The National Organization for Women says a report produced by the
California chapter, released in late June, is an "independent
report." Rebecca Farmer, spokesperson for NOW's Washington
headquarters, declares no knowledge of alleged evidence of
criminal activity, claimed to be contained in the "Family Court
Report 2002." She was not apparently prepared to deal with
questions regarding the month-old report.
Cindy Ross of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice, a
self-proclaimed activist group which contributed information in
the compilation of the controversial report, sent e-mail to Wendy
McElroy in early July, later published at Men's News Daily,
claiming to have sent actual evidence of criminal activity on the
part of various organizations and individuals, to CA NOW.
When the DesertLight Journal [DLJ] asked Rachel Allen of CA NOW:
"please clarify, if you would, what specific evidence you have
been given, if in fact you have been given such evidence relating
to [such] charges... Ms. Ross' comments would appear to charge
many people of some quite serious crimes. Does CA NOW, or the
National Organization for Women have any plans to pursue these
charges, and if so, would you please comment on the nature of any
planned action on the part of either?"
This response was received, in part:
"the only information received from Cindy Ross included in our
Family Court Report was in the form of links to related articles
found in the related links and articles section of the report.
The content of the report itself was written and researched by the
authors indicated on the title page. Although we support the work
of the NAFCJ in their efforts to improve the family court system
for women and children, we are not in any way affiliated with them
nor do we speak for them."
When asked, "Have you received any evidence of criminal activity
on the part of any
group or individual from Cindy Ross? Do you feel that CA NOW has
any responsibility to address this evidence in any way, such as
reporting the alleged criminal activity to authorities, and does
CA NOW have any plans to do so?"
Ms. Allen responded by directing us back to report itself, which
contains no reference to either evidence of specific criminal
activity, or to specific actions on the part of NOW itself
regarding any crimes reported to them. The "solutions section,"
referred to by Ms. Allen, appears to be in the form of suggestions
regarding legislative and other changes in the general family
court system. Although it calls for a statewide audit of the
judiciary for non-compliance in elections and government codes in
election and appointment of judges is mentioned, as is an "audit
and investigation by the Attorney General of fraudulent non-profit
continuing education and support organizations participating in
family law processes," it does not specify any groups or
individuals by name, nor does it suggest the means to be used by
the AG's office to identify which organizations should be
considered. There is no mention of NOW being in possession of any
evidence regarding any specific group or individual, nor is the
charge made by NAFCJ of "a court kickback/financial corruption
scheme that calls for the misuse of federal program funds in the
name of fatherhood and shared parenting" referenced in this
section.
It would appear that while Ms. Ross believes herself to have
"worked closely" with CANOW in providing information and criminal
evidence, as stated in her previous e-mail, NOW considers her
contribution to be otherwise. There is no apparent recognition of
any evidence of criminal activity in the possession of NOW or
specific action intended by either the National Organization or
its California chapter.
It has also been reported to the DLJ that the President of NAFCJ,
Liz Richards, claiming specialized knowledge of father's rights
organizations and public figures active in the men's movement, has
been contacting women's organizations seeking their support. To
our knowledge, she has not been successful.
While all of this information is mainly a confirmation of
suspicions on our part, we have begun to formulate more questions:
the actual reasons for issuance of the Family Court Report 2002,
and why an established, even (in some quarters) respected
organization such as NOW would rely on a small, self-proclaimed
activist group such as NAFCJ to supply them with clearly
unverified, unsubstantiated information. The website for NAFCJ
speaks for itself. There is no apparent organized activism project
for the org since 1993, when they claim to have organized. There
are neither specific goals stated, long-term or short, nor any of
the procedures obvious with other orgs, such as regular meetings,
or fund-raising projects. It is simply, as in Rachel Allen's
words, a collection of "links to related articles." A visit to
their online discussion group, Family Court Reform, shows that
their professionalism as a group is questionable. Personal
correspondence and communications by the org's "officers" also
leave much to be desired. Have they perhaps been chosen as the
too-willing scapegoats in some larger, as-yet-unrevealed scenario?
Is the arrogance of NOW complete, and they believe themselves to
be a law unto themselves? That no person, nor organization would
dare challenge their conclusions, no matter how faulty or hastily
prepared? The report itself was not even proofread; which suggests
either a reason for haste, or an uncaring attitude on the part of
its authors. Why is it that the national office seems to be
disinterested in, possibly even embarrassed by this report?
One thing is obvious; this is certainly not an example of "linking
arms in dangerous times," as was the theme of this year's national
conference for NOW in St. Paul, MN. If this is an example of the
kind of sisterhood and solidarity practiced by feminist orgs these
days, then the men's movement has made much more progress than we
realize.
As has been seen by the well-founded criticism both in the
mainstream and men's issues press, this report was at best an
ill-conceived, poorly designed attempt to point out indications of
a social problem. It should be pointed out that of the authors of
the report, only Rachel Allen has spoken out publicly in defense
of the document, in her position as PR spokesperson for CANOW.
With only one author of the report itself and some of the
contributors to the project apparently willing to 'own' it in its
entirety, it is highly unlikely that anyone - any responsible
person, that is - in California state government is likely to give
it credence. They would be even less likely to act on any of its
suggestions. These suggestions, by the way, fail to assign a
specific role for NOW in implementing the proposed changes. In
another era, NOW would be certain to carve a niche for itself in
the proceedings, if not to direct the changes as much as possible.
The next step is to find out why this tremendous faux pas
occurred, or was allowed to occur. Was FCR2002 intended to be
accepted without question? Or was it in fact a purely political
move that backfired? We can only hope that time will tell, and the
answers to our questions will soon reveal themselves.
Trudy Schuett is the publisher of the
DesertLight
Journal.
