More reporting on the U.N. and the Gonzales case. Dad SIMON GONZALES abducted his daughters and eventually killed them. The mom called the local police 7 times to enforce her protection order, and they totally blew her off.
http://www.channel4.com/news/us-breaching-human-rights-of-domestic-violence-victims
US 'breaching human rights of domestic violence victims'
Tuesday 23 August 2011
The United Nations says the United States must reassess how it protects victims and punishes perpetrators of domestic violence. Channel 4 News investigates.
The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on violence against women has urged the United States to re-examine its current policies on dealing with violence against women.
It's a huge embarrassment for a nation which considers itself to be among the most equal in the world - and the kind of slap on the wrist that the UN normally administers to nations with dismal human rights records.
"Violence against women is the most pervasive human rights violation which continues to challenge every country in the world, and the US is no exception," said the UN's Rashida Manjoo.
Women's rights
The UN's criticism comes after a United States human rights panel found the US Government responsible for human rights violations in the case of Jessica Lenahan (previously Gonzales).
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights said the Government fell short of its international obligations when it failed to enforce a restraining order against Ms Lenahan's then husband, Simon Gonzales.
On 22 July 1999, Ms Lenahan made seven calls over seven hours to the police in Colorado when her estranged, abusive husband abducted her three daughters, aged 7, 8, and 10. Despite the restraining order against Mr Gonzales, no action was taken.
Early the following morning, Mr Gonzales drove to the police station and began shooting. He was shot dead by police, who then found the bodies of the couple's three daughters, with gunshot wounds, in the back of his truck.
Women's rights researcher at Human Rights Watch, Meghan Rhoad, told Channel 4 News the case was very significant.
"It's a huge case and I hope it will be recognised by policy makers. I think we tend to take for granted that the US has made major gains in women's rights and particularly in violence against women, but this is calling for us to reassess what this actually means in women's lives on a daily basis.
"How much progress have we really made when a woman can call the police seven times over seven hours to get a restraining order enforced and that doesn't happen, and her children are killed?"
UN call
The US human rights body called for a review of the case as well as recommending wider steps for the US Government, including making enforcement of protection orders mandatory. In a report, the UN has gone even further, suggesting the failure should lead to a much deeper rethink of the US Government's attitude towards domestic violence cases.
"The US Government should reassess existing mechanisms for protecting victims and punishing offenders, and establish meaningful standards for enforcement of protection orders and impose consequences for a failure to enforce them," said Ms Manjoo, who went on a fact-funding mission to the US earlier this year.
She added: "In my discussions with government officials, victims, survivors and advocates including Jessica Lenahan, I found a lack of substantive protective legislation for domestic violence victims in the United States, as well as inadequate implementation of certain laws, policies and programmes."
Ms Manjoo said there was little in terms of "federally binding" provisions to protect women against domestic violence, or to prevent the acts in the first place.
She concluded: "State inaction towards cases of violence against women fosters an environment of impunity and promotes the repetition of violence."
Human Rights Watch's Ms Rhoad said the negative publicity - as well as the fact that the US is currently re-authorizing its landmark Violence Against Women Act - was a "gathering storm" that she hoped would elevate the issue in the public consciousness.
"As much progress as has been made, we still have to keep educating about the Government's responsibility to stop violence, whether it is happening on the street or inside someone's home," she said.
Officials at the United States mission to the UN were not immediately available to comment when contacted by Channel 4 News.
The US is the only developed nation not to have ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Friday, September 16, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Mother sold to husband at 13 loses 6 children to abusive ex (Saudi Arabia)
This is the kind of story that western women readily associate with Saudi Arabia. What they don't know is this kind of story is becoming increasingly common outside the middle east, especially with the rise of fathers rights.
http://www.emirates247.com/news/married-at-13-abandoned-at-30-2011-02-27-1.361098
Married at 13, abandoned at 30
Salma fled her home after dad tried to ‘sell’ her again
By Staff
Published Sunday, February 27, 2011
When she was 13-years old, Salma (full name withheld) from Saudi Arabia was forced to marry a man aged over 60.
The man paid her father a dowry of SR250,000 ($68,000), but Salma says it was like she was actually sold.
Salma, now in her 30s, has no home and is deprived of seeing her six children following her divorce. When she tried to take them, she was thrown in prison for six months.
As if all this was not enough. After she was divorced and her children taken away, her father tried to sell her again - this would-be husband refused to offer more than SR100,000.
But it was her not her father who turned down that offer. Feeling that she had enough, she packed and fled her home.
“I was only 13 when this rich old man came and paid my father SR250,000. I was forced to marry a man who is as old as my grandfather… I was snatched off my fifth class at that age,” said Salma, from the central town of Makkah.
“He took me to his home in Madina and there I found that he already has three wives… I then started to spend my time playing with his children as I was a child and had no idea about marriage life.”
Salma, now in her 30s, said her marriage lasted around 17 years, during which she gave birth to four daughters and two sons.
“During my marriage to this man, I suffered from torture and very bad treatment… I then fled to my family’s house and stayed there with my children for nearly three years, after which I was divorced.”
The Saudi Alikhbariya newspaper said Salma first refused to give back the children to her ex-husband, prompting him to go to court.
“Police arrested me and I was jailed for six months… when I was released, I went back to my family and stayed for a while before another old man came and paid SR100,000 to marry me,” she said.
“I refused and fled home… I have been staying at mosques and parks all this time. My ex-husband still refuses to let me see my children. Sometimes I go to take a glance at them while going or leaving school and I could see clear marks of violence on their bodies. I think they are being tortured at home.”
