Oregon House of Representatives passed a bill that would criminalize making false accusations against a parent of child abuse   13 comments

As of May 2011 the Oregon House of Representatives passed a bill that would criminalize making false accusations against a parent of committing child abuse (known to be false) punishable by a fine of up to $720. Does anyone know whether the bill passed in the Oregon state Senate and was signed by the governor? http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2011/05/19/oregon-house-passes-bill-making-false-allegations-of-child-abuse-a-crime/ 

Advertisements

13 responses to “Oregon House of Representatives passed a bill that would criminalize making false accusations against a parent of child abuse

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Last I knew this went nowhere, but don’t quote me on that.
    If I remember correctly this was in response to legislation that required shared parenting to be the family law standard which led to an increase in false abuse claims by mothers as a counter. A study posted up by the same source as your link showed that increase.
    Even so, this legislation is mostly feel good nothingness. Lying to the court (perjury) is already illegal, so is false accusations and entering false testimony into the court record. Courts didn’t enforce these laws regarding fase accusations before, I don’t see why it would after.

  2. Thank you Shawn. Unfortunately, courts regularly do not enforce egregious violations even of court orders in cases of parental alienation and false accusations

  3. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=820104 ,”Bargaining in the Shadow of Joint Parenting”, the study I mentioned. That is the cover sheet with a download link for the full pdf below.

    To answer your original question it looks like HB 2183 did get signed into law. Color me surprised. http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2011/HB2183/ , “Jul 6, 2011: Governor signed, Chapter 606, (2011 Laws): Effective date January 1, 2012.”

  4. Thank you again, Shawn
    On August 11, 2013, I posted the following:
    As of May 2011 the Oregon House of Representatives passed a bill that would criminalize making false accusations against a parent of committing child abuse (known to be false) punishable by a fine of up to $720. Does anyone knew whether the bill passed in the Oregon state Senate and was signed by the governor?

    Eventually, on September 5, 2013 Shawn West came up with the answer: The Oregon bill did get signed into law: http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2011/HB2183/ , “Jul 6, 2011: Governor signed, Chapter 606, (2011 Laws): Effective date January 1, 2012.”

    Earlier, on, Shawn had responded: If I remember correctly this was in response to legislation that required shared parenting to be the family law standard which led to an increase in false abuse claims by mothers as a counter.

    The Presumption of joint parenting has in fact been law in Oregon since 1997. By presumption is meant that this is the court’s starting point, and that arguments must be made to alter the court’s position. Iowa and Maine have also changed their law and there is legislative activity regarding joint parenting in most states. More than forty states (and the District of Columbia) have class action suits over equal treatment in custody awards.
    Shawn also provided the reference for the Presumption of joint parenting: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=820104 ,”Bargaining in the Shadow of Joint Parenting”,

    However, as Shawn said soberly on August 25:
    Even so, this legislation is mostly feel good nothingness. Lying to the court (perjury) is already illegal, so are false accusations and entering false testimony into the court record. Courts didn’t enforce these laws regarding false accusations before, I don’t see why it would after.

    So, I ask this question: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY COURTS ARE RELUCTANT TO ENFORCE THEIR OWN COURT ORDERS IN DIVORCE AND CUSTODY CASES?

  5. Truly curious or sparking discussion? Either way I will go with the simplest answer, money.

    When a support order is set and placed into effect the state collects matching federal funds of an equal amount. In general, by asking a court to enforce its own orders or to adjust a support order, one is essentially asking the state to defund itself. The amount that courts, DSHS and CPS type agencies depend on that slice of funding varies by state obviously but it is a fairly consistent theme eveywhere.

    Enforcing visitation orders post divorce is related. Right now the excuse mostly used is “best interest of the child”. Since the mother basically always has primary custody, enforcing orders by fines, contempt and jail would by extension hurt the child, so it is in the “best interest” to do nothing. In reality of course repeated offenses, fines and jail time would create a basis for the father to file for primary custody, eliminating the support order, thus the state gets less or no money.

    The same can be said during divorce. Difficult for a judge to give primary custody to a parent who keeps racking up contempt or purjury charges, fines and jail time. Women on average are obligated with smaller support orders, or more often than not no support order at all, meaning less money for states.

    Both of those examples above create big problems if a mother is found unfit in states that do not recognise fathers. If the choice is foster care/adoption for a child to allow enforcement of a court order against the mother, or do nothing, most just do nothing. And in that context, as screwed up as it is, rightly so.

    I think removing the federal matching funds for support amounds would fix many problems. Also, refusing to comply with a visitation order should be a criminal offense, not a civil one. This would move things out of the family courts and into the criminal ones where there is no money motivation to not enforce a court order.

    Right now if you call the police because your ex has basically kidnapped your kid, they will tell you, “Tough luck. Its a civil matter and nothing can be done.” This results in no enforcement because they can’t, not because they don’t want to.

