tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-62972752024-03-13T09:34:15.085-04:00Divorce and Child Custody: Free Information for FathersA site devoted to dedicated fathers trying to retain equal access to their children.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger654125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-62658131644231379622008-05-12T22:09:00.002-04:002008-05-12T22:12:12.147-04:00Child-custody bill: Limit court action while soldier-parents overseas - Pennsylvania<a href="http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_9157951" target="_blank">Child-custody bill: Limit court action while soldier-parents overseas</a><br /><br />Excerpt:<br /><br /><em>Pennsylvania soldiers sent into battle overseas would not have to worry about custody battles back home under a bill that cleared the Senate last week and moves to the state House. </em><br /><br /><em>Sen. Mike <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Folmer</span>, R-Lebanon, sponsored the bill that would prevent courts from making permanent changes to custody arrangements involving the children of any serviceman deployed for active duty. </em><br /><br /><em>And when a soldier returns home, the bill would prohibit courts from siding against the serviceman on the grounds that his military duties are not in the child's best interest. </em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-22043634000792711182008-05-12T21:56:00.002-04:002008-05-12T22:05:32.916-04:00Sharing Parents the Best Answer - North Dakota<a href="http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2008/05/10/news/opinion/letters/doc4824fa8ddc5e2496627371.txt" target="_blank">Sharing Parents the Best Answer</a><br /><br />From the article:<br /><br /><em>Information was also given that social science research supports shared parenting, and that the so-called "best interest standard" is really no standard at all.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>A study was also presented stating that 70 percent of young adult children of divorces wanted equal time with the absent parent and that the remaining 30 percent wanted significantly more overnights with the father.</em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-85014370665276936092008-05-12T21:45:00.003-04:002008-05-12T21:53:13.361-04:00Obama's Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families ActApparently part of Barack Obama's platform on family includes the following:<br /><br /><em><a href="http://www.barackobama.com/issues/family/" target="_blank">Strengthen Fatherhood and Families</a>: Since 1960, the number of American children without fathers in their lives has quadrupled, from 6 million to more than 24 million. Children without fathers in their lives are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts. As president, Obama will sign this bill into law and continue to implement innovative measures to strengthen families.</em><br /><em></em><br />This is not an endorsement but is certainly interesting. I'm always concerned with the "crack down" language in reference to purported support dodgers without corresponding language about parental rights, accountability, etc...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-58142235391262850002007-08-07T13:32:00.000-04:002007-08-07T13:41:01.380-04:00State wants to know if you might be a dad - Virginia<a href="http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/126091" target="_blank">State wants to know if you might be a dad</a><br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br />The state Department of Social Services wants any man who is not married to a woman but could be the father of a child with her to voluntarily fill out a one-page registration.<br /><br />The law, which went into effect July 1, is designed to protect men's rights in the case of a future adoption.<br /><br />State officials emphasized that the confidential database is not an attempt to track sexual activity or partners. But it suggests men register "after relations with new partners or continued relations with the same woman."<br /><br />Lawmakers passed the law creating the voluntary registry as a way to protect a man's rights and allow the state to notify him more quickly if a child he may have fathered is placed up for adoption.<br /><br />DSS officials said registering means the state doesn't have to search high and low for the biological father, allowing an adoption to speed along. It also gives papa a chance to block the adoption if he wants to raise the child.<br /><br />A father can register before a child is born, even if he is not aware of a pregnancy. Also the state suggests registering within 10 days of the birth, of receiving notice to register or within 10 days of discovering fraud by the mother.<br /><br />If fathers don't file the paperwork, they give up their right for the state to inform them about a possible adoption or if they've lost their parental rights.<br /><br />The registration doesn't establish paternity, which is a separate process. But DSS officials confirmed that the state's child support enforcement office will have access to the registry.<br /><br />To register, men are asked to fill out a form they can get at their local DSS office or online at <a href="http://www.vaputativefather.com/" target="_blank">http://www.vaputativefather.com/</a>. The hotline number is (877) IF-DADDY.<br /><br />The form asks for the name of the mother and potential father along with his Social Security number and employment information, and it contains questions that try to pinpoint where and when the man and woman may have conceived the child.<br /><br />The state requires the men to sign the form and mail it to Richmond, said Carla Harris, a DSS spokeswoman. Registration is free.<br /><br />If the form contains the address of the woman, she will be notified.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-63896345469129667632007-08-07T13:10:00.000-04:002007-08-07T13:18:15.414-04:00New Jersey - Highland Park Psychologist Marsha Kleinman<a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/07/ag_highland_park_psychologist.html" target="_blank">AG: Highland Park psychologist coached girl on sex abuse claims</a><br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br /><em>The state Attorney <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">General's</span> Office has filed a complaint seeking to revoke the license of a Highland Park psychologist who has frequently served as an expert in criminal child abuse cases based on allegations she coached a 3-year-girl to make false claims of sexual abuse about her father.</em><br /><br /><em>In addition to the license revocation, Marsha <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Kleinman</span> could face fines from the complaint filed Friday before the state Board of Psychological Examiners, a part of the Division of Consumer Affairs. </em><br /><a name="more"></a><br /><em>The accusations focus on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Kleinman's</span> treatment of a young girl between July 2003 and December 2004. She is accused of questioning the girl about possible sexual abuse by her father in "a suggestive, coercive and/or manipulative manner," according to the 16-page complaint.<br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Kleinman</span>, 56, denies the charges.</em><br /><br /><em>"When people are advocates for children who are harmed in the home, they become a lightning rod, and there are people such as myself being targeted across the country by fathers' rights groups to shut down people like myself who protect children," <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Kleinman</span> said today. "I expect all of this to be resolved."</em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-51049739966646379722007-04-13T22:56:00.000-04:002007-04-13T22:58:46.174-04:00Dads increase time with children, housework<a href="http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070406/HOME/204060320" target="_blank">Dads increase time with children, housework </a><br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br /><em>A comprehensive study of “time diaries” by researchers from the University of Maryland shows that fathers have increased their child-care work from 2.5 hours a week in 1965 to seven hours a week in 2003. There is a similar trend with housework: Dads did 4.4 hours a week in 1965 and 9.6 hours a week in 2003.