July 31, 2003
Rape Cases and Statutes in Illinois, California, and Colorado
A new amendment to Illinois' rape law recognizes a victim's right to change her mind. The statute was amended to include this: "A person who initially consents to sexual penetration or sexual conduct is not deemed to have consented to any sexual penetration or sexual conduct that occurs after he or she withdraws consent during the course of that sexual penetration or sexual conduct."
So far, the only griping I've seen about the Illinois law has been by Rush Limbaugh, who was milder than I expected him to be. Give it time. Usenet is heating up. It won't be long before things boil over at the men's rights web sites and mailing lists.
The law was inspired by an earlier California case, The People v. John Z. The media outcry was that any woman could change her mind midstream, cry "rape," and ruin a man's life. As expected, men's rights types went nuts. They waved their "false allegations of abuse are rampant" banners. They raved that vindictive women gained yet another weapon in their man-hating arsenal.
The problem was that the media grossly misrepresented the California case. The victim did not merely change her mind and falsely cry rape. I wrote about that particular case when the ruling was first handed down. I quoted the court ruling, which found that "there is substantial evidence that she withdrew her consent and clearly communicated that fact to the minor."
She tried repeatedly to push him off. He rolled back onto her, and kept thrusting. He said "[J]ust give me a minute. She replied "[N]o, I need to go home." He kept "forcing it" on her for another minute, minute and a half.
These two laws are interesting in light of the Kobe Bryant case. ABC News has cited unnamed sources that state "there was some consensual sexual activity between Bryant and his accuser, but the woman says she did not consent to intercourse." If those statements are true, they could prove important, because (per the ABC article) "under Colorado law, a rape can still occur if the victim consents to some sexual activity, but later withdraws her consent or refuses to give consent to other sexual activity, including intercourse."
I looked up Colorado's statutes. The definition of "consent" in Colorado (18-3-401.Definitions. (1.5) ) states that "consent" means cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will and with knowledge of the nature of the act. A current or previous relationship shall not be sufficient to constitute consent under the provisions of this part 4. Submission under the influence of fear shall not constitute consent.Nothing in this definition shall be construed to affect the admissibility of evidence or the burden of proof in regard to the issue of consent under this part 4. (emphasis mine.)
I'm not sure if the portion in bold is the portion of rape law to which ABC News refers. If anyone has specifics, I'd really appreciate an e-mail. I asked some colleagues (one in particular from Colorado) for more information. If and when I get it, I'll post it.
Bryant has been charged with sexual assault under these statutes:
18.3.402. Sexual Assault. (1) Any actor who knowingly inflicts sexual intrusion or sexual penetration on a victim commits sexual assault if:
(a) The actor causes submission of the victim by means of sufficient consequence reasonably calculated to cause submission against the victim's will;
-----
(4) Sexual assault is a class 3 felony if it is attended by any one or more of the following circumstances:
(a) The actor causes submission of the victim through the actual application of physical force or physical violence;
Due to the intense public and media interest in this case, The Colorado Judicial Branch has set up a People v. Bryant Web Site Includes judge's biographies, court scheduling and documents, media access and pooling, and press releases.
Note to Self: File This One Under The "Isn't That Special" Slime Category
Los Angeles radio show host who publicized the young woman's name is himself no stranger to assaulting women. The Smoking Gun has posted the court records for this scumbucket's domestic violence arrest against his then-wife in 1993. His now-ex-wife (divorce was final in April) told the cops that as a result of an argument, "he threw a drinking glass at the victim, striking her in the head. The suspect then pushed the victim's head into a brick fireplace loacted in the bedroom. The victim stated that at their home the suspect grabbed her and threatened to kill her. The officer observed scratch marks on the victim's left forearm. The officers also felt a large bump on the bictim's head." He had to enter a batterer's program as part of a plea deal with Massachusetts prosecutors. It's no surprise to me to learn of his abusive history, considering that he said " we don't fall in love with you until we get some tail!...If you think that we hear a word you say before we get in your panties, let me tell you something, we don't!"
Definitely one to be avoided. I prefer men whose skulls have already closed.
posted at 6:46 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
Heard on "Tough Crowd With Colin Quinn"
Mario Joyner: "If you want to make sure your politicians do a satisfactory job while in office, don't pay them until their term is up."
posted at 9:15 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
July 29, 2003
I Wonder If The Republicans Will Misuse Homeland Security Again To Track Them Down?
Democratic Lawmakers Flee Texas Again
UPDATE: A related article -- The Watchful & the Wary: From FBI and CIA headquarters to small-town police departments, the government is building a massive intelligence network designed to spy on terrorists -- and on everyday Americans. From Mother Jones.
posted at 11:15 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
No-Fault Divorce
I just saw a post debating the pros and cons of no-fault divorce, by Sappho at Noli Irritare Leones. She asked me for material supporting the pro-no-fault side. It's an old post written while I was otherwise occupied, so I was unable to address it until now.
