Sin Denied

Abused Mom Wants Unsupervised Visits with Daughter

2009-12-17T10:47:00.000-08:00

Claudine Dombrowski: is seeking redress of grievances -- a First Amendment right --

2009-12-17T10:44:00.000-08:00

Father’s Rights and Violence Against Women

2009-12-13T21:31:00.000-08:00

Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice.

Permalink

by Dr. Michael Flood

In this talk, I’m going to focus on the ‘fathers’ rights’ movement, and their impact on violence against women.
Introduction: The fathers’ rights movement
The fathers’ rights movement is defined by the claim that fathers are deprived of their ‘rights’ and subjected to systematic discrimination as men and fathers, in a system biased towards women and dominated by feminists. Fathers’ rights groups overlap with men’s rights groups and both represent an organised backlash to feminism. Fathers’ rights and men’s rights groups can be seen as the anti-feminist wing of the men’s movement, the network of men’s groups and organisations mobilised on gender issues (Flood, 1998).
Two experiences bring most men (and women) to the fathers’ rights movement. The first is deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles. Fathers’ rights groups are characterised by anger and blame directed at ex-partners and the ‘system’ that has deprived men or fathers of their ‘rights’, and such themes are relatively common among men who have undergone separation and divorce. The second experience is non-resident fathers’ dissatisfaction with loss of contact with their children or with regimes of child support.
The fathers’ rights movement focuses on trying to re-establish fathers’ authority and control over their children’s and ex-partners’ lives, on gaining an equality concerned with fathers’ ‘rights’ and status rather than the actual care of children, and on winding back legal and cultural changes which have lessened gender inequalities.
Fathers’ rights groups are well-organised advocates for changes in family law, and vocal opponents of feminist perspectives and achievements on interpersonal violence.
Impact of the fathers’ rights movement on violence against women
The fathers’ rights movement has had four forms of impact on violence against women.
Priviledging contact over safety
Most importantly, the fathers’ rights movement has influenced family law, with damaging consequences for women, children, and indeed men. Above all, fathers’ contact with children has been privileged, over children’s safety from violence. [See The Custody Scam, the story of Dawn Axsom, Child Abuse: When Family Courts Get it Wrong, Letter to Judge from Jury foreman regarding prosecution of mother trying to protect her children from abusive father, or watch the PBS documentary Breaking The Silence; Children's Stories at the bottom of this post.--Deborrah]
An uncritical assumption that children’s contact with both parents is necessary now pervades the courts and the media. The Family Court’s new principle of the ‘right to contact’ is overriding its principle of the right to ‘safety from violence’. The Court now is more likely to make interim orders for children’s unsupervised contact in cases involving domestic violence or child abuse, to use hand-over arrangements rather than suspend contact until trial, and to make orders for joint residence where there is a high level of conflict between the separated parents and one parent strongly objects to shared residence.
The fathers’ rights movement has been unsuccessful in achieving its key goal of a rebuttable presumption of children’s joint residence after separation. However, other changes in family law and government policy over the last two years have reflected its influence. Recent reforms mean that greater numbers of parents who are the victims of violence will be subject to further violence and harassment by abusive ex-partners, while children will face a greater requirement to have contact with abusive or violent parents.
Current government policy echoes many of the key themes of the fathers’ rights movement. Both government policy and many fathers’ rights groups are guided by two central, and mistaken, assumptions: that all children see contact with both parents as in their best interests in every case, and that a violent father is better than no father at all (DVIRC, 2005, pp. 5-6). Both bodies talk of ‘conflict’ rather than violence, neglect violence as a legitimate issue for the courts and family services to address, emphasise mediation and counseling as solutions, and focus on punishing women for making false allegations or breaching contact orders.
Discrediting victims
The second impact the fathers’ rights movement has had on violence against women is in discrediting victims. Fathers’ rights groups tell two key lies.
First, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make false accusations of child abuse to gain advantage in family law proceedings and to arbitrarily deny their ex-partners’ access to the children.
Second, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in family law cases and use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children rather than out of any real experience or fear of violence.
I have written detailed critiques of these first two lies, and they are available both online and in the latest issue of the Australian journal Women Against Violence. I can send copies to anyone who wishes.
Men’s versus women’s violence (Impact on perceptions of intimate violence)
Related to this, the fathers’ rights movement also has had some impact on public perceptions of intimate violence. In particular, it tells the lie that domestic violence is gender-equal or gender-neutral – that men and women assault each other at equal rates and with equal effects.
While I’ve called this a lie, this is one claim for which there is some academic support.