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>Perhaps even more striking, the total workloads of married mothers and fathers – when paid work is added to child care and housework – is roughly equal, at 65 hours a week for mothers and 64 hours for fathers.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>“It’s not the case that men are slugs,” said William Doherty, a family studies professor at the University of Minnesota who has done several studies on fatherhood. “It’s a new generation of fathers, and they are internalizing some of the very high expectations that mothers have.”</em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-33056238030986434102007-04-13T22:48:00.000-04:002008-12-09T17:14:41.656-05:00Who Needs A Father Anyway?<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_icIgAo6Akfg/RiBB5sDKo0I/AAAAAAAAABM/1wJ2L6-Qlq8/s1600-h/gb-sh-screen.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5053111241242485570" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_icIgAo6Akfg/RiBB5sDKo0I/AAAAAAAAABM/1wJ2L6-Qlq8/s320/gb-sh-screen.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>If feminists are to be believed no one does - not even this boy....</div><div></div><div>You can view the video by clicking through <a href="http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=486" target="_blank">Glenn Sacks blog</a>.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-73336473323952538042007-04-13T22:44:00.000-04:002007-04-13T22:47:14.508-04:00Parental Alienation Awareness DayParental Alienation Awareness Day is April 25<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">th</span>.<br /><br />Visit <a href="http://www.parental-alienation-awareness.com/" target="_blank">Parental Alienation Awareness</a> for more information.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-73250533490492722572007-04-13T22:35:00.000-04:002007-04-13T22:47:54.255-04:00IowaFathers.com Hosting Non-Custodial Parents Rally<a href="http://iowafathers.com/" target="_blank"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">IowaFathers</span>.com</a> is hosting their a rally on 4/21/07. Per email:<br /><br /><em>On Saturday, April 21, 2007, we are holding our first ever Non-Custodial Parents Rally in Des <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Moines</span> in observance of Parental Alienation Awareness Day, which is April 25<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">th</span>. Our guest speakers include Presidential candidate Dr. Mark Klein, Stephen <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Baskerville</span>, PhD, the president of American Coalition for Fathers and Children (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">ACFC</span>), Dick Woods of Fathers for Equal Rights, Pastor Ron Smith of Children Need Both Parents, Inc (Chicago, IL), among others. The event is being held from noon until 3:00 p.m. at the </em><a href="http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&addtohistory=&address=227" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" city="Des" country="US&geodiff=" state="'IA&zipcode="><em>Civic Center of Greater Des <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Moines</span></em></a><em>, 227 Walnut St., Des <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Moines</span>, Iowa, 50309-2104.</em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-46402958347317954462007-02-16T18:11:00.000-05:002008-12-09T17:14:42.207-05:00Back From The Dead (Sort Of) And More News To Make You Mostly NauseousHello, Hello - It's Been Too Long....<br /><br />What can I say? I know I mentioned back in April of 2006 that I had taken a new job which I anticipated would severely limit my blogging opportunities. What even I did not realize then was how much this position would take away from my "blogging time."<br /><br />Those who have spent much time with me (And you are out there ~ I've been getting your emails!) may have noticed that 95% of my posts were made during what is generally work hours on weekdays. Every once in a great while I would blog from home because I simply had to say something right away - but for the most part I allowed my company to pay me to blog.<br /><br />This is not to say they minded, as they did not. Nor is it to say that it took away from the quality of my work, as it certainly did not. But that I took advantage of the free time I had during my workday and spent my nights and weekends enjoying my wonderful little family and not allowing myself to be consumed with this horrible reality 24 hours a day.<br /><br />Where I was generally on the road for around a month a week at my last job - now, I am lucky to be home for a whole week at a time. Where my last position seemed to go from manic to dead and average about the same time period of each - this job never seems to dip below steady rush. Where I used to make catty comments about people who had a cell phone permanently attached to their ear - I recently sucked it up and bought the blue tooth headset thing as I swear I was starting to suffer from wrist fatigue. Where I used to scoff at airline mileage programs as I did not fly nearly enough to warrant understanding all the fine print - I just flew my sister to and from Hawaii for a wedding on miles alone.<br /><br />This job has certainly changed a lot about my life.<br /><br />And the point of all of this... It has turned me into a lousy blogger. More, it has made me the kind of blogger I hate - those who post on what appears to be a quarterly basis for what can be assumed no other point but to amuse the four friends who may check in or in the desperate hope to continue to accumulate a few cents from adsense.<br /><br />I assure you I am neither - but you certainly couldn't tell from my abysmal posting of late.<br /><br />My job slowly ramped up that by the end of the holidays I was functioning at full speed (or more so) and it seems if I am not in a meeting, or on a plane, in court, or driving (always, of course, on my cell phone), at soccer, baseball, basketball, football, class parties, feeding the gaggle of children my step son has brought home, or trying to have a meaningful conversation with my husband, I am crumpled into a small ball on the couch of the hotel of the day or preferably in my living room. Blogging has fallen precipitously on the list of priorities. If it makes you feel any better, I had to quit my book club outright.<br /><br />And yet, when I (extremely infrequently) find time to check my personal email, I see new subscribers to the blog signing up almost daily and lots of email from readers checking in to see if I am still kicking around somewhere. Thank you all for your kind notes ~ I truly appreciate your thoughts.<br /><br />I feel desperately uninformed lately. I have no idea if all the links on the site are still active and I could not provide any idea as to the state of my fellow bloggers. I have received suggestions for reciprocal links that I have ignored, requests for help or information that I have been unable to answer, and reader questions that continue to sit in my inbox (I suppose with the idea that someday soon I will sit down and answer them all in some great flourish).<br /><br />And as I sit here on my first Friday evening home in three weeks - I mostly feel anxious to wrap this up.<br /><br />But I owe you better than that - and I glanced at the most recent newsletter from Glenn Sacks which contained some (surprise, surprise) horrific examples of legal inequities and feminist nonsense that I feel compelled to pass on.<br /><br />But first, let me be clear that I don't anticipate (unless I get fired) my postings to get any more frequent. And the little I have posted lately has for the most part been a regurgitation of information that can easily be found in readily available sources. I can't recall that last post I made in which I included a reasoned argument of my own. And while I will leave the blog up because I feel it continues to serve as a good resource - my contributions will be minimal and likely detached from the movement as a whole.<br /><br />So... that being said, if there are any readers out there who feel as though they could "pick up the torch" so to speak and would like be able to post on the blog, please just shoot me an email (which I probably will not look at for several weeks - but be patient, eventually I will). You can find my email address under the links session on the main page. I have little criteria except for a belief that joint custody (legal and physical) should be the default and custody arrangements outside of this breakdown should have to be justified, move aways should never be allowed except under the most necessary and extreme circumstances, that there are both crazy/bad mothers and fathers, that when dealing with issues of family, divorce and custody there can be no absolutes, that kids (who have to be children of divorce) fair SUBSTANTIALLY better with two involved and cooperative parents, that this blog will always allow for dissent, that this blog will always provide reasoned and articulated positions with supporting evidence if at all possible and that this blog will never be used as a pulpit to simply attack those of other opinions or genders.<br /><br />Hmm, maybe I had more criteria than I thought.<br /><br />I started this blog in January 2004 - it has been a big part of my life up until recently. While I would love to have additional people to post, I would like to stay true to the reasons I began it in the first place.<br /><br />Enough about all of that ~ on to the news....<br /><br />All of the following came from a <a href="http://www.glennsacks.com/" target="_blank">Glenn Sacks</a> newsletter which you can access yourself by <a href="http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters.htm" target="_blank">clicking here</a>....<br /><br />Colorado has a new paternity fraud bill <a href="http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Clics2007A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/5A25C9222072247E87257251007C4AA2?Open&file=056_01.pdf" target="_blank">SB 56</a>.<br /><br />Glenn wrote the following article: <a href="http://www.glennsacks.com/duped_dads_bill.htm" target="_blank">'Duped Dad' Bill Could Foster Closer Ties</a>.<br /><br />Excerpts from the article:<br /><br /><div><div><div><div align="center"><em></em></div><div align="center"><em>SB 56, the new Colorado paternity fraud bill, addresses the dilemma faced by men who discover that the children they are paying child support for are not biologically theirs. The bill would allow “duped dads” to terminate their support obligations by utilizing DNA evidence. </em></div><br /><div align="center"><em>Carroll and others seem to equate child support with fatherhood. There is nothing in SB 56 which prevents a father from continuing his relationship with the children, or from financially supporting them, as long as the mother allows it. If the bill’s opponents want to effectively preserve the bonds between these duped dads and their nonbiological children, their focus should not be on child support but instead on creating a presumption of shared parenting after a divorce or separation. Under this presumption, as long as both parents (including nonbiological fathers) are fit, they will each have the right to substantially equal physical time with their children. Such legislation would greatly reduce the number of men seeking to disestablish paternity.</em></div><em></em><br /><a href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5316767,00.html#bio" target="_blank">On Point: Suffer the children</a> offer a different point of view. Excerpts:<br /><br /><div align="center"><em>Dads, if you are the picky type whose parental love depends on a genetic link with your child, make sure to get a DNA test during a divorce. That way you can establish without a doubt whether your wife deceived you - and if the kid isn't yours, you may be able to toss the tyke overboard with a minimum of fuss, avoiding that everlasting nuisance of child support. </em></div><br /><div align="center"><em>What's that, you say? A kid might grow to love or depend upon a "duped dad" as much as if the two shared a genetic profile? Tough luck. This is an age when adult convenience and autonomy trumps the interests and expectations of mere children. And that, not incidentally, is why it's so important that all right-thinking adults (or at least right-thinking men) support Senate Bill 56, which would allow a duped dad to take the DNA test any time during a child's life with an eye toward ditching child support. </em></div><em></em><br />Take a look at this <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-05-2007/0004519862&EDATE=" target="_blank">press release </a>about <a href="http://www.sherridonovan.com/" target="_blank">Sherri Donovan's</a> new book <a href="http://www.sherridonovan.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Hit Him Where It Hurt$: The Take-No-Prisoners Guide to Divorce - Alimony, Custody, Child Support</a>. My favorite excerpt:<br /><br /><div align="center"><em>Eighty-five percent of the time, it is the woman who initiates the divorce. Amidst the staggering emotional turmoil, they too often make hasty decisions and "play-nice" to get the proceedings behind them. The result: They get screwed. </em></div><br />I suppose at least she admitted women initiate the majority of divorces.<br /><br />On a better note, Utah Senator Mark Madsen sounds like he might be a reasonable guy. In this article, <a href="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660193955,00.html" target="_blank">Child-support delinquency could cost parents their licenses</a>, it stated:<br /><br /><div align="center"><em>Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Lehi, said he wanted to see more punishments for those who interfered with the visitation rights of non-custodial parents before he could support another measure for collecting child-support payments. </em></div><div align="center"><em></em></div><div align="center"><em></em></div><div align="center"><em></em></div><div align="center"><em>"I'd like to see some parity," Madsen said. "There is already a disproportionate amount of methods (for punishing those who don't pay their child support)."</em><br /></div><br /><div align="left">There is lots more in the newsletter like:</div><div align="left"></div><div align="left"></div><div align="center"><em></em></div><div align="center"><em>"A study in the January/February issue of the journal Child Development found that when nonresident fathers are involved with their adolescent children, the youths are less likely to take part in delinquent behavior such as drug and alcohol use, violence, property crime and school problems like truancy and cheating.</em></div><div align="center"><em></em></div><div align="center"><em></em></div><div align="center"><em></em></div><div align="center">and </div><div align="center"><br /></div><div align="center"><em>"Meanwhile, lobbyist Mike Robinson said that he has found multiple sponsors to draft legislation that would amend California's domestic-violence laws to apply to 'victims,' rather than only to women. He said the language has been approved by the Legislative Counsel. There are several Republicans who have said they are willing to sponsor the legislation, Robinson said, but he is trying to line up a Democratic co-author."</em></div><br /><div align="center">and</div><br /><div align="center"><em>"Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.</em></div><br /><div align="center">plus </div><div align="center"><br /></div><div align="center"><em>I've written before about the highly-publicized ruling in the Virginia/Vermont lesbian child custody battle between former civil union partners Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl's life.</em><br /></div><br /><div align="center"><em>I've noted that Miller's actions read like a checklist of what heterosexual women sometimes do to the fathers of their children, including: move the child far away; deny the noncustodial parent the opportunity to visit or co-parent the child; make an unsupported, dubious and oh-so-convenient accusation of abuse against the noncustodial parent; and pretend that the noncustodial parent is out-of-line or acting against the child's best interests by wanting to continue the relationship with the child.</em></div><br /><div align="center"><em>Like most divorced dads do, Jenkins soft-pedals her ex-partner's appalling behavior, trying to avoid conflict in the interests of their child. She says that if she does win custody (which she should), she will be very careful to make sure that her former partner's relationship with her daughter is protected and respected.</em></div><br /><div align="center">and finally (though there is more I haven't mentioned in the newsletter) </div><br /><div align="center"><em>"A proposed bill may force some Kansas parents to pay child support until their child reaches age 23. The bill was introduced last week in Topeka by the judiciary committee.