Well it seems the FReaks are not done with their stupidity. Now they are passing on an email group instructions on how you can legally stalk your wife and if she goes into hiding in order to be safe from your beating this is what you must do:
Don Mathis wrote: Bio Dad (and every noncustodial father) needs to know the license plate of the custodial mother's car. If she moves, he can find out where the car is registered. There are many other ways to find the mom's new address.
Don, the 14%er
Hmm Don the 14%er..... Did you in fact do this with your ex-wife after she left you? I hope that she is diligent and finds this post. Should be simple since I tag everything. Only be a matter of time and it will be found. Numbnuts.....
This is a clip of a movie based on the true story of Tracy Thurman. In this clip you see a MAN who steals his son from the mother (Tracy) and terrorizes the child. This is after he has beaten her numerous times - including at least once when she was pregnant by kicking her in the stomach. Go to youtube.com to see the final result of his beatings, stalking, and reign of terror.
And this was back in the early 80's - FReaks were running rampant even back then.
Gonzeman, now I know this must be difficult but geesh think you could at least type out what you want to say and read it not once, not twice, but three times? For those wondering huh? have a gander:
IF I'm ever in Florida, remind me to mind my own business, even if someone is calling for help.
Just to be clear, I called a friend who works in the Prosecutor's office of the State of Kentucky - she laughed and said that such exigent circumstances, where no flight with the child was obviously intended, would make the sheriff a laughingstock, after he was sued for false arrest.
How does it feel, Florida, to be dumber than a Redneck?
He also goes on to say this:
Criminal behavior starts with doing something wrong. Intent is needed.
And what is this is reference to you might ask? Apparently according to SYG commenter thedude0901, a 14 year old male was arrested for false imprisonment due to the fact he left a retail establishment with a younger female child. Perhaps hyper vigilance on the part of the arresting officers, probably will be thrown out due to the circumstances, who knows?
Sad point needed to be made here however is that Florida in the last few years has been a hotbed of child abduction and murder. Any parent who turns to find their child missing will naturally be more than alarmed. And according to the article on SYG, the 14 year old male is not small in fact he could pass for a young man, rather than a boy.
As for his second statement that is pretty much the logic of a 3 yr old. Most criminals in jail right now, especially those charged with crimes like murder will say - I did not mean to kill my victim.
So by Gonzeman's logic, these murderers should not be in jail? Ummm okay MOTY Gonzeman......
And this is an example of the type of man who wants equal custody?
Again I must say that we are making strides fellow protective parents. Even as the FReaks scramble and run, attempt to hide from the truth, it is still trickling out there.
So now I must play semantics yet again. What is the war cry for the most vocal of the FReaks out there? Say it with me - all at one time now:
WE WANT WHAT IS BEST FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES!!!!
Ummmmm okay then. Now to get on with this. Was Wyatt's death best for him? For his mom? How about the big brother left behind? Or the future siblings he might have had? What about the woman he might have eventually met and married? What about his children? Or his grandchildren? What about all those people whose lives he would have touched in some way? What about his extended family? What would he have grown up to be or do? Could he have had the secret to the cure for cancer or one of many debilitating diseases locked in his tiny mind waiting for him to grow up to be released? Would he have won a Nobel peace prize? Been POTUS?
Okay I think you get the point now. So where are Robert Franklin, Glenn Sacks, Ned Holstein, LK (Legally Kidnapped my ever present stalker), Terri Stoddard queen B of the purple vomit, Jen aka Biscuit Queen, Jeremy Swanson, Mark Godbey, dr e, Galt, Captain Courageous (Coward?), outdoors, Robert Gartner, DADZRITES, Monica of the Menstrual PAD fame, Trudy, Amy, Tara, Baskerville, Sue, Barbara, Bettina and all of the others?
Why don't you go to your blogs and websites, to National Examiner for the queen of the purple vomit and write about Wyatt? Why do you avoid him?
Seems too that HE is writing about a mother who has allegedly made false allegations against a father. If this is the case then kudos to the courts for stopping it. But does HE ever write about fathers who make false allegations against mothers? Well, gentle readers, Petunia has been reading HIS blog for nearly 3 years now (and have gone back to his posts from the very beginning) and I cannot say I have ever read a post about a MOM who has had false allegations levied against her.
