mkg4583

Archive for the ‘Freedom’ Category

De Facto Parents

In Activism, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Custody for fathers, Children and Domestic Violence, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, Feminism, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, Homosexual Agenda, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Marriage, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parentectomy, Parents rights on September 12, 2009 at 12:00 pm

De Facto Parents

Now children can have multiple legal parents without biology, adoption, or marriage.

By William C. Duncan
In Revolution, Herbert Jacob described how one of the most significant changes to family law in the 20th century, no-fault divorce, began in California and spread through the states with very little public debate or controversy. This remarkable transformation was presented, and largely accepted, as routine policymaking in the domain of legal experts.

Similarly, a revolution in the legal understanding of parenthood seems to have quietly begun with little or no public debate or discussion. This dramatically transformative development is the statutory recognition of “de facto” parenthood — the notion that an unrelated individual (usually the unmarried partner of a biological parent, but potentially any adult) can be designated as the legal “parent” of a child by virtue of an agreement with a biological or adoptive parent, or even just a relationship with the child. In some cases, three or more people may be designated “parents” of the same child. While a handful of state courts have endorsed the idea in the context of disputes between same-sex couples jointly raising children, not until very recently has a legislature endorsed it.

This year, the District of Columbia Council passed a law allowing biological parents’ registered domestic partners to be presumed parents, and to be listed as such on the children’s birth certificates. The law also allows a person to be legally designated a parent if he consents in writing to the artificial insemination of his partner, or if he “hold[s] out” the child as his own—that is, presents the child as his to others. (D.C. already had a law allowing people to sue for child custody if they could show they had acted as “de facto” parents (D.C. Code 16-831.01).)

Then, last month, the Delaware legislature went even farther when it enacted legislation giving state courts the ability to designate a non-parent as a “de facto” parent (with all the legal ramifications of parenthood) as long as the biological parent of a child “fosters” a “parent-like relationship” between the non-parent and the child, and as long as the “de facto” parent has acted like a parent and bonded with the child in a way that is “parental in nature.”

The Delaware law completely untethers legal parentage from biology, marriage, adoption, and even the relationship between the adults who are the child’s legal “parents.” It also abandons the binary nature of legal parenthood by allowing three or more adults to be designated “parents” of a child at the same time.

Like the no-fault revolution, de facto parenthood has its boosters, and they seem to be increasingly influential. Prof. Nancy Polikoff, who advocates the erasure of legal distinctions between households based on marriage and those based on other arrangements, has written extensively and approvingly of these developments and suggests that they ought to be more widely adopted. The prestigious American Law Institute has also endorsed the “de facto” parent idea in the context of the law regarding family breakups.

These changes, however, are radical. The default rules for establishing legal parenthood — which were nearly universally recognized until now — recognize individuals as parents based on (1) biological parenthood, (2) marriage to a parent, or (3) adoption. These clear laws advance the interests of children to know and be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. The one significant exception, adoption, largely imitates the biological mother-father model, thus allowing a child who cannot be raised by his own parents to at least be raised by a mother and father. By limiting the number of people who can claim parental authority, the default rules promote stability and consistency for children.

Existing law also ensures that when natural parents transfer their legal rights, there are “bright lines” governing the process. Thus, parental rights are only terminated when there is clear evidence of unfitness, or when a parent voluntarily relinquishes them through a formal procedure like adoption (including adoption by stepparents).

These rules also enhance children’s best interests because a biological tie between parents and children “increase[s] the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child,” as Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur wrote in Growing Up with a Single Parent. It is clear that living with a cohabiting couple increases risks of abuse and maltreatment for children, and that unrelated males living with children are more likely to abuse those children.

It is also not hard to imagine the chaos likely to result when the relationship between three or more “de facto” parents breaks up and courts are called upon to dole out parental rights and responsibilities to each person. Children have a hard enough time navigating between two worlds after divorce. Imagine the difficulty of being shuttled between the homes of a mother, her former partner, a sperm donor, his partner, etc.

Perhaps most fundamentally, these trends treat children as acquisitions, ignoring their needs for relationships with their parents and for substitute arrangements when those relationships are disrupted. The idea of de facto parenthood legally facilitates the creation of motherless or fatherless homes, based not on children’s needs but on adult desires. In adopting these laws, states are saying that parentage can be created by a bargain between two or more adults.

Needless to say, these developments and their philosophical underpinnings should be met with stiff opposition. That is likely only if people are aware such developments are taking place. That has not been the case to this point. As the promoters of “de facto” parenthood begin to take their arguments to other legislatures, there must be a more robust debate and response. Our children deserve at least that much.

— William C. Duncan is director of the Marriage Law Foundation.

De Facto Parents by William C. Duncan on National Review Online.

Advertisements

Are You Guilty of Parental Alienation?

In Alienation of Affection, child abuse, Child Custody, Child Custody for fathers, Child Custody for Mothers, Children and Domestic Violence, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parents rights, Restraining Orders, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Single Moms, Single Parenting on September 11, 2009 at 8:40 pm

Are You Guilty of Parental Alienation?

Friday September 11, 2009

Some parents work over-time at alienating their children from the other parent. Some are guilty of parental alienation and don’t realize what they are doing. Whether or not you are deliberately alienating your child from the other parent the result will be the same. Your child will be damaged emotionally.

A divorcing parents first concern should be the welfare of the children. Children need two parents who are 100% invested in making sure that child’s needs are met. You may not like your ex but you should never allow that to get in the way of taking care of your child.

Below is a list of behaviors parents do that purposefully or unwittingly alienate a child from his/her other parent:

1. Sharing information about the divorce. I NEVER talked to my children about the specifics of any legal divorce issues I had with their father. I was dumbfounded a few months back when in court with my ex over custody of our youngest. I looked over at my youngest and his father and the child had his father’s files, files pertaining to legal issues and was reading them.

I think I’m safe in assuming that those files were full of negative information about me. What purpose other than trying to shed a negative light on me could my ex have for showing the files to my son?

2. Withholding contact information. Parents have a right to know how to contact their child. Withholding email addresses or phone numbers is a clear attempt to interfere with a parent’s right to communicate with his/her child. If your child doesn’t want to talk to the other parent fine. The other parent still has a right to leave messages and write emails. They have the right to let that child know, that they are loved.

3. Allowing your child to decide whether or not to visit the other parent. This is another one that played a role in my divorce. I’m the guilty party. My ex angered my children. He did some very hurtful things and they had a right to be angry. My children were in therapy, the therapist told me to not force them to visit their father.

I was torn. Part of me knew that they needed their father, part of me was afraid of damaging them by forcing them to spend time with someone who had hurt them. I called my ex MIL and she said, “don’t make them see him until he behaves like a father.”

Guess what, the therapist was wrong, my ex MIL was wrong and I was wrong for not forcing them to visit and build a relationship with their father. I’ve recently realized that I allowed my children to make a choice based on emotion not logic.

I was the parent; it was my place to be the logical one. Instead, I let emotion win out and unwittingly did my children and their father harm. If your child is angry and refusing to visit the other parent do everything you can to promote visitation. Don’t give your child power and control over a situation they are viewing through eyes that are clouded by eomtional pain.

4. Saying negative things about the other parent. If you’ve got a beef with your ex, keep it to yourself. Don’t say negative things to your child or to anyone in front of your child. Something as insignificant as, “your father never shows up on time,” sends a negative message to your child about the other parent. Keep such thoughts out of reach of tiny ears!

Whether you are purposefully or unwittingly exposing your child to parental alienation it is time to stop and think about what it means to your child. Parenting after divorce means being hyper aware of the consequences of your words and actions have on your children.

Are You Guilty of Parental Alienation?.

Straight From The U.S. Department of Health & Human Service’s Mouth: Children are More at Risk With MOTHERS – 2007 Report, Not the 1996 NIS-3

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Custody for fathers, Children and Domestic Violence, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Feminism, Foster Care, Freedom, Glenn Sacks, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Liberty, Marriage, Non-custodial fathers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parentectomy, Parents rights on September 11, 2009 at 12:39 am

Another mad mom blogger NANCY CARROLL, aka, rightsformothers.com, aka, car-woman? that always get it WRONG, posted: http://justice4mothers.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/straight-from-the-u-s-department-of-health-human-services-mouth-children-are-more-at-risk-with-fathers/

“Straight From The U.S. Department of Health & Human Service’s Mouth: Children are More at Risk With Fathers
as if it were JUST RELEASED..???…. but got I got news:
That statistic is from a 1996 report, NANCY CARROLL…. Try the newest HHS report, moron. Below is from the 2007 report.

Moms are dangerous, especially single moms.

Perpetrator Relationship

Victim data were analyzed by relationship to their perpetrators. Nearly 39 percent (38.7%) of victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone (figure 3–6). Nearly 18 percent (17.9%) of victims were maltreated by their father acting alone. Nearly 17 percent (16.8%) were maltreated by both parents.19 ”

Instead, I think I will right a story on this one instead…on my blog site and send it to Glenn Sacks, et.al..

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/chapter3.htm#factors

Hidden Boy’s Dad: He Was BrainWashed! – Parental Alienation Again!!

In Alienation of Affection, Child Custody, Child Custody for fathers, Children and Domestic Violence, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, kidnapped children, Marriage, National Parents Day, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping on September 10, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Hidden Boy’s Dad: He Was Brainwashed

Says Son Calling Him “Monster” Was “Programmed” Into Boy by Boy’s Mother, Grandmother Who, Cops Say, Kept Boy in Secret Room

    • Michael Chekevdia PhotoMichael Chekevdia (CBS)

    Previous slide Next slide

    • 0
    • 1
    • 2

    //

  • Photo Essay The Boy Behind the WallA boy was found alive after being hidden for two years in a secret room in his grandmother’s home, say police.

(CBS)

The mother accused of hiding her six year old boy in a secret room in her mother’s house for nearly two years was in court Tuesday, and the judge refused to allow her any access to her son.