</em><br /></div><div align="center">So visit Glenn Sacks to read the <a href="http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters.htm" target="_blank">newsletter</a> in its entirety. </div><br /><div align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Finally - Signs, Pictures and Billboards I Like (Or Don't)</span></strong></div></div><br /><br /><br />What the hell is this? Apparently a marketing scheme by Court TV....<br /><br /><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5032301424965749602" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_icIgAo6Akfg/RdZTe9XGi2I/AAAAAAAAAAg/oC506ZXORJk/s320/194792793_d7ef9851f0.jpg" border="0" /></p></div></div><br /><br /><p>borrowed from <a href="http://www.cartoonbarry.com/2006/07/divorce_via_nyc_billboard.html" target="_blank">Cartoon Barry Blog</a><br /><br /></p><p>We have seen this one before from <a href="http://www.acfc.org/site/PageServer" target="_blank">ACFC</a>:</p><br /><br /><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5032302039146072946" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_icIgAo6Akfg/RdZUCtXGi3I/AAAAAAAAAAo/9NhrtyZlLRo/s320/10669.gif" border="0" /></p><br /><p>As well as this one from <a href="http://nhcustody.org/" target="_blank">NHCustody.org</a>:</p><br /><br /><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5032303215967112066" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_icIgAo6Akfg/RdZVHNXGi4I/AAAAAAAAAAw/m7dcgHRjxyc/s320/human%2520wallet.jpg" border="0" /></p><br /><br /><p></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-77981095265860628152006-11-29T19:27:00.000-05:002006-11-29T19:46:01.385-05:00Michigan NOW Declares 'Action Alert' Against Shared Parenting BillMichigan NOW Declares 'Action Alert' Against Shared Parenting Bill<br /><br />This is verbatim from an email:<br /><br /><em>Michigan shared parenting advocates and the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for Women are squaring off over HB 5267, a Michigan shared parenting bill which will be heard by the House Families and Children Services Committee on December 6. Last week NOW issued an </em><a href="http://michnow.org/index.htm" target="_blank"><em>"Action Alert"</em></a><em> against the bill. Michigan shared parenting groups, including </em><a href="http://www.dadsofmichigan.org/" target="_blank"><em>Dads of Michigan</em></a><em>, the </em><a style="COLOR: #003399; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.acfc.org/site/PageServer" target="_blank"><em>American Coalition for Fathers & Children's</em></a><em> Michigan affiliate, the </em><a class="l" href="http://frcmi.org/" target="_blank"><em>Family Rights Coalition of Michigan</em></a><em>, and others, are rallying support for the bill.</em><br /><br />You can access a list of Michigan legislators, their phone numbers and their email addresses by <a href="http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_11_28_06.htm" target="_blank">clicking here</a>.<br /><br /><em>The Case for HB 5267</em><br /><br /><em>Michigan NOW makes its case against shared parenting and HB 5267 </em><a href="http://michnow.org/index.htm" target="_blank"><em>here</em></a><em>. </em><br /><em></em><br /><em>I laid out the case in favor of HB 5267 and discussed many of NOW's criticisms in my co-authored column </em><a href="http://www.glennsacks.com/hb_5267_will.htm" target="_blank"><em>HB 5267 Will Help Michigan's Children of Divorce</em></a><em> (Lansing State Journal, 5/28/06). Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the </em><a style="COLOR: #003399; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" href="http://www.acfc.org/site/PageServer" target="_blank"><em>American Coalition for Fathers & Children</em></a><em>, and I wrote:</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>"HB 5267 is primarily sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer (R-Horton), who has been joined by 10 other legislators. When parents cannot agree on custody arrangements, the bill instructs courts to order joint custody unless there is clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for his or her child. A mediator will then help the parents draft a shared parenting plan based on each parent having substantially equal time with their children. The principle behind the bill is difficult to dispute--as long as both parents are fit and there are no extenuating circumstances, they should both share in parenting their children... </em><br /><em></em><br /><em>"NOW claims that HB 5267 'places the interests of parents over the child's interests.' Yet when researchers have examined children of divorce, and studied and queried adult children of divorce, they've found that most prefer joint custody and shared parenting. </em><br /><br /><em>"For example, a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, found that children of divorce 'express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,' and cite the 'benefit of remaining close to both parents' as an important factor. </em><br /><br /><em>"When Arizona State University psychology professor William Fabricius conducted a study of college students who had experienced their parents' divorces while they were children, he found that over two-thirds believed that 'living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.' His findings were published in Family Relations in 2003.</em><br /><br /><em>"Under current law, judges decide custody cases based on the 12 factors delineated in Michigan's Best Interest of the Child Test. Both the Michigan Bar and Michigan NOW assure us that this system is effective and should not be changed. However, the 12 factors fail to place sufficient emphasis on protecting children's relationships with both parents. According to the Michigan Family Independence Agency, the most common parenting time schedule in Michigan allows children only 15% physical time with their noncustodial parents.</em><br /><br /><em>"Moreover, the custody decisions based on the factors are often subjective and arbitrary. Under HB 5267 a court cannot deny requests for joint custody without stating its reasons on the record.</em><br /><br /><em>"Michigan NOW also asserts that HB 5267 will 'further impoverish children of separated or divorced parents' because in Michigan, as in most states, the amount of physical time divorced parents spend with their children and the concomitant expenses are calculated into the child support obligation. These fears are also unwarranted.</em><br /><br /><em>"Research demonstrates that joint custody leads to higher rates of child support compliance. This isn't surprising, since parents who are permitted little role in their children's lives have less motivation to make sacrifices for them. Also, under the current system noncustodial parents are often forced to wage expensive court battles in order to protect their time and relationships with their children. These parents end up supporting lawyers instead of kids.</em><br /><br /><em>"While Michigan NOW is correct that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children's best interests, they ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 40 or 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, doesn't it also hold that a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it?</em><br /><br /><em>"Both Domestic Violence Escape and NOW claim that the bill will put abused women in harm's way. According to DOVE, HB 5267 'sends a clear message to battered women and children that the 'rights' of a batterer take precedence over their safety and wellbeing.' Yet under HB 5267 only fit parents are eligible for joint custody--battered mothers should and would receive sole custody. </em><br /><br /><em>"Unfortunately, NOW, DOVE and other misguided women's advocates seem capable of recognizing only two types of divorces--ones where both spouses agree on a custody arrangement, and divorces involving domestic violence. However, the overwhelming majority of breakups fit neither profile. Instead, decent, fit parents often cannot agree on custody. In such cases, HB 5267 will ensure that children won't see one of the two people they love the most pushed to the margins of their lives."</em><br /><br /><p>You can access more information about HB5267 on <a href="http://frcmi.org/" target="_blank">Family Rights Coalition of Michigan</a> site. </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-2658690712609709212006-11-10T17:25:00.000-05:002006-11-10T17:40:24.696-05:00North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative DefeatedYuck.