associating with boys involved in drugs and opposed Hope's desire to adopt a lesbian lifestyle. Hope once attacked Kidd with a knife, and another time told her, "You're not my mother. You're just someone who laid down and out I came." Hope clearly wanted to shock and hurt her mother, but reports also indicate that the girl recanted stories that her mother abused her, and wanted to go home.

     In 1994, Kidd was granted custody of her child under a court order. That order came after three separate investigations found the allegations that the mother had abused Hope were false. But after the custody hearing, Kidd was severely beaten outside the courtroom by a "mob of lesbians," some of whom worked for the state and previously had guardianship over Hope, according to court records and witnesses. The attack now appears to have been a premeditated tactical move between Hope's attorney, CPS, and the lesbian foster-care providers, which gained time for CPS secretly to transfer custody of Hope to an alternative residential placement run by yet another lesbian. The move only could have been filed by Hope herself, or her state-appointed attorney, and approved by a judge. In Hope's case, both her state-appointed attorney and judge were pro-gay-rights activists.

     At the new home, witnesses reported, Hope and other girls were seen naked in the apartment with chains around their ankles and wrists and a dog collar looped around their necks. When the distraught mother learned of this, she again filed a criminal complaint. She claims police officer Marlene Goodman pointedly told her: "Ms. Kidd, you're in Washington state now. They can chain her 24 hours, seven days a week, and there is nothing you can do about it. It's a lifestyle, a romance. We will tell them to tone it down."

     A few months later, Hope was tossed down two flights of stairs while in her underwear. Neighbor Carrie Songerez approached the girl and asked, "Can I help you? Is there anything I can do? Should I call the police?" Hope responded tearfully, "There is nothing you can do. They'll just get me again, and again and again."

     Hope's case had been placed under the authority of Washington's State Sexual Orientation Initiative program, which puts allegedly gay children with homosexual role models and promotes hiring of homosexual social workers and foster parents. Never mind that there is definite ambiguity about Hope's sexual preference, according to court records and her own writings obtained by Insight. At times she pleaded for relief from those pushing a homosexual lifestyle upon her. "I think I'm sick for becoming gay," she wrote. She filed a complaint, stating, "I want someone to answer for this mess" and requested to be "returned to her family." Her own writings speak of a desire to be placed in a "normal foster home," explaining "I don't want to be in a lesbian foster home," because "all lesbian foster homes are political weirdoes and pushy."

     The tragic story of this rebellious adolescent and others triggered state protests, prompting the Washington state Senate's Law and Justice Committee on Civil Rights to hold hearings this year, and some state senators have urged a federal investigation. No such probe is under way-and Hope now is reported missing. Child Protective Services has "lost her."

     Hope's case represents what critics charge is the basic problem: CPS spends too much time investigating well-meaning parents and too little time investigating children at risk. The result often is that innocent parents lose their children to state-sponsored hellholes and abusive parents get their children back.

     The solution is not so apparent as the problem. Some experts call for a national program where all caseworkers and social workers are credentialed and licensed. Congress wants to dump more money into the system to terminate parental rights and speed adoption so the child can find a permanent home. Still others support funding for family reunification, and some have reached the point of wanting to contract the entire problem to the private sector.

     Historically, the system's trouble can be traced back to when it began in the 17th century in England with creation of the Poor Laws. These helped the rich to adopt poor orphans, but the laws often were abused as adopted children were sold as servants or forced into manual labor. In 1912, the Children's Bureau was formed in the United States and it pressed to have the government take control. Within a decade, many local jurisdictions had passed laws allowing social workers unlimited power to intervene in cases of abuse. In the 1960s, California passed the first law requiring doctors to report child abuse, and other states began to follow with similar laws.

     In 1973, Democratic Sen. Walter Mondale of Minnesota held hearings on child abuse, and five years later millions of federal dollars were available for jurisdictions that created mandatory reporting laws, provided legal process for prosecution of parents and put children declared to be neglected and abused into state care. It looked to be necessary and good. It turned out to be a trap for millions-and an unspeakably nightmarish experience for children like Hope.

