Excellent post from The Countess on the JOHN SKELTON case--which we have addressed numerous times here at Dastardly Dads (and thanks for the shout-out, Countess!) Notice that Skelton's instability had been documented before: He previously attempted to run out of state with the kids, but still got joint custody. Contrary to the consistent lies you see from father's rights leaders, any dad with a pulse can get custody/visitation these days. Even when they have a history of kidnapping, domestic violence, or child abuse. Even when they're sitting in jail or prison. And all that catering to fathers rights has done nothing in terms of bringing down the death count. Why would it?
http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2010/12/do-as-i-demand-or-the-kids-die.html
December 02, 2010
Do As I Demand Or The Kids Die!
This post is a riff of two earlier posts I wrote, Do As We Demand Or The Bitch Dies - Part 1 and Do As We Demand Or The Bitch Dies - Part 2. Over the past couple of years there has been a rash of dads murdering their exes and children (as reported on Dastardly Dads).
The latest case making the news is giving feelings of doom for three missing children that I and other people I've talked to suspect with a sinking feeling are already dead. We now have the case of John Skelton a dad who supposedly sent his three young sons off with a woman (who likely doesn't exist) and then attempted suicide. Mom, Tanya Skelton, is obviously beside herself since her sons have been missing since Thanksgiving. Skelton had court-ordered visitation, something that shouldn't be allowed in cases with a history like this one. This isn't the first time John Skelton ran off with his boys. The day Tanya Skelton filed for divorce, John Skelton took two of the boys and spirited them to Florida. After this stunt, Tanya Skelton was awarded custody but later she and Skelton agreed to visitation with a judge's encouragement.
This story is bad enough, but the rats are coming out of the woodwork latching onto this case to promote their propaganda and to advertise their "services". More below the fold.
Now we have fathers' rights advocate Jeffrey Leving pontificating about how families like the Skeltons need supervised visitation centers to help both parents have continuing access to their children. The father's rights group The Children's Rights Council also got in on the gravy train. Lo and behold - CRC has visitation centers! Can you hear the money? The articles below are bald ploys to attract more attention - and more clients and money - for CRC's visitation centers and for Jeffery Leving. Oh, yeah, visitation centers work well. Pay the father's rights group fees for supervised visitation for fifteen years. Teenagers especially love to be in a room with toys for three hours.
Here's the piggyback-onto-a-tragedy article by an Ohio chapter of the father's rights group The Children's Rights Council. CRC is not a child welfare group. It is a male supremacy group that has made lots of money over the years from supervised visitation centers. No link. Not giving this garbage traffic.
So what's the implication here? To keep children "safe", or to give abusive dads their access regardless of how little that benefits the children? Child welfare is given lip service in this article. It's all about father supremacy and getting more clients and money for CRC visitation centers.
And national leader? Of a tiny chapter in Ohio? Oh, please...
----------------------------------------------
Amid Morenci search, expert advises on custody disputes
Posted: Dec 01, 2010 4:06 AM ESTUpdated: Dec 01, 2010 4:10 AM EST
By Jonathan Walsh
Posted by Lisa Strawbridge
TOLEDO, OH (WTOL) - The Children's Rights Council provides a safe place for parental visitation when custody becomes an issue during or after divorce.
Margaret Wuwert is the national leader for the chapter in northwest Ohio. She says she's very saddened about the case involving John Skelton and his three sons.
"We want to make sure the kids are safe and that they do get to see both parents," Wuwert said of her organization.
The purpose of the council is to provide divorced parents or single parents with a safe way to have visits with children.
A room is provided for the custodial parent to drop off their children. Then 15 minutes later, the other parent comes in to spend time with the kids. She saysthere are no confrontations among the parents, and the kids just play and enjoy their time with mom or dad.
She says 90 or 95 percent of parents using the program think it's a good thing.
She adds there are so many emotions involved in a divorce. Then economic stress and even the arrival of the holidays can add to those emotions. Wuwert suggests parents always think of the kids first.
The Children's Rights Council of Northwest Ohio has 20 rooms available. It serves 80 families a month with each session lasting three hours.
As sad and difficult as the Skelton story is to hear, Wuwert hopes it's at least a wake-up call for adults who may be feeling some of the same emotions involved with the Skelton case.
----------------------------------------------
I won't give a link to this article below by Jeffery Leving because I don't want to give it traffic, but here it is in full. It's pretty heinous, piggybacking on a tragedy of three lost boys who are likely dead by now - at the hands of their father.
-----------------------------------------------
When Divorce Kills: How Gender Bias Pushes Some Men Over the Edge
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
By Jeffery M. Leving
Chicago, IL – (April 9, 2009) – In the past two weeks, the nation has been shocked by three cases of domestic violence ending in the deaths of innocent children. Two weeks ago, two Illinois boys and their father, Michael Connolly, were found dead in an apparent case of murder-suicide. Last week, James Harrison, a father in Washington, allegedly shot to death his five children before killing himself. On Monday, an Alabama man, Kevin Garner, allegedly killed his estranged wife, their daughter and two other relatives before committing suicide. A common factor in these three cases is divorce: a father in distress probably because he was losing all that he held dear.
I lament these terrible tragedies; as a parent myself, I can imagine the agony the death of a child must bring to a family. As a fathers’ rights attorney, I regret that these high-profile cases are reinforcing the malicious stereotype of the brutal father, a stereotype that sabotages the efforts of many good fathers who love their children.
The fact is that most fathers do not harm their children. Domestic violence is not gender specific, as some mothers have also committed similar unnatural acts. For example, I am currently representing a soldier, formerly deployed in Iraq, who is now struggling to rescue his daughter from the alleged abuse of her mother in Chicago.