The paper did not say where it met Salma or whether she has a home now. But it quoted a Saudi human rights activist as urging the woman to come along and present her case.
“If she comes and proves that her children are subject to torture by their father, then will we will talk to the police. We will also ensure protection for her and her children,” said Mohammed Kalantin, member of the Saudi Human Rights Commission in Makka.
http://www.emirates247.com/news/married-at-13-abandoned-at-30-2011-02-27-1.361098
Married at 13, abandoned at 30
Salma fled her home after dad tried to ‘sell’ her again
By Staff
Published Sunday, February 27, 2011
When she was 13-years old, Salma (full name withheld) from Saudi Arabia was forced to marry a man aged over 60.
The man paid her father a dowry of SR250,000 ($68,000), but Salma says it was like she was actually sold.
Salma, now in her 30s, has no home and is deprived of seeing her six children following her divorce. When she tried to take them, she was thrown in prison for six months.
As if all this was not enough. After she was divorced and her children taken away, her father tried to sell her again - this would-be husband refused to offer more than SR100,000.
But it was her not her father who turned down that offer. Feeling that she had enough, she packed and fled her home.
“I was only 13 when this rich old man came and paid my father SR250,000. I was forced to marry a man who is as old as my grandfather… I was snatched off my fifth class at that age,” said Salma, from the central town of Makkah.
“He took me to his home in Madina and there I found that he already has three wives… I then started to spend my time playing with his children as I was a child and had no idea about marriage life.”
Salma, now in her 30s, said her marriage lasted around 17 years, during which she gave birth to four daughters and two sons.
“During my marriage to this man, I suffered from torture and very bad treatment… I then fled to my family’s house and stayed there with my children for nearly three years, after which I was divorced.”
The Saudi Alikhbariya newspaper said Salma first refused to give back the children to her ex-husband, prompting him to go to court.
“Police arrested me and I was jailed for six months… when I was released, I went back to my family and stayed for a while before another old man came and paid SR100,000 to marry me,” she said.
“I refused and fled home… I have been staying at mosques and parks all this time. My ex-husband still refuses to let me see my children. Sometimes I go to take a glance at them while going or leaving school and I could see clear marks of violence on their bodies. I think they are being tortured at home.”
The paper did not say where it met Salma or whether she has a home now. But it quoted a Saudi human rights activist as urging the woman to come along and present her case.
“If she comes and proves that her children are subject to torture by their father, then will we will talk to the police. We will also ensure protection for her and her children,” said Mohammed Kalantin, member of the Saudi Human Rights Commission in Makka.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Author Lundy Bancroft teaches battered mothers to fight back (Albany, New York)
Nice piece on Lundy Bancroft and the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, which took place in Albany last weekend.
http://www.suite101.com/content/author-lundy-bancroft-teaches-battered-mothers-to-fight-back-a331711
Author Lundy Bancroft Teaches Battered Mothers to Fight Back
By Liora Farkovitz
Last Updated Jan 13, 2011, Published Jan 12, 2011
Leading author and therapist Lundy Bancroft teaches battered mothers to fight back at the 8th Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany, New York 1/7/11
The 8th Battered Mother’s Custody Conference featured author and activist Lundy Bancroft, who has for more than a decade addressed the issues of battered mothers who lost custody to their abusers in family courts. Well known as the founder of the Battered Mothers Testimony Project in Massachusetts, Bancroft is also the author of three books on the dynamics and subsequent effects of domestic violence. He was the winner of the 2004 Pro Humanitate Award from the North American Resource Center for Child Welfare, for his book, “The Batterer as Parent”.
Battered Mothers Fight Myths
The past seven Battered Mother’s Custody Conferences validated and quantified an emergent judicial and human rights crisis in our family courts. Judges are delivering abused children to the very abusers that their protective mothers painstakingly escaped. For the first time in the conference’s history, Bancroft introduced fighting back against this injustice as the theme for this year’s conference meetings and speakers.
The prevailing myth is that once out of an abusive marriage, the mother is now safe from her abuser. But the truth is that 75% of women who are injured or murdered by their abusers suffer the attack within the first thirty days of escaping the relationship[1]. Despite the divorce, many women endure ongoing torment by their former spouse and abuser because they are permanently connected through their common children.
An abuser stalking, threatening, and torturing the mother, and abusing their children in order to hurt her, are very common realities. The courts perceive repeated requests for protection as strategic chicanery and often fail to validate an ongoing threat to the mother.
Paradoxically, many battered mothers are in the unenviable position of being challenged by Child Protective Services to ‘leave their abusive marriage to protect their children’, despite the statistical odds of their own demise, and the unlikelihood that law enforcement will provide or enforce protective orders. Once embroiled in the family court systems, the battered mothers are marginalized and accused of lying to gain unfair advantage over abusive fathers.
No amount of presenting the actual facts and figures seems to gain these protective mothers and their children safe harbor. Judges and other legal participants routinely place children with their abusers. There are both domestic and international human rights implications to this issue with more than 1,000 families a week now facing this crisis; Bancroft’s expertise is needed more than ever[2].
Battered Mothers Fight Courts
The first shock a protective mother must overcome is the reality that the justice system does not exist within the family court system. On television, in our classrooms, and in the news, the myth that our legal system is fair and just is promulgated. Many protective mothers discover that the truth is that the rules which apply in a criminal court or in business related civil cases are not applied in family courts. Rules of evidence and consequences for challenging the status quo are harsh and unpredictable. Judges have unilateral discretion to define what happens, how it happens and whether she is even allowed to tell anyone else about the court’s orders.
