Mothers: Essential

Make your favorite mom(s) a star. 
Send a customized video now.

We bet you know a lot of moms who deserve a "Mother of the Year" award. Imagine their surprise when they get a video news clip saying she won this award. Be sure to send yours before Mothers Day this Sunday.

Just fill out the form below and we'll send her the video with her name embedded in it. We'll also send you a copy of the video so you can forward it to her friends and family, if you want. Everyone should know she's won "Mother of the Year." Right?

‘TIMELESS IMPORTANCE OF MOTHERS’ ONE CONSTANT IN CHANGING WORLD FACING MULTIPLE CHALLENGES, SAYS SECRETARY-GENERAL IN MESSAGE ON DAY OF FAMILIES

Following is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s message for the International Day of Families, observed 15 May: 



This year’s International Day of Families, being commemorated under the theme, “Mothers and Families: Challenges in a Changing World,” focuses on the important role of mothers for families and communities around the world. 



Mothers play a critical role in the family, which is a powerful force for social cohesion and integration. The mother-child relationship is vital for the healthy development of children. And mothers are not only caregivers; they are also breadwinners for their families. Yet women continue to face major ‑‑ and even life-threatening ‑‑ challenges in motherhood. 



Childbirth, which should be a cause for celebration, is a grave health risk for too many women in developing countries. Improving maternal health is the Millennium Development Goal on which the least progress has been made. A woman in a least-developed country is 300 times more likely to die in childbirth or from pregnancy-related complications than a woman in a developed country. We must make pregnancy and childbirth safer by enabling health systems to provide family planning, skilled attendance at birth and emergency obstetric care. 



Violence against women, many of whom are mothers, remains one of the most pervasive human rights violations of our time. It has far-reaching consequences ‑‑ endangering the lives of women and girls, harming their families and communities, and damaging the very fabric of societies. Ending and preventing violence against women should be a key priority for all countries. 



We must also ensure universal access to education. The benefits of educating women and girls accrue not only to individual families but to whole countries, unlocking the potential of women to contribute to broader development efforts. Statistics also show that educated mothers are much more likely to keep their children in school, meaning that the benefits of education transcend generations. 



As we strive to support mothers in their caregiving work, we should develop and expand family-friendly policies and services, such as childcare centres, that would reduce some of the workload placed on women. Women and men alike need stronger public support to share equally in work and family responsibilities. Families built on the recognition of equality between women and men will contribute to more stable and productive societies. 



We face multiple challenges in our changing world, but one factor remains constant: the timeless importance of mothers and their invaluable contribution to raising the next generation. By rewarding their efforts and enhancing their living conditions, we can secure a better future for all.

Mother's surprise confession exploded cot death theory

In the last of his series on criminal cases being considered for appeal, Duncan Campbell examines the evidence that could free a woman with a mental age of 10 from a life sentence and the circumstances in which a man was jailed for stabbing two racist attackers

• Duncan Campbell
• The Guardian, Saturday 4 January 1992 00.01 GMT
• Article history

Early this year, the Court of Appeal will have a chance to hear for the first time the case of Jacqueline Fletcher, who was jailed for life at Birmingham crown court in 1988 for drowning her six-week-old son, Glen.

Ms Fletcher, now 23, was born in Bangor, north Wales, and grew up in Atherstone, Warwickshire. When she left school she started going out with a young petty criminal, Glen Miles, and became pregnant by him.

Her first baby was born prematurely after what Warwickshire social services described as 'physical abuse and kicking by the father-to-be' and weighed just over two pounds. She was not capable of looking after the child properly - doctors now say she has an IQ of 70 and a mental age of 10. The child was taken into care and eventually adopted.

Her second child, Glen Richard Miles, was born in September 1984, again prematurely. The child's father was back in prison shortly after the birth. Social services worked closely with Jacqueline to make sure that the child was properly cared for. She was visited daily by at least one person connected with the social services.

On October 19, 1984, a postman, Gary Penny, arrived to deliver mail and found Ms Fletcher crying 'my baby, my baby.' The child was dead on the sofa and Mr Penny called the ambulance and police. An ambulanceman attempted mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. A pathologist's examination suggested that the child was a cot death victim. No inquest was held, as is the normal practice, so that parents are not caused further distress.

More than three years later, in December 1987, and a mother again for the third time, she was complaining about the fractious nature of the new child. With her landlady in the room, she said: 'I'll do to you what I done to the other.'