Outside the courthouse, Shannon Wilfong insisted to reporters that she hadn’t done anything wrong.

Responding to a tip, authorities say, they found Wilfong, 30, and her son, Richard “Ricky” Chekevdia, inside the home of Ricky’s grandmother, Diane Dobbs, 51, on Friday.

Investigators say he was kept in a room behind a false wall just 12 feet by 5 feet, with a ceiling only four feet high whenever visitors arrived, and never allowed to leave the two-story rural home in southern Illinois’ Franklin County, about 120 miles southeast of St. Louis.

Wilfong and Ricky disappeared in Nov. 2007 after a contentious custody battle that resulted in temporary custody for the boy’s father, Mike Chekevdia.

Wilfong’s mother claims she and her daughter hid her grandson to protect him from Chekevdia, who they claim sexually abused the boy.

As she was being led away from the courthouse, Wilfong contended to reporters Tuesday, “My little boy said that he was scared to go back, because his dad was gonna tie him up again.”

The judge has ordered Ricky to stay with one of Mike Chekevdia’s relatives until a November custody hearing, but indicated his desire to reunite father and son after thorough counseling.

On “The Early Show” Wednesday, co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez asked Chekevdia whether he’s concerned that Ricky might not want to go back and be with him because, according to a state child welfare worker, Ricky is calling Chekevdia a monster.

Michael replied, “He’s staying with family, and I get situation reports from my family seven-to-ten times a day as to how he’s doing. I call them, they call me. You know, we spoke about that stuff. And I asked them, did these appear to be programmed statements? Or were they actually words he used with emotion? And … my family member told me — and he’s a really educated guy — he said they really appear to be programmed responses. … To my son, I think, it’s a word more than a word that’s associated with an actual being.”

Watch CBS Videos Online

© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Hidden Boy’s Dad: He Was Brainwashed – The Early Show – CBS News.

The 40th Anniversary of “No-Fault” Divorce | Catholic Exchange

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Custody for fathers, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Feminism, Foster Care, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Marriage, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation on September 7, 2009 at 11:46 pm

The 40th Anniversary of “No-Fault” Divorce

September 5th, 2009 by Judy Parejko Print This Article Print This Article ·// ShareThis

On September 5, 1969, Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Family Law Act, launching California as the first state in the nation with ‘no-fault’ divorce.

The law quickly took hold elsewhere, including Iowa, which followed California’s lead six months later.

By 1971, Colorado, Florida, Michigan and Oregon had no-fault divorce laws and within fifteen years the law had spread nationwide.

Most policy analysts agree that no-fault divorce has weakened the “traditional family since one person could now end the marriage unilaterally.” Some say it threw open the door to “marriages” of same-sex partners, since adultery – which has a particular definition – was taken off the law books. Same-sex partners are not capable of adultery and hence, could now qualify for divorce on the basis of “breakdown” of the relationship.

Who were the key players in this family policy revolution? Who were the ‘villains’ and were there any ‘heroes’?

Some might name Governor Reagan as the biggest villain since he could have blocked the bill by vetoing it. He himself had been divorced-against-his-will by his first wife, actress Jane Wyman and he considered himself a family man. Although his name will be forever linked with no-fault divorce, it turns out that he may be the only who has expressed regret about his role.

Late in life, Reagan confessed to his oldest son, Michael that, signing the bill was one of the worst mistakes he ever made in public office. Michael tells the story about his father in Twice Adopted .

While Reagan had a prominent visible role, the man who was probably the most responsible for this bill worked behind the scenes and his story is not well-known.

Assemblyman James A. Hayes from southern California was self-described as the bill’s author. By the time he attained the role of Assembly Judiciary Chairman, his wife had already filed for divorce on the ground of ‘cruelty.’ Hayes’ new role on the Judiciary Committee provided him with an opportunity that he used to his personal advantage.

With the implementation of no-fault divorce on January 1, 1970, the rules of the game abruptly changed, turning the tables on all pending cases, including that of Hayes’ wife. As a result, Hayes was able to reduce his ‘damages’ in the final settlement. The newspapers later reported that his wife and four children did not fare so well and turned to food stamps.

Hayes claims he coined the term “irreconcilable differences” because he didn’t like the proposed term, “breakdown” — it sounded too negative.

Hayes had to convince Reagan to sign the bill, and during their one-hour meeting Hayes found the job challenging. Reagan wanted to veto the bill, but Hayes pressed him to sign it by ticking off the names of those who were ‘on board.’ In fact, in Hayes reflections on that period, he made it sound like everyone was on board.

Hayes even claimed that he worked with representatives of the Catholic Church and that the Archdiocese of Sacramento was particularly supportive.

In 1969, Republicans controlled the political scene in California, with Reagan just having defeated Pat Brown, a Democrat. Republicans also controlled the senate and assembly. The Republican Party would later take on the title of the “Party of Family Values.”

Iowa, which was the next state to enact no-fault, was also Republican-controlled with its own popular Republican governor, Robert Ray, signing the bill.

By all accounts, there were few if any heroes. Most policymakers were ‘sold’ on the bill, but when looking at previous accounts, it’s not clear whether they really understood what it the bill would do. Most accounts portray it as a “mutual consent” type of measure, but in reality, it was not. Only one party needed to bring a divorce action knowing that the “State” would assure them of the outcome.

Looking back at what we now know, is this fortieth anniversary begging some questions?

One question might be whether there was deception in the process. Would a similar law be possible today if the story got out that the main player had such a strong personal vested interest? At the time, the media did not report on the divorce lawsuit filed by Hayes’ wife.

Secondly, would Catholic Church officials have endorsed this bill if they’d known the full truth about it — that it would quickly turn into “unilateral divorce-on-demand” with the state doing a yeoman’s job for the one filing for divorce, leaving the other party defenseless in such a lawsuit?

In Iowa, some legislators labeled the bill an “attorneys’ bill” because they could see the benefit to members of the bar but no benefit to families.

One of the bigger questions that Catholics and other Christians might consider is this: How did the State obtain such sweeping jurisdiction over this God-ordained institution? Is marriage merely a civil institution? Does pre-marital instruction, along with promises to live up to church teachings mean anything?

For Catholics, where does the Church’s canon law fit into the picture? And, where are the “church courts” that could hear cases falling within the her jurisdiction?

Do the Canons and teachings in Catechism apply only “after the fact” –- once the divorce is finalized? Or, are these elements meant to be a strong buffer, bringing couples back to their vows and to the teachings of the Church?

“Jurisdiction” is loaded with implications. Under whose jurisdiction do we place ourselves? Canon law is written for “The People of God.”

Most people who are intent on filing for divorce will seek the jurisdiction of the civil court. The first step is usually hiring an attorney to prepare the paperwork. But, what if it didn’t work that way?

Maybe Church officials should be prepared to assert jurisdiction when approached. Why should we be limited to only one jurisdiction? We are asked to make a commitment to church teachings at the front end of marriage. Why shouldn’t we ask church leaders to provide a forum like the one Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 6:1?

St. Paul admonishes us about bringing lawsuits against our brothers. We are supposed to be able to settle things amongst ourselves, using a fair and just process.

We could learn how to set up church governance in such a way that those who stray to the civil arena could be called back. They could present their complaints and have them heard amongst those who are properly trained. In the beginning, very few would know how to hear a case and provide a fair and just process. But, we could learn.

Instead, too many members of the flock now find themselves disillusioned after receiving a summons for divorce from the civil court, turning to ask for help from the Church, and then being turned away. Just because we don’t know how to do it now, doesn’t mean we can’t learn. There’s an opportunity here. Will we respond?

Most churches have so many committees doing various things. Why not one more committee: the Complaints and Adjudication Committee?

Judy Parejko is the author of Stolen Vows: The Illusion of No-Fault Divorce and the Rise of the American Divorce Industry and is now compiling, A Concise History of No-Fault Divorce in the United States. Her research is primarily focused on the intrinsic policy implications of laws that have been drafted by an organization of lawyers operating as the A.B.A.’s drafting arm: the Uniform Law Commissioners.

The 40th Anniversary of “No-Fault” Divorce | Catholic Exchange.

Parental Alienation & Grief « It’s Almost Tuesday

In Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, Child Custody, Child Custody for fathers, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Parentectomy, Parents rights on September 4, 2009 at 6:15 am

Parental Alienation & Grief

The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent.

The primary person responsible for the induction of a parental alienation syndrome (PAS) in a child is the litigating parent who hopes to gain leverage in a court of law by programming in the child a campaign of denigration directed against a target parent.

In most cases alienated parents are relatively helpless to protect themselves from the indoctrinations and the destruction of what was once a good, loving bond. They turn to the courts for help and, in most cases in my experience, have suffered even greater frustration and despair because of the court’s failure to meaningfully provide them with assistance.

It is the author’s hope that increasing recognition by the judiciary of its failures to deal effectively with PAS families will play a role in the rectification of this serious problem.

(Excerpted from: Gardner, R.A. (1998). The Parental Alienation Syndrome, Second Edition, Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, Inc.)

by Dr. Barbara Steinberg

Q: A parent who has been alienated from his or her child’s life experiences extreme loss. Often we are asked by a targeted parent, “How do I deal with his on-going pain?”

A: First, know that you are not alone. There are others, both mothers and fathers, who have similar experiences, and who are in deep agony over the loss of contact and meaningful relationship with their children.

Second, know that you are not crazy. In our culture we are not encouraged to experience our grief. We are taught to be strong, to rise above it, to tough it out, to get over it and get on with life. Sometimes that is wise counsel if we linger in our pain, and our outrage becomes the complete focus of our life affecting our work, our social life and our spirit. However, the loss of a child whether by death or by exclusion from that child’s life is beyond the realm of most parents’ ability to cope.

In the beginning of an alienation process, we believe, as parents, this is not really happening. We deny that the other parent of our child is capable of these vengeful acts, and we choose not to believe our child, whom we love deeply, would ever treat us in such a hurtful ways.

Denial is the strongest emotional defense mechanism we have at our disposal, and it is the one on which we rely the most. For most parents, because they truly want contact and relationship with their child, their denial does not hold up under time or with the reality of the disconnection they experience.

Third, many parents feel confusion, which suggests they are not able to identify and process the bunch of emotions; they are experiencing in their gut. Usually, these can be separated into feelings of deep sadness, intense anger, extreme outrage, and desperate blame.

To keep from being overwhelmed by this internal “bucket of worms,” many parents detach from the situation that they believe is an act of self-preservation. Some bargain with them using the following logic, “My child will get what’s happened when he/she turns eighteen so I’ll just wait.” Both strategies are akin to whistling in the dark.

Fourth, targeted parents want to know how to deal with these strong emotions in healthy ways because if allowed to remain unreleased, they often gain a life of their own and emerge at inappropriate and inopportune times toward others who do not understand or deserve the depth and intensity of the feeling.

Sometimes, these emotions are held internally. In an attempt to self-medicate the resulting pain, the targeted parent turns to addictive behaviors or substances. Eventually, if strong emotions are held internally for a long period of time, they can convert into physical problems, which plague the individual for the remainder of his/her life.

So the dilemma remains, what do I do with my pain? Keeping a journal or diary is helpful, but strong emotions require active self-interventions. Many parents report feeling relief from their deep sadness by allowing themselves to cry and scream.

If you believe this might assist you in your process, to avoid embarrassment, it is wise to isolate yourself perhaps in a quiet, natural place so you can grieve in an unrestrained and unobserved way. It is also helpful to take a sequence of your child’s pictures so you can activate your feelings of loss.

Intense anger is a physical activator so you will need to participate in a focused activity such as bowling, driving golf balls at a range or hitting balls in a batting cage. A less expensive approach is throwing ice cubes at a sturdy wall, an activity, that parents report, gives a sense of relief and release from ever tightening bands of anger.

Outrage describes a parent who feels misunderstood so there needs to be some attention paid to “telling your story.” The problem is finding a receptive listener who has the patience and energy to hear the saga of hurt, frustration and humiliation more than once. Targeted parents can tell their story into a small tape recorder; they can write their story by hand into a journal, a loose-leaf notebook or a diary. They can use a word processor and store it on computer disc, or if they are creatively inclined, they can write poems to their children. Some parents have already published their story in books and poetry.

Of importance here is the intention to alleviate the outrage of misunderstanding that, as a parent, you are unimportant, even nonessential in your child’s life. Also, it is important that you be heard, and that you remind yourself that you are still a parent by keeping your child’s pictures around you. Another approach is to involve yourself in the parenting role with other children as a Godparent, as an involved uncle or aunt, as a Big Brother or Big Sister. Validating yourself as a parent can go a long way to heal feelings of outrage.

Finally, desperate blame is probably the most difficult bereavement issue to process. Some blame is justifiable: the other parent, the other parent’s family, the legal and social services system, your child, yourself. However, the only one under your jurisdiction of control is yourself so this is the part that you work with in three separate ways. First, it is critical, regardless of the attitude and reception from the other parent, from the other parent’s family and from your child that you stay in positive contact with them. Civility and cordiality in face-to-face contact is essential regardless of what is said in your presence or behind your back. In addition, sending your child cards, letters and little packages on unimportant days is appropriate. Also, communicating with your child by telephone, by e-mail and by facsimile can be effective. If you have completely lost contact with your child, then set your priority to find him/her and restore contact at least by distance. If this is impossible, then collect items and memorabilia in a special box or trunk reserved for your child and the possibility of future contact.

Second, become active as a citizen for positive change, and learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the system you blame for preventing you from having parenting opportunities with your child. This action may not change the disposition of your situation, but you may make the system a better place for other targeted parents and their children.

Third, for your sake and for the sake of your relationship with your child, it is imperative that you forgive the other parent. Notice there was no mention of forgetting what has happened, or how you have been treated, but again, for restoring your emotional balance and your ability to cope with life challenges in healthy ways, you will need to forgive the alienator.

For some, this is a spiritual journey, and for others the path is a secular one. What is important is that you go about this process in a unique way that you believe will work for you so the specter of losing your child is diminished, and your health and well being are in restoration.

Rate This

Quantcast

//


GOP Must Make School Vouchers a Civil Rights Issue

In Best Interest of the Child, children legal status, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Domestic Relations, education, Freedom, Homeschool, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment on September 3, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Parents should have the first and last choice of where their children go to school.   It is time to make sure the school teacher’s union, who have one interest only: keeping their jobs.  They need to back off.  Parents need to urge their congressman to support H.J.R. 42 The Parental Rights Amendment in Congress to make Parental Rights a constitutional protected right. – Parental Rights

When one-off events catch public officials flat-footed, the public often shows some understanding.

The start of the school year, however, and the need to schedule classes for students, are as predictable as August.  To have this annual exercise result in chaos and delay for 8,000 high school students in Prince George’s County, Maryland is a scandal and disgrace.

As reported at length by the Washington Post, the year began for 8,000 of the county’s 41,000 high school students without schedules.  Five days, later, 1,300 were still in limbo. It really is difficult to comprehend the scale of this ineptitude.  As one student explained on a Facebook page devoted to the matter:

We basically are going 2 school 4 no point wut so ever…we are wasting time going 2 are fake teachers and fake classes, doing fake work or nothing at all, for nothing at all.

When 20 percent of the county’s high school students are herded into cafeterias and gymnasiums, with teachers engaged in crowd control because students have no classes to attend, the essential functions of local government have broken down.

The greater scandal here is that this failure has almost certainly had an adverse impact on black students.  Prince George’s County may be home to the largest black middle class in the country, but among those high school students who had the start of their high school year ruined by administrative ineptitude, many were minority students who needed those extra few days of instruction and could ill afford thumb twiddling and busy work.

A collapse of governing responsibility, one with civil rights implications, just miles from the nation’s capitol — but will anyone at the federal level propose to do much about it?  We know that Democrats won’t cross the teachers’ unions.  What about Republicans?  Would they use this as an opportunity to promote vouchers for any of these students, betrayed by their school system?

Republicans are supporters of school vouchers as an economic concept. By enhancing parental choice and challenging the unions, they bring competition to the public school monopoly and improve outputs for the parent and child consumers.  And Republicans support state reforms and federal reform in the District of Columbia.

But where are the conservative conviction politicians in Washington who will use this situation to loudly demand justice, and promote school vouchers, for the poor kids in P.G. County?  As many have noted, the lack of access to a quality education is a civil rights issue, one that calls out for vouchers as an emergency measure for kids stuck in failing schools.  For any who doubt this, consider the account of Jessica Pinkney, a Prince George’s County high school junior, who told a Post reporter that two days after the school year began, she was finally moved to the cafeteria from the gym, because the cafeteria had air conditioning.  And then she was given an index card with the number 195 on it — her place in line to receive an academic schedule.  This should not happen in America, and when it does, the citizens under the thumb of the authorities responsible should be liberated from their dependence.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Republicans in Congress will take an aggressive stand for these helpless students and against a corrupt and wasteful bureaucracy incapable of executing even the most basic tasks with which it is charged.  Republican commitments to federalism and local authority caution against such a full-throttle embrace of federally funded school vouchers.  Republican orthodoxy on limited government doubts the legitimacy of involvement by Washington in these essentially local matters.  And the Republican understanding of the original Constitution demands a restrictive understanding of fundamental rights.

But as demonstrated in Maryland, vouchers can be an imperative of justice — one consistent with the GOP’s, and the nation’s, historic constitutional commitment to civil rights.

Next week Congress returns from its August recess.  We will hear a great deal from legislators on both sides of the aisle about their admiration for their friend Senator Ted Kennedy.  While not embracing his politics, Republicans should consider the man’s tactics and take on the Prince George’s debacle.  Kennedy spoke loudly and often in the pursuit of justice.  He rarely let an opportunity pass to remind Americans of those in danger of being left behind.  And over time, his moral arguments won adherents and drove the center of the debate in his direction.

Democrats should be ashamed that in the fights over school choice, they take the side of the unions over the little guy — the minority student in a failing school.  And if Republicans spoke on this issue with the frequency and passion that their late colleague devoted to his causes, they might find in a few years that they have achieved some legislative successes on school vouchers, begun to reestablish some trust with the black community, and rebranded the party as one committed to justice and civil rights.

Recent Posts by Henry Clay

GOP Must Make School Vouchers a Civil Rights Issue.

Time Gets a Little Right and Much Wrong about Marriage in America – GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive

In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, custody, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Feminism, Freedom, Homosexual Agenda, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Liberty, Marriage, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome on August 31, 2009 at 12:53 am

Time Gets a Little Right and Much Wrong about Marriage in America

August 30th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

You’d think that an article that ends with this sentence,

What we teach about the true meaning of marriage will determine a great deal about our fate,

would do a better job than this one does of teaching its readers about marriage (Time, 7/2/09).  Caitlin Flanagan gets a few of the high points right, but ignores others entirely.  Maybe there’s an unwritten rule that I don’t know about that forbids mention of certain things.

What Flanagan gets right are things like the value of marriage and a stable home environment to children’s wellbeing.  She understands as well that much of our divorce culture stems from a attitude of hedonism that’s been learned over the past few decades.  Adults often seem incapable of seeing and acting on the most obvious truth – that divorce harms children and that they benefit from having two parents to raise them.  Absent the direst circumstances, adults who have made the choice to have children, should stick together and stick with the children until they themselves become adults.  After that, divorce is fine.

So Flanagan gets the basics, but her context goes a long way toward undermining her thesis.  That context is male infidelity.  The article starts off with photos of various high-profile male philanderers – Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, John Edwards and, yes, Jon Gosselin.  In the text, she tosses in John Ensign, just to balance the ticket, I suppose.