A protective mother stripped of her children, is also stripped of her right to parent; her right of free speech; her right of protection; and her right to protest these injustices. Our Bill of Rights is frequently ignored, and the judicial system affords immunity for the legal participants including Judges, Child Custody Evaluators, Child Protective Services, and Law Enforcement Agencies. If they misjudge, and the battered mother or her children die, then no one is accountable. Do you risk contempt of a court order in an attempt to protect your children?
Battered Mothers Fight Child Abuse
Often the abuser begins to deliberately alienate the protective mother from her children, telling the children that she abandoned them, did not want to mother them, lies about his abuse, or fails to parent them effectively. The child begins to doubt their own ability to perceive reality. They may feel a forced sense of loyalty to their abuser. If the children do not follow his lead and mistreat their mother, what are the physical and emotional consequences they suffer at the hands of the abusers?
Bancroft advises protective mothers and their support systems to remember that the purpose of the fight is to keep as close to your children as possible. Keep things calm, remind them that you love them. Rather than debate which parent is “right” in a never ending battle for the right to exist without the abuser’s influence – ask your child, “What do YOU think?” Maintain the child’s ability to read the situation, assess it and come to an independent conclusion. When the abuser misrepresents a mother’s feelings or actions, correct the lie, and encourage the child to rely on their own personal experience with their mother.
Battered Mothers Fight Isolation
Many Americans erroneously believe family court dynamics are identical to other courts’ standard of evidence in the United States. Therefore they come to the conclusion that a mother who loses custody in civil proceedings must have done something to deserve the loss. The stigma of losing one’s child is an isolating experience. The battered mother finds the experience so painful that she abandons any attempt to explain what happened to her.
To overcome the stigma, the battered mother may attend conferences like the annual Battered Mother’s Custody Conference; join Facebook Causes; and support websites related to healing from and fighting domestic violence; connect with other people with like experiences; and research what is happening in other parts of the country. Books like those published by authors Lundy Bancroft, Mo Therese Hannah, Barry Goldstein, Amy Neuman, Michael Lesher, Wendy Murphy, Karin Huffer and others can provide specific legal, emotional and political strategies to effect change.
Battered Mothers Fight Human Rights Injustices
Political initiatives are reflected in the progress of landmark legal cases in human rights; follow the outcome of cases such as Jessica Ruth Gonzales v. USA, as well as other international cases concerning domestic violence under consideration by the Inter America Human Rights Commission. The U. S. Supreme Court upheld the Castle Rock, Colorado Police Department’s refusal to enforce a protective order against Simon Gonzales that resulted in the murder of their three children. Gonzales (now Lanahan) is protesting the violation of her human rights.
As the first U. S. Citizen to receive political asylum from The Netherlands, Holly Collins and her three children fled the United States in 1994 to be free of domestic violence when they could not obtain protection from family courts. Ms. Collins plans to return to live in the U. S., just as her youngest child reaches adulthood. How our country responds to the knowledge that a mother was forced to flee her own country for protection will be an important barometer of progress.
[1] Indiana Law School Protective Order Project, “What is Domestic Violence?” Website. Referenced January 12, 2011. http://www.law.indiana.edu/pop/domestic_violence/
[2] Silberg, Joyanna, “How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?”, The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence, Press Release. September, 22, 2008, http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/PR3.html, referenced January 12, 2011
Read more at Suite101: Author Lundy Bancroft Teaches Battered Mothers to Fight Back http://www.suite101.com/content/author-lundy-bancroft-teaches-battered-mothers-to-fight-back-a331711#ixzz1AxM4S6gT
http://www.suite101.com/content/author-lundy-bancroft-teaches-battered-mothers-to-fight-back-a331711
Author Lundy Bancroft Teaches Battered Mothers to Fight Back
By Liora Farkovitz
Last Updated Jan 13, 2011, Published Jan 12, 2011
Leading author and therapist Lundy Bancroft teaches battered mothers to fight back at the 8th Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany, New York 1/7/11
The 8th Battered Mother’s Custody Conference featured author and activist Lundy Bancroft, who has for more than a decade addressed the issues of battered mothers who lost custody to their abusers in family courts. Well known as the founder of the Battered Mothers Testimony Project in Massachusetts, Bancroft is also the author of three books on the dynamics and subsequent effects of domestic violence. He was the winner of the 2004 Pro Humanitate Award from the North American Resource Center for Child Welfare, for his book, “The Batterer as Parent”.
Battered Mothers Fight Myths
The past seven Battered Mother’s Custody Conferences validated and quantified an emergent judicial and human rights crisis in our family courts. Judges are delivering abused children to the very abusers that their protective mothers painstakingly escaped. For the first time in the conference’s history, Bancroft introduced fighting back against this injustice as the theme for this year’s conference meetings and speakers.
The prevailing myth is that once out of an abusive marriage, the mother is now safe from her abuser. But the truth is that 75% of women who are injured or murdered by their abusers suffer the attack within the first thirty days of escaping the relationship[1]. Despite the divorce, many women endure ongoing torment by their former spouse and abuser because they are permanently connected through their common children.
An abuser stalking, threatening, and torturing the mother, and abusing their children in order to hurt her, are very common realities. The courts perceive repeated requests for protection as strategic chicanery and often fail to validate an ongoing threat to the mother.
Paradoxically, many battered mothers are in the unenviable position of being challenged by Child Protective Services to ‘leave their abusive marriage to protect their children’, despite the statistical odds of their own demise, and the unlikelihood that law enforcement will provide or enforce protective orders. Once embroiled in the family court systems, the battered mothers are marginalized and accused of lying to gain unfair advantage over abusive fathers.
