Monday, October 11, 2004

ACFC Analysis of Press Coverage about Custody Lawsuits

I got this from an email and I am copying it verbatim:

ACFC ANALYSIS - Parents Seek Custody Law Reform

Thanks to the Associated Press and CNN for coverage of one
of the most critical social issues facing America today with
their story below on the nationwide class-action lawsuits
seeking a rebuttable presumption of 50-50 shared parenting.

Seeking journalistic balance on both sides of the story, the
AP included a few comments from former American Bar
Association (ABA) Family Law Section Chair Lynne Gold-
Bikin, including this little gem, to which the rest of our
analysis below is devoted:

"And why do they want 50-50 (custody)? Some people
want it because they know they can reduce the support
they pay to their wives."

Did we miss something here? We thought child support
was supposed to be for children. What's this about "pay to
their wives .."? Are they still married? If so, why are they
paying child support? And aren't "some people" married to
husbands? Is child support a one-way street that is only
paid to "wives"? Just on the surface, there appears to be
something quite bizarre about the way the former Chair of
the ABA Family Law Section conceptualizes child support.
But the more you think about it, the worse it gets.

That statement is a vicious and malicious libel of fathers
without a shred of evidence to back it up, and typical of the
blatant anti-father bias of the ABA. Isn't it just as likely that
some mothers want sole custody precisely in order to get
more child support? Why does she insidiously attack only
the motives of fathers? Why wouldn't fathers resent a legal
system that routinely extorts money from them for children
that ABA members routinely won't lift a finger to help them
even visit occasionally? Isn't it just as likely that fathers
only want to be part of their children's lives, and that some
mothers exploit the vicious anti-father gender bigotry and
ignorance of the ABA? In fact, isn't the ABA constantly
encouraging mothers to sabotage father/child relationships,
precisely in order to get more child support?

Wouldn't the best way to avoid making money the issue,
be to put the best interest of children in a continuing
relationship with both parents first, with 50-50 custody,
instead of setting children up as a pawns in a winner-
take-all struggle over money, as the ABA constantly
does by supporting sole-mother custody with the insidious
social poison of the kind of gender war propaganda that
Lynne Gold-Bikin spews above? Isn't the ABA actually
engaged in psychological child abuse by allowing its
name to be associated with the insidious social poison
of this kind of gender bigotry and ignorance?

Furthermore, why does a former ABA Family Law Chair
assume that only mothers get custody and only fathers
pay child support, when the ABA is composed of persons
who took an oath to uphold and defend a Constitution that
mandates equal protection of law for all persons? Is Gold-
Bikin here confessing to violation of her oath as a lawyer,
as well as to her vicious and malicious anti-father bias?

We report, you decide, as you read the article below.
But our feeling is that the next target for a class-action
lawsuit might be people like Lynne Gold-Bikin, who are
ripe for a class-action lawsuit by all persons viciously
and maliciously libeled by the sociopathic gender bigotry
and ignorance so evident in her comment above. This
kind of thinking is exactly why America so desperately
needs immediate reform of family law, as explained
below.

ACFC
http://www.acfc.org/

Labels: , , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on Blogwise Blogarama - The Blog Directory Blog Directory