Bethany House, Virginia — A One-Stop Divorce Shop

The Equal Justice Foundation has received the following letter that is being published anonymously at the sender's request. It is our understanding that Bethany House has received a copy of this letter and a copy in PDF format is available by clicking here.


Note: The letter has been reformatted for presentation here, a few spelling errors corrected, and minor punctuation modifications made for clarity. In no case has wording or meaning been changed with the exception of the removal of one repeated sentence.


To: Health and Human Services, United Way of the National Capitol Area, National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, et alia,



Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been a volunteer worker at Bethany House of Northern Virginia, 5901 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia, a private non-profit so called battered women's shelter. I wish to remain anonymous for fear of personal and professional reprisals by my co-workers and the Bethany House staff.

In my experience working at the shelter I am appalled and outraged by what is really going on at Bethany House of Northern Virginia (BHNV). To put it bluntly, it is for most part nothing more than a "one stop divorce shop for emotional and bored housewives who want a change of life".

It is also largely used as a free hostel for women with emotional problems if they are willing to hate their husbands enough and are willing to take out protective orders against their husbands. Women who follow BHNV's agenda are guaranteed residency at the shelter for up to 7 months. All of this in the name of a Battered Women's shelter is sickening to disgust.

From my observations, the goal of Bethany House is to get bored and emotional housewives to leave their marital home after infuriating them with a heavy dose of husband bashing, anti-male talk, patriarchy, and negative motivation. This is carefully planned and executed by the Bethany House staff and volunteers. Simple tasks as cooking, cleaning, laundry, taking care of children are explained to the housewives as abusive and demeaning tasks forced upon them by their spouses.

Marital arguments are explained as serious verbal abuse. Occasional pushing and showing are explained as serious physical abuse. Decision-making is shown as emotional abuse. The staff and volunteers, through a network of sources, identify emotional housewives. With a series of pep talks, tests and evaluations, BHNV staffs make the wives and husbands incompatible, infuriate the wife with propaganda, and then exploit the wife's frustration and anger as retaliation against the husband. The wife is given verbal and written instructions on how to leave the house secretly for the BHNV shelter.

Bethany House system resources are geared to get the father charged with an offence and to make the mother look like the victim and the children ending up as helpless pawns in the abuse game manipulated by BHNV.

Women with almost no marital problems are declared abused and are coached by the staff to go to court and get a protective order against their husbands with the promise of long-term shelter, legal services, counseling at BHNV.

BHNV also uses scare tactics to get women to file a protective order. This is a gross abuse of a system that was designed for real battered women.

Most of the staff and volunteers at BHNV have a jaundiced view of marriage and men, and attach little importance to the role of fathers in children's lives.

A majority of these staff and volunteers are women who are themselves from broken marriages and failed relationships, enraged with a bottomless pit of anger at men.

Women, staff and volunteers at the shelter use foul language and spend a lot of time father bashing, husband bashing and hold group sessions to initiate the same feelings to new residents.

Bethany House is a terrible place, not the environment where children should be. Not even women.

A lot of Bethany House activities are carefully doctored and monitored and have to remain behind a "veil of secrecy."

The BHNV network with their legal services, sociologists, and psychiatrists practice a self-censorship. It's just a lot of radical feminists making biased judgements against fathers, husbands, and families.

BHNV has repeatedly lied to charities that they are a church and religious organization. Indeed they are located within the Culmore United Methodist Church complex. But all they do is rent space and have no connection with the Church.

BHNV has misrepresented and repeatedly lied to the United Way of the National Capitol Area regarding BHNV's position for several years.

In their United Way of the National Capitol Area CVC Code 8046 Charity Application form 2002, which I was involved in, I and other volunteers were told to outright lie and make it as family oriented as possible. According to the wording in the charity form in verbatim, which I quote below.

(a) "BHNV family assistance program for battered spouses and their children provides multiple interventions blended into a comprehensive family development/family strengthening plan."

(b) "Outreach staff work with each family to examine and alter behaviors, and to enhance each victim's capacity to exercise self-determination and autonomy."

(c) "Once stabilized, victims implement customized family strengthening strategies, accessing services and advocating for clients to ensure realization of each individual's"

I can vouch for the fact that none of the above statements presented to United Way 2002 charity are anywhere near truth. Their so-called family assistance program:

(a) excludes children, fathers, husbands and indeed family interests. And does exclude to a large part the self-determination and autonomy of the housewife they supposedly "rescue." It in fact represents BHNV's interests almost exclusively to the fullest extent possible.

(b) Outreach staff never work with families, neither do they make any attempt to alter behavior as they claim. They secretly meet with the wife and encourage her to pack up and leave with the children for the shelter and file a protective order against the father. This is almost always the rule — even if there was no abuse within the family. Outreach staff never assesses issues presented by the family. The father or any male member is never consulted in this case. Indeed the father is by default the abuser of the mother.

(c) There is no family strengthening strategies for the victims as they claim. By this time the poor housewife is converted into a victim by BHNV with no recourse but to depend on BHNV for her financial stability, the children are alienated from their father by a protective order BHNV helped the housewife achieve. The father is sued for child and spousal support with the legal help of BHNV. Not only does BHNV impoverish a family by breaking them apart, but legally and morally commits child abuse by removing children from their home and putting them in a shelter. Away from their school, friends, and other familiar activities.

I have spoken with several wives at BHNV who have deeply regretted having contacted BHNV and acting on BHNV's advice. They have all been told to outright lie and fabricate half-truths to distort. They have all taken out protective orders against their husbands in "the heat of the moment" at BHNV's suggestions and deeply regret destroying their marriage, family, husband and their children's future and "burning their boat" at any reconciliation much to their dismay.

I implore and beg your office to investigate and do something soon to stop this senseless break up of families and needless trauma to children. Please do something. The children of Fairfax County do not deserve this kind of cruelty, This is happening right under our very noses. Please do something now!

Thank you for your time.

Anonymous



Profiting from DV one way or another

If a woman does seek shelter, as so widely touted by the DV ads, what is likely to happen?

