We didn’t have to go to him, he came to us (he was on the post at 6:49 pm EDT, for 8 minutes 44 seconds).  We are only hoping now that something will happen.  There are many mothers in custody hell, and we have to start somewhere to make things right.  To make things just and fair.  Let’s start right here and reunite Daughter with her mother, Claudine Dombrowski, and end the hell of ten years they have had to endure from corrupt and money-hungry court officials and lawyers.  Daughter is threatened to say what daddy Hal Richardson wants her to say…we know this.  We know her heart and she wants to see her mother.

Stop corrupt lawyers like Don Hoffman and Jason P. Hoffman of Topeka, Kansas, which use junk science, lies, and paid experts to spew their money-making venom.  Stop uneducated, biased, untruthful Guardian ad Litem M. Jill Dykes, a friend of daddy Hal Richardson, from destroying children’s lives.  I myself was a child victim of horrible people like this and I can tell you it is life-affecting what these people do.  My mother didn’t get me back from her abuser (my father) until I was almost 17 years old.  Let’s not let that happen to Daughter.

Please Mr. President, stop supporting and funding just fathers and start supporting parents who have lost their children to their abusers.

Read the post the President was reading on our site here, part of which was authored by Anne Caroline Drake on her website.

This girl is suffering, and being threatened with what to say, and she needs help immediately.  We may need to get ahold of the United Nations or NATO to seek help if we don’t get action soon from the Kansas Legislature.  I plan on calling Lynn Rosenthal, Obama’s White House Advisor on Domestic Violence, at the White House today and discuss this with her, as she and Department of Justice personnel have been looking at ways to stop abusers from getting custody.  Please call her too and let her know you are disgusted that an abusive criminal could keep a mother and daughter apart for ten years, thanks to money-hungry court personnel and lawyers.  Her phone number at the White House is 202-456-1414, and ask for Lynn Rosenthal.

From Anne Caroline Drake’s Website:

Injustice in Oz: Are Judge David Debenham and GAL M. Jill Dykes Acting in the Best Interest of the Child or Engaged in a Cover-up?

Posted by Anne Caroline Drake on August 22, 2010 · 11 Comments

Claudine Dombrowski and her daughter got caught up in a Kansas-style tornado of injustice and pretext on Friday.  There are so many abusive narcissistic wizards in this courtroom catastrophe that I felt like Dorothy in Oz when I heard what happened.

You Decide:  Incompetence, Pretext, Cover-Up, or Best Interests of the Child?

In the 14 years this case has been pending, Ms. Dombrowski has gotten just one day of justice back in January when she and Rights for Mothers‘ founder Nancy Carroll packed the courtroom.  Judge David Debenham allowed her the First Amendment right to shine a bright light on the injustice perpetrated by Hal Richardson and facilitated by GAL M. Jill Dykes.

GAL is the legal term for guardian ad litem.  These attorneys are appointed by the court to protect the best interests of the child in custody battles.  They are supposed to remain neutral and protect and advocate for the child.  It’s a sweet gig for attorneys.

Pretext is the legal term for blowing smoke up the court’s ass.  It’s a nice way of describing a courtroom that operates more like a mushroom farm.  As you may know, mushrooms thrive when they are covered in shit and kept in the dark.

Sealed Records, Gag Orders, and Closed Court

Judge David Debenham’s first order of business on Friday was to clear the courtroom of witnesses to the proceedings.  He claimed it was in the best interest of the child.  Then, he confiscated Ms. Dombrowski’s cell phone, ordered the records sealed, and issued a gag order.  This is from the court docket:

Court finds that Dr. Rodeheffer’s report of May 18, 2010, has been published on the website of Respondent. Court suspends Respondent’s parenting time pending final hearing in this matter. Respondent’s counsel is to review Respondent’s cell phone to determine if there are images of report on Respondent’s cell phone – Respondent’s phone time with minor child to continue but to Petitioner’s home phone. Due to publication of report on the Internet, which deals with minor child, Court finds that there is a privacy interest of the minor child that is central to these proceedings and outweighs the public interest and orders that the files, records, and transcripts of the case be sealed until further order of the Court. J. Dykes to do order.