Divorce is often regarded as one of the most stressful events in an adult’s life. However, it is especially painful for men in our society due to blatant gender bias in our system. Most divorced men lose custody of their children, and have to pay substantial and sometimes onerous child support. This bias is evident when examining the raw numbers of custody rulings from jurisdictions across the United States. Mothers win 85 percent of all such disputes. According to the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, divorced and separated men are two and a half times more likely to commit suicide than married men. By contrast, the incidence of suicide among divorced women is no greater than that for married women.
The notion that divorced or otherwise estranged fathers don’t want or need continuing involvement with their children is insensitive and false. Fathers suffer very real pain and an overpowering sense of loss when excluded from their children’s lives. In my book “Fathers’ Rights,” I warned of the agony suffered by fathers affected by the gender bias, pointing out that “fathers from all walks of life find separation from their children to be a torturous, devastating experience.”
While most divorced men are able to cope with the unfair treatment by our system, some individuals collapse under the pressure of their emotions, destroying their family and themselves. Sometimes all these fathers need is someone who understands; someone to share their problems with. This and more can be provided by the not-for-profit organization which I founded in Illinois, the Fatherhood Educational Institute (URL deleted - I won't give traffic to these guys), as well as the government agency that I chair, The Illinois Council for Responsible Fatherhood (URL deleted). Similar organizations are needed everywhere. Both organizations offer resources to educate fathers to deal with their emotions, and to assist them in times of crisis.
The stress of divorce is well-known. However, it is manageable and should not lead to killings. Instead of focusing on those three men who allegedly committed unforgivable crimes, we should look at our society and our attitudes towards the role of fathers after separation and divorce and correct these unhealthy stereotypes.
------------------------------------------------
Leving's brand of giving access to even violent fathers because it's society and its horrid attitudes about fathers that causes these tragedies is nothing new. Want to see some comments from father's rights activists about dads murdering their children and exes? These are some pretty noxious comments that give you an idea of the real nature of the father's rights movement, and it's not concern with children's welfare. It's all about male supremacy. Well, here you go:
From my article, Do As We Demand Or The Bitch Dies - Part 1:
Some of you may have heard the story about a fathers' rights advocate Darren Mack, who had stabbed his wife to death and shot the judge who heard his case. The judge lived. This guy is now at large. Well, fathers' rights groups got wind of the story, and they are excusing this guy's behavior. They blame "the system" for what this guy has done.
This is nothing new for these guys. They already blame "the system", feminists, and ex-wives when dads commit suicide. What they usually keep quiet is that they also blame "the system" et al when dads murder their wives and children. Lowell Jaks of The Alliance for Non-Custodial Parent's Rights had gone as far as to blame "the system" for the D. C. sniper shootings. In the article Divorced Dads Snap Under Pressure, which is available at ANCPR's web site, Jaks said that "[s]ome guys kill themselves, some snap and go out and kill others. You can dismiss them as crackpots, you can say we need more protection for women, but it's not going to take away the problem." In another article, available at the web site for the fathers' rights group "A Kid's Right", Jaks said ""None of these guys are poster children. But when you cause this much pain to so many men, there are going to be repercussions. A certain percentage are going to crack."
Quotes from father's rights activists from the same article, referencing Darren Mack murdering his ex-wife and shooting the judge who heard his case. Mack got lots of sympathy from father's rights activists. No surprise there. Would you as a mom (or dad) want to give these guys access to your children? Hell, no!
Jim Deeny said,on June 13th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
There’s only one wat to stop this nonsense! Stop paying!
mikevac said,on June 13th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
The harder the courts pushes people the harder they will push back. This bastard judge lived - this time. Next time he will not be that lucky. And there will be a next time because he is a bigot. Eventually, he’ll push another person to the brink and they will kill him. Unfortunately, this is the only way a victim of this the family court can get justice - by killing the judge.
anothervoice said,on June 13th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
This judge all like him get absolutely no sympathy from me. Here’s a solution: Have judges in family court (now there’s a contradiction in terms) only limited to five year terms and and for every complaint against them such as violating someone’s due process because it helps the custodial parent then they aren’t allowed to work for a year; hey, better yet, sned the jackass/bitch to jail for three months for each and every violation accrued to be run consequetively. Then maybe they won’t be so eagar to assholes.
buddyhyatt said,on June 13th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
I do not condone this type of retaliation. However “you reap what you sow” and evidently this judge had it coming. I am in this very situation in Tennessee. I am paying $1005 per month to the child’s mother whom I was not married to, while she does not work but fishes and hunts 10 to 18 days per month. (Yes she’s a lesbian now.) All the while I have the child more than half the time??? I am being rail roaded as we speak. I will fight it tooth and nail until it is settled fairly. I will not however shoot the judge. God’s vengeance will be much worse than anything I could do.
Jeffrey Leving and his ilk don't care about child welfare, "equality", or giving dads a fair shake. They care only about making sure men, especially the mad dads of the father's rights movement, have the ability to lord it over the women who try to leave them. They use the children to get back at the women who have the audacity to leave them. Remember that a Florida Bar Journal article noted that abusive fathers are much more likely than nonabusive parents contest custody, not pay child support, and kidnap children. You can add killing exes and children to that list. Comments such as the above prove those facts.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Towards better outcomes for children (Australia)
"Joint" or "shared" custody as mandatory social policy has been around in Australia for four years now--and the results have been disastrous. It's time we learned from the mistakes of others, instead of repeating the same errors again and again. Great post by Charles Pragnell at Australia's On Line Opinion.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11307
Towards Better Outcomes for Children
By Charles Pragnell - posted Thursday, 2 December 2010
The Family Law (Shared Parenting) Act 2006 was a retrograde and regressive step back in the history of family law as it returned to Victorian attitudes that children were mere "Goods and Chattels" of parents and they were possessions to be divided up along with the other parental assets such as house, cars, furnishings, monies etc when a couple separated.