  6. Thank you again, Shawn. You explained that a state collects matching federal funds when a support order is in effect. The following are truly genuine questions:
    1. Orders for a father to pay support seem to be enforced. Are you saying it is in the state’s interest not to enforce support -specifically from a mother – because the mother might not have the means to pay support? Thus are you saying the state might get more money from the federal government by not enforcing support from a mother as opposed to a father?
    2. Although the above issue #1 might make sense, I do not quite understand courts’ seeming reluctance to enforce an order pertaining to a mother even with such an explanation. I was involved in a case in which the mother, a professional woman, earned a far greater income than the father. She did not comply with a court order involving the father’s rights for visitation. The court did not sanction her because, it said, she would lose her license and then not be able to support the children. You suggested that enforcing orders by fines, contempt and jail would create a basis for this father to file for primary custody. So why, if the state would collect matching federal funds, would the court not enforce the visitation order it gave to the mother? Am I mistaken that courts enforce orders against fathers but are reluctant to do so with mothers? If I am correct, my question specifically is why? The issue of federal matching funds would seem to apply in the case of this professional woman who did have the means to pay support. But the court still did not enforce its order against her. Maybe that was just professional courtesy. I don’t know. But I have fathers complaining that courts just favor women. What do you think?

  7. Michael Cohn, Ph.D. wrote the following:
    I think the matching funds causation has merit and is correct – but it is also important to remember that collecting funds is not revenue neutral – it costs money to run a child support enforcement agency, and the state wants this to be a positive cash flow situation.

    Overall, it makes more financial sense to go after fathers, who make up more than 90% of the debtors anyway, (due to the fact that they rarely get custody that amounts to anything and almost always make more money than the women), are more likely to have professional licenses to take (a HUGE point of leverage), and in doing so the child support agency does not incur the wrath of feminist organizations. Moreover, as I pointed out previously, most child support attorneys are women, most of these agencies are run by women, and there is both ideology and tradition at work here.

    The end result is determined by financial, ideological, traditional, and political considerations, and the typical situation is that the man pays the woman, becomes the target of the child support agency if he does not, and gets minimal or no visitation with his children. He is also subject to draconian penalties if he does not comply with support orders, including but not limited to loss of his driver’s license, loss of any professional licenses, garnishment of wages, bank accounts, tax refunds, insurance settelements, and anything else that the child support agency can get it’s hands on.

    In theory, women who are the subject of support orders are subject to all this as well, but it IS NOT ENFORCED unless the man happens to be collecting welfare or the children wind up in foster care, in which case enforcement is likely. If a woman owes the government money, that is the exception to the no-enforcement policy.

    I am sick and tired of having my constitutional rights violated on an ongoing basis, but there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

  8. Michael,
    If, indeed, judges tend to enforce court orders against fathers and not against mothers, it is a very disturbing issue and would appear to violate the constitutional right to equal protection under the law. I would like to hear from attorneys on this.

  9. Actually this is happening with mothers at least in Marion County. I am just such a mom.

  10. Dr. Linet,

    In possible answer to your question,

    “DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY COURTS ARE RELUCTANT TO ENFORCE THEIR OWN COURT ORDERS IN DIVORCE AND CUSTODY CASES?”

    Canadian father’s right speaker and National post columnist Barbara Kay mentions that courses given to the judges by the N.J.I. National Judicial Institute, deal with “social context issues”. I have provided her entire presentation below. This part is addressed at approximately the 21:00 minute mark and thereafter….although the entire video is worth watching.

    She has also written extensively on the topic, including this unforgettable column:

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/01/barbara-kay-women-as-victims-men-as-heroes-only-one-gets-noticed/

    From my experience, I think there are many possible reasons, but with any prejudice, I just want them to stop.

  11. Dan, I did not begin so much concerned about father’s rights. I was concerned about children being damaged. But I am finding the violation of father’s rights very disturbing. Thanks for the Barbara Kay video and your help in pointing to “the 21:00 minute mark and thereafter….although the entire video is worth watching.”

  12. Winning Your Case Depends On You
    By Joseph Goldberg, Consultant

    Anyone fighting over child custody, visitation rights or, decision making as a non-custodial parent should listen closely, because there are not a lot of professionals that give advise to lawyers in quite the way that I do.

    In high conflict divorce and separation cases, if a parent makes a false allegation of abuse abuse or destabilizes a child’s trust in the other parent or exposes the child to adult information or badmouths the other parent to the child or interferes with visit- ation or blocks a child from telephone access or uses a sibling to interfere with the other parents authority, then this parent is program-ming the child with parental alienation.

    If you haven’t heard about parental alienation, you have a lot to learn. I would recommend you google: parental alienation education. For others that know about it and continue to litigate and re-litigate this issue without success, let me explain why things aren’t get-ting better.

    Spoiler Alert
    This is going to sound self-serving but it doesn’t make it any less true.

    # 1 reason why things are not getting better:

    You depend on a lawyer that’s not getting any input from an expert in parental alienation, or the situation is worse you’re acting pro per. I want you to know there’s a far better solution but it requires making a crucial decision.