So what Flanagan is suggesting, without coming out and saying it explicitly, is that the “me first” culture that’s destroying marriage is all about the narcisism of men.  Never does she mention a high-profile female adulterer.  Nowhere does she cite statistics that show that, while married men stray more than do married women, the difference is a matter of a few percentage points.  Depending on which study you prefer, something like 23-28% of married men have extramarital affairs while 15-22% of married women do.  In Flanagan’s piece no women do.

Nor does she mention that most marriages in which one or the other partner commits adultery remain intact.  So sexual infidelity, as wrong as it is, as painful as it is, as self-centered as it is, has little to do with the failure of marriage in America.

Flanagan champions marriage for the many good reasons we all know, but, while bemoaning the fragility of that most important of institutions, she never asks why it’s become fragile.  Doubtless the answers to that question are many and complex, but why not give it a shot?  Why not at least try?

Well, maybe it’s because doing so would inevitably lead where Flanagan and Time fear to tread.  Maybe it would violate that unwritten rule I mentioned earlier.  That marriage is in such ill repute, might conceivably force us to ask how it got that way.  After all, 50 years ago, it wasn’t.  So what happened?

Well, one thing that happened was feminism.

I’m aware of course that many feminists are married.  Gloria Steinem is; Katha Pollitt is; most of my female feminist friends are.  But one of the most consistent themes of feminist discourse over the past 40 years has been that marriage is the seat of male subjugation of women.  According to many feminist writers (see, e.g. Catharine MacKinnon) over the years, marriage is at best unnecessary and at worst dangerous to women.  And if men are dangerous to women, they’re no less so to children, so the story goes.

Never mind that essentially every word of those claims is directly contradicted by massive amounts of social science.  Never mind that, whatever may be true about women, men, fish and bicycles, children need their fathers.  And never mind that children have more to fear from their mothers than from their fathers.

Never mind all that because, for decades, popular culture absorbed and repeated most of those feminist claims producing TV programs, movies, books (fiction and non-fiction), short stories, etc. which hewed to the feminist narrative that men are dangerous to women and children and, in any case, incompetent to – and uninterested in – caring for children.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

No, that’s not my argument.  My argument is simply this: I find it highly coincidental that, after decades of denigrating men, fathers and the institution of marriage, that the institution of marriage is now so shaky.  Maybe the one had nothing to do with the other.  Maybe if second wave feminism had never happened, marriage would still be on the rocks.  About that we’ll never know.  But what we do know is what did happen.  Anyone who chooses to believe that the denigration of marriage by feminists and taken up by popular culture had nothing to do with its current status is welcome to that opinion.

Flanagan, not content to ignore feminism’s contibution to the decline of marriage, moves right on to ignore the law’s.  I’ve detailed elsewhere the many, many ways in which family law separates children from fathers and thus tends to obviate the reason for marriage.  So I won’t go into that again.  But what I will say is this:  we know the one thing that will do more than anything else to discourage it – shared parenting.

Women file for about 70% of divorces in the United States.  They do so because they know to a virtual certainty that they will retain physical custody of their children.  That was the finding of a massive study done in 2000 by Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen of over 40,000 divorce cases in four states.  They learned that far more than any other factor encouraging divorce was the fact that the woman knew she would not lose contact with her children.  What’s also true is that divorce rates drop in jurisdictions that adopt some version of shared parenting.  Establish shared parenting as the law, and, in addition to all its other benefits, watch the divorce rate drop.

But Caitlin Flanagan reports none of that.

Think of what might happen if we devoted even half the resources to telling the truth about fathers and children that we devoted to disinformation about them over the past 40 years.  Combine that with making real efforts – like establishing the presumption of shared parenting in all 50 states – to ensure maximal continued contact between fathers and children post-divorce.  Do those two things and let’s see what the state of marriage is in this country.

Thanks to Jed for the heads-up.

GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive » Time Gets a Little Right and Much Wrong about Marriage in America.

A Father’s Desperate Search for His Son | Dad-O-Matic

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children legal status, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, due process rights, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, kidnapped children, Marriage, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parentectomy, Parents rights on August 27, 2009 at 3:20 am

A Father’s Desperate Search for His Son

Liam smiling
I spoke to Chris Cuomo from ABC’s Good Morning America recently on behalf of Dad-O-matic. We talked about the Liam McCarty case. He’s the boy that was illegally taken by his mother to Italy, where he is supposedly living in an orphanage as a ward of the state, after his mother, Manuela Antonelli, was ruled unfit to maintain custody. Michael McCarty, 49, the father, has been trying to reunite with his son ever since he was taken but has been unsuccessful….And example of a growing trend of parental alienation cases.

Dad-O-matic
“Chris, what is the latest on this case?”

Chris Cuomo
“Liam’s whereabouts are somewhat of a mystery. He is supposedly living in an orphanage, but word is he is spending time with his maternal grandparents, even though his mother filed complaints against them…this is one slice of a very confounding tale.

Dad-O-matic
“Where is the father now? Is he there in Italy?”

Chris Cuomo
“No. And here is another slice. The father had been told to wait until the most recent evaluation of the child’s situation was complete. He says he was told it would take “a few weeks”, but it has been months. Also, he’s got a business here in the states, so he can’t afford to stop everything to go wait over there for who knows how long they’ll keep him waiting.”

Dad-O-matic
“How long has this been going on?”

Chris Cuomo
“Another slice…over 5 years. The mother and father have been at odds since Liam was only a few months old. Liam was shuttled back and forth between Italy and the U.S. The father has not seen his son since April, and the boy has been in Italy ever since the father was awarded custody in the U.S. in 2008. Liam is over 8 now

Dad-O-matic
“What is the primary reasons given by the Italian officials for keeping Liam separated from his father?”

Chris Cuomo
Our reporting is ongoing, and the Italian authorities are tight-lipped because there is ongoing litigation. Basically Italian authorities initially awarded the mother custody without much knowledge of the situation, according to the father. The officials ignored the U.S. legal custody determination on the son (Liam was born in italy but is a U.S. citizen because his father is, and he lived here over half his life). The mother made allegations of sexual abuse of the boy against the father in the us and in Italy. The U.S. had more than one agency review and found nothing. In fact, the false allegations played a role in the determination that the mother was unfit here in the us. The Italian officials also ignored all the documentation of the us review of the allegations and insisted on their own review. They, too, found no basis and the review once again contributed to a finding that the mother was unfit. Parental alienation is a developing phenomenon in the U.S. It is used as a bomb in custody situations. It started the father on the wrong path in Italy.

All this said, Liam is estranged from his father and is very hostile toward him. The father says this is from numerous interviews with doctors about abuse and brainwashing by his mother and her family. Whatever the reason, Liam has expressed a desire not to see his father.

Dad-O-matic
“So the father hasn’t been cleared or convicted of anything yet?”

Chris Cuomo
“That is also kind of unclear. All the reviews done in the us and in Italy have accused the father of no abuse, and there is even a finding from some level of the Italian court system awarding custody to the father…and yet he is still isolated from the son

Dad-O-matic
“So what else can the father do?”

Chris Cuomo
“He has no other choice but to wait now. Liam’s fate rests in the hands of the Italian judicial system now. He has appeared on many news casts and done a bunch of interviews. There’s even a website called “http://saveLiam.Org

Dad-O-matic
“What can we do about this?”

Chris Cuomo
“Let me be clear about this. I am not Liam’s advocate here. I merely want to find some answers, and as a parent, and frankly, as an attorney, I am motivated by the apparent inequities here…not to mention the absolute damage this poor kid has suffered. Things just aren’t adding up here. I think it’s sad that this boy has spent so much time away from both parents in a foreign country’s orphanage. We just need answers. And Liam needs to get placed with people who love him and some normalcy.

Dad-O-matic
“Can social media and social networks help?”

Chris Cuomo
“Yes, when you look at David Goldman, the father who is fighting for his son Sean, who was secreted by his now deceased mother to Brazil, and at Mike McCarty in this instance, and many other parents in similar situations around the world…we need to find out what good the Hague convention is and the respect of countries for it (one of the provisions demands return of a child within 6 weeks, when a host country makes a showing of wrongful removal)… perhaps if enough of us ask the right questions, then maybe we’ll get someone’s attention and finally get some answers that make some sense. The sad thing is that this happens a lot. There are over a thousand cases worldwide. This very well could happen to any one of us.
I think this would be a worthy cause to mobilize the troops online. Just like the people of Iran used twitter to spread the word to the world, maybe we can do the same here”

Here are some useful Resources that will keep you informed of the latest updates regarding Liam McCarty.

On twitter, use the hashtag #SaveLiam

Twitter’s search engine for everything about Liam

Official SaveLiam website that tracks everything regarding Liam’s case

FBI most wanted list for Liam’s mother

Interpol entry regarding Liam’s kidnapping

David Goldman’s Bring Sean Home website:  http://BringSeanHome.org

Related posts:

A Father’s Desperate Search for His Son | Dad-O-Matic.

Children are better off with both parents there

In Activism, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, custody, deadbeat dads, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Liberty, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders on August 20, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Children are better off with both parents there

The Daily News

Published: Thursday, August 20, 2009

Re: ‘Children’s interests first priority in divorce, says justice minister’ (Daily News, Aug. 18)

I read your article about our federal justice minister making comments to the Canadian Bar Association meeting in Dublin, Ireland.

Rob Nicholson is either being misquoted or appears to have little understanding of the legal effects of the divorce process.

It is not about the best interests of children versus fathering rights. It is in the best interests of children to have both parents in their lives, both father and mother. This fact has been adequately researched and documented for years.

Children perform better in all areas of their lives when they have a mother and father present in their upbringing. This is not to say that single-parent families are deficient, simply a statement about the ideal situation.

MP Maurice Vellacott’s Bill C-422 to entrench equal parenting in the Divorce Act is simply to make changes that Canadian society has overwhelmingly supported by 80-90% in numerous opinion polls since the early 1990s.