Children were to be "shared out" either by parental agreement or by a Court on an equal or on a percentage time basis and which took no account of children's physical, emotional, educational, or social needs.
Children were given little, if any, say in decision-making processes affecting their lives. Although they are ostensibly represented in the proceedings by an Independent Children's Lawyer [ICL], anecdotal evidence demonstrates that children have sometimes not been seen and talked to by the ICL, or if they did, that their views were simply dismissed and not presented to the Courts.
Rarely are children's wishes and feelings presented directly to the Family Courts. In such circumstances, some children have gone as far as to prepare their own affidavits representing their own views directly to the Court, only to have such affidavits summarily dismissed by Judges as irrelevant to proceedings. Other children have sought to instruct a lawyer of their own choosing but such moves have been quickly negated by the interventions of the ICLs.
If children have protested that they had been abused by a parent they have not been believed as a counter claim is made by the accused parent that the other parent has "coached" them into such allegations, or has otherwise "alienated" them against the accused parent.
For many years a fake theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome was used in Family Courts to support such an assertion but eventually this has been exposed as having no basis in scientifically conducted research and was in fact a promotion by a psychologist with sympathies towards paedophile behaviours.
The question of self-induced alienation by parents has never been explored by Family Courts, where children have well-founded reasons for not liking a parent because of that parent's behaviours and attitudes towards them and therefore the children opposed living with or having contact with that parent and were forced into such arrangements against their will.
If they have refused or protested, they have been manhandled by police and forced into returning to the parent they detest and the other parent blamed for inciting them to resist returning to the other parent.
Yes children can lie on occasions to get the best outcomes for themselves, just as adults do and some adults have been prepared to perjure themselves to Family Reporters and ICLs and even to Courts, to obtain the most favourable outcomes for themselves. Children are not as easy to manipulate as some parental rights enthusiasts claim, as any parent who has argued with a determined three year old whether to buy a bar of chocolate in a supermarket, would testify.
Clearly the Family Law (Shared Parenting) Act has not been in the interests of children either in its content or its interpretations by Family Courts and in many instances there has been evidence of adultism (the failure to respect and uphold children's rights) and in some occasions there have been clear violations of children's rights under International Conventions to which this country is a signatory.
There is now a great deal of research evidence that children suffer abuse during instances of domestic violence and it is very welcome to see in the proposed legislative amendments that this is recognised and that much greater attention will be given to taking into account such instances in future Family Law proceedings.
However, there have been clear statements by the Chief Justice Diane Bryant in the recent past that Family Courts do not have the expertise nor the resources to thoroughly and competently investigate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, and State child protection authorities with the necessary expertise and resources have been extremely reluctant to engage in investigating such allegations when they are made to Family Courts.
In consequence, Family Courts have therefore frequently disregarded such allegations and have even punished the parents making such allegations by claiming they were "unfriendly" toward shared care or "implacably hostile" to any contact of the other parent with the child.
On some occasions when this has happened, the protective parent has absconded interstate or even overseas, to protect their child from what they reasonably believe is an abusive parent, but have been severely punished for doing so by the Courts with draconian measures such as heavy fines, orders to pay full Court costs, and even imprisonment. In effect the protective parents have been punished for the inadequacies of the law and the Family Courts.
Too little attention has been given in the existing Family Law and by the Courts in establishing whether a parent has an existing "meaningful relationship" with a child and whether a parent has actively engaged in the child's emotional, physical, social, and educational development prior to the parental separation which are the core elements of good parenting, and merely the participation of an adult in the conception of a child has been accepted and upheld by Courts as qualifying an adult as a "parent".
By placing the safety and protection of children as of paramount importance in matters of the custody and contact of those children with parents, it is to be hoped that the proposed amendments to the Family Law Act will close this gap between the Federal Law and State duties to protect children from harm and exploitation. It is also to be hoped that children's rights to have their views taken seriously into account in decisions affecting their lives is given a high priority by the Courts and become accepted good practice by Courts.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11307
Towards Better Outcomes for Children
By Charles Pragnell - posted Thursday, 2 December 2010
The Family Law (Shared Parenting) Act 2006 was a retrograde and regressive step back in the history of family law as it returned to Victorian attitudes that children were mere "Goods and Chattels" of parents and they were possessions to be divided up along with the other parental assets such as house, cars, furnishings, monies etc when a couple separated.
Children were to be "shared out" either by parental agreement or by a Court on an equal or on a percentage time basis and which took no account of children's physical, emotional, educational, or social needs.
Children were given little, if any, say in decision-making processes affecting their lives. Although they are ostensibly represented in the proceedings by an Independent Children's Lawyer [ICL], anecdotal evidence demonstrates that children have sometimes not been seen and talked to by the ICL, or if they did, that their views were simply dismissed and not presented to the Courts.
Rarely are children's wishes and feelings presented directly to the Family Courts. In such circumstances, some children have gone as far as to prepare their own affidavits representing their own views directly to the Court, only to have such affidavits summarily dismissed by Judges as irrelevant to proceedings. Other children have sought to instruct a lawyer of their own choosing but such moves have been quickly negated by the interventions of the ICLs.
If children have protested that they had been abused by a parent they have not been believed as a counter claim is made by the accused parent that the other parent has "coached" them into such allegations, or has otherwise "alienated" them against the accused parent.
For many years a fake theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome was used in Family Courts to support such an assertion but eventually this has been exposed as having no basis in scientifically conducted research and was in fact a promotion by a psychologist with sympathies towards paedophile behaviours.
