Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Barry Goldstein, Esq. on Custody Visitation Scandals

with 4 comments


Since I am so short on time, and a lousy “formatter”, anything in {{italics}} is my comments, and the rest are his, except this next paragraph:

I think this site by Barry Goldstein, Esq. summarizes the “Custody Visitation Scandals” issues.  Recommend visiting it.

Today, disturbingly, in thousands of custody-visitation cases all over the country, abused women and children are being revictimized rather than protected. Some of the cases have been publicized, but most have been hidden from public view.

Often the media is reluctant to feature such cases, because they don’t have the resources to determine which side is telling the truth or out of fear of lawsuits.

{{Or so they say.  I know this, because I got the same comment on callling a newspaper editor.  However, the articles have their own slant and DO tell opinions.  It’s not possible to write without standing from SOME perspective…  And I know some fine reporters on these issues, I follow their articles locally...}}

As a result, only the victims and genuine experts are aware of the pattern and frequency of such cases.

{{Since when is a victim who has experienced something first hand, usually over a period of years, NOT a “genuine expert“?  It seems to me that one typical definition of “expert” appears to be someone who has NOT gone through the system….  However, once I became aware through experience, AND read the laws & literature, it seems that every day, there is another person I meet affected by this, or related to someone affected by it  this drain on our society.  Today was no exception, and I was just about my own business…}}

When women first started to learn about the extent to which men were abusing their female partners, there was no term to describe such behavior.

Only later was the term domestic violence invented. This was an important step, because it gave us common language to describe an all too common and harmful behavior pattern. I believe we now need a term that describes cases in which women and children are further abused by the courts instead of being protected. I suggest using the term CUSTODY-VISITATION SCANDAL CASES, which would help us to better detect and understand the pattern and frequency of such atrocities, so that we can stop such abuse in the future.

Custody-Visitation Scandal Cases can be defined as having many but not all of the following attributes:

1. Allegations of domestic violence and/or child abuse made by the mother and/or child(ren)

2. A failure or refusal by court agents (attorneys, law guardians, forensic evaluator, therapists, and/or judge) to take such allegations seriously.

3. An outcome that places the children at serious risk

4. An outcome that appears to be 180 degrees from what it should be.

5. An outcome that gives custody to the alleged abuser and restricted visitation to the protective mother.

6. The use by the abusive father and his attorney of “standard abuser tactics” (i.e. seeking custody to punish the mother or maintain control; using visitation or custody to harass mother; claiming that unfounded child protective claims were made falsely and maliciously by the mother; attempting to manipulate the children etc.)

7. The propogation of myths and stereotypes about domestic violence (i.e. that mothers and children frequently make false allegations of abuse to gain an advantage in litigation) by the court and its agents.

8. Using “experts” with little or no training and understanding of domestic violence.

9. Gender bias and double standards (mothers being held to a higher standard than fathers)

10. Failure to consider and use up-to-date domestic violence research.

{{Comment.  That hasn’t even caused a brief slowdown in the flow of “studies” to “educate” judges how to tell right from wrong, and reasonable from ridiculous.  The research hasn’t changed things much, that I can see.  I’m not alone in this sentiment either.  See Stop Family Violence.org and search for the article (dated 2006) “The Illusion of Protection” by Renee Beeker).  Most of us now already know something is fishy in the system…}}}

11. Approaches that blame the victim.

12. Use of biased or unsupported theories (i.e. Parental Alienation Syndrome; “Angry women”; “Vindictive women”; alienation; masochism etc.)

13. Extreme penalties against protective mothers.

14. Outcomes that make it appear like the judge was bribed even though that is usually not the cause of the judicial abuse.

I am not saying that every case that fits many of the above criteria has to have been improperly decided, but I believe research will find that 98% or more of such cases have been tragically mishandled. Custody-Visitation Scandal Cases should be identified, examined. and corrected when necessary. Even more important, society must create a system to prevent such cases from happening.

My understanding is that Mr. Goldstein, as well as other professionals, has already suffered retaliation for speaking out about this.  So I can understand the comment:  “though that is usually not the cause of judicial abuse.”  However, that comment is itself an assumption.  If you know my blog, you know I disagree.

Oldest motive in “The Book”  “The Love of money is the root of all evil.”  Go figure, it just MIGHT be involved here somehow!

Regarding the “Child Support” post (about 3 earlier), it’s inaccurate as stands.

I’ll try to update later.  Have a nice day!

