⚠️ Disclaimer: This post is provided for educational and reporting purposes only. All information included is based on publicly available records, firsthand accounts from alleged victims, and federal or state law that may apply to the described conduct. Nothing here should be interpreted as legal advice or a definitive conclusion of guilt. Readers are encouraged to verify all facts, cite applicable laws, and file formal complaints directly with law enforcement or government agencies.
Francesca Amato from Punished 4 Protecting, Inc., is still pushing a narrative that men are the problem, women are always the victims, and her federal proposal, the Family Justice and Accountability Act is the solution. That is not what high quality federal data show and it is not what real family court reform should look like. We should never build policy on gender bias or secrecy, and we should not do it while smearing male victims or anyone who questions the substance of her ninety plus page omni-bus bill idea that is merely a campaign of revenge from a toxic, bitter baby mama.
Francesca is just a wave of misinformation, gender bias and performative advocacy; that combination is the last thing we should ever welcome in Washington, D.C. or inside our family courts. Public policy must be evidence based, child centered and transparent.
What we have here is the opposite, sweeping claims that erase male victims, a drumbeat of fear that treats shared parenting as a “scheme,” and a sales pitch that leans on authority by association rather than honest data. When advocacy starts by picking a villain and a favored class instead of starting with the facts, children lose, safe parents lose and public trust collapses. So, let me lay out what the federal data actually show, why gender biased framing harms victims of every sex, and how a bill marketed as “justice and accountability” would, in practice, make families less safe. We are not debating feelings here, we are comparing claims to the CDC and BJS record, and we are calling for reform that screens for real risk, protects every victim, and keeps courts focused on child safety and constitutional fairness, not on anyone’s failed brand with a revokes 501(c)4 status. Francesca should be more concerned about the alleged wire fraud she is committing and less concerned with her public masquerade.
Now, let’s debunk her recent post full of inaccurate information, gender-bias narrative and inappropriate correlations.
FALSE NARRATIVE -“Most violence, against both women and men, is committed by men.”
For overall violent crime, it is true that offenders are usually male. Recent Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports show that about three out of four violent incidents with a known offender involve a male offender, and incidents with male victims are most often committed by male offenders. That is community violence in general, not intimate partner violence inside the home, and using general crime patterns to erase male intimate partner victims is a bait and switch (1).
FALSE NARRATIVE -“Around 90 to 95 percent of male homicide victims were killed by men.”
Expanded homicide tables show that in recent years about 90 percent of male homicide victims were killed by male offenders. Again, this describes all homicides in public and private contexts, not the family court questions that revolve around intimate partner violence, coercive control, and child safety in the home (2).
FALSE -“Only about 6 percent of male homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner.”
Justice statistics have long noted that a relatively small share of male homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner, historically on the order of a few percent up to the high single digits depending on the year. That says almost nothing about the scale of nonfatal abuse men experience in relationships or the services they need in order to be safe fathers. Homicide shares are not a proxy for everyday coercion, assault, or stalking that land families in court (3).
FALSE – “Meanwhile, 85 to 90 percent of intimate partner violence victims are women.”
That framing is dated and incomplete. In older incident based crime series, women were the clear majority of identified intimate partner violence victims, often around 70 to 80 percent in some years. When you look at the CDC’s public health surveys that ask people directly about experiences, the picture is different. The CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey reports that about one in three men in the United States have experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime. That is millions of men, which is exactly why resources for male victims matter in policy and in court (3)(4).
FALSE -“Violence is not mutual. It is patterned. It starts with male perpetrated aggression.”
This skips over crucial CDC findings that do not fit the script. The CDC’s summary for men reports that among men who experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner, the overwhelming majority identified female perpetrators, about ninety seven percent in the 2010 report on men. That is intimate partner violence, the kind of harm that drives safety planning and custody decisions. Ignoring that reality erases male victims and their children (4).
There is more the post leaves out. Same sex relationship data from the CDC show that intimate partner violence burdens do not line up with a simple men harm and women suffer story. Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner was reported by about 43.8 percent of lesbians, 61.1 percent of bisexual women, and 35.0 percent of heterosexual women. For men, the figures were about 26.0 percent for gay men, 37.3 percent for bisexual men, and 29.0 percent for heterosexual men. These patterns show that gender alone does not explain intimate partner risk, which is why blanket gendered policy claims are not evidence based and why women can be primary aggressors in large numbers while male male relationships often report lower rates than heterosexual male relationships (6).
“VAWA saved lives.”
The period after the Violence Against Women Act was passed did see large declines in intimate partner violence in national data for both women and for men, which is good news. Congressional Research Service and BJS summaries document sustained declines but caution that national multi decade trends reflect many forces. The correct lesson is to invest in safety, evidence based services and accountability for all victims, not to ignore male victims in the present or to use a decline to justify one sided rhetoric now (3)(5). And that is exacting what Francesca Amato is doing in her recent Facebook rhetoric.
Now, about shared parenting. Calling equal shared parenting fake or claiming it ignores abuse is more rhetoric than research.
The peer reviewed consensus report by Warshak and 110 cosigners found that, when there is no substantiated abuse, shared residential arrangements and regular overnights with both parents are neutral to positive for children, and they help preserve the father child bond that is so easily eroded after separation. That is why many reformers support a rebuttable presumption with strong carve outs where credible evidence of violence or coercive control exists. Real reform protects children from abusers and preserves healthy bonds with both parents when both are safe (8). Additional syntheses find that advantages of joint physical custody persist across income levels and even in higher conflict cases when safety is not at issue, which further undercuts scare talk that paints shared parenting as a scheme rather than a child centered default that can be rebutted by evidence (9).
In my opinion, Francesca Amato and her defunct organization Punished 4 Protecting, Inc. oppose equal shared parenting because it undercuts a control based narrative that elevates one parent’s power over the other, not child centered solutions. Shared parenting, when both parents are safe and fit, protects kids by preserving bonds with both mom and dad, reduces conflict incentives and limits the ability of any adult to weaponize access. Framing fathers as the problem while pushing secrecy and fear only serves the person seeking leverage, not the child. That kind of posture looks less like advocacy and more like controling abuse, and courts tend to see through control driven behavior because it harms children and undermines stability. Hmm…maybe that’s why she lost custody of her own son.
What the same sex versus heterosexual data really show
These CDC findings tell us something Francesca refuses to admit. Women can be primary aggressors in large numbers. Lesbian couples report higher lifetime intimate partner violence than heterosexual women, and gay male couples report lower than heterosexual men. That pattern means the problem is not simply male aggression. It is relationship dynamics and coercive control. It is intimate partner violence that does not fit a single sex narrative.
The CDC also reports that among men who experienced intimate partner violence, roughly 97% reported female perpetrators, which directly contradicts the idea that male victimization is mostly male on male in the home.
On the female side, the vast majority of female victims report male perpetrators, which is real and serious, yet that truth does not erase the millions of male victims or the substantial female perpetration that shows up in both heterosexual and lesbian relationships. Put together, these federal data sets point to a reality that Francesca’s message tries to hide. Women are not immune from being perpetrators. Men are not disposable as victims or as fathers. Policy must protect every victim without using gender as a shortcut (4)(6).
Services for men are scarce, which is a policy failure
Even though the CDC acknowledges that millions of men are victimized by partners, services for men remain thin. State and academic reviews repeatedly find that male victims are less likely to seek or receive formal help, and that there are far fewer shelter beds and tailored programs for men than for women. That is a gap policymakers should close, not a reason to pretend those men do not exist. It is also one reason why fathers need a seat at the table when family court policy is written, funded, and audited (7).
What the full body of federal data actually says:
- Men are overrepresented as offenders in overall violent crime and homicide, which happens largely outside family court contexts, but that does not negate the scope of male victimization in relationships or at home (1)(2).
- In intimate partner contexts, the CDC’s own reporting shows millions of male victims and that the overwhelming majority of perpetrators against those male victims are female. That is directly relevant to custody, safety planning, and services (4).
- Intimate partner violence does not map cleanly onto a single gendered narrative. The CDC sexual orientation findings underscore that risk patterns depend on relationship dynamics, not slogans, which is why policy must screen every case for actual risk regardless of sex (6).
- Policy that pre judges fathers as the problem, while refusing transparency and smearing critics, will harm children by making it harder for male victims to be believed and helped. Policy should be child centered and evidence driven, not brand driven.
Bottom line
Francesca’s post mixes one kind of statistic, overall community violence, with another, intimate partner violence, and then treats them as interchangeable. They are not. The CDC and the BJS show that men are a significant share of intimate partner violence victims, that many are abused by female partners, and that outcomes for children are best when systems protect them from proven abusers and preserve strong bonds with both parents when both are safe. Fathers deserve evidence based policy, not gendered messaging. Families deserve transparent legislation, not secrecy and spin. Children deserve equal access to both parents when both parents are fit. If a bill cannot stand up to scrutiny without trying to silence people who cite the CDC and the BJS, it does not belong anywhere near federal reform.
Real reform puts children first, follows the evidence, and refuses to silence fathers or erase male victims to sell a narrative, and that is why we will keep pushing for transparent policy, rigorous risk screening, real services for every survivor, and equal shared parenting whenever both parents are safe and fit; families deserve truth over fear, clarity over spin, and a court system that protects kids and honors both parents, not a campaign built on misinformation and control, and I will continue to speak plainly, cite the data, and stand with good parents who are doing the hard work of raising healthy children in the light of day, not behind closed doors. So remember, in the midst of chaos, sparkle. Don’t let life dull your shine.
Much love,
The Manicured Mom.
Sources
- Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization, 2022
- FBI, Crime in the United States 2019, Expanded Homicide Data overview, plus the cross-tab table. Table 6 (victim by offender, single victim/single offender)
- Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993–2010
- CDC, National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 2010 Summary Report
- Congressional Research Service, The Violence Against Women Act, Historical Overview and Funding, R45410
- CDC, NISVS 2010, Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation
- Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Gender Differences in Intimate Partner Violence Service Use
- Warshak, Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children, A Consensus Report
- Nielsen, Joint versus Sole Physical Custody, Outcomes for Children Independent of Family Income or Parental Conflict, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 2018