The question of self-induced alienation by parents has never been explored by Family Courts, where children have well-founded reasons for not liking a parent because of that parent's behaviours and attitudes towards them and therefore the children opposed living with or having contact with that parent and were forced into such arrangements against their will.
If they have refused or protested, they have been manhandled by police and forced into returning to the parent they detest and the other parent blamed for inciting them to resist returning to the other parent.
Yes children can lie on occasions to get the best outcomes for themselves, just as adults do and some adults have been prepared to perjure themselves to Family Reporters and ICLs and even to Courts, to obtain the most favourable outcomes for themselves. Children are not as easy to manipulate as some parental rights enthusiasts claim, as any parent who has argued with a determined three year old whether to buy a bar of chocolate in a supermarket, would testify.
Clearly the Family Law (Shared Parenting) Act has not been in the interests of children either in its content or its interpretations by Family Courts and in many instances there has been evidence of adultism (the failure to respect and uphold children's rights) and in some occasions there have been clear violations of children's rights under International Conventions to which this country is a signatory.
There is now a great deal of research evidence that children suffer abuse during instances of domestic violence and it is very welcome to see in the proposed legislative amendments that this is recognised and that much greater attention will be given to taking into account such instances in future Family Law proceedings.
However, there have been clear statements by the Chief Justice Diane Bryant in the recent past that Family Courts do not have the expertise nor the resources to thoroughly and competently investigate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, and State child protection authorities with the necessary expertise and resources have been extremely reluctant to engage in investigating such allegations when they are made to Family Courts.
In consequence, Family Courts have therefore frequently disregarded such allegations and have even punished the parents making such allegations by claiming they were "unfriendly" toward shared care or "implacably hostile" to any contact of the other parent with the child.
On some occasions when this has happened, the protective parent has absconded interstate or even overseas, to protect their child from what they reasonably believe is an abusive parent, but have been severely punished for doing so by the Courts with draconian measures such as heavy fines, orders to pay full Court costs, and even imprisonment. In effect the protective parents have been punished for the inadequacies of the law and the Family Courts.
Too little attention has been given in the existing Family Law and by the Courts in establishing whether a parent has an existing "meaningful relationship" with a child and whether a parent has actively engaged in the child's emotional, physical, social, and educational development prior to the parental separation which are the core elements of good parenting, and merely the participation of an adult in the conception of a child has been accepted and upheld by Courts as qualifying an adult as a "parent".
By placing the safety and protection of children as of paramount importance in matters of the custody and contact of those children with parents, it is to be hoped that the proposed amendments to the Family Law Act will close this gap between the Federal Law and State duties to protect children from harm and exploitation. It is also to be hoped that children's rights to have their views taken seriously into account in decisions affecting their lives is given a high priority by the Courts and become accepted good practice by Courts.
Dad seeking "joint custody" murders mom; leaves sicko note for kids, telling them not to come in house (Westborough, Massachusetts)
For years, the fathers rights people have assured us that once daddies got joint custody and the like, their hurt feelings would be assuaged and the killing and violence would stop.
Hasn't worked that way. Now these guys are just more entitled and violent than ever. Of course, anybody with any basic knowledge of the psychology of terrorism could have told you that.
No doubt this woman knew her soon-to-be ex, RICHARD "TODD" BIBART, was a serious threat to her and their children. That's why she was hoping for sole custody and a moveaway. Of course, Daddy was pushing for joint custody and no moveaway--that way he could continue to control and abuse her for years to come, see.
Well, Daddy couldn't even wait to find out whether he got his way in court or not. Killing for these guys is just the ultimate assertion of macho power. And some of them just can't resist the immediate thrill kill.
Notice that this sick bastard also went through the ultra-phony sympathetic motions of leaving a note for the kids, who were only 8 and 6, telling them not to come in the house. (As if kids that age could even process a note like that.) If this sh**head had really cared about the well being of those kids, he would have stopped terrorizing their mother and left the family alone.
Hat tip to A.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/westborough/news/x1966823021/Murder-victim-to-be-buried-Saturday-in-Pennsylvania
Murder victim was buried Saturday in Pennsylvania
Rebecca Bibart
By Jeff Malachowski/Daily News staff
MetroWest Daily News
Posted Nov 27, 2010 @ 11:22 AM
Last update Nov 30, 2010 @ 01:07 PM
WESTBOROUGH — Funeral services for Rebecca Bibart, whose husband officials say murdered her last week in their Westborough home, were held Saturday in Pennsylvania.
A memorial Mass was held Saturday morning at St. Michael Roman Catholic Church in Greenville, Pa., where Bibart was born, according to an obituary on the Loutzenhiser Jordan Colonial Funeral Home website. A private burial followed.
A memorial fund in Bibart's memory has been established for her children. Donations may be made to the Joseph and Meghan Bibart Education Fund, c/o Shenango Valley Foundation, 33 Chestnut St., Sharon, PA 16146.
Bibart, 41, died of "sharp force injuries to the neck" and "blunt force trauma to the head" inflicted by her husband Richard "Todd" Bibart, according to preliminary results from the state medical examiner's office. Pound found Rebecca dead in the basement of her 27 Thomas Newton Drive home last Thursday. Richard Bibart was found dead in an upstairs bedroom.
Authorities found a weapon used in the murder but are not disclosing what it is.
Police are awaiting toxicology results following an autopsy on Richard Bibart, 43.
A neighbor found a note on the front door directing the Bibart's two children, ages 6 and 8, to stay outside and call police. The two children were not home during the incident.
Authorities said the Bibarts had clashed in recent divorce proceedings over custody and support of their children. Rebecca Bibart had sought full custody of the children and wanted to take them out of Massachusetts. She also sought suitable support for her and the children, according to records in Worcester Probate and Family Court.
