Contact: Marc E. Angelucci, Esq.
Men’s Legal Center
619-234-3838
626-319-3081
marc@menslegal.com

SAN DIEGO, CA - 10/14/08 - Today the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights. Woods. v. Shewry; 3rd Dist. C056072
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi

The taxpayer lawsuit was initially filed in 2005 by four male victims of domestic violence. In 2007, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly dismissed the case, ruling that men are not entitled to equal protection regarding domestic violence because they statistically are not similarly situated with women.

Today the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and held: ‘The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection.’

Harry Crouch, a San Diego child custody coach and President of the National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), a men’s rights organization that filed and backed the plaintiffs, said: “All victims need services regardless of gender. Services should be need-based, not gender-based. This decision can profoundly affect on the equal treatment of victims.”

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Marc E. Angelucci of the Men’s Legal Center in San Diego and founder of NCFM’s Los Angeles chapter, called this a victory for men’s equal rights, particularly male domestic violence victims and inmate fathers. He said: “We’ve been through the daisy wheel of judicial activism on this issue. Now the courts have finally addressed the injustice, but the struggle is not over. Many taxpayer-funded programs, especially in Los Angeles, still deny men services such as counseling, advocacy, shelter or hotel vouchers, which is endangering their children. Men pay at least half of the taxes that fund these programs and they should be entitled to services regardless of sex. I have seen the damage this does to men and kids and I will never stop fighting to end it, even if it means filing more lawsuits.”

Numerous experts submitted sworn declarations supporting the plaintiffs and explaining that this is a serious but hidden problem in which children are being emotionally harmed as witnesses of the violence while their dads get no help. Experts explained that although men report it less than women, empirical survey data consistently shows women are at least as violent as men in relationships and men suffer one-third of injuries. One expert, California State Long Beach Professor Martin Fiebert, summarizes over 200 of the studies in an online bibliography:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

In the early 1970s, federally-funded research by Professors Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz and Richard Gelles found women are as violent as men in relationships. As a result, all three researchers received death threats by those who saw the findings as a threat to the “patriarchy” theory of domestic violence. See Prof. Linda Kelly, ‘Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse,’ 30 Florida State Law Review 791 (2003)
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

Today over 200 studies - and growing - confirm the same findings using various methodologies. Further research into context and motives found self-defense did not explain away the female violence. See, Prof. Don Dutton, ‘Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice,’ Aggression and Violent Behavior, (11) 2006, 457-483
http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf

Additional sources on male DV victims:

Harvard Medical School:
http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d

University of New Hampshire:
http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n

Canadian Government Report:
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/Intimate_Partner.pdf

The movement of the bill out of committee represents the results of a well-coordinated team effort that brought several men’s issues groups together. The groups working together on this bill include NCFM-LA, ACFC, CAPF-CA, US-CAPF, RAAPFV, mensactivism.org, mensnewsdaily.com, hisside.com, and many more!

An incorrect default paternity judgment (IDPJ) results when a mother has multiple sexual relations and fails to disclose that she does not know who is the father of a child. The best that can happen is that a mother would say, “I do not know who is the father of my child.” However, in California the mother is prevented from making such a statement because the state demands that she name a male, any male, as the father of the child so they can go after the money.

For example, when applying for welfare services the mother is routinely required by the CA-DCSS to name a man as the father even if she does not know who is the father. The result is that the mothers, using a notoriously inaccurate armchair paternity test, routinely misidentifies a potential male as the father. The typical armchair paternity test consists of looking at the features of the child and comparing them to the male. If they seem to look alike then the mother names the male as the father. Unfortunately, this technique frequently fails and results in the victimization of innocent males.

On a large scale we find that ten’s of thousands of males are incorrectly identified as the father of a child. Worse, the DCSS relies heavily on substitute service and there is no guarantee that the male ever receives the notice. So, the male never has their day in court. For example, Los Angeles has a typical default rate of about 79%. By contrast New York has a default rate of between 10-15%.

