kidsnav.gif (4714 bytes)

Contact Us

[AKidsRight.Org] Admiration for David Chick (arrested) / Join Class Action Lawsuit by Parents / ONE FEEDBACK

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: AKidsRight.Org Webmaster (
Date: Sun Sep 12 2004 - 14:28:48 EDT

This is a message from the AKidsRight.Org mailing list.  Unsubscribe instructions at bottom of message.
Good People & People of Faith,

This message contains info on:
1. Mr. David Chick arrested - Our Admiration for Spiderman!
2. Indiana CRC - Join a National Class Action Lawsuit.
3. One FEEDBACK - dialog about reform?

1. Mr. David Chick arrested - Our Admiration for Spiderman!
[We hope you will read the story below from the UK. For any of you
that wonder what can ONE parent do -- a lot!  Mr. Chick has made
national news in Britain on several occasions getting his message out
through the BBC and other major media (the equivalent of one of our
major news networks, ABC, CBS, NBC).  When has that ever happened in
the United States?  He may not succeed, but without a doubt, his
little four year old girl will always know how much he loves her...

He is a member of the group Fathers-4-Justice
( and while we wish it was an
effort of "Parents"-4-Justice, it is hard to argue when at least they
are doing something!  Perhaps someday soon a "Wonder Woman" will join
their ranks! - Ed.]

Submitted by: "Nick Kovats" <>

See photos/news story (News Telegraph):
(British Broadcasting Company)

THE TELEGRAPH 11 Sept. 2004
'Spiderman' closes London Eye in child protest

The fathers' rights campaigner who he staged a six-day crane-top
vigil dressed as Spiderman at Tower Bridge has now brought the London
Eye to a halt.  David Chick gained access to the tourist attraction
before 4am this morning by claiming to be a workman, according to a
spokesman for pressure group Fathers 4 Justice.

He then climbed to the top of the 450-feet structure dressed as
Spiderman in protest at being denied access to his four-year-old
daughter.  London Eye shareholder British Airways said it did not
know how Mr Chick evaded security but described the breach as

Mr Chick has not seen his daughter since March 1, 2003, after his
former partner denied him access - despite a court order allowing him
two hours each fortnight. Today, he said in a statement: "My protest
has moved forward, and has had to move forward, because nothing has
changed to right the wrongs of one parent blocking an ex-partner
access to their children in defiance of a court order."

Mr Chick added he was not a "troublemaker or attention seeker" but
was simply trying to maintain a normal father-daughter
relationship. "The British justice system has completely failed my
child and I," he said. "To those who have been inconvenienced by my
protest, I apologise. 

Police were called to the wheel, billed as the world's highest
observational wheel, at 3.49am this morning. The area has been
cordoned off and the London Eye will remain closed while the
father-of-one continues his protest.

2. Indiana CRC - Join a National Class Action Lawsuit.
[VERY sound legal arguments below - can we back up that belief
with our actions? - Ed.]

From: "Torm L. Howse" <>   "Indiana Civil Rights Council"


> Coalition of Parents Unite in Nationwide Class Action Challenges for
> Their Children

> ILLINOIS September 2, 2004 -- Representatives from across the
> country are announcing that on September 17, 2004, they will
> simultaneously file federal class action lawsuits, on behalf of an
> estimated 25 million noncustodial parents, demanding that rights to
> equal custody of their children be restored by the federal courts.

> In what some are calling "the mother of all lawsuits", the parents
> will challenge widespread practices by the states in determining
> care, custody, and support of children. "Parents are tired of being
> mistreated as second class citizens by state courts," according to
> Torm L. Howse, President of the Indiana Civil Rights Council. "Most
> parents say they care about their children, their families, and the
> related unnecessary waste of their hard-earned taxdollars, more than
> all other political issues combined."

> Plaintiffs are seeking damages in all 50 states, bringing widespread
> attention to what they allege as years of disparate taxation and
> willful financial mismanagement. The coalition is comprised of
> various leaders from family rights, fathers rights, mothers rights,
> and shared parenting groups, as well as political candidates,
> doctors, and other activists committed to dramatic social, taxation,
> and government reform in the area of family law. The effort is also
> backed by several prominent family rights organizations.

> "We're trying to protect the right of all fit parents to share
> equally in the custody and care of their children," says Howse. "The
> time has come for a drastic reform of government practices that harm
> children and parents." "Kids need both parents," adds Rachel
> Forrest, a leader with the National Congress for Fathers and
> Children. "We hope that this landmark action will wake up the
> government and make it aware of the inequities in family courts and
> social services that prevent our children from having equal access
> to both of their parents."