No amount of presenting the actual facts and figures seems to gain these protective mothers and their children safe harbor. Judges and other legal participants routinely place children with their abusers. There are both domestic and international human rights implications to this issue with more than 1,000 families a week now facing this crisis; Bancroft’s expertise is needed more than ever[2].
Battered Mothers Fight Courts
The first shock a protective mother must overcome is the reality that the justice system does not exist within the family court system. On television, in our classrooms, and in the news, the myth that our legal system is fair and just is promulgated. Many protective mothers discover that the truth is that the rules which apply in a criminal court or in business related civil cases are not applied in family courts. Rules of evidence and consequences for challenging the status quo are harsh and unpredictable. Judges have unilateral discretion to define what happens, how it happens and whether she is even allowed to tell anyone else about the court’s orders.
A protective mother stripped of her children, is also stripped of her right to parent; her right of free speech; her right of protection; and her right to protest these injustices. Our Bill of Rights is frequently ignored, and the judicial system affords immunity for the legal participants including Judges, Child Custody Evaluators, Child Protective Services, and Law Enforcement Agencies. If they misjudge, and the battered mother or her children die, then no one is accountable. Do you risk contempt of a court order in an attempt to protect your children?
Battered Mothers Fight Child Abuse
Often the abuser begins to deliberately alienate the protective mother from her children, telling the children that she abandoned them, did not want to mother them, lies about his abuse, or fails to parent them effectively. The child begins to doubt their own ability to perceive reality. They may feel a forced sense of loyalty to their abuser. If the children do not follow his lead and mistreat their mother, what are the physical and emotional consequences they suffer at the hands of the abusers?
Bancroft advises protective mothers and their support systems to remember that the purpose of the fight is to keep as close to your children as possible. Keep things calm, remind them that you love them. Rather than debate which parent is “right” in a never ending battle for the right to exist without the abuser’s influence – ask your child, “What do YOU think?” Maintain the child’s ability to read the situation, assess it and come to an independent conclusion. When the abuser misrepresents a mother’s feelings or actions, correct the lie, and encourage the child to rely on their own personal experience with their mother.
Battered Mothers Fight Isolation
Many Americans erroneously believe family court dynamics are identical to other courts’ standard of evidence in the United States. Therefore they come to the conclusion that a mother who loses custody in civil proceedings must have done something to deserve the loss. The stigma of losing one’s child is an isolating experience. The battered mother finds the experience so painful that she abandons any attempt to explain what happened to her.
To overcome the stigma, the battered mother may attend conferences like the annual Battered Mother’s Custody Conference; join Facebook Causes; and support websites related to healing from and fighting domestic violence; connect with other people with like experiences; and research what is happening in other parts of the country. Books like those published by authors Lundy Bancroft, Mo Therese Hannah, Barry Goldstein, Amy Neuman, Michael Lesher, Wendy Murphy, Karin Huffer and others can provide specific legal, emotional and political strategies to effect change.
Battered Mothers Fight Human Rights Injustices
Political initiatives are reflected in the progress of landmark legal cases in human rights; follow the outcome of cases such as Jessica Ruth Gonzales v. USA, as well as other international cases concerning domestic violence under consideration by the Inter America Human Rights Commission. The U. S. Supreme Court upheld the Castle Rock, Colorado Police Department’s refusal to enforce a protective order against Simon Gonzales that resulted in the murder of their three children. Gonzales (now Lanahan) is protesting the violation of her human rights.
As the first U. S. Citizen to receive political asylum from The Netherlands, Holly Collins and her three children fled the United States in 1994 to be free of domestic violence when they could not obtain protection from family courts. Ms. Collins plans to return to live in the U. S., just as her youngest child reaches adulthood. How our country responds to the knowledge that a mother was forced to flee her own country for protection will be an important barometer of progress.
[1] Indiana Law School Protective Order Project, “What is Domestic Violence?” Website. Referenced January 12, 2011. http://www.law.indiana.edu/pop/domestic_violence/
[2] Silberg, Joyanna, “How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?”, The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence, Press Release. September, 22, 2008, http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/PR3.html, referenced January 12, 2011
Read more at Suite101: Author Lundy Bancroft Teaches Battered Mothers to Fight Back http://www.suite101.com/content/author-lundy-bancroft-teaches-battered-mothers-to-fight-back-a331711#ixzz1AxM4S6gT
Thursday, December 9, 2010
International Law Permits Abusive Fathers Custody of Children
A must read for any mom contemplating a move out of the U.S. And any mothers currently living elsewhere and hoping to return to the U.S. The more you learn abou the Hague Convention, the less there is to like.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/international-law-permits-abusive-fathers-custody-of-children
International Law Permits Abusive Fathers Custody of Children
Released: 12/7/2010 9:00 AM EST
Source: University of Washington
Newswise — A new survey of court cases against battered women living abroad shows that when the women left their abusive partners and returned with their children to the United States, half of the time, U.S. courts sent the children back, usually to their fathers.
The survey, co-authored by a University of Washington researcher, also shows that almost a third of these estranged husbands filed criminal kidnapping charges against their wives.
Released in time for Human Rights Day, Dec. 10, the survey is intended to help to establish domestic violence as a factor in whether courts send children back to their fathers. And the authors of the report hope their website serves as a resource for women and lawyers faced with Hague petitions.
The children’s return is in accordance with an international treaty, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which affects thousands of children each year.
The Hague Convention does not explicitly factor in domestic violence in deciding whether to send children back to the country where they lived. But since the treaty was created 30 years ago, social science research has demonstrated that a child’s exposure to domestic violence is just as harmful as direct abuse. Children who witness domestic violence are at higher risk for emotional problems, and later in life, they have a greater risk for violence in adult interpersonal relationships.
