We live in a society where the most violent crimes are committed by men, where majority of serial killers are men and where women and children are killed every day by a man who was supposed to love them. Yet, these same men who committ these violent acts have managed to convince us that woman are more dangerous than men, are we really that stupid? Yes, I think that we are. After all, my judge Ruth Hilliard, buys into that philosophy hook, line and sinker. Why? I, personally think, it's because she is attempting to live in a man's world of family court and the only way to show that she is "one of the boys" is to persecute women.
In a society that women have to work twice as hard to get half the credit as a man, it is sad that the one area in which they are credited for being better "qualified" has now turned against them. The arena of the family care taking. Due to the fact that we are the natural caretakers, the family court system has created unacceptable restrictions for us. We can't report abuse, because then we are attempting to alienate. However, if we don't report abuse then we are an accomplice. It's a wonder that women are even continuing to have children. For a while, we decided to have children on our terms... now men are ripping our children from us and for what... to spite us.
I believe that Family Annihilation is going to be the plague of the twenty-first century... meaning that many more of us are going to die before any help is found. After all, why should our government pay attention to it, it's not considered a threat - it's only a threat against women and children and we are expendable.
Men who murder their children
Belinda Morris
Every ten days a child in the UK is killed by a parent. In the US the largest number of mass killings are within families. Whilst Australian statistics on this issue are yet to be compiled, we know from the headlines that here too children are being murdered by their parents, predominantly fathers, with alarming frequency. This article discusses the recent spate of fathers killing their children and why experts believe it is a trend likely to continue.
There is nothing new about perpetrators of domestic violence threatening to harm or kill children as a means of controlling their partners. And as we know all too well, a high number of children are in fact killed as a result of child abuse by their step/father. In fact the most likely cause of death for a child is at the hands of a parent or stepparent (Cavanagh, Dobash and Dobash, 2007) and the number of parents killing their children is increasing (Stoppard, 2008).
However a new trend is emerging of fathers who may have never previously exhibited physical violence toward their children or their partner suddenly murdering their children in what is purported to be a tragic moment of despair.
Astounding news reports are telling of fathers drowning their children, burning entire families in their homes, stabbing children to death and, in the case that horrified Melbourne earlier this year, throwing a child off the West Gate Bridge.
These reports are frequently accompanied by accounts of the perpetrator as a loving family man and a devoted dad. Indeed, many of these murders are described as a desperate act by a man who simply could not bear to lose his family. Of course, this argument is predicated on the notion that his partner and children are lost to him if they are living without him – worse still with another man – but not if their lives are ended altogether. And in most of these cases access to the children was not being denied. So perhaps it is more about his having lost
control of his partner and children, than them being gone from his life.
There are of course also mothers who kill their children – acts which are no less reprehensible than those by the fathers. But the frequency and the circumstances are vastly different, as are the ensuing community and media portrayals. As Minna Nikunen’s research into news reports of murdering parents showed, ‘It is striking how idealized the image of fathers is’. Although ‘as men or as spouses they may have had some shortcomings’, their fatherhood prior to the murders is often lauded. ‘When mothers commit the same kind of [murder], their motherhood is not praised’ (Nikunen, 2005).
There is no disputing the higher incidence of murder by fathers. In only ‘5 per cent of cases it is the mother who is responsible’ (Martin, 2006), and ‘psychologists agree that the majority of women who kill their children are seriously mentally ill. But fathers who do so rarely are’ (Craig, 2006).
Psychiatrist, Alex Yellowlees, states that there are ‘distinct differences in the minds of men and women who harm their children. Women … tended to be mentally ill, often suffering from postnatal depression. In contrast, men tend to be struggling to deal with feelings of rage, jealousy, revenge and hatred’ (in Martin, 2006).
The current phenomenon of paternal filicide appears to have two variations – the altruistic killer and the vengeance murders.
DVRC Quarterly
Killing for Revenge
Those who kill for revenge are no less abhorrent, but perhaps easier to comprehend. Fathers kill children and their mother out of hatred for their ex/partner, or they murder the children and
not their mother because they believe their ex-partner will suffer more by living and experiencing the death of her children.
These murders are almost always precipitated by events in which the father feels slighted – his partner leaving him, moving on with a new relationship, or restricting access to children. Professor Jack Levin, of North-Eastern University in Boston, who is an expert on this issue, states: ‘There’s a catalyst that is seen as catastrophic in the mind of the killer’ (in Kelley, 2009).
The news reports contain a common refrain: ‘He was distraught because of the relationship coming to an end’ (Shaver and Johnson, 2007); ‘[He] reacted badly to the breakup of his marriage’ (Daily Express, 2008); ‘the bottom fell out of his world. He just cracked up’ (Daily Mail, 2007); The ‘breakdown of his marriage was an emotional earthquake’ (Bird, 2008); ‘The final straw … was his belief that his wife was pregnant by another man’ (Bunyan, 2003).
Jack Levin states it clearly: ‘The children are killed because the husband blames the wife and kills everything associated with her’ (in Kelley, 2009). Miriam Stoppard (2008) also explains: ‘the man now hates his wife so much that he will do anything to get back at her’ and forensic psychiatrist Neil Blumberg elaborates: ‘They want to inflict pain like they feel the woman inflicted upon them. … what’s the most horrible thing you can do to a woman with children but kill the children?’ (in Shaver and Johnson, 2007).
There are a litany of headlines: ‘Murdered his three-year-old daughter in revenge for his wife’s affair’ (Vallely, 2006); ‘Father killed children to punish estranged wife’ (Glendinning, 2003); ‘Father kills five children over wife’s affair’ (Australian Associated Press, 2009); ‘Father suffocated his two young children as revenge on their mother who he feared was cheating on him’ (Hull, 2007).
Dr Vince Egan, a forensic psychology lecturer, asserts ‘these men are thinking "How do I get back at somebody if I cannot otherwise upset them, because they care so little about me"’ (in The Scotsman, 2009).
This motive is incredibly blatant in some cases, where the father actually tells his estranged partner that he is killing the children to exact revenge against her. A father who drowned his three sons had vowed to kill the boys to pay back his wife, so that she would ‘suffer for the rest of her life’ (News.com.au, 2007).
Amy Castillo, whose children were subsequently murdered by their father during a court ordered visit, had written in a court petition for a protective order: ‘He has never actually hurt them, but did tell me that the worst thing he could do to me would be to kill the children and not me so I could live without them’ (MSNBC, 2008). Iain Varma rang his wife to tell her he was about to kill the children and himself, after learning of her affair (Daily Mail, 2007), and a father who suffocated his three-year-old daughter as revenge for his wife’s infidelity sent her a text message saying "Now you have the rest of your life to deal with the consequences"’ (Pearson, 2008).