She wrote: "Here, for example, is a Divorce Reform Page which presents "Information, opinions and links about efforts to introduce consent-based divorce or limit no-fault divorce in the U.S., and anti-divorce efforts worldwide. " You can find both pro-reform articles and materials and anti-reform articles (I wonder if any blogger - Trish Wilson, maybe? - has a better source of links on the "preserve no fault divorce" side)."
Whenever I see no-fault divorce mentioned, the meat of the discussion is generally about making divorces harder to obtain. Sappho mentions this herself: "It's not at all clear to me that making divorce more difficult to obtain, in itself, is a bad thing; there really is a cost to having a high divorce rate."
A look at the history of American divorce helps to keep the topic in perspective. It would be wrong to assume that divorce rates skyrocketed only since the 1970s while remaining low throughout American history, because "divorce rates in the United States and in other Western countries have been climbing steadily since 1860. The was a large jump in the U. S. rate after World War II, stability in the 1950s, an increase from 2.0 per 1000 people in 1958 to 2.9 in 1968, and a peak of 5/3 in 1979, followed by a decline to a recent rate of 4.5 per 1000." [see State Grounds for Divorce, A Brief History," by Charlene Wear Simmons, Ph.D.] In 1969, California was the first state to enact no-fault divorce. The aforementioned paper, "State Grounds for Divorce," details the changes in law.
It also cited three factors that may explain the increases in divorce: "easier access to divorce, married women's employment, and changes in social values." No-fault also decreased the expense of divorce, both in terms of time and money. This has changed quite a bit today due to the newer divorce cottage industries that force couples to pay for psychological evaluations, custody evaluations, guardians ad litem, court-ordered therapy (especially when bogus crap like "parental alienation syndrome" creep into divorce proceedings), mandatory mediation, and mandatory creation of parenting plans. The push for joint custody and the political presence of the fathers' rights movement have also made it easier for divorcing men to keep their spouses in court until the women are financially depleted, paving the way for the men to demand what they want in court. While not all courts have gone in this direction, those that have had made it more difficult for women in the midst of divorces, who generally have less money at their disposal than men.
Please take note of the second factor, married women's employment. What Sappho hasn't mentioned is that the loudest outcry against no-fault came about when women began to take advantage of it. Women, not men, file for the majority of divorces today. I have been told by numerous people that women today file for divorce for primarily frivolous reasons. I don't personally believe that to be true. Women today do have more ability to leave bad, abusive, and otherwise dead marriages. They are better able to financially support themselves and their children. They no longer need their husband's approval to obtain credit in their names as they had thirty years ago.
I don't think most divorces involve abuse. However, I believe women are less willing to put up with disinterested husbands, adultery, surly stepkids and husbands obsessed with ex-wives (subsequent marriages have much higher divorce rates than first marriages), severe monetary disagreements, having to shoulder most of the housework and childcare on top of a job, being placed second to his work, friends, hobbies, family, and other forms of poor treatment. Not only that, women today are in a position to demand more and expect more from their marriages. Contrary to opinion, I don't believe most women file for divorce for frivolous reasons. Some do, of course, but I don't think most do. Divorce is not fun, especially if a custody battle is involved.
I think it's important to repeat an earlier point: subsequent marriages have much higher divorce rates than first marriages. Most first marriages stay intact. Subsequent marriages, especially those involving stepchildren and money problems, are more likely to end in divorce. There are more stressors involved. It's the higher rate of these divorces that artificially elevate the overall number of divorces. When one looks at divorce statistics, it's important to keep all of that in mind.
Asking "what causes marital breakdown?" may be an exercise in futility because men and women divorce for all kinds of reasons. Each case is bound to be different, just as there is no concrete set of factors that equal a viable marriage. What works for one couple won't work for another. What one spouse will put up with another won't tolerate. We are talking about personal choices and personal core beliefs. That's why I believe there is no real answer to "what causes marital breakdown?" Neither do I believe it is possible to answer the question "what makes a good marriage?" One thing I do believe may lead to divorce is when a woman (since mostly women file for divorce nowadays) compares her married life to all available options. When she finds the options more tenable than the marriage, she may choose to leave. Divorce reform seems to me to be not about strengthening marriage but about eliminating those options for women -- i.e., making it more difficult for women to leave bad marriages. Divorce reform forces women to stay put.
I'm sure there is much more that could be discussed. This topic is so open-ended. I believe there are both pros and cons to no-fault divorce. No-fault has made it easier for women, especially abused women, to leave bad marriages. No-fault reflects current societal mores. On the other hand, those with little money are ripped to shreds in divorce, especially if they can't afford a lawyer. However, there is much more to divorce than no-fault. Looking at the pros and cons of no-fault divorce, in my opinion, is only a part of a much bigger picture.
posted at 11:58 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
The Most Expensive Zip Codes
Via Cacciaguida. Forbes Magazine listed the most expensive zip codes in the U. S., by 2002 median home prices that were above $500,000. Also, more than ten homes must have sold during that year. The most expensive places to live are in California, the D. C. metro area, and New York, natch.posted at 11:58 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
July 27, 2003
New Bruce Campbell Movie - Hail To The King, Baby
Damn. Bubba Ho-tep won't be playing in New England (what a surprise), so I'll have to wait until it comes out on DVD. I'm dying to see this!! Bruce stars as a mothballed Elvis impersonator who throws cans of whoop-ass at an ancient Egyptian demon that sucks the life out of people in a rest home. I read that it's based on a Joe Lansdale story, which makes it even better for me. I'm a Lansdale fan but I can't recall what story this is. I'm a major Bruce Campbell fan, so this will be a treat. I read about this on Fark.