Before I rip into the pretext and cover-up in this order, this is what Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had to say about a Rhode Island judge who issued a similar order:

This court order is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.  If she believes she is being treated unfairly, or if she just wishes to make people aware of her case, she should be able to do so free of a court-ordered gag rule.

Was Hal Richardson held in contempt of court for routinely denying visitation between his daugher and her mother?  Hell no!

By the time he and GAL Dykes got done manipulating the judge, Ms. Dombrowski was the one in the hot seat. . .for shining a bright light on the truth. . .for exercising the very same First Amendment rights the judge guaranteed last January.

Claudine after being raped and beaten in 2000

Is GAL M. Jill Dykes Incompetent, Corrupt, or Clueless?

Before the hearing on Friday, I sent GAL Dykes a professional courtesy e-mail message.  A part of me was hoping she might make better decisions if she was apprised of the dynamics of PAS (parental alienation syndrome), domestic violence, and manipulation of the legal system as an instrument of abuse.  I also addressed my very legitimate concerns about a minor child residing in a house with a child’s coffin as a coffee table and a gun on the wall with a convicted criminal as custodial parent.

Her GAL-pal Rene M. Netherton sent me a threatening e-mail message in response.  I guess I was supposed to be intimidated into silence.  I wasn’t.

Instead, I was dumbfounded that licensed professionals would engage in behavior more common for junior high kids.  The tone and tenor of her comments let me know I was dealing with an abusive narcissist.  They can’t handle criticism and project their own evil intent onto others.  It explains why they are unable to distinguish between perpetrator and victim.

Ms. Netherton was GAL in this case before Ms. Dykes.  She didn’t respond to my concerns about Hal Richardson’s criminal record or choice of decor.

Best Interests of the Child

Yes, folks that’s a child’s coffin.  The photo doesn’t show the gun on the wall.  Y’all have sounded off with your concerns about the safety of a child residing in such a hostile environment.  GALs Netherton and Dykes don’t get it.  I’m not terribly surprised.  Ms. Netherton misses simple stuff like the fact that “privileged” is spelled incorrectly in her boilerplate.

Richardson Has an Extensive Criminal Record

According to Stop Family Violence, the abuse of Ms. Dombrowski and the minor child started when she was four months pregnant and discovered that Mr. Richardson had lied to her about being married.  He beat her.  As you can see, she was sporting a black eye when she gave birth to the child in 1994.

On February 18, 1995, Mr. Richardson was arrested for domestic battery and damage to property.  A no contact order was issued on February 21 which he immediately violated.  His bond was revoked when he failed to appear.  Shawnee County (KS) Court Services Officer Mary Kelly sent a memo on March 14 to Judge James P. Buchele regarding sentencing and probation:

Mr. Richardson has been placed on probation five times in the past 15 years.  I do not believe he is a good candidate for probation. . .I recommend. . .a psychological evaluation and follow all recommendations for treatment.  [emphasis added]

Nevertheless, Judge Buchele let him off with a slap on the wrist in a plea deal.  The domestic battery charges were reduced to disorderly conduct and the damage to property charge was dismissed.  Although he was ordered to get a psychological evaluation, he never did.  He was released from probation on June 13, 1996 after getting expelled from a court-ordered batterers group:

• 3/6/95:  Fred Eisland:. . .marriage that ended in divorce and there was some violence there and he and his current partner are fighting.
• 5/29/96:  . . .rude and disrespectful to female cofacilitator as evidenced by his combative stance, his repeated interruptions, his sexist language, his monopolization of the group with his loud voice, and his refusal to accept responsibility for his own actions.  Appears to be inappropriate for group.  JSM
• 6/5/96:  No show
• 6/10/96:  . . .client very disruptive during group. . .constantly challenging the structure of the program.  Client attempted to use the group as a forum to discuss his negative views of the local judicial system.  Client refuses to see himself as anything but a victim.  Very inappropriate actions for a group setting.
• 6/11/96:  Called PO and client to tell them that he had graduated as far as I was concerned.  He only has 17 sessions, but is causing too much trouble with his mouth.  Terminated, with cause.  Will not be accepted back.  JSM  [emphasis added]

Please visit Anne Caroline Drake’s website for the rest of this excellent report.