<br /><br />This is from the <a href="http://www.minotdailynews.com/editorials/articles.asp?articleID=6725" target="_blank">Minot Daily News</a>:<br /><br /><em>Measure 3, the shared parenting initiative, made a good showing early, but was ultimately defeated. Getting the issue on the ballot has raised awareness of concerns regarding child custody and child support. We expect the Legislature to take up some of those same issues in the near future.</em><br /><br /><br />Carey Roberts mentions this legislation is his most recent article: <a href="http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/08/bush-needs-to-rein-in-feminist-operatives/" target="_blank">Bush Needs to Rein in Feminist Operatives</a><br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br /><em>And then there were the bureaucrats at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) who didn’t like the idea of divorced fathers seeing their kids. So in direct violation of federal ethics rules, they took it upon themselves to tell the North Dakota legislators to defeat a shared parenting initiative.</em><br /><br /><em>Their reasoning? It’s better to let fatherless kids become drop-outs and juvenile delinquents – that way the state can rake in millions of federal welfare money.</em><br /><br /><em>Shame on ACF head Margo Bean for tolerating these bureaucratic shenanigans.</em><br /><br /><em>To his credit, President Bush did manage to shoehorn $150 million into last year’s welfare reform law to promote marriage and fatherhood. But that money will do little to stem the destructive effects of Clinton time-bomb programs like the Violence Against Women Act.<br /></em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-1140455756022233472006-10-28T11:49:00.000-04:002006-11-10T17:23:21.179-05:00I don't understand NOW, feminists or "reproductive rights."<em>I am re-posting this as after just re-reading it I realize that I am even more convinced that what NOW has become may be the single most insidious force in modern society actively working against American families. Originally posted in Feb 2006.</em><br /><br />I have to admit - as much disgust as I feel at a legal system that appears to systemically award custody based on gender instead of equally or on merit- I am not one to completely discount "maternal instinct."<br /><br />I do feel as though often parents offer different supports to their children. A lot of the times these differences lie in stereotypical traits - mothers are more empathetic and nurturing while fathers are more pragmatic, physical and better equipped to teach boundaries. NOT ALWAYS - but a lot of the time. This is not to say that either contribution is more important but that often parents help teach their kids differently.<br /><br />I'll bite when a woman claims the bond between mother and child at childbirth is stronger. I understand that the intimacy of breastfeeding is not easily duplicated by a father. I believe that <a href="http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/families_households/003118.html" target="_blank">more often the mother stays home</a> with the child(ren) and is therefore more demonstrably involved in the day to day activities. I'll even temporarily agree that a stay at home mom (or stay at home dad for that matter) should enjoy spousal support along with child support until that party is able find a position with which they can adequately support themselves - not just the first cashier position in the want ads. (Now this forces the question of what is adequate and just how long but I'm not writing legislation here so lets just use the term reasonable. I know this a cop out but I will never be convinced that every case can be handled with some "joint custody, no support" position. There are stay at home <strong>Parents </strong>and often this arrangement resulted as a joint decision based on the children's best interests - the parent at home should have a reasonable expectation of temporary support in this realignment of the family structure).<br /><br />I don't understand, however, why women keep beating the "pay discrimination" horse when it is so clear that more women take time off work (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?ex=1284868800&en=6a8e0c413c09c249&ei=5090" target="_blank">and plan to take time off work</a>) to care for children. Not just maternity leave time but often for the first few years of the child's life. Time off for maternity leave should not result in pay disparities but certainly a woman coming back to the workforce after SEVERAL YEARS can not honestly expect to make a salary comparable with the man who worked through her entire period off. Would that not be discriminatory?<br /><br />NOW lists their "<a href="http://www.now.org/issues/" target="_blank">top priority issues</a>" as: Abortion Rights/Reproductive Rights, Violence Against Women, Constitutional Equality, Promoting Diversity/Ending Racism, Lesbian Rights and Economic Justice.<br /><br />On the <a href="http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/who.html" target="_blank">NOW site</a> they list the median salary for male registered nurses as $36,868 and female registered nurses as $35,360. So the woman makes 96% of the males salary... This is certainly not the .74¢ for every dollar they were talking about the <a href="http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/who.html" target="_blank">paragraph earlier</a>. Nor is a male teacher at $33,800 with a female at $32,292. Could these small disparities have anything to do with more women taking time off to care for children? I can't prove it but it seems a hell of a lot more reasonable than as a result of pervasive wage discrimination.<br /><br />They do get to the .74¢ with their salary numbers for computer operators- but the final example of cashiers have women making 83.3% of the males salary. I can't begin to consider all of the variables that would have to be accounted for in order to fully compare salaries by gender but I can say that it seems irresponsible to continue to cry about .74¢ on the dollar and then only produce one example of such a disparity while completely ignoring the fiscal impact on mothers who ELECT to stay home either temporarily or permanently after their children are born.<br /><br />I don't understand feminists who assert that they need an "<a href="http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/who.html" target="_blank">Equal Rights Amendment</a>" while simultaneously fighting against all legislative efforts to equalize parenting post divorce. I'm not talking about the cases in which the father/mother is a demonstrated abuser of any ilk - but the run of the mill divorce with two involved and caring parents.<br /><br />I would think women would prefer such a system as if one begins to think logically about who should be preferred in a custody case (as though any parent should be instantly preferred without considering the case and facts) it would have to be men. At least from the speculative point of who is less likely to abuse their children (if we want to use the issue of who *may* be abusive) it seems women are <a href="http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/acfrightnow.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=70" target="_blank">more frequently the perpetrators of abuse or neglect of children</a>.<br /><br />It appears children in mother headed households are also more likely to be under the poverty line when compared with father headed households. The <a href="http://www.gocrc.com/research/custody-stats.html" target="_blank">CRC has a wonderful chart</a> but you can see the <a href="http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2004/tabFG6-all.csv" target="_blank">census info here</a>. Now, one might say that this is a result of men not paying child support effectively forcing these women into poverty. I mean, come on, you have seen those "deadbeat dad" commercials. Except that actual "deadbeat dads" account for <a href="http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/supportfacts.php" target="_blank">somewhere around 10%</a> of those who have accrued arrearages in child support. In reality, far more non custodial <a href="http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/stats.php" target="_blank">mothers default on their support orders</a> than fathers.<br /><br />I can't imagine why men would be at all hesitant to pay - it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that some researchers are now claiming as many as <a href="http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48871" target="_blank">30% of "fathers" </a>may not be biologically related to their children.