I got a kick out of the "Ben-Hur" imagery on the movie's web site. As soon as you see it, you'll know.
The trailer is here.
posted at 6:12 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
Update on Rape Cases
TBOGG and Bean at Alas, A Blog have also commented on the Kobe Bryant rape case. TBOGG let loose with caustic criticisms of the radio show hosted by the Asshat-Who-Shall-Go-Unnamed.
As usual, I found the comments section at Alas to be an illuminating experience, especially comments made by Blunted By Reality Blunted was nearly keelhauled when he (I think he's a guy living in Florida, but I'm not sure. Please pardon me if I'm mistaken.) wrote "I certainly hope that this girl (the accuser, not the girl mistaken to be her) doesn't think that something like this couldn't have happened. Kobe Bryant was made a star by the same media that is now outing her, or at least attempting to. If he was Kobe the janitor, no one would have heard about this case, and no one would be interested in knowing who the accuser is."
I think that the other commenters may have jumped on Blunted a little too soon before taking in what he wrote. Mind you, I don't necessarily agree with him, but he did make some interesting and eye-opening points. It's probably true that Kobe the janitor would barely make a dent in the local police blotter. However, why assume that "something like this" could happen because Kobe Bryant is a star? While I agree that a presumed perp's fame should not be directly proportional to how much information the public shark pool is fed about the presumed victim, it must not be assumed that the presumed perp's fame or the fame of the case itself will ensure the likelihood that the presumed victims will be identified. It's not guaranteed that "something like this" could happen -- unless that kind of assumption is made only when the presumed victim is female.
While Kobe the janitor won't attract much public interest, Kobe the priest is an entirely different matter -- and not because the pedophile priest scandal has made national and international news. If fame had everything to do with it, why has there not been a public feeding frenzy to identify the names of the male victims of Reverend Paul R. Shanley? As Eileen MacNamara wrote in today's Boston Globe, there is a "rape double standard." She rightly observed that " it never occurred to anyone to challenge a prominent man's desire to preserve his anonymity in the face of a brutal, degrading crime.[...] It is not about the name; it's about the blame."
She continues:
Why the fevered search for extraneous information to discredit this young woman's account of what happened at the Cordillera Lodge and Spa on June 30? She may or may not be telling the truth; that's what trials are meant to determine. If the public insists on its right to know everything about a 19-year-old woman who accuses a basketball star of rape, why doesn't it demand a comparable scrubbing of a 53-year-old Boston businessman who says a priest molested him at a cabin in 1966?
Because there is a double standard, that's why, a double standard that makes the businessman's allegation against the infamous priest instantly credible and the young woman's charge against the revered sports hero immediately suspect. Why would he make up such a thing? He's obviously interested in seeing that justice is done. How do we know she is not just a gold digger? She's obviously after his money.
Wrap your brain around those statements and expand your accepted view of "rape allegations."
The expectation that a victim will be identified if the presumed perp is famous applies only if the presumed victim is female. If the presumed victim is, say, a respected businessman who has accused a priest, all bets are off. I saw Blunted's point: Everything about Kobe Bryant will be viewed under a microscope. His presumed victim is likely to be outed because he's famous, but her outing should not have happened in the first place. I'm sure Blunted didn't mean that since under the circumstances she's likely to be outed that she should just shut up. However, he and those who responded to him did not take all statements made about the issue one step further. Not all victims of famous persons or cases will be outed, and that needs to be pointed out. There is definitely a rape double standard.
posted at 3:34 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
July 26, 2003
Bambi Meets Godzilla (Squoosh)
Promotor Michael Burdick admitted that the Hunting For Bambi safaris were a hoax designed to sell his "Hunting for Bambi" videos. The shooters and "Bambis" were actors. There was also no real shooting of paint balls.
Burdick could get six months in jail and a $1,000 file for operating a business without a license.
posted at 11:15 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
Knuckle-Dragging Buttcrack Radio Host Speaks Rape Victim's Name On Air To Boost His Ratings
Rape allegations against Kobe Bryant haven't caught much of my attention except for two points; one directly related and one indirectly related. I had heard that someone outed the victim's name, but I wasn't sure who had done it until I read Elayne Rigg's comments on the issue. The Asshat who publicized her name is a throwback radio talk show host. He is obviously plugging for more publicity. I wonder how his ill-treatment of the victim in his bid for sky-high ratings affects his predominately young male audience? As Elayne had written, the reason the victim's name is not publicized is because that person is the presumed victim of a crime, not the presumed perpetrator. It has nothing to do with the Asshat's excuse for publizing her name: he acknowledges that is rape is a crime of violence as opposed to sex, and therefore she has no reason to feel "ashamed." And so since he's been so obliging in giving her permission to not feel "ashamed," he thinks it's okay to blast her name all over creation for his personal benefit. What a jerk-off.
