Author: Super User

Fairfield, OH–As anti-male as family courts are, this story is still a little hard to believe. The case is described in the story Man Jailed After Daughter Fails To Get GED (WCPO TV, 5/9/08). Ben, a reader, says:

“Summary:

1) Father was ordered to see to it that his daughter got her GED
2) Daughter’s problems in school were at a time that she lived with her mother
3) Both mother and daughter agree that either one of them should go to jail before the father.
4) Father’s current wife believes he might lose his job of 15 years for being in jail

To their credit, both women in the story–the mother and the daughter (pictured)–accept responsibility for the problem, and say if anyone should be punished it’s them, not the dad.

According to the story:

“A Fairfield man is in jail because his daughter hasn’t gotten her General Equivalency Diploma (GED).

“A judge ordered the father to stay on top of his daughter’s education months ago and when that order wasn’t followed, Brian Gegner was sentenced to 180-days in the Butler County jail.

“The daughter, Brittany Gegner, says her father shouldn’t be punished for her problems.

“Especially, she says because she’s now 18, an adult.

“‘It’s ridiculously wrong,’ said Brittany Gegner.

“‘Of all the punishments they could have given him, to make him go to jail?,’ she asked. ‘I mean, probation – until I get my GED – would be reasonable, but to send him to jail? That’s overboard.’

“Butler County Juvenile Court Judge David Niehaus ordered Gegner to jail for contributing to the delinquency of a minor by not following a court order which required Gegner to be sure his daughter got her GED.

“This comes after ongoing problems of Brittany skipping classes at Fairfield High School and then, Butler Tech.

“While Brian Gegner had custody of her, Brittany says it was while she lived with her mother that she was truant.

“‘I’m about to be 19 and my Dad’s being punished for something I did when I was 16,’ she said.

“‘It’s like I should, if anybody should be punished for this,’ said Brittany. ‘I would way rather me go to jail than my Dad.’

“‘They probably should have punished me if they were going to punish anybody,’ said Brittany’s mother Shana Roach. ‘Because she did live with me at the time, but because he had the custody, that’s why he’s being punished.’

“‘But I don’t understand the punishment all together because she’s going to school, she’s been going for four months,’ said Roach. ‘The only thing that’s holding her back is she can’t pass her math test.'”

Read the full article here.

It still seems like there must be more to this than we’re hearing. If Butler County Juvenile Court Judge David Niehaus wishes to respond with his side of the story, he may do so by emailing me at glenn@glennsacks.com. I will publish what he sends me.

Los Angeles, CA–Background: Fox recently announced its intention to launch a new reality show called Bad Dads. According to Reuters, in Bad Dads Jim Durham, director of the National Child Support Center, “functions as a sort of ‘Dog the Bounty Hunter’ for tracking deadbeats…[Durham’s role is as] an avenger of penniless single mothers [who] hunts down deadbeat dads and forces them to pay child support…It’s ambush reality TV.”

We oppose Bad Dads because it unfairly depicts divorced fathers as uncaring and selfish, when research clearly shows that most divorced dads pay their child support and remain a part of their children’s lives, often under difficult circumstances. It also publicly humiliates children of broken families by depicting their fathers as not loving or caring for them.

I partnered with Fathers & Families and the American Coalition for Fathers & Children in a campaign to ask Fox to cancel Bad Dads, and Fox has received over 5,000 letters, faxes and calls from our supporters. To learn more about our campaign or to join us, visit our campaign page here.

Adam Voiland of U.S. News & World Report covers our campaign in his new piece ‘Bad Dads’ Reality TV Show Stirs Controversy (5/2/08) and does a creditable job.

On a side note, the article is another example of one of my favorite maxims–“No good deed goes unpunished.” I’ve received hundreds of emails about our campaign, and I don’t think I’ve received more than 2 or 3 that were negative or critical. When I got a critical email from a reader named Bruce, I thought I would share it with my readers so the opposition perspective can be seen. And guess what happens?

Based only on that one letter, my buddy Adam writes “There are people protesting the protest, too.” Sigh…

For aficionados of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, I guess I did a Brutus when I should have done a Marc Antony…

Los Angeles, CA–Apparently the filming of the new James Bond movie Quantum of Solace is being plagued with problems. While listening to McIntyre In The Morning on KABC in Los Angeles this morning, I was dismayed when KABC entertainment reporter Debra Mark (pictured) lightly and semi-laughingly mentioned that one of the film crew had been “stabbed in a domestic dispute.”

In fact, according to the UPI article she was reading from (see below), the man almost died. Host Doug McIntyre (pictured below) and co-host Rob Marinko, both normally reasonable men, seemed mildly amused, too.

All together now–“If a wife was stabbed and almost murdered by her husband, would we be amused by it?”

As we’ve discussed before, this light dismissal of male victims of domestic violence is common in the media. I detailed one of them in my co-authored column Suppose Roles Had Been Reversed in Clara Harris Case (Houston Chronicle, 1/27/07).

Worker on new ‘Bond’ film found stabbed
UPI, May 4, 2008

DORNBIRN, Austria, May 4 (UPI) — A 58-year-old working on the Austrian set of “Quantum of Solace,” the latest James Bond movie, has been stabbed in a domestic dispute, police say.

A police spokesman said the unidentified technician was in “critical” condition after allegedly being attacked by a woman in Dornbirn, the Mail on Sunday reported.

“The woman appears to have attacked the man with a steak knife in the bedroom,” an unidentified police spokesman said.

“He suffered deep cut wounds to the head and hands, and the first policeman to arrive thought he had died as his pulse was so weak and there was so much blood.”

The discovery of the wounded crew member Saturday morning marked the third unusual event involving the production of the 22nd Bond film, the Mail said.

The British newspaper said a 29-year-old crew member survived a car crash two weeks earlier in Italy and a stuntman was seriously injured six days later while filming a chase scene.

Los Angeles, CA–My recent His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentary for KLAA AM 830 in Los Angeles discusses a recent legal victory for Michael Shannon, whose two sons were abducted to Egypt.

To listen to the commentary, click here or on the audio button below.

To learn more, click here.

His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentaries are broadcast daily on KLAA AM 830, a 50,000 watt talk station in Los Angeles and Orange County. KLAA AM 830 is owned by Arte Moreno, owner of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

From 2003-2005, His Side with Glenn Sacks ran in a syndicated talk show format in Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, Seattle, and other cities. To listen to show archives, click here.

Washington–Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post Writers Group–whose columns run in over 300 newspapers–just came out with a scathing piece criticizing Fox’s Bad Dads and supporting our Campaign Protesting Fox’s Reality Show Bad Dads. Parker writes:

“Of those everyone loves to hate, few can compete with the deadbeat dad for longevity.

“How much do we hate him? While we’re counting the ways, Fox TV may try to help America organize its contempt and put a face on this loathsome character. Bad Dads, redundant in these male-bashing times, is the name of a new reality show Fox is considering. While the network reviews the pilot, outraged fathers’ advocates are trying to nip this bad seed before it buds…

“Executive producer JD Roth describes his creation as ‘justice.’

“‘It’s a show that depicts the sacrifice and heartache of incredibly brave women on behalf of their kids and then ends in the most gratifying way possible.’ Really? How gratifying can it be for children watching television to see fathers humiliated in front of the world? Not much is an easy guess.

“For that reason, among others, fathers’ advocates are justifiably outraged at this new exploration of human prurience. Glenn Sacks, a Los Angeles-based dad advocate and radio personality, along with Fathers & Families and the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, has launched a pre-emptive strike against Fox on his Web site (www.glennsacks.com/foxbaddads)…

“Bad Dads is just the latest insult to men and especially fathers who feel, appropriately, that they’ve been maligned and minimized through television programming and advertising. In sitcoms, men are typically buffoons. And fathers, if they exist, are inept and unreliable, while Mom is a paragon of virtue and competence…Bad Dads reinforces a stereotype that is neither accurate nor fair. The rich pig who leaves his wife and kids for a pole-dancing aerobics instructor — or who enjoys extended martini lunches with his golf pals — is far from the norm.

“The more accurate picture of a deadbeat dad is an unemployed or underemployed bloke who sees more jail cells than golf courses. A common sequence of events for the poorest deadbeat dads goes something like this: Fall behind in child support, get arrested and put in jail, lose your job, fall further behind in child support.”

Parker’s full column is “Bad Dads” a Bad Idea (5/2/08)

Kentucky–“For nearly two years, James Rhoades, a university librarian in Tallahassee, has been fighting to establish in law what science and fact already have shown beyond any doubt: He is the biological father of the boy dubbed J.A.R. He’s got DNA tests to prove it, and videos and loads of pictures of him with the boy. In the photos too are the boy’s mother, J.N.R., whom Rhoades met while taking an online graduate course. She was — and still is — married to another man, who was stationed at a Pensacola Air Force base during their affair in 2005. And that’s the problem.

“Last week, in a decision that underscores the tense relationship between science and law, a divided Kentucky Supreme Court told Rhoades that he could not press his paternity claim, no matter what evidence of fatherhood he might have, because J.N.R. was, and remains, a married woman. When it comes to defining fatherhood in the Bluegrass State, where Ricketts and her husband now live, the marital ‘I do’ mean a lot more than DNA…

“The decision has left Rhoades devastated. ‘What I wanted was not just to see my son but to participate in his life. He is my son and I love him.'”–TIME Magazine, 4/29/08

James Rhoades lost a close decision in the Kentucky Supreme Court recently. As we’ve previously discussed, I have mixed emotions about Rhoades and his case. I will say this–if there were ever a guy in a no-win situation, it’s Rhoades. If he gives up and doesn’t pursue a relationship with his son, his son will only know of him as his villain dad who knocked up his mom and then ran out. If he does pursue his case–as he has–he’s vilified as the intruder wrecking a loving family’s peaceful life. It seems to me that Rhoades is probably doing the best he can to do the right thing in the difficult situation he helped create.

On one level, the case is one reason why I sympathize with family law judges and the position they’re put in–people make an absolute mess of their lives and then come to court and expect the courts to solve it.