Psychologist, Dr Tony Black, also believes that ‘what many child-killers are dealing with is their reaction to their wife leaving them. They struggle with feelings that are a cocktail of rage, jealousy, revenge and hatred’. Disturbingly though, Dr Black continues ‘they are people who lack strategies for giving vent to the turmoil in the way that many women can … cutting the sleeves from their unfaithful husband’s suits, destroying his favourite CDs, giving away his fine wine – attacking whatever he values’ (in Vallely, 2006).
Deadly Dads
Edition - Winter 009 Describing men’s CDs as analogous to women’s children is disturbing on many levels, including the assumptions that men value these types of items above their children, that women value nothing in their lives other than their children, but most of all, that children are objects to be possessed and controlled – or destroyed.
However, as discussed earlier, this mindset does permeate many of these cases. Quotes such as: ‘If I can’t have my children, you’re not going to have them either’ (Stoppard, 2008) and ‘These children are mine and they go with me’ (in The Scotsman, 2009) show that children are indeed seen as possessions by these fathers.
However, while custody issues are frequently cited as the catalyst for these killings, with fathers preferring their children dead than in a separate home, they are not the only ‘possessions’ he fears he will lose. Frighteningly, a report in
The Scotsman (2009) exposed a common feature amongst child murders as being preemptive revenge against a wife who might be planning to request a large divorce settlement (my emphasis).
Robert Farquharson, who was found guilty of drowning his three sons in a dam was reportedly ‘bitter that in their separation she had taken the good car, and had also moved on with another man. And maintenance payments had left him financially strapped … "There’s no way I’m going to let him, her and the kids live together in my house and I have to f---ing pay for it and also pay f---ing maintenance for the kids"’ (in News.com.au, 2007).
Child support is increasingly cited as the reason for filicides, most notoriously in the recent US case where Danny Platt, who owed his estranged wife money confessed to killing their 2-year-old son over the child support dispute. According to
Sky News (2009), Platt had recently been ordered to pay child support and ‘had said he would kill either his wife or his child before he paid’. Also in the US, Cameron Brown has this month begun retrial for murdering his daughter by throwing her off a cliff, allegedly to avoid paying child support (Associated Press, 2009).
In cases such as these, the fathers are detached enough from the children to see them as simply a problem which can be disposed of. The more frequent killings however, are by fathers who have hitherto been active in their children’s lives, and yet are still able to view them as objects – a means to an end. Professor Levin is cited as saying: ‘He doesn’t hate his children but he often hates his wife and blames her for his miserable life. He wants to execute revenge and the motive is almost always to "get even"’ (in Stoppard, 2008). Dr Egan believes this is ‘a phenomenon that is likely to continue as increasing numbers of families experience painful break-ups’ (in The Scotsman, 2009).
Altruistic Murder
The other type of filicide becoming increasingly common in recent years is the supposed ‘altruistic’ murder. These killings involve the slaying of children and their mothers, usually culminating in the father’s suicide. These deaths are supposedly committed out of ‘misplaced love’. Dr Black explains that ‘the ones who try to kill themselves along with their children can feel they have let the family down in some way – debt, lost job, gambling... They feel that their suicide will leave the family without a breadwinner, so they’ve got to take the family with them – though some botch the job, or lose their nerve, or are brought to their senses by the act of killing their own children and then survive themselves’ (in Vallely, 2006).
This particular type of mass killing has become so prevalent in the US, with 10 such murder-suicides a week, that they
�������������������������������������������������������������������
Brown was first tried three years ago, but a mistrial was declared when a jury deadlocked on the severity of the crime (Associated Press, 2009).
Deadly Dads
DVRC Quarterly have coined a phrase for the perpetrators. They are known as family annihilators. Having studied many of these men, Professor Jack Levin describes the typical family annihilator as ‘a middle-aged man, a good provider who would appear to neighbours to be a dedicated husband and a devoted father’ (in Vallely, 2006).
In another interview, Levin is cited as saying these men ‘have a profound need for control that drives them to destroy their family when they can no longer provide for them financially or when the family has been divided by divorce’ (Kelley, 2009). ‘He wants to take his own life, but as the breadwinner and the person responsible in his own mind for the welfare of his offspring, he decides he will … spare them the pain and suffering of growing up without a father’ (Levin in Rawsthorne, 2006).
The catalyst for these murders is usually financial problems or the ending of a relationship. The father feels he can no longer take care of his family, and as he believes they couldn’t – or shouldn’t – survive without him, his solution is to end all of their lives. Professor Levin notes ‘the most significant factors are family break-up, male sexual jealousy, a need to be in control and extreme possessiveness (in Martin, 2006).
That someone could believe the lives of others were so dependent on them as to necessitate their deaths requires not just narcissism, but again, the underlying conviction that children are objects, property to be managed and dispensed with. So pervasive is this attitude that these murders have also been labeled ‘suicide by proxy’ (Peek, 2003). A man’s wife and children are considered not autonomous individuals, but simply an extension of himself, which he therefore has the right to do with as he sees fit.
As Raina Kelley (2009) points out, ‘It seems unfathomable that an ostensibly stable and loving man could kill the people he loves most; but unfortunately, it is more common than we may like to consider’ and it is feared by many of those who study these types of murders that we will see more and more of them as the world’s financial problems take their toll.
Killer Fathers
Naturally, everyone who hears of these child murders wonders what kind of man could commit such an atrocity. Common perceptions are that he must be mentally ill and/or have an extensive history of physical violence against the children. The community would like to believe that these men are unique, that the problem lies within a few pathological individuals. It is certainly easier to believe that than to admit we may be living in a society which still allows men to see women and children as their (disposable) property, and as incapable of dealing with their emotions in a rational way.
But like perpetrators of family violence in general, murderous fathers are usually regular, ordinary men. In fact, as Minna Nikunen (2005) writes, ‘Generally, when fathers have killed their children, ordinariness and unexpectedness are the material for the headlines’.
Jack Levin debunks the myths, stating that ‘We’re not talking about psychotics. They don’t suffer from schizophrenia or a profound thinking disorder or mental illness. You can’t say that they’re psychopathic … they don’t have a character or personality disorder’ (in Kelley, 2009), ‘they know the difference between right and wrong’ (in Rawsthorne, 2006).
The traits which experts agree are common, significant factors, and should be heeded as a warning are possessiveness, jealousy, and control. ‘Such men are often individuals who place a great premium on being in control. …Killing the children… is a grotesque way of regaining control’ (in Vallely, 2006).