This bill does not reduce protection for children, but clarifies what the best interests of children are and that equal parenting needs to be the starting point unless other factors are existing. These other factors could be practical considerations such as work schedules, or the necessity of protecting “the child from physical and psychological harm through abuse, neglect or alienation of parental affection.”

This bill specifically directs judges to take these considerations into account. Kelowna lawyer Meg Shaw was way off the mark when she suggested that this bill would somehow diminish the protection children might receive when required. In fact, it would have the opposite effect.

Federal justice ministers for many years have been quoted as dismissing parental rights as either nonexistent or minimal (re: Martin Cauchon’s oft repeated 2002 statement of “Parents have responsibilities, they don’t have rights”). Putting the best interests of the child is not in any way in conflict with parents having rights and responsibilities. We all know that having responsibilities entails having the power to perform them, thus the necessity for parental rights.

Theo J. Boere

Nanaimo Men’s Resource Centre

Children are better off with both parents there.

Folks gather and organize, fearing ‘evil’ forces within the government are plotting to undermine families – syracuse.com

In Freedom, Liberty, Marriage, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parents rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on August 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm

Folks gather and organize, fearing ‘evil’ forces within the government are plotting to undermine families

by Delen Goldberg / The Post-Standard

Thursday August 20, 2009, 7:14 AM

Michael Kicinski (left) of Earlville, a member of the Chenango County/Norwich Tea Party Patriots, and his sons, Stephen Kicinski, 15, and Jonathan Kicinski, 12, hold signs at a CNY Patriot rally at Terry’s Transmissions, 6217 E. Taft Road, North Syracuse. Speakers at the rally supported the passage of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing parental rights.

The rain had just cleared Tuesday as a group of about 40 people filtered into the parking lot of Terry’s Transmissions in North Syracuse.

They carried flags and umbrellas and set up lawn chairs as the song “God Bless the USA” played over a loudspeaker. Homemade signs reading “No More Lies” and “Parents decide, not government” lined a podium.

The group, made up of grandfathers, soccer moms and teens, had gathered to hear speakers talk about two federal bills: The once-named GIVE Act, which establishes voluntary community service programs for students, seniors and veterans (and was signed into law by President Obama in April) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guarantees civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for children (and is still pending in Congress).

The patriots, as they call themselves, rallied against both, bolstered by fears that the bills would allow the government to indoctrinate their children and take them away. The crowd instead supports a proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the Constitution, which they say would counteract the U.N. treaty and guarantee parents the right to raise their kids as they see fit.

“Evil people will do anything evil you allow them to,” said speaker Eric Lansing, a recent college graduate from Purcellville, Va., who is regional coordinator for ParentalRights.org. “They’ll take advantage … until you stand up.

“The problem is, they (supporters) have not been exposed to the full text of the bill,” Lansing continued. “We happen to know what’s in the best interest of your children.”

The speakers cast their opponents as misguided and misinformed, but a good portion of the information they provided was incorrect.

Jennifer Blount, of Skaneateles, likened Obama’s community service groups to Nazi youth camps and slavery. In reality, the programs will be completely voluntary.

The GIVE Act, renamed as the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, authorizes about $6 billion in spending over the next five years to expand the number of AmeriCorps positions from 75,000 to 250,000 and create new community service programs for middle- and high-school students, senior citizens and other Americans. In return for service, volunteers will receive academic credits, educational stipends or other financial awards. Service would not be required for students taking school loans, another common misconception.

Lansing said the service bill Obama signed “was not as bad as it could have been, but there are still some awful things in there.” He correctly pointed out that service would not be mandatory, but added: “That could come.”

When asked by an audience member what “awful things” were included in the bill, Lansing deferred.

“I’m not sure about specifics,” he said. “It was a long time ago that I studied the bill.”

Dave Brewster Sr., of Canastota, characterized the bill as a way for the government “not just to control people, but to own them.” Brewster, who founded the conservative group, “United Strength of America,” also called Obama “our gangsta president” and a “street thug from Chicago.”

Several attendees worried out loud that the U.N. agreement would allow the United Nations to take away their children. But the agreement allows no such thing.

Article 5 reads: “Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family.”

Article 9 reads: “Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will.”

Instead, the convention is a legally binding international treaty that covers protection from abuse and exploitation and rights to adequate food, shelter, clean water, education and health care. Only two nations — the United States and Somalia — have yet to sign on.

The demonization of the two measures has been promoted by rightwing Web sites and talk radio that have stoked anti-tax tea parties and health-care town hall disruptions nationwide.

The people attending said they found out about the event through word of mouth, blogs and e-mails. Many took notes during the speakers’ lectures, and at least a few passed around printed material from conservative Web sites.

The patriots said they have put in requests for meetings with several local elected officials, including Rep. Dan Maffei, D-DeWitt, and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., to try to gain their support for a Parental Rights Amendment.

“We are sane people,” explained Lee Deyulio, of Baldwinsville. “We are not a bunch of rightwing nuts. We are not the enemy. We are just trying to save our country.”

Delen Goldberg can be reached at dgoldberg@syracuse.com or 470-2274.

// //

Folks gather and organize, fearing ‘evil’ forces within the government are plotting to undermine families – syracuse.com.

Feminists endowed with a superiority complex

In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Feminism, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Marriage, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parentectomy, Parents rights on August 12, 2009 at 6:22 pm

August 11, 2009

Feminists endowed with a superiority complex

By Carey Roberts

Taking the oath to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich,” Sonia Sotomayor was finally sworn in as the first Latina on the U.S. Supreme Court. No sooner had the kerfuffle surrounding her “wise Latina” remark subsided, when Carol Smith saw fit to pen this wise verdict in the New York Times: “In my experience, female bosses tend to be better managers, better advisers, mentors, rational thinkers.”

Not to be outdone, last week NPR analyst Cokie Roberts opined in the Washington Post, “Women tend to be a lot more commonsensical than men are” and admitted to hectoring her husband that “Men are just lesser beings.”

Call it whatever you want — female empowerment, turning the tables, girls letting off a little steam, whatever — it’s time to blow the whistle on feminist-inspired misandry.

For decades, male-bashing has been deemed an amusing side show in the Battle of the Sexes. Some consider it funny when an advertisement depicts a man maimed by his girlfriend. Others will say an abused man simply had it coming. (Think former NFL star Steve McNair, shot four times in his sleep by a jealous girlfriend — but no one could bring themselves to call it “domestic violence.”)

In recent years, gender supremacism has entered the mainstream of political discourse. Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan of Texas once declared, “I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have.”

And consider Hillary Clinton’s remark, “Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption.” Thank goodness we have ethical paragons like Hillary to show us out of the wilderness.

Sometimes pronouncements of women-as-uber-species approach the point of logical absurdity. Appearing on NPR radio, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona once gushed that women “get so much done because we make lists.” Somehow that sounds like the freakish musings of an obsessive-compulsive, not the reflections of a person trying to make the world a kinder, gentler place.

A February 5 editorial in the Christian Science Monitor announced grandly that “a woman leader governs differently than a man, bringing new perspectives and helping other women.”

I’m sure that came as a surprise to the men who worked long and hard to enact Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a bevy of other programs that primarily benefit women.

Sometimes the gender supremacists get downright ugly, lapsing into demagoguery to cast men as abusers, deadbeats, and batterers. If you want a real eye-opener, take a look at University of Michigan Catherine McKinnon’s writings. And don’t forget Valerie Solanas’ SCUM (Society for Cutting up Men) Manifesto.

Not all academics are enamored of the feminist antics. Professors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young of McGill University have written two scholarly tomes that probe the feminist dystopia. Their first book, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture, lamentably concludes “men are society’s official scapegoats and [should be] held responsible for all evil, including that done by the women they have deluded or intimidated.”

Their second work, Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systematic Discrimination Against Men, reveals how feminists have capitalized on their disdain for men to reshape policies in such wide-ranging areas as marriage, divorce, custody, and even employment.

Case in point is the recent revelation that President Obama’s stimulus plan is skewed to favor women, even though men in the manufacturing and construction industries have been hit hardest: www.renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/090723 .

America has a courageous record of drawing on our traditional notions of fairness and justice to confront supremacists in our midst.
We have faced down the bigots, the xenophobes, left-wing fascists, and race-baiters.

Now we must come to terms with the dark side of modern feminism, a movement that fosters contempt and scorn for men.

© Carey Roberts

Feminists endowed with a superiority complex.

‘No-fault’ divorce encourages people to take easy way out » Evansville Courier & Press

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Liberty, Marriage, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment on August 3, 2009 at 6:49 pm

No-fault’ divorce encourages people to take easy way out

By John Phillips

I have a friend whose spouse just filed for divorce. My friend does not want the divorce. However, I think in Indiana there is “no-fault” divorce. Does that mean that the divorce will happen if only one person wants it?

J.C., Evansville

I am sorry to hear about your friend’s situation. Unfortunately, the “no-fault” divorce law means just that. One party can dissolve the marriage even if the other one does not want to. California enacted this law in 1969 and it spread to other states. The family has had a terrible breakdown as a result. According to James Dobson, the number of divorces has increased 352 percent since.

Several states are taking another look at this law. It takes two people to commit to the marriage and two people should have to commit to the divorce. A spouse who does not want a divorce has lost the privilege of making a decision about the marriage. A marriage contract can be broken more easily than any other legal contract.

The intent of the law has been lost. Many argued to enact this legislation because it was believed that bitter custody battles could be avoided. However, the reality of the law is that it is unfair to the spouse who does not want to break the contract or split up the family.

In Indiana, it is too easy to get married and too easy to get divorced. Anyone over age 18 can get a marriage license with no waiting period or preparation. People wanting a driver’s license need to take a driving test. Gun licenses have a waiting period. It would be a good idea to require a waiting period for a marriage license and offer an incentive for marriage preparation.

It would be better for your friend if the law were changed to require both parties to agree to a divorce. If you feel strongly about this issue you could talk to your state senator and representatives.

John Phillips is executive director of Community Marriage Builders. He can be reached at john@makeitlast.org or (812) 477-2260.

‘No-fault’ divorce encourages people to take easy way out » Evansville Courier & Press.

Men are often silent victims of domestic violence – Family/Relationships – San Luis Obispo

In Child Custody, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, Civil Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Feminism, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, Liberty, Marriage, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine on July 31, 2009 at 4:28 pm

Thursday, Jul. 30, 2009

Men are often silent victims of domestic violence

| divorce360.com

On July 4, former NFL star Steve McNair was shot dead by a girlfriend. McNair, 36, a married man, was shot four times in his sleep on the Fourth of July by a girlfriend that was 16 years his junior. The girlfiend, Sahel Kazemi, then killed herself. According to the police, Kazemi was upset about financial problems and believed that McNair was seeing someone else.

According to the Department of Justice report on the National Violence Against Women Survey, nearly 900,000 men are victims of physical violence by a domestic partner. That roughly translates to a man being beaten every 38 seconds. The government counts both heterosexual and homosexual male victims of abuse in the study.

In general, the gender breakdown of callers to the National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH) is 85 percent women to 15 percent men. From 2003 to present, male victims calling the hotline represent a mere 2.41 percent of all calls. Even so, NDVH have recorded calls for help from 19,046 men in that five-year period.

“Many male victims/survivors do not report or discuss the abuse against them,” says Emily Toothman, a spokesperson for the NDVH. “In light of this, these numbers should not be used as an extensive study of male domestic violence victims in our country. However, I hope these numbers offer some insight into this relatively unidentified population.”

Of the men living with abusive women, most do not report incidents of abuse to police unless the injury is significant enough to result in emergency medical care. The primary reason for non-reporting is shame. Because of this trend, scientific studies by a number of renowned universities and social agencies, and governmental departments such as the Department of Justice, uncover a better picture of this victim group than police and court records.

Studies show that men are more likely to be hit with an object or stabbed while women are more likely to be hit with a fist, kicked or shot. While abused men remain in the relationship for many reasons, the top three reasons, according to the Department of Justice report are:

1. Protecting their children.

Fearing the courts will automatically give custody to the mother, the father worries that his children will be abused if they leave the family home.

2. Assuming blame.

In this situation, men buy into the woman’s reasons for delivering abuse rather than recognizing the abuse is unreasonable. This trait is common among both women and men.

3. Dependency.

The man is dependent on the woman for financial, social, or emotional support and fears the loss of such if he leaves the relationship. This trait, too, is shared between women and men suffering abuse.

“The good news is that organizations like the NDVH help both men and women. We can even direct men to support groups and help lines in their own communities,” says Patty Perez, spokesperson for the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

The toll free number for the National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH) is 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), and the web site address for more information is http://www.ndvh.org/.

Visit divorce360.com for help before, during and after divorce.

Men are often silent victims of domestic violence – Family/Relationships – San Luis Obispo.

The Penny King’s Open Letter to Teri Stoddard of Concord California – Associated Content 1

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, children criminals, children legal status, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, custody, deadbeat dads, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Feminism, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Marriage, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parents rights, Restraining Orders, Teri C. Stoddard, Teri Stoddard on July 29, 2009 at 6:13 pm

Family Rights and Shared Parenting Advocate Called on Carpet for Carping Criticism of Children’s and Fathers Rights Article!

“I was hoping you were a writer I could promote. Then you said that being fatherless can lead to being gay. I’ve read enough… ” Teri Stoddard at Associated Content
in a comment to Alex S. Gabor on an article related to a $100 Billion Fathers and Children’s Rights Class Action Lawsuit Being Developed by “The Penny King.

She writes about children, mothers, fathers, child custody, family law reform, families, parents rights, civil rights, parental alienation, false accusations, domestic violence policy reform, but so far has only published 18 articles, has less than a handful of friends, and by posting some negative comments about an article written by this author, it has triggered the following letter from the Penny King which I, his exclusive scribe have written out for the general public to read as a matter of historical record.

“I see you being an activist but highly ineffective…prove me wrong, please!

“Children deserve fully functioning, natural, loving, dedicated relationships with both of their parents, I infinitely agree with you, but where is the balance between father’s rights, mother’s rights, children’s rights, human rights and humanocracy?

“Justice is about balancing life to serve us with equal rights and you have to admit the scales have been tipped in the wrong weighting toward denying children their rights to see their fathers, denying fathers their rights to see their children, and the subsequent consequence of denying more than one person their human rights in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, except that women somehow have managed to convince the court systems in America that have penis leads to less than a humanocratic system of parental and children’s rights.

In response to her cutting remarks,”The Penny King” sent her the following text privately but he has given me permission to publish this response here online at Associated Content.

The Penny King’s Open Letter to Teri Stoddard of Concord California – Associated Content.

————————————————————————

Maybe you don’t know about my single parent group with over 6800 members, where I have single-handedly taught man-hating women the truth about marginalized fathers. They tell me themselves that I have opened their eyes. Guess you haven’t read any of my articles about Karl Hindle and the corruption in the State Dept that kept him from protecting his daughter, who is now blind in one eye. There’s this thing called google…since you know my name…use it. Good writers do their research before they start typing.

Posted on 07/12/2009 at 8:07:17 PM

You think my work is useless? Tell that to the father in Australia who I saved from suicide. I put his story on Blogcritics. Tell it to the father in northern California who recently took down the website that outlined his plans to commit suicide, after I put him in touch with a local activist who gave him hope. Funny, I don’t remember seeing you in Sacramento in 2005 when I testified for the CA Shared Parenting bill. Nor did I see you the day I lobbied for the bill with CA parents, including a widow whose husband killed himself after a judge refused to reunite him with his daughters, even after admitting the courts had made the mistake of not recognizing the parental alientation that had gone on for 10 years. Maybe you need to step away from your computer and get a new hobby. Because you’ve really lost touch with reality. And let’s get real here… who are you to decide if a writer is helping anyone or not? You don’t know anything about me except what you see on AC. Bet you

Posted on 07/12/2009 at 8:07:53 PM

I suggest that you stop writing libelous comments. Funny how there is no link to these imaginary comments you say that I wrote. I have never, and would never write that being fatherless leads to being gay. Where the hell did you get that idea? As far as how many articles I have on AC, is this some sort of popularity contest? Try googling my name. I write on examiner.com, my own blogs and on many other online publications, not just AC. Find someone else to lie about, because I won’t put up with it. You now have no credibility.

Posted on 07/12/2009 at 8:07:21 PM

Teri Stoddard – A Legend in Her Own Mind!

Duncan: Do parents have right to educate? » Knoxville News Sentinel

In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, Childrens Rights, Christian, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Freedom, Homeschool, Liberty, Marriage, National Parents Day, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment on July 28, 2009 at 5:36 pm

* Heather Duncan, community@knoxnews.com

* Posted July 28, 2009 at midnight

A crucial question will soon face parents if present United Nations initiatives gain acceptance in the United States: Who inherently has the right to educate your child, the state or the parent?

Barring a consti-tutional amendment, America could soon follow the path of several member nations that have already abdicated to the state the right of parents to choose the direction of their children’s educations.

How might our country’s founders have weighed in on this question? Could they have envisioned a time when the rights of parents to raise and educate their children would need protection under the law?

Dr. Erich Potter, Tennessee director of parentalrights.org, says no. “Parental rights are assumed but not implicit in the Constitution. It would not have occurred to anyone (at that time) to ask, ‘Should parents have the right to raise their children?’ ”

However, what might seem like a fundamental right is quickly losing ground around the world, and organizations such as parentalrights.org are trying to sound the alarm that the United States may be following suit.

Currently every state in the U.S. allows parents to homeschool, with differing guidelines; not so in other nations. Countries such as Germany have outlawed home education altogether and other countries have begun to limit these freedoms. Some U.S. lawmakers are worried that there is a growing threat to homeschooling in the U.S. because of preference for international law.

“There are even State Department lawyers who believe that international law trumps American law,” says Potter.

Then consider the recent announcement by U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that our federal government will consider ratifying the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention guarantees various rights for minor children, including “freedom of information” which includes the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds … through any other media of the child’s choice.”

In speaking for the U.N., Geraldine Van Bueren at The University of London writes, “The Children’s Convention potentially protects the rights of the child who philosophically disagrees with the parents’ educational goals.”

Just last month, the Children’s Secretary of Great Britain accepted a report which referred to this article as justification for the forced registering of all 80,000 homeschoolers in the U.K. and the authority of government officials to enter the home of these families at any time to question the child alone regarding his or her education.

Because Article VI of the U.S. Constitution binds us to any international treaty we make, a Parental Rights Amendment to the Constitution is being introduced in Congress that will cancel out any treaty that would attempt to infringe upon the rights of parents to direct the upbringing and the education of their children.

For more information, go to www.parentalrights.

Heather Duncan is a homeschooling mother and freelance contributor to the News Sentinel.

via Duncan: Do parents have right to educate? » Knoxville News Sentinel.

Feminist Opponents of Shared Parenting Get It Right in Parental Alienation/Abuse Accusation Case :: Glenn Sacks on MND

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Feminism, Freedom, Glenn Sacks, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Marriage, Michael Murphy, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine on July 28, 2009 at 5:24 pm

By Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families | Jul 27, 2009

pas-case-joyce-murphyThe Feminist Family Law Movement claims that abusive fathers often employ Parental Alienation as a way to wrest custody from protective mothers in family court. They push for reforms which will make it easier to deny fathers shared custody or visitation rights based on unsubstantiated abuse claims. They also push for laws to exclude evidence of Parental Alienation in family law proceedings.

The FFLM has promoted several cause celebre cases in recent years as a way to garner public sympathy and political support for their agenda. I’ve investigated many of these cases and have found the FFLM’s claims about them to be very inaccurate. I detailed several of these, including the high-profile Genia Shockome and Sadia Loeliger cases, in a co-authored column here.