True Equality Network conducted an abuse shelter investigation in twenty-one states. This investigation involves having women go to a shelter saying she needs help. The laws in most states permit women to stay in a shelter for 72 hours without filing a complaint to cover the needs of those who "escape" during weekend and holiday periods when the courts are closed. This open period of access was used to learn how the shelter operates without filing a complaint.

After only a few months this investigation uncovered illegal operations, including shelters operating prostitution services, drug dealing, and shelter staffers arranging to have the shelter clients provide sexual favors to law enforcement officers in exchange for the officers' perjured testimony in court. In one eastern state our investigator made an anonymous tip to the local law enforcement agency that resulted in the arrest of two sheriffs deputies working as pimps for a prostitution service.

The women of True Equality Network have spent almost five years in the courthouses of 97 counties across 17 states. During this period they have interviewed over 15,000 plaintiffs in domestic violence cases just before they entered the courtroom. The overwhelming number of those interviewed did not attempt to mask the real reasons they filed a domestic violence charge: control, money, and revenge — for everything you could possibly imagine — everything, that is, except acts of domestic violence.

Subsequently, True Equality Network asked prominent members of the counties in which the plaintiff surveys were conducted to interview the judges who heard these cases. Every single one of the judges interviewed corroborated the study's findings of pervasive levels of false claims of domestic violence in their court. These judges also state they know that the attorneys in these cases — including Legal Services Corporation grantees — are suborning perjury by scripting the statements of these women. Moreover, they expressed concern that their district attorneys were not prosecuting these acts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Violence Against Women Act: The fast food of law

If misery loves company then the one success of VAWA has been to make sure victims of extreme domestic brutalities have plenty of company.

As I reflect on my own experiences with domestic violence and the pretense of help our abuse system claims to offer, I find myself grieving most for today's victims. As the years pass, our domestic violence systems under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) offer less and less help to the most severely battered, but ever increasing rewards for those who manipulate the systems.

Why do we not only keep such a failure operating, but also expand its influence and funding year after year? I believe it follows the same logic as our society's affinity for fast food — instant gratification. It is quick, easy to get, and satisfies an immediate desire.

However, that satisfaction is hollow and short lived, and often creates unintended, unexpected problems for truly battered women and men. Meanwhile, the promoters make a fortune selling their ineffective and often harmful product. In order to keep the money rolling in, they must actively promote it to keep people believing in it, wanting it, and convinced it is a good thing for everyone, irrespective of the facts. To these ends, each year we dedicate a month to promote everything the Violence Against Women Act pretends to bring us, under the guise of protecting women from abuse and providing help to those that have suffered it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Money is the root of this evil

American taxpayers support the VA WA and other domestic violence programs to the tune of more than $1 billion a year. So what's gone wrong?

Individuals who file false or trivial claims of domestic violence are accorded the same standing by the abuse shelters, law enforcement, and courts as the most seriously battered women. In a system rife with fraudulent claims, it is easy to understand why the Jane Williamson's of the world are being silenced while abuse shelters, law enforcement personnel, and social welfare programs are profiting handsomely.

Prior to the July 19, 2005 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for the reauthorization of VAWA, many people, including myself, tried to tell our side about the failures of VAWA. Several scientists with decades of experience studying the dynamics of intimate partner violence also asked to testify at this hearing. However, even after running full-page ads in the Washington D.C. based newspapers expressing our concerns, we were all denied time to speak at the hearing.

So who did testify? A retired NBA basketball legend, a movie star, and a vice president of a cosmetics company. If these are qualifications the U.S. Senate considers appropriate for someone to testify as an expert witness on the subject matter of VAWA, whom would they invite to testify about violence on prime time TV? A few Tibetan monks perhaps?

The existing system must be solving some concern or no one would support it. Then whom does it help and in what ways?

It is well known and documented that false allegations of domestic violence have long been the tactical weapon of choice to gain advantage in divorce and custody cases. This provides financial rewards not just to the women, but also to the states through a vast array of federal funding sources, many of which have nothing to do with domestic violence. Examples include increased incentives from federal child support collection funding, TANF, HUD and many others, giving the states as much incentive to perpetuate the fraud as those that are actually perpetrating it.

Two special reports from RADAR — Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting are worthwhile reading: Perverse Incentives, False Allegations, and Forgotten Children outlines the monetary motivators for filing false allegations of domestic violence and An Epidemic of Civil Rights Abuses: Ranking of States Domestic Violence Laws covers which states provide the greatest incentives for perpetrating these acts of fraud.

The bottom line is our abuse support system seems to be supporting everyone except the severely abused. They have no shelter.



Terri Lynn Tersak is a professional commercial photographer, the President and CEO of True Equality Network, and a member of the Steering and Legislative Committees for the Maryland based think-tank, RADAR — Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting.

Suit Filed Against Battered Women's Shelter in Barnstable, Massachusetts
The Massachusetts News

Reproduced under the Fair Use exception of 17 USC § 107 for noncommercial, nonprofit, and educational use.

President of Justice for Families Sues Independence House for Forcing Her to Accept Services
March 9, 2001 — A suit was filed yesterday by a former client of a battered women's service center in Barnstable, Independence House, Nev Moore, President of Justice for Families.

Moore claims she was forced by DSS to accept services and attend meetings at Independence House against her will.

When she initially refused to attend, DSS took her children and placed them in foster care to force her to comply with their demands. She was to later discover that approximately two-thirds of Independence House funding comes from DSS. She believes that due to Independence House's financial dependence on DSS, they collude with the Department to force clients to accept services, and they help DSS open new cases by betraying women's confidentiality.

Moore claims this not only boosts DSS's cases, but pads Independence House's client numbers and artificially inflates the domestic violence statistics. These statistics are then used by DSS and Independence House to plead for more money from the legislature.

Since her own case has been publicized, Moore has received numerous calls from other women who claim that they also were forced by DSS to attend Independence House, under threat of losing their children. Their confidential conversations at Independence House meetings were also disclosed to DSS.

