Article here. Excerpt:

'In a rare move, a Brooklyn appellate court has decided that a prenuptial agreement between a Long Island woman and her millionaire husband will be thrown out, the New York Post first reported.

"It's virtually unheard of," Dennis D'Antonio, the attorney for Elizabeth Petrakis, told The Huffington Post. "To a large degree, this has upset the heretofore common thinking that prenups were not subject to challenge. ... Now there's precendent for vacating a prenup. It's a big deal."
...
D'Antonio explained to HuffPost that his client's husband is currently worth between $20 and $30 million. Peter Petrakis never made good on his promise about the prenup, and his failure to do so was enough to convince the courts that fraud had occurred, said D'Antonio.

"It's fraud where someone lies to you, or tricks you into doing something on the basis of a lie, that you wouldn't have otherwise done," D'Antonio said of the Petrakis prenup. "That was the grounds for challenging it."'

Article here. Excerpt:

Story here. Excerpt:

'A California preschool teacher is facing felony charges after she allegedly drugged toddlers with a sleep aid.

KTVU reports 59-year-old Deborah Gratz was arrested on child endangerment charges after she was fired from her job at the Kiddie Academy preschool in Morgan Hill.

A witness told authorities they observed Gratz putting an unknown substance into the drinking cups of the children in her classroom, who range in ages 1 to 2.

Police say when administrators confronted Gratz, she admitted putting an over-the-counter sleeping aid "Sominex" into the kids' drinks. None of the children drank from the cups the day the incident was reported.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Feinstein even stated that military veterans should not be exempt from the gun ban because of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Senator posits that all militar personnel suffer from PTSD making all fun owning veterans a risk.
...
Let’s turn the tables and use language that Feinstein and other do-gooder liberals can actually understand. Replace “veteran men” with “feminist women.” Now replace “PTSD” with “PMS.”

Should we use the PMS, vs. PTSD as our qualifier, the gun ban should be extended to anybody suffering Pre-Menstrual Syndrome. After all, painting all women with a broad brush means that all women are too crazy, hysterical, and irrational to be allowed anywhere near a firearm.

Article here. Excerpt:

'TORONTO (CUP) — An effort to guard the empowerment of women’s voices on campus took form on March 4 when the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) swiftly adopted a bold new policy rejecting the concept of misandry — the hatred or fear of men.
...
“We want to acknowledge that the additions that we added here are regarding the ideas of misandry and reverse-sexism, both of which are oppressive concepts that aim to delegitimize the equity work that women’s movements work to do.” Marwa Hamad, vice-president equity at the RSU, said the policy will preserve space for discussing misogyny and institutionalized gender imbalances.
...
The RSU’s three-pronged policy change could complicate the creation of a men’s issues group which applied for student-group status last week. Sarah Santhosh, a second-year biology student and the founder of the Ryerson Association for Equality, said she was shocked the RSU passed this motion two days before the executives’ meeting with the Student Groups Committee.

Petition here. Excerpt:

'Professionals in different disciplines identified and defined Parental Alienation as the pervasive practice of one divorcing parent against the other parent to destroy the relationship of the targeted parent with his or her children. This is usually done with the intent to gain financial benefits in court.

Since 1990, the year that The Convention on Rights of the Child entered into force, a more pernicious form of Parental Alienation has permeated global societies. In order to comply with the yearly resolutions suggested by NGOs to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, States and their governments initiated, developed and sustained a persecution against parents to separate them from their children. Those resolutions are accepted unquestiongly and never contested.

Newsletter here. Excerpt, on p. 4:

'Q: What can this committee do to make our voices heard over the Fathers’ Rights people?

Dr. Hannah: Use your political power. Some say our real power is people power. If there is any goal at all for this, it would be to amass more power. Through the people. Through uniting organizations and like-minded people. One thing that has hit me over and over again is how many stakeholders there are in this issue. How many subsets of people have a keen interest in how these cases go? Children’s advocates, juvenile delinquency officers, probation officers, and the legal, psychology, sociology, and medical people. All those professionals interact with mothers and children. People are growing up being raised by abusers. This is a critical issue for our society. So if all we do is keep shoving this under the nose of people who should be working on this, it’s probably a good thing. I think if more and more people get royally outraged, something will be done.

Q: What about the term "Fathers' Rights"?

Article here. Excerpt:

'Zero tolerance for zero tolerance. That’s how one lawmaker feels about young children being suspended from school for forming their finger or food in the shape of a gun.

As Gigi Barnett explains, he has a bill designed to keep students in class if they’re caught.

State Senator J.B. Jennings says he does not intend for this bill to be a part of the growing gun debate in Maryland, but he does say he wants it to bring some common sense discipline to state schools.
...
Back in January, 6-year-old Rodney Lynch received the same punishment for forming his fingers in the shape of a gun. Montgomery County school leaders sent Rodney home for two days.

“These kids are 6 or 7-years-old. They don’t understand what they’re doing,” said Sen. J.B. Jennings.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Allow me to suggest an even stronger push: If it's important to you that your family all share a last name, make it the wife's. Yes, men, that means taking your wife's name. Or do what this guy did and invent a new name with your wife. And women, if the man you're set to marry extols the virtues of sharing a family name but won't consider taking yours? Perhaps ask yourself if you should be marrying someone who thinks your identity is fundamentally inferior to his own.

Story here. Excerpt:

'FARMINGTON – A local woman who police said created more than a seven-hour police standoff in December, pleaded guilty Monday to a domestic violence assault charge. The state dismissed a civil violation of creating a police standoff.

Justice Michaela Murphy issued a one-year deferred disposition to Rebekah J. Brown, 38. Brown was directed to return to Franklin County Superior Court in Farmington on March 14, 2014.
...
Police said that Brown assaulted another person with a shovel and struck her own arm with a hatchet before retreating to the house, where there was known to be a loaded firearm.'

Meanwhile, from Maine Governor LePage set to unveil domestic violence proposal:

Article here. Excerpt:

'CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Women make up the vast majority of domestic violence victims, but last year in Charlotte, one of four victims was a man. That number is higher than the national average.

A Charlotte man who did not want to use his name said he quietly tolerated a year of physical abuse at the hands of his wife.

"When you really care about a person you tend to overlook things, and that's not always in your best interest. In my case, it almost cost me my life," he said.

Nationally, only 15 percent of reported domestic-violence victims are men. But in Charlotte that number was 26 percent in 2012, a slight increase from 24 percent in 2009.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Men's rights campaigners claim they've been silenced by a government select committee reviewing controversial planned changes to the Family Court.

Wellington psychologist Craig Jackson said he was told to cut part of his submission or he wouldn't be heard; another campaigner, Adam Cowie, appears to have been excluded entirely.

Jackson and Cowie are among 350 submitters on the bill, but Justice and Electoral Reform committee chairman Scott Simpson says he hasn't gagged anyone, but has to tread a careful line when discussing custody battles.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Men, some say, are in trouble. They're stupid, they lack ambition, they're depressed, they're killing each other and they're increasingly alienated from their children. In popular culture, idiots and Peter Pans are celebrated, from the degenerate buffoonery of the The Hangover gang to Charlie Sheen's uber-douche bag on Two and A Half Men. While women have made incredible strides in the past 50 years, substantially reshaping the expectations of their gender, men have wallowed in their own cliches.

Article here.

'After a decade of suffering paroxysms of indignation over campus conservatives’ holding “affirmative-action bake sales” to illustrate the inherent unfairness of race-based admissions, it appears that liberals are adopting the concept as their own. At UNC–Chapel Hill’s upcoming Gender Week (sponsored by the Women’s Center, naturally), there will be a four-hour “Wage Gap Bake Sale.” White women will be given a 23 percent discount on baked goods, since, according to feminist literature, they earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by white males. Black women will accordingly be given a 36 percent discount; no mention was made of discounts offered to black males, Latinos, Latinas, or any other minority groups.

Article here. Excerpt:

'A senior judge has made an important ruling in favour of transparency in the family courts.

Mr Justice Mostyn lifted a ban on Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph columnist, reporting on a case involving the future of children who are living with their mother.

The injunction barred Mr Booker from making any mention of the dispute, known as MvM and the London Borough of Sutton.

However, last week the High Court heard how the order prevented the reporting of proceedings that were “clearly in the public interest”.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Mostyn said he was lifting the injunction “because the emphasis should be on transparency” in the courts.'