    A. decision to hire a consultant.

    When you hire a consultant, they can tell you, “what is parental alienation” and “ what isn’t parental alienation. “ Unless you don’t really care, and if you don’t care, you’re only hold-ing yourself back. Is that fair to you ?

    Judges are not interested in two parents that are totally at opposite ends in their parenting style and polarized. That won’t help any parent-child relational problem. Judges in this scenario will tune you out and look to appoint some type of professional to give them guid-ance i.e., a lawyer for the child, a mediator, a parenting co -ordinator, a child therapist, a custody evaluator, a supervisor of visitation, a family therapist or a judge could decide to empower a child to choose whether or not to see or communicate with a parent they reject.

    Many parents cannot afford a lawyer because they believe that it will cost more than they can afford. Sadly that is not always true because they may have money but they’re just not sure how far that money can go. You need a consultant to answer that concern.. In this situation a parent can hire a consultant to select a lawyer to work with them in an unbundled legal services agreement. When this happens two things start to change.

    The first thing to change is that you now have a lawyer and the other thing to change is that you now have the best lawyer you could ever hope to find. Why ? Because your consultant gives the lawyer the input he or she needs to win your case. I’ve been involved in many cases of David versus Goliath, and I’ve seen the lawyer with the $1,000. hourly rate lose. Money doesn’t win in court, the better argument does.

    A competent lawyer becomes a very good law-yer because of the input he or she receives from the consultant. Stop looking for parental alienation lawyers and focus on finding a consultant available to help.

    By the way, I define a win as an intervention that restores and repairs the bond between the alienated child and the rejected parent. A win is not defined by getting sole custody or get -ting 50/50 time sharing.

    Still wondering why you need a consultant ?

    Lawyers are not going to admit their short-comings because if they did you would be look-ing for a better lawyer. So they won’t admit that in your particular case they haven’t got a clue where to begin.

    A lawyer will not spend the time or bill you for the time it takes to identify the cause of the ruptured relationships within your family. There are only two ways to get to that answer; a full psychological evaluation of all the members of the family, or hire a consultant with an expertise in parental child relational problems. The later is less costly, and provides voluminous additional help.

    Did your lawyer screw the pooch in selecting a mental health professional to begin counseling for your child and or for your family ? Did your lawyer come to some backdoor agreement with the opposing counsel to select a mental health professional without you knowing who they are or even why they were agreed to ?

    Are you stuck in a situation where a mental health professional is actually making things worse,not better ?

    If that sounds like your situation then of course you need to hire a consultant, because if you don’t, things will change again, your parent-child relationship is going to get much worse and that is not even the worst part, the worst part is that your child won’t be getting the treat-ment they need for themselves. Can you turn your back on your child, and give up knowing that ?

    Please call a consultant before you do.

    Cases often have mental health professionals with the best of intentions practicing outside their areas of expertise, it’s unethical, it’s un-professional, but getting them to step aside so a competent practitioner can take their place is not going to happen hiring a consultant.

    Trust me when I say that if this is your realitytoday, you’re in the quicksand and I’m the one trying to throw you the rope.

    Many times a parent will ask me during a consultation if I will talk to their lawyer before they hire me and I say no. Lawyers do not understand what I do, and cannot recommend someone that provides a service they’re not that familiar with and why should they ?

    I will tell you this much, after I have read the case files I do talk to their lawyers and as soon as they hear my strategy in the case they’re grateful for my involvement.

    That is why your case depends on you. Nobody can tell you if its smart to hire a consultant but you.

    I also know when a parent calls for a consult-tion just to get a little free advice. Often times a parent pretends to be a parent of an alien-ated child and they aren’t, they just want a few tips or an advantage over the other parent, some have been accused of alienation and want to know what to expect.

    It’s not that different when a lawyer tells an alienating parent they can’t help them to seize custody unless they can get some proof that the other parent is a really bad parent or proof that the child is in fear of the other parent, even if it’ might be totally untrue.

    The truth is that parents are falsely accused of parental alienation just the same as parents are falsely accused of child abuse. I have the good fortune of helping parents on both sides of this issue. When you’re accused of alienation you need a consultant to rule it in or to rule it out. Taking a chance without a consultant is a sure bet that you’ll get a poor outcome in court, it’s all up to you.

    Nobody can guarantee that you will win your case, but let me put it this way, your best optionis to hire that consultant. Share this article.Visit my website at http://www.ParentalAlienation.ca

    • Joseph Goldberg’s advice is worth reading. Most lawyers, most people – and most mental health specialists, – for that matter, do not understand Parental Alienation Syndrome. They often find it difficult to comprehend how children could possibly turn against a loving parent with whom they had lived. They may conclude that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” Thus they may even aid and abet the alienation process by failing to appreciate that the continued contact and influence of the alienating parent allows the alienation to progress. It may make recovery less treatable or even untreatable. If you are using a lawyer, you need one who understands Parental Alienation Syndrome. If the lawyer does not understand, a good consultant – or a mental health specialist – competent in this very specialized area is essential.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: