September 18, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors
In Ontario, it’s officially open season on anyone earning a good income (National Post, 9/10/20). Beware all those who do. If you have a girl/boyfriend and endeavor to treat them well, you may find yourself married. No, you didn’t walk down the aisle and no, you never lived together for any significant period of time. No rings were exchanged nor vows taken, nor marriage license issued. That’s all so passé, so totally yesterday. In Ontario, it’s a whole new, brave new world, whose whole point is money, or, to be precise, alimony.
Michael Latner is apparently very well-off financially, so, when he met and fell in love with Lisa Climans back in 2000, he was lavish in his support of her. She quit her job and he supported her and her three children in a style to which they’d theretofore never been accustomed. They ate well, lived well, traveled extensively and all on his nickel. What they didn’t do was marry, live together or have a joint bank account.
September 14,2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors
No effort to convince readers that, against all the evidence, family courts are biased against mothers would be complete without eliding the differences between Parental Alienation Syndrome and parental alienation. And Natalie Pattillo’s piece in the New York Review of Books doesn’t disappoint.
The reason for doing so is to tar the concept of PA with the name Richard Gardner. He’s long dead and therefore presents no risk of a libel or defamation suit and so is fair game. Pattillo introduces the term “parental alienation” and, just one sentence later pretends that it’s the same as PAS.
And no such article would be complete without misrepresenting what PA and PAS actually are. Again, following the script closely, Pattillo does the same.
September 10, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors
Nothing quite condemns any publication quite like citing Barry Goldstein as a reputable source. But that’s exactly what Natalie Pattillo did in her article in the New York Review of Books about which I wrote last time. Who is Barry Goldstein? To begin with, he’s yet another of the true believers, like Pattillo herself, who never get around to admitting female violence against men or that many allegations of DV, when made during a divorce action are made to gain the upper hand therein.
But if that were all that Barry Goldstein is, he’d just be one of many. In fact, he’s unique. Barry Goldstein at one time was an attorney in New Jersey. (The state’s bar association now lists him as “retired.”) Back in 2008, Goldstein won the dubious distinction of being suspended by the bar grievance committee for a whopping five years due to an equally whopping 26 violations of the canons of legal ethics. About half of those were for playing fast and loose with client funds, but the rest originated from his representation of Yevgenia Shockome whose case was a textbook example of the abuse of the legal system by those who want us to believe that only men abuse and only women and children are abused.
September 9, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors
Sigh. Another month, another article that claims that, as a general rule, family courts favor fathers over mothers, and particularly so in matters of domestic violence (New York Review of Books, 9/2/20). We see these with some frequency. Law professor Joan Meier has made a career out of exactly that, done her best to prove her point and failed. But the latest yellow journalism appears in what was once a respectable publication, the New York Review of Books.
The NYRB article runs to type, i.e. pure agitprop. The writer, Natalie Pattillo, has written pretty extensively and always in the same vein. She’s a true believer in the Church of Men are Abusers and Women Aren’t. Predictably, her article, when it locates facts at all, cites only dodgy ones, artfully leads readers to believe that which isn’t true, quotes only those who belong to the same Church regardless of how factually compromised they are and of course manages no balance whatsoever. The piece is about 3,500 words long and in all those words, Pattillo offers not a single quotation from anyone with an opinion different from her own. Needless to say, as in all such articles, many pertinent facts go unmentioned