Mother’s Rights
Have your own psycho ex? Get a FREE Report on "Why Co-Parenting Doesn't Work", or learn how to win child custody with a custody coach.
A Mother is driving along with her 4 year old daughter in the back seat of the car, the child’s father comes up from behind, ramming his car into the mother’s rear bumper until she finally stops the car. The father gets out of the car, runs to the mother’s car and takes the daughter, running into the woods.
What does the father get charged with?
Domestic Violence, kidnapping, endangering the welfare of a child, and interfering with custody. Read on below…
This is a trick question. See, the above story actually happened, except it was the Mother ramming the car and then abducting the child. And do you know what she got charged with? Endangering a child for HAVING HER OUTSIDE WITHOUT A COAT ON. You can read the full story on how mother’s can get away with domestic violence, kidnapping children, and interfering with custody, with no consequences, while a father would be sent to jail.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Mr. M, you will hate me, but again, I will say that the media purposely gets onto these cases. There are plenty of cases where moms have had custody taken away(I know of many) and the justice system is warped, even for moms.
I have not experienced the bias towards mothers that I hear is so rampant in the justice system. Perhaps it is just in my county, but it hasn’t happened.
I understand how angry it makes you when you hear about deadbeat dads, and I’m sure you can understand how stuff like this makes me angry as well.
Again, I have to comment, because I personally know of moms who HAVE had custody taken away when they try to keep their kids away from their abusive ex’s. And, because my experience has been just the opposite.
My EX abused my little girl. He also threw her against the wall. She called 911, and me. I called 911 for her, there was nothing they could do as I wasn’t there you know. She was screaming and crying in the phone and I could hear him cursing and threatening her. It was terrifying. She called my friend who kept her on the line until the cops arrived, while her husband called 911. The cops decide that now, they can go out. They called me to come out.
Police go in, interview dd. Find no visible marks. Inteview the other terrified kids and conclude that EX H threw her to protect himself. WHAT? He’s 6 foot 200 pounds and she was 8. They conclude that she is lying and that she needs psychological help. They then return her to father to finish her visit.
Another situation, ex and sister began to push her around pull on her and she told them to stop. They refused and became more threatening, she called 911 and they ripped the phone out of the wall. Seriously. The cops came out, and the adults were “hiding” from the police to teach my daughter a lesson. The police assured them it was safe to come out, they did. As an officer, wouldn’t this tip you off that something isn’t right? Adults hiding from police? Hiding to teach a child a lesson? Police leave. When they leave, ex and his sister decide to teach dd a bigger and better lesson. They get in the car and tell her they are going to play a game. They’ll drop her off somewhere and she can find her way home to me since she’s so miserable at their home. DD is blind, so she tries to call 911 for help without them knowing. They find the cell phone and hang up. The call goes thru anyway and I get a call from the 911 people that we have a hostage situation, they are tracking my child thru the GPS on her phone and I should stay inside. I look outside my apartment, and see cop cars trailing my ex. They stop him, drag him out of the car, and then I see his lawyer show up. The scene lasts for a while and I get a call from 911 that the police are at my door with dd. I open the door and the officer is clearly upset. She tells me that if anything happens again for unsubstantiated emergencies, and domestic disputes are not emergencies, I will be charged. Also, she tells me that the cell phone is to blame here, and says that my daughter needs counseling.
He was never charged with anything….and I had to pick up the rest of the kids after the visit just like usual…..
These are just 2 of many real experiences. Truly, and I ask myself too, if there is such a bias towards mothers and against fathers, then why does this happen?
Anyway, thanks for letting me comment on this. I truly feel that the system is biased towards “the crazies” and not to the sane, rational parent, whether it be mother or father.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Ok, I just read the article.
But, just from the info mentioned in the article, it would seem to me that there is more going on here than the paper mentioned or that the cops have a standing history with this couple.