I wasn't surprised to see the usual dissection of the victim's background as character assassination in news coverage of this story. It has often been said that victims are raped again in the media and in court. My local paper has made comparisons between Bryant and O. J. Internet message boards and chat rooms are full of innuendo and slurs about the victim based on nothing more than news coverage and personal biases about rape allegations. 62% of people who participated in a recent poll at the Sexcriminals.com do not believe Bryant committed rape. The smear campaign directed towards this victim is similar to smear campaigns I've seen directed towards other victims. She is "emotionally unstable" (therefore not to be believed). She lied for the money and for fame. She fabricated a abuse allegation for revenge. Some people are less likely to believe a victim if she had a prior relationship with the alleged perpetrator, if he was known to her, or if she has had an active sex life. With those thoughts in mind, I was concerned by a recent ruling in a New Jersey Supreme Court case, which "details of an alleged rape victim's sexual past to be considered as evidence in a trial." Victims should not be blamed for their own rapes.
While the ruling supported New Jersey's Rape Shield Law which prevents foraging for dirt in a victim's past in an attempt at character assassination, it also "ruled that sexual-assault defendants have a constitutional right to present evidence to support a defense that may include examples of previous contact with the victim. The ruling applies to past flirting or advances toward the person accused of rape, and does not allow testimony about the accuser's sexual conduct with others." The article continues:
The decision granted a new trial for Anderson Garron, 37, a Bridgeton police officer found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman. Garron has been in prison for three years.
During his trial, he alleged that he had consensual sex with a woman who worked at the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office. He also maintained that she had been making passes at him and pressed charges only because he had refused to return what he believed was a sexual favor.
That kind of allegation, however, should not be used to dismiss allegations of sexual assault, said Elizabeth Volz, president of the New Jersey chapter of the National Organization for Women.
In many rape cases, a woman has had some history with her alleged assailant, but that should not become a common defense, she said.
"Wanting to have sex with them at one point does not mean wanting to have sex with them at any point," Volz said.
A man who has consensual sex with a woman does not forever after hold proprietary rights to her body. He hasn't branded her. A woman who has had a prior history with her perpetrator is well aware of the attitude held by many people that she "must have done something" to make him think she meant yes. After all, they've had sex. He says she flirted with him. She must have asked for it. It's her fault. These women know they are less likely to be believed than if they had been raped by a stranger. That attitude and the judgment against them are two reasons they may be reluctant to press charges. A ruling such as the one made by the New Jersey Supreme Court has resurrected old, stereotypical attitudes about women, rape, and sexual experience. Those same attitudes are reflected in news coverage and public commentary about the Kobe Bryant case.
UPDATE: I had originally included a link to the Asshat radio host's web site, and later decided that I didn't want to give him additional publicity. So, the link has been removed. I will not give his name, either. How ironic. I refuse to identify this Brown Track Mark On The Boxer Shorts Of Humanity not to protect him, but to prevent him from getting more of that precious publicity he wants. Other bloggers have provided links and his name. I will do neither.
posted at 10:45 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
Time for Some Cat Blogging
Elayne Riggs cat blogged earlier this week. Of course, every Friday is Cat Blogging Day for Kevin Drum. I've always liked the kitty-through-fish-eye lense photo of one of Kevin's cats. It looks like all nose. It's buried somewhere in his archives. If you've seen it, you know what photo I'm talking about. Really cute. I have six cats. Five are related -- one gave birth to the other four. The kittens (now adults) look so much alike I tell my friends we really have only three cats, but one of them gets around very well.
Now this is different. Seems there's a Klepto Kitty making off with people's clothing in Ventura County, California. The cat "has been sneaking off in the dark to raid neighbour's homes, garages, sheds and patios, bringing home shoes, hats, shirts, socks and even a wrapped Christmas present." The embarrassed owners leave a pillowcase of stolen booty on their mailbox every morning so the neighbors can pick up their stuff.
Gives new meaning to the term "cat burglar."
posted at 10:44 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
July 22, 2003
Summer Issue of Expository Magazine Online
I may be rightly accused of partiality (I'm an editor), but nonetheless Expository Magazine's new issue rocks. EM's staff was kind enough to use my move-away piece as the feature article. There is also poetry, book reviews, and articles about body image, Bengal, feminism and alcoholism, bulimia, and lots of other stuff. Get yourself a hot cup o' joe or some tea and head on over.
posted at 11:04 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
I Can't Let This Get By Without A Snarky Comment
Leah at Atrios told everyone about a CNN poll asking if Bush is doing a good job. I went to CNN to check out the poll.
It has been replaced -- with a poll asking if vomit-inducing syrup of ipecac should be sold over the counter.
I can't type anymore. I'm laughing too hard...
posted at 10:06 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
Yes, I'm Still Alive
I have been extraordinarily busy for the past two weeks, and the end is not yet in sight. Just letting my regular readers know that I have not vanished off the face of the earth. Posting will simply be a bit scarce.