A male typically learns of an IDPJ when the wages are garnished or they opt for a DNA test. Typically, that is long after the time limit for challenging the judgment expires. Once the time limits expire it is almost impossible for a person to overturn an IDPJ. Only the wealthiest individuals are able to overturn such a judgment on occasion, and even they have difficulty finding a qualified attorney that can effectively challenge such a judgment. By contrast, the poor are left twisting-in-the-wind while their lives, families, and careers come under a financial attack from the California DCSS that may even result in prison time for the innocent male.

Finally, outdated stereotypes lead the public to believe that the problem of paternity fraud rarely happens. The outdated stereotypes include the mistaken idea that females do not have multiple sexual relations like males. This stereotype has been proven to be false by the following facts:

• The AABB reports that about 30% of all paternity tests prove that the male in question is NOT THE FATHER of the child.
• Kathryn Kost and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest report, “The available data again provide proof that behavior many people would prefer not to acknowledge–sex outside of marriage and multiple sexual relationships, either over time or concurrently–is not limited to a few men and women or to certain groups in the United States…. The research showed that 41 percent had had four or more partners, 23 percent had six or more partners, and 8 percent had more than 10 partners. The study also revealed that women in all age groups and racial or ethnic groups seem equally likely to have multiple partners while unmarried.”
• “At each age, the majority of sexually experienced respondents had had more than one lifetime partner; between ages 14 and 21, the proportion who had had six or more rose from 8% to 31% among females and from 14% to 45% among males. In logistic regression analyses, alcohol use, illicit drug use and young age at first coitus were associated with increased odds that females had had two or more partners in the previous three months, and being married lowered the odds; black or Hispanic race or ethnicity, alcohol use and young age at first coitus increased the odds for males, and being married reduced the odds. As the number of reported alcohol-related behaviors increased, the adjusted proportion of respondents who had recently had multiple partners rose from 8% to 48% among females and from 23% to 61% among men.” (Multiple Sexual Partners Among U.S. Adolescents And Young Adults).

Clearly, both genders are having multiple sexual partners, and it is time for the public at large to recognize that by failing to admit this fact that men, children, and innocent families are all set-up to be victimized by paternity fraud. To preserve the rights of the child and the male in question, every effort must be made to correctly identify the correct biological father of the child. That requires genetic testing and remedial mechanisms that permit and IDPJ to be set aside.

SB1030 is a beginning that addresses the specific issue of IDPJ’s. It does not address the issue a defrauded presumed father (duped dad), it does not address the issue of voluntary declarations where the male is lied to, it does not address the issue of intrinsic fraud during a hearing, it does not address the issue of civil damages caused by paternity fraud, and it does not address the issue of reimbursement for child support paid by the victim of an IDPJ. These are issues yet to be addressed in the future. Nevertheless, SB1030 does provide a means where an IDPJ can be set aside and the arrears dismissed. To those families that are innocent victims of an IDPJ this bill represents hope that the DCSS will be legally required to stop the oppression.

Excerpt:

Date:  01/15/03
Honorable Haley J. Fromholz, Judge
Plaintiff:  Morse Mehrban (x)

National Coalition of Free Men
vs.
County of Los Angeles

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS, NATIONAL COALITION OF FREE MEN ET AL., TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Matter is called for hearing.

Motion is granted.

Moving Party moves for an order compelling a response to Inspection Demand (Set One) pursuant to CCP 2031 (1).  Moving Party has met its burden by proving that its discovery was properly served, that the time to respond has expired and that no response of any kind has been served.  Responding Party is ordered to provide answers to the inspection demand without objection within 10 days.

Under CCP 2031, the Court must impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to inspection demands unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification.  Responding Party has provided the Court with no justification for its failure to produce any response to Moving Party’s discovery.  Further, no opposition was filed, creating the inference that the motion is meritorious.  Responding Party and counsel to pay $725.30 in sanctions to Moving Party within ten days.