The logical thing I could thing of–perhaps they were at a drop off, he refused to give the kids to her, threatened them, etc. She called the cops, they said they couldn’t interfere as it was a civil court violation and that there was nothing they could do.
I have to admit Mr. M., I think if poopstain were refusing to return my kids and his car was in front of me, I’d do the same too.
Ok, so the cops get there, she tells them what happened, perhaps the guy has a history of physical abuse, drug abuse, etc.
The bottom line is that there are a lot of questions left unanswered in the article. I don’t think that it can be used in an argument about “mother’s rights” until those questions are answered.
My ex and my uncle work for the media and I know how these things can get twisted again for ratings, and also how they’ll just put in “filler” and omit a lot of facts to fit space available. This was a very poorly done article.
Sorry to disagree:(
January 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
See, you shouldn’t have to think “logical” in this case and come up with a backstory for why the mother did this. This is another issue with the media, when a mother or woman commits domestic violence they begin the story with, well the husband cheated on her, it SHOULD NOT MATTER what the man did. It certainly doesn’t matter what the WOMAN did before the man hit her!
It is a statistical FACT, that when a father commits these acts he is PUNISHED. When a mother commits these act SHE IS NOT. PEW has done these very things, she has broken into his home, she has kidnapped the kids, and nothing has been done. If HE had broken into HER home, he would be in jail, it’s a fact. And no number of stories that recount the tales of mothers that have been wronged in custody hearings, will change the fact that certain things SHOULD happen to criminals, whether they are mothers or fathers. We shouldn’t say, well mothers get a bad rap too, so let’s let this one slide. When you commit a crime, NO MATTER WHAT PRECEDES IT, you should be charged. And that is not what happened in this case, and certainly not what happens in most cases when women and mothers are the instigators.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Let me add, that I know there exists a lot of psycho ex-husbands, too!
January 4th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I agree that it is a sad state of affairs the PEW is not in jail with the key thrown away. She also lives in the town my ex lives in, so I sarcastically(LOL) wonder if there is something in the water in that town?
Mr. M…..I def have a male psychoex.
I still distrust the media greatly and the court system, which is probably why I go for the back story. As a rule, I try to think logically which is why I posted what I did. Also, it has been my experience that both the media and the court system are great at “spinning” the truth anyway. And, unless someone is mentally ill, people usually respond in a certain way because of a precipitating event.
Yes, criminals should be held accountable whether male or female. But, there’s another rabbit trail….there’s murder 1,2, and 3 and then manslaughter. So, even the law allows for different charges based upon pre-meditation.
I wonder these things sometimes…for example I was walking the neighbor kid home when I was very pregnant last summer and the druggie next door came out and was angry because she believed that I wasn’t allowing her kid to play with the other kids(whatever). She called me a bunch of names, and smacked me. I seriously thought about hitting her back, but whatever, I just called my husband and he came out and she backed off. Now, if she had kept up, I probably would have hit her back to protect myself and unborn child. Technically, I would have been guilty of assault and battery. Would I have been charged? It’s all hypothetical, but who knows? Should I have been charged if I hit back to protect myself?
Again, I’m just thinking about these things, logically. No comments are meant to offend, nor to deny the seriousness and unfairness of the sitch the exists with PEW.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:29 am
I could not agree more with this article. I am currently dating a guy and his ex-wife kidnapped his kids over the summer.
We were supposed to get the kids for two weeks in a row over the summer, and for whatever reason she decided that she wanted to have them back two days after our vacation time started, he refused, so she wouldn’t let the kids get out of the car and she sped off and then hid them from him for two weeks till she decided she was ready to come home.
We called the police who called her but said there was nothing they can do and we’re still waiting for the legal action to take place.
So my boyfriend spent two complete weeks of hell, worried about where his kids were, how they were doing. They called a few times, but the number was blocked and they were told to get off after a minute. it was horrible.