> According to attorney Garrett C. Dailey, who successfully obtained a
> recent landmark California Supreme Court decision, "children of
> divorced parents who have two primary parents in their lives do
> better in school, are better adjusted and happier than children
> raised by only one primary parent." Likewise, the American
> Psychological Association, the world's largest such group, confirmed
> through an exhaustive study that children in joint custody
> arrangements have less behavior and emotional problems, higher self-
> esteem, better family relations, and better school performance than
> children who are subjected to sole custody arrangements. Agreeing in
> a decision long-touted by parental rights advocates, Judge Dorothy
> T. Beasley of the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled: "Inherent in the
> express public policy is a recognition of the child's right to equal
> access and opportunity with both parents, the right to be guided and
> nurtured by both parents, the right to have major decisions made by
> the application of both parents' wisdom, judgement and experience.
> The child does not forfeit these rights when the parents divorce."

> In addition to challenging standard practices pertaining to family
> law, the coalition also alleges that while nearly every state has
> recognized catastrophic budgetary failures, the states still
> recklessly refuse to consider the financial devastation involved
> with encouraging routine awards of sole custody, reminding that such
> patterns dramatically increase crime, poverty, drug use, suicides,
> dropouts, teenage pregnancies, and other forms of direct harm and
> costs against children, families, taxpayers, and society in general.
> Professor Stephen Baskerville, distinguished master of political
> science at Howard University, and one of the world's foremost
> experts on various custody and child support issues, explains:
> "Politicians often spend money to avoid confronting problems. Yet
> marshaling the government to strengthen families seems especially
> pointless when it is government that weakened the family in the
> first place."

> The plaintiffs further allege that the relocation of children away
> from one parent radically increases the incidence of parental
> kidnappings, which dwarf all other types of kidnappings, and wastes
> additional taxdollars in the ensuing processes. An in-depth
> analysis, conducted in 1990 by the U.S. Department of Justice,
> confirmed that over 350,000 children were abducted that year by a
> family member - typically a parent involved in a custody dispute -
> while the number of stereotypical kidnappings of children for ransom
> amounted only to a few hundred nationwide.

> The parents say that common inequities in state family courts are
> also directly and indirectly responsible for murders and suicides
> amongst the most estranged families. Every week, they note,
> approximately 300 fathers and 75 mothers commit suicide in this
> country, with the majority of these senseless deaths directly
> attributable to victimization by family courts. These suicides are
> often committed by passive parents, due to hopelessness in a system
> fraught with injustice, but the more aggressive parents occasionally
> snap at the weight of suffering such anguish, and violently take out
> their desperation on estranged partners, sometimes even murdering
> them, and possibly the children, before also killing themselves.

> They also allege that the states are recklessly responsible for much
> of the abuse and neglect experienced by children in this country.
> The National Clearinghouse for Child Abuse and Neglect Information,
> a service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
> consistently reports that, year after year, single parents are
> responsible for almost two-thirds of all substantiated cases of
> abuse and neglect committed against children - more than all other
> classes of perpetrators combined. The national costs of these child
> abuse and neglect incidents surpassed $94 billion in 2001, according
> to Prevent Child Abuse America. "It's painfully obvious that the
> majority of child abuse can be easily prevented, by simply ensuring
> the regular presence of both parents in the daily lives of
> children," notes Howse. "Involving the eyes and ears of both parents
> creates a naturally self-balancing situation, wherein a child's
> health and safety is automatically monitored by opposing sides who
> stand to gain if the other side fails."

> The Plaintiffs further charge that because parents are generally
> treated unfairly in family courts, the results are also directly or
> indirectly responsible for very large, and otherwise unnecessary,
> additional tax burdens upon every citizen, through increased welfare
> spending and self-serving enlargement of state family agencies and
> entities, and that such inequities are also indirectly responsible
> for vast numbers of personal and corporate bankruptcies, which are
> absorbed into even more future taxation. Additionally, they note a
> pattern of fraud and abuse being progressively reported about
> various state family bureaucracies, which they say are very costly
> in terms of taxdollars, and which violate the rights of American
> citizens on an unprecedented scale.

> "It is high time for costly government to get out of the lives of
> most parents and children," says Howse. "American taxpayers should
> no longer be forced to fund systematic violations against parents
> and children, and the needless progressive destruction of our
> society."

> While the current class actions deal exclusively with conventional
> aspects of child custody, leaders of related parents groups report
> they have already begun the processes for raising similar legal
> challenges in the near future, on behalf of alleged victims of CPS,
> paternity fraud, and the progressive drugging of children in this
> nation.