     Still, "you are always going to find bizarre cases that are messed up," says Ann Coyne, a professor of social work at the University of Nebraska in Omaha. "But if you step back and realize that a state may have dealt with 6,000 cases you will find that in the vast majority they did okay."

[My note-WHS: That appears to be an overly optimistic view of the situation. It seems that in the vast majority of the cases the state did not okay, because later on it is stated that as many as 70% of foster children in state-care in California wind up in situations that bring them into conflict with the law. ("For example, in Massachusetts 60 percent of the state's criminals come from foster homes or state institutions, while in California that number is closer to 69 percent. Some people would probably ask for discretion so as not to confuse correlation with cause and effect, but if you have such a high correlation the chances of the correlation being due to chance are becoming awfully small. Certainly, it would still be required to compare the results with a control group to be sure, but that would require experimentation and selections of sample populations based on criteria that would put Dr. Mengele to shame. Yet, is the alternative any better?)

Our neighbour's wife told us just the other days that when her daughter was removed from her care to be placed in a foster home in Alberta-after the grandfather who had been sexually abusing her had been removed from the scene-the daughter became promptly, seriously and regularly sexually abused in the foster home.]

Others see it differently. "These are not isolated cases," says George Wimberly, founder of Colorado-based Victims of Child Abuse Laws, or VOCAL. "It happens more often than not." Wimberly says he receives dozens of calls every day from children recanting stories of parental abuse and begging for help to return to their parents.

     Nearly 3 million cases of child abuse and neglect are reported annually. Of those, 60 percent either are deemed false or lack credible evidence to move forward, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS. This means more than 1 million people a year could be falsely accused.

     "Kids are being sequestered from their families," Wimberly says. "They are actually being held hostage. That's what it is. They're being told they have to say things against mommy or daddy or they won't ever come home again. They are so quick to place a kid in foster care that sometimes the child is held for months before there has been a hearing."

[My note-WHS: Once that trend has progressed long enough, they'll do away with hearings completely. That's what happened with the Jews and now it is starting to happen with families, or is that the wrong impression about all of this and it truly is all being done "in the best interest of the child"?]

     "The one thing that really bothers me is that on a juvenile and criminal level there is never any consideration as to relative or family placement," Wimberly adds. "We have cases all over the country right now where relatives are availing themselves to care for these children." One such case is in Louisiana with Betty Maddox, who lost both of her children to CPS, even though charges of child abuse were dismissed. Maddox says her relatives are willing to take the children but CPS won't turn them over. She explains: "They can't be placed in our blood line if our relatives believe in our innocence."

     Liz Richards, executive director of the Virginia-based National Alliance for Family Court Justice, pins the blame on CPS bureaucrats who fail to look at the evidence and instead retaliate by going after the accusers who report the abuse. "We're finding out that child protectors end up losing their kids," she says. "Now, we tell people, whatever you do, don't call CPS. Keep your mouth shut or you will lose your kid."

[My note-WHS: Again, such practices by advocates of sole-mother-custody or custody by the Government are only too common in Alberta. Mr. and Mrs. Cable experienced that when their son tried to obtain a degree of accountability of the mother of his son-afflicted with asthma-so that she would look after his health and provide proper medical care and not smoke in his presence. The judge in the case, Madam Justice C. Adèle Kent in Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench, threatened in unmistakable terms that if the father should try once more to "drive a wedge between his son and his mother," she would grant sole custody to the mother. Justice Kent then promptly seized the file of the case to make sure that she would be the only judge hearing the case and threatened the father that if he should dare to appeal her decision, she would reopen the application of the mother for sole custody of the child.]

     Retired Seattle attorney Robert A. Nord says even pedophiles working in state youth centers are escaping justice in the mad drive by bureaucrats to control children. Nord complained about the OK Boys Ranch sex scandal that recently rocked the Evergreen State. More than two dozen boys were abused at the youth center, but no charges ever were filed. A state investigation could not be completed because officials in the attorney-general's office destroyed confidential records regarding 326 allegations of abuse, according to investigators in charge of the probe. Finally the boys' families successfully sued Washington state and won $18 million in damages for what was described as a "jungle of molestation."

     In a letter a former Seattle police sergeant circulated to state officials, he says, "People in this county who publicly complain about the sexual abuse of children have their heads handed to them. They lose their jobs. They have their children taken away by CPS. They have criminal charges cooked up against them. They are harassed and intimidated by rogue police officers. If they have the temerity to accuse a protected pedophile-someone with establishment protection-the roof really falls in on them."

     Retaliation also may fall upon parents who complain against school administrators or psychologists, as Italian immigrant Joe Paolillo found out. He lost his 11-year-old son, Joseph, to the foster-care system in Washington state when the child confided to a school psychologist that he didn't get along at home. He claimed his parents abused him-a charge he later would recant. But the psychologist reported the incident to CPS after the father complained about lack of school discipline and the school's failure to tell him his son was seeing a psychologist.

     CPS took the child after the psychologist and a caseworker made statements referring to the Paolillo family as "culturally backward" and "Old New York Italians" who want their son to go into their "family business," records allege. In 1994, Joseph was placed in eight homes in 10 months and, the following year, three homes in 40 days. He was molested and so distraught that he engaged in a petty-crime spree that landed him at Echo Glen Youth Center, a juvenile-detention facility. Paolillo later learned that this center hired a private group to counsel teens on sexually related issues. One session includes asking teenagers, "What do you think caused your heterosexuality? Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of? A disproportionate number of child molesters are heterosexual. Do you consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?" Officials at the center offer no explanation for the questions. Frustrated with how CPS was "brainwashing" his child, Paolillo contacted the Italian Embassy, which helped him get his son out of the system and placed in a private facility in Missouri.

     James C. LaBrecque, formerly of New Jersey, also experienced how powerful CPS can be. LaBrecque lost custody last year of his 11-year-old mentally disabled child, Lauriano, because CPS claimed he was not giving the boy seizure medication. At the time Lauriano was averaging one seizure per month, according to medical records; that rate rocketed to 60 times a month while under foster-care supervision. Medical records obtained by Insight suggest that the increased trauma the child suffered in the hands of the state may have occurred as "a result of his removal from his biological parents."

     While Lauriano initially was placed in a foster-care home, he soon was transferred to the New Jersey Shore Medical Care Center because he was experiencing seizures that the foster parents couldn't handle. At the medical center he was placed in a cage-like crib with a top over it because the facility didn't have enough staff to monitor Lauriano. "He was petrified," says LaBrecque, who sneaked into the medical center and observed his son trapped in the cage. "He needed to pee. He is absolutely not violent. He is the most sensitive and tender-loving child you could ever meet. And now the child is in medical chaos. They have seriously damaged my son."

     After showing a photograph of his child trapped in the cage to a judge, LaBrecque still didn't get immediate custody. "I'll tell you what the problem is with the system," he says. "It's not the social workers. It's the courts and the judges. The courts allow them to do this. It's called junk justice."

     Finally, two weeks ago, the state was ordered to return little Lauriano to his father. And, like so many parents furious at such official abuse, LaBrecque plans to file a lawsuit against the state for failing to conduct proper investigation. In fact, 22 states currently are being sued in class-action litigations for failing to protect children in their custody.

     Many other actions have been filed against caseworkers and CPS agencies but few ever go to trial. When they do, CPS often ends up paying thousands of dollars in damages.

[My note-WHS: We do it differently in Canada. Here we establish inquiries that investigate and then white-wash, while producing lame recommendations for improving "the system" in which nobody is held accountable any more than the Canadian Red Cross is being held accountable for polluting the Canadian blood supply with HIV and Hepatitis C.]