Independence House support groups are held behind closed doors, and a confidentiality notice is read at the start of each meeting that assures the women: "What's said in here, stays in this room."

"DSS told me that I would not get our daughter home until my attitude changed and I showed them that I had 'accepted the message' of Independence House. Attending wasn't enough — I had to 'prove' to DSS that I had 'accepted the message' — whatever that means," says Moore.

"What DSS used against me was that I complained in the Independence House meetings that I did not want to be there and was being forced to attend through intimidation, threats, and coercion. I said in the meetings that they needed to remove the word 'Independence' from their title. Their motto is 'Independence House: the Freedom to Make Your Own Choices' — well, my choice was not to be there.

"Independence House did everything to me that they claim would be control and emotional abuse if a man did it. I felt so violated. Our little girl suffered terribly. Independence House, of all places, should understand that when a woman says 'no' — it means 'no.'"

The suit, which was filed by Attorney Greg Hession of Belchertown in Barnstable Superior Court, alleges civil rights violations and unfair trade practices, breach of confidentiality, and resulting emotional abuse.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inside a 'batterers program' for 'abused' women by Nev MooreReproduced under the Fair Use exception of 17 USC § 107 for noncommercial, nonprofit, and educational use.

Women violating women
Top

July 29, 2003 — When Hillary Clinton says it takes a "village" to raise a child, does this mean that snooping, nosey, prying and gossipy people will be surrounding all of us — snoopers who are employees of the state with the power of police?

This woman wonders. I was forced by DSS to attend a "support group" for abused women, against my will. Or else I would never see my daughter again. That is what they told me. I was required to report every week to the Independence House, Hyannis, although it's supposedly for women who seek their help. It's run primarily by volunteers who are not counselors, therapists, or psychologists. They are all former battered women. Yet my DSS "service plan" stated that I had to attend for "treatment."

The meetings were held behind closed doors. I can't possibly express how much I hated and resented being in that room. The women were, in general, obsessive, neurotic, and vengeful. At the beginning of each meeting they went around the room and each woman was supposed to say a "brag" for the week. I did not want to participate in this childish game.

The first week I was there, one woman's "brag for the week" was that she'd had an abortion. Her DSS worker had suggested that she talk about it. Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, most people would agree this is a sad, intimate and private act, certainly not a "brag of the week" in a roomful of strangers.

There was a volunteer facilitator and a confidentiality notice was read at the start of each meeting. It said that women did not have to talk if they didn't want to. Whatever you said in the room was strictly confidential and would not leave the room.

It was repulsive
Top

I found it repulsive. And yet this is where I was ordered to go for "treatment" to "raise my self-esteem." Some women had been away from their ex's for six to eight years, yet continued to go to the meetings. It was like their victimhood was an all encompassing identity. They were addicted to being a "victim" so people would feel sorry for them.

Many said that although their husbands never actually abused or controlled them, they didn't always agree with them. So that was abusive. Many other women said, "I never knew I was being abused until I came to Independence House." [Hmmm...]

One woman who was not being abused, but I guess was just lonely, would often talk for the entire two hours. She was very loud and aggressive, constantly interrupting others. She told us that she was taking night courses, and her (male) teacher had asked her to stop interrupting and dominating the classroom. She proudly told us that she called him at his home and informed him in no uncertain terms that he had verbally abused her. It was easy to understand why she was lonely. The support group was like a social club for her, where she had a hostage audience.

There were other women who were, as my teenagers say, right off-the-loop. They were so intense and obsessive that they frightened me. Some would rock on the floor and wail, or curl into a fetal position and cry loudly throughout the meeting. One wanted to go to court and get a court order to have her ex sterilized so that he could never have children with another woman. Another (divorced from her ex) wanted to know where his P.O. box was.

The women got all excited, jumping up and down, and yelling out: "Follow him," "Watch him," and "Pay someone to follow him." I believe if men do this it's called "stalking." I felt like I was trapped in the piranha tank at feeding time. On other nights, the group would be in depression mode, weeping and wailing. I don't mean to sound harsh and unsympathetic, but I did not want to be held hostage in a room listening to other peoples' problems. It was depressing and distasteful. At times when I was bored to the point I thought I was going to start crying, I would take out my wallet and make out my grocery list on a scrap of paper. The facilitator told me that wasn't allowed because I might be taking notes on what the women were saying. This is an accurate insight to the paranoia, negativity, and suspiciousness that pervades Independence House.

Making money
Top

I realized that I never heard a facilitator encourage a woman to heal and move on with her life. They encouraged women to stay stuck in the victim mentality. I realized that, if women move on, they would no longer be clients. Each woman is worth many dollars to DSS and to Independence House. The more clients — the more funding dollars.

Every week I received calls from our DSS supervisor, Larry Vadeboncoeur, chastising me for my "attitude" at the support group. He told me in a meeting at DSS that I would not get my child back until my attitude changed and I "processed my issues" and "did my stuff." What "stuff" was never identified, even after repeated requests from me for clarification. After all, I don't have a degree in psychology, so I don't understand these professional terms, like "client needs to do her stuff."

When I told Mr. Vadeboncoeur what went on in the meetings and that they were terribly depressing and distasteful, he snapped, "That is not what goes on at Independence House!" I didn't "share much" in the meetings because I felt nothing in common with the group. I said that I was forced to be there against my will and they needed to remove the word "Independence" from their title and stop handing out mugs that said: "Independence: the Freedom to make your own choices."

When I couldn't stand the breast-beating victim dance any more, I would offer small pieces of input. My feeling is that, if the guy was that bad, then good riddance to bad rubbish. By sitting in these groups forever, rehashing abuse, real or perceived, a woman keeps the wounds open and allows the man to still have power over her.

Each week I continued to get chastised by the DSS supervisor, Larry Vadeboncoeur, for my poor attitude and "not accepting the message." I was, much later, to read in my DSS file that, if they forced me to attend those meetings, I would "relate to" and "form a bond" with the women there. (Translation: accept the indoctrination and embrace my victimhood.)