Richard Bibart sought joint custody of the children and a denial of his wife's request to move out of state, court records said. He also requested suitable support for the children's health insurance.
Rebecca Bibart filed for divorce in September, court records said, after the 17-year marriage "suffered an irretrievable breakdown."
The couple married on July 24, 1993, in Pennsylvania. The couple's home, which they bought in 2007, was up for sale.
In Westborough, Rebecca Bibart worked as a yoga instructor and an assistant in the Westborough Public Library's children's room.
Hasn't worked that way. Now these guys are just more entitled and violent than ever. Of course, anybody with any basic knowledge of the psychology of terrorism could have told you that.
No doubt this woman knew her soon-to-be ex, RICHARD "TODD" BIBART, was a serious threat to her and their children. That's why she was hoping for sole custody and a moveaway. Of course, Daddy was pushing for joint custody and no moveaway--that way he could continue to control and abuse her for years to come, see.
Well, Daddy couldn't even wait to find out whether he got his way in court or not. Killing for these guys is just the ultimate assertion of macho power. And some of them just can't resist the immediate thrill kill.
Notice that this sick bastard also went through the ultra-phony sympathetic motions of leaving a note for the kids, who were only 8 and 6, telling them not to come in the house. (As if kids that age could even process a note like that.) If this sh**head had really cared about the well being of those kids, he would have stopped terrorizing their mother and left the family alone.
Hat tip to A.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/westborough/news/x1966823021/Murder-victim-to-be-buried-Saturday-in-Pennsylvania
Murder victim was buried Saturday in Pennsylvania
Rebecca Bibart
By Jeff Malachowski/Daily News staff
MetroWest Daily News
Posted Nov 27, 2010 @ 11:22 AM
Last update Nov 30, 2010 @ 01:07 PM
WESTBOROUGH — Funeral services for Rebecca Bibart, whose husband officials say murdered her last week in their Westborough home, were held Saturday in Pennsylvania.
A memorial Mass was held Saturday morning at St. Michael Roman Catholic Church in Greenville, Pa., where Bibart was born, according to an obituary on the Loutzenhiser Jordan Colonial Funeral Home website. A private burial followed.
A memorial fund in Bibart's memory has been established for her children. Donations may be made to the Joseph and Meghan Bibart Education Fund, c/o Shenango Valley Foundation, 33 Chestnut St., Sharon, PA 16146.
Bibart, 41, died of "sharp force injuries to the neck" and "blunt force trauma to the head" inflicted by her husband Richard "Todd" Bibart, according to preliminary results from the state medical examiner's office. Pound found Rebecca dead in the basement of her 27 Thomas Newton Drive home last Thursday. Richard Bibart was found dead in an upstairs bedroom.
Authorities found a weapon used in the murder but are not disclosing what it is.
Police are awaiting toxicology results following an autopsy on Richard Bibart, 43.
A neighbor found a note on the front door directing the Bibart's two children, ages 6 and 8, to stay outside and call police. The two children were not home during the incident.
Authorities said the Bibarts had clashed in recent divorce proceedings over custody and support of their children. Rebecca Bibart had sought full custody of the children and wanted to take them out of Massachusetts. She also sought suitable support for her and the children, according to records in Worcester Probate and Family Court.
Richard Bibart sought joint custody of the children and a denial of his wife's request to move out of state, court records said. He also requested suitable support for the children's health insurance.
Rebecca Bibart filed for divorce in September, court records said, after the 17-year marriage "suffered an irretrievable breakdown."
The couple married on July 24, 1993, in Pennsylvania. The couple's home, which they bought in 2007, was up for sale.
In Westborough, Rebecca Bibart worked as a yoga instructor and an assistant in the Westborough Public Library's children's room.
Grandparents of "alleged" triple killer son demand child visitation (Darien, Illinois)
Dad JOHNNY BORIZOV is jailed in the "alleged" murder-for-hire scheme that resulted in the shooting deaths of his ex-girlfriend's parents and brother. The ex-girlfriend, the mother of their child, was also targeted but managed to hide in the closet and call 911. The same loving daddy was also "battling" the mother about custody and child support. What a surprise. Violent criminals fathers and custody "battles" seem to go together like peanut butter and jelly--and yet the courts have continually indulged these idiots. Custody for these guys is just another way to assert control, and further hurt, threaten and intimidate the victim. We see this again and again, but the courts won't stop kowtowing to these freaks.
So is it really any surprise that this "alleged" killer, with an entitlement attitute that's a mile wide, is still trying to dictate custody/visitation arrangements from jail? His efforts to get jailhouse visitation for himself--so far--have failed. But now he's orchestrating a new strategy: get visitation for HIS parents, the charming folks who raised this @$$hole. Disgusting. Leave this poor mom and her child ALONE. They've suffered enough.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-1117-borizov-20101116,0,7022594.story
Grandparents of Darien slaying suspect seek access to baby
Accused in triple murder, son is denied contact with child
9:44 p.m. CST, November 16, 2010
The family of Johnny Borizov is seeking judicial approval to have contact with his 21-month-old son, who lives with Borizov's former girlfriend, Angela Kramer, while Borizov awaits trial in connection with the murders of Kramer's parents and brother.
Borizov is charged with the triple murder for allegedly getting Jacob Nodarse to break into the Kramers' Darien home in an attempt to kill Angela Kramer, with whom he was having child custody and child support battles.
Both Borizov, 28, of Willow Springs, and Nodarse, 24, of Countryside, are being held without bond at the DuPage County Jail.
Nicholas Kirkeles, who represents Borizov in the child custody issues, had previously filed a motion to modify the current judicial order that forbids Borizov from having contact with any member of the Kramer family. He asked Judge Daniel Guerin at a court session Tuesday to allow Borizov's parents to visit the boy.
