Category: Domestic Violence

Categories
Domestic Violence

Human Rights, Sex Bias, and Family Court

Human Rights, Sex Bias, and Family Court

Carl Roberts

November 30, 2022

On December 10, persons around the world will be observing Human Rights Day, a day that is devoted to celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 7 of the Declaration states,

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

So how well are family courts upholding this principle?

Extensive experience reveals a fundamental problem with the family court, child support, child welfare, and domestic violence systems is an unsupported bias and belief that men are less safe than women. Even though these biases are contrary to the data and wealth of available social science(1), policy and system practices persist to unjustly deny children healthy relationships with their fathers.

Fatherlessness is a public health crisis disproportionately impacting communities of color(2). When fathers are absent, children are at greater risk of all other societal ills(2). From gun & criminal violence, suicide & mental health issues, child poverty and homelessness, to everything in between and beyond, children without a father in their life have life’s odds stacked against them. Still, fathers are treated as second class citizens and pushed out of their children’s lives. Often, simply at the whim of the mother.

Unfortunately, well-meaning policymakers are similarly misled and uninformed of the data and social science regarding domestic violence (DV)(3), intimate partner violence (IPV)(4), and child abuse(5). Their instinct is to protect women and children from what they perceive as more dangerous men. So all it takes is a single allegation of abuse to invoke the implicit or explicit bias of the judge, or person in position of authority, who wants to err on the side of caution to protect the child.

Stated another way, men are presumed guilty until proven innocent.  In many cases, the allegation is not adjudicated, but the seed of a false claim has its intended effect. To harm, impair, or sever a child’s relationship with their father.

Criminal law is based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Family law has no presumption that a parent is fit until shown otherwise. Without a presumption that can be overcome with a preponderance of evidence, parents can allege whatever they want, without accountability, to invoke the favor of a judge. Unscrupulous family law attorneys advise their clients on this strategy because it works, there is no downside, and it increases revenue.

Many feminists seek to deny their children a relationship with their father. Gender biased domestic violence advocates argue that they shouldn’t have to prove abuse. They argue they should just be believed because only men are perpetrators, never women.

Mothers AND fathers are equally as important.  Children have a right to being raised, loved, and cared for by their moms AND their dads. A child’s right to having healthy relationships with both parents must be protected by presuming that each parent is good unless proven that either parent is unsafe or unfit.

Family courts and related systems diminish child health, safety, and family resilience because they operate on the basis of gender bias to presume fathers are less safe and push them away.

This widespread form of child abuse and parental alienation must stop!

Citations:

  1. References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Updated Annotated Bibliography. Martin S. Fiebert – A compilation of 343 scholarly investigations (270 empirical studies and 73 reviews) demonstrating that women are as physically aggressive as men (or more) in their relationships with their spouses or opposite-sex partners. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261543769_References_Examining_Assaults_by_Women_on_Their_Spouses_or_Male_Partners_An_Updated_Annotated_Bibliography
  2. Father Facts 8 (8th Edition – 2019) – National Fatherhood Initiative – Fatherhood.org
  3. Seven Key Facts About Domestic Violence Prepared by: Coalition to End Domestic Violence (EndtoDV.org) Fact #1: Each year, men are more likely than women to be victims of domestic violence and other forms of partner abuse, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. http://endtodv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Seven-Key-Facts-About-DV-9.11.2021.pdf
  4. Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project Findings At-a-Glance summarizes the results of the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, a comprehensive, 2,300- page review of the domestic violence research literature. https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/FindingsAt-a-Glance.Nov.23.pdf
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018), National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief – Updated Release, Atlanta, Georgia. Tables 9 and 11. https:www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf
Categories
Domestic Violence

Opinion by a Peruvian Citizen Regarding the Domestic Abuse of Men (Spanish)

Opinion de Una Ciudadana Peruana Acerca del Abuso Doméstico Hacia el Hombre

Laura Leon

16 noviembre 2022

Soy hispana y estoy completamente en contra del abuso doméstico como psicológico tanto a mujeres, hombres o niños. No digo nombres, pero he sido testigo de casos de mujeres que solas se golpean contra objetos para dejar marcas o hematomas en sus cuerpos, con el fin de probar que fué abusada — pero quien lo vió? Nadie, y quien lo vió no se atreve a decirlo para no tener problemas futuros.

Desgraciadamente, la policía o cualquier otra persona que la vé lo creerá aunque la parte que esta siendo acusada diga que no es cierto. Se abusa mucho del famoso dicho “sexo débil.”

Si el hombre no denuncia es por verguenza, y si se atreve a denunciar nadie le cree (empezando por la misma policía), y es motivo de burlas que a la larga, muchas veces trae trágicas consecuencias.

Conozco casos cercanos tanto de amistades como familiares de abuso corporal como psicológico en el cual los únicos perdedores son los hijos. Principales testigos de dichos maltratos pero que no hablan por temor a que el agresor, sea el padre o la madre agresora, pueda reaccionar hacia ellos. Estas escenas son clases para un futuro abusador o abusadora.

Estos abusos domesticos no solo se dan entre parejas de esposos, convivientes o parejas del mismo sexo. El abuso, sea doméstico o psicológico, no tiene sexo, ni tamaño del agresor.

Ya es hora que todo esto termine y se dé mas credibilidad a la palabra masculina, que el hombre que acusa de haber sido abusado, sea escuchado. Todas las voces deben ser escuchadas, porque entonces caemos en la famosa palabra muchas veces mencionada, pero también muchas veces no aplicada, sobretodo en el caso del hombre, y es “discriminación!“

Categories
Child Custody Domestic Violence False Allegations Law & Justice Sexual Assault

Family Courts Increasingly Are Holding False Accusers Accountable for Their Actions

Family Courts Increasingly Are Holding False Accusers Accountable for Their Actions

SAVE

April 1, 2022

Over the years, people have asked how to seek recompense for false allegations and other abusive litigation tactics.  Family law cases have a tendency to bring out bad behavior in people, and false allegations have an unfortunate tendency to arise with greater frequency in such cases.

Following are examples of three family law cases:

  1. In Leisinger v. Jacobson, 2002 SD 108 (S.D. 2002), a South Dakota man sued his ex-wife for making a series of false allegations during the pendency of their divorce. Among other things, she “orchestrated [a] protection order, and violations of it, to obtain leverage against him in the divorce.” The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a malicious prosecution verdict in which a jury ordered the ex-wife to pay $13,754 in damages to her ex-husband.  The jury also ordered her to pay $120,000 in punitive damages, which the Supreme Court reduced to $25,000.   https://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opiniondetail.aspx?ID=1014
  2. In a 2010 case titled Bloch v. Bloch, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a trial order that dismissed a malicious prosecution case that was based on false allegations made during a divorce. During the divorce case, the wife sought full custody of the couple’s minor child. Wife made false reports of physical abuse by him and reported or caused to be reported a number of false allegations of sexual abuse by the husband against the couple’s child. These allegations resulted in two separate child protective service (CPS) investigations, a psychological review of the parties and the child, and a number of police investigations. Husband was also forced to undergo a psychological evaluation, a polygraph examination, and was subject to at least one arrest. During the divorce proceedings, the trial court found the allegations were without merit, a finding supported by the psychologist who examined the parties and the child. Based on these facts, the Court of Appeals allowed the husband’s malicious prosecution case against his ex-wife to proceed.  https://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2010/090210/46723.pdf
  3. In Norberg v. Norberg, 2017 ND 14 (N.D. 2017), the North Dakota Supreme Court allowed a case to proceed against a woman who falsely accused her husband of sexual assault in an effort to win custody of their children. The false allegations resulted in her husband being tried and acquitted of rape. https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2017ND14

The North Dakota Supreme Court earlier affirmed a trial decision that awarded sole custody of the couple’s children to the falsely accused ex-husband. The trial court found the wife’s report of sexual abuse was untrue and nothing more than her attempt to get custody of the parties’ children.  The court also found that she lied to the children about her allegations, which alienated the children from their father and may have damaged his relationship with them. The court found her lies were strong evidence of her moral unfitness because the children had to deal with news accounts of their father’s criminal trial and the intrusions of supervised parenting time, and the lies put their father at risk of going to prison: http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/11/dr-jon-norbergs-nightmare-rape.html

Malicious Prosecution

The family law cases discussed above all involved false allegations of rape and/or child abuse, which resulted in criminal investigations. It’s hard to image a more malicious act than to falsely accuse someone of rape or child abuse.

That said, malicious prosecution claims should only be brought in egregious situations – those that involve malice.  Malicious prosecution claims are generally disfavored in the law because of their potential chilling effect on people’s willingness to bring legitimate claims. Trial lawyers David Parker and William Mills write:

Malicious prosecution claims have long been recognized as having a chilling effect on an ordinary citizen’s willingness to bring a dispute to court, and as a result the tort is often characterized as a “disfavored cause of action.”

It is not simply a matter of a chilling effect on the public – it affects lawyers as well. “[T]here is a basic and important policy that public access to the courts should be unfettered by threats of retaliatory litigation. Access to the courts would be illusory if plaintiffs were denied counsel of their choice, because attorneys feared being held liable as insurers of the quality of their clients’ cases. Few attorneys would be willing to prosecute close and difficult matters, and virtually none would dare challenge the propriety of established legal doctrines.” http://parkermillsllp.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MaliciousProsecutionHandbook2014.pdf  (citations omitted)

Takeaways

What are the takeaways from these cases for both lawyers and parties?

For lawyers, the takeaway is “do your diligence.”  Don’t merely repeat what your client tells you.  This is true at the start of the case as well as at all times during the pendency of the case.  If you learn during the pendency of the case that your allegations are false or unfounded, don’t repeat them.

Above all, don’t make unfounded allegations in an attempt to gain leverage.  If you allege child abuse or domestic violence in an effort to bolster your case and lose, you’ll certainly lose credibility with the court.  You might also find yourself a defendant in a malicious prosecution case.

For parties, don’t make unfounded allegations in an attempt to gain leverage.  For many years, this was considered a low-risk strategy – the so-called “silver bullet.”  However, things have changed.  These unsavory tactics not only are increasingly unlikely to carry the day, they may backfire and cause you to lose the case.  Even worse, you might get sued by your former partner after the case is over.

Categories
Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Murdered and Missing Sexual Assault Violence Against Women Act

PBS’ ‘Bring Her Home’ Betrays the Truth, Ignores Missing and Murdered Indian Men

PBS’ ‘Bring Her Home’ Betrays the Truth, Ignores Missing and Murdered Indian Men

Rebecca Stewart

March 17, 2022

Imagine Danokoo Hoaglen were your 16-year-old boy who went missing in Montana almost a year ago and you’ve heard nothing since. He’s just gone. Finding him, or any morsel of information on what happened, would be your most important mission.

Hoaglen is one of more than a thousand missing Native Americans, like Jonathan Kent of the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma, who disappeared in December at age 15; or Willis Derendoff, age 34, missing without a trace since November 2020. It’s a relative’s worst nightmare, not knowing what happened or where a loved one is.

Whether that person is a son or a daughter makes no difference in the level of strife and determination for finding help and bringing that person home. Whether that’s a son or a daughter should make no difference in the level of help that’s offered from the community.

FBI statistics on the plight of Murdered and Missing Indigenous People (MMIP) are detailed in a report from the National Crime and Information Center. In 2020 there were 918 missing indigenous men and boys and 578 missing women and girls. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control reports105 Indian men and 34 Indian women are murdered each year.

Knowing that 75% of murdered Indians are males, it is puzzling and frustrating to notice that most of the media coverage and political attention highlights only the struggle in the female indigenous population. In fact, a soon-to-be-released PBS documentary titled “Bring Her Home,” focuses only on the plight of women and girls, and provides zero mention of the statistical fact that men and boys make up the majority of missing and murdered indigenous people. Instead, men are spoken of as perpetrators with the comment that society must “reteach men how to be in a relationship with women.” This generalized misrepresentation damages the truth of the process and sadly, stagnates progress for the entirety of indigenous society.

PBS backed up its apparent feminist agenda with a discussion panel on March 15, previewing the “Bring Her Home” premiere. While the panelists were supporting a cause that deserves discussion, they only escalated the one-sided analysis that’s gained the exclusive hashtag #MMIW, in which W (for Women) replaces P (for People). Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women locks out any mention that males are victims of the same problem.

Panel members plead their case that we need to “build systems of justice that help us all;” “we are all responsible to each other;” “how do we not harm each other further;” and “we are all on the same team.” That hint at inclusivity, however, was destroyed with phrases like “holding men who are abusers accountable in our community,” and “we have to look at these men and what’s wrong with them.” No mention was made of the men and boys who are victims of the exact same problems, let alone to a greater extent.

Pushing the hot button of blaming men for a problem that actually affects males at a much higher rate runs contrary to finding solutions based on facts. Wouldn’t the process of solving this common problem work better by including every indigenous victim, rather than ignoring the existence of the majority of them? Native American women and girls deserve truth in this process, too. Every fact must be included to arrive at true solutions when it comes to Native Americans, as a whole, suffering from this murdered and missing epidemic.

Categories
American Indians Domestic Violence Murdered and Missing Murdered or Missing

When a Problem Affects 545 Native women, It’s a “Crisis.” But if It Affects 1,681 Native Men, It’s Not.

When a Problem Affects 545 Native women, It’s a “Crisis.” But if It Affects 1,681 Native Men, It’s Not.

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

January 28, 2022

The problem of murdered and missing Indians has been recognized for years. As early as 2019, the Department of Justice National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NaMus) listed 404 missing Native Americans — 250 males and 154 females.[i]

More recently, the Centers for Disease Control released a detailed report on “Homicides of American Indians/Alaska Natives” spanning the years 2003 to 2018.  The CDC report reveals that males represent 75.5% of all Indian victims of homicide — 1,681 male victims and 545 female victims.[ii]

In 2013 Congress added a new section to the federal Violence Against Women Act titled, “Safety for Indian Women.” The record provides no explanation or justification for the exclusion of Indian men.[iii] The VAWA amendment galvanized a fevered national movement known as Murdered and Missing Indian Women, or “MMIW.”

 

Nine years later, a Google search on the words “murdered and missing indigenous women” turns up 63,300 results. These numbers include media articles, websites, legislative reports, and more.

But a Google search on “murdered and missing indigenous men” turns up a much smaller number — only 1,920 results. Why is there such a disquieting disparity?

Last year, Senators Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska published an editorial titled, “Shocking History of Violence Against Native Women is a Crisis We Can Stop.” The essay repeatedly referred to the “crisis” of murdered, missing, and trafficked Indigenous women.[iv]

But the article made no mention of murdered American Indian men, such as Levi Brian Yellow Mule of the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana. Or Russell Shack who was shot by Amber Yazzie during the course of an armed robbery in Gallup, NM. Or the many hundreds of other murdered Indian men.

Apparently, when a problem affects 545 Native women, it’s a “crisis.” But if it affects 1,681 Native men, it’s not.

The American Dream is founded on the pursuit of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Given the pre-eminent importance of “life,” it’s fair to ask: Why do the lives of Native American men seem to count for so much less than the lives of Native American women?

Citations:

[i] https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_are-missing-and-murdered-indigenous-men-us-being-ignored/6176751.html

[ii]https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7008a1.htm

[iii] https://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/VAWA_TitleIX.htm

[iv]https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/28/opinions/violence-against-native-women-children-cortez-masto-murkowski/index.html

Categories
Domestic Violence Victims Violence Against Women Act

Congressional Research Service Warns Against Turning VAWA into the ‘Anti-Nagging’ Law

Congressional Research Service Warns Against Turning VAWA into the ‘Anti-Nagging’ Law

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

November 2, 2021

Nagging has long been recognized as an annoyance in intimate partner relationships. But nagging was never seen as a legal matter.

In recent years, domestic violence activists have replaced “nagging” with a new term: “coercive control.” The CDC reports that each year, men are more likely than women to be victims of coercive control by their partners:[1]

  • Males: 17.3 million victims
  • Females: 12.7 million victims

These numbers do not come as a surprise to most. The question is, Do we really want to turn nagging into a legal offense?

The recent House bill, H.R. 1620, dramatically expands the definition of domestic violence to include “verbal” and “psychological” abuse. But the bill never defines what these words mean.

Tellingly, VAWA activists emphasize examples of male abuse, but seldom if ever cite examples of female-perpetrated coercive control. Shouldn’t we be calling out the dishonesty and bias?

CRC Weighs In

In its most recent analysis of the Violence Against Women Act,[2] the Congressional Research Service commented on the controversy.

Noting that adding “coercive control” to the VAWA reauthorization would “expand the number of individuals who are eligible for support from VAWA grantees,” the CRC issued this stern warning:

“some argue that a violent physical act is qualitatively different from other forms of abuse such as economic abuse, and legal definitions should reflect that distinction. Further, defining domestic violence as a pattern of behavior seemingly excludes isolated domestic violence incidents that do not involve a pattern of behavior. The proposed definition could exclude isolated incidents of domestic violence that do not meet the pattern of behavior standard.”

The CRC report also cites the Supreme Court’s United States v. Castleman decision, which ruled that the crime of domestic violence must be defined as the “use or attempted use of physical force.” Justice Scalia further argued, “when everything is domestic violence, nothing is.”

Mockery and Betrayal

So we need to ask, Do we really want to turn VAWA into the federal “anti-nagging“ law? Do we want to divert limited VAWA funds away from the men and women who are victims of severe, physical abuse?

This would represent a mockery of the anti-violence effort and a historic betrayal of victims.

Citations:

[1]https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf  Tables 4.9 and 4.10.

[2]https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46742 , pages 5-6.

Categories
Coercive Control Domestic Violence

What is Domestic Violence by Proxy?

What is Domestic Violence by Proxy?

By Joan T. Kloth-Zanard

September 12, 2021

Domestic Violence is the act of physically, psychologically or sexually using various methods, behaviors, comments and/or actions to coercively control another human being.  Coercive Controlling behaviors include but are not limited to any of the following.  (Taken from “Where Did I Go Wrong?  How Did I Miss the Signs? Dealing with Hostile Aggressive Parenting and Parental Alienation, 2nd Edition” by Joan Kloth-Zanard, p. 16-19)

  • Rejecting
  • Terrorizing
  • Corrupting
  • Denying essential stimulation, emotional responsiveness, or availability
  • Unreliable and inconsistent parenting
  • Mental health, medical, or educational neglect
  • Degrading/devaluing
  • Isolating
  • Exploiting

 

Let’s take this a bit further in its application. When a parent REJECTS a child because the children show any love or affection for the Targeted Parent that is a form of abuse.  This is not only a form of rejection, but terrorization.  In fact, a child’s refusal to come to the Targeted Parents home for fear of losing the Alienating Parent’s conditional love is fear and fear is terror.

Next, there is corrupting.  When an Alienating parent refuses to comply with court orders and tells the children they do not have to either, this is corrupting.  It is teaching the children that they are above the law and therefore immune to the court’s authority.  When a parent files false allegations of abuse and convinces the children to do the same, this is corruption. When an Alienating parent tells the children lies about the Targeted Parent, and that anything having to do with the Targeted Parent is illegal, immoral and disgusting, this is corrupting.  In fact, this is a form of discrimination and prejudice, which corrupts the children’s minds.

Next, let’s look at Denying essential stimulation, emotional responsiveness, or availability.  By refusing to allow the children to have a relationship with the Targeted Parent, for no reason other than their own need to control the ex-spouse, the Alienating Parents are denying them the basic elements of stimulation, emotions and availability with the Targeted Parent. In fact, the Targeted Parent has little to no opportunity to defend themselves against the false allegations. Though they will have you believe that they or the children feared for their lives and that the Targeted Parent was abusive, this is usually unsubstantiated or proven by the courts to be a fabrication. With no basis for this denial, the Alienator refuses their children a warm and loving relationship with the Targeted Parents.  Thus, it causes unreliable and inconsistent parenting.  Since the children have been denied a relationship with the Targeted Parent, they have also been denied a reliable and consistent parenting situation and the Alienating Parent has proven that they cannot parent consistently and reliably in the supporting of a two-parent relationship with the children.

This brings us to the Mental, medical and Education Neglect.  When an Alienating Parent refuses to comply with numerous separate court orders for counseling, they are denying their children’s mental health.  Thus, mental neglect has occurred as defined in the DSM IV as Malingering. (V65.2) and by Neglect of Child (V61.21).

If despite numerous court orders or request and recommendations, the alienator continues to insult, verbally abuse and denigrate the child’s Targeted Parent in front of them, this behavior degrades and devalues someone the children once respected and loved and in most cases, secretly want a relationship with.  This disdain and disrespect for the Targeted Parent in front of the child(ren) is another form of Psychological Maltreatment as it permanently affects their view of that Targeted Parent, which transfers to their view of themselves.   This creates a distorted sense of reality, of themselves and their ability to trust and accurately judge others.

When a parent deliberately sabotages a relationship with the Targeted Parent by refusing to allow visits, calls, or any form of healthy communication, with no evidence of abuse, this is called Isolation.  Furthermore, when a parent has initially allowed continuous contact with the children during the separation and divorce period, but reneges on this refusing them visitation, especially when they find out their ex-spouse has a new partner, this is isolation and abuse.  This is also called Remarriage as a Trigger for Parental Alienation Syndrome and can be further reviewed in an article by Dr. Richard Warshak, There is no doubt this is isolation and thus psychological abuse.  (http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/warsha00.htm)

And finally, EXPLOITATION.  When a parent uses the children as pawns to get back at their ex-spouse for not loving them anymore or to control them further, this is exploitation and Domestic Violence by Proxy.  When an Alienating Parent uses the children and makes false allegations of abuse, terrorizing the children to state they hate the Targeted Parent, this is exploitation.  When a parent uses the children for monetary gains, but yet does not allow the children a relationship with the targeted parent, this is exploitation.

When you add all these factors up, it is easy to see how Cross-Generational Coalitions, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Enmeshed Relationships, Triangles and Borderless Boundaries can be classified as Psychological Maltreatment or abuse.

But what happens when the perpetrator wants to abuse someone but they no longer have a direct contact with that person or wish to remain anonymous about their revenge?  Then they use something called Domestic Violence by Proxy.

‘By Proxy’ means using a substitute or alternate way through someone or something else.  In the case of DV, it is would related to doing harm to another through someone or something else.  For example, if your children or your extended family and friends are vitriol and nasty, parroting whatever the other person says, this is DV by Proxy as they are using these people to sling harmful and hurtful insults and psychological trauma.  If a person such as a child comes to your home and is destructive or violent toward the other person/parent, this is domestic violence by proxy as it uses the children to exact their revenge and anger.  Basically, the aggressive person brainwashes and programs others into a cult of hatred, anger and rage toward the other person.

Another example is false allegations.  When a person files false allegations with an agency such as child protective services or a Women’s DV Group, this is DV by Proxy using an agency.  When that agency fails to find or substantiate the allegations, and the person now files false criminal charges in the local courts, this is DV by proxy using the courts.

When a person constantly files motions and veracious litigation causing malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, perjury, slander, defamation, custodial interference, impede with medical/educational care or even loss of employment, this is Domestic Violence by proxy.  This means that a person does not have to be face to face with their victim to perpetrate Domestic Violence when they can use a proxy to do it.  And this grows their control and abuse by bringing in more people, places and things to abuse the other person with.

Conclusion:

Domestic Violence by Proxy invovles the coercive control of parental alienation through psychological abuse and use of rejecting, terrorizing, corrupting denying essential stimulation, emotional responsiveness, or availability, unreliable and inconsistent parenting, mental health, medical or educational neglect degrading/devaluing, isolating and exploiting.

Or put another way:

Domestic Violence by Proxy exploits others and agencies in causing psychological abuse through parental alienating behaviors to coercively control another human being by rejecting, terrorizing, corrupting denying essential stimulation, emotional responsiveness, or availability, unreliable and inconsistent parenting, mental health, medical or educational neglect degrading/devaluing, isolating and exploiting.

Categories
Domestic Violence

Women Who Think Hitting Their Husband is Funny

WOMEN WHO THINK HITTING THEIR HUSBAND IS FUNNY

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

April 24, 2021

One of the common refrains from domestic violence activists is, “There’s no excuse for domestic violence.” But apparently some persons haven’t taken this message to heart.

Speaking of her husband, singer Amy Winehouse once bragged, “I’ll beat up Blake when I’m drunk … If he says one thing I don’t like then I’ll chin him.”[i] Other women were equally amused their violent tendencies:[ii]

  • “I bounced an alarm clock off my husband’s head from across the room once.”
  • “I’ve had many satisfying dreams where I beat up my ex. If I saw him again, I don’t think I’d be able to restrain myself.”
  • “Yeah, I’ve punched the sh*t out of a guy. But I don’t like to brag.”

Ann Silvers, a counselor and author of the book, “Abuse of Men By Women,” highlights this continuing problem in a recent YouTube video about “Women’s Violence in Media.” Silver admits, “I’m really frustrated by the amount of times we see that depicted…It’s emboldened, it’s applauded, it’s laughed at.” Silvers gives several examples:

  1. Romantic comedies such as Fool’s Gold
  2. Commercials, such as a woman throwing a can of soda at the man
  3. In the movie Frozen, in which the girl violently hits the guy

Silvers reveals that in her own counseling practice, she continues to see abusive women: “They’ll come in and a couple will tell me a story about her hitting him. And I’ll look at them both and say, ‘You know, that’s not OK.’ And at times I’ve gotten this look from women, ‘That was OK, I get to do that!'”

“If we’re going to justify somebody hitting somebody else, that’s exactly what’s wrong in partner abuse,” Silvers concludes.

Links:

[i] Amy Winehouse beats up her husband when she’s drunk. Starpulse News Blog. June 12, 2007. http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/06/12/amy_winehouse_beats_up_her_husband_when_

[ii] Roberts C. Women who batter, proudly. Ifeminists.net October 5, 2007. http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.233

Categories
Domestic Violence Violence Against Women Act

Ernst Editorial Ignores Most Important Fact in VAWA Debate

4.2 million male victims, 3.5 million female victims:

Ernst Editorial Ignores Most Important Fact in VAWA Debate

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

April 20, 2021

According to the Centers for Disease Control, each year there are 4.2 million male victims of domestic violence, and 3.5 million female victims.[1]

This recent incident illustrates the problem:[2]

On April 3, Elizabeth Grace Johnson attacked her boyfriend, Draven Upchurch, in a dormitory room at Southeastern Louisiana University. The woman stabbed Upchurch eight times in the lungs, stomach, and colon. Johnson was arrested and charged with aggravated battery.

The 4.2 million and 3.5 million numbers should be at the forefront of discussions about the upcoming reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

For example, it’s time that we ask, Has the years-long debate been overly focused on female victims, to the detriment of female abusers? And what about male victims of abuse, are they any less deserving of help?

Over the years, senators have emphasized that VAWA services are intended to help both men and women:

  • Joe Biden: “Nothing in the act denies services, programs, funding or assistance to male victims of violence.”[3]
  • Orrin Hatch: “Men who have suffered these types of violent attacks are eligible under current law to apply for services and benefits that are funded under the original Act—and they will remain eligible under the Violence Against Women Act.”[4]

But Sen. Joni Ernst’s recent editorial in USA Today moves the debate in the opposite direction. Titled, “Democrats’ Violence Against Women Act Pressures Women to Negotiate with Abusers,”[5] the article is factually flawed, and is defiant and angry in tone.

Inexplicably, the article whitewashes the existence of male victims. Worse, the article stereotypes men as abusers through its misleading use of pronouns: “Under the Democrats’ bill, the victim would be responsible for publicly stating to her community whether her abuser should face consequences or not.” The article uses inflammatory language about a male “wife-beater,” ignoring the reality of female “husband-beaters.”

Such statements have real-world consequences. The most recent Biennial Report to Congress documents large gender disparities in the provision of victim services, with males representing only a tiny fraction of recipients of VAWA-funded services.[6]

As the VAWA bills come up for consideration, the Coalition to End Domestic Violence urges senators to avoid sexist stereotypes, and to engage in debate that is thoughtful, factual, and acknowledges the needs of men and women alike.

[1]https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf , Tables 9 and 11.

[2] https://nypost.com/2021/04/09/louisiana-college-student-allegedly-stabbed-her-date-in-dorm/

[3]http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/BidenOnGenderNeutralVAWA_HCN_06.02.05.pdf

[4] 146 Cong. Rec. S10,188, S10,193 (2000).

[5]https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/04/08/joni-ernst-violence-against-women-act-reauthorization-democrats-column/7124333002/

[6]https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/1292636/download

Categories
Domestic Violence Violence Against Women Act

Do We Really Want to Turn Every American into a ‘Victim’ of Domestic Violence?

Do We Really Want to Turn Every American into a ‘Victim’ of Domestic Violence?

‘When everything is domestic violence, nothing is.’

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

April 14, 2021

The House bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, HR 1620, features a sweeping expansion in the definition of domestic violence:

“(8) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. – The term ‘domestic violence means a pattern of behavior involving the use or attempted use of physical, sexual, verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse, or any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim.”

So ask yourself, Has your partner ever:

  1. Given you the “silent treatment”? (Psychological abuse)
  2. Called you a name like “stupid”? (Verbal abuse)
  3. Chided you for over-spending the checking account? (Economic abuse)
  4. Told you to do certain chores around the house, often referred to as a “honey-do” list? (Other coercive behavior)

This expansive definition would turn almost every American into a victim of “domestic violence.” And would define almost every American as a perpetrator of domestic violence, as well.

As University of Maryland law professor Leigh Goodmark warns, “I think actually the prosecutions of women would skyrocket.”

The Coalition to End Domestic Violence warns against the use of such a definition, which would dramatically dilute the services to victims of true violence, worsen the problem of false allegations, and create a basis for nearly endless demands for government services for such “victims.”

The Congressional Research Service has raised doubts about going in this direction, as well. These comments – see below — were focused on HR 1585, which was introduced in the previous session of Congress, and which proposed the same broad definition of domestic violence.

++++++++++++++++++++

DEFINING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Congressional Research Service

Lisa N. Sacco, Analyst in Illicit Drugs and Crime Policy

In 2018, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) changed the expansive domestic violence (DV) definition that appeared on its website to the more narrow statutory definition used for grant programs. There is some confusion as to the meaning and implication of OVW’s change. In the 116th Congress, legislation has been introduced that would amend the definition used in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant programs—the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 (H.R. 1585), if enacted, would amend and expand the definition of DV.

Federal Definitions of DV

The federal government defines DV in different ways and for different purposes. Under criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. §2261 defines a DV offender that falls under federal jurisdiction as:

[a] person who travels in interstate or foreign commerce or enters or leaves Indian country or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, and who, in the course of or as a result of such travel or presence, commits or attempts to commit a crime of violence against that spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner.

For VAWA grant purposes, VAWA states:

The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.

OVW administers VAWA grants, and the DV definition on OVW’s website matches the definition Congress established for grants. OVW previously (April 2018 and earlier) posted a more expansive definition that described DV as a “pattern of behavior” and included both economic and emotional abuse. Of note, changes to the OVW website definition have no impact on VAWA grantees. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 1585, if enacted, would amend the statutory definition used for grant programs to resemble the more expansive definition previously published by OVW. This change would impact future VAWA grantees.

Expanded Definition for VAWA Grant Programs under H.R. 1585

H.R. 1585 would define DV as:

a pattern of behavior involving the use or attempted use of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, economic, or technological abuse or any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim, by a person who—

(A) is a current or former spouse or dating partner of the victim, or other person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the family or domestic violence laws of the jurisdiction;

(B) is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or dating partner, or other person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the family or domestic violence laws of the jurisdiction;

(C) shares a child in common with the victim;

(D) is an adult family member of, or paid or nonpaid caregiver for, a victim aged 50 or older or an adult victim with disabilities; or

(E) commits acts against a youth or adult victim who is protected from those acts under the family or domestic violence laws of the jurisdiction.

The bill would describe DV as a pattern of abusive behavior, and extend the current definition beyond crimes of violence to include verbal, emotional, economic, and technological abuse (the bill also defines the latter two forms of abuse).

Potential Implications of an Expanded Definition

A more expansive definition of DV would generally expand the number of individuals who are eligible for support from VAWA grantees. A broader definition captures harmful behavior (such as financial abuse) that is not physical in nature but is another form of abuse common in relationships involving domestic violence. Victim advocates support this more inclusive definition.

On the other hand, some argue that a violent act is qualitatively different from other forms of abuse such as economic abuse, and legal definitions should reflect that distinction. In United States v. Castleman, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a misdemeanor offense of having “intentionally or knowingly cause[d] bodily injury to” the mother of the respondent’s child qualified as “a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” The opinion of the Court (delivered by Justice Sotomayor) included extensive discussion of defining and distinguishing between acts of physical force. The Court ruled that it must attribute “the common-law meaning of ‘force’ to [18 U.S.C.] §921(a)(33)(A)’s definition of a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ as an offense that ‘has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force.'” In a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia argued that “[w]hen everything is domestic violence, nothing is.” He further argued that if a DV definition were to include all harmful domestic acts, Congress would “have to come up with a new word … to denote actual domestic violence.”

Further, defining DV as “a pattern of behavior” seemingly excludes isolated DV incidents that do not involve a pattern of behavior. So while the goal may be to be more inclusive, the proposed definition could exclude isolated incidents of domestic violence that do not meet the “pattern of behavior” standard.

Congress may choose to expand the definition of DV for VAWA grants or maintain the current definition. Alternatively, it could separately define terms such as “economic abuse” and “technological abuse” and add them to the eligibility criteria for grant programs. The addition of these terms to grant programs’ purpose areas would achieve some advocates’ desired goal of expanding VAWA support for more victims, not solely those of violent physical acts.

Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11085#:~:text=The%20term%20%E2%80%9Cdomestic%20violence%E2%80%9D%20includes,spouse%20or%20intimate%20partner%2C%20by