From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: December FACE Newsletter
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:34:26 GMT

The Central Ohio Fathers And Children for Equality December Newsletter

This Newsletter is intended to inform as many people as possible about
the plight of children of divorce, how they are often torn away from
one of their two parents for no good reason.  Therefore, for that end,
it may be redistributed as a whole or in pieces to whomever you want.
You don't have to ask.  If you want, use it to help put together your
own Newsletter.  Just don't make a profit off of it.

Among the readership of this Newsletter are many judges, referees,
psychologists, social workers, lawyers, 60 Minutes, 48 Hours, 20/20, US
and state Senators and Representatives.

Quotable Quotes:

"Perhaps in part to inspire others out there, I was able to obtain 50%
physical/legal custody of my son about three years ago.  Three days
after the decision, my six-year-old and I were on a road trip and I
asked him if he understood what his mother and I had agreed to and he
said, `I think so....'  To make sure, I said that we had agreed that he
would spend about the same amount of time with both of his parents.  He
grinned and said, `....That's what I told my Mom I wanted a long time
ago!'"
	- Dan Tone

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Children have the right to be free from any new social class forced
upon them by State Courts which order and decree single parent custody,
denying one parent an equal legal and personal relationship with them
and producing a family model which has not been proven to be either
psychologically healthy or constitutionally sound.
	- the 10th right listed in the Bill of Rights for Children of
          Divorce

========================================================================

				Contents

From the Desk of the Editor-Tidbits

	- tidbits

Law: Divorced Parents Battle Over Holidays Leaving Children Caught in
Tug of War

	- a piece from the Wall Street Journal.  Ah, the holidays--the
	  time of year when children get presents and families spend
	  time together.  But it is also the time of year when parents
	  go to court and try to prove that spending time with the
	  other parent for the holidays would cause irreparable
	  emotional damage.  And that's just what the holidays are all
	  about, wouldn't you say?

Some Important Sentiments

	- Dr. David Garrod put together some definitive statements on
          joint custody.

Finding an Attorney

	- not so much advice on how-to, but how-not-to.  You see, the
	  goal is not to find an attorney, anyone can do that--the
	  goal is to find a good attorney who is ethical, compassionate
	  and an equalist that has a comprehensive knowledge of the
	  law.  Such attorneys are rare.

Seven Stages of Ending a Marriage

	- some labels for those divorce roller-coaster hills and
	  valleys.  If you are into labels, these are OK.  The
	  important thing to note is that these stages are quite common
	  and are not a sign of emotional or psychological problems.
	  They are, rather, signs of health, healing and recovery.

The Don'ts

	- A quick list of things that you shouldn't do when caught up in a
          divorce or after a divorce.

Supreme Court Upholds Grandparents' Visitation Law

	- Aha.  The US Supreme Court says that Grandparents have rights
	  to see their grandchildren.  If grandparents have been denied
	  access to their grandchildren, they can go to court and file
	  for access to the children.  Time with the children will most
	  surely be granted, especially when those grandparents can
	  point out to the judge what the Supreme Court has stated on
	  this issue in not one, but two recent cases.  The cases are
	  not noted, but can be easily found.  The states involved are
	  noted in this article.

Ohio's New Domestic Relations Law (local-pertains only to Ohio)

	- a clarification on a couple of points in the new law and a
	  brief history of what it took to get it passed.  The law has
	  been in place for about 20 months now, so I think we can stop
	  calling it the "new" law.

Friend of the Court

	- Michigan has one of the most progressive systems for handling
	  visitation denial in the US.  They have set up an agency,
	  called the "Friend of the Court" that is equivalent to the
	  Child Support Enforcement Agency.  Visitation denial is
	  handled in much the same way as non-support.  This law is
	  quite simple, yet very effective.  Michigan is reaping great
	  benefits in collecting child support as a result of
	  visitation enforcement,  This is a model law for the US.
	  Please show this law to your state representative and
	  senators, and your national representatives and senators.  We
	  must get this law passed in every state.

Continuing Saga of a Non-custodial Father

	- an example of the kinds of settlements men get when they go
	  to court for either 1) an increase in visitation with their
	  children, or 2) a reduction in child support or to get the
	  court to give them the right to claim the children as
	  dependents for tax purposes.  Basically, it costs a fortune
	  to go to court and the best outcome is often to simply
	  recover the expenses for going to court or obtain some token
	  increase in visitation that can easily be thwarted.

Jury Finds Case Unusual, Acquits Dad of Non-support

	- a mother gets the courts to go after a father for
	  non-support, except the case is not so simple.  This father
	  is disabled.  Why is he disabled?  Well, because the mother's
	  second husband shot him.  Still, in the mother's eyes, he's a
	  terrible deadbeat.  A jury of her peers didn't see it her
	  way, though.

Injured Parties

	- A father is accused of sexually abusing his daughter in the
	  middle of a nasty divorce.  For fourteen months he is
	  presumed guilty and treated like a criminal.  But in court, a
	  different story emerges....  

========================================================================

From the Desk of the Editor--Tidbits

In January, 48 Hours, the CBS News magazine, will feature a 
report on fathers denied access to their children. Exactly which 
week this report will be aired is not known. Check your listings 
to find out when it is on.

Also, a recent movie, A Mother's Choice on Dr. Elizabeth Morgan and
Dr. Eric Foretich and their battle over custody of their daughter,
Hilary, aired on ABC. Somehow the movie took a pro-Dr. Morgan stance
and was not empathetic to the father, Dr. Foretich. There is an
excellent book titled, Hilary's Trial by Jonathan Grover, that presents
a very different view of this case.

Happy Holidays.

========================================================================

Law: Divorced Parents Battle Over Holidays Leaving Children Caught in
Tug of War
By Amy Stevens, Staff Reporter of the Wall Street Journal

With the approach of the holidays, many divorced and separated parents
are preparing for a most unfestive ritual: dividing their children's
time during what is supposed to be a season of celebration.

In December, family lawyers' phones ring off the hook and dockets at
domestic-relations court are especially crowded as feuding couples
attempt to reach agreements over custody at Christmas and Hanukkah.

"Like every judge who works in a family-court situation, I brace myself
for this time of year," says Chicago Judge Kathy M.  Flanagan of the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill. "No matter what they are fighting
about during the year, the holidays are absolutely devastating for
divorcing and divorced couples. It's a terrible irony because the
holidays are supposed to be joyous for children."

Currently, Judge Flanagan is presiding over about 10 cases a week
involving the holidays, and she expects that number to double as the
holidays get closer. In one case, a Chicago father is seeking to take
his children out of state to Florida for Christmas vacation, but the
mother is objecting. In another, a man is seeking to change a
long-standing agreement under which his ex-wife has the children on
Christmas Day.