Deadly Dads
Edition - Winter 009 Sarah Heatley, mother of two young children strangled by their father, concurs with this assessment: ‘he killed them in a desperate attempt to prove to me he was still in control. He controlled me during our marriage by using verbal and physical abuse, and when I left him, he lost that control over me and the children. By killing them, he ensured he had the last word and that his actions would control the rest of my life’ (in Rawsthorne, 2006).
In the absence of any diagnosis with which to explain the horrific actions, these deaths are almost always portrayed – particularly by those defending the killer – as spontaneous, tragic moments of distress. The father is alleged to have been suddenly pushed over the brink with despair, and to have acted impulsively. However research shows that this is not the case at all.
Having investigated these men closely, Levin described his findings to Lorna Martin (2006):
These are executions. They are never spontaneous. They are well planned and selective. They are not carried out in the heat of the moment or in a fit of rage. They are very methodical and it is often planned out for a long time. There are certain people the killer blames for his problems. If a friend came along, he wouldn’t kill him or her. He kills his children to get even with his wife because he blames her and he hates her. The killer feels he has lost control. It is a methodical, selective murder by a rational, loving father. That’s why it’s so terrifying.
Not to Blame
As with other men who abuse their partners and children, killer fathers rarely accept responsibility for their actions. Levin notes that for the murders, and for the circumstances which precipitated them, the killers ‘externalize blame. If they really blamed themselves alone, they’d take an anti-depressant or commit suicide’. ‘From what I’ve seen, they never feel like villains, they feel like victims’ (in Kelley, 2009). ‘She is the villain and the annihilation is sweet revenge’ (in Lomas, 2009).
Akin to a provocation defence, these fathers usually argue that they were driven to their crimes by their partner’s behaviour. In one such case, Gavin Hall killed his three-year-old daughter and pleaded guilty to manslaughter rather than murder, ‘arguing that his wife’s affair had created an abnormality in his mind’ (Martin, 2006).
News headlines sensationalise the killers’ excuses, such as: ‘…sordid affair and the husband driven to murder’; ‘Sex obsession of mother blamed for murder of innocent child’ (in Martin, 2006). Explanations offered by relatives and friends of the men often suggest the woman caused her children’s deaths, for example ‘All he wanted was to be with [her] and look after their boys. But she took them away from him and didn’t want to be with him’ (in Bunyan, 2003).
Many others are now claiming the supposed Parental Alienation Syndrome as the trigger for their actions. As discussed earlier, society too wants to believe there are mitigating factors in these murders. ‘Men are presented as finding themselves at a dead end, having no other choice, and as acting because they are coerced by circumstances’ (Nikunen, 2005).
A female journalist in the UK proffers the supposition that ‘at the very least, society is guilty of giving fathers mixed messages’. She goes on to state:
These days, we expect blokes to be New Dads. Bonding with babies over the 3am feed, and playing an equal part in raising them. Yet when it comes to life after divorce, things are often far from equal … A sense of injustice is the dark background to these infanticides. Such cases are the extreme consequences of belittling the role of masculinity in children’s lives (Pearson, 2008).
This thinly veiled dig at feminism and at single mothers once again sees men as the pivotal characters and children as their adjuncts and fails to recognise that the converse – the belittling of children in men’s lives – might be a more apt explanation for their detachment.
Deadly Dads
DVRC Quarterly Unsurprisingly in a culture of woman-blaming, the emphasis on external factors as triggers does not extend to mothers who kill their children. Despite the fact that, as noted above, ‘women who kill loved ones are more likely to have a history of health conditions like postpartum psychosis’ (Kelley, 2009) whereas ‘men are more likely to act out of jealous rages’ (Shaver and Johnson, 2007), community and social commentators make many more allowances for the male perpetrators of child murder.
Nikunen’s research showed that when a woman committed such a heinous act, ‘she was not seen as a nice and normal woman in a difficult situation’ and yet if reports are to be believed, ‘a normal and nice man can kill his children and himself, when the external conditions force him to do so’ (Nikunen, 2005).
It is often the very fact that these men are ‘normal’ that precludes worried mothers from receiving protection for their children, instead attracting criticism themselves. Sarah Heatley was a case in point: ‘The court ordered contact. They said I was being a hysterical and over-reactive wife. He was … an upstanding member of the community – an intelligent, generous and affable, loving father. People said he was the perfect dad’ (in Martin, 2006).
Workers in the family violence sector will recognise many elements of these crimes and those who commit them. Men who want to control their wives and children, blame others for their own behaviour, and use children as pawns to hurt their former partners, are precisely the type of men that domestic violence workers are dealing with on a daily basis. And of course we have all seen the devastating consequences of a child protection system which favours shared care and casts mothers as overbearing and vindictive for trying to protect their children from abusive fathers.
But it seems the parameters have moved on the family violence continuum. Where once the extreme end of the spectrum for controlling fathers was to kidnap their children, now it is to kill them. Figures from the UK showed that ‘it is more likely that your partner is going to kill your children if you leave him than that they are going to be killed by a stranger’ (Martin, 2006).
Abusive men have always threatened to harm children as retaliation against former partners, and while DV workers have never taken these types of threats lightly, we do need to be conscious of the increasing likelihood of the worst case scenario actually happening. We also need to bear in mind that the women we work with have seen and heard the news reports just as we have, and even if the threats against their children’s lives are never realised – or perhaps even articulated – they may understandably be extremely fearful for their children’s lives.
A recent study by the Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center in Seattle confirms these results (Kernic et al., 2005). The researchers analyzed documentation on more than 800 local couples with young children who filed for divorce in 1998 and 1999, including 324 cases with a history of domestic violence. They found that evidence of domestic violence did not appear to change how courts decided custody. In other words, fathers who were violent were just as likely to receive custody when they asked for it as fathers who were not violent. Only 17% of fathers with a known history of domestic violence were denied child visitation and they were no more likely than other fathers to be required by the court to have a third party supervise child visitations.(Myths That Place Children At Risk During Custody Litigation, Dallam. S. J., & Silberg, J. L. (Jan/Feb 2006). Myths that place children at risk during custody disputes.) Attorney-writers like Robert Franklin purposefully misrepresent protective mother organizations by labeling them as "anti-dad." This is how they promote hatred ( not unlike anti-choicers) and incite rage. Protective mothers are against abusive dads, and if many dads fit into that category, that is hardly to be blamed on women. Attorney-writers like Robert Franklin also purport to be about children's rights, but only insofar as it pertains to the best interest of the father's control ( "children's rights to paternal access"). This is in opposition to a children having individual rights of their own ( autonomy), such as the right to choose how they would like to live post divorce, the right to choose to establish and/or maintain relationships with absent parents, the right to be protected from abuse, etc.
