Child Custody Victims Violence

Moms Who Kills Their Kids

Moms Who Kill Their Kids


February 28, 2024

SAVE has previously reported on mothers who attacked other women to steal their unborn babies. A more widespread problem is mothers who kill their children. Globally, 72% of infant murders are by their mothers.

Many of these cases occur in the middle of a custody dispute. These women apparently believed they “own” their children. These six cases, all in the United States, were reported in February, 2024:

1. Mom in custody battle kills four kids and herself in house fire, Missouri reports say

Pruessner was reportedly involved in court battles with the two fathers of her four children. Mom burned her kids to death rather than share custody with the father.  She was a college professor.

2. Kansas City mother is accused of killing her infant by putting her in the oven

The mother told the baby’s grandmother that she put the 1-month-old “in the oven instead of the crib,” according to court records.

3. Lilly mother accused of killing son

Bowser heard voices telling her to smother her 5-year-old child.

4. Family reacts to deaths of 3-year-old twins, mother jumping off I-95

Officials haven’t released the identities of the children and the woman but family members identified the woman as 42-year-old Shirlene N. Alcime and the children as Milinddjy and Milender.

5. Mother arrested for murder after 4-year-old daughter found dead in Southern California

The cause of death was reported as ‘combined effects of strangulation and sharp force,’ according to the autopsy report.

6. Mum who left toddler alone in playpen for 10 days pleads guilty to aggravated murder

This wasn’t intentional homicide, but rather the most egregious negligent homicide imaginable.

Title IX

Title IX: Parents or Government?

Title IX: Parents or Government?

Michael Ramey

February 27, 2024

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 holds that, with certain limited exceptions, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

The current Administration’s proposed new rules require an interpretation of the word “sex” here to include “sexual orientation and gender identity.”

If by changing the meaning, the Administration intended to protect an additional class of students from segregation by state or school officials, their effort would be laudable. But not only is this not their aim: it is also not necessary.

Rather, this proposed rule is partnered with others that promote “safe and supportive” homes throughout the foster care system, overtly defining as “safe” only those homes where the government’s anti-scientific, extremist approach to gender confusion is adopted.

This is deeply concerning for its potential to violate even an intact family’s right to autonomy. Specifically, the new rule opens the door to unconstitutional government infringement on the deeply rooted, constitutionally protected liberty of parents to direct and control the upbringing, education, and care of their children, which is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the U.S. Supreme] Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57 (2000) at 65

At the same time, it would violate a child’s reciprocal right to the care and companionship of their loving parent. Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817 (2d Cir. 1977) at 825

While the rule does not deal directly with parental rights, it endorses both a view of gender fluidity and selective treatment options that prompt government officials to run roughshod over any parent who does not agree with the government’s prescribed position.

Let me be clear: No government agent should keep secrets from parents about the health and wellbeing of the parent’s minor child.

Exceptions rightly exist, of course, for the investigation of a parent accused of physical abuse. But this rare occurrence involves strict procedural and court oversight.

Government policies that lead public school teachers and administrators to regularly keep secrets from parents about their child’s health and well-being, on the other hand, are seriously troubling. Yet, across the country this has been the result of adopting a policy which holds that government actors know better than parents how to treat a child who is uncomfortable with their biological sex.

The Supreme Court’s Parham v. J.R. decision (442 U.S. 584 (1979) at 603-4) is instructive here:

Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child, or because it involves risks, does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state. The same characterizations can be made for a tonsillectomy, appendectomy, or other medical procedure. Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments…. The fact that a child may balk at hospitalization or complain about a parental refusal to provide cosmetic surgery does not diminish the parents’ authority to decide what is best for the child.

The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the sort of policy proposed by the Administration, and they found it constitutionally deficient. Parents, not government agents, are the appropriate people “to make sound judgments concerning many [of a child’s] decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment.”

Ironically, redefining “sex” to include gender, and thus gender confusion, leads to more, not less, discrimination under Title IX.

This is because the proposed policy deprives a certain class of citizens of a fundamental right. While most parents retain the fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children, and while most children enjoy the reciprocal right to their parents’ companionship and guidance, the proposed rule expressly denies these rights to those families in which a child identifies as a gender minority.

In these families, the government would suddenly have the power—even the obligation—to determine what is the right course of treatment for the minor child.

And that “statist notion,” the Parham Court declared, “is repugnant to American [legal] tradition.”

Children and families should be protected from discrimination, even if a child identifies as a gender minority. Parents, not the government, know and value what is best for their child.

Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

National Outrage Over Biden Title IX Plan


Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335


National Outrage Over Biden Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / February 28, 2024 – America is witnessing a seismic shift in popular views about President Biden’s Title IX plan to expand the definition of sex to include “gender identity.” (1) Such a change would impose dramatic changes on women’s sports, gender transitioning, parental rights, free speech, due process, and more (2).

The following events took place during a five-day period in mid-February, revealing a historic shift in the national mood:

  1. February 13: St. Louis Park Schools in blue-state Minneapolis agreed to allow six Somali-American families to opt out of instruction that featured “LGBTQ-affirming” books (3).
  2. February 14: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis boldly announced, “The Biden Administration is plunging ahead with a radical re-write of Title IX, seeking to impose gender ideology on K-12 schools all across the country….In Florida, we will not abide by it.” (4)
  3. February 17: Democrat-turned-Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced, “I don’t think somebody who is born a biological male should be competing in consequential women’s sports.” (5)

The issue that has generated the strongest public reaction is women’s sports, which are now imperiled by policies that allow biological males to compete against women.