Now social scientists say that it’s time for the law to catch up with science, especially as these cases are likely to dramatically increase as more binational families form and countries such as India and Japan consider adopting the treaty in the next few years.
“The law is not paying attention to the effects domestic violence have on women and their children,” said Taryn Lindhorst, co-author of the report and a UW associate professor of social work. “This is like a tip of an iceberg: we’ve only seen some of the cases.” Lindhorst is an expert in the effects of domestic abuse on women.
The report is the first effort in the United States to interview mothers and attorneys about their experiences with the Hague Convention, in hopes of better preparing mothers and their lawyers for court proceedings in these cases.
The 404-page report, funded and published by the U.S. National Institute of Justice, includes analysis and excerpts of interviews with 22 mothers and 23 lawyers who represented mothers and fathers in Hague lawsuits and an analysis of court decisions on previous Hague cases involving domestic violence.
Most of the mothers had been living with their husbands in Europe, the Middle East or Latin America. They had moved abroad when their marriages were more stable or they had been tricked into moving.
In the report, the co-authors describe frequent, life-threatening domestic abuse endured by the women: beatings, threats with guns, ice picks and other weapons and – in a few cases – rape. Since most of the women were not citizens of the country where they were living, they were usually unable to obtain resources available to domestic violence victims in that country.
Moving back to the United States became the best option.
None of the women in the study knew about the Hague Convention before returning to the United States, Lindhorst said. Many of them learned about it when federal agents arrived at their homes to take their children into custody. Some mothers were required to be in court within a matter of hours. Scrambling for a lawyer, most could not find a lawyer experienced with the Hague Convention.
The court decisions were grim for the women. In almost half, 12 of 22, the court sent the children back to the country they had fled from with their mothers. In seven of those cases, the fathers gained custody. Seven women – a third of the sample – also faced criminal kidnapping charges in foreign courts.
Ironically, when the Hague Convention Treaty was created in 1980, it was intended to protect women and children. Lawmakers wanted to expedite the return of children taken by a parent – usually the father – who was unsatisfied by a child custody decision.
But, as it turns out, the law has been used primarily by fathers. Nearly 70 percent of Hague petitions are filed by fathers, said Jeffrey Edleson, co-author and professor of social work at the University of Minnesota.
“In many cases, filing a Hague petition is an attempt by the abusive father to use the court to extend control over mother and child,” said Edleson, an expert on children’s exposure to domestic violence in the home.
In the Hague Convention cases examined in the report, courts tended not to consider domestic violence toward the mother when assessing whether the children should be returned to their father. In cases where the children are returned and end up in the fathers’ care, it’s because the judges see the mother as a kidnapper, Edleson said.
Once returned to the father, the children may be exposed to more violence. Typically, the mothers move back too to be closer to their children and some were abused again. Sometimes the fathers would physically abuse their children.
The report is part of the HagueDV Project on international child abduction and domestic violence, led by Lindhorst and Edleson. On Human Rights Day, Dec. 10, the group will hold a free event in Minneapolis of actors reading the battered mothers’ stories interspersed with commentary by law and social science experts. The event will also be available by webcast. For more information and to register, go to: http://www.haguedv.org/
http://www.newswise.com/articles/international-law-permits-abusive-fathers-custody-of-children
International Law Permits Abusive Fathers Custody of Children
Released: 12/7/2010 9:00 AM EST
Source: University of Washington
Newswise — A new survey of court cases against battered women living abroad shows that when the women left their abusive partners and returned with their children to the United States, half of the time, U.S. courts sent the children back, usually to their fathers.
The survey, co-authored by a University of Washington researcher, also shows that almost a third of these estranged husbands filed criminal kidnapping charges against their wives.
Released in time for Human Rights Day, Dec. 10, the survey is intended to help to establish domestic violence as a factor in whether courts send children back to their fathers. And the authors of the report hope their website serves as a resource for women and lawyers faced with Hague petitions.
The children’s return is in accordance with an international treaty, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which affects thousands of children each year.
The Hague Convention does not explicitly factor in domestic violence in deciding whether to send children back to the country where they lived. But since the treaty was created 30 years ago, social science research has demonstrated that a child’s exposure to domestic violence is just as harmful as direct abuse. Children who witness domestic violence are at higher risk for emotional problems, and later in life, they have a greater risk for violence in adult interpersonal relationships.
Now social scientists say that it’s time for the law to catch up with science, especially as these cases are likely to dramatically increase as more binational families form and countries such as India and Japan consider adopting the treaty in the next few years.
“The law is not paying attention to the effects domestic violence have on women and their children,” said Taryn Lindhorst, co-author of the report and a UW associate professor of social work. “This is like a tip of an iceberg: we’ve only seen some of the cases.” Lindhorst is an expert in the effects of domestic abuse on women.
The report is the first effort in the United States to interview mothers and attorneys about their experiences with the Hague Convention, in hopes of better preparing mothers and their lawyers for court proceedings in these cases.
The 404-page report, funded and published by the U.S. National Institute of Justice, includes analysis and excerpts of interviews with 22 mothers and 23 lawyers who represented mothers and fathers in Hague lawsuits and an analysis of court decisions on previous Hague cases involving domestic violence.
Most of the mothers had been living with their husbands in Europe, the Middle East or Latin America. They had moved abroad when their marriages were more stable or they had been tricked into moving.
In the report, the co-authors describe frequent, life-threatening domestic abuse endured by the women: beatings, threats with guns, ice picks and other weapons and – in a few cases – rape. Since most of the women were not citizens of the country where they were living, they were usually unable to obtain resources available to domestic violence victims in that country.
Moving back to the United States became the best option.