Here's a bit of unusual local news. I have not yet found a rubber ducky washed ashore, but I've been keeping my eyes open.
Far-Flung Bathtub Toys Due in New England
U.S. National - AP
Fri Jul 11,12:04 AM ET
By Greg Sukiennik, Associated Press Writer
"A floating flock of the bathtub toys - along with beavers, turtles and frogs - is believed to be washing ashore somewhere along the New England coast, bleached and battered from a trans-Arctic journey. Oceanographers say the trip has taught them valuable lessons about the ocean's currents.
The toys have been adrift since 29,000 of them fell from a storm-tossed container ship en route from China to Seattle more than 11 years ago."
posted at 9:44 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
July 10, 2003
Updates on Move-aways
Below are two new press releases on the LaMusga case. Fathers' rights advocates hope that this case will lead to the reversal of the bellwether California Burgess decision, which made it easier for custodial mothers to relocate with their children. I will have more commentary on this issue later this afternoon.
posted at 8:15 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
Family At Heart of California Move-Away Controversy Moved to Arizona
CONTACT: KATHLEEN JUSTI, CEO
STATEMENT OF: THE NATIONAL COALITION
FOR FAMILY JUSTICE OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
P.O. Box 2632 Saratoga, CA 95070
(559) 432-2226
Justetime@aol.com
"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied"
LaMusga v. LaMusga
The 1996 landmark California Supreme Court case In Re Marriage of Burgess was supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
Suzy Navarro, her husband Todd, her sons Garrett, 11, and Devlen LaMusga, 9, and their daughter, 3, moved this week from their little rented house in Pleasanton, California, to a spacious new home purchased in Mesa, Arizona.
They just could not wait any longer.
The latest iteration of a rancorous seven-year battle with the boys' father, Navarro's first husband, Gary LaMusga, has been languishing in the California Supreme Court since September 2002. No court has prohibited the family from moving with the two boys to Arizona, but no court has been willing to modify the father's visitation schedule to accommodate the move. And the issue to be decided? It is whether the family may move -- not to Arizona -- but to Ohio.
Two years ago, Navarro's husband had a job offer there. That job is long gone. It was Suzy Navarro's second request to move to Ohio. Once before, she had asked the court to permit her to move with her sons back to the state in which she grew up and has family in order to go to law school, a life-long dream. That dream was thwarted when her first request to move was denied. The case now pending in the California court system is her second request, made five years later. But while the California Supreme Court ponders its decision, there is no more job for Todd Navarro or future awaiting for the family in Ohio. After moving alone, without his family and infant daughter, and waiting nearly a year for them, Navarro's husband moved back to California in late 2002, to take a job at half the pay.
Recently, Todd Navarro got another much-needed job offer in Arizona. Once again Suzy Navarro tried to get the assistance of California courts to modify her boys' visitation schedule with Gary LaMusga. But this time Navarro was told by Superior Court Judge Kennedy on June 16, 2003, that because the Supreme Court is hearing the matter of her prior request, now moot, that he was without jurisdiction to rule on this one.
Also pending in the court system is the request the children's mother made in February 2001 to increase the below-guidelines child support originally established in 1996 when Suzy and Gary LaMusga were divorced. A trial date on this issue only recently has been set for January 2004.
During the seven-year-long forced march through an expensive legal nightmare, Suzy Navarro, her husband, her sons and their baby half-sister have endured repeated litigation expenses and intrusions into their family and homelife. Court-ordered custody evaluations, mediation under the auspices of the court's family conciliation services, occupational evaluations and psychological counseling continually have disrupted the family's schedule, as well as the children's schooling. But they have not been able to improve the problem that caused the courts to deny Suzy Navarro's first request to move five years ago: her sons' father's tenuous, detached relationship with his children.
Meals, bedtimes, education and study habits, after-school play, and issues of personal hygiene and moral conduct all have been sacrificed to accommodate court orders made to appease LaMusga, whose claims have succeeded in holding the lives and futures of five other people twisting at the mercy of the system. While the "wheels of justice" grind, Suzy Navarro's dream of becoming a lawyer has been frustrated, her husband's career has been jeopardized, her family's finances have been devastated, her children's lives have been destablized and the lives of all of them have been poked, prodded, harangued, analyzed, and meddled with.
And so last week Suzy Navarro and her family just picked up and moved.
Background
Suzy and Gary LaMusga, a well-to-do businessman, divorced in 1996. At that time, the California family court awarded sole physical custody of Garrett, then 4, and Devlen LaMusga, then 2, to their mother, who had been their primary caregiver since their births.
Suzy Poston, the youngest of eight children, had grown up in Ohio, and had moved to California to join her husband when they married in 1988. The marriage lasted seven years. A finance major in college, she had dropped out of graduate school in 1982 for lack of funds. She got a job as a flight attendant, then rapidly was promoted into management. As she gained success, Suzy saved her money and held onto her goal of becoming a lawyer, perhaps specializing in business or aviation. But marriage to LaMusga meant a move to a new state, the cessation of her blossoming career with the airlines, and a lifestyle as homemaker and stepmother to LaMusga's troubled teenage daughter from his first marriage. In a few years there was a baby, and then another one.
