Protective Parents

"In the beginning, he was very charming," she said. But as their child grew, Murphy said, her husband's behavior became disturbing. "He would wake me up at two o'clock in the morning, tell me about pornography he'd seen and wanted to reenact, and it was pornography about kids." She filed for divorce in 2002 when her daughter was 6.
A battle ensued in San Diego County Family Court over custody of the little girl. Murphy claimed that her daughter was afraid of Parson.
"She would cry if she had to be left with him," said Murphy.
The young girl told a doctor that when Parson was angry he pushed down on her shoulders and injured her. The doctor reported it to Child Protective Service, which Murphy said termed the incident inconclusive.
"From that point on, I was demonized by the courts," she said. She said she was viewed as a delusional, argumentative trouble maker, while Parson was viewed more favorably.
One therapist appointed by Family Court, Marilyn Marshall, wrote that Mr. Parson was "no danger to anyone, especially his daughter." "So this therapist said it was my fears of the father that was making the child afraid," Murphy explained.
Parsons was granted immediate overnight visits. "And I just broke," said Murphy. "I thought, either I go to jail or I protect my child. It was like a primal instinct." Murphy took her daughter and ran. She was arrested in Florida, brought to San Diego and tossed in jail. She eventually pleaded no contest to felony kidnapping, accepting the charge without admitting guilt. She was placed on probation. "I was told I was toxic to my daughter," said Murphy. Her bosses at UCSD stood by her, but she lost her daughter to her ex-husband and was granted only limited visitation. "And I thought, all I'm trying to do is protect my little girl from someone I know is a danger," said Murphy. So she waited and worried for six years, until a call last November. Murphy had to pick up her daughter, because another young girl had bravely come forward, accusing Parson of molesting her. Parson was now the one behind bars. "This man is a monster, and he hurts little girls," said Murphy. The criminal complaint charges Parson with hurting three girls, two of them younger than 14 years old. The charges include oral sex with a child, molestation, possessing child porn and using a child to make porn. A report from the District Attorney's Office said, "The defendant's computers and camera were seized ... revealed numerous photographs of young girls." Using those photographs, an Oceanside police officer was able to identify and speak with one of the girls, which led to more charges against Parson. Joyce Murphy feels vindicated, but it's bittersweet. "I blame the entire family court system," she said, "because they are not held accountable." I-Team reporter Lauren Reynolds posed the question to the supervising judge of the San Diego County Family Court, Lorna Alksne. "Is family court doing a good job?" "Family court is doing an excellent job," Alksne said. She said each judge must juggle between 200 and 300 cases every month. She said the judges read before work, after work and during breaks to be prepared for their full day of hearings. She can't comment directly on the Murphy case, and was not involved, but she acknowledges the need for improvement in how child custody cases are decided. "Family Court has, statewide, some issues on how do you really make a determination on where children should live?" Joyce Murphy said Family Court's only good decision in her case was granting her full permanent custody of her daughter after her ex husband was jailed. Henry Parson's daughter is not one of the victims alleged in the criminal complaint. His attorney has a policy of not commenting on pending criminal cases.

Stop Family Violence - get help, get informed, get involvedwww.stopfamilyviolence.org/365

Published on October 02, 2006 by California Protective Parents Assn.
Protective Parents Survey
by Geraldine Butts Stahly, Phd

There appears to be an increase in contentious custody disputes between divorcing parents. Some mental health professionals have suggested that this has created an "epidemic" of false abuse reports as a strategy of accusing parents. Other professionals report evidence of an increase in the labeling of parents who report child abuse or domestic violence during custody disputes such that parents who attempt to protect their children from abuse may actually lose custody as a result. Several high profile cases have led to increased public attention, and fractious public debates have erupted between groups supporting the alleged perpetrators of abuse as victims of malicious accusations on one hand, and groups supporting the reporting parent as the victim of malicious psychiatric labeling on the other.

Empirical studies have established the increase in child abuse in families in which there is domestic violence, and the increase in custody challenges by fathers who have a history of battering. There is increasing recognition that custody disputes are an extension of the power and control tactics of domestic violence, and battered women's problems of child custody are now well-established and have been addressed in many states by changes in family law statutes. A few studies document the custody problems of battered women, who make up a subset of "protective parents." However, there have been no studies to date on the extent of the overall phenomenon of "protective parents," the psychiatric labeling of protective behavior, or the extent to which protective behavior appears to be justified by the circumstances and evidence in custody cases.

