Disenfranchised Conservative Fathers – Keep Fighting

Those of us who have suffered oppressive government and the child support bureaucracy; (anti) family court, judicial denial of parental rights and ultimately all or our rights, denial of free speech, and vilification as “deadbeats” for being “beat dead” and disenfranchised by the system are not surprised that this system has grown to do the same to others. Us Conservatives activist father and family advocates had 4 years to bring the issue of Title IVd and the disenfranchisement of fathers to the attention of the Trump administration and we failed. But make no mistake that while the “right” ignores us the radical left, part of this new administration, is out to destroy us. BLM, Antifa, and socialist democrats ALL have Marxist anti family positions which will make it worse for men/fathers/families. We need to continue to fight back.

Conservatives need to be like Father and Family Activists have been for the past 30 years and realize the battle continues daily. Perhaps it is my 25+ years of advocacy for parental rights which has me see the recent elections more as a minor loss of a battle than the loss of the war, for indeed, the battle continues and the war is lost only if we surrender and fail to protect the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, daily, weekly 24/7/365 year after year.  And to this end I believe that the recent fraudulent election has revealed who is the enemy and also awakened the great army of American Citizen’s who believe in individual rights and responsibilities granted to us by God.

We should recognize that the Presidency was not lost but stolen in a fraudulent election due to unconstitutional changes to methods and manners of voting in the swing states combined with flagrant ballot stuffing and other irregularities.  But this is correctable as the state legislatures can meet and change these rules. We need to begin this process immediately.  In states with Governors or elective bodies that refuse we need to push a grass roots voting effort to primary them out of office or win outright in general elections. STATES SHOULD MANDATE IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS THAT EACH LEGISLATURE MEET AND AUTHORIZE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THAT STATE! This will allow them to investigate and stop fraud in the future.

The “President Elect” is a tottering old fool and a career outlaw politician.  Certainly the VP will be looking to replace him, the timing and method of which is bound to cause division in their ranks.  Conservatives need to hold this administration accountable and keep the pressure on it for every one of its failures and for every attempt to violate the rights of Citizen’s.  Let there be no public appearance by any of their representatives which does not receive a rally in opposition.  Pitch the socialist democrats against the “moderates”, Antifa and BLM have no love of this “President”.  Use their own methods against them where legal.

The Judicial system has failed us and the Constitution.  Federal Judges readily legislate from the bench but when called upon to determine Constitutionality they took a pass, to the last using procedural maneuvers to dismiss election lawsuits to delay past the counting of the electoral votes.  The Supreme Court shamefully dismissed a suit filed by one state against another.  As the court of original jurisdiction they were bound by federal law to address the case but they too used procedural maneuvers to dismiss the case.  What good is a “Conservative Court” if they don’t act? We need to put pressure on the Judiciary and when they act political we need to call them out and protest their actions.

The election has also outed the milquetoast RINO’s who failed to support our President in battling the fraud.  They further paint all Trump supporters at the rally with a broad brush of guilt for the actions of a very few individuals, and these few infiltrated by Antifa thugs.  They now present themselves as “peacemakers” to bring the nation together.  Wishing to be recognized as doves they are serpents, traitors to true Conservatives and supporters of the Constitution.  ALL patriots should withhold their donations from the National Republican Party and donate directly to true Conservative Republicans.  And they need to be DRIVEN FROM OFFICE IN PRIMARIES.

While we have lost the Senate, most likely to another fraudulent election, and failed to gain the house the promised “big blue wave” never materialized.  Their majority is a slim majority.  While they may kill the filibuster and pack the supreme court these actions will only serve to further alienate them from the American Citizen’s, the majority of which do not support that. There are 34 U.S. Senate seats up for a vote in 2022 and we need to dump the RINO’s in primaries and win 17 general elections a a minimum. And with a slim dem majority in the house Conservative Republican control is a reality.  

To this end THE ELECTION NEEDS TO START TODAY.  Find and support true conservative candidates and donate your time and money to get them elected.  We also need to look to make gains in putting true Conservative Republican’s in control of state houses and Governorships.  Primary out the globalists like the Secretary of State and Governor in Georgia and replace them with true Conservatives.  

Unlike the tea party which pushed the Republicans to do right then fizzled due to lack of a national leader, this movement has a leader in Donald J. Trump.  He has committed to continuing the fight to drain the swamp and his loyalty to us deserves loyalty back.  Additionally, this movement isn’t a one horse show with up and coming leaders showing their mettle; DeSantis, Gaetz, Jordan, and many others come immediately to mind.  Should President Trump decide not to run in 2024 we have a large field of true Conservative Republican’s to choose from.  We need to fully support and fund their political activities.

Fire fake news.  Sites like Epoch Times, One America News, Tucker Carlson, and The Bongino Report among others needs to be our go to sources of information.  Fire twitter, facebook, and youtube TODAY and replace them with Rumble and Parler.  As I write this Google has removed Parler’s app and Apple is doing the same.  Amazon is throwing them off their server.  Once they have rebuilt on another server you can use your browser to go to and get on them direct.  Use DuckDuckGo as your search engine and get a Virtual Privacy Network (VPN), I use Express VPN.  We need to develop more Conservative American businesses such as banks, credit card companies, and manufacturing with direct internet sales so we can break ourselves from the monopoly of globalist monopolies like Amazon and Walmart.  BUY LOCAL AND BUY AMERICAN! As consumers we can vote with our purchases and dollars.

Republican states need to follow the lead of Florida and Governor DeSantis regarding the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Virus.  Open schools, churches and businesses and get the Conservative states economies moving.  NO MORE LOCK DOWNS AND CLOSURES! Resist any and all actions by the federal government to restrict the Citizen’s of your state.  High risk people (like me) can hunker down until the vaccine is widely available but there’s no reason to restrict young healthy people.  States, like NY and CA are seeing people fleeing those states, let them stay locked down and accept the industries and businesses which are fleeing the arbitrary closures.

The assault on President Trump may be a blessing in disguise.  From spying on a candidate and then a sitting President to the Russia Hoax and special prosector then impeachment, the CCP Virus and illegal restrictions on Citizen’s, and finally a fraudulent election, A COUP, to remove the President we now know how far the globalists will go to undermine America and more importantly they have all exposed themselves. They showed their tolerance for violence in the acceptance and encouragement of rioting, burning and looting, which they then portray as “mostly peaceful protests”.  They use their echo chamber and propaganda machine to blame conservatives for what they are doing in an attempt to re-write history, a system of lies and deceit which would make any communist proud.  

Make no mistake, we are in an information, government control, and violent civil disobedience civil war to take down the U.S. Constitution and insert a globalist oligarchy controlled in the U.S. by home grown oligarch’s and social democrat political elites.  They get rich and have freedoms we don’t, rules for thee but not for me, this while the middle class disappears and the poor get poorer as their numbers increase making more people dependent on government. They will use violence against you, including the violence of non prosecution of your attackers and prosecution of you for defending yourself.  While I’m not supporting violence and uncivil actions, we need to recognize we need to play the game by the rules in force and not back down from violence and stand up to uncivil acts with our own civil disobedience.  We need to give as good as we get.  And if we stay the course we can get the U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the Rule of Law, and America back again.  