Claudine has been gagged, denied documents to her case, denied parenting time (AGAIN), and even had her phone confiscated from her.  She came to court with 67 violations of the last court order of daddy Hal Richardson keeping Daughter from seeing her mother.  I was in court with Claudine in January when the order was issued to finally allow visitation, and Judge David Debenham (Shawnee County Court, phone number (785) 233-8200 ext. 4203 ) looked Richardson in the eyes and pointed to him and told him he WILL follow the court’s order.  He didn’t, and the motion to find him in contempt was dismissed as soon as Claudine didn’t have all her supporters there.

Your constituents, the voters of Kansas, the mothers of Kansas must have your support.  Another is waiting in the wings to be stomped on in Wichita on Tuesday (Jones vs. Youngquist  Case no. 06-DM 3626).  A father, Shawn Jones, who allegedly sexually abused his young daughter, has kept the children from their mother, Tammy Youngquist.  She has not seen them in months.  This is the abuser’s way of punishing mothers, and courts gladly help.  Scientific studies show that children rarely lie about sexual abuse, yet child protection workers constantly disregard allegations if they come from children of a broken home.  WAKE UP AND REALIZE CHILDREN ARE IN PAIN HERE.  CHILDREN ARE BEING ABUSED AND CHILDREN ARE BEING RAPED AND KANSAS COURTS ARE HELPING THE PERPETRATORS.

This is from Earl Glynn, the Kansas Watchdog:

Claudine Dombrowski

Claudine Dombrowski: An abused mom victimized again by the Kansas Courts

Read details in written statement.

This is an truly incredible story that should never have happened in America.

Parts of the Kansas Judicial system should be disciplined for how it has victimized Ms. Dombrowski, who was an abused mom.

Instead of quotes from the audio, please consult these pages that document Dombrowski’s long and difficult battle to protect her daughter:

• Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse

As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the “man” who did this to Claudine.

• Courts Have Continued Abuse of Manhattan Women, Manhattan Free Press, July 12, 2001.
• Manhattan resident fights custody battle for daughter, Kansas State Collegian, July 26, 2001.

State Rep Bill Otto: “No crime? You haven’t been guilty of anything? This is a court order that says you can’t go to any school functions?”

“I was under court order till 2004 to not even call the police after I was being beaten because … I was not ‘co-parenting’”

Dombrowski: “These friends of the court make recommendations to the judge. The parents … don’t have a right to see these documents. They do this behind closed doors.”

Otto: (To Secretary Jordan): “You have no rights as a parent …?”

Secretary Don Jordan: “This would be something extreme … I’m not familiar with the situation.”

Otto: “Can a judge do that? … Is that legal… ?”

Jordan: “Under the right circumstances … I hesitate to speculate.”

Sen. Roger Reitz: “This is something that only … the judicial system can really answer … It would be helpful … to have someone … representing the judicial system … to give us some ideas how this could happen.”

Dombrowski: “When you are a victim of domestic violence, and suddenly there’s a child involved, the typical …. power of control is that ‘I’ll take your children from you’. They will and they can the way the laws are setup.” …

“I was told that I’m not to talk to my daughter about the violence. That’s why I don’t see her. That’s why I see her supervised. He was criminally convicted. “

“When women try to get away from people who hurt them … I heard somebody say it’s really hard to believe you won’t call the police … I tell people not to contact the police, because as soon as you walk into court with a DV (domestic violence) and children, you’re already cutting your throat. You will lose your children. That’s the way it is right now.”

“… on the 16th of this month I’ll probably go to jail for breaking the gag order and talking about [being the victim of] violence as it relates to my case.”

Reitz: “… someone ought to be able to deal with this in a way that would address her problem. It doesn’t seem like we’ve done the right thing with regards to this little niche of the law.”

Dombrowski: “The criminal convictions are completely tossed aside and they don’t have any bearing on the family court … The eight criminal convictions that my ex had before getting custody of my daughter were completely dropped [in family court]“

Chair Kiegerl: “I cannot believe that abuse is totally ignored. I cannot believe you can prohibit a person from speaking about their own case.”