To support the claim that domestic violence is gender-symmetrical, advocates draw almost exclusively on studies using a measurement tool called the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS situates domestic violence within the context of “family conflict”. It asks one partner in a relationship whether, in the last year, they or their spouse have ever committed any of a range of violent acts. CTS studies generally find gender symmetries in the use of violence in relationships. There are three problems with the use made of such studies by fathers’ rights activists.
First, men’s rights and fathers’ rights groups make only selective use of this data, as CTS authors themselves reject efforts to argue that women’s violence against men is as common or as harmful as men’s violence against women (Kimmel 2001, p. 22).
Second, there are methodological problems with the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS is widely criticized for not gathering information about the intensity, context, consequences or meaning of the action. The CTS ignores who initiates the violence (when women are more likely to use violence in self-defense), assumes that violence is used expressively (e.g. in anger) and not instrumentally (to ‘do’ power or control), omits violent acts such as sexual abuse, stalking and intimate homicide, ignores the history of violence in the relationship, neglects the question of who is injured, relies on only one partner’s reports despite poor interspousal reliability, and omits incidents after separation and divorce, which is a time of increased danger for women.
Third, a wide range of other data find marked gender asymmetries in domestic violence. For example, crime victimization studies based on large-scale aggregate data, household and crime surveys, police statistics, and hospital data all show that men assault their partners and ex-partners at rates several times the rate at which women assault theirs and that female victims greatly outnumber male victims (Tjaden & Thoennes 2000, pp. 25-26).
Feminist and other scholars have worked to reconcile the conflicting findings of these bodies of data. One important insight is the recognition of different patterns of violent behaviour in couples and relationships. Some heterosexual relationships suffer from occasional outbursts of violence by either husbands or wives during conflicts, what some (Johnson 1995, 284-285) call “common couple violence”.
Here, the violence is relatively minor, both partners practise it, it is expressive in meaning, it tends not to escalate over time, and injuries are rare. In situations of “patriarchal terrorism” on the other hand, one partner (usually the man) uses violence and other controlling tactics to assert or restore power and authority. The violence is more severe, it is asymmetrical, it is instrumental in meaning, it tends to escalate, and injuries are more likely.
CTS studies are only a weak measure of levels of minor ‘expressive’ violence in conflicts among heterosexual couples. They are poorer again as a measure of ‘instrumental’ violence, in which one partner uses violence and other tactics to assert power and authority (Johnson 1995, 284–285).
There is no doubt that men are the victims of domestic violence. Men experience domestic violence at the hands of female and male sexual partners, ex-partners, and other family members.
A growing body of research tells us that there are important contrasts in women’s and men’s experiences of domestic violence. Women are far more likely than men to be subjected to frequent, prolonged, and extreme violence, to sustain injuries, to fear for their lives, and to be sexually assaulted (Kimmel 2001, 19; Bagshaw et al. 2000). Men subjected to domestic violence by women rarely experience post-separation violence and have more financial and social independence. Female perpetrators of domestic violence are less likely and less able than male perpetrators to use nonphysical tactics to maintain control over their partners (Swan & Snow 2002, 291-292).
Women’s physical violence towards intimate male partners is often in self-defense (DeKeseredy et al. 1997; Hamberger et al. 1994; Swan & Snow 2002, 301; Muelleman & Burgess 1998, 866). On the other hand, women’s intimate violence can also be motivated by efforts to show anger, a desire for attention, retaliation for emotional hurt, and so on (Hamberger et al. 1994). It is inadequate to explain women’s violence simply in terms of their own oppression and powerlessness, and naïve to assume that women are immune from using violence to gain or maintain power in relationships (Russo 2001, 16-19).
Men are likely to under-estimate and under-report their subjection to domestic violence by women (George 1994, 149; Stockdale 1998, 63). There is no evidence however that male victims are more likely to under-report than female victims. In fact, men tend to over-estimate their partner’s violence and under-estimate their own, while women do the reverse (Kimmel 2001, 10-11).
The fathers’ rights movement’s attention to domestic violence against men is not motivated by a genuine concern for male victimisation, but by political agendas concerning family law, child custody and divorce (Kaye & Tolmie 1998, pp. 53-57). This is evident in two ways.
First, the fathers’ rights movement focuses on this violence when the great majority of the violence inflicted on men is not by female partners or ex-partners but by other men. Australian crime victimisation surveys find that less than one percent of violent incidents among men is by partners or ex-partners, compared to one-third of incidents among women (Ferrante et al. 1996, 104). Boys and men are most at risk of physical harm from other boys and men.
Second, the fathers rights’ movement seeks to erode the protections available to victims of domestic violence and to bolster the rights and freedoms of alleged perpetrators, and this harms female and male victims of domestic violence alike. I turn to this now.
