protest-B.gif (5678 bytes)
cpf_logoB.jpg (15626 bytes)
An all volunteer, non-profit organization of men and women advocating for fatherhood since 1994

crisis-blk.gif (3633 bytes)

tab-aboutCPF.jpg  (2529 bytes)
CPFsearch.jpg  (2529 bytes)
CPFTestimonials.jpg  (2529 bytes)tab-newswire.jpg (2267 bytes)
tab-1stPrinciples.jpg (2324 bytes)
tab-Chapters.jpg (2637 bytes)
tab-Join.jpg (1968 bytes)
tab-News.jpg (2223 bytes)
tab-Reading.jpg (2306 bytes)
tab-Download.jpg (2283 bytes)
tab-Help.jpg (2100 bytes)
tab-Legislation.jpg (2131 bytes)
tab-Protests.jpg (1890 bytes)
tab-209A.jpg (2087 bytes)
tab-Links.jpg (1723 bytes)
tab-FF.jpg (2736 bytes)

falseallegations.gif (9347 bytes)


Save The Males
by Richard Doyle

Doyle's classic treatise on men's rights, now in 6th printing.
A must-read for every Fathers Rights advocate


Dr. Warren Farrell's new DVD:

"The Best Interests of the Child"


MC_Hammers.gif (1791 bytes)
THE  WRITINGS  AND  RAVINGS  OF  CPF'S  MARK  CHARALAMBOUS

Our long national nightmare is over

Diversity as a proxy for racial discrimination

Electorate to Dem. Party: It's the morality, stupid

Harvard U. junk-science domestic violence research

Father's rights before gay rights

Liberal media bias

Gay marriage

Domestic violence lies and the lying liars who tell them - Part 1

Part 2 - Harvard researcher hides study data behind university lawyers

Part 3 - The lying liars

Part 4 - Domestic violence distortions conceal culture of male hatred

Rape shield law and Wendy Murphy

Supreme Court's U. Michigan decision

Fatherhood: A primordial force of nature

U. Michigan and racial preferences

Shannon O'Brien

Debtor's prison for fathers

Best interests of the child Reflections on Clayton

Gender profiling

Judge Maria Lopez


hotlink.gif (1220 bytes)

The Backwards Abuse Prevention Laws 

Generate a Freedom of Information Request for your state

 

In Association with Amazon.com

psaward.gif (4513 bytes)


FEMINIST HATE-SPEECH
A Misandry Sampler

CPF / The Fatherhood Coalition advocates for the institution of fatherhood, encompassing the full range of human behaviors and endeavors that flow from the father-child relationship. We work to promote shared parenting and to end the discrimination and persecution faced by divorced and unwed fathers.
Google
WWW CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition

 J O I N
CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition

Click Here to join the Massachusetts-based organization.

You can choose to join the infamous FATHERS-L listserv, receive information about CPF, and also receive information about legal self-help options.


Our website will soon be updated and revised. Stay Tuned! ( )


Pro Se Seminar for Men and Fathers in Divorce, Saturday, March 6, 2010

Learn how to defend yourself in court

Please set aside the date of March 6th, Saturday, for an all day pro se workshop sponsored by The Fatherhood Coalition. The workshop will help participants prepare to handle their own cases in court during and after the divorce process. Learn about court procedures (complaints and filings) and the players (clerk, judge, etc). Plan to join us in Dorchester at St Mark church hall from 9-5 p.m. on March 6.

The workshop is free of charge to CPF members (Membership signup) or for those who commit to volunteer a couple of hours of their time in court support/watching or similar activity . A cash of $20. in lieu of volunteer time is acceptable.

Registration here. For more information contact Wayne Jewett or by phone 774 254-5414

Directions to St. Mark's Church, 1725 Dorchester. Ave., Dorchester


The Fatherhood Coalition Political Action Committee Endorses Joe Kennedy for Senate

The January 19 election for US Senator from Massachusetts is very important for those who support the rights of men and fathers. The key question is how the candidates are likely to vote on the reauthorization of Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA).

Based on the candidates' issue statements and legislative activity The Fatherhood Coalition PAC believes Joe Kennedy's position (below) on VAWA and domestic violence laws will be the most beneficial for men and fathers. For this important issue Joe Kennedy deserves your vote.

The Fatherhood Coalition PAC is pleased to endorse Joe Kennedy for US Senator from Massachusetts in the January 19, 2009 election.


JoeKennedy:
"While significant domestic violence issues exist and must be dealt with, the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA] is not the solution. First off, no bill should be gender biased. If we were to have any bill addressing violence it must be gender neutral. Secondly, the issue of domestic violence needs to be addressed by individual states as does funding. Any issue which funnels money through federal bureaucracies only dilutes actual dollars that go to the cause. In addition to these two issues which would already lead to my not supporting a bill of this nature is the potential abuse of the bill. Today the concept that any parent (man or woman) could be denied their parental rights based on the mere allegation of abuse begs for corruption. We have a domestic abuse problem in this country and both men and women are victims. Domestic violence issues are serious and must be addressed without bias by legislature on the state level and in a manner that directly deals with the issue of abuse."
joe@joekennedyforsenate.com
http://joekennedyforsenate.com

Martha Coakley:
"As Senator, Martha will support federal funding for the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act and the Violence Against Women Act, which provide support for local shelters, counseling, and other services for child and adult victims of violence."
http://www.marthacoakley.com/about/Issues/details/24

Scott Brown:
"BOSTON, MA – State Senator Scott Brown is pleased to announce that Newton-Wellesley Hospital is providing free and confidential domestic and sexual violence services for both survivors and health care providers. The Hospital program works to provide comprehensive, culturally competent care specific to the needs of the individual survivor." 2/26/08
http://www.scottbrown.com/domestic_sexual_violence_services.htm


Out of Order?

This 2000 Chronicle (WCVB-TV) program highlights the injustice still faced today by men and fathers and the destruction caused to normal, healthy personal relationships due to MGL 209a restraining orders. Interviews with The Fatherhood Coalition leader Mark Charalambous, Harry Stewart, Dennis Watts and others.


Governor's Council to Hold Public Hearing for Two Judicial Nominees- George Phelan, Nov. 18, 12:30 and Martine Carroll, Dec. 2, 10:30

The Nov. 18 hearing will be streamed live on the internet.Click here to watch on Nov.18, 12:30.


Governor's Council to Hold Public Hearing for Two Judicial Nominees Oct. 28 and Nov. 4-UPDATED!


Governor's Council to Hold Public Hearing for Two Judicial Nominees Oct. 21

The Mass. Governor's Council will hold a public hearing on Oct. 21 at the State House (Governor's Patrick's office) for two judicial nominees, Pamela Dashiell as Associate Justice of the Dorchester Court at 10:30 a.m and Paul Yee as Associate Justice of the Quincy District Court at 12:15 p.m.Coalition supporters are encouraged to attend.

The Fatherhood Coalition will submit a questionnaire to both candidates to determine how they stand on issues affecting men and fathers in the courts.

UPDATE: Since nominees Dashiell and Yee did not respond to our questionnaire The Fatherhood Coalition recommends that the Governor's Council reject their nominations, respectively, to the Dorchester and Quincy Courts.


Quincy Court Judge Coven Encourages RO Complaints in Letters To Women

Judge Coven goes the extra mile to ensure women take out restraining orders against men.


Our Letter to Gov. Deval Patrick: Open Up Your Judicial Nominating Committee!

Following Governor Patrick's town hall meeting in Wareham, Massachusetts on July 29, 2009 at which many fathers spoke up about the ongoing injustice they faced in the court system we wrote the governor to ask that he act immediately to reform the process by which judges are selected. We urged him to broaden the makeup of the Judicial Nominating Committee (JNC), now comprised entirely of lawyers, and appoint non-Bar individuals to this important committee. He has absolutely no obstacles in his way to accomplish this task. His own Executive Order 500 created the JNC and he has the power to remove and appoint members at will. Further, nothing in his current order calls for the exclusion of non-lawyers.

The use of the JNC to screen judicial nominations was first begun by Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1975. Gov. Dukakis had the foresight to create a committee of eleven members, six of whom could not be lawyers. Since then, succeeding governor's have acquiesced to the Bar Association's increasing control over the JNC. Republican Governor Romney was the first to require that nominees for judgeships be members of the Bar, a step of questionable legality since the Massachusetts Constitution does not require that judges be lawyers. Gov. Patrick has kept this requirement in place.

If Governor Patrick is serious about improving the judiciary he should allow more voices to be heard on the Committee. Creating a JNC whose members represent individuals from many walks of life, instead of only one exclusive professional club, will not resolve all the problems faced by men and fathers in the courts but it will be major step in the right direction.

Our Efforts in the News May 21, 2009

Following the recent approval of Judge Sydney Hanlon and Atty. Laurie MacLeod as judges by the Massachusetts Governor's Council the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly newspaper ran the following article by David Yas on our opposition to their nominations. Although we appreciate the ink given to the cause of fathers and men's rights the article was flawed with partial facts and inaccurate statements. Our response, also carried by Lawyers Weekly on May 18, 2009, follows below.

Domestic violence: out of the frying pan ...

*By* David Yas Published:* May 4, 2009

Joseph Ureneck really wants me to write that wives physically abuse their husbands just as often as husbands physically abuse their wives.

He wants me to write that the vast majority of women are lying when they claim that they have been beaten by their husbands.

And he wants me to write that the law is so flawed in Massachusetts that men accused of domestic violence lose everything important in their lives without a real chance to defend themselves.

I can't write that. I won't. But Ureneck has my attention.

His group and others like it are plotting to defeat judicial nominees whose philosophies don't comport with their own.

Spurned by the courts and angered by a society that has been sensitive to battered women, fatherhood rights groups have landed on our turf, the judicial system.

Buttoned-downed and organized, they are now making a point of loudly protesting judicial nominees who have shown any sort of sensitivity to domestic-violence issues.

Ureneck didn't sound like a fanatic when I spoke with him over the phone. The chair of the Fatherhood Coalition, Ureneck in recent days urged the rejection of two judicial nominees, Laurie MacLeod and Sydney Hanlon, at their confirmation hearings. Both judges were ultimately confirmed (MacLeod to the Palmer District Court; Hanlon to the Appeals Court).

Said Ureneck: "We saw two individuals who were proactive in promoting the 209A [restraining-order] regime. ... Our perspective is that there is something akin to a Holocaust going on, and so it is worth rejecting a judicial nominee."

Ned Holstein, executive director of Fathers and Families, claims that "in a relatively short period of time, we will look back on this as an embarrassing era. It reminds me of the McCarthy era, or the anti-immigrant hysteria, or other periods of time when we have singled out particular groups."

Holstein and Ureneck utter things that many of us would say simply defy reason.

Ureneck estimates that between 80 to 90 percent of women who claim they have been beaten, or are in genuine fear, are lying.

Both men are convinced that the notion that men are more likely to do harm to women than vice versa is a myth, largely citing the comprehensive work of a professor of psychology named Martin S. Fiebert.