None of the women in the study knew about the Hague Convention before returning to the United States, Lindhorst said. Many of them learned about it when federal agents arrived at their homes to take their children into custody. Some mothers were required to be in court within a matter of hours. Scrambling for a lawyer, most could not find a lawyer experienced with the Hague Convention.
The court decisions were grim for the women. In almost half, 12 of 22, the court sent the children back to the country they had fled from with their mothers. In seven of those cases, the fathers gained custody. Seven women – a third of the sample – also faced criminal kidnapping charges in foreign courts.
Ironically, when the Hague Convention Treaty was created in 1980, it was intended to protect women and children. Lawmakers wanted to expedite the return of children taken by a parent – usually the father – who was unsatisfied by a child custody decision.
But, as it turns out, the law has been used primarily by fathers. Nearly 70 percent of Hague petitions are filed by fathers, said Jeffrey Edleson, co-author and professor of social work at the University of Minnesota.
“In many cases, filing a Hague petition is an attempt by the abusive father to use the court to extend control over mother and child,” said Edleson, an expert on children’s exposure to domestic violence in the home.
In the Hague Convention cases examined in the report, courts tended not to consider domestic violence toward the mother when assessing whether the children should be returned to their father. In cases where the children are returned and end up in the fathers’ care, it’s because the judges see the mother as a kidnapper, Edleson said.
Once returned to the father, the children may be exposed to more violence. Typically, the mothers move back too to be closer to their children and some were abused again. Sometimes the fathers would physically abuse their children.
The report is part of the HagueDV Project on international child abduction and domestic violence, led by Lindhorst and Edleson. On Human Rights Day, Dec. 10, the group will hold a free event in Minneapolis of actors reading the battered mothers’ stories interspersed with commentary by law and social science experts. The event will also be available by webcast. For more information and to register, go to: http://www.haguedv.org/
Thursday, December 2, 2010
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
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Failures of U.S. Courts Forces Mothers to Turn to International Law
Must read piece by Dianne Post at Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dianne-post/failures-of-us-courts-for_b_784393.html
Dianne Post, Attorney
Posted: November 16, 2010 03:18 PM
Failures of U.S. Courts Forces Mothers to Turn to International Law
Ten mothers, one victimized child now an adult, and six organizations working in the field of child abuse and family law filed a petition on April 10, 2007, at the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights in Washington, D.C., against the United States for the pattern and practice of courts awarding custody or unsupervised visitation to child abusers and molesters. The petitioners come from Kansas, Georgia, California, New York, Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Illinois and Nevada.
Ten years earlier, on Mother's Day, May 11, 1997, a group of mothers who lost custody of their children gathered on the steps of the U. S. Capitol in Washington, D. C. Entitled "Give Us Back Our Children," the event was held to represent the increasing numbers of women who are losing custody of their children to batterers and child abusers. This event, co-sponsored by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the House of Ruth, My Sister's Place, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Rep. Connie Morella (R-MD), and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), brought attention to the plight of women and children unfairly victimized by the legal system, and to dispel the myth that women always win custody of their children. That was 13 years ago. The situation today is even worse. The stories of these petitioners are not unique. They are the tip of the proverbial iceberg indicating a grave and growing injury to human rights.
Wendy Titelman is one of the petitioners. Her attorney, Richard Ducote, who has represented battered women for years, said:
After twenty years in family law courtrooms throughout the country, I confidently say that no woman, despite very abundant evidence that her child has been sexually molested by her ex-husband or that she has been repeatedly pummeled by the violent father of her child, can safely walk into any family court in the country and not face a grave risk of losing custody to the abuser for the sole reason that she dared to present the evidence to the judge and ask that the child be protected.
Sol Gothard, Judge of the Court of Appeals in Louisiana said:
There are very few times in law when you can state anything categorically, but I can certainly say that beyond any doubt whatsoever, the problem expressed by Wendy Titelman in this book is epidemic and widespread, and it has been this way for the forty-four years that I have been involved with the legal system.
Karen Anderson has been fighting for her children for 17 years. Her son Jeff Hoverson, now of age, has joined in the petition. He recounts that the day he was taken from his mother at 10 years of age was traumatizing:
So now I had no brothers, no pets, I was 3-4 hours from my home, and again... no mom. This is when I was damaged so severely emotionally... No one told me anything about my mom or why I was at my dad's or why we were in San Francisco on a sidewalk. I asked but received no answers. I felt that if I wasn't told anything that I was worthless to everyone. I was made into a possession rather than a child.
The facts of the individual cases are a catalog of proven domestic violence and child sexual molestation ignored by the courts. The mothers are labeled as mentally ill or having Parental Alienation Syndrome, though PAS has absolutely no scientific validity and is used in a very discriminatory way to remove children from mothers who try to protect the children and themselves from violence and abuse. Yet in these petitioners' cases it is used over and over to punish the protective parent.
This problem has been brought to the attention of family court systems, states and the national government all to no avail. In 1990, Congress passed a resolution recommending the prohibition of giving joint or sole custody to abusers. 20 years later, it continues unabated. Legislation has been passed. Judges have been educated. Still it continues. Thus petitioners are turning to international courts to protect their human rights and the rights and safety of their children.
While state courts are responsible for custody cases, the federal government is responsible to ensure that their judicial systems operate in accordance with the Organization of American States Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Man. The specific articles the petitioners claim to have been violated are:
Article I. Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.
The courts place the children directly in danger without regard to their right to life, liberty or security of person. In addition, often the arrangements made for visitation are unsafe to the mother as well.
Article II. All persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor.