"The child's grandparents were an integral part of the child's life before this happened and they want to continue to be a part of the child's life," Kirkeles said Tuesday.
Assistant State's Attorney Joseph Ruggiero told Guerin that prosecutors and the Kramer family oppose the Borizov family's effort. He asked Guerin to dismiss Kirkeles' request, or to have a hearing on the request, but not to approve it. Guerin will hear arguments Dec. 16 on Ruggiero's request to dismiss the defense request.
Kirkeles said the Kramer family has previously rejected all requests by the defendant's family to see the child and that a judicial order appears necessary to permit it.
Members of both families were at Tuesday's court appearance by Borizov, but neither side commented publicly on the request.
Jeffrey and Lori Kramer, and their 20-year-old son, Mike, were shot to death after being stirred from their sleep on March 2. Angela Kramer, 25, survived after dialing 911 while hiding in a closet in the home in the Tara Hills subdivision. Her older brother and Mike Kramer's girlfriend also escaped the house unharmed.
Borizov's criminal attorneys have said authorities lack any evidence against Borizov, seen on video gambling at a Joliet riverboat at the time of the killings, other than statements from Nodarse.
Neither has a violent criminal record. Prosecutors are not seeking the death penalty against the men, who face potential life sentences if convicted.
So is it really any surprise that this "alleged" killer, with an entitlement attitute that's a mile wide, is still trying to dictate custody/visitation arrangements from jail? His efforts to get jailhouse visitation for himself--so far--have failed. But now he's orchestrating a new strategy: get visitation for HIS parents, the charming folks who raised this @$$hole. Disgusting. Leave this poor mom and her child ALONE. They've suffered enough.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-1117-borizov-20101116,0,7022594.story
Grandparents of Darien slaying suspect seek access to baby
Accused in triple murder, son is denied contact with child
9:44 p.m. CST, November 16, 2010
The family of Johnny Borizov is seeking judicial approval to have contact with his 21-month-old son, who lives with Borizov's former girlfriend, Angela Kramer, while Borizov awaits trial in connection with the murders of Kramer's parents and brother.
Borizov is charged with the triple murder for allegedly getting Jacob Nodarse to break into the Kramers' Darien home in an attempt to kill Angela Kramer, with whom he was having child custody and child support battles.
Both Borizov, 28, of Willow Springs, and Nodarse, 24, of Countryside, are being held without bond at the DuPage County Jail.
Nicholas Kirkeles, who represents Borizov in the child custody issues, had previously filed a motion to modify the current judicial order that forbids Borizov from having contact with any member of the Kramer family. He asked Judge Daniel Guerin at a court session Tuesday to allow Borizov's parents to visit the boy.
"The child's grandparents were an integral part of the child's life before this happened and they want to continue to be a part of the child's life," Kirkeles said Tuesday.
Assistant State's Attorney Joseph Ruggiero told Guerin that prosecutors and the Kramer family oppose the Borizov family's effort. He asked Guerin to dismiss Kirkeles' request, or to have a hearing on the request, but not to approve it. Guerin will hear arguments Dec. 16 on Ruggiero's request to dismiss the defense request.
Kirkeles said the Kramer family has previously rejected all requests by the defendant's family to see the child and that a judicial order appears necessary to permit it.
Members of both families were at Tuesday's court appearance by Borizov, but neither side commented publicly on the request.
Jeffrey and Lori Kramer, and their 20-year-old son, Mike, were shot to death after being stirred from their sleep on March 2. Angela Kramer, 25, survived after dialing 911 while hiding in a closet in the home in the Tara Hills subdivision. Her older brother and Mike Kramer's girlfriend also escaped the house unharmed.
Borizov's criminal attorneys have said authorities lack any evidence against Borizov, seen on video gambling at a Joliet riverboat at the time of the killings, other than statements from Nodarse.
Neither has a violent criminal record. Prosecutors are not seeking the death penalty against the men, who face potential life sentences if convicted.
Are Courts Rewarding Bad Behavior? Moms Fight Back (Illinois)
Excellent post (and follow up post) by Cynthia L. Lazar.
http://www.divorcelawyerillinoisblog.com/2010/11/are-courts-rewarding-bad-behavior-moms-fight-back.shtml
Are Courts Rewarding Bad Behavior? Moms Fight Back
On behalf of The Law Office of Cynthia L. Lazar posted in Child Custody on Monday, November 29, 2010
More than three years ago, a group of mothers, an adult child, and a handful of non-profit organizations petitioned the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, alleging a discriminatory pattern and practice of United States courts in custody and visitation cases. The petitioners, including one from Illinois, claim that the courts' tendency to award custody or unsupervised visitation to child molesters and abusers violates the mothers' human rights. In the three years since the petition was filed, reports say that the number of cases is growing and the IACHR has failed to act on many of them.
The document the petitioners are basing their argument on is the Organization of American States Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Man. The petitioners admit that state courts have jurisdiction in custody cases, but they point out that the federal government bears the responsibility of ensuring that state courts follow the precepts of the declaration. Most of those precepts are familiar: They include the right to life, liberty and the security of one's person, the equality of all people before the law and freedom of expression. Another key right under the declaration is the right to establish a family and to receive protection for that family.
The petitioners claim that they have been either ignored or outright punished for bringing their husbands' abusive behavior to the attention of the court. According to a family law expert, even heaps of evidence of physical abuse of the mother and sexual abuse of the child are more likely than not to have exactly the opposite of the desired effect on the court. Mothers coming forward, he said, "face a grave risk of losing custody to the abuser for the sole reason that she dared to present evidence to the judge and ask that the child be protected."
In our next post, we'll discuss how these women seeking custody have treated by the courts.