"It's a seriously flawed argument that men are inherently violent," Ureneck declares.

Holstein says: "There's no question ... it's not a matter of debate."

I asked Holstein: Can't most men overpower most women? Isn't that common sense?

"When you actually think about it, it's not common sense at all," he says, claiming that most people know of an incident of a wife becoming violent with her husband. He recalls the image of a wife hitting her husband with a frying pan.

"Culture thinks that's funny," he says. "But if a man did it, it would be unacceptable."

Lydia Watts, executive director of the Victim Rights Law Center, says what a lot of us think: No. There is no epidemic of women fabricating tales of domestic violence.

She says: "I have heard thousands of victims' stories and barely ever doubted one."

I believe Watts. Or at least I want to. But the uneasy truth is that I don't know for sure.

Watts says that Fiebert's research is flawed, and perhaps it is. But I cannot stand up and say that Ureneck and Holstein are 100 percent wrong. And, in fact, voices, including that of Governor's Councilor Christopher A. Iannella, have made the point at confirmation hearings that reform is needed in the law to give divorced dads a fair shake.

Ureneck and Holstein may be on the fringe. They may even be downright sexist. (Mark Charalambous, who writes a column for the Fatherhood Coalition's website, wrote on the subject of then-presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton: "There has never been a female president. Ergo, no woman candidate can be perceived as ‘presidential,' assuming a rational interpretation of the word. When one thinks of the phrase ‘commander in chief,' a pear-shaped woman in a pants-suit doesn't come to mind.")

But they also may have found a comfortable forum to state their case.

Hanlon, a leading voice against domestic violence during her days as a practicing lawyer, heard no fewer than five speeches from representatives from the Fatherhood Coalition at her confirmation hearing. That's a lot, even given the Jerry-Springer-like hysteria that can erupt at any given Governor's Council hearing.

As it turns out, Ureneck had rallied his group with the following post on the coalition's website: "Please rendezvous with Joe Ureneck who will be at the Governor's Office and will be wearing a badge that says, ‘Vote No on Hanlon.'"

The Fatherhood Coalition then uploaded to YouTube video footage of the hearing that its members had shot - in 13 parts. I'll let you know when I'm done watching them all.[Ed. note:video on Blip TV]

And this sort of thing will continue.

"This is a fast growing movement," Holstein says of calling out judges and judicial appointees. "It's not new in concept, but it is new in execution."

I am reminded of a line from the film "Hoosiers," when a narrow-minded fellow is concerned that Gene Hackman's new-to-town, unconventional basketball coach is turning the small town of Hickory upside-down. He tells the coach: "Look, mister, there's two kinds of dumb: the guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and the guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don't matter; the second one you're kinda forced to deal with."

Yes, judicial nominees are going to have to deal with groups like Ureneck's and Holstein's.

Watts, of the Victim Rights Law Center, says these groups "are free to do what they want, but the frustration I have is that this is a calculated effort against judges. These are judges who have shown strong understanding and commitment, and they are penalized for doing so."

The modern manifestations of free speech - public hearings, websites, the vast chaos of the blogosphere - tend to turn the sullen into spokespeople.

Seeing these groups protest at judicial confirmation hearings gives dads who have been accused of domestic violence some hope. But is it false hope?

Before showing up at a hearing and telling their tale, men embittered by their treatment in the legal system should demand answers.

Are these leaders arguing facts, or are they playing on emotions? Will attacking a judicial nominee keep an unqualified person off the bench, or will it merely stain the reputation of someone who will serve Massachusetts well?

Fatherhood rights groups should be careful that their attacks are really meant to improve the judiciary and are not just borne out of the most contemptible of motives: revenge.


This Emperor Has No Clothes

by Joseph Ureneck, published in Lawyers Weekly May 18, 2009

It's heartening that Lawyers Weekly has joined the discussion of false domestic abuse allegations and judicial nominations by way of David Yas' May 4 column, "Domestic violence: out of the frying pan ...," but the uncertain meandering around the issues was disappointing. Astute readers of Lawyers Weekly deserve an accurate and focused report on the serious problems created by G.L.c. 209A on the public and the courts.

So, let's take a more clear-headed look at why The Fatherhood Coalition believes the domestic abuse regime unjustly treats men and why we opposed the two recent judicial nominations of Sydney Hanlon and Laurie MacLeod.

Start with the common but inaccurate conflation of the terms "domestic violence" and "domestic abuse." Since accusations of actual physical "violence" can be examined and challenged in court by hard evidence, we fully support the aggressive use of assault laws to deal with the crime.

On the other hand, we oppose the domestic "abuse" statute and its implementation as it requires nothing more than one person's statement of unsubstantiated claims, including an individual's broadly defined feeling of "fear."

Assault and battery complaints allow for the opportunity to discover evidence. Not true for domestic abuse complaints, as discovery is all but disallowed under the Trial Court's administrative procedures.

There is no avenue whatsoever outside the dramatic arts practiced in the courtroom to challenge the factual accuracy of a woman's core complaint that she is in "fear." Completing this Kafkaesque restriction on a defendant's rights is the denial of a trial by one's peers, despite the loss of property and threat of incarceration.

In the realm of domestic abuse, the courts are no longer "of law" but de facto social service agencies, intervening in personal emotional disputes that involve no one but the parties themselves.

In this way men are indeed robbed of everything important in their lives - most notably their children - without a real chance to defend themselves. With little more than the clothes on his back, a man is rousted from his home and family, and any attempt to contact his children is met with a criminal charge and possible jail time.

There is no doubt that women and men are physically aggressive toward one another in approximate equal measure. Our common sense instincts about human nature, political correctness notwithstanding, along with many academic studies, including the unchallenged Fiebert Studies of Southern California University and the academic work conducted by the grandfather of family violence in America, Murray Strauss of the University of New Hampshire, support this understanding.

That our laws, implemented by the courts, reflect otherwise and punish men is a travesty.

"Every 15 seconds a woman is battered ..." was the feminist mantra of the 1970s taken from Strauss' work that fueled the passage of G.L.c. 209A. Conspicuously left out in this 30-plus year barrage of anti-male propaganda was Strauss' co-joining evidence that "every 15-20 seconds a man was also battered."

In short, for more than 30 years the public has been sold a false bill of goods - to the tune of 30,000 to 50,000 restraining orders each year in Massachusetts - about a man's role in personal and family disputes.

The reality is that about 50 percent of domestic abuse claims involve no allegation whatsoever of physical assault and that another 30 to 40 percent contain mutual acts of yelling and threats by both men and women against one another.

Despite 80 to 90 percent of the 209A filings being frivolous, false or mired in such mutual recrimination as to be impossible to fairly untangle even on a psychiatrist's couch, never mind a court of law, it is men, not women, who are the nearly exclusive object of restraining orders. Men and fathers are now true victims of abuse - by the legal system.

It should be no surprise, least of all to lawyers, that The Fatherhood Coalition and other groups have said enough is enough, as we advocate, respectfully and in our button-down way, for a fair shake for men.

MacLeod and Hanlon are professionals who built their reputations in part on a flawed law that protects no one and has harmed the innocent far more than punishing any guilty party. We actively opposed their nominations, two out of many we reviewed since last August, because their active promotion of the domestic abuse regime placed them apart from other candidates. Regretfully, they were approved by the Governor's Council.

There is no option left to men and all who support judicial fairness but to continue educating elected officials and the public on the true nature of this judicial activity - clearly an emperor without clothes.


Hanlon Confirmed 8-0

Massachusetts Governor's Councilors Vote for Injustice

April 9, 2009

Over the strong objection of The Fatherhood Coalition the Massachusetts Governor's Council 4/8/09 confirmed (video) the nomination of Judge Sydney Hanlon to the Mass. Appeals Court. The Coalition presented the council with extensive testimony and evidence why Judge Hanlon, an active proponent of the unconstitutional domestic violence laws, should not be elevated to the Mass. Appeals Court.

The 8-0 vote in favor of Hanlon demonstrated a lack of understanding and an acceptance by all the councilors, including those professing sympathy towards fathers, of the disasterous legal, financial and emotional problems faced by men, fathers and their families confronted by the domestic violence law.


Hanlon Vote on Wednesday, April 8

Coalition Supporters Urged to Contact the Governor's Councilors

April 7, 2009

The public vote for Sydney Hanlon to the Massachusetts Appeals Court will take place tomorrow, April 8, 12:00 noon, at the office of Governor Patrick in the Massachusetts State House. Coalition supporters are encouraged to continue to contact the Governor's Councilors (list below), attend the hearing tomorrow (arrive about 15 minutes early) and urge then to vote 'No' on the nomination.

Our letter to the council expressing our opposition to Hanlon's nomination follows:

**************************************************************************************

Governor’s Council
Massachusetts State House
Boston, Ma

April 6, 2009

Re: Nomination of Judge Hanlon to Mass. Appeals Court

Dear Councilors,

Thank you for the opportunity to address the council at the April 1 hearing for the nomination of Judge Sydney Hanlon to the Mass. Appeals Court. As representatives of The Fatherhood Coalition stated in their presentations we ask that the council reject this nomination.

Several points raised by councilors at the April 1 hearing require clarification.

* The assertion that issuance of the MGL209a restraining orders are based on ‘establishing facts equivalent to a criminal assault’ is false. To the contrary, the so-called abuse standards in the 209a statute are open invitations to calculated manipulation. The absurdity of this domestic ‘assault’ hysteria nationwide was highlighted in the case of David Letterman, the TV host, who was served with a RO for allegedly harassing a New Mexico woman he had never met by sending her mental telepathic messages.

* There is no reasonable and productive option for redress under perjury statutes for male victims of fraudulent restraining orders based on false accusations. Absent extraordinary circumstances these accusations are left to stand by the district attorneys' offices while any attempt at civil recourse is blocked wholesale by the Supreme Judicial Court’s expansive ruling that false 209a accusations are immune under the Massachusetts Anti-SLAPP law.

* Any assertion that 85% of domestic abuse is initiated by men is false. Martin S. Fiebert, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach examined 247 scholarly investigations, surveying 240, 200 individuals. These 188 empirical studies and 59 reviews and/or analyses demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

Finally, though we understand that the Governor’s Council is not a legislative-making body, we believe the council has an obligation to review a nominee’s approach to a law which lacks integrity and constitutional basis. In the words of St. Augustine, an unjust law is no law at all.

It follows that the Governor’s Council should not confirm a nominee who has actively promoted such a law.

We therefore again respectfully request that councilors reject the nomination of Judge Sydney Hanlon to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

Thank you.

Regards,
Joseph Ureneck
Chair, The Fatherhood Coalition
www.fatherhoodcoalition.org


MacLeod Confirmed on a vote of 4-3.
Governor's Council Hears Testimony of Fatherhood Coalition Representatives

(April 2, 2009)

Governor's Council vote maneauvering confirms MacLeod nomination. Coalition testimony against Hanlon

On April 1 the Governor's Council held a hearing on the nomination of Sydney Hanlon to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Currently a district court judge, Judge Hanlon's nomination was opposed by five representatives of The Fatherhood Coalition (video Part 4[end] , Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 12[end] and Part 13) because of her active promotion of the domestic violence legal system. The Dorchester District Court under Judge Hanlon was one of three courts nationwide used as a domestic violence court model/prototype by the US Justice Department.

The council also voted 4-3 to confirm the nomination of Laurie MacLeod to be a judge at the Palmer district court (Part 11 and Part 12). Two weeks earlier, the council's presiding officer Lt. Gov. Murray closed the council meeting without a scheduled vote on MacLeod when she was expected to lose. The vote change in MacLeod's favor came about because one councilor opposed to MacLeod was absent due to a family death while another councilor supporting MacLeod, absent at the previous meeting, was in attendence. There are apparently no provisions to prevent the manipulation of council votes in this way.

Councilors Devaney, Manning and Iannella are to be commended for their vote against MacLeod and for their strong statements in support of men and fathers. Councilor Foley was also expected to vote against MacLeod but was absent due to the death of his father. Coalition supporters are encouraged on contact all the councilors before the expected vote on Hanlon next Wed., April 8 at 12:00 noon and encourage them to vote 'no'.

Despite his strong presentation on behalf of fathers and his vote against MacLeod, Councilor Iannella said at yesterday's hearing that he would vote for Hanlon.

Councilors Callahan, Fiola, Merrigan and Timility voted in favor of MacLeod and are expected to do the same for Hanlon.

  • Carole Fiola, Fall River; 1-508-674-9200
  • Kelly Timilty, Roslindale; 1-781-326-2727
  • Marilyn Devaney, Watertown; 1-617-923-0778
  • Chris Iannella, Boston; 1-617-227-1538
  • Mary-Ellen Manning, Peabody; 1-978-740-1090
  • Michael Callahan, Medford; 1-781-393-9890
  • Thomas Foley, Worcester; tjfoley512@charter.net

Urgent Opposition to Appeals Court Judge Appointment

(March 28, 2009)

Urgent: You are needed to stand in opposition to the appointment of Judge Sydney Hanlon to the Massachusetts Appeals Court on Wednesday April 1, 2009 10:00AM at Governor Patrick's office at the Statehouse.

Judge Sydney Hanlon is one of the architects of the current domestic violence system which is frequently abused in custody and divorce disputes because district and probate court judges are willing to issue 209A restraining orders against men based on false allegations and where the minimum evidentiary standards have not been met and there is no presumptive right to discovery of evidence or a jury trial. The only avenue we have had for change has been the appeals court. Had it not been for the appeals court we would not have won the right to an evidentiary hearing in 2005 to defend ourselves against false allegations.

If Judge Hanlon is appointed to the appeals court she will block the only legal avenue we have for progress and an important defense against false allegations.

It is important that every one arrive at 10:00AM so that we are certain to be seated. Please rendezvous with Joe Ureneck who will be at the Governor' office and will be wearing a badge that says "Vote No on Hanlon."

In preparation for opposing Judge Hanlon there is a conference call on Tuesday evening March 31 at 9:00PM. Please join us then. For conference call credentials please call Joe at 857 350-0575 or by email: jureneck@comcast.net.

Sign up HERE if you can join us.


MacLeod Vote Scheduled for April 1, Noon

(March 23, 2009)

Hanlon Nomination Hearing Same Day, 10:30 AM

The public vote to confirm, or not, Atty. MacLeod's nominaton to the Palmer District Court will be held on April 1, 12:00 noon. At 10:30 that morning there will also be a public hearing on the nomination of Sydney Hanlon to the Massachusett Appeals Court. Testimony from the public is invited. Both the vote and the hearing will take place at the Governor's office at the State House.

As is clear in her resume, Judge Hanlon, currently at the Dorchester District Court, has been in the forefront of promoting the state's domestic violence law. Coalition supporters are encouraged to attend and testify against her nomination at the hearing.

The nominations of MacLeod and Hanlon demonstrate that the Patrick administration has no understanding of the damage done to men and fathers by the law and its implementation. Supporters are encouraged to continue contacting the Governor's Councilors (below) to let them know of your personal experiences with false and malicious RO's, with these two individuals and why their nominations should not be confirmed.

Please tell the councilors to vote 'No' on both nominations.

  • Carole Fiola, Fall River; 1-508-674-9200
  • Kelly Timilty, Roslindale; 1-781-326-2727
  • Marilyn Devaney, Watertown; 1-617-923-0778
  • Chris Iannella, Boston; 1-617-227-1538
  • Mary-Ellen Manning, Peabody; 1-978-740-1090
  • Michael Callahan, Medford; 1-781-393-9890
  • Thomas Foley, Worcester; tjfoley512@charter.net

MacLeod Confirmation Put Off

(March 19, 2009)

Supporters Maneuvering to Get More 'Yes" Votes

The meeting to vote up-or-down on Atty. MacLeod to be a judge of Palmer District Court was unexpectedly shut down by Lt. Gov. Murray despite it being an agenda item apparently because the nominee would have lost on a 4-3 vote. There is no date certain for a new vote on the nomination although it could occur next Wed., March 25 at 12:00 noon. There is also speculation that the nomination may be withdrawn.

The Fatherhood Coalition opposes the MacLeod nomination because of her work as a DV prosecutor and as an organizer of the Western Mass Domestic Violence Task Force.

The councilors who were expected to vote against the MacLeod nomination yesterday are Devaney, Foley, Iannella and Manning.

Fatherhood Coalition supporters are encouraged to contact Councilors Fiola and Timilty to encourage them to also vote against the nomination should it come up for a vote. Individuals with direct knowledge about Atty. MacLeod should be sure to inform these two councilors of their experience and how it has adversely affected their lives.

Contact information:

  • Carole Fiola, Fall River, 1-508-674-9200
  • Kelly Timilty, Roslindale, kellytimiltygc2@aol.com, 1-781-326-2727

Following the sudden close of the meeting by Lt. Gov. Murray, Councilor Devaney read a statement Pg.1, ; Pg. 2,; Pg. 3,; Pg. 4 which is also on video-(Part one and Part Two ) on why she opposed the nomination and why Councilor Merrigan (a MacLeod supporter) should recuse himself from the vote. Councilor Manning also issued a statement on the controversy.

(UPDATE 3/20/09:Reports indicate that some councilors appear to be basing their vote for MacLeod on Oprah Winfrey's false assertion recently that 75% percent of domestic violence is instigated by men against women.

We enourage CPF supporters to let the councilors know about their own experience with false accusations and of the many reputable studies and statistics which prove women are more likely than men, or as equally likely, to provoke domestic violence. These include the work of Martin S. Fiebert Department of Psychology California State University, Long Beach who examined 247 scholarly investigations: 188 empirical studies and 59 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners, surveying some 240,200 individuals.)


COALITION CALLS ON MASS. GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL TO REJECT MACLEOD NOMINATION

(March 4, 2009)

CPF requests a 'No' vote in letter and testimony before Council

Governor’s Council
Massachusetts State House
Boston, Ma March 3, 2009

RE: Nomination of Atty. Laurie MacLeod to the Palmer District Court

Dear Councilors,

The Fatherhood Coalition is a non-profit volunteer organization of men and women providing advocacy for fatherhood.

The Coalition requests that the Council reject the nomination of Atty. MacLeod to the Palmer District Court.

Our concern regarding this nomination is not a matter of the nominee’s personal integrity or competency. Indeed,we assume that Atty. MacLeod, like all of nominees that come before the Council, is of the highest moral and ethical standards.

Rather, we take exception to her former employment history as a domestic violence prosecutor and how this history will be perceived by fathers and men who come before her as a judge.

There is no question on behalf of reasoned members of the legal community that the domestic violence system in Massachusetts is seriously flawed in both law and procedure. The victims of this travesty lose children, homes, employment and financial security. They are predominately men.

We believe the elevation to a judgeship of any individual who has actively engaged in a process which has created such injustice and hardship to be inappropriate.

We respectfully ask therefore that you reject the nomination of Atty. MacLeod to the Palmer District Court.

Thank you.
Regards.
Joseph Ureneck
Chair, The Fatherhood Coalition


Video of Council hearing March 4.

Atty. MacLeod is unable to answer Councilor Iannella's question as to whether men or women take out more restraining orders. A surprising response given her past employment as a 'domestic violence' prosecutor and leader of the Western Massachusetts Domestic Violence Task Force

Contact these councilors below and ask them to vote 'NO' on MacLeod's nomination. Individuals who have had direct contact with Atty MacLeod in her role a DV prosecuter or have information regarding her activity on the domestic violence task force(s) are encouraged to tell council members of their experience.

  • Carole Fiola, Fall River; 1-508-674-9200
  • Kelly Timilty, Roslindale; 1-781-326-2727
  • Marilyn Devaney, Watertown; 1-617-923-0778
  • Chris Iannella, Boston; 1-617-227-1538
  • Mary-Ellen Manning, Peabody; 1-978-740-1090
  • Michael Callahan, Medford; 1-781-393-9890
  • Thomas Foley, Worcester; tjfoley512@charter.net

The public up-or-down confirmation vote for MacLeod will take place at the governor's office in the Massachusetts State House, Boston, on March 18, 12:00 noon.

Coalition supporters are encouraged to join in a final lobby effort on March 18 at 11:00 AM in State House Room 184 to encourage councilors to reject the nomination.


GREATER BOSTON CHAPTER OF THE FATHERHOOD COALITION TO MEET MARCH 24

First Meeting of 2009 Set for 7 PM at St. Mark's in Dorchester

The Greater Boston Chapter of the Fatherhood Coalition will hold its first meeting of 2009 on Tuesday, March 24 at 7PM at St Mark’s church hall, 20 Roseland Street (on Dorchester Avenue), Dorchester. For more information, please call 617-723-3237 or Joe at 857 350-0575. The Coalition, advocating for men, fathers and their children since 1994, will present the WCVB-TV Chronicle program 'Out of Order' which originally aired in February, 2000.


PAST NEWS

Candlelight vigil for Cann family victims tonight

Fathers Rights advocates critical of family court in Cann custody case

Norton, MA—Sept. 6, 2007—The Southeastern Chapter of the Fatherhood Coalition is hosting a candlelight vigil Thursday, Sept. 6, 8:00-9:00 p.m. at the Norton Town Common. Norton is the site of the recent slaying of Elizabeth Cann by her ex-boyfriend. Elizabeth, 44, was shot by her ex-boyfriend, Robert McDermott, 39, who also shot the two daughters in the head, leaving them critically injured in the rampage. McDermott then shot himself.

CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition extend their sincerest condolences for the victims and their family and friends, including Elizabeth’s ex-husband, the father of the two girls, Wayne Cann. Mr. Cann discovered the bodies after he was telephoned by his third daughter, Amanda, 17, who was out of town at the time and grew concerned when she couldn’t contact her family.

According to the Coalition, mistakes made by the Massachusetts Family Court bear some responsibility for the tragedy, and this has been entirely overlooked in the media coverage. Event coordinator and longtime Fatherhood Coalition member Earl Sholley questions the circumstances under which the children were placed in the care and custody of the mother in the first place following the Cann divorce.

(more...)


Massachusetts Trial Court Child Support Guidelines Task Force
2007 public hearings


PAST RELEASE

CPF research study shows bias in restraining orders

Milford, July 11, 2005 – A study of how one court in Massachusetts applies the abuse prevention statute (MGL ch.209A) as measured by the issuance of “209A restraining orders” has just been published in the June issue of Journal of Family Violence, an academic journal on domestic violence issues.

“A Measure of Court Response to Requests for Protection,” by the Fatherhood Coalition’s Steve Basile, examined the 209A restraining orders issued in Gardner District Court in 1997. The study reveals a clear double standard in the court response to alleged victims of domestic abuse/violence.  In each of the benchmarks, women plaintiffs (victims) were treated more favorably than men, and likewise, male defendants were treated more harshly than their female counterparts.

Among the study’s findings:

  • When compared with other attributes of the litigants, sex was by far the greatest predictor of whether or not a restraining order would be issued and of the severity of the restrictions imposed on the defendant.

  • At ex parte hearings, where only the victim is present and the defendant is unaware of the proceedings, men were 240% more likely than women to be denied the immediate protection of an emergency restraining order.

  • Women were 38% more likely than men to be granted an emergency protection order at an ex parte hearing.

  • At follow-up 10-day hearings, when victims seek an extended or new restraining order, men were 383% more likely to be denied protection.

  • Women were 32% more likely than men to be granted a new restraining order when protection was pursued at the follow-up10-day hearing.

  • Overall, with and without children in common, men were 29% more likely to be evicted than women and 110% more likely to be evicted if they shared a common child.

(more...)

(more on Gardner study below)

CLICK HERE FOR INDEX OF ALL GARDNER 209A STUDY-RELATED STORIES

Study Wars: The Fathers Strike Back
New research shows bias in restraining orders

by Mark Charalambous


PAST RELEASE

Fathers Rights testify at State House

Fatherhood Coalition reps speak on shared parenting and restraining order reform

BOSTON, May 17 – Fathers Rights advocates from across the state will converge on the State House today to give testimony to the Judiciary Committee on shared parenting and 209A reform (MGL 209A abuse protection “restraining order”).

The hearings are scheduled for 1 pm today in Room B2.

Several shared parenting bills are on the docket. The Fatherhood Coalition supports Senate bill 855, brought forward by senators Scott Brown, Richard Tesei and Richard Ross.

According to Fatherhood Coalition co-Chairman Michael P. O’Neil, [I]n Massachusetts today, over 90% of the time, a judge will rule that it is in ‘the best interest of the child’ to have his access to one of his parents—usually the child’s father—severely restricted…studies and statistics show the exponential increase in teen pregnancy, suicide, drug usage and school failures that follow these unconscionable court edicts.”

Coalition members will also be speaking to the critical need to reform the state’s notorious abuse protection law, MGL 209A, from which thousands of “restraining orders” restricting the civil and human rights are yearly issued, mainly to men. Coalition Spokesman Mark Charalambous and others will be testifying in support of House bill 833, the “209A Reform bill.”

According to Charalambous, “Legal protections routinely afforded hardened criminals are denied fathers who are often merely accused of making their estranged wives or girlfriends afraid, with no accusation of any actual violence at all.”
. . .

(more)

Mark Charalambous' shared parenting testimony

Michael O'Neil's shared parenting testimony

Mark Charalambous' 209A reform testimony

Michael O'Neil's 209A reform testimony

CPF News Wire: Index of past CPF press releases


Shared parenting ballot initiative wins overwhelmingly across Massachusetts!

Yes: 85%, No: 15%

Statewide Results

YES

NO

Total

530,716

97,211

627,927

84.5 %

15.5%

100 %

Shared parenting bills


CPF IN THE NEWS

  • A need to right judicial abuses
    Letter: Mike Franco, Daily Collegian, Mar. 24, 2004
    Holyoke Sun, Apr.1-7; MetroWest Daily News, Apr. 3; Sunday Telegram, Apr. 4

CPF In the News: 2003 Index

CPF In the News: 2002 Index

CPF In the News: 2001 Index

CPF In the News: 2000 Index

CPF In the News: 1999 Index

CPF In the News: Pre-1999 Index


Second phase of Fatherhood Coalition's Steve Basile's study of 209A restraining orders in Garner District Court published

The second phase of the study has been published by the Journal of Family Violence, June 2005. The study is available online to subscribers of the Journal, but it is also available for individual purchase.

Journal of Family Violence

Issue: Volume 20, Number 3,  June 2005

A Measure of Court Response to Requests for Protection

By Steve Basile, Fatherhood Coalition, Milford, Massachusetts

Abstract  

Are male victims of domestic violence provided the same protections as female victims? With increasing entanglement of custody and domestic violence law, the answer to this question is critical for fathers embroiled in disputes where allegations are sometimes made to secure custody of children. All non-impounded requests for Abuse Prevention Orders initiated in Massachusettsrsquo Gardner District Court, in the year 1997, involving opposite gender litigants were analyzed to determine if court response to the associated allegations is affected by the gender of those litigants. These orders were previously examined and male and female defendants were found similarly abusive. By studying the characteristics of each case, and overall court response at court hearings, a determination is made concerning any evident gender trends in the aggregate court response to requests for protection. Despite gender-neutral language of abuse prevention law (M.G.L. c. 209A), application of that law favors female plaintiffs.


Phase 1: The Basile Gardner District Court restraining order study

The first part of the study has been published by the Journal of Family Violence, Issue 1, February 2004.  The study is available online to subscribers of the Journal, but is also available for individual purchase.

