Obama's Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act

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

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.

IowaFathers.com Hosting Non-Custodial Parents Rally

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

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:

IowaFathers.com works to Oust Judge Pelton

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.

Big Bad Daddy

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

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.

Why Dads Matter

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.

Foster Care System Disregards Fathers - Glenn Sacks

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.

Custody rights bill for fathers dead in Assembly -NY

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.

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

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.

Don't leave dads out of the equation

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.

Unwed Fathers Fight for Babies Placed for Adoption by Mothers

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

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."

Military Parental Rights - Michigan

I am copying this verbatim from an email I received:

MILITARY PARENTAL RIGHTS: Military personnel serving overseas could not lose custody rights of their children under a bill that won unanimous approval Thursday by the House.

Support for HB 5100 was generated when a Grand Ledge National Guard member testified he lost custody after spending a year in Iraq despite sharing custody of his son on an equal basis for five years.

The bill, passed 108-0, prohibits a court from considering a parent's separation from his or her child due to military service when making a "best interest of the child" determination and declares that an established custodial environment with a parent could not be destroyed during that military service. It also prohibits decisions being made on permanent custody of children while a parent is deployed overseas.

Fatherhood Coalition ousts leader - MA

North Adams Transcript - Local Headlines

As with the F4J implosion - inner strife within a movement is likely unavoidable - but is regrettable all the same.

Excerpts:

The coup took place on Wednesday night, when eight members of the fathers' rights group met and voted to eject Rinaldo Del Gallo III, said Richard Hover, who claims to be the group's new president. Hover said Del Gallo's tirades, unreliability and militant stance on the subject of fathers' rights have combined to drive members away, weakening the coalition.

But Del Gallo said the vote was attended by only three of the coalition's eight officers, and thus did not constitute a majority. In a written statement, Del Gallo said that he is the spokesman of the group, and that -- since only the spokesman has the authority to make official statements on behalf of the coalition -- it is the official position of the coalition that he is still an officer and the group's spokesman. He said Hover's statements should be disregarded.

Both Hover and Del Gallo were able to name supporters who, in interviews, bolstered their version of events, and it is difficult to tell which side is actually in control of the coalition, or whether the group has survived the coup at all.

The Fatherhood Coalition is dedicated to pursuing changes in state divorce laws that would encourage judges to grant equal custody of children to fathers and mothers. Del Gallo, an attorney specializing in patent law, has brought publicity to the group through his campaigns for shared parenting legislation, his numerous appearances at City Council meetings and his failed efforts to run for office, including an incident in which he was arrested for trespassing while gathering nomination signatures outside the post office in Pittsfield.

But Hover said the net effect of Del Gallo's involvement with the coalition has been to shrink its ranks. He said the group once numbered about 150 members and now has only eight, and the majority have been chased away by Del Gallo.

Non-Custodial Parental Rights Petition

I am not going to post the content of the petition as it is rather lengthy but you can read it as well as sign here: Non-Custodial Parental Rights

At this writing, there are 11003 signatures.

Fathers' Rights Victory In Massachusetts

FOXNews.com - Views - ifeminists - Fathers' Rights Victory In Massachusetts

Excerpts:

Dr. Henry M. Fassler has successfully contested a 1998 Massachusetts law that requires a non-custodial parent to have court certification as a non-batterer on a yearly basis before he (or she) is allowed access to their children's school records. The school system currently views all
non-custodial parents as guilty of battery until proven innocent. But all that is going to change.


The specifics of Fassler's case: he wanted to see the academic class list for his 17-year-old daughter Lindsay, who had asked him for help. No charge or complaint had ever been filed against Fassler; he is on good terms with his ex-wife and children.

When the school refused the class list, Fassler not only got angry, he also got active. Last October, he complained to the Family Policy Compliance Office at the U.S. Department of Education, challenging the statute as discriminatory. On May 6, the DOE sent a letter to
Massachusetts' Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll, which warned that "the commonwealth and every school district in Massachusetts is in violation of federal law, and has been for years."

The letter explained, "non-custodial parents cannot be denied access to school records unless there is evidence those 'rights have been specifically revoked'." The government cannot stand between parent and child when no evidence of abuse is present.

Father's rights advocates had fought against the law since its passage. (Indeed, Fassler belongs to Fathers and Families, a leading voice in that battle.) Suddenly, however, with millions in federal funding at stake, Driscoll has indicated that a "new policy" will treat divorced parents more fairly.

This is another lesson from the Massachusetts struggle. Grassroots organizations and actions can prevail over generously tax-funded agencies, but it is crucial to "follow the money." The crusade against the 1998 statute won out only when Fassler called federal funding into question.

More on Fathers' Rights: The State Matriarchy

More on Fathers' Rights: The State Matriarchy - Paul Robbins, Ph.D.

Excerpts:

Under the current system of family law, fathers typically lose their children in return for financing the destruction of their own families. When the system fails to work as promised, fathers are blamed and put in jail. But the system is at fault, not fathers. The system makes it far too easy for mom to expel dad, keep the children, and force him to pay for her decisions using the police power of the state.

This is the hallmark of the system that I call "state matriarchy": the creation of single-mother families followed by calls for more government programs to help those families. We are assured the problem is not single-mother families; the problem is a government that doesn't do enough to help these families.

I have no problem with society expecting fathers to meet their responsibilities to their children. But society in turn must protect fathers' rights to the care and custody of their children. That is a fair an equitable arrangement, not unaccountable judicial power backed up by unaccountable state power in the service of divisive social theories.

On Fathers' Rights: What to Do

On Fathers' Rights: What to Do - Paul Robbins, Ph.D. - MensNewsDaily.com

Excerpts:

The most problematic issue for fathers is the custody decision. A custody decision is not a decision that grants rights to the winner (usually mom); it's a decision that takes away the rights of the loser (usually dad). The basis of that decision is the judge's determination of who is the better parent–mom or dad. A dad doesn't lose custody of his children because he's a bad parent; he loses custody because the judge believes he's not as good a parent as mom.

The system of sole mother custody would also collapse if child support were not paid. Child support is the oil that fuels the engine of divorce. And the powers that be know this, which is one reason so much effort is expended in collecting child support.

The truth is that children need financial support. The other truth is that if the government can simply seize a man's income he has no way to resist the government's power to seize his children. It's a no-win situation for a divorced dad: pay your child support, and the unfair system continues as is. Don't pay your child support, and your children suffer.

So what can men do? They have a few options.

One is to simply not play the game. If men don't want the problems associated with divorce, they should not get married. Modern family law gives men little reason to get married and gives women little reason to stay married.

Not playing the game also means avoiding sexual relations with women, since even unmarried fathers are now part of the system. In short, not playing the game means a life with a good job, a good dog, and a lifelong subscription to Playboy.

The most likely venue for change is the state legislature. Courts have become a power unto themselves, defining and redefining family law in ways that define fathers out of existence. The state legislatures gave the courts this power and the legislatures can take it away.

Of course, most legislators won't listen, as I know from experience. The state benefits too much from divorce and child support to change the system. As it is, the legislators can simply blame the courts; if the legislators change the system, they can get blamed.

Currently, the US government claims, rightly or wrongly, that some $94 billion in child support is owed. About 30% of that, or around $30 billion, is actually owed to the states as reimbursement for welfare costs. In addition, the states receive federal reimbursements for their collection efforts and incentive payments for increasing the amount of support they collect. Child support supports the states as much as it does children.

There are also state governors. But while some governors are willing to sign pro-father legislation, most know they will not get elected if they push too hard for fathers' rights. Most politicians know, as Bill Clinton knew, that they can't afford to rile up the feminists.

Modern family law has destroyed more than marriage. It has also destroyed the fundamental rights of fathers and men to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

At one time a few men began a revolution because their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was denied by a distant king.