Resource: Huffington Post "Failures of U.S. Courts Forces Mothers to Turn to International Law" 11/16/10
http://www.divorcelawyerillinoisblog.com/2010/11/are-courts-rewarding-bad-behavior-moms-fight-back.shtml
Are Courts Rewarding Bad Behavior? Moms Fight Back
On behalf of The Law Office of Cynthia L. Lazar posted in Child Custody on Monday, November 29, 2010
More than three years ago, a group of mothers, an adult child, and a handful of non-profit organizations petitioned the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, alleging a discriminatory pattern and practice of United States courts in custody and visitation cases. The petitioners, including one from Illinois, claim that the courts' tendency to award custody or unsupervised visitation to child molesters and abusers violates the mothers' human rights. In the three years since the petition was filed, reports say that the number of cases is growing and the IACHR has failed to act on many of them.
The document the petitioners are basing their argument on is the Organization of American States Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Man. The petitioners admit that state courts have jurisdiction in custody cases, but they point out that the federal government bears the responsibility of ensuring that state courts follow the precepts of the declaration. Most of those precepts are familiar: They include the right to life, liberty and the security of one's person, the equality of all people before the law and freedom of expression. Another key right under the declaration is the right to establish a family and to receive protection for that family.
The petitioners claim that they have been either ignored or outright punished for bringing their husbands' abusive behavior to the attention of the court. According to a family law expert, even heaps of evidence of physical abuse of the mother and sexual abuse of the child are more likely than not to have exactly the opposite of the desired effect on the court. Mothers coming forward, he said, "face a grave risk of losing custody to the abuser for the sole reason that she dared to present evidence to the judge and ask that the child be protected."
In our next post, we'll discuss how these women seeking custody have treated by the courts.
Resource: Huffington Post "Failures of U.S. Courts Forces Mothers to Turn to International Law" 11/16/10
Are Courts Rewarding Bad Behavior? Moms Fight Back- Part 2 (Illinois)
The follow-up to the post above.
http://www.divorcelawyerillinoisblog.com/2010/12/are-courts-rewarding-bad-behavior-moms-fight-back-p-2.shtml
Are Courts Rewarding Bad Behavior? Moms Fight Back (p. 2)
On behalf of The Law Office of Cynthia L. Lazar posted in Child Custody on Wednesday, December 1, 2010
In our last post, we started talking about a group of mothers and organizations from different states, including Illinois, who have taken their argument with the U.S. courts to an international body. This group petitioned the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, claiming that U.S. courts have violated their human rights by granting custody and unsupervised visitation to fathers who have abused both the mothers and the children.
In U.S. courts, mothers reporting domestic violence or sexual molestation of their children by the fathers are often labeled as mentally ill or "diagnosed" with Munchhausen's by Proxy or Parental Alienation Syndrome. PAS is used over and over again to punish the protective mothers, even though the so-called syndrome has no scientific validity -- in fact, PAS is used as a weapon almost exclusively against mothers in custody battles.
There have been other reports of mothers reporting abuse getting jail time and losing custody altogether. Mothers who fail to report abuse face similar punishments, though. Protect: Lose your child to the abusive parent. Don't protect: Lose your child to government agencies. The petitioners believe the US courts, despite a 1990 Congressional resolution, continue to put children into the arms of abusers.
The declaration's establishment of a right to family helps to frame a particularly strong argument for the petitioners. All of the petitioners had been denied access to their children in cases that lacked confincing proof that the petitioner had harmed her child. They say that the courts have no valid reason for taking a child from a mother who is trying to protect him or her and that the separation of that mother and child clearly violates the mother's right to establish a family.
Powerful as the arguments may be, the IACHR has not acted. Mothers who have been fighting for their children for 10 years or longer have been met with the same apparent indifference on the international level that they faced at the state court level. The question of how best to protect these children remains unanswered.
Resource: Huffington Post "Failures of U.S. Courts Forces Mothers to Turn to International Law" 11/16/10
http://www.divorcelawyerillinoisblog.com/2010/12/are-courts-rewarding-bad-behavior-moms-fight-back-p-2.shtml
Are Courts Rewarding Bad Behavior? Moms Fight Back (p. 2)
On behalf of The Law Office of Cynthia L. Lazar posted in Child Custody on Wednesday, December 1, 2010
In our last post, we started talking about a group of mothers and organizations from different states, including Illinois, who have taken their argument with the U.S. courts to an international body. This group petitioned the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, claiming that U.S. courts have violated their human rights by granting custody and unsupervised visitation to fathers who have abused both the mothers and the children.
In U.S. courts, mothers reporting domestic violence or sexual molestation of their children by the fathers are often labeled as mentally ill or "diagnosed" with Munchhausen's by Proxy or Parental Alienation Syndrome. PAS is used over and over again to punish the protective mothers, even though the so-called syndrome has no scientific validity -- in fact, PAS is used as a weapon almost exclusively against mothers in custody battles.
There have been other reports of mothers reporting abuse getting jail time and losing custody altogether. Mothers who fail to report abuse face similar punishments, though. Protect: Lose your child to the abusive parent. Don't protect: Lose your child to government agencies. The petitioners believe the US courts, despite a 1990 Congressional resolution, continue to put children into the arms of abusers.
The declaration's establishment of a right to family helps to frame a particularly strong argument for the petitioners. All of the petitioners had been denied access to their children in cases that lacked confincing proof that the petitioner had harmed her child. They say that the courts have no valid reason for taking a child from a mother who is trying to protect him or her and that the separation of that mother and child clearly violates the mother's right to establish a family.
Powerful as the arguments may be, the IACHR has not acted. Mothers who have been fighting for their children for 10 years or longer have been met with the same apparent indifference on the international level that they faced at the state court level. The question of how best to protect these children remains unanswered.
