Children's Rights: Ex-Wife's Baseless Restraining Order Costs Her $852,000

Tuesday

Ex-Wife's Baseless Restraining Order Costs Her $852,000

Man Awarded $852,000 in Civil Court After Ex-Wife Falsely Accuses Him of Sexual Abuse

False allegations and baseless restraining orders are known to be common tactics used by high-conflict women and men (primarily women) and negative advocate attorneys to gain an advantage in divorce and custody cases.

It happens. We know it happens. And we know that most false accusers are rarely prosecuted for this criminal offense.

In March 2011, AVoiceforMenRadio aired a show called, Cry Rape! The Plague of False Allegations with guest E. Steven Berkimer (False Rape Society). I called in (68:20 on the counter) to ask why men aren’t suing women who make false allegations against them in civil court if family court and the police won’t hold these women accountable and prosecute them.

Looks like the inevitable has finally happened.

Last month, a judge awarded Daryl Ginyard of Severn, Maryland $852,000 in damages for the false light cast upon him and other punitive damages he incurred after his wife, Amani Ginyard, falsely accused him of sexually abusing their daughters.

$852,000.

Almost forgot to mention that this decision came more than a year after another county circuit judge awarded Mr Ginyard full custody of his children.

$852,000 and full custody to father because mother lied.

Not just any lie, the most despicable lie a parent can manufacture about the other parent. The lie that puts you on the sex offenders list. The lie that costs you your job. The lie that that makes it impossible to find a job. The lie that turns you into prison meat if you go to jail.

$852,000 seems paltry in comparison to the often irreparable damage caused by this kind of lie, but it’s a victory and it’s a good start.

And so it begins. . .

The Ginyards divorced in 2005. Two months into their equal time custody agreement, Christmas arrived and trouble ensued. Mr Ginyard was supposed to have the girls for the holiday, but his ex-wife decided she wanted the children for the day.

Rather than stick to the custody arrangement she presumably agreed to during their divorce, Ms Ginyard called the police and reported that the children were “in trouble” and that Mr Ginyard was trying to leave town with with them unlawfully.

Ms Ginyard didn’t stop there.

HometownAnnapolis reports:

The following February, on Valentine’s Day, Ginyard had custody over his eldest daughter while his ex-wife had their youngest girl. After that visit, it was alleged that Ginyard sexually abused his eldest daughter during the visit. The allegations were investigated and ruled unfounded.

Over the next two years Ginyard was accused of sexually assaulting both daughters seven more times. All of the accusations were ruled unfounded. He testified last week that as the allegations accumulated, questioning by detectives went from hour-long talks to two- to three-hour interrogations.

During the investigations, he lost custody of his children. After an allegation in March 2006, Ginyard wasn’t allowed to see his girls for nine months. Starting in September 2007, following a separate allegation, he went six weeks without being allowed to see his girls.

Mr Ginyard also lost his job as a result of Ms Ginyard’s false allegations. In 2006, Mr Ginyard’s employer was notified of a court subpoena for a child sexual assault and the bank he worked for let him go. He wasn’t able to find work at another bank until this past January 2011.

That’s almost 5 years out of work because of Ms Ginyard’s lies.

Ms Guinyard made a total of 8 false allegations. The girls told every child therapist, evaluator and court-appointed official they saw that no abuse took place.

Over 5 years from the time his nightmare began, Mr Ginyard was reunited with his girls. HometownAnnapolis reports:

In February 2010, after a two-day trial, Circuit Court Judge Paul F. Harris Jr. ruled that the allegations were false and that Ginyard did nothing to his children. Harris reversed the earlier custody decision, giving primary custody to Darryl Ginyard. The girls’ mother now gets visitation.

Lawrence-Whittaker [Ginyard’s attorney] said the case since has gone to the Court of Special Appeals, which upheld Harris’ ruling.

Much like Tracy West, who staged her own rape scene and made false allegations against her son’s father to deny him access, Ms Ginyard also gets visitation. A mother who put her girls through needless hours of of questioning and evaluations and who deliberately told the most horrific lies about their father, gets visitation. What does it take for a family court judge to deny access to a mother hellbent on alienation?

Even though Mr Ginyard has his daughters back and almost a million dollars in damages, there are lingering effects of Ms Ginyard’s lies. Also fromHometownAnnapolis:

Ginyard testified that the years of false allegations damaged his relationship with his daughters. He said he has become withdrawn with the girls and is afraid to do things normal parents do – like hug or snuggle with his children while watching a movie.

“I don’t let them stay in my room a lot,” he said. “I have to distance myself from them, no matter how much I care about them, because of the way things have transpired.

“… I don’t want to put myself into a position like that at all.”

This may be the most heartbreaking side effect of the lie. Mr Ginyard is afraid to show his own children affection, to be close to them. He has to squelch his natural affection for the girls.

Is Ms Ginyard sorry for lying and the pain and damage she caused? Here’s what her attorney had to say on her behalf:

Amani Ginyard’s attorney, Michael G. Morin, said Darryl Ginyard did not suffer enough to get the money he was demanding.

He said his client didn’t publicly accuse her ex-husband.

“He has suffered zero damages except his ego,” Morin said.

He called Ginyard’s lawsuit “a shot at the lottery.”

Wow. Just. Wow. Not sorry. Not at all. If I’d been a juror and heard that bit of remorseless sociopathy, I’d have multiplied Mr Ginyard’s award by 1000.

Moral of the story.

Sometimes you shouldn’t drop the rope. Sometimes you have to fight back. Sometimes fighting back works. If the family court and criminal courts won’t do their jobs and help protect men in similar situations, perhaps civil court can.

$852,000 is a small amount compared to the pain, humiliation and time Mr Ginyard lost with his daughters. It’s also a small amount when you consider that his relationship with the girls may be forever altered. He’s afraid to hug them. He’s afraid snuggle up and watch a movie with them.

No, $852,000 is not enough, but it’s a good start.

Oh, and false accusers beware. It just might cost you more than a slap on the wrist and a trip to your local community counseling center.

Shrink4Men Coaching and Consulting Services:

Dr Tara J. Palmatier provides confidential, fee-for-service, consultation/coaching services to help both men and women work through their relationship issues via telephone and/or Skype chat. Her practice combines practical advice, support, reality testing and goal-oriented outcomes. Please visit the Shrink4Men Services page for professional inquiries.

Press Release: Women Against VAWA Excess –Tue, Mar 13, 2012

Restraining Orders Fail Victims, So Why Does the Abuse Industry Push for Them?
WAVE Columnist Asks

WASHINGTON, March 13, 2012 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Restraining orders don't help victims and waste taxpayer resources, claims Crystal Smoot in her recent editorial (1). So why aren't abuse-reduction advocates pushing for criminal justice programs that work? she asks. Smoot's article was recently published at the Women Against VAWA Excess (WAVE) website.

Smoot highlights an early Colorado case in which a restraining order failed to prevent the killing of three young girls.

The case, Gonzales v. Castle Rock, was eventually heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, with Department of Justice officials arguing restraining orders are issued too frequently and often unnecessarily. In 2005 the Court ruled that Gonzales did not have a constitutional due process right to enforce the order.

Prosecutors, researchers, and women's advocates believe restraining orders are ineffective:

1. Prosecutors have concluded, "Many stakeholders do not believe that orders of protection are an effective means of securing the safety of the complainant." (2)

2. One research study found that having an order had no impact on threats of property damage, severe violence, or other forms of physical violence. (3)

3. One report states, "All observers agree that--at least until they are violated--a civil protection order is useless with the 'hard core' batterer." (4)

4. The Independent Women's Forum notes that restraining orders only "lull women into a false sense of security." (5)

Given these experiences, Smoot calls for the development of local resources and better police protections, not more restraining orders that fail to halt the violence.

Women Against VAWA Excess fosters open discussion and debate about the effectiveness and social impact of the federal Violence Against Women Act.

(1) Smoot C. The Gonzales tragedy: Wouldn't it have been better to campaign for more police? March 9, 2012. http://womenagainstvawa.org/the-gonzales-tragedy-wouldnt-it-have-been-better-to-campaign-for-more-police/

(2) Gavin C and Puffett NK. Criminal Domestic Violence Case Processing: A Case Study of the Five Boroughs of New York City. New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2005, p. 30. http://www.courtinnovation.org/_uploads/documents/Citywide%20Final1.pdf

(3) Harrell A and Smith B. Effects of restraining orders on domestic violence victims. In Buzawa C and Buzawa E (eds.): Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996, p. 229.

(4) Finn P. Civil protection orders: A flawed opportunity for intervention. In Steinman M (ed.): Woman Battering: Policy Responses. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co., 1991.

(5) Independent Women's Forum. Domestic Violence: An In-Depth Analysis. Washington, DC, 2005.

Contact: Teri Stoddard, 301-801-0608, editor@womenagainstvawa.org

This information was brought to you by Cision http://www.cisionwire.com
http://www.cisionwire.com/women-against-vawa-excess/r/restraining-orders-fail-victims--so-why-does-the-abuse-industry-push-for-them--wave-columnist-asks,c9231241

Father advocates move for repeal of restraining order law

Advocates for fathers are mounting a ballot effort to repeal the state’s restraining order law, arguing that it has been overused and misapplied in a way that discriminates against men and breaks up families.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20110801father_advocates_move_for_repeal_of_restraining_order_law/srvc=home&position=recent

Children's Rights Florida

http://www.mediaradar.org/

Denuncia que la agredieron familiares de su ex pareja y resultó ser un vecino

viso at CUSTODIA PATERNA - 19 hours ago

Sábado, 28 de Septiembre, 2013 El Juzgado de lo Penal ha condenado a una mujer a una multa como autora responsable de un delito de denuncia falsa en grado de tentativa después de que denunciara a dos familiares de su ex pareja de una supuesta agresión hacia ella y su hijo cuando en realidad había sido un vecino. La sentencia considera como hechos probados que el 8 de septiembre de 2010 fue remitido al Juzgado de Instrucción Número 4 de Palencia dos partes de lesiones confeccionados con fecha de 5 de septiembre de 2010 tanto de ella como de su hijo. Tras ser llamada a declarar en nov... more »

https://www.facebook.com/groups/SAVEflDVLP/permalink/744475228996246/
Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, August 22, 2015

Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, August 22, 2015

2 comments:

Women Against VAWANovember 19, 2013 at 1:24 AM
The Violence Against Women Act Ignores Half the Problem ~ By Anna Rittgers

The 2011 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) provides funding for programs to address domestic violence and will expand the act’s provisions to include services for gays and lesbians. Theoretically, male victims of violence are eligible for help, too. But did you know that? I thought not.

The problem with reauthorizing VAWA is that doing so would perpetuate the notion that domestic violence is something that happens only to women. While it is true that VAWA has evolved over time and now ensures that male victims of partner violence can avail themselves of VAWA benefits and services, the very name of the act implies otherwise. It is quite likely that a male victim would not know he can seek help, given the name of the act.

The image of the abuser is almost always a guy. But this simply isn’t the case. One of the pioneers of the study of family violence was sociologist Richard J. Gelles. Gelles wrote a seminal 1999 article for the old Women’s Quarterly, then a publication of the Independent Women’s Forum, on the “hidden victims” of violence.[i] Gelles admitted that 25 years earlier he had overlooked something important when, in the course of doing research, he meet a couple he called Faith and Alan. Faith had been beaten by boyfriends, her ex-husband, and her husband. Faith’s troubles became the focus of Gelles’s article. Gelles barely noted Faith’s violence towards men, which included breaking Alan’s bones and stabbing a man while he read the newspaper. Faith’s violence merited a mere footnote.

We know more about intimate violence directed at men than we did when Gelles wrote his article. But for cultural reasons, it is very difficult for male victims of domestic violence to seek help. Men are seen to be physically stronger than women, and so he should be able to just “take it.” Furthermore, domestic violence awareness campaigns are horribly one-sided, and almost always portray males as the aggressor and females as victim. Police are often hardwired to view men as the perpetrator. If a man calls 911 for help when he’s being attacked by his spouse or partner, he is often subject to arrest, even if he is the only one with physical injuries.

For seventeen years, there has been unequal treatment before the law. Female aggressors are keenly aware of this unequal justice, and a 2010 study on men who sustain abuse at the hands of their female partners discovered that 67.2% reported their female aggressors made false allegations of spousal abuse. [ii] Of those with children, 48.9% of the men reported that their partners made false allegations of child abuse.[iii] In other words, VAWA’s myopic view of who perpetrates domestic violence gives female abusers an additional avenue to torment their spouses.

The name of the Act itself makes it clear that the law’s focus is to address violence against women in particular, not the general problem of domestic violence. The specialized training that judges and law enforcement officers receive ignores the reality that women are as likely as men to be perpetrators of violence. This creates a justice system that treats male aggressors more harshly than female aggressors of the same crime.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Steve GartinDecember 30, 2013 at 1:04 PM
PRO SE RIGHTS:

Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."

Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.

Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."

Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."

Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.

Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."

NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."

Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."

Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).

Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."

Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

SHARE YOUR STORY

We always encourage all parents and extended family to share experiences of Family Court horrors, or Parental Alienation and its impact on you, your children and family. That way the ripple effect of the information and experiences shared will create positive change for other people who are affected or who may be affected in the future.

Comment anonymously, call yourself whatever you want. Email addresses are strictly confidential, and providing one is optional (but will allow you to be notified of others’ responses and to dialogue immediately if you wish). This blog was viewed over a half a million times. For the public to be aware of procedural abuses, it has to hear about them. The blog author’s own story is here. Civility is the only constraint upon your speech.

The Communications Decency Act exempts this blog’s author from any liability for what you say.