Jay Hamilton

Remembering Wiley Dobbs – FaFNY Volunteer of the Year

It was 13 years ago, May 29, when Wiley Dobbs passed away .  Shortly after we formed the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY) I, as President then, began giving out the Wiley Dobbs Volunteer of the Year Award.  Wiley fought for our freedom in WWII as an air crew member on B-17’s over Germany and retired from employment with NYS which I learned from his obituary.  

What I did know personally about Wiley was that he was a tireless parental rights advocate.  Before social media, the internet, and even email, communication was in written form on paper which had to be delivered by some means.  To convey the importance of both parents to children Wiley purchased on his own, every month, 220 copies of the Children’s Rights Council monthly magazine and he would personally hand deliver them to the legislature and Governors Office.  This was in addition to him writing short hand written letters mailed to elected representatives on a consistent basis.

When I picked up the duties of the Legislative Coordinator with FaFNY I followed his example and would regularly go to the state capitol and walk the 9 floors of the Legislative Office Building, Capitol Building, and Executive Chamber and deliver information to every legislator and the Governors Office.  I wrote letters to legislative leaders and authored memo’s in support and opposition to legislation based on the position of FaFNY and its members.  I also used fax machines to deliver them until email became available and I started using that medium.  All this was in addition to phone calls and meeting face to face with policy makers in all 3 branches of government.  

I followed Wiley’s lead in working tirelessly to foster change.  Now old myself, retired, with 2 replaced knees, my days of walking the legislature are done.  I still author an occasional piece, such as this one, for NY MAN.  I include my comments on Wiley’s Obituary below with the hope that perhaps someone will be inspired to take up the call and lobby for change.  And should you find yourself wandering the halls of government in Albany, stop and listen for a moment and hear the footsteps of those who went before you, knowing you are in good company.

James H. Hays, Lt. (Ret) NYS EnCon Police

Old civil rights activists never die, they just fade away. And so it is with Wiley, for the FaFNY volunteer of the year award is named after him. For many years Wiley stepped up and carried on the fight for parental civil rights. Many a time he would show up at a parents rights meeting with a hand written letter in his hand, sent to the Governor or some such other official and their reply, “Just write them a short letter by hand” he would say. I also remember him for his purchasing of the Children’s Rights Council newsletter for the entire NYS Legislature, over 220 copies, and delivering them himself, walking the halls of the Legislative Office Building and stopping at each office to deliver and chat. When his legs weakened with age he still would purchase them for others to deliver. He was also not afraid to cut a check to do good, contributing to the first Parental Civil Rights PAC in NY, always working in any way to help others. Do a little here, donate a little there, and keep doing it year after year.

That is why the FaFNY Volunteer of the year award was named after Wiley. He sought not personal gain nor even recognition for the good that he did, He simply set about trying to correct the injustices of society by doing whatever he could. This honest advocacy was planted like a seed into others, and today many carry on the fight for justice growing from his contributions.

As time went by Wiley didn’t attend meetings or walk the halls of the LOB as age got the better of him. Many today would not even recognize his name, the old advocate fading away.

In closing here I would ask that all who read this take a minute and write a hand written note to the Governor or some such other official advocating for a civil rights for individuals. And should you be one of the few who takes the time to walk the halls of government advocating for others, stop and listen for a moment for you will hear the foot steps of a Great American walking with you and recognize that you are in good company.

In memory of a friend and mentor,

Mr. James H. Hays, (former) President and founder of FaFNY.org and FaFNY-PAC, a life long civil rights activist.

Jim Hays

August 02, 2007 | Ballston Spa, NY

Men risking injury or death in going to work is an everyday event even without a pandemic

With the economy shut down by government edict and the Wuhan Virus curve flattened discussion turns to risks to life and limb on opening up the economy.  Lost in the discussion is the fact that men have this risk-benefit balancing act every day regardless of a global pandemic or not and the pandemic increases the risk to men.  I’ll leave the socially constructed or genetic “nature-nurture” argument to another piece, the fact of the matter is men are expected to earn money for their family and it is the dirty and risky jobs with long hours and dangerous working conditions which pay the most.  

Men accounted for about 92% of workplace accidents and deaths before the pandemic.  But to put aside the “risky nature of men” argument I point out that it is married men who have much higher earnings and who work many more hours than single men.  As we age, which also correlates to family formation, our fatalities at work increase, bearing this out.  A single man doesn’t need the same amount of resources as a family.  And it is much easier for a single man to ride out a period of low or unemployment, his personal needs far below what is required when taking care of a family.  And when we look at occupational risk for men we should understand that the benefit goes to other than him. 

When we look at essential work defined under the virus response guidelines it becomes apparent that the necessary work is the dirty dangerous jobs that men hold.   Jobs that can’t be done staying at home.  Farmers, butchers, truck drivers, deliverymen, electric linemen, police and firefighters, and on, and on.  Add to this the fact that women now account for about 65% of college degrees, many fields which carry much less risk and can often be conducted from home, and we see that men in the future will be tied financially to high risk occupations. Are we setting up future generations of men for worse outcomes?

While there has been some reporting regarding higher infection and death rates for men such as 65% of front line medical personnel impacted even though men are less than 25% of that population it generally isn’t reported by sex.  But coverage of male victims points to the theory that men have an inferior immune system when compared to women.  And when it doesn’t point to genetics the coverage reverts to the old “blame men” game, bordering on the “toxic masculinity” myth.  The view that men are put at risk due to societal expectations of them to earn for others isn’t even broached.  Could the answer to why more men are infected be that more men are working longer hours in dangerous occupations and thus risking themselves to a higher chance of exposure?  

It has been reported that the black and latino communities have a higher rate of infection but missing from these statistics is how many men are victims as compared to women in these minority populations?  Is the issue race or is it sex?  I would also look at socioeconomic conditions, especially in inner cities with government subsidized single mother homes, as a driving force which puts men of color at the bottom of the of the outcome curve of men in general.  Does it benefit the minority community to move minority women up on the outcome curve while moving minority men down?  Dependance and poverty breeds more poverty.  Lacking opportunities to earn are we forcing these men into the dangerous jobs which increases their negative outcomes?

And one area where the  working man is socially constructed is in the regulation of men by government to be financial providers for their children, regardless if they are disenfranchised from them or not.  Here in the Unites States the federal government directs a large bureaucracy called the Office of Child Support which oversees Title IV-d of the Social Security Act and 50 state Offices of Child Support Enforcement.   By looking at the incentive payments from the feds to the states we see it covers only financial payments fostering the sexually biased “men as financial providers” stereotype of the 1950’s.  We have “deadbeat dads” but never a “mopey mom” who is chastised and persecuted for not providing for their children financially, regardless of the reason.  There is also NO financial reward to the states to foster hands on caregiving fathers nor to assist in a fathers access to time with his children.