The most recent of the FFLM’s cause celebres cases is the Holly Collins case. Collins fled to Holland with her two children in 1993, claiming that her husband had abused the children and that she needed to flee to protect them. Last year I appeared on a Fox national TV show with Geraldo Rivera and Jennifer Collins, Holly’s 24-year-old daughter who supports her mother’s version of events. Jennifer Collins claims she’s a victim of her father’s false claims of Parental Alienation.

At the time of the TV show, which can be seen here, I thought it might be another fake case, but I also thought it might well be true. As I’ve said and written numerous times, I’ve never doubted that such cases are possible, though they’re not very common. For example, in my co-authored column Protect Children from Alienation (Providence Journal, 7/8/06), I wrote:

[T]here are fathers who have alienated their own children through their abuse or personality defects, and who attempt to shift the blame to their children’s mothers by falsely claiming PAS. Yet parental alienation is a common, well-documented phenomenon. For example, a longitudinal study published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 “high conflict” divorce cases over a 12 year period and found that elements of PAS were present in the vast majority of the cases studied.

As the Holly Collins case continued to grow in prominence, I asked for a volunteer who would help me investigate it, then I decided to go ahead and investigate it myself.

In January I wrote a detailed, 10,000 word analysis of the case which cited all of the case’s key court records, documents, etc. This analysis can be found here.

Upon investigation it became very apparent that what we were told by Holly, Jennifer, and their allies about the Holly Collins case was very inaccurate. Subsequent to my investigation, Holly and Jennifer Collins (pictured above on Inside Edition last year) and their FFLM allies have endlessly vilified me on the Internet. However, despite the fact that Jennifer has repeatedly written that she has all of the court documents from her mother’s case in her possession, neither Holly nor Jennifer nor their allies have done the obvious–go through the 30 separate problems I detail with Holly’s version of events and attempt to debunk them one by one.

I would add that from the moment I wrote up my analysis of each of these three cases–Loeliger (here), Shockome (here), and Collins (here)–not one of these previously prominent cases has received even a small bit of mainstream media attention.

The new Joyce Murphy case, however, is different. From 10News I-Team Reporter Lauren Reynolds’ La Jolla Mom Says She Kidnapped Daughter To Protect Her:

Joyce Murphy…is a 20-year employee of the University of California, San Diego, and was married to Henry Parson when her daughter was born…as their child grew, Murphy said, her husband’s behavior became disturbing.

“He would wake me up at two o’clock in the morning, tell me about pornography he’d seen and wanted to reenact, and it was pornography about kids.”

She became frightened of his post traumatic stress disorder from his tour in Vietnam, which included a story about raping villagers. She filed for divorce in 2002 when her daughter was 6.

A battle ensued in San Diego County Family Court over custody of the little girl.

Murphy claimed that her daughter was afraid of Parson.

“She would cry if she had to be left with him,” said Murphy.

The young girl told a doctor that when Parson was angry he pushed down on her shoulders and injured her. The doctor reported it to Child Protective Service, which Murphy said termed the incident inconclusive…

Parsons was granted immediate overnight visits.

“And I just broke,” said Murphy. “I thought, either I go to jail or I protect my child. It was like a primal instinct.”

Murphy took her daughter and ran. She was arrested in Florida, brought to San Diego and tossed in jail.

She eventually pleaded no contest to felony kidnapping, accepting the charge without admitting guilt. She was placed on probation…

“And I thought, all I’m trying to do is protect my little girl from someone I know is a danger,” said Murphy.

So she waited and worried for six years, until a call last November. Murphy had to pick up her daughter, because another young girl had bravely come forward, accusing Parson of molesting her. Parson was now the one behind bars…

The criminal complaint charges Parson with hurting three girls, two of them younger than 14 years old. The charges include oral sex with a child, molestation, possessing child porn and using a child to make porn.

A report from the District Attorney’s Office said, “The defendant’s computers and camera were seized … revealed numerous photographs of young girls.”

Using those photographs, an Oceanside police officer was able to identify and speak with one of the girls, which led to more charges against Parson.

Joyce Murphy feels vindicated, but it’s bittersweet.

“I blame the entire family court system,” she said, “because they are not held accountable”…

Joyce Murphy said Family Court’s only good decision in her case was granting her full permanent custody of her daughter after her ex husband was jailed.

Henry Parson’s daughter is not one of the victims alleged in the criminal complaint.

The full article is here. According to this subsequent report, Parsons pled guilty to the charges and awaits sentencing. Murphy is pictured at the top of this blog post.

One of the organizations which supports Murphy is Stop Family Violence. We have clashed with them repeatedly over the years, including:

During our successful campaign against PBS’ anti-father documentary Breaking the Silence, Irene Weiser of Stop Family Violence (along with the National Organization for Women) urged supporters to counter our protest by calling PBS in support of the program.

Weiser and NOW’s Marcia Pappas countered my co-authored column NOW at 40: Group’s Opposition to Shared Parenting Contradicts Its Goal of Gender Equality (New York Daily News, 7/27/06) with their op-ed Fathers’ Responsibilities Before Fathers’ Rights.

Stop Family Violence publicly supported Genia Shockome and Holly Collins.

Stop Family Violence, to their credit, did get it right on Joyce Murphy–here’s their write-up.

In Murphy’s recent testimony to California legislators, she said the problem in her case was her ex-husband’s repeated claims of Parental Alienation. The real problem is that, in part because there are so many false accusations and unnecessarily contentious custody cases, courts don’t have the time to properly investigate charges of abuse. Often they simply default against the accused (usually the father). At other times, they suspect the mother’s allegations but don’t thoroughly investigate them, instead defaulting against her claims.

Lorna Alksne, the supervising judge of the San Diego County Family Court, told the reporter writing about the Murphy case that “each judge must juggle between 200 and 300 cases every month. She said the judges read before work, after work and during breaks to be prepared for their full day of hearings.”

What’s needed is a system which properly and impartially investigates claims, so that children like Murphy’s daughter are protected, but women like Shockome and Collins are unable to use false claims to drive their ex-husbands out of their children’s lives.

Organizations like Stop Family Violence could play a positive role here by actively counseling women not to make false claims–claims which can lead courts to suspect or not act on the accusations made by legitimately protective mothers like Joyce Murphy. And one way for Stop Family Violence to start would be to publicly disavow false accusers such as Collins, Loeliger, and Shockome.

Feminist Opponents of Shared Parenting Get It Right in Parental Alienation/Abuse Accusation Case :: Glenn Sacks on MND.

Parental Rights Amendment Reaches 110 Co-Sponsors

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, California Parental Rights Amendment, Child Custody, Child Support, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Freedom, HIPAA Law, Homeschool, kidnapped children, Liberty, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment on July 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm

New CoSponsors in the House – and Senate!

This morning, in conjunction with Representative Hoekstra’s office, we proudly sent out the following press release:

Parental Rights Amendment Reaches 110 Co-Sponsors

Grassroots Movement behind Effort to Ensure Parents’ Rights to Raise their Children

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE / July 27, 2009 / Washington, D.C. – A Constitutional Amendment to protect the parent-child relationship introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, has reached 110 co-sponsors in the House.

“More and more members of Congress are recognizing the threat from government and foreign interference into the parent-child relationship,” Hoekstra said. “I encourage my colleagues to support the initiative by co-sponsoring the Parents’ Rights Amendment.”

The Parental Rights Amendment (H.J.Res.42) would state explicitly in the U.S. Constitution that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, while protecting against abuse and neglect. Threats to the parent-child relationship include potential Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and the erosion of fundamental parental rights in our federal courts.

“Just about every member of Congress agrees with the legal principle that parents have the fundamental right to make decisions for the upbringing of their children,” said Michael Farris, J.D., president of Parentalrights.org. “Because of international law and shifting judicial philosophies, the right is being steadily undermined. We now have 110 members of Congress with the foresight to say that we need to protect this long-standing right before the erosion goes too far. We appreciate the leadership of Pete Hoekstra and the 109 other members of Congress who believe that it is important to secure the rights of American families for generations to come.”

More information on the Parental Rights Amendment can be viewed at http://www.parentalrights.org.

More Good News

In addition, we also received word that Senator Coburn of Oklahoma has signed on as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 16, the Parental Rights Amendment in the Senate. This brings our total in the Senate to three (3) – a slow but important start.

While there is no way to track the direct effects of your calls and emails and our visits last week, it is safe to assume that at least some of these cosponsors would not have signed on before the summer break without this contact. When we visited Congress last week, everyone we spoke to was already aware of the Amendment – a major change from just four months ago! Our thanks and congratulations to you for your efforts to bring this vital issue to the attention of your Senators and Congressmen. With help like yours, we will win!

Domestic Violence Against Men, Women and Children

In due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fathers rights, Feminism, Freedom, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parentectomy, Parents rights on July 25, 2009 at 12:00 pm

The National Fathers’ Resource Center and Fathers for Equal Rights is adamant in its belief that Domestic Violence cannot be tolerated. The NFRC and FER also demands that the society acknowledge that Domestic Violence is an equal problem for both genders.

FACT: 50% or more of domestic violence (spouse or “significant other” assaults) are perpetrated by women. This is confirmed by hundreds of valid studies, the authors of which are sometimes threatened with discontinuation of funding for being politically incorrect (this means saying what powerful people don’t want to hear). Part of the poison that the women’s groups spew is the blatantly false allegation that 95% of DV is perpetrated by men against women. The women’s groups have promoted this lie for so long now, many people, including men, actually believe it. Even the Office of Violence Against Women has shown 34% of DV is against men.

Nevertheless, the radical feminist groups have been working overtime for many years to promote the libelous propaganda that men are violent towards women and children and can’t be trusted. If a lie is repeated often enough, people start believing it. And in fact, most of the policy makers in American society have bought into the lie. One result is millions of dollars of our tax money funneled to domestic violence shelters (read: women’s shelters) and other related programs. Another result of this pernicious libel is seen in domestic violence laws that presume that men are the primary aggressors. We all know that if mom calls 911, dad will be arrested. If dad calls 911, dad will be arrested. Fathers, grandfathers, husbands, boyfriends, are all portrayed by shelter spokespersons as being untrustworthy (unless of course they need to be sent to war.)