In early February, Collegiate Charter School in Massachusetts played a basketball game against the KIPP Academy. The KIPP team had a member who was a 6-foot tall, biological male who identified as female. During the first half of the game, the male injured three of the Collegiate players, depleting the team’s roster and forcing the coach to forfeit the competition (6).

The incident went viral on social media and sparked public outrage. Retired University of North Carolina coach Sylvia Hatchell charged, “I don’t care if you had an operation or took hormones or what. Having to play against a transgender is not fair and it’s not equal.” (7)

The Collegiate Charter School incident was not the first time that a female was injured under similar circumstances.

Last November, a field hockey player for Dighton-Rehoboth Regional High School in Massachusetts had her teeth knocked out and suffered facial injuries when a Swampscott High School male player who identifies as a female hit the ball directly at her face.

In North Carolina, volleyball player Payton NcNabb suffered head and neck injuries and a concussion after a transgender player spiked the ball at her.

After USA Boxing announced it was going to admit biological males to compete against biological women, attorney Jenna Ellis accused the organization of wanting to “get women killed.” (8)  Rep. Lauren Bobert (R-Colo.) denounced the scheme as “pathetic and disgusting.”

Numerous opinion polls show a strong majority of Americans opposes the Biden Gender Agenda (9). SAVE urges persons to submit testimony to the federal Office of Management and Budget to record their strong opposition to the new Title IX regulation.

Instructions how to schedule the testimony are available online:



Paternity Fraud Continues to be a Devastating Problem for Some, But Progress is Being Made

Paternity Fraud Continues to be a Devastating Problem for Some, But Progress is Being Made


February 19, 2024. Updated on February 26, 2024

Paternity fraud refers to the misattribution by a mother of the identity of the child’s father. Paternity fraud is a big problem in the United States. Some studies estimate that as many as 30% of births are attributed to the wrong father, who is forced to pay years of child support for a child who is not his.

This case reveals the extent to which some women will go to get child support:

Bachelor Paternity Case in Court! Clayton Echard Wins Big.

Echard has maintained over the last nine months that Owens was never pregnant and that the entire lawsuit was based on fraud. Legal filings allege that Owens wore a fake pregnancy belly, provided Echard with faked sonograms, went to the media to ruin Echard’s reputation, refused discovery, and would not allow Echard to speak to her alleged doctors. Further investigation into the case found that Owens had taken at least two other men to court with similar allegations in the past.

Owens tried to have the case against Echard dismissed in January when she filed a motion claiming she was “no longer pregnant,” hoping the entire thing would get scrapped. Echard’s attorneys filed a motion to continue the court process to prove that the allegations she made were in bad faith and based on lies.

Effects on the Child

Paternity fraud is not only harmful to the father; it also causes psychological trauma to the child when they discover they are the victims of paternity fraud.

This 2018 story from The Atlantic reveals how DNA ancestry companies train their staff to help clients deal with the trauma of discovering their fathers weren’t who they thought.


“Each person comes into our group thinking they are a freak.”

It was Ancestry DNA’s customer-service rep who had to break the news to Catherine St Clair.

For her part, St Clair thought she was inquiring about a technical glitch. Her brother—the brother who along with three other siblings had gifted her the DNA test for her birthday—wasn’t showing up right in her family tree. It was not a glitch, the woman on the line had to explain gently, if this news can ever land gently: The man St Clair thought of as her brother only shared enough DNA with her to be a half-sibling. In fact, she didn’t match any family members on her father’s side. Her biological father must be someone else.

And a more recent article from El Pais:

Who is my father? The psychological impact of at-home DNA tests

At a time in which paternity is diffuse and expansive, science provides the ultimate certainty. But can you handle it?

El Pais, Dec. 29, 2023

Never before in history has it been so easy to confirm paternity, nor to discover discrepancies, with such certainty. In 2018, the DNA NPE Friends Facebook community established a non-profit support group. At the beginning of 2023 there were approximately 8,900 people registered. A qualitative study published in 2021 by Michele Grethel and collaborators from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles (UCLA), reports the impact on the identity of 27 participants between 40 and 70 years old, with a mean age of 50 years, who discovered an unexpected paternity as a result of an at-home DNA test. None of them were indifferent, or optimistic, about the discovery.

These children revealed feelings of shock, denial, anger, fear, confusion and isolation. Their extreme emotional reactions and bodily sensations — feeling frozen, dazed, overwhelmed — were common. Many tried to track down their newly discovered relatives, describing the process as an emotional roller coaster.

Misattributed paternity (which is one of several euphemisms for paternity fraud) can have serious medical consequences. Medicine is becoming increasingly personalized and tailored to patients’ genetic backgrounds. These therapies are less effective – or sometimes even counterproductive – if patients don’t have an accurate picture of their ancestry.

As a result, the medical profession is beginning to address the paternity fraud problem:

An old problem in a new age: Revisiting the clinical dilemma of misattributed paternity

Clinical genetics has wrestled with the problem of misattributed paternity for decades. While there are no clear directives on policy, surveys suggest that genetics professionals are inclined to avoid disclosure when possible. Changes associated with the increased use of genomic testing will alter the context and may limit the benefits of non-disclosure. Multi-site testing will preclude the uncertainty often associated with single-gene testing. Increased use of genetic testing in clinical and non-clinical settings will create new opportunities for the subsequent unmasking of misattributed relationships, as will the presence of test results in the electronic medical record. Family health history information will become more valuable as it is used more often and to better effect in risk assessment, diagnosis, treatment and reproductive decision-making. These changes associated with genomic testing increase the risks and decrease the benefits associated with the nondisclosure of misattributed paternity. For ethical and practical reasons, genetics professionals, and those who advise them, should consider a greater emphasis on the value of carefully planned disclosure.