3. One FEEDBACK - dialog about reform?
[This is a little special. Just ONE FEEDBACK message.  We run the
feedback not only to share opinions, but also so that those
'advocates' among us can hear all the arguments, both pro and con.
There is MUCH to learn in this dialog below. Our appreciation to Jan
for taking the time to explain her thoughts and as always, you get the
last word. - Ed.]

---  Jan <>

> I have a Motion hearing for a 450 to get my 14 year old returned as
> he is downspiralling behaviorally with the father after this awful
> judge took both my kids from me last year in May and said he would
> reevaluate in one year.  My now 14 year old is doing poorly and is
> poisoned against his mother. Just because a kid wants to go and can
> be bribed to go as they are used to a play dad for 12 years while I
> was a single parent does not mean that moving is in the teens "best
> interest." Also the Judge who hates me simply moved the children
> over to the x who is abusive and gave him SOLE custody.  This Judge
> desrves to be stuffed with his own black robe.
> We are both pro ses and my hearing date in NJ is June 18.
> I still have a reply to my motion and the x has not responded and
> will not until he is OUT OF TIME.  The judge who likes himi will
> allow it as he always does.
>  Do you have any words of wisdon for my oral argument coming up?
>  Bad school grades, bad behaviorally all year. Bad school grades
>  all year and he refuses to see me ALL YEAR.  The Judge could care
>  less about the latter but he cannot fight with the school results
>  Also does anyone know how to go against this Judge in Federal
>  Court?  I am fed up with him after 9 years of ALWAYS SIDING WITH
> SOmeone had to go against a judge in FED COURT (mine would be
> Trenton NJ) and have WON. Can anyone help on BOTH COUNTS???
> Jan

Got your message and VERY sorry to hear about how you got shut out of
your kid's lives.  Unfortunately, you have no recognized and protected
"right" to be a parent to your own children and the decisions can be
quite arbitrary (as you have found out) -- and if a Judge doesn't
"like you" -- you are done.

As a group we are hoping that a right to be an equal parent to your
kids is recognized to avoid these one-side situations.  I would
welcome your comments on our Family Rights Act at

As I read your message I don't sense your former spouse is actively
trying to harm your children, and I think it would also be true that
however bad the decision sounded that separated you from the kids --
that you are trying to harm them either.  I'd assume that a Jury
would return "not guily" if either of you were to be tried for being
a serious threat to the kids -- so you should have always been equal
parents with equal time with the kids so they can be raised by both
of you?

VERY sorry to hear about the alienation.  How screwed up can our
system be when a child doesn't want to see their parent -- the
decision should not even be theirs to make.  You don't get to pick
your parents.

I encourage you to keep the Faith and not to give up your right to
be an equal parent and maintain contact with your kids as much as


> I am not finished John - I am now trying to find out how to take
> this judge to task in Federal Court with a huge monitary suit for
> doing just that.  I want my young son returned on the basis of
> factual information and will appeal it although we are in a joke
> with the appellate division

> Yes this Judge cant stand me and I only have the AOC nad people like
> the ACJC who call the Judges up and tell them who is complaining
> about them that contribute to the problem.

> I hate this judge so much I puke at the site of going before them
> and am always sick when I am in court.  Nonetheless he has damaged
> me physically adn I am going to try to sue himi for mental and
> emotional and physical harm.

> Your ideology is altruistic at best. You cannot have equal footing
> with both parents when they are at war and not over kids but when
> one is dooing anything he can to lie about you and try to get child
> support back which is to get the kids returned to him. He does not
> even stay at home and the children are left home alone to drink and
> take drugs and have women over as one is 18 and the other watching
> is 14.  The Judge knew that the children he took from me to give to
> my x spouse who was abusive would cause life damages.

>He needs to pay for what he did.

> Jan in NJ
-----------  (Below, another message from Jan about a month later.)

> I have read what you sent me by Dr. Turkat on PAS (so little) and
> MMS.  I am deeply concerned that he labeled it Malicious Mother
> Syndrome and not Malicious Parent Syndrome. This guy had a bone to
> pick obviously with women.

> For me as you may what they state with respect to what mother's do
> to their children are what my x male spouse has done by poisoning my
> older son since he was 15 or 16 and then the both of them but mostly
> my then 17 year old influencing my younger son who is totally
> against me now.