The National Fathers’ Resource Center and Fathers for Equal Rights demands that society acknowledge that false claims of Domestic Violence is used to gain unfair advantage in custody and divorce cases.

Fathers’ organizations now estimate that up to 80% of domestic violence allegations against men are false allegations. Since society offers women so many perks for claiming that they are victims of DV (we call these perks “warm milk and cookies”), false or staged DV allegations now appear to be even more frequent in family court cases than false sex abuse allegations. And they are much easier to fabricate. Mom can simply scratch her arm with her fingernail and claim that dad did it to her! Many men plead “no contest” to these allegations, often because they cannot afford good legal representation. What father, who has been kicked out of his house, estranged from his children, paying exorbitant child support and spousal support, and may lose his job if convicted of domestic violence, can afford good legal representation, both in family court and in criminal court? So, he rolls over and pleads “no contest,” which of course is the kiss of death in his custody case. It may also keep him from owning a gun, including a rifle or shotgun for hunting purposes, and in many cases it has resulted in good police officers losing their jobs (because they can’t carry a gun) or even soldiers being dismissed from the military, because they too are often prohibited from using firearms.

The domestic violence industry was hijacked by the feminists around 30 years ago, however perhaps the most damaging process took place some 15 years ago, namely the “fusing” of the domestic violence industry with the divorce industry. Simply stated, women know, and are often advised by their attorneys, that if they want to get custody of the children, they had better try to nail dad with some sort of domestic violence accusation. In many states, that alone will nail the coffin. Dad will be labeled a perpetrator, will lose custody of his children, will be placed under supervised visitation with his children, will often pay mom’s attorney fees and court costs, will be ordered to pay alimony, will be forced to pay for and attend “anger management” or “batterers” classes often lasting 36 weeks, and will be required by the court to send financial contributions to the local women’s shelter. (This reminds one of the Nazi practices of forcing Jews to purchase tickets for their own “train rides” to death camps.) Keep in mind, the domestic violence allegation against dad does not have to be true, it only has to sound plausible for it to stick, and we see the devastating success of the poisonous propaganda. Goebbels couldn’t have orchestrated it better.

Texas Fathers for Equal Rights is adamant in its belief that child abuse in general cannot be tolerated; and child sexual abuse, in particular, is among the most heinous of deeds. Sexual abusers of children must be exposed for their criminal acts. The guilty must be punished, and children must be protected from their aggressors.

FACT: According to nationwide CPS statistics, the largest percentage of child abuse/neglect is perpetrated by the mother, acting alone. Remember Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, Darlie Routier? Fathers are far less likely to be child abuse/neglect perpetrators. In other words, children are safer from child abuse/neglect with their fathers than with their mothers.

A college study asked male and female students if they had a sexual experience before age 15 with a person 5 or more years older. The results were that 59% of the students were molested by a female. Of male college students surveyed, 43 – 60% report being sexually victimized by females.

The National Fathers’ Resource Center and Fathers for Equal Rights demands that state and federal laws that severely punish those who make false claims of Domestic Violence.

The guilty must be punished-that is those who commit the act and those who falsely accuse spouses to gain advantage in divorce.

The National Fathers’ Resource Center and Fathers for Equal Rights wants to share information and remove stereo types connected with Domestic Violence.

Knowledge is power. And that is the purpose this section on domestic violence. Learn how the domestic violence industry thinks and works. Learn how they deceive the lawmakers and the public, and study the techniques they use. Learn about their collaborators in the police departments, the prosecutors’ offices, the federally funded legal services programs, and in the courtrooms. Follow the money trail, and discover who is enriched by the mass demonization and criminalization of men and fathers. Prevention is best, but if you are facing a false domestic violence accusation, we want you to have the knowledge and tools to fight it most effectively and to protect the right of your children to have a positive, healthy, and meaningful relationship with you, their nurturing and protective father.

Domestic Violence

California Family-law Makeover

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, cps fraud, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Feminism, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Sociopath on July 23, 2009 at 8:12 pm

Family-law makeover

Opponents of California’s family-law system take their battle to the Legislature
By Ted Cox
More stories by this author…
Read 26 reader submitted comments

This article was published on 06.25.09.

Michael Newdow thinks California’s family-law courts are broken. He’s not alone.

PHOTO BY KYLE MONK

Michael Newdow is no stranger to controversy. First, in 2000, he filed a lawsuit against the Elk Grove Unified School District in an attempt to ban the Pledge of Allegiance, arguing that the phrase “under God” was an endorsement of religion. Then, in 2006, he attempted to have “In God We Trust” removed from U.S. currency. At the end of 2008, Newdow filed a suit to keep Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. from uttering “so help me God” at the conclusion of President Barack Obama’s inaugural oath.

For various reasons, all three lawsuits were dismissed. But that hasn’t kept him from focusing on a new target: the family-law system.

“The entire family-law system is unconstitutional,” Newdow told SN&R. “It deprives people of their rights to their relationships with their children.”

In 2005, 2006 and 2007 Newdow informed the speaker of the Assembly of his intent to file suit under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 526(a), which allows taxpayers to file grievances against government waste.

“You waste incredible amounts of money,” said Newdow. “People spend millions of dollars—literally—on individual cases that should be going towards the family.”

The complaint names as defendants California Superior Court Judge James Mize, Presiding Judge Eugene Balanon, State Attorney General Edmund Brown, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Controller John Chiang.

But when Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg’s office responded to his notice, suggesting that Newdow send his complaint to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he decided to hold off. In the meantime, he’s looking for additional plaintiffs.

“Maybe I’ll file it anyway,” Newdow said. “I doubt the Legislature will do what I want.”

Newdow believes that pitting two parents against each other from the outset of custody cases just sets the stage for trouble.

“My argument is that that’s why we have custody battles and custody wars, because we set things up to be that way,” he said.

Like Newdow’s previous cases, the chance that he could revamp the family-court system by way of a taxpayer complaint is a long shot. But reform is needed; ask just about anyone who’s trudged through the legal muck of child-custody disputes, and you’re certain to hear a horror story.

Connie Valentine is a founding member and current policy director of the Sacramento-based California Protective Parents Association. CPPA was formed 10 years ago partly to deal with what she calls abuses in the family-court system. In those 10 years, Valentine’s organization has assisted with thousands of cases. She said that the biggest problem in family-law court is a lack of oversight.

“When there’s no effective oversight, things fester and abuse of power can occur without any ability to change it,” she said. “The reason that there is no effective oversight is that most of the people who are involved in family court do not have lawyers. And if you do not have a lawyer, that means you don’t have money.”

Having no money in the family-court system, explained Valentine, means you can’t file costly appeals to challenge court rulings.

Valentine said that a second pressing problem is the unregulated cottage industry of mediators and other professionals who hold enormous sway over court rulings.

“The court has, in good faith, decided that they need assistance,” Valentine noted. “One judge is not enough to handle all the problems that they’re seeing.” The solution has been to hire mediators that hear cases and make recommendations to the court. “Now if it’s a good mediator, that may not be such a bad thing if they’re balanced and unbiased,” she continued. “But if you happen to have a bad mediator who’s biased and decides they like one person over the other—because of their looks or their gender or their persuasiveness—then you’ve got big problems, because the judges rely tremendously on their mediators.”

Another problem, said Valentine, is that children often don’t have a direct say in custody cases. Instead, attorneys report on behalf of minors. Oftentimes what the attorneys report conflicts with what the children themselves say. The solution is to let children speak directly with the judge.

“A 4-year-old in criminal court can testify against their abusers,” Valentine said. “We can certainly take children and talk to them in family court.”

Family-law attorney Barbara Kauffman feels another problem is a lack of uniform training in domestic-violence and child-abuse issues among judges and court appointees. “There are theories being taught that are all over the map,” she said.

Kauffman recounted one instance where she sat in on a training session taught by a fathers’ rights advocate. Judges and mediators were in attendance. “He was spouting off about how most domestic violence is mutual. And [the judges and mediators] were just sitting there raptly listening to this.”

Efforts are underway to fix these and many other problems.

State Sen. Mark Leno has asked the Legislature’s Joint Legal Audit Committee to investigate Sacramento and several other counties’ family courts. The audit will look at, among other things, the criteria used to assign mediators to cases.

Assembly Bill 612, sponsored by Jim Beall, would eliminate the use of controversial theories—namely Parental Alienation Syndrome—from family-court proceedings. Adherents of PAS argue that one parent alienates their child against the other. PAS opponents argue the theory is unscientific and is often used to place children into the hands of abusers.

A.B. 375 would prohibit courts from using last-minute ex parte hearings to determine child custody, except in cases where the child is in immediate danger.

A.B. 1050 “would require the family court to consider and give due weight to the wishes of a child in making an order granting or modifying custody, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation.”

Of course, reforming the system itself isn’t the only problem. As Kauffman, puts it, “In family law, everybody’s on their worst behavior. There is an incentive to lie about finances, about children.”

With attorneys, mediators and child psychologists collectively raking in millions of dollars in fees for their services, there’s an invested interest in making custody cases as nasty as possible.

Newdow’s case, even if it seems far-fetched, may simply be effective in the way it calls attention to a broken court system.

“The things that happen to these people are absolutely horrific, but it’s such a typical thing. That’s what’s so amazing,” said Newdow.

At stake here is more than just winning legal battles.

“Every parent, if you gave them the choice of being paraded around naked on a leash or losing their right to be a parent to their kid, all of [them] would say, ‘Hey, take my clothes off right now,’” said Newdow.

Contact us about this story

RELATED LINKS:

SN&R > Local Stories > Family-law makeover > 06.25.09.