After her divorce, Suzy Poston LaMusga was ready to try again. She asked the court to permit her to move with her children to Cleveland, Ohio, where she had been accepted at Case Western Reserve Law School. Her brother-in-law taught there, and close relatives lived nearby, including first cousins her children's age.
But the California court said "no." The boys were too young. Gary LaMusga needed more time to develop a relationship with them.
So Suzy stayed. And cooperated. And did everything the courts and therapists told her to do. Over the next few years, LaMusga's relationship with the boys did not improve, despite therapy, despite efforts by all parties. The parents had difficulty getting along, and disagreed about LaMusga's sometimes harsh parenting practices. In 1998, Suzy met Todd Navarro and remarried. The next year they had a baby daughter. A year after that, in December 2000, Suzy Navarro again asked the California courts if she could move. The growing family needed money. Todd Navarro had been offered a position in Ohio that nearly doubled his salary. Suzy Navarro had started thinking about the possibilities back home, the lower cost of living, the help of extended family that she did not have in California, of ending the ongoing conflicts with Gary LaMusga, and of maybe finally going back to law school. In order to not lose the position, Todd Navarro moved to Ohio ahead of his family and they waited for California courts.
But in August 2001 Superior Court Judge Terence Bruiniers again said "no." LaMusga still had a "tenuous and somewhat detached relationship" with his sons, which had not improved in the nearly five years since the LaMusgas' divorce.
The court reasoned that a move of more than 2,000 miles would interfere with relationship therapy between LaMusga and his sons. He told the boys' mother that if she moved to Ohio, the children would be removed from her custody and sent to live with their father, notwithstanding the difficult relationship that he (and his now-third wife) had with them, and notwithstanding that this would separate them from their primary caregiver and sister.
The Navarros appealed. Six months later, however, after enduring the strain of living apart from his family for nearly a year, Todd Navarro resigned his new job, and returned to California, taking a job at half the pay. Three months later, in May 2002, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District in San Francisco reversed the trial court's decision. But it was too little, too late. Gary LaMusga appealed the decision to the California Supreme Court, where fifteen months later, the case still is pending.
LaMusga v. LaMusga is being hailed as a revisitation of the landmark 1996 California Supreme Court case of In re Marriage of Burgess . In that year, the same one in which the LaMusgas divorced, the Court held that a custodial parent has a presumptive right to relocate with his or her children.
---
In connection with this case, the findings of a new study by fathers' rights icon Sanford Braver released by the APA on June 25, 2003 (see http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/braver-wallerstein.html), are being touted as showing that children suffer detriment from post-divorce relocations, but controversy exists regarding what that study actually shows. Statements made by Ira Ellman issued in connection with the press release by Arizona State University, as well as his class syllabus on law and public policy, indicate that the Braver study (which he co-authored), as well as an article published in June 2003 by Joan Kelly and Michael Lamb actually were conceived and carried out for the intended purposes of moving public policy and changing California law. The writeup of the actual findings of the study "Relocation of Children After Divorce and Children's Best Interests" and the APA press release misrepresented those findings and ignored the rather controversial and surprising correlations the study actually did make. See http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/braver.html
-30-
---
The website of the National Coalition For Family Justice of California, Inc.., a court reform advocacy group, can be accessed here. For more information on this case, see the liz library.
posted at 8:15 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
Move-away Update: Suzy Navarro (LaMusga v. LaMusga) and Family Moves After Seven Years of Legal Limbo in California
Contact: KIM M. ROBINSON, Esq.
Attorney of record for Susan Navarro
2938 Adeline Street Oakland, CA 94608
510.832.7117 (telephone)
510.834.3301 (facsimile)
After Seven Years of Legal Limbo in California Courts,
Family Seeks New Life in Arizona
Pleasanton, California -- A San Francisco Bay area mother who has been prevented by litigation from leaving California for more than seven years in order to keep her children closer to her ex-husband has this week moved her family to Mesa, Arizona.
Their move is likely to cause shock waves in California and across the nation.
The children's father, Gary LaMusga, and many other noncustodial parents believe that children should remain near them, even if their relationships with the children are poor and staying harms the children and custodial households. Courts also put off making decisions in relocation cases hoping that custodial parents will give up their legally protected plans to move (for example, when job offers expire) rather than risk judicial anger.
Seven years after Susan Navarro first asked the California courts to permit her to start a new life outside California, she decided she could wait no longer. With her are her new husband, Todd Navarro, her sons Garrett LaMusga, 11, and Devlen LaMusga, 9, and her daughter, Aisling Navarro, 3.
Navarro indicated that her decision was born out of frustration with the legal limbo. "This legal nightmare has shaped and defined their entire childhood," Navarro said.
In Sept. 2002, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear a case in which Navarro's ex-husband challenges a unanimous Court of Appeal decision that Navarro is entitled to decide where the boys will live. Some experts and child advocates fear the high court may use the Navarro-LaMusga case to cut back or reverse its landmark 1996 decision, In re Marriage of Burgess. Such a result would change the balance of power in divorce court by limiting the primary caregiver's ability to decide what is best for the children.
