By Liz Richards

In response to questions and concerns from father rights leaders about complaints from myself and others representing litigating mothers and family abuse victim, I would like fathers rights movement principals to respond to the following:

A). Fathers Rights organizations have introduced into official proceedings inappropriate psychological standards meant to produce false negatives in child sex abuse litigation for the benefit of male sex offender. No professional body has endorsed the Gardner-PAS methodology as an appropriate standard in any family law forum.

B) In fact most professionals are highly critical of this and similar standards created to deliberately discredit female complaints about male family violence offenders, promoted by fathers rights allies such as Gardner, Underwager, Farrell and more recently Braver. These are contrived standards for protecting male offenders from the law, and allowing them to continue their unlawful injurious conduct.

C) Fathers rights leaders engage in a campaign of public disinformation about family law matters including child support enforcement standards, custody litigation, maternal conduct in domestic disputes and other issues. They do this for the sole purpose of confusing the public and lawmakers to achieve for themselves recognition as a "special class" on the grounds of acutevictimization by society and the legal system. Fathers’ rights literature discredits some of their own most widely disseminated claims, such as (i) widespread and extreme legal system bias against men in custody disputes (ii) automatic disenfranchisement of their parental relationships, (iii) frequent patterns of false allegations of child abuse made deliberately by vengeful women, and (iv) routinely blaming of men for family violence acts they disavowy that they did not commit, and (v) routine assessment on men of child support beyond their ability to pay.

All of these above described fathers' claims can be easily discredited from a wide variety of published studies, some of which are sponsored by organizations closely associated with their own movement. The fact that the father rights spokespersons never mention these finding when making their outrageous and false public claims, are indicative of their lack of integrity. They have also obtained and misused federal program funds intended for the purpose of enforcing non-custodial parents visitations contact. Instead, these funds have been used to pay fathers rights attorneys and court professionals to compromise the litigation in favor of the fathers with the use of pro-offender psychological methods and other illicit and unethical tactics.

D) However, the best determinate of the movements’ lack of integrity, is their claim of widespread injustice against fathers in the face of hundreds of complaints by fit and normal mothers who have lost custody and most visitation contact, without due process or cause other than "interference" with the father-child relationship. I, along with other advocacy leaders and public policy organizations have learned of and verified of hundred of such victimized mothers - many of which were associated with the father rights organizations and federal programs.

Never have the fathers rights leaders made complaints similar to those made by these mothers. Never have they proffered an example case of a father who denied custody and NO NORMAL VISITATION CONTACT on grounds of intefering with the mother-child relationship. While all know that termination of maternal contact with the children is a leading principal of Dr. Richard Gardner’s methodology, none from mothers’ community has ever advocatedpaternal termination on grounds of parental alienation or false allegations.

But worse, all complaints from our community about these victimized mothers have resulted in an outpouring of hate mail, threats, and slut-or-nut crazy making. None from the fathers rights community have responded to one individual or collective complaint from the mothers community. NONE of the father rights leaders incorporate this factor when lobbying for public policy changes. All of their public policy advocacy has been based on the single notion that the system is biased against men and only men.

Clearly the Fahters Rights movement has an out-for-yourselves agenda, with no regard to the concerns, rights or injury to others, especially those less equipped to do legal battle. While they claim victimization from false allegations and parental alienation by mothers, they coach their own male members to engage in these very illicit activities of false charges and parental alienation against mothers. Also, our group members have information that some fathers rights members engage in custody retaliation against mothers who refuse to comply with demands for abortion by rejecting fathers; in addition to some case of affiliated professionals who have trafficked in child pornography.

I will continue to contact and persuade public policy leaders and public official with my requests that Fathers Rights organizations be thoroughly investigated, and that the power of government be re-directed to stopping all the unethical and unlawful activities you have been engaging in - not the least of which is the proliferation of pro-pedophile/incest psychological material into the working methodologies of the courts and social services agencies of this country.

In the meantime, I would like you to provide answer to the following questions:

1) Since there appears to be confusion between "good" fathers' organizations who do not engage in the above described practices and those that do: please name all organization leaders, chapters and affiliated organizations working with or under the Fathers' Rights organization’s umbrella, keeping in mind several official reviews of Fatherhood movement  officials have cited that as many as 200 differently named groups all work together.

2) Please detail your knowledge and reaction of Warren Farrell full multi-page 1977 Penthouse "Positive Incest" interview. What does he say when speaking before your organizations’(NCFC and CRC) events. Also can you comment on the connection Farrell has had with the Kinsey Institute.

3) What is the Fatherhood's organizations’ (NCFC and CRC) affiliation with Dr. Ralph Underwager. Comment on your knowledge and reaction to Underwager’s Paedika interview. Detail how your organization refers cases to Underwager, and how many case he has testified as an expert witness for child sex abuse or child custody evaluations. Are you award of Underwager’s involvement in a California seminar in which he positively presented child pornography under the false guise of research.

4) As all should know, Robert Hirschfeld has been permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Arizona. What does Bob Hirschfeld teach in his NCFC pro-se litigation courses? What does he advise men on how to handle their domestic litigation? Also, I would like a full copy of Hirschfeld’s disbarrment proceeding to better determine the legitimacy of the charges against him.

5) And lastly, please do attempt to prove me wrong about item (D) from above, by citing one case of a father being restricted to supervised visitation on account of Parental Alienation for making false allegations.

I think the most important change desired at this time from the organized fathers rights movement, is to respond to individual and collective complaints by mothers about system injustices against them, specifically, custody switches to proven and probably child abusers under the guise of protecting the child from the trauma of false allegation, and unjustified useof supervised visitation on mothers on the grounds of parental alienation. I also want your organizations to release to me public information on your organizations funding and expenditures.


Liz Richards

National Alliance For Family Court Justice

Annandale, VA

November 23, 1999

note: bcc sent to 8 public policy organizations from a wide variety ofpersuasions, responses from fathers rights leaders will be distributed tothem.

Create Synergy and Power by working together! With over 150 members, all should comply with the Brevity Rules: maximum limit to number and length of daily messages 1 -2 message / day / member, no longer than 1-2 pages (summarize or excerpt lengthy material taken from other web sites). Switch to Digest mode if you suffer from message overload. Contact list Moderator directly (home phone: 703/658-3543) with questions, complaints or further information and to join National Alliance for Family Court Justice - est. 1993.

Home | Contacts | What's New | Related Sites |