“The one thing [where] … I disagree with you is abuse should always be reported.”

State Rep Peggy Mast (R-Emporia): “Domestic violence is a control issue. Sexual abuse is a control issue. Is there any correlation between domestic violence and sexual abuse? Why is that not something that is considered when we take someone to [family] court that has a history of domestic violence?”

Dombrowski: “Yes. That is something I’ve asked myself for 16 years. … It comes back to the family court that has a veil of immunity. … They don’t fully understand the impact of the violence. What battered women have … if they report the abuse, then they’re failing to protect their child … if they don’t report the abuse, they’re still failing to protect their child. So, both ways, they’re going to lose their children …”

For anybody who abuses their wife … [from] a 1996 presidential task force … there is a 70% increase that those children will be abused and/or sexually abused after there’s been battery with the mother.

Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudea: “In 2004 …. I talked with the homicide department in Sedgwick County…. During that time there had been 21 homicides in Sedgwick County and 18 were due to domestic violence …”

“A lot of women do make those phone calls and unfortunately, sometimes it ends in their death.” …

“I want to apologize to you for being treated like a pedophile … not being able to go to a music concert.”

“I commend you for what you’re doing.”

Dombrowski: “I have not talked to my daughter in 10 years [except] for the confines of supervised visits. I’m not allowed to talk to her about anything. All she knows is what her dad has told her.”

See this video:  Abused Mom Wants Unsupervised Visits with Daughter

Others have indicated a desire to help.  I have uploaded the email addresses for the Kansas House here and the Kansas Senate here.  This is just the beginning.

Dear Friends,

1.  There is a critical need for help on legislation THIS WEEKEND.  Please email me at cppa001@aol.com if you are interested in and able to send 15 faxes.  I’ll send you a letter template.

2. In mid-September, the annual  International Violence, Abuse and Trauma conference will be held in San Diego. It is a great networking opportunity.  Meera Fox of Child Abuse Solutions will present a 3 day evaluator training prior to the conference. Dr. Geraldine Stahly will present the protective parent research on Wednesday.  If your funds are limited, contact IVAT  to volunteer. www.ivatcenters.org and www.abusesolutions.com for evaluator training

3. We had such a great time on Mothers Day that we decided to return to Washington DC in early October, which is Domestic Violence Awareness month to continue our Mothers Movement. On Friday Oct 1 at 11:00 am we will hold a press conference in front of the US Department of Justice to request an investigation into family court endangerment of children.  Afterwards, we will march to the Senate Buildings to meet with Senate aides and request Congressional hearings . Please contact me at cppa001@aol.com if you want to participate –be sure to say what state your case is in, and what state you live in. Packets and talking points will be provided. It would be helpful to bring several copies of a 1 page summary of your case. We will end the day with a vigil at the Sewall Belmont house – the suffragists’ headquarters 100 years ago. On Saturday Oct 2 we will gather at the White House again for a vigil and speakout.  Attire is white with white Tshirts saying Mothers of Lost Children or Mothers of Lost Children Supporter. We will have some Tshirts available. More information can be found at www.mothers-of-lost-children.com. Many thanks to Renee Beeker for this great article: http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/family_law_newsletter_summer2010.pdf

4. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence conference in Anaheim was fabulous! There was an entire track on custody, including talks by two judges who are appalled at the harm being done to mothers and children in family courts. Mo Hannah and Barry Goldstein presented the well-attended plenary session.  White House advisor Lynn Rosenthal spent over 2 hours listening to family court litigants to see how the  Federal government can help us. The  most heartening part is that the NCADV is strongly with us, as they understand that battered mothers losing custody sets the domestic violence movement back 30 years.

Dear Friends,

I wanted to share with you an important report we issued earlier this week: The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000-2009: Decade of Change.

It has long been clear that special interest campaign spending poses a threat to judicial independence. Now this new report shows: it is worse than we thought. The study looks at comprehensive data and reveals that fundraising for state Supreme Court elections has doubled in the past decade — from $83.3 million during the 1990s to $206.9 million. We find many John Grisham-style instances where special interests and even litigants pour funds into races trying to tilt the scales of justice their way. The recent Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United, likely will make matters worse.