Legislative Response

Lay people, and even lawyers, are often shocked when they read about the cavalier way in which American law treats paternity fraud. In a nutshell, a society that is focused solely on reproductive freedom for women turns a blind eye to reproductive freedom for men. Needless to say, this is an egregious equal protection violation.

Fortunately, many states are starting to address the problem of paternity fraud. Tennessee has been a leader in this regard. In 2022, Tennessee enacted a new law that criminalizes paternity fraud. Under the new law, a person commits “parentage fraud” if the person:

(1)   Seeks to legally establish the individual as the biological parent of a child in the person’s custody with intent to deprive the individual of property or to prevent the child’s actual biological parent from exercising parental rights to the child and the person knows or reasonably should know that the individual is not the child’s biological parent; or

(2)   Seeks to be legally established as a child’s parent based on the person’s status as a biological parent of the child and the person knows or reasonably should know that the person is not the child’s biological parent.

“Parentage fraud” is a Class A misdemeanor. The new law passed the Tennessee legislature by overwhelming margins. This article explains more about the Tennessee law:

New proposed bill will protect Tennessee’s parents from paternity fraud | Opinion

Rep. Antonio Parkinson’s proposed bill will insure that the actual biological father is listed on the birth certificate of the child.

Recently I was approached by a young man who told me he had been in a long-term relationship. Together they had a son and he signed the voluntary acknowledgement of paternity (VAP). They were not married.

Five years later, he found out the mother had been unfaithful during the time they were together. He and the child took a DNA test. The results proved that he was not the father. Subsequently, the relationship ended. The woman then sued him for child support.

In Juvenile Court, he presented the DNA evidence to the magistrate and was basically told, “somebody’s got to feed him and it will be you.” He was ordered to pay child support and found in arrears. Eventually his license was suspended and he was pulled over and jailed for driving on a suspended license.

Sitting in jail, he lost his job.

Because he voluntarily signed and it had passed a 5-year period to rescind the voluntary acknowledgment, he was deemed the legal parent. Through this process, the actual, biological parent’s child was stolen from him.

Finally, under this scenario, the child’s right to have their legal biological father listed on their birth certificate and in some cases, their lives, was stolen from them also.

The year before, Tennessee enacted a law that removes the five-year statute of limitations for challenging a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity on the grounds of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact.

About 10 states now allow recovery for paternity fraud. while another eight do not. The recent trend is toward allowing recovery. Here are states that allow recovery for paternity fraud:

DiMichele v. Perrella, 51 Conn. L. Rptr. 750 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011); Koelle v. Zwiren, 672 N.E.2d 868 (Ill. App. Ct.. 1996); Dier v. Peters, 815 N.W.2d I (Iowa 2012); Denzik v. Denzik, 197 S.W.3d 108 (Ky. 2006); Mansfield v. Neff, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 616 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2014); G.A.W., III v. D.M.W., 596 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999); R.A.C. v. P.J.S., Jr., 927 A.2d 97 (N.J. 2007); Miller v. Miller, 956 P.2d 887 (Ok. 1998); Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012); Masters v. Worsley, 777 P.2d 499 (Utah Ct. App. 1989).

Here are states that do not allow recovery for paternity fraud:

Coulson v. Steiner, 2015 WL 10013667 (D. Alaska 2015); Nagy v. Nagy, 210 Cal.App.3d 1262 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989); Steve H. v. Wendy S., 960 P.2d 510, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 90 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998); Grand v. Hope, 617 S.E.2d 593 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005); Doe v. Doe, 747 A.2d 617 (Md. 2000); Renel v. Fortuna, 2014 WL 4628811 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014); Day v. Heller, 653 N.W.2d 475 (Neb. 2002); Hevey v. Hundley, 2013 WL 5782924 (Tex. App. 2013); Koestler v. Pollard, 471 N.W.2d 7 (Wis. 1991); St. Hilaire v. DeBlois, 721 A.2d 133 (Vt. 1998).

Judicial Response

In 2011, a case titled Hodge v. Craig, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a man could sue his ex-wife for paternity fraud. “We have determined that the existing common law action for intentional misrepresentation encompasses the claims made in this case by the former husband and that the trial court’s damage award based on the former husband’s post-divorce payments for child support, medical expenses, and insurance premiums is not an improper retroactive modification of the former husband’s child support obligation.”  (At least nine other states, including Iowa, similarly allow recovery for paternity fraud.)

Developments in Nebraska

The Nebraska Supreme Court has persistently enabled paternity fraud.  That is obviously bad policy from a legal perspective – courts shouldn’t tolerate any kind of fraud.  As the Iowa Supreme Court noted when it rejected the Nebraska Supreme Court’s hands-off approach to paternity fraud, “We recognize fraud as a cause of action partly to deter lying. One good reason to allow fraud claims to go forward in the area of paternity fraud is to avoid the situation that has allegedly arisen here.” In a long line of cases, the Nebraska Supreme Court has consistently enabled paternity fraud.

