Divorce and Child Custody: Free Information for Fathers

Child-custody bill: Limit court action while soldier-parents overseas - Pennsylvania

2008-05-12T22:09:00.002-04:00

Child-custody bill: Limit court action while soldier-parents overseas

Excerpt:

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.

Sen. Mike Folmer, 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.

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.

Sharing Parents the Best Answer - North Dakota

2008-05-12T21:56:00.002-04:00

Sharing Parents the Best Answer

From the article:

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.

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.

Obama's Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act

2008-05-12T21:45:00.003-04:00

Apparently part of Barack Obama's platform on family includes the following:

Strengthen Fatherhood and Families: 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.

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...

State wants to know if you might be a dad - Virginia

2007-08-07T13:32:00.000-04:00

State wants to know if you might be a dad

Excerpts:

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.

The law, which went into effect July 1, is designed to protect men's rights in the case of a future adoption.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

To register, men are asked to fill out a form they can get at their local DSS office or online at http://www.vaputativefather.com/. The hotline number is (877) IF-DADDY.

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.

The state requires the men to sign the form and mail it to Richmond, said Carla Harris, a DSS spokeswoman. Registration is free.

If the form contains the address of the woman, she will be notified.

New Jersey - Highland Park Psychologist Marsha Kleinman

2007-08-07T13:10:00.000-04:00

AG: Highland Park psychologist coached girl on sex abuse claims

Excerpts:

The state Attorney General's 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.

In addition to the license revocation, Marsha Kleinman could face fines from the complaint filed Friday before the state Board of Psychological Examiners, a part of the Division of Consumer Affairs.

The accusations focus on Kleinman's 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.
Kleinman, 56, denies the charges.

"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," Kleinman said today. "I expect all of this to be resolved."

Dads increase time with children, housework

2007-04-13T22:56:00.000-04:00

Dads increase time with children, housework

Excerpts:

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.

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.

“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.”

Who Needs A Father Anyway?

2007-04-13T22:48:00.000-04:00

If feminists are to be believed no one does - not even this boy....

You can view the video by clicking through Glenn Sacks blog.

Parental Alienation Awareness Day

2007-04-13T22:44:00.000-04:00

Parental Alienation Awareness Day is April 25th.

Visit Parental Alienation Awareness for more information.

IowaFathers.com Hosting Non-Custodial Parents Rally

2007-04-13T22:35:00.000-04:00

IowaFathers.com is hosting their a rally on 4/21/07. Per email:

On Saturday, April 21, 2007, we are holding our first ever Non-Custodial Parents Rally in Des Moines in observance of Parental Alienation Awareness Day, which is April 25th. Our guest speakers include Presidential candidate Dr. Mark Klein, Stephen Baskerville, PhD, the president of American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC), 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 Civic Center of Greater Des Moines, 227 Walnut St., Des Moines, Iowa, 50309-2104.

Back From The Dead (Sort Of) And More News To Make You Mostly Nauseous

2007-02-16T18:11:00.000-05:00

Hello, Hello - It's Been Too Long....

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."

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.

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.

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.

This job has certainly changed a lot about my life.

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.

I assure you I am neither - but you certainly couldn't tell from my abysmal posting of late.

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.

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.

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).

And as I sit here on my first Friday evening home in three weeks - I mostly feel anxious to wrap this up.

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.

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.

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.

Hmm, maybe I had more criteria than I thought.

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.

Enough about all of that ~ on to the news....

All of the following came from a Glenn Sacks newsletter which you can access yourself by clicking here....

Colorado has a new paternity fraud bill SB 56.

Glenn wrote the following article: 'Duped Dad' Bill Could Foster Closer Ties.

Excerpts from the article:

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.

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.

On Point: Suffer the children offer a different point of view. Excerpts:

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.

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.

Take a look at this press release about Sherri Donovan's new book Hit Him Where It Hurt$: The Take-No-Prisoners Guide to Divorce - Alimony, Custody, Child Support. My favorite excerpt:

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.

I suppose at least she admitted women initiate the majority of divorces.

On a better note, Utah Senator Mark Madsen sounds like he might be a reasonable guy. In this article, Child-support delinquency could cost parents their licenses, it stated:

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.

"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)."

There is lots more in the newsletter like:

"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.

and

"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."

and

"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.

plus

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.

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.

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.

and finally (though there is more I haven't mentioned in the newsletter)

"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.

So visit Glenn Sacks to read the newsletter in its entirety.

Finally - Signs, Pictures and Billboards I Like (Or Don't)

What the hell is this? Apparently a marketing scheme by Court TV....

borrowed from Cartoon Barry Blog

We have seen this one before from ACFC:

As well as this one from NHCustody.org:

Michigan NOW Declares 'Action Alert' Against Shared Parenting Bill

2006-11-29T19:27:00.000-05:00

Michigan NOW Declares 'Action Alert' Against Shared Parenting Bill

This is verbatim from an email:

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 "Action Alert" against the bill. Michigan shared parenting groups, including Dads of Michigan, the American Coalition for Fathers & Children's Michigan affiliate, the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan, and others, are rallying support for the bill.

You can access a list of Michigan legislators, their phone numbers and their email addresses by clicking here.

The Case for HB 5267

Michigan NOW makes its case against shared parenting and HB 5267 here.

I laid out the case in favor of HB 5267 and discussed many of NOW's criticisms in my co-authored column HB 5267 Will Help Michigan's Children of Divorce (Lansing State Journal, 5/28/06). Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and I wrote:

"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...

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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?

"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.

"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."

You can access more information about HB5267 on Family Rights Coalition of Michigan site.

North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Defeated

2006-11-10T17:25:00.000-05:00

Yuck.

This is from the Minot Daily News:

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.

Carey Roberts mentions this legislation is his most recent article: Bush Needs to Rein in Feminist Operatives

Excerpts:

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.

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.

Shame on ACF head Margo Bean for tolerating these bureaucratic shenanigans.

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.

I don't understand NOW, feminists or "reproductive rights."

2006-10-28T11:49:00.000-04:00

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.

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."

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.

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 more often the mother stays home 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 Parents 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).

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 (and plan to take time off work) 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?

NOW lists their "top priority issues" as: Abortion Rights/Reproductive Rights, Violence Against Women, Constitutional Equality, Promoting Diversity/Ending Racism, Lesbian Rights and Economic Justice.

On the NOW site 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 paragraph earlier. 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.

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.

I don't understand feminists who assert that they need an "Equal Rights Amendment" 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.

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 more frequently the perpetrators of abuse or neglect of children.

It appears children in mother headed households are also more likely to be under the poverty line when compared with father headed households. The CRC has a wonderful chart but you can see the census info here. 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 somewhere around 10% of those who have accrued arrearages in child support. In reality, far more non custodial mothers default on their support orders than fathers.

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 30% of "fathers" may not be biologically related to their children.

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.

They also list "lesbian rights" as a top issue - listing Equal Marriage Now 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 publicly bashing the fatherhood movement?

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. This is a quote from the link above: "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."

Absolutely no commentary on how children do better with meaningful contact from both parents. 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.

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?"

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 "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." (That is what NOW says it stands for anyway - can't say I'm convinced).

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.

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.

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.

I found this quote today ~ apparently Ms. Lewis was an actress.

You don't have to be anti-man to be pro-woman. ~Jane Galvin Lewis

Are single mothers the 'New American Family'?

2006-10-28T10:00:00.000-04:00

Latest Glenn Sacks

Are single mothers the 'New American Family'?

Excerpts:

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."

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."

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."

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."

IowaFathers.com works to Oust Judge Pelton

2006-10-27T13:27:00.001-04:00

IowaFathers.com is encouraging residents of District 7 in Iowa (Cedar, Clinton , Jackson , Muscatine , and Scott Counties) to vote no to Judge Pelton on November 7th.

An article about their efforts can be seen here: Group works to oust judge

This is all verbatim from email:

The Quad Cities Times article did not report that Judge Pelton 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 Pelton 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 Pelton 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.

When Judge Pelton 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.

On November 7, 2006, please encourage all friends and family members residing in Cedar, Clinton , Jackson , Muscatine , and Scott Counties to Vote NO for Judge Charles Pelton.

SD Shared Parenting meeting

2006-10-19T21:54:00.000-04:00

SD Shared Parenting meeting

The South Dakota Coalition for Shared Parenting will be meeting at the Sioux Falls Downtown library November 1, 2006 from 7PM till 9PM.

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.

We will be working out plans for getting information to the Taskforce on divorce, custody, and education.

Please pass the word to anyone who would like to be at the meeting and bring a friend.

http://www.sdsharedparenting.com/

New Website - North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative

2006-10-19T21:48:00.000-04:00

North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative

Equal Parents Week Rally - Michigan

2006-08-20T15:04:00.000-04:00

Dads of Michigan will be holding an Equal Parents Week Rally on September 27th.

Excerpts from the website:

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.

Big Bad Daddy

2006-08-20T12:22:00.000-04:00

Philadelphia Weekly recently ran as their cover story - Big Bad Daddy: Is the system built to screw over single fathers?

You can read the article by clicking here: Family Feud

Excerpts:

At the height of the women’s rights movement Margaret Mead once quipped that “fathers are biological necessities, but social accidents.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.

“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.”

NOW seems stuck in yesterday

2006-08-20T12:17:00.000-04:00

NOW seems stuck in yesterday

This is the latest article by Cathy Young.

Excerpts:

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.

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.

While paying lip service to the idea of equal parenting, NOW steadfastly has opposed efforts to broaden the rights of divorced fathers.

With the exception of a few chapters, it has staunchly opposed such proposals as joint custody and mediation instead of litigation.

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."

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.)

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."

Sadly, many of the organization's policies and practices have betrayed this principle.

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.

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.

John Murtari Story

2006-08-20T12:11:00.000-04:00

Please stop by Teri Stoddard's blog to read about John Murtari - a father who is currently on a hunger strike "to protest “gross and repeated injustice”by the court system in a custody battle over access to his son, Domenic, 13." (Borrowed from Mike McManus)

How courts discourage shared parenting in N.D.

2006-08-19T11:01:00.000-04:00

How courts discourage shared parenting in N.D.

Excerpts:

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.

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.

Other articles about the shared parenting initiative in North Dakota:

Measure complies with federal law

State wants to protect revenue stream

Stand up to federal bullying, North Dakota

Dr. Warren Farrell to Address National Family Law Reform Conference

2006-08-19T10:55:00.000-04:00

From an ACFC email:

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.

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......

Click here to register for this event.

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.

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.

A House Divided - MA

2006-07-25T20:26:00.000-04:00

A House Divided

The SJC's pivotal ruling on a joint custody case leaves a blended family caught in the middle and split in two

Excerpts:

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.

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.

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.

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.

``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."

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.

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.

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.

North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Will Help Children of Divorce

2006-07-22T15:19:00.000-04:00

North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Will Help Children of Divorce

Excerpts:

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.

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.”

Treat men, women equally in courts

2006-07-22T15:12:00.000-04:00

Treat men, women equally in courts

The article is about sex offenders but the sentiment is certainly true.

Excerpts:

Males and females who commit equally serious offenses should receive equally harsh punishment and an equal chance for rehabilitation. The criminal justice system, in New Hampshire and nationally, should be able to say that’s the case and to prove it.

Divorce law change gaining attention - LA

2006-07-14T22:12:00.000-04:00

Divorce law change gaining attention

Excerpts:

Hailed as the first uniformly applicable legislation since “no-fault” was introduced in 1969 that makes divorce harder to get, Act 743 doubles the living-separate-and-apart waiting period from six months to one year when minor children would be affected by a no-fault divorce. If it is demonstrated that one spouse is guilty of child or spousal abuse, the current waiting period remains unaffected.

Alexander justified his legislation on the basis that divorce hurts children: “We know that in one-parent families, a child is twice as likely to drop out of school, three times as likely to become pregnant as a teenager, six times more likely to be in poverty and 12 times more likely to be incarcerated.” And he cited a study that said the change could cut the divorce rate by 23 percent.

Sen. Bob Kostelka, a retired judge who led the fight for the law in Louisiana’s Senate, reasoned that divorces “were often granted before the couple had worked out issues of child custody and support. That removed the option of reconciliation, because they would be divorced before they had settled important issues” that might have prompted meaningful counseling.

Louisiana Family Forum Action supported this reform legislation that aligns with recent polling data showing that 60 percent of Louisianians believe “divorce should be more difficult to get for couples with minor children than other couples.” A Time-CNN national poll has agreed with these findings.

Moreover, a study by Dr. Linda Waite revealed that “86 percent of unhappily married people who stick it out, find that, five years later, their marriages are happier.” Three-fifths who said their marriages were unhappy in the late 1980s and who stayed married, said their marriages were either “very happy” or “happy” when reinterviewed in the early 1990s.
Act 743 becomes the first enactment in pursuance of a 2001 study by the Louisiana Law Institute urging the Legislature to consider a number of divorce reforms, including longer cooling-off periods.

Why Dads Matter

2006-07-14T22:08:00.000-04:00

Why Dads Matter

Excerpts:

A Journal of Marriage and Family study found that the presence of a father was five times more important in predicting teen drug use than any other sociological factor, including income and race. A published Harvard review of four major studies found that, accounting for all major socioeconomic factors, children without a father in the home are twice as likely to drop out of high school or repeat a grade as children who live with their fathers. A Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency study concluded that fatherlessness is so predictive of juvenile crime that, as long as there was a father in the home, children of poor and wealthy families had similar juvenile crime rates. Adult children of divorce realize dads are important.

A published Arizona State University study found that more than two-thirds believed that, after divorce, living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services new report Child Maltreatment 2004, when one parent is acting without the involvement of the other parent, mothers are almost three times as likely to kill their children as fathers are, and are more than twice as likely to abuse them.

Down, Down, Down (Reflections On The Boy Crisis)

2006-07-10T22:37:00.000-04:00

Down, Down, Down (Reflections On The Boy Crisis)

Excerpts:

Boys are churning wads of energy. They are physical and competitive. They want to climb things, test themselves, jump off of things, explore, drive fast, fight, behave like damn fools, and sack cities. In later years this energy may serve them well, but not yet. School is hellish for them, with its year after year of sitting, bored out of their skulls, while some drone babbles. It is worse for the bright, verging on child abuse.

New Link - The Online Lawyer

2006-07-10T22:30:00.000-04:00

Stop by and visit The Online Lawyer. The site includes all kind of general legal information including info on divorce and custody.

Parents need to focus on what’s best for children in divorce - Illinois

2006-07-10T22:25:00.000-04:00

Parents need to focus on what’s best for children in divorce

Excerpts:

Divorce can affect each child differently, and parents need to learn how best to help their children through the situation.

For the last three years, Marriage and Family Counseling Service in Rock Island has offered classes on co-parenting after divorce or separation.

New rules enacted by the Illinois Supreme Court require parents in divorce proceedings to go through a class like the TransParenting class offered by Marriage and Family Counseling Service. Parents who have never married but who are going through a child custody case also will be required to take the class, said Rock Island County Circuit Judge Lori Lefstein.

The state supreme court announced the class requirement in February as part of a series of new rules to help ensure that child custody proceedings be handled expeditiously, competently and with great emphasis on the "best interest of the child."

The rules grew out of the continuing work of the special Illinois Supreme Court Committee on Child Custody Issues that was established in January 2002 to study child custody, parental termination and adoption issues.

Judge Lefstein said she often recommended the class to parents even before the requirement went into effect July 1. Even if the parents are going their separate ways, they can learn to work together for the sake of their children, she said.

"Co-parenting is a very different relationship than a spousal relationship," he said. "Even though the marriage is ending, the parenting continues."

It's important for parents to focus on the child, he said, even though they may have their own emotional issues to deal with.

Families who navigate divorce successfully are those who talk about it and continue to talk about it and allow children to have their say, he added. If a family doesn't address the issues raised during a divorce right away, it can cause problems down the road.

Tips for divorcing parents

1. Don't badmouth the other parent. "Kids have loyalty to both parents regardless of how great or lousy the person is," said Derek Ball, a licensed marriage and family therapist.

2. Don't make your kid the messenger. Your child will be very interested in what's going on and will want to get the inside scoop, but as a parent, do your own communicating with the other parent as much as possible.

3. Be a good listener. Mr. Ball said parents are quick to use opportunities to lecture or teach their child, but in this situation, your child just wants to be heard. Give them feedback to make sure you understand what they are saying.

4. Don't make your kid into your confidante. Your child needs to be allowed to be a child. Go to your friends, parent, pastor or therapist for emotional support, not your child, Mr. Balls aid.

Upcoming Dates
5:30-9:30 p.m. July 13
5:30-9:30 p.m. July 25
9 a.m.-1 p.m. Sept. 9
5:30-9:30 p.m. Oct. 24
5:30-9:30 p.m. Dec. 5

Cost: $50 per person

Location: Marriage and Family Counseling Service, 1800 3rd Ave., Suite 512 Rock Island
For more information, call (309) 786-4491.

TN Supreme Court Upholds Child Support After Parent's Death

2006-07-10T22:21:00.000-04:00

TN Supreme Court Upholds Child Support After Parent's Death

Excerpts:

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled Monday that a noncustodial parent still has child support obligations when a youngster is placed in the custody of a third party.

In a 5 to 0 decision released in Knoxville, the court ruled that a father must still pay child support even though the mother of his children died and her parents were granted custody.

Protect Children from Alienation

2006-07-10T22:15:00.000-04:00

Protect Children from Alienation

Latest Glenn Sacks....

Excerpts:

Family law mediators J. Michael Bone, Ph.D. and Michael R. Walsh explain that in PAS situations children "live in a state of chronic upset and threat of reprisal” and fear abandonment. Bone and Walsh note that when children “express positive approval of the absent parent, the consequences can be very serious...The child is continually being put through various loyalty tests…the alienating parent thus forces the child to choose [between] parents...in direct opposition to a child's emotional well being.”

The Health of Fatherhood

2006-06-14T21:12:00.000-04:00

The Health of Fatherhood

Excerpts:

On the one hand, we have a vast empirical research literature showing that both children and fathers benefit on almost all conceivable outcome indices when they are involved in each others lives as the children are growing up and being guided by their fathers into adulthood and beyond.

On the other hand, we have the following widely accepted contemporary demographics: one third of children are born to women who are not married at the time of delivery (and presumably do not have a father involved in the child’s life on a continual basis); 50% of first marriages end in divorce and another 17% end in permanent separation yielding an effective two thirds marital dissolution rate for first marriages; the divorce rate for second and subsequent marriages is about 10% higher; and the cookie-cutter formula used by most states grants physical custody to mothers about 85% of the time with the father being awarded infrequent visitation along with child support and alimony obligations.

Second, a minimum of two out of three divorces are initiated by wives. In my view, this is because mothers get all of the marbles in divorce. Specifically, and with some state to state variability, mothers not only get the children (about 85% of the time) but they also get half of the marital assets (sometimes mostly the father’s assets) plus the father’s income to support her and the children often in the former marital home along with the tax benefits associated with the children. By contrast, the father gets to pay for and furnish an apartment and, if lucky, is awarded alternate weekends with his children, perhaps an evening in between, and perhaps half a summer and other holidays. Critically, when the children are with the father he must feed, shelter, clothe, and entertain them with whatever he has left over after he continues to pay child-support and alimony to his ex-wife.

Clearly, all the current legislative incentives to divorce belong to the mother and none to the father. The solution to increasing father-child relationships post-divorce -- and as a critical fringe benefit to reduce the divorce rate as the incentives to divorce disappear -- is to change existing state family law on three fronts: (a) Establish a presumption of equal shared parenting; and (b) establish equal financial responsibility for both mothers and fathers along with legally mandated financial accountability for both; and (c) change the child support models from income sharing models to child cost sharing models.

In closing, the bad news is that the health of fatherhood in 2006 is grim. The good news is that we got where we are today not through natural disasters but through woman-made disasters -- which can be reversed. Thus, we have the opportunity this Fathers Day, as we have every Fathers Day, to enhance the quality of life of America’s children and fathers through new political initiatives and public policy. However, we must act quickly, lest Fathers become yet another member of an exponentially expanding Endangered Species List.

Foster Care System Disregards Fathers - Glenn Sacks

2006-06-14T21:00:00.000-04:00

Foster Care System Disregards Fathers

Excerpts:

The new report, What About the Dads? Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate, and Involve Nonresident Fathers, examines the foster care systems of Massachusetts and three other states. The report contains a shocking finding: when fathers inform child welfare officials that they would like their children to live with them, the agencies seek to place the children with their fathers in only 8% of cases.

Research shows that fathers matter. The rates of the four major youth pathologies--juvenile crime, teen pregnancy, teen drug abuse, and school dropouts--are tightly correlated with fatherlessness. For example, one long-term study of teen pregnancy published in Child Development found that a father's impact is so large that income, race, the mother's characteristics and a host of other normally powerful factors all mattered little. What mattered was dad.

What About the Dads? makes it clear that many child welfare workers treat fathers as an afterthought. The report found that even when a caseworker had been in contact with a child’s father, the caseworker was still five times less likely to know basic information about the father than about the mother. And 20% of the fathers whose identity and location were known by the child welfare agencies from the opening of the case were never even contacted.

These policies are seriously misguided. When a mother is deemed unfit to care for her children, dad shouldn’t be just one option out of many. He should be first in line.

Activist for divorced dads throws hat in ring- NH

2006-06-14T20:55:00.000-04:00

Activist for divorced dads throws hat in ring

Excerpts:

Republican Marc Snider of Merrimack accused incumbent Sen. Sheila Roberge, a Bedford Republican, of leading the charge to kill legislation (HB 529) to give fathers equal rights as parents in custody cases in the absence of evidence they should be treated differently.

Snider founded nhcustody.org, which has fought to reform divorce laws to give fathers a better chance at getting equal and joint custody. He has videotaped hearings of House and Senate committees to expand public awareness of how the Legislature has dealt with the issue.

Glenn Sacks - Louisiana Bill Says One Parent is Better Than Two

2006-06-03T14:27:00.000-04:00

Louisiana Bill Says One Parent is Better Than Two

Excerpts:

"Current Louisiana law states 'To the extent it is feasible and in the best interest of the child, physical custody of the children should be shared equally.' This is reasonable--it presumes that as long as both parents are fit and there are no extenuating circumstances, they should both share in parenting their children. HB 315 weakens the law's wise preference for two parents instead of one. Under the bill all that children receive is a vaguely defined 'as frequent and continuing contact as is feasible with each parent.' However, research establishes that shared custody is what's best for kids."

The counterattack against shared parenting is based on allegations that fathers only want shared parenting in order to reduce their child support obligations. We wrote:

"Unfortunately, rather than putting the need to preserve children's relationships with both parents at the center of the discussion, advocates of HB 315 are instead focusing on child support. In Louisiana, like most states, how much time each parent spends with his or her children helps determine how much child support is ordered. Rep. Shirley Bowler (R-River Ridge), who authored the bill, asserts that dads seek shared custody as a way to decrease their child support obligations. She promotes HB 315 as a way to 'remove this angle' in the current law, which she claims divorced dads are exploiting.

"While it is true that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children's best interests, Bowler and the bill's supporters ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 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?

"Similarly, critics charge that the child support provisions of current law amount to paying men to spend time with their children. In reality, the provisions simply acknowledge that both moms and dads have child-related expenses."

For more information contact Louisiana Dads.

Senator Withdraws Bill Giving Custodial Parents Free Rein to Move Away

2006-06-03T14:06:00.000-04:00

I'm always up for some good news....

AgapePress

Liberal California Senator Gloria Romero has withdrawn a bill that would have created a "presumptive right" for a divorced parent who has custody to move children away from the other parent.

According to men's issues columnist Glenn Sacks, founder of the Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways, Romero received more than 4,000 phone calls, letters, and faxes opposing her measure. He says that is because "a lot of people within the mental health community, the psychological community, and the family law community recognize the value of fathers."

New Link - IowaFathers.com

2006-06-03T13:56:00.000-04:00

I am adding a link to IowaFathers.com. They have A LOT of good information on the site including proposed legislation for a presumption favoring joint physical care. Stop by and take a look.

Clinic to offer free legal help, guidance - Washington County, Ohio

2006-05-16T22:25:00.000-04:00

Clinic to offer free legal help, guidance

Washington County residents who have legal questions, but who cannot afford to hire an attorney, now have another resource available for legal help and guidance.

Members of the Washington County Bar Association and Southeast Ohio Legal Services are joining forces to offer a free legal advice clinic, starting this Wednesday.

A family of four can earn up to $3,900 monthly and still qualify for the free clinic, Bozian said.

Local, private attorneys will be available to discuss legal issues in confidence with residents from 6 to 9 p.m. Wednesday at St. Luke's Episcopal Church, 320 Second St. Bozian said the goal is to hold the clinic at the same time and location on the third Wednesday of each month.

Sharon Wolboldt, paralegal with Southeastern Ohio Legal Services, said legal advice will be available on a wide array of topics, including landlord/tenant disputes, divorce, custody issues, financial matters, Social Security disability and property loss.

2 Valley events to offer free legal assistance, consultations - AZ

2006-04-27T10:08:00.000-04:00

2 Valley events to offer free legal assistance, consultations

Excerpts:

Valley attorneys will offer free consultations and advice at two events as part of an annual effort to better connect the legal profession and the community.

Attorneys will address a range of issues, including business, immigration, bankruptcy, child custody, construction defects and landlord-tenant issues. Participants can either meet in person with an attorney or phone in questions during the Law Week 2006 events, hosted by the Maricopa County Bar Association.

The first event, the Ask-a-Lawyer Fair, is from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday at Lamson College, 1126 N. Scottsdale Road, Tempe. Participants should come prepared with questions and documents to privately consult with attorneys. Typically, the meetings are limited to 15 minutes.

Attendees are encouraged to donate non-perishable food for the Desert Mission Food Bank in Phoenix, run by the John C. Lincoln Health Network.

From 6 to 9 p.m. May 2, residents can call for legal help at the Phone-A-Lawyer event at Channel 8 (KAET). The phone number, (480) 965-1998, will run across the bottom of the television screen during the event.

Spanish-speaking attorneys will be available at both events.

Joint custody works, but it's not easy

2006-04-27T10:03:00.000-04:00

Joint custody works, but it's not easy
By Kirsten Feldman

Excerpts:

My children's father and I separated and then divorced several years ago, when my son was in kindergarten. Next year he'll be starting middle school.

I certainly think my children have benefited from joint custody, in our case meaning that they might spend some nights at their father's house and some nights at ours in a given week, and we trade off for vacations and holidays.

Their father and I are amicable, and we have worked out the intricacies of having bicycles, and homework, and sports equipment in the right place at the right time. We attend teacher conferences together. We have resolved thorny issues involving religion and dentistry and Christmas dinner. I hope we are setting a good example for our children of how to relate to someone with whom you differ.

Glenn Sacks Updates

2006-04-27T09:58:00.000-04:00

This is all verbatim from an email

SB 1482 Update

In the face of over 3,500 calls, letters and faxes opposing SB 1482, the hearing on the bill has been postponed from today to Tuesday, May 9. Thanks to all of your for your participation.

As I noted in my action alert NEW CAMPAIGN: Move-Away Bill Will Harm Children of Divorce (April 18, 2006):

"Under SB 1482...a parent seeking to block a move is specifically prohibited from citing most of the evidence that could provide a basis for restraining the move. Nonmoving parents are prevented from citing the move's impact on their children's relationships with them or the effects of the children losing their schools and friends. This directly abrogates current California case law which says that the children's relationship with their nonmoving parent must be considered when deciding a relocation case.

"The Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways, which we originally formed to defeat SB 730, is working with the California Alliance for Families and Children to defeat SB 1482."

New York Shared Parenting Bill Held

In a disappointing though not surprising vote, the New York Assembly Committee on Children & Families voted today to hold over A330, the New York Shared Parenting Bill. Four committee members voted in favor of the bill (see below), and the rest voted to hold, citing concerns about alleged technical issues or flaws in the bill.

This bill has been locked up in committee for 12 years. Jim Hays, president of Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, who sponsored the bill, told me that with the four "yes" votes and all the media attention, this is the closest they've ever come to getting it out of committee. He has asked me to tell you that it was the 8,000 calls, letters and faxes you generated which helped bring it this close, and to thank you.

The Assemblymemebers voting in favor of the bill were Ruben Diaz Jr., Karim Camara, Michael Benjamin and Vincent Ignizio.

Custody rights bill for fathers dead in Assembly -NY

2006-04-27T09:46:00.000-04:00

Custody rights bill for fathers dead in Assembly
Supporters say bill would balance system they say favors mothers

I don't know what to say.

Excerpts:

ALBANY -- An Assembly panel Tuesday killed for the year a proposal to give fathers greater custody rights in divorce proceedings.

By a 12-4 vote, the Assembly Children and Families Committee scuttled a contentious plan that would have made courts presume that shared parenting of children is the best arrangement for divorcing couples and their children, if there was no accusation that it would harm the children.

The bill's supporters say that courts now award custody to the mother in most cases, with fathers limited to occasional visits. They said 13 other states have adopted similar legislation to level the playing field for fathers.

But the majority of committee members were swayed by arguments that the bill would put the needs of the parents ahead of those of the children.

The committee vote means the measure won't advance to the floor to be considered by the full Assembly, effectively killing it for the year. The Senate wasn't expected to act on it until the Assembly made its decision.

Going Pro Se - Uncontested Divorce in CA

2006-04-24T12:49:00.000-04:00

On Uncontested Case for Divorce - Part 1

By: Atty. TONISITO M.C. UMALI

THIS primer can help you get a divorce (also called "dissolution of marriage"). This article assumes that the divorce will be uncontested and that both parties live in the State of California.

Excerpts:

What are the forms I need to start my case?

You need to complete and file 2 forms to start your case (3 forms if you have children). In some cases (or in some counties, there are more forms). The two California Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts forms (“forms” for brevity) you need are the following: 1) Petition-Marriage (Family Law); and Summons (Family Law).If you have children under the age of 18 with your spouse, complete also Declaration Under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).

If you need more space on your petition to enumerate your property and debts, you may use the Property Declaration (Family Law) form.

After completing these forms, make at least 3 copies of each form. One copy will be served on your spouse while the 2 copies are for your records.

Bill's Arena

2006-04-12T10:32:00.000-04:00

It figures - as soon as I talk about scaling back I see something I just have to post.

Please stop by and show your support for Bill's Arena. The site is run by Bill, a 14 year old child of divorce. From the site:

Think about this. Imagine if you, the child of two divorced parents, had the the power to change something. What if you could see both of your parents equally? Well, such a thing exists, and it is known as "Presumption of Joint Physical Custody." That means both your parents have control over your skin! Just kidding, it means you see them equal amounts of time if they cannot agree on a visitation schedule. Right now you may be thinking, "Well, that makes sense. Why don't my parents do that concerning me?" Well, here is the truth. People just don't get along. There, I said it. People don't get along. It has gotten too easy to become divorced, I saw a billboard the other day that said that some attorney (or lawyer, depending on your preference) could divorce you from your spouse for only $500! Outrageous! Well, it gets easier. It has gotten to the point that whoever has more money can typically get the better attorney, so they can get all the belongings, and you too! It seems to me anymore like kids are treated like a stupid piece of junk belonging.

Well I had this smart idea. Lobby for Joint Physical Custody. Remember Martin Luther King Jr.? He had a very nonviolent protest idea that worked very well. Others have done that kind of thing with success, Gandhi (Sorry to any of those typo spotters. I can never spell his name right.) for instance. Well, what about this case? We have something in common, we want something. No, we need something. We need Joint Physical Custody. Let's walk, I say. I am going to have t-shirts made to give to anyone I know. When I am done I will post up a template for you to go to Kinko's or somewhere to have it made. Make signs up. Call anyone you know, no, call everyone you know. But don't start yet. We need to do it on one day, one day while the whole nation can sit and watch as their children march and fight fist less for something they want. I don't care where you live, ghetto, mansion. Shoot, if you have married parents, help us! You don't know what it is like! What if you had parents get divorced? Wouldn't you want to see both of them? Let's see if we can shoot for Spring Break 2007, the Georgia Legislature will be in session then.

Thank you to Disenfranchised Father via Broken Bread for this link.

Changes to Divorce and Custody Blog

2006-04-12T10:05:00.000-04:00

You may have noticed that things have been relatively quiet around here for the past week or so. Unfortunately, that will likely be the norm from here out.

I have accepted another job that while is to my benefit in many ways, I am no longer afforded the periods of dead time during which I blog. I intend (at least short term) to keep the site active and update it occasionally when I come upon particularly pressing issues. However, posts will likely be few and far between from here out.

I would like to thank all of my regular readers and subscribers. Hopefully, this blog will still be able to serve a positive (if reduced) function in the future.

Meg

Arizona Divorce, Custody & Support Info

2006-04-04T11:02:00.000-04:00

Arizona Constitution

Arizona Revised Statutes Title 8 - Children Title 25 - Marital and Domestic Relations

Arizona Child Support Guidelines and Calculator

Arizona Self Service Legal Forms

AZLawHelp.org

Arizona Legal Services Resources

FAMILY COURT WEB SITE

ARIZONA FATHERS' RIGHTS

Women Have a Choice--Men Should Too

2006-04-04T10:40:00.000-04:00

Latest article from Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks

Excerpts:

One and a half million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year by adoption, abortion or abandonment, yet somehow nobody labels them “deadbeats” or “deserters.” In over 40 states a mother can return the baby to the hospital within a few weeks of birth--completely opting out of motherhood with less hassle than it takes to return a DVD to Best Buy. Yet if the mother decides she wants to keep the child, she can demand 18 (or in some states 21 or 23) years of child support from the father, and he has no choice in the matter.

Research shows that many men are unwillingly drafted into fatherhood, just as Dubay claims he was. The National Scruples and Lies Survey 2004 conducted in the United Kingdom found that 42% of the women in the survey said they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners. According to research conducted by Joyce Abma of the National Center for Health Statistics and Linda Piccinino of Cornell University, over a million American births each year result from pregnancies which men did not intend.

Women’s advocates correctly note that pregnant women often have legitimate reasons for not wanting to be mothers, including youth, finances and the lack of a suitable relationship or marriage. Yet all of these apply equally to men. Women have a choice--men should, too.

More Glen Sacks and A330

2006-04-04T10:36:00.000-04:00

This is all verbatim from an email:

Assembly Committee Stalls Vote on Shared Parenting Bill

Despite media coverage and over 5,000 calls and letters, powerful members of the New York Assembly Committee on Children & Families are trying to stall voting on A330, the New York Shared Parenting Bill.

We recently suspended the thousands of faxes being sent to the Committee members through our campaign page because the committee members told us they were unable to get any work done. James Hays of the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, which is sponsoring the New York Shared Parenting Bill, has now asked us to go back to emails to deliver the message. To email now, click here.

The vote on the bill was set for March 28 but has been postponed twice. New York is a battleground state for shared parenting and fatherhood, and we want a vote on this bill. Again, to support the bill, click here.

Shared Parenting Bill Would Help New York's Children of Divorce

2006-03-29T11:08:00.000-05:00

Shared Parenting Bill Would Help New York's Children of Divorce

More Glenn Sacks...

Excerpts:

According to a meta-analysis conducted by psychologist Robert Bauserman and published in the American Psychological Association‘s Journal of Family Psychology, children in joint custody settings had fewer behavior and emotional problems, higher self-esteem, better family relations, and better school performance than children in sole custody arrangements.

A Harvard University study of 517 families conducted across a four-and-a-half year period measured depression, deviance, school effort, and school grades in children ranging in age from 10 to 18. The researchers found that the children in joint custody settings fared better in these areas than those in sole custody.

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.

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."

Research demonstrates that joint custody also leads to high rates of child support compliance. This is no surprise--parents who are permitted little role in their children’s lives have less motivation to make sacrifices for their children. 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.

According to a study in the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, over time joint custody serves to help reduce conflict between divorced spouses. When Texas Woman's University conducted a study of the effects of post-divorce discord on children aged 8 to 12, they found that joint custody does not expose children to greater parental conflict. Bauserman’s research found that divorced couples with joint custody report less conflict than those in sole-custody settings.

Alaska Divorce, Custody & Support Info

2006-03-29T11:00:00.000-05:00

The Alaska Legislature

The Alaska Constitution

Alaska Family Law Self-Help Center

Filing for Dissolution, Divorce or Custody

Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 (Child Support Awards)

Alaska Child Support Calculator

Alaska Legal Services Corporation (Help resolve serious legal problems of low-income Alaskans)

Glenn Sacks and A330

2006-03-29T10:36:00.000-05:00

This is all from the latest Glenn Sacks newsletter. You can subscribe by clicking here.

Excerpts:

James Hays of the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, which is sponsoring the New York Shared Parenting Bill, informed me yesterday that your faxes have completely shut down the fax machines of the 16 members of the Assembly's Children & Families Committee. The committee members have asked us to stop, and we complied immediately.

Five thousand of you have faxed or emailed the committee members in support of A330, the shared parenting bill. FaFNY wants to deliver your letters personally to the committee members this week, and has asked that you continue filling out the letters form. To write to the committee members with your support for this bill, click here.

This bill has been locked up in committee for 12 years! The vote on the bill was set for March 28 but has been postponed until April 4. This may be a maneuver designed to allow the bills' opponents--which include the New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women--to make their impact felt. New York is a battleground state for shared parenting and fatherhood. Again, to support the bill, click here.

New York NOW Defends Mothers' Veto over Fathers' Fatherhood

Pappas wrote a revealing letter to a shared parenting activist explaining her opposition to A330.

In opposition to A330 Pappas writes:

"Many women who are victims of domestic violence and women who have had to endure watching their children be abused, would disagree with [the bill]. Many women have said, 'forced joint custody sent my children right into the arms of their abusive father.' We believe that joint custody should be agreed upon by both parties and if one party disagrees, then there is usually a good reason. A woman who is victim of violence should not have to be victimized again by the courts. This is what forced joint custody does" (emphasis in original).

The old domestic violence bugaboo. A330 only applies to fit parents--abused women would get sole custody.

Pappas' views amount to this--if mom wants a dad to remain a dad, fine, but if not, too bad. Feminist family law proponents essentially seek to give mothers veto power over fathers' fatherhood.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

The New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence's opposition to A330 is a fine example of your tax dollars at work--the coalition receives government funding, probably from the Violence Against Women Act.

One of the things about VAWA which I find the most objectionable is the fact it results in state-funded radical feminist lobbying. Whenever our movement tries to bring fathers and children together, these groups are always among our most vocal and influential opponents.

In California, for example, they opposed AB 1307, the California Shared Parenting Bill, and were instrumental in defeating it last Spring. These groups were also among the leading opponents of Gary LaMusga, a heroic father who fought an eight-year battle all the way up to the California Supreme Court to prevent his two boys from being moved out of state. To learn more about the LaMusga case, click here.

Are You a High Earner Paying Child Support?

Family law reform activist Josh Gonze is looking for high-earners who are paying child support. He says his state has no ceiling on child support and that he is "searching for published legal precedent where a court placed a limit on child support on the grounds that the statute produces excessively high child support." Those interested can respond to Gonze at reformfamilylaw@hotmail.com.

New Blog Addition

2006-03-29T10:18:00.000-05:00

Stop by and visit Broken Bread

Equal rights for unwed fathers

2006-03-28T12:07:00.000-05:00

Equal rights for unwed fathers

This is the latest article from Cathy Young. You can also visit her on her blog - The Y Files. On her blog she has another excellent post about Male Reproductive Rights.

Excerpts:

Today, partly as a result of several legal controversies in which unmarried fathers successfully contested adoptions, the majority of states have ''putative father registries" by means of which a man can assert his paternity. But the purpose of these registries often seems to be less to protect the rights of the father than to protect the rights of everyone else: the mother who wants to give up the baby, the adoption agency, and the adoptive parents. Some would say that they also protect the rights of the child. But that depends on whether you believe that a child is better off being adopted than being raised by the biological father.

In most states, the unwed father has to file with the registry either within a certain period of the child's birth -- from five to 30 days -- or, as in Massachusetts, at any time before the adoption petition is filed. But neither the mother nor the adoption agency has any obligation to notify the man of the adoption, or of the fact that he is a father or father-to-be. Even when the father is notified, he may not be told about the putative father registry -- which is what happened to Jones, whose attorney, Allison Perry, refers to the Florida registry as a ''well-kept secret." That is the situation in most states. Not only are most men unaware of the registries' existence, even some lawyers don't know about them.

Amazingly, many specialists believe that it's too much of a burden on the woman or the adoption agency to require that a man be notified of his paternity. Instead, they argue that it should be his responsibility to file with the putative father registry every time he enters a sexual relationship with a woman, on the off-chance that a pregnancy may result -- a requirement that, if nothing else, smacks of a humiliating invasion of privacy. Surely, it is far more efficient and less invasive to limit the notification requirement to cases in which a pregnancy actually happens, and to place the burden on those who are aware of the pregnancy.

You would think that, unlike men who seek to avoid their paternal responsibilities, fathers who want to be responsible for raising their own children would at least encounter societal sympathy and support. Sadly, that has not generally been the case. Unwed fathers who contest adoptions are often faulted for not taking affirmative steps to find out about the child's existence, and in some cases are blamed even if they were actively deceived by the mother. Often, they're suspected of being abusers whose real hidden motive is to control the mother.

The issues of men burdened with responsibility for unwanted pregnancies, and of men who are not allowed to be fathers to wanted children, are linked by a common thread. Biology has made men and women unequal with regard to reproduction. In recent decades, thanks to both technology and social change, we have made strides to alleviate the inequality for women, helping them avoid unwanted childbearing. But we have lagged far behind in equalizing the situation for men. We cannot ask men to be equal parents while giving virtually all the power in reproductive decisions to women.

Banned in Massachusetts: Family Court Judge Bars Tell-All Book, According to Fathers & Families

2006-03-28T11:46:00.000-05:00

Banned in Massachusetts: Family Court Judge Bars Tell-All Book, According to Fathers & Families

Angry Dad is also covering this.

The book is still available for download on Lulu.com. $20.00 for print version, $9.16 to download.

BOSTON, March 27 /PRNewswire/ -- Fathers & Families reacted today to the ruling by Judge Mary Manzi of the Essex County Probate and Family Court that banned member Kevin Thompson from distributing his tell-all book, "Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts."

"With the stroke of a pen, Judge Manzi has swept away the Bill of Rights,"said Dr. Ned Holstein, founder of Fathers & Families. The book is critical of Judge Manzi and others in the family court system, and reveals details of Mr. Thompson's custody battle for his four-year-old son.

Labeling Judge Manzi's ruling "a trifecta of tyranny," Dr. Holstein noted that Judge Manzi abused her position in several ways, including:

* Conflict of interest: Dr. Holstein questioned why Judge Manzi did not recuse herself, since an entire chapter in the book criticizes her judicial actions in the case.
* Double standard: Judge Manzi applied a different standard to Mr. Thompson because he is involved in a custody battle. Under the bill of rights, any American has the right to publish an autobiography, even if some people don't like what the book says.
* Bias: Judge Manzi indicated that she may punish Mr. Thompson by requiring him to pay the fees of the lawyers who demanded that she ban his book.

Mr. Thompson, a physics teacher and law-abiding father, lost custody of his son Patrick even though he is a devoted parent. The reasons are secret, as the court has impounded the records. The family courts frequently issue gag orders, impound records, and abridge a variety of other constitutional rights, including the right to the care and custody of one's children. Mr. Thompson is available through Fathers & Families.

About Fathers & Families Based in Boston, Fathers & Families is a non-profit advocacy organization protecting children's right to the love and care of both parents after separation or divorce. Fathers & Families seeks to change well-meaning but misguided laws, judicial traditions, and government policies that drive many loving fathers out of their children's lives after divorce. Fathers &Families counts some 2,200 Massachusetts supporters, of whom approximately 40 percent are women. More information is available at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/ or by calling (617) 542-9300.

Alabama Divorce, Custody & Support Info

2006-03-28T11:21:00.000-05:00

The Alabama Code and Constitution can be viewed here.

Title 30 (Marital and Domestic Relations) can be viewed here.

Alabama Child Support Guidelines

Alabama Child Support Calculator

Alabama Coalition for Fathers and Children(ALCFC)

Alabama Family Rights Association (ALFRA)

Alabama Legal Services Programs

THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE

Welfare Reform Meets the Law of Unintended Consequences

2006-03-28T10:35:00.000-05:00

Welfare Reform Meets the Law of Unintended Consequences

This is the latest article by Phyllis Schlafly

Excerpts:

The Great Society welfare system was recognized by the 1990s as a social disaster that created fatherless children, illegitimacy and women's dependency on government. Channeling taxpayer handouts to mothers provided a powerful financial incentive for fathers to depart; they were not needed anymore.

Unfortunately, policy changes in the 1988 and 1996 welfare laws created similar financial incentives for state governments to exclude middle-class fathers from the home. The law incentivized the states to manufacture "noncustodial" (i.e., absent) fathers and to order money transfers (usually through wage garnishment) to mothers, thereby putting a large segment of the middle class under the welfare bureaucrats.

Formerly, to receive welfare benefits, recipients had to demonstrate eligibility by "need" (i.e., a test measured by income level), but the new policy omitted income eligibility requirements. Without a means test, a high-income mother with custody can use the power of the state to collect from a low-income father.

The federal government annually provides $4.2 billion in block grants to states to serve as collection agencies. States are reimbursed for 66 percent of their costs of child support enforcement activities, 80 percent of their costs for technology, and 66 percent of their costs of DNA testing for paternity.

The more cases the states can create and the more operational expenses they incur, the more federal funding states receive to expand their welfare bureaucracy. No performance standards are required to get this money and, in addition, the feds provide a bonus fund ($458 million in Fiscal 2006) for which the states compete.

This result was accurately predicted by Leslie L. Frye, chief of Child Support for the California Department of Social Services. In testifying to the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee on March 20, 1997, Frye said the new regulations "encouraged states to recruit middle-class families, never dependent on public assistance and never likely to be so, into their programs in order to maximize federal child support incentives."

Many consciences should be burdened with the realization that taxpayer money provides financial incentives to deprive millions of children of their own fathers.

Family law workshop - Albuquerque, NM

2006-03-24T09:19:00.000-05:00

Family law workshop: "Divorce, Custody, and Child Support":
6 p.m. TVI South Valley Campus multi-purpose room, 5816 Isleta Blvd. S.W.
Presentation by lawyer Thomas Mucci, followed by a question-and-answer period.
Free. 797-6048.

WANTED: Women Who Aren't Insane

2006-03-23T10:49:00.000-05:00

Wanted: A Few Good Sperm

This is from the NY Times which means you may need to register to read it. Try Bugmenot for login info.

The only thing I can say about this article that does not involve expletives is THANK GOD I HAVE A REAL, ACCESSIBLE, DEVOTED AND LOVING FATHER. As much as I question decisions my mother has made I don't think she could ever be as selfish as the women chronicled.

Excerpts:

Karyn said she hoped to join a population of women that everyone agrees is expanding, although by how much is hard to pin down because single mothers by choice (or choice mothers), as they are sometimes called, aren't separated statistically from, say, babies born to unwed teenagers. Between 1999 and 2003 there was an almost 17 percent jump in the number of babies born to unmarried women between ages 30 and 44 in America, according to the National Center for Human Statistics, while the number born to unmarried women between 15 and 24 actually decreased by nearly 6 percent. Single Mothers by Choice, a 25-year-old support group, took in nearly double the number of new members in 2005 as it did 10 years ago, and its roughly 4,000 current members include women in Israel, Australia and Switzerland. The California Cryobank, the largest sperm bank in the country, owed a third of its business to single women in 2005, shipping them 9,600 vials of sperm, each good for one insemination.

Buying sperm over the Internet, on the other hand, is not much different from buying shoes. (emphasis mine)

Karyn carried a wallet-size copy of the donor's photo between her MetroCard and her work ID. (She carries a picture around of this guy - she has developed some sort of emotional attachment to a freaking picture and yet she sees no problem with bringing a child into the world who will have no formative relationship with this man - THEIR FATHER.)

Last October, when I visited the Manhattan apartment of Daniela, a 38-year-old German advertising executive who had recently been inseminated with the sperm of a male friend, her guest room was peppered with toys belonging to the young son of a visiting friend who had broken up with the boy's father by the time he was born. "They got a child out of love, and the parents couldn't deal with one another," Daniela, who asked that I use only her first name, told me. "And now she lives in Germany; he lives here. He doesn't pay any money if he doesn't see the child. So there's a constant battle over it. The child is torn in between. She has to deal with the father. I won't have to deal with the father." (emphasis mine - but really this is just sick. It's not just about you, it's about the child's relationship with its father.)

She was also attracted by the idea of a donor of another race. "I believe in multiculturalism," she said. "I would probably choose somebody with a darker skin color so I don't have to slather sunblock on my kid all the time. I want it to be a healthy mix. You know how mixed dogs are always the nicest and the friendliest and the healthiest? If you get a clear race, they have all the problems. Mutts are always the friendly ones, the intelligent ones, the ones who don't bark and have a good character. I want a mutt." Her African-American friends questioned this strategy, suggesting that her child's life would be harder if he or she was perceived as nonwhite, but Daniela said: "If that's what I believe, I have to go by that. And it might help the world also if more people are doing it that way." (Okay - she is comparing her future child to a mixed breed dog - lovely.)

"I see so many women who are in unhealthy relationships, where they really just try to get married and then have a child and break it off," Daniela said. "If they would consider this as an option, I think they would be happier, and the children would be happier." (Their children would be happier fatherless. I bet. However, it is equally sick to get married in order to get pregnant and then initiate a divorce. I am truly staring to believe that everyone should be temporarily sterilized when they hit puberty and then have to pass some extensive psychological tests before they can plan to have children.)

"One of the things that was so powerful about deciding to have a baby on my own was saying, I'm taking charge of this piece of it; I'm not going to wait around for a guy to give it to me. And my feelings about what I want from men right now are really changed. I don't actually want a big relationship. Now I want occasional companionship and sex." (emphasis mine)

For all the comparisons between being divorced with children and having them alone, there are critical differences: an ex-husband who spends any time at all with his kids frees up pockets of time when a woman could potentially see someone new. Even minimal child-support payments would reduce the financial burden on her, and substantial ones could allow her to work less. Perhaps most important, a child with only one parent is immensely dependent on that parent, and the mother of such a child tends to feel her responsibility acutely. It can be painful — and expensive — to leave your child with a baby sitter after a whole day away, just to go out on a date.

"I want my son to have a full sibling," she said. "I want to feel like he has one person in the world who is a complete blood relative after I'm gone. I did not want my son to feel deprived, that the other sibling had a father and he didn't." (emphasis mine. This statement was from a woman who was using the same donor to bear a second child. How funny that she is so insistent her child have a full blooded sibling - but can completely ignore the need to have an available father.)

Q. is one of several people in the group with a keen desire to meet her donor one day. And they aren't sitting idle; one woman had magnified his baby picture, in which the donor is blowing out candles on his birthday cake, to the point at which a first name may be legible. Another mother has a hunch about the donor's provenance based on the way he pronounced certain words on his audiotape. At the Washington Single Mothers by Choice meeting, I met a woman who had easily identified the donor for her 9-month-old son using Google. "The person left specific enough information for me to just type in those words and click," she told the group. "But what to do with that information? I'm bound to keep him anonymous as per the contract, but what about when my son says: 'What do you know? Tell me anything about my dad."' (Okay - this is all just too much. These women went to a sperm bank to find an anonymous donor but are now searching out these donors... So maybe they don't so much want to do it on their own they just couldn't find anyone willing to knowingly impregnate them. Okay, that is cruel but jeez these men donated under conditions of anonymity. So these women don't care about the benefits that come from having children with a willing and involved partner - they also don't care about contractual obligations of anonymity AND they are admitting that their children will want to know about their other parent - that their children will be missing out compared to children in traditional families. BUT this was still the best thing they COULD DO FOR THEMSELVES so screw the long term.)

Whenever he was in earshot, Shelby spelled out the word D-A-D; lately Christopher had become fixated on the idea of a daddy. "He goes to a day care, and he's the only child of a single mother in his class. I think they spend a lot of time talking about Daddy," she told me. Christopher had referred to a neighbor as Daddy, as well as Regis Philbin. "Interestingly, he doesn't call my boyfriend Daddy; he's 'mamma's friend.' The other day, I said, 'Someone special's coming to see you today — do you know who it is?' I expected him to say [her boyfriend's name]. But he said, 'Daddy?"' The single mothers by choice I spoke with generally hold that the story of their children's origins should be told to them from the time of birth, long before the child is old enough to understand it. But Shelby feels that at 2, Christopher is too young to hear that he doesn't have a father. (the emphasis is always mine)

Her boyfriend usually visits on Sunday mornings. "A huge wave of relief comes over me," Shelby said. She can relax or do dishes or take a nap. "I feel, like, Wow, this must be what it's like to have a husband every day of the year. I can do my own thing, but I love to just stand across the room and watch them together."

Don't leave dads out of the equation

2006-03-23T09:56:00.000-05:00

Don't leave dads out of the equation

Excerpts:

I wrote in response that, yes, men are necessary, if not to certain women, then certainly to children, who, despite the creative inventions of many modern mothers, seem to love their daddies.

At least they love the idea of Daddy, since so few children these days get to have a real one. A third of all American children are born to unwed mothers and half will sleep tonight in a house where their biological father does not live.

This past Sunday, the New York Times was replete with stories that answer both Dowd's question and that posed by Thurber and White. Not only are men not necessary, but neither is sex in many cases.

The cover story of the Times' Sunday Magazine was headlined "Looking For Mr. Good Sperm" and featured women who have given up on Mr. Right and are searching instead for a good vial of sperm.

Another story was about "virtual visitation," which allows absent dads to stay in touch with their kids through instant messaging and Web cams. A third told the plight of unwed fathers powerless to block the adoption of their babies.

Finally, the fourth was a first-person narrative by a woman who married and had a child with an incarcerated murderer, whom she later abandoned. (The dad, not the baby.)

The unspoken essence is that women have all the power when it comes to children, and men are only as good as their sperm count.

A society in which women are alone, men are lonely, and children don't have fathers is nothing to celebrate. And a future world filled with fatherless children - bereft of half their identity and robbed of a father's love, discipline and authority - won't likely be a pleasant place to live.

Are American Husbands Slackers?

2006-03-23T09:36:00.000-05:00

Are American Husbands Slackers?

This is the latest article from Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks.

Excerpts:

Warner, Hirshman, and other feminist critics compare the work men and women do at home but fail to properly account for their disparate obligations outside the home. Census data shows that only 40% of married women with children under 18 work full-time, and over a quarter do not hold a job outside the home.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2004 Time Use Survey, men spend one and a half times as many hours working as women do, and full-time employed men still work significantly more hours than full-time employed women.

When both work outside the home and inside the home are properly considered, it is clear that men do at least as much as women. A 2002 University of Michigan Institute for Social Research survey found that women do 11 more hours of housework a week than men but men work 14 hours a week more than women. According to the BLS, men’s total time at leisure, sleeping, doing personal care activities, or socializing is a statistically meaningless 1% higher than women’s. The Families and Work Institute in New York City found that fathers now provide three-fourths as much child care as mothers do—50% more than 30 years ago.

Feminists’ persistent criticism of men has combined with women’s traditional expectations of their husbands to place men in a double bind. A man may be a devoted caretaker of his children or a talented cook, but if he is unable to provide for his family, he is not respected. Yet when a man works long hours to fulfill the breadwinner role which he is still expected to perform, he is blamed for not contributing as much at home as his wife does.

Feminists are right to complain that with long work weeks, the high cost of child care, scant union protections, and inflexible workplaces, working women often face a trying juggling act. But they’re wrong to place the blame on husbands, who do their fair share and often make great sacrifices to provide for their wives and children.

Riverside offers class for divorced parents - MA

2006-03-23T09:31:00.000-05:00

Riverside offers class for divorced parents

The state Probate and Family Courts require parents who are divorcing to attend a parent education program to help them understand the effects of divorce on children. Riverside's Outpatient Center has been selected as an provider of this program and will offer its Partners for Positive Co-Parenting program approximately once each month.

Partners for Positive Co-Parenting is led by family counseling professionals and consists of two 2-1/2 hour sessions. Attendance at both sessions is mandatory in order to fulfill court requirements, The sessions are designed to provide parents with the skills necessary to best help their children respond to the divorce, to recognize the warning signs of poor adjustment, and to deal effectively with stress. Topics covered include the development of successful co-parenting strategies, child custody and visitation issues and information about other community resources.

The first sessions will be held on March 28 and April 4, from 6:30-9 p.m., with both sessions held at Riverside Outpatient Center, 338 Main St. Divorcing spouses will not be placed in the same class. Cost: $65. For information, call 781-246-2010.

Child Support Calculators

2006-03-23T09:25:00.000-05:00

SupportGuidelines.com maintains a fairly complete list of state specific child support calculators.

Other sites with calculators include alllaw.com and divorcelawinfo.com.

Societal Shift in Role of Fathers

2006-03-23T09:19:00.000-05:00

Societal Shift in Role of Fathers

This is the latest article from Wendy McElroy.

Excerpts:

On March 28, the New York State Assembly's Children & Families Committee is scheduled to hear Bill A330 on shared parenting. The bill seeks to establish "the presumption in matrimonial proceedings for awarding shared parenting of minor children in the absence of an allegation that shared parenting would be detrimental to the best interests of the child."

In short, a parent seeking sole custody (most commonly the mother) would assume the legal burden of proving why a shared arrangement would harm the child.

Father's rights advocates view New York as "a battleground state" not only because of the influence its policies exert but also because New York is one of the few states to resist a national trend toward statutes favoring joint custody.

Because A330 is vehemently opposed by mainstream feminist organizations like the New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women, the bill's hearing may become raucous. But, given that almost three dozen State Assembly members have endorsed the bill as sponsors or co-sponsors, A330 stands a good chance of passing.

To Be A Man or To Be A Sperm Donor?

2006-03-21T16:05:00.000-05:00

I should have known Cathy Young would be talking about Roe v. Wade for men. As always, she remains a reasonable voice in some of the most difficult of issues. And the comments on her posts are always a good read.

Child Support Rulings Could Be In Jeopardy Due To Oath Issue - CA

2006-03-21T15:26:00.000-05:00

Child Support Rulings Could Be In Jeopardy Due To Oath Issue

This is a rather long article so if it is applicable to you please link and read it in full.

Excerpts:

Who’s William S. Hochman?

According to the Marin County Bar Association and the title he uses, he’s a commissioner with the Marin County Superior Court, rendering decisions in the Department of Child Support Services and in essence, involved in administering a $90.2 million contract between the Department of Child Support Services and the Judicial Council of California.

How much Marin County receives in federal and state reimbursements appears to be directly tied to how Hochman rules and may constitute a significant conflict of interest in that the higher he sets child support awards, the more money the county receives which indicates that may not be concerned about the facts of the specific case but rather how much revenue he can generate for the county.

But according to the website for the Marin County Superior Court, he’s not a commissioner.

There are four commissioners listed for Marin County----and William S. Hochman isn’t one of them. http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/MC/main/commissioners.

Is he a state officer, a county officer or is he legally in office at all?

Is he appointed or elected or is he an employee or an independent contractor?

No one in Marin County will say but yet the county bar calls him a commissioner and in a February, 2005 Bar newsletter, lists his address as the Marin County Superior Court in San Rafael.

The “program” which Hochman presumably oversees reportedly nets Marin County about $654,000 a year for his services although his salary is allegedly in the neighborhood of $150,000 with retirement contributions reportedly about $90,000.

When a California resident attempted to utilize a subpoena to obtain the public information concerning the administration of the state and federal monies and information concerning Hochman’s appointment and compensation, Hochman himself quashed it.

According to the statutes and Constitution of the State of California, it appears that Hochman is performing the duties of the office without legal authority, going so far as to imprison individuals without allegedly having the legal authority to do so. So far, officials in Marin County have been reluctant to comply with the state’s laws concerning public records about Hochman.

As a result of his alleged non-compliance of the law in regard to filing his oath and bond, any and all decisions that he has made in regard to setting child support could be legally challenged and perhaps vacated.

Neither Marin County nor state officials can or will produce either an oath of office or a bond for Hochman, both required. Without an oath and bond being subscribed to and filed in the county clerk’s office, Hochman can’t legally perform judicial duties and can’t legally be paid by county tax dollars.

Scott M. Beseda, human resources manager of the court, refused to respond to the request and did not produce a copy of the requisite oath required to be filed by Hochman, saying that in California, “the judicial branch of government, including the Superior Courts, its employees and contractors, are not subject to the Public Records Act”.

The Secretary of State also indicated that there was no oath on file in Sacramento either for William S. Hochman, indicating that while he’s doling out child support orders totaling thousands of dollars of individuals, rendering lives in total upheaval, it appears that he is doing so in total absence of jurisdiction and without legal authority. In fact, it appears that Hochman is doing so in violation of state law and the Constitution.

To Be A Man

2006-03-21T10:42:00.000-05:00

John Doe of Disenfranchised Father has taken issue with a statement I made in this post. Specifically, he did not like when I said "Be a man." You can visit his discussion of my comments at his post: Be a Man?

Hmm, so what exactly did I mean? Obviously, I felt some discomfort at this statement as well or I would not have felt the need to preface it with "I hate to say it this way."

I have read John's post a couple of times and tried to reason out what I meant versus his reaction. He said, "Telling him to "be a man" amounts to the same thing, for him, as blaming an unwanted pregnancy on her. (Not only that, but it seeks the best of both worlds by appealing to a suspect idea of machismo.)"

I'm not entirely certain how to respond. In the face of his concerns I can certainly reorganize what I meant to say. I believe my true intent with Be a man was really to say Be an adult. As in, we all have an adult responsibility to protect ourselves irrespective of what a partner may tell us - particularly when such decisions could result in the introduction of a child to the world.

But then, I certainly would not say Be a woman. That statement would call to mind someone having a gender crisis - not someone lacking in appropriate decision making or inner fortitude. So it appears instead of truly discussing my opinion I allowed myself to utilize a cliche to try and make a point.

I also must consider this within my points of reference. I am not certain how forthright I have been about my age but I am in my early to mid twenties. Be a man is statement I have used several times with male friends - particularly those who are forced to consider questions like paternity, custody, etc... The only friends we have with children are those who have unwittingly brought one into the world. My husband was the same. His ex wife was on the pill.

How to explain then her announcement that she was pregnant the evening of their senior prom? I don't know. Maybe she wasn't taking the pill as prescribed. (I'm not sure how many men are aware that the pills effectiveness is largely based on taking it correctly - every day at approx the same time.) Maybe she wasn't taking it at all. Or maybe she can be included in that 1% where the pill truly fails.

But what I do know, and what my husband will tell you, was that he wanted to believe that she was protected but he was also operating under the "it can't happen to me" mind frame.

Well it did. And to several of his friends that same year. And to many of our friends in the years since.

The initial reaction from most of our male friends has been a belief that it was either "not their child" or that this conniving female had "tricked" them into impregnating her. My response to this has invariably been, "did you protect yourself?" and each has answered with a different variant of "she said she was protected." To which I know I have responded, "Grow up, be a man and take responsibility for the choice you made." And that really is what it comes back to me for me - each party makes a choice. You can call that choice to trust or not to trust but I would call it self preservation.

Is it unfair to say Be a Man? Maybe, I don't know - I'm a woman. It is certainly a cliche statement. Am I trying to appeal to a suspect idea of machismo? Possibly. I certainly would if I thought it could prevent more fathers from finding themselves embroiled in an expensive and protracted custody battles.

I don't think, however, that my statement can be construed as equivalent to blaming an unwanted pregnancy on the woman. My discussion was about taking responsibility for ones own actions, accountability and self protection. It was to say that if you don't protect yourself you have no right to place blame anywhere else. And if you do protect yourself and still find you have a pregnant girlfriend then (I suppose unless a paternity test is required) no blame can be placed anywhere as you both tried and have been blessed with what can truly be called an accident.

As John noted, "The fact is that it is (still) impossible to guarantee protection against pregnancy resulting from sex between two suitably fertile people." But you certainly can mitigate the risks. Choosing whether or not to do so is an individual question so I suppose we should all be adults and make decisions as such - whether you are a man or a woman.

Unwed Fathers Fight for Babies Placed for Adoption by Mothers

2006-03-20T09:46:00.000-05:00

Unwed Fathers Fight for Babies Placed for Adoption by Mothers

This is from the NY Times who will make you go through a ridiculous registration process. You can visit Bugmenot for free login info.

Excerpts:

Jeremiah Clayton Jones discovered that his former fiancée was pregnant just three weeks before the baby was due, when an adoption-agency lawyer called and asked if he would consent to have his baby adopted.

Mr. Jones has never seen his son, now 18 months old. Instead, he lost his parental rights because of his failure to file with a state registry for unwed fathers — something he learned of only after it was too late.

Under Florida law, and that of other states, an unmarried father has no right to withhold consent for adoption unless he has registered with the state putative father registry before an adoption petition is filed. Mr. Jones missed the deadline.

While women have the right to get an abortion, or to have and raise a child, without informing the father, courts have increasingly found that when birth mothers choose adoption, fathers who have shown a desire for involvement have rights, too.

But to claim those rights most states require a father to put his name on a registry. While about 30 states now have registries, they vary widely. In some, fathers must actually claim paternity; in others, just the possibility of paternity. The deadlines may be 5 days after birth or 30, or any time before an adoption petition is filed.

And registries are a double-edged sword: It remains an open question whether they serve more to protect fathers' rights or to protect adoptive parents, and the babies they have bonded with, from biological fathers' claims.

In many states, fewer than 100 men register each year — not surprising, adoption experts say, because most young men have never heard of the registries. One exception is Indiana, where men are notified of the registry when a birth mother names them as the father, and 50 men register a week.

Even for registered men, the system is flawed. Because the registries are state by state, a registration means nothing if the father or mother has moved — or if the baby was surrendered for adoption in a different state specifically to avoid a challenge.

Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

2006-03-09T10:24:00.000-05:00

Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

I have to say that I agree with this idea in theory. I do think that men are afforded little choice other than to react to the choice of the woman. And as noted in the article, bringing a child into the world will have a huge impact on the future of both parents. It seems reasonable to assert that where the woman has a choice there should be a comparable opportunity for the male in the equation.

However, the possibility for this to actually work seems extremely unlikely. Truthfully, to me it looks like just another reason to take a he said/she said argument into court and allow judges to further intrude into family life.

My advice: If you are male and have absolutely no desire to procreate - irrespective of what a woman tells you about being on birth control, physically unable, etc.... PROTECT YOURSELF. I have a feeling that "loss of sensation" will be much preferred to fathering an unintended child.

Does this position do anything about the inequity in reproductive rights? NO. Are most of the women you know truthful when they say they are protected? Most likely. Does this make the gamble of protecting yourself not worth it? Absolutely not. Think about it, is the one who would lie about her reproductive capabilities really the one you want to have a child with?

I hate to say it this way but be a man, make the adult decision and ALWAYS, ALWAYS PROTECT YOURSELF.

Excerpts:

Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit - nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men - to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have - it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

Lawdragon Web site will lift veil on judges

2006-03-08T09:33:00.000-05:00

Lawdragon Web site will lift veil on judges

Excerpts:

The "secret society" of U.S. judges is about to be invaded by a Web site that lets people who have appeared before them rate judges in the first such public forum.

Lawdragon set out last summer to become the first Web site to allow legal professionals and clients to evaluate the nation's 1.1 million lawyers and judges.

Next week, http://lawdragon.com begins posting thousands of evaluations of judges and lawyers submitted by colleagues, clients and legal watchdogs -- a sort of Amazon.com of legal professionals.

Lawdragon.com now receives about 100 evaluations per day and last week scored 400,000 hits for its legal news content and lawyer directory.

The site also plans to offer a comparison of attorneys fees.

"This is a legal community online where you can have your voice heard," Dewey said. "At Lawdragon, they will be able to find the best lawyer, the cheapest one or somebody that can see them right away."

Shared Parenting Showdown

2006-03-07T09:29:00.000-05:00

Read the latest Glenn Sacks newsletter (including updates on New York Shared Parenting Bill A330) by clicking here.

DIVORCE SUCKS

2006-03-02T11:58:00.000-05:00

All of this discussion and cataloging of joint custody initiatives has resulted in *at times* forgetting my real position on divorce/custody. DIVORCE SUCKS even under the best, most amicable of circumstances.

Sure, I started this site because of my disgust at a legal system that appears to treat dads as little more than a source of funding. And I know that with no fault divorce - if this is the route your spouse wants to take you have few resources to impede the divorce.

I certainly would not advocate begging anyone to remain in their marriage - but then, who am I kidding? As a child of divorce between two parents with few differences other than conflicting outlooks - the kid left in me wants to scream stop it any way you can even if it means you have to drop to your knees and plead.

The adult in me is disgusted at that idea. I knew that my mother was cheating and I will be the first to publicly say that the best thing that ever happened to my father was their divorce. (The ensuing custody war is something else entirely). And yet, I still hear my seven year old voice wishing they "would get back together" and that things should just PLEASE go back to normal. During this period I loved and hated them both. I knew my mother had made the decision, I knew she had been cheating and I resented the almost instant presence of her new boyfriend in our home. But my dad had abandoned us (I can rationalize now that he obviously did not) but then I couldn't get my head around how he could leave OUR HOME and then let this new man show up, sleep in his bed, boss us around, etc....

Hmm, do I still have unresolved issues about my parents divorce? Absolutely.

The following is from an article printed earlier this month: Even 'good' divorces can make life highly stressful for children

Marquardt discovered that, even in "good" divorces where both parents worked together to make the situation as comfortable as possible for the children, 52 percent of those surveyed said that life was stressful, compared to 6 percent from happy marriages.

And the situation tended to make them feel isolated from both parents. In response to the survey question, "In thinking back on your childhood, when you needed comfort, what did you do?", 69 percent of children in intact families said they went to a parent, but only 33 percent of children of divorce did.

This and other data led Marquardt to the conclusion that - although children are better off after divorce when there was abuse, serial infidelity and other serious problems - they are not better off when divorce ends a "low-conflict" marriage.

"The children of low-conflict couples fare worse after the divorce because the divorce marks their first exposure to a serious problem. One day, without much warning, their world just falls apart," she writes in her book Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce. Along with complete survey data and her analysis of it, the book also includes examples from her own life.

She describes a low-conflict marriage as one "in which parents divorce because they are unhappy or unfulfilled, or have other problems that are not seriously threatening." According to studies, she said, about two-thirds of marriages that end in divorce could be described as low-conflict.

She said she would not presume to tell people that they should stay together just for the sake of the children. What she would hope, she said, is that people who know that their spouse is a good person and a good parent will take her findings into account before going ahead with a divorce.

So what to do (if you are in what was described above as a low conflict marriage)? One of my first suggestions would be as soon as there is talk of divorce visit the uptoparents.com site and both go through the commitments. Try to aware your spouse of the research regarding children of divorce. Explore counseling/therapy to address issues within the marriage. And whatever happens - do not forget who will suffer the most and always keep the welfare of your children at the forefront of your mind.

Child-support plan prompts outcry - NH

2006-03-02T11:01:00.000-05:00

Child-support plan prompts outcry

Excerpts:

The bill would give divorced parents who pay child support credit for the time they spend with their children, reducing their payments to the primary parents. Rep. David Bickford, the bill's lone sponsor, said the state's existing child-support guidelines are a relic from the days when divorces often resulted in one parent gaining full custody of the children. The system can penalize divorced parents who have partial custody, said Bickford, a New Durham Republican.

Bickford's plan would pro-rate child support so that a parent who makes payments would owe only for the days the other parent cares for the children.

Opponents said the bill could provide the wrong motivation for divorcing parents when negotiating time with their children.

Lawmakers who oppose Bickford agree that the system is imperfect, but they say that the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act needs time to be observed before more changes are made.

"I think we need to not be so impatient," said Rep. Carolyn Gargasz, a Hollis Republican who opposed Bickford's bill on the House floor.

Bickford said his ultimate goal is to reform the New Hampshire child-support formula so that it's based on the cost of raising a child, not the income of divorced parents. Hiring the economist is the first step in that direction, he said.

The Feminist Anti-Kid Crusade

2006-03-02T10:58:00.000-05:00

New Carey Roberts article: The Feminist Anti-Kid Crusade

Joint custody could improve state's child support efforts - Michigan

2006-02-28T12:24:00.000-05:00

Joint custody could improve state's child support efforts

Excerpts:

One thousand seven hundred employees now work full-time in Friend of the Court offices as referees, counselors, clerks, and support staff in all 83 Michigan counties. In addition, many employees of the criminal justice system devote a major portion of their workday to this last vestige of debtor's prison.

So it is no surprise that there was consternation in Lansing over a federal plan that cut nearly a quarter billion dollars in Michigan subsidies for child-support enforcement. But one state legislator, Rep. Leslie Mortimer, R-Horton, has introduced a bill that could reduce the need for devoting so many resources to child support enforcement.

It would simply amend the Child Custody Act of 1970 to create a presumption that parents who divorce maintain joint custody of their minor children. Both would retain the legal right to authorize medical treatment, have access to school records and so forth. Both would have physical custody of their child(ren) for alternating and substantially equal periods of time.

The legislation makes provision for rebutting the presumption of joint custody -- if a parent is either "unfit, unwilling or unable," or moves residence so far away as to preclude maintaining established school schedules. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, it will simply give defendants back some control over their own fate.

Bills in New York would require courts to treat mom, dad equally

2006-02-24T10:24:00.000-05:00

'Shared parenting' seen as custody solution
Bills in New York would require courts to treat mom, dad equally

Excerpts:

A.330 in the New York State Assembly would guarantee "statutory presumption of joint custody" in divorce cases "so that both parents can continue to share in the responsibilities and duties of the children's upbringing."

The bill, sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg, states that continuing contact with both parents through "shared parenting" is in the best interests of minor children – as well as their parents.

Under the legislation, courts would be required to award joint custody unless something were brought to light to prove such an arrangement would be detrimental to the children. That fact would have to be proved by the party seeking sole custody.

"Shared parenting," the bill states, means "both parents would remain legally responsible and in control of their children so that both parents share in the care and upbringing of their children."

States the legislation: "Currently, there is no preference for shared parenting in New York. The court may award joint custody, but in practice rarely does so."

Weisenberg's bill has been endorsed by the New York City Council and fathers' rights organization Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. A companion bill in the Senate is S.291.

Another similar bill pending in the Assembly is A.6670 by Assemblyman Brian Kolb. One of its provisions is to change state statutory language so the term "visitation" for non-prime custodial parents is substituted with "parenting time."

Can A Human Wallet Build A Snow Fort?

2006-02-20T14:00:00.000-05:00

I saw this picture on NHCustody.org and wanted to share. *Hope they don't mind!*

Can a human wallet help build a snowfort? NO. But, a Dad can...

Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

2006-02-20T10:39:00.000-05:00

Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

Excerpts:

More than three years ago, a Maine district court judge ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn't his.

But that didn't stop the state from revoking Fisher's driver's license and coming after him for thousands of dollars it says he owes in back payments.

Last year, Maine sent Fisher, 35, a letter seeking $11,450 in child support, even though officials know that DNA tests proved he isn't the father of the child in question.

Fisher had a brief relationship with a woman eight years ago and when she got pregnant and told him he was the father, he believed her. He began paying child support but eventually fell behind.

In the summer of 2001, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services took him to court because of delinquent payments. The court ordered him to pay up, and the state had his license suspended under the "deadbeat dad" law.

That fall the girl, then 3, was placed in foster care. When Fisher pushed for custody, the state ordered a paternity test, which proved he wasn't the father.

At that point, one branch of the human services department told him he could no longer see the girl because he wasn't the father, while another said he owed $10,000 and couldn't have a driver's license because he was the father.

As the nation experiences an unprecedented increase in unwed motherhood, more men are finding themselves named as "fathers," for purposes of child support, simply because of their ability to pay, say several recent studies.

It's called "paternity fraud," and one state that examined the problem found as many as 30 percent of those paying child support were, indeed, not the biological fathers of the children being supported.

The most recent comprehensive study took place in New Hampshire under the auspices of the Commission on the Status of Men.

The commission found that even men who later were able to prove they were paying support for the children of other men were sometimes still forced by courts and state agencies to continue.

Like New Hampshire, California has also established a commission to explore the problem, based on reports that 14 percent are being misnamed as fathers. A report is expected later this year.

Florida is about to pass a new law that would end child support if a man proves he's not the father. Like most states, Florida currently requires that child support – once legally established – continue until the child's 18th birthday, regardless of who the real biological father is. Eleven states have changed similar laws since 1994.

A new state law took effect in Colorado this year that permits men, for the first time, to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring – at least during the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child-support action. However, once a final order is entered, the new law says, the man is barred from presenting evidence of non-paternity.

Proposed initiative would revamp child custody laws - North Dakota

2006-02-20T10:22:00.000-05:00

Proposed initiative would revamp child custody laws

Excerpts:

BISMARCK - A proposed ballot measure would revamp North Dakota's laws on child custody in favor of having parents share joint physical custody of their children.

The measure, which was submitted to Secretary of State Al Jaeger on Friday for review, would also limit child support payments to "the actual cost of providing for the basic needs" of a child.

The measure would establish joint physical custody of children in most divorces, which is defined as having the children spend equal time with both parents. A joint physical custody arrangement would prevail unless one of the parents was judged unfit, the measure says.

Jaeger reviews ballot initiatives to ensure they are in proper legal form, and writes a short description of what the measure does. He must provide the measure's ballot title by March 1.

To place the measure on the November ballot, supporters must gather signatures from at least 12,844 eligible North Dakota voters by Aug. 8.

Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville Interview

2006-02-16T12:38:00.000-05:00

On February 14, 2006 Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville joined together in a landmark interview about the "War Against The Family."

Click here to listen to the interview.

Question of the Day

2006-02-14T13:38:00.000-05:00

I'm going to start the "Question of the Day" (hereafter QoD) based upon the search criteria people are using to get to this site. This is not to say there will actually be one every day - but on on days I am posting where I see a common question I will post it and try to answer it.

The question today: "Does child support include income from a new spouse?"

As with many questions involving divorce, custody and support - the answer appears to be state dependent. In my state, I was under the impression that while my income could not be considered in a support order - joint investments certainly could be looked at in a big picture sense.

When my mother remarried and stopped working the court did not look at her husbands income per se but they continued to impute an income to her equivalent to what she made while working.

Personally, we have one joint checking account through which we run joint ventures, investments, etc... However, we both maintain independent accounts through which most of our expenses are paid. Our paychecks are deposited into our individual accounts - household expenses come out of our individual accounts - very little is done through the joint account.

Answers:

From Free Advice: I'm marrying a man who has children from a previous marriage. He regularly pays his child support. Since I earn more than my fiance, we want to protect my income from any future increase in support payments should the ex- seek more. What are our options?

Some states, California for example, provide that a new spouse with income, cannot be held liable for the support of a step-child except under extreme circumstances. Your State may have similar exemptions. However, for the time being, and for purposes of financial safety, set up and maintain separate savings and checking accounts. That way, your funds do not become commingled with your husband's, and a court, should the question ever arise, will always be able to calculate whose income is whose and where the funds came.

From DivorceNet: Illinois Appellate Court opens the door to include new spouse income in determining child support.

Further, the traditional view in establishing child support obligations or modifying child support obligations is that the financial resources of a new spouse are not to be considered in the calculation or determination of child support. That view took into account the lack of legal obligations a stepparent has towards the financial support of a stepchild.

However, the law on this issue has developed and evolved as stated in a recent Second District Illinois Appellate Court decision, which holds "a trial court may equitably consider the income of a parent's current spouse in determining an appropriate award of child support." In Re the Marriage of Drysch, 2000 WL 815278, (ILL.App2 Dist.).

From DivorceHQ: If one of us remarries, how does that affect child support?

Remarriage is frequently a concern during mediation negotiations, and your mediator will help you plan for changed circumstances. You can negotiate a parenting arrangement with an alternative plan in the event of remarriage, or you may agree to return to mediation if one of you decides to remarry. So long as your children's standard of living can be protected, the courts are likely to go along with your agreement.

If your child support agreement is based on your state's child support guidelines, child support may be subject to modification. If your agreement requires modification on a periodic basis based on the guidelines, in some states this is what might occur:

If you are receiving child support and your ex-spouse has a child in the new marriage, that event could reduce the child support payments because the court takes into account the best interests of all children.

If your ex-spouse pays you child support, and his new spouse's income is available to help pay his living expenses, you may be able to get an increase in child support on the principle that he now has a greater share of personal income available for his own use.

If you are receiving child support and you remarry, in some states your ex-spouse may be able to get a reduction in child support on the same basis- you and the children have the benefit of your new spouse's income for your personal living expenses.

New Site Addition - Real Family Law

2006-02-14T09:40:00.000-05:00

Lisa Scott's Real Family Law site has been added has been added to the links section. From the site:

Lisa Scott is a family law attorney based in Bellevue, Washington. Tired of having her stuff rejected by elitist bar publications and politically-correct newspapers, she decided to start her own website. Co-founder of TABS: Taking Action Against Bias in the System, she has been fighting for equal justice and gender equality in the family courts for years. Lisa hopes you enjoy the humor, satire, absurdity, and occasional seriousness contained on this site. And be sure to give us your contributions on the Blog.

Subscriber Info

2006-02-10T10:46:00.000-05:00

In the past day I have been made aware that over 70 subscribers are what Feedblitz calls "undeliverable." This list included my own email address and upon inspection appears to primarily consist of subscribers with Yahoo email addresses.

I am not sure what the problem is but I have tried to address it within Feedblitz. Hopefully, it will resolve itself today. However, if you have stopped receiving updates please email me or resubscribe.

Sorry about the confusion.

Legal line offers free advice Tuesday - Indiana

2006-02-10T10:41:00.000-05:00

Legal line offers free advice Tuesday

INDIANAPOLIS -- Free legal assistance is available by calling Legal Line, sponsored by the Indianapolis Bar Association (IBA), 6-8 p.m. Tuesday.

Call (317) 269-2000 to speak with a qualified attorney who will answer questions and give advice on legal matters on a variety of topics including divorce, child custody, child support, landlord/tenant issues, bankruptcy, personal injury, employment law and more.

Callers with more complex legal issues should call IBA's Lawyer Referral Service, (317) 269-2222, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Monday-Friday.

Virginia Support Groups

2006-02-08T10:52:00.000-05:00

Fathers United for Equal Rights -- Information about divorce, custody and support proceedings. 559-7090.

Kid Care -- Resource and referral service for parents looking for child care in the Richmond and Tri-Cities area. Training and resources for child-care providers. 282-5993.

Virginia Lawyer Referral Service Monday-Friday, 8:45 a.m.-4:15 p.m. (800) 552-7977.

Quicker, Cheaper 'No-Fault' Divorces Proposed - New York

2006-02-08T10:40:00.000-05:00

Quicker, Cheaper 'No-Fault' Divorces Proposed

ALBANY - New Yorkers would no longer have to prove a spouse cheated or was abusive to get a quick, less costly divorce under a new "no-fault" proposal. New York is the only state lacking some version of a no-fault divorce law. Efforts to make divorce easier in New York have failed, even though supporters argue contested cases extend bad marriages, encourage dishonest court testimony and can be traumatic for spouses and their children.

A state Senator, John DeFrancisco, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he is supporting a proposal that would allow a divorce to go through in 30 days if a couple has resolved all of its economic and custody issues.

"It's not a straight no-fault, but it goes a long way to eliminate court proceedings that are brought just so people don't have to wait a year," the Onondaga County Republican said.

The head of the Assembly's Judiciary Committee, Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein, said she would consider no-fault divorce only if other provisions were put in place to protect victims of domestic violence and the economic interests of non-working spouses.

Sacks, Allred Debate New CA. Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

2006-02-07T10:46:00.000-05:00

In relation to the post below, Glenn Sacks debated attorney Gloria Allred last Friday about this case and move away cases in general. What follows are verbatim excerpts from an email. You can visit GlennSacks.com or His Side with Glenn Sacks for more information or to sign up for email updates.

Excerpts:

California Supreme Court Rules Against Dad in New Move-Away Decision

From 1996 to 2004 move-away determinations were based on the Burgess decision, in which a custodial mother was allowed to move her two children 40 miles away from their father. Burgess was disastrous for children because it was interpreted by California courts to permit moves of hundreds or thousands of miles. In some cases, courts have even allowed children to be moved out of the country, as far away as Australia, New Zealand, and Zaire.

In 2004 the California Supreme Court decided the LaMusga case in favor of the father, Gary LaMusga, who sought to prevent his ex-wife from moving his two young boys from California to Ohio. LaMusga, who is unable to follow his children because he operates a small business and is tied down by weighty child support obligations, had fought the move for eight years. In siding with the father the court explained that "the likely impact of the proposed move on the noncustodial parent's relationship with the children is a relevant factor in determining whether the move would cause detriment to the children."

Soon afterwards a handful of extreme feminists prevailed upon former California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) to introduce SB 730, which would have abrogated LaMusga and given custodial parents almost unlimited move-away privileges. We organized to fight the bill, and generated thousands of calls and letters in opposition, as well as a lot of media attention. To everybody's surprise, Burton withdrew SB 730, and LaMusga was preserved.

Fortunately the new decision in Brown vs. Yana will not have the impact of Burgess or LaMusga--it is more technical and limited in scope, and the father's underwhelming legal effort and behavior hurt him. To learn more about the new ruling, see Court Rules Parents With Custody Can Move (Los Angeles Times, 2/2/06).

To learn more about California move-aways and the LaMusga case, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and read my LaMusga radio commentary here. To read a feminist view of the move-away issue, see Allred's column "Moving Matters in Custody" (Los Angeles Daily Journal, 10/3/02).

I discussed how this issue would be viewed if we switched the genders in my column California NOW Takes Stand Against Working Mothers (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/23/04), and argued in favor of a current Wisconsin move-away bill in my co-authored piece AB 400 Will Help Wisconsin's Children of Divorce (Wisconsin State Journal, 12/3/05). I clashed with feminist law professor Carol Bruch, who authored the mother's brief in LaMusga, on PBS's Los Angeles affiliate KCET last year--to watch, click here.

Sacks, Allred Debate New California Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

For example, Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways unfairly restrict custodial moms from moving, while not restricting noncustodial fathers. I answer that in these cases both parents are free to move wherever they want--it is the children who may not be moved if a court determines that it is against their best interests.

Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways keep custodial parents "held hostage" in their neighborhoods, and that they should be able to "move on with their lives." I respond that both parents retain responsibilities to their children after divorce which are sometimes inconvenient or limiting, and ask "Would we argue that noncustodial parents' responsibility to pay child support holds them 'hostage?' Do we condone the behavior of divorced parents who decide to drop out of their children's lives or stop paying child support because they've decided to 'move on with their lives?'"

Another Bizarre Father Screwing

According to the article Not guilty, but not off the hook (2/6/06):

"A man who spent 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murder faces a debt of more than $38,000 in child-support payments that started accumulating while he was locked up...

"A federal judge released Souter last April 1.

"In 1987, before his conviction, [Larry] Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995.

"Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25.

"Federal law prohibits judges from retroactively wiping out such debts...

"David Sarnacki, an attorney for Souter's ex-wife, wrote in a court filing that his client 'has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support.'"

I love the quote from his ex-wife's attorney. Yes, he didn't pay child support because he was in prison framed on a murder charge. I guess we should be grateful the lawyer didn't refer to Souter as a "deadbeat dad." That'll probably be next. One would also think that after seeing her ex-husband rot in jail for 13 years for a crime he didn't commit, she would feel so damn sorry for the poor guy that she would back off. I guess not.

In the article Wrongly convicted man tries to move on after prison (Flint Journal, 1/7/06), Souter had discussed putting his life back together and his plans. Now he may be headed back on the road to jail.

I wrote about California legislation designed to deal with the problem of ex-offenders and child support in my co-authored column Schwarzenegger Should Sign Bill to Reduce Prisoner Recidivism (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 9/21/05). The Bradley Amendment, under which child support arrearages cannot be retroactively forgiven, is the cause of countless bizarre injustices, and often hurts deployed military personnel. In my co-authored column Laws must protect the rights of military dads (Army Times, Marine Corps Times, 3/28/05) family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"[Child] support orders are based on civilian pay, which is generally higher than active duty pay. When reservists are called up to active duty they sometimes pay an impossibly high percentage of their income in child support.

"For example, a California naval reservist who has three children and who takes home $4,000 a month in his civilian job would have a child support obligation of about $1,600 a month. If this father is a petty officer second class (E5) who has been in the reserves for six or seven years--a middle-ranked reservist--his active-duty pay would only be $2,205 before taxes, in addition to a housing allowance. Under current California child support guidelines, the reservist's child support obligation should be $550 a month, not $1,600."

A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the wonders of the child support system would probably think 'OK, but the courts would just straighten it out when the reservist gets back--certainly they wouldn't punish him for something that happened because he was serving.' However, the federal Bradley Amendment prohibits judges from retroactively modifying child support beyond the date which an obligor has applied for a modification. Reservists can be mobilized with as little as one day's notice. If a reservist didn't have time or didn't know he had to file for a downward modification, the arrearages stay, along with the interest and penalties charged on them.

"When the arrearage reaches $5,000--a common occurrence during long deployments--the father can become a felon who can be incarcerated or subject to a barrage of harsh civil penalties, including seizure of driver's licenses, business licenses and passports."

This is a particularly long newsletter so I am going to cut the excerpts here. However, Glenn also discusses child abduction, the campaign against PBS "documentary" Breaking the Silence, Newsweek coverage of The Trouble With Boys, domestic violence laws, Italian custody laws, and female inmates - amongst other topics. Visit his site to read the newsletter here.

'Move-Away' Parents Get Green Light

2006-02-07T10:22:00.000-05:00

This is regarding the recent California Supreme Court decision in the case of Brown vs. Yana. What is so sick here is that while the boy was already living with his father as he was so unhappy living with his mother out of state, the Court still found reasons to make it easier to for custodial parents to move. The experiences of this boy were completely ignored.

'Move-Away' Parents Get Green Light

Excerpts:

The California Supreme Court on Thursday shifted the balance in fights between divorced parents with a ruling that eases the way for a parent with custody — usually the mother — to move away over her former mate's objections.

Brown, who has two other children with her second husband, argued that Cameron would suffer if he was separated from his half-siblings. She also offered Yana more time in the summer with their son.

Yana argued that moving would put the boy in a community with poor schools and more crime. He also moved for joint custody. A lower court ruled that a judge should have held a full hearing on Yana's objections before the mother could relocate.

The high court disagreed, in Brown vs. Yana. The court ruled that a parent who lacks custody, usually the father, would have to show that the move would harm the child before he would be granted a hearing.

A hearing "in a move-away situation should be held only if necessary," Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for the unanimous court.

Thursday's decision will not affect Cameron's current custody arrangement. After moving to Nevada with his mother, Cameron decided he would prefer to be with his father, and his mother eventually allowed the child to live with Yana in Santa Maria.

At a court hearing in November, "the boy testified unequivocally how unhappy he was with his stepfather and his mother," Helbert said. "He wasn't doing well in Las Vegas." (emphasis mine)

The court refused to rule that a child's unhappiness about moving could never be a sufficient reason for changing custody status. The court also said that regardless of custody status, any parent can try to stop a relocation if that parent can make a sufficient showing of potential harm to his or her children.

"Even a parent with sole legal and sole physical custody may be restrained from changing a child's residence if a court determines the change would be detrimental to the child's rights or welfare," Baxter wrote.

Filing a Complaint Against the Friend of the Court (FOC) in Michigan

2006-02-07T09:32:00.000-05:00

Larry Holland at Stand Up Today has an excellent post about the FOC in Michigan and how to go about filing a complaint against them.

I'll be adding a link from my Pro Se post as well

The Rise in ‘Gray Divorce’: It’s Always Hubby’s Fault

2006-02-06T15:30:00.000-05:00

The latest Glenn Sacks and Jeffery M. Leving: The Rise in ‘Gray Divorce’: It’s Always Hubby’s Fault

Excerpts:

For one, the stereotype of the husband trading in his wife for a younger model is by and large a myth. The women in the AARP study were 60% more likely to claim that they ended their marriages than the men were, and men were almost twice as likely as women to say that they never saw their divorces coming. In contrast to the Porsche and trophy wife stereotype, the AARP study found that these divorced men had many serious concerns, high among them their fear of losing touch with their children after a divorce.

Educational Program Addresses Child Custody Issues in Divorce - CT

2006-02-06T15:17:00.000-05:00

Educational Program Addresses Child Custody Issues in Divorce

Excerpts:

NEWTOWN - The Family Counseling Center offers a parent education program to divorcing couples with child custody issues under Public Act 93-319.

The program is meant to insure that children involved will have as positive a transition as possible.

The curriculum will cover: how children of different ages deal with separation and divorce; negotiation and managing conflict; visitation and new family arrangements; and listening to children and helping them adjust.

The Family Counseling Center is a state licensed and accredited non-profit mental health agency offering counseling for families and individuals in the Greater Danbury and Southbury area.

Those seeking additional information on when classes are taking place may call the center at 203-426-8103, ext. 100.

Registration is available from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Hiatus

2006-01-27T10:15:00.000-05:00

I am back out of town for work so things will likely be quiet here through Feb 6th.

Conference Updates

2006-01-24T09:14:00.000-05:00

The parent-teacher conference actually went really well. The teacher is looking at more positive ways to conduce appropriate behavior, more hands on and more physical activity as an outlet for several of the boys in her room.

She even referenced the Newsweek article, The Trouble With Boys, when discussing her intentions. She said some small curriculum changes were being made to help address the issues many teachers were having with boys in their classrooms and that the teachers were invited to further change classroom structure, environnement, rewards, etc in line with this thinking.

She was very interested in activities that he enjoyed so she could try to incorporate them as positives into her room. All in all, I think everyone left the conference feeling pleased with how it had gone and what would be implemented moving forward.

Do Teachers Dislike Boys?

2006-01-23T16:17:00.000-05:00

Okay, this is in no manner directly related to divorce or custody. However, once you cross over to joint custody you will have to deal with school issues with your ex. And when things go badly at school the natural tendency can be to try and place the blame with your ex.

This is something we are currently going through. My husband is the father of a bright, articulate, sweet, athletic, high energy boy who is having substantial difficulties with "behavior" in second grade.

I should qualify - most of his problems stem from either talking in class or not being able to sit still. This is not a mean or malicious child - though I believe he did have on incident when he and buddy decided to flush paper towels down the toilet after they claimed the trash was full.

While my instinct is to give you the whole history of this child - including that he has been in daycare since he was two, moved on to pre-school and manipulated kindergarten and 1st grade without such "issues." This is not to say he has been perfect - but until this point all of his instructors have successfully been able to manage his behavior.

I realize that I am biased so my singing the praises of this child will be perceived with a certain degree of speculation. Also, I was the first (when his parents were wringing their hands in the air about how this teacher had for some reason singled him out) to come to the teachers defense. She has 20+ students and needed to have an expectation of order in her classroom.

However, as I sit here trying to think about things my husband should address this afternoon when he and his ex go in for their latest "conference" - I am truly starting to wonder if I was not championing the wrong party.

My husband is becoming very frustrated. They (he and his ex) tried to support the steps taken by the teacher until they felt it was obvious they were not helping behavior and were damaging this child's self esteem. And really, the question has lingered as to how bad this behavior should actually be considered. Not to minimize the teachers standards - but should the inability to always sit still be something the parents can (and should) address daily at home? Further, this is a child who is performing academically at the top of the class. His work has been advanced several times to reflect his abilities and at the last meeting the teacher indicated he was doing the most advanced math in the class and was at the highest reading level (with two other students). He has lots of energy - but could he be bored as well?

Compound this with two parents who are talking to each other and are both saying that they don't have issues like this with the child. And inevitably my husband begins to wonder if this isn't a result of .... at his mothers house. I'm certain his ex has at some point done the same. Maybe the teacher does at well - wonders if his behavior isn't due to the nature of his custody situation.

And I'm starting to wonder if my step-son isn't falling victim to the same problems witnessed around the country with boys in schools. As I was getting ready for work this morning, the Today Show was doing a story about boys in schools and the widening achievement gap between girls and boys. Then I get into work and this article was listed on my home page: Do Teachers Dislike Boys?

From the article:

Jenkins says that she talked to a kindergarten teacher about this recently and was told, "Because some teachers are exasperated with trying to control boys' energy, they [sometimes] recommend holding a boy back until his body catches up with his brain."

This teacher also told Jenkins that if all a young boy hears all day are comments like "Sit down" and "Stop that," he may be labeled as a problem child and his self-esteem could suffer.

I have come to believe that schools need to do much more to adapt to the way boys learn. This belief has been bolstered by the stories of other parents, who tell me that they are being pushed to put their active young sons on Ritalin. "Being a boy is not a disease," one parent writes.

"Our schools," Pollack writes, "in general, are not sufficiently hospitable environments for boys and are not doing what they could to address boys' unique social, academic, and emotional needs. Today's typical coeducational schools have teachers and administrators who, though they don't intend it, are often not particularly empathic to boys; they use curricula, classroom materials, and teaching methods that do not respond to how boys learn; and many of these schools are hardly places most of our boys long to spend time. Put simply, I believe most of our schools are failing our boys."

Read Pollack's book, in particular the chapter "Schools: The Blackboard Jumble," for a detailed analysis of how he thinks public coed schools are failing boys. His most compelling arguments are simply numbers: Research shows that most of the students at the bottom of the class are boys, most of the students in remedial classes are boys, most of the students suspended are boys, fewer boys than girls go to college, and many more boys than girls have serious difficulties with reading and writing.

The Today Show segment was due in part because the latest Newsweek is looking at The Trouble With Boys.

Excerpts:

The problem won't be solved overnight. In the last two decades, the education system has become obsessed with a quantifiable and narrowly defined kind of academic success, these experts say, and that myopic view is harming boys. Boys are biologically, developmentally and psychologically different from girls and teachers need to learn how to bring out the best in every one. "Very well-meaning people," says Dr. Bruce Perry, a Houston neurologist who advocates for troubled kids, "have created a biologically disrespectful model of education."

Boys have always been boys, but the expectations for how they're supposed to act and learn in school have changed. In the last 10 years, thanks in part to activist parents concerned about their children's success, school performance has been measured in two simple ways: how many students are enrolled in accelerated courses and whether test scores stay high. Standardized assessments have become commonplace for kids as young as 6. Curricula have become more rigid. Instead of allowing teachers to instruct kids in the manner and pace that suit each class, some states now tell teachers what, when and how to teach. At the same time, student-teacher ratios have risen, physical education and sports programs have been cut and recess is a distant memory. These new pressures are undermining the strengths and underscoring the limitations of what psychologists call the "boy brain", the kinetic, disorganized, maddening and sometimes brilliant behaviors that scientists now believe are not learned but hard-wired.

When Cris Messler of Mountainside, N.J., brought her 3-year-old son Sam to a pediatrician to get him checked for ADHD, she was acknowledging the desperation parents can feel. He's a high-energy kid, and Messler found herself hoping for a positive diagnosis. "If I could get a diagnosis from the doctor, I could get him on medicine," she says. The doctor said Sam is a normal boy. School has been tough, though. Sam's reading teacher said he was hopeless. His first-grade teacher complains he's antsy, and Sam, now 7, has been referring to himself as "stupid." Messler's glad her son doesn't need medication, but what, she wonders, can she do now to help her boy in school?

For many boys, the trouble starts as young as 5, when they bring to kindergarten a set of physical and mental abilities very different from girls'. As almost any parent knows, most 5-year-old girls are more fluent than boys and can sight-read more words. Boys tend to have better hand-eye coordination, but their fine motor skills are less developed, making it a struggle for some to control a pencil or a paintbrush. Boys are more impulsive than girls; even if they can sit still, many prefer not to, at least not for long.

In elementary-school classrooms, where teachers increasingly put an emphasis on language and a premium on sitting quietly and speaking in turn, the mismatch between boys and school can become painfully obvious. "Girl behavior becomes the gold standard," says "Raising Cain" coauthor Thompson. "Boys are treated like defective girls."

I suppose my point with all of this is simply when you have two involved and concerned parents who are having difficulty making headway with any issue involving your children - try and resist the urge out of frustration to point fingers at the other. This is not to say that issues cannot arise because of home life in one setting or another - only that one must try and be as objective as possible. Implicit in this I suppose is trust that what the other parent is telling you is accurate and a true belief in the parenting skills and intentions of the other parent.

I look at my step-son and I see how heavily this school issue is weighing on him. I would hate to see this become further complicated by two frustrated parents who would now prefer to turn on each other than to continue to explore positive options to address these problems.

UPDATE: (As I sit on pins and needles waiting for the results of the latest conference) Dr Helen is talking about this as well and as always her post has generated lots of interesting comments. Boys are Just "Defective Girls"

Commission aims to make courts more user friendly - NH

2006-01-23T09:50:00.000-05:00

Commission aims to make courts more user friendly

Excerpts:

A commission charged with making the state court system more affordable and easier to use may recommend that the state develop classes, how-to kits, and a Web site that would help people represent themselves in court without a lawyer.

With nearly 70 percent of Granite Staters already representing themselves in divorce or child-custody cases, providing more aid to those who try to avoid hiring a lawyer promises to be one of the largest challenges for the New Hampshire Citizens Commission on the State Courts.

Maligning fathers

2006-01-23T09:35:00.000-05:00

This is the latest Boston Globe article by Cathy Young. You can always visit Cathy at her blog - The Y Files.

Click on the article title to read it in full.

Maligning fathers

Excerpts:

LAST NOVEMBER, I wrote about the controversy about the Public Broadcasting Service documentary, ''Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," which claimed that male batterers and child abusers frequently gain custody of their children in divorce cases after the mothers' claims of abuse are disbelieved by the courts. The film caused an outcry from fathers' rights groups. In response to these protests, PBS announced a 30-day review to determine whether the film met the editorial guidelines for fairness and accuracy.

Unfortunately, it seems that the review amounted to little more than a whitewash.

On Dec. 21, PBS issued a statement acknowledging that the film ''would have benefited from more in-depth treatment of the complex issues," but also concluded that ''the producers approached the topic with the open-mindedness and commitment to fairness that we require of our journalists" and that the program's claims were supported by ''extensive" research.

Connecticut Public Television, which co-produced ''Breaking the Silence," has supplied me with two detailed reports -- one from producer Dominique Lasseur, the other from Lasseur and George Washington University law professor Joan Meier, the film's lead expert -- on which PBS drew to support its conclusion. To call these reports shoddy and self-serving would be an understatement.

Defending the claim made in ''Breaking the Silence" that children are in greater danger of abuse from fathers than from mothers, Lasseur and Meier point to several limited studies that often lump together biological fathers with stepfathers and mothers' boyfriends (who, statistically, pose a far higher risk). Yet even these cherry-picked statistics show that a significant proportion of perpetrators of severe child abuse are mothers -- which makes the film's exclusive focus on abusive fathers difficult to defend.

Lasseur and Meier profess to be shocked that anyone could see the film as collectively maligning divorced fathers when it focuses only on abusive fathers in contested custody cases. Yet the film clearly suggests that if a divorcing father decides to fight for custody, chances are he's a batterer who's using the custody suit as an abuse tactic -- and that if he's accused of abuse, he's most probably guilty. And that's not prejudicial?

Notably, PBS ombudsman Michael Getler and especially Corporation for Public Broadcasting ombudsman Ken Bode have taken a far more negative view of the film than did the PBS review. On Jan. 4, Bode wrote, ''After close review including discussions and e-mail exchanges with those involved with the program or closely affected by it, I found the program to be so totally unbalanced as to fall outside the boundaries of PBS editorial standards on fairness and balance."

Kleptocracy in Virginia

2006-01-23T09:27:00.000-05:00

This is an article about proposed child support increases in Virginia. Click the article title to read it in full.

Kleptocracy in Virginia

Excerpts:

Yet another rigged government panel is groping for any justification to railroad through higher child support, though it already is at punitive levels. Under current guidelines, a father clearing $2,100 monthly, pays $1,137.50 and lives on less than $1,000. Add-ons for health insurance can easily bring it to $2,000. This is how Virginia officials subsidize divorce, plunder fathers and create instant criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

Twice their efforts failed when the chicanery was exposed in this newspaper in 1999 and 2001. Now Richard Byrd, a divorce lawyer, has devised a new excuse: Child support must be increased because of inflation. Never mind that child support adjusts automatically for inflation because it increases with income. This is like saying taxes must be raised due to inflation.

Mr. Byrd hopes to tie child support to the Consumer Price Index, based largely on adult consumption of adult clothing, tobacco, alcohol, taxes and the like. His proposal is an admission child support is not really for children but more for the enrichment of grown-ups. Officials are in open violation of federal law, plus Section 20-108.2 of the state domestic relations code and Senate Joint Resolution 192 specifically requiring them to examine "the costs of raising children in Virginia." Officials claim that study "would cost millions" and have never done it, despite receiving federal funds to do so.

The self-serving economics of child support has been harshly criticized by scholars. Yet the panel only consults "experts" who urge increases. They ignore scholars like Bryce Christensen, who notes "evidence of the linkage between aggressive child-support policies and the erosion of wedlock," and who writes in Society that "the advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support ... have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state."

3 divorce measures hit close to home - Colorado

2006-01-19T15:37:00.000-05:00

3 divorce measures hit close to home

This article does not give much insight as to why these measures were suggested. As noted in the article the bills would "include eliminating a 90-day waiting period and a mandatory parenting class" as well as "seal psychological and medical records related to establishing custody."

In terms of the waiting period and mandatory parenting class - both measures would appear to be distinct negatives for the children of these parties. One can only assume that Rep. Lauri Clapp did not appreciate being forced to wait three months and attend a class to help her appreciate how her decisions will affect her children.

Though Rep Clapp claims her goal is fairness - the question must be for whom? Not to the children who will be forever changed by this decision and certainly not to the spouse being left through the on demand McDivorce that will result by eliminating the waiting period.

The waiting period does not require the spouses continue to cohabitate - only that they approach this decision with the reverence it deserves. In the case of a divorce without children - I suppose I wouldn't have too much of an issue with the removal of the waiting period except that it just again demonstrates how temporary our society now perceives marriage.

This quote came from the article, "I always hate it when lawmakers use their own personal experiences to try to change the law," said attorney Harvey Steinberg. "It's aways important to subtract emotion when determining important legal issues. Can you think of anything more emotional than a divorce?"

While "subtracting emotion" may be preferential for purposes of proposing legislation in many cases - it certainly seems much legislation has been born from emotion. Laws that protect children, minorities and public safety issues were likely conceived through a deeply emotional experience. Moreover, I am convinced that much of the population cannot even begin to perceive how difficult a divorce (particularly with children) can be until they find themselves in front of a judge on such issues. The realization of how convoluted, disorganized, and often extremely unfair divorce courts can be has surely brought many people to the cause. In turn, these people have often been integral in proposing legislation to combat such problems. Case in point, the renewal of VAWA (Dec 17th, 2005) came with the following language: NONEXCLUSIVITY - Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this title.

All in all, I fail to see the positives of these initiatives (outside of sealing records) and they do appear to be largely detrimental to the children of divorce. And none of these bills address the real problems inherent in divorce and custody law, the propensity of the system to turn one parent against another, the damage divorce does to children, the inequity in many child support orders, the level to which government virtually subsidizes divorce, etc.... Unlike other states that are trying to turn to more collaborative solutions, Rep Clapp has suggested legislation that would "punish a party who engages in "unjustifiable conduct," including trying to find out information in a way that causes "unwarranted annoyance" or embarrassment to another party." Sounds like another reason to go to court to me and just as punitive and discretionary as Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO).

Excerpts:

Rep. Lauri Clapp, R-Englewood, said Wednesday she learned of problems in the court system while going through her divorce, but she stressed that the bills are not a response to her situation.

"But when you talk to people who have been through the system, you find out there are abuses," Clapp said. "We want to see that people are treated fairly. That's what this is about."

Her bills - which include eliminating a 90-day waiting period and a mandatory parenting class - have lawmakers and divorce lawyers talking.

Divorce attorney Denise Mills, after reviewing the bills, said their passage would be "stepping backward."

But Clapp said a lot of men and women who divorce "suffer because of the system," and her legislation addresses that.

"I think this is pretty straightforward public policy that makes a lot of sense," she said.

The third Clapp bill contains two separate provisions. One would end a mandatory four-hour, $40 program for parents with children under the age of 18 that informs them about the impact of divorce on kids.

"I have a lot of clients who initially object to that," DiManna said, "but I don't think I've had one come back and say, 'That was a waste of time.' "

New Blogs I Like

2006-01-19T14:27:00.000-05:00

Say hello to DADvocate and Dr. Helen.

I found this post on the Dr. Helen site very interesting. At this writing it had accumulated 134 comments on men, women, children and marriage.