It was 'Confidential'
Top

I began to wonder how what I was saying behind closed doors at a confidential support group in Hyannis was finding its way to a DSS supervisor in an office in Yarmouth. On two occasions I spoke with one of the directors at Independence House, Natalie Dupres. I told her that DSS was using the fact that I did not want to attend her meetings to keep my child from coming home. Ms. Dupres assured me that they never called or spoke to DSS. She said, even with a release from a client, they could only verify attendance and participation. They would "never disclose the content of what is discussed in a support group." She added, "You know what DSS is like," inferring that DSS was making it up. The only problem with this was that DSS was repeating, verbatim, what I actually was saying behind closed doors, including things that I deliberately fed into the group discussion just to see if they made their way back to me. They did. Ms. Dupres was never actually present in the support group meetings, which means that the group facilitators had been instructed to report back what I said in meetings.

The fact that I did not want to be there, and found the meetings boring and repulsive just increased my resentment and antagonism. But, with our child held hostage, I would have done anything that anyone ordered me to do.

Eventually, Independence House decided that they did not want me there informing the other women that they were primarily funded by DSS and that what the women said in the group could be reported back to DSS and used against them. At that point DSS decided that I had "processed my issues" as far as I was going to. So I was released from my enforced obligation to attend. The funding they received because I was attending was not worth having their little secrets exposed.

Our weekly schedule of mandated "tasks" for my husband and me included individual counseling for each of us, "angry man" classes for my husband, parenting classes at Independence House, random urine screens and three AA meetings a week for my husband, a weekly supervised visit at the DSS office, plus court days and meetings at the DSS office.

More families in DSS...more $$ for everyone
Top

Unhealthy relationship between DSS and domestic violence Industry
Two thirds of the funding to Independence House in Hyannis comes from DSS, channeled through the state Department of Public Health, while the other comes from private and corporate donations.

Therefore, Independence House is dependent on DSS for survival, and, therefore, beholden to DSS as the hand that feeds them. They quickly learned from their mentors, who are pros at it, that if you pad your client roster by coercing unwilling clients, you fight your way to a better position on the "funders" food chain.

Last year the Dept. of Public Health cut $350,000 of funding to Independence House due to complaints by women. Senator Henri Rauschenbach got it reinstated. The relationship between DSS and Independence House (and its sister organizations around the state) is unhealthy and symbiotic.

Because DSS has allowed the battered women's "advocates" to trade in their rusty VW buses for new Lexuses (that is literally true for some women who work at Independence House), greed has replaced integrity and an honest desire to help other women. They work together to dramatically increase their client statistics. When the support groups report women's conversations back to DSS, this information is used to charge the mothers with neglect, for "allowing" their children to be exposed to "domestic violence."

In court, DSS claims the women have "poor judgment" when it goes to court to terminate their parental rights. The proof? The fact that the women attended the battered women's center for services — even though they were ordered to go by DSS. As further "proof" DSS will use the restraining orders that they forced the women to get.

Although I was coerced to attend by DSS, some of the women come voluntarily for help. The battered women's groups basically pimp clients for DSS in return for money. They are patronizing and condescending to their clients (not to mention deceptive). Women are coerced into accepting their cultish indoctrination via the use of threats, intimidation and fear of losing their children. In fact, they employ all the methods and behaviors that are considered abuse and control if committed by the women's husbands or boyfriends.

Independence House and its sister organizations provide DSS with additional clients. The women's groups get more money, and DSS gets more state and federal money. They both are artificially inflating their numbers. They inflate the domestic violence statistics this way and through the use of coerced restraining orders. By artificially inflating the domestic violence statistics they are able to create political hysteria — leading to more funding.

Women are ordered to leave their husbands, even in the complete absence of real domestic violence or abuse. They are ordered to never let the fathers see their children, or DSS will charge the woman with neglect, again. Women are ordered to leave their homes and to sever contact with their mates. They then discover that, in order to get shelter, housing, food stamps, Medicaid, or cash benefits, they must claim to be victims of domestic violence to get a priority. Women are told they must do this to keep their children or to get them back if DSS already has them. The "Freedom to make your own choices" means the choices they want you to make. The choices that will benefit them financially.

How did we end up in DSS?
Top

Government intervention turns to harassment
Thirteen months after my husband drank too much one night and with no problems of any kind after that incident, the social worker, Kathy Marciante, and Sue Ash, the domestic violence "expert," showed up while I was working in my garden in May 1997.

I was very surprised to see them as I had not seen or heard from any DSS social worker in a couple of months, so I didn't even think that we were still involved with DSS. The two women, in deadly serious tones, told me that I had to pack a few things in a bag, and that I and my children would have to go with them to an "undisclosed location."

After the shock wore off, I believe I burst out laughing. I felt as if I had just slipped into a "B" spy movie. The two women would not elaborate on their request, but kept adamantly insisting that I leave my home with them. They informed me that I would not be able to contact anybody or allow anyone to know where I was. I kept asking them why they were here, but I didn't get an answer. They said that if I didn't go with them, they would have to consult with their legal department about removing the children. My 16-year old son told them that they were ludicrous and there was absolutely no reason for them to be there. He also told them that our daughter was very close to us and clingy, and that it would deeply traumatize her to take her away from us and her home.

By this time the little one was home from school. She was very frightened and hid behind me. Eventually, I became angry and ordered them off my property, suggesting that they go down to a well-known crack neighborhood where they were needed.

Our daughter was too frightened to go to school the next day. We sat her down and told her that we loved her and would never, ever allow anyone to take her away. The following day they snatched her from her classroom. It was weeks before we saw her again.

It was four months before we were able to get a hearing before a judge in Barnstable Juvenile Court. We had 29 continuances before our case was heard. It was 13 months before our daughter returned to her home.

A year of snooping
Top

It had all started the previous spring after my husband spent a night of drinking with a buddy and assaulted me outside of our home. A passerby called 911 on their car phone. Our children weren't present or involved, one being away on a trip; and the youngest, our seven-year-old daughter, was asleep in her bedroom at the upstairs back of our large, old captain's house. It is the practice of the police now to call DSS whenever they are called to a house where underage children reside.