The current study is the pilot results of a national survey undertaken to study the issue of protective parents. Sixty-seven self-identified "protective parents," male and female, completed a 101-item questionnaire describing aspects of their custody disputes. The pilot data to be presented includes the systematic documentation of the phenomenon of protective parents by including demographic factors, economic impact, and the full variety of protection issues including the range of allegations by both parents and others, the variety of expert examinations, diagnosis and testimony, family court response, and outcomes for children.

The following information is preliminary data from a national survey sponsored by California Protective Parents Association and Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation. Self-identified "protective parents" completed a 101-item questionnaire describing aspects of their custody dispute. The following information is pilot data from the first 67 participants, as of May 2003.

Participants: 66 mothers; 1 father
105 children involved (59 girls, 46 boys)
253 attorneys involved (average of 4 per participant)

Total spent on cases: $4,618,150.00:
Average per case: $74,000.00

90% of mothers were primary caretakers and had custody at separation
87% of mothers reported domestic violence
58% of mothers continued to experience violence after separation
76% of fathers threatened to take custody of the children

89% of protective parents reported allegations of abuse in court:

76% reported allegations of child sexual abuse were raised in court

67% reported allegations of child physical abuse were raised in court

58% reported medical/physical evidence of the abuse

76% reported other corroboration of the abuse

23% of children received Victims of Crime funds for related therapy

65% of protective parents were advised not to report abuse (due to the risk of losing custody) This advice was given by:

attorneys - 55%

mediators - 10%

court personnel - 7%

advocates - 7%

others - 23% (AFDC worker, police, psychologist, judge, family court advisor, shelter staff and 11 other protective parents)

88% had psychological evaluations:

The average cost of the evaluation was $6,541.00

61% were not permitted to see the evaluation/recommendation

96% believed court personnel ignored or minimized allegations of abuse

48% of mothers were labeled with "PAS" (Parental Alienation Syndrome)

36% were labeled as "alienators"

69% lost custody as a result of the psychological evaluation

84% reported they were denied adequate presentation of information or witnesses
98% believed they were discredited for trying to protect their children
67% lost custody in ex parte proceedings
59% lost custody in proceedings with no court reporter present

67% were threatened with sanctions if they "talked publicly" about the case

OUTCOMES (Some participants reported more than one outcome)

Father has custody; mother has unsupervised visitation - 48%
Mother has custody; father has unsupervised visitation - 17%

Father has custody; mother has supervised visitation - 29%
Mother has custody; father has supervised visitation - 3%

Father has custody; mother has no contact with the child/ren - 29%
Mother has custody; father has no contact with the child/ren - 0%

Mother and father have joint custody - 17%

91% of mothers believe their children are still being abused
67% have stopped reporting abuse for fear that contact with their children will be terminated

75% of the children continue to report abuse
81% of mothers no longer believe they can protect their children

This survey project is ongoing. Please contact us at cppa001@aol.com if you would like to receive a survey form by mail, or get the survey form online at the Mothers of Lost Children site.

WENDY TITELMAN CASE, Cobb County, Georgia. Wendy Titelman is the mother of two daughters who wrongfully were taken from her by a Georgia judge September 15, 2000, and turned over to their father after the children claimed he had sexually abused them, and their mother reported this abuse. Their mother was jailed. Months later, the criminal jury was so outraged that after acquitting Titelman, they took it upon themselves to write a letter of complaint to Judge James Bodiford and the responsible District Attorney who had brought the charges. But it was to no avail: in all the time since, Wendy Titleman has not had her children returned to her.
"Medical and mental health experts confirmed the abuse. And what did Georgia State officials do? Against the girls' wishes, they took them from me and gave them to their father. Because I kept insisting that the Court protect them, the Cobb County, Georgia Superior Court punished me: I have not been allowed to see or talk to my girls since September 2000... a Cobb County Magistrate Court judge told me that I would never win in Georgia because I was dealing with the 'good 'ole boys who would stick together no matter what'... Judge James Bodiford, Judge Bo Wood, GAL Diane Woods, Elizabeth King, Ph.D., Lorita Whitaker, D.A. Patrick Head, the Kennesaw Police Department, and the Cobb County Department of Family and Children Services are directly responsible."
Wendy has written a book, A Mother's Journal: Let My Children Go! which details the systematic corruption and professional incompetence of the lawyers and mental health professionals involved.