In March, 2022 for example, the Nebraska Supreme Court held in a split 4-3 decision that a man who DNA testing had already shown to be the father of two new-born children did not have standing to establish legal rights to his children.  The opinion, written by Chief Justice Michael Heavican, used a tortured application of the standing doctrine to reverse a trial decision and prevent the biological father from asserting rights to his own children.  Under the court’s interpretation, it’s unclear how a biological father could ever assert legal rights to a child in this situation. The dissent summarizes the problem in a single sentence:  “[t]he majority concludes that our statutory presumption of legitimacy as applied to children born in a marriage is rebuttable and, yet, operates to preclude interested parties from rebutting it.”  Chaterjee v. Chaterjee, 313 Neb. 710 (2023).

In a 2014 case, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that a man who was falsely told he was the father of a child had to pay child support to the biological father.  State ex rel. B.M. v. Brian F.,  288 Neb. 106 (2014).  See also “Man who isn’t biological dad responsible for child support, court finds,” Lincoln Journal Star (May 16, 2014), available at

In a 2002 case, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that a man who was falsely told he was the father of a child could not bring a claim for damages against a biological mother based on paternity fraud because it was “contrary to public policy.”  Day v. Heller, 264 Neb. 934 (2002).  Paternity fraud appears to be the only fraud for which the Nebraska Supreme Court refuses to provide a remedy.

It’s worth noting that subsequent courts that considered the Nebraska Supreme Court holding in Day have rejected its reasoning.  In the 2012 case of Dier v. Peters, for example, the Iowa Supreme Court extensively discussed the earlier Nebraska decision but was “not persuaded.”  As the Iowa court noted:

Also, we need to consider the public policy implications of an opposite ruling. We recognize fraud as a cause of action partly to deter lying. One good reason to allow fraud claims to go forward in the area of paternity fraud is to avoid the situation that has allegedly arisen here. We have emphasized that “public policy” is not predicated on this court’s “generalized concepts of fairness and justice.”

Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Gender Identity Legal Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Sounding the Alarm: Call for Americans to Oppose Biden Title IX Plan!


Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335


Sounding the Alarm: Call for Americans to Oppose Biden Title IX Plan!

WASHINGTON / February 20, 2024 – A new poll of 1,600 persons reveals a majority of registered voters across the political spectrum now support state laws that would require children to wait until age 18 before they can receive transgender treatments: Republicans: 73%; Independents: 71%; and Democrats: 61%. (1)

The controversy came to light last week in New Hampshire where a new record was set in the girls’ high jump competition. Maelle Jacques succeeded in jumping 5’1”, breaking the previous female record by a full inch (2). But the athletic accomplishment was overshadowed by the fact that Jacques is a biological male who now identifies as transgender.

Similar reports have become commonplace for a range of concerns related to Title IX, the federal sex discrimination law: Due process for falsely accused male students (3), gender transitioning of underage minors (4), pronoun mandates (5), campus free speech (6), and more.

The uproar springs from a controversial 2022 Department of Education proposal to change the definition of sex to include “gender identity” (7). The Title IX plan has faced strong opposition across the country:

  • Numerous attorneys general and federal lawmakers issued statements of opposition (8).
  • 25 Republican governors called on the Biden administration to withdraw its proposed changes to Title IX. (9)
  • Nearly 60 political candidates signed a Pledge to “Protect Schools, Children, and Families from the Federal Title IX Plan” (10)

In addition, 23 states have banned gender transitioning among children (11), 10 states outlawed pronoun mandates (12), and 23 states enacted laws to protect women’s sports from transgender athletes (13).

On February 2, the Department of Education forwarded its controversial regulation to the federal Office for Management and Budget for final approval.

SAVE is urging the American public to speak out in strong opposition to the Biden Title IX plan. We invite you to contact the Office for Management and Budget to politely express your concerns. For details how to schedule a meeting, visit:


False Allegations Sexual Assault

We Need New Laws to Punish False Accusers

We Need New Laws to Punish False Accusers

Perses Institute

The law would punish false accusers
with a minimum prison sentence equal
to any jail time served by the victim of
the false accusation. Such a statute might look like this:

18 Stat. § 101: False Accusations of
sexual misconduct.

(a) Any person who makes any
utterance, publication or statement
that states or implies that another
person is guilty of rape or sexual
assault, knowing that the utterance,
publication or statement is false, or,
having reason to know that the
utterance, publication or statement is
false, shall be guilty of a Felony.

(b)  This offense shall be charged as “False sexual reporting.”

(c) There shall be no immunity or
privileges asserted in response to a
charge under subsection (b).

(d) Any person who violates the
provisions of subsection (a) shall
serve a term in prison not less than
any amount of time, including pre
trial confinement that any falsely
accused served as a result of the false

(e) Any person who violates the
provisions of subsections (a) or (b)
shall be strictly liable for any
damages the falsely accused victim
incurs as a result of the false
utterance, publication or statement.

(f) Any court entering judgment
against a false accuser under this
provision shall award full restitution
to any falsely accused, including
restitution or damages that arise or
become known after any hearing on
restitution. A victim of a false
accusation of rape or sexual assault
may re-open the issue of restitution in
any criminal proceeding under this
provision, at any time, to seek
additional compensation for
restitution of damages or injuries.

(g) There shall be no statute of
limitations for any charge brought
under this provision.

(h) Any person who violates the
provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of
this provision shall be required to
register as a sex offender under any
applicable state or federal laws.