The police were informed and she was taken to Nuneaton police station and questioned for six hours. At the start of the interview she told the police that she had woken and found her baby dead. But later, after she had asked her solicitor, Ian Richardson, to leave the room she is recorded as having admitted to the killing, giving 'post-natal depression' as her reason. Her solicitor said he was shocked to find she had changed her mind when he returned and witnessed her full confession. She was charged with murder.
Even at this stage it did not appear that Ms Fletcher would be jailed for life. Infanticide, in which a mother suffering from post-natal depression takes her child's life, is normally seen as necessitating treatment and care rather than jail.

The main evidence against her in court was her confession, in which she described how the baby struggled under water. A Home Office pathologist, Dr Peter Andrews, also gave evidence based on an analysis of microscopic slides of body tissues, which had been kept for routine research purposes. From these, Dr Andrew concluded that the pathology was consistent with drowning. After the jury had convicted her on a majority verdict of 10 to two she was given a mandatory life sentence.

But there were many puzzling factors which a probation officer working with her became concerned about. Justice, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, was contacted. It in turn alerted the BBC programme, Rough Justice, and an investigation was launched.

New aspects emerged: her mental age suggested that the confession might be unreliable there were inconsistencies in the method by which she said she had drowned the baby. The second factor concerned the testimony of Dr Andrews. Rough Justice contacted a number of experts in paediatric pathology and their findings were that the pathology was equally consistent with cot death.

It was discovered that there had been testimony given by Dr Andrews in which he had referred to the child's lungs as being 'waterlogged' this, it transpired, had only been an attempt at putting complex pathology into layman's language. In fact, far from having any extraneous body fluid in the lungs, the fluid to which Dr Andrews was referring was a naturally produced body fluid. (The pathologist who carried out the original post-mortem had not been called to give evidence in the trial. He stands by his view that the child died a cot death.)

Bryan Tully, a clinical psychiatrist, and an expert in police interview techniques, said that it was highly unlikely that someone of Ms Fletcher's level of intelligence would use a phrase like 'post natal depression.' It could have been the case, he suggested, that she had got the idea that, if she just pleaded guilty to infanticide, she believed she would not serve any sentence.
With this new evidence, leave for appeal was sought and granted. Just before Christmas, Lord Justice Russell gave permission for the defence to seek further evidence to be taken from another pathologist, Dr Iain West. Next week there will be fresh consultation between the experts at which stage the Crown will decide whether or not to contest the appeal.

Warwickshire police have criticised Rough Justice's programme, accusing it of 'inaccuracies and half-truths.' They have stated that the jury made their decision on the evidence in front of them and on the basis of a confession made by a woman who said she had killed her child. They say they will co-operate with any appeal.

Jacqueline Fletcher's father, Leslie, says he believes the appeal case is 'as strong as any case can be' and says he never believed his daughter had killed her child.

Australian Family Court Experiences

Maternalism

Maternalism

What is Maternalism?

Are the voices of mothers who identify with the liberation of mothers and the rights of their children.  There was a past emergence of Maternalism in feminist history in the nineteenth century, however it is not consistent to today’s issues that continue to undermine her rights and values. 

We believe that the act of giving birth has been extremely undervalued in today’s society much as a result of patriarchy but also due to the lack of representation of mothers voices in women’s rights organizations.  We note that the eight hour day was inclusive of workers rights, but failed to acknowledge the labor of mothers towards raising future generations.  In the last twenty years, our rights have declined further with this acknowledgement as our children have grown to become the property of the state and men.  We have the right to work from home, have flexible hours so that our care and work is balanced to eight hour days.   We demand that employers provide the technology and opportunities to do so.   We have the exclusive right to be prioritized to be the exclusive candidates that have existing or possible opportunities to do so.

We believe that joint parenting and shared parenting that is forced under the state of law upon dissolution of marriage undermines our rights to:

Consent to the renamed marriage contract.

Continue our natural primary care giving relationship with our children.

Make decisions for the welfare of our children

Obtain protection of family

Freedom of movement

Love our children without scrutiny of the deep bond we place with our children

Raise our children

Be appreciated for the lives we bore onto this earth.

Whilst the status of women has improved, the status of mothers has declined that our representation in the media of mothers is poor and discriminatory.

We believe that both forced and persuasive adoption is a degradation of women equivalent to prostitution and laws against this abdominal crime need to be enforced.

We believe that threats to take our children for objecting to medical practices that are harmful is an exploitation of mothers and undermines her ability to intuitively know what is best to raise her children as she has done hundreds of years prior to the introduction of medical treatment.

Motherhood: Don't Replace Her

PAS Racket

THE PAS RACKET

Networks of lawyers, GALs, mediators, psychologists, therapists, parenting coordinators, et. al. collude and conspire in these Parental Alienation Fraud cases. The mother and children are attacked every step of the way. The GAL may ask to speak with the children. If they too have been abused as is very frequent with domestic abusers, the GAL then calls in a child abuse report, intentionally, or this may be done in response to a domestic violence injunction. The GAL then calls in one or more of this network of therapists and evaluators to attack the mother and children from every angle. All accusing the victims while exonerating the perpetrator who pays hefty “legal bills” and “evaluation bills”, basically buying visitation and/or custody in this racketeering fraud. It’s like black market human trafficking with the appearance of legitimacy, all done with virtual immunity through the court system.

Here is one such brutal example with Judge Susan Greenhawt that was overturned on appeal to Florida’s 4th DCA. The guardian ad litem, Vicki Plant, has allegedly been involved in multiple cases using the same psychologists and same strategy to further victimize abused women and children. The therapist, DaliaBiller has also worked with Vicki Plant on other cases using the same strategy. Also, involved in this reportedly vicious attack on the mother and children wasMartha Jacobson as evaluator, and Jan Faust as undisclosed expert. Interestingly, Jan Faust owns a home with the judge on the case, SusanGreenhawt per Broward County Public Records book 44956, page 1035.This abuse of discretion custody change caused severe trauma to mother and children with one of the children having to be hospitalized. This sadistic group allegedly continued to inflict harm by blaming the mother and depriving the child of the mother’s love and support. This is called Maternal Deprivation Abuse.

The family reportedly continues to suffer as the children are under 18 and litigation continues.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2005
S.S. Appellant, v. P.S. Appellee.
CASE NO. 4D04-455
Opinion filed January 19, 2005

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit
Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Susan F. Greenhawt, Judge;
L.T. Case No. FMCE 03-15749 3793.

Lynn G. Waxman of Lynn G. Waxman, P.A.,
West Palm Beach, Sari Teichman Addicott and
Michael L. Addicott of Addicott & Addicott,
P.A., Hollywood, for appellant.

Nancy W. Gregoire and Joel L. Kirschbaum of
Bunnell, Woulfe, Kirschbaum, Keller, McIntyre
& Gregoire, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw
the opinion issued on November 10, 2004, and
substitute the following.

Appellant, S.S., appeals from
the non-final Order on Temporary Injunction for
Protection Against Domestic Violence and Other
Temporary Relief. She argues that she was
deprived of due process at the hearing because,
contrary to Florida Family Law Rule of
Procedure 12.363(b)(1) (2003), the trial court
permitted the use of the custody evaluation
psychological report which was completed and
delivered to appellant’s counsel the day before
the hearing. We agree and reverse.
Pursuant to section 741.30, Florida Statutes
(2003), the trial court held a hearing on the
temporary injunction for protection against
domestic violence issued against appellee and
considered the issue of custody of the children
of the parties. Two months before the hearing a
custody evaluator was appointed. On Sunday,
the day before the hearing, which had been
continued twice, the report was completed and
delivered to the parties’ attorneys. The report
was thirty-five pages single-spaced and
recommended that the children be removed from
appellant’s custody due to the severe alienation
of the children by their mother (appellant) from
their father. Finding that the circumstances
amounted to an emergency, the trial court, over
the repeated objections of appellant that she
needed more time to prepare, permitted the
testimony of the psychologist, which was based
upon the report.

We find that the circumstances of this case do
not rise to the level of the extraordinary
circumstances required to find a true emergency
as held in Stanley-Baker v. Baker, 789 So. 2d
353, 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Thus, the trial
court’s decision to permit the testimony of the
psychologist that was based upon her report,
which was received by appellant the day before
the hearing, was an abuse of discretion and
deprived appe llant of procedural due process.
See Crifaci v. Crifaci, 626 So. 2d 287, 288 (Fla.
4th DCA 1993).

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
GUNTHER, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ.,
concur.

 

Thank you for all the concerns over the therapist in this case. Here is an update:

NOTICE OF RELOCATION/ TERMINATION OF PRACTICE: Dr. Dalia Saffa-Biller at

 Posted: Sunday May 18 , 2008

• Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
• Event Date: 6/15/2008

Description:

NOTICE OF RELOCATION/ TERMINATION OF PRACTICE: Dr. Dalia Saffa-Biller at the Weston Center for Psychological Svcs will be relocating and no longer available to provide service to users in Broward County, Florida effective June 15, 2008. Dr. Biller will remain the records custodian. To request records call(954) 389-5563 or send Correspondence to 13349 Chasewater Dr, Charlotte, NC 28277. May 18, 25, June 1, 8, 2008

 South Florida Sun-Sentinel ad id: 13536317

 

 It is believed that this therapist is under investigation yet again. Anyone wishing to file a complaint, please use this complaint form regarding Florida psychologists.

Be sure to check out the PAS Racket-Part 2

The Mothers Act: A Violation of Informed Consent

The Mothers Act: A Violation of Informed Consent

Filed under: Getting screwed by the politicians, Women's Rights — justice4mothers @ 3:49 pm 

UPDATE (4/14/09):  This was overwhelming passed by our House of Representatives on March 30th.  Arrrrrrrgg!  Please get in touch with your Senator, and tell them this bill is unacceptable!

(1/28/09):  So much going on against mothers, I just found this one…I’ll get the links for the bills put in this post also for further information…I want to know who the corrupt bastards are that are supporting this legislation.  From The Mothers Act website:

nce again the MOTHERS ACT has been reintroduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 20 introduced Jan 6th 2009) and the U.S. Senate (S. 324 introduced Jan 26 2009)

This bill quite simply is a feeder line for the psycho-pharmaceutical industry and will result in more mothers and infants being put at risk for being prescribed antidepressant and other dangerous psychiatric drugs documented by the U.S. FDA to cause birth defects, psychosis, mania, worsening depression, suicidal and homicidal ideation.

The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act is a federal bill named after Melanie Stokes, a woman who suffered emotional difficulties after giving birth and was subsequently prescribed a cocktail of intensely controversial psychiatric drugs including anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety, and anti-depressant drugs before being subjected to electroshock treatment.

Melanie Stokes was in the mental health system, was prescribed drugs, was hospitalized, was subjected to the still barbaric practice of electroshock and only after receiving mental health “treatment” did she commit suicide. That is what the mental health industry did for a new mother named Melanie Stokes. It is incredible that a story such as this does not raise alarm bells within Congress on the negligence of prescribing cocktails of psychiatric drugs to new mothers, drugs documented by the US FDA and international drug regulatory agencies to cause not only a host of documented adverse events for adults, but also for the unborn children of pregnant women who incredibly, are being prescribed these drugs even during pregnancy.

(click to enlarge) Adverse Drug Reactions Reported to FDA’s MedWatch

(click to enlarge) Estimated SSRI Side Effects

Despite psycho pharmaceutical rhetoric about the need for more mental health treatment of pregnant women and new mothers, the fact remains that the most common treatment for women diagnosed with postpartum depression is drugs. There is absolutely no language in the Mothers Act that will ensure mothers being “screened” for postpartum depression are granted the most fundamental right of “informed consent,” meaning, per the legal definition, they are warned about all the risks of the proposed treatments and all the alternatives. So much for the rights of mothers.

Proponents of the bill, including Pharma front groups and other vested interests, claim this won’t happen. So the public is supposed to believe that the same vested interests which have been exposed for downplaying or denying the dangerous effects of antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs for more than a decade should be trusted. The public is supposed to believe that because new mothers are screened for a specific condition called “postpartum depression” (which has as its main treatment, drugs), does not mean that they will A) be prescribed them, or B) won’t be warned that the drugs prescribed to help them could in fact result in worsening depression, psychosis, mania, suicidal and homicidal ideation, stillbirths or birth defects if prescribed the drugs while pregnant.

The opposition to the Mothers Act is simple. It violates informed consent. It is a psycho/pharmaceutical friendly bill, not a consumer friendly bill. And those who support it either don’t understand the fundamental right of informed consent, or have made their allegiance clear.

Senate Bill 324:  Sponsor is Sen. Robert Menéndez [D, NJ] , cosponsors are Sen. Sherrod Brown [D, OH], Sen. Richard Durbin [D, IL], Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, NJ], Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME], and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI].  If any of these senators belong to YOU, please send them a message that this legislation is unacceptable.

House Resolution 20:  Sponsor is Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1] , cosponsors are Rep. Joe Baca [D, CA-43], Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23], Rep. Russ Carnahan [D, MO-3], Rep. Donna Edwards [D, MD-4], Rep. Sam Farr [D, CA-17], Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51], Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY-20], Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D, NY-22], Rep. Mazie Hirono [D, HI-2], Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D, RI-1], Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5], and Rep. Grace Napolitano [D, CA-38].  I am shocked at some of the names on here…if any of these representatives belong to YOU, please let them know this legislation is unacceptable.

Comments (5)nce again the MOTHERS ACT has been reintroduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 20 introduced Jan 6th 2009) and the U.S. Senate (S. 324 introduced Jan 26 2009)

This bill quite simply is a feeder line for the psycho-pharmaceutical industry and will result in more mothers and infants being put at risk for being prescribed antidepressant and other dangerous psychiatric drugs documented by the U.S. FDA to cause birth defects, psychosis, mania, worsening depression, suicidal and homicidal ideation.

The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act is a federal bill named after Melanie Stokes, a woman who suffered emotional difficulties after giving birth and was subsequently prescribed a cocktail of intensely controversial psychiatric drugs including anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety, and anti-depressant drugs before being subjected to electroshock treatment.

Melanie Stokes was in the mental health system, was prescribed drugs, was hospitalized, was subjected to the still barbaric practice of electroshock and only after receiving mental health “treatment” did she commit suicide. That is what the mental health industry did for a new mother named Melanie Stokes. It is incredible that a story such as this does not raise alarm bells within Congress on the negligence of prescribing cocktails of psychiatric drugs to new mothers, drugs documented by the US FDA and international drug regulatory agencies to cause not only a host of documented adverse events for adults, but also for the unborn children of pregnant women who incredibly, are being prescribed these drugs even during pregnancy.

(click to enlarge) Adverse Drug Reactions Reported to FDA’s MedWatch

(click to enlarge) Estimated SSRI Side Effects

Despite psycho pharmaceutical rhetoric about the need for more mental health treatment of pregnant women and new mothers, the fact remains that the most common treatment for women diagnosed with postpartum depression is drugs. There is absolutely no language in the Mothers Act that will ensure mothers being “screened” for postpartum depression are granted the most fundamental right of “informed consent,” meaning, per the legal definition, they are warned about all the risks of the proposed treatments and all the alternatives. So much for the rights of mothers.

Proponents of the bill, including Pharma front groups and other vested interests, claim this won’t happen. So the public is supposed to believe that the same vested interests which have been exposed for downplaying or denying the dangerous effects of antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs for more than a decade should be trusted. The public is supposed to believe that because new mothers are screened for a specific condition called “postpartum depression” (which has as its main treatment, drugs), does not mean that they will A) be prescribed them, or B) won’t be warned that the drugs prescribed to help them could in fact result in worsening depression, psychosis, mania, suicidal and homicidal ideation, stillbirths or birth defects if prescribed the drugs while pregnant.

The opposition to the Mothers Act is simple. It violates informed consent. It is a psycho/pharmaceutical friendly bill, not a consumer friendly bill. And those who support it either don’t understand the fundamental right of informed consent, or have made their allegiance clear.

Senate Bill 324:  Sponsor is Sen. Robert Menéndez [D, NJ] , cosponsors are Sen. Sherrod Brown [D, OH], Sen. Richard Durbin [D, IL], Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, NJ], Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME], and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI].  If any of these senators belong to YOU, please send them a message that this legislation is unacceptable.

House Resolution 20:  Sponsor is Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1] , cosponsors are Rep. Joe Baca [D, CA-43], Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23], Rep. Russ Carnahan [D, MO-3], Rep. Donna Edwards [D, MD-4], Rep. Sam Farr [D, CA-17], Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51], Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY-20], Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D, NY-22], Rep. Mazie Hirono [D, HI-2], Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D, RI-1], Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5], and Rep. Grace Napolitano [D, CA-38].  I am shocked at some of the names on here…if any of these representatives belong to YOU, please let them know this legislation is unacceptable.

The Family Court Model: Mothers to Submit to the Father or face losing the Children

The Family Court Model

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Magazines & Newspape parenting womens rights