We are especially proud that retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the foreword for the report. “The crisis of confidence in the judiciary is real and growing,” O’Connor warns. “Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that the courts are supposed to uphold.”

The Brennan Center for Justice coauthored the study with the Justice at Stake Campaign and the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Already, we’ve garnered significant attention for it. The Associated Press story was syndicated in papers all over the country, NPR and the Washington Post featured stories, as well as the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Columbus Dispatch, the Detroit Free Press, the Montgomery Advertiser, and many more.

Public concern is widespread and bipartisan. We hope this report calls attention to the need for reforms that will help ensure our courts remain fair and independent.

Best regards,
Michael Waldman
Executive Director

To read “The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000-2009: Decade of Change” by the Brennan Center for Justice, et.al, please click here.

 

My Favorite August

By GAIL COLLINS

The story in American history I most like to tell is the one about how women got the right to vote 90 years ago this month. It has everything. Adventure! Suspense! Treachery! Drunken legislators!

But, first, there was a 70-year slog.

Which is really the important part. We always need to remember that behind almost every great moment in history, there are heroic people doing really boring and frustrating things for a prolonged period of time.

That great suffragist and excellent counter, Carrie Chapman Catt, estimated that the struggle had involved 56 referendum campaigns directed at male voters, plus “480 campaigns to get Legislatures to submit suffrage amendments to voters, 47 campaigns to get constitutional conventions to write woman suffrage into state constitutions; 277 campaigns to get State party conventions to include woman suffrage planks, 30 campaigns to get presidential party campaigns to include woman suffrage planks in party platforms and 19 campaigns with 19 successive Congresses.”

And you thought health care reform was a drawn-out battle.

The great, thundering roadblock to progress was — wait for the surprise — the U.S. Senate. All through the last part of the 19th century and into the 20th, attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution ran up against a wall of conservative Southern senators.

So the women decided to win the vote by amending every single state constitution, one by one.

There were five referenda in South Dakota alone. Susan B. Anthony spent more time there than a wheat farmer. But she never lost hope. The great day was coming, she promised: “It’s coming sooner than most people think.” I love this remark even more because she made it in 1895.

Sometimes I fantasize about traveling back through time and telling my historical heroes and heroines how well things worked out in the end. I particularly enjoy the part where I find Vincent van Gogh and inform him that one of the unsold paintings piled up over in the corner will eventually go for $80 million. But I never imagine telling Susan B. Anthony how well American women are doing in the 21st century because her faith in her country and her cause was so strong that she wouldn’t be surprised.

The constitutional amendment that finally did pass Congress bore Anthony’s name. It came up before the House of Representatives in 1918 with the two-thirds votes needed for passage barely within reach. One congressman who had been in the hospital for six months had himself carted to the floor so he could support suffrage. Another, who had just broken his shoulder, refused to have it set for fear he’d be too late to be counted. Representative Frederick Hicks of New York had been at the bedside of his dying wife but left at her urging to support the cause. He provided the final, crucial vote, and then returned home for her funeral.

The Senate failed to follow suit. But Woodrow Wilson, a president who had the winning quality of being very vulnerable to nagging by women, pushed the amendment through the next year. The states started ratifying. Then things stalled just one state short of success.

Ninety years ago this month, all eyes turned to Tennessee, the only state yet to ratify with its Legislature still in session. The resolution sailed through the Tennessee Senate. As it moved on to the House, the most vigorous opposition came from the liquor industry, which was pretty sure that if women got the vote, they’d use it to pass Prohibition. Distillery lobbyists came to fight, bearing samples.

“Both suffrage and anti-suffrage men were reeling through the hall in an advanced state of intoxication,” Carrie Catt reported.

The women and their allies knew they had a one-vote margin of support in the House. Then the speaker, whom they had counted on as a “yes,” changed his mind.

(I love this moment. Women’s suffrage is tied to the railroad track and the train is bearing down fast when suddenly. …)

Suddenly, Harry Burn, the youngest member of the House, a 24-year-old “no” vote from East Tennessee, got up and announced that he had received a letter from his mother telling him to “be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt.”