(i) Punishment under this provision
shall be the minimum prison sentence
as specified in subsection (d) up to
and including twenty-five years in
prison, plus a fine of up to $500,000
or both.

Gender Agenda Gender Identity Media Press Release Sex Education Title IX

Public Opposition Mounts As Media Accounts Spotlight Transgender Tragedies


Contact: Rebecca Hain

Telephone: 513-479-3335


Public Opposition Mounts As Media Accounts Spotlight Transgender Tragedies

February 14, 2024 – Abandoned by her birth-mother at an early age, Jennifer Kolstad had experienced a variety of mental health problems. After she began to identify as a boy at age 13, her parents cautioned that she was too young to make such a life-altering decision. When her parents refused to approve gender-transitioning procedures, the Montana CPS forcibly removed her from the family home (1).

Most Americans favor laws that protect adult transgender persons from discriminatory policies in jobs and housing (2). But driven by federal policy (3), transgender “horror-stories” such as the Montana case are serving to bolster public opposition to these practices.

A 2021 Gallup poll found that 62% of Americans believed that transgender athletes should be allowed to play only on teams that matched their birth sex. When the same poll was repeated in 2023, the percentage of Americans supporting such bans had increased to 69%. (4)

Five other national surveys conducted in 2023 reveal consistent opposition to transgender policies:

Deseret News/HarrisX (5): 55% of respondents support banning gender hormone therapy on minors, and 61% want to prohibit surgical interventions to change a child’s sex.

Summit Ministries (6): 77% of voters believe that allowing males who identify as female to compete against biological women in college female sports has been harmful to women’s sports.

CRC Research and Parents Defending Education (7): 74% of registered voters believe that schools should not be allowed to help students change their gender identity without parental consent.

Scripps News/You Gov (8):

  • 54% of Americans support a federal ban on transgender females competing in school athletics.
  • 44% say they want “laws that would restrict and, or ban transgender care for minors, even with parents’ consent,” while 34% oppose such measures.

KFF/Washington Post (9):

  • 57% of American adults believe a person’s gender is based on their biological sex at birth.
  • 67% do not think that biological males should be allowed to compete in women’s sports competitions at the high school level.
  • 65% don’t believe that biological males should be allowed to compete in women’s athletics in college or professionally.
  • 77% of American adults believe it is inappropriate for teachers to discuss their transgender identities with students in kindergarten to third grade.

Since 2022, 15 national polls have been conducted on a variety of transgender-related issues, revealing a national consensus against so-called “gender affirming” policies for children and youth (10).  Lawmakers who support such policies are likely to face a negative response from voters during the upcoming November elections.


Gender Agenda Gender Identity Title IX

Public Opinion Polls Reveal Growing Public Opposition to Policies Driven by ‘Gender Agenda’


Public Opinion Polls Reveal Growing Public Opposition to Policies Driven by ‘Gender Agenda’


February 12, 2024. Updated in February and June, 2024.

Fifteen national polls were conducted in 2022 and 2023 to gauge public opinion about a variety of Gender Agenda issues, including parental rights, women’s sports, classroom instruction, and gender transitioning among underage children and youth.

Two polls were conducted in January, 2024:

  • A poll of 1,600 registered voters revealed a majority of persons across the political spectrum now support state laws that would require children to wait until age 18 before they can receive transgender treatments: Republicans: 73%; Independents: 71%; and Democrats: 61%.
  • A NORC poll asked 1,624 adults to weigh in on whether trans athletes of both sexes should be permitted to participate in sports leagues that correspond to their preferred gender identity instead of their biological sex. Two-thirds of the respondents said it should be permitted “never” or “in rare cases.”

All of the polls were representative of the US population.

2022 Polls

May 31 – Survey: Voters Overwhelmingly Support Parents’ Rights

  • Topics addressed: Parental Rights
  • Sample size: 1.002 people
  • Name of poll sponsor:  Parental Rights Foundation and the Heart and Mind Strategies

June 2 – 50th Anniversary of Title IX, June 2022 – Majority of Americans and Sports Fans Think Title IX Has Been A Net Positive

  • Topics addressed: Title IX and Women’s Sports
  • Sample size: 1,121 National Adults
  • Name of poll sponsor: Marist Center for Sports Communication – Marist National Poll

June 6 — 63% of Americans Oppose Expanding Definition of Sex to Include ‘Gender Identity’

  • Topics addressed: Definition of Sex, Women’s Sports, Parental Consent, Parental Opt-Out
  • Sample size: 2,566 adults
  • Name of poll sponsor – SAVE

June 16 – Poll Says 30% of Americans Believe Transgender Women Should Play Female Sports

  • Topics addressed: Women’s Sports
  • Sample size: 1,503 people
  • Name of poll sponsor – Washington Post and University of Maryland

June 28 – Americans’ Complex Views on Gender Identity and Transgender Issues

  • Topics addressed: Gender Transition, Parental Rights
  • Sample size: 10,188 U.S. adults
  • Name of poll sponsor: Pew Research Center Survey

June 29 – Americans are deeply divided on transgender rights, a poll shows

  • Topics addressed: Women’s Sports/Gender Transitioning
  • Sample size:1,028 Adults 18+
  • Name of poll sponsor: NPR-Ipsos Poll

July 27 – Parents Defending Education Poll: 62% of voters think gender identity activists “going too far”

