Marion Anne Carter, 61, was sentenced in Hamilton last week after earlier pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice.
Her lies under oath helped convict Robert "Bob" Sutton of
two rapes, four assaults with a weapon and nine assaults on a number of people that saw him jailed in November 2005.'
The Family Place domestic shelter paid $25,000 for 45 bus-side ads and 300 bus interior ads to appear on DART, the Dallas transit system. Sacks and his minions have declared these ads offensive to men and fathers. They have started a campaign to get the ads taken down.'
The National Conference on Family Violence: Health and Justice convened in March 1994. This was 10 years after the first Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence. The 1994 conference noted that the problem of family violence in the United States is epidemic and estimated that the annual incidence of family members is at 2 to 4 million for children, nearly 4 million for women, and 1 to 2 million for elder adults.
This conference was co-sponsored by the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Justice. One need not be a National Institute of Justice researcher to note that the 400 professionals and 80 national experts that attended this conference estimated 4 million women were victims. The experts at this conference acknowledged zero men as victims of domestic violence.
The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) works for major societal changes necessary to eliminate both personal and societal violence against all women and children. The total of males victims acknowledged in the mission statement by NCADV is zero.
The National Domestic Violence Hotline Decade for Change: Final Report notes, “Despite significant efforts over the past decade to address the problem of domestic violence in our country, 33 million American women continue to experience abuse every year. The total number of men who might experience domestic violence victimization appears to be zero .
The May 19, 2006, “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report ” in the section titled “Physical Dating Violence Among High School Students – United States, 2003” notes, “Among adult women in the United States, an estimated 5.3 million IPV incidents occur each year, resulting in approximately 2 million injuries and 1,300 deaths. The number of IPV incidents, injuries and deaths for men is zero.
The above report noted that dating violence victimization can be a precursor for IPV. It notes that 8.9% of males and 8.8% of females reported experiencing physical dating violence. My home state is Massachusetts. Massachusetts is one of the most politically liberal of states and it is a state that is proud that it stands up the rights of all of its citizens. Jane Doe is the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence.
The Jane Doe website notes that 1 in 5 female high school students report being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner. The number of male high school students Jane Doe implies, by their absence, is zero .
The number of male victims that the authors of the Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey wanted to interview about IPV victimization was zero . Despite this obvious bias they were allowed to conduct the NVAWS. After reporting that 40% of surveyed women and 54% of surveyed men said they were physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker, the authors conclude that IPV is first and foremost a problem for women. Is it possible that the authors over looked another precursor for IPV?
The CDC report, “ Intimate Partner Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements ” (IPVS), documents that the lack of an agreed upon definition of domestic violence limits the ability to properly identify victims at highest risk who need focused intervention and increased services. The victims at highest risk are not the only lost victims. The total times a male victim is mentioned in the IPVS is zero .
In criminal justice training, funded by the USDOJ, the NIJ and the OVW the offender is always referred to as “he” and the victims as “she.” This would seem to amount to zero male victimization. This “implicit association” – males are the offenders and females their victims – remains first and foremost in the minds of those who receive this training and remains when they respond to domestic violence incidents.
Story here. Excerpt:
'Rape is a traumatic crime, and when police get a call reporting sexual assault, it's taken very seriously. Police want to make sure that the person responsible for the crime is locked up and prevented from attacking anyone else, but 2% of all rape cases reported are discovered to be false accusations.
Police in Marlow say that's exactly what happened when an 18-year-old woman fabricated a report of rape. Many women who falsely report rapes are seeking attention - good or bad. However, in this case, police say the young woman who admitted to falsifying two rape reports only wanted a day off from work.'
'Over the past three days Dallas Area Rapid Transit has been bombarded with several thousand calls and letters protesting the anti-father domestic violence ads depicted above. Our campaign has received considerable media coverage on television, radio, and in newspapers--see below.
Over 60 Domestic Violence Authorities, Educators, and Mental Health, Medical, & Family Law Professionals have endorsed our campaign against these ads, including some of the world's leading experts on Domestic Violence.The big problem I have with The Tennessean’s September 24th editorial topic of targeting teenage dads, and of course the guest editorials that embrace yet another social government program, is that we’re left with a truly false dichotomy.
That is, teen motherhood is an absolute “right” while teen fatherhood is just a financial “responsibility.” I am so sick and tired of hearing this same old song and dance. Teen mother - good. Teen father - bad. She had no choice but to deliver a baby she cannot afford without taxpayers footing the bill. He had all the choices at hand but now must pay financially through the nose. Not to mention, he must accept that everyone but him decide how little parenting time he actually gets. It’s a disgrace par excellence.
A lot of ink was spilled on September 24th targeting teenage dads. The Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference shouldn’t be in the business of pushing statewide education programs like “What’s The Rush?” More smoke and mirrors. Bait and switch. Teen mothers are told of all the programs that are at their disposal, while teenage fathers have it drilled into their head that if they do not pay what can be confiscatory child support, they will lose the very license they need to actually drive to a job!
Gina Lodge, commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Human Services, has got it wrong in writing “Most teen mothers must turn to welfare.” My question is this: Why don’t most teen mothers do the right thing and turn to adoption? Instead, Lodge tells us “between 75 and 80 percent of all teen mothers turn to Families First, the state’s welfare program to get the support they need to survive.” To survive? Please. Perhaps if the welfare program wasn’t in place, there would be more adoptions or father involvement.
I also disagree with Lodge in writing that “only 55 percent of parents pay their court-ordered support on a regular basis.” Where does this figure come from? What about the fact that some teenage fathers or adult fathers simply cannot afford to pay what can amount to confiscatory child support? But more importantly, it’s a solid fact that when fathers are actually allowed to be, well, fathers, they pay their court-ordered support on time and in full at a rate of about 90 percent.
This being said, teen mothers and government agencies ought to be held criminally accountable when they interfere or withhold parenting time from the father. There’s countless programs and philosophies aimed at once again financially targeting fathers to the point of garnishing wages and tax refunds. Not to mention, public ridicule supported by the state. Incredibly, there are virtually no programs in place to really punish mothers and secure a father’s time with his children.
Why is this? We respect someone as young as 15 to give birth, and they’re emotionally supported. At the same time, we view fathers as ATM machines and dead beat dads. They’re emotionally discarded. We need to stop all the word games and draconian laws aimed only at fathers. Believe me, they want to spend more time with their children. It’s simple. Just ask them.
Let’s start a conversation on not just teen parenting, but what it means to have rights and responsibilities as any parent. Who gets all the financial responsibilities? Who gets all the rights? What are we left with? Why do we automatically assume mothers of any age are more responsible than fathers? Here’s the thing. The last time I checked, mothers are the ones in the news who irresponsibly leave their children in hot cars with the windows rolled up.
Women on welfare should not be allowed to get boob jobs.
There, I said it.
This was not a topic to which I had devoted a lot of thought. I've rarely, if ever, stood in a grocery line behind a woman using food stamps, so impressed by her saline-filled breasts that I asked for the name of her plastic surgeon.
Recently, however, I stumbled upon a woman who not only managed to afford cosmetic surgery while feeding her family with food stamps, but who literally could write the book on "How To Beat The System and Screw My Ex-Husband All In One Fell Swoop."
She disgusts me. She disgusts me to the point where I am ready to march on Washington wearing a fake-breast costume covered in food-stamp pasties while carrying a blazing copy of the Child Support Standards Act on a stick.
As Lewis Carroll wrote in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," (fitting in more ways than one), I will "Begin at the beginning."
It all started in 1989, when the Legislature enacted the Child Support Standards Act, which remains the driving force in determining parents' child support obligations.
With that body of law, the "deadbeat dad" was officially born, and Maury Povich could be heard rejoicing throughout the land.
The act was necessary for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was the need to protect mothers from baby-daddies who planted their seeds without ever tending to the saplings born there from. It should be regaled for that reason alone.
Unfortunately, the act is not without its bugs, and in certain scenarios - particularly those where Dad is not a deadbeat, but rather a hard-working slob who may have fallen on hard times - the flaws in the law can truly undermine the purpose.
For example, when a mother and father live together contributing to a single household, and one spouse loses his job, neither the state, nor the court, nor Superman swoops in to shake the pockets of the non-income-producing parent. In such cases, the family sucks it up to get by. That's life. And sometimes, life doesn't include summer camp.
Once two parents live separate and apart and the non-custodial parent suffers financial hardship, there is little mercy. At this point, the custodial parent can, with the help of the court, put a boot on the ex's throat and use child support as a tool that does little to put food on the table now, and instead serves to increase the financial burden on the already strapped parent.
Compounding that is the sheer lack of oversight in ensuring the receiving parent doesn't spend the money she gets for the benefit of her children on a boob job. I don't care if she did breast feed her young. It doesn't qualify.
One mother did just that. And, this is why I am duct taping the Child Support Standards Act to a stick and dousing it in gasoline right now.
This mother took her ex-husband back to court to increase the amount of child support he was ordered to pay for the care of their 17-year-old daughter.
There wasn't much unusual about that, save for the fact that the child herself was working and well-fed. In other words, there wasn't a real need to raise the support. There was, instead, a desire for Mom to extract as much blood out of Dad as the court would allow. Shocking? Hardly. It happens all the time.
Meanwhile, Mom remained gainfully unemployed, popped Paxil, and collected public assistance. She got a free lawyer, and, get this, was charging the 17-year-old daughter for whom she was collecting child support, rent, though she and daughter were living rent free with Mom's boyfriend.
Dad fought the law, and not surprisingly, the law won.
After the hearing, Mom took her boyfriend out for a lobster dinner, and for dessert, she got breast implants. In my book, there is no bigger thief than a woman who receives assistance to feed her children, and instead uses it to feed her ego.
While the court is permitted to deviate from the Child Support Standards Act for good reason, it too often turns a blind eye to good reason. Especially in this economy, the act should be adhered to - or ignored -in a way that results in justice for all, and not as a windfall for either parent.