CLICK HERE FOR INDEX OF ALL GARDNER 209A STUDY-RELATED STORIES

Comparison of Abuse Alleged by Same- and Opposite-Gender Litigants as Cited in Requests for Abuse Prevention Orders

By Steve Basile, Fatherhood Coalition, Milford, Massachusetts

Abstract

Domestic violence is commonly portrayed as something male batterers do to their female victims. Much research excludes study of female-perpetrated violence. This study develops a two-gender measure of abuse as documented by requests for protection. All nonimpounded Abuse Prevention Orders (M.G.L. c. 209A) issued in Massachusetts' Gardner District Court in the year 1997 were analyzed by gender to examine the level and types of violence alleged by plaintiffs. The level and types of violence were categorized and measured by examining Abuse Claimed Checkboxes found on each Complaint for Protection and by applying quantitative scales to affidavits, or plaintiff statements, filed as part of each request for protection. Despite widespread misconceptions that tend to minimize female abuse, examination of these court documents shows that male and female defendants, who were the subject of a complaint in domestic relation cases, while sometimes exhibiting different aggressive tendencies, measured almost equally abusive in terms of the overall level of psychological and physical aggression.

Journal of Family Violence, 19 (1): 59-68, February 2004

© Springer. Part of Springer Science+Business Media. All rights reserved. 


FROM THE READING ROOM

CPF Reading Room: 2003 Index

CPF Reading Room: 2002 Index

CPF Reading Room: 2001 Index

CPF Reading Room: 2000 Index

CPF Reading Room: 1999 Index

CPF Reading Room: Pre-1999 Inde

We are raising funds for a 3-month advertising campaign on the Boston subway system. The public service ads will highlight the discrimination faced by men and fathers and call for changes in Massachusetts state law. You can support this effort by contributing through the above Chip-in. Our goal is to raise $13,000. by Sept. 1, 2010. We are also soliciting graphic design ideas for the ads. Send your suggestions by Email.


We depend on your financial support!

Become a member
before it is too late. CPF can help if you are hit with divorce, custody and restraining orders.
Getting to 'No'
A blueprint for a Fathers Rights resistance movement

by Mark Charalambous

pdf formatted for print


CPF VIDEOS

Franco Runs for Massachusetts Governor's Council
Franco for MA Governor's Council
Shared parenting bill (S855)

[MS Word format]

Mark Charalambous testimony

Michael O'Neil testimony

Shared parenting is best for children of divorce

209A Reform bill (S965 & H833)

Mark Charalambous testimony

Michael O'Neil testimony

209A Reform bill (S965 & H833) showing all updated text


Sholley Runs for Congress
SholleyforCongress.us

The RECORD
CPF newsletter now online!
(Adobe Acrobat pdf reader required)
Download Adobe Reader

Sept, 2005

February 2005
July 2004

November 2003
February 2003

July 2002 (The Bulletin)
April 2001 (The Bulletin)


NOW IT CAN BE TOLD!

Inside a
Battered Women's Support Group

Read Nev Moore's riveting first-person account of how she was forced to accept the role of "domestic violence victim" by going to meetings at "Independence House," a battered womens support group -- because her children were being held hostage by DSS!

Inside a 'Batterers Program' for 'Abused' Women
Women Violating Women

Nev Moore, July 29, 2003


Lundy Bancroft's:

"Battered Mothers, Human Rights & Family Courts"

public forum held June 19, 2003 in Northampton, MA

CPF attendee's report


Fed up with biased, anti-father GALs?

PROTEST   GAL Domestic Violence Training

Protest Central
Questions & Answers

How to Write a GAL Report
An Open Letter to GALs

...and much more


Support shared parenting

Support Mike Franco's struggle for justice

Read the Mike Franco case file Table of Contents for a complete list of online documents relating to his case.


New Mass. Child Support Guideline
Effective Feb. 15, 2002

Comparison of Child Support Orders under old and new Guidelines

ANALYSIS - NEW MASS CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES
David Weden, III, CFA
(pdf format, requires Adobe Acrobat)


Massachusetts  POLICE-STATE domestic violence polices revalidated

"... uncorroborated statements by a victim can constitute probable cause that the crime occuurred."

"...a victim who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or who suffers from mental illness, is not an inherently unreliable witness."

"...it is not unusual for an abuser to display a calm demeanor following a violent assault."

"Dual arrests, like the issuance of mutual restraining orders, are strongly discouraged because they trivialize the seriousness of domestic abuse and increase danger to victims"

Revised October 2001
Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Guidelines

(PDF format, Adobe Acrobat required)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Public Safety


Mass. Child Support Guideline 4-Year Review

- CPF Recommendations
- Recommendation Summary
- Recommendation New Worksheet

-CPF statement on Guideline -- [recommended for talking points]


Jacques Committee GAL Investigation Travesty
Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight
March 2001


Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines:
A Benchmark Analysis

By David B. Weden III, Sept. 2000

Full report
Charts Appendix
(pdf format, requires Adobe Acrobat)


  Nollet.gif (2241 bytes)

COMPLAINT
MEMORANDUM


Chronicle
(WCVB TV)
"Out of Order"
Transcript of Feb.17 show
and how to get a copy



Click the flag to learn about CPF's first federal lawsuit against the state's judges...
Complete text of Federal judge's dismissal


Comments? Suggestions? Want to help? Contact CPF


© CPF / The Fatherhood Coalition 1997 - 2009

Site last updated:
March 16, 2009

Site maintained by Arjuna's Arrow Publishing