Neither of us minimized or denied the seriousness of the incident, and we immediately took steps to ensure that this would never happen again. I made it clear to my husband that I would not accept a chaotic lifestyle, and he could not remain in the home if he chose to continue drinking. Of his own accord, he entered counseling and became active in AA. He stopped consorting with drinking friends and has not set foot in a bar since that night. I was clear about what I wanted for myself and quite in charge of my own life.

When the young, ditsy (there truly is no other adjective I can use) social worker from DSS showed up, we allowed her in and were civil. I explained clearly that as two intelligent, mature adults we were quite capable of managing our own lives, marriage, and problems. If I needed help, I knew how to dial 911. For several months she kept pushing me to attend "Independence House." Over and over, I explained in simple language that I did not feel myself to be a battered woman, and I adamantly did not want to go to Independence House.

I am not weak, dependent, nor in need of their services. I was hardly the profile of a dependent, beaten-down, battered woman being controlled by her domineering husband. I explained that my husband didn't control me, didn't control my money, and I was free to come and go as I pleased, have whatever friends I chose, and could say or do what I wished. [She wrote down that I was a textbook case of a battered woman "in denial." ]

"Protecting my abuser"
Top

I explained to her that I had the life of my dreams, was happy and fulfilled, and that, outside of that isolated incident, my husband treated me like a princess. I told her, not that it was any of her business, my husband and I loved each other and were committed to our marriage. [She wrote that I was "protecting my abuser." ] She would complain about her ex-husband (not that I had any interest in hearing) and condescendingly say to me, "I know how you feel. My husband was abusive, too." I would look at her like she had two heads and tell her that I never said any such thing. I do not feel that way. When I told her that my husband was very sweet to me and we had a great time together, she gave me a "service plan" on which one of the tasks was to go to Independence House for treatment to help me "lower my denial." [When I told her I was happy and fulfilled in life, she wrote down that I needed treatment to raise my self-esteem. Anyone who knows me will get a good guffaw from that one!]

If I said I didn't want to go to Independence House, she reported that as a sign that my husband was controlling and isolating me. She would tell me that we could meet away from my house where I could speak freely, if I could get away without fear of repercussions. I looked at her like she had three heads. No matter how many times I, or the children, would tell her that we were fine, there was no violence or abuse, we weren't afraid of my husband, and there was no cause for her to be involved with us, it made no difference. She would continue to write down that the whole family was "in denial," and we were protecting my husband out of fear.

I attempted to use logic by pointing out to her that our house is on the main street of a quaint, little historical village, across the street from the court house, the fire station, the sheriff's office, a few doors down from a Senator's office, and surrounded by antique shops and lawyers' offices. There is a thrift shop attached to our house and a realty office. We are highly visible in the community and well liked. No one had ever seen or heard anything amiss. There were no police calls to the house, not so much as a noise complaint. I pointed out that this was not a location where disruption would go unnoticed. It would be impossible to hide. [So she wrote down that there was "ongoing domestic violence." ] It was about this time that I began to feel like Alice going down the rabbit hole.

At that time I was unaware that all the considerable funding to "combat domestic violence" was channeled through DSS. To the tune of $13 million a year. The DSS worker brought a "domestic violence expert," Sue Ash, to my home a couple of times. (What are the qualifications to be a "domestic violence expert"? ) I reiterated my story, over and over. I felt like I was being subjected to an inquisition, and was down to reciting name, rank, and serial number. They insisted that I meet them for coffee at a diner. [Maybe I'd crack.] The expert also met Tommy and me together. The social worker dropped me and my daughter off at our house. I believed at this point that I had done everything I could possibly do to make DSS happy, without knowing why I should have to do so. My children had never been abused or neglected by any stretch of the imagination, so why was my life being micro-managed by strangers?

Harassment starts again
Top

After a few weeks the social worker and supervisor started harassing me again, this time claiming that they had lost their copy of the restraining order and the court couldn't find it in their files either. I had lost all patience at this point and told them that it wasn't my problem and to stop harassing me. They continued to threaten to take the children unless I got another restraining order. Later on, in court hearings and in the DSS case file, they claimed that I had gone into the court building and just pretended to get the restraining order. My husband and I went over to court together to get another one. The judge this time was a village resident, Judge Gerald O'Neil. When we told the judge that we wanted a restraining order against my husband, he quipped that he'd never had a husband and wife come together to get a restraining order.

We said that we were being forced to get it by DSS even though there was no violence in our home, and that neither the children nor I were in fear. Judge O'Neil said that he didn't like DSS dictating to him in his court room, but if not getting the order would put our family at risk with DSS, then he would issue it. We got a restraining order for one year.

But it didn't stop them from taking our children. The fact that I had applied for a restraining order helped them. That's why they wanted it.



Nev Moore is President of Justice for Families, a group she founded to help parents who have problems with the DSS in Massachusetts.


One-Stop Divorce Shops by Donna Laframboise

Two years ago, Terri admitted that she abused the battered-women's shelter system. Although her husband had never assaulted her, she told a Winnipeg conference examining false allegations in family law that she lied to shelter staff, and to herself, because it was absurdly easy and because she had something to gain.

Terri says her husband's drinking problem made their seven-year relationship a rocky one, and that she had left him before. Her mother urged her to go to a shelter, she says, in the belief that the counselors would help her achieve independence. Terri (who requested anonymity to spare her now former husband further embarrassment), says she telephoned a Winnipeg shelter and was told only abused women were admitted. "I went to the door and I cried and said that my husband was abusive. My kids weren't with me because I didn't want them to see how I had to get in."

Terri says the intake worker accepted her story at face value. So she retrieved her sons, then three and six years old, and went back to the shelter where staff began coaching her on how to gain the upper hand in divorce court.

Terri says residents were told that "the first thing we needed to do was obtain a restraining order against our spouse. We were instructed to write down our complaints on paper and bring them with us when we went to see our lawyer."

In Terri's case, the result was a ten-page affidavit alleging not that her husband was physically abusive, but that he displayed characteristics one might expect in an alcoholic. "A lot of the stuff I wrote up in the court document was about his hygiene. I complained about always having bladder infections because he never had a bath." On the basis of this affidavit, she says, "I got the restraining order and soon after I got full custody of my children with no visitation for my husband."

Later, the full import of her actions sank in. "I realized what I had done. My children had not seen their father for a year, yet I was never afraid that he would harm them or myself," says Terri, now a 36-year-old therapist. "It was not a fair fight. I had the shelter and the women's movement on my side."

During parliamentary committee hearings on child custody and access earlier this year (the final report is due in early December), women's-shelter spokespeople showed up in full force. Their propensity to stereotype all fathers in custody battles as abusive and all mothers as besieged victims came as no surprise to lawyers and community activists alarmed by the role shelters now play in divorce matters. In addition to providing moral support to women who appear on their doorstep, shelters also supply letters of endorsement that are highly prejudicial to the women's spouses in court — despite the fact that the shelter employees have never met the men involved, have only heard one side of the story, and have only known the women for a short time under highly artificial conditions.

Susan Baragar, who practices primarily family law in Winnipeg, describes herself as a feminist but believes nevertheless that it is "all too easy" for women to get these letters from shelters, and warns that they are a highly potent weapon."

Judges are "most definitely swayed" if a woman is staying at a shelter and court documents include a letter from the facility implying that the father is dangerous, says Ms. Baragar. "I mean, you've got sort of a 'professional' now saying he shouldn't see his kids."

Ms. Baragar, herself, has used the tactic on behalf of her own clients. She cites a recent case in which she represented a woman who "came in with this two- or three-page letter which I attached to the affidavit, and [the father] was denied access on that basis. Nothing else. It depends on the judge. Some judges are more cautious than others. But in that particular case he was absolutely denied access."

Ms. Baragar says the opposing lawyer "argued that this was not an unbiased letter, that both parties had not been interviewed. He got absolutely nowhere."

Since the parent who first secures legal child custody is almost certain to be awarded it later (authorities are reluctant to disrupt the children's lives once again), relationships between fathers and children are being ripped asunder in some cases merely on the say-so of a shelter worker.

In 1995, a Manitoba shelter worker wrote a two-page letter on behalf of a resident. The worker was able to discern, from their first meeting, that the woman "had been a victim of abuse in her childhood and now as a adult." Writing that she hoped "the court will recognize this letter of support," the worker pronounced the woman to be "intelligent, insightful, and sincere."

But in 1997, after hearing submissions from the woman's spouse and the Winnipeg Child and Family Services, a judge came to a different conclusion. Only in her early 20s, the woman had already made seven sexual-abuse complaints to police involving eleven different people. (The only complaint in which a charge was deemed warranted resulted in an acquittal.) "At one time or another," wrote the judge, the woman had "accused her father, brother, and sister of sexually abusing her." In the judge's view, her credibility was undermined by the fact that, "despite these allegations she had no hesitation in living with her father and her sister and in exposing her father to her own children." The woman eventually abandoned her custody bid, and the children were placed in the care of their paternal grandmother.

In Burlington, Ontario, in 1995, a counselor at a women's shelter wrote a supportive letter regarding a client and her relationship to her then two-year-old daughter and twelve-year-old son. Although the children had joined their mother in the shelter only eight days earlier, the staffer felt no hesitation in declaring the woman to be a "loving and devoted mother" and in expressing the "strong feeling" that child custody should be awarded to her rather than to the husband she was leaving.

But this woman's maternal track record was in fact less than stellar. Four years earlier, the Children's Aid Society had successfully convinced a court that she was a danger to her son and an older daughter, then aged twelve, who did not accompany her to the shelter.

After monitoring the situation for three months, a Children's Aid worker told the court that both children "admitted being afraid of their mother much of the time." On one occasion she allegedly threatened her spouse with a knife and then threatened to commit suicide. On another occasion, she allegedly "opened the car door while it was traveling along the highway and threatened to jump." The worker noted that "Both of these incidents occurred in the presence of the children." Nevertheless, the courts awarded custody of all three children to the woman. [ Note : See description of emotional terrorists above.]

At yet another shelter, in Orillia, Ontario, a staffer wrote a letter in 1994 addressing the question of who should get custody of two boys, aged two and three. Despite the fact that no trial had yet been held, this staffer declared that their mother "had been physically assaulted" by her husband before fleeing to the shelter. The mere fact that the mother had shown up at a shelter was proof that she was "a conscientious and caring parent." The letter ended with the declaration that "it would be a great disservice" to the children if custody was not awarded to their mother. With the aid of the letter, the woman secured custody.

In 1997, a Toronto shelter worker wrote a letter on behalf of a woman who had been in residence for six weeks. It flatly announced that the woman had been "physically and emotionally" abused by the husband she was leaving and said that since "her children are her life," she should be assisted in gaining custody. However, in a report dated a week prior to the shelter's letter, a psychologist who interviewed the woman during her stay noted that she'd told him her husband "has never struck her physically." Interim custody has been awarded to the mother.

Ms. Baragar has had women's-shelter letters expunged from the record when attempts have been made to use them against her own clients. "There is a rule that you're technically not supposed to just attach reports to somebody else's affidavit," she says. "When I see letters like that I go pretty hard core and insist that a separate affidavit then be sworn — which gives me the right to cross-examine the maker of the statement. [The shelter workers] usually chicken out. They haven't wanted to swear affidavits." Many lawyers, she says, are unfamiliar with the tactic.

Mary McManus, a lawyer in Victoria, B.C., shares many of Ms. Baragar's concerns. While she thinks "shelters are very important and fulfil a useful function," she feels staffers should refrain from expressing opinions regarding situations about which they have limited knowledge.

"The workers at the shelters come with different backgrounds, experience, and education. What they say may well be justified, but may not be as well."