Rather than study any of this it is easier to blame men.  Pointing fingers at men for being men, “it’s in their nature”, “toxic masculinity”, they’ve only themselves to blame as “they don’t take care of themselves”.  But if men are prone to more risky behaviors then shouldn’t we be studying it to find out how to reduce the injuries and deaths?  If men are at a higher risk to get the Wuhan Virus due to genetics then aren’t they at a greater risk for all viruses and shouldn’t we be studying that to see how to reduce the risk?        

If we fail men, we fail society.  The Coalition to Create a White House Council on Men and Boys has identified 5 areas where men and boys are in a nationwide crisis.  Unless, and until, we get a council such as this which focuses research and policy to areas address the needs of men and boys we can expect to see men continuing to be injured and die from the toxic masculinity of working to better others and society, with or without a pandemic.

The answer is you, the time is now

Organizational infighting, no organizational cooperation towards a specific goal, and a lack of individual support are killing the men’s rights/fathers rights/parental rights movement.  Now that I have 25 years of activism under my belt with a multitude of organizations (many of which have come and gone) I can offer up my personal experience as an example of individuals not supporting the cause and worse, individuals undermining the cause.

It’s 1995 and I got whacked with the standard triple order, a “Temporary Order of Protection (TOP) restricting access to my children, a “Temporary” Custody Order for my (soon to be) ex wife, and the “Temporary” Child Support Order.  Sound familiar?  This when the internet hadn’t yet been invented and email was a new thing which most didn’t have.  I found a newspaper notice of a meeting for the “Fathers Rights Association NYS” (FRANYS) and attended my first meeting of the local Capital District chapter (FRA-CD).

The first meeting was attended by the President of the local chapter and me.  That’s it.  I did get a load of good information from him to help me individually as a pro se litigant.  Subsequent meetings would have at most 3 or 4 people and for the most part consisted of people relaying their personal injustices suffered, each story worse than the one before.  The statewide meeting was to be in our area in a couple of month’s and I attended that, about 10 people at that one.  I sat down and when attendance was taken of the chapter delegates voting on the state board there was none from my chapter so I was sat as the voting member.  I’m 4 months into the process and sitting on a policy board.

The organization, a 501c3 non profit, lacked any consistent lobbying of government for change and had NO political action committee or lobbyist.  The monthly meetings consisted of people looking for help on their individual cases and upon hearing the system was so bad that they would end up with the “Standard NY Order” of every other weekend visits which weren’t enforced and payment of excessive child support which would leave them personally at the poverty level most attended 2 or 3 meetings and never joined to organization as a member.  But every month a group of new initiates to injustice would show up looking for help.

The organization held a lobby day at the NYS Legislature each spring and I attended my first in 1996. Attendance was less than 50 people, this in a state with a population of about 20 million where it is estimated there were 2.5 million plus non custodial parents.  It was disorganized with few meetings between organization leaders and the leaders of the legislature and important committees.  Many attendees showed up in shorts and t-shirts and it was not uncommon for a meeting with a legislator to turn into an insult fest with legislators shouted at for what they haven’t done to help out.  Once the event was over there was no lobbying presence and outside of this legislative activity there was no interaction with state agencies or the executive and judicial branches of government.

After 3 years of litigation I lost my kids to alienation in 1999.  Instead of dealing with individual injustices I decided to get involved to change things for the better for everybody.  I was elected President of FRA-CD and also made the Chair of the Legislative Committee with FRANYS.  I had weekly meetings with legislative leaders and began lobbying the Governors Office and the Office of Court Administration which oversees NYS Courts.  I was joined by FRA-CD members Debby Fellows and Randall L. Dickinson and we 3 became the principle advocates and lobbyists in NYS.   

In 2001 we lobbied the NYS Senate Leader for money for a fatherhood center and were to receive a grant of $25,000 the first year.  But some in the state leadership feared that FRA-CD, the largest chapter of 6, would break from it so they “decertified” the FRA-CD leadership.  They then filed felony theft charges against me for paying the chapters outstanding bills “without authorization”.  The frivolous charges were dismissed at grand jury, but not without 6 month’s under the color of charges which resulted in the Senate pulling support for the Fatherhood Center.

The removal of FRD-CD did result in the chapter going independent and the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY) was formed as a statewide membership organization from the leaders of the FRA-CD Chapter.  FRANYS and its chapters ceased activity except for local in person meetings and folded all together a few years later.  We chose to call ourselves a coalition as our focus was going to be on educating and lobbying NYS Government in all branches and at all levels and in doing so would bring together the various organizations in NYS to work on goals and objectives such as shared parenting and court reform.

 We held a statewide lobby day in April of every year to bring in the groups to lobby for our legislation.  In addition we held weekly meetings with legislators, staff, the Governors Office and NYS Court Administration.  I delivered flyers and handouts to the entire legislature EVERY week, walking the floors and delivering them personally.  We wrote op-ed articles and appeared on TV and Radio.  But to maintain this level of work we were expending 30-40 hours a week, this on top of our full time jobs.  Maintaining membership lists got to be an administrative burden and we changed to a Board run organization which freed up more time to lobby.  We affiliated nationally with the American Coalition of Fathers and Children (ACFC).   We held many successful protests with media coverage and were successful in changing many policies and rules for the better and we blocked a lot of anti-father legislation.

In 2006 we started a push to get shared parenting enacted.  The powers opposed managed to hold the bill in the Children and Families Committee of the Assembly and we focused our attention there.  Through affiliation with ACFC we used Glenn Sacks “His side” computer-fax and developed a “Thumbs Up!” campaign to bombard members of the committee daily and continually to bring the bill up for a vote this in addition to collecting signatures across the state.  Month’s of work culminated in a scheduled vote but opposition by Speaker of the Assembly Sheldon Silver resulted in him horse trading favors for no votes and a slim majority of both parties together held the bill, in effect killing it that year.

The work load took a toll on those with the organization and combined with changing life circumstances the leaders took a needed break from organizing and lobbying.  Unfortunately no persons or organizations have stepped up to fill the void in lobbying state government.  The National Parents Organization is pushing for Bill A0918 in the NYS Assembly a shared parenting in temporary orders bill and a quick search shows Shared Parenting S02916 Helming, and S04260 Parker in the Senate.  A04005 Weprin, same as S02584 Lanza which is the Family Court Reform Act (a FaFNY sponsored bill) is still in both houses.  All bills sit with few multi or co-sponsors showing a lack of lobbying for enactment.