  • Topics addressed: Gender Identity, Women’s Sports
  • Sample size: 1,010 adults
  • Name of poll sponsor: Parents Defending Education

September 15: How Americans view policy proposals on transgender and gender identity issues, and where such policies exist

  • Topics addressed: Women’s Sports, Gender Transition
  • Sample size: 10,188 adults
  • Name of poll sponsor: Pew Research Center

2023 Polls

January 18 – Transgender Issues in Schools and States: New Poll Shows How Americans Feel

  • Topics addressed: Gender Transitioning/Gender Identity, Issue taught in public schools
  • Sample size: 1,828 people
  • Name of poll sponsor: Deseret News/HarrisX poll

March 6 – Poll: Nearly 80 Percent Say Women’s Sports Harmed by Allowing Transgender Competitors

  • Topics addressed: Women’s Sports
  • Sample size: 1,000 likely voters
  • Name of poll sponsor: Summit Ministries in partnership with McLaughlin and Associates

March 21 – Poll Says 30% of Americans Believe Transgender Women Should Play Female Sports

  • Topics addressed: Parental Rights, Gender Transitioning
  • Sample size: 1,600 registered voters
  • Name of poll sponsor: CRC Research and Parents Defending Education

May 3 – Scripps News poll: Americans largely support restricting trans rights

  • Topics addressed: Parental Rights, Women’s Sports and Gender Transitioning
  • Sample size: 1,000 adults
  • Name of poll sponsor: Scripps News/YouGov poll

May 5 – Majority of Americans believe gender determined at birth, against biological males in women’s sports: Poll

June 12 – More Say Birth Gender Should Dictate Sports Participation

  • Topics addressed: Transgender Sports
  • Sample size: 1,011 adults
  • Name of poll sponsor: Gallup Poll



Parental Alienation

The Real Crisis of Parental Alienation and the Ongoing Defensive Tactics of Disinformation by Self-Promoting Deniers

The Real Crisis of Parental Alienation and the Ongoing Defensive Tactics of Disinformation by Self-Promoting Deniers

Christine Giancarlo, Ph.D.
February 6, 2024

On January 11, 2024, Reem Alsalem, the appointed UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls, hosted a webinar titled: UN Special Report on Parental Alienation and Implications for Canada. She was joined by four panelists, all of whom represent various organizations seeking to eradicate violence against females. This is a worthy pursuit and a goal fully supported by all experts of parental alienation (PA). However:

– the topic of this webinar was parental alienation, not violence against women and girls.
– Alsalem has no research or other expertise in parental alienation that I am aware of
– there were no parental alienation experts on the panel.
– though violence is perpetrated almost equally by women as men in Canada and the United States, there were no violence against males group panelists.

Consistent with their familiar false narrative, Alsalem and her panelists reinforced the myth that parental alienation allegations are made by abusive fathers/partners seeking to escape prosecution. The peer-reviewed, scholarly and abundant parental alienation literature concludes otherwise.

Harman, Giancarlo, Lorandos & Ludmer’s (2023) Gender and Child Custody Outcomes Across 16 Years of Judicial Decisions Regarding Abuse and Parental Alienation, Children and Youth Services Review,
analyzed 500 Canadian trial level cases and found:

– only 10.9% of the 654 [abuse] allegations levied against alienated parents were founded or substantiated…this means that 90% of abuse allegations in cases of parental alienation were determined to be false or otherwise unsubstantiated.
– 25 “abusive” alienated parents were mothers and 10 were fathers, so the presumption that “abusive” alienated parents are mostly fathers is not reflected in these data… the base rate for these types of cases was very low (7.0%). Harman & Lorandos (2021) also found a low base rate of 7.9% using 967 U.S. appellate cases, so the two combined studies raise questions about how Meier et al. (2019), a prominent group of PA deniers, selected their cases, and how they obtained a large enough sample to statistically test their hypothesis.
– while Meier et al. (2019) reported that mothers’ allegations of abuse are discredited more often than fathers’ allegations of abuse, neither Harman and Lorandos (2021) nor this data-set could replicate or substantiate that claim
– replication studies have not found support for Meier et al.’s (2019) argument that their data indicate there is “widespread gender bias in courts’ handling of…abuse claims” (p. 26).

Books such as Gender and Domestic Violence: Contemporary Legal Practice and Intervention Reforms, edited by Russell & Hamel (2022), Oxford., clearly indicate that although there has been progress, arrest and intervention policies continue to reflect the gender paradigm, framing domestic violence in terms of male perpetrators and female victims. The book includes scholarly research spanning more than thirty years, highlighting the dire need for criminal justice reform.

And the book, Parental Alienation -Science and Law, edited by Lorandos & Bernet (2020), Carles C. Thomas Pub., , details the scientific basis for testimony and legal decisions relating to parental alienation. Contributors to this book are mental health and legal experts.

These authors are not advocates; they are scientists. They do not engage in confirmation biases to cherry-pick their “conclusions” but instead rely exclusively on scientific methodology.

Alsalem was wrongfully appointed to report on a subject area in which she lacks professional and scientific competency. More recently, on January 23, 2024, Dr. Suzanne Zaccour, a self-described “feminist researcher and speaker”, sexual assault lawyer and Director of Legal Affairs at the National Association of Women and the Law, said in a press conference that the “victims of family violence (i.e., women) are being disbelieved, silenced, and punished based on the sexist
and unscientific theory of parental alienation”.

