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

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

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.

Chicago Town Hall Forum on Family Law

*This is from an ACFC email*

Dialogue on Sustainable Community will be hosting a Town Hall Forum at the University of Chicago this Saturday afternoon, January 14, 2006 on the issue of family law and its impact on the community. Link to the ACFC for additional details and make plans now to attend this important event.

Group getting its wish: Custody issue out in the open - Illinois

Group getting its wish: Custody issue out in the open

Excerpts:

About 40 people turned out at a meeting Dec. 6 in Urbana to hear the executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children talk about ways to get the Illinois legislature and the Champaign County judiciary to consider shared parenting.

"Courts regularly separate fit parents from children," Michael Mc-Cormick said. "We think the starting point should be equal time."

In late October, the group launched a billboard campaign in Urbana, calling upon Champaign County family court Judge Arnold Blockman to consider that concept. The billboards and radio ads have sparked a lot of discussion among users of the system and prompted the Dec. 6 meeting.

"During marriage, both parents are typically active in raising their children," McCormick said. "After divorce, children deserve equal access to both parents. But in Champaign County Circuit Court, kids rarely get that. They're caged; stuck in the old every-other-weekend-with-Dad schedule."

A Democrat elected in 1996, Blockman said he's human and can't help but be bothered by the billboards on Cunningham and East University avenues, which feature a crying child and the words: "Is four days a month with Dad really in a child's best interest?"

He's upset not because he thinks the billboard backers are right but because they don't recognize the reforms he's instituted to improve the system since he took over administration of family court.

For those unhappy about his custody rulings, Blockman said the appellate court is probably the best indicator of if his actions are appropriate.

Since taking the bench, Blockman said, 105 of his rulings have been appealed; 91 were affirmed outright; seven were partially affirmed. That means seven cases, or less than 7 percent, were overturned. Those numbers involve all kinds of cases, but for the last five years, he's done essentially nothing but family cases.

McCormick, a father of six who lives in northern Virginia and runs the coalition office out of Washington D.C., said this isn't a personal attack on Blockman but part of a nationwide campaign to get judges to do the right thing.

"I don't see Blockman as the problem. He is the solution," McCormick said. "This is not a campaign directed at him. There are a number of people heartbroken at what's left of their relationship with their children."

Blockman said it's true he doesn't grant joint custody when only one parent wants it. But it's because the law precludes him, not because he has a prejudice against a particular parent.

"Look at the criteria (outlined in the statute)," Blockman said.

He referred to the section stating a judge may enter an order of joint custody, taking into account "the ability of the parents to cooperate effectively and consistently in matters that directly affect the joint parenting of the child. 'Ability of the parents to cooperate' means the parents' capacity to substantially comply with a Joint Parenting Order."

Those who met with McCormick were asked to complete surveys asking if they'd help with cash, write to legislators, talk to reporters, monitor judges or recruit members, for example.

The group decided it wanted a town hall meeting on shared parenting in Champaign or Urbana and tentatively scheduled one for Jan. 26. McCormick also discussed the possibility of a march to the courthouse with 150 or 200 people, suggesting it could generate national TV coverage.

"I want wholesale legislative changes," he said, adding that disgruntled noncustodial parents have to work together to have their voices heard. "Judges are not hearing en masse that this doesn't work."

Read the entire article by clicking on the title - link to the American Coalition for Fathers and Children here.

ACFC CAMPAIGNS

The following come directly from an email from the ACFC (America's Shared Parenting Organization):

ACFC BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

On another front, ACFC IS TAKING THE FAMILY COURT REFORM BATTLE DIRECTLY TO THE STREETS. Today, the first of two billboards blasting the family court was erected in Champaign, Illinois. The billboard calls directly on the local family court judge, Arnold Blockman, to reform the family court. Late tomorrow another billboard will go up and beginning next week radio spots will run for a month encouraging family court reform.

A group of concerned parents came forward and asked ACFC to assist them with this task. Those parents were afraid of retaliation if they acted on their own, so we are doing this together. They want change and are willing to band together with their time and money to make it happen. We'll keep you informed as the campaign progresses. Acting together we can get things done.



PBS DOCUMENTARY ON ABUSE; ABUSES FATHERS

Tomorrow night PBS stations around the country will air Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories. October is national domestic violence awareness month. This documentary presents a one-sided view of domestic abuse designed specifically to prejudice the courts and public against fathers by portraying us primarily as child abusers.

WE NEED TO RESPOND TO THIS ATTACK ON FATHERS, THEIR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

The group RADAR has been actively working for change in the area of domestic abuse reporting. RADAR monitors the media and responds to inaccurate and misleading reporting with the FACTS. RADAR has issued an alert regarding this program and asks you to take specific action. Read and respond here.

ACFC is also supporting Glenn Sacks and joining with several of our affiliates and other organizations calling on PBS to provide the opportunity to respond to this misguided, prejudicial programming. Our goal is to let PBS know this type of biased reporting posing as responsible journalism should not be tolerated. Click here to read more and TAKE ACTION.

As an interesting side note, the film's producer's called ACFC in April indicating they wanted an interview in an effort to provide balance to the piece. Subsequently they backed out of the scheduled interview indicating they had enough footage and would 'get back to us' if they needed anything further. I can only assume that 'balance' was sacrificed to the political agenda of the sponsors on this one. Let us know what you think.

Military Dads Denied Father's Rights

Military Dads Denied Father's Rights - Wendy McElroy

Excerpts below:

Sean may never hear that lullaby again, not because his father Gary died but because Sean's mother relocated him to Israel. She visited family there during one of Gary's re-deployments and simply stayed, seeking a divorce from abroad.

"I am paying $2,100 a month not to see my son," Gary told Fox News in 2003.

This is the new face of father's rights, a face men's rights activists are determined you will see in coming months: the military man who is 'processed' by the family courts during his tour of duty or upon his return. A father who returns 'home' to children he cannot see and, often, to support payments he cannot make.

"Sometimes I wonder what I risked my life for [in Afghanistan]," Gary told fathers' rights activist Glenn Sacks. I went to fight for freedom but what freedom and what rights mean anything if a man doesn't have the right to be a father to his own child?"

The grassroots organization American Coalition of Fathers and Children has just launched a vigorous ad campaign to educate the public on how anti-father bias in the courts is destroying the family. An ad currently being prepared by the ACFC highlights the dilemma of military dads who are victimized by zero-tolerance and unreasonable legislation that was passed to deal with "deadbeats."

An indication of how strong the public backlash might be came in the early '90s with the Bobby Sherrill case. Sherrill wasn't a member of the military proper; he was a Lockheed employee and divorced father working in Kuwait when Iraq invaded.

Sherrill was held captive by the Iraqis for five months. Upon his return to North Carolina, he was arrested for non-payment of $1,425 in child support that accrued while he was a hostage.

ACFC Analysis of Press Coverage about Custody Lawsuits

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

ACFC ANALYSIS - Parents Seek Custody Law Reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACFChttp://www.acfc.org/