Ms. McManus agrees that the courts "tend to place a great deal of weight on just the fact that a woman went to a shelter. I've had a lot of experience in bail hearings where men have been accused of abusing their spouse and the fact that the spouse is in the shelter can be accepted as evidence that there has been abuse."

Greta Smith, the executive director of the British Columbia/Yukon Society of Transition Houses says her organization has no policy regarding shelters writing letters on behalf of clients. While she admits it's "possible that some transition houses would write supportive letters," the idea makes her uncomfortable.

"I guess I would have to see the letter. I'm sorry, I have some difficulty with that. The fact that people would write letters without some good solid reasons for writing a letter. Without seeing the letter and without finding out what the circumstances are, it would be very difficult to make a comment on that."

When asked whether it's possible that some women are going to shelters as a divorce tactic, Ms. Smith replies: "Anything in this world is possible, but I do not believe that happens."

Louise Malenfant, a community activist in Winnipeg, calls shelters "one-stop divorce shops for women," and is disturbed by their 'no questions asked policy.' She claims that in addition to helping women who make false allegations of wife abuse, shelters in her city have helped manufacture incest accusations.

Over the past four years, Ms. Malenfant has been an advocate for 62 individuals who claimed to be falsely accused of child sexual abuse during divorce proceedings. In a third of those cases, she says, a women's shelter was involved.

At 1996 public hearings into the Manitoba Child and Family Services Act, Ms. Malenfant alleged that children were taken into a room that was off limits to their mothers, subjected to a sexual-abuse awareness program, and inappropriately questioned by shelter staff.

"If you expose children to sexual material and you question them repeatedly over the course of a week or two, that child can literally repeat what they've been taught," Ms. Malenfant told the National Post.

She maintains that even mothers who would not have otherwise accused their spouses of incest were compelled to treat such allegations seriously after they arose during a shelter stay. Ms. Malenfant has publicly called for an inquiry into women's shelters, and has written letters to government officials protesting their policies. As a result, that particular issue seems to have disappeared. "It was like somebody sucked that problem right out of the place," Ms. Malenfant says. "I have not seen a new women's-shelter case in over a year. I don't know what [the government has] done; all I know is that it stopped."

"It's extremely disturbing," says Ms. Baragar of the role shelters have been playing in custody and divorce proceedings. "I get very angry about it from a personal basis, because I think that there are very real cases of abuse and what I see happening in the courts is that those cases now have less value because of the lies that are so easily" being told.

In the last year, Ms. Baragar says she has sensed a growing cynicism from the bench.

"Judges are now more willing to believe that this is just a lie. You know, it got to a point for a while that I couldn't pick up a woman's affidavit where she wasn't accusing him of abuse. You'd get page after page of what was being called abuse, and people were quite prepared to go to women's shelters for it.

I mean, not everything is abuse. Just because it wasn't a fun fight doesn't mean it was abuse."

Women's Shelters Under Veil Of Secrecy by Dave Brown

There's a trigger in us all when the subject of women's shelters comes up. It makes men uneasy and women defensive. That there's a need for them is abhorrent to all.

Those triggers also protect shelters from normal scrutiny. Ottawa's new domestic court is taking men out of their homes at the rate of 120 a month. The zero-tolerance approach to domestic violence includes, for most men, a restraining order meaning they can't go home, or near their homes, until calm is restored.

One would think that this would be taking some of the pressure off shelters. But the shelter movement continues to plead for more money to protect more women from more abusers who are becoming more violent. These claims can be made with impunity, because of the secrecy that surrounds shelters.

As a reporter and a skeptic, this offends my check-it-out impulse because I can't go near them. Even the suggestion of checking one out, or challenging the claims they make, pulls triggers. Particularly in women.

To most women, there are some things that have to be taken on faith, and one of them is that the number of men becoming violent against women is increasing. The facts prove it, and the facts are coming from shelters. Challenge them, and you can hear the trigger click. I heard the click in June when Senator Anne Cools challenged a shelter lobbyist appearing before the Special Joint Senate-Commons Committee on Child Custody and Access. Immediately, a female member of the committee jumped to the shelter worker's defence and tempers flared. Ms. Cools left the room. Ms. Cools, a founder of the shelter movement, is now an outspoken opponent of it.

To get the inside story, I had to find a volunteer. The one I found is a prominent Ottawa businessperson who doesn't want to be identified. We didn't tie up a bed. The idea was to check out the service being provided and get a look at the inside of a shelter.

She made her first call on a recent Tuesday at 8:30 p.m., to Nelson House. My agent was told, sorry, all shelter beds in the Ottawa area were filled. I listened as she pled. She said she didn't want to go home. She hadn't been abused, she was just afraid. She put on an impressive display of somebody in need of help. She was told to call back in an hour.

Her report to me after the call: "Not a very warm response. She didn't seem to care. She didn't ask questions. She just kept telling me I was out of luck. She seemed to want me to go away." In the next call, she was told to go to Interval House. She found the reception there cool. She asked for a tour of the house, saying it would make her more comfortable. The answer was no. She asked to use a bathroom, and in that way got a look at some of the ground floor. She described the building as huge. Including the woman on duty in the office, she saw five women. She didn't see or hear children. It was 9:45 p.m. The house was quiet.

"I felt unwelcome. I was told I could stay overnight and arrangements would be made in the morning to get me a lawyer and a place to stay. I had been told women could stay up to 10 weeks, and when I asked why I had to move out so quickly, there was no answer. I was asked to sign an agreement saying I would never divulge the address, and I left. All of the women I saw were members of visible minorities."

I asked my agent why she had agreed to help me. She said it was her business sense. Things don't add up, and she feels that she, as a taxpayer and an honest person, should help uncover abuses of systems. Also, she has a brother who can't see his children because his wife went through the shelter system, and he was branded as abusive without a hearing. My reporter instincts tell me the explosion in male violence is a myth perpetrated by shelters. They need it to be believed to increase their funding. Our lawmakers have believed them, and things like the new domestic court are one result. Women who report abuse can no longer recant — at least not without difficulty and time. Domestic squabbles are being mixed in with abuse, and the easiest, fastest and least expensive way for a couple to get back together is for the man to plead guilty. The violent-male statistics are exploding.

