Archive for January 12th, 2013
How I Learn (You Can Too) from High-Profile Custody Cases: Genia Shockome, Viola Stroud, Barry Goldstein, etc. [Publ. Jan. 12, 2013; reformatted Mar. 31, 2022].
This is a 15,700 or so word post with a lot of quotes in it, and possibly some duplication, plus some chunks which belong on a separate topic. The bottom half is a repost from 2011. I have been struggling with this format for a few days now.
Some of the extended introduction is actually summarizing or illustrating some of the talk found in the “Crisis in the Courts” crowd — with the intent of contrasting it with economic analysis which has been around for years, but is being virtually ignored.
Moreover, I’m still stuck publishing (laboriously) in “html” mode, pending a software update. SO, hitting “Publish” is from my point of view, a way of getting this thing off my mind for a bit (despite humiliating appearance that will not doubt surface on the blog). WYSIWYG — although not for me while writing the thing.
How I Learn (You Can Too) from High-Profile Custody Cases: Genia Shockome, Viola Stroud, Barry Goldstein, etc. [Publ. Jan. 12, 2013; reformatted Mar. 31, 2022]. (short-link, case-sensitive, ends “-1hR”)
It still has valuable information, and if/when I can put this out in a much shorter, or FAQ format, I most certainly will do so. We are all in a learning process. However one thing I learned is not to judge the content by the professionalism of its cover, and that includes websites. The professionalism may mean a skilled blogger, or it may just mean financial backing to hire some — which might include money from government, courts, private foundations, or personal profits. Either way, look at the content as best you can!
This is a well-known case in the Crisis in the Courts circuit, which complains about whose households abused children land up in. It’s also well-known in the fathers’ rights circuit (Glenn Sacks et. al) and it seems everyone is playing off each other — yet not even the same attorney who lost his license over this (in part) brings up that Supervised Visitation, Mediation, Parent Education, etc. — are ripe areas for potential fraud. No one mentions, like some of us INDIVIDUALS have just how much money actually goes into developing, promoting, funding, and pushing through state legislatures incessantly, that what the world needs now is more training.
For just how well known, google “Shockome Glenn Sacks” “Shockome crisis in the courts” Shockome feminist” or almost any combination there of. Here’s a May 2005 “Trish Wilson” typad site linked to other sites, with detailed paragraphs from both Mo Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein, about this case. (if link seems broken, the url “Type Pad” may have been artificially separated; should be one word).
Here’s an
October 2006 “Not So Simple //Tim’s Side” referring to a Newsweek Article and listing several URLs, but unfortunately the links to article and the order, are broken)(blog simply posts this information), but mentions a custody evaluator who found no DV, “Meg Sussman,” which it took me about one minute (or less) to realize, is an AFCC professional with a focus on psychology — not fact-finding regarding domestic violence; there are several “tells” (Collaborative divorce, parent coordinator, into certain fields, including Therapeutic Supervised Visitation, etc.). See profile — she has worked at a treatment center for DV and sexual assault and likes to stay involved esp. with adolescents.
I hate to give the Mr. Sacks help with his already loud mouth, but he literally titled the Feminist vs. the Fatherhood post “The Shockome Syndrome,” (his posts are as long as mine!, will wear you out in a NY minute, will name names and use inflammatory language — but will no more than any of the groups he’s playing as hostile (CA NOW, Feminists, PBG Breaking the Silence, BMCC, or Genia Shockome herself) mention that fraud has already been identified in supervised visitation cases — including this one!). A few paragraphs, dated to early 2000s possibly:
| “The feminist movement is worried about the fatherhood movement. The California National Organization for Women recently issued a 95-page report called Disorder in the Courts: Mothers and Their Allies Take on the Family Law System, in which they warn “the fathers’ rights movement has been gaining strength and legitimacy. Fatherhood groups are well-funded, well-organized and publicly supported through conservative mouthpieces in the media.” In the report, many prominent figures in the Feminist Family Law Movement (FFLM) call for a “mothers’ rights movement” to block the rising fatherhood movement.The National Organization for Women attacked divorced dads in a resolution at its national conference in July. This spring several branches of NOW, including New York and Michigan, issued Action Alerts against moderate legislative attempts to help dads remain a part of their children’s lives after divorce or separation.
One of the fatherhood movement’s primary goals is to get family courts and family law to properly address the issue of parental alienation. Parental alienation occurs when one parent, usually the custodial parent, has turned his or her children against the other parent, destroying the loving bonds the children and the target parent once enjoyed. The fatherhood movement has had some modest success in creating awareness of parental alienation, both in the courtroom and in the media. Now the FFLM is hitting back hard. NOW’s July resolution denounced Parental Alienation Syndrome as a “defense strategy for batterers and sexual predators that purports to explain a child’s estrangement from one parent, or explains away allegations against the estranged parent of abuse/sex abuse of child, by blaming the protective parent.” According to NOW, the employment of this “unethical, unconstitutional, and dangerous” tactic is so common as to constitute “epidemic levels of abuse and dysfunction in our court system.” California NOW’s report attacks the fatherhood movement and relentlessly assails PAS. CANOW Executive Director Helen Grieco calls PAS a “scam,” and says, “As activists we must continue to expose the true agenda of the Fathers’ Rights movement. We must eradicate the gender bias…that is rampant in our family courts.” |
A little background on Helen Grieco, from a 2009 article….she does know something personally about domestic violence…
Per this 2009 interview, Helen Grieco grew up witnessing her father beat her mother; she at one point learned her mother had been raped at age 15, and eventually, it seems as a young adolescent, the family fled (got free, another words) exchanging in-home abuse and witnessing this for poverty, which is about how it goes today as well, given that now one must fight through this law system. She helped change family law in California, raised funding for NOW, and at this point in time teaches self-defense with her husband. The interview admits that women can be aggressive; in fact her decision to learn self-defense came from an incident in a SF NOW office.. [hover cursor or see article]
Perhaps Sacks’ blog was pre-2002, as in 2002 NOW also came out with its “2002 Family Court Report” which is longer, and tracks the history of AFCC, includes a chapter by Marv Byer on subpoenas of check deposits from training fees (i.e., the Los Angeles Judges “slush fund.” Or that in 2005 NOW posted a letter on its site asking Congress to audit the HHS fatherhood grants.
Nor, until VERY recently, would any of the Crisis in the Courts group bring this up, preferring to be seen in the verbal boxing ring with generic talk of PAS, feminism, and fathers’ rights as if no corporations, organizations, or funding even existed.
As we know, ALL “PR” is Good “PR” (or at least better than no “PR”) and sometimes I wonder if the groups haven’t had some private handshakes on this public circus, while covering up the financial motivation, rather than leading with it.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 