     The parents filing these suits find fault in every aspect of the system that seized their children. Enraged, some speculate on widespread conspiracies that drive away the mainstream press, though once in awhile the evidence supports the theory. For example, in Washington state, there was the Wenatchee child-abuse case in which dozens of parents were accused of child molestation. It all was proved to be false when investigators learned that dozens of social workers and psychologists coerced the children to claim abuse.

[My note-WHS: That has a familiar ring, doesn't it? The same thing happened in Saskatchewan with the workers operating a day-nursery.]

     But highly publicized cases, such as that of New York 5-year-old Elisa Izquierdo, who died of torture allegedly inflicted by her mother, place tremendous pressure on CPS agencies to act quickly. They know that five American children die every day of abuse, and the No. 1 killer for children under age 2 is child abuse. This leads them to step on parental toes whenever they think it is necessary "for the good of the child."

     The general rule is for CPS agencies to remove the child first, says Colorado author Brenda Scott, who wrote Out of Control: Who's Watching Our Child Protection Agencies? "They call it how they feel it," Scott tells Insight. "It's on the hip. They err on the side of what they think is safety." And as long as there is a suspicion of abuse, the child can be removed. It can be from an anonymous complaint as minor as someone reporting a mother spanking a child in public. Some schools even are urging children to turn in their parents. "The schools are teaching kindergarten children they have rights," Scott says. "Children are learning they don't have to be spanked. By doing this you just gave an immature child a way to send their parents to the principal's office."

     The agencies also have become more aggressive. In 1995 the government put 715,743 children in out-of-home care, such as foster homes, group homes, juvenile facilities and mental wards. The number of children in out-of-home care has increased by 74 percent from a decade ago. Likewise, the number of children reported as abused or neglected has increased in the last decade by 42 percent, from 33 per 1,000 in 1986 to 42 per 1,000 in 1995.

     About 40 percent of these children put into out-of-home care facilities never return to their parents. More than half will be away for at least one year and the majority will have multiple placements, some in as many as 15 different homes. "The trauma and the damage and the incredible harm comes when the child is taken away from their home," Scott says. "They suffer what we call a 'kidnap syndrome.'"

     In 1986 a survey conducted by the National Foster Care Education Project found that foster children were 10 times more likely to be abused than children in the general public. A follow-up study in 1990 by the same group produced similar results. And when the allegedly abused child leaves the system at age 18, the prognosis is not good. For example, in Massachusetts 60 percent of the state's criminals come from foster homes or state institutions, while in California that number is closer to 69 percent. [My emphasis --WHS]

[My note-WHS: That means that -- based on the numbers provided in this article and going by information about the total number of children in the U.S. population who are fortunate enough not to be in the "care" of the government -- children in government care are on average 184 times more likely to come in to conflict with the law than all other children are on average.  Considering the problem with criminality in our society, it sure makes one wonder what has gotten into our politicians that they are so intent on destroying traditional family values.]

     Patrick Fagan, a senior fellow in family and cultural issues with the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, blames the foster-care crisis on the collapse of the family and the rise of anti-communities, which he characterizes as those who don't support the traditional moral norms on sex, work, marriage or the worship of God. "Instead of a structure of love in a marriage, what we put in place is a structure of alienation and abuse," Fagan says. "The key factor is the breakdown of the marriage commitment and the cooperation of raising their kids. [In] the communities where most of the abuses occur-you don't have that cooperation. You have chaos."

[Patrick Fagan is one of the authors of "Marriage: The Safest Place for Women and Children", by Patrick F. Fagan and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #1535>]

     A great percentage of the abuse and neglect of children is coming from the very poor, with incomes less than $15,000, adds Nebraska professor Coyne. But she thinks that's only because it is much easier to detect neglect among the poor, while the "rich can hide it" by sending their child to psychologists and specialized doctors, she says. "This country needs some sort of family policy," Coyne declares, by which she means government policy to regulate family life.

[My note-WHS: Reena Sommers found in her study of spousal abuse that income levels show no correlation to abuse levels or frequency. It would not surprise me at all if the same were to hold true for child abuse. Erin Pizzey, in her findings that she reported in "Scream Quietly or the Neighbours will hear", observed very much the same as Reena Sommers did.]