So now we are stuck in the legal system… and i can tell you this… if my boyfriend had done this he would have been arrested no question. She has had the cops at our house before when we have the kids for made up reasons, and the cops are never nice, assuming he’s an ‘abusive’ father. But she steals the kids and they’re not allowed to tell us where they are, and she gets away with it. atleast for now. I hope that justice is coming. it’s distgusting that she does this to the kids. it’s all about getting back at him. nothing to do with the best interest of the kids!
January 5th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Soon, we’ll be asking for submissions for stories just like yours. Thanks so much for sharing. You reminded me to dig up an article I have somewhere on how to enforce child visitation orders yourself and get the police to act on your behalf - because it IS their job.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
So, how about some real data, rather than anecdotal stories? According to NCHS data on divorces from a large number of states, the wife was awarded custody of the children 72% of the time in 1990. Joint custody was the second most common arrangement with 16%, while husbands were awarded custody in 9% (Clarke 1995, 5; also see Bahr et al. 1994).
In 2000, NCHS data showed wife got custody 64%, husband got it 9%, and Joint got it 24%. In other words, the bias AGAINST fathers receiving sole custody did not change in 10 years, it just shifted from Sole-Mother, to Joint (more on that little falsehood, below).
Looking at contested vs. non-contested cases: in non-contested cases, fathers received sole custody only 3% of the time in the US in 2000. In contested cases, that figure increases to 10% of the time they got sole custody, the remainder of the time, a contested case merely resulted in a father getting Joint custody, rather than No custody at all.
These are the actual statistics, not just random stories here and there of folks who think they’ve been victimized. Oh, and get this: the average custody dispute cost $42k in 2000. So, here you have fathers spending $42k on average, just to increase their odds of getting to be active parents to their children from 3% to 10%, or to at least hope to share in the parenting. And, even when they get “joint” custody, they overwhelmingly *still* get smacked with a Child Support bill.
Now, take into account that in states like Texas, where Joint Custody is the presumed position, you would think that evens out the bias, right? NOPE! Because it’s actually a clever little sleight of hand: “Joint” custody is awarded, but then one parent is still given “primary physical”, or “the right to designate the physical residence of the child”. What does that look like? MOTHER gets “primary physical” or “the right to designate” a whopping 98% of the time in uncontested cases. Guess what the FATHER gets? The standard “possession order” of 1st, 3rd, and 5th weekend, one month in the summer, alternating years for Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Spring Break. Oh, and he gets the Child Support order in 99% of uncontested cases - that’s right, even if he has “primary physical” he is still required to pay free welfare to the mother of his children in almost all cases. Smells a lot like “sole” custody, doesn’t it? But on paper, it sure looks “equal” — we give Dad “Joint” custody automatically. Yeah. Right. No we don’t. We give Mom the kids and Dad the bill, same as always, and we just call it by another name to appease the media and whomever.
Look beyond your own problem and read about the actual statistics that are out there. Use some scrutiny and ask questions. You will soon discover that the BIAS AGAINST FATHERS is alive and well in the United States.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
JB, You are dead on right! But here is my favorite part and one I’ll be doing a post on soon:
“Oh, and get this: the average custody dispute cost $42k in 2000. So, here you have fathers spending $42k on average, just to increase their odds of getting to be active parents to their children from 3% to 10%, or to at least hope to share in the parenting. And, even when they get “joint” custody, they overwhelmingly *still* get smacked with a Child Support bill.”
And yet, when you get in court you know what every mother’s argument is? That the father only wants custody so he doesn’t have to pay child support. Shit, we could have paid child support until they were almost 18 with the amount we spent on trying to get custody of them. Of course no one says the mother only wants custody because she DOES get child support, oh no, it’s because she truly loves her children and would take them even if she didn’t get money, she’s just been so abused that she really needs the money to take care of them. Sigh. The father always has an alterior motive while the mother is truly thinking of the children. And if you believe that, I have some land over here…