For every piece of "social science research" that fathers' rights groups highlight, there is another body of research that says the reverse. This is most likely related to affiliations with research universities who perform work under fatherhood grant money from the Department of Health and Human Services (specifically, the Administration of Children and Families). Are these selective studies unbiased? Maybe we'll never know. But we do know that upon careful analysis of host of statistics, from a variety of sources, from a variety of dates, internationally, mothers are not doing the most damage.
For example, in 2005 research, Filicide-Suicide: Common Factors in Parents Who Kill Their Children and Themselves:
Twice as many fathers as mothers committed filicide-suicide during the study period, and older children were more often victims than infants...Thirty cases of filicide-suicide were identified, resulting in a sample comprised of 10 (33%) mothers and 20 (67%) fathers who had committed filicide-suicide over the time period.
In Shaken baby syndrome in Canada: Clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospital cases:
The biological father (43%), followed by the biological mother (26%), was most often identified as the responsible caregiver with the child at the time of the injury, even though the primary caregiver was usually the biological mother (67%), followed by "other" (35%: 18% babysitter, 17% unknown) and then the biological father (18%)...
The perpetrator was identified in 240 cases (66%), with the biological father being the most common (50%), followed by the stepfather/male partner (20%) and then the biological mother (12%). Overall, the perpetrator was male in 72% of the cases; 15% of perpetrators had a previous charge or suspicion for maltreatment of a child in their care.
In Analysis of Perpetrator Admissions to Inflicted Traumatic Brain Injury in Children :
the most common perpetrator was the father, followed by the mother's boyfriend, and then by the mother...45 (56) No: 32 (36)
In Nonaccidental head trauma as a cause of childhood death:
Twenty-seven of the inflictors were male and three were female; therefore women were much more likely to report the event, even though they were much less often the perpetrators. Biological fathers and other father figures accounted for 24 (80%) of the 30 perpetrators.
In The Co-occurrence of Child and Intimate Partner Maltreatment in the Family: Characteristics of the Violent Perpetrators:
fathers were significantly more likely to maltreat both their partner and child than mothers and mothers were significantly more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence than fathers. Paternal Family fathers conducted the highest amount of physical and/or sexual child maltreatment while Maternal Child and Maternal Victim mothers perpetrated the highest amount of child neglect.
In Unilateral retinal hemorrhages in shaken baby syndrome:
The perpetrators were male (100%) and 11 (92%) were the babies’ fathers.
In Risk Factors for Physical Child Abuse in Infants and Toddlers :
Most often the perpetrator was the father or stepfather;
In Child deaths from family violence in Dakahlia and Damiatta Governorates, Egypt:
The majority of perpetrators were males (75.62%); they comprised children fathers in 60.98%, while female perpetrators represented 24.39%; they comprised the children mothers in 7.32%.
In Childhood deaths from physical abuse:
Fathers formed the largest group of perpetrators, followed by mothers and childminders.
In Perpetrators and their acts: data from 365 adults molested as children.:
The majority of the perpetrators (62%) were either biological fathers or father-surrogates. Ninety-nine percent of the perpetrators were known to the victim; 97% were male.
In Household composition and the risk of child abuse and neglect:
Abuse and neglect were both maximal in father-only homes...high risks of abuse and neglect in father-only and step-parent families.
In Analysis of caretaker histories in abuse: Comparing initial histories with subsequent confessions:
76% of perpetrators were male; 56% were the child's father; 34% were the child's mother.
In Neonatal Injuries in Child Abuse:
Men are the abusers in 90% of cases. The abuser is usually the biologic father or, in some cases, the mother's boyfriend. The most common female attacker is a babysitter.
In Child Deaths Resulting From Inflicted Injuries: Household Risk Factors and Perpetrator Characteristics:
Perpetrators were identified in 132 (88.6%) of the cases. The majority of known perpetrators were male (71.2%), and most were the child's father (34.9%) or the boyfriend of the child's mother (24.2%).
In Victim, perpetrator, family, and incident characteristics of 32 infant maltreatment deaths in the United States Air Force*1:
The caretaker-perpetrator had a history of abuse in childhood (23%), was male (84%), the biological father of the victim (77%), and a first-time parent (54%)...The incident had the infant-victim crying (58%) and alone with the caretaker-perpetrator (86%) on the weekend (47%) at around noon in the home (71%).
And this next one is extremely important, because fathers' rights groups don't seem to understand what they reveal in their own data (ie. if 84% of mothers get custody, then only 16% of dads, or others?, get custody...and if, during that 16% of the time, dads are causing the aforementioned harm, then................ see Liz notes for a great breakdown)
In The Role of Fathers in Risk for Physical Child Abuse and Neglect: Possible Pathways and Unanswered Questions:
"In one of the first studies directly examining fathers’ involvement and child neglect risk, Dubowitz et al. (2000) reported that fathers’ greater direct involvement with child care was positively linked with higher child neglect risk...
fathers, as well as father figures, are highly overrepresented as perpetrators of physical child abuse, particularly in its most severe forms ...
Given that fathers provide, on the whole, substantially less direct child care than mothers (Margolin, 1992; Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, & Hofferth, 2001), these proportions of fathers and possible father surrogates as perpetrators of severe child abuse appear as rather startling.
And it doesn't stop...From the NIS-3 (broken down by Silverside):
Harm Standard
Maltreatment
- Children living with their only their mothers experienced maltreatment under the Harm Standard at a rate of 26.1 per 1,000 children.
- Children living with only their dads? 36.6 per 1,000.
Abuse
- Children living with only their moms: 10.5 per 1,000.
- Children living with only their dads: 17.7 per 1,000.
Physical abuse
- Children living with only their moms: 6.4 per 1,000 children.
- Children living with only their dads: 10.5 per 1,000 children.
Neglect
- Children living with only their moms: 16.7 per 1,000 children.
- Children living with only their dads: 21.9 per 1,000 children.
Emotional Neglect
- Children living with only their moms: 3.4 per 1,000 children.
- Children living with only their fathers: 8.8 per 1,000 children.
Serious Injuries
- Children living with only their moms: 10.0 per 1,000 children.
- Children living with only their dads: 14.0 per 1,000.
Moderate Injuries
- Children living with only their moms: 14.7 per 1,000 children.
- Children living with only their dads: 20.5 per 1,000.
All maltreatment (abuse and neglect)
- Children living with only their moms: 50.1 per 1,000 children.
- Children living with only their dads: 65.6 per 1,000.
Endangerment standard
All Abuse
- Children living with only their moms: 18.1 per 1,000 children.
- Children living only with their dads: 31.0 per 1,000.