“I know that a mother’s advice is always the safest for a boy to follow,” Burn said, switching sides.

We celebrate Women’s Suffrage Day on Aug. 26, which is when the amendment officially became part of the Constitution. But I like Aug. 18, which is the day that Harry Burn jumped up in the Tennessee Legislature, waving his mom’s note from home. I told the story once in Atlanta, and a woman in the audience said that when she was visiting her relatives in East Tennessee, she had gone to put a yellow rose on Harry Burn’s grave.

I got a little teary.

“Well, actually,” she added, “it was because I couldn’t find his mother.”

To see the history on this, watch “Iron Jawed Angels” here.

White House Vigil on Mothers Day, May 9th, 2010

On Mother’s Day 2010, a large crowd of well over 100 concerned citizens wearing Mothers of Lost Children white T-shirts rallied in front of the White House.  After a silent vigil from 11:00 am until noon and a speakout from noon to 1:00 pm that included Mildred Mohammad, former wife of the D.C. Sniper, there was a march down 17th Avenue. Our signs and banners protested the family courts endangerment of 58,000 children per year who must visit or live with their batterers and molesters with no hope of release.

The event was so well received that we will meet again on Friday, October 1st, 2010, the first day of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, in front of the U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001 for a press conference at 11:00 am (pending permits). We will then march about a mile to the Senate buildings and attend prearranged visits with Senators to request that they reschedule the 1994 the Senate Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee Congressional hearing that was postponed. That hearing was designed to address the issues of failures of child protective and family court systems to protect adult and child victims of violence and abuse, statutes of limitations for reporting sexual abuse, and retaliatory targeting of mandated reporters who report child sexual abuse. These problems have grown significantly worse in the past 16 years. We will end our march at the Sewall Belmont House, 144 Constitution Avenue NE, the suffragists’ headquarters a century ago.

We plan to stay at the Hostelling International, 1009 11th Street NW, Washington DC, which we found to be clean and inexpensive. The following day, Saturday, October 2nd, we will rally at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House.

For more information please contact Connie Valentine, 916-233-8381 or cppa001@aol.com.

Sperm Banks

This is the only way a woman can be relatively assured that nobody will take her babies from her.

From Deutsche Welle:

Single fathers are being awarded full custody

Women | 11.08.2010

Germany’s women’s shelters criticize custody ruling

Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Around 40,000 women and children flee to shelters yearly

Women’s shelters in Germany fear a court ruling to grant unwed fathers custody will put abused women in greater danger. Others hailed the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision as a victory for single fathers.

Germany’s women’s shelters have joined the country’s largest single parents’ organization in opposing increased rights for unmarried fathers.

Until now, the fathers of children born out of wedlock in Germany had no legally guaranteed custody rights. Mothers had the right to withhold joint custody, leaving the father to sue the mother for visitation rights.

But Edith Schwab, head of Germany’s Association of Single Mothers and Fathers, says the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision last week to grant custody rights to unwed fathers is bad news for single mothers, who themselves will now have to fight to keep unfit fathers from raising their children.

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Now courts can award single fathers full custody

“Mothers who refuse to share custody have very, very good reasons for their decision – meaning that the potential for conflict between the parents is so great that the mother has rightly chosen to deny joint custody,” she said.

Worse yet – according to Heike Herold, who works with an organization that coordinates women’s shelters across Germany – in abuse scenarios, increasing fathers’ rights can undermine the safety of mother and child.

“It becomes problematic when there’s domestic violence, but also when you think of cases in which children are conceived by rape,” Herold told Deutsche Welle. “When you think of the legislature automatically giving these fathers custody, it becomes quite critical.”

A victory for single fathers

On August 3, Germany’s Constitutional Court ruled that “the current legal situation excessively encroached on paternity rights for fathers of children born out of wedlock, because they could only take part in raising the child with the mother’s consent,” according to spokeswoman Judith Blohm.

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  The constitutional court ruled that fathers should have the same rights as mothers

Blohm said that until now “the fathers also didn’t have the right to have a court determine what arrangement was in the best interest of the child.”