The general rule in such custody disputes, when there isn't a conflict
between the parents' religious beliefs, is that judges must base their
decisions wholly on the best interests of the children.

The problem becomes more complex when parents observe different
religions or are followers of different branches within the same
religion. Then the question is no longer simply where or with whom the
children will spend a religious holiday, but how.

In Westport, Conn., for example, family lawyer Ellen Effron recently
represented a divorced Roman Catholic woman who wanted to take her two
children to Mass on Christmas Eve.  Their father, who is Jewish,
objected on the ground that it would violate an agreement that the
children be raised Jewish. The Connecticut Superior Court ruled that
taking the children to a service wouldn't violate the agreement.

"The intensity of the parents' conflict is magnified when the issue
isn't just time with the child but also a parent's desire to involve
the child in his or her own religion," says Jeff Atkinson, an adjunct
professor at DePaul University College of Law.

In such cases, judges can sometimes find themselves caught between two
powerful imperatives. On one side is the First Amendment, which gives
each parent the right to the "free exercise" of religion--and the
implied right to raise a child in that religion. On the other is the
state's obligation to safeguard the child's interests.

"The parent has a fundamental right to practice his or her religion
and to raise a child as the parent sees fit," Mr. Atkinson says. "On
the other hand, the child should have a right to be kept out of a
damaging emotional tug of war."

Diana Boddie and her ex-husband Gerald are involved in such a wrenching
battle in San Francisco Superior Court. Ms. Boddie, a Catholic, wants
to keep her 11-year-old son and five-year-old daughter with her for
Christmas. Mr. Boddie, a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't celebrate the
holiday, has filed a petition for visitation, citing his religious
freedom.

"The holidays are a major issue for me," says Ms. Boddie. "My children
are used to celebrating Christmas, that's their life-style, and I want
to make sure they have it this year."

Courts normally view religion as a positive factor in children's lives
and try to allocate equally the parents' participation in their
children's religious upbringing. This principle of neutrality in
religious disputes means that courts can't make a value judgment about
particular belief systems.

In rare instances, however, a judge will rule that exposure to
conflicting religious beliefs, or to a certain religious practice,
would be so confusing to a child that emotional damage could result.

"The court must make a finding that for the child to participate in a
particular religion would be harmful," says Ronald Anteau, a Los
Angeles family lawyer. "But that harm can't be just speculative. The
court requires a specific showing of the harm." A few years ago, Mr.
Anteau successfully argued for a change of custody on behalf of the
father of a four-year-old girl whose mother was a member of a cult-like
group. "The court heard evidence of the practices there and found
they were potentially harmful to the child," he says.

In another case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals prohibited a Mankato,
Minn., father from taking his children to an Assemblies of God church
after their mother, a Lutheran, testified that they returned from
visits in an "extremely upset and emotional state."

The standard for harm is a tough one to prove, though, and courts
seldom find that children's distress about the holidays, no matter how
severe, is sufficient by itself to bar one parent from visitation. For
example, in a recent case in Amarillo, Texas, a Worldwide Church of God
father was allowed to see his child during the Christmas season even
though he had told the child that "God hates Santa Claus" and objects
to certain religious celebrations engaged in by the child's mother.

In the Boddie case, Ms. Boddie plans to argue, with the aid of a
psychiatrist as expert witness, that allowing her children to spend
time with her ex-husband during the holidays would be "emotionally
devastating" for them. "I noticed that my son's mood swings during the
holidays," she says. Mr. Boddie, through his lawyer, declined to
comment.

Holidays can be the occasion for other questions in divided families,
such as whether a predivorce agreement regarding the children's
religious upbringing is enforceable when one parent later wants to
challenge it on the ground of religious freedom.

Courts in different states have decided the issue differently. A
majority of states, including Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, tend not
to honor such agreements. But New York courts generally uphold them,
citing written agreements as evidence of what the parents at one time
thought was in a child's best interests.

For example, in a 1990 case, a Norristown, PA., mother who is Jewish
wanted to enforce a prenuptial agreement under which the couple's three
children would be raised in her faith, not that of their Catholic
father. The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the father could
take his children to Mass occasionally, including at Christmas. Judge
John T.J. Kelly Jr. of Philadelphia wrote: "Enforcement of the
agreement plainly encroaches upon the fundamental right of individuals
to question, to doubt and to change their religious convictions, and to
expose their children to their changed beliefs."

In a recent case in New York, though, a mother who had promised to
raise her child as an Orthodox Jew wanted to change that agreement when
her own practices became less religious. But she had signed a
separation agreement that explicitly stated that custody would revert
to the father unless she adhered to specific terms in the agreement.
The New York Court of Appeals ruled that a contract about a child's
religious training is enforceable--although it also noted that the most
important consideration remained the child's well-being.

Family law experts suggest that all agreements involving a child's
religious upbringing be very specific, especially custody agreements
that involve the holidays. That helps avoid conflict and confusion
later, they say.

"The language you see in most custody agreements is `Parties will
alternate the holidays,'" says Ms. Effron. "But does that mean
Christmas Eve and Christmas Day are split?" She recommends that
parents spell out details at the outset, such as defining Christmas
Eve as 10 am., Dec. 24, to 10 am., Dec. 25.

"It's not so critical whether the children open the presents at mommy's
house or daddy's house but that they don't feel the conflict or the
tension surrounding the holiday," says Ms.  Effron. "I would urge
people to raise and understand these issues way in advance."

Source: The Wall Street Journal.  (c) 1992 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.,
Tuesday, December 1, 1992

========================================================================

Some Important Sentiments
By Dr. David Garrod, executive director of the Indiana Children's
Rights Council

[In this article, quotes are indented.  In the hardcopy version, the
quotes are in italics and indented.]

    There is a myth in some mental health, legal and judicial
    thinking that joint custody can only be effectively undertaken
    by "cooperative parents." To the contrary, joint custody
    provides one of the best methods of stimulating a degree of
    significant and meaningful cooperation in warring parents who
    would otherwise continue years of battling to the detriment of
    their children. The years of battling are particularly
    ferocious as one parent abuses the power of sole custody and
    the other parent fights the abuse in an attempt to gain back
    his or her lost parental identity.
	-  Dr. Frank S. Williams, M.D. Child and Adolescent
	   Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst for children,
	   adolescents and adults, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center,
	   Los Angeles, in a speech to the Children`s Rights
	   Council at their 1992 Convention as reported in the
	   proceedings of same.

In a traditional custody fight where one parent wins while the other
loses it is too often overlooked that regardless of whether the father
wins or, more probably, the mother wins, the children are guaranteed
most probably to lose. The usual approach of awarding only one parent
custody is stacked against the children; as the custody battle rages
on the children will most probably witness increasing hostility
between the very two people they love the most, and when it is over in
all probability they will have lost the care and companionship of one
parent. To protect the child from such a devastating loss should be a
high priority in any custody determination. Joint custody has been
shown to provide just such protection:

    There is no doubt that joint custody yields two psychological
    parents, and that the children do not suffer the profound sense
    of loss characteristic of so many children of divorce. The
    children maintained strong attachments to both parents.
	-  Alice Abarbanel, "Shared Parenting After Separation
	   and Divorce: A Study of Joint Custody," American
	   Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol. 49, p. 328 (1979).

It has been shown that joint custody benefits children in several 
specific areas:

    Joint custody was beneficial for these children in three major
    areas. First, they received the clear message that they were
    loved and wanted by both parents. Second, they had a sense of
    importance in their family and the knowledge that their parents
    made great efforts to jointly care for them, both factors of
    which were important to their self-esteem. Third, they had
    physical access to both parents, and the psychological
    permission to love and be with both parents.  This protected
    them from the crippling loyalty conflicts often seen in
    children who are caught in the crossfire of their parents'
    ongoing battles."
	-  Susan Steinman, "Joint Custody, What We Know, What
	   We Have Yet To Learn, and the Judicial and
	   Legislative Implications," 16 U.C.D.L. Rev. 739, 474
	   (1983).

Dr. Steinman also concluded that there were significant benefits for
the mothers and fathers who were involved in a joint custody
arrangement and that diminished hostilities between the parents was
another fringe benefit:

    The overriding benefit for these parents was the sharing of the
    burdens and pleasures of childrearing. Most of the working
    mothers valued time off to pursue their careers and their adult
    social life. Their sense of identity and self-esteem gained
    from their paid employment allowed them more easily to
    relinquish the role of full-time parent. For fathers, the
    preservation of a close relationship with their children and an
    important adult role as a parent was paramount. For these
    parents, shared parenting helped temper the sense of loss,
    personal failure, and disruption of the adult role and identity
    that often accompanies divorce. It functioned as an antidote to
    the diminished self-esteem and guilt over breaking up a family.
    It allowed them to preserve a sense of family and to avoid the
    profound sense of loss for themselves and their children. The
    marital relationship had failed, but joint custody represented
    a personal and mutual success as parents.
	-  Steinman, supra, at 743, 744.

 after divorce:

    It is of the highest importance that every effort be made to
    enable a child to develop and enjoy a wholesome relationship
    with both parents.
	-  Com. Ex Rel. Piggins v. Kifer, 427 A. 2d 185 at 189
	   (Pa.  Super. 1981).

and:

    Coercive judicial intervention perceived to be on the side of
    one parent against the other will in many instances have the
    opposite effect; that is, it will discourage the judicially
    disfavored parent who has lost control from continuing to
    maintain a meaningful role in the upbringing of his or her
    child.

	-  Re: Marriage of Mentry, 190 Cal. Rptr. 843 at 849
           (App.  1983).

In the landmark case of Beck v. Beck, 432 A. 2d 63 (N.J. 1981) the New
Jersey Supreme Court issued a decision ordering joint custody which is
of great significance because of the comprehensive nature of the
opinion, its exhaustive treatment of the issues surrounding joint
custody, and its value in supplying guidance to courts in general.

In Beck the court held that trial courts are authorized to decree joint
custody of children; such is clearly also the case in Indiana.

In Beck that court noted that joint custody has become more topical in
recent years because of the perceived inadequacies of sole custody and
in recognition of the modern trend toward shared parenting in marriage.
After discussing the disadvantages of sole custody the court stated:
"The upshot is that the best interests of the child are disserved by
many aspects of sole custody." Id. at 65.

A highly significant piece of evidence adduced at trial was the
testimony of Dr. Grief, a psychiatric social worker who has done
extensive research on the joint custody issue, in that she testified
that joint custody can work even where the parents are openly hostile
toward one another, provided both parents care about the children. In
her words, "there needs to be good input to the children, there need
not be such good input between the parties." Id. at 68. This opinion
has also been bourn out in other research, for example:

    ...I am concerned about the position that argues joint custody
    should not be awarded when parents do not agree. In these
    cases, it is almost always the woman who is opposed to joint
    custody. Women do not need to ask for, nor agree to, joint
    custody. They are presumed by society, lawyers, the courts and
    themselves to have a right to keep the children in their care
    and protection. It is the father who must ask for joint custody
    and it is often in the mother`s power to agree or disagree. The
    mother`s position is particularly enhanced if she knows that a
    refusal to share parenting with her spouse will preclude a
    joint custody order regardless of her reasons for denying joint
    custody.

    ... In these various instances, there may be no legitimate
    reasons based on the father`s capacity to parent for refusing
    to consider joint custody. Yet the children of such women would
    be denied more generous access to their father despite the real
    possibility that increased contact could be more
    psychologically beneficial.
	-  Kelly, "Further Observations on Joint Custody," 16
	   U.C.D.L. Rev. 762 at 769 (1983).

    The burden thus rests with the party opposing joint custody to
    demonstrate that the child would be subject to serious injury,
    either emotional or physical, in a joint custody arrangement
    and that burden has not been met. Quite the opposite has been
    shown to be the case, i.e., the [child]'s development would be
    enhanced under a joint custody arrangement and unnecessarily
    hampered if the present sole custody arrangement is allowed to
    continue ... denying [the child] the frequent care and
    companionship of both her parents.
	-  "Joint Custody as a Fundamental Right," 23 Ariz. L.
	   Rev. 785 (1981).

========================================================================

Finding an Attorney
[I think this was written by Brad Johnson]

It is interesting that most people don't have the least idea of how to
go about finding and obtaining the services of an attorney.  Well,
here's some advice.

First, an individual needs to know that they need one. Logic tells me
that up to half the spouses involved in divorce or persons involved
in a paternity action, may have sought an attorney after they were
served with the divorce or paternity complaint.  They now must find an
attorney under some very stressful conditions that can impair making
a good selection. At this time, it may be important to receive some
emergency counseling for your mental well-being from a professional,
from a support group, or from a mental health hot-line service to help
put things in perspective. Above all, DO NOT SAY ANYTHING TO, OR DO
ANYTHING TOWARD, YOUR SPOUSE, YOUR SPOUSE'S FAMILY, OR THEIR PROPERTY.

If you are seeking an attorney for matters that occur after the
divorce, such as contempt of court matters, child support increases or
decreases, Shared Parenting etc., it is still important that you
consider the quality of attorney that you should hire to represent your
needs.

After eight years of researching attorneys in Ohio and particularly
in Northeast Ohio, I have concluded that ninety-nine percent of the
attorneys ARE NOT qualified to practice domestic or juvenile relations
law. Even worse; in my dealings with Judges and Referees all over Ohio,
I find a very sorry situation when it comes the knowledge of prominent
lawyers, judges and referees, concerning new laws, such as the Shared
Parenting Law. One recent candidate for Judge of Domestic Relations in
Trumbull County, allegedly told the UAW CAP council (he was seeking
endorsement and got it) that if he becomes the Trumbull County Domestic
Relations Judge that he would immediately make all child support awards
based on NET income, not Gross income. This attorney should know that
by doing so he would be violating State Law and possibly be disbarred.
A Juvenile Judge in Lucas County couldn't understand why Senate Bill 10
"the poster bill" allows for an administrative procedure to establish
child support but couldn't establish visitation, Share Parenting or
custody change administratively. I told him that he had a good point,
but it was because Federal Public Law 98-378 held that child support
and access/visitation issues were separate issues, and that they could
not be addressed equally in the same legislation. The administrative
issuance of visitation, Shared Parenting etc. needs to be addressed in
a separate legislative bill. (CAPRA is working on that right now.) In
another example, one of Mahoning County's most respected attorneys in
practice for 22 years, in my presence, told his client that he cannot
have Shared Parenting because "your plan is not a 50-50 split." I think
you are getting the idea about what lawyers and judges know about
children and the law.

There are materials available from various groups on "How to Choose an
Attorney." Please realize that different groups have different agendas
and you must learn to recognize emotionality and propaganda. A tell-tale
sign is the accusatory language in the printed material. After you have
settled on an attorney be sure you understand the costs and billing
arrangements and execute an agreement. Now the real work begins.

Source: Ohio Fathers For Equal Rights Newsletter, November, 1992

========================================================================

Seven Stages of Ending a Marriage
By Judith Wayne Thomas, Ph. D.

For most people, ending a marriage is emotionally very difficult.
While it may sometimes seem as if things will never get better, they
do. The seven stages described here are typical of what most people
experience, although the pace of moving through the stages can differ.
It is not unusual for one spouse to be several stages ahead of the
other at a given time. It may take two years or more to move through
all seven stages; seldom less than a year.

     1. Disillusionment: You romantic illusions about your spouse are
	gone. You begin to recognize your spouse's bad habits and see
	more and more negative aspects about your relationship.

     2. Erosion: While you still have positive feelings toward your
	spouse, you are less and less satisfied with your marriage.
	Sexual problems begin to occur. Conflict, anger, and control
	struggles increase.

     3. Detachment: Strong feelings of any kind are rare. There's not
	enough feeling left to generate anger, much less love.  You
	avoid intimacy with your spouse.

     4. Physical Separation and Decision to Divorce: The end of one
	kind of trauma but the beginning of others. You must now build
	a new identity as a single person. You ride an emotional roller
	coaster that includes the highs of new possibilities and the
	lows of loneliness. This trying time is often made more
	difficult by worries over money.

     5. Mourning Stage: The loss of your marital relationship becomes
	very real. You feel angry, hurt, sad, lonely, and helpless.
	This is the most important phase of the divorce.

     6. Second Adolescence: You begin to feel relief that marriage is
	over. You become more objective about your former spouse and
	acknowledge the good things about your marriage as well as
	the bad. You begin to establish an active independent social
	life. You may go through a clutching stage with new
	relationships to deal with loneliness.

     7. Establishment of an Independent Identity: Your emotions become
	more stable; the roller coaster flattens out to gently rolling
	hills and curves. You have established new commitments and
	goals, and you are ready to develop a new relationship.

Source: A publication of Professional Mediation Associates 

========================================================================

The Don'ts

      * DON'T tell the children more than they can grasp and
	understand. It is difficult for parents to know what to say and
	when.

      * DON'T say unkind things to the children about the other parent.
	Children should be free to form their own opinions.  They
	should be encouraged to see the good in each parent.

      * DON'T use the children to spy on the other parent's activities.
	Children should not be used as a "pipeline" for information.

      * DON'T involve children in your own fighting. Children should
	not be caught in the "battle ground" between their parents.

      * DON'T be a Santa Claus (if you are the visiting parent).  This
	only makes it harder for the parent who has the day-to-day
	care.

      * DON'T try to buy the children's affection through expensive
	gifts. The best gift is yourself, your time and your love.

      * DON'T involve the children with your new friends of the
	opposite sex. Children need time to adjust to the separation of
	their parents before they can be expected to accept third
	parties.

      *	DON'T hesitate to seek professional help if these or other 
        problems are troubling you.

Source: A publication of the Elizabeth Blackwell Center

========================================================================

Supreme Court Upholds Grandparents' Visitation Law

Kentucky farmer Bill King said the 1 1/2 years when his estranged son
refused to let King see his granddaughter was "just like a funeral."

Now, as a result of a Supreme Court action upholding his right to see
his grandchild, 5-year-old Jessica "just bubbles when she comes out
here" to Kings' Danville farm.

The court yesterday left intact a Wisconsin law giving grandparents
visitation rights to their grandchildren even when the parents
object. Two weeks earlier, the court let stand a similar Kentucky law
invoked by King.

The 54-year-old King, who has 13 grandchildren, said he "thought my
situation was the worst in the world" when a fight with his son in 1988
led to a cutoff of visits with Jessica.

David Liederman, executive director of the Child Welfare League of
America, said his office gets hundreds of calls from grandparents
denied access to their grandchildren because of family troubles,
divorces or custody battles.

In the appeal acted on yesterday, lawyers for the mother, who refused
to allow visits between her in-laws and her daughter, argued that a
lower court decision in favor of the grandparents "undermines the
fundamental rights of the parents."

In the Wisconsin case, the mother became alienated from her in-laws
after her husband died in 1988. The grandparents sued for visitation
privileges in 1990.

All states have enacted grandparent-visitation rights in recent years,
and lawyers for the Wisconsin grandparents argued that these statues
uphold a relationship honored in all societies. The high court, six of
whose nine members are grandparents, agreed.

King is now allowed to see his granddaughter every Wednesday and
Saturday afternoon.

Source: The Columbus Dispatch, AP Story, November 3, 1992

========================================================================

Ohio's New Domestic Relations Law 
By Ohio lawyer William K. Weisenberg

Amended Substitute Senate Bill 3

Four years in the making with countless hearings, endless hours of
testimony, numerous drafts and amendments, passed by the Senate,
defeated in the House, then reconsidered and passed in the House,
concurrence by the Senate with House amendments, and signed into law by
the Governor, effect April 11, 1991--that in a nutshell is the short
story of Amended Substitute Senate Bill 3. However, in order to put
the story in perspective, a brief history is required.

Senate Joint Resolution 12, adopted by the 116th General Assembly
(1985-1986), created a 15-member Domestic Relations Task Force
charged with the responsibility of studying domestic relations laws in
Ohio, receiving recommendations and suggestions from professionals in
the field and citizenry, and developing a report for consideration by
the General Assembly. The Findings and Recommendations of the Domes-
tic Relations Task Force were submitted to the General Assembly on
June 30, 1987. Sen. Grace R. Drake R-Solon), chair of the Task Force,
became the principal sponsor of Senate Bill 299, offered in late 1987.
Sen. Drake recognized that due to the magnitude of the issues
addressed in the bill, and the interest it would generate, it was not
likely that it could complete its legislative journey during the
117th General Assembly (1987-1988), so informal hearings were
conducted to hear from interested parties throughout 1988. S.B. 3,
the successor to S.B. 299, was introduced on Jan 19, 1989.

Am.Sub. S.B. 3 is 218 pages long. Many sections of the Revised Code,
referred to in the bill, address matters not directly related to
domestic relations law but were required to be amended because of
cross-reference to the changes made in the controlling sections of
the Revised Code pertaining to the domestic relations' statutes. What
follows are the significant changes in domestic relations' statutes in
the numerical order they appear in the Revised Code. Also noted are
statutes not changed.

Support Obligations
Beyond the Age of Majority

In his article, "Divorce-Ohio Style." David Ferguson noted that
proposed amendments to sections 3103.03 and 3109.05 of the Revised Code
would permit the court to continue support obligations beyond to age
of majority if the child is attending a college, university,
technical school or any other institution of high learning.

These amendments were in and out of the bill several times.  However,
the bill enacted makes no change to existing law.

Temporary Spousal Support--Attorney Fees

Section 3109.18(B) is amended to provide that: "During the pendency of
any divorce, or legal separation proceeding, the court may award
reasonable temporary support to either party."

New division (H) if Section 3105.18 permits the court to award
reasonable attorney fees to either party at any stage of the pro-
ceedings, if it determines that the other party has the ability to pay
the attorney's fees awarded by the court. The section reads as follows:
(H) "In divorce or legal separation proceedings, the court may award
reasonable attorney's fees to either party at any stage of the
proceedings, including, but not limited to, any appeal, any proceeding
arising from a motion to modify a prior order or decree, and any
proceeding to enforce a prior order or decree, if it determines that
the other party has the ability to pay the attorney's fees that the
court awards. When the court determines whether to award reasonable
attorney's fees to any party pursuant to this division, it shall
determine whether either party will be prevented from fully litigating
his interests if it does not award reasonable attorney's fees.

This provision was inserted in the final days of hearings in the House
and is almost certain to be revisited by the General Assembly during
its current session.

========================================================================
 
Friend of the Court (Model Law--Give to Your Reps)

[Editorial Comment: The "Friend of the Court" in Michigan handles
visitation problems. The case goes to court only if one party refuses
the administrative decision.

Every non-custodial parent who reads this, write to your state representative
and state senator.

Would an act like this put too many people out of work?  Remember that
Michigan's record on collecting child support has been 50% better than
other state's.

Could the "Friend of the Court" and administrative hearings be part of
the reason?]

Support and Visitation Enforcement Act--State of Michigan

552.641 Visitation violations: sanctions Sec. 41.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), the friend of the court shall
    do 1 or more of the following in a dispute concerning visitation
    of a minor child:

  (a) Apply a makeup visitation policy established under sec-
      tion 42

  (b) Commence civil contempt proceedings under section 44.

  (c) Petition the court for a modification of existing visitation
      provisions to ensure visitation, unless contrary to the best
      interests of the child. A written report and recommendation shall
      accompany the petition.

(2) The friend of the court shall not invoke any option under
    subsection (1) if the parties resolve their dispute through an
    informal joint meeting or through domestic relations mediation as
    provided under section 11 or 13 of the friend of the court act.

552.642 Makeup visitation policy for wrongful denial of visitation
Sec. 42

(1) Not later that 180 days after the enactment date of this amen-
    datory act, each circuit shall formulate a makeup visitation pol-
    icy under which a non-custodial parent who has been wrongfully
    denied visitation is able to make up the visitation at a later
    date. The policy shall not apply until it is approved by the chief
    circuit judge or only circuit judge of the circuit.

(2) Before a makeup visitation policy is applied in a particular case,
    the office of the friend of the curt shall send to both parties a
    notice, by ordinary mail to the person's last known address, that
    the policy will be applied in their case.

(3) A makeup visitation policy formulated and approved under this
    section shall include all of the following:

  (a) Makeup visitation shall be the same type and duration of
      visitation as the visitation that was denied, including but not
      limited to weekend visitation for weekend visitation, holiday
      visitation for holiday visitation, weekday visitation for week-
      day visitation, and summer visitation for summer visitation.

  (b) Makeup visitation shall be taken within 1 year after the
      wrongfully denied visitation occurred.

  (c) The time of the makeup visitation shall be chosen by the
      non-custodial parent.

(4) Beginning upon approval of a makeup visitation policy formulated
    pursuant to subsection (1), the office of the friend of the court
    shall keep an accurate record of alleged visitation arrears and the
    non-custodial parent shall give to the office written notice of
    alleged, wrongfully denied visitation within 7 days of alleged
    denial.

(5) Beginning upon approval of a makeup visitation policy formulated
    pursuant to subsection (1), if a wrongfully denied visitation is
    alleged and the friend of the curt determines that action should be
    taken under section 41(1) (a), the following shall apply.

  (a) The office of the friend of the court shall give to the cus-
      todial parent within 5 days after receipt of the notice of denial
      visitation under subsection (4) a notice, which shall contain the
      following statement in boldface type to not less than 12 points:
      FAILURE TO RESPOND IN 7 DAYS TO THE OFFICE OF THE FRIEND OF THE
      COURT SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS AN AGREEMENT THAT VISITATION WAS
      WRONGFULLY DENIED AND THAT OFFICE WILL ADJUST THE ACCOUNT OF
      VISITATION ARREARS ACCORDINGLY.

  (b) If the custodial parent makes a timely reply contesting the
      alleged wrongful denial of visitation, a hearing shall be held by
      a referee or a circuit judge after notice is given to both par-
      ties.

  (c) The referee or judge shall determine whether visitation was
      wrongfully denied.

  (d) If the hearing provided under subdivision (b) is held before a
      referee, either party shall be entitled to a de nove hearing
      before a circuit court judge as provided in section 7(5) of the
      friend of the court act.

  (e) After a final determination that visitation was wrongfully
      denied, the office of the friend of the court shall adjust the
      visitation arrears account accordingly.

  (f) The non-custodial parent shall give to the office of the friend
      of the court and custodial parent a written notice of makeup
      visitation at least 1 week before a makeup weekday or weekend
      visitation or at least 30 days before a makeup holiday or
      makeup summer vacation.

552.644 Contempt action for visitation violations: sanctions Sec. 44.

(1) If the office of the friend of the court determines that action
    should be taken under section 41 (1) (b), the office of the friend
    of the curt shall commence a civil contempt proceeding to resolve a
    dispute concerning visitation of a minor child by filing with the
    circuit court a petition for an order to show cause why either
    parent who has violated a visitation order should not be held in
    contempt.

(2) If the court finds that either parent has violated a visitation
    order, the court shall find that parent in contempt and may do 1 or
    more of the following:

  (a) Require additional terms and conditions consistent with the
      court's visitation order.

  (b) After notice to both parties and a hearing, if requested by a
      party, on any proposed modification of visitation, modify the
      visitation order to meet the best interests of the child.

  (c) Order that makeup visitation be provided for the non-custodial
      parent to take the place of wrongfully denied visitation.

  (d) Order the parent to pay a fine of not more than $10,000. 

  (e) Commit the parent to the county jail. 

  (f) Commit the parent to the county jail with the privilege of
      leaving the jail, during such hours as the court determines and
      under the supervision as the court considers necessary, for the
      purpose of allowing the parent to go to and return from his or
      her place of employment.

(3) A commitment under subsection (2) (e) or (f) shall not exceed 45
    days for the first finding of contempt or 90 days for any
    subsequent finding of contempt.

(4) A parent committed under subsection (2) (e) or (f) shall be
    released if the court has reasonable cause to believe that the par-
    ent will comply with the visitation order.

552.646 Commitment of visitation violator Sec. 46. 

(1) If a custodial parent is committed to jail under section 44(2)(e)
    and violates the conditions of the court, the court shall commit
    the person to the county jail without the privilege under section
    44(2)(e) for the balance of the period of commitment imposed by the
    court.

(2) If a custodial parent is committed to jail under section 44(2)(e)
    and fails to return to the place of confinement within the time
    prescribed, the custodial parent shall be considered to have
    escaped from custody and shall be guilty.

========================================================================

Continuing Saga of a Non-custodial Father
By Jack Quinn

We have related the story of the father who paid for transporting his
former wife, his child and his mother-in-law back to Ohio from Nevada
in hopes of seeing the child more frequently.

After three months the child's mother didn't like the arrangement and
took off again. The courts say this is her "constitutional right."

The father then filed for a modification of visitation. Specifically
he wanted half of the summer. When the mother learned of this she
enrolled the child in year round school to avoid the arrangement.

For his $6,000 expenses the father now receives a week more visitation
and an income tax deduction because the mother doesn't work and does
not file.

In the court order it states he must give back the deduction if she
ever goes to work. The father's attorney then announced to him that he
had a "good deal" and better take it.

After $10,000 in non-deductible legal and travel expenses he now can
save about $700 a year, so in 14 years he will be even.

We have had court officials tell us they are amazed that more fathers
are not back to court to enforce visitation orders.

Would this case give them some inkling of why this is so?

========================================================================

Jury Finds Case Unusual, Acquits Dad of Non-support
By Catherine Cadisky

William Albrecht may owe $14,000 in back child support, but he's no
deadbeat dad.

He says he can't pay because he has been unable to work since 1984 when
a man who was his ex-wife's soon-to-be husband shot him in the
stomach.

A jury in Franklin County Common Pleas Court agreed, and yesterday
found Albrecht of Portsmouth, Ohio, not guilty of criminal
non-support.

He is one of dozens of parents indicted for criminal non-support in
recent months in a crackdown by Prosecutor Michael Miller.

Assistant Count Prosecutor Scott Longo remained confident, however,
that Albrecht's acquittal will not set a precedent.

"This case is not the typical non-support case because of the gunshot
wound. Most of these guys are out working," Longo said.

Of 60 people charged in Common Pleas Court with non-support during the
last few months, about one-third already have pleaded guilty, he said.

Albrecht was acquitted after a two-day trial before Judge Michael
Close. The jury of four men and eight women deliberated 4 1/2 hours
before reaching a verdict.

"Bill Albrecht is no deadbeat dad. He is a person who was injured and
did the best he could to provide for his kids," said Albrecht's
attorney.

But Avey Colburn, a secretary with the Franklin County Adult Probation
Department, doesn't buy her ex-husband's story.

"He could work," Colburn said. "What does this verdict tell dads? Just
don't go out an get a job."

Colburn and Albrecht were living in Portsmouth when they divorced in
1983 after a five-year marriage. She received custody of their two
children. Albrecht, then a high school physical education teacher, was
ordered to pay $40 a week in support.

About a year later, Albrecht was shot in the stomach by his ex-wife's
new boyfriend, Joseph Colburn, a Portsmouth lawyer.

Mr. Colburn said Albrecht was stalking him, and the shooting was in
self defense, but he was convicted of felonious assault and served 3
1/2 years of a three- to 15-year sentence.

The Colburns moved to Columbus but since have divorced.

Over the years, Albrecht has paid about $5,800 in support to his
children--a daughter 17, and a son, 13. Prosecutors say he owes
$14,000, although Albrecht puts the figure at $9,000.

He said he has been unable to obtain a job since the shooting and that
his savings have long since been used up on legal expenses.

But Longo said Albrecht, 45, hasn't worked because he refuses to do
anything other than teach.

"In 1985, one year after being shot, he applied for a physical
education position in Marion. In 1987, he inquired about another
teaching position," Longo said. "He wants to work if it involves what
he wants to do, but going out and flipping hamburgers just doesn't
appeal to him."

Avey Colburn said that, in addition to her county job, she has cleaned
toilets and guarded against shoplifters.

Her eyes welled with tears yesterday as she talked about postponing
her son's braces for two years and coming up with college tuition for
her daughter.

"It's just not fair," she said. "But I would still encourage other
women to pursue criminal charges until the court system and juries
realize these men have broken the law."

Source: The Columbus Dispatch, November 13, 1992

========================================================================

Injured Parties
By Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje

George Paouris was accused of molesting his child. A civil court
disagreed, but damage had been done--to all involved.

Of all the destinies George Paouris might have imagined for himself
during the long trip from Greece to Texas a little more than two years
ago, none included sitting in a San Antonio courtroom, trying to
convince a judge that he did not kiss his young daughter's genitals.

"I have no way to protect myself, except to be saying the truth and to
stick with it," says the 32-year-old former Greek navy officer, a tall,
dark-haired man who now works as a mechanic in a grocery warehouse. "If
I am found guilty, it will affect my life forever. If I am found
innocent, the person who accuses me will just walk away--no punishment."

The person doing the accusing is his ex-wife, Dolores Lopez Markee.
Paouris maintains that he is innocent.

He and his present wife, Terri, say that Markee has fabricated these
charges to eject her former husband from her life. She is an unstable
woman, say the Paourises, who repeatedly has moved from place to place.
They fear she is poisoning Raquel's mind. In response to the sexual
abuse charges, last November Paouris and 37-year-old Terri filed a
motion in civil courts to gain custody of Raquel.

Paouris' tale is a dismal but by no means an isolated one. Talk to
family attorneys, and they will tell you that since the mid-eighties,
more and more frequently women have been using charges of child sex
abuse as weapons in divorce, custody, and visitation battles. And they
are using them effectively: "All you have to do is mention child sex
abuse," says 225th District Court judge John Specia, "and you never get
the smell out of the jury box."

A cadre of psychologists has devoted reams of paper to the subject,
and two researchers have even coined a term, SAID, or sexual
allegations in divorce syndrome.

Patricia Toth, the director of the National Center for the Prose-
cution of Child Abuse, is convinced that most accusations are well
founded and that the notion of an epidemic of false charges is
ludicrous. "These types of cases take up much more time and involve
many more people than those where sex abuse charges don't come up," she
says. "That's why people may be perceiving it as an epidemic, not
because of sheer numbers. They just aren't there."

Dan Price, family attorney in Austin who says he has seen an
exponential rise in revenge-accusations cases in the past ten years,
begs to differ. "I'm so god-damned sick and tired of `err on the side
of the child' business," he says. "An allegation may start out being
accidental or negligent, but once it's made, these women hold on to it.
You should see them sitting in court. It's all they can do to bite
their lips to keep from grinning."

What has happened to George Paouris could serve as a textbook case of
the phenomenon. First there's the timing. In almost all such incidents,
the charges arise *after* the separation or divorce, usually in the midst
of an unpleasant custody or visitation dispute. Almost always the
child--usually under six years old--has spoken only to the mother about
the abuse.

Once the child speaks up, the mother takes the youngster to a doctor,
where a thorough physical exam is performed and records are made. The
mother is told to contact the child protective services division of
the Texas Department of Human Services (now the Department of
Protective and Regulatory Services), where the child is then
interviewed by social workers, sometimes repeatedly. The case may end
up in civil or--less often--criminal court.

During the investigation, the father is not allowed to be alone with
the child; if necessary, a paid supervisor is hired from one of the
companies that have sprung up like mushrooms around the country in
recent years. In San Antonio one such company, called, strangely
enough, Fit for a King, charges $40 to $50 for a four-hour
supervision.  Today Paouris' Fit for a King supervisor is Marge, a
plump, pleasant-looking woman, who like almost everyone else who has
spent time with Paouris, says she is convinced that he did not sexually
abuse Raquel.

"My own daughter was molested by a relative, so if anyone would be
suspicious, it would be me," says Marge, watching Paouris as he stands
in front of Raquel while she swings. With each upward arc of her Little
Mermaid tennis shoes, he pretends to bite her toes, and she dissolves
into giggles.

George Paouris and Dolores Lopez married in 1984. They moved to Greece
and began a tumultuous relationship in which Dolores periodically left
her husband to return to the United States, according to George. He
eventually managed a discharge from the Navy and returned to America
to try to patch things up, but Dolores would have none of it. From that
point on, George found it harder and harder to see his daughter.

In 1991, the Paourises began divorce proceedings, the same year the
alleged abuse occurred. In May and October of that year, according to
her sworn affidavit, Dolores said Raquel had told her that George had
kissed her "koo-koo-pops"--a Lopez-family term for genitalia--during two
visits with him and had also engaged in various other sex acts.

After both instances, Dolores took Raquel to the hospital for pelvic
exams. In the first, the report came back normal; in the second, the
doctor wrote that Raquel's vulva was slightly irritated. Subsequently
Dolores contacted the DHS. Twice the agency conducted videotaped
interviews with Raquel; both times its finding was "unable to
determine" if abuse had occurred.

In the meantime, Dolores lobbied the Bexar County district attorney's
office, demanding action. That finally got results. The DA's office
presented the videotapes to a grand jury, which returned a criminal
indictment. On May 12, 1992, George was arrested. He was released the
next morning to await court proceedings in the fall. The civil case
was scheduled for July 16.

Of all tricky areas of dealing with child sexual abuse, perhaps the
trickiest is gathering evidence from the alleged victim. This is a task
that falls to the caseworkers, and it is one that critics say the
workers are unqualified to perform. To be a caseworker at the
Department of Protective and Regulatory Service, all a person needs is
a college degree. It can be in anything--music, botany, social work.
After nine to twelve weeks of training, workers are making decisions
that can change people's lives.

David Reilly, the director or regional operations, says that while 
caseworkers are not specifically instructed in how to detect false 
allegations, they are taught how to ascertain a child's credibility. 
Austin family attorney Price, however, minces no words in his 
criticism of the agency's procedures. Their goal, he says, is not 
to determine if abuse occurred; it is to determine that it did.

"You ask a DHS caseworker how to detect if an allegation is false, and
their eyes glaze over," says Price.

One particular problem is that young children are susceptible to
suggestion. They also aim to please--especially their parents. If a
child senses that the mother suspects something happened, the child may
agree that it did. Couple this tendency with caseworkers who may feel
it necessary to ask very young children leading questions--"Who
touched your pee-pee?" "Did Daddy touch your pee-pee?"--and the waters
become irrevocably muddied. They get even muddier with the use of
anatomically correct dolls, essentially Raggedy Anns and Andys with
pubic hair, breasts, and penises.

The problem with the dolls is that both abused and non-abused children
play with them in the same way, as a spate of studies has shown. "You
give me anybody's three- to six-year-old child and some anatomically
correct dolls, and I'll have them accusing somebody of sex abuse by
midnight," says Price.

On a muggy morning in late July, the cast of players in the psy-
chodrama that had become Raquel Paouris' life assembled around wooden
tables in the 150th District Court of Judge Carleton B. Spears, 34,
who would listen to and decide on the testimony in the civil custody
case. At one table sat 30-year-old Dolores Markee. Next to her sat her
fourth husband, Richard, a construction manager with Sitterle
Home Builders. Denise Martinez--Markee's third and most recent
attorney--sat next to him.

At the next table were Paouris, his attorney--Shirley Ehrlich and Alma
Lopez--and Terri. Terri has championed her husband's case almost since
the day she met him in May 1991, after the sex abuse charges had
already been made.

Over the next six days, a string of witnesses flowed through the
courtroom. Terri testified that during the October visit, the only time
Paouris and Raquel were out of her sight was the few minutes when he
took her to use the bathroom. Markee's ex-husband Ralph Serrano
testified that Markee had an unstable life-style and that they had
battled over visitation for their son, Ralph Junior.

At one point, the trial was halted so that the attorneys and the judge
could view two DHS tapes of interviews with Raquel. In the first tape,
a caseworker John Garcia helped Raquel remove the male doll's pants. In
the second tape, Raquel lifted a doll's crotch to her mouth after being
prompted ceaselessly by another caseworker as to where, exactly, her
father had kissed her. That scene was, apparently, the nail that sealed
the criminal indictment against Paouris.