The gender discrimination both in the courts in general and in custody cases in particular has been known, studied and proven for years. The gender bias studies in the 1980's showed bias that has never been corrected. The studies of custody have shown that it is a complete myth that women get custody over men or that men are disfavored in family court. It is such a pervasive myth that years of litigation and proof has not shaken it -- to the harm of the victims of violence.
Article IV. Every person has the right to freedom of investigation, of opinion, and of the expression and dissemination of ideas, by any medium whatsoever.
Litigants, especially mothers, who report child abuse are punished with jail or the loss of custody of their children. The protective parents are in a Catch-22 situation. If they do not protect their children, they are charged with failure to protect and the child protection agencies take their children. If they do act to protect, the courts put the children directly into the arms of the abuser.
Article V. Every person has the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, his reputation, and his private and family life.
Often the protective parents who report abuse are labeled mentally ill or diagnosed with such imaginative syndromes as parental alienation or munchhausen's by proxy. Often they are ordered into counseling or in the case of one petitioner, taken to the mental hospital.
Article VI. Every person has the right to establish a family, the basic element of society, and to receive protection therefor.
By separating the protective parents from their children for no valid reason, the parent is denied the right to establish a family. Some of these petitioners have not seen their children for years. Every single petitioner was denied contact with their child for some period of time though none was ever proven to have harmed them.
Article VII. All women, during pregnancy and the nursing period, and all children have the right to special protection, care and aid.
Often battering begins during pregnancy, yet special protection is not afforded the mothers, even when they have an order of protection. Much research has proven that children of abusers are likely to be abused themselves and have a higher rate of sexual molest. Yet courts continue to refuse to protect the children. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in the DeSheney case that the state does not owe any right of protection to children even when they know of the abuse and have in fact placed that child in that home with the father. This is in plain violation of the Declaration.
Article XVIII. Every person may resort to the courts to ensure respect for his legal rights. There should likewise be available to him a simple, brief procedure whereby the courts will protect him from acts of authority that, to his prejudice, violate any fundamental constitutional rights.
The lack of due process in family court is legion. Ex parte hearings and communications, decisions without hearings, refusal to admit the mother, refusal to admit evidence of violence is rampant in the cases and violates the most basic principles of due process. Little attention or time is given to these decisions that shape a child's life forever.
Article XXIV. Every person has the right to submit respectful petitions to any competent authority, for reasons of either general or private interest, and the right to obtain a prompt decision thereon.
The gender bias studies of the 1980's showed that courts are not competent when dealing with women. Unfortunately, things have not improved. In spite of training, legislation and lobbying, judges continue to ignore statutes that mandate no custody to abusers. The petitioners have tried to hold the judges accountable by appeal or disciplinary procedures, all to no avail.
Article XXV. No person may be deprived of his liberty except in the cases and according to the procedures established by pre-existing law.
The many children who are put directly into harms way by being placed with an abuser or molester are deprived of their liberty. When courts ignore evidence of violence, they are not following pre-existing law. It is commonplace for judges to completely ignore state statutes that mandate that custody will not go to a perpetrator thereby violating state law as well as putting children in danger.
Article XXX. It is the duty of every person to aid, support, educate and protect his minor children, and it is the duty of children to honor their parents always and to aid, support and protect them when they need it.
These petitioners have tried to protect their children. It is the courts that have prohibited them. The cost to both child and parent is overwhelming and devastating.
The Gonzales case, also filed at the InterAmerican Commission, illustrated in their hearing the failure of the American justice system to protect battered women and children. That case dealt with the failure of the police department. This case deals with legal abuse -- the failure of the legal system, the courts, the guardians ad litem, the attorneys for the children, the state protective agencies to both follow the law and to protect the helpless children who face the horror of violence daily.
Unfortunately, the IACHR has not moved on the case. After more than three years, they have not even examined it or forwarded it to the U.S. government. How many children have to suffer before justice is done?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dianne-post/failures-of-us-courts-for_b_784393.html
Dianne Post, Attorney
Posted: November 16, 2010 03:18 PM
Failures of U.S. Courts Forces Mothers to Turn to International Law
Ten mothers, one victimized child now an adult, and six organizations working in the field of child abuse and family law filed a petition on April 10, 2007, at the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights in Washington, D.C., against the United States for the pattern and practice of courts awarding custody or unsupervised visitation to child abusers and molesters. The petitioners come from Kansas, Georgia, California, New York, Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Illinois and Nevada.
Ten years earlier, on Mother's Day, May 11, 1997, a group of mothers who lost custody of their children gathered on the steps of the U. S. Capitol in Washington, D. C. Entitled "Give Us Back Our Children," the event was held to represent the increasing numbers of women who are losing custody of their children to batterers and child abusers. This event, co-sponsored by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the House of Ruth, My Sister's Place, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Rep. Connie Morella (R-MD), and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), brought attention to the plight of women and children unfairly victimized by the legal system, and to dispel the myth that women always win custody of their children. That was 13 years ago. The situation today is even worse. The stories of these petitioners are not unique. They are the tip of the proverbial iceberg indicating a grave and growing injury to human rights.
Wendy Titelman is one of the petitioners. Her attorney, Richard Ducote, who has represented battered women for years, said:
After twenty years in family law courtrooms throughout the country, I confidently say that no woman, despite very abundant evidence that her child has been sexually molested by her ex-husband or that she has been repeatedly pummeled by the violent father of her child, can safely walk into any family court in the country and not face a grave risk of losing custody to the abuser for the sole reason that she dared to present the evidence to the judge and ask that the child be protected.