Well I have been lucky enough to have spoken to a mom who is living this right now. She has asked to remain anonymous due to her children's ages and I will respect that wish. Now for some of her story (I have paraphrased much of this due to length):
I have been a victim of family courts for nearly 3 decades. I was abused as a child and thrown into CPS state courts. I was not believed even though I provided evidence that would prove the abuse happened. I was told to go home and get along with the perp.
My children and I were again victimized by the state and one of my children was murdered by state foster care workers. These workers even had the audacity to show up when the decision was made to remove the breathing tubes in order to see if my child could breathe on her own or if she was indeed brain dead. In case you missed it she could NOT breathe on her own and she subsequently died.
Fast forward to now. Again my children and I are being victimized. Not only by the state, but also by a nasty abusive MAN. He has made numerous false allegations against not only me, but friends and members of my own family as well as numerous daycare providers and school officials. The school officials are apparently too afraid when the child says daddy is mean and scary, fears of daddy hurting the child are made - BY THE CHILD, and it is all ignored. CPS has told me that if one more call is placed then this child will be gone forever.
Now I know I am not perfect, but I did learn from my mistakes. I am a wonderful mother. When the father was confronted about the latest allegation, he stated he knew it was false but he would do it again.
Oh and lets add to the mix that this father is more concerned with how much money he has to pay to the mother for child support than what the child's wises are.
Thank you Petunia and all the other abused moms out there trying to be a voice for me and my children and the many other moms and kids out there. I cannot come forward. To do so would be suicide for me as a mother to my youngest child, at least right now.
Again some of this has been condensed due to the length of this conversation. I took excellent notes and had this mom repeat some of the comments above in order to get them down correctly. I apologize right now to this mom if I quoted her incorrectly.
So now I issue this challenge:
Why do we not see any MOM who have been falsely accused on HIS blog.
{smacks upside the head in the epitome of the duh moments}
It is because how can HE support FATHERS if he supports MOTHERS! Geesh Petunia, you woulda thunk you coulda learnded that by how. Here's yer sign!!!
Apparently Dowd has written a piece which can be found HERE concerning a fantasy sex game which was dreamed up by some school aged children. Now to say these are children would be correct if we were to look at their actual "age", but any child who has thoughts of victimizing another child or adult, should be treated as an adult. Apparently these "boys" (thought pops into my head - boys will be boys - where have we heard that one before?) thought this game would be cool. Well it was discovered before any girls could be made into unwilling or unknown participants (THANKFULLY).
I guess that is not good enough for HIM though as he must belittle Dowd and MINIMIZE this "act" of these "boys". But does he finish with just that little piece?
OH NO!!!! He must go on to criticize beauty pageants (which have financed many college degrees) and a dance competition video which went viral. Now why is it okay for these "boys" and it can be "explained" when they attempt to sexually assault a female, yet for girls who enjoy an activity (because pageants and dance are activities) it is considered sexualization? Now before I could write about this, I had to do my research. I did find a very recent Miss America pageant winner who did compete in child beauty pageants. Xxxxx Xxxxxx, winner of Miss America in #### competed in child beauty pageants, just a few years before Jon Benet competed. Now is HE going to say that Miss Xxxxxx has issues? Was she sexualized as a child? Or did she simply do something she wanted to do and have her parents support her 100% in that endeavor? Hmmmmmm, you be the judge.
Well Mister what have you to say for yourself now? A very well-adjusted adult woman competed in child beauty pageants and she did not turn out sexualized. She turned out pretty darn great if you ask me.
Okay so I have been taking to surfing and blog watching again and what do my wonderous eyes behold? This article about child support in Australia. Now this should really interest those mothers in Australia as well as the mothers here in the states. In this article Franklin speaks about CSE targetting NCP's in order to determine whether said parent is "hiding" income or assets. I wonder how many men would stoop so low as to hide assets or income?
That's borne out by U.S. Census Bureau figures that show that child support orders to mothers averaged $5,660 per year, while those to fathers averaged $4,895, or about 13.5% less.
This is very interesting. I wonder how and where he got these figures from. I just recently answered the census and these questions were not asked of me. I was asked how many lived in my house, the ages of all in the household, and if any of the people in my house could possibly be counted in another household. I was asked for our race, age, and education (whether any were in school or worked or both). That was it. But that was not the main point of my cutting this paragraph. The main point of pulling this paragraph was the difference between fathers and mothers obligations for child support. Notice that franklin states women pay about 13.5 percent less. Now read this paragraph:
Since child support is usually calculated as a percentage of income, and women in the aggregate earn 20-24% less than do men, those figures suggest that mothers who are ordered to pay support are better off financially than are women generally.
Now I wonder how he got to this conclusion. The conclusion I would reach from seeing that women earn on average 20-24% less and only have to pay 13.5 less than non-custodial fathers, is that women are actually paying more than men. How do I get to that conclusion? Well if women make 20% less and only pay 13% less, it only stands to reason that women pay more of their income to support. Not that child support paying women are better off than men, just that women do not fight child support and try to get modifications.
He also blows right past this little tidbit:
As a sidelight, the article mentions that mothers do a better job of paying their support orders than do fathers, but without any context. It says that about 21% of mothers are in arrears while some 33.5% of fathers are.
Of course he will now go on and create a new post stating that there are more men paying support than women, so it only stand to reason (of course) that there are more men who default than women. This is not about the actual numbers however. This is about percentages. And there is a larger percentage of men who are skipping out on supporting their children than women. Now one must wonder what excuses these men will use? One must also wonder how many of these men utilize court actions in order to deny support to their children. One must also wonder how many of these same non-supporting men committed dv against their ex-partners. Or abused the children. One really must wonder.
I think I know the answer:
One must wonder who is partaking of what in order to determine that women who make 20-24% less than men and are only paying 13% less have it so much better than men and this is the very reason women pay their support.
I have a theory for you. Maybe just maybe most mothers are better parents than men and no matter the circumstance for the loss of custody of their child, they do what they must in order to ensure the child is cared for. how's that for a theory for you?
This letter is in response to "No Contact Orders Expand State Power, Split Up Families."
I am in a situation exactly like this, my 3 boys are not allowed to be around their father because of a no contact bond for an incident that took place in 9/2009. NO one cares what happens to my family even after a letter written by DFACS that it was unhealthy for our children to be away from my husband, but the DA doesn't care about that or my opinion. I am not a victim of DV and never will be, but what I know is best for our family has no sympathy in the court system. Is this what I pay my taxes for? To be treated like this...I guess so!
- Melinda, Monroe, Georgia
Well.....................
This letter is in response to "No Contact Orders Expand State Power, Split Up Families."
I am in a situation exactly like this, my 3 children are are forced into contact with their father because of shared parenting laws. No one cares what happens to my family even after a letter written by DCF that it was unhealthy for our children to be near my husband, but the DA doesn't care about that or my opinion. I am a victim of DV and always will be as long as these travesties are ignored, but what I know is best for our family has no sympathy in the court system. Is this what I pay my taxes for? To be treated like this...I guess so!
- Jane, Miami, Florida
Just received this letter and the heads up from Jane with link at top to article :-) And I wonder which one is closer to fact?
Remember those scare tactic videos about your brain on drugs? Don't know about you but they worked for me. Now lets take this on a new spin. What is someone who believes PA/PAS/PAD doing to their brains? Why are women the only ones ever accused of alienation or gatekeeping? We have a case here which to my eye appears to have the ever present gatekeeping and alienation tactics happening.
So quick run down on this story. Mom "allegedly" kidnaps child and returns to her native country amid accusations by her of violence in the marriage. Mother remarries after divorce has another child and dies in childbirth. Father to older child goes on rampage in order to secure custody of older child - even amid allegations of violence by mother's family in foreign country and mother's widowed current spouse. Father eventually uses American politicians and television news stations in order to carry child out of mother's native country. Now grandparents want to see child, want child to have a relationship with half sibling and father refuses.
What do you mean - father refuses? I thought all family should be allowed a relationship with children? Even with mother deceased shouldn't siblings and extended family of mother's be allowed continuing contact with child?
Apparently not and apparently the well known father's rights blogger, Glenn Sacks, REFUSES to run any stories on this "gatekeeping" of the child by FATHER. Even Ken Walker (kc9bdr@yahoo.com) agrees that Father should be allowed to keep child from maternal family - in fact he even quotes: "The maternal grandparents take the grandson to Brazil for 5 years, (mother dies) then complain when they don't get placement. Give it time!". Mother does this and it is automatically a given that mother is gatekeeping and engaging in PA/PAS/PAD. So why is this not true for FATHER? Is FATHER not gatekeeping and possibly engaging in PA/PAS/PAD? The child in question has been around the maternal relatives for years now. Are we punishing another innocent young child by denying that child the RIGHT to have a relationship with the older sibling?
Well, let me explain this so you get it really good, okay? Just as in this commercial about heroin use, PA/PAS/PAD has some rules too.
Women are the only ones who can gatekeep a child. Ladies, ladies. Here's how it works. It's only PAS/PA when we accuse you of doing it. When WE do the exact thing we just accused you of doing ("gatekeeping," obstructing visitation, etc.) it doesn't count. WE are the ONLY ones who can protect our children. These children are not your children, they are only our children. Just like that nice new car we fought for in the divorce, just like the house. Oh and forget about any equitable split, that is all ours too. Any questions?
So go back and watch the video again.
Frying pan is PAS/PA/PAD.
Egg is your brain.
And the violence you see portrayed is what COULD happen if PA/PAS/PAD is bought hook, line, and sinker. Our children, our future will be destroyed if abusers are allowed to continue to use JUNK SCIENCE in order to remove protective parents from a child's life and place children with an alleged abuser. Do we want to place these children with potential alleged abusers? Don't know about you but I do not. And now a young child is being denied a relationship with a sibling by a father and Glenn Sacks, Ken Walker, and who knows who else in the FATHER'S RIGHT MOVEMENT think this father is completely justified. Ken by his own words, and Sacks by his lack of words. Or is it just that as long as it is a father who is being allegedly denied this is a travesty that must (MUST!!!) be rectified, but when it is a mother or maternal relatives - ahhh who cares? One need only look at the case of Jean Paul Lacombe Diaz in Texas to see this is true. Where are the Ken Walker's, the Glenn Sacks for this mom who has proof of abuse, has court orders granting her custody of this child? The courts were TRICKED into turning the boy over to father. He did this ILLEGALLY yet we see nobody in the Father's Rights Movement speaking to the tragedy of this court's actions.
Oh gee I keep forgetting. That is because the parent who is being denied the child is MOM. Who cares about moms right? After all, the only thing moms are good for is carrying the child, giving birth to the child, feeding the child life supporting breast milk. When the child can walk and talk, the mother should be gone. Fathers are the only important ones now.
Or perhaps even go here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ThePatriarchy/ to see just how BQ aka Jen views her own sex. She will subject herself to denigration in the name of father's rights - just like her cohort Teri Stoddard. We even have a small picture of her (possibly).
Hmmm she is with a man here. One must wonder if she is a standing member of the second wives club? Oh and for one last perusal you really should look to this post on SYG where she plays suck up to one of the crazies who has decided that nobody will listen to him so their little club should just delete his account. What outdoors - you can't figure it out on your own how to delete your account? You have to make some public display of oh woe is me so everyone will feel sorry for you? Or do you truly not know how to operate a computer? I think we should start a "I do not know how to operate a computer and I am a angry man who used to beat my wife and kids" club. Oh wait they already have several of those online - they are just disguised as "My wife left me and hates all men so I will post online as a man who is hated by women" club or even better they are disgguised as "I beat my wife because she would not do what I told her to do and she defended herself so now I am a victim" club. Their names are: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Do I really need to post the names? I think all of my readers are computer literate and can figuse out what boards and forums I am talking about.
Oh and be looking for more information on this Biscuit Queen - a preliminary search of Google has turned up quite a bit of material :-)