Resource: Huffington Post "Failures of U.S. Courts Forces Mothers to Turn to International Law" 11/16/10
Bogus "experts" weigh in on visitation with violent criminals: Can't we just say no? (Toledo, Ohio)
It would be nice if newspaper articles came with truth in advertising disclaimers.
First of all, the "Children's Rights Council" is not a children's rights organization at all. It's a fathers rights organization that has always privileged the rights of fathers over everyone else.
In addition, these boondoggle visitation centers are great money pits for all the people who run them, and nothing but a pain for everybody else. Either a parent is safe or not. If in doubt, then cut off the contact until the parent's safety can be proven. There is no reason to expose children to up to 18 traumatic years of forced visitation with an abuser--all while some clueless supervisor looks on. No doubt a charming sociopath is also doing his best to convince the supervisor that all the allegations are "lies" and that he's being unfairly "alienated" from his child by the vindictive mother. And then before you know it, these idiots have been recruited into helping dad get more access (unsupervised of course), or even full custody. It is no secret that these centers have become known as custody switch centers.
In addition, supervised visitation doesn't even guarantee that a child won't be abducted or otherwise directly endangered. Here's just one example off the top of my head:
http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-was-abuser-dad-allowed-supervised.html
So it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a so-called "expert" with the CRC can express "sadness" about dad JOHN SKELTON's presumed murder of his three sons, but no real outrage. There is no call to really protect children, which would involve the elimination of violent criminals from the lives of children. No, the "expert" calls for "supervised" visitation with the violent criminal, all while they're bankrupting parents and the courts for their "services."
Just say no.
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=13593175
Amid Morenci search, expert advises on custody disputes
Posted: Dec 01, 2010 3:06 AM CST
Updated: Dec 01, 2010 3:10 AM CST
By Jonathan Walsh -
Posted by Lisa Strawbridge
TOLEDO, OH (WTOL) - The Children's Rights Council provides a safe place for parental visitation when custody becomes an issue during or after divorce.
Margaret Wuwert is the national leader for the chapter in northwest Ohio. She says she's very saddened about the case involving John Skelton and his three sons.
"We want to make sure the kids are safe and that they do get to see both parents," Wuwert said of her organization.
The purpose of the council is to provide divorced parents or single parents with a safe way to have visits with children.
A room is provided for the custodial parent to drop off their children. Then 15 minutes later, the other parent comes in to spend time with the kids. She says there are no confrontations among the parents, and the kids just play and enjoy their time with mom or dad.
She says 90 or 95 percent of parents using the program think it's a good thing. She adds there are so many emotions involved in a divorce. Then economic stress and even the arrival of the holidays can add to those emotions. Wuwert suggests parents always think of the kids first.
The Children's Rights Council of Northwest Ohio has 20 rooms available. It serves 80 families a month with each session lasting three hours.
As sad and difficult as the Skelton story is to hear, Wuwert hopes it's at least a wake-up call for adults who may be feeling some of the same emotions involved with the Skelton case.
First of all, the "Children's Rights Council" is not a children's rights organization at all. It's a fathers rights organization that has always privileged the rights of fathers over everyone else.
In addition, these boondoggle visitation centers are great money pits for all the people who run them, and nothing but a pain for everybody else. Either a parent is safe or not. If in doubt, then cut off the contact until the parent's safety can be proven. There is no reason to expose children to up to 18 traumatic years of forced visitation with an abuser--all while some clueless supervisor looks on. No doubt a charming sociopath is also doing his best to convince the supervisor that all the allegations are "lies" and that he's being unfairly "alienated" from his child by the vindictive mother. And then before you know it, these idiots have been recruited into helping dad get more access (unsupervised of course), or even full custody. It is no secret that these centers have become known as custody switch centers.
In addition, supervised visitation doesn't even guarantee that a child won't be abducted or otherwise directly endangered. Here's just one example off the top of my head:
http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-was-abuser-dad-allowed-supervised.html
So it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a so-called "expert" with the CRC can express "sadness" about dad JOHN SKELTON's presumed murder of his three sons, but no real outrage. There is no call to really protect children, which would involve the elimination of violent criminals from the lives of children. No, the "expert" calls for "supervised" visitation with the violent criminal, all while they're bankrupting parents and the courts for their "services."
Just say no.
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=13593175
Amid Morenci search, expert advises on custody disputes
Posted: Dec 01, 2010 3:06 AM CST
Updated: Dec 01, 2010 3:10 AM CST
By Jonathan Walsh -
Posted by Lisa Strawbridge
TOLEDO, OH (WTOL) - The Children's Rights Council provides a safe place for parental visitation when custody becomes an issue during or after divorce.
Margaret Wuwert is the national leader for the chapter in northwest Ohio. She says she's very saddened about the case involving John Skelton and his three sons.
"We want to make sure the kids are safe and that they do get to see both parents," Wuwert said of her organization.
The purpose of the council is to provide divorced parents or single parents with a safe way to have visits with children.
A room is provided for the custodial parent to drop off their children. Then 15 minutes later, the other parent comes in to spend time with the kids. She says there are no confrontations among the parents, and the kids just play and enjoy their time with mom or dad.
She says 90 or 95 percent of parents using the program think it's a good thing. She adds there are so many emotions involved in a divorce. Then economic stress and even the arrival of the holidays can add to those emotions. Wuwert suggests parents always think of the kids first.
The Children's Rights Council of Northwest Ohio has 20 rooms available. It serves 80 families a month with each session lasting three hours.
As sad and difficult as the Skelton story is to hear, Wuwert hopes it's at least a wake-up call for adults who may be feeling some of the same emotions involved with the Skelton case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)