ILLINOIS LEICHTENBERG-CONNOLLY CASE, McLean County, Illinois. March 31, 2009: "Jack and Duncan Connolly's mother, Amy Leichtenberg, blames Judge James Souk for allowing her ex-husband to have unsupervised visitation with her boys and for her sons' deaths. Now, she and her friends are taking action. 'She knew this was his intentions from the beginning because it was never about the boys it was to hurt her and she told the judge that, she told him and he didn't listen... It is his fault these boys are gone, it is definitely Judge Souk's fault,' Tuley said. 'He single-handedly handed down an order for Michael to have visitations with those boys unsupervised and because of it they're dead.' ..." http://centralillinoisproud.com/common/printerfriendly.php?cid=51522
More: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-missing-boys-dead-31-mar31,0,3316104.story?page=1 "Amy Leichtenberg worried this day would come, and she begged the judicial system to prevent it. In court documents dating back to 2005, she detailed her estranged husband's threats against her family and fought unsuccessfully to keep him from having unsupervised visits with their two sons..."
And yet more: http://www.week.com/news/local/42231047.html David Lynch, the local prosecutor is quoted as saying, apologia: "I doubt very much that the judge failed in this case" and "A court cannot stop a visitation unless it finds the visitation would be dangerous to the child's mental, moral or physical health" and "A judge is going to say look at what happened to those two kids. Should I be overly restrictive to a very good parent because they might be that one in 10-thousand or one in 100,000." How could he possibly describe a man with a history of being this abusive toward his wife as a "very good parent".
This is the crux of the problem. These men are most assuredly NOT "very good parents" and it's time the courts stopped automatically granting men the benefit of the doubt while doubting the credibility and motives of the women who know them best and who also happen to be the people who care the most about the children.
Oh yes... a psych most assuredly did opine in this case, in the usual way, that Connolly was not a threat to himself or the children. Useless. The same guys who claim women emotionally abuse kids by "alienating" them from abusive men -- and then have little problem removing children from the custody of their mothers -- speciously fret and hand-wring over paternal rights and strained make-believe arguments that the children will suffer some kind of harm if they don't get lots of time with fathers -- and oh, it's all the women's fault because she's not letting him see the children. (It was something else she must have done that provoked his prior abusive behavior against the mother when that excuse wouldn't have worked)...
"According to the records, a Bloomington psychiatrist found in April 2008 that Connolly was depressed and unable to work because of 'his inability to see his children under normal conditions.' ...a month later, the psychiatrist said in an evaluation submitted to McLean County Judge James Souk that Connolly did not seem suicidal or homicidal. Souk awarded Connolly unsupervised visits." http://www.examiner.com/a-1936148~Court_papers__Ill__dad_violated_visitation_rules.html
Difficult? It's not that difficult. Listen to the women. Stop granting depressed, obsessive, and/or control-freak abusive men visitation or "timeshare" rights. Listen to the mothers. Listen to the mothers. Listen to the mothers. Stop assuming that the default positions in custody cases are that women are unstable vindictive crackpots, and that men are being unfairly badmouthed. Father's attorney Todd Roseberry is, of course, surprised.
Good for McHenry County Judge Suzanne C. Mangiamele who took the claims seriously enough that while the divorce case was pending before her, Connolly received only supervised visitation. But why was he getting any visitation at all? The man repeatedly had threatened to kill the children's mother, as well as others. Leichtenberg's attorney, Elizabeth Vonau, said "Everybody knew he was capable of this. There were repeated threats he would harm her, repeated threats he would get back at her and harm the children or take them from her." http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=282973
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/michael.connolly.jack.2.972750.html: "Connolly never hurt Leichtenberg or their sons but scared her because he called often, sometimes threatening suicide and other times trying to intimidate her or persuade her to come back to him..." He "never hurt her"? What? Of course he did! He threatened her life and abused her for years through the courts. That should have been enough. These mothers are not vindictive crackpots, and it's not mothers in the news day after day after day who prove they are the lunatics by hurting other people. These mothers are the persons in the world who love the children best and who know the father best. The mothers. Not the psychs, your honors. Really. Women don't keep children from helpful, supportive men who aren't threatening to take custody, harm them physically, harm the children, or harm the mothers' abilities to properly care and provide for their children.