<br /><br />So NOW stands for equal rights - but not equal rights for men or children. Their rights come after our wonderful feminist population has been sufficiently (*equally*) served.<br /><br />They also list <a href="http://www.now.org/issues/lgbi/index.html" target="_blank">"lesbian rights" as a top issue</a> - listing <a href="http://www.now.org/issues/lgbi/marr-rep-2.html" target="_blank">Equal Marriage Now</a> as a related issue. Not being particularly religious, I won't go into what a conflict this position could be for a religious woman - but honestly, how can you claim to desire "equal" marriage rights for gay women while <a href="http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-2000/family.html" target="_blank">publicly bashing the fatherhood movement</a>?<br /><br />In this link there is a heading titled "Relocation Laws Keep Women in Their Place." That is asinine - relocation laws keep children in their communities. Women can go wherever they want - they may just have to do so by voluntarily leaving their children. To in any way assert that women should be able to move at will with children (moving them away from their fathers and community) just because they are women may be the pinnacle of an outright discriminatory and inherently UNEQUAL position. <a href="http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-2000/family.html" target="_blank">This is a quote from the link above</a>: "<em>Feminists vow to educate legislators and judges that ex-husbands are sometimes more interested in exerting control over and making life difficult for their former wives than in maintaining beneficial relationships with their children and that the needs of the children and custodial parent must be given priority."</em><br /><em></em><br />Absolutely no commentary on how <a href="http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/jointbenefits.php" target="_blank">children do better with meaningful contact from both parents</a>. No mention of the hypocrisy of this position. No substantive mention of the welfare of the children - just a warning about "abusive or controlling ex-spouses and sexist judges" with no evidence to back up the claim that either of these alleged groups are conspiring to keep women in their geographical place.<br /><br />And finally, "reproductive rights." I'm sorry but considering it takes both genders to "reproduce" should not reproductive rights be offered to both parents? Not in the cases where the mother is in danger but in truly elective abortion should not both parents have the opportunity to offer to raise the child? Is it fair to the child or to the father to let a woman unilaterally decide to abort a child just because it is "her body?"<br /><br /><p>I'm not anti-abortion per se but I certainly think that provided a father willing to raise the child it is just insane to allow the woman to abort just because she wants to. How did women make unregulated fetus killing a primary position? Again, this also seems a very difficult position for a woman of a religious background. Apparently you cannot be religious and "<a href="http://www.now.org/organization/faq.html" target="_blank">dedicated to making legal, political, social and economic change in our society in order to achieve our goal, which is to eliminate sexism and end all oppression</a>." (That is what NOW says it stands for anyway - can't say I'm convinced). </p><p>I find that I am not resolutely anything one way or another. There are tenets of all political parties that I agree with, there are self described feminists that can make a lot of sense as are there proponents of the fathers movement that are reasonable and dedicated to what I consider worthy and laudable goals. </p><p>But I'm sorry - most of what I see on the NOW site looks like crap. I simply cannot begin to comprehend an organization who purports to seek equality but uses the most unequal of methods. </p><p>And really, the thought that goes through my head every time I read feminist nonsense of this ilk - all of these efforts have and will visit themselves on the boys of this country. I'm quite sad for my 8 year old stepson - he has a long road ahead. </p><p>I found this quote today ~ apparently Ms. Lewis was an actress.</p><p>You don't have to be anti-man to be pro-woman. ~Jane Galvin Lewis<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-51213084990820786532006-10-28T10:00:00.000-04:002006-10-28T17:20:08.233-04:00Are single mothers the 'New American Family'?Latest Glenn Sacks<br /><br /><a href="http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=15298" target="_blank">Are single mothers the 'New American Family'?</a><br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br /><em>Last fall Stanford University Gender Scholar Peggy Drexler penned the highly-publicized book "Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men." This month Oxford Press released Wellesley College Women's Studies professor Rosanna Hertz's "Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice: How Women Are Choosing Parenthood Without Marriage and Creating the New American Family."<br /><br />Drexler portrays father-absent homes – particularly "single mother by choice" and lesbian homes – as being the best environments for raising boys. Hertz interviewed 65 single mothers and concluded that "intimacy between husbands and wives [is] obsolete as the critical familial bond." Whereas a family was once defined as two parents and their children, Hertz asserts that today the "core of family life is the mother and her children." Fathers aren't necessary – "only the availability of both sets of gametes [egg and sperm] is essential." In fact, Hertz explains, "what men offer today is obsolete."<br /><br />Our children would beg to differ. Studies of children of divorce confirm their powerful desire to retain strong connections to their fathers. For example, an Arizona State University study of college-age children of divorce found that the overwhelming majority believed that after a divorce "living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children."<br /><br />Men are often stereotyped as fearing commitment, and it is they who are usually blamed for the divorce revolution. However, it is mothers, not fathers, who initiate most divorces involving children. In some cases, these mothers have ample justification. In others, however, they simply don't want to make the compromises and do the hard work required in any relationship, and can't or won't recognize that their children need their fathers. In fact, according to research conducted by Joan Berlin Kelly, author of "Surviving the Break-up," 50 percent of divorced mothers claim to "see no value in the father's continued contact with his children after a divorce." </em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-50231181853871485572006-10-27T13:27:00.001-04:002006-10-27T13:32:46.326-04:00IowaFathers.com works to Oust Judge Pelton<a href="http://www.iowafathers.com/" target="_blank"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">IowaFathers</span>.com</a> is encouraging residents of District 7 in Iowa (Cedar, Clinton , Jackson , <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Muscatine</span> , and Scott Counties) to vote no to Judge <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Pelton</span> on November 7<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">th</span>.<br /><br />An article about their efforts can be seen here: <a href="http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2006/10/20/news/local/doc4539a63855d1e031277674.txt" target="_blank">Group works to oust judge</a><br /><br /><em>This is all verbatim from email:</em><br /><em></em><br />The Quad Cities Times article did not report that Judge <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Pelton</span> is asking voters of District 7 to give him a six (6) year, guaranteed salary of $875,000 without stating where he stands on the issue of joint physical care. The article failed to mention that Judge <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Pelton</span> refused to respond to a survey requesting information from him about joint physical care and child custody arrangements. The article failed to state that Judge <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Pelton</span> received the lowest ratings in his district and ranked second lowest in the state by the Iowa Bar Association in their 2006 Plebiscite. Many other issues were not touched in the article.