> I cannot submit this TURKAT document to the court because my x
> spouse who is abusive will capitalize on filling in the blanks
> because it states "mother"

> Do you know if a similar document is drafted that may make the
> matter of MMS neutral?  It is whoever is custodial parent against
> the non custodial parent in my opinion. My children loved their
> father when they were with me but the promise of a new auto and the
> constant hatred he had of me with his rudeness and disrespect over
> the years are what my children picked up on.

> I am fighting to get my 14 year old returned and I have an appeal
> that I have to do myself and I thought very valuable excerpts on PAS
> and Malicious Parent Syndrome if that exists would be helpful.

> Everything that I read on MMS by this asshole Turkat, applies to MFS
> in my situation only I cannot use it simply because it states
> "mother" and if you give an abuser that kind of ammunition, he will
> take it and say "see see and see" in the court as pro se himself.  I
> need someone who may have written about similar situations for the
> father.  

> Since my sons were transferred to the father, I have never seen such
> poison and alienation and blocking of my visitation and covering up
> his physical abuse. Now that I have filed an appeal, the father is
> once again on his best behavior and my older son who is 18 and has
> done a lot of the poisoning also to my younger son Eric has gotten a
> double whammy, but I am still going to try to get him returned and
> it may be a supreme court decision as children should not be
> poisoned and it is not in their best interest to be with a father
> who does that like the Marks girls.

> I want him back John and will stop at nothing to get him. I believe
> that BEST INTERESTS must trump interests because interests come with
> a price like my son may be threatened or coerced for a new car like
> my older son was and they both have told me that their father has
> been physical and he was abusive to me.  The police called me in
> late June of this year and my sons came back to me in November 2003
> 6 months after his horrid Judge who hates me and has hated me for 10
> years, stripped me of my children.

> Regardless of their age (14 and 18,) I want them back.  I am willing
> to take only my 14 year old back but I need to prove this PAS or at
> least provide evidence in books and literature, I need to prove
> error - as the father is abusive and the judge updates a PRO.  My
> younger son's school grades have dropped drastically and all
> visitation is missed.

> The father lies continuously in his briefs as pro se and makes up
> stories so I don't know what to do.

> Can you help me with articles that may be relevant John?  Can you
> help me with anything on DV and assuming custody and how once an
> abuser always an abuser regardless of whether there are NO CURRENT

> I need to focus on how my young son of 14 years has been so poisoned
> against me with statements like "you're not my parent anymore" "you
> have no rights with me" "you have no say"

> The Judge stripped them from me for NO reason (he said I could not
> control them) and gave them to my x spouse and gave an abuser sole
> custody and my older son and father have been working on my younger
> son to hate me and his entire family on my side.

> I want him back John and using anything like that garbage from
> Turkat is out of the question as my x spouse will seize on that in
> some way although I cant think of it but I am not going to send that
> kind of garbage to the Appellate court when it applies to JUST THE

> DO you have any thing on Abuse, kid poison, older children's
> influence on younger children, how BEST INTEREST should trump
> interest and how DV should trump interest.

> I have had them for 10 years and they have now gone very sour and
> hateful and angry since they have been with their father for 14
> months and visitation with me is NON existent.  They also steal from
> families and from my home and my young son has become a discipline
> problem in school and never was with me and was a straight A
> student.  Still the Judge has denied me everything because he
> despises me and would rather ruin lives of children.  They were
> visiting their father EVERY weekend and during thte week and he only
> went for the kids to take the children support and I want my sons
> returned regardless of age.  I have to win this case John - the
> fahter is so mean to me and so hateful that he has passed on his
> hate to these children.

> He also feels very confident that I AM NOT GOING TO WIN

> Kind regards
> Jan in NJ

I remembered your name, but not quite the details.  I went back and
found the earlier message -- so now I am caught up!  I love that new
syndrome (MMS - Malicious Mother Syndrome).  Is there also MFS -
Malicious Father Syndrome -- at times I just can't believe it!

YOu seem like a pretty sharp person and I can appreciate how this must
be driving you 'nuts' -- again, I went through a somewhat similar
Court proceeding with my former spouse.  After a point they just stop
listening and they won't back down from earlier decisions.  It sounds
like this Judge just doesn't like you and you may want to see if you
can maneuver for another one where you might get a fair break.

You don't mention a 'law guardian' being appointed for your kids? If
one has not been appointed, you might ask for that and they 'might'
turn out to be a force in your favour -- since they are supposed to be
neutral (although if they don't like you -- then you are also sunk).

Regarding having material to send you, I'm sorry but I don't have any.