"Connolly benefited from a system designed to overlook past indiscretions in favor of giving children a chance to maintain relationships with both parents... he bamboozled people. He was cagey and manipulative." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-missing-kids-killed-01-apr01,0,2218136.story
Giving "the children" a chance? Now they are dead. Let's stop with the euphemisms and pretexts. These are bad laws. Amy Leichtenberg and her children were failed by bad laws that serve primarily to give men rights. Mothers don't seem to be able to "work the system" this way, because they aren't believed, they frequently are the upset attached parent, they often have far less funds to litigate, and it's just a father-lovin' mother-denigrating world. "Leichtenberg spent the last four years documenting what she considered to be dangerous behavior."
Listen to the mothers. Listen to the mothers. Listen to the mothers. Leichtenberg pleaded -- pleaded -- with the judge. What the f--- did he think she was so worked up about? Did he discount her as some kind of "woman scorned"? She was the one who left Connolly. (Women usually are the ones who leave.) What kind of inherently misogynistic attitude leads people to hold these biased perceptions that they don't even realize they hold. Women beg these judges... out of lunacy? vindictiveness? Hysteria? Weakness of mind? Some kind of pathetic "enmeshment" with the kids? Because they can't handle life? To get those juicy big child custody awards that so often go unpaid anyway? Just another "high conflict custody case"?
No. That's projecting onto women the motives and thought processes of these abusive men. That's what these MEN believe they would do were tables turned. They believe this way because they are not mothers. And judges often rule as they do because for one reason or another, they just don't like the litigating mother as a person as much as they like the man -- as if this is relevant to what's in kids' interests. It's a mother-hating, woman-disrespecting world. Doesn't help when she's got reason to be stressed, harassed, made crazy and angry. (The court whores of course also will bias toward whoever is the more compliant person who likes them best, i.e. is most willing to pay them, but in the rare case that is the mother, that only tends to correct the pervasive pro-male bias.)
Your honor, if some litigant who had come before you behaved toward you in the manner this man behaved, threatened your life and so forth, would you be inclined to hire him -- EVER -- to care for YOUR children? Would you be saying "Well, even though he threatened to slit my throat six months ago, and violated restraining orders umpteen times, now he has a job and a rented apartment, so that must mean he's okay; he can have my kids for the weekend." Do the effin' rules of reality change when it's other people? Or is it just that we're too damn enrenched in the delusional ideas of sperm rights and women's wrongs in this world.
See, at this website WILL HE KILL?
and BUSTING THE FATHERHOOD MYTH
and MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT FATHERHOOD
and REEVALUATING THE EVALUATORS
OUTRAGE!
Every week in the news, every week, sometimes every day, men in custody cases and relationship separation cases rape, batter, and kill women and children. It's below the fold on some inside page if at all, if it even makes the news at all. It happens again and again and again and again. (But when the relatively rare mother kills, it's headline news for months.) And don't forget the ubiquitous tittering by the neighbors, duly quoted for "balance" all about what a nice guy, and how he was tormented and so forth. Usually it's written up as if it's an inexplicable snapping, and too often without a whiff of mention of the nearly always-present reality of a history of his being a control freak or depressive and that she left him or threatened to leave him, or to take some of "his" property, or cause him loss generally by breaking up "his family". (That last item, take note, is all about his surroundings and accutrements and possessions. It should not to be understood as "take his children" which is a specious use of faux projection by the propagandists, a pretext for the loss he's actually flipping over.) And in the majority of the rest of those so-called one-in-ten-thousand cases, the ones in which he doesn't kill, he's still battering and abusing her through the court system, for years, over his custody "rights". It's got to stop.
People are calling for Judge Souk to resign. They should be calling for the ouster of the psychs as well, who mislead courts with snake oil and give them covers to hide behind. Let's pinpoint exactly what the catalyst for this horrible, horrible failure of the court system was. A psych speculation as to risk, an opinion that had no business being uttered in court because psychs just don't have these prediction skills.

La Jolla Mom Says She Kidnapped Daughter To Protect Her

Woman's Ex-Husband Now Behind Bars for Molesting Girls