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 11, 2010 at 6:46 pm

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. We know good and DAMN well that there are monetary incentives…but lawyers make statements like these…for some reason I haven’t been able to figure out.


    February 12, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    • Randi,

      He is probably protecting himself in that comment. After all, he’s getting roasted professionally also.

      Got time to verify some facts on this Glenn Sacks site, re: the case? (Note: they must do well with search engines — this one came up near the top when I just searched “Barry Goldstein, Esq.”

      . . .Note the organizations listed under “our feminist opponents.” at


      Feminist attorney Barry Goldstein, Esq. of New York has been one of the leading advocates for this position, and was the primary attorney in the highly-publicized Genia Shockome case in New York. Shockome, lost custody of her two children, now ages 13 and 11, to her ex-husband, Tim Shockome after a contentious custody battle in which Genia accused Tim of abuse. The Shockome case was widely reported, including this sympathetic article in Newsweek magazine, and Shockome was a popular feminist cause celebre a few years ago.

      Goldstein (pictured in a suit & tie alongside Shockome) has worked with or been a member of many if not most of the organizations seeking to discredit Parental Alienation and the fatherhood movement. He has practiced law in New York for almost three decades, has authored a book on custody cases involving allegations of domestic violence, and is scheduled to speak at the annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference next week.

      Last week Barry Goldstein, Esq. had his head handed to him.

      The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department imposed a staggering five-year suspension of Goldstein in large part for his conduct in the Shockome case. The Court called numerous statements Goldstein made concerning the Shockome case “dishonest, false, or misleading.” The Court also criticized Goldstein for misuse of funds in another case he handled.

      Regarding the Shockome case, the Court criticized what it called the “pervasive nature of [Goldstein’s] deceptive conduct”–conduct which it said included “false accusations” about the case and “noncompliance with multiple court orders.” The Court wrote:

      On behalf of his client [Genia Shockome], he prepared and filed with this Court a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a petition in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. These materials contained sworn statements which were dishonest, false, or misleading.

      To learn more, see Georgetown Law Center Ethics Counsel Michael S. Frisch’s write-up here. To read the Court’s decision itself, click here.

      Goldstein’s fall is a tremendous embarrassment to many of our opponents in the battle to achieve shared parenting, reform family law, and protect children’s right to a relationship with both parents after divorce. These include: the New York state chapter of the National Organization for Women; Justice for Children; The Battered Mothers Custody Conference; Stop Family Violence; The Leadership Council; and others.

      Of far less significance but still worth noting, the Court’s ruling further vindicates my position on the Shockome case–a position for which I was publicly crucified by our feminist opponents.

      I think I may post (rather than put in this comment reply) some more info on that case…

      The treatment of Mr. Goldstein reminds me of the treatment of Richard Fine, Esq. for addressing the anti-trust issues in Los Angeles. He was put in “coercive solitary confinement.” In circles where mob rule rules, the penalties for disloyalty are high. Kinda like reporting abuse, eh?

      What makes this more interesting, under “Moral Reconation Therapy” (TR), a workbook I saw called “Escape from your Prisons” (or something similar) had a 16-tier layer of moral cognition. . . . . I.e., is a person behaving ethically and with restraint because of personal ethics, or because of bribe/reward system (think: Access/Visitation funding, in which a noncustodial parent (typically, if MALE), gets child support abatement in exchange for more time with the child(ren). I remember studying this and being shocked that, in essence, our government has been BRIBING fathers to behave morally (has it WORKED yet?), while PUNISHING mothers, in many cases, for doing so. Naturally, as in gangs, the youngsters growing up under this regime, are indoctrinated and learn fast, if they expect to survive. ….).

      ~ ~ ~ Anyhow, that workbook was designed, I gathered, for use on prisoners, and to address gangster behavior. I think this might work just about as well as judicial education classes, and should be required of all those taking any Oath upon passing their state bar and being allowed to practice law. Same mentality, different vocabulary.. I’m not minimizing gang issues, but hey, there’s gangs, and then there’s gangs. ~ ~ ~ ~


      February 16, 2010 at 12:08 pm

  2. Hello Barry

    Your comments are accurate about ongoing abuse of vulnerable mums and kids through the family law systems, and society must demand a more accountable system.
    Have you visited the website:

    Alicia ELkhart

    February 13, 2010 at 2:46 am

    • I approved your comment. However I’m not Barry Goldstein, I just quoted from his blog.

      Let’s Get Honest


      February 16, 2010 at 11:56 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: