One Massachusetts' Survivor of Abuse and Mother's Plea

PPOM NOTE: This is written by one mother who has come to us for help in her situation. Her situation unfortunately is NOT unique in the state of Massachusetts. Click here to read some of our investigation into the Massachusetts Family Court Crisis.

Below is one mother's plea for help. We are reposting this plea with permission of the author in hopes we can gain publicity and assistance for her as well as the other protective parents who lose custody in family court.  If you would like to share your story for consideration of publication, please submit your story here.


"I need your help.  I am writing to your organization because I have exhausted all my resources in Massachusetts and beyond.   

 This is my situation. I have three daughters, Alexandria aged 15, Shannon aged 12 and Kelly aged 9 who I love dearly. However, my ex-husband was granted custody, ex-parte, after he convinced me to lift a restraining order or else he would not pay child support for our daughters. I have not seen my children since August 3, 2011. My case started out as a domestic violence case in 2005 that included numerous police incidents including a restraining order for assault and battery and medical treatment. Pictures were also taken by the police department showing bruises on my face, arms and legs from the abuse. 

 I lost custody on a false ex-parte motion shortly after my abuser begged me to drop the restraining order as he was unable and in contempt for failing to pay child support. Two weeks before the ex-parte motion, a contempt motion was filed for failing to comply with his own granted visitation and child support. I was also seeking changes in visitation as a result.  I have been pretty much shut out of my children's lives since Sept 2007 as my abuser and father of my children has refused to comply with court ordered visitation and was recently found guilty on 96 Counts of contempt for failing to comply with visitation, but I was sanctioned for his contempt. 

My previous judge ADMITTED bias and recused himself in December 2009. He forwarded pending motions and contempts to the new judge (some filed in 2008 and unheard), but new judge took over a year (until Oct 2011) to address contempts especially in regards to the visitation interference. The court has allowed many things that right now I cannot post in fear of retaliation and in lieu of pending Appeal of my case. 

Bottom line.... There have been at least 5 attempts to terminate visitation based on unfounded ACCUSATIONS of mental illness and motions for mental health evaluation been denied 100% ONLY AFTER I filed for help from the court regarding the abuse and AFTER I filed for divorce and was granted full physical and shared legal custody in the divorce. 

Please explain to me, Massachusetts Survivors Outreach, how a protective mother goes from having a restraining order to being forced to lift it for financial reasons (documented), to never seeing your children again? 

My abuser has spent the last six years trying to obliterate any and all mother-daughter relationship between my daughters and me.  He made it crystal clear as testified in court in March 2009 that he wanted the children to forget I even existed.  He has testified that he has not complied with court orders and has no intention of complying with court orders. He has prevented me from seeing them, confiscated all gifts and letters I sent them and even placed a block on my telephone number so I could not speak to them for months.  This was verified by the phone company and documented through the police department.

My children and I cannot get back those formative years we have missed. The damage is already done and is irreversible. All I can hope for is to be given the chance to help my children through the healing and begin to rebuild a relationship we lost on that fateful day in September 2007.

In hindsight, I feel like the biggest mistake I made was I left my abuser, my children’s father because at least I would still be with them. I do not drink, use drugs and have never abused children.  I am a adjunct instructor at a local college, volunteer doing healing work, and have won awards for my volunteerism which is one thing I find very self healing to me.  

However, I am still heartbroken.  I can’t see my children grow up or see their faces on Christmas morning after Santa has left presents under the tree. I can’t be there on their first day of school or on their birthdays.  Mother /daughter times don’t exist for us, times taken for-granted by many.  I have missed ALL THEIR birthdays, first day of school, first dance, holidays, vacations, school volunteering since 2007. My youngest is 9. That means I have already missed out on HALF her life. Unfortunately the tender, formative years are gone forever and my children will grow up  not knowing their mother and have no memories of the mother/daughter bond created during childhood due to their father.

I have exhausted the judicial system as well as my personal and financial resources trying to reverse the damage done to my children, my family and myself.  I have lost everything to the point that I had to move in with my father so I would not be homeless, for basic survival, and so I can continue my fight.

I am reaching out to you because I don’t know what else to do, but I refuse to stop fighting for my girls until they are safe with me.

In-light of the recent documentary No Way Out by Garland Walker and Barry Nolan and the recent Fox LA news expose’ series on the Family Court victimization of countless children, I cannot and will not stop until justice is done!

All I want to do is hug my children, tell they I love them and after all these years have not stopped fighting for them. If you could help me or led me to someone who can, I would be forever grateful.

Thank you ... (mother's name confidential)"

________________________________________________________

For more information about the family court crisis in Massachusetts, please visit our website or visit our Resources Page.

Other resources: Center for Judicial Excellence and Battered Women's Justice Project

Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts

 Massachusetts Judicial Bias for Incarcerated Fathers

DISCLOSURE:  The victim statement above is the sole content of the authro and does not reflect the views or statements of Massachusetts Survivors Outreach or officers of Massachusetts Survivors Outreach. This plea was released with permission and consent.

Attack of the 50-Foot Feminist Agenda

PPOM Note:  Boston's Barry Nolan summarizes the under reported problematic issues surrounding domestic violence as well as  the lobbying and political efforts by groups being funded by abusers who agenda is to undermine the protections put in place for victims of abuse in Massachusetts. This is a must read article and the threats of protections to victims need to be taken seriously. These protections that threaten victims affect all of our children too.

Batterers have been gaining custody at a rate of 70-85% of the time in contested cases. The cost of society IGNORING abuse exceeds ONE TRILLION DOLLARS a year. It is time to stop ignoring the issues victims of abuse face every day and start becoming a part of the solution. Whether we realize it or not, by ignoring the problem directly impact our children, our families, our communities and our wallets.

Published by: Boston Magazine

Angry, radical men's groups believe males are being victimized by out-of-control judges and politicians. They're wrong and they're dangerous and they need to be stopped.

By Barry Nolan

September 2012 - Every Wednesday at noon, the Governor’s Council gathers at the Massachusetts State House. The eight-member council is an elected but little-known body that serves as the governor’s advisory board; oversees things such as pardons; and approves or rejects appointments for state judgeships. That means it has a lot of influence on how state laws wind up getting interpreted and carried out.

Amid the smattering of lobbyists and state officials at council meetings, there is always a member of the Fatherhood Coalition, a Massachusetts-based organization that was founded in 1993 to steer state laws in a direction more favorable to fathers. Sometimes it’s Joe Ureneck, the group’s chairman, who attends. He’s a small-business owner who, while going through a divorce, became concerned with the system’s “sexist bias.” Other times it’s Patrick McCabe, a soft-spoken part-time accountant from Hyde Park whose divorce left him similarly disturbed. McCabe, in fact, is running for a seat on the council this November.

Ureneck and McCabe aren’t exactly shy and retiring at the meetings. Along with the rest of the Fatherhood Coalition, they do their best to shut down judicial nominees they view as insufficiently sympathetic to their agenda. A nominee, for instance, like David Aptaker, who in 2010 was up for a position as a Middlesex probate judge. As a bit of background, one thing the Fatherhood Council is particularly concerned about is restraining orders, which it insists are used in a way that’s biased against men. In fact, the group has been pushing legislation to change the system. That’s why the coalition was alarmed by Aptaker’s nomination—according to a post on its website, Aptaker’s “lack of understanding of the restraining order laws made it clear he was not fit for the bench.” So after discovering that the nominee had failed to disclose donations he’d made to two disgraced politicians, the Fatherhood Coalition showed up at a public hearing, registering complaints that he couldn’t be trusted because of his donations. Under pressure, Aptaker eventually withdrew his application. “Whether you agree with them or not, their point of view has become the elephant in the room,” says Mary-Ellen Manning, a council member from Salem. Watertown’s Marilyn Petitto Devaney, who’s been on the council for 14 years, says the presence of the Fatherhood Coalition has “changed the way we do business here.”

Aptaker’s story underscores a disturbing trend: Men’s rights groups, convinced that men are the biggest victims of modern society, have been busy attacking, defunding, and repealing laws that have been very effective at protecting women and lowering rates of domestic violence. And rather than just ranting and raving on the Internet, these men have been pulling political levers to change both state and federal laws. That they’ve done so with remarkable success ought to make everyone very, very scared.

If your last memory of men’s groups is Robert Bly and the boys banging on drums in the woods, you likely have no idea how the movement has mutated. Today, men’s rights groups tend to be organized around the belief that this country has launched a “war on fatherhood.” To them, the rise of feminism resulted in the fall of man, with males now being relegated to the periphery of society. In their eyes, the media portray men as feckless buffoons, legislative bodies unfairly target them, and biased courts blindly punish guiltless husbands. (Full disclosure: I was a producer of the 2011 documentary No Way Out But One, which examined the family court system.)

Nationally, groups like Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) and A Voice for Men have helped slow the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act—which would provide $660 million in funding for shelters, legal aid, and other programs to protect battered women—by convincing conservative House Republicans that the law shouldn’t include immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT victims. SAVE claims the law is biased, noting in a fact sheet titled “Seven Key Facts About Domestic Violence” that “female initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent violence.” In other words: She was asking for it, officer.

Locally, the Fatherhood Coalition (which has seven active chapters and a few hundred members across the state) is joined by Fathers and Families, a “family court reform” advocacy group founded in 1998 that now has 50,000 e-mail newsletter subscribers. Fathers and Families claims to have the “largest membership base, the highest media profile, the most funding, and the most successful legislative representation of any family court reform organization.” It’s a bold claim—and quite accurate. In 2001, for example, the group won changes in Massachusetts law that lowered child support by 15 percent.

Then, last year, Fathers and Families and the Fatherhood Coalition achieved a major victory with the passage of the Alimony Reform Act of 2011, which removed the requirement that men pay alimony after retirement. The success of that bill allowed them to fine-tune their technique of advancing legislation: Get the governor to appoint a task force to examine the issue, secure a seat on the task force, influence the ultimate consensus, and then send it to the legislature.

Also last year, the men’s groups tried another approach to changing laws: submitting a ballot initiative. They had hoped to use that strategy to overturn 209A, a law that seeks to prevent domestic violence by allowing judges to grant emergency protective orders to men or women who have a reasonable fear of harm from another person, often a partner. That law is stacked against men, according to Ureneck, who also helms the Massachusetts Citizens for Immigration Reform, a conservative group advocating for tougher enforcement of immigration laws. “The fundamental idea behind 209A,” Ureneck tells me, “is that men are inherently batterers and women are fundamentally victims.” Ultimately, Attorney General Martha Coakley shut down the group’s attempts to overturn the law via ballot initiative because the state constitution doesn’t allow such initiatives to deal with the “powers of courts.”

Now, men’s rights groups are pushing another bill that would change court guidelines in custody proceedings, moving from the standard of doing what is in the best interest of the child to making shared custody the default. That sounds reasonable enough—good parents should certainly be able to play a meaningful role in their children’s lives after a divorce—but the proposed law has no provision for judges to determine whether one of the parents was violent in the relationship, which is a pretty glaring hole. And studies show that shared custody is one way that emotionally abusive spouses often seek to extend their control after a marital breakup.

In spite of that, men’s groups have convinced more than a quarter of Massachusetts House members to cosponsor the bill. In the face of that pressure, Governor Patrick in July appointed 18 people to the Working Group on Child-Centered Family Laws, which is examining current regulations and trying to come up with a consensus on future guidelines. Men’s rights groups, including the Fatherhood Coalition and Fathers and Families, managed to get three of their members in the group, but there are no representatives from mothers’ groups. (One member comes from a domestic violence organization, however, and another from the Women’s Bar Association.)

“They’re organized,” says a Beacon Hill insider. “They’re vocal, they can be vociferous…and they’ve capitalized on the success they had with the reform alimony laws.”

And men’s groups are having successes like this all over the country. Rita Smith of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence told the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report that such groups have “taken over the courts,” and that they have “been able to get custody evaluators, mediators, guardians ad litem, and child protective service workers to believe that women and children lie about abuse.”

Let’s be clear: There is no “war on men.” It’s true that the family courts should be better staffed, and better trained to sort out the truth, assess the risks, and ensure that kids are kept safe, happy, and healthy. And men’s groups certainly have every right to try to change the law. That’s how democracy works.

But that’s all the more reason that civil rights and women’s groups need to wake up and get involved, something they’ve been slow to do. When I spoke to Toni Troop of Jane Doe Inc., a Massachusetts sexual assault and domestic violence advocacy group, she assured me that “People see through their rhetoric and their repeated attempts to undermine safety for the real victims of domestic violence.” Really? Then why have they been so successful at changing the law? More women’s and mothers’ groups need to start attending these meetings and demanding a seat at the table.

They also need to remember how bad the past was. Back in 1993, before the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, then-Senator Joe Biden conducted a three-year investigation into the causes and effects of violence against women. Afterward, he issued a searing report that helped lead to the 1994 passage of the original bill. In that report, Biden wrote, “…violence against women reflects as much a failure of our nation’s collective moral imagination as it does the failure of our nation’s laws and regulations…it deserves our profound public outrage.” Nearly 20 years later, it’s time to get outraged again.

Source URL: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/2012/08/angry-men-feminist-agenda/

WENDY J. MURPHY: Deval Patrick’s deadly silence on domestic violence

M.A.S.O. Commentary
Great article by Wendy Murphy in the Patriot Ledger regarding "the REAL deal" in regards to abuse in the State of Massachusetts.  Many people who have NOT expereinced abuse have stated to us how unbelieveable in this day and age that "this stuff" still goes on. The hypocrisy MUST end.

We believe as the next wave of elections are upon us, we must look at the record of those in public positions of power their ACTIONS not words in regards to domestic abuse.  

Deval Patrick talks the talk but does NOT walk the walk despite the fact his wife is a survivor of abuse herself.  You would naturally think he would have an understanding of what happens to victims and ensure nothing like that would happen to his children or to the childen of the Commonwealth.

Below are excerpts from her article.  Please view the link below to read the whole article. PLEASE SPEAK OUT

Many of our own volunteers have attempted to arrange a meeting with Deval Patrick's Office to discuss this issue and with an answer of either "meet with aide" or "not available".  VERY SAD for Massachusetts. Don't our politicians have an obligation and fiduciary duty to uphold the US Constitution in protecting the citizens of Massachusetts from harm?

By Wendy J. Murphy

For The Patriot Ledger

Posted Aug 08, 2011 @ 01:17 PM

Last update Aug 08, 2011 @ 01:19 PM

 

"Patrick’s lack of concern for dead women is palpable. His own wife was a victim of domestic violence before he met her, yet until he became governor, he did nothing for the cause. To the contrary, he spent his time in Washington fighting for the rights of criminals...."

 

"...During Patrick’s administration, the rate of domestic violence murders skyrocketed – shaming him into making a big announcement in 2009 about his ideas for new policies and programs that would save women’s lives. No surprise things got worse after that because nothing he proposed was designed to ramp up justice for victims or the potential punishment of batterers...."

 

"...Yet people who claim to be victim advocates in this state don’t fight for justice and tough punishments. They ask the public to “speak out” about domestic violence and to call a battered women’s program when abuse happens...."

 

"...And because advocates have been co-opted with ideology-driven promises of trivial sums for their piddly “training and education” budgets, in exchange for silence about the failure of political leaders to give a damn, we can be assured of more dead bodies in the future."

Read more: http://www.patriotledger.com/archive/x181934571/WENDY-J-MURPHY-Deval-Patrick-s-deadly-silence-on-domestic-violence#ixzz1VaIUIN4k

 

Commentary: Controling & Obsessed People

It is sad that people who can't be satisfied with their own lives, have to resort to abuse, stalking, harassment, and malicious tactics. Prayers & healing being sent to all those very sad lives and healing to those they are trying so desperately to victimize or revictimize.

Happy we will be transitioning out of retrograde on August 26th. All these negative events thrown at you only makes one stronger and better equipped to stand tall and strong with your feet firmly planted on the ground.

One of our supporters sent us this quote:   
"Its not the events in our life that gives us the greatest lessons, but the journey along the way and how we overcome challenges we face that we receive our greatest gifts and life lessons. All you gotta do is listen to messages given." - Laura Bonetzky-Joseph

Remember our motto:  "Alone we are weak ... Together we are strong"

Jan. 30, 2011: Domestic Violece

POSTED: 11:14 am EST December 13, 2010
 
BOSTON -- When ignored, domestic violence can often lead to disaster. Statistics now are showing that TEEN domestic violence has risen to epidemic proportions. The R.O.S.E. Fund, a Wakefield non-profit, advocates that communities must address this issue as early as high school.

And Start Strong Boston uses the power of peer influence to their advantage, asking teen peer leaders to work with middle school students to prevent teen dating violence.Also, if you or a loved one needs help getting out of an abusive relationship, where do you turn? How do you stay safe and begin the process of filing a restraining order? The SAFEPLAN Program in Worcester provides courtroom advocacy for victims of domestic violence. And HarborCOV is an emergency support service provider for individuals and. If you or a loved one is a victim of domestic violence, please reach out to any of these organizations.The R.O.S.E. Fund: http://www.rosefund.org/

Start Strong: http://www.startstrongteens.org/communities/boston/
SAFEPLAN Program: http://mova.state.ma.us/what-we-do/mova-service-programs/safeplan/
Harbor COV: http://www.harborcov.org/

CityLine Segment 1 CityLine Segment 2 CityLine Segment 3
 

Copyright 2010 by TheBostonChannel.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/26116651/detail.html#ixzz1Sfh44JL4

BOSTON POLICE ARREST OFFICER FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Posted by MediaRelations on February 19, 2011 ·  

Today Boston Police arrested Boston Police Patrol Officer Dennis Morson after a domestic incident which occurred early this morning.

About 3:12 am on Saturday, February 19, 2011 Officers responded to a radio call for a domestic violence intimate partner at a residence on Intervale Street in Roxbury. Officers spoke to a female victim, who stated her husband assaulted her and damaged property. The officer observed injury to the victim and damage to both her apartment door and front common hallway door. The victim stated that her husband then left the apartment on foot.

The female victim declined medical treatment. The victim was advised of her 209A rights.

The victim’s husband is identified as Boston Police Patrol Officer Dennis Morson, 36 years of age, assigned to District B-2, appointed to the Department in May of 2004.

The Domestic Violence Unit along with the Internal Affairs Unit responded to the scene.

Detectives recovered cigarette rolling papers and a plastic bag with unknown residue from the top of a kitchen cabinet. In addition, detectives located and recovered Morson’s department issued firearm which was unsecured.

While officers were searching for Morson, he turned himself into District B2. Officers placed him under arrest and charged him with Assault and Battery (209A), Malicious Destruction of Property, Intimidation of a Witness and Failing to Secure a Large Capacity Firearm. Officer Morson has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of this ongoing investigation.

Morson is expected to be arraigned on Tuesday.

Police Commissioner Edward Davis stated, “These are troubling charges that will be fully investigated. The Boston Police Department continues to ensure our integrity and credibility by taking all alleged matters of officer misconduct seriously.”

For more information, please visit The Boston Police Department's Website

Domestic Violence Facts: MASSACHUSETTS

By: NCADV
 www.ncadv.org/files/Massachusetts.pdf

• One in every four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime.1 One in 33 men have experienced an attempted or completed rape.2
• An estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner each year.3
• The majority (73%) of family violence victims are female. Females were 84% of spousal abuse victims and 86% of abuse victims at the hands of a boyfriend.4
• The cost of intimate partner violence exceeds $5.8 billion each year, $4.1 billion of which is for direct medical and mental health services.5
• Boys who witness domestic violence are twice as likely to abuse their own partners and children when they become adults.6
• More than 33,000 women and children were served by community-based domestic violence programs in Massachusetts in 2005.7
• The statewide domestic violence hotline, SafeLink, answered 21,637 domestic violence calls in 2006.7 
• There were 28 victims killed in domestic violence related incidents and 24 incidents of domestic
  violence related homicide in 2006.7
• There were fifteen victims of domestic homicide in only the first half of 2006, which was equal to the total killed in 2005.
• There were 28,760 protection orders issued in Massachusetts in 2005.7
• 82% of the perpetrators were male.7
• During this same period, 4,347 adults (88% of whom were male) were arraigned for violating orders for protection.7
• There were 2,582 incidents of sexual assault in Massachusetts between July 1, 2005 and June 30,
  2006.8
• 1,742 of these cases were forcible rape.9

 RESOURCES:
1 Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. National Institute of Justice and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. National Institute of Justice and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention
2 U.S. Department of Justice. (November 1998). Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women.
3Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: National Centers for Injury Prevention and Control.
4 Bureau of Justice Statistics. (June, 2005). Family Violence Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice.
5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: National Centers for Injury Prevention and Control.
6 Strauss, Gelles, & Smith. (1990). Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. Transaction Publishers.
7Jane Doe Inc. (2007). DVAM 2006 Statistics– Massachusetts. Boston, MA: The Massachusetts Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
8 Center for Family and Community Health. (January 2007). Rape and Sexual Assault in Massachusetts, 2005-2006: Services Provided by Rape Crisis Programs. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Division of Violence and Injury Prevention. Retrieved on October 19, 2007, from http://www.mass.gov/dph/fch/violnece/January2007
9Massachusetts Law Enforcement Agency. (2007). Uniform Crime Report, 2006. Boston, MA. Retrieved on October 19, 2007, from http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/macrime.html
10The Family Violence Prevention Fund. (May 2005). The Facts on Children and Domestic Violence. Retrieved on October 23, 2007, from http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/Children.pdf

How Massachusetts Family Court's Are SUPPOSED Handle Domestic Abuse

By: Community Legal Services and Counseling Center

How Do Probate Courts Handle Custody of Children When There Has Been Domestic Violence?

In making custody decisions, Probate Courts must consider the effects of domestic violence.

Chapter 179 of the Acts of 1998 tells Probate Courts how to consider the effects of domestic violence in custody cases.  In issuing any temporary or permanent custody order, the Probate Court must consider past or present abuse toward a parent or child as a factor that is against the child's best interests.

The law applies to abuse involving certain acts between a parent and the other parent or between a parent and child.

Abuse is defined as
• attempting to cause or causing bodily injury or
• placing another in reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury.

The law tells Probate Courts how to make custody decisions where there has been a pattern of abuse or a serious incident of abuse. A "serious incident of abuse" means
• attempting to cause or causing serious bodily injury;• placing another in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or
• causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat or duress.

"Bodily injury" is defined as substantial impairment of your physical condition, including, among other things, fractures, burns, internal injuries, or repeated harm to any bodily function or organ, including the skin.

If the Probate Court finds or decides that most of the evidence shows that a pattern or serious incident of abuse has occurred, then there is a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the best interests of the child to be placed in sole legal or physical custody, shared legal custody, or shared physical custody with the abusive parent.

This "presumption" means that if the court decides that a pattern or serious incident of abuse has occurred, then the court must assume that it is not in the best interests of the child to be placed in the custody of the abusive parent. "Rebuttable" means the "abusive parent" has the right to try to rebut or cancel the presumption. The "abusive parent" can rebut the presumption and get custody only if he/she can prove that most of the evidence shows that an award of custody to him/ her is in the best interests of the child, even though he/she has perpetrated a patterns or serious incident of abuse.

The term an abusive parent means a parent who has committed a pattern of abuse or a serious incident of abuse to the other parent or the child.

Under this law the issuance of a restraining order under chapter 209A does not by itself constitute a pattern of serious incident of abuse.

The law also says that if the court finds that a pattern or serious incident of abuse has occurred and issues a temporary or permanent custody order, then the court must, within 90 days, issue written findings about the effects of the abuse on the child and demonstrate that the custody order is in thechild's best interests and that it provides for the safety and well-being of the child.

If you think that this law applies to you, it is important to speak to a lawyer.

Even if the provisions of Chapter 179 do not apply to your case, the 1996 Custody of Vaughn decision of Massachusetts' highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), may provide important protections for your child.

In Custody of Vaughn, the SJC said that in custody and visitation cases involving domestic violence, Probate Court judges must make detailed written decisions about domestic violence and its effect on the children and on the perpetrator's parenting ability. The SJC also said that witnessing domestic violence has a profound impact on children and that judges must consider the risks to children when awarding custody to a parent who has committed acts of violence toward the other parent.

How Does the Probate Court Handle Visitation When There Has Been Domestic Violence?

The 1998 custody law requires that if ordering visitation for the abusive parent, the Probate Court must provide for the safety and well-being of the child and the safety of the abused parent.

Under the law court may consider:
1. ordering an exchange of the child to occur in a protected setting or in the presence of an appropriate third party;
2. ordering visitation supervised by an appropriate third party, visitation center, or agency;
3. ordering the abusive parent to attend and complete to
the satisfaction of the court, a certified batterer's treatment program as a condition of visitation;
4. ordering the abusive parent to abstain from possession or consumption of alcohol or controlled substances
during the visitation and for 24 hours preceding visitation;
5. ordering the abusive parent to pay the costs of supervised visitation;
6. prohibiting overnight visitation;
7. requiring a bond from the abusive parent for the return and safety of the child;
8. ordering an investigation or appointment of a guardian ad litem or attorney for the child;
9. imposing any other condition that is deemed necessary to provide for the safety and well-being of the child, and the safety of the abused parent.

Probate Courts can also order that there be no visitation.

WAYLAND: Murder suspect of the death of Lauren Astley has violent history

Updated: Wednesday, 13 Jul 2011, 7:01 AM EDT
Published : Wednesday, 13 Jul 2011, 6:59 AM EDT

WAYLAND (FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) - Prosecutors say a Wayland teenager accused of killing his high school sweetheart has a history of violent outbursts.

Nate Fujita, 18, is charged with the brutal murder of Lauren Astley.

The district attorney's office says the incidents took place within the last few years, but they won't say if any specific incidents were directed at the victim.

In the meantime, parents came together Tuesday night at Wayland High School to find ways to help their children cope with the shocking crime.

Parents sat down with a psychologist to figure out how to talk to their teenagers about the topic.

"I think basically we wanted to focus on what we can do for the kids," said Bob Graham, who is a parent. "And that's great, but I think the larger issue is the kids are a product of us, and we need to start examining us and find out what it is that we as adults and we as a society are doing wrong."

A public memorial service for Astley will be held Saturday morning at the First Parish Unitarian Universalist Church in Wayland.

Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/crime_files/crime_watch/da-wayland-murder-suspect-has-violent-history-20110713#ixzz1S0EHiopn

DA: Wayland murder suspect Nate Fujita has violent history: MyFoxBOSTON.com

More:

Father of murdered Wayland teen coping with loss

Making Sense Of the Tradegy: How To Talk To Your Kids

Ex-Boyfriend held without bail in slaying of Wayland teen

Risk Factors Predict Repeat Abuse

When child abuse has been substantiated, a number of risk factors can predict the likelihood that abuse will be repeated if the child is returned to the care of the abuser, according to a prospective cohort study.

Please visit our sister blog on this topic for full story:  http://domestic-abuse-violence.blogspot.com/2011/07/risk-factors-predict-repeat-abuse.html

Judge: Father poses 'mortal danger' to boy, 7

July 6, 2011
By Julie Manganis Staff writer

PEABODY — A Lynn father who managed to regain custody of his young son last year after breaking the boy's jaw, only to face new charges after an alleged assault last month, poses a "mortal danger" to the child, a judge said yesterday. 

George Fabrizio, 33, will remain in jail as he awaits trial on charges of assault and battery on a child with serious bodily injury, Peabody District Court Judge Matthew Nestor ruled yesterday. 

Police allege that on June 27, during a visit to a friend's Peabody home, Fabrizio slapped his son hard enough to knock the 7-year-old's head against the corner of a cabinet, leaving a deep gash. Fabrizio allegedly refused to take the boy to the hospital and threatened that if anyone else called police, he would simply blame two other young children in the apartment. 

The judge also expressed a lack of confidence in the ability of the Department of Children and Families to keep the child safe, suggesting, "What if DCF decides tomorrow to return the child to him?" 

The comments came at the end of a hearing where a Peabody woman and her daughter-in-law both testified that they have had grave concerns about the safety of the child almost from the boy's birth, but said that numerous calls to the DCF led to little or nothing being done.

The two women testified about past incidents of abuse that they saw over the course of the boy's life.

Then, in 2009, after a dentist discovered that the child's jaw had been broken (and a later X-ray found an old skull fracture), the child was sent to live with relatives, an aunt and an uncle, for a year, police learned. 

Fabrizio later admitted to sufficient facts in the case and received a year of probation. 

Carol Schacht, whose son is a longtime friend of Fabrizio, said DCF tried to keep the boy with those relatives, but a Lynn Juvenile Court judge returned custody to Fabrizio. 

Schacht testified that she saw the boy once or twice a week and that he "wasn't getting fed." 

During Thanksgiving dinner last year, she said, Fabrizio made the child sit on a porch outside while her family and Fabrizio ate. She said she and others were afraid to intervene out of concern that he would take it out on the boy later. 

"We were trying to sneak food out to him," Schacht testified. 

During a birthday party the weekend before the most recent assault, Schacht testified that Fabrizio slapped a hotdog out of the boy's hand and made him spit out the bite he had taken. 

"(The boy) started crying," Schacht said. "We tried to console him, and then George told him, 'We've got to go.'"

Her daughter-in-law also told the judge that Fabrizio barely fed the child, who subsisted on cereal, ramen noodles and, sometimes, pizza. When Fabrizio had a woman visiting him at his apartment, in a Lynn public housing complex, he would lock the boy outside, she said. 

Schacht said that after the most recent incident — during which Fabrizio had to pull the boy's head off the cabinet because it got stuck — she decided to call police. 

Prosecutor Jane Prince, who questioned how Fabrizio could still have custody of the child after the prior abuse, argued that other than locking Fabrizio up, there was no way to protect the boy.

"He needs this court's protection," Prince told the judge. "He's suffered a lifetime of abuse. He's asked for help on multiple occasions, and the commonwealth has failed (him)." 

Defense lawyer Christopher Norris acknowledged that his client poses a danger to the child, but suggested the judge could "neutralize" the risk by ordering no contact between the two. 

But the judge shared the concerns of the prosecutor, questioning whether a court order, or even an electronic monitoring system, could adequately protect the child. He granted Prince's motion to hold Fabrizio without bail pending trial. 

Fabrizio, who receives Social Security Disability Income for an unspecified disability, lives in a public housing complex on Curwin Circle in Lynn, an apartment he could lose if he no longer has custody of the boy. The boy also receives SSDI benefits, Schacht said. 

Courts reporter Julie Manganis may be reached at 978-338-2521 or at jmanganis@salemnews.com.

For More On This Article, Please go To Salemnews.com

Massachusetts Protective Parents Survey

You are invited to participate in a study of "protective parents," that is, parents who have encountered difficulties in child custody cases after attempting to protect their children from abuse.

There is evidence of an increase in negative labeling of parents who report child abuse or domestic violence.  Several high profile cases have led to increased public attention to this problem, and debates have erupted between groups supporting alleged perpetrators of abuse, and groups supporting the reporting parents.

This questionnaire is part of a national survey by M.A.S.S.O.  The goal of the study is to document and explore the phenomenon of parents attempting to protect their children.  The survey includes a range of allegations; a variety of types of expert examinations, diagnoses and testimony;  responses by family court and other agencies; and outcomes for the children.

Your participation will help make this study a success.  Your participation is completely voluntary, and you may choose to complete the questionnaire either anonymously or on a confidential basis.  If you wish to remain anonymous, please exclude all personal information at the top of the survey.

If you are willing to include personal identifying information, this information will remain confidential, in a locked file, accessible only to the directors of the study. You may indicate at the end of the questionnaire if you are willing to be contacted to provide further information or clarification, or be included in the next phase of the study that will include a more detailed review of selected cases.  You will not be contacted unless you
give permission, and then only by the investigators of the study, as the information you provide will be held in the strictest confidence.

This questionnaire asks detailed questions about your custody case. The answers to all questions are voluntary and you may discontinue completion of the questionnaire if you find recalling the information to be too emotionally distressing.  If you wish to discuss feelings that may arise during completion of the survey with a support person, you may contact us through Facebook.

Thank you for your assistance in this important study.
Please visit Facebook to complete the study or click here to take it directly. Please have your court information such as docket number handy.  Thank you.

Are Massachusetts Employees Moonlighting as Family Court Paid Liasons or Employees?

When you are forced to get a court appointed supervisor, which is a common instrument used in Family Courts, do you know if you have a supervisor that is potentially moonlighting? Some judges including Judge James Menno employ the use of Court Appointed Supervisors in a legal attempt to keep the victim of abuse from talking about the abuse. The use of supervisors to punish the victim, is a form of domestic violence by proxy.. 


Court appointed supervision was originally created to protect children from parents who were dangerous, abusive, violent, drug addicts, or alcoholics. However, what has transpired in the State of Massachusetts is astonishing.  

Mothers who claim to be victims of abuse under Judge Menno of the Plymouth Brockton Family Court in Massachusetts are punished and scrutinized. The majority are ordered supervised visitation. However, an accurate recording of this is not quite possible due to Judge Menno methods in his ruling by avoiding public accountability.


Besides the abuse of discretion and discriminatory facts of Judge Menno's actions, another concern arises. Many who are given the job of Court appoint supervisor are existing state employees.  Does this arise as a lawful or unlawful act of moonlighting? ALL supervisors that have been uncovered so far have been paid CASH under the table with NO receipts or documentation outside court order of what has taken place. Some work for the Department of Children and families while others work for the Dept of Health


According to USLegal.com the definition of moonlighting states:

In federal government employment, employment essentially includes any compensated non-federal employment or business relationship for providing personal services. Compensation may be direct, indirect, or deferred (actual and necessary expenses not included). Different federal agencies have their own policies, so the outside employment policy of the particular agency needs to be consulted to determine applicable requirements.

Outside employment regulation also depends on the classification of the employee. For example, special government employees (SGEs) generally don't have to obtain prior approval. An SGE is appointed to perform temporary duties on a full-time or intermittent basis, with or without compensation, for no more than 130 days of any period of 365 consecutive days. Full-time, non-career presidential appointees (generally presidential appointees with Senate confirmation) may not receive any outside earned income for outside employment. E.O. No. 12674. Full-time, non-career SES employees may not:

Have outside earned income exceeding 15% of the annual basic salary for level II of the Executive Schedule; orReceive compensation for:

1. providing professional services (e.g., legal) or allowing their name to be used by an entity providing such services;
2. serving as an officer or board member of any association, corporation, or other entity; or
3. teaching, without the prior approval

Members of a Uniformed Service (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, etc.) on active duty may not receive pay from another government position, except during terminal leave, or unless specifically authorized by law. Enlisted personnel may be employed part-time during off-duty hours in Department of Defense non-appropriated fund activities. Members of the Armed Forces Reserves and members of the National Guard may receive military pay and allowances in addition to pay from another Government position.
Federal civilian retirees will have their salary reduced by the amount of their annuity unless an exception is approved; and retirees under age 70 may have their social security check reduced if their annual earnings exceed the established limit. Most retirees under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) will have their hourly pay reduced by the hourly rate of the annuity when reemployed by the federal government.

Generally, federal employees, civilian and military, are prohibited from receiving pay from more than one federal government source. This prohibition applies to agencies in the executive, legislative and judicial branches, corporations owned or controlled by the government, and non-appropriated fund organizations under the jurisdiction of the armed force. However, there are exceptions, such as agency approval, U.S. Postal Service employment, and emergency services relating to health, safety, protection of life or property, or national emergency.

The most fundamental ethics-related rule of governmental service is that the employee's focus in taking any governmental action is doing what is best for the public. This is known as the "public trust." This means that if the outside employment could affect the employee's financial interests, they should not take official action, even if they know that their intentions are good and noble.

Some of the prohibitions typically applicable to federal employment include:
1) DON'T REPRESENT OTHERS BEFORE FEDERAL OFFICIALS, OR ACCEPT COMPENSATION DIRECTLY RELATED TO REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY OTHERS TO FEDERAL OFFICIALS.
This would include:

• Acting as agent or attorney for prosecuting a claim against the United States, or receiving a gratuity, share, or interest in such claim in consideration for assistance in prosecuting the claim.
• Advocating, irrespective of compensation, the interests of your outside employer, your private corporation, or outside clients, to or before any Federal official, whether in person, by phone, or in writing.
• Being compensated for work you do in support of another's representations before any official of the Federal government.
• Lobbying a federal agency for your outside employer.
• Submitting, under your signature, a grant or loan application on behalf of your family corporation.

2) DON'T USE NONPUBLIC INFORMATION, GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, OR OFFICIAL TIME IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT.
3) DON'T USE NONPUBLIC INFORMATION, GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, OR OFFICIAL TIME IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT.
4) DON'T SERVE AS AN EXPERT WITNESS OTHER THAN ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES

Our question to you. When will our children stop being used and sold as a commodity in the family court system? 

Parents Speak Out About Massachusetts Family Court Injustice in Brockton/Plymouth Court

Here is a link with an ongoing discussion about Judge Menno in Plymouth - Brockton Family Court in Massachusetts. Victims of abuse are crying out to the State of Massachusetts, Advocacy Groups, Judicial Oversight Committees, Legal Help, Parents, whoever it may be who can help these children who are drastically devastated by the improprieties of one judge.


Here are some excerpts from Topix: 

From Sandwich, Ma - "I am desperately concerned about my children and Judge Menno. I have met 6 other women who have the same judge with similar stories....I do not know what else to do, and I feel I have done everything to try to protect my children and that is not good enough and the court does not care what I have done to help my children just grasping at straws to get dirt on me as a bad mother."

From Framingham, Ma - "pls help me end my 11yrs of homelessness by watching my video on youtube search corporate blacklisted mechanical engineer and pls tell your friends
thanks"

From Abington, Ma - "AM VR INTERSTED IN CONNECTING WITH SOMEONE, THIS IS AMAZING..6 YRS LATER, WITH MORE THAN ANYONE SHOULD HAVE TO BEAR, WITH 2 KIDS"

From Fall River, Ma - "Judge Menno has a warped sense of who he is and what his responsibilities are. More than likely he had a disturbing relationship with his mother and sisters. Any man who can't be objective when there are children involved seriously is not a real man. I can't believe this man hasn't been thrown off the bench. He has caused so much suffering. And he has no concsience. He is a best friend to any man who is getting a divorce. Clearly no woman stands a chance of getting a fair deal from this woman hater"

From Abington, Ma - "Hi my sister's going through the same thing with her x-husband. He molested son and daughter and judge menno is doing nothing about it. Actually, he's granting sleepover's so that the father can do it again. How can you get rid of a judge?"

From Plymouth, Ma - "I am going through the exact same thing I have two children, judge menno has declared sleepovers and my son has been suicidal since the visits have been granted,...Judge menno doesn't care he told me to tell my 8 year old boy that if he doesn't do what judge menno wants then he will end up living with the father. Judge menno is a child abuser then! this is a form of child abuse. We need to do something. I have been threatened by him twice and he is waiting to take my son away unless i force him to sleep over a rapists. My son watched his sister get raped with a pen then she watched him get raped.
is anyone interested in starting a group to fight this jerk?"

From Plymouth, Ma - "The man has several contempt charges against him! Not once has Menno stuck to his own orders!!! Well, the person who hired the lawyer and Menno are all in this political game together!!!"

From Dedham, Ma - "This judge awarded custody of my daughters children to her husband. She went to court a couple of days ago and her attorney told her later that afternoon that the judge had awarded custody to him. He is not a bad guy. She had to call the police on him the night after they arrived home from their honeymoon and he has a vicious temper."

Massachusetts Judicial Bias for Incarcerated Fathers to aid in gaining custody?

Below is the Press Release from the State of Massachusetts (see link) regarding Judge Menno's involvement as a key note speaker for this program.

Press Release - June 27, 2007
Office of the Commissioner of Probation

More than 1,600 Offenders Have Become Better Fathers
Thanks to Probation's Fatherhood Program

 EXCERPTS 
See link for complete article

Shawn Suarez Sr., a 32-year-old father of a pre-teen son, never knew his father. Suarez, however, wanted to make sure that his son grew up knowing him.

After being released from prison, he fought for and gained custody of his child. Suarez, who was later placed on probation for subsequent charges, was ordered to attend Probation's 12-week Fatherhood Program at Springfield District Court.

Suarez said he found something at the program that he had not found in any of the many programs he was ordered to attend by the courts or while in prison.

"This program was not like any of the AA's or NA's or like anything I have ever attended. In this program, I felt like I could be myself, like I don't have to tell them what they want to hear," Suarez said. "The biggest thing that I learned is how important it is to my son for me to be in his life. You mostly hear about how important mothers are."

Suarez is one of more than 100 probationers across the state who have graduated from one of Probation's 12 Fatherhood Programs over the past year. Chief Probation Officer Thomas Mitchell and Deputy Commissioner Steve Bocko created the Fatherhood Program in 1994 when Mitchell noticed that many of the men who came before the court had one commonality.

"An overwhelming majority had little or no contact with their own fathers," Mitchell said.

"In Plymouth County, Brockton District Court runs a Fatherhood Program, which was established in 2000. The court held its graduation on June 13th at the court. Plymouth County Probate & Family Court Judge James V. Menno was the keynote speaker. A total of 132 fathers have gone through the program."


"The Fatherhood Program was something that was definitely needed. Kids, fathers, and families benefit even to this day."

Researchers Say Massachusetts Family Courts Fail to Protect Battered Women and Their Children

For immediate release: May 27, 2004 
Boston, MA- Taking a novel approach to the analysis of child custody awards in cases where domestic violence is involved, researchers at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have documented what they argue is a recurring pattern of potential human rights violations by the state and a failure to protect battered women and their children.

Examining litigation in Massachusetts family courts involving a sample of battered women, the researchers found that the courts consistently dismissed or minimized the relevance of the male partners' abuse in awarding custody of children to such men.

The researchers cited numerous human rights treaties and conventions meant to protect women and children from violence including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. They argue that a human rights framework is an important tool for pressing the need for legal, social and political reform to address domestic violence and to protect women and children, the most common victims of such violence.

The analysis was performed by Jay Silverman, PhD, assistant professor of Society, Human Development and Health at HSPH, and colleagues and appears in the June issue of the American Journal of Public Health www.ajph.org. Silverman is co-author of the book, The Batterer as Parent (Sage Publications, 2002).

Intimate partner violence and child abuse are increasingly recognized as major public health concerns in both the United States and around the world. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, one fourth of women in the United States are reported to be affected by intimate partner violence. In U.S. studies, male partners have been found responsible for one third of all homicides of women and half of all homicides of children.

Although there is increasing recognition of the great threat to children posed by men who perpetrate domestic violence, many family courts view such concerns as either irrelevant or a tactic to be ignored in cases of divorce, said Silverman. This failure directly leads to courts placing children in harm's way.

The researchers interviewed 39 women representing 10 of the 12 Massachusetts family court districts.The women were participants in the Battered Mothers' Testimony Project which drew women through social service agencies and legal providers serving battered women. The women all had experienced violence from an intimate male partner with whom they'd had children and had engaged in child custody litigation with the abusive ex-partner. As this study was an attempt to document human rights violations based on historic concerns regarding these processes from battered women and family violence experts throughout the country, women were also selected based on expressed dissatisfaction with the family court process. All possessed some kind of documentation of domestic violence (eg. police reports, witness affidavits, restraining orders, child protective service reports). None of the cases involved women's abuse of male partners nor were there cases involving substantiated child abuse by the mothers.

Several themes emerged that corresponded to a consistent pattern of potential human rights violations by the Massachusetts family courts. According to the researchers, these included:

1) granting physical custody of children to men who had used violence against the mothers or both the mothers and their children

2) granting unsupervised visitation of children to men who had used such violence

3) failing to accept or consider documentation of domestic violence as relevant evidence in child custody determinations

4) failure to investigate allegations or consider documentation of child abuse


In light of international human rights declarations and treaties, wrote the researchers, the state family courts likely failed to sufficiently consider the "right to due diligence" as described in the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women; the "best interests of the child" as described in the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the right to "bodily integrity," a fundamental human right enshrined in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the "right to equal protection" under the law described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"Battered mothers face a perilous irony," said Silverman. "Authorities push these women to leave abusive men in order to protect their children. But women who can make this break then face family courts, another authority, that often ignores this history of abuse as a threat to children's safety and, perversely, concludes that women's attempts to protect their children from these men actually demonstrate their own lack of fitness as mothers."

"Although our laws increasingly urge courts to make domestic violence a primary consideration in deciding child custody, implementation of these laws is inconsistent at best, and will likely remain so, without strong oversight," said Silverman. "Placing a human rights framework on child custody decisions involving domestic violence clarifies the critical need to reform the system in order to protect the rights and lives of battered women and their children."

"This is an issue everywhere in the country," he added, "and this same project is being conducted in several other states.  This report is but one of many continuing attempts by organizations nationwide to make the voices of these women and their children heard."

Major support for this study was provided by The Ford Foundation.

For further information contact:
Robin Herman
Director of Communications
Harvard School of Public Health
617-432-4752
rherman@hsph.harvard.edu
Link to article

High Conflict Divorce or Stalking by Way of Family Court? The Empowerment of a Wealthy Abuser in Family Court Litigation: Linda v. Lyle - A Case Study

T. J. Sutherland, R.N., B.S.N., P.H.N., J.D.

Published: 2004

 

Sutherland, T.J. (2004). High Conflict Divorce or Stalking by Way of Family Court? The Empowerment of a Wealthy Abuser in Family Court Litigation: Linda v. Lyle - A Case Study. Massachusetts Family Law Journal, 22(1&2) 4-16.

Introduction

Virtually all coverage of high-conflict divorce assumes both parents are the source of the conflict.^[1] Blame is assigned solely and equally to the parents in essentially all cases without much analysis. However, if one party is abusive and sufficiently wealthy to fund on-going litigation, the Domestic Court may be ideally suited to the spurned mate's agenda.^[2] The systematic assertion of 'dominion and control' via Family Court litigation would superficially mimic a high-conflict divorce because there would be ongoing litigation.^{[3] [4]} The interpretation is consistently that the parties cannot get along and they are using their children as pawns.^[5] A closer look shows high conflict divorce has features common to both domestic abuse relationships and the stalking behavior displayed by abandoned abusers.^[6] This fascinating case study illustrates how power is transferred from the abusive mate to the professionals, who are, apparently, also at risk to lose control.

This article will look at the possibility that some or all high-conflict divorces are actually the manifestation of stalking behaviors by wealthy domestic abusers. Part I will compare and contrast the research on batterers and stalkers to the literature on high-conflict divorce. In Part II, an actual high-conflict case will be described. While it is understood that "the plural of anecdote is not data,"^[7] the purpose of this short narrative is only to show that Family Court lends itself to use as a forum for post separation stalking. Part III will explore the lack of consumer protection. Part IV will offer a modest proposal that may discourage protracted Family Court litigation and call for studies that apply stalking and battering dynamics to high-conflict divorce so stalking by way of Family Court can be quantified and illuminated.

Go to Website for Complete Article....