Sol Gothard, Judge of the Court of Appeals in Louisiana said:
There are very few times in law when you can state anything categorically, but I can certainly say that beyond any doubt whatsoever, the problem expressed by Wendy Titelman in this book is epidemic and widespread, and it has been this way for the forty-four years that I have been involved with the legal system.
Karen Anderson has been fighting for her children for 17 years. Her son Jeff Hoverson, now of age, has joined in the petition. He recounts that the day he was taken from his mother at 10 years of age was traumatizing:
So now I had no brothers, no pets, I was 3-4 hours from my home, and again... no mom. This is when I was damaged so severely emotionally... No one told me anything about my mom or why I was at my dad's or why we were in San Francisco on a sidewalk. I asked but received no answers. I felt that if I wasn't told anything that I was worthless to everyone. I was made into a possession rather than a child.
The facts of the individual cases are a catalog of proven domestic violence and child sexual molestation ignored by the courts. The mothers are labeled as mentally ill or having Parental Alienation Syndrome, though PAS has absolutely no scientific validity and is used in a very discriminatory way to remove children from mothers who try to protect the children and themselves from violence and abuse. Yet in these petitioners' cases it is used over and over to punish the protective parent.
This problem has been brought to the attention of family court systems, states and the national government all to no avail. In 1990, Congress passed a resolution recommending the prohibition of giving joint or sole custody to abusers. 20 years later, it continues unabated. Legislation has been passed. Judges have been educated. Still it continues. Thus petitioners are turning to international courts to protect their human rights and the rights and safety of their children.
While state courts are responsible for custody cases, the federal government is responsible to ensure that their judicial systems operate in accordance with the Organization of American States Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Man. The specific articles the petitioners claim to have been violated are:
Article I. Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.
The courts place the children directly in danger without regard to their right to life, liberty or security of person. In addition, often the arrangements made for visitation are unsafe to the mother as well.
Article II. All persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor.
The gender discrimination both in the courts in general and in custody cases in particular has been known, studied and proven for years. The gender bias studies in the 1980's showed bias that has never been corrected. The studies of custody have shown that it is a complete myth that women get custody over men or that men are disfavored in family court. It is such a pervasive myth that years of litigation and proof has not shaken it -- to the harm of the victims of violence.
Article IV. Every person has the right to freedom of investigation, of opinion, and of the expression and dissemination of ideas, by any medium whatsoever.
Litigants, especially mothers, who report child abuse are punished with jail or the loss of custody of their children. The protective parents are in a Catch-22 situation. If they do not protect their children, they are charged with failure to protect and the child protection agencies take their children. If they do act to protect, the courts put the children directly into the arms of the abuser.
Article V. Every person has the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, his reputation, and his private and family life.
Often the protective parents who report abuse are labeled mentally ill or diagnosed with such imaginative syndromes as parental alienation or munchhausen's by proxy. Often they are ordered into counseling or in the case of one petitioner, taken to the mental hospital.
Article VI. Every person has the right to establish a family, the basic element of society, and to receive protection therefor.
By separating the protective parents from their children for no valid reason, the parent is denied the right to establish a family. Some of these petitioners have not seen their children for years. Every single petitioner was denied contact with their child for some period of time though none was ever proven to have harmed them.
Article VII. All women, during pregnancy and the nursing period, and all children have the right to special protection, care and aid.
Often battering begins during pregnancy, yet special protection is not afforded the mothers, even when they have an order of protection. Much research has proven that children of abusers are likely to be abused themselves and have a higher rate of sexual molest. Yet courts continue to refuse to protect the children. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in the DeSheney case that the state does not owe any right of protection to children even when they know of the abuse and have in fact placed that child in that home with the father. This is in plain violation of the Declaration.
Article XVIII. Every person may resort to the courts to ensure respect for his legal rights. There should likewise be available to him a simple, brief procedure whereby the courts will protect him from acts of authority that, to his prejudice, violate any fundamental constitutional rights.
The lack of due process in family court is legion. Ex parte hearings and communications, decisions without hearings, refusal to admit the mother, refusal to admit evidence of violence is rampant in the cases and violates the most basic principles of due process. Little attention or time is given to these decisions that shape a child's life forever.
Article XXIV. Every person has the right to submit respectful petitions to any competent authority, for reasons of either general or private interest, and the right to obtain a prompt decision thereon.
The gender bias studies of the 1980's showed that courts are not competent when dealing with women. Unfortunately, things have not improved. In spite of training, legislation and lobbying, judges continue to ignore statutes that mandate no custody to abusers. The petitioners have tried to hold the judges accountable by appeal or disciplinary procedures, all to no avail.
Article XXV. No person may be deprived of his liberty except in the cases and according to the procedures established by pre-existing law.
The many children who are put directly into harms way by being placed with an abuser or molester are deprived of their liberty. When courts ignore evidence of violence, they are not following pre-existing law. It is commonplace for judges to completely ignore state statutes that mandate that custody will not go to a perpetrator thereby violating state law as well as putting children in danger.
Article XXX. It is the duty of every person to aid, support, educate and protect his minor children, and it is the duty of children to honor their parents always and to aid, support and protect them when they need it.
These petitioners have tried to protect their children. It is the courts that have prohibited them. The cost to both child and parent is overwhelming and devastating.
The Gonzales case, also filed at the InterAmerican Commission, illustrated in their hearing the failure of the American justice system to protect battered women and children. That case dealt with the failure of the police department. This case deals with legal abuse -- the failure of the legal system, the courts, the guardians ad litem, the attorneys for the children, the state protective agencies to both follow the law and to protect the helpless children who face the horror of violence daily.
Unfortunately, the IACHR has not moved on the case. After more than three years, they have not even examined it or forwarded it to the U.S. government. How many children have to suffer before justice is done?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)