     "We have a tendency to blame the family as opposed to looking at society, and it is a breakdown of society. I grew up during World War II. When we needed women in the workforce there was a public nursery school. We developed public child care. Today we don't have that. It is incredibly difficult for two parents working to provide child care. We have responded with policies that focus on the family and we say the parents have to be responsible but they can't afford the child care."

[My note-WHS: If it is difficult for two parents alone with some support by extended family, then it will be far more difficult for a single parent, who at best has only half of the extended family to help out.]

     George Mason University family-law professor Margaret Brinig says "the general breakdown of the family is caused by adults placing their interests above the kids. Once that happens you are going to see a lot of problems." She praises efforts to encourage family stability. Recent events include the Promise Keepers, the Million Man March, the Million Woman March and, this month, international and interdenominational marriage-renewal programs of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, involving millions. "Making more of a differentiation between living together and being married, and joint custody is helpful," Brinig says. "Any time you can get the family unit more stable you will have less problems with kids. But I don't think it's one easy fix for any of it."

     A 1992 San Diego grand-jury probe suggested that some foster-care parents are more interested in the dollar than the child. The grand jury found that, for many, foster care is a livelihood and that foster parenting has become another part of the child-abuse industry. Foster care was referred to by one witness as "the largest cottage industry in America today." It costs $10,000 to $15,000 a year to keep a child in foster care, but conditions can be grim and Insight discovered some foster homes to be in extremely poor condition. Social workers described one to a court as a large, sanitary house with a pool. Photographs showed a firetrap with garbage all over the kitchen. The pool was ripped and appeared not to have been used in years.

[My note-WHS: Foster-care has been a lucrative business for as long as mankind has been around, and now in 1992 is the first time that the government determines that it is so? Oh give me a break! It is simply a branch of the divorce industry, one of the tactics used in destroying our families, either deliberately or by default. What is needed is better families, better parents, not to have children put into the care of the worst parent of all: The Government. So, let's establish methods by which parents can be educated, prepared for and indoctrinated in the role that they'll have to take on: to raise our next generation of citizens. We need social institutions that become involved in doing that. One is the concept of sound and strong families. Another is our schools. A third is and should be, oh heresy, religious organizations that are family-oriented. By not having all three we are in deep trouble, primarily because we have eliminated not only those three foundations of a functioning civilization or society, but also the very teaching of the values that would make these three concepts work again. The opposite is taught: Families are bad!]

     To reform the system, Congress is considering two measures. Michigan Republican Rep. David Camp's $1.7 billion bill passed the House overwhelmingly this year, but has hit a snag in the Senate. It would limit the time a child can spend in foster care to about a year, speed the process of deciding who the child will live with permanently and expedites adoption procedures. The Senate bill, sponsored by West Virginia Democrat Sen. Jay Rockefeller, is similar but requires the federal government, instead of states, to pay $2.3 billion for special-needs adoptions of children from no-poor backgrounds. It also reauthorizes Family Preservation Services for the next five years by endorsing "kinship care," which places foster children with members of their extended family-a practice that opponents say delays adoption.

     Patrick Purtrill, director of government relations for the National Council for Adoption, is one who says the Senate bill hampers adoption. "There is a professional culture that views adoption as a failure," Purtrill says. "All the programs view family reunification as the answer. But when you see the children become victims of violent sexual molestation, broken bones, starvation and unbelievable things, the emphasis has got to be on child safety and not rehabilitating the abusive parents." [see also Woman charged with rape of boy]

[My note-WHS: Obviously he is not a friend of using members of the extended family to let children remain as part of their family, to give them a sense of belonging, one of the most important aspects of growing up.]

     Nonetheless, some communities are having good results encouraging parental rehabilitation. These programs teach parenting and job skills-and offer drug counseling. A recent General Accounting Office study noted that more than 70 percent of children in foster care once lived in homes where there was substance abuse.