Zaccour wrote a chapter in a book edited by two well-known parental alienation deniers, Mercer & Drew (2021), titled Parental alienation concepts and the law, an international perspective. This chapter, and in fact the book’s overarching theme, reflects not only the tired gender paradigm as false narrative but is a dangerous call for men and fathers to be assumed abusers and/or disposable. Zaccour and her colleagues openly dismiss the importance of fathers, especially as equal parents in their child’s life.

Dr. Jennifer Harman subsequently presented a response to Mercer & Drew’s book, Jennifer Harman -Ideology and Threats to Evidence-Based Decision-Making Regarding Families (2023) and called out Zaccour’s dangerous incompetency in the subject area of parental alienation.
The following is a snapshot of Zaccour’s chapter (her words in italics):

p. 194:
– criticizes the shared parenting paradigm for its statement that each parent is equally important and responsible for the child.
– calls PA a “belief system supported by a minority of people and not supported by scientific evidence”.
-then says that “this belief system has benefited from the empirically dubious idea that fathers’ involvement should be increased and that children benefit from frequent and regular contact with both parents”.
-says fathers’ rights groups have adopted the “PA vocabulary” and “managed to convey in popular discourse the myth that fathers are the underdogs in custody litigation and that this is a grave injustice to be redressed”.
– and “people’s desire to make the world a simpler place is what leads to this reasoning (i.e., that a shared parenting paradigm is valid); science is not so definitive”.

-p. 195-196:
“as the social science literature concludes” -there is no explanation of what literature Zaccouris referring to.
-says children do not do better in shared custody than in sole custody and some children, those in high-conflict situations fare worse, “in other words, courts are preventing children from seeing their mothers under the pretext that children need both parents”.

*Of note, both Zaccour and Joan Meier have not, to date, responded when asked by a real parental alienation expert (i.e., and psychiatrist) to provide the “social science literature” which they claim exists, nor provided Meier et al.’s (2019) “study” dataset and statistical model.

Other authors who contributed to Mercer & Drew’s (2021) edited book were Doughty and Drew, both lawyers and advocates for eradication of violence against women. They claim on p. 26 that parental alienation researchers use a strategy called “nefarious intent”, meaning these true PA scientists must have some wicked intent to cause harm. Doughty and Drew even claim that PA researchers appropriated Cold War language about brainwashing and mind-control to enliven Gardner’s (an early PA researcher) idea that some mothers induced false memories and beliefs in their children. *Of note, in reality, science has NO intent but to pursue truth. And children ARE highly suggestible, similar to cult indoctrination effects and Stockholm syndrome.

The editors Mercer and Drew (p. 14) claim that parental alienation researchers often assign sinister intentions to mothers, thus discrediting the mother before she can have the opportunity to fully present her case to the court.

And Meier’s chapter states that no one should question why a mother is using alienating behaviors to undermine a child’s relationship with its father. A mother must have a good reason for doing so as mothers only act in self defense and to protect their child.

*Of note, in a blatant double standard, Meier holds that a father can be assumed to be abusive if a mother has engaged in alienating him from their child.

Below are current rigorous reviews and a citation analysis of misinformation and disinformation about parental alienation:

1. A comprehensive review of misinformation and other inaccuracies in Challenging Parental Alienation (the Mercer Drew book above)
-2023 PASG and GARI-PA (Global Action for Research Integrity in Parental Alienation)
2. Exposing Misinformation and Public Policy Deception contained in Child Safety First: Preventing
Child Homicides during Divorce, Separation & Child Custody Disputes -Recommendations for Reforming
U.S. Family Courts -2023 PASG & GARI-PA
3. Scholarly rumors: Citation analysis of vast misinformation regarding parental alienation theory (2022). Bernet & Xu. -peer reviewed paper

Parental alienation is ubiquitous and deadly; its consequences are observed by teachers, professors, and mental health and legal experts on a daily basis. Children carry their trauma, guilt, and insecurities into adulthood, believing that their alienated parent did not love them. Or that the rejected parent was dangerous, incapable and/or unlovable. In my own experience over 32 years of university teaching, I have frequently heard from students still suffering from their undeserved and unnecessary fractured relationship with a parent. Children do not “grow out of it” (i.e., PA), nor do they usually reunite with that lost parent. Instead, they have lost 50% of themselves for much or all of their lives. Children DO need both parents; parents who are mentally healthy and safe. Parental alienators are child and former partner abusers; they engage in family violence and both fathers and mothers can be perpetrators, or victims.

On behalf of science, integrity and the urgent necessity to eradicate the massive social crisis of parental alienation, I urge the retraction of published fraudulent “research”, pseudo-scientific claims, media platforms that promote ignorance and damage, and false credentials by pretend experts.


UN Women Has 170 Twitter Accounts With Millions of Followers

UN Women Has 170 Twitter Accounts With Millions of Followers

Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance

February 6, 2024

UN Women is the largest and most powerful feminist organization in the world. UN Women currently has 170 Twitter accounts with millions of followers, mostly females. Many of the accounts are country-specific. Others focus on certain languages (eg, Arabic), regions (eg, the Pacific), cities (eg, Los Angeles), or groups (eg, youth).