Physical Abuse
- Children living with only their moms: 9.8 per 1,000 children.
- Children living with only their dads: 16.5 per 1,000.
So, where's that "twice as much" of the child injury that mothers commit? Is this what you were looking for?
Abused children presented a different pattern in connection with the sex of their perpetrators than did the neglected children. Children were more often neglected by female perpetrators (87% by females versus 43% by males). This finding is congruent with the fact that mothers and mother-substitutes tend to be the primary caretakers and are the primary persons held accountable for any omissions and/or failings in caretaking. In contrast, children were more often abused by males (67% were abused by males versus 40% by females). The prevalence of male perpetrators was strongest in the category of sexual abuse, where 89 percent of the children were abused by a male compared to only 12 percent by a female.
And then there's always the latest (2009) StatCan Report:
Police-reported family violence against children and youth
Male family members were identified as the accused in a sizable majority of family-related sexual (96%) and physical assaults (71%) against children and youth.
Family homicides
In 2007, almost 4 times as many women were killed by a current or former spouse as men.
Parents were the perpetrators in the majority of child and youth homicides committed by family members. Fathers (54%) were more likely than mothers (34%) to be the perpetrators.
Ask any poor person who has presented in a court of law, especially against a wealthy litigant, if they felt they received a fair and impartial trial. Uh, gee, you probably can't think of any reason why they wouldn't.
It is obvious that there is pervasive bias against mothers in the family courts because we operate in a sexist society in which men still hold the cards. And the women that do climb the power ladder can not be presumed to have conquered misogynist thought because it is embedded in our culture.
Women are "given" 84% of custody not because there is a battle, but because the role of women as caretakers has not ever changed. Most men are comfortable with, and agree to this arrangement as it is a continuation of what existed in the household. While it is sexist to assume that the mother is the best child caretaker, it is also ignorant and dangerous to assume that the father knows how to provide for the child beyond financial means--if he has not previously done so.
We could give you a myriad of examples, especially if more women being abused by the court system would come forward. And oh why wouldn't they come forward? First, because many judges place gag orders in these civil court cases. Second, because of retaliation. Women lose everything and so most want to stay anonymous because they still have that glimmer of hope that the system is just. There is no reward for reporting domestic violence and sexual abuse. There is no promised land when you flee to protect your children.
To argue sexual abuse on the basis of the prefaced word, allegation, is short-sighted at best. Everything in court is an allegation, EXCEPT parental alienation, you see, because parental alienation syndrome was constructed to negate "allegations" of sexual abuse. Parental alienation is so legally crafted that there needn't be any evidence to prove that the mother is causing it--only that it is "present" based on the actions (or inactions) of the child. On the other hand, if the mother doesn't have all her documents in order, or a high-priced attorney, any "evidence" can be dismissed by the judge. This doesn't mean that the abuse has NOT occurred. In multiple cases that we have seen, Child Protective Services (CPS) has substantiated the abuse, but the judge has dismissed it. The child psychologist has substantiated the abuse, but the judge has ignored it. And not every mother calls on CPS to assist because CPS has a history of mistreating mothers and the children they are supposed to protect. Furthermore, family violence cases are at a distinct disadvantage in that they are not tried in criminal court.
And not one case that Robert Franklin mentions has the court found real evidence that the mother was abusing the child during, or prior to involvement with the family court. The court, aided by the father's attorney and other players, derive at the conclusion that the mother is being abusive in "alleging" the abuse and insisting on justice. The family court system routinely silences protective mothers by focusing on her behaviors, instead of the evidence. In this way, she appears to be the current threat and the past documented evidence of the father's abuse is rendered mute.
If you consider the "ease with which temporary restraining orders are obtained," you must also consider the ineffectiveness of such orders in preventing death or injury and also the relative ease in which they are denied based on judicial interpretations of what "imminent danger" is. A woman filing a protective order is writing based upon what she knows based on past/present circumstances that she has experienced. The judge decides if legal paper protection is warranted based upon his own thoughts. The only people who benefit from this are the media and surviving family and friends--once they follow the trail post-mortem.
CPS and the law enforcement are merely a subset of the court system that are operating under sexist assumptions. They are often trained by trade organizations, like the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), which promote theories such as parental alienation syndrome and sexual parity in domestic violence. The protection and safety of women and children is secondary to the rights of fathers.
Robert Franklin highlights the Jonea Rogers case but omits a more pertinent example of injustice. Joyce Murphy "kidnapped" her daughter after failed attempts to protect her from her [alleged] sexually abusing father--who accused her of parental alienation. Sole custody was awarded to the father, who, 6 years later, was caught molesting three other girls.
Speaking of sole custody, a 19 year old Canadian woman just successfully sued her father, whom she resided with in sole custody, for years of sexual abuse.
And none of these even come close to summing up protective mothers' cause against abusive fathers and the lack of protection for themselves and their children. There aren't enough threads in a California King sized Egyptian cotton sheet set to describe this true epidemic.
This piece was written in response to a Glen Sack's author's bashing of Kathleen Russell's article, Child abuse: when family court gets it wrong, in the Christian Science Monitor. Thank you to the many that contributed to this piece. Thank you to the mothers so courageous enough to name names.
See Also: Are Good Enough Parents Losing Custody to Abusive Ex-Partners? Read more!
Sphere: Related Content
From the National Alliance for Family Court Justice (emphasis mine):
Fathers Rights activists have made themselves well known. You can find some of their most influential group sites linked below. While they have been successful as promoting themselves as underdogs fighting for equal parenting in a society and legal system which is rigged for women, a closer look at their history, their leaders, their literature and web sites show a very different story. Not only are they directly affiliated with a secretive group of judges who handle much of the case litigation, but they are also affiliated with published incest promoters - Gardner, Underwager and Farrell.
Many of them, especially their leaders, are very bad-dads who are out to beat the system and destroy the mother of their children because her legal rights and the child's natural bond with their own mother, threaten his need to have the advantage, and especially to evade financial obligations and abuse charges. While their public chatter is about being disenfranchised by a system which places little to no value on the father-child relationship, their private activities and discussion show that they have been very successful in changing state custody laws in their to their advantage, and changing custody and support orders in their own cases to their advantage. Many of these purported underdogs have sole custody and receive child support. The sociopathy of this movement has had a very profound affect not only at its victims, but also on government policy and programs which more and more is tilting toward rejecting family violence and abuse complaints as vengeful acts by "bitter" ex-spouse, and eliminating post-divorce financial obligations for women.