Since mothers are given primary custody in over 60 percent of California cases, court battles over custody issues have turned into a gender-divided, state-wide debate. Navarro says she simply needs the courts to make timely decisions in the best interests of her children's welfare. Her request made in February 2001 to increase a 1996 child support order will not receive a court hearing until January 2004; similarly, her motion for a revised visitation schedule so that her ex-husband can have meaningful visitation with the children after they have moved to Arizona has been pending since September 2002 but has not yet been heard by the court.
"I'm just trying to do what's best for my children," Navarro explained. "They are being hurt more than helped by this legal process."
###
For more information and background on this case, go to The LaMusga Press Release Page at the Liz Library.
posted at 8:15 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
July 4, 2003
Happy Independence Day!!!
I won't be posting much anymore for the rest of the weekend. The beach calls. Fireworks are tonight. We shall submit to the traditional viewing of the movie "Jaws." I live in Massachusetts. "Jaws" was filmed in Martha's Vineyard. Watching "Jaws" on July 4th is practically required by law out here.
Everyone already knows the main mechancal shark was nicknamed "Bruce." Here are more fun facts about "Jaws:"
* The original scene with Alex Kintner's death was so scary that it had to be cut due to the fact that it might scare people to death and they would not be able to give JAWS a PG rating but an R instead. The scene called for a doll of Alex to be floating among the bathers, then the shark would jump out of the water.
* When the shark was built, it was never water tested therefore when it was put in the water at Martha's Vineyard, it sunk straight to the ocean floor. It took a team of divers to retrieve it from the floor.
* Robert Shaw could not stand Richard Dreyfuss and they argued all the time, which resulted in some good tension between Hooper and Quint.
* Robert Shaw was also in trouble from the IRS and had to flee the country once his scenes were completed.
* A midget in a miniature cage and a real shark were used to get some shots correct. (The midget was used to make the shark look bigger.)
* Apparently, technicians lost control of one of the mechanical sharks, and it was lost at sea.
* A real shooting star can be seen during a shot of the boat on the water at dusk.
* Author Peter Benchley was thrown off the set after objecting to the climax.
* Susan Backlinie (Chrissie) is actually a stunt woman, not an actress, and her underwater scenes in the JAWS opener were actually filmed during the day while she was in the buff.
* There were two 300lb weights attached to Susan Backlinie which were being tugged by two sets of crewmen on shore. One set would pull right, and the other set would pull left. It took three days to film that sequence. (Easter Egg Page note: Backlinie was hurt during filming of this sequence. Lip readers complained at this scene because she swears quite profusely, but her cursing had been dubbed out.)
* If you pay close attention to one of the windows in the building behind Brody after he leaves the hardware store, you will notice a bystander sticking her head up and taking pictures of Roy Scheider as he is doing his lines.
Easter Eggs (hidden inside jokes within films like author/director appearances):
* Steven Spielberg was the voice on Quint's marine radio when Mrs. Brody tries to contact her husband on the Orca.
* Brody's dog in the movie was actually Spielberg's real dog.
Another Easter Egg:
* The reporter going on and on about Amity and the shark is "Jaws" writer Peter Benchley.
Have a pleasant holiday weekend, everyone. And anjoy the water. It's just fine.
posted at 10:10 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
The Braver Study and the Move-away Issue
I would like to thank Body & Soul, Atrios , Ampersand , Gallowglass , Calpundit , and Mark Kleiman for commenting on Braver's moveaway study. While opinions about the move-away issue itself fall on all sides of the spectrum (which is to be expected because this is an emotionally-loaded topic), the general consensus seems to be that regardless of one's opinion about move-aways, the study itself is flawed and full of holes.
posted at 10:10 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
The Medicare Bait-and-Switch
Medicare is being revamped to favor privatization [via Atrios], but you wouldn't know this if you listen to Bush administration bait-and-switch prescription drug benefit. Here's the deal:
Private health insurers would be given increased government payments so that they could sweeten their benefits to lure the elderly and the disabled out of the traditional Medicare program. Beneficiaries choosing private plans with lower premiums would get a rebate from the government; those choosing plans with higher premiums would have to pay more. In 2010, the traditional program would be forced to compete with private plans. From then on, the amount that beneficiaries paid for Medicare would be set not by law, but by market forces.
Sound great so far? It isn't. Read on.
This might sound like a great way to encourage consumer choice ‹ until one realizes that the cost of alternative insurance options would be mainly determined by the health of those enrolled. Since the least healthy enrollees would most likely stay in traditional Medicare rather than brave the private market, the program's premiums would likely rise substantially. This would encourage healthier beneficiaries to seek lower premiums in the private sector, leaving only the sickest behind.
The largest chain of for-profit hospitals in this country stands to greatly financially benefit from privatization. That chain is Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.