Following is a listing of these accounts and the number of followers for each:

UN Women
@UN_Women 2.2M Followers
UN Women India
@unwomenindia 578.8K Followers
UN Women Arabic
@unwomenarabic 43.7K Followers
UN Women Watch
@UNWomenWatch 149.6K Followers
UN Women Pakistan
@unwomen_pak 42.3K Followers
UN Women Afghanistan
@unwomenafghan 20.3K Followers
UN Women Africa
@unwomenafrica 88.8K Followers
UN Women Jordan
@unwomenjordan 16.8K Followers
UN Women Europe & CIS
@unwomeneca 24.4K Followers
UN Women AsiaPacific
@unwomenasia 59K Followers
UN Women Ethiopia
@unwomenethiopia 5,395 Followers
UN Women Malawi
@unwomenmalawi 4,060 Followers
UN Women in Brussels
@unwomenEU 16K Followers
UN Women with Youth
@UNWOMEN4Youth 33.6K Followers
UN Women in UAE
@unwomenuae 6,370 Followers
UN Women Egypt
@unwomenegypt 5,762 Followers
UN Women Pacific
@unwomenpacific 14.3K Followers
UN Women Rwanda
@unwomenrwanda 6,069 Followers
UN Women Lebanon
@unwomenlebanon 7,387 Followers
UN Women Albania
@unwomenalbania 4,380 Followers
UN Women Uganda
@unwomenuganda 30.4K Followers
UN Women UK
@UNWomenUK 27.3K Followers
UNI Women’s Hoops
@UNIwbb 6,232 Followers
UN Women Türkiye
@unwomenturkiye 9,792 Followers
UN Women Australia
@UNWomenAust 27.2K Followers
UN Women Kosovo
@unwomenkosovo 2,058 Followers
UN Women Nepal
@unwomennepal 8,478 Followers
UN Women Kenya
@unwomenkenya 7,484 Followers
UN Women Nordic
@unwomennordic 3,446 Followers
UN Women Zimbabwe
@unwomenzw 7,694 Followers
UN Women Indonesia
@unwomenid 3,527 Followers
UN Women South Africa
@unwomenSA 4,482 Followers
UN Women Ukraine
@unwomenukraine 2,514 Followers
UN Women Moldova
@unwomenmoldova 2,617 Followers
UN Women BiH
@unwomenbih 2,963 Followers
UN Women Myanmar
@unwomenmyanmar 3,498 Followers
UN Women Yemen
@unwomenyemen 4,252 Followers
UN Women Liberia
@unwomenliberia 4,127 Followers
UN Women Sweden
@UNWOMENSweden 2,622 Followers
Susanne Mikhail Eldhagen
@SusanneUNWomen 897 Followers
UN Women Nigeria
@unwomenNG 17.3K Followers
UN Women Somalia
@UNWomen_Somalia 1,366 Followers
UN Women South Sudan
@unwomenssudan 1,013 Followers
UN Women Sierra Leone
@UNWOMEN_SL 712 Followers
UN Women Tanzania
@unwomentanzania 1,544 Followers
UN Women Timor-Leste
@unwomenTL 1,481 Followers
Women’s Empowerment Principles
@WEPrinciples 12K Followers
UN Women Liaison Office to AU & UNECA
@unwomenAU 1,003 Followers
UN Women Viet Nam
@unwomenvietnam 2,041 Followers
UN-Women Executive Board
@unwomenboard 427 Followers
UN Women Geneva
@unwomengeneva 629 Followers
UN Women Iraq
@unwomeniraq 2,425 Followers
UN Women Sri Lanka
@unwomenSriLanka 1,266 Followers
UN Women China
@unwomenchina 201 Followers
UN Women Libya
@unwomenlibya 2,353 Followers
UN Women Deutschland
@UNWomen_Germany 6,902 Followers
UN Women USA Los Angeles
@UNWomenLA 2,583 Followers
UN Women IES
@unwomenEval 5,108 Followers
UN Women Niger
@unwomenNiger 656 Followers
UN Women Palestine
@unwomenpal 177 Followers
UN Women Japan
@unwomenjapan 8,339 Followers
UN Women Papua New Guinea
@unwomenPNG 866 Followers
UN Women Georgia
@unwomengeorgia 184 Followers
UN Women USA Miami
@UNWomenMiami 160 Followers
UN Women USA LA Youth
@UNwomenLAintern 123 Followers
USNC for UN Women UT
@USNC_UNWomenUT 149 Followers
UN Women USA SFBA Chapter
@UN_Women_SF 717 Followers
United Nations Women Aotearoa NZ
@UNWomenNZ 651 Followers
UN Women Ísland
@unwomeniceland 1,493 Followers
UN Women for Peace
@unwfpa 1,657 Followers
UN Women USA Gulf Coast
@unwomengulfcst 75 Followers
UN Women CentralAsia
@unwomenctrlasia 2,465 Followers
UNWomen NC
@UNWomenNC 191 Followers
UN Women Canada
@CCUNIFEM 904 Followers
UN Women Burundi
@UNWomenBurundi 2,602 Followers
UN Women CN Italia
@UNWomenCNItalia 530 Followers
Young UN Women ADL
@YoungUNWomenADL 234 Followers
UN Women Mozambique
@UNWMozambique 122 Followers
UN Women Brisbane
@UNWomenBrisbane 90 Followers
UN Women Stockholm
@UNwomensthlm 663 Followers
UN Women
@UNWomen_US 37 Followers
UN Women Youth Team
@unwyouthteam 43 Followers
@unwomenfiu 98 Followers
UN Women Nederland
@UNWomen_NL 1,825 Followers
UN Women Philly
@Philly_UNWomen 8 Followers