Protecting perpetrators and undermining supports for victims
The fourth way in which the fathers’ rights movement has had an impact on violence against women is in its efforts to modify responses to the victims and perpetrators of violence.
The fathers’ rights movement has sought to wind back the protections afforded to the fictitious ‘victims’ of violence and to introduce legal penalties for their dishonest and malicious behavior. The Lone Fathers’ Association and other groups argue that claims of violence or abuse should be made on oath, they should require police or hospital records, and people making allegations which are not then substantiated, and those who’ve helped them, should be subject to criminal prosecution. They call for similar limitations to do with protection orders.
Fathers’ rights groups also attempt to undermine the ways in which domestic violence is treated as criminal behavior. They emphasise the need to keep the family together, call for the greater use of mediation and counseling, and reject pro-arrest policies.
Such changes would represent a profound erosion of the protections and legal redress available to the victims of violence and the ease with which they and their advocates can seek justice. This agenda betrays the fact that the concern for male victims of domestic violence often professed by fathers’ rights groups is rhetorical rather than real. While such groups purport to advocate on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, they seek to undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.
Fathers’ rights groups often respond to issues of domestic and sexual violence from the point of view of the perpetrator. And they respond in the same way as actual male perpetrators: they minimise and deny the extent of this violence, blame the victim, and explain the violence as a mutual or reciprocal process (Hearn, 1996, p. 105).
This sympathy for perpetrators is evident in other ways too. Fathers’ rights advocates have expressed sympathy or justification for men who use violence against women and children in the context of family law proceedings. And, ironically, they use men’s violence to demonstrate how victimised men are by the family law system (Kaye & Tolmie, 1998a, pp. 57-58).
Members of fathers’ rights groups also act as direct advocates for alleged perpetrators of violence against women. For example, one group distributes pamphlets for ‘victims of a false AVO’, giving no attention to how to respond to ‘true’ perpetrators of violence nor to the safety of family members.
Fathers’ rights groups also attack media and community campaigns focused on men’s violence against women, call for the de-funding and abolition of what they call the “domestic violence industry”, and engage in the harassment of community sector and women’s organisations which respond to the victims of violence.
Other, positive responses by men: The White Ribbon Campaign
This is all pretty depressing news. In this context, I’ve been especially heartened to see a growing positive response by men, in alliance with women, to help stop violence against women. I will focus on one such response.
White Ribbon Day is the largest effort by men across the world, working in partnership with women, to end men’s violence against women. White ribbons are worn on the day by men to show their concern about violence against women, and by women who are supporting men. It takes place on November 25th, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
In Australia, White Ribbon Day is organised in part by UNIFEM, a women’s organisation, but it is conducted in partnership with men and men’s organisations. The White Ribbon Campaign focuses on the positive roles that men can play in helping to stop violence against women.
To find out more, visit the website: http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/
Conclusion
To continue our efforts to prevent violence, several strategies are necessary.
We must continue to respond effectively to those who’ve experienced this violence, the coalface work that some of you already do.
We must continue to keep the issue of violence against women on the public agenda.
We must step up efforts to engage men in positive ways, building partnerships with supportive men and men’s groups. We must confront, or sidestep, the dangerous ambitions and dishonest claims of the men’s and fathers’ rights backlash.
The achievements of the fathers’ rights movement are already putting women, children and indeed men at greater risk of violence and abuse. The fathers’ rights movement has exacerbated our culture’s systematic silencing and blaming of victims of violence and hampered efforts to respond effectively to the victims and perpetrators of violence.
However, the new politics of fatherhood has not been entirely captured by the fathers’ rights movement. There is potential to foster men’s positive and non-violent involvement in parenting and families. Key resources for realising the progressive potential of contemporary fatherhood politics include the widespread imagery of the nurturing father, community intolerance for violence against women, growing policy interest in addressing divisions of labour in child care and domestic work, and men’s own investments in positive parenting.
However, thwarting the fathers’ rights movement’s backlash requires that we directly confront the movement’s agenda, disseminate critiques of its false accusations, and respond in constructive and accountable ways to the fathers (and mothers) undergoing separation and divorce (Flood, 2004, pp 274-278).
Beating the backlash
The following are some of the political strategies we can use to help beat the fathers’ rights backlash.
Discredit fathers’ rights groups. Emphasise that they;