It was founded by Dr. Thomas Frist, Jr., father of majority leader Bill Frist. Frist is already well-known for favoring privatization. HCA was his top campaign donor. Privatization of Medicare will send more money directly into his pockets. By the way, in 1998 Columbia/HCA was accused of overcharging Medicare by at least $1.8 million and was under indictment in Florida.
posted at 10:10 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
Liberia, The Land of Photo-Ops?
Today is Independence Day, a perfect opportunity for the Bush propaganda machine to churn out the photo-ops. Lambert from Atrios stopped over at The Agonist, and found what he thinks may be another excuse for a photo-op -- sending troops to Liberia, just in time for Dubya's trip to Africa:
"We have the green light to do something in Liberia, we are working on that something right now," a senior defense official told Fox News.
There is a "fast-team" of 50-75 Marines, specifically trained to provide security to the U.S. Embassy, on standby in Spain, according to defense officials.
Another administration official said the White House did not want to take the military option off the table for fear of making headlines just before Bush starts a trip to Africa next Monday.
Coalition troops tied a yellow ribbon around the Treasure of Nimrud. The photo-op for an audience of international media was slated for yesterday in Baghdad. (via Planet Sean). I reported on this a few days ago.
I agree with Lambert that the mission in Iraq has been "accomplished" as far as photo opportunities go, but I found Donald Rumsfeld's comments interesting for another reason. Rumsfeld backpedaled on pronouncements he made months ago that the war would not take much time at all. It looks like there is no end in sight. Rumsfeld said that "[t]hose battles will go on for some time. The liberation of Iraq is complete; the regime has been removed from power and will not be permitted to return. But our war with terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the globe continues. It will not be over any time soon. As Jefferson taught us two centuries ago, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Maybe as far as photo-ops are concerned, the war in Iraq has been "accomplished," but it isn't as far as the troops are concerned. They aren't coming home any time soon. The dead no longer deem acknowledgement. A reporter pointed out that during the war, the names of servicepeople killed were displayed on a screen behind Rumsfeld. Now, in the midst of the quagmire, no names are displayed. Pictures of people working in the field are shown, but the names of the dead are not. Out of sight, out of mind.
Another reported jibed Rumsfeld with his preference for "precision of language" when it came to nailing down whether or not the situation in Iraq had devolved into a quagmire. Most people call such precision of language "playing semantics games." This same reporter fired at Rumsfeld with the official definition, stating that "[a]ccording to the Pentagon's own definition -- military and paramilitary operations conducted in enemy- held or hostile territory by a regular -- (Inaudible.) -- indigenous forces. This seems to fit a lot of what's going on in Iraq." In response, Rumsfeld talked in circles again:
Quagmire. Quagmire. We have had several quagmires that weren't thus far, and I don't know -- I didn't look that word up, either. I should have, knowing you. But why don't I think it is one? Well, I opened my remarks today about the United States of America. Were we in a quagmire for eight years? I would think not. We were in a process. We were in a -- we were evolving from a monarchy into a democracy. What happened in Eastern Europe? Were they in a quagmire when the Berlin Wall fell down and they started struggling and working their way towards democracy? Was Afghanistan in a quagmire, as they went through that awkward stage of trying to schedule a Bonn process and then a Loya Jirga, and now they still don't have a permanent government, nor is it perfectly peaceful there.
If you -- you call it what you want, and then be held accountable for it. My personal view is that we're in a war. We're in a global war on terrorism and there are people that don't agree with that -- for the most part, terrorists. And our goal in each of those countries is to get the terrorists out of Afghanistan, get the Saddam Hussein regime out of Iraq and allow the people of those countries to take over their countries and put their countries on a path towards something approximating a representative, civil society that's not a threat to its neighbors.
If you want to call that a quagmire, do it. I don't.
Hey, if it walk like a duck and talks like a duck....
posted at 10:10 AM by Trish Wilson | Link
July 1, 2003
Another Tie Between the APA Move-away Study and the Fathers' Rights Movement
Another interesting point, about the APA journal that printed Braver's study: the editor of the journal is Ross Parke. Ross Parke co-wrote "Throwaway Dads: The Myths and Barriers that Keep Men From Being The Fathers They Want To Be" with Armin Brott. That book was pure propaganda and poor research that came out at about the same time the state fatherhood projects were becoming part of welfare reform.
I noticed that Parke created his own differentiation between the usual grassroots father's rights groups with what he called the "Good Fatherhood" movement. Parke placed David Blankenhorn and the National Fatherhood Initiative in his "Good Fatherhood" category. He never placed himself in a category but he believes his "Good Fatherhood" category was the only one that in his opinion that offered the most for fathers. It's easy to see where he was going. The "Good Fatherhood" groups sought to participate in and benefit from welfare reform public policy like the creation of the fatherhood projects and male involvement initiatives. There is a lot of federal money in those programs.
Parke and Brott are favorites of the fathers' rights movement. Brott and Stuart Miller (of the American Fathers Coalition and the American Coalition for Fathers and Children -- both are essentially one group) co-wrote "Dead Broke Dads" for Playboy in 1996. It's a fathers' rights complaint about having to pay child support -- published in a skin magazine.
posted at 2:00 PM by Trish Wilson | Link