<br /><br />When Judge <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Pelton</span> restricts access of children to good loving qualified parents, without meeting any compelling state interest, he is acting as an activist judge, trampling on constitutional rights, and no longer are citizens of Iowa going to tolerate such judicial activism.<br /><br />On November 7, 2006, please encourage all friends and family members residing in Cedar, Clinton , Jackson , <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Muscatine</span> , and Scott Counties to Vote NO for Judge Charles <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Pelton</span>.<br /><em></em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-62639064303271743202006-10-19T21:54:00.000-04:002006-10-19T21:59:23.893-04:00SD Shared Parenting meeting<a href="http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=YOURVOICE0103&storyID=23" target="_blank">SD Shared Parenting meeting</a><br /><br />The South Dakota Coalition for Shared Parenting will be meeting at the Sioux Falls Downtown library November 1, 2006 from 7PM till 9PM.<br /><br />The library is located at 201 North Main in Sioux Falls. If you have questions about locating the library please call them at 367-8720.<br /><br />We will be working out plans for getting information to the Taskforce on divorce, custody, and education.<br /><br />Please pass the word to anyone who would like to be at the meeting and bring a friend.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sdsharedparenting.com/" target="_blank">http://www.sdsharedparenting.com/</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-1161309118660846592006-10-19T21:48:00.000-04:002006-10-19T22:14:24.067-04:00New Website - North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative<a href="http://ndspi.org/" target="_blank">North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-1156100956327528022006-08-20T15:04:00.000-04:002006-10-19T22:13:58.860-04:00Equal Parents Week Rally - Michigan<a href="http://www.dadsofmichigan.org/" target="_blank">Dads of Michigan</a> will be holding an Equal Parents Week Rally on September 27th.<br /><br />Excerpts from the website:<br /><br /><em>DADS OF MICHIGAN will observe Equal Parents Week (EPW), September 24 – September 30, 2006. Equal Parents Week brings attention to the need for both parents to share their parental rights and responsibilities equally, the right of children to be raised and nurtured by both parents, and the right of families to exist and function as a family. These are civil and human rights inherent and inalienable to all families. Our recent national tragedies further highlight the importance of parents and family. Public and home candlelight vigils observing EPW and the victims of terrorism will also take place on September 27 across the nation and world. </em><br /><em></em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-1156091179672735172006-08-20T12:22:00.000-04:002006-10-28T11:18:41.697-04:00Big Bad Daddy<a href="http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/" target="_blank">Philadelphia Weekly</a> recently ran as their cover story - <strong>Big Bad Daddy: Is the system built to screw over single fathers?<br /></strong><br />You can read the article by clicking here: <a href="http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=12791" target="_blank">Family Feud</a><br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br /><em>At the height of the women’s rights movement Margaret Mead once quipped that “fathers are biological necessities, but social accidents.” </em><br /><br /><em>There was a time when courts viewed children as property of the father. But in the 20th century custody was transformed by the “tender-years doctrine,” which assumes young children should always be placed with their mothers. </em><br /><br /><em>Both custody models—both inherently flawed—gave way to courts relying on a judge’s discretion to act in the “best interests of the child.” </em><br /><br /><em>In family law, observers say, there’s a presumption that the parent who serves as the primary caregiver should be the primary custodian, which usually means the mother. And that when there’s bitter conflict, the rights of the noncustodial parent—typically the father—are normally the first to go. </em><br /><br /><em>The fathers at FACE say both models leave them pleading to mothers and the courts for more time with their kids. As a result, Family Court has become an adversarial system in which fathers must prove that their children benefit from their involvement. </em><br /><br /><em>“You can get 50/50,” says Clemmons. “It’s difficult, but it’s not impossible. One thing that’s really helped fathers’ rights is that judges really want to follow the best interests of the child. When I’m in court, I don’t say it’s the father’s right to be with the child. You have to switch it around and say the child is going to benefit by being with the father, that the father helps with homework, that he goes to teacher meetings, that he takes the child to activities, that he knows the pediatrician, to show the benefits for the child, not the rights of the father. Because let’s face it—the courts really don’t care.”</em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-1156090888236323842006-08-20T12:17:00.000-04:002006-10-19T22:15:44.196-04:00NOW seems stuck in yesterday<a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/281341_young16.html" target="_blank">NOW seems stuck in yesterday</a><br /><br />This is the latest article by <a href="http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Cathy Young</a>.<br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br /><em>The feminists of 1966 were interested in justice for all. They were highly critical of the notion that breadwinning should be the man's sole or primary burden and that a married woman automatically should be entitled to financial support from her husband during marriage or after divorce.</em><br /><br /><em>In more recent times, however, NOW and its state chapters have tended in almost knee-jerk fashion to side with women in the debates over divorce, often advocating higher and more long-term spousal support.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>While paying lip service to the idea of equal parenting, NOW steadfastly has opposed efforts to broaden the rights of divorced fathers.</em><br /><br /><em>With the exception of a few chapters, it has staunchly opposed such proposals as joint custody and mediation instead of litigation.</em><br /><br /><em>Ten years ago, NOW issued an "Action Alert against fathers' rights," which accused divorced men who seek a role in their children's lives of abusing power "in the same fashion as do batterers."</em><br /><br /><em>The top resolution adopted at its 1999 national conference was another call to arms against the fathers' rights movement, asserting that "women lose custody of their children, despite being good mothers, despite a lack of involvement of the father with the children, and regardless of a history of being the primary caregiver." (That undoubtedly has happened in some cases, but to this day it is still far more frequently fathers who experience such injustice.)</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>NOW's 1966 statement declared that women must seek equality "not in pleas for special privilege, nor in enmity toward men, who are also victims of the current half-equality between the sexes -- but in an active, self-respecting partnership with men."</em><br /><br /><em>Sadly, many of the organization's policies and practices have betrayed this principle.</em><br /><br /><em>Feminism is still needed in 2006, at a time when social conservatism is on the rise and when many conservative women's groups that claim to offer an alternative to the women's movement promote retrograde and limiting notions of gender roles.</em><br /><br /><em>But what's needed is a call for equality, not special privilege or enmity toward men. NOW's feminism is not its foremothers' feminism, and that's too bad.</em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-1156090544343891802006-08-20T12:11:00.000-04:002006-10-28T17:39:15.139-04:00John Murtari StoryPlease stop by <a href="http://mensnewsdaily.com/category/blogettes/teri-stoddard/" target="_blank">Teri Stoddard's blog</a> to read about John Murtari - a father who is currently on a hunger strike <em>"to protest “gross and repeated injustice”by the court system in a custody battle over access to his son, Domenic, 13." </em>(Borrowed from Mike McManus)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-1155999936226523782006-08-19T11:01:00.000-04:002006-10-19T22:16:56.851-04:00How courts discourage shared parenting in N.D.