I think my experience supports my position of a lack of support and organizational cooperation. I don’t want to sound all gloom and doom though.  Given that organizations are staffed almost 100% by unpaid volunteers and we represent a group of people who have been financially wiped out, and usually remain so for many years, the advocacy organizations have made great headway.  In 1995 you would have been given every other weekend Friday at 5 to Sunday at 6 and one mid week 4 hour visit with NO enforcement for interfering with that little time and it was unheard of for a father to actually get custody.  Child Support Enforcement and courts treated you like the enemy, now not so much. So things have improved, but there’s much more to do. 

Just as emails and internet changed our organization from meeting in a physical location once a month, social media and high speed internet are changing the way groups “meet” and discuss things.  Information which took us month’s to find or distribute now can be disbursed in minutes with the worlds information available immediately on your smart phone.  That said, it is a bit shameful that in this day and age of instant communication we have no organizational cooperation towards a specific goal, no individual participation in action items like contacting legislators, and legislation like shared parenting which has about 85% support of the population sits idle with no organizational or grass roots advocacy.  

If you agree the system needs changing the person to do that is you and the time to do it is now.

James Hays, (Ret) NYS En-Con Police Lt., Co-founder and past President FaFNY, past Director NY MAN, life member NCFM, past administrator with Friends of Protection For Men.

Do you know how many complaints we have?

When I took over as principle lobbyist for FaFNY in the 1990’s (in addition to co-founding, being president of, and running the legislative committee and Director of NYMAN PAC) I scheduled face to face meetings with policy advisors in the Governors Office, the Chief Administrative Judge for the NYS Courts Matrimonial Part (which includes family court). the Commissioner of NYS Child Support, and the NYS Bar Association.  I would make an agenda of 10 items of complaint that I had culled from the many complaints of members of this and other organizations.  The question I dreaded most from the person I was meeting with was, “Do you know how many formal complaints I have on file with us”?  Because I knew what the answer would be; zero, nada, NONE.

In the days before the internet meetings were held monthly, face to face, at a public meeting hall.  We started calling them “pity parties” for they consisted of persons complaining of the injustices and looking for help in their individual case.  While the venting of the emotional impact of the system was an important part of the meetings there was no drive to work to change the system.  Even when we started doing targeted letter writings we would get push back with people stating it was no use and it was a waste of time.  Most were unconcerned with change other than their own individual case.

As an organizational leader I would also get rank and file advice on what I should be doing.  Worse, many would try to lecture me on being ineffective as I didn’t (insert complaint here) bring out awareness, put hundred of people in the street protesting, made us look bad by fighting against child support injustices, didn’t get enough press, fought for fathers only showing gender bias, didn’t provide free resources, yada, Yada, YADA.   

When this Wuhan Virus crisis hit I wrote a letter to the federal office of child support enforcement, the state child support enforcement office, and the NYS Courts.  I posted it on NYMAN and on multiple Facebook pages.  I HAVE SEEN ZERO POSTINGS OF LETTERS TO ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL REGARDING PROBLEMS IN THIS SYSTEM from any other state or by another organization in NYS.  Over a week I get less than 10 hits a day on this post on NYMAN and I have seen ZERO posts regarding someone who forwarded it as a link to it to a government official.  The question I have for you is WHY?  Is the system working for you or are you so busy sheltering in place at home and out of work that you can’t send an email or a letter outlining your complaints?

Is the family rights/fathers rights/men’s rights movement a wheel so broken it doesn’t even squeak anymore?  Will a wheel that doesn’t squeak get any grease?  I have seen one article discussing the family court backlog and Covid-19, and I posted a link to that article on multiple facebook pages requesting people go to that site and comment there to bring awareness of the complaints to the public eye.  My comment (and an advertising comment) stands alone.  WHY?

For those of you who are just entering this system of injustice I’m sure it is scary to hear that it used to be far worse.  From the 1990’s to the present there have been a scant few dedicated people, with limited resources, who work day in and day out to foster change.  It has been occurring slowly over time.  And it will continue to change IF people continue to do something to foster change.  The answer to who should do it is YOU and the answer to what to do is ANYTHING which puts it on the public record.  Many hands lighten the load.

If you look for personal help and then fail to foster change then you are part of the problem.  If you fail to file formal complaints regarding the injustices you have suffered, then you are part of the problem.  When an organization asks you to provide assistance (a letter or an email for them to use) and you don’t, then you are part of the problem.  If you fail to comment on the original content from news sites, then you are part of the problem. And if you have an idea that an organization should do and you don’t volunteer to do it, then you are part of the problem.  If you are whining at a pity party without proposing a solution to the problem, then YOU are the problem. 

So what do you plan to do and when do you plan to do it? 

The time to do something is now, the person to do it is you. 

You can be a part of the solution, just make it happen.

James Hays, Lt. NYS En-Con Police (Ret) was a 25 year family rights advocate (Ret). He co-founded the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY) and served as President, Treasurer, and Legislative Committee Chair. He co-founded and was Treasurer of the NY Men’s Action Network (NYMAN) PAC and was a lobbyist for Family Rights from 1996 to 2006. He holds a Bachelors Degree in Family and Society from SUNY. He continues to contribute to the NY Men’s Action Network blog in his retirement.

A letter to Courts and Federal and State Child Support Collections

While directed to NYS the following letter can be used as a template in other states with minor modifications.

Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks, NYS Unified Court System 25 Beaver St. New York, NY 10004

Commissioner Michael P. Hein, Office of Temporary Disability Assistance 40 N. Pearl St. Albany, NY 12243

Commissioner Scott Lekan, ACF, Office of Child Support Enforcement 330 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20201

Dear Sirs;

I am writing on behalf of the New York State child support payers for information and with suggestions to help in these trying times.  With 10 million jobless claims in the past 2 weeks alone it is apparent that the system is going to see massive filings to reduce payments due to loss of income through no fault of the payers.  I am asking what measures are being put into place to ensure that everyone get due process and no one falls through the cracks and is penalized by the system?

I am unsure if relief payments will be seized in the Federal and State Tax Offset Programs for payers in arrears and look for clarification of this fact.  Also, how is the per child payment to families to be calculated, to those that get the child deduction on the 2018 tax filing?  Or “custodial” and “non custodial” status on custody agreements?  If circumstances changed after the 2018 tax year how would parents ensure the child relief payment gets distributed correctly?  

I see NYC Family Court allows virtual courts, is this being expanded outside of NYC due to the current travel restrictions?  And to prevent persons from having to travel unnecessarily, what measures are being put into place to allow filing of documents by electronic means such as email or web page platforms with fill in the blank forms?  Are filing rules being loosened to allow electronic filings in place of time stamped documents?

Government is asking mortgage holders, landlords, and creditors to delay collection methods and to not apply interest and penalties for missed or late payments.  Is the Child Support Collection System going to do the same?   

Certainly some vindictive parents will use the shelter in place order to deny a parent their parenting time with the children.  What system of expedited filing and methods for enforcement is in place? Given that the children are not attending school and both parents are likely at their separate homes, either out of work or working from home, what is the procedure to handle the filings for physical shared parenting as parents are now equally available to parent their children during this crisis?