In my original reply I asked you to consider EQUAL parenting and you
rejected it out of hand.  Your anger at your former spouse and the
'system' is understandable and palpable -- but it ain't gonna help you
or your family unless you transform that anger into something more

You want the kids 'back' -- what about your former spouse?  Is he less
a parent than you?  Do you think he might also feel pain at the loss
of 'his' kids and the chance to be involved in their lives (the same
thing you feel so painfully now?).  I guess you feel he deserves that?

Especially with teenagers, giving them the idea they can 'pick' their
parents is not helpful.  Your kids should have to see you -- you are
their mother.  They should have to see him -- he is their father.
Seeing both of you on a regular and equal basis, for better or worse
-- even if one or both of you are 'poor' parents.  What the two of you
think of each other really doesn't matter.  You can still 'snipe' at
the other parent all you want, but your kids will still see them (and
also be able to form their own opinions).

I think you know what the group stands for and I don't think either
you or your spouse could be convicted of being a demonstrated serious
threat to your kids (malintent).  Would a Jury of twelve yield a
unanmious verdict against either of you?

But only you know your situation.  I'm sure you have many friend who
support your decisions and what you are trying to do.  Forgive me if I
offer what may be a 'contrary' opinion.


> Sorry John that you feel the way you do.  Yes he is less of
> parent. He has abused them. So yes he is. His motives for taking
> them was for the child support, and cleaning my clock.  I am sorry
> you think that I am angry. Yes I am at this Judge and the allowance
> that children can pick their parents.

> I NEVER said that the father could not go in for more
> visitation. The Judge told him to and he did not file a Motion. he
> did not want more visitation with his children. He wanted the child
> support stripped from me which comes from taking children away.

> Since they have been with him, he travels and my young son is left
> alone and he has lost his temper quite frequently and physically
> choked them and pulled a knife on them.  Yes he is much less of a
> parent because he has alienated them and I have not against him.

> You are obviously so down on mothers that you cannot see the forest
> through the trees.

> Anyone who alienates should lose parenting rights period as happened
> in the Marx case. I supported parenting with their father repeatedly
> and he screwed me and took advantage of my good nature.

> I don't know where you got that shared stuff but we cannot
> communicate and don't and if I don't give 100 per cent into him
> because he is so controlling and abusive, then it does not happen
> thus we cannot share parenting.

> I will get my children back but for someone who has such a website
> as yourself, I am amazed at your conclusion.

> He will not grieve if those children are ordered to return to me. He
> will grieve for the money loss. You underestimate men.  SO many of
> them have destroyed their mates and dominated the situation and
> defied court orders and you think that it is poison of the children
> against their father.  That is not the case for most. It is an
> attempt to have distance and peace.  I have seen it over and over
> again.  Children should not be subjected to the fighting and
> constant disdain and going to court which is minimized when there is
> distance between the parties.  IF you cant see what someone
> purchases, then you are not in court, It is ALL about money and
> children are just in the way and caught in the middle.

> Men don't want to give child support to their x spouse and so they
> fight paying it.  That is why there are so many men in jail.  They
> don't want to pay the wife because they think that are paying for
> their support. They fight it constantly.  Women do not do the same
> thing.  They struggle to survive with their children and some men
> make it continuously difficult for them to survive as in my
> situation. The father has falsely accused me of so much and the
> judge writes a blank check.

> You just don't see it because you are a man. Perhaps in your
> situation it was different but what I hear are horror stories
> against women all the time.

> We all have our own looking glass like politics and religion.

> As far as a GAL, you are kidding right?  that you think our
> parenting can be resolved by a judge who would appoint someone?  IF
> this judge does not like me then the GAL that he appoints will not
> like me?  What planet are you from?

> I am sorry John but you are too much for your own "cause" to think
> clearly.

> The children can see their father whenever they want but who ever
> has been alienated should be the one allowed to leave and have
> distance with the children in order to regain their love and
> respect.  That is my feeling on alienation.

> You may have sent the article on TURKAT's MMS Iand thus my response
> to you.  You cannot have equal parenting with intense hate. You
> cannot period.  That causes intense damage to the children and puts
> them constantly in the middle with constant flux of loyallties.  It
> is the child who has the hate for that one parent that should be
> with that parent in order to undue that hate period bottom
> line. That is where the chldren should live thus in the Marks case
> and for a period of 6 months ot a year, not have ANY contact with
> the other parent to get that child emotionally healthy again.

> Thank you for your views
> Jan

Webmaster                              AKidsRight.Org
                                       "A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"
Newsletter mailing list  subscribe/unsubscribe info below:

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jan 03 2005 - 03:12:01 EST