One important factor which the fathers rights leaders never mention is that their leading group, CRC [Children's Rights Council], was set up many years ago by people who were officials of secretive judicial organizations - AFCC: Association of Family & Conciliation Courts -- established in Los Angeles in 1982 by L.A. judges and a few others, including a man named Meyer Elkin, (now deceased) who was a prison sex offender psychologist (NAFCJ note: a profession notorious for being sympathetic to sex offenders). But Meyer Elkin is not the only AFCC official who was also a founding official of the leading fathers rights group - CRC. Joan Kelly, of Marin County CA, does research and trains court professionals, is also a AFCC and CRC founding official. Several other AFCC officials or leaders are also closely associated with the fathers right groups. This and other factors show that the fathers rights movement was a creation of a ring judges who dominate the family court system and public policy in many states. These judges are not only hearing a large percentage of domestic litigation, they are also writing the state laws covering custody, divorce and child support. In addition they influence HHS-ACF agency which controls most of the grant funds going to the state level agencies and courts. Their people are getting the grants and using for the fathers rights cases...read more here
I know you're thinking, this shit can't be real. Believe me, it is. Just do the research. You could start with David Gray Ross.
| Four factors conspire against protective parents:
- Family law judges are granted broad discretion in their decision-making;
- Juries are nonexistent in most family law courtrooms;
- Costly appeals are out of reach for most litigants; and
- Children are not afforded a voice in these important proceedings that determine their future. As a result, nothing short of a major overhaul of the family court system will suffice.
logical fathers that are doing the killing.
Protective parents not only lose custody of the children they are trying to protect, but they lose their life savings, too. Many cannot even afford a lawyer to represent their interests, but are saddled with hefty supervised visitation fees and often threatened with a loss of custody if they object to paying the bevy of court-appointed experts that the judge assigns to their case.
Fees quickly add up to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many such parents go bankrupt, making court appeals impossible. The family law "machine" operates as Big Business, and a sophisticated cottage industry has sprung up that appears to be preying on desperate parents and children who are trying to escape family violence * As of Sept. 21, there have been 84 domestic violence-related deaths in Arizona, including 17 in the East Valley. Arizona ranks 10th in the nation in women killed by men in the single-victim, single-suspect homicides category, according to the Violence Policy Center, a national research and advocacy nonprofit in Washington, D.C.
* While briefing the Senate Judiciary Committee, Leiby said her coalition counted 126 Arizonans who died last year in domestic violence-related murders and suicides.
* Signs of Domestic Violence include, but are not limited to:
breaks things
slaps or punches you
shoves you
bites you
chokes you
hurts your children- when an abuser can not get to the other parent, they turn the abuse on to the children. Attempting to hurt the other parent through the children.
* In 2008, Arizona had one of the nation's highest rates for homicides involving domestic violence, Leiby said, adding that 27 such deaths that year involved dating relationships.
* In slightly less than two months, beginning Aug. 21, 2009, Chandler has experienced at least five cases of severe child abuse that have left small children dead or seriously injured, according to information from police.
Dear Reader,
How do you know this? Perhaps you've been following Dastardly Dads, Justice's Posterous, or looking at some of the stats in the articles on this site.
Well, in trying to view men and women as equals, I would think that fathers tend to abuse their children more because they haven't developed the skill set required for child-rearing because they have typically been out of the home, or downright NOT interested in the day-to-day affairs of children.
Researchers have noted that with the very high rate of father child abuse, it is a very high concern with more fathers getting custody and assuming primary caretaking roles . You'd think an organization like Fathers and Families would address this, but they are not. In fact, all major organizations, like Social Services, Child Protective Services, etc, should be addressing this, lest more and more children be killed.
Thanks for reading
Emotional Abuse
When most people think of domestic violence, emotional abuse doesn't often come to mind. They visualize bruises and broken bones, not the emotional scars that are often hidden by the victim.
Mental and verbal abuse slowly tears down a woman's self esteem until there's little left of the vibrant person she used to be. After years of being worn down by constant criticism, she may fear leaving or getting a divorce because she doesn't feel like she can make it on her own. The following article can help you to understand the effects of emotional abuse and how it is inflicted.
1. "Sticks and stones won’t break my bones” – and words won’t leave any measurable physical damage, but they will cause progressive, long-term harm. Never underestimate the power of words: words are used to brainwash.
Being told you are “stupid”, “ugly”, “lazy” or “worthless” is never acceptable. The first times you hear it, it will hurt, naturally. In time you “may get used to” hearing it from a partner. That’s when you start to internalize and believe it. When that happens you are doing the other person’s work of putting you down for them. This is why your feelings of self-worth suffer increasingly over time.
The good news is that just as words have been used to bring you down, you can learn to harness the power of words to build you up and restore your confidence and belief in yourself.
2. You are always told that it’s your fault. Somehow, whatever happens, however it starts, the ultimate blame is always yours. Notice that we are talking ultimate blame here. The blaming partner will always tell you that their behavior was caused by what you said or did. In fact, their argument runs along the lines that you can’t possibly blame them for anything, because if you hadn’t said what you said, or done what you did it would never have happened.
3. You’re more inclined to believe your partner than you are to believe yourself. Have you ever reeled with a sense of hurt and injustice, or seethed with anger at the way you’ve been treated? Have you found yourself asking: “Is it reasonable to feel like this?” “Am I misinterpreting things?” “Have I got it wrong?”
If this is you, what it means is that you have become so brainwashed you’ve stopped trusting in your own judgment. Your mind keeps throwing up the observations and questions because, deep down, you know that what is happening is utterly wrong. But right now you can’t feel the strength of your own convictions.
4. You need your partner to acknowledge your feelings. Have you ever felt desperate to make your partner hear what you are saying and apologize for the hurtful things they’ve said? Have you ever felt that only they can heal the pain they’ve caused?
Does your need for them to validate your feelings keep you hooked into the relationship?
When a partner constantly denies or refuses to listen to your feelings, that is, unquestionably, mental abuse.
5. Your partner blows hot and cold. He can be very loving but is often highly critical of you. He may tell you how much he loves you, yet he is short on care or consideration towards you. In fact, some of the time, maybe even a lot of the time, he treats you as if you were someone he truly dislikes.
You do everything you can to make him happy, but it’s never good enough. You’re more like the pet dog in the relationship than you are the equal partner. Your constant efforts to get his attention and please him meet with limited success. Sometimes he’ll be charmed, often he’s dismissive.
If you find yourself puzzling about how your partner can treat you that way, it is because you are trying to live in a love-based relationship, when in reality you are living in a control-based relationship. The mental abuser struggles with his own feelings of worthlessness and uses his relationship to create a feeling of personal power, at his partner’s expense.