     Families First in Michigan has reported an 80 percent success rate in keeping families together through instruction and rehabilitation. Louvenia Williams, who runs a similar program in Washington, D.C., called the Edgewood-Brooklyn Family Support Collaborative, observes, "The bottom line is that most of these children don't want to leave their families. Children love their families no matter what these parents do to them. We put money into systems to deal with the children after the fact but not into the systems that deal with the family. Why can't we put money into the communities at risk?"

[My note-WHS: The last question is a very valid one "Why can't we . . . ?" There are reasons why we can't, or rather, why we won't. To admit that families—who have helped civilization to come about since the beginnings of history—are actually good for us and deserve to be strengthened, nurtured and supported by governments and all of society amounts to heresy in the eyes of those people who have experimented for more than thirty years with the best methods by which to bring about the families' destruction.

Our universities have produced a new crop of social workers, teachers, nurses, bureaucrats of all sorts, who all are firmly indoctrinated in the ideology that families are a plot by the patriarchy to enslave and oppress women, even though the vast majority of normal women and other members of society are firmly convinced that if mothers were given a chance to choose, they would love nothing better than to stay home and be loving parents to their children [see recent Compas Poll, commented on by Lorne Gunter in The Edmonton Journal 1998 01 18].

But there are other, more compelling reasons why society is unable to return to actually valuing our families-whose primary purpose is to nurture and raise our most valuable assets, our children, our next generation of citizens. Whole new industries have grown out of the destruction of our families, to mention just some, the Divorce Industry, the Psychology Industry, the Social Service Industry, and last but not least, the Battered Women's Shelter Industry. Enormous amounts of funding and financial resources go to these industries. Outright lies, no less severe or outrageous than those told in the persecution of the Jews in Nazi-Germany. are being told by the advocates of these industries.

The reason for all this is very simple. It is nothing more than greed and a sense of self-preservation, because our resources are by now so exhausted, that if we were to engage on a program of breathing new life into our families, we would have to cut back on the funding for the institutions that are working hard to exploit and destroy them. So it is that we have an office of The Secretary of State (Status of Women), but none for families, children or men.

We are eager to provide funding through the office of the Secretary of State (Status of Women) to the most privileged and pampered social sector in the whole world, our women. The funding runs at levels of $1.25 million/year, just for policy research, as announced by Hedy Fry in the Spring of 1997, another $660,000 after the establishment of the Joint Senate/House of Commons Committee for the Review of Child Access and Custody was announced, a good portion of which will be used to present "evidence" to the Joint Committee that Fathers are violent, stalk their wives and must be kept away from their children and ex-spouses, because all men are violent and we would be much better off if we were not only to remove them from any contact with their children, but were to remove them from society altogether. Unless of course, they are the right kind of man, involved in the right kind of activity, such as the "artist" who received funding from the Ontario Government for his garbage collection efforts.

For an additional overview of the harm caused by Children's Aid- or Child Protection Societies to children and families, see also:

Seizing children — a tactic for the destruction of the family and to attain state-control of the population

Throughout history, rampant child apprehensions and state-ownership of children went hand-in-hand with totalitarian regimes and tyrannies.

Antiquity — The apprehension of children – boys – in antiquity

20th Century — Evolution of the Hitler Youth

...in a series of coldly and shrewdly calculated moves, radical extremists usurped the youth movement that was very much splintered along political and religious ideological lines and consolidated it into a unified and rigorously controlled sector of the German population.  The slogan that motivated the Nazi leaders was an adaptation of a slogan attributed to Napoleon "Who controls the youths controls the future!"  (Wer die Jugend hat, hat die Zukunft), although its origins go back to Socrates (whom Plato, in Republic, has offer this advice to philosopher kings: "Take all the children from their parents and rid the city of adults."), and, as the history of Ancient Greece shows with respect to Sparta, even farther back in antiquity.

Modern Times — Big Sister Is Watching

First they came for the fathers, then for the mothers, and now for   both parents in intact families.  In the end all children will be in the care, custody and control of the State.

An epidemic of state-sponsored kidnapping feeds a tyrannical system hungry for revenues.  Child Protective Services and Children's Aid Societies systematically and increasingly often rob children from their parents.  Kafkaesque chicaneries that the targeted families find impossible to comply with are the tools used to keep the revenues rolling in.  Many families don't survive the ordeals that they are being subjected to by any given CPS or CAS. 
(Full Story)

"President Obama is committed to helping states develop seamless, comprehensive, and coordinated 'Zero to Five' systems to improve developmental outcomes and early learning for all children....it will be the goal of this Administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education -- from the day they are born to the day they begin a career."

— (Fact Sheet: Expanding the Promise of Education in America, Mar 10, 2009
see also:
Remarks of President Barack Obama –
As Prepared for Delivery Address to Joint Session of Congress, Tuesday, February 24th, 2009)


Reader's Digest, February 1998,
Canadian Edition, page 100

With his exhibit at the Timmins, Ont., museum coming to an end, artist Laurent Vaillancourt prepared to pack his suitcases with trash and head for home.
     Vaillancourt had walked 100 miles from Hearst, Ont., to Smooth Rock Falls, picking up roadside garbage along the way. The museum displayed the junk in 100 clear plastic bags, each one corresponding to a mile of road. Articles consisted of beer bottles, car reflectors, tail pipes, hubcaps and the like.
     "They are artifacts of our times," says Vaillancourt. "They provoke us to thought."
     Vaillancourt's walk was funded by a $9,000 grant from the Ontario Arts Council.

—Chris Laflamme in Timmins, Ont., Daily Press

And thought-provoking it is. There it is: At least with respect to public funding, Canadian fathers are worth less than Canadian garbage, because there is no funding of any kind for them. --WHS

According to Hedy Fry, 25% of spousal murder victims are men (what are the real numbers?). Yet, there are at most four battered men's shelters in all of Canada, with at least the one single one in Alberta run by WIN House (Women in Need). Would anyone in a society that has tried for so long to establish equality for women not expect to see at least one men's shelter for every three women's shelters?

[Update: The "men's shelter" in Alberta is comprised of two beds in a women's shelter that are made available to men, provided the beds aren't needed for women.  That "men's shelter" is the only one remaining in Canada.  The others, although they had been used extensively on account of the overwhelming demand for them, had to shut down on account of lack of funding.  1999 07 14 —WHS]

[Update: If you are looking for a battered men's shelter, what is available to men is described in in a photo essay at The Shattered Men website.  A telling comparison is being made between typical women's shelters and typical men's shelters to identify the differences between the services available for male and female abuse victims. 2001 09 04 —WHS]

     Although 80% of the men in the sinking of the Titanic gave their lives to save those of women (more than 75% of women survived) and children (about 57% of children survived), and even though many of the men who did survive were members of the crew who were ordered into the life boats to demonstrate to reluctant women that it was perfectly safe to negotiate a 65 foot drop, society assigned to today's men the reputation of enslaving, battering and oppressing women throughout all of mankind's history.

....Finally, Max Schindler of NBC raised his glass. "We'd like to apologize for the women who have forgotten," he said.

Then the floodlights were turned off, the limousines departed, and there was only the night, the monument [honouring the men of the Titanic, "lest we forget"] and the Washington Channel lighted with stars.

From First-Class Tribute to Men of Titanic
By Ken Ringle, Washington Post

     Today's men must suffer for "the sins of their fathers" what-ever those might have been in the perception of such people as we permit to destroy our families. That might explain society's disdain for our males.

     As to the real worth of men? We all are aware that women tried for a long time to achieve full equality in the job market. We are reminded of that every time a fire crew has a female member and the media display a large picture of her being involved in an effort to fight a fire. Whether she actually put her life at risk in that effort doesn't matter, as long as she is female. It is even better if it can be managed to show that her attire, or better yet her face, has been dirtied somewhat. Such pictures have enormous appeal.

     Nevertheless, it is still true, as Warren Farrell explained in his book "The Myth of Male Power", that women are conspicuous by their absence in job situations that involve sweat, dirt, and exposure to the elements or elements of risk. Ruth, my good-natured partner, just told me that at no time has that been made any clearer and on such a large scale than in the attempts to restore power to the unfortunate victims of the recent ice storm in Central Canada.

     Although much emphasis has been placed by the media on the suffering of women who have gone without the benefit of electricity for so long, isn't it astonishing that of all the many thousands of servicemen that must brave the elements in extremely cold and inhospitable conditions, to restore electrical power in the "Triangle of Darkness", the media has not been able to come up with a single instant of a woman braving the elements to help out in that endeavour, not a single woman pulling a powerline out of the snow and ice, not a single woman climbing a power pole to mount a cross-arm? (The media did show a few women reporters brave enough to interview some of the linemen who are working around the clock in near-arctic conditions)

     Ruth, who watches for things like that, did see one woman who stepped of a plane that brought members of the Canadian Armed Forces to help out, but of servicemen who came from all over to restore the powerlines, not one single one appears to be female.

     How many of the men involved in this heroic effort are fathers who hardly ever or never get to see their children because our society thinks that they are worth less than our Garbage?

     Worth less than our garbage, although when it comes to rescuing women and children, just as in the sinking of the Titanic, it is still almost exclusively men who selflessly put their lives on the line, even if it is for members of families that are not their own and even if they may not be able to do it for the members of their own families from which they were expelled.

     Men are more than just wallets! My heart and respect goes out to them. They deserve our admiration, now more so than ever before, especially because a whole society engages in heartless propaganda that makes men out to be batterers, brutes, rapists, drunks and deadbeats. But then, it should be clear to all of us by now that when it comes to propaganda, having a heart has nothing to do with the aim of a game that's about the greed for power and wealth.

     Isn't it a crying shame that more than a quarter of Canadian children hardly get to know their fathers, that a large and increasing number of them hardly ever, many never, even get to see their fathers, worse, that on account of false abuse allegations many fathers face criminal prosecution if they even attempt to call their children on the telephone, let alone attempt to see them face-to-face?

     Almost fully one half of the Canadian population has been vilified for a whole generation now in the largest program of social engineering and lies ever foisted upon Humanity—for what good purpose? Is there one Iota of tangible evidence that any of this social experimentation in any way improved our society? Do we now all love each other more? Do we have less violence and crime in our society? No, indications are that the reverse is true and that we are accelerating our slide into chaos. 

Mom sets son afire; he saves her

http://biz.yahoo.com/upi/97/12/18/general_state_and_regional_news/uslighter_1.html  (The link is dead)
Thursday December 18 [1997] 9:50 AM EST

ST. LOUIS, Dec. 18 [1997] (UPI) _ A 15-year-old boy is in critical condition after his mother threw lighter fluid at him, igniting his T-shirt and setting off a fire that gutted the family's apartment. Police say the youth saved his mother's life when the fire spread. The boy is recovering today at Barnes Hospital in St. Louis with burns over 50 percent of his body. The woman, her son and six young children she was baby-sitting, all escaped the fire and police did not immediately file any charges in the case. Police say a 9-year-old boy saved four of his siblings and then went back into the burning apartment to rescue the last child.

What a way to find out what it means to be a man. I hope that both will get a medal at least; they are martyrs and heroes — like all men — ready to sacrifice their lives. — WHS

More at:

Domestic Violence & Common Sense Newsletter # 1 and Newsletter #2

See also:


2000 02 11
2001 01 18 (edited relative risk table, format changes)
2001 02 07 (format changes)
2001 04 01 (corrected bookmark)
2001 09 01 (to add reference to Alberta children's advocate report on Alberta foster care system)
2001 09 04 (added reference to differences between men's and women's shelters)
2002 11 08 (inserted link to Seizing Children)
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College Students)