Letters: Gender-biased laws don’t help matters
July 25, 2012
A recent weekend edition of The Marietta Times, contained the viewpoint article, “Violence Against Women Act” must be renewed. I would like to ask the writer, executive director, Nancy Neylon, to give me a good reason as to why a gender biased act should ever be renewed. I believe domestic violence is wrong and no one, male or female, should instigate such actions. Those found guilty of such acts should not be protected by a law that focuses wholly on the woman.
Men are also stalked and fear for their lives. Women file false allegations, lie to the police and courts and it is the man who is usually arrested; when women are guilty the sentence is not the same as what a man would receive. No law is needed to protect the lawbreaker regardless of gender or life style. VAWA should be rewritten to cover all genders, anything less is redundant and biased. Not all immigrants are victims, some turn out to be the abuser after coming to the states but are still covered by this biased rambling law.
I feel I would be safe in saying this VAWA act played a part in my son losing his children. I have witnessed violence, physical and verbal abuse of my grandchildren, instigated by their mother. Children service ignored their father’s plea for help. I cringed at the action of a judge who removed these children from their home because of their mother’s abuse to later allow her to take them out of state, the move paid for by children service, to avoid her scheduled appearance in court. I watched my son’s emotional upheaval as the judge did not serve a warrant for her arrest and contempt of court. His action denied this father his right to face her and her lies. She took three children, literally kidnapped them, from their father and abandoned the fourth. The judge ignored the fact the father filed for custody (the mother did not) and without a custodial hearing, granted it to the abusive one. This judge will not stand behind visitation rights which he granted the father. His very words were “move to Washington State,” if he wanted to see his children; never addressing the fact a paper attached to his decree designated my son the residential parent and the mother was to pay support. This case is documented and not one person in the legal vocation cares how the law reads but all favor the woman, never the children and the abuse they face daily. My grandchildren were denied their right to choose where they live and were sentenced to living with an abuser; because of this act is easily manipulated by the woman. Appeals are rejected because of gender, courts catering to the female. Even when records of domestic violence and arrests were submitted that occurred in the other state, the Ohio judge ignored the facts. I always felt a case that began in Ohio should stay in Ohio, but I find out VAWA doesn’t believe in finding out truths of cases.
When a child is abducted by a parent and taken out of the country, the courts will get involved if one has the money, but they look the other way when it happens within the borders of these 50 states. Why is a mother favored over the father? This is being gender biased when custody is involved because that child needs time with both parents, especially when the parent being denied their time is the one who never abused the child. No, we do not need a biased law to protect the guilty.
Erma Blume, Fleming