One of the driving forces behind the formation of the new court was Carroll Holland, liaison coordinator for the Gay, Lesbian, Transsexual and Trans Gender Support Group of Ottawa-Carleton. When she heard I was nosing around domestic court she delivered a large package of male-bashing material, with a warning note: "The Citizen has been very negligent in its lack of coverage of this topic. It would be irresponsible to address this topic now in anything less than a comprehensive fashion."

Among her list of accomplishments, Ms. Holland is a special adviser to the police hate-crimes unit. If similar unsolicited material had been sent to a minority group, including hers, Ms. Holland would have told the posse to saddle up.

Earlier this month I attended a meeting in the office of Crown Attorney Andrejs Berzins to outline some of the growing number of complaints reaching my desk, mainly from women who believe the new system is harmful. Being unable to speak to their partners meant they were unable to resolve disputes. There were six Partner Assault Support Team (PAST) members in Mr. Berzins' office. Among many items discussed was my agent's shelter experience.

Police officers who answered domestic calls used to act as mediators and calming agents. Now most say their hands are tied and their safest move in the zero-tolerance atmosphere is to take the man in. Marriages are being torn apart.

The day after my meeting with the PAST group, I called Lyallen Hayes, spokeswoman for Interval House, and told her the woman who dropped in Tuesday night was my agent. "I know," she said. "I was told yesterday."

She said Interval House currently houses 22 people, nine women and 13 children. Most are long term. "They can stay 10 weeks, or longer if there are problems." She repeated that shelters are unable to keep up with the increasing flow of victims.

No wonder, said my agent. Ten weeks isn't sheltering. That's storage. Shelters are publicly funded. I asked Ms. Hayes if there were ever any spot audits. Did bureaucratic bean-counters ever drop around to check out who, how many, why, and for how long?

She said that was information I would have to get from the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. I read that as a no. She also warned that my agent had signed an agreement of confidentiality. "That includes not speaking about anything that goes on in here." If found, she warned, my agent could be in trouble.

If I'd been thinking faster, I would have asked for some blank copies of that confidentiality agreement. Mr. Berzins could use some in his office.

Head of women's shelter in Naples, Florida, turns to violence and abuse

July 13, 2008 — The domestic violence industry operates under the cloak of secrecy and anonymity, maintaining such policies are necessary to shield victims from their abusers. But every now and then a crack appears in the façade, revealing a sordid panorama of corruption, fraud, and abuse.

On February 28, 2007 the Naples, Florida, citizenry opened their morning newspapers to the jolting headline, "CEO Out at Women's Shelter: Investigation into Battery Complaint Prompts Departure." Over the next several months, details would spill out of a woman's rights activist who had evolved into a self-serving "tyrant," as one of her colleagues later described her.

The charges surrounded Kathy Herrmann Catino, a former victim of domestic violence and director of the Naples Shelter for Abused Women and Children.

Fifteen years ago Ms. Catino took over the helm of the debt-ridden shelter. She worked tirelessly and proved to be a skilled rainmaker, growing the shelter into a 60-bed facility with a $3.5 million budget, 52 staff members, and 276 volunteers.

But her crusade took on messianic overtones. Believing she was the savior of women, Catino set out to control the Board of Directors and even the personal lives of her employees.

"Kathy Herrmann-Catino ruled as the queen of the fortress she built for too long," revealed one woman, adding she "was obsessed with the need to control her subordinates and others in the community, and her obsession grew as the Shelter grew."

"As long as you did as you were told by her, it was all good. Don't do as you're told or have a mind of your own, and there were problems," explained another associate, adding that the shelter director "hates men."

One saw her as a Captain Queeg in a pantsuit: "You could see the self-satisfaction in her big round eyes and the little smile on her lips whenever she broke a spirit and made an employee cry."

"I've witnessed and been a victim of her abusive style," revealed a former board member. "She openly admits her son is an abuser. Now we know where he learned it."

Catino went so far as to monitor employees' after-hours pursuits. Paul Vincent Zecchino revealed, "she would check on your home life and [find out] if you did not live your life outside of work as she thought you should."

And as if that wasn't enough, "Your condition of employment then required you to go to counseling and report that you went," the man wrote. "The counselor you went to was one that she would pick for you."

Is this beginning to sound a little like Soviet psychiatry?
Election Day, 2006 marked the beginning of the end. Believing that advancing social change was part of the shelter's mission, she sent an email to her staff instructing them to inform her whether they had voted.

But a few scofflaws did not respond. So the next day an infuriated Catino broadcast this warning: "OK — you are the folks who have not responded to my several requests for information regarding whether or not you voted on Tuesday. This is your CEO talking — the one who approves your pay check...Testing 1, 2, 3, anyone out there? Please respond."

The message was clear: If you don't come clean with the Commissar of Truth, your paycheck might be delayed, or worse.

Problem was, Florida law prohibits voter intimidation. For that misstep, Catino was arrested, booked, and released on bond.

The worst was yet to come.
Three months later Catino decided one of the shelter employees had crossed her one too many times. She wanted an underling to do the dirty work, but the employee refused to go along with the gig. When the tearful woman tried to walk out of the shelter, Catino grabbed her by the arm and yanked her around.

Legally this counts as assault. The security cameras captured the entire incident. Two weeks later, Kathy Catino was history.

The most insightful commentary came from a former associate who revealed, "In reality, Kathy's very sad life was never healed — it was only a mask she wore — a role she played. She was angry and unhealed, which is why she loved wallowing in her abuse."

A year later, whatever came of the former shelter director?
Pay a visit to the website of Equality Virginia, a group that advocates for the legalization of homosexual marriage in the state of Virginia. Cathy Catino is now the deputy director of the organization.

The website proudly states Catino "served as CEO of a FL shelter program for nearly fourteen years...While in Naples, Kathy started an outreach program for LBGT people who were victims of partner violence and routinely sheltered gay, lesbian, and transgender people in her program."