Are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children;
Are interested only in extending or regaining power and authority over ex-partners and children.
Do nothing to increase men’s actual share of childcare / parenting or men’s positive involvement in parenting both before and after separation.
Collude with perpetrators of violence against women and children, protect and advocate for perpetrators, or are perpetrators.
Produce critiques of their lies and their strategies which are credible and accessible.
Co-opt the new politics of fatherhood;
Support positive efforts to respond to separated fathers. (And emphasise that FR groups fix men in anger and blame, rather than helping them to heal.)
Build on men’s desires to be involved (and nonviolent) parents.
Find alternative male voices: supportive men and men’s / fathers’ networks and groups.

‘Speaking as a father…’
Tell women’s stories
Atrocity tales: Stories of abuse and inequality.
In letters, submissions, on talkback, etc.
(But beware of the ways in which these can (a) portray women only as victims, (b) homogenise and essentialise women’s (diverse) experiences of violence, and (c) undermine credibility and support. )
Find and nurture male allies: in government, the community sector, academic, etc.
More widely, we must continue do the work of violence prevention: to undermine the beliefs and values which support violence, challenge the power relations which sustain and are sustained by violence, and promote alternative constructions of gender and sexuality which foster non-violence and gender justice.
Contact the Author:
Dr Michael Flood
Postdoctoral Fellow
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS)
La Trobe University
E-mail: michael.flood[at]anu.edu.au
PO Box 4026, Ainslie ACT, 2602
Presentation in Panel, “Myths, Misconceptions, and the Men’s Movement”, at Conference, Refocusing Women’s Experiences of Violence, Sydney, 14-16 September.
Sign this petition to stop court ordered child abuse in your Congressional district!

Technorati Tags: Father,Rights,Violence,Against,Women,Michael,Flood,movement,impact,Introduction,discrimination,system,backlash,gender,marriage,custody,partners,separation,dissatisfaction,children,status,Most,consequences,Above,Scam,Dawn,Axsom,Child,Abuse,Courts,Wrong,Letter,Judge,Jury,prosecution,Silence,bottom,Deborrah,assumption,Court,principle,orders,cases,arrangements,residence,parent,objects,goal,presumption,government,policy,Recent,numbers,victims,subject,harassment,requirement,Current,Both,interests,DVIRC,services,mediation,lies,advantage,proceedings,Second,protection,Australian,journal,wishes,rates,measurement,tool,Conflict,Tactics,Scale,context,relationship,spouse,relationships,problems,data,efforts,Kimmel,action,self,defense,homicide,history,reports,danger,Third,example,crime,victimization,statistics,hospital,times,male,Tjaden,Thoennes,Feminist,findings,recognition,Some,Johnson,Here,terrorism,Bagshaw,independence,Female,Swan,DeKeseredy,Hamberger,Muelleman,attention,retaliation,oppression,Russo,subjection,George,Stockdale,fact,Kaye,Tolmie,Ferrante,harms,supports,behavior,Association,oath,records,limitations,erosion,justice,agenda,perpetrator,extent,victim,Hearn,sympathy,justification,abolition,industry,sector,White,Ribbon,Campaign,news,response,alliance,effort,world,partnership,ribbons,November,International,Elimination,Australia,UNIFEM,Conclusion,coalface,culture,politics,involvement,imagery,intolerance,investments,Discredit,Emphasise,Collude,Produce,Support,Build,desires,Find,Tell,allies,prevention,beliefs,Contact,Author,Postdoctoral,Research,Centre,Health,ARCSHS,Trobe,Ainslie,Presentation,Panel,Myths,Conference,Sydney,September,Sign,Congressional,district,fathers,themes,regimes,opponents,achievements,assumptions,solutions,allegations,accusations,perceptions,authors,incidents,scholars,outbursts,injuries,situations,members,agendas,protections,responses,policies,pamphlets,roles,strategies,partnerships,ambitions,obligations,tales,submissions,constructions,Misconceptions,towards,organisations,parents,sexual,heterosexual,perpetrators,victimisationNote: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice.

Permalink

100-Year-Old Sex Offender About to Go Free

2009-12-13T00:54:00.000-08:00

BUFFALO, N.Y. (Dec. 10) -- Everything that pedophile Theodore Sypnier has to show for his 100 years on earth is packed in a single duffel bag as he prepares to begin a new chapter in life: freedom.

It's a chapter that prosecutors, judges and others who know him never wanted -- or expected -- to see written.

New York's oldest registered sex offender is scheduled to move by week's end out of a Buffalo halfway house for released inmates and into a place of his own, after completing his latest term in state prison for molesting little girls.

AP
Theodore Sypnier, 100, is about to be a free man.

The judge who sentenced him said at the time that she expected him to die behind bars.

But 10 years after his last arrest, as Sypnier prepared to shed the closely monitored lifestyle of the halfway house, its director warned that the spry and active Sypnier has not changed from the manipulator who used his grandfatherly charm to snare and rape victims as young as 4.

"Whether he's 100 or 101 or 105, the same person that was committing these crimes 10, 25, 30 years ago still exists today and has an unrepentant heart," said the Rev. Terry King, director of Grace House, which has twice taken Sypnier in from prison. "He is someone that we as parents, as members of the community, any community, really need to fear."

Six months after marking his 100th birthday in the Groveland Correctional Facility -- becoming the first New York inmate to reach the milestone while incarcerated -- the retired telephone company worker now says he wants to get to know the youngest members of a family that has disowned him.

"I'll tell them I never harmed any children," the father, grandfather and great-grandfather told his hometown newspaper, The Buffalo News.

Read More in the Original Article on Sphere.com

My take on Christianity (Thanks, Horatius!!)

2009-12-12T23:14:00.001-08:00

"Christianity...walks with a strong step and erect frame...kindly, but firm...gentle, but honest...decided, but not churlish. It does not fear to speak the stern word of condemnation against error, nor to raise its voice against surrounding evils...It does not shrink from giving honest reproof...It calls sin: Sin, on whomsoever it is found....Both Old and New Testaments are marked by fervent outspoken testimonies against evil. To speak smooth things in such a case...is not Christianity. It is a betrayal of the cause of truth and righteousness....Charity covereth a multitude of sins; but it does not call evil good because a good man has done it; it does not excuse inconsistencies because the inconsistent brother has a high name and a fervent spirit...."

Horatius Bonar (1808-1889)

The Grace and Strength To Survive

2009-12-12T00:18:00.000-08:00

Susan Murphy Milano

Date / Length: 8/26/2009 3:00 PM - 1 hr
Description:
Today's Guests Author of Graceful Reflections Abigail Lurae. Domestic Violence Experts Loraine Tipton and from Mothers Without Custody Claudine Dombrowski. Susan Murphy-Milano is a violence expert, safety consultant, the daughter and survivor of murder-suicide, author of "Defending Our Lives, getting away from domestic violence & staying safe and Moving Out, Moving On when a relationship goes wrong. And her new book out in 2010,"Time's Up", how to leave and survive a dangerous relationship.

2009 October SECRET Motion of Contempt Against Mother Claudine Dom Brow Ski

2009-12-10T10:39:00.000-08:00

2009 October SECRET Motion of Contempt Against Mother Claudine Dom Brow Ski

Breaking the Silence ~Children's Stories~

2009-12-10T09:51:00.001-08:00

more about "Breaking the Silence ~Children's Stor...", posted with vodpod

Abused Mom Wants Unsupervised Visits with Daughter

2009-12-07T05:43:00.000-08:00

Court Appointed Child Abuse

2009-12-03T10:50:00.000-08:00

Claudine Dombrowski Media 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000

2009-12-03T10:41:00.000-08:00

Completed Testimony of Claudine Dombrowski

2009-11-30T13:51:00.000-08:00

The written testimony that you have was filed at the Inter American commission Human Rights IACHR known as Dombrowski v US 2007 For the Policy and procedure of Family/Juvenile Courts routinely placing battered mothers children with abusers and pedophiles. The State of Kansas and the Kansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault are Hard Copy signors to the petition which can be viewed in its entirety on the Stop Family Violence web site.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was created in 1959 and is expressly authorized to examine allegations of human rights violations by members of the Organization of American States, which include the United States. It also carries out on-site visits to observe the general human rights situations in all 35 member states of the Organization of American States and to investigate specific allegations of violations of Inter-American human rights treaties. Its charge is to promote the observance and the defense of human rights in the Americas.

The Court’s record is complete, as well as a simple Google search of my name for any more information and court records on this case alone are available as they are to massive to even begin to present here.

My name is Claudine Dombrowski, I am a US Army Veteran. I was a psychiatric nurse for thirteen years with the State of Kansas and the Veterans Administration. Until December 2000 when I was placed on 100% physical disability related to the violence inflicted by the batterer.

In May of 1996 I was given permission to relocate to western Kansas to avoid the ‘unremitting violence that I and my daughter suffered at the hands of the batterer,’ Per stated the Court Order after and admitted by the abuser that he had had beat me with a heavy object causing 24 internal and external stitches for a head injury I sustained.

In July 2000 without any motion from any party the Judge simply on his own issued a 11 page Order by ‘snail mail’ giving complete custody of my 6 year old daughter to an admitted and convicted batterer known to have a violent history and illicit drug and alcohol abuse… I was immediately placed in supervised visits after a complete suspension of any contact with my daughter after I was violently raped and beaten again by the perpetrator In December 2000.

I have never been shown to be a threat or harm to my daughter- yet for the past 10 years I have not been able to see her past the confines of extremely structured and expensive supervised visits at best when I have been allowed to see her. There are numerous psychiatric reports on the courts file that state that I am not a threat or harm to my daughter quite contrary to that of the well documented violence and substance abuse of the perpetrator.

In a hearing on 10 April 2007, I asked yet again that my daughter be protected from abuse and at least have unsupervised visitation. Again the court refused. My daughter spoke out in 2000 2003 and three CPS reports have been filed but in all three, they claimed that I, the mother coached my child and punished both mother and child by restricting visitation time further. The lesson is clear – don’t report abuse.

In May 2007, after the International filing at the IACHR, I was enrolled automatically into the States Address confidentiality program Safe at home- I thank the State of Kansas for the program administered by the Secretary of State for victims of Domestic Violence-thereby protecting at least my address from the Abuser and the Courts by proxy.

In June 2007 my daughter’s Grandmother had made her last trip to Kansas in her wheel chair and on oxygen bringing with her Rikki’s dog to say good bye and to see her grandmother for the last time due to terminal end stage illness. The Court denied the supervised visit with her grandmother but allowed her to see her dog.

November 4^th 2008 the courts further denied my daughter to even attend her grandmother’s funeral In Great Bend Kans.. and the court further gave the batterer complete control in allowing mother to see child even under the strict supervised visitation that had been implemented this past 1o years. The GAL however did give my daughter a 20$ gift certificate for the death of her granny.

April 2009- I asked again for visitation but was found in contempt of Court for a tribute video for my dead mother and daughter. I was asked to remove the video to which I did on April 6^th They stated it was all removed and I was compliant with their requests..

October 2009 I spoke on a local television station with District Attorney Chad Taylor regarding Domestic Violence on the rise in Shawnee County. The next day, I was held in contempt of the court and my ‘Supervised Visitation’ had been suspended.

A ‘Supervised Visitation’ that I could not afford anyways and had not been able to see my daughter except for a precious few times since the death of her grandmother.

I am not allowed to have photographs of my daughter, or public court documents referencing this case, I am not allowed talk about this case; I am not to mention the violence incurred by the abuser. Even to this committee. Review for compliance is set for December 16, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.

I am not allowed to attend any school functions or to see my daughter; I have not been in any way found to be of harm or other threat to my daughter. If this committee can find out why I cannot see my daughter it would be greatly appreciated. And as to why I must be treated as a criminal and held in contempt and jailed for speaking with you today about the horrific injustice to my daughter and I. Complaints to BSRB, and Attorney discipline, as well as the Judicial Performance en re the Cannons have all been met with the ‘rubber stamp of ‘no ethics have been violated’.

I pray that when I die the GAL does not give to my daughter 20$ gift certificate.

Thank you for your time. If I can be of any further assistance to this committee please feel free to call upon me. I sincerely hope this committee can stop the genocide that has beseeched Kansas children.

1995 - 1996 Battered Womens Task Force-Records of Claudine Dombrowski

2009-11-28T10:37:00.001-08:00

1995 - 1996 Battered Womens Task Force-Records of Claudine Dombrowski case no

1994-1996 Medical Records of Abuse Claudine Dombrowski

2009-11-28T10:35:00.000-08:00

1994-1996 Medical records of Abuse claudine dombrowski

The Oz Pig Page.....

2009-11-28T10:20:00.000-08:00

The OZ Pig Page

November 23, 2009 — Claudine Dombrowski

Note: Cross posted from (blogger angelzfury) Anonymoms (we are everywhere).

Permalink

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2009

Christian Kelder aka ChristianJ, Cressy Tasmania

"Some woman hit me one night and I immediately hit her back. I felt no guilt over it, but everyone thought I was in the wrong. I explained that she would not have been hit had she not hit me first, but for some reason they still felt I was the one that should be charged."
Full time Misogynist, father of 4 daughters (poor girls) works or worked in a hardware shop so he’s not the academic he likes to think he his, lives in Cressy, Tasmania.
Usernames: Christianj, christianj162000
http://www.geocities.com/christianj162000/main_page1.html
http://boysraisedbysinglemums.blogspot.com/ (don’t pedophiles target boys raised by single mums?)
http://www.facebook.com/christian.kelder?ref=search&sid=1803194818.1883721481..1
http://web.archive.org/web/20050312122711/http://www.kittennews.com/kn_mag/05_may03mag/christianj_01.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040831075753/www.geocities.com/christianj162000/
http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=193;sa=showPosts;start=30
http://s432.photobucket.com/albums/qq47/christianj162000/

POSTED BY TROTTING OUT THE PIGS OF AUSTRALIA AT 11:46 PM 1 COMMENTS

LABELS: CHRISTIAN KELDER, CHRISTIANJ, CHRISTIANJ162000, CRESSY,MISOGYNIST, TASMANIA

MORE HERE

Domestic violence is on the rise in Shawnee County KTKA com4

2009-11-27T08:37:00.000-08:00

Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse

2009-11-27T08:10:00.000-08:00

As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the "man" who did this to Claudine.

To read Claudine's history that was submitted to the IACHR, click here

If you want to know some of the many reasons women stay in abusive relationships, click here

AFTER THE BIRTH OF HER DAUGHTER, 1994

AFTER EX-HUSBAND BEAT HER WITH A CROW BAR, 1996

AFTER EX-HUSBAND RAPED AND BATTERED HER, 2000

AFTER EX-HUSBAND HIRED SOMEONE TO ASSAULT HER, 2003

THE "COFFEE TABLE" IN THE FATHER'S HOME IS A CHILD'S COFFIN. MOUNTED ON THE WALL ABOVE THE SOFA IS A GUN.