<a href="http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/opinion/15291683.htm" target="_blank">How courts discourage shared parenting in N.D.</a><br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br /><em>The initiative addresses this issue by establishing a framework in which neither party has an incentive to go to court. Far from removing courts from the process, the initiative directs the court to put the appropriate burden of proof for removing a parent from their child's life on the parent who is objecting to the child keeping a substantial relationship with both parents.</em><br /><br /><em>Courts should not be in the business of picking winning and losing parents. They should maintain and uphold each parent's interest in their relationship to their children to the maximum extent possible.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em></em><br />Other articles about the shared parenting initiative in North Dakota:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/opinion/15291702.htm" target="_blank">Measure complies with federal law</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/opinion/15291687.htm" target="_blank">State wants to protect revenue stream</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/opinion/15291670.htm" target="_blank">Stand up to federal bullying, North Dakota</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-1155999587589863812006-08-19T10:55:00.000-04:002006-10-19T22:18:01.981-04:00Dr. Warren Farrell to Address National Family Law Reform Conference<em>From an <a href="http://www.acfc.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage&JServSessionIdr005=egyo81jba3.app8a" target="_blank">ACFC</a> email:</em><br /><br />We are pleased to relay the news that Dr. Warren Farrell will be joining us for the National Family Law Reform Conference, September 15 -16, 2006 at the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Virginia.<br /><br />A partial list of confirmed speakers includes:Dr. Warren Farrell, Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, President - Eagle Forum, Glenn Sacks, Columnist, Michael McManus, Dr. Stephen Baskerville.....and many others......<br /><br /><a href="http://www.acfc.org/site/Calendar?view=Detail&id=100021" target="_blank">Click here to register for this event.</a><br /><br />You will come away with invaluable tools, contacts, and concrete steps to implement change and put family law reform at the center of your community and state agenda.<br /><br />ACFC has negotiated a discounted room rate of $119.00 per night with the Marriott for the conference. This rate is per room, not per person, up to 4 people may share a room. Please contact the hotel directly at 703 920-3230 or toll free at 800 228-9290 to reserve your room. Indicate you are attending the National Family Law Reform Conference to receive the conference rate. A limited number of rooms are available, unbooked rooms will release back to the hotel soon (August 21, 2006), so reserve today.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-1153874632739648622006-07-25T20:26:00.000-04:002006-10-19T22:19:20.588-04:00A House Divided - MA<strong><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/07/19/a_house_divided/?page=2" target="_blank">A House Divided</a></strong><br /><br />The SJC's pivotal ruling on a joint custody case leaves a blended family caught in the middle and split in two<br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br /><em>Tristan and his 12-year-old brother, Spenser, are at the heart of a case the Supreme Judicial Court decided last week on the thorny question of whether a divorced parent with joint physical custody can move the children out of state.</em><br /><br /><em>The boys' mother, Betsy Shanley Coleman, who has a toddler by her second husband, wanted to return to her hometown of Bristol, N.H., where her new husband and his ex-wife share equal custody of their two sons. Shanley Coleman's ex-husband, James Mason, who lives in Nashua, N.H., wanted his sons, Tristan and Spenser, to stay in Chelmsford.</em><br /><br /><em>In its unanimous decision, the SJC upheld a 2003 family court ruling that ordered the boys to remain in Chelmsford schools and propelled Shanley Coleman to split her time between Chelmsford and Bristol, 90 miles apart, and sometimes rendezvous with her husband midway between the two towns.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>The SJC, which had plucked the case from the docket of pending appeals, outlined a fundamental difference between cases in which one parent has physical custody and cases of joint custody. Although the well-being of a parent influences the well-being of the child, the SJC found, the benefit a parent may derive from moving carries considerably less weight in determining the children's best interests when custody is shared than when it is not.</em><br /><br /><em>``While a joint physical custody agreement remains in effect," Justice Judith Cowin wrote for the court, ``each parent necessarily surrenders a degree of prerogative in certain life decisions, e.g., choice of habitation, that may affect the feasibility of shared physical custody."</em><br /><br /><em>The SJC's decision not only guides future cases involving relocation and joint custody in the Commonwealth but also promises to generate wider interest because the SJC is a well-respected court and few state supreme courts have considered the subject. The ruling, says Jeff Atkinson, author of ``The American Bar Association Guide to Marriage, Divorce & Families," strengthens an emerging trend of courts looking at each case based on its particular facts without a presumption for or against allowing the move. It also comes in one of the most wrenching areas of family law.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>The SJC pronouncement that pleases Mason leaves Shanley Coleman dismayed and awaiting action on her separate petition in family court for sole custody. Their sons, who the trial judge noted had expressed interest in spending more time with their father, now clamor to move to Bristol and live primarily with their mother.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>Shanley Coleman and Mason, who met as co-workers in a software company, wed in New Hampshire in 1985, and during the first years of their sons' lives Mason cared for them while Shanley Coleman worked. When they divorced in 1998, they agreed to move from Hampton, N.H., to within 25 miles of Chelmsford to be near her job in Lowell and his in Lexington. They agreed to joint legal custody. They also established a parenting schedule that favored Shanley Coleman when school is in session but, as with many divorce agreements in recent years, did not label the arrangement either joint physical custody or sole physical custody with visitation.</em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6297275.post-1153596062176877362006-07-22T15:19:00.000-04:002006-10-19T22:19:54.232-04:00North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Will Help Children of Divorce<a href="http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/20/north-dakota-shared-parenting-initiative-will-help-children-of-divorce/" target="_blank">North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Will Help Children of Divorce</a><br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br /><em>The North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative is based on the belief that all parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children, and that no fit parent can lawfully be denied custody of his or her children. Under the Initiative, when family law courts adjudicate a divorce, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that a mother or father is unfit, all parents will have joint legal and physical custody of their children.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>The CCCRC claims that the Initiative places the interests of parents over the interests of children. Yet when psychologist Joan Kelly examined children of divorce, she found that they “express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,” and cite the “benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important factor. An Arizona State University study queried adult children of divorce, and found that more than two-thirds believed “living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.”</em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2