Misandry in Congress

This page was last updated on Saturday August 24, 2002

While reviewing source material about family violence on 13 March 2002, I encountered House Concurrent Resolution 182 by Ms. Constance A. Morella of Maryland. Twelve other representatives sponsored this resolution that Morella submitted to the House of Representatives (105th Congress, 1st session) on October 30, 1997. Later, Mr. Davis of Virginia removed his support as cosponsor of the resolution.

Morella ignored the experiences of millions of men and women that anti-male gender bias exists in our courts.  She said that these facts were myths and stridently wrote to maintain the present state of affairs in our courts.  Misandry is not a myth, it is real and based on fact.

Morella asserted that the "courts still hold women to higher standards of conduct than they do men."  Morella lied.  The standard for truth and probable cause is the uncorroborated word of a female.  The courts credulously accept a female's lie while haughtily rejecting the truth expressed in fact and proved by others.

High-jacking our words and ignoring the truth, Morella wrote "false accusations by women are in fact rare, occurring no more often than do other false reports of crimes such as bank robbery."  I know that this statement and others she has made are clearly false.  Morella's paper is, in fact, a lie and so contradicts her own statement that rarely do women lie.

Women lie about paternity.  The law presumes that the man named by a woman on a child's birth certificate is the father of that child.  The courts can force a man to submit to blood testing and if he refuses, the courts presume he is the father of the child. The law also presumes that a man is the legal father of any child born to his wife during their marriage.

Since the advent of affordable DNA testing, thousands, if not millions, of men are discovering that they are not the biological father of a child.  Instead of going after the biological father for child support, the courts refuse to nullify a support order against the falsely presumed.  Women do lie. 

DNA testing has revealed that fifteen percent of the birth certificates name the wrong man as the biological father of that child.  Furthermore, DNA testing shows that 30 percent of the males accused paternity and were tested for paternity are not the biological father of the child.  I see in a paper before me where a woman received more than $100,000 in tax free child support from her former spouse who is not the father of her child. This is one reason that I support maternity and paternity DNA testing upon the birth of each child.

Some woman do lie and raise false allegations of rape, child molestation, child abuse, and family violence.  Others, including men, lie by concealing or dismissing the truth.  These are common tactics of oppression and torture.  Many courts have failed to act and so they have abandoned the moral and social duties that they owe to the adversely affected and the public.  

When women are arrested and convicted of family violence or child abuse, the family courts still award custody of the children to them.  Parental Alienation Syndrome does exist and lying to one's own children about the other parent is an unforgivable act of malevolence.

Ms. Morella's House Concurrent Resolution 182 is a factual falsehood and an act of misandry that so well expresses the trappings of the anti-male advocates.  A copy of this resolution is on the Internet at  http://thomas.loc.gov/ . Please use that link to see the official copy. Congressman George Miller's office verified the address.

A copy of the HTML text version of House Concurrent Resolution 182 appears below without the  navigation tags.  The navigation tags are not a part of the resolution's text.

HCON 182 IH

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to child custody, child abuse, and victims of domestic and family violence.

October 30, 1997

Mrs. MORELLA (for herself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DAVIS of Virginia, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Ms. FURSE, Ms. CARSON, Mr. VENTO, Mr. LAFALCE, Mr. STARK, Mr. FROST, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. HINCHEY, and Mr. SANDERS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to child custody, child abuse, and victims of domestic and family violence.

Whereas domestic violence has serious detrimental effects on children, even when they do not directly witness such violence;

Whereas courts still hold women to higher standards of conduct than they do men;

Whereas gender bias still exists within the courts, particularly those making and affecting child custody determinations;

Whereas gender bias has long existed and still exists within the mental health system;

Whereas, as a result of this gender bias, many myths are that women make false allegations of domestic violence or child abuse, and most particularly of child sexual abuse, during divorce and custody proceedings;

Whereas false accusations by women are in fact rare, occurring no more often than do other false reports of crimes, such as bank robbery;

Whereas the myth that women make false accusations is so widely believed that many child protective service agents have policies of not bothering to investigate such allegations when made during the pendency of divorce or custody proceedings or only superficially investigate such allegations;

Whereas there are many myths that fathers are discriminated against in custody proceedings, even though studies show that fathers fighting for custody actually win sole custody or joint custody in 40 to 70 percent of these disputes;

Whereas the American Psychological Association's Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family has found in a 1996 Presidential Report that Congress views as authoritative on questions of domestic violence, child abuse, and custody determination that--

(1) fathers who abuse their children's mothers are more likely to dispute custody and visitation than are fathers who are not violent;

(2) there is no reliable data to support the phenomenon of `parental alienation' syndrome, although courts and custody evaluators frequently use that term and other inappropriate terms to discount the children's fear in hostile and psychologically abusive situations; and

(3) psychological evaluators not trained in domestic violence ignore or minimize the violence and give inappropriate pathological labels to women's responses to chronic victimization, including `parental alienation' to blame mothers for their children's reasonable fear or anger toward their violent fathers.

Whereas many courts and professionals use the baseless parental alienation syndrome to force mothers into joint or shared parenting arrangements or to give custody to fathers, especially when mothers try to protect themselves or their children from men who abuse them or their children;

Whereas almost every custody evaluator or judge recognizes how important familiar routines and objects are to a child, particularly in times of stress, but often fails to recognize the importance for the child of maintaining its living arrangement with the child's primary caretaker parent;

Whereas Congress never intended that the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act be used--

(1) to encourage forcing shared parenting arrangements when it is not in the child's best interest;

(2) to prohibit an abused or protective parent from protecting themselves or their child;

(3) as a tool to punish a parent, without regard for the needs of the child, by removing physical custody of a child from a fit abused or protective parent; or

(4) as a tool to punish abused or protective parents who act to protect themselves or their children;

Whereas when there is domestic or family violence or major discord between the parents, shared parenting arrangements, couples counseling, or mediation arrangements only exacerbate the difficulties of the children and give the abusive parent more tools with which to victimize the other members of the family;

Whereas children who grow up not seeing abusive parents clearly held accountable for their abuse are reinforced in believing that domestic and family violence are socially acceptable and effective means of behavior; and

Whereas every State has legislation or judicial decisions that base its custody determinations on what is in the best interests of the child: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--

(1) for purposes of determining child custody, it is in the best interest of children to have a presumption that children should have their main physical residence with their primary caretaker parent unless that parent is unfit;

(2) for purposes of determining child custody, it is not in the best interest of children to--

(A) force parents to share custody over the objection of one or both parents or when there is a history of domestic or family violence;

(B) punish abused or protective parents who protect themselves or their children;

(C) presume that allegations of domestic and family violence are likely to be made falsely or for tactical advantage during custody and divorce proceedings; and

(D) make `friendly parent' provisions a factor when there is abuse by one parent against the other or a child;

(3) child abuse and child sexual abuse allegations should be fully and impartially investigated regardless of when they are raised or whether the child has recanted the allegation;

(4) States should be far more protective of victims of domestic and family violence in custody and visitation determinations and not order mediation, couples counseling, shared custody, mutual orders of protection, unsupervised visitation, or other measures when they may endanger victims of domestic and family violence; and

(5) States should provide training in domestic violence and child abuse, as they impact custody, child support and visitation determinations, to all professionals who interact with children and parents (including judges, attorneys, guardians ad litem, therapists, mental health professionals, custody evaluators, child protective services personnel, and court appointed special advocates).

End of Page