I suggest that the system stop all methods of punitive arrears collection (suspension of licenses, garnishments, etc.), including suspending the Federal and State Tax Offset Programs for the duration of the crisis.  We all know the number one reason a person doesn’t pay is inability due to poverty and the current financial mess is certainly bound to add many more to those unable to pay. 

I suggest that judges waive mandatory filing rules so that filings can be considered based upon a preponderance of the evidence of the actual date of change and not the date of filing.  Also, the system needs to accept electronic filings to prevent both court personnel and users from having to interact in person subjecting all to possible infection by this dreaded virus.  And a system of conference calling needs to be in place of physical hearings.

I close thanking you for your attention to these matter and I look forward to hearing from you.  I am available by email, through the web site, or by phone on request.

Sincerely,

Sent electronically and hard mail

CC: Web site, social media postings

A crisis is no reason to stop advocating for men and boys

It seems that the focus on the Corona Virus has shut down government activity but that doesn’t mean that it shuts down our political activism. Indeed, the fact that many legislators and their staff are sheltering in place means that we may be able to reach them through electronic means, social media and email, and the old reliable snail mail may be an option also. And since we are ALL sheltering in place we all have the time to advocate for reform of the anti male, anti father, anti parent, anti children and family system.

Might I suggest that each person take a topic or two, get well read on it, and focus on lobbying for change on that? For example shared parenting at the state level brings us equal parental rights under state law and the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act would give us equal parental rights at the federal level. You can advocate for them both at the same time. You can find information about them and a list of other topics and the level of government to lobby for change at “About NY MAN”. Remember to link to NY MAN and any other sites such as NCFM, or The Coalition to Create a White House Council on Men and Boys in support of your position.

As an incentive to get others to join the advocacy make sure to post your activity on social media sites such as Friends of Protection For Men or Fathers and Family NY (FaFNY) or a state organization in the state you are in. If possible, join a state or national organization which advocates for your topics and work yourself into the grass roots lobbyist for them on that topic. I think you will find many who need an organizer to DO and this will give you a grass roots base for you to represent and also an organization with information on the topic that you are presenting.

As a 25 year fathers rights/men’s rights activist, holding a Bachelors Degree in Family and Society, a leader and life member in many rights organizations I am versed on many topics and I lobby for many but (in addition to NY MAN) I limit myself to comments on Facebook, Fox News, and Epoch News and comment on multiple topics related to the men’s movement as they come up due to time constraints. Most won’t have the breadth of knowledge or the time to lobby on multiple topics across multiple platforms so pick one or two areas of expertise. Advocates should then get on multiple platforms to get the word out and if staying on one or two topics can work on many platforms. By staying on one or two topics you can get well informed and debunk a lot of the false narratives out there.

While memes like the one above are good at pointing to overall problems lobbying is about targeting government in one specific area to foster change. For example, Warren Farrell wants to address bias against men and boys by forming a White House Council and advocates for that. NCFM addresses bias against men and boys by advocating for equality in selective service for men and women. The same objective, bias against men and boys, addressed in two different lobbying areas. National Parents Organization is an example of focusing on one topic, shared parenting, across many platforms at all levels of government.

As most of us are hunkering down remember to take care of both your physical and mental health. I think that advocacy will help with the both as it will sharpen the mind, take your mind off of the crisis for a bit, and provide you some reward for working on behalf of another and helping to alleviate their problems and issues. Pick a topic, pick your platforms, and get to work.

Lastly, I’ll be looking to update NY MAN as some of the information is outdated. I’ll also look to post about my years as founder, President and principal lobbyist for the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY Inc. and the founder and Treasurer of the NY MAN PAC including the specifics of how to lobby NYS Government and what NOT to do based upon my experiences. I hope this sets up the next generation of activists for success as I fade off into retirement.

Parental Rights letter to the SCOTUS

October 21, 2019

Justices of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, 1 First St., NE, Washington DC 20543

It has always been my humble opinion that a person not need a law degree nor approval of the Bar to read and understand the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and as I’ll never practice law nor have the opportunity to argue for parental rights in a court of law I thought to write you direct.  I’ll save the full legal citations as you are most likely familiar with them and I’ll look to present the facts as they occur on the ground in courts of law to individual citizen’s each and every day.  Perhaps it will end up unread in the recycling bin or ‘circular file” but I thought the effort at educating on the injustices in the current state of family law and law practice worth the effort.

The court has long held that parental rights are fundamental rights (Prince v. Massachusetts, Meyer v. State of Nebraska) which should not be removed only after cause and under strict scrutiny and most recently in Troxel V. Granville a “custodial” parents rights were upheld in an action involving grand parents access.  However, in Elk Grove v. Newdow the court held that a father didn’t have standing to sue on behalf of his daughter as he was “non custodial”.   Both these decisions were wrong as in both circumstances cause was not shown and strict scrutiny was not applied in the removal of parental rights.

The errors occur in misunderstanding how a parent gets the label of “non custodial” and “custodial” parent.   Further the error sits in the unconstitutional nature of todays current family regulatory system which provides the incentives to remove the rights of one parent, naming them a “non” parent for financial gain by the state itself.  The system is driven by unconstitutional federal policies, which interfere with states rights which are then put into place by a large bureaucracy made up of the states executive and judicial branches which then violates parental rights for financial gain.

Two parents walk into family court with equal parental rights with the interference in the family at the request of one parent who is looking to gain “custody” at the expense of the other parent and which most often is not based on that parents fitness to be a parent.  Even though the modern family usually now has both parents working and raising their child as caregivers the courts rely on a rubber stamp cookie cutter approach labelling the mother “custodial” and the father “non custodial”.  Worse the father is often labelled a “visitor” and allowed visitation of every other weekend and one mid week after school visit for 4 hours.  On top of this, even though he was providing for his children financially, he is now ordered to transfer income to the other parent for “child support”.

In New York State they call this arrangement the “Standard NY Order”.  Often the language used in the order is phrased to make the non custodial parent think they can still be a parent involved in raising their child with wording like “joint legal custody”, “the parents will have joint decision making and consult on major decisions” while noting “primary physical possession is with the mother”.  But in practice, as every non custodial parent now recognizes, the “consult” can be a flat “no” with no means to litigate or appeal the decision making of the other parent and there is no “joint legal custody” as a non custodial parent has no standing. 

Reduced to a few days a month visitor, with no decision making over your child’s actions, doesn’t leave much time for a parent to convey their heritage and beliefs and exclude those you are opposed to.  Regardless of an individuals personal opinions on the diametrically opposed religious views in this case, it is not hard to imagine that the beliefs of Michael Newdow were overshadowed by the beliefs of his child’s mother given the disproportionate amount of time he spends with her.  The Supreme Court talks a good game of affirming parental rights in Troxel but the Elk Grove case legitimizes the decisions of a lower court to remove Michael Newdow’s parental rights without cause and without strict scrutiny by denying him standing on behalf of his child.   

Under the guise of collecting funds from parents who have “abandoned” their children the federal government formed the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement and mandated that each state have a similar office. Under Title IVd of the Social Security Act the federal government provides perverse financial incentives to the states to make “non custodial” parents by reimbursing for the number of paternity establishments, number of child support orders entered, amount collected versus amount owed, arrears collected, and the cost of the program (collections versus expenses).

Thus states are rewarded for having a larger collection system and more “non custodial;” payers in the system.  The income transfer from parent to parent is not based upon the needs of the child but as a percentage of income. Indeed, there is not even an accounting system so the non custodial parent can ensure the money is being spent for the child’s benefit as a “best interest of the child” standard would certainly require.  As in the label of “non custodial” parent the income transfer is unconstitutional as it is done as a matter of course, administratively, with no showing cause to interfere in the parents financial decisions for the child such as the child is living in poverty or a failure of the non custodial parent to financially support the child.  

Imagine, if you will, you come home to your family and are met at the door by a policeman with a temporary order of protection (TOP) even though aside from a few heated arguments there is no family violence.  You are allowed 5 minutes to get your personal items and get out of your house.  Any firearms you have are seized by the police and the TOP prevents you from buying firearms.  You’ll have to cancel that hunting trip with you father this year.  You are denied any contact with your children, even prohibited from attending public school or sporting events.  In a pinch you go to your parents for a temporary place to stay.  Ironically, you have access to your fathers firearms there. You are advised by the courts to not talk about the case to anyone as a matter of “privacy”.

You file in family court for “visitation” with your children and removal of the TOP.  You are given supervised visitation at a facility approved by this court and are advised you have to pay for it.  You are ordered to attend alcohol/drug evaluations and anger management classes at a facility approved by this court at your expense.  The Judge sets temporary child support with income executions to start immediately.  You are given 2 court dates months away, one for custody and another for support. You are advised you have to provide personal and private records and information on demand.

You attend the child support hearing in front of a magistrate.  He advises you have to pay, pre tax, 25% of your gross pay for 2 kids and the math reveals you are going to pay 48% of your take home pay.  He further advises that you are getting free rent and imputes income for that raising your payments to 55% of your take home pay.  Even though you have always kept your kids on your health insurance they issue an order to do that.  He further advises you weren’t paying enough these past months and are in arrears for $2000.  You are not allowed to pay it off directly and advised the system automatically deducts arrears according to their formula.  Once the arrears are turned into the state child support office they automatically turn you in to credit reporting agencies and issue an order to seize your tax return if any and you passport is revoked.

At the initial hearing the Judge advised the parties if it went to trial “nobody would be happy” and he told the attorneys to settle it.  The attorney tells you as a father, a “non custodial” parent, you’ll get the “standard order” of every other weekend, one day mid week visit, two weeks in the summer and alternating Christmas and Thanksgiving.  You won’t do better at trial, in fact it’ll be worse and you could lose contact with your children.  Bankrupt, fearing the total loss of your children, you go to court and cut the deal.  

All of this is widespread and occurs in this fashion in virtually every family court across the United States on a daily basis.  You can visit any parental rights, fathers rights, or mothers rights web page and see thousands upon thousands of cases complaining of this treatment in whole or in part.  In addition to the loss of your parental rights your rights under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution have been violated.  

Those of us parental rights advocates who are originalists have long argued that a court which removes our parental rights without due process and the federal system which transfers our income to the other parent under the guise of supporting our children are both unconstitutional acts.   In Elk Grove Justice Stevens states;

“One of the principal areas in which this Court has customarily declined to intervene is the realm of domestic relations. Long ago we observed that “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.” In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593— 594 (1890). See also Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 587 (1989) (“[D]omestic relations are preeminently matters of state law”); Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435 (1979) (“Family relations are a traditional area of state concern”). So strong is our deference to state law in this area that we have recognized a “domestic relations exception” that “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992). We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to hear a case involving “elements of the domestic relationship,” id., at 705, even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue:

“This would be so when a case presents ‘difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar.’ Such might well be the case if a federal suit were filed prior to effectuation of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree, and the suit depended on a determination of the status of the parties.” Id., at 705—706 (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S., at 814). Thus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 432—434 (1984), in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.”

The court itself is making contradictory statements and rulings, especially in light of the unconstitutional federal governments interference in the family.  If there is deference to the states then how is the federal office of child support enforcement not unconstitutional? Here the federal government under Title IVd of the Social Security Act mandated that states have a system in place to collect child support but did not mandate that it include strict scrutiny before denying one parents their parental rights by naming them a non custodial child support payer.  Which as we see in the Newdow case results in the removal of all parental rights without cause.

In the Troxel case the grand parents were acting en loco parentis for their son, a “non custodial” father who’s case mirrors the general treatment of the courts outlined above.  Additionally, suicide among males increases about ten fold after a divorce/separation due to the denial of due process and the violation of rights.  Certainly the fathers reliance on his parents , living in their house and exercising “visitation” there, evidenced the grand parents en loco parentis status.  By rendering a decision in the Troxel case the U.S. Supreme issued a de facto child custody decision denying Troxel the right to continue en loco parentis.

Were we in a system in which rights were given to the people by the government and it was mandated that government work in the best interest of the child the ruling in child custody cases would be for a shared parenting arrangement with both parents contributing emotional and financial support to the children directly with little or no government interference, as occurs in a married 2 biological residential parent family for this is the arrangement which shows the best outcomes for child welfare, health, education and growth.  

But we are in a Constitutional Republic which guarantees individual rights.  I agree with Justice Stevens and prior Supreme Court Rulings which state that a “domestic relations exception” that “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees” is consistent with the 10th Amendment.  But the U.S. Supreme Court must uphold the rights of parents so that they are NOT removed without cause and a showing of strict scrutiny before the parental rights are removed.  And absent a showing of abuse or neglect, in cases of disputed custody the courts should find for split residential and legal custody to preserve both parents rights.

My parental rights were a God given right and courts “issuing” them is akin to them issuing me the right to life or liberty and in “issuing” this right to the other parent they are in fact removing my parental rights in addition to removing my right to liberty.  It is a well recognized adage in law enforcement to “do the right thing” in the application of laws to our citizens.  In respecting parental rights, from the U.S. Supreme Court to the states family and matrimonial courts to the administrative tribunals of the executive branches for the past 30 plus years there has been a great unconstitutional failure to do the right thing for children, mothers, and fathers.

Publius

Letter to Heritage Foundation to Support PRRA

The following is a templated letter to Kay Coles James, President of the Heritage Foundation with a cc to your Senators and Congressman. You can cut and copy the letter onto your letterhead or print it from NY MAN (be sure to sign it and write in your representatives names) and mail that but include a hand written personal note. Send the letter to the Heritage Foundation with a CC your 2 Senators (find them here) and to your Congressman (find him/her here).

Date:

Kay Coles James, President,

Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE Washington DC 20002-4999

Dear President James;

I am writing to encourage the Heritage Foundation to support and work for enactment of the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (PRRA) which I am asking, by copy of this letter, my federal representatives to sponsor.  In the years since originally proposed we have seen a never ending creep in erosion of parental rights.  Well meaning but misguided teachers, child protective workers, police, and family court judges increasingly apply their standards in the place of parents.  Once reserved to the strict scrutiny standard agencies now interfere in parental decisions for trivial matters under the guise of protecting children and “children’s rights”.

When originally proposed the Act specifically excluded “non custodial” parents, an error that undermined support as “non custodial” parents are the largest class of parents who have had their parental rights removed without cause.  I suspect this oversight was due to the ‘deadbeat dad”myth which was widely debunked in federally funded studies by Sanford Braver (see Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s).  With no fault divorce and out of wedlock birth’s rising combined with mother custody biases we see increasing situations where children are unilaterally removed from one of their parents, mostly fathers, care and control.

In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow the U.S. Supreme court ruled a parent didn’t have standing to sue for his child due to his non custodial status.  This is ironic in that states apply the “non custodial” label on parents at the behest of the federal government as it is used to determine which parent pays child support to the other parent.  In New York State the Court of Appeals ruled that the higher earning parent of 2 parents who had a 50-50 shared parenting time would be “non custodial for the purposes of paying child support”.  Thus, an equally responsible parent has no parental rights. While it shouldn’t, the Newdow decision shows that the “non custodial” label removes a persons parental rights, this without strict scrutiny for interfering. 

80% of divorces are filed by women with the number one reason being ‘we grew apart”.  There is an 80%+ mother custody rate which is fueling the problem of absent disenfranchised fathers.  But regardless of which parent “wins” the other parent has their parental rights terminated without cause.  Worse, to “win” the parental right a family has to subject themselves to the regulatory oversight of family courts and child support bureaucracies, usually initiated by the expected “winner”.  Two parents walk into family court both with parental rights and the courts “award custody” to one parent which is actually government double speak for removing one parents parental rights.

This has allowed these family oversight and regulatory agencies to increasingly place their view of what is in the child’s best interest in place of the parents.  Family Court used to be reserved for cases of child abuse or neglect but it now looks at itself as the determiner of the best interest of the child in place of parents.  Increasingly we see married parents having to justify their parental decision to a family court judge at the behest of a school or child welfare agency.   

While due process and the lack of application of strict scrutiny towards parental rights are now the norm things could get worse.  The Convention of the Rights of the Child would place government oversight over all parental decisions.  In states that have enacted provisions of this into their family law we have already seen it undermine parental rights with minor children, aided by child welfare agencies, bringing parents in family court to justify their parental decisions which the child does not agree with.  

Advocating for the PRRA as enclosed will bring together all parents and organizations who worry about government overreach and interference in their lives.  Enactment will force courts to accept parental rights and decision making for their children as supreme over any and all government agencies.  It will correct the poor decision of the Supreme Court in Newdow ensuring that parents rights are not removed with a label and without cause.  It will prevent assaults on the family like the Convention of the Rights of the Child, ensuring parental rights and responsibilities are not undermined by poor legislation or treaties.

As Sanford Braver reported, the number one reason a father doesn’t spend more time with his children is a limiting court order as “non custodial” parents are limited to 4 days a month to “visit” with their children.  Number two is a custodial mother who interferes with a fathers access which 50% admitted to doing.  We now have 40% of children living absent their biological father (60% in minority communities).  Enactment of PRRA will begin to reduce the number of children living absent one parent as BOTH parents will have retained their parental rights and their right to be responsible to their child.

I have enclosed the blog https://nymensactionnetwork.org/prra/ in support of my position.

I remain available should you require anything further.

Sincerely,

Cc: Senator Senator Congressman

A timeline of broken families caused by federal programs

In 1970 there was growing concern regarding fatherless homes when it reached over 7% of African American families (see The Negro Family: The Case for National Action [Moynihan Report], Daniel Patrick Moynihan 1965.  Annotated copy at https://www.theatlantic.com).  Today, in 2019 it is a widely accepted fact that 48% of children live absent their biological father and in the African American community it may be as high as 60%.  The U.S. Census shows living arrangements for children 1960 to present but what is glaringly absent from these statistics is the number of homes with shared parenting arrangements.  This bias to break down children’s family structure into single parent (mother or father) or married parent families neglects shared parenting arrangements and is directly related to federal biases in the Social Security Act, Title IV part d section 458 “Incentive payments to states”.

The question is, are states encouraging our of wedlock birth’s which undermines their support for marriage and post divorce/separation working against shared parenting arrangements?  Federal financial incentives to states require that families be divided into two classes; married or single parent. Currently states are reimbursed for for; 1. establishing paternity, 2. number of child support orders entered, 3. amount collected versus amount owed, 4. collection of arrears, and 5. the cost of the program (collections versus expenses). Given the federal financial incentives to the states it is apparent they benefit from the creation of single family households. Comparing single parent households and federal child support programs over time does seem to highly indicate a correlation, discussion which follows.   

In 1950 the Federal Government began to require states to notify local law enforcement when providing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) which was later renamed Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and is common referred to as “welfare”.  This was an effort to force parents to be responsible for their children and relieve the taxpayer from that burden.  The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act was enacted to allow enforcement over state lines (pushed by the American Bar Association). 

When the Moynihan Report came out in 1965 ( The President Johnson Administration) there was much backlash against the report with 2 major faults noted.  First, it focused on fatherlessness in the black community, ignoring that per capita that there were more fatherless white children than fatherless black children.  Second, it blamed African American fathers for abandoning the family when in many instances it was against their will.  In effect it was seen as somewhat both racist and sexist.  In 1970 there were 58,939,000 two parent families and 8,200,000 mother headed homes and 748,000 father headed homes. (see the US Census Bureau for statics used here)

In 1974 (In the Ford Administration from policies in the Nixon Administration of which Moynihan was a part of) the Social Security Act was amended and Title IV d required states to establish their own individual child support collection agencies which were designed to seek reimbursement from absent parents (usually the father) for payments made from welfare coffers.  The money paid went into federal accounts and was not disbursed to the welfare recipient.  This fact makes it a tax designed to go into federal coffers which is unrelated to financial child support. By 1975 two parent family homes decreased and mother headed homes increased to 11,245,000 and father headed homes increased to 1,014,000. 

In 1981 (The President Reagan Administration) the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act authorized the IRS to withhold refunds to those persons who were delinquent, states to withhold a portion of unemployment benefits, and prevented child support from being discharged in bankruptcy for those cases with court ordered child support.  In 1984 The Dept of Health and Human Services developed the Federal Child Support Guidelines Project which modified the Social Security Act in 5 areas; 1. Mandatory enforcement, 2. Improved interstate enforcement, 3. Equal services for welfare and non welfare families, and 4. Collecting spousal support (alimony) when child support was in place, 5. Formulate guidelines for determining child support. In 1985 two parent families declined to 46,149,000 and mother headed households increased to 13,081,000 and father headed households increased to 1,554,000.

Throughout the early 1980’s (The Reagan and H.W. Bush Administrations) many changes were proposed to Federal Law and incentives to the states to enact the Guideline project recommendations.  When child support guidelines were enacted it mandated the states have them in place the legislation only gave a one year window prior to the states being financially penalized.  While each state was entitled to have their own standards in place it was easier for the states to enact the Federal Model which was an incomes shares model, a percentage of income (i.e. 17% for one child, 25% for two) and was to be rebuttable, meaning the payer could present evidence on why they should be lower.  Additionally, the percentage of income was based upon gross income thus 17% is 35% of income, 25% is 48% of income, etc.. The 1988 Family Support Act  mandated guideline use by judges and required states to establish paternity among a host of other changes.  In 1990 two parent families went up but at a much lower rate than mother headed families to 13,874,000 and father headed families to 1,993,000.

In 1992 The Child Support Recovery Act (The President H. W. Bush Administration) was enacted.  This allowed states to prosecute parents who willfully chose not to pay child support.  Notably absent was provision excepting those who did not have the ability to pay the amount set due to circumstances beyond their control, including poverty. This was the creation of a modern day debtors prison for as previously noted you can’t remove child support arrears even in bankruptcy.  This includes attorney fees as they are considered “in the nature of child support”.    1995 saw single mother homes increase to 16,477,000 and single father homes increase to 2,461,000.

In 1996 (President Clinton’s Administration) the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliations Act (PRWORA) was enacted.  This created a Federal Registry of Child Support Orders.  Thus what is supposed to be a state issue (matrimony and child welfare) was now fully taken over by the Federal Government.  It mandated a Directory of New Hires where government mandated employers provide information on all new hires for enforcement across state lines. This data base holds information on ALL new hires regardless if they owe child support or not, a wide net cast to catch a very few.   The law also allowed fathers to voluntarily acknowledge paternity at the time of birth.  80% of out of wedlock fathers are in the hospital at the time of birth and these young men are pressured to “be responsible”. These ‘voluntary” acknowledgements provide NO parenting time with their child and worse, could not be overturned even if DNA later showed it to be false paternity.

In 1998 The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act increased penalties for “willfully choosing” to not pay child support making it a Felony with fines of $10,000 and imprisonment for up to two years if the child is in another state (or the payer moves to another state).  Again ability to pay is not taken into account and a payer can be held responsible under the law even if he went across state lines to secure employment to pay the child support due.  In 1999 mother headed households continued to increase to 16,805,000 and father headed households to 3,094,000.

To recap, from 1970 to 1990 we saw married households decrease from 58,939,000 to 48,775,000 and single mother homes increase from 8,200,000 to 16,805,000. Single father homes increased from 748,000 to 3,094,000. Prior to 1970 fatherless homes held consistent at about 4-5% in the population. In 1970 the federal government stepped in and through unconstitutional federal laws and incentive payments to states set out to “help” and at each decade of increasing interference we see increased single parent households. Ronald Reagan said, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. If only he and the other Presidents had taken this advice.

After the backlash to the Moynihan Report the focus on African American fatherless households diminished and to show it was not biased programs switched to target fathers in general and to keep the backlash down for sexual bias the government differentiated between “responsible fathers” and “deadbeat dads”.  But the “deadbeat dad” label was debunked in federally funded studies by Sanford Braver (Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s) in the 1990’s.  Studies still show that those in arrears on child support are due to poverty and inability to pay, two categories which proportionally negatively impact minority men and results in their incarceration in debtors prisons. Braver also found that the only reason a father doesn’t spend more time with his children is a limiting court order, number 2 a custodial mother who interferes with his access in a system with NO access enforcement.  The number one complaint of fathers is that instead of being treated as a nurturing parent they have been turned into a wallet, forced to transfer income with no accountability of how it is spent and then reduced to, at best, being a visitor to their child.

The focus on fatherless homes started first blaming black fathers and then continued to blame all fathers.  Chivalry and gender bias gives women a pass for irresponsible behavior. As the programs to collect dollars were increased so were the conferences and programs which looked to find out what was “wrong” with fathers these days and build “responsible fatherhood”.  All these ignored the findings of Sanford Braver. Increased “father involvement” as a visitor and increased paternity establishment, of course, means greater reimbursements to the states which is the incentive definition of a responsible father under the child support system.  This sexual bias against men flies in the face of the increasing number of father headed households indicating a willingness for fathers to be residential fathers.  And the myriad of National and State Father Rights Organizations (in every state)  shows a willingness for fathers to be there IN PERSON for their children.

To classify families as “married” “single father” or “single mother” fails to capture the many classifications of shared parenting arrangements between single mother and single father families.  Any arrangement which has two involved parents, even if one is labelled “non custodial” means that you have two one parent families, both a “single mother” and “single father” albeit one with more and one with less residency.  It also ignores the many faces of “step” families which may contain at any time her children, his children, and their children rotating in and out to other biological parents.  

Garbage in, Garbage out as the saying goes.  The Federal System breaks the family down into 3 classes.  For divorced/separated and out-of-wedlock parents it labels the “single” parents “Custodial” and “Non Custodial” even though they are both alternately residential custodian and both share responsibility to financially provide for the children.  The measure of a “responsible” parent is only on the one ordered to pay an income transfer to the other and if they meet these payments.  There is no accountability that any money is spent to benefit the child and worse, there is no accountability for ensuring both parents can spend time with, and parenting their child.  Shared Parenting isn’t counted as it doesn’t fit the focus on financial child support which is the only Federal measure for responsible parenting.

From 1970 to the present we have seen an ever increasing number of single parent families as opposed to 2 parent families.  And while I assume many of these are co-parenting and share in the rights and responsibilities of raising their child, we have no idea as no such statistics exist in the Federal system.  And as outlined in increments above, every time the Federal Government enacted programs to “help” maintain two parent families for the benefit of children we see no leveling off or reductions and in fact never ending increases.

2019, It is safe to say that the federal programs enacted over the past 50 years, costly to taxpayers and further bloating the federal bureaucracy, have not worked to benefit children and families.  If we take the Census Bureau Living Arrangement of Children Chart showing percentage of decreasing two parent households we could use the same declining line to show the effectiveness of Federal Family Programs over the same time period.  And given the incentive payments to states increase as single parent families increase it’s easy to see that the states have incentives to do so and the numbers indicate they are doing so.  If the Federal Government is serious about helping children by securing two active and involved parents they need to completely overhaul its Title IV d Program and the incentives to states and stop creating what they purport to want to end.

Chart: Failure of federal family policy 1960-2018