6. You feel as if you are constantly walking on eggshells. There is a real degree of fear in the relationship. You have come to dread his outbursts, the hurtful things that he will find to say to you. (Maybe the same anxiety and need to please spill over into your other relationships also.)
Fear is not part of a loving relationship, but it is a vital part of a mentally abusive relationship. It enables the abuser to maintain control over you.
7. You can heal. Mentally abusive relationships cause enormous emotional damage to the loving partner who tries, against all odds, to hold the relationship together and, ultimately, can’t do it, because her partner is working against her.
Whether you are currently in a mentally abusive relationship, have left one recently, or years later are still struggling with the anxieties and low self-worth and lack of confidence caused by emotional abuse, it is never too late to heal.
But you do need to work with a person or a program specifically geared to mental abuse recovery.
Women who have suffered mental abuse expect radical change of themselves, and they expect it right away. This is why they often struggle and, not uncommonly, take up with another abusive partner.
Mental abuse recovery is a gradual process. Low self-worth and limiting beliefs about what kind of future the abuse sufferer can ever hope for are the blocks that can stop women from moving on. But they are blocks that you can clear very effectively. Just as language was once used to harm you, you can now learn how language can heal you. You can overcome past emotional abuse and keep yourself safe from it in the future. You can also learn to feel strong, believe in yourself and create the life and the relationships you truly want.
When a parent is abusing their children mentally, it can be even more damaging, my daughters are 6 years old, how can they combat the constant negativity? Latest excuse... the dog eats more than homework!! but can Rover hold a gun?
What is this? Blame Your Pet week? First we had the Florida daddy HERBERT WADE PRIESTER, who tried to blame Bandit the dog for abusing the baby (though there were no bite or scratch marks on the child). Now we have dad TRISTAN WILLIAMS blaming the baby's death on TWO CATS. Are you kidding me? So you would have us believe that two psycho kitties managed to inflict fatal brain swelling and hemorrhaging, multiple fractures, and abrasions to the face and spinal cord on an infant who wasn't even a month old? And where was the babysitting dad while this nefarious feline assault was taking place? Of course, the story MIGHT have been more believable if Dad hadn't been investigated for child neglect before. Oh, and there's that little thing about a domestic assault arrest just a week before the baby's murder. What's that about, hmm?But never fear. No matter how bad you are, some clueless enabler will come to the rescue and defend your deadbeat @$$. He's "never been the type to hurt children"!Wrong. http://www.kctv5.com/news/22606849/detail.htmlMetro Father Charged In Infant’s Death
Man Says Cats Knocked Baby Out Of Bouncing ChairPOSTED: 8:00 pm CST February 18, 2010 UPDATED: 8:17 pm CST February 18, 2010 LIBERTY, Mo. -- A metro father is in trouble in connection with the death of his own child. Court documents said 11 injuries are listed as the cause of death and the prosecuting attorney said he's never had a case where the victim was less than 30 days old. The suspect in the case is the father of the 3-week-old baby, Tristan Williams. He was arrested at his Liberty apartment two days ago after the baby died at Children's Mercy Hospital. The story he told doctors and police was that he placed the infant in a bouncing chair in her crib and that his two cats knocked the baby over. Clay County Prosecutor Dan White said the evidence says otherwise. "He was charged with abuse of a child resulting in death, so I think it's fair to say I don't believe the story of the cats," he said. Williams was watching the child while the baby's mother went to a doctor's appointment. He said after he found the child tipped over in the seat he placed her across his lap on her stomach and began patting her on the back. Doctors said the baby suffered from brain swelling and hemorrhaging, multiple fractures, abrasions to the face and spinal cord. Williams was picked up by Liberty police at a friend's house. She didn't want to be identified but the friend said Williams had never been the type to hurt children. "It was a really big shock," she said. "I've known this person for at least 12 years and they've watched my own kids several times and they absolutely love him. He was so excited to be having a baby." White said young parents often times can't handle the pressures of caring for an infant, which increases abuse cases resulting in death. "When you deal with a young child who has the lack of ability to relay that something is wrong other than crying a lot of times that child is not accustomed to responding to that instant gratification we are accustomed t seeing in our society," White said. White said he has called on other prosecutors and mental health officials to address the problem. Court documents revealed that in 2002 and 2003, Williams was questioned by the division of family services regarding child neglect of two other kids. He was also arrested on a charge of domestic assault two weeks ago.
It appears that dad LOUIS LANZANO had some sort of visitation with his infant daughter, though it sorely sounds like getting visitation was basically a way to reduce his child support obligations, since he apparently had not been paying anything. At any rate, Dad showed utter indifference to this baby by leaving her in the car while he went into a city utilities office to pay his water bill. Somebody even asked inside the building who had left a baby in a car, and there were a couple of announcements, but Dad kept his mouth shut. He later said he didn't hear. Yea, right. Thank goodness for the good samaritan who rescued this baby before we had another infant fatality on our hands. Hopefully this will be the end of Dad's visitation. But given this is Florida, don't hold your breath. http://www.news-press.com/article/20100219/SS08/2190398/1003/ACC/Left-inside-car--infant-is-rescued-by-a-passer-by-in-Cape-CoralLeft inside car, infant is rescued by a passer-by in Cape CoralFather was paying bill, faces neglect charge By DENES HUSTY III • February 19, 2010 Go to our Children’s Resource Center, dedicated to help the children of our community grow up safe from abuse or neglect, promote strong families and provide information to people who want to help kids. Daniel Cox of Cape Coral said he was at the right place at the right time. He had gone to the city utilities office Thursday morning off Pine Island Road to pay his water bill when he spotted a crying baby girl inside a locked car in the parking lot. He immediately called 911. But he didn't want to wait for police and rescue personnel to arrive, so he asked while still on the phone if he could break the window to rescue the baby. Operators told him to go ahead. "I got a lug wrench and banged on the driver's window six times, but it wouldn't give," said Cox, 45, who stocks shelves at a local Walmart. "So I wrapped my hand around the wrench and punched the window and it broke." Cox said he unlocked the car and grabbed the baby. "She was screaming," Cox said. "I held her for a couple of minutes to calm her down. She couldn't have been more than 2 months old. "I just don't understand people." Police arrived and arrested the baby's father, Louis Lanzano, 55, of Cape Coral, on charges of child neglect and not paying child support. Lanzano had gone to the utilities office to pay his water bill and left the baby in the car, according to Cape police. A couple inside the building told employees about the baby. "We asked two or three times if somebody had a baby in a car outside" but got no response, said Angela Puzio, a city employee. She said the father of the baby was talking to a service representative and apparently didn't hear the announcements. Eventually, the man heard what was going on and went outside, Puzio said. The baby was checked by rescue personnel and was then taken to the police station until the mother could pick her up, police said. "She's fine," Cox said.