The case for increased rights was mounted by a father who had no way to prevent the mother of his child from moving to another city and taking the child with her. The decision, which is expected to be drafted into law when the legislature returns from its summer break, was heralded as a victory for fathers’ rights.

Thorsten Nitz, an underground train driver, was one of the many fathers across Germany who welcomed the decision. Nitz, who has been denied custody of his children since splitting up with his former partner, said he was “relieved when the ruling came,” adding, “It’s been overdue for years.”

Harder to cut ties with abusive partners

Herold sees the flipside to this new right. Although she welcomes increased paternity rights in principle, she feels there needs to be a system in place to review fathers’ suitability before granting them joint custody.

The decision makes it much more difficult for unmarried women to cut off ties with abusive partners, Herold said, adding that unmarried women who left abusive relationships “didn’t have the problem that their partner, as the biological father of the child, necessarily had access to the child as part of his visitation and custody rights.”

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Increased fathers’ rights could threaten abused mothers’ anonymity Under the new law, she says, a victim of abuse will “potentially have to mount a court case to protect herself and her children.”

“Giving the father custody rights also means that the mother cannot decide alone to move to another city or switch her child’s school,” Herold added.

Tracking down mothers through their children

As it is, she said, visitation rights alone often give abusive fathers the opportunity to track down their child’s mother, forcing abused mothers to flee from one halfway home to the next.

Herold added that, in cases of children born within wedlock, German courts already assume that contact to the father is nearly always in the child’s best interest. She worries that more children will now have to live with abusive fathers.

“We know from experience that many family courts operate on the premise that joint custody is the new way of doing things. They ask the parents to ‘please settle their disputes in the interest of the child’ – but that doesn’t work when one side uses violence against the other,” she said.

According to Herold’s shelter coordination network, some 20,000 abused women seek shelter in halfway houses every year in Germany – with another 20,000 children accompanying them. Germany’s federal family ministry estimates that a quarter of the country’s female population will be physically abused by a sexual partner.

Author: David Levitz

Editor: Ben Knight

Well I am giving this a whirl for the first time…audio on my site.  This was just sent to me, let’s see how it goes.  Click on the orange link above and your media player will play the downloaded file. News report from KFBK in Sacramento at the protest today.  Great job everyone!

See the post earlier today on police complaints and protest: Outraged Parents Take Action Against California’s Janelle Burrill

Time to start making plans for the march coming up on the 26th of September in New York City.  Please watch here and on bridesmarch.com for updates on the march for this year.  Gladys is pictured in the banner below to the left. She was murdered by an ex-boyfriend just hours before the ceremony while she was taking pictures in her wedding dress.

Gladys Ricart

On the afternoon of Sunday, September 26, 1999, Gladys Ricart, 39, native of the Dominican Republic and resident of Ridgefield, New Jersey, was preparing for the happiest day of her life—her wedding day. Dressed in a beautiful white wedding dress, Gladys handed floral arrangements to her nine bridesmaids and three flower girls while she posed for pictures and a video of the joyful occasion was being taken.

It was at the moment that Gladys’ ex-abusive boyfriend, Agustin Garcia, who she had dated for about six years and had broken up with nine months earlier, arrived at the house uninvited.

Garcia stepped out of his car, walked calmly past several dozen people gathered outside and stormed into Gladys’ home. He entered the living room where Gladys’ was posing for pictures and without uttering a single world, pulled from his suit pocket a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver and with the room full of teenagers and children, he started shooting at Gladys.

The gunfire sent the houseful of horrified guests scrambling for cover, jumping out windows, hiding in closets and running outside and down to the basement. After firing four shoots, one hitting Gladys in arm and another in the back, Gladys’ middle-age brother tried to restrain Garcia but, as they struggled, Garcia shot Gladys a third time, this time in the head at close range as she lay on the floor.

When the police arrived several minutes later, Garcia and Mr. Ricart were still tussling over the gun. During the struggle Garcia tried to reload, and after his arrest, the police found six bullets in his pocket.

Garcia was arrested at the scene, was charged with murder, and his bail was set at $5 million. Judge William C. Meehan called the shooting a ”horrendous event.” He added: ”This should have been one of the happiest days of her life. Instead, it was the last day of her life.”