On another level, while as a general rule I’ve little sympathy for men who have sex with married women, I can sympathize (to a point) with Rhoades. I remember in my 20s I briefly dated a woman who was separated but not divorced from her husband. I wasn’t crazy about being involved with a woman who was still technically married, but she told me a story about what a bastard her husband was, etc., etc., and I, of course, believed it. In being with her it didn’t seem like I was doing anything wrong. I suspect, with some basis, that Rhoades was given the same shtick–my husband doesn’t love me, I’m so sad with him, you’re the one who makes me happy, etc. Then she decided to stick with her husband and Rhoades was left out in the cold, cut off from his son.

The full article is Despite DNA, Dad’s Paternity Denied (TIME, 4/29/08).

London, England–From Good fathers ‘powerless against vengeful mothers’ (Daily Telegraph, 5/1/08):

“Decent fathers are left powerless to see their estranged children if vengeful mothers are determined to prevent access, a senior judge has admitted.

“Lord Justice Ward attacked child access law after presiding over a case that saw a ‘vicious’ mother falsely accuse her ex-husband of sexually abusing their child.

“He spoke out after telling the father that there was nothing he could do to help him re-establish contact with his daughter after his ex-wife turned her against him.

“The man”s 14-year-old daughter, who cannot been identified, had been influenced by a ‘drip, drip, drip of venom’ from his ex-wife, who wanted to deny him his paternal rights…

“In London”s Civil Appeal Court, Lord Justice Ward said: “The father complains bitterly, passionately, and with every justification, that the law is sterile, impotent and utterly useless…

“The malignant influence of the mother, who lives in the Lincoln area, came to a head when the girl wrote to her father when she was nine.

“The letter read: ‘This is what I really think about you. I hate you and you frighten me. You made my life miserable and stressful. I wish you would die. Leave me alone.'”

If only we could have 1/10th of the public awareness and condemnation of mothers like this as we do of fathers who are behind on their child support…

Read the full article here. To learn more about Parental Alienation, click here.

Saskatchewan, Canada–Background: In my recent blog post Father of Newborn ‘Did Everything One Would Hope a Man in His Position Would Do’–but It Wasn’t Enough, we discussed the case of an embattled California father, Jorge C., who fought a long, hard and ultimately unsuccessful battle to be a father to his baby boy. The boy’s birth was hidden from him and the mother gave the child up for adoption after, according to one judge, she had “engaged in a web of lies.’ The case reminded me of this remarkable story–From Sask. adoptive parents win custody of baby boy (CTV, 1/29/07): “The biological father of an infant boy in Saskatchewan has lost a battle for custody, after the court decided the child should stay with the adoptive parents he has known almost all his nine-month-old life… “The biological father launched a legal battle last year to get custody of the baby, arguing he hadn’t agreed to the adoption.
He said he hadn’t even been aware he was the child’s father and once he found out, he sought custody. “The adoptive parents argued they followed proper procedures in adopting the baby. In testimony heard last year, the biological mother said she chose the couple to raise her son because she already knew them and knew they couldn’t have children of their own. “In a 35-page judgment released Monday, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench said the unofficial adoption had served in the child’s best interests and should be maintained… “As well, the court found the biological father was capable of having a positive presence in the baby’s life, but not in a parental role. So in order to give the child a year of ‘familial calm’ to promote bonding and attachment in his current home, the court banned the biological father from seeing the baby for a year. “‘My concern is [the boy] could have immense difficulty, particularly in the early stages of his development, in reconciling all the complicated adult relationships in his life. In the interests of [the boy’s] stability, it is best that he have intermittent exposure to [the biological father], rather than structured continuous access,’ the court said in its ruling. “Although this case has generated considerable heartache and stress, it cannot, in a fair-minded way, be said that any party has been in the wrong. Although lives have been disrupted, the turmoil arose from the often complex circumstances that flow from the unfolding lives of real people with human frailties.” A few comments: 1) I do recognize that the judge was in a very difficult situation here. I would’ve allowed the father and his new wife to raise the boy but given the adoptive couple liberal visitation time with the baby. But the judge is correct–there’s no easy or completely satisfactory solution here. 2) I would disagree with the judge’s assertion that “it cannot, in a fair-minded way, be said that any party has been in the wrong.” The mother was wrong–she should have allowed the father to raise his own child, instead of sneaking behind his back to put the child up for adoption. 3) While the judge insists that mom didn’t do anything wrong, I wonder why nobody mentions the obvious possible motive she had to surreptitiously adopt out the baby–the desire to avoid paying child support to the biological father for the child. This may not have been her motive but I know one thing–if it had been the father in her position, everybody would have assumed from the beginning that this was his motive. 4) The judge “banned the biological father from seeing the baby for a year”–nice. And what a jerk the dad is–wanting to impose on the adoptive couple by visiting his own child. I wonder if the mother–who caused the whole problem to begin with–has been “banned” from seeing her baby, too? Somehow I doubt it. 5) According to this story the father apparently has to pay child support to the adopted couple to raise the child he should’ve been allowed to raise. So he gets the financial responsibility for his child without having any parental rights to his child–what a cynic might call one of the core principles of modern family law.