How Are People So Ignorant? A Phoenix police officer recommended that my exchanges with Adam Marc James take place at the station due to his death threats against me. Once Adam got control, he switched it to an empty parking lot in a dangerous part of town. Hilliard changed it to Starbucks. I begged for it to be ordered to take place inside Starbucks for protection, but Kathleen Miholich does not feel my life is worth the effort of parking and walking the girls in. I wonder what will be written about me when/if Adam Marc James decides to take care of the situation himself...
How do custody swaps get so contentious? How indeed (Atlanta, Georgia)
This is the kind of public ignorance we have to deal with.
The reporter observes that in the Atlanta area, there have been two incidences of "custody swaps" that "ended in violence" and wonders why they "get so contentious."
She gets completely sidetracked by the locations of these swaps (public chain store parking lots) and wonders if parking lots have something do with it. Huh?
You know that cliche, guns don't kill people, people kill people?
Likewise, parking lots don't kill people. People kill people. Get a clue. I suppose the hope is that a public place might make violent offenders less likely to act out, because they wouldn't like witnesses. There's no guarantee, though. So your suggestion that the exchanges take place at "parent's houses or friend's houses" is even worse. That would just embolden violent parents (mostly fathers) even more.
As for doing the exchange at the police station, please ask yourself the obvious question. If one person is this family is such a high risk for violent behavior, then why the hell do they have any visitation with the children at all?
The subject of these couples' "conversations" is also completely irrelevant. Murders are not the results of disagreements over school discipline and the like. They are the result of a long pattern of domestic violence, usually perpetrated by the father, that's been allowed to fester and continue post-separation.
You want to know how to stop "custody swaps" from getting contentious? Stop "custody swaps" when there's a violent parent! Give the non-violent protective parent sole custody and let the family heal.
http://blogs.ajc.com/momania/2010/02/14/how-do-custody-swaps-get-so-contentious/
How do custody swaps get so contentious?
10:13 pm February 14, 2010, by Theresa Walsh Giarrusso
For the second time in less than 12 months a custody swap has ended with violence outside of a big chain outlet store, and I’m wondering what generally happens at these swaps and how they get so contentious.
From today’s AJC story: “Suwannee Police responded to a call around 4 p.m. Sunday about an argument between a man and woman in a Walmart parking lot. When police arrived on the scene they found the man and woman had been stabbed, apparently as a result of an argument, Cpt. Cass Mooney, a Suwanee police spokesman, told the AJC.”
“Two children were at the scene of a knife attack in Suwanee that left their mother dead, and their father awaiting charges.”
“The couple has been identified as Shelley Dyan Dunn, 27, of Buford and Phillip Chad Dunn, 28, of Lawrenceville.”
“ ‘The meeting was a custody exchange between the husband and wife,’ Mooney said. “At some point the husband pulled out a knife stabbing the wife and then himself.’ ”
Another custody swap ended in violence last April outside of a Target store but the husband wasn’t involved. Heather Strube, 25, had just picked up her 18-month-old son from her estranged husband, Steven Strube, outside of a Target store when she was shot by someone police say was wearing a wig and fake mustache. Police believe Strube’s mother-in-law Joanna Hayes was the one wearing the disguise.
From an October AJC story following the case: “Joanna Hayes has been charged with malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, according to Roy Whitehead, Snellville police chief. She is accused of shooting and killing her daughter-in-law, Heather Strube, on April 26 in the Scenic Highway store’s parking lot.”
“Steven Strube was ruled out as a suspect, police said in May, because he drove away before the shooting occurred. The child was not harmed.”
First of all, divorced couples please tell us why are all these custody swaps taking place outside of large chain stores? Why don’t they take place at the parent’s houses or friend’s houses?
Secondly, what in the heck happens during the swaps that violence breaks out in parking lots? What are you talking about that gets so heated? Is it big stuff about school or discipline or little nit-picky stuff about whether they ate well while at the other parent’s house?
Where do you meet to do your custody swaps? Where is a safer place to meet than outside large chain stores? Should they be meeting inside police stations or police station parking lots? Is there a way to eliminate these types of situations?
Help us understand what generally happens at these types of custody swaps that can get so out of hand. Police charge couple with child abuse
Another Mom abuses... police have to order her away from the boyfriend who helped to kill her child..WTF!! She has to be ordered to stay away from the man who helped her to kill?? She makes me sick.
City County Bureau of Identification
Rachel Bond, left, and Philip Rader charged by Raleigh police this week with felony child abuse after they were accused of causing severe injuries to the woman's five-month old girl.
Email Print Order Reprint
Share: Yahoo! Buzz
Text
tool name
close x
tool goes here
By Thomasi McDonald - Staff writer
RALEIGH -- Police have charged a young couple with beating a five-month old girl so badly the child was bleeding from the brain, court records show.
Police also charged the couple with several other drug violations, assault and child abuse charges, according to arrest warrants filed Wednesday at the Wake County magistrates office.
Rachel Maureen Bond, 24, of Orlando, Fla., and Philip J. Rader, 26, of 2643 Wendell Road in Wendell have each been charged one felony count each of child abuse serious bodily injury, court records show.
Records indicate the child was severely beaten on Tuesday.
Police have accused Rachel Bond, the child’s mother, and Rader of fracturing the child’s skull, causing internal bleeding. The child also suffered a cut between the lip and nose, was bleeding from the right eye and had three fractured ribs, according to the arrest warrant.
Raleigh police arrested Rader and Bond on Wednesday at a local hotel where the woman’s two toddler children, who are both 2-years-old, were also present, court records show.
They each have been charged with three counts of misdemeanor child abuse, three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, and one count each of possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, court records show.
Police also charged Rachel Bond with simple assault, court records show.
Police charged the couple with contributing to the delinquency of a minor after finding less than a half ounce of marijuana, a marijuana grinder, two marijuana pipes, a pack of rolling papers and paraphernalia in the hotel room with the three children, court records show.
Police also charged Bond and Rader with three counts of misdemeanor child abuse after noticing that the marijuana, cigarette ashes and butts were within reach of all three children, court records show.
Investigators also charged Bond with simple assault, accusing her of kicking Rader in the back and slamming a door on him, court records show.
Rader and Bond both made their first court appearance Wednesday at Wake County District Court, where they were both appointed public defenders, court records show.
They are both in custody at the Wake County jail. Bond is being held in lieu of $780,000 bail. She is considered a flight risk and has been ordered to have no contact with her boyfriend, court records show.
Rader is being held in lieu of $515,000 bail, court records show. |