An autopsy showed that bullets struck Ms. Ricart in the right arm, back and head, and that she died instantly. A week later, Gladys’ family and fiancé flew to the Dominican Republic, where she was buried in the town of her birth, Tamboril, dressed in her wedding gown.

During arraignment Garcia’s defense attorneys were considering a defense of self-defense saying that the shooting started after Gladys brother and son grappled with him after Garcia entered the house. Later they announced they planned to argue that the shooting had occurred in the heat of passion counting on the 1992 New Jersey appeals court ruling that a murder suspect could not be convicted of murder unless the state first proved the crime was not one of passion. Under New Jersey law, juries can convict murder suspects of the lesser crime of manslaughter if jurors believe the killing was committed ”in the heat of passion resulting from reasonable provocation.” The defense claimed that there were two provocations to satisfy the legal prerequisite of a crime of passion: Gladys’ ”betrayal” and the grappling with her brother.

On October 3, 2001, the murder trial of Agustin Garcia began. And after two weeks of testimonies where approximately a dozen witnesses testified to Garcia’s obsession and staking of Gladys Ricart and the events of that September 26, 1999, on Friday, October 19, 2001, the 12 jurors were given instructions.

State Superior Court Judge William C. Meehan instructed the jurors that they could convict Garcia, 49, of the lesser charge of manslaughter. But, he said, the jurors could do so only if prosecutors failed to disprove four points: that Mr. Garcia was provoked; that the provocation impassioned him; that he did not have time to calm down; and that he did not calm down before firing the three shots that killed Gladys Ricart.

On Monday, October 22, the jury rendered a guilty verdict of murder.

On February 2, 2002 Agustin Garcia was sentenced to life in prison. The sentence exceeded the mandatory minimum of 30 years in prison. Garcia, 49, will be able to seek parole after 30 years.

Gladys Ricart’s family and friends thank Fred L. Schwanwede, the first assistant Bergen County prosecutor, the detectives of the Bergen County Prosecutor’s office, Judge William C. Meehan and the jurors for the successful prosecution and conviction of Agustin Garcia.

Wedding Dress

Why We March in Wedding Dresses?

Throughout history, the wedding dress has been a special symbol for a very special and important public occasion—a union between two people preparing to start a new life together. The expectations are for a life of commitment, happiness, honor and respect. A Bride-to-be, along with her family and friends, devotes an enormous amount of time and dedication to selecting the perfect dress that will personify her love for her husband-to-be and her expectation of an everlasting love and nurturing relationship. We recognize that in our societies the wedding dress is a sacred symbol of matrimony and acknowledge all the things it represents to a bride-to-be.

For women who have experienced some form of domestic violence, their wedding dress no longer signifies what it did on the day it was first worn because the abuse destroyed those dreams of shared love, honor, respect and a happy home.

The murder of Gladys Ricart, in her wedding dress, concretized for us the brutal consequences and horror of domestic violence. Often, at the end of the Brides’ march, which winds through the streets of several neighborhoods, the wedding dresses worn by the marchers are dirty and tattered, similar to how a woman feels when there is violence in her life.

Donate your Wedding Dress

If your wedding dress no long represents what it did to you the day you first wore it, you can support the Mission and Goals of the Brides’ March by donating it. A fellow marcher will wear the dress as she symbolically takes a stand against domestic violence. Please note that the donation of wedding dresses is tax-deductible, and a donation acknowledgment certificate—for tax purposes—will be provided. To donate your wedding dress, please email: BridesMarch@aol.com

Want to March in a Wedding Dress but don’t have one?

We have a limited number of dresses and they are available on a first-come, first-get-one basis. We cannot reserve or guarantee that a dress in your size will be available on the day of the March. You can let family, friends and colleagues know that you are looking for a wedding dress they may want to donate. You can also visit thrift shops, flea markets, Good Will shops, yard sales and dry cleaners. If the price is not reasonable, explain what the dress is for and ask for a discount or suggest they donate the dress to us in your name and guide them to our website. You can also try posting on social boards on the internet.

If you have other ideas that might be helpful in locating and obtaining wedding dresses please share them with us.