The daughter did not steal the Mary Jane, but I know who did....

Robert Franklin writes of ONE woman (yes you read that right - just ONE woman) who abused her children. We protective mothers do not say that NO mother has ever abused her children. We simlpy say that when a moher who is protective like we are, and has an abusive ex partner (or ex husband) like we do, who have been abused, like we were and are - the courts should listen and should not force shared parenting down our children's throats. That is what we are saying.

So you want to know where the "abusers getting custody" group is - Robert Franlklin king high ass kisser of glenn cult fame? Right here. We NEVER say that women do not abuse. We do however say that when women bring in stories of abuse, your groups have screamed from the rooftops for so long that it takes an act of God for the courts to believe a woman has been abused. Look at Wyatt.... Look at Darcy Freeman.... Look at Jean Paul Lacombe.... How many more do I need to put out here. Found another blog today. Two children mentioned in that one. I wish the blogger would come back and post soon. I am starting to get a little worried because there have been no posts. Lets add her Emily and John to this mix too..... Anyone else want to join ranks?

So who is stealing the Mary Jane now? I have my own opinion about that one and it should not take a rocket scientist to figure this one out now should it?

Oh and Robert Franklin should you care to do so, you can go look at Dastardly Dads and see literally hundreds of stories of dads killing their children every day. Last count in just this last year we were up to over 80 fathers who killed their chidlren de to custody disputes with the mother - the old if I can't have them nobody will adage.

Why don't you write about that one RF? Or are you like we are - we miss many of these stories due to the sheer volume of men killing their children, men killing their wives, men killing their girlfriends, men killing just about anyone who stands in the way of his property (children, wife, girlfriend). Now when you get this through your thick skulls over there at glenn sucks (oppps glennsacks) dot com, the world might be a better place. Shared parenting does not work with an abuser. And trotting out the occasional story of the bad mom will not make up for the sheer volume of dastardly dads out there who are intent on hurting and even killing everyone who ever cared about him.

So put that in the Mary Jane pipe and smoke it.....

More evidence of where the FReaks priorities lie (not with the child - in case you thought otherwise)

Accordingly, I've 'lost' my case and I had the privilege of paying $1000 to her local lawyer, beside paying some $2500 to my jerk of a lawyer.

That's when I quit my well-paying job; I've figured that as long as I have money, they're going to do their best to detach as much of it off me as they can. After that nobody harrassed me...

http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=56bfbc1f126367dcd3abc6e3841ec6ce&topic=19657.msg207929#msg207929

Warning to ex-wife of Bob Norton from Mass

Calling out to the mother of the children and ex wife of Bob Norton of Mass. Your ex-husband plans to attempt to have you jailed so he may steal your children. Fair warning - you may want to find a father's rights group (aka FReaks) in order to ascertain what his next move may be. Or you could just keep an eye on him here.

My ex refused to turn over the children on Friday for my weekend.

I called police and gently insisted they file charges under 265 (26a) parental kidnapping.

Met with one cop at station and reviewed the law. He committed to file.

Later another, more enlightened cop came to do a safety check of kids. He spent 45 minutes inside the house and talked to the kids etc.

Told her he would be filing charges against her. Still not release of kids.

Last cop I talked to (about 2 months ago when she did same) said he would FORCE kids release from kidnapping. This guy say he “could not imagine how that would work”.

FOUR COPS I DISCUSSED THIS LAW WITH (include one who gave me the ticket for the sign). FOUR TOTALLY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS!!! CRAZY STUPID!



Long story short they agreed if the kids were not delivered later that night.

They claimed it is a misdemeanor and no arrest. That is not how I read this statute.

I will ask for the maximum fine ($1,000) and 30 days suspended sentence with probation for one year. Any reoccurrence = jail term immediately imposed.

To the ex Mrs. Norton - good luck to you. You are stuck with one of the worst FReaks out there.

How to legally hunt and stalk your ex-wife

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.....

A little movie clip for your viewing (dis) pleasure....

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 wins MORON OF THE YEAR (possibly decade)

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?

God help our future, our children.....

Judge Lemkau, Glenn Sacks and other FReaks

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?

CHALLENGE you dimwits!!!!!

Write about the real victims.....

The children!!!!

More goose and gander stuff

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!!!

Criticism of Dowd's recent op-ed piece

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.

Interesting information from HIS mouth

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?