After the first tape, Garcia testified that he thought Raquel had been
telling the truth about being abused, even though the DHS report had
said that nothing could be substantiated. Garcia also said that after
viewing the tape, Markee had jumped up to give him a hug and a kiss on
the cheek. Most parents are not overjoyed if they believe their child
has been abused, he testified; they are upset.

Denise Martinez, Markee's attorney, sought to bolster the mother's
case. She called Dr. Maria Cruz, a clinical psychologist who said that
Raquel was a victim of post-traumatic stress disorder--a diagnosis
often given to sexually abused children. She based her diagnosis mainly
on statements given to her by Markee about Raquel's behavior, as well
as some brightly colored pictures Raquel had drawn, which the
psychologist said showed Raquel was afraid of her father.

The court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Joann Murphey, offered quite a
different opinion. From her investigation--which included a review of
tapes, DHS reports, and medical records, as well as interviews and
psychological testing on Paouris and Markee--she found nothing
significant to substantiate the sex abuse charge. To the contrary, she
suspected the charge was false, largely because of inconsistencies in
Markee's information. For example, Markee denied having romantic
involvements with other men, yet she would show up at Murphey's
office accompanied by various men. Also, according to DHS records,
Markee had said that doctors found evidence that Raquel's vagina had
been penetrated, when, in fact, there were no such records.

The psychological evaluations were also worrisome, said Murphey.
Markee's Rorschach test revealed her to have "repressed hostility" and
a "high potential for distortions in thinking." On a test for
empathy--the ability to feel for others and to form human bonds--she made
a low score. On the other hand, Paouris scored well on all the tests,
especially the one for empathy. Murphey's analysis was echoed by two
Fit for a King supervisors, each of whom testified that Raquel tended
to be timid and withdrawn at her mother's house but that she would
"open up like a flower" in the company of her father.

Martinez finally called Dolores Markee to the stand. She wept when
describing her daughter's behavior on the nights of the alleged abuse.
She said Paouris once threatened to kill her and to take Raquel out of
the country. She said he cursed in front of the child.

During cross-examination, Paouris' attorney, Shirley Ehrlich was
visibly irate. She picked at the inconsistencies--large and small--that
seemed to trail Markee. Why did she tell a worker from a child abuse
advocacy group that Paouris had been confined to a mental institution
in Greece, when he had not?  Couldn't the redness of Raquel's vulva be
explained by the fact that she had been wearing urine-soaked panties on
the day her father came to visit on October 12, according to the
testimony of one of her aunts? And, most telling, why did she claim in
her affidavit that she talked to Paouris on the two nights he dropped
off his crying daughter at the house--after having allegedly abused
her--when Markee had not been at the house? Couldn't Markee's fears for
Raquel, in fact, be connected to her own sexual abuse as a child--a
fact that had come out in the testimony of Dr. Cruz?

On July 28, fourteen months after he was accused of sexually molesting
her, George Paouris was awarded sole custody of Raquel. In a letter to
the two attorneys in the case, Judge Spears wrote:

It is the finding of this court that the sexual abuse did not take
place as alleged.... In comparing the mother and father ... the Court
looks to the actions of each parent. The father offers a much more
stable life than the mother ... [though] There is no doubt that the
mother loves the child....

In conclusion, the judge granted visitation rights to Markee.  Both
parents and child were ordered into counseling.

Source: Texas Monthly magazine, November 1992

========================================================================

This month's guest speaker is Michael Kravitz, a licensed psychologist
in Franklin County. Michael will explain the various tests conducted by
psychologists and often used by the Domestic Relations Court in
determining the mental condition of divorcing parents and their
children.  He should be able to give some insight into this profession
that is so often a factor in divorces--the good, the bad, the reasonable
expectations you should have, the things to be wary of. Hopefully he
will be able to help us insure that our families get the most out of
the psychological profession at this tumultuous stage of our lives. He
should also be able to give us some interesting insights on what we
need to do to insure that we remain a significant part of our
children's lives during and after the divorce.

========================================================================

                   ATTORNEY REFERRAL LIST
                   (listed alphabetically)

Pamela Bertram				Patricia Grimm
502 South 3rd Street			4937 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215			Columbus, Ohio 43228
(614) 221-0725				(614) 878-1092

Andrew Fishman				Ralph A. Kerns
765 South Front Street			743 South Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43206			Columbus, Ohio 43206
(614) 444-3606				(614) 444-1100

Bradley Frick				Barry Wolinetz
50 West Broad Street, Suite 3300	Luper, Wolinetz, Sheriff & Neidenthal
Columbus, Ohio 43215			50 West Broad Street, Suite 1200
(614) 228-0505				Columbus, Ohio 43215
					(614) 221-7663

========================================================================

DISCLAIMER

The articles in the Newsletter are culled from a variety of sources,
cover many topics and reflect differing opinions.  Every article is the
expressed opinion of only the author of that article. These articles do
not necessarily represent the collective opinion of FACE nor of the
FACE directors. Even articles written as editorials by members of
this group are not the opinion of the group itself or of leadership.
The Newsletter attempts to present both sides on issues, so that
readers can form their own opinions and make informed decisions. This
group is for equality in the justice system. We are NOT against
women. Women who become non-custodial parents face the same kinds of
problems non-custodial fathers face. We don't think that child sup-
port guidelines are fair. But we do advocate that parents pay their
child support. We are NOT advocates of child abuse. However, we want
the courts and social systems to recognize that many contentious
ex-spouses make bogus allegations of abuse during custody battles. We
are not in favor of the exclusive use of the adversarial court system
for resolving custody disputes.  We think that mediation of these
disputes is a more effective and less expensive solution and wish the
courts would utilize this resource more often. We are not advocates for
fathers in spite of mothers. We are advocates for fathers and children,
because fathers are disproportionately torn away from their children in
divorces. We don't think that is right or fair. We believe that many
fathers, when given the opportunity to be good parents, can do the job
quite effectively and that both parents and the children benefit. We
believe in equal legal rights and equal physical access to children of
divorce for both parents. Hence the name-Fathers And Children for
Equality.

========================================================================

The FACE Newsletter Staff

Jack Quinn 		Research, Contributing Editor
Aaron Hoffmeyer 	Research, Typesetting, Contributing Editor
Paul Bokros 		Research, Contributing Editor, Mailing List

The FACE Officers

Mike Driscoll 		President
Tom Tavener 		Vice-President
John McKinley 		Treasurer
Bob Fowler 		Secretary

The Fathers and Children for Equality Foundation is supported by the
Ohio United Way.

(c) 1992. All copyrights are implied and applicable.

F.A.C.E.
P.O. Box 18022
Columbus, Ohio 43218
(614) 275-6767

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2